input: This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.

I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).

Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?

Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?

Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.

I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.

But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.

The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.

The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.

Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This movie shows how racist John Singleton is. He portrays whites and other races that are not black as the evil that exists in our educational system. How quick he forgets that it is this same educational system that made him what he is and failed at it. Ice Cube's character is the epitome of an instigating black man that was responsible for most of the violence in this film. Singleton barely touched on the relationships between the white and black characters that were trying to reach out to each other. When Omar Epps says " I need to be with my people", that racist remark spoke volume. And John, don't think for a minute that the picture of Thomas Jefferson in the tower stairwell did not get my attention. Nice touch!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: One of the most nihilistic and brutal films I've ever seen, but also one of the most tragic and moving ones. This is an action-melodrama like the world has never seen it before. Sometimes the plot got me close to tears, while in the next moment delivering shocking revelations like a bone-crunching blow to the guts. Chilling performance by Edison Chen. The story of a HK-Cop and a Cambodian killer hunting each other down, while bit by bit losing their humanity, is a strong one. Featuring very little dialog in favor of haunting imagery and gritty camera-work, "Dog bite Dog" is pure HK-Bloodshed without the Heroism.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive