MovieChat Forums > Don (1978) Discussion > Highly exaggerated IMDB reviews of Don (...

Highly exaggerated IMDB reviews of Don (1978)

posted 17 years ago by ThirtyOneSeconds
27 replies | jump to latest

After having seen the movie, Don (1978), I was dismayed and somewhat surprised by the many favourable comments supporting the “greatness” of this movie. Suffice to say, many of the IMDB reviews given for this movie seem absurdly and unjustifiably over-the-top. I have not yet seen the latest Don remake but this topic is in no way a comparison with the newer Don version starring Shah Rukh Khan, but instead an emphasis on what, I believe, is the latest trend of giving overly-stated and heavily-biased reviews of the old Don movie.

Although I am an avid Amitabh fan, I must emphasize that his portrayal of the title character, due partly to the lack of character detail, was highly unconvincing and failed to instill any empathy whatsoever. Even his bomb-containing suit-case antics failed to prove to me his worthiness of the title “Don.” As for the majority of the actors in this movie, they could be defined as lignified walking sticks ie “wooden.” This movie is generally very feeble on all fronts; appalling scene transitions, weak dialogue, inadequate delivery, ineffective plots, etc. Of course, this film is littered with tear-rolling, dramatic moments, such as Pran’s infamous tight-rope walking scene which, unfortunately for me had the unintended effect of making me roll on the floor, crying out in laughter. Surely, “great” moments like this will be difficult to imitate in the newer Don remake.

If this movie excels in anything, then it is simply Amitabh’s animated and brilliant characterisation of Vijay, particularly in the song-and-dance routine of "O khaike paan banaraswala." Only those moments are worthy of viewing. Aside from that, the movie is mediocre at best and is most certainly overrated due mostly to Amitabh’s presence. If the many propitious comments posted for this movie could be summed up in one word, then “exaggeration” would be that word. Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

[–] amiya_gupta 17 years ago

I totally agree. I'm willing to forgive the directors for the poor editing; the stunts must have been state of the art at the time. The major disappointment was the script - it left me expecting one more final twist which never came. Not sure I want to watch the 2006 remake anymore.

[–] saturn-topaz 17 years ago

Well I would say that the Movie is not exactly as what they have put it out to be..
However, its very clear that no other person in the world can portray the role of Don in as "stylish" a manner as Amitabh did.

The truth hurts.. but digest the fact that Amitabh did justify the role of both Don and Vijay very well.. And pray, do not forget that this movie is a marvellous achievement in the year 1978, when all these characters/picturization of such roles were very new to the Indian film industry.

Do not forget that Amitabh set a trend through his movies. His movies are not the normal triangular love stories where a guy's engaged and the hero comes in between, as most, if not all of SRK's movies are (E.g: DDLJ, KKHH, Pardes, DTPH, Darr, .. well the list goes on).

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

A comparison with Shah-Rukh Khan is quite unnecessary as this has no bearing on the abysmal performance of Amitabh’s “Don.” Amitabh is, undoubtedly, an actor of exceptional talent and ability and has indeed set some innovative trends in Hindi film cinema. However, as great and legendary as Amitabh may be, justification was certainly not done, in this case, to the role of the title character “Don” which was very uninspiring, uninvigorating, stagnant, and very much lacking in delivery and depth. The so called “stylish” manner in which you describe his performance is somewhat incomplete and should be more accurately defined as “stylishly crass.”

[–] solarstone2002 17 years ago

okay this is not a masterpiece of cinema but we should analyze this filme according to other prismas, it's kitschy music, it's kitschy pop, it's kitschy style of filming. I love the high saturation of the 70's films, that kitschy-glamourous look of that decade, that's what I expect to find each time i sit on the couch in order to watch this filme and nothing else. And Yeh Mera Dil Pyaar Ka Deewana is a great videoclip that should be a referent of an era, and other memorable musical items such as Jis Ka Muhje. who cares the quality of the film! i love that exaggerated zooms focusing on the actors faces each time somebody says something important, that music...those wigs and haircuts. I cant help it I love the 70's! And I love Helen.

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 8 years ago

"which was very uninspiring, uninvigorating, stagnant, and very much lacking in delivery and depth."

How much screen time did the character have anyway? It is Vijay who was rather crass. But, he was meant to be so.

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

Exactly which state of the art stunts are you referring to? A clarification would be much appreciated.

[–] amiya_gupta 17 years ago

The car chase, the climb up the side of the building etc.

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

If one was to feel generous, the stunts you mention could be described as "well-performed" but to elevate these mediocre moments as "state of the art" is surely over-generosity on your part. I am very much intrigued by what you term as "state of the art." Exactly, what leads you to suggest that these stunts were "state of the art"? More precisely, what criteria did you use to define the term "state of the art?"

These stunts that you infer to be "state of the art", and which may seem remarkable on the surface, are simply due to competent editing, rather than any extraordinary physical or technical feats.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

Agreed, in some respects, that this is a cult Hindi cinema classic but the remarks concerning this film are far too complimentary. After having read your descriptive, albeit rather brief, critical review of Don (1978), statements such as “Action sequences boast of an awesome car chase in the first half - it can give the chases in BULLITT a run for their money - and a spectacular climactic fight” is a prime example of this. Admittedly, I had some trouble recollecting this “Awesome” car chase on the level of “Bullitt” but do vaguely remember the notorious “Don” being eagerly pursued by an anxious police officer. As satisfying as the car chase sequence may have been, deeming it to be an awesome sequence comparable to Bullitt is quite a bold but, more accurately preposterous and absurd statement. As for the “spectacular climactic fight” I am not aware of there having been one, unless of course you are referring to the “spectacular” circus show towards the conclusion of the movie as the defining climactic rumble.

As you so rightly pointed out, a high IMDB rating need not necessarily equate to “classic” cinema, assuming that the IMDB ratings are a reflection of the spectatorial enjoyment of a movie rather than its evaluation from a technical point of view. With that in mind, a badly produced movie could still well lead to a good degree of viewing pleasure. However, what I find perturbing here are not the ratings as you had suggested but the gross overstatements made in some of the reviews regarding this movie.

Indeed, referencing Hollywood and Michael Bay as mass-producers of cheesy films does not justify the appalling or “cheesy” production of Don (1978). “Cheesiness” or other savoury type definitions is no excuse for severe flaws in fundamental aspects of movie-making. But, if as you say “it works more on cheesy entertainment level” and “cheesiness” is the criteria for defining the entertainment level of this particular movie, then suffice to say that there are far “cheesier” movies that would put “Don” to complete shame. The overstatements concerning this movie, which I suspect could partly be attributed to avid or die-hard Amitabh fans, need to be put in check. With such generous reviews, I wouldn’t be too surprised if we soon receive posts to the effect of Amitabh being “the greatest suit-case thrower” in Hindi cinema.

[–] cykchic 17 years ago

To be completely honest, I think what made this Don such a (I shudder to use the word for fear that someone might bash me up) 'classic' is because of the spirit of the film. Sure, there were things about the film that annoyed me. There were definite loopholes. The part where Vijay sang "Main Hoon Con, Main Hoon Con, Main Hoon Don!" in that ridiculous tiger mask was really bad, especially since he was supposed to be Don, cool, mysterious and all that jazz.

But for a 70's movie, I think it's a legendary film. It's the sort of film that you grow up watching, your parents grew up watching and you know your kids will grow up watching. I don't think I can coherently articulate this, but this movie was Fun to watch, and it looked like it was Fun to make, and I think that's more than enough to close an eye on the flaws and 'airbrush' it a little in our memories, if you will.

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

By the expression, “spirit of the film”, I presume you are referring to your fond familial reminiscence of this “fun” film. Resorting to ethereal “film spirits”, however, still fails to provide a satisfying explanation for the many favourable reviews of this poorly executed movie.

Indeed, the standards of film-making were far different to what they are now. However, well-produced and well-thought out Hindi films of this decade did exist (obviously not including “Don”). A most notable movie that stands out is “Sholay” which excelled in many areas of film-making. Clearly then, excellent film-making standards, which Don miserably fails to adhere to, were certainly not lacking in this era. Although “Don” was one of a few movies (but not the first) to foray into the “gangster” genre in Hindi cinema, this does not justify its cinematic greatness.

Judging from cast interviews of other movies, I am quite certain that most movie-making teams in the film industry generally do have “fun” making movies and this assumption shouldn’t be at all surprising if they had chosen the film-making business as their vocation in life. For that reason, “Don” being a “fun” film to make could not have been an exception in this regard.

As much fun as you may have had in viewing this movie which I realise is a purely subjective experience and a view with which I cannot contend with, surely “closing an eye on the flaws” (which I might add constituted a major portion of the Don (1978) movie), leaves serious doubts about the objectiveness and credibility of reviews for “fun” films you have viewed in the past, although strangely enough, you neglected to do any “eye closing” in your last post as you clearly point out some flaws in the Don (1978) movie. If this “airbrushing” and “eye closing” technique you mention when viewing “fun” movies is applied by other reviewers in their justification of the greatness of “Don” then this may help to explain the rather incredulous reviews of this movie.

An example of over-crediting (which is fast becoming a common sight) is evident in your previous post, “It's the sort of film that you grow up watching, your parents grew up watching and you know your kids will grow up watching”. Clearly, for people who do not consider this to be a “fun” film or even a film of any substantial quality, such a vague and ill-defined statement is a little far-fetched.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cykchic 17 years ago

Whoa, chill.
You said in the beginning of the thread:
"If the many propitious comments posted for this movie could be summed up in one word, then “exaggeration” would be that word. Does anyone agree or disagree with this?"

When you ask a question, then it's only fair that you listen to other views without analysing their every word, because I don't know about you, but I don't read my messages over and over trying to see if I've subconsciously left a contradiction somewhere that can be inferred if you read between the lines.

But fair enough. There were definitely better films in that era, and yes, Sholay was indeed one of them. I'm not discrediting that, but neither did i "overcredit" the film, as you so very kindly put it. While you may not have enjoyed the film, and believe it to be "poorly executed", do remember that this is a film that is still well loved by people (although evidently, not by all), and so something that may seem totally ridiculous to you may seem really good to someone else. Also, perhaps fun was the wrong word in the context. I just didn't expect to have my head bitten off for what was thought to be a harmless description of the film. For that, I apologize. Perhaps I should have articulated that better.

As per your question, I was merely making a comment to try and explore a possible explanation for the "exaggeration" of Don (1978) reviews. In any case, I was actually agreeing that the comments are relatively exaggerated.

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

Please do not misunderstand me, as I was merely expounding my views on a post that to me was of great interest and was not in anyway an attempt to help myself to any cranial delicacies. Since the movie experience is entirely subjective, your enjoyment of this movie is a moment that cannot be taken away from you. Thus, I completely understand the concept of "may seem totally ridiculous to you may seem really good to someone else" and is the reason for our wide range of diverse and often conflicting opinions. Your active input into this post is very much appreciated. However, there is just one simple question I have on my mind regarding Don (1978) which you could help to clarify for me. What did you mean by "spirit of the film"? Aside from the music, what aspects of this movie did you enjoy?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

My opinion of this dismally and incompetently produced movie should already be apparent in this sentence as well as the many remarks and comments already posted. I hope I do not appear to be too dogmatic in my assertion of this being a rather over-credited, over-hyped movie and critically over-blown (pardon the pun) movie. To answer your query, I am no longer thinking of writing a review as I am already in the process of writing a thorough and, possibly somewhat unorthodox review of this dreadful and disappointing movie.

[–] simon_booth 17 years ago

I certainly review and rate films on the criteria of entertainment/enjoyment (not always the same thing) - and I still regard DON as one of the most entertaining films I've ever seen. Viewed from a technical perspective it's clearly not 'good film-making', but a technically accomplished film can easily be a chore to watch and the reverse is just as true - Amitabh's charisma and the sheer silly FUN of it all is what makes DON a genuine classic for me. Sorry that you didn't get the same experience from the film, but I don't think it's anything either of us need to apologise for!

[–] rvnrr 17 years ago

it is in only imdb that i find people critising old don. i saw it quite a few times and twice on screen .
The movies in those days became popular not by special effects or candyfloss value but by some hard hitting or witty dialogues. it was as entertaining as all te other big b movies made at that time like Parvarish, AAA, etc. only somewhat more sleek. the baritoone voice is best plus some dialogues delivered well ("Very smart", "eiDon Pan nahin Khaate the" bahut bura karte the"). A few weeks back on Star Gold, realised Pran had some good dialogues (The scene where he walks in to the den after finding the diary).

But clearly Only guys above 30 may like this movie. like those who loved it in 78.

Plus it was the movie which was daring enough to -

- Break out of lost brothers formula
- The heroine also does some action sequences.
- Kill Amitabh in the beginning.

If a film is hot nowadays, i am sure i will hate it (Exceptions like LRMB). So, it is a clear generation gap!

[–] cykchic 17 years ago

No worries Thirty-one Seconds. Sorry if I sounded hostile in my previous message, didn't mean for it to come across that way. (:

To be completely honest, I don't even know what I truly meant by the spirit of the film. I guess, for a film from its era, it came across as something different. The dialogues, to me, weren't as stiff as some of the other films in that time (although I can't think of any at the moment). Besides, like I said before, when I was watching the film, I kept in mind the fact that it was an "old" film, and so for scenes like the car chase, I thought it was relatively good comparatively.

That also answers your next question. The action scenes were pretty good to me, although the one at the climax just got me laughing. But you know, the car chasing scenes, the scene with Pram and Amitabh when they were fighting - I thought those were awesome, personally.

But all in all, I don't think it was so much the technical details of the film, or the directing, or the script that impressed me, which was why I very vaguely referred to it as the spirit of the film.

[–] daisuke_keishirou 17 years ago

Great action sequences, yes, but did anyone else notice that Amitabh was clearly off the mark with his attacks (as in, visibly NOT connecting with his foes)?

"When you assume, it makes an ass out of you and me." -- an age-old quote...

[–] ThirtyOneSeconds 17 years ago

The action sequences were about as “great” as Amitabh’s shallow, undefined portrayal of Don. However, in addition to the choreography, incorrect camera angles and shoddy editing, may be mostly to blame for the poorly executed, fighting action sequences.

[–] mezzabotta 17 years ago

For westerners who appreciate the work of Quentin Tarantino and retro-70's funkiness, films like Don and The Great Gambler are HIGHly entertaining.

[–] underboss7000 17 years ago

Yes. To like or not to like a movie is entirely subjective. You may not have enjoyed the movie where as other would have. That depends upon the taste. Like myself, I didnt like Devdas (SRK) where as it was a big hit and everybody seemed to enjoy it. I just didnt!

What I think is that to actually rate that film one must analyze the details from the 1978 perspective. Still, you may or you may not like it.
But if IMDB says 8.0/10.0 it shows how many people liked it. And ofcourse one like the film he/she's going to have positive reviews on the film, especially he liked it very much. That's their point of view. They have right to do so, even if you think that is overrated from your perspective.
So if you don't like the movie simply right a review about it with something like 4.0/10.

Note that overrated or underrated is also subjective, because when you say movie was not good enough, those who liked it may feel that you are underrating movie (just as you feel they are overrating it)

Also, to enjoy a movie, the movie need not be precise (at lease not for every person on the earth.) so it may be lacking some 'state of art' things from your perspective, where as other may find it 'state of art' only on one parameter 'because they found it extremely entertaining ESPECIALLY in 1978'. Everybody has a right to say what they like, and they dont like.

This is not to start a flamewar or something, it is just to point out that if someone finds it classic, he/she must not be bashed (as i read in one of the post)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LeCanard 17 years ago

I believe you are taking an overly intellectual approach to reviewing this film. Don definitely has a legion of technical flaws, from obvious special effects fakery to punches that clearly were not hitting anything and beyond. I was especially amused to hear the same car-crash sound effect played three times during the car-chase sequence, but ultimately I think you have to judge a movie based upon the movie's intent, and I think it's pretty clear that the makers of this film did not intend to make a grand, grittily realistic Godfather-type gangster opus nor an artisitc statement about the dehumanizing nature of the international drug trade. It's pretty clear to me that this film intends solely to be a source of entertainment, a classic popcorn flick, and on that level it certainly succeeds. I believe the film needs to approached from a contextual standpoint, being made in the 70s when demands to make hyper-realistic effects were not as high as they are today, and when films of this type generally WERE made with a sense of fun and not a sense of realism. As another poster pointed out, Quentin Tarantino is a fan of such spectacle and has made films that clearly reflect this style. I think it's pretty clear that films do not have to be technically dazzling in order to be enjoyable, and the 1978 version of Don clearly falls into this category. Therefore, it's important to approach this film from the right mindset, to expect a film not of high dramatic value, but a film that is just a goofy joy to watch, for as a simple piece of fun, it works.

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 8 years ago

Actually, Amitabh was pretty good as the Don. There was no need to empathise with that character anyway. It is as Vijay that he targets the hoi polloi and succeeds in winning them over as one of them. But that portrayal is rather dated, while his Don is still remains suave and cool.

This was basically a 70s B movie. It was only superlative in comparison to the stuff Bollywood churned out back then.