When it comes to Comedy, Sundar C is one old hands, whose reading of the public’s pulse has rarely gone wrong. So, it gets a bit disappointing when the first half does not get a good push or misses many notes. As the movie progresses, Vimal and Anjali are getting increasingly out of sync with what we were supposed to be carelessly enjoying at this time. Besides, there is no Vadivelu or Vivek to distract us from his cliched romance and plain vanilla Heros. Just as you are starting to doubt Sundar C’s Midas touch, he pulls a few strings and you thrown into a stretch of uncontrollable laugh out loud sequences.

First Shiva, then Santhanam add excitement to the later half of the movie. In this mix, characters that started out dull, suddenly are rubbing at your funny bones and (importantly) never let go. Shiva and Santhanam hit you non-stop with their one-liners;  Vimal (unfortunately) seems out of place in a comedy that isn’t exactly his cup of tea. Anjali and Oviya have even lesser parts here; of course they are a different ingredient in Sundar C’s potion. Illavarsu, from the moment he dresses up like ‘Power Star’, is hysterical.

Kalakalappu is Sundar C harping back to the ‘Ullathai Allitha’ stock. Slow to warm-up, you’ll be howling with laughter, when it gets going.

This popular quip about Country Music goes: When you play a country song backwards, you get your Home back, your runaway Dog returns to you and your first and second Wife reconcile with you. There is a crop of Tamil movie makers today who create something that invites a parallel. Play their movies backward and here’s what you end up with: the Heroine gets an limb/organ back, the Hero gets uglier, the Urban-rural divides are magically erased, the bad Guy(s) and his/her methods get less meaner and we, the theater-going audience are wiser with our Dollars/Rupees.

The point I’m trying to make here is this — Why This கொலைவெறி? Taking a set of people and sinking them in a sand pit (like forever) may seem Ok, as a one off, but why make it a formula and squeeze it to the hilt? By all means, show us how live can be gritty, inhumane and unforgiving for the unfortunate, but could we just let some light in?

Reminds me of something Actor Shivakumar mentioned after ‘Angaadi Theru’. He encouraged filmmakers to end their films on a positive note. He claimed that the heroine in அங்காடி தெரு could still have walked, if today’s limb-saving medical procedures were factored into the logic. Balaji Sakthivel probably did not get that note. Shock and awe still serves his purpose, or so he believes.

Not saying this is a total waste of time or patience. There is a lot that goes well, too. What makes the movie watchable is the directors strength at scripting a “procedural”, with a touch of compassion (which, at times, is too demanding on us).

The out of luck boy, helping out at the கையேந்தி பவன், the self-serving inspector of police, the innocent young servant-maid caught in all kinds of cross-fire and the school-going, confused teenager are people that do not register deeply when we pass them on the streets of Madras. The director’s observation and sketching of these strangers that we rub our shoulders, is both touching and stimulating.

While bringing them into a sharp focus, Balaji Sakthivel tries to wake a callous public to child labour, the dangerous divide between the haves and have-nots. I’m all for filmmakers channeling their sense of outrage. I only wish they could balance that with the fact that there is Human with limited patience, on the other side of that outlet. When a “social problem” film turns into a “exploitation” movie, the cross-over poisons the “message”.

In today’s Tamil cinema, Rajesh M has a special place. He is that  swimmer who goes against the wave of Tamil films that are fighting each other to be different, fresh and audacious than the one before. While that wave has produced some of the darkest movies Tamil cinema has seen, Rajesh is the keeper of sanity, on the other side. Not just spinning out happy-go-lucky romantic comedies, he challenges himself by sticking willfully to his template. First SMS, then Boss Engira Baskaran and now Oru Kal Oru Kannadi.

He almost gets away with his hat-trick, but for his key player — Udhayanidhi Stalin. Udhayanidhi was OK with his cameo in Aadhavan, but the longer version exposes him way too much. Santhanam humours us, with his brand of  one-liners; just as he did with the first two outings for Rajesh. Hansika Motwani is a joy to watch, especially her sense of timing and the mischief she laces them with; definitely vintage Kushboo material. Mr. Udayanidhi on the other hand, is way out of league. That and this time around he runs out of his brand of yarn (emotional connect, rooting/feeling for the guy, the romantic back-and-forth etc.). The movie does great on the first half and almost enters the home stretch, but chokes very badly towards the end.

Miscasting seems to haunt the movie’s feel almost everywhere. Saranya has long worn down her welcome as an ever-understanding,  Mother-Cum-Best Friend act. Unfortunately, for filmmaker’s (and us), no other Actress has stepped up to her. She has us rolling in a couple of places, but they dry up fast. Azhagam Perumal’s talent is woefully wasted in a role that could turned a lot better, had it been allowed to grow deeper. Sayaji Shinde as a cop, is an irritant by itself; half-cook his character and it just gets hellish to bear the sights and sounds of this once impressive Actor. First he seems like this cool dad to Hansika and suddenly takes a bizarre turn. Staying on bizarre, what was that token “hep” arranged prospective groom of Hansika’s? I’m not even going into how cliched that whole restaurant setup turns the Movie into an unintended farce.

Thankfully, Arya, Andrea and Sneha play painfully super-bland appearances only as “guests”, which spares us some headache.

For long Aishwarya R Dhanush has carried the names of two big stars. Her training under the wings of Suresh Krishna, K S Ravikumar (both Rajnikanth’s most trusted) and Selvaraghavan (his influences, a strong show here) has fed the Tamil press stories aplenty. Here was an opportunity to prove her mettle. With one masterstroke, She stakes out her place in the Indian film space. Mature, sensitive and restrained, ‘3’ is a must watch. By her own admission, Aishwarya had to build on her short story. She’s done a commendable job with that transformation. While the film totally worked for me, I see some rejecting it for the same reason they disliked ‘Mayakkam Enna’ — slow pacing and an unconventional second half.

The makers of ‘3’ want you to expect a “Romantic” film. Therein lies a trap that they may stumble into. Boy chances upon Girl on the street and … you get the flow. Dhanush has played this post-pubescent love theme in many shades (most notably his debut, ‘Thulluvadho Illamai’). The first half of the movie unfolds very slowly, but always making sure we’re sticking very close. Their Love graduates from school (via Tuition class) to college and then to wedlock. This segment is narrated delicately and without rushing. Things seems to be falling in place all too well. No drama and we’re approaching “Intermission”. Then, there’s a second half. Ominous signs are thrown in right from the first few frames, although they’ve been kept in the background. It’s time for the movie to pull them into the spotlight.

This one of those movies that shift genres without a warning. Early in the second half, Senthil (Sunder Ramu) informs Janani (Shruthi), “There is another side to Ram (Dhanush) that you’re not aware of…” Well, you could say the same about the movie. Aishwarya almost wipes the slate clean on the first half and shifts the tone way over to the other side; it’s like like a different movie with no reference to the earlier part. Without spoiling the surprise/shock, let me assure you that this is one nasty downward spiral (no, not in that typical Tamil movie style) that was worth riding.

By now, Dhanush can play these carefree/dramatic roles with consumate ease. It is impressive to watch Shruthi handle (first) a part that exudes school girl innocence and (later) deal with a life, that takes an unkind turn. If Siva Karthikeyan (Dhanush’s adolescent accomplice) plays an enjoyable unwilling sidekick, Sunder Ramu (Dhanush’s grown-up sidekick) turns a well-rounded foils as Dhanush’s guardian angel. Sunder Ram is so convincing, Aishwarya is willing to risk him with a role that overlaps a tad too much with the one he played in ‘Mayakkam Enna’. Sunder Ram and Siva Karthikeyan carry the movie as ably as the lead pair. Aishwarya casting for the other supporting characters seems to have paid off well.

Anirudh Ravichander shows a lot of promise, by staying out of the screen as much as possible and letting the director and actors to  string our emotions. Even when he does join in, the music never leaves a jarring note.

Oh, about “Why this Kolaveri Di”, Aishwarya shows courage by leaving the song alone and not trying too much with it; where another director could have let himself/herself get carried away by the temptation to play it beyond the movie’s scope, Aishwarya keeps it simple yet imaginative. However, it was disappointing to see the song being pandered to advertisers’ cash-for-space. WTKD takes product placement to an unholy level. By the way, I have to clarify two misunderstood Madras Bhaashai terms, for the record.  “Soup Boys” are guys who’ve been ditched and “Bow’u” means showing ஒழுங்கு; confirmed it with the song.

Aravaan

Vasanthabalan’s had a winning streak, making socially conscious films with ‘Veyyil’ and ‘Angaadi Theru’. His films have helped us take notice of the little people around us that we’re too busy to take observe. When he chose a literary hit, to re-imagine, you can’t help but let your hope high.

Some’re calling it a masterfully crafted historical whodunit; then some swear Aravaan is a sheer waste of your time and money. As with most serious reviews, the dart lies somewhere between the bull’s eye and edges of the target.

Sitting through Aravaan, I was already in love with the movie, I just wanted it to deserve my affection. Aravaan could have been a gripping thriller, winning us over without the gimmicks and distractions. Each frame reeks of research and time well-invested on learning a period our forefathers left largely undocumented. I’m not sure if it measured up. Left the movie, cursing Vasanthabalan for what a great achievement Aravaan could have been.

That is not a suggestion that Aravaan is a waste of your time or money, but it isn’t a masterfully crafted historical either. Peppered with suspense and awe-inspiring Art Direction (and Production Design), Aravaan reveals loads of sweat and planning from the Cast and Crew.

However, between those highs are long stretches where Vasanthabalan loses his grip and you’re left with enough time to shoot holes at what’s going on, in the screen. Vasanthabalan’s interpretation of Su. Venkatesan’s ‘Kaaval Kottam’ is a valiant crack at a period flick on a shoe string.

Action sequences, bordering on buffoonery, are a big distraction (in a bad way). Instead of adding to the authenticity of feel of the movie, they slacken the flow and take away your emotional investment in the story. Karthik’s my favorite singer, so I will skip a discussion on his Music Direction. I wish Siddarth had used his fish-eye lens less frequently.

Where the movie is a tad short in these, the Art and Costume departments more than make-up. The palatial houses, their lay out to accommodate everyone from the Master to the last servant within its confines, the walls that keep the Merchant’s fiefdom, down to the safe, have been set to uncompromising standards.

Aathi looks fit and cut for the role of Varipuli. Pasupathi’s natural acting is tinkered unnecessarily, in most places. Dhaniska needn’t have bothered with anything. The movie could have been in a better place without her. Her acting wooden, appearance and voice totally out of place. Seated on a pivotal role, she only manages to alienate whatever feelings of pity we’re supposed to feel for her. When push comes to shove, you’re doing the opposite of rooting to see her united with Chinnan. Vasanthabalan decides to make his movie a bit more grandiose, by inserting Bharath and Anjali into the proceedings, but they cause little flutter.

Aaranyakandam

Indira Gamdhi Award for Best Debut Film of a Director
Producer:  SP Charan
Director:  Kumararaja Thiagarajan
“A stylized and ironic reinvention of the gangster genre that presents a dazzling map of Chennai’s subterranean world of druglords and violence. Kumararaja Thyagarajan cinematically scrutinizes the landscape of decaying architecture, abandoned factories, old cars and the crisis of masculinity to present a labyrinthine urban dystopia. The city emerges
as a wasteland that is simultaneously mundane, shocking and nightmarish.”

Best Editing
KL Pravin and NB Satish

“For recreating a unique yet dystopic mindscape of the world of ordinary gangsters in Chennai. In the editing of ‘Aranya Kandam’ Praveen and Srikanth play a key role in probing their psychological motives through the skillful
intercutting of the real world of the characters with the perceived realities of the dark and deprived urban spaces that they inhabit.”

Azhagarsamiyin Kuthirai

Award for Best Popular Film providing Wholesome Entertainment
Producer: P Madan
Director : Suseentharan
“For redefining conventional notions of modern entertainment and still gaining acceptance in the mainstream. Suseentheram boldly sets out to narrate a fable revolving around temple rituals within a completely realistic framework of farmers, politicians and the poor families of rural Tamil Nadu. His engagement with filmic language is as robust as the emotional graphs charted out by a massive ensemble of characters.”

Best Supporting Actor
Appu Kutty
“For the sheer vitality in performance and credible characterization that Appu Kutty brings to the screen in portraying a truly unusual role rarely occupying such a substantial part of the screen story. Kutty achieves realization of a wide spectrum of emotions — from moving affection for his beloved horse, fierce determination to get it back, tender love for his faithful bride to be, mixing comic energy with innocent sentiment.”

Vaagai Sooda Va

Best Tamil Film
Producer: S Muruganandham
Director: A Sargunam

“For its inventive mix of folklore, politics and rural deprivation. Instead of mimicking the grim realities of an illiterate, poor and barren village, Sargunam paints the hopeful desires of brick-kiln workers and their children who want to come out of their desolation to redeem themselves. The story is set in1968 when Tamil Nadu undertook a series of social reforms.”

If you watched the Oscars and went away thinking ‘The Artist’ seemed like a mainstream reject that the Oscars usually laps up and carries over its shoulders, just to prove how they (the Academy) is still in tune with the artsy types. Please reconsider. Try watching it on the big screen, while you still can (in the US, at least). Why would you pay to watch a B&W Silent film?

Yes, The Artist is a contemporary movie (was shot in color, deliberately converted to B&W), without vocal sounds. The only sound you hear is the audience inside the theater LoL. A movie that takes us back to a Cinema that bets on expressions and emotions. The Artist weans us off all the celluloid steroid, we so thought we couldn’t live without and delivers a movie that leaves you with the same feeling whether you’re watching it on a VHS or a Blu ray.

