[Lt_Apple]

I personally did not enjoy TT or for that matter Autograph. Goes completely in one wailing track. But, if these are considered mediocre, then there should be some definition of a good movie, right? But, there isnt!

Which movie would you call good...'good' is a sweeping term and could probably not cover many things! Is Kakka Kakka a good movie? May be, for some. It was interesting in terms of its narration and screenplay. But its merely a manifestation of the Maniratnam school of minimalistic thinking. It does look good on screen, yes.

Is Gilli a good movie? May be, again for some. It was fast paced with no time to blink/ think. Some minimal intelligence was attributed to the hero unlike many films. Made good viewing.

What else? Anniyan? Ghajini? Every movie's 'good' part is highly subjective. Cheran is a wierd 'actor' in present times, I agree. But he dared to tread a different path. Thats the key here.

Tamil cinema was hopelessly stuck in what people like Dharani and Maharajan (Vallarasu) had initiated, even though that idea had been explored in the past. They chose to portray the hero as far more intelligent than the villain and let the villain lose in many points in the story - unlike the all powerful villains of yore, who lost only in the climax to older-day's heores. This change of power equation is what these guys pioneered thats stuck till Sivakasi and Paramasivan and continues. Lingusamy joined the bandwagon too in between.

But its all the same. A simple, extended cat and mouse game where the hero comes up trumps 3 out of 5 times, while villain has to be happy with 2. Lingusamy went to the extent of making his villain look like a clown in Run (Atul Kulkarni merely frets and fumes, absolute lack of strategy all through!).

In this scenario of stereotypes, the only way one can garner attention is to break the rut. And if that means reinventing the wheel, so be it.

And isnt that what Cheran has done?