KRITI CHAKRABORTY

A very average overhyped movie in my opinion. I'll give you the pros and cons which I think nobody is talking about and that's bothering me. Pros: absolutely amazing intent, efforts of the actors show, nusrat does a commendable job until the climax where she suddenly gets all preachy (but I'll come to that later), jump scares and the thrill factor (given that the intent of the movie is to give a social message and that I spook easy, it was good enough) , the tall grass maze was scary I would have cried there, cinematography, story telling, background scores worked for me. In short it was all great until we reached the climax. Cons: since I see everyone praising the climax, I have to say that's the part that bothered me. Suddenly all their acting got theatrical where one seemed to wait for the other to finish their lines (like on a stage play). Nusrat's inner woman plus mother got awakened and she gave a speech on what she learnt. Why would someone sensible do that to a bunch of villagers (sorry, just 3 old villagers) who already have an existing custom and would kill people to stick to it? It's like telling a chain smoker that smoking is bad. Even with all the right intent, I would get out of a village like that and spread the word to the world so that they are found and made viral & that takes strategy, not preaching. If Rani was capable of killing, what was she waiting for in all these years? She had this old couple right in front with no extended family and she knew how to use that axe. Hemant is our Rajbir? How is that a sensible climax? You really think village people bound by their own customs go to this extent to get a boy baby? I think they're regressive enough to repulse an empowered woman at first sight, let alone falling in love and getting married to her until she has a baby. Ya ya I get it there were subtle hints that he's sexist but if he's Rajbir, how come he's not ageing? After 4 marriages, he's still 27 or something? His father was working as a driver for him only for this day? What if his wife had rejected the plan of them hiding somewhere? How did a guy like that even manage to make a girl like her fall for him? ALLLL of this acting for a baby who they'd kill anyway if it's a girl? And then what? Rajbir would be 27 again and marry the 5th time? If the old lady knew Nusrat is carrying a girl, why wait for her to give birth to her? If I was the old lady, I'd burn that daughter in law anyway (keeping the character in mind). Why let her get an opportunity to know all the truth, just to let her preach at the end? I mean I don't get it. How is this a climax? How is this a twist worth waiting for? Last but not the least, no matter how sure I am of Rani jumping on Hemant and killing him, I'd still not throw that knife away for a cinematic exit. But putting all that aside, it was a good message and the intent was at the right place. Just make a better climax with it next time.

Story is good, execution is funny. The whole thing looks staged. So the camera follows the journalist only to capture her emotions clearly? Camera follows her when she is dead and the reporter particularly reports her death. Terrorist calls famous news anchor only because his father believed him & he created all this drama for a sorry. He could have simply threatened the minister enough for it. Why trouble a news channel, I wonder! Terrorist won't talk to anyone else even if they get his job done coz he 'believes' in the news anchor. He won't even believe the authorities above the anchor who can reach the minister easier. Funny over the top emotional sequences. At times the terrorist and the anchor's emotional outbursts sound like a joke. A terrorist keeps blasting bombs and boss thinks about TRP only. Nobody communicates to her that one of her teammate's earpiece has a bomb attached, even after getting to know it. A deputy of the minister dies in the studio and studio wants more drama. Oh boy! I understand news channels enjoy the business over truth telling, but it's more of a subtle act than an outright villain like activity. A news channel has more people in it, not just 2-3 people to take a call. Nobody gets to play the villain because they want to. And how the hell did they manage to hear another channel's live by pausing their own? Do they sit next to each other to be able to communicate last moment conspiracies so fast?? Can we pause ON AIR shows whenever we want? I don't know man! None of their characters are well written or atleast well portrayed in the movie. I'm not sure what people liked about the movie. Kartik Aryan is inconsistent in his performance and so is the terrorist. I feel no emotional attachment to any of the characters or the scenes in the movie. It has zero impact. Oh and news channel boss fighting the anti terrorism squad was hilarious. A clash of opinions and full fledged clash in plan of action against a terrorist are two different things. Such plans are usually well chalked out before they are executed and since the media channel has called the anti terrorism squad, they would hardly try to fight them in the middle of an attack, for a matter as serious as this. I don't know what the director was thinking. God help us!

First of all, instead of watching it as a women centric movie which needs to be understood through feminist glasses, can it be just a movie about two individuals making their own life choices? Once you see it that way, you'll see none of the characters are a villain here. Each character is doing what they define as right or wrong. Some of their definitions are fair, some unfair. But it's all about individual choices. Konkona's mom tries to explain that to us in the movie and the movie as a whole also tries to portray that. Secondly, communal riots in India are a reality. So is dissatisfaction related to sex between couples, physical incompatibility and adultery. All of these exist. Stigma related to gender opposing roles, LGBTQ community and sex in general also exists. The movie shows what is reality. It's about these two women who do what their understanding of right and wrong tells them to do and similarly, the supporting cast does what they think is good for them at a particular point of time. Nobody is a villain here. I was stunned by how incredibly relatable these characters are and how beautifully they are enacted. A huge applause to all of them. Lastly, when we say what a character should or should not have done, based on our understanding of ethics and morals, remember that's flawed too. Don't you make your own choices everyday? Have all your choices been fair? Haven't you hurt somebody? Haven't you made mistakes? Haven't you realised what is good for you and what is not? Haven't you learnt what you are okay with and what you are not through trial and error? It's the same for all these characters. Konkona's husband realises that they're physically incompatible and that he was wrong when he tried to force himself on her sister. He was never confronted before, hence he knew no better. Doesn't mean what he did is justified but he got punished for what he did when his family broke. Plus he never forced his wife to have sex with him or to stay with him. He is a flawed human being, not a monster. Konkona did figure out what turns her on and that she is better off without her husband, she did learn what feels like love and romance that she never experienced even on her honeymoon, she learnt to make peace with her son's gender preference, understood her mom's perspective and did realise that her sister needs her support. She was the one who also respected her sister's privacy when she wanted to move out. However she did fail to support her infront of her parents and expected her mother to play a more self sacrificing role. She tried to fight patriarchy as and when she could but also hesitated at times. She is flawed and does what she thinks is right at a certain point. Bhumi learns to make peace with her profession that she CHOSE and she realised not every man who talks sweet is a potential lover. She learns independence and at the same time learns to differentiate between the kind of interactions she is comfortable with and the kind she is not. She is the most liberal character of all and yet she is flawed. I would call her a little naive but then everyone has their own journey. Even Vikrant's character is not of a villain. He's flawed. He finds a way out of boredom through an app and decides to be dishonest because that is convenient for him. He has put efforts in knowing the girl at first and never initiated sex until she expressed her interest in the same. Then he feels confused when she simply wants to cuddle coz he's not in love. He's not a monster too, but he's definitely no saint. Just like, none of us are.

To be honest I didn't find the movie as extraordinary as the audience is making it look like. I felt it is highly overhyped. I will break down the pros and cons of it for you: Pros: Vikrant is OUTSTANDING. The range of characters that guy can play and how he carries it with such ease will leave you stunned. His switch from a gentle loverboy to a vengeful psychopath was out of the world. Full points to the actor. Tapsee was good. She was sexy and had a range too. However I didn't think it was extraordinary. Harshvardhan was not bad too. He was believable and worth watching the movie for. And the supporting cast was also good in their respective roles though they faded out of the movie as it progressed. For this movie, acting wasn't the problem. I loved the cinematography and how the middle class lifestyle was captured. I'd say direction was also okay since it has tried to oscillate between a romcom and a thriller. It is a tough job and they have managed to keep both the plots going simultaneously without making it cringy. I also liked the pace of the movie and how it wasn't boring at all. I did not yawn. My curiosity was intact throughout. Cons: The unnecessary background music which was boring. The writing has its loopholes. The problem with most Hindi cinema is that it starts off well and then loses its track. Most of them end up with a filmy dramatic plot. In this one, the romcom part was realistic while the thriller was unrealistic. If this was about two people doing exactly what they read in a book, the madness would have made sense. If you don't understand what I mean, watch Shabd starring Sanjay Dutt and Aishwarya Rai. But in this movie, that's not what it is. There is no character growth except that of Vikrant's. There is not much thought put into the crime and the investigation of the same. Drishyam and Talvaar has done a phenomenal job in those areas. If the same movie was narrated with the idea that the two people in love are a huge fan of a murder mystery author and they are doing what the book written by that author says, I could have connected the dots better. But the ending and the random twist and turns did not work for me. Also it could have been made slightly more realistic, keeping the madness intact. And Vikrant's madness for his wife could have been subtly put in the beginning as well instead of randomly shoving that plot down our throat. I mean why would a guy who wouldn't move an inch to protect his wife at the beginning or take a stand for her, get so attached to her? That too, to the point that he wants to kill her at one point and put his life at stake at another. A guy can be introvert, reserved, loving and yet show subtle signs (subtle because maybe he didn't want to show his true colours at the beginning) of these traits (like enjoying vengefulness, being protective, being obsessed, getting too attached to things he likes, has difficulty regulating anger) from the start, so that his switch doesn't seem out of character. Think!!