INTERSTELLAR and 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY

I tend to get more drawn towards something that I do not completely understand than towards something that I know inside from out. Because when the blanks are left out for you to fill, you might be surprised to find the innumerable ways you can arrange the set of answers to obtain completely different and far fetched conclusions. That's why people who like poetry, like it. And until a film can come as close to poetry as Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it cannot boast of trying to outsmart it.

No. I am not trying to belittle "Interstellar" here. I am trying to establish that Interstellar just didn't even attempt to outsmart 2001, but rather tried to pay homage to it or tried to fill in the blanks it left, with its own set of answers.

In 2001 (From here on wards 2001 means 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY) we see the film begin with man's ancestors the apes living their own life of reality and fear until a strange object, a black monolith suddenly makes its appearance out of nowhere. The curious apes (hence our ancestors) touch it and after that we can see an ape making a tool out of a bone and using it to kill its competitor.

The scene emphasizes that the contact with the monolith has made the ape smarter and has drawn it closer towards becoming a man. What is inside the monolith and how can it make people reach  their next level of evolution is what puzzles the audience, and some people might have blamed the director for not explaining it. But the funniest part is, why do you think he has put a black monolith, which doesn't have any inscriptions or which is not in any shape that resembles any religious symbol, which is neither beautiful, nor horrifying? Because he wants it to stand as a symbol for something that has the answers to the most complex questions and hence it doesn't bother to feel the urge to represent or resemble something. Because it is a whole. And the whole is always the simplest because there is no part of it that it yet needs to get attached to, to make sense. It is only the part of the question or the part of the answer that represents or resembles something. The whole doesn't need to do it. It is the infinity and hence the zero. Only because you cant yet figure out what or how this world makes sense, you keep digging and push yourself to the farthest reaches of your imagination. There would be an answer and that might sound utterly ridiculous when you understand it in its entirety, not because the answer is dumb but because it becomes finite and is nothing when compared to the infinite length your question blew your speculation to. The rule is simple. If you want to create something the size of the universe, just write something on a paper, and leave the story uncompleted. It will give a possibility to N number of interpretations and hence can accommodate even the last particle of dust in the last corner of the furthest galaxy. Your creation is just an unfinished story on a paper, but it is as vast as a vessel that could fit a thousand universes. Thats what God did to man. He created everything with his limitless knowledge and gave man the ability to comprehend only a part but not the whole. hence man kept exploring, wondering and digging and he never ceases to being a man. Not because the universe is limitless but because the answer is hidden.  And that's why a simple, smooth black monolith. That's why Kubrick is a genius. That's why Interstellar can never be as big as 2001.

See, all of the above might not be the reason for Kubrick to choose a black monolith to be the object but I have speculated all of this just because Kubrick left space to accommodate my imagination. That's what "Interstellar" doesn't.
(Nolan rather tries to detail it down. He gives a very well explained and scientifically accurate explanation that gravity is the key for communication through space and time.) But that's why it manages to stand as a more original film than what it would have been if it chewed a little more from 2001.

What stopped me from having further doubts whether Interstellar is inspired from 2001 is the third act. They are noticeably similar. In Interstellar, Coop falls into a black hole which happens to be a place that the future humans build a tesseract which facilitates Coop to send signals to his past self, as time is represented there as a physical dimension. The audience are shocked because his daughter's bedroom is the last thing they expect to see inside a black hole.

