Rag-to-riches is not a phenomenon exclusive to America. Guru is a testimony to the fact that ambition, determination and perseverance can be a winning potion for any aspiring person, irrespective of nationality. The movie charts the life of Gurukanth Desai, the disowned son of a school headmaster, and his rise to the helm of the Indian business world from frugal and humble beginnings. Abhishek, Mithun and Vidya Balan offer excellent screen performances. Vidya Balan is by far the best. Her acting is surprisingly natural and original, unlike many of the well-known Bollywood names. As for Aishwarya, although she portrays the role of Guru's wife well, I believe that her acting is greatly over-hyped by the media and her accompanying stardom.
I won't discuss the movie plot in detail as that has been repeated several times in different tones throughout the forum. Many viewers have related the movie to the life of Ambani, and although, there is a clear correlation between some of the movie ingredients (opening a business with an investment of fifteen thousand rupees, polyester factory, etc), some facts such as Guru's trip to Turkey are not entirely factual of Ambani's career. Overall, the movie has very powerful and inspiring messages for the ambitious. The character played by Guru portrays the image of a gung-ho, determined, resolute individual unwilling to bend under the inequalities of a society driven by greed. He epitomizes a timeless message of where there's a will there's a way.
The reason why I give this movie 5 stars is that, while the first half of the movie is very involved and 'inspiring', in the second half Guru deviates from this image of a righteous role model, into a wealthy businessman symbolizing all the wrongs of the society.
************** POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE ************** As Guru ascends into the echelon society, he inherits societal trends associated with greed and corruption. Mani Ratnam argues through his character that such vices are essential in order to succeed in business, but I cannot agree that it is alright to 'misrepresent the equity value of a firm', 'state fictional statements about foreign investments', etc all in the name of raising market capitalization, thereby increasing stock prices. I'm accustomed to these practices in the business world, and, as such, there are times when one needs to bend rules in order to succeed in an imperfect world. However, the abrupt, unwanted deviation from an ascetic do-good Guru to a capitalist commoner is disappointing. I'm afraid, Ratnam's message and argument that wrongdoings are acceptable as long as it benefits the public in light of a corporate world already wrought in umpteen scandals sends a very confusing message for the young. At that rate, Ken Lay would be still at the helm of Enron, and Arthur Anderson would still remain a distinguished firm. **************************************************
Overall a fine movie, but you must watch it with a discerning and critical eye.
I won't discuss the movie plot in detail as that has been repeated several times in different tones throughout the forum. Many viewers have related the movie to the life of Ambani, and although, there is a clear correlation between some of the movie ingredients (opening a business with an investment of fifteen thousand rupees, polyester factory, etc), some facts such as Guru's trip to Turkey are not entirely factual of Ambani's career. Overall, the movie has very powerful and inspiring messages for the ambitious. The character played by Guru portrays the image of a gung-ho, determined, resolute individual unwilling to bend under the inequalities of a society driven by greed. He epitomizes a timeless message of where there's a will there's a way.
The reason why I give this movie 5 stars is that, while the first half of the movie is very involved and 'inspiring', in the second half Guru deviates from this image of a righteous role model, into a wealthy businessman symbolizing all the wrongs of the society.
************** POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE ************** As Guru ascends into the echelon society, he inherits societal trends associated with greed and corruption. Mani Ratnam argues through his character that such vices are essential in order to succeed in business, but I cannot agree that it is alright to 'misrepresent the equity value of a firm', 'state fictional statements about foreign investments', etc all in the name of raising market capitalization, thereby increasing stock prices. I'm accustomed to these practices in the business world, and, as such, there are times when one needs to bend rules in order to succeed in an imperfect world. However, the abrupt, unwanted deviation from an ascetic do-good Guru to a capitalist commoner is disappointing. I'm afraid, Ratnam's message and argument that wrongdoings are acceptable as long as it benefits the public in light of a corporate world already wrought in umpteen scandals sends a very confusing message for the young. At that rate, Ken Lay would be still at the helm of Enron, and Arthur Anderson would still remain a distinguished firm. **************************************************
Overall a fine movie, but you must watch it with a discerning and critical eye.