Roger ebert's review


Chandni Chowk is a historic market place in the walled city of old Delhi, so now you understand the title of "Chandni Chowk to China," and because the plot is simplicity itself, there is nothing else to understand but its origins. This is the first Bollywood movie to get a North American release from a major studio, and was chosen, I suspect, because it is a slapstick comedy containing a lot of kung fu. That, and maybe because it stars Akshay Kumar billed as "the heartthrob of Indian cinema and current reigning king of Bollywood."

I would need to see Kumar in something other than this to understand his fame. He comes across here as a cross between Jerry Lewis and Adam Sandler, but less manic than Jerry and not as affable as Sandler. What I can understand is that his co-star, Deepika Padukone, abandoned a promising start as a badminton champion to become a model and actress. She is breathtaking, which of course is standard in Bollywood, where all the actresses are either breathtaking or playing mothers.

The story plays as though it could be remade as a Sandler comedy with no changes except for length. When you go to a movie in India, you get your money's worth, in what takes the time of a double feature. As my Mumbai friend Uma da Cunha told me, big Bollywood movies give you everything: adventure, thrills, romance, song, dance, stunts, the works. In India, when you go to the movies, you go to the movies. "Chandni Chowk to China" plays at 168 minutes, having been shortened, I learn, for the American release. It would be safe to say few viewers will complain of its brevity.

Kumar stars as Sidhu, a lowly potato and onion chopper in his father's potato pancake stand. He adores his Dada, despite the old man's propensity for kicking him so high over Delhi that he's a hazard to low-flying aircraft. As eager to please as a puppy, he has a gift for getting into trouble, but all that changes the day he finds the image of a god on one of his potatoes. This image, to my eye, makes the eBay portraits on grilled cheese sandwiches look like Norman Rockwells.

No matter. He exhibits the potato and collects donations, which are stolen by the nefarious Chopstick; meanwhile, in China, a village is menaced by an evil hoodlum named Hojo, no relation to the U.S. pancake vendor. Two villagers happen upon Sidhu in Chandni Chowk and are convinced he is the reincarnation of the mighty kung-fu warrior who saved them from bandits in times long past. Sidhu is soon lured to their village, being promised wealth and voluptuous pleasures, but is now expected to defeat Hojo, who uses his bowler hat as a flying guillotine and may plausibly be related to Odd Job.

Enter the ravishing Deepika Padukone, in a dual role of Sakhi and Meow Meow, an Indian home shopping network hostess and Chinese tigress. Kissing in public is severely frowned upon in India, so that the greatest tension in all romances comes as a heroine is maybe, just maybe, about to kiss someone. This illustrates my maxim that it is less erotic to snoggle for 60 minutes than spend 60 seconds wondering if you are about to be snoggled.

Sidhu becomes involved with both Sakhi and Meow Meow, whose surprise relationship might have been more surprising had they not been played by the same actress. There are lots of martial-arts sequences, and of course several song-and-dance numbers, including an Indian rap performance. It's done with great energy but with a certain detachment, as if nothing really matters but the energy.

"Chandni Chowk to China" won't attract many fans of kung fu -- or Adam Sandler, for that matter. The title and the ads will cause them to think for a second, an unacceptable delay for fanboys. It will appeal to the large Indian audiences in North America and to Bollywood fans in general, who will come out wondering why this movie, of all movies, was chosen as Hollywood's first foray into commercial Indian cinema. I don't know a whole lot about Bollywood, and even I could name some better possibilities.

2/4



Explosions!!! -http://www.xfire.com/video/62688/vote as cool plz

reply

Thanks, so his review made of total 4 stars, so what would the 2 mean?

reply

passable I guess.

Explosions!!! -http://www.xfire.com/video/62688/vote as cool plz

reply

"Thanks, so his review made of total 4 stars, so what would the 2 mean? "

How can you not know? 2 is half of 4. Therefore it'd equal 5 out of 10.

