varnachitram

A Blog on Cinema

Movie Mazaa Review: Hareendran Oru Nishkalangan

| 33 Comments


(Crossposted at Movie Mazaa)

I have just made an agonizing discovery of a masochistic streak that robustly runs somewhere deep within me that prompts me to good naturedly watch yet another Vinayan film. With Hareendran Oru Nishkalankan, the director plummets further depths, digs up spanking new atrocities and concocts atypical follies that I valiantly endured in the name of an appreciation for cinema and which would without doubt, gain me a spot in paradise; my soul having already born the worst conceivable travails in hell.

The plot, such as it is, can be done away with swiftly. Hareendran (Indrajith) is the naive chap in question; a software giant who competently runs a flourishing firm along with scheming accomplice GK (Jayasurya) who harbors vile intentions of a potential usurping. Hareendran gets plausibly framed for a gruesome murder and is later let off the charges as innocent, but meets with an unforeseen end, albeit of a quite different sort.

It’s not often that you come across a film that’s bad almost any which way you look at it – be it the slapdash acting, the shoddy script or the hit and miss screenplay or even the tactless technicalities and the parched music. It’s here that the gates to the netherworld unlock before you, and the grisly torments that await you are many. When it’s a film that states in unsullied terms that a woman is the most expensive commodity on earth, it isn’t really a surprise that the fairer sex is treated shoddier than soot. Demoted to an unutterably stumpy state, she gasps for a breath of fresh air when she isn’t being coldly raped or when the dubious camera isn’t hovering lazily over her curves. A revival of sexploitation that had made a hushed exit with the soft porn of the 90’s is palpable, and the impact nothing short of dire.

A film that’s terrible beyond belief, Hareendran Oru Nishkalankan, is a total disaster that exerts a vicious enthrallment. It’s garish, over-sexualized and tedious when it’s not being vigorously distasteful and deserves to be shredded apart for the heights of dumbness that it shamelessly flaunts. There’s utterly nothing in it that hasn’t already materialized in innumerable similar situations before, in much brainier ways and manners. A movie as unfathomable as it is repressive, it inches its way to a climax that is almost startling in its hollowness.

Inexorably infantile and sopping in stereotypes, Hareendran Oru Nishkalankan is dead and deader than an alley rat run over by a screeching tire. It is so exceptionally appalling and pot-headed that it makes you gape at the screen open mouthed. As dreadful as the film’s notion is, the implementation is indescribably poorer; a repulsive jumble of gluttony, lust, and squalid harassment that even the stone-hearted will in all likelihood be disgusted by.

This despicable, expansive and ultimately redundant farce makes the director’s earlier flicks emerge as true classics! There is nothing considerate or appealing about this cranky drama; there’s not even anything remotely sharp. It’s a yarn of a film that’s shockingly unfunny and built on the most wretched of circumstances and the most exasperating of performances. To cut a protracted story slick short, there’s real awful cinema, there’s the intolerable stuff and then, there’s Hareendran Oru Nishkalankan.

(Image via nowrunning.com) 

33 Comments

  1. Ouch! That’s harsh. But judging from other Vinayan movies I’ve seen, you’re probably right.

  2. I stopped watching Vinayan films a long time ago. And, thanks to the valiant dedication of MovieMazaa, we can stand back and watch the wreckage from afar 🙂

  3. If you really want the reader to understand
    you must use a better language without the cleche
    and psuedo intellectual English.
    The best classics are written in simple language, and the English you use in an ordinary movie review is purely undigestable for an ordinary viewer, a review if can be read only with the help of dictionary is not advisable.

  4. The Reviewer @ Movie Maazaa deserves a Big Salute for his immense patience in sitting through these torturing sessions called Malayalam Cinema.

  5. asha, I find MM’s reviews and the use of his language very interesting. It takes great skill to write such elegant prose. Please don’t throw words like pseudo intellectual and cliche without understanding what it means.

  6. SK, in support of Asha, the english is a bit tough for review. If you look at the review, its kind of the way the movie being reviewed – long, tedious and repeating the same thought in one paragraph after another.
    Ideally, a review is to convey what the story is about, how the actors performed, pluses and minuses.

  7. Why do I get the feeling that VC doesn’t appreciate my comments? It must be because you have chosen not to print several of my comments or censored some. I know your rules say not to insult other commentators, but several other commentators’ insults get approved regularly. My “insults”, if they can even be called that, is mild by even your standards. There seems to be an epidemic of Malayali bashing going on, both by Malayalis with an inferiority complex and outsiders. Many on this site seem to be infected with it. I for one am proud of malayali culture and malayalam cinema. It irks me to see people take some fault or the other and turn it into a general statement about our culture. Ludacris’ statement above is offensive to me as a Malayali. If VC doesn’t find it offensive, I feel sorry for you.

  8. My 0.02 $..

    IMHO – Malayalam cinema is bad (ex: Alibais and the Nasrani’s), but personally I dont think its that bad as is projected out here – there are good movies coming out too – Thaniye, Thanmatra, Arabikatha, Pardesi and 4 Pennungal being recent examples

    I am an eternal optimist. I hope and believe that Malayalam cinema will revive like a Phoenix after the advent of Production Houses like UTV, Pyramid Samaira etc.

    I saw OSO recently and I found it only slightly better than Alibai.

    Let us appreciate for what we have, rather than unrealistically compare to what we have across the border.

  9. San, in support of SK, reviewing is just the opposite of what you have mentioned. Mentioning the story and how the actors did or didnt do something is not what makes a review. It makes a bad review instead. Use of a simple language is not mandatory for a review. Some of the best reviewers in the world use the best language as well. And why should you run down something that you dont understand? Does that mean anything that you dont understand is not up to the mark or pseudo as Asha mentioned?

  10. One of my favorite reviewers in Bharadwaj Rangan who does not write “story and pluses and minuses”, but goes through the movie with such fine comb, giving perspective, comparisons and opinions in such polished language that you are in awe of it. For example, if you are writing the review of Naalu Pennungal, the basic qualification is that you should have read at least all the short stories of Thakazhi that were adapted.

    At the end of it, what works for me is the analysis wrapped in good language. The craft of writing reviews is another art form and such well written reviews give pleasure unlike emotional outbursts which pass off as reviews in most sites.

  11. Dude, your English is awful.

    director plummets further depths, digs up spanking new atrocities and concocts atypical follies that I valiantly endured

    Gah!

    You don’t refer to acting as slapdash or soot as shoddy.

    As dreadful as the film’s notion is, the implementation is indescribably poorer; a repulsive jumble of gluttony, lust, and squalid harassment that even the stone-hearted will in all likelihood be disgusted by.

    Bad construction and improper ending.

  12. Thank God there are language saviours as Jay around… Yuck!

    I wonder how that flaming comment even managed to get itself published here.

  13. Vinu, The language in the review is not all that tough but after reading it I did not think it was all that ‘great bit of writting’.
    SK, was the ‘fine comb’ applied in this review. ‘Its a yarn of a film that is shockingly unfunny’ – arent most films just yarns? Is the movie claiming to be a comedy?

  14. I find Movie Mazaa’s review very interesting because of the style of writing. It’s quite different from the run of the mills reviews you find in other websites,media and fan sites. People want to be spoon fed, and they easily trash if they find something non-conforming to their standards. Well, it’s much easier to nitpick than to write something like MM, that is for sure.

  15. San

    Not every movie is a yarn. A yarn has the meaning of a cock-and-bull story, a tall tale, in the sense being used here.

  16. there’s nothing wrong with our malayalam films other than the fact that its short of fresh ideologies and pathbreaking display of creation..

    Many of todays films are just a rehash of the oldies..say Alibhai,Nasrani,Goal,4 pennungal etc and the list goes on…

    Followed by terrible marketing strategies,not a single ad is seen in newspapers tormenting the industry a part..

    Like a desert rain when some new experiments come people disguard it lavisgly…
    Paradesi,Mission90Days,Rock n Roll etc….

    I had seen all these films and i enjoyed each and every one…

  17. Sherin’s Acting is really Fantastic in this Movie.
    It is sure that she will get more chances from Malayalam- Film Industry.

  18. While I agree with the reviewer about the film, I can’t agree with the way it is expressed in English language. This is called “stilted language”.

