Bombay Velvet

I read a lot of negative reviews and jokes about this movie.Saw it just to see how bad it really is.I am shocked! This was one of the best movies I have ever watched. From the sets, cinematography to amazing performances from all actors this movie was a treat to watch.

I loved everything including Karan Johar as a badass gangster!

This movie is way better that usual brainless garbage that comes out of Bollywood and deserves to appreciated not ridiculed the way it has been.

The film, that's set in the era of 1949, welcomes the audiences with a track by Raveena Tandon Thadani (special appearance). On the other hand, while a young Balraj (Ranbir Kapoor) is busy taking his baby steps in this man-eat-man world, he also spends his time in the red light district nursing frustrations of seeing his mother getting slapped and abused. Youth throws him in the boxing ring of free-for-all fighting to earn some ready cash. He then comes across Chiman (Satyadeep Misra), who not just becomes his partner in crime, but also his friend for life. As they march ahead in life, they, gradually land up becoming the henchmen for Kaizad Khambata (Karan Johar), editor of the tabloid 'Torrent' and also a top wheeler-dealer. Impressed with his dare devil attitude, Kaizad appoints Balraj to manage his club named 'Bombay Velvet'. In addition to this, Kaizad also entrusts him with the task of wiping out the 'Communist's opposition to this 'Capitalist' plan. But he meets with a roadblock called Jimmy Mistry (Manish Chaudhury), editor of pro-labour class tabloid 'Glitz'. It is then, that the beautiful jazz singer Rosie (Anushka Sharma) is sent as a honey trap to lure Balraj by Jimmy. But the duo consummate their passionate romance and become inseparable. The henchman wants to have his share of the pie in the new money-order and that's when the drama turns bloody and what-happens-after. Meanwhile, Kaizad tries to adopt the policy of divide and rule between Balraj and Chiman. Does Rosie become successful in her role of a honey trap, does Kaizad become successful in separating the Balraj-Chiman duo and what ultimately happens to 'Bombay Velvet'... is what forms the rest of the story.

Pros - Film is visually stunning. The music and special effects are outstanding. One liners are outstanding and to be apllauded.

Cons - No matter how glamour or class you show in movies, it should have a script, screenplay and a climax which is important! BV's climax is just as awful as Roy. I was and always will be proud of Anurag K's films like Gangs of Wasseypur and Queen. I was proud to say that i'm his fan but this film has turned it down.

Last Words: *If you want to see for Ranbir, please go because his acting is outstanding. The way he delivers his role and dialogue - 5/5 stars! *If you are Anurag Kashyap fan and want to continue to have faith in him, go at your risk or please avoid!

Although Bombay Velvet has not been doing well, it is a movie that you must watch. The story is very interesting; you keep anticipating what will happen next. The movie is made extremely well; the characters are believable, and the sets make you feel you are in the '60s. The storyline is a bit slow in the first half, but the second half picks up speed. The love story between Anushka Sharma and Ranbir Kapoor is one of my favorite elements of the story. I was a little hesistant to watch this movie based on the reviews, but I do not regret watching it at all. This movie makes up for Ranbir Kapoor's last two flop movies, Besharam and Roy. Overall, this movie is a must watch and you will regret it if you do not watch it.

One feels slightly intimidated and/or browbeaten to review Anurag Kashyap's films. His films are like the songs of American rock band Coldplay - most of them don't make much sense and because they don't make much sense, they can mean anything. Bombay Velvet is one such product.

Set between the late 40s and the late 60s in Bombay, story of a migrant, Balraj (Kapoor), who lives his life to grow exponentially on his own terms is hardly convincing. He begins his life with the monies hauled through pickpocketing and starts living his puzzling dream when he falls into the clutches of a bootlegger called Khambata (Johar). The build-up is faint as the story picks up pace to set the theme, which is about greed for power and fame that fixates our little, glam-doll protagonist.

Fear of anachronism is visible from frame one, and the brutal attention to details - to recapture (one prefers "reinvent" though) 50s'-60s' Bombay - is the greatest highlight of the film. This means the story is absorbingly clichéd.

The history of Bombay is heavily dealt with as the plot carves itself out, ending the crime drama with an epilogue that has a punctuation error in it. The touch of politics that drives the crime genre in the film is a cooler depiction of the developments that led to a city now called Mumbai, which became of Bombay and, is where I sit now and write this review. Now, THAT is fun to watch. Few familiar twists and turns drive the screenplay to a highly cribbed climax. Humor, if you can detect it, is wicked and forced.

Kapoor is phenomenal as the hero of the film, but my heart hardly ached for the lad as he went about gun-wielding to rip off men who denied his own way of maddeningly narcissistic life. The whole cast, including Sharma, Menon, and Basu do a beautiful job by staying in their characters. Debutante (that's what the intro credit says) Johar seems to have borrowed his natural effeminacy into the screen as he puts up a rather bad show at being a cool tycoon. His character is like a headless chicken who flounders (sic) after having pecked for cereals with other characters of the film. Pardon me for using a dialog from the film. If the makers can plagiarize (sorry, the right phrase is "be inspired"), why can't I?

I am tired of watching rip offs of that Godfather gun-in-the- flushbin idea, and that is when the film starts to fumble. With a soundtrack for the climax that reminds you of the Oscar Best Picture Birdman (2014) and FX TV show Fargo (2014), one can confirm the imagination quotient of the film. But do watch out for the mildest anti-smoking statutory warning in the history of Bollywood.

All said and done and having used few superlatives to describe the film's richness, I cannot use the word "original." And at a time when people go and die by originality, and partake in copyright fights, does a film made from ripping off old cult classics and popular ideas work? The audience have to decide. And boxing, if you wonder, from the trailers and the posters, is a gimmick. Apart from that, it is exhaustive at 150 long minutes.

BOTTOM LINE: Bombay Velvet, as an ambition, can be lauded for its art setup, which it never fails to brag about. But, with a phony villain and an over-smart hero, their joint saga is as raw as the blood that glimmers off the bodies of the men they kill. 5/10 - average.

Can be watched with a typical Indian family? NO

This review was sponsored by ProdNote (www.prodnote.com)

Spoiler free.

Remember back in 1999, when George Lucas (almost) completely missed out on what made his Star Wars films so great, with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace?

As much as I'd hate to admit it, the same case applies for Anurag Kashyap and this movie. Sure, it is ambitious, the set pieces are huge and wonderful, the production values are pretty high, and the film never looks cheap visually. Kashyap has also injected some notable tricks of the director's trade into this film.

But Star Wars was never really about how great it looked, it was about the story that drove it through. I rest my case with Bombay Velvet. The film looks really, REALLY well-made, but the screenplay just doesn't add up. It's glaringly obvious how bad the film *sounds* at some points, due to the below-average writing.

Next time you make a 'studio movie for a commercial market', try on focusing on the 'studio script' more than of the commercial ambition. Until then, Kashyap will remain one of my favorite directors of Indian cinema without a doubt. This movie may not exactly embody that belief, but his other works do, and it's safe to say that A.K. simply took a misstep with this movie. A Phantom Menace, so as to say.

Just don't go into Attack of the Clones territory. Please.