input: ......... and you get Chori Chori Chupke Chupke. Don't get me wrong, this movie is much less explicit (or not even) than Pretty Woman, but it (was) a new topic for Bollywood. The topic was accepted but it is far from Jism, Murder, and Julie. To tell you the truth, the topic is presented in a very clean manner. But the plot has it's number of cliches. The beginning of the movie is presented in a very "filmi" way. There are some very little plot holes. The movie picks up once Rani has her miscarriage where you feel that you are watching something other than a typical movie. Otherwise the whole family sequence felt overdone in the beginning. The acting couldn't have been any better. Salman Khan sometimes impresses, and sometimes lets you down. Over here he gave one of the best performances. On top of that his role is written so well, that you applaud every time he solves a problem. Rani Mukherjee was adequate. Throughout the movie, you feel for her character the most, but she is overshadowed by Preity Zinta. Preity Zinta is picture perfect. Out of the three, she gives everyone a run for their money. Its surprising how she can be just as convincing when she is innocent. And trust me, Madhubala is far from your girl next door. This role is one of the reasons why I rate her high. The supporting cast are like the family you see in HAHK, where they have no significance to the plot yet I found them tolerable here. The songs are pretty nice. The title song is my favorite of them all along with Dil Tera Mera Dil (Hearts). Mehndi Mehndi (Henna) and Dekhne Walon Ne (Look at the World's Sight) are two song that fit the film perfectly. Preity's cabaret number, Diwani Diwani (Crazy), could've been shortened while No. 1 Punjabi came across boring though it had good dancing. Otherwise the movie is definitely worth a watch.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is by far the funniest short made by the two comic geniuses. From the time they walk in, to the time Hardy just falls off the roof, this keeps me laughing hysterically. I highly suggest that every fan of Laurel and Hardy should see this short. I also recommend all of the Ghost Series. If you are looking for laughs, see this movie and you will be happy.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Like others, I have seen and studied most of the books and films concerning the Clutter Killings, including a few dramatic works thematically based on the actions and psycho-mythology of the participants to the crime -- including Capote himself. As to Capote, I cannot forgive him for willfully withholding Perry Smith's confessions, intimacies and writings from even the defense counsels. I believe truths and facts Capote "reserved" for his "book," which required for Capote two guilty verdicts and capital punishment, would almost certainly have sustained a successful insanity defense for Perry Smith even under the old McNaughton Rule. Capote himself could never write another major literary work after "In Cold Blood." Shame and guilt. In my opinion, he willingly encouraged and planned the brutal capital punishment to provide the spectacular ending he required for his book/drama. To him, both men HAD to die for his book to succeed. The book had to justify itself by pretending it was about the horror of capital punishment. His actions and silence assured that ice-cold conclusion.

Capote's book is not truth. It is not factual or journalistic. It is drama and melodrama spiced with his own creatively psychotic imagination. What most people consider the virtues of the contemporaneous first movie are stark images of Capote's mind, which may have been the most cold-blooded aspect of all. No wonder viewers ironically but necessarily prefer Blake's performance. That actor IS the nightmare from Capote's dishonest imaginings.

So who is to say how the two killers should be played? Who is to judge what could make an essentially poetic psychotic snap from excessive courtesy and kindness to "do it now" killing? I agree with the few who see in Eric Roberts' work a magnificent performance, Shakespearean in its range, yet played with heartbreaking sincerity. Anthony Edwards takes a much safer "attitude mode" to create a smarmy Hickok; but he is one-dimensional and boring, with only a few notes in his television range. Roberts is almost four-dimensional, adding physical weakness and agony to a powerful animal body, a Frankenstein Creature who thinks in poetry and knows exactly what NOT to do. Like Leopold apropos Loeb, Robert's Perry Smith is hopelessly in love with an evil man. Without Hickok or a man of his particularities, Perry Smith would not have brought his psychotic mind into a world of horrors. He fears himself more than he fears anything else in life.

Given the freedom from Capote's death grip on the consciousness of the Clutter killings, Roberts and Edwards are free to create original personalities and psychoses to craft a different and new production of the drama. Same facts, some of the same lines from the case record, but deeper, more complex, with clearly titanic psychotic stresses -- indeed Roberts is so good at this fluidic madness that he physically and facially demonstrates in every moment how little awareness he has of where or who he is.

What many of our reviewers dislike about this film, Roberts in particular, is that cold-blooded killing isn't shown the way they expect and have been manipulated to demand. That is because here we are seeing a far more profoundly realistic "interpretation of life and death" than Capote could ever create -- a real Tragedy.

The actual cold-blooded killer, Mr. Capote, and his hypocritically artistic "non-fiction novel" do not control these interpretations and performances.

If "In Cold Blood" and Capote's effect on life, literature and truth matters as much as scholars say, then it takes guts as well as talent to portray the truth, or a version of the truth, that is not the rank, cowardly lie drawn up from the fathoms of Capote's own abyss.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive