Naina

I was expecting Naina to be a really good movie after I read the interesting story about a girl in London who lost her eyesight and parents in a car accident. She was raised by her grandmother and when she became a young woman she got an eyes donor. After the operation she started to see strange things like dead people, shadows and bad incidents that are yet to happen. The first half was quite good and relentless but the second half was very slow, boring and depressing when Naina went to India from London to unsolve the mystery. If you liked Urmila's other two horror films Kaun & Bhoot then Naina is probably the film for you. Personally I liked both of them. It is a remake of a Korean film "The Eye" I've not seen it but most people said that The Eye is better and I think that the Hollywood version is due to the end of 2007 but i'm not sure. Overall this film is OK to be watched once and my verdict is 5/10 if the second half was good then I might of given it a 6-7 out of 10 but their is no chance that I will rate it 8-10 out of 10.

No matter how much the Indian viewers/media try to hype "Bollywood", Naina proves that Bollywood is not capable for producing original ideas. I would highly recommend watching the original HK flick called Jian gui (aka "The Eye") rather that watching a "copied and pasted" laughable Indian version. Naina proves that Bollywood not only "frame to frame" copies foreign films but does a terrible job doing it! The producers did not even have a decency to change the name of the movie!

The plot, framing and in fact the lines are identical. When will the Indian producers realize that they cannot get away with crime. I am surprised that no one has sued the filmmakers for such a blatant copyright infringement. The performance of Urmila is laughable and the FX are very amateurish!

P

Okay, the Urmla Matondkar starer "NAINA" (directed by Ram Gopal Verma)is VERY similar to an Asian movie, entitled "THE EYE"...which, when is translated in Hindi, means "NAINA"...

Even the tag line is somewhat similar...and the story is EXACTLY the same! If you've seen THE EYE, don't bother NAINA...its the same...really, no difference.

Surprisingly, even the actress in the horror THE EYE, is looks and make-up wise very similar to Urmila Matondkar. Even though as usual, Urmila's acting is excellent (you should see BHOOT for appreciating her acting), the movie isn't...

3/10 stars for this flick...to bad Ramu...you're not getting away this time!

Let's be perfectly honest. "The Eye 10" was bad. The fart jokes may have been an excellent opportunity for the Pang Brothers to thumb their noses at the film-making establishment (especially of the genre-kind), but farting did nothing to enhance the ghost story they were trying to tell. Anyone who disagrees...is lost.

But "Naina," a "had to be licensed or else there's a lawsuit a-brewing" remake of the Pang Brothers original "Eye" is a real stinker. Let me qualify for a moment; I'm a sucker for any kind mimicry or remaking, as long as it's good. I'll watch the same derivative sequel-like Asian ghost story over and over and over again (Eye, Ringu, Dark Water, Phone, Red Shoes, Red Eye, One Missed Call 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) as long as it is well done. But "Naina" busts the bank. The film has no fart-jokes, but its got the same flatulent problem--namely, hilarity, that doesn't smell too much like hilarity, that's been inserted into the script with a crowbar made in India.

Being a Bollywood remake of a serious ghost story, the "comic relief" (term used lightly) and distinct style of overacting isn't surprising in "Naina." Watching this film is a bit like watching "The Eye" (a heartwrenching, small, personal film) trying to bust out into a Broadway-style song and dance routine. Oil and water. For example, early on the hilarity comes in the form of Naina's (cornea transplantee's) grandmother. She harasses hospital personnel, inappropriately burns incense in the hospital lobby, and continually barrages the doctors with "hilarious" questions about her poor, poor granddaughter. The "funny" character got tiring real, real fast and completely served to deflate any tension the director may have been trying to attain. Maybe he should watch the original one more time.

The same kind of Bollywood-like, paper-thin character qualities flowed into the protagonist Naina as well. Her eyes bulged out of her head like Popeye when confronted with supernatural occurrences, and the voiceovers were always overacted. For example, check out Naina's string of monosyllables meant to convey horror and exasperation ("Uh-Ah-No-Wha-Uh-Ah-Huh-No") while she witnesses "the other side" from the backseat of a taxi (and her lips aren't even parted). Attack of the voice-over from hell! It is the typical cartoonery found in Bollywood films. No subtlety anywhere.

And yet I am perplexed. Overall, I'd say the film was lensed very lushly. Nice colors and camera angles; on the whole, the photography is top notch. Yet, when the director fills the frame with the baldheaded young-boy-cancer-patient who befriends Naina, things explode into utter wrongness. Somebody seriously needed to check this kid's makeup. As someone else pointed out in a review on IMDb, the skullcap the kid was wearing (head shaved due to brain surgery) wasn't fitted or finished properly. And again, allow me to explain; I'm no perfectionist when it comes to genre films. I'll put up with just about everything. As long as I'm entertained, I can look past the biggest plot holes, rubber monster suits, and rattling background sets. But this skullcap gets the award for the Worst Ever Makeup Job I've Seen In My Life. The color of the cap doesn't match his head; when the child actor emotes by raising his eyebrows, the ends of the skullcap wrinkle up unnaturally; the cutout around his ears is clearly visible, as well as how the skullcap is not properly attached to the back of his head--and I think I saw some hair protruding through the back around his neck. It is atrocious. Unbelievably so, especially when you take into consideration the overall professionalism of every other aspect of the film. Who on the crew had a three-martini lunch that day? Hmmm...

