Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar Does watching both the original Malayalam as well as the dubbed Hindi version (Shoorveer: Ek Yodha) of Santosh Sivan's film, Urumi, make me a better judge of the film? Because by a freak coincidence I got to see both the versions. I saw the original Malayalam version on DVD; and, just a week later, the dubbed Hindi version was released at the local cinema hall. I saw both versions and couldn't stop marvelling at how different the Hindi dubbed version is from the original Malayalam version. First, the "Vadakku Vadakku" song, the very first one in the film, featuring Prithviraj and Prabhudeva, has been deleted from the Hindi version. That is OK, doesn't make much difference (except that one is not exactly made aware of the circumstances of Prithviraj's and Prabhudeva's characters, Krishna and Ali, respectively, in the present day). But even the dubbing is such that it seems that the Hindi version just tries to pander to as many people as possible. I am not familiar with the history of Vasco da Gama in Kerala, but I am sure it is not a pleasant one. A history of colonisation can never be a pleasant one and, on that very account, I can trust only the original Malayalam version of Urumi because it says that when Vasco da Gama first landed in the Malabar coast, he called the local men "pretentious" and the local women "ugly". And I can believe that. When you come with the intention of colonising other people, you, obviously, do not have any love for those people. Otherwise why would you colonise them? In the dubbed Hindi version, the "pretentious" and "ugly" become "intelligent" and "beautiful", i.e., the Hindi dubbed version of Urumi tells us that when Vasco da Gama first reached the Malabar coast, he called the local men "intelligent" and the local women "beautiful". Seriously, why this deliberate losing the plot in translation? Who were the Hindi distributors and those responsible for the Hindi dubbed version trying to please by portraying Vasco da Gama in a pleasant light and, in the process, losing the reason why characters like Chirakkal Kothuwal (Arya), Kelu (Prithviraj), Ali (Prabhudeva), Ayesha (Genelia), and the king (Amole Gupte) and princess (Nithya Menon) of Chirakkal actually went to war against the Portuguese and their friends in the Malabar? Urumi was released in 2011, the Hindi version is already five years late. Those who had to see Urumi, whether in India or abroad - including Portugal - must have already seen it in original Malayalam. They know what Urumi is about and who/what Urumi is against, so why the pretence now of pleasing everyone? Or is it plain indifference on the part of the people connected with the Hindi version to cash in on the presence of Bollywood stars, Tabu and Vidya Balan, in the film because, despite having mere cameos (Balan's is a proper cameo and she shines in it➖Tabu's is just a two-minute appearance in a song), Tabu and Balan have been given prominent spaces in the posters of the Hindi version?As far as the film goes, I found Urumi far more tolerable than the last two Santosh Sivan films I saw, both historicals: the Shah Rukh Khan-Juhi Chawla co-production, Asoka (SRK has been thanked in the film's credits, the second person after Mani Ratnam); and the Merchant-Ivory production, Before The Rains. Both were stunningly shot, but both dragged like something. I know that Santosh Sivan is an internationally renowned cinematographer, the first Indian cinematographer to be inducted into the American School of Cinematography, but being a world-class cinematographer is different from being a film director. As a world-class cinematographer, Sivan has given Urumi his signature look. But, after having seen Sivan's signature look in several films now - Asoka, Before The Rains, Raavan (Mani Ratnam is the first person to be thanked in the film's credits) - and the done-to-death monsoon scenes in Kerala, Urumi, though stunning to look at, did not really invoke any new feeling in me. Yet, I appreciated that Sivan has taken a populist approach in Urumi. It is plain to see that Urumi is targeted, first, at regular cinema-goers, and then at festivals. Genelia's action scenes are believable and better than Kareena Kapoor's action scenes in Asoka. Also, Urumi, I believe, has an anti-mining and anti-capitalism bent. The multinational Nirvana mining company in Urumi can very well be the Vedanta mining company of real life. I just wish real life were as easy to sort out and saying "no" to a multinational mining giant were as easy as shown in Urumi.

