Sudhir Srinivasan is the Executive Editor (Entertainment) of The New Indian Express.
Previously, he has worked at other top publications including The Hindu and The Times of India. He is well-known for his film reviews and interviews, which often contain keen observations laced with social and psychological insight.
He is also a sports commentator who has worked for top broadcasters including Star Sports, Sony, and Viacom 18.
Sudhir Srinivasan 
Hi Sir! I just loved all your interviews….very intellectual and interesting too…was wondering how would it be if you could interview Mr. Kamalhassan or have I missed it…
LikeLike
Leo is an example of an exemplary product which was misunderstood. I had the chance to see the movie in Calgary. Contrary to existing reviews, the second half for me was one of the best in tamil cinema. Please read my full explanation below:
1) LCU connect: Many people said the LCU connect was weak especially the Vikram portion. When Viikram calls Leo, he didn’t introduce himself as first-time caller would. He instead say “Yaar endru therigiradha?”. Leo’s reaction right after shows that Leo and Vikram knew each other from before,i.e, before he became Parthiban. What if just like the gangsters, Vikram was also under the impression that Leo is dead or missing? And what if he sent Maya Krishnan’s character to the café to confirm if Parthiban really is Leo just like how the gangsters sent their people to confirm the same? I think this is the story behind Vikram’s voice-over came in Vikram
2) Hridayaraj’s Flashback Story: It is very evident that a lot of the elements in his story was fake and I can provide multiple examples from the movie itself.
a. First, the tone with which the flashback was shot was not the same as rest of the film, i.e, it was too flashy and over-top. I think Lokesh did this on purpose to show the flashback had imaginative and fictitious elements. Plus hrdayarj was also drunk while having the conversation with Leo.
b. What if hridayaraj already knew Leo was living another life in hiding and lied to the ranger to protect him and his identity?
c. There are 4 areas in the movie where Parthiban is shown without a shirt. There are no bullet wounds. The hyena scratch mark is still there, but not the bullet wounds? I don’t think that was a mistake.
d. Antony or Harold Das never mention Leo’s death in any conversation. Instead, the entire gang rush to Kashmir by road (Gautam’s character mentions this in a dialogue) as soon as they see his photo. Also when Harold talks to Leo over the phone, he says “Wherever you hide, you know that I will find you”. If Antony really killed him, why did they all rush to Kashmir? And if Antony really wanted to kill Leo, why didn’t he shoot him at the first meeting? I think Antony and Harold already knew he was alive but in hiding and was searching for him until the news article came out.
e. Last and most important clue. When Leo reveals himself to Harold Das in the climax and before killing him he says “Unna naa annike kondrukanum. Thappu panniten. Paravailla” and shoots him. So on that actual day when Leo abandoned Das & Co., he had a chance to kill Harold but didn’t.
3) Leo’s friend character played by Actor Ramakrishnan: I cannot say this theory of mine is accurate. But this character suddenly came and died, and I don’t believe Lokesh did that without a purpose. It is shown in the movie as if Antony killed him (a shot where Parthiban imagines Antony hanging him). The suspects in the scene say that he said he found his friend and was drinking and buying drinks for everyone. After that he had a half an hour call and someone abducts him in a black car. Antony does not have any motive to kill this guy. If he knew Leo and would eventually talk about him to the people in the town, that helps Antony’s cause of showing that Parthiban is really Leo. So why should he kill him? I think Parthiban/Leo killed him as he knew someday or the other people would get to know about him if this guy blabbers. Also FYI, Parthiban has a black SUV 😊
Looking at the above details if this is true, then Leo had one of the best second-half’s in tamil cinema and the genius of Lokesh has gone unnoticed. This is a movie in the LCU, so I don’t think this film should be seen with a ‘what you see is what you get’ mentality. Lokesh has constantly mentioned in his interviews that second half is full of surprises and the movie has a repeat value. He is not one to provide false expectations or exaggerate about the things in his films. As a fan who has no connection the cinema world if I’m able to decipher this, I think Lokesh as a film-maker has won. People can continue to provide mixed reviews, but I believe the truth is that this man’s genius has gone unnoticed.
LikeLike
Hi sudhir
Wondering if you had seen the tamil movie, Zero. It released a couple of years back. It got a lot of good reviews and i loved it too but I am curious to know what you think. Its streaming on prime.
LikeLike
Hello Sir. We are trying to reach you from the Madras School of Social Work regarding an event. It would be great if you could share what is the best way to reach you sir.
LikeLike
Please DM me on Twitter, or email me at sudhir.sreenivasan@gmail.com.
LikeLike
Hi Sudhir.. Would u mind giving me ur email id. i ll send u a mail
LikeLike
Here you go: sudhir.sreenivasan@gmail.com
LikeLike
Yaay to the novel. I cannot wait for it! ❤
Also, Sudhir Srinivasan is a talented cruciverbalist. I am ready to sell the 'Harry Potter' Crossword Grid devised by him for £2,000. 😉
LikeLike
Thank you, Deepika. You’ll be among the earliest to know.
LikeLiked by 1 person