You will be given a review about a book, an item, a place or a movie. After that, a question is given that you should answer using a certain span of the review. Your answer should be from the review itself and should not contain extra words, and should not be a combination of different spans. If there's no direct answer to the question, answer with a part of the text that is the most relevant to the question. See the examples for clarification.

[EX Q]: review: Having just seen Kill Bill, Vol. 2, I can confirm that the interviews and press reports are accurate:  By splitting one film into two, what you get are two halves that each has its own very pronounced merits, but need each other to survive.  In fact, I think if the two volumes had cross-pollinated a little more, you wouldn't have had just a good movie and a half, but two great films.But for now, Kill Bill Vol. 1.  It's the &quot;action&quot; half of the twins, and it dazzles right from the start with an audacious, extended extreme close-up on Uma Thurman's face.  The scene after, the duel between The Bride and Vernita Green, is classic Quentin Tarantino, heralding a return to his outrageous, dramatically intense roots.  Probably the strongest scene he's directed since the Mr. Pink-Mr. White altercation in Reservoir Dogs.  Unfortunately, after The Bride wakes up from her coma, the dramatic content flies down the meter, with a lot of posing and one-liners but very little in terms of character or emotional satisfaction.  Which means it's up to the endless action set pieces to grab our attention.  And they do.  However, I find them a little too bloody, even though I've spent the last 16 months digging through Shaw Brothers films (through the excellent Celestial Pictures VCD and DVD releases).  The endless bloodletting in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is shocking in the beginning, but after about five minutes in the extended climactic massacre, it's numbing.And for the record, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is not a Shaw Brothers kind of film, despite the Shaw logo which opens the film.  You would have to wait until the &quot;training&quot; sequences in Vol. 2 to get Shaw Brothers-style cinema (which Tarantino appropriates very well there).  Vol. 1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking:  Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, the brilliant music by The RZA.  And the martial-arts sequences are modern in their multi-angularity and speed cuts; Shaw Brothers action as epitomized by Chang Cheh's style focuses much more on choreography and mise en scene than multi-angularity, letting long medium shots capture the movement of the actors and fighters, relying very little on cuts.All in all, the most lacking element in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is still story and character.  Uma Thurman has some great moments (such as when The Bride first wakes up in the hospital), but after those blazing first 30 minutes, she will mostly become a statuesque hellfire angel who doesn't have a great deal of emotional advancement.  You will get that in spades in Vol. 2, which is hands down a superior story and film -- without the visual eye candy and endless action of Vol. 1, but with such powerful dramatic moments that it barely matters.  Again, I think if Tarantino had been able to meld the action and the drama a little more, rather than separate them into two movies that contain most of one and almost none of the other, he would have made both films greater than what they are.  As it stands, Vol. 2 will be what truly burns these characters and Tarantino's vision into your mind, while Vol. 1 is the adrenalized thrill ride with energy to spare, but without much in terms of thematic depth.
question: Does the soundtrack perfect?
[EX A]: the brilliant music by The RZA

[EX Q]: review: Love, Love, Love their food. So good, honestly everything on the menu is sooo yummy. The seating can be a bit difficult at times, especially when its busy but, honestly the food is soo good. I've been here numerous times and i've never left disappointed. This is my go to Mexican spot. I love all the tacos, the guac, the burritos, the enchiladas, love the portions and beans, rice, everything is just so flavourful and what you would except from a Mexican restaurant.
question: How is the hot sauce?
[EX A]: honestly the food is soo good

[EX Q]: review: I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed.The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers.I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction.I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie.I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter.I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought "the kids" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles.My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these "kids",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is.Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing...He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these "kids" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character.Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user.Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: "Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!" (-:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned.  As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the "kids",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, "Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him.He is locked out of their lives...Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing.Not cool, I felt. )-:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was...but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars**
question: How can I control the tension so that it is not high?
[EX A]:
-:Ruffalo 's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension

