The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is Gilliam's return to his old and most playful self with an extravagant modern Fausto-inspired, cirque-looking, fairytale full of magic. The movie tells the story of a travelling "Magic show" troupe, led by old Dr Parnassus, who gambled his daughter Valentina with the Devil thousands of years ago, and what happens when a charming roguish Tony start romancing her, and the Devil wants to claim his prize. The acting is very good, especially on the part of Christopher Plummer, who is truly terrific as Dr Parnassus, as well as Tom Waits as the Devil. This was Heath Ledger's last film, and he is good in his portray of the naughty, nervous and charming Tony. Also good is Andrew Garfield as the good-natured but jealous Anton, and Verne Troyer as the little bright Percy. Supermodel Lily Cole is just OK as the homey dreamer devoted daughter Valentina; not bad for for a first timer.
The parts of Tony behind the mirror, which had to be played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell after Hedger's death, are cleverly used and well performed. The two first actors really keep in tune with Ledger's performance, body language and even the inflexions of his voice. The story is extremely believable without Hedger as what happens inside the mirror is a fantasy and projection, not a reflection of reality.
The images, costumes, sets, colours, and dream-like images of the film are spectacular, full of creativity and artistry; they are an intrinsic part of the story, never an indulging showy element. Is the heart and soul of the movie what captivates the viewer, not the special effects. One feels immediately drawn by the magic mirror to a world of enthralling fantasy that the viewer would also like to experience.
I found the end of the movie a little bit rushed, and Dr Parnassus's past underdeveloped, and, well, everything a bit predictable.
This is a very enjoyable entertaining film with a good story, amazing creativity and decent acting. I would say it is a chick flick, in many ways, but I have found many men liking the movie, so it is also a blokey flick for some type of blokes.
Caramel is a Lebanon-France co-production with a charming story of female love, friendship and ageing. The story focus on the love lives of a group of young and middle-age Beiruti women who are regulars at a hair & beauty salon.
The movie mixes romance, humour and sadness with simplicity, warmth, and heart under the fresh direction of young director Nadine Labaki, who also plays the leading character.
The movie shoes a multifaceted image of Beirut and its dwellers, a city that is complex, diverse and rich in culture. Far from the stereotypes about the Midle East that we find in Western movies, Labaki is a local who knows her city, and brings to the screen the rawness and charm of everyday Beirut and of its dwellers. The movie has an honest and respectful approach to the interaction between Christians and Muslims, and how different social groups and genders relate in Lebanon.
The movie was shot in warm caramel tones, which is the colour of the home-made sugar wax traditionally used in Lebanon for waxing.
The music is a warm and sentimental mix of French and Arabic songs. Truly fantastic, but also very melancholic. All the actors are
terrific in their performances: Yasmine Elmasri as the modern Muslim girl Nisrine, who is going to get married; Joanna
Moukarzel as the boyish Lesbian Rima; Gisèle Aouad as the aging divorced
actress Jamale; Nadine Labaki as
Layale, a good-hearted girl in love with a bad man;
Adel Karam as the sweet policeman Youssef enamoured of Layale; Sihame
Haddad as the patient and shy single tailor Rose, and Aziza Semaan as an
impressive demented Lili.
Caramel is a heart-warming enjoyable chick flick, soapy at times, that offers a real portrait of life in Beirut and of Lebanese women. The story is narrated in an universal simple language, but breaks many stereotypes about religious confrontation in Lebanon and on how Middle Eastern Women think, feel or live.
Conspirators of Pleasure is a surreal comedy and Czech-Swiss-British co-production.
The story focus on the idiosyncratic sensual compulsions and obsessions (aka fetishes) of six different characters: a couple of neighbours, a couple formed by a policeman and a newsreader, a newsagent, and a postmistress. The film mixes surreal
scenes, deadpan humour, hallucinogen and gory images, and human-sized
puppets.The film has no dialogues, the terrific music and street/ambient noise being the only sound. However, the characters express themselves by non-verbal language. Svankmajer's surrealism is both social and individual, not psychological. The exploration of the subconscious world of the characters is not the point of the story; in fact, we see two of the characters hiding in a closet (a metaphor of their personal subconscious), where they find a world of deep secrets that generate their fetishes, but the camera does not go inside and we do not know why, exactly, they develop their specific compulsions. In fact, the fetish
objects in the story are objectively quirky, ridiculous, and comic, made of normal things, but they become something pleasurable and erotic because of the personal wishes of each person. In a way, the personal pleasurable compulsions of the characters appear as a clumsy imitation of the human physical contact that the characters do not have but crave. There is no real
human interaction between them, and invisible walls of lack of communication prevent them from relating to each other, so at least they have their little pleasures.
Despite the story being highly erotic at times, there is not even one sex scene
in the movie, and there is limited nudity. The supposedly raunchy
scenes have nothing explicitly raunchy; all it is hinted, never
explicitly shown. The most brutal scenes in the movie use human-sized
straw articulated puppets with facial movement, so there is a detachment and softening of them.
Despite
its surreal oddity, the story has inner logic and organicity, and the
circular interconnection of the story and of the characters makes
perfect sense; in fact, the ending of the movie is the beginning of another turnaround - The beginning of of a new round of borrowed fetishes.
All the characters are wonderfully played by all the Czech actors: Petr Meissel (as Mr. Pivoine), Gabriela Wilhelmová (as Mrs. Loubalova), Barbora Hrzánová (as the postmistress), Anna Wetlinská (as Mrs. Beltinska), Jirí Lábus (as the newsagent), and Pavel Nový (as Mr. Beltinski).
The movie will unsettle and puzzle you, confront you, visually slap you, and put a smile on your face if you have a wacky sense of humour or you are in one of those days in which you fancy anything weird. The result is a thought-provoking film that is still daring and surprising despite its age. However, I would dare to say that you will not find it that erotic, in the traditional sense of the word.
Inglorious Basterds is the story of a group of a Jewish USA guerilla that go to France, during the Nazi occupation, to kill a group of high rank German soldiers during a military German film opening.
The strong powerful music, the use of 60s's-style typing and tempo, the visually explicit violence, and the "inspiration" from other movies are all Tarantino trademarks present in this movie.
The script is not as brilliant as Kill Bill, and reminded me more of Reservoir Dogs in its tone and style, but the film is truly entertaining, thrilling and captivating at times, obscure and pointless sometimes. It has, in a way, the playful mood of a the Great Escape, with a bit of comedy, drama, adventure, violence and little bit of romance added here. There are not good or bad people in this movie, all are nasty in different degrees. The "basterds" are extremely violent and inhuman, which somewhat dilutes their good intentions of fighting inhuman violent people. If you are as cruel as the cruelest person, you are not better than them, even if your principles and aims are very different. On the other hand, German soldier Zeller, despite killing 300 soldiers in battle, does not enjoy or feels proud for doing that, which makes him more human than any of the basterds. The Jews-hunter is very clever and likeable, more than any of the basterds who are less clever, more naive and idiotic than this sophisticated German.
In many scenes, the violence is justified, but in others is not. Although this is quintessential Tarantino, by treating all moments with so much explicit violence, the tone and tempo of the movie get diluted; if Tarantino had dosed the violence in the film, leaving some of it for the dialogues, the spectator would have been less overwhelmed visually, and the film would have been more balanced.
Most of the main actors
are good in their respective roles. I especially liked Christopher
Waltz as the ruthless Jews-Hunter, Daniel Bruhl as sweet soldier
Zoller, Diana Kruger as the hot spy, and Mike Myers in his little cameo.
Brad Pitt is OK in his role, but I find his facial gesticulation over
the top, and truly annoying. On the contrary, Melanie Laurent is too
hieratic and emotionless in her performance. Some of the secondary roles
and actors are almost caricature-ish, so one does not know if this is a
demand of the script or the actors not being specially inspired in their
respective performances.
I consider the ending a big flaw. It
can be understood as a projection of the Universal unconscious, but it lacks fictional verisimilitude not just historical one. This fictional licence rests credibility to the story and puts a sort of childish ending to a film that is not bad.
Despite its shortcomings and not being Tarantino's best, Inglourious Basterds is a very entertaining film that makes good points about the nature of violence, has an overall good cast, and has some good performances.
Little Ottik is a bizarre horror comedy that adapts and reinterprets the folk story of Otesánek (aka Greedy Guts) for the big screen.
This is the story of the struggle of Bozena and Karel to hide and control heir piece-of-wood son Otesánek, a freak of nature with an insatiable hunger, from their neighbours.
The film re-examines the myth of the primeval creation, in which the natural order is subverted and disrespected. The couple succumbs to an act of greedy love that produces, as a result, a greedy gluttonous carnivore woody creature. Svankmajer depicts with great insight the sins of parenthood in our modern world, in which children are spoiled rotten, and anything they do is excused or justified. The movie also depicts with great humour and realism the social dynamics of small groups in blocks of apartments and neighbourhoods, paced not only by a net of support, but also by gossip, the power of appearances, and enmities and tensions.
The role of food in this movie is also very interesting, as most human characters in the movie eat disgusting porridge-like meals, despite them longing for meat, while Otesánek, a wooden creature, is eating meat all the time!
The Actors are all great and charming in their respective roles. Veronika Zilková plays with great conviction barren wife Bozena, while Jan Hartl plays with sweetness her doubtful and confused husband Karel. Also terrific are the actors playing the good-hearted neighbours: Kristina Adamcová as the incisive rebel child Alzbetka -who is also the catalyst of the story-, Jaroslava Kretschmerová as Alzbetka's sensible Mother, Pavel Nový as Alzbetka's working-class male Father, and Dagmar Stríbrná as the building caretaker.
The stop-motion animation of Otesánek is delightfully odd, and the drawn illustrations (by Svankmajer's wife) shown in the book that Alzbetka is reading are colourful and artistic. Also delightful are the episodes involving the interaction between old spectacled neighbour and Alzbetka, which are really really naughty.
On the negative side, the film was shot using ugly-looking 1970-like colours and lighting, which are a bit weird for a 2000 movie; still they somewhat go well with such an odd story. Moreover, the movie is too long and its pace too slow at times, and that is not excusable in this case.
Little Otik is a grotesque mesmerising adult tale with a great story, terrific performances, and very interesting themes. Nothing you've watched before!
The movie is based on Alice Seabold's eponymous book, which I read a few years ago and I absolutely loved. If you have not read the book, you will certainly watch the movie with different eyes. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson's adaptation does not convey the emotional depth of the novel. The Lovely Bones is the story of a murdered girl grieving her own death and the emotional struggle of her family after her vanishing. It is, above all, a story of sadness, guilt, resentment, and redemption by forgiveness and letting go.
Jackson focused on two aspects of the book to develop his movie. 1/ the murder investigation, and 2/ the recreation of the limbo, or pseudo-heaven, in which the girl stays. By doing so, he's forgetting the core of the book, what makes it so meaningful and memorable.
The thriller occupies a minor part in the book, while the grieving of the family, the despair, sadness, uncertainty, pain, love, hatred, forgiveness and self-forgiveness is what matters. In fact the issue of who's the murderer is directly avoided in the book from the beginning, and the name and face of the murderer do not appear until midway the novel. However, if Jackson wanted to create a thriller, why did he decide to show who the murderer is from almost the beginning of the film? The thriller is killed before starting! I really do not see the point.
Jackson has recreated limbo-heaven with great detail, awesome images and creativity. It looks gorgeous. However, all of that was unnecessary, since the limbo is barely drawn (narratively speaking) in the book, as what matters in the book is the story of the emotions. There are too many special effects and not enough lyric emotion or character drawing in the movie, too.
The acting is very good, by both adult and young actors. I loved young talented Saoirse Ronan, whose face transmits great lyricism and performs with great conviction her role. Susan Sarandon makes a terrific quirky drunk Grandma. Rachel Weisz is good, too, but she doesn't play her role with the intensity and conviction with which Mark Wahlberg plays his role of father and husband. Stanley Tucci is also terrific and the weird neighbour.
Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings superbly, so I was expecting another superb adaptation. This is not the case here. The movie does not honour the book, its spirit and depth. Still, this is a beautifully filmed well-acted movie, with a great script and stunning visuals.
Moon is an indie retro-Sci-Fi film that narrates the last days of San Bell on a station on the moon at the end of his 3-year contract. The storyline is
excellent, but the script and the mood of the movie get deflated mid
way, as the movie does not have a marked tempo and the in crescendo
necessary for the viewer to get excited and anxious towards the end.
Although the story carries on very well, there is not enough tension and
mystery to give the movie the little push up it need it to get a more
rounder film.
The aesthetics of the movie are very much the same you could find in classic sci-fi of the 1970s, with miniature lunar sets, clean white interiors and furniture, miniature vehicles. Even the robot is chunky and heavy, more emotional than functional, nothing to do with modern robotics. Even the atmosphere is classic, with that unsettling feeling of old sci-fi movies. Sam Rockwell really shines in his double performance, especially in the skin of the first character, showing what a great actor he is. The changes of clothing are minimal, but his performance really gives life to two different people. In fact, Rockwell makes the movie, as it is him who carries the weight of the story and makes it believable. This is a performance worth of an Oscar nomination. Keven Spacey, the voice of robot Girty, is not especially inspired, though, as his voice is dull and plain and improper of a chunk and primitive robot. One would expect 1/ a more mechanical voice, if the robot is as it looks, or 2/ a more human voice, with more human inflexions and tone, in case the chunkiness is just apparent.
I hated the voice in off at the end, summarising what happens at the arrival to earth... which I found a little bit cheesy and unnecessary, unless you want to shoot a follow up.
A very good science-fiction film, entertaining, and well acted, that did not live to my expectations.
Sita Sings the Blues is an animated film based on one of the episodes in the Ramayana, but adapted to modern sensibilities, that has Sita -Rama's wife- as the centre of the story. The movie deals with love, longing, faithfulness, exile, search for love and destiny.
The movie intertwines four different types of 2-D colourful animation, each one offering four different approaches to the same chapter of the Ramayana: 1/ There is the story on how the movie was created and how the author came to think of it, how her personal life got mixed up with the project. 2/ There is the story of the chapter told straight forward. 3/ There is a musical version of it in which Sita -the main character- sings some classic blues that convey what is happening in the story, and in which Sita expresses her feelings and mood. 4/ Finally, there is a review of comment of the story told made by two h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s Hindu shadow puppets, who offer a witty interpretation of it expressed in an every-day language. 5/ There is even an intermission, as still happens in Indian cinemas, with a cute and kitsch show.
The movie can be confusing at the beginning, but once you understand the different parts, you will immerse yourself in a movie that is original, witty and very entertaining. Something completely different from what you are used to watch in modern animation.
There are not many
independent animation movies being made by women. Just this deserves
praise. However, what makes the movie so good is its originality, the concept lying behind, and its wittiness. The music is great, not just because of the blues. The film has been controversial because Paley was not aware that the Annette Hanshaw's songs used in the film were still under copyright, despite the singer being dead for many years. Hanshaw's heirs sued Paley for an astronomical sum, but they reached an agreement and settled for $50,000, which is a tremendous amount of money for an independent artist who made this film using her own money, donations, and counted with the free help of Indian musicians and actors.
"Letters from Iwo Jima" narrates the events happened in the battle that took place on Iwo Jima Island in 1945 seen from the Japanese side. This is the counterpart to "Flags of our Fathers", that focused on the American side.
A war movie is never my favourite subject of interest. However, if the movie presents the events in a humanly way and is historically accurate, it certainly gets my attention. That is the case of "Letters from Iwo Jima".
What makes this movie to stand out from other modern movies about WWII battles is: 1/ that focuses on the enemy and the losers, and shows that they also were human beings with a heart and a family. 2/ The movie shows that not everybody belonging to the same country sees things the same, has the same morals, principles or acts the same under the same circumstances. 3/ Unlike other American Movies, the stereotypes and prejudices about the Japanese as barbarians and fanatics are not here.
Although we know what is going to happen from the beginning, the script, the dialogues and the war scenes are thrilling and engaging. It is the human part of the story what will attract viewers that are not into war movies, and what will keep the spectator interested and moved.
On the other hand, the script is good enough to depict the different military principles and beliefs that Japan was facing at the time, in which modern and old values were colliding and the concept of dying with honour was being redefined. This is perhaps the aspect that captivated me the most, as we are presented with two different ways of understanding Japanese honour: 1/ the traditional ideal, which is very medieval, in which, when an unwanted end approaches, the only option is take your own life. 2/ The modern ideal of honour, in which the soldier does his best, no matter the result, and surrenders.
At the same time, honour is depicted not only how a behaviour displayed in the battlefield, but also the way you treat prisoners. In that regard, the Japanese are shown to be more honourable than their American opponents. Very moving, and really
relevant for the story, is the reading of the letter by the American
prisoner's mother. It shows that in war all mothers are the same, all
soldiers, even the most despicable and savage ones, have a heart and a
family, and their fighting is in all cases not their wish or liking. I especially loved the glimpses we have about the personal life of some of the soldiers and officials through their correspondence. Those glimpses help us to understand why they act in a certain way during the war, what motivates them to fight, to commit desertion or suicide. I missed more letters and glimpses on the lives of the more traditional soldiers, those whose concept of honour and fighting was old-fashioned, as we could have understood better their motivations instead of seeing them as silly fanatics. I think that a little bit of chopping of the fighting scenes would have allowed the viewer to have more empathy towards "the bad guys".
Although I liked the end, I thought it does not offer emotional closure to the viewer, as we do not see the main Japanese character going back home or meeting his family.
Most actors are terrific in their respective roles, playing with emotion, sensitivity and empathy their respective characters. The only exception was Takumi Bando as Captain Tanida, who I thought overacted.
