i think so coz i think he shuldnt have accepted this role
2006-09-27 07:06:15 · 14 answers · asked by nikil s 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
It was a stupid stupid role in a stupid stupid movie, with a stupid story, and an even stupider SRK.
2006-09-28 15:16:44 · answer #1 · answered by Udits 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i am fan of amitabh and i have seen all his movies.he is 63 and still on top,some people dont like that specially the compititor of amitabh.We see sean connery,robert deniro or al pacino in romantic roles and we like it so why not amtibah can act as a playboy.thats not real amitabh,he is playing only a charachter.No it was not vulgar. we think and we want to believe that old people think and talk only about bible,gita,quran but they talk a lot about girls girls girls. In west its normal that old people fall in love and get married. Wait couple of years and we will see that in india also.
2006-09-27 20:11:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hi, AB is a nice actor. It's not his fault that the directors of the movie make him do those kind of things. Thats his Job!
As a Actor he is paid to do anything But in real life he is the Best family man.
2006-09-28 07:18:13 · answer #3 · answered by Mona S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah...i had a Gud image of amitabh earlier....that he choosy abt accepting roles but after watching KANK i was shacked....firstly coz i cant believe that Kal Ho Na Ho n KANK's Directors r same n secondly what Is wrong with amitabh?....
2006-09-28 03:17:14 · answer #4 · answered by pari 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's an actor, which means that he can pretend to be things he's not. I think it shows that he's a good actor because you are confuing the character with the actor. He was not vulgar, but his character was. He's an excellent actor with a long and prestigiousl line of work. He should stretch himself and do roles that are uncomfortable and contrary to his image. Even he should continue to learn and expand his abilities.
2006-09-27 18:41:11 · answer #5 · answered by moviegirl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think so. He did a role which had no impact on the story moreover he created a 'over acting' image of the character.
2006-09-27 16:01:55 · answer #6 · answered by star_unknown1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
AB is in a ton of debt. He has to pander to all the bollywood big-wigs.
His next movie is an indian version of "Lolita". More dirrty old man.
2006-09-27 17:03:57 · answer #7 · answered by novembr 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree.
but hes the leading man of the film industry so everyone will just accept him .
at least that's the case with a majority of the ppl.
2006-09-27 14:22:16 · answer #8 · answered by kiran 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all, atleast let him also feel the new kind of test. He has not taken the contract to be confined in "Sadhuism".
2006-09-28 09:06:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
but i didnt understand why he was in the movie!! the movie would've been the same if he wasn't!! tht means his role wasnt imoortant!!!!! and anyone who is on the movie COVER is meant to be important.. dunno why karan johar always takes him.. and yes it was vulgar for his AGE and not his IMAGE btw.... cuz he already has tht playboy image form those rekha-jaya days!;) along with his awara abhi baby!
2006-09-27 14:19:00 · answer #10 · answered by sara* 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