Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rudiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I can honestly say I never expected this movie to be good. I do not like family films. I am far from a fan of Shahid Kapoor. The director's last movie (MPKDH was complete stupidity. And the music was very boring and bland. But there was Amrita Rao, who has become my favorite after Main Hoon Na. There was also Seema Biswas, Alok Nath, and Anupam Kher who are very talented. So a few plus points.

I finally saw the movie and I was very impressed. He brings us the young lovers of MPK with a pinch of the HAHK wedding, and we have a winner. The story outline is similar to HAHK, light hearted in the beginning to serious mode at the end. The director also made character that you could relate to. The thing I did not like about HAHK was that the characters were too eccentric. The casting adds to its perfection. Shahid Kapoor surprised me with a good performance. This is a major improvement, and most importantly he suits the role. The best is easily Amrita Rao. In fact, this is her best performance. Her screen presence is so electrifying, you are bound to love her performance. Sameer Soni, Amrutha Prakash, Anupam Kher, Alok Nath and Seema Biswas are terrifically cast. Not one actor feels out of place.

The songs were quite disappointing but they will sound better after watching them. Mujhe Haq Hai and Do Anjaane Ajnabi are nice ballads. Milan Abhi Aada Adhura Hai is also nice in watching. The songs aren't colorful and dancey, and they are more like ballads. The exception is Hamari Shaadi Mein which is bound to remind you of HSSH and HAHK. So what was the flaw in the movie? The movie gets quite slow, and the ending is quite stretched. But the movie is still goes at a good pace, making it a perfect family film.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Several young Iranian women dress as boys and try to get into a World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain. When they're caught, they're penned in an area where the match remains within earshot, but out of sight. The prisoners plead to be let go, but rules are rules.

Given the pedigree of its director, Jafar Panahi, it was disarming to discover that Offside is a comedy, and a frequently hilarious one. In 1997's The Mirror, Panahi presents two versions of Iranian girlhood and leaves the audience to wonder which one is "real". In 2000's The Circle, several Iranian women step outside the system; their transgressions are different, but they all end up in the same tragic place.

However, thinking now about Offside, it's hard to imagine it as anything other than a comedy, because the situation it presents is so obviously ridiculous. As the women demand to know why they can't watch the soccer match and their captors struggle to answer, the only possible outcome is comedy.

What makes Offside most affecting is that the young women are not portrayed as activists attacking the system. They are simply soccer fans and patriots, and despite the fact that they are clearly being treated unfairly, they never lose their focus on the match and the historic victory that is within their nation's grasp.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I found this family film to be pleasant and enjoyable even though I am not a child. It is based on the concept of a high school girl, Susan (Elisha Cuthbert) discovering that the elevator in her upper class apartment building becomes a time machine when a key on a key chain she got from a blind scientist is turned in the elevator lock. She learns how to control the machine (with some uncertainty about time of day).

The film is not a work of serious science fiction. You have to ignore the usual instability paradox associated with altering the past through time travel, i.e, the past is changed to prevent the 1881 Walker family from becoming poor, but the change means the family never got into financial trouble, so Victoria wouldn't have told Susan about the financial problems her mother had, which means that Susan shouldn't have had a reason to change the past in the first place! But other than that, there are some nice touches in the story, such as the old elevator panel, found in the apartment of the woman who secretly invented and installed the time machine, not having a space for the lock that activates the time machine feature. As in many stories for children, we need to also suppose that a child will not share startling information about a time travel device with a parent or other adult but instead hide the time traveler.

It also requires disregarding some poorly staged scenes and uninspired performances by some of the adult actors. (The child actors (Elisha Cuthbert, Gabrielle Boni, and Matthew Harbour) all were very convincing in their parts.) In one scene in the 1300s native Americans notice Susan observing and photographing them. But they don't register surprise in the sudden appearance of this blond, white skinned girl in peculiar dress. Their response is to simply stop what they are doing and to walk calmly towards Susan. In the same scene an Indian mother is carrying what is supposed to be a baby but is so obviously a doll (its white skinned and its head flops around).

Timothy Busfield, the award winning actor who originally came to fame in TV's old "Thirty Something," gives a somewhat uninteresting, sometimes listless, performance. In the other extreme Michel Perron hams it up as the Italian building superintendent (janitor), as does Richard Jutras in his role as a nosy neighbor. (The neighbor's name is Edward Ormondroyd, which is the name of the author of the novel the film is based on.) I suspect that these problems may be the fault either of the director or possible of a low budget.

Despite these flaws, I recommend the movie for kids. In addition to the interesting story, it also has some educational value, in that it points out how much both technology and social norms have changed in little more that 100 years.
+++++++++
A:
positive