Notable films screening at Chennai International Film Festival - 2013

Foreign Language Film Submissions:

1. The Past (Iran)
2. The Great Beauty (Italy) 
3. The Hunt (Denmark) 
4. In Bloom (Georgia) 
5. The Missing Picture (Cambodia)
6. Wakolda (Argentina)
7. Back to 1942 (China) 
8. Disciple (Finland) 
9. Omar (Palestine) 
10. The Old Man (Khazak) 
11. Mother I Love You (Latvia) 
12. The Cleaner (Peru) 
13. Walesa: Man of Hope (Poland) 
14. Ilo Ilo (Singapore) 
15. No (Chile) - 2012
16. Fill the Void (Israel) - 2012

Kalyana Samayal Saadham (2013)

Arranged Marriages are like dark clouds looming over the heads of self-respecting single people in their mid to late 20s. There's a degree of helplessness about letting parents find the "right" partner, but there's also this sense of inevitability attached to it. Spending a lifetime with someone you know well is itself a frightful prospect; doing the same with a total stranger is most likely to be worse. But it has been happening all around us and most marriages seem to tick. "Kalyana Samayal Saadham" is the story of a girl and a boy of "marriageable age", who are gently nudged into matrimony by their parents.

Irandam Ulagam (2013)

Nearly a decade ago, Selvaraghavan made "7/G Rainbow Colony" which told us there is life after love and how suicide is not a solution for heartbreak. A decade later, he gives that message a fantastical twist, asking us to go a step further in reclaiming lost love - even if a step means traveling to a parallel reality. "Irandam Ulagam" is mostly a populist RomCom in the clothes of a high-concept sci-fi fantasy. It is the journey of a Vinod or a Kathir in search of his Divya or Anitha.

I cannot be entirely sure just how much Selva has fumbled here in relation to that one previous big-budget film of his. I haven't seen "Aayirathil Oruvan", but I massively respect the fact that a director took it upon himself to give the people a fantasy film about our absurdly rich history. The same cannot be said for "Irandam Ulagam"; what it lacks in originality, it also lacks in clarity. The end result is a messy compound of undercooked ideas wrapped inside an incoherent and bloated narrative. It's hard to believe someone like Selvaraghavan has made such a corny film about "pure love" and "all the Universe conspiring in helping a person achieve it."

I like how the film didn't resort to excessive spoon-feeding and jumps right into the narrative, expecting us to keep up. We are introduced to our two pairs of protagonists, living in two different worlds. Anushka is Ramya and Varna, and Arya is Madhu and Maruvan respectively on Planet Earth and Planet I-don't-know-where. Selva uses a modern-day setting just to ease audience into a world which is completely strange to them. The two love-stories, if we can call it that, run parallel before it's time for these worlds to collide. Here's where the abstraction begins to take its toll on us. There are long stretches of scenes which make very little sense. To make things worse, an abrupt and unconvincing tragedy is forced upon us.

We don't know if a portal opened on its own to let Madhu in or if this particular Oracle lady, played by a Kalki Koechlin lookalike, made it happen. The Oracle's role in the Kingdom and in Maruvan's family is never explained either. Then there is a subplot about an ongoing war with a neighboring kingdom that felt severely under-explained. It's also very hard to believe that a world, this world in particular, could exist without love. It's such an incredible idea which is so under-explored that it becomes maddening after a point. The film is only too happy to keep aside its ambitions in favor of love failure songs. I just hope Selva doesn't blame the film's failure on audience's inability to comprehend what he's trying to say. It's a poorly directed film and that's the only truth.

You are not in Koyambedu anymore. Myth building is perhaps not Selva's strong suit and his version of Pandora is a proof for that. The issue is not the quality of CG at all; it's just that there's no visual consistency throughout the film's runtime. The geography and its other defining aspects are confusing to say the least. The sky looks different in each scene, populated with distant stars and galaxies thrown together haphazardly. The flora and fauna looks heavily inspired, differing only due to unintentional discrepancies. The natives are all Caucasians with the exception of our protagonists. The derivative nature of the world is a problem especially because all these elements come together and create something improbable. Selva expects audience to take his creation seriously, but won't return the favor by offering a little more insight about the science. But I have to admit the work on one particular variant of a lion was pretty stunning. Sitting two rows from the screen, I found it deeply unsettling.

On the surface, it may be about a man's search for lost love, but beneath the layers of tacky visual effects, I have reasons to believe "Irandam Ulagam" dealt with one unifying theme: feminism. At the very beginning, we are told that the parallel world, the Irandam Ulagam, never prospered because their people never learned to love; a world where the thought of getting a woman's consent never crossed the mind of a man; a world where rape is the natural state of order. Selva gives primeval characteristics to the natives which sadly seem to exist even today in our "civilized" society.  Selva provokes us to think about the world we live in and how we treat our women by drawing parallels which should have ceased to exist long, long ago. He talks about dwindling sex ratio and how turning down a woman's proposal is the worst thing one could do in this day and age.

Maruvan conquers a feared beast to keep Varna from falling onto the bed of the King, but this understandably doesn't sweep her off her feet. It's still an agreement between two men, with no place for her consent.  She would even kill herself rather than be married to a man (why this world even has a system of marriage, we will never know.) Varna eventually has a change of heart towards her man. There's a crackling scene where Varna and Maruvan draw swords at each other in the middle of their fight with a common enemy. Perhaps that's the only way to solve the menace of inequality. Together. But the lines often get blurred and the subtext doesn't reflect coherently on the screen. Who are those people in black robes who want to create a world with one king, one religion and one God? What do they represent? How can a world that doesn't respect women be revering a female prophet? Is she a slave to them? It's questions like these that keep me up at night.

I cannot imagine any other actor besides Anushka to play the female lead. The character demands a big girl and big is what she is. In spite of being a fairly lengthy film, there are many scenes in the film which feel rushed. Maruvan goes from being a village bum into an invincible warrior of sorts in the blink of an eye. He becomes so good at fighting that the clashes at the end become pointless. The idea of a kingdom which is on the cusp of experiencing love for the first time is all good, but Selva does too little where there was scope for so much more. And he does it with utter lack of finesse. For all I know, thematically, the film might not even be as deep as I am willing to give it credit for.

Arrambam (2013)

If watching Ajith put his sunglasses on while walking in slow motion to an abused theme music is your idea of a good movie; if you have no trouble rooting for a character with inarguably messed up moral issues; if you think consistent logic is not an imperative element in a script, then "Arrambam" is the film for you. You two deserve each other. For the rest of us who expect more, this thoroughly joyless film will seldom offer any of it. 

Vishnuvardhan knows only one way to make his films chic - by populating them with good looking people using bloody expensive things. It worked for him in "Billa" because, let's face it, we had never seen anything like it before. He had the liberty to go the distance in "Billa" because it dealt with people who happened to be filthy rich gangsters. "Arrambam", on the other hand, is a film about a bunch of people who cannot be in possession of that kind of money. The reason is because people in this story are risking their life to bring to justice those very corrupt and powerful people celebrated in "Billa".

But Vishnu wants to have it both ways. He doesn't give up the pizzazz and bestows upon his working class characters a swag life which they could never possibly afford. He has them own cool gadgets, plant fancy explosives, fly around the world undetected, drive Ducatis and own big-ass yachts. Then he also makes them give us a moral science lecture and go all "Rang De Basanti" on a politician who swindles public money.  

Arya's Arjun is the character we are initially supposed to root for. He plays a brilliant computer hacker named who probably owns a special computer with a button that has the words "Start hacking" written on it. Maya suggests Arjun's name to AK (Ajith) because he once hacked into SSN Engineering College's super-protected network and changed her attendance percentage. He is caught with people whose motives remain unknown to us and we are supposed to fear for his life. AK threatens to kill Arjun's girlfriend if he fails to hack into stuff. But the problem is that the girlfriend (named Anitha; played by Taapsee Pannu) is so magnificently stupid that a part of you wishes AK would put us all out of our misery by putting a bullet in her brain.

Vishnuvardhan is a good director.. when it comes to making music videos. Otherwise, there's nothing worthy about his technique at display in "Arrambam". There's a scene near the beginning where Nayanthara gives the fakest performance humanly possible when her character Maya gets abducted by some goons. Are we supposed to be surprised when she reveals that she had been in on the plan all along? Wow. Wonderful piece of direction there, man. You had me good. The style of "Arrambam" is highly derivative and instantly reminiscent of a dozen other movies. A lot of the film takes place in Mumbai, the new terror capital; but unlike, say, "Thuppakki", the city here has no real character and just lying there. But in a film where the characters themselves have no personality, expecting something from the locale is admittedly asking for too much.

