JOTHISH PRABU R P

Coolie (2025) is one of the most disappointing films I’ve seen in recent years. What should have been a powerful collaboration between Rajinikanth and Lokesh Kanagaraj instead feels like a hollow spectacle where style is substituted for substance. The film suffers from a complete lack of narrative coherence. Logic gaps are everywhere, characters are poorly written, decisions feel contrived, and the runtime drags on endlessly. The background score is less cinematic and more like a deafening concert, constantly trying to force energy where none exists. Dialogue is weak, action choreography is generic, and the excessive fan service feels more like pandering than storytelling. Rajinikanth, undeniably a legend, is simply not suited for the way this film tries to portray him. Watching an actor of his stature forced into a role that doesn’t fit his age or presence is more disheartening than entertaining. At this point, it may be wiser to preserve the legacy rather than dilute it. What’s most shocking is Lokesh Kanagaraj’s decline here. This is the same filmmaker who gave us Vikram (an intense investigative action thriller), Master (a clever deconstruction of the “mass hero”), and Leo (a flawed but still high-octane rampage). In Coolie, none of his trademarks — tight writing, genre respect, or raw intensity — are even faintly visible. It feels like less than 5% of his creative signature made it to screen. Adding insult to injury, the marketing was misleading. Trailers and posters heavily emphasized motifs like gold watches, time, and the “Powerhouse” theme, but they play little to no role in the actual plot. This kind of mismarketing only deepens the sense of betrayal. It’s heartbreaking to see enormous budgets, top-tier technicians, and a director’s freedom wasted on a film that doesn’t even deliver a decent one-time-watch experience. Many aspiring filmmakers struggle to finance their first projects, while resources here have been squandered on an empty spectacle. Tamil cinema desperately needs a course correction—filmmakers must focus on writing screenplays with originality and genuine twists, stay true to the genre instead of diluting narratives with endless fan service, stop glorifying actors and their legacies through songs that add nothing to the story, and prioritize casting based on character relevance rather than market value or the hollow “Pan-India” label that has now become little more than a marketing gimmick. Audiences deserve better than shallow packaging and recycled tropes.

A Flawed but Thrilling Return to Dino Mayhem I think people are being too harsh on this movie. Personally, I found it pretty good. The cast worked for me, especially Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, and Jonathan Bailey — who was particularly charming and funny, clearly understanding exactly what his role required. Let’s be honest: you can’t expect groundbreaking storytelling from the Jurassic franchise. The plot is basic, and I didn’t mind that. Where the film really shines is in its direction. Gareth Edwards brings his distinctive flair for visual storytelling — something he proved back in Godzilla (2014). He knows exactly how to present monsters on the big screen, making excellent use of the 2.35:1 format. This is in stark contrast to J.A. Bayona, who, in my opinion, didn’t take full advantage of it in Fallen Kingdom. The VFX here is flawless throughout, complemented by gorgeous cinematography shot on 35mm film with a warm color grade that I personally enjoyed. The action sequences are fast-paced and thrilling, with Edwards clearly knowing how to stage dinosaur set pieces. That said, it’s not as visceral or intense as Jurassic World (2015) — you can feel certain moments being toned down to appeal to younger audiences. There are also a number of scenes where dinosaurs could have easily taken out the human characters but just barely miss them, which strains believability, particularly during the T. rex scene. The screenplay, written by David Koepp, is the weakest link. The dialogue is basic and leans heavily on exposition dumps. It’s surprising, especially considering Koepp’s work on Black Bag, which had sharp, engaging writing. The family subplot also didn’t entirely land for me — a few comedic gags felt forced and broke the tension rather than enhancing it. The climax feels like a missed opportunity too; Mahershala Ali’s character should have died for a more impactful ending, but the filmmakers chose a safer route. The score by Alexandre Desplat is serviceable rather than spectacular. Still, the moments where he weaves in John Williams’ iconic themes are genuinely emotional. Overall, Jurassic World: Rebirth is an enjoyable thrill ride — a must-watch on the big screen if you’re after pure spectacle and don’t care too much about narrative depth.

Thank goodness I avoided watching the main trailer or any other promos for Companion. I only saw the teaser, which seemed pretty interesting, and I was intrigued by the marketing, especially the line “From the creators of Barbarian.” Naturally, I assumed it was the same director. I intentionally stayed away from other trailers because I wanted to go in blind. The teaser was very vague, and I wanted to keep that mystery intact. I also didn't read any reviews, as I was really hoping to watch it in theaters, which would’ve been my first theatrical experience of 2025. Unfortunately, I couldn’t make it due to other commitments, but I finally got the chance to stream it. A lot of critics pointed out that the main poster gave away the big twist, but I didn’t feel that way at first. Maybe my vision’s not great, but when I looked at the poster, I thought she was just rolling her eyes upward and to the side—nothing too telling. However, just before I was about to watch the film, I came across a bit of text online that spoiled the twist for me. Suddenly, the poster made sense, and I was kind of bummed. On top of that, I found out the director is a newcomer—not the same one behind Barbarian—which felt a little misleading given the marketing. Still, I was curious and dove into the film anyway. Now, onto the review. Sophie Thatcher is really making a name for herself as a rising star in horror (though I hate the term scream queen). After her standout performance in Heretic last year, she gives another solid performance here in Companion—probably her best yet, though it's not as subtle as what she did in Heretic. She plays Iris, a robot (or, as her boyfriend Josh, played by Jack Quaid, calls her, a "f*ckbot"). Speaking of Quaid, he really impressed me with his darker performance—totally different from his role in The Boys. The supporting cast also did a good job, even though I didn’t recognize many of the actors. What really surprised me about this movie was how much comedy there was. It had a lot more humor than I expected, and I found myself laughing quite a bit. The premise delves into the complexities of AI in physical form and what kind of relationships we could form with them—and vice versa. I totally get that this concept might be unsettling to some, and that’s understandable. With AI evolving so rapidly, though, this kind of reality might not be too far off. The humor was on point, the kills were creative, the acting was strong, and technically, everything worked well. The movie explained the tech in a way that felt sensible within the context. That said, there was one particular kill that felt a bit too far-fetched for my taste. Still, I had a lot of fun with this one. If you’re in the mood for a 90-minute, chamber-piece thriller with a touch of dark comedy, this is definitely worth checking out.

Vidamuyarchi Review Positives: 1. Well-Executed Direction: The film is crafted with excellent technical finesse, showcasing strong storytelling and production quality. 2. Engaging Lead Chemistry: The relationship between the protagonists is well-developed through flashbacks, adding depth to their characters. The divorce angle makes them more vulnerable, increasing the audience’s emotional investment in their survival. 3. Stronger Antagonists: Compared to the original, the villains are more compelling. Their manipulation of both the husband and wife for financial gain adds a layer of psychological tension. 4. Ajith’s Unique Performance: Ajith takes on a role that deviates from his usual choices, demonstrating his commitment to versatility, which is commendable. Mixed/Negative Aspects: 1. Unnecessary Songs: While "Sawadeeka" was sufficient, the inclusion of multiple songs felt excessive. This is a common issue in mainstream Indian cinema, particularly in star-driven films, where songs and a constant background score are often mandatory. Granting more creative freedom to the sound design team could have enhanced the auditory experience. That said, Anirudh's score was decent overall. 2. Inconsistent Action Sequences: The fight scenes in the second half felt unnecessary. The first half follows a gritty and realistic tone, but the latter half shifts to a more over-the-top approach, likely to cater to fan service and family audiences. Given how Indian cinema has evolved, such compromises could be avoided to maintain the filmmaker’s original vision. 3. Underdeveloped Character Motivation: Trisha’s motivations for her actions, particularly her decision to betray her husband, could have been explored in greater depth to add more emotional weight. 4. Unexplained Plot Point: The villains’ escape from the mental facility is left unexplained. While this doesn’t significantly impact the overall narrative, addressing it could have added to the film’s coherence. Final Verdict: A well-made film with strong performances and engaging storytelling. Despite some minor flaws, it is an enjoyable theatrical experience and worth watching.

First of all, people going into "Indian 2" expecting it to match the tone and style of the first film are setting themselves up for disappointment. The original was made in the 90s, catering to a different audience with different sensibilities. I recommend putting aside nostalgia for just 3 hours to truly enjoy this film. Unlike others, I really liked the premise of "Indian 2." It revolves around four teenagers who run a YouTube channel to raise awareness about the injustices in our country. Social media is a powerful tool that Senapathy didn’t have in his time, and we see its impact on social movements in the real world. Unfortunately, in the movie, the teens' efforts are thwarted as all the convicted criminals go free due to corrupt officials and political influence. This makes them realize that social media alone isn't enough, prompting them to take direct action against the culprits. Being teenagers, they seek out Senapathy to bring him back. The "Calendar" song for one of the villains wasn’t necessary, but I didn’t mind it. It’s good music and harmless eye-candy. However, the makeup on Kamal Haasan was disappointing given the film’s budget. It looked too plastic and lacked detail. Kamal's performance, though, is consistently excellent—no complaints there. Some viewers felt that Senapathy’s targets were random, but it made sense to me. Given that no one from his original period is left for personal vengeance, it’s logical for him to go after prominent figures to set an example. Additionally, he encourages the youth to find corruption within their own households, which is an interesting idea. This mission, however, has unforeseen consequences, highlighted by Siddharth’s character arc, who suffers a tremendous personal loss. This was the best part of the story for me. I also didn’t mind the use of Varma Kalai to make people do crazy things like acting like a horse or singing while paralyzed. Since it’s established at the beginning that Senapathy is almost superhero-like, nitpicking his skills feels unnecessary. The end chase with the unicycle was a bit long, but I was entertained nonetheless. The "6 pack fight scene" was hilarious in a good way. On the technical side, everything was pretty good. The music and songs have received backlash from fans of the first film, but I personally liked the score and songs by Anirudh. No complaints there. The story doesn’t end here; there is a part 3 coming, which looks like it will be a half prequel to the original film, as shown in the trailer played at the end. Overall, I’d give "Indian 2" a 4/5. It delivers a strong message about corruption and the importance of fighting against it.

"Death Note," available on Netflix, is a thrilling adaptation that deserves more credit than it often receives. This film takes a fresh approach to the iconic manga and anime series, reimagining the story in a modern American context. While some viewers have criticized it without giving it a fair chance, it has its merits. Firstly, the casting is commendable, with Nat Wolff delivering a compelling performance as Light Turner. The film effectively explores the moral dilemmas and consequences of wielding the Death Note, making you question the fine line between justice and vengeance. Moreover, Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Ryuk, the Shinigami, adds an eerie and captivating dimension to the narrative. His voice and presence give the character the necessary depth and intrigue. The pacing of the film keeps you engaged throughout, and the visual effects, especially during the intense chase scenes, are well-executed. The director, Adam Wingard, brings his unique style to the story, making it stand out from the source material in a refreshing way. In conclusion, "Death Note" on Netflix deserves to be appreciated as a reinterpretation of a beloved story. It's unfortunate that some viewers have dismissed it without giving it a fair chance. Approach it with an open mind, and you might find yourself enjoying the film for what it brings to the table – a captivating and thought-provoking take on the power of Death Note.