Film'Drishyam 2' Review:

 Tired Tropes Leave Catchy Premise Feeling Old Despite inheriting an interesting world from the Malayalam original, Abhishek Pathak's Hindi adaptation chooses to rely on overused stereotypes rather than digging into the story. November 19, 2022 | Tanul Thakur Screengrab from Drishyam 2 trailer showing Akshay Khanna (left) and Ajay Devgn. Photo: Youtube.
Remakes reveal a fundamental truth about cinema: compelling films require more than a compelling story. Drishyam 2, released in Hindi this week, is an almost perfect illustration of the maxim.

Jeethu Joseph wrote and directed both the original Malayalam versions. The sequel, Drishyam 2, which released early last year, seemed like a rare breed: a sequel that trumped the acclaimed original. If Drishyam delivered a mind-blowing climax, then Drishyam 2 took twists and turns; fraud in fraud; all of which justify the hero's preoccupation, ambition, and desperation—the cinephile unfolding the story.

Director Abhishek Pathak, who is helming the Hindi counterpart, couldn't have dreamed of a better platform.

Drishyam 2 is set in 2021 and opens seven years after its prequel. Vijay (Ajay Devgn), a cable TV owner, now owns a multiplex. He is also close to his ultimate dream: to produce a film. But his eternal nightmare - the police investigating the death of a young man, killed by his daughter in self-defense - caught up with him again, because the night Vijay buried the body, he was spotted by a fleeing killer.

In addition, the town has a new cool cat, Inspector General Tarun (Akshaye Khanna), who reignites the Tom and Jerry feud.

But right from the start, Drishyam 2 feels like an 'old' movie. Not because it's a remake, but because of its devices. Pathak uses rainy nights to build atmospheric tension. Many. Sometimes even in days. But it looks like a forced sky – or “dhaniya pattafilmmaking” – as opposed to an aesthetic choice belonging to the film. This discrepancy - between what the story demands and what the director delivers - spoils the film.


What Pathak doesn't realize is that a tense story doesn't need more, but less. So he's still leaning on rusty crutches. It's 2022 and we've seen them all. Scenes of 'fake tension' where characters worry about something trivial; door slamming; knowing looks; implied threats; bland transition shots; misplaced song; boring song; and dialogues so walkable that they make Brahmastrato pop champagne corks. One of the best lines? "Filmwoh shuru karega, ending hum likhenge."
One original character, Tarun, produces a feast of clichés. This is how he introduced himself: playing chess with… himself. In the background we hear his subordinate's voice: Tarun sir is a "sankiyet genius"; "nobody knows what's going on in his head" and so on. But when the guy appears on screen, he doesn't even exude these (clichéd) qualities.

Instead, you get an actor trying to be cool. Once upon a time, Khanna was cool—even campy cool. But in Drishyam 2, he delivers an oxymoronic performance: someone tries to be subtle but comes across as cheesy; the awkward epitome of purple prose.

Drishyam 2 and Khanna’s is a plug and socket relationship because the carelessness runs deep. For example, if a scene has a whiff of melodramatic potential, the background will descend on it like buzzing bees. Even Tabu is forgettable at best - a line I never thought I'd ever write.

Drishyamuniverse is sly and subversive, but Pathak treats it like a thick academic paper that keeps it humming along. I longed for little moments of light. The film gave me one full 'joke' - that too at the expense of Shriya Saran's character. He does not know the meaning of the word "demoralized". I don't know if the metasexism was intended, but either way, it's pretty embarrassing that a scene like this is one of the (very) few instances where the director even attempted it.



Also Read: 'Drishyam 2' teases, confuses and escapes, but above all keeps the audience hooked


Still, Drishyam 2 had some hope because a lot depends on the central character. Excellent concept, he is everything you want in a protagonist: hero, villain, puppet master, con man, sutradhar - everything. Mohanlal was excellent as George Kutty. A guy so calm he lulls the audience into believing he's harmless; a minimal man, a dropout of the 'nothing' school striving for something through cinema. Mohanlal plays him straight for the most part, but adds to the script and winks (just about enough) at the right moment to trip you up.

Devgn embraces Mohanlal's gravitas, but like a Hindi film, he stays there. His performance is so flat that it's tiring to spend the entire movie with him. Drishyam 2 constantly informs us of who he is – a cinephile, a family man – but his actions speak louder than words.

The Joseph version teased several ideas from the core of the thriller: "little man" dwarf cops; cinema alleviates identity crises; a gripping story both charming and deceptive. Pathak's direction has nothing. Not trying; it may not matter. And this is the difference between them: Joseph immerses himself in his material, goes deeper and deeper, taking in the world in the smallest details. Pathak rises from his film, flies up and up, flaps and fails.
That said, if you haven't seen the Joseph sequel, you might still like its Hindi counterpart, as the original has some delightful twists. But Pathak and his team do not deserve any credit for this. Because he did the exact opposite of a good remake. The Malayalam film industry has created a crime story; Bollywood has created a grim story.