Thursday , October 17 2019
Home / zimbabwe / 2.0 Movie Review: Despite Radzhinikant and Akshay Kumar, Bunkum Bunkum

2.0 Movie Review: Despite Radzhinikant and Akshay Kumar, Bunkum Bunkum



Cast: Radzhinikant, Akshay Kumar, Amy Jackson

Producer: S shankar

Rating: 2 stars (of 5)

He is back. This time, Chitti reboots and loads to withstand the power that eliminates mobile phones and cellular transmission towers from Tamil Nadu. The battle between good and evil, between nature and technology, takes place over two and a half hours in an area where all the dividing lines are blurred in such a way that it creates the possibility of multiple interpretations. But because narrating, well, robotic, insane sequences of actions rarely relate to the heights that flying mobile phones reach. The film tells in detail about the sad reality of sparrows disappearing from our megacities – the theme taken from newspapers and social media platforms – but the urgency of the debate is buried deep under an impressive, impressive demonstration of animatronics, special effects and prosthetics,

Eight years is a long time in the life of a movie star. But for Rajnikant, any break can only be a flash.2.0, director and co-writer of the Shankar script for 2010 Enthiran (robot in Hindi), materialized after the Tamil Cinema supernova used a long break to appear in four films (Kochadayaan, Linga, Kabali and Kaala). It was in the works longer than it took Dr. Vasegaran to conjure up a thinking robot to Chitti. The film and its star show clear signs of wear. However, for fans of Rajnikant, this should not be more than a minor irritant.

ahe61rfg

Rajinakant in 2.0

The mysterious force – its genesis is established in the sequence of the opening of the film, in which a person hangs from a cellular tower – is the elimination of mobile telephony from the face of the earth. Towers uprooted and crushed. The tubes fly off at the hands of their owners and turn into a destructive wave. The city is in the grip of total chaos. The army is called, but the soldiers are doing empty. A good scientist is connected to stop an impending disaster. He advises to return Chitti from the dead. This, he said, is the only effective option in the fight against the new threat. His plan is opposed to the elements of the administration, but as questions begin to spin out of control, Vasegaran provides a free hand.

"Maut se zinda lautne ka mazaa kuch aur hi hai (nothing compares to the joy of returning a living person from death), says Chitti in the Hindi version of the film (dialogue writer: Abbas Tirevala) before he says: "I am that super single." Who dares to question him? and not another humanoid Nila (Amy Jackson), another of the Vasegaran creations. At first glance, the lead actor plunges into the universe of two key characters – the invincible robot and its brilliant creator – with all his might. But look deeper and deeper, there is a visible drop in his enthusiasm and faith in the project. Fans sold by Rajnikant’s ruthless stellar sanguid can therefore have reason to feel somewhat torn off.

With Akshay Kumar in his first southern foray, exuding both stellar power and emotional energy in the second half of the film under the guise of an aging ornithologist, pronounced on rapidly dwindling birds, and then as a seeker for revenge for bird deaths 2.0 would be considered improved, more powerful version of its predecessor, if the plot was even more convincing. Bunkum is a bun, no matter how big the bucks are behind it.

tiocvqv

Akshay Kumar in 2.0

Of course, director Shankar has a penchant for bizarre, fantastic and unrealistic sensations of human dilemmas. He brings this attribute in full force in eliminating the damage that cellular radiation causes to the environment. But the disappointment of an activist struggling to save birds, but unable to fulfill his mission, is not given as much as it justifies the murderous crusade that Pakshirajan (Akshay Kumar) launches against sellers and mobile phone users. The external superficiality of the comic in his war is manifested in the way he kills the wholesaler, the owner of the broadcast tower and the minister of telecommunications: one is blown to smithereens, the other is compressed to cellulose, and the other is literally poisoned by a diamond mobile phone.

Amy Jackson, as a super-efficient robot that is on guard and all its masters, is mechanical enough, but enough so that it will not be dragged out of this sci-fi action movie, intended mainly for Rajninant, a larger persona-friendly screen for the crowd.

9d97p79g

Amy Jackson and Radzhinikant in 2.0

Supporting actors in a Rajnianti car serve a limited purpose. It is no different in 2.0 Although the film includes Adil Hussein as Minister of the Interior, the man is accused of formulating a response to the attack of mobile phones. But his agency is quickly taken away from him, as Vasegaran, Chitty and Nee take the upper hand, as a strong adversary threatens to transfer the city.

So, the most expensive Indian film ever established was worth all the money invested in it? It looks and sounds great for the most part. He is fascinated by the insane action and dazzling VFX. 2.0However, it would have been a much bigger film if the script dared to go beyond the famous stunts of the genre. There is an allusion to the romantic entanglement between Chitty and Nila, both of which are capable of feeling and expressing love. But this track remains an insignificant subject film, in which even the baddie is the star of A-list Bollywood and should be part of a respectable piece of action, especially when it makes its entrance only after the intermission.

Right and wrong trails that 2.0 The mercenaries are banal, but the battle in the center of the film – it knocks out a perverse development model against the need to preserve the environment in a carefree fantasy – has moments that make you think and entertain right away. But even for Rajninant, getting this erratic, dirty epos out of the fire is not an easy walk. It fits pretty close. Clock 2.0 for its scale and ambition, if not for a superstar who cannot be wrong.


Source link