Oh, Gatsby!

*Diana's head pops up over the surface*

"Hello? Anybody here? Where did everyone go?
Oh, I knew it, I knew this would happen. I go away for 1, ok maybe 2 and a half months and people just forget me." she starts pacing around, back and forth in her seemingly deserted blog.

"Although.....my blog visits are still rather respectable- 50 something per day? that's what I used to get before. I wonder why they come back, even if there's no new content...
Anyway, I wonder what everyone is doing? I'm so behind on stuff...film stuff!" she says frustrated and opens her iPad.

"I still read their blogs, but my Twitter is collecting dust and God...if they only knew that I haven't watched a movie in...." she bows her head but suddenly remembers.

"Oh wait, I did, actually! Just today!
The Great Gatsby! In 3D!

Oh my sweet Leonardo, Oh you, the Paul Newman of our generation, the smart, gentleman-y James Dean, the gorgeous man with big blue eyes and huge talent!" her eyes shine and she fondly remembers Jay Gatsby, soaked from the rain, entering Nick's house to meet Daisy for the first day in a long time.

"Stop it Diana, you're supposed to review the film, not Leo's appearance! (Although there would be so much to say about that, too...)
So yes, The Great Gatsby! I don't know what you most will say about it, but the Baz Luhrman fangirl in me loved it. Obviously, because it looked just fantastic, as all Baz movies look like, but also because of the story, the script, the music and some performances. Except maybe Carey Mulligan's underwhelming performance and Isla Fischer's over the top one, everyone came up to par. I especially loved Joel Edgerton's Tom and, of course, the master of ceremonies, the man, Leonardo DiCaprio. It's probably too much to ask or even to consider, but I would give him some awards for this role. The lovely lady playing Jordan Baker is the breakout star of the film, and it's nice to Jason Clarke around there, too, although in a poor state.
Now, I know the film didn't receive great reviews, but I don't get why people were so "mean" to it. Let's face it, the movie looked great- check, the music was fantastic- check, the costumes, sets and photography were breathtaking- check, and most of the performances rocked- check. As for the actual storyline, I always thought Gatsby's story was interesting and I really liked how they built and showcased his character throughout the movie. Honestly, for me it was a great movie! Oh, I just wish would enjoy movies more and analyze them less...."

"Pheww....See Diana, it wasn't that hard, you can still review movies (although if you could just use less adjectives and more verbs and reasoning, that would be nice)
Well, thanks for listening!" she says smiling and starts to wave at...

*Diana's smile disappears and looks sadly around her deserted blog and lets her head down, realizing that no one is probably listening*

Flight [2012]

Flight is a 2012 production, directed by Robert Zemeckis from a script written by John Gatins, starring Denzel Washington, which tells the story of an alchoolic pilot who is forced to face his addiction after a plane crash threatens to end his career. Dramatic, surprising and moving, Flight ticks almost every box in the filmmaking to do list and is put in the spotlight with the help of a great performance by Washington.

Script-wise, I thought it was cleverly written- the characters were interesting and real; the story, built around the accident and an inevitabile trial, didn't actually focus on them, but more on the development of the characters; and the climax, the deposition, was emotional to watch. I liked the way they wrote and showcased the crash experience, or how we could see the ups and downs of Whitaker's state, and the ending was surprisingly sweet.

Another strong point for Flight was the casting. I especially loved Don Cheadle and John Goodman, both brought something interesting and different to the table, but my favorites were definitely Kelly Reilly and Denzel Washington. Kelly Reilly was a revelation for me- sweet, talented, peculiar and exceptionally beautiful, she shined throughout the film and I wished I saw more of her. And what can I say about Washington? He is, after all, one of the best actors of our generation, and he nailed this part, perfectly illustrating different sides of a broken man who is caught up on an addiction that could potentially ruin him. He definitely deserves his place in the top 5 actors of 2012-2013 awards season.

From a filmmaking point of view, everything was well-executed. Considering it is a modern story, there's nothing much to say about the sets or costumes, but I did like the direction and the way they shot the air accident. The soundtrack was remarkable- I especially loved the use of Under the Bridge by RHCP.

I thought Flight, overall, is a very good movie that is both interesting and moving, one that features wonderful performances and an emotional story. I highly recommend it, it's one of this year's most underrated films!

p.s. Special mention for the lovely patient in the hospital who's line I still remember: "My cancer might get cancer"

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!

