Review Round-up: ‘Padmaavat’ opens to mixed reviews

After much controversy and severe threats by the Rajput communities, Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s epic, Padmaavat premiered for the media on Tuesday.

Opening to mixed reviews, the Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor, and Ranveer Singh starrer was praised by some media outlets for their acting, whereas, others criticized the excess of production design.

How did the film fare overall with critics? We have the lowdown…

 

Times of India:

“PADMAAVAT WINS ITS TRIAL BY FIRE” 4/5 Stars

“Sanjay Leela Bhansali has added his own flair and interpretation to ‘Padmaavat’, giving it a fairy-tale sheen… it could do with a tauter screenplay and shorter run-time but ‘Padmaavat’ is an entertaining, large canvas experience, brought to life with Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s stroke of visual brilliance.”

 

NDTV India:

“Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Boring Film Doesn’t Do Justice To Deepika Padukone” 1.5/5 Stars

“Much ado about much ado…Things go on and on and on, with characters it is impossible to care about. They may appear attractive from time to time, certainly, but these protagonists are inconsistent, infuriating and test the patience.”

 

Hindustan Times: 

“Ranveer Singh towers over Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor in this beautiful film” 3/5 Stars

“Ranveer Singh hypnotises you — his body language, terrifying eyes and passionate walk screams of the preparation that has gone into the role… Alauddin Khilji is also the best-written role in the film. The scenes between Khilji and Kafur are dark, strange and layered. Bhansali leaves doubts in your mind about their characters despite telling you about the nature of their friendship.”

 

News 18:

“Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Visual Spectacle Belongs To Ranveer Singh” 3/5 Stars

“The film is a quintessential Bhansali work- it’s a visual spectacle in every which way. The scenes are shot and edited (for most part) with such finesse that despite not having a surprise ending, the film makes for a gorgeous cinematic experience… But no matter how big a visual delight the film is, one has to pull the plug when necessary. And at 163 minutes, Bhansali’s ambitious film starts to drag and is an imaginary piece with not enough meat to keep the viewer invested, except for the meat Khilji is surviving on of course.”

 

 

India Today

“Deepika-Shahid mediocrity covered in jewels, Ranveer not convincing” 3.5/5 Stars

“Bhansali’s biggest strength is also his Achilles heel, craft takes over content yet you don’t mind this compromise as the end product is spectacular and the execution emerges as the real hero of the film.”

 

Huffington Post

 “Ranveer Singh’s Queer Act Shatters The Glass Ceiling In Indian Film Writing”

“Khilji’s destructive masculinity is offset by the practiced gentleness of Karuf, who shifts emotions with chameleonic splendor. His expressions change, from tender to terrifying, the minute Khilji expresses his desires for Padmavati and it appears that he could be instrumental in sabotaging their ill-fated encounter…The Khilji-Karuf encounter is worth applauding as a male romance, even if suggested, doesn’t have much of a precedence in mainstream Hindi cinema as situations such as these usually border on caricature depictions (in Dostana and Kal Ho Na Ho and many Sajid Khan films).”

 

Deccan Chronicle

“It’s pretty and partly absorbing but not quite exhilarating” 2.5/5 Stars

“The makers should know that quality trumps quality when it comes to special effects. The clunky CGI in the film is pretty awful and distracting. The inconsequential 3D effects and a glossy crowd-wowing star spectacle make ‘Padmaavat’ look like pure product which manipulates the audience to love it.”

 

Mid-Day

“Ranveer Singh Walks Away With All The Applause” 2.5/5 Stars

“’Padmaavat’ draws you in within the first few moments, transporting you to Maharaja’s courtyard, or the Rani’s chambers, and even to the war sequences – but most importantly, it takes you into the mind and heart of Khilji, where he grapples with greed of power and lust for women… But its biggest shortcoming probably lies in the fact that the film fails to connect on an emotional level.”