Chandu Champion Review - Kartik Aaryan and Kabir Khan's Honest Efforts To Bring The Champion's Story On Screen

Chandu Champion Review Movie Talkies

Chandu Champion Review: Kartik Aaryan finally gets into a character-driven zone with Kabir Khan's inspiring tale, based on the life of Padma Shri recipient Mr. Muralikant Petkar, aka Chandu Champion. What the film deminded from Kartik and Kabir was a full submission to the craft, as the writing was already good since Petkar's life was so inspiring. It usually happens that biopics are safer than fictional stories because they have more realistic sense and more inspirational stuff to offer. Chandu Champion has a champion-like story coming from Muralikant Petkar's life, well-handled by Kabir Khan as the storyteller more than a director. His direction can still be at fault for those flaws we see in the film, but as a storyteller, he completely wins.In the early 50s, kid Muralikant is taken to a Karad station to see Khashaba Jadhav as he returns from a historic Olympic win. Little Murali, unaware of things, decides to win the Olympic Gold Medal for India and enters Kusti ka akhada. Grown-up Murali (Kartik Aaryan) is teased as "Chandu Champion" by locals and is called Kaccha Limbu by his own coach. The perception changes when he beats the opponent Pahalwan in a fight that he was supposed to lose, and then he is run out of the village, only to find a new direction for his career—the Army. In the Army, Murali is guided by Tiger Ali (Vijay Raaz) in the boxing ring and becomes a sensation at the Olympics. With Gold being so close to him, Murali loses his concentration due to the glamour and glitter around him and loses the final. In 1965's war, he is hit by 9 bullets but still survives, only to left with paralyzed legs. Will he be able to complete his dream of winning gold for India?With a considerable amount of fiction and a tell-me-the-same-story kind of presentation, Chandu Champion feels inspiring but repetitive. Vijay Raaz asks Chandu, "Kabhi suni hai aise stories?" The entire fault of repetitive cinema lies here in this line. What can we do if the stories are so similar to each other? There might be hundreds of Muralikant Petkars all over the world inspiring millions to "never give up," but in our Maharashtra, we only had one Muralikant Petkar, no? What's wrong with telling his story, even if it is similar to many others? This is where every director and screenwriter should work. They can define cinema through new lenses if they can summarize the same story in a different format, in different ratios, and in different ways. The ultimate truth should remain the same.Talking about flaws, I didn't get how a man who has run out of a village in Langot can directly go to an army camp and get admission. Don't they ask for any documents? Also, the fact that the glitter disturbs your concentration doesn't seem like a big conflict in movies anymore. Even if we think about the 1960s, Milkha Singh went through a similar conflict, so Petkar could have easily avoided that (in real life and reel life, both). Didn't his married life deserve that one chunk of screen space? Besides these, I don't think there are any major flaws in the movie. It's a very good story with a sortable screenplay (which could have been better if we look at how Bhaag Milkha Bhaag and Dangal were handled). Khan's storytelling reminds you of his own previous works, if you look carefully. In 83's last scene, you see little Sachin Tendulkar on his brother's shoulder, and here you see a little girl on her father's shoulder waving at Padma Shri winner Petkar. I must say, that flashback trick is older than Petkar's real age, so Kabir Khan really needs to improvise himself there.Speaking of performances, Sushant Singh Rajput entirely belongs to two people: Kartik Aryan and Vijay Raaz. Kartik finally gets to play a challenging role (since it's a biopic), which demands physical and characteristic changes throughout the narrative. He does well. But how well? Compared to his own previous works, I can confidently say that Chandu Champion is Kartik Aaryan's best performance so far. Yes, in some scenes he brings that old and natural Kartik to spoil the sculptor, but nothing damageable. No more rom-com mediocrity; no more of that chocolate boy tag anymore. He has destroyed that image at once. Vijay Raaz nails the role of Tiger Ali. He is bindass; he is fearless; he is hopeful; and he is funny too. Rajpal Yadav's role seems important but it has been showcased with a lot of mediocrity. "Yayich hai" and "Apunich hai" kinds of language didn't seem appropriate for the 1960s (for any character). Yashpal Sharma and Shreyas Talpade are wasted in cringe-worthy roles, while Ganesh Yadav fits well for that small role. I am not sure whether Bhagyashri Borse's role was really necessary here. A journalist being so close to contestants during lunch and practice sessions isn't plausible at all. Yet, she looked cute, and I personally wouldn't mind having such a lovely lady nearby (but it's cinema, and I am a critic after all). Talented Sonali Kulkarni gets a small role but does fine, as did the other supporting cast members.Chandu Champion lacks musical finesse. I don't know from where that Satyanaas song appeared. The lyrics and the tone did not suit the situation at all. Sarfira was okay, but those situations needed a much more inspirational song. The cinematography was good, the sound design was decent, and the production value was high. Kabir Khan has proved that he can't really make a "bad film" every time (except a few), and the emotional pull he has is much better than that of other directors (except Hirani). Chandu Champion isn't his best work, but it's not bad or average either. Most of the credit goes to Muralikant Perkar's life because the story he has to share with us all is just INCREDIBLE. More than Kartik and Kabir, I really want to meet this man and salute him for whatever he has achieved in his life. Kis mitti ka bana hai ye banda? I really want to find out now.