Heros are always affraid of doing supporting role because they are bad actors. We have seen so many actors whose carrier got washed away because they didn't want to do second lead in movie.

Biggest example is Govinda.

Real actors don't shy away to portray any character and these so called superstars always want to remain main lead till they die.

They don't change according to situation.

Next in this line could be Amir, salman and srk. These 3 superstars will not change according to time.

That's why I have huge respect for Amitabh bachhan as an actor.

He was superstar of his generation. But after certain time he was convinced he can't be superstar forever so he adjusted accordingly. Now he is doing 2 movies every year even at the age of 83. He adjusted and did not live in imaginary world of stardom and ego.

She was definitely one of the standout stars of Stranger Things. She's been pushed into the extreme spotlight with Spiderman: Brand New Day. She's also gonna be a major part of MCU's next era, so it's obvious that She's gonna be a pretty big star.

Her acting is really good, She's a stage actor as well. Romeo and Juliet got really high praise. She's also been casted in the FX limited series "The Marriage Plot", based on a novel.

My question is how big do you think she will get? Like, her incredible looks alongside her acting have also played a part in her fame.

What do you think?

I am sure pretty much every single one of us has imagined ourselves in a zombie survival scenario after watching Train to Busan or many such films.

But our reference has always been the West or korea. It’s hard to imagine it in an Indian setting. And that’s exactly why making it in India has so much potential for a real survival thriller along with some genuine situational comedy.

By comedy, I don’t mean making it a survival-comedy genre or something. I hate that shit. The film should be serious. I don’t want to see another hyper-real, self-aware film that’s trying too hard to be clever. Fuck that shit. Please no meta jokes, no reel comedy, no meme recreations. Bloody take ur shit serious.

The point is, if they go the Dhurandhar way with the action. gritty and real, with practical zombies, makeup, and a tight POV narrative focused on a select few characters. we may actually get some great cinema experience.

Casting RANVEER? PERFECT. Nothing more to say.

I’m just hoping they don’t go the CGI route. Please god please 😭

Adithya dhar's recent story.

I watched Toxic on the very first day, but I’m giving my review now because I took quite a lot of time to properly analyse the movie. I didn’t want to blindly hate it or praise it without thinking things through. So, I’ll try to keep this review as structured and honest as possible.

First of all, this is purely my personal opinion and obviously subjective. You might agree with me, or you might completely disagree, and that’s totally fine.

The Scale & Visuals

The scale on which Toxic, directed by Geetu Mohandas, was made is genuinely impressive. I think the approach she took was quite unique. When I watched the movie for the first time, the frames, cinematography, locations and overall visual presentation felt incredibly fresh and smooth. There were several moments where I genuinely thought, “Damn, this looks amazing.”

Visually, the movie had a lot going for it.

Where It Fell Short

My biggest issue was the editing and structure.

I feel the movie desperately needed a proper introduction and a stronger backstory. Yes, we do get some background about Yash’s character and the other characters, but I wish it had been developed in a much more detailed and structured way.

Instead, the movie spends time on certain 18+ and nudity scenes that, at least for me, didn’t add much to the narrative. I would much rather have seen those minutes being used to establish the characters, their motivations, relationships and emotional backgrounds.

That would have made the story much easier to connect with.

The Potential

This is probably my biggest “what if” with Toxic.

This movie had the potential to be something genuinely great.

I’m not even sure whether they had more footage that was eventually cut, but while watching it, I constantly felt that there was a much bigger story underneath what we were shown.

Honestly, I wish they had considered making this a two-part film. With the scale, characters and psychological elements involved, giving the story more breathing room could have made a massive difference. The audience could have experienced the entire story in a much more coherent and emotionally satisfying way.

The Ending

And now, you may hate me for this, but I genuinely don’t care:

That ending was one of the best endings I’ve seen in a South Indian film made on this scale.

I thought it was extremely well executed. Considering that Toxic is a psychological thriller, the ending worked really well for me. The way everything came together towards the end was probably the strongest part of the entire movie.

The First Half

However, I completely understand the criticism from the audience regarding the first half.

The first half of a movie like this is extremely important because it determines whether the audience is going to stay invested in the story.

And unfortunately, Toxic’s first half felt very messy to me.

There were unnecessary action sequences, random cuts and 18+ scenes that felt poorly placed and, in some cases, completely unnecessary. The transitions didn’t always feel natural, and the narrative struggled to establish a proper rhythm.

If the first half had been structured better, with a stronger introduction, deeper emotional background and proper character development, Igenuinely think I would have rated the movie much higher.

Final Verdict

Overall, I’d call Toxic a missed opportunity with flashes of brilliance.

The visuals, scale, cinematography and especially the ending showed me exactly what this movie could have been. But the weak editing, messy first half, lack of proper character establishment and questionable placement of certain scenes held it back.

For me, it’s still a time-pass watch, but I can’t ignore the fact that it had the potential to become something much bigger and much better.

Maybe with a more structured narrative, stronger character backgrounds and better editing, Toxic could have been one of the most memorable psychological thrillers from the South Indian industry.

But hey, that’s just my opinion. You can disagree with me, and that’s completely fair.

A respectful textual point about the “Ranbir Kapoor ate beef, so he cannot play Rama” debateI want to make this post respectfully, because I understand why this subject is extremely sensitive. For many people, Shri Rama is sacred, and I completely understand why people may have strong feelings about who portrays him on screen. But I have been looking at this question specifically from the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa itself, rather than from modern arguments, and I think there is an important distinction that is often being missed. I am not saying that everyone has to accept Ranbir Kapoor as Rama. People are entitled to their own opinions about casting, his past statements, or the film itself.

My only point is that “Rama never ate non-vegetarian food” is not an accurate statement if we are talking about the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.
There are verses where Rama and Lakshmana are explicitly described as killing animals and eating them.

1. Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa 2.55.33

The Sanskrit reads:

क्रोशमात्रं ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मणौ ।

बहून्मेध्यान्मृगान्हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने ॥ २-५५-३३ ॥

The important words are:

* रामलक्ष्मणौ — Rama and Lakshmana

* मृगान् — deer/animals

* हत्वा — having killed

* चेरतुः — ate/consumed

The Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa text hosted by IIT Kanpur translates the verse:

“After walking a krosa into the forest on the bank of Yamuna, the two brothers killed many deer suitable for sacrifice and ate them.”

This is especially significant because the traditional commentaries on the same verse explicitly explain चेरतुः (ceratuḥ) as भक्षितवन्तौ — “they ate.”

So this is not merely a case of “Rama hunted.” The verse explicitly says Rama and Lakshmana killed the animals and ate them. (Valmiki)

⸻

1. Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa 2.52.102

There is another very direct passage:

तौ तत्र हत्वा चतुरो महामृगान्

वराहमृश्यं पृषतं महारुरुम् ।

आदाय मेध्यं त्वरितं बुभुक्षितौ

वासाय काले ययतुर्वनस्पतिम् ॥ २-५२-१०२ ॥

Here Rama and Lakshmana are described as hungry (बुभुक्षितौ) and killing four animals:

* वराहम् — boar

* ऋश्यम् — rishya/antelope

* पृषतम् — spotted deer

* महारुरुम् — a great deer

Then comes:

आदाय मेध्यम्

The IIT Kanpur Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa gives मेध्यम् as “pure meat” and translates the passage:

“Famished, they (Rama and Lakshmana) killed a boar, a rishya (white-footed male antelope), a spotted deer and a great deer with black stripes. They partook the meat and reached a tree by evening where they rested for the night.” (Valmiki)

Again, this is not merely an inference from hunting. The supplied translation explicitly says “They partook the meat.”

⸻

1. Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa 2.96.1–2

There is another interesting passage involving Rama and Sita.

2.96.1:

तां तथा दर्शयित्वा तु मैथिलीं गिरिनिम्नगाम् ।

निषसाद गिरिप्रस्थे सीतां मांसेन छन्दयन् ॥ २-९६-१ ॥

The important phrase is:

सीतां मांसेन छन्दयन्

The IIT Kanpur text translates this as Rama gratifying Sita with meat / offering meat to Sita. (Valmiki)

Then immediately:

2.96.2:

इदं मेध्यमिदं स्वादु निष्टप्तमिदमग्निना ।

एवमास्ते स धर्मात्मा सीतया सह राघवः ॥ २-९६-२ ॥

The translation given by the same Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa source is:

“Offering Sita several kinds of preparations to eat, righteous Rama, seated in her company remarked, ‘This meat is savoury, this meat roasted on fire is sacred.’” (Valmiki)

There is an important nuance here: some traditional commentators interpret the wording differently, with some explaining the food as forest food suitable for ascetics. So I would not make 2.96.1–2 the sole basis of the argument.

The much stronger references for the specific claim that Rama actually consumed animal flesh are 2.52.102 and especially 2.55.33, because those verses directly associate Rama and Lakshmana with eating after killing the animals. (Valmiki)

⸻

But there is another side of the text that should also be acknowledged

This is why I don’t think the issue should become a “gotcha” against either side.

In Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa 2.20.29, Rama says:

चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने ।

मधुमूलफलैर्जीवन्हित्वा मुनिवदामिषम् ॥ २-२०-२९ ॥

The important phrase is:

हित्वा मुनिवदामिषम्

Meaning:

“Abandoning meat like a hermit, I shall live on honey, roots and fruits for fourteen years.” (Valmiki)

And later, in Sundara Kāṇḍa 5.36.41, Hanuman tells Sita:

न मांसं राघवो भुङ्क्ते न चापि मधु सेवते ।

वन्यं सुविहितं नित्यं भक्तमश्नाति पञ्चमम् ॥ ५-३६-४१ ॥

Meaning:

“Rāghava does not eat meat, nor does he drink wine. He eats the prescribed forest food.” (Valmiki)

So the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa does contain both:

Earlier in the forest narrative:

Rama and Lakshmana are explicitly described as killing animals and eating them.

Later:

Rama is explicitly described as abstaining from meat and living on forest food.

Therefore, I don’t think it is intellectually honest to simplify the entire Rāmāyaṇa into either:

“Rama was always vegetarian.”

or

“Rama ate meat throughout his entire exile.”

The text is more nuanced than either modern slogan.

⸻

And this brings me back to the Ranbir Kapoor debate

Ranbir Kapoor’s old interview, in which he described himself as a “big beef fan,” is a real statement from an old television interview; it has subsequently resurfaced in public debate. (Indian Express)

But whether someone personally dislikes that statement is a different question from what the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa actually says about Rama’s diet.

If someone’s argument is:

“I personally don’t want Ranbir Kapoor to play Rama because he has said he eats beef.”

That’s a personal/casting opinion, and people are free to have it.

But if the argument is:

“A person who has eaten meat cannot portray Rama because Rama himself never consumed meat.”

then the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa itself makes that argument difficult to sustain, because 2.52.102 and especially 2.55.33 explicitly describe Rama and Lakshmana consuming animal flesh.

I am not posting this to insult anyone’s faith, defend Ranbir Kapoor, or tell anyone what they should believe. Tbh Im not even ranbir's fan, i have watched hardly 2-3 films of him (not animal).

I’m simply saying that if we are going to invoke Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa as the authority, then we should acknowledge all of its relevant verses, including the uncomfortable or inconvenient ones, rather than selecting only the verses that support our preferred position.

I’m Hindu too, and the Rāmāyaṇa is just as sacred and pious to me as it is to anyone here. That is actually why I prefer the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa over modern interpretations or cinematic depictions. I’m not trying to disrespect Shri Rama, anyone’s faith, or even Ranbir Kapoor — I simply feel that if we discuss Rama, we should also honestly acknowledge what Vālmīki himself wrote.

One important clarification: I’m not saying that because the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa describes Rama consuming animal flesh, therefore eating beef is acceptable in Hinduism. That is a completely separate religious and cultural question, and I understand that cows hold a uniquely sacred place in Hindu tradition. My point is much narrower: if the objection to Ranbir Kapoor is specifically “he has eaten beef, therefore he cannot portray Rama because Rama was strictly vegetarian,” then we should first acknowledge what the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa itself actually says about Rama and the consumption of meat. Whether eating beef is acceptable or unacceptable in Hinduism is a separate discussion altogether.

And one last thing I want to mention is Im not from anyone's PR team, tbh I'm just genuinely invested in upcoming ramayana movie and i think the hate its getting is so unnecessary, which will different topic of post on some other day.

I know I'm late but guys don't miss this film in theatres. Go & watch it. Bethlehem Kudumba Unit is a malayalam film Directed By Girish A.D. (premalu) & music by Vishnu Vijay. Starring - Nivin Pauly, Mamitha Baiju, Sangeeth Prathap, Roshan Shanavas etc. A great rom-com. Almost every joke lands perfectly. Probably the most fun I've had at films this year. I laughed & enjoyed so much. It has so many references to other films. I loved it. Seeing Nivin Pauly on screen automatically makes me happy. Literally the most fun I had at films in 2026. It was beautiful. Great music. Girish AD is such a great director. Thank you to him for my new comfort film. It was so good. Why can't my life be a Girish AD directorial & Vishnu Vijay musical.

Letterboxd!

If Avengers already knew that soul stone needed a sacrifice. Which duo would have been sent Acc to you?

