That's 5 minutes wasted reading this article that I am never getting back. I am not sure the author has completely understood the nuances of the film.
In most movies, women are seen doing the physical and emotional labour of helping adult men to pick up pieces of their lives. Here, the men take the onus and identify that and want to become better people for each other as a family and for their lovers.
The film has an interesting take on supportive friendships and love where they are not trying to change the other but help to bring out the best in themselves.
It is a breath of fresh air to see men characters portrayed as faulty, vulnerable, confused and those that are not making nannies out of the women they love which is why I feel the politicial ambition is not lost.
I think most people seem to have misunderstood the article. The author isn't defending Shammi the person. The author calls him out on his misogynistic behaviour when says that "Shammi is the pathologically hidebound Malayali male with a thick walrus moustache, cleanly combed hair, who rides a Royal Enfield and intimidates women and children."
I think the author simply meant that Shammi is a better written character than the four brothers. And when the villain is better written than the heroes, the villain wins, does he not?
Haha this review was a pain to read. Seems like a very biased film reviewer who should probably stick to watching movies and not reviewing them.
This is one of the most biased and unworthy write-up about an excellent movie!!!
Antony, what exactly do you mean by saying it's progressive but politically unambitious??
Are you using English language as a tool to invent and manufacture content that does not even exist!!!
'Political Ambition' my left foot!!!
May be I am naive, and cannot see what politics you have seen in this movie.
This movie is indeed progressive and the role of the feminine is hyper progressive.
They are indeed not objects to be groped, and they indeed exhibit strong stands on issues of importance to them and carry credence and the confidence to bring it into prominence as and when they feel that their rights are violated!!
Or, is it the insecurity of your kind, your genre - the ancestral, inherited, mama pampered male chauvinist coming out to the fore?
Don't you dare dream and conjure up hyped up paraphernalia that does not even exist in this 'One of a kind Movie'.
Your penchant and affinity of drenching deserving praise on just one actor really reveals your complete incompetency in the sphere of being a artistic critic!!!
How can only one actor shine and the all the others not have at-least some contributory portrayal or role?
You gain credits in your chosen field not by contriving imaginary idioms and unfathomable situations; but by being digestive to the fact that you have to have knowledge of the various tastes and the tacit amalgamations and combinations of the various spices that make up a well cooked dish that is worthy of being served!!