In 2001, Bowman encounters a monolith in space and is teleported through a "star gate" which is

visually conveyed to the viewer through some best special effects (of that time) and ends up in a hotel suite kind of room where he sees his old self having his dinner. The old Bowman turns back and looks at the astronaut Bowman, comes near him, and we do not see the astronaut bowman any more in that room (The astronaut has become the old man) The old man similarly becomes Bowman-near-death. And the dead bowman becomes a child the size of a heavenly body. As surrealistic as it sounds, this is the third act of 2001. It is hinted that the monoliths one of which transferred Bowman through space and time to a hotel suite and made him a star child are placed in space by aliens who are more advanced than humans and want to help humans evolve away from their limitations. The final sequence of 2001 looks like it appears in Bowman's head and hence some think it is not real. But as Dumbledore says to Harry Potter why should something taking place in the head mean that it is not real? Real or metaphysical, the sequence hints at man crossing the hurdle of his limitations and achieving a superiority over his past self and it is not ironical that he looks like a child after he achieves the ultimate transformation. What does that mean? That the final monolith has made him into a God by feeding him all the data of the universe and transforming him into a giant embryo (thus pushing away physical limitations)? Is God just an alien more advanced than humans?
The aliens are not shown in the fim but talked about. That is a very fine choice as that lets us visualize them as beings who do not necessarily have to be bound by physical appearances. It buys us the convenience of believing that they are advanced beyond the humanity's perceived limits of physics.

That's where "Interstellar" takes off. In "Interstellar", the people who placed the worm hole near Saturn are not aliens. "They" are not "aliens". "They" are "us". Interstellar prefers a more "real" and a more comprehensible(at least to who know physics) depiction of the redemption of humanity. Nolan, rather than going poetic, went scientific. That hits the right note with today's generation who are used to precision, specificity and accuracy. Interstellar in one sense, is the fine grained version of the more abstract 2001.

However 2001 chooses to tone down its emotional inclinations because it looks up to the ultimate enlightenment and the ultimate transformation as its peak, it's flag has to fly high above the emotions of us lesser beings. The coldness with which it shows us the proceedings asks us to try to cope up with the nullifying of emotions that the transformation brings. Interstellar does the reverse. It highlights the human emotions and goes to the extent of making love to become the key to the redemption of humanity.

While 2001 penetrates your subconscious and paints a bewildering abstract masterpiece in your mind, Interstellar touches your heart.

Long live great cinema

Manam Review - A tale of love

It is difficult to decide what to start with, when it comes to writing about a film like Manam. The plot is stupid. But so is love. The characters are too sweet. But so is love. The feel is too optimistic. But so is love. And why do all these immaturities and imperfections do not bother you? because this is a tale of love, and that's how it should be.

Revealing anything about the plot is a great crime, and I wouldn't spoil the experience for you. If I have to manage without playing a spoilsport, it is a story of people who lost the love of their lives and how they regained it. You wouldn't be thinking whether it is logically possible for such things to happen in real life, thanks to the sweet narration of Vikram the director of the film, you would only wish and try to fool yourself into believing that love actually has the power to make things happen as they do happen in the film. It's characters crave for love, ooze out love, lose it and find it. The characters are all sincere and the sky is always blue. The clouds might dim the brightness for a while but it all ends with the showers of love.  The universe in which the story takes place, is lovers' utopia where destiny wouldn't dare to end your life-death loop till your thirst of love is quenched. Unless you get in tune with this, you wouldn't begin to enjoy the ride. And what kind of a person doesn't want to live in such a world? At least for a couple of hours! People who like this film and people who don't like it, have the same reason. The above.

The plot starts slowly and progresses at its own pace. Thankfully, there are no "entrance scenes", "build up" scenes and all the rot that Telugu film industry is dishing out lately. The characters are well conyained within the screen and they dont peek out at us to remind that they are the Akkinenis in the real world. Except when the characters reveal their names( Nagarjuna is Nageswara Rao, Chaitanya is Nagarjuna and Nageswara Rao is Chaiyanya) amd the "Drinking" scene. Nagarjuna- Sreya's part is my favourite. It has been very well done talking of the period detailing and the dialogues as well.

Initially when the story unfolds we might feel awkward at the little oddball revelations and developments that turn out (Like when Nagarjuna calls Samantha as "Amma"), but it is not awkwardness that we feel but a strange sweetness that only films like this can pull out. It is very easy for the director to fall in doubt whether the audience feel the same way as he intends them to feel, but he is gutsy enough to proceed with his story without adulterating it by adding the (god forbidden) commercial elements or by trimming the oddball parts.

