Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Film Review: Fighter (2024) by Siddharth Anand

Published

on

Film Review: Fighter (2024) by Siddharth Anand

Hrithik Roshan takes to the skies in the first chapter of a new all-action franchise from Siddharth Anand.

Emotions and politics fly fast and hard in Siddharth Anand’s mega-budget Hindi-language “Fighter”, a new attempt at making the next big cinematic universe after his stints in Yash Raj Films’ Spy Universe, “War” and “Pathaan”. While “Pathaan” heralded the return of Bollywood legend Shah Rukh Khan, “War” saw him refine his partnership with the similarly beloved Hrithik Roshan, giving him another super-hunk super-spy role after “Bang Bang!”, a remake of the Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz action rom-com “Knight & Day”. The shadow of Tom Cruise looms over Anand’s work with increasing prominence nowadays; “Pathaan” recruited “Top Gun: Maverick”‘s stunt coordinator Casey O’Neill as its second unit and action director, and now, Anand’s very own production company Marflix Pictures utilises Roshan’s lucrative leading man status into India’s very own “Top Gun” (complete with a villain modelled off Cruise’s hair and outfit in “Mission: Impossible II”). Spreading their wings from one extended universe into another is an exciting prospect for masala cinema, and with the billion dollar success of “Maverick” on the world stage, Roshan playing a pilot while Anand pilots behind the camera should send a heat-seeking missile towards the competition.

Follow our coverage of Hindi cinema by clicking on the image below

Their approach is as broad as they come. A crack team of IAF helicopter and jet pilots is assembled at Srinagar Airfield, bordering Kashmir, following a significant threat from Pakistani mujahideen working covertly under the funding of the Pakistani government. The squad is made up of some fun caricatures, including but not limited to the dorky rookie ‘Sukhi’ (Banveen Singh), wife-guy ‘Taj’ (Karan Singh Grover), no-nonsense girl-amongst-boys ‘Minni’ (Deepika Padukone), and (of course) their tortured but brilliant hotshot leader ‘Patty’ (Hrithik Roshan). They bicker, they train, they drink and party together, and gradually become a cohesive unit despite the inevitable ego growth that comes from knowing how to fly death machines worth the economy of a small country. But when a skirmish between Pakistan and India leaves some of our heroes behind enemy lines, faiths are shaken and tempers are flared as what was a national conflict becomes a deeply personal one.

Any alarm bells ringing about the shameless jingoism of making Pakistan an actively villainous presence in this narrative are absolutely real and legitimate, with Anand’s view on a current and long-running international conflict as deeply concerning, angry and reductive. The eventual fistfight between an aggrieved Patty and sadistic uber-bad guy Akhtar (first-time Rishabh Sawhney, excellent in a cartoonishly evil role) sees Hrithik seething his way through a monologue punctuated with suplexes and sucker punches about Kashmir’s ‘rightful’ Indian ownership, and how (if they’re not careful) Pakistan itself will become an Indian occupation. Given the touchiness of conflicts surrounding land ownership in this current moment, it’s difficult not to be left with a sour taste in the mouth with such vitriolic right-wing views being spouted by crowd-pleasing entertainment of this scale.

Ιt’s a film that’s not above its villains suicide-bombing a gang of flag-waving innocents as its initial conflict, and it somehow encourages both sides to play dirtier until the entire picture is practically vibrating with Islamophobia. Its highest emotional peaks come in the form of its Indian heroes screaming “Jai hind!” as they see their flag burning, which is inexplicably more painful than having their fingers snipped off. Bollywood deals in fantastic melodrama, we all know that, but there is a line that “Fighter” repeatedly crosses, becoming such a one-sided screech at its chosen enemies that it transforms into something unpleasant and just plain nasty.

Advertisement

It’s also no secret that action movies of this high a calibre can frequently be this politically reprehensible, yet also retain their towering status as exciting spectacles. Anand’s mission to give his country its first aviation action picture sees him take major inspiration from both “Top Gun” films, compounding their narrative beats into a single near-three hour epic, and also trying to apply some of the action tricks he learned from Casey O’Neill on “Pathaan”. His 250 crore budget has certainly given him the numbers to work with, and most of that goes towards some slick CG that thunderously establishes the mile-high world of the IAF. The training montages are engaging and the geography is initially tight, but the action does lose its way as each sequence becomes more repetitive than the last. In terms of proper stunt work with pilots and actors alike experiencing real G-force, “Top Gun” still has the upper hand, with too much of “Fighter”‘s aerial combat being obviously CGI, leaving the element of genuine, weighty danger to one side for most of the picture. 

