Hunger Games [2012]

Hunger Games is a trilogy of books written by Suzanne Collins about a dystopian world and a girl who is forced to compete against 23 other kids her age, until only one survives.

Now, I am writing this review of the Hunger Games, firstly, as a reader of the books, and secondly, as a film viewer. Just to let you in on my take of the trilogy, I will say that the 1st novel is very good, it sets the mood, introduces the characters and it's a real page turner; the 2nd one is just as slow at the beginning, but after the 1/3 of it or by the middle, it picks up the pace and introduces great new individuals (like Finnick) and provides another page turning experience- I can't wait to see the film; the 3rd one is very disappointing for me and I do not look forward to watching it on the big screen, with the exception of some scenes.

As a fan of the books, you can understand my excitement previous to the screening of the film- I had heard so many great things about it and I love the casting, so normally, I had rather high expectations. After seeing it, I have to say it didn't fully rise to the occasion, at least not in my eyes.

Now, don't get me wrong- it is a very good movie, well made, with perfect casting, a good visual representation of the story, Panem and its characters, and faithful to the book. 

BUT, it did have some weak points that I can't just get over. First of all, the shaky camera- I knew it was a problem because this topic came up in every review I read, so I was aware of it; I agree it was a little annoying at times, although I understand the use of it, mainly to support the idea of reality TV.

Second of all, considering it's a teen movie and especially, after observing the soundtrack list before hand, I thought the music would be amazing, but it wasn't- I don't remember any of the songs; it was mostly orchestral and poorly used. 

My biggest problem was the lack of emotional depth....I could not connect with the story or the characters, even if I tried, and that just ruined the experience for me. Script wise, it was very faithful to the book; it added interesting new scenes (especially those between Seneca and Snow), and cut out the unnecessary ones (too many Capitol preparations), but it all felt very robotic, like scene A, switch to scene B....nothing made me cry or have an unusual reaction (the only moments I can exclude from this would be one of the tribute deaths and the cave scene; the second one just because I loved it so much in the book). How can you not transport that raw emotion and excitement that the book transmits from the beginning, to the big screen? Where did Gary Ross mess up? I am very curious- I can't figure out what he did or didn't do to make me jump off my seat or connect with the actor's performances.

Speaking of which, I thought the cast did a great job- I liked every one and not for a second did I think "Oh, that guy is not right for the part" or "They should have gone with X". Jennifer Lawrence delivers the best performance, considering she has the most screen time, and has good chemistry with the two male leads and the girl playing Rue. I, unlike some (or most) critics and bloggers out there, liked Josh Hutcherson, playing Peeta, because not only did he understood the character and portrayed it just like it was in the book, but also because of his charm, sweetness and likability factor. He is not your typical handsome Hollywood star and yes, he is short, but that is why all the girls love him- he is approachable and a genuine nice guy- you will notice that in interviews.  I was pleasantly surprised by Lenny Kravitz as Cinna- not an obvious choice (if you read the books), but very good anyway; another one of my favorites has to Woody Harelson- he just is Haymitch and I can't wait to see him in the other movies, as well. Stanley Tucci stands out as Caesar Flickerman, providing the most laughs, and a special mention must be given to Wes Bentley and his Seneca Crane beard (why isn't he in more movies?).

Overall, I think it is worth spending your money on a ticket, for many reasons:
1.Go with the flow and watch the movie that every one is talking about.
2.It is a faithful adaptation of a great book.
3.The cast is diverse, talented and  provides good performances
4.The capitol and Game center offers a new perspective of a possible world and is interesting to watch
5.Jennifer Lawrence in a role that will propel her to superstar level, and this time, she deserves it (*cough* Kristen Stewart)
6.Move over Robert Pattinson, with your brooding, sad looks- welcome Josh Hutcherson, the sweet, next door guy who will win millions of hearts all around the world with his charm and smile. I heard a lot of people calling him a wuss or stupid or silly, and I understand where they are all coming from, but I also know why little girls will love him. I'm in the middle here!

The book is entertaining, raw and powerful, it offers more emotional depth, and the feeling you get while reading the book is ten times better and more appealing than the film experience. But, I think that a second viewing is beneficial, at least for me- I have a feeling I will like it even more and understand and feel the story better. I never watch a movie in theaters more than once, but I might, this time. Still undecided.

Sunday night, after the first weekend, the box office number are huge- the 3rd biggest opening weekend ever, with over $150 millions domestically and $214 million world wide- it's safe to say we have a new Twilight-like phenomenon, but trust me, this one is worth giving it a try. Coming out of the theater, I realized almost all of the teenage girls were talking and gushing over Hutcherson- at one point, I passed by a group of 10-12 year-old girls who were jumping up and down, sharing their enthusiasm over Peeta.

I'm not saying Hunger Games is amazing and I am not giving it a 10/10- it sure has its flaws, but I do think it can't be missed. Hunger Games, in theaters now!

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? 

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas [1998]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a movie under the influence of drugs- from beginning to end, the large quantity of addictive substances influence not only the characters, but also the story, the visuals, the sound and so on. It's absolutely crazy and I still don't know what to think of it- do I like it, do I hate it or is it too messed up to form an opinion?

Either way, I have to acknowledge the talent and courage(?) of Terry Gilliam and, of course, of both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro- yes, they are just playing a part, but the extent to which they went through to showcase their characters is commendable.

The story is set in the 1970s and it's about the days Duke, a "Doctor in Journalism", spends in Las Vegas with Gonzo, his lawyer and friend, covering two different events; the script is adapted from a book by Hunter S.Thompson. Now I have never taken drugs, so I have to ask: do people really go bat-crazy like that? Do they hallucinate worms, monsters and do they react like Duke and Gonzo or is it an exaggeration? The scenes in the hotel room (Gonzo in the bathtub, the morning after the Andrenichrome binge) plus the ethereal scene in the carrousel, are all pure madness, showing a level of creativity and craziness that you would never think about, unless you were under the influence of drugs.

Of course, not all of the movie was like that. We do get moments of slight lucidity, where Duke or Gonzo try to act normal, or be the voice the reason- they support and take care of each other when the other is high....well, they're both high all the time, so when one is hallucinating and the other is not, to put it more clearly. The film doesn't have a clear direction and it is random, in most aspects- I actually don't even remember the ending...weird.

The way Terry Gilliam approached the book and made the film was very interesting and crazy, yes, but appropriate and close to the reality (I presume), while still making it funny and entertaining. He uses bright colors, psychedelic music and weird angle shots to portray a wild era in America.

I loved the random cameos throughout the film, like Tobey Maguire as the hitchhiker, Cameron Diaz as a reporter, Mark Harmon, Craig Bierko as Lacerda (where did this guy disappear, I used to see him in a lot of movies growing up), Flea- FLEA from the RHCP :), Christopher Meloni, Christina Ricci and a gorgeous Ellen Barkin. 

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is pretty special- from the characters, to the cinematography and editing, to the story and feeling of it- everything is a little bit surprising. It is definitely a memorable movie and you should see it!

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?

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy [2011]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (from now on called TTSS) is a classic British spy thriller set in the 1970s. It has all the right elements: bleak atmosphere, silent, monotonous characters, grey colours, cigarettes and secrets. A lot of secrets, well-hidden and carefully guarded.

George Smiley, played by Gary Oldman, is forced back from his retirement, to find out who the mole in the Circus is. Alongside Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Mendel (Roger Lloyd-Pack, who I immediately recognized from Harry Potter), they start the search inside the "company", rulling out one by one.

Now, as I said, it can be a rather dull movie for some- for me, it was the first part, but right around the middle, or even before that, when Tom Hardy comes back into the picture and talks about his long lost Russian love and Cumberbatch steals information, I am sucked into the story and guess what? I am starting to enjoy myself- the plot thickens, the characters get more shadier, the secrets start pouring over, the music ascends....and in the end, we get our mole, all wrapped up with a bow. I have to admit it wasn't perfect and there are some loose ends, but overall, for a spy thriller, it was pretty damn good- well executed, great performances, fantastic sets and costumes and an interesting premise.

Acting-wise, you can never go wrong with Brits- they always seem to be on point. Colin Firth offers a swift change and a shocking turn in actions, Tom Hardy is convincing as a spy who falls in love with a Russian diplomate and tries to save her (I am starting to like him, I didn't before) and Toby Jones got my attention, he always surprises me. As for Benedict Cumberbatch- what can I say? This is was the first time I have ever seen him in a movie, and I actually loved him- although he has such a weird appeareance, not very attractive to say so, he is still very charming and has an appeal some work on for years; it's effortless, just like his performance.

