Malathi Rangarajan in her review for the movie Ayirathil Oruvan in The Hindu has written as “…..Did he have to waste more than two precious years on a project (gigantic no doubt) that has a baffling story, which only has him playing second fiddle to Reemma Sen? Battered, bruised, abused and tossed about by the girls, you expect him to retaliate with much vigour. He doesn't!”.

Even I, as a man, was quite taken aback by the male chauvinism of your statements. This is one of the very few movies, which has given an opportunity for women actors to prove their mettle. And why must the hero always hog the limelight? Why can’t he decide to do a role for the sheer love of the art and not depending on how much screen time he is given?

Are you reviewing the movie or his decision? Are you reviewing a work of art or the commercial/financial benefits that this venture brings (or not) to an artist?

What do you want from heroines, Malathi?: The great efforts that heroines go to in order to impress the hero (who, most often, is unemployed/rowdy/social outcast)? Five songs with the hero with idiotic movements and maximum exposure!

What is the problem with the Tamil spoken in the movie? “…. Just when you decide they have no language as such, the king sings, recites poetry and speaks fluently, of course, in a dialect which even a seasoned Tamil filmgoer finds odd!” Do you want the Cholas to speak Tanglish as we do? The language was in keeping with the times and not diluted to suit uninformed viewers.

It really needs courage to make this kind of a movie. How long can we continue to ape Hollywood?