Zero Dark Thirty [2012]

 

Zero Dark Thirty is a 2012 production, written by Mark Boal and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, of Hurt Locker fame. It tackles the subject of the post 9/11 efforts to capture Osama Bin Laden, all through the eyes of Maya, a determined CIA agent who follows her instincts and never gives up on her topic of investigation, the Abu Ahmed courier, who eventually leads them to Bin Laden. 

Where do I start? Zero Dark Thirty is a movie that caused controversy in the US, because of its use of torture- I won't dwel  on that, it's not something that bothered me. What I personally didn't like, or better say, didn't identify with, is the actual theme/storyline. It's hard to relate with a story that you didn't witness or live yourself, especially if it involves national politics. I am not saying I don't sympathise with it, I just don't regard it that as highly as Americans do. The only point in the film that really moved me was the actual raid in the middle of the night, and as far as acting goes, I understood and liked more the soldier roles than Maya's, for example. Speaking about her, I often wondered: what is her motivation after all? Why is she doing this? Patriotism? Lost friend/familly member? I just don't get her- is she a smart woman? or just a very ambitious, stubborn one? Is that last scene in the airplane an evidence of her being happy to accomplish a decade worth of work or finally being able to put behind Bin Laden? And I know you will probably say, well, the story is not about her, it's about the war against terrorism and so on. But if you are right about that, than the script didn't actually portray that well, either.

After the film was over, I remember thinking and actually writing on Twitter that I consider Zero Dark Thirty to be a foreign film, in the sense that it is based on a story/feeling that not most can identify with. It showcases American patriotism- it works for them, the citizens of USA, like Lincoln does, but not for the rest of the world, because of the cultural and environmental differences. Americans used to make universally liked films; this is not one of them and I really don't think it will appeal that much to non-americans, no matter the level of interest for politics and knowledge.

Filmmaking-wise, I wasn't impressed- it was a very well made movie, but nothing was outstanding. I never was a Bigelow fan- Hurt Locker did nothing for me, and I didn't get the whole buzz around her and her directing style; Zero Dark Thirty isn't any different, either, at least in this department. The camera is often shaky, and the cinematography was a bit off, in my opinion.

In contrast to that, the casting for Zero Dark Thirty was remarkable. Jason Clarke was a personal favorite, especially in the first part of the movie, and both Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong did a great job as CIA executives trying to do the right thing, all whilst fighting bireaucracy and uncertainty. As for Jessica Chastain, what can I say? My first impression was: "what is so special about Maya? why is she getting rave reviews for this part?", and I still maintain my opinion that the role is not visibly awards- worthy, but the more I think about it, the more I do see some subtleties in her performances. Still, come Oscar night, I am rooting for Jennifer Lawrence.

So, is it worth it? As I did for Lincoln, I would recommend it just to be aware of all nominated films, but otherwise? Not really- it's a see and forget type of film, at least it was for me. Sorry!

Silver Linings Playbook [2012]

Silver Linings Playbook is a 2012 production directed  and written by David O.Russell, based on a novel by Matthew Quick. It tells the story of a recovering mental illness hospital patient (Bradley Cooper) and his struggles to get back his old life. Things get interesting when Pat meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a mysterious girl with problems of her own.

I was pleasantly surprised by SLP and interestingly enough, 30 minutes into the film, I was already thinking it was one of the year's finest. The script is definitely one of the best things about the movie- it's realistic, on point, with no-bullshit or overly dramatic sequences, and most importantly, it manages to be both emotional and funny, both unsettling and easygoing. I also thought the main theme, that of mental illness, was well represented, even if they overreacted in some cases; moreover, since there have been so many people affected by it in the last decades, that depression or anxiety symptoms are common knowledge, unfortunately. The good thing is the film gives it a happy ending and enforces the idea that people can get past it, that you can survive and live a normal, happy life with it, if you just fight hard enough.

One of the SLP strong points was definitely the cast, starting with Bradley Cooper- who knew he could act? I never paid too much attention to him, I always considered him to be just another Hollywood heartthrob, but he was outstanding in this role and I sincerely hope he will be nominated at least for some awards. Jennifer Lawrence was amazing, as expected and she is definitely on her way to stardom, although I wouldn't actually say she is Best Actress material, but close enough. Even the supporting cast delivered, starting with Jacki Weaver, who I love, and continuing with Julia Stiles, her husband, played by John Ortiz, and even Chris Tucker. Robert de Niro was also exceptionally good and worth of its inevitable nomination, but not enough for a win, at least in my eyes- I think the supporting category is very strong this year and will be won by either a Les Mis actor or by DiCaprio.

The direction was very good, although I wasn't a fan of the often shaky, dynamic shots that Russell used, but I did love the close-ups. The music was particularly interesting, especially the Alt J song which I will definitely look up soon, and there's nothing good or bad to say of the sets and costumes- they were perfectly fine for the film.

In the end, Silver Linings Playbook is, indeed, one of 2012's best films and you should definitely see it, for its strong story, approachable characters and way of dealing with a delicate theme.

