My Blueberry Nights is the first film shot in English by Wong Kar Wai.
Elizabeth, a girl with a broken heart, leaves New York to start a journey of emotional healing around the States; she will work in several night cafes and bars and meet different characters, with whom she will get involved. The story is told through the postcards and letters that Elizabeth sends to her special friend Jeremy, the owner of her favourite café. Most of the movie happens during night time.
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.
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.
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.
** 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.
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.
Match Point is a UK-USA-Ireland-Russia Co-production, mostly shot in London, and directed by Woody Allen.
The story revolves about a love triangle between young retired tennis player turned businessman Chris Wilton (played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers), his wife the sweet good-hearted rich girl Chloe Hewett (Emily Mortimer), and the bombshell struggling actress and Tom Hewetts' girlfriend Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson). This is one of those
stories we have seen brought to the big screen many times, a Hitchcock's
theme in a way, the love triangle, the crime, the coward. The first scene of the movie is very philosophical and it is a good premise of the drama that will unfold:
"The man who said "I'd rather be lucky than good" saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose."
Luck is more important in life than you can ever expect, and it is always unpredictable and fanciful. In fact, the story is all a story of a very good luck for Chris's character, especially at the end. However, this is a romantic psycho-drama with a predictable plot, so the interesting premise gets diluted very soon. In other words, the movie is too mundane to be philosophical, and pretending the contrary is... pretentious.
The film is shot in a very fresh way, has a nice bright artsy atmosphere and hints of Allen's sense of humour (especially in the policemen's conversations at the end). The actors do a good job in their respective roles, although this is a mini-coral movie. Meyers has a good chemistry with both Mortimer and Johansson, and he's able to portray with believability the double face of a cheater, and also the difference between love and passion. Emily Mortimer shines as a very believable sweet bland woman who is blind to anything she does not want to see. Johansson also shines in her femme fatal role, which she always nails.
The soundtrack is a mix of modern and old opera arias. Carusso's old records are intercalated in the middle of the movie to highlight the actions of the characters. Modern performances are played while the characters attend performances in the theatre or hear some records.
The movie has a nice feel about it, is well filmed, decently acted, and has a good direction. However, the movie does not add anything new to the genre, is too predictable, has a poor script and important flaws in the murder story. A bit dull but enjoyable the same.
Eternal Sunshine is a philosophical analysis of the nature of love and relationships. It reflects very well the changing emotions associated with falling in love and the ups and downs of personal relationships, and how unnecessary it is to erase our emotional past to survive. None of this is said or discussed in the movie, as this is a metaphorical film that uses the visual narrative to approach these points.
Eternal Sunshine is one of those movies that many people would see twice to fully catch all the details, because the editing and what happens in the film is complex. There are three different narrative time moments, narrated in non-chronological order, sometimes overlapping each other. It is not a film for simple minded people or those who have to have everything simply explained and presented to them. The film needs of an attentive attention and mental involvement, but the poetry of the images, the oddity of the story will captivate you very soon and you won't even notice that you are making any effort to understand the whole thing.
Jim Carrey surprises everybody with a role that shows the great actor he can be, and how versatile he is, too. He's superb as Joel, a lonely insecure and depressed guy who tends to get involved with women who are his opposite, who faces love, abandonment, rejection, loneliness, and companionship. Also excellent (and outside of their usual roles) is Kate Winslet in her role as Clementine, a cheeky cheerful girl addicted to flashy hair dyes who is attracted to boring men.
The lyricism of the music, the surreal scenes, the poetic cinematography, the part of the movie showing Joel efforts to preserve the memories of the past he initially wanted to destroy, the fact that the special effects are no such a thing but camera tricks and the result of a meticulous preparation and tampering of the movie sets, adds even more artistic value to this unique piece. The director and the editor of the film really deserve a big praise, as the movie is indebted to them beyond belief.
The only flaws I saw in the movie are the little romance mini-stories related to the technicians and doctor of the Lacuna Clinic (which do not contribute much to a film that, otherwise, would have been perfect), and the outcome linked to those actions could have been presented in a different way.
I would not call this movie a comedy, but a light drama.
Eternal Sunshine is a magical, unique and unforgettable movie. A piece of art, really, and of the best movies by Gondry.
Eliseo Subiela has that rare quality of seeing magic in reality, and portraying it in his movies with freshness and philosophical depth. His characters, despite being normal, live in a sort of limbo reality, and their interaction with our world is always eccentric and quirky. Subiela is true to himself in the premise of the movie, as it departs from a quote from an Andre Breton's poem that intrinsically links live, love and death and considers physical love as a redemptive element in life.
The movie revolves about the sexual awakening of Eloy, a sweet and absent-minded teenager, apprentice of electrician and courier boy to the nearby cemetery, who starts sleepwalking after the death of his father and ends in the arms of a sassy and older neighbour, Elvira, who will teach him how to satisfy a woman, and himself, in bed.
