Beyond the Hills [2012]

Cristian Mungiu's second film, after the acclaimed 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days, is yet another drama, this time, with an even more interesting, tragic theme: religious fanaticism and exorcism in orthodox churches. Based on a true story written by Tatiana Niculescu Bran, it is, as expected, a bleak, yet extremely well made and fascinating film, that you must see. It tells the story of Alina, a woman who comes back to Romania to take Voichita, her best friend from childhood, with her in Germany to work, but realizes that the young girl is not the same person, as Voichita is now living in a monastery and is deeply religious. She tries to convince her otherwise, but the situation gets out of hand when Alina suddenly gets sick and starts scaring people around her, especially the nuns and priest.

Most would argue that one of the highlights of the film is definitely the script- it did, after all, win the Best Screenplay award in Cannes-but I am not that convinced, although I do think it is very well written. What I admired and loved about Mungiu's script most was that he didn't take sides or focus on a specific theme or idea: he didn't actually pinpoint the fact that it was a mental problem, or it was really the need for an exorcism; he didn't show us a clear relationship type between the two women- they could have been friends or lovers or something else entirely. And he didn't blame it directly on something- that is what impressed me the most: Mungiu let us believe and interpret the actions in our own way, according to our own beliefs, and I believe that is not only a wise thing to do, but a difficult one, as well, and he should be celebrated for it.

I think the script maybe wouldn't have been such a success if not for the performances of the two leading ladies: Cosmina Stratan and Cristina Flutur. They not only had great chemistry with each other, but with the other actors, as well, but they individually shined, as two completely different people, both equally complex and troubled. Alina, played by Cristina Flutur, is the more direct, strong type of girl, but who now faces a sad, even depressive moment in her life, as she feels lonely and misguided, and that's why she comes back after her friend. Voichita (Cosmina Stratan), on the other hand, is a shy, kind and static type of person, who only wants to help and be peaceful, and she thinks she has found that with God and the monastery, a situation that Alina does not understand. This situation creates a tension between the girls, but also in themselves, as Alina tries to come to grips with Voichita's change, while the younger woman wants to make her friend follow her lead. Both were challenged in different ways, as they faced horrible decisions and facts; in the end, it was Voichita who had the power to change Alina's fate, but didn't or she did, but much too late. It may be a little confusing for you now, as you read it, but after you see the movie, you will understand- I just don't want to give too much away. Let's just saw that Stratan and Flutur are well worth of their acting award in Cannes, as they gave one of the year's best performances.

Moving on to the filmmaking part, I can say that Cristian Mungiu's typical direction visibly evolved in a more mature, complex way, but still having its visually appealing traits like the wide and close-up shots, or following the individual with camera from behind, and rather unusual shot frames. It worked for 432 and it definitely works here, maybe even better than his first feature. There are also some interesting and sometimes funny shots in Beyond the Hills, like the nuns transporting the girl to the church, or the scene in the end, in the car. He is fast becoming one of my favorite directors out there, alongside Steve McQueen, who I find to have a similar style of directing. 

As for the other elements, I loved the cinematography, and again, the sets and costumes, as they were completely realistic and well done. Not much of a score (maybe none at all), but trust me, the film will not bore you- the tension is there most of the time and the script helps it move forward in an interesting way. 

Talking to other people about it, I noticed one thing that could cause a problem for viewers, especially non-Romanians. I have been told that there are many subtleties, many small details and knowledge factors that could confuse people, as they are not familiar with the religion or the customs here, and I have to say, I agree, in some parts. That doesn't mean that the script alone, or the relationships and actions revealed are enough to make the film a fantastic one, but you should know it's not as easy to see as an American one, for example.

Overall, Beyond the Hills is yet another big accomplishment, not only of Cristian Mungiu, but also of the Romanian cinema, and I am proud of it. I hope you will like it, too, and I urge you to see it. Just like you saw A Separation last year, or White Ribbon years before that, see this one- it might be an Oscar Foreign Language nominee- at least I hope it will.

James Bond 007: Skyfall [2012]

Skyfall is the newest James Bond installment, directed by Sam Mendes, based on the Ian Fleming characters and written for screen by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan. After a failed mission, Bond disappears and is believed dead, until he shows up in M's house, after a bomb attack in the MI6 headquarters. The film follows Bond's efforts to keep M safe, but also to reconnect with a secret agent lifestyle he no longer wants.

I must say I was impressed with Skyfall, I was expecting worse, for some reason. There are few flaws to it, and mostly everything ties up together in a very sleek, action-packed and dramatic way, that works very well on screen. I think one of the strongest points of the movie was definitely the script, in my opinion. Firstly, I loved the fact that we got to see a vulnerable side of Bond- he is human, after all, and Skyfall proved that in more than one occasion. Secondly, I admired the fact that, this time around, the females were not omnipresent or didn't form the obligatory storyline- there was no unnecessary love story, something that usually downgrades or takes the focus out of the Bond franchise's scripts. I also liked the M storyline and the fact that it wasn't an action-based plot, with bombs and unheard of gadgets- it was based on characters, relationships and feelings, and it had meaning and reason. One last thing I will mention, script-wise, is the introduction to Ben Wishaw's Q, but also Fiennes' upcoming presence in the Bond franchise- they don't have too much to do in Skyfall, and their presence wasn't that noticeable, but I think we can expect more from them in the future films.

The script also provided very interesting characters and I loved the fact that we could see a clear development of them, in a good or bad way. It's not often you see Bond in a vulnerable state, miserable and drunk, and you also don't usually see M react in an emotional way. Both Daniel Craig and Judi Dench gave wonderful performances and I think they helped rise Skyfall to another level. The villain, played by Javier Bardem, was in accordance to the story and provided exactly what it was needed- a deranged, intelligent, with seemingly logical reasons, but most definitely a mad person, who is capable of the worst and who doesn't fear away of anything. Bardem was spot on for his character, although his hair made me chuckle the first time I saw him on screen; but that really doesn't matter and certainly, it doesn't take away the fact that he can play a villain like no one else can.

From a filmmaking point of view, it was very well done. The direction and cinematography suited the secret agent world and there were some standout scenes that were a delight to watch: the sneaking up on the mercenary in Shanghai, the deserted town part, and my favorite, the sunset/night scenes in Scotland- those were fantastically done. I enjoyed the action scenes and I thought they were beautifully executed, without the usual exaggeration in this types of situations, plus the score helped set the tone and make things move in a much more dynamic and appealing way. Adele's theme was the perfect match for the opening sequence, and it was much better than I originally thought and heard- her voice and the dramatic sound of it definitely suits this type of movie. The sets and costumes were great, and London being in the spotlight was a highlight for me- I loved seeing some of the tube stations and places in town, but a touch of melancholy hit me, as well: I miss it so much!

I came into the theater expecting a good popcorn movie and I ended up enjoying myself much more than I thought. It isn't top 10 for 2012 material, but it sure is a great movie that I highly recommend you see in cinemas. I hope you will enjoy Skyfall as much as I did!

Children of Men [2006]

Children of Men is a 2006 dystopian film directed by Alfonso Cuaron and adapted for screen from a novel by P.D.James. It features Clive Owen in the part of a lost, sad man who is suddenly thrown in a world of conspiratorial events and death, but also hope and survival. It is definitely one of the best films of its genre and deserves all the praise and attention it has gotten.

The premises is simple, yet tragic and heartbreaking: in the year 2027, the world is facing chaos, death and violence, but especially infertility, something that has left the Earth population in a grey, unhappy and with no ounce of help state of mind. Theo is contacted by his ex wife and asked to help transport a refugee, Kee, who proves to be much more precious than expected. The end is both positive and negative, and leaves a bittersweet taste in your mouth. The script has a very interesting concept, with a great mix of drama, love, action and existential themes. That's actually one of the films' strongest points: its ability to create a dystopian world without overreacting or relying too much on sci-fi or science. Children of Men talks more about people, the evolution of mankind and relationships, and less about new technological developments or unseen gadgets, and that gives it more soul and ultimately, impacts you on a much deeper level.

Alfonso Cuaron is perfect for this type of movies. He has a very dynamic shooting style and that works here, especially in the running scenes. There are many details that I loved and appreciated: the blood on the camera, the close-ups, the shaky camera in some points. The dark cinematography complemented the direction very well, as did the sets.

The casting was probably one of my favorite things in Children of Men. Clive Owen in one of his career's best parts- he gave an amazing performance as the sad, miserable man who finally finds a reason to live and fight, 20 years after the death of his son and separation from his wife. He has always been a favorite of mine and I always wonder why doesn't he get more roles, or better ones, to say so, considering this performance and the one in Closer. Another standout was definitely Michael Caine as the wacky, adorable old Jasper, and of course, Julianne Moore also impresses in her short time on screen. One mention I have to give is to Oana Pellea, the woman playing Marichka, the gypsy  who is actually Romanian- when you were hearing her talking rubbish in a weird language, that was actually Romanian. It was quite cool for me to recognize that- she is a loved and appreciated actress here. 

In the end, Children of Men is definitely a must see for all film lovers and dystopian aficionados. Very well made, visually appealing, wonderfully acted and with existential themes like hope, survival, love and humankind, it is highly recommended. 

On the road [2012]

On the 16th of August, I had the pleasure to attend the UK Premiere of On the road at the Somerset House, which is a great location. No, I wasn't invited and no, I didn't mingle with the celebrities or the press- I bought my own ticket and saw the film with all the rest of normal people. It was actually very nice. There were no chairs, so everyone had to bring their own blanket and/or pillows from home, and they allowed food and drinks brought from outside, so basically everyone came for a picnic and a film viewing- absolutely lovely.The place was packed by the time the three actors (Danny Morgan, Tom Sturridge, Sam Reily) were presented. They didn't talk too much, but it was nice to have them discuss their movie experience before seeing it. P.S. Reily was one the deepest, most grave voice I have ever heard- very interesting.

On The Road is an adaptation of the famous Jack Kerouac book from the 50s about the Beat generation. It tells the story of Sal and his adventures across the United States, where he meets a wide range of interesting characters, starting with the crazy Dean Moriarty, and continuing with people like Old Bull Lee (Viggo Mortensen), Terry (Alice Braga) or hitchhikers like Steve Buscemi. Written for screen by Jose Rivera and directed by Walter Salles, of Motorcycle Diaries fame, On The Road is a wonderful film, a very well made one, from almost all cinematic point of views, but missing in real and palpable emotion. Not perfect, but not as bad as most reviews make it to be.

The script is very faithful to the book, but doesn't quite capture its madness and sense of youth and adventure, so overall it leaves you a little bit unsatisfied. That is probably the thing that set off all the not so lukewarm reactions from critics. Even I, after seeing it, had to think for a long hour why it didn't impress me- what was missing? why wasn't it all that? I think as much as he tried, Salles couldn't properly transmit Jack Kerouac's world to the screen. I don't mean that visually or from an acting point of view- no, those aspects were very beautiful, it just didn't have the complete vibe of the Beat era, at least that is what I thought (I did read the book 2 years ago).

Taking that aside, I thought everything else was simply wonderful and very beautiful to watch. The direction, and I think I can easily include the cinematography in this description, as well, were on the same page as the era, the vibe of the story and its characters- a little careless, full of light and colors, but also shadows and darkness. One of the things I loved about it is the fact that it managed to highlight the actors' performances: the close-ups showing us the unexpected moments of sadness and desperation (Kristen Stewart melancholic realizations in the car as the hitchhiker sings, or the fantastic ending shot of Garrett Hedlund on the streets of New York), the wide shots of the places and situation in which the protagonists were faced with- everything worked very well and helped us understand them much better and see beyond the youthful exuberance that drove them forward. The score/soundtrack of the 40s and 50s, paired with the sets and the costumes, recreated the Beat years and immersed the audience into the period, showcasing the wonderful mad group in the perfect light.

Casting-wise, I think Salles chose the right people for the job. If you research the whole story behind the making of the film, you will find out that there were a lot of A listers lined up for it: Marlon Brando, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and so on, but when Salles came on board, he insisted he wanted unknown actors for the main parts and I think his choice was better for the film overall.

Sam Reily, as Sal Paradise, the lead character, did a great job, showing us a calm, intelligent, patient personality, but one in constant need for love, attention and friendship- I really liked the way he portrayed his attraction and fascination with Dean, although the book suggests an even more sexual connection with the wild man.

Garrett Hedlund, as the devil rallying up everyone, was probably the stand out of the cast, and with good reason, since his character is the most complex of them all. Yes, Moriarty may seem just like a crazy bastard, but deep down there is someone else out there waiting to come out, and he does, from time to time. Garrett perfectly portrays the part and shines in most of his scenes. I especially loved the one in Sal's house, when he confesses to his friend that he is lost, that he doesn't know how to calm down or what he really wants- the way he goes from a sad, melancholic state to crazy retelling of a sex orgy, back to the sense of misery he hides in his soul- it was just fantastic, at least in my eyes. If the movie does well and gets attention, you can definitely expect award nominations for him (I will be rooting for him all the way, I have been a fan of his for a long time).

Most are probably wondering about Kristen Stewart. What can I say? She did a good job, although there are still traces of Bella, actually of plain old Stewart, still there- I'm referring to the rapid blinking, hand through her hair and other typical KStew mannerisms. But she does shows us a different side of her in some scenes, as she is required to perform in several sex scenes, displaying a wild, slightly nymphomaniac personality. She doesn't go all the way, as in the book, but the effort must definitely be appreciated. I think she shines more in the second half, as her character grows and faces more challenges there.

Other two performances I really enjoyed were by Kirsten Dunst and Tom Sturridge. Dunst has the experience, beauty and charisma, and those three elements made it rather easy for her to shine; it blew KStew out of the park. Also, she had great chemistry with Hedlund, I can definitely see why they're dating now. As for Sturridge, I just loved him and his character- he is so poetic, sweet and naive, just a man looking for love and attention and the perfect poem. There is one scene where he talks with Sal about his feelings towards Dean and what he wants from life- one of my favorite from all the film, he acted it wonderfully.

There are also a lot of cameos/short apperances by world class actors: Terence Howard, Steve Buscemi (in a disturbed sex scene), Elisabeth Moss, Alice Braga, and of course, the creme de la creme, Viggo Mortensen and Amy Adams, who portrayed pure madness and quirkiness, in a memorable and entertaining way. You will definitely be a little surprised by Adams, but in a good way. Overall, Reily, Hedlund and Dunst stand out, but my surprise was definitely Tom Sturridge- quite the revelation, I loved him!

Before coming to the conclusion, I have to give a warning for the prudes: you should expect a lot of drugs (marijuana and benzedrine) and sex scenes- there are many of them, but never over the top or too long (with the exception of the San Francisco one, which I cringed because it just took too much to show one obvious thing).

On The Road is a great film, based on an even better book, that deserves your attention and patience. It's wonderfully made and perfectly acted (well, for most parts), and although it doesn't quite reach the level of madness and beauty of the Beatnik era, it's a lovely attempt. Go watch it if you have the chance!

The Dark Knight Rises [2012]

Before going in to see the film, I didn't read the reviews or the spoilers- I didn't knew who was the villain (except Bane) or the character reveal at the end; all I remember was reading a tweet that said the film had a lot of plot holes. Besides that, nothing, so I went into the theatre with normal expectations, trying to have a clean view on it.

Ladies and gentlemen, sorry to say, but I was not that impressed. Yes, it's a very good action movie, with great visual effects and fight scenes, grand, magnificent and brave, but it didn't do it for me. It didn't have Dark Knight's tight, intriguing and slightly crazy storyline, or Heath Ledger's complex character type, it didn't help people connect with the characters; moreover, the movie seemed to try too hard in achieving greatness and darkness at times, some plot holes were too obvious and I honestly didn't understand half of the things Bane said. It still has the Batman/Nolan magic, but it's not better or more exciting than the first two.

I love, for most of it, Nolan's direction and vision. I understand where he is going and I appreciate and admire his ways, but sometimes it was too much (Bane taking over the city and all his speeches). He creates epic movies, with many subtleties that are surely missed at the first view (I remember seeing Inception for the second time and understanding so much more then); on one hand, it plants a doubt or an intrigue on your brain and you remember it, but on the other hand you leave the theatre unsatisfied and that leads to a not so stellar opinion overall. If I would have to classify his movies, I would put Dark Knight and Inception above TDKR, if not others, too.

See, that was my problem- this need for an epic finale of the Batman trilogy, with huge action scenes, and end-of-the-world speeches and moments, felt sometimes too fake and over the top...and this is where the plot holes come in. Struggling for almost a year to get of the worst prison in the world, Bruce Wayne climbs to the top, and without any money, passport, transport, he arrives safe and sound and with clothes in the most protected, craziest and secluded place in the world. Should I even mention the fact that if a bomb would really explode in the middle of the ocean or bay, it would probably trigger a tsunami so strong that could wipe out a city? And how did he have time to get out of there in time? Also, when did he have time to write his will leaving all of the buildings he previously lost AND indications for a specific character before being forced into the pit? I'm sure there are more and more important than this one, but I'll leave it at that.

Before I continue, I know most of you are probably rolling their eyes right now, saying "Come on, it's an action movie/blockbuster/different world, why is it so important?"- it isn't and I probably wouldn't have noticed or mention it, if it wasn't for the fact that overall, the movie failed to impress or excite me. You could argue that Avengers had a worse script or bigger plot holes, yes, but that movie had me on the edge of my seat, entertained and excited for most of the time.

But, you see, there are some amazing details in The Dark Knight Rises that need to be talked about. Firstly, the splendid Hans Zimmer score, who was perfectly chilling and powerful for the story. Secondly, the visually beautiful cinematography, from the close ups or wide shots, to the dark tone of the film. Thirdly, the fantastic casting: I love Michael Caine- his sweet, wise, caring and noble personality, and most especially, his last scenes, as they were, probably, the only moments where my emotions got to me (and, of course,the goodbye scene). Christian Bale, mister Batman himself, continued his line of great performances by delivering a suffering, dark and lonesome Batman. Tom Hardy's was good, but that's the thing- he didn't actually stand out in any way, which is probably ok, since his character is just a toy of the main villain, just a man fighting someone else's war, because of love. Anne Hathway was a lovely surprise and I really liked her portrayal of Catwoman, and Marion Cotillard was stunning as usual- got to say, I was not expecting that twist at the end. As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, well, yet again, nothing out of the ordinary until the last scenes, were I was, once more, taken back by the reveal. My friends seem to think we will definitely have a continuation because of that, do you think so, too?

I admit, the last part was pretty amazing and I loved all the character revelations, the way Nolan tied up loose ends by giving Alfred his dream ending and so on.

To sum things up, The Dark Knight Rises is a fantastic summer blockbuster that fails to connect in some places. Wonderfully made and full of action and power, but doesn't reach its maximum potential, as it clogs in a sea of details, characters, storylines and a need for epic proportions. If I really had to rate it (something that I never do, as you must have noticed), I would give it a 3.5, maybe 4, out of 5. That's still good, right?

Atonement [2007]

Based on the best selling novel by Ian McEwan, Atonement is a 2007 drama directed by Joe Wright (Pride&prejudice, upcoming Anna Karenina) from a screenplay by Christopher Hampton. It tells the story of a young couple who separate in tragic conditions, as a misunderstanding sends him to prison, but never give up on each other, as he desperately tries to go back to her, even if it costs him his life, since he is forced to join the army.

Keira Knightley plays Cecilia, the woman who shares a complex, yet passionate connection with Robbie(James McAvoy), the housekeeper's son. Their love and sexual gestures are misinterpreted by Briony (Saoirse Ronan), Cecilia's younger sister, who childishly believes the man is a sex maniac after she reads a private letter, and that assumption leads to her accusing Robbie of a terrible thing after an incident in the house. The second part of the movie concentrates on her miserable life, as she now understands the consequences of her actions and very much so regrets what she has done. The finale is bittersweet, but realistic and shows us two different endings, both happy and sad.

My personal highlight of the movie was the filmmaking quality of it. I knew from the first frame and scene that I am in for a treat, because it was masterfully shot, from the trail of miniatures figures leading to the little girl, to the revelation of miss Briony Tallis. Seamus McGarvey was in charge of the cinematography and did an absolute fantastic job- I loved everything about it: the colors, the close-ups, the speed and motion of the camera, everything. My two favorite scenes are worlds appart from each other, but both visually and emotionally perfect: first, when Cecilia and Robbie are getting ready for dinner (their anxiety, fear, love, the way the camera moves from one to another), and second, the portrayal of the ending of the war on the beach in France, the shots following the three men while they discover what has happening. I also liked the fact that some of the most important parts, story-wise or character-wise, were showed from two points of view: Briony's, and then the lover's one; it helped give more depth to the script and show different sides of the coin. Last, but not least, let me mention the sex scene in the library, which was surprisingly sensual and intense and very sexy.
                                  
The cinematography helped make the sets and costumes seem perfect and realistic, and I think it's safe to say that we can always expect beautiful visuals and art direction from Wright. The score was also a highlight for me, especially the innovative typewriting inspired instrumental, or the piano or the beating on the car.

As for the acting, considering the fact that it featured some of the best British actors in the industry, you can expect it to be brilliant. James McAvoy was just dreamy, with his impossible blue eyes and sweet charm, while Keira Knightley did a good job, although she was a little stiff for my own liking. Saoirse Ronan was a standout and you could see she was a star in the making, with her big eyes, remarkable face structure and composed attitude. Nice to see Theon there (Alfie Allen, an actor from Game of Thrones), and of course, the one, the only, mister Benedict Cumberbatch, who portrayed Paul Marshall in a creepy, het convincing way. 

Atonement is very good film that deserves your attention, even if just for the visual aspect of it. If you like drama, British actors or love stories, you are in for a treat. Check it out!

Romanian Cinema (1): Legaturi bolnavicioase aka Love Sick [2006]

In case you didn't know, yes, I am Romanian and pretty proud of it (not all the time, the country and its population definitely has its flaws, but I do take pride in a lot of things regarding the nation and some of its people), especially when it comes to films. In the last decade, our movie industry has blossomed, mostly because of the high praise of our projects from outside communities- case in point, 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days winning Palme D'or (which I haven't seen it, yet, I know, the horror). You're probably wondering why I don't support the national industry and write about it- well, you'll probably find the reason to be superficial or dumb, but here it is: I really don't like the fact that most of films choose to focus on tragic or depressing themes and especially, on Communism stories with heavy background; I know it might be interesting for outsiders, but for us, well, for me, at least, it's not appealing to see such a moment of the country's history, one that has made life miserable and hard for a long time. A movie should be a way to escape from life's burdens, not relive it over and over again. Plus, I noticed that the Romanian filmmakers have a problem with the pacing of the feature, as most of them are slow to watch and don't have a lot of action, which again, is weird, because I usually like character development-centered movies, but somehow, I don't like it in Romanian ones. But still, there are so many good things to be said about the national industry, and there are plenty of examples to support the idea that the New Wave is coming strong. Anyway, I might be wrong, so let's just get to the movie, shall we?

Love sick aka Legături bolnăvicioase tells the story of Alexandra and Cristina, two students who fall in love and try to make their relationship work, as Cristina's brother, Sandu, always gets in the way of their happiness. His involvement and role in the girl's life is revealed from the beginning and it changes the story, now having two delicate themes to work on, as the title suggest. The romance between the two girls starts innocently, with shy looks and stollen kisses, and soon transforms into a sweet, full of love connection that only trembles at the sight of Sandu. Cristina is overly protective and weirdly secretive of him, and as much as she loves Alex, she cannot let got of her brother, and that will ultimately come between them.

Overall, the film is not perfect: there are some gaps in the script and some situations and feelings are never properly explained, but sometimes that is better for the story. It keeps a little bit of mystery over the already exposed relationships and makes you think.

BUT there are some wonderful little things that make the movie special.

First of all,the acting in it is superb: I don't know if you will think the same, but to me it looked amazing, as all of the stars perfectly portrayed their characters, displaying a sense of reality and emotion that is hard to transmit- when I say reality, I talk about how a normal Romanian person would act or talk. Their chemistry has palpable and seemed real, especially between the girls, and it was interesting to watch so many legendary Romanian actors in supporting roles: the lady who rents the room for Alex (probably one of my favourite characters- she is the incarnation of the typical over 50 lonely woman living on a pension), the parents, especially Kiki's mother and Alex's father, the taxi driver at the end (famous rapper) and the older woman who travels with Sandu (huge celebrity over here). As for the three main characters, what can I say? Maria Popistasu (you might have seen her in Tuesday, after Christmas, another well received national movie) played Cristina with a carefree, but sensitive spirit, who worries too much about the people around her instead of her own happiness; I liked this character best, although I probably identify myself more with Alex. One of my favourite scenes is when she calls a special person to leave a Happy Birthday message- her voice, the way she talks to it, her bittersweet words that almost erupt with love and longing are just wonderful, as crazy and inappropriate it seems. (you'll understand when you'll see the movie). Ioana Barbu was the perfect Alex to Popistasu's Cristina, showcasing perfectly the sweet, innocent, rather naive character (it was also her debut in acting). Sandu, played by Tudor Chirila, a famous singer in Romania, didn't have enough screen time, but that helped the movie get its much needed mystery- in the end, you still haven't figured him out, and maybe that is for the best, as the core of the story was the relationship between the girls.

Second of all, I loved the cinematography of it and most of the ways Tudor Giurgiu decided to shoot the movie. The first scene is a beautifully set and lighted image of two lovers in an intimate moment, and the score, a melancholic instrumental of a rare Coldplay song perfectly fits it. (actually that instrumental comes along in many parts of the film). I also love the way the director focuses on their hands, as if that small gesture can show us the intensity of their love or their true feelings- and you know what? It works every time.

As I said in the beginning, the pace might be problem for some, but if you like character development stories or films that focus on relationships, you will definitely like this one. I find it to be little bit similar to Weekend, the 2011 British feature, so if you enjoyed that, check out this, as well.

Love sick is not the best Romanian film you can find out there, but it has its magic points, so if you want to discover my national cinema, I wold recommend seeing 432 and this film, for starters.

Tell me: how you ever seen a Romanian film? If YES, which one and how was it? If NOT, would you be interested? Should I continue my Romanian Cinema series?

Schindler's List [1993]

This 1993 multiple awards winning classic is rightfully considered a masterpiece. If the mention of 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, Screenplay and Cinematography, don't give you a clue that you are dealing with a fantastic movie, then maybe the cast or the story will. Set during the second world war, it speaks about the unfair and truly awful destiny the Jews had to face during Hitler's tyrannic era. 

It's a story about Oskar Schindler(Liam Neeson), a wealthy, smart man who decides to take advantage of the troubled times that the world was facing and make money out of it. He sets up a factory in Krakow, together with a quiet, smart Jew accountant(Ben Kingsley) by accepting and therefore helping the people living in the ghetto. Stern, the faithful right man, started the initiative, giving a hand to the ones in need, but after a while, Oskar sees his efforts and decides to continue his work, by rescuing as many men and women as he can, all ending into a touching, yet unbelievable situation where he has to buy more than 1100 people from Amon, the ruthless German commandant, in order to save them from Auschwitz and the terrible fate it waited for them. For that, he was always remembered as a hero and saviour, and the next generations of the people who he managed to get out the concentration camps are now more than the survivors of the remaining Jews in Poland after 44. 

The story, therefore the screenplay, written by Steven Zaillian, after a Thomas Keneally book, was memorable, intense at points, with fantastic scenes from time to time, but it did felt a little too much. I think it's probably the only thing I would have to comment about this film- 3 hours is a bit too much, although I perfectly understand why they did it. Other than that, Steven Zaillian managed to tell a heartbreaking, tragic story in a script worthy  of its accolades, although from what I've later heard, it wasn't entirely accurate. I set out with a clear opinion and feel of mister Schindler, but  a discussion with a friend changed my mind. He said he read the book and that in it, Oskar didn't actually care about the people- his only interest was having a good, cheap workforce. This little detail was clearly modified in the script, and it disturbed me and somehow downgraded, even if just for a tiny bit,the film. They didn't tell the story like it happened, but then again, it is a film and I guess Spielberg and Zaillian have the right to somehow make the situation a little sweater and more cinematic, right?

Continuing the praises for this feature, I must mention Steven Spielberg who did a stunning job. I loved  the direction and I felt it perfectly suited the atmosphere and the tone of it, not to mention that it helped portray the characters in the best way possible, even if they happened to be a ruthless killer or a silent housekeeper.  The sudden killing spree in the ghetto on March 13 was just amazing- the whole production and the way it was shot was  sensational, memorable and chilling. The red coat detail was well placed and added more drama to the already tragic situation. 

The cinematography was definitely a high point of the film, as Janusz Kaminski used Black and White in such a beautiful, artistic and visually attracting way. The sets and costumes perfectly coordinated with the image and tone of the story, and the score, mostly orchestral, but with melancholic American hits sprinkled between,highlighted the essentials and made everything feel real. 

As expected, the perfect cast delivered in a superb way, adding even more layers to already complex characters, and somehow fitting it into that era and its customs and way of being. I know everyone remembers and deeply appreciates Ralph Fiennes for his unbelievable rendition of Amon Goeth, and I do that,too, I cannot not notice the character or its delivery, but my personal favorites were Sir Ben Kingsley and Liam Neeson. They worked together seemingly effortless and maybe I liked them more because their parts were more approachable and real. While Neeson does his best to showcase the true side of Schindler, with charisma and intelligence, Kingsley, with his natural talent and poise, stands out for me, although his part is much more quiet and reserved. 

Maybe I am overreacting about Schindler's list, but honestly, for me at least, it's one of those movies that is almost flawless, it's the type of film that perfectly blends the story with the visual and audio, creating a different, almost real word inside a frame, a film that moves you, all while featuring wonderful performances that cannot be missed. 

Schindler's List is a must see feature for everyone. 

Taking Woodstock [2009]

Seeing "Taking Woodstock" was a spontaneous decisions- I've had it for a while, but didn't get around to seeing it, so today, when I was trying to get away from university assignments, I said, "Why not? Summer is almost here". What can I say after seeing it? I want to go to a festival; sit on the grass, talk to people, listen to good music, take photos- I just want to enjoy life together with the people around me. Damn it, the hippie vibe got to me, I think I would have been pretty happy in the 60s right?

Taking Woodstock is an Ang Lee movie about Elliot, a young man who returns to his hometown to take care of his parents and their endangered business (a motel). After he learns that Woodstock might not be happening that year because of land problems, he decides to call Michael Lang, one of organizers, and propose to him to move the festival to his town. The rest of the movie basically shows you the backstage of what happened in the festival, the ups and downs, the people and the atmosphere of Woodstock, something that is still being talked about. I do believe it is a golden era, in some aspects, and I would go back in time to experience it, even just for one day.

The film featured a big cast, from people like Eugene Levy (the owner of the land), to Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jonathan Groff (Michael Lang), Emile Hirsch, Paul Dano and Mamie Gummer. My favorite characters were played by Liev Schreiber (the out-of-nowhere drag "bodyguard") and Imelda Staunton (Elliot's mother), in a hilarious, yet very good role. Demetri Martin, the lead actor, offered a pretty approachable and sweet performance, and blended it perfectly with the rest of the cast.

Script-wise, it wasn't the best, but overall, I think it made its point. Yes, there are some shallow characters, some undeveloped ideas and some cut in, cut out scenes, but I still think that, for what it was aiming to do (re-create Woodstock in some way or another), it did a good job. The cinematography and direction were also on point, although I must say I was amazed by the number of extras they had- how did they control them or give directions? Visually, one of my favorite scenes has to be the acid trip Elliot has while being in a hippie VW Beetle wagon- I loved the waves to the stage and the colors used, I could see and understand how something like that must feel.

"Taking Woodstock" might not be perfect, but I personally enjoyed it- it set up a great mood and atmosphere, it was visually beautiful, with great music and  it came from a script which had fun moments and wacky, yet relatable characters. You should really give it a try next time you're in the mood for something light!

Fish Tank [2009]

Fish Tank is a 2009 British film written and produced by a brilliant individual called Andrea Arnold. It takes you through the life of Mia (Katie Jarvis), a 15 year old with a big mouth and a bad temper, who likes to dance. Her ordinary life changes when Connor (Michael Fassbender) comes into the picture, as he becomes her mother's boyfriend. The man, unknownly, changes their life, in a way, as he becomes a father figure and husband for a short period....and in Mia's case, maybe something more. I'll try to be spoiler free, as I usually tend to give out important details, although I don't do it intentionally.

I would describe this film to be...British. I don't know how to properly explain it, but it has that feeling, that look, and of course, the language that immediately reminds you of the UK. In some cases, I was actually put off by the extreme behavior and language of Mia, Tyler (her sister) and their mother- I couldn't help asking myself "Is this considered normal in some parts of London or UK? do 10 year-olds really smoke and swear worse than a 40 year old?"

Anyway, that was probably one of the very few weak points of Fish Tank. Besides that aspect, which might be just a thing of perspective and personal belief, everything else was quite remarkable and beautiful.

80% of the cinematography was just wonderful (the remaining 20% are negative just because of some shaky camera shots that annoyed me); I especially loved the slow motion moments, like the wind blowing the shirts away, or Mia being undressed. My favorite scene happens around the middle to the end of the movie, when Mia shows Michael Connor her audition dance- I loved the lighting, the music, her innocence and the performances. What happened after? well, that was a bit shocking- I thought he was just the father figure she needed in her life, but I guess he had different feelings for her, after all. That scene went up and down for me: at first, I liked the fact that she let her guard down and finally opened herself to Connor; when he made her move on her, I was shocked, but found the continuation to be quite erotic, which again, made me feel bad, because what was happening wasn't right (maybe that was just the Fassy effect, he is one sexy man).

Another thing I was surprised by were some the directions Andrea Arnold took when it came down to the script. First of all, although I do like Harry Treadway (he was great in Control, too), I think his storyline was pretty useless, except for, of course, the end- sometimes, unnecessary characters or actions in a movie bug me. Second of all, I was pretty shocked and didn't quite understand Mia's choice of action when she found out the truth about Connor- I know she was hurt and trying to get back him in way or another, but that? it was a rash decision that didn't got her anywhere. Yes, I know it's a normal reaction and that was the first thing she thought of doing, still...

But then again, that didn't put me off. I still think it is a wonderful coming-of-age movie; yes, it is more raw and extreme than most, but it has a similar effect on the audience and on the characters. The end is bittersweet, and I can't really say she has evolved or grown to be a better person, but at least she has changed and even matured, a little. What will happen to her? Is she going to go to school or get a proper job? I don't think so, but at least she got something out from this whole experience.

Overall, I though Fish Tank was a solid movie, with good performances by Fassbender and Jarvis and well- written and directed by Andrea Arnold [ Jury Prize winner in Cannes for FT in 2010, and she won an Oscar for her short film, Wasp, in 2003,  which I saw in a festival years ago (it has a very similar vibe to Fish Tank, you should check it out, maybe on youtube), and I will definitely watch Wuthering Heights soon, as well!]  The Brits have done it again!

There will be blood [2007]

After I saw Little Miss Sunshine last week and was pleasantly surprised by Paul Dano's performance, I decided to watch him in another movie, so this one seemed the perfect answer, as I had it on my list for a long time.

"Ladies and gentlemen", There Will Be Blood is a 2007 written&directed film by Paul Thomas Anderson, about an oilman and his trials and tribulations. Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a simple, yet very smart guy who works his way into every little town with potential for oil drilling. When he reaches Little Boston, an area suggested by a young, peculiar man named Paul Sunday on a late night, both luck and trouble come his way and influence his actions, as he strives to get more oil from the ground, but also tries to keep his dignity and his son close to him.

