vincentlynch-moonoi It took me a little bit to get into this film, but ultimately -- except for the ending -- I really liked it.First off, no one can accuse these filmmakers of using only handsome actors and beautiful actresses. The film is full of pretty common looking people.In terms of the ending -- I generally dislike films where the conclusion is left up in the air and where there is not some justice (where appropriate). This film failed me in both instances, but I still liked what came before the conclusion.Having said that, there are a number of things that make this film rather interesting: 1. A different take on the Indian people wanting the British out of India back in the day.2. Some striking scenery.3. 2 men trapped between 2 cultures.4. Old Indian folklore.5. No reluctance for the directors to show the abuse of Indian women by their husbands (not in a gratuitous sense).6. A couple of plot twists that surprised me, but were logical.Linus Roache plays the Brit managing a spice plantation who falls in love with an married Indian woman; I was not particularly impressed, although he did his job. Nandita Das plays the Indian woman that is the central character in the film; she does very nicely here. Rahul Bose plays the Indian man caught between 2 cultures who becomes the ultimate victim of the film; not an actor I would want to see a lot of, though he plays his part well, particularly later in the film. Jennifer Ehle plays the British wife.If you're not "into" Indian films, you may not like this, but if you do, you'll find this one a bit different and worthwhile.

selffamily I had seen this in my local DVD rental story and was waiting my turn to see it, convinced that it would be worth it. Frankly, I found it long winded and tedious. The main character has taken advantage of the local woman and she is besotted with him, convinced that he will 'save' her from everything, abandon his lifestyle, family and wealth for her. all this in a time when Indians are wanting India for themselves - odd that. I found it hard to be sympathetic to those two to start with - as a previous reviewer has noted, some of their actions were just unbelievable. The acting however, is very good, very convincing and my heart went out to TK (the real hero) and the planter's wife, who were both victims here. The scenery is stunning, the skies alone make it worth the dollars spent to watch it, but alas the story comes to an unsatisfactory ending, one is left wondering what will become of the real hero, and not really caring much about any of the others. I am sure it was a product of its time, that this situation arises wherever there are masters and servants, but you can't make a hero out of a cad, however brilliant an actor he is.

doctorsmoothlove OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking clichés. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and ½ out of *****

heyian Despite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is. The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era. For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half.