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!"

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

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.

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. 

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!

Traffic [2000]

Traffic is probably one of the best dramas, or better said, best political/addiction dramas I have ever seen. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by Stephen Gaghan (but based on a miniseries), it focus on drugs, more specifically on a conservative judge who is appointed by the President to spearhead America's escalating war against drugs, only to discover that his teenage daughter is an addict. Winner of multiple awards, including Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director at the Oscars, Traffic is unmissable.

The script, an intersection of stories and characters, is quite intricate and political, but it works perfectly by the end of it. When I noticed this, I thought it would be hard to follow, or it will make me loose the interest, but they connected things very well. My favorite storyline was the main one, that of the judge and the daughter, just because it had so much to provide and prove, and the ending of it was both touching and memorable, as the man who's job was to fight the war, had to quit it in order to survive that same war for and with his daughter.

Another strong point for Traffic is definitely the casting: not A listers, but good, talented actors, who are not in the front of the line, but still do their jobs to the T; people like Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman, Dennis Quaid and others. Benicio del Toro, as Javier Rodriguez Rodriguez, delivers one of the strongest performances of the cast- what I liked most was his way of showing so much emotion and care without overacting or letting on his feelings in a visible way. Other standout performances were those of Catherine Zeta Jones, a woman who I have never seen have a bad day acting, and Michael Douglas, of which I can say the same thing, but also Erika Christensen, who provided the surprise as a young addicted woman who takes the wrong turn in life.

From a filmmaking point of view, it was quite spectacular. Soderbergh's direction was spot on, giving the story a very realistic feel and showing us all the sides of the main topic, without being too subjective on one or another. Shocking and moving examples are most of the scenes with the young woman, like when the teenagers were taking drugs, or the moment in the dirty hotel room with the black guy, but also some of the scenes in Mexico. Similarly, I liked how the cinematography, colors and editing were different according with the set up and the cities (special elements for Mexico, or the blue motif for some of the scenes). All together, the technical elements worked beautifully with the performances of the actors to give us a film worth watching.

Overall, Traffic is a fantastic movie, not only because of the story, its delicate theme and how it was made, but also because it manages to provide a realistic and sometimes shocking view over the drug war. That's probably why I liked it so much- because it told the story of drugs from all points of view: those who buy it, the users; those who sell it and produce it, the cartels; and those who try to stop it, the force. Traffic is a drama you should definitely see, if you haven't already.

Holy Motors [2012]

I've been struggling with this review for over a month, for several reasons: first of all, the film was a little complicated and, at times, unbelievable; second of all, I still find it hard to explain and understand the premises and meaning of the movie myself; third of all, all of that just put me off wanting to write it. But I really do have to, so this is my attempt (sorry if I screw it up).

Holy Motors is directed and written by Leos Carax, about...well, here's where things get complicated. The official synopsis on IMDb says: "From dawn to dusk, a few hours in the life of Monsieur Oscar, a shadowy character who journeys from one life to the next. He is, in turn, captain of industry, assassin, beggar, monster, family man..." I believe that it is about a man who gets payed to fulfill other people's dreams and wild imagination, living this fantasy for different period of times(5 minutes or a while night). Basically, that is what he does all day: running around Paris, whilst being driven by an older lady in a white limo, from job to job, doing crazy, unexpected and sometimes, confusing things.

Despite its madness and WTF factor, Holy Motors is definitely intriguing. You are fascinated by the crazy actions, and although, at some point, you might have the tendency to give up, it still keeps you asking questions: is that girl really his? who is Kylie Minogue's character and what does she mean to him? Is it all a dream? Who is the agency? and so many more like that. I won't even talk about the end, because it mean to spoil the film for you, but let's just say that it 1. Clarifies the name for me but 2. Confuses me even more on a more general level of the story. Again, wtf?

From a filmmaker's point of view, it was quite good. Interesting direction, to match its course of action, the score fitted it very well and special props to the make-up department for some of the scenes. Denis Lavant as the main character, Mr.Oscar, is fantastic and I am surprised he hasn't received more praise for his work, but then again, I also think Holy Motors, because of its originality, will, most likely, be left out of the awards season, so ultimately, it doesn't surprise me. Eva Mendez and Kylie Minogue play their parts to the T, but don't get overly excited, there's not too much going on for their characters, in terms of complexity or action.

I know a lot of people didn't have the patience or, better said, were not drawn into the story enough to stay focused or give a shit by the end of it, but for me, it was definitely interesting to watch and experience. I was outraged, shocked, confused, but ultimately, intrigued by it. I can't and won't say too much of it (because I don't want to and, as I said before, I can't)- you need to experience it yourself, but I believe you should give it a try when it comes to your cinemas or local DVD store. Curious to see what you think of it.

The Apartment [1960]

The Apartment is a 1960 romantic comedy written and directed by Billy Wilder. It tells the story of Baxter, a New York bachelor who often "rents" his apartment to his friends from the office, or better said, his bosses, out of courtesy, but also in hope of getting a promotion. His neighbors think he is a ladies man and is always partying, but they couldn't be farther from the truth, as Baxter is a sweet, rather naive, incapable of saying NO man.

Trouble and comedy arises when he finds out the woman he likes, Fran, the lady who runs the elevator at the office, is in a relationship with Sheldrake, the man responsible with promotions in the building, and, to make things worse, they are using his place to meet. After a quarrel between the two lovers in Baxter's apartment, she tries to kill herself, but the sweet young man comes in and saves the day, daring to do more and finally admit his feelings to her and to the older man.

As one would expect from a Billy Wilder script, it is funny, charming, full of misunderstandings, complications and hilarious situations. And although I haven't seen all of his movies, I still felt that it was too...Billy Wilder?!? His style is easy to recognise and this film frequently made me think "Hmm...I've seen/heard something like this before", plus the characters are very similar to the 50s comedies with Marilyn Monroe. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but it certainly wasn't refreshing or extremely interesting to watch (that being said, I also felt the movie went on a little too much, but maybe it was just me).

The casting was spot on, and I just adored the two leads, Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine. Lemmon portrays the sweet and naive man in a very charming, entertaining way, and Shirley MacLaine as Fran, the sweet, sexy, sultry, sassy, lovely woman operating the elevator, was the standout for me- maybe because I have never seen her before in an early days film, but I thought she was remarkable. One thing that was off for me was the resolving of the conflict between the two the end- it felt a little bit rushed, I felt like the transition and his change would have been done better and more fluidly, and the romantic aspect could have been more explored.

To conclude, I can say The apartment is a perfectly enjoyable and sweet Billy Wilder romantic comedy that you will like, but not particularly be impressed by. Still, it is worth a watch!

"Why can't I fall in love with a nice guy like you?"

Untouchable [2011]

During my intense film viewing at the beginning of this month, I had the pleasure of seeing a wonderful French movie called Untouchable. It tells the real story of two men from different social classes reunited by a lovely friendship, which forms when Driss, a young man from the wrong side of the tracks, gets a job as a caretaker at the house of Philippe, a quadriplegic. Directed and written by Oliver Nakache and Eric Toledano, Untouchable is a lovely story that deserves your attention and love.

The strength and beauty of the film lies in the quality of the script, which manages to mix an emotional story of hardship and problems with the funny interaction of two totally different men. Featuring funny and silly lines from Driss and sarcastic, sometimes moving retorts from Philippe, the two carry on their shoulders the weight of the movie, and they do it wonderfully, as their chemistry is palpable and very enjoyable to watch.

Driss is a young man who grew up in a family of too many kids, who is now trying to get away and find a job. He ends up being hired as a caretaker for mister Philippe, who sees something in him, although he isn't the obvious choice. Or maybe the old man just wanted a change of scenery, a breath of fresh air and honesty around him and Driss provided that. Whilst the young guy is crazy, spontaneous and says exactly what's on his mind, with no reservations, Philippe, having been brought up in another environment, is pretentious, taciturn and hard to please. But the interesting thing is that they complete each other, as corny as it sounds- they offer to each other what they can't have or do for themselves and that leads to a great friendship. The old man teaches the young one about art and music, offering him a nice roof to live under, and Driss pushes the quadriplegic man to live life more, to dare to do more, in spite of his incapacity.

The performances are great and deserve credit. the super funny Omar Sy who maintained the easygoing and cool aspect of the script and worked perfectly with Francois Cluzet, a great French actor who shined through his supposed illness and delivered a heartfelt performance. Other worthy mentions are Anne Le Ny as Yvonne, one of the helpers in the house and Audrey Fleurot as Magalie, the young, beautiful assistant that Driss has a crush on.

I don't usually watch a lot of foreign, or more specifically, French movies, but Untouchable is worth every penny spent and minutes wasted seeing it. Its warmth, funny lines and wonderful performances make this film an unmissable one- you should see it, it will brighten up your day and make you laugh multiple times.

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).

Moulin Rouge [2001]

Directed by Baz Luhrmann and written by him and Craig Pearce, Moulin Rouge is a love story set in Paris 1899, between a young writer and a courtesan. A young English man (Ewan McGregor) travels to Paris to find inspiration and, most importantly, love, and gets mixed up with a group of artists who are looking to put on a show in Moulin Rouge, so they recruit the talented writer and end up convincing the owner and investor (the Duke) to do the improvised Indian play. All this time, the main actress (Nicole Kidman) falls in love with Christian, behind the Duke's back, and the complications threaten to put in danger not only the show, but also the lives of the people involved.

I've been wanting to see this movie for a long time, after I've heard so many great things about it, so I guess I can say I had high expectations for it. Did it rise to the challenge? Not entirely, but it is a very interesting and entertaining film, able to capture the love and attention of people of all ages.

The most appealing factors of this film are obviously the visual and musical aspects. Firstly, the music, a mixture of orchestra, old school pieces and contemporary songs (bold choice, putting a Nirvana song in a cabaret show), definitely raised some eyebrows and I was a little taken aback by it, but got used to it by the middle of it. I loved the use of Your Song and the one she played on the rooftop, after she met Christian, but some songs were weirdly showcased- Like a virgin comes in mind, that was a strange scene.

Secondly, the visuals. I have to say, Baz Luhrman always knows how to put on a good show- Moulin Rouge is no exception and everything looks amazing. I absolutely love the sets and the costumes, I thought Kidman's entire wardrobe was just breathtaking, and the art direction was very good. One thing that put me off was some of the very quick camera action in some scenes, like the audition one or the beginning of the film- I almost got dizzy and it didn't help the movie overall- I understand where he was going, but he overreacted with it just a little, in my opinion. I did like his direction, especially what he did with the Tango scene- that was beautiful. Although at parts crazy, the audition part in Satine's room with the whole cast was very well executed and entertaining to watch- from the poetry reading and its following hilarious scene where he wants to read his poetry and she thinks it's sex what he is after, to the singing and dancing and improvising the story for the Duke.

As for the casting, it was great for the script, although I would have liked more recognizable faces, especially for roles like The Duke or the artists group. Moving on, Nicole Kidman played Satine's sexy, sultry part to the T and I admired everything about her, from the performance, to the singing, to her fantastic dresses. Ewan McGregor was the equivalent of charm and grace and did his part perfectly- I saw the love in his eyes, I believed his tears at the end and I rooted for him and his quest for love throughout the film. I also have to mention John Leguizamo, who played Toulouse-Lautrec- he is a great actor who deserves more credit, and he was very sweet in his role.

In the end, Moulin Rouge is a love story, a tragic one, but one that gives hope. Not the best musical or romantic movie I have ever seen, but a very good one that mostly deserves its praise.

Garden State [2004]

Written and directed by Zach Braff, Garden State is a weird, rather pretentious movie that failed to really impress me. Everything seemed too perfectly awkward and amazingly hipster, with a large dose of misunderstood melancholic state that absolutely didn't feel realistic, and not even a little bit adorable.

OK, maybe I'm being too harsh on it, let's go back to the beginning. Garden State tells the story of Andrew Largeman, a wannabe actor who is forced to return to his hometown in order to witness the burial of his mother. He then gets reacquainted with some old high school friends (Peter Sarsgaard being one of them) and meets a sweet, wacky girl, named Sam (Natalie Portman). It's basically a character development story; you may even called it a coming of age one, and usually I'm all up for it, because I love these kinds of scripts, but this was just....slightly unbearable. If I were the quitting type, I would have done it by minute 15, but I'm not, so I stayed until the end, and I don't regret it that much, since I did see a couple of scenes I liked. I understand and appreciate the fact that it is a personal story for Braff and that it is, in a way, autobiographical, but sometimes just didn't click for me.

From a filmmaking point of view, there's nothing particular to say about the direction or the cinematography- they didn't stand out, good or bad. As for the screenplay, as you might imagine, I'm not that positive about it. I understood where he was going with the story, with the idea of quitting drugs and finally experiencing life, but I thought most of the dialogue was a tad too clicheic, if that is a word, and even a little bit lame. Again, it was almost screaming from every letter and phrase, "look at me, I'm so awkward and melancholic and misunderstood, but underneath all that I'm such a cool, beautiful person". Now, I'm not applying this to the whole movie- I actually liked the screaming into abyss scene and the bath one between the two lovers (that was an honest, sweet moment); it actually started getting interesting in his last day in town, with the whole hunting for Large's present but overall, yeah, it didn't do it for me. I did love the soundtrack, that was definitely a strong point.

