Unfashionably Fashionable Shit

Unfashionably Fashionable Shit.. is all that i can say.....

Things those i liked in the film:

1) Kitu Gidwani is still beautiful in compared to the "MODELS" in the film.

2) Arbaaz Khan always manages to get a drop dead beautiful wife...either offscreen or onscreen......he looks for "Show Stopper" u c.

Things i didnt like..:

1) The-not-so-fashinable -"Fashion".

2) Priyanka Chopra: the small town girl, the struggling model, the successfool model, the "kicked-out" model, the "Plaster of Paris-ian Model-with a dead dumbo and expressionless face.

A few question:

1) Kangana Ranawat<=> Gitanjali Nagpal??????

2) I knew all eligible bachelors r either gay or engaged....(but i had no idea that these eligible bachelors are all mumbai based fashion designers.).. okk..i understand...had this not been the case, then an upcoming fashion designer remains straight forever, because the relatively settled designer needs to marry a "girl" because of some societal and familial pressure, and his "that-partner" of the struggling days gets hooked on to the present day struggling designer......Is this the formula???????.....Shit man....what hard luck!!!!...he always gets hooked onto struggling designers and not so settled ones. DAMN!!!!!

Last question:

3) Is there so few "Open" topics left that directors need to now focus on "Hidden-World" topics?????

Phew...one more plzzz......

4) Do directors need to keep their so-called "in the line" actors always happy...that even if it is not needed they have to be there on the screen including the director himself ..well , i think this is a way to get a stamp of "Modesty" that "yes, i made a film on this subject" or may be it is a silent and clever way to let the Dumbo target audience know that the film deals with "THIS" subject????

At last, no more question and a few confessions:

1) I know innumerable people around who are "GAY" and i am absolutely comfortable and hold no judgements for anybody's sexual orientation but dnt u think, Bhandarkar is portraying this relationship more forcibly, or may b just for the sake of it...or may b he portrays on reel what he cldnt portray in "Real"...iiiiiiikkkkkkkkkksssssss!!!!??????

2) I think, one should stop digging into the "Not so open world", and can also try to prove his metal by being either "a mainstream film maker" or a "Not a mainstream film maker", dangling between the two makes it difficult for the audience to mark the film categorically. (No, i tell this because people tend to look for this classification that makes their topic of discussion easier, though the distinction line between the two genres is still not clear to me.......:D:D