ChandralekhaR-7

I had heard some positive buzz about this movie when it first came out and I finally got around to watching it on Prime. I honestly regret it. It is a horrible movie.

The first half tries to pass itself off as a scientific exploration of paranormal activity using the overdone "found footage" technique borrowed from Hollywood horror. But this part feels rushed and poorly executed.

Then comes the second half filled with clichés. Instead of the usual Christian symbolism found in many horror films this one attempts to use local folklore and Theyyam. Now this could have been refreshing if it were done well. But the so-called supernatural entity here does not follow any coherent logic. It is not a wronged soul or a ghost with purpose. It just does random disconnected things. They mention "lust" and "revenge" as motives but the connection is weak at best. The "lust" angle feels completely forced like the filmmakers were trying to be provocative for the sake of controversy.

Add to that the use of obscene and vulgar scenes random English and Malayalam swear words and supposedly "possessed" characters spewing sexual phrases in printed Malayalam. It all just feels immature and unnecessary. Instead of being scary or socially thought-provoking it ends up being unintentionally funny. We were laughing through most of it not because it was funny but because of how badly it was done.

They may try to present this film as some kind of societal commentary but do not be fooled. It is not. It is just cheap horror disguised as something smarter than it is.

Frankly Romancham was a far better movie. It was much more culturally rooted genuinely entertaining and respectful to its genre. And it is rated 7.5. Meanwhile this movie is sitting at an 8.3. That is exactly why I am taking the effort to write this review. Just like the film the reviews seem misleading too.

It's not a bad movie by any means-technically sound, reasonably acted-but undeniably riddled with clichés. The American president personally leading an attack with her loyal bodyguard? Sacrifice, glory, heroism-the usual fare. Once upon a time, we used to be in awe of such portrayals, believing in the grand illusion of American saviourship. But now, with a clearer understanding of how power really operates, watching these tropes play out feels more unsettling than inspiring.

That said, the film does have its moments, especially in the way it attempts some subversions. A female Afro-american president leading the charge is a bold narrative choice, and it's telling how many of the negative reviews seem to stem from discomfort with a strong, non-objectified woman at the center. The haters are here for Antony Starr playing a dark, brooding villain, and sadly he is not convincing at all. And Viola Davis as a powerful, unflinching leader? That shakes such incels' fantasy. That's why they are giving bad reviews for the movie, but it's not bad, as it's the same as "White House Down" or Olympus has Fallen. If this movie is bad they should review those old movies the same too. For me all these are the same.

Frankly, I'm tired of Hollywood's obsession with American politics and war narratives dressed up as global rescue missions. That era is over. So while I appreciate what the film tries to do, it still clings too tightly to a worn-out formula. That's why it doesn't quite work for me-but credit where it's due, the attempt at rewriting old roles is a step in the right direction.