Bigg Boss 19 Daily Discussion Thread - 19th Sept, 2025
🏏T20 Asia Cup 2025: AFG vs SL, 11th Match, Group B at Abu Dhabi🏏
HEALING SHUROO 18.9
Nerdtastically Navratri (CC Game, Sign Up Open)
Deepika Removed From Kalki 2
VICTIM KAUN 🤧 19.9
🏏T20 Asia Cup 2025: India vs Oman, 12th Match, Group A at Abu Dhabi🏏
Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai Sept 19, 2025 Episode Discussion Thread
Buddhiya ki Nautanki
How quickly time changes
ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Off Air for Charlie Kirk Comments
Anupamaa 18 Sept 2025 Written Update & Daily Discussions Thread
Armaan has always been the victim
Pari's hate for Tulsi
Alia bhatt special topic
Anupamaa 19 Sept 2025 Written Update & Daily Discussions Thread
Baseer rental house
Appreciation Post for Ruheen
Happy birthday Namik Paul❤️🔥🩷
Now Nag Ashwin takes a dig at Deepika for the Kalki mess
Main cast: Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh, Shahid Kapoor etc.
Director: Sanjay Leela Bhansali
The controversy surrounding Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film Padmavat so far has been so disrespectful, that becomes clear after watching the movie. There is not a single scene which hurts the dignity and respect of Rajputs in the film. Perhaps the protesters started protesting without seeing it. At the end of the film, you go out in salute to Rajput dignity, bravery and aan-baan aur shaan. Sanjay Leela Bhansali has always been making larger than life movies. But Padmavat is the biggest movie of his life. There is hardly any such film in the history of Indian cinema yet. Perhaps for the first time you will see such a movie. Even in such splendor, Sanjay Leela Bhansali appears to be have worked closely on the small details of each scene.
Bhansali's Colour Combinations
Sanjay Leela Bhansali's colour combinations and his art direction, they all make the grandeur of the scene even greater. Each of his films have different textures. In this, he has captured the colours of Rajasthan very well. Perfection in every scene is his speciality. He has also given the music of the film, obviously he has performed well in a jugalbandi of a director and a composer. The frequency of songs is a bit high, if they been fewer it would have worked too.
Will not be able to recognize Deepika
Talking of the performances, Deepika Padukone has absorbed everything about Queen Padmini so well that you almost forget that it is Deepika. She seems to be Queen Padmini in every scene. Maharawal Ratan Singh is played by Shahid Kapoor, whose hard work on this character is clearly visible on the screen. But in all of this, comes up the character of villainous Alauddin Khilji, played by Ranveer Singh, who has been seen and liked in heroic characters so far. For the first time he has come in front of us in a villainous character and the way he has portrayed the villain is praiseworthy. In addition to these three main characters, the act of veteran actor Raza Murad is amazing. He has made the character of Jalaluddin Khilji come alive! Also, in the role of Mehrunisa, Aditi Rao Hydari has performed well too. All the characters make a separate mark for themselves and they are also successful!
Best Editing & Cinematography
There is a tremendous direction from Bhansali in the film. At the same time, the film's grandeur is complimented by things like its editing and cinematography. Adding to it, the work that has been done on the costumes, also enhance the grandeur of the film.
Jagaran.com com Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Originally posted by: JackSparrowcraz
Ranveer received flaks from some quarters
Ranveer is too loud yet again.Overacting.Caricature.Raja Sen - A loud and overblown performanceThe Hindu - Singh, on the other hand, may be called Khilji here but the character and its interpretation is along the same lines as the unbridled sexual assertion, aggression and machismo of his character in Goliyon... The severely muscled and overly gymmed-up body stays as does the 'Tattad tattad' kind of dance. The likeable actor is dangerously close to falling into the "eccentric, flamboyant" trap. Hope someone rescues him from it soon.Deccan Chronnicle - Ranveer Singh as the menacing Khilji is effective in parts, but overall, his performance is too loud.
Movie: Padmaavat
Cast: Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh, Shahid Kapoor, Raza Murad, Jim Sarbh, Aditi Rao Hydari, Anupriya Goenka
Director: Sanjay Leela Bhansali
Producer(s) : Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Viacom18 Motion Pictures.
Rating: 3.5/5
Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmavati, oops, now Padmaavat, is based on a possibly allegorical poem of the same name which was written by Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi back in 1540. This piece of literature, which could purely be a work of fiction, found its way into the Rajput history as a somewhat real account of the obsession that the barbaric Sultan of Delhi, Alauddin Khilji (played by Ranveer Singh in this film) had with Rani Padmavati (played by Deepika Padukone), and his attempt to capture her. This piece of history (or simply a legend, we don't really know here) is something that the Rajput community is probably very well versed with. We suggest that you rather not look up the details of the poem off the net because it will totally ruin your joy of watching this masterpiece.