Romanian Cinema (2): 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days [2007]

My second attempt to discover and examine Romanian cinema was the Cannes Palme D'Or winner, 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days. I was extremely surprised, in a very good way, of the quality of the film, from all points of view: direction, cinematography, acting, script and so on. Set in 1987, the prime time of Communism in Romania, we witness a day in the life of two young women: one about to have an abortion, and one helping her with this delicate situation, meanwhile trying to survive her own demons.

First things first, the script was quite outstanding. Seemingly simple and static at times, it simmers in emotion, fear and uneasiness. We see the life of two young women ruined within a day, and mostly because of a heartless man, a merciless creature who only cares about money and his own safety. For me, this was one of the scariest and dangerous types of villain I have ever seen, although he technically didn't kill anyone, or shoot/strangle someone directly. His insensitive behaviour towards the girls was evil enough to qualify him as an villain in my eyes. I was also stunned about certain script decisions I did not see coming: I don't think I have ever been so surprised by a change in story like the moment they went from fighting over money to taking their clothes off, or the fact that Mungiu or the script meant to show us the detail in the bathroom at the end.

Filmmaking wise, I absolutely loved it. I could literally write paragraphs after paragraphs about Mungiu's directing style and favorite scenes. For example, I liked the constant moving of the camera, but choosing the right moments to stop it and let the subject move away, or the way he puts the camera on the counter in the hotel, or how he stills the camera for minutes while a whole conversation is happening. His style reminds me a lot of Steve McQueen and I love the former, so Mungiu just reached the top 3 current directors list for me. I can't wait to see Beyond the hills next week. The cinematography was beautiful and it was interesting to see how he used dark or very dark tones for some scenes. As for music, there was no soundtrack, but I didn't need it, the normal background noises were loud enough to compensate for the lack of music.

Another thing I have to mention, because I thought it was brilliantly executed and helped me appeal and understand the whole situation better, was the realistic feel of the feature. Mungiu absolutely got it right-most of you probably don't realise, but everything in this film delivers a Romania in the communism era- from the way they talked, to the cars and buses, to the interior designing, everything. It's weird, but also nostalgic and appealing to most nationals, including me. Starting with the first shot: all the little, seemingly unimportant, but spot on, Romanian things, like Doina, the usual make up remover/face cream/mask for women those days, the blanket on the bed with the standard model, the ASOS cigarettes, or the soup in the container. Moreover, the conversation between the adults at the table near the end is EXACTLY what happens in a normal Romanian dinner party. Speaking of this particular scene, I also liked it because we could see the decay of the girls' state of mind, the sadness in her eyes, the worrying for Gabita and everything else crowding her mind, all whilst the adults were talking about food and children.

Another strong point was, of course, the casting. Although it features very few actors, they do their job wonderfully, all delivering awards worthy performances, especially Anamaria Marinca, playing Otilia, the much more open and daring friend, who does all the "dirty" work for her friend. She shines throughout the film, because we see the biggest change in her actions and feelings: she is, at the beginning, the no-bullshit, let's get things over, type of girl, but by the end, she is more vulnerable and sad than Gabita, the woman having the abortion, will ever be. I also have to mention Vlad Ivanov, who played Bebe, the ruthless man performing the "medical" act, who gave a standout and quite chilling performance.

As I think I said in my previous instalment, Romanian filmmakers are good at dramatic features...so good, that they very rarely stray out of tragedy or drama genres, and when they do venture into comedy, it's not always pleasant. 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days is one of the best dramas I have ever seen, in national or international cinema and I am very proud because of it. It's just sad it took me so long to see it.

I urge you to watch it, even if you're afraid of foreign movies. This one is worth the trip, especially if you appreciate and love outstanding films.


I am very curious to find out what you thought of it, if you have seen it! What was your take on the story, the direction, the sets and vibe of the film? Please share your thoughts or link me to your review, if you've written one!

Lawless [2012]

Lawless is a 2012 drama movie about the lives of three brothers (Jack, Howard and Forrest) who fight to survive and keep their business afloat in the prohibition era. John Hillcoat directed a Nick Cave script based on a book written by Matt Bondurant.

One of the most anticipated movies of this fall, Lawless features an ensemble cast with big names like Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, Shia LaBeouf, Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce, and promises a hell of a ride, not only by looking at the names involved, but also by checking out the synopsis and possible outcome. Many say it's a gangster movie; it is set in the prohibition era, when liquor was hard to find and distribute, and there are a lot guns and violence used. Actually, when it's violent, it's fucking violent- a lot of force and strength, hard hitting punches and blood-heavy moments. Some scenes are unsettling to watch and this kind of violence affects you more than the usual guns firing or horror movie killings. The story follows the Bondurant brothers of Franklin, Virginia, who were one of the very few people who didn't give in into the pressure of the petty thugs and protected their business with all costs during those hard times. Guy Pearce, as Charlie Rakes, is the classic monster, villain and all around bad guy, giving probably the standout performance of the film, while Gary Oldman, as Mafia man Floyd Banner, kicks ass and proves his ability from the start, giving a very believable gangster performance in under 1 minute; he has a surprising change in character development, but is underused. Maybe that's where the problem lies with this film - the little flaws of the script that are not visible immediately, but that ultimately affect the overall opinion of it: underdeveloped characters, unbelievable stories and lines, and so on.