Django Unchained [2012]

Django Unchained is a 2012 production, written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, about a slave-turned-bounty hunter (Jamie Foxx) who sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio), with the help of the man who saved him in the first place (Christoph Waltz).

I must say, from the get go, that I was in love with this film 5 minutes in, when Django is rescued by a smooth-talking, surprisingly violent Dr.King Schultz. The quality of the script is unquestionable- from the fast, no-bullshit, quirky dialogue, to the well-built characters, and ending, of course, with the action-packed scenes, everything is wonderfully constructed, and more importantly, entertaining. I rarely see movies who bring both story and entertainment, both quality and fun, and Django Unchained definitely accomplishes that.

One extra thing I do have to mention about the script, but mostly about how Tarantino builds and displays his stories- the man loves violence and is not afraid to show it. I think he is one of the most visual, direct and bloody directors out there when it comes to this topic, and you can see it in the way he shoots the scenes, the close-ups and quantity of blood used. It doesn't bother me, but you cannot help to notice it, and that's why I mentioned it.

As for the actual directing, what more can I say about mister Tarantino? His movies are always visually appealing, attracting attention with every frame or shot. Personally, I loved and still remember the scenes showing Django killing the Brittle brothers, or the funny moment with Big Daddy and his employees on the field, having the bag argument, and of course, the final showdown in Candie's house. As always, his cameo is interesting and well placed, and I especially liked his exit.
 
As for the other filmmaking aspects, I have nothing but praise. The sets and costumes were well-executed and fun, and a definite highlight was the fantastic soundtrack, with "Who did that to you?", the John Legend song, taking the crown.

If you thought I ran out of good things to say about the film, than you probably didn't realize I haven't mentioned the casting. Oh man, the actors in Django Unchained were just fantastic. Jamie Foxx, playing the main character, perfectly embodied it and gave a very good performance that was sadly overlooked, but I can understand why, considering the supporting actors were just as wonderful as the lead. Three of them deserve high praise and an Oscar each for their roles: first, Christoph Waltz, in a part similar to his in Inglorious Basterds, but with a lot more humanity; he had great chemistry with both Jamie, and the other two secondary men, who I love and root for more than him. Oh, how can I put in words how much I enjoyed watching both Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L.Jackson on screen? Their characters were obviously despicable, but I couldn't not like their sassy spirit, confident stride and funny banter. DiCaprio, in particular, was spectacular as the vile plantation owner who always gets what he wants, and I seriously cannot understand who he didn't get a nomination for his performance (case in point, watch the running man and the dogs scene, or the dinner discussion, and you will understand).

In the end, I can only summarize my review and just say that Django Unchained is one of the best films I have seen in months and it deserves all your attention- I would recommend it to anyone. If I would have to rate it, it would get a 5/5 from me!

The perks of being a wallflower [2012]

The Perks of being a wallflower is a 2012 production based on a novel by Stephen Chbosky, which tells the coming-of-age story of Charlie, a special kid who's life obstacles have left him with no friends. He starts high-school and soon makes unexpected friends that will change his life completely. Written for screen and directed by the author of the book, it is a wonderful story of friendship, love, hardship and hope.

I think one of the best things about Perks is the script, or better the way the story was constructed and presented to the audience. Although it follows a typical growing up/teenager path, it's filled with small details, some horrifying, some original, some funny, that make the whole experience more interesting to watch. For example, it's not just about an awkward guy trying to make friends, it's about a boy who has suffered many loses in his life and who is now trying to recover and adapt to this new environment. The relationships are realistically built, for most parts, and I liked their interaction- although some scenes were rather common, others thrived in emotion and creativity. I especially loved the ending and how it was built to reveal the thing that has been haunting him for all these years- it made me cry like a child and probably gave me the lasting impression that Perks of being a wallflower is a great film.

Filmmaking-wise, there were a few things that stood out for me: the score and soundtrack, featuring The Smiths and New Order, the cinematography and directing in some scenes and the editing. All helped make Perks a much better film and integrate it in that time period, although I admit I realized about half way through that the action was happening in the early 90s, and not in present times.

As for the casting, there were very few mistakes made. I loved Logan Lerman's performance and, of course, Ezra Miller was his usual talented self, but I do think Emma Watson was slightly unsuitable for the part. I bet Sam was probably much more of a bad girl on paper than she was on screen, but then again, Watson's sweet demeanor doesn't help, either. Surprisingly good performances by Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev and Dylan McDermott.

I may be biased, but I am willing to say with conviction that Perks of being a wallflower is a film you must see and enjoy. Don't take it too seriously, just remember your own adolescence and admire the character development and storyline. Try it!

Lincoln [2012]

Lincoln is a 2012 production, directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Daniel Day Lewis as the famous American president who changed history. Written by Tony Kushner, it is a story dedicated to the United States, heavy on heartfelt speeches, anecdotes and passionate verbal fights between Congressmen.

Lincoln is not a great film; it has its flaws and, as far as Spielberg movies goes, it's not one of his best. My main problem is the script. As many stated before me, it is long, extremely long, even for 2h and a half. I would give an Oscar to DDL just for the amount of lines, funny stories and speeches he had to memorize and say. I appreciate the discussions of such important topics as slavery and human rights, but it just went on and on, with few interesting scenes (my favorites came towards the end, with Stevens celebrating at home with his special guest and the very end, the fact that they didn't actually show a crucial point of history, but instead showed it from a different perspective). It was very well written, don't get wrong, but a bit boring and long.

When it comes to technical or filmmaking aspects, I have nothing bad or good to say. It looked good, the sets and costumes, especially Abraham's appearance, were realistically done, but I wasn't impressed or attracted by the direction, like in other films.

My highlights of Lincoln were definitely the performances. I realized half way through that this was, indeed, Daniel Day Lewis, not Lincoln. Absolutely fantastic performance, one of the best I have seen- It is a hard part and he nailed it; I respect him just for the number of lines and speeches he had to memorize and do, all completed by the right mannerisms and professionalism. Another standout was David Strathairn as the secretary of state, who was equally calm, honest and gracious, as he was passionate. I can't not mention Sally Fields (terrific in some scenes, like the fight with her husband over Robert and Willie or the reception meeting with Stevens), and Tommy Lee Jones, as the old grumpy man who eventually comes through. Are these last two worthy of Oscars? Not really, but I would be fine with it. Besides that, to top off the superb casting, the rest of the actors involved were top notch, and just by looking at the IMDb list, you know you can expect a well acted film.

In the end, is Lincoln a great film? not really. Does it have amazing performances? Most definitely. Is it worth seeing it just for them? Hmmm.....maybe, plus it is nominated for many awards, so I suggested you watch it for yourself and decides if it's worth the buzz.

Amour [2012]

Amour is a French film, winner of Palme D'or in Cannes this year. Directed and written  by Michael Haneke, the movie is close to a masterpiece, with its subtle performances, emotional story and wonderful direction.

Amour has a touching script, a sad, often desperate and lonely script that makes this movie ten times more effective and beautiful than it already is. It tells the story of an old couple who have to fight with the sudden illness of Anne, the wife, whilst Georges takes care of her the best way he can. It features funny moments, but also melancholic ones and sad ones and desperate ones, all mixed with normal, sometimes boring scenes like a guy waiting or a woman cleaning the house. That being said, I don't think the screenplay was one of the film's strong points- it had very few moments of action, but a number of intense ones; it was, however, immensely helped by the performances, but more about that later.

Number two on my favourites list of Amour was the wonderful direction. I love Haneke's style-it's so simple, a little peculiar at places, but beautiful and interesting to watch, with rarely any close-ups, just only in the important moments. There was no music or score, and that made even more bleak than it already was, but it was nice to hear only classical, piano songs when it was needed.

Number one on my favourite list of this movie was the acting. Many have raved about Emmanuelle Riva and her portrayal of Anne, the sick woman, whose condition worsens over time, but my heart went to Jean-Louis Trintignant , the man playing the husband. His performance was heartbreaking, realistic and interesting, and in my opinion, his part was much harder than Riva; it had so many small details and little expressions that offered ten times more to the audience than a phrase would. I loved how he played the old man who was so in love with his wife, that he would do any usually embarrassing thing in order to keep her happy and safe- he took care of her better than most nurses would, but her sufferance forced him to darker things and, as weird as it may sound, I understood him and why he did what he did.

The ending was incredibly subtle and mysterious- was it Haneke's way of showing us he followed her into a new place? Has his guilt and sorrow overtaken his sense of reality? Maybe, and it was a very moving scene, as ordinary as it seemed. I would have much preferred this to the actual last scene with the daughter.

Amour is a stunning movie that deserves attention, but not as incredibly emotional as advertised. It's very well acted and interestingly directed, but its bleak course of action cuts some of its high points. Still, I highly recommend it, especially to film lovers.

Beasts of the southern wild [2012]

Beasts of the southern wild is a 2012 production which premiered at Sundance and gained immense success throughout the year, especially for first time director Behn Zeitlin. It tells the story of a young girl, Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), who lives in an isolated part of the world with her father, Wink, and a handful of people who refuse to leave their homes, in spite of the incoming water rise that is threatening to destroy their houses and lives.

Beasts is a very good movie, with a touching story, interesting direction and fantastic performances, but still it failed to completely move me. I think it's because the script was not the strongest point of the film. It started out strong- I was taken aback by the wild, dirty and unexpected aspect of everyday life south of the Levee, but also containing something beautiful and natural that you are attracted to, no matter what. I loved the fact that the people were celebrating life even when they didn't have anything else but those houses, when all hope was lost, when they knew the storm is coming. The Bathtub (the town) was made of survivors, and Hushpuppy was the first and strongest of them, despite her age. Wink, her father, is tough on her, but mostly because he wants her to succeed, so he treats her bad enough to make her strong and resilient. But this where the story mostly lies in- survival- and it doesn't go much further than that, unfortunately, which is a pity. Also, a thing I didn't quite get or see the relevance in the end, is the monster deal, although the confrontation was interestingly made.

That being said, the rest of the aspects of the movie were pretty flawless. The direction was beautiful and suited the wild nature of the environment, especially with its shaky camera and, sometimes, not very focused camera shots, and the set design was very well made and incredibly realistic. I also loved the score of it, and I think it should be rewarded somehow. What we should really talk about is the casting, and especially the performances of the actors. Quvenzhané Wallis was flawless and, for such a young girl, she delivered much more than expected. Dwight Henry was also very good and played the part of the father with the right amount of love and toughness, and the rest of the supporting cast was great.

Beasts of the southern wild is a wonderful film from many points of view, but in the end, it fails to make a real difference or, better said, fails to impress and give a lasting impression over time. It is a well made film, beautifully shot, but just not....enough.

"I see that I am a little piece in a big, big universe, and that makes everything right!"

Cloud Atlas [2012]

Cloud Atlas is a 2012 production, based on a David Mitchell novel and directed by two sets of directors: some parts were mastered by the Wachowski brothers, and others were done by Tom Tykwer. It tackles different themes like love, betrayal and hope, across thousands of years and including characters of all sizes and appearances.

One of the most discussed aspects of this film is the level of complexity of the script: it is, indeed, a bit difficult to explain each story and the connection between them, but one thing I have to mention is the fact that it is not that hard to understand. I have read many posts saying some scenes don't make sense or that they found it difficult to grasp the links between the plots, but I wasn't in the same situation: for me it was pretty clear and, moreover, I was engaged and interested in each storyline and the sequences of scenes. Even the almost 3 hours passed by quickly, with the exception of some small parts.

I loved the idea of illustrating a specific theme or feeling across different time periods, showing that it is similar in so many ways, no matter the current status. Love, hope, survival, betrayal and instinct, all are feelings experienced in any situation, in any part of the world, and in the end, Cloud Atlas is a great way of showcasing humanity in all its forms. My favorite storylines involve the 2141 Neo Seoul time, and the music composer one, with the lovely Ben Whishaw, who was criminally underused.

From a filmmaking point of view, it looked amazing- the action and future scenes looked intriguing and interesting, shot in a dynamic way, while the past or present ones were done in a more simpler, subtle way, but not lacking beauty. I particularly liked the score, and I thought the sets and costumes from the future looked very good.

As for the acting, there's not too much to say. All did their job well, some even exceeding, like Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent or Hugo Weaving, but no one stood out from the cast. I definitely think Tom Hanks and Halle Berry were overused, and I wished Hugh Grant and Ben Whishaw were more present, but overall it was well acted.

I strongly believe that Cloud Atlas is an underestimated movie by most and I don't know why-usually, the complex and star-studded films get rave reviews, but this one is different. Maybe it's the sci-fi. Or because it's directed by the Wachowskis. Or maybe people just don't like to bother with complex storylines. Who knows? I just wish more people would love it. I definitely do, and I highly recommend it. (Expect even a spot in my best of 2012 list)

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.

Sightseers [2012]

Back in September, at the FDA showcase event in London, I had the chance to watch Sightseers, a very interesting, quite distinct film, directed by Ben Wheatley (of Kill List fame), and written by the two leading actors, Alice Lowe and Steve Oram. It tells the macabre story of a couple who go on a romantic cross-country trip, only for her to discover Chris is a serial killer.

You have to see Sightseers- it's one of the best, most creative and funny movies I have seen in a while, despite its violence and gory details. The script is a definite highlight of the film- it features realistic and approachable characters in strange, highly unlikely situations, and most of all, it tells a story. What I admired most about the script was the perfect mix between darkness/violence and humor  done in a funny way, but also balancing it properly to create a good film to watch.

One of the other things I liked about Sightseers is the fact we can see a definite transformation, on both accounts, especially personality wise, although the action is also thrilling. The man tries to adapt and hide his condition, but ultimately can't hide back his true nature, while the woman starts as an innocent person, who is faced with a horrifying truth and has to decide what to do next- her future actions are quite shocking. The two actors, Alice and Steve, work perfectly together and deliver their lines in a fun to watch manner, the dialogue and setting making it unmistakably British. Side note- favorite line: "he's not a person, love, he's a Daily Mail reader".

From a filmmaking point of view, I thought it was well-made and realistically portrayed a violent nature of humankind, knowing when to shock and when to hold back, especially when it came to the actual deaths. I did find the slow motion use for the dramatic scenes a bit weird at the beginning, but I got used to it by the end.

Sightseers is one of this years' best British films, in both story and characters, and I highly recommend it- I enjoyed myself and I hope you will, too.

Ruby Sparks [2012]

Ruby Sparks is a 2012 comedy written by Zoey Kazan about a writer to creates a perfect woman character who loves him, and somehow transforms her into reality. Directed by the talented duo Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, it stars Paul Dano as Calvin, the young prodigy who creates Ruby Sparks (Zoey Kazan) on paper, the seemingly perfect woman for him. It's a sweet, unconventional, very funny and interesting love story that it's worth seeing. 

One of the key strong points of the movie was definitely the script, one that perfectly blends humor with love and deeper themes like loneliness, selfishness, desire and control. Zoe Kazan, a first time writer, I think (I may be wrong), does a good job in creating a story with heart and delivering realistic lines of dialogue and characters (such as the girl who gives Calvin her number and then meets up with him at the coffee shop, or his brother), but mixing it with a little bit of fantasy and quirkiness (the parents, the idea of making Ruby come true and others).  There are many things that I loved about the film and I don't know a better way than just write them down, one by one. And so, I loved: 

- the first scene and the lighting

- the more practical older brother (Chris Messina)- "women are mysterious creatures"

- the therapist- "I love it when you say stupid things"

- the scene describing Ruby

- the mother and her Spanish partner (Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas) and their quirky house 

- the acting all around, especially Paul Dano
- " you're real"
- "I want to be what's making her happy, without me being the one who's making her happy"

The last part of the film was a bit surprising for me and I think that made me reconsider my whole opinion on it. Although it is a fun movie, it wasn't afraid to go dark and explore the bad side of Calvin, with his need of control and love. At some point it gets too far and that scene where he makes her do so many crazy things definitely proves that. This set me off and the ending felt the same because, well...because it was sweet and...too good to be true? Maybe it was just me, but considering the innovative and interesting way it was written, I had expected more, but then again, it is a Hollywood movie...

In the end, I think it is one of 2012's best and you should see it- a nice, funny indie that dares to go deeper and darker, in a creative and sweet way. Please do see Ruby Sparks!

Something is missing...maybe the end was unsatisfactory

Breaking Dawn I & II [2011 & 2012]

Last week, my sister took me to see Breaking Dawn I & II, as she is a big fan of the books and series (she is 7 years older than me). I didn't like the first part last year, but I said OK now just to see how things will develop and have a clear view on the whole situation. After the screenings, I can still say I don't like BD1, but 2 is a rather good ending to a very successful franchise.

Breaking Dawn 1 starts with the illustrious wedding, which was done in a very tasteful, beautiful way- I loved the dress and the very awkward speeches, but the dialogue was still incredibly cheesy. They obviously consume their honeymoon, and Bella soon realizes she is pregnant, which, with a vampire being the baby daddy, it's practically impossible. The rest of the movie consists of Bella getting worse by the day as she refuses to give up the baby that is slowly killing her. As expected, it ends with the birth of Renesmee and Bella as a new vampire.

