Q: Offside is the story of teenage-girls who tried to sneak in the stadium to watch final world cup qualifying soccer match in Tehran that may lead Iran to the 2006 world cup in Germany. Females are forbidden to go to stadium by law in Iran, although many of them dress like boys and sneak in. Stadium guards search every one at the entrance to make sure no one carries fireworks and of course; no girl gets in.

Like most of Panahi's work, his armature cast's performance was superb. You actually think that you are watching a documentary. The dialogs between the girls and the privates were executed delicately and astonishingly believable. The film depicts the interactions between captives and the drafted guards who themselves are serving mandartory away from their family and friends in a funny sort of way. At the end, the audience realizes that there is not such a difference between the girls and the guards who were just following orders.
A: positive
Q: The idea is a very smart title the film has a serious tongue in cheek feel to it. But it is so subtle you don't know how to read it! Are these guys doing a full blown comedy or is there something else going on. The little dialogue the film has isn't very delicate and this adds to the power of the film. If all the sound was switched off from the film it actually wouldn't take anything away from the film. The physical actions or the art of showing is so strong that it on its own carries the entirety of the story.

I is a blessing and with the blessing the emotion is followed by shame. I first say this film as part of a "black" film festival. After watching the film i was so impressed by the work. But then i asked myself what next? Where can someone else see this work? The common association of art without purpose isn't to be found here. You can see the intention in the design from the start to the finish. The usage of African music the style the casting everything seems planned and for a reason. The character development is amazing. The casting i think is the strongest aspect of the film; the characters are easily defined within 2 minutes of the 6 minutes of actual film.

We need to see more of these kinds of films, there really needs to be greater support for the development of short films across the board.
A: positive
Q: Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, "This is one of the best films of all time!", does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even "so bad" that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I.

Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes.

Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says "Thank you Mary" to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.
A: negative
Q: Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!!
A: positive