Blogger, Search Engine Optimizer, Social Media Marketeer, Lover of Cooking & Science Fiction and a Dreamer

"Naam Shabana" is Nothing But an Ordinary Spy Thriller

April 3, 2017


There is a history of ruining a good film franchise if it gets a new director for its sequel or prequel. "Naam Shabana" is an addition to that history. If a good director like Neeraj Pandey who has made box office hits like "A Wednesday!", "Special 26" and "Baby", comes in a news headline for his next project, a hype is naturally generated but it is the quality of that ultimate product which decides whether it will live up to the expectations. Neeraj Pandey has decided not to give direction but produce and write screenplay for "Naam Shabana" but I think this movie, having a theme of national security similar to "Baby", fails to touch the nerve of the audience. Even if any of the three Khans gives a mediocre performance in a lead role, any ordinary movie crosses or goes close to 100 Crore mark these days just because of their complete screen presence. Akshay Kumar is the only superstar presently working in Bollywood who can give a good competition to these three Khans. "Baby" was one of big hits in his entire filmy career. Taapsee Pannu has earned a label of a class actress after delivering a stunning performance in "Pink" but if somebody thinks that she can now take the burden of carrying the legacy of Akshay Kumar starrer "Baby" on her own shoulder, I am afraid he lives in a fool's paradise. Anupam Kher and Akshay Kumar have made a good chemistry with their comedy and charm of acting together in "Special 26" and "Baby" but that is hardly seen in "Naam Shabana". Instead of making a prequel, Neeraj Pandey should have made a sequel of "Baby" with a new follow up story having Akshay Kumar in that same lead role. The early life of field agent Shabana Khan (played by Taapsee Pannu) and how she became a spy, could have been shown in a short flashback in that movie. After "Piku", Shoojit Sircar also decided not to direct but produce "Pink" but I guess “Pink” was far better production than “Naam Shabana” due to better screenplay writing and direction. I am sure Shivam Nair will come back with his best in coming years.

Shabana Khan's father was an alcoholic and like most of the hard drinkers, he also was a wife and child beater. One day, teen Shabana (teenage role of Shabana Khan is also played by Taapsee Pannu herself) couldn't tolerate any more home violence and hit his father on his head. That fatal blow got her father killed. Police arrested Shabana and she spent two years in a juvenile home after getting sentenced by the juvenile court. But Shabana came under surveillance as a potential candidate for becoming the spy of a secret service agency which is responsible for our national security. She is an angry young woman who gets agitated very easily on crowded streets. She is still studying commerce in a college and practises a special kind of martial art called Kudo. She has also won a tournament of Kudo championship. Shabana's classmate and friend Jai (played by Taher Shabbir Mithaiwala) is in love with her and one night, when they were on their way home riding on a motorcycle (both Jai and Shabana were wearing no helmets), they met with four spoiled brats who started to tease Shabana. Ignoring Jai's advice of 'It's not about guts but you need to know when to step in and when to back off', Shabana took the decision to encounter them. Jai also had to intervene for saving her but got murdered by the leader of those four scumbags. Shabana swore that she would not rest until she brings the killer to justice. But she was getting frustrated due to slow progress of the criminal investigation by police, and one day she received a call from an unknown person who asks her what if he tells her the present whereabouts of those fugitives, how she would bring them to justice. Shabana’s reply was straight and full of confidence that if she is provided with the information and other helps, she will likely to kill the murderer of Jai because she no longer has the faith in legal justice system. The unknown caller offers every possible help in pursuing her vengeance but with one condition that once it is done, in return, she would have to join the secret service agency and work as a field agent defending the national security of our nation. Shabana says yes.

The official theatrical trailer shows a tag which says 'witness the making of a spy'. So, how does a common man become a spy? Does the secret service agency really recruit civilians for spy jobs directly from the society? What are the criteria based on which they choose their possible candidates. What kind of training curriculum do they follow? Shabana Khan has an angry young mind which sometimes attracts unnecessary attention. She also has a criminal background. Her study is yet to be completed. She has lost her faith in our legal justice system and is mentally prepared to kill a guy for personal vendetta. If these kinds of qualities make her qualify to get selected for the spy job, do you really think it shows the reality as close as possible. I don't think so. The instructor, who was giving her shooting practices, happened to be a white Caucasian foreigner. Our national secret agency couldn't just find an Indian shooting instructor for training our secret agents. How weird is that? Only martial art and shooting practices seem to be quite enough for completing her training to be an operational field agent. No movie can keep you on the edge of your seat right up to the end, than a spy thriller. When somebody is making a spy thriller, it should be looked like one. Recently, Priyanka Chopra came under spotlight due to her acting in an American TV series drama thriller "Quantico". There are popular spy franchises like "James Bond" and "Jason Bourne" which were made in Hollywood. Perhaps, the director and the screenplay writer of "Naam Shabana" should have taken some inspirations and ideas from these spy franchises before making this film. All the field agent characters including Ajay Singh Rajput (played by Akshay Kumar) and Shabana Khan (played by Taapsee Pannu) seem to be physically unfit and unathletic to be looked like a professional spy. They even do not have the proper training or do not know the standard procedure for approaching an armed suspect. The lack of research before writing this weak screenplay is also one of the factors which lead this movie to a failure. If people like to call Aamir Khan a perfectionist, then there must be a reason behind it. Just take "Dangal" for an example and consider how much research, money, time and effort the producer cum actor Aamir Khan and the director Nitesh Tiwari put into their project even before taking the first shot.

Even though Taapsee Pannu has the lead role in "Naam Shabana", it doesn't seem to be a woman centric movie. During operations, Shabana Khan is unable to tackle some unforeseen tough situations and needs the help of Ajay Singh Rajput to get herself out of trouble. Ajay Singh Rajput even holds her arm (not hand) and drags her to a safe place. In one scene, Ranvir Singh (played by Manoj Bajpayee) says two interesting comments explaining Shabana Khan why the agency thinks that she is suitable for the job, 'Females are born with an extra strain in their DNA. Mardon ko gadgets ki jaroorat padti hai, auratein pre-configured aati hai' and 'Aaj kal ke jo haalat hai, us mein tumhare religion ki vajah se hamara access badhta hai aur raastei khulte hai'. He also says that 1500 possible candidates are being observed by the agency at any given time which sounds like wasting money and manpower and when it comes to do some real action in overseas locations, instead of sending experienced agents, the agency sends a fresh recruit Shabana Khan with a license to kill.

I think unlike "Baby", despite putting best efforts of going soft against Pakistan and radical Islamic terrorists, Censor Board of Pakistan has banned the screening of "Naam Shabana" in Pakistan. So, this movie has won the hearts of neither India nor Pakistan. If Hollywood wants to make a spy thriller, it has always made it from the point of view of western powers showcasing Soviet Union, China, Vietnam or North Korea as their adversaries. It is a common sense that if Bollywood wants to make a spy thriller, it needs to project Pakistan and anti Indian jihadi elements as adversaries and that will give better result in Indian box office. If handled properly by efficient hands, nationalism always works well in India.

"Pink" Movie Review: Say 'NO' to the stereotype Indian conception that 'aisi ladkiyon ke saath aisa hi hota hai'

September 19, 2016



Pink is the colour of sweetness, sensitivity and romance. It shows empathy, love and compassion. Pink is a combination of White and Red colours. White is the colour of purity & peace and Red is the colour of passion & power. Pink truly represents the femininity of women and that perhaps inspired team "Pink" to pick such a title. On the backdrop of recent unfortunate incidents of molesting and raping women across India and specially in Delhi after the notorious 2012 Delhi gang rape case in which the perpetrators raped and brutally killed Nirbhaya (Jyoti Singh), "Pink" seems to be the most relevant movie everyone should watch and take lesson from.

"Pink" is a riveting story of three normal working women Minal Arora (played by Taapsee Pannu), Falak Ali (played by Kirti Kulhari) and Andrea (plyed by Andrea Tariang) who are staying in Delhi as PG. They stay together, hang out or attend parties together in the evening and on one such evening, they went to a rock concert. There they were introduced with Rajveer Singh (played by Angad Bedi) and his friends by a common friend. Rajveer invited them for a dinner. Rajveer and his friends seemed friendly, polite and gentle. There was nothing suspicious and therefore Minal and her friends accepted the offer. They went to a resort in Surajkund. But things turned ugly. They were little drunk and Rajveer and Dumpy (played by Raashul Tandon) forcefully tried to make physical contact with the girls. But Minal and Andrea were in no such mood and refused to engage in sex. Despite saying 'No' to Rajveer, he didn't stop molesting her. Then Minal hit him with a glass bottle on his face for self defense and that injured him pretty badly. The girls also escaped quickly from that resort. Pursuing a vendetta against Minal, Rajveer and his friends started to threaten her over phone. They even tried to convince the landlord to throw the girls out from the flat. The girls had no option but to seek help from the police. But the officer-in-charge of the local police station proved to be unhelpful and gave a sluggish and cold reply 'If we take action against him, then you will face charges as well. After all, you assaulted him, madam'. Police was reluctant to take action against Rajveer because he is the relative of a powerful political leader. Rajveer and his friends then intensified giving threatening calls to Minal and eventually molested and assaulted her in a car. But instead of taking action against Rajveer and his friends, police arrested Minal under section 307, 'Attempt to Murder' charge. Mr. Deepak Sehgal (played  by Amitabh Bachchan) who is their neighbour and also a reputed retired lawyer, decides to defend the girls in court.

In one scene of the court room proceedings, the lawyer Mr. Sehgal asks Minal 'are you a virgin, Miss Arora? Please answer in yes or no. Don't shake your head'. Minal at first hesitated and mumbled. It is not that easy for an unmarried young woman to declare in public whether she is virgin or not but she boldly said 'No'. She then answered the subsequent questions of Mr. Sehgal and said that she lost her virginity to her friend at age 19 but that physical intercourse happened with the consent of each other. There was no other interest like exchange of money or any business purpose. Mr. Sehgal further questioned Minal 'what actually happened between you and Rajveer that night? What clear indication did you give at that time that right now I am not interested in sex?' and Minal answered him that she refused Rajveer for sex and she clearly said 'NO' to Rajveer. She said 'I was being held against my will.' She even said 'who likes to be touched in this manner, sir? Forcibly!' and explained under what circumstances and how she was compelled to hit Rajveer for self defense. In another court room scene, the opponent lawyer Mr. Prashant Mehra (played by Piyush Mishra) asked Andrea 'how long have you been soliciting?' and she replied 'I do nothing of this sort'. Mr. Sehgal presented his arguments before the court quite clearly that if a man and a woman want to make physical contact, that has to be done with each other's consent no matter if it happens between a boyfriend and his girlfriend, a husband and his wife or even a sex worker and her client. If a woman says 'No', that means 'NO' and that is the red line nobody should cross.

Indians are very obsessed with Bollywood movies specially romantic movies. Those so called romantic movies have been showing us a false formula that if the hero likes a girl, expresses his emotions to her, proposes her but if the girl says 'No', the hero doesn't take that 'No' seriously and thinks that she also likes him and if he continues to tease her, she will eventually have feelings for him and ultimately he will get the girl (ladki pat jayegi). A cinema not only tells a story and gives you entertainment, but it also acts like a mirror of our society. If the cinema itself gives you the wrong impression about the seriousness of 'No' said by a woman, you can understand how Indians have been raised by our society in independent India. Even after 69 years of our independence, we still couldn't get out of our cocoon made of social barriers and prejudices. We have made rules only for women, how they should behave, what they should wear, what they should and shouldn't do. If a boy molests a girl, so called guardians of our society tries to malign the character of that girl, sticks a character certificate on her back and get into simple conclusion that the girl must have done something wrong which led the boy to get provoked for committing such a crime. Rajveer is just a movie character but I am afraid he is not the only man but many people of our real society think that 'aisi ladkiyon ke saath aisa hi hota hai'. Not just in Delhi, we have seen how Suzette Jordan was treated and victimised by our society in Kolkata after she was gang raped in 2013 (Park Street Rape Incident). This movie "Pink" hits a tight slap on the face of these Indians and so called self proclaimed guardians of our Indian society. This movie tells us to get rid of those outdated prejudices and give proper respect to women what they really deserve.

