Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Garudan movie review: A fantastic Soori spearheads this tale on friendship, loyalty and deceit

Published

on

Garudan movie review: A fantastic Soori spearheads this tale on friendship, loyalty and deceit

A still from ‘Garudan’ 
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

After a brilliant makeover from a comedian to a lead actor in Vetri Maaran’sViduthalai: Part 1, Soori’s sophomore outing as a protagonist, Garudan, proves that his transformation is not a flash in the pan. With a neatly woven script that has enough brawn to overcome its minor shortcomings, director RS Durai Senthilkumar makes a splendid comeback with this raw and intense rural drama.

In Garudan, Soori plays Sokkan, an orphan who finds solace in Karunakaran’s (Unni Mukundan) solidarity, turning him into a living embodiment of the word ‘loyalty’. Meanwhile, Aadhithya (Sasikumar) is Karuna’s best friend and the duo also professionally works in tandem. Akin to a marksman’s deafening gunshot disturbing the tranquillity of a peaceful forest where its inhabitants keep their animal instincts in check, trouble brews in multiple forms. The film catalogues the rift in these bonds down to the proverbial ‘mann, ponn, penn’ (greed for land, wealth and women). When these events rattle his perfect world, Sokkan is forced to take it upon himself to restore balance.

A cop wants to resign, a minister wants to swindle away a large piece of temple land, a character from a once-affluent family has a hard time making ends meet, a couple is distraught about their inability to conceive, a relationship leads to unplanned pregnancy, a cordial relationship between two people blooms into romance…. Garudan discloses all its cards with breakneck speed and introduces us to a plethora of characters. While it takes a while to settle within this world, the screenplay goes against its title to put us amidst the action instead of giving us a bird’s eye view of happenings.

Garudan (Tamil)

Director: RS Durai Senthilkumar

Cast: Soori, Sasikumar, Unni Mukundan, Sshivada, Samuthirakani, Revathy Sarma

Advertisement

Storyline: A man stuck between fidelity and fairness is forced to take a side

Runtime: 138 minutes

Soori is arguably at the cusp of his career’s apogee. At a stage where a little ‘mass’ would do wonders amidst a lot of ’class’ (three of his films are having a dream run at film festivals), the actor could not have asked for something as bespoke and vivifying as Garudan. Not only does the film play to his strengths and does a brilliant job with the ‘rise of an underdog’ trope that we enjoyed in Viduthalai, but it also gives him enough space to showcase his talents across aspects like action, romance and even a little dance.

A still from ‘Garudan’ 

A still from ‘Garudan’ 
| Photo Credit:
Special Arrangement

But Garudan does not break boundaries with its plot; it offers the usual tropes of brotherhood, deception and retribution that we have seen often, and scenes do remind us of its own actors and director’s films like Kidaari, Subramaniapuram and Kodi. In fact, if Maamannan can be interpreted as the perspective of Vadivelu’s character Isakki from Thevar Magan, Garudan is the equivalent of Isakki taking it upon himself to end the feud with those he considers his bosses. However, despite looming over familiar territory, Garudan manages to give us something fresh thanks to its treatment and performances.

Advertisement

Director Durai etches the three primary characters brilliantly and it starts right from their very names; Aadhi is the all-giving do-gooder and a ray of hope from the above, Karuna takes in a nobody under his wings and values fellowship more than anything, and Sokkan — keeping with the title of the film — is the bird that lives between these two entities. Soori is picture-perfect as Sokkan; the character is often called a dog because he is faithful and dependable, but the same man’s best friend can turn rabid when pushed into a corner.

A character elaborates on a dream she had featuring horses, elephants and men with weapons; a scene straight out of the Kurukshetra War. But in this game of chess, what’s often overlooked is how a simple pawn, when it reaches the other extreme end, can transform into something powerful and Soori aces that transformation. His distinct monologue of truth bombs that he delivers to Karuna, the humourous side that often comes out during his escapades with lady love Vinnarasi (Revathy Sarma), his show of allegiance to the families of Karuna and Aadhi, and the impressive action sequences featuring him make for some of the best scenes in the film. Sasikumar also fits perfectly in the role of Aadhi, a dignified character who is an extension of several lead roles he has previously played. A pleasant surprise comes in the form of Sshivada pulling off her limited but salient character with poise. But what feels like a miscast is Unni Mukundan whose dialect does not help with his rushed character arc.

