Film Critic Wannabe

Film Critic Wannabe in Audio!

2006-01-23T16:29:00.000-08:00

If you know Spanish and enjoy my reviews, you can listen to them in this new blog.

Marcela and I have turned this into a podcast. Any ideas or comments?

Subscribe to our RSS feed:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/palomitas

That's it! Our new shows will be downloaded directly to your computer via iTunes or any other feed reader!

Good Bye and Good Luck

2005-12-27T15:07:00.000-08:00

Hello all. I have decided to stop writing in this blog. At least for a while.

I love movies and I love discussing them. I have also improved my written English. However, keeping two blogs and doing a PhD takes a lot of time and energy.

I will still be writing about movies in my Spanish blog (although I'll write about other issues as well). I also want to try talking about the movies I've seen instead of writing about them. I'll let you know if I start doing some podcasting or something like that.

Anyway, thanks for reading, everyone! See you at the movies!

C.R.A.Z.Y (2005) ●●

2005-12-04T11:43:00.000-08:00

I was trying to explain this movie to my wife and everything I said made it sound like a good movie. I think it is because the premise is interesting. If I describe the plot it really sounds like a movie you might want to see: a French Canadian teenager, in the 1970’s, deals with his homosexuality. His family loves him but it is hard for them to understand and respect his decisions and preferences.

However, the movie is long, pretentious, self-indulgent and, at best, mediocre. It is like a wannabe gay version of Amelie, without charming characters. There are so many clichés in this film. One example, the kids in this family: one brother is a nerd (he wears glasses of course), the second brother is a rebel (long hair and tattoos), another one is good at sports (he is blond), the fourth kid is the star of the film, and the fifth boy has no personality whatsoever and exists just so the movie can be called C.R.A.Z.Y instead of C.R.A.Z.

A note for the director: changing the hair styles of the actors doesn’t make your audience believe that the characters are older. You need to do more than that, for instance, have the actors play according to the age they are supposed to be. Look at the rebel brother: he behaves and looks the same from 1975 to 1981. He has been to prison and he has had a rough life and yet, he looks the same way he did when he was living at home with the rest of the family.

The one great exception is Michel Côté, who plays the father. He is such a great charismatic actor. He is totally believable as a guy who loves his son but cannot understand nor accept his homosexuality. He has always tried to be a good father and believes that he hasn’t succeeded. His character could have easily been turned into a caricature but he makes us care about him and his 2-Dimensional family.

Regarding the soundtrack, everyone talks about how great it is, which is true. But when the best thing people can say about a movie is that it has great music, it means that the story and the images are not as impressive, and you should buy the CD instead of the DVD.

So how come I disliked C.R.A.Z.Y and everyone else in Canada seems to love it? (It is Canada’s entry for the Oscars). I have two words: Political Correctness. Canadians are sending two messages by loving this movie: 1) they respect and accept gay people and 2) they love the Quebecois. I’m glad that these two statements are true. However, I wish the movie had been more interesting and less flashy. There is one awkward scene that works so well that I wish the whole film had kept that level of black humor/sadness. I won’t spoil it for you but it involves a phone call, a record, and some headphones. That is a great scene and I only wish director Jean-Marc Vallée had given us more of that stuff.

The Constant Gardener (2005) ●●●

2005-11-29T14:12:00.000-08:00

Suggestion for an alternative title: The Gods Must be Insane

The Constant Gardener is a thriller for adults. What I mean is that you won’t see a lot of action and the hero won’t do amazing stunts. What you’ll get is smart dialogue and powerful images.

The Constant Gardener is also a love story. It is the tale of two people that approach life in different ways. They love and respect each other. If only they had communicated better...

Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes), a British diplomat living in Africa is trying to find out who murdered his wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz). She was an activist who kept many things for herself. So when she is found dead, Justin starts to pick up some clues and begins to solve the puzzle. We also get flashbacks, in order to learn about their life as a couple.

The movie was directed by Fernando Meirelles, the Brazilian filmmaker who co-directed City of God (2002). Meirelles uses a hand held camera, lots of photography tricks and the same peculiar editing technique that made him famous. His films are never boring. Africa is full of saturated colors, London with Tessa is bright and London without Tessa is gray.

The screenplay is smart and you have to pay attention in order to understand what is going on. When Tessa died she was a mystery to her husband, and as he searches for her murderers, he is able to really know his wife.

I wish the movie had avoided a couple of sequences (the only two action scenes) because they are not really relevant to the plot and are only provided to produce some cheap thrills. However, these are minor details. The acting is great and Meirelles knows what he is doing.

English or Spanish?

2005-11-28T15:24:00.000-08:00

I would like to know if someone reading this blog does not speak Spanish. It seems to me that most of my readers are Spanish-speaking people that visit this blog because of the link that exists in my main blog (linoevguenilogía).

If there are people that read these reviews because they are in English (instead of in spite of), please let me know.

I'm considering writing reviews in my first language, but I first want to make sure who is reading this blog.

Prime (2005) ●●

2005-11-26T09:19:00.000-08:00

The problem with Prime is that it starts as the story of one of its characters, ends up being the story of another character, but should have been the story of a third one. The premise is simple: Uma Thurman plays Rafi, a 37 year-old divorcée who starts dating a 23 year-old named Dave (Bryan Greenberg). When she talks to her therapist (Meryl Streep) about her new relationship she lies about the guy’s age. A little bit later on the film, when Dave visits his family, we learn that he is the son of the Meryl Streep character.

The movie begins as the story of Rafi but half way through the film it is clear that Dave is the main character. However, the heart of this comedy is in the performance by Meryl Streep. Her character is in the worst situation since she’s is the one who realizes that Rafi is dating her son. Advised by a colleague, she keeps treating Rafi without telling her anything. Because of this, she gets to listen to many details about his son that she never wanted to learn.

I think there are two movies here: The one about the relationship between a middle-aged woman and a young guy, and the one about a therapist listening to sexual details of her son. I’m not sure I liked the way these stories were mixed.

The movie is too long and there is a very annoying character: Dave’s best friend. He gets all the so-called funny lines. What happens to him at the end is very predictable once we have seen his very first scene.

On the positive side, the three main performances are solid and believable. Some of the situations belong to a smarter movie, perhaps one made by Woody Allen. The influence of this filmmaker is so strong on the work of Prime’s writer/director Ben Young that his movie closes in pretty much the same way that Annie Hall did.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005) ●●●●

2005-11-15T12:14:00.000-08:00

In the 1950’s, US senator McCarthy destroyed many lives in the name of freedom. He would persecute anyone who had any link with communism. Even worse: he would chase anyone who was accused, without any evidence, of being a communist.

A group of TV journalists from CBS, headed by Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn), decided to report how, by claiming that he was concerned with the freedom of the United States, McCarthy was actually doing the opposite. And, paraphrasing Murrow, how can you declare that you will bring freedom to other nations when there is no freedom in your own?

The sad (and interesting) thing about this story is that it actually happened in the 1950’s but it sounds as if we were talking about current events. Murrow talks about how TV is distracting people from the important stories by telling them about the lives of the rich and famous and stuff like that. He recognizes that journalists and all media people have a strong commitment to the public.

It is hard to talk about this film and not get political. However, I will talk a little bit about the craft of it. This is George Clooney’s second film as a director (he also appears in it). He uses black and white photography and effectively recreates the atmosphere from the 1950’s. I wasn’t born in the 1950’s but I think he has done a good job because his footage matches the style of the real footage from those times. He uses real footage from Senator McCarthy, which is effective because we get to see how he behaved during those trials. In these scenes, the film has the same impact of a well-made documentary.

The performances are solid. I especially liked Strathairn, as Murrow and Ray Wise and Frank Langella who play a TV newscaster and the head of CBS, respectively. There is no room for melodrama in this film and we spend most of the movie watching this journalist delivering the news. Although I was a bit confused with all the characters at the beginning, Clooney allows us to know them little by little.

It is a well made film that will resonate in your head days after you’ve seen it.

Note: Regarding McCarthyism, there is a 1976 film starring Woody Allen called The Front that you might want to see. It is not awesome, but it is interesting. Many of the people involved in the film were actually blacklisted during the 1950’s.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) ●

2005-11-09T12:34:00.000-08:00

If you are the kind of person that believes that dog poop can be seen as art, then by all means you should go ahead and rent this film.

I am not a dumb guy; I have seen lots of movies and read some deep books. I know where the humor of this movie is coming from. At an intellectual level I understand the jokes, but they just don’t make me laugh.

Wes Anderson wants to populate his dumb story with lots of low-key humor. But this kind of humor is nothing compared to the elegance of Jacques Tati or the subtleties of the dialogue written by Alexander Payne or Jim Taylor (Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways). And I’ll give you an example from The Life Aquatic: the red hats. Everyone on the Belafonte ship is wearing one, even when they go to film festivals and wear tuxedos. Anderson thinks that just having everyone wearing a red hat is funny. But I’ll paraphrase Chuck Jones, a guy who knew about making people laugh: “the key for comedy is not to open a funny door, but to open a door funny.”

Don’t get me wrong, I love dumb stories when they are fun to watch. But I had no fun watching this one. I can picture the two writers, self-congratulating themselves for how smart they are (and believe me, they are smart, but they wrote crap this time). I appreciate how they destroy movie clichés (the dog, the single mother, the hero) and I understand how original this film is. But so what? By trying to be clever it became boring and unfunny.

Capote (2005) ●●●●

2005-11-03T14:52:00.000-08:00

Capote is one of those movies that become more enjoyable if you are already familiar with what is about to happen on the screen. This movie is based on a book, which is based on the life of Truman Capote at the time he was researching and writing a non-fiction novel called In Cold Blood. So, there you go. The more you know about Capote and his books and his friends and his friends’ books and some movies based on those books the more interested you might become in watching this film.

The nice thing about this movie is that it does not follow the biopic formula, which is basically this one: we meet a great man at the peek of his career and then flashback to his troubled childhood. We then get to see his teenage years, his first marriage, etc., until the day he dies. Capote only offers a few years in Capote’s life, but it is written in a way that allows us to understand a lot about this man’s past.

Everyone is saying that Philip Seymour Hoffman must get at least an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Capote. I agree. This actor has always been excellent. You might remember him from some small roles in movies such as Scent of a Woman, Boogie Nights, Happiness, Flawless, Punch Drunk Love, etc. He transforms himself in every one of these films and, even when the movies he is in are not that great (Flawless, for instance) his performance makes them watchable.

