(function() { var c = -->

30 October 2011

Shakti (1982)

Directed by: Ramesh Sippy
Story, screenplay, dialogue: Salim-Javed
Music: RD Burman
Starring: Dilip Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan, Raakhee, Smita Patil, 
Amrish Puri, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Ashok Kumar, Anil Kapoor
Shakti was Ramesh Sippy’s ultimate casting coup. Dilipsaab was making a comeback, and he had chosen Shakti as his vehicle. Sippy had managed to persuade Amitabh to sign the film – it didn’t require much arm-twisting since Amitabh was more than eager to stand in the same reel as his idol. 

Shakti was the first and only film that starred Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. The film only achieved a modest success, which was surprising considering that it had very strongly etched roles for all major characters. It did however become very popular on the video-circuit.

Retired police commissioner Ashwini Kumar (Dilip Kumar) is waiting to receive his young grandson, Ravi (Anil Kapoor). Ravi has completed his graduation and his grandfather wants to know his future plans. Ravi wants to become a police officer like his grandfather. Ashwini is pleased, but warns Ravi that the life of a police officer is not a very pleasant one. He feels that his own life is a reflection of the challenges that a police official faces in the line of duty.
Many, many years earlier, Ashwini Kumar was a mere inspector with a lovely wife, Sheetal (Raakhee), and son, Vijay (Master Ravi).
As he begins to clean up the city, he comes up against JK Verma (Amrish Puri). When things come to a head, JK abducts Vijay in a bid to make Ashwini back down.
Ashwini, who is renowned for his honesty and his principles, puts his duty above all else, even though he is also moving heaven and earth to recover his son. JK calls for a final answer, though, and tells him that if he doesn’t call off the investigation, Ashwini will be responsible for Vijay’s death.
Vijay, who overhears the conversation, is emotionally scarred by his father preferring to sacrifice him for his principles. Old sins have long shadows and Ashwini Kumar is still to realise how long.

In the meantime, KD Narang (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), one of JK’s gang members, helps the little boy to escape. By the time the police surround JK’s hideout, Vijay and Narang have disappeared. Ashwini is perturbed while Sheetal is distraught. Vijay comes home, but the emotionally traumatised boy is sure that his father does not love him, and this feeling crystallises as he grows older. 
Vijay (Amitabh Bachchan), now grown up, is a loner. Once, travelling by the local train at night, he sees a young woman harassed by louts. He comes to her rescue, and then walks her back home. 
He is curious – won’t her family be worried? Isn’t she afraid of travelling alone? Roma (Smita Patil) has no family to worry about her; and when she travels alone, who is there to be afraid of? She can scarcely be afraid of herself! Vijay looks at her: he is only afraid of himself. Roma is intrigued by the man who, living with his family, still feels alone. 

When one of the four men whom Vijay thrashed files a report against him, Ashwini Kumar insists that he be called to the police station to answer the charges. Sheetal tries to convince her husband and her son, to no avail. Ashwini is adamant that duty requires that he call his son to the police station; Vijay cynically reminds his mother that all Ashwini wants is to be lauded as someone who always puts his duty first.
But as much as Vijay hates his father, he loves his mother, and cannot see her hurt.
In the process of seeking employment, Vijay runs into Narang, who does not recognise him, but is instrumental in getting him the post he applied for. Vijay remembers Narang, though, as the man who helped him escape. 

Vijay’s employment makes Roma happy; not so his father, who is aghast that Vijay would work in a hotel owned by a well-known smuggler. If Vijay doesn’t know, couldn’t he ask? Can’t he find a job in some place where there are no criminal activities? Vijay is sure that such a place doesn’t exist; because there is crime and corruption even in his father’s profession. Ashwini is furious – there is a difference between men who are sworn to protect the law, and those who are sworn to break it. He lays down the law – Vijay will not work for Narang in any capacity. When Vijay can be so loyal to a man who has given him a job, what will happen if his employer actually helps him out? Vijay would consider him far above his father! Vijay is quick to retort – Narang had actually helped save his life when his father was willing to sacrifice it on the altar of duty!

