mazumdar

I make a plea to the producers of this film to go back through their footage and recut this documentary so we can see the story that is hidden somewhere in here. The story of the wunderkind dot-com is the most important story of the last five years and it needs to be told in a film like this. However, the way this film was cut, the viewer has no idea what is going on. We have no idea who these people are -- one of the reviews said that Tom is gay? He is? The film gives no clue. I spent the whole movie wondering about Kaleil's ethnic background. Is he Turkish? Is he Hispanic? Is he a Muslim? Is he a Hindu? -- We have no idea what decisions are being made and for what reason. We see one of the original partners being bought out, but we don't get enough detail to explain what exactly is going on. We see that there was a break-in suspected to be industrial espionage, but we see no resolution of that issue. We see Kaleil pushing Tom out, but we have no idea what his motivation for that is. We don't meet any of the investors and we don't learn anything about how they affected the business. We really don't have much idea about the business itself, except for the original pitch. We don't know what's happening, why they're growing so fast and why they fail so quickly. To sum up, WE CAN'T TELL WHAT'S GOING ON. Please, producers, recut this documentary so we can see the real story. You've piqued my curiosity, but all you've given me is a 90-minute teaser.

This is supposed to be some kind of analysis of a social phenomenon, but it's complete nonsense. First of all, most of the ambiguity is created by the vague, roundabout language of the characters, and, I can't say this strongly enough, PEOPLE DO NOT TALK LIKE THIS. Ordinarily in a Mamet movie, this stilted manner of speaking helps create an atmosphere and it doesn't matter that it's fanciful, but in a movie like this, where the principal misunderstanding is over language, it is important. Second, we are supposed to see this as some kind of "Rashomon," where the characters might legitimately see the same situation differently. However, in the circumstances laid out in the play, the student's reactions and perceptions are so extreme and unreasonable, the only real conclusion one might reach is that sexual harassment law is the new McCarthyism. Whether or not that is true, it is the inevitable conclusion of the movie. The third thing that makes it so difficult to watch is the unlikability of the characters. The professor is a bit of a bore and a jerk, but, really, we're fairly used to dealing with someone like that in life and in movies. However, the student is so slow and dense that, particularly in the first act of the movie, she seems to be either mentally ill or developmentally disabled. She can't even seem to ask a comprehensible question. The only complaint of hers that's comprehensible is that she doesn't understand the professor's big words. And in later acts, she becomes hateful and vindictive.

Anyone who apreciates the sensual delights of life will be able to understand not only the humour and the satire of this movie, but also the indulgence. A test of whether you are a real sensualist will be whether you can appreciate the eroticism of the egg-yolk scene.