When the movie begins, Capote is already a recognized fiction writer. He decides to go to a small town where a family has been murdered. His idea is to write a non-fiction novel on how that small community is dealing with such a horrible crime. However, once he meets the murderers he realizes that they are not very different from him. He spends lots of time talking to one of them. He learns that this guy’s horrible childhood is something Capote can easily relate to. And yet, one guy became a murderer and the other one a writer.

Capote has money and some power and he can help these murderers to get better lawyers. However, he also wants to finish his non-fiction novel and, what better way of ending it than with the execution of the assassins?

I believe the screenplay is very well written. We get a very good idea of who Capote was: how he adored being adored, how he would even pay people to say nice things about him, how he loved being the center of attention at parties, how he was so selfish that he couldn’t even enjoy his best friend’s success.

This is one of those “slow” films. No one chases anyone, there is not a lot of suspense and the violence is handled with taste. Also, if English is not your first language, you might have some trouble understanding the dialogue from some of the characters (I did).

The Squid and the Whale (2005) ●●●●

2005-10-25T13:31:00.000-07:00

The first scene of this film tells us a lot about the rest of the story. A family is playing tennis. On one side of the court, we have the mother and the younger son. On the other side, the father is telling his older son to send the ball to his mom’s weak spot, so they can win.

One day, mom and dad talk to their children and explain that they will divorce: half the time the kids will live with mom and the other half with dad. The twelve-year-old kid would rather stay with his mom every day. The sixteen-year-old idolizes his dad so much that he is willing to follow him everywhere. Furthermore, he blames his mom for everything that went wrong with the marriage.

Both parents have PhDs in literature. The father is a University professor and a somewhat famous writer. However, it is not a coincidence that the marriage breaks up just when his last novel has been rejected and his wife’s work is getting published. The father, excellently played by Jeff Daniels, is the kind of person who thinks that you should only listen to people that have PhDs.

I’m making this movie sound too dramatic. However, it is one of those films that finds a balance between comedy and drama (like Sideways, although without the laugh-out-loud moments). It is a semi-autobiographical film from writer/director Noah Baumbach. He has set his story in 1986 (he was 16 that year, just like one of his characters). His father is a writer and his mom a film critic. His characters live in the same neighborhood where he grew up as a kid and, to make things more personal, he made Jeff Daniels wear his dad’s old clothes.

This is a very subtle movie. Most people will leave the theater thinking that the ending is not interesting enough. However, I think that Baumbach found a very elegant way to finish his film. Big personal changes happen little by little, especially when you are 16.

The key to this movie is that all the characters are believable. This has to do with two things: the well written screenplay and the great performances (Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Jesse Eisenberg, Owen Kline, etc.).

My only complaint has to do with one classic song that is played constantly throughout the film. It is such a famous song (from the 1970’s) that I can’t believe most people in that film had never heard of it. By the way, I love that song.

Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) ●●●

2005-10-11T17:53:00.000-07:00

You don’t need to have seen the previous short films that feature the adventures of Wallace and Gromit in order to enjoy their first feature film. However, I think that you’ll have more fun if you are familiar with their previous escapades.

Wallace is an inventor and Gromit is his dog and colleague. In this new adventure they are the owners of Anti-Pesto, a company that keeps rabbits away from people’s gardens. There is a big vegetable competition and everyone in town wants to make sure that their products are safe from bunnies. Wallace has conceived a machine that captures these rodents without hurting them. However, when it seems that Wallace and Gromit have everything under control, a Were-Rabbit makes its appearance. The monster enters people’s backyards and starts eating their vegetables. Without spoiling anything for you, I’ll just say that this is the greatest opponent that Wallace and Gromit have ever faced. Things get complicated because Victor Quartermaine, a guy who does not share W & G’s humane techniques for capturing rabbits, is trying to discredit the proprietors of Anti-Pesto by finding the Were-Rabbit first.

It is important to mention that it took five years to make this movie. The reason is that this film uses a technique called claymation. That is, Wallace and Gromit are dolls made out of clay and the film is constructed on a frame by frame basis. The directors have used computers to create some of the effects, but the film relies mostly on clay figurines.

The film creators are from England and therefore you should expect a very dry British humor in this film. You won’t laugh out loud very often but you’ll enjoy the ride. The movie is suitable for children, although I think that very small children will get bored and/or a little scared (that happened to a little girl sitting next to me). The more you know about movies the more you’ll enjoy this film since there are several references to classic films and also to popular movie clichés.

If you are planning to see an animation film this Halloween, forget about Corpse Bride and go to see Wallace, Gromit, and a bunch of bunnies.

Bananas (1971) ●●●

2005-10-07T16:09:00.000-07:00

Bananas is a film that I treasure for personal (but not technical) reasons. It is one of the first Woody Allen movies that I saw, when I was in my teens. I have seen this movie lots of times, perhaps fifteen, or maybe twenty. I pretty much know the dialogue by heart and I know which jokes work and which jokes don’t. I have seen this film with three or four people and also just by myself. Last night I saw it again.

This is Woody Allen’s second film (as a director). You can tell he’s new at this. He puts the camera in some awkward places and does lots of editing. The speech sometimes does not match the face and I am sure that some dialogue was added in post-production, once they saw there were some holes in the narrative.

It is kind of pointless to describe the story, since this is the kind of movie that mainly consists of a bunch of jokes tied in together by a thin plot. The main part of the movie takes place in San Marcos, a tiny and fictitious Latin-American country. Woody Allen’s character joins the rebels that want to overthrow Emilio Molina Vargas, the country’s dictator.

Allen himself has described his movies from the early 70’s as Tom and Jerry cartoons. He sacrifices plot and logic over a good joke. There’s lots of slapstick (physical) humor and there are lots of one-liners. I would say that half of the jokes work. When they don’t work it has to do with either bad timing or dated humor. You can see that his main influences are the silent clowns (especially Chaplin) and the Marx brothers (Woody also claims to be influenced by Bob Hope but I don’t know his films so I cannot comment on that).

If you want to learn about the films of Woody Allen, I think it is a good idea to start with this one. The film has many things that are now considered Allenesque: his obsession with sex, death and food; psychoanalysis; complicated relationships; Jewish jokes.

The movie is not “intellectual” at all, it is easy to follow. Do not expect a work of art though: the photography is uninteresting, the timing is far from perfect, the balance between visual and verbal humor is not the best. But it is an entertaining movie that I recommend to anyone that wants to be considered as a serious film buff.

Corpse Bride (2005) ●●

2005-10-03T15:39:00.000-07:00

Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride should actually be titled Tim Burton and Mike Johnson’s Corpse Bride. Mike who? You’ll say. Well, some guy that was an assistant animator in The Nightmare Before Christmas. I bet that he directed more of this film than Mr. Burton, who must have been very busy making Charlie but happy to lend his name to an animated motion picture.

The look of this movie is extremely Burtonian. The plot is not for kids but the music numbers are. Some skeletons dance the same way some other skeletons did back in 1929 in Disney’s first cartoon of the Silly Symphonies series: The Skeleton Dance.

There are a few movie references that will appeal to film enthusiasts (a little worm looks like Peter Lorre, for instance). However, there’s nothing really exciting about this film.

The story involves some weird love triangle in which not everyone implicated in it is still alive. Ten minutes before the end of this film I was honestly considering that the only way to give this story a happy ending was to come up with a ménage à trois.

Anyway, if you are a big Burton fan then go see this film. If not, wait for cable TV instead. They will be showing it in a couple of years.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) ●●●

2005-09-02T22:56:00.000-07:00

This movie has been in the top 1 position in the US for a couple of weeks. I think that it has been successful at the box office because teenagers want to see a funny movie about a virgin regardless that he is 40 years old and also because adults want to see a funny movie about a grown man, regardless that he is a virgin.

The story is very simple: Andy is 40 and a virgin, and when his coworkers learn that fact, they decide to come to the rescue. All of them give him some suggestions about how to deal with women. Following the “comedy is a man in trouble” rule, Andy’s path to losing his virginity will not be a simple one.

The movie, as American comedies often do, offers two different types of humor. The first type is based on human nature, on how people respond to other people or to awkward situations. The second type of humor that we can find in The 40-Year-Old Virgin is kind of wacky and cartoonish: the kind of humor that sacrifices logic over a joke. I love both types of humor, but I am normally disappointed when I see them together. Only very talented filmmakers are able to get them right simultaneously, and director Judd Apatow still has to learn from the masters.

Is the film funny? Yes, but it is uneven. I’d say 30% of the jokes worked for me. Steve Carell is a very funny guy, although I believe that he sometimes overplays his character, Andy. Catherine Keener provides a great performance, particularly in scenes when the movie’s humor does not defy logic.

The movie has some funny moments, but then again, some of the humor happens at the expense of logic and I’m not a big fun of that kind of storytelling.

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) ●●

2005-07-29T23:53:00.000-07:00

In one line: Happiness turned into a chick flick.

I really wanted to like Me and You and Everyone we Know. I actually really liked it for about 20 minutes. After that, I decided that the best thing that could happen was for me to enjoy a few moments of originality.

There is an early sequence that has to do with a gold fish. It is funny and touching. It makes you laugh and, at the same time, makes you think about how uncertain life is. This is a three minute sequence that would have made an award winning short film.

Unfortunately, the rest of this movie is not as appealing as that short story of the gold fish. This is one of those films with too many main characters whose stories intersect in one way or the other. If you thought that Crash relied on too many coincidences, wait until you see M&Y&EWK.

I guess that what I disliked the most about this film was the way characters reacted to things that were happening to them. All of them (children and adults) behaved like if they were female performance artists in their thirties. Maybe that is because the film’s writer/director/star is performance artist Miranda July.

This is her first film and her screenplay has some smart moments. I only wish she hadn’t relied on so many clichés and artsie stuff. Only after seeing this film did I understand how underrated Todd Solondz is: it is so hard to make an interesting film that is mainly based on touchy subjects (children and their sexuality, for instance).

As I said, this is July’s opera prima and I hope that she makes a tighter, less ambitious second film.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) ●●●

2005-07-27T10:35:00.000-07:00

Every time actor Johnny Depp and director Tim Burton get together they come up with an interesting movie. Their best effort to date is, in my opinion, Ed Wood.

Visually, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is perhaps Burton’s most interesting film. When it comes to the plot, however, it is a very standard movie that teaches children that the most important thing in the world is loving your family.

If you have read the book or seen the classic film from the early 70’s there won’t be many surprises. The only pure Burtonian moments have to do with Halloween (of course), teeth and candy.

