~ Animal - Movie discussion thread ~ *Spoiler Zone* - Page 38

Okay, I accept that because I trust your judgement.

As I wrote, I only saw the promotional material (and already commented on the stern expressions throughout). I did not read any professional critic except Rangan's one.

Indeed, I read a lot of Rabir's intense play here. But "intense" says more about screen presence and anger etc. - as such - is already an intense emotion.

I simply wanted to know, if there are other expressions than those of the angry/serious/stern ones as here, in the posts, I saw none.

No, CMT, it isn't hate, it is disgust...and not about the movie but about Vanga and what he made unter the guise of art...

I wonder why Ranbir wanted to work with this director... in a movie where gaining the love of the father became an excuse for all the bad the protagonist does.

I've watched dark movies, gangster movies aren't new to me, neither Western ones nor Indian ones.

It is the first one I reject to watch and only because of the reasons for which Vanga made it (which I also repeated more than once).

Originally posted by: Clochette

Whatever!

If you've another opinion about the variety of Ranbir's predominent expressions in the movie, you're welcome to let me know.

I don't have to watch the movie when making a supposition openly based on what I've seen. You can contradict me, right?

Originally posted by: Clochette

Okay, I accept that because I trust your judgement.

As I wrote, I only saw the promotional material (and already commented on the stern expressions throughout). I did not read any professional critic except Rangan's one.

Indeed, I read a lot of Rabir's intense play here. But "intense" says more about screen presence and anger etc. - as such - is already an intense emotion.

I simply wanted to know, if there are other expressions than those of the angry/serious/stern ones as here, in the posts, I saw none.

No, CMT, it isn't hate, it is disgust...and not about the movie but about Vanga and what he made unter the guise of art...

I wonder why Ranbir wanted to work with this director... in a movie where gaining the love of the father became an excuse for all the bad the protagonist does.

I've watched dark movies, gangster movies aren't new to me, neither Western ones nor Indian ones.

It is the first one I reject to watch and only because of the reasons for which Vanga made it (which I also repeated more than once).

I think you really need to watch the movie before deciding what you really hate here. You quote western crime dramas - Vanga has hardly shown anything when you compare it so some of the classic Hollywood crime movies.

Few much much worse scenes off the top of my head (and mind you I am not hating on these directors or artists or movies)

Tarantino indulging in foot fetish scenes in almost all his movies which have no relations to the plot.

Showing the forced oral sex scene in hateful eight.

All the blood and gore in pulp fiction, inglorious basterds

The things shown in Scorcese's Wolf of Wall Street and the depraved things dicaprios wolf character does from cheating, to drugs and sex and what not.

The older James bond movies literally have Bond girls only for skin show and steamy scenes. They literally had names like Pussy Galore ? And this type of casual sexism is way worse than the stuff being done by RKs character in Animal who has not been portrayed as a role model by any shot.

The list is endless. Vanga has not done anything ott here when it comes to violence, nudity or misogyny

Originally posted by: CrimeMasterToto

I think you really need to watch the movie before deciding what you really hate here. You quote western crime dramas - Vanga has hardly shown anything when you compare it so some of the classic Hollywood crime movies.

Few much much worse scenes off the top of my head (and mind you I am not hating on these directors or artists or movies)

Tarantino indulging in foot fetish scenes in almost all his movies which have no relations to the plot.

Showing the forced oral sex scene in hateful eight.

All the blood and gore in pulp fiction, inglorious basterds

The things shown in Scorcese's Wolf of Wall Street and the depraved things dicaprios wolf character does from cheating, to drugs and sex and what not.

The older James bond movies literally have Bond girls only for skin show and steamy scenes. They literally had names like Pussy Galore ? And this type of casual sexism is way worse than the stuff being done by RKs character in Animal who has not been portrayed as a role model by any shot.

The list is endless. Vanga has not done anything ott here when it comes to violence, nudity or misogyny

Ooh ooh .. Iron man totally objectifying Natasha in the second movie and saying 'i want one' in a comedic scene - he is a superhero character and a role model in the movie

Originally posted by: CrimeMasterToto

... The list is endless. Vanga has not done anything ott here when it comes to violence, nudity or misogyny

You still don't understand that - to me - it isn't about the movie as such but about Vanga and why he made this movie the way he made it.

I won't support in no way Vanga's motivation (which has nothing to do with Tarantino & Co).

I know why Rangan wrote his critic the way he did...he really tried to see a piece of art in this movie...he can see things in movies that others don't notice.

But I can't unthink what Vanga made clear as his motivation to make Animal and - maybe - he made something interesting in the first 90 minutes...I won't know it because the second part reportedly became his Ego-trip...and I believe that, too. That is a betrayal, imo - towards the art and the audience.

My feelings and my mind tell me to not watch this movie.

Did I comdemn those who went watching the movie? Their choice.

Is this movie a piece of art, for you? Your choice.

Criticising Vanga for making this movie and skip the watch = my choice.

Damn, Animal numbers are bringing out the wild jungle in some people never thought we’d see the day of SRK fans being jealous of Ranbir’s success

Originally posted by: Shaitan-Haiwan

Damn, Animal numbers are bringing out the wild jungle in some people never thought we’d see the day of SRK fans being jealous of Ranbir’s success

You kidding? SRK fans itna defend & promote SRK Films ko nahi karte jitna Animal ko kar rahe hain. Even sane RK fans are knew how toxic Animal film is, here SRK fans claiming it to be The Best film

Ye bechare Animal ko use kar rahe the ki Tiger 3 beat ho jaye, now inke tottey(parrot) ude hai coz ye Jawan beat karegi

Rashmika deserves to be nominated for this role, she was actually really good.

The first half of the movie was solid, Vanga could’ve totally reduced some garbage scenes in the second half. The bra pulling, lick my shoe, sexual innuendos were not needed.

My fav scenes were all action scenes, last fight and especially Gandasa fight , reminded me of Maula Jutt.

Ranbir was too good in his role, cant imagine anyone doing it but Vicky perhaps.

3.5/5

Originally posted by: Clochette

You still don't understand that - to me - it isn't about the movie as such but about Vanga and why he made this movie the way he made it.

I won't support in no way Vanga's motivation (which has nothing to do with Tarantino & Co).

I know why Rangan wrote his critic the way he did...he really tried to see a piece of art in this movie...he can see things in movies that others don't notice.

But I can't unthink what Vanga made clear as his motivation to make Animal and - maybe - he made something interesting in the first 90 minutes...I won't know it because the second part reportedly became his Ego-trip...and I believe that, too. That is a betrayal, imo - towards the art and the audience.

My feelings and my mind tell me to not watch this movie.

Did I comdemn those who went watching the movie? Their choice.

Is this movie a piece of art, for you? Your choice.

Criticising Vanga for making this movie and skip the watch = my choice.

I am also talking about the motivation, but you are choosing to ignore that point for some reason. What was Tarantino's intention in including all those 'feet' scenes in his movies which contribute nothing to the plot? Shock and self indulgence. Many a times, the best of the directors indulge themselves in something they would like to show rather than just focusing on what the audience deserves to see. And it's perfectly fine because all movies are eventually pieces of Art. You can't pick and choose what is art and what isn't based on your preference.

A movie can become a self indulgence for a director and still stay true to the audience. I kind of get why you think they are mutually exclusive in this case because you have only m read about the bits and pieces of the movie focusing on misogynistic dialogues - they form less than 5% of the second half (even that might be too high).

And I have no idea who this Ranga person is. Can you please share their review - I really want to know what have they written about the movie which you are taking up as gospel truth and basing all your opinions on