The film has its fair share of issues ranging from painfully convenient twists to unnecessarily gory and violent action scenes. Still, they end up as mere speed-breakers in an otherwise enjoyable joy ride. Add to it an in-form Yuvan Shankar Raja whose scores elevate the mood of the film and Arthur A. Wilson’s well-crafted frames, the technical prowess successfully push the film over the finish line. It would not be a stretch to call Garudan as director Durai’s best work, and leave you wanting more of this metamorphosis of Parotta Soori to protagonist Soori!

Garudan is currently running in theatres

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – As its title suggests, “Scream 7” (Paramount) is the latest extension of a long-lived horror franchise, one that’s currently approaching its 30th anniversary on screen. Since each chapter of this slasher saga has been a bloodsoaked mess, the series’ longevity will strike moviegoers of sense as inexplicable.

Yet the slog continues. While the previous film in the sequence shifted the action from California to New York, this second installment, following a 2022 quasi-reboot, settles on a Midwestern locale and reintroduces us to the series’ original protagonist, Sidney Evans, nee Prescott (Neve Campbell).

Having aged out of the adolescent demographic on whom the various murderers who have donned the Ghostface mask that serves as these films’ dubious trademark over the years seem to prefer to prey, Sidney comes equipped with a teen daughter, Tatum (Isabel May). Will Tatum prove as resourceful in evading the unwanted attentions of Ghostface as Mom has?

On the way to answering that question, a clutch of colorless minor characters fall victim to the killer, who sometimes gets — according to his or her lights — creative. Thus one is quite literally made to spill her guts, while another ends up skewered on a barroom’s pointy beer tap.

Through it all, director Kevin Williamson and his co-writer Guy Busick try to peddle a theme of female empowerment in the face of mortal danger. They also take a stab, as it were, at constructing a plotline about intergenerational family tensions. When not jarring viewers with grisly images, however, they’re only likely to lull them into a stupor.

Advertisement

The film contains excessive gory violence, including disembowelment and impaling, underage drinking, mature topics, a couple of profanities, several milder oaths, pervasive rough and considerable crude language and occasional crass expressions. The OSV News classification is O — morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: March 8th, 2026 / 08:00 PM

THE BRIDE movie poster | ©2026 Warner Bros.

Rating: R
Stars: Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Annette Bening, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Penelope Cruz, Jeannie Berlin, Zlatko Burić
Writer: Maggie Gyllenhaal, based on characters created by Mary Shelley and William Hurlbut and John Balderston
Director: Maggie Gyllenhaal
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Release Date: March 6, 2026

“THE BRIDE!” (as with the recent “WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the quotation marks are part of the title) is awash in homages, and not just the ones we might reasonably expect in a movie that takes its most obvious inspiration from 1935’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Advertisement

There’s that, of course, plus its source, Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel FRANKENSTEIN; OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS, and its sober 1931 film adaptation FRANKENSTEIN. But there are also big nods to wilder takes on the legend, including YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and even movies that have nothing to do with FRANKENSTEIN, like BONNIE AND CLYDE.

Writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal casts a wide net in metaphors and ideas and looks. Sometimes “THE BRIDE!” is a comedy, sometimes it’s a crime drama, sometimes it’s a love story, occasionally, it’s even a musical.

Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley) narrates the tale to us from beyond the grave. She is haughty and naughty, intoxicated by verbiage and her own literary genius. She is going to tell us a story, she says, that she didn’t even dare imagine while alive.

We’re in 1930s Chicago, where a young escort (also Buckley) is having a really awful evening out at a fancy restaurant with some of her peers and a bunch of crass gangsters. Shelley dubs the woman “Ida” and takes possession of her, causing her to speak and act in ways that get her escorted outside. There she stumbles and takes a fatal fall.

The two goons who were with Ida are happy to describe her tumble as the result of their intentional actions to their horrible gangster boss (Zlatko Burić). Ida was suspected of talking to the cops.

Advertisement

Around the same time, Frankenstein’s creation (Christian Bale) – let’s just call him “Frank,” like everybody else does – comes to Chicago to seek out the groundbreaking scientist Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening), whose published works he has read.

