Sreejitha asks me as the movie begins-- "why would people be interested in watching this person's story"?
That sums up the feeling that this longish film leaves behind at the end of something short of three hours. Why should we be interested in watching this documentary?
So what if the technical crew have tried their best to get the right period look and make it technically sound (with exception of some camera effects that are painful, and the two dance numbers by Mallika Sheravat and Aishwarya that look completely out of place), what if Abhishek Bachchan looks a slim 20-something in his Turkey days and puts on a tummy as the character grows older (and richer), what if the actors do their best -- Mithunda and Junior B deserve very special mentions (Aishwarya should consider herself lucky to be cast in this film if she can't do better than this) -- unlike Nayakan which is more or less on similar lines, the film fails to hold one's interest. And worse, the viewers are forced to share the dream that the protagonist has. (Mera ek sapna hai-- does that ring a bell?)
Comparisons with Nayakan are inevitable, as the similarities are endless. So is this marking the change of times, from a hero who fights for the poor and the landless in the eighties to trying to convince the audience it is the big industrialists who are really doing something for the nation and its people? (Baradwaj calls it an unabashed ode to capitalism. He makes some other interesting observations as well).
[Image from the film web site]