Jodhaa Akbar

I watched the movie on Sunday (Yes, I admit this is a rather late review), but I can remember quite enough for a scathing review. (I'm a nitpicker, yes, but I do have a few good things to say before all the bad stuff)

The good thing? Hrithik Roshan makes for a surprisingly convincing Akbar, and I admit I quite like the idea of casting him in the role. And they did quite a job with the sets as well- although it's been too long since I watched Devdas to recall much of those sets, the sets in this movie appear to be much more sober, and score very high on appearance.

The bad and the flawed?

It all starts from the beginning, when the opening credits misspell "Delhi" as "Dehli".  As a blooper it might be trivial, but it gives a bad impression of the sort of "historical accuracy" seen in the movie. Same goes for the idea that Akbar's wife was known as Jodhaa back then- she wasn't.

On to the medieval warfare, next. The scenes of King Vikramaditya (Hemu) going into battle with those elephants is flawed horribly. No one uses elephants to charge into a group of fighting troops, because you're very likely to squash your own men along with the enemy. Elephants were used to charge deep into the enemy lines, wreaking havoc as they did- but even that approach failed when their mahouts were killed and the elephants themselves stabbed and left to run amok in pain, something Alexander the Great figured out almost 2000 years before this movie takes place. Oh, well. And the cannons, too. Before explosive shells came in the 19th century, cannon fire would be aimed to tear through lines of infantry, rather than arc high and do little but toss dirt around. It's a nice touch to see from the POV of a cannon shell, almost James Bond style, but it'd have been cooler if the shell had been shown tearing through lines of soldiers.

After that, comes the scenes spanning the Rajputs and their allies, and the Mughal subhedar. Apart from the main characters, I had serious trouble trying to keep track of who was whom. Rather stereotypical right there.

Aishwarya Rai(-Bacchan)'s act of dupatta-swapping to make her inconspicious seemed like a recipe for making her even more conspicious, since the yellow of the dress showed through the green of her dupatta as well. Apart from that, I think she did an okay job of being Akbar's Rajput Queen throughout the movie. The scenes of her singing before Krishna were horribly contrived, though.

Akbar- Hrithik Roshan-is portrayed with a little too much machismo in too many places. He made me think of Disney's "street rat" Alladin in that scene with the elephant. Although the real Akbar was known for his tolerance, there were moments he could be cruel (Having the soldiers throw his brother down the parapet was a real incident) and it was his dad, the ironically unfortunate Humayun, who bestowed the name "Akbar" upon him. Although the tax abolition was a populist measure that did earn him plenty of favors, he didn't become "great" in a day thanks to one visit in a marketplace. Showing him go into a trance with the Sufi dervishes was a touch I appreicated- although I wish that the dervishes in the back didn't look like zombies! In addition, his portrayal of Akbar is rather questionable and rather...childish...in a handful of scenes, although I can't blame Hrithik for that.

Also, blame the writers for sneaking in a political subtext: Akbar versus someone who is being supported by his imam, defeating the said person in single combat, and exiling said person and imam to Mecca. What gives?

Flaws aside, it would be very watchable if only it were about half an hour shorter. And those of you who love songs and pretty sets should be pleased- the movie scores very high on both of these.