In a very ordinary film, you’d sigh and accept all this without batting an eyelid because it’s just another excuse for hero-worship. But when you see potential not being exploited…
Spoilers ahead…
The first half-hour of Bakkiyaraj Kannan’s Sulthan – starring Karthi and Rashmika Mandanna – is pretty promising. (Let’s ignore the mandatory hero-intro song!) It’s like a mashup of Thevar Magan and the Mahabharata. From the latter, we get a bloodthirsty Kaurava-like clan that does all the rowdy-ism and goonda-ism in Chennai. Napoleon plays the Duryodhana equivalent, the leader – and Karthi (i.e., Sulthan) is the Kamal Haasan-equivalent from Thevar Magan. He does a posh job in a posh city and when he returns, he is disgusted by the bloodlust that’s such a part of his family. The mythical element runs right through: from Sathyan Sooryan’s shadow-rich cinematography to Sulthan’s birth, amidst rain and bloodshed. And around the thirty-minute mark, we get the “knot”: what Sulthan has to do, what his mission is. It’s perfectly placed.
Read the rest of this article at the link above.
Copyright ©2021 Film Companion.
Baradwaj Rangan 
gnanaozhi
April 2, 2021
A Minor quibble BR. The Mahabharata is like the og 5,000 shades of grey. Depending on your perspective the Kauravas had a solid claim. Be that as it may, the Kauravas weren’t evil like you suggest.
Duryodhana who is projected as Sauron or some arch villain was a brilliant administrator, a very just king loved by his people, loyal to a fault (be it his wife or his friends). His one sin was greed.
Or was it?
Remember Dhiridhirashtra was the elder son and while he was disenfranchised because he was blind. He gracefully stepped aside (though internally bitter which would have a huge domino effect, this caused his feelings of bitterness over the Pandavas, his possessiveness over the crown, his love for his son)but as the son of the eldest Duryodhana had a valid claim.
And furthermore, the Pandavas were sired not by Pandu but by various Devas. Ancient India as described in the Mahabharata followed Agnatic Primogeniture which meant the eldest male child inherits. The Pandava weren’t eligible (by succession law) for even land that could fit on a pin.
Claims notwithstanding, the Kauravas did some bad stuff no doubt but that was solely directed against the Pandava but then didn’t Yudhistra himself lie? Krishna literally invert the laws of time and space to create an eclipse out of thin air? Wasnt Bhima a horrendous bully? Etc etc
Pure evil like in the Tamil movies would be the equivalent of Rakshashas
LikeLiked by 2 people
Satya
April 2, 2021
gnanaozhi: Not saying the Pandavas are a bunch of truly good people, but I do doubt Duryodhana’s intentions when he left the Pandavas to die in the burning lakshagriha and wished to cover it up as an accident. Both sides are unusually flawed.
Apart from the odd ones like Vidura, I wish to follow Krishna’s path alone. For me, Krishna is the only epitome of justice, even if people disagree with that claim.
Re. the film though, I am more or less in agreement with what BR said, except for the agricultural part. But then, how else can these bulls be tamed?
LikeLike
Prakash
April 3, 2021
The kauravas and pandavas ancestor was sired by vyasa. So none of them other than bheeshma had a claim on the kingdom then.
Sins of duryodhana:
Trying to kill bhima when he was a kid
Scheming to get the kingdom by gambling
Molestation of draupadi
Constant menace during the pandavas vanavasa
Cheating them off of their kingdom by refusing to return it
Gaining allies through deception
In the end of the war his allies killed innocent people after the war ended
Yes he was not pure evil. But he was a bad person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yajiv
April 3, 2021
@Prakash hit the nail on the head. The tragedy on the Mahbharatha is that the Kuru line had ended with Bhishma and these common-born (by patrilineal descent) cousins spilt so much innocent blood fighting a pointless war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sowmya
April 4, 2021
Funny how the question of Pandavas claim comes up when they came to ask their kingdom or atleast five villages back. But not when they staked it in the game of dice.
LikeLike
H. Prasanna
May 6, 2021
Sulthan is between Sholay and RGV ki Aag (tending to Aag) where the seven shamurai are 200 short of 300. Also, 88 more hands than Do Aankhen Barah Haath. Also, Dev and Veeru’s relationship is replaced by Baahubali and Kattappa’s. Also, Gabbar is the newest, most unique criminal of Tamil cinema creation: Corp-rate. Also, Kattappa dies and Baahubali lives.
This movie just casually butchers all-time favorite aspects of masala classics for the vindication of the hero. Also, the hero is into farming; for the heroine, not because he wants to make a political statement (which he literally does, standing on a stage in front of desolate farmers he is saving).
The most frustrating aspect perhaps is the missed opportunity to delve into some pressing questions of the day: How to protest? What do we do when peaceful protest fails, and begets violence? Who do we turn to when we need protection (violence)? And what is their legacy after committing violence for the greater good?
At the intersection of Seven Samurai, Sholay, and Do Aankhen Barah Haath is the beautiful predicament of violent protest and cathartic peaceful reparations. At the start of the movie, the Napoleon character says something like “We have done so much violence for money; we need to do some for good, for good karma.” And the hero is like “I thought violence was always bad, now I don’t.” The movie painfully dehumanizes rowdies while asking us to look into their hearts.
There was a good masala movie in this mass movie. The makers weren’t looking for it as much as we are BR.
LikeLike