Instead, “Fighter”‘s pleasures lie in its commitment to the yearning melodrama between its good-looking cast. Our introduction to Patty sees him fly a jet upside down whilst landing as a show-off tactic, and a simple cocked eyebrow from Minni is enough to get the ball rolling for some ripe (if ultimately chaste) romantic tension between Roshan and Padukone. Much of the interpersonal drama takes place on runways at golden hour, Roshan’s razor-sharp jawline being practically made to have the setting sun bounce off it as his teary eyes do the heavy lifting. The film’s love language is power ballads and motorbikes, sunset regret and near-miss kisses, and is directed with so much feeling and brio that it’s almost enough to forget the hatred the film is otherwise capable of.

There are also some excellent dance numbers where Roshan is completely at home, especially in a disco-influenced party sequence where Anil Kapoor’s hard-ass commander Rocky lets his hair down (metaphorically, of course: there is no force on earth that can fell his impressive quiff) with a glass of whisky and a tight-fitting turtleneck. Had “Fighter” simply been about the vibes shared by pilot pals and the COs who love throwing the book at them, it would be a far more successful film than the lumbering, surprisingly barbaric beast it turns into. 

While it’s a more grounded chance for Anand to flex his action muscles than his Yash Raj spy films, it’s a significant step backwards for him as a maker of lighthearted entertainment. His spy adventures were hardly unimpeachable as nationalistic manifestos, but they had a self-awareness that stopped them short of being actively offensive. His own franchise launch at Marflix crosses that rubicon and ends up as needlessly full of itself and drunk on the power of its nation, muddying the waters and speaking up unduly when the real world is experiencing its own agony at the same moment. Where the “Fighter” saga goes from here is unknowable, yet one can only hope these handsome people don’t get any more ugly than this.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Dust Bunny

Published

on

Dust Bunny

An orphaned girl hires her hitman next-door neighbor to kill the monster under her bed. This R-rated action/horror movie mashup has lots of violence but surprisingly little gore. However, there are still many gruesome moments, even if they’re just offscreen. And some language and a strange portrayal of Christian worship come up, too.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Resurrection movie review & film summary (2025) | Roger Ebert

Published

on

Resurrection movie review & film summary (2025) | Roger Ebert

Across the three feature films he’s made to date, the 36-year-old Chinese filmmaker Bi Gan has proven himself prodigiously gifted at manipulating the parameters of time and space through moving images, resulting in visually astonishing, narratively diffuse feats of showmanship that drift and shift in accordance with a self-consciously slippery dream logic.

In his 2015 debut, “Kaili Blues,” which maps the contours of the area around his hometown, Kaili City, in southwestern Guizhou province, Bi traced the psychic and physical geography of his own youth to reflect on rural China’s relationship to the country’s rapidly advancing modernity. Wandering the streets and alleys of a riverside village in a bravura long take that collapsed its past, present, and future in a swirl, he announced himself as a boldly cinematic voice, one for whom restless yearning to escape from existentially impoverished realities into fantastic, subconscious realms was clearly a formal and thematic imperative. 

His elliptical debut turned out to be mere table-setting for “Long Day’s Journey Into Night,” a labyrinthine neo-noir that—despite unfurling across Guizhou province—was a more baroque, impersonal affair. Following another drifter in search of a missing person, Bi reinterpreted this generic premise as a jumping-off point to meditate at large on time, memory, and cinema’s role in shaping both, enumerating his influences—among them Hou Hsiao-hsien, Wong Kar-wai, and Andrei Tarkovsky, the latter of whom Bi has openly referred to as a formative inspiration—while burnishing his international reputation as a filmmaker capable of traversing stylistic boundaries with supreme confidence. Again came a fluid long take, this time in the form of an hour-long 3D sequence shot that started once its protagonist took his seat at a run-down movie house.

