Ten years ago, India had just one question on their mind, ‘Why did Kattappa kill Baahubali?’ I remember everyone being obsessed with the cliffhanger in Baahubali: The Beginning in 2015. I also remember being unmoved and indifferent. While Indian cinema celebrated the film’s grandeur, I couldn’t stop myself from asking a different question: Was it ever really that great? Well, fans of SS Rajamouli — and there are many — would beg to differ. From walking on waterfalls to slow-mo stunts, Baahubali left me disappointed. Unpopular opinion, but here’s why I could never understand the hype around this film.
Flat and synthetic CGI
Baahubali aka Prabhas lifted the Shiva lingam and walked on water in one of the scenes. Might have been a symbol of power for many, but for me, it was not at all convincing. Subpar VFX put me off at that moment itself. While I went in expecting Lord Of The Rings quality, it was like playing fantasy video games such as Uncharted and God Of War. We were quick to bash Adipurush’s animation and visual effects, but not this? How did this film earn global fame?
Fantasy drama or fancy dress?
Thirty minutes in and I was already regretting my decision. Prabhas, Anushka Shetty, Rana Daggubati, Sathyaraj and Ramya Krishnan left no stone unturned with their acting skills, but their overdone look was a huge turn-off. The makeup was exaggerated for several characters, especially female actors – Devasena and Sivagami Devi.
As a viewer, it made me lose interest in the entire concept and the reality of it. You can make a fantasy period drama that still looks realistic with added fantastical elements. There are several Hollywood and Bollywood examples to draw comparisons between their and Baahubali’s presentation, including Jodha Akhbar, Game Of Thrones, Vikings, that did it beautifully.
Story arc wasn’t intriguing
The film completely relied on the question: Kattappa ne Baahubali ko kyu maara? The makers then released Baahubali: The Conclusion of the duology taking the intrigue forward. However, more than a narrative strategy, it felt like a marketing masterstroke to me. The emotional connect wasn’t organic, but forced. Unfortunately, visuals can’t fill plot holes. The story arc wasn’t intriguing, funnily enough, the background score was.
One-dimensional characters
Without any moral complexity, the characters in the film were one-dimensional. For example, Amarendra is the glorified noble hero, Bhallaladeva is evil, Devasena is ethical, and Sivagami is aloof. It was the cultural influence of the movie that tried to grabbed eyeballs, and not the brilliant writing that swept the audience away. You can’t win hearts with larger-than-life spectacles, there’s more depth that a movie demands. The only feat the film had was opening doors for Pan-India films. In my eyes, it’s not the cinematic breakthrough most people look at it as.
Story continues below this ad
While Baahubali: The Beginning collected Rs 650 crore worldwide and its second instalment Baahubali 2: The Conclusion became the highest-grossing Indian film at the time, grossing more than Rs 1,810.60 crore worldwide. Maybe I missed the magic, but it’s worth thinking a decade later, was Baahubali even that great?
