input: This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Simply great movie no doubt about it. Great story and superb performances, be it Amitabh, Akshay, Shefali, Priyanka, Boman or Rajpal. Hindi film industry is going shameless with Mallika and Co, this movie is totally vulgarity free and therefore bound to fail in vulgarity addicted our Indian society. But the message and concept this movie carries are absolutely superb. Anu Malik(boring copy-cat) could have been avoided and Ismail Darbar or Himmesh Reshmmiya could have been used as musician. I think Vipul Shah should have given little bit Gujarati touch particularly in music also. Anu Malik is worst musician around and he thinks himself popstar but this is not the movie where is presence was required-He looks only good with Govinda style songs. I felt some nice serious music with couple of good Ghazals or sad songs could have made this movie more memorable.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Very rarely does one come across an indie comedy that leaves a lasting impression. Cross Eyed is a rare gem. The writer director not only tackled the challenge of directing his own work, but gives a hilarious performance as an evil roommate. The script takes an interesting look at not only the plight of the struggling writer, but mixes so much comedy into the desolate world of the writer that you can't help but commit to Ernie as a character. Very funny stuff. Despite the tiny budget Adam Jones manages to give the film a serious look. He's not messing around when it comes to making a good movie. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. This guy can make people laugh and think; that's special.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The Intruder (L'Intrus), a film directed by French director Clair Denis, is the liberation of film. It follows its own spirit across time, space, and character. There may be a plot, but what I understood of that I picked up from the description on the Netflix DVD sleeve. Honestly, it's probably better to know nothing about the film before watching it, because then the viewer can set aside any and all expectations. The film demands that the viewer think, but also taunts the fact that he or she will not gain full understanding.

The human heart is the film's enigma. Every image questions its role, its nature, and its form. The heart is the intruder, that of the viewer and that of Louis. Louis' character is played by Michel Subor with the peace and mystery required by such a character. Honestly, anyone could've played Louis' character, if he or she possessed a wandering, willing, and comfortable heart. Yet Subor is the one featured here; he becomes the film, his identity is inseparable from it. Many of the film's images lingering in my mind revolve around his expressions, vocal but mainly physical.

The Intruder is poetic in its ability to capture the stillness and fullness of movement, but more fluid than any literature in the shape it refuses to take. "Surrealistic" has been a term used in describing this film, but perhaps "quasirealistic" is a more adequate term. Nothing in the film exists outside of the possibilities of reality; the simple omnipresent score confirms that by imagining in music the connection between heartbeat and dim light.

Watch the trailer a few times if you're attracted to visual imagery; see the film to see the consequences of the combination of verse and a grasping for freedom.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive