A Parisian reads a script of a play as follows: Ishkq is the name of a girl who was born in Paris (Preity Zinta) and doesn't believe in deep love.
Ishkq says that she was roaming in Rome for the weekend because she loves being served by men and Italian waiters, to be specific, and guesses if Akash is Gujarati.
Ishkq surprises Akash by showing him the Eiffel Tower filled with lights, and she narrates how she met an Italian waiter and fell in love at first sight in Rome, but he is weak and started crying.
Seems that he is an agent working at London and lives on commission like the hero of movie Jery Mcquire played by Tom Cruise.
Soon her mother realized and tells her that her parents Ranveer and Marie decided to part happily because of their careers and all these years Ishkq misunderstood that her dad left her.
Writing for Sify, Sonia Chopra gave the film an extremely positive review, praising the entirety of the cast, the cinematography and the dialogues and labelling it "great" and "irresistible, despite its flaws".
[3] Similarly, in The Times of India, Meena Iyer gave 2.5/5 stars, stating "the actress is good but there ends the show",[4] while Gaurav Malani called the film not "bad", but "boring", which to him was worse.
[5] In Bollywood Hungama, Taran Adarsh gave it the same rating, praising the chemistry between the two leads as well as the visuals, but criticizing the screenplay, concluding that Ishkq in Paris was "decent fare".
[6] Writing for India Today, Vinayak Chakravorty found that despite similarities with other films, it managed to find some originality and that Isabelle Adjani's performance was impressive, but was disappointed by the direction, the lack of chemistry between the leads, Rhehan Malliek's lack of screen presence, the fact that Preity Zinta's performance is similar to many other roles she's done before and deemed the script "bad".
[7] while similarly in Mint, Nandini Ramnath concluded that "if the movie works at all", it was because of the short runtime and Preity Zinta's "contagious joy at being the cynosure of attention".
[8] In The Asian Age, Suparna Sharma commended Zinta for producing the film herself and appreciated the short runtime but also found the story to be "wispy thin", Malliek to have "no personality" and Adjani to be "wasted".
[12] In a special "Twitter review" for IBN, Shomini Sen deemed that though "Preity Zinta tries hard [...], except for some amazing shots of Paris [the film] has nothing much to offer.
",[13] while in another, more traditional review, Rajeev Masand called the film "misguided" and "overwrought", in addition to finding Rhehan Malliek "as expressive as a slab of granite".
[14] while India TV News felt that Preity Zinta's screen presence is the only reason to watch the film despite the "decent" cinematography and "crisp" editing, as Rhehan Malliek is "unconvincing" and the music "unmemorable".
[16] Shubha Shetty-Saha for Mid-Day agreed with Gupta, ans went on to call Adjani "wasted", Malliek "flat" and felt that Preity Zinta looked desperate to recapture her lost success, deeming the film "disappointing".
[19] For the Mumbai Mirror, Karan Anshuman thought the movie was "without heart", the actors had no chemistry and felt sorry for the state of Preity Zinta's career, encouraging her to "be bold" and "change the act",[20] similarly in Daily News and Analysis, Tushar Joshi felt that the actress seemed "in a constant need for approval", advising only her die-hard fans to go watch the film.
[26] Similarly in Outlook, Namrata Joshi was saddened by Zinta's plastic surgery-altered looks, thought she lacked chemistry with her co-star and called the narration tedious.