Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Bala's funny bone!

The review of Mayaavi at indiaglitz says "Director Singapuli has obviously some flair for comedy and mirth. Unlike his guru Bala (who is the producer of the film), he doesn't reach for your grey cells. But he aims for your funny bone."
Strange the reviewer felt so. I found a lot of Bala in the dialogues and the subtle manner in which the going-on were handled. Just because the stories of Bala are morbid, doesn't say anything about his sense of humour. Given any day, I ll have a hearty laugh seeing the Sriman scenes of Sethu, and Surya scenes (I liked Laila too!) of Pithamagan (the rather famous "lodukku pandi" of Nanda was not up to the standards of the other two). Bala's got his funny bone in tact. Dear reviewer, think again before you make such statements!
I found that the Sishya has picked quite a lesson from his Guru (Could u have said the same on Singapuli's humour sense after having watched "Red"?)

Liked the first-half of the movie, most of the moments predominantly coz of Surya's witty presence and the other commendable performance from Satyan (could not like Jyothika in this too). Second half drag...ged (with quite a number of g's in it and loads of maudlinness). Songs were placed at random moments. The whole concept of a movie star liking/loving the simplicity of a con man's life (beaten to cliche many a times) went without much impact. Inspirations from movies like Mast was unavoidable for the makers I guess :). But they do tip their hat for Varma, as Jyothika's mom tells her "Night, antha Ramgopal Varma padam 'Bhoot' paakaathey!" (now, why did they have to speak tamil. to add to the comic effect?)...
Thank god that Jo didn't have to marry Balayya. Surya called it something like a "grammatic mistake in story-writing" if Jyothika and Balayya married (in Madhan's thirai paarvai) :)).

Watch it for the good humour it provides in the first half!

Update on 13 Apr, 4 p.m.: The objective of this post was actually to emphasize Bala's sense of humour (as against the general myth that he writes morbid stuff) and not a review of Mayaavi. Then I went on telling my opinion on the movie for a few lines, which was not very clear. Hence this update. When I said "Watch it for good humour it provides in the first half!", I meant that "Watch only the first half with some hope" and that the second half did not have an iota of humour (Exception: The Scene in which Satyan explains why he likes Simran and not Jyothika! unable to recall any other moment). And the first half did have a few good (and well-timed by the actors mentioned above) good gags and giggles which made it worth watching, which otherwise was loaded with fights, dances, punch dialogues (oh.. c'mon!), sentiments and all usual distractions (In fact the screenplay and the movie itself is one weird conglomeration of all the distractions with some good humour spread around it) and was not developing a story but showing some vague incidents. I said "Watch it" (it slipped out of my keyboard) to only those (like me) who watch every goddamn quite-known-movie being released, including the likes of the much-dreaded "Thirupaachi"; and am not recommending this dud to anybody.

No comments:

Post a Comment