Why I didn't enjoy it? Although I understand why they split the book in two movies, the second half of BD1 still dragged on, even though they cut a lot of scenes. On another note, as usual, I really didn't like the dialogue and its delivery by the actors- it's weird, because I loved the book and on paper it was better than what it sounded on screen. Still, the supporting characters were downright hilariously bad, especially Jackson Rathbone and Kellan Lutz, and their look is still unconvincing. High points? Wedding, honeymoon, Bella's look and the transformation into vampire.

Breaking Dawn 2 was much better, which was curious, considering it was directed by the same man and in the same time as 1- maybe the story moved a little faster than the first part. But don't think I loved it, because I still found many flaws to it- let's just say I liked it overall and it gave a nice ending to a series of books I used to love. BD2 follows the Cullen family in their happy days as the young girl grows and Bella gets used to her new state, but the clouds come in when the Volturi find out about the child and decide to kill her. The ending features a violent fight between the Cullen's friends and the Volturi clan, which has a surprising turn that I quite liked. The last scene is, of course, very romantic and a sweet wrap-up of the now famous love story.

I know most men will hate BD2, but I thought it was fine. It was slightly better than most Twilight films on all accounts and the fight scene was very cool, including its conclusion. If I could object to one thing, and that could apply to all the franchise movies, is the hair and make-up of the vampires- they never ever got it right (with the exception of Robert Pattinson, of course, and Kristen Stewart in the last one), it all looked absolutely horrible and cheesy.

Should you see Breaking Dawn 2? Well, if you watched all previous 4, than yes, you should, just to see how it all ends, no matter how painful in might be. If you skipped through Twilight films, and saw just one or two, just forget it, it's probably not for you.

Sound of my voice [2011]

Sound of My Voice is a Brit Marling movie (written, acted and produced by her) about a cult revolved around a young woman who claims to be from the future. Peter Aitken, a late 20s guy, infiltrates into the group with his girlfriend, Lorna, in order to make a documentary about Maggie, the mysterious woman, and show to the world she is just a fraud. The situation changes when he is suddenly attracted and intrigued by Maggie, in spite of his earlier doubts.

One of the things I love most about Brit Marling is her ability to create such curious stories, with sometimes unbelievable ideas (mostly science fiction), that blend together and form a type of film that you are, without realizing, drawn into and inexplicably fascinated of, although it doesn't seem that interesting on a first glance. This story has a little bit of everything: drama, mystery, character development, philosophy, and sci fi, but what ties it together is the performances of the main actors, Marling, Denham (Peter Aitken) and Vicius (Lorna).

Christopher Denham, playing Peter, the man who is keen to show the true Maggie to the world, is quite the revelation, as he suffers the biggest transformation, all starting to change after the absolutely fantastic scene of the apple, my favorite. Nicole Vicius offers an equally great performance, as the girlfriend who takes the exact opposite path to Peter: she starts up intrigued by her, almost believing, but ends up plotting against her. But hands down, the best part was played by Brit Marling, the very talented woman who is simply mesmerizing- I don't know if it's just looks or something else completely, but she draws attention in every form and gives a credible and sometimes realistic performance. I expect great things from her in the future.

One of the reasons I wasn't overly excited about Another Earth (her previous film) was the directing, but Sound of my voice is much better, and as a whole, it works and looks very good. I loved the part where she told her story, or the first time we see them taking all the precautions to get to the safe house, and especially, the apple and confession scene, fantastically played by both Denham and Marling. As for the ending, I equally loved it and hated it- it made you realize that maybe she is not lying and is from the future, but also it made you imagine the next step for Peter- will he follow her or not? will he help her escape or not? will he believe her?

So yes, you do have to see Sound of My Voice, because of the script and because of Marling's mesmerizing performance and talent in all accounts. I recommend it and hope you'll like it, too!

Argo [2012]

Last week, on its first day of release in Romanian cinemas, I went to see Argo, Ben Affleck's latest directorial and acting effort. Written by Chris Terrio and based on a true story, it tells the story of 1980 joint CIA-Canadian secret operation to extract six fugitive American diplomatic personnel out of revolutionary Iran. It's a very well made film that has mostly high points, although it is not as perfect as some might say.