Do directors who make films like "Arrambam" really think people of India do not have access to Hollywood films? I am not saying that "Arrambam" is inspired by one particular movie; I am saying that it has shades of one too many typical, dumb American action movies. We have seen those films already and we do not want you to try and fail at recreating the same with Indian actors. Watching you attempt making them is like watching a monkey on a rollerskate. Don't get me wrong; all I ask for is hints of originality in a story with convincingly believable treatment. 

It's a heartless film from an inept director who believes one scene of mass poisoning is somehow enough for audience to root for AK, who himself is misguided and driven by revenge and a misplaced sense of justice. This elaborate scheme to bring down a corrupt politician comes into being after the death of an honest policeman- someone who also happened to be AK's dear friend. He is so overcome by inconsolable rage that he plans to steal zillions of dollars from the offshore accounts of all the dirty Indian politicians. But here's the catch: AK doesn't seem to have a problem that many innocent cops are getting killed along the way. He is shooting point blank at hapless constables who are taking him to prison. How do you expect audience to root for a cause which is reeking with hypocrisy? Don't tell me it was necessary for the greater good. In my book, no amount of money is worth the lives of those nameless cops. Don't give me that macro bullshit when the whole incident was set in motion by something so micro, so personal.

In Ajith's defense, I agree it has become hard for actors like him to break past preconceived notions that his fans hold in their mind. To them, it doesn't matter that their idol is playing a character who holds an iron box a few inches from a baby. If Thala is occupying a frame, they will cheer. But even if you isolate yourself from the reactions of fans, the movie still clearly comes off as to be designed for those very people. Right from the random opening song, it appears to be playing to the gallery. If you take away Ajith's offscreen persona from the character, there's little reason to root for the protagonist. There's nothing inherently cool about his AK. Through the course of the movie, you don't get to know him at all. He is just an amalgamation of certain very generic character traits.

Without getting into the fuckall climax and the absurd epilogue, let me just say "Arrambam" is as sophisticated as that Shut down button in its title art. Perhaps "Make it simple" is not the most appropriate mantra for the film.

All in All Azhaguraja (2013)

Well, it was bound to happen someday. After three consecutive hits, Tamil cinema's luckiest filmmaker has made a film that's so awful, its success would result in me losing faith in our people. It's not like M. Rajesh is new to making bad movies. I absolutely loathed "Siva Manasula Shakthi" and "Oru Kal Oru Kannadi", but enjoyed "Boss (a) Baskaran" quite a bit. It's just that none of his previous films have been a catastrophe of this magnitude.

Rajesh has made a conscious effort to make his fourth film different from his previous three. The difference is that it showed a hint of having a proper story in its early minutes. But that's where the deceit lies. It's still the same old trash - only less funny and more unbearable. There's Santhanam playing a drag queen for whom an old man develops feelings. Boy, I wonder if this is the first time in our history that a film has tried to milk humor out of a man dressed as a woman. For the sake of tackling a period setting, Rajesh creates a laboriously painful backstory involving Prabhu which does nothing to make the film better. 

Raja (Karthi) runs an obscure television channel and tells his parents that he wouldn't marry until he makes his channel the best in the market. Kalyanam (Santhanam) is a friend/employee/lapdog who continues to stick around and do things for Raja for reasons unknown. Raja is a total loser who does nothing to achieve that goal of his.. a goal which we are made to believe is what driving the film. The moment he meets the girl, he throws everything aside and inadvertently does everything to sabotage her career. The film is over-written with too many subplots, none of which make any sense. 

I had a minor panic attack when I noticed on the Censor board certificate that the film's running time was close to 180 minutes. That's about as long as Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather". With only five minutes worth of humor, you have to be on a suicide mission to make such a long film with so little to offer.

"Azhaguraja" is a deeply misogynistic film which treats its lead female character terribly; I felt very sorry for Kajal Aggarwal's Devi Priya. She is the most adorable Grammar Nazi in the world. She shows her displeasure when Raja sends a note along with a bouquet that reads, "I Love U", and asks him to spell 'You' correctly without exactly being a dick about it. There's an excess of the typical OTT elements in her character, but there's some novelty too. She isn't swept off her feet that easily. She manages her father's cinema and wedding hall, and wishes to make a mark in the entertainment industry in some way. But then something very awful happens. She meets Raja who irresponsibly kills her self-confidence and turns her into a consolatory "housewife". He brings her down to his state and eventually makes her say, "I Love U". He domesticates her, that bastard. 