Attempting something like this in a film industry that is too scared of experimenting and too posessive of its worn out templates is something that deserves a remarkable applause. This film falls in the rare category of films that actually believe and love its plot.

At times the film tries to leap to become a classic. Nagarjuna-Sriya's accident scene, where the car dashes against a tree and the white flowers slowly fall into the pond, the party scene where Sreya enters in an old sari, the scene where Chaitanya confesses to Samantha, are where the film takes bigger leaps.

The cinematography is top notch, the music that strikes the right tone with the melodrama of the film, the performances, subtle, the screenplay gripping, the shots aesthetic and the ending is sweet.

The film has its own flaws. The episode where Nagarjuna gets rid of Naga Chaitanya's love interest who comes between his father and mother, doesn't sync with the emotional maturity of the film. Because the characters are all firm believers of love, it is indigestible to see that Chaitanya's character forgets his lover with whom he chose to spend his life with, just for a simple and small reason.

That is where the film took its liberties but no, it mars the "sincere" color of the film. That being said, this film is a must watch for all Akkineni fans, Telugu film lovers, because it is the last film of Akkineni. Though his character is limited to a short time, he managed to pump his charm and love-ability into those moments.

Watch it for the people who made it with love, passion and sincerity. Watch it for Nageswara Rao. Watch it for Nagarjuna.

Watch it for Akhil.

1:NENOKKADINE REVIEW

We all have illusions. We all think and deduce, act and remember, and our memories form an integral part of our intellectual being. We so deeply depend on them that our entire understanding of our own life depends on what we remember and what we see. Our mind fills the gap left by what we cannot see, remember and understand with its own illusuons.  The protagonist in 1:Nenokkadine also has illusions. But his ones are visual. Rather than filling the gaps, they play with his actual senses.  Gowtham, a rock star has a rare psychological disorder where he cant differentiate between reality and illusion. His mind constructs whatever is missing from his life and tries to convince his conscious with stories comfortable for his logic to believe. And he falls for the trick. There lies the story. When he is told that he is being conned by his own mind, part of him agrees but something inside him whispers that his life is defined more by what his crippled memory says is true, than by what the psychological records prove.

A few minutes into the film, Gowtham murders a man and surrenders himself to the police. When the police search the spot for the dead body, they realise that not only themselves but Gowtham also is fooled by his mind. Gowtham assumes that someone killed his parents and is haunted by the fear that they are coming for him as well. The moment he discovers  he has this problem, he faces the bewildering challenge of differentiating truth from illusion. And Sukumar wants the audience to run along with Gowtham, in his shoes. Everytime the hero hangs between reality and illusion, it is a test for the audience also. Nenokkadine is not so much a thriller as it is a mystery. 

The first half of the film takes its own time to establish the plot. Usually psychological thrillers begin with a bang. Like a mysterious murder, and then the clues, questions and doubts start playing. This film right after the bang gives out its biggest revelation that Gowtham is seeing things from his mind, the question of whether his past is true or not still lingers. The rest of the film is all about his travel to his past, his identity, hurdled by his disorder. Sukumar in his greed to engage the mind of audience althrough the film, resorted to fool them sometimes if necessary. But thats what a psychological thriller is about. You are watching it more often from the point of Gowtham than from a third person. Thats why in the first fight you can clearly see Kelly Dorjee holding a gun rather than some mysterious man entering like a shadow. Then you get to know that he is just an imagination. The whole film follows this scheme. You have to think while running with the hero, follow all the scenes and investigate on your own, if you dont want to get lost in the confusion. For that you got to look at the other characters present in the location and observe. Perhaps the telugu audience have a problem with that. People beside me in the theatre began joking about whats true and whats not as they couldnt follow.  

Mahesh's performance is the highlight of the film. He showed all the emotions as precisely as a Mathematics gold medalist answers (a+b)2=?

