. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Movie Review – Toh Baat Pakki

The intention to satisfy the hunger of the family audience is evident in the Toh Baat Pakki directed by Kedar Shinde, but this theme has been explored many times in the past. The plot of the movie also seems to be interesting while reading or in its narration, but it seems flawed at the time of watching the movie. It is a very old thing in Hindi cinema to find an eligible bachelor for the young bride and it has paid huge dividends to producers and directors, but Toh Baat Pakki falls behind.

The film revolves around the life of Rajeshwari (Tabu) who is happily married to a bank teller and is looking for a suitable match for her sister Nisha (Uvika Chaudhary). To her delight, she finds an engineering student, Rahul (Sharman Joshi), brings him home, and arranges the marriage. But to the dismay of the audience and the delight of Rajeshwari, she finds Yuvraaj (Vatsal Seth) as the most eligible bachelor. Rajeshwari is now determined to fix the marriage with this bachelor as she is a manager and about to get a bungalow so she only has money in mind.

The downside of this film is not its old theme, but rather taking the audience too lightly and presenting them with a film that is neither comedic nor melodramatic at its core. The writing is also inefficient and lacking in punch and presumes that a viewer will take every aspect of the film to heart, which he never does. It’s hard to associate with this script now, even more so when we see small-town regulars dancing to stilted songs in skimpy clothing on beaches.

The initial half of the film is enjoyable with the introduction of the characters and some good performances by Tabu and Sharman Joshi, but it is in the last stage that the film is completely turned upside down. Rahul’s motives for breaking up Yuvraaj and Nisha’s impending marriage, which include dowry, poison words against the bride, and kidnapping, seem perplexing to the viewer.

With this film we witness a kind of comeback of Tabu (last seen in Cheeni Kum) who is one of the best actresses in Bollywood. It’s quite natural to see her talent, but at the same time we see her in a jalopy called Toh Baat Pakki. Sometimes it becomes difficult for a viewer to differentiate between the character of Tabu and Upasana Singh as they are both nauseating and quite loud (might be the script’s demand). Something better was expected from the lady who has been awarded the national prize twice.

Not that she acted badly in the movie, but she is the only one carrying the burden for a movie that has nothing new to offer and has average music and cinematography. She is commendable in playing the role of a woman with good intentions for her family and her sister, an interesting character in her group. She enhances the film with her enigmatic screen presence and we tend to like and hate her as Rajeshwari. Sharman Joshi has put in a lot of effort and looks genuine as Rahul. After Rang De Basanti, his performances are constant and up to par.

Simply put, Toh Baat Pakki is for the audience who can fully revel in Tabu’s powerful performance in an old film script that has been forgotten by directors and producers 10-15 years ago in Bollywood. The rest of the performances are pretty average and overshadowed by Tabu.

Leave A Comment