I like the film very much, though it has many weaknesses. I do not like the contemporary framework story, because it feels very contrived. The Europeans felt not very convincing, especially the actor playing Vasco da Gama should have been better. Both Vasco and his son Estavio looked not very Portuguese, but at least the Estavio actor's performance was convincing for me. The Portuguese costumes of Vasco were sometimes jarringly colourful, looked like dyed in modern colours. All in all the film's message is far stronger than in Sivans "Before the Rains" but the film's quality is not as good. It feels like a rough diamond.
The Indian actors' performances were satisfying for me. I liked Prithviraj as Kelu and Prabhu Deva as his sidekick. Genela D'Souza was acting-wise not as convincing a warrior princess as Kareena Kapoor in "Asoka (2001)", but she had more martial arts performances, which made her more important for the story.
I call it an Indian martial arts film, because the fights use the Kalaripayattu martial arts of South India, which often has a dancelike appearance. The film is named after the whip-like sword urumi, an extremely dangerous weapon taught to only the most skillful Kalaripayattu students in the last stages of their education. The use of the urumi in this film thus denotes the expert warrior.
Though the film itself is not as good as "Asoka", there are probably more fight scenes in this film. The fights were a bit less convincing than in "Asoka", but I think the productions costs were lower, at least the film looked quite a bit cheaper than "Asoka".
Anyhow, the story (mix of historical events and fiction in Chirakkal Kelu Nayanar's story), especially the finale (Kelu's fight in Calicut), the soundtrack music, the well built-in dance-songs, all worked well for me.
The most important assets of the film, however, were again (as usual in Santosh Sivan films) the cinematography, how space is used by the actors, and the poetry of the pictures. These features remind me much of Terrence Malick films. In contrast to Malick films I deem the stories of Sivan films better developed and more appealing.
The Indian actors' performances were satisfying for me. I liked Prithviraj as Kelu and Prabhu Deva as his sidekick. Genela D'Souza was acting-wise not as convincing a warrior princess as Kareena Kapoor in "Asoka (2001)", but she had more martial arts performances, which made her more important for the story.
I call it an Indian martial arts film, because the fights use the Kalaripayattu martial arts of South India, which often has a dancelike appearance. The film is named after the whip-like sword urumi, an extremely dangerous weapon taught to only the most skillful Kalaripayattu students in the last stages of their education. The use of the urumi in this film thus denotes the expert warrior.
Though the film itself is not as good as "Asoka", there are probably more fight scenes in this film. The fights were a bit less convincing than in "Asoka", but I think the productions costs were lower, at least the film looked quite a bit cheaper than "Asoka".
Anyhow, the story (mix of historical events and fiction in Chirakkal Kelu Nayanar's story), especially the finale (Kelu's fight in Calicut), the soundtrack music, the well built-in dance-songs, all worked well for me.
The most important assets of the film, however, were again (as usual in Santosh Sivan films) the cinematography, how space is used by the actors, and the poetry of the pictures. These features remind me much of Terrence Malick films. In contrast to Malick films I deem the stories of Sivan films better developed and more appealing.