In Flames

Let me preface this review by stating I have 4 daughters, all under the age of the primary character, so as the narrative plays out my thoughts simmer in what I can only imagine a young woman's experience is like in any country in the 21st century.

Mothers and daughters the world over I presume can indentify to oh so many elements here. Creepy uncles, disjointed dialogues, when twenty somethings have to parent the parent, then there's academic expectations and the topper of them all the uncertainties of life unions and or otherwise potential romances. It's almost too relatable.

In short? Men. Who needs us?

In Flames, the debut film by Canadian-Pakistani director Zarrar Khan, is a compelling exploration of life in a patriarchal society. Set in Karachi, it highlights the oppressive, violent world that women navigate, with men who are predatory and manipulative. The film begins grounded in this harsh reality before slowly transitioning into supernatural elements, blending social realism with horror.

At its core, the movie becomes a powerful story about a mother and daughter fighting back against the societal forces working to suppress them. The bond between them is central, and the film captures their resilience in the face of oppression. While the plot may not be filled with unexpected twists, the visuals are striking, and the film uses horror to address serious social issues. In Flames is a haunting tale of empowerment and survival, offering more than just thrills-it's a thought-provoking commentary on societal struggles.

I noticed In the reviews section that there were only 22 ratings from Pakistan out of the 445 or so. After watching this movie, contemplating over it and checking the cast\crew section I realized why that is so. All the writers and almost all the producers are not Pakistani aside from the main producer who is Pakistani-Canadian and the director who is also Pakistan-Canadian, and I suspect is put there by the westerners as the face of this project. A story about Pakistan forged by and portrayed through the lens of people who are effectively all non Pakistani. No wonder it came out so wrong.

The Film seeks to depict the challenges in a fatherless and underprivileged young girls life in Pakistan and completely misses the mark. The story and the characters are largely divorced from the ground realities of Pakistan, with its poorly written characters and a hollow storyline aside from off course the obvious attempt throughout this movie by the writers to depict Pakistani man as evil personified and the poor woman being subjected to their will as helpless, frail and abandoned by the law and culture at large. This is nothing short of what I would expect what your typical ill informed CNN and FOX watching westerner would think. From its misrepresentation of a culture, Misandry, Inconsistent and unlikeable characters, lack of depth, bad dialogues and poor choice of filming locations, this movie misses the mark by allot.

Misandry in the Movie: The leading roles were played by women in this movie. All the males were cast in supporting roles. All of the main male characters were cast in a negatives role and a substantial amount of all the in and out male characters were also assigned a negative role. To prove this thesis I present to you examples of 7 male portrayals. 3 of the Leading male characters were depicted as; A sleazy, charmer and seducer boyfriend, An opportunist, scheming and unsympathetic uncle and A Shady Rapist rickshaw driver. 4 negative fleeting roles included; A domestic abuser father, A public masturbator, a vicious attacker (Brick thrower) and a uncooperative police official.

The first half of the story Involved depiction of pre marital relationships which is not common within the context of Pakistan and especially not within the context of a below middle class family as is shown here. In fact such relationships are extremely frowned upon and this could be another major reason why the film performed abysmally, because it failed to connect with the wider Pakistan audiences. When you hate on a people however subtly or otherwise and you misrepresent them in the way it is done in this movie, you should not be surprised if they don't show up and don't recommend your content to the next person.

The filming locations were also not attractive. Karachi has allot to offer. Could have chosen a better neighbourhood to shoot the film. Why choose a literal slum adjacent? What is this obsession of westerners with showing slums and dilapidated infrastructure in Pakistan and India?

There were a few critical mistranslations in the subtitles, that could have further caused the naïve viewers relying only on the translations to be appalled for no reason.. The lead character in one instance tried to say that wearing a hijab was at first a habit but as time went on became a form of worship, but it was mistranslate to the following "First it was a habit, then became my duty". Duty being the operative word here, suggesting that it might have been forced. Additionally when someone breaks your cars window with a damn brick, ones first instinct based on the given information would be to think that its a robbery attempt or perhaps an attempt to kill, not what is hinted at in the movie by this unlikeable white saviour indoctrinated British Pakistani character. Further there was mention of sharia by the lawyer which seemed wildly irrelevant given that the problem at hand was a flawed Pakistani judicial system not a flawed religious law as was erroneously suggested, despite the fact that the rights of the women in Islam are protected.

All in all this Western funded film showed Pakistan and especially Karachi in a very poor light. This film is a offense against its people.

Now let me first say that I'm from Europe and it's not a whole lot of Middle Eastern entertainment media that make it to our screens over here, so I'm not sure how biased this movie actually is, but from what (I believe) I know, it is a brilliant, yet horrific, take on traditional Middle Eastern culture and its problematic gender inequality - at least from a Western POV.

After the death of the family patriarch, the women of the family are left to fend for themselves in a culture that holds them to very traditional values, where men basically own the world and women just live in it (as long as they are claimed and accompanied by men).

Nawal does a terrific job at portraying the bleak existence of a young Pakistani woman, who were raised on traditional values yet struggling to accept and submit to them. I thought the reminders every time she did something, she knew to be "wrong", was a remarkable way of depicting the voice of "reason" in the back of her head. Very well done!

In a nutshell; In Flames is a horror DRAMA about female oppression and empowerment. It is thought-provoking, inspired and very necessary in this day and age.

I highly recommend watching it - although if you are looking for jumpscares or boogiemen, you'll find none here. It is not that type of horror.

Pakistani cinema often grapples with the weight of societal commentary, and In Flames is no exception. Like many of its predecessors, the film ambitiously attempts to address multiple societal issues but falls into the familiar trap of trying to do too much, leaving each theme underexplored. While it frames itself as a mirror to the regressive values and harsh realities of Pakistani society, it offers little beyond surface-level depictions of these issues.

Simply showing societal ills is not enough to create compelling cinema. The film provides no fresh insights or deeper analysis-what it presents are occurrences well-known to anyone living in Pakistan. Without any meaningful exploration, the social commentary remains hollow, a missed opportunity to offer audiences a more profound understanding of the culture it critiques. (I would like to add, however, that in all my 40 years of living in Karachi, I haven't heard of a single incident where a brick was thrown through the window of a car simply because a woman was driving. I fear that hyperbole is being employed to elicit pity from Western audiences eager to shed a tear or two.)

The film's central irony-that the family's abuser is also its protector-has the potential to be a powerful narrative device. However, it's disappointingly underutilized. Over the course of its two-hour runtime, this concept remains stagnant, failing to evolve or provide any substantial commentary on the plight of women in such situations. Instead of delving into the complexities of this dynamic, the story remains content to merely restate it.

Adding to the film's shortcomings is the dialogue. Much of the Urdu feels like a literal translation of English expressions, resulting in stilted and unnatural lines that fail to resonate. These missteps in language strip the characters of authenticity, further detracting from the film's impact.

One more point I'd like to add-though I could be wrong-is that the film seemed to carry undertones of classism. The only two male characters who weren't depicted as horrendous were the metaphorical "white savior," a Canadian-bred, "civilized" Pakistani, and an educated lawyer. This contrast felt problematic, especially when marginalized individuals, like rickshaw drivers, were portrayed as morally detestable. Predatory behavior toward women is not confined to any one class, and it's crucial to approach such depictions with care. Letting personal biases seep into the narrative risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

In the end, In Flames comes across as disjointed and incohesive, weighed down by one-dimensional representations. Its attempt at horror, unfortunately, falls well short of the mark. In a post-Jordan Peele era, where many films effectively blend horror with real-world societal issues, In Flames fails to succeed on either front.