Since this film has been accused of distorting history by certain people (Ahem, Karni Sena, Ahem) who claim that the film has a dream sequence between Khilji and Padmavati, who never really met as per the history books, let's set the record straight. There's NO such scene and the two are never seen together in a single frame for even as much as a second.
Now, let's talk performances and about the whole package.
The opening act of the film is a scene between Ranveer's Alauddin and veteran actor Raza Murad's Jalaluddin, who is the former's uncle. It is this very act and a sequence after that which gives you a complete picture of what Khilji really is: a calculative, conniving monster who wants to conquer and capture every exquisite thing known to man. Had Khilji been alive today, he'd probably want to take this very film and make it a part of his own collection and NEVER show it to the world, because this film too is as exotic and beautiful as it can get. Overall, a bruised, greased and totally unhinged Ranveer makes for a perfect anti-hero which he gives in the form of a monster of a Sultan. Clearly Singh has been given a lot of room to improvise and undoubtedly, he makes the best of it. If Singh thinks that we will hate him after seeing him as the evil Sultan of Delhi, he's DEAD WRONG!
Deepika's Rani Padmavati doesn't really speak much verbally, but, her eyes are talking all the time, and, when it's time for her to talk, she delivers quite a punch whenever she does. Being able to talk non-verbally on screen is the mark of a true actor. But, don't really expect her character to take off right from the start, for the first half is all about the brimming romance between her and Shahid Kapoor's Maharawal Ratan Singh, which, much to the credit of the two actors and the writers, is handled beautifully and you could feel that the love between the two is pure and even ravishing at some parts. Who knew that this pair would click? But, when the second half comes along, that's when Deepika's Padmavati really takes off as a badass strategist and it's a treat to watch.
Shahid Kapoor's Maharawal Ratan Singh is a Rajput King who plays by the book to a fault. It is those moments when the Rajput pride and the need of being known as the righteous king in the books of history possess him that makes his character totally nave about what Alauddin usually has in store for him in terms of surprises and, usually, Khilji ends up getting an upper hand. So, although his actions are instrumental to the story, he is nothing but an instrument in this epic. He could have been a character that you'd really care or feel for, but unfortunately, it looks like the makers haven't even as much as thought about making him one.
After the leads, there's Aditi Rao Hydari, who, in the little screen time that she has, really gets to shine bright and she really does look like a part of a royal lineage. (Fun fact: she already is in real life!). Jim Sarbh as Alauddin's wife-like major general (as pointed out by a character) Malik Kafur seems too, well, miscast for the role, and it is his western-esque accent to blame for that. On the other hand, he seems too harmless for someone who is the right hand of someone who was perhaps the most powerful ruler of that time.
As far as direction and music goes, it's SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI for crying out loud. What do you expect other that sheer brilliance and artfully crafted frames from him? Also, Bhansali has a thing of capturing breath-taking scenes, but that needs no mention. If you bar a few war scenes where CGI has been used terribly, this directorial venture is a visual treat! But, we still think that Padmaavat would have been a better, given that we don't know what all has been chopped off so that the film can finally be released.
If you thought that Baahubali was larger than life and worth whatever amount you paid for it was worth it, Padmaavat will blow your mind!
A must watch!
Originally posted by: PhunsukWangdu
Desperate times desperate members
Finally the day is here when Padmaaavat is getting a release. All this while, we couldn't be sure if we will ever get to experience this extravaganza. Fortunately, despite a lot of protests, the film is ready to be screened for public. Critics have already viewed it and have imparted their wisdom about the film. We have collected a few of their views for you so that you get a better understanding of what the learned film critics are saying about the film.
Our reviewer Urmimala Bannerjee was bowled over by Ranveer Singh's beastly presence in the film. She writes, "Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film is a visual delight and thoroughly entertaining fare, courtesy the epic performance by Ranveer Singh. It talks about Rajput pride and there is nothing that will offend anyone. At least, I couldn't find anything that can be termed offensive in anyway. And there is no dream sequence between Khilji and Padmavati. The last line is for those who still believe Sanjay Leela Bhansali has made a film with inappropriate facts. Thus, it deserves four stars from Bollywoodlife. (Read the whole review here)
Hindustan Times gave it three stars and mentioned how the mere fact that the film had to go through so many hurdles to reach the theatre wins it the privilege of getting viewed at least once. "Padmaavat is sparkling, extravagant, dazzling, magnificent and wonderful. It's a feast for the eyes. It leaves you craving for something more meaningful than a mere re-telling of Jayasi's poem. But it has enough to bedazzle you, so go for the sheen and Ranveer Singh's lunacy. After all, Padmaavat has passed so many hurdles to reach you, reads the review.
