It would be rather absurd to say that the movie was just good. I fail to recall the last time I saw a flick as commendable as this. I'm no avid bollywood-fan but I can confidently say that once a while, a movie so brilliant as this, comes along and I cannot say no.
Flaws are hard to detect. The following are the various complaints I received about the movie :- a) Poor Plot. The movie has a well defined story. It is about a girl, who loses her eyesight at a very tender age. It is about a girl, who must wait for 20 years to get a cornea donor (which, I assure you, is realistic. How many people are you aware of presently, who would be willing to donate their eyes or those of their departed loved ones?) It is about an unfortunate girl who receives the cornea of an extra-ordinary girl, from a distant land, who had the gift of seeing dead people/people about to die. This may, again, sound ridiculous but how many horror movies out there make sense? Even if there was a poor plot, I wouldn't mind it so much since the superb direction more than made up for it. b) Too much Discontinuity. I couldn't disagree more. The movie attempts to reduce two and a half decades to 2 hours, which is not an easy task. It is a thriller.... not a romance flick, nor a cheap sex comedy. It is assumed that the viewer must utilise his/her brains to co-relate one event with another. (The Indian audience is yet to grow more mature when it comes to theater. Why else is Drama so unpopular?) c) Poor acting. One of the reviews I read clearly stated that Urmila's acting gets better with each flick. I too was expecting to be tortured by her horrible screaming, but that (thankfully) didn't quite happen. Though she got annoying at times, her performance was on an overall quite mature and quite commendable. d) Poor copy of Hollywood Flicks. If one tried hard enough, it would be possible to relate every movie that has been released till date with another. Agreed that ''Naina'' has certain elements which closely resemble ''Sixth-Sense'' as others believe, and ''Ghost'' as well as ''The Ring'' if I were to be believed, but every movie resembles another. All ideas out there have been utilised. Now, we can only recreate, reinvent and reproduce.
Moving on, the film is for a very mature audience and quite daring attempt. The direction is the best I've seen till date and the effects are astonishing. The show of dead bodies, charred bodies and internal organs may be sickening, but are possibly vital to the plot. There isn't much I could say without spoiling the movie for you, but I'll conclude by stating that the cast is well chosen, the direction is magnificent and the movie seems to be quite free of cons.
The background score deserves a special mention since it was very much in sync with the theme of the movie and doubled the pleasure of watching it.
Flaws are hard to detect. The following are the various complaints I received about the movie :- a) Poor Plot. The movie has a well defined story. It is about a girl, who loses her eyesight at a very tender age. It is about a girl, who must wait for 20 years to get a cornea donor (which, I assure you, is realistic. How many people are you aware of presently, who would be willing to donate their eyes or those of their departed loved ones?) It is about an unfortunate girl who receives the cornea of an extra-ordinary girl, from a distant land, who had the gift of seeing dead people/people about to die. This may, again, sound ridiculous but how many horror movies out there make sense? Even if there was a poor plot, I wouldn't mind it so much since the superb direction more than made up for it. b) Too much Discontinuity. I couldn't disagree more. The movie attempts to reduce two and a half decades to 2 hours, which is not an easy task. It is a thriller.... not a romance flick, nor a cheap sex comedy. It is assumed that the viewer must utilise his/her brains to co-relate one event with another. (The Indian audience is yet to grow more mature when it comes to theater. Why else is Drama so unpopular?) c) Poor acting. One of the reviews I read clearly stated that Urmila's acting gets better with each flick. I too was expecting to be tortured by her horrible screaming, but that (thankfully) didn't quite happen. Though she got annoying at times, her performance was on an overall quite mature and quite commendable. d) Poor copy of Hollywood Flicks. If one tried hard enough, it would be possible to relate every movie that has been released till date with another. Agreed that ''Naina'' has certain elements which closely resemble ''Sixth-Sense'' as others believe, and ''Ghost'' as well as ''The Ring'' if I were to be believed, but every movie resembles another. All ideas out there have been utilised. Now, we can only recreate, reinvent and reproduce.
Moving on, the film is for a very mature audience and quite daring attempt. The direction is the best I've seen till date and the effects are astonishing. The show of dead bodies, charred bodies and internal organs may be sickening, but are possibly vital to the plot. There isn't much I could say without spoiling the movie for you, but I'll conclude by stating that the cast is well chosen, the direction is magnificent and the movie seems to be quite free of cons.
The background score deserves a special mention since it was very much in sync with the theme of the movie and doubled the pleasure of watching it.