Indian 2: A Tale of Zero Tolerance that Fails to Go Back to Glory

Bengaluru: “Indian 2,” directed by S. Shankar and starring Kamal Haasan, arrived with a wave of anticipation and nostalgia. The sequel to the 1996 hit “Indian,” this film promised to bring back the revered character of Senapathy, an ageing freedom fighter turned vigilante, to fight against corruption once more. With a stellar cast and the weight of expectations, “Indian 2” had all the makings of a grand cinematic event. However, the result is a disappointing misfire that fails to recapture the magic of its predecessor, leaving audiences yearning for more substance and less spectacle.

Cast

The film boasts an impressive ensemble cast, with Kamal Haasan reprising his role as Senapathy. Siddharth plays Chitra Aravindhan, a passionate activist and the driving force behind a YouTube channel exposing corrupt politicians. S. J. Suryah, Rakul Preet Singh, Bobby Simha, Vivek, Priya Bhavani Shankar, Gulshan Grover, Samuthirakani, and Nedumudi Venu round out the cast, each delivering performances that, while competent, are ultimately let down by the script.

Plot

Years after the events of “Indian,” Senapathy is living in Taipei, running a martial arts school. Back in India, Chitra Aravindhan and his friends run “Barking Dogs,” a YouTube channel focused on political satire and parodies. When a young woman’s suicide, caused by corrupt officials, prompts the group to protest, they are arrested and later bailed out by Chitra’s girlfriend, Disha. Realizing they need Senapathy’s help, they start a campaign titled “Come Back Indian,” urging the legendary vigilante to return.

Senapathy eventually comes back to India and begins his crusade against corruption, targeting individuals in Gujarat and Odisha. He encourages the public to expose corruption through peaceful means, while he takes on a more forceful approach. However, this strategy backfires, making Senapathy and the “Barking Dogs” the most-wanted individuals in the country.

Review

The return of Senapathy was met with great excitement, but “Indian 2” quickly proves to be a disappointment. The film’s premise, an ageing freedom fighter returning to combat corruption, had potential but was executed in a manner that felt outdated and uninspired. Kamal Haasan’s performance, burdened by heavy prosthetics, felt more like a nod to the past than a portrayal of enduring strength. The anticipation of seeing Indian Thatha again soon dissolved into a sense of déjà vu, with every scene echoing the sentiment that we have seen this all before—and done better.

Siddharth’s portrayal of Chitra Aravindhan stands out as one of the film’s few bright spots. His character brings a fresh energy and genuine passion to the narrative, making the most of his role despite the script’s limitations. The rest of the cast, including S. J. Suryah, Rakul Preet Singh, and Bobby Simha, deliver solid performances, but they are ultimately let down by a direction that lacks innovation and depth.

S. Shankar, a director once celebrated for his grand vision and storytelling prowess, seems to have lost his touch. “Indian 2” feels more like a checklist of his previous successes rather than a bold new chapter. The sequences that should have been thrilling and thought-provoking instead come across as forced and formulaic. The film’s message about fighting corruption is heavy-handed, delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Scenes intended to inspire and provoke thought end up feeling contrived and, at times, downright foolish.

The biggest letdown is the film’s inability to move beyond the past. In trying to recapture the magic of the original, “Indian 2” forgets to innovate. It becomes a shadow of its predecessor, trapped in the glory of what once was rather than embracing what could be. The grand ideas and dramatic flair that once defined Shankar’s films now feel like tired tropes, devoid of the spark that made them special.

Despite its many flaws, “Indian 2” does attempt to address the pressing issue of corruption in modern India. However, the approach feels outdated and lacks the nuance required to resonate with contemporary audiences. The film’s heavy reliance on clichés and melodrama undermines its message, making it difficult for viewers to take it seriously.

One of the more intriguing elements of “Indian 2” is its attempt to blend Gandhian principles with the more aggressive stance of Subhas Chandra Bose. This duality, while interesting in concept, is poorly executed. Senapathy’s methods oscillate between non-violent resistance and outright vigilantism, leading to a disjointed narrative that fails to deliver a coherent message. This inconsistency further detracts from the film’s overall impact, leaving audiences confused about its moral stance.

The film’s action sequences, a hallmark of Shankar’s previous works, are another area where “Indian 2” falls short. What should have been thrilling and visually spectacular scenes instead come across as lackluster and uninspired. The choreography is dated, the special effects unconvincing, and the overall execution lacking the polish that audiences have come to expect from Shankar.

The soundtrack, composed by Anirudh Ravichander, is one of the film’s redeeming qualities. The music, while not groundbreaking, adds a layer of emotional depth that the narrative sorely lacks. The background score helps to elevate certain scenes, providing a sense of gravitas that the script fails to achieve.

As the credits rolled, it was hard not to feel a pang of disappointment. The film that was supposed to reignite our admiration for Indian Thatha instead left us questioning why we had been so eager for his return. “Indian 2” is a stark reminder that revisiting the past without a fresh perspective can lead to stagnation. The film’s message of zero tolerance for corruption, while noble, is undermined by its own lack of innovation and creativity.

For fans of Shankar and Kamal Haasan, this was a bitter pill to swallow. The excitement and hope that greeted the announcement of “Indian 2” have given way to a realization that perhaps some legacies are best left untouched. In the end, “Indian 2” serves as a cautionary tale of how not to handle a sequel: with outdated methods, uninspired direction, and a reliance on past glory that fails to light the way forward.

However, the film does offer a glimmer of hope for the future. In its closing moments, “Indian 2” teases a trailer for the third installment in the trilogy. This brief preview hints at a more modern and innovative approach, suggesting that the filmmakers may have taken the lessons learned from “Indian 2” to heart. The trailer, while brief, shows potential for a more engaging and dynamic narrative, possibly revitalizing the franchise and restoring faith in the vision that once captivated audiences.

In conclusion, “Indian 2” is a film that struggles to live up to its legacy. It attempts to address important issues but falls short due to outdated execution and a lack of innovation. While it offers moments of nostalgia and glimpses of potential, it ultimately serves as a reminder that sometimes, moving forward is better than looking back. As we await the third installment, one can only hope that it will bring the fresh perspective and bold vision that “Indian 2” so desperately needed.