Jodha Akbar review – I know its late, but I am an Indian, working on IST.

Sexy is Back |

102 | June 7, 2009 at 12:30 am | 146 views | NaachGaana Bol| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

I do not know from where to start???? Should I curse rediff first, or CNN-IBN or who else, as I saw the movie because I saw 4 stars everywhere, but may be they were out of 10.

I saw the first day first show here in US, that was Friday, Feb 15 2008, 5:00 PM. After traveling in massive rain for 2 hours, and boy was I disappointed??? And you know what was even worse, that I didn’t have to wait till interval to realize that I made a wrong choice, it was clear from the first 10 minutes itself, in the first “epic” fight.

Those who know me really well know how much I slammed Asoka, because I felt that it was a strong subject dealt so poorly by the director, but tonight I spent 2 hours discussing with my brother, how powerful Asoka was when compared with JA, and he agreed.

Why I am comparing this movie with Asoka??? because Ashoka and Akbar have always been my real heroes. They are the real historical figures, who are respected by one and all, regardless of religion, caste, or cadre. And I read about both in school history books, but sad to say, Akbar’s chapter was much more interesting in that history book than JA.

Very first thing is, when you do not have enough extras to show a BIG army, neither computer technology to replicate frames to show a HUUUGGGEEE army, then never take an aerial shot of so called “epic” battle. TBH it was my fault to expect something like LOTR from an Indian movie, when we do not have the sufficient technology. But I was disappointed to see that JA didn’t even match Asoka standards, spl in war sequences, which was a low budget movie, and was released 5 years ago. Even after 5 years AG couldn’t muster the technique to show better war scenes, just baffled me.

Movie started, just the way Lagaan did, with Amitabh Bachchan’s voice, describing characters and exactly there ended all parallels with Lagaan. Then appears Akbar’s character, and for some reason he is shown weak, scared, intimidated and infact bullied by people around him. Then came the war scene, and trust me if you remember the age old Mahabharta war scenes on TV, you will bang your head on the wall after seeing these stupid scenes. So called soldiers are swinging their sword in the air for no rhyme and reason, and a “sniper”, with his bow and arrow is trying to kill Hemu in a manner that can be classified as comic relief. Trust me you will have a good laugh.

As movie progresses you expect Akbar to become a big strong king, as you have read in books, but he has been shown as a man with no intelligence of his own. He is always shown as a person depending upon someone else for advice, which is quite frankly stupid. I know Akbar was illiterate, but it is said that he surrounded himself with some of the most intelligent and nice people and as a result he was a very able and smart person and emperor, therefore was loved by all his subjects. For example his Nav-ratnas, the most talented people from the fields of science, music, dance, etc. Moreover Akbar had his Deewan-ae-aam. where he used to listen to the problems of the people, from the people, and used to give instant relief. But never once in the movie you feel like Akbar had any interaction with the people of his empire, he is shown having just one circle of trust and do everything as they say. Something which didn’t go down too well with me.

Now comes fighting with elephant, dude you gotta be kidding me. I mean really??? is this your idea of showing a strong man???? fighting an elephant with a “dhaal”??? and elephant becomes calm when you sit on top of him??? In between Hrithik had some ludicrous jumps though….which added some humor however unintentional from director’s point of view.

Only scenes where you feel for the characters is when Jodha and Akbar are getting married. The whole sequence is good and stays true to the stories and history. Moreover emotions displayed by Hrithik and Aish are good in this part.

Furthermore disturbing was the fact that AG for some reason looked really influenced by Ekta Kapoor’s school of hamming, camera movement and stupid background score. When you see Hrithik’s face being zoomed in and out with some silly music and people eavesdropping outside other people’s tents, you just wonder was this the same man who directed a movie like Lagaan????

Let me go to the last fight now, as it might be getting unbearable for you to read anymore. I am a fan of Hrithik, not because of his acting, as it is limited, but because of kind of preparation he puts in for the character. I thought it matches the professionalism of Hollywood, but here Hrithik, I guess didn’t really care. He never felt comfortable with whatever he was wearing, whatever he was carrying as a weapon. Hence you got a real stale fight scenes. They tried to copy Troy in the end, but as rest of the movie, it fell flat on the face, and the movie ends abruptly.

Good part of the movie is Hrithik Aish chemistry, rest is just a mystery. I do not understand why it stretched to 3:20 hrs, when clearly atleast 2-3 characters were not needed. They had nothing to do, it might have been totally edited and hence shortening the movie by atleast 30 minutes or so. Again a plus point, the woman who played mother of Akbar, she was classy, spoke really well, portrayed the feelings of a mother really well. She was the only character under control. And the dialogs, I must commend the person who wrote dialogs, there were some hardcore hindi and urdu dialogs, but you never feel like lost. You will come to know the meaning and might end up learning something. And even the dialog delivery had been spot on.

As for performances, this is the first movie of Aish, where she acted better than everyone else. That can be due to her character being written and sketched out beautifully. Akbar’s character was written half heartedly and moreover Hrithik is not one of the best actors around, and hence you end up feeling sad for real Akbar. Aish’s bhaisa’s character was badly written and even worse acted. You can actually have an idea about the character by the fact that the guy has 20 minutes of reel time in the movie, scattered across 3 hours of run time, out of that he takes 12 minutes in dying. And even after all that you wonder why the “fish” he was in the movie from the very beginning?

I will give this movie 2 stars, that too from the goodness of my heart, and the fact that me and my brother went to see a movie after a long time, and ended up laughing nonstop for 4 hours, which was clearly not what AG tried, but still thanks to him.

And yeah on a side note, after watching I am convinced, you don’t need big body to portray characters like Akbar and Asoka, what you need is emotions visible in your eyes, your face, something which suggest you are a strong leader mentally.

Sidenote 2, please do not make Ramayna, and Asoka anymore, you don’t have enough technoogy to match the expected standards, and you end up mocking these highly respected characters. And if someone is still reading, thanks alot for your time and effort, trust me you while reading and me while writing invested more effort than AG did while directing.

PS: I know JA number are huuuge, but for me it falls in the category of last year’s Akshay Kumar movie Welcome, where every movie was cliched, filled with nonsensical stuff, hardly any worthy comedy, but still a huge success.
Now you can go ahead and curse me

Philip Lutgendorf’s take on Jodha Akbar

Akbar to Aurangzeb

99 review: yeah, yeah, I am always late, sue me.

Qalandar (Belatedly Watches &) Reviews JODHA-AKBAR (Hindi; 2008)

Sheeru’s Review of KAMINEY (Hindi, 2009)

There Are 102 Responses So Far. »

rks 12 March 2008
09:32:27 am

“After traveling in massive rain for 2 hours”

Rule of thumb: Like the movie after driving that much distance or don’t go!

Good points. I agree on some points (dialogues, Elephant fight scene), Disagree on Hrithik’s role. My comments

Kunal27 12 March 2008
09:50:23 am

I got the message hard way man……

But I will keep in mind now

Rocky 12 March 2008
10:10:27 am

Rather Late but, Welome to NG Kunal.
I think as a Fictional loveStory JA worked great and that is what AG’s intentions were.

Achilles 12 March 2008
10:32:06 am

Another funny post after the hilarious one against Bachchan loving SRK hating one.

Simply Som 12 March 2008
10:42:08 am

“but for me it falls in the category of last year’s Akshay Kumar movie Welcome, where every movie was cliched, filled with nonsensical stuff, hardly any worthy comedy, but still a huge success.”

Comparing JA with an out and out mindless entertainer Welcome!!!are you serious??You might have dissapointed with JA, i dont deny, but comparing it with a movie like Welcome is not fair atall IMO.

rockstar 12 March 2008
11:46:30 am

“for example his Nav-ratnas, the most talented people from the fields of science, music, dance, etc. Moreover Akbar had his Deewan-ae-aam. where he used to listen to the problems of the people, from the people, and used to give instant relief. But never once in the movie you feel like Akbar had any interaction with the people of his empire, he is shown having just one circle of trust and do everything as they say. Something which didn’t go down too well with me.”

movie shows the life span of young akbar ( age between 13-28) , upto then even navratna was not formed

rockstar 12 March 2008
11:49:00 am

“Now comes fighting with elephant, dude you gotta be kidding me. I mean really??? is this your idea of showing a strong man???? fighting an elephant with a “dhaal”??? and elephant becomes calm when you sit on top of him??? ”

historicals do come up with creative liberties , alexander has the same seqqunce where brad pitt was fighting an elepant , 300 showed spartans as butchers , even mughal-e-aazam was fictitious , there was no anarkali

rockstar 12 March 2008
11:51:36 am

*sequences*

rks 12 March 2008
12:05:33 pm

I think the age span shown in the movie is 13-22. Akbar was born on 1542. Throwing of Adham Khan happens in 1562. He abolished Jizyah in 1563.

rockstar 12 March 2008
12:28:27 pm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/.....wing+Akbar’s+formative+years%3a+Ashutosh+Gowariker

Ravi 12 March 2008
12:31:00 pm

I would take JA any frikkin day over Asoka and twice on Sunday’s.

Simply Som 12 March 2008
12:36:26 pm

apart from the brilliant camerawork and some finely executed battle scenes(expecially the climax), i dont think highly of Asoka.i was particularly pissed off by the love story, it just did not work for me.

Julie 12 March 2008
12:38:48 pm

kunal welcome to the forum.

U made some valid points in that other thread on SRK and Saif n Filmfare. Your dislike of JA is obviously personal and is appreciated, but please for heavens sake don’t compare it with the likes of Welcome (no brainer) and Asoka (an out and out flop product). Whatever said and done JA stands as a unique and niche product and is considered a masterpiece by many.

I would anyday take a JA over mindless entertainers like Welcome, OSO, and Hey Baby and bad attempt at historicals like MP and Asoka.

Julie 12 March 2008
12:43:02 pm

and I do sincerely hope that the success of JA prompts Ashu and other directors to really come up with well made and educational histroicals. That is why I feel thrilled by the commercial successs of JA more than that of D2 because one wants to see a more poignant and beautiful representation of our ancient histroy, heritage and rich culture. No surprise why such a movie was lapped up by a lot of forigners.

Ravi 12 March 2008
12:46:00 pm

I would like to see more historicals of our real culture the one before the Mughal’s because whatever any one might say I do not consider the Mughal’s or the British as part of our real culture.

Julie 12 March 2008
12:50:42 pm

Ravi – I would like to see a historical being made on the Maurya Dynasty for instance. I am particularly intrigued by the historical characters of Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta and put Chanakya and his Neeti in the middle of all of it it will be a wonderful journey through the Golden Period of Indian History.

Qalandar 12 March 2008
01:04:42 pm

Julie: after all the protests that idiotically erupt in India at the drop of a hat, I suspect the Jodha-Akbar experience has deterred filmmakers. And who can blame them? Very sad indeed…

Qalandar 12 March 2008
01:22:41 pm

Julie: I think you’re thinking of the Guptas not the Mauryas; Samudragupta was of the former, not the latter…

Kunal27 12 March 2008
01:31:03 pm

No wonder I always failed in English exams, because I so miserably failed to put my point across.

1st The only portion I compared JA with Asoka was the fight scenes, and please be realistic, they were better.

Simply Som:
“apart from the brilliant camerawork and some finely executed battle scenes(expecially the climax), i dont think highly of Asoka.i was particularly pissed off by the love story, it just did not work for me.”

My exact problem with both Asoka and JA.

Comparing JA with an out and out mindless entertainer Welcome!!!are you serious??You might have dissapointed with JA, i dont deny, but comparing it with a movie like Welcome is not fair atall IMO.

“but please for heavens sake don’t compare it with the likes of Welcome (no brainer) and Asoka (an out and out flop product)”

For Asoka please see point 1

as for Welcome:

2nd) As I said, I am comparing Welcome, only as both are super hits, else there is hardly any comparison, infact none whatsoever.

“Whatever said and done JA stands as a unique and niche product and is considered a masterpiece by many.”

I consider JA as a run of the mill love story, with fancy dresses, and fancy lingo.

But again my thoughts, you consider it as a masterpiece, I have no qualms about it. I respect your opnion as it is shared by many, if not all.

As for Nav-Ratnas, I never tried to imply that Akbar found those people at the age of 22, but it was just an example how he always surrounded himself with intellectual people, and though couldn’t read and write himself, still created a new religion of Din-ae-Illahi, by himself.

“historicals do come up with creative liberties , alexander has the same seqqunce where brad pitt was fighting an elepant , 300 showed spartans as butchers , even mughal-e-aazam was fictitious , there was no anarkali”

I am surprised that you didn’t curse me this time, but thanks for that, anyhow Alexander was a flop, for some of those reasons, and secondly, still there was a huge difference on how the scenes were shot. Else even the fight was inspired from troy, and you will bang yur head on the wall after watching Eric Bana and Brad Pitt being horrendously copied by JA cast.

But thanks for taking your time out to read this piece of crap, even I didn’t read it after writing. Kudos for your patience

Kunal27 12 March 2008
01:38:10 pm

No Qualandar she is talking about Maurya dynasty only, she just got confused with the names I guess, History I tell you was real blow.

Chandragupta Maurya came into the power with the help of Kautilya or Chankya. Chanakya being highly intelligent, used to give poison to Chandragupta, from his childhood, so that he can develop immunity towards any sort of poison. With his age, quantity of poison kept on increasing. But this fact was hidden from everyone, including Chandragupta’s wife, now comes the urban legend. One day in pregnancy, Chandragupta’s wife ate his food, and hence was about to die, it is said that Indian medicine was so advanced at that time, that doctors transferred the baby from woman’s womb to a sheep’s womb for some time. Hence when his son was born, he was having spots like on the body of a sheep, hence the name, Bimbisar.

