Stranger Things, Season 5, Netflix, 2025

Nearly a decade of Netflix’s most popular and long lasting series, Stranger Things comes to a grand finale, with the final season closing out, at last, the Upside Down frenzy we’ve been living in, as a fantastical escape from an otherwise tumultuous last 9 years we’ve all had IRL. Nothing has come close to this level of involved excitement since the Avengers x MCU ended.

Apart from wrapping up the entire franchise, Season 5 more specifically concludes the story of Season 4, that introduced the evil Vecna, as the puppet master of everything that’s been happening in Hawkins since the beginning. After suffering defeat at the end of S4, he returns both as Vecna and as Henry with a bigger plan for destroying human kind, not just from the Upside Down, but from another world in another dimension (the Abyss), by once again kidnapping and preying on the minds of impressionable and weak children. The intrepid gang from Hawkins, led by our favourite teenagers, once again unite and hatch multiple ideas to foil Vecna’s plans, with an attempt to save the world, while simultaneously battling death and near-death situations, suffering losses and pain, while battling their own inner demons, emotions and growing up.

Enough has been said about how disappointing  the much-anticipated and highly hyped last episode of Season 5 was.  All I’ll say about that is, there’s no way it could have lived up to the hype. Nothing really can. But objectively, was the much awaited final battle against Vecna underwhelming? Yes, for sure! For all its faults, what the Avengers End Game (2019) got superbly right was the final war against Thanos and his army. In fact, across Infinity War (2018) and Endgame, we were deeply satisfied with the fights, the action, and the revenge. Stranger Things Season 5 definitely mis-played this. And granted there is no excuse for it, given how tuned in Netflix and everyone is to the audience expectations through social media. They must have known what the audience was looking for. And to get that wrong is a big miss.

(And on a side-bar, for all of us James Cameron nerds, what a waste of Sarah Connor, I mean Dr. Kay!) 

However, and this is the classic battle of perspectives - short term vs. Long term. Is this one thing or one episode bad enough to take away from the entire Season? After having blown our minds in Season 4, with Vecna as the source-code of everything, Season 5 takes it to a logical conclusion on what Vecna’s ultimate mission is, bending our minds further, re-positioning the Upside Down from ‘another dimension’ to actually a ‘worm-hole’, re-positioning the role of a larger number of children in the whole mix, and even re-positioning Will and Vecna themselves in the roles they play in the whole narrative. In that sense, Season 5 continues the legacy of new twists, turns and concepts in the narrative, that we have come to expect from Stranger Things.

Season 5 also continues the other core strength of this franchise, which is about building characters and the relationships between them. Season 1 gave us the first set of characters - Will, Mike, El, Dustin, Lucas, Steve, Jonathan, Nancy, Joyce and Hopper. Season 2 gave us Kali, Max, Bob, Billy and a transformed Steve, with a new unexpected friendship with Dustin. Season 3  gave us Robin, Smirnoff, and Murray. Season 4, apart from Henry, gives us new relationships, Joyce and Hopper getting together, Nancy and Jonathan’s weakening relationship, Lucas and Max’s strengthening bond; Will and Robin’s sexuality, separation of friends that come together, Eddie and the Hellfire gang, Nancy’s fiercely brave and independent streak. Season 5 then continues this streak, with new characters in Holly (Mike and Nancy’s little sister who is now a pre-teen) and Dipshit Derek (my favourite character from Season 5), new bonds between Will and Robin, transformation of Will’s character into a stronger-yet-vulnerable adolescent, and so on.

In fact, this is perhaps the most important reason why one episode or even an entire Season is not enough to erode our decade-long “relationship” with the franchise. We know and love these people from Hawkins, as if they are our own. We know Hopper can’t let El go, because of the pain he’s suffered on losing his first daughter to disease, that he still blames himself for. We can feel Joyce’s helplessness at not being able to help her children, even as she fights the guilt she bears for not being around for her kids more. We cry with Will, when he feels alone and weak, because he is still in the closet and doesn’t even know what the closet is all about. We strengthen with the power of connection that Max and Lucas share that will save them both. We are brave and courageous with Nancy to kick any bad-ass that comes in front of us. We lament with Dustin as he loses his best friend Eddie (actually) and Steve (emotionally) and cheer when they get back together again. And we kind of get Mike and El’s romance too (okay may be that’s a stretch!). 

One under-whelming anti-climax episode is not going to change that, is it?

Season 5 also closes out one important angle, according to me. And that is a point of view or a larger perspective that the narrative has been chasing across five seasons. And this is in the area of creating a more inclusive and a connected society, that treats the differences and diversity between people as a means of cohesion rather than a cause to fragment, that doesn’t reject the relatively less fortunate and ‘weaker’ people, but instead helps them transform into areas of strength towards the benefit of the larger cause. From Will the Weak, to, Will the Wise. From the beginning Stranger Things gives agency to kids rather than adults. It’s the kids who are leading, plotting, kicking ass and saving the day. The adults are just enablers. And even in the kids, it’s not the stars and the achievers of Hawkins school, but the freaks and the outcasts that are making things happen. Even within adults, Joyce, Hopper, Murray, Bob, are all people on the outer-skirts of socially accepted citizenry. Will and all the kids that are picked on by Vecna (as explained by himself) are those children that are weak and vulnerable and in some sense outcasts by the mainstream. 

Further, throughout all the seasons, all the action and success and glory that happens is never an outcome of one person’s effort. Everyone in the casting has a role to play towards the larger common purpose of defeating Vecna. Each of them, a unique character, and different from each other, but each of them contributes in some way or the other. Even Erica (Lucas’s precocious little sister) and Mr Clarke’s (the school science teacher) play their part in the whole thing. No one is left out. Everyone has respect. And everyone matters. No job is big or small. No one has the main character energy. They all play their part. And they all play as a team. And if this wasn’t sufficiently clear all this while, Dustin nails it in his valedictorian speech at the end, as they graduate as the Class of 1989.

And finally, while many have criticised the over-emo-drama in the last hour of the final episode, it was necessary to have done that. It was the final ending of the decade long franchise. The series owed it to its fans to have a proper closure of emotions and relationships between the different characters. Killing Vecna and saving the world, while critical, was not the only deliverable of Stranger Things. A little bit of nostalgia for the time gone by, and giving us a clear direction on how the lives of each of the characters would go in the future, including the future of the game Dungeons and Dragons, that started it all, was an important ending in itself.

In the end, we say a big THANK YOU to Netflix and to Duffer Brothers for creating a whopper of a franchise when none existed just a decade ago. Not an easy feat in a day and age, where all popular content is just re-makes or sequels of old franchises. Thank you for the beautifully human and nuanced characters, including Vecna. Thank you for giving agency to the children, who will save us all in the future. Thank you for the relationships and emotions between a myriad set of characters. Thank you for the spooks, the chills, the action and the shock-n-awe. Thank you for the Upside Down (I still prefer it by itself without the wormhole angle, TBH). Thank you for a whole new imagination. And thank you for the whole 1980s nostalgia trip.  

Can’t wait for what you create next, Duffer Brothers. Will be waiting for it.. 

Dhurandhar (Part 1), 2025 - Film Review

From the maker of the previous super hit nationalist war movie, Uri (2019), director Aditya Dhar, comes the next big-screen big-action, nationalist sentiment-generating 3.5 hours magnum opus, Dhurandhar (part 1).   

The film is the story of Indian intelligence conceptualising a long and patient strategy of planting an undercover spy deep in the crime-politics-ISI nexus of Pakistan, with a view to bringing intelligence, as well as slowly destroying over time, the very source-code of terrorism. After being frustrated for years, at the lack of political will against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, Dhurandhar, played by Ranveer Singh, a convicted prisoner, is trained to be this agent. Starting by entering the Lyari gang in Karachi, he goes on to climb the mafia ladder, infiltrating its politics, and getting to become a central figure in the crime nexus, ready to change the game in part 2, due to release in March 2026.

Judging by the box office success of the film, it is no surprise to see that the film is delivering the goods. It’s been a while since we’ve had a patriotic movie, that makes our neighbours on the West the most evil villains, takes the collective anger we feel as a society towards so many things within the country, and channels it towards something external. And of course, not-so-subtly reminding us of the ineffective Government we’ve had in the past, and how great our current leaders are. Of course, we all love to hate, and nothing like a feeling of catharsis, as we come together to beat up a common enemy. 

But, it would be too short sighted to leave Dhurandhar at that. Because there are two aspects of the movie that are worth digging into. 

Is it an important film? Yes.

Is it good storytelling as a movie? 6-7

First, it is an important film because it is completely different from the nationalistic-patriotic movies we’ve seen in the last few years. The films of the past have anchored the plot around war, especially around the border. The heroes are the soldiers and the people sacrificing their lives in the frontline for their motherland. The celebration is that of execution and action, and if anything the bureaucracy is painted as a hindrance to getting things done. The agency, as a result, is given to the body and the physicality of making things happen. It is muscular, it is power, it is a show of strength and aggression and passion and testosterone and adrenaline, the heady cocktail which delivers the goods at the end, and leads to the happy ending. 

Dhurandhar, by contrast, does the exact opposite. The agency, is given, not to the body, but to the mind. The strength is in the strategy, that has a long term view, which ruthlessly overlooks the short term losses. The power lies in the patience, to keep at it, one day at a time, moving slowly towards the end goal, walking, not running. The muscular physical strength exists but it is metaphorically hidden behind the Pathan suits worn by the characters, not overtly displayed in Hrithik-SRK-style. The heroes are the intelligence agents and the people who are thinking and planning and plotting towards a vision of victory. Restraint is a virtue, and violence is a carefully used weapon, not an always-on mode.

The other critical reason why Dhurandhar is an important film, is because it is a manifestation of the new confident India that we are all pleasantly surprised to see emerging, (even though at times we wonder if we’re getting this right). Unlike the previous patriotic films, where India was always a victim-under-dog that fights back for revenge and justice, in Dhurandhar, India takes destiny under its control, and turns a crisis into an opportunity towards creating a new sub-contintent order, once and for all. India is no longer the ‘bechara’ in this new world, but an equal, sovereign, powerful State that is writing its own future. This gives us a very fresh and different kind of patriotic fervour that we’ve not had before. And for that we cheer and applaud the film, and as citizens of this amazing country, gives us the pride and the belief that we all need and desire.

But, now coming to the story-telling that we also need and desire from a big film of this stature. And here, I would say, we are left wanting.

The attempt at telling a Tarantino-style Chapter approach to the story is clever, but doesn’t really make an impact, since the story is quite linear, and while the maker might feel that he’s being clever in not revealing Dhurandhar’s true purpose till later, as an audience we know it from the first scene when Hamza enters the Pakistan border from Afghanistan. 

The attempt at creating a John Wick-style raw blood and gore action is appreciated, but comes across as forced and unconvincing due to the actors, their body language and the lack of a consistent underlying violent under-current. There’s just too much talking and emotions, and drama for the violence to really stand out. If you want to a good Bollywood blood fest, then I highly recommend watching Kill (https://books-booze-boxoffice.blogspot.com/2025/02/kill-2023-movie-review.html).

The story-telling, while it keeps us engaged in the moment on everything that’s happening, feels a little frustratingly meandering, as we get to the latter half of the film, making us wonder why did we spend so much time engaging with the inner emotions and dealings of Rahmat Dakait and Azad Pappu, and the Baloch movement, and the intricate layers of Lyari politics. The story goes so deep into the inner workings of Karachi machinery, that we lose sight of the India purpose and emotion.

The saving grace is of course, Ranveer Singh. He is brilliant as always. The sheer menacing strength of his body, that is restrained by his even stronger mind. The anger against the enemy and the passion for his country, that is reflected only through his eyes. The power of his blows and punches that he delivers as convincingly as the hits he himself receives. The understated, patient, potent, effective Dhurandhar, could be no one else than Ranveer. And he hits it out of the park. Watch the film, if nothing else, just to watch him perform.

All in all, an enjoyable and watchable film, but with lots of unfulfilled potential. Here’s hoping that the second part picks up on the story-telling aspect of the film, so we can look back and see Dhurandhar, the complete film as one of those disruptive movies that stir us enough to be in our memories for a long time, and not just a flash in the pan that we saw, liked somewhat and then moved on. The possibilities exists. Aditya Dhar, over to you.

Thamma, 2025 - Film Review

From the makers of Stree (witches and ghosts) and Bhediya (werewolf), Maddock Films, comes their third story-world , Thamma, that brings vampires (or betaals, if you prefer) into mainstream cinema.

The story is about an innocent romantic, Alok Goyal (Ayushmann Khurrana), who after getting accidentally lost and injured in a jungle, and getting rescued by a beautiful betaal, Tadaka (Rashmika), falls in love with her. The forbidden love between a betaal and a human leads to many humourous and unintended consequences, with parents, eve-teasers, random strangers and the betaal community all in the mix. When an accident takes Alok’s life, Tadaka has no choice but to break the ultimate rule of the betaal-insaan balance (no prizes for guessing what that is!). This unleashes the evil and all powerful ex-ruler of the betaal tribe, Yakshasan (Nawazuddin). All hell breaks loose and an eventual battle of good vs. bad betaals is won by love and a happy ending, which as we know in movies like this, is a troubling beginning for the next film. Oh ya, and there’s some bhediya action in between the movie too.

First thing to get out of the way is that we need to leave behind the genius that was the original Stree film (my review here https://books-booze-boxoffice.blogspot.com/2018/09/stree-2018-movie-review.html). That film (which you could argue started it all), was brilliant in its vision and story-telling. It was funny, it was scary, it had a point of view, and it was fresh. After that, all the other movies (Stree 2, Bhediya, and now Thamma) are not in the same league of film-craft, but have become more in the space of mass entertainers. And nothing wrong with that at all, I say. So, to lament on what we’ve lost since the original Stree is, frankly, an unnecessary waste of time. 

So, let’s pivot ourselves to seeing this film from a sheer entertainment point of view.  From this lens, Stree 2 was actually quite a riot (see my review here https://books-booze-boxoffice.blogspot.com/2024/08/stree-2-2024-film-review.html). There was a new plot, that linked to the first one, it was funny, it was scary, it was trying to make a point of view, and it was a fun couple of hours spent. Thamma, however, doesn’t meet this low bar either. 

The main fault lies in the script. It is a weak story. Apart from a broad concept of vampires, and a loose Twilight-inspired romantic plot, the story has very little unfortunately. The film meanders aimlessly between the romance of Alok and Tadaka and related adventures and mis-adventures as the human and the betaal worlds collide; the evil Yakshaasan who wants to go back to feeding on human blood and unleash a betaal-raj on the world, and a parallel side plot with Bhediya (Varun Dhawan) that is only there to desperately create the making of a new cinematic universe. After the demise of the MCU, enter H-MCU (Horror Maddock Cinematic Universe)! Alok-Tadaka-Yakshaasan story by itself is actually quite banal and blah. And further, force-fitting the bhediya angle to get the HMCU going, makes it even worse.

The problem and the most disappointing aspect of the story, is the sheer lack of depth or even an attempt to build an immersive world of myths and monsters. Just calling it an HMCU, doesn’t make it a cinematic universe. The reason why the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) was so successful (and then it stopped being so) was because, underlying the super special effects, the superlative action and the super heroes, there lay a deep mythology that was anchored on characters and meaning that have history, purpose and agency. Same reason why Game of Thrones, or Lord of The Rings, or Matrix or even the Twilight series, or any other fiction like this works. Without this deep seated mythology, the story that comes out of it is just meaningless words, random scenes, irrelevant action, and blah special effects. With so much talent and creativity in our country, we lament not being able to see better imagination coming in the films, and settling for seen-before tropes of vampires, werewolves, vampires vs. werewolves, etc etc.

