Indian 3 dusted off shelves: Can Kamal Haasan, Shankar undo damage of Indian 2?

For director Shankar, Indian 3 could be more than just another film waiting to hit theatres. It could be a chance to reclaim lost ground after Indian 2 became one of the most disappointing chapters in the director's career. With the makers announcing on October 8 that post-production work has begun on the Kamal Haasan-starrer, a film many believed had been shelved is back in the picture. But is reviving it a wise move, or could it deepen the damage caused by its predecessor?The stakes are considerable. The first Indian, released in 1996, occupies a special place in Tamil cinema. Kamal Haasan's transformation into Senapathy, the ageing freedom fighter who takes the law into his own hands to fight corruption, gave the film a distinct identity. Nearly three decades later, Indian 2 arrived carrying that legacy, along with years of anticipation. What audiences received, however, was a sequel that struggled to justify its existence.Indian 2 left behind a legacy of memesAfter spending several years in production, Indian 2 finally reached theatres in 2024. The film had faced delays and interruptions before its release, but the bigger setback came when it failed to connect with audiences. Critics and fans took issue with its screenplay, pacing, performances and treatment of a story that once felt relevant and powerful. Its box-office performance also fell short of expectations.The Varma Kalai sequences, which were meant to underline Senapathy's extraordinary abilities, became a source of ridicule. Siddharth's dialogues were widely turned into memes, and several scenes became fodder for online jokes. For a film that sought to revive one of Tamil cinema's most recognisable vigilantes, the response was particularly harsh. The problem was not simply that Indian 2 failed to match the original. Sequels often struggle under the weight of beloved predecessors. The film also made it difficult for viewers to reconnect with the very ideas that had made Indian compelling in the first place. Its anti-corruption message was still relevant, but the storytelling did little to give it the urgency or emotional weight it needed. That is the baggage Indian 3 now carries. A third instalment is not automatically an opportunity for redemption, especially when the audience has already spent time and money on a sequel that left many disappointed.Could Indian 3 have fixed what went wrong? Interestingly, the most encouraging sign for Indian 3 emerged even before Indian 2 reached theatres. The glimpse of the third film, added to the second part's end credits, offered a look at the historical roots of Senapathy's vigilantism, with Kamal Haasan playing the ageing Senapathy as well as his father, Veerasekaran Balram.The prospect of exploring the character's past gave the story a different dimension. Instead of returning to the familiar framework of Senapathy fighting corruption in the present, the film appeared poised to examine the experiences and influences that shaped him. After Indian 2 was released, many viewers argued that this material should have featured earlier in the sequel, perhaps providing a stronger emotional anchor to the sprawling narrative.The third film was shot alongside Indian 2, which means at least some of its creative choices were already in place before the second part's reception became clear. That could work in its favour if the footage offers a more cohesive story, a fresh perspective on Senapathy and a reason to revisit the franchise beyond nostalgia.But a promising glimpse is not the same as a compelling feature film. A few intriguing scenes can generate interest, yet the final product still needs to sustain that promise across its runtime. Indian 3 will have to show that the historical backstory is more than an extended flashback and that it adds something meaningful to the character audiences already know. A crucial test for ShankarThe film's revival also raises questions about Shankar's recent trajectory. The director has long been associated with large-scale productions, striking visual ideas and stories built around social concerns. But spectacle cannot compensate for weak characterisation or an uneven screenplay. The response to Indian 2 made that distinction difficult to ignore. His subsequent release, Game Changer, was subjected to similar criticisms.For Indian 3 to work, it will need sharper writing, a more disciplined narrative and emotional stakes that go beyond the familiar promise of a vigilante delivering justice. Kamal Haasan's return as Senapathy may draw audiences initially, but the film will have to earn their attention on its own terms.There is also a larger question of timing. After the second film's reception, will viewers be willing to give the franchise another chance? The announcement that post-production has begun confirms that the project is moving ahead, but it does not tell us when it will release or whether the makers intend to make substantial changes in response to the criticism.For Shankar, abandoning the film would mean leaving a major chapter of the franchise unfinished. Releasing it, however, means confronting the expectations and disappointment that Indian 2 has left behind.Redemption or one sequel too many?Indian 3 has a potential advantage in its focus on Senapathy's origins. If the film uses that story to deepen the character and deliver a tighter, more engaging narrative, it could give audiences a reason to reconsider the franchise. It could also allow Shankar to demonstrate that the failures of Indian 2 need not define the entire series.But the film cannot rely on Kamal Haasan's presence, the original's cult status or the curiosity surrounding its delayed release. Those factors may bring people to the theatre, but they will not guarantee a favourable response.The start of post-production offers a reason to give Indian 3 a chance. Whether it becomes a course correction for Shankar or another reminder of what went wrong with Indian 2 will depend on what the film ultimately delivers. For now, the sequel has a chance to make its case — but the burden of proof is firmly on the makers.- Ends