What do you say when the daredevil spy of the fictional Bangladesh Counter-Intelligence, BCI, has pink lips?
Well, watching the latest Masud Rana film, out this Eid, the first baffled reaction: Masud Rana the spy or Masud Rana the romantic lover!
At one point, I was waiting for the epic line: “Chowdhury Saheb, I may be a simple secret agent but your daughter has given me her heart and soul!”
And then, the secret agent, originally modelled after Ian Fleming’s 007, is seen doing a dance number.
If this is how the film franchise is developing then the third version of the movie may very well be called, Masud Rana: License to Masti!
Or how about Masud Rana: Mission jhakanaka.
Jokes aside, the film fails to create the dark world of espionage, becoming just another commercial action flick where most of the acting seems forced and contrived.
The Masud Rana film will disappoint most Rana aficionados and outrage readers who have been keenly following the agent’s exploits for ages.
Masud Rana has a deep cultural and social root going back to the pre-independent days, developing well throughout the post liberation decades.
As a war-ravaged nation slowly began her journey to prove detractors wrong, Rana became the symbol of a nation’s resilience.
Readers knew that an agent of a desperately impoverished country travelling the globe, eating sumptuous meals and getting involved in swashbuckling adventures in exotic places was a fantasy, but in a time of relentless social and political struggle, Rana became the escape, the character who whisked us away from pervasive unsavoury reality into a world of make belief.
That is exactly why any perceived abasement of that character from how it was presented in the books seems like sacrilege.
Lipstick on Rana
The new movie has some uplifting features: the starting song about Rana works along with the introductory sequence featuring silhouettes.
The placement of playing card is reminiscent of Casino Royale but that’s alright.
Then slowly, the movie begins to show faults, descending into the cliched commercial template.
Haphazard plotline, failure to create an air of suspense and wooden acting are topped with Rana in a typical masala film dance number.
A suave agent, slowly dancing at a dinner ball, could have been inserted as part of the plot -- something Bond had done in many of his films but Rana doing a common commercial film dance severely trivialises the protagonist and the film.
And why the pink lips?
That actors in Bangladeshi movies wear lipstick is well established and, as far as I know, this is done to make the lips more appealing.
Perhaps that works for romantic heroes but certainly not for a secret agent whose appearance has to be gritty.
Rana is never portrayed as a lover-boy agent.
He is presented as a patriotic but morally ambiguous spy blithely flouting the conventional norms of right and wrong.
Rana, like Bond, lives in a grey zone where moral and immorality have swift changes of definition, depending on the circumstances.
He should be an enigma and not easily fall for a member of the opposite sex.
The famous line from the Rana book: “Taane shobaike kintu badhone jorae na” (attracts all but never gets entangled), appears incongruous with the bizarre dance and the overuse of the line: you are beautiful!
That brings us to the script.
For the 1974 Masud Rana film, the writer, Qazi Anwar Hossain, wrote the script and won an award for it.
The script in the 2026 film is monotonous with no subtle jokes.
Interestingly, the audience is never told on which book the film is based or, if the plot line was a mixture of several books.
Books left unopened
There’s a serious case of miscasting here.
The part of Rahat Khan, Masud Rana’s boss and a former military person, is one of gravitas and sophistication.
In the early books there’s a clear description of him: back brush salt and pepper hair, baritone voice and smoking a pipe.
The pipe bit can be removed if needed but the boss of the fictional Bangladesh Counter-Intelligence, BCI, is an image of dignity and, he may be shown wearing dark glasses if outdoors and never inside an office.
What is the point in showing Rahat Khan like a two-time convicted but unrepentant dealer of counterfeit Gucci bags, remarked Shahriar, a journalist after watching the film.
The same goes for the role of eccentric scientist Kabir Chowdhury, portrayed as Masud Rana’s nemesis in countless books.
The word “eccentric” does not mean mad, which is what we get in the film.
Kabir Chowdhury’s role is more like the proprietor of a shady massage parlour, commented Zahirul Islam, one viewer.
Masud Rana fans will agree that before attempts are made to make a film on the spy, the books need to be read thoroughly, analysed by a panel of Rana readers and the cast selected based on their recommendations.
Acting over looks
A spy must be athletic and agile, but in films acting comes first.
Casting should favor experienced actors who can be molded into the role, not newcomers without exposure. Sean Connery proved this in Dr. No, transforming into Bond with effortless charm, while George Lazenby’s rookie stint remained his only outing.
In South Asia, where romance and glamour drive audiences, acclaimed actors are essential for action films.
Pooja Cherry and Syeda Tithi delivered commendable performances, but Russell Rana, despite his physique, lacks acting depth.
The defining moment of a Rana film, delivering the name with poise, demands conviction.
Masud Rana purists will find the new film diluted with unnecessary masala.
Future attempts must consult Rana experts and cast established actors.
With proper coaching, stars like Shakib Khan could embody Rana convincingly.
Fans wait eagerly, but repeated missteps risk wasting time and money.