psbanerjee
Joined Jun 2007
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges7
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
psbanerjee's rating
Hopeless and disappointing. Neither writing nor direction was anything worth a mention and worse of all the dumb YouTubers trying to be actors. Don't waste your time on this one.
What works:
1. The core story - though on the surface, it seems to be a cliché around love, sacrifice and longing, it has it's soul in the right place.
2. Great performances by Vidya Balan and Rajkumar Rao.
Where it fails:
1. Fist half is too weak. Too many intertwined sub-plots and connected stories take long to setup the premise.
2. Lack of attention to obvious details: Majority of the story is in flashback, set 21 years back from today, which means it's set in 1994. Yet you get to see Samsung mobiles with front facing cameras, characters taking and sharing selfies, and worst of the lot, mobile internet and lightening fast internet in the midst of a jungle which can send a video file through in 5 secs!
Overall, a lost opportunity to create a good evergreen movie due to silly mistakes and gaps in script-writing....
1. The core story - though on the surface, it seems to be a cliché around love, sacrifice and longing, it has it's soul in the right place.
2. Great performances by Vidya Balan and Rajkumar Rao.
Where it fails:
1. Fist half is too weak. Too many intertwined sub-plots and connected stories take long to setup the premise.
2. Lack of attention to obvious details: Majority of the story is in flashback, set 21 years back from today, which means it's set in 1994. Yet you get to see Samsung mobiles with front facing cameras, characters taking and sharing selfies, and worst of the lot, mobile internet and lightening fast internet in the midst of a jungle which can send a video file through in 5 secs!
Overall, a lost opportunity to create a good evergreen movie due to silly mistakes and gaps in script-writing....
The good things:
What didn't work:
All in all, it looks and feels like a film made by the riches for the riches, with no clue about the real problems of the world. If you have money to throw, go with family. If you have just got a bonus, go as a couple. If you are not so well off, wait for it to hit the TV screen, and watch alone, with headphones on.
- Visuals of Mediterranean cities, cruise, sea etc - Some good performances by Anil Kapoor, Shefali, Anushka and Priyanka
What didn't work:
- Story: When you make a film about the riches, the only to way to make it resonate with the not-so-riches is by showing primal, human limitations or challenges or problems. Not by highlighting the problems which are a function of them being rich at the first place - threat to status in the society, priority to money making over family etc. We have enough of our own problems to deal with, thank you!
- Lackluster screenplay: Narrating a film like this from a dog's point of view makes it look silly from the word go. Pushing in a song in the second half when you should be having the audience gripped in attention. Less than convincing character arcs.
- Too many characters: Adding more characters just for the sake of it does not compensate for a lame script. It just puts pressure on the audience to keep a track of who's who and how they even relate to the main story.
All in all, it looks and feels like a film made by the riches for the riches, with no clue about the real problems of the world. If you have money to throw, go with family. If you have just got a bonus, go as a couple. If you are not so well off, wait for it to hit the TV screen, and watch alone, with headphones on.