When Kollywood director S Shankar made his vigilante film “Indian” in 1996 starring Kamal Haasan, it generated well-deserved Oscar buzz.
That movie offered brutal insight into the nefarious effects of corruption in India and proposed an equally brutal solution: killing the perpetrators.
At the heart of the story was 70-year-old Senapathy (Kamal Haasan), a veteran Indian freedom fighter who uses Varma Kalai, an ancient martial art that targets vital points, to eliminate the corrupt individuals responsible for his daughter’s death.
Although “Indian” didn’t make the Oscar cut, the film conveyed that the only way to stop corruption – an oft-visited topic of Shankar’s – is to cut it at the root, even if that means targeting your own family.
Shankar captivated audiences with his imaginative storytelling, heart-pounding action sequences, and compelling narrative; while Kamal, being the capable actor that he is, delivered a stellar dual performance as Senapathy – also known as Indian Thatha (Indian grandfather) – and his son Chandru.
So, when news broke about a sequel aptly called “Indian 2″, it created a lot of hype. The fact that it would involve Kamal and Shankar once again made the deal even sweeter.
Plus, lest we forget, the themes of bribery, ill-gotten financial gains, and criminals going scot-free just might resonate with Malaysian audiences as well!
Alas, “Indian 2” proves to be a lesson in how not to do a sequel. Thirty minutes into this film with a 2.5-hour(!) runtime, one is likely to find oneself asking: how is Senapathy, who by now would be well into his 90s, still agile, strong, alert, and a feared warrior?
Even stranger, how is this man, who looked slightly fragile in the first movie, somehow stronger and bigger than he was nearly three decades ago? Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but surely some degree of realism is expected, if not demanded?
Narratively, “Indian 2” follows the familiar Shankar formula. There’s a montage of corruption victims, a cry for a saviour to rise, the arrival of said saviour/vigilante in an overly dramatised fashion, escalating action, and a stretched-out chase sequence with a rather predictable ending.
In terms of context and sociopolitical landscape, the sequel seems stuck fighting the same villain, only 28 years later.
And if you’re planning to watch the film for Kamal, forget it: the movie pays more attention to its side characters than its titular anti-hero, with half the film feeling like a PSA about the negative impacts of corruption.
It’s as if Indian Thatha had been plucked from 1996 and planted in present-day India as a supporting character in a “same-same-but-different” narrative.
Additionally, the first film utilised mystery, foreboding and danger to create a suspenseful viewing experience. “Indian 2” relies heavily on spectacle, lavish settings and unnecessary side quests.
As a result, the very essence of “Indian”, which made it one of the top films in Kollywood history, is lost.
Perhaps Shankar could have taken a cue from DC’s “The Dark Knight Returns”, which tells the story of an aged Batman. Despite his updated gadgets, the caped crusader is portrayed as ageing, showing signs of wear. He still manages to fight crime, but we see him slower and more susceptible to injury.
If this level of realism had been brought to “Indian 2″, presenting a Senapathy who still delivers Varma Kalai punches while being slowed by age, it would have been a saving grace.
But the fact that this nonagenarian is beating up thugs twice his size with ease, outrunning hundreds of trained police officers on an electric unicycle, swerving through tunnels like a circus acrobat, and escaping without a scratch is baffling and nonsensical.
If all this wasn’t enough, the post-credit scene alludes to an “Indian 3″ – something Shankar and Kamal have mentioned in interviews. Aduhai.
All in all, “Indian 2” shows that not all follow-ups work or are necessary. No one asked for this film. Corruption kills. So do shoddy sequels.
As of press time, ‘Indian 2’ is screening in cinemas nationwide.