Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This film uses all art-house cliches (slow pace, long static shots, minimal amount of dialog) to try to hide the fact that there really is nothing worth watching here: There is no plot to speak of, the characters are dreary (female lead) or cliche (Tersteeghe's character), and they do not ever talk to each other about anything that concerns their rather uneventful lives. The film is centered around a woman who finds out about her husbands adultery. Instead of confronting him, she half-heartedly takes revenge by committing adultery herself. After a fight and a reconciliation with her sister - who knew about the adultery without telling her - she asks her husband to stop cheating on her. They seem to be re-united as a family. Two other story lines - the planned move of the woman's elderly father with his young wife to Guernsey and the rivalry with the woman's sister - do not offer any interesting developments. The suicide of a colleague of the woman that seems to set off events in the film is not a subject in itself. For 2005 - or any other year for that matter - this is not enough to make an interesting film.

Moreover, what little possibilities for dramatic development there are in the script are not used or are consciously avoided, as when both the woman and her sister mark a particular piece of furniture from their fathers house which is going to be sold because of his planned move. Both sisters want this particular piece and given their rivalry in the past - over much more important things than furniture: men - this could in theory lead to a confrontation. Or the matter could be resolved by one sister giving way to the other. Either way, this would not be a very interesting or original development of the story but at least it would constitute some development. The film clearly sets this situation up (with both sisters looking intently at each other during the marking and one sister having mentioned she does not want to draw straws) but it cheats us out of any resolution: the scene simply ends and how this - in itself rather dreary and materialistic - issue is solved, is not shown.

Although almost completely absent, the dialog that is in the film is excruciatingly flat and tepid. For example, when during a visit to Guernsey, the 2 sisters address their rivalry it is in a three line dialog that has a childish "yes it is - no it isn't" ring to it. The fight and reconciliation scene with the 2 sisters is completely without dialog - giving a highly artificial, overly stylised and unrealistic impression and considerably reducing its impact. The way the woman finally - finally! - addresses her husbands adultery in a single line of dialog has to be seen to be believed - and is at the same time completely unbelievable. The husband does not seem to have any noticeable reaction or if he has any, it is not shown. The woman does not mention her own adultery to her husband. The scene showing the woman, husband and their young son asleep on an airliner, watched by the sister is possibly meant as a happy end, but the way the characters addressed the issues of their lives in what went before makes this unlikely.

Because of its slow pace, uninteresting story, leaden direction and absurd lack of dialog, I found this film an example of everything that can be wrong with an art-house movie and a complete waste of time.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is the second part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'.

In this one we learn how men and machines could not work and live together. It is a little history lesson in the world of 'The Matrix'. Not as good as the first part ('The Final Flight of the Osiris') but still pretty entertaining.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This movie will not sit well with some, but it is a must view. I am glad someone finally brought up for discussion the realities of HOW African American couples worked to make a name in communities and how many of them felt trying to stay there as "other" African Americans moved in.

(Minor Spoilers)

This little Showtime film is almost like a Spike Lee Joint...you have an African American male (Danny Glover) who worked his way HARD through the traditionally white law profession positions in the 1970's. Like ANY American, he moved his family to be compatable with his upwardly mobile status but forgot, there was still alot of problems going on. The only African Americans in the neighborhood at the time was the maids. One owning a home? Wow.

Then the blending in began. His wife (Whoopi Goldberg) is told to "get involved" so she does what all the other women in her neighborhood do. And just when the man thinks he and his family are "in", right next door comes another African American who got in because they won the "lotto" (Mo'nique), and in his eyes and he wants nothing to do with them for he doesn't want the neighborhood to think they are alike. He, of course is of a better calibre, his new neighbor is "ghetto" not an shouldn't be there! Who's got a problem now?

What this film shows you is the great pains it takes for this family to fit in, and how they lose themselves in the process. It makes you question where does racism begin and end...and with whom. It shows how no matter what colour you are and how much money you have, you can still shut yourself off from the real world and helping those around you. It also shows how these African American children, when "blending in" neighborhoods such as these fall into the trap of changing themselves to suit the culture (complete with blonde hair and blue eyes, mind you!) around them. They laugh along with the jokes, not knowing they ARE the joke and not knowing..why.

But overall, this film is about 'people'. No matter what race you are, this film gets into how terrible you can be towards your neighbor and toward each other...all for the sake of fitting in..all because you feel you have more money than others, so that automatically makes you better -- and you forget the struggles you had and those coming up behind you.

Again, NOT for everyone. But take a look and judge for yourself.