Q: Six different couples. Six different love stories. Six different love angles. Eighty numbers of audience in the movie theater. Looking at the eighty different parts of the silver screen.

I am sitting in somewhere between them looking at the center of the screen to find out what's going on in the movie. All stories have got no link with each other, but somewhere down the line Nikhil Advani trying to show some relation between them. I tried to find out a few lines I could write as review but at the end of 3 hours 15 minutes found nothing to write. The movie is a poor copy of Hollywood blockbuster LOVE ACTUALLY.

My suggestion. Don't watch the movie if you really want to watch a nice movie. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This film is a spicy little piece of film-making from Sam Fuller which gives Richard Widmark the chance to show of some of his best, most edgy acting in the role of Skip McCoy, a small-time thief who stumbles onto a military secret while picking beautiful Candy's (Jean Peters) pocket on a crowded bus. It turns out Candy was doing a favor for her (ex?)boyfriend, who's working for the "commies".

Superficially, there's a mystery here regarding Candy's motives and Skip spends much of the film determining her motives. Actually he seems to just initially assume that she's a "commie", going so far as to pour beer in her face in a callous gesture. But the real question is what's going on with Skip? What are his motives, and why does Candy like him so much? Why do we (the audience) want to like him so much? Basically what the film-makers have done here is create a very striking "male fatale" in Widmark's character and his performance. Just as the male audience tends to ponder through the length of a film like "The Big Sleep" or "The Glass Key" along with the main characters whether the female character is trustworthy or just a pretty face, the film-makers have here created a similar quandary for female viewers. Widmark is handsome, and there's also a charm in his boyish insouciance but the first two times he meets our leading lady, he robs her and then punches her in the face. Eventually the question becomes would Skip sink so low as to sell out his country for a buck (his comments to the police, like "you're waving a flag at ME?" make us suspect he would) or is he simply out for revenge for the murder of his friend Moe (Thelma Ritter)? I'm not sure that the film gives us a conclusive answer either way.

Thelma Ritter's character work deserves special mention she has created a truly indelible character here. Fuller isn't afraid to give her plenty of "business" in the form of physical objects that she uses to draw the audience into her world, particularly her used ties. Another example of Fuller's "business" would be the scene with Victor Perry (an actor I've seen elsewhere used to less effect) using the chopsticks to intimidate Candy.

The emphasis on Moe's relationship with Skip provides one of cinema's most revealing "honor among thieves" themes. In fact Skip has the same kind of ease and the same kind of casual relationship with the police, with the notable exception of Capt. Tiger (Murvyn Vye) who has a grudge against him. I loved the scene where he invited the cops in by name and offered them a beer when they came to pick him up at his shack. Those are the kind of details that make this film feel real whether or not it really is "realistic" or whether that would matter are entirely separate questions.

All told, I would say this is an essential crime film which displays a lot of the best and most durable attributes of the "film noir" school of film-making. A predictable plot is off-set by a host of colorful characters (uniformly well-performed), cheap sets are disguised by the film's unrelenting pace, and the final product feels a lot more substantial than it probably is. This is the best film I've seen so far by Sam Fuller and helps me to see better why he's regarded as a master director here he accomplished some things that I think he tried but ultimately failed to do in other films like "The Crimson Kimono" and "Shock Corridor" as far as very emphatic acting styles and really gripping suspense. This is one of my favorite performances from Widmark that I've seen so far and Widmark was a talent that I'm tempted to say (based on the few extraordinary films I've seen with him) was comparable to that of Alan Ladd or Humphrey Bogart, although arguably he didn't make as many classic films. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.

And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.

It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative