In the final moments of the movie Rifle Club, there are references to the Wild Wild West films that have Mexican stand-offs and stuff. The intention of Aashiq Abu and his writers is to create something of that texture against the backdrop of the hill stations of Kerala, where placing a similar wildness and lawlessness is very convincing. With a runtime of around 114 minutes, the movie is very much focused on what it wants to say, and a larger chunk of the screenplay is invested in building the club and its characters. While the pre-climax face-off between the two gangs is pretty slick and engaging, somewhere, I felt the finale needed a bit more refinement to have that wow factor.

As you can guess from the title, the film is about a rifle club in Wayanad. The story is set in 1991, and a Malayalam superstar named Shajahan, who predominantly works in romantic films, has come to the club in order to get some training in hunting. He has plans to do a hunting movie similar to Mrugaya. But the night he chose to spend there wasn’t really the best day as the club had uninvited visitors. Who are these visitors, and what they really want is what we see in Rifle Club.

The structuring of Rifle Club, to an extent even the location, has a similarity to Varathan on a script level. A major part of the movie is getting invested in showing us who these characters are, how they are to each other, and to what extent they can go. In the middle portions of the movie, you can see the script trying to draw parallels between the events happening in the Rifle Club and the actual hunting. The script neatly foreshadows many things that really elevate some portions of the final act of the movie. Just like Varathan, it is the counterattack that really sets the ball rolling. And the banter that happens between Dayanand and Avaran is hilarious, and in those patches, you get to see the Aashiq Abu we sort of missed post-COVID.

Dileesh Pothan, as Avaran, is pretty agile and confident. The body language and the dialogue delivery are on point, and you can sense the experience of that character in the way he has performed. Anurag Kashyap, as the antagonist, gets to be this crazy dad character. In most of his acting gigs, we have seen him do similar stuff, and this time, it was in better clothes. Vijayaraghavan, as the veteran of the club, was pretty good. Vishnu Agasthya plays a fairly extensive character in the movie, and he performed his part with ease. Sooraj, aka Hanumankind, as Bheera was fine in that eccentric character and it was actually a good casting choice. Vineeth Kumar plays the part of the film star, who transforms over the course of the incident. The rest of the cast has some big names like Suresh Krishna, Vani Vishwanath, Surabhi Lakshmi, Unnimaya Prasad, Darshana Rajendran, etc. Their screen times are relatively less, but they are all pretty memorable because of the character quirks.

Aashiq Abu, who has also done cinematography for this film, knows that surprise isn’t really the element that can make this movie work. World-building is really necessary for the final act to work, and for that, writers Syam Pushkaran, Dileesh Karunakaran, and Suhas use the first half. You get to see the rough dynamic between the members of the club. The things that Avaran tells Shajahan while he aims, which also come in the form of lyrics, are basically a description of the attitude of the club members. The cinematography opts for monochromatic sharp lights for a lot of sequences, which sort of sets a genre movie ambiance. Rex Vijayan’s tracks and background score really pump up some of the setpieces.

As I already said, Rifle Club is under two hours long, and it is not beating around the bush to get to the main deal. That aspect of the movie, along with a banter-filled set piece in the final act, really elevates the film. But in totality, I felt the ending should have been a better extension of the kind of action we saw till that point. On the bright side, for people who used to love Aashiq Abu films, this one gives reassurance that he still has it in him.

BOTTOM LINE
A Plain Rural Romance

PLATFORM
ETV WIN

What Is the Film About?

Prasad, a happy-go-lucky youngster, has just turned a graduate, spending three college years without gathering the courage to express his love for Leela. After many brief glances, failed attempts to strike up a conversation with Leela, Prasad finally connects with her after over mobile texts. When one of his texts doesn’t earn an immediate response, Prasad gets increasingly anxious.

Performances

This is one among Shanmukh Jaswanth’s better digital outings in the recent times, where he impressively slips into the role of an anxious village boy. Anagha Ajith has limited screen time but delivers the goods in key situations without trying too hard. RJ Mirchi Saran (Raji) is the pick of the lot among Prasad’s friends, though his timing appears to be slightly influenced by Sunil.

Other actors in the gang – Madhan Majji, Chaitanya Garikina, Shiva Thummala, Shravanthi Anand and others – have decent screen presence as well. Surprisingly, the experienced hands like Aamani, Goparaju Ramana, VS Roopa Lakshmi, don’t add much value to the proceedings.

Also Read – OTT Review: Parachute on Hotstar: A Simple and Warm Watch

Analysis

Also Read – Sikandar Ka Muqaddar Review: A Mega Bore Crime Thriller

Like scores of stories in Telugu cinema and on OTT thriving on nostalgia, Leela Vinodam is a tender, small-town romance told from a male perspective. Set in the late 2000s, during the early days of the mobile phone era where communication took a new digital turn, the film banks on a simple idea, tapping into the insecurities and apprehensions of a good-at-heart, lovestruck youngster Prasad.

Borrowing a leaf out of films like Mail, Raja Vaaru Rani Gaaru, Leela Vinodam’s protagonist Prasad is a timid boy who struggles to convey his love to a college sweetheart Leela. He is surrounded by friends – Raji, Swarna and gang – who push him to do the needful but end up confusing him more. The wafer-thin story has a minimal conflict, focusing on the little joys in villages and one-sided love.

Also Read – OTT Review: Despatch – Bajpayee Too Can’t Save This Bore

The director Pavan Sunkara takes his own sweet-time to establish Prasad’s love for Leela in the first 30 minutes through his interactions with a best friend. While it’s evident that Leela is interested in Prasad, the absence of a direct confirmation makes the latter anxious. When he ultimately shares his feelings for Leela over a text and she doesn’t reply, all hell breaks loose.

Leela Vinodam, more than a love story, serves as a time-capsule of a different era (probably aimed at the 90s kid?) before social media, other modes of instant communication took charge of our lives and SMS was the go-to option for conversations. Through Prasad’s confusions, the film captures a brief passage of time in the character’s lives where they could afford to be irresponsible.

That the film relies on a very basic premise – a boy’s wait for a response from his lover – is its strength and weakness at once. The simplistic idea is an advantage because the conflict is very relatable to its target audience. There’s no scope for confusion in the storytelling and the tale provides an indirect opportunity to explore the rural milieu through the oddball characters, sprinkled with humour.

However, after a point, the screenplay loses its spunk and gets laborious, as the director desperately finds various ways to delay the inevitable and understand Prasad’s confusions from many dimensions through imaginary scenarios, trying to decode what factors could’ve prevented Leela from responding to him. Ultimately, the impressive climax salvages the film, ending it on a feel-good note.

Leela Vinodam is neither good nor very bad. It’s simply an inoffensive time pass fare with a few takeaways – nostalgia, humour and bromance. A more imaginative screenplay could’ve bettered its impact.

Music and Other Departments?

TR Krishna Chetan’s score keeps the playful spirit of the story intact, though the songs are strictly okay. Anush Kumar’s cinematography, replete with a lively colour palette, is an asset to the film, making full use of the pleasant rural backdrop and prominent landmarks in the village. Better work with the editing and the screenplay may have helped its cause.

Highlights?

Relatable story

Nostalgia factor

Decent performances, cinematography

Drawbacks?

Tedious screenplay

Writing lacks freshness, novelty

Inconsistent with humour

Did I Enjoy It?

Only in parts

Will You Recommend It?

If you don’t mind an okayish small-town tale on one-sided love

Leela Vinodham OTT Movie Review by M9

NEW YORK (OSV News) – Catholic moviegoers will naturally take an interest in any project related to the works of their renowned co-religionist, novelist J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973). But the question always remains whether any new adventure set in his fictional land of Middle-earth will share in the elusive magic of the stories he himself spun.

In the case of the animated drama “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” (Warner Bros.), unfortunately, the comparison is less than favorable to the newcomer. While director Kenji Kamiyama’s fantasy is often lovely to behold and its moral values are mostly in order, his tale of derring-do stagnates because the characters who inhabit it are mostly one-dimensional.

Take our heroine, Princess Hera (voice of Gaia Wise), for example. A dauntless warrior whose courage and skills are initially underrated by her otherwise sage father, King Helm Hammerhand (voice of Brian Cox), she’s a symbol of female empowerment. Beyond that, however, we learn little about her.

The conflict of the title is initiated after Hera’s childhood friend, Wulf (voice of Luke Pasqualino), seeks her hand in marriage and is rebuffed. Amid the recriminations that follow, King Helm unintentionally takes the life of Wulf’s dad, Freca (voice of Shaun Dooley), instantly transforming the bereft son into his, and Hera’s, implacable enemy.

As Wulf relentlessly pursues his revenge, the script — penned by a quartet of screenwriters — highlights his principal adversaries’ chivalrous dedication to truth-telling, faith-keeping and the granting of mercy. Yet there’s also a vaguely discernible anti-marriage message attached to Hera’s insistence on remaining independent and untethered.

While the narrative of her struggle is clearly meant to seem epic and poetic, there’s a static feel to the proceedings with Hera and her allies never faltering in virtue and Wulf proving villainous at every turn. As a result, a sense of investment in the fate of those on screen is largely lacking.

Assessed for its appropriate audience, the movie is more successful. The strife is bloodless and the dialogue almost unblemished. So, although it’s too frightening for little kids, this addition to Tolkien’s lore — set 200 years before the action of his three main volumes — is acceptable for most others.

The film contains stylized combat and other violence, characters in peril, some grim images and a single mild oath. The OSV News classification is A-II — adults and adolescents. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 — parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

Copyright © 2024 OSV News

 Print