Simply put: Do not see. Or see it. Or see it on TV later. This film is not worthy of such discussion.
FOR THE PEOPLE FROM KASHMIR (1). For people from Kashmir, who are looking for some authenticity in the storyline; I am sorry to say that the situations are mostly contrived. The objective is to create pathos for the hero of the film. So, the army is shown as the aggressor in a vacuum and its actions as the instigators for the common man. Many times, the people who fund such propaganda/ political movies have their own agendas and it appears to be very much the case here. There are other objectives and those are from the political leanings of the well-known, separatist-sympathizing, script-writer Basharat Peer. (2). In reality, the anti-terrorist local force, Ikhwan was made more from the people who had been wronged by the terrorists and not from turncoat terrorists. The cause and motivation of these Ikhwanis is not explained as such. The horrors and miseries of the terrorists (many of them being non-Kashmiris from Pakistan and Afghanistan) upon the common man and women, which created Ikhwanis, are not shown. Ikhwanis are shown as mercenaries under the guidance of the Army but Ikhwanis were actually the ones who had earlier been wronged and tortured by monster terrorists and that was their motivation against them. In the film, this Ikhwan-Ul-Muslimeen is deliberately called the Ikhwan-Ul-Mukhbareen. The subtlety in changing the nomenclature should not be lost on you if you are from Kashmir. The History of Kashmir and the names of places in Kashmir are being rewritten with an agenda and the story of the Ikhwan-Ul-Muslimeen seems to have been rewritten with the same agenda. (3). For Kashmiri Hindus, half a million of whom were forced into mass exodus, there is barely any mention and no background is provided about them. The script writer/ movie maker sees that if it was done, you could not develop pathos for any terrorist and Haider eventually is just a terrorist. (4). In the future, if a writer were to actually weave all the subplots (Kashmiri Hindus, What the army was up against, Torture of Locals by the Terrorists, Reasons for the Ikhwan, Role of the rich and the famous and the well off from among the Kashmiri Muslims .) into the narrative, it will be a hell of a story. Haider is not.
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE THE BACKGROUND ON KASHMIR (I will stick to facts) (1). There were 2 rows occupied in the entire hall. 1 row was occupied by people of Kashmiri origin and their friends. (2). The people in the row behind the Kashmiris were fidgety after the first 20 minutes of the movie. They would walk out and walk back in. I am not sure how many stayed for the length of the movie. (3). The story is supposed to be adapted from Hamlet. During the portions of the movie that touch the Hamlet storyline, one could only hear guffaws and lack of inclination towards the film. (4). During what should have been the most touching scenes and songs, people kept casually leaving their seats to fetch popcorn, to ease their heads, to take a break (5). After the movie, during the follow-up dinner, I asked some of the non-Kashmiri friends what they thought of the movie. They are open-minded, liberals and what you will call very secular. They did not believe the storyline was as much about Kashmir as it was about Haider and his conflicting/ unclear emotions for his mother and her undeclared, under the covers relationship with his uncle. Unfortunately, this portion of the story and the inter-relationships of the people were not developed well because the script-writer/ filmmaker chose to cover the Kashmir issue way more than required. The movie therefore became a hotchpotch. Even without any background, the non-Kashmiri people in the audience did not believe that the story was anywhere close to the truth. It was just their feeling about the story, even if it had been fact. The problem was that the script-writer/ film-maker tried too hard to thrust their emotion on the audience and that fact had not been lost. Think of a salesman trying too hard to sell to you and your reaction! (6). Their rating for the movie ranged from 1.5 to 2. They said that if they did not know that it was based on Hamlet and if it was an original story, they may have rated it 2.5.
CONCLUSION This movie is not a game-changer or a piece of history for anyone. You can safely watch it now, ignore it, watch it for free on TV later, save your time and do something better ..
(1). It will not appeal to the young Muslims because they know that it is not the truth. They are up against an incredible amount of propaganda anyway and if they have to be affected, it will be due to that propaganda than due to this movie. (2). The Kashmiri Hindus will know that this is a lop-sided story. They should not worry that general people (other Indians, an international audience ) will believe in this being a statement of truth. (3). The remaining audience finds the movie to be only moderately entertaining (for art, visuals, drama, suspense ) but certainly not a reflection of truth.
FOR THE PEOPLE FROM KASHMIR (1). For people from Kashmir, who are looking for some authenticity in the storyline; I am sorry to say that the situations are mostly contrived. The objective is to create pathos for the hero of the film. So, the army is shown as the aggressor in a vacuum and its actions as the instigators for the common man. Many times, the people who fund such propaganda/ political movies have their own agendas and it appears to be very much the case here. There are other objectives and those are from the political leanings of the well-known, separatist-sympathizing, script-writer Basharat Peer. (2). In reality, the anti-terrorist local force, Ikhwan was made more from the people who had been wronged by the terrorists and not from turncoat terrorists. The cause and motivation of these Ikhwanis is not explained as such. The horrors and miseries of the terrorists (many of them being non-Kashmiris from Pakistan and Afghanistan) upon the common man and women, which created Ikhwanis, are not shown. Ikhwanis are shown as mercenaries under the guidance of the Army but Ikhwanis were actually the ones who had earlier been wronged and tortured by monster terrorists and that was their motivation against them. In the film, this Ikhwan-Ul-Muslimeen is deliberately called the Ikhwan-Ul-Mukhbareen. The subtlety in changing the nomenclature should not be lost on you if you are from Kashmir. The History of Kashmir and the names of places in Kashmir are being rewritten with an agenda and the story of the Ikhwan-Ul-Muslimeen seems to have been rewritten with the same agenda. (3). For Kashmiri Hindus, half a million of whom were forced into mass exodus, there is barely any mention and no background is provided about them. The script writer/ movie maker sees that if it was done, you could not develop pathos for any terrorist and Haider eventually is just a terrorist. (4). In the future, if a writer were to actually weave all the subplots (Kashmiri Hindus, What the army was up against, Torture of Locals by the Terrorists, Reasons for the Ikhwan, Role of the rich and the famous and the well off from among the Kashmiri Muslims .) into the narrative, it will be a hell of a story. Haider is not.
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE THE BACKGROUND ON KASHMIR (I will stick to facts) (1). There were 2 rows occupied in the entire hall. 1 row was occupied by people of Kashmiri origin and their friends. (2). The people in the row behind the Kashmiris were fidgety after the first 20 minutes of the movie. They would walk out and walk back in. I am not sure how many stayed for the length of the movie. (3). The story is supposed to be adapted from Hamlet. During the portions of the movie that touch the Hamlet storyline, one could only hear guffaws and lack of inclination towards the film. (4). During what should have been the most touching scenes and songs, people kept casually leaving their seats to fetch popcorn, to ease their heads, to take a break (5). After the movie, during the follow-up dinner, I asked some of the non-Kashmiri friends what they thought of the movie. They are open-minded, liberals and what you will call very secular. They did not believe the storyline was as much about Kashmir as it was about Haider and his conflicting/ unclear emotions for his mother and her undeclared, under the covers relationship with his uncle. Unfortunately, this portion of the story and the inter-relationships of the people were not developed well because the script-writer/ filmmaker chose to cover the Kashmir issue way more than required. The movie therefore became a hotchpotch. Even without any background, the non-Kashmiri people in the audience did not believe that the story was anywhere close to the truth. It was just their feeling about the story, even if it had been fact. The problem was that the script-writer/ film-maker tried too hard to thrust their emotion on the audience and that fact had not been lost. Think of a salesman trying too hard to sell to you and your reaction! (6). Their rating for the movie ranged from 1.5 to 2. They said that if they did not know that it was based on Hamlet and if it was an original story, they may have rated it 2.5.
CONCLUSION This movie is not a game-changer or a piece of history for anyone. You can safely watch it now, ignore it, watch it for free on TV later, save your time and do something better ..
(1). It will not appeal to the young Muslims because they know that it is not the truth. They are up against an incredible amount of propaganda anyway and if they have to be affected, it will be due to that propaganda than due to this movie. (2). The Kashmiri Hindus will know that this is a lop-sided story. They should not worry that general people (other Indians, an international audience ) will believe in this being a statement of truth. (3). The remaining audience finds the movie to be only moderately entertaining (for art, visuals, drama, suspense ) but certainly not a reflection of truth.