Padmaavat BO & Review Thread - ALL DISCUSSIONS HERE ONLY - Page 34

Originally posted by: here4reviews

It's a reviews thread not a freaking lovey dovey fanclub or an updates thread that should only have positive reviews and people gushing over the film. Just because Anupama gave a bad review, she suddenly becomes a nobody and ratings do not matter despite being the most popular film critic along with Masand and on the other hand, the same members are happy posting good reviews from Twitter handles who aren't even legit film critics. Why are you guys so f**king touchy about criticism? Stop with the witch hunting and the moral policing. This is a reviews thread where people should be allowed to write or comment on a review. If you're so touchy and think bad reviews are going to spread 'negativity', please close this reviews thread and make a fan appreciation thread instead. It's nauseating for someone like me who is interested to know people's reaction on the film to see certain members pouncing on people posting negative reviews.

Originally posted by: here4reviews

It's a reviews thread not a freaking lovey dovey fanclub or an updates thread that should only have positive reviews and people gushing over the film. Just because Anupama gave a bad review, she suddenly becomes a nobody and ratings do not matter despite being the most popular film critic along with Masand and on the other hand, the same members are happy posting good reviews from Twitter handles who aren't even legit film critics. Why are you guys so f**king touchy about criticism? Stop with the witch hunting and the moral policing. This is a reviews thread where people should be allowed to write or comment on a review. If you're so touchy and think bad reviews are going to spread 'negativity', please close this reviews thread and make a fan appreciation thread instead. It's nauseating for someone like me who is interested to know people's reaction on the film to see certain members pouncing on people posting negative reviews.

Originally posted by: LegolasGondolin

Padmaavat Movie Review

Sanjay Leela Bhansali's epic is sheer gorgeousness. But it needs a beating heart to come alive, and this is where the film stumbles

BY ANUPAMA CHOPRA

Director: Sanjay Leela Bhansali

Cast: Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor, Ranveer Singh

Like his villain Alauddin Khilji, Sanjay Leela Bhansali is a director with a ravenous appetite. He has an insatiable hunger for drama, romance and above all, beauty. Early in Padmaavat, Khilji declares har nayab cheez par Allauddin ka haq hai. It could have been Sanjay speaking. Because above all, Padmaavat is a thing of beauty the rich fabrics, the jaw-dropping jewelery, the sumptuous, palatial interiors and of course, the sheer gorgeousness of the leads Deepika Padukone resplendent with her unibrow, the sculpted Shahid Kapoor who personifies nobility and Ranveer Singh who makes for one hell of a charismatic monster. Every element in Padmaavat, apart from some clumsy CGI landscapes and post-shoot 3D rendering, is a nayab cheez.

But films are not paintings. They need a beating heart to come alive and this is where Sanjay stumbles. Padmaavat is based on a poem about a Rajput queen written by the 16^th century Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi. The film begins with a disclaimer that there is no historical authenticity to the events depicted. This is a work of fiction Sanjay adding his own poetry to Jayasi's.

I have no idea how much the ugly politics surrounding Padmaavat has distorted the director's original vision but what we get is an unapologetic valorization of Rajputs and an unqualified demonizing of Khilji and his entire clan. Apart from his wife, played by a radiant Aditi Rao Hydari, the Muslims down to the last man are murderous, manipulative, cheating barbarians. Toward the end, the fight between Khilji's army and the Rajputs is described as a dharm yudh. And we all know who finally emerged victorious not literally but morally.

The valorization makes the Rajput characters cardboard. Deepika and Shahid look convincingly regal. Her incredible eyes, brimming with tears, register every emotion. But mostly, Sanjay requires them to give each other swooning looks. Everyone seems to be moving in slow motion as though they are part of a striking tableau. They mouth theatrical dialogue like Rajputi kangan mein utni hi takat hai jitni Rajputi talwar mein or dar naam ka gehna Padmavati ne kabhi pehna hi nahi. There is no relatable emotion here. Just frame after frame of painstakingly art-directed, gorgeously-lit pageantry.

