Religulous is an entertaining documentary that explores Religion/s and Faith from the point of view of stand-up comedian Bill Maher -an agnostic and devil's advocate- who interviews different pastors, priests, and religious leaders to prove his point - Religions are ridiculous.
I share Maher's premises, thoughts and conclusions in many ways, but Maher's point gets lost in his intransigence, which is exactly what he criticises religious people for. In other words, if you want to criticise people who preach mumbo-jumbo and things that are not reasonable you have to do so using Reason, Respect, and Restrain, otherwise you put at the same level the people and beliefs you are criticising.
Maher is very good,
sharp, and witty at times, especially when he lets the nonsense express
itself in full and when he directs the conversation with the people he
interviews without superimposing his own views. I especially liked the
interview to the Arkansas Senator (who self-destroys his won credibility
as soon as he opens his mouth), the interviews to the re-incarnated
Latino Jesus, the interview to the black-rich pastor, and his visit and
interviews at the thematic park "Holy Land".
What annoyed me the most was that Maher doesn't show the same respect to his Christian, Jew and Muslim interviewees at all. For example, when interviewing some of the crazy Christian pastors he lets them speak, intercalating his funny comments to point out the bullshit and mixing it with super-funny visual montages. However, and despite he being half-Jew, he doesn't leave talk a Rabbi who criticises Israel, whose voice is barely heard. The same happens when he interviews some of the Dutch Muslim people. On the other hand, the only people who seem to make sense among the interviewees are Catholics, they seem to be the only ones to reconcile Science and Religion... really? (Maher is an ex-Catholic... ex?). If he had made the
documentary from a less personal dogmatic point of view, without trying
so hard to proof his point, he would have succeeded at doing that
more convincingly.
This is a very entertaining documentary, very funny at times, annoying at others. If you don't take it too seriously and forgive Maher for occasionally bullshitting the viewer, you will enjoy it. If you are deeply religious, abstain from watching. You've been warned.
A Japanese animation movie based on a comic by Osamu Tezuka, that tells the story of android Tima and her human friend Kenichi in the city of Metropolis. It is loosely based in the classic movie of the 1920s.
Metropolis shares with Astroboy two of Tezuka's themes: 1/ Father-son troublesome relationship due to the Father's rejection and unloving treatment of the son. 2/ The presence of a great variety of old-style chunky robots and very developed humanoids who ask themselves what/who I'm I?
The animation is flamboyant and amazing regarding the settings, backgrounds, architecture and machinery, and combines 2-D and 3-D mixed with some real movie elements. Some of the scenes at the end of the movie are spectacular from a visual point of view.
The mood of the movie is excellent, with the creation of a retro-futuristic city very developed, but impoverished and without freedom. We have the bright city and the underworld, with different colours and styles.
The music is fantastic, also retro, with lots of Mow-Town, classic Jazz, alternating with symphonic pieces that reminded me of John Williams'.
The script, though, is a poor mix of well-known sci-fi elements and characters. I found the script not engaging most of the time, not only because of the lack of originality of the same, but, above all, because of the drawing of the characters is completely childish, which barely fits with the innovative and more artistic style of the rest of the movie. Tima and Kenichi are beautifully drawn, and, being children, the style suits them, but the adults are drawn in a very different style, very 1970s cartons!, which doesn't seem to give visual homogenity to the film or fit the story.
I felt that the movie was perfect for teenagers, with elements that would suit both children and young adults, not as much for adults, unless you are a Tezuka's fan. Entertaining nevertheless.
++ This review contains or might contain spoilers++
Last Tango in Paris tells the story of the sexual relationship between Paul -played by Marlon Brando- a mature selfish widower, and Jeanne -played by Maria Schneider- a naive 20y.o. emotionally immature girl.
Despite what one might think, the movie is not about sex, but about obsession, manipulation, grieving, deceit, primal emotions and social constrictions.
THE CHARACTERS One of the most fascinating things about this movie is how well drawn the characters are. They are multifaceted, never simple or linear, very human, but also very archetypal and symbolic. The viewer can hate or love them, but, even if one can't fully understand them, there is a feeling of acceptance and even empathy.
Paul is an obsessive person, who had an open relationship with his wife -the only way he believes love should be, free from any obligation. When his wife commits suicide, he is shocked. He takes the suicide as a proof of his wife's emotional treachery. A mix of grief and hatred, pain and disenchantment with love, is what Paul is feeling when he meets Jeanne. She is half his age and easy to manipulate, as she's emotionally insecure and unhappy with her boyfriend, who uses her like a doll. They are like water on fire.
Paul channels his conflicting emotions through raw sex. He forces Jeanne into a situation that it is not good for her, a fact that she realises early on. Jeanne is looking from love and for personal appreciation, the one she doesn't get with her boyfriend, and to be loved for who she is. However, Paul creates a situation of complete emotional and sexual domination by establishing the rules of their meetings, which only benefit him. The Society and world that Paul wants to leave behind is, after all, a wish to return to Paradise. The fact that the couple play and talk like baboons in their rendezvous is a metaphor of this primeval relationship and the space of mind that Paul wants.
Jeanne's character and her relationship with Paul is the catalyst for her inner transformation - the way she relates to men in general, and her boyfriend in particular. She is like a lamb at the beginning of the movie, but like a lioness at the end. Despite her obsession with Paul, she is able to see her own dependence and starts fighting it until she frees herself completely.
THE PERFORMANCES The respective ages and
level of maturity/immaturity of Brando and Schneider are perfect for
their characters, and the acting is convincing and dynamic on both parts.
Brando is great in his performance, superb sometimes, especially when he's able to relax in front of the camera and improvise those monologues for which he became famous. The scene in which the recalls the story of his childhood is so real and powerful that you feel that he's the character he's playing; the same can be said of his scene with Massimo Girotti (who plays the lover of Paul's wife). I found some of his crying scenes heartfelt, but some others a bit phoney. Despite Schneider's acting being labelled poor, she brings to her role exactly what it is needed, and what Bertolucci wanted from her. She plays with freshness, naivety, and emotional maturity a character that is extremely difficult, has many colours, and does so in front of a mature Brando, who was a legend at the time.
