Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.

My Grade: F

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Now, admittedly, I'm no ardent student of the genre. As a matter of fact, I've tended always to shy away from Westerns because, in spite of all their critical cachet as America's primal stories (or whatever), they seem to me to forever devolve into tiresome retreads of either "shoot up the Injuns," "the big gunfight," or "Hey, let's form a posse!" In other words, it always seemed to me a genre so rooted in and tied to convention, that it left precious little room for surprise or originality. (And yes, I HAVE seen at least some of the so-called "greats", and unapologetically lump them into this negative assessment - including Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, My Darling Clementine, and of course the infamous [but profoundly dull] Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone teamups in the '60s.)

But when I saw this movie on TV - as part of a commemorative Jimmy Stewart weekend upon his death - I finally GOT IT: I understood, at least in theory, what the Western mythos has to offer as a serious thematic preoccupation (aside from just action and thrills). It is the push-pull between lawlessness and order; the American West represented freedom, but also the prospect of the wild, the untamed. Respectable folk could get hurt out there. Which, of course, meant that perhaps - just perhaps - it wasn't meant for respectable folk, and that the only residents should be the amoral and the shifty, those who dispensed justice strictly from the barrel of their revolvers, and where kill or be killed would ever be the law of the land. In such an environment, of course, the true heroes are the ones who are ornery and free-spirited enough to be out there in the first place (and so reject "society," at least as it manifested itself on the Eastern seaboard), and yet have enough sense of justice to believe that a society based on chaos and fear just IS NOT RIGHT. Catching and examining that disparity between law and disorder IN THE MAIN CHARACTER HIMSELF is, I believe (after seeing this movie), the highest and truest goal of any Western. Sadly, it is so often not the case, as the white hats are completely white, the black ones completely black (and let's not even get started talking about the Indians, ok) and there is precious little shades of gray in between.

Not in this one. Jimmy Stewart plays a blatant fortune hunter who follows the trail of miners before him into the Alaskan wilderness to prospect for gold. He is joined in this by his lifelong buddy, played by Walter Brennan (perhaps the Western cliche character to end them all - but nevertheless enjoyable here, as always) - and no one else. Pointedly, they are out for themselves, and while Stewart displays his patented charm (come on, we could never really dislike the guy, now could we?), we are left with little doubt that his is basically a self-centered, self-interested character: none of his "Gosh" or "Oh golly gee" humanism is allowed to come through. Or, rather, it has to be EARNED, by the end of the picture, in the way I described above. He must confront the lawlessness in himself, and weigh it against the need for order and justice which are so blatantly lacking in the border town which serves as the miners' starting point on their gold dust trail. This town is ruled tightly by its wicked sheriff, Mr. Gannon, played by John McIntire in one of the best "bad guy" performances I've ever seen. He comes on with so much charm and humor, and has such a relaxed and interesting rapport with Stewart, that it actually takes awhile to recognize that he *is* the bad guy - so that when it finally sinks in, it does so with double force. Further, by establishing a type of breezy (if necessarily guarded) camaraderie between McIntire and Stewart, the film plays up the notion of how close in temperament they really are - and so how far a moral distance Stewart must walk by the end of the film.

I won't go through all the twists and turns the plot takes - see those for yourself (as well as the rugged and gorgeous Alaskan scenery - filmed on location, mind you, not cheap painted stills that the studio made up). What's key here is how much this story focuses upon character, with great dialogue and character interaction substituting for gunplay much of the time - although the film has just enough action and adventure to prevent it from ever being static (read: "talky"). Definitely one of the greatest performances I've seen from Stewart, showing he could play the renegade, the "man's man" just as convincingly as the decent and upright guy next door. If anything, in fact, his "everyman" qualities lend greater strength to his characterization, making him seem less mythic or overblown - -like, say, Eastwood or John Wayne - and more a three-dimensional personage. His relationship with Brennan is well-played: understated, but nevertheless touching (with a faint suggestion of George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" - an altogether different type of "western").

I certainly have more Westerns to see, but this is for now my favorite, and the yardstick by which I will necessarily judge all the others. It deserves to be much better known and appreciated than it is.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
The problems with Nikhil Advani's Salaam-e-Ishq are many. A one-line concept that looks good on paper (which also worked in an earlier English film - Love Actually) goes terribly wrong thanks to inept and shallow writing. A well-intentioned idea gets crushed to smithereens under the weight of its own gargantuan ambition. A director so completely besotted by his own much applauded first film goes overboard with the devices that worked in his earlier film (Kal Ho Na Ho) - try counting the number of times the device of split screens is used in this flick. The problem is - what worked fabulously in Kal Ho Na Ho were the emotional excesses of the Karan Johar school of film-making, but here, 'emotion' doesn't quite grace us with its appearance on the screen - no, not even cursorily. The writer/ director gives us 'six relationships with one common problem - love', but where is the intensity, where is the depth, where is the 'emotion'? A 'tribute to love' sans emotion? And one that goes on and on and on...... Nah, it just cannot work!

In my opinion, the basic requirement for a portmanteau film like this to work is that not only should each individual story be 'complete', it should - in some way or the other - follow the graph of the traditional three-act structure (screen writing guru, Syd Field's Paradigm). That's the real reason why Salaam-e-Ishq didn't work for me. None of the stories had any depth or a roller-coaster ride of emotional ups and downs one expects in mainstream Hindi cinema. Also, the linkage between some of the stories seemed tenuous and very forced. It's not clear what Salman Khan is doing at Ayesha Takia's wedding. If he was required to be present at the wedding scene for a neat wrap-up, why not conjure a few more coincidences and bring the other two couples also to the wedding? That would be neater.

But yes, some of the stories did have a lot of promise. For one, the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story tries to address a very real situation - mid-life crisis, but its journey is so linear that you're left wondering if it was really an issue. Similarly, the problem of commitment in the Akshaye Khanna-Ayesha Takia story is also true to life. If only it was developed a little better. I felt that the more promising stories in this mish-mash were told from the male point of view, which is fine, but it brings down the emotional quotient of these stories because the female characters - Juhee Chawla and Ayesh Takia in particular - have all the depth of a half-filled bath tub. Wasn't this film supposed to be about '12 different lives'? Now the actors. John Abraham still needs to learn acting, while Vidya Balan is dependable and endearing as ever. Anil Kapoor gets a role written just for him but sometimes overplay the boredom of his character. Since she didn't get a meaty character to portray, Juhee Chawla uses her charming smile and natural acting style to cover up for it. Akshaye Khanna is fine despite going a trifle over-the-top in a few scenes. Ayesha Takia has nothing much to do, but she does remind us that she's the same girl who surprised us with her bravura performance in Dor. Govinda tries to make up for that HUGE mistake called Bhagam Bhag, and succeeds to a large extent.

That brings me the most irritating track of the film (which unpardonably ends up hogging the maximum screen time) - Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra. The track is irritating mainly because of them. But I must credit them for their consistency. They're consistently BAD all through the film. Priyanka could well be the next queen of hamming - I don't buy the crap that her role (that of an 'item girl') required her to act over-the-top. Somebody should tell her the difference between being flamboyant because the character demands it and downright hamming. If you've seen Rakhi Sawant (who seems to be the inspiration behind this role) in her interviews and Bigg Boss you'll know what I mean. I strongly feel that if Nikhil Advani had taken Rakhi Sawant in this role rather than a bigger star like Priyanka, the story would have worked better. Salman Khan's phony accent is.....well, Shannon Esra's Hindi is less accented than Salman's.

To be fair to the director, he does manage to add some good directorial touches to the film. I particularly liked the use of grey as the predominant color in the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story as a metaphor for their boring existence, and the bright colors that come into the story with the arrival of the other woman. But will anyone choose to paint their house in varying, depressing shades of grey? That's acceptable cinematic license I would say. But when the film runs almost for 4 hours, it almost feels like the director is trying too hard to give the audience a glimpse of his 'touch' in an endlessly meandering montage of uninspiring sequences.

Maybe Nikhil Advani wants us to sit in the theatre for as long as is humanly possible- pata nahin, kal ho na ho.