Paa Movie Review : Zara heart ke
Print
Cast: Amitabh Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Vidya Balan
Director: R Balki
Rating: Three and a half stars
Eeek it’s a freak. A knee-high schoolgirl sees this tallish, bald guy, with teeth missing a la Mad magazine’s Alfred E Neuman. The girl runs in holy horror. Next: the 13-year-old progeria-afflicted boy who looks 80ish, avoids her smiles and offers to apologise. Sweet as well as utterly moving.
One of the iron-strong strengths of R Balki’s Paa is its humaneness brimming over in a plot that cries for the social acceptance of the deformed and the ill. So many marvellous movies have gone that route, most signficantly David Lynch’s The Elephant Man and Werner Herzog’s The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser. Progeria was dealt with in Jack (1996) but it was far too Hollywood-cute for its own good; even its otherwise excellent eponymous, hero Robin Williams, came off as balsa wood.
Here Balki has a trump card in Amitabh Bachchan who essays the gangly teenager with a mushroom-cloud-shaped, vein-lined skull, but who never ever succumbs to the temptation of self-pity. The one-of-a-kind character is sensitively written and taken to another level by Bachchan, who’s simply outstanding. He returns to the form that you’d associate with Black.
Some of the actor’s in-between performances (particularly Bhootnath and Aladin) you’d like to forget.Vis-a-vis Paa, no other actor could have done justice to a part that not only calls for extreme physical transformation and inventive vocal pyrothechnics, but the skill to convey that the boy, Auro, stems from real life. Earlier a rigorous transformation was attempted by Kamal Haasan as a midget in Appu Raja. Bachchan’s performance even betters that. Despite the prosthetics you watch every tiny twitch of the actor’s grey-rimmed eyes, and a gash of a mouth which turns prim or breaks into rat-a-tat giggles.
Clearly it’s a dare for the actor. Plus whatever the commercial kismat, at its very least, the film’s a departure from the everymatinee formula.
That said, the first-half does take a while to build up and in fact, treads the fantasy path of a young couple cavorting under the Oxford clocktower and through the University’s sylvan courtyards. He (Abhishek Bachchan) dreams of becoming a politician in keeping with the family tradition, and she (Vidya Balan) is studying medicine. Next: she’s pregnant. An abort-or-not-to-abort argument later, she returns to Lucknow determined to give birth to the child. Hello, baby Auro. Gurgle.
Not quite convincingly, there’s no contact whatsoever in India between the ex-Oxford twosome for over a decade. She,with the support of her mother (called ‘Bum’ because of her posterior), brings up the fast-ageing Auro whom all the kids adore. After all, he is quite adorable with his beat-the-chest Tarzan-like jig, sulk sessions on being force-fed khichdi and that habit of conversing with a stuffed gorilla. Auro’s best friend, a kid in huge glasses, often keeps him company, moaning about a dad who’s a pain in the neck. Heck.
Inevitably Auro and his Dad, a Member of Parliament now, meet up unknowingly, bond and spend a fun-day in New Delhi. Indeed, this section comprises the most engaging and warmest section of the movie, leading to a poignant climax. Whenever Auro is on the scene, the screenplay and the direction pop, snap and crackle. On the other hand, a sub-plot about Dad MP going on Doordarshan to expose the Mean Mogambo-like ways of the media is not only absurd but entirely dispensable. It doesn’t contribute to the dramaturgy at all, except to hyperventilate against the mad-bad editors who believe in sensationalism and scams. Ho-ho-ha-ha-hum.
On the upside, cleverly conceived scenes and emotionally stirring moments keep you rooted. And the dialogue packs in both irony and wit, like the time the expression,‘visiting hours’, accounts for a faux pas made by Paresh Rawal in a hospital. The wordplay on hiccups is as effective. But pray why the obsession with literally execrable lines like, “If you don’t think of shit how will you remain fit?” Huh, right! Not to forget a cornball quotation about power and responsibility from the film Spiderman!
Balki’s direction is far more assured than it was in Cheeni Kum. He appears to be a whiz at inspiring both children and senior actors.On the tech side, P C Sreeram’s camerawork is first-rate, even making a politician’s cabin look visually interesting by using a wide lens innovatively. The sound mixing and some of the editing chops are impressive. Needlessly, a menacing looking steel sculpture on the clocktower is used far too frequently. As for Ilaiyaraja’s music, it’s just about serviceable.
Of the cast, the bespectacled kid playing Auro’s buddy is a delight. Arundhati Nag as ‘Bum Granny’ is consistently likeable. And Vidya Balan is excellent, downplaying the glamour and concentrating on the acting quotient intelligently.
Abhishek Bachchan is appealing, particularly in the Paa-Auro sequences. And of course the best news is that Bachchan Sr rocks with every beat, be it saa re gaama or Paa. A must-see-to-believe.
Tags: Abhishek Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan, Movie Review, Paa, Paa Movie Review, Paresh Rawal, r balki, Vidya Balan
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Rahul Dholakia
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Varma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Sachin Kundalkar
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Wow,at last you seemed to have liked a movie.
Anyway its wonderful to see AB Sr, come back to form, and Vidya Balan, stands head and shoulders above the Kats and Deepikas when it comes to something very basic called Acting.
Will be watching this soon, been a long time since i saw a Bolly flick getting unanimous praise.
loading...
Give the guy a break, man. There haven’t been many (I think but am not sure that I should say any) good movies since he came to PFC.
loading...
AB has been facing a lot of flak for doing the kind of roles he has been doing. But i wonder which other roles he could have done. Also, i do think he is a workaholic.
One more thing that seems to work against him is that he doesn’t fall in the scheme of a lot of young talented mostly indie film directors. His persona looms so large in every frame he is that instead of getting involved in story, one starts judging AB.
If Movies of AB has to work, film makers need to have a different approach. The task is not just to make a good movie but also how to present AB. R Balki seems to be doing well in this regard.
loading...
BTW Jack was one of FFC’s worst movies, and Robin Williams clowning did not make it better. Looks like PAA might be a case of the remake being better than the original.
loading...
Stop harping about your knowledge of Jack. I know a guy who sports a French beard, and he is a bad person. If having a French beard makes one bad, you must be bad too. (i hope you get the drift)
loading...
yeh kya tha :witsend: :witsend: :witsend:
itna tension kyun hai bhai
loading...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: azad… you wanna see tension? see jumping reactions at A Singh’s long written post…
loading...
loading...
Why bother? You may be a PFC regular but not everybody is. So the comment is always fresh for some.
loading...
@Ratnakar: ‘paa’ is not a remake of ‘jack’; they share the same premise but taken to different logical conclusion. ‘jack’ ends more like ‘black’ with struggle to get a degree and lead a life of pride etc, but ‘paa’ is very different!
loading...
grt review !i am eager to to hear from shaan the couch potato soothsayer cum frusto bachchan basher khan to come out of his hole n go n watch the movie…….to see how big b has made `mockery` of a disease !!poor guy,…..despite all the venom……n also mr. a singh…..who had all those `apprehensions` about this pic……..pls relax…..u dont need to b `afraid` now as all ur`predictions` have fallen flat on their face:-)))
loading...
richa
I am, as I attempt to respond, reminded of a ancient bollywood song that my old cook/butler/driver/gardener, Rahim Chacha listens to while going about doing his business in the kitchen. It goes something like this, “Tum Ne Pukara Aur Hum Chale Aaye..”
I hope for your sake that this movie is a success. Nonetheless I stand by my position, the way Progeria is used as a gimmick, it is a shame.
Judging by the response so far to this movie, I was wrong, therefore I apologize. I expected the whole film fraternity to be stirred and shaken. I expected loud noise, but this is muted. I expected to see houseful signs, but we find only 30% audience. I was wrong to think that this movie was going to be Big B’s “PAAd”, that is not the case, it is silent, a “Fooski” maybe, but not a “PAAd” ?
loading...
each comment of urs takes hatred to a new level…….
i hope u apply the same logic of true and realistic portrayal to films of other actors as well like for example SRK
loading...
ok, so now only boxoffice concerned is left, then check this genuine report rather than FAKE BOI report who are well know anti-bachchans like you, check bollybusiness report :
Paa Rocked The Box-office
Paa : after getting overwhelming response on Thursday from all across the world at paid previews and premier held in Mumbai and Delhi, opened to decent response on Friday morning with 50 – 60% response. Occupancy percentage at multiplexes show upward trend as day progressed. Evening/Night Shows are in range of Rocking 80%+. Overall first day should be in 65 – 70% range. However screenings are lower than DDD in second week at many places, Paa should pick up dramatically on weekend due to extraordinary response from paying public and critics. With just one good weekend, Paa will come in safe zone due to low cost associated.
http://bollybusiness.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/paa-rocked-the-box-office/
loading...
shaan back to propoganda khan,pls for once stop lying n look around u……30% collections??….god,now since ur tirade against depiction of the disease didnt work,ur going to spread around how the movie is a flop……..really,i dont think the movie is a fooski….somebody else is !….whatever personnel agenda u have against big b……it shows only a poorer u.continue ur rants…..n ya,the movie is being hugely appreciated cause its a terrific entertaining movie….not for my sake.bhagwaan aapko sadbudhhi de!ek saying maine bhi suni thi – hum nahin sudhrenge!….carry on with ur lies n frustrated rants
loading...
Mr. Shaan Khan:
I have been reading your comments and had been holding myself back because in all of your comments, I was thinking that maybe somewhere you were trying to make a genuine comment and that you were faltering in actually conveying a genuine thought through the medium of language. But I am convinced now that the over-arching umbrella under which you are ‘constructively’ arguing is definitely some kind of complex or animosity with the Bachchans. All your ‘reasonings’ are the weak spokes that are devastatingly failing to support this umbrella.
For starters, you were concerned more about Mr. Bachchan’s hit/flop ratio versus the other actor whom you ‘admire’ while the crux of the articles on PAA all along on PFC were concerned about
a) whether Mr. Bachchan, having accepted the gauntlet thrown by Mr. Balki, would be able to pull off a role on an artistic level devised by Mr. Balki
b) whether the project would be one of those that would look brilliant on paper but falter in execution
An extremely high percentage—at least the audience that had been privy to Mr. Balki’s first outing called CHEENI KUM—of people believed that the condition of progeria would not be treated in a formulaic way – owing to the assuring fact that it was Mr. Balki who was at the helm of affairs. Nonetheless, you went on with your rant about progeria being mocked at by Mr. Bachchan. Mr. Bachchan—please do correct me if I am wrong—never claimed in his interviews so far that he had poured over medical journals to ‘research’ progeria. All that he said was that he spent painstaking hours before, during, and after make-up sessions to look the character. The teasers, trailers, all talked about a father-son story; not a father-son story in which the son’s main identity was only that he was an afflicted individual.
Now you might say—or might already have said—‘then why progeria?’ Agreed, it could have been Mr. Bachchan playing a person with disabilities (maybe a person having lost his limbs or some form of cancer or a person suffering from xyz fatal disease). But then, the desensitized citizens of this world that we are, how many of us would really care about the issues we already know of? Just gaze for a minute beyond the windows of the local train in Bombay and you will see people not having even the basic of human rights to a decent place to eat, sleep, and defecate. Have we given a more than a second thought to the plight of the deprived people? We, the Indians of today, are a highly desensitized lot. To rouse us from our lethargic emotional reactions, maybe, the film-makers hit upon the idea of making the actor play a progeria affected child. But then, you conveniently ignore the possibility that projecting the 67-year old actor as a 13-year old throws up many cinematic challenges. Maybe the director in Mr. Balki got excited about this; maybe the actor in Mr. Bachchan got excited about the challenges of physical and mental transformation involved in the role and hence agreed to take on the project.
Your accusation of mockery of a serious condition by the team would have been partly justified (even before the release of the film) if the movie were to be helmed by, say, the likes of Mr. Mehul Shah or Mr. Dhawan-or even Mr. Bhansali for that matter. But that was not to be. So you completely ignored the presence of Mr. Balki – who had shown maturity in his story-telling with CHEENI KUM and to which even his worst critics would grudgingly agree— and used a shield constructed by the phrase ‘mockery of a disease.’
Your arguments have been, right from the time you started responding on a certain Mr. Singh’s space, agenda-filled; the main agenda being circling Mr. Bachchan in an accusatory hole. The rest of your arguments were merely tangents to this circle
And lastly, you yourself hit the nail on your coffin when you decide to re-use your poor-in-taste references/jokes on flatulence. It is neither funny nor amusing. It is plain sad.
loading...
An Jo… :bow: I wish i could write like that…
loading...
I just checked Shaan’s blog by clicking his name out of curiosity…they r full of masterpieces like this… :rofl:
loading...
Just to say u write too good for someone not maintaining a blog of his own.
loading...
Thanks. Working on my lethargy!
loading...
idk what 30% occupancy u r talking about, i could not get tickets at any city plex on friday or saturday, i had to get tickets for sunday at super inflated prices.
loading...
BTW I did think Cheeni Kum treated the “Old Guy-Younger Woman” love story in a mature manner, much better than RGV’s Nishabd. The scenes between AB-Tabu and AB-Paresh were great.
loading...
I too thought Cheeni Kum was a good movie. I’m still confused about the general reaction. Especially the dislike for the character of the cancered kid.
loading...
Do you rate out of four stars or five?
Also, if a thirteen-year-old progeriac should look like a sixty-five-year-old, what’s with that head?
loading...
Khalid….Yeh kya ho raha hai….Aisa nahi ho sakta…BLACK is beautiful was your tagline(didn’t agree a bit personally)…But on your recommendation will catch up with it…AB deserves a visit to the nearest theatre after Viruddh maybe…cant recollect anything in between..Guys pls help…
loading...
come on Khalid…Amitabh’s performance in Black was loud and completely over rated.
loading...
Balsa wood…..oooh college memories…:)
loading...
Good that this film is getting great reviews. It is after all a worthy subject. Bollywood likes “worthy” subjects. It equates it with “good cinema”.
Though I applaud it I don’t really want to watch it. If this makes me sound superficial so be it. I have watched a very well made documentary on the subject which I feel, was honest and realistic. It was very informative without being sentimental.
I have seen the trailers and my personal opinion is that the dramatic impact is lost by an “old” actor (AB) playing a prematurely ageing child. A teenage child actor would have been more convincing. It would have given the film the realism the subject matter warranted. Guess AB wanted to take the “kudos”.
loading...
You have watched a very well made documentary but it didnt reach to most of us. At least Paa is able to spread the message, probably not in the best way but still to an extent that people know about it, to almost all India and abroad where people watch bollywood movies. And, according to reviews, Paa is not meant to educate about the disease.
@Khalid: Nice review, kudos.
loading...
Your first point is accepted but as far as you saying “Paa is not meant to educate about the disesase”, I would like to ask what the purpose is then?
And andway I’m not telling people not to watch it. My preference would have been to watch a child actor portraying Auro. Amitabh Bachchan has put me of it. Just me opinion. Isn’t that what we give on this Forum?
loading...
Yes, I respect your opinion. Just wanted to share my two cents
and no offense. After all, the forum is meant to share opinions.
loading...
@Alysha:
1.Purpose of Paa?? Please, agreed its an uncommon subject, but it is a bollywood movie after all with the same purpose as the rest – to tell a story, to entertain the audience, earn money for its producers, get acclaim for people associated with the film, help them further their career graph and so on. I get it that you are disapointed that it does not share purpose with the documentary you have watched.
2.’Bollywood equates worthy subject with worthy cinema’ – I suspect thats too much of a generalisation, brought on by your enthusiasm to support your sceptism of the movie.
3.’Why not a child actor instead of AB’ – I think this has been beaten to death in A Singh’s now famous post.
4. And now that the movies is in cinemas – why argue your dislike without having watched it – I look forward to discovering if your opinion changes (if at all an eenie meenie bit) after watching Paa – please do that – itni buri bhi nahin hogi yaar.
Incidentally I’m watching it this evening – what fun if our opinions reversed later!
loading...
good reply
@ alysha
why Big D instead of a child actor? because Pa is not ‘about Progeria’. it is a story where one charecter has Progeria and that is not the only aspect to this charecter, there are many other facets to his personality and that requires a brilliant actor like the Big B to sucessfully project on celluloid.It is not a filitm about Progeria, or even about educationg us about Progeria (which i dare say it has done anyways) but rather an emotinal story about a child and his estranged father.
loading...
@ Alysha… here is my guess… and its a ‘maybe’ answer as I havent watched the movie yet… (and with Kurbaan I felt disgusted that I ended up reacting on a few views without even watching the movie to know if I agreed with them or not!) … by the initial thought of why AB as the 13 year old… guess post scripting, you the thought might have been that a 13 yr old can play the role, but the conviction of getting tired like a 65 yr old cannot be carried by the boy… instead take a 65 yr old, whose body language can carry the tiredness and weariness of a 65 year old and who can still try to play the mental playfulness of a 13 yr old… from there it would ve been AB and then the make up, the arts, the works, the gimmicks et al, but I guess taking a 65 yr old was a sure shot way of taking somebody whose physical reactions would match a 65 year olds… mental reactions of talking and playfulness can be worked on … once again .. my reactions to just the thought of taking AB (guess no other actor beyond 60 looks active or interesting enough to be considered for such roles) … I still havent seen the movie to vouch for it… and I dont hope to mentally eat my words the way I had to when I saw Kurbaan …
loading...
By your logic, then an unattractive fat actress should have played the role that won Charlize Theron an Oscar rather than using prosthetic make up and a fat suit.
I guess it is okay for HW to use unconventional casting but when done in BW it ridiculed as a gimmick.
Why not see the movie first before passing judgement?
loading...
The Oscar win was for Monster. The role did not require her to be “fat”. It was a non-glamorous, gritty role. That is called “acting” in the usual way – portraying a character other then yourself. But the casting should be right.
My problem with Paa is that it was not necessary to use a much older actor to portray the role of Auro when a child actor would have given a greater authenticity to the genetic disorder. It’s like Aamir Khan (with the help of whatever make-up) playing the role of the autistic child in TZP – which I’m sure would have been fantastic but it would have been less compelling.
loading...
A child actor would not be able to sit through putting up of make up for four hours then acting to a T and then sitting up for two hours to remove the make up. You arent allowed to move even a bit while putting on the make up. The skin stops breathing while you are at it. Doubt whether a child would have been able to sustain all that
…
The main thing here was adaptability and tremendous acting abilities
…
Not only that, Bachchan added to the curiosity value AND brand value.
loading...
the disorder in TZP still kept the child a child physicaly, whereas the one in Paa makes the child an adult as far as his body is concerned, therefore it would only be logically right for an adult to play the part.
It is a child’s emotions in an adult’body.
loading...
Correction @ Alysha –
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340855/awards
Charlize did win an oscar for best actress. By your argument, why take an extremely attractive woman like Charlize and make her look ugly? To create the impression that she can get into the skin of this character? Why not take an already disfigured actress? Did the fact that Charlize is such an attractive woman bring down the seriousness of the movie and the role? How is it that the ‘dramatic’ impact is not reduced here but is reduced in the case of Mr. Bachchan? Doesn’t he deserve a right to venture into areas unexplored?
loading...
@Aneesh
I don’t accept your argument at all. Why does Hollywood have casting directors? To ensure as far as possible that the right person is cast for a role. Sometimes acting ability is the deciding factor and at other times it is the look that matters and then again sometimes both.
If that young child actress could do justice to the role of Michelle in Black ( better performance than even Rani’s in my opinion)than why not a child actor for Auro. I don’t buy that – a child actor wouldn’t have been able to cope with the make-up. A child actor would have captured the poignancy factor that is progeria more effectively.
Mr. Bachchan has every right to do what he wants. I don’t have to “buy” it do I. As far as Paa is concerned, the subject matter didn’t put me off, Mr. Bachchan did!
loading...
@ Alysha–
If you are saying that Mr. Bachchan with his make-up put you off and you arrived at this decision, then there is no scope for argument and I will end it.
For one, you have judged a book by its cover. And your answers seems to be contradictory in nature. In one of your answers below, you say it is fine to have movies on all topics and that their commercial or ctitical success depends on how it is done. So you are conceding that the decision whether the movie works or not depends on how it is tackled. In order to find whether the movie worked or not, one needs to see the movie; which you are not willing to. So you yourself have limited your scope of argument. With 60 seconds of promo, if you have the ability to–unless you agree that it is your ’subjective’opinion; a gut reaction– decide that the movie/character failed to work for you, you do not belong to the class of mere mortality; you are immortal. And again, I am saying, since your arguments are based on the fact that you haven’t seen the movie and do not want to, I have to come to this conclusion; that on such grounds, not just you, anybody for that matter, does not have material to carry out an informed argument since the database of information from which you are pulling out your arguments is extremely small.
About your question as to the fact that a young newcomer portrayed nicely the young Michelle in Black, the simple reason that the movie had to have a child artiste is because of the age graph in the film; the film showed the character aging from a child to a young woman to a middle-aged woman. In PAA, the maximum age of the character is 13 and the teen is one character that does not progress in age in the movie. So, it had to be only one character. Either it is Mr. Bachchan, or somebody else. There is no 3rd person involved–and I mean substantially, not some scenes in which a child is shown for 15 seconds in a song– as there is no age progression.
And I am confused as to how you can compare apples and oranges. Documentaries, by their very definition, carry less of subjectivity and more of objectivity. I do not understand how the fact that you saw a ‘very good’ documentary keeps you from watching PAA. Two things; firstly, the movie is NOT about progeria. So you need to take it out of your mind that you will get a ‘better’ knowledge about the lives of progeria affected people . It is the story of a person afflicted with progeria. And the only dimension to such a person is NOT this affliction. And you can judge that only after you watch the film. So your fear that the movie would ‘dilute’ the impact created by your documentary-watch does not hold water.
According to your thinking, you maybe would have watched PAA if it were not for Mr. Bachchan’s presence.
When you watch the movie and then argue, whether you argue for or against the movie, it will only make your reasoning stronger.
Right now, your arguments are not coming out strong. I am assuming you say that it was fine that CHARLIZE could go from sublimely beautiful to ugly and ‘enact’ Eileen’s role BECAUSE you saw the movie and not some promos and snaps. If that is the case, I do not understand why you want to say that Mr.Bachchan’s look/act does not work for you without seeing the film. And if you say that you haven’t seen MONSTER and that your decision that Charlize’s decision to go ugly in MONSTER is again based on the ‘feel’ you got when you read about her performance or just saw promos, then your arguments will only continue getting weaker by the day.
loading...
@Aneesh 8/12/09
I’m sorry you feel I have no real argument since I haven’t watched Paa.
This Forum is full of comments – quite strong ones – by people who have NOT watched particular movies and are based on the artiste and the production house from which they come.
I only mentioned the documentary to establish the fact that I know what progeria is. The intention was not to say that every time a documentary is better than a movie.
Like other people have already said, if the intention of the movie was to show a father/son relationship without the progeria aspect forming a large part of the dramatics, why have the child afflicted with the disease in the first place.
If the intention of the film was to raise the profile of the disease than the part should have been played by a child and I have repeated my reasons several times. If the progeria aspect was to give and “pander” to Mr. Amitabh Bachchan’s “creative and performing juices” and to “push his personal boundaries”, than from some peoples point of view, the casting was justified. But not mine.
If I am going to watch a movie based on a “real” life condition than I want it to be as authentic as possible otherwise it seems gimmicky.
I saw and read enough of and about Paa to know it was not for me – that’s what trailors are for. I presume you also decide on that basis or do you watch each and every movie that comes out. Obviously not every movie makes one react but some do. But if you feel I have no basis for my opinion, so be it. I won’t lose any sleep over it.
loading...
by this logic we can watch docus about any topic and forget about the movies…
loading...
No not really. It depends on the subject matter and how it’s done.
loading...
@Alysha..First watch the film then try to come to conclusion..there is nothing wrong in appreciating the effort put on the film
loading...
@alysha
“I have seen the trailers and my personal opinion is that the dramatic impact is lost by an “old” actor (AB) playing a prematurely ageing child. A teenage child actor would have been more convincing. ”
– ohh my god… please read on wikipedia or some other source to find out what progeria is… a disease that makes your body/cells grow extremely fast.. so after 13 yrs of a person’s birth he/she would look like a 60 yr old…
So, the appearance had to be an old actor/and an old body … with the mentality of a 13 yr old .. so an old actor playing a small kid is the perfect way to go about it .. u cannot have a teenager look like a 60 yr old person .. u cannot take a 13 yr old boy ..put makeup and make him look old.. u need an aged/old body…
hate it when ppl reply without knowing wht progeria is..
loading...
I know what progeria is thank you!!!!!
Have you ever seen a child with progeria? It certainly doesn’t look like AB in Paa. Children with progeria have a distinct look – it’s not just about looking “old”.
loading...
yeah, looks like you have seen a progeria inflicted child… the prosthetics/cosmetics have been the best seen in recent times.. and now, when I explained why casting a teenager is a wrong theory; you conveniently let go of the point and rant about bad look/makeup et. al.
and loll… every child with progeria should look the same?? or perhaps they should look like the child you have seen?? thats the most ridiculous BS comment ever
loading...
“Paa” rises to a much higher level to be compared with “Jack” or or “Bejamin Button”.
Its far ahead of these two movies in terms of its emotional content, execution and the worth mentioning superlative performances.
loading...
Just one thought man. Every movie has an intent, style and reason. the screenplay writer of benjamin button and forest gump are the same, and director david fincher with writer obviously, did not want to convert the film into forest gump part 2, so they took a risky and less sentimental approach which for me was more realistic and subtle. Its ok for normal viewers to miss this point, but if one is a FILM BUFF, then can try to go past comparing the upper layers, and see what the director was trying to do. Though everyone is entitled to views and thats no problem.But if every film maker has the same style, and all movies are highly sentimentality treated then they wpnt all be the same!! maybe the best thing to do is not compare all film, enjoy the individuality of all films, and not to think of what you wanted out of the film, but try to enjoy and understand what the director is trying to say differently.
loading...
David Fincher was not the writer. Infact the writer of CC of BB also had written Forrest Gump. Probably that’s why so many similarities.
A funny video related to the similarities.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/35b0167b17/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump
loading...
Great video showing the similarties between both the movie…..
loading...
Awesome reviews, now I will watch Paa.. thanks for sharing!
loading...
Loved the movie sans the casting sequence and the sentimental ending. Rest of the movie was spot on.
loading...
This review is really surprising specially coming from khalid who bashed his movies post his Tahzeeb (because amitabh denied the movie). 3.5 stars from Khalid can easily judge how good this movie will be.
loading...
Really feeling sorry for every one here who wasn’t expecting these kind of brilliant review pouring in from all corners…
For those I only want to say :
:yahoo: :rofl:
loading...
How wrong you are. I was expecting exactly what we got. The pity is that they’ve not resulted in “bums on seats”.
By the way I presume you’ve all read Rajiv Masand’s review. Half-hearted or what? Perhaps he’s one of those reviewers who was told to “go easy” by the “powers that be” …..just like KM talked about in his article.
loading...
I am just reading the replies of people who have not liked the film……How phony they seem :yahoo:
loading...
bobby sing, it’s great that you liked Paa a lot but you need to respect other peoples opinion too without your childish come-backs.
Are you the same bobbysing who gives your reviews on IMDB? Granted you don’t review each and every Indian film but your reviews are usually extreme – either “great” or “bad”. Normally there’s a reason behind reviews like that. Bias, for which I’m sure there are reasons.
I normally come on this Forum and defend YRF but that is because I feel that they are bashed unduly and a lot of hypocrisy and double standards are involved.
Fine that you loved Paa but this very over-the -top praise and defence of Paa and AB reveals that your perspective is compromised. Whenever I read a review of yours from now onwards I shall have to think about your intention. Are you like those many bollywood reviewers who try to “kill” a film from the onset or one of those who wants to “promote” it based on ulterior motives without regard to content. Both scenarios are bad.
loading...
Alysha, did you watch the movie? I would suggest you watch it. If you like the movie, its good, and in case you don’t like the movie, you would have better arguments to support you. Win win situation
loading...
@ Alysha
Yes I am the same Bobbysing who writes reviews at Imdb and yes I view all the movies i possibly can , and yes I love “Paa” a lot.
Regarding my reviews you are free to have your opinion but I would like to reply that are neither biased in any form nor written to defend any particular banner.
Its only the case that when you also like a particular movie similar to my ratings then the “Review is Good” and if you dont like the movie I loved otherwise then the “Review is Bad”.
Secondly, I am strictly not in favour of “Killing” or “Lifting” any movie according to my personal likings and neither i write positive or negative about any movie as per my favourites.
But I simply admire how a section stands up to ruin a Amitabh Bachahan or a Shahrukh Khan movie everytime they come up with their new ventures.
Moreover your response to my comments looks like you have a well thought agenda at your hands to ruin “Paa”.
I would only like to request that you should also honor and respect the opinion of others and dont just go against a movie when its really good.
Lastly, I know its impossible and also not correct to please every reader of my reviews. But for you info there are lot more who love them.
Thanks for you concern……but again I lvoed PAA a lot. :yahoo:
loading...
@ bobbysing ,”moreover your response to my comments looks like you have a well thought agenda at hand to ruin “Paa”.
What me ruin Paa with my observations and comments? I have no power to “ruin or make Paa”. Have I given my review of it? Granted I’ve not watched it BUT when has not watching a film before-hand stopped anybody on this Forum from giving their opinions?
I take it you are a BIG Bachchan fan so good you are defending his latest movie. I suppose it’s better than EVERYBODY annihilating a movie because it comes from a particular banner. At least there are a mixed bag of comments – be thankful for that.
I have nothing against Bachchan BUT they are always bigging themselves up. Sick of reading each time a movie of theirs releases one or the other saying “it’s their best work so far”.
I have not watched it because I am not convinced by the physical depiction of Auro. The look is not right. If the look is not right how can I be convinced by the content. But I can still comment on it.
loading...
As you mentioned please go and see all those “bums on seats” in the theaters at present. :bow:
loading...
@ Alysha,
Ok, now it looks like we are talking like movie buffs.
But I really find it amusing that how can one even comment on a movie and its performances without even watching it. I would never like to comment about a movie which i have not seen at all.
It seems to be childish to so so.
In all the above comments I considered you had already watched the film, but was really shocked to read that you havent even watched it and going on to so much length commenting about the same.
So I request you to please see the movie first and then give your views.
Lets discuss it after you have watched it at least once then.
loading...
Mr. Khalid, Bachchan is back, and so are you!
loading...
r balki ne nishchit hi niji mulakaton men amitabh bachchan ke andar maujood bachche ko mahasoos karane ke bad hi pa ki kalpana ki hogi. yah ek bujurg abhineta ke andar jinda bachche ki banagi hai. amitabh bachchan ki suparichit chhavi ko unhonne makeup se hata diya hai. film dekhate samay ham vriddh sharir ke bachche ko dekhate hain, jo har tarah se terah sal ki umr ka hai.
to read more in hindi click….
http://chavannichap.blogspot.com/2009/12/blog-post_05.htm
loading...
Sada ki tarah is baar bhi badhiya sameeksha hai Ajayji, uske liye dhanyawaad.
loading...
oh man some news paper or media is spreading paa is bollywoods benjamin button.i havent seen paa bt i have seen benjamin button one hell of an overrated film.the telegraph gave eight for acting can you believe it.we know the fact that paa is not a copy and i hope to watch it very soon
loading...
BB was a totally different plot…as pointed out by others, JACK has more similarities though I dunno much about it…I think some people who have not seen any of these films r making up stories as it is their job to do so…BB came 2 their mind because it was in news earlier this year and they remember Brad Pitt in an awkward get up from the posters…
loading...
BB was overrated. Hell, I find all of the David Fincher movies overrated but that is another matter.
Paa deals with an actual disease while BB was total fantasy. There isn’t any comparison. Also, I think everytime comparing a movie to some foreign movie means you are not valuing it for what it is.
loading...
Those who havent watched any of the two films discussed here, for them I would like to state the facts below :
1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – It has noting to do with “Paa” apart from the fact that there also a child is born with a face of an old age man. But then he goes on to become younger & younger later on. So, the similarity finishes off only in the make up part here.
2. Jack : This is more closer to “Paa” as both are based on a family who have a child suffering from the Progeria disease. But in Jack, Robin Williams just portrays the roles in his real look and does not support any kind of make up which was very false in the first place.
The patients of this disease do have a big bald head where nervers start showing in.
Robin only got his hair dyed in white and with that he tried to put an old man show which was not apreciated by anybody. Infact it was the worst movie from the director who gave us “The Godfather”.
Morevoer in “Jack” there was no emphasis given on the mother son relationship or even father son relationship in great details.
Hence “Paa” moves much above these two movies in every department.
The only unauthentic thing in “Amitabh” make up was his eyes which pop up in much bigger size in the patients of Progeria. But this was deliberately avoided cause that could have caused major consequences to him in this age.
Rest everything was just perfect with Amitabh, his make up, his mannerisms and in his act which once again proved that…
“At present Amitabh Bachchan is the only “Big Paa” of the entire Indian Film Industry.”
Cheers!
loading...
Its ok to have one’s own views about films. But an actor cannot be accused for not having make up if you think they needed make up or he portrayed it in a definite way.Anybody who is remotely interested in this business will know that its the director who decided these things!!! An actor is a representative of directors thoughts.
loading...
So, then it was clearly the fault of the director.
loading...
thanks bobby for comparing to Jack! I really wonder about the “evolved” tastes of those who think this movie is too manipulative. Perhaps it is. But do compare it to comparable movies from the west and tell me those movies are not even worse than this?
loading...
Hi KK,
There is no comaprison between the two movies as they both are quite different in treatment and emotional content.
But yes the concept in same on which both the movies are actually based.
loading...
Khalid, I was surprised that you said IR’s music was just okay. I thought it was brilliant…minimalist when necessary and nice motifs when required. Sure, it’s not conventional BGM scoring by Hindi movie standards where loudness is a prerequisite…maybe you are so tuned to that wavelength that this gem completely escaped you. That’s okay…there’s always a next time, keep your ears and mind open!!
loading...
Maybe Amitabh Bachchan listened to the boozeharaam and got a refresher course at FTII
loading...
The movie was good – very good – no doubt about the fact.
But all the same, it was the same manipulative old story of “dying kid getting estranged parents together and teaching us (the audience) some life lessons” – something which has been done many many times before. Only thing is instead of leukemia or lymposarchoma of the intestines, it was this fancy projeria. So that AB could come in and do his stuff – very well actually.
And AB’s presence was also a mystery since none of the cases they showed in the movie had the kid grow up to that height. They were the same size as the other kids only aged up phenomenally.
loading...
i agree with you, but then again, every films story can be broken down systematically into structural stereotypes. afterall, there are limited stories to tell, the creative part is to put ones own twist to the proceedings, and that is precisely what Paa does.
loading...
again, how could u possibly like the film? the film was not at all about a boy who ages faster. he could easily have AIDS, cancer or any other disease for that matter. Tell me, if he had AIDS in the film, how would it make any difference to the story? The only difference will be that we won’t be able to see amitabh bachchan in this new avataar. what else?
The film was about everyone but about a boy who ages faster. It was about a politician. It was about a single mother. It was about them coming back together and auro becoming a reason. and about auro who has a disease. now tell, why couldn’t he have cancer or AIDS? didn’t u feel the same?
loading...
Yaar phansi ki saza suna do Mr Khalid ko? How could he like the film!!!! Sahi Baat hai. When Mr. Yudi didn’t like it, how dare Mr Khalid or others like it??
loading...
ha ha…lol :rofl: :rofl:
loading...
hans lo beta hans lo… ek toh ticket 175 ruapye se 225 rupaye ho gayee… upar se maine paa dekhi… 225 rupaye mein… baaki reh gaya tha Mr. Khalid ka kisi film ki taareef karna… aur woh bhi kaunsi film ke liye? PAA!!
loading...
To All who think a child should have done the role :
There is a very common sense answer to that…
“An aged man can do this because he has already lived his days of innocent childhood, but a child cannot do it because he still has to see his golden days of the old age.”
Period.
loading...
Kuch bhee bolne ka nahi hota bobby bhai !! Then you can say he hasn’t done justice to the role of a progeria child.
loading...
Yatri Bhai,
I think you got the wrong meaning of my statement.
According to my line no child could have done it and only an actor of Amitabh’s caliber was the right choice for the role.
I think you should read my statement once again and see the right meaning in it.
Thanks.
loading...
That is the thing isnt it? He is a kid albeit trapped in an old man’s body. But still a kid. He does not have to have the experience of old age.
loading...
Thats true…..I think a child cannot bear all that make up and pain of hours sitting on one chair without any movement of any sort and moreover it will be cruel to try so with a kid.
loading...
Paa is a coffee table book on social issues, relationships and health issues. It works that way alright. But not as pure cinema. Enough fluff in it to not take it too seriously.
The progeria health issue is a huge SCAM, to make us see Big B in a new avatar, totally pointless! a child actor should have played that role if the makers had the guts!
Also such a major health issue is only incidental to the plot, making it so obvious that it was meant to drive us to the theater.
The climax is a goof up of epic proportions. For there Big B peeps in through Auro. You’ll know what I mean when you see it.
I had huge expectations, only marginally fulfilled.
Black was anyday a much stronger more compelling performance.
loading...
haha..agree with you on all the points except for the one about Black
loading...
i second that brother.
just came back after the show.
i was going through the review and all the replys,in fact i went to the theater after reading this review and i genuinely doubt it being written by khalid himself(though his signature styles are there).
i cant believe it man!
and also i cant find even a single genuine comment here!
i will point out why:
i felt everything about this movie was wrong:
it does not have an interesting storyline,too predictable and too boring/the editing department was one of the worst i have came across in the recent hindi films-the subject of the film requires subtle cuts and here…?? /too many illogical loopholes in the script,without a proper study,something or anything like that havent done here/there were some funny moments(i agree we laughed) and many more shakthiman-ki-bhashan type of dialogues(you do this and dont do that etc etc),but it looks like an abstract collage with nothing except those/moreover it fails flat even to touch us not even once-that is because it was evident and written all over it that they are trying so hard to bring some tears to our eyes and there it failed and what not!!
but one thing i agree upon is BigB’s performance,it was great and claps for all the hardwork/preparation done for the role!
and i dont know why it is being praised as the best film released this year!
such a lousy script and such a fake movie!!
to hell with it!! :banginghead:
loading...
thank u so much!! finally someone who said it… i totally agree with u…
loading...
I just saw the film and I totally agree that its a cliche boring stuff out there.
loading...
the matter is not just being a cliched story,the direction was too silly!
and people are trying to bash and ban us for the genuine comments?
:notsure:
loading...
Thats unfair – nobody is trying to bash or ban you – these are just your opinions. This forum would be fake if not for your comments – there’s no film which all can like. But why get worked up if others like a film, why call their opinions fake and only yours genuine. As Auro would say – Chill!!
loading...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Who is trying to ban or punish you dude?? In fact no one is even objecting your comments. On the contrary I see you indulging in proseltyzing by trying to influence other people’s opinion. Why are you trying to project yourself as a victim?? :notsure: :notsure:
Typical devdas syndrome
loading...
Khalid…this review is a shocker. as fake as the movie…
loading...
Just because you didnt like the movie doesn’t mean that either the movie or the review is fake.For every such person like you who didnt like the movie, there are countless others who have liked it.
loading...
appreciate it. That ws just my feel …:-)
loading...
people going ga-ga over a silly formula tearjerker?
and making it into a classic?
god tussi great ho..!
its high time we grow up,else indian cinema will always stay like this in the same place-formulas!
period.
loading...
i just want to say that its great that you didnt like the film, but that doesnt give you the right to think of everyone who has liked it as an idiot or completely dismiss the general good opinion about the film. its a film, ofcourse there are going to be countless varying opinions about how good or bad it was, and as important as all the opinions are, none of them have the right to degrade the others.
loading...
You hated it, no problem. But why should others hate it too. Doesn’t this action of yours resemble the acts of a fanatically religious man who wants you to believe in his/her god and reject the god of your choice.
And who is calling it a classic? Why should every movie be either a classic or a trash?? I liked major parts of Paa and it worked for me. Though, it will not even feature in my top 100 list, still it was my money’s worth. Call me a kid or a moron for liking it :rofl: :rofl:
loading...
Saw the movie- found it engaging & liked it.Would agree with the review except for the bit on Ilayaraja’s music.I feel Ilayaraja is in very good form over both with his songs & the BGM.
loading...
Honestly i thought Paa was a bore. AB was much more brilliant before.
The film lacked a sound script though the dialogues were crisp.
p
loading...
definitely phantom
the script was not at all re-worked.it is clearly evident.too many loopholes too many blunders.and many a times it gets boring too!
loading...
I am ok even wit a super cliche stuff , but then here the cliche is extremely irritating too , when it tries to fake around , which it mostly does. The cool MP from abhishek bachchan was faking at the height of stupidity.
loading...
he was enacting a shakthiman i felt!
loading...
Good movie – an easy watch from Bollywood after god knows how long.
)
Totally agree with Masand – its Vidya Balan who’s restrained acting is superlative – I can envison no other in her stead.
AB is commendable for pulling it off so well.
As for Balki – envy him his flair for the crisp witty dialogues. One thing that comes across from both Cheeni Kum and Paa is that as a screenwriter Balki remains firmly within the realms of reality for resolving his stories – I loved it that Vidya accepts Amol only for Auro. I’m sure someone like KJo would have milked the second half for tears, but Balki I trust will continue to shake entertainment with realism only.
Also liked the tirade against the rampant misuse of power by the media which understandably has not gone down well with the critics.
Small quibble – Paresh Rawal looked too young for a retired Indian politician (not even a knee transplant
Tidbit – loved it when Auro leaves us guessing if his white globe is gaffe or genius.
loading...
Its really very encouraging as well as strange to see that a man at the age of nearly 70 can still stir such kind of response for his film.
One section is so much willing to praise his efforts in a movie and want it to be called as a Classic.
And on the hand is a section who wants to ruin it down calling it not worth of it.
But whats more heartening is that the man called “Amitabh Bachchan” is such a personality who compels you to write about him in any way.
You cant just pass his persona and thats why he is rightly called the “Big Paa” of Indian Film Industry.
In short even at this age he has got the power & guts to both impress and provoke the current hip generation.
Even now he makes people concerned enough to show him down.
And that shows the impact he has on every person’ mind in this forum and on the entire web.
Way to Go the Legend Amitabh Bachchan!
loading...
If in case, there are still few directors left out to present a matured way of story telling, Balki will surely start topping the list after this work. No one can deny that the plot is predictable, scenes might be looks cliche-d, but the way of matured presentation seems to rob those 2 and 1/2 hours of theatre time.
I’m not touching AB Sr performance here. I guess its like the Sehwag’s knock against the lankans or the Usain Bolt performance or Federer’s run down at his opponents.
Most of the comments that seem to missed out is the praises for Vidya Balan. The backbone of the story is her own character. The positive attitude of Auro’s is actually set in those few abortion dialogues that AB Jr and Vidya have. She seem to have brilliantly contributed to the movie. My take is, this girl can definitely teach Bollywood’s current run-of-the-mill heroines an Acting 101 course.
I could only understand when my friend, a normal avid BollyWood movie goer, said during the credits of the movie..”Yaar..Movie ka naam to Maa hona chaiye”..I could only respond him saying.. “Paa naam to..sirf ad-man ki gimmick hai”
Whatever it is..Hats off Balki to present Bollywood fans what they truly deserve..
loading...
Movie is a complete bore. no story, script full of loopholes, crude and in-your-face dialogues (Potty jokes and what not!). Dont know why ppl are going gaga over it. And what was that media bashing all about. Seems like the extension of his blog. Totally dissapointing. This year has been a total let-down. Barring kaminey (and that too strictly above average), WUS, LAK, and now PAA complete waste of money.
loading...
All the friends who are very much concerned about the occupancy in the theaters in the first shows should try to find out the occupancy rate once more and should also write about the current status.
Or they have opted out of the discussion already!
:yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:
loading...
Khalid Saab,
U say ..”plot that cries for the social acceptance of the deformed and the ill”
Please tell me one scene elaborating your above observation. The plot never goes into inquiring about social acceptance of deformed and ill. The plot always focusses on the Abhishek (ambitions) and Vidya Balan (wants the child) issues. Even if Auro was a normal kid, the emotions coming out of the movie would be same as it is now, bcoz the film never ever focusses on the issue of a dying 12 year old. Even when Auro is dying, what is the scene focussing on, Vidya Balan’s dilemma of accepting Abhishek and Abhishek’s guilt ridden dilemma. Where is Auro in all this???? The film thus remained as a gimmick, not once giving insight into the mind of the 12 year old who knows he is gonna die, not even into the mothers state of mind. Paa fails miserably on the progeria/Auro front. I guess it didn’t even try to.
loading...
see this is what i was trying to communicate here!
loading...
Yes bang on – the film did not choose to dwell on progeria – it was only used as a novel disability gimmick – the child could have had any other fatal disease – but so what? The film was Paa not Progeria – it chose to tell its own story and managed to hold most of the audience’s attention throughout – that’s great for the the kind of stuff thats coming out of Bollywood nowadays.
Agree that we were left longing for more insights into Auro’s mind – definitely seems like a lapse – would love to read Balki’s opinion on this somewhere.
The gimmick was progeria not Paa.
loading...
I see some people coming up (some of the them haven’t even seen the movie) and saying “Why Progeria, why not something else?”. My simple reaction is, why not Progeria. The fact is that a director can choose any subject, important thing is how an idea is executed. Paa isn’t an informative documentary about Progeria(for that you better watch Discovery), it’s about relationships, and the movie comes on top on that front. Whether it was father-son or mother-son relationships, they were dealt sensitively. There were good performances all around. The dialogs were witty. Music is soothing and fits the movie perfectly. While the movie would bring tears in your eyes in certain sequences, it actually is a cheerful movie about an intelligent 13 year old. Why Amitabh? Because he is the best we have. He was thrown a challenge by the director and he has shown how to deliver. Why not a child actor? First of all I don’t see a Haley Joel Osment (Sixth Sense) in India plus even for a kid of his acting talent it would be extremely difficult to sit through 5 hours of make up every day. Plus the director needed a body which is old though mind is still young.
loading...
The year 2009 was a tough one as far as Bollywood movies are concerned.
And “Paa” comes as a last moment relief for the viewers.
Hope there is more relief coming ahead in “Rocket Singh” & “3 Idiots”
loading...
nice to see a mention of caspar hauser…
loading...
I need to talk to the editors, whats the mail id?
loading...
Yeh to hona hi tha! Wah Khalidji….u finally put it in the dungeon….you know what I mean
Now, Khalidji directing Amitabh….thats the ‘possible’ next…kya ji?
loading...
Very entertaining because of some witty dialogues from R. Balki. But very superficial as far as content is concern. No complaints for being superficial. People love superficial Books, films that is the reason why most (rather all) best selling novels and films are superficial. People love Chetan Bhagat. He has more no. of readers of his books than Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Milan Kundera.
R. Balki is famous for his sarcastic dialogues. People liked Chini Kum for the dialogues. Problem with Balki is that he can not create different characters.All his characters are very identical to each other. He puts his own thinking (dialogues) in characters mouth. He doesn’t understand whether it suits the character or not. In Chini Kum all the characters are very identical. Amitab,his mother, Tabbu,little girl ‘Sexy’ all are very sarcastic. One can easily guess that it is written by one person.
Even in Paa I found all the kids are too smart.
Abhishek Bachhan in one of the TV interviews said that Paa is Great film. He did not know that his Yuva is thousand times better than Paa. Paa has nothing to do with the disease. Film should talk about the social acceptance of a kid suffering from the disease. Instead of that Auro is treated as big celebrity in school. Mr. Balki is refusing to accept any social issue about the disease. He has shown that the society is very kind to everyone. I wish it could be the case sir… but unfortunately not. India is growing in literacy and not in Education.
Till people of India don’t become educated films like Paa will get an appreciation.
I wonder how can a person who has written film like MAMMO can praise this film?
loading...
It’s big on emotions, good at wit, harsh on media, gives some funny moments, and has imperfect characters who strive to do good. It has negatives but it gives you a lot of positivity too.
I loved Paa. Dunno about others.
loading...
I thought Paa was awful for so many reasons. The story just had a bunch of things going on none of which were essential to the movie, including Auro’s condition. Abhishek and Vidya separate without so much as a serious discussion about the baby which is ridiculous. Most people would say something like- “Gosh! This is big news! I’m not prepared for this, you know with my career and everything. I really need time to think about this. I suggest you think it over too. Do you really think we should do this?…” and so on rather than each one just jumping up and making a decision and remaining bitter for the rest of their lives. If this was anywhere near the truth everybody would be single. Very silly. Then Abhishek has a weird political career thing going with some ideas and what not which again the movie didn’t really need, but was thrown in anyway- what the heck, everything in the movie is easily replaceable. Then Vidya has a widowed mom whom the boy calls “Bum”??? The boy has a condition that is just in there somewhere- no real discussion about it or the psychological impact it must’ve had on him. And when another lady asks Vidya seemingly concerned “What’s the matter with him?”, Vidya chooses to snub her head off rather than educate the lady and try and integrate her son with society. Then Auro goes to Delhi with the MLA who seems to have all the time in the world to take this boy on a trip, arrange a tour of the Rashtrapati bhavan and then when the boy refuses to go, comes back without a complaint. What about protocol? And also wouldn’t it make sense if he arranged for the trip through his people and not go himself unless he had some business there?? Just weird! And then Auro has an attack that could be potentially fatal, and yet the story focuses on Abhishek and Vidya with Vidya admant about not forgiving Abhishek even at the request of her dying son. She goes to the extent of refusing to even hold Abhishek’s hand when the boy throws a tantrum- even though she’s a doctor and one would assume that she would know that it could be fatal- the poor boy ends up having a stroke. And then the boy successfully EBs the parents to make up and get married and dies. The performances were just average or below average- the couple of scenes with Paresh Rawal were not altogether bad, but couldn’t really save the movie. It was just a concoction with many irrelevant things going on at once. Amitabh was neither brilliant nor terrible. I thought Black was definitely much better than this. Cheeni Kum, I thought wasn’t that great either- agreed it was better than Nishabdh, but that can hardly be considered an achievement. I thought Lamhe was better than the two- at least it spoke about the relationship between the central characters beyond the age thing. Anyway, Paa was a dud in my opinion.
loading...
If you already watched Paa then go back to watch again. Acting is when you can play different roles. Bachchans are blessed with these talents.
loading...
Jyoti Rayaprol, You sure need time to think and this is why go back and watch this movie again to understand how the relationships changes. Put yourself in that position and then analize the sitution.
loading...
hi Khalid,
thanks for your wonderful review once again ,,,,,,, i went to see it today just on your recommendation and yes it is worth watching once.
The shortcomings that i have noticed in the moive you have already talked about them , like the abhiskek scence on doordarshan against media, and one more thing i noticed which i think directors try to avoid as they have shown so many times King fisher airline , and then zee news etc ,, it clearly tells why they are in the frames even you try hard to hide them,
Overall your rieview seems to be my own thoughts for the movie,,,,,,,,, thanks again and am am waiting for your worthy reivews about 3 idiots .regards
Sanjay
loading...