The fact that the movie is shot mostly in Japanese really makes is believable. It is the only decent and respectful way to approach the Japanese point of view. Otherwise, the director would had been bending to the needs of the mainstream movie industry for the sake of... nothing. Despite being shot in Japanese, the movie has been very popular amidst mainstream viewers. There you have it!
Antichrist tells the story of a couple's grief after the death of their child, their progressive alienation from reality, and their descend to a personal hell, especially after they retreat to their cabin in in the forest, which they call Eden. Antichrist also
narrates the trip of the female character "She" to her inner hell, so
she becomes a demon (or the Antichrist) in an Eden inhabited by only a
man and a woman.
The movie is structured in four parts: Grief, Pain (Chaos Reigns), Despair (Gynocide), and The Three Beggars, plus a Prologue and an Epilogue.
The Prologue in black and white is a short masterpiece, classy image quality and tones, wonderful music and mood, perfect tempo. It really sets the mood of the rest of the film, and offers a lyricism that gets lost afterwards.
Once the first chapter starts, the movie, its colours, its lighting, the atmosphere, and the acting start to dig in and unsettle the viewer with an unidentifiable menace that you feel even before the couple moves to the woods. That menacing feeling grows at the same pace as the tempo of the movie, being suffocating when the tragic events unfold. There are amazing oniric, premonitory and surreal images blended with the real facts, but these are progressively intermixed, and the boundaries between reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, get faded out.
The epilogue is very surreal, quite easy and light, more fairytale-ish in a way, and I thought that it did not glue well to the rest of the movie in story or mood.
The movie has only two
actors, William Dafoe as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg as She, who carry out the heavy
weight of the whole movie. Their physiques really suit the gloomy
characters they play. In both cases, the roles are very demanding
physically and emotionally, so their work has to be praised. I found,
however, that their personal chemistry was somewhat lacking. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle produces superb bucolic images, but also eerie oniric images and tones, that are not complacent or decorative, but the third character in the movie.
Antichrist is a psycho-thriller, and it is barely gory or explicitly violent until the last 20 minutes of the film, which are horrific. The violence and horror in the movie mainly come from the atmosphere and the dark places of the human soul where the story takes the viewer to. The fact that Von Trier was quite depressed when he filmed this movie, helps the movie to portray sadness, depression, mania, mental alienation and therapy with great accuracy. The movie has that profound eeriness that Japanese horror movies have, too, but explores other themes, and is not as entertaining, to be honest.
The surrealism of the movie is more Buñuel-Dali's in "Le Chien Andalu" than Tarkosky's, although some of the forest scenes and images would remind the viewer of the Russian Master, especially in The Mirror.
***
A few tags have been attached to the film by a few critics and, more often, by those people who have not watched the movie or follow what other people say without any further questioning.
Critique given no. 1 - The movie is "offensively misogynistic" Really? I did not feel the hate towards women anywhere. The female character is a troubled spirit with a shocking behaviour, but if you consider that a proof of Trier's misogyny, you should categorise most Japanese horror film directors the same, as they have this sort of nasty women, too. To me, there is more misogyny in most Hollywood movies (in the way women are usually portrayed with regards to men and women) or in any bunch of randomly selected video-clips (where you will see women presented as trash and as pieces of meat) than in this movie. However, I don't see critics vehemently denouncing that.
The only misogyny in the film comes from the fact that the female character shifts the intellectual approach to her Ph. D. thesis called "Gynocide" (about the genocide of women through History) from a feminist one to a misogynist one. However, that is the direct result of her progressive mental and emotional alienation, in which she convinces herself that female nature is evil, as also her own nature, which explains the final horrific events. Von Trier offered an interview to Rotten Tomatoes, quite interesting, light and frank, that you might want to check if you want to see the movie or if you've already watched it On the other hand, the male character is patronising, intellectually patronising, and his approach to his wife's problem, despite the love he has for her, is too clinical and emotionally detached - aseptically empathic if you want. So is not misogynist either.
Critique given no. 2: "The viewer cannot relate to the characters and their circumstances". Of course not. The movie deals with maniac depression, even schizophrenia at times, grieving, pain, and alienation. They are not sane characters. You do not need to relate to them at all.
Critique given no. 3: "The film is depressing". That's for sure, but, again, is a film about grieving and sadness, and the viewer knew that before watching the movie. Critique given no. 4: "I do not know the point of the film", or "What is the movie about?". I think that, if the film had been more entertaining, you would not be asking that question. That is the director's fault. Still, the film has many different readings and interpretations. Some of the surreal and oniric images have no explanation, or as many explanations as you want. That is so, because our subconscious world is never straightforward or easily explainable: A fox eating itself alive, a gazelle with a dead foetus coming out, the sex scene under the tree, the dreams of the female character, some elements of European folklore and wizardry to mention just a few eerie (horrific to me) images. The mix of visual and narrative elements is overwhelming, and very complex.
***
Antichrist is an excellent movie, confusing a times, not entertaining enough, not easy to watch at all, with good performances. It contains horrific impacting images and moments that will upset you, especially if you are not into horror films. The film is still fascinating, but you are not going to recommend it to anybody to pass the time or have a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon.
Just a warning. If you are interested
in watching explicit sex images, you better chose another movie, because
you will be disappointed with the ones here, as the number of them is
limited, of short length, and anti-erotic. Nothing that will turn you on
- Guaranteed.
A marvellous movie by Hong Kong director Kar Wai Wong, with an original script, innovative film narrative, wonderful characters and a super-stylish visuals. The movie depicts with realism, nostalgia and lyricism the difficulties and constrictions of the human heart, to love and being loved.
It is a nostalgic view to the bygone loves of Tony Leung's, a part-time journalist and writer of romance novels, who lives in room 2047 in a hotel in Hong Kong. 2046 is the room where some of the stories happen, and also the title of Tony's sci-fi novel. The movie is the continuation of In the Mood for Love, and some references are directly related to the story in that movie.
1/ The visuals The first thing that will catch your eye are the rich deep colours of the movie, especially the gorgeous reds and greens, but also the beautiful interior cinematography, the dresses, the make-up and hairdos, the colourful retro atmosphere and vintage texture of the film, the super-classy style of the film. Even the smallest detail is taken care of.
