Here we go again:
I will try livetyping some thoughts while reading these reviews all over the net - so this article may grow and grow and grow.

One thing (bad first?) Maria, Oliver and me, all three using a 10 point system, all give only 6 of 10 points to sanjays movie. But i promise: We’d not spoken about our points bevor publishing. But sanjay also gehts 3 of 4 rubberducks by kaddele (i also want one, please). Marco gives 2,5 of 5 and sweet mirie has not told us her points.
Thats all a bit average only, isn’t it?

As i’d written in some comment somewhere in any review before, its because the most critizised moments of the movie comes late - and stays longer in mind.
Oliver wrote about the sati chapters:

Especially the Sati-track in the final act is far too long, seems forced and leads to nothing.

This central theme in just the moment, when the movies climax should be reached, doesn’t work.

But on the other hand, while mirie thinks about

PJPSNJ rather works as a comedy than as a drama, but one has to say that newcomer Sanjay Jha is doing quite good at this balancing act.

i see it the different way:

The first, courageous half becomes a little bit overwhelming with slapstick and comedy, craziness and unreal. Some scenes may be funny and interesting to watch, but the climax drops out.

Kaddele joins my views:

Personally I liked the first one and a half hours better than what follows afterwards. That’s mainly because I liked the way the different stories of the people in the chawl are presented. I also found the use of the conventions and stereotypes that can be found in so many films quite well-done.

But she mentions also:

First of all it’s really funny to watch and secondly, they set off the often quite shocking stories about the violence and abuse the people (mainly the women) are faced with and which is even more shocking because it comes unexpectedly after scenes that are really funny.

And Marco, the German speaking Bollywood Guru with a awsome knowledge of having seen over 800 movies,

As I just said, the funny part of the film worked better than the serious one.

But also he thinks, that

The film therefore works best as a parody with witty dialogue and loosely connected vignettes - but even on that level, it never fully clicks. The drama is even less successful due to its fragmentary nature and the strapped-on moral at the end, served by a funny geezer with an absurdly ill fitting latex baldie cap.

Oliver sees it quite different:

For one, “Praan” is clearly intend as a social commentary, addressing shortcomings and injustices for the people of this chawl, succeeding quite well in doing this in an urgent and poignant way. (…) On a third level, all of this gets sometimes an ironic treatment, revealing the “filmy” attitude of the proceedings; it’s just that there is no discernible pattern visible why the filmmakers sometimes stay in a serious mood, and sometimes admit that it’s all just hokum and that the audience needs to know that they are just watching a movie.

Maria takes both sides equal:

Sanjay Jha tackles both parts of his film quite well and with a lot of commitment - the comedy-part is hilarious, the social-problems-part is touching and agitating - but regrettably the both parts clash bitterly and just won’t workpraan-women.jpg together, annihilating the impact of both parts.

Some way we all are equal and different. And when we all come to the common view that this movie is special but average comparing it with other movies, we all argue different. Isn’t that interesting? As in school in math: Its not the summary counting, its the way to get to the summary. And this ways are all different. I hadn’t expected that (and that is what moviemaking makes so hard to work: people see the same thing different).

–to be continued–