Patna Shuklla (2024) _ Raveena Tandon _ Blockbuster Movie from norsk titans go film Watch Video

⏲ Duration: 2:5:12
👁 View: 1.1M times
✓ Published: 11-May-2024

Description:
Patna Shuklla stars Raveena Tandon as Tanvi Shukla, a Patna-based lawyer who goes from arguing inconsequential cases in a lower court to taking on the entire system in a landmark trial. Tanvi’s life changes when she decides to represent an underprivileged B.Sc. student, Rinki Kumari (Anushka Kaushik), who refuses to believe she’s failed her final-year exams. As Tanvi digs deeper, a wider conspiracy is uncovered – featuring a marksheet scam, the son of a powerful chief minister, unsuspecting victims, and a corrupt university. The case gets media attention; Tanvi and her family are subjected to societal bias, threats and administrative bullying by a government that’s determined to silence her. <br/><br/>The narrative template is fairly derivative. You don’t even have to go too far back. In terms of Tanvi’s underdog journey, Patna Shuklla brings to mind Bhakshak, the recent Netflix movie about a small-time female reporter (Bhumi Pednekar) who exposes a sex trafficking racket in Bihar. Tanvi’s domestic identity is similar: She juggles home-making – cooking, cleaning, fussing after a state-employed husband (Manav Vij) and school-going son – with her day job. Her father (Raju Kher) is wary of her career, her husband downplays it, and her male colleagues don’t take her seriously. Rinki Kumari’s case gives Tanvi purpose and direction; her family learns to respect her a little more through the struggle. The education scam itself has thematic similarities with Farrey (2023), the well-acted social drama co-produced by Salman Khan Films, which aligns with the fact that Patna Shuklla comes from the same family (it’s produced by Arbaaz Khan). The courtroom portions – Tanvi’s opponent is an arrogant lawyer named Neelkanth Mishra (Chandan Roy Sanyal); the veteran judge (the late Satish Kaushik) is a silent ally – unfold like a lesser sibling of Jolly LLB (2013). It’s not supposed to be authentic or even plausible, but there’s a sense of déjà vu about the melodrama, the surprise witnesses, the reasoning and closing monologues.