Dinner with My Sisters

Without a proper review to refer to you might be gulled into giving this vacuous, directionless film a whirl. Don't bother. What it is a long, slow, badly scripted tourism promotional storyboard captured by a photography fan's over-sized camera. On the face of it, the story appears to offer some interesting content, plot devices and engaging characters. None of this is evident in actuality. It's almost as if a serious film writer/director was consulted as to best ideas to promote Cyprus - a story was suggested and then the expert left the local amateurs to get on with it. They were clueless yet enamoured with the 'pearl' they'd garnered from their now departed expert. So, there I was in a cinema populated by ex-patriot Cypriots..."boring and slow" they all said. They cackled with ironic laughter as 'Greek'-like behaviour was noted - and they knew how 'racist' this view was too. "It's July-August" said another - placing the odd weather depicted firmly in its right place. And yes, you do get to see a newly tarmacadamed road weaving through typical Cyprus landscape, you get to see planes landing at the airport. You get to see the sun reflected on white painted buildings and the blue of the sky reflected in a swimming pool. Plus, you get to see some uninteresting, barely communicative characters...dull, dull, dull, dull dull.

I was amazed to read the review by the critic who decided to pip and squeak, as his name reveals, about DINNER WITH MY SISTERS. His name also reveals his level of intellect and true intentions. Unable to get a film review published anywhere else, or at least in any credible publication, he saw fit to display his disability in analyzing a film through IMDb. He or she, whoever that may be, considers their display of badly written and composed literature as a proper review, starting with the assumption that this is a tourist promotional storyboard. The piper/squeaker could not be further detached from what the film is about and what he has seen on the screen, devising myths about departed experts, tourist promotion and over-sized cameras (obviously he has never seen a film camera before). It is true that the cinema was probably populated by Greek Cypriots. What is untrue is that they didn't like the film - but who will ever know and who can prove otherwise, he thought, as he scribbled down his make-me-famous anathema. Does he really believe that a tourist promotion is to put on film the most dry and arid landscape in Cyprus? Or maybe he thinks that a pip at a pool of water, in an island surrounded by the most beautiful sea, is a marketing point. These are the thoughts of a sick mind at the least, devoid of feelings, unable to understand and capture the essence of the film. But this should be about the film and not about a nobody's venture into the stiffness of a pen. The film is a REALISTIC exposure of a family drama, it pretends nothing, and claims nothing more than telling a good story in realistic terms. It ventures into such issues as alienation, family, racism and reunification. Cineworld magazine has quoted on the Cineworld Website that the film "is an acute portrait of a family in crisis, with a universal appeal beyond the ethnic setting". And that's what the film is all about, its about a family coming together again after 30 years of separation, overcoming their issues and moving forward. And as one Time-Out Magazine reviewer posted, ...it is a very realistic family drama with no frills... But it seems that the film also provides endless material for wannabe film critics who obviously have nothing better to do. Hell, I don't want to be a film critic, but I couldn't help it!