  19. Hey Navyafan

    Are u the one who used to regular Forumhub?
    Do u remember WC by any chance?

    I had to google Stilted Writing, btw!
    LOL!! 😀

    Gud day!
    🙂

  20. I am a professional writer in the UK and found this post interesting. The content seems to have become lost in a mess of words and metaphors. I personally feel that good writing happens when it “connects” to the person with minimal use of prose and jargon.

  21. I dont understand why this hughe fuss about a person’s review… MM had written this review in his blog site for his blog regulars… And to my knowledge none of them had any problems with that.. VC copies the same or cross-posts the same and now MM is being cornered for the language he has used in his review… Why cant this be taken or seen as an individual’s effort to improve his language.. It is purely the reader’s choice to read it or not instead of starting a bashing comments thread!!!

    Unnikrishnan G Nair.

  22. Unnikrishnan

    You have stated a very valid point. And that is exactly what some of us have been trying to say! I think some people have an antagonism towards anything that is properly done and come up with something real lame to tarnish what has been neatly done. To cook up something as huge as this row over a review in which language has been used excellently well points exactly to this group.

  23. For people who grew up reading Paresh Palicha’s reviews, MM’s review will be hard to digest. It breaks established patterns, uses language in creative ways and cannot be read in a 2 second gloss over. Mostly I think it is jealousy for they cannot write like MM.

  24. Looks like the focus is shifted from movie review to the movie reviewer. Personally I find MMs reviews having a lot of depth and I think the language is poetic. I guess people are used to and is overdosed on plain vanilla reviews.

  25. @Unnikrishnan Nair, there is a difference between copying and cross posting and i hope you are aware of it. We at vc are privileged to have MM post in VC.

  26. MM’s reviews are like some of the articles in “the hindu”. Writing style is kinda dated and it is the old school of thought to use the hardest to understand words to describe your views. Modern writers use plain english to convey their thoughts. Check some of the opinion columns in nytimes. They use simple words and try to be as concise as possible.
    Saritha

  27. Some people write like Salman Rushdie, some write like R K Laxman. It is preposterous to say that I don’t understand what he writes, so he should write in nursery rhyme format.

  28. @Jibs

    You deserve a big round of applause for that last one! That I feel, hit hard where it badly had to.

  29. @jibs
    So you live in Shakespearean times and majority of the people who commented here live in 2007.
    Devina rightly pointed out that writing style should connect with the readers and Saritha has given example of opinion columns of nytimes. So you think that nytimes columns are nursery rhyme format 🙂

  30. I feel Saritha’s comment is way off-the-block. There is a huge difference in the language used in a random news article, and one that is used in a special column, like a film review. You dont use highly expressive language in a common news articles, but only in columns that actually demand it. And even in NYTimes its the same.

    And one more thing. That dig on The Hindu is real tasteless.

    And one more. What on earth makes you feel that the NYTimes is the last word in journalism, press writing or the English Language for that matter?

  31. John, I don’t think O V Vijayan lived in Shakespearean times, but even his English translations were hard to read, but that did not prevent a whole generation from enjoying it. If everyone starts writing in the style of Op-Ed pieces of Ny Times, the world of literature would a boring place. I really enjoy reading MM’s reviews and I hope he continues to write in the same style. For the rest who don’t get it, there is always the Op-Ed pieces of NY Times.

  32. Surprised to see people agreeing and disagreeing with me.
    @Samar : I just picked nytimes, thinking that many people read it and is written by Pulitzer winning writers. If you don’t like nytimes, you can check any well known english newspapers/magazines of native english speakers like times of london, economist, washington post etc. They stick to the ABCs of journalism i.e accuracy, brevity, and clarity.

  33. Read the review… i just have one request.. kindly do not compare mm’s style of writing to salman rushdie/ rk laxman.. the main flaw in here is the writer’s obsession for vocabulary. While reading the article you feel the writer has surfed thesaurus for finding myriads of adjectives.. Also friends, excessive usage of fancy terms is never an indication of a good piece of literature. An article becomes impressive when the writer is able to convey the content to the readers effortlessly. But here while trying to read the review we are led into a maze of jargons and the purpose of the review ( i.e to review the moview) is lost.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.


Get Adobe Flash player