It’s not a great movie like everyone is making it out to be and it is not a terrible movie as the others are saying it to be. It’s like the same alpha male movies everyone is making these days. All the bearded heroes step forth please. Pushpa, KGF, RRR – they all seem to sport a similar feel. No? Ok.

The story line is simple, the quest is hot-headed and personal. Women are treated like… the way most women in the country are actually treated. I will say one thing that won’t sit well with most people, women don’t go for the poets, they do go for the alpha male. In fact, rocky aur rani said the same thing in a funny, more stylised way. Many women I know were okay with the movie – so there you have it.

I’ll make one more reference that keeps coming to my mind…Kill Bill. The woman was the protagonist, but she was decidedly alpha. And I must say Tarantino made the movie a spectacle. Reddy doesn’t have that finesse, but he is certainly aiming for it with his big gun.

But a woman doing that here? Will it work? The days of Khoon Bhari Maang are over. They don’t seem to be returning… For instance, Tripti Dimri is lovely. She is brilliant. She played Qala. The Mother/Daughter equation didn’t work as well as the Father/Animal equation. But her character’s arc, particularly being told to “lick shoes to get famous,” highlights the film’s flawed handling of women. The mother-daughter dynamic pales in comparison to the father-son (animal) relationship. I also see other flaws like the overt misogyny, religious politics, and sexual innuendos, hinting at themes like the Oedipal complex without fully exploring them.

I would never make the mistake of thinking that Ranbir Kapoor’s character, Ranvijay, displays a protective attitude towards his sisters, interpreting it as familial care rather than misogyny. This portrayal can indeed be seen as deeply rooted in patriarchal notions. His aggressive protectiveness and dominance over his sisters’ lives, decisions, and autonomy reflect an ownership-based attitude rather than genuine respect for their individuality.

This type of ‘protection’ reinforces the idea that women need male guardianship, subtly stripping away their agency. By controlling his sisters’ actions under the guise of protection, Ranvijay’s behaviour perpetuates the idea that women are fragile and need to be policed by men, which is a form of subtle but pervasive misogyny.

Thus, while some may claim that his actions are well-intended, they stem from an ingrained belief system where men hold authority over the women in their families, making his attitude clearly misogynistic in nature.

So Reddy was making the movie to angst out feminist critics? but why? Make three movies to make some women look bad? I mean, could that really be true? If it is, well, it’s not alpha behaviour. And if it isn’t, then he’s investing three parts to tell one revenge saga that had no real provocation… I mean, bobby Deol seemed to have more in terms of provocation than Ranvijay… but I am not going to delve deeper – I mean it’s not possible to delve deep into that at all. Because Sandeep Reddy doesn’t want to waste his time in doing that either. Bobby’s is just another daddy issue – but in this case, the father actually died a ghastly death.

So technically, if you see it through a very literary sense (cough) the eponymous Animal is Abrar. Not Ranvijay. He fornicates with his new bride in the women’s quarters. He slaps his wife in a foursome to shut her up. It’s quite what Vanga probably wanted Ranbir to be, but showed some restraint?

(That scene with the psychiatrist though. What is the thought process of representing psychology as being rooted in sex – wait, was the hint towards an Oedipal/electra complex there? Nah. That was my major irk and probably the only one I had while watching the movie… wait, no… I had several.

Dialogues related to big hips, wine, tops doing all the work, cheating not as hurtful as murder, murder the only answer to everything, the villains being Muslim, the heavy attempt to show all religions as silly, but clearly politicising one particular one and several other current totalitarian ideologies… er, I could go on. But I’ll stop.)

I didn’t get bored in the movie. The punjabi men were all good looking, and Bobby Deol was a great villain. I was like Anil Kapoor, not interested but invested and wondering what the hell is wrong with Ranvijay. I mean, wtf. I have daddy issues but I guess I took the opposite route and turned out to be a poet.

I saw it because of all the hoopla. Also, because every artist must have the right to create his – piece. Yep, it kept me entertained for a few hours, but I am not interested in the sequel. I was intrigued by the negative/positive publicity tug-of-war and I saw it.

Now I wait for The Archie’s on Netflix.

P.s. Davy Grewal was really good to look at. Did I mention Tripti? Oh, yea. I did.

P.P.S. People who liked the movie think this is a positive review. I just like to think it’s an unbiased one.