New York Times TRASHES Padmaavat - Page 10

Who cares if film gets trash by them as long as this film broke the jinx of january and became the biggest blockbuster hit...made history with numbers. That's all that matters👏😆⭐️

kuch logo ki itni jal gayi hai idhar ki hadh nahi hai

Originally posted by: --VS-Cool--

kuch logo ki itni jal gayi hai idhar ki hadh nahi hai

humare yaha to self immolation karne wali aurato ko devi mana jata tha kyuki apne samman ki raksha hetu ye kadam uthana koi hansi khel nahi

magar ye film un logo ko hazam nahi hogi kyuki "kuch" ke liye khilji jaise log bhi devta hai (we know for whom) 😆

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic

This is going to burn some SRK fans. Kudos to SRK. His sensibility has always been his best attribute.

Some losers on the forum are such tryhards lmao. They tried with the pseudo-feminism, didn't work cause the audience clearly knows the difference between the 13th century and 21st. Now they are trying the religion angle where there was none and that too using a white person's perspective as fodder. Too bad for them the general public doesn't agree. Stay tuned for a new made-up issue tomorrow. But you know what they say,Karma is a just bitch at the end of the day. 😆

Originally posted by: angrybread

Lol...pakistan releasing ti shows ki khilji kisi ka devta nahi hai 😆

I see that majority here don't see any issue with the portrayal of muslims : I don't know much about Khiliji but what most critics have pointed out is the lack of nuances in the portrayal of the community as a whole...

Like the New york times critics said : it's a tale of good vs evil ... Rajputs are covered in glory and muslims eat dirty, fight dirty and follow the lead of a marauding brut "

This is wrong in so many levels.

Firstly, Muslims have clear war ethics. Again I don't know much about Khiliji but the way SLB choose to depict a whole community a savages is falsification of history .

Secondly, his movie is contributing to fuel the stigma against muslims.

Now, I am disappointed in SLB because it was his choice to portray muslims the way he did : it wasn't backed by any historical facts or anything. It was just the way he wanted to do it.

From what I read, the poem itself was nuanced .

Originally posted by: Kaoridz

I see that majority here don't see any issue with the portrayal of muslims : I don't know much about Khiliji but what most critics have pointed out is the lack of nuances in the portrayal of the community as a whole...

Like the New york times critics said : it's a tale of good vs evil ... Rajputs are covered in glory and muslims eat dirty, fight dirty and follow the lead of a marauding brut "

This is wrong in so many levels.

Firstly, Muslims have clear war ethics. Again I don't know much about Khiliji but the way SLB choose to depict a whole community a savages is falsification of history .

Secondly, his movie is contributing to fuel the stigma against muslims.

Now, I am disappointed in SLB because it was his choice to portray muslims the way he did : it wasn't backed by any historical facts or anything. It was just the way he wanted to do it.

From what I read, the poem itself was nuanced .

Originally posted by: cricketfan1

@bold: Raping dead bodies is part of war ethics? The fact is the invaders had no religion...Otherwise no religion(least of all Islam) preaches so much bloodshed, rape and destruction...That's why the invaders should just be seen as invaders and not some crusaders of any religion...

But not Khilji or any of his subordinates claimed to do anything in name of religion

Originally posted by: FrancoBaldwin

But not Khilji or any of his subordinates claimed to do anything in name of religion