<p>In the 1900s, Kausalya Mukherjee is happy to receive a letter about her son Devdas’s arrival from after his stay there for ten years for law school. Kausalya informs her neighbour and close friend Sumitra, whose daughter Parvati “Paro” was a close childhood friend of Devdas. When Devdas was sent to London, Paro was advised to light a lamp to bring about his return and never permitted it to extinguish. Devdas arrives and his and Paro’s friendship transforms into deep love; Kausalya disapproves, owing to Paro’s maternal lineage of and , which she considers inappropriate for a family like hers. Kumud, Devdas’s manipulative sister-in-law, fuels her mother-in-law’s thoughts. During Kumud’s baby shower, Sumitra publicly puts forth a proposal for Paro-Devdas’s wedding but Kausalya discards the proposal with patronizing arrogance, remarks that Sumitra belongs to a lower-class family and hurls accusations at the mother-daughter duo. Sumitra vows to find a wealthier alliance for Paro. Paro later sneaks into Devdas’ mansion to meet him but Narayan Mukherjee, Devdas’s father, spots them and humiliates her and Sumitra. Devdas angrily leaves home but fails to muster courage to oppose his parents. He writes to Paro, requesting her to forget him and falsely states that love never existed between them. Broken, Paro agrees to marry an aristocrat: Bhuvan Choudhry, a forty-year-old widower with three grown-up children. Devdas’s friend Chunnilal gets him to visit a , where Devdas chances upon a generous named , who falls in love with him. Devdas realizes his mistake, visits Paro on her wedding day, and persistently requests her to marry him but she reprimands him for abandoning her. Paro marries Bhuvan and departs to her in-laws’ where Bhuvan confesses that their marriage was required to fulfill the position of Lady of the Estate and that his love is only for his late wife. Devdas walks towards anguish and alcoholism, permanently moving into Chandramukhi’s brothel. Paro performs her duties to her husband’s household sincerely, but is unable to forget Devdas. Narayan, on his deathbed, seeks apology from Paro and yearns to see Devdas, who arrives at his funeral and passes out. Devdas begins to stay with his family while Kumud steals the vault’s keys; Devdas demands her to return them but Kumud accuses him of thievery, causing Kausalya to disown him. Paro visits Chandramukhi and holds her responsible for Devdas’s addiction to alcohol but discovers that Chandramukhi loves Devdas. She invites her to at her in-laws’ manor and introduces Chandramukhi as her friend, concealing her profession to avoid disputes. Nevertheless, Bhuvan’s son-in-law Kalibabu intends to avenge an earlier encounter with Chandramukhi that had gone wrong. He exposes her and humiliates her publicly. Chandramukhi takes a stand for herself, slaps Kalibabu and states that the visit of people like him to her brothel makes it successful. Kalibabu discloses to Bhuvan and his mother about Paro’s previous affair with Devdas. Paro is forbidden from stepping out of the manor by Bhuvan. Devdas falls ill and journeys on a train, where he stumbles upon Chunnilal, who urges him to drink. A severely ill Devdas, wanting to stand by a promise he made to Paro that he would visit her before his death, travels to Paro’s in-laws’ village. Devdas is dropped in front of Bhuvan’s manor; Paro runs to meet him but Bhuvan opposes this, ordering all the doors of the manor to be closed and Paro to be restrained. The manor’s gates close just before Paro can reach Devdas. Devdas only sees a blurred image of Paro running toward him. Paro sobs while Devdas whispers her name and dies, prompting the lamp to flicker out. is the third remake of the by , following the and versions. The director read the novel for a second time and decided to adapt it. When asked by a interviewer about why he based the film on the novel, he said that it was “the most widely read story”, and added, “I thought it would be a fascinating challenge for me […] to present already known and loved characters, in my very own way, with my perspective.” He wanted to make this remake was “bigger, better and more spectacular than any classical movie made in Indian cinema”. He explained how the novel has “a simple story [and] a soul which was so big”, and confessed that he was motivated “to do justice to this, it had to be made with grandeur and opulence”. He stated that it was his interpretation of the novel and “a tribute to a great story that transcends sexual love and makes emotion its hero.” Bhansali, who had wanted to make a film that has grandeur and grace, spoke of his love to the film “as much as Devdas loved his Paro. I have put more sincerity and passion into than my other two films [ (1996) and (1999)] put together”. He described the novel’s main character, also named Devdas, as “the paradox of a man who was […] like a child, utterly lovable”, believing that it “exists in every male, especially every Indian male”. In an interview with magazine, he found a resemblance between the character and his father, who directed the 1965 action film , starring . He saw Devdas “as a man who is so passionate about his love that it eventually consumes his entire being”. He revealed that his father often narrates the novel’s story to him, and he read it entirely for the first time at the age of 17. Furthermore, Bhansali claimed that he only altered the presentation style of the 1955 version by the director , with retaining its essence. The first news about appeared in an article written by for in November 1999. It was produced (and financed) by the industrialist under his production company, Mega Bollywood. The screenplay was written by Bhansali with Gujarati playwright and television series writer Prakash Ranjit Kapadia, who also wrote the dialogue. The distribution was handled by directly in India, the United Kingdom and the United States. In May 2002, after negotiations with companies such as and for world sales and for distribution rights in the United States and United Kingdom, Eros assigned as the sales agent outside the United States and India, including the United Kingdom and France in collaboration with Eros. However, in November the same year, Eros reclaimed these rights from Focus after months of negotiations for them and planned to sell remaining rights at the MIFED market; the companies had jointly handled sales in France, Switzerland, Greece, Australia and North Korea in the interim. Bhansali included several novelties on its plot, as he had a desire to make it different from its predecessors; for instance, in the novel, Devdas returns from his studies in (present-day Kolkata), while in the film’s version, he is shown finishing his studies in London. In June 2000, the film faced controversy when another producer, K. Chopra, had registered a film with the same title. Bhansali, however, was able to successfully get the title. Shah Rukh Khan, Aishwarya Rai, and Madhuri Dixit were cast as the lead actors. At the same time when the film’s first report appeared, it was reported that Bhansali tried to offer Dixit the role of Chandramukhi, a part written specifically for her. She declined it because of her marriage to the cardiovascular surgeon Shriram Madhav Nene on 17 October 1999, but eventually accepted it in September 2000. She said of her excitement about the collaboration: “Working with Sanjay was a dream. He gives you a lot of scope and leeway with the role’s interpretation. Since he has the whole film worked out in his mind, he is aware of the length of the scene. He knows exactly what he wants from each scene in order to keep the storyline crisp.” marked the third film between Khan and Rai, after the romantic films (2000) and (2000). The former features as Devdas, a student who later being an alcoholic, which was originally offered to and . Bhansali approached him in February 2000, following the release of Khan’s (2000). Having watched his performances while assisting in (1994), Bhansali stated that he was “extremely happy” after Shah Rukh Khan accepted to star in the film. Meanwhile, the latter was given with the role of Paro, Devdas’ childhood friend, the next month; this was the second collaboration between her and Bhansali, following . She first heard the story of the novel when he narrated the film’s script to her. Prior to her, several actresses were offered to play the role, including and . Working with Bollywood well-known stars was a new experience for her, who was a newcomer at the time after debuted in ‘s political film (1997) and she said, “[…] so the fact that this was an opportunity to work with them on a big scale was one of the immediate attractions.” The supporting cast includes Kirron Kher, Smita Jaykar, and Vijayendra Ghatge. In August 2000, Kher was cast as Paro’s mother, Sumitra. She had always wanted to work with Bhansali after sees his work in and , and met him at the when the screening of her film, the drama , in 2000. He offered Kher two roles, Sumitra and Devdas’ mother Kaushalya, but the director suggested her to choose the former role. In an interview with , she described the role as “a very definite character, never seen on the big screen before”, and found it to be different compared with other mother roles from any films. She also felt that it gave her “a lot of scope to perform—from a flamboyant, young and character.” Kher later positively spoke of her rapport with him: “What made me keen on working with him was the bound script that he gave me and the unusual characterisation of Sumitra.” Jaykar, who was also offered with both roles, chose to play Kaushalya. Jaykar explained that she had portrayed similar roles before, and believed that they were “very [hopeless] […] lots of soulful crying”. A second collaboration with Bhansali subsequent to his previous venture, she confessed, “The look of this film is different from that of . It is richer, more opulent.” Ghatge portrays Paro’s husband Bhuvan, a forty-old-year ; he said that Bhansali initially wanted him to play a role opposite Kher (he did not mention specifically). Discussing his role, Ghatge stated, “What I like about my character is that he comes from a . There is a dignity, a grace in him that appealed to me.” Ghatge compared the film to two ‘s historical films— (1972) and (1983)—and noted how “is the only other lavish film I have ever seen”. Vijay Chrisna got the role of Narayan, Devdas’ father, and he was sure Bhansali offered him it because of his age factor. In October 2000, Jackie Shroff joined the cast and made an extended cameo appearance, playing Devdas’ friend Chunnilal (a role that was declined by Govinda, , and ). The production design of led by (Bhansali’s collaborator in ), with between sixty and one hundred assistants, including -based architect Dheeraj Alkokar, helped him in several constructions. Bhansali wanted the sets to be different from the novel’s 1936 and 1955 Hindi remakes and, to fulfill his request, Desai visited the to collect the photographs of the previous remake versions and “to be sure that there is no duplication”. As the film is set in the 1900s, Bhansali, Desai and other crews did extensive research and discussions on house design from in Calcutta and Indian culture at the time. After this research, Desai came up with the first four different set designs: Paro’s and mansion, Devdas’ house, and Chandramukhi’s brothel. Desai started building the sets in August 2000—two months before the shooting began—and finished in May 2001 in , a film studio complex in . For representing an aristocratic family, he was predominantly used the colors yellow and green for Devdas’ no-walls in-between house to make it a 1911 British-styled home, and used between 128 and 180 pillars (this was inconsistently reported), each 60-foot (18 m) high. The building had a total area of 250-foot (76 m), and was constructed on a (US$30,864.64) budget. For Paro’s , the place where she lives before marriage, Desai spent (US$617,292.84) and used pink and blue as the main colors. He told Anita Aikara of in a 2011 interview, “[…] I spend so much time in the details of the home that Bhansali asked me to rework Devdas’ house. It looked very small when compared to Paro’s [ ].” According to journalists, 1.22 million pieces for Paro’s bedroom’s were continuously made in ten days; Alkokar claimed that it is aimed to “reflect her fragile beauty”. A number of painted walls with standstill figures were created for Paro’s mansion, features in the film post her marriage to Bhuvan, and, this time for the primary color, Desai chose ” ” red. Both Devdas’ and Paro’s house were done in November 2000. The brothel of Chandramukhi was the most expensive set among others, with (US$2.47 million) was spent; called it “the costliest set of made in the history of “, while Alkokar said that it was “the most challenging job”. A multidimensional set with a temple city and an artificial lake around it, the construction was inspired by the located in . With the major color of festive gold, the set had 60 explicitly-carved domes and a 6-foot (1.8 m) . For the song ” “, Desai (without Alkokar’s help) used twenty-five pieces of glass for the floor and added a layer to prevent actors from getting injured when they dance on it. The media estimated the total budget of the film’s entire sets to be (US$4.12 million), and reported that it took nearly nine months to build them. Desai recalled the experiment as “a beautiful challenge, as a classic masterpiece had to be recreated with precision and opulence”. Abu Jani, , , and designed the costumes. Lulla claimed to be a fan of the duo Jani and Khosla, adding that “I do not know them on a personal level, but I received positive vibes. We were competing among ourselves not with each other.” In preparation, the crews watched a number of Bengali films based on Kolkata, talking to locals, and did research on the Bengali culture, including traditional wear and dress patterns at that time. They visited several museums, and made intensive discussions on the costumes that, according to , “… would be a blend of [a look] from the magical period and a look that today’s audience could relate to”. All of the clothes by Jani and Khosla were inspired by traditional Bengali clothes from the 1930s and 1940s. Beside that, Lulla bought 600 from the city and mix-and-matched them: “Sometimes, I mixed two saris in one, sometimes three.” Designing the jewellery as well, she chose and , which she found to be “suited the [film’s] era”, and added stones in them. Khan had read the novel version several years before the shooting, however, confessing that he did not want to watch the two remakes, starring and as his character. He said, “I did not want my own interpretation to be influenced by what he had done.” Devdas, a part that required Khan to drink, has two different appearances—the first was a western look, while the second was a typical alcoholic look. For the former, which features in the film following the character’s study in London, Jani and Khosla bought vintage suits, including cravat, handkerchief, and shoes, from old-clothing stores in the same city. For the latter, they dressed him in beige, white, and off-white, although Khan wanted the character to wear black clothes. They also gave Khan an , , , and , and a short-hair cut to show his nonchalant nature. Same as Khan, Rai decided to not watch the earlier remakes and wanted “to go in to this project with no mental frame of reference whatsoever, I wanted my Paro to be Sanjay’s interpretation of the character and to do that, I needed to stay free of any conceptions based on what previous actresses had done with the role.” Lulla gave the mix-and-match product of 600 saris—with traditional motifs of and traditional-striped borders, called and —to her for the film’s first half; according to reports from the media, it was revealed that each saris took around three hours to drape on a mannequin. While for the second half, Rai wore with eight to nine meters long, which was different from the regular size of six meters. Furthermore, Lulla used , , , and Chinese . She used traditional print for Jaykar and for Ananya Khare, playing Devdas’ sister-in-law. Dixit believed that and the two previous versions “are entirely different”, and commended Bhansali’s “mounting, eye for detail [and] passion” for “[helping] raise the movie to an absolutely [dissimilar] level altogether”. Describing Chandramukhi as “a very poignant, very feminine character”, she compared her part to ‘s role in (1978). Dixit, who portrayed a courtesan for the first time, admitted that it was “a very challenging role, especially since Sanjay does not compromise with quality”. She added, “Still she has much resilience. She belongs to a relegated category but she possesses a golden heart. Playing such a role was an excellent experience.” She wore , Banarasi saris, brocades, and silk saris that have a total weight of approximately thirty kilograms and costed (US$30,864.64), making its designers Jani and Khosla were initially reluctant to give her the costumes. Moreover, Dixit experienced difficulty when she wore the dress for publicity stills, leading the duo to create a new lighter version, weighted sixteen kilograms. The lengha was described as a ‘marvel of mirrors which took a team of skilled artisans two months to put together and featured as part of ‘The Fabric of India’ exhibit held in 2015 at the in London. Meanwhile, Lulla worked on Rai’s and Dixit’s saris in the song “Dola Re Dola”, along with Shariffi who helped to design the latter actress’ costume. Jani and Khosla designed Shroff’s costumes as well; an open-collared , , and were employed. Interviewed by the journalist Aseem Hattangady of Rediff.com, they complained that “the biggest challenge was, we had to avoid having the ensembles look fresh and unworn. This was achieved by selective washing.” served as the cinematographer for . He met Bhansali when the shooting of and supposed to filmed , but he was replaced by for an unknown reason. Pradhan said, “It took time to adjust to Sanjay’s style of work. I am known to be a slow cameraman. Initially, we would discuss camera angles and how he wanted a scene shot. But now, I can read his mind. I know exactly what he wants.” He praised Bhansali for “handles love stories with a sensitivity that I have never seen on screen before”. While working with Bhansali, Pradhan found the director to be “meticulous and painstaking” and it was revealed that the latter did research before the shooting began. It took two days for Pradhan to work on the sets’ lighting; he used three million watts of power produced by 42 generators and 2,500 lights with 700 lightmen were employed. started in November 2000 in Film City. , , , and the duo Pappu–Malu (born Zahur Sheikh and Kavita Gandhi, respectively) completed the choreography. The artificial lake around the Chandramukhi’s brothel set was filled by many gallons of water to avoid from dry up. The set was burnt three times, and the media presumed it because of the generators or that were put around the location. On 9 December, the filming was delayed after two crew members had accidents on the set of Paro’s , with one dying (Dindayal Yadav, then aged 27) and the other (Raju Yadav) being seriously injured after trying to help the former. According to , an electrician turned on a stand-fan while the two was near on it, causing Yadav’s head was fatally hit. A second delay happened in the 15-day shooting schedule on 8 January 2001, when the film’s producer and financier Shah was arrested by the ; he was charged with receiving funding from the -based gangster of the . The controversy began after a caller, claiming himself to be Abu Salem, contacted the news channel and talked about his (US$9.88 million) investment on . However, Shah denied the accusation, admitting that he did not know the caller, and confessed the film’s entire budget was financed by himself. The trial was commenced when the pre-release of his another film, (2001), and finished in October 2003 with the sentenced him with a one-year imprisonment. The film’s climax sequences, featuring Devdas’ travel to Paro’s and her husband Bhuvan’s house, were shot on a train in . In their August 2001 issue, published that 75% of the film was completed. Also that month, another accident occurred, resulting in the death of the 40-year-old lightman Subhash Morkar. The schedule for the song “Dola Re Dola” took place in in November 2001. Shooting was completed on 29 April 2002. After the filming ended, it was edited by Bhansali’s sister Bela Sehgal. Jitendra Chaudhary handled the , while did the background score. The entire soundtrack and lyrics for was composed by , making it his second collaboration with Bhansali after , and written by , respectively—except for “Kaahe Chhed”, composed and written by Maharaj, and “Morey Piya”, written by . The vocals were performed by Dixit, , , , Maharaj, Raghav Chatterjee, Rashmi Sharma, , Supriya Adhikari, and . The soundtrack album, which was highly anticipated, has nine original songs and one background score. Newspapers reported that it had been considered as “Bollywood’s best music album ever” even before its release on 2 April 2002 by . The Vice President of Universal Music India Vinay Sapru refused to confirm the music rights’ purchasing cost, but the press reported that the label had given an advance of more than (US$2.06 million). Upon release, it topped charts on a number of platforms in India and emerged as the third-highest-selling Bollywood soundtrack of the year, with between 1.8 million and 2 million sales. According to Rediff.com, 5.000 units had been sold on the then-defunct e-commerce itself. magazine featured the soundtrack in their listing of “Top Five Hindi Film Albums” of the year. The song “Maar Dala” became popular and entered the top 10 most-listened songs chart by , peaking the third position. The album received positive critical reviews. Writing for , S. Sahaya Ranjit singled out Ghoshal’s “tuneful voice” and concluded, “In an age when film music is heavily westernised, the use of Indian instruments … is pleasing. Apart from the voices, the rich choral accompaniment is prominent. A sheer delight for classical music buffs.” Joginder Tuteja of opined that Darbar’s compositions and Badr’s lyrics were “classical-based” and “very rich”, respectively, while adding that the former did “a commendable job”. Kavita Awasathi from the television entertainment network shared similar thoughts of Darbar, with elaborating that “has once again weaved magic [and] done an admirable job here”. Biswadeep Ghosh of observed that he “has shed all inhibitions and come up with some really divine music”. A review in said, “Ismail Durbar has made attempts to blend classical music into his tunes. But because of his dependence on and usage of familiar tunes, the music lacks the freshness.” was one of the most anticipated Indian films of the year, owing to its budget and the success of Bhansali’s previous directorial venture, and several trade analysts regarded it as “a massive gamble”. , the editor of the film magazine , noted, “There seems to be a lot of interest in the film which is positive indication.” In his article, Adarsh wrote that Mega Bollywood received many calls from film exhibitors across the country, “wanting to open the advance booking for two weeks instead of the regular one-week advance booking”. The journalist Prerana Trehan felt that the film had good publicity, and Maya C. of labelled it as the “most-talked-about Bollywood film of the year”. With a total budget of (US$10.29 million), it was the most expensive Indian film at the time. The film’s promotional trailer was televised in April 2002. On 20 April 2002, was selected to premiere at the , after the festival’s director Christian June met Bhansali in November 2001. June wanted Bhansali to send the prints of the film to him in March 2002, but Bhansali did the requirement in the next month after shooting was done. Marking the first Indian film to be screened at the festival, it was chosen for the out-of-competition section and the premiere occurred on 23 May, with its stars—Khan and Rai—were in the attendance; the press questioned about the absence of Dixit. Audiences criticized the film’s themes, which had been filmed several times before, and called it the festival’s “disappointment”. Bhansali, however, later said of his enjoyment about the screening, describing it as “a huge honour for Bollywood” and claimed, “To me, it seems like an opportunity for a completely new kind of audience to see our cinema.” Khan and Rai went to on 29 June to attend a press conference for promoting the film, this time Bhansali did not attend it. On 11 July 2002, the held a special screening for Indian Deputy Prime Minister in an auditorium at Mahadev Road, . Another special screening was organized at the same time, attended by the film’s cast and crew members and other celebrities. On the next day, was opened worldwide after facing several postponements; it was originally scheduled for release on 14 June, but later shifted to 28 June and 12 July. It faced competition from , , and . was released on 350 screens in India and 250 screens overseas. While the film’s duration was 174 minutes in India, it was shortened to 150 minutes for the overseas prints. As parts of the promotions, managed special shows for the film: features footage and tracks from the film, and contains interviews of the cast and Bhansali. The former was aired on the channel from early July to the day of the film’s release, while the latter was broadcast on 18 July. along with five other remakes of the novel was shown at the Devdas Film Festival, a six-day festival held by the Hyderabad Film Club in on 16–22 September 2002; the 2002 version by Bhansali was chosen as the closing of the festival. The secretary S. S. Prakash Reddy told that the purpose of the festival was to show “people … the subtle changes in script and the deviations from the original novel too.” was selected for the Festival of Indian Feature Films and Documentaries section at the India Festival 2002 at on 21–30 September. It was screened at the ‘s on 1 October. It opened the on 12 January 2003. The film was shown at Bollywood Shuffle festival in on 20 December. In 2017, screened the film alongside the period epic romantic drama (2004) as parts of the “Best of Bollywood Event Series” event in the United States. The novel’s version by Chattopadhyay was translated to under the title of by Sreejata Guha in , featuring Rai in a scene from on the cover. It was published by in July 2002 (shortly after the release of the film), and ranked among the highest-selling books in India. Distributed by Eros International, the film was released on a double-disc DVD on 20 January 2003 in widescreen format. The film’s cable and satellite rights for Indian television were sold to in a five-year contract for (US$2.47 million) on 18 April, and its world television premiere happened on 27 April on . Its and single-disc DVD versions were released on 26 January 2004 and 10 February 2009, respectively. The film was re-released in the English-dubbed version in July 2004 at the theatres and multiplexes across India. The film was available on a triple-disc DVD on 1 February 2005. A version was also provided. The rights of the film subsequently acquired by Khan under his production and distribution company . It has been accessible for streaming on and since March 2016. received mixed reviews from Indian critics, with most of them praised Dixit in her role as Chandramukhi, but panned Bhansali’s direction, and Khan and Rai’s performances. described it as “a work of art and heart”, saying, “Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s labour of love is a larger-than-life, poignant and spectacular interpretation.” However, she felt that the supporting cast “comes up with an exceedingly over-the-top performance and disrupts