2/ The story Two main themes are explored in the film, love and literature. The movie tells several love stories, but they are not corny, as this movie is a reflection on real love - about how the past conditions our present relationships, about how love obsession can self-sabotage your emotional life, about those people who love us but we cannot love, and about the importance of timing in love.
Secondly, the movie depicts the process of literary creation, how our life and experiences affect our writing consciously or not, and how they are intricately mixed together.
Tony's character is terrific so realistic and sophisticated at the same time, without all his human flaws well visible to the viewer. The women characters are quintessentially female, clever and powerful, and drop- dead gorgeous.
3/ The narrative The narrative is circular but not straightforward as the different love stories are not chronologically told. The movie starts with one important story that happened in the past, and ends with the same story, as this story is the one that affected Tony's heart the most. Moreover, this circular and hopping movement is affected by the insertion of pieces of the present, in which Tony writes his novel 2046 and reflects about his past.
The narrative breaks the love stories in different pieces, placing them according to the heart, not according to the time in which they occurred. This honours Tony' emotional memory, although emotional memories are never linear, and they are also affected by our present. Moreover, the way the story is told is intensely evocative and full of nostalgia, and really engaging from a mental point of view. I think that a linear script would have ruined the movie and had a soapy effect.
4/ The acting Tony Leung Chiu Wai (as Tony Leung), Ziyi Zhang (as Bai Ling), and Faye Wong (as Wang Jing-wen and the android) are terrific in their performances, completely in tune with the needs of their characters. This is specially true in the case of y Ziyi Zhang, who looks ravishing beautiful and offers an unforgettable depiction of an emotionally multifaceted woman. One wonders why such a fine talented actress is doing crappy movies in Hollywood while she can really perform.
Kar Wai Wong is a rare example of true artist, and this movie is a perfect example of that. Beware, this is not a movie of mainstream watchers or if you are just looking for a bit of fun.
An elegant retro-futuristic science-fiction film that explores the ethical and social dangers of eugenics. The title Gattaca comes from the initials of the four essential chemicals of the DNA: GTCA. Gattaca is the story of Vincent, who was conceived the natural way and born with a heart defect in a world that gives social and professional prominence to genetically-perfect humans. Vincent's dream of entering Gattaca -a futuristic NASA- is impossible due to his genetics so he will try to trick the system with the help of crippled but genetic-master-piece Jerome.
Gattaca is set in a retro-future that uses the elements of both noir films and science fiction to offer an allegory on the superiority of willpower and strength of the human spirit over genetic perfection to overcome difficulties and pursue your dreams. Gattaca is also a story about the need of the individuals to remain such, with their virtues and defects, to avoid creating meaningless amorphous societies based on measurements.
A world like Gattaca is not only possible - it is already happening. When the movie was shot, the mapping of the Human Genome was still an unfinished project, and many of the scientific developments that are now a reality were unknown or just fiction at the time. However, the film explores with philosophical depth and creative inventive the possible effects of human genetic selection and improvement. In fact, it posed (and poses) questions that we are already asking ourselves, +10 years later, regarding genetics and its use in medicine and conception. Where is the limit? What is ethical? What is sensible? Does genetic perfection equal personal achievement?
Visually speaking, the film has a terrific cinematography, with a great photo framing, great hues, and a 1950s-60s ambience, architecture, interiors, and wardrobe. Minimal clean lines and metallic textures create a sophisticated atmosphere and mood. The music by Michael Nyman is subtly enveloping, very classy, and creates a perfect mood for the film. Gattica's style is still modern and chic despite the pass of time. The acting is good, especially by Jude Law as the sarcastic heavy-drinker good-natured Jerome, and Ethan Hawke as dreamer calculating impostor Vincent. Alan Arkin is very classy as Detective Hugo. Umma Thurman is OK as the shy, clever and elegant Irene; she and Hawke had a great chemistry on camera, which really reaches the viewer. There are cameos by the always terrific Gore Vidal, as Gattaca's director Josef, and Ernest Borgnine, as Gattaca's head janitor Caesar.
On the negative side, the investigation and suspense part of the film is somewhat predictable, there are a few flaws in the storyline, and there are a few lacunas regarding the life of some of the characters that I would have liked developed or hinted.
A sci-fic suspenseful film that will both entertain you and make your think. A modern classic of the science-fiction
A stop-motion comic-horror-romance musical directed by Tim Burton, which has all the elements and icons of the Burton's quirky universe.
The movie tells the story of Victor (Johnny Depp), who is in love with shy sensitive Victoria (Emily Watson) and finds himself married to the lonely Emily the Corpse Bride (Elena Bonham Carter) due to the release of an old spell. He'll have to find the way to leave the underworld and his unwanted dead wife, and return to the real world to marry sweet Victoria.
The movie mixes the moods of the classic Charles Dickens's novels and the 18th-19th century horror stories, and it is sprinkled with a great sense of humour and lots of winks to the adult viewer.
The colours and backgrounds are beautiful, with a mix of the dark bright colours and precious quirky design that characterises Burton's world.
The characters are physically well designed, his personalities well-constructed and brought to live, and they are very witty and charming with the very charming old English and Scottish accents. The dubbing is excellent and helps the characters to come to live; you won't recognise the famous actors behind the characters, which says a lot about the good job they did at dubbing them.
The musical numbers are brilliant, hilarious sometimes.
The Corpse Bride is a very entertaining engaging animation movie for both adults and youngsters (not for kids, unless properly supervised) - Very sweet and funny despite the title. A classic of the stop-motion animation, perfect for the approaching Halloween.
The Grave of the Fireflies is the story of survival of two Japanese brothers: 4y.o. girl Satsuko and her 14y.o brother Saita, at the end of the Second World War in Japan. It is based on the semi-biographical novel by Akiyuki Nosaka.
Grave of the Fireflies is one of the saddest stories and movies I have ever seen. It puts a face to the children of any war, those who lose everything and are left with nothing, those too easily forgotten and so easily neglected. What makes the movie sad is the verisimilitude of the story, that something like that happened and is happening any time that there is a war anywhere in the world.
The animation is marvellous, colourful, attentive to the detail, scenic and intimate, with a lyricism that only Ghibli’s Studies are able to create. The drawing of the Japanese countryside is simply superb, and the same can be said of the city destroyed environments. The atmosphere is great. The colours are precious - a little more saturated than usual for Ghibli’s. The music by Michio Mamiya is extremely subtle and beautiful, perfect for the story.
The characters of the two brothers are wonderfully drawn and dubbed by the Japanese actors. Some of the intimate scenes of the two brothers are really magical, especially the ones involving the fireflies that give tittle to the movie.
What is great about this movie is that, very soon, you forget that you are watching animation, as the story is so strong, captivating and engaging, that those drawn characters become real - alive. Please watch it in Japanese with English subtitles, otherwise you will miss a bit of the essence of the film.
A classic animation movie difficult to forget, soulful and marvellous in every possible way. One of those movies that should be in any bucket movie list. So good it is. One of the best animation film I have ever seen and ever made. No doubt. No perhaps. Go and grab it.
Merida is the oldest daughter of Fergus and Elinor. She is a tomboy, a bit of a rebel, opinionated and wild. She happily lives with her parents and triplets until she is asked to fulfil her destiny, comply with her clan's tradition, and choose a husband from the allied clans' suitors. In constant conflict with her mother, Merida visits an old witch in search for a potion to help her escape her destiny. However, what she finds is a curse of cosmic proportions. How is Merida going to save her mother, herself and the kingdom?
Pixar lost a bit its essence and idiosyncrasy when was engulfed by Disney. Since then, every second Pixar movie we get a real Pixar movie in conception, ideas and originality. The in-between years are for movies like Brave, which follow a template with structured predefined characters, values and jokes that are very much modern Disney.
Brave's animation is amazing from a visual point of view: the colours, layouts, backgrounds, the rendering of the landscapes and characters movement, the camera angling, the 3D design and even the movement of Merida's hair are spectacular. Still, a good animation movie needs of a good script with a sound story and narrative to be successful: what it tells and how it tells it are always more important than how it looks like.
Brave's script -by Mark Andrews, Steve Purcell, Brenda Chapman and Irene Mecchi- is, a priory, a winner. It mixes many European folk legends and human archetypes (like the ones we see in Anderson or the Grimm Brothers' tales) with modern attitudes and sensibilities. Moreover, Merida is in a way, a combination of all old Disney's heroines. The film is entertaining and beautiful to watch, and some of the characters are very funny. There are many funny moments especially those involving the witch, Merida's triplet brothers, and the lady bear.
All the cast of actors do a good job at dubbing their respective characters: Kelly Macdonald as Merida, Billy Connolly as Merida's father, Emma Thompson as her mother, and Julie Walters as the Witch. To be fair, Billy Connolly's dubbing always sounds like himself not as the character he plays.
Still, Brave does not deliver beyond the artistic qualities of the animation, because the story sends contradictory messages. It feels as if the writing team had done bit and pieces separately, and then stitched them together without further adjustment and polishing. Being so, the movie can be labelled, depending on the moment, as feminist, sexist, retrograde, modern, advanced or conservative. Two main messages are sent to the world. 1/ "Obey your mother". That can be a revolutionary message in a world in which children are spoiled-rotten and disrespect their parents. However, going from there to deciding that everything mammy says is good for your future and that the tradition has to be respected no matter how senseless it is, it is a bit reactionary. 2/ On the other hand, the story tells us that you can be brave and daring, but until certain point - bravery is subversive, and subversion is not good. What?! Be brave and make your own fate, free will do exist, but fate is fateful and will crash you if you subvert the status-quo. What! What? What?!
Too much is always too much. Brave is a beautiful senseless sermon that gets lost in its own wordiness and senseless preaching. It is perfect for small children, as it has lots of action and some funny moments that the little ones (and your inner child) will enjoy. More sounded boys and girls, our just your sound self, could get a bit puzzled at the moral of the story and the wordy ending.
Kiki's Delivery service is a Studio Ghibli's traditional hand-drawn animation movie loosely based on Eiko Kadono's eponymous book, but with important additions by Miyazaki. It tells the story of Kiki, a 13's y.o. witch who leaves the family home with her cat Jiji to get a life of her own and start her training as a witch in a big city away from parents and friends.
It is a Ghibli's trademark the detail and artistic drawing of the scenery and cityscapes, and Kiki's is no exception. It has a precious and colourful drawing. The European city where Kiki goes is a mix of Northern European architecture and Southern European lighting and mood. The time frame is an imprecise point in time, a golden-era of peace and tolerance, set around the 1950s, but with elements that go from the 30s (the zeppelin) to the 60s (B&W TV), with other elements that can be placed in between.
Three elements stand out in this movie beyond the hand-drawn precious animation. The first one is Kiki's story - a metaphor of the changes that take us from childhood to adulthood, from being in the family's womb, many times taking for granted what we have, to being alone, unprotected, standing by ourselves, defining who we are and want to be as individuals. Jiji's evolution with regards to Kiki is just the result of Kiki's transformation into an adult, not of the cat's changing ways!
The second element is very Miyazaki's - the presence of magical and non-magical elements combined harmoniously in a world of good-natured tolerant humans that accept magic as a natural thing, like Kiki's flying her broom through a city making courier deliveries.
Thirdly, this is a movie about women, female nature and sisterhood. Except for Tombo -Kiki's admirer and good-natured inventive friend- the main characters are powerful savy women: Osono, the pregnant baker, represents acceptance without questions, maternal care, the City, hard work and determination. Ursula the painter, on the contrary, represents freedom, personal independence, individuality, the wild, the follow your heart and explore your soul message. Finally, the two old ladies in the blue-roofed house -Madam and Bertha- are examples of kindness, carefulness, attention to the detail, old manners and class. In fact, Kiki finds a mother, two grandmas and a big sister in the city. Miyazki's Europe is, it seems, a a matriarchal society. There a few points that I would have liked further explored with extra footage, as the movie is enjoyable, and the ending was unnecessarily hasted and leaves you with a big sweet and sour after-taste. Still, Kiki is an adorable
story with lovable characters, that is entertaining and good for both
children and adults, especially if you love magic realism and Ghibli and Miyakazi's magic worlds. A warning - Some of the DVDs come with several dubbing versions and several captions. Beware, the original first dubbing of the original was done without respect to the original, and changes and mutates the dialogues without respect, changes the tone of the movie and even transforms Jiji into a sarcastic adult cat. It is not a proper dubbing but an interpretation with additions to the original made by Disney. It is shameful and disrespectful and you better ignore it. There is a second American dubbing that is truthful to the original. Watch the original Japanese with captions, and choose the captions that follow the Japanese script not the invented superposed American. Who wants to watch an adulteration when the original is perfect?
Little Miss Sunshine is a road movie about a dysfunctional family trying to take their seven-year-old Olive to an interstate beauty pageant from Alburquerque NM to Redondo Beach CA in their yellow Volkswagen Van.
Little Miss Sunshine is an fresh, witty and enthralling movie with freak and quirky characters, brilliant dialogues, great performances, and an original story. It is an entertaining funny crazy film that makes you think about
subjects that are never confrontationally presented. What makes a family dysfunctional? At the beginning of the film our family seem to be dysfunctional and freak, although they are depicted in an empathetic way and epitomise, in a way, the dysfunctions that most so-called-normal families have. The thing is, the family
does not push Olive into the pageant, does not force her to dress or
behave in a certain way, does not dress her as little prostitute, does
not expect anything from her, just supports her the whole way, even
when everybody turns against her. The other parents, the "normal" ones,
appear as real freaks after all, projecting their frustrated dreams and personal failure into their little kids. All
of the sudden, the dysfunctional family is quite sound, warm and caring,
the others just the opposite.
There is a subtle but clear criticism of the ideal of the American dream and of the self-help books and coaching focusing on becoming rich. The character of Richard epitomises the bullshit that these sub-culture has, pushing people to fight for money success following recipes that frequently lead to failure for which they do not prepare anybody. Sheryl the mother is instead the voice of common sense and more successful in her approach to life and its problems.
There is also a very cleaver non non-confrontational criticism of child beauty pageants. The script poses a rhetorical question to the viewer: what is it freakier, a
beautiful child sexually dressed wearing sluty make up who poses and
moves as a sexy adult, or an innocent child who sings and dances to a
raunchy song that she does not understand? What happens to Olive at the pageant is the answer that the script gives to that rhetorical question, and surely the one you would identify the most.
The movie provides the viewer with many iconic movie images, which will imprint your retinas and stand the pass of time: The pushing of the van and the music, the girl singing "super freak", the escape from the hospital, among many others.
If this was not enough, all the actors give unforgettable performances in their respective roles: Toni Collette as the family's warm-hearted sound mother Sheryl, Greg Kinnear is her unsuccessful husband Richard, Alan Arkin as Richard's dirty father Edwin, Steve Carell as Shery'ls gay suicidal scholar brother, Abigail Breslin as the sweet innocent Olive, and Paul Dano as Olive's half brother silent rebel Dwayne.
I am a fan of Ridley Scott, since ever. Some of his movies are among my all-times favourites, so I was looking forward to watching the much anticipated "Prometheus".
PLOT - It is year 2089. Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway, a couple of archaeologists, discover a star map connected to the signs present in many archaeological artefacts of ancient cultures. They seem to match a group of planets that have LV-233 as a moon. There are indications that life on Earth might have had an exogenous origin and that the engineers of it could come from that moon. The leading couple, teamed up with a a group of scientists and funded by the dying CEO of the Weyland Corporation, start a trip of exploration to LV-223 on the spaceship Prometheus trying to discover whether the Engineers hypothesis is true, and if true, why they created the human species.
THE MOVIE - Prometheus wants to be a prequel (or at least connect) to the "Alien" saga, including the stories narrated in the two "Alien vs Predator" movies, so the story, in a way, has to fit the bill.
Prometheus also wants to move away and go beyond those movies to create a saga and mythological world in which all the stories are included and embedded, but it has its own autonomy.
Prometheus also wants to pose some philosophical, theological and ethical queries about human nature, the soul of androids, and the origin of life, very much in connection with many of the themes explored in "Blade Runner".
To put in simple terms... Prometheus wants to provide the viewer with a science-fiction teleological mythology infused with philosophical and metaphysical queries... it sounds pretentious, no? Well, it is pretentious. The start of the
movie is very promising and intriguing and subject to interpretation, a
promise that, however, is never fulfilled. I love action movies, but if you want to mix action with metaphysics, you better work hard on putting together a story that links well all the elements, and creates engaging characters that have an emotional background, are well connected, and have a purpose within the story. Most importantly, show respect to the viewer who is willing to believe anything if that something has an inner logic and makes sense.
The film is very sleek, and some of the scenes are wonderful, grandiose and spectacular, as well as the special effects, especially those filmed inside the departure chamber, which are utterly gorgeous, if that can be said. The blue, golden brown and white-ish tones of the film are perfect for the story and create and convey the right mood, both physical and emotional, of the different scenes. The cinematography, mostly shot in Iceland and Spain, is beautiful, and the landscapes chosen really look prehistoric, raw, beautiful and out-this-world. On the contrary, I did not find Marc Streitenfeld's original soundtrack especially inspired, and it sounds like hundred of other science fiction movies' soundtracks.
THE ACTING - The male and female characters are unevenly treated by the script and the result is that the actors who play them shine or not depending on it. Naomi Rapace is completely wasted as Elizabeth Shaw. She does her best at doing what is requested of her naive passionate and a-scientific scientist character - no acting would have saved it. The same can be said of Charlize Theron, whose talent is wasted in her role of Meredith Vickers, the intriguing ice-cold beautiful manager of the expedition; not much is demanded of her, beyond wearing stylish super-tight clothes and moving like a supermodel on a catwalk.