Frank wants the doctor to create a companion for him. His appearance is unusual, but the most alarming injuries are covered by clothing, so he’s not as extreme-looking as, say, Boris Karloff in the role. This isn’t about sex, Frank explains when Euphronious asks why he doesn’t just hire a prostitute. After over a century of loneliness, he seeks a soulmate, and he is sure this can only be achieved by reviving a corpse.

So, Euphronious and Frank dig up the grave that turns out to belong to Ida (we never do learn how they know it belongs to a soulmate candidate as opposed to a shot-and-dumped male gangster). Euphronius revives her. Ida remembers how to walk and talk, but not who she is or what happened, so Frank and the doc tell her she’s been in an accident.

Even without Ida’s beauty, Frank is already devoted to the very notion of her. A more accommodating suitor would be hard to find. Frank has another passion, the musical films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal, the filmmaker’s brother), a Fred Astaire-like star. Frank imagines himself in the midst of those dance routines, and we get some more within “THE BRIDE!”’s “real” action.

One thing leads to another, Frank and Ida go on the run, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. They are pursued all over the country. Among those seeking them are sad-eyed police detective Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) and his secretary Myrna Mallow (Penélope Cruz), who’s better at this whole crime-solving business than he is.

Advertisement

It’s all very kaleidoscopic and energetic, occasionally impressive and sometimes very funny. Bening as the frazzled, worldly Euphronious has some great moments. Buckley, currently and justifiably Oscar-nominated leading performance in HAMNET, juggles the very unalike personas of Mary and Ida with impact.

Oddly, Bale underplays Frank. We get that he is trying his hardest not to spook Ida (or anyone else), but it seems like he should have a bit more spark. Cruz, going for a snappy ‘30s working woman, has her own style that works.

But in addition to being entertaining and eye-catching, Gyllenhaal has a message that gets very muddled. This is less because it’s so familiar by now that it feels a little redundant, and more because a crucial part of the set-up collides head-on with the feminist slant.

Ida seeks to be her own person, but she is literally bodily controlled by Mary Shelley, who puts her creation in danger with her outbursts. This may help get Ida out of the clutches of the mob, but it is possession, the aftereffects of which the character understandably finds confusing and upsetting.

If Gyllenhaal wanted to discuss or dramatize the clash between what Mary, as a woman, is doing to this other woman, that would make sense, but it seems we’re just meant to somehow overlook this while being immersed in how men control women. The resulting cognitive dissonance adds another layer to a movie that already has more than it can comfortably service.

Advertisement

Additionally, when Mary has one of her outbursts while inhabiting Ida, the plot comes to a screeching halt until she’s finished. Many viewers will wish Mary would stop declaiming and just let Ida be herself.

“THE BRIDE!” succeeds in being trippy and some of it is memorable. By the end, though, it is more disjointed than even a movie about experiments and a character made up of multiple people’s body parts ought to be.

Related: Movie  Review: NFT: CURSED IMAGESRelated: Movie  Review: SCREAM 7
Related: Movie  Review: OPERATION TACO GARY’S
Related: Movie  Review: ANACORETA
Related: Movie  Review: THIS IS NOT A TEST
Related: Movie  Review: GHOST TRAIN
Related: Movie  Review: COLD STORAGE
Related: Movie  Review: THE HAUNTED FOREST
Related: Movie  Review: “WUTHERING HEIGHTS” 
Related: Movie  Review: THE MORTUARY ASSISTANT
Related: Movie  Review: THE STRANGERS: CHAPTER 3
Related: Movie  Review: PILLION
Related: Movie  Review: JIMPA
Related: Movie  Review: ISLANDS
Related: Movie  Review: WORLDBREAKER
Related: Movie  Review: MOTHER OF FLIES
Related: Movie  Review: 28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE
Related: Movie  Review: NIGHT PATROL
Related: Movie  Review: THE CONFESSION (2026)
Related: Movie  Review: WE BURY THE DEAD
Related: Movie  Review: ANACONDA
Related: Movie  Review: AVATAR: FIRE AND  ICE
Related: Movie  Review: IS THIS THING ON?
Related: Movie  Review: MANOR OF DARKNESS
Related: Movie  Review: DUST BUNNY

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie  Review: “THE BRIDE!”

Advertisement

Related Posts:

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Heel’ Review: Why Did Stephen Graham and Andrea Riseborough Sign on for This Contrived Debacle?

Published

on

‘Heel’ Review: Why Did Stephen Graham and Andrea Riseborough Sign on for This Contrived Debacle?

The original title of “Heel” was “Good Boy.” The new title is probably more accurate, though an even more accurate title might be “Painfully Annoying Punk Idiot.” I jest (a bit), since the title of “Heel” is actually a verb. The film wants to tell the story of a budding hooligan who needs to be brought to heel. That said, does anyone seriously want to see a movie about a 19-year-old British sociopath who gets chained up in a basement so that the weird upper-middle-class couple who’ve kidnapped him can modify his behavior? “Heel” is like “A Clockwork Orange” remade as the year’s worst Sundance movie.

The opening sequence is actually promising. It depicts, in rapidly edited documentary-like montage, a reckless night out on the town by Tommy (Anson Boon) and his friends. They’re hopped-up club kids, and Tommy is their snarling, curly-haired, sexually coercive wastrel ringleader, living in the moment, pouring drinks down his throat, snorting coke and popping pills, dancing and carousing and puking and rutting in the bathroom, pushing himself to a higher and higher high, until he winds up collapsed on the sidewalk — a ritual, we gather, that has happened many times before. Only this time his crumpled body is gathered up by a mysterious stranger.     

When Tommy wakes up, he’s in the basement of a stately stone house somewhere in the British countryside. He’s got a metal collar around his neck, and it’s chained to the ceiling. The film has barely gotten started, and already it’s cut to the second half of “A Clockwork Orange”: Can this monster delinquent be rehabilitated? Theoretically, that’s an interesting question, except that the way this happens is so garishly contrived that we can only go with the movie by putting any plea for reality on permanent hold.

Who are the people who have kidnapped Tommy? Chris (Stephen Graham) is a mild chap in a toupee who goes about his mission with a puckish vengeance disguised as gentility. His wife, Kathryn (Andrea Riseborough), is so neurasthenic she’s like a ghost. (She has suffered some trauma that isn’t colored in.) The two have a cherubic preteen son they call Sunshine (Kit Rakusen). And why, exactly, are they doing what they’re doing? We have no idea. Trying to make a bad person into a good person is not, in itself, a terrible notion, but the conceit of “Heel” — that Tommy is locked in a dungeon, being treated like a dog, because that’s what it will take to change him — is like a toxic right-wing fantasy that the film somehow reconfigures into an implausible liberal “family” allegory.

Ah, plausibility! How unhip to gripe about the absence of it. Yet watching “Heel,” I found it impossible to suspend my disbelief for two seconds. The entire movie, directed by the Polish filmmaker Jan Komasa (“Corpus Christie”) from a script by Bartek Bartosik and Naqqash Khalid, is just a grimy monotonous conceit. It’s been thought out thematically but not in terms of recognizable human behavior. It’s like a film-student short stretched out to an agonizing 110 minutes.

Advertisement

Anson Boon, a charismatic actor who did an okay job of playing Johnny Rotten in Danny Boyle’s TV miniseries “Pistol” (though he never conjured Rotten’s homicidal gleam), infuses Tommy with a loutish energy that in the early scenes, at least, makes him a convincing candidate for either prison or the contemporary equivalent of shock therapy. And yet the character is exhaustingly obnoxious. As a filmmaker, Komasa doesn’t dramatize — he uses one-note traits to clobber the audience. Stephen Graham’s Chris is as quiet and circumspect as Tommy is abrasive. He tries to train Tommy by showing him motivational tapes, and by subjecting him to Tommy’s own depraved TikToks. He then rigs up an elaborate system of gutters on the ceiling so that Tommy, in his metal leash, can wander around the house, a sign that he’s been housebroken.

Tommy has to grow and change, since there wouldn’t be a movie otherwise. In the process, he gets less annoying but also less interesting, because “Heel” sentimentalizes his transformation. Komasa seems to have missed the key irony of “A Clockwork Orange”: that the behavior modification of Alex is as brutalizing as his original state of punk anarchy. In “Heel,” Tommy’s evolution is singularly unconvincing — by the end, he’s practically ready to be the suitor in a Jane Austen drama. But that’s all of a piece with a movie so false it puts the audience in the doghouse.

Continue Reading

Trending