Guzaarish is a typical sadistic movie.This is the age of dabaang and golmaal 3.People want entertainment.If people want to see good actors they have kay kay menon,irfan khan why watch Hrithik.Hrithik has still not grown up.He will recover from flops but he will go down as a successful star like Sunny Deol,Govinda.He is not a superstar ,aterial.
Guzarish, a biggest flop film of the year. Aishwarya had flop year with film Ravaan, Action Replayy and Guzarish. Hritikh had flops in Kites and Guzarish. The excellent and All time block buster is Dabangg. I still prefer to watch Dabangg instead of all this films.
Re: Guzarish, a biggest flop film of the year.
by anuj on Nov 24, 2010 11:29 AM
and do you know that your fav Salman has 3 flops before the over-rated and cheap Dabangg and even the superstar Akshay has 7 flops in the last 2 years.
Get over rajni and mithun chakravarthy.. both may be great actors but make similar movies.. Don't compare guzaarish with Mithun and rajni movies..its like comparing chalk with cheese.. Guzaarish is a experimental movie and while making only directors know that it wil not set cash registers ringing..Off late..TZP and 3 Idiots were only two movies which appealed both to masses and classes..I am sure there will be many more good regional movies which have very good content (and box office successful) which I am not aware of..
Re: Mithun and rajni
by Aryan on Nov 24, 2010 08:36 AM
TZP was not a masses film it earned due to huge multiplex audience... u can add Ghajani and Rajneeti to the list...
wot a crap movie... its weaknesses 1. u can predict the whole movie withing first 10 mins, 2. it revolves around same point for too long time, director is trying go deep on same point but miserably failed in collecting finer point and deeper aspect of it, 3. hritik,aishwarya r definitely NOT suitable for the roles, as both r not gud actors, u can notice expression less faces. 4. other characters have over acted in the movie. 5. understanding hritiks hindi dialogues r difficult as they r not pronounced clearly, he is good in delivering english dialogues. 6. later parts u loose complete interests in the movie and it becomes funny. 7. most situlations look like silly.
Re: a bad movie
by anuj on Nov 24, 2010 09:54 AM
yeah,i'm sure u like the srk kinda movies don't you? the mindless oso and rnbdj kind. hrithik is anyday a better actor than srk. at least he got the guts to experiment with his roles instead of playing the same,boring romantic nonsense. hrithik's performance in guzaarish is his best after JA. No wonder its been praised by critics and fraternity alike. This kinda film is obviously not gonna work at the bo 'coz of its over the top budget and its strange content. but hrithik rocked for sure. now i know that ur gonna say that srk in MNIK is the best ever but i feel otherwise.
Re: Re: a bad movie
by asha iyer on Nov 24, 2010 11:09 AM
he anuj, has krithik paid you for supporting him. What did he act in JA, tell us? Just standing straight. His dialogue delivery is so poor that we feel liking running from the cinema halls
Re: Re: Re: a bad movie
by anuj on Nov 24, 2010 11:15 AM
ya right. no wonder the film was so successful and he swept all the awards for it,isn't it? now i know ur gonna argue that awards are paid and all that nonsense. then may i tell you that the same applies for the over-rated srk. had the audiences been running away from JA,it would have been a flop. Instead its the only historical film which has been a hit in the entire decade. Even Aamir flopped with Mangal Pandey,Srk flopped with Asoka and Salman gave a disaster with Veer. Get ur facts right before making foolish comments.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a bad movie
by sandeep gupta on Nov 24, 2010 06:43 PM
really if people dodnt like experiments then go and watch same rubbish love stories..same story and same actors.
Re: Re: Re: a bad movie
by ooh scooter on Nov 24, 2010 07:02 PM
i agree HR was really a misfit in JA, but most people dissing the film here are srk fanatics who haven't watched it. so anuj has a point.
esp true since this is the most critically (esp HR's acting) acclaimed film of the year.
Re: Re: Re: Re: a bad movie
by anuj on Nov 24, 2010 08:52 PM
How can you say HR was a misfit for JA? JA is the only historical film which has had a good run at the Box Office in the entire decade. Other examples like Asoka,Mangal Pandey and Veer are absolute flops. Initially it was a little unimaginable to think of Hrithik as Akbar esp at the backdrop of Krrish and Dhoom-2,but eventually i felt he carried off the role really well. And that's why the film swept all the awards and won critical as well as box office acclaim alike.
Guzarish flop,fine.Sometime the combo works sometime not.Its same Bhansali's who created magic with ash in HDD'chuke and Devdas (of course with other superstars).May be the people rejected his concept(as was the fate of Sawariyaa).As for Hrithik/ash they have prooved their acting calibre long back.My personal best of Hrithik was 'FIZA' and Ash was superb in 'RAINCOAT'.They both bombed,didn't they.
Re: Its Ok
by anuj on Nov 24, 2010 09:56 AM
i prefer JA to fiza. then comes lakshya followed by guzaarish. But ironically,none of these films barring JA worked at the BO. Its the Krrish and Dhoom-2 kinda rubbish that raked in the moolah. That the disappointing part of the bollywood audience.
Well there is nothing wrong in copying concept from foreign language films which are not so popular in India; I mean other than hollywood films; directors are free to copy any other language films; Some here argued that its copied from spanish film; who cares; how many of us saw spanish movies? Till it entertain us its fine; and if it does not entertain us then who cares from where its copied or whether its original;
Re: Nothing wrong in copying
by Rajeev Aggarwal on Nov 23, 2010 09:50 PM
Nicely said. This dud movie is not worth discussing and Bhansali should stop directing and become an assistant set-designer for some other new comer director.
