ஐ - Shankar + Vikram + Amy Jackson + ARR

[A.ANAND]

kamall-lukku piragu antha idam vikramukkuthan..no doubt-ttu!ai movie release-sukku piragu athu meendum nilai niruthum..

[elsaen11]

any one can tel their views...athukaga unnala nadika mudiyuma nu kekarthu doesn't sounds good....example oru hotel Ku poram dish nalla illanu solrom athuku owner mudinja nee poi cook pannu appathan unaku theriyum nu sonna nallava irukum

If you do that in hotel say saravana bhavan, A2B(ennaku therinja good hotels), then the problem is with? Simple

[Freedom]

If you do that in hotel say saravana bhavan, A2B(ennaku therinja good hotels), then the problem is with? Simple

+1. Adhe Adhe!

[kumarsr]

Songs are good and hype is great but still doubtful how they are going to recover the supposedly massive investment.

[kumarsr]

kamall-lukku piragu antha idam vikramukkuthan..no doubt-ttu!ai movie release-sukku piragu athu meendum nilai niruthum..

Doubt that he can approach Kamal. Vikram is a good actor and a good fit for Shankar who relies heavily on make-up, special effects and needs a commitment of 2 to 3 years. I hope and wish "I" does well so it clears the way for VR-2.

[paranitharan]

Doubt that he can approach Kamal. Vikram is a good actor and a good fit for Shankar who relies heavily on make-up, special effects and needs a commitment of 2 to 3 years. I hope and wish "I" does well so it clears the way for VR-2.

+1

exactly my sentiment. He is best suited for the gimmick roles that need dedication rather than acting.

[mappi]

Request : Is it possible to get the high resolution (original without watermark) of this poster, please :

[mappi]

Off Topic :

Chithan

Chithan is a very peculiar character, atleast never seen before by me. We have only seen physical or mental disorders enacted by several artists throughout the globe, but never a character like Chithan.

Chithan is a normal human being, meaning, he does not suffer any physical disorder, but still he is abnormal that he cannot even walk straight. Chithan is a metally stable guy, who knows hunger and pain, but still he is unstable, as he does not feed like a normal person or react normaly to physical pain. Chithan is not a muet, but still he does not speak or is it that he is hesitant to deliver in a understandable human language ? Maybe Chithan will pass an IQ test with ease, but still he cannot express himself. Chithan has feelings, but cannot translate it for the soceity. For him love is universal, just as death, he loves a man, yes, another man. This affection he gets is only similar to the love of a domestic animal with its master; [other notions excluded]. He does not hide his love, but does not convey it in a manner others could understand. Mourning is his breakfast, but mourning for his love is never in his menu. Chithan is not confused, but still he cannot focus. He hears voices from the sky, but is deaf to others call. He is emotionally attached, but quite detached in expressing them. He is neither secure nor feels insecure. He is afraid but never nervous. When he is excited he just stares. And when he is angry or in joy, he shows his teeth, where his eyes take care of the relay.

Last but miles far from least, he is human, but still he behaves like an animal. Basically, Chithan is all that isn't.

This characterisation is certainly anything else, but terrible. The variation of Chithan from being normal to abnormal is potrayed all long the film where normal characters do normal things, but Chithan alone does what one does not expect him to do. The story is basically how this character, a stray, gets domesticated but turns to be the fittest, not for survival but, as a fittest man in love. Beauty is the romance part in the whole film where, when you eliminate the lady artists, its exactly a love between 2 men. The con part is when you jot the story : Hero arrives to a village - heroine sympathises with the hero - they get along well - Villain Kills Heroine - Hero takes revenge.

The problem arises when you look at a piece of work of such a calibre with just jargons of Film Making leading to making sweeping statements.

There are several levels of acting technics, 2 major being : exaggeration and being natural. Without giving you the names of any artists : Exaggeration is the most prominently used technic. The natural talent of replicating oneself to the character and its manerism is something adorable to see when performed by certain artists. But they do go overboard. Being natural is quite difficult too, as you are not the same as the character but the demand is to be. Its like asking you to scold at yourself before the mirror. Its also a Natural Talent, where few artists without any effort convince you that they are what they are playing.

Now comes the interesting part - Being the character. It needs an immense talent, both as natural and as an extended gift, to gauge the character and reciprocate it. It cannot be just coined as a dedication, then any artist with a passion should do that. The depth - how far you can reach your leg in the dark pit without falling down ? - where you have to go and search this unknown person (character) inside you. Bringing him out is altogether a different story. A small deviation can cause an immense impact over the reading. Controlling and giving it in the same meter from start to end is something unimaginable. If its just one scene or two, it can be adjusted but all the closeups at regualr intervals, which stays on you for a while, is not an easy task. What increases the challenge are the 3 basic nature of the character Chithan - Stray, domestic & monster. These 3 nature takes its sweet time to be exposed, meaning, the artist should stay in a particular state for a long while, and then give a glimpse of change so that the audience can translate it. Over doing it (exaggeration) will end up disastrous and underplaying it will cut the impact.

Vikram is Chithan. Watch Pithamagan (again), and any one aspect illustrated above strikes you while watching Chithan, then Vikram is the winner.

[irir123]

Vikram IMHO is the kind of an actor whose acting skills are better handled by someone like the late Balu Mahendra, or, pehaps in some future film, by Kamal !

Vikram gives what the director wants - I find his performances in Shankar's films over-the-top - not that he cannot do understated roles, but its just that directors like Bala and Shankar demand and cater to his over-the-top performances.

someone here said 'maybe Kamal might have done what Vikram did' - nalla joke - the kind of roles Vikram has done, Kamal can do in between yawns !

no comparison at all - nadigar thilagam and Kamal are in leagues of their own.

[OnMyWay]

Feel Vikram hasnt been challenged enough by roles where the character grows during the film or is multilayered.

The one character that comes to mind in that regard is Samurai, although a commercial movie , had some scope in that regard.
But his performance didnt really standout there.

The truly great ones give the feeling they are going through stuff internally much more than what meets the audience's eyes in the physical acting.

He is capable of a being subtler though, he has done a few malayalam movies where he hasnt been so loud. So he can be subtle and loud.

He is great at working with certain material,a wonderful showman. He is inspirational in the way he devotes himself to his craft.
But an acting masterclass is more than just effort .

.