Raavan starts with a fascinating premise. After all, what can be worthier than watching a modern-day adaptation of the Ramayana made by Mani Ratnam himself? Upon release, the movie failed spectacularly, but I did not really care and still wanted to see it. And well, I was surely disappointed. Mani Ratnam is a very fine filmmaker, and his Dil Se is one of my favourite films. As expected, the film is a true visual treat - the cinematography is plain excellent and at times even manages to make up for many of the film's flaws. Some scenes are just a pleasure to watch, and the camera work is overall spectacular. But on the whole, as a film Raavan just really does not work, and what should and could have been gripping and captivating ends up being messy, uneven, uninteresting, and sadly, at times even boring. The problem is the script, and no matter how hard you try, at the end of the day the defining feature is always the content. Maybe the problem is with me, but I can assure that I tried to enjoy it, but couldn't. A.R. Rahman composes a nice soundtrack for the film, and it often fits the proceedings, but the background score is exaggerated. The many sadistic scenes in the movie fail to hold interest, although the action and the stunts are quite impressive. The final sequences get a bit better, but again, it's not enough. Where acting goes, the movie is mostly a letdown. Abhishek Bachchan, in the title role, is miscast. He is never convincing enough, and looks rather artificial and unnatural while trying to portray a role that is quite demanding and ambiguous. Similarly, a beautiful Aishwarya Rai is, for the most part, painfully bad. She systematically overacts, screaming and shouting arduously even when it's completely unnecessary, and overall she just fails to portray her character's gradual growth and capture its feisty nature. It's quite saddening particularly in a year when she delivered a marvelous performance as the strong and strict Sofia in Guzaarish. One can easily imagine these two lead roles from Raavan handled with much more success by more capable actors, but in their favour it can be said that their chemistry is very good and it's evident that they feel comfortable working with each other. The ending and the climactic scene are quite a turning point, but they too are not sufficient to make the movie worth-watching. Raavan is certainly not an unwatchable movie experience as many have suggested, but it's just not good enough. The movie is clearly benefited from its cinematographic excellence which makes it quite a good watch at points, but this is not a good movie make, and all-in-all, Raavan is a disappointment.

Prerequisite: Must have watched the movie Raavan. As Mani (The Director) puts it, this is a story between the hunted (Ragini), the hunter (Beera), and the haVED (Dev). The movie clearly shows that in the eyes of Ragini, the opinion about Beera is a continuum, moving towards positive shade. But what is the limit of this continuum? Is it mere affection towards Beera or something more? How does Dev's portrayal travels in Ragini's perspective? Does Dev carry "the lovable husband" tag always until the train/trick scene? Although Dev has a negative shade* even before that, we need not assume that Ragini be aware of it, as she was purposely (read cleverly) avoided in/about those instances. So, to answer the key questions above, here is an interpretation of the climax where Ragini waits for and meets Beera. In this scene, Ragini's intent to meet Beera is to clarify/question what Beera said to Dev and why. Beera gives his version of the bridge fight. In the fight, Beera has an upper hand and could have killed Dev, comfortably. He knows that Dev could come back and get him later. But for Ragini's sake he saves Dev. Valuing Ragini more than his life. On the other hand, Dev has been depicted in getting Beera through any means, including by manipulating Ragini. Among these characteristics, obviously Beera is expected to stand out in Ragini's heart. That is the moment of love, the one curbed by Ragini for Beera until, which is emphatically expressed by her in Beera's words, "Buck Buck Buck Buck, Buck Buck!." So, here is where Mani shows that the pendulum (Ragini's dilemma) swing towards Beera. Eventually Beera gets killed, in spite of Ragini's effort to save him. To sum up Beera-Ragini love, when Bee"RA"ends, "RA"gini begins. So, the limit of the continuum is the opening up of the flood gates of LOVE by Ragini towards Beera through "Buck Buck Buck Buck, Buck Buck!".This movie is definitely worth my "Buck Buck Buck Buck, Buck Buck!". So, please check it out in theatres.***** Scenes depicting negative shades of Dev: 1. Hari, the mediator gets killed by Dev. 2. Jamuni's husband when pleading for life (hand) in excruciating pain, being tortured by Dev, than being offered help. 3. Dev's continued association with Hemanth, although the latter is responsible for Jamuni's rape.Some Nu(is)ance allusions to Ramayana? 1. Raptor in Ragin's boat: Garud? 2. Bridge, Ram-Sethu bridge? Dev/Ram/Sethu/Vikram Bridge?*END*

It is a pity that no one appreciates that mani ratnam is an authentic artist and not a director. Actors, visuals, songs, screenplay are just strokes in his canvas and unlike many filmmakers the artist never has tried or never shall be limited by the grammar of cinema.Raavan is not a visual spectacle but a layered metaphor with an intangible scaffolding. It is especially unfortunate that senior artists like Senior Bachchan fail to recognize that the artist i.e the director intentionally manipulated screenplay, extracted a particular kind of performance from the Junior Bachchan to paint a metaphor that is so eclectic, complex and yet beautiful. Even the resemblance to raamayan, and perhaps certain life of a particular jungle brigand, I suspect, where created intentionally to further layer and affect the metaphor called "raavan". I would seriously suggest people to watch iruvar by the same artist and the thin red line. Kindly don't try to analyze this work of art just try to savour it and don't watch it again as banality and sense of trite shall plague your experience.Some of the condescending reviews by Ms. Saltz, and Mr. Lumenick just reveals that unlike Indians who do appreciate, common art forms, such as cinema, that would inevitably be culturally afflicted, the western and even a few of the Indian critics lack the ability to identify that individuality and a will to avoid the boundaries of dictatorial cinematic grammar results in a pure and versatile form of art.

I first saw this movie and was bold over. Completely driven by passion and being more than 2 years in making, the film actually caters to the senses rather than intellect.Starts on a high pitch, it moves on a roller coaster ride and ends in the shockingly magical movement, a cinematic thrill, it can be called.If seen as a one piece, not as fragments like performances, music, direction or screenplay, this movie can be the 2 hour 20 minute immersion in the waters from which when u come out feels like ooh..this world still exists!@#$?.This is the best till date from Mani Ratnam. The second time I saw this movie I felt just the images not the sounds. In the era of Tata-Sky- Plus-record-now-and-watch-later, not many can savor a movie of beauty spontaneously but the times to come, more will surely get the pleasure of watching this movie.