Prasanath George

"Indian 1" is one of my favorite movies, which I have watched countless times and continue to do so. Therefore, it is particularly painful to see how "Indian 2" not only presents a plotless sequel but also insults the intelligence of the audience. In "Indian 2," a now 106-year-old (!!) social-media-savvy Senapathy returns from Taiwan to fight corruption once again. He appears not only younger and healthier than in part 1 but also significantly fitter, performing stunts such as a unicycle trick on the ceiling of a tunnel. While Senapathy was genuinely an old man in the first part, he is portrayed here as a young, athletic guy who just looks like an old man. This transformation makes it hard to take the character seriously. While the plot of part 1 requires Senapathy to be an old man, part 2 could have featured a young actor in the role without affecting the plot in any way. Instead of creating a seamless continuation of part 1, showing the 78-year-old Senapathy, or developing a plot set in 2024 with a bedridden Senapathy using his intelligence and wisdom to guide other characters, we see a completely distorted version of the character. In "Indian 1," Senapathy was a focused freedom fighter with a distinct way of speaking. Now, he acts as a "mass hero," even letting out a "meow" to demonstrate his superiority – a behavior the original Senapathy would never have exhibited. The character at times resembles a cartoon superhero, which is entirely inappropriate. Senapathy is not a superhero, and the series is not a superhero series. The superhuman abilities and surreal elements do not match the serious tone of the original film. This cartoon hero's superpower lies in Varma Kallai, his martial art, which he originally used to paralyze people. He can now use it to transform people into horses or homosexuals, which is quite ignorant since homosexuality is not a neurological condition. Even if one considers the film completely separate from its predecessor, it is still a bad movie. It lacks a coherent plot, jumping from one corruption case to the next without building a deeper connection to the characters or the story. It feels like a series of corruption cases strung together without a clear thread leading the plot to a specific goal. If the producers argue that part 3 will offer more plot, one wonders why "Indian 2" was made at all. A single, compact film would have been sufficient instead of a two-part sequel. Or could Shankar himself not resist the temptation of money?