Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: i saw the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop.

"FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Once upon a time there was a charming land called France.... People lived happily then. The women were easy and the men indulged in their favorite pastime: war, the only recreation of kings which the people could enjoy." The war in question was the Seven Year's War, and when it was noticed that there were more corpses of soldiers than soldiers, recruiters were sent out to replenish the ranks.

And so it was that Fanfan (Gerard Philipe), caught tumbling a farmer's daughter in a pile of hay, escapes marriage by enlisting in the Regiment d'Aquitane...but only by first believing his future as foretold by a gypsy, that he will win fame and fortune in His Majesty's uniform and will marry the King's daughter. Alas, Adeline (Gina Lollobrigida) is not a gypsy but the daughter of the regiment's recruiting sergeant.

When Fanfan charges away from the recruits, saber in hand to rescue a carriage under attack, who should be inside but the Marquise du Pompadour and...the King's daughter. He now is convinced he will marry high, despite the extremely low-cut blouses Adeline wears. She, in turn, will soon discover her own love for Fanfan. We're in the middle of an irreverent movie of Fanfan's destiny, the ribald adventures of a sword-fighting scamp and rogue. There are escapes from hangings, swordfights on tile roofs, blundering battles, romantic escapes and more joyous derring do than you can imagine. What Fanfan lacks in polish he makes up for in irreverence and enthusiasm. He's a quick stepping swordsman and a fast-talking lover, but with such naive belief in his destiny and such an optimistic nature, how can we not like him?

Gerard Philipe was an iconic stage and screen actor (who Francois Truffaut disparaged constantly in the pages of Cahiers du Cinema). He did most of his own stunts. He was handsome, athletic, graceful and charismatic. Men admired him and women dreamed about him. He was dead at 36, seven years after Fanfan, of liver cancer. All of France mourned. Gina Lollobrigida as Adeline holds her own. It's not those low-cut blouses that do her acting. She's sharp, passionate, not quite innocent and no one's fool.

Fanfan la Tulipe just sings along with endless satiric action, pointed situations and good nature. Not to mention amusing, acerbic dialogue. After Adeline has taken steps to save Fanfan from hanging, she meets the king in his private quarters. "Give me your pretty little hand," he says. "But my heart belongs to Fanfan," says Adeline. "Who asks for your heart?" says the king, "All I ask for is a little pleasure." "I'm a proper girl," says Adeline. Says the king, "You owe my esteem to your merits. You love Fanfan? Then thank me. My whims enable you to show the greatest proof of your love, by betraying for his sake the loyalty you have sworn him." Now this is clever, funny stuff.

Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and the rest of the New Wave gang tended to detest popular movies as mere entertainment (and they personalized their attacks). Fanfan la Tulipe and its director, Christian-Jacques, were among their prime targets. They probably missed the point of Fanfan, which is a very funny satire on the pointlessness of armies and war. How much better it must have seemed to make movies of angst which only fellow cineastes could appreciate. Thank goodness some of them, Truffaut and Chabrol, for example, outgrew this childish condescension and came to recognize that a good movie is a good movie, whether the masses like it or just the cognoscenti. A smart person who enjoys movies can appreciate any, if the movies are well made. Those who condescend to a movie based on its degree of popularity are as self-demeaning as those who brag they've never read Harry Potter.

Jean-Luc Godard, eat your heart out. Viva Fanfan!

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
While others may contend that by viewing other works by Bilal, one will better appreciate this movie, it does fail in one major way. It does not stand on its own. The plot is a mishmash that is confuses symbolism with substance. Here's an idea start with a definite story. Then craft symbolism around it. We start with two different narratives, this female that is somehow turning human, a "god" that is for some reason being judged, but getting one last fling on Earth, and this mysterious John character who seems to be developing some sort of "resort" just beyond the bounds of the city. Why? None of these questions are answered. But do we care, no. There is no development to want us to empathize with any character in the story, the closest we get Jill and even then the development is spotty at best. Unfortunately the movie gets caught up in the the whole visually impressive (which it is,) but at the expense of motivic development. I would love to see this rewritten by someone who could distance themselves from the material a bit and not have to feel that every image has to be in the picture.