For the past few weeks, we have been on the synopsis/plot of the movie Shola Arikusa parts 1-3, which is solely about a lady- Shola (Fathia Balogun)

who wreaked vengeance on the tons of people that assassinated her family. She went as far as seeking powers from the spiritual world just to make sure that those that put her family under 6ft ground also joined them there.

One thing you can’t take out from this movie is that the plot is terrific, and the movie also has hilarious scenes right from part 1 to part 3, especially the part of the Muslim clergy who was always quick to condemn people’s souls to hell fire. His expression was always funny; especially that part the yahoo boy came to meet him.

The characters really acted well and made the film interesting to watch. However, it was hard to tell the number of days, weeks, months, years that had passed before the next scene. Also, the editing was poor, no thorough editing. Looks like they were in a hurry to push out the movie or perhaps the movie hooked them at a certain point.

There were a lot of scenes that needed explanation which automatically should have given way for another scene, but that was not done.

We were not shown how Shola Arikusa lived her personal life, she was wealthy but it didn’t show in her life. She and her guards, though they told the police man that they wanted to go and party, it looked like they were prisoners in their house. There was nothing exciting about her character despite how powerful she was, only that she was just rich.

There were a lot of abandoned plots; scenes that needed continuation, but they ignored this. We don’t know what happened to Shola after she fell down, was she the one that cut her hair or it was shaved automatically after the power was bestowed upon her? if every other person died, how come she didn’t? There were so many unnecessary scenes in the movie. So many unanswered questions too?

In the part 2, where Shola returned the money to Folurunsho’s bank, that was a nice and interesting scene, but there should have been a follow up on that scene, but there was no strong follow up, except when Biliki tried asking Folorunsho why Shola returned the money.

In part three, Shola emptied the bottle of urine, we were not told if that really had effect on her- (5minutes :25seconds) or if that truly would destroy her powers

In the movie are actors like Fathia Balogun, Odunlade Adekola, Femi Adebayo, Yinka Quadri ans so on

• In the part 1, Shola told Folorunsho to meet her at a certain place in order to return his money, but she didn’t give him the address, so how exactly did Folorunsho get to the venue?

• How can another camera be shooting out during recording @49minutes 37seconds in the part 1, this is so bad!

• Part two Biyi shot Shola twice, one touched her shoulder and the other the back of her neck. Since the bullets bounced back to Biyi’s family, it should have been the same spot not somewhere different. I was surprised to see that the bullet hit Biyi’s daughter on the head and his wife- in front of her neck.

Costume wise: Nothing spectacular, they were all looking dull. Even Shola and her guards, irrespective of the huge money Shola commanded. Simplicity doesn’t mean being dull.

Sound wise: Very tuneful. I had to go through the crew list just to check the person’s name. The person behind the music is Emeka Indo. Thumbs up!

Confusing scenes

The herbalist told Shola Arikusa that he couldn’t help her because anyone that woke Ijamido up before its time would face its wrath, only for him to ask how much she has with her after which her replied that her money was too small. So, is it that, if she had more, he would wake the deity up and there wont be wrath or what?

Just wondering

• Just wondering why the the police officer said, Shola ought not to see him. Imagine, a police officer saying a wanted criminal ought not to see him, so what is the issue? (Part 2- 18:07 )

• Did Shola go and use the toilet when her family was shot, she only said she wanted to get the cutlass, how come she stayed long even before the assassins showed up; that scene was unrealistic, was the backyard in America?

• When Shola’s mum handed the property folder to her son, she said the content was enough to take care of their future. How come when she heard that he impregnated someone, she suddenly changed her words. She said they could barely feed.

• Why did Shola’s mum hand the file to the younger brother and the way she talked made it look like he alone inherited all the property. (Part 1)

• Did Shola miss out someone who ought to die from her list or did it get missing? I mean, this particular assassin was the one that pulled the trigger, so if she claimed to be killing those that killed her family, how come she let him go?

• For the three parts of this movie, this lady and the other guy were carrying rough hair, and the same hair, they couldn’t even redo it, Gush!

• The way the chiefs were shouting at the guy to bring the urine was unrealistic. Someone like Shola who heard them when she was not with them. What were they now expecting when she was present in the midst?

• Despite all the wonders she performed, it is appalling that the police officials are still asking who exactly she is

• Why was Folorunsho keeping the fact that he knew Shola, that shouldn’t be a major problem.

• We don’t know who those ghosts are- Shola only called mum, but there were two of them timing (Part 3- 28 minutes)

• Please ooh, who is this boy oo? We don’t know who he is, he just popped out on the screen, no introduction. This is just a lazy man’s job. They just felt they could put anyone just to pass a message across to the audience, it is not done that way. I mean that guy practically looked like someone they just stumbled on the road and begged to relay the message with the promise to buy a N200 recharge card for him, he was even sagging… (Part 3; 31minutes: 46 seconds)

There were others though…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Overall rating for Shola Arikusa (Parts 1-3)

STRUCTURE: Average Beginning, Average Middle, Average Ending (The plot was not properly structured, there was just something missing; it could have been better)
• SOUND: Terrific
• DIALOGUE: Terrific. They had this hilarious way of dialoguing
• CHARACTERS: Familiar faces
• SCREEN PLAY: Terrific, but some things were missing
• SHOTS: Bright shots
• LOCATION: Nothing spectacular.
• REMARK: Regardless of the discrepancies recorded, it is one film people certainly need to watch.

• RATE: 5/10

DURATION: Part 1 (1:32) Part 2(1:35) Part 3 (1: 09)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Here's my view

You cannot copy content of this page