Rock On Magik
DearCinema reader Payal sent us this review of “Rock On“
Rock On! (2008)
Rock on turned out to be a refreshing movie. The movie’s plot is neither revolutionary nor novel but it has been executed quite well. Despite being full of clichés and a rather predictable story it succeeds in keeping you glued on to the screen. Rock on is a story of four college friends who share a passion for music and form a band ‘Magik’.
Aditya (Farhan Akhtar) is a the lead vocalist, Joe (Arjun Rampal) strums the guitar KD(Purab Kohli) beats the drums and Rob (Luke Kenny) plays the keyboard. They work quite hard to win a competition that gives them a chance to get an album made. But the band has to make certain ‘compromises’ to suit the album producer which creates rifts among the Magik members. Finally the band breaks off on a jarring note with a fight that takes the music out of their life but not the minds.
Ten years hence, the discontented wife of one of the disgruntled member succeeds in reuniting the band. The director weaves the past and the present quite seamlessly. Except a couple of scenes, the film is mostly subtle. The characters are drawn out well and are supported by good performance.
Although everyone has acted well, Purab Kohli’s performance merits special mention. He has done a fantastic job. He has given the movie some of its most hilarious moments.
Arjun Rampal has once again dazzled with his good looks. Farhan has made an enviable debut. He has carried off the role of an investment banker with as much ease as the other role of Magik’s lead singer. However, Prachi Desai who plays the wife of Farhan has not been able to go beyond her role in the daily soaps. Shahana Goswami, who plays the wife of Arjun has done a good job though.
A film that derives much of its energy from youth, music, passion and reconciliation, is a good way to spend your weekend.
My Rating: 
Your Rating
(6 votes, average: 4.17 out of 5)
Loading ...
Recommended...
Rock On: The Great Indian Sexist Tamasha Rock On is Bang On! Review Contest Be Kind Rewind: Fast Forward This One Film Review!! What’s that??
Loading ...
“Despite being full of clichés” —– sweetheart, the movie was anything but cliche! thats why it was refreshing and entertaining.
peace!
Hi Payal,
Nice review ! The movie was predictable and full of cliches..thats really true. I was expecting a lot from it. but was disappointed when it turned out to be a combination of poor Dil Chahta Hai and Jhankar Beats…don’y u think that..? well, the acting was quite noteworthy by all, especially Shahana Goswami and Purab Kohli.
Hi Payal,
I wonder whether Farhan Akhtar ghost directed this movie? I did enjoy this movie and must say that you have written well but I felt that somehow or the other, Farhan Akhtar did ghost direct this movie. I have added a discussion point on this board at: http://dearcinema.com/discuss/
Chaitanya, what else you think these were:
a) Just before the final performance, we discover a band member is about to die?
b) And despite, his vulnerable medical condition, he performs, isn’t this cliche to the core?
c) Didn’t we know, Arjun Rampal will come back and join the performance?
d) And didn’t you guess the newborn baby will be named after the departed?
Well, despite all these cliches and predictabilities, the movie sustains one’s interest throughout. But no denying - it’s cliched and predictable…though well done!
Cheers!
@ Bikas Mishra,
Mate, i guess our definitions of ‘Cliche’ differ. cliche is something thats commonplace and tried and tested way too often.
And i shall stick to my opinion that ‘rock on’ was anything but cliche. To take your questions,
a) Yes, a band member is about to die but what’s the cliche in that? he has a disease, prolly he always did but never spoke of. thats life and if life’s a cliche then i donno what to say.
b) He loves music, the very reason he kept mum till the final day. there was no melodrama, no falling down on the stage or people crowding around and instead a cool ending that the movie deserved and the audience demanded.
c) Mr Rampal comes back coz thats how you or i would react in such a situation. band playing, traffic jam, desire to perform, the fact that he built the situation well needs credit.
d) no i didnt guess the child would be named after kennny. and frankly dont care.
The movie was good, 6.5 to 7 on 10. acting was good, nothin khaas about screenplay or cinematography. dialogue was creditable, and the predictability that you refer to would infact be a deliberate jab at the movie and the ‘what-could-have-been’.
If your argument prevails then everything is cliche; love, sex, guns …
PS: just an innocuous reply, enjoy your movies.
peace!
Dear Chaitanya, well, so let me tell you what my cliche means:
“a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation” (merriam-webster).
And I don’t think how you define it means much different.
All I wanted to say is the situations, I enumerated above are anything else but hackneyed, unoriginal and oft-repeated in many other films.
Yes, you can very well justify everything because it’s a not a flawed screenplay. What happens within the film is well justified onscreen.
So all I meant was, it’s not an “illogical” film yet certain scenes lack originality and freshness.
Hi Bikas,
It seems that you are looking for originality and freshness in every movie. Otherwise, why highlight this point in the review? — it’s not a bad aspect of the movie that you are trying to highlight. I feel, it’s too much to ask for freshness and originality in every movie. On the other hand, if a movie is fresh and original, I think that’s worth mentioning in a review - that way you are highlighting the points that I would be interested in a movie that I want to watch. I feel those two line of texts and the space could have been more effectively utilized.
I still feel there is some freshness to the movie in the kind of music and a few other aspects.
A good review should critique the good and bad aspects. Also provide new perspectives.
Dear Tango,
I agree with you completed when you say “A good review should critique the good and bad aspects. Also provide new perspectives.” However, I didn’t quite get the point of your comment. Do you mean to say that I shouldn’t be looking for freshness and originality in films?
ya even i was quite surprised to c Tango’s comment. ofcourse one would look for originality and freshness in any movie! whats wrong with that????? that indeed is one of the big things one wud look for in critiqing it:-)
I think the point Tango was trying to make, Bikas, was that one should stick to the positive and negative points of a movie while reviewing. And not what was not there, what was not positive or what was not negative. In itself, Tango’s point is quite valid. Though of course completely differ from him regarding Rock On itself. But yes, a real good point for all us reviewers to remember: Denial is not affirmation.
If you really mean what Ankur points out Tango, then I must admit it’s quite a valid point. However, every film review inevitably tends to discuss what was “absent” from the film. To an extend talking about “the positives and negatives” of a film, is always in relation to what the film could have been instead of what it is.
Maybe we’re talking about two different schools of film critique….should we take the cinematic text as the final word of the director? Or we shall attempt to posit it within the medium of cinema itself.
It could be lead to an interesting discussion, I look forward to diverging perspectives..
There’s a discussion point on this movie in the Forum under “Bollywood.” This is:http://dearcinema.com/discuss/
So perhaps it can be discussed there.
I think Pratik, this calls for a different thread, so have started it. Everyone is welcome to join:
http://dearcinema.com/discuss?forum=1&topic=205&page=1