ending


i think the ending cud have been much better if saif ali khan was killed by he's father ekalvya(amitabh bachan) in the end. the goody goody ending that the son still remained alive ruined the whole taste of the movie for me,
also i think boman irani(though he acted wel), ws miscast in the movie, i suppose there werent ne other actor who cud have played it, and jackie shroff over acted a bit, the dialouges were already very dramatic nd jacjie didnot need to module he;s voice in sucha dramatic way to make it sound gud, it just sounded artificial,
but i must say the movie had excellent camera work, and gud direction except for the end.

reply

Eklavya's killing Harsh would not have been "anti-goody-goody"; it would have gone completely against the whole damn point of the film. (That point being, actions should be taken in accordance with rationality and logic; not per customs written but meaningless.) As for the very ending, maybe it got a little too comical... but, whatever.

reply

totally agree

reply

I personally believe that without changing the meaning of the ending, they could've tweaked the story to enhance the presentation of the ending.

reply

Not only is that ending the point of the movie (though I did not see it coming), but every strand in the "goody-goody" tie-up of details at the end is foreshadowed in the movie and directly and meaningfully reinforces the point about true dharma flowing from reason.

That each person chooses their actions without (much) caring what the consequences will be for themselves is also part of the overall theme.

It may be too happy for some, but it was not just tacked on for viewer ratings, but carefully crafted. I will grant that it took me a second run through to see this clearly, but great literature sometimes does take a second or third reading to allow one to see the way the pieces interconnect. Eklavya stands up well to watching more than once.

reply