What is the story about?
Despite firm opposition from his family, a youngster Bobby leaves for Goa to join a seminary and turn a priest. An embarrassing incident involving his co-passenger Anna during a bus halt abruptly cuts his journey short. After much deliberation, Bobby goes back on his plans to become a priest, much to the relief of his family. They finalise a match for Bobby – who incidentally is Anna (though the latter doesn’t recognise him as her co-passenger during the bus journey). Bobby’s apprehensions get the better of him as he tries to reveal his identity to Anna on his wedding night. A mischievous prank nearly breaks his marriage.
Tsunami is a title suggestive of the confusions that arise out of miscommunication between a couple (and their families) on their wedding night. One conversation is all it would have taken the wife and husband to resolve the issue, though this farce keeps finding excuses to stretch it into a feature film length. The film is a confusion-comedy, rather a sex comedy, filled with a plethora of discussions and metaphorical references to a man’s genitals – sometimes a bulb, a wine bottle and the pendulum in a wall clock – and how it wields influence in a relationship.
The regressive humour is of the same standard as the chauvinistic forwards on women and wives that get circulated in men-only Whatsapp groups. The worse aspect being – some female characters in the film appear to enjoy it too. The humour is so below the belt that a priest jokes that some doctors even recognise their patients by looking at their genitals. There are terrible homophobic jokes about the LGBT community – a cop labels a supposedly impotent man as a transgender.
All that the female characters are asked to do is to create a fuss about anything and everything, spread gossip. The brazenness in the treatment is intolerable. Is an inoffensive sex comedy too much to ask for? Though it’s rather strange to hear that the story is inspired by a true incident, a rescue-act could’ve been staged if the makers had better screen-writing skill matched by a certain degree of sophistication, cheekiness commanded by the visual medium. The resolution in the climax is cringe-worthy and exactly shows why that its directors Jr Lal and Lal are misfits in acing this tricky space.
Balu Varghese’s discomfort in handling the genre is quite obvious, though one may claim the behaviour is a reflection of the character. His on-screen pair Aaradhya Aan has a terrific screen presence, but the film hardly tests her acting mettle. Innocent in the role of Eepachan at times manages to go beyond the mediocrity of the material despite getting some of the film’s silliest, cheap dialogues. Aju Varghese is never close to his comic-best in this unmemorable outing. Veteran actor Mukesh is forgettable as is the rarely out-of-form Vatsala Menon. Devi Ajith, Sinoj Varghese and Sminu Sijo don’t get anything worthwhile in their brief screen-time.
Music & Other Departments
Yaksan Gari and Neha S’s background score pales in comparison to their only but enjoyable music track in the film. Alex J. Pulickal’s cinematography can’t do much to elevate the result beyond its ordinariness. The dialogues are distasteful and the writing is of the kind that could derail the progress of Malayalam cinema by many decades. The tacky CG is a distraction to the senses. The miscasting of the male lead affects the film to a certain extent.
- Wacky premise
- The catchy introduction song
- Horrible filmmaking
- Below-the-belt writing
- Unimpressive performances
Did I enjoy it?
Do I recommend it?