the entire tempo of the film”, mostly that from Kher, who she found “goes overboard with her boisterous, dreamy-eyed mother”. In a one-star review, the entertainment portal stated, “… belies the expectations that one has from a film of this magnitude. Expectedly, the much-hyped film has taken a historic start all over, but it lacks in merits and most importantly, repeat value, which is so very vital to recover the colossal investment that has gone into its making.” The critic explained that the film’s “first half has an enjoyable mix of light moments and dramatic scenes”, raising “the expectations of a better and much bigger second half. But the post-interval portions fail to hold … attention and there are several reasons for it.” “Shah Rukh Khan does a good job in a very difficult role. … His flashes of arrogant harshness are excellent, and he can carry off sensuous romantic scenes effortlessly. Madhuri Dixit … does an equally good job. As for Aishwarya Rai, Bhansali has done a masterful job of camouflaging her weaknesses as an actress in practically every scene, and of photographing her to near perfection.” The film critic , who gave the film a three-and-a-half stars rating, asserted that “confirms the director’s faith in the power of the visual medium to create poetry out of melodrama and the audience’s faith in Bhansali as one of the most gifted filmmakers mainstream Hindi cinema has produced”, adding that Rai “attains legendary proportions in this film … Her eyes are crystal-blue pools that change colours according to her character’s moods.” appreciated Dixit’s performance as Chandramukhi, a part that she called the “most understated role and perhaps the one that is most lingering”, for being “stunning lending passion, fire and gentleness with such consummate ease that watching her perform is sheer delight”. S. Ramachandran of complimented Khan for “excellently hics his way through without a hiccup in the role of Devdas”, and believed that Rai “pumps glamour into the much sought-after role of Paro”. Writing for , wrote that the film was dominated with the “most-elaborate” costumes and spoke positively of how Dixit “effortlessly combines allure and sacrifice”. claimed that “[s]eeing is like witnessing an exhausting opera. It’s all about the sheer self-indulgence, ego and audacity of its maker”. The magazine saw that Bhansali turned the film into “a tale of female bonding, between a head-strong Paro … and Chandramukhi”, and observed of how its dialogues “are declamatory with mixed metaphors and play of words aplenty”, comparing it to (1960) and . (reviewing for the magazine as well) thought that became “a chick film” because of its dialogues and screenplay. Anjana Guha Chatterjee of concluded, “His film is in no way Sarat Chandra’s . It was entirely Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s .” rated the film three stars, dismissing it as “a magnum opus” that “makes [the audience] want to hit the bottle and fast out of sheer disappointment”. Even so, he noted that Mukerji was “bankably competent” and described Rai’s performance as the “best” one in her career. found the film to be “a big disappointment” and declared it as “the worst film” in Bhansali’s directorial career, with reviewing, “Ornate, opulent and indulgent, Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s is a rich tapestry of colours.” took note of Bhansali’s ability to “give form to feeling here, expression to thought. His concept is old and familiar, his presentation new and delightful. His canvas is grand, his imagination grander still. His sets are opulent, his images larger than life, his characters larger still.” opined that both Rai and Dixit were burdened by their heavy costumes and compulsion to perform perfectly. Gahlot bemoaned that the film’s dialogues were “shockingly inappropriate—cheap in places”, and added that “[the] film veers completely away from the novel in the second half, when he introduces Paro’s creepy step-son-in-law, makes Devdas’s vampish sister-in-law vie for control, and creates a forced situation for a meeting between the Paro and Chandramukhi who do a dance number together—unthinkable at the time.” , giving it eight out of ten stars, was impressed with Khan’s “mind-blowing” performance, commending him for playing his role “with such finesse and aplomb that it is sheer delight to watch him.” Amit Khanna from credited Rai for “brings a fine balance of arrogance, vulnerability and sensuality to her performance”. Siddharth Patankar from opined that most of the film’s cast “overacted” in the first half, and presumed it because of Bhansali’s direction. He singled out Dixit’s “powerful”</p>