Q: Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer.
A: positive
Q:

As usual, I was really looking forward to a new TV/film on a favourite subject of mine - makes a nice change from a *strangely familiar* documentary about Kursk or Stalingrad on the History Channel.

I avidly looked forward to Pearl Harbour and Enemy at the Gates - but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent, stupid-ifying power of Hollywood - and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe.

So yet again I got excited about 'The Rise of Evil', especially as I heard that Ian Kershaw was involved, as I've enjoyed his books. I can see why he quit.

To quote some guy responsible for this rubbish:

"The Kershaw book was an academic piece," he said. "It was

quite dry. We needed more incidents."

Incidents? Are they totally nuts? Hitler's life cannot be said to be without 'incident' - yes Kershaw's two volume Hitler biographies were long and detailed, but they were supposed to be.

The thesis behind 'Rise of Evil' seems to be:

Hitler was a very bad man - no he was a VERY bad man, who HATED jews, and just in case you miss this, we're going to emphasise the fact in EVERY scene in the film.

There was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time, and why Hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. Needless to say - unlike the generally excellent 'Nazis - A Warning from History' - this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the Munich communist rising were Jewish, and that this may have coloured his views on the subject - and his axiomatic linking of the jews with Bolshevism - an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the Nazi era.

But there was not much understanding to be done - the film-makers weren't going to go there, so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. We certainly don't get the fascinating fact that Kershaw alludes to, which has Hitler briefly being a socialist/communist immediately after WW1. That would of course be far too complex for the film to handle, and might even detract from the relentless 'he was very bad' mantra which bangs away incessantly.

We know he was a bad man. However, we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. He could be polite and even sympathetic, and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism, anti-alcohol and anti-smoking that many Guardian readers could agree with. He was also famously fond of animals, hence why that wholly invented dog-flogging scene was so absurd.

He was also, from all the accounts I've seen, a brave soldier in WW1. Whilst we saw him with his Iron Cross, we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script, needless to say). We also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences, whilst Sassoon, Owen, Brook, Remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. And again, like the point above re the jewish/bolshevik link, this is vital to anyone's understanding about the subject. Why did he love war so much? Why did he think it was always a good idea, despite massive evidence to the contrary? Why didn't he care about his colleagues who died? Or maybe he did - but still drew the wrong conclusions.

This film certainly didn't have anything of any interest to say on this either.

As all too often these days, the film is a classic example of 'making history relevant to the present' and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with 'the present' - which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator, where you don't trust your audience an inch, so you just ram stuff down their throats, knowing (sadly correctly) that you'll always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world.

History is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present, for better and for worse. This rubbish was a great opportunity, lost again. They spent millions on it, and the locations and large scenes were impressive, but told us nothing at all we didn't know already, and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history.

WT
A: negative
Q: I was the Production Accountant on this movie, and I also got to do some voice-over work on it, so I'm not entirely unbiased, but if it were awful, I would say so. I thought it was a fun film, not a critically acclaimed masterpiece, by any means, but there were plenty of laughs along the way. The Bible states that laughter does good like a medicine, so watching this movie could be good for your health.

So many of the actors in this picture hadn't yet reached their peak at the time we made this film. Susan Sarandon, of course, is one who has since gone on to much greater fame. Melanie Mayron was seen on TV on a weekly basis as a photographer in the "Thirty-Something" TV drama series. Robert Englund later became known as Freddie Krueger, still haunting people's dreams. One of my personal favorite actors on this show was Dub Taylor, who played the sheriff. He was an excellent comedic actor, and a truly nice, sincere person. We all had fun working on this show, and I think that fun comes through.
A: positive
Q: Despite being a 2001 movie, the direction is the kind of 90's art-house style that was considered "old" and out-of-date a few years ago. The cheesy cuts and effects were painful to watch. The script is decent enough, and a few scenes did kind of captivate me (like when the taxi driver brings her to the bridge at night). But the story line with the detective who's sister killed herself and how he was obsessed with suicide was just plain terrible. The performance by the actor who plays Selma Blair's married boyfriend seriously bothered me. I did sit through the whole thing, though, which is rare for the kind of random, what-is-this movie you just find on TV and decide to watch.
A: negative