Kabul Express
Superficial, simplistic, and mediocre

It is a well photographed and witty film. It has a beginning, middle, and an end. However, Kabeer Khan relies too heavily on humour to carry the narrative forward and misses out on the details that could have added greater credibility and depth to rescue this simplistic celluloid tale from degenerating into mediocre Bollywood bunkum. It is not downright ludicrous though. However, Kabeer almost turns the characters in the film into comedians and caricatures in his zeal to generate laughter every two seconds of the film's footage.
 

Why do our filmmakers suffer from this performance anxiety? They work at extracting three kinds of reactions from their audiences generally -- laughter, tears, and sexual arousal. Since laughter can be heard clearly and loudly, jokes and gags become preferred tricks of a young screenwriter's trade.

A chopper drops an Indian TV journalist and his cameraman in some remote part of Afghanistan, with their baggage consisting of two rucksacks that contain their filming equipment (thrown down like a sack of potatoes), tapes, denim pants, underwear, toothpaste, cigarettes, dumbbells, etc. Thereafter, they travel to Kabul in a tank being used as a taxi. Why? Just because the filmmaker felt it was a dramatic and funny beginning and suited the title Kabul Express well? Incidentally, rest of their journey in the hilly terrain takes place in a Toyota with no tank taxis in sight anywhere.

Why do you sacrifice authenticity and credibility for a few funny punch lines? Why do you presume that reality is less dramatic and poetic and enjoyable than a gag and a joke and fake emotionalism? You could have had it all, while opting for the straightforward and simple options like the official posting of the journalists to cover the post 9/11 Afghanistan and their attempts to get the interview of captured Taliban fighters leading to a new understanding of human nature. It could have been an important film like ‘No Man’s Land’ on the Afghan situation but for such follies.
 
 

 There are so many of these easily avoidable goofs and gaffes in the film. One does not feel up to recounting them now. And even if you do, what and whose purpose will be served?
 

It is like our hockey players who can dribble for hours, but cannot score. Our filmmakers can light up a scene and place the camera to shoot in Hollywood style but there is very little sense and substance in what they do. Their work lacks integrity, thanks to their borrowed sensibilities and aesthetic understanding. It is an amalgam of jokes, punch lines, hot scenes, cheap stunts, bare bodies, item numbers, politically correct themes, scenic locales, and tear jerking moments that is on offer in the name of cinema.

When the most memorable, breathtaking, and awesome shot in a film turns out to be the boobs of a phirangi actress,  we know that the scenario is quite bleak and screwed up. And what is it in Dhoom 2 that leaves a solid impression on the audience? Ask a real man and a lesbian and the answer will be boobs, butts and a lot of legs. Whereas, the chiselled torso of Hritik Roshan was the main attraction for heat seeking women and gays.

Wah cinema, aah cinema, ooh cinema, ooohoh cinema, kkkkkhallas cinema.

Looks like the great art form is getting reduced to the status of a cheap masturbation and giggling device. What a waste of precious film footage, human intelligence, and…semen!

RKS

Archive of Film Reviews & Other Issues