REVIEW 42: RAGINI MMS

Release date:	May 13, 2011
Director:	Pavan Kirpalani
Cast:	Raj Kumar Yadav, Kainaz Motivala

A young couple takes off for a raunchy weekend in a lonely house. She loves him and is in it for the fun. He’s planning to make a sex tape on the sly. As night sets in, strange things start happening in that secluded building and it becomes clear that somebody’s watching them. Will the spook take the lives of this horny duo? Or does she have other plans for them? The answer will come to you through 100 minutes of Ragini MMS.

It’s been a while since I found the first half of a film so disappointingly uneventful, followed by a curiously satisfying second half. The big mistake that producer Ektaa Kapoor makes with Ragini MMS is that she throws in too many ingredients that give it a Love Sex Aur Dhoka hangover. Leading man Raj Kumar Yadav starred in LSD last year as the chap who surreptitiously records his sexual encounter with a salesgirl using surveillance cameras in a department store. He was desperate for a career break back then, he’s desperate to be an actor now. Add to that the deliberately shaky handycam movements in the first five minutes of Ragini MMS, so similar to the initial part of LSD, and I wanted to yell in exasperation at Team Ragini. Did they want to remind us of LSD or did they actually not realise what they were doing? Not sure which is worse.

But having felt let down through significant parts of the pre-interval portion of Ragini, I found myself quite transfixed after the break. Ragini MMS is clearly inspired by the storytelling style of films like Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch Project … which is not such a bad thing. After all, inspiration is not theft. What doesn’t work is the interval which should have been dispensed with totally. It’s also strangely insincere to flash text on the screen in the end referring to the real-life events that inspired the film, despite having started off with the claim that any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental. Arrey, what do they want us to believe?!

But despite these problems, Ragini MMS redeems itself in many ways. Kainaz Motivala is a natural actress. Raj Kumar is not just natural, his character’s earthiness is highly entertaining. Their behavior too is completely believable – he just can’t wait, she’d rather go slow, he doesn’t mind being downright rude to ‘friends’ who intrude on their romp, she’s not averse to doin’ it but hides it from mommy. Barring some of those clichéd loud-sounds-meant-to-scare in the first half, the film also steers clear of many horror flick staples: there’s no ghost in white, no disfigured human face with glazed eyes, no spooks flying through the air, not even a detailed flashback to a tragic story. In fact, the spectre in this film is more a vague presence than a solid figure. Besides, it plays on the mind that the film claims to be based on a true story, especially disturbing for those of us who don’t ‘believe’ in ghosts and yet are afraid of them.

As blood spills, darkness induces fear and a man’s treachery makes him repulsive to the girl who once loved him, I was fascinated by the fact that I was not scared while watching Ragini MMS, yet I could imagine just how unimaginably terrified I would have been if I’d been in Ragini’s place. Oh, the horrifying hopelessness of it all! Her helplessness as she lies handcuffed to the bed while her isolation claws at her is chilling. Now picture yourself as Ragini! Whew!

Rating (out of five): **3/4

Caveat: If you, like me, are prone to headaches, then heed this warning. The first few minutes of Ragini MMS made me woozy in the head. After years and years of watching films, I still get light-headed every time I see shaky camera work.

CBFC Rating:                       A with two dialogue cuts and certain words muted

Running time:                        100 Minutes

Language:                              Hindi, with a ghost who speaks Marathi

Photograph courtesy: http://www.raginimmsthefilm.com/site/index.html

REVIEW 41: STANLEY KA DABBA

Release date:	May 13, 2011
Director:	Amole Gupte
Cast:	Partho, Amole Gupte, Numaan Sheikh, Abhishek Reddy, Divya Dutta, Divya Jagdale, Rahul Singh

Stanley is as loveable as a child can be. He’s got a sense of humour, he’s bright without being precocious, he fibs without malice when he’s in trouble or when a concerned teacher asks why his face is covered with bruises, and he’d rather fill his empty stomach with litres of water from the cooler than admit to his classmates why he can’t afford to bring a tiffin box to school.

And yet, this student of Class IV in Holy Family High School, Mumbai, earns the wrath of his Hindi teacher. The old man thinks nothing of polishing off food from his colleagues and students at lunch time, but picks on Stanley for not bringing a dabba from home. When the irritated boys gang up and trick him out of a chance to swipe their khana but insist on sharing it with Stanley, this oily gent vents his frustration on Stan. Why would a grown man do this to a child?

Stanley ka Dabba asks precisely the question that should be asked in numerous schools across our country where there are just too many adults who forget to treat children like children. And what better way to ask that question than through a film starring child actors who seem to have forgotten the camera in their midst?

Well, they probably did forget. Because writer-director Amole Gupte did not tell the students of Mumbai’s Holy Family that he was making a film. When he started a year-and-a-half’s workshop with them, even he wasn’t sure what the result would be. So he told the kids: the camera you see is just meant as a reminder that you are part of an acting workshop. The dialogues were improvised, the light was natural, the shooting was done on an unobtrusive Canon EOS 7D still camera. And in the lead role of Stanley he cast a guileless, artless little fellow called Partho who seems like he was born into the part. The result: performances so natural that you’ll come away from the film wondering if it was a film at all. For that, more than anything else, Stanley ka Dabba is worth your time.

What bothers me about this film though is the somewhat simplistic, rose-tinted representation of children. In any regular school anywhere in the world, a child with a bruised face, mysterious family background and no tiffin to share with his classmates, would be the target of school bullies. I’m willing to swallow the fact that in this particular school, in this particular class, more children are favourably inclined towards this particular boy because he is talented and such a ray of sunshine. But we all know that gifted, popular kids attract envy in at least some measure. We also know that not every youngster is gentle with others who are less privileged. Yet neither Stanley’s murky home situation nor his remarkable talents attract any nasty classmates. Not one kid snubs him for not bringing food from home. And all the children are uniformly good. I’m afraid that doesn’t seem plausible, especially in a film that otherwise feels so realistic and real.

As I watched Stanley ka Dabba, it seemed to me that in a bid to show us the innocence and goodness in children, and their bonding when faced with an inconsiderate adult, Amole Gupte had completely wished away the real world where loving, thoughtful, sensitive kids co-exist with so many who are not; where bullies and peer pressure are as much a reality as child-like kindness. At the risk of being slaughtered by Taare Zameen Par acolytes, I must point out that this I-must-prove-my-point-at-any-cost approach is the one problem I had with TZP too. Gupte was the writer and creative director of that film, and was originally meant to direct it till Aamir Khan took over the job. In TZP, in order to convince us about the failure of adults to notice the struggles of that unhappy dyslexic boy, the film portrayed EVERY SINGLE ADULT ever encountered by Darsheel Safary’s Ishaan Awasthi as either cruel or competitive or at best, indifferent, UNTIL a major Bollywood superstar turned up as his salvation. Not as bothersome, yet worth mentioning here is the fact that towards the end of Stanley ka Dabba, the film seems to be deliberately stretching itself, almost as if trying to build up a thriller-like suspense over the truth about Stanley’s background. Completely unnecessary since the charm of the film until then is the easy, unforced storytelling style.

But still, my reservations about Stanley ka Dabba don’t take away from the fact that it’s a major  step forward in an otherwise dreary children’s film scenario in Bollywood. 2011 has been a relatively good year for children in Hindi films. Disney’s Zokkomon may have been too juvenile for its own good, but it was still a pleasant reminder that Darsheel Safary is a talent to reckon with. Before that, Bheja Fry director Sagar Ballary served us Kaccha Limboo that was filled with achingly natural performances. And now comes Stanley, a beautiful little boy who will, I suspect, touch your hearts like he did mine despite the incompleteness of his story.

Gupte’s revolutionary approach to making a film with children should make our exploitative, un-vigilant system sit up and take notice: he says he conducted his workshop every Saturday, in four-hour sessions in the morning with two recesses; that the children didn’t miss a single day of school for the film. Clearly, he’s also brilliant in the art of just letting children be. The adult actors are perfect for their parts: Gupte himself as the callous teacher, Divya Dutta as the compassionate one that Stanley has a crush on, Divya Jagdale as the unimaginative science Miss, Rahul Singh who looks distractingly handsome as the kind principal in the priestly black cassock ... As for the child actors: Numaan Sheikh and Abhishek Reddy, you are utterly lovely! All the kids who I am not naming in this review, yes every single one of you: you are lovely too!

And what do I say about Gupte’s son, 10-year-old Partho’s screen presence? Watch out Ranveer Singh! Eight years from now, this guy could well be your competition!

Rating (out of five): ***

CBFC Rating:                       U without cuts

Running time:                       92 Minutes

Language:                             Hindi and English

REVIEW 40: LUV KA THE END

Release date:	May 6, 2011
Director:	Bumpy
Cast:	Shraddha Kapoor, Taaha Shah

“Just because we don’t have them, doesn’t mean we can’t kick them.” So says Rhea in the climactic scene of Luv ka the End before crashing her shoe into the titular hero’s most sensitive body part. By that point, Luv Nanda has been established as such a skunk, that the audience should have been cheering for Rhea. But the emotional disconnect is such that apart from fleeting amusement, I felt nothing.

Luv ka the End is about Rhea, the girl who’s dating the campus hottie Luv. No one knows quite how she bagged him because the verdict among the cool babes is that Rhea is a behenji. Luv is the rich son of a smuggler who wears his brands on his sleeve, rolls his R-s and does not let his girlfriend ruffle his hair for fear that she will mess up his style. Luv is pressuring Rhea to sleep with him. She agrees to do the deed on the night before her 18^th birthday. But then, she discovers that Luv doesn’t love her: she’s just a pawn in a game he’s playing as a member of the BBC, a secret Billionaire Boys’ Club where points are awarded for sexual conquests. Luv is barely ahead of his closest competitor, which is why he’s desperate for the 1000 points he’d get from sleeping with “the cutest, prettiest, simplest virgin”. Apparently, that’s ‘behenji’ Rhea.

The revenge she extracts is the story of Luv ka the End. Shraddha Kapoor – daughter of Shakti Kapoor and niece of Padmini Kolhapure – has an interesting presence and does a fair job of playing the seemingly sedate Rhea with the nasty streak. Her co-star Taaha Shah doesn’t get to do much beyond look cute although the gusto with which he throws himself into the Mutton song indicates that he must be capable of more. Any debutant who has the guts to get into a ghaghra-choli and dance to “Mera jism jism mera badan badan, Arrey main hoon taaza mutton mutton” deserves attention. Rhea’s gal pals show some spark but are done in by confused and clichéd characterisation: Sonia is the pretty airhead who seems mandatory in such celluloid girlie gangs and Jugs is fat+smart. Both are fiercely loyal to Rhea, yet in the end when she’s locked in a room with Luv and they fear the worst for her, what do they do? They run away!

As far as replicating a teen milieu goes, the film gets it right. Hindi melds with English, the songs are fun and frothy, the clothes and the dialogue writing are appropriate. When the mean girls have a confrontation with the supposedly behenji gang, “Sati Savitri” is countered with “Slutty Savitri” which is met with “Fatty Savitri”; and Rhea swears to turn “Luv Nanda” into “Luv Nanga”.

But a reasonably impactful first half (worrisome for parents, I’d say) gives way to a vapid, tepid second. For a teen revenge saga to be plausible, the protagonist’s plot needs to be cleverer. Everything Rhea plans is so easily achieved that it’s hard to root for her. Luv’s father is a notorious smuggler and yet, she blithely breaks into his house to stuff glue and itching powder into his underwear, and filch his credit cards. He doesn’t check his purse before leaving and so, quite conveniently for our heroine, doesn’t realise that it’s empty! Not once does he think of using his dad’s clout for payback. In the end, when they are locked in a room alone together, she tamely gives in when he wants to tie her to the bed. And as a crowd of teenagers watch the proceedings live on a big screen at a party, while it appears that Luv may rape Rhea, no one – yes, not one of them – deems it fit to intervene except those two friends who had ditched her just seconds earlier! Add to this mix, some embarrassingly tacky product placements and Rhea’s irritatingly precocious little sister Minty who is even more suffocating than “Sexy” in Cheeni Kum. I’m not saying such kids don’t exist, I’m asking why this child in Luv ka the End – who is probably 10 years old – feels the need to blackmail her 18-year-old sister into giving up her clothes. What about the size difference? Kid mentions that she’s investing in the future. Huh?

Luv ka the End is the first offering from Yash Raj Films’ new youth banner Y-Films. It’s supremely disappointing, considering that it comes to us so soon after YRF’s brilliantly conceived, written, directed and acted Band Baaja Baaraat. Even if seen in isolation, Luv ka the End can at best be described as mildly entertaining in parts; but in the ultimate analysis, it’s an unmemorable film. I’d rather watch F.A.L.T.U. with Jackky Bhagnani instead.

Rating (out of five): **

CBFC Rating:                       U/A with a few cuss words beeped out

Running time:                        107 Minutes

Language:                              Hinglish

Photograph courtesy: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/LuvKaTheEnd

REVIEW 39: HAUNTED (3D)

Release date:	May 6, 2011
Director:	Vikram Bhatt
Cast:	Mahakshay, Tia Bajpai, Arif Zakaria, Achint Kaur, Mohan Kapoor

I was the sort of child who was afraid of the dark, who used to imagine that a ghost would emerge from the commode, that there were spirits under my bed and figures hiding in the patterns of the mosaic tiles on the floor. Kids, I tell you! But I have no explanation for the fact that as a rational grown-up, although I do not believe in ghosts, somewhere at a sub-conscious level that I hate to acknowledge, I get unsettled by ghost stories.

So it’s confession time: I kept a light on in my room the night after I watched Vikram Bhatt’s Haunted. It’s silly of me, of course, but it made me realise that despite all my reservations about this film, it had struck home.

Haunted is a horror film about a young real estate agent finalising the sale of a house when strange things start happening in the night. He discovers that a female occupant of that manor 80 years earlier was assaulted by her lecherous teacher. In trying to protect herself, she ended up killing the man who returned as an evil spirit to exact a terrible revenge on her. Now our hero must free the property of its spectres and restore peace to the troubled soul who once lived there. How he attains that goal is something I will not reveal here.

The film stars Mahakshay nee Mimoh Chakraborty, son of Mithun Chakraborty, making a return to the big screen with a new name and less baby fat on his person than he possessed on debut. He plays the property dealer in Haunted while the girl from the past is television’s Tia Bajpai, and Arif Zakaria takes on the role of her lustful guru.

First things first, the 3D is top-notch and world class. As always, those heavy glasses left a dent on my hapless nose. But the usual dimness that is the bane of all 3D films works in favour of Haunted, contributing to the eeriness that pervades the film. And unlike a number of recent Hollywood films in which the third dimension added little to the experience (case in point – Tron: Legacy), in Haunted it was effective enough to make me pull back in my seat in fright more than once. Please don’t remind me of that cobra that lunged at us from the screen!

So yes, the film is scarey in spite of the many clichés it employs! The first time the evil spirit makes an appearance is petrifying as are many other moments. On the downside are the loudness of the sound effects and music at several places. Why do most Bollywood film makers these days feel the need to raise the background score so many notches in such an obvious fashion in horror films? Hollywood too is often guilty on that count. Haunted didn’t need these contrivances, though to be fair to the film, its aspiring-to-be-menacing noises are not one-tenth as screechy or distracting as they were in that awful series of horror flicks such as 88 Antop Hill that emerged from Bollywood around the same time as Ram Gopal Varma’s much more intelligently crafted Bhoot.

Overall though, Haunted could have been way better than it ends up being. Much of this has to do with the fact that director Vikram Bhatt resorts to too many horror flick formulae here: ghosts with glazed eyes, a possessed woman flying through the air while another gets elevated, and a Christian priest with a crucifix (he even says “main tumhare liye prayer karoonga” because Hindi film Christians just don’t seem to know the word “prarthana”). And really, did we have to be shown a spirit’s tongue growing in length to fondle the heroine’s neck?! Ewwwww!

Pulling the film further down is the absolute lack of charisma of the leading man whose face has none of the sensitivity or agility of his illustrious father. The songs are not hummable or necessary. The time travel and some of the mumbo-jumbo towards the end could have been better explained too. No no, I’m not looking for logic in a spook saga, just a better pretence at it. If you’ve seen the film, do answer this question for me: why hadn’t she washed the blood off that locket? Considering that surprise is of paramount importance, it also seemed pretty foolish to repeat some devices that worked well on their first appearance in the film.  

Still, if you are a horror junkie, I’d recommend this film to you despite the riders. Don’t go comparing it to Hollywood classics in the genre or to our home-grown gems like Mahal, Bees Saal Baad and Madhumati. These days, the Hindi film industry rarely produces half-way decent horror films, and Haunted is head and shoulders and eyebrows above most, including Bhatt’s own terrible 2010 film Shaapit! Considering that a significant element in Haunted involves a woman being raped by a spirit, it’s also important to point out that it’s not obnoxious, sensationalist and offensive in the manner of that Tabu-starrer Hawa in which a phantom wind kept ravaging the heroine’s body while the camera worked hard to titillate the audience.

With better editing and a more inspiring hero, Haunted could have been very good. As things stand, it’s frightening despite all its flaws, and I enjoyed that.

Rating (out of five): **1/2

CBFC Rating:                       A without cuts  

Running time:                       140 Minutes approximately

Language:                             Hindi

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_(2011_film)

REVIEW 38: MEN WILL BE MEN

Release date:	April 29, 2011
Director:	Gorky
Cast:	Gaurav Chopraa, Rahil Tandon, Rajesh Kumar, Rohit Khurana, Special appearance by Rajesh Khattar

Every once in a while a film comes along that illustrates just how back-breakingly difficult it is for anyone to get a foot in the door in Bollywood. Gaurav Chopraa, Rohit Khurana and Rajesh Kumar are well-known faces in Hindi entertainment television. Yet here they are playing three-fourths of the leading quartet in a no-hoper called Men Will Be Men! What were they thinking when they signed up for this project?! Perhaps that it’s a way of getting a foot in the door in Bollywood?

The entire story of Men Will Be Men is contained in the title. Four colleagues (one married, one engaged, two single) lie to their boss and fly off to Pattaya to bed women: excuse me for dispensing with niceties, but the film isn’t particularly subtle so why should I waste my time? While at Pattaya, they all zero in on the same woman for reasons best known to them and she makes them run around in circles. By the time her motives became clear in the end, I was beyond caring.

Between the beginning and the end there is a lot of boredom and even more silliness. The heroine is introduced to us in a scene in which she emerges from a pool in a revealing swimsuit while her body glistens with strategically placed water droplets. Kindly note: a sexy bathing costume alone doth not a Priyanka Chopra make! There’s also a completely un-catchy motto that the men keep reciting to each other (something to the effect that whoever hooks the girl gets to take off with her) and an extremely irritating extra playing the part of a Thai hotel employee who keeps echoing their words.

Despite my kind heart, I can’t think of a single thing to say to recommend this film. On a personal note, ever since I resolved to review every single Hindi film released in 2011, whether small or big, I’ve come across some really strange samples of ‘cinema’ – but Men will be Men does not even fit into that category of films that are so bad that they end up being fun (for that, you need to check out my reviews of Impatient Vivek and Tum Hi To Ho).

I’ve read reports that Men Will Be Men was shot in seven days flat. With a zero-balance script like this, I don’t know if even seven years would have made a difference! But what boggles the mind is that this film comes to us from Red Chillies Idiot Box, the TV wing of Shah Rukh Khan’s Red Chillies Entertainment! I’m still rubbing my eyes in disbelief over that!

Rating (out of five): 0 stars

CBFC Rating:                       U/A without cuts

Running time:                        76 Minutes

Language:                              Hindi

Photograph courtesy: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663427844#!/menwbm

REVIEW 37: SHOR IN THE CITY

Release date:	April 29, 2011
Director:	Raj Nidimoru and Krishna DK
Cast:	Sendhil Ramamurthy, Pitobash Tripathi, Nikhil Dwivedi, Tusshar Kapoor, Radhika Apte, Preeti Desai

First let me get this out of the way:

Sendhil Ramamurthy!

Sendhil Ramamurthy!

Sendhil Ramamurthy!

Okay, so I’m having a little fun out here, but you do get my point! Ramamurthy – Indian origin star of the American serial Heroes – is a hottie. It’s clear that he’s also a very discerning man since he’s chosen to make his Hindi film debut in a project as unusual and unexpectedly entertaining as Shor in the City.

Ever since Ram Gopal Varma broke new ground with that amazing gangster flick Satya in 1998 and followed that up with the equally compelling Company, Bollywood has been hooked on Mumbai’s underbelly. Shor in the City visits familiar ground but does so in a delightfully unfamiliar fashion.

The film tells three partially intersecting stories. Tilak, Ramesh and Mandook are friends who are up to no good. Mandook is a loose cannon without a conscience. Ramesh has a head on his shoulders in spite of his vagabond ways. And Tilak, the most reluctantly dishonest of them all, is in the pirated books business. Far removed from their murky world is Abhay, an NRI who has returned to India to run a small enterprise and comes up against a wall of corporate inefficiency, institutional corruption and underworld interference. Somewhere in between is Sawan Murthy a.k.a. Savvy, a cricketer struggling to raise money to bribe a selector, while his girlfriend is paraded before prospective grooms by her family.  

What sets Shor apart from the numerous other films on life in Mumbai is the inoffensive and seamless blend of pathos and humour in the storytelling style. So many of the clichés we’ve come to expect in such films are missing here. There are abuses galore, but conversations are not peppered with those by-now-not-at-all-shocking-and-in-fact-quite-irritating words “moothna” and “hagna”; nor once are we shown an image of a man wetting his pants in fear. What we get instead is a twist at every turn, so that just when you’re expecting to shed a tear, the film makes you smile, and just when you are expecting to laugh, you’re shocked out of your wits instead.

Directors Raj Nidimoru and Krishna DK (who earlier made 99) have also wisely steered clear of most actors we’ve almost come to expect in films about the dodgy side of Mumbai. I have just one word for their cast: wow! Okay, grant me two words please: double wow! Pitobash Tripathi is brilliant as Mandook who thinks nothing of soothing his wounded ego and having a spot of fun by pulling a gun on a man going about his business on a toilet commode. Nikhil Dwivedi (earlier seen in My Name is Anthony Gonsalves and Raavan) is smooth and easy as the far more level-headed Ramesh who is startled out of his wits at the discovery that his friend Tilak is reading a book! The film’s producer Ektaa Kapoor’s brother Tusshar Kapoor as Tilak is not as top-notch as these two, but he’s still the best he’s ever been, in a nicely understated way. The trio have the benefit of the most attractive of the three stories in Shor, but Sundeep Kishan as Savvy shines even without that advantage: he is both good-looking and an absolute natural in front of the camera as are Girija Oak playing his girlfriend Sejal, Hottie Ramamurthy and Radhika Apte who is the semi-literate Tilak’s college-educated wife (Apte, incidentally, also stars in this week’s other film release, Onir’s I Am).

The weak link in the chain is former Miss Great Britain Preeti Desai who is cast as the girlfriend of Abhay (Ramamurthy). Her awkward dialogue delivery kind of blunts the effect of Abhay’s frustrations which every Indian would relate to. ‘Serious’ cinema buffs may argue that there was no need for that brief scene in which Ramamurthy makes a bare-chested appearance wearing nothing but a white towel around his waist. But milord, may I point out that it takes nothing away from the film!

Okay, so I’m getting carried away with myself again. But seriously, pretty much all the elements in Shor in the City are just right: The script is tight. The camera team keeps it real and simple. A couple of the songs are catchy. The background score is used to excellent effect. The sound effects editing is near perfect. And everything comes together to give us a film that’s a tragi-comic look at life in Mumbai. Part of the tragedy is how we as viewers laugh when we watch scenes that should in fact hurt us, perhaps because we are resigned to the corruption that pervades our lives. Like the expat who finally comes to terms with the reality of Mumbai and confidently tells his auto driver to enter a one-way street because he knows his cash will silence that vigilant traffic constable. Like the frustrated businessman who pulls a gun on a goon, and says to him: “If you can get away with it, I can too.”

But it’s the little touches that make Shor in the City such a wholesome experience: Savvy’s pronunciation of the word “Hyderabad” in precisely the way that a Mumbai-based south Indian might say it; the cricket selector’s Mumbaiyya intonation when he says “mind-blowing”; Tilak telling his wife, “Ek saal baad ek badi gaadi khareed lenge – Nano”; the way she nods her head just so, when she meets her husband’s employee; the manner in which a common man caught in a bank robbery asks pathetically, “Woh hazaar rupye jo har maheene SIP mein daalta tha, woh gaya?” Shor in the City is so real, that it feels more like fact than fiction.

Rating (out of five): ****

CBFC Rating:                      U/A without cuts, several swear words have been beeped out

Running time:                        111 minutes

Language:                              Hindi with English

 

Photograph courtesy: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/shorinthecity