Dhanush is one of those very few lead actors in India currently who are completing films at a quick pace and releasing them in theatres. He released three films(i.e. Kuberaa, Idli Kadai & Tere Ishk Mein) last year and is set to release at least three films this year as well. For his first film in 2026, he teamed up with director Vignesh Raja and made an intense action thriller, Kara. Vignesh Raja’s last film, Por Thozhil, did extremely well. It was one of those very rare films which worked both critically and commercially.

When a film in the combination of Dhanush and Vignesh Raja was announced, the expectations among the audience around the film skyrocketed and the buzz around the film went up further when, Mamitha Baiju, was announced as the female lead in the film. After creating enough curiosity among the audience with the trailer, the film was released in theatres today. Did the director, Vignesh Raja, come up with an engaging film yet again? Did Dhanush score a blockbuster with, Kara? How did Dhanush & Mamitha Baiju, pair look on screen? Did G. V. Prakash Kumar, come up with a memorable album yet again for a film starring, Dhanush? Let’s figure it out with a detailed analysis.

What is it about?

A good Samaritan father(K. S. Ravikumar) based out of a remote village in Tamilnadu, fights against a bank which manipulated him and his fellow villagers and grabbed their land. The son(Dhanush) who earlier ran away from his family to start a business, returns to his village to sell his family’s farming land and start a hotel in a town. What happens when the son returns to his village? Forms the rest of the story.

Performances:

The role of Karasaami aka Kara is tailor-made for Dhanush. We have seen him doing similar roles multiple times in the past. There’s nothing special in the performance he delivered for Kara. It’s just a standard template-driven performance. Mamitha Baiju is a surprise package. She did a role which is a complete contrast to the usual youthful and joyful roles she played in her earlier films. She got a very limited role in the film but she delivered a very good performance in whatever screentime she had.

K. S. Ravikumar in the role of Kandhasaami, delivered his career-best performance. As a loving father, he did a superb job in emotional sequences. The film had many notable actors and almost all of them performed well but their efforts were undone by poor writing and aimless direction.

Technicalities:

Just like most of the Tamil movies, Kara, too has stunning visuals. The cinematographer, Theni Eswar, captured the raw and rustic rural Tamilnadu, very well with his camera throughout the film. G. V. Prakash Kumar, tried his best to lift the lifeless sequences with his background score but it did not work. Editing by Sreejith Sarang, could have been much better. At least twenty minutes of the film could have been easily edited to make it at least a bit better. Especially, the second half of the film drags on forever. Let’s talk about the writer and director’s, Alfred Prakash & Vignesh Raja, work in detail in the analysis section.

Positives:

1.⁠ ⁠K. S. Ravikumar’s Performance

Negatives:

1.⁠ ⁠Beaten to Death Storyline
2.⁠ ⁠Bland Screenplay
3.⁠ ⁠Poor Writing & Direction
4.⁠ ⁠Lengthy Runtime

Analysis:

Movie Name – Idli Kadai
Release Date – 01st October 2025
Story Line – A good samaritan father based out of a remote village in Tamilnadu runs a hotel and expects his son to continue his legacy by running the hotel after he passes away. But, he wants to move to the city and have a better life. After the father passes away, the son realises his mistake, shifts base to the village, reopens his father’s hotel and continues running it.

And, now

Movie Name – Kara
Release Date – 30th April 2026
Story Line – A good Samaritan father based out of a remote village in Tamilnadu, fights against a bank which manipulated him and his fellow villagers and grabbed their land. The estranged son returns to the village to sell the land and use that money to open a hotel in a town. After his father passes away, the son realises his mistake and fights against the bank and eventually gets the villagers’ land documents from the bank.

Both the storylines sound similar, don’t they? While watching, Kara, it is not your fault if you start to wonder why in the world, Dhanush, agreed to do two films with similar storylines consecutively. The only difference between the two films is that in, Idli Kadai, the son runs the hotel to fulfil his father’s wish and in, Kara, the son turns into Robin Hood to fulfil his father’s wish. At least, Idli Kadai, for a major part was truthful to its family drama genre. But, Kara, ended up becoming neither a family drama nor an action thriller.

The director, Vignesh Raja, previously crafted a gripping crime thriller, Por Thozhil, which keeps audiences on the edge of their seats throughout its runtime. Once again, while watching Kara, it’s not your fault if you begin to wonder whether it is the same director behind both films. It was surprising to see Vignesh Raja and his writer, Alfred Prakash, coming up with such a bland and unexciting screenplay. The writing of heist episodes and the way they were executed were laughable to say the least. There was not even a single sequence in the film which was written and executed intelligently. The Robin Hood-like hero will not have any plan to rob the bank branches. All he does is to wear a mask, step inside the branch, threaten the bank employees with a gun and rob the branches one after the other. How did the director convince Dhanush to do the film with such a bland screenplay? What was Dhanush thinking while accepting the film? There will be at least a few good episodes even in the bad films of Dhanush but Kara is an exception. There is not even a single sequence throughout the film that excites the audience.

Overall, Kara is a forgettable film from Dhanush and Vignesh Raja. The beaten-to-death storyline, boring screenplay, unexciting narration and lengthy runtime, made it a painful watch. At least the first half was watchable but the film lost the track completely in the second half and tests patience with each passing minutes. Apart from a brilliant performance from K. S. Ravikumar, the film offers nothing and is sure to become one of the biggest flops in Dhanush’s career.

Bottomline – Boring Heist

Rating – 2/5

Related

Tags Kara Kara Review

MOVIE REVIEW: “LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY” (R)
Grade: C

For horror fans out there miffed at the very idea that Lee Cronin has somehow earned the right to put his name above the title of his latest project (something generally reserved for horror icons like John Carpenter and Wes Craven) even though he only has a couple of features to his credit (“The Hole in the Ground,” “Evil Dead Rise”), just know that this is the least of this movie’s problems. Also, let it be known that this wasn’t done out of arrogance. It’s been reported that producer Jason Blum made the suggestion to put Cronin’s name atop the title as to not confuse casual moviegoers. The last thing the team behind this gore-fest want is folks walking in thinking that this is a new entry in the Brendan Fraser “Mummy” franchise which this film most certainly is not. Fear not, though, as it’s looking like we’ll be seeing a new installment in that particular series sometime in 2027. As for “Lee Cronin’s latest, it’s an entirely different beast and in the end, it’s barely a “Mummy” movie at all. I mean, I’m all for liberties being taken in a modern reimagining of a familiar property but honestly, if you’re going to stray this far, maybe just call it something else.

In this blood-soaked take on “The Mummy,” journalist Charlie Cannon (Jack Reynor) and his loving wife Larissa (Laia Costa) relocate the family to Egypt for Charlie’s latest job and ultimately, they are plunged into every parent’s worst nightmare after their young daughter Katie (Emily Mitchell) goes missing. Shortly after the disappearance, the Cannon family, which includes Katie’s siblings Maude (Billie Roy) and Sebastian (Shylo Molina), do what they can to pick up the emotional pieces.

Cut to; 8 long years later. The Cannon family now reside in New Mexico, and they get the shock of their lives after receiving a call from the authorities informing them that Katie has been found but as the Cannon family quickly discover, she is not at all herself.  But then, I suppose spending an extended period of time trapped in a sarcophagus would have a strange effect on a person. 

Upon watching this film, one might speculate that Cronin approached the powers that be about doing a follow up to his own “Evil Dead Rise” but after getting turned down, he couldn’t take no for an answer, so he just opted to do a sort of repurposed version of “The Mummy” instead.  And that’s pretty much what this movie plays like; A fusion of “Evil Dead’ and “The Exorcist” with a little “Hereditary,” “The Omen,” and “Poltergeist” thrown in for good measure.

When it comes to bringing the gore factor, Cronin ain’t no slouch. Those with a pure love for carnage candy will find plenty to grasp on to here. That said, this take on “The Mummy” is dour, ugly, brutal, and often unpleasant and even though Cronin is perfectly adept at crafting the proceedings, it does get to a point where the movie feels like it’s simply more interested in making us squirm than anything else.

Of the performances here, Laia Costa has some nice moments as a mom who tries to convince herself that there’s nothing wrong with her daughter but Reynor (an actor I’ve suggested for quite some time would make the perfect James Bond) spends the majority of the film looking at the strange happenings around him in bug-eyed fashion. The standout of the cast is Natalie Grace whose work as the older version of Katie is fittingly terrifying.

As was the case with Leigh Whannell’s disappointing adaptation of “Wolf Man,” “Lee Cronin’s The Mummy” does attempt to say something about one’s fear of not being able to protect their children but here, it’s a somewhat meager attempt because any such subtext is all but buried in an endless sea of ick. This is to say nothing of a handful of plot points that are either underexplained or make very little to no sense. Take, for instance, the medical profession as presented in this film. These so-called professionals are pretty quick to send Katie home even though there’s clearly something wrong with her. Also, where exactly was this girl for the last 8 years? “Lee Cronin’s The Mummy” treats this aspect of the proceedings as an inconvenient afterthought.

Again, there’s very little here that feels like “The Mummy.” Yes, there’s a sarcophagus and an Egyptian locale, but these things feel shoehorned in. Beyond that, for all of Cronin’s abilities when it comes to crafting fittingly shocking set pieces and skillfully working with a barrage of creative practical effects, his take on a property made famous by a decades-old classic Universal monster movie starring Boris Karloff feels pretty darn deadite-heavy by comparison. What’s more, with a runtime of 2 hours and 14 minutes, it all feels awfully long-winded for a film of this nature. At the end of the day, while this isn’t a bad film (for all its flaws, it’s more effective than the 2017 Tom Cruise headlined-take), what “Lee Cronin’s The Mummy” is most successful at doing is reminding us of a handful of better horror movies.

Each of us has a shortlist of movies we find ourselves rewatching, movies we will finish even if they’re half-over when we tune in. Even if it’s being streamed with commercials. Even if it’s playing on a 19-inch black-and-white television with no sound in a crowded dive bar.

For the past 20 years, “The Devil Wears Prada” has been one of those films for me and other Americans who entered the workforce just in time to say goodbye to pensions and hello to increases in student loan debt. Generation X had the highest homeownership rate relative to their age, so when the housing bubble popped in 2008, it hit Gen X the hardest. And yet this same group of workers is also shouldering the care of aging parents and adult children. According to Pew Research, more than half of 40-year-olds (“elder millennials”) and more than a third of 50-year-olds fall into this category, doing so with shrinking financial margins because wages have lagged behind the cost of living our entire adult lives.

While the current No. 1 movie at the box office — the biopic chronicling Michael Jackson’s rise from Gary, Ind., in 1966 to headlining stadiums in 1988 — may evoke a sense of nostalgia for Gen X, the sequel to “Devil” (which opens in theaters Friday) feels more like a peer review.

Twenty years ago, when we last saw our protagonist, Andrea Sachs, she had decided to leave her big corporate job because success in that environment required her to be someone she didn’t like or respect. As young professionals, seeing a fictional character like Sachs leave a toxic work environment felt like a satisfying conclusion in 2006. However, over the decades, you learn work/life balance is an oxymoron and characteristics such as integrity and loyalty are often valued but rarely useful on a spreadsheet.

Don’t get me wrong — I love the campy humor, the fashion and soundtrack of the first “Devil.” However, the thing that elevated the Oscar-nominated film to its cultlike status is the same thing that lifted similarly edgy coming-of-age stories such as “The Graduate” in 1967, “American Graffiti” in 1973 and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” in 1982: truth. Despite the fantasy elements of beautiful and talented people dressed in clothing designed by the upper echelon of the fashion industry, “Devil” has a sequel because what Sachs was experiencing felt real. Many of us have been there — behind on rent, desperately trying to build a career, navigating friends and romance.

The line the character Nigel told an overwhelmed Sachs in the original — “let me know when your whole life goes up in smoke … means it’s time for a promotion” — was more than a humorous quip. It was also foreshadowing for the young professionals in the audience who had not yet learned that being good at your job, or even great, wasn’t enough to keep it.

We know that all too well now. Just this week, the Wall Street Journal reported corporate layoffs in the first quarter of 2026 surpassed 200,000. Of course, it wasn’t always like this.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, in the immediate three decades after World War II, workers saw their hourly compensation in line with the country’s productivity growth. That’s because during the height of the Cold War — when employers offered employees pensions and union participation was at its peak — corporate America was incentivized to offer labor a larger share of the profits as a way to counteract communism. However, when the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, so did the motivation from domestic CEOs to share profits with workers. The split between capital and labor began measurably in 1970, and the gap has only increased since.

Twenty years ago — before the 2008 recession, the pandemic and the nearly $1-trillion price tag stemming from the Afghanistan war — it was believable a young professional like Sachs would walk away from a good corporate job for the sake of her integrity. However, given how fraught the current work environment feels, with the shadow of artificial intelligence looming over entry-level positions across multiple disciplines, would we find Sachs’ actions believable today? Or laudable? Or would we demand that she compromise her principles because it’s pragmatic to let go of the idealism of youth? Time has forced many of us to begrudgingly accept that possibility. Our younger selves might not approve, but our older selves know that’s how most people survive long enough in their careers to have a sequel.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow