Rating: 3.5/5
Story:
In 2013, in the city of Visakhapatnam, there’s a young man named Mettu Chandrashekar, or Chandu for short, played by Harsh Roshan. He’s the son of a watchman and makes a living by doing different jobs. One day, he meets Jabilli, a girl from a good family, portrayed by Sridevi Apalla. After a funny incident, she starts teasing him, and soon they begin chatting on the phone. However, things take a turn when Jabilli’s uncle, Mangapathi (played by Shivaji), who is very strict about social status, finds out she’s in love with Chandu. Furious, he has Chandu arrested and tries to ruin his life by falsely accusing him under the POCSO Act. As the situation escalates, Jabilli’s family turns to a lawyer named Surya Teja (Priyadarshi), who works with the experienced advocate Mohan Rao (Sai Kumar). What will happen next? Can Surya Teja clear Chandu’s name? Did Mangapathi win in his attempt? How will the courtroom drama play out? Will Chandu find justice? All these questions are answered in the film.
Performances:
Priyadarshi, who plays Surya Teja, has once again taken on an engaging role and gives a convincing performance. His dialogue delivery and the way he behaves during the courtroom scenes convey a perfect emotion. Shivaji gives an outstanding performance as a ruthless and caste-fanatic person who will do anything to protect his family's honor. His acting is so believable and makes one hate Mangapathi.
Young actor Harsh Roshan shines in the romantic scenes as well as the emotional parts. Sridevi Apalla, who plays Jabilli, is also impressive. Actor Harshavardhan does his job neatly, but his characterization could have been better. Other supporting actors like Surabhi Prabhavati, Sai Kumar, and Rajasekhar Anigi fit their roles perfectly and add depth to the story.
What worked for the film:
Director Ram Jagadeesh should be praised for creating a powerful courtroom drama. Even though this is his first time directing, he does a great job with the writing, especially during the courtroom scenes, which are presented in a natural way. The climax, where the verdict is delivered, is particularly impressive, as the director skillfully shows how the public views the law and highlights the need for people to understand their legal rights in a way that makes you think. The narration never allows audiences to get distracted and makes them hooked to the proceedings.
Almost all scenes in the court backdrop came very well with the simple yet effective writing/setup. As said above, the performances of all the actors work superbly for the film.
What did not work for the film:
A few scenes in the backstory of the teenage couple appear ordinary. There is nothing wrong with them, but somehow they feel a bit less engaging. Also, the way the director portrayed the character of Harshavardhan, who appears as the lawyer for the villain, could have been better. The character and his behavior during the courtroom sequences appear a bit overboard, as it appears like he is putting on an act rather than showing brutality.
Court: State Vs. A Nobody Review and Verdict:
0 comments:
Post a Comment