Seriously. 3.5 hours? This movie had the opportunity of ending like 5 times before it actually ended.
The story drags, plot twists are too frequent, yet still spaced too far apart. And those are only some of the problems with this movie.
Sub-par acting, cheesy special effects, and historical inaccuracy and propaganda just add to this flawed picture.
HOWEVER, the cinematography was quite a treat. Visually very vivid and well-filmed.
Everything else was blah, though.
I know! I fast forwarded through the first 40 minutes or so I didn't miss anything. The acting was nothing special either. The costumes were stunning though and so was the music.
shareI agree. My 75 year old mom who loves epics and comes from a time when Hindi movies were long, sat down eagerly to watch it. Then after about 45 minutes she started finding other things to do, coming back now and then to take a peep at the film. Her verdict: Too thhanda and contrived, the film didn't have enough going on to engage her.
shareQuite honestly, the majority of people who saw this film didn't believe that the length interfered with their ability to enjoy the film.
shareIt's about ones taste in films really.
The movie is set in a historic backdrop, and tells a story that belongs to an era where everything is big, lengthy and majestically over-the-top. Have you noticed how the Royal Announcer, before Akbar appears in courtroom, announces his really, really long name? The length of the name, along with various titles was used to emphasize the importance of the emperor - nobody minded if that took a little extra time.
Similarly, you have to understand that in that era lengthy intricate conversations was a reflection of royal customs. As a result, I really enjoyed the laid back pace of screen play...I am sorry if you were disappointed due to lack of sword fighting every 3 minutes.
Sub-par acting?? I know some minor characters were essayed by less-known faces who perhaps were not good actors (like the archer dude that shot Akbar,some random soldiers etc) , but all major characters were great if not superb.
"Cheesy special effect"?? well, I just want to say that Bollywood was never big on VFX, however the starting "Panipath War" was quite good considering the budget was like 40 Crore INR (nearly 9 million) - which is less than 1/10th of a typical Hollywood movie's budget at that time.
"historical inaccuracy and propaganda" - do not mix up movies and history lessons. God! - I find it real annoying how some people,like yourself, loves to bash period-films over this issue. Don't you understand that these are COMMERCIAL FILMS - not documentaries. Even biopics take liberties to make the subject's life story a bit more appealing to the audience. "J-A" never claims to be a "definitive" source of Mughal history and everyone must learn to accept these films as they are - as films and no more. Jodhaa Akbar was one of the highest grossing hindi films to date, and that means it served it's real purpose - to entertain mass audience. If you want factual truth, watch History channel instead.
And one more thing, I do not believe the film spreads any propaganda except universality of love, so please refrain from making bogus claims about a good movie.
Happiness is only Illusion
You don't deserve to watch movies.
share