Film Review: Mannu Kya Karegga

Banner: Curious Eyes Cinema

Genre: College Romance / Drama

Introduction:

Mannu Kya Karegga? is a Hindi-language college romance and coming-of-age drama that attempts to explore the concept of ikigai, a Japanese term roughly translating to “the reason for being” or “the purpose in life.” The film centers around Mannu, a directionless and immature college student, and his attempts to find meaning in life while navigating his romance with Jiya. At its core, the film is meant to be a reflection on youth, ambition, and the search for personal purpose in a modern academic setting.

While the premise is interesting and potentially insightful, the execution leaves much to be desired. The story is underdeveloped, the screenplay is sketchy, and the characters are so poorly fleshed out that audiences struggle to connect with them emotionally. In a film that relies heavily on the personal growth of its protagonist and the dynamics of romance and friendship, these shortcomings prove fatal to its overall impact.

Story & Screenplay:

The narrative revolves around Mannu (Vyom), a college student who is academically negligent, directionless, and largely indifferent to the world around him. Despite his mother Rashmi Chaturvedi (Charu Shankar) being the head of the college he attends, Mannu is debarred from examinations due to chronic absenteeism. This sets the stage for the central conflict of the film: Mannu’s lack of purpose and direction in life, which is further complicated by his romantic interest, Jiya (Saachi Bindra).

The story incorporates the concept of ikigai as a philosophical framework for self-discovery. Mannu’s college dean, portrayed by Vinay Pathak, attempts to guide him toward finding his purpose in life, suggesting that every individual has an inner reason for living. However, the narrative fails to make this concept impactful for the audience. The screenplay, co-written by Saurabh Gupta and Sanjay Tripathy, is uni-dimensional and lacks the narrative depth required to explore such a profound theme.

One of the most significant weaknesses is the implausibility and superficiality of the plot. Key events are not logically connected, leaving viewers confused or disengaged. For example, Mannu deceives Jiya by claiming to be running a start-up to justify his frequent absences, yet the film never convincingly establishes how he maintains this deception. Additionally, the characters’ actions often contradict their motivations. Jiya, for instance, blindly accepts Mannu’s lies without question, which diminishes her agency and makes the romance feel artificial.

Similarly, Mannu’s parents are inconsistent; his father trivializes his irresponsibility while his mother, despite being the college head, seems oblivious to his chronic absenteeism.

The film’s attempt at weaving philosophical concepts into a college romance falls flat because these ideas are not meaningfully integrated into the plot. Ikigai is referenced in dialogue but not internalized through the protagonist’s actions, resulting in a superficial treatment that leaves audiences unconvinced about the transformative journey Mannu is meant to undergo. The pacing is also uneven; the first half attempts to establish Mannu’s carefree lifestyle and romance with Jiya, while the second half rushes the moral lesson and resolution, making the film feel disjointed and incomplete.

Performances:Vyom, in his debut as Mannu, delivers a performance that is average at best. While he brings a certain innocence and naïveté to the role, he lacks the charisma and screen presence necessary for a protagonist meant to undergo significant personal growth. His portrayal often comes across as flat, leaving key emotional beats, particularly those involving romance and self-realization, underwhelming.

Saachi Bindra, as Jiya, is passable in her maiden film. She brings sincerity to the role but is hindered by poorly written scenes that fail to give her character depth or agency. The chemistry between Mannu and Jiya is inconsistent, which makes the central romance less engaging than it should be.

Vinay Pathak, a talented and seasoned actor, is underutilized as the college dean. His role is pivotal for the thematic thrust of ikigai, yet his interactions with Mannu are brief and lack the gravitas necessary to make his guidance impactful. Similarly, Kumud Mishra, in the role of Mannu’s father, is constrained by a poorly conceived character, reducing his typically strong screen presence to a series of mechanical or uninspired gestures.

The supporting cast, including Charu Shankar, Rajesh Kumar, Brijendra Kala, Naman Gor, Aayat Memon, and Dimple Sharma, largely fade into the background, their roles functional rather than engaging. Many characters serve as narrative devices rather than fully realized individuals, which further weakens the audience’s ability to invest in the story.

Direction & Technical Aspects:Sanjay Tripathy, serving as both co-screenwriter and director, struggles to elevate the film above its narrative shortcomings. His direction lacks vision and energy, resulting in a movie that feels uninspired and formulaic. Emotional sequences, which should resonate with the audience, come across as flat and perfunctory, and comedic or light-hearted moments fail to inject vitality into the narrative.

The cinematography, while competent, does not contribute significantly to the storytelling. College scenes, romance montages, and philosophical reflections are captured in a standard visual style, devoid of the visual creativity that could have enhanced the thematic depth of the film. The use of lighting, framing, and camera movement is functional but unremarkable, leaving the film visually ordinary.

Editing, too, leaves much to be desired. Scenes linger unnecessarily, and transitions between romantic, dramatic, and philosophical moments are abrupt, disrupting narrative flow. A sharper, more thoughtful edit could have alleviated some of the pacing issues and made the progression of Mannu’s character arc more coherent.

Music, composed by Lalit Pandit, is one of the few highlights of the film. The songs are melodious and complement the romantic and reflective tone of the story. Lyrics by Javed Akhtar, Sharad Mehra, Lalit Pandit, Kumaar, and Alok Ranjan Jha are thoughtful, though they cannot fully compensate for the weaknesses in storytelling. Song picturizations are standard, lacking imaginative choreography or cinematic flair that could have made them more memorable.

The background score by Amar Mohile is serviceable but fails to elevate the emotional or philosophical dimensions of the narrative. In a film that hinges on personal growth and romantic development, a more nuanced and expressive score could have significantly enhanced the viewing experience.

Analysis:Mannu Kya Karegga? is a film with a conceptually rich premise but a poorly executed execution. The attempt to explore ikigai through the lens of a college romance is admirable in theory, but the weak screenplay, underdeveloped characters, and lackluster direction result in a narrative that is uninspiring and often frustrating to watch.

The central problem lies in the gap between concept and execution. While ikigai as a philosophical idea has the potential to provide deep narrative resonance, the film treats it superficially. Mannu’s journey from aimlessness to self-realization is not convincingly portrayed, and the film does not provide sufficient moments of reflection or conflict to make this transformation credible. Romantic and comedic subplots, which could have provided balance and emotional texture, are underwritten and fail to engage the audience.

Characterization is another weak point. Mannu is intended to be a flawed but relatable protagonist, yet his actions often lack consistency or believability. Jiya, who should be a strong counterpoint and emotional anchor, is underdeveloped and exists primarily to support Mannu’s story rather than having her own narrative arc. Secondary characters, despite having the potential to enrich the film, are minimally developed and fail to leave an impression.

Technically, the film is competent but unremarkable. Cinematography, production design, and editing are functional, and the music is pleasant, but there are no standout moments that elevate the film or make it memorable. Direction is straightforward but uninspired, failing to create a cinematic language that could have compensated for the narrative’s deficiencies.

In essence, Mannu Kya Karegga? feels like a film stuck between concept and execution.

The idea of combining a philosophical framework with a college romance is innovative, but without strong writing, compelling performances, and confident direction, the film falls flat. The lack of audience engagement is compounded by the predictability of the plot and the superficial treatment of key themes.

On the Plus Side:

• Lalit Pandit’s music is melodious and enjoyable.

• Some sequences, particularly songs and light-hearted college scenes, provide brief moments of charm.

• Conceptually interesting premise exploring ikigai and self-discovery.

On the Minus Side:

• Weak story and sketchy screenplay.

• Poor character development; audience struggles to connect with protagonists.

• Predictable plot with minimal emotional depth.

• Direction lacks vision and energy, resulting in uninspiring execution.

• Editing and cinematography are functional but unremarkable.

• Underutilized supporting cast.

Final Verdict:Mannu Kya Karegga? is a non-starter in terms of commercial appeal and audience engagement. While it has an interesting philosophical premise and melodious music, the weak screenplay, underdeveloped characters, and uninspired direction prevent it from leaving any meaningful impact. The film may appeal to a niche audience interested in college dramas or philosophical explorations of purpose, but for mainstream viewers, it is largely forgettable.

The film stands as a cautionary example of how an innovative concept, no matter how thoughtful, requires strong execution, compelling performances, and confident direction to translate into a successful cinematic experience.

Penned by Sanjay Grover, is straightforward and largely conventional. It does not offer significant novelty or dramatic twists and relies heavily on familiar tropes of family drama, romantic entanglements, and the struggles of women in leadership roles. The screenplay, by Divyanshu Rawat with additional contributions, is predictable and lacks the narrative ingenuity needed to elevate the storyline beyond the ordinary. Emotional beats are concentrated mainly toward the latter part of the film, particularly in sequences depicting the evolving relationship between Heer and her father, providing brief moments of poignancy. Outside of these instances, the screenplay tends to meander, with a slow buildup that risks losing viewer interest in the first half.

The romantic subplot involving Rohan Ahuja (Prit Kamani) is serviceable but conventional. Their courtship lacks depth and the chemistry between the leads does not consistently engage the audience. Similarly, the antagonistic or conflicting elements of the story such as TJ (Ashutosh Rana), a business associate with a troubled past are underexplored, leaving the dramatic tension flat. The narrative progression is linear, predictable, and lacks the creative storytelling needed to provide a memorable cinematic experience.

Another limitation of the screenplay is the minimal development of secondary characters. Heer’s uncles, played by Gulshan Grover and Sanjay Mishra, have roles that feel perfunctory; their contributions to both comedic relief and emotional depth are sporadic and largely underutilized. Olivia (Sarah Lockett), TJ’s business partner, is similarly functional, serving the plot without adding meaningful layers or tension. This one-dimensional treatment of supporting characters weakens the story’s overall impact and reduces the stakes for the audience.

Performances:

Divita Juneja, making her debut as Heer, delivers an average performance. She is earnest and natural in her portrayal but does not convey the gravitas or emotional depth needed to make her character compelling. Her expressions and body language are serviceable, but there are few moments of genuine cinematic magnetism that would make her stand out as a lead.

Prit Kamani as Rohan Ahuja performs adequately; however, the role does not provide sufficient scope for showcasing emotional or romantic range. The chemistry between Kamani and Juneja is polite but fails to elevate the central romantic narrative. Ashutosh Rana, as TJ, provides a competent performance but the character is underwritten, and Rana’s usual intensity is largely restrained, resulting in an unmemorable portrayal.

Gulshan Grover and Sanjay Mishra, playing Heer’s maternal uncles, are serviceable and deliver light comedic touches, but their characters are largely two-dimensional. The film does not delve into their motivations or individual personalities beyond their interactions with Heer, limiting their impact on the narrative. Charlotte Longstaffe and Benji Charles, portraying TJ’s children, have limited screen time and contribute minimally to the plot, serving primarily as background characters.

Other supporting actors, including Priya Bhardwaj (as Heer’s late mother), Sarah Lockett (as Olivia), and Leyton Benta (as Marco), provide functional performances but fail to leave a lasting impression. The overall ensemble is competent but underutilized, and none of the supporting performances provide the emotional depth necessary to enhance the film’s narrative.

Direction & Technical Aspects:

Director Umesh Shukla, known for his earlier works in family-oriented cinema, handles the emotional sequences with competence, particularly in the film’s climax where the father-daughter relationship is highlighted. These scenes offer the audience glimpses of sincerity and warmth, and Shukla manages to extract performances that are credible within the limited scope of the screenplay.

However, the direction overall is conservative and lacks the visual and narrative flair that could have elevated the film. The storytelling approach is straightforward, adhering to conventional cinematic grammar, without experimenting with visual motifs or pacing to enhance audience engagement. Emotional beats are predictable, and comedic sequences often fall flat due to a lack of timing or integration with the larger story arc.

Cinematographer Sameer Arya provides competent visuals that capture both the London locations and domestic settings effectively. The foreign locales are showcased attractively, lending the film a polished aesthetic, though cinematography rarely goes beyond functional framing and lighting. The visual composition supports the story but does not create memorable imagery that enhances the narrative.

Music, composed by Tanishk Bagchi, Avvy Sra, Jasbir Jassi, Jerry Singh, Sakaar Singh, plays a functional role in supporting the film’s emotional beats. The song “Ve Ranjhana” (composed by Avvy Sra and written by Harman Jeet) is the most notable musical sequence and is effective in evoking sentiment. However, the soundtrack as a whole is largely conventional and fails to make a lasting impression beyond the film. Background score adequately underscores emotional sequences but does not elevate dramatic tension or romantic undertones significantly.

Production design and art direction are well-handled, with both domestic and London settings convincingly depicted.

The restaurant and household interiors are designed to be authentic and visually coherent, supporting the narrative. Editing, handled by Mayur Hardas, is competent, though pacing issues persist, particularly in the first half where narrative momentum is slow and exposition-heavy.

Analysis:

Heer Express is a film that embodies the strengths and limitations of conventional family dramas in Indian cinema. Its narrative revolves around universal themes—family legacy, love, and responsibility—but the execution fails to fully capitalize on these themes. The story is predictable, the screenplay fails to offer narrative surprises, and character development is minimal.

The film’s main asset lies in its emotional sequences near the climax, particularly between Heer and her father. These scenes succeed in creating a fleeting sense of poignancy and familial warmth, which is essential for a family drama. However, the emotional resonance is undermined by earlier narrative weaknesses. The buildup to these moments is slow, and the audience may struggle to invest in Heer’s journey due to the lack of engagement in preceding sequences.

The romantic subplot, though central to the film’s attempt to appeal to a broader audience, is inadequately developed. The film relies on predictable conventions of love-at-first-sight and misunderstandings without offering depth or insight into the characters’ motivations or emotional states. Consequently, the romance, which should ideally complement the family drama, feels tangential and fails to enhance the narrative significantly.

Technically, the film is competent but unremarkable. Cinematography, production design, and music serve the story but do not create memorable cinematic moments. Direction is straightforward, functional, and safe, prioritizing clarity over creativity. This approach ensures that the film is watchable but limits its potential to stand out in a crowded market of family dramas.

The performances are adequate but do not provide the spark necessary to elevate the narrative. While Divita Juneja delivers a natural performance, her portrayal lacks the gravitas and charisma required for a lead character driving a complex emotional arc. Supporting performances are functional, with few actors leaving a lasting impact.

On the Plus Side:

• Emotional sequences near the climax, particularly between Heer and her father, are handled well and provide brief moments of sincerity.

• Competent technical execution in cinematography, production design, and art direction ensures visual coherence.

• Music, particularly the song “Ve Ranjhana,” enhances certain emotional moments and is melodious.

• London locations are attractive and visually appealing, adding production value.

On the Minus Side:

• Ordinary story lacking novelty or narrative surprises.

• Predictable screenplay with uneven pacing.

• Lead actors fail to make a significant impression.

• Supporting characters are underdeveloped and one-dimensional.

• Direction is functional but lacks flair, limiting engagement.

• Emotional and romantic arcs are insufficiently explored, reducing audience investment.

Final Verdict:

Heer Express is a family drama that, despite its competent technical execution and moments of emotional sincerity, ultimately falls short of creating a meaningful impact. The predictable story, weak screenplay, and underwhelming lead performances make the film largely forgettable. While the climax offers glimpses of genuine warmth, the overall experience is diluted by narrative shortcomings and lack of character depth.

For audiences seeking a conventional family drama with brief emotional moments and polished visuals, Heer Express is watchable. However, for those expecting innovative storytelling, engaging character arcs, or memorable cinematic experiences, the film is unlikely to leave a lasting impression. In terms of commercial potential, Heer Express is poised to be a non-starter, overshadowed by more compelling offerings in the genre.

Ultimately, Heer Express serves as a reminder that family dramas require a delicate balance of compelling story, engaging characters, and emotional authenticity. While the film delivers technically competent visuals and a few touching moments, it lacks the narrative depth and dramatic tension to make a mark in the competitive landscape of contemporary Hindi cinema.