Last night I started watching HIT The 2nd case with very high expectations on Amazon Prime. The premise was quite promising and I was pulled into the movie in the first 20 minutes. As the movie progressed, I felt there were a lot of loose ends that I couldn't convincingly comprehend myself from what was shown on screen.
At a high level, it is a good watch. However, having seen much better movies from Adivi Sesh (such as Goodachari and Evaru), this was weak in comparison in terms of how the mystery unfolds.
For the benefit of the makers and other movie enthusiasts here are the questions I had and how I comprehended some of these basis the movie. Let me know in the comments if you have differing opinions to these. I would be happy to consume a varying perspective.
Resolved questions
Unconvincing but still I resolved these questions with some logic shown in the movie.
Q1. Why was KD pro live-in before marriage?
Ans: His parents were apparently a couple that fought a lot and now were on some world tour to reconcile. This was his reason to not get married without having lived in with the person maybe.
Q2. Why was KD shown as someone with a very nonchalant behaviour initially during the first few scenes and suddenly his complete behaviour changes after this lady's murder case ?
Ans: Perhaps this was the most gruesome case he had seen so far and hence his confidence was lower than usual at solving this case. Also, he was not able to build a hypothesis as quickly as he was able to do in other cases given the nature of crime and hence it was natural that his behaviour and attitude changed to a more serious one.
Q3. Why was it necessary for KD to be angry with Varsha?
Ans: From the story's point of view, not sure why they had to show that KD was not trusting of Varsha. The only reason for that seems to be the need for her to put a tracker on KD's vehicle and save the day during the climax scene at the clinic.
Q4. Why did Raghav commit suicide?
Ans: You could argue that he was depressed at being jailed, but it seems more of a convenience for the plot so that there can be escalation in the conflict between KD and his boss, the DGP. This makes the DGP spiteful and he fires KD and removes the protection for Arya leading to the kidnap of Arya and then the climax.
Q5. In the climax it is shown that Kumar used a teeth set to make the bite mark. Why didn't forensic think of that hypothesis? There shouldn't have been any saliva given that it was a teeth set. Also there was no other proof of an assault, so why would the killer just have bit the victim?
Ans: The bite mark was more important than the heroine for this plot to be honest. The bite mark was the reason for Raghav's entry into the story, the conflict of KD and his boss and the eventual kidnap of Aarya.
However, it seems odd that the forensic team missed the hypothesis that it could have been a teeth set.
Open questions
Q. Why does KD live in such a palatial house? What is his background?
Q. Why was there some callback to HIT 1 Vishwa and Vikram? What was the significance to this story?
Q. If KD got fired, why was the security immediately removed for Aarya? She still had threat and it is the job of the police to safeguard her.
Q. How did KD know how to whistle in the climax to call Max? In the beginning it was clearly show that he didnt have that skill.
Q. Why was Raghav's encounter planned? What was the minister's role?
Q. What was the need to show Raghav's workplace (steel factory) during his capture?
Q. How did Kumar know of Raghav and how/why did he plant the shoes in Raghav's house?
Q. How did the journalist air such a news of the encounter at such short notice and such short time?
Q. Why did KD not investigate Kumar's background and profession? Why did he simply believe that Kumar was unemployed and just spending his dad's money?
No comments:
Post a Comment