I must talk about two scenes in "Pink" which seemed little awkward to me. Mr. Deepak Sehgal is a retired lawyer and lives in the same neighbourhood where these girls are staying as a PG. Mr. Sehgal goes to a nearby park for morning walk. Minal also goes to that same park for jogging. On the next morning of that Sirajkund episode, Minal goes to that park for her usual jogging but this time she discovers that a pair of open eyes is constantly staring at her. Those eyes belong to Mr. Sehgal. When I saw this scene, I was wondering why Mr. Sehgal was staring at her with that cold and blunt look. At first I thought he must have witnessed or knows something about that Surajkund episode. But that was not the case in this story. Since both Mr. Sehgal and Minal are neighbours, he might have heard something that these girls are involved in some unsocial activities and that could have made him curious. Mr. Sehgal is also going through a crisis of his life as his wife is living her last days on hospital bed. Mr. Sehgal has no children and is suffering from bipolar disorder. But everything couldn't completely explain the reason and the relevance of his constant staring at Minal. She was wearing a jogging suit, seemed tired after long jogging and then if she sees that an old unknown man is constantly staring at her, what do you think she might have thought about him, an old pervert man! I wonder what the Director Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury was thinking and trying to prove when he decided to show this scene in this movie. Mr. Bachchan has said so many times in his interviews that he is the Director's man. I was also watching a televised interview of team "Pink" on last Thursday before the release of this movie in India. But when the Producer Shoojit Sircar who has also worked with Mr. Bachchan as a Director in "Piku", told the reporter that the actor should always trust the Director, Mr. Bachchan coughed a little and seemed to be slightly disagreed with him. May be Mr. Bachchan also couldn't accept this staring scene in this movie. The second scene which I was talking about, is that when Falak couldn't deal with the bombardment of uneasy questions thrown by the opponent lawyer Mr. Mehra and accepted that the girls actually took money. This confession could have become the turning point in the case and might led to a victory for Rajveer but that didn't happen thanks to the court arguments of Mr. Sehgal and the fare judgement of the judge (played by Dhritiman Chatterjee). I can understand why the Director has shown this confession and I appreciate that but that confession is also degrading the dignity of these three girls in the society. I believe, like me, many people also think that the intended social message could have been passed even without showing Falak's confession scene.

Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury is a well-known and prominent Director in Bengali cinema industry and he has shown his class once again. He even addressed and touched the burning issue of the students and the people of North-East in Delhi how the are facing discrimination and racial abuse day by day by the people of the rest of India. Taking care of detailing, keeping the suspense till the end and following a tight script, all deserve to be acknowledged by the audience. Mr. Bachchan is awesome but I must give special credit to the acting of all three women specially Taapsee Pannu. Their acting was so realistic. I think the mainstream Bollywood Directors should use the acting of Dhritiman Chatterjee even more. He deserves that recognition.

Wonderful poem recited by Mr. Amitabh Bachchan in "Pink":

"Tu Khud Ki Khoj Mein Nikal
Tu Kis Liye Hatash Hai
Tu Chal, Tere Wajood Ki Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai
Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai

Jo Tuzsay Lipti Bediya Samaz Na Inko Vastr Tu
Jo Tuzsay Lipti Bediya Samaz Na Inko Vastr Tu
Yeh Bediya Beghal Ke Banale Inko Shastr Tu, Banale Inko Shastr Tu

Tu Khud Ki Khoj Mein Nikal
Tu Kis Liye Hatash Hai
Tu Chal, Tere Wajood Ki Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai
Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai

Charitra Jab Pavitra Hai Toh Kyno Hai Dasha Yeh Teri
Charitra Jab Pavitra Hai Toh Kyno Hai Dasha Yeh Teri
Yeh Papiyon Ko Haq Nahi Ke Le Ke Pariksha Teri
Ke Le Ke Pariksha Teri

Tu Khud Ki Khoj Mein Nikal
Tu Kis Liye Hatash Hai
Tu Chal, Tere Wajood Ki Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai
Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai

Jala Ke Bhasm Kar Use Jo Krurtaka Jaal Hai
Jala Ke Bhasm Kar Use Jo Krurtaka Jaal Hai
Tu Aarati Ki Lou Nahi
Tu Krodh Ki Mashal Hai
Tu Krodh Ki Mashal Hai

Tu Khud Ki Khoj Mein Nikal
Tu Kis Liye Hatash Hai
Tu Chal, Tere Wajood Ki Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai
Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai

Chunar Uda Ke Dhwaj Bana
Gagan Bhi Kapkapayega
Chunar Uda Ke Dhwaj Bana
Gagan Bhi Kapkapayega
Agar Teri Chunar Giri Toh Ek Bhookamp Aayega
Ek Bhookamp Aayega

Tu Khud Ki Khoj Mein Nikal
Tu Kis Liye Hatash Hai
Tu Chal, Tere Wajood Ki Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai
Samay Ko Bhi Talash Hai"

Review of Independence Day: Resurgence

June 27, 2016


1996 - 2016, twenty years have passed since I watched "Independence Day" in Kolkata's prestigious Globe Cinema Hall. That nostalgic memory still fascinates me even today. I was a teenage boy who just got his wings and started exploring the World beyond his den. Unlike the kids of present generation, we were very silly and naive. Mobile phone service was just started in Kolkata but it was so expensive and a distant dream for the middle class people like us. Boring and tasteless news broadcasting by All India Radio and state run TV network Doordarshan or the news publishing by the morning Newspapers were all that news feeding sources we had during those days. Being the young teenagers of post 1991 economic liberalization in India, we wanted to know more, do more and of course get more. The giant multinational company PepsiCo also realized the aspirations of the Indian youth of the Nineties and used the slogan "Yeh Dil Maange More!" in 1998. We didn't have any clear idea about economic reforms but we definitely started to feel the difference especially because of the introduction of computers in our life. Every new stuff that was alien to us, also enthralled us. It was the first time I had visited Globe Cinema Hall and there I found something extraordinary which caught my full attention and literally took me out of this World. The Dolby Digital Sound System was introduced to me for the first time in my life.

Oh boy! Watching a global disaster movie like "Independence Day" on a big and wider screen with Dolby Digital sound, was quite an experience. "Independence Day" was about a story of an apocalypse in biblical proportions and a fight led by a superpower nation against an alien invasion. Humans won the war and saved their race from annihilation on a global scale. The human race was on the brink of extinction but the valor of a fighter pilot Captain Steven Hiller (played by Will Smith), the intelligence of a computer expert cum satellite technician David Levinson (played by Jeff Goldblum) and the leadership of American President Thomas J. Whitmore (played by Bill Pullman) saved the humanity.

"We will not go quietly into the night!
We will not vanish without a fight!
We're going to live on!
We're going to survive!
Today, we celebrate our Independence Day!"

President Thomas J. Whitmore (played by Bill Pullman)
Address to the U.S. Fighter Pilots in "Independence Day" (1996)

Those are the words that thrilled me and I believe, everyone else in the audience. For a moment, I even felt the shivering in my body. I was touched by his words and his way of addressing the pilots who were getting briefed for the battle of their life. Be it the human values, the leadership, the arrogance, the pride, the glory, everything was American, and yet, I experienced the adventure like my own.

Twenty years later, a sequel "Independence Day: Resurgence" has come to the town which made me excited like a kid. I have watched the movie but I felt nothing at all and when I say that, it means the film didn't meet my expectations. I wish it would surprise me but I am afraid it has failed to do so. This sequel film has most of the previous along with some new characters, a good plot, state of the art visual effects and everything that one could have asked for but I think it has clearly missed out some fundamental elements. Even though the character of Captain Steven Hiller (played by Will Smith) is missing in this film but that absence of Will Smith has been handled quite intelligently by the Script Writers. However, I think the impact of the heroism and courage of one hero in "Independence Day" (1996) has never been achieved by this group of heroes in "Independence Day: Resurgence" (2016). If the central leadership of the resistance in a war film, is changed so frequently that one gets killed and another takes his or her place and so on, that doesn't leave any serious impact on the minds of the audience. Regardless of the gender, the leader should be the one prime character in such a global disaster movie like this one. People love to see the saga of a leader who fights from the beginning, falls but rises again, leads his or her followers, takes the fight to the enemy and emerges victorious in the end. People usually relate themselves to that character. I guess too many cooks have spoilt this broth. The presence of too many heroes and leaders is the reason that this movie has failed to touch the nerve of the audience. The state of the art visual effect might fascinate you but cannot help the movie stay in your heart for long. I also felt the same kind of disappointment after watching "Jurassic World" (2015) directed by Colin Trevorrow. It was the 4th sequel of "Jurassic Park" (1993) directed by Steven Spielberg. Despite the fact that "Jurassic Park" was not a ghost story, it still gave me two sleepless nights in 1993. But when I asked myself about my cold reaction after watching the new "Jurassic World" (2015), I realized that it was the element of surprise that was missing in that film. Same goes for "Independence Day: Resurgence" (2016). Making sequel films is nothing new in Hollywood. Bond series, Star Wars series, Star Trek series, Superhero series were all commercially successful given the fact that all of them had something new and surprising as well as enjoyment for all. The success of any film is generally determined by its box office collections but how good or bad, people feel about a movie, that I think, defines the real success of a film. The makers of "Independence Day: Resurgence" perhaps thought differently that a group of heroes comprising a Caucasian American hero, an African American hero, a Chinese Hero and an African Warlord hero would help the film reaching out to the broader part of the audience around the World. They didn't formulate any character like a Russian hero or an Indian hero in this film because it doesn’t work in that fashion in Hollywood. What matters the most to them is the present equation of the major political powers in the World. They also calculate the feasibility of penetrating and grabbing new overseas markets while making a film. I have seen more and more Chinese presence in the recent global disaster kind of Hollywood movies, such as "2012" directed by Roland Emmerich, "Gravity" directed by Alfonso CuarĂ³n, "The Martian" directed by Ridley Scott, you name it. On the backdrop of China's rise in the World arena, China's role has been turned positive in the Hollywood movies.

I am a big fan of Director Roland Emmerich because I admire his previous works but with all due respect to him, I would like to point out a few features of "Independence Day: Resurgence". The diameter of the Moon is little more than 2000 miles. The last alien mother ship that invaded Earth in 1996, was one fourth the size of the Moon. This time, it's bigger than the last one. This mother ship is 3000 miles wide which means it is even bigger than the Moon. Both the alien mother ships of 1996 and 2016 have taken a popular route of coming from the behind of the Moon, almost touching its surface, facing the Earth on its horizon and then heading towards Earth. Hollywood actually loves this route for designing the path of every extraterrestrial object coming towards Earth. In 1996, the mother ship didn't enter into the atmosphere of Earth rather positioned 36 different spacecrafts in different places across the World. All of them were hovering in the sky as the film didn't at least show any landing scene. But the sequel movie shows something else even an old landed spacecraft in central Africa. This new mother ship has its own gravity which caught a Space Tug while passing the Moon. This same Space Tug, before being caught by the alien mother ship, already made a couple of space travels of coming from the Moon to the Earth and then going back to the Moon by escaping from the gravitational pull of the Earth, and couldn't just get away from the mother ship’s gravity. The film also didn't give us any indication that the mother ship got separated into multiple spacecrafts. So, the mother ship entered into the atmosphere of the Earth in one piece. Having a strong gravity, it started to pull buildings, cars, humans etc. from the surface of the Earth. The mother ship first destroyed Singapore (anybody can recognize the iconic Marina Bay Sands building in Singapore), then London and finally landed in Atlantic Ocean by deploying its big legs. One leg of that mother ship even touched delicately the backside of the White House in Washington DC before coming to a halt. If you take a look at its course to Earth for landing, from Singapore to London to Washington DC, seems little peculiar to me especially if I consider the distance between these cities. In another scene of its landing sequence, the father of David Levinson, Julius Levinson (played by Judd Hirsch) who was fishing in a small boat near the coast line, also saw the landing of the mother ship so closely and had to escape from a Tsunami which was created only by the touchdown of the mother ship in the Ocean. But Julius Levinson survived and was picked up by some kids. They abandoned their car and took a bus. They finally reached the surrounding area of Area 51 in Nevada desert. If you examine the map of USA, you'll find out that Nevada desert is located close to the west cost of USA. Since Washington DC is situated in the east cost of USA, you might get confused about the actual landing site of the align mother ship. Is it the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean? In a hypothetical scenario, what if the Moon somehow gets away from its orbit and slowly but surely collides with the Earth, what will happen then? Should the Moon even comes too close to the Earth, Earth’s tidal situations would change or gigantic Tsunamis might appear but nothing had happened when the mother ship which is even bigger than the Moon, landed on the surface of the Earth. I am just a common man but curious about how a scientist or an astrophysicist gets into a conclusion after watching this film. I think the makers of "Independence Day: Resurgence" should have done a little more research before writing the script.