Mr. Gireesam is the title drawn from the name of the popular character in the play Kanya Sulkam of famed social reformer and writer Gurajada Appa Rao decades ago. He is like the Fool of the Shakespearean era. Though the filmmakers succeeded in getting a lot of publicity for the film thanks to its captivating title, the film holds nothing of the sorts. Loose story, slipshod screenplay and substandard direction are all about the film.

Gireesam (Krishna Bhagwan) is an extrovert but good at heart and he takes on the social service with his wise suggestions. Though he claims that his suggestions are troubleshooters, they do not end up there, but extend to create even more problems. At this juncture, he comes across a famed lady advocate Madhuravani (Ramya Krishna). She is also a diehard feminist, who believes in equal rights and social justice to the women community.

Both join together in doing legal and social service in the interest of uplifting the underprivileged women, besides fighting out the evils such as dowry and traditional gifts. Despite their good efforts, the maladies continue to hit the society. What if the trend continues forever? And what kind of solution the duo would find? These points form the crux of the film.

The filmmakers repeatedly claimed that they were influenced by the Telugu literary classic Kanyasulkam in carving out their celluloid venture Mr. Gireesam. In fact, the story is nowhere a match to the original. Instead giving a feel of watching the movie, the audience would find that they are forced to watch a stage play on the silver screen. The story begins abruptly and ends abruptly.

Screenplay comes in bits and pieces. The characterizations of the main characters – Krishna Bhagwan and Ramya Krishna – are treated like guest roles, while all other characters just come on the stage and vanish the next moment, without fulfilling their roles fully. The audience is in confusion as to the narration and to the stipulated jobs of the characters. Some threads are left out just like that.

Though it was claimed that the movie was a comedy entertainer, the director chose to deal the serious subject of dowry in a lighter vein. This lacked dexterity on the part of the director and he merely ends up in spoiling the entire story. The comedy evokes no laughter and sends sheets of boredom in the theatres. Though songs are music is good to listen outside the theatres, they are not situational on the screen and the production values are worst.

Verdict: Avoidable