Animal Instincts: Unleashing the 'What Could Have Beens' of Ranbir Kapoor's Latest Roar

Approaching “Animal” with a fresh perspective and no preconceptions about the director’s previous work, I found myself on an unexpected journey.

The film, set against a backdrop of complex emotional dynamics, promised a deep dive into the intricacies of its characters, mainly through Ranbir Kapoor’s portrayal of Vijay.

However, as the narrative unfolded, it became a tale of unmet potential and lost opportunities.

Ranbir Kapoor’s performance stands out as the beacon of the film.

His portrayal of Vijay is layered and nuanced, hinting at a depth that the film, unfortunately, does not fully explore. The movie’s first half shines, with Kapoor’s acting promising a rich and complex character study.

The film introduces a compelling father-son dynamic, echoing the emotional and moral complexities of classics like ‘The Godfather.’ However, unlike the nuanced portrayal in ‘The Godfather,’ “Animal” only skims the surface of this relationship.

Vijay’s craving for his father’s attention is a pivotal theme that needs more exploration to fully understand his motivations and inner turmoil.  In 'The Godfather,' there's a clear, well-crafted basis for Michael's transformation – gradual, logical, and deeply rooted in his experiences. We witness the layers of his change, understanding why he breaks and reshapes into the Don.

In contrast, Vijay's leap from a son yearning for paternal attention to someone who easily resorts to violence in defence of his father seems abrupt. It lacks the nuanced steps that lead to such a drastic transformation. This gap in 'Animal' makes Vijay's actions feel more like narrative convenience rather than an organic character evolution.

In contrast to character-driven narratives like ‘Taxi Driver,’ where Travis Bickle’s journey into the abyss is meticulously detailed, Vijay’s character arc in “Animal” feels incomplete. The audience is left wanting a deeper understanding of why Vijay acts the way he does, and this gap weakens the emotional connection to his character.

The pacing of “Animal” is a tale of two halves. The first part is engaging, drawing the audience into the world of the characters. However, the second half diverges, losing focus and meandering through a plot that feels disconnected from the initial setup. While visually impressive, the action sequences seem to serve more as a spectacle rather than enhancing the narrative or character development.

“Animal” does succeed in sparking introspection about moral dilemmas and the rawness of unbridled emotion. The film touches on themes that could have been profoundly explored, such as the consequences of neglect, the quest for paternal approval, and the following moral descent.

“Animal,” despite its promising start and Kapoor’s exceptional performance, ultimately falls short of delivering a fully realized cinematic experience. The film teases with glimpses of emotional depth and complex character dynamics. Still, it fails to delve into these with the thoroughness they deserve. While it succeeds in provoking thought, it leaves the audience yearning for a more complete exploration of its central themes and characters. This results in a film that, though intriguing, feels like a canvas only half-painted – beautiful in its unfinished state but leaving one to wonder about the masterpiece it could have been.