Last, but not least, Gary Oldman- the man, the legend. I usually consider the wild, unpredictable, maniac performances to be the best, as they are rare to find in the real world, but mister Oldman proved me wrong tonight. He showed not only me, but everyone, that control is sometimes ten times harder to perform then a wild act. He played Smiley with such restraint and calm, that I do believe he deserves a lot more attention for this part that he is given now.

Overall, I think TTSS is a good movie and you should see it, if you have the chance! Brits rarely mess up and they didn't this time, either! Enjoy!

The Girl with the Dragon Tatto[2011]

Usually, I am a big fan of David Fincher's work- I haven't seen everything, but most of it (or what I managed to watch) is really good: it's obscure, the shots are great, it always has a dark, twisted plot, a great soundtrack and the performances are fantastic. This movie fits into those lines.....and that's about it. For me, this experience was underwhelming and I must admit, I was a little dissapointed.

Now, I admit, it's not entirely Fincher's fault. The script, albeit good, with twists and turns, an almost replica of the book (but with the necessary cuts), still feels too much. As a reader of the book, knowing what to expect, I was patient enough to sit through it, but I must imagine that for the first-timers, the first hour was a little boring and afterwards, the unveiling of the actual truth and mistery, during the second hour, was stretched out too much. After Mikael finds out the names and numbers are biblical and asks for Lisbeth's help, things get interesting, but not quite; I was still expecting for a faster pace, a change in dynamics, but all I got was louder, more somber music and the usual scene A, cut to scene B reel- the only good parts where the one where the story of Mikael interwines with the one of Lisbeth, seeing what they were doing in the same time. Maybe it's not the scriptwriter's fault, maybe I should just criticise the book, who knows, but that aspect really bothered me.

As I said, in theory, you could still see and have Fincher's trademark characteristic. The soundtrack was very good, intense and perfect for the movie, the special effects were great and I loved the opening sequence- different from the movie, but still special and very interesting. The cinematography and the directing style were appropriate for this kind of movie and it did gave it an extra edge, but I still wasn't impressed.

One thing that I have to admit whole-heartly- Rooney Mara owned that part. From the simple, almost boring girl in the Social Network, to Lisbeth Salander, that was a huge transformation and I am sure that road was a journey she will not forget. Knowing that David likes to do at least 20 takes of every scene, the rape part must have been horrible- her performance during that moment was hard to watch and listen. As I said, she completely transformed herself in Lisbeth and seeing her latest appeareances, I guess she hasn't managed to shake her off.

Daniel Craig also delivers a very good performance, cold, but entertaining and unique. Christopher Plummer and Stellan Stargard, as grandfather and nephew, are superb, especially Stellan, who gives Martin just the right attitude, not too maniac, but with the right amount of craziness and intelligence.

Overall, although I admit, it is a good movie, I just didn't feel it, I was never in awe, it didn't made me flinch, I wasn't eagerly waiting for the next shot, I wasn't surprised, and no, I don't think it has to do with the fact I read the book, it was just not perfect. I left the theatre saying "yeah, it was ok, but nothing special" and the people around me agreed. My sister says it was too creepy and sadistical for her taste (she is more of a Breaking Dawn girl) and my mother, who has read the book, said it was good, but also too dark and violent, but she liked it overall.

What did you think of it? Am I wrong?

Great Expectations[2011] BBC

BBC1 has unveiled another great miniseries, this time adapting Charles Dicken's classic novel, Great Expectations. The 3 episodes aired on the 27th, 28th and 29th of December 2011.

Episode 1

The story follows Pip, a boy who, in his way back home from the cemetery where his parents were burried, is attacked by an escaped prisoner and forced to help him; Pip obliges and brings the man food and tools to set him free, but the man is caught, and when it's time to admit, he does not reveal his "angel". After this incident, Pip is called at the house of miss Havisham, a peculiar lady who lives in strange conditions with her adopted daughter, Estella. The three of them spend time together, but after a while, the boy is bought off and restricted from the house. The first part of the miniseries ends with the surprising news that Pip, now a young man, has a benefactor and was rewarded with a fortune; he must leave for London immediatly and live a proper young man's life.

This episode set the mood of the film, a dark one, but fascinating and beautiful none of the less. The cinematography is spectacular, the costumes are perfect and the performances are, quite possible, among the best I have seen- everyone delivers, although Gillian Anderson as Miss Havisham looks like she is trying too much; I think Helena Bonham Carter will slay this part when the big screen adaptation comes to cinema. Young Estella is intriguing, but a little odd-looking for her age, and Oscar Kennedy as young Pip is adorable and rightfully portrays the part. Also, a nice surprise seeing Mark Addy as Pumblechook (all hail King Baratheon). I do think some parts were a little rushed into and out of, but overall, it is a lovely start of the adaptation of this classic English novel.

"Your eyes have been opened and now you cannot close them"


Episode 2- 

The story:  Pip arrives in London and Mister Jaggers installs him into a new house, having Herbert Pocket introduce the young man to the customs of London. After a while, as Pip settles in, he even receives a visit from Joe Gargery, his uncle, wanting know more of him and we are first introduced to Drummle, during a visit of Pip to mister Jaggers. Several key situations occur: the young man visits to miss Havisham with Estella, where he learns more about the family and the women, he helps Herbert to get a job without him knowing, his relationship with Estella becomes much more interesting, and, in the end, he finds out who his benefactor is, after he receives an unexpectated visit from him a night before reaching his age: it is Abel Magwitch, the man he helped rescue all those years ago.


I must confess I am loving the characters and the actors portraying them, so far. Grown up Herbert Pocket shows up and Harry Lloyd plays him- I love Harry, he has such a pleasant, yet powerful presence to him; one other spectacular part from him is in Game of Thrones. Clara, his fiancee, is a familiar face, but I can't say where from exactly. As for Gillian Anderson, she gets better and better with every scene and I am really starting to like her as her character slips into madness more and more.

One special mention has to go to the lake scene: everything was perfect- the costumes, the lighting, the direction, the performances, absolutely beautiful.

The second episode, as a whole, is as superb as the first one, but I keep hoping something great, some action will occur. If episode 1 was about introducing Pip and his family, now episode 2 is about introducing the London crowd. Maybe, with the appeareance of Magwitch, things will change.

Episode 3

The third episode begins with Pip desperate try to prove that Magwitch is not his benefactor- he goes to Satis House, only to find out that Estella is about to marry Drummle. The next 40 minutes contains so many beautiful, unexpected situations, full of twists and turns; I don't want to ruin the fun for you. I will just say that it is worth your time and the two episodes that I said were preparing for something bigger, proved their importance.

As always, there were some memorable moments:
- the scenes between Pip, Estella and Miss Havisham- the dissapointment, learning that not only Estella was just "practicing" on him, but also that Miss Havisham never had his best intentions- the moment where he calls him "a mere boy from the forge" is heartbreaking. Evrything about those scene is stunning and almost perfect
- Miss Havisham  (in horrible conditions both physically and mentally; after the last meeting with Pip) ending her life
- Pip confessesing the truth about his daughter to Abel
- The very last scene, at the Satis House, between Pip and Estella

"I told you I can make you cry...if only you'd listened"


To conclude, I must say that I was mesmerized by this adaptation- it almost achieved perfection in every category and I loved it! It is a true work of art and you should see it, even if you don't like period drama. Watch it for the performances, for the beautiful cinematography, for the costumes, for the story, for Gillian Anderson and Douglas Booth, just do it!

Moneyball [2011]

Moneyball is a drama set in 2001 about a baseball general manager who decides to change the game by relying on something completely different from what it is used on a regular basis- mathematical, or rather statistical methods that technically guarantee you a win. At first, as expected, nobody believes in him, but people start changing their minds after the team starts winning game after game, reaching a ground-breaking record of 20 wins in a row.

A few hours have gone by and I can't really say if I loved it or liked it or if I am indiferent to it. It is a very good movie- the direction is on point, the soundtrack, appropriate, the cinematography is beautiful and suitable for the atmosphere, the script is great, the acting is superb, but.....BUT it just doesn't seem perfect, something is missing. Maybe it is the fact that you don't actually have a maximum point that can be reached or a cliffhanger (the 20th game could classify as one, but wasn't fully explored, as it should have been), or maybe it's the fact that none of the characters really stand out, except Billy Beane. Everything is in place, but the passion is missing, that extra touch that everyone wants, it's not there. In the end I just couldn't get emotionally attached to it.

Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are clear standouts; both characters are not that interesting, they don't develop as you would imagine, but that's the beauty of it, in a way. Their performance truly explores the sense of realness and relatability that most people try to put on screen. Mister Pitt delivers, and showcases his talent by portraying an interesting man in a convincing way, perfect on the details and never giving too much or too little (maybe on the throwing things around scenes- why do people do that in movies? it always seems overracted). I can definitely see the reason behind the river of nominations going his way, but is it better then Curious Case of Benjamin Button? Or Tree of Life? or Fight Club? or many other of his movies? Not quite, but hey, he needs to be recognized for his talent sometime, right?

Moreover, I was pleasantly surprised by Jonah Hill; considering the boring part he was giving, he still managed to make it more human and interesting. Philip Seymour Hoffman was underused and faded into the lines, and the same can be said by Chris Pratt.

I guess I just have to conclude that Moneyball didn't quite make it to the finish line, to say so, from my point of view. It didn't stretch as much as it could and should have; a good try, but not the best! Rent it, you are not losing anything mind blowing by waiting for a couple of months!

The Reader[2008]

When I see a movie, one of the things I always watch intensly or try to figure out are the characters: who are they? How do they feel? What is their story? What drives them? Everytime a film starts and the story plays itself out, questions pop into my head; most of them get answered, but there are always few that remain, and they stick in my head for a long time, after the film is over. And although it bothers me, it is that unfinished business that keeps the film in my heart and head for a long time.

Seeing The Reader is a true example of that. I loved the movie: it had a beautiful, sad story, soothing music and great sets, but yet again my mind comes back to the characters.

Hanna, played fantastically by Kate Winslet, is a simple, straight-forwarded woman who lives a normal life, until she meets young Michael, played by David Kross (the old Michael is played by Ralph Fiennes). The affair starts rather oddly and continues throughout the summer, with moments of love making and reading, as he reads to the older woman every book he can get his hands on. It ends the same way, Hanna leaving without saying goodbye to heart-broken Michael. 

That sudden disappereance changes Michael forever, stealing away all of his youth and passion.  After a few years, at a trial that he attends during his Law School years, he encounters Hana in a different, horrifing way, as the defendant in that case; she was a guard during Auswitchz. Since that moment on, the questions start popping in my head and they bother, actually ennoy me, as I can’t, just simply can’t, understand what is going through Michael’s head: is it sadness, shock and horror for the things she has done, loneliness, love and concern for her? Why didn’t he visit Hana in the prison? Why didn’t he save her by admitting to the court that she couldn’t read? Is the love he was for her stopping him? Or is it disgust?

I know the book has all the answers, or at least better explains part of the story, but it does surprise me. I wish it was more clearer...or maybe it is and the problem is me. Or maybe that’s the whole idea of the movie...

All I know is that The Reader is a great work of art and you should see it: for Kate Winslet and her well diserved Oscar, for the director’s view of things, for the music, for the fantastic young David Kross and for the intensity that Ralph Fiennes shows. 

We need to talk about Kevin[2011]

We need to talk about Kevin is a film based on a novel written by Lionel Shriver and directed by Lynne Ramsay. It tells the story of the mother of a teenage boy who went on a high-school killing spree and her attempt at dealing with her grief.

This movie is not your typical drama, you can't just watch it and not think things over at the end. It does have an impact on anyone, I presume, and it is shocking.

I haven't read the book, but I can tell you this movie is disturbing. One of the main ideas it gives you is the love a mother can/should have for her child, regardless his/her action. The innability of a mother to connect with her son in any level must be one of the most difficult, heartbreaking, frustrating feelings in the world. She must feel so useless, always blaming herself for not doing something right, for not trying enough. And I know some will rise and say "hey, she was so mean to him, so unpatient", but those persons don't really consider the mothers' point of view: why don't you try living with a child who doesn't listen, or just doesn't try to survive, a child who is so uncarring, and angry and just unreachable as Kevin. Any human being will be sick of it after a couple of weeks, months, so consider living with someone like this for years.

Also, seeing this movie would make you think "why is everyone blaming the mother, it's not her fault, she tried", but then again, think about from their perspective: they don't know how he was, what he put his family through; they would just see a weak mother who didn't raise her child right, who didn't educate him and, most importantly, a mother who didn't see this coming and didn't do anything to prevent it.

Kevin is...well, how can I describe him? A maniac?sociopath?pshycopath? I don't know the clinical term, but I can say that he doesn't have and he doesn't show affection to anyone; he is moody, angry and he seems bored of life, in general. He is the kind of boy you can't please- with the exception of bows and arrows- he seems to love that.

His relationships with others are strange and uncomfortable. A curious shift happens when the little sister is born- he is obviously jealous, although you can't help wondering why, since he hates his mother, but then again you have the scene of Kevin getting sick and you start wondering if there is something there, something hiding, since that night he showed the one flicker of affection he has for Eva- it troubled me and left me confused. Why? Why would act like that and then change back to his old self afterwards? Another peculiar incident is the one where he breaks his arm, but goes home and lies to this father, covering up the fact Eva threw him. The book probably explains those scene and I will try to read it soon!

The last scene revelead the shocking part, in my opinion. As Eva walks into her house, screaming her husband's name, I can't help saying "Please, tell me they are gone, that he decide to leave or something like that"- I really wasn't prepared mentally for the image of the garden, I couldn't believe that would happen. Even when I saw it, I refused to think that Kevin did it, I thought it was the other kids or other parents trying to revenge their loss. But unfortunately, the truth is sick, shocking, dramatic and heartbreaking- I admit I cried afterwards, as it doesn't hit you right way, as it didn't hit Eva either- you start feeling that true desperation when she goes inside and lies down on her bed, full of blood.

It is a kind of movie (and probably book) based on character development, not plot, which I like and enjoy more, sometimes. You can see, feel, understand and sympathize with them and so the story seems more real. It might get boring, if you don't like these types of movies, be warned.

Moving on to the film making part, I can say there are some beautiful, well-crafted moments in the movie that made it even more special. The abundance of the colour RED, from the opening scene, or the paint on her house, or constant bottle of wine sitting on the table, to the blood at the end. The sound effects and editing who create the dramatic feeling throughout the piece- from small noises(xerox machine, radio) to the sound of the girl singing- everything fits in perfectly and multiplies the effect. The directing is interesting, a little confusing at times, but still offers some memorable scenes. The Halloween moment when you actually see and understand the contrast between Eva and others, between what they are doing and feeling and what she is going through.

Performance-wise, I guess there is no need to say it, but I will anyway, just to inforce the fact that Tilda Swinton truly is fantastic in We need to talk about Kevin. She is a very interesting person off-screen, so I can understand the casting, but nonetheless, she delivers a moving, sincere performance and deserves all of the credit she is getting lately. Another stand out was, of course, Ezra Miller; his appereance helps make 80% of the job seem easier, as he has the look of a dangerous, deranged boy. John C.Reilly, always the  overlooked, underappreciated man of the Hollywood scene, has good chemistry with the two leads, but, as usual, never really shines.

Overall, it is a disturbing, yet amazing film that you should see!

Capote vs Infamous

Capote and Infamous, two wonderful films about Truman Capote and his process of writing In Cold Blood, were released very close one to another, in 2005 and 2006. The first was based on the book of Gerald Clarke, the second on George Plimpton's novel. Capote had Philip Seymour Hoffman(PSH) playing Truman Capote, while Infamous casted Toby Jones(TJ). Harper Lee, an important character and friend to the author was portrayed by both Catherine Keener and Sandra Bullock. Although the story and the main ideas of the film are almost identical, the movies are different in many ways.

First of all, Infamous is visibly more colourful, with a larger array of characters, more celebrities, full of life, extravagant, noisy, vibrant in many ways. The film is lighter and shows the relationship between the novelist and the prisoner in a much violent, daring, in-your-face way. Capote is quiet, somber, with mixed emotions of fear, melancholia, sadness, betrayal, love and others; the relationship is displayed in a discrete way and you can sense there is more to them then meets the eye.

Second of all, in the 2006 adaptation, you learn more about the killers and their background from the actual individuals, you see, hear, clearly understand their motivation and drive. They seem simple, you can either love them or hate them, there is nothing to hide. In the 2005 one, you get to know the two men, especially Perry Smith through the eyes of Truman Capote. He is the backbone, he is the voice of reason, he tells you what happened; you feel what he feels.

Third of all, the performances are rather opposite. While Toby Jones is exuberant, excentric, full of life, sometimes caricaturistic, PSH portrays Truman Capote in a much more natural, interesting, complex way; his performance has layers, in-depth aspects to it that gives the movie more drama, more passion, intrigue and emotion. He does deserve the Oscar for this role. As Harper Lee, the two ladies have a different approach to it, as well. Catherine Keener seems borned in this role, it is natural, but with Sandra Bullock you can feel the artistry there, you can see the acting, but it'a beautiful thing to watch- I think she gave a wonderful performance.

Infamous is above, bubblying on the surface, whilst Capote is much more subtile and complex. Overall, I'd probably choose Capote, although Infamous has many strong points as well.

Did you watch them?Which one would you choose?

JANE EYRE [2011]

Director: Cary Fukunaga

Writer: Charlotte Brontë (novel), Moira Buffini(screenplay)

Starring:  Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender and Jamie Bell

„It’s you, you rare, unearthly thing”- Mr. Rochester

„You, sir, are the most fantome-like of all”- Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre is one of my favourite books and I think their love story is one of the most intriguing, interesting and passionate I have ever read or seen! You can compare it to Heathcliff and Cathy, or Elizabeth Bennett and Mister Darcy and many more! Speaking of these two in particular, it has the romantic side of the Jane Austen novel, but also the seriousness and bitterness of the Bronte one. It is trully special and I love it because the characters are complex, unique and when they come together, it may seem strange, but it feels so right!

Being a big fan of the Charlotte Bronte novel, you can’t not love this movie. It follows almost perfectly the book, with the exception of the flashbacks and the omission of some minor details that are not so important.

As the 1996 version, the story moves rather fast in the begining, but director Cary Fukunaga focuses mainly on the love story between the characters, which is the most appealing of all. Unlike the last version, now you have their conversations, their little moments in the garden in which you can learn more about them and see the relationship developing as the story goes on. I love that!

This adaptation is wonderfully done, starting with the beautiful cinematography and lighting, all the way to the casting. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender perfectly portray their parts and I have to give a special mention to Jamie Bell, for that, as well.

It is similar to Pride and Predjudice in some ways, and I discovered I love that period of time, where women always stood tall, acted like ladies, where the gentlemen were real men, on which you can count on, and honour,trust and family were highly considered.

If you read the book, or if, like myself, love the 1800s, you should see it! It is wonderful!

Movie: JANE EYRE [1996]

Director: Franco Zefirelli

Writer: Charlotte Brontë (novel), Hugh Whitemore(screenplay)

Starring:  William Hurt, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Anna Paquin

[SPOILER ALERT] Detailed review

You all know the story about books being adapted to the big screen. In 99% of the cases, the movie is not as good as the book and it doesn’t capture the essence.

In this case, and in my opinion, I have to agree to the majority. As much as I loved the Charlotte Bronte’s novel, it’s characters, the story, the scenery, I have to say that I hated the screenplay, the cinematography on the 1996 adapted version.

The first thing I noticed is the fact that many details are wrong or put in different order, so different that it changes the story. How can Franco Zeffirelli pass so fast through Jane’s childhood, how can he not properly recreate the moment between the little girl and miss Reed, or mix the dialogue so much that they use some parts in different context(for example, the discussion about uglyness or the incredible change of St John Rivers’s story line).

The second thing regards the dialogue, of which I spoke before. It is wonderful that they used the original novel as a source and quoted many important parts, but everything seemed so rushed, so fast, you couldn’t even focus on an important scene before passing to the next. A perfect example is the end of the movie and the quick change from love, to running away, to enheriting the fortune, to returning to mr Rochester.

Regarding the actors, I actually liked William Hurt much more then Charlotte. He was far more expressive and interesting than her, although I must say that Jane Eyre is, indeed, a very plain, simple, unexpressive person, so I guess she did justice to the role, but I would have liked more passion from her.

It is a good movie, but for the recent reader of Charlotte Bronte’s novel, it can be underwhelming. 

Soon, the post about Jane Eyre, the 2011 version!