If this week’s Telugu release Gurram Paapi Reddy were a human, it would most likely be a teenager. It bursts with energy, overflowing with ideas and wearing its unabashed enthusiasm like a badge of honour. The audience too might end up surrendering to its infectious energy. Yet, like a distracted teenager, the film also gets so enamoured by its very idea that it loses control and does not know where to stop.

The vibe is eerily similar to Jathi Ratnalu early on. Again, Brahmanandam (as Vaidyanathan), is a judge. Faria Abdullah, the actress in the former film, is the only female presence in the lead lineup here. The other oddball male characters — Gurram Paapi Reddy (Naresh Agastya), Chilipi (Vamshidhar Goud), Goyyi (Jeevan Kumar) and Military (Rajkumar Kasireddy) — are the not-so-smart ones who get entangled in a mess.

The similarities end there. Brahmanandam, who is in terrific form, sets the tone of the comedy, doling out harsh punishments to petty criminals, not for their crimes, but for their sheer stupidity in getting caught. Gurram, Chilipi, Goyyi and Military are the victims who reunite after their jail term. This time, they are joined by Soudamini (Faria).

While their earlier heist at a jewellery store goes terribly wrong, the new plan is strangely simple. The four men need to swap a dead body from Srisailam with another body in a graveyard in Hyderabad for a meagre sum. While they execute it, albeit with difficulty, it gets messy when the motive behind the swap comes to the fore, dating back to a royal gift from the pre-Independence era.

The key conflict is established prior to the intermission, but newer problems surface later. Though the story idea is deceptively straightforward, the director builds many layers to the fun quotient and it’s evident that he treats comedy like serious business.

The actors react to the situations without trying too hard to impress. The scenes are not only thematically funny, but also packed with outrageously hilarious one-liners. Every time one feels the film’s trajectory is sorted, there is a surprise. The screenplay is busy with backstories and subplots.

The second hour could have benefited from some economy in writing. Past connections are strung together, newer characters and their complexities are introduced, there are backup plans, flashbacks and a song is thrown into the mix. Thankfully, the humour quotient remains unaffected. Some breather would have been welcome.

The subplots involving Sangi Reddy, particularly the courtroom proceedings, and Markandeya Raju’s son crowd the screenplay, leaving the viewers with too many dots to connect. It’s inevitable for some restlessness to creep in towards the final 45 minutes — a stretch packed with several events and coincidences. A clever climax salvages the film.

Gurram Paapi Reddy is aware of the crucial balance between the goofiness of its characters and the seriousness of the plot. Too many characters and a packed, expansive narrative make the film exhausting, given its 160-minute runtime.

Naresh Agastya, Vamshidhar Goud, Faria Abdullah, Jeevan Kumar and Rajkumar Kasireddy share wonderful on-screen camaraderie and get ample scope to shine individually too. Yogi Babu, as a convict with night-blindness, brings the roof down even when he doesn’t dub for himself. Motta Rajendran’s antics look repetitive at times, though they land well.

This is also among Brahmanandam’s best on-screen appearances in recent times. It’s an absolute joy to see the veteran actor ever-hungry to prove his worth when he senses potential in a scene. John Vijay is in dire need of reinvention with his dialogue delivery and body language. Both songs in the film, composed by Krishna Saurabh, though well-shot, feel abrupt.

A narrative with lesser flab would have amplified the film’s impact. The makers tease the audience with a potential sequel idea, but appreciably it does not appear forced. The film is also complete in itself.

Gurram Paapi Reddy is a smartly written and performed con-comedy that delivers laughs aplenty, though a few segments become indulgent.

Published – December 19, 2025 08:22 pm IST

James Cameron clarifies Matt Damon’s viral claim that he turned down 10 per cent of ‘Avatar’ profits

Filmmaker James Cameron has addressed actor Matt Damon’s long-circulating claim that he turned down the lead role in Avatar along with a lucrative share of the film’s profits, saying the version widely believed online is “not exactly true.”

For years, Damon has spoken publicly about being offered the role of Jake Sully in the 2009 blockbuster in exchange for 10 per cent of the film’s gross, a deal that would have translated into hundreds of millions of dollars given Avatar’s global earnings of USD 2.9 billion. The role eventually went to Australian actor Sam Worthington, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Jim Cameron called me — he offered me 10 per cent of Avatar,” Damon says in the clips. “You will never meet an actor who turned down more money than me … I was in the middle of shooting the Bourne movie and I would have to leave the movie kind of early and leave them in the lurch a little bit and I didn’t want to do that … [Cameron] was really lovely, he said: ‘If you don’t do this, this movie doesn’t really need you. It doesn’t need a movie star at all. The movie is the star, the idea is the star, and it’s going to work. But if you do it, I’ll give you 10 per cent of the movie.’”

However, speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Cameron said Damon was never formally offered the part. “I can’t remember if I sent him the script or not. I don’t think I did? Then we wound up on a call and he said, ‘I love to explore doing a movie with you. I have a lot of respect for you as a filmmaker. [Avatar] sounds intriguing. But I really have to do this Jason Bourne movie. I’ve agreed to it, it’s a direct conflict, and so, regretfully, I have to turn it down.’ But he was never offered. There was never a deal,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The director added that discussions never progressed to character details or negotiations. “We never talked about the character. We never got to that level. It was simply an availability issue,” he said.

Addressing the widely shared belief that Damon turned down a massive payday, Cameron said the actor may have unintentionally merged separate ideas over time. “What he’s done is extrapolate ‘I get 10 percent of the gross on all my films,’” Cameron said, adding that such a deal would not have happened in this case. “So he’s off the hook and doesn’t have to beat himself up anymore.”

Santa left us a present this holiday season and it is exactly what we didn’t know we needed: A twisty, psychological horror-thriller with nudity that’s all wrapped up in an empowerment message.

“The Housemaid” is Paul Feig’s delicious, satirical look at the secret depravity of the ultra-rich, but it’s so well constructed that’s it’s not clear who’s naughty or nice. Halfway through, the movie zigs and everything you expected zags.

It’s almost impossible to thread the line between self-winking campy — “That’s a lot of bacon. Are you trying to kill us?” — and carving someone’s stomach with a broken piece of fine china, yet Feig and screenwriter Rebecca Sonnenshine do.

Sydney Sweeney stars as a down-on-her luck Millie Calloway, a gal with a troubled past living out of her car who answers an ad for a live-in housekeeper in a tony suburb of New York City. Her resume is fraudulent, as are her references.

Somehow, the madam of the mansion, Nina Winchester played with frosty excellence by Amanda Seyfried in pearls and creamy knits, takes a shine to this young soul. “I have a really good feeling about this, Millie,” she says in that perky, slightly crazed clipped way that Seyfried always slays with. “This is going to be fun, Millie.”

Maybe not for Millie, but definitely for us. The young housekeeper gets her own room in the attic — weird that it closes with a deadbolt from the outside, but no matter — and we’re off. Mille gets a smartphone with the family’s credit card preloaded and a key for that deadbolt. “What kind of monsters are we?” asks Nina. Indeed.

The next day, the house is a mess when the housekeeper comes down and Seyfried is in a wide-eyed, crashing-plates, full-on psychotic rage. The sweet, supportive woman we met the day before is gone. But her hunky husband (Brandon Sklenar) is helpful and apologetic. And smoldering. Uh-oh. Did we mention he’s hunky?

If at first we understand that the housekeeper is being a little manipulative — lying to get the job, for instance, or wearing glasses to seem more serious — we soon realize that all kinds of gaslighting games are being played behind these gates, and they’re much more impactful.

Based on Freida McFadden’s novel, “The Housemaid” rides waves of manipulation and then turns the tables on what we think we’ve just seen, looking at male-female power structures and how privilege can trap people without it.

The film is as good looking as the actors, with nifty touches like having the main house spare, well-lit and bright, while the husband’s private screening room in the basement is done in a hellish red. There are little jokes throughout, like the husband and the housemaid bonding over old episodes of “Family Feud,” with the name saying it all.

Feig and his team also have fun with horror movie conventions, like having a silent, foreboding groundskeeper, adding a creepy dollhouse and placing lightning and thunder during a pivotal scene. They surround the mansion with fussy, aristocratic PTA moms who have tea parties and say things like “You know what yoga means to me.”

Feig’s fascinating combination of gore, torture and hot sex ends happily, capped off with Taylor Swift’s perfectly conjured “I Did Something Bad” playing over the end credits. Not at all: This naughty movie is definitely on the nice list.

“The Housemaid,” a Lionsgate release that’s in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for strong bloody violence, gore, language, sexuality/nudity and drug use. Running time: 131 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.

Related