Vijay seems to stand for every thing his father dislikes; father and son are too alike to be able to understand the other, and Sheetal is the one who gets hurt by their obduracy.
It seems to Vijay that it does not matter to his father what he does – he is always blamed. Finally, their constant fights lead to an explosive blow-up and Vijay leaves home. He runs into Roma who takes him home.

Vijay begins work at Narang’s hotel; on his first day on the job, he saves Narang’s life. Behind the assassination attempt is JK, his erstwhile boss, who is not very pleased at the failure of his plot. However, he finds it amusing that it is the son of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who saved a smuggler’s life. Narang is grateful to the young man who saved his life. It’s only then that he comes to know who Vijay really is.
Meanwhile, Sheetal, who is tired of the impasse, lands up at Roma’s house. Unable to bear his mother’s tears, Vijay promises to come back home. However, he needs to say goodbye to Roma first.
That night, as he is talking to Roma, she is accosted by a drunk patron who misbehaves with her. Vijay takes a hand, and soon the bouncers are escorting the drunkard out. Only, neither Vijay nor the drunkard know they have been framed.
Vijay returns home, and his father is pleased. However, the uneasy peace lasts only moments – there is a warrant out for Vijay’s arrest – the charge  is murder.
And all his protestations of innocence fall on deaf ears. The circumstantial evidence is very strong against Vijay and Ashwini Kumar has no other option but to let the law run its course. It is the final nail in the coffin of the father-son relationship.

Ashwini visits Vijay in jail. It’s a conversation that doesn’t go too well, because Ashwini is there as the DCP; he tells Vijay that while he is in jail, he needs to forget that he is the DCP’s son (the law is equal for everyone).
Vijay takes that statement literally; his answer is equally literal – he will forget that he is the DCP’s son. Meanwhile, Narang arranges to bail Vijay out, much to the DCP’s displeasure.
Slowly, but surely Vijay sets his feet on a path that he knows his father hates – he becomes a part of the underworld. Vijay’s gratitude to Narang has only increased, and he gladly accepts his hand in friendship. Vijay has two enemies – his father, who has never lifted a finger to help him; and JK, who has been responsible for all the troubles that he has faced. Vijay is set on retribution. With Narang at his back, Vijay becomes a major player in the world of crime.

JK is not slow to find out that his nemesis’ offspring is on the opposite side of the law; the tables are turned fast enough.
Narang is pleased with the result; he also understands the motivations behind Vijay’s seemingly suicidal actions. He tries to reassure Vijay that those who are not loved by their own people, do get that love elsewhere. After all, what relationship do Vijay and he have? But, to him, Vijay is like a son… Vijay does not reciprocate. To him, the word ‘son’ is an abuse, an insult. 

Roma is the only person with whom Vijay can be himself. When she tells him that she is going to be a mother, he wants their relationship legalised, and they plan to marry. Sheetal is thrilled at the thought of being a grandmother. 
Meanwhile, Ashwini’s superior officer asks him to relinquish the case. Much to Sheetal’s grief, Ashwini refuses. She promises her husband that their son will give himself up of his own will. However, she is doomed to disappointment, and the continual stress begins to tell on her health.
And if all this is not enough, JK, furious at the way Ashwini is chomping at his heels, sets a price on Ashwini’s head. Unfortunately, someone else becomes the victim. 

Will JK, who knows that he is hunted by both father and son, leave the country before vengeance catches up with him? What will Ashwini do now that he knows Vijay is also planning to flee the country? Will Vijay succeed in putting his past behind him? Will the father’s sense of duty win over his filial love once more? And Roma? What about her? 

Salim-Javed, who wrote such a strong script for both father and son in Trishul, faltered a bit when it came to Shakti. And it didn’t help that some of Amitabh’s best scenes ended on the editing table. 

The strong and aggressively honest Ashwini Kumar became almost a cardboard cut-out. This is not to take away from Dilipsaab’s performance which was very good indeed. He was brilliant as the scrupulous cop who places duty and principles above everything else, and is forced to live with the consequence of his choice for very many years. In his own way, he cares deeply for his son, and Vijay’s silences (as well as his taunts) hurt him very deeply. 

