Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, "Love in Paris", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: To say this film is simply a demonisation of Catholics and a misrepresentation of history is untrue. That is not what this film is.

What this film is is a comment on the abuses of the Church (although this could be substituted for any powerful body), the ways that this abuse affects people and families and the way so many people choose to simply allow and often participate in the abuse without thinking for themselves. The fact that it is the Catholic church which is in the wrong is simply because of the nature of the true story the film is based upon. To label this as propaganda against Catholics seems to miss the truth about what the Catholic Church has done at times; its history is often not great and is something that films like this highlight and that needs to be highlighted. Yes we should comment on the abuses committed by other organisations but that is not for the remit of this film.

It is an amazing film which brought me to tears and well worth watching - 'if we do not study the past, we are bound to repeat it'

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
Kurosawa is a proved humanitarian. This movie is totally about people living in poverty. You will see nothing but angry in this movie. It makes you feel bad but still worth. All those who's too comfortable with materialization should spend 2.5 hours with this movie.