Why Visit Theater to Watch Movies?
Between 2019 and 2025, only three films justified a theater visit. Each film reclaimed something deliberately obscured. Film makers wonder why people do not visit theaters. They have to make movies worth watching in theaters in this era of large screen television sets, available in every home.
Manikarnika (2019) revisited 1857 through Rani Lakshmibai. It restored her as a trained cavalry commander and battlefield tactician. School books had reduced her to symbolic bravery. The film restored her as an actual warrior. The end was something not known in common knowledge.
Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior (2020) returned to the 1670 Battle of Sinhagad. It presented Maratha resistance as organized military success. Textbooks shrink the Maratha empire after Chhatrapati Shivaji. The film rejected that minimization.
Dhurandhar moved into the contemporary period. It traced intelligence operations from IC 814 to 26/11. It refused to sanitize Pakistan’s jihadi infrastructure. This clarity is usually avoided.
The narrative from Dhurandhar mixes partial truths about real hawala operators with unproven conspiracy theories. It links Indian politicians to Pakistan’s ISI and fake currency networks. That is the artistic creativity which makes it a movie. Documentary would stand on different standard.
Common Theme
All three films share a common logic. They recover narratives that were wiped clean. They center martial or military excellence. They demand theatrical scale. They adopt an unapologetic national stance.
Each film treats combat as competence, not spectacle alone. Strategy and tactics matter more than noise. Violence is purposeful, not ornamental.
Education in India softened all three subjects. Lakshmibai became a moral symbol, not a commander. The Marathas became regional, not imperial. Pakistan became a troubled neighbor, not a jihadi state apparatus.
These erasures serve the same comfort. They avoid confrontation. They dilute martial pride. They confuse threat perception.
Visual Spectacle Demanding Theater
Manikarnika: was a period recreation, battle sequences, landscape suitable for 70MM Theater.
Tanhaji: 3D cinematography, fort architecture, epic scale battles. Huge sets worth watching 70 MM Theater.
Dhurandhar: The Lyari set was created in Thailand over several months. Shooting in Ladakh, drone photography, and geographic sweep made it worth watching on 70 MM.
Departure from Narrative.
Manikarnika matters because it breaks this pattern. It shows Lakshmibai leading from horseback. It shows her making tactical decisions. She dies fighting, not inspiring from afar.
The difference is ideological. A martial woman disrupts safe narratives. Military excellence disrupts victimhood. Symbolism is easier than strategy.
Tanhaji shows the deep integration of Chhatrapati Shivaji’s soldiers with society. The force had a superior strategic and moral composition than that portrayed in History books.
Dhurandhar does to Pakistan what The Godfather 3 did to the Catholic Church. It broke the myth of a perfect Islamic State. It showed a chaotic law and order prevailing in a country portrayed as stable and perfect Medina.
Sci-Fi and Action Genre
Sci-Fi is a different Genre. This is the best genre suitable for theater. Sci-Fi is also something Hindi Cinema has to look forward to. Across the three films, this is an additional fourth criterion. Martial excellence is non-negotiable. Not just action, but competence. Not just noise, but intelligence.
Hollywood used to excel in this genre called Action Movies but it has stopped the creation of new content. It is recycling old ideas as sequels. The Theater where Dhurandhar is going houseful, Avatar 2 is struggling.
Hollywood used to combine Martial excellence with Sci fi successfully. That is something Hindi Cinema has not even tried in recent memory.
Terminator tops in the genre of Sci-fi and Action. Terminator will be worth a visit if created at a grand scale like Terminator 3. The original films combined craft and combat intelligence. They treated survival as strategy. They respected the warrior archetype.
Later Terminator films failed this standard. They lost tactical seriousness. After Genisys, they replaced substance with churn. Only genre keeps the door slightly open.
Mission Impossible shows the opposite trajectory. Early films emphasized espionage and teamwork. Later films became stunt exhibitions. Spectacle consumed purpose. The last sequel released The Final Reckoning on Paramount tied up with Jio Hotstar, some time back. It was not worth watching on TV let alone 70 MM Theater. Plastic Surgery has stopped working for Tom Cruise. He looks old and frail. He should consider working on different genre. He could do well to take a leaf out of the career of Sean Connery about aging gracefully.
When stunts became the point, interest collapsed. There was no reclamation. There was no tactical logic. Only one criterion survived.
Formula for Good Movie in Five points.
1. Narrative Reclamation
The movie must restore erased history or clarify obscured truth. The mainstream narrative reinforcement is not worth watching.
2. Visual Craft Excellence
Spectacle must justify large screen. Cinematography/production design must be of highest level. It must be grand on the scale of a Russian Circus element of a bygone era.
3. Martial/Military Focus
Combat/warfare/operations is ideal. Violence from safe distance and violence which poses no threat is preferred. Tactical/strategic intelligence must be demonstrated. Do not take the audience for a fool. Celebrate the Warrior competence. It is not just violence, but martial excellence that is required.
4. Unapologetic Perspective
Script must take clear stance, no false balancing of secular politics. No apologetic framing of script. Be bold in what movie says. It must refuse mainstream hedging.
5. Substance + Entertainment
No problem with creative liberty. That is the real challenge. That differentiates it from a documentary (must entertain). Mission Impossible type empty spectacle without purpose is not worth watching even on TV.
These five conditions define my rare theater visit. All three chosen films meet every condition. Most blockbusters meet one or two at best. None of the skipped hits, met all five.
Gender is irrelevant within this framework. Competence is the only filter. Lakshmibai works because she is a warrior first. She is not framed as an identity statement.
These three films form a quiet trilogy. They move from colonial erasure to historical erasure. They end with contemporary denial. Past and present align. This selectivity is not accidental. It reflects mature film literacy. Cinema is treated as argument and craft. Not as passive consumption.
Future visits will be rare. They will depend on the same alignment. Quality will always outrank frequency.
Conclusion:
To sum up a reclaimed or clarified narrative is required. Visual craft must demand the big screen. Martial or military focus must be central. The perspective must be unapologetic. Entertainment must carry substance.
This is not the mass audience. It is the demanding audience. It rewards seriousness and courage. It ignores hype.
Three films in six years explain everything. Nothing more was needed.