Review - Golmaal 3: Unmitigated jest and frolic

wogma rating: Add to 'must watch' list (?)
quick review:

Any decent movie must either tell a good story or provide good experience. Though there is not much to call a story in Golmaal 3, it does provide a good experience nevertheless. Also, it is a mad caper spoof of several Bollywood movies – both retro and current.



Click on the tabs below for wogma review, external reviews, user reviews, and twitter verdict

Wogma Review

Note from meetu - Diwali on Fridays has been one of my worst dilemmas. wogma vs. family - a couple of the most high-profile films of the year versus the annual extended family get-together? Invariably, I end up choosing family. Afterall, there are many Fridays but only one Diwali in a year.

Handing it over to Poonam, who's reviewing Golmaal 3 for me. Thanks a ton! Means much!

Wish you all a bright Diwali and a brighter year ahead!

For someone like me, who has often asked this question – how do you keep your brains at home while watching a movie?, Golmaal 3 pretty much puts up a good defense in favour of brainless comedies. Brainless because, predictably, there isn’t a groundbreaking plot with any memorable twists, yet you enjoy the ride anyway.

What works for Golmaal 3 is distinctiveness of all its characters and a fair share of spotlight on all of them. If not for this, the movie could have easily been one aimless chaotic drone, considering that it has a bevy of harebrained, crazy characters.

Set in Goa, the movie is kept afloat with incessant squabbles of a gang of five aimless cons (Ajay, Shreyas and Arshad, Tusshar and Kunal) aided by a delightfully dishy chick (Kareena) and an earnest elderly couple (Mithun and Ratna Pathak Shah). Add a mad, forgetful goon (Jhonny Lever) with his two ‘retro’grade henchman - therein lies an endless possibility of mindless wit and situational comedy.

It is as if director Rohit Shetty did not want to repeat the mistakes of the previous one (yeah, I know that last year’s Diwali release Golmaal 2 was also a hit, but..) – there are no crutch characters. Even Kareena’s character is seamlessly woven into the narrative and has equal share as the boys.

Yet what the movie loses in plot, it makes up in abundance with its wealth of jokes, funny one-liners, spoofs and situational comedies. The movie is one long standup comedy show where, more than the story, you wait for punches that are to be delivered. (I laughed at even the most cliché ones.) Rohit Shetty has also interspersed the movie with several Bollywood references. There is a spoof of rich girl, poor boy love story, atypical of Bollywood in 70s. Prem Chopra plays a cameo reminiscent of old times, and Mithun da receives a tribute of sorts by living his ‘Disco Dancer’ again. Then, there is Hum Saath Saath Hain playing in the family drawing room and Ghajni that lends a creditable gimmick to the plot.

Jokes on fellow actors find place too, predictably Emran Hashmi features. Shahid is called Kameena (y), which could be interpreted in more than one ways, and then there is a dig even at Kareena’s ‘zero figure’.

Music is fun and high-intensity, even if not very noteworthy (not surprising, since mood is mirthful). Two tracks, Disco Dancer and Yaad Aa Raha Hai, are from Mithun da’s old movie, Disco Dancer. See, what I mean by tribute to Mithun Da.

Movie is also replete with characteristic Rohit Shetty-esque quirks – action scenes with cars being smashed, the chase, the Golmaal vehicle - a 5-seater motorbike this time, and elaborate opening sequences.

The fast-paced screenplay with its heavy slapstick couldn’t have been executed without the chemistry, camaraderie and comic timing of the cast. And when you have so many lead characters, it is only fair to credit each actor for making their quirks stand out. Though it was Ajay Devgan who not only got a grungy makeover, but also had an edge with all the masterstrokes bestowed to his character. The only two talented actors that I felt bad about were Mukesh Tiwari and Ashwini Kalsekar, who had little to do and were much ignored in this one.

I also want to send a shout-out to the costume/dress designers that made their unobtrusive contribution to humor (not to mention the bright look and feel)– those typical costumes from 70s that Mithun and Ratna wear, note Jhonny Lever’s pants (Rajesh Khanna? :P) and those of his dapper henchmen. Also, I am intrigued how most actors in comedies can easily carry off violet, firozi (sky blue) and pink shirts as well as colourful pants.

That said, movie is not without flaws, the end doesn’t come with a big bang. Instead, the climax takes its droll course in a maddening chaos with all the characters present on screen. Also, movie could have done with some editing scissors to blot out few repetitions. In addition, sometimes during a sequence, for example the one with Mithun and th dog, the audience patiently waited for a chaotic caper to subside, awaiting a new joke. Melodrama of 70s story playing out between Mithun and Ratna outside the church was another sequence that felt bit stretched.

Yet, bottom-line is you will laugh. Even the cynic will watch it with a wide smile, minus too many cringes. Here’s to a hilarious Diwali.

This review is by guest reviewer Poonam Sharma. Poonam Sharma is an instructional designer by profession, who blogs at Visceral Observations. She loves books, movies and theater. Poonam Sharma also blogs at

Parental Guidance:

  • Violence: Negligible, slap sticky sorts
  • Language: Swear words (some indistinct) and a couple of suggestive sequences.
  • Nudity & Sexual content: None
  • Concept: Two set of jobless step brothers try to outdo each other
  • General Look and Feel: Bright, frolicky, jocular and fun

Detailed Ratings (out of 5):

  • Direction: 3
  • Story: 1
  • Lead Actors: 4
  • Character Artists: 3
  • Dialogues: 3
  • Screenplay: 2.5
  • Music Director: 2
  • Lyrics: 2

Golmaal 3 - Movie Details

Golmaal 3 - Trailer

Comments (16)

Click here for new comment


I couldn't watch the trailer. I can't see myself surviving this movie if I am indeed coerced into watching it.


