I read so many reviews bout old agneepath being amazing n new1 isn't close enough.
So I saw 1st one first, my god its bad except very few parts of the story. Loose direction, overly melodramatic,weak script n bad bad acting. overacting all d way, every1, let it be mithun or rohini hattangadi or I'm sad to say Mr. Bacchan too. Only good acting in movie was by Danny I must say.
Yes there are few other good points like twist of Archana Puran Singh used against kancha(which was again left uncashed). Mauritius scenes were good.
@ugotparth, It was as u say all bout dialogues, but thats only thing made it CULT not the entire movie,
we must not forget Mr Bacchan WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY PUBLIC for the role at that time, HIS DOOM STARTED WITH THIS VERY PERFORMANCE. THE MOVIE WAS FLOP ON BOX OFFICE. HE DID NOT RISE TILL KBC IN 2000.
Wen u compare it to newer version, its lot better, its not a must watch movie for me but acting by Hrithik compared to Bacchan is subtle. N Rishi Kapoor is awesome. Best thing they did was to cut the mithun part n intro Rouf Lala character.
Older one does not show how Vijay Chouhan became such great gangster, its very unconvincing. He jus arrives out of nowhere n screws every1,
NEWER version has it covered very well.
Probably rise of Vijay is BEST PART OF MOVIE. only best part.
ya but after that NEW movie looses grip, I think 2nd half happened just to be true to original Agneepath. They could have made plot bit brilliant by NEW Vijay as calculative he is, to screw Kancha by his tactics. (old Vijay was Rajanikantish --ghusso aur marro u r immune-- types).
IS IT A CLASSIC MOVIE??, IMO the remake(by SAME producers) made older1 more classic,
A frnd, frustated after watching New one, told me that I must see old one(which he had not seen since he was kid) he said 'it was ahead of its time' , later I read on wikipedia it was a comment by sanjay Dutt in an interview.
:) I'm sure u got my point !!
reply
share