The best source of Indian Entertainment
mobile: m.nowrunning.com  |  Login |   Register |   Search Movies | 
Search Website:
Join us on Facebook    Follow us on twitter   Follow us on Google Plus   Checkout our youtube channel   Subscribe RSS feeds
bollywood

Other Critic Reviews
This is a rare script - incoherent, undeveloped, poorly conceived and naturally unpromising on almost every level. It's literally impossible to sit through the shenanigans that are clumsily executed to imperfection.
By VN  1 Stars
Read Review

Advertisement
 
1.5 stars 'Kancheepurathe Kalyanam', by debutant director duo Fazil-Jayakrishnan, is a film that leads you to expect a fun-filled family entertainer. But sadly enough, the film doesn't entertain and even seems stale at places. - Thomas T    Mon, 25 May 2009
'Kancheepurathe Kalyanam', by debutant director duo Fazil-Jayakrishnan, is a film that leads you to expect a fun-filled family entertainer. But sadly enough, the film doesn't entertain and even seems stale at places. It appears to be a hotchpotch of many films and represents a genre that was OK for the 1990's. The main problem with the flick is that it lacks originality.

Kalarikkal Achuthankutty (Suresh Gopi) and Pattarumatathil Najeeb (Mukesh) had not only been best of friends, they even ran an event management company jointly until they parted ways. The reason for the parting of ways was that Najeeb married Achuthankutty's sister Athira (Surabhi) and that too without the consent of the family members. From then on Achuthankutty started seeing Najeeb as an enemy. And when Najeeb started his own event management company, named New Friends Event Management Company (Achuthankutty's company was named Friends Event Management Co.), they became business rivals too. Achuthankutty's manager P.M. Premachandran (Harisri Ashokan) and Najeeb's manager C.M. Premachandran (Jagadeesh) too clash with each other just like their masters.

Achuthankutty remains unmarried supposedly because after his sister's elopement with someone from a different religion, he would not get a good alliance. Najeeb decides that since he is responsible for his friend's predicament, he has the moral responsibility to see to it that he gets a suitable bride. Najeeb tries his best to smoothen things out, but Achuthankutty is adamant.

It is at this juncture that both Achuthankutty and Najeeb get to go to Kancheepuram in connection with the marriage of one Meenakshi (Muktha), the daughter of Devanayagi (Zeenath), who owns Meenakshi Silks. Meenakshi is to be married to the son of her maternal uncle, Sreeramalingam Muthaliar (Jagathy Sreekumar). Muthaliar in fact has a selfish motive behind this move; he wants to own the Meenakshi Silks, which would pass on to his son after the marriage. Achuthankutty and Najeeb are to divide the management of the engagement ceremony and the wedding ceremony too between themselves. It's in this connection that Achuthankutty, Najeeb, Athira, P.M. Premachandran and C.M. Premachandran arrive at Kancheepuram. The story takes off from here.

Suresh Gopi doesn't impress us as Achuthankutty. The character doesn't suit him or his image. He has his limitations as an actor. It's high time he chose roles that suit his acting capabilities. Mukesh is good as Najeeb. Harisri Ashokan and Jagadeesh impress us in their usual styles and Jagathy Sreekumar too does the same, though we have seen it all before, in many films. Muktha is OK as Meenakshi, good at times, but rather unimpressive in some scenes. There's nothing much to be said about Surabhi, who plays Athira. Innocent is good as Balakrishnan Nair alias Balaji, who's Achuthankutty's uncle and a still photographer by profession. Politician-turned-actor Rajmohan Unnithan does a different role this time as the village chief. The rest of the cast suit their respective roles.

The technical aspects are all average, while the music doesn't even deserve mention. The main flaws with the film lie in the story, the screenplay, the dialogues and Suresh Gopi's performance. It won't be right to say that the storyline is not interesting or that it doesn't have scope in today's situation. But it has to be said that the scenarist (who has proved it again and again that he still writes his scripts as if he is catering to the audience of the 1980's or early 1990's) and the directors should have taken care to treat the subject better and in accordance with the today's trends. Many directors have clicked at the box office, serving old wine again and again, but packaging it differently each time. Let's hope Fazil and Jayakrishnan take a cue from this.


Recent Reviews

Advertisement