Many things have been said about Depp’s performance. Several people have found some resemblance between his character, the eccentric Willy Wonka, and pop star Michael Jackson. Regardless of your opinion, you’ll agree with me that it is Depp’s performance the key for making this film interesting for humans older than 13 years of age.

My favorite scenes had to do with the Oompa Loompas. In the first film, they were played by several little people. In this new film, we get several digital replicas of one and only one actor (Deep Roy). Their songs are modern and playful. I guess you either love the Oompa Loompas or hate their guts.

I felt that both Freddie Highmore (Charlie) and David Kelly (Grandpa Joe) are underused. They are both talented actors but once we meet Willy Wonka, Charlie and his grandpa are relegated to secondary roles.

The movie might be too dark for small children. I recommend it for kids older than 8. But then again, I don’t have children and I don’t know how mature your children are. If you are an adult and a fan of Tim Burton or Johnny Depp, I believe you’ll have a nice time at the movies.

Layer Cake (2004) ●●●

2005-07-18T10:53:00.000-07:00

I’m afraid this review might arrive too late. Perhaps Layer Cake is not playing in a cinema near you anymore.

If you like The Sopranos, Goodfellas and Snatch, then here’s a movie for you. This is the story about a British guy (Daniel Craig) whose name we never get to know. He is a middle man in the drug dealing business. He is smart, cool and avoids showing off. However, one day, a guy that works for him steals lots of drugs (from some other criminals) claiming that the idea came from the guy whose name we don’t know. The life of the nameless guy becomes very messy.

Although I missed some of the dialogue because the British accent is hard for me to follow, the film is so visually creative that I was never bored. This is one of those movies with smart, charming criminals, dark humor and lots of violence.

My only complaint is that this movie has too many twists. Good guys look like bad guys and then like good guys again... you know what I mean.

As I said, if you like this type of films, I’m sure that you’ll enjoy watching Layer Cake.

War of the Worlds (2005) ●●●

2005-07-02T15:04:00.000-07:00

I’m giving War of the Worlds three stars (or dots or whatever) out of four because I went to the movies to see aliens killing people and that’s what I got.

This movie has great special effects and this is the only reason why you should see the film. The plot, however, is not original or interesting or slightly intelligent. I mean, aliens in this movie sometimes appear to be so smart and then they seem like the stupidest living creatures in this universe. And lots of things do not make sense. For instance, we learn that aliens want people’s blood, but sometimes they just shoot at people, disintegrating them instantly. So, what is it then?

Tom Cruise plays a divorced guy who does not communicate with his children like a nice father should. He has a young daughter and a rebellious teenage son. One weekend, when they are staying at his place, aliens start invading planet earth.

The movie has a great action sequence very early in the film and aliens are killing so many people that you wonder how Tom Cruise and his children will manage to survive. But then, you see, he is very smart and he is very lucky and aliens are kind of stupid when the plot requires them to be.

At the beginning, aliens are just disintegrating people and blowing up buildings. But then, sometimes, they send a robot with a big eye to search for people that might still be alive inside some houses. How come they were first killing everyone and then they are so careful, searching for human life.

Oh, and of course, while running away from these invaders from outer space, Tom Cruise somehow manages to spend some quality time with his kids and become a better father.

But as I said, I went to the movies to see aliens killing people. Some scenes from this film are really sad and terrifying... and I don’t mean “boo!” moments... I mean that this movie paints a fine picture of how this world would look like if it was attacked by creatures more advanced than us. I only wish it had gone a little darker and a lot smarter.

Le Goût des Autres (The Taste of Others, 2000) ●●●

2005-06-28T16:42:00.000-07:00

We judge people based on their taste. If a person you just met says that he is into wrestling, or she is into Reiki, or he is into classical music, you immediately form in your head an opinion about that person.

The Taste of Others is a French film that explores how people judge other people and put them in categories. For instance, there is this guy called Castella and he is one of those uneducated successful business people. He has an assistant that went to a very good university and Castella is always complaining about how the guy thinks he is so superior. At the same time, however, Castella’s English teacher thinks that her employer is a very ignorant person when it comes to arts (music, drama, and painting). All of these is sort of true, but although Castella has no formal knowledge about art, that doesn’t mean that he can’t enjoy a work of art, even if he is not able to explain why he likes it.

This movie was directed by Agnès Jaoui. She also plays one of the various characters that populate the film. The screenplay was written by Jaoui and Jean-Pierre Bacri, the guy that plays Castella. Both of them worked also in Comme un Image (Look at Me, 2004). In these two films, we feel like we are watching a documentary, in the sense that the dialogue and the performances seem so natural that you think that these people are real (once you see the two films that include these two actors in very different roles, you’ll acknowledge that they really can act). Everything is so natural and everyone behaves like people do in real life.

These movies are interesting because of the characters and not because of the plot. To be quite honest, nothing much happens during this film. But it is so interesting and refreshing to see people on the screen that actually conduct themselves like real people.

Note: The poster and DVD cover of this film try to fool people claiming that the film is a sexy comedy. Although there are some funny moments, I wouldn’t call this movie a comedy. And by no means would I call it sexy. It is however a film worth renting.

Sunset Blvd. (1950) ●●●●

2005-06-27T15:15:00.000-07:00

Joe Gillis (William Holden) is a screenplay writer that is not able to sell his scripts anymore. He can’t pay the rent or the monthly payments of his car so when he meets a former movie star from the silent era called Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), he agrees at first to become a ghost writer for a screenplay that will allow her to return to Hollywood. Little by little, Gillis, who narrates the film, becomes a lot more than just an employee of Mrs. Desmond.

Although Gillis is the main character, the more interesting and important one is Norma Desmond. Twenty years after sound was incorporated to films, she has been forgotten by her audience and also by Hollywood. She spends her days dreaming about the good old days, when she was young and films were silent. She has been daydreaming so much that she has gone... well... a little funny on the head if you know what I mean.

This film was made by Billy Wilder, a great director but an even better writer. Many lines from this and other films are amongst the most quoted dialogue in movie history. People usually remember his words more than his images, I think. Although, I must say that the shots of a couple of dead bodies in this film are among the most shocking images I’ve seen. There is no gore in them, but there is some sort of uneasiness to what we are seeing on the screen.

This is a very interesting movie because, besides telling a compelling story, most of the actors are playing a slightly distorted version of themselves. For instance, Gloria Swanson was in real life a long forgotten diva. There is a character that used to be a film director during the 1920’s and he is played by a guy who used to be exactly that. Cecil B. DeMille plays a friendlier version of himself and, some very famous silent stars that were basically unemployed at the time, have cameos playing themselves (including one of my idols, Buster Keaton).

The movie has a sad tone because we know that Desmond will never make a new picture and we also see how Gillis is prostituting himself (in several ways including the literal one). Billy Wilder is showing us Hollywood from the inside and it is not a pretty picture.

Of course, some of the stuff seems old. For instance, the music stresses every important dialogue and it sounds kind of dated.

This is a classic film. It is Hollywood at its best telling us a story about Hollywood at its worst.

Waking Life (2001) ●●

2005-06-18T23:17:00.000-07:00

Richard Linklater is a Texan filmmaker that usually makes interesting movies. My favorite two are Before Sunrise, and its sequel, Before Sunset. If you have seen these movies you’ll know that their appeal relies on their dialogue, mainly. Two smart characters ask each other a bunch of interesting questions and make lots of witty remarks.

Waking Life features a bunch of people that pretty much just talk. Sometimes they talk like normal people, sometimes they talk nonsense, and on some occasions, you listen to some ideas that can only come from idle academics.

Some of these conversations are very interesting, but others (half of them) are kind of pointless or boring. There is a main character, a guy that is having a lucid dream (i.e. he knows that he is dreaming) but he cannot wake up.

Since this film is “all a dream,” I kept thinking on the films made by Luis Buñuel in the 70’s. In Waking Life you get some odd characters giving speeches that sound interesting, but have nothing to do with the plot of the film (just like with those French films by Don Luis). It’s more like a private joke from the filmmaker than a scene to move the story forward.

The main thing about this film, however, is that it is animated. Linklater shot a movie with actors and digital video cameras. The whole live-action movie was edited. Later, a bunch of artists went frame by frame and, with some special software, they started drawing “on top” of the video. Since there were various artists, the style of the film is uneven. This works well, however, since we can enjoy different ways of expressing dream and reality.

Since I’m an engineer and I work with digital video, I had more fun watching a tutorial from the DVD, where the guy that created this software explains how to use it.

This movie is not for everyone. I recommend that, if you decide to see it, you choose a day when you are not too tired. It is an animated film, alright, but like any “typical” Linklater movie, it is dialogue-driven.

Batman Begins (2005) ●●●

2005-06-17T16:45:00.000-07:00

Yes, Batman Begins is better than any other previous film that features a guy in a bat suit. Yes, Christian Bale is probably the best Batman to date. Yes, Christopher Nolan is a young talented director (he made Memento, Insomnia and another one word-titled film I haven't seen). Yes, it is darker and entertaining.

But it is also a movie based on a comic book about a superhero.

So we should see the movie as a popcorn flick. We should not look for anything deep or a lesson or something. So, as superhero movies go, I say this is the second best I’ve seen. The best one is Spiderman 2. I’m not counting The Incredibles (if I did, then it would be the best one).

There is nothing missing from Batman Begins. You get an interesting superhero with very human problems, you get a few tough villains, and you also get a nice looking girl that needs to be rescued.

The things I didn’t like are sort of minor. For instance, when Bruce Wayne is in a foreign country, everyone speaks English. How convenient. When a nice cop played by Gary Oldman gets to use the Batmobile, he goes “yes!” like if he were a little kid.

Overall the movie is entertaining and interesting to look at. Gotham city looks cool. Michael Cane plays Alfred, Liam Neeson plays Wayne’s mentor, and Morgan Freeman plays... well, the character he always plays.

Madagascar (2005) ●●

2005-06-13T13:29:00.000-07:00

There’s a Disney cartoon from 1954 called Social Lion that features a lion that takes a walk on the big city, and people don't seem to notice him. I don’t remember the story very well, but I know that the animators from Madagascar know it by heart. The main idea for the story, as well as the retro-look of their new film has a strong influence from this Disney short film.

Maybe because of this, I started thinking that this film should have been a Disney film. Also, the film works best when it is sweet and naive as opposed to when it tries to be cynical (like his older brother, Shrek).

