Uday Bhatia

You’d think Anurag Basu would want to steer as clear of Jagga Jasoos as possible. Yet, the opening of Metro In Dino runs towards that wildly ambitious and notoriously unsuccessful 2017 film with open arms. It’s a true-blue musical sequence: multiple stories, conversational vocals, passing nimbly from character to character. In a film suffused with romantic gestures, this might be the ultimate one. At a time when Hindi directors are trying to make the least musical musicals possible, Basu wants to give viewers the 100-proof version. Basu’s career can be divided into two neat halves: the turbulent love stories from Saaya (2003) to Kites (2010), and then, Barfi (2012) onwards, the embrace of colour and whimsy. Metro In Dino takes its structure from a key first-half work, 2007’s Life In a Metro, but it’s rendered in his later lush style. It’s loving, playful, affecting, overstuffed—all the things that come with watching a Anurag Basu film.

The young man in the row behind me in the 7am screening of F1 was having something like a religious experience. I could sense his enjoyment throughout, but in the film’s final stretch, he started verbalizing it. “Duh-duh-duh,” he intoned in imitation of the score, “Hans Zimmer is peaking.” “That was close,” when Brad Pitt’s race car driver took a sharp corner. And when Pitt pulled away from the pack, his approving words were, simply: “He’s flying.” I thought of shushing him, but decided to hold my peace. I hate when people talk at the movies. But I love it when someone talks to a movie. With his incredibly successful 2022 Top Gun sequel, Joseph Kosinski offered a new kind of Hollywood tentpole. Maverick didn’t redraw, or even test, the boundaries of the form. What Kosinkski did manage, however, was to find and sustain a level of smooth, sleek performance denied to other films on this scale. That film was a machine in the best sense: all clean lines and balance and zero waste. Other blockbusters looked overstuffed and effortful in comparison.

What might Aamir Khan’s last decade-and-a-half have been like had he not done 3 Idiots? I’d imagine his fans, and maybe the man himself, would look at the 2009 film as a positive turning point. It was, after all, a wild success, one that set Khan up for other, even more successful films in the same vein. He was already gravitating towards morally instructive projects; Taare Zameen Par (2007), his first as director, was about a gifted dyslexic child. But 3 Idiots showed how happy audiences were to be lectured at if you made yourself look silly and made them feel smart. Always tagged as a ‘thinking actor’, Khan now seemed determined to make audiences think, even if his films often did the thinking for them.

“Are we in the right film?" a girl in the row behind me asked her friend. You could see why she’d be confused. They’d turned up for a New York romance with Pedro Pascal and here was an unkempt man wearing animal hide handing a bouquet to a woman in front of a cave. He puts a ring fashioned out of single flower on her finger. The title drops and then we’re in New York, watching Lucy (Dakota Johnson) get ready for another day as an in-demand matchmaker.

There are times we look for complexity and depth in cinema, and times when a few simple pleasures will do. Small joys, like arcane assassin guild rituals. Or Keanu Reeves hitting every syllable in “consequences.” Or Ana de Armas with a flamethrower. After four films that remapped Hollywood action, the John Wick franchise has its first feature spinoff. Ballerina is the first film in this universe not directed by Chad Stahelski, with Len Wiseman of the Underworld films in charge. This is usually the point at which franchises thin out and make peace with the idea that they’ll be churning out variations until the public no longer cares. Sequels say you’re a franchise, spinoffs say you’re a business. It would be difficult to argue that Ballerina is an advance over the Wick films. It is, however, a perfectly serviceable, enjoyable action film, and evidence that the aesthetic Stahelski and Reeves have developed over four films is replicable, if not easy to better. De Armas plays Eve Macarro, whose father, an assassin in the Ruska Roma family, married into a rival group of assassins called the Cult. Within minutes of the film starting, armed Cultists lay siege to the house where he’s been hiding out for years, raising his daughter. Eve sees her father die, and vows revenge.

What a wonderful world it would be if Tamil and Telugu commercial directors could apply their considerable talents to telling concise, coherent stories. The bloat is out of control. I’m not just talking about the dozen retrofitted plots of Kalki 2898 AD or the maddening detours of Pushpa 2. Even smart, funny films like Jigarthanda DoubleX stretch their material unduly. I admit this isn’t a widely held opinion. Audiences today clearly like the mess. As luck would have it, the wrong director decided to simplify. Thug Life is Mani Ratnam at his most basic. This isn’t to say he’s made a terrible film—it’s just not the film you’d expect Ratnam, comfortably established as the preeminent popular director of the past 40 years, to make at 69. In his previous two films, Ponniyin Selvan: I and its sequel, he created a rich, teeming world and asked audiences to keep up. No one will have any problem following Thug Life, a remarkably linear tale for an industry that loves flashbacks and wrong-footing the viewer.

Even as Sanjay Mishra delivers a climactic speech at his customary 20 km/hr, a third of Delhi’s film journalists are slouching in the cinema aisles, physically present, spiritually done. I’m seated, but only just, eyeing the nearest exit, thinking of dinner options and career choices. We’ve been ground down by Bhool Chuk Maaf, a film about purgatory that feels like purgatory. Ranjan (Rajkummar Rao) and Titli (Wamiqa Gabbi) are desperate to get married. Her father (Zakir Hussain), though, won’t allow them to until unemployed, directionless Ranjan finds a job, any job (very anti-national of the film to suggest there’s a job crisis driving young men to suicide). This sets up a dreary first 40 minutes, as Ranjan tries to bribe his way to a government job and Titli complains and scolds him (why isn’t she looking for a job?). Finally, a fixer named Bhagwan (Mishra) comes through, Ranjan is employed, and a date is set.

Though Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) asking people to place their trust in him has always been the implicit theme of the Mission: Impossible series, the first time it’s said in so many words is in the third film, to his wife. He says the same thing to his old friend and teammate Luther (Ving Rhames) in the sixth film. He uses the word five times in an effort to convince Grace (Hayley Atwell) in the seventh. And in Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning, by all accounts the last film in the series, he says: “I need you to trust me… one last time.” And because Tom Cruise hasn’t let us down yet, across seven films and 30 odd years, we do as he asks. We trust that the long exposition scenes will give way to the glorious frenetic activity these films are known for. We trust him through an inordinate number of goodbyes and till-we-meet-agains. We trust him even though the big set piece, a deep-sea dive in frozen waters, is claustrophobic and confusing. Most of all, we trust him to remember what made this a uniquely pleasurable series.