ONE WORD: Dull and Boring Drama, Odum Kuthira Chaadum Kuthira Will Test Your Patience

A Review by Arunjyothi R

LANGUAGE: Malayalam 

DURATION: 02 Hours 33 Minutes 

DIRECTOR: Althaf Salim 

GENRE: Comedy Drama 

•POSITIVES:

1: Performance of Fahadh Faasil

2: Background Score 

3: Some situational comedies 

4: Performance of Lal 

•NEGATIVES:

1: Weak Story 

2: Poor Screenplay 

3: Lagging at multiple points 

4: Direction misses the spark 

5: Comedies didn’t worked out

6: Boring second half 

 STORY: 

Aby, an unwilling groom, reluctantly prepares for his wedding day when his bride-to-be, Nidhi, demands a grand entrance on horseback. What begins as a lighthearted gesture soon turns tragic—the horse panics, Aby is thrown off, and he slips into a coma-like state. As he slowly regains strength, life brings Aby face-to-face with a quiet, reserved woman whose presence changes the course of his recovery. Together, they embark on a tender journey of healing, rediscovering hope in places they least expect. Just as new bonds begin to form, Nidhi reappears—this time with a deeper understanding of Aby’s long-buried aspirations. Torn between the shadows of his past and the possibilities of a new beginning, Aby is led toward a hidden truth—one that holds the key to his peace and destiny.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS OF THE FILM: 

WHAT ARE THE POSITIVES:

1: The only saving grace of this film is Fahadh Faasil. His natural expressions, sharp timing, and those little funny reactions on his face often bring some life into otherwise dull moments. Even when the script collapses under lame writing, he manages to pull the audience back with his effortless screen presence. Honestly, I kept checking my watch inside the theatre, wondering when this eccentric ride would end, but it was Fahadh’s performance that made me sit through till the finish. He carried the entire film on his shoulders from start to end, proving once again his calibre. Still, it feels disappointing to watch an actor of his range trapped in such poor storytelling — he truly deserves better scripts than this.

2: Another small positive lies in the background score. Though not extraordinary, it worked decently in keeping the film watchable. In a few rare scenes where the comedy actually clicked, the background score provided the right balance and added some energy. At moments when the screenplay fell flat, the music at least tried to hold the mood together, giving a little support to an otherwise shaky narrative.

3: Some of the comedy tracks in the first half worked to an extent. A few lighter moments managed to bring a smile and gave the impression that the film might shape up into a decent entertainer. These bits created a brief sense of relief and kept the audience engaged for a while, even though they were not laugh-out-loud funny. Unfortunately, this small spark of humor quickly faded as the film moved forward.

4: Though the character played by Lal is written in an eccentric and often over-the-top manner, with several of his actions being hard to digest, his sheer screen presence brings some amount of relief during this tiring watch. Even when the character slips into unbelievable territory, Lal’s energy and unpredictability keep the audience from completely losing interest. His combination scenes with Fahadh Faasil, in particular, manage to hold attention — not because they are exceptionally well-written, but because both actors complement each other’s timing and presence, making those portions at least watchable amidst the chaos.

WHAT DIDN’T WORK OUT: 

1: Altaf Salim’s debut, Njandukalude Nattil Oridavela, was a breath of fresh air—a well-crafted, heartwarming family story with humor that genuinely landed. The film’s charm lay in its relatable characters, engaging narrative, and the seamless balance between comedy and emotion, which left audiences eagerly awaiting his next project. Naturally, when Odum Kuthira Chaadum Kuthira was announced with Fahadh Faasil in the lead, expectations were high.Unfortunately, Odum Kuthira Chaadum Kuthira fails to live up to its promise at almost every level. The final result is a tedious, exhausting watch—especially disappointing during the festive Onam season, when audiences crave engaging entertainment.

2: The biggest drawback of Odum Kuthira Chaadum Kuthira is Altaf Salim’s direction. While his vision and intent to bring something fresh, reminiscent of a Korean romantic comedy-drama, are evident but the execution falls flat. The story lacks momentum, and the direction struggles to maintain focus, leaving many scenes feeling aimless and disconnected. The script suffers from pacing issues and underdeveloped plotlines, while moments that could have delivered humor or depth instead fall flat. The comedic elements, which were a strong point in his debut, feel forced and uninspired here. Even Fahadh Faasil’s performance cannot salvage the film, unable to rise above the weak narrative and uneven direction.

3: The story is fundamentally weak, built on only a thin layer of plot stretched across an excessive number of events that fail to connect in any meaningful way. As I watched the film, I found myself constantly questioning what was actually happening and struggling to understand the universe in which this story was supposed to exist. There is a noticeable lack of sensibility and coherence throughout, making the narrative feel disjointed and confusing. The characters remain underdeveloped, and the situations fail to evoke any genuine emotion or engagement. By the end, the film comes across as a series of random, disconnected moments rather than a cohesive story, leaving the audience detached and struggling to care about what unfolds on screen.

4: The film opens on a promising note, with an interesting angle that immediately grabs attention. But as it dives into the main plot, the narrative quickly unravels. What could have been engaging turns tedious, making the viewing experience frustratingly slow. Fahadh Faasil’s character, following an accident, slips into a coma-like state, and from that point onwards, it feels as if the director is putting the audience into the same coma- like stage. The pacing falters, the energy dwindles, and by the second half, the film completely loses its grip, weighed down by a confused and incoherent screenplay. Scenes that should have added depth or humor instead feel hollow, and the emotional stakes never land, leaving the story feeling completely disconnected. A promising premise is squandered, and viewers are left counting down the minutes rather than staying invested in the unfolding drama.

5: The film primarily falls under the romantic drama genre, but both elements fail miserably to engage the audience. As mentioned earlier, the comedic moments feel completely unnatural, making the overall premise of the film seem artificial. The romantic angle suffers the same fate. The connection between Fahadh Faasil’s and Kalyani’s characters feels weak, and the situations meant to bring them together come across as forced and unconvincing. I could not feel any genuine romantic chemistry or emotional attachment to their journey. Even the second-half romantic subplot involving Revathi Pillai and Dhyan Sreenivasan, while slightly more watchable, didn’t leave much of an impact on me. From my perspective, the director’s attempt at a happy ending felt forced and awkward, and I kept finding myself checking the clock, wondering when the film would finally be over so I could go home.

6: The screenplay is also the weakest link in the film, struggling to hold together an excessive number of incidents that feel scattered and disconnected. Instead of flowing naturally, each new development appears abruptly, with little thought given to how it integrates with the previous scenes. Subplots that might have added depth or humor are either underdeveloped or entirely pointless, contributing to a sense of chaos rather than coherence. Moments that should carry emotional weight or comedic relief fall flat, and the characters’ journeys fail to resonate. The narrative is overcrowded yet empty, leaving the audience unable to connect with the story or its developments. By the second half, the film’s lack of structural focus becomes glaring, as the screenplay drags the momentum down and makes the entire viewing experience tedious and frustrating.

7: The comedy in the film falls flat almost entirely, with hardly a moment that genuinely evokes laughter. While a few bits in the first half manage to pass off as tolerable, the so-called comic portions in the second half are nothing short of painful, bordering on sheer stupidity. Character arcs are equally weak, especially the father role played by Lal. Though intended to be eccentric, his performance slips into overdramatization, with actions so exaggerated and bizarre that they make us question whether such behavior could ever exist in reality. The supporting characters don’t fare any better; their antics often give the impression that the entire ensemble is collectively insane. By the end, the film leaves viewers with a strange afterthought—are all the characters truly mad, or is it the audience that has gone mad for sitting through this chaos?

PERFORMANCE OF ACTORS: 

If there is one reason this film doesn’t completely fall apart, it’s Fahadh Faasil. He slips into the role with ease, bringing a natural charm that keeps the audience engaged even when the story loses its grip. His quick-witted expressions, quirky reactions, and the way he switches moods on screen give the character an extra layer of appeal. Whether it is a casual smile or a sudden spark of mischief on his face, Fahadh knows how to hold attention. While the script often drags, his presence ensures there’s at least something worth watching. In many ways, he becomes the glue that holds together an otherwise scattered film.Lal steps into the film with his usual commanding presence, but the character he is given feels eccentric and, at times, overdrawn. Some of his actions are hard to digest, yet there’s no denying that he manages to bring a certain weight whenever he appears on screen. Even in the most dragging moments, his timing and body language prevent the scenes from turning completely flat. The portions he shares with Fahadh carry a mild spark, adding a touch of liveliness to an otherwise exhausting watch. While the role itself may not have been written well, Lal’s screen presence makes it bearable to sit through.

Kalyani Priyadarshan and Revathi Pillai, as the leading ladies, deliver fairly notable performances. Kalyani looks graceful on screen, and her playful mannerisms add a light charm to her character, though the comedic bits written for her do not land as effectively as intended. Despite that, her overall presence remains watchable. Revathi Pillai, on the other hand, stands out with her natural style of acting. She takes stronger control in the second half, which otherwise suffers from weak writing and dragging sequences. Her chemistry with Dhyan Sreenivasan in the romantic portions provides a much-needed relief during the dull stretch, while her brief interactions with Fahadh also come across as decent. Among the supporting cast, Vinay Forrt, Suresh Krishna, and Anuraj put in commendable efforts and maintain consistency, but even their solid performances are unable to lift the film above the weight of its underwhelming script.

CONCLUSION:

So overall, Odum Kuthira Chaadum Kuthira ends up being a tiring watch mainly because of its weak direction by Altaf Salim. The film never settles on a clear tone and often drifts without purpose, making the narrative messy and unengaging. Even with dependable actors like Fahadh Faasil and Lal trying their best, the screenplay gives them very little to work with. Revathi Pillai provides some natural charm, especially in the second half, but her efforts too get buried under the flat writing. The background score and a handful of light comedy moments offer mild relief, yet they cannot cover up the lack of strong storytelling.

 Instead of delivering the quirky fun it promises, Odum Kuthira Chaadum Kuthira slips into a dull and half-baked mess. As an Onam release, it feels more like a test of patience, making you sit through stretched, boring moments — a bad choice for the festival season.

VERDICT: Weak Story, Boring Execution

 RATING: 1/5 

A Review by Arunjyothi. R

Param Sundari Review -An Unromantic Drama That’s Pretty in visuals but Emotionally Empty

Director : Tushar Jalota 

Duration: 136 minutes

Language: Hindi 

Genre : Romantic Comedy.

POSITIVES

1: Cinematography 

2: Performance of some actors

NEGATIVES

1: Story 

2: Performance of some actors (over acting)

3: No Emotional connection

4: Under developed arc

5: Dialogue

6: Comedy

STORY

The story revolves around a millionaire’s son who is portrayed as an ambitious yet immature entrepreneur. He has failed at multiple startups, burning through his father’s money, and is on the verge of losing his final chance. His father, tired of the failures, plans to sell off the company. This sets up the central conflict in desperation, the son pitches a new idea: an app that can scientifically find a person’s true soulmate.

On the surface, it feels like a fresh, modern concept. But the way it’s executed makes it predictable right from the start. His father, skeptical but willing to give him one last shot, sets a condition: prove the app works within 10 days by finding your own soulmate.

From here, the film moves into its romantic track. According to the app’s algorithm, his soulmate turns out to be Janvi Kapoor, a Malayali woman who manages a traditional residential home. She is written as simple, grounded, and deeply rooted in her culture, in direct contrast to the hero’s flashy, privileged life. This clash of personalities had great potential, but the film never really explores it beyond superficial banter and cliché interactions.

As the hero tries to win Janvi over, the audience is dragged through a mix of staged comedic situations and predictable romantic gestures. While Janvi slowly begins to soften towards him, her life comes with a catch she has a childhood friend to whom she has been emotionally bound since her early years. Their families have long dreamed of their marriage, making her loyalty to him almost inevitable. This creates a ticking clock for the hero: he has 10 days to not only prove his app works but also convince Janvi to choose him instead of her destined partner.

Just when it seems like the story might dig into this conflict, comes the twist: the hero discovers that the app developer, the very foundation of his project, is a fraud. The science behind his “soulmate finder” collapses, leaving the hero disillusioned. This is the film’s big emotional turning point, and it should have been the strongest moment of the narrative. But instead of exploring the gravity of this betrayal, the film moves past it too quickly.

The hero, wracked with guilt, confesses everything to Janvi that their entire relationship was sparked not by fate, not by love, but by an experiment tied to his startup. For a brief moment, the film feels raw and human. Janvi, deeply hurt, tells him to leave her life. It’s not dramatic or loud; it’s simply rejection, delivered with the weight of betrayal.

This could have been the point where the film redefined itself diving into redemption, forgiveness, or even the hero learning that love cannot be engineered. But instead, the story slides back into formula, leaving the audience with an ending that feels rushed and predictable. What should have been a poignant reflection on love and honesty becomes just another boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl narrative.

Screenplay

Fundamentally, this movie follows the classic three-act model setup, confrontation, and denouement. On a prima facie level, this might seem acceptable; however, the problems exist in its delivery.

The first act introduces a privileged young man and his failed business endeavors. It sets up the premise but does not create a sense of urgency or a strong hook that would interest the audience in his story. The idea of a “10-day soulmate challenge” suggested by his father feels more like a forced plot device than a strong dramatic construct.

The second act, in which he meets Janvi and sets out to capture her heart, is the point at which the film should build tension and emotional investment. Sadly, instead of going deeper, we see shallow interactions. The comedy scenes are self-conscious about their purpose to be funny but don’t quite work. The humor is boisterous instead of witty, and instead of flowing naturally into the story, it is risible as awkward padding.

The conversation is another major weak point. The Malayalam spoken in the film is not authentic; even locals could be stumped into not being able to recognize it as their own language. This inconsistency ruins immersion and creates a separation, especially since the story is supposed to depict the culture of Kerala.

By the third act, the moment of discovery that the app creator is a con artist could have been the clincher. It could have propelled the story further, making the hero realize his inadequacies and actually work towards love. Unfortunately, the script rushes through this critical realization. The emotional consequences of the protagonist’s revelation and Janvi are realized but not explored fully. What should have been the emotional heart of the story simply becomes yet another plot device.

In summary, the screenplay appears to have been crafted to fulfill formulaic requirements rather than to foster authentic drama. There exists a lack of emotional complexity, an absence of organic character development, and no memorable moments that linger after the film concludes. While it adheres to a three-act structure, it overlooks the fundamental element that truly matters: capturing the audience’s emotional investment.

Direction

The direction can best be described as average. The film moves from one act to another without much flair, relying heavily on its glossy visuals rather than strong storytelling. There are moments where the staging and shot choices suggest promise, but they don’t translate into emotional weight or audience engagement.

What hurts more is the projection of Kerala and its people. Small details, like showing a cab driver casually drinking kallu (toddy), feel like cheap stereotypes rather than authentic cultural reflections. Worse, the film even pokes fun at Kerala’s 96% literacy rate one of the state’s proudest achievements in a way that comes across as mocking rather than humorous.

The language, too, becomes a victim. The Malayalam spoken on screen feels so distorted that even native speakers found it difficult to follow. For a film that leans on regional flavor, this is a major misstep; instead of celebrating the culture, it alienates the very audience it claims to represent.

Another disappointing element is the portrayal of female characters. Instead of being written with strength or individuality, they come across as underdeveloped and sometimes even disgracefully caricatured. The female leads are either bound by stereotypes or used as props to further the hero’s arc, leaving little room for their own voice.

Overall, the direction seems to prioritize style over substance, resulting in a film that looks polished on the outside but lacks sensitivity, depth, and respect for the cultural backdrop it portrays.

Cinematography

If there is one department where the film truly excels, it is the cinematography. Every frame looks carefully composed, and the visuals carry a polish that the story itself lacks. The camera work captures vibrant colors, smooth movements, and striking landscapes, making even the most ordinary moments look cinematic.

The lighting is handled with precision bright and lively during romantic sequences, subtle and atmospheric during emotional confrontations. The visual texture feels consistently rich, creating a mood that the screenplay often fails to support.

Each part of the film visually stands out, and in many ways, the cinematography works overtime to hold the audience’s attention. Even when the writing falters, the visuals offer something pleasing to look at, giving the film its only real sense of grandeur.

In short, the best part of the movie is its cinematography. It’s stylish, immersive, and easily the highlight of an otherwise underwhelming experience.

Performances

The acting in this film sits somewhere in the average zone. No one delivers a breakthrough performance, but at the same time, it isn’t outright unwatchable either.

The hero, despite lacking emotional depth in heavier scenes, does manage to bring a certain energy to the lighter portions. His charm works in parts, even if it doesn’t fully carry the story. The heroine, though underwritten, has a natural screen presence in a few moments, especially the emotional confrontation, she does manage to connect.

The supporting cast is a mixed bag: some characters are played too loud, leaning into overacting, while others quietly balance the tone. Now and then, a secondary role sparks a moment of authenticity that reminds you what the film could have been.

So while the performances don’t leave a lasting mark, there are scattered moments where the acting feels genuine and engaging. Somewhere in between, it’s good just not consistent enough to elevate the whole film.

Final Verdict

This is a film that had an interesting premise on paper technology meeting love, tradition clashing with modernity but it stumbles in execution. The direction is average, the screenplay predictable, and the performances land in the “just okay” zone. The biggest saving grace is the cinematography, which consistently delivers stunning visuals and keeps the film from sinking completely.

But weak storytelling, forced comedy, and cultural misrepresentation pull it down. Somewhere in parts it feels good, but as a whole, it never rises above mediocrity.

Rating:   

Verdict: A visually polished film that fails to connect emotionally.

A Review by Gideon Jotham