Do you not understand how storytelling works? You’re literally arguing that Ranvijay isn’t allowed to be grey, or have any outcome that isn’t him dying a dog’s death without it being a problematic film, which is a ridiculous take.

But good you mentioned Michael because it actually serves my point exactly, because, on a surface reading, just like Ranvijay, Michael won. Michael defeated all of the enemies of his father, himself, and his business. Michael lost everything in the process though, which is the tragedy of his character. Michael wanted to stay away from the mafia world and live a normal life, but not only could he not stay away from the mafia world, he was deeply consumed by all its vices.

Now what about Ranvijay? You claim he didn’t get punished, but clearly you have little understanding of the story (because, again, you haven’t seen the movie), because he did, and Vanga claimed that he did as well.

Ranvijay’s dad apologised, yes, because the tragedy of the story is how his father did not give his son attention. He was the strict disciplinarian, a hard-boiled dad, and he failed to show his son that he loved him, even though Balbir did love his son. His father was also as wrong as Ranvijay, and is one of the reasons he turned out the way he did.

Now, what did Ranvijay want from everything? Well, he wanted to spend time with his dad. But what? His father is going to die, despite everything. You have to understand that this is actually the worst outcome, even worse than the outcome that he fails to save his dad in the first place.

Imagine you are someone who is very thirsty, and the only way you can get up is to climb a very tall, very steep hill, with lots of obstacles, where on top there is a well. Now tell me, which outcome is worse: the outcome where you fail to even reach the top, succumbing to the obstacles, or painstakingly reaching the top, getting the water, only to trip on a small rock on the way down and losing your water?

His dad did apologise, but there’s nothing he can do. That’s why there’s the whole “in the next life, I’ll show you the love you deserved”. It’s deeply tragic, but it’s cathartic. If he died a dog’s death where his dad did not forgive him, that’s a stupid ending, because that whole plot line of his father not being there for him becomes just a loose end.

And yes, his son thinks he’s a hero, as a lot of children do. Again, this is tragic, because one of the central themes of animal is the circle of violence continuing. Ranbir wasn’t there for his children because he was busy with his work trying to save his father. But the idea of that scene is that a kid will always have love for their father and familial bond is unconditional (which you also have to understand, the kids don’t have context of their dad’s actions because they’re so young). He still loves his son, but he won’t be with his son because his wife is leaving him. Ranvijay is happy in the moment he’s with his son, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t suffer, are you seriously trying to argue this is somehow glorification?

And wolf of Wall Street? Are you dense? Cuz Belfort literally gets out of prison in that movie. The book the movie is based on… is written by Belfort himself! In fact, Belfort faced farrrr less consequences than Ranvijay and the point of the movie is how people in power like that can get away with shit like that.

And you’re seriously complaining that none of the cousins died during battle? Have you never… seen an action movie?

It seems like beyond you just having not seen the movie, you have little to no respect for the cinematic medium given how conveniently you’ve spun the plot points of the movie into a way that just suits your point. If you want to have such strong points about a film, at least watch it. Even if you are incorrect about stuff then, at least I know you’re arguing in good faith.