The_Film_Cricket 'Kama Sutra' has a story that would be right at home on a daytime soap opera. I say that as a criticism because both tell meaty stories and one is just as frivolous and silly as the other. Both are smooth and lovingly photographed, everyone is beautiful and everybody seems locked in some form of sexual intrigue or another.With a title like Kama Sutra you wouldn't expect anything less then eroticism and sexual politics. The story takes place in 16th century India and centers around two women a servant named Maya (Indira Varma) and the Princess Tara (Sarita Choudhury) who have been friends since childhood. Tara has been groomed from birth to be the wife of a king and is chosen by King Raj Singh (Naveen Andrews). The night before the wedding Maya seduces the king on the theory that she has always had to follow Tara to get anything and now Tara will have something that Maya has had first.Angered, Tara casts Maya out of the village. Wandering in exile she is caught up in the gaze of a sculptor who makes her his model and his lover but later decides that she can't be both and would rather she just be his model. Uh-huh. It's about here that the movie's title comes into place because Maya meets a woman who has a school that teaches the ancient art of the Kama Sutra. She proves to be adept at the ancient art that combines dance, art, philosophy and sex and uses her teachings to make her way back into the court.From Mira Nair I expected a robust story of sexual intrigue and character study but alas she hasn't created a film that is up to her best works like 'Mississippi Masala' or 'Salaam Bombay'. The story is just a clothes line on which to hang a lot of gorgeous bodies and erotic revelry. It begins with a joyfully sexy story and by the end 'Kama Sutra' doesn't have a brain in it's pretty little head.

Jackson Booth-Millard To be honest, only the thought that it would have quite a bit of sex, and the leading actor in it was what made me want to see it, that's all. You'd probably expect the film to be about various positions during sex, but the title actually means "lessons of love", and there's nothing various about that. The story, as far as I understood, is set in the 16th Century of India, where Prince Raj Singh (Lost's Naveen Andrews) is bored, and to entertain himself wants a lot of women action, if you know what I mean. During this, there is betrayal, secret love, jealousy, and all the complications you can think of in relationships. And yes, a few sex scenes along the way. Also starring Sarita Choudhury as Tara, Ramon Tikaram as Jai Kumar, Rekha as Rasa Devi, Indira Varma as Maya, Pearl Padamsee as Maham Anga and Arundhati Rao as Annabi. As I said, just the sex and the leading actor were the only things that interested me. Okay!

Liakot Ali 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.

jannings 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.