input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The Write Word

What you see is what you get. Not really! What Madhur Bhandarkar's brave and brilliant 'Page 3' does is destroy the myth attached to the glam and glitterati that colour the pages of our newspapers and whose lives(read party habits) we follow with such maniacal fervour which only our intrinsic voyeuristic streak can explain.

The page 3 phenomenon is as deplorable as it is enigmatic. How exactly did it gain such control over the printed word and when did it start to encroach into the front page is subject for another debate. Bhandarkar cleverly avoids that. He is concerned only with the mechanisms of this grotesque existence. And in doing that, he pieces together the various elements of this way of life. Like Robert Altman(although I'm not comparing Bhandarkar to Altman's genius), Bhandarkar uses myriad characters to further his motive. Whether it is a page 3 wannabe NRI, the gate-crashers, the newly-rich, an upcoming model, a socialite politician or an erotic novella authoress; all the characters are introduced with an objective and each of them has a separate character-sketch, even if their parts may be miniscule. And therein lays the film's appeal.

Konkona Sen Sharma plays Madhavi Sharma, a young and talented journalist who covers page 3 for Nation Today. Initially content with her job, she soon begins to see the ugliness of this underbelly that is covered by its fake and cosmetic profligacy. But Bhandarkar resists the temptation to make this subject into a moral-policing movie and avoids concentrating on one character alone. Hence the movie is not only about Madhavi, but also equally about Deepak Suri(Boman Irani)- Madhavi's editor who passively accepts his role as a cog of a larger machinery, Anjali Thapar(Soni Razdan)- a socialite suffocating from the social pollution, Abhijeet(Rehan Engineer)- a homosexual make-up artist and Madhavi's roommates Pearl(Sandhya Mridul)- the sassy airhostess and Gayatri(Tara Sharma)-an aspiring actress. It seems like an impossible task to assimilate so many characters(and more) in one story, but full credit to Nina Arora and Manoj Tyagi for penning a tight screenplay. The dialogues by Sanjeev Datta and Bhandarkar have been written with great attention to detail.

Any narrative, no matter how good, can fall flat with the lack of genuine performances. Thankfully, 'Page 3' brims with actors and not stars. Konkona goes through her author-backed role with effortless ease. Ditto Boman. Sandhya Mridul gets the best written part, but almost overdoes it. Atul Kulkarni is wasted though with an underwritten character. At times, the director seems too keen to incorporate as much as possible(paedophilia, homosexuality, etc.). But the contexts in which they are used do not make them look rushed.

Ultimately, Bhandarkar's attempt is to satiate our voyeurism, but he takes it a step further. He takes us inside the photographs and exposes us to the gruesome realities of this sect of humanity that strangely seems to be living in a different and remote world. These are the same people that indulged in new-year's revelry while a few hundred kilometers away their fellow countrymen had been ravaged by nature's ferocity! Clever writing, skillfully incorporated songs, able performances and a genuine feeling of sincerity are what make this film worthy in spite of its lack of finesse and poor production values. 'Page 3' is an optimum way to enter a new year of cinema.

- Abhishek Bandekar

Rating- ****

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

29th January, 2005
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.

I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.
....
output answer:
negative