There are two prominent Hindi filmmakers dealing with present-day Indian issues in their films. There is Madhur Bhandarkar and his ‘Newsy+Mumbai’ stories (Chandni Bar, Page 3, Jail) and then there is Prakash Jha and his Bihar films (Damul, Mrityudand, Gangajal, Apharan and Rajneeti). Of these, only Damul and Gangajal show some reality. Rest is typical over-the-top Bollywood, full of non-Bihari types desperately trying to come off as the real thing. Damul was good because of the grim, low-budget reality. Gangajal was good because Ajay Devgan was good. Rajneeti is bad, 100% bad, because there is neither good story, nor believable characters apart from a couple.

1. There is nothing new:
It is a bastard of Godfather meets Mahabharata. As a result, it is too familiar a topic. A movie should surprise you, especially if you are paying 200 bucks.

2. The story is too rushed and compressed:
Neither Mahabharat nor Godfather could be told in one film straight. You just do not get the time to appreciate the characters. Moreover, there are so many of them here. What is their motivation? In the Mahabharat, the Pandavas were pissed off with Draupadi's Cheerharan. Therefore, that gives us motivation.

3. Too much is happening around a small time-frame:
Okay, so just before local Assembly elections are to be held, the party chief has an heart attack, party gets broken, family members get bumped off, contestants are killed and what not, until a rich, white lady comes to rescue.

4. The politicians are of the wrong caste.
The movie is set in the modern Hindi heartland, where we all know, the lower castes have been the rulers this past two decades. All these 'Pratap Singhs' are from 70s era. They are as anachronistic as the Zamindar stories of today's TV serials. Actually, it is Ajay Devgan's character's caste and the OBCc who are ruling today.

5. The public is absent.
It is like people are dust. What is with the imagery of shouting masses and the Gods in their chariots? Coming from a political family, I understand the concept of hired crowds but there is almost no personalization. Is it too cynical or a plain movie-making shortcut? Am I the only one who finds this portrayal of voters as dynasty-loving types too insulting? I found myself shutting my ears every time there was a crowd scene.

That makes me think. Prakash Jha may have run for Lok Sabha elections but he is not too much into the ground reality. I remember him using a call center during his last failed campaign.

See, I am a Bihari too. If you read enough of Bihar news, even you can make a movie out of some problem or other. But, making a realistic film is something different. Maybe I am being harsh, but I think Prakash Jha has taken a superficial view of Indian politics (flashy cars, Helicopters, Mansions, henchmen – Is that all there is to Politics?) here. Last year's "Gulal" was much better.

6. Nana and Naseer play the least understandable characters.
Naseeruddin Shah has been shortchanged in this movie. I think the Director just inserted the role of a Communist as it is deemed fashionable.

I understand Nana plays the Lord Krishna character. However, even Lord Krishna had his motivations and besides it was all 'Niyati'. Real life is different. Nana's uncle character has no motivation for favoring one family branch to another other than that he is the Mama. So, Nana is like Shakuni Mama and that makes the ending kind of more sad. Shakuni Mama getting his nephew to shoot his cousins. That means, in Rajneeti, the Kauravas win?

7. Basically, Rajneeti is a showcase for pretty faces.
Consider Ranveer Kapoor and Katrina Kaif as Indian equivalents of Al Pacino and Diane Keaton. That is wrong (and impossible at so many levels.

Ranveer Kapoor tries his best Al Pacino's impressions, which given his limited facial expressions and histrionic range is quite unconvincing.

The best solid-cold Michael Corleone impression ever done in a Hindi movie is Ajay Devgan's Malik in "Company". That was cool.

Now Ranveer is warm, likeable actor. But he is best doing the sincere type roles like he did in last year's best film "Rocket Singh". That suited his range. Ranveer will go his father's distance if he keeps playing the likeable, urban intelligent type.

What can I say about Katrina Kaif? She is no Konkana Sen Sharma. I know the Director wanted to put a Priyanka Gandhi type white-skinned person (the kind the Indians often fell for), but they could have put someone who could act a little. Among our fairer heroines, Kareena Kapoor can act some. And she can come across forcefully.

Arjun Ramphal is another pretty face who tries to copy the mercurial act of James Cann, which is impossible, since James Cann is unpredictable and edgy even in real life. Besides, Manoj Bajpayee did the best mercurial, hotheaded personality in Hindi films as Bhiku Mhatre in "Satya". Nowhere in Rajneeti does Ramphal comes off as a heartland goon.

Because of the focus on pretty faces, talented actors like Manoj Bajpayee and Ajay Devgan are given the stick, which considering the scope of the story is a shame.

Note: After watching Rajneeti, I have been forced to think, why were the Kauravas wrong and Pandavas right? If you take apart the Cheer Haran scene, what other wrong did Duryodhan and his brothers did apart from not following their promise, which is something even the Gods are wont to do? That is the plus side of Rajneeti for you. Making us rethink our mythologies.

In fact, in Rajneeti, I was rooting for Manoj Bajpayee and Ajay Devgun, but sadly the director voted for pretty faces, just like the great Indian Janata.