But this is Ashwini’s weakness – he cannot express his emotions. Even his love for his wife is only verbally expressed when she dies, and he breaks down. (A very powerful scene.) And even while you ache for the father in him, you have to wonder at his motivations (the same way I wonder at Ravi’s motivations in Deewar) – why is he the person who has to arrest Vijay? (Sheetal, in fact, even asks him this question.) Why couldn’t he have given up the case citing conflict of interest? Why does he have to shoot his son dead? (Similar questions raise their head in Deewar – why does the brother have to shoot Vijay dead? Aren’t the police taught to shoot runaways to stop them? Not kill them?)

Amitabh has played Vijay before – in Deewar, in Trishul, in Kala Patthar – and they were all characters who had a backstory that explained their bitterness, their anger against an unjust society, and who skated over the thin line that divided legal and illegal. He has also played a version of a character who is setting himself against his father – in Trishul, the year before. To do it again, and to do it in such a way that audience sympathy veers toward the underdog Vijay is a feat that could not have been bettered. 

Amitabh’s Vijay smouldered on screen. The intensity he brought into his performance as the embittered son of a conscientious father was unmatched. It’s sad to see him do good (though he takes the law into his own hands) and have his father criticise him. Ashwini’s constant criticism keeps reinforcing the idea that his father has never cared for him. It’s only with Roma that he can afford to let his guard down – in a moment of bitterness, his tortured self breaks down, Mere baap ne do shaadiyan ki. Pehle shaadi ka beta main hoon; mere baap ki doosri biwi ka beta hai, kanoon. His expressive eyes reflect both his hatred and his love for his father. 

In a way, he’s also a reflection of his father – he cannot bear to see injustice, and is quick to defend the underdog. Like Deewar’s Vijay, his mother is the lynchpin of his life – when she dies, he is bereft. As in Deewar, here also, his mother refuses his financial aid. If Deewar’s Sumitra Devi said quietly Abhi itna ameer nahin hua beta, ki tum apne maa ko khareed sako, Sheetal tells this Vijay: Main abhi itni kamzor nahin hoon Vijay, ki main apni pati ke imaandari ka bhoj nahin utha sakoon. Sounds similar?

Vijay is as quick to misunderstand his father’s motives as the latter is to judge him and find him wanting. Too little, too late, words that should have been said years before are said, and accepted. 

Raakhee took a calculated risk when she signed this film; the same year, she was playing his heroine in Barsaat ki Ek Raat and Bemisaal. Of all his heroines, she probably did the most number of romantic films with Amitabh; and he was noticeably more tender with her (and Jaya) than he was with any other heroine. 

Raakhee was simply wonderful as Sheetal, the wife and mother torn between her husband and son. Her love for both of them reflects badly on her health, but neither husband nor son show any sign of compromise. There are two scenes that stand out – when she tells her husband that she has had enough and is going to bring her son home. Ashwini Kumar expresses reservations and she retorts “When you have been willing to give up your principles for my sake, do you think my son won’t give up crime for my sake?' And the following scene, where, when Vijay insinuates that his father sent Sheetal because he didn’t have the courage to come arrest Vijay himself, and she verbally tears him apart. 

Sheetal is her husband’s strength. When she falls ill, he does the unthinkable – he goes to visit his estranged son to tell him that even if the relationship between them is ended, he knows that Vijay’s mother has never given up hope of seeing him. 

Javed might say that Shakti would have been a better commercial success if anybody other than Amitabh had acted in it (he was referring to Salim’s and his failure to write as strong a character for Amitabh as they did for Dilipsaab), but I cannot think of another actor at the time who could have held his own against the thespian. Javed also felt that Amitabh was so much bigger than the role they wrote for him; and the expectations rose a thousand-fold. 

Despite all that, the tension that is built up between the two actors has to be seen to be believed. I would merely say that if Shakti is considered a classic today, it is because its leads rose above the script.


  1. I watched it few years back because of the praise it is getting now and even when it was released, it won lot of critical acclaim!
    But I was truly disappointed, maybe because of my high expectations.

    I like Dilip Kumar! His acting has that nobility and at the same time this earthiness to it, which endears itself to me. But here it is a complete let-down! It all sounds so studied and rehearsed! But still it is hard to imagine anybody else in the role. A younger Sohrab Modi maybe!

    But I was blown away by Amitabh. I had thought Dilip would do chutti of Amitabh. Amitabh was something else in this! His presence alone in a scene spoke volumes. His gave Vijay's vulnerability a new dimension. Rakhee was good in her role as well. Poor Smita wasted on her bit role, but she gives it her best. Alone the way she brings chai to her father-in-law moved me.

    I remember a funny incident related to Shakti. Shakti was being shown in some cinema halls in the late 80s. Till then Anil Kapoor had become famous and a hit-hero. To cash on that, the posters before the cinema halls showed him in equal stature with Dilip and Amitabh.

  2. I think it was the way Dilipsaab's role was written, Harvey. He was good but the character was so one-dimensional that I wanted to smack him. Amitabh was brilliant, wasn't he? Oh,you should see some of the deleted scenes, Harvey - it made me weep that they deleted them - they would have made the film so much better! Amitabh's character has so much more depth than what was finally shown. :( Shakti is still a powerful film, though.

  3. So the deleted scenes were included in the DVD, where they?

    If only Shakti had been a hit! It would have encouraged AB to do more such roles rather than the junk with MD like Mard and GJS!

  4. No, Harvey, I wish they were. I had the good fortune of seeing them when I was working in Bombay. Sippy films still have the deleted scenes, so I wish they would come out with a DVD that includes them. For anyone who questions Amitabh's mastery over his craft, even after seeing his movies, these scenes should prove it beyond any doubt why he deserves many more accolades than he gets even now.

    I agree with you - if only Shakti had been a hit. Or Manzil. Or Faraar. Sigh. If wishes were horses...

  5. Lucky you!
    Why don't they release it in the same way they did with the alternate ending for Sholay. *rant*

  6. Harvey, I'll join you in the rant to! Why didn't they add it to the DVD in the first place?? By the way, all Sholay DVDs do not have the alternate ending. There are two versions available and there is no way of telling which one has both endings. So nice of the DVD distributors, no? Idiots! Don't get me started on the DVD producers!

  7. Anu, this is soooo not fair. I have just about managed to find some of the movies you recommend, and you keep adding more to the list. This sounds deliciously angsty. Me want! Now!

  8. I'm joining Tina on this: slow down, Anu! You're posting these delicious reviews of films I haven't seen, and my list of to-watch films keeps growing longer and longer by the hour. What am I going to do?!

  9. Pot meet kettle, Madhu. :)) Besides, the next few posts are *all* going to be of films you haven't seen. Tera kya hoga, Madhu?

    ps: By the way, you deserve it. After the delicious week with a post a day, I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms! When are you going to post next?

  10. I liked your juxtaposition of Deewar's dialogue with Shakti's, Anu. In a way, wasn't this Deewar all over again? And I too wondered why Vijay had to be shot dead. Why couldn't Ashwini Kumar have shot him the leg, or something? There's a rigidity about that character that didn't appeal to me.

    Shakti has always been one of my favourite films. It's one of the films I choose to show people who tell me that Amitabh is an over-rated phenomenon. (Chalo, at least they admit he is a phenomenon!)

  11. "Besides, the next few posts are *all* going to be of films you haven't seen."

    Aarggghhh!! You can't do this to your soul sister, Anu!

    I'm going to be posting - perhaps by Thursday - a review of one of my favourite suspense-police procedural films. Not Bollywood, but with a strong Bollywood connection.

  12. I love this film. Both Amitabh and Dilip did a fantastic job, and I can't say who was better. It was a gripping tale, and I agree there were a couple of Deewar moments.
    The reason why Dilip didn't pass on the job of capturing his son was, IIRC, because he didn't want to let personal matters interfere with 'duty'.

  13. Blame it on Ira, Madhu. She's been chiding me for sticking to Amitabh films. :) Besides, she is the one who originally wanted me to write about films from other languages. So.... (and that woman has not been posting, which is really mean of her!)

    Thursday? :( That's two days too far away. Looking forward to your post.

  14. Ruhi, I think that is where the script faltered. Salim-Javed made Ashwini Kumar so one-dimensional.

    Laughing at Chalo, at least they admit he is a phenomenon! Yeah, I guess something's better than nothing!

  15. pacifist, it's one of my favourites too. I think it's often overlooked when people talk about Amitabh's performances, because it was a commercial failure. I agree with the part about Dilip Kumar not passion on the job of capturing his son, but why shoot to kill? Why not shoot, so he can be arrested and made to pay the consequences of his actions? This whole 'I shot him even though he's my son' smacks of self-righteousness. Doesn't he have a duty to his son too? But that is my pet quibble with the movie. I still enjoyed Dilip saab's acting.

  16. I was hoping you would review Shakti. But I missed seeing Kala Patthar in this list - why?

  17. Aaargh! I fully intended to, but it slipped my mind. Last week has been chaotic. Sometime later; sorry. :(

  18. It really surprises me till date,that why Amitabh had to do this film,and that too at the peak of his career.There was no role for him at all.Seems it was a master game plan by Salim-Javed,and director Ramesh Sippy to make Amitabh look like an extra in the film.Amitabh was totally wasted in this film.Why did he play second fiddle to Dilip Kumar ? And that too at the peak of his career. Amitabh should have been more circumspect before accepting such minuscule roles.He gave away all the accolades to Dilip Kumar.No wonder the film flopped.Audience went to see Amitabh,and not a portly aging actor well past his prime.

  19. He wanted to act with Dilip Kumar. That is all. Let's not go loking for offence where none was intended. Javed admitted later that the film would have done better if some other lesser known actor had done the role of the son. As for 'giving away all the accolades to Dilip Kumar', I do not think that is true. I think Amitabh more than held his own against the thespian. A good actor is rarely 'past his prime' especially if he is doing roles that are commensurate with his age. And Dilipsaab was definitely playing his age.

    Let's not conflate being a fan of one with having to hate another.

  20. Aasheesh Kumar25 June 2012 at 22:04

    Shakti was a commercial failure.The collections dipped after first week itself. Ramesh Sippy could not produce the magic of Sholay.He let the audience down. It is said that Amitabh was so angry about his role that he did not work with Ramesh Sippy till 9 years,when he acted in Akyela.
    Also it is said that Amitabh's scenes were deleted at behest of Dilip Kumar who feared being overshadowed by Amitabh.
    Shakti was a boring film and was a victim of cheap politics played by Writers,Director and "The Great" Dilip Kumar.
    Amitabh kept a dignified silence. But why ? He was taken for a ride.Best actor award to Dilip Kumar was like rubbing salt in his wounds. Later Javed Akhtar agreed that Amitabh's role was weak as compared to Dilip.Makes you wonder why Amitabh agreed to do such a role,and that too at peak of his career.Nobody could touch him then.
    In all Shakti promised much,but delivered little. A damp squib indeed.Such a lousy movie.

  21. Aasheesh, you already made your point a month ago. I agree that Shakti was a commercial film, but I do not agree that it was a lousy movie. As for 'letting the audience down', that is also a subjective judgement. No one makes a film wanting it to be any less than their previous one. Javed is on record that they made a mistake in offering this film to Amitabh. The film would have been a bigger success if someone lesser known had played Vijay's role. But Amitabh agreed because he wanted to act opposite his idol. Period. I still think that Shakti was a powerful movie, and one that Amitabh should still be proud of having on his resume. He was fantastic. So was Dilip Kumar.