Its true or not, I don’t know, but its interesting for sure

Qalandar 12 March 2008
01:41:03 pm

The confusion is perhaps understandable given that the Gupta dynasty included monarchs named Chandragupta as well. However, the two dynasties were separate by centuries if I recall correctly.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
01:48:19 pm

Atleast 500 years apart.

Mauryas were 300 BCE and Guptas were 300 AD

satyam 12 March 2008
01:50:58 pm

I won’t respond at length here except to say I prefer JA infinitely to Asoka!

satyam 12 March 2008
01:53:37 pm

Rks: As I pointed out in my piece on the film a lot of the history has been falsified. In the context of the point you bring up basically the later Akbar who was more the ’syncretist’ is read back into the young Akbar who was more than happy (on sincere or politically expedient grounds) to represent himself as a ‘warrior of the faith’.

ILG 12 March 2008
01:55:01 pm

Ditto Satyam.
Obviously Kunal, you have put an effort into it and I wanted to respond but there is nothing constructive I can bring myself to say. The only point I can probably accept is the criticism of war scenes.

Ravi 12 March 2008
01:58:14 pm

There was a telugu movie with NTR as Chandra Gupta and ANR as Chanakya , the name of the movie was Chankya chandra gupta.

I agree with you Julie that will make a very good movie with lot of plots and sub plots.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
01:59:19 pm

No ILG, you can slam me, scoop me out of the part, hate me for writing such a long review, while complaining about how long the movie was (How ironical).

Trust me you won’t be the first one, or the last one for that matter

Julie 12 March 2008
01:59:57 pm

sorry confusion in historical facts. The last I read history was 17 years back and unfortunately it was never my strong point.

Anyhow I was mainly referring to the Gupta Dynasty as the Golden Period which comprised of Chandragupta I followed by Samudra Gupta and then Vikramaditya.

I also simultaneously refereed to the Maurya Dynasty becasue I am enchanted by the character of Chanakya who was responsible for Chandraputa becoming a king. I am also facinated by the character of Asoka.

Qalandar – Creative directors may get dejected by these kind of protests however they will always find a way around to circumventing these issues to represent their creative talent (at least one hopes).

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:01:53 pm

@ Ravi and Julie, I guess it would be a 2-3 part movie atleast, because you got to start from Magadh of Nandas I guess, then Chandragupta himself, who was a great warrior and leader, then even if you skip Bimbisar, you just can not do without Asoka, in a different way then how Shahrukh showed.

Would be a huge movie.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:03:27 pm

Ok point taken back, Julie talking about a different movie altogether.

I don’t think so Guptas were as strong as Mauryas, but then I last time I read history when Dinosaurs used to walk our planet.

Qalandar 12 March 2008
02:08:39 pm

Kunal: at its furthest extent, the Gupta empire likely covered a larger area than the Mauryan empire, although of course under Asoka’s peak the Mauryan empire was also gigantic. The Guptas are commonly referreed to as presiding over ancient India’s golden age, for the various artistic and cultural achievements, although the polity’s dark side — increasing orthodoxy and greater restrictions on women and so-called “low” castes — means that social mobility was also less than it was before and after the Guptas.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:12:02 pm

I seriously think that Mauryas had the biggest empire, though Guptas might have been wealthier, as all my Gupta friends are filthy rich.

Though I won’t argue.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:15:08 pm

I think that Asoka as emperor covered a greater land mass than any Indian ruler before or since.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:16:24 pm

The Gupta Age is certainly considered by historians to be one of the peak ones of Indian history and William McNeill in fact argues that India between the second and sixth centuries was arguably the world’s civilizational center.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:19:59 pm

No Satyam, Asoka actually reinforced the empire, and squashed all civil uprisings. It was by all accounts Bimbisar who captured the maximum area. But he never got recognition as Chandragupta stole the storm by establishing his empire, Asoka became a monk at his peak, hence turning out to be the greatest warrior ever, as he captured the humanity’s biggest enemy, greed. Bimbisar was left with just 1 paragraph in our History textbooks, therefore never really got the limelight. But Bimbisar was a big time warrior.

Julie 12 March 2008
02:21:21 pm

As far as I know Samudragupta had an empire which encompassed half of the middle east, and down south Burma, Indonesia, Java and Sumatra. He was the only Chakravarti Samrat. He brought back the Golden age of the Hindu Kings.

So any day the expanse of the empire under the Gupta dynasty superceded that of any of the Maurya rulers or even the Moghal rulers. Samudra Gupta was also a prolific writer and a musician.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:25:55 pm

Julie: No Indian king ever ruled the Middle East! The Middle East at those points was more or less controlled by Persia at points by Rome.

