Clueless...that’s what I felt the makers of the movie to be when they were making it. That’s how I felt after the movie ended. No it wasn’t because the plot left me guessing, but it was because the movie couldn’t find any objective or direction. Was it supposed to be a thriller? Emotional/Romantic teen movie? A platform for Big B to show his "genius"? I paid the price for not heeding the warnings of my friends to not watch it.
The director attempts to cook a blackmail/action/love story out of a believable sounding simple set up of a mathematical geeky genius professor trying to seek redemption for one last time before he retires by trying to get one of his genius research paper being selected by the european dean of his institute BIT, and his assistant professor trying to complete his own vested interest by taking advantage of the situation, set in a posh college and dingy underground gambling sites in modern Mumbai.
Throws in 4 pretty youngsters and a mish mash of bollywood masala, item numbers, 2 off-side-tracked love stories and a plethora of characters absolutely wasted in the movie as they are played by no less artists but the likes of Meeta Vashishth (wasted in a terrible forgettable single scene), Mahesh Manjrekar (trying to repeat his bhaigiri roles that he has been doing lately, namely in 99 and Slumdog), Jackie Shroff (Indian Playboy whose accent has turned Italian, doing a cabaret singing(!!??) performance and a blink-and-you-miss-me in the entire movie), Tiku Talsaniya (whose only contribution to the movie was "tumhe kahi dekha hai" repeated 4 times), Ajay Devgan, Shakti Kapoor (both not worth mentioning), Raima sen (as a bickering/demanding girlfriend) and none other than Mr. Gandhi himself, Ben Kinglsey (who was indeed added to lend credibility to the element of a UK university, but whose dialogues were dubbed in Hindi, making it all the more un-authentic). The result? A really overcooked dish that leaves a bad taste in your mouth and you wonder if only one taste would have been better.
The game of "flush" is chosen instead of 21 blackjack for two major reasons that I could think of:
1> It doesn’t invite straight copyright claims from the Hollywood counterpart.
2> Indian audience can relate to it, after all flush is the most popular card game that is played by some in almost every household, in every train journey, on every diwali.
But it horribly backfires because it is ridiculous to imagine that some mathematical theory of probability can be applied to predict which hand would win and to find out what cards would come up exactly in which hand. BlackJack is different. Card counting works, is legal, and it does predict using probability when the house (dealer) would play the potentially 21 totaling pair. There are many books that teach you to count cards, and all the Las Vegas casinos have an anti-card counting policy with the consequence of being caught as being blacklisted from ALL of the casinos.
But teen patti is a different game altogether. Maybe everyone who has studied 10th standard maths and probability will understand. Sample this. If there are 5 players with 3 cards each, and if you know one opponent’s (which is illegal) and your own 3 cards, and if both have a total of one Ace, the probability of one of the remaining opponent having 3 Aces is 3/462/451/44, which is 0.0000658, in other words, impossible to call. Forget predicting. But the movie doesn’t explain the maths behind mr. genius profs’ theory. It tries to use the same variation of the monty hall problem used in the movie 21 but doesn’t even explain why switching to other cup (or door) is a better option. (read about the monty hall problem and why switching here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem).
The movie also tries to borrow from 21’s theme of exactly 4 students (even the female male ratio is exact) being partners in crime and using "sign language". Even to the extent of the prodigy frustrated and trying to do it by himself (but here without even knowing an ounce of the theory the prof uses). But it quickly digresses into the theme of blackmail and some unwanted mystery.The story meanders on and reaches dangerously close to being preachy about "greed" and "human values" and what not. Even with its short length it felt dragging at times.
The movie does have some positives, in few scenes, namely the camera paranoia experienced by one of the students (dhruv ganesh) and the subsequent wordless emotional breakdown in his close buddy’s room are worth mentioning. The cinematography is also good. The technical team brings out the perfect set up for the underground "casinos" and the lights/shades are perfectly in harmony with the surrounding.The background score is also palatable. Can’t say the same about the songs, as I don’t even remember one tune.
Most characters are unbelievable. Most are unconvincing. Some are stereo typical. I am sorry but showing Amitabh talking to the posters of Einstein and Rene Descartes isn’t really required to lend him the geeky scientist genius type. Also, it really isn’t required for the makeshift group to discuss their doings in a chemistry lab with Hydrocarbon structures in the green board behind. Even a canteen would have sufficed, but I think I am just being overly critical on the finer aspects when the basic premise itself is shaky to the core.
The director tries to use elements like the Lovey couple reference to "Bonnie and Clyde" to try to appeal to the intellectual and perhaps the curious youngster, but all it does is confuse the audience more. Most of the people around me in the theater had absolutely no idea about the reference or its relevance in the proceedings.
The ending was too preachy and too much undue credit was being given to Amitabh’s character. I think it was the pressure to elevate Amitabh to the Godly character that the audience thinks. Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Amitabh Bachchan, but I felt that his role in this movie just didn’t do justice to his skills.
In the end, I would advice you to skip this one or watch it only if you don’t have any choice.
Expect nothing more than a "telefilm".