Performance-wise, Santhanam is decent with his peculiar idiosyncrasies. At least he makes an effort. I don't know if it's just me but every time I see Prabhu, I immediately think of his Kalyan Jewellers advertisements. MS Bhaskar is worth mentioning, but that's about it. "Azhaguraja" is punishingly long, achingly unfunny and doesn't deserve any audience at all. Kill it with fire! 

Captain Phillips (2013)

I haven't got much to say about Paul Greengrass' "Captain Phillips". It's a capable, well-made movie documenting a recent, much publicized real-life incident, featuring a great Tom Hanks performance. The film is supposed to be about the dynamics of the relationship between Hank's Captain Richard Phillips and the chief Somali pirate. I enjoyed it alright, but this film is memorable for a different reason altogether. This was my first press screening and I was visibly thrilled, even distracted, by the fact that there was no interval break and that they served coffee.

Captain Phillips tries to give a perspective to the now assuaged problem of Maritime Piracy in the East African waters. As a kid, I remember hearing about Somalia's poverty and seeing pictures of malnourished toddlers. Over the years, this connection got weakened and a direct product of that poverty took the center stage. So much so that, in my head, I solely began to associate Somalia with piracy. What started as an act to scare away foreign trawlers illegally fishing in their waters went out of control when fishermen started to realize they would make more money with one hit than they could ever in their entire life otherwise. 

The pirates continue to delude themselves that they are still just fisherman, not realizing that there's no going back anymore. The fisherman in them is drowned in the depth and all that remains is a skinny pirate with an automatic. Phillips' moment of realization where he thinks out aloud about what these people have become underlines this element.

I honestly don't know if I want to call attention to this but I have to admit I didn't find "Captain Phillips" all that tense. Using Kathryn Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty" as reference, another film which involved Navy Seals in a pivotal scene, this film felt like a foot massage. I knew Richard Phillips got out of this harrowing experience to tell the world his story and make a lot of money the same way I knew Bin Laden was getting shot at the end of "Zero Dark..". Knowing the outcome is not that big an issue because tension doesn't necessarily stem out of the unpredictable. But I was never once convinced that Tom Hanks' Captain Phillips was in danger. This always felt a little too safe.

I am able to recall most scenes from the film but nothing truly stands out like the moment where a shell-shocked Phillips is brought in for medical examination. With that one scene, Hanks sealed a nomination for himself at the next year's Academy Awards. I don't have any major qualms with the film, but I am not mighty impressed either. All I can say is it might have worked for me on another day. I don't know. I am just glad I have one less post in my Draft.

Gravity (2013)

In Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity", George Clooney plays Mission Commander Matt Kowalski, a NASA veteran on his final mission. Similar to his Ryan Bingham in "Up in the Air", Kowalski has a certain figure in his mind that he wishes to achieve. Instead of flier miles, though, Kowalski is attempting to dethrone astronaut Anatoly by clocking more space walk hours. Everyone in the mission command loves him and it's not hard to see why. He is a man who lives to collect more fascinating life experiences. An optimist for whom every insurmountable hurdle is just another opportunity to be able to tell a great story later. So even when he is muttering something as ominous as, "I have a bad feeling about this mission.", you cannot help but be floored by his charm.

Further down the likability spectrum, we have our protagonist Dr. Ryan Stone. She is the kind of person kids in the neighborhood would describe as the lonely cat lady who likes to be left alone. Guys at A24 made a poster with the tag line "She needed her space", which is funny, but not untrue at all. She carries so much emotional baggage that it keeps pulling her down. 

With these two out there in space, and a catastrophe that feels more real and urgent than it should, "Gravity" takes us on a visceral, dizzying and truly epic, one-of-a-kind journey. 

The amazing thing about "Gravity" is how effortless Cuaron makes it look. Being able to hide sophistication in plain sight is the sign of a true craftsman. Form always follows function here and the range of mind-boggling techniques put to use to achieve a stellar vision never come at the expense of storytelling. Borrowing from what Kris Tapley had to say about the film, "Gravity" is deceptively simple. No matter how simple the story looks, thematically, the film is as complex as you want it to be. It's lush. It's about a mother learning to let go and find a reason to live again. It's about the sound of a barking dog or the cry of a baby that makes us realize how utterly lovely life is. "Gravity" is so beautiful I am getting a bit teary-eyed just writing about it. 

"Gravity" did one thing right where I felt "Life of Pi" went terribly wrong. The only people who talk to themselves when they are alone are the scheming bhabhis on Indian Television soaps. It annoyed me to no end that a master visual storyteller like Ang Lee relied so heavily on dialogues. Every time Suraj Sharma's Pi said something, I tuned out. The older Pi (played by Irrfan Khan) is the primary narrator, but the younger Pi often took over the responsibility. Gravity doesn't have Stone narrate it. It thrives on silences as much as a mainstream movie can allow itself to (I hear Chandor's "All is Lost" has no dialogues at all.) Bullock carries the film on her shoulders and sells you those lonely moments in those long, unbroken shots like a true veteran. She says the right things and she says them right. On two occasions, the film uses a Nordic man named Aningaaq and Clooney himself to get around the issue of solitude and convey certain ideas vocally. Like someone joked on Twitter, Clooney is Richard Parker in that scene. 

Sprinkled with metaphors of all weights and sizes, Gravity is a lot more than spectacular visuals. But more importantly, it gives us a hero who floods us deep admiration. In the film's final shots, Sandra Bullock became my favoritest actress. That says something about how powerful the Gravity experience is.

Vanakkam Chennai (2013)

The one big issue with "Vanakkam Chennai" is how familiar it feels. It lets off that distinctive template rom-com vibe and it is never not predictable. Director Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi makes a confident debut that is brimming with visual finesse, but the writer in her isn't very assured. Most of the film's problems are rooted in the script. The lead characters in this Rom-com are basically like a pair of strong magnets who are placed close enough but held apart for 2 hours. We know that they will eventually come together and we will walk out of the theater with a hope that they will stick happily ever after. The trick is to keep us invested till the end. "Vanakkam Chennai" is largely watchable but gets a tad tiring towards the end as it keeps finding ways to delay the obvious. 

After getting duped by a real estate broker, two people find themselves with keys to the same house. Shiva's Ajay is the first to reach the house and wants Priya Anand's Anjali to vacate. Since Anjali, who has come to Chennai  leaving behind her Father in London to find material for a photography competition, cannot afford a new house, she decides to stay there as well. A classic rom-com premise. If you put two genial people together under one roof, no matter what their differences are, they soon start being nice to each other. That's human nature. If they fight like immature babies, like they do in this little film called "Raja Rani", then they are jerks who do not deserve our sympathies. 

The film has a light tone and lead actors are immensely likable. The first half goes without any major hiccups, before the film commits its first big mistake. If there is one movie that could have done without Santhanam - and in case you are wondering, I could name a few off the top of my head - it is "Vanakkam Chennai". At the beginning, the film created a rather not-so-typical character in Ajay and wasn't just a banal movie itself. But then the second half happened and Ajay became just another guy who hung out with Santhanam at a TASMAC bar, seeking ideas to 'usaar' the girl he liked. I believed Shiva was funny enough to carry the film on his own, but the director felt otherwise. Thankfully, Santhanam makes an entry only at the very end of first half, but even that's not late enough. 

The character of Anjali is written as a self-reliant woman who is intent on spending her own money, despite having a rich father (we are reminded of this fact on more than one occasion). She is a smart girl who knows what to say when trouble in the form of a creepy taxi driver is brewing. She seeks legal advice to find a solution to her problem in an unfamiliar city. But then, all of a sudden, she is seen kicking the lights out of four scary-looking, grown up men who try to misbehave with her. This unnecessary scene is a) not funny and b) very uncharacteristic of Anjali. I only hope at least female directors understand that a woman doesn't have to wear pants and indulge in violence to pass off as a strong character. 

Shiva has been so deeply associated with spoofs that it becomes hard to tell if he is being serious during an emotional scene. There's a shot in "Vanakkam Chennai: where Anjali and Ajay are standing on either sides of a door and emoting their heartbreak. I honestly couldn't tell if Shiva was doing the best he could or was intentionally parodying other actors. 

