It is currently Mon Nov 17, 2025 8:09 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Vaastu Shastra: Not for the faint of heart

Raja Sen | October 22, 2004 17:17 IST


Right now, in a semi-deserted office, I'm looking around me. Sounds: a computer whirring to life, a door slamming shut, footsteps behind me, are all making me jumpy, and I'm just stopping myself from gulping. Standard-issue office sounds, but disconcerting because of the lack of active noise: telephones, chatter, gossip, yelling.

Vaastu Shastra works on that very level: we are afraid of space, of silence, of the blankness where anything could be.


Steve Harris' immortal lyrics from Iron Maiden's Fear Of The Dark thud like an unrelenting soundtrack inside my head, despite the fact that I haven't heard the song for a couple of years, at least:


Have you run your fingers down the wall and have you felt your neck skin crawl when you're searching for the light? Sometimes when you're scared to take a look at the corner of the room, you've sensed that something's watching you.



This is a severely scary film, and certainly not for the faint of heart. First time director Sourabh Usha Narang has skillfully manipulated sound and cinematography to great effect, and sincerely ensured a large part of his audience sleep with the lights on.

There will be some yelling, and people next to you will bury their faces in caramel popcorn, for the film does what it sets out to do: It is akin to hearing a noise behind a curtain, going hesitantly to check, then smiling with relief to discover obviously nothing there. And then hearing a 'boo!'


Have you ever been alone at night, thought you heard footsteps behind, and turned around and no one's there? And, as you quicken up your pace, you find it hard to look again, because you're sure there's someone there.


Most of the productions originating from Ram Gopal Varma's Factory these days are slickly made and cleverly edited, but this substantially raises the bar. From bizarre transitions to surreal angles, the cinematography is ingenuous, and complemented by some inspired editing. There are several shots where characters converse while the camera lingers elsewhere, triggering off a flood of 'oh, then this must mean...' thoughts in your then-hyperactive subconscious.


In my earlier conversation with the director, Sourabh hesitatingly admitted that the film has its share of red herrings, but didn't go further, implying that a horror film places even the ordinary into a queer context. There are several references in the film to the greatest horror classics of cinema history, and while I might accept a few of these as coincidences, they can't possibly all be. A lot of them are visual: the cycle from The Shining; the bunch of red-balloons from The Sixth Sense; nods to The Omen trilogy, Spielberg's Duel, The Grudge and several Others you ought discover on your own.


What these sporadically thrown in bits of suggestion actually do is interesting: they give you an 'almost' moment. Which is to say they let you believe you've successfully second-guessed the filmmaker. You luxuriate in your seat and believe that the movie isn't that original after all, you've seen Hollywood, you know what happens next. And so you wait for the shoe to drop. Except, in this case, it doesn't, and kicks you squarely in the nose instead.


The film has solid, credible performances, especially by the main protagonists. Four-year-old Ehsaas is striking in the film: quiet, cuddly and with a whispered sinister innocence worthy of Damien himself. Sushmita Sen is quite a treat, very believable, and it's good to see a model finally working hard enough to deserve her acting spurs. Chakravarty is his usual restrained self, but just seems the slightest bit unlike his given 'writer' credentials. The rest are filler. Or does one say 'killer'?


The camera is the main hero of the film, and as Sushmita lies next to Chakravarty on a dimly lit bed, we pan across onto the space between them, and the nightstand next to her. It is as if a black highlighter has been dragged vehemently onto the frame, zigzagging across celluloid and giving us darkness to contend with: darkness that, we know by now, could contain anything. You are instantly back to being Calvin, and wondering about monsters under the bed. You can't fear what you can't see, says convention. Or is it just vice versa, mocks the film?


Silence is the other antagonist, and gives us the freedom to imagine all kinds of macabre possibilities on our own, while the loud Dolby speakers now offered by every theatre in town are well-utilised by shrill laughs and eerie growls, loud enough to hammer, subwoofer-aided, through your heart, and stay there despite usually anticlimactic on-screen normalcy. You are constantly going to be expecting that which you will not see. [Also, you are advised to refrain from the company of young women after watching the film. Shrill laughter can be rather frightening, you will find.]


It is arguably not a mind-altering experience, the plot banal and considerably regressive, and there is a disappointing lack of mythos, of actual plot-expanding 'story', of the building up of legend. While not giving anything away, the end seems tacked on and hurriedly finished, and does not match the smooth build-up of the rest of the film, with even the special effects getting sadly cheesy. If looking for substance, this is not a complex ideology told through screaming banshees. It is not a film that has anything to say, really.

Watching horror films the night before, debating witches and folklores, the unknown troubles on your mind. Maybe your mind is playing tricks, you sense, and suddenly eyes fix on dancing shadows from behind.

