The story valiantly exposes the evil corporations and their numerous malpractices; the script here resolutely unmasks those organisations that tend to feed off of naive, gullible immigrants, bending laws and regulations that ultimately suit only their monetary interests.
While I appreciate the creators for initiating dialogue regarding these critical subjects, the movie failed to create a lasting impact, at least from a cinematic standpoint, mainly due to the plethora of issues that plagued the writing. The characters lacked depth, and the plot felt rushed, leaving the audience with a superficial understanding of the complex issues at hand. However, the film did succeed in shedding light on the exploitation of vulnerable immigrant communities and the need for systemic change.
Having said that, the courtroom drama doesn't function as intended; it falls short of creating the kind of drama and tension we expect. In addition, there is only one side of the argument narrated; we see the events unfolding and taking shape from the mother's perspective, but what about Mr. Chatterjee, the children's father, and Devika's husband? He barely had any say, and that felt unjustified. The lack of balance in the narrative undermines the credibility of the story, and it is difficult to empathise with any character when their perspective is not fully explored.
When you're presenting a contentious topic such as this, which has had nationwide coverage before, as a filmmaker, it is your duty, or rather, a responsibility, to take a neutral stand and put both sides of the story in front of the audience and let them have the privilege to judge and decide. By presenting a balanced perspective, you allow the audience to form their own opinions and engage in critical thinking. This approach also endorses transparency and credibility in your project.
You cannot be the judge, jury, and executioner; you cannot be all!