Oh My God! is a 2012 Indian Hindi language satirical comedy-drama film written and directed by Umesh Shukla and produced by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, S Spice Studios, Grazing Goat Pictures and Playtime Creations. The storyline is based on the Gujarati stage-play Kanji Virudh Kanji which itself was inspired from the Australian film The Man Who Sued God. Producers of this movie purchased remake rights from Australian Producers. The film is originally written by co-writer Saumya Joshi, with Bhavesh Mandalia as an additional co-writer. The film stars Mithun Chakraborty, Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, along with Om Puri, Govind Namdeo, Poonam Jhawer, Puja Gupta and Mahesh Manjrekar in pivotal roles.[7]
hindi movie o my god full movie
Producer Akshay Kumar announced the film in 2012. Paresh Rawal who appeared in the original play Kishen vs Kanhaiya was cast in the lead role with Akshay Kumar playing the role of Krishna in the movie.[1] Mithun Chakraborty played a supporting role in the film. The filming was reported to have begun in January 2012.[11] Director Prabhu Deva appeared in an item number along with Sonakshi Sinha.[12][13][14][15][16]
The movie was awarded the Best Hindi film award by Institute for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences (IRDS) during the second IRDS Hindi Film Awards for social concern. The film has won the award for Best Adapted Screenplay in 60th National Film Awards.[28]
He stumbled over himself to qualify his gaffe, but the damage to my ego was already done. But I learned something valuable: I can control the roles I take and the activities I pursue, but I can't control how people frame or define what I do. It's entirely in their purview to determine who's a movie star and who's not, or in my case, who's washed up and renting movies (that he wished he was in) at the neighbourhood strip mall. LOL.
He reminded me of how I was always the one who had seen more movies than the rest of the pack. I knew not just the storyline of the movies but the actors, all the movies they had stared in, I knew a great deal about the actors that baffled even the most avid movie buffs.
At 10, I knew a lot about places, events, history, world leaders, this was further enhanced by having Social Studies as my favorite subject only second to my love for Mathematics in primary school. I had read all the works of Shakespeare, my literature skills now aligned with the movies I had seen relating to them.
You see, in my case, Movies sparked an interesting in learning more about the things, places, events and people I was watching on TV. Some have benefitted more than I, for instance, Wyclef Jean ( musician) stated that he learnt how to speak English in Haiti by watching America movies on TV.
SLIM If you like Van Wilder, get a load of this. So I came out of trailer retirement to watch this trailer. And funnily enough, it reminded me of another movie that had like non-positive buzz ahead of time, that I had a lot of fun watching with my son, which was The Tomorrow War with Chris Pratt. Remember that movie that came out Prime?
2) This movie opened my eyes to cannibalism. Going into the film, I expected the cannibals to be eating people at almost every meal, but as we see in the film, this is not the case. The natives are rarely shown eating people. The most memorable scene for me occurs at the end of the movie when the Frenchman's wife is eating the bloody meat with her hands. There is a close-up shot of her face as her fingers, red from all the blood, are putting the meat from the Frenchman's neck into her mouth. I remember expecting the shot to cut away after a few seconds, but it remains there for three or four seconds longer. Her eyes are piercing as she stares at the camera, bringing a strong sense of reality to the practice of cannibalism. Up until this point in the movie, I did not feel as though cannibalism was portrayed in a way that made the viewer understand the reality of the act of eating other humans. This shot also allowed me to draw the conclusion that the Frenchman's wife never really loved him to the extent to which I felt was shown in their interaction up until the final scenes. In her eyes, I saw no remorse, but strictly satisfaction. Parts of this film portrayed their relationship as loving and caring; this shot of her completely discredited that all for me and left me thinking that she never really cared deeply for him at all. (Catherine Willard, Lehigh University)
19) I was quite disappointed by the distinct lack of people-eating. It was as if Cunhambebe was preparing an excellent minced thigh stew, but forgot to add salt. That was the entire movie. I was hoping for at least a little skull-smashing and some of the Frenchman's body parts being passed around. I'm not intentionally trying to sound macabre, but I would think everyone rightly expects a little gore from a movie about c a n n i b a l i s m. Tupa forbid it get a little exciting. I found it similar in pace to Aguirre (and my complete confusion as to what was going on). I found Aguirre redeemed by its eerily fitting music and surprisingly good camera work, but most of all by Klaus Kinski, possibly one of the craziest actors ever. My Little Frenchmen, however, just had a lot of . . . skin. And none of it eaten. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for another white-guy assimilation into aboriginal culture, or maybe that's really all it was. Only two months of completely nude natives in this course, and I'm already desensitized to it. Crap. (Adam Kaufman, Lehigh University)
29) Following the ultraconservative crackdown in 1968, the political implications of Pereira dos Santos's adaptations became more oblique, almost allegorical. There was a certain tension or ambiguity in his choice of projects: the Brazilian government was less likely to censor his adaptations of classics (particularly when they were aimed at an intellectual or art movie audience), and it was even able to acquire a liberal aura or a degree of cultural capital not only by allowing them to be produced, but also by providing (in some cases) financial backing. At the same time, Pereira dos Santos was able to use respected literature to comment on government policies. (Darlene Sadlier 191)
40) My final statement on this film is that this movie just didn't have enough guts. Upon reading Hans Staden's account of the tribe's cannibalistic ritual, I find it quite similar to the movie, up until the point where the actual feast takes place. I understand this is an extremely underground film and comes all the way from Brazil, so why not go all the way? This movie screams for more exploitation. I can deal with the boring plot and the meandering, shallow characters, but a movie whose climax ends with a zoom OUT of a man taking a blow to the head. Rip, off. Occasionally I'll forgive a film for even all of these grievances as long as I feel that something is beyond me, in my infinite wisdom. If the director manages to convey a sense of intelligence or some artsy, poetic message, even if it really isn't at all, I can walk away reflective, or at least neutral. But a film thats message is as unclear as its actors are nude deserves no pardons. (Adam Kaufman, Lehigh University)
48) The hand-held camera work takes the viewer right into the action while still maintaining the fly-on-the wall detachment that characterizes much cinema verite filmmaking. Coupled with the comedic plot setup, the movie comes across as a sort of mutant National Geographic special missing John Forsythe as narrator. (Todd Konrad)
76) The anthropological ambiance is doubtful, seemingly more fairy tale than fact; the movie's development is erratic; and its conclusion is foregone. But there's a certain childish glee about it, as well as the imprint of one of the most outstanding filmmaking personalities of the Third World. (Tom Allen)
90) How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman has a more complicated relation to its sources than the usual movie based on a book. It draws on a wide range of other historical narratives besides Staden, and at various junctures it becomes a stylistic hodgepodge: realistic images of Tupinamba life photographed in documentary fashion on vibrant color stock are mixed with elements of obvious burlesque, and dramatic reenactments are interspersed with title cards quoting directly from sixteenth-century sources. The film's use of colonial history is particularly dense and layered, revealing contradictions in the sources themselves. Throughout it suggests that the historical archive is as riven by conflict as contemporary politics, and it makes clear that the country's past and present-day realities are not distinct. Although the major historical trauma it exposes is a familiar one of European domination and genocide, it suggests that this irreducible violence keeps returning and repeating itself in the here and now; meanwhile it converts the traumatic event described by the Staden text -- the cannibalist act -- into a provocative metaphor for resistance to a modern society of global capital and foreign consumption. (Darlene J. Sadler 192)
91) Pereira was among the first Brazilian directors to rescue Brazilian film from fake Hollywood visions of holidays in Rio enacted by such figures as Carmen Miranda. As a young man he hoped to make movies that included people from all classes of Brazilian life, not just the wealthy, and to deal with social problems that never reached the Hollywood-dominated Brazilian film screens. . . . Pereira filmed How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman in an opposite extreme, using outrageous color film stock. In what Sadlier terms one of "the most talked about movies in the history of Brazilian cinema" (74), Pereira constructs a comic horror film in which sixteenth-century intertexts are read as current events in an analogy of colonialism with global capitalism. The film is Pereira's response to Brazil's building of the Trans-Amazon Highway, in the course of which contact with indigenous communities was made that threatened them with near extinction. (Virginia Higginbotham 277-78) 2ff7e9595c
Comments