If you want to make a movie about tantric sex and erotic initiation you need two basic elements. Firstly, a couple of sensual actors who have chemistry on camera and are able to transmit eroticism to the spectator, so that we can believe that they are having sex and enjoying it. Secondly, to create the right atmosphere and mood so the sex scenes look natural and passionate. All of that was missing from the movie, despite sex being the main subject of the movie. The scenes look unnatural, forced, like a rehearsal. They are shot with constriction, without passion and with some visual bigotry, despite the intention of the movie being quite the opposite. It felt like those modern Kamasutra books with photos of nude couples posing in different positions - Boring and not erotic. It would have been better, perhaps, showing less, and leaving more to the imagination, which always gives great results.
The most memorable moments of the movie are, however, those few in which the movie distracts itself from Eros and portrays reality through Eloy's eyes and tells part of his family's story. The happy eeriness of Eloy's trips to the cemetery on his bike to deliver tablets are wonderfully photographed and shot, the natural interaction between the deceased and those alive are those more closely connected to Breton's initial poem and Subiela's style. Here we see the always charming Subiela in action, focusing on what he does best.
Regarding the acting, I found Leandro Stivelman good and believable in his portray of the sweet and dreamy Eloy, and also Hugo Arana in his short role as Eloy's deceased father. I did not find Antonella Costa believable at all in her portray of Elvira, neither in the erotic scenes or in the talking ones. Perhaps because the script does not give much information about her, and the viewer does not now or understands her; on the other hand, she does not have the sensuality or acting maturity necessaries to affront a role like this. The rest of the actors are Ok in their respective roles.
Glimpses of the best Subiela are wasted by a rather mediocre and un-erotic erotic movie with a very weak script.
Room in Rome is the story of a short-lived physical and emotional liaison between two women in a hotel room in Rome in the last night of summer. It will be a night of intense discovery, a tour de force between two ways of seeing life, love and sex.
The story is inspired in the Chilean movie "En la Cama", which, at its turn, was based on the American film "Before the Sunrise". However, the setting and dialogues have been reworked and reinvented by Medem, as the story happens in Rome and the couple has the same gender.
Julio's Medem's well known mastery and filming sensibility are seen everywhere in this movie. The use of the lighting and framing of the images are precious, elegant, warm and welcoming, very artistically composed with a great use of chiaroscuro and decoration. The room, which is the main set in which the movie happens, is not overwhelmingly present or a close asphyxiating place, but a very open fluid ethereal container where the story happens. Medem positions and moves the camera so the viewer feels is in the room, not watching the room. The spacial perspective is, therefore, very different. This is necessary as otherwise the movie would have felt oppressive and theatrical not a real and cinematic.
There is something magic about the way Medem has used the paintings in the room as well as the decoration of the ceilings, the three spaces of the room (dormitory, bathroom and balcony) and the decorative elements in it, not only to offer different facets of the personality of the characters, or show different phases in their relationship, but to incorporate those little visual elements into the story, like the little angels on the ceiling, the Venus on the bedside table, etc. This is very Medem, who always uses the surroundings as part of the story not as a mere decorative item. This movie reminded me of Medem's Chaotic Anna, in the way he incorporates art into life, and gives art a meaning that is never decorative or purely aesthetic.
The movie could have been claustrophobic and theatrical, but it is not. The story, despite happening in the room, goes well beyond the room through the conversations of the characters and their use of the Internet to show pieces of their present and respective identities.
Medem also shows a wonderful direction of the actors, which is reduced to the two leading actresses and four very secondary roles. The bed scenes are very erotic, definitely hot, still tastefully filmed.
The two main actress are great in their role, especially Elena Anaya as the honest and emotionally fragile Spaniard lesbian Alba. She believes her role (she is a recent out-the-closet lesbian herself), and gives all what she has, showing a great acting registry from comedy to tragedy, from sweetness to cockiness. Natasha Yarovenko is not as good, but still believable as the mysterious athletic sincere and strong hetero Russian beauty Natasha, shocked by her own attraction towards Alba. There seems to be certain intimacy between the camera and the actresses, an understanding and acceptance that makes the story believable. Moreover, the two actress have a great chemistry on camera and, something extremely important in a movie like this.
The main problem, to me, with the movie is going over the top in the drawing of the characters, so they seem somewhat removed from the viewer, not always believable. 1/ Do the characters need to have perfect bodies for the story be more believable? I mean, the two actresses have wow bodies, especially Yarovenko, so you feel that it is pure logic that they felt attracted to each other. What about having the same story with two actresses that feel attracted to each other but look more normal and less gorgeous? Said in other words, characters for which the physic attraction is not that so obvious, still equally strong. Otherwise, you are stereotyping lesbians and bi-curious as gorgeous girls only attracted to super-duder gals. 2/ Do the characters need to have such a high professional profile to be more interesting? I don't think so. A normal person can have a great story to tell, immense depth in her soul, be very hot and attractive, and still be an office worker, for example. Finally, despite he music being very beautify, it is also very repetitive and you end resenting it.
To be honest, when I heard that Medem wanted to film a movie like this, I thought that it was just out of character. But, after watching it, I think he has adopted the story and made it completely his. A story that I thought would not interest me at all, and, on the contrary, I enjoyed immensely.