Padmaavat is designed as an unabashed ode to Rajput bravery but ironically, the character who makes the biggest impression is Alauddin Khilji. As Sanjay and writer Prakash R. Kapadia tell it, Khilji is the devil incarnate. He likes to possess pretty things which includes women. He murders, without pause, even his own family members. It is suggested that he is bi-sexual Jim Sarbh gets the unforgiving role of Khilji's servant Malik Kafur. In one scene, a character says of Malik, uski begum hi samajhiye. Of course here bi-sexuality is a value judgment it is one more sign of Khilji's monstrousness.

Some scenes become unintentionally comical in one, Malik is singing while Khilji makes love in a stupor. In another, instead of putting perfume on his own body, Khilji throws it on a girl and then rubs the girl against himself. Ranveer bites into this character like Khilji chews into meat did I mention that he also lacks table manners. Khilji is repellent but you can't look away. His king-size nastiness infuses vigour into the film. Ranveer chews the scenery with aplomb and yet the first half of Padmaavat remains listless.

I clinically admired each frame. I applauded the work of cinematographer Sudeep Chatterjee, costume designers Harpreet-Rimple, Maxima Basu, Chandrakant & Ajay, and production designers Subrata Chakraborty and Amit Ray. But I wasn't seduced by the story telling.

Padmaavat sputters to life in the second half. The queen, who disappears for part of the first hour, reappears and takes charge. The climax in which the Rajput men go out for one last battle and the women prepare to immolate themselves is visually stunning. Sanjay pays homage to the unforgettable climax from Ketan Mehta's Mirch Masala, also a tale about a man obsessed with possessing a woman who refuses to cave in. In that film, women threw red chilies on the lecherous subedar. Here it is coals. The drama rises to a crescendo and the powerful, problematic legend of Padmaavati actually comes to life.

I'm an admirer of Sanjay's passion and rigour, of his operatic sensibility and his commitment to creating epics. He isn't subtle but he always plays for broke. To steal a line from the poet Robert Browning Sanjay's reach always exceeds his grasp. That's what a heaven's for. This time he doesn't quite get there.

Originally posted by: Offred

THANK YOU so much for saying this. I'm flabbergasted by the inability of the certain members to acknowledged negative reviews. I'm suddenly ostracised and deemed "showing true colours" for accepting critical reviews.

Childish as f**k. 😭

Originally posted by: nalanin1987

Nobody rejected anupama chopras review.
Some only questioned why suddenly her critic is so important and the only relevant critc when two years ago when she gave a good review for Bekfire and some many dismissed the review and said her critics aren't important...

So if she gives an actor you hate a good review than she knows nothing but if she criticizes a movie with the actor you hate than she know everything?

I love the critics of anupama chopra. There only three media people which review I seek out and she is one of them.
And it is not like that she hates the movie. She said some negative points but she talked also about positive aspects.

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.

Originally posted by: LegolasGondolin

Exactly same point.. respect her opinion and posted it on the thread too.. video review is on the first page for people to see. even Sucharita's review is also posted on the first page..

Why are some members trying their best to close this thread?

Originally posted by: here4reviews

I'll have to watch the film myself to judge but I do get why some of the critics are calling it a regressive film. Firstly Padmaavat the poem in itself is a fictionalized account so there's no history attached to it so we can treat it as a story - a story of how a number of women opted to jump on the pyre to save their honor. That's not regressive, that's a choice. But to use that story as the 'ultimate act of bravery' throughout generations is problematic and regressive to me, personally. Imagine, having grown up listening to stories of how a woman's honour is in their 'body' and the only way to save it is to give up your life. That I think is the problem. It's pretty regressive to teach kids from a young age that Jauhar was an 'ultimate sacrifice' and there are no other ways to fight for your honour. Probably why the Sena today is having so many problems and they can't even see Rani Padmavati's midriff uncovered. This hasn't happened in a day, it has happened due to years and years of regressive practices glorified as an act of courage. And if a film is glorifying that same which stars some of the biggest names of Bollywood and is going to reach a larger audience, then it can be a cause of worry or deemed regressive and I think that is what some of the critics meant. Anyways, I'll have to watch the film and then write my thoughts on it.

By the way, my post wasn't anyways about the critics but the witch hunting that's going on where members liking or supporting a bad review are being called out as haters spreading negativity.