The true story set in the 1979/1980s recalls the conflict between the US and Iran over the extradition of former Iranian leader, which led to a hostage situation and even a revolution in the Arabic country, and that's the main trigger of the script. Tony Mendez, played by Affleck, comes in as an extraction specialist to help get out 6 embassy employees who managed to get out of the building before the people marched in and took control. As much as it is a suspense and thriller story, it is also an emotional one, and the end will keep you on your toes on all accounts. The screenplay is quite good and manages to mix different themes and characters without creating confusion or being too cliche. Maybe this where the movie's success lies in, in the interesting and qualitative combination of story, character development and emotional deliverance, one that has proven hard to accomplish lately in cinema.

But things aren't perfect all the way through; one thing that I particularly didn't like was Affleck's direction. It felt, in most cases, too dynamic, too fast, and it did not have a clean and fluid shooting style- some scenes were rather hard and visually tiring to watch. I know he is mentioned in many awards predictions of Best Director, but I think there are better ones on the list that should have the prize. Other than that, the rest of the filmmaking elements were pretty good, especially the score and cinematography, but also the set design.

Casting wise, Argo was flawless. I, personally, thought Ben Affleck was a better actor than director here, although I have seen better performances from him in previous years. I also don't get why people are pushing Alan Arkin for a Supporting category; if it would be my choice, I would go for either Bryan Cranston or John Goodman, these two shined much more than him. The actors portraying the 6 embassy employees were also well chosen and I particularly loved the woman playing Cora Lijek, Clea DuVall.

Since we are already talking about awards, I can definitely see it nominated for Best Picture, Director (although I don't agree), Cast, maybe Script, and I can see it being a worthy candidate for Best Picture, most likely.

Argo is a very well made film that deserves all the attention is getting, but it is not the masterpiece some are claiming it to be. It is a film that will appeal to many and I wouldn't mind it that much for it to win Best Picture, it would be a safe and predictable choice. Definitely see it!

Beyond the Hills [2012]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Bond 007: Skyfall [2012]

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

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

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

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

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

Children of Men [2006]

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

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

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

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

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

Private Peaceful [2012]

Last month, at FDA showcase event, I had the pleasure of seeing a number of new movies, some I haven't even heard of before. One of the more pleasant surprises was Private Peaceful, a very well made war movie, considering its budget and casting. It's the story of two brothers who fall for the same girl while trying to cope  with the pressures of their family life, the war, and the price of courage and cowardice. Based on a Michael Morpurgo novel, written for screen by Simon Reade and directed by Pat O'Connor, this small film should be on your radar in the next following months.

The story is not overly creative or unknown- two brothers like the same girl, and as they grow old, the girl eventually chooses one of them, while the other is left hurt and abandoned, and so he decides to join the army in order to forget about her. The situations worsens when both brothers end up in war, and get in trouble for disobeying orders. I won't give up too much details of the plot, but it is a touching story, with approachable characters and a steady, yet intriguing storyline.

One of the things I appreciated and remembered was that, for such a small budget and unknown names, it had surprisingly good quality in both acting and filmmaking. The cinematography was beautiful and used simple, yet effective techniques, the direction was on point and didn't overreact on certain occasions (see War Horse) and the sets, costume and music helped the story come across in a much more realistic way.

The casting was definitely one of its strongest attributes. Starting with very good young cast (Izzie Meikle-Small, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, Samuel Bottomley) who set up the movie, and its high class supporting cast, starring Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour, and ending with the three main leads, Alexandra Roach as Molly, the girl who wins both of the men's hearts, and the two brothers, Jack O'Connell as Charlie, the older, smarter and more charismatic brother, and George MacKay as Tommo, the younger, more sensitive and heartfelt boy. There are some things I noticed about them and their acting that I want to mention. First, interestingly enough, younger Molly was much more interesting and appealing than older Molly, as Roach was quite bland in her part (or maybe the script didn't allow her to shine). Second, George MacKay gave, probably, the best performance out of the three, with his sweet nature, misunderstood character and brave facade. Third, Jack O'Connell, the guy who played Charlie, very much reminded me of Anton Yelchin.

In the end, Private Peaceful is a very good British war movie that proves that you can make a wonderful film without enormous amounts of money. Some might say it is a more normal, less dramatic, low budget, version of War Horse or Saving Private Ryan, and I think I would agree. You should see it!

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!