Monday, January 14, 2008

Not. Remotely. Fugly.

So a regular reader of this blog told me yesterday that she was sad that we had so reduced our postings; the word "pitiful" was used. So today I went looking online for some new, egregious fugliness, and was brought almost to tears by one of the most bee-yoo-ti-ful things I have ever seen. (I should mention I have been sadly disconnected from Bollywood news of late, so this may be common knowledge to everyone else.)

THIS should serve as the example of perfection against which all fugliness is condemned. The upcoming film is Jodhaa Akbar, and it totally feeds my addiction for period costume.

I always prefer when Ms. Rai-Bachchan wears as little makeup as possible.
It makes her look like a Serious Actress.
Tears came to my eyes on seeing this one of Hrithik...



Movie Website: http://www.jodhaaakbar.com/. Has loads of yummy pictures and posters!

19 comments:

Beth said...

I'm not sure I'm down with Hrithik's pointy sideburns (unless they're historically accurate, in which case, well done!), but overall the visuals of this movie look fabulous. However, I'm not convinced Hrithik can pull of a role like this, and the trailers make me think of a high school student playing dressup. Still, pretty!

Susania said...

I suspect the sideburns are as minimal as they could get them whilst remaining accurate. The plot of the movie appears to be fairly standard historical romance, but I would love to hear the actual historical nonfiction account.

And yeah, probably out of HR's range, but he can't perpetually do rom coms.

tamasha said...

Ummmmm... You mean tears of ridiculousness, right? RIGHT?!

Amrita said...

Actually, anybody who can pull off the funny Mughal hat has my respect. As for the acting... well, they're pretty. Let's not be greedy.

Susania said...

Precisely, Amrita! They are PRETTY. Sometimes it is enough just to look at pretty things.

And yes, I teared up when I saw the picture of HR in his armor because 1) it's ARMOR, 2) he's PRETTY, and 3) his jawline is perfection. Beauty makes me weepy, sometimes!

Blue said...

Hrithik is almost unrecognizable. Isn't he contractually bound to only wear leather vests and leather pants?

Soniya said...

Hrithik certainly has the smoldering look down! Hawwwwwt. I vote for Mughal-Hrithik any day over Bandana-Leather pant - Dhoom Hrithik.

Soniya said...

p.s. I have to say that Aish and Hrithik look breathtaking together in period costume. Again not so much in the wacky Dhoom styling.

Susania said...

Amen! This is worlds better than that appalling Hulk Hogan look he was sporting in Dhoom 2!

Radi said...

Oy - Hrithik and Ash both look good enough to eat in those period costumes! *drool, yum* I think I might break my life-long habit of not watching Bollywood movies, and actually go watch this one in a theater!

Anonymous said...

And why are these pics posted on this blog,again?

If ppl think this is fugly.. then a new term should be invented for Abhishek's "lackluster thug" act and SRK's 6-pack disco dance!

Rani said...

what part of NOT REMOTELY FUGLY did Anonymous not understand?

Hope & Glory said...

Rani: Actually, the title, "Not Remotely Fugly" doesn't correspond with the body of this post. To add the word "remotely" between "not" and "fugly" means that this IS "fugly". If the poster omits the word "not" or "remotely", then the title would correspond with the body of this post. Anonymous' misundertanding was due to the posters' bad grammar. I suggest that Anonymous should read the [rather ambiguous] body of the post (and not just the title) before commenting; and I also suggest that the poster should change the title to prevent further confusion and misunderstanding. And if you, Rani, think "not remotely fugly" means "not fugly", then you should start brushing up on your English.

Spunky Monkey said...

Sheeet. Blasphemy on my part. Why O Why have I not discovered this blog earlier! A complete Bollywood blog! We love, we love.

Beth said...

h&g - after I thought about it for a few minutes, I realize that you could right about "remotely," depending on which dictionary definition one prefers. For example, the Oxford American Dictionaries installed on my computer say that when "remotely" is used as a submodifier in the negative, it means "in the slightest degree."

Regardless, "not remotely _____", at least in the versions of English spoken where I have lived, is a common phrase for "not at all ____," which I suspect is what Susania meant and what most readers will understand her to have meant.

Shyam said...

Hrithik Roshan looks jaw-droppingly gorgeous... that mustache balances his flaring nostrils, methinks. Cant wait to see the movie, and I'm sure he'll do justice to his role. If nothing else, I'm going to admire Emperor Akbar even more than I do now! :)

Anonymous said...

So I guess I am the only person who thinks Hrithik is very bad-looking, and looks like a man trying to look like a woman (and failing). Seriously, to me, his long face and too-sharp nose look weird.

As for Ash, heavy jewellery just weighs her down. She looks much better in simpler costumes.

generic cialis said...

Hello, I do not agree with the previous commentator - not so simple

Delphia said...

Gosh, there's a lot of helpful information above!