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!

On The Road- the trailer

"The only people that interest me are the mad ones"

If you follow my tweets, you know I love On The Road; you know it is one of my most anticipated movies of 2012 and that I have been following the development of it for more than 2 years.

It all started after I read the book, by Jack Kerouac, and saw immediately after, that it was going to be adapted for the big screen- I had some doubts, as all readers have, but the cast sounded interesting, so I decided not to have any preconceived judgment (and it was hard in Kristen Stewart's case) and just see what happens.

The road to getting this movie on the big screen is very long and extremely interesting. The short version: Jack Kerouac wanted it to be a movie, and even wrote a letter to Marlon Brando, asking him to be Dean Moriarty. Between that time and the beginning of the 2000s it was passed on by many people, although Francis Ford Coppola held the rights ever since 1968.  A lot of big names were considered for the main parts: Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, Sean Pean and so no. But the people who got the three main roles were basically nobodies in the middle of the 2000s, when they were cast: Sam Riley, Garrett  Hedlund and Kristen Stewart (yes, she was attached to this movie even before Twilight, or very close to the start of the first movie). That's actually one of the problems that On The Road will face: people don't believe in them; most formed an opinion after seeing one movie or franchise and immediately put them in the bad actor category, something that I personally hate and disencourage others to do.

You should all give them a chance to prove to you they are worthy enough of taking on these iconic characters. Why? Because, first of all, they worked their butts off to prepare for the shooting; it wasn't just reading the script and rehearsing three days before, it was much more than that. Garrett Hedlund promised Walter Salles he would not take any other project until the movie was done, and he kept it for at least 2 or 3 years (sorry, but I don't know for sure), until Salles said he should do Tron or other movies, as the producers weren't sure about the state of the production and when it could start. He read the books, he met with Neal Cassidy's family (the actual person Dean Moriarty was based on) and, together with the rest of the main cast, including Sam Riley, Kristen Stewart and Tom Sturridge, did a Beatnik Boot camp dedicated to that era and the book. You have to understand that most of them were very committed to the project and put a lot of passion in it. [I am sorry if I got any details wrong, but it's 2 am here and I really wanted to write this after the trailer came out; if someone is interested in the topic, I will attach some helpful links about the book, the adaptation and the development process]

The reason I like the book and, consequently, the movie, so much, is because of the story, of the memorable characters, of the vibe and the life and energy it transmits. It's like nothing I have ever read and it is worth picking it up from your local bookstore before seeing the movie.

Now, on to the trailer. First of all, here it is:

My thoughts on it:
- the cinematography is a standout: I think it looks beautiful and I love the colors and the way they shot most of the scenes- visually, it's very appealing!
- Sam Riley's accent is good; not the most American one you have ever heard, but definitely memorable and alluring!
- Garrett Hedlund has the difficult job here- the part of Dean Moriarty is make it or break it! If he pulls it off, it can definitely be an award contender, and from what I have seen it, he might be in the running next year. I might be biased here, he is one of my favorite actors.
- I know 99% of people will roll their eyes when they will see Kristen Stewart, and I know I had these doubts, as well, but it looks good so far; still, the trailer didn't show too much of her character!
- I like the chemistry between Kristen Stewart and Garrett Hedlund, and the dance scene looks pretty hot! P.S. Garrett Hedlund is actually dating Kirsten Dunst, his other wife in this movie!
- Viggo Mortensen looks like another standout in the brief moments we say him, but then again, he is amazing in every film he is in!
- the supporting cast is dynamite: Amy Adams, Steve Buscemi, Terence Howard, Viggo Mortensen, Kirsten Stewart, Alice Braga and so on!
- just some quick facts about the movie: Jose Rivera (Motorcycle Diaries) penned the script and Gustavo Santaolalla (Brokeback Mountain) composed the score;
- it will, most probably, premiere in Cannes, as its French opening date is 23 or 24 of May!
- what you didn't see in the trailer, but will certainly be in the movie: SEX, and a lot of it! if you read the book, you know what I mean and from what I've heard, it contains a lot of explicit scenes, but I am hoping it won't be slapped with a N17!

Now, it's your turn! Please let me know in the comments what you think! Is it good or bad? What stands out? What strong and weak points does it have? Will you be seeing it in the cinemas when it comes out?

A dangerous method [2011]

My David Cronenberg mini marathon continued with "A dangerous method" and I was pleasantly surprised, for I saw some interesting differences between his earlier movies and this one.

First of all, the beginning was much more intense and its pace helped get into the story very quickly and start understanding the characters and the situation right away. But, I still knew it was a Cronenberg movie when I realised 16 minutes have passed, but it felt like an hour- how does he do that?

Second of all, the script was better and more diverse, featuring some very introspective and thought-provoking subjects, as expected, since the movie is about the evolution of psychoanalysis. I loved the conversations between Freud and Jung and the experiments, and it was nice to see the interaction between the two doctors, especially when they realised they have opposite opinions, which of course, led to friction and interuption of their friendship- Jung wanted to move forward and research daring topics, whilst Freud never dared to question the wonders of the world around him.

One of the highlights of this film, for me anyway, was Vincent Cassel- his character, Otto Gross, was, by far, one of the most complex and interesting, and his charming presence made the story even more fascinating and appealing. Otto had a great take on monogamy, as he considered it to be a stressful concept and his motto was "Never repress anything" (case in point, his suicidal patient); he also comes up with the brilliant explanation of why Freud is obsessed with sexuality ("He is not getting any"). But, some great things never last long, so he dissapperead rather quickly.

Viggo Mortensen, as Freud, is good, and surprisingly unrecognisable; I wasn't very keen on his performance, mainly because his character doesn't evolve, and his strict mind holds him back. I thought Michael Fassbender was great, but I never stoped to analyse him or think about what he is doing- it felt like he was a driver for the story and for the other individuals, and maybe that is a very good thing. As for Keira Knightley, I still don't know what to think of it- was it exceptionally good or bad? I can't really tell, but overall, she delivered and it fitted the situation; special mention goes to Jung's wife, wonderfully played by Sarah Gadon.

"A dangerous method" is a good movie and one that raises many interesting questions, and for people interested in psycology and psychoanalysis, it will be a treat, but I think most will think of it as being quite boring. I don't recommend it to everyone, but if you have the patience and the willingness to see a movie about these topics, go for it!

Eastern Promises [2007]

Eastern Promises, my second David Cronenberg movie in a week, is a drama about a midwife who discovers the shocking story of her recently-deceased unknown patient, who gave birth to a child after being raped by a Russian mob man.

To help explain this film, let me just talk about a cake. Just imagine a cake with many layers to it. The first one, on top, doesn't look to good; the colour is too bright, and its taste is rather dissapointing, like they put too much vanilla or rum in the syrup. You get to the second one and it's better: the taste is normal, but still a bit boring and not that good. As you get to the third layer, you find the chocolate, and suddenly you are interested and you want more. The center of it, the caramel, just melts your heart. "Eastern Promises" is very similar to the experience of tasting a cake- the beginning is slow, the English-Russian accents are just plain hilarious and bad, the acting can be over the top, in some situations. Then you get to meet Anna and Nikolai and you start to care, but still it doesn't feel comfortable. When you discover Tatiana's story and Nikolai's actions to spare the uncle or save the prostitute, you understand you are witnessing a character development and the story is becoming more and more interesting. In the core you encounter delicate subjects and shocking revelations, and you start to care about Anna, and the baby and you hope for a happy ending for them and even for Nikolai.

"Eastern Promises" has flaws, even more than "A history of violence", and, as expected, they are similar in some aspects. Both have a running time of less than 2 hours, but seem to last to at least 3 and 1/2. The start is slow and it drags in the middle, but when it hits, it does with such power and shock, that it knocks you down (case in point, the fighting scene in the bath). Both feature strong character, but some of them seem so out of place, so caricaturized, that I don't care as much (Fogarty and Cusack in HoV and Kiril in EP). The obvious flaw that I couldn't stand in "Eastern Promises" was the accent- that is not how Russians talk or act (I know a few); I know it is a movie and they are dramatising the individuals, but it seemed so fake and laughable at times (I liked it more when they were talking in Russian, than the English-with-a-Russian accent conversations).

That being said, some great performances were delivered. Viggo Morgensen was, yet again, very good, and although I did find it hard to believe he was Russian, he embodied Nikolai so well, with such calm, restraint and darkness, that you cannot take your eyes off of him and you even start to care about what happens to him by the end. Another standout was Armin Mueller-Stahl as the head of the family- the sweetest man turned out to be the most ruthless villain and I thought he was brilliant (the only believable character in that story). I didn't empathyze or like Vincent Cassel's character until the very last scene of him, near the water, and I thought he was overacting in most scenes, but I understood him in the end, and sometimes, that matters more than what happens in the first 80 minutes.

"Eastern Promises", is a good movie, but would I recommend it to everyone? Not really, I don't think most would like it. There are too many misses, to really appreciate and love the hits. I liked "A history of Violence" better than this one.

It seems I am in a little Cronenberg marathon, so the next movie I'll see will be A Dangerous Method!

A history of violence [2005]

David Cronenberg's 2005 movie is interesting. It has its strong points, but some weak ones, as well, but overall, it is good film and projects a cool attitude and very strong characters.

It follows the story of Tom Stall, a small town guy who's peaceful life is disrupted by an act of violence he is forced to do, in order to save the people from his diner, when two armed men try to rob it. After this event, he becomes the hero of the town and receives unwanted attention, one that eventually leads Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) to him, insisting that Joey Cusack, the man Carl thinks he is, comes back with him to Philadelphia.

The beginning was a little weak and, at times, boring, as it took its time to set up the story and the characters, going from scene A to scene B to scene C almost automatically. It also gave it a sense of predictability- I knew something bad will happen to the family or to Tom, and I had a feeling it will go down in the diner. I did like the progress of the story after the act of violence and one of my favorite scenes has to be the shooting in the yard. Viggo Mortensen comes in and out of character, switching from Tom to Joey with such ease and roughness, that I am left shocked and a little bit creeped out by the character and what he is capable of- just the way his expression and his eyes change from second to second, channeling Joey just enough to save himself and the family (the way he looked at Jack, his son, after he shot the man, was so intense and scary).

That being said, one of the best things about "A history of violence" are the characters- these are strong, complex, real, tough individuals that give the story and the situation more substance and a much more accute sense of reality. Viggo Mortensen as Tom/Joey gives one his best performances to date and Maria Bello shines as his innocent wife, who tries to protect her family and her hisband. Ed Harris is appropriate as the mob guy who tries to scare Tom, and William Hurt (Joey Cusack's brother) is just as tough as Harris, but with more background relevance and a scarier attitude; I also thought Ashton Holmes, as the son, was good and I can see potential there.

Coming back to the beginning, my weak points refer to the lack of music and the slow pace of action in some places, although it seemed extremely well-thought and with many layers to the story and the people involved.

Overall, I thought "A history of violence" was a good movie, with chilling performances and good action! I would recommend it! Next in line: Eastern Promises, with the same David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen!