15 comments

Articles linking here

1. 1 On February 17th, 2007, Amit said:

   I would like to disagree with you…..,check my review at http://ktima.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/eklavya-movie-review/ and let me know what you feel.

   posted on February 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

2. 2 On February 19th, 2007, meetu said:

   Read your review, Amit and have linked it from my “To Each His Own” section. I didn’t like the way the story was narrated. The style gave away what was to come next and that was anti-climatic. The last 15-20 minutes were just unbearable.

   Thanks for visiting and come again!

   posted on February 19th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

3. 3 On February 19th, 2007, Anonymous said:

   Meetu - Please let me try and understand what you’re trying to say.

   1 Are you saying this was a slow but stylish thriller ?

   2. If there are no twists in the plot, how is it a thriller ?

   3. If its not a thriller, then what is it ? Just a simple murder mystery ? and if its not a thriller in the first place then how does it fail as a thriller ?

   4. Are action and stunts technical aspects ? What about production, art and sound design, are they also technical aspects

   5. Are camera movements different from cinematography ?

   6. So now let me try again. Are you saying this was a well-shot movie which failed as a thriller ? Or failed as a movie ?

   7. Which dialogue was repeated for impact ? The sonnet that Boman Irani sings ? or the “na koi khoon, na koi dard” ?

   8. The audience in my theatre did not give an exasperated sigh at either of the above sequences.

   9. The movie is titled “Eklavya”, it is based on a character from the Mahabharata, who had a very strong sense of dharm. So if the theme of dharm runs throughout the movie and repeated in Amitabh’s character is that wrong ? If it is, how could it be different ?

   10. What’s wrong with the climax ? That a father saves his son from committing suicide ? that a son wants to kill himself to save his father the agony of failing his dharm ? or that a police inspector who is clearly in favour of the old guard forges a suicide letter of a murderer to save the old guard going to jail ? How does showing all this make a person go “You gotta be kidding me”.

   11. And since you mentioned that you knew exactly how the said character would react, you would have correctly anticipated the climax. So are you saying the climax was predictable or silly ? or predictably silly ?

   12. The climax of Parinda was a mad Nana Patekar (complete lift off of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman) shooting a supposedly innocent couple on their suhaag raat. Jackie Shroff then kills Nana Patekar. The climax of 1942 was a Jackie Shroff making an impossible leap to save Anil Kapoor from dying, followed by the lynching of the English general, and Anil Kapoor falling into the arms of Manisha Koirala. Ok ? Are you saying, both these climaxes were more fitting endings to their movies than Eklavya ? Are you saying “You gotta be kidding me, the same director that gave me those 2 climaxes, can’t give me this?” how are all 3 climaxes different in terms of their impact ?

   13. If the performances are amazing, how is the screenplay flawed ? or are you saying the actors rose above a weak screenplay to deliver awesome performances ?

   14. If the screenplay was flawed, then what were the flaws ? Flaws mean defects, mistakes. Could you also give me an example of screenplay you found perfect ?

   Please don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to understand what I missed from this movie that I thoroughly enjoyed.

   Thanks,
   Anonymous - a part of your readership.

   posted on February 19th, 2007 at 7:08 pm

4. 4 On February 20th, 2007, Ricky said:

   I found your review very inconsistent but I will add if you want to get tortured till death then watch Babul, not for anything else

   posted on February 20th, 2007 at 2:02 am

5. 5 On February 20th, 2007, Sakshi said:

   Slightly off the mark here….wanted to know if you got my email?

   Cheers!!
   Sakshi

   posted on February 20th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

6. 6 On February 20th, 2007, meetu said:

   !!!WARNING: This comment has spoilers!!!

   Hi Anonymous,

   Thanks for being a part of my readership! I really appreciate the time and effort you have spent in listing these questions for me. Here are my point-wise answers:

   1. Eklavya was certainly stylish and it was an attempt at a thriller. I chose the word thriller because it felt the audience was being given one piece of information at a time, which is typical of a thriller. I say attempt, because for each piece of information a hint was given that gave too much away. So, when the actual information was said out loud, it was too late.

   Concrete example: Piece of information - Harshawardhan is Eklavya’s son. The audience is supposed to know this only when it is disclosed in the letter from Rani to her son. The way Jayawardhan keeps saying, “sirf tumhaara hi naam le rahi thi” mostly looking at Eklavya, it is pretty clear, that Harshawardhan is going to turn out to be Eklavya’s son.
   Similarly it was obvious that Harshawardhan was going to get involved in killing Jayawardhan given the fact that the latter killed his mother and Jayawardhan is not his father.

   Yes, it was slow, but that did not bother me. However, I do think it would have worked better if instead of repeating some things, they would have spent more time on Rana Jyotiwardhan, Udaywardhan, Rajjo, and Nandini’s characters (in that order).

   2 and 3. Like I said, it is an attempted thriller because of the way in which things were disclosed to the audience. I felt there were no twists in the plot because, they did not come with a bang, you knew what to expect. Aren’t murder mysteries supposed to be thrillers?

   4. Oops! I am caught red-handed! I think except for the story everything else involved in movie-making is very technical. Sorry didn’t name all of them in here, just wanted to name a few that were in mind when I left the theater.

   I think story is the most important part of the movie but is not technical in nature.

   5. I apologize. I meant the close-ups, use of wide-angle lens, the aerial shots. This was purely my inability to express myself and lack of appropriate vocabulary. Can you tell me or refer me to some place that can give me the exact words to describe these things?

   6. A well-shot movie for sure. Tried to thrill, but could not do so, therefore failed as a thriller as a result of which it failed as a movie.

