Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: ... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.

Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.

Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Hmm I agree with the reviewer who said that "strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film". I thought the film was intriguing enough to watch it. I think that was primarily because of Marsden and Speedman - not the plot.

The bottom line is that this film is mildly psychologically tantalizing on the one hand and profoundly homophobic on the other. Thumbs up on the former and triple thumbs down on the latter. I'm not sure if the film is intended to promote dialogue or to spread fear and propaganda.

I thought the acting was mediocre. A lot of conversation that was about 90 degrees askew of reality. I kept wanting to derive some meaning from the plot, but it's ultimately just a conversation with a mad man (Speedman). I feel mildly sorry for him (Speedman) because of his loss, but not really. His loss is no greater and certainly is less than losses suffered every day around the world by more significant causes.

Does the film expose naivete about HIV/AIDS? Yes: That of the intended audience. Is HIV a dark, mysterious, evil killer? What about it's victims? The answer to both questions is NO. Neither HIV nor its victims have any more or less malevolent intent than lupus, multiple sclerosis, TB, hepatitis, CANCER, or their victims, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just because a disease is communicable does not make it EITHER deliberate OR negligent - or evil - it just IS.

Does this excuse ignorance or fool-hardy risk taking? - NO. Should all people practice safe sex? - YES. Will safe sex save the world? - NO. Is safe sex realistic in all instances of love and lust between passionate and emotional human beings? OF COURSE NOT. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone followed the rules, no one ever took risks, and sex was never spontaneous and passionate??? Am I ignoring that the film deals specifically with gay sex? YES. HIV is spread by sharing blood or bodily fluids between infected and non-infected individuals. Sex is not necessary for transmission, gay or otherwise.

I'm always disturbed by willful violence of one person upon another. I actually thought the film did do a good job of portraying the absurdity of Tom's violent abduction, captivity, and intent towards Dan, and this kind of insane violence does occur every day.

Stream of consciousness notes from the film: Tom is crazy.

Why doesn't Dan ask "why" do you feel this way, rather than "what are you doing"? Implication: men who have sex with men get "AIDS" Implication: HIV = AIDS Where was Tom's responsibility in the sex act? Why was it Dan's responsibility to use the condom? "maybe you slipped it off before you stuck it in" What are we talking about here? Was one of the parties unconscious? "Maybe she didn't want to hear the truth" are you kidding me "She's up in heaven and so unbelievably hurt about what she now knows about me" right Is Dan's life over if he has HIV? Certainly NOT! Is this why the whole world is so homophobic???? They think gay men are the cause of HIV, that they will give it to the rest of the world, and we will all die are you kidding me??? Are people really stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the cause... is the problem??? Do we feel that way about the victims of tuberculosis? of malaria? I can see that Tom is hurt because of his wife's death, and he blames it on AIDS, but seriously who's at fault here? The victim or the virus? Are illnesses really the responsibility of the ill? (presuming they did not seek and did not seek to spread the disease).

Sure, safe sex is essential to a safe life, but so is not-driving, not-flying, not-leaving the house, not-living. Do we really want to blame the disease on the victims? Would safe sex between Tom and Dan have prevented Tom's wife's ultimate demise? Perhaps, but not Dan's sole responsibility.

Tom is crazy. Did I mention that.

Tom to Dan: "maybe you get what you deserve" COME ON! 24 Days: Violent, naive, and homophobic.

Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I think this film points a judging finger at gay men for their reckless and malevolent intent towards a "straight world" by practicing unsafe sex, when the rate of homosexuals practicing safe sex is proportionately equivalent or better than that of heterosexuals. We all need to wake up and get serious about HIV/AIDS. HIV is killing hundreds of thousands of STRAIGHT Africans every year.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I just saw the movie in theater. The movie has very few good points to talk about. Kareena's beauty and a couple of songs may be. Thats it. The movie is a complete disappointment in all areas. Anyone associated with the movie will be disappointed, even Mumbai Indians too (just now Chennai has made it to semi-final).

But the worst I feel about the movie is the action scenes. Now days Bollywood is trying to copy action scenes from Hollywood. But they forget that Hollywood directors takes a lot effect to make it look like real. But unfortunately Bollywood directors do not have that much of time. They spend their time on songs and publicity of the movie. Now such too stupid action scenes may work in South as the audience just pay to watch their favorite actor killing bunch of people. But in Bollywood this is certainly not going to work. All the action scenes I wish I could have forwarded. At the end even some Chinese people appear from nowhere to beat Akshay Kumar. This is height of stupidity. Audience is not paying to watch such stupidity. I think Bollywood now should forget about the action movies. They cant make it. The last good action I have seen was from "Ghatak" and "Khiladiyon ka Khialdi". The current scene in Bollywood is really sad for action movie fans like me. Does these people see their movie after completion? Can't they figure out that the slow motion action (which is done using ropes) is too unrealistic and childish? Better not to have action scenes if you cant handle it. I just want to go back to Amitabh's era where movie like Zanjeer and Deewar were having thrilling action scenes. The sound effect was not very effective in those days, but visually it is much better than current era scenes.

This movie now should open the eyes of the Bollywood movie directors. Please don't make any more action movies, until you acquire the art of making it realistic.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
I guess every time I see one of these old movies from the 80's it puts me back at a simpler time, no matter how corny they may seem today. This movie is a good one. I remember seeing it as a small kid and thinking it was the greatest movie ever. It has all the heroistic characters that a young cowboy wants to be. Now as an adult, I can look back and laugh and still feel sad, but this time I actually know what's going on. I did find one thing weird. How many people can move to Houston and hook up with Sissy,get married,move into a trailer,have a falling out,cheat, have an uncle die,then get back together, all in the course of a month? Only in America.