[searacer932]

I would suggest the audience not to watch Vikram unless they have watched the following movies. Vikram's dialogues & scenes wouldn't make sense to the audience if they have not watched the following movies :-). I know it's a big ask!

1. 1986 Vikram
2. Nayagan
3. Vetri Vizha
4. Kaidhi

Also, this is a movie purely for the big screen (read it as theatres). The theatrical experience is far too superior particularly in the intermission block and in the Nayagan dialogue scene :-)

OTT is purely for shows such as "Modern Love Hyderabad", "Modern Love Mumbai" etc. :-) and not for movies such as Vikram or Baasha or Avengers or Jurassic Park-1 or Avatar!

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

I agree to this. One aspect is of course the big screen-watching with a crowd atmosphere, but even if the technology is sorted at home with a proper home theater set up, I think we all get way too distracted in some way or the other and may end up missing scenes, sequences or just some nuances which elevates the film.

For example the moment we started 'Keedam', wife had to step away, daughter decided to go get something to eat and both missed the first sequence, without that some parts later don't make sense at all and I had to explain.

This is exactly the point i was trying to make.
As an example, imagine watching a movie like 'Chak De India' in a theatre vs at home (even if on your home theatre setup). The whole experience of going to the movies, allowing the excitement to build up, and then the visual and sound effects aided by the audience reactions.

I find that when watching movies at home, there is always the distraction from the phone, the pressure cooker which has just let out steam and needs to be turned to lowest heat , volume's too high or dialogues barely legible.. you get the drift.

I love the convenience of OTT and getting access to new movies within a short turnaround time, but some movies are just more endearing on a bigger canvas.

P.S. : I haven't watched Vikram yet, just offering my perspective of what could be the reason for the let-down.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

One aspect is of course the big screen-watching with a crowd atmosphere

Originally Posted by benbsb29

I find that when watching movies at home, there is always the distraction from the phone, the pressure cooker...

I am in the totally opposite camp on this one. I always prefer watching at home rather than going to a theatre. In one's home these sort of distractions (pressure cooker, phone...) can be accommodated by the simple expedient of the pause button press. Not so in a theatre - you have to wait (hope?) for that fellow to attend the call or this fellow to take the baby out. At home if I didn't quite catch a bit of dialog or wanted to look at a decor more closely - I can always rewind. I'm SOL in a theatre.

On the other hand, at home there are no whistles or claps when the hero makes his entry. No cultists or fanbois.

And the whole practical aspect. No queuing up for tickets (BMS has solved this problem at least, though one has to pay their premium). No sitting on food - or was that puke? - stained seats. The last movie I went had a 1h+ interval because the projection system conked off, so the climax stretched to 2AM+ and I nodded off for some part of it. Has anyone tried getting out of Forum value mall after a popular movie? It can take 20+ minutes. I get a year's supply of OTT at the cost of one outing to the PVR at VR mall with enough to spare for the microwave popcorn.

My wife has a set of her own (gender-specific) experiences to narrate as a movie fan visiting local theatres in Aluva and Perumbavoor.

Not to mention, FDFS experience of the latest Mohanlal flick is identically accessible to me and my wife, equally deserving fans of the star, as it is to the card-carrying members of his fans association.

[deetee]

Originally Posted by searacer932

I would suggest the audience not to watch Vikram unless they have watched the following movies.
1. 1986 Vikram
2. Nayagan
3. Vetri Vizha
4. Kaidhi

I beg to differ with that view. While Vikram is boxoffice blaster and praised my many members here, after watching it, I felt it is not upto mark of even Kaidhi. For one thing, there is too much of explicit violence and foul language that it is a proper 18+ movie. Nayagan or even Kaidhi is watchable with family (kids/teens including). Vikram relies heavily on extreme violence and foul language to distract the viewer from plot loop holes. This belongs to a genre of dark thrillers. That's it, I would not tag it along with classics.

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by binand

I am in the totally opposite camp on this one.

