Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

AR Rahman's Tamil Blockbuster "BOYS"

Topic started by Theepan (@ 209.197.167.70) on Tue May 6 23:23:20 EDT 2003.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Rahman's much anticipated "Boys" is set to release soon and everyone is keen on finding out more about this album. Who are the singers? What are the soundtracks like? When is the release date? Will the album be delayed? If anyone has any idea; please post here....

Also; use this thread to discuss this album..

Here is what i found::

Typical of Shankar, the director is not prepared to say much about the film at this point. However, it is known that the film will be very youthful, almost teeny-bop, in content, with the majority of the cast being in the 16-23 age group.

Shankar, apparently, has decided to cast all new faces in his film – and the younger the better.

In fact, a mention in various Tamil periodicals, and an accompanying advertisement to the effect that Shankar was looking for new faces, has created a headache of sorts for the producers. Curriculums vitae have been pouring in to the Surya Movies post box ever since the ad and the story ran in the vernacular press – and last heard from, the flood shows no signs of abating.

Curiously enough, the ad appears – thanks to emails and discussion groups – to have reached an audience abroad as well, with the result that newer batches of applications have US, British and suchlike stamps on them, which suits the producer and director fine since the film does incorporate a lot of NRI faces.

For Shankar, Boys will be a return to romance after Kadhalan, and to comedy after the Aishwarya Rai-Prashanth starrer Jeans. Though the film will feature fresh – and ergo, inexpensive – faces, Shankar maintains that the film will be typical of his style, which means lavish budgets, and expensive production values.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: V (@ 147.129.97.246) on: Tue Sep 2 19:09:43 EDT 2003
  
  I am yet to see a bad movie review for Boys from one of the websites.
  
  
  I already knew that the Raasa fans would call it terrible. But I consider it a shame to even think about their opinions in an ARR thread. Like Saamy says Avanga kitta "pesaradhey kevalama nenaikkaren"
  
  Ok Guys lets counts it.
  
  
  Good Reviews:
  Sify
  Cinesouth.com
  Rediff.com
  
  Bad Reviews:
  None (so far)
  
  
• From: V (@ 147.129.97.246) on: Tue Sep 2 19:27:26 EDT 2003
  
  Guys lets also note that Boys is a movie which has no Stars who have Mandrams to block tickets in theater. SO it is a natural phenomenon to see "some" theaters selling currrent booking. That does not account to the film not being a hit.
  
  
• From: STONE COLD (@ 210.186.79.143) on: Tue Sep 2 21:04:56 EDT 2003
  
  what boys gonna flop?
  no way...Shankar movies will never flop!
  
  
• From: cell (@ 202.156.2.218) on: Tue Sep 2 21:12:30 EDT 2003
  
  boys movie is great!!! u guys r good 4 watchin... alaigal oivathilei type of movies... A FILM BHARATHIRAJA.... hahaha..... lets wait 4 some time 4 the result of the movie.....
  
  
• From: Piratheepan (@ 67.210.22.183) on: Tue Sep 2 21:14:26 EDT 2003
  
  To Mumbai Ramki:
  There is no scene where they make passes at a mother carrying a baby.I think u miss understood.Becuase what happens is they get a prostitute, and she arrives and one at a time they go into the room, and realize what they are doing is wrong, because 1)she's married 2) has a child 3) it's plainly wrong. So each boy backs out.But tries to impress his friends by saying they actually did sumthing.
  
  The scene is very amusing. The first 45 minutes are very funny. The theater couldn't stop laughing i do not get where rajasaranam is comming from. I watched the movie in the USA and this movie is running very well here. Unlike other brainless movies such as Dhool or that type.
  
  
• From: Piratheepan (@ 67.210.22.183) on: Tue Sep 2 21:14:51 EDT 2003
  
  To Mumbai Ramki:
  There is no scene where they make passes at a mother carrying a baby.I think u miss understood.Becuase what happens is they get a prostitute, and she arrives and one at a time they go into the room, and realize what they are doing is wrong, because 1)she's married 2) has a child 3) it's plainly wrong. So each boy backs out.But tries to impress his friends by saying they actually did sumthing.
  
