not as good as all the hype

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

A lot of fun.

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

When the movie first started making rounds, I remember many people made fun of the name. Everyone was wondering how a love story can be named Toilet. I was surprised to see the social message that came with this movie. Movie stars in India can reach a lot of different people through their works and this was one of the only times I had seen a big-ticket movie star attempt to create awareness about such a taboo topic.The delivery of the social message was done very effectively in this movie. Despite that, this movie is not without flaws. Pros first, the actors are really good in their respective roles. The script was mostly funny in the beginning, except for some clichéd jokes. The supporting characters also added to the movie. Especially the older family members of the lead characters. The chemistry between Akshay Kumar and Bhumi Pednekar was easy, but sometimes they seemed a little uncomfortable.The main cons for me were the unnecessary songs and the accompanying dance sequences. For a movie that primarily wants to deliver a moral, the movie has far too many songs. And the songs aren't even that good. The movie could have gone without having all the songs. The script was a little predictable at times but it was a good movie overall.

A newly married girl arrives at the husband's home to settle down only to realize that there was no toilet in the home. The villagers take a leaf out of the saying 'The world is my oyster' and suitably Indianise this to 'world is my toilet' - indulging in jolly open defecation socialization. As the niche films go, this is a really even more offbeat off regular offbeat topics, and the film makers need to be congratulated on even contemplating such a topic, that too by roping in A-lister like Akshay Kumar who plays the male lead Keshav Sharma. From such a lofty concept, the execution goes down the toilet in no time. There is usual formulaic love story. The guy falls for a girl (Bhumi Pednekar as Jaya Sharma) and stalks her - in typical Indian film style. She rebuffs him, rather severely at some point, the hero gets peeved, and after usual Bollywood drivel about how deeply he is in love, she repents and relents. Then it is the hero's turn to rebuff - that macho charisma needs to be presented - that a well educated and well-sought after girl is after the male who is sub par. This is where the 'villain' comes in - hero's father, a rank traditionalist who goes by the religious principles - or his interpretation of it. He is a stickler to scriptures, from marriages to toilets. First part is easy. The bride needs to have particular physical characteristics, but in these days of designer costumes, designer hands is not far off and the contraption works. This is just an introduction to show how tough it would be to change the old man's mind.All the while we were under the impression that open defecation is a problem because of poverty preventing an affordable toilet and/or habitual attitude against built in closed structures in favour of open air performance. The habitual often goes by the term 'cultural'. Not so, say the film makers. They assert that the real problem is religious tradition, and in particular- Brahmanical tradition. No doubt, the director found a marketable opportunity for such a socially emotive bugbear for the audience to identify themselves against. The Keshav's father is a staunch toilet traditionalist, The new bride, Jaya, being modern, would have none of it.Open defecation - to deify or defy is the crunch question. After dismissing wife's travails initially, Keshav takes her concerns seriously after she reads the riot act - 'provide me a toilet, or else..'. The film takes quite a few artistic liberties in delivering comic solutions - from visiting a home with toilet under the pretext of visiting an old immobile lady, to exploiting a train that stops for a very short while. While these are excusable, pitching the problem as modern vs religious tradition is crass. The real problems of lack of safety, hygiene have been given perfunctory treatment. Instead, they resort to the straw man - tradition over whose marketing potential countless love stories have been filmed. Other than the unusual topic, there is hardly anything edifying about the film.

This film is set in rural india. Small towns have their own charisma. Akshay Kumar puts his heart and soul into it and delivers a power packed performance. His younger brother is played by Dwiyendu and he catches the dialect perfectly and delivers a beautiful performance. Bhumi Pednekar does these roles with ease. The message in the film is very important and gets delivered to the audience while they are being entertained. Kudos to Bollywood. They have come a long way

We're so used to love stories (between unmarried couples) who've to face hurdles and villains before they unite, that a love story like this, over a matter as trivial yet very important, between a (married) couple seems so fresh and unusual. The troubles he takes everyday and the arrangements he makes for his wife to go to the toilet provides moments full of laughter (due to the theme that it touches, the film in general is very funny) but is in every way very sweet too. It takes off further after she leaves him as he literally starts a war for the sake of his love.Only Akshay Kumar could've pulled off a role like this. Not many heroes of Bollywood can play the role of a common man, a villager as efficiently as he does - Ajay Devgn is another but he wouldn't have suited to a role that required a touch of comedy. Bhumi too plays the role of a stubborn, determined woman very well. A very likeble couple.The film is very informative too mind you. As an outsider, this was an eye-opener for me on many levels as I'd no knowledge of this kind of prohibition in the Hindu tradition and culture, although I'd refrain from commenting on the religion as almost every religion of the world has been twisted and misrepresented over centuries. Initially, since I'd no knowledge of it, I was at first not too unconvinced but then the references to their holy book gave me an idea as to how for a serious matter it is after all.A minor objection, and I don't exactly know why, but the ending looked a bit forced upon and out of place to me, especially how the Pundit was convinced through an accident of his own mother. Although not necessarily bad, but I would've ideally shown him to have been convinced through the way women of the village were harassed and were made photos and videos of. This would've changed his thinking and made him see the flaws in his argument in a more convincing manner.Some issues raised and dialogues said were gold, such as....."Women are the ultimate enemy of women," ... and.... "Very conveniently way lay the blame of everything upon the government."These are two of the many points that I always make. So, all in all, a very good film. Kudos to everyone involved!