Epical epic stories, with super epic fights and strifes. Epic stories have existed since the inception of writing, from *[Epic of Gilgamesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh)* to the modern day *[Dune](https://w.wiki/3rtu)*.

Big epic films tend to often be adaptations of previous works. The big screen is especially suited for large spectacle. Unfortunately, such adaptations inherently require sacrifice. For instance, take the principle epic of the Western world — *[The Illiad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad)*, which can be read without taking breaks in just 24 hours. Naturally, the reciters of the poem, the [rhapsodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsode), recited the Homeric epic through the course of 3 days. Now, when [Christopher Nolan]() took to [adapt the text](https://w.wiki/F6QF), he did so by abridging the story into 3 hours. That's the eight of the original work's length! 

What could be said of those who venture to adapt the Indian epic *[Ramayana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana)* are faced with an even bigger issue, to read the entirety of it without breaks would take roughly 50 hours. That's twice the length of the Illiad, as such, any reasonable adaptation of the material must account for the fact the story tells a thousand years of unfolding events. Of course, most of that is focused on the 14 years of the protagonist's Rama's exile. 

Now, the director [Nitesh Tiwari]() put up the task of adapting the text as faithfully as could with the limited screen time of 3 hours and 15 minutes. That's just for part 1 out of 2. I had the unfortunate experience, of seeing the 30 minuted shortened version. The velocity at the which the film progressed, made it difficult to just relax and enjoy the scenery and the majesty of the picture. That's just my own gripe.

Viewers more inclined to see the most epic of fights and battles are not going to have the same issues as I did. The choreography was quite decent and the environments were not just set pieces, but actual locations with influence on the fight. Nor can I complain about the special effects and the sheer awe at the spectacular imagery that was shown.

The main problem with them and other scenes was with the utterly boring movement or the lack there of, of the camera. Yes, during the giant battles, there were many cases where the camera sat still, like 'twas on a tripod. I get it, if the director wishes to spare the SFX artists from having to deal with performance capture and 3D camera movement. The thing is, there were flowing and rapidly moving shots with a lot of CGI and human actor faces in the view. 

That's not really an issue of the lack of budget, which it had plenty enough. The director Tiwari or his cinematographer [Pankaj Kumar]() chose to shoot regular conversation scenes with a [standard dialogue setup](https://peekatthis.com/camera-angles-shots-every-filmmaker-needs-to-know/#:~:text=The%20Standard%20Dialogue%20Setup), where there are 3 static shots of a conversation.This made me infuriated, because the epic films are not just about showing off the SFX, although that plays a huge role as well, but about showcasing the director's prowess. 

The lack of effort or skill shown by the director is a deterrent from watching the film. Do not be misguided, I am not saying the film is unwatchable, rather the director is not really able to showcase the true beauty of the original story. In a sense, the directorial execution was akin to [Robert Rodriguez]()'s blockbuster *[Alita: Battle Angel](/reviews/alita:_battle_angel_is_robert_rodriguez_s_pearl_harbor)*, because that is too a large-scale film with static shots and decisions made by a person used to working with shoe-string budgets.

The directing is not the most aggregating part, that award goes to the dialogues by [Shreyas Jain]() and [Nitesh Tiwari](). The film begins with exposition about the creation of the world, then narrator ([Anupam Kher]()) explains what is happening on the battlefield. Once the fight concludes and the victors and losers are chosen, the minor antagonist Kaikashi ([Shobana]()) gives more exposition. To finally have the narrator tell exposition about the protagonist Rama ([Yash]()). 

Exposition can be tolerated in a plot dense story, it worked out for Christopher Nolan in *[Inception](/reviews/inception_intention_is_to_expose_exposition)*. The real downturner was the dialogue. Which had. Constant em. Pha. Sis. And. Breaks. Af. Ter. Few. Wor. Ds.

Okay, I'll stop now. In this matter, I am not quite sure whether that was the decision only applicable in the English release or was it the case in the Indian screenings as well. Whatever the root cause me be, that was the primary, **#1** complain I have with the film. Having all the characters all speak like they are about to have a stroke, not only removes the potential characterization through the manner of speech, but entirely removes the power of emphasis. Once everything is emphasized, then nothing is. Luckily, most of the dialogue is short and gives room to the grandiose speeches. Figure me surprised, they work. 

There was another part that really worked out in the film — composition. The main selling point of the film in Lithuania was that the composer of the film was none other than [Hans Zimmer](). Yes, the parallel Christopher Nolan, a long time collaborator with Zimmer, was conscious. I'd lie if I said, the composition was unfitting the film. This is because Hans is the big star in music compositions, together with [Ennio Morricone]() and [John Williams](). I applaud the choice of adding the authentic Indian chanting and additional music arrangements by [A. R. Rahman](). 

Overall, the film is still a resoundly enjoyable experience. It delivers the epicness of epics, although the directorial choice was not the best. A better outcome would've come were [S. S. Rajamouli]() selected as the director. At least Rajamouli has proven himself to be capable of directing giant epics, such as *[Baahubali](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baahubali:_The_Beginning)*. 

*Fin.*