If the title of this summary weren't self-explanatory, then let me begin my ranting about how clichéd this movie actually was. If one were to write a documentary about clichés, they could use this movie to supplement any single example of cliché that one could possibly think of.Lets begin by talking about the story line. The first-half, which dealt with a love story and father-son relations as dry as could be. While the father son relation between Amitabh and Salman was passable, there seemed to be absolutely no chemistry between Salman/Rani. First of all, they seemed to just rush the love story, deciding that it wasn't really all that important, as Salman wouldn't even be in the second half of the movie.The comedy in the first half wasn't great either. Parts were OK, but the writers obviously thought they did a better job than they actually did.The second half of the movie proved to be one of the most predictable and boring scripts ever. Its as if the producer deciding to bring in script writers from TV soaps and wrap up the script. Furthermore, the theme was unbelievably outdated.Question>What do you get when you mix a bad storyline, with a bad director, bad writers, a horrible theme, and an extremely outdated moral message? Answer:Baabul

Really, if they wanted to show that widows can remarry then they should have made it like this : Even though Sallu dies, Rani gets over him in 5-6 yrs. But throughout the whole ordeal John was with her, helping her through. After some time she starts dating John and falls in love with him and then they get married and then all the drama. I mean, the movie was made in such modern style yet that same old ghissi pitti story ? Why ? I really didn't expect this from a director who made Baghban. Including the fact that it looked like as if Rani didn't even wanted to get married . Why the heck can't they leave a woman single? What's the big deal ? Throw in the bad acting { even from John} , boring songs, and a movie soooo slow that it successfully put me to sleep . {I had to watch it again. No, I'm kidding at this. Dead .Serious. )Jeez! And Rani and Sallu looked bad. Sallu looked as if he had wrinkles.Why can't Rani for once in her life change her style? Hema somehow really irritated me with way she speaks.Gosh !How on earth was a movie like that made? Especially in an year where really good different movies were being made ?Those who are against widows remarrying will continue to do so even after watching this movie. This really didn't get any point across. So what was the point ? This movie is just made to bore us ?and make no sense? and use a solution to a problem used in the '60s and '70s which was totally nonsense?? Please!

A reviewer once said about Bollywood that "if it's a colour, use it" and Baabul is anything if not colourful. There are lots of what could be euphemistically described as vibrant colours on screen at any given time. The plot, such as it is, revolves around love found, love lost and love re-found. All clocking in at little under three hours, with the characters bursting into song at the slightest provocation. Some of the choreography for the song and dance sequences must have taken ages to put together. As usual in Indian films, kissing is taboo and the romantic sequences are remarkably chaste by western standards. All the actors should have life memberships of the academy of over-acting. Emotional nuance is not really the name of the game here. But the actors sure are good looking, even those with grandchildren. They seem to have discovered the fountain of youth. While all of this doesn't sound like a glowing review, points have to be granted for the sheer positive life-force of this film and its life affirming message.

I would love to believe that either Ravi chopra directed this film in his sleep, or that he had some inspiration from Ekta Kapoor because i REFUSE to believe that he would actually make a 3hr film for justifying a 3 minute monologue!Coming from a banner of BR films' repute (that too celebrating it's 50th year) this film disappoints (on so many levels), to say the least, as it is everything that BR Chopra would not make.Perhaps the idea was to make a film that would remind us of the era that was 50 years ago. I say this because the dialogs are so cliché, it's disturbing. the characters are so one-dimensional its appalling. and the story is so predictable, I wonder if a toddler wrote it.... the dramatic payoffs are simply comical and the audience was left laughing at a scene where sympathy was expected....salman tries to bring comic relief to the first half, but due to bad direction and worse dialog, one can't help but feel exasperated. the second half is so slow that "i wanted to rip my arm off, just so i could have something to throw(at the screen)" (yes, it's joey's line)I was surprised to find that Mr. Bacchan, and Hema Malini could actually act so badly (hema-ji, has little or no role anyways) .... and Rani Mukherji and AB Sr. have none of the magic one has come to expect after "Black." the less said about john Abraham, the better. (Two words: Acting School!) in the second half the cast and crew tried it's best to put the audience to sleep, (and a few did in fact doze off) but i kept up with caffeine and bore the film (as it bored me) so i could warn others about this heinous crime against film making!)let's now come to talk about the branding... OMG!!! Eros jewelry, Brooke bond, nerolac, kotak... please stop!!! i'm here to watch a film, not an advertising campaign!!!OVERALL: The Good: The kid, Rani Mukherji's bathroom-mirror scene, Amithabh Bachchan's 3 minute monologue at the endThe Bad: Everything else you have to endure to GET to the end!!The Ugly: the dialogs, the dialogs, the dialogs, the direction, the costumes and jewelry!Final word of caution, watch at your own peril!