And I just realised that I have been using two email accounts on this site. So now there are two Rahuls here. :D


@Rahul how sad that we have such apprehensions and there the film-makers are going about saying, you liked our earlier films, so here you go...

you have two ids and you still are one of wogma's top commenter. thank you!


I'm sorry, I didn't like any of the movies.

The "trilogy" is basically a financial investment and not a film - and maybe that distinction is there. There are people who want to see it, and there are people who don't want to see but that doesn't change the fact that the entire trilogy is backed by only one motive - being the diwali blockbuster of the year.

Slapstick is great, but only if they earnestly strive to make a slapstick movie- Govinda movies in the 90s. I would much rather watch those than a business deal disguised as a film.

(Okay too harsh, but Tusshar Kapoor, esp in Golmaal annoys the **** out of me!)


@swetha ha ha deal? does that mean there was a 3-movie deal, or does that mean if the third film is a financial success there will be a fourth one.


@nirmal the thing is, its not people like you or me who dont like these movies that decide the fate. It's the other people who liked the first two editions that will make that visit to the theater

Dr Sachin:

Yes a commercial deal- with pathetic attempt to create humor out of people's disabilities. I am sure humor can be more creative, mature and inclusive. In the times and age of movies like "Tare Zamin Par", this movie is retrogressive and irresponsible.
This movie will only strengthen foolish stereotypes about stammerers and promote teasing of children in schools and discrimination in work place. Is this kind of humor we deserve in 2010?


I liked the was based on the old movie "Khatta Meetha" and overall the movie was enough to make the audience laugh.The movie is a must watch on the theatres,if you watch it in DVD then the enjoyment would get halved.Go and watch it in theatres for sure!:)


Well, watched this movie purely because of this review. Had read Poonam's reviews of Jhing Chik Jhing on her blog and had seen it later. And I am glad that i saw that movie (also, summer 2007 was her recommendation). She is once again bang on with her review. As she said you get a feeling that the movie is stretched for no reason, especially the 2nd half of the movie has much of these scenes. Still, as poonam says, the movie is a 3 hr (i think 2 hrs and 40 minutes) of standup done by hell lot of actors. Golmal 3 is a sure laughter medicine despite some scenes. Pretty good especially after golmal 2. The rating options are not suitable. Had to give "so-so" rating when it is better than that, but not a "Yay"!


@Wardhaman the rating options are limited, intentionally. so that readers can give a quick assesment.


found this little irritating with all the stammering...


i like the film


Golmaal 3 was full Dhamaal.
I loved this movie alot.

Kunal dialogue was rocking.

Dr Sachin:

Unmitigated jest and frolic- yes, also unmitigated humbug: it teaches Indians to laugh and mock people with disability for "pure fun"! It apologises to dogs, at the opening- but not to people with disabilities..!!
That is the limit of insensitivity. Pardonable in 1947- I guess..


@Joydeep I haven't watched 'Khatta Meetha', but I sure was relieved that movie made me laugh. Which is lot more than I could ever say about Golmaal 2.

@praneshachar: Thanks so much for your comments here. Yeah, I waited to watch the shooting scenes in end, some of them were hilarious.

@Wardhaman Thanks for the kind words. Yea, I thought it was a stand comedy show one that could easily be improvised each time without altering/impacting its non-existent plot. :) What did you mean when you said - 'Golmal 3 is a sure laughter medicine despite some scenes' What scenes you found objectionable/irritating?

@Mallika That's quite some enthusiasm, I am curious to know what you thought of the movie AFTER you watched it. ;)

@Yakub The stammering fit well in situational comedy and game of rejoinders, that I didn't much notice the irritation it may have caused to some. To each his/her own.

@Dr. Sachin: I do not remember a single instance where disability per se was being made fun of in a derogatory manner. No character was put down solely because it was mute or stammering, rather laughs happened due to situations/reactions that mute rejoinders/stammered replies created/evoked. Which is not so much different than laughing at gullibility of Vasooli or amnesiac portrayal of Johnny Lever. In truth, we try to make light of even could-have-been-dangerous moments. Don't we jest when even able-people trip or fall or makes similar mistakes. Or, would we prefer a sanctimonious mourning? Not only that, I loved the scene where Tusshar Kapoor's mute character goes to break the secret of their birth to everyone and for once they all (including the step-brothers) understand perfectly without a shred of doubt.
What would you prefer - differently-abled lead characters that can laugh at themselves and give equally back or morose disabled characters (often part of sub-plots) that only evoke pity? Personally, I would judge a movie/book/comedy based on its intention - and in this case, I didn't think it was insensitive. It's good to laugh on idiosyncrasies that life offers.


@yeahhh I think the discrepancy is because I didn't review Golmaal 3, I actually hated the film, so yes, it'd have certainly received a lower rating than FALTU :D

Leave a new comment