What is Wrong with Shahrukh Khan?

In `Devdaas`, Shahrukh out did the performance of Dilip Kumar. Far out did the latter.

Totally agreed! I identified this problem with Shahrukh khan with the movie ``Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Ghum`` as in that Shahrukh was the same as he was in the ``Muhabbatein``. Since the Muhabbatein, Shahrukh khan has been the same in all the movies with his larger-than-life style. I stopped watching his movies because in every movie he is ``Shahrukh Khan`` not the character of that movie. On the other hand, Aamer Khan has a different style to offer in every movie and be the character of the movie, not being ``Aamer Khan`` in every movie. Good analysis Anil!

I think SRK suffers from what has been ailing all Indian actors.............Dilip Kumar included............they sound typically themselves in film after film after initially proving their worth.
Even Chalte Chalte gave the feeling it was Shah Rukh and not Raj!
But since it was Shah Rukh, you could not help but lap it up!
Agreed that a lot rests on his shoulders but yes, its high time he makes a conscentious effort to carve a different path and experiment with roles as Aamir or Ajay.
The reviews of KHNH have been encouraging so far, in spite of the cliches, so lemme watch it for just this once and worry about what is wrong with Shah Rukh later.:)

SRK `s DEvdas was S@#$. Bhansali had a diahoria of extravangenza due to FULL support by his financer. A good director would have made 10 devdas out of the same budget. The dances were also S@#$- choreography cannot even compare Pakeeza.
Music was good- though I thought that the music arrangement and the compositions were better in HDDS.

Anil:
Sharukh Khan is an over-rated bum. He has always been acting himself, even in the early films like `Kabhi Haan, Kabhi Na`, although I think this together with `Yes Boss` and the huge flop `Duplicate` could be called his better performances.

I am surprised you say, ``This is in sharp contrast to the non-conformist, intense and edgy Shah Rukh we had come to love in ‘Deewana’, ‘Baazigar’, ‘Darr’, even ‘Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman’ - the fizz and irrepressibility of an actor devouring the screen with its nervous energy.`` I think these were non-conformist characters; if you watch his body language it is pretty much the same as in `Devdas` or `Chalte Chalte` (incidentally in `Saathiya, similar thematically to this one, Vivek Oberoi did a far better job).

Re. `Devdas, two people ruined the film -- Shahrukh Khan and Kiron Kher. Complete over-the-top performances. Dilip Kumar was far more subtle (even if he played himself, we are fortunate that he has this `suffering persona which went well with the character!) and he took a real risk with the character in `Musafir`. That was non-conformism.

I have not seen `Kal Ho Na Ho` yet.

Hello Anil . . . from my perch here . . . I think the Indian film-goer / viewer / consumer has now got access to about 80-100 channels of television at home, and tends to demand (a) instant gratification and (b) higher technical quality and (c) some amount of credibility even in dream-sci-fi situations.

And it is in these three attributes that the South Indian film industry seems to be moving rapidly ahead of the Hindi film industry. Their movies have begun to look so . . . crisp! Even without understanding the language, and allowing for heaving bosom/thundering thigh routines in the rain.

Would you agree that to a large extent, all we seem to get out of Bollywood now are:-

a) Expensive set-piece drama films, with 3% chances of doing well, regardless of PR companies.
b) Quickie similar multiple movies with 4 jokes, 3 murders, 2 love angles and 1 boring end, which seldom do well but have good PR companies.
c) ``War`` movies which would have done well if not done to death.
d) Ram Gopal Varma, with mostly the same actors.
c) Other stuff, with a 3% chance of doing well.

SRK (apart from a wierd hairstyle) would be able to transform himself better if he now thought of doing a Kamalahassan.

Just an opinion.

Kal Ho Na Ho is a classic movie. For the first time in Indian Film industry this kind of story is used and it will carve a genre of this kind of movies in Bollywood. I simply love SRK movies.

Farzana #5,

Agree with you completely. He is grossly over-rated, and Vivek Oberoi was far more
convincing in Saathiya than Shah Rukh in Chalte Chalte. Shah Rukh is nothing but
a collection of repeatedly overdone mannerisms.

I loved Kal ho na ho. If you are anew yorker, its a treat. Even if you are not, it worrks. Yes, I can be a sucker for such soppy, yuppy, melo-drama.

I cant stand the way Sharukh acts.

But I will say he has a penchant for picking the rigth scripts. He has starred in many of my favorite movies. But i think the reall credit goes to the Yash Chopra camp, and their spin off`s (Yash Chopra, Karan Johar, Aditya Chopra, and now Nikhil Adwani). And then because he is big star, he will bag the big names, like the Subhash Ghai`s and the Sanjay Leela Bhansli`s.

I think its a classic case of networking with the right people.

And Rozaiba, please. Shahrukh outdoing Dilip?? Im a sucker for good performances and great urdu, and Dilip is a hundred times better in both (yes, i know Devdas was in bengali, so where does the urdu bit come in, but still...). After all, could a Shahrukh ever say with such painful passion the Josh Malihabadi verse, the way Dilip did in devdas, when Chandra Mukhi (Vyjanthimala) talks to him about toelrance and his love for drink: ``Arrey, kaun kambakht bardaasht karney kay liye sharaab peeta hai!``

Love the new Devdas for cinemtaography, Madhuri Dixit, Aishwarya, music, madhuri, and aishwarya....

Shahrukh is a bad actor, a great networker, and his songs rock. Go watch Kal ho na ho, preferbaly on the big screen. You`ll love it!

North Amrican perception (dem nri`s)...of KHNH

Women:
Movie good. SRK poor guy, he looks not well... but wait that is his role! No big discussion of clothes etc..

Men: Agree with Anil... and were uncomfortable with (fragile PC sensibilities are hurt) showing NRI Gujjus as vulgar.

Everyone liked the movie.. but nothing earth-shattering ....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Filmgoers secretly want ‘one of us’ to be a superstar on the magic screen, not an unreal visage cosmeticized by dress designers, make-up artists, scriptwriters and film directors``
Validated

Nice article to change the taste ...

Anil,

What you say about Shah Rukh Khan is what my better half says about Madhuri Dixit. Madhuri, appararently, has the air of ``look, I am Madhuri, I am the Star`` air about her in her latter films.

But that said, SRK was not a terrific actor from the begining. He had a screen presence perhaps, that is at the best crisp. No woder, he does not feel comfortable away from the Yask Johar/ Yash Chopra`s circus tent of chiffons...and keeps singing...i have miles to go before I peep.

But, even among actors who have taken risks, and attempted a variety of roles, very few succeeds. And in this, especially, those with screen presence tend to be at a disadvantage.
I can only think of Naseer who has played different characters convincingly for a major part of his career, without being Naseer throughout.

I can spot Kamalaahaasan in every film of his, even when he is playing a midget. And yet, look at Naseer, from the reviews, he has done a very tacky Nemo with Sean Connery.

Malayalam actor Mohanlal, called the Deaupardieu *spelling IS wrong`` of Indian cinema, is currently celebrating his 25 years in films. And, currently, fighting off charges that Mohanlal the star is protruding far more inelegantly through his roles. Though, it also has to do with him shifting to do a lot of action and supermen roles lately.

On the other hand, some lesser actors have grown admirably with films. I think Sunjay Dutta broke through with Naam. Similalry, Jackie Shroff managed to act a little in a little known Mahesh Bhatt film called Kaash. Jackie, and Sunjay Dutt to a lesser extent, has made tremendous advances on their voice and diction. Compare Sunju bab of Vidhaata and Jackie of Hero with their later film roles.

HN

Farzana: I agree, I think too SRK exhausted his personality`s potential when he played that author backed role in Azi Mirza`s Kabhi Haan Kabhi Na.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Shahrukh was much liked in ‘Fauji’, his first TV serial. He looked so down to earth and guy-next-door (he still does in most of the movies). I don’t remember vividly his exact role as we were very young that time but he had instantly become a favourite of all the gals in my colony, leaving Anil Kapoor behind. Probably that natural look and simple ‘Fauji’ charm that continued in many of his movies is now somewhat lacking in Kal Ho Na Ho.

In general, people do like SRK as in real life he is a very good human being and this very much reflects in his eyes. Whether he knows acting or not is one thing, his real life persona gets intermingled with his characters.
And Salman did a fabulous job in `Tere Naam` ..he was much appreciated but had some negative reviews just because the stigma he carried all this time sometimes goes against him.

Arent you guys sick of the cheesey sappy mushy fare that Badjatya - Chopra - Johar trio dishes out? yucccckkk thooooo ;)

Ramgopal Verma rules !!