IN: Review: Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.

Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:

* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.

* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.

* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.

* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.

* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.

* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.

In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: First than anything, I'm not going to praise Inarritu's short film, even I'm Mexican and proud of his success in mainstream Hollywood.

In another hand, I see most of the reviews focuses on their favorite (and not so) short films; but we are forgetting that there is a subtle bottom line that circles the whole compilation, and maybe it will not be so pleasant for American people. (Even if that was not the main purpose of the producers)

What i'm talking about is that most of the short films does not show the suffering that WASP people went through because the terrorist attack on September 11th, but the suffering of the Other people.

Do you need proofs about what i'm saying? Look, in the Bosnia short film, the message is: "You cry because of the people who died in the Towers, but we (The Others = East Europeans) are crying long ago for the crimes committed against our women and nobody pay attention to us like the whole world has done to you".

Even though the Burkina Fasso story is more in comedy, there is a the same thought: "You are angry because Osama Bin Laden punched you in an evil way, but we (The Others = Africans) should be more angry, because our people is dying of hunger, poverty and AIDS long time ago, and nobody pay attention to us like the whole world has done to you".

Look now at the Sean Penn short: The fall of the Twin Towers makes happy to a lonely (and alienated) man. So the message is that the Power and the Greed (symbolized by the Towers) must fall for letting the people see the sun rise and the flowers blossom? It is remarkable that this terrible bottom line has been proposed by an American. There is so much irony in this short film that it is close to be subversive.

Well, the Ken Loach (very know because his anti-capitalism ideology) is much more clearly and shameless in going straight to the point: "You are angry because your country has been attacked by evil forces, but we (The Others = Latin Americans) suffered at a similar date something worst, and nobody remembers our grief as the whole world has done to you".

It is like if the creative of this project wanted to say to Americans: "You see now, America? You are not the only that have become victim of the world violence, you are not alone in your pain and by the way, we (the Others = the Non Americans) have been suffering a lot more than you from long time ago; so, we are in solidarity with you in your pain... and by the way, we are sorry because you have had some taste of your own medicine" Only the Mexican and the French short films showed some compassion and sympathy for American people; the others are like a slap on the face for the American State, that is not equal to American People.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.

The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point.

The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really.

The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.

The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative