Chander Pahar is by no means perfect, but it's an excellent effort nevertheless that raises the bar for Bengali films (if it can be called that - considering that more English than Bengali is spoken in the movie). Among the things that stand out are the attention to detail in terms of the period setting, the costumes and the production design, as well as the cinematography including at least a few helicopter cam shots that capture the beauty of Africa in the same way that the opening sequence of the Sound of Music captured the beauty of Austria.Dev is likable enough as the protagonist Shankar, although it is Gerard Rudolph who shines in the role of his buddy and mentor Alvares (except for the hideously accented Bengali that was hard to follow in some of the scenes). Among the things that work for the movie are the locations, the use of real animals (though an injured Shankar outrunning a lion was somewhat farcical), and the Bunip which is both fantastic and realistic. However, extremely shoddy editing affects the overall pace and flow of the movie and makes it longer by at least half an hour. (Probably a director's cut on DVD and Blu-Ray is in order, in the future.) Also in some scenes such as the volcano, the animation is amateurish to say the least - buying stock footage from Nat Geo for those would have been a cheaper and more effective solution.The first half of the movie is also weakly directed as compared to the second - it was almost as if the director took time to find his feet. Anyway, I am nit-picking, and this movie does not deserve that. On the whole, it's one of the better ones to come out in recent times, and I do hope that the producers recover their cost so that more such movies get made - this is the most expensive Bengali movie ever, and it shows.

Many of us love watching adventure films, but very few good ones remain in memory.when Adventure combines with the Wild , the Thrill of watching the movie goes up.I am a Bengali person who has read Bibhutibhusan's Novels and other popular adventure stories by Author's around the world.I read "Chander Pahar" when i was in middle school and felt the story captivating . when i heard that a movie was being made in 2012 ,i felt that its a very difficult task to present on-screen.But when the show began i understood that i need not to worry, because it starts with thrilling action sequences and never bores you at all.I also watch Hollywood films and clearly understand the difference in quality but leaving that aside all that matters is how you present a story in front of viewers.Most theaters and multiplexes are going house-full because people wish to taste the thrill , which has been neatly delivered by Director Kamaleswar Mukherjee.The cast of this film seemed to be carved out of the Novel itself . The film also delivers a good morale and describes a long journey without boring the audience.Both the Bengali cast and foreign cast are perfect and the cinematography is spectacular.If you have not watched it yet because you liked "Dhoom 3" , then i advise to watch this to change your mind and experience the thrill "Chander Pahar" delivers

1.wat I liked about the film...The cinematography The location shooting Dev's acting at certain points. The adherence to the original script/book. The gripping action scenes The clever use of "point of view".2.What I didn't like...Dev and his horrible duologue throwing accentHow initially wen he chased his horse, all I could see was the African grasslands out of his house. . but next morning there was a railway station in front of it Before the lion was in front of him.. his left leg was dead nd he couldn't move.. but he saw the lion and he didn't hobble.. he ran away at full speed might have even run faster than the lion.. After running he massaged his right leg wen his left leg has been injuredHow he unnecessarily jumped and shot the lion.. shooting at the sky yet managing to kill the lionAlso i don't know how he managed to shoot a flying eagle miles in the sky with that gun..How he is unable to talk fr over 30 minutes yet he can sing perfectly at night.He kept falling over like a drunkard all over the place.How after every night they would use the same screen-shots of a particular place when obviously they were moving ahead.How there were NO subtitles fr the Portuguese bits nd the duologue delivery of Alvarez was difficult to comprehend..How the volcanic eruptions fell all-round them but never at the place they were standing and they did not run away and stood there admiring the eruption...How he was so weak that he couldn't walk.. he was about to shoot himself but when he realized that someone could save him.. suddenly he starts jumping nd dancing around.The use of CGI fr the monster was completely over the top came so close to them several times and did not harm them and then without any knowledge of how to hunt he could suddenly built a near perfect trap to capture such a big monster like some reincarnation of god. These are only a few things over the top of my head. You don't need to be amazing.. but taking care of small details like this can make a movie Note that I didn't criticize his directing. .no.. but I m criticizing the mistakes he made which were a lot.. it takes guts to make a movie like this.. but if you're gonna act like an amateur and make glaring errors.. then you're not gonna be appreciated by everyone. Thanks

Disappointing. What could've been one of the best entries in the genre of adventure cinema, that's not too well populated by movies made in the Indian studios, is marred by sloppy set-up/acting/directing/screenplay/editing, (really, really) shoddy CGI (Desert, Volcano, Bunyip.....) and everyone line-reading to one another. The actor who plays Diego (Gérard Rudolf) rises above the general mediocrity, but the main lead only remembers to stay in character right at the very end (about 15 minutes prior to curtains). The (rather unnecessary) voice-over narration also is a huge diversion, and was the root of plenty of unintentional humor, as was the lead's tendency to keep smiling at some private joke only he was privy to, almost throughout the movie's running time.+s I can think of - a bold entry in a relatively new genre, noble intentions, lack of musical diversions, Gérard Rudolf's acting, (some of the) cinematography. A missed chance, a lost opportunity. I do hope it doesn't put filmmakers off adventure fare though.Another thing - lots of reviewers seem to be showering this with platitudes just for the intention, and are looking past the end product. It's nice to seem/sound encouraging, but I do wish the right talent had the chance to play with such budgets.