Censor Board clears Fahadh Faasil, Vadivelu's travel thriller 'Mareesan' for release with U/A certificate
Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC) has now cleared director Sudeesh Shankar's eagerly awaited travel thriller, 'Mareesan', featuring
Fahadh Faasil
and
Vadivelu
in the lead, for release with a U/A certificate.
The film has triggered huge expectations as this is the second film that both actors, who are highly rated for their acting skills, are working together.
The first film that they worked on together was Mari Selvaraj's socio-political drama 'Maamanan', which was not only a superhit but was also critically acclaimed.
One other reason why 'Mareesan' has raised expectations-- not just among fans and film buffs but also industry insiders -- is that this film will be the 98th film of Super Good Films, a production house that is known for having produced several quality films and for having introduced several iconic directors of the Tamil film industry.
Samantha Ruth Prabhu's 'Yashoda' gets U/A certification from CBFC
A trailer of the film that was released recently by the makers has only gone on to add to the excitement of fans. The trailer gives away the fact that Fahadh Faasil plays a thief who is looking for his next victim. He happens to notice Vadivelu, an Alzheimer's patient, withdrawing a lump sum of cash. Vadivelu, who knows his memory is failing, decides he will go to a friend's place in Thiruvannamalai. Fahadh, seeing an opportunity to steal the money that Vadivelu has, offers to drop him there on his motorcycle.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Offer Valid for the First 100 Bookings Only
Birla Estates
Learn More
Undo
As the two begin to undertake the long journey, things change. What happens then is what the film is all about.
Apart from Fahadh Faasil and Vadivelu, the film will also feature a host of actors including Vivek Prasanna, Renuka and Sithara among others.
V Krishnamurthi has not only penned the story, screenplay and dialogues of this film but has also worked in it as its creative director.
Music for the film is by
Yuvan Shankar Raja
and cinematography is by Kalaiselvan Sivaji. Sreejith Sarang has been roped in as the film's editor and art direction has been handled by Mahendran. The film is scheduled to hit screens on July 25 this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CBFC assures Bombay High Court of decision on certification for film on Yogi Adityanath in two working days
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Thursday (July 17, 2025) informed the Bombay High Court that it would take a decision within two working days on the certification applications filed by the makers of a film, inspired by the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, while hearing a petition filed by Samrat Cinematics India Pvt. Ltd, expressed displeasure over the delay in certification and questioned the board's failure to act within the prescribed timelines under the Cinematograph Act and the new Certification Rules, 2024. The filmmakers moved the High Court alleging 'arbitrary and unexplained' inaction by the CBFC though the application for certification of the film 'Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi' as well as its teaser, trailer and promotional song was made on June 5. The film, inspired by the book 'The Monk Who Became Chief Minister', is scheduled for release on August 1. Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Ravi Kadam pointed out the CBFC's purported demand for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister's Office, asserting that there is no mention of such a requirement in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 or the Certification Rules, 2024. The CBFC's counsel submitted to the Bench that they will consider the application within two working days and communicate the same, on the same day or the next day. The court recorded the submission and observed, 'The petitioner essentially seeks direction from CBFC to decide certification within a period not exceeding five days. A letter sent to applicant intimating the same is taken on record. In view of the statement that the process will be completed and the application will be decided, nothing survives in the petition. The decision taken by the CBFC has to be intimated on the same day. Petition is disposed of.' The petitioners said they initially submitted their application for certification on June 5. Under Rule 37 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the CBFC is obligated to examine the application within seven days and schedule a screening within 15 days. However, no action was taken for nearly a month, prompting further steps from the petitioners. On July 3, following advice from CBFC officials, the filmmakers re-applied under the 'priority scheme' and paid three times the usual fee as stipulated under Rule 33(2). Although a screening was slated for July 7, it was cancelled abruptly a day before, with no explanation or follow-up communication. When the filmmakers checked the application status on July 12, they found it marked as 'Incomplete' with an unclear instruction to 'Provide Documentary Evidence', without any specifics on what documents were required. The petition alleged that the CBFC's conduct was arbitrary and had resulted in serious commercial and reputational damage, especially with the film's August 1 release date looming. The filmmakers also pointed out that the film draws inspiration from the widely circulated 2017 book 'The Monk Who Became Chief Minister' by Shantanu Gupta, which has been translated into 12 languages and is publicly available. The petition noted that the book had received an official endorsement from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister's Office and that the film offers a respectful and fact-based depiction of the Chief Minister's public life. Arguing that the CBFC's delays and opaque conduct infringed upon their constitutional rights, the petitioners invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, citing violations of their rights to equality, free speech, profession, and personal liberty.
News18
7 minutes ago
- News18
Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Last Updated: Only grounded, objective criteria - threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity - should govern permissible restrictions. The Supreme Court has rightly slammed the Karnataka government and the state film chamber for siding with the enemies of free speech. The apex court was aghast that no action was taken against those who threatened violence over the release of actor-politician Kamal Haasan's movie, Thug Life. The state government told the court that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film and also pledged to provide full security if the producers chose to release it. It was heartening to see in this case that the SC not just gave relief to the Thug Life makers but also wanted action against those who had issued threats. The apex court Bench, headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing petitions on June 19 filed by the Thug Life producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence. Thug Life was scheduled for release in Karnataka on June 5, but got embroiled in controversy following Haasan's comment that the Kannada language was 'born out of Tamil." The comment was widely resented by pro-Kannada groups, which demanded an apology from Haasan. Taking a brave stance, he refused to apologise, despite the threat of imminent commercial losses because of the non-release of the movie in the state. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also took a tough stand, saying that Thug Life would not be released without an apology from Haasan. When Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court, it chided him for his remarks and asked him to apologise. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it not only criticised the Karnataka government but also reprimanded the state High Court for having urged Haasan to apologise. 'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role," the SC said. On June 17, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rule of law requires a person to be able to release a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court warned the state that it could not allow 'mobs and vigilante groups to take over," asserting that public sentiment should not override legal rights. It was only after the SC snub that the Karnataka government pledged to maintain law and order and ensure the peaceful release of Thug Life. The government clarified that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film's release and would provide necessary protection and security. This was not the first case in which the adversaries of free speech exploited the notion of 'hurt sentiments" to justify censorship. Public intellectuals assist them by raising the wrong questions, by debating whether protests over a film, book, or song are justified, and by asking whether someone's feelings were really hurt. They should be asking instead: can hurt sentiments be a basis for banning anything? Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be regulated only by 'reasonable restrictions" for state security, friendly relations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offend. But nowhere does the Constitution permit restrictions based solely on hurt sentiments or feelings. The distinction is vital: while reasons can be scrutinized and debated objectively, sentiments are personal and cannot be uniformly measured or validated. Dictionaries define 'sentiment" as emotional attitudes or opinions influenced by feeling, and 'feeling" as unreasoned emotional reactions. By their nature, these are subjective—what deeply offends one group may leave another unmoved. Take, for example, the case of M.F. Husain: some Hindus found his work as hurtful, while others didn't. It must be mentioned here that the anti-blasphemy law, Section 299 of BNS, is used to gag free speech. Section 299 (which was earlier Section 295A of the IPC) says: 'Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 299 is logically untenable as it criminalises speech based on feelings, which—as we mentioned earlier—are subjective. Therefore, it is antithetical to India's constitutional spirit as it imposes vague restrictions on freedom of expression. The extant court cases are symptomatic of the systemic toxicity that sentimentalism has generated over the decades. Sentimentalism, along with its sibling sanctimoniousness, has supplanted reason in public discourse and political debate. Ranting, canting demagogues and intellectuals set the agenda, resulting in the silencing of dissent, throttling of creativity, and often atrocities against those who speak out—all in the name of soothing 'hurt sentiments.' This trend must be reversed. As Justice Bhuyan said, 'There is no end to hurt sentiments in India. If a stand-up comedian says something, sentiments are hurt, and there is vandalism… Where are we heading?" The reign of hurt sentiments must be dismantled from law and public life. Only grounded, objective criteria—threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity—should govern permissible restrictions. Otherwise, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: June 26, 2025, 16:10 IST News opinion Opinion | Reign Of 'Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
7 minutes ago
- News18
'Stay Where You Are...': What Jayalalithaa Said To Saroja Devi
1/10 Veteran actress Saroja Devi passed away on Monday, July 14, at the age of 87 while undergoing treatment at Manipal Hospital in Bengaluru due to age-related illness. Her demise marks the end of an era in Indian cinema. (News18 Tamil) Saroja Devi acted in over 200 films across Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Hindi languages. She rose to fame early in her career, winning a National Award for her debut film. Her journey began in Tamil cinema with the 1956 film Thirumanaam. (News18 Tamil) 7/10 She would act with Sivaji Ganesan in the morning and M.G. Ramachandran in the evening. In total, she starred in 26 films with Ramachandran and 22 films with Sivaji, a rare feat in Indian cinema. (News18 Tamil)
