I had subscribed, but how come Iam not receiving any updates :(

!!! Spoilers in this comment !!!

Hey Mayur, why does it fail? That too despite God bleeding for its child? Despite all the efforts taken by a staunch believer. And the other religion just needs a 5 minute chant by a person who has lost faith midway.

I wasn't even talking of the symbols, etc. Exorcism failing - full stop - would have been a very interesting take on religion especially considering science had already failed. But, they went ahead and made another religion succeed at something the first couldn't do. That according to me is unacceptable. Even if it is done a hundred times by other movies.

"Its like creating issue(where religions are involved) out of a non-issue."

Yikes!! That is something I would hate to do and is not my intention at all. These reviews are my thoughts written down as I walk out of the theater. So, you can count it as another reaction to the movie.

Did you like the movie, then?

[comment modified to mask abusive language]

f!*k meetu

1920 is a good film.
f!*k writers like meetu.

Agree with Mayur and disagree with Meetu.
Seriously Meetu, where did you find the religious discrimination part? As Mayur put it, I see it simply as an act where the hero triumphs(again, he has to, he is the hero).

Spoiler Alert
The excorcism was never completed, coz the possessed body ran away
The Hanuman Chalisa chants, on the other hand get completed. The body tries to run away, but the hero doesn't lets it.
I didnt see "anywhere" the concept of one religion succeeding where other failed.

Spoiler Ends

I suggest you watch the movie again.
No, seriously

Otherwise, decent review.
:-)

I think u just misinterpreted! Yeah i too thought for a moment that why could the priest not do anything but the Hindu guy could? But didnt u c that even the Hanuman Chalisa took so much time to destroy the evil spirit??? And may be if the priest wouldve been alive n performed his rituals for a little longer, he could've succeeded???

Or may be when the priest spoke to the spirit in English, he didnt understand ???? hahah that was a random comment made by my friend in the movie hall... jokes apart, its just that ur reading too much into it! Its just a personal way of interpreting... u think there was discrimination but its possible that the director's never meant this kinda offense?? :) Chill bout it! Just fiction

Hmmm...Jazz, wasn't it the writer's decision to make the priest fail? Not to think about such things is according to me irresponsible. Anyway, chilling is the only thing I can do, right? Other than fuming on this site :)

No thanks, amit, i'm happy accepting that you didn't have the problems that i had with the movie. Don't need to see the movie again :)

Maybe the spirit belonged to that particular religion, juz like ‘The Fearless Vampire Killers’ :) (i ve not seen the movie yet, just guessing)

Just watched the movie..( only bcoz of ur review, had to find out abt the religious superiority thing, otherwise there were no plans :) ). And seriously meetu, was not able to find any instance in the movie where superiority of one religion was implied over another. I am not able to understand what made you think so. Scenes about the religious artifacts, where evil spirit shows its strength are quite common and copied from english movies of the same genre. Vikram Bhatt is known for that, not for communal thinking :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BIG SPOILERS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The process of exorcism does not fail, it never gets completed.(again same kind of scenes are present in at least couple of dozen movies), at the other end, process gets completed for Hanuman Chalisa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the ‘religion superiority implication’ flavor given to ur review plus adding the links abt communal tension involving respective religions is really surprising. Its like creating issue(where religions are involved) out of a non-issue. A real disappointment.

@meetu, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>only spoilers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok lets talk in typical bollywood language now.. A side-hero tries to practice exorcism but the spirit takes the body away n people carrying out the exorcism fails to stop the spirit from taking away tht body from the ‘exorcism place’.( again it does not fail, just never gets completed, its their first time u know :) ). Now everyone else is down, so “hero” comes into the picture and with his better muscular strength he carries out his method of spirit destruction, only this time learned from the previous mistake he does not let spirit take away the body.(if the spirit was successful with this, even this method would ve failed..) Now the side-hero and hero belongs to different religions and they have their different religious weapons. At the end of the day in bollywood movies only hero conducts the final act. We should give that much liberty to film directors, shall we not? Even my point in comment#1 cud be valid, but i don’t expect Vikram Bhatt to think that much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, the movie is being certified by Indian censor board, the most orthodox censor board on planet earth. If they didn’t find any religion related problem with that, there is no problem. The movie is trash btw.. I heard Beethoven first time in a hindi movie (that too my favorite symphony), I can give one star just for that :)

Agree with Mayur and disagree with Meetu. Seriously Meetu, where did you find the religious discrimination part? As Mayur put it, I see it simply as an act where the hero triumphs(again, he has to, he is the hero). Spoiler Alert The excorcism was never completed, coz the possessed body ran away The Hanuman Chalisa chants, on the other hand get completed. The body tries to run away, but the hero doesn’t lets it. I didnt see “anywhere” the concept of one religion succeeding where other failed. Spoiler Ends I suggest you watch the movie again. No, seriously Otherwise, decent review. :-)

I think u just misinterpreted! Yeah i too thought for a moment that why could the priest not do anything but the Hindu guy could? But didnt u c that even the Hanuman Chalisa took so much time to destroy the evil spirit??? And may be if the priest wouldve been alive n performed his rituals for a little longer, he could’ve succeeded??? Or may be when the priest spoke to the spirit in English, he didnt understand ???? hahah that was a random comment made by my friend in the movie hall… jokes apart, its just that ur reading too much into it! Its just a personal way of interpreting… u think there was discrimination but its possible that the director’s never meant this kinda offense?? :) Chill bout it! Just fiction @ meetu … yeah n why dont u c it this way - The climax had the lead actor saying “we all are here with a purpose!”… so may be God’s purpose of not letting the priest’s rituals work was to make the hero realise the importance of faith??? We saw that he bowed down to Lord Hanuman and everything fell in place. So his faith was brought back by fate. If the priest would’ve succeeded, the hero wouldnt have realised the power of God! :)

i feel 1920 is a gud movie to watch out……… meetu i think u need to c it again 1 reason 4 priest not able to throw the evil spirit away is may b lack in his faith which is showm wen he sees snake aroun his neck.understand??also the other priest had said to him that he must not perform the exorcism coz it requires a lot of faith 4 The god on the other hand the hero has much faith 4 his god n he never let the spirit take the body inspite of the pain given to him by the spirit………

This movie is copy of hollywood movie excorism of emily rose…. but i like the movie as indian show again they are best in making copies…. Acting of both new one is excellent…. must watch movie