I was impressed and excited by several aspects of this amazing movie. First of all, the performances. By now, you should know I am a sucker for character development, interesting or just plain good performances and There Will Be Blood had it, and then some. Two stand out for me and these are Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano. The lead man was perfect from the first shot to the very last, showing, one by one, the multiple layers of this fascinating man: his smart side, the caring side (whenever he was around children), the fighter in him or the careless, old, drunken ghost of his successful career; he won an Oscar for this part and it is deserved, indeed. As for Paul Dano, I might be biased, but I think he was absolutely amazing, being quite a revelation as the young pastor with a creepy, but very powerful presence- not only did he stand up and match Lewis' performance, but he dared to act his part in ways not most people do. There are some scenes that prove that: the first church scene, when he performs an "exorcism", the fight between the two on the field, the baptize part (DDL saying "I am a sinner" plus the first words after, supposedly, the devil left him: "There's a pipeline"), the table discussion between Eli and his father, and the most important one, the final scene in the bowling alley room- that just entered my all time favorite scenes list and I will definitely do a separate post just for it.

That leads us to the script; based on a novel by Upton Sinclair, it provides just enough dialogue, drama, action, character and story development, to keep things going and make it more interesting as things progress- solid job by Mister Anderson here, as well.

Another beautiful aspect is, of course, the cinematography. That, combined with probably one of the best musical scores I have ever heard, takes the movie to the next level. The haunting score makes up for a certain lack of dialogue, especially at the beginning or in key scenes and visually, everything is just perfect. (one scene that I remember is the gas explosion) I love Paul Thomas Anderson's style- Boogie Nights is still stuck in my head and I cannot wait to see Magnolia (yes, kill me now, I haven't seen that, either, but I will, promise).

All in all, There Will Be Blood is a fantastic movie that cannot be missed- I highly recommend it. If I will ever make a top 50 or top 100, it would be surely be there.

True Grit [2010] and future plans

The fourth Coen brothers movie on my list was their latest, True Grit, released in 2010, and based on a novel by Charles Portis (and another movie starring John Wayne) which is new for me, because all the films I saw were written by them, not adapted. [was Fargo adapted or just based on a true story? I can't remember; anyway]. It tells the story of Mattie Ross, a stubborn 14 year old girl who hires an old, mean sheriff to revenge the death of her father, by catching and surrendering Tom Chaney, the murderer, to the authorities. What's the catch? She is going with him into the land of the Indians.  


Again, this film is very different from the other Coens pics and I love that; you never know what to expect from the brothers in terms of storyline, but you know you will always get amazing cinematography, great dialogue, strong characters and peculiar situations and people. True Grit falls perfectly into those lines and turns out to be an entertaining movie, with good intentions, multiple layers and good old time action and fun, to top the visually beautiful scenes and the great acting. 


Speaking of it, the casting is fantastic, especially when it comes down to the two leads, Reubeun Cogburn, played by Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, and Mattie Ross, played by the young Hailee Steinfeld, who, weirdly enough, was nominated for awards in the Supporting role category- her part was as lead as a role can be (stupid phrasing, but you get my point). Matt Damon did his job, but I found his character and his portrayal of it to be a little annoying and exaggerated. 


I liked the fact that the film was pretty straight-forward, tough, with attitude and funny, sarcastic lines, and I especially loved the sequence of scenes at the end- Mattie being attacked, the appearance of Cogburn and La Boeuf, shooting at 120 m, falling etc etc; it was exciting, fun to watch and nicely done. 


True Grit was a very good movie that I enjoyed. If you will ever do a Coens marathon or plan to see some of their movies or if you just like westerns or if just like good movie or if you like Jeff Bridges/Matt Damon/Josh Brolin- get this film now and see it, you will not be dissappointed!


Overall, the Coens marathon was a huge surprise for me- I did not expect to like their movies so much! Each one is unique, with distinctive features and qualities, but all have several key points that make the project better every time, and by now, if you have read my posts, you know them: script, characters, casting, cinematography- any film who excels in these points can be called a great one, so I guess it's safe to say the Coens always do an amazing job! They are now in my favorite directors, but mostly scriptwriters, category, and I can't wait to see Inside Llewyn Davis (written and directed by them, now filming in New York, with Carey Mulligan, Oscar Isaac, Garrett Hedlund, Justin Timberlake and John Goodman), and Gambit, set to be released in 2012, written by the brothers, but directed by Michael Hoffman.


If you're curious about future plans, I plan to do a mini Herzog marathon soon, and then a huge Stanley Kubrick one, with, hopefully, all of his movies (I sure need to watch them, it's embarrassing how many I haven't seen already). Honestly, I have to admit, I am terrified by Herzog, especially his earlier, feature film work, as I saw some trailers and synopsis and they don't seem something I would particularly enjoy, but I will be brave and try- maybe it's not so bad!

So, tell me, did you like my Coen brothers posts? what do you suggest I should do next? any (light) recommendations for the Herzog marathon? 

The Deep Blue Sea [2011]

The Deep Blue Sea is a character-driven movie, more or less. It doesn't focus on story development or action, it just takes us through the life of a couple and its complicated relationship, told mostly from the perspective of the woman, Hester Miller, the wife of a British judge, who starts an affair with Freddie Paige, a Royal Air Force pilot.

It begins with a 10 minute, orchestra music-fulled sequence, back and forth between the present day, where Hester, wonderfully played by Rachel Weisz, tries to comitt suicide, and the old days, when her relationship with Freddie was still fresh and lustful. From the beginning, the viewers can easily observe the beauty and darkness of the cinematography of Florian Hoffmeister, and the intricate, yet dreamy and classic direction of Terence Davies. I still remember a stunning scene which shows the lovers sharing a sweet moment in bed- the music, the way their arms and legs were intertwined, the movement of the camera-it all felt a little sureal and dramatic, and I loved it. I also liked the fact that the movie wasn't very predictable: I thought it was going somewhere, and then it completely changes, moving towards a different direction, and I am instantly intrigued (a good example is the subway scene).

She fails her attempt of taking her life, but still goes back from time to time to her past, her new, exciting, full of love past, that she now longs for. It all started with the need of a better life, one in which she wasn't bored or treated so insensitively, and Freddie just happened to be there to sweep her off her feet; it didn't hurt the fact that he was closer to her age than William, her husband, more than 20 years her senior.

But in the end, nothing in life comes easy and that is what the movie is about. She knew what she was getting into, she knew he couldn't offer what she really wanted, but Hester can't stay away, and chooses to be miserable for some time, in order to have at least a few moments of pure happiness and excitement with Freddie. She does have a chance at tranquility and love, not with Freddie, but with someone who will care for her, but she refuses, all just to hang on for a little while longer of the inexplicable connection and love to Freddie.There are clear differences between them and they both know their relationship is messed up and it probably won't last, but they still come back to each other. Case in point, after he finds her suicide letter, he leaves, but still agrees to come back to pick up his things, after she pleads to him numerous times.

The last morning spent together is awkward, but civilised; you can see and feel there is so much more to be said, but neither one takes the initiative- there is so much meaning behind their words.

The performances were good and higly comandable, but not extraordinary. Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston are great individually, but I didn't buy their connection 100%- but still, the effort is there and the acting is good, especially for what the script requires. That, plus the music, editing, directing, cinematography, costumes, sets- everything fit the genre and the topic very well. It's clean!

