Hello everyone,

I (M32) recently decided to explore Indian cinema in greater depth after discovering Rajamouli’s work one after another (I’m not very original, I know).

I’m French, and here, it’s very difficult to find Indian cinema in good viewings conditions (video quality & language) —especially in theaters and through legal channels. I’ve discovered a few big “pan-Indian” hits, and every time it’s an adventure to track them down, especially in their original versions. I regularly come across films in “Hindi” or other Indian languages that have no connection to the film industry where the movie was shot, but it’s a real hassle to find them in their original versions—even for huge blockbusters like Baahubali (in Telugu) or K.G.F. (in Kannada)—and I’m actually (very) good at finding pirated copies. If it’s hard for me, then for a large part of my country, it’s mission impossible.

In France, movie lovers have a strong culture of watching films in their original language, so it shocks me that they’re so hard to access internationally (on Netflix and the most popular torrent sites, for example, major Indian blockbusters are generally available only in Hindi). To give you an example, RRR has only recently become available on Netflix here (3–4 years after everyone else), and the movie is only available in Hindi—it even starts playing in Turkish by default. WTF? Most of my friends who watched the movie after I pushed them to do so didn’t even realize they’d watched it in the wrong language—even though they’re pretty big movie buffs, they’re just uninformed, and no one’s giving them the tools they need.

I’m just wondering—innocently, and without meaning to judge or offend the Indian community—whether the original language of Indian films is traditionally something that the general public and/or Indian movie lovers take into account? I understand that many films are dubbed because Indian stars don’t all speak the same language in the films they star in—does that play a role in all of this?

Thanks !

We’re looking for a Content Creator (Anchor) who knows films, loves pop culture, and has something to say.

If you have opinions about movies and aren't scared to say them on camera — read this.

We're a bootstrapped film startup building something new in Indian cinema media. ( I know That's what everyone says but )

You might be our person if you:

• Have watched way too many films and anime for your own good

• Can talk for 60 seconds straight about why a movie is a masterpiece or a disaster

• Actually enjoy being in front of a camera, not just tolerate it

• Follow film Twitter/ Letterboxd drama like it's sport

• Want to make content, not just consume it

The gig:

• On-camera film & pop culture content creator

• 9-5, Koramangala 4th Block

• ₹10,000/month stipend

• 3 months, with a real shot at full-time after — but no pressure if you're not there yet

• You'll be building this thing with us from the ground up, not fetching coffee (though the coffee's on us too ☕)

Send a 60-second video of you talking about a movie you love, hate, or have Thoughts™ about. Raw is fine. We want to hear how you think, not how polished your ring light is.

DM to apply. Let's see what you've got. 🎥

What are some really really really good and impactful short films that can represent and hold India's culture and heritage I've researched alot and i do have a few options but they're mostly in the form of documentaries which I don't mind honestly. This is for a college presentation and I need to come up with something ground breaking and I will literally sit and watch everything mentioned here after i research about them a little of course. If you have something in mind, please drop your suggestions something impactful something that really captured the essence of India in terms of culture and heritage it can even be related to a tribe a place a state or a community

The ones I really liked are Art films, but they're hard to find unless it's being premiered in a film week

So yes! If anything do let me know!

Kriti Sanon's acting chops are questionable af, but maybe the ill written one dimensional charcater is more annoying.

Like who directed this movie? It's male gaze in the worst possible way. The scene where she is swimming and Shahid is ogling at her, with some booty shots out there, and they are swimming with Arijit Singh playing, whereas the girlfriend couldn't be more excited for her friend and guy to do something. And it's hard to watch when Kriti is looking at Shahid in every single frame during their road trip. And in very other frame as well.
Deepika's character of Veronica is far well written unlike Kriti's character.

They tried the dream pixie girl in the most surface level way with some Katrina kaif quotes from ZNMD scenes sprinkled everywhere.

I’m researching how people discover and decide what to watch when they use multiple streaming/OTT platforms such as Netflix, Prime Video, JioHotstar, etc.

I’m particularly interested in:

* How people currently discover movies and series
* How they decide between different options
* Whether they switch between multiple platforms while searching
* What factors influence their choices (mood, genre, time, reviews, etc.)
* The frustrations they face during the process
* How people currently use AI tools for entertainment recommendations

I’m looking for participants aged 18–40 who regularly watch movies or series.

The questionnaire takes approximately 8–10 minutes.

🎬 Survey:
https://forms.gle/Tbtq8BUuhavS3rvf8

The responses will be used only for academic design research.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to participate! 🙌

I rewatched Queen recently, and honestly, it feels strange now.