The Gupta Age is referred to as the golden age of Indian history so there’s no question of ‘repeating’ another golden age unless you’re referring to mythic schemas.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:27:48 pm

I think it were only Mauryas who actually unified southern part of India, It is said that Mauryas actually put the foundations of unified India.

Else no one before them or after them, till Moughals could do that.

Furthermore I don’t think anyone except Mauryas captured middle east.
As I recall, there had been nothing except Budha Stupas as relic of any Indian civilization in middle east, which again are already taken down.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:29:02 pm

Actually Satyam is right, we never went past Afghanistan.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:29:22 pm

Kunal27: Bimbisar just ruled parts of central India as far as I’m aware. I’m quite certain he was nowhere close to Asoka in terms of the land mass he occupied!

Qalandar 12 March 2008
02:30:24 pm

Neither the Mughals nor the Mauryas ruled the Middle East; during the Mauryan era, that area was ruled by Hellenistic kingdoms, Persia, etc. During the Gupta period, the Middle East was basically dominated by Rome and Persia’s Parthian empire.

Furthermore, Mauryan rule did not extend over the southernmost portions of India.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:31:43 pm

It is true that the Mauryans also originated in Magadha much like Bimbisar but they created a genuine empire!

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:32:47 pm

If thats the case Satyam, then it was Chadragupta only who made a HUUGE Mauryan empire, Asoka didn’t add much.

He just crushed the uprisings, in the most brutal ways possible.

And then he captured Kalinga.

He didn’t make his empire that hugs, and I am very certain of that.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:33:54 pm

The greatest land mass controlled by any Indian ruler after Asoka was Aurangzeb as far as I’m aware. Of course in the latter instance the control did not outlive Aurangzeb by much.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:34:15 pm

I guess Qualandar, only a very few regions of southern India were left alone, else it was all under Mauryan rule.

And again Satyam is right that Mauryas actually made first Indian Empire. A real huge map.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:35:26 pm

Wow my history teacher would have been so proud of me.. discussing history… I already have tears in my eyes.

Qalandar 12 March 2008
02:37:05 pm

LOL kunal…

satyam 12 March 2008
02:37:21 pm

Kunal27: Chandragupta was undoubtedly the greatest Mauryan ruler other than Asoka. I’m not sure what you mean by not adding much. Asoka went further east and South. Was the bulk of his empire already one that was conquered by Chandragupta? Sure! But that’s true for many conquerors in history. Few start from scratch! Of course Asoka is an extraordinary figure for many other reasons as well.

rks 12 March 2008
02:37:43 pm

Rockstar: Ashu may be saying that. I am talking from Historical accuracy and chronological point of view. Akbar’s marriage happened on jan 20, 1562. In all probablity what is shown in movie as climax was the place of wedding.

Bairaam Khan was killed in 1561.

I don’t see any event that took place after 1563. If indeed they showed Akbar from 13-28, then they should have shown the victory and massacre in Chittor (1568, at age 26).

satyam 12 March 2008
02:39:35 pm

Actually most of the South was not under Asoka’s rule in any direct sense. But he did go farthest.

rks 12 March 2008
02:41:56 pm

Q: Check your mail. Something to chew.

Kunal27 12 March 2008
02:44:19 pm

Adding much I meant when compared to acquisitions of Chndragupta himself, he didn’t add much to the map of Mauryan empire, but his contribution has been huge, may be more than any Indian has ever done till date.

He actually started recording the history of India in the first place. He had an ambition to make his Mauryan empire as the everlasting empire in the world, hence he formed the language of Prakrit.

Also it is said that in a bid to make his empire live forever he formed the first secret society of the world, which later on formed Illuminati, Masons, Free Masons etc.

Now again I don’t know how true these things are, but sure is fascinationg.

So Ashoka’s contribution is beyind anyone’s imagination.

satyam 12 March 2008
02:48:04 pm

Rks: That’s right. I should just add that Akbar took full control around the age of 20 and any massacres that Bairam Khan was involved in before this cannot really be laid at Akbar’s doorstep. However Chittor or Ranthambhor that came after he assumed real power and was more or less in his early to mid 20s are of course Akbar’s responsibility and both were brutal campaigns. I personally think Gowariker could have made a much better film if he had followed this kind of arc for his story as opposed to fashioning a bourgeois romance with an episodic narrative. And this incidentally would have also been less controversial with the right. In a sense Gowariker plays the game on the right’s turf. He also finds Chittor embarrassing to explain and therefore elides this bit of Akbar’s history or indeed anything that would go against his idealization of Akbar as the ‘liberal’ king. I would have kept hints of the ‘Islamic warrior’ in the film, I would have retained the violence, and then gone on to the later portions, in essence opted for a more complex arc for the story. The point is (as I’ve argued before): with or without episodes like Chittor Akbar is by far a rather liberal emperor for his age and not just for his part of the world. The man can be justified in his historical context. But Gowariker just gives in, unwittingly perhaps, to the right and more or less accepts the equation: if chittor then no ‘great’ Akbar, therefore no Chittor! for the right the conclusion is just the opposite: since chittor happened, Akbar cannot possibly be ‘great’.

rks 12 March 2008
02:56:56 pm

” if he had followed this kind of arc for his story as opposed to fashioning a bourgeois romance with an episodic narrative. And this incidentally would have also been less controversial with the right.”
“with or without episodes like Chittor Akbar is by far a rather liberal emperor for his age ”

I Agree.

Julie 12 March 2008
03:01:14 pm

“unless you are referring to mythic schemas”

Yes indeed I am referring to the same.

rks 12 March 2008
03:38:30 pm

Magadha
Gupta
Gupta

Qalandar 12 March 2008
03:40:17 pm

RKS: wiki is often not the most reliable when it comes to entries on historical topics…this is without regard to the above links, which I haven’t yet read…

rks 12 March 2008
04:03:11 pm

Agree, but they give rough Idea (I think with time it is going to improve).

Well for books they are indvidual’s interpretation based on internal(self) and external(previous material) research. Some things are facts and no one disputes them. Others are interpretations and subject to dispute.

rockstar 13 March 2008
06:45:51 am

” Else even the fight was inspired from troy, and you will bang yur head on the wall after watching Eric Bana and Brad Pitt being horrendously copied by JA cast.”

but there a thing called budget , compared to ja they are having huge budgets in a limited frame jodha akbar do technically scores in other area with his grandness and comparison with welcome i am speechless it does not take balls to make a film like welcome but it takes a lot of courage to make a movie like jodha akbar ( how many historicals have worked in india before , with such long duration and controversies)

rockstar 13 March 2008
06:50:22 am

“2nd) As I said, I am comparing Welcome, only as both are super hits, else there is hardly any comparison, infact none whatsoever.”

well there is a thing called genre again u r comparing a run of mill comedy with historical and saying there is hardly any comparison because just they are both superhits mindblowing

Rocky 13 March 2008
09:52:38 am

Re.-In a sense Gowariker plays the game on the right’s turf. But Gowariker just gives in, unwittingly perhaps, to the right and more or less accepts the equation: if chittor then no ‘great’ Akbar, therefore no Chittor! for the right the conclusion is just the opposite: since chittor happened, Akbar cannot possibly be ‘great’.

ROFLMAO !!!
Right is Wrong !!!!
Left is Right !!!

Right hai sab wrong hai
Hum dhoondne jab Satya chale
Teri khoj talaash mein dekh Satya
Hum kitne kaale kos chale
gadbad hai sab gadbad hai
LOL !!

satyam 13 March 2008
10:08:46 am

Rocky: I was suggesting exactly the opposite!

Myna 20 March 2008
07:37:13 am

“Akbar’s character was written half heartedly and moreover Hrithik is not one of the best actors around, and hence you end up feeling sad for real Akbar.”

Kunal – according to you, who is the better actor around who could have made a better Akbar?

“you end up feeling sad for real Akbar.”

IMO Akbar should actually thank Hrithik for portraying him a lot better than he actually is!!! There might be many ppl who actually started liking Akbar just bcoz of Hrithik’s potrayal…these ppl can be kids, girls, elderly or anyone.

Kunal27 20 March 2008
07:50:41 am

“Kunal – according to you, who is the better actor around who could have made a better Akbar?”

I have already said that it was poorly written, hence I doubt any actor could have presented it in a way it deserves.

And I agree that Hrithik would have worked with kids and girls, rest, people who read class 8 history text books, CBSE ones, that too before all the changes, would have hated the character.

The character was missing everything we loved about Akbar, his strong character, his tactics in wars, his ability to lead, his knowledge about everything, even being an illiterate.

This character was all about a lover boy.

Myna 20 March 2008
08:14:58 am

“The character was missing everything we loved about Akbar, his strong character, his tactics in wars, his ability to lead, his knowledge about everything, even being an illiterate.”

JA deals with a much younger Akbar, so the character might not have acquired all these at that point of time.

Definitely Jodhaa-Akbar is not about the life story of Akbar. As the title suggests its about the story between Jodha and Akbar. Well…you might be disappointed if you had expected something else. If you expect a CDI out of OSO, sure one will be disappointed.

Myna 20 March 2008
08:18:59 am

I am not comparing JA with cdi or oso here…but just mentioning abt expectations for a particular movie..thats all.

Achilles 20 March 2008
08:19:07 am

Myna – this is just another kiddish review trying to pull down te movie … can be taken apart point by point … but not worth it.

Myna 20 March 2008
08:20:22 am

Reverse is also true..if u expect a oso out of cdi, u will be disappointed. I am not comparing JA with cdi or oso here…but just mentioning abt expectations for a particular movie..thats all.

SHETTY 20 March 2008
08:22:16 am

“this is just another kiddish review trying to pull down te movie”

Lol

This review is written for ‘Tinkle’ magazine

Myna 20 March 2008
08:28:06 am

Ach: I know. Just pulling Kunal’s leg. He is out of work today and shouting a lot in the shout box.

Myna 20 March 2008
08:29:31 am

See…this is the recent comment he made in SB.

Kunal27: But I am 25

Kunal27: I always say I am immature

Kunal27 20 March 2008
09:17:26 am

To bhai kya khichdi pak rahi thi idhar???

I sure am out of work

Should never have taken work from home
Add 2 red bulls, and you get crazier version of me.

I bet even Tinkle won’t publish it for the kind of immature grammatical mistakes. Still thanks for some encouragement Shetty sahab

neelu 7 June 2009
12:53:31 am

Why do people call JA a historical? When Big B started off saying 100 years of Mughal rule or something (and Akbar was a kid at that point) then historical accuracy went out the window. This only used historical backdrop to show a romance between two good looking and well dressed people!

julie 7 June 2009
01:23:57 am

Jodhaa Akbar is a love story out of a historical context. Just like Mughale Aazam was.

In fact there is a greater possibility that Mughale Aazam is less historical than JA because in the latter there is a refrence to the kingdom of Rajputana, Dilli, how Akbar was brought up, Mahamanga, and also the cut versions which included the original names of Birbal, Sujamal, and Todarmal. Whereas Mughal-e-aazam, didn’t have all these extraneous entities. There was Mansingh and Tansen. On Salim’s side it was Durjan Singh.

The main character was Bahar and Santarash who presented Anarkali to Akbar.

So JA is more historical than Mughal-e Aazam. they both have their own imaginative streaks but they are set in historical context even if in variable proportions.

JA and Mughal-e Aaazam movies may not be truly historical but they try to get as close to those times they could in all their honesty. They did not try to bring up club music as in the SRK historical Asoka because Anu Malik tried to please the modern genre as well instead of trying to compose a more authentic music to replicate the mood of those times.

Kunal 7 June 2009
01:32:35 am

So they are honest works because they have “references” to places and names????
and a movie is discarded for its music, even though it shows almost exact life of Ashoka???? (Kaurvaki is believed to be one of Ashoka’s 3 wives)
Asoka actually shows Asoka as real king, the one who was brutal, the one had more than one wife, one who was blinded by his greed and his revenge, what did JA show? a lovey dovey story to attract kids and girls, to encash the 14th Feb Valentine’s day (read mood of times)

I have no problems with someone telling me that he/she liked JA much more than Asoka, its a matter of choice, but saying that JA was more closer to reality than Asoka was (and all due to its music) is something which creates confusion…

manoj16_391 7 June 2009
01:34:28 am

Julie,Agree with your comment.I read at a blog that in MEA ,Akbar was shown READING in a particular scene! Talk about historical accuracy!

manoj16_391 7 June 2009
01:35:17 am

“even though it shows almost exact life of Ashoka???? ”

LOL!

julie 7 June 2009
01:38:57 am

But Kunal the fact that Asoka bombed indicates that the audience rejected the overall product, although I must admit that on the performance front, this is one of the best SRK performance but Swades (at least for me) is not. What matters is how convincing and coherent the product is (I am not going to address the liberties taken on the histrical front because all movies do that). Sometimes the setting is right, but the music may go wrong, but the actros may not be as powerful. Sometimes the actors have to make up for the weakness of the other aspects and sometimes actors may be the undoing of the movie.

manoj16_391 7 June 2009
01:39:02 am

“a lovey dovey story to attract kids and girls”

Kids(as far as I know) are least interested in a movie like JA or else it would have done a Krrish at the BO.Its the core message of JA and the honesty and diligence with which it was made that touched the average Indian.

ritz 7 June 2009
05:59:57 am

One just cannot compare JA with Asoka. Two films are apart in every department. One of the most striking difference is while Hrithik did look and act like young Akbar the great(Making of Akbar)..Shahrukh looked Brihannala in making.

Johny 7 June 2009
07:31:34 am

“Shahrukh looked Brihannala in making.”

LOL

Instead of ASHOKA, they should have named it A Chakka

Tango 7 June 2009
07:34:55 am

Welcome to NG Kunal.

ACHILLES 7 June 2009
08:05:08 am

Instead of ASHOKA, they should have named it A Chakka

LOL!

btw, WANTED is finally releasing on 7th August … time for kickass action.

Brian Charles 7 June 2009
09:47:17 am

Dont Know about All india or overseas, but the bihar,UP,CI berar records of Gadar,Jaanwar are in direct danger from Wanted,even if its 50% as much kick ass as the originals.

neelu 7 June 2009
11:34:33 am

JA owed much to Asoka in how the story was planed. Do we have any evidence that Jodhaa actually knew sword fighting or was that directly inspired by Kaurvaki as she was shown in Asoka? Ashu should have learnt about how to show battle scenes from Sivan, then he would have really been able to make a good film.

Of course JA was a lovey dovey story to attract kids on Valentine’s day. Koi shaq? Ashu himself called it a love story, that owed much to the imagination. Now if we are to doubt the director’s words then whose word should we take? Those of people who have lost track of history in following their favorite?

Salim 7 June 2009
04:28:43 pm

I really, really loved Jodha Akbar

neelu 7 June 2009
06:25:05 pm

I enjoyed the reference to Brihannala, BTW. That was Arjun playing Brihannala, if I remember my mythology correctly. And I think SRK would make a great Arjun in all the facets of the character . Brihannala roles have been tried by many of our superstars – and the mother of Brihannala in Dhoom 2 by Hritik!

RAJ 7 June 2009
11:07:10 pm

I liked JA.I found HR competent if not excellent.(Except ofcourse the Urdu diction)..Ash was decent(after a long time)…The film could have been shorter…Overall definitely a decent movie…

With Regard to Ashoka..i didnt like it when i a first saw it on its days of release..But overa period of time,tyhe movie somehow grew on me and i find it one of the better historical movies…Production values were top noth…Songs were fantastic…SRK as Asoka was mind blowing…kareena was a irritant though…

RAJ 7 June 2009
11:08:59 pm

“”Shahrukh looked Brihannala in making.”"

Well spot on…But definitely he looked and acted better than Abhishek in IDEA ad(Where he looks like a chakka when he speaks to sachin over phone) or Aamir khan(In that Tata Sky ad where he looks like the real brihanala)

julie 7 June 2009
11:14:34 pm

“Brihannala roles have been tried by many of our superstars – and the mother of Brihannala in Dhoom 2 by Hritik!”

Really. I think this is something that is also a trait gifted by the almighty SRK as Hrithik is merely an apprentice in front of the mighty force.

neelu 7 June 2009
11:18:37 pm

No Julie – you misunderstood. SRK was only trying out for Brihannala – Hritik played the MOTHER of Brihannala!

julie 7 June 2009
11:22:47 pm

Really neelu. As far as I know, it comes easy to SRK as being a Brihnalla is second nature to him in real life. Hrithik is merely an apprentice I maintain

neelu 7 June 2009
11:25:40 pm

Julie – if you have some real links to why it is second nature to SRK then I would like to see those. While at it, please aslo provide links to whom Hritik is apprenticing with.

RAJ 7 June 2009
11:34:24 pm

“”As far as I know, it comes easy to SRK as being a Brihnalla is second nature to him in real life. Hrithik is merely an apprentice I maintain “”

How Julie?? Can you prove that reg what you said about SRK???Its disgusting reg how people attack with somebodys’ sexual orientation(even if the news abt SRK is true)..

Evenif SRK is gay(Which has to be authenticated)..whats the problem with some people out here..?? His Overall attitude,approach to life is masculine than some of the dickheads…So whats the fuss is about??

neelu 7 June 2009
11:46:02 pm

“As far as I know, it comes easy to SRK as being a Brihnalla is second nature to him in real life.”

Whoever knows about SRK in real life on NG – can you please post the schedule for MNIK for the next two weeks? Much appreciated

manoj16_391 8 June 2009
01:03:27 am

Entertaining discussion!

manoj16_391 8 June 2009
02:17:24 am

Shekhar kapoor on hrithik in D2:

http://www.santabanta.com/cinema.asp?pid=13039

“Any film you saw recently?
I saw ‘Dhoom 2′ and was swayed by the technical finesse that Hindi films have come up with. They are almost on par with international standards. The only thing I find lacking in them is, the lack of good and original subjects. And mark my words, India has an international star in Hrithik Roshan .”

neelu 8 June 2009
07:58:38 am

“India has an international star in Hrithik Roshan”

OFC it does – is that not what took the Roshans to Cannes

Mr. Bond 8 June 2009
09:56:51 am

Could someone please tell me for God’s sake what this “Brihannala” actually means. I swear I have never heard this term – I have lived in the US too long i guess. Thank you.