On the contrary, Michael Fassbender is brilliant as the quirky witty android David. David is the best drawn character in the movie because it has a sense of purpose, a background, an inner logic, and a well-defined "psyche" and a soul that is missing from the other characters. Fassbender really brings his character to life, and gives him both mechanical and human colour in movement, facial expression and performance. What a great actor he is.
Guy Pearce is good and almost unrecognisable in his role as Peter Weylan, the patron and sponsor of the expedition. The rest of the supporting actors are just OK in their respective roles. They do what is requested from their roles, which is not much at times.
THE WHOLE THING - Prometheus is a super-production that does not deliver what it promises. This is an action movie with amazing visuals and interesting premises that gets lost in itself. It is hedonistic at times, superficial and preposterous most of the times. The movie feels like a blockbuster made to utter wows; yet, the wows are never uttered because there was no previous thinking, the story and characters are just sketched, and the viewer is expected to disregard ridiculous events, completely unscientific behaviour by scientists, and even the laws of Physics. Furthermore, Prometheus seems anchored in old philosophical queries that, despite still being valid. are presented as if the world had not changed much since the 1980s, science and technology were far less developed, their impact on Society was less profound, and new queries were needed for the film to feel contemporary in that regard. There is a lack of focus in the project, and the result is a chaotic film that is enjoyable at times, ridiculous and annoying others. Visuals and style are never enough to make of a movie a good one, even though they can be wow.
The movie ends with unanswered questions, on purpose, as a sequel has to follow. Oh dear. We just can hope that the sequel supersedes the original and we utter, finally, a sincere wow. What a task.
Fahrenheit 451 is a visionary movie based on Ray Bradbury's eponymous novel. It was Truffaut's only English speaking movie. The title is related to the degrees needed for paper to get on fire.
The movie is set in an imaginary aseptic future world, ruled by an oppressive system that has created an uber-clean society that thrives on TV plasma screens, forbids reading or having books and burns them, and promotes drug use for emotional control. Guy Montag, married to an emotionally frigid Linda, is one of the firemen in the anti-book brigade, very passionate about his job and purpose, until he meets his neighbour Clarisse and starts questioning himself and the system.
The movie is an allegory about what a world without books and culture would be, an ode against ignorance and simple minds, a reminder that burning books is a sign of human degradation and typical of tyrannical regimes. The movie is also an homage to Literature, in this case to Truffaut's favourite books, which are part of the burnt books shown in the film, and his film is, of course, based on Bradbury's novel.
The movie honours Bradbury's visionary novel. Think about our modern world, dominated by big plasma screens hanging from the walls in which reading and culture are each time less valued and appreciated. Think about those reality shows in which our opinion is asked to create a false sense of participation when our answers are, indeed, irrelevant and certainly unimportant. Think about a world in which the information is manipulated by the media to support the political regime in vogue... It sounds familiar, no?
All the actors are good in their roles. Cyril Cusak is truly convincing as the fire brigade captain, completely sure about his Mission and about the danger of books for Society. Oskar Werner is also great as fireman Montag, and does a great job at going from his initial hieratic self to his soulful more sensible and sensitive self when the character starts to change. Julie Christie, despite being accused in the past of not being able to act, is great in her double role as Montag's wife Linda and neighbour book-reader Clarisse. I loved the fact that Christie was able, through characterisation and performance, to offer a Linda who is very feminine and sensual on the exterior but emotionally frigid, and a boyish Clarisse who is very sensual and warm.
This was Truffaut's first film in colour, and the colours are not randomly chosen. The movie offers subdued grey and pastel tones that are constantly highlighted by two main colours: dark grey (the colour of the grey society it represents, even the school uniforms are grey!) and a beautiful intense deep red (associated to fire and passion). The end of the movie is magnificent - lyric and full of hope. The whole snow scene and
recitation of the old man with his grandson is gorgeous and very moving.
The OST by Bernard Herrmann is great, dramatically neurotic sometimes, lyric some others, while the tune that accompanies the fire squad's outings is very Ravel-ish and anticipative, also very catchy, and sets the pace of the movie. Most of the time the music is unsettling, but sometimes it is unnecessarily overwhelming and annoying.
I watched this movie for the first time on TV in my teens, in a special series showcasing Truffaut's films, and it had a huge impact on me. In fact, I forgot the title of the movie, but not the movie or its message. I saw the movie again last year, and, by re-watching it, I understood why it has a spot in my forgetful mind. It is the soul and the message, the power of the themes presented, its plea to Literature and the written word, and the power of knowledge and the Arts in creating a freer society. You see, it is Bradbury's merit that I did not forget the movie, not the other way around. I have forgotten most of the other movies that I watched in that very series, but not this, because of the story.
The only think that does not stand the pass of time are the fashion and, above all, the special effects, which are very outdated, even cheesy, and made me laugh when re-watching it. However, the movie has a lot of experimental things that are still daring. For example, the opening credits, all spoken, no word written until we see "The End", or the scenes in which half the screen goes black.
***
Fahrenheit 451 is a cult classic science-fiction film that should be in everybody's bucket list. It is not an easy movie to watch, especially being so out of fashion in style, effects, music and conception. One of those movies you love or hate. Still, it explores many themes that are still valid for our society and does a remarkable job at bringing Bradbury's novel to the big screen.
A spin off of the first movie, with four separated stories about the daily life in Kirikou’s village.
The movie is lovely, the stories very entertaining and original, our fav characters are still there, and, most importantly, the movie offers glimpses of the life in a West-African village, which are precious to show to a Western children audience. The stories will show kids that not everybody is the same, dresses the same, or lives the same, that Africa is an amazing beautiful varied continent, and that the world is richer because of that.
Ocelot's drawings and visuals are simple, very attentive to landscape and plant drawing, very ethnographic in a way. The stories, though, have a good dollop of magical reality.
However, overall, the movie does not have the energy and spark of the original story, is not as engaging, and the different stories are unrelated -except for the fact that Kirikou and his neighbours are in them- and plainer - more for children than for adults.
