You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Movies

    Padamavat ..the controversial movie

    After a lot of controversy the movie padmavat has been released all over the world. I was quite curious to know the historical background and the facts put forth in the movie. I decided to go and watch it. It is an amazing movie, glorifying the women of the Rajput clan. Atrocities of the then ruler khilji is also portrayed .Even if some facts have been changed what is the harm?? A movie should be seen as a movie. Not only me but whosoever saw the movie felt nothing wrong anywhere in the movie.
    Has anyone seen the movie? Please post your views about Padmavat
  • #624485
    ''Even if some facts have been changed what is the harm??''-Great! Really great! What more can be expected?
    Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence.

  • #624492
    From the response of the author it is clear that facts have been changed for the pleasure of watching the movie with entertainment motive and that is what the uproar about.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #624505
    Actually we wanted to see this movie with family but it is not released in some states. Let see when this movie will be released. I saw last movie Tiger zinda hai, it was good.

  • #624506
    I watched the film. Though I don't watch such movies I went for this one just because there was so much protest around it and I hate when people try to restrict artistic freedom. So this was my small way of counter protest.
    The movie is a work of fiction and not a documentary and hence there is no harm in changing the storyline to make it more interesting. Anyone looking to know the actual history should rely on books and then documentaries, not commercial movies made for entertainment.

    As for the movie, as expected I didn't like it at all. Except for Ranveer's acting, there was nothing good in the movie.

  • #624507
    The previous response (#624506) has rightly pointed out that this is a fictional movie. So, the director could have chosen fictional names. Then there would be no controversy.
    Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence.

  • #624535
    The director ultimately has taken the advantage of negative publicity and the film makes the curiosity which the producer wanted to have in the heart of millions of Indian.
    live happily in every situation of life

  • #624539
    The main controversy has come as the names are from the history. The director and producer might have given some other names and he might have said that this is a created story and not anything really happened. Then the controversy might not have been there.
    drrao
    always confident

  • #624690
    I have not watched the film. However, one or two of my friends who understand films and various aspects of film-making, have informed that the direction of the film is terrible, acting means over-acting in terrible form (except that of Shahid Kapoor). The director seems to have no idea about editing. There is no proper story-line. People watch this film for unreal grandeur and controversy created by the film. However, the photography by award-winning photographer Sudeep Chatterjee is the only saving grace.

    But the intellectuals would definitely go ga-ga over this terrible film.

    Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence.

  • #624692
    I have not watched the movie but friends who've seen are not impressed apart from the intensity of Ranveer's performance. Whatever the controversy and the bans it attracted have certainly given good publicity to the movie. Many would watch just for the curiosity or their views about the movie. It could just be labeled differently as a period drama a fiction movie etc to avoid the confusion and violence.

  • #625180
    Itwas controversial but it turned out to be a spellbinding movie where movie was all about the tussle between Rajputs and khiljis . Very well acted by the superstars where Deepika played the role of Padamavat who was magnificient and the queen of Singhal Kingdom(Srilanka) and Shahid kapoor played the role of Ratan who was the king of chittor(Rajasthan) .Ratan was lured by the beauty of padamavat that he thought to marry her and got married and took her along his kingdom where Ranveer Singh(Alauddin Khalji) also heard about the beauty of padamavat and lusted for her but at the end the rajput ladies immolated for their husbands who died in the war of Rajputs and Khiljis

  • #625182
    This movie is a testimony of wild imagination of the story-teller and the director. The movie is cinematically poorly made, extremely poorly directed and is nothing but a low-level 'masala' film. This film uses the name 'Padmavati/Padmavat' to hurt the sentiment of majority community of India, which is the current fashion of Mumbai film industry, earlier witnessed in the film PK.
    Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence.

  • #629775
    Hi,
    I have watched the movie and after seeing I must tell that it was not expected from a director like him. The acting is so loud, especially for ranveer. If you a fan of shahid kapoor then you must see the film, because the under acting that he had done in the movie is really good.
    But in some places the director modified the real facts which is not expected when you are working with historical events. Sometimes I feel that I am watching fictional movie instead of a historical movie.

  • #629777
    Anosua, pulling up old threads is in violation of our policies. Please do not do so.
    'Knowing others is wisdom, knowing yourself is Enlightenment'- Lao Tzu


  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.