"Kites" (or most of it, anyway)

[revdorothyl]

I saw the movie "Kites" starring Hrithik Roshan this afternoon, but in spite of the 2 hour 47 minute length listed in the paper, the version shown at my local multiplex was no more than 2 hours total in length. Considering that there were just a few minimal dance scenes in the beginning, I think I definitely saw the shortened-for-silly-American-audiences-who-don't-understand-production-numbers-in-dramas version that my sister warned me about.

However, Hrithik Roshan was gorgeous and his performance was very moving, and I was gripped by the story. Plus, I was fascinated by the fact that some of my fellow audience members were apparently native Spanish speakers, and some were native Hindi speakers, from what I overheard before the start of the movie and the different lines in Spanish and Hindi that they laughed at before the subtitles could let me in on the joke.

I consider "Kites" well worth my $7.50, even though I didn't get to see the WHOLE thing. Maybe someday I'll get to see the rest of it.

Comments

[sunshineali.livejournal.com]

I'll have to check that one out. Did you ever see "Monsoon Wedding?" It rocked!

[revdorothyl.livejournal.com]

Yes, I adored "Monsoon Wedding", even though it included no song-and-dance production numbers (but all those gorgeous yellow flowers more than made up for it, plus the powerful revelation of child-molesting and the father's decision to defend the children, no matter how much he felt he owed to the perpetrator).

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

There was only one dance number and it wasn't much longer than 2 hours (130 minutes), so I think you saw the full version.

[revdorothyl.livejournal.com]

That's what my sister just told me (apparently there's a Brett Ratner cut of the film that's only 90 minutes long and is being released next week):

http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/movies/21kites.html?partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes&ei=5083

Well, I'm very glad to know I didn't miss anything (and wasn't Hrithik gorgeous in it?).