Emergency

It seems like she is mimicking rather than truly acting. While it's commendable that the filmmakers attempted to take on such an ambitious subject, the portrayal just doesn't feel authentic. When you're watching her performance, you don't get the sense of depth or genuine emotion that's necessary for such a powerful and historical figure. Instead, it feels like she is imitating mannerisms and delivering dialogues without truly inhabiting the character. A performance like this requires nuance and a deep understanding of the person being portrayed, but that nuance is missing here.

I'll admit, I liked the overall camera work. The cinematography has its moments, and there are a few well-composed shots that give the film a polished look. The use of lighting and framing at key moments reflects the technical competence of the crew. However, even the best visuals can't compensate for a weak performance or a poorly written script. The issue lies in the storytelling and the inability to evoke the emotional gravity one would expect from a film about such an influential figure. The visuals alone cannot carry a movie, and that's painfully evident here.

The main problem is that the story lacks conviction. The narrative feels disjointed, and it's as if the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they wanted to focus on Indira Gandhi's political journey, her personal life, or the controversies surrounding her leadership. The result is a storyline that feels shallow and underdeveloped. For cinephiles, this is a major letdown. You go into a film like this expecting a layered, thought-provoking exploration of a complex personality, but what you get instead is a surface-level treatment that fails to do justice to its subject matter.

It's also worth mentioning that the portrayal of Indira Gandhi seems conflicted. On the one hand, it appears that the filmmakers wanted to highlight her strengths and the positive aspects of her leadership. But on the other hand, the lead actress seems like she's struggling to embody those traits convincingly. It almost feels like she doesn't believe in the character she's playing and is only going through the motions because she has to. Whether this is due to the direction, the script, or the actor's own limitations is up for debate, but the result is the same-it just doesn't work.

As a viewer, you can't help but feel that the film is trying to tell two stories at once: one that wants to glorify Indira Gandhi and another that doesn't quite know how to reconcile with her controversial legacy. This lack of clarity makes the film feel scattered and unfocused. There are moments where it seems like the filmmakers are trying to build empathy for her, but those moments are overshadowed by the inability to deliver a cohesive narrative.

The actress has certainly tried, and you can see glimpses of effort in certain scenes. But effort alone doesn't make a performance convincing. Acting is about transformation, about disappearing into the role so completely that the audience forgets they're watching an actor. Unfortunately, that transformation doesn't happen here. Her delivery feels forced, her expressions seem rehearsed, and there's an overall lack of authenticity that keeps you from connecting with her portrayal.

For cinephiles, this movie is hard to watch. If you're someone who appreciates strong performances, compelling narratives, and thought-provoking cinema, you're likely to be disappointed. The film feels like a missed opportunity-an ambitious project that fails to live up to its potential. It could have been a powerful exploration of one of India's most iconic and polarizing leaders, but instead, it ends up being a forgettable attempt that lacks the depth and substance necessary to make an impact.

In the end, while there are a few redeeming qualities, such as the cinematography, they're not enough to save the film. The weak storyline, combined with an unconvincing performance, leaves you feeling underwhelmed. It's a film that tries but doesn't succeed, and for a subject as compelling as Indira Gandhi, that's a real shame.

The subject of the movie is why I went to watch it, as this wasn't taught at school, the movie was very underwhelming though. The movie felt like a non-stop series of events in rapid succession. Before one could grasp what was happening at a particular time period depicted in the movie, it was already on to the next one! For people like me who don't know the complete history from that time, this movie did not feel very informative. Names of characters could have been shown at certain places. The weird thing was the dubbing of the French and some Bengali dialogues! Never before have I seen such a thing in a movie. It looks like the dialogues were not given a proper thought and dubbing was added as a post thought. The makers could have easily included hindi translations for the Bengali and French dialogues. The second half of the movie was more well-defined than the first one. Overall, a boring experience.

Very poor story. Only achievement is Indira's look.

There is hardly any attempt to put the events leading up to the Emergency in perspective. We miss the Machiavellian leftist side of Indira that she employed in style to crush the Syndicate within the party. The film keeps talking about Gudiya has found a voice but doesn't care to show how. The Green Revolution, nationalisation of banks, and abolition of privy purses don't make it to the script or, for that matter, the failed motto of garibi hatao.

It might not work for those who have learnt their lessons from Whats App after 2014, but those looking to cherry-pick from the past to create an atmosphere for one nation, one leader, and one slogan might find the spectacular symbolism worth emulating.

Emergency (2025) sets out to dramatise one of the most controversial chapters in Indian political history-the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from 1975 to 1977. It was an ambitious subject, rich with political intrigue, constitutional breakdown, and human stories that deserved to be told with depth and nuance. Unfortunately, while Kangana Ranaut delivers a reasonably compelling performance as Indira Gandhi, her directorial choices fall flat, making the film feel more like a half-baked political cosplay than a powerful political drama.

Let me start with what worked. Kangana, as an actor, brings sincerity to her portrayal of Indira Gandhi. The prosthetics, makeup, and costume design help her resemble the late Prime Minister quite convincingly. She clearly studied Gandhi's mannerisms, voice modulation, and demeanour-and in isolated moments, you can see the intensity and command she tried to channel.

But even as an actor, she seems held back by her own direction. Rather than letting the performance breathe, the film often cuts away too quickly or drowns the scene in overbearing background scores. There are moments when she genuinely shines, but they're scattered in a sea of over-dramatisation.

Direction is where the film really struggles. As a director, Kangana tries to tackle too much and ends up achieving very little. The film is crammed with historical events, political figures, and ideological references, but there's no narrative flow or emotional core tying it all together. It's like flipping through a disorganised political scrapbook-event after event with no time to reflect, no depth, and often, no clarity.

The characters are reduced to caricatures. Their dialogues are too on-the-nose, sometimes bordering on laughable. And in her attempt to portray herself as a strong leader facing opposition from all sides, she forgets to develop the supporting characters, who are either demonised or glorified in extremes, leaving no room for gray shades or complexity.

Visually, the film tries hard to look polished. There are moments where the cinematography manages to create atmosphere, and the production design does its part in evoking the 70s. But the editing is choppy and lacks rhythm. Scene transitions are abrupt, and some sequences feel unintentionally comical. One particularly bizarre moment had a room full of political leaders breaking into a jarring musical sequence that completely destroyed the tone.

Also, the film leans heavily on expository dialogue and voiceovers instead of letting the visuals or subtext tell the story. It feels like the director didn't trust the audience to understand the context without spoon-feeding it.

The Emergency era is one of those rare moments in Indian history where personal ambition, political ideology, and institutional collapse intersect. It had the potential to be a deeply engaging political thriller. But instead of focusing on storytelling and character development, the film feels like a personal vanity project. It tries too hard to send a message and ends up delivering a sermon instead of a story.

Emergency (2025) could have been a sharp, reflective, and haunting look at power and its consequences. Instead, it turns into a self-indulgent, uneven mess that does injustice to both the subject matter and its cinematic potential. Kangana Ranaut proves once again that she's a capable actor-but as a director, she's not there yet.

This film deserved better.

Most of the incidents are rushed through and summarised quickly.. which is ok as long as people have already read about it in past. The main focus seemed to be on Mrs Gandhi's character and not on details of emergency..if movie is renamed then it will appeal more.

Acting is superb, mainly for actors who played Gandhi family.

Angle and conversation with spiritual leader is good and new.

Probably many scenes were cut hence it seemed like an overview of incidents , so in my opinion it covers around 80% and still 20% important mentions are missed like passing law with backdated in affect which could have shown real power hunger or more gray character.