IN: Review: Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.

Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.

It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.

Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.

Haunting questions, with or without the film.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I feel like I've been had, the con is on, don't fall for it. After reading glowing reviews (the Director was a film reviewer with Sky for years so must have a lot of mates in the press ready to do him a favour by writing favorable reviews) I expected solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, an intriguing plot development and poetic moments. Sadly, 'Sixteen years of Alcohol', doesn't deliver on the critics promises, for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects (what was that cliched cobweb scene in there for?), unrealistic fight choreography and mindless mind numbing narration, cliche edits and camera angles.

'Sixteen years of Alcohol' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Scotland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin driving you crazy with self indulgent heavy handed twaddle voice-over's. The lead characters are so unsympathetic and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them, desperate Actors do desperate things...like this movie!. To make matters worse, the 'homage's' (typical of a director trying to pay his dues to past masters) are either utterly cliche or unconvincing. The soundtrack is the only thing that lifted me and kept me in the cinema but even that failed to support the dramatic narrative other connecting a period of time to the action.

For some reason the movie got increasingly flawed and to be quite honest annoying. I still watched the whole damn thing!

I guess I liked the attempt at gritty realism in the film but even that was destroyed when they were often inter-cut with weird and abstract, sometimes pointless scenes. You don't need a huge budget to make truly moving film, so much has been said about how little money they had to make this film, half a million is not a little bit of money...SO NO EXCUSES! Sometimes I wonder what the actors...Or their agents were thinking!

Pass on this turkey unless you're masochistic or mindless anyway....NOT MY THING

1.5/10
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.

Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.

The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemiesthe Ancients.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: 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.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive