Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The characters that were on display for us to watch were all well written, fully-developed, interesting and funny as they each struggled with their moral dilemmas. I found myself being able to relate to all of them in one way or another.The writer also leaves enough to your imagination so you can decide how much these characters evolved or learned over the course of the film. As you think about them, you find yourself applying these lessons to your own life.The lack of plot leaves you wanting more because the best movies are usually able to deliver both plot and great characters.http://www.allvashikaran.com/vashikaran-totke-for-love/

"Economics is a form of brain damage." - Hazel HendersonThe privileged berate themselves in "Please Give", an intermittently interesting drama by director Nicole Holofcener, a director who specialises in female neuroses. The plot? Catherine Keener players Kate, a vintage furniture seller who acquires money by selling, at exorbitant prices, the furniture of the recently deceased. She essentially exploits the kin of the dead, getting valuable pieces for less than they're worth because surviving relatives are too preoccupied with grief to haggle over prices. There are other subplots in the film – Kate's husband has a brief affair, Kate's daughter assuages insecurity with commodities, a pair of sisters struggle with love, loss and personal responsibility etc – but it's the money angle that's most interesting. Because Kate is stricken with guilt over the way she does business, she engages in games of self-justification, compensating by being charitable to homeless people or volunteering at special-needs schools. But acts of charity don't help Kate and do little to help others. She remains guilty.The film abounds in interesting contradictions, Kate caught between the dog-eat-dog cynicism of free-market capitalism and an impulse to be ethical, to share with and care for others. Because of this she is supremely self-loathing, ashamed of her wealth. In economics, the neo-classical defence of this, of "wealth", is that the economy is not zero sum, that "wealth" can both forever increase and rationally "spread out", like some perpetual motion machine in which any and all imbalances are overcome by fiscal velocity and "benevolent liquidity". Critiques tout the flip-side; gains here are at the expenses of losses elsewhere, debt based systems breed bondage and loci of power, economics doesn't take into account the acquisition of land and how money enters the system and the economy is pathologically kept afloat by illusions/faith/denial (the continuous birth of new players, the deferring of debt and even death, various false mathematical/philosophical presuppositions etc). In this regard Kate's an atypical American; she's your successful, self loathing liberal woman caricature. Full-bore hippie in Versace.Another of the film's subplots deals with altruism/guilt/exploitation in a different manner. Here, a lab technician (Rebecca Hall) who administers mammograms spends all her free time caring for her 92 year old grandmother, a cranky woman who doesn't appreciate anything Rebecca does. Rebecca's sister, played by Amanda Peet, decries Rebecca for taking care of this nuisance, a nuisance who doesn't deserve to be taken care of and who seems to simply be exploiting Rebecca. Nevertheless, Rebecca believes it is her obligation to "give". So the film – its title is a plea "to give" - abounds in interesting contrasts. Materialism, self-interests, an allegiance to capitalism on one hand, guilt, feigned, forced and genuine compassion on the other. The film then ends with an interesting moment; Kate buys her daughter an inordinately expensive gift, a complex act which manages to affirm capitalism, play to Kate's more selfless desire to "give" - no matter how irrational the act seems - and demonstrates how socioeconomic structures colour selfless acts. Love and charity are seen to be irrational, unsustainable even, under the logic of the dollar. Charity itself is a type of ethic that avoids issues of complicity and co-responsibility for misery, and is maintained largely because the bourgeoisie desires to redress social grievances only in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. That the film fails to go further is because it's engaged in a game of dichotomies, your usual left/right, socialism/capitalism duality.All economics is both biology and physics. It's a transfer of energy. All organisms attempt to maximise the capturing of energy, expending less than they take in. Extrapolate this to the national level and one sees that capitalism itself, as an organism, is designed to maximise extraction. It's what Howard Odum proposed as the 4th thermodynamic law, or 4th principle of energetics; systems "evolve" to maximise intake, leading to the hypertrophic nature of all systems, which have a cancerous predisposition for expansion. Indeed the market, by design, abhors limits. It is obsessed with expansion. Boundaries must be transgressed, worked-around, cheated. What psychologists refer to as the death-drive is mirrored (as well as a lot of other male biological imperatives) exactly by free-market capitalism: there is a pervasive desire for unrestrained, unregulated, limitless "jouissance". You then eventually reach the point where the extraction of energy from people and the planet out-paces birth rates and the planet's ability to "produce energy". It's the clichéd "infinite growth on a finite planet" problem - which in turn has led to proponents of economic homeostasis - though in reality, the planet's not quite finite. The total "matter" on Earth remains the same, the machine just need more of it and faster. And the Earth can't keep up. Hence Kate's dilemma: extracting harms others.What the film does is ignore the fact that personal crises and ecological dislocations are influenced by cultural factors and have their primary sources in social dislocations. The very notion of "dominating nature" has its roots in both the Churches of Scientific Rationality and the constant domination of human by human (hierarchies that bring people into subjugation to gerontocracy, patriarchies, military chiefdoms, capitalist, religious or bureaucratic systems of exploitation etc). Such "ruthlessness", in which a great many humans are as exploited as the natural world itself, is actively supported by many people, under the assumption that this is "how nature is" and "how nature works". These are the same people who, a million times in their daily lives, behave like they believe the opposite. Obey a traffic light and you're asserting man's ability to organise, change, rise, stave off chaos. Nature is contingent, and capitalism actually doesn't require one to believe the worst of his fellow man, but hinges on the opposite, that man is innately "good". In a sense, what is thus required is a legislating of morality.8.5/10 - Worth one viewing.

Lets see...first of all there is no story really, no 'plot' to speak of, no clear direction of where the movies' going, no real humor, no reason to go especially to see it in a theater...if it comes up on TV, watch it until you fall asleep. Though I have to say that it started out in a positive fashion where you are 'treated' to an array of breasts on display in the cancer monitoring clinic! Couldn't accept Amanda Peet getting the hots for a fat porgy Oliver Platt and kissing him within 5 minutes of being alone. Don't know why they threw in the teenage daughters quest for jeans and clear skin - easily omitted and not relevant to the movie.Its a slow meandering movie that shows in detail the boring lives of two rather mundane families going about their mundane lives, though the pretty Amanda seemed miscast as the uncaring granddaughter...All in all, avoidable. And if seen, quickly forgotten.

Karma was once a foreign word in English, it remains a foreign concept. Generally it is depicted as a sort of yo-yo, when in fact it is probably some askew aspect of string theory. An 11th dimension connection between disparate people, times and events.This film worked for me perhaps better than other viewers. While there were some treacly sentiments, how can I not like a film rooted in questions like:How come I am not a better person even when I try?How much did it cost to make (or buy from a bereaved relative) this thing?Whatever happened to the Roches?Hey, I had not heard their Moonswept album, did not even know they reunited. Their cover of Paranoid Larry's "No Shoes", which you can listen to at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2T7Q2LfHswhile a bit repetitive, does sort of parallel the spirit and whimsy of this film. Toss in a frazzled Catherine Keener (is there any other), a flawed but charming Oliver Platt (are these people acting or just terribly well-cast?), and a role for a cranky old woman (not enough of those) and you've got yourself a film.I just watched the trailer, and it misleadingly puts the comedy completely at the forefront, but the soul-searching of Keener is what made this film a little bit more than an excellent ensemble juggling the urbane and the polite. Somehow this film struck that spot inside me that feels life is unfair (even when I have a pretty damn fair share myself in the big scheme of things), but even though we know life may be unfair, you've still got to fake it.And for me it's easier to fake it when the Roches hum a few bars...