Three stars is given because the film realistically reflects the status quo of Indian society, women's status is underground, police work is perfunctory, materialism is paramount, and people like everything they like. The shooting skills are similar to manslaughter and other movies, with the technical sense of suspense movies. The remaining two points are all deducted from the plot. The plot reversal is completely different from "Invisible Guest". Personally, I don't think the plot is suspenseful at all. It's just that the director is making fun of the audience like a fool. Three-quarters of the whole plot is using the expressions of the three parties as evidence for the police to analyze the case, and the audience naturally follows. The recollections of each witness are different, but there is no reasoning at all. It is to avoid the important and show it lightly. The narrative is straightforward, making people drowsy, and it feels like everything is waiting for the last little reversal of the plot. Sure enough, the final plot reversal seems to be reasonable and well-founded, but it is also reasonable and easy to scrutinize. I don't understand what's wrong with this movie at all. To say that what left an impression is the two glasses of wine. If according to the description of the lawyer's wife, the writer is a villain and ferocious, even if he pretends to pour wine for the writer, there is no need to pour himself a glass, right? What normal woman would calmly think about having a drink after seeing a man full of blood break into her home? Earlier, the police also deliberately asked why there were two glasses of wine. Isn't the combination of these two clips misleading the audience that the lawyer's wife is lying? what sense? In short, I feel that the camera shooting skills are good, and the plot is unsatisfactory. Another day to see the old version and then review.
View more about Ittefaq reviews
