OKOK is by no means a meaningful film experience, but it is a portal for popcorn escapism.
| Rohit Ramachandran
It's predictable. It's empty headed. It's nonsensical. For a film with all of these qualities, Oru Kal Oru Kannadi is surprisingly bearable and easy to sit through in spite of its exaggerated runtime. We have an old story. Hero decides to gatecrash the marriage of his lover and put an end to it. Add a comic sidekick and there's little reason for you to believe that you haven't seen this before.
Except, you haven't. Director Rajesh doesn't care about the story; he knows that the Tamil audience will chew on anything chewable. The strength of the film is in the dialogue- the comic comparisons Rajesh makes while drawing parallels to real life situations; and its delivery- the accents he's amused by. He directs his actors into communicating both of them, relying mostly on Santhanam and his nasal twang.
OKOK does get retarded and crass. I didn't think I'd survive. But the humour got me by. It is silly and of low intellect but, nevertheless, funny. However, I do object to OKOK taking itself seriously. To even ask a character with no human depth to utter a word like ego in a film as silly and ridiculous as this? To even dare to milk sentiment from viewers with such nonsense? I didn't care about the lead character's parents at all. Their marital problem exist merely as an issue that Rajesh wishes to address and that is just one among the few pointless storylines that OKOK gets sidetracked into. Not a good idea for a movie that's over three hours long.
Udhayanidhi Stalin lacks the screen presence required from a lead character and is never funny, especially when he talks gibberish in drunken stupor. Hansika Motwani fits the uninteresting glam girl character that exists in almost every Tamil movie, Saranya Ponvannan is annoying and Santhanam delivers dialogue just as he normally would. Harris Jeyaraj's music adds flavour and makes for easy viewing.
Just like Boss Engira Bhaskaran, OKOK's final destination is a marriage hall. It brings back nice memories just as it raises expectations, something it fails to meet. Rajesh anticipated that, which is probably why he felt the need to attach a blooper to the ending credits.
Critic: Rohit Ramachandran
2.5 out of 5 (Fairly Good)
WHAT THE RATINGS MEAN:
0.0 - 1.4 : Poor
1.5 - 1.7: Poor, A Few Good Parts
1.8 - 2.3: Okay
2.4 - 2.9: Fairly Good
3.0 - 3.4: Good
3.5 - 5.0: Very Good