Chennaiyil Oru Naal 2 has been released alongside Mersal this Diwali. The Sarath Kumar film is easily the audience's second choice to watch in theatre as the Vijay-starrer has taken the complete limelight. So, how has Kumar's film been received by critics? Will it emerge as a surprise winner like its predecessor?
Before getting into the review part of Chennaiyil Oru Naal 2, let us go down the memory lane to understand how the first part was received by viewers. The first instalment was a remake of Malayalam hit film Traffic. The low-budget movie had a smart writing backed by a good cast. The film was hailed by critics and audience.
However, Chennaiyil Oru Naal 2 is nowhere connected to the first instalment - be it cast or the set-up. The common element found in both the films is Sarath Kumar. Napolean, Suhasi Maniratnam, Ramdoss and others are also in the cast.
The story is set in Coimbatore (not in Chennai). A cop named Pandian (Sarath Kumar) faces a mysterious challenge when posters with the message 'Angel in saavu indra naalaiya?' (Will Angel die today or tomorrow?) appear across the city. The situation turns serious after his daughter receives a message from Angel. What follows next is the crux of the story.
When making a sequel to a successful movie, comparisons are unavoidable. Going by the critics, it appears like the story is let down by a poor and slow screenplay. Even the film does not boast of solid performances. As a result, critics have ripped apart Sarath Kumar's film.
Here, find the critics' reviews of Chennaiyil Oru Naal 2:
Times of India Review: Mysterious posters, anonymous letters, highly harmful inmate in an asylum, unexpected death, a killer for hire, a drug that enhances memory power... the plot has it all. But the writing never manages to bring all these elements into a satisfactory narrative. The dialogue is stilted and the characters are just functional with no real presence. The investigation part is also amateurish, with Pandian hardly shown as someone who is making actual deductions.
The Indian Express: The film is shoddily shot that gives an amateurish effect. With an already slow screenplay, the excessive use of slow-motion further dampens the pace. The usage isn't warranted as well. Does a normal smoking scene need a slow motion? The dialogues of the movie also feel heavily contrived.