Otherwise, Lawless is pretty wonderful to watch. It has beautiful cinematography, it's well directed and the soundtrack is appropriate to the action. The sets and costumes are very good and it has the right feel of the era. As for the casting, there was little to no fault to it, although I had my doubts with Shia LaBeouf, mainly because I just find him to be quite annoying. By the end, he proved me wrong, in most scenes, but then again, I don't think he had a challenging part to play. The two best performances definitely come from Guy Pearce and Tom Hardy. The first one, as the wild, control-freak, obsessed, dirty police force, proves to the world, yet again, his immense talent, and I am pretty sure we will definitely see him around the awards ceremonies this year for his Supporting Role. Tom Hardy is probably one of the best and the most underrated actors of our time and his performance in Lawless just enforces this opinion- he plays the grumpy, distant, no-emotions Forrest in an amazing way, demanding attention and respect for his courage, unwillingness to surrender and loyalty. Other big names are, unfortunately, underused, and that was a shame- Gary Oldman barely had 10 minutes on screen, and the two leading ladies, Chastain and Wasikowsa, could have had more developed and complex characters to base their performances on, but still, they did a good job.

In the end, you will leave the cinema thinking "That was a very good movie", but not being too impressed by it. I liked it and I suggest you should see, but don't go in with high expectations- somehow, somewhere, it doesn't quite deliver its promises all the way.

Anna Karenina [2012]

"There can only be misery or great happiness for us"

Recently I had the pleasure of seeing Anna Karenina and oh, what a treat that was, I loved it. As you might know, it tells the story of Anna, a married woman who starts a scandalous affair with a much younger man. Based on a book by Leo Tolstoi, with a screenplay by Tom Stoppard and directed by one of my favorites, Joe Wright, this wonderful Imperial Russian classic romance will enchant you, although not completely move you.

Anna, a faithful and loving woman to Alexei Karenin, a prominent figure in Russian politics, meets, in her trip to Moscow, Count Vronski, which is to be wed to Kitty, a close friend to Anna's brother, Oblonski (Matthew Macfadyen). After her departure, he realizes he can't let go and travels to Sankt Petersburg to see her again, and so things evolve into a scandalous affair that ruins, not only her married life and her reputation, but also her health. By the end, she goes crazy as she believes her love for Vronski is not enough anymore, and begins a paranoid, mood shifting phase of her life. Although their love is still strong and he does not give up on his mistress- he loves and understands her, despite all of her antics, things go south, and the end is dramatic.

As we would expect, Wright's vision and direction is what makes this movie shine- one of the most innovative, visually beautiful and interesting methods he used for Anna Karenina was the use of stages. How can I properly explain? The intermissions, the breaks from one scene to another where made as you were actually present in a theatre and you're seeing the decor move, but all done in a much more dynamic, fluid way. There is also a mix of slow and fast pace between some acts, with an almost musical-type feel to it, that made it even more charming. This combinations were all appropriately made to highlight either a character or a storyline. This definitely set the film apart in the beginning and made it more much more appealing. Unfortunately, that didn't continue throughout the whole film, and many observed and punished him for that. Still, it's a lovely method that I have rarely seem, so I was intrigued and entertained.

One other absolutely strong point is the art direction and all sets and costumes- the latter will definitely be a major contender for awards this season. Visually, few bad things can be said about it- I personally didn't find any flaws although I am sure some will. The cinematography is stunning, the use of close-ups and interesting shots makes the film much more magical and attractive and that gives the characters more life and passion. The score has the same details as Atonement, like, for example, the use of stamps as part of the orchestral piece. It works very well with the rest of the songs to create the atmosphere required for an Imperial Russian drama.

I do want to mention the dancing scenes- I particularly liked them because of how it was directed, but also because of the choreography and the lovely use of hands. It felt quite magical, like you were in a fairytale and everything floated gracefully; it all culminated with a much more frantic, angry moment of jealousy and passion, and that was beautifully scored, too.

The casting was quite on point, with few bad choices. Kera Knightley, as the main character, Anna Karenina, did an amazing job, but still, she didn't impress or stand out for me. Don't get me wrong, everything was very well acted, but I don't feel this is a memorable or awards worthy performance. As for Aaron Johnson, the Count Vronski, I started off thinking something's not right with him- it felt too gimmicky, not quite convinceable, but by the end I warmed up to him. He did a good job overall, especially in the second part. I think Jude Law had a challenging part, just because he had to stretch himself out of his comfort zone and it paid off- he gave a powerful, sincere performance. The standout for me was Matthew MacFayden- he shined in all of his scenes and gave a wonderful performance. I would push him for supporting actor awards, but I don't think he has any chances. The cast overall is very strong and all delivered: Kelly Macdonald, Olivia Williams, Emily Watson, Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson and so on.

As you can see, I was rather impressed by Anna Karenina- for me it worked in all levels: script, character development, performances, visual appeal, direction, entertainment, everything. But I am not saying it was perfect- one common opinion I have heard is that it isn't very consistent and that it lack some extreme emotion or passion in some parts, and I partly agree with that, but I was able to take that aside and enjoy it. I really do recommend it and I hope you like it (it will probably more entertaining for the female population than the male one, but men, please do see it).

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!

Coco avant Chanel [2009]

The 2009 French movie, starring Audrey Tatou and directed by Anne Fontaine, follows the story of the famous designer before Chanel; it documents her stay at the Balsan mansion and her affair with the two men that played an important part in her life, each loving her as best they could.

One was the owner of the fabulous mansion in which she lived for a while, doing nothing more than entertain his guests; not a mistress, but not quite a wife, either. The other, the one who eventually captured her heart, was Boy, an English businessman she met during her stay with Balsan. Etienne offered her a place to stay, companionship and kindness, whilst Boy was the love she never believed could exist. It was a rather bittersweet story and certainly not a happy or inspiring one, but it had its wonderful moments and it portrayed Coco Chanel in a different way, by focusing on her earlier life and her journey to the woman we all know now.

From a filmmakers point of view, the film was visually beautiful and nicely directed, although I would have liked more color and a more artistic approach to the cinematography. I liked how they showed that Coco was always paying attention to details and shapes and accessories, and it was interesting to find out that she first started in the business by making hats. The costumes were fantastic and I instantly fell in love with her black dress from her first trip with Boy to the casino; her runway show at the end was also stunning and I love the style and the transformation from the poor girl in the orphanage to the successful Parisian designer. In a world of corsets, pastels and overly accessorized attires, she stood out with dark colors, masculine style and stripes. She knew exactly what she wanted and she was lucky enough to have both Balsan and Boy close to her to help her achieve it.

Casting-wise, I thought all 3 were perfectly chosen for their respective parts. Tatou's performance in this movie was beautiful. I like to think of her as a modern Audrey Hepburn, but French and only slightly less charismatic. She knowingly surrenders herself to the somber, strict and straight forward character of Gabrielle and shows a wide range of layers and subtleties to a rather enigmatic person. Although she was thought to be an introspective, elegant and cold woman, she did have her moments of happiness and childish behavior, but only Boy and sometimes, her sister, were the ones fortunate enough to witness it. Benoit Poelvoorde, as Etienne, the older, but always entertaining man, went from portraying an interested boy, to a naughty lover, to a jealous man in just a couple of months spent with Coco, and gave a wonderful performance. Alessandro Nivola played Boy with a natural charm and sensuality that would conquer almost every woman...I admit it, I fell for his act, and I do find it believable that Gabrielle did, too.

All in all, Coco avant Chanel was an interesting movie and an enjoyable way of spending an evening. If you are interested in fashion or if you love Audrey Tatou, I recommend it.

Sense&Sensibility [1995]

I've watched quite a few historical/costume/19th century English dramas in my life, I must admit. I was always attracted either to the actors in it, or to the story (adaptation of a classic novel), the accents, the costumes, the shy and prude behavior of women or their inexplicable attraction to drama and suffering.

Sense&Sensibility perfectly envisions everything said above. Directed by the diverse Ang Lee, and adapted to the screen by Emma Thompson, it tells the story of two sisters, Elinor (Thompson) and Marianne Dashwood (Kate Winslet), who fight to survive, all whilst love just can't seem to stick to their bones, as men leave them one by one when they most need it.

I have not read the novel, although I planned to, so I don't know if Emma Thompson did a faithful adaptation of the Jane Austen book, but the script overall was very good. Oscar-worthy? In the amazing year that was 1995? I don't know, but I give her credit for not only being an amazing actress, but also proving herself to be a talented scriptwriter, too.

Sense&Sensibility is a wonderful movie and you should see it, if only for the cast. Kate Winslet delivers as a young, impulsive woman who craves for romantic, poetic men; Hugh Laurie somehow manages to shine, in a grumpy, yet very funny role and I though Hugh Grant was underused, like he was there just for his looks (yes, I know, that's how it is in the book, but still...I felt he needed more time on screen). But the man, for me at least, who deserves all the credit and a special mention, is ALAN RICKMAN (yes, the Caps Lock is necessary)- oh my, what a gentleman, what an accent, what a VOICE- his voice is so special, and dark and elegant, I just love it. I could listen to him talk all day.

Although, like I said, this is a very good, entertaining, visually beautiful movie, I didn't connect to it like I would have imagined. Yes, it's nice, it's sweet, but still...something wasn't there, I don't know what. If I were to compare it to other similar adaptations, I like Pride&Prejudice (with Knightley and McFadden) and Jane Eyre (with Wasikowska and Fassbender) more.

Surprisingly enough, at least to me, this movie got a lot of love from the awards season that year- Baftas, Oscar for adapted screenplay, Golden Bear at Berlin Festival, Golden Globes (best movie? in 1995? with Usual Suspects and Seven in the mix? why?). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate it for everything it has delivered, but I just didn't think it was worthy of such acclaim.

