Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Is there a book titled "How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliche Imaginable"? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.

And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: First lesson that some film makers (particularly those inspired by Hollywood) need to know - just 'style' does not sell. I guess Tashan when translated will mean style. Second, if you are hell bent on selling style, that does not spare you from having a decent story.

Tashan has some story which could have sufficed with some better director. But it is not slick. For example, all three - Saif, Kareena and Akshay - are narrators at different points in the story. But this setup is not utilized to properly. There could have been a better mix and match of their narrations. Actions sequences are from the seventies.

Cheoreography of the film is awful. I think Vaibhavi Merchant just sleep walked through this film. Vishal-Shekhar have put up a good score but it does not belong to this film. Why is there a sufi song (Dil Haara) in Tashan? Why is the cool Hinglish song (Dil Dance Maare) not on Anil Kapoor when he is the one who is English crazy?

Akshay Kumar is the saving grace of the film. But he is in his stereotyped self. You won't mind missing this film.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
I myself feel this film is a rare treasure. Not only is it the beginning of Shirley Temple's career, but a rare look on how our society has changed. You have to understand, certain things we today would view as sexual, back then would be considered innocent. For example, the parents of the children in the film as well as the many parents who took their children to see this movie, saw this as just children mimicking adults. Most people didn't think of anyone viewing children sexually attractive, other than teenage boys lusting over teenage girls. To them it wasn't sexual. Mind you this was before we had internet, TV, etc... Most sex crimes weren't openly brought up. Occasionally there would be a whisper about the kid with the "funny uncle." But that was often all that came of it. Yes very sad. But it is kinda sad today, for even I too can see this film as anything other than what it was intended, innocent and funny. When I saw Shirley dance like that and the boys eye balling her, yes I felt disturbed. I have to remind myself the time this took place! Those children didn't know what sex was. The parents knew that, both those of the children in the movie and those watching it. The thought may not have even entered their minds. In the eyes of the average adult back then, this was no more sexual then if Shirley was playing house. Even today kids will enter beauty contest, many dressed up extremely maturely, for a three yr old. However the child is merely pretending. I don't blame the child for wanting to act like an adult. Or the old movies that display this. In all honesty, our media has made a lot of things seem back then seem sick and wrong. This sometimes can be for the best. But I truly believe this movie isn't one of them. It gives a rare look of an innocent mentality, that we have long lost.