When I sat down to watch Maareesan, directed by Sudheesh Sankar, I was genuinely intrigued by the premise the film seemed to promise. On paper, it looked like a quirky crime-thriller with emotional undertones – something that could balance humour, tension, and heartfelt drama in a single narrative line. But as the minutes rolled on, I realised that while the film had an arresting foundation, its execution wavered between compelling and frustrating. In this review, I want to unpack that experience and explore why Maareesan ends up as an average thriller despite its potential.
A Thief, an Elderly Man, and a Curiously Twisted Beginning
The film’s opening sets the stage for what initially appears to be a clever character-driven story. I found myself immediately pulled into the world of Fahadh Faasil, who plays a thief introduced with a sense of brisk spontaneity. His early sequence – breaking into a house with quiet confidence – is interrupted by a bizarre sight: a man chained inside his own home.
The chained man’s explanation initially seems both tragic and absurd. He claims to have Alzheimer’s, insisting that if he steps outside, he will forget everything, wander off and never return. So his family, as he says, has locked him inside for his own safety. As an audience member, I felt the scene had enough emotional weight and oddity to spark curiosity. His plea to be rescued, along with the promise of ₹25,000 in return, sets up a dynamic that is ripe for tension and dark humour.
The moment the two step into an ATM, however, the film takes a sudden turn. Fahadh Faasil discovers that the man he “rescued” possesses a bank balance of ₹25 lakh. This revelation instantly reshapes both the protagonist’s motives and the viewer’s expectations. The thief now decides to accompany the elderly man – regardless of where he goes – with a clear intention to seize the entire amount.
From this point, the film positions itself as a road-driven narrative: a thief following a confused, unpredictable old man wandering between Palakkad and Tiruvannamalai, leaving us to wonder whether their journey will lead to crime, companionship, or chaos.
It’s an engaging setup. But unfortunately, the film doesn’t capitalise on it.
A First Half That Loses Itself in Unnecessary Drag
One of the core principles of screenwriting is clarity: within the first 20 minutes, the audience should understand the protagonist’s goal, the dramatic arc, and the direction of the story. Maareesan certainly tells us what the thief wants, but the screenplay wanders so indulgently that the progression feels like wading through thickened narrative mud.
For more than an hour – right until the interval – the film spends time stretching out scenes that could have been established in 20 minutes. This, in my experience, is the film’s biggest weakness. The entire first half functions like an extended prelude to a story that only begins after the interval.
What makes this even more conflicting is the fact that the first half is entertaining. The performances, especially Fahadh Faasil’s grounded brilliance and Vadivelu’s effortless comedic timing, keep the proceedings alive. Some scenes genuinely land well, offering humour, quirkiness, and charm. Yet, I felt the lack of narrative urgency constantly pulling the film down. The writing dilutes the tension instead of sharpening it, and by the time the interval arrives, the supposed suspense feels neither tight nor gripping.
A Second Half That Reveals More but Connects Less
Once the second half begins, the plot finally moves forward. The film dives into a flashback involving the main character, presumably aiming to strengthen the emotional core and explain the motivations behind the older man’s behaviour. However, this flashback lacks originality and emotional resonance. It presents familiar tropes, ones that we have already seen repeatedly in mainstream cinema.
More importantly, I couldn’t feel the intensity the film wanted me to experience. The protagonist’s anger, shaped by the past, is supposed to trigger a significant shift in narrative tone. Yet the emotion never fully registers. Instead of deepening the story, the flashback creates a layer that distances the viewer from the characters rather than drawing us closer.
This gap between intended emotional impact and actual audience response becomes a defining flaw of the second half.
Performances That Shine Despite Weak Writing
If Maareesan works at all, it is because of its performances. Fahadh Faasil delivers a wonderfully engaging portrayal of a thief whose greed, wit, and unexpected vulnerability shape the film’s tonal identity. Vadivelu is a perfect fit for his role, bringing both humour and sincerity in a way only he can. Their pairing is genuinely enjoyable to watch.
However, the same cannot be said for the supporting cast. Characters played by Kovai Sarala and Vivek Prasanna are miscast to the point where their presence feels distracting rather than organic. Their roles lack nuance, and the writing gives them little space to evolve beyond stereotypes.
This inconsistency in character development weakens the film’s dramatic cohesion.
Where the Film Could Have Been Great
I truly believe Maareesan could have been a standout suspense thriller. The premise offers room for unpredictability, emotional tension, and psychological depth. The characters – especially the thief and the mysterious elderly man – had the potential to anchor a tight, memorable narrative.
But length becomes the film’s enemy. The overly stretched first half, the unfocused narrative arc, and the emotionally flat flashback collectively limit the film’s ability to rise above mediocrity.
Had the editing been sharper and the writing more disciplined, Maareesan could easily have transformed into a gripping, fast-paced thriller with charm and heart.
Final Verdict
Maareesan is a film filled with promise, but weighed down by its own indulgence. While the performances – particularly by Fahadh Faasil and Vadivelu – add flavour, the narrative structure weakens the overall impact. It’s enjoyable in parts, but as a complete cinematic experience, it lands somewhere in the middle.
Rating: 3/5
