Set in 16th century India, this movie depicts the story of two girls who were raised together, though they came from different social classes. Tara (Sarita Choudhury) is an upper-caste princess while Maya (Indira Varma) is her beautiful servant. The two girls are best friends, but an undercurrent of jealousy and resentment is caused by Tara's haughtiness, symbolized by the fact that Maya is given Tara's hand-me-down clothes and never anything new to wear.During filming in India, the name of the project was not revealed to government officials who would have denied the petition to film in India had it been called "Kama Sutra." Instead, it was called "Maya & Tara." Since government officials made many periodic visits to the set to ensure proper Indian film etiquette, the cast had to improvise fake scenes which avoided the nudity and sexuality central to the story. Upon completion, authorities screened the film and it was subsequently banned in India because of the erotic scenes that contained heterosexual as well as homosexual elements.What really caught my attention about this film was Naveen Andrews. At the time he made this film, he was unknown, and remained largely unknown after the film. But then he was a main character in "Lost". I wonder how many people went back to see his past work, as it would completely change the way they might see him. It is also interesting that he has been cast in roles as both an Indian and an Iraqi. (Andrews happens to be a British-born Indian.)

I found this film preposterous and not in a good way. A clichéd plot involving kings and queens in ancient India is a feeble excuse to engage in a soft core melodrama. The lead Indira Verma, although stunningly beautiful, is a very bad actress and mistakes posturing for acting. Vetern Hindi film actress Rekha is essentially wasted in a throw-away role as an elderly courtesan who teaches nubile nymphets the art of 'pleasang their man'. Yes, it is as yucky as it sounds, and unfortunately not treated with the campiness it deserves. Worth avoiding.Overall 3/10

Kama Sutra is a good opportunity gone to waste. First of all, it must be quite hard to find a Indian actress for this role. Reason being is, at the time, there were hardly any Indian girls willing to perform sexual acts. Maybe in porn movies, but you need a professional actor as well. The two actresses who star in the movies were not that great Their acting skills weren't very impressive. Indira Varma was a little sexy in a few scenes, the other actress wasn't. The movie is titles Kama Sutra, you expect to see some different unusual positions. But No, forget positions, there's hardly any sex in it. A Daft storyline, which is apparently true with bad performances. Some of the actors cant speak English properly, with bad accent.

True, this movie does not match Mira Nair's earlier movies such as Mississippi Masala and Salaam Bombay! It is also true that much of the movie's pace is sodden and the plot is fairly predictable. And yes, unfortunate feminist tendencies creep in from time to time. But the presence alone of the incomparable Indira Varma is worth the price of admission—or the price of renting the DVD.What makes this movie valuable is its sumptuousness, as many critics noted when it premiered. The sexuality is intense; the locations in northern India are stunning; the costumes are well wrought and the music is convincing. Westerners are used in some ways to seeing movies about India, especially India of the British Raj. But this movie is set in the 16th century, well before Western influences had set in. But what makes the movie so fascinating is the "Westernized" vision that emanates from the four lead actors, all of whom were either born in or grew up in England. Indira Varma was born, I think, in Kent; Ramon Tikaram, whose voice is as resonant as any movie actor's heard in the last thirty years, grew up in Germany and later moved with his family to England. Naveen Andrews was born in London, as was Sarita Choudury. These four actors share nearly all the movie's focus, and they are thoroughly westernized. They, and directoress Nair, all got away with filming this movie under the noses of the Indian authorities. As a result, there is a delightful seditious quality to the work. But the most delightful of all is the aforementioned Indira Varma, whose stunning beauty and sexual intensity almost leap off the screen. At times she is playful, at others deeply distressed, at other times she seeks vengeance. Repeatedly she embraces her destiny with what seems to be her entire being: rarely has an actress in recent films been able so to concentrate on and immerse herself in the dangers, the hope, the expectations, and the benevolence that surround her. What a woman! And what an artist. Like all great artists, she transcends the limits of culture, critical distinctions, and artificial categorization.