Except, as I said, 'Boo!', which it says considerably loudly.



** Happy Halloween!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 10:26 pm
Posts: 198
This guy 'Raja Sen' is an idiot. This movie absolutely sucked I thought. It really made no damn sense and it was very cliched. This is the same guy that said 'Hulchul' is a really inferior movie and he could not even find one good thing about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 10:38 pm
Posts: 408
Definitely one of the worst movies from the RGV camp. While the technical aspects of the film are good, the story makes no sense. Sushmita did her part well but absolutely a horrible story

Speaking of Hulchul, what a painful movie. These type of movies mainly click on chemistry and can turn on a dime. To me the movie looked like a patchwork and was very boring. Priyadarshan has been definitely going down hill since Hera Pheri(except for Yeh Tera Ghar Yeh Mera Ghar). Keeps remaking his own movies and keeps recycling the same kind of scenes

A tossup between the two as to which is the worse movie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 11:54 pm
Posts: 834
Location: Chennai, India
I will have to be honest with you and say that this is the first review that I have read ( probably of any film ) that does not give out an iota of the plot in questions ! . Honestly all we know from the review is that this is horror movie and thats about it. This is really not a review of the film but an essay of the reviewers experience watching the film and in a weird way i find this fascinating ( though I have to agree that the author through his writing has made a mediocre bollywood film into a benchmark horror movie masterpiece) .

Now back to the movie the only thing I liked about the movie was the "mood" of the film. Fans of the horror genre will quickly identify the numerous "inspired" moments in the film, Starting out with a lonely writer in a remote location ( shining ) to the kid who interacts with strangers in the house ( sixth sense, others) to dead people coming back to life ( zombie, night of the living dead ) to make-up , music and atmosphere ( Ringu, Ju-on -blatantly ripping of the way they show the ghost-kids and parents! ) and finishing of like a cheesy horror movie that promises a sequel ( mark my word guys I am pretty sure there will be a "Vaastu Shastra -2")

I did not find anything confusing in the plot, it did rollout as "expected" kudos to the guy who came up with a story to include scenes from all the horror movies he has seen/liked.

All I can say is one of these days the audience has to kick the RGV team under the belt so hard that their eyeballs get replaced with their balls !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I agree, RGV has gone BHATT's, MUSTAN etc etc way!! Mix it up and chur it!! TERRIBLE!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 10:26 pm
Posts: 198
jag wrote:
Definitely one of the worst movies from the RGV camp. While the technical aspects of the film are good, the story makes no sense. Sushmita did her part well but absolutely a horrible story

Speaking of Hulchul, what a painful movie. These type of movies mainly click on chemistry and can turn on a dime. To me the movie looked like a patchwork and was very boring. Priyadarshan has been definitely going down hill since Hera Pheri(except for Yeh Tera Ghar Yeh Mera Ghar). Keeps remaking his own movies and keeps recycling the same kind of scenes

A tossup between the two as to which is the worse movie


Well the form of "Hulchul" is of an Indian potboiler. You can't look at it from the same looking glass as another movie that is more Hollywood-like in its form(example: Mission Kashmir, Jism, Bhoot etc.). It is made for Indian mass audiences. I grew up in India and I routinely speak hindi to some friends and normally use this type of dialogue for jokes. So I relate to it well enough to enjoy it. It makes for a good watch if you're with your desi(south asian) family. I can't forget the last time I saw a movie with my family and hated every moment of it even though the movies were good(ie. Lakshya, Kaante). So, yes, it does click on chemistry and yes it does turn on a dime. However, I think those are the strong points of this type of cinema and they make it so much more fun and interesting.

Priyadarsan normally remakes movies made in the Malayalam language by the "Siddique-lal" duo. The screenplay is rewritten into Hindi by an expert writer that knows both languages well. They were credited in Hulchul for the story but not for the previous movies I think. So the story for "Hera-Pheri" and "Hulchul" were written by Siddique-Lal; "Yeh Tera Ghar Yeh Mera Ghar" was originally directed by "Sathyan Anthikad," and written by "Srinivasan." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Even though they were different subjects, the characters and situations were just as well written for both movies. The latter is just more rural family based which, sadly, does not appeal to a lot of modern audiences. I think that atleast partly, the reason may be related to the audience not being able to relate to the Indian rural lifestyle. That may make it look illogical and fake, but in reality I don't think they are illogical to a very high extent. As we drift towards more westernized cinema, hopefully we don't lose the spectacle that Indian cinema creates in the name of logic. Sometimes, to make a film spectacular, logic must be cut off atleast here and there.

As you can see these few days I've had a lot of time on my hands!! :?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group