“Thug Life” Film Review

When Mani Ratnam and Kamalhaasan announced their second collaboration in November 2022, I knew that whatever they came up with could never match the cinematic heights reached by their first collaboration – the 1987 film Nayakan (pronounced Naayagan). This was not a pessimistic prediction but one that recognized that Mani Ratnam had peaked as a director in Nayakan and would never again reach that cinematic level. Perhaps it is unfair to compare Nayakan and Thug Life, but a comparison is unavoidable – especially for fans of Mani Ratnam and Kamalhaasan.

Putting those expectations aside, Thug Life is an average movie with an average story that could have been developed into engaging commercial cinema with the correct treatment. Unfortunately, this was the key missing ingredient. The core plot of the main story is neither fresh nor unpredictable and is further handicapped with a clumsily constructed screenplay. Despite this, the story contained essential commercial elements that could easily have been exploited. A case in point is Mani Ratnam’s 1991 Rajinikanth  starrer – Thalapathi – which had a pretty clichéd story, but was transformed by its creative treatment.

Sakthivel Naicker (Kamalhaasan) decides to raise a young Amar (later played by Silambarasan) as his own son after a violent encounter that sees the death of Amar’s father and his separation from his sister. Chandra. Sakthivel has been on the wrong side of the law for many years, so Amar grows up knowing very little byond this lifestyle. Sakthivel’s imprisonment changes the dynamics of the relationship and introduces tension between Sakthivel and his elder brother, Manickam (Nassar). How this develops forms the rest of the story.

Mani Ratnam himself has explored the issue of rival gangs in Nayakan, Thalapathi and – to some extent – in Aayudha Ezhuthu and Chekka Chivantha Vaanam. For such stories to be memorable, there must be a strong emotional contact between audiences and the screenplay. This can only be created by credible development of relationships between credibly constructed characters. The problem with Thug Life is that there far too many relationships for which some kind of expansion is attempted – but the audience is left dangling as the screenplay distracts itself with new arcs that also remain undeveloped. The relationships are not given space within the screenplay to develop organically and realistically.

An example of this failure is the scene featuring Kamalhaasan and Abhirami on the beach – a scene that should have stood out from all others. Instead, the scene is overwritten, resulting in an embarrassing display of melodrama. To exacerbate this, what is started in this scene does not ever go beyond this scene. It becomes yet another disjointed addition to the haphazard screenplay.

These lapses in the screenplay dilutes and sometimes nullify the clear commitment from the actors to deliver their best. It is difficult to fault any of the acting performances – and this is not just limited to the main cast. The essence of the characters are ingested and delivered with finesse and raw power.

Kamalhaasan’s multiple looks and his changing body language and matching facial expressions are a glowing testament to his incredible acting depth and a reminder that – unlike his director in this film – continues to create new peaks in his acting repertoire.

Silambarasan is in one of his best performances to date. He has mastered the art of subtlety in his portrayal of Amar and delivers the perfect mix of dramatic power and underplaying of emotions – both of which are flawless.

Despite these magnificent acting performances, the on-screen chemistry between the characters portrayed by Kamalhaasan and Silambarasan never really develops to its capacity. It is amazing how two powerful performances could be subdued by the combined effects of a weak screenplay and a boost in the script when needed.

Abhirami once again shows her acting strength through a combination of intense expressions and telling body language. I do believe that she was till under-utilised in this role despite obvious attempts to develop her character.

Trisha is beyond brilliant in her portrayal of Indrani –exploring new ground for her acting ability. The scene on the veranda where her smile fades into pensive thought is sheer brilliance because of the subtlety involved in the change.

Aishwarya Lakshmi also ensures her a memorable portrayal in a role that deserved more screen time.

A notable aspect of Thug Life is the portrayal of women on screen. Fans of Mani Ratnam would know that the women in his story are always strong, independent and often rebelling against societal norms. However, in Thug Life, they are heavily dependent on the men in their lives and lack the driving force behind men that most of Mani Ratnam’s female characters have possessed in his previous films. This treatment of women makes the line where Kamalhaasan talks about the importance of woman studying and becoming independent appear hollow and filmy.

Nassar is simply stunning in his portrayal of Manickam – another character that was screaming out for more in depth development and more screen time.

Ashok Selvan owns his role emphatically, taking on a new and dominant persona that stands his own amid the acting giants with whom he shares screen space.

Vayaapuri makes a great comeback, as does Chinni Jayanth – but they are also under-utilised. However, who was given a raw deal in terms of screen space and acting freedom is Chetan, who is reduced to simply being part of the background. A talented actor like him was given no scope to perform.

Joju George attempts some finesse in his portrayal of Pathrose and succeeds to some extent.

The surprise boost in the acting spectrum comes from an unusual and brilliantly powerful performance from Vadivukkarasi who is sadly given very limited screen time but still manages to make her character an unforgettable one.

The script by Mani Ratnam and Kamalhaasan has many flashes of brilliance, but lacks the power required in a story like this. There are some memorable exchanges and the subtle humour is laudable, but the script clearly does not do enough to mask the inadequacies of the screenplay.

The stunts by Anbariv are very disappointing. There are some outstanding action sequences and one impressive car stunt amid a substandard showing. The stunt sequences of the second half are far too long and shows unrealistic strength by Sakthivel. This was something that Mani Ratnam spoke against in one of his early interviews, so it was disappointing to see him make the same mistake that he himself once criticised.

The other factor of the film that truly dragged it down was A.R. Rahman’s music. I am well aware that most people are talking about the brilliance of the songs, but they simply do not gel with the screenplay. His background scores is also very forgettable and does nothing positive for the film in any of the scenes.

One of the most arresting positives of Thug Life is the stunning cinematography by Ravi K Chandran. Brilliant use of light, creative lighting and framing techniques and unusual angles come together in a magnificent visual feast, marred only by the scene in a moving car that was filmed in a stationary vehicle. Despite this minor flaw, Ravi K Chandran’s cinematography is a master class in the art.

Thug Life clearly cannot escape the being in the shadow of Nayakan despite its ambitious attempt to be otherwise. It is an unfortunate example of how a poorly constructed screenplay and haphazard treatment by a director could have such devastating effects on the film’s overall impact.

Thug Life scores 6 points out of 10.