Little Thomas has drawn a divided early critical response, with reviewers finding appeal in its performers while disagreeing over how effectively its childhood story handles the troubles of an adult household. Reviews published on October 21 offer a useful guide ahead of the Hindi film’s October 23 theatrical release.
Directed by Kaushal Oza, the film features Gulshan Devaiah and Rasika Dugal as the parents of seven-year-old Thomas, played by Hridansh Parekh. Its central question is deliberately simple: the boy wants a younger sibling, while his parents face difficulties he cannot fully understand.
This Little Thomas review roundup reports the assessments of published critics. It does not assign a CineZone star rating or present their observations as a first-hand screening verdict.
A child’s question meets a family’s problems
The film places Thomas and his family in 1990s Goa. His curiosity about where babies come from sends him towards answers from the adults and children around him, while his parents’ strained relationship develops alongside that search.
The contrast provides the main point of discussion in the reviews: can a lightly comic account of childhood curiosity also carry the pressure of a struggling marriage? The critics broadly recognise that ambition, but they do not agree on the balance achieved.
That distinction is more informative than simply dividing the response into positive and negative reactions. The reviews often concern the same elements, including the child’s conversations, the parents’ arguments and the film’s unhurried atmosphere, while reaching different conclusions about their effect.
The Indian Express questions the dialogue
Shubhra Gupta, writing in The Indian Express, awarded the film two stars out of five. Her review found the premise appealing and acknowledged the cast, but argued that the dialogue too often sounded rehearsed rather than spontaneous.
Gupta’s reservations extended to the adults’ conflict. She felt the parents’ exchanges did not generate enough interest, despite the efforts of Devaiah and Dugal. The result was a response in which the promise of the setup outweighed the satisfaction of its execution.
Her assessment points towards a specific concern for prospective viewers: an engaging idea and capable actors do not automatically produce convincing everyday conversation. For a small family drama, that quality can be especially important because dialogue carries much of the emotional work.
Cinema Express finds more warmth in the second half
B H Harsh’s Cinema Express review was more receptive, giving Little Thomas three out of five. It acknowledged weaknesses in the early stretches and questioned whether the film’s attractive surfaces fully conveyed the household’s financial anxieties.
However, the review found that the story became more involving when it gave greater attention to the marriage. Harsh identified emotional warmth in the later passages and praised the two adult leads for sustaining the film through uneven sections.
That is a meaningful point of difference. Where one review found the family’s arguments insufficiently involving, another believed that movement towards the adult relationship helped the film come together. Viewers who value gentle pacing may therefore read the same warning signs differently from those seeking a more sharply driven narrative.
Rediff sees charm overtaking emotional development
Mayur Sanap’s Rediff review also recognised the young lead’s appeal, but felt the film depended too heavily on that charm. His concern was that the household’s difficulties repeatedly gave way to lighter moments before the emotional consequences could deepen.
Sanap regarded Devaiah and Dugal as watchable performers working with material that did not consistently support them. The review treated the gap between intention and storytelling as the film’s central limitation, rather than dismissing its underlying subject.
His response reinforces a question running through the coverage: whether the child’s perspective brings the adults’ problems into focus or provides a way of moving away from them too quickly.
Free Press Journal highlights the performances
Satish Sundaresan’s Free Press Journal review gave the film two stars, while offering praise for Parekh’s innocence and the restraint of Devaiah and Dugal. It also wanted a fuller exploration of the child’s emotional experience.
The review appreciated the cinematography but was less enthusiastic about some other craft elements. Its verdict again separated the performers’ contributions from the effectiveness of the overall narrative.
Taken together, these responses suggest a film whose cast is a recurring strength, with writing and tone the main areas of disagreement. Readers drawn to intimate domestic stories can use those specific observations to judge their interest. The published reviews offer competing perspectives; audiences will supply their own when Little Thomas reaches cinemas.