Of course all this wouldn’t be plausible without first-rate performers. Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo literally scorch the screen with their chemistry. John Goodman, James Cromwell and Uggie (the dog) throw in a good measure of acting; you’re actually unsettled when you hear sound briefly.

As I was watching ‘The Artist’ heap  Oscars, there were two filmmaker that I really felt sad for. Director Singeetham Srinivasa Rao and Kamal Haasan did not get a fraction of this praise or recognition. Pushpak/பேசும் படம் was 15 years ahead of its time. What makes Pesum Padam more challenging was the location. Unlike the sparcely populated screen of The Artist, Pesum Padam does not hide itself inside a Studio or a plush home. It had the audacity to venture out into the streets of Bangalore and challenge itself, scene after scene.

Kadhalil Sodhapuvadhu Yeppadi (KSY) arrives to Tamil (and Telugu) cinema, a (Very) welcome twist to the campus romcom. Welcome the movie powered by our “Like”. 10 years ago you wouldn’t have had a title like this. Neither would a YouTube sensation have made it to the silver screen and become a darling, beyond the social media crowd.

A flashback, before we go ahead: Roughly a year ago, Balaji Mohan had a winsome short film (namesake: ‘Kadhalil Sodhapuvadhu Yeppadi’) on YouTube, with a band of unknown (yet spontaneous) ‘actors’, which went viral and had a well-deserved circulation on Facebook. Shot in first-person Point-of-View, a hapless boyfriend peers into the camera and delivers that time-tested gripe: Women. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. End of flashback.

So, you’ve coerced your friends to act in your short, it turns out to be a hit and suddenly you have a couple of young guns (actor Siddarth and cinematographer Nirav Shah) backing you to stretch a 10 minute “Women are from Venus” joke into a full-length feature. That right there is a threshold many amateur filmmakers wet their pants at (and stumble badly, mostly). Balaji doesn’t just survive that test; he takes it on like a veteran and pulls through with a rock-solid narrative. Only a gifted storyteller could exercise such control and focus over his script. It is the boldness of the format (of presentation) that keeps reminding you, this is a first-timer at work.

Boy (Arun) meets Girl (Parvathi). Boy chases Girl. Girl wishes the Boy proposes first. He does. They fall in love. Boy opens mouth, unleashes hell onto self. The scenarios the director creates around this uneasy “love” and the humour he weaves into the unlikeliest turns makes the film very light-hearted and easy on the senses. Not content with the romantic winner on hand, Balaji Mohan goes for the kill, with an unforced undercurrent in Parvathi’s family. It is this side story and some neatly planted incidents, heading towards the conclusion that saves the movie from a less-fulfilling first half.

More than an engaging movie, KSY’s has registered well with viewers across age, language and sex ’cause it does such a good job delving into the sweet trivialities of human relationships. Men hurting their Women, without meaning to; Women firing back in kind.  Can love survive a series of unintended sodhapals, is the caricatured take here. To the Director’s credit, the movie could have been sodhapufied with a different push. There are scenes that are loaded and primed for melodrama, but Balaji sidesteps them and goes instead for cinematic doosras.

Not a big fan of Siddarth. Surprisingly, he doesn’t try too hard to rub his cuteness on. Amala Paul continues her streak with playing roles where she pushes the right emotional buttons and (thankfully) manages not to consume the characters she plays.

There’s so much in here to make a checklist of how not to mess up with love, the movie should have been titled ‘காதலில் சொதப்பாமல் இருபது எப்படி’

 Marina, the shore-front that welcomed the founding fathers of modern Chennai. Witness to the transformation of a clutch of villages to a major metro. The oasis on the   edge of a concrete jungle. I can go on with this…or ask you to simply go listen to that back-handed ode ‘Vanakkam Vaazha Vaikkum Chennai’. Within this stretch of sand exists a microcosm of a society, that springs alive, come Sunrise and Sunset.

Someone had to make a film out of it. Pandiaraj thinks he had some stories up his sleeve. He starts out courageously (much like his earlier hit, Pasanga) on the strength of the kids of Marina; even capturing a few aimless Marina adventures. Clearly aware that it would be slotted as a documentary, he throws in a romance (Sivakarthikeyan and Oviya).

You patiently watch where Pandiaraj is pushing his plot. You’re waiting for him to connect all those random dots of the first half…only to find his bluff. The goodwill evaporates. His well-intended dissection of the Marina,  flounders and turns into a farce.

The movie does not have any villains as such. If you insist that I point fingers, it would be the Director Pandiaraj and Editor (Athiyappan Siva).

I’m not qualified to comment about the Editor’s part in a movie, but I’m willing to make an exception for Marina. If there was one movie you had to cite as an example of how not to edit a movie, that would be Marina.