This sophomore effort—technically a leap forward, one achieved with a surfeit of production resources—brought Bi toward other issues, none unfamiliar for an emerging auteur with his emphases. Most glaringly, for all the puzzling surface pleasures wrought by its heightened stylization and oblique storyline, the film felt consciously artificial, all but completely lacking its predecessor’s tactility. If “Kaili Blues” laid the groundwork for Bi’s cineastic language, it also grounded him in a localized context where his abstractions could still accrue atmospheric density. “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” might be seen as unburdened by its aversion to narrative or emotional clarity, but its flourishes felt curiously weightless and inconsequential.

“Resurrection,” Bi’s third feature, is no less staggering than his last two, and it’s saturated with some of the more striking images you’re likely to see in a theater this year. Still, its onerously oneiric progression is a disappointing development, signaling a greater shift from the yearning poetics of Bi’s past work toward circular meta-cinematic pastiche. If his previous films were concerned with exploring time and memory, the subject of dreaming is what most moves Bi in “Resurrection” — but in all three instances, his thesis is essentially the same self-reflexive assertion of belief in cinema’s power to reflect the experience of our inner journeys. 

Advertisement

Styled as a love letter to the grand illusion of cinema, albeit one to be read upon its deathbed, “Resurrection” opens in a fitfully imagined alternate reality where imagination itself has become imperiled. People have discovered that the secret to immortality lies in no longer dreaming. However, a small subset of the population has defied this anti-dreaming decree, preferring to still revel in fantasies despite the fact that this significantly shortens their lifespans. (A series of intertitles, styled to emulate those of the silent-film era, compares people not dreaming to “candles that do not burn,” and Bi consistently returns to this metaphor across each of the film’s chapters.)

Dream dissidents, known as “Deliriants,” are summarily outcast from society and hunted down by “Other Ones,” who are capable of entering their dreams and do so to extinguish them, lest these outliers become monstrous. “Resurrection” follows one Deliriant, played by Chinese pop star and actor Jackson Yee, as he shapeshifts from dream to dream at the behest of an Other One (Shu Qi), who installs a film projector inside him as a seeming act of mercy, allowing him a few reveries more before his inevitable death. Comprising the rest of the film, each of the Deliriant’s dream scenarios is linked to a different era of moviemaking, from German expressionism to neon-streaked, Wong Kar-wai-indebted romanticism; Bi also connects each vignette to one of the five senses and places them in distinct periods of 20th-century Chinese history. 

The most spellbinding section comes first, through Bi’s tribute to silent melodrama, as the Other One hunts Yee’s Deliriant through what appears to be a Chinese opium den but soon transforms into a byzantine maze of exaggerated, crooked film-set backdrops. Evoking memories of both Murnau and Méliès, the accomplished production design of “Resurrection”—by Liu Qiang and Tu Nan—shines brightest here. Through its successive sections, the film then morphs into a war-time espionage thriller, adrift in smoke and mirrors; a folktale set in the ruins of a Buddhist temple, involving a thief and a trickster god; a tragicomic riff on “Paper Moon,” about a con artist and his orphan apprentice who allege they can identify playing cards by smell; and, finally, a woozy romance between two young lovers—one seemingly a vampire—on the eve of the new millennium, this last part playing out as another of Bi’s virtuosic long takes.

The ambition, as we’ve come to expect from him, is overpowering. “Resurrection” is alternately a sci-fi picture, a monster movie, a film noir, a cryptic parable, a crime caper, and a gangland romance — and it’s sometimes all of the above, blurring tones and textures to suggest a certain metamorphic potential within each of the stories as the Deliriant experiences them. Yet there’s a curiously draining quality to Bi’s film as well, one that feels related less to its sprawling scope than to the repetitive, riddling nature of the segments therein. As a procession of characters is transmogrified in strange ways, or otherwise meet surprising ends, across a series of abstruse set pieces that function primarily to pay homage to various techniques, Bi’s dominant mood is one of plaintive desolation, and this wears thin as quickly as all the willfully ersatz dialogue he invites audiences to puzzle over. 

Bi’s reverence for the century of cinema he references throughout “Resurrection” is indisputable, and the sheer opulence on display will leave some enraptured. Certainly, in terms of production design and cinematography, he’s assembled an intimidating contraption made up of far too many moving parts to track upon initial viewing. But the effect of this outsized ambition is often mannered, even mechanistic. 

Advertisement

For all its waxing lyrical about the need for humanity to keep dreaming through cinema, all its technically polished tributes to film history, its showmanship lacks emotional substance. If imitation is the sincerest act of flattery, here it also proves flattening; as in “Long Day’s Journey Into Night,” Bi enshrines his influences through recurrent motifs and symbols, through one assured demonstration of a recognizable style after another, but in doing so he also entombs them, creating a film that feels like less a work of imaginative possibility from an ascendant master than an act of preservation by a dutiful curator. 

Paradoxically, for a film about the undying essence of the movies, what’s missing is any more molten, organic sense of processing that would evoke the true surreality of dream states. In place of an artist’s passion, Bi’s cold touch carries an undertaker’s sense of ceremony. Without a deeper subconscious drive behind his construction, it also lacks the intense aura of mystery and desire one would welcome in a grand monument like this. Instead, Bi has erected a series of simulacra, a hall of mirrors that reflect one another endlessly yet also indifferently; its images only seem to grow smaller and smaller as they recede into infinite distance. “Resurrection” is ravishing in its command of shadow and light, but it studiously hollows out any sense of soul beneath the surface. 

“Resurrection” is now in theaters, via Janus Films.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Ella McCay

Published

on

Ella McCay

Other Noteworthy Elements

Ryan and Ella’s marriage appears to be on the rocks. Ella wonders if Ryan only married her for the perks of her career (even when they were young, it was clear Ella had a big future in store). And Ryan’s foul behavior suggests this is true.

When Ella forgets to thank Ryan for his support during a speech (because she gets flustered by unexpected interruptions from Governor Bill), Ryan essentially throws a temper tantrum. He uses the incident to try to convince Ella to get him a political position (egged on by his mother, who belittles her own husband). He then resorts to unscrupulous means to manipulate and embarrass Ella, holding the threat of divorce over her head.

We’re told that other politicians despise Ella. Her very presence reminds them of their own inadequacies as policymakers and compromises they’ve made as politicians. (At one point, Ella criticizes the majority of her fellow politicians for spending more time campaigning than they do reading proposed legislation.) Even Bill, when Ella asks him for advice, is hesitant to openly support Ella, since it could hurt his own career. As such, the film seems to serve as a commentary on the political state at large: Ella literally says, “You can’t be popular and fix anything.”

Not long after Eddie’s affairs come out, Helen hugs him and tells him she loves him but that she’ll never forgive him for cheating on his wife. Years later, Eddie seemingly tries to make amends with his children, but it’s fueled by a selfish desire, since his current girlfriend told him she wouldn’t marry him unless he made up with his kids. And when Helen tells Eddie that he needs to stop messing up long enough for his kids to forgive him and do the work required to fix his relationships, he retorts that his kids will “be better” once they forgive him.

We learn that Ella’s mom passed away young, though we’re not given the details of what caused her death. Eddie admits that he sent Casey to military school after her death because he “didn’t want the responsibility” and that he avoided Ella because he was scared of how she’d react to that decision. (At the film’s start, he and Ella haven’t spoken in 13 years.)

Advertisement

A politician uses a cheat sheet of sorts while calling donors to make it seem like he cares about them. People lie, scheme and manipulate others. We hear about political blackmail and bribery. Casey’s job involves advising people on sports betting. A trooper assigned to Ella’s protection unit purposely goes into overtime in spite of a budget crisis because he’s tight on cash and apparently going through an expensive divorce.

Casey is described as agoraphobic because he hasn’t left his house in 13 months. However, he insists that his reclusiveness is a choice—that he can leave whenever he wants. But he does seem to have some severe anxiety about leaving, and we learn that his self-imposed solitary confinement followed an embarrassing romantic mishap. His house is littered with dirty dishes and bags of trash.

A woman gets petty revenge against someone by calling the health department on his pizzeria and getting it shut down.

[Spoiler warning] Ryan, in a strange grab for attention, starts a political scandal for Ella involving blackmail and bribery. He gives Ella an ultimatum, and Ella responds that if he loved her—if he even liked her—he wouldn’t be doing this to her. Because Ryan doesn’t get what he wants, he blames the blackmail and bribery on Ella, telling the press that he’s divorcing her. And the scandal, though completely fabricated, is bad enough for her party to remove her from office.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending