Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: This is a generally nice film, with good story, great actors and great songs. The cinematography was unfortunately bad. One of the film's weakest points is the annoying chain of sequences copied from Pretty Woman. Why? Does it hurt to attempt some originality, Abbas? Mustan? Anyone?

The film is about a newly married couple, Raj and Priya (Salman - Rani). Priya cannot conceive after an accident she had during the previous pregnancy, and they finally decide to use a surrogate mother, who will carry their child. They pick Madhubala, a vulgar prostitute played by Preity Zinta. The film is not really realistic, I mean, isn't it easier to adopt? And even if they pick a girl, does it mean the man has to sleep with her? Have you heard of insemination? Anyway, I guess if the writers had heard of all this, the film wouldn't have been made, so the concept is apparently intentional.

Salman acts very well. It's nice to see him playing a serious character. But his character suffers from unnecessary and cheap dialogues about his great love to his wife and how hard he finds it to sleep with another woman. Come on, it's cheesy and unrealistic. Rani is just about OK; she is generally effective and does try to do something with the role but gets completely overshadowed by Preity Zinta.

The film belongs to Preity, who steals the show in a big way with her flawless performance. She makes the transformation from a loud prostitute to a sensitive woman easily and naturally. She lives the film, emotes and makes you love her and admire her at the same time, partly because of her role, partly because of her magnetic and positive personality. This is one of her career-best performances. There is no doubt she is more talented than her industry contemporaries. She just should do more such roles.

The film's ending only highlights what I said above. It is tear-jerking, exciting and very well-acted. Watch it for Preity.

7/10 for the film! 10/10 - for Preity!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: This film is one that played very well back in 1932 and probably wouldn't work as well today because its style it a bit old fashioned and contrived. However, if you are the sort person, like me, who adores older Hollywood films, you cut the film a bit of slack and can enjoy it for what it is--an interesting soap.

The film is set in a ward for problem pregnancies. In this large room are about a half dozen beds in which women are waiting to give birth--but doctors are concerned about possible complications (yikes--such a room would really traumatize the mothers!). And, like an episode of "Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", each mother has her own special story. With so many rather extreme and crazy stories, you have to suspend disbelief. I could and enjoyed the film quite a bit.

Here are a few of the stories: One involves a father. You don't see the mom, but he is a very, very nervous father and it's included for comic relief. However, he was wonderful here--very touching.

Loretta Young and Eric Linden are a sad case. Loretta is sent to the hospital from prison--she apparently killed some horrible guy. You don't know exactly what occurred, but you assume he was trying to force himself on her! Yet, she was given a 20 year sentence--and her husband is devoted to her and is by her side as much as he can.

Glenda Farrell is an awful person. She has the maternal instincts of a hamster--a really, really bad and alcoholic hamster! She is pretty funny and worth seeing through most of the film. I loved her drinking from a hot water bottle filled with gin as well as becoming upset when she learns she can't make money selling her twins!! Late in the film, she has a typical Hollywood-style change of heart that was supposed to be touching--I found it contrived.

There is a woman who has given birth to a still-born baby. Amazingly, afterwords, they put the lady back in the same ward as the women waiting to give birth!!! A crazy woman, who you assumed lost a baby some time ago,wanders down from the psychiatric unit. She insists she's having a baby. Later, she escapes again and actually takes one of the kids!

There are most stories than this but the ones I mentioned are the main ones. As I said, it's a soap opera of sorts and is highly entertaining--and quite sad in the case of several of the stories. The ending, in particular, is heart-breaking and exceptionally well done. There were a few particularly good performances--especially Farrell and Aline MacMahon as the head nurse. All in all, a very good film--and I have no idea why they felt they had to remake the film just a few years later (which was typical for Warner Brothers).

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).

I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY.

The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.

Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
Phantom Lady (1944) Dir: Robert Siodmak

Production: Universal Pictures

Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis), following a nasty fight and split with his wife, looks to drown his sorrows at the local watering hole. There he spies a woman in a similar emotional state and, looking for some companionship, asks her to a show at a club to get both their minds off their problems. She agrees, but only on the condition that they keep their names to themselves. Sure enough, when Scott gets home he finds the police there, waiting to question him. His wife's been murdered. Where were you at 8 o'clock this evening, asks Inspector Burgess (Thomas Gomez)? But Scott has an alibi, right? Only he doesn't know the woman's name. And the bartender remembers Scott but not the woman. Neither does the cab driver. Nor the drummer (Elisha Cook Jr.) at the club. Even the dancer at the club, who Scott clearly caught looking at the woman (they were both wearing the same hat), won't acknowledge there was someone with him. Something is going on, but whatever it is Scott is helpless to defend himself at a trial and is sentenced to death for his wife's murder (on the flimsiest 'evidence' in Hollywood judicial history). It's left to his loyal secretary, 'Kansas' (Ella Raines), who's later joined by a sympathetic Inspector Burgess, to find out the real killer before Scott is executed.

Phantom Lady is built on themes that recur, almost compulsively, in Woolrich's work. For example, the schizophrenic antagonist is also seen in Black Angel and The Leopard Man. Additionally, there is the character who becomes mentally unhinged by the death of a sweetheart or spouse as found in Rendezvous in Black and The Bride Wore Black. It can leave a viewer feeling like he's treading on well worn ground. But in the right hands, the feverish plots, sorry dialogue, the narrative inconsistencies, all are beside the point. Fortunately, Phantom Lady was being guided by sound hands.

This is Siodmak's first noir. He would go on to distinguish himself as one of the, if not the, preeminent practitioners of the style (The Killers, Criss Cross). Here he is fortuitously paired with cinematographer Woody Bredell (they would be reunited on Christmas Holiday and The Killers). There is some great storytelling done in the camera. In one shot, the deteriorating mental state of a character is shown as he sits in front of a 3-way mirror, suggesting multiple personalities. The same character, who is an artist, has Van Gogh's self portrait with the bandaged ear hanging on the wall in his apartment. But what Siodmak and Bredell are really doing in Phantom Lady is practically creating the look for noir. Released very early in 1944, it's all here; the wet pavement, the bags of atmosphere and dread, the sharply contrasting b&w, the wildly expressionistic versions of reality (when Kansas visits Scott in prison), the discordant shafts of light, etc. It is a terrific picture to look at.

Franchot Tone aside, the cast, as well as the subject matter and relative inexperience of the director (and presumably, the budget), suggests 'B' movie ambitions. I thought Tone was a little hammy. Alan Curtis (High Sierra) is not up to much, and actually comes off pretty weak in a few scenes. Ella Raines is mostly good (and quite beautiful). Her 'sex scene' with Elisha Cook Jr. is so delirious it has to be seen to be believed. Another standout scene is when Kansas goes after the bartender to question him. It amounts to a chase scene, as she relentlessly dogs him through the streets, with a stop at a subway station. Some real good tension in there.

*** out of 4