tl;dr: dont watch the movie, its not worth it, read my review instead L:

Recently I watched "RRR" / "Roudram Ranam Rudhiram" / "Rise Roar Revolt" / "Redeem Redeem Redeem"
because I misidentified it as "Baahubali: *" which contains an infamous human catapult scene.
Well, no use crying over spilled milk, I better cope with this by pretending
it was mentally stimulating, within the confines of a supposed-to-be pseudo-intellectual schitzo rant.

As a reminder,
the rule-of-cool, as I know it, originates from tabletop-rpgs. It simply states:
> Fun is preferable over realism.
And it is a guiding-light to newbie GMs, pulling them away from the darkness of power-tripping.
However, it is a well known concept in fiction too, and a sign to tap in critique-criticism.
Remember this, dear reader.

I am a man, I love the sign of the stronger expressing his supremacy.
I like powerful cold'n'calculating villains and I like John Wick murdering without end.
Women love convoluted human relations.
They like conflict and drama as a whole.
Both of these, simply by their nature, involve suffering.
Emotional or physical; the point being that it relies on harm, but as a side effect.

Indians love physical harm.
They don't like extended suffering, they don't care about the context,
they don't like the consequences of harm, they like the physical harm as an end.
I've heard this, I have seen a few example and this movie is final conformation.
You will see.

The movie is supposedly centered around the rivalry of the two protagonists.
I would prefer to not use their names
-because I don't remember them, and I don't expect you to do either-,
instead I'll opt for titles.
The movie actually calls them "The Dog" and "The Tiger" at one point.
I could call them that...

Anyways, meet The Dragon,
unwilling to bend the knee to le hecking evil English colonizers of circa 1900.
His counter-part is The Mad Dog, who works for the aforementioned racists.
Both of them are brave and fierce warriors and...
Ugh, The Dragon sobs sometimes while The Mad Dog is cold on the surface?
I would like to characterize them further,
but I'm not exactly getting much help from the movie.

In fact, that warrior part, right? Ugh.
So if you were to ask me what type of warrior Rambo is,
I would answer guerilla.
If you were to ask about Jack sparrow,
I would tell you his weaselly ways.
Wick? Well trained, precise and relentless.
Heavy from tf2? Brute force.
Etc, etc, etc.

These two however,
are extremely in hand to hand, bow/arrow and firearm combat,
have inhuman strength, speed, movement, resilience,
etc, etc, etc.
They are amazing at everything,
but only to the degree the plot needs them.

Now lets be clear here,
the writers are not making a power-fantasy,
no, not in a conventional sense.
It, with some generosity, a power-fantasy such
that a five year-old hitting together his lead soldiers is.
And, that's an important point,
because everything else is just as primitive.
The reason why this is crucial,
is that it reflects on indian society as a whole.

Allow me to elaborate on the inhuman movement part too.
Its acrobatics nor parkour.
You know how in chinese martial art movies people are basically flying?
But there is integral to the universe. Its simply a thing that happens.
Here, these two are simple exempt from the laws of physics.
Have you played AC Unity?
Me neither, partially because the climbing animations are uncanny.
That, but with shitskins.