Mr. X (2026): Arya and Sarathkumar Anchor a Messy Spy Puzzle
A nuclear device is missing. RAW agents are being murdered by their own. Gautham Surya Pratap, code-named ‘Businessman’, and Amaran Chakaravarthi, the ‘Lonely wolf’, race through a web of honey traps and double crosses to stop a syndicate before the clock runs out. Manu Anand’s Mr. X carries the weight of five national threats in its runtime, but the film buckles under its own espionage ambition, offering flashes of campy confidence rather than a coherent mission dossier.
Arya Sells the Nuclear Urgency, Even When the Script Doesn’t
Arya, stepping into the shoes of Gautham Surya Pratap, understands the assignment. His dialogue delivery carries the gravity of nuclear destruction, and when he speaks about the stakes, you believe the urgency exists beyond the screenplay’s chaos. He plays the ‘Businessman’ with a stoic focus that holds the film’s scattered narrative threads together. But Anand’s script doesn’t give him a single scene that lets him breathe beyond coded exchanges and frantic briefings.
Gautham Ram Karthik, as the ‘Lonely wolf’ Amaran, orbits the film’s emotional centre without ever landing. His personal equations jeopardize the mission more than they add dramatic tension, turning what should be tactical conflict into melodramatic dead weight. The chemistry between the two lead operatives feels more procedural than electric, as if they’re reading mission files instead of forging a partnership under fire.
Manu Anand Draws From Real Espionage, Then Drowns It in Flashbacks
Anand sources inspiration from genuine incidents of honey trapping, RAW agent betrayals, and nuclear threats, which gives Mr. X an immediate grounding in credible paranoia. The framework is intelligent: five major threats interwoven into a single ticking-clock narrative. But the execution trips over itself. The screenplay introduces flashbacks at every corner, each one diluting the present-tense urgency the film desperately needs. Instead of forward momentum, we get origin stories and emotional detours that feel like padding rather than character depth.
The structure attempts complexity but achieves clutter. When the global syndicate angle should tighten the noose, the film instead opens another tangent, another reveal that complicates without clarifying. Anand’s ambition to craft an intelligent action drama is visible, but his screenplay lacks the discipline to deliver it cleanly.
The Spy Craft Never Finds Its Footing in the Action
For a spy thriller racing against time, Mr. X oddly lacks a single memorable setpiece. The action begins from the start, as promised, but it’s choreographed chaos rather than tactical geography. We see operatives moving, shouting, shooting, but the film never establishes spatial logic or strategic stakes. A nuclear threat requires precision, yet the film’s action registers as generic rather than specific to the mission at hand.
The honey-trapping subplot, drawn from real espionage tradecraft, is introduced but never exploited for tension. It exists as plot machinery, not psychological warfare. The syndicate recruiting RAW agents to murder their own should be the film’s darkest turn, but Anand treats it as exposition rather than a betrayal we feel viscerally. The espionage elements are signposted, not staged.
New Indian Express called it “a campy, confident, but chaotic espionage thriller, ” and that assessment lands. The film carries itself with the swagger of a blockbuster spy saga, but the construction underneath is unsteady. The race-against-time conceit loses its pulse when the editing can’t decide whether we’re in thriller mode or flashback melodrama. The tonal confidence is admirable, but it’s confidence in a blueprint that needed another draft.
Sarathkumar Commands the Frame as Mr. X, But Supporting Cast Fades
R. Sarathkumar, playing Prakash Pratap under the code name ‘Mr. X’, brings the veteran gravitas this film needs. He inhabits the role with authority, and even when the screenplay doesn’t give him a complete arc, his presence signals power and institutional memory. His casting alone suggests the film understands the weight of bureaucratic espionage, even if the script doesn’t fully explore it. Sarathkumar’s Mr. X is the kind of figure who should anchor the emotional and strategic stakes, and he does so in the limited space Anand provides.
Manju Warrier is cast but underutilized. Her presence hints at a larger role that never materializes. Athulya Ravi, Anagha, and Raiza Wilson appear in supporting capacities that register more as casting credits than narrative investments. The film’s eagerness to juggle multiple operatives and threats leaves no room for any supporting character to develop beyond functional placeholders.
No Political Controversy, But Audience Reception Signals Fatigue
Mr. X avoids any overt political landmines, sticking to genre tropes of national security without naming real-world adversaries or courting censorship. The film’s certificate, U/A 13+ in India, 16 in Malaysia, suggests sanitized action rather than provocative storytelling. That restraint might keep it safe, but it also keeps it toothless. Audience reception, at least in early critical reads, leans toward campy appreciation rather than genre respect. This is a film that entertains if you don’t interrogate it, but collapses under scrutiny.
Anand’s previous film, FIR, starred Vishnu Vishal and leaned into investigative procedural territory. Mr. X attempts a larger canvas with multiple stars and global stakes, but that ambition stretches the director’s structural control thin. Where FIR had focus, Mr. X has sprawl.
Mr. X should appeal to fans of intelligent action dramas centred on national security themes, especially if they can stomach a messy narrative in exchange for a campy tone and scattered thrills. If you’re expecting the clean tactical efficiency of a well-oiled spy thriller, this one will frustrate. The film works best if you treat it as espionage comfort food rather than genre precision. Streaming might be kinder to it than a theatrical sit, where the 145-minute runtime drags under the weight of too many flashbacks and too few earned stakes.
If you enjoy watching directors gamble on high-concept execution without the script to match, Love Insurance review offers similar structural lessons.
Mr. X has the bones of a credible spy thriller but never assembles them into a body that moves with purpose, watchable for Arya’s commitment and Sarathkumar’s authority, but ultimately a 2.5 out of 5 that needed a tighter mission brief.
For another film where a strong premise stumbles over structural indecision, Worst He verdict in comparable ways.
Ankit Jaiswal is the Chief Author, covering Indian cinema and OTT releases with honest, no-filler criticism. An SEO strategist by background, he brings a research-driven approach to film writing, cutting through hype to tell you exactly what's worth your time.
