User Reviews

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.

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!

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.

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

The only spoiler you need to avoid is this movie. As it will spoil your evening. Its funny that in India cows can be considered sacred, but apparently not my time. What can be said about this movie that already has not been said about Afghanistan? Its advertised as the story of a girl who lost her eyesight, not talent. I see now why India doesn't have a Hollywood! Bad acting. And please, pick a language. If you're looking for the soundtrack, just save yourself the time and download drums. I wish I was blind after seeing this film. Even the cows didn't want to take part in this film. This is 105 minutes of my life that I will never get back.

The original pang brothers movie the eye is a masterpiece in horror this movie is garbage

I was expecting a more chilling movie than "Bhoot" but it was not that scary.

For most of us it looks like an adaptation of "The Sixth Sense" but in fact I saw a very very similar movie few days back and it was named "The Eye". The name of the original Chinese movie was "Jian Gui" (View more at "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325655/").

Urmila's performance was good. Remaining cast was okay.

The music and background score was quite average as compared with other Ram Gopal Verma's movies. The good thing was it has good pace and keep you glued to the seat.

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'.

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.

First off, I'll have to take the word of everyone who claims "Naina" is a ripoff of "The Eye". Since I've never seen it, I can't confirm or deny.

Second, as an American viewer, I appreciated the notable absence of the "big song-and-dance" number that seems to make its way into most Bollywood films -- no matter the genre. The grandmother is endearing even if she seems a bit out of place.

"Bhoot" was a better offering purely as a horror film. Not that "Naina" didn't have its moments, but it wasn't so much scary as merely creepy. The first time Naina comes face-to-face with Khemi is a prime example of what I mean (and if you want to know more than that you'll have to watch it).

But "Naina" has a special place for me because it was my introduction to Urmila Matondkar -- quite possibly THE most exquisitely beautiful woman in the world. And for her -- or any sighted person -- to play the role of a blind woman and do it with eyes wide open is a challenge. That Urmila was completely *believable* as a blind woman says a lot about her talent.

And to a couple of earlier reviewers: The bald child in the hospital was a GIRL, and Naina was NOT blind from birth -- she was blinded in an accident at age 5. I wouldn't bring it up, but if you're going to call somebody out about attention to detail you should really make sure your own slip isn't showing first.

It's bad enough for a movie to be a remake of another. It's worse when two movies are remakes of the same flick and are released back-to-back. I'm talking about Nazar and Naina. I prefer the former. Nazar is a more thrilling and entertaining and has good songs. Naina, on the contrary, is quite intense--the type of movie that gives you a headache by the end. There are some repulsive scenes such as the operation. I must say, though, that Naina has better special effects. Although the movie is not too long compared to other Hindi movies, it feels like it goes on forever. Towards the end it becomes a complete drag and the climax is absolutely ridiculous.

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!

This movie was awful, and a misleading copy of "The Eye." Additionally, it is awful in a way that American remakes of Asian horror films often aren't. At least the Hollywood remakes are typically slick, bigger on budget, and look pretty. Certain scenes may even be improvements upon the original (and certain films like "Pulse" actually beg for a remake, because they are hardly flawless even though they may have a good concept.) But this movie...it had absolutely no redeeming qualities; many scenes were laughable! A smaller-budget remake (copy?) with no original ideas or twists on the story? That means it must have been done simply to change the language to appeal to Hindi-speakers. That's fine, but there's absolutely no reason for anyone who does not speak Hindi to see this...if you are going to read subtitles, watch the much superior original.

And I do plan on seeing the American remake of "The Eye," even though I know that it can't be an improvement upon one of my favorite horror films. At least, however, I don't expect it to be the insult that this film is.

The bad makeup job and hair cover on the "bald" cancer kid gave me the chills, for all of the wrong reasons.

This movie is truly worthy of its award nomination for best technical rerecording .....of another movie and while I was looking forward to Shripal Morakhia's venturing into future re-recordings of similar technical precision, I was pleasantly surprise to see that the tag-line for Morakhia's latest work "The Sick House" is identical to the title of the book "Lord Have Mercy Upon Us, London's Plague Years" by Steven Porter published in 2005. The genius of it all is that Shripal's new villain is to be known as the Plague Doctor.

for some further variations to the "I see dead people"/they live among us" theme, check out 6th Sense, The Others and Angel Heart instead.

Come give us another one!

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.

This WAS a decent adaptation that brought Hindu concepts to bear on what was already a great movie. Yes; they do rip off much from THE EYE (not entirely verbatim as some have said - the eclipse and the train incident, for instance, are reinterpretations). Others do not give sufficient credit to the adaptation - this movie takes THE EYE and adds Hindu explanations of Dharma (duty) and Karma (+/- energy) to break the cycle of rebirth (materialism) and yield Nirvana (awareness). Hence, the import of the solar eclipse - representing the obscured cycle of rebirth; setting events in motion. The effects were sufficient and while I would have appreciated better subtitling or a decent dub, the acting was not too over the top. The female lead does over-act often, but I am accustomed to that growing up with and enjoying actors like William Shatner and Christopher Walken (When doesn't Al Pacino burst into a scream?!). I bought it and intend to keep it. To help others decide, this did for THE EYE what the Korean version of THE RING VIRUS did for the RING. It DOES add to the mythos!

My daughters and I are fans of foreign movies. We decided to rent this one, because we assumed by reading the DVD box, it sounded like "The Eye", which we liked. That didn't deter us from wasting money on this hand-sized version of the Black Hole of Calcutta. From the very first minute of the movie until the horrid ending, we laughed, winced, watched in disbelief of the spectacle that unfolded before our eyes--organs we wish we hadn't had in our heads while viewing this travesty. My daughters, who are 7 and 11, even thought the effects / acting (overly hammy) / deserved a good flogging. As I saw from the other comments, the bald-wig makeup, unfortunately, was the movie's only saving grace. Take it from a man and his two lovely daughters, spend your rupees on something better, like a root canal. Your eyes will thank you.

I really hate to trash movies, but "Naina" deserves it. I couldn't even bring myself to finish it because of the poor quality.

I usually find it hard to judge acting abilities or script quality in foreign films, but both we absolutely worthless in this movie. The actors sometimes spoke in Hindi and sometimes English, even within the same sentence, at times. The whole dialog track was dubbed, and some of the English voices were completely laughable. On the DVD cover, one of the blurbs commends the superior special effects... let me just say that there is an ill child in the beginning of the film who is bald, and I'm pretty sure they sell better "bald" caps at joke stores.

Don't waste your time and/or money on "Naina," watch "The Eye" instead.

an interesting story but having curse of not matured acting by Urmila...but indeed a admirable and brave attempt to change the track of Indian movies.

Before intermission movie is all about scary and spooky visions that are seen by actress, which were because of her new eyes that she got after her operations..but these scenes are so unmanaged that viewer doubts over there relevance but after the interval when director connect all them in a quaint story it pleases to see such a stupendous attempt to set a new track of Indian horror movies.

Instead of horrifying its viewer by spooky faces as it is aimed by many of horror film director,in Naina Director has tried to convey that ghosts really exists .Interestingly no where he has shown that they are harmful instead they are just a normal creature as us humans.The reason why they exists is given through a sermon by a religious Hindu guru that if a creature dies with his uncompleted wishes it turns him into a ghost and he dies at the same place and at the same time again and again.Seems bizarre but I think not that much gimmicky.

In the end a tremendous attempt to set a track for Hindi movies.