Final word: Even if you are a "I'll watch any derivative film just because it's horror" person like me, trust me and skip "Naina." You've seen it all before, only it was actually good the last time.

I recently saw "Naina" at a multiplex in. I was hurt! It hurts to see a movie made with sincere Effort and Intention, succumb to failure. But then, if good intentions and great effort were the only criteria required for a movie's success, then "Naina" could become a blockbuster. But, that's not the case! Just good intentions and sincere effort don't make a GOOD film. So what does?? The Answer is - "Just one and only one thing-- A Good Script." This is the core area where "Naina" actually failed. Despite having an interesting story, innovative treatment, eye catching cinematography and great sound & special effects the film couldn't strike a chord with the audience, because of the flawed script.

The Basic Four Progressive Comments on 'Naina' which I could think of were as follows: 1. Characterization: The problem with Naina is the pace at which emotions are thrown at the audience. Before the audience can digest one aspect of Naina's emotion, she starts to portray another. This results in her character failing to strike a chord with the audience, as they can't fully relate to her emotions and therefore are not able to empathize with her. EMPATHY of the audience for the lead character is a must for all movies to succeed. Because only when the audience empathizes with the characters, they can feel for them, cry-- when they cry, laugh-- when they laugh, are scared-- when they are scared. The empathy is a critical must. In order to make the audience to worry, sympathize, or be concerned for 'Naina's' situation, first they should be allowed fall in love with her, only then will they have any reason to empathize or sympathize or whatever emotion one needs from them. The characterization of Naina in the script doesn't allow the audience to realize this bond of empathy with her. For example -in the movie "Black" The little blind girl's enthusiasm and exuberance on feeling the water for the first time is empathized by the audience, because leading up to that situation, the audience had already been allowed to, go through, and suffer all the pain in her life as a blind child, and so they were in a better position to relate to her emotions. If the audience had got a little more chance to see, what Naina's character has to go through as a blind girl, while still keeping a positive outlook on life, I am sure the empathy aspect would have worked better. 2. One dimensional & Single layered approach: Once Naina's character starts having the visions of the dead, the whole movie takes that direction … and that's it. It's one visionary encounter after another, then another, then another. The element of anxiety and fear diminishes with each repetition. One has to be very careful with the anxiety/curiosity element particularly in the 'Thriller' genre, which 'Naina' belongs to, because the whole movie is spun around these elements. Agreed it's the most difficult of tasks to maintain a high level of anxiety and tension in the audience throughout the movie. But then, making a good thriller movie was never an easy job in the first place. In order to maintain the level of tension in a thriller, multi-dimensional approach comes very handy; which can be done by creating a no. of interesting characters, with important roles to play in the main plot and showing different sequences from each of their point of views. For Example in the movie "Executive Decision" (An Action Thriller) the multi-dimensional element has been used very well. But then, I agree there are some movies where you can't use a multi-dimensional approach. Maybe the creator of Naina thought so too, Because as the whole story of Naina is lead character driven, and is basically the sequencing of the dramatic encounters faced by her. As it is primarily her story, so maybe demanded to be told only from her point of view. Even if the story demanded one dimensional approach i,e. to be told from Naina's POV, a suggestion is that, The script could have created sub-texts/plots to the Main Plot. This would have added variety and novelty to the Main plot, while helping in maintaining the anxiety level of the audience, without being repetitive. Once the Main plot (who's cornea did she receive, why was she getting these weird visions and what was to become of her?) is established, it can be treated as a an under current effect i,e. kept in the background, but always hovering in the audience's thought, while new sub plots can be created, where each sub plot arouse new puzzles for the audience to solve, but somehow points towards the main plot. This kind of multi-layered treatment helps especially in the thrillers/horrors genre to raise and maintain the anxiety and tension levels in the audience through major part of the movie. 3. Placement of the Final Sequence: This is strange but true. The best sequence in the whole movie was undoubtedly the final sequence (it single handedly lifted the standard of the movie), But which somehow seemed a misfit in the storyline. The reason it seemed so, was because the supposedly (the village girl part) climax scene had just preceded the final sequence. The audiences almost were ready to leave their chairs, when suddenly the final-climax scene is thrown at them. This actually isolated the final sequence from the rest of the movie, which was a tragedy, because no doubt it was the best filmed sequence of the whole movie. Placement of scenes in the correct sequence (which never has a fixed formula) is a very critical aspect for a good Movie.

Please don't think that this is a critic talking! Because it's not. I am no Critic. I am just an ordinary guy who is a lover of "Beautiful Cinema." Cinema which compels your thoughts to keep giving it a backward glance, while your body has already moved on is 'Beautiful Cinema'.