Omna Harpalani

IT DESERVES LESS THAN ONE STAR RATING THOUGH!! Oh, it's just hilarious how Bollywood thinks they can buy their way to positive reviews and ratings! I mean, come on, wasn't it enough for them to bribe film journalists to write glowing reviews? Poor Bollywood, you're already exposed, but let me dig a deep grave and bury you with my detailed critique, point by point. So, before the film hit the screens, I stumbled upon an interview with Manoj Bajpai and the director. They had the audacity to claim that the movie isn't about any specific guru but is actually about a lawyer and his multiple cases, truth, justice, and all those emotional chips. Fine, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. But wait, the film starts with a disclaimer saying it's a work of fiction and everything is imaginary. Hold on a second, if it's pure fiction, how can we trust it more than any other made-up story? These filmmakers took their creative freedom and infused it with a healthy dose of hate towards Hindu gurus, as if that's been a fashionable trend in Bollywood for ages. Now here's the real kicker. They based the film on an ongoing trial that has barely gone through the session court and is still awaiting the high court trial. And guess what? They used the name of a real-life lawyer, PC Solanki, as a decoy. This poor lawyer is currently facing legal action from his fellow lawyers and the bar council for malpractice. Apparently, he sold his life rights in some shady deals to these filmmakers, which, surprise surprise, goes against the law. It's a no-brainer that a practicing lawyer can't sell rights that could jeopardize an ongoing trial or expose the identity of a victim under the POCSO Act. Now, here come the burning questions: Firstly, if the film distances itself from being factually accurate, how in the world can it claim to represent reality or be the champion of truth? It's like a big, fat slap in the face to authenticity and raises serious doubts about the motives of these filmmakers. Secondly, they deny that the film is about a particular guru, but film critics are adamant that it's based on a specific case involving a religious leader. Who got to these critics and influenced them to speak in such a way? I smell something fishy, and it's not the butter chicken. And finally, if this film isn't specifically about the mentioned guru or case, then why the hell does it include a disclaimer? Why play around with reality and fictionalize everything? Just give us the real names and events, damn it! Let me enlighten you with my brilliant deduction. These filmmakers had their hearts set on making a film about this Hindu guru, but they knew the case was still hanging in the balance. According to the law, there's no final verdict yet, as the high court can overturn the session court's decision. So, what do these genius filmmakers do? They decide to jump the gun and make a film based on an unfinished case. Do they think they're above the constitution? Doesn't freedom of speech come with responsibility? Oh no, they were too clever for that. They roped in a secondary lawyer, PC Solanki, and bought his life rights (even though he's not even a major player in the case). They wanted to create a fictionalized film that closely mirrors reality but conveniently manipulates the facts. And of course, they marketed it as a story based on real events. They shamelessly tapped into the negative public emotions fueled by a biased media trial of a case that hasn't even reached the high court yet. Oh, but they were cunning enough to release the film on an OTT platform to avoid scrutiny from the CBFC and the courts. You know why?