A new instalment in the SACT franchise, with all the elements that the fans of the series loved. The new episode focuses on how our favourite four girls face the challenges of marriage and consolidated relationships, and how marriage means different things for different people.
I'm surprised at the poor reviews of this movie, which I think it is not worse than the first, which has double rating. Completely senseless. The story has moments that really connect with the original characters in the series. Needless to say, fashion and luxury are still gorgeous and an essential part of the look and mood of the movie, but the story makes good points and grounds the characters. Most importantly, the acting has returned to what we were used in the TV series, making us forget some of the flaws we resented in the first movie. I cannot believe that nobody noticed how terrible the acting was in the first, and how correct it is here.
The movie has some very fun moments, many of them by the always cheeky (and hilariously vulgar) Samantha. The gay wedding at the beginning is great, with a cameo by Liza Minelli as wedding minister and singer.
The main problem of the movie is the whole trip to Abu Dhabi. Not the trip, the destination. I had the feeling that this was a long commercial about Abu Dhabi. The girls could have gone elsewhere luxurious and still face the same challenges. I thought that focusing on cultural differences and the idiosyncrasy of the Emiratis was a waste of time, and completely unnecessary for the story, which, until the trip starts, was making good points about marriage. I would have eliminated the touristy part and dug deep in the part of the relationships. On the other hand, this being a show about sex, love and relationships by very liberated Western Women, the UAE were never going to be a good destination. Never ever!
This is one of those chick-flicks that will entertain women who were fans of the TV series and have all the background to understand the actions and evolution of the characters. In fact, properly speaking, this is a double-length episode of the series screened in cinemas.
Abstain from viewing men and people who are not familiar with the series. Otherwise, don't complain! You’ve been warned!
An Argentinean film directed that tells the story of retired public lawyer Benjamín Esposito, who starts writing a novel about one of the most intriguing cases of his past: the rape and murder of young wife Liliana Coloto, and the investigation that led to the capture of her murderer. The movie has a
wonderful warm retro mood and tones, a beautiful interior photography, a
simple unfulfilled romance story, an intriguing plot, a very
interesting ending, and good performances by Darin and Francella. I do not mind flaws in a script if they are well integrated in the story, and if the movie compensates them with other positive elements. However, there are so many and evident flaws here that one cannot ignore them: 1/ The first one is the fact that the way a man looks a woman in a photo can lead to anyone to suspect he is a murderer; to be honest, if this is the case, Esposito could be a potential murderer, too, if we take into account the way he looked at his adored Irene in the photos taken in her pre-wedding party.
2/ When Esposito and Sandoval are at the house of Isidoro's mother, the old lady returns, her dog starts barking at them, but she does not suspects anythin; what is more, OMG! the back-door is completely open for them to escape free!
3/ We are told who is the murderer and that he loves a specific football team, so Esposito and Sandoval go to the next match, the stadium is fully packed, but they manage to find the murderer 10 feet away from them; not only that, the lawyers have convinced the Police -one assume Argentinean Police had much free time at hand at the time and would consider the proposal sane- to be there to capture the murderer.
4/ Most of the movie is set in the 1970s, when a military dictatorship was ruling Argentina, a system that allowed the Justice System to act in a certain way; but if you are not familiar with Argentinean History many of the events and attitudes in the movie will not make any sense to the foreign viewer.
5/ We know who the murderer is quite early, before he is even captured, a fact that kills the suspense very soon.
6/ One would expect that whoever sent the group of Mafiosi to Esposito's apartment would have provided them with a photo or at least an accurate description, so the question the Mafiosi make in the movie is completely redundant.
7/ The end of the murder case is good, but still, too delayed and lost amidst a mix of themes explored at the same time On the other hand, the end of the romance story is a bit unbelievable, "I solve the mystery and I overcome all of my securities with this woman" sort of thing.
This, and much more, makes impossible to call this movie a masterpiece, as many reviews have been doing, unless you are blind.
The acting is uneven,
poor sometimes, with the exception of Guillermo Francella who is
terrific as the drunkard but insightful lawyer Pablo Sandoval. Soledad
Villamil and Ricardo Darín have a great chemistry on camera, but not
much dramatic emotion can come from them as the script has the love
story as a background to the murder investigation, so their feelings are
mostly showed indirectly. She plays correctly Irene, a high-class
judge, a beautiful rich inaccessible girl. Darín shines in his portrait
of the lonely old retiree looking for clues in his life through
remembrance, more than in his portray of the young Esposito; however, he
portrays with constriction and sensitivity the soft looser that
Esposito is. The script tells us widower Ricardo Morales is an emotional
wreck after the death of his wife, a man still in deep love with her,
but Pablo Rago's performance rather shows emotional frigidity regarding
the death of his wife, his grieving, and the search and capture of the
murderer. I found Javier Godino's performance over the top as Isidoro
Gomez, although I think it is what the script requires from him; in that
regard, it is not his fault. The film it truly overrated, still enjoyable.
