We saw a movie which was made for less than 3.5 crore the other day called Romeo. It was directed by one of our favorite directors, Rajasenan, starring one of our favourite comedy actors, Dileep and written by the successful duo, Rafi-Mecartin.

In this movie Dileep plays Manu Krishnan, a male nurse. That itself is supposed to be comedy. He is on edee, podeee terms with Vimala Raman, a doctor so pretty that you won’t mind staying in a hospital forever. Vimala has a thing for him, but he does not have a thing for her. His thing is for Samvrita Sunil, a candidate on a reality show.

So far so good. Manu’s mother, played by Prithviraj’s real life mother, is a judge on the reality show. Manu’s father, played by Cochin Haneefa, then borrows money from Samvritha’s father played by Bheeman Raghu as a bribe for making Samvritha the winner. Few complications arise, such as Bheeman Raghu wanting to kill Dileep etc, resulting in Dileep ending up in an agraharam looking after a mentallyilla Risabawa. There is a subtle statement here that the characters we met so far were mentally stable.

There is a girl in the agraharam who falls in love with Dileep. But there is another guy, played by Asokan, who is in love with the agraharam girl. Then there is some multiple identity issues as well, with Dileep taking on names of other people. I should re-write that sentence. But what for?

At the end guess where they all end up? In an Ayurvedic resort. We don’t know why this venue was chosen as any place would have been apt – from ISRO to Oolanpara. With that said, then all of them sit on your brain and take it out neuron by neuron that your whole body becomes a phantom limb.

So what happened to the guy who directed Ayalathe Addeham and Melepparambil Aanveedu? What happened to the guys who wrote Punjabi House? What happened to the actor who made us laugh in Meesha Madhavan and Chanthupottu?

Forget the inane story. Forget the casting. Forget the direction. Just look the the characters. The writers are not sure if Bheeman Raghu should be a villain or a comedian or both. It is OK to have a villain who is part comedian, but this falls flat.

The reason it falls flat is because there are others competing for the confused character award. The ayurvedic resort is run by Vimala Raman’s father, who is serious one moment, beating up people the othermoment and trying to act funny some other times. Looks like each minute of script was written by a different person.

There is another irritating thing. Making faces. There are too many reaction shots of people frowning, expressing shock etc. Remember how the camera used to capture the expressions of various characters in the TV serial Mahabharata when one of the cast members made a profound statement. Rajasenan sticks to that level of maturity with the difference that Mahabharata was absorbing even with all the deficiencies in film making.

At the end of it one can’t help but feel sorry for Dileep. Such movies are his forte and Rajasenan/Rafi-Mecartin have an established track record.

But Rajasenan has been on a decline for sometime. He made one terrible movie called Immini Nalloral and this one seems to be in the same genre. Since Rajasenan always has been a less than 3.5 crore guy, we hope he spends more time with the script when he ventures out next time.

Best way to read Varnachitram is via Feedblitz, Click here to subscribe.

Ratheesh writes:

Obviously, I didn’t go for the film expecting it to be a masterpiece, but in spite of all Rasathanthrams and Nattu Rajavus, I still I keep looking forward to every Mohanlal movie, hoping that it would be something different, or at least offer some time-pass. But College Kumaran just made me repent for spending the money for buying ticket. Since it is Thulasidas’s film, I won’t talk about logic, theme, presentation, characterizations, etc. And in any case the theme is a rehash of the superhero-shinkidis-fans-villains formula planted to a college atmosphere, with the usual “package” of actors playing their “standard characters – Siddique and Jayakrishnan playing villains, Balachandra Menon coming in jubbah for revealing the “secret”, Jagannatha Varma playing the judge, etc. There is absolutely no “comedy” (except for the aforementioned gem). Songs are of the kind which would really make us wish to have a remote control to fast-forward them on the screen. Can we at least hope that we could make ourselves feel pleasant looking at the good-looking heroine, Vimala Raman? No, as she doesn’t have many scenes in the film, and the photography too is just mediocre.

College Kumaran shouldn’t have been made. It’s such a waste of time and money of its makers as well as viewers.

VN writes in Nowrunning.com

Flawed direction is only one of the numerous woes that plague the film. Technically College Kumaran is a shoddy film that reveals sloppier production values. It has a laid-back feel to it, that’s unmistakably crass. That it has been in the making for quite a while could be seen as a reasonable apologia to the jaded air. I would gladly grant it to Ouseppachan for coming up with a few lilting tunes that sporadically perk up an otherwise foul feel that lingers all over.