And the whole practical aspect. No queuing up for tickets (BMS has solved this problem at least, though one has to pay their premium). No sitting on food - or was that puke? - stained seats. The last movie I went had a 1h+ interval because the projection system conked off, so the climax stretched to 2AM+ and I nodded off for some part of it. Has anyone tried getting out of Forum value mall after a popular movie? It can take 20+ minutes. I get a year's supply of OTT at the cost of one outing to the PVR at VR mall with enough to spare for the microwave popcorn.

Agree with you on this point in particular. Imagine the horror if I went through all this hassle and paid so much to watch some of Manju Warrier's recent duds at the cineplex?!

[PrideRed]

Watched Vikram and liked the movie. There are lot of misses but an entertainer. Experience would have been better in theatre. Kamal Hassan's age is showing and someone younger would have done better or director could have done better job portraying the character. Again Fahad faasil was a miss match, could not see tiny faasil beating up goons twice or thrice his size. Some scenes clearly did not belong to this era. For example just look how the scenes of machine gun shot in KGF vs Vikram, the latter feels so poor. Again two movies cannot be compared as both have their strong points. Will i watch it again? No, but was a good one time watch.

[narayans80]

Originally Posted by searacer932

I would suggest the audience not to watch Vikram unless they have watched the following movies. Vikram's dialogues & scenes wouldn't make sense to the audience if they have not watched the following movies :-)

On the contrary, dialogues are pretty straightforward and don't warrant watching 1986 Vikram or Nayagan. One might miss the throwback, but the movie stands on its own.

There are few plot linkbacks from Kaidhi to Vikram, so watching Kaidhi would help connecting these references

[dragonfire]

In the early days of the radio, not everybody could afford them and the only place to listen to one was at a community hall. Movie theaters were needed in the past because it was impossible for regular people to invest in a film projector and a dark room at home.

A movie theater is like a public transport bus. There sure are people who love that big vehicle experience - travelling in huge vehicles along with total strangers. Then there are private cars. They may not have large engines, may not make enough noise or vibration, may not break your back when it goes over a hump, etc. but these little boxes lets you drive at your own pace, start-stop when you want; and all this, with only people you care about by your side.

Doesn't sound exciting?

We can setup decent home theaters at home for a few lakhs. Even a 55 inch TV with a stereo sound system in your living room suffice for "normal" movies. Movie theaters are a dead concept, I'd say - and Covid has driven the last nail in its coffin.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by searacer932

I would suggest the audience not to watch Vikram unless they have watched the following movies. Vikram's dialogues & scenes wouldn't make sense to the audience if they have not watched the following movies :-). I know it's a big ask!

1. 1986 Vikram
2. Nayagan
3. Vetri Vizha
4. Kaidhi

Disagree. I have seen some of those and there's no significant aspect that really enhances the bore that Vikram 2022 turned out to be (when compared to the above list).

Also, this is a movie purely for the big screen (read it as theatres). The theatrical experience is far too superior particularly in the intermission block and in the Nayagan dialogue scene :-)

Originally Posted by benbsb29

This is exactly the point i was trying to make.
As an example, imagine watching a movie like 'Chak De India' in a theatre vs at home (even if on your home theatre setup). The whole experience of going to the movies, allowing the excitement to build up, and then the visual and sound effects aided by the audience reactions.

As for movies made for the big screen, I partly agree with you guys (to an extent). In comparison to Vikram, I can and am able to watch KGF 1 & 2, Baahubali 1 & 2 (or Dangal or Chak De) for repeat sessions on OTT but the experience is no where close to watching it in a theatre; even if when I'm watching it on my tv with additional surround sound speakers as compared to watching it on a mobile.

We watched Vikram on the tv-speaker setup - it was a dud for us. As I mentioned earlier, we got so bored, we switched off and watched something else, and this eventually took us 3 attempts to finish the movie. For me, the location/setup of the movie does not improve an average/badly made movie. I seriously doubt watching Vikram in theatre would have been any different for us. But I understand that a movie can have different output for different folks so it's good that we have a spread of feedback on this movie.

[KPR]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Vikram : 1.5 / 5

So I'm probably in the minority. Anyway so be it.

Its a waste of acting skills of amazing actors lthat Vijay Sethupathi and Faasil are. The movie focuses more on the actors than the story, feeling extremely disconnected at several moments. Too many "inspirations" copied from Hollywood movies - Dark Knight Rises (post-credits scene), Leon: The Professional (villain chewing tablet to become a brute), etc. Took us three attempts over multiple days to finish the movie finally.

+1. These young directors watch Breaking bad and try to make a unnecessary 'inspirational' movies. There's absolutely no creativity in this movie. Why do actor like Surya act as drug lord when he runs educational trust for school children? Money? He has to remember that to become a good example, one's reel and real life must be close enough.

[hemanth.anand]

Watched Vikram (Tamil)

I don't know if it was because the movie didn't match the hype, Or was it because the story was "same-old" and had nothing new in it, or was it actually a fact, the entire movie was boring and failed to keep me engrossed. Unnecessary twists, non-sensical scenes, illogical characters, glorification of violence...There was nothing that I could like. I watched it till the end hoping something will come out of it but it was just a hollow movie. It was like pieces of many things were taken and put into a mixer and ground into a slurry. pieces of multiple movies both Indian and International were taken and ground to make into a single movie. This has resulted in many loose ends in the storyline. Thankfully I didn't waste money on tickets in the movie hall. And Suriya in the end as an eccentric drug lord, was completely out of place but that's where there is scope for another useless, long, boring sequel

I'd rate it 1.5/5

[ninjatalli]

I sometimes wonder why these big shots of yesterdays (but still relevant today) have to do big ticket action movies. I am a die hard fan of Kamal Hassan since my childhood but I am going to remember him not for his action hits but his other genius roles.
MMKR (Michael Madan...)
Nayakan
Anbe Sivam
Apoorva Sagodharargal
Panchatanthiram
Moondram Pirai / Sadma

And so many more. Very few of them mirror the movies/ roles he's doing over the last few years. When will he realize this...

[Vasuki]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

I sometimes wonder why these big shots of yesterdays (but still relevant today) have to do big ticket action movies. I am a die hard fan of Kamal Hassan since my childhood but I am going to remember him not for his action hits but his other genius roles.
MMKR (Michael Madan...)
Nayakan
Anbe Sivam
Apoorva Sagodharargal
Panchatanthiram
Moondram Pirai / Sadma

And so many more. Very few of them mirror the movies/ roles he's doing over the last few years. When will he realize this...

Yep. Exactly. You've left "Sagarasangamam" from this list.

[ashis89]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

I sometimes wonder why these big shots of yesterdays (but still relevant today) have to do big ticket action movies.... When will he realize this...

In the end, it's business. They have to make movies which sell well (Vikram did). Other "art" movies can be a miss at the box-office even though it receives critical acclaim from some of us.

Thanks for the list of movies.

I have watched Ambe Shivam and can't forget it ever. Will catch up on the remaining ones in the list


PS: Kamal Hassan, in a recent interview, said that he was sure of Vikram's success and would use the money to clear his debt. A quick Google shows Vishwaroopam and Vishwaroopam 2 lost him money.

[Rajeevraj]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

I sometimes wonder why these big shots of yesterdays (but still relevant today) have to do big ticket action movies.

Most of the superstars/megastars of yesteryear or even today are stuck in a major image trap. In fact Kamal is one of the very few Indian megastars who could do any kind of film and still make it a major box offfice success. In Malayalam Mohanlal could do this and Mammootty to an extent. Of course current box office clout has reduced significantly for all of them.

Today's top stars are also stuck either doing mass entertainers or more realistic off beat films. No one in the current generation across industries can effortlessly straddle both and churn out massive box office successes(keeping aside the OTT theater debate). That way Kamal is one of a kind.

So although I had mixed opinions about Vikram, I am glad he got a massive box office success. I had read that the theater association or something had bucketed actors into tiers based on their recent box office performance and Kamal was put in Tier 3. That was an insult in my view. Fitting reply.