No hate to Ramayana.I wish it succeeds, so that we could get many large scale adaptations of our epics.I personally wish to see such adaptation of mahabharata some day.But the problem is why we are whitewashing our own history?Ram who is said to have Śyāmavarṇa-refering to dark complexion is often portrayed as fair.valmiki even compared his complexion to megashyam.The reason is we'd rather have a man with eurocentric features play our beloved ram than seeing portrayed by a man with dark complexion.It is kinda understandable if an outsider studio like Hollywood does this while adapting epics.But why our own industry does this shit?Atleast we get to see glimpses of a dark complexion ed krishna in kalki.When are we gonna see a lore accurate depiction of ram ?

In the Valmiki Ramayana, Lord Ram is repeatedly described as śyāma, dark, dusky, or blue black in complexion and is often compared to a dark raincloud or a blue lotus. These descriptions have led many scholars and devotees to understand him as having a dark complexion. If ancient textual descriptions are the basis for depicting Lord Ram, why do so many modern portrayals consistently show him as fair-skinned? Even Sita Mata is described as having a golden or wheatish complexion (kanakavarnaangi) rather than a stark fair skin tone. Based on these descriptions, actors like Ranbir, Hrithik, Aishwarya, and Kriti (popular choices) ​would all have been a ​miscast.

Edit: This image wasn't generated by me. It's attached​ only for reference to illustrate the point that Lord Ram is often described as having a dark complexion. It is not intended to be a historically or scripturally accurate depiction of his facial features or exact physical appearance.

For me it's Ra.One

The Makers Deserve Zero Special Treatment. Instead, Ramayana Should Be the Most Harshly Critiqued Movie of Our Lives.
I urge people to do this in order to save the film and cinephile community.

If the makers of Ramayana chose to go entirely CGI instead of shooting on real locations, then they made a conscious decision to let CGI carry the entire visual experience. They could have saved a lot of money had they chosen to shoot some scenes in real locations. But with a reported budget exceeding ₹1,000 crore, they have set the bar themselves. Nobody forced them to take this route. Nobody asked them to spend this kind of money on CGI.

So judge the visuals accordingly. They should look spectacular. They should look better than real locations, not like cheap plastic looking environments without real shadows, reflections or particle physics dressed up as cinema. The benchmark should be world-class visual effects, on par with or better than what we’ve seen in Game of Thrones S6, The Odessey and the best of Indian cinematic environments, like Kantara. If the makers set that standard for themselves and fail to meet it, they deserve to be criticised. Openly, directly, and without excuses.

This is exactly how we ended up with Adipurush. Now we have Ramayana. Tomorrow, it’ll be another big-budget film where the makers expect the audience to lower its standards, ignore glaring flaws, and applaud the ambition instead of judging the actual product.

Ambition is not an achievement. A massive budget is not an excuse for mediocre execution. Mythology and religion is not a shield against criticism.

The audience does not owe filmmakers blind faith, free goodwill, or unconditional support. If you charge premium ticket prices, reportedly going upwards of ₹1,000, you better deliver a premium cinematic experience. We never demanded that filmmakers blow thousands of crores on CGI. They chose to do it. They should be held accountable for the results.

Stop asking audiences to adjust their expectations after setting sky-high expectations yourselves. Stop using the scale of the project as an excuse for its shortcomings. Stop confusing spectacle promised with spectacle delivered.

If the visuals look worse than the standards the makers themselves are trying to compete with, call it out. Don't defend mediocrity just because the film is based on the Ramayana has a massive budget, or comes with patriotic and cultural baggage.
The industry needs to learn one lesson: the Indian audiences are not fools and the directors and producers need to be scared of us.** If filmmakers keep delivering underwhelming products while demanding premium prices and unconditional praise, they deserve to see the consequences at the box office.

Hold them to their own standards. No excuses. No special treatment. No blind worship or fandom.

Why is rama fair skinned? Why change the story?

So is everyone going to turn a blind eye to Lord Rama being shown as fair-skinned? I'm so glad they didn't do the same to sita ma. Sai has the grace and divinity even if she doesn't look like a model.

See how great he looked back then. He turned from Aura to Laura

The movie won best director national award, Best cinematographer state award. Directed by G Aravindan. One of the greatest director from India with 3 national awards and several state awards. He directed Kummatty, and according to Martin Scorsese , "Aravindan was a visionary director and Kummatty is considered among his greatest work."

Just watched it and got overwhelmed by it. This is so sweet and great just pure raw human interactions and a soulful soundtrack. Will highly recommend it

I was scrolling some reels and this post came(with Amit trivedi music) then I saw all the slides, got emotional by thinking every character and things happened around it, such beautiful films, my love for films will never fade! Cinema is magical! 🥹

Movies lis in order;

1.Kahaani (2012) 2.Talaash (2012) 3.Barfi! (2012) 4.Highway (2014) 5.Dil Dhadakne Do (2015) 6.NH10 (2015) 7.Neerja (2016) 8.Barfi! (2012, same as no. 3) 9.No One Killed Jessica (2011) 10.English Vinglish (2012) 11.Andhadhun (2018) 12.Queen (2014) 13.Piku (2015) 14.Badhaai Ho (2018) 15.Hasee Toh Phasee (2014)

Now that's a fking poster , the lighting and gold reflection effect ⚡⚡

Feels majestic

And the rest is history 🔥

Raj Kapoor slaps Nargis multiple times for... some reason

The fact that Laapataa Ladies was widely accepted by men across classes, who started hailing it as a “real feminist” movie, is itself telling. I have always felt that the film takes a rather soft, convenient approach towards patriarchy, making it palatable even to those who benefit from it.

My biggest issue is that the film is largely told through a man’s lens. The male protagonist’s innocence is almost unrealistically convenient. He appears to be completely unaware of the social realities surrounding him, particularly dowry and the condition of women in his own community. Does he really not know how dowry works? Does he not see how women around him are treated? Even if he personally doesn’t support dowry, there is a difference between not participating in a practice and being completely oblivious to its existence. He never meaningfully challenges the system either. His goodness is established largely through his innocence rather than through any real confrontation with the patriarchy he is part of. In that sense, he becomes a passive enabler.

Then there is Ravi Kishan’s police officer character. The woman who is being exploited and abused ultimately gets rescued through the intervention of this supposedly good male authority figure. Her escape and agency are once again made possible by a man who comes to her rescue. The police officer is positioned as the saviour, while the person responsible for her exploitation is presented as a fairly generic villain. This creates a rather convenient binary: bad men are abusive, good men rescue women.

This is where I find the contrast with “Thappad” very interesting. Thappad doesn’t just give us a straightforward villain and a good man. Its characters have layers, contradictions and shades of grey. It examines how patriarchy operates through seemingly ordinary people, relationships and social expectations. It is direct, nuanced and brutal in its addressal of the same.

In Laapataa Ladies, characters are often reduced to two extremes: either epitomes of innocence or embodiments of abuse. There is very little exploration of the grey areas, the everyday complicity, or the ways in which otherwise decent men can continue to benefit from and reproduce patriarchal structures.
I am not arguing that Laapataa Ladies is a bad film, nor that every feminist film needs to be as confrontational as Thappad. But I do think the film is receiving unreasonably more praises.

Edit: This post is not about how Laapataa Ladies could have been better, how I want the film to be seen, or some universal dictum on how feminist films should be made. Not at all.
Ever since Laapataa Ladies was released, and even today, I see a lot of people using this particular film as a reference point for discussions around patriarchy, feminism and social commentary in cinema. This is where I find it a little tricky, or perhaps a bit far-fetched, to use this film as the benchmark when we have other beautiful films like Thappad, as I mentioned earlier.
This is in no way suggesting that Laapataa Ladies is a bad film. It is one of the most soothing films I have watched in Hindi cinema in recent years, and it has considerable repeat value.
My only argument is directed at those who use Laapataa Ladies as a reference point to discuss the depth of social commentary filmmaking in Indian cinema.