I will be honest with you and say most will probably not like this- they will find it boring and useless. But for the few who like character-driven movies, romance, complicated relationships- this is a movie for you to see! I thought it was beautiful!

Birdsong- BBC series 2012

Birdsong, the novel by Sebastian Faulks, has been recently adapted into a miniseries by the BBC, with a screenplay written by Abi Morgan (Iron Lady, Shame) and directed by Philip Martin. As usual, we can expect great things from it, and it truly is a beautiful work of art, although it has certain flaws.

Episode 1
The story follows Wraysford, a young British man, through two different periods of his life: the first, set in 1910, is the short, but memorable time spent in the house of a French family, where he meets Isabel, and the second, set in 1916, is the world war.

Eddie Redmayne, as Stephen Wraysford, is good, but he does annoy me with some of his manners and gestures; if you have seen My week with Marilyn, you know what I mean: his eyes. I'm not saying they are not beautiful, because they are, but his glance, the way he looks at someone or something, even if it's Isabel, the love of his life, or a random tree in the woods, it's always the same- his starring eyes are becoming a signature move/look. He is quite a character and I loved him in Pillars of the Earth, but he relies too much on his pretty eyes, which is not good- the British film industry is growing day by day, showcasing younger, attractive, talented men like Harry Lloyd, Douglas Booth, Jeremy Irvine or Richard Madden, and in a few years, those eyes of his won't be enough.

Speaking of attractive British men, we also have Matthew Goode and Richard Madden in the cast. While the Single Man star is briefly seen in some scenes of the episode, The Game of Thrones resident King plays Weir, the nice guy with knitted sweaters who is, probably, the only friend of Wraysford on the battlefield. Joseph Mawle also gives a heartwarming performance and it should be interesting to see how his character evolves in second part.

Clemence Poesy portrays the young French woman who falls in love with Wraysford, and unfortunately, the only thing I saw in her was beauty, that's all. Effortless elegance and grace, lovely features and great style, but nothing more. She acts her part, but brings nothing new; it's like she is keeping a distance between her and Isabel, and you, as a viewer, cannot feel the connection, which is too bad, considering the interesting part she was giving.

As for the actual filmmaking aspect of it, BBC has, yet again, outdone itself- the sets are fantastic, the costumes, lighting and cinematography-breathtaking, and the direction beautifully highlights the story and its characters; absolutely nothing bad that I could comment on.

The series is off to a good start and I am curious to see what episode 2 brings to the story and the characters.

p.s. Sometimes, I just hate accents, I cannot understand what they are saying- case in point, Madden's Scottish one.

Episode 2
The second episode continues in the same rhythm as the first one: transitions between the past (Isabel time) and present (war time), excessively using the slow-motion shooting style (one of the film's major flaws). Apart from a few resurrections (of Wraysford) and far too many violent, unnecessary deaths (SPOILER-Weir, Firebrace, soldiers), there's not a lot of action, and I think that is the series main problem: although the story has a fluent and visually attracting pace, in the end, it is not satisfaying for the viewers. Maybe it's the book, maybe it's the script (but I doubt that, Abi Morgan has done a wonderful job), but something doesn't click- in the end, we get too much visual and too little action- it can get a little bit boring.

But the again, the cinematography is stunning and I love the difference between the two storylines: going from the light, bright tones of the Isabel time, to the dark, shady colors of the war time. The direction is good, but I do think they overused some techniques to create the dreamy, remembering state of the film.

Performance-wise, all actors have improved, Redmayne showing a little bit more the second time around. Madden is just as good and I loved the sensitivity of his character, although his ending was stupid. Joseph Mawle shines and Matthew Goode shows that he does have a leading man potential (he is a fantastic actor and a personal favorite).


Overall, Birdsong is a good, beautiful miniseries, but I am sure we can find better ones out there. I really hope you are interested in these type of TV shows, because I plan on seeing and reviewing more of them! :)

Do you usually watch miniseries? What other similar shows do you recommend?

The Skin I Live In [2011]

Almovodar's latest movie, La piel que habito- "The Skin I live in", is quite remarcable. I think it is one of the best I have seen in the last year and it's curious not to see its name mentioned on top 10 lists or award nominations; but then  again, I don't think a lot of people saw this movie.

The story is about Robert Ledgard, a brilliant plastic surgeon, who creates a new type of skin that resists any kind of damage. His guinea pig happens to be Vera, a mysterious and volatile woman, who is part of his troubled past. As the plot thickens, we learn the shocking truth about her identity, one that will heavily influence the fate of both the doctor, and her life. No spoilers here (I learned my lesson), but trust me when I say it is very interesting.

The main thing that makes this film so good is the perfect combination of the filmmaking elements in all the right amounts. Fast-moving, intricate, shocking storyline, with complex characters, realistic dialogue, a touch of science fiction, mixed with a lot of mistery, told in Spanish, a sensual, dynamic language; appropriate music to every scene, highlighted by the fantastic orchestra, especially violin, in key moments, accompanied by beautiful cinematography- all wrapped up nicely by clean editing and visually interesting shooting style. You can't wait to see what happens next, you are fascinated by the story and where it's going and the end just leaves you breathless- hours pass, but you keep thinking about the movie you just saw. All of the above are signs of a very good feature.

As for the performances, I was pleasantly surprised by Antonio Banderas, who is fantastic as the surgeon, and offers us the correct amount of crazyness, genius, love, desperation and determination. Elena Anaya is, also, very good as Vera, his misterious patient, and steals every scene with her unearthly beauty and calm. Jan Cornet (Vicente) is another standout, although he is not featured too much, while Marisa Paredes delivers every time you see on screen- you can see she is an experienced actress.

All in all, "Skin I live in" is fantastic and I highly recommend it, whenever you will have the chance to see it!

I am not very familiar with Almovodar, as I have only seen 2 or 3 of his movies! What do you recommend I should see next?

The thin red line[1998]

I have a love and hate relationship with Terence Malick. You know that feeling when you're pissed off at someone, say your girlfriend/boyfriend, and you just want to slap him/her, but, in the same time, god, you just love her/him and get the urge to kiss. When I saw Tree of Life, I was in a constant battle between slapping and kissing!This movie had a different situation!

"The thin red line" is a fantastic movie! Everything is wonderful, from the cinematography, to the script, direction, music and most definitely, the acting! It still has some weak points, but still...

Let's start from the beginning! I love the fact that you can, firstly, hear the voice and feel the attitude of a character, then see him in action- a beautiful way of introducing the men and showing us, as the movie progresses, how they really are. 

All of the shooting scenes and the missions seem real and the best part is that Malick doesn't focuses his attention on the blood or actual fighting, but on the reactions and emotions of the soldiers. They are the core of this movie and it is just a way for us to understand and relate to those who have lived this kind of horror. You can find anything in the middle of the action, from men going crazy to others who indifferently sit next to dying soldiers. The war has transformed them and Malick shows us how through a 170 minute journey into their mind and soul. 

The cast was exceptional and recognizable, even if you don't watch a lot of movies: Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, John Travolta, Adrien Brody, Woody Harelson, John C.Reilly, Jared Leto, John Cussack and others. Nick Nolte, especially, is crazy good as the man in charge of the island, who has to go down into the battlefield to take charge when his captain(Elias Koteas) can't. 

