Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL

The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf

This movie is a tedious exercise

The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock

The film starts off in a cliched manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes

Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL

Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay
+++++++++
A:
negative