Maa Movie Review: Only Kajol Shines In This Mythological Horror Fantasy
As much as the film has tried to show Bengali culture and traditions, it also feels like it's again bringing to light the kind of mumbo jumbo that's always been doing the rounds.
Kajol's latest release Maa, directed by Vishal Furia, is a mythological horror fantasy that fails to capitalise on a story that could have been brought to light with an even bigger impact. The movie revolves around a plot that mixes mythology, fantasy, and horror all together. The story begins with an age-old tradition of sacrificing every girl child born within the royal family to seek protection from Goddess Kali against a monster who has been terrorising the area of Chandrapur in West Bengal, where the film is set.
Once the concept and the narrative of the movie is established, the story shows that Kajol and her husband, Shuvankar (Indraneil Sengupta), stay far away from Chandrapur. However, Shuvankar, who belongs to the royal family has a girl child with Kajol but hides it from his family to protect her from being killed as an act of sacrifice. Situations and circumstances quickly take a turn for the worse for Kajol and her daughter, who are left alone after the sudden death of Shuvankar, who visits Chandrapur after the demise of his father.
For almost 12 years since the birth of their daughter, Shweta (Kherin Sharma), Ambika (Kajol) and Shuvankar have kept her hidden from Chandrapur and have never visited the palace due to the family history. However, after Shuvankar's death, Kajol is forced to visit Chandrapur and is forced to take her daughter along, who insists on visiting her father's palatial house that is put up for sale.
Ambika learns a lot more about Chandrapur and the tales of the demon who resides there and is in disbelief with the mishaps that start happening ever since she sets foot in the palace with her daughter. And how she, as a mother, navigates through the horror is what makes up for the rest of the film.
The concept and story have substance, but the film lacked largely because of its style of storytelling. Besides, the film also has a lot of stereotypes that could have been done without. Besides the exaggeration that the palace had a almost 30-feet tall Kali maa's stone carved statue, the way people from Chandrapur talk in the film, everything seems to be a cliche that all the Bengalis would be running away from. It only gets disappointing to see Ronit Roy, who plays a vital part in the film, deliver all his Hindi dialogues with such a heavy Bengali accent. A lot would argue that it is not how people from Bengal speak when they talk in Hindi.
When it comes to individual performances, Kajol is commendable as Ambika and convinces us to believe that she actually is the chosen one by a higher power. Besides, who doesn't love it when Kajol turns all her motherly instincts on screen? That's exactly what she has done here as well. She has single-handedly carried the film on her shoulders and might just be the saviour for her home brand, Devgn Films.
However, the rest of the cast, including Ronit Roy, have given an average performance. But that can also be blamed on the lack of depth in the script and the VFX, which rather makes it look unreal.
As much as the film tried to showcase Bengali culture and traditions, it also feels like it's again bringing to light the kind of mumbo jumbo that's always been doing the rounds. And that was again a disappointing factor. Having said that, certain scenes and jump scares in the movie do give you goosebumps, but unfortunately, don't leave you impressed at a stretch to change your idea about how the film pans out.
Overall, it's a one-time watch and needs a lot more to even become a notable film from the series or the universe of Shaitaan, which was released in 2024, starring R Madhavan and Ajay Devgn in the lead roles
First Published:
June 27, 2025, 09:00 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Raanjhanaa's AI-altered re-release: Why director Aanand L Rai is unhappy, what the law says
The 2013 romantic drama Raanjhanaa, starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, is being re-released in theatres with a new AI-assisted ending. The production house, Eros International, has announced that the film will now include a new climax created with the help of artificial intelligence. The change is being promoted as a way to offer the audience a 'happy ending' to the original story. However, the film's original director and co-producer, Aanand L Rai, has publicly distanced himself from the re-release. In a statement to The Indian Express, he said, 'I've to be very careful while signing the dotted line.' He added, 'AI is the future. Everybody knows that. But then use it for the future or for the present. Don't use it to distort the past!' Eros, on the other hand, has maintained that it holds complete rights to the film and is within its legal bounds to alter it. In its view, using AI is simply a means to connect with evolving technology. This clash between artistic and commercial ownership has sparked broader questions about creative control, technological intervention, and the fine legal line between them. Why is the re-release happening? Raanjhanaa, directed by Aanand L Rai and written by Himanshu Sharma, is widely regarded as one of the most impactful Hindi films of the 2010s. The film, starring Dhanush, Sonam Kapoor, and Abhay Deol, explored themes of unrequited love, caste, and political ambition through the tragic arc of Kundan (Dhanush), a Hindu boy hopelessly in love with a Muslim girl, Zoya (Sonam Kapoor). The film received critical acclaim and went on to win numerous awards. More than a decade later, the production house has decided to re-release the film with a new AI-assisted ending, one they say is a 'respectful creative reinterpretation'. This alteration was done without the knowledge or consent of the director. Rai has been vocal in his criticism, expressing emotional and creative disapproval. Legally, however, Rai's disapproval does not stand much ground because, under Indian Copyright Law, the rights to a cinematograph film typically rest with the producer or production house, in this case, Eros International, not with the director. The controversy is not just about one film. It brings into focus broader concerns in the film industry: Who controls the final cut, what counts as 'authorship' in the age of AI, and whether artistic integrity can survive? While the director's outrage may be creatively valid, the law, as it stands, doesn't offer much recourse. 'Under Indian Copyright Law section 2(d), the author of a cinematograph film is the producer,' explains advocate Ankit Sahni. 'The director, unless they have a specific contract that grants them ownership or economic rights, cannot claim any legal control over the film.' According to Section 14 of the Copyright Act, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to adapt, reproduce, and communicate the work to the public. Section 2(d) clearly defines the 'author' of a cinematograph film as the producer, not the director, writer, or editor. Directors do not enjoy moral rights under Section 57 unless they are also credited as the author in another capacity, such as screenwriter or performer. This means that, unless Aanand L Rai retained specific rights in his contract with Eros, he cannot stop the production house from modifying or re-releasing the film, even using AI. As for AI-generated content, there is no standalone law in India yet. 'As per a Parliamentary statement, India currently protects AI-assisted works, as long as there is a significant human contribution,' explains Sahni. Fully autonomous AI creations or such works with minimal human contribution are not protected by copyright. 'In this case, if they are admitting the use of AI, it could mean three things. AI has contributed to suggesting changes to the plot, writing new dialogues, and/or animation using generative AI,' says Sahni. 'If the new ending was created with the help of AI, it would still be protected, provided enough human input was involved,' Sahni adds. Ultimately, the law prioritises ownership and contract over sentiment or creative authorship. The Raanjhanaa case may be emotionally charged, but it's unlikely to lead to legal redress, unless the law itself evolves. What does it say about the larger AI debate? The Raanjhanaa controversy is more than a clash between a director and a production house; it signals a deeper and rapidly evolving debate about AI's role in art, authorship, and ownership. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative processes, questions emerge about what constitutes 'authentic' art and who controls its future. Is a story still the director's vision if it can be altered in the future by AI? Across the globe, filmmakers have employed AI in controversial ways. In The Brutalist (2024), AI refined actors' Hungarian accents and generated architectural visuals, and in Roadrunner (2021), the director used AI to recreate Anthony Bourdain's voice for lines he never recorded. Closer home, AI was used to create a credibly younger version of actor Mammootty in the Malayalam movie, Rekhachitram (2025). Legally, the ground is still shifting. While Indian copyright law protects works created by humans, it does not yet fully recognise autonomous AI creations. At the heart of this legal vacuum is a deeper question: should commercial stakeholders be allowed to override original artistic expression using technology, even if the law permits it? The Raanjhanaa case highlights this dilemma, where a film that once carried the emotional signature of its director is now reshaped without his consent. As AI tools grow more powerful, the need to revisit legal frameworks and ethical boundaries in the creative industry becomes important. The writer is a student who is a summer intern at The Indian Express.
