veer Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 not a bad actor for that age.. never knew he acted in a movie back then.. nmY6JzQPH-I
akshayxyz Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 :nice: much better than typical Bollywood child actors, esp of that era. In fact, better than Hirithik himself of today :P.
Mariyam Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 :nice: much better than typical Bollywood child actors' date=' esp of that era.[/quote'] +1 Definitely better than Aftab, Rishi Kapoor, Imran Khan, Jugal Hansraj (he's still a child actor) and Urmila Matondkar.
Yoda-esque Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 I think he acted in Bahgwaan Dada under the tutelage of that acting great "Rajnikanth"
DomainK Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 +1 Definitely better than Aftab, Rishi Kapoor, Imran Khan, Jugal Hansraj (he's still a child actor) and Urmila Matondkar. Child actors in Bollywood have mostly been horrible actors. I don't know why we could never produce a half-decent child actor. Baby Naaz earned herself some reputation, but her acting was highly exaggerated as was the acting of most actresses those days. Junior Mehmood was not bad in a couple of films, but nothing special. The ones you named have been ordinary. Then there were Urmila Matondkar, Hansika Motwani etc, all of them average or less than average. Yes, Hrithik looked far better by those standards. But then Bollywood directors hardly ever developed a child character as well as they did for the central characters. Look at Dakota Fanning in uptown girls. A splendid performance in a very well defined character.
Recommended Posts