All in all, yes, you should see this movie, but you don't need to make it your top priority.

Tyrannosaur[2011] + Q&A w/ Director and Actress

A couple of days ago, I had the pleasure of seeing Tyrannosaur, the directorial debut of Paddy Considine, a talented British actor, known for his In America role. After the screening we were lucky enough to have Paddy and Olivia Colman, the lead actress, for a Q&A, but more about that later.

This film is considered to be one of, if not the best feature of British cinema in 2011. It tells the story of Joseph(Peter Mullan), a lonely and angry man who crosses paths with Hanna (Olivia Colman), a religious woman who suffers from domestic abuse (her husband, James, is played by Eddie Marsan).

We first see Joseph getting out of a bar/club, swearing and kicking evrything in his way, including his dog. He continues displaying his anger throughout the movie, going in and out of it, but we can always see a hint of regret, a flicker of humanity in him; he is a tormented man, who needs affection- he is constantly looking for a companion, even if it's his dying father, his much younger neighbour or the lady from the charity shop.

When Hanna comes into the his life, not judging or asking weird inappropriate questions, he feels relieved, but is also strangely attracted to the kindness of the woman. They both are, after all, messed up souls, looking for love, attention and safety. As expected, the two grow closer, but it isn't because of love- their connection is formed based on tragic events. I won't go into details, I 'll just say that, later on, the movie had one of the most dramatic and disturbing scenes I've seen lately, and it "hit" me, and probably others, as well, so hard, because of the sense of reality it displayed. It was sad, but you knew that it could happen to anyone, and it is, actually, happening right now to women all around the world.

Performance-wise, it is fantastic- Peter Mullan and Eddie Marsan are both forces of nature and deliver gut-wrenching performances (especially Eddie Marsan), but Olivia Colman is the one who shines. Her vulnerability, her desperation, everything about her portrayal of Hanna is spot on and very touching, giving a lasting impression on the audience.

Paddy Considine did a proper job with the directing and writing, especially the latter, as the movie script is one of its strong points. It had a very realistic feel to it and set a dark mood, starting with the lighting, sets and costumes, all the way through the dialogue and scenes. Special mention to the music and sound editing part, as it was remarcable and very good.

Tyrannosaur is a wonderful dramatic movie, that I highly recommend!

The Q&A after the screening started with roaring applause for the director, and especially for Olivia Colman, the lead actress. It was very informative and entertaining. Considine is a great guy, a straight-forward, no-bullshit kind of guy, who didn't have a problem saying "Fuck you Cameron" in response to a question regarding the prime minister's latest declarations. He talked about the idea for the script, his interaction with domestic abuse and how it all started, the fact that it was cronologically filmed in order to help the actors and so on. Olivia Colman is one of the sweetest, nicest women in the business and talked about the way she prepared for the role, how she got it, the time spent on set and gave us more details about the dramatic scene I was telling you about earlier. She even gracefully said a few words about her Bafta snub, although she didn't seem to upset about it at all.

Overall, it was a great experience- thank you Prince Charles Cinema! No publicity, I still had to pay for my ticket, but the cinema really is something else, I suggest you go there sometime!

p.s. The DVD/Blu-Ray is out today, go get it now!

The Descendants [2011/2012]

I had low expectations going in to see The Descendants- the trailer and the synopsis suggested an Oscar bait (like others noticed), George Clooney kept winning awards for a role that didn't seem that complicated (and taking away recognition that should have been for Michael Fassbender's performance in Shame) and its general heavy coverage just set me off, I wasn't keen on seeing it.

But I did and I was wrong- The Descendants is a fantastic movie. Although I still do think it is an Oscar bait, I have to say that I was impressed and moved by the story and the performances. George Clooney and Shailene Woodley shine in this Hawaiian drama about a broken up family coming together after the mother's accident. 

I really liked the metaphor that Matt used at the beginning: "My family seems like an archipelago. We are part of the same group, but we are still islands- separate and alone. And we're slowly drifting apart." He is right and that is the perfect way to describe the situation at the beginning of the story. Certain details emerge as we move along and new complications stir up the quiet life of the island, but overall, what is so appealing about this movie, is the fact that it's realistic- this can happen to anyone; what makes it even better is the character development and the storyline: nothing is forced or too dramatised; you can believe it. 

There's one moment in the film where Alex tells Matt that her mother was cheating on him- that specific scene and his genuine reaction to the news made me realise that the awards coming Clooney's way are not for nothing- I loved his performance, not only in that part, but overall- sometimes, like I said before, playing a real, normal, simple character is harder then portraying a crazy man. Better than Fassbender in Shame? Not really, but I wouldn't mind if George did won!

The Descendants has some beautiful, yet very simple filmmaking elements that make the movie even better: the use of hawaiian music, the cinematography, the clear, steady shots, the scenes where they capture the human expressions, letting us know and understand how the characters are really feeling (Alex crying in the pool, Matt realising the truth in the restaurant, Elizabeth's father saying his last goodbye and so on). The script was very good and it had some wonderful, touching scenes, like the one where Sid talks to Matt about his family, or the moment where the three of them say goodbye to Elizabeth and so on. 

You will find some discrepancies in the storyline: where did Elizabeth's best friends go? How did the cousins react to Matt's decision regarding the land- and what was the purpose of this part of this storyline, anyway? Plus, the sudden mood swings for dramatic effect are a little out of line in some points, but then again, I didn't think they dramatised the story or the characters too much, it is mostly realistic. 

Yes, overall, The Descendants is a good movie, a drama that you will find touching and learn to love as the story progresses. Watch it on video-on-demand or buy the DVD, I think it's worth it!

Double post: Margin call&Let me in

Margin Call

Margin Call premiered last winter in Sundance, but is suddenly gaining momentum during awards season and is apparently aiming for some of them, mostly in the acting department; and they should, because it delivers big time.

I would call this movie a performance one. The actors feel like giants in a world of finance, and you barely notice the other details- music, direction, sets, script- nothing, just them. Everyone, from Zachary Quinto and Penn Badgely (the newbies) to Jeremy Irons and Kevin Spacey, is perfect and play the part in a realistic, no bullshit way. The last two stand out and are in the race for supporting nods, which they rightly deserve. Special mention to Paul Bettany who is great, not amazing, in this movie, but I love him to death, he is one of my favourites.

All in all, an enjoyable movie that you should give it a try!

Let me in

Let me in is a remake after a Swedish film, about a young boy who starts an unlikely friendship with a young  female vampire.

I especially liked the two leads, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz. There is just something special about him; maybe it's his face, his fizonomy and gestures, his awkwardness, but I think he will grow up to be a very good actor. Owen, the character, is sweet, smart, but lonely and missunderstood. That is when Chloe Moretz's character comes in and develops the strange friendship. Their conversations are slow and  sweet, but what else can you expect from 12 year olds? I love the scene when he asks, without actually knowing what it means "will you go steady with me?".

I can't really say the horror element has there, as I wasn't scared in any moment, but it had some dark moments. Over all, it is a good movie, although it wasn't mind-blowing.

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?

2 in 1 post!

Hey guys,

So lately I have been going to a lot of movies and I have a rather poor bank account to prove it (tickets+transportation+Coca Cola each time, not a good idea).

Instead of doing 2 different posts, I decided to do a short one, as the movies I saw didn't really give the inspiration to dedicate an entire post for each one!

Thursday, with the help of Time Out Magazine, I got into a screening of Miss Bala, a mexican drama about a woman who wants to be a beauty pageant queen, but gets mixed up with the wrong people just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a very action based movie, with raw, violent scenes that look and feel real. The leading lady, Stephanie Sigman, offers a very good performance (considering it's her first), taking us to through hard times with believeable reactions. Although I loved the movie and felt that it delivered something new to the cinema, I left the theater thinking the pace was always the same. A goes to B goes to C the end. Yes, the scenes were real and her reactions matched that, but I would have liked more from it, just something to raise my pulse a little bit! Oh...and the movies is based on a true story! You should check it out if you have the chance!

Friday, it was time to see Ides of March! First of all, I don't get the title...I should google it (Did that, now I see)! Second of all, I really enjoyed myself! I thought it was a very smart movie, very alert movie, with good performances and correct direction (I am saying that just because, out of all of the movies I saw recently, this seemed like a normal, nice one, with usual shots, nothing exciting in this department, but still very good). I don't know if it's good or bad, but considering the movie had Gosling and Clooney in it, you can imagine my surprise when I realised the best performance was given by Paul Giamatti (strictly my opinion). Don't get me wrong, all of the cast is good (Hoffman, Wood, Tomei, Max Mingella etc), but I loved him; Ryan Gosling and George Clooney played it safe, and I would be surprised if they get a nomination for this. Actually, thinking about it, Gosling delivered a strong performance, but can it top the one in Drive?No. The best part of the movie was the script: I loved the pace of it, the twists, the dialogue, the feel of it! One of the best big Hollywood movies I have seen recently! All in all, a very good movie you should watch!

Extra one: Saturday, I went old-school and watched An American in Paris at the British Film Institute, in one of the most beautiful cinema theaters I have ever seen! I won't review it now, instead it will be safe in my movie jar for when I'll do a musical week...if you are interested! :)

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!

Martha Marcy May Marlene[2011]

I have to admit: I didn't see the first 5 minutes, I was busy running from the tube station through the very crowded Leicester Square! I don't think I missed too much...I think!

So, Martha Marcy May Marlene, or MMMM from now on, was brilliant! Definitely my kind of movie, going in the category with Hunger, Hard Candy, American History X and others: great script, perfect performances, with a very good direction and stunning cinematography!

The story "dances" between the past and present of MMMM, played superbly by Elizabeth Olsen. She was a revelation for me (as was Jessica Chastain yesterday)- not only is she talented, but her beauty is haunting, it's simple, yet very attractive and sweet! I think she is amazing and I can't wait to see her in another movie. I was actually thinking during the movie that I wouldn't mind watching a 2 hour movie just with her on screen! MMMM escapes from a weird family (also known as a cult, but she seems to not realize that) and goes to live with her sister Lucy (played beautifully by Sarah Paulson) and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy).

The transitions are very good and well executed, and some scenes are shot and edited in such a way that you can't help admiring their beauty, even it is a creepy scene; for example, the skinny-dipping scene, the one in which cult leader Patrick plays Marcy's song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NGQD63qAOw&feature=player_embedded#! it's haunting), most of the random shots of Elizabeth Olsen! I must agree that lately I have been attracted to great direction, to new, interesting ways to shoot a scene, to the way it moves around the character or the sound of it (again, the waterfall, dipping scene is a great example). The finest pieces of art in this area that I have notices lately belong to movies like Drive, Hunger, and now MMMM. These are the directors we should be looking out for, not Woody Allen or Martin Scorsese. They bring something new to the table.

The script was good and to measure it in my own kind of way, I didn't look at my watch (please check the other reviews and comments to understand what I mean). It was engaging, interesting, but I can understand why someone would get bored. I didn't, because I noticed and loved the direction and the feel of the movie. It was sad to see that MMMM spent so much time there that she couldn't see the difference between good and bad, between right and wrong anymore! I remember seeing a documentary a couple of months ago about a family in the US who live life with so much hate and anger towards gay men and more; but the weird part was that they didn't think it was a wrong thing to do- for them it came naturally and they didn't understand our point of view!

As for the end, you kind of know what will happen, but it leaves it hanging- something that I usually hate, but I have seen so many endings like this one lately that it doesn't even bother me anymore! It wasn't satisfying, but I didn't hate it either!

Anyway, overall, MMMM is a fantastic movie that you should see, if not for Elizabeth Olsen's brilliant debut, at least for its story and direction! Please check it out in your local theaters or online :)

And with that, the London Film Festival reporting is over! Hope you liked it! I have more surprises lined up for you in the future, so stay tuned!

Take Shelter [2011]

Sunday was a beautiful, productive day for me and I love it!

I went and saw Take Shelter. Previous to that, I had heard many wonderful things about it and I was looking forward to catch it at the London Film Festival.

Let's start with the good things. Michael Shannon gives his best performance to date and one of the best of the year as Curtis, a 30-something working man who starts having hallucinations about an apocalyptic event. I loved the way he interpreted the part, the emotions, the insecurities and the crazyness he showed during those 2 hours. He is brilliant! Also a very pleasant surprise was Jessica Chastain, who is the revelation of the year for me- she's not just beautiful and talented, but possesses a great quality that just attracts you to her, a very old Hollywood vibe. I think she has a bright future ahead of her and I expect great things from her. Chastain won't get a nomination for her role (unless no other big names surge ahead), but I sure hope Shannon does- he truly deserves it!

Another big thumbs up for the script. I thought the idea was original and I liked the development of the movie, especially the line of actions that lead to the end; Jeff Nichols delivers both as a screenwriter and as a director.

Now it's time to cut some points off: it lost my attention numerous times during the screening. I always say that if a movie doesn't make you check your watch, then it is a good one or at least an interesting, worthwhile one. I did check my watch on this one and my mind started wondering what should I do after the movie. I am not saying it wasn't good, because it was, but it was lacking in some areas. It was like an EKG, who spikes at certain times, but usually stays in normal levels throughout the day.

The end was surprising and I think http://nevertooearlymoviepredictions.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-i-saw-take-shelter.html is a great article if you want to know more, especially his/her 3 options of what the ending was trying to say! Hope you don't mind I linked your website!

Overall, it was a good movie, but if I were you, I would see it on DVD or wait for it to be online!

Today is the last London Film Festival I will be checking out- Martha Marcy May Marlene- review tonight or tomorrow!

Carnage [2011]

4th movie at the London Film Festival and I am still loving it! Today I went to see Carnage!

I must admit, from the beginning, that I am not familiar with Roman Polanski's work, but if the rest of his movies are similar to this one, I am willing to give a try.

I never thought you can have an interesting movie, with smart, funny lines and great characters, in only one location- an apartment! 90 minutes and I think I took only one look at my watch! Carnage was amazing and all due to the 4 main actors: Christopher Waltz, Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster and John C.Reily.

They take the film to the next level and carry the action, the entertainment and the drama. It is a tough job, but they are great at it. Waltz and Foster and perfect and give a wonderful performance, while Reily and Winslet are strong, as well, but they don't over shine the first two. I can't explain the characters here because you learn so much about them in 90 minutes- I would spoil you the fun of discovering them for yourself, which you should definitely do!

Clearly, the script is derived by a play, The God of Carnage, which Polanski adapted to the big screen. As you might think, normally, 90 minutes in one location is a very though thing to shoot, especially if you plan to keep the attention of the audience. They are very few movies who dare to do that (Phonebooth sounds similar and it worked there, as well, as I recall), but he manages to do that in a beautiful manner, relaying only on his actors and quick paced script.

Overall, it is a good movie and you should definitely give it a try! It is an interesting experience!

Restless [2011]

"Restless" was a little bit of a game changer for me. Watching this movie was an experience I will not forget anytime soon.

It tells the story of two young people, Annabel and Enoch, who share an interest for death and funerals, and the development of their romance. The two characters are strange, awkward, funny and so loveable, that you can't help falling for them, worrying for them and rooting for their love story, although we all know the ending will not be pretty.

Mia Wasikowska is wonderful as the sweet, energetic and calm Annabel; she just surprises me every time I see her on screen and this part is something she hasn't done before...and I love her for that. The big surprise was Henry Hopper, the son of the late Dennis Hopper, who, for his first leading part, was amazing as the sad, unsure Enoch. Great supporting parts were provided by Schuyler Fisk (Annabel's sister) and Ryo Kase (Enoch's ghost friend). The script, the story is pretty simple and straight-forward, but the magic lies in their interaction, the way it was shot, the cinematography, the soundtrack...it creates a great background for their love story to develop. Some reviews were not as kind as mine, but please go see it before you make up your mind.

This film was an emotional rollercoaster: at the beginning, you're curious, afterwards you enjoy their sweet romance, then you feel anger for Enoch's inability to help her, and in the end you just cry. It was one of saddest, heartbreaking movies I have ever seen. Don't think the end was shocking or anything, it wasn't, but the simple things that we were all expecting to happen were portrayed in such a way that no one left the theater when the credits rolled. You could hear some whispers, some quiet sobbing, but everyone was affected by it...I have never seen anything like that before. When I left the room, I could see that everyone had tears in their eyes, just like me; I cried.

Afterwards, I decided to write the review in a Starbucks. I never know if it's better to write right after you saw a film or just let it past a couple of hours. Usually my best ones are written minutes after seeing a movie. The sensation I had after this one was overwhelming: I can't really put my finger on it, but I was very impressed by it. What I can tell you that one feeling has stayed with me: I wish, one day, my film could trigger these emotions in someone's heart just like it did to me.

"Restless" will probably not have the same effect on you, maybe you will think it's boring or just a silly romance, but please do give a try and I hope you like it as much as I did! It has become one of my favorite movies of the year!

50/50

Yesterday I had the luck of getting in to see 50/50 after I patiently waited in line, whilst talking to some lovely press people who, apparently, have to do the same if they want to see a movie.

Let me just start by saying that 50/50 is a great movie, every part of the magical process of film making doing his job at the top level.

Firstly, and most importantly, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as the young man who discovers he has cancer. For me, it was the best performance of the year so far, ahead of Ryan Gosling in Drive (I haven't seen Shame or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, so bare with me). The way he portrays his character, what it is going through, all of the emotions, it is wonderful, funny, yet sad to watch. I couldn't find a single flaw or say something wrong about him, because JGL was very real, I could understand and believe him. I really do hope he gets an Oscar nomination for this and he probably will.

Secondly, the script was particularly interesting and lovely, as it had so many funny elements intertwine with the sad ones, but in a suitable way. The writer knew when to throw a couple of jokes and when to just let it go on the silent, melancholic vibe. There were a lot of funny lines there (mostly of Seth Rogen) and I loved the reaction of the audience in the theater- I think everyone loved it. The characters developed along the way and the end, although predictable, was still sweet and rewarding.

Few tidbits I loved whilst watching:
- soundtrack (why do almost all the JGL have an amazing soundtrack? see 500 days of summer, Inception etc)
- weed macaroons scene- the trio is fantastic together
- very original cheating scene- script and acting wise; Seth, Joseph and Bryce killed it!
- it almost had me crying at one point - which rarely happens with me
- nice surprise by Anna Kendrick- considering she started in Twilight, I think she has a bright future ahead of her, if she will continue choosing parts like this one

All in all, I loved this movie and I really hope you will see it soon!

Now, off to see Restless! Busy weekend for me :)

DANGEROUS MINDS [1995]

Director: John N. Smith

Writer: LouAnne Johnson, Ronald Bass

Starring: Michelle Pheifer, George Dzundza

Short recommendation today!

Great movie! I loved almost everything about it (except some storylines, they are so predictable). It all seems so raw, so real: the music, the scenary, all of the characters, nothing seems faked or acted. It brings back the 90s mood and makes you nostalgic, but also wanting to hear some „old music”! (Coolio-Gangsta's Paradise)

One of the things that stuck in my head is something the character Raoul says. I’m not going to give the direct quote, just paraphrase it. When the cops took him to the car, miss Johnson comes and asks him why did he do it. Raul says that he must fight for himself, that if he didn’t, people will think he is weak and he couldn’t walk with his head up high anymore. He said that if America wouldn’t stand up for itself, anyone would attack it. I understood what he was saying...because it is partially true. One of the reasons America is so strong as a nation is because it fought all the way to the top and didn’t stop at anything...even if it was too fast, too stupid or too risque. It didn’t had the wisdom of the European, but it had guts and power. That’s one way to succed!

Long story short: good movie! If you’re in the mood for some 90s music or vibe, check it out!