GamerTab That was an excellent one.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

GrunterGrimm It's not likely this movie will appeal to anyone but Merchant-Ivory devotees, Trinidadians or people who lived in Trinidad during the era depicted by the movie, V. S. Naipaul fans, mystics, or massage practitioners. And it's possible you're a V. S. Naipaul fan because he's a Trinidad success story himself. I grew up in pre-Independence Trinidad for a few years as a small boy around the time the story takes place and have a memory of its spectacular scenery and lush interior flatlands, tablelands and mountains, its towns and villages and seashores and eccentric stew of ethnic inhabitants. Later when my family returned in the late 60's we revisited the land of our youth to find many changes, not least in the change in attitude of blacks towards whites. After one summer there again as a teenager, my father sent my brother and I back to school in Canada each with a copy of a V. S. Naipaul novel. I got "Miguel Street" and was glad of it, although I never read my brother's copy of "A House for Mr. Biswas". I do know, however, that Naipaul has captured the essence of Trinidadian "wannabee-ism", and yearning for national independence, in "The Mystic Masseur". I rented this movie because I lived in Trinidad, but might have bypassed it if not for the Merchant-Ivory production. I was not surprised to note a wild assortment of "Trinidadian" accents, although the writers nailed the twisted colloquialisms, sort of like, "She took de ice-cold box of chicken breast and put it under she nylon dress." I recall the outdoor kitchens, and the dusty, flyblown stores of the rural areas denoted in the movie. I recall the taxis, which were privately-owned vehicles travelling established routes picking up and letting people off where they wanted. A glaring oversight is the lack of deployed mosquito-netting in the bedrooms - and no one slaps away the relentless onslaught of mosquitoes and no-see-ums at any time. The movie and novel do carefully depict the credulous, deceptive, argumentative, insulting behaviour of the uneducated, rural and poor folk. The acting, apart from the accents, is done enthusiastically by the Asian players, with James Fox bringing some Merchant-Ivory to the role of a crazy, old, English sadhu. So, this movie will seem slow and boring to people who don't know Trinidad either from Naipaul or from having lived there during the era the movie depicts, and I'm afraid that while it's a lovely movie to look at, and fairly authentic in it's depiction of rural Trinidadian life, I suppose, it's a slow-moving piece of obscure nostalgia.

peytonwestlake Don't believe the comments, this film is a pleasant surprise, not pretentious artistic butler garbage. The film depicts a young Indian teacher in Trinidad in the 1940s, an aspiring intellectual in a rural, isolated village. The acting in this movie is its strongest point, the dynamic between the title character and the villagers, including his wife and father-in-law are cute, homey, and very refreshing, a merriness not seen in many mainstream films in the last 10 years. Om Puri, as the protagonist's father-in-law is truly hilarious in his portrayal of a bumpkin fascinated with the ways of the educated. Aside from the abrupt ending this flick is a real charming piece of film candy. The photography in the lush, rainy, green of Trinidad is also notable.

Cipher-J The look and feel of this film is of a "real" story, based at least somewhat on facts, although it seems rather too preposterous to be real. We are presented with a semi-literate, backwater Hindu cracker, in love with "books" the way people of limited literacy tend to be, desiring nothing so much as to write some himself, but with barely enough talent to produce more than grandiose pamphlets. Similarly, with no actual training or experience to draw from, he imagines himself to be a gifted masseur. Evidently in the more rustic districts of Trinidad, where superstitions run high, people were greatly impressed by such pretensions, and he does rather well for himself. Soon he is holding "court" on his potato patch, with lines of rural boobs waiting their turn to be blessed or have their marital quarrels adjudicated. The film has a Hindu flavor of the American Evangelical movement of the 1920s, somewhat squalid and shabby intellectually. It is presented in retrospect form the point of view of a young fellow who experienced a "spiritual healing" from the pundit in his childhood. The lettered rube is therefore treated with the greatest respect, as though nearly a Gandhi or Nehru! It is exceedingly well done technically and artistically, if only the story was less peculiar and doltish.

Rogue-32 The only reason I didn't rate this film a 10 is because the ending felt a bit too abrupt; aside from that, it's a wonderful film. NOT dull, as some people are calling it. This film traces the rise in power of a man (perfectly portrayed by Aasif Mandvi) who has big dreams and manages to make them into realities. . .and THEN some. -=- minor spoiler alert -=- It's also a great cautionary tale as well, about what happens when you 'sell out' in life, either by trying to please too many people or becoming too power-driven by your own ego. These points are NOT rammed into the viewer's head by any heavy-handed means, however - it is a film of beautiful subtlety and humor. Except for that too-abrupt ending, Merchant-Ivory got this one right.