Rupa
Meher Ramesh directed Bhola Shankar offers nothing new. The movie is so dull and boring that even South Indian star Chiranjeevi fails to give it a Midas Touch.
Telugu movie Bhola Shankar presents old wine in a new bottle, dragging audiences back to a time when such stories used to get claps in theatre halls. But those days are gone. People now want twists in tales and prefer original stories that they can relate to or that can give them food for thought. Director Meher Ramesh chooses an easy path by retelling old stories, thinking that the star presence of Chiranjeevi, Keethy Suresh and Tamannaah Bhatia would be enough to breathe a fresh lease of life in an otherwise listless movie. But stars also have their limits!
The director adopts an eight-year-old, Ajith-starring Tamil movie Vedalam. It was not a great shaker either. The director, also credited with story development, whips up a dish with the most common spices like sappy bro-sis bond, a leading lady with the most absurd comic timing and stiff villain characters. The result is expectedly poor. As if silly humour and a stupid story line were not enough to taste audiences’ patience; loud, forgetful music makes things more pathetic.
Plot
The plot of Bhola Shankar is set in Kolkata. However, the location hardly matters as almost the entire film was evidently shot on sets, except a few scenes of a slew of Bengalis, the landmark Hooghly Bridge and the iconic Durga Puja festival. Shankar (Chiranjeevi) and his sister Mahalakshmi (Keeth Suresh) arrive in Kolkata. Shankar admits her sister to a college in the fine arts stream. Unfortunately, the writer-director forgets it and later viewers come to know that she has taken up architecture for her graduation. To add more spices (of course unnecessarily), she suffers memory loss. However, the plot now switches to the main protagonist Shankardada.
Shankar earns his livelihood by working as a taxi driver in a company owned by Vamsi (Vennela Kishore). He is a colourful character and his chemistry with his wife and father-in-law brings some campy fun to the plot. An incident in the opening stage followed by a character’s prophecy that a monster-like man would arrive as saviour drops a clear hint that Shankar is not just an ordinary man. Soon the narrative switches to a revenge drama and viewers see Chiranjeevi unleashing his monstrous power with maniacal satisfaction.
The narrative allows for the entry of a slew of good-hearted characters – Srikar (Sushanth), Lasya, a silly criminal lawyer (Tamannah Bhatia) and her juniors (Hyper Aadhi and Virva Harsha). Brahmanandam plays the role of a cameo, with Tulasi and Murali Sharma soon joining in the tale. An entire bunch of comedians from Satya to Venu Yeldandi is brought for comic relief but none impresses. In fact, their presence makes the movie more boring.
Criticism
Chiranjeevi has no scope to add anything new. In fact, many of his actions in the movie feel like plain lifting from Annaya and Aapadbandhavudu, his older films. There are other references from Ram Charan’s Rangasthalam and Pawan Kalyan’s Kushi. Nostalgic itching contributes nothing to make the movie appealing; rather too many things lifted from here and there fail to evoke empathy. The story talks about trafficking and how a principal character lands in the soup. However, viewers fail to make head or tail of what the movie actually wants to portray and take no time finding there is nothing in it for them.
The director fails to add depth to Shankar’s character. In the original movie, Ajith plays the role of a shrewd thug who does not mind doing anything for money and did not become a good man overnight. But Shankar’s character, in the adopted movie, is more about bowing to Chiranjeevi’s stardom and stops from showing the man as a morally depraved person. Therefore, his change of heart makes no impact.
Once it becomes clear that the movie has changed the track to a revenge narrative, only confrontations become distilled content to consume. Shankar’s encounters with caricature-ish villains Tarun Arora, Shawar Ali and others only reflect superhero-like actions. If these are not enough to make the movie worse, forgettable music does the job.
It is an ordeal for viewers to sit through the 160-minute film. The stardom of Chrianjeevi and Keerthy Suresh has failed to lift the move from an expected disaster. Tamannaah, playing a bizarre character, seems to have injected some fun but that is surely not enough.
Chiranjeevi should take up roles that suit his age. It is high time for the star actor, who has such a wonderful body of work, to reinvent his potential and choose movies that offer fresh ideas.
