Ashwini Kumar

The film “Shaitaan” features commendable performances by actors R. Madhavan and Janki Bodiwala. However, the movie’s plot is riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes. ***Spoiler Alert*** The story revolves around a couple whose daughter falls under the hypnotic influence of a stranger named Vanraj (played by R. Madhavan) whom they encounter in a cafe. In the cafe, Vanraj offers their daughter a laddu, which she consumes despite her aversion to carbs and her awareness that accepting food from strangers is unwise. Consequently, she becomes hypnotized by Vanraj. As the plot unfolds, Vanraj gains control over the daughter and enters the couple’s house. In the first half of the film, Vanraj reveals the daughter’s hypnotic state to the couple, providing ample evidence. Despite this revelation, the couple fails to take decisive action to restrain their daughter. The father, portrayed as a chartered accountant (CA), inexplicably lacks basic problem-solving skills. Some may argue that he didn’t have opportunities to take action and restrain his daughter, but let’s consider the following moments when he could have acted: 1. When Vanraj Leaves with Money: i. The daughter becomes unresponsive after Vanraj leaves with their money. ii. The father could have carried her upstairs, locked her in a room, and played loud music to prevent Vanraj’s audio commands from reaching her. 2. In the Storeroom: i. When the daughter is in the storeroom, confused, the couple could have repeated the same actions as described in point 1. 3. Every Time the Daughter Leaves the Room: i. The father could have followed the daughter and restrained her in another room, stationing the son as a guard. Instead, the father remains passive, endangering both his son and him. Furthermore, the father could have inflicted harm on Vanraj with minimal legal repercussions, as it would have constituted self-defense. Vanraj’s brazen confidence within their home should have indicated to the father that this wasn’t Vanraj’s first offense, suggesting he was likely a wanted criminal. Even during the couple’s confrontation with Vanraj, following an uncomfortable scene, the mother blindly attacks him without a clear objective. If her fury was sparked by her daughter’s suffering, the father should have seized the opportunity to silence Vanraj when he was incapacitated. The father’s insistence on recording a statement from Vanraj is perplexing, akin to forfeiting a race with the hope of future victory, rather than resolving his family’s ordeal immediately. To appease the audience with the triumph of good over evil, the writers crafted a feeble conclusion. Had the narrative been consistent, it might have been more fitting for the antagonist to prevail, given the couple’s demonstrated ineptitude. In the finale, the father is shown holding Vanraj captive in the basement, delivering a monologue about the hardships a father endures for his child. While the sentiment rings true, it bears no relevance to the film’s family, as the father, a CA, does not face such struggles. As a CA he would hardly have to toil in sun-and-rain. This dialogue seems designed to emotionally manipulate the audience, particularly parents.

Here is a summary of the text you provided: The Devil on Trial is a documentary that explores the case of Arne Johnson, who claimed he was possessed by the devil when he killed his landlord in 1981. The documentary features interviews with Johnson, his girlfriend, the paranormal investigators, and the lawyers and witnesses of the trial. It also shows reenactments and home videos of the alleged demonic possession of his girlfriend's brother. The documentary presents both sides of the story, without taking a clear stance on whether Johnson was really possessed or not. It also raises questions about the role of religion, media, and psychology in such cases. The documentary is a gripping and fascinating watch for fans of horror movies and true crime stories.

I recently watched “No One Will Save You” and was disappointed with the movie’s plot. The story made little sense to me, and I found it hard to follow. I was confused by the aliens’ varying physiology and their supposed telekinesis. The aliens seemed more like animals than technologically advanced beings, which made it hard for me to believe that they could make significant technological advancements. I was also puzzled by the scene where the aliens chased a human through a car and got stuck. It seemed unrealistic that highly intelligent astronauts would make such a mistake. The movie could have been better if it had followed a different plot. For instance, the protagonist could have used their intelligence and home turf advantage to defeat the aliens instead of relying on brute force. The aliens could have been portrayed as intelligent beings with advanced technology, which would have made the plot more believable. Instead, the movie was just a boring and nonsensical chase scene. Overall, I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking for a good thriller or horror film. The plot is confusing, and the aliens are not believable as intelligent beings. The thriller-horror part is severely missing.

A really good movie. Brilliant acting by Sanjay Mishra.

This is a garbage movie. Nonsense plot. This movie is in the comedy genre, but all the movie did was make me cringe. Nothing is good about the film, Story - 1/10, Acting - 2/10, Audio - 1/10. The acting was better than the other dimensions of the movie because of the first few minutes of the children's shenanigans. The dialogues are so dry and lack any emotions. The conversations are eerily silent. It's as if the whole movie budget was used to rent that British stone house and a trip to the UK for the whole crew. I watched Ritesh's previous movie "Plan A Plan B" and what a letdown that movie was. Ritesh was a great side actor, but in the lead role, he is the movie killer.