Shambhala is currently showing in theatres. Is it worth a watch? Let's find out.
Plot:
This is a story set in a village called Shambala, which has a history spanning 1,000 years. A meteor falls from the sky into this village. The villagers, who have no knowledge about meteors or astronomy, call it a “rock demon.” After the meteor falls, several strange and eerie events begin to occur in the village. Instead of milk, blood starts coming from a cow, which terrifies the people.
To find out what is really happening there, a seasoned scientist named Vikram (Aadi Saikumar) travels to the village. Is there truly a connection between the events taking place in Shambala and the meteor? How does Vikram uncover the truth behind these mysteries? Answers to these questions are what the film is about.
Post-Mortem:
When Telugu filmmakers make movies involving divine, mystical or puranic elements, they invariably take the side of religion/spirituality. So, it doesn't matter who the protagonist is. Even if he is a Nobel Laureate who has been a militant atheist all his life, all it takes for him is a visit to an Indian village with a temple to experience an intellectual revolution in a matter of a few months. In Shambhala, Vikram starts questioning everything and expositions about radiation effect et al, only to start believing in the miracles of Sanatana Dharma. It helps that he can thrash people, obviously because he trained in martial arts before studying science.
There is a backstory dating back millennia, narrated through the visual prowess of AI. The immediate next scene involves a banal exposition scene. The male lead goes on and on about his pro-science assertions. The villagers go on and on with their actions/threats in self-defense. Whole scenes unfold in daytime in mundane rural settings, making everything seem lacklustre. These scenes make half the film feel amateurish and dated. The number of dialogues alluding to destiny, divine intervention, or just proper nouns are too many.
By and by, it becomes hard to keep track of the film's undying interest in bombarding the audience with artists who make scary or weird expressions ahead of a crazy incident. Deaths are supposed to be heart-rending, but here the narration is so undramatic that you feel bad when someone makes an unsuccessful suicide attempt. When a child must be sacrificed, remorse and pain are visible only in the main performer. How about the rest? Are they incapable of emotions even in the face of an autistic child getting killed for the larger good?
The second hour lurches from one deathly moment to another. The hero ups his game but his achievements feel unearned. It doesn't help that Aadi Saikumar's Vikram doesn't get much to do in the second half when the screenplay turns monotonous.
Archana Iyer comes across more as a passive heroine rather than an active one. Swasika Vijay's character feels gimmicky. The characters played by Madhunanadan and Ravi Varma could have been milked for greater drama. Meesala Laxman and Shiju Menon are stunted by underwritten characters. Sricharan Pakala's background music is sometimes loud.
Closing Remarks:
Shambhala attempts to blend cosmic intrigue with spiritual mysticism but falls into the predictable trap of "science vs. faith" where the science never stands a chance. There is less drama and more of the same (in terms of dangerous incidents that never cease to occur).
