In Telugu films, we rarely see movies talking about the mindset of a criminal than the crime and its aftereffects. We normally see people attempting crime and some suffer due to it and hero rescues the day by stopping the crime or by eliminating the threat, that is killing the criminal. It is also rare to see an ensemble of actors coming together for a film. Veera Bhoga Vasantha Rayalu with Nara Rohit, Sudheer Babu, Shriya Saran and Sri Vishnu tried to give us a mix of both. Did they succeed?
Plot : A plane is hijacked by a group of criminals headed by a twisted person (Sri Vishnu). On the other hand, a 12-year-old boy reports to police that he lost his house. A police officer (Sudheer Babu) tries to investigate and find out the real reason behind such claim.
Officers in Delhi bring in Crime branch officer (Nara Rohit) to investigate the hijack plot. His colleague and senior (Shriya) have to negotiate with the criminal and deal with his obscure demand to kill criminals that are 300 children who could be potential perpetrators of justice. What will happen next? Find out on silver screen if you are intrigued…
Performances: Sudheer Babu tried his best to make smug gestures to the camera as a police. He tried his best to keep the things believable with his performance. But sadly, he did not have the aid of a good script.
Nara Rohit tried to appear as an investigating officer but he is not better than his previous films or could he deliver anything new. He is just there, as usual, trying to make faces and deliver expression fewer dialogues.
Sri Vishnu did not make a convincing effort on screen and we have to say he is his looks are good but his acting is still poor. He needs to improve a lot more.
Shriya Saran tried to look like an officer, smoke and pretend that a serious issue is going on. But she isn’t convincing enough. There is nothing much to talk about others.
Technicalities: S. Venkat handled the camera work for this film. He did not bring in any good lighting concepts or fine camera techniques to the table. He just put a camera and rolled out some images that have been assembled by an editor in an order and we are asked to watch it.
Shashank Malli tried his best to edit the film in a proper and sensible manner. But he couldn’t make any sense of plot himself too. Hence he just randomly edited the footage given to him.
Mark K. Robin tried hard to use his one score throughout the film. He did not get enough chance to even try out any other score too. He just had to use the theme and some thriller templates.
Writer and Director, Indrasen tried to talk about criminal behavior and how a twisted mind can try to avoid it. He tried to speak about nipping a criminal in the bud but he did miss a point. Maybe at 12 or 13 years, a person could tend to develop a criminal attitude but that doesn’t mean that every 12 or 13 years old is a potential criminal. The mind reacts to different situations undifferent ways. If you have become a criminal then surrounding environment should be first checked and if it healthy enough then it is an inherent quality of a person but that cannot be generalized.
Indrasen needed to understand this simple logic before making a huge film out of it. That too with substandard execution. His scenes are random, he chose to connect two plots is irrational and the point he tried to deal with is highly convoluted. He needed a much better understanding and script here.
Analysis: In a movie that is mostly about crime and criminals, the motivation of how a person tends to start thinking like a criminal from a younger age should be convincing but not convenient. Storytellers and filmmakers have to keep one thing in mind, however good or bad their idea is, if their execution is convincing enough, the movie will be at least watchable. One cannot go around beating the bush to convince people that there is a plot with random scenes and drag out a 10-minute sequence into a full-blown film.
Even if you choose to do so, like A Wednesday the conversation needs to be engaging and not irrational. You cannot escape saying that in a cinema, anything can happen as it is a manifestation of fantasies. It is a visual representation of several ideas in a believable environment but not a circus of random events that ask us to find a connection because there are gut-wrenching individually. The movie doesn’t make any sense and even doesn’t attempt to make one. Better if you can avoid than encourage this film.