In spite of having every reason on earth to use an airport climax, "Vanakkam Chennai" is kind enough to save us that cliche. But it makes up for this benevolent act by adding a few more instead. There's a foreign mapillai character who is as useless as you would expect. Rahul Ravindran plays Anjali's London fiance Deepak. I am guessing he landed the role after Evam Karthik turned down the offer. A general word of advice to young actors from yours truly: even getting out of friend zone is easy when compared to landing lead roles after getting typecast as an educated, foreign mapillai in Tamil cinema. Then there's that annoying visual cliche where characters clean up a dirty house in a time-lapse shot. Anjali even goes ahead and wins the photography competition. I am a hundred percent certain nobody in the audience remembered the contest, let alone cared about the outcome. Then why did the film go ahead and add one more cliche to its repertoire, when letting Anjali lose would have earned it brownie points from me? Did we learn nothing from "Silver Linings Playbook"? 

Anirudh's music is a huge positive and I can't seem to get a few of the background tunes out of my head. Priya Anand looks utterly gorgeous in every frame. But "Vanakkam Chennai" is still just an okay-ish Rom-com that is hard to dislike. It does very little to reinvigorate a stagnant genre. Also, it should have avoided using Santhanam. 

Idharkuthane Aasaipattai Balakumara (2013)

Vijay Sethupathi has proved himself to be a truly versatile actor. He can do all kinds of movies. No, really, he can. With "Idharkuthane Aasaipattai Balakumara", he has convinced me that he can also do absolutely awful movies. But before you call me a crazy contrarian and tell me to go beep myself, let me make it clear that it is not Sethupathi's fault that this movie sucks so bad. 

Another day. Another new Tamil film with a message. I wonder if "..Balakumara" releasing on a dry day like Gandhi Jayanthi is some sort of a coincidence. Because, at heart, the film is a moral science lesson about the ills of consuming alcohol dressed up as a comedy. But since the film is as funny as a screen door on a battleship, all we are left with is the goddamn message. The film has its liver in the right place but the kind of situations the characters are put in to convey the point that "Liquor Ruins Country, Family, and Life" are laughably bad. As if those tobacco/alcohol disclaimers before every film weren't enough. 

Sethupathi  plays Kumar, who in the words of Kumudha, the girl he fancies, is a "love 'kum eve-teasing 'kum vidhiyasam theriyathavan". He calls himself Sumaar Moonji Kumar because some people apparently find that funny. Ashwin plays Bala, a bad boyfriend in the eyes of his demanding girlfriend Renu and an inept employee in the eyes of his tasking boss. That the film blames alcohol for their behavior and not because they are simple, old-fashioned jerks is what I just don't get. Sure, Sethupathi's Kumar is way too likable to fault, but even he goes overboard with his "loosu paiyan" act. 

Saying Writer-Director Gokul's screenplay is all over the place is putting it lightly. A film like "..Balakumara" which follows multiple storylines should be like a house of cards. You take out a single card and the structure is just not the same anymore. A sum of its parts. One could chop entire storylines here and still not miss much. It would still remain the same appalling movie. You just know that paths would eventually cross but there's no joy in watching all these stories connect to each other. 

All I wanted was to see more of Sethupathi. He doesn't get much to play with but he still does everything to lighten up his portions. Humor is subjective and all that but I was completely taken aback by how embarrassingly unfunny this film was. I haven't seen "Va Quarter Cutting" but I did hear some horror stories from people who did. Kumar's search for alcohol in the middle of the night is reminiscent of the former film. 

The other plots in the film include a couple expecting their first child and a wife who has her husband killed by two people who are smitten with her. Why the film even needed a murder mystery is a bigger mystery to me. There's a dead man sitting inside a Tasmac bar and the attitude of people who have something to do with it is so uncharacteristic. In one scene you see the film going all grim during an accident and, moments later, the music is back to its jumpy self. There's even a love failure song which Sethupathi dances to. The jarring tonal shifts belittle the tragedy that the characters are trying to avoid. Nothing is sacred and everything is expendable in the name of comedy. 

I had such a horrible time I regularly contemplated walking out of the movie. But then again, I didn't want to be the guy who walked out of a "Vijay Sethupathi" film. 

Raja Rani (2013)

Since most people have made up their mind and are going to watch this film anyway, I'm going to indulge myself and get occasionally spoilery here. 

Flash news: There is life after love.

I can see why everyone is truly loving "Raja Rani" or is at least willing to give it a free pass. I really do. It is an easy film to like. It is a very good looking film filled with some very good looking people. I will totally understand if you say you felt nice watching it. We are so bereft of such movies that people have instantly lapped it up without thinking twice. Even some random movie in Hindi, like, say "Kismat Konnection", has amazing production value. It makes me jealous how Hindi film industry has reached a place where pretty, instagrammed visuals is a more of a norm. I do not wish to belittle the film's achievement. I am sure it is really hard to achieve a particular look for a film and I am happy Atlee has made the movie he set out to make. But it is all style and very little substance.

"Raja Rani" is one rare Tamil film with a trailer that actually reveals something about the movie. Actually, it reveals a bit too much, because, thematically, there's little else going on here besides what we see in the trailer. While I appreciate the lack of pretension of being something more, I am also disappointed by how it gives us so little to chew on. One thing I was mildly curious to see was how Atlee had structured the film. I am a silly optimist and I have this tendency to expect intelligent narrative style from young filmmakers. Even though it is predictable, I didn't mind that the film started with the wedding. What bugs me is how lazily the back stories are woven into the whole story. Calling the post-marital portion the "whole story" is not even the right way to describe it considering how little runtime it gets.

27 years ago, Mani Ratnam made this little movie called "Mouna Ragam" which I'm assuming not many of the people who are loving "Raja Rani" have seen. I watched the film only recently so I could read Rangan's "Conversations with Mani Ratnam". I am the guy who had a major problem with Mouna Ragam's railway station climax. For all I know, Mani Ratnam was the first Indian filmmaker to use the now notorious cliche. It's just that I had seen it so often, I had trouble buying it. It was superbly staged and had Revathy saying that legendary, "Vetkathai vittu kekren.." line. Now here comes a movie which is so happy to use the convenient cliche and doesn't even bother to at least do a spin on it. It solely leads to the punchline where John and Regina say that which their respective one time lovers said to them. I agree it's a decent line but the setting is so hackneyed that I couldn't really care.

Ratnam told Rangan how Karthik's character was not even a part of the first draft of the film's script. Ratnam felt he had to add the backstory so audience wouldn't find Divya's actions bizarre. Nearly three decades ago, this man had the good sense to see how the film would have been better without the backstory. Now what have got here? A film with paper thin marital drama and even more redundant flashbacks. But I understand one cannot tell a story about "Life after Love" without showing the previous relationships in some capacity. What I wish Atlee had done instead is come up with some more compelling reason for the husband and wife to fall for each other. What kind of a reason is "I want to fall in love with you because I really enjoyed listening about your previous relationship"?

I found Regina and Surya's story easier to like for two reasons. It had Jai playing a guy with "bayanda subhavam" - someone I could partially relate to. The other reason being Sathyaraj, who is unbelievably cool here. I cannot believe it is the same guy who was in movies like Amaithipadai and Walter Vetrivel. That's one of the joys of cinema, isn't it? Seeing a veteran actor rediscover himself at this stage of his career. His conversations with his daughter are the only parts I wholeheartedly loved. The scene where he visits his daughter for the first time after her wedding (why, yes, another Mouna Ragam riffage) and he sees through her act is good because of him.

Regina waiting all day outside Registrar Office for Surya to show up ( *cough* Mouna Ragam *cough*) is all very filmy and I am a sucker for that stuff. In spite of being generally unimpressed with most part of the movie, there were a few lines which I liked a lot. A tearful John saying "Cha, semma love 'nga" after Regina tells him about her life with Surya is one such moment. Another was Regina telling her father, "Nee shave panniko, naa kalyanam pannikren." How I wish the writing was always this good.

To give an example about the bad writing I just mentioned, let's discuss the other love story. Literally nothing is good about the Keerthana-John relationship. Save me the trouble of going into detail because I hope you too realize that it sucked entirely. Once we are told that Keerrthana is an orphan, we learn that there's no roadblock in their romance. Along with that comes another obvious realization that something is going to run over her; the only question that remains is what kind of vehicle it is going to be. It's a painfully forced tragedy.

Do we go to movies seeking a life lesson? Because "Raja Rani" is handing them out by the dozens. Every lead character, even Santhanam, has something heavy to say about how one should lead their life. All this advice sounds like it is directed at the audience and not at the characters they're talking to. Which I suspect might have been the intention all along.