GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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.

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 *****

vitaleralphlouis Before the Rains is a beautifully made drama set in south India in 1937. An engrossing story, it shows us what India was like and awakens our interest in foreign lands. But what stuck in MY mind was the extreme difficulty of having a sexual/romantic encounter in this time and place.Young people these days take their sex fast and casual. There is no way they can ever understand the restraints of the pre-1960 era (let alone 1937). And this was the case in India, or in the USA. With most women married well before their 18th birthday, with marriage being respected by society, with the remaining single people mostly being (obvious) born losers, non or extra marital sex was virtually impossible, and could lead to the serious and multi-complicated downfalls portrayed in this movie. Easy to say had the lovers handled things wiser or smarter their ultimate problems might have been easier. But wait, they DID handle their situation wisely......

Chris Knipp Somerset Maugham was a master of colonial adultery. His short stories are full of it, men and women in this or that corner of the British Empire getting themselves into devastating marital fixes. In 'Before the Rains,' the Indian cinematographer and director Santosh Sivan muddles his tropical tragedy of adultery as Maugham would never have done.Henry Moores (Linus Roache) is a planter in the Kerala province of India where a fresh revolt against the British Raj is just brewing; it's 1937. He is having an affair with his beautiful native housekeeper while his wife and young son are away on an extended stay in England. On an idyll gathering honey in a sacred grove Moores and his housekeeper are spotted by two little boys while making love (though, lucky for him, they don't recognize Moores). Shortly thereafter Moores' wife and son return to India and trouble ensues that disturbs the house and the planter's ambitious project to build a freight road up over the hills. He was meaning to expand from tea into spices--generously promising to share the resulting profits with his local assistant, T.K. (Rahul Bose). T.K. is a childhood friend of Sajani, the housekeeper (Nandita Das) and lives on the premises, having in his possession a pistol Moores has just given him as a reward for his help and loyalty. Three guesses what that's going to lead to.In Maugham's stories the equations are simple and relentless. So are they here, but the power and focus of the story are undermined by the way not just one but all three of the main characters try to dodge the inevitable while the lovely lens of Sivan dwells overlong on the scenery indoors and out. Sajani is understandably unable to accept that she's dispensable. Moores, who is either spineless or a fantasist, tries to pretend nothing is amiss. T.K., who has one foot uneasily planted in each of two opposing worlds, thinks he can protect his Sahib and still not become an outcast in the village. But the village is a place to whose laws T.K. remains subject and in which Sajani still lives with an angry husband. The latter is already suspicious of her even before the boys tell their story and is permitted by the local code to beat her, just because he cares.Maugham would have brought things to their highest pitch in the awful moments when Moores's wife Laura (the usually excellent Jennifer Ehle, rather wasted here) looks for cheer or affection or even just ease from her husband and he cannot oblige. But Sivan hasn't enough time to draw the full value from that. He's busy with too many other things--the trap Sajani gets into; T.K.'s dilemma; the impending revolt; delays that may keep the road project from its necessary completion before the monsoon. There's much about the village system of justice, including a novel test of a defendant's truthfulness. There's even the repeated worry that Moores will lose the loan he took out for the road project. Maugham would wisely have paid a lot less attention to anything peripheral to the psychological and moral drama. The trouble is that Sivan's a bit like T.K.: he wants to work on both sides of the stream, shine his light on the colonials with their linens and khaki and bathtubs (and, like in Ang Lee's overwrought 'Lust Caution,' on their shiny period motor cars)--and also look into the village culture and the bonds of Indian family life. Besides which, he can't stop training his lens on the pretty surroundings, even though at this point they're certainly not a concern of the principals and shouldn't be ours.Everybody plays their role, nothing more: psychological subtlety is lacking. Sajani is beautiful and passionate and disappointed. Moores pleases everyone and no one. T.K. is sweaty and loyal. Moores' wife is confused, her final realization of everything coming in an instant with buggy eyes--no time for the slow burn. Though T.K. is pivotal, he isn't really interesting. We don't get to look into his mental confusion. This is no 'Passage to India', and subtle insights into racism and the breakdown of communication between cultures aren't forthcoming. As so easily happens when too many balls are being juggled, the pacing suffers and events just gradually lumber along. There's not much danger of giving away the ending because it's a muddle.The choice of a specific point of view would have sharpened and intensified everything. In the absence of that, the main characters lack complexity. Moores as played by Roache is almost a blank, hard to care about one way or the other. If only he were either a true romantic, or an obvious cad, but no such luck. If only T.K. had doubts, or were more foolish or overeager. Of course we care about poor Sajani, but this is most clearly not from her point of view: once she's in trouble, she is mostly off-screen. Ironically Moores' young son Peter (Leopold Benedict), though he hasn't many lines, seems as interesting as the others because he at least has an arresting face. We thought Merchant Ivory was a dead operation since Merchant himself literally passed away in 2005, but this is attributed to Merchant Ivory. It has the Merchant Ivory gloss but not the Merchant Ivory glow; in fact Ivory had nothing to do with the production. The director's earlier 'The Terrorist' was a vividly claustrophobic little story; interestingly, it was entirely and intensely from the protagonist's point of view, the thing that is so lacking here. Sivan has drifted, unfortunately, into a more conventional, diffuse mode.