SoumikBanerjee1996

The early 2000s Shah Rukh Khan truly was a sight to behold. He had this incredible ability to convey emotions just with eyes and facial expressions, often without uttering a single word. His charm and magnetic presence on-screen were simply infectious.

He may have transitioned into more of an 'Action/Mass' avatar lately, and I wouldn't dare say he's lost his charisma, but the Shah Rukh Khan I remember from films like "Swades", "My Name is Khan", and "Kal Ho Naa Ho" will always hold a special place in my heart, I feel like he shines the most in those characters who understate their feelings and hold their vulnerabilities inside.

Too Colourful or Comedic roles doesn't really suit much on SRK, but I digress.

Now, coming back to the film, it's true that some of the approaches feel dated, and the messaging can come off as surface level, especially when addressing societal issues concerning the underprivileged and some might also argue that the ending can feel rushed or unsatisfying, and I accept and agree to these shortcomings.

However, what I appreciate the most is that the film has so much heart and genuine intent; it strikes the right emotional chords and resonates well with its audience. For a movie tackling such heavy themes, connecting with viewers on an emotional level is absolutely pivotal, and I believe the writing as well as the direction does that job accordingly.

The narrative weaves together two starkly contrasting tonalities; on one hand, it's vibrant and energetic, showcasing the camaraderie and playful banter of the central group of protagonists, while on the other, it takes a more somber tone, exploring the complex theme of 'patriotism' and its role as a catalyst for our nation's liberation from British Imperialism.

The script is designed to oscillate between the era of British rule and contemporary times. With a less skilled writer and director, this approach could have easily veered into chaos or, worse, come off as disjointed and immature. However, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra expertly strikes a balance, bringing out the best in both timelines. Not to mention, the impressive soundtrack and the strong chemistry among the ensemble cast undoubtedly made his task easier.

That being said, I found the dramatic shift in perspective and tone during the third act troubling, particularly when the group of friends adopted extremist views that left me feeling shocked and not in a positive manner.

While it's commendable to advocate for justice, systemic change, and the eradication of poverty and corruption through dialogue, protests, and means of law, resorting to anarchy and violence is a whole different matter.

The comparison they made between General Dyer's orders leading to the massacre of thousands of innocent people in a confined ground and a corrupt, power hungry politician instructing his police to disperse protesters on the open road with force struck me as moronic. In my humble opinion, drawing parallels between these two situations was simply nonsensical.

Thought-provoking exploration of organ donations, transplants, trafficking, along with their moral implications and effects on the human body, mind, and soul.

But my criticisms do not arise from the filmmakers' intentions; rather, it stems from a preachy and overt delivery of their messages, which in my humble opinion drastically undermined the impact they aimed to attain.

Whilst the last narrative featuring the audacious, self-centred stockbroker on a quest to retrieve a poor man's kidney from a foreign recipient makes some good attempts to reflect societal issues, the other two tales; one that involves a benevolent monk and the second one depicting the afterlife of a photographer following a successful eye operation, fall short of reaching the narrative heights I was hoping for.