Why Satyajit Ray?

Apart from the names of some of the principle characters and a plot line from "Seemabaddha" there is no connection with films of Satyajit Ray. The style itself is far different from Satyajit Ray. IMO, the problem with such films is, in spite of the relevance, "emptiness of life spent in pursuit of material gains" is such an old theme that unless a director presents it differently, the film is bound to be boring despite good acting and decent production values. Tota Roychowdhury and Saswata Chatterjee were decent in their respective roles. The rest (except for Kaushik Ganguly) were passable. The role of Charu should have been handled by an artist with a better range of expressions. Such a central character needed a far more dynamic presentation instead of a listless Joya Ahsan.
The director needs to study the Satyajit Ray films far more carefully to truly understand how a hood screen play is written. Shyamalendu in "Seemabaddha" was a decent man trying to do things decently (mostly). This aspect was drilled so well in the minds of the viewer (his good looks and demeanor helped) that, when we discover what he's done to save his company, we internalize his moral downfall and make it our own. Therefore we leave the cinema hall as if we have lost a part of our own morality. The problem with "Aborto" is we are already disconnected with Shyamal to feel sorry for what happens to him in the end except for a validation of his fate for pure academic reasons. We had by then already intuited the ending by which time the pay off has lost its impact.