  22. Aasheesh Kumar26 June 2012 at 00:46

    Hi Anu.Thanks for having me here. I am only saying that Ramesh Sippy failed to lift his standards to Sholay level.Somewhere i feel The Director,Scriptt Writers,and Dilip Kumar were on a ego trip to cut Amitabh to size,and they suceeded.But it resulted in movie crashing at box office.Amitabh was gullible to fall to such a conspiracy.Also at that stage Dilip Kumar would have wanted to work with Superstar Amitabh,and not other way round.Amitabh failed to read the plot,like Rajesh Khanna was done in Namak Haram by Amitabh Bachchan.
    No wonder Amitabh never worked with scheming Dilip Kumar again.Amitabh was recovering from illness post his accident,and hence could not see the rushes of his movie.I am sure he considers it the worst
    decision of his career,his public idolising of Dilip Kumar notwithstanding.

  23. Look, we have enough conspiracy theorists around, let's not add to them. It had nothing to do with superstardom - Amitabh signed Shakti because he had never had a chance to work with Dilip Kumar, his idol. Ramesh Sippy has never been able to duplicate Sholay's success. And Amitabh never worked with Sippy because Sippy didn't make a movie that needed him - Sagar was not a film that called for Bachchan, and I cannot see Amitabh doing Bhrashtachar with Rekha.

    Shakti was Dilip Kumar's film through and through, and Amitabh knew it when he signed it. It was the media then, that went to town pitting one formidable talent against another. And I still think that it was a fantastic film, one that deserved much more acclaim and box-office success than it did. But let's agree to disagree, shall we?

  24. Aasheesh Kumar26 June 2012 at 16:11

    Hi Anu. It is clear the script writer created a weak character,and the Director agreed to. It. Amitabh did get to shoot some powerful scenes,but they were deleted too. You have already said this in earlier comments. Why would Amitabh play such a jaded role at peak of his career ? Just to work with Dilip Kumar whose career was now restricted to play a character role only ? This sounds illogical. Amitabh had become so big by then that few directors,and writers were begining to feel insecure as they felt power slipping out of their hands.After all there was never a phenomenon like Amitabh Bachchan before.So they decided to cut him to size.
    Amitabh looked so tired and muzzled in the film.Where was the "josh". ? There was no comedy scene of his .He was just responding to Dilip Kumar like a puppet.In fact he looked like an extra ! I am sure he would never do such a role at peak of his career . It was an honour for Dilip Kumar to work with Superstar ,and not the other way round ! Amitabh would have never agreed to work like an extra against ageing and stiff Dilip Kumar who just delivered dialogues standing like a cardboard cutout ! Where were the actipn scenes of Amitabh ? Why Shakti did not have action ? To suit Dilip Kumar ? It was all petty politics .
    I am sure he was promised much but ditched later by Director,Script Writer,and scheming Dilip Kumar. Incidentally Ramesh Sippy was a total flop after Shakti.He was finished as a film maker .Without Amitabh he was a failure.Even much hyped Sagar did good business only in Metro cities.
    In one of the interviews Amitabh has said that he trusted the Director in Shakti.He was so annoyed that they never worked for 8 years after that.i am sure there were plenty of scripts available but Amitabh was never falling in the trap again.He was hurt real bad and it showed.

  25. Aasheesh, why did Amitabh agree to work with Dilip even though the latter was not 'hero' any more? Because he had a chance to work with his idol. The same reason that SRK was so enthused to work with Amitabh in Mohabattein even though, at *that* time, Amitabh was a has-been after the ABCL debacle.

    Why didn't Shakti have comedy scenes? Because the film would have been a washout if the script had been diluted with extraenous stuff. Amitabh has done many, many films without comedy or action. For instance, Trishul had no comedy whatsoever, neither did Kaala Patthar. Bemisal had no action scenes.

    I loved Shakti; I thought this was one of Amitabh's best performances because even his tired, jaded look worked with his character's cynicism. For the rest of it, let's agree to disagree.

  26. Aasheesh Kumar26 June 2012 at 16:52

    Hi Anu .Our perspectives are somewhat different. Amitabh was promised something different than the end result. His scenes were deleted to suit Dilip Kumar.He didn't need to work with Dilip Kumar so desperately.Else he would have done it much earlier.
    In the end Ramesh Sippy got the Best Film award.Dilip Kumar got Best Actor Award. And Amitabh ? A big zero. How could you term his performance as fantastic when there was nothing for him to do ? He hardly had any role.The film starts with Dilip Kumar,ends with Dilip Kumar,and just has loads of boring Dilip Kumar in the movie.That is why it flopped so badly .Fans wanted to see Superstar Amitabh Bachchan,and not a stiff character artist like Dilip Kumar.
    Amitabh is too much of a gentleman to air his differences in public,and neither would he stoop to a low level to win Best Actor award.His class is different.

  27. Aasheesh Kumar4 July 2012 at 23:40

    Farz Aur Kanoon of Jeetendra did better business than Shakti in 1982.Shakti. was such a lousy movie.Not at all etertaining.

  28. Sigh You have repeated the same thing four times now. I get it. I really, really do. You didn't like Shakti. You thought it was not entertaining at all.

    I liked the movie. You didn't. Can we please leave it at that?

  29. Thanks a lot for the honest review and acknowledging AB as an actor first and superstar later. But I have to tell you something. Even after the supposedly strong deleted scenes AB character was etched up superbly. I have watched this movie at least 50 times, many a times in theatre. I can recount the strong never seen AB scenes on and on. The best is when he visits his home after his mother's death. Who could have afforded to play a 5 min scene without any dialogue with such aplomb? It is surprising to know that SJ thought any other actor could have done justice to such scenes. The last 40 seconds of Jaane kaise song is superb with both of them looking super hot. All the clash scene between father son duo were great. Why can't we have an AB playing a character in a film. Why he has to do comedy and fights in every movie that he does. As you have rightly said we have failed to to pay this actor some of his dues.i think some of his better acted movies have flopped. You can also include agneepath and main azaad hoon

  30. Thanks for visiting, Parag, and commenting. I too wish that Amitabh would be given roles that are commensurate with his talent.

  31. Your review is right on except I think Shakti is a much better movie than Trishul precisely because of the great acting. Shakti's story or even direction is old and tired but boy,these two giants were remarkable. But with the slight edge for Dillip Kumar since Amithabh had already played the same part many times before so presumably had perfected by then. Where Dillip was some what new to that role and had never worked with the director.

  32. Sir I like your sense of humor !

  33. :) Not if you had to read the same thing half a dozen times.

  34. Oh, I agree about the acting. I only compared the scripts, and personally, I think Trishul was a far tighter script. But oh, the acting. This is one of my favourite AB movies.

  35. Absolutely ,I can't believe all the comments on how the movie was biased to DK. I thought both had great parts. Shakti and Zanjeer are still my favorite AB movies. Amitabha and DK are really great Dillip' s portrayal of the prince in Mughel Azaam is one of the most complex and layered acting I have ever seen. Have you seen Ankheen. It's a fairly average movie but Amithabh has a negative role. And you can see the actor come out. He blows the screen away. Also he was tremendous in PAA(?) he plays a thirteen year old. I know it sounds bad but he is really good. His brand is some what tarnished now but when he gets a juicy part he can really deliver.

  36. Loved AB in Aankhen and in Paa - I thought he did a great job in both. Give him a good script and a good director, and he delivers even today. I just wish he wouldn't do so many advertisements.

    I liked Dilipsaab. Liked him in his serious roles; liked him in his light ones. I thik he is a great actor.

  37. They both were restricted by their commercial image but given the opportunity they would really chomp at the bite. I haven't watch too many DK movies but Mughule Aazaam really made me realize how complex and intelligent of an actor he was during his prime.

  38. Sorry ,I don't know why my replies to you are not posting under yours. I guess I should not post under mail received but the actual comment. I am on iPad and not my computer.

  39. Agree totally about them being confined by their images. Which is a shame, come to think of it. For DK, I would highly recommend Footpath, Kohinoor, Andaz, Amar...

  40. If you come to the blog, and post under my response (as you seem to have done with this comment of yours), it will post in a thread.


Back to TOP