Subramanyapuram

Any film depends on the plot point that induces interest and then tries to add subplots to prolong the screenplay for the conclusion to make sense and also, let us reach their with great interest. Santhossh Jagarlapudi tried to make a film that really spurts curiosity and debate about myth vs science. Was he successful?

Plot:

In a dynasty ruled by Ravi Varma, a space stone turns into Lord Subramanya sculpture and he decides to build a temple. From 2000 years, the temple stands still but one day a man burns himself in the temple after doing Abhishekam to the sculpture. Village thinks it is a bad omen. One after the other villagers start committing suicides and say that God has called them in their suicide notes written in Gandhara Basha.

Police and Village head (Suresh), try to find the end for it. But they too start believing that God has been punishing the village. Atheist research scholar Karthik (Sumanth) decides to find the solution for the problem in a scientific way. Could he find a solution? If he could, how? Watch the movie for answers …

Performances:

Sumanth is good as Research scholar. He is better in scenes that required long takes. But then his character like every other in the film keeps telling that it will do certain things and then ends up not doing them at all. Somehow, as it is time to end the story, his character ends it. Sumanth should be careful in trusting such characters as they yield no progress.

Eesha Rebba is too casual. Harshini tried her best to not let us sleep. Both the comedians irritated to the core.

Technicalities:

Karthik Srinivas is good in parts as a cinematographer in the film. For the most part he looked to have got bored of placing the camera on one place and hoping that something happens.

Shekhar Chandra got creative in increasing the volume of his Background score. He ranged with supreme easy from robustly irritating to stupendous noise throughout the film. A fabulous job in not letting people sleep.

Santossh Jagarlamudi couldn’t really come up with interesting characters and did not even give them dynamic arcs to really shine. He just wrote one line order of a story into a screenplay and started following it without really adding anything more to it. The single dimensional characters and repetitive scenes, take us away from the movie with aplomb sincerity.

As a director, he seems to be convinced that he can pull off any logic less non-explanatory phenomenon without any clues for people to really invest themselves. He carefully crafted sequence after sequence to repeat the same that audience knew beforehand and then concluded it as he couldn’t drag any longer.

Analysis:

When you see certain films you wonder that much could have been done with the subject material but the director left it in the middle without realizing the full potential of the subject. Few good shots don’t make up for a poorly written script and even poorly executed sequences. One has to give enough time for the characters to register but can’t tell in last 5 minutes by just dragging around.

Even a snake needs time to breed and grow. It doesn’t just blast out into an anaconda or King Cobra in few seconds after being an infant for years. This story needed more conflict and more action and even more concentration on real plot than comedy which is irritating.

Rating: 1.5/5