‘Chandramukhi 2’ movie review: Raghava Lawrence, Kangana Ranaut star in a mildly-entertaining sequel no one asked for

Chandramukhi (2005), starring Rajinikanth and Jyothika, worked because it retained the original idea of the original Malayalam film, Manichitrathazu. While the Tamil film was a commercialization and heavy rehash of the classic Malayalam film, it did not change the clever central idea, which is a suspenseful drama about whether the film is a horror or a psychological thriller. It beautifully straddles the fine line between paranormal and realism. There was concern for the well-being of Ganga (Jyotika) and the family, and at the same time, the all-knowing heroism of Saravanan (Rajinikanth) was interesting. It captured both the hearts and minds of the 'mass' audience resulting in a record 890-day theatrical run. Chandramukhi 2, on the other hand, is just a garden-variety horror film and a bad one at that. Apart from being a mediocre horror film, Chandramukhi 2 also tarnishes the legacy of the original. While the first part featured Ganga as a person with an identity disorder who believes herself to be Chandramukhi, the sequel rewrites the past. 

As the story goes, Murugesan (Vadivelu), who currently owns the Vettayan Palace, rents it to a rich family, who visit the village to perform rituals at their ancestral temple. Chandramukhi's ghost resurfaces when a character inadvertently touches the jewel Ganga wore in the first episode. Since then, we've been stuck with a bad version of the beautiful Cini Armani. We get the usual run-of-the-mill jump scares, failed ghost attempts, the usual flashbacks... you get the drift. At least with Aranamanai, we are in for an onslaught of goofs as it carries the 'horror comedy' tag. With Chandramukhi 2, that too goes out the window as it pretends to be a serious film. Vadivelu's work also does not yield results. It's more desperate than funny. Lawrence and Vadivelu have a part that Rajini and the latter did in the original. While it worked in 2005, it looks pathetic now.

The film has unnecessary add-ons, which do not matter to the central plotline. For example, Lawrence plays the guardian of two children, the children of the family's estranged daughter. The family hates the children because their father is Muslim. It is as soap opera as it sounds. Even the actresses in the film are dressed like one of those silly TV serials. One midnight, the whole family wakes up to Chandramukhi's wailing, and you see Ranga Nayaki (Radika Sarathkumar), Matrapaksha, appearing in a designer saree. Such silliness betrays a lack of thought and lazy filmmaking. Even the flashback segment, set two centuries ago, feels very contemporary. Actors are in costumes that make them look like extras in stage plays.

Kangana Ranaut, the supposed trump card of the film, appears only in the second half. The delay is intended to create anticipation, but achieves nothing of the sort. She also doesn't make much of an impact. Now, his relationship with Kangana is less, as he does his job well. She is let down by overly flat writing that offers no scope for performance. Subpar dialogues make the performance melodramatic - especially in Raghav Lawrence's period piece. For no apparent reason, Lawrence keeps sporting a wicked grin, giving his Sengotai an edge. We just laugh at it.

Chandramukhi 2 cannot be compared to the first part as the sequel only tries to emulate its success. There is not a single original idea here. Director P Vasu seems to be betting a lot on the nostalgia factor of the first part to help the film work. While doing that, he did not consider that Chandramukhi's success was a product of his time. The same slapstick humor, songs from exotic locations, and family sentiments that worked eighteen years ago naturally won't work in the age of viewing. Chandramukhi 2, like its director, is stuck in the past. 'Let sleeping dogs lie' is a popular saying. Perhaps, it applies to ghosts and the legacy of movies.