The key character and actor in this, for me, was James Caviezel. There is just something about him: it draws people in, his eyes, his calm and numbness, his raw emotions are wonderfully displayed. He is the heart and soul of the battalion and of this movie. 

One thing I still don't like about the Terence Malick movies is the voice-overs. I understand they are meant to give substance and more meaning to the story and create an atmosphere, but most of the time, for me anyway, it is distracting and I just give up, all together, listening to it and prefer to watch the action on screen! Plus, it can be a little boring to watch for some- 170 minutes!

In the end, it's a story about war, suffering, fear, ignorance and humans; it's a story about young men who go to war with fear, but go out with a calmness and numbness that only war soldiers can understand!

Fantastic movie, I really hope you will see it, if you haven't already!

Fridays are the best: A single man[2009]

Fridays are the best, that's why, from now on, you'll get to see some of my favorites every Friday!This week: A single man!

Director: Tom Ford

Writer: Tom Ford, David Scearce

Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode

Before the movie even starts, you find out it is directed and produced by Tom Ford, the famous designer. What are your expectations? I thought I was going to see amazing clothes, beautiful sets and elegance. Now, at the end, I can say that I did see those things, but they were so many others that raised the bar even higher.

First of all, I loved the way it was directed. The shots, the specific details that he focused on, the style, all were special and elegant, smooth. I absolutely loved the fact that, whenever George, the main character, saw something that reminded him of the great past or something he loves or admires now, that each moment was captured in amazing colour, bright and full of life. All, in contrast, to the rather dull and grey scenes in his ordinary day that is making him feel miserably and pushes him to suicide.

Tom Ford also shows in a very artistic way the unbereable speed in which time is passing, speed that is slowly killing George. Every moment he is reminded of Jim, his love, with whom he spent 16 years and who, suddenly, died in a car accident. Since that day forward, his life wasn’t the same. It is a story of colours, of smell, touch, hearing.

Second of all, it did have, as you would expect from a fantastic designer, class;  elegance is a key word when I think of Julianne Moore, who portrays Charley, a lonely women who is George’s only friend.  She is a triple threat: beautiful, talented and elegant, and I love her. The dinner scene was very sweet and you can really see the relationship that the two have; it’s a very cool, straight-forward, honest and full of love and memories that always makes them nostalgic of past times.

I always noticed, as I said in the beginning, the obsession for details. I thought it brought quality and beauty to the film and made it very special. You’ve got to love the neatly way George prepares his death,  worried even about the damage his blood is going to cause to the bed.

Kenny Porter, played by Nicholas Hault, was quite a revelation for me and I can’t wait to see what he does next. The game between him and George was so sweet, simple and fun, that it would always keep me guessing the nature of their attraction: sexual or not sexual? Does he admire Falconer as a professor or as man?

The movie, unfortunately, doesn’t really give us a solid answer, but leaves it to our choice.  The end, however, is sad, but fufilling, I guess, for the main character!

It is a beautiful film that I highly recommend! It is one of my favorites!

Tree of Life[2011]

I finally got around to seeing Tree of Life by Terence Malick!

I started watching this with the idea in my mind that I will probably hate it or think it is too much for me. Let's just say that I was right, but I got a few surprises, as well!

The first thing you need to know about this movie is that it's a unique one, not something you normally see. You love it or you hate it! There are few chances to get in the middle (surprise, surprise, I am there, anyway, moving on).

The film starts with the story of a 1950s family, with Pitt as the father figure, Jessica Chastain as the mother and 3 young brothers. It's the beginning of a beautiful, sad, yet very real story following the normal struggles that a family can go through. Here, Terence Malick shows his great gift and surprises the audience (well, actually maybe just me) with amazing camera movement: sometimes it's erratic, uneven, alert, but beautiful, it feels like he is playing with the camera, experimenting the best way to introduce us into their lives; other times, it's looks studied and fluid.

Then we go into the part that I don't understand and I think shouldn't even be in the movie. Although I loved the nature scenes and they were very well executed, I didn't really understand their relevance. I know, it has a deeper meaning that I am not getting! My loss!

Seeing this film, I couldn't help thinking about what Terence Malick was thinking and why did he choose to shows particular scenes that didn't feel necessary or interesting enough to be on screen. The whole movie, in my perspective, is like the mind of an artist, a creative, mad genius. You feel like he is telling the story, he is behind the camera- he has so many ideas and thoughts, that sometimes he can't put them in a simple, straight way, he doesn't know how to express them in a logical manner. It is very appealing and mesmerizing and you can sense there is more then meets the eye, but it's so chaotic and so artistic, that for the majority of the people seeing it, it gets confusing.

After the nature scenes, we go back to reality and the family. He shows us the love connection between the man and woman and then goes on to show and describe the life of the 3 brothers- their fears, the love they have for one another, trust, sympathy, questions, feelings etc.; you get that for the next 1 hour and 45 minutes and this where things go downhill for me. As much as I loved seeing Jessica Chastain unearthly presence, the fantastic performances given by the father (Brad Pitt) and the son(Hunter McCracken) and, again, the fluid way it was shot, 105 minutes is a bit too much. I got bored and was hoping, by the end of it, to just get it over with it.

I was so annoyed by those long, unnecessary scenes, that I didn't even had the patience to properly see and understand the end of the movie, who anyway seemed too deep and philosophical for me. Hey, I admit, I don't have that level of knowledge or appreciation of art- but I am getting there!

I am not saying it is not a good movie, because it is, but it is too much sometimes! Terence Malick tried to create an amazing artistic film, but didn't really stop and think about what the audience might want or understand. It might have won the Palme D'or, but does he really want it to be seen and loved only by a very small percentage of the population?Maybe he does and I am just stupid!

In the end, most of my friends (and by that I mean 90% of them) would hate this movie and walk out during the dinosaurs scenes, so I will not recommend them. I don't think you should see it either, unless you are a cinephile or love art in any form. Then maybe you should give a try!

Am I crazy? What did you think of it?

P.S. Just because I loved the cinematography and the posters are great, here are 2 more!

MARIE ANTOINETTE [2006]

Written and Directed by Sofia Coppola

Starring:  Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman and Rip Torn

If you have seen a Sofia Coppola movie, I think you can know what to expect. Very well directed and with beautiful cinematography, but the storyline is always so slow and uneventful (her „masterpiece” in this area is „Somewhere”), that it tested my patience in so many moments, especially in the first hour of the movie. I didn’t knew it was her work until halfway through the movie, when I remembered the film Somewhere and then the fact that she directed this one, and it was obvious. Sometimes, the visual is enough to capture the audience, but not this time. It all seems so interrupted, butchered, nothing really flows, and by that I reffer to the transition between scenes.

As I said, visually everything is perfect; the costumes and sets are wonderful and you can’t help feeling that french nostalgia and immediately wish to be there, eating a maccaroon with the queen. Kirsten Dunst plays her part wonderfully and it’s nice to see familliar faces like Rose Byrne or Tom Hardy.

But in the end, it didn’t cut it for me, it had many highs and lows and if i had to choose, overall, it would be stuck on the middle, not bad, but not sensational, either. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t really enjoy Sofia Coppola’s movies.

p.s. I just got my London Film Festival tickets! I will be seeing Restless, Carnage, Take Shelter, Martha Marcy May Marlene and I really really hope to get into Shame- I will be queing for that one!