Noew, there are also many entertainment-driven films where a bad script is more than made up by other elements like clever or funny dialogues and moments (like say Bhool Bhulaiyya 3, see review here https://books-booze-boxoffice.blogspot.com/2024/11/bhool-bhulaiya-3-film-review.html), or through sheer performances of actors (like say Sitaare Zameen Par, see review here https://books-booze-boxoffice.blogspot.com/2025/07/sitaare-zameen-par-movie-review-2025.html), and we still get a decent experience overall. But Thamma misses on that too. Rashmika is attractive, but that’s it. Ayushman is endearing, but its not enough. Nawazuddin is dramatic, but un-impactful. Even talented actors like Paresh Rawal, as the dad, and Geeta Sharma, as the mom, stay on the sidelines, building neither character, nor context.

Further, with neither music nor production values nor action sequences to save the day for Thamma, we just walk out of the theatres saying ‘time pass’, wondering if we really mean it, or we’re just making our post-purchase justification for a not-so-reasonably-priced movie ticket. To wrap it up, all I’d say is

Na sur hai na taal hai,

Yeh film kaafi betaal hai

The Thursday Murder Club, Netflix, 2025

One of the most successful best-selling books in recent times, by author Richard Osman, The Thursday Murder Club series, finally finds its on-screen adaptation, by Netflix, and directed by one of our old favourite directors, Christopher Columbus (remember the adorable Home Alone and the iconic Mrs Doubtfire)

This film is based on the first book by the author, with the same name, that introduces the four 60yrs+ olds who, living in a retirement village in the suburbs of London (Cooper’s Chase), solve crimes, invariably involving several murders. The first film and the book is about an un-solved case from 50 years ago, that intertwines with the present reality of another case. After several twists and turns, and introduction of several core characters that become the core protagonists in subsequent books, they solve the present case, and inevitably also end up solving the older case. And, in the process, making new friends, turning bad people into good, having heart-breaks from revelations of the past and an ageing reality of the present, but above it all, making friends as strong as family that will last them for the rest of their lives.

Now, I’ve read all the books in the series, and have enjoyed these books thoroughly. See my short reviews of this first three books  https://books-booze-boxoffice.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+Osman 

And so I was waiting with anticipation when Netflix announced the movie. 

I’m also very aware that making a movie out of a popular book always comes with high expectations and it’s always tricky to get the visualisation to live up to the expectations that the book sets, because the director’s vision of the book may not be the same as that of one individual reader.

But, despite knowing this, the film disappoints. And, unlike the book series that has stayed with us for the last 5 years, the film doesn’t stay with us even for a few minutes after we’ve stopped watching it.

This is because the beauty of the book is actually not in the story or the murder plot, though that is the reason why you pick it up and turn the pages till the end. The impact of the book lies in the characters it has built for us over the last 5 years. People, who we’ve come to know and love as our own uncles and aunts living in our own neighbourhood. Elizabeth, the ex-MI6 spy, the leader of the pack, who may be losing her youth and her ailing husband, but has lost none of her spark, her network or her kick-ass abilities. Ron, the ex-trade unionist, who loves his drinks, his food as much as he loves a good fight. Ibrahim, the ex-pyschiatrist, who’s mild mannered nature is not to be taken as a lack of a sharp brain and infinite resourcefulness in solving problems. And finally, Joyce, the newest member of the club, who is as passionate about baking cakes, as she is about attractive old men, but above all about being a true committed friend to all of them. Supported by an ensemble of other characters that complete the cast, like Inspector Donna and Chris, Polish not-above-board-immigrant-with-a-heart-of-gold Bogdan, and Jason, Ron’s ex-boxer son, popular with the ladies.

What’s even more disappointing is that the film fails on this count, despite having a dream star-cast of some of the best older actors in the industry. Helen Mirren as Elizabeth, Pierce Brosnan as Ron, Ben Kingsley as Ibrahim, Celia Imrie as Joyce, Jonathan Pryce as Elizabeth’s ailing husband. All of them feel like they are doing a lip service performance for an act that neither of them believe in. It’s like watching these otherwise fabulous actors going through the motion of scenes, dialogues, and emotions like we go about a chore that we don’t really enjoy. Just want to get it over with. 

This also leads me into reflecting if the problem is Netflix. While it’s an excellent platform that has revolutionised in-home content viewing; as a production house, it’s probably not as rich and diverse a story-teller, as perhaps HBO or increasingly Apple TV is. Pop fiction and action-packed entertainment, like Stranger Things and Squid Games, Netflix gets. But switch to meaningful and thoughtful or nuanced story-telling, and Netflix bombs (like My Oxford Year or The Perfect Couple). 

The other thing the film completely gets wrong, that is so much a the soul of the book, is its quintessential British-ness. Chris Columbus, with a very American sensibility, misses this in the film, and ends up reducing it to just the context and the setting, killing the entire vibe of this franchise.

In many ways, the film just reminds us of the reasons we love the book franchise by Richard Osman, exactly because these are so glaringly missing in the Netflix production. The nuances in the dialogues, and the emotions underlying an apparent crime novel, the Brit sense of humour and the flowy pace of the story-telling, the bitter-sweet reality of an otherwise contented and happy life, but with the everyday reminder of an imminent mortality. And the most important truth of any real or fiction story ever told. That in the end it’s all about the people and the characters. Remove this, and it’s just another Netflix show that you watch, forget and move on. Alas!

Here’s hoping that the second film (if they make it), learns from the mistakes of the first one.

Sitaare Zameen Par, Movie Review, 2025

***spoilers alert***

Following from the precedence set by the hugely successful and brilliant Taare Zameen Par, in 2007, Aamir Khan brings us a second take (and, mind you, not a sequel) of putting the spotlight on mentally differently-abled individuals, in the cleverly named Sitaare Zameen Par.

The film tells the story of a self-absorbed and obnoxious but highly talented basketball coach, Gulshan (Aamir), who, as a community service punishment for drunk driving, is assigned as the coach of the basketball team in an institution for special needs adolescents, tasked with training them to compete in an upcoming national tournament. Like the majority in our society, he is not only oblivious to the reality of people with mental disabilities, but also downright rude and dismissive of them as being ‘not normal’. As he is given no choice but to complete his service period, he goes through the journey from hate to tolerance to loving these youngsters who are not special because of their handicaps, but because of their unique personalities, their intense capacity to love, their unlimited ability to be human, and their unbelievably young and large hearts. As he transforms the team from a dysfunctional bunch of individuals to a high-performing winning basketball team reaching the finals, he goes through his own transformation as a person, realising (as he himself says in the film), ‘it is not he who is coaching them, it is them who are coaching him to be a better person’.

Firstly, the most obvious and important thing. The mission of the film and the fact that it was made deserves the most outstanding applause. Telling the story of dyslexia when perhaps the larger social awareness of any kind of mental disability was non-existent 18 years ago was a monumental feat then. Telling the story of the spectrum of intellectual disabilities with an attempt to not only educate the larger audience but also with an ambition of ‘normalising’ it, again is a brilliant achievement. But it is brilliant not for the same reason as Taare Zameen Par (TZP), and that’s the important difference. There are three key points of difference. 

TZP was perhaps the first time this conversation was being had on such a mass scale, bringing it front and centre for many. By contrast, Sitaare Zameen Par (SZP) in 2025 is not a new conversation at all. The positive side of the social media revolution in the last two decades has made the idea of an inclusive society for people with special needs quite common. SZP is impactful because 18 years later it focuses on the ‘say-do’ gap reality of our current times. We all talk of an inclusive society. But we know we are not in our actions. And that’s why while TZP was about building awareness, SZP is about openly challenging and pushing us into walking the talk. That’s why Gulshan’s character (as a representation of the majority) is so in-your-face, and he gets it in his face quite loudly as well.

Secondly, TZP was the story of one person, one child, Ishaan Awasthi (brilliantly portrayed by Darsheel Safary), and while a beautiful story, it was the story of an ‘exception’ amongst people. TZP championed the idea that there are few people who are special and they therefore need a special environment, coaching, inputs. Whereas, SZP tells the story of many people, all who have unique needs, but not as an ‘exception’ to society, but as an integral and natural part of society. In fact, the film stretches the logic to saying everyone of us is unique and has our own quirks and abnormalities in our own special ways. Even the superb decision of casting real-life specially abled actors in the film. The genius byline, that is hammered throughout the film, nails it when it says “Sabka apna apna normal hota hai”.

The third area why TZP and SZP are differently brilliant is the emotions they evoke in the audience. TZP was an outright tear-jerker. We wanted to save Ishaan, protect him, care for him, adopt him, champion him, fight for him, and Aamir as his teacher becomes our agency in the film. It was Ishaan against the world, with Aamir and us fighting for him. SZP, while it has tearful moments, is fundamentally not a cry-athon. Each of the special youngsters is a strong, warm, kick-ass personality that doesn’t evoke sympathy, but a very ‘I get where you’re coming from, let’s resolve this together, shall we’ kind of emotion. Even with Gulshan in the beginning being an asshole with these kids and how he treats them, and then how he grows to relate to them and even the jokes about the challenges and related topics, it is handled with an adult-like maturity and ease. Getting this balance right for a topic of this sensitivity is quite an achievement.

In addition, like any other good film, it’s a very enjoyable and sweetly narrated film. There are several moments in the film that make you laugh, make you cry, make you clap, tug at your heart, tug at your mind, and give you that warm fuzzy feeling of being a parent. The moment when Guddu overcomes his fear of bathing and water through his love for animals (a mouse!). The moment when Aamir discovers his widowed mother has a boyfriend. The moment when Golu overpowers a star player of the opposing team. The many moments when Sunil demonstrates his hypochondriac nature. And so many more. 

But of special note is the final climax scene, which, like in any good sports film, is all about the final match that will decide whether they won in the end or not. This serves as the final masterstroke of the film, bringing to life the real meaning of winning in a world that has completely pivoted to an ‘us vs them’ paradigm. What would make “us” truly happy?

However, there is one important thing that does not work in the film. And again, it is an important not-so-good difference vis-à-vis TZP. The main story in TZP was about Ishaan and his journey; Aamir was an enabler. In SZP, however, the main story is about Gulshan and his journey. And even though each of the special kids is in every scene of the story, they don’t remain as the central plot. We miss the journey that Guddu, Sunil, Golu, Lotus, Sharmaji, Har Govind, and others have or could have had. Given the need for telling Gulshan’s transformation story (even though admittedly as a metaphor for the desired transformation of our society), each of the other characters ends up becoming at best a prop or a canvas in the background. And we can tell that this is not an error of omission but deliberately written this way, seen by comparing the main poster for TZP vs. SZP. In TZP, Ishaan is front and centre (with Aamir as a support). In SZP, it’s all Aamir! Gulshan’s backstory and the reason for his selfish, narrow-minded perspective are also very weak, superficially (and almost irritatingly) depicted through his weirdly-troubled-but not-so-much relationship with his estranged (or is she?) wife, Sunita (badly played by Genelia). Given the importance of Gulshan to the overall impact of the film, this is a really big miss in the film. 

This is the one reason why SZP overall ends up being less impactful than TZP was and continues to be.

All said and done, it’s a movie that must be watched and felt through. Especially during a time when Bollywood big cinema is struggling and it’s harder to get audiences into theatres (unlike 2007 when TZP was released), telling a socially important story like this is really commendable. 

The Four Seasons, Season 1, Netflix, 2025

In a world obsessed with Gen Z, comes a refreshingly Gen X show on Netflix, from renowned makers Tina Fey, Lang Fisher, and Tracey Wigfield.