   7. No-no…”na khoon baha, na koi dard” was used appropriately. Not the sonnet either.

   It was the sanskrit shloka which was then explained in hindi, something to the effect “dharma wohi hai jo mati ko sach lage, jo buddhi ko sach lage, jo dil/man ko sach lage, jo aatma ko sach lage”. It was repeated thrice - each time first in sanskrit and in four different ways in hindi.

   8. Good!

   9. When I said “characteristics of Amitabh Bachchan’s character are repeated till you learn them by heart”. I meant the fact that he could not see but could hear very well - this fact was hammered on to the audience too many times.

   I had a problem with the use of the word, “dharm” and “adharm” too many times. We get the point. Why do you need to keep saying, “ye mera dharm hai”, like we will forget what was said 20 minutes ago. And then he lets go off his “dharma” in the end anyway.

   10. The father-son scene was alright. I had a problem with the whole village scene in the end. Which “pooja” is on in the last scene? What is so important about it that the whole village is attending it even though it is being performed by a chauffer’s daughter (or were we supposed to assume that Rajjo is now the queen?)? Why are the villagers showing Rajjo papers concerning their land? Do they know Harshawardhan has killed her dad and she was considering not being with him anymore?

   Pannalal coming and doing the whole, “bahut bura hua” thing. Especially when the suicide note was already announced when Eklavya tells him what he thought was the truth about Rana Jayawardhan’s death.

   11. Yes, predictably silly.

   12. I liked the climaxes of Parainda and 1942 A love story better. Eklavya’s ending was too lame.

   13. Yes, the performances certainly rose above the screenplay.

   14. I would take off 15-20 seconds from each scene, take away all the repetitious dialogues (whether they are in one language or two) E.g. “taiyyari hai meri *pause* I am ready”.

   Why would I get you wrong? I sincerely appreciate the effort you have taken to understand my review.

   cheers!

   posted on February 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

7. 7 On February 20th, 2007, Anonymous said:

   Thanks Meetu. I said “don’t get me wrong” due to the fact that people are sensitive in the blogosphere. Who knows who gets pissed off with what. (I wonder if Sakshi’s mail to you has anything to do with the use of “To each its own”. Hehe)

   Good you took things in the right spirit. Don’t think a movie thru… just sit back and enjoy it for what its worth - timepass!

   For learning movie terms, just google away..I’m sure you’ll find stuff. Thanks for taking time off to reply to me.

   posted on February 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm

8. 8 On February 20th, 2007, meetu said:

   Hi ricky,

   Inconsistencies is something that I would hate to have in my reviews. Could you please take the time to point out what you found inconsistent. Thanks!

   I don’t mind watching the second half of Baabul for Amitabh Bachchan’s acting (and Rani Mukherjee’s for that matter). Willing to ignore the other stuff, that as you rightly pointed out, could lead to a death by torture.

   posted on February 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

9. 9 On February 20th, 2007, meetu said:

   Hi anonymous,

   I can “sit back and enjoy” only in movies that are obvious comedies. The rest - very difficult for me to do.

   Also, if I sit back and enjoy how can I answer questions like, “if its not a thriller in the first place then how does it fail as a thriller?”

   Yep! I usually do “search” for things that I don’t know the right word for, didn’t do it this time and was found!

   Keep the comments coming!

   posted on February 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

10. 10 On February 20th, 2007, meetu said:

    Sakshi received your e-mail and responded. Thanks!

    posted on February 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

11. 11 On March 7th, 2007, Jay said:

    HI Meetu,

    I agree to certain extent with your review, there were a few splending things about the movie but pieces dont work in the movie world, its the entire impact that is important. Do visit my review :

    http://jkpcblogs.blogspot.com/2007/02/eklavya-royal-farce.html

    posted on March 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

12. 12 On March 12th, 2007, meetu said:

    Thanks for stopping by Jay! Read your review. Pretty detailed indeed!

    posted on March 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am

13. 13 On March 14th, 2007, morph said:

    i dont understand how ekalavya can be judged as an thriller? it was basically a shakesperean drama with some thrilling elements thrown in .
    Nor was it an attempt at a murder mystery , you knew who the killer almost 15 minutes after the murders happenned . so then it cant be accused of having a predictable climax when it wasnt even trying to surprise you in any way because all the major plot secrets were out long before the climax !!

    as you did with black friday , you just missed the point of the whole film .

    you judged a character driven drama as a thrilling action piece !!
    maybe they should have mentioned the genre which movie belonged to on your ticket

    posted on March 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am

14. 14 On March 14th, 2007, meetu said:

    Warning! Spoilers in this comment!

    Hey morph,

    Good to see you here again!

    Granted a character driven drama to you could be a thriller to me. But what when the makers think it is a “edge-of-the-seat dramatic action thriller”. And I do not quote from some gossip column, it is right from the official website. Click on “THE STORY” link, it is the first line of the last paragraph.

    I thought the point of the movie was to narrate a story which was supposed to be a thriller. And did not deliver.

    It was certainly wanting to be a thriller. Otherwise why would they not show Prince Harshawardhan approaching Rana Jayawardhan? Also, why would the fact that Prince Harshawardhan was behind it all, shown in pieces, first to Rajjo and then Rana Jayawardhan yelling at Eklavya in the train scene.

    Let’s continue the discussion…

    posted on March 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

15. 15 On June 4th, 2007, vikrant said:

    I dint see this movie becoz 1stly i dont think so that there is nothing spl abt the story where casting is concern is good ang BIGb allways done well what he does. about other character i dont know so i think thums very very down. thank you

    posted on June 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am

And what do you think...