Naina

I wonder why this movie had three writers since all Shripal Morakhia did was rip-off almost every frame of the Pang Brothers' captivating movie 'Jian Gui'. Not only does it copy the aforementioned movie, but it does so terribly. Morakhia Bollywoodizes it by making the main character an NRI (non-residential Indian) based in England where everybody seems to speak Hindi. There are no songs but the romance between Naina and her psychiatrist looks rushed. The jump moments are laughably bad while the special effects are mostly adequate. Urmila Matondkar is competent. This is far from her best work but she is terrific in the non-'jump' scenes. What made her choose to do this? The rest of the actors are passable at best. I'm surprised the film was accepted at the Sitges Film Festival because I hardly see any appeal in it. It's a bad movie that has an Indian Hollywoodish B-grade feel to it.

I watched this and saw SCENE by SCENE as Naina ripped its script from "The Eye" (Jian Gui). From the little girl in the hall, the dead man in the elevator, etc.

Creatively speaking, while the acting was good, they did NOT make an effort to reset the story to an Indian perspective. They didn't attempt to reform or wrap it in Indian religious mysticism. They just changed the actors and changed the set-- but kept the script nearly EXACTLY. And then the credits were purposefully little more than unreadable tiny blurred smudges.

What made 'The Eye' striking was the fact that the Life/Death focused was rooted in East Asian religious outlook-- it was seeing the supernatural through a different lens.

See the FIRST version-- THEN judge.

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

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.

So after all the hype... how good is Naina... the movie that's supposed to take Bollywood (The Indian version of Hollywood) Horror to the next level. To set the context, Bollywood horror is known for its 'icky' style -- relying more on ghoulish sets, and mindless plots -- and less on stuff that jolts the gray cells.

In the movie, Naina is a girl blinded since birth, who gets the chance of getting eyes from a donor. Jumping to the opportunity, the eyes are operated upon, and the surgery is a success. All seems to be going well - until, that is, she realizes that she can now see dead people!

The movie then progresses to give you truckloads heart stopping frames, many of which, though bearing the stamp of typical Bollywood horror flicks, are pulled off well.

At times, the plot seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to 'The Sixth Sense'. Also a bit of 'City of Angels' seems to come in. Further, the story line, though it has its strong points, tends to fall back to typical Bollywood type scripts with needless diversions and some overly sentimental spots.

All in all, if you're in for a horror movie, and don't mind the Bollywood styling... then this would be a good movie to watch!