8am Number Veedu is an absolute mockery of the audience. There's no way this movie was made with a straight face.
0.5 out of 5 (Poor)
Rohit Ramachandran Mon, 26 Dec 2011
If you haven't already guessed, 8am number Veedu is staged at a place called 8am number Veedu. A middle-aged man has just witnessed the murder of his family by a particularly noticeable 'ghost.' He tries to escape but the ghost hunts him down. Just as I began to realize that the make-up on the ghost was done with such detail, he wakes up from his dream. Since when were dreams vivid?
New characters appear - a squint eyed man with a boner in his eye-lids, an albino version of Arya in Naan Kadavul and a stocky housemaid with a glow-in-the-dark face. And they reappear. Each time that happens, you hear a gong and you want to punch them in the face hoping to leave a dent. Or two, for the filmmakers. Your intelligence doesn't exist to anyone in this world. Story, plot, characters, atmosphere- none of this is of any importance to them. They rely on the ability of these faces to haunt your dreams. What kind of a crowd are they targeting? A-rated movies restrict children from attending screenings. But, why not vice-versa? Chennai is a scorching, humid place populated by resentful employees. Do we really need something else to tick them off? Considering that the theatre was bursting with energy, it seems to me that people here are willing to pay to watch nonsense of the kind as long as they can steal its 'light' by making even sillier comments aloud as attempts to criticize the movie. They're okay with watching such a movie for 'time-pass'. Then again, not everyone comes to the theatre to attract attention.
A new dimension is added with the inclusion of a psychological disorder. It sticks out like a large zit on a leper. The ghost is the restless soul of a nymphomaniac who committed suicide after being rejected by a man she wanted to sleep with ("Foolish madhiri pesadhe"). The ghost (resembling the one in The Exorcist) then enters the body of his dying wife, who recovers and seduces him. A back-story is told simply to provide answers regarding the story but the questions that linger in our mind pertain to the film's quality. Please. Sell it to the Sun TV dependant housewives.
The technical department does its share of annoying the heck out of you with sound effects that bleed your ears and visual effects that scratch out your pupils. This isn't the worst movie I've seen this year but it is hands down, the silliest. This is an absolute mockery of the audience. There's no way Chinna and Co. made this movie with a straight face.
Critic: Rohit Ramachandran
0.5 out of 5 (Poor)
WHAT THE RATINGS MEAN:
0.0 - 1.4 : Poor
1.5 - 1.7: Poor, A Few Good Parts
1.8 - 2.3: Okay
2.4 - 2.9: Fairly Good
3.0 - 3.4: Good
3.5 - 5.0: Very Good