As for the acting, I won't dwell too much on it, but I will talk a bit about Natalie Portman's character. Most of time, I really didn't knew if I absolutely loved or hated her. Sometimes she would be sweet and caring, other times her forced wackiness would just completely put me off. I still don't how I feel about her. What did you think of her character?

In conclusion, if you want to watch Garden State, I suggest you don't. Please, just try something else: when's the last time you saw a 1950s movie? Or a musical? Just rent Beauty and the Beast, I 'm 100% sure you will like it more than this.

Gentlemen prefer blondes [1953]

On Sunday, I was lucky enough to attend a Timeout special free screening of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, a classic 1953 film starring the beautiful Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell, held to celebrate the release of a special 4 Monroe films in a BluRay box set (GPB, Seven Year itch, Some like it hot and How to marry a millionaire). Special guest: Suzie Kennedy, the famous starlet impersonator, but more about that later.

The film itself was very entertaining and light, and, as you would expect from a Monroe picture, it was sultry, flirtatious, quirky, funny and sweet. Howard Hawks directed, from a script by Charles Lederer, a film about two friends, Lorelei Lee (Monroe) and Dorothy Shaw (Russell) who travel to France, pursued by many admirers, including a private detective who was hired by Lorelei's fiancé's disapproving father to keep an eye on her, an Olympic team and a rich, sweet old man. The storyline was interesting, the quick developments helped move the film forward and give new sides to the character, and although the end might have been a little predictable, it was still very enjoyable. I loved the musical moments, especially Jane Russell's Olympic number by the pool and of course, the famous Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend scene near the end.

All sets and costumes were stunning- the ladies wardrobe was so beautiful, classic,but daring and very flattering- the red dresses in the beginning, the black jumpsuit at the pool, or the orange dress come in mind. The music, mostly orchestral, was upbeat and provided a perfect score for the lively action.

Casting wise, they did a great job for the two supporting male roles. Tommy Noonan as Gus Esmond Jr makes you smile as he is the loveable guy who is head over heels for Lorelai, and Elliott Reid as the Humphrey Bogart type for Ernie Malone provides a strong, masculine and worthy image as a man who changes his ways because of love. As for the two ladies, both were just perfect. Jane Russell kept us on our toes, giving a sharp, sarcastic, but kind performance of Dorothy, trying to be a good friend to Monroe's character, who, as usual, shined every time she was on screen. Talent, grace, sultriness, mixed with a touch of sweetness, naivety and a few facial expression to highlight them, and you have your Marilyn, in beautiful colours- you can't really stay away or hate her, even if you tried.

Gentlemen prefer blondes was a perfectly enjoyable movie for a lovely Sunday morning and I'm glad I got the chance to see it on the big screen.  

The screening was held at the Curzon Mayfair cinema, and although there was some problems with the bluray, overall I had a wonderful time and I'm also glad I got to see Suzie Kennedy, as well. Her job is, basically, to impersonate Marilyn Monroe at any kind of events she is invited to, be it a private party for Eva Longoria were she has to sing, or a TV commercial. We had a little Q&A and she talked to us about her life, how she got to do this and what she likes and dislikes about Marilyn; I must say I was a little bit impressed by her- she is a smart, beautiful girl (yes, she does look like Monroe).

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus [2009]

The 2009 movie, directed by Terry Gilliam and written by him and Charles McKeown, more famous for being Heath Ledger's last project than for its own credits, is a wild, magical and complex story, as you would normally expect from Terry Gilliam, the guy behind Fear&Loathing in Las Vegas and others. It tells the story of Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), an immortal man who, a long time ago, made a pact with the devil in exchange of never-ending time. Their relationship and their numerous deals stretch across centuries, even millenniums, and the devil is now back to collect his latest prize, the young daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), because one of their bets.

In present time, the doctor is trying to sell his show, his magic power, to a mostly uninterested crowd in London, with the help of Percy (Verne Troyer), his also immortal friend and Anton (Andrew Garfield), a young man who is in love with the third and most important person to the doctor, Valentina. Two days before collecting hour, a strange, mysterious man comes into their lives and changes everything, as he brings fortune, but also problems. I find it a little hard to properly explain the plot without giving too much away, so I'll just say it features a lot of weird twist and turns and characters, but with a rather expected and sweet ending.

One thing that I liked and appreciated about The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is the creativity, imagination or whatever you want to call the thing that made Terry and Charles to write such a story, with a particular world, that resembles Alice in Wonderland or Charlie and the chocolate factory, in some ways. I loved the way it was brought to life on screen, because visually, it was beautiful. The cinematography and art direction were very good and highlighted the sets and costumes even more. Terry Gillam certainly has a curious mind and I am looking forward to seeing what he will do next.

I'm not saying that everything is perfect- as much as I like the fact that he dares to do and show more than most, I think sometimes it was too much, especially story-wise. The level of craziness and the complexity of the script when it comes to Tony's intentions or the deal between Parnassus and the devil, are both taken over the top and so messy that they don't even make you want to understand. I do think some parts were overacted, although maybe that was the intention (Fear&Loathing in Las Vegas had the same slight problems, so I guess it's just a Gilliam trait).

Speaking of acting, the cast was good and I love the selection of actors, even Lily Cole, who I thought did a decent job, considering her previous experience. The veterans, Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits, were exceptional, and I have to give credit to Andrew Garfield, who certainly has charm and some comedic chops, although he wasn't perfect all the time. The three stars, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, who were added after Heath's tragic death, fitted well into the story and I liked the fact that each one tried to portray the part the way Heath would have- they all had or used some of the actor's regular gestures, mimic or posture. As for mister Ledger himself, what can I say? He was a fantastic actor who will be missed- his charisma and talent lighted the screen every time he was on it and he made the story come to life in a much more interesting, lively way.

Just like F&L in LV, I still don't know what to think about it- I don't hate it, I don't love it, but I do find it intriguing and the world they created and they way it was visually portrayed is appealing. If you liked the film mentioned before, then yeah, you can give this one a try, too.

Did you see The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus? What did you think of it?

American Psycho [2000]

(that's actually my DVD cover, not the original poster- I like it more)

[SPOILERS]

To celebrate the 4th of July, I decided to finally see American Psycho, a movie based on a great book by Bret Easton Ellis, directed and written by Mary Harron, about a man who leads a seemingly perfect life, but actually has a horrifying secret that makes his day to day routine much harder. Even before it started, I knew I was in for some crazy shit, since you can't avoid the online pictures of a wild Christian Bale.

He plays Patrick Bateman, a 27 year old who works in an advertising company and recently became a VP. At a first glance, nothing stands out. He has a great job, a group of friends around him (Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas), a girlfriend (Reese Witherspoon) and he affords going out and having fun every night in clubs and restaurants. But as things move along, you observe little details about him and his personality that make you reconsider.

Here is where you start analysing him, and honestly, my review will probably be that, since the character Bale portrays shines throughout this movie. One of the first things I noticed is the obsession with details, that most likely has to do with his need for power- you see it in his overreaction to business cards, or in his daily beauty routine. I think it's just a way of controlling a part of his life that he understands and has access to, unlike his nightly adventures that are beyond his control. When it does begin, his moments of rage don't last long- two or three quick swings, shots, in the most brutal and horrible way possible, and then he is done...back to his normal, restrained self.

This leads to a confession that explains a lot to us: he has no emotions, with the exception of greed and disgust, adding that"something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why". It's obvious by now that he is a serial killer and that he can't and won't stop.

He carefully plans his escapades and when his infatuation with Paul Allen (played by Jared Leto, who was, apparently, huge in the 90s) goes to the highest level, he deals with him the only way he knows, but this time, things don't go as planned and for the first time, the police are on to him. I found it funny that the detective (Williem Defoe), is the one who manages to get a normal reaction out of him, since Bateman starts acting erratically and making everyone suspicious.

The end is crazy and I was left wondering what just happened, especially when his lawyer says that he met with Allen twice in London- I kept asking myself, or my imaginary friends, what did he mean? Was it all in Patrick's imagination? It's obvious the guy didn't believe the wild phone call (btw, brains?), but.....Allen, alive in London? Overall, I liked the fact that it left the audience wanting more, it makes the film even more memorable, although I do wish I'd know what really happened. One of his last quotes describes his character, the story and the possible follow up perfectly: "My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others....my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing."

American Psycho is quick, irregular, with no emotions, just like Bateman's personality and behaviour. It's nicely made and it moulds around the character, as he is the star. There are some funny tibdits in the film, maybe intentionally put to relieve some of the tension. The classic "I have to return some videotapes", or his weird, but interesting obsession with music, since he talks and interprets lyrics and songs before having sex or, actually, before the craziness begins. I also have to mention the fact that Bale looked amazing in this film- very fit, beautiful skin, nice haircut (for that era), I think that guy would have made a fantastic Christian Grey nowadays.

Yes, American Psycho is a crazy movie, with a great character- development story and a fantastic performance by Bale that you definitely have to see.