THE (IN)FAMOUS SEX SCENES The movie is disturbing
sometimes, but not because of the sex scenes. The raunchy images that scandalised the world in the 1970s are, in most cases, not that raunchy for modern standards. Nudity is limited, and the bed scenes are more hinted and talked about than explicitly shown.
The only scene that I consider confronting is the one involving the butter bar. I had a strong emotional reaction against the scene, and I found it disturbing, despite the characters being dressed, and some men viewers considering the scene "hot". It felt like a rape to me. Alas, in an interview, Maria Schneider mentions that this scene wasn't originally in the script, that it was Brando's idea, that Bertolucci loved it, that she didn't want to do it; however, she was was forced to do it, and that she felt raped; her tears in the movie were real and personal, not the characters'.
THE ATMOSPHERE I thought that it was one of the best things of the movie as masterly reflects the soul and essence of the characters, individually and as couple. The mix of colours, lighting, and music are in perfect tune with each other. Thus, the atmosphere is dark and claustrophobic, bizarre and horror-like when focuses on Paul's world.
The atmosphere is clear, luminous, fresh and bucolic when focuses on Jeanne's world.
The atmosphere is warm minimal and with a a pronounced chiaroscuro in the love meetings of the couple in the empty apartment.
The atmosphere is decadent, theatrical, and "run out" in the Tango dancing scenes.
To blend it all, the sound track by Gato Barbieri is beautifully unsettling.
THE FLAWS I found the movie a little too long, too theatrical at times, and some bits unnecessary and distracting. The tempo is uneven, not fluid or natural, more theatrical than cinematic. Maria Schneider's wardrobe is really poor and she wears the same attire for most of the movie. This is not an easy movie to watch, or so did I find.
***
Last Tango in Paris is
one of these movies that gets stuck to your memory for a long time. The
more time passes, the more it settles in. Few movies in the History of Cinema have been able to achieve that, especially one as disturbing as
this one is.Last Tango in Paris gets under your skin, gives you a gut reaction, and you like it and hate it at the same time. The movie is a terrific characters' study, and offers unforgettable images and performances that are already part of the History of Cinema.
Krysar is an adult stop-motion animation film, loosely based on the German folk tale the Pipe Piper of Hamelin. A real art-house piece of animation that has a mix of Renaissance and Medieval elements. There are many original elements about this film. The first one is the story, which deviates from the original, or better said digs into its original meaning, to offer a social allegory. Barta's Hamelin is a greedy, glutton and lusty male-dominated society - a kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. The piper is the punisher and redemptor, and the catalyst necessary for human renewal. The children are only seen at the end.
The second element of originality is its language... which is onomatopoeic: sounds, grunts, mumblings and gibbering, perfectly understandable by anybody in the world. I found it hilarious!
The third element of originality is the visual style of the movie, traditional and innovative at the same time, very odd and very artistic. Hamelin's backgrounds, architecture and interiors are made of dark carved wood, similar to the ones you find in some Renaissance cathedral choir chairs. The overall design is German expressionist in its design, which is noticeable in the diagonal and curved collapsing lines, unbalanced proportions and oniric elements, and the general darkness and oppressiveness of the space and atmosphere. On the contrary, the luminous colourful paintings used for the landscape are bucolic and very artistic, the sort of images you find in Medieval Gothic Books of Hours. They are human spaces, associated to the most human characters in the story, and a complete counterpoint to the rest. I found in the movie very Bergman's, with the sort of vibe, feeling, and themes one can find in movies like The Seventh Seal or the Virgin Spring.
The third element of originality is the design of the characters. Most of the Hamelin dwellers are wood puppets, with mobile parts and fabric clothing; they have angular-faces and are thin and tall. The Piper is also a wood puppet, but it looks very different - a mixture of walking skeleton, a Goth band member, and an apocalyptic angel. The only two good characters and pure souls in the city -the lady living in the city outskirts and the fisherman- are very refined sweet and delicate wooden puppets. The rest of the characters are the rats, real ones (more like big mice!), which are as big the human characters, naughty monsters as greedy as the humans, which move rapidly and awkwardly.
The music is terrific - a mix of dark classic pieces and rock sounds with the ethereal sound of the flute as only breaker.
The ending is great, and has nothing to do with the traditional story. It couldn't be otherwise, as the movie is an allegorical reflection of Society's sins. The title in Czech means rat trapper, which refers to the rats in Hamelin and also to its dwellers, which are a pest as much as the rats are, and the piper also traps.
I found annoying that some general scenes -landscapes shots, movement of groups- were repeated over and over.
The film is not for small kids because there are too many adult explicit elements in it: lust, rape, killing of animals, stealing, death, and the general nastiness of the dwellers of the city.
Krysar is an amazing movie, but also a bit freaky and grotesque! Dare to watch it.
My Blueberry Nights is, in a way, an homage to the characters, themes and the ambience of the black and white classic movies of the 1950s... but shot in glorious colours. The movie is an ode to the life of the American urban nights and of its characters.
This is a very artistic and stylish film, in which the settings, the characters, the colours, the textures, the music, and the wardrobe have been taken care of to the minimal detail.
The acting is good in general. I found Rachel Weisz, David Strathairn and Natalie Portman excellent in their respective roles. Jude Law is correct as cafe owner Jeremy, in a role that does is not dramatically demanding. On the contrary, I found the presence of Norah Jones as Elizabeth a big mistake; she is a great musician and singer, but she doesn't have any dramatic talent.
One of the main flaws of the movie is the underdevelopment of Elizabeth's character. She is supposed to be the main character in the movie, but she ends being only a link between the different stories. Elizabeth's miseries and emotional struggle are barely hinted, and it is difficult to empathise with her or understand her actions.
The film has poor reviews in general, but I loved it in spite of its flaws because of its stylish atmosphere, its emotional depiction of the American underground and night life, the wonderful music, and some of the performances.