Nenokkadine, as a story doesnt worry much about the so called commercial elements that the telugu audience popularly crave for. But the execution does.  A straight psycho-thriller story, devoid of any comedy tracks, grand entrance scenes, and powerful dialogues, written for a star hero whose fan following is on a phenomenal raise lately, is enough a sentence to sound the dare the makers have exhibited. Perhaps this has troubled the director a bit. So he inserted songs at unnecessary places and dampened his own pace. 

Another problem with the film is its length. I would have felt happy if the same film had ended a half an hour earlier. The purpose a thriller is to thrill. Any drop in the pace would betray the lack of any other entertaining elements. If the takeoff is slow, the flight should be racy. But both cannot be lagging. 

Will audience love this film? Most probably not.

Is this a bad film? No

Would I recommend this? 

If you are a fan of entertainment, skip it. If you are a fan of cinema, watch once.

P.S:- My heart skipped a few beats when Kriti Sanon asked "Am I hot?"

Yes she is.

5 DAYS ALONE

As you simplify your life the laws of the universe will be simpler, solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness - See more at: http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-does-one-live-simply-according-thoreau-388568#sthash.VyLaD3ck.dpuf

As you simplify your life the laws of the universe will be simpler, solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness - See more at: http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-does-one-live-simply-according-thoreau-388568#sthash.VyLaD3ck.dpuf

As you simplify your life the laws of the universe will be simpler, solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness - See more at: http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-does-one-live-simply-according-thoreau-388568#sthash.VyLaD3ck.dpuf

As you simplify yourself, the laws of the universe will become simpler-Henry David Thoreau

Having spent the whole year in front of the computer in the office, I sensed that my soul or a certain filament sprung from its consciousness which used to be so full of life and activity, is now on its death bed. Regions of my inner world that I used to explore so often, have turned barren and life less. But it's not before I found the medicine did I recognize that I have a disease. I took an annual break from the office and traveled to my hometown Amalapuram, just to see my family. And there, after being forced to cut off from my role as a member of the society temporarily (AIRCEL 3G service is not there in my village. So I have to spend a lot of time without browsing internet in my I phone), did it occurred to my senses that a part of myself which I left back there in my hometown  has become a stranger to myself. As I walked through the garden where I used to sit and write my poems and songs, where I used to sit and ponder over the mysteries and meaning of life, where I used to have my morning coffee brooding over thoughts that teased me, I felt like a soldier who has returned from war and saw his son grown up but his son being not very eager to come and hug him.  That "me" which I so loved and disliked to depart from, ceased to be me.

What defines a man? Is it what he is when he is alone? Or how he behaves with society?
I tried to remind myself what I am when I am alone. Having been cut off from the internet and the city where I have spent a year wading through the rubbish the stupids of the world spoke, where I helplessly had to nod my head to lines these morons recite so excitingly, where I am robbed of my time even to chuckle at how stubbornly dumb the people of today's world are, I plunged into solitude like an athletic swimmer eager for his medal.

 As I flipped through each page of my mind, the society around me faded away and reality has extended her arms calling me to her embrace. Its then that my ears could hear the sounds the frogs are making and my eyes are opened to watch the leisureness with which the cats are walking around.

 There is an astonishing calm, a surprising soothing power and a pungent unorthodoxy in the stimuli that the wilderness of nature provide to a man attentive enough to hear what she has to say. Do we ever feel our consciousness more intensely when we are acting as a member of society than when we identify ourselves at the feet of nature, paying attention to what she is revealing? What can the sound a coconut flower makes falling to the ground has to do with who you are?  How can you know that without bending over, picking it up and marvel at the little wonder it represents? A filament of the universal consciousness, falling back to the ground having had its time. Does death sound like a tragedy to you then?

The garden lizard chasing an insect and eating it mercilessly, has to say what nature expects you to understand. That you should zoom out, far away into the stars, so that you can see the wide horizon over which all this makes sense. Or that this might be one of the illusions you are tempted to believe to be true, in your futile attempts trying to draw a circle on the ground to fit this earth. Why should we get drawn away by the interpretations when nature has its own crude and its own way of expression? Are you and me just filaments of the collective consciousness that popped up into reality to witness itself? Why should we call the Fire or the Sun as Gods when they are just a part of him? Why build temples to what you cannot see when you can get the divine revelation on the lap of the mother nature? Why would you chase God when he talks to you through a mustard seed sprouting out of the ground?

To plant yourself among men and to count yourself to be nothing more than a constituent of this world is to do yourself the greatest harm.

When man runs into society, into things that influence him, into things that make it look obvious to adapt, into things that turn his sight from his soul to outside happenings, first the petals of his soul are torn off. When he sacrifices his drive to the norms of the society, when his reality becomes the collective or dominant opinion of the society, when his will is not a bud that protrudes from his inside but rather a colored pot that follows the design of his fellows, it is too hard to imagine even a slice of his soul alive enough to hold one last breath. He is himself no more. He no longer knows what he wants, he no longer carries the question. He can no longer look into light. He runs from shadow to shadow.

It is important for us to return to our inner wilderness, our original weirdness, our natural drives. Not that we should be monsters in the society, but that we shouldn't be machines in the world. Is it a wonder that you are no longer interested in yourself? No. because you are running away from yourself. You are squeezing the very neck of your calling. You are torn off by your own greed. You are annihilated by your own vain attempts at imitating others. You assasinated yourself.

Return to yourself. And its possible only through solitude.

Having refreshed myself, I am ready for another year of fight in this world, this time without running away from myself. I mastered the art of embracing myself. Why would I need a friend?

MAN OF STEEL REVIEW

We all expected  it rightly. Yes. There is the influence of Christopher Nolan's BATMAN trilogy on this movie. This installment is the darkest Superman film so far. This super hero is engraved as a troubled soul who is made to believe(along with the audience) that the world is not yet ready for him. And then its all about how he comes to terms with the nature of humans and his soul searching.

The beginning of the film is elaborate, exploring Krypton and explaining how the alien child landed on earth and what he is expected to do here on earth. The Krypton part is well imagined and portrayed. Zack Snyder, who became obsessed with creating wildly creative and dreamily realistic time and space in his "Sucker Punch" took care here that its not all about the astonishing bewilderment that the visuals generate but about the proceedings that the audience could relate to. After the child lands on earth, the film cleverly chooses a jumbled screenplay that allowed the film to take its own time to explain what it got to. Because they chose to explain not how he became Superman but about why he remained a man.

This film follows the trend of the new age superhero movies that believe the "MAN" inside the superhero is who drives the alter ego. Batman and Iron man managed to mix the genre thrills with the core-human aspect. The batman trilogy dared to get as dark as it can get, to portray what "Being a batman" is. Being a batman, he has the limitations of a human, he has to deal with villains who have extremist evil ways but are humans at the end of the day. That allowed the three films to let their action episodes take place in a visually comprehensible time and space continuum. As per that template, "Being a superman" begs for a larger world, villains with superpowers, and spectacular visual effects that need to be complex enough to convince you that beyond a point you dont need to follow the action exactly as you are not expected to. Anyways, they are way faster and smarter than we can observe. Thats why when special effects throw away the people from the screen, you dont complain much. But for how long? What about the little Superman-pleasures?

While I was watching the film, I had a small question lingering in my mind. When Superman doesn't enjoy being himself, how can we like him? I dont mean that the character is not fully developed but my question is "Is it too much if we ask for a little humour?" Henry Cavill is always with stiff lips and serious expressions. I personally, expected at least some romance between Superman and Lois Lane. If you were to remind me of their smooch, for your information, I wouldn't call that romance.

Well.This film has all the ingredients it got to have. Spectacular action episodes(though slightly prolonged), music that upholds the hype of the visual, fine performances, and averagely written dialogue.