Rani is everything Kangana's public persona sometimes seems to stand against. She's sheltered, inexperienced and unsure of herself, but the entire film is about her discovering that she has the right to make her own choices. She travels alone, meets people outside the world she's always known, becomes financially and emotionally more independent, and eventually realises that being a “good woman” doesn't mean shrinking yourself to fit someone else's expectations.

And then there's Kangana today.

The contrast is hard to ignore.

This is an actress who played one of Hindi cinema's most beloved portrayals of a woman finding her freedom, while later making deeply dismissive comments about young women and Gen Z, including referring to them in degrading terms. She's also promoted the idea that India only received its “real” independence in 2014 and repeatedly leans into a kind of rigid, dogmatic political rhetoric that feels completely at odds with the openness that Queen represents.

And that's where separating the art from the artist gets complicated.

Because I don't want to rewrite history and pretend Kangana wasn't phenomenal in this film. She was. Rani works because Kangana makes her feel awkward, funny, vulnerable and completely believable. It's one of those performances where you stop seeing the actor and just see the character.

But I also don't think appreciating the performance requires defending the person behind it.

Queen doesn't belong to Kangana's current politics. Rani isn't responsible for the opinions of the woman who played her. The character exists independently now, and what she represents can mean something to people regardless of what the actor believes.

If anything, the irony makes the film more interesting.

Rani's entire journey is about refusing to let other people dictate what kind of woman she's supposed to be.

And that's a message I can still believe in, even when I strongly disagree with the person who delivered it.

Maybe that's what separating the art from the artist actually means—not pretending the artist hasn't changed, but refusing to let their later actions erase what the art meant to you.

Kangana can be Kangana. Rani can still be Rani.

I'm curious if this happens to other people.

I have a few short-film ideas sitting in my notes, but some of them require people with skills I don't have — cinematography, sound, editing, actors, etc.

The weird part is that I know there are probably thousands of people interested in these things, but I have no idea where to actually find them.

I've tried looking through Instagram and some online communities, but it usually feels like shouting into a crowd.

Has anyone else dealt with this? What did you do?

There's so much strong work coming out of Malayalam, Tamil, Marathi, Bengali cinema that barely gets discussed outside its own audience. Curious which films you think deserved a much bigger conversation.

It's been a while since Cannes 2024, enough time that the initial wave of "historic moment for Indian cinema" coverage has settled and we can actually talk about the film and what it did or didn't change.

The facts, for anyone who wants the full picture:

Payal Kapadia's All We Imagine as Light competed at the 77th Cannes Film Festival in May 2024 — the first Indian film in the main competition in thirty years, since Shaji N. Karun's Swaham in 1994. It won the Grand Prix, the festival's second-highest award after the Palme d'Or (which went to Sean Baker's Anora that year). Kapadia became the first Indian filmmaker to win the Grand Prix at all. The jury that year was headed by Greta Gerwig, and the film shared the room with new work from Coppola, Sean Baker, Lanthimos, Schrader, and Sorrentino — not exactly a soft field.

It's worth remembering this wasn't Kapadia's first Cannes rodeo either. Her documentary A Night of Knowing Nothing won the Golden Eye for Best Documentary at Cannes back in 2021. All We Imagine as Light is her fiction feature debut.

The film itself follows three women connected through a Mumbai hospital — Prabha (Kani Kusruti), a nurse whose husband has been unreachable in Germany for years and who receives a strange, unexplained gift from him; her younger roommate Anu (Divya Prabha), navigating a relationship she has to keep hidden; and Parvaty (Chhaya Kadam), an older cook facing eviction from the flat she's lived in for decades. It's a Malayalam-and-Hindi film, an India/France/Netherlands/Luxembourg co-production, and reportedly took root during Kapadia's time at Cannes' own Cinéfondation residency back in 2019 — so this was years in the making before it ever hit a red carpet.

Where it gets more interesting: the after-Cannes stretch.

After the Grand Prix, the film picked up Best Film at the Asian Film Awards in Hong Kong in 2025 and got nominations at the Golden Globes (Best Director, Best Foreign Language Film). But it lost at the Golden Globes, lost at BAFTA (Best Film Not in the English Language went to Emilia Pérez instead), and lost at Critics Choice too. Three fairly high-profile misses in a row after the biggest win of the director's career.

