Having heard all the rumours surrounding 'Eklavya' and reading the reviews, I was quite curious about it. Most friend told me that the film is visually stunning but the screenplay is what lets it down. Somehow I too feel the same. I did find the plot interesting in parts (with some clever twists) and the mystery was well-built but it does drag at some point (even though it's about 105 minutes) while other scenes could have been more effective had they been given more time. The songs should have been better left out (even though there were only very few). The ending is hugely disappointing and I just don't feel a happy ending was suitable for such a dark film.
On the positive side, the film is visually beautiful to watch. It is technically well-made. The cinematography and art direction are remarkable and special effects are impressive. Most sequences have been wonderfully shot. The interiors of the palace and Rajasthan look great. Having seen '1942, A Love Story', 'Mission Kashmir' and 'Parinda', I never thought of Chopra as one of the greatest directors and 'Eklavya' doesn't make any difference either but he deserves credit for handling a few sequences very well e.g. Udaywardhan's murder scene.
Amitabh Bachchan in the title role is mostly disappointing. He carries the same facial expression throughout the whole film. He's the only one with a fleshed out role while the rest of the cast (some talented names) don't really have much to do. Saif Ali Khan is alright too. This isn't among his finest performances but what more could an actor do with a not-so-well written role? Jimmy Shergill stands out in a tiny role. Ditto for Jackie Shroff. Boman Irani goes over the top in a few scenes but is otherwise pretty good. Sharmila Tagore and Sanjay Dutt are wasted. Vidya Balan does well with a badly written role. Raima Sen does well.
'Eklavya' mainly fails because of the screenplay that could have been very engaging if Chopra had given it more focus rather than try to make it appeal to the audience by limiting it to 100 minutes or giving it a happy ending. This just proves that story should come first especially for films like 'Eklavya' which is plot driven (and to an extent character driven). This film also proves that putting some great shots together doesn't necessarily make a good film. Do I think this movie deserves to go to the Oscars? Certainly not.
On the positive side, the film is visually beautiful to watch. It is technically well-made. The cinematography and art direction are remarkable and special effects are impressive. Most sequences have been wonderfully shot. The interiors of the palace and Rajasthan look great. Having seen '1942, A Love Story', 'Mission Kashmir' and 'Parinda', I never thought of Chopra as one of the greatest directors and 'Eklavya' doesn't make any difference either but he deserves credit for handling a few sequences very well e.g. Udaywardhan's murder scene.
Amitabh Bachchan in the title role is mostly disappointing. He carries the same facial expression throughout the whole film. He's the only one with a fleshed out role while the rest of the cast (some talented names) don't really have much to do. Saif Ali Khan is alright too. This isn't among his finest performances but what more could an actor do with a not-so-well written role? Jimmy Shergill stands out in a tiny role. Ditto for Jackie Shroff. Boman Irani goes over the top in a few scenes but is otherwise pretty good. Sharmila Tagore and Sanjay Dutt are wasted. Vidya Balan does well with a badly written role. Raima Sen does well.
'Eklavya' mainly fails because of the screenplay that could have been very engaging if Chopra had given it more focus rather than try to make it appeal to the audience by limiting it to 100 minutes or giving it a happy ending. This just proves that story should come first especially for films like 'Eklavya' which is plot driven (and to an extent character driven). This film also proves that putting some great shots together doesn't necessarily make a good film. Do I think this movie deserves to go to the Oscars? Certainly not.