input: "Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from ****

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.

Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.

Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.

I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking cliches. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.

No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and out of *****

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

pos/neg ans:
negative