Rating: 
Summary: why bother?
Review: Women running away from unsuccessful marriages. You couldn't say the two protagonists are in love with each other any more than they are not in love with their respective spouses. You couldn't even say for sure that the two women are indeed the protagonists, so poorly is their relationship shown. The director appears to have thrown everything into the editors room and accepted a pastiche of mawkish westernised platitudes and (in this ingredient I can only guess because I have not studied Hindu or for that matter Indian culture) and Hindu stereotypes. The mood is almost opressively depressing and claustrophobic without any single character's point of view to give the viewer of this third rate potboiler a line of sight on the presumed predicament contained in the story. So the men are wimps, gulls and sneaks? The women are good-hearted and poorly done-by?
I don't belive it. Perhaps the film's final shot - a long, drawing-away picture of an exhausted and shocked woman being gingerly attended to by her younger sister-in-law in an alien religion's temple - shows that Mehta thinks every Hindu married woman should exit her culture no matter what. This thought is further reinforced by the single joyous scene in the movie where the two women are part of the audience of a wonderful Sufi musical turn.
Or maybe I have missed the theme and I should be reading the film as a modern version of the 2 traditional stories so mawkishly interspersed in the action? Then why bother to make the film in English for a non-Indian audience? Either way, Mehta has bombed very badly here. I wonder if she should have considered including a treatment of the 2 Hindu goddesses I was taught about by a Hindu mate: Dhurga (sp.) and Kali. Would they have ended up in a heap on the floor? The wonderful Azmi and Das deserve so much better than Mehta has done for them. I suggest for a sensitive and nuanced version of the theme of why and how women depart traditional marriage that you see Diane Kurys "Entre Nous". Then at least you will believe that two women have fallen in love with each other.
Rating:
Summary: Same Old Tired Stereotypes
Review: ' and, judging from the comments posted here by various customer reviewers, we 'enlightened' Americans are only too happy to buy into them. Check out the condescension: - 'It is hard for some to truly understand how little freedom; either in opinion or in movement women have in some eastern cultures.' - 'Understandably, most westerners would find it difficult to relate to the reality of a culture which has traditionally allowed men to get away with such MCP attitudes.' - 'This film tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on.' A few posters go on to speculate that Indians did not like this film because 'many saw this movie and feared that it would cause women to question their own place in society.' - 'I wondered to myself, what could be so controversial in this film that it would cause an entire country to ban its existence? I rented it and do you know what? It turned out that the threat was new ideas that challenged traditional culture.' - 'The violence and controversy it sparked in the conservative Hindu state of Maharashtra are documented in the "extras"; more than anything else, the ability of this film to panic conservative forces, and thereby elicit mob violence, speaks to its power and lasting value as a challenge to institutions that (however benign they may seem on the surface) keep women down.' I must first of all point out that (as others have noted) the film was initially released in India, but subsequently banned due to the violent reaction of certain extremist groups and the inability of the police to prevent it (not because of the lesbian content or fears that Indian women would get all out of control), which only resulted in a national backlash against the Censor Board, so that it was re-released three months later "without a single cut." Second, if anyone is actually interested in the *informed insider's* response to 'Fire' (for a refreshing change of pace), check out Madhu Kishwar's, a well-known Hindu feminist and editor of the Indian feminist journal, Manushi, review in which she critiques both the film and Western chauvinism and condescension. I recommend that you watch the movie and then read Kishwar's review and then give some serious thought to the issues that *both* bring up.
Rating:
Summary: Next movie
Review: This movie is garbage. Just like American films are fictional, this movie is also fictional. How can you compare traditional movies to this movie? You cannot.
Rating: 
Summary: dispute over film & lingering memories
Review: There has been a dispute over whether or not this movie was banned in India. The following statements were in the Washington Post: I have been the butt of Hindu and Muslim threats and intimidation," said Azmi, recalling the furor her film "Fire" sparked in 1996 with a story about two sisters-in-law who fall in love and seek erotic solace to escape their unhappiness. Mobs attacked the theater, tearing out the furniture, and the actress was accused of being "wicked" and "criminal" by extremist Hindu parties such as Shiv Sena. The film was withdrawn, which created a backlash. Spontaneous street demonstrations brought the return of "Fire" after three months "without a single cut," the actress noted. So everybody is right. :-) I don't know if I have ever written a review before but I found this movie to be sad and one that stayed with me... Most movies I tend to forget fairly quickly, and I don't even watch a whole lot of movies, but I found scenes in this movie to be truly disturbing. At first I thought the movie was okay but as time goes on I have grown to appreciate it more and more. I like movies that are memorable and that provide memories which linger. This movie is definitely unusual, unique. A little dramatic, especially at the end, but I guess that's okay.
Rating:
Summary: Tradition and forbidden love in contemporary India
Review: This 1996 film from India was written and directed by Deepa Mehta, not known to shy away from controversial themes. Here, she introduces the viewer to a beautifully photographed bustling city where an extended family live together and run a video store and restaurant. When the younger philandering brother marries in an arranged marriage and brings his bride to the household, we get to meet the family through the young woman's eyes. There's the bedridden elderly mother who cannot speak but uses a small bell to make her wants known. There's her husband's brother who has taken a vow of celibacy because his wife is infertile. And there's the male servant who indulges in his own kind of gratification. The two sister-in-laws are unhappy. A forbidden romance between them ensues. The entire theme is handled in an understated way and the romantic scenes between the women are clouded in shadow. There's a lot unsaid. And yet, the film is about a lot more than just these two women and their predicament. It is about the emerging role of women to make choices in a modern Indian society. It's about the deep conflicts between tradition and the reality of modern times. The entire cast does an excellent job. I felt I was right there in that household. And the director even introduced some mysticism and epic poetry. It was a gentle film though, in spite of its bold theme. And that is what made it interesting. The characters all spoke English, which made the film easy for me to watch. But, in spite of it being well done, I found it slow and boring in parts. There were few new plot developments to hold my interest, just an elaboration of the same theme. It was only 104 minutes long but was too long to me. If Indian films are new to you, this might be a good introduction. It really brings the viewer right inside the experience of having to deal with forbidden love in contemporary India.
Rating: 
Summary: Film is not banned in India
Review: I like the movie, something new to the indian audiens. But Film was never banned in India, like some reviewers writes. Instead film has been a hit in India too.
Rating:
Summary: fire
Review: The best movie, best actress, best actor, best suppoting actor, best supporting actress, of all time. No better group of actors has ever performed in cinema. Deepa Metha is to be applauded for her vision.
Rating: 
Summary: not what i expected
Review: i had heard soo much about this movie that i had been wanting to get it for such a long time. after i got it i was really disappointed. i found the movie dull, and non eventual. i would pass on this..
Rating:
Summary: fire
Review: I bought this movie, and was rewarded with a story, that will live in infamy. This is such a beautiful love story, that it can be replayed over and over. Would I be as affected if I weren,t lesbian is the question, and like Bound I believe that it doesn't matter. When love is good and real, it really doesn't or shouldn't matter who is being loved, as long as the felings are mutual.
Rating:
Summary: amazing movie........watch it
Review: I never knew that such cultures have these lesbian issues, it's an interesting movie to watch, and I really recommand you to watch it, I wish there are more selections of such movies from these parts of world.
| 