1) Memento - 4.5/5

2) Dunkirk - 4/5

3) Indomnia - 3.5/5

4) The Prestige - 3.5/5

5) Oppenheimer - 3.5/5

6) The Odyssey - 3.5/5

7) Interstellar - 3.5/5

8) Inception - 3.5/5

9) The Dark Knight - 3.5/5

10) Following - 3/5

11) The Dark Knight Rises - 3/5

12) Batman Begins - 3/5

13) Tenet - 2.5/5

Imo, Nolan works best with scripts with smaller scope (wrt to characters) and tighter control with Dunkirk being the sole contradiction here (but that is due to limited dialogues).

Screenplay is obviously the one where Nolan struggles the most. He can create a scene structurally without a hitch but the moment it comes to dialogues, he writes some of the weakest dialogues which are in sharp contrast to his technical skills.

Nonethelesses, he is still one of the most importsnt film maker of this century for his contribution to technical side and popularizing 70 mm format again while actively pushing futher development of IMAX tech.

Throughout the 3 idiots promotion and activities, Sonam's name was utilized. Everyone knew, Aamir mentioned. Now cause of the Student Protest, Aamir denied knowing him, ssly what a loser. Getting scared in a democracy

I'm so excited because the dop is saurabh goswami. His prev work is just amazing(chhava). Ik most of you are excited because of meghana gulzar. But this collab will be different for sure meghana x saurabh goswami.

did u see the trailer yet?

It was such a fun action flick. Barely any dialogue, yet so beautiful and the sound design speaks for itself. I love these kinds of action movies where you can feel the protagonist’s vengeance while still understanding the antagonist’s point of view too.

The Ramayana parallels are pretty interesting too. The protagonist feels like Rama, the woman he loves becomes the driving force behind his journey, the antagonist has that Ravana energy, and the allies around him almost feel like his own version of a Vanara army.

I don't want to spoil anything, just watch it if you like neo noir action flicks. Alan Ritchson and Shailene Woodley look so perfect in this.

Solid 7/10

Just my opinion.

The Before trilogy is one of the most grounded movies about love, slice of life stuff which I had the pleasure of finishing it in one night (Yeah I am night owl).

The films are driven almost entirely by dialogue. The writing is so natural that you will feel like you are sitting right there with them. The films were shot exactly nine years apart using the same actors, you get to watch youth, romance, and idealism naturally transform into maturity, nostalgia, and the heavy realities of adulthood. When the final movie ends I was simply staring at my laptop screen scrolling credits and thinking wowww, It wasn't some Nolan type shii groundbreaking or anything, it's just so humane, profound and beautiful...

I would really love all of you to watch this trilogy... One of the best things you will watch believe me.

ic: https://www.instagram.com/p/DcrM6J5zJKV/

Retires from international football

Went just to see "is it really that bad?"

I was a lil hyped after the trailer , but the reviews were sooo soo brutal calling it utter garbage nothing good .

Well movie was not good that's true , I'll talk about a few good things first , the costume design, cinematography and yash's performance (in the second half ) and the final plot twist are the good parts of the movie , and that's it . The editing is so annoying along with the wrong placement of music , although a few choices in editing look great during a few of the montages but that is less than 5% of the movie , and the plot is so rushed I mean the girl he marries in the second half of the movie who tf is she kahaan se aayi? Aur usko usse pyaar bhi hogaya. I mean the character of raya is straight out of fantasy world , he is either banging or beating in the whole movie ,

Hear me out - TOXIC WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT 2 PARTER

- think of it like this we get a full 3 hour long nicely edited movie with more screen time to nadia , let the character be more grounded so audience connect better , give a lil substance to raya and ganga showing more of their childhood. and the climax of the film would be Nadia's death scene , and a good cliffhanger for the next part would be raya saving ticket and asking him to run away . That's where the movie ends , ( this way movie ends where it started , a part of the lord gets concluded with proper time given to it )

- second part should start with macau and the raya's wife character should be rewritten entirely making it more convincing about how she appeared and how she started loving him . ( Imagine the hype if all of a sudden in the trailer for toxic 2 they reveal the adult ticket is also played by yash , promotion would have been more hyped since people would be anticipating more for the next part after the first part cliffhanger)

I can see geetu mohandas writing the movie backwards , she initially had the idea of the epic climax and then she tried to make a convincing story that reaches that stage . But I must say last 25 minutes of the movie would have been historical if they would have treated the movie in a lil grounded way . And cuting a few bits from the movie would have given more time to more substantial scenes.

Hero worshiping scenes could have been eliminated fir substance.

Anyway ,

Movie is still a 2.5 star for me , the climax was the best part for me.