News18
35 minutes ago
- News18
Bigg Boss 18 Star Shrutika Arjun Gave THIS Special Gift To Birthday Boy Arjun Raaj
Last Updated: In a video, Arjun Raaj mentioned that he was 'speechless' after receiving the gift from Shrutika Arjun. Shrutika Arjun, who captured hearts with her lively and pleasant personality on Bigg Boss 18, continues to flourish. While on the reality show, the actress was often seen expressing her love for her husband, Arjun Raaj. In the latest, Shrutika surprised her husband, Arjun Raaj, with an extravagant birthday present: a vintage Rolex watch. The gift reflected her love and appreciation for her husband, making his special day even more unforgettable. Shrutika Arjun's Special Birthday Gift In a recent paparazzi video, Arjun mentioned that he was 'speechless' after receiving the gift. He added that he was not wearing it at the moment, and Shrutika immediately quipped, saying she had asked him to wear it. But Arjun denied, saying it might get scratched. Moreover, in the video, Shrutika was also seen complaining that he came late and she was waiting. Arjun jokingly added that he does not understand Hindi well, but could figure out that she was complaining. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Viral Bhayani (@viralbhayani) Shrutika Arjun's Acting Career Before Bigg Boss 18, Shrutika Arjun won the Tamil culinary comedy show Cook with Comali 3. She not only exhibited her cooking skills, but she also won the audience's hearts with her funny personality. Earlier, she shared how she turned off successful movies in the South during a key period in her life. She shared, 'I did receive a couple of acting offers from the South. The movies did really well. I was called in for auditions, but I had decided that acting wasn't my focus at the time. I was transitioning from school to college and had made up my mind. I chose not to pursue those offers, but I have no regrets. I believe everything happens for a reason." Though the roles she turned down ultimately became hits, Shrutika Arjun was firm in her decision, noting that her priority at the time was her studies. Shrutika Arjun also acted in the popular Malayalam film Swapnam Kondu Thulabharam in 2003. She played Ammu and starred alongside renowned artists Suresh Gopi and Kunchako Boban. First Published: July 30, 2025, 18:13 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Salman Khan's Sikandar Failed As Tamil Director Didn't Understand Hindi Script: 'Was Not Exactly Sure'
The filmmaker said he wasn't exactly sure what the script said as it was in Hindi. Salman Khan's Sikandar was a dud at the box office. The film had several strengths: Salman Khan's box office pull, Rashmika Mandanna's fanbase and AR Murugadoss's proven Bollywood track record. Despite this, Sikandar had an underwhelming run at the box office. Now, the filmmaker has blamed it on his inability to understand Hindi, and thus, not fully knowing 'what is happening' in the film. AR Murugadoss recently said, 'When we make films in our mother tongue, it gives us strength. We know what is happening here. Today, there's a trend going and suddenly the audience gets connected with that trend. When we shift language, we don't know what the youngsters are enjoying in that language. All we need is a script to believe it." He further explained, 'For once, I can take up Telugu films, but Hindi may not work for us because after we write the script, they translate it into English. Then it is again translated into Hindi." He added, 'We can only guess what they are saying, but we are not exactly sure about what is happening. When you make a film in an unknown language and place, it feels like you are handicapped. It is like you don't have hands. I strongly believe our strength depends on where and which culture we come from." This has come as a shock to the filmmaker's fans, as his previous Hindi films both had good box office runs. The filmmaker is behind Akshay Kumar's Holiday: A Soldier Is Never Off Duty and Aamir Khan's Ghajini. Both films opened to largely positive reviews, with Ghajini even becoming a blockbuster hit. As for Sikandar, critics responded harshly—common criticisms included weak screenplay, uninspired direction, and flat performances. Despite high anticipation, the film failed to deliver the energy and charisma seen in Salman Khan's earlier hits. In the film, Salman plays Sanjay 'Sikandar" Rajkot, a man driven to protect three organ recipients after the death of his wife (played by Rashmika Mandanna). Rashmika plays Saisri, whose tragic storyline catalyses his transformation into a defender of the oppressed against a corrupt politician. Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