It wouldn’t hurt to brand the film as a snoozer and a true test on the nerves. It’s so lackluster to the point of being dimwitted. And it leaves a bad taste, even for the brain dead.

Indiaglitz reviews:

The film rooted in the campus itself has a pretty thin story line. But Thulaseedas has finally managed to convert the flick into a passable fare. The director is spot on the little subject, he had and races to the final with the help of fine cuts by P C Mohanan. The screenplay and dialogues by Suresh Pothuwal flesh out the characters of this thin concept, with not many deviations. The later half is more impressive, but with too many cliches, that makes the flick a predictable stuff. Mohanlal looks tired but ease through the role which he had been in, many times before. Vimala Raman as Madhavi is ok but has precious little to do. The shortcoming of the script is that it doesn’t have many hilarious moments, funny sequences, punch lines or witty one liner. Suraaj and Harishree Ashokan as Kumaran’s aides in canteen try to bring in chuckles but fails more than often. Siddhique as Sethunathan is in his usual self while a bunch of young artists completes the castline as campus groups.

In our preview, we wrote that Rafi-Mecartin and Rajasenan have just one trick up their sleeves and they repeat it again and again. According to the reviewers, this time it is no different. It is the same comedy routine repeated ad infinitum. One of our regulars, Jibs, had noted that if Dileep did not change his tactics, he might go the Jayaram way and that is exactly what Rediff’s reviewer too had to say.

Unni Nair writes

< The plot seems good and interesting coming as it does from Rajasenan, but post-interval things seem to go out of control and even seem to be boring at places. Dileep is OK as Manu, but there is nothing outstanding about his performance or character. Vimala as Priya is passable, but at places she seems to be rather uncomfortable with the role. Samvritha as Leena is good while new girl Shruthi doesn't impress much as Bhama
The film moves at a brisk pace in the first half especially as the emphasis is mostly on verbal comedy, but post interval the pace slows down and some of the scenes seem to lack freshness and appeal. The songs though in tune with the theme and mood, are ordinary and won’t stay in our memories for long. Nambiathiri’s camerawork is good and so is Raja Mohamed’s editing. The film is an average comic entertainer, and not a terribly bad one at that. But judging by the response inside the theatres on day one, it is to be seen whether the film does good business or not.

Moviebuzz writes

Rafi and Mecartin loves the Priyadarsan type of comedies where bus load of characters, some of them with mistaken identities, others with their own comic agenda meet in the climax and its total bedlam. Once more the “mad, mad, mad world formula” has been beaten to death. There is no original bone in the story or narration, everybody does their comic act and provide their quota of laughs and disappears.
Dileep, Haneefa, Sooraj, Salim Kumar, Bheeman Reghu (comic villain), Riza Bava, Asokhan, Malika Sukumaran (a new addition to the laugh brigade) does their roles competently and proves again that they have terrific comedy timing, while the girls Vimala, Samvrutha and Sruthilakshmi looks good.

Paresh Palicha, for a change has some analysis

The screenplay has everything that you can imagine in the slapstick films of a bygone era. There are impersonations, mistaken identities and what have you.

The first half works with ‘a laugh a minute’ situations. But this gets too much in the second half. It would have worked if the gung-ho spirit was maintained throughout the duration of the film. Somehow we get a feeling that the writer(s)-director team were clueless about how to get out of the quagmire they found themselves in.

Dileep seems to be control in the beginning as the role of Manu is tailor made for him. But this does not last long as the film proceeds. Known as a poor man’s Mohanlal when he started doing roles like this, the actor, of late seems to have lost some sheen in executing them. He had better rediscover himself soon or his career will go Jayaram’s way.

(Image via NowRunning.com)

Finally in December a new Dileep movie is going to be released. This time he has not chosen any auspicious day like Bakrid or Christmas but a rather uneventful day like Dec 14. Remember that scene in Lagaan where the villagers dance around seeing the rain clouds (Ghanana Ghanana song); for Dileep fans it is such a moment when they eagerly await the release of Romeo. With this movie, Dileep returns to his strengths – mimicry, oops, we mean comedy. In the movie he plays Manu, a male home nurse who romances Vimala Raman and Samvritha Sunil at the same time.

The script writers Rafi-Mercartin know one story, which is basically mixup of people and circumstances and they have mixed it very well in movies like Thenkasi Pattanam and Punjabi House. Then there is their guru Rajasenan who basically knows to make one type of movie. When all these single act ponies get together for a movie, the resulting story line can be predicted. Then after watching movies like Alibhai, Paradesi and Rock’n'Roll everyone could use a little laugh, even if it is the predictable one.

Unni Nair writes

The big plus in Nazrani is no doubt Mammootty who is the saving grace for the film. His electrifying presence and his mesmerizing performance as DK is what makes the film sufferable. Otherwise it is just old wine, which has been served in too many cocktails before.

The biggest negative aspect of the film is that it offers nothing new and is far from being impressive. The final scenes which are typical in nature could even provoke you into booing. For all its flaws however, the film is definitely worth a watch if you go for it without any presumptions or prejudices, and just for the sake of watching Mammookka. Hats off to the superstar! Such films are necessary to retain the star-status, and are good for the industry on the whole. Having said that, one cannot but remark that Nazrani could have been made into a better movie, given the potential of the Joshi-Mammootty-Renjith trio.

Movie Buzz writes

Nasarani reminds you of Joshy’s mass masala multi-starrers of the late 70 and 80’s. The film lacks a tight screenplay and is disjointed, as Ranjit has mixed old wine with recent happenings in Kerala politics, to churn out a sugar-coated family trifle pudding. The film drags towards the climax, and there is even continuity jerk as too many characters are there for no real reasons. Ranjit and Joshy presents their protagonist as a macho man riding on Mammookka’s image, and to be honest that is the only thing that saves the movie.

Mammootty as the wise-cracking Nasrani gets all the plum lines and is quite wacky. He melds effortlessly from casual comedy, soft romance to utter seriousness with consummate ease. Mammookka as Nasarani is the only reason for investing in a movie ticket for this film.

Paresh Palicha writes

If you are wondering why Ranjith’s craftsmanship is discussed at length when the film is actually directed by veteran Joshiy, is because Nazrani has Ranjith’s stamp all over it. It is as if he had set out to redeem himself after the disaster of Prajapathi. That does not mean that everything about Nazrani is drastically new. It is just that things are presented after being properly dusted and shined.

The skeletal of the story is the same as in any Ranjith film of the past decade and half. Only the garb of the characters has changed to the rich rubber estate owners of the Kottayam region.Somehow, the narrative loses steam post interval, as it becomes a typical murder mystery without much momentum, which leaves Nazrani to be just an average film.

See Also: MovieMazaa Review: Nasrani

( Movie Mazaa is our new guest contributor who will be doing reviews of the latest films)

Ranjith has this ability to spring the nastiest surprises on an unwary audience time and again. Armed up with ace-director Joshiy he cooks up Nasrani, a twitchy and jittery film that is at its best ambitious and at its worst lethally amateurish.

David John Kottarathil (Mammootty) is an affluent planter who languishes his time wooing Sarah (Vimala Raman) and running a gambler’s den. He’s indeed the archetypal Ranjith hero with all the integrity surging out from within, and yet who maintains a coarse façade that’s supposedly the definitive masculine trait. A local politician gets murdered eventually and Annie, (Muktha George) David’s foster-daughter emerges the prime accused. And what does all this perplexity lead to? Practically nothing, as it sadly turns out.

Nasrani isn’t really sure if it wants to be a superstar melodrama or an exhilarating thriller and its unfulfilling as either and ends up as an appalling hybrid. While the first half of the movie is elaborate with too many suspects and frail motives, the second half is wiped clean of any suspense as the tale slowly builds to a real mundane climax. The answers to the questions turn out to be sillier than the queries themselves. And of course the gaping plot holes, the never ending array of characters and the ludicrous dialogues cannot be forgotten in a hurry as well. For many of us the sole reason for watching Nasrani, would be to find out if Mammootty reworks the Achayan magic. Sadly he doesn’t, for even as a star vehicle, the movie is a dud. The actor is hazily considerate in his part and doesn’t emabarass himself. But the only time he comes alive is a handful of moments that fade away as quickly as they have made an appearance.

The script doesn’t make a convincing holder for the prime event of the day namely the murder, nor does Joshiy manage to string the beads up as a rational whole. July 4 and now Nasrani show the plight of a director at the low ebb of inventiveness as the finale unveils a ludicrous howler of a twist ending. The plot grows increasingly absurd, particularly towards the end when the characters no longer seem to be themselves. Just when things should be getting intriguing and complex, they become repetitive and computable. And the house of cards come crashing down with a thud.

Nasrani is an unengaging and colossally flat film that gets plain irksome after a while. It displays a horrific disparity of author and material that is maddeningly convoluted. And when the curiosity wave subsides, it should start its sinking into oblivion.

Photo courtesy:rediff.com