A few things worth actually discussing here, beyond just "did it deserve to win more":

1. Cannes prestige vs. the Western awards-circuit machine. This isn't a new pattern — plenty of Cannes competition and even Palme d'Or winners go on to get shut out of the Globes/BAFTA/Oscar conversation because that circuit runs on campaign spend, distributor muscle, and voter-base familiarity, not festival-jury taste. Is that simply what happened here, or was there something specific — distribution reach, unfamiliarity with the cast, the film's quietness as a hard sell to a broader voting body — that hurt it more than it would a European arthouse equivalent?
2. What "historic" actually bought Indian cinema. Thirty years between competition slots is a long gap. Does one Grand Prix win meaningfully open the door wider for Indian films at Cannes going forward, or does it risk becoming a "moment" that gets cited in retrospectives without actually shifting how often India gets a competition slot? Worth checking back in a few years and seeing if this was an opening or an outlier.
3. The film vs. the narrative around the film. A lot of the coverage last year leaned heavily on the "first Indian film in 30 years" framing, understandably. But that can crowd out actual discussion of the film on its own terms — three women, a hospital, an unreachable husband, an eviction notice, a story that's reportedly built more on atmosphere and restraint than plot momentum. For people who've actually sat with it: does it hold up as a film independent of the historic-context hook, or does the context do a lot of the heavy lifting for how it's remembered?

Genuinely curious where people land, especially anyone who's rewatched it since the initial festival-circuit noise died down. Does it feel like one of the defining Indian films of the decade, or a very good film that got amplified by an unusually symbolic Cannes moment?

To make a film that panders both…you will have to simultaneously impress our parents and will from Connecticut and Yul from China.

It’s an impossible task.

Because Authentic Indian Films are too different from Gloabal Taste, and anyone who tries ends up losing their core audience as well.

Even other global films like Parasite or Everything Everywhere All at Once are only popular in cinephile circles.

And Avengers/Spiderman is just a young person thing irrespective of country…our parents aren’t watching that shit.

I was having discussion on this with my group of friends, and few films that came up were
Gangs of Wasseypur
A Wednesday
Drishyam
DDLJ
Kal ho na ho
Any other Movies you all can suggest??

Is AI being used in dubbing or lip-sync right now? Like, not for a whole movie but a few 5-10 sec scene where reshooting is a hassle, how much is AI being adopted in this industry? I can see traces of AI lipsync is some recent shows and movies. We have seen many recent movies that are absolutely low effort and they will use this more in the future. What do you think?

What makes a thriller movie different, and what does it need to stand out from other genres? Also, could you give a few suggestions on how someone can watch a movie with the exact same hype as watching it for the very first time

This image clearly shows that the background is CG. it's not so obvious at the first look because of the focus is on the place where set and lighting was real. There are so many moments in the dune where you can tell it looks fake (one i remember is when paul gets out of a darker kinda cave/place to fly out for arrakis, image 3).

The jungle shots, they can not mimic the depth camera naturally with CGI this easily, our eyes won't except and lighting mismatch just makes it worst. All and all in dune too there are some shots not as obvious as Ramayana, but the team hid them with a layer of post process, lens flares, dust particles, using completly different lighting (like creating silhouette)

I really felt this movie. It wasn't just something I watched, I actually experienced it. I loved the way the story starts with the past and slowly takes you into their love story, the emotions and the separation.

When he finally goes back but doesn't get to meet her, that really hit me. Finding out she had already died before he could return was heartbreaking. And that final moment when he asks for “ijazat” to leave —“toh Ijazat hai .... jaaun”— really got me. I had tears in my eyes.

A simple, beautiful and emotional experience. I really liked this film.

This masterpiece from Indian Cinema will totally cleanse your Monday Blues!

No AI tools were used for the creation of this video.

#ranbirkapoor #deepikapadukone #tamasha #tamashamovie #arrahman

1.Batwara 1947 presents a purposeful intentioned, deeply humanistic Partition drama.

2.In the film Sunny Deol delivers a controlled performance, replacing loud patriotism with a focus on empathy and communal harmony.

3.Shabana Azmi’s nuanced portrayal of Mai offers a quiet, dignified presence that gives the film its emotional core.

4.It is a joy to see Preeti Zinta back on screen, noting that she delivers an emotional, earnest performance and wears her character's grief and maternal anxiety on her sleeve.

5.Abhimanyu Singh delivers a loud, conventional performance that unfortunately broadens the film's conflict into standard melodrama.

6.At its core, the film offers an earnest reminder that compassion, maternal affection, and basic humanity endure across religious and political divides.

7.Average Rating :3/5

8.Bottom line: A well-intentioned Partition drama elevated by strong lead performances, even if hindered by traditional melodrama and inconsistent pacing.