Times Of India gives it a 4 stars saying, "Shahid is steadfast and unflappable as Maharawal Ratan Singh the ruler of Mewar, brimming with Rajput pride. He brings a regal aura to the character that warrants him winning the confidence and loyalty of the Mewar kingdom and more importantly, Rani Padmavati's heart. Deepika is radiant as the Rajput Queen whose beauty, brains and valour moves the entire plot along once Alauddin Khilji becomes obsessed with her. Padmavati's allure beyond the superficial is prominent post-interval, when her character comes to life and she gets to showcase her acting range. Alauddin Khilji sees Ranveer as an unhinged, barbaric Sultan, who is consumed with a ravenous libido for power and flesh. He unleashes an animal magnetism on screen with a scarred face, kohl-lined eyes and a greased torso. The scenes between him and Shahid are some of the most engrossing, as both flex their acting muscles at opposite ends of the moral spectrum. (Also read: Will Padmaavat beat Ram-Leela to become the BIGGEST opener of Sanjay Leela Bhansali?)
But not every critic was floored by Bhansali's masterpiece. Firstpost in their review mentions how the three actors have saved a predictable movie. We don't know what they were expecting from the film because everyone knew it's based on a poem. Anyway, the review reads, "On the performances front, Ranveer Singh takes the cake (or piece of raw meat, as that seems to be his character's fancy). He goes over the top in his evil madness (falling just about short of being a caricaturish villain) but knows where to draw the line and let his body language and demeanour do the talking. At several points you forget this is Ranveer Singh standing in front you (but then his familiar voice gives it away). Sudeep Chatterjee's visuals are still slapped in my memory: they are so stark I could literally draw them out. Both Jim Sarbh and Aditi Rao Hydari stand out in their roles and have some of the best dialogues in the film. It's a pity then, that the writing of Padmaavat (or let's say the censored final product) lets down the good stuff in the film. How do you support a film that glorifies the very beliefs you don't stand for? Do you accept it as a portrayal of the times in which the film is based, or do you give into your disappointment?
NDTV was most disappointed as it awarded only 1.5 stars. The review reads, "The problem lies not in Padmaavat being a costume drama, but in the fact that there is too much costume, too little drama. In the film's opening scene, we see a king chewing roughly on a piece of poultry. This is a surprisingly small, tandoori-sized handful of bird, nothing compared to the way we have, in international film and television, watched vikings gnaw at giant animal legs the size of motorcycles. Therein lies the problem. There's not nearly enough meat.
The Hindu called it an insipid love letter saying, "Forget these ideological, political, feminist quibbles, my biggest issue with the film is that it is a yawn fest. If there's one disclaimer that Padmaavat should have rightfully sported, it is "any lapse into boredom is purely unintended and coincidental. The reviewer clearly was wildly unimpressed with Bhansali's this period tale.
Jan,24 2018 09:38 42 IST
Cast: Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh, Shahid Kapoor, Aditi Rao Hydari, Jim Sarbh, Raza Murad, Anupriya Goenka
Director: Sanjay Leela Bhansali
In a scene towards the latter part of writer-director Sanjay Leela Bhansali's new film, Rani Padmavati has a conversation with the mother of Badal, a loyal soldier in her royal husband's army who gave up his life to save his king. The queen informs the madre that her son is dead. The aforesaid madre refuses to mourn her child's passing, replying instead that a Rajput who loses his life on the battlefield is not to be deemed dead.
By then, much speechifying about Rajput valour and usool (principles) has already flowed under the bridge on screen. But wait...there is more. "Today I understand why Rajputs are said to be brave, says Ms Padmavati. "It is because they are born of brave mothers like you.
Oh Mummy! I almost choked on exasperated laughter in that moment as I sat watching in IMAX 3D in a darkened hall in Delhi, because like so much else in the film, the goings-on in this passage too contradict what its self-worshipping Rajput characters are saying. Far from being an example of that much-touted Rajput bravery, Badal's end was the result of a foolish and egoistic Rajput king's foolhardy moves going against the common-sense advice of his far more intelligent wife Padmavati the king's stupidity leads to his imprisonment by an enemy ruler, at which point Padmavati displays further intelligence and political acumen in entering the lion's den and snatching her husband from the jaws of death with the help of those like Badal.
Deepika Padukone as Rani Padmavati in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat
If anyone's courage should have been celebrated at that point, it should have been the courage of Padmavati who, genetically speaking, was not a Rajput herself but a child of the Singhal kingdom that lies in modern-day Sri Lanka.
Lesson No. 1 from Bhansali's guide to populist pandering: do not let facts stand in the way of dialogues designed to massage the collective ego of the men in a community you wish to please.
Padmaavat originally named Padmavati till the Central Board of Film Certification forced a title change following extremist reactions from that very community is steeped in such unwitting contradictions. The film tells the story of Rani Padmavati, second wife of Maharawal Ratan Singh, king of Chittor situated in today's Rajasthan. H.R.H. Ratan encounters Padmavati in an accident when he visits Singhal to procure its famed pearls for his first wife. They fall in love and Padmavati returns with him to Chittor as his bride. Through a series of events, Alauddin Khilji, sultan of Delhi, hears of the woman's unparalleled exquisiteness and since he wants to possess every "nayaab cheez (unique thing) in the world attacks Chittor to get her for himself. After another chain of events, Padmavati kills herself along with all the female adults and children of Chittor in the practice of jauhar, an old north Indian custom where women would commit suicide by jumping into fire instead of risking being raped by a rival army when faced with certain defeat.
Bhansali's Padmaavat is based on the 16th century fictionalised poem Padmavat by Malik Muhammad Jayasi. Most modern historians concur that Rani Padmavati a.k.a. Padmini is a figment of Jayasi's imagination although Alauddin Khilji and Ratan Singh a.k.a. Ratan Sen a.k.a. Ratnasimha are historical 13th-14th century figures and the siege of Chittor did indeed happen, Alauddin's purpose being to expand his kingdom and not to forcibly take a mythical queen.
In the year leading up to the release this week, fundamentalist Rajput organisations have committed acts of violence, threatened worse, demanded a ban and in general created a hubbub based on their inexplicable assumptions that this film insults their people. Quite the opposite. Padmaavat is an irritating ode to Rajput bravery which, if you read history books, is as much a myth as Padmavati a.k.a. Padmini herself.
From the very first scene, Bhansali's goal is clear: to pedestalise Rajputs and demonise the Khiljis, to pander to the larger Hindu Right via Rajputs by slandering a Muslim king.
And so, while H.R.H. Ratan Singh (played by Shahid Kapoor) looks pristine, as if his pyaara sa, gora sa chehra has been newly cleansed by an Emami or Vaseline face wash, Alauddin (as played by Ranveer Singh) is a perennially dirty-faced devil, his chehra forever smeared with what appears to be blood and mud even when he is not in battle. Alauddin's hair is wild, his walk almost bear-like, his eyes at all times either narrowed to slits or widened to convey his menacing intent, while H.R.H. Ratan looks angelic. If Alauddin wants a woman for himself, he is portrayed as lustful, whereas Ratan's betrayal of his first queen for Padmavati is sweet romance. Alauddin has sex with another woman minutes before his wedding, rapes his first wife Mehrunissa (Aditi Rao Hydari) and beds a prostitute even while consumed with desire for Padmavati, but H.R.H. Ratan makes sweet sweet lurve to Padmavati. Alauddin and his uncle Jalaluddin (Raza Murad) are shown tearing into massive chunks of meat like savages, while H.R.H. Ratan feeds himself delicate morsels of food. Bad Alauddin always wears black and other dark shades, whereas the good Ratan dons whites, beiges and cheery colours. Wicked Alauddin stomps his feet in laughably animalistic dance moves to the song 'Khalibali' whereas Ratan, dahling Ratan, carries himself with dignity. And get this, in what seems to be Bhansali's ultimate signifier of debauchery, the nasty Muslim king's male lover is trivialised oh no! bisexuality! how terrible, no? whereas the good Hindu man's eye wanders with poise and only in the direction of women. Heterosexual promiscuity and infidelity are allowed, no?
There is no pretence at objectivity or nuance in the contrasting portrayals of the two monarchs. This is a literal echo of the average Hindu right-winger's view of Muslims as horny, carnivorous beasts. Padmaavat is a perfect example of a Hindi film couching its extreme prejudices in grandiloquence and tacky clichs, with those clichs embedded in resplendent frames.
Meanwhile, the gorgeous Ms Padmavati (Deepika Padukone) wears gorgeous lehengas while her gorgeous hair flows in just the right gorgeous wave and her perfect gorgeous makeup remains unsoiled even when she hunts in a Singhal forest or flees Alauddin's fort. As with all Bhansali's post-Khamoshi films, this one too is operatic in tone and visually stunning. After a point though, all that flawless beauty architectural, sartorial and human becomes exhausting (as it did in his worst film so far, Guzaarish), especially because his biases, his penchant for overstatement and his regressive worldview overshadow all else.
Among the many contradictions in Padmaavat is the fact that it chooses to lionise Rajputs when, by its own admission, Chittor fell because of Rajput disunity and cowardice. H.R.H. Ratan seeks help from all his fellow Rajput rulers but they turn him down for fear of antagonising Alauddin.
The biggest and most frightening contradiction though comes in the horribly romanticised depiction of jauhar, although the opening disclaimer states that the film does not intend to glorify the custom. Really? Why then does a closing voiceover, right after the act is shown on screen, seek to deify Padmavati's sacrifice'? She walks towards the flames, her hair blowing in the breeze, her voluminous skirt swirling about her ankles, her eyes burning with determination, full-bodied music playing in the background, joined by a sea of women clad in bridal red (including I wanted to vomit when I saw this a pregnant woman and a little girl) all voluntarily approaching their death.
That anonymous child is the only one in the crowd looking fearful rather than purposeful. I wonder if Bhansali let that shot of her frightened face slip in by mistake, because the rest of that elongated passage is clearly intended to valourise Rajput women. Jauhar was a horrendous practice underlining the belief that a woman's life is worth nothing if her vagina, the sole property of her husband or future husband, is invaded by another man. Considering that conservatives even in today's India place greater value on what they see as a woman's honour' over her life, it is scary that Bhansali has chosen to glamourise jauhar in his film in a bid to play to the Rajput gallery.
I am only portraying a reality from our past I can almost hear him say the words. There is a difference though, Mr Bhansali, between portraying a shameful reality and venerating it.
So yeah, everything in Padmaavat looks pretty, but the film has little else to offer beyond that, not even the striking performances that marked out Bhansali's last directorial venture, Bajirao Mastani, in 2015. Ranveer Singh appears to have bowed completely to Bhansali's vision of an evil Muslim king. While one cannot argue with an actor seeing a director as his captain, what is certainly worth questioning is his decision to accept this role with the full awareness of what that vision entailed in this case.
Others who have submitted entirely to Bhansali's line of thinking in their performances are Raza Murad playing the ravenous Muslim, Jalaluddin Khilji, and Jim Sarbh (who was so interesting in Konkona Sensharma's A Death In The Gunj just last year) here playing a scheming homosexual, Alauddin's slave Malik Ghafoor who one of the virtuously heterosexual H.R.H. Ratan's courtiers describes as Alauddin's "begum. Giggle giggle.
Shahid Kapoor as Ratan Singh has precisely one expression on his face from start to finish, which is such a disappointment considering how amazing he was in Vishal Bhardwaj's Haider (2014).
Deepika Padukone and Aditi Rao Hydari look great, of course. They are the only ones among the lead cast who manage to eke something out of the stereotype-ridden writing by Prakash R. Kapadia and Bhansali. Although their roles do not give them much space for depth, they remain convincing as epitomes of grace and elegance throughout.
Neither their presence nor the overkill of extravagant spectacle can save this film though. Apart from the tuneful 'Binte dil' and brief snatches of the background score, even the music does not match up to what Bhansali's films have delivered in the past.
Padmaavat's disturbing ideology misogynistic, communal and homophobic is bad enough. The final nail in the coffin is the lack of chemistry between Deepika Padukone and Shahid Kapoor, which made me long for the Aishwarya Rai-Hrithik Roshan pairing in the equally lavishly produced, vastly superior Jodhaa Akbar (2008). Remember Queen Jodhaa peeping out from behind curtains at the topless emperor? It was a scene crackling with electricity and longing. Watching Padmaavat's lead couple together though, I could not for the life of me understand why Padmavati gave a fig or her life for H.R.H. Ratan.
Published Date: Jan 24, 2018 09:38 AM | Updated Date: Jan 24, 2018 12:35 PM
Originally posted by: ..PikACHU...
Lol y are some of these reviews calling it regressive? It's based on a time hundreds of years before, what else did they expect? Today's standards won't apply for that time. As for slow and boring, iam going to comment after actually watching the movie.
Param Sundari review and box office https://x.com/umairsandu/status/1960372607494115457?s=46 t=gmo_g396jwmtO4eUOAuljw
So long valley review Tridha Choudhury and Akanksha Puri...
Detective Sherdil review thread (Diljit Dosanjh) https://x.com/zee5india/status/1935767034262176252?s=46 t=gmo_g396jwmtO4eUOAuljw
Panchayat season 4 review thread discuss...
The royals review thread...
Ye Hai Mohabbatein
325