VALA: THE STORY OF BANGLE
ONE WORD: Poor Script and Weak Direction Leave Vala Struggling to Shine.
A Review by Arunjyothi R
LANGUAGE: Malayalam
DURATION: 02 Hours 13 Minutes
DIRECTOR: Muhashin Nalakath
GENRE: Comedy Drama
•POSITIVES:
1: Story
2: Performance of Lukman and Dhyan Sreenivasan
3: Decent cinematography
4: Editing
5: Scenes of Vijayaraghavan
•NEGATIVES:
1: Direction
2: Screenplay
3: Unworked Comedies
4: Music and Background Score
5: Romantic scenes
7: Poor characterisation and subplots
8: Incompleteness was felt especially at the climax
STORY:
Sarala P. Nair (Raveena Ravi) treasures a golden vala (bangle), said to be her grandmother’s last gift. What starts as a token of sentiment soon spirals into an obsession. On their wedding night, her husband Purushothaman (Dhyan Sreenivasan) tries in vain to slip it off her wrist, sowing the seeds of greed and desire. Meanwhile, Vishalakshi (Sheethal Joseph), newly married to Bhanu Prakash (Lukman Avaran), longs for a replica of the same ornament. Unable to find one, Bhanu approaches Purushothaman for help. But when Purushothaman learns the bangle’s true worth—an antique valued in crores—he refuses, driving Bhanu to hatch plans of his own. As Purushothaman secretly schemes to sell it, an elderly woman, Paathumma (Shanthi Krishna), enters, claiming the vala rightfully belongs to her. What follows is a tense battle of desire, deception, and greed—where the bangle becomes far more than just a piece of gold.
REVIEW & ANALYSIS OF THE FILM:
WHAT ARE THE POSITIVES:
1: The first and most promising factor of this film lies in its storyline. At its core, the plot is engaging and holds the perfect foundation for a comedy drama wrapped within a thriller backdrop. The writers manage to set up an interesting premise, filled with opportunities for situational humor, quirky characters, and unexpected twists. With such material, the scope for creating laugh-out-loud moments alongside tense situations was undeniably strong. However, what could have blossomed into an entertaining ride ends up faltering in execution. The screenplay, instead of fleshing out the potential, feels half-baked and inconsistent. Scenes that could have elevated the narrative into clever comedies of error or gripping situational drama are left underdeveloped. The premise itself offers plenty to keep the audience hooked, but the lack of sharp writing and uneven pacing holds the film back from realizing its full potential.
2: Dhyan Sreenivasan and Lukman Avaran shoulder the film as its leads, and their performances hold the narrative together. The constant cat-and-mouse dynamic between the two adds the much-needed momentum, keeping the story moving even when the writing feels dull and uninteresting. Both actors manage to bring out the shades of greed, humor, and desperation in a way that fits the tone of the film. Adding weight to the cast is Vijayaraghavan, whose effortless screen presence and natural style of acting stand out as one of the film’s biggest strengths. His performance not only grounds the drama but also provides moments of relief and authenticity, ultimately becoming the saving grace of a film that too often drifts into boring territory.
3: The cinematography stands out as another positive factor in the film. While it may not boast of extraordinary or experimental visuals, the framing and tone suit the village setting effectively, giving the story a fitting backdrop. The camera work captures the rustic atmosphere without overdoing it, keeping the visuals grounded and relatable. A special mention must be given to the action sequences, particularly the karate fight scenes, which are shot with clarity and energy. These moments add a spark to the narrative and help keep the film from slipping into a fully tiresome feel.
4: Editing, on the other hand, works as a positive factor for the film. The runtime is kept in check, avoiding unnecessary stretch, and the flow feels crisp enough to carry the story forward. The transitions and cuts are functional and neat, doing their job without distraction. A notable plus is the handling of the karate action sequences, which are edited with clarity and precision—delivering impact without turning overly dramatic or exaggerated.
5: Vijayaraghavan emerges as one of the film’s major highlights. His performance is effortless and natural, lending credibility to every scene he appears in. The emotional moments are handled with subtlety and depth, making them genuinely impactful without feeling forced. Beyond the dramatic sequences, even his casual, everyday actions—like the scenes where he cooks biriyani—bring warmth and charm to the film, giving it a touch of authenticity. His screen presence not only anchors the story but also elevates the overall viewing experience, turning otherwise simple scenes into memorable moments.
WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVES:
1: The most glaring weakness of the film lies in its screenplay. Despite having a storyline with immense potential, the writing feels undercooked—like a half-baked cake that never quite rises. The narrative fails to leave an impact, with scenes often lacking the depth or cohesion needed to hold the audience’s attention. Instead of building tension and flow, the screenplay struggles to connect the dots, leaving the incidents feeling disjointed. By the time the film reaches its conclusion, there is a lingering sense of incompleteness, as if the story has not been fully realized.
2: What makes the screenplay more disappointing is that the premise itself offers plenty of scope for engaging twists, humor, and situational drama. Yet, the loose and uneven writing drains the energy out of the film, wasting an idea that could have been far more entertaining. Characterization is another weak spot. The villain, played by Govind Vasantha, is written with very little conviction, reducing what could have been a layered role into a forgettable one. The supporting characters too feel underdeveloped, with barely anything meaningful to contribute to the larger narrative. Instead of enriching the story, most of them fade into the background, further weakening the film’s overall impact.
3: The weakest link of the film is undeniably its direction. From the very start, the making feels shaky, with no sense of cinematic richness to pull the audience in. Instead of looking like a big-screen experience, the execution often resembles a short film stretched with a bigger budget. The momentum is missing, and without it, the viewing experience turns bland. The story itself is layered with emotions, yet the translation to screen strips away all the feeling. The romantic portions, which should have brought warmth and tenderness, fall flat with no spark or connection. Similarly, the characters’ struggles and conflicts lack depth, playing out in a way that leaves the audience unmoved.
4: One of the major drawbacks of the film is its poorly written subplots. While the flashback sequence had potential and a well-thought-out premise, it falters in execution, coming across as overdramatic and forced. Several secondary tracks, particularly the scenes involving Kollam Shafi, feel shoehorned into the narrative, included more to fill runtime or justify flashbacks rather than to enrich the story. These subplots fail to add depth or momentum, leaving the film cluttered without purpose. The characterization, especially of the villains, is equally weak. Govind Vasanth’s antagonist lacks nuance or menace, making his role forgettable and unconvincing. Most of the supporting characters are similarly underwritten, with minimal motivation or personality, reducing them to mere background figures. The combination of underdeveloped subplots and one-dimensional antagonists undermines the film’s tension and drama, leaving it struggling to hold the audience’s attention.
5: When the film finally shifts gears into thriller territory, the promised excitement never arrives, leaving only a sense of emptiness. Ironically, the only sequences that shine are the ones involving Vijayaraghavan. His natural charm elevates even simple moments—like cooking biriyani—into something heartfelt and memorable. These portions briefly remind the audience of what the film could have been if handled better. Sadly, by the time the climax arrives, the direction completely loses its grip, leaving an unfinished, unsatisfying ending that makes you wonder what the filmmaker was actually aiming for.
6: For a film pitched as a comedy drama, the least one would expect is a few genuine laughs—but sadly, the humor here falls flat. The jokes rarely land, and the forced attempts at comedy only underline the weak writing. Shoddy dialogues paired with a mediocre screenplay strip away the spark that could have made the situations funny.
What’s frustrating is that the story provides ample room for clever situational humor, yet the script feels too unpassionate and lazy to take advantage of it. Yes, there are moments that qualify as “comedy,” but they don’t flow naturally with the scenes; instead, they feel inserted, almost as if the audience is being spoon-fed reminders of where they’re supposed to laugh. At best, a handful of minor moments manage to come off as mildly amusing, while the rest drift into forgettable, lifeless territory.
7: The music and background score by Govind Vasantha turn out to be a mixed bag. On their own, the songs sound melodious and pleasant—something you could enjoy if you heard them outside the film. But when placed within the narrative, they fail to create the same impact. The visuals and the tracks don’t blend seamlessly, leaving the songs feeling detached from the emotions they’re supposed to enhance. The background score suffers from a similar issue. At several points, it feels overdone, almost as if the music is trying to dictate what the audience should feel rather than complementing the scene. There are moments where you’re left wondering—does this scene really need this kind of score? Instead of amplifying the emotions, the mismatch between scene and sound creates a jarring effect. While the BGM itself has quality, the lack of proper alignment with the narrative reduces its effectiveness, making it feel out of place more often than not.
8: The love between the characters was meant to be the emotional core of the film, but unfortunately, it ends up as one of its weakest links. The romantic track of Lukman and Sheethal, which should have carried both depth and emotional weight, feels flat and uninspired. Their scenes are positioned as crucial turning points that push the story forward, yet the lack of chemistry and conviction drains away any impact. The whole stretch where Sheethal longs for the bangle and Lukman goes to extreme lengths to please her had the potential to be touching—a tale of love tested by desire. But instead of stirring emotions, it comes across as hollow. His frantic struggles to fulfill her wish never move beyond surface-level drama, leaving the audience more detached than empathetic. What should have been a heartfelt conflict ends up feeling like a forced subplot with no real payoff. Ironically, it’s in the seasoned pairing of Vijayaraghavan and Shanthi Krishna that the film briefly finds a touch of authenticity in its depiction of love. Their moments, tender and grounded, succeed where the younger couple fails. But even these sparks aren’t enough to sustain interest, leaving the film’s romantic angle largely ineffective.
9: The climax is yet another major disappointment in the film. The action choreography is poorly executed, lacking energy or clarity, and the sequence ends in an incomplete and unsatisfying manner. While the hero seemingly defeats the villain, the aftermath is left ambiguous to the point of absurdity, leaving viewers confused about what actually happened.
Govind Vasanth’s role as another antagonist fares no better. His character is weakly written and inconsistently portrayed. Introduced with a gangster aura, his persona gradually drifts into unintentional comedy by the end. Vasanth himself struggles to fit the role—his physique, mannerisms, and dialogue delivery in Tamil fail to convey the menace required for a credible gangster. Overall, the climax and villain portrayals, instead of providing a thrilling payoff, leave the film feeling unfinished and poorly executed.
PERFORMANCE OF ACTORS:
The lead actors, Dhyan Sreenivasan and Lukman Avaran, carry much of the film on their shoulders, and their performances are fairly competent. Dhyan’s pairing with Raveena Ravi as Sarala adds some charm and intensity, while Lukman’s chemistry with Sheethal Joseph struggles to create the intended romantic impact. Their cat-and-mouse dynamics provide some energy to the narrative, and both lead actors manage to portray greed, desperation, and frustration with a degree of authenticity. Lukman, in particular, shines in the action sequences, showcasing impressive karate-style fight moves that add excitement and vigor to his character, standing out as one of the film’s few visually engaging moments. However, weak writing and underdeveloped romantic tracks limit their overall impact.
Among the supporting cast, several performances stand out despite the weak writing. Abu Salim delivers a fair performance, bringing emotional depth to his scenes and executing his fight sequences with power and presence. Arjun Radhakrishnan, though a talented actor, is wasted in his IPS officer role, as weak characterization prevents his role from adding any meaningful impact to the film. Gokulan impresses as the caring brother, yet the potential of his character and the emotional bond with his sibling remains underutilized due to poor writing. Similarly, Navas Vallikkunnu, in the role of a friend, has a character well-suited for situational humor, but the script fails to fully exploit his comic potential.
The true highlight among the supporting cast is Vijayaraghavan and Shanthi Krishna. Their romantic scenes bring a rare touch of warmth and authenticity, proving that love has no age limits. The subtle, heartfelt chemistry between them makes even simple moments—like family interactions or shared domestic tasks—feel poignant and genuine. These sequences inject emotion and depth that the younger romantic track fails to achieve, offering a refreshing reminder that mature love, when portrayed with sincerity, can resonate just as powerfully on screen.
CONCLUSION:
Overall, Vala: Story of Bangle had the ingredients for an engaging comedy-drama with thriller elements—a unique storyline, potential for situational humor, and a mix of action, romance, and emotion. However, the film falters in execution, with weak writing, underdeveloped characters, inconsistent direction, and poorly handled subplots that prevent it from fully realizing its potential. While the leads deliver competent performances and Vijayaraghavan and Shanthi Krishna bring warmth and charm, these moments are too few to salvage the film entirely. The music and background score, along with the comedy tracks, fail to leave a lasting impact, and the climax feels incomplete and unsatisfying.
Given its weak execution and lack of coherence, Vala: Story of Bangle is a film I cannot wholeheartedly recommend. That said, if viewers are willing to watch it purely for Lukman’s action sequences, Vijayaraghavan’s heartfelt moments, or for the novelty of the quirky bangle-driven plot, there may be some limited enjoyment. Overall, it’s a film with an interesting concept that unfortunately doesn’t deliver on its promise.
VERDICT: A Gripping Suspense Thriller
RATING: 2/5
A Review by Arunjyothi. R