As a final say, this is not on par with "THE DARK KNIGHT" but entertaining in its own way. I enjoyed it.

DEATH AND ITS REVELATIONS

The most certain thing in this world is death. And the most uncertain is life.- Swaroop

Two days back, I received a call from my home that my Granny is struggling with life and the doctors are not giving any assurance. She is around 90 years old, and now a days where crossing 70s has become quite a miracle for a man, her death cannot be termed as untimely. I didn't even switch off the TV and am certain that she would recover, as it happened many times to her. In the next five minutes I got another call that she has passed away.My mother was crying over the phone and strangely I could sense a gloom surrounding me. As far as I know, I am the psychologically strongest person I ever know. Ever since I have decided to prefer looking at things from a pure logical perspective to an emotionally attached manner, I have found death and life quite alike in the manner they amuse me. Infact death is a bigger joke than life. I have read a story somewhere where a son asks father whether he would cry if he dies, the father replies "Death is a liberation. Why cry?" I cant argue against that statement, not because I am a pessimist but because I believe that death is what makes life complete. Having such an ideology, I found it strange finding myself being stricken with grief over the news of death of an old woman. My mind began to ponder over the innumerable questions popping up. We all know that death is certain. But why do we term it as a tragedy?

Imagine that a doctor has told you that you have cancer. That very second, the whole world surrounding you begins to look different. Your definitions of life and happiness will change, the way you talk and treat will change, the way you enjoy things change. The way you enjoy life will undergo a complete reformation. We all enjoy the luxury of not knowing when we die, and thats what makes us free from the fear of death. Lets say, you know the date of your death. Even if it is 120 years away from today, you cant help but begin to count days. Even if you drink a glass of water, you will begin to enjoy every drop of it, as you feel that you cannot drink even a single drop once your life ends. But in our every day life, we do never value the little pleasures of life as we take them for granted. We unconsciously think that we live forever, and are blinded to the pleasures that accompany by "savoring" each minute of life.  So what is it that has made your glass of water enjoyable? Is it your life that you assume as unending or the death that makes you value the little things of life? That is the reason I say death is what makes life complete. Death is the boon that we all are given to enjoy the greater boon of life. because only when death comes into picture, you begin to value your life. The fact that it has an end, creates the inevitable feelings associated with it.

While there are people who are on bed for years, longing to die but cannot, people who are struggling with their health but couldn't eat a single piece of idli, people who are going through pain each and every second of their life, for whom even watching the sun set is a luxury, we normal people in our everyday life are passing hundreds of sunsets without realizing the beauty of it, eating quintals of food, without the awareness of what a blessing it is, spending days and years of life without acknowledging the value of it. Because we look at death like a distant stranger always far away. But the truth is that death sits right beside you every second of your life. Death travels on every vehicle on the road, death is dancing on every top floor, in every electric device, in every chemical and in every atom of the universe. Such delicate is life. The fragile web of happiness surrounds you, and you dont kow when it collapses. "Life is short" is a statement often heard. but no. Life is long. Death is short. it would not give you the time to rewind all the pleasant moments of your life before passing away. It would come simply like a whirlwind.

Living long enough doesnt make it a good life. You would not be there after you die to count how many years you have lived. Once you die its all the same whether you have lived for 10 days or 100 years. The people you leave behind , may inherit your wealth or curse you for the sebts you have passed to them but they are of no meaning to you because that "you" caeses to exist once your chapter completes. What difference does it make to you? You wont be there to see or feel it. Its unimaginable to imagine that you dont exist. The world after you or the world before you fade into utter insignificance in the light of the fact that its only the present that is in your control, atleast partially.

Now I am understanding the gloom surrounding me. Death is inevitable for everyone. It is something you cant escape, whatever you do. Thats why we all can relate to it. Let me savor each moment of my life. Let me enjoy every glass of water, every drop of dew, every word I hear, every place I visit. The world has nothing in it to be termed as beautiful. But "it all can vanish and never return" is what makes you look at it with reverence.

Enjoy each moment to its fullest. Life is temporary

--Swaroop

Viswaroopam review

The mind set of terrorists has even today remained a puzzle for most of the part. Because they never volunteer to psychoanalysis, to study and analyse their way of thoughts and ideology is a task yet to be achieved. Though we don't understand them, we have to bear them. To say that terrorism is a global problem is quite an understatement. An issue that has been redrawing global relationships and influencing things ranging from political ideologies to peace of mind. It is very easy to make a terrorist a villain in a movie, but its quite difficult to develop the character. "Dont they feel a pinch pity, for the people they murder mercilessly? Do they really believe that Allah will reward them for killing innocents?" are the kind of unanswered questions that make the common man confused and angry. When I heard that Kamal Haasan is making a film about terrorism, I am more than eager to witness in which light is he showing them. Because so far in Indian cinema, terrorists are portrayed as nothing more than blood lusty goondas and sometimes even like psychopaths. It is important to relise that terrorists are not psychopaths. They are very sane, but are convicted by a belief system that mekes them think that what they do is for the good of the world and God. In their perspective, they are the fighters for a greater good. Kamal haasan seems to have understood this basic point very clearly.

Viswaroopam is a technically brilliant and conceptually sensible film made by a man who understands what he is saying and who knows the depth of the characters he is portraying. But it cant help itself pull out of its imperfections. The film takes you to Afghanistan, introduces you to hard core Jihadis, takes you inside their homes, and lets you listen to their family conversations. The film starts with Kamal entering the bloodshed world of terror as a new Jihadi. It very much triggers our curiosity to know about the kind of life they lead, and the film doesnt disappoint you there. As the film progresses, it shows Kamal slowly getting deeper into the world of Jihad, but you never really believe that he is really into the ideology of it. When Kamal says to the head of the Talibans "Jihadis like us should shed blood, not tears", he says it with such a blank face that it makes you wonder what he has inside his head. And eventually, it turns out that Kamal is not a terrorist, but a soldier undercover sent to Afghan as a wolf among sheep. This is the major twist in the story and the same is the pitfall. Why?

Because our curiosity to listen to how a Jihadi supports his ideology and how he justifies the blood he sheds and how he convinces his conscience is half satisfied. The way the terrorists are portrayed as people having normal emotions but are misled by some blind religious intolerance, doesnt allow this film to be a basic Good vs evil flick. Eventually, it should turn out to be an intelligent discussion dealt with sensibility. As the realistic depiction of the characters hints the film's belief in the fact that "Good and Bad is a matter of perspective", the ride should be fuelled by the clash of ideologies. But here the ideologies and the opinions of the main cast never enter the front stage. The problems and tragedies of terrorism are widely well known to people. And when a film makes terrorism as its subject, it makes an adrenaline rushing edge of the seat taking an inevitable ingredient. That requires a racy screenplay, emotionally captivating character conversations. The film falters with this.

In Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins", when Bruce Wayne disagrees to execute punishment, the conflict of opinion between Bruce Wayne and Ras Al Ghul( a terrorist leader) creates an interesting watch and that gave the film an emotional content that we can relate to. Viswaroopam's sole and biggest mistake is the lack of that. Kamal's research is evident from the way the Afghan village is recreated and the family scenes are shot, but the conflict of opinions never materialised. The terrorists do their work, and the police do theirs. To compromise that this film is merely a thriller but not a penetration into emotions, the obvious question would be to ask why much time is spent in Afghan. The film's confusion of its genre is  the major drawback. The fil tries to evoke sympathy towards the terror striken Afghan but is partially successful. It tries to twist your nerves with thrill, but lags far behind 'interesting'

That being said, this is not a bad film. This is a good attempt by a rare talent but a little more care would have done wonders.

Bottom line:- Watching once doesnt make a heavy loss