(Or if you want to use maths, 2 / 4 * 100 = 50. 50 / 100 * 10 = 5)

reply

Lol... its like 2.5 out of 5, which is average.

"Previously known as lesner_taker-1"

reply

Who cares what Roger Ebert thinks. So he is a famous critic. I have liked movies he disliked and hated movies he liked. It doesn't say anything about the movie itself.

He admitted he doesn't know Akshay Kumar or seen any of his other movies. That at least should be important since we all know that Akshay has a certain acting style. To compare him with Adam Sandler is just crazy. They are nothing alike.

I do agree that with this movie they hope to achieve the same succes as they did with "Kungfu Hustle". Only they seem to forget that Stephen Chow has been making movies in his particular style for many years now (So it wasn't a fluke). Also Stephen Chow's comedy is much more appealing to a broader audience since most of his humor is non-verbal.

But I must say that I am looking forward to seeing this movie. Since the combination of Akshay and Gordon Liu must amount to something great.

reply

I think the problem with Roger Ebert's review is that he (and most of the Western Audience) are used to a certain kind of style, movie and male protagonist and what India considers to be funny doesn't necessarily imply the Hollywood audience considers to be funny (and CC2C has a lot of Indian humor and Akshay's mannerism, and, bad tongues would say, his over-acting). Problem is that the movie is too Indian to appeal to the North American Audience as a whole and it's kung-fu and action sequences are not, well, good enough, I'm afraid, to make them overlook the kind of humour and the fact that the story has been told a dozen times differently. I mean, theoretically, if we want the comparison with "Kung Fu Hustle": Kung Fu Hustle has been told a dozen times (the underdog sports team facing off against the evil superstars, start to train, have setbacks and win in the end against all odds), but the cool thing was: Stephen Chow told it "differently" and looked at the soccer aspect differently by applying Kung Fu. Gurindha Chadha told the exactly same story, but looked at it from the girl/Indian view. In CC2C, the "new stuff" was missing, the different view.

Plus, the director is, I think, Nikhil Advani? His last movie was Salaam-E-Ishq, which looked good but was suffering from a weak (and sometimes ripped) script. I guess the same applies to CC2C to an extent.

Don't get me wrong: I like Akshay Kumar, Deepika Padukone and the Indian movie industry as a whole, be it Northern or Southern Cinema, and this movie, but I kinda understand why it didn't work in North America.

reply

[deleted]

Totally agree smashayre, there should of been more action, the problem is it spends too ,much time on his comic scenes than his action secenes, This film was akshay kumars long return in an action films, the action actor he originally started as, he hasn't done an action film for a decade now, and the writers are the ones that should of been blamed for this.

reply

its 2.5 out of 4 not 5, he does is rating with total of 4.

reply

acmilan2, please check the ratings of the Roger Ebert. HE GAVE 2/4. I just showed the ratings out of 5 which comes to 2.5. Its "average" rating.

"Previously known as lesner_taker-1"

reply

2/4...not bad, he could have easily said it was total rubbish but thats a decent rating for an Indian film like this...it provides a nice base for others looking for worldwide releases in the future.

reply

How can you not know? 2 is half of 4. Therefore it'd equal 5 out of 10.

(Or if you want to use maths, 2 / 4 * 100 = 50. 50 / 100 * 10 = 5)


Mathematically 2/4 is equal to 2.5/5 but I don't think ratings should work that way. For e.g. will a 4 star movie (4 out of 5 stars) be equal to a rating of 8 on IMDB?

Mathematically yes, but it's very rare for movies to get more than 4 stars. On the other hand, IMDB's 9/10 rating will seem more accurate for a 4 star movie. Otherwise, no movie will get a rating if 9 or more. If Dark Knight (or Lagaan or Godfather or any favourite movie of yours) gets 4 stars, will you only give it a 8/10 rating on IMDB? I don't think it will do justice to a movie that way. Those movies deserve more than 8.


reply