Apropos (and I do love that word) the previous post on "Rascals"
I doubt it would compare with Janasheen ?To which I say:
Did you leave the movie mid-way?
I actually watched Janasheen
in the theatre with marut
, and yes, Rascals
doesn't quite have the same claw-your-own-eyes-out kind of painfulness that characterised Fardeen Khan's first movie (or, most of his movies since). I watched Janasheen after getting drunk, and it still was a sucky movie. I probably would have enjoyed Rascals more if I were drunk (but can't be sure - those screechy voices and the background score and the songs might have instead turned me completely mad.)
However, 'Rascals' currently has 3.5 on IMDB (though I am sure that would go up over time as more brain dead morons rate it), while Janasheen currently has a 3.7.[Spoilers ahead, but then do you really care? Go ahead, ask yourself, do you really care?]
The worst thing about Rascals is that it is not quite so bad that you would actually walk out, and it had a couple of scenes that weren't too bad (i.e., scenes that I kind of liked, for example during a bank robbery, a note is passed on to the teller, who then passes it on to her colleagues, who all misread it as 'Give us all the money, we have gum
' - yes, Ladies and Gentleman, that is about the best this movie could do). You would know how '3 Idiots' used tons of old jokes from email forwards, and somehow most of them seemed to work. Here nothing worked. Abysmal execution all the way around.
For example, there is an extended scene in a church, where people keep using euphemism. When someone else invariably responds by providing the actual swear words, the first person reply by saying that yes, that is what he meant, but he couldn't say it directly because they are after all in a church.
Now, while I probably haven't done a good job in explaining the setup, I hope you would agree that repeated use of this setup does provide a nice opportunity. You could play it out in multiple ways. You could play it at unexpected times through-out the movie, you could play it out straight a couple of times and then subvert it. But, however you play it, it would require some sense of timing in the actual execution. And they suck at that. The scene is as flat as a super-smooth surface used for 3D holographic projection.
Or consider, for example, the physical comedy. Recently when Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie met to discuss their old collaboration (Fry and Laurie Reunited), Fry mentions that one of Laurie's skills is his ability to take a fall and that 'it is much easier to hit than be hit'.[Go ahead and watch a bit of that: Starting around 3:00 minutes in this video for the context and starting around 4:00 minutes for Fry's answer.
] With the ex-macho heros doing comedy, apparently getting the timing right with hitting is difficult, and getting the timing right getting hit is impossible.
And then there is the story. As you know I have been reading some geography these days, and so I will use a geographical metaphor. You might know about inland deltas - like Okavango Delta
- where a river, trapped in an large valley might give up all pretense of effort and disappear after breaking up into increasingly smaller branches away from a lake or sea. That is what happens with this story, it meanders over pointless territories, gives up arse and turns into an inland delta. Well, almost, except that since they really couldn't really figure out what to do with the story, they tell us that the whole thing was an extended con. [And a truly frightening pun: woh 'Con' thi. - Who was she? or, She was a Con!]
Of course, it is a bloody con. They should have just given us all our money back.
And I could talk about how even the presence of Kangana and Lisa couldn't save the movie. And about how Kangana spends most of the time walking around in a bikini, but when she wears a short skirt, she has a great huge pair of black shorts on under her skirt - What The Fuck Was That?