Manderlay is the second instalment of Lars Von Trier's thought-provoking trilogy "USA - Land of Opportunities". The story starts exactly where Dogville ended. Grace, her father, and their bunch of paid gangsters stop to eat at Manderlay (Alabama), a plantation where slavery persists 70 years after its Abolition. Idealistic Grace decides to stay, free the black people, and start a communal free plantation.
The story is narrated in eight chapters: 1/ In which we happen upon Manderlay and meet the people there. 2/ The freed enterprise of Manderlay. 3/ The Old Lady's Garden. 4/ In which Grace means business. 5/ Shoulder to Shoulder. 6/ Hard times at Manderlay. 7/ Harvest. 8/ In which Grace settles with Manderlay and the film ends. The setting, like in Dogville, is an almost empty theatre set with minimalist elements of architecture, furniture and floor white drawings to mark Manderlay's different spaces and buildings. The camera wanders around the set very close to the actors, as if the viewer was filming them with his/her own video-camera; there are bird's view shots, too, in which the characters look like little pawns on a chess board. The Spartan setting helps the viewer to focus on the story and its message, not on superfluous things.
Trier is always merciless depicting Society and Human Nature, with both their flaws and virtues. Despite his bad name, he is a a true artist, and it is one of an artist' obligations -or it should be- to reflect on the issues that affect the world we live in. Four main questions are explored and implicitdly posed in Manderlay's script: 1/ Is Democracy the best political system to have a free society? 2/ Can Democracy be preached by supporting the use of guns? 3/ What is the best solution to the race issue in America (and elsewhere)? 4/ Was Abolition, the way it happened, the best way to free the Afro-American population in the USA and give them equal rights?
Grace teaches the Afro-American slaves the rudiments of Democracy, but she does so while she's escorted and supported by a bunch of armed gangsters; therefore, from a position of power and white-race superiority - the same she believes she's fighting against. Moreover, nobody has elected her, so she shouldn't be preaching anything. If this wasn't enough, Grace tries, despite being white and not a slave, to teach the Afro-Americans how to be black and free without even asking them what they want and what their opinion is. Grace became a sort of slave in Dogville, but she did not learn her lesson there. The shock that she gets at the end of the movie masterly reflects how a just system can turn into oppressive when it is imposed on people who don't benefit from it and have no voice in its establishment.
The little moral of the story is not presented at the end, but right at the beginning, when Grace's father reminds Grace of an episode of her childhood. He tells her that she had a beautiful bird in a cage, that she freed it thinking that it was the best thing for the animal, but the bird, not being wild could not survive the winter outside; she found the bird frozen dead on her window next day. Grace, in fact, treats Manderlay's slaves with affection and love, but also with the same paternalistic ego-centered view of the world she treated her bird.
The music is great. I loved the fact that the movie ended playing "Young Americans" by David Bowie as the lyrics are relevant to the story, as well as the photo-slide that accompanies it, which showcases the de-facto apartheid and lack of freedom of the Afro-American population in the USA until well-entered the 1970s, not when the Abolition was issued in the USA.
The main flaw of Manderlay is that the fact that the story can be easily twisted if interpreted literally; simple minds could say that the movie supports slavery or that blames the Afro-Americans for not freeing themselves earlier, which is completely the opposite of what Trier intends. Moreover, the movie is not engaging enough at the beginning, and a bit of more editing would have been advisable. Finally, the colours and quality of the film used are very poor, which might put off some viewers; Trier was much more careful in Dogville, and the film looked nicer on the screen.
Manderlay is a a very good film, not always engaging, not for the faint-hearted, but a valid reflection about the the flaws of the human spirit, and a wonderful metaphor about the problems that plague our contemporary Western world. I loved the ending. I hope Trier finds the motivation, inspiration, time and money to finish this amazing trilogy.
Brazil tells the story of Sam Lowry, a public officer who is dissatisfied with his personal and professional life. He has recurrent dreams about a woman with whom he finds happiness. When Sam meets Jill Layton, he realises she is the woman in his dreams. Sam is wrongly accused of sabotaging the government, and he will have to hide, escape and fight for his life, prove his innocence, win his girl over, before reaching his dreamed dreamland - Brazil.
Brazil is a very irreverent and humorous movie that deals with serious themes and philosophical queries. Brazil is an analysis and critique of some of the sins and obsessions of our society (still valid more than 30 years later): incompetent and self-absorbed
bureaucracy, the obsession with youth and plastic surgery, government censorship,
terrorism, social and media manipulation, order and chaos dynamics, the place of the individual in Society, and the validity of day-dreaming to create you real world amongst many others. The moral of the story lies beneath, clearly visible, but masked as a surreal dreamy science-fiction satire. There are many elements that reminded me of Orwell's "1984", but Brazil is funnier and focuses more in the power of the individual again the System than in the powerlessness of the individual in front of an oppressive System.
The movie has an unique and original visual style, especially brilliant if we take into account that the especial effects are all mechanical and not digital, and that some of them were really difficult to create when the movie was filmed. All the day-dreaming and dreams segments are brilliantly shot, as well as the impacting images related to the interrogation at the end of the movie, which were shot inside an abandoned thermonuclear plant.
Brazil's atmosphere is also excellent with a predominance of grey and beige hues and a fashion style that mixes elements from the 1950s and the 1980s to create an undated near future. This mix of contemporary and retro was extremely original and innovative at the time, and it is so still nowadays. In fact, the retro-future style has fed the aesthetics of contemporary movies considered visually innovative, like Jean-Pierre Jeunet's City of Lost children, Delicatessen, and Micmacs, and Proyas' Dark City amongst others.
The performances of most leading and supporting actors are great. Jonathan Pryce's physique and acting talent are a perfect combination to create the character of Sam, a very normal man who is also very vulnerable, naughty, adventurous and dreamy. Katherine Helmond is brilliant and very funny as Sam's eccentric mother Ida. Robert de Niro is fun in his small cameo as subversive independent heating technician, as well as Bob Hoskins as the legal heating technician, Ian Holm as the incompetent Mr. Kurtzmann, and Michel Palin as the butcher at the Information Central Office. I did not like the performance of Kim Greist as Jill Layton; she looks great on camera but her acting was a bit unsubstantial. The Original Sound Track is mostly the song Brazil (an adaptation of a Brazilian song of the 1930s) played over and over but with different arrangements and tempos that go from playful to melodramatic. The music works perfectly, and it constantly reminds the viewer that Brazil is a real place, a better place where to live the dream life one wants, a perfect destination in your mind to escape the greyness of our daily discontent and the oppressive world that ignores and enslaves the individual.
The European poster of the movie is just an awesome piece of art, and it conveys what the core of the story is perfectly. Brazil is an unforgettable classic - original, thought-provoking and extremely entertaining. Still, a bit too long for me.
When Walt Disney was a person alive making animations movies and not just a brand, he had the dream of making animated concerts mixing his animation with classical music. Fantasia was born. It was 1940.
Fantasia 2000 is a celebration of Disney's vision, an a celebratory anniversary of the original Fantasia. James Levine directs the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in seven new animated short films. Some of them are an abstract mix of colour, light and movement. Some other are a creation inspired by specific musical pieces, while others have a story for which a piece of music was created a posteriori.
1/ An Allegro from Beethoven's "Symphony No. 5", offers an abstract light, colour and abstract birds & butterflies very short short.
2/ Respighi's "Pines of Rome" shows a family of humpback whales playfully swiming from water to air. This is my favourite short, as it is completely experimental, pure fantasia and extravaganza, but still very modern in animation style and feeling. Very New Age, in a way.
3/ Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" inspires a story set in New York during the Big Depression, with moody unhappy characters who dream of having a different life. The animation style is very 1930s and is based in Al Hirschfeld's cartoons. The first seconds of the segment are brilliant, but the whole piece captures the spirit of old-style 2D animation with great mastery.
4/ An Allegro from Shostakovich's "Piano Concerto No. 2" matches a version of Hans Christian Andersen's The Steadfast Tin Soldier. This is the most linear story, and the one I enjoyed the least.
5/ Saint-Saëns's "Carnival of the Animals" offers a colourful flamboyant scene of dancing flamingos that are trying to get a yoyo-obsessed dancing flamingo back into the flock and dancing routine. It reminded me of the Warner Bross old classics cartoons! Delightful.
6/Dukas's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" accompanies Micky Mouse naughty slovenliness in his sorcerer chores in this old well-known piece included in the original Fantasia. Despite its age, the piece is still delightful and fresh.
8/ Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" offers a version of Noah's Ark with Donald Duck and Daisy leading the animals into the ark and into a safe land. 9/ Finally, Stravinsky's "Firebird Suite" offers a story of a death and renewal with a spring fairy and her companion Elk.
The movie has, overall, a retro-style that mimics the style of the original. Walt Disney and Disney Factory's old spirit are still here. However, the fact that each short is introduced by different celebrities (Steven Martin, Quincy Jones, Bette Midler, James Earl Jones, and Angela Landsbury among others) rests fluidity to the movie. I thought the introductions were funny and charming, but I would have preferred longer shorts and shorter speeches. The original Fantasia was original in its conception, but also daring and experimental in its visuals and the stories told. Creativity was overflowing. That cannot be said about Fantasia 2000, although the contrary could be expected with the digital revolution allowing Animators to bring to the big screen almost anything. Still, this is a good entertaining movie. Fantasia 2000 is a very enjoyable family movie that can be enjoyed by both adults and children; it might not be fit for small children as some of the pieces are a bit abstract. This is a wonderful movie to introduce Classic Music to children.
The Iron Giant tells the story of the fall into Earth of an alien giant robot, and his relation with a naughty child who lives with his single mother in a small town in the States.
The movie is set in the 1950s, during the Cold War period and the space race, when aliens and robot populated TV shows, comics and the imagination of everybody. The movie is able to reproduce the mood and style of the era, even the animation style, but with all the improvements that technology has brought to animation.
The characters are well drawn psychologically, which is not a surprise the movie being a Warner Bros'. Moreover, the cartoons have a superb body movement and facial expression.
The script is engaging and very entertaining, very funny and lovable. At the same time, the film address serious social and political issues in a simple approachable way, without lecturing: You are who you decide to be, if you respond to violence is your option., it is in your hands to make your own destiny no matter what your past is, your heart is always a great power to connect with others no matter how different they are. Great messages to pass on to children. All the voice actors are terrific, and the movie is never dull, but cheerful and full of life thanks to them. Eli Marienthal is terrific as the little hero Hogarth Hughes. Jennifer Aniston is extremely lovable as his mother Annie (perhaps Aniston's best performance ever...), Harry Connick Jr is very likeable as the quirky Dean McCoppin, Vin Diesel very sweet as the "brute" Iron Giant, and Christopher McDonald terrific as the annoying paranoid Government Agent Kent Mansley.
The Iron Giant did not have success at the box office when first released, due to poor marketing, but it has proven to be one of the most charming, entertaining and lovable animation movies of all times, matching Miyazaki's and other classics of 2D animation because of both the quality of its animation and script. The Iron Giant is a a movie with a great script, characters and old-style animation suitable for both adults and children. Forget the hollow modern movies for children, and show them one that has some substance.
In a world inhabited by locomotive machines and cars, the little abandoned town of Radiator Spring is languishing. The visit of a posh race car, Lightning McQueen, will revitalise the live of the locals and will teach him invaluable lessons on life. The whole film is a long visual feast and you feel like clapping to those big digital artists working for Pixar in this movie. The mate drawing of the landscape and town settings is magnificent. The cinematography and shot angles are truly artistic. The design of the cars is equally impressive regarding animation, colours, texturing and lighting. The night scenes in the open field are among my favourites because of their beauty and artistry.
The voicing of the characters, done by A-list actors (Paul Newman among them, in his last acting role before passing away), is extremely good, very charming and effective, as the viewer really feels that the voices match the cars' personality and give a big cosy feeling to the movie.
However, all of this is not enough to save the movie, which suffers from an absurd point of departure, stereotypical script and characters/role models, and a childish storyline. This will delight small children, guaranteed, but will not engage most adults. I thought that Pixar had lowered their storyline standards and made a movie that would suit more Disney's requirements. No wonder, Disney bought Pixar little after Cars was released.
Cars is an enjoyable movie for kids, with spectacular animation and eye candy colours.
Ana (Manuela Vallès), a young hippy talented painter living in Ibiza, is discovered by Justine (Charlotte Rampling), an Arts Patron who invites her to join an independent Arts school. Ana's first troubled love and sexual experiences, and her constant nightmares will get Anglo (Asier Newman) to perform hypnosis on her. Ana's past lives will be open to the viewer, but not to Ana, who will have to deal with her life chaos in unknown painful ways not being aware of what is causing it.
Chaotic Ana is a very
difficult conceptual film to watch, called pretentious and pointless by
many, or challenging and profound by others. You cannot watch it as a
linear story. This film requires of you a willingness to accept the odd,
the chaos and the surprising. This film requires of you a willingness to
embrace Medem's personal intimate story as it is related to Medem's late sister Anne, who was a remarkable
painter.
Chaotic Ana touches Universal themes and myths related to the Female and the myths of the Motherland (from Oedipus and Electra to primitive matriarchal mythologies). In his
odyssey of discovery of The Female, Medem takes us from the cave to the
skyscraper using the Ocean as a linking element
Chaotic Ana is -despite some shocking violent scenes- an ode against male violence and
wars, and against those individuals who start them; however, the film
also shows a blind faith in the goodness of Human Kind despite the
tragedies and havoc that we create.
Chaotic
Ana is both a reflection on Death and the void left by the departed -
Medem's tribute to his late sister.
Chaotic Ana is also an
invitation to see Art as a form of individual expression, a timeless
biography of the living, and a living legacy of the deceased. I especially liked some of visual shows shown in the House of the Artists.
The editing is complex and very dynamic. Every small detail in the film has a meaning and it is intricately related to what is happening in the story as a whole. This is one of those films that you need to watch more than once -if you dare or care enough- to get everything. The film continuously
unsettles the viewer, and there are some gory, violent and shock sex
scenes. The international cast members are just OK in their performances, but this is not a movie for them to shine as the script is what matters, and they are, in a way, just Medem's "mediums". Movies like this are never popular or highly rated, and are hated or loved, nothing in between. I loved it, but some of my friends -who are also fans of Medem- totally hated it. I always love a mental challenge, odd stuff, and artistic honesty, and this film has all of those things. However, the mediocre performances, the intellectual complexity of the script, and the length of the film do not help the viewer to connect with the film at an emotional level, just at an intellectual one, and not always. This is a pity, because that emotional connection is what Medem was looking for in the viewer.
This is a film not for the faint hearted. Not easy to watch. Difficult. Complex. Intricate. Interesting, nevertheless.
After the crash of a spaceship on an apparently desolated planet, the only surviving crew members are captured by a group of highly evolved Apes. They act like humans, are dominant on the planet, and have reduced humans to an almost-animal state. The fact that the newly-arrived humans are able to talk and reason will shock the Apes and create confrontation within the group of leading members of the tribe.
Planet of the Apes has
plenty of action, thrill and mystery, and it is very entertaining.
However, the dialogues and atmosphere of the film are permeated by a
subtle restlessness that unsettles the viewer from the beginning to the
very end. Planet of the Apes is not only an entertaining science-fiction film, but a mesmerising reflection on Human and Animal Nature, the position of Humans within the animal world, and racial superiority and segregation theories. The script is very philosophical and poignant and presents many difficult subjects, which were very relevant at the time, in a very light, unconventional non-confrontational way. In a way, Planet of the Apes is a social and political parable. The script is an adaptation of the eponymous novel by Pierre Boulle.
The actors are all terrific in their respective roles. Charlton Heston is good and believable in his role of George Taylor, while Linda Harrison is pretty as the pretty Nova. However, the actors playing the main Apes Cornelius, Zira and Dr. Zaius (Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans, respectively) really steal the show, not because of their masks and dresses, but because of their performances are so good that the viewer soon forgets about the make-up and sees them as real characters.
The film is visually impacting, still today, despite the lack of computerised special effects. The make-up and dresses are unbelievable. The ending offers us one of the most iconic stunning surprising endings and images in Film History, and that is a lot to say.
Although some of the issues implicitly discussed in the film are out of date, the films is still terrific. One wonders why a remake was necessary, the original being so good. An unforgettable classic.
Garage is a movie about the life of Josie, a simple-minded good-hearted somewhat-autistic gas-station caretaker who craves affection and social interaction in an isolated Irish rural town.
The script reflects about the changes of the traditional ways of living and social interaction in rural areas through Josie's character. The movie is a good depiction of rural life and how modernisation has affected the pace and social dynamics of traditional towns, and a social group that is unable to harmoniously mix the new ways of living with with its very traditional hierarchic structure. The script makes many good points about social isolation and lack of adaptation, explores the nature (and limits) of friendship, the contradictions of modern Law and old ways of socialising, and the thin line separating success and fracas in such an environment.
Thus, the viewer witnesses the lives of the town's apparently happy (but deeply dissatisfied) dwellers, their miseries and broken dreams, their monotonous social interaction, their social hierarchy, and their latent immobility and frustration.
The main problem of the movie is its overall dullness and low pace, and the fact that some characters are just sketched, so their actions appear a bit out of the blue (so to speak) sometimes. Pat Shortt, the leading actor, is inexpressive in his performance, as most of the cast; I blame the mediocre direction and the unbalanced script for that.
The conversations of Josie with a horse, his interaction with some of the teens in town, his sexual frustration, his Spartan way of life, and the changes in other characters when Josie starts to behave differently trying to break his position as clown or punch-bag in the town are the things I liked the most. I also liked the ending, which is a bit unexpected, surreal and very moving, as it shows how a speck in your actions can create an unbearable tension in your psyche if you live in a narrow-minded rural town.
The dull performances by most actors, the dragging tempo, and the poor direction killed a story that had many possibilities and deserved a bit of more effort. However, this is an interesting film that shows a face of Ireland that is not usually presented in film, and whose premises could be easily transplanted to other rural European towns.
A low-budget science-fiction original movie that tells the story of a group of friends who are carrying out several engineering Physics experiments in a garage and discover, by accident, time travel.
The director and main actor is Shane Carruth, an ex-engineer who also wrote the script, and made the music! His family and friends make most of the cast, too!
Carruth is a scientist by formation. Therefore, all the part of the story related to the experimentation and discussions taken part in the garage are truly believable as they have all the technical jargon that you expect from real physicists. If time-travel was discovered would be, we can guess, in a similar way to the one portrayed in the movie.
The use of the camera and the amateurish acting (really pedestrian in the case of Carruth) help the story to be credible, down to earth and realistic. As if somebody was filming the meetings and wanderings of the characters with a video-camera. Something very close to reality to what went on in Carruth's house when he was preparing and shooting the movie. The movie is definitely
original, believable and refreshing, and incredibly good-looking
for the low budget. A good suit and a tie always work on camera! The 1990s mood and style are very good. The mobiles and the computers range between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, and the laptop in the movie is very similar to my first (and now ancient MS2) Toshiba.
The first and main problem of the movie, to me, is not the jargon, but the fact that the dialogues are crowded, words colliding atomically against others at the speed of light. Moreover, the diction of the actors, especially of the two main characters, is really bad, a fact that is highlighted by the poor quality of the sound. Secondly, there are gaps and blurs not well explained in the script, or perhaps are just the result of a poor editing. In general, the movie is a bit thick and confusing.
The movie won the Prize
of the Jury and the Alfred P. Sloan Prize at Sundance 2004,
but I do not think the first one was deserved - my opinion.
The first time I wrote about this movie, I ended saying:
Carruth is somebody to watch in the future and has brilliant ideas. Hopefully, he will have enough budget next time, and will have learnt better film-making skills, so he can make a great film that is not just for scientists doing a Ph.D. and without having to sacrifice any depth. That's possible. You need to learn film-making, not just produce your own brilliant ideas.
Well, he has proven to
continue to showcase his talent, and wrote the scripts for two other science-fiction movies: the critically well-received "Looper" and for the just released and winner of the Special Prize of the Jury at Sundance 2013, "Upstream Colour".
Dr Seuss's eponymous story is brought to the big screen with respect, truthfulness and heart in this animated movie. The thing that makes the movie good is not not the animation, but Dr Seuss's story, which is universal, timeless, simple and complex at the same time: A person is a person no matter how small. Stand for what you believe. Believe in what you don't hear or see. The world is more than yourself and more of what you see. What you do has a direct effect on other people. Reality is not always full of reason. These are some of the important life messages that are embedded in a story that is, beyond the message, full of fun and adventure, and archetypical characters.
Steve Carell and Jim
Carrey, who are well known for their over-the-top performances, are
gladly very restrained in their performances in this movie, and their
interpretation really gives life to their respective characters: Carell
as the bullied Major of Who, and Carrey as the good-hearted elephant
from the Nool Jungle. Carol Burnett is also great as the matter-of-fact
Kangaroo. The animation is not as
spectacular as in other modern animated films, but some parts of it
deserve praise: The characters' facial expression and body language, the
attention to the detail in the creation of the Major, the
architecture of Who world, and the visual creation of some characters are excellent. My favourite characters were the creepy fluffy
yellow Katie, and the pathetic vulture. My favourite scene is the one with Horton is searching for his lost speckled world in a field
of pink of thousands cloves, which is truly magic.
Heart-warming and charming for both children and adults, this is a movie of which Dr Seuss would feel proud.
Dopamine is an original independent post-modern love story that reflects on traditional/modern views on love in our contemporary world, and on the difficulties of human connection in a world that is every day more virtual.
The main characters are Rand -a computer animator working on a project of a virtual pet- and Sarah -a schoolteacher-, who are convincingly played by John Livingston and Sabrina Lloyd. They really have great chemistry on camera.
Sarah believes in love, from heart to heart, and in a committed relationship. Rand, is very influenced by his father's teachings on human biology and chemistry, according to which most human emotions -love included- are just the result of biochemical reactions in our body. Love, in that regard, is directly connected to a high production of Dopamine in the brain. However, Sarah is rough, edgy, and unpredictable, while Rand is a sweet sensitive guy.
+ The good things about the movie are: + The story is very engaging and believable. + The acting is good and the main actors have chemistry. + The characters are all well-drawn and grounded - believable. + The dialogues are great, fresh and thought-provoking. + The story is never straightforward or simplistic, and shows the difficulties surrounding men-women relationships from a new perspective.
However, - The pace of the movie is too slow. - The music is forgettable. I don't even remember it! - The colours, cinematography and texture of the film used for the movie are not visually engaging or attractive, which is a pity as the movie was shot in the colourful bright San Francisco. - The ending is predictable.
The movie won the Alfred P. Sloan Prize at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival, and it is not your usual love story. It is not a proper chick flick, or perhaps it is a chick flick for chicks that aren't your average romantic chick.
Underground is a Serbian-Franco-German allegorical tragicomedy about the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.
The movie is structured in three parts: War, Cold War, and War. The first is devoted to the WWII, the second to Tito’s period, and the third to the civil war that ended with the disintegration of the country. The second part is the most interesting -and the one that gives the movie its title- as it shows, in a metaphorical way, how the Yugoslavs related to each other, deceived each other, exploited each other, lied to each other and built up the hatred that would end with a very nasty civil war. All the characters are well drawn, and all the actors do a great job in their respective roles. The main characters are a couple of rascal friends and a nymphomaniac actress. They represent three human archetypes. Marko -played by Miki Manojlovic- depicts those people who say they have political beliefs and brag about them, when in actuality they have none. Cmi = Blacky -played by Lazar Ristovski- depicts those people who truly believe in what they preach and act accordingly, but they do so in such a dogmatic and obsessive way that become oblivious to reality and ignore the harshness of they political regimes they support. Finally, Natalija -played by Mirjana Jokovic- depicts those people who will always support the political regime in power, with a passion, no fight or confrontation, and go on with the flow and with their lives in a successful way. The counterpoint to these three characters is the character of Ivan (Marko's mentally changed brother) -played by Slavko Stimacy-, who loves his monkey Soni and wants to hung himself as he's always deceived and betrayed by everybody; he seems to be the only honest decent person and human being around.
Some Bosnians and French intellectuals accused Kusturica of producing a pro-Serbian pamphlet. Kusturica, who
considers himself to be an Othodox Serbian (despite being born a Muslim
Bosnian) does not mention anything about the barbaric acts committed by
the Serbians. I do not know the director personally, or enough about him, so I cannot speak about his true intentions. However, the fact is that the movie rarely mentions any ethnic group. I see the movie more an evaluation of the (arche)type of people you find during pre-war or war periods than a justification of any of the barbarian acts committed during those period by any ethnic group. In fact, we are shown that all of those ethnic and social groups are to blame for what happened. Kusturica shows, in a way, certain fatalism in his approach to the events, as if what happened was inevitable. We see best friends killing each other’s... anybody who wants to understand, will.
My main criticism to the movie is its the extremely long footage, its slow pace, and the fact that it is not always engaging. Moreover, the camera style and film colours are those ugly ones typical of the TV shows of the 1980s. That is so because the film is an adaptation for the big screen of a 5-hour TV series. I would have not had any problem with that if the editors had taken into consideration that people going to the cinema expect different things than those watching a TV series, and that superfluous things are OK for TV but not for a movie. I found the music overbearing and annoying in general, although some of the individual pieces are beautiful. However, the music goes well with the histrionics of the characters and the craziness of the story.
Once upon a time, there was a country... and people who were happy partying and playing music, would end killing, torturing, and hating each other in a way that is difficult to understand for outsiders.
Underground, despite its comedic tone, is a very sad movie that speaks of social and human failure, and of the wickedness of the human spirit.
A single event in somebody's life can have repercussions in many others. That is the point of departure of this post-modern holistic view of human interrelations in a modern multicultural multiracial Los Angeles.
Crash is a choral film in which each character's mini-story links to the others in an organic way. This is not a film with good and bad people despite the initial appearances. As the film progresses, we see that all the characters are deeply human, and they are depicted in both their splendour and misery - sometimes they are disgusting, reproachable, racist, angry and violent; other times they are heroic, tender, kind and good. The characters are not
good or bad, are good and bad depending on the circumstances. As any
human being in any country in the world. Humans are never a behavioural block of concrete, and
there is more to any person than it catches the eye, as the eye is always
biased.The movie also succeeds at offering a raw unadorned honest and empathetic image of American society and its social and multicultural issues wounds, and most importantly, of the depths and multifaceted nature of the human spirit.
Paul Haggis does a great job at creating unity and giving harmonic pace and sense to the emotional physical and cultural chaos in which most characters live. The story has action and introspection, and the main characters are wonderfully drawn and played by all actors. All the cast members are great in their roles, but Matt Dillon (as officer Ryan) really stands out in his performance.
The film makes you think, but it is entertaining and approachable, sweet and harsh. A great film, with surprising twists.
Revelation Perth International Film Festival Astor Cinema 659 Beaufort St Mt Lawley Western Australia 6050 (08) 9238 1358 Website Facebook
The Revelation Film Festival takes places in Perth WA mid July every year since 1997. This is one of those events that happen in Perth that is really world class. One of those events that you should not miss if you like movies, for several reasons: - The event is hosted by the Astor Cinema, a beautiful old-style cinema that is perfect for this sort of events. - You will watch International independent and limited-release movies. The kind of movies that are difficult to see in mainstream movie theatres in general, and that we would rarely get to see in Perth otherwise. - The festival does show movies, documentaries, short films, and multimedia shows with live music, and has academic and non academic discussion panels on different subjects. There is always a well-known independent cult movie star or director to whom the festival pays tribute (Crispin Clover was here last year), and around whom some special events are organised. There are so many cool things going on that, even if you wanted to attend everything, you wouldn't be able to do so. - Prices for individual movies are the standard in Perth, except for opening and closing nights, and the special events. However, these
are not your average movies or shows, so the money you pay is worth it. - You will see and/or interact with Perth cultural elite, and with some of the national and international stars attending the festival. Although I have attended the Revelation other years to watch individual movies, it just in 2012 when I took the plunge and devoted a good deal of my time and money to immerse myself in the Revelation. Some of the most fascinating films I watched last year were the ones I watched at the Revelation, and this is a lot to say.
Some of the screenings were really intimate, as they took place in the small theatre rooms; they were very especial because of their experimental nature, and/or because some of the film stars/directors were there to discuss the film with the public. That was the case of Mongolian Blink, Vigilante Vigilante, or Jeff Keen Retrospective, the latter with the presence of Keen's daughter after the recent death of Keen. Other screenings were a hit with the public and were massively attended, like the Georges Melies Project with a group of American Jazz musicians playing live.
The organisation was great and everybody working at the event was terrific, friendly and cool: security people, volunteers at the doors, tickets sellers, bartenders - everybody. The movies started, almost martially, at the time they were scheduled.
OTHER GOOD THINGS ABOUT REVELATION - They always have an awesome poster! Seriously, this is truly important for a Film Festival. - The organisation has the Revelation on the Road, a program devoted to showing films and organising film workshops in isolated parts of the Western Australia (Albany, Esperance, Port Headland and Broome). - The Revelation website is good looking, very well organised, and truly informative. The Revelation newsletter will keep you updated all the year around. ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT - Although there are different sort of passes (Gold Pass for the whole thing, The Minipass for six films, and Connect4 for four films), I missed an intermediate pass for people who do not want to attend everything, but will be attending more than six shows. Moreover, there were not specific passes for students; "Revelators" be generous, don't you remember your days of poor student, when you were really... poor?
- It would be great having a courtesy of five-minute wait for any film. I know the program is fully packed, and punctuality it is a great virtue. However, being o'clock is not always good, because you get people arriving a bit "late" and having to find their way to a free seat in the darkness, stumbling across other people's feet and distracting those already seated.
The Perth Film Festival is the best cultural event I attended last year, and I attended quite a few. I cannot wait for Revelation 2013.
** Warning - This review may contain spoilers. I recommend watching the movie and then coming here, especially if the ending intrigues you, and it will **
Mr Nobody is the story of Nemo, whose possible two life lines and three love stories are alternatively presented.
The movie is well
shot and the cast members convincing, especially Jared Leto (as adult
Nemo), who is always perfect in this sort of odd films and roles. Also excellent are Toby
Regbo (15y.o. Nemo), Juno Temple (15y.o. Anna) and Sarah Polley (depressive adult Elise). Diana Kruger (as adult Anna), Rhys Ifans (Nemo's father, Natasha Little (Nemo's mother), among many others, are OK in their respective roles.
The
visual effects are wonderfully understated, very well blended with and at the
service of the story. The theatrical movie sets, the
rich colours, the different hues attached to each different life path,
the wardrobe, and the lovely music -which mixes some old classic tunes with pieces specifically composed for the movie- create an ensemble that is very
easy on the eye.
However, Mr Nobody is a great movie mostly because of its subtle but profound reflection on Human Nature, Human behaviour, Free Will and the meaning of life. The movie reflects on questions like - what makes us what we are? Why we act the way we do? Is free choice a key element to happiness? How does other people's choices affect our choices? The philosophical, psychological, and metaphysical questions posed are sometimes explicitly mentioned, while others are hinted and expressed through the story as a whole, each different life line story in particular, and through Nemo and the other characters' behaviour. Among others, some of the concepts presented here are: 1. Butterfly effect. 2. Principle of Entropy. 3. Schrodinger's Cat Paradox 4. String Theory 5. The Pigeon's Superstition experiment 6. The Nature of the true self. 7. Free will and
fate. 8. The linearity of (or multidimensional nature of) Time. 9. Quantum Physics and parallel universes.
Do not worry if some of these things sound alien to you. They were also alien to me. However, they were intriguing enough for me to get more information, and try to understand what I have seen better. In fact, they are a reason to watch the movie again. However, you can watch it without even bothering, and you will find that the movie still speaks to you.
Jaco Van Darmael himself commented on the script and on his initial intentions in an interview. However, the story has taken a life of his own, way beyond the initial intention of the director.
***
THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE - MY INTERPRETATION The film ends in a way that is open to interpretation. Movie forums are full of comments on the ending, and on Nemo's different lives, actions and reactions. To, me, however, they miss a few important things that are pivotal to understand the way the movie ends. Or, at least, the way I understand it: 1/ The Lyrics of the song Mr Sandman, which is repeatedly played thorough the whole movie, especially the main verses. Are we watching something real or is it just a dream? A lucid dream? 2/ The beginning of the film, with the different possible endings, which all end with Nemo dead, lost in a rhomboidal aseptic nightmarish dream-like world. The narrator is Nemo himself. 3/ The scene where Nemo tells how he was born, which goes from minutes 12.20 to 15 approximately. Here my transcription of what Nemo's off voice says:
"I can remember a long time ago, long before my birth, in the squeezing with those not yet born. When we aren't born yet, you know everything. Everything that's going to happen. When it's your time, the angels of the living put their finger on your mouth and leave a mark on the upper lip. It means that you've forgotten everything.
But the angels missed me.
[Nemo immerses himself in a white milk-like liquid, as he is ready to being born]
Then you have to find a daddy and mammy, and that's not easy to choose.
[Different couples speak about their wishes to have a baby, until Nemo's parents appear]
In the end, I chose them because the lady smells nice, and the man said 'Well, I can tell you how we met. It meant to be. Have you heard of the butterfly effect?' ".
4/ The title of the movie is "Mr Nobody". Shouldn't this, per se, be an indication of something? Anything? Any bell ringing in your ears, yet?
Many of the
interpretations about the meaning of the movie
focus on the event that is photographed in the poster of the movie, but we need to remember that unborn Nemo chose his parents. Therefore, the moment of decisive choice is not the one in the poster, but the one of choosing his parents.
We are told, explicitly, that Nemo can see the future, any possibility in the future, every possible action and reaction in his life because the angels missed him. Therefore, all the couples that appear at the beginning are a possibility. Nemo chooses one. The more you think about it, the clearer you come to the conclusion that unborn Nemo is seeing his possible life IF he selected this couple as his parents, NOT after selecting them as his parents. Not convinced?
Now, we have the part of the movie in which we see centenary Nemo telling his life story/ies to a journalist. At a certain point, the world in which they are living starts to fade out and disintegrate, as it was a projection or a dream. And that is what it is. Something that is not real at all. All this world is white in colour, the same limbo and space of possibility in which Nemo immerses himself before being born. Old Nemo is not real, it is the way unborn Nemo sees himself if he chooses the parents shown at the beginning. If that wasn't true, how do you explain the fact that Nemo is the narrator of the three possible endings that we see at the beginning of the movie?
***
There are other movies that reflect on the effect that personal choice and randomness, free will, determination, fate, and the butterfly effect have in our lives. Just to mention three, just remember Sliding Doors, Run Lola Run, and Cloud Atlas. However, they do not have the clarity and depth that Mr Nobody has.
Mr Nobody is a very
complex film, which, however, is very entertaining and easy on the eye.
After all, it is a possible multiple love story. You can see it in many
different ways and give it the interpretation you want. However, this is a film that needs of certain frame of mind to watch it,
as this is not your usual fantasy or science-fiction movie.
Mr. Nobody is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking film I have watched in a long time. Perfect for Philosophy classes, and for oiling the creases of your brain in those days in which you feel them a bit rusty.Mr. Nobody is one of those movies that linger in the back seat of you mind for days, long after you have watched it. "No
choice is still a choice" is one of the statements presented in the movie on which I have been pondering for days. Would
knowing your fate help you to make a choice? Is one of those questions that did the same to me. The film
is full of statements and questions that will keep you thinking, for good. A cult film already.