A series adaptation of a 1981 cult classic Alan Alda movie, The Four Seasons is an easy 8-episode story of three couples, who, as old friends, go on holidays together once every season. Each season’s holiday is in a separate location in America, with lots of conversations, time spent with each other, doing things connecting, disconnecting, having fun, fights, and a fair amount of emotions. Well past their prime, in the throws of their own unique mid-life crises as couples, they move from one holiday to the next, discovering new sides about each other, not always liking what they see, dealing not only with their own internal anxieties and challenges due to their life stage and the choices they’ve made in their lives, but also with changing realities of their relationships with each other as friends. Do they come together or do they fall apart as they grow a little bit more through the four seasons in the year?

I use the phrase ‘refreshingly Gen X’ for this show because that’s exactly what it is. For many of us, at the same age and life stage, we can relate to the very authentic moments and emotions that the show pulls out in relationships within each of the couples as well as between the six friends individually. If there was a sweet, gentle, light, and humorous way of depicting the very clichéd idea of a mid-life crisis, it would be this show. Whether it’s the couple that gets a divorce because the man is bored of his wife and falls for a PYT (another Gen X term, thank you very much). Or the seemingly most normal couple coming apart at the seams subtly over years of not telling each other what they love or hate about each other. Or the overly romantic gay couple that are coming to grips with the right balance between love and space. 

What really hits the spot is actually not the story. Or what happens. This is not that kind of show. What works is that the writing actively steers clear of stereotypes and superficial characterisation. Each of the characters has a very human sketch and is highly nuanced, and who you can’t pinpoint as having seen in some other show. And yet, in each of the characters, you can find a truth that you’ve seen in people you know. This makes every conversation between each of the characters in the show eminently watchable. Because it’s like being part of a conversation with your friends and family. As the viewer, you’re not watching a show, you’re just the other person sitting on the next couch with these characters.

Jack (Will Forte), the gentle, nice guy that on the face of it would be perfect husband material, but not being the breadwinner of the family, mildly hypochondriac, with little initiative and a high need for attention and love, makes for a perfectly annoying husband material too. Kate (Tina Fey), Jack’s wife, the accomplished, in control, got-it-all-figured-out wife that’s running the show, but also holier-than-thou, judgemental about the people around her and who, over time, has become emotionally unavailable to the man she actually loves very much. Nick (Steve Carell), divorcing his wife of 25 years, being with a younger woman, living the dream and actually happy with it, yet missing his own age group and friends. Anne (Kerri Kenney-Silver), Nick’s wife, being the grieving and bitter divorcee, but also wondering if they really did have a marriage worth saving or was it just a habit that she had gotten comfortable with. Danny (Colman Domingo) as the strong, independent, successful architect, living life on his own terms, but also dealing with a health issue more with denial than with action. Claude (Marco Calvani) as Danny’s husband, who loves Danny more than anything else but also obsessively so much that it comes close to breaking them apart.

The actors do a fabulous job of their characters. The story is told in a simple, heart-warming way. The humour is light. And the moments and the relationships are beautifully depicted.

Romantic Comedy, as the show is being called, is not really how I would describe it. Is it romantic? Perhaps, in its vision of putting people in their everyday lives at the centre of the storytelling. Nothing grand or dramatic. Is it a comedy? Perhaps, in the way it brings about a light and humorous take on the very real emotions and relationships that make people happy or unhappy on a daily basis. But it’s not a rom-com. It’s not about people falling in love. It’s about how love is experienced in a marriage after the magic and the honeymoon are over. It’s not about two people and their ups and downs in getting together or not. It’s about how it’s not just the two people that matter, but how they matter together and separately to each other and to others. It’s not about the trials and tribulations of the beating hearts. It’s about the trials and tribulations of life and how it takes over and yet how we make the best of our lives and relationships.

And that’s why it’s so refreshingly Gen X. It’s a grown-up show, with grown-up emotions, and grown-up lives. Even though we may deal with it in a childish manner. Like I said, refreshingly Gen X!

To all the people of my generation, watch it, because this is us, is what we feel and see around us.

To the Millennials, watch it, because it will remind you not to take yourselves so seriously.

To the Gen Zs, watch it, because it will help you appreciate why your parents also have moods.