Arjun Ajith Urumi is quite not sharp! I'd say the cinematography is what bought Urumi the 5 votes i give it,that too with shots shamelessly stolen from Mel Gibsons'Apocalypto & DI(digital intermediate)from 300 and a few others(even that going overboard),Urumi proves to be nothing more than a hyped flick.With a promising thread as it may sound,the movie slogs due to major flaws in the script.The climax quite missed a WOW and the stunts weren't all that great.The styling factor was quite impressive though. Prithviraj i found to be a pumped up stale-face doll keyed to walk around with Prabhu Deva who heavily overdoes the comedy.However,Amol Gupte,Jagathy Sreekumar,Nithya Menon have performed very well,and off-course not to forget "Princess Ayesha" stunningly performed by Genelia,proving herself to be an underused artist in the industry. The tracks by Deepak Dev are thoroughly enjoyable.Especially the one with Nithya Menon and Prabhu Deva.The Art was quite neat.The movie as a whole was a good initiative and is totally tolerable as to a lot of recent movies in Malayalam.but if you are one o those pessimistic perfectionists' who uphold the 'NOTHING IS ENGINEERED PERFECT'theory would you have issues with Urumi.

Anup Viswanathan Thampi The movie shows us another perspective of history which has not been seen. The story revolves around Vasco Da gamma who is considered as greatest explorer, in this movie the angle is towards greatest threat or invader and not explorer. The storyline was superb and during these years a great storyline was missing from malayalam film industry. But storyline alone couldn't pull the movie together. The movie had the potential to be great if the protagonist(Kelu nayanar played by prithviraj) was played by some actor with potential. The film was simply a good effort but wasted a lot,which are: 1.Prithviraj as kelu nayanar::He roams around with big muscles no expression,he doesn't even move his muscles for a dance at least,he doesn't provide dialog from heart(as in Troy or Gladiator or malayalam film such as Vadakkan Veeragaadha)he just spits out what he learned BY HEART. Also he shows expression of fear too much for instance when he sees Aarya for 1st time and Vidya Balan(before song and during song).He just runs and hits not much flexibility for a guy trained with several martial art forms(that is what they claim in the movie). 2.Genelia::She has controlled her a lot and her turnover from bubbly characters to serious one was superb. Even her flexibility during fight sequence needs to be applauded. 3.Vidya Balan,Tabu and Nithya Menon::Both these women's(vidya balan and Nithya menon)sensual side was only used not much of importance to character.Tabu just for sake of it. 4.Prabhu Deva::He gained a lot of appreciation from audience but for me he was better in this role than his past roles. 5.SanthoshSivan(Director)::Expected a lot from the great cinematographer but he is becoming stereotyped with same camera tricks and direction was not as promising as Anadhabhadram and Asoka.Too much emphasis on slow motion. 6.Jagathy Sreekumar::Did a good job portraying villain with female character touch. 7.Storyline::Superb 8.Songs::Unnecessary.Disappointing from Deepak Dev as he copied the song 'Aaro Ne Aaro' from Loreena mckennitt(Caravanserai)and claiming to be his hard work.God only knows whether others are genuine. 9.Aarya::Even though he had very little role as Kothu vaal.He did a great job and attitude was superb only annoying thing was prithviraj's voice for Kothu vaal. 10.Amole Gupte::Felt needed furnishing.Most of the times over expressive but at times apt to the role.

jeethjohnp A commendable film with a close-to-perfect script, some timely performances from the artistes and technical wizardry that is on par with the rest of the regional language films. All said, this movie also gives an insight about the history of Kerala which was unsung of. The story of a young hero who gave all he had to save his land from the Portuguese. And another factor which is quite apt was running the the present world and the old version in parallel.All said and done, the writer had a source material to rely on and he showered enough fictional characteristics to the story. In spite of that the script lacks a cohesiveness especially until the third act. Some of the dialogue's were sloppy and did not reflect of that of that particular time period. Other than that this was a fine effort. Santosh Sivan's camera-work: there needs no special mention of his work here. Everything is picture perfect. Some scenes evokes a plethora of feelings and it just stays even after the movie gets over. But there were points and sequences where a bit of a pause could have helped a lot in making things look and feel much more better especially in the war scenes towards the end.Performance-wise I would say all have done an exceptional job especially Prabhudeva, Nitya Menon, Jagathi. Prithviraj's wooden voice is a big letdown though. He shows no sign of variation through the movie. But he got to save his face towards the end with some classic performance and expression variations. Nitya Menon was the perfect seducer. Never seen such a good seducer in our industry. Her eyes speak volumes.Music by Deepak Dev was different in this. His usual themes were all gone. It was a good thing he went in for a re-invention. Good songs and average BGM. The BGM that plays when Prithviraj courts Genelia is pure awesomeness but again there is huge familiarity with the tone there.All in all this was a good movie. Definitely worth a watch at the cinemas. Go for it. It is a different experience all together.