Fighter helmed by Sidharth Anand and featuring a stellar cast including Hrithik Roshan, Deepika Padukone, and Anil Kapoor, unfortunately, falls into a myriad of pitfalls that collectively diminish the film's overall impact. The most glaring issue is the excessive use of slow-motion shots, which not only overwhelms the viewer but also detracts from the storytelling. The repetitive nature of these sequences becomes a veritable headache, diluting the potential impact of pivotal moments.
While the star power of the cast is undeniable, the film's visual effects leave much to be desired. The CGI elements lack the finesse expected in contemporary cinema, diminishing the overall cinematic experience. Furthermore, the inclusion of songs seems more like a gratuitous platform for Deepika Padukone's dance performances rather than serving a purpose within the narrative, contributing to a disjointed viewing experience.
The inclusion of songs in the movie felt forced and unnecessary. While music can undoubtedly elevate a film, in "Fighter," it appeared more like a platform for Deepika Padukone to showcase her dance skills than an integral part of the storytelling. This diversion from the plot not only disrupted the flow but also left me questioning the purpose of these musical interludes.
A notable drawback is the film's length, and this issue could have been mitigated by a judicious removal of the superfluous slow-motion shots. Trimming the runtime would not only enhance the pacing but also potentially salvage the film's narrative cohesion.
The dog-fight scenes, crucial in a film of this genre, disappoint with their lackluster execution. The fighter plane's appearance verges on the cartoonish, compromising the realism necessary for such intense sequences. This, unfortunately, positions "Fighter" as a pale imitation rather than a worthy contender in the action-thriller genre.
**Military Maneuvers by Hollywood, Not the IAF:** The movie throws around military ranks and procedures like confetti at a party. Group leaders can't just transfer squadron leaders, and "borrowing" a fighter jet is pure fantasy. Come on, guys, some basic research goes a long way.
**Action Sequences That Defied Physics:** The action scenes were more like action *comedy*. Pilots teleporting after ejection and mid-air fistfights? I get it, Hollywood loves explosions, but some semblance of realism would have been nice. This wasn't "Top Gun," it was "Top goof."
**Radio Silence...Except It Wasn't?:** They tried to create tension with a jamming scene, but any real pilot knows fighter jets have ways to counter that. It felt like the writers forgot about basic military tech in their quest for drama.
**War Crimes for Entertainment? No Thanks:** Adding insult to injury, the movie depicts a war crime that was just plain insensitive. Using such a serious topic as a plot point was a massive low blow.
**Showcasing Indian Power...Except They Didn't? ** India has some impressive military tech, like the BrahMos missile. This movie could have been a chance to showcase that, but instead, it was a complete no-show. Talk about a missed opportunity!
**Overall, "Fighter" felt like a flashy brochure for fighter jets written by someone who wouldn't know a wingman from a wing nut.** It wasn't entertaining, and it wasn't even a good kind of unrealistic. If you're looking for a movie that respects the Indian Air Force and delivers thrilling aerial combat, this one's a total dud. Stick to documentaries, people.
Comparisons with Ajay Devgn's "Runway 34" further amplify the film's shortcomings. Despite a potentially smaller budget, "Runway 34" managed to deliver a more engaging and commendable cinematic experience. The discrepancy raises questions about the directorial choices made in "Fighter," leaving audiences longing for a more polished and well-thought-out production.
In conclusion, "Fighter" struggles to soar to the heights anticipated from a film of this caliber. Sidharth Anand's vision, marred by a lack of restraint in certain aspects, results in a movie that feels like a missed opportunity rather than the cinematic triumph it could have been.
While the star power of the cast is undeniable, the film's visual effects leave much to be desired. The CGI elements lack the finesse expected in contemporary cinema, diminishing the overall cinematic experience. Furthermore, the inclusion of songs seems more like a gratuitous platform for Deepika Padukone's dance performances rather than serving a purpose within the narrative, contributing to a disjointed viewing experience.
The inclusion of songs in the movie felt forced and unnecessary. While music can undoubtedly elevate a film, in "Fighter," it appeared more like a platform for Deepika Padukone to showcase her dance skills than an integral part of the storytelling. This diversion from the plot not only disrupted the flow but also left me questioning the purpose of these musical interludes.
A notable drawback is the film's length, and this issue could have been mitigated by a judicious removal of the superfluous slow-motion shots. Trimming the runtime would not only enhance the pacing but also potentially salvage the film's narrative cohesion.
The dog-fight scenes, crucial in a film of this genre, disappoint with their lackluster execution. The fighter plane's appearance verges on the cartoonish, compromising the realism necessary for such intense sequences. This, unfortunately, positions "Fighter" as a pale imitation rather than a worthy contender in the action-thriller genre.
**Military Maneuvers by Hollywood, Not the IAF:** The movie throws around military ranks and procedures like confetti at a party. Group leaders can't just transfer squadron leaders, and "borrowing" a fighter jet is pure fantasy. Come on, guys, some basic research goes a long way.
**Action Sequences That Defied Physics:** The action scenes were more like action *comedy*. Pilots teleporting after ejection and mid-air fistfights? I get it, Hollywood loves explosions, but some semblance of realism would have been nice. This wasn't "Top Gun," it was "Top goof."
**Radio Silence...Except It Wasn't?:** They tried to create tension with a jamming scene, but any real pilot knows fighter jets have ways to counter that. It felt like the writers forgot about basic military tech in their quest for drama.
**War Crimes for Entertainment? No Thanks:** Adding insult to injury, the movie depicts a war crime that was just plain insensitive. Using such a serious topic as a plot point was a massive low blow.
**Showcasing Indian Power...Except They Didn't? ** India has some impressive military tech, like the BrahMos missile. This movie could have been a chance to showcase that, but instead, it was a complete no-show. Talk about a missed opportunity!
**Overall, "Fighter" felt like a flashy brochure for fighter jets written by someone who wouldn't know a wingman from a wing nut.** It wasn't entertaining, and it wasn't even a good kind of unrealistic. If you're looking for a movie that respects the Indian Air Force and delivers thrilling aerial combat, this one's a total dud. Stick to documentaries, people.
Comparisons with Ajay Devgn's "Runway 34" further amplify the film's shortcomings. Despite a potentially smaller budget, "Runway 34" managed to deliver a more engaging and commendable cinematic experience. The discrepancy raises questions about the directorial choices made in "Fighter," leaving audiences longing for a more polished and well-thought-out production.
In conclusion, "Fighter" struggles to soar to the heights anticipated from a film of this caliber. Sidharth Anand's vision, marred by a lack of restraint in certain aspects, results in a movie that feels like a missed opportunity rather than the cinematic triumph it could have been.