  The scene is very amusing. The first 45 minutes are very funny. The theater couldn't stop laughing i do not get where rajasaranam is comming from. I watched the movie in the USA and this movie is running very well here. Unlike other brainless movies such as those mass gana song every minute types that run forever in india.
  
  
• From: MumbaiRamki (@ 203.193.152.200) on: Tue Sep 2 21:45:25 EDT 2003
  
  PiraTheepan ,
  http://www.tamilcinema.com/cinenews2.asp?fname=boys.htm
  
  
• From: MusicIsLife (@ 67.85.193.232) on: Tue Sep 2 21:48:58 EDT 2003
  
  V (@ 147.129.97.246)
  Bad Reviews:
  Webulagam
  
  But i dont buy that crap.. See my post in the Boys discussion (but i have to tell u, i just saw 45 mins of the movie)
  
  
• From: paran (@ 203.123.16.4) on: Tue Sep 2 22:23:44 EDT 2003
  
  mmm.. i think rajasaranam should be in late 40's with a daughter or a son in Plus2 or may be in college...
  coz..his concern are so much personal..on BOYS...
  that could be the only reason why he hate BOYS...
  
  well RS..it is for BOYS..not for OLD BOYS...so just let us enjoy it..
  
  
• From: paran (@ 203.123.16.4) on: Tue Sep 2 22:27:25 EDT 2003
  
  Anyway...i wonder..if Forrest Gump were made in Tamil..instead of English....it will be getting this kinda "critism" by u people instead of getting awards..
  
  u guys will be complaing "How can a girl and a guy who are friend have sex?..It is immoral..."..
  but in actual fact if u were offered such a situation in real life.....wwwoooooo..i am sorry buddy....i dont think u guys will let it go....
  
  
• From: rajasaranam (@ 210.214.131.22) on: Tue Sep 2 22:57:48 EDT 2003
  
  he he Paran,
  did i ever comment on any of the sex scenes etc.,
  i jus said it had a bad screenplay.
  
  
• From: paran (@ 203.123.16.4) on: Tue Sep 2 23:10:26 EDT 2003
  
  well i dunno rajasaranam...
  the sex scene comments i made is not for u...
  
  but anyway..i am confused..if antyhign to do with IR, YSR or KR....all these website of Galatta.com, Cinesouht.com, sify.com are being used as the measure of success..but when it comes to ARR...and if the same websites reports a good review...u guys can't accept it.....why?...
  
  just answer me this one time please...
  
  
• From: MusicFan (@ 195.22.176.226) on: Wed Sep 3 00:27:41 EDT 2003
  
  Seems like so many people and critics are thrashing 'BOYS'. Even in Cinesouth review they did not ramble on the songs or the music. Under the 'Wow' section, they did not mention music.
  
  Seems that Rahmans music is no big deal again.
  
  So what's the verdict: FAILURE?
  
  
• From: Disappointed (@ 207.44.154.35) on: Wed Sep 3 00:31:21 EDT 2003
  
  You can say that. Lousy movie with lousy songs. Bet the songs will fade off from people's mind as soon as it disppears from SunTV's Top 10.
  
  
• From: Ramki (@ 203.145.155.160) on: Wed Sep 3 01:14:59 EDT 2003
  
  Another review of Boys
  
  http://www.telugufilmserver.com/boysmoviereview_august30.shtml
  
  
• From: vijay arr-hj (@ 203.195.195.242) on: Wed Sep 3 01:47:33 EDT 2003
  
  boy, very dissapointed they way shankar has degraded womenfolk.
  the first half is full of vulgar scenes n sex comedy.
  
  the film starts of very well but as the time passed by one realises its a mix of tulavado iilimai and bit of minsara kanav and indu.
  
  but on the positive side ARR's music is mind blowing also the way they picturised the songs needs special mentioning.i luved the character krishna(sai).this guy has done excellent job.
  
  sabu cyril's sets are mind blowing but but but the graphics es specially in boom boom is a big torture they have spoiled a good song!!!
  
  sidddhart is ok all other guys are good harini is also capable of acting lil bit.
  
  the main drawback of the film is that it has no story the screenplay is a big himalayan blunder the movie starts of with a sex comedy suddenly shifts to nudity in mount road then to tirupathi marriage and then POTA music album lil bit confusing!!!
  
  vivek is wasted in the film he is good at comedy but not in emotional roles.
  senthil gets a good fanatastic role.
  
  now about the music rights i was the one who told in ar rahman fangroups that music was supposed to release in sony label but unfortunately released in star music.
  
  in the film also they show the Sony hed office so some disaggrement between am ratnam and sony ppl!!!!
  
  finally its a okey dokey adult movie it can only survive if college students(boys) continue to see the movie,and surely shankar's image is spoiled after making this kinda film not only among women but also among men.
  
  we can conclude by saying.
  " DECLINE OF SHANKAR "
  
  
• From: JK (@ 61.11.81.98) on: Wed Sep 3 01:59:23 EDT 2003
  
  another review
  
  http://tamil.sify.com/movies/review.php?ctid=5&cid=13153533&id=13239140&vsv=72
  
  
• From: Karthik S (@ 164.164.82.29) on: Wed Sep 3 02:13:50 EDT 2003
  
  For those who were complaining that 'Boys' was vulgar (as in the webulagam review) this 'ramblings' in IdleBrain should be helpful. Very well written and very balanced, without being hypocritical. I personally felt Shankar was attempting something that bordered on 'American Pie', but with the relative confines of Tamil films. Its no doubt Bold with a capital B and obviously our country would need a mot more time before college kids can watch this movie together with their folks...but its very honest in its depiction. Yes, not all college kids are like the way portrayed in Boys, but nobody can deny that a majority are similar and would identify themselves with the movie.
  
  In fact, the pervert Dhanush in Kaadhal Konden is more of anomaly. But that movie won because it was drastically different in its approach to its lead character. And a normal, average looking youth from Tamil Nadu could identify himself with Dhanush's character. The identification with Boys goes beyond looks...its the attitude that the youth would probably identify.
  
  Karthik
  
  
• From: Karthik S (@ 164.164.82.29) on: Wed Sep 3 02:14:21 EDT 2003
  
  From Idle Brain:
  
  That seems to be the obvious trapping with commercial movies. The
  Greater the success range of the previous venture, the higher the stakes and the greater the anticipation, and any exercise that is at best on par with its predecessor ends up on the futile side. Within the confines of the cinema rules, the only way to ante up the efforts to match the expectations, is to treat the audience with something that they neither are prepared to nor are they least expecting. Add to this doomsday scenario a volatile subject on the lifestyle of youth, the demand on the delivery of an even bigger and better product begs for a true shock and awe campaign. From among the glut of youth movies, it takes a serious attempt on the part of the maker to make his movie stand out, and how better to make his statement than intentionally shock, repulse, awe and agape the audience, all at the same time. Though the caption of the movie reads "Boys" for gals, it should truly be called "Boys" seriously and only for adults.
  
  Setting aside the impact of the risqué content on the young impressionable target audience, and condoning the bucking of the collective social responsibility of the makers and the censors, "Boys" makes a sincere attempt at depicting the life of the adolescents, without the extra gloss or the candy floss. No matter how shocking the antics of the youngsters are to the audience, one cannot but agree to the fact that they are deep-seated in reality and the little dramatic license that Sankar took with the characters does not digress into the fantasy realm. Fun, when needs to be depicted within the context of life of college students, revolve around the holy trinity - bucks, booze and chicks (manI, madyam, maguva). Sankar treats each of these subjects in great detail - the lack of experience, the loss of innocence, the transition to adulthood and bitter reality of a responsible life, centering around the holy trinity, are given fair shares without the usual patronizing or the condescension attitudes that the makers have with adolescent-to-adulthood themes.
  
  From the screenplay perspective, Sankar had to deal with setting up 5
  unique incidents for each of the 5 principal characters, while ascribing them with unique characteristic traits, in order for the script to not get repetitive or worse prop up one character at the expense of another. The script has to be appreciated for the number of unique situations that are dealt with, either during the fun part of the initial setup of the characters in the first act or during turbulent times that the boys find themselves in the third act. The adolescent infatuation, masking itself as love, for all its awkwardness, the blind faith, masking itself as severity (praema teevrata), for all its foolhardiness, the volatile state, masking itself as true emotions, for all its ridiculousness, make for some really entertaining plot points that could be milked for maximum mileage. Sankar and Sri Rama Krishna (Sujata - the original dialogue writer) never let go of a single opportunity to point out the painfully obvious trippy nature of the teenagers, when it comes to the matters of heart. Great care has been taken while depicting the journey during the teen age - angst-ridden, troublesome, optimistic and memorable.
  
  The percussion scowls "Break the rules", the guitar screams "naakoka
  Girl Friend kaavali", the disarming loop raps "Dating is a fantasy", the Doo-Wop group pleads "Please Sir". When the music is not constrained by the whims of the characters, when the music is not restrained by the shackles of script, when the music is not burdened by the boredom of banality, the unfettered and irreverent tunes soar signifying the utter carelessness (or carefreeness), unbridled enthusiasm and the innocent ignorance. Rahman, whose contributions to Mani Ratnam's and Sankar's movies in particular need no further introduction, lets himself go for "Boys", and the result is an eclectic array of dizzying dittys, propped with some out of the world orchestrations, his prime forte. After a long time, here is one from Rahman that serves to his strongest suite - eastern melody in western mould. Aiding the aurals, the visuals (choreography) by Raju Sundaram, drawing from the dance moves of the recent pop bands (NSync etc, particularly for the "Girl Friend" song), serve a perfect match. Sankar, who worked earlier with Jeeva (for Gentleman, Premikudu and Bharateeyudu), Madhu Ambat (for Jeans) and Prasad (for Okkadu), for translating his grandiose schemes and greater than life characters onto the screen, chose Ravi Chandran for an even ambitious job of translating the intangible fun of adolescence. Ravi Chandran's indulgence in stop-motion technique (or called as time-slice technique), the advance-motion techniques, the low-angles, the depth filled mediums and close-ups and the seamless integration with the special effects, added another texture to the movie, making it a true audio-visual treat.
  
  Each outing of Sankar, as far as youth movies go, pushes the envelope and stretches the boundaries. If "Boys", his ode to the teen age, walked the thin line between risqué and raunchy, between fun and filth and importantly between licentiousness and lewdness, one shudders to think as to what limits would be crossed and what boundaries would be erased, in his subsequent youthful indiscretions!
  
  
• From: Mumbai Ramki (@ 203.193.152.200) on: Wed Sep 3 02:36:36 EDT 2003
  
  Hello KarthikS,
  
  1.How do you know majority are like that ??Atleats as far as i have observred only few perverted peopl e are like that ..See ,mistakes are onething ,but glorifying it is another thing ..Sujatha ,shankar -SHamelss
  
  2.Just because showing something which is happening ,does not mean the movie is of good quality .Now tell me ,i have heard a lot of bad incidents ( better not said) that have happened .Glorifying that is something which is not acceptable .Shankart could have showed that and could have depicted the mindset of those guys and how detoriating is that ..instead he chose another path ...There should be a strong positiveness abt the film .FOr example alavandana was based on apsycho ,but kamal clearly showed what was the reason for such psychoyness ...
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments