this movie is comercial, in order to get best profits or help the unity of country, they twist it, or completely change it, reality is different, look out for wiki, or google about akbar, he might have been better than other mughals, but still he is among the most cruel people. so lets enjoy the movie, but not take this as real history.
What a crap movie this Jodhaa Akbar is, its just waste of money. Please someone teach Hrithik Roshan acting, he is so cute but no acting skills, what a pitty
RE:What a crap movie this Jodhaa Akbar is
by ABHRA CHEL on Feb 20, 2008 12:42 AM
okay, but we'll give Shah Rukh the lesson first chapterwise, you know he even doesn't know how to put the right expressions, forget abt acting!
We believe that the content of "Jodhaa Akbar" grossly distorts India's history and its concocted story is an odious, false, unjust and irreverent portrayal of a Hindu Rajput princess and a Muslim Moghul ruler, which we consider to be extremely insensitive and it hurts the sentiments of millions of people who love the culture, history and traditions of India. The truly serious danger stems from the movie's frequent references to historical events that never happened. Such distortions pose the danger of sending a totally wrong message to our nation's highly impressionable younger generation.
We believe that the artists, director and the producers have all shamelessly chosen financial gains over the Nation's history, culture and civilization, and worst of all, the honor of the women of India and thousands of innocent men, women and children who perished under Akbar's command.
We hope you will join us - please call your friends and relatives and ask them to boycott "Jodhaa Akbar".
RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by Vishwajeet Kulshreshtha on Feb 19, 2008 11:46 PM
I hope you had raised your voice when movies full of filth were released not so long ago in which women were used mere sex objects. Actually, most movies show this kindof stuff. If you talk of "JA" destroying our culture, then you are grossly mistaken. No one raised their voice during re-release of Mughl-e-azam. why? Rich Culture of Rajasthan is hurt when a foreigner is molested by a local (incidents in Pushkar and Jodhpur) or when a women unwillingly thrown into pyre of her husband. Gowarikar showed Jodha in utmost dignity. He showed that she had rajput blood and she was strong willed yet soft at heart. What else you want? So, let's just watch the movie and enjoy.
RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by meena on Feb 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Please also remember the numerous Dowry Deaths and abortions of millions of female babies (before they are born) and numerous women being bought and sold even today(flesh trade) and the epidemic of violence rape and child and domestic violence in this day of so called progress. Bhaiya Vasudev make people realize about these instead of things of the past and work for these humanitarian issues.when society cannot protect and respect their women how can they be so proud of their existence.
RE:RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by meena on Feb 20, 2008 12:49 PM
"Addendum" And 400 years from now if some movie were to be made on these atrocities possibly some VASUDEV will rise and scream "Falsified History and full of Lies"
RE:RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by vasudev on Feb 20, 2008 01:00 AM
In 1561, when King of Sarangpur was defeated and Rani Rupmati was captured by commander Adham Khan, "She bravely quaffed the cup of deadly and carried her honor, rather than fall prey to Savage Mughals." The invasion of Malwa was accompanied by general slaughter, and on the day of the victory, the captives -- troops after troops of them -- were put to death so that blood flowed river upon river. When Adham Khan intentionally kept the 'choicest of the spoils' and 'the captured most beautiful women' to himself, Akbar got infuriated and smashed Adham with his sword, made him unconscious, shouting: batcha - i - lada then, Adham was bound, and numerously hauled 'up and down' headlong -- so that his neck was broken and his brains destroyed. In 1564, he invaded Gond Kingdom of Rani Durgavati, and in subsequent decisive campaigns in Malwa & Bihar, the soldiers were slain and several chieftains trampled to death under Elephants
RE:RE:RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by vasudev on Feb 20, 2008 01:02 AM
When Rana Udai Singh refused to give Mewar Princess to Akbar, the furious emperor attacked the fort of Chitor, treacherously killed the generals Jail Mal & Patta, and ordered a general massacre in the fort -- which ceased ultimately only for lack of victims. Over 30,000 Hindus, who had taken refuge in the fort were slaughtered, according to Abul Fazl, and the looted sacred gold-threads of the butchered weighed over 200 Kgs. The 'slaughter', besides being vengeance, had the Mughal policy behind it: The greater the resistance, the greater the retaliation was the Mughal Rule, to strike terror in potential adversaries and cripple the Hindus' will to fight back. When Udai Sing's son Rana Pratap refused to be a 'puppet vassal' -- Akbar again invaded Mewar, inflicting terrible atrocities on the Mewaris. The dual policy of his towards Rajputs -- high rewards to the submissive vassals and 'relentless carnage' of those who opposed -- soon brought almost all Rajasthan under his control. For the survival of the citizens, the Hindu kings were forced to offer Princesses to the Mughal's Harem
RE:RE:RE:RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by vasudev on Feb 20, 2008 01:06 AM
Akbar was a ruthless, medieval warlord, driven by "earth hunger & blood thirst", engaged in incessant wars in order to ever widen the frontiers of his empire. He enjoyed wars, as he enjoyed hunting, a perilous sport and often personally led the charges against the heathens, as no other Mughal ruler, not even Babur, had done in India. In 1583, at the confluence of the Ganga and the Yamuna rivers, he founded the citadel, and named it Allahabad, city of Allah! He prided himself in being a just ruler, and said: "Tyranny is unlawful in everyone, especially in a Sovereign -- who is the guardian of the world; We During the Time of Our Rule Have Not Hurt Even An Ant." But contrarily, Akbar had himself handed out 'savage-punishments' even for trivial offenses. Akbar always maintained: A Monarch should be ever intent on conquest; the army should always be exercised in warfare, lest from want of training, they become 'self-indulgent'. As pretexts rather than genuine reasons for his aggressions, Akbar wrote to Abdullah Khan Uzbeg, a Central Asian Monarch Warlord, that, "My conquests did not proceed from self-will and self-indulgence; we had no object except "to be kind to mortals (muslims!)" and "to obliterate the oppressors (Hindus!); and, he further wrote: "Places which from the time of the Rise of the Sun of Islam till the Present Day had not been trodden by the horse hoofs of the World Conquering Princes ... ... have become the Dwelling-places and Homes of the(muslim!)
RE:Falcified History and full of lies
by Yogesh Patel on Feb 19, 2008 11:30 PM
Dear Vasudev: Get off your high chair of culture and look around. I do not see a single moment in the movie which makes me feel that my Indian Culture is destroyed. Even if some of the story line is not true, but it never does any harm to Indian culture. There are lots of things happening in India by Indians which are against our culture, our history and our beliefs in humanity. Do somthing about them and be honest. There are many things you can do to remove bad politicians who in the name of religion creates animosity among all Indians. Our culture is of acceptance not rejection. Take the movie with a grain of salt and you will enjoy it. Its just an entertainment not the history lesson. Its a great movie which shows various sides and shades of human behaviour. It has great music, great visuals and portrays vastness of India. I enjoyed every minute of it and I will take my Indian and American friends to see a movie made in India in classic collosal grand scale of Cecil B De Mille (The Ten Commandments). Its a must watch movie for every Indian.
"Bollywood insiders believe that even if Jodhaa Akbar does not do spectacular business in India, the overseas moolah will help it recuperate its reported $10 million budget."
the word is "recoup" not "recuperate". If you are going to publish articles in English on an internationally accessible platform like the internet, the least you can do is make sure the copy editor owns a thesaurus and uses it. Rediff just went from inane to plain tacky in my books.
RE:Syntax!
by shareth ram on Feb 19, 2008 10:37 PM
Sorry Pooja, both words are acceptable---please check dictionary--both also mean "to regain" or "to recover". The only problem is recoup is used more financially and recuperate in a humane way.....My two cents
RE:Syntax!
by pooja sarna on Feb 20, 2008 01:23 AM
I understand what you are saying but there is a difference. Both words have similar meaning but they are used in different contexts. this is why i mentioned a thesaurus and not a dictionary. in this instance, since we are talking about recovering money, the word "recoup" is the correct one. If we were talking about recovering good health after an illness, the term "recuperate" would have been correct. But your two cents are very welcome, this is after all a discussion board.
At the end of the movie, what stands out most is that man who played Akbar. He once again proves that whether it is screen presence or acting talent, he is the best in the business today (second only to Amitabh). Slowly and silently he is doing what others are doing through self promotion and media hype.
RE:Azeem o Shaan Shahenshah - Hrithik Roshan!
by mehboob ali on Feb 19, 2008 10:56 PM
Dear Vikram
Shayad aapko ye bhi tehzeeb nahi ki amitabh ka kya mukaam hai....jo aap ye gustakhi kar gaye...acting ke muamle mein hrithik aur amitabh ke beech senkdo pillar aise hain...jinhe hrithik cross tau door...choo tak nahi sakta hai...jahan tak..dance, action ki baat hai tau i can say hrithik is number one...Hrithik tau baap ke bichaye hue bistarey par tum jaise jazbati jo sirf ek tarafi chezzon ko dekhkar haqiqat se door rehte hai ke bal par...media ki madad se chal raha hai...nahi tau kab ka shahid kapoor ki hi acting se dab jata....doosre jo struggle se pahunche hain...unka isse comparison hi kya karoon...kyoonki ye unki acting ki tauheen hogi...isliye pehle acting ke barey mein jano...fir socho samjho aur koi rai banao...aise jazbaat mein kuch nahi likha kartey...aajke liye kaphi hai...
RE:Azeem o Shaan Shahenshah - Hrithik Roshan!
by geet kandya on Feb 19, 2008 11:24 PM
mehboob bhai..........shayad aap bhi yeh baat thukra nahi paenge ki bhale hi hrithik abhi amitabh ke kad tak na pahucha ho......magar jisko ek "complete package" kaha jaye aisa bollywood mein abhi koi nahi hai.....aur abhi aur kisi bhi actor mein woh kabiliyat nahi hai jo wo big b ke uche darje tak pahuchne ka khwaab bhi dekhe.......magar hrithik is daur ka ubharta hua fankaar hai......aur aane wale waqt mein us hi ka bol bala rahega.....
I think, it was an excellent movie by a sensible director who tells his story in most simplistic way. Lagaan, Swadesh and now Jodha Akbar, all were long movies, but he dit no loose the control for a second.
Roshan did extraordinary job as always. Aishwarya's dialog delivery, for a change, was under control, credits to the director. It might not be AR's best music, but it helped the movie. The sufi number, Azeemo-shan-shahanshah stand out.
I saw this movie in New Jersey with full house. No one moved out during the movie, given the length. War scenes were well executed. Roshan's dual with an elephant, his dance in the sufi number, sword-fights, and Azeemo-shan-shahnshah stand out. A must watch!!!