I enjoyed the first half of this film. There was nothing new in it, but it was amusing. However, once the main characters get to Madagascar, the story becomes kind of boring and pointless. Pretty much nothing interesting happens there.

I also didn’t like the message of the film, which is that you shouldn’t eat cute animals, but it is OK to eat the ugly-looking ones.

This film is not as bad as Shark Tale, but it is nowhere near Shrek, Finding Nemo or The Incredibles.

Cinderella Man (2005) ●●

2005-06-08T16:15:00.000-07:00

This is a well made but forgettable film. Ron Howard has directed some nice Hollywood films in recent years (some examples: Parenthood, Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind). His films are usually big budget productions that tell entertaining but predictable stories.

The main contributors (director, actor, producer and writer) of A Beautiful Mind are back for Cinderella Man, the story of Jim Braddock, a so-so American boxer that became poor during the depression and, when boxing offered him a second chance, he became a better and more popular fighter.

This movie is based on a true story, but many real events have been twisted so that we get a more inspiring and exciting story. This time we believe Russell Crowe as a boxer. I’m saying this because one of my complaints about A Beautiful Mind is that Crowe’s arms are too strong for a geeky math professor.

Anyway, this movie offers nothing new in terms of storytelling. The performances are all good and I’m guessing Paul Giamatti will be nominated as Best Supporting Actor since his performance in Sideways was forgotten by the Academy.

This movie is OK for one of those Sunday evenings when you have nothing better to do. You won’t be bored but you won’t care about the movie you saw once you get back home.

La Niña Santa (The Holy Girl, 2004) ●●●

2005-06-07T14:11:00.000-07:00

In one line: A good example of tantric cinema.

La Niña Santa is the latest film by Argentinian filmmaker Lucrecia Martel. I haven’t seen any of her previous work, but I know that La Ciénega became a popular choice in the art house circuit.

The movie has three main characters: Amalia, a teenager that prays all the time; Amalia’s mom, Helena, who runs a hotel in a small Argentinian city; Dr. Jano, one of several physicians attending a conference at that same hotel.

The movie has a very slow first half. I must admit that I got a bit bored because the story didn’t seem to go anywhere. However, during the second half of this film most of the subplots that seemed to go nowhere became interconnected. By the end of this film we have gotten to know the characters, we care about them and we are interested in their future.

I liked all of the performances. The main actors, as well as the people with smaller roles, portray convincing characters. The story evolves logically and we believe everything that happens in it.

I don’t understand however why was the girl attending some sort of religious summer school and why was she so religious if her mom seemed like she didn’t care about that subject at all.

Note: The movie has been produced by Pedro Almodóvar but don’t expect to see an Almodóvar type of film.

Lakposhtha hâm parvaz mikonand (Turtles Can Fly, 2004) ●●●

2005-06-03T16:23:00.000-07:00

Satellite is the nickname of a smart Kurd teenager that lives in Iraq, right on the border with Turkey. He is the leader of dozens of orphan children that make a living by disarming land mines and selling them to other people. For obvious reasons, his best friend uses crutches and there’s also another kid that everyone calls “The Boy With No Arms.”

Their story begins two weeks before the U.S. invades Iraq and is told mainly through the eyes of some of these children.

I won’t discuss the plot. Instead, I’ll let you know that this is not a political film. The lesson one can learn from this story is that war is horrible and that there’s lots of children out there suffering. This is a sad film.

The movie is close to cinema verité in the sense that, although there is a script and people are acting, we are certain that many of these things must have really happened to the young performers. There are no special effects when we see The Boy With No Arms, for instance (this is not a Robert Zemeckis film).

It is important to notice that not one of these kids is a professional actor (this is their first and only film to date). However, some performances are very strong (like that Satellite kid).

There are two things that I didn’t like. One of them is a subplot that involves a kid that can predict the future. The content of this film is so powerful that having this kid with supernatural powers is just a distraction. The other thing I would have left out of the movie is a flashback: we see soldiers attacking a village and raping a young girl. We already know the girl was raped, since she has a baby that she hates. I don’t think it was necessary to see this particular scene (to be fair, it is handled with elegance and it is perhaps the most expensive scene of this movie).

I recommend this film to anyone older than, say, thirteen. It is important to be aware that we live in a world with lots of pain and suffering. Acknowledging that is a first step towards a solution.

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2004) ●●

2005-06-01T15:00:00.000-07:00

The problem with Peter Sellers is that he wasn’t Chaplin.

Both men were British, both men became rich because they had a gift for comedy, both of them got married on several occasions and both of them were lousy parents. Yet, we can enjoy a movie about Chaplin because, despite the fact that he wasn’t the nicest man that we’ve met, he was a genius: he was an extremely talented performer, and he was one of the most creative filmmakers the world has ever known... the guy even wrote the music for his films. Peter Sellers was just a very funny man (kind of a Mike Myers of the 1950’s).

So when I was watching The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, a film that premiered at Cannes last year and then went straight to cable TV, I kept thinking about Chaplin and about how great he was.

Peter Sellers was a radio personality that in the late 50’s started a career in film. Most people remember him as Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther series. I think of him as Quilty from Lolita and as three different characters in Dr. Strangelove (both of these films directed by Kubrick). Peter Sellers made a few great movies but he also made a lot of crap.

As soon as he got famous, he forgot about his wife and children and started living la vida loca.

He was so good at inventing characters for his films that he would be playing them all the time. He used to say that he kept doing that because he didn’t have a personality of his own.

Anyway, the film is your basic biopic: you meet Sellers before he got famous, you see how he became popular, you see how he was an asshole to his wives and children, you discover that Sellers believed in fortune-tellers and started using drugs, you see how he argued with directors Blake Edwards and Stanley Kubrick, and you learn how, deep inside, this great comedian was a very sad and lonely man.

Geoffrey Rush, who got an Oscar from his performance in Shine, plays Peter Sellers. He is great at being Sellers. Actually, he is not only Sellers: he plays many of the characters that were made famous by the British actor and he also plays Peter Seller’s version of the people that were close to him.

If you are a fan of Peter Sellers (or Geoffrey Rush), then you should rent this DVD. If you don’t know who Sellers was (e.g., you think The Pink Panther is just a cartoon) then rent some movies with him instead of this movie about him.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) ●●●

2005-05-31T00:28:00.000-07:00

Film critics have pointed out on several occasions that George Lucas borrowed from western and samurai films and gave his Star Wars movies a science fiction twist. However, as I was watching the third Star Wars episode (and sixth film of the series) I finally realized which issue is Lucas’ strongest influence: Mexican politics.

If you study the plot of The Revenge of the Sith, you’ll quickly realize that it resembles many episodes from the history of my home country. Some guy and his clique are ruling a nation (or planet or galaxy or whatever), but one of the members of this group wants to obtain more power and therefore betrays the people around him and joins an opposing force. This guy fights and succeeds, becoming a ruthless dictator.

I have always admired the first Star Wars film (Episode IV). It tells a straight and moving story that encompasses all the elements of a good western. There are several special effects but they do not distract from the plot. We are interested to learn about Luke Skywalker, Obi Wan Kenobi, and one of the greatest villains of movie history: Lord Vader.

The last three movies (Episodes I-III) however, have stories that are set on auto-pilot. We are amazed by the state of the art special effects but, in terms of a story, we can sense that many things just happen so that we can have some fancy battles and several lightsaber fights.

The dialogue of this movie sucks. English is not my first language but I can express my ideas better than Anakin and his wife. And how come no one knows at first that they are married and that Anakin is the father of Padmé’s babies? I mean, if they live together and the girl is pregnant, isn’t it likely that her roommate is the one responsible for that?

I must admit that I was happy to see Chewbacca again. Yoda used to be a wise old guy but, since Episode II, he has been behaving more like Mr. Miyagi and less as a Jedi Master. I would have liked to see more of Darth Vader who, by the way, reminded me of Frankenstein’s monster.

The best sequences from this film take place in the final hour, when we begin to understand how Anakin Skywalker decided to follow the dark side. The movie becomes darker than any other Star Wars film (although I must admit that I don’t have Episode V very fresh in my mind). I’m glad that George Lucas didn’t modify the film to get a PG rating.

The movie looks wonderful. You can download this movie from the internet and watch it at home for free, but that’s a stupid thing to do, since this is the kind of film that is tailored for a huge screen and lots of speakers (oh, and downloading content that is copyrighted is illegal by the way). I saw this film in a big movie theater and was able to appreciate all those magnificent computer generated worlds.

If you are a fan of the Star Wars films, then of course, this movie is a must-see. If you are like me (someone who enjoys the visuals but doesn’t think much of the plot), I still recommend that you give this film a chance.

I Soliti ignoti (Big Deal on Madonna Street, 1958) ●●●

2005-05-26T16:26:00.000-07:00

I rented this movie on DVD last night. It features Vittorio Gassman, Marcello Mastrioanni and a bunch of other fine Italian actors unknown to me. Claudia Cardinale has a small role as well.

The movie is a comedy classic. It looks like early Fellini (I Vitelloni came to my mind). The story is very simple and it is narrated in straightforward fashion. Some guys from a poor neighborhood get together to plan a break-in. There is a pawnshop with a juicy safe box and, next to the shop there’s an apartment building. The apartment that is next to the pawnshop is empty, so entering the apartment in the middle of the night and making a hole on the wall should be a piece of cake.

However, things are not that simple. For instance, the apartment is not empty at all. Besides, some other guy also wants to steal the safe box, one of the thieves falls in love with the sister of one of his colleagues, and another guy has to take care of his baby because his wife has gone to jail...

The actors are all wonderful. Dialogue in Italian makes this movie funnier, since it is a language made for arguing. There’s also a jazzy soundtrack that makes the film more entertaining (Alexander Payne has acknowledge that the soundtrack from Sideways is highly influenced by the jazz music from this classic Italian film).

If Roberto Benigni is the only guy you can think of when it comes to Italian comedies, I recommend that you see this film. It is funny, sweet and easy to follow. You won’t be disappointed. It comes from a time when a good screenplay was more valued than special effects.

Crash (2004) ●●●

2005-05-24T00:50:00.000-07:00

In one line: Amores Perros meets Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

Crash is the first movie directed by Paul Haggis, a Canadian that also wrote the screenplay for Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby.

This movie has been compared to some films by Robert Altman and P.T. Anderson. However, I was constantly thinking of Amores Perros and 21 Grams. These two movies were directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu and written by Cannes-winner Guillermo Arriaga (both of them Mexican). Crash shares some ideas with these two movies: several characters from different backgrounds meet because of car accidents.

However, one element that dominates Crash is that of racism. People are racist because they are ignorant. When you stereotype one ethnic group, it means that you don't know much about them. I know many Iranian people, for instance, and every one of them is different. But for someone that doesn't know anything about Persians, they think of them as Arabs. This is just one example.

Crash shows people of many ethnic backgrounds: WASPs, Mexicans, African American, Asian, Persian, etc. Each one of these people has prejudices against other people. It is refreshing to listen to dialogue that could be consider politically incorrect.

I liked the movie. It is never boring. I think all of the performances are very strong. However, it goes kind of soft sometimes... After all, this is a Hollywood movie. The music makes the dramatic scenes a bit cheesy, and there are so many coincidences that you almost think that L.A. has a population of 30 citizens.

The movie has a Christmas theme, so I'm guessing that it was originally scheduled to be released on December 2004.

Palindromes (2004) ●●●

2005-05-20T16:50:00.000-07:00

If you think you’re open minded and can see a movie about any subject and not be affected by it, then you should take the Palindromes challenge.

This is the new movie by Todd Solondz. It is about Aviva, a young girl that wants to have a baby. When she becomes pregnant, her parents take her to the doctor and suggest that she thinks of her baby as if it were a little tumor. This is only the beginning of the film. Aviva decides to run away from home and she meets new people along the way: a truck driver, a dancing doctor and a Christian couple that has adopted several disabled children.

The movie, like the previous films by Solondz, is a mixture of drama and extreme dark humor. Todd Solondz is a gifted writer and he knows how to use words to the benefit of both the story and the dark jokes. Think for instance of how Aviva’s mother talks about little Henry or how Mama Sunshine describes a little girl that ran away from her home.

Similar to what Alexander Payne did with Citizen Ruth, Solondz ridicules both pro-life and pro-choice people. Of course, once you’ve seen “Palindromes” you’ll think of Payne’s first feature film as light entertainment.

The message of Palindromes is that nobody changes. It doesn’t matter if you grow older or if you lose some weight, you’ll be pretty much the same person. If you are bitter and insecure, you’ll still be bitter and insecure even if you become a millionaire.

In his latest film, Solondz gives us another child molester with some redeeming qualities. The pederast from happiness was a good father but the guy from Palindromes seems more like a stupid Humbert Humbert.

Aviva, the main character is played by five girls, two adult women and one boy. This idea is similar to the one used by Luis Buñuel in “Cet obscur objet du désir.” By using several actors for one character, Solondz does not allow the audience to identify with the girl, but at the same time he is showing us that she could be anyone.

Did I like the film? Yes, I did. Although I think I prefer the previous films by Todd Solondz.

As I was watching the film I kept thinking on how was it possible for the filmmaker to gather all these disabled children and get them to sing songs about abortion and the love of Jesus Christ (a very funny sequence, I must admit). These kids must have very open minded parents. I’d love to see a documentary about the casting of this film.

Million Dollar Baby (2004) ●●●

2005-05-19T15:23:00.000-07:00

Woody Allen is often criticized for always playing the same character. I think the same thing should be said about Clint Eastwood. He always plays a tough guy with some deep emotional wound. I guess the main problem I have with Million Dollar Baby is that I don't see Eastwood as a boxing coach, but as the character from his previous films.

The film follows the formula that Hollywood studios use for every sports movie, except for the final half hour or so. And I guess that's why people think this is a great film. It's like Casablanca... It is a classic because Bogart doesn't get the girl at the end of the film. But think of all the clichés: Eastwood is at the end of his career as a trainer and he doesn't want to take risks, so his best boxer leaves him and this girl appears. Of course he doesn't want to train her, but little by little they become friends. All that stuff belongs to sport movies 101. The last half hour, granted, is new material.

Eastwood and Morgan Freeman are very good in this movie, but the best performance is by Hillary Swank. You believe her as a waitress/boxer and you identify with her.

Not every character is 3D, some are just cartoon versions of real people: the white trash family, and that "Danger" kid come to mind.

Overall, it is a film worth seeing. It is straightforward and elegantly shot.

Sideways (2004) ●●●●

2004-11-08T21:44:00.000-08:00

Sideways is the newest movie from Alexander Payne. With just a few films, Payne has become one of my favorite filmmakers. His movies are the kind of movies that I would like to, one day, be able to create. He makes films that are hard to label in a single genre. They are funny, they are sad, they are deep and they are shallow. The best way to describe them is that they are careful human observations.

Sideways has lots of similarities to About Schmidt, Payne's previous effort. The tone is kind of similar. The main character feels insignificant to this world as well. He feels that he has not achieved anything interesting and that his life hasn't meant anything to anyone. The key difference between the two films, perhaps, is that Sideways tells a more optimistic story. Of course, the "hero" here is middle aged and Schmidt was an old man.

Payne is the best when it comes to portraying ordinary American life. People look and talk like everyday people. The characters are smart and they do not do stupid things just to make the plot more interesting. One example: one of the characters is cheating on his fiancee and she's calling his cell phone, which he left in the hotel room where he was supposedly staying. His buddy listens to the phone, wakes up and sees that the message is from his friend's fiancee. If he picks up the phone then his friend will be in trouble. So he doesn't answer the cell phone. Then the regular phone starts ringing and everyone knows that it is the fiancee trying again. So he doesn't answer. When his friend arrives he tells him that he should check his messages. This is the way people behave in real life. In a stupid movie, for instance, the friend would have answered the phone and then he would have come with a terrible excuse and something "hilarious" might have happened later.

The movie has a couple of moments that made me laugh out loud. If you haven't seen the trailer my advise is that you skip it until you see the film because they give some of the stuff away.

If you liked About Schmidt, then you'll love this film. If you hated About Schmidt, well, then I feel sorry for you because you lack good taste.

Die Geschichte vom weinenden Kamel (The Story of the Weeping Camel, 2003) ●●

2004-10-25T01:17:00.000-07:00

I know that if I say I was bored by a movie about nomads and camels I'm going to sound like one of those ignorant movie goers that are so used to Hollywood formulas that they cannot understand a slow quiet film like "The Story of the Weeping Camel." I know, I know. But I was bored. The story is extremely simple (spoilers!, spoilers!) : A baby camel is born and his mother doesn't want to feed him. The camel's owners want the little camel to live so they send two of their three kids to the "big city" so they can find a violinist. The violinist plays his instrument and the mother camel is moved to the point of tears. After that, she decides to feed her baby. Everyone is happy.

The movie is not a documentary, but it is kind of close. It is, I guess, cinema verite. People and animals are playing themselves. The people in the movie really own those camels and they really face problems such as having hungry baby camels.

To be fair, the movie is not sentimental. It looks at everyone from a distance. So it is not like a Disney film, where they use music or words to make us feel identified with the baby camel. Of course, the baby camel is really cute. Every single animal baby is cute. Not the same can be said about human babies, though.

If you enjoy quiet films about nomads and animals, this one is for you. If you are not that sophisticated or adventurous (this is my case), then you better rent "The Emperor's New Groove."

Vera Drake (2004) ●●●●

2004-10-25T01:16:00.000-07:00

This is a movie where the director takes his time. Although there is an interesting plot, Mike Leigh is also interested in developing every character. So, besides Vera Drake, we get to know her family (husband, son, daughter), other relatives, some of her neighbors, some rich people that are somehow connected to Vera's life, a few doctors as well as people from the police department. Some of these characters are key to the plot, but some of them just give the story a stronger resonance. Leigh knows what he is doing.

Although the story deals with abortion, I don't think that it is too political. If there is a message regarding this issue, I think that it doesn't have to do with ethics or morals. The movie shows that abortions will take place regardless if they are legal of not. When they are legal they are performed by doctors. When they are illegal, they are performed by people like Vera Drake.

Vera Drake truly believes that she is helping people, although she knows that it is illegal. There is this other lady that sees an opportunity for making a profit. There are girls that have been raped, but there are girls that are pregnant because they didn't practice safe sex and they want to keep having fun.

Anyway, the movie shows all of this but it also shows how a hard working family lived in England, after WWII. We see how much tea they drank and how they enjoyed life. The performances are strong, all of them. I'm sure that there will be a couple of Oscar nominations here.

If you want to see a good movie, one that involves you in the story and makes you care about the characters (even if you don't agree with what they do), then go and see "Vera Drake."

I ♥ Huckabees (2004) ●●

2004-10-23T11:18:00.000-07:00

I've seen two out of the three previous films by David O. Russell: "Flirting with Disaster" and "Three Kings." I enjoyed them both. I particularly understood "Three Kings" better once I heard O. Rusell's comments on the DVD. Well, I think that I need to do the same in order to fully appreciate "Huckabees."

The idea is awesome. It has to do with the question "Is everything connected somehow or is this universe total chaos?" The answer, without spoiling anything, is who knows. There are some moments in our lives when stuff happens and we cannot believe that this is pure randomness. Sometimes we believe that things are happening for a reason and things like that.

Other times we sense so much suffering and pain but we also realize that everything will end soon. For us and for everybody.

The genius of O. Russell is to combine these "deep" ideas with everyday people and situations. However, things become weird later in the film and I think that is the problem. You see, when a fireman is outside his house and looking at a map of the universe and wondering about deep stuff, that works wonderfully. But when people are covering their faces and legs with mud and then having sex... Well, that is kinda shocking and entertaining even, but by no means funny. The first half of the movie is better than the rest. Asking questions is funnier than getting answers.

There is a nice scene where two of the main characters are having dinner with a Christian family. That is a great funny scene. But then, there's all that mud...

Goodfellas (1990) ●●●●

2004-10-20T17:42:00.000-07:00

My second favorite Martin Scorsese film, although it is probably his best. The new two-DVD edition looks great, but I was kind of disappointed when I heard the commentary track by Scorsese et al. This movie has so many interesting tricks (great long shots that involve both a crane and a steadycam, interesting editing, superb acting, non chronological narrative) that I thought the audio track was going to be very interesting. The person that makes the best comments is the writer of the novel.

Anyway, the movie is great. It is not deep, but it is so interesting. Pesci steals the show but De Niro, Liotta and Braco are great in their roles. The music, again, is awesome. Most people praise one of the last sequences... The one where Ray Liotta is being followed by a helicopter, has to sell some guns, get some drugs, pick up his brother, cook dinner. It is a very interesting sequence, but there are lots of great moments, really. The beginning, for instance, with the guy in the trunk still alive.

If you haven't seen the movie, you are missing one of the greatest films of the 90's.

Catch-22 (1970) ●●

2004-10-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

There are two things that I found very interesting about the film Catch-22: 1) How much I look like Alan Arkin circa 1970 (watch this sequence if you want to see it for yourselves... We look alike only when the camera is looking up, though) and 2) what a bad movie this is despite an excellent cast and a good director with the best intentions.

After I heard Mike Nichols' conversation with Steven Soderbergh included on the DVD I was able to appreciate what a big effort it was to make Catch-22. They spent six months shooting in Guaymas, Mexico and then they also shot some scenes in Italy. There were no digital effects back then, so every time we see a plane in the sky it is a real plane. The movie consists basically of several master takes, which means that Nichols was not editing a lot and therefore, if an actor (or a prop or a plane) was not in the right position, they had to cut and start from the beginning, returning the planes to the original position, the actors back to their original places, etc. Watch the movie and you'll see why it took them that long to shoot.

However, the problems are the screenplay and the tone of the film. I just read the book by Joseph Heller and I know that it is impossible to project it into a 2 hour film. But, in my opinion, the idea of having a circular time structure in the film is not done as successfully as it is in the book. If I hadn't read the book I wouldn't know what the hell was going on (when did this happen?, is this a dream?, who is that person?). The book has so many memorable sequences and I believe that the film does not take advantage of some of the best ones. One of the best things about the book was the atheism of the main character, Yossarian. His fear of dying is not properly reflected in the film.

And regarding the tone, I know that Nichols can produce some funny comedies (The Graduate and The Birdcage come to mind). He knows about timing better than most people. However, I don't think that he went for the right tone during this movie. Yossarian screams more than he should and things do not appear as both absurd and logic as they do in the novel.

I'm glad I saw the film, but I won't recommend it if you haven't read the book. It is impossible to follow this movie if you don't know the story before hand.

Shark Tale (2004) ●●

2004-10-04T11:47:00.000-07:00

What a waste of talent. You have at your service the voices of one of the best filmmakers of all times and one of the best actors in the US and you end up with Shark Tale? The idea is wonderful, and you can see how it could have developed by watching the trailer ("What what?"). If you are doing an animated movie about the Mafia and you have the director of "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas" working for you, why don't you reference his films during your animated feature? Imagine the sharks entering the restaurant on "a single take," going through the kitchen and then having a new table set on the best place, just for them. Nah. Nothing like that. Instead, the movie makes Oscar (Will Smith) the main character. The movie has more to do with R & B people (or whatever you call them) than with the organized crime. Perhaps they know that the soundtrack is more popular having all these singers I never listen to adding songs to the movie than if they had, I don't know, Frank Sinatra and the rest of the Rat Pack.

The movie goes from one cliche to the next. The plot is way too predictable and the jokes are very very lame. And the worst part is all the possibilities they had for developing a greater, more adult animated comedy, and didn't know how to handle it.

Shrek is the best computer animated movie that has been made to date. It is my favorite film of 2001, and maybe, one of my top 10 films of all time even (I have to make the list first). I know Dream Works has the talent to make great films, they just don't want to because people go and watch their movies anyway. All I can say, again, is: What a waist of talent!

La vida que te espera (2004) ●●●

2004-09-30T01:18:00.000-07:00

VIFF

Last night I saw this film from Spain. The main characters belong to a family of peasants: A father and his two daughters. One day a crazy old man captures the oldest daughter and locks her in his barn. When the father finds her, the crazy guy starts attacking him and the next scene we see is that of the crazy guy's funeral. Nobody within their small community knows who killed him, but the daughter thinks that they should tell the truth to the police. To make this movie more interesting, the son of the crazy dead guy arrives to this idyllic place and the older daughter falls in love with him. This is just the first half hour of the movie.

I liked all of the performances. The father (called Juan Diego in real life) was great, and so were the two lovers (Luis Tosar and Marta Etura). But my favorite actress was the youngest daughter played by Clara Lago. She is a very charming smart young actress.

What I didn't like was some of the plot elements. First, the love scene. I don't know if in real life there is people that behave like this and make love inside a barn. I think that this romantic side of the story could have benefited from a less passionate approach. I guess they wrote this scene just to have international audiences thinking how much passion Spaniards have. I dunno.

And, of course, near the end. One of the characters does this very stupid thing, that everyone knows it is a very stupid thing. When people have been acting smart during the whole movie and suddenly they turn into idiots, I lose interest in a film.

Anyways, the story is interesting, although the first act is the best moment of the film. The photography is well done and, again, great acting.

Moolaadé (2004) ●●●●

2004-09-25T22:30:00.000-07:00

VIFF

Many people complaint about how western civilization has turned people into selfish beings that only want to fulfill their material dreams. They want it all and they want it now. People from non-western culture, according to these western haters, are more spiritual and have a higher respect for life and earth. Well guess what. Here's a movie from Senegal to prove the wrong.

Moolaadé is set on a small village in Senegal. They have only heard about western civilization through their radios. There's no electricity so they have to buy batteries from a guy that gets stuff form the city an overcharges the people. Women in this town are "material girls" just like Madonna. The difference, for us, is that Madonna wants jewels and these ladies want plastic buckets. People there want their daughters to marry rich people... So anyways, all that stuff that western-life detractors claim is destroying us is destroying this people as well. I guess we are just human.

Elder people rule over younger people, but most importantly, men rule over women. So, if you are an old man, everyone follows your orders. If you're a young woman, well, life sucks. So these four little girls run away from their "purification" ceremony. Purification actually stands for female genital mutilation. They get help from Collé, an open minded woman who, seven years earlier, did not allow her daughter to become purified.

The whole town turns against her and little by little, tragedies begin to happen. Although the story takes place in a small African community with no electricity, it is very easy to relate to this story. It is also interesting to notice the differences (polygamy, for instance). It is a simply but well told story. I had never seen a film like this one. The camera work is not fancy at all and there is a flashback scene that I didn't like the way it was photographed. But anyway, it is a very interesting film.

I don't know if the audience got the same message from the film as I did. But I think that, judging by the very last shot of the film, the movie wants to tell us that societies need to evolve. What used to work for a group of people 1,000 years ago does not work for people today. If things have been done in a certain way for a long time, we can still think about them and change them if we don't like the way things are right now. Another idea I got from the film is the importance of information. Information is power. Information gives you choices. It's better to have a TV antenna on you roof than a two thousand year old ostrich egg.

Machuca (2004) ●●●

2004-09-24T11:08:00.000-07:00

VIFF

Pedro Machuca is one of the new kids at St. Patrick's Catholic School for Boys. This is a private school for rich kids, but Father McEnroe, the principal, has now included in the classroom some poor students whose parents cannot afford tuition. It is Santiago de Chile and the year is 1973. President Allende has a socialist approach to life and the first step is to have rich kids and poor kids studying under the same roof.

"Machuca" is not told through Pedro's eyes. The main character is an upper middle class kid named Gonzalo Infante, whose dad supports socialism but is considering moving the family to Italy. His mother is a beautiful spoiled woman that is having an open affair with a rich old man from Argentina. If this incident is some sort of deeper analogy, I missed it since I don't know much about Chilean history.

I won't say more about the plot. Let me instead comment on my thoughts regarding what I saw last night. Technically, this is a great film. There's even some special effects that reminded me of Forrest Gump. They are so well done that I didn't notice them. I found out about them thanks to the official website. The acting is excellent as well. I wasn't a big fan of the Gonzalo character at the beginning, since he was quiet and indifferent, but then I started liking him. Pedro Machuca and Silvana are beloved characters from the very beginning.

OK, so the things I didn't like: The film is too long. Some serious editing could be benefitial to the story. I guess that 20+ minutes could be easily removed. Another thing I was not too crazy about: clichés. Lots of them. There is one scene that plays exactly like the ending of Dead Poets Society. And of course, at school, there is a bully. The coming of age story is pretty standard, but is kind of effective. And of course, the ending needs to be tragic.

Oh, and another thing that I really liked: the scene where the poor boys arrive to the private school is extremely well done. Every kid behaves the way a kid in that situation would behave. Great acting and great directing.

The movie was funny, interesting and sad too. It's a nice effort and I recommend it.

Mean Streets (1973) ●●

2004-09-17T20:23:00.000-07:00

Mean Streets is the first film made by Scorsese where he earns the term auteur. It has all the elements that make him a great filmmaker. The story is not that awesome, particularly after having seen most of his Mafia related films. It starts Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro. Both of theme are great here. Their first scene together works wonderfully.

There's lots of camera tricks in this film. Changing the speed of filming, for instance. I liked the shot where Keitel is dancing at the bar and we get to see his back and the camera follows him around.

Popular music is used in the film. This was kind of new for the early 70's. I think it works great.

There are lots of Catholic references and of course, lots of good ol' Catholic guilt.

It's a film that I enjoyed.

Who's That Knocking on my Door? ●●

2004-09-06T14:27:00.000-07:00

Martin Scorsese's first film is interesting. It was shot in black and white from 1964 to 1967, or something like that. It stars Harvey Keithel as an Italian American who is shocked to learn that his girlfriend lost her virginity when she was raped. He wanted to marry her, but now he's not so sure.

The movie has a very weak plot and some of the scenes are kind of boring. Scorsese is following the French New Wave style and sometimes the film is pretentious.

I must admit that the religious images he shows at the end of the film were very shocking for me because I had never seen images of catholic icons accompanied by popular music from the sixties. That is the highlight of the film.

Watch this movie only if you are a huge fan of Martin Scorsese.

After Hours (1985) ●●●

2004-09-01T13:57:00.000-07:00

Scorsese is one of those talented filmmakers that can play around with different genres within the same film.

After Hours is, I guess, a comedy. A dark one. Everything happens during one night, when a word processor played by Griffin Dune pays a visit to a girl he met a couple of hours before and lives in SoHo. All he wants is to spend the night with her. However, things become very complicated and, by the end of the evening, there's dozens of people trying to kill him.

The first time I saw this film I was flipping channels and found this movie that was funny and interesting. I had missed the credits, but I was thinking to myself "This is the work of a talented director. Looks like if it was made by Scorsese". Funny that I thought that, since the movie is not about wise guys from little Italy and I wasn't really into Scorsese at the time. I kept looking at the film, and suddenly, I got to see Scorsese in the film, moving around a spotlight inside a night club.

The movie is a little bit dated and a little bit illogical... The director says he was very influenced by Hitchcock. He was also going for what Hitchcock used to call the icebox effect (if I recall the name correctly). This effect consists in the following: You go and see a film and it is very exciting. You come out of the theatre and go for coffee and discuss with your buddies how great the film was. Then you go home and do whatever. Then later, as you go to your fridge to grab some ice from the icebox, you suddenly realize that some parts of the movie are highly illogical, that some of the situations do not make sense... But by then, it is too late. You have already told everyone what a great film you've seen. This for sure happens with After Hours.

The movie becomes slow in the last few scenes at the club. But in general, it is a fast paced low budget film. No special effects, excellent camera angles and very funny performances.

This is probably my third favorite Scorsese film.

I Vitelloni (1953) ●●●●

2004-08-25T16:39:00.000-07:00

This is an early Fellini film. I saw it for the first time in my life a week ago.

I had my Fellini period ten years ago. I saw Amarcord and I really liked it. Then I also saw The White Sheik, 8 1/2, La dolce Vita, Cabiria. By the time I saw La Strada I was no longer a big Fellini fan.

I Vitelloni, which means something like "The good-for-nothings" tells the story of a few small town friends that are in their mid-twenties or early-thirties. They don't work and they live with their parents. It reminded me of my friends from home, although most of us work and only one of us lives at home (sort of). It reminded me of my friends because of the way they joked with each other, because of the silliness.

There's this scene that takes place early in the morning after a huge party. There's a drunk guy dancing by himself and holding a gigantic head, there's a guy with a trumpet and also a couple dancing. It was so funny. It's when you realize how great Fellini was.

The story is told straightforward and belongs I guess to Neorealism. I liked the scene where one of the vitelloni insults some workers and then their car stops. The workers arrive and start chasing these guys and one of them, the writer, starts yelling that he is a socialist.

It's a great movie to watch if you have never seen a Fellini film and you don't like taking risks. 8 1/2 and La dolce Vita should be watched once you consider yourself ready for some weird moments and some long pointless sequences.

Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries, 1957) ●●●

2004-08-12T16:08:00.000-07:00

I finally saw a Bergman film! I know, me being such a film snob, always pretending to be a connoisseur and I had never seen a film by Ingmar Bergman.

Let me tell you that I liked the film. I was happy to see that the movie had such a direct, simple approach. I mean, it was easy to follow. Somehow I thought it was going to be deeper and that I wasn't going to be able to get the message. But I did. Isn't that great?

The movie tells the story of a great man of science who is about to get one of those doctorates people get when they're famous, the ones than don't require years and years of your life inside a dark lab... An honorary degree. On his way to the University, which is far from his home in Stockholm, he starts remembering his life: as a young person, as a young doctor in a small town, as a husband. We learn (spoilers!) that he lost the love of his life because he was a very cold person. He was hard working and serious and didn't offer any challenges to this young lady, who therefore decided to marry his brother, a womanizer. The doctor's wife also cheated on him because of the exact same reasons. So you see, this doctor was sad because although he was successful as a man of science, he was a loser when it came to relationships (he is not close to his son, either).

The film has some great moments. I particularly liked the first dream sequence, despite the fact that every time the doctor dreams we get to hear harp music (can you think of anything more "cliche"?). I also liked the dream sequence where the main character is getting a simple test that he is not able to answer.

However, I find the use of old actors pretending that they are teenagers very distracting. They are behaving like children, and wearing shorts and baseball hats, but they look my age, if not older. Seriously. What was Bergman thinking? Why couldn't he have some 17 year-olds playing these guys?

The performance by Victor Sjöström as Professor Isak Borg is superb. Most of the performances are excellent.

There are a few moments that reminded me of Woody Allen films. I knew that Allen is a big fan of Bergman and therefore this is no coincidence. Allen has payed some homages to his hero. For instance, when Borg "sees" a family brunch that happened like 50 years before. This scene is similar to the one Martin Landau has in Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. Other Allen film that was influenced by Wild Strawberries: Deconstructing Harry.

I remember watching bits and pieces of the Seventh Seal. I'll try to rent it soon.

Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995) ●●●

2004-07-11T22:42:00.000-07:00

If you take a look at a picture of Todd Solondz, you'll be certain that a lot of his independent film "Welcome to the Dollhouse" came from his own experiences. This movie tells the story of a 12 year old girl who happens to be as nerd as it gets. Dawn, played by Heather Matarazzo, is a very lonely middle child. At school she has problems with bullies and with teachers. One of the best scenes is the one where she is reading to the class a 100 word essay on "Dignity", an extra assignment she got for asking her teacher for a chance to repeat an exam. While she is reading why dignity is a good quality to have, her teacher is yelling at her, demanding to read the essay with a stronger voice. Of course, this is one of the most humiliating experiences for a teenager, and therefore, the teacher is showing the girl quite the opposite message. The scene is both painful and funny in the darkest way you can imagine. I won't describe the plot of the film, because the plot is not really the point. The idea here is the mood... The movie shows how life is hell for Dawn, but at the same time it presents it with the darkest humor you can imagine.

With only three [available] films, Todd Solondz is one of my favorite filmmakers. I admire him more for his writing than for his directing. He writes the way real people talk but with a very slight twist. Many people don't get his jokes... Once I was showing some comedy films at a Museum in Guadalajara and I wanted to show his film "Happiness". The director of the museum told me that the movie was not a comedy because terrible things happened in it! Of course he had only heard about black comedy as a concept and he couldn't picture a comedy that features child molesting, murder and suicide.

Some of the actors in "Dolls" are excellent, like Matarazzo and her family in general. Others are OK. But I think that there was some misscasting with Steve, a guy who is supposed to be 17, but was played by a 24 year old that looks 24.

The movie is very sad, but funny. Dawn is bullied, but she is not the nicest person in the world either. This is the key to the success of the film. We get a human being, not a made for TV geekie girl.

I just wish Todd Solondz had a chance to make more films.

Spider-Man 2 (2004) ●●●●

2004-07-04T23:57:00.000-07:00

Spider-Man 2 is just the way a great popcorn movie should be. I think that the best thing about this flick is that the filmmakers are aware that they are making a fun movie and not a film that should try to sound deep and philosophical. This is why I find the LOTR trilogy so boring: it is a simple story of good and evil with a few lines that sound like great mythology but, if you listen to them carefully, you'll notice that they are actually saying very stupid meaningless things.

With Spider-Man, the most profound line you will get is the following: "With great power comes great responsibility", and that's already from the first film. So anyway, as I was saying, the filmmakers know that they are making an entertaining film and they avoid trying to sound deep. They have a great sense of humor and show us a very human, very 3D comic book superhero. You get to see Spidey washing his superhero outfit, and the funniest sequence takes place at an elevator with Spider-Man and Hal Sparks, one of the guys from the American version of "Queer as Folk". Raimi, the director, is not afraid to give comedy a strong presence in the film. I was surprised and delighted by the length of this elevator sequence that works mostly as a silent piece. I also liked what, in my opinion is an homage to Harold Lloyd and the building climbing he did in films such as "Safety Last".

The special effects are great, at least if you see the movie on the big screen. Some people will claim that Dr. Ocks' tentacles are the main feature, some will say that they are the worst. In particular, my favorite SFX involved Spidey going from one building to the next.

Tobey Maguire is excellent as Spider-Man, and I enjoyed the other performances as well. I also liked the soundtrack and the scenes that feature this music, particularly, the "Rain drops keep falling on my head" sequence.

Let me just say that Spider-Man 2 is one of the greatest popcorn movies that I've ever seen and, in my opinion, the best superhero film that has ever been made. Don't miss it.

Note: My favorite movie adapted from a comic book: "Ghost World"

Baadasssss! or How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass (2003) ●●●

2004-06-28T09:25:00.000-07:00

This movie is based on a true story. It is a movie about a movie. The movie is also about the relationship between Melvin Van Peebles and his 13 year old son, Mario. Melvin is played by Mario who is now 47.

I liked the film. It is a very interesting story. I liked that it is a movie about educated minorities, because most of the times you see a movie about latinos or black people, they are part of a gang or they love to rap or salsa... Not this guys. They love making films, and that's it.

I think that the story is funny and well told. I liked the performances. Anyone interested in making a film independently should see this film.

One thing that I didn't like is that when the film crew is watching the dailies, what we -the audience- get is a bunch of already edited scenes! Music included! How can that be? We should be seeing a bunch of unrelated images with crappy sound and no music.

Anyway, I'm sure that very few people notice this kind of things (you can see something similar in "50 first dates" and... This is sad... In Woody Allen's opera prima "Take the money and run".

Watch this movie, you won't regret it. It is entertaining.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) ●●●

2004-06-28T09:24:00.000-07:00

I had never seen something like this before: Last Friday I went to the Fifth Avenue Cinemas at 6 pm to buy tickets for Fahrenheit 9/11 and the only shows that weren't sold out were at 10:20 and 10:50 pm. My friends and I had to make a line-up one hour before the movie began and we still got crappie seats. Yesterday, I went downtown and another movie theater that was showing Moore's documentary was very crowded as well. Then I learned that things were pretty much the same in the US of A.

I don't know exactly what to say about this film, since so much has already been said. The film is sad, particularly the second half. Moore, as the narrator, follows his unique style. He is a truly witty person. That's what people should use as a weapon: sarcasm instead of violence. He also uses music quite effectively. The soundtrack made me chuckle a couple of times. We get to see less of him but we still get some Mooresque moments (the ones shown in the trailer).

As people have observed, nothing that Moore shows here is new. But I think it was a great idea to organize all this information and put it together in a film.

There has been controversy on whether this kind of films can still be considered documentaries. That depends on the definition of the word "documentary." If the definition is non-fiction, then this is a documentary. But then if you say that documentaries are objective... Then that statement does not apply to this film... But does it apply to any film? Can you think of any documentary that is truly objective? When a director chooses to cut some stuff out of the film, he is toying with his information in order to get the story that he wants.

Anyway, the funny parts include Ricky Martin, Britney Spears and George Bush. The sad parts include dead and injured people, uneducated young soldiers and again, George Bush.

I guess the success of this film has to do with so many people being against the war in Iraq. Ironically, however, Michael Moore is benefiting from it...

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004) ●

2004-06-24T17:27:00.000-07:00

This movie got very good reviews... So I went to see it. And, of course, I didn't like it.

I like silly movies, but I hate stupid ones... This one, the critics, said, is a parody of sports movies. I think that it is a sports movie, with the exact same structure, the same follow-your-dream stuff... And it has a few nasty jokes. That's about it.

The filmmaker just wrote a bunch of jokes and pasted them. For instance, the dog at the beginning of the film does not appear again. What happened to him? Who fed him while his owner was in Las Vegas? Who cares, the filmmaker just thought that having a dog sniffing a man's private parts while he is dreaming is funny. Whatever.

And I love silly comedies, I really do... To prove this, here's a few titles that I love:

Bananas
Sleeper
Airplane!
The Naked Gun
There's Something About Mary

24 Hour Party People (2002) ●●

2004-06-24T17:13:00.000-07:00

Fans of the Manchester music scene of the late 70's early 80's will love this film. People like me that have heard of the Sex Pistols but cannot place that name with any song will think that the movie is interesting but too long.

I liked that Steve Coogan faced the camera and talked to the audience. This approach works in a similar way than when Woody Allen addresses directly the audience in Annie Hall. I like that Tony Wilson, Coogan's character explains that his wife will cheat with someone before it happens, and I like the line: "I'm flirting by the way"... I liked the suicide scene of the lead singer of Joy Division and that his death was compared to the death of Che Guevara. I liked that Wilson thought that he was making history. Some people will agree with him.

Watch the film if you like the music, or if you feel like watching a different but not very interesting film.

The In-Laws (2003) ●

2004-06-24T17:09:00.000-07:00

This movie is a remake of a 1979 comedy starring the under-rated Alan Arkin and Peter Falk. The new version has Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas. I'm not sure if it is fare to do a comparison but I was doing that the whole time. Although the basic plot is similar, the tone of the movie and the way some things develop are quite different. I prefer the 1979 film.

To start, Senor Wences, the hand puppet, is missing. I love it when North Americans show Latin American countries full of crazy dictators, lots of chickens running and a bunch of peasants that always say "Si, Senor". Of course Latin America isn't like that (or is it?). It shows a cartoonish version of it and also proves how ignorant these people are... It's like making a film about the US and having everyone there eating at McDonald's and cheering for George W. Bush.

Anyway, no Spanish speaking countries in the new film. I don't mind silly plots, but I hate when they treat audiences as if they were stupid (perhaps some audiences are). This film was stupid and very unfunny. Even Albert Brooks was a major disappointment. I really like Brooks in his own films ("Defending your life", for instance) or as Nemo's dad, Marlin in "Finding Nemo". But here all he does is scream.

"Comedy is a man in trouble" said Jerry Lewis. And here, although Albert Brooks seems to be in trouble, we know that he will be fine and therefore it is very hard to find a funny bit. However, look at the original film and pause it when a bunch of crazy gunmen are about to execute Alan Arkin and Peter Falk, and tell me if you think they are going to make it or not.

This movie is so unfunny, that even the DVD's gag-reel, with all the bloopers and stuff, is boring.

The Terminal (2004) ●●●●

2004-06-22T21:14:00.000-07:00

I've always considered Spielberg a great filmmaker although I do not own any of his movies on DVD (this is a good way to measure how much do I love a film, but not necessarily a filmmaker). The Terminal is the first Spielberg movie that I want to own. This is a great example of showing snobs how it is possible to make great films that are commercial and big budget and yet, tell a simple story. People tend to say that a movie is good based on how much battle scenes it has, or how many times does the heroine cry, or how a normal actor seems to be disabled... But simple comedies can be great too. Think of Keaton, think of Chaplin. These filmmakers told simple stories with big budgets, and their films were both commercial and critical achievements.

The Terminal tells a very simple story, about a man that has to live in an airport terminal in NY since he cannot go back to his home country. This man, called Viktor Navorsky, is played by Tom Hanks with a Russian accent. Navorsky is a very creative person and always finds a way to survive in the airport without doing illegal stuff (well, sort of). The movie is both comedy and drama, and some people say that it is also a fantasy... And yes, this movie does not take place in the "real" world, but in a place that is very similar but simpler. The key to comedy is timing, and both Spielberg and Hanks manage to make a delicious comedy out of every-day events with the perfect synchronization. Spielberg told Roger Ebert that he was trying to pay an homage to the films made by Jacques Tati. And of course, Tati was following what he had learned from Keaton and Chaplin, but instead of copying it, he was giving us his own version.

This kind of movies are my favorite, but people do not realize how hard it is to get them right: the mood, the timing, the balance between comedy and drama. I have to see this movie again to find the way Spielberg was able to involve me completely with his characters. Now that I know the plot I will be able to look at the camera movements, the music he uses, the editing...

The movie has some great supporting characters. The best of them is Kumar Pallana, who plays a cleaning guy at the airport. He is so funny. I laughed out loud at many of his scenes (and I usually only laugh when I'm watching silent films or reading good novels). The audience that saw the movie with me, loved the film. They clapped after only 20 minutes, and they kept clapping every once in a while.

I guess the main problem with the movie its the ending... And I like sad endings... (spoiler warning) I like that the hero doesn't get the girl, because real life is like that. But I think that the film switched from 80% comedy 20% drama to 10% comedy 90% drama. And it is hard to do that. I also didn't like the subplot involving Diego Luna and Zoe Saldana. How can you fall in love with someone you've never talked to? And how does an average Mexican know what a trekkie is? (I'm not an average Mexican: I'm an Electrical Engineer, aka a Geek, and I'm quite familiar with the North American culture... I saw this film with three other Mexicans and they didn't know what Star Trek was, let alone a trekkie).

Anyway, the movie is a light comedy on the outside, but a tough to make movie on the inside. I loved most of it and I might see it again in a movie theatre and I'll buy the DVD when it comes out.

Salmer fra kjokkenet (Kitchen Stories, 2003) ●●

2004-06-13T21:38:00.000-07:00

This movie would have made Jacques Tati yawn at least once. It is a Norwegian / Swedish comedy that takes its time to develop. Pretty much, nothing happens on each scene, if you look at them individually. But by the end of the film you do have a story. A very simple one. It is a "buddy" movie and it has very "sophisticated" (let's call it subtle) humor. If you don't mind movies with little dialogue and little action, then this movie is for you. It has some moments that will make you smile... But it won't make you laugh.

My favorite bits included all the fake research stuff about the movements of the housewives in their kitchens. I liked that it looked like real research. I wish that they had developed that subplot a bit more.

I learned from IMDb.com that the Norwegian characters speak their language and the Swedish characters speak their own... So, you get dialogues that are both in Norwegian and Swedish. I guess that you enjoy the film more if you understand the languages.

Anyway, the film was interesting but I don't think that I'll watch it again.

Calendar Girls (2003) ●●

2004-06-13T19:49:00.000-07:00

This is a movie made for women that have the same age than my mom... I think that my mother would have watched it and she would have smiled a few times and she would have also laughed on two occasions. By the end of the movie though, she would have said something like: "it was OK, but at the end they exaggerated the story." And I'd have said: "I agree, mom."

Belle et la bete, La (1946) ●●

2004-06-13T19:41:00.000-07:00

I saw this movie at the Pacific Cinematheque. I had a so so time watching it. I guess that to fully appreciate it you have to put things in perspective... It was made in 1946, it is filmed poetry, the visuals of the film were quite fresh then... But I also think that the music is dated, some of the sequences are kind of camp material, the story is sort of silly... However, all of my friends seemed to have enjoyed the film... I guess I'm the only bitter person from my clique.

I remember having seen bits and pieces of this film before... I guess at Canal 11 or 22 in Mexico. I also remember seeing the mirror/pool sequence from another film by Jean Cocteau. Anyway, it is always a good idea to check out the classic films available at your local Cinematheque.

2004-06-13T19:40:00.000-07:00

Read Rogert Ebert's review on Beauty and the Beast:
Beauty and the Beast

Good bye, Lenin! (2003) ●●●

2004-06-10T13:05:00.001-07:00

I've seen this movie twice: a nice compliment if you consider that watching a movie in Vancouver costs between $3 and $14 Canadian.

Good bye, Lenin is told in a style that I really like. The story is almost logical, the characters are close to being three-dimensional, it is a drama told in a funny way... Or perhaps a sad comedy. It is a very European film.

I liked the two Kubrick references (perhaps there are more, I dunno). I liked some of the twists the story has, I liked the characters. I think it was a very smart script... With a very personal story, you can learn about the changes that the East Germans had to go through in less than a year.

I would have fixed some details of the script. For instance, when the mother walks down the stairs and leaves the baby alone, knowing that she can walk and that the other adult in the house is sleeping. And then, Alex, runs after his mom and leaves the door open... I mean, what about the baby! I'm not sure if I liked the fact that Lara tells Alex's mom about what has really happened while she was in a coma. I mean, the whole idea of the movie is how well can you justify lying to someone in order to keep that person happy... Is it OK to lie to people in tough circumstances?

The director has a lot of talent, and the actors, especially the guy that plays Alex are all fine. Watch this film if you have the chance.

Monsieur Ibrahim et les fleurs du Coran (2003) ●●

2004-06-10T13:05:00.000-07:00

Spoilers!

I didn't like this movie.

The premise is something that has been done before: a boy befriends an older person and they touch each others lives. I really don't mind this plot. Think of "About a boy", the movie with Hugh Grant based on Nick Hornby's book of the same title. I loved that film. But Monsieur Ibrahim is far from being interesting.

If you haven't seen the film and you think that films in French are great, then I don't want to spoil the movie for you. Go and see it. If you have seen it already or don't feel like watching it, then keep reading.

I didn't find any logic to the way the father behaved. What was wrong with him? Was he just crazy? Why did he leave?, why didn't he killed himself right there, in the comfort of his living room? Why did he lied about having two sons? Or did he lied? What about Momo's mom? What kind of person was she? What about Monsieur Ibrahim? Why did he want to adopt the kid? Why did he ask Momo to wait for him and then he crashed his car? How was it possible to survive that car crash only to have enough time to talk to the kid and be able to say goodbye and tell him about his wife and all that stuff?

Ibrahim was played by Omar Sharif, and he makes a good performance... But the movie is pointless... The script makes no sense. I didn't believe some of the decisions taken by the characters...

However, I must say, the movie has some nice touches: the music, the two main actors, the prostitutes. But I think that's it.

In America (2003) ●●●●

2004-06-07T00:31:00.000-07:00

In America is an example on how it is possible to make a touching, interesting and intelligent movie that at the same times follows step by step the rules for a Hollywood screenplay. The first time I saw this movie (back in December 03) I had a couple of tears in my eyes. The movies that usually get me are not the ones with big tragedies or evil people making others suffer... I become sentimental with films about hard working people, or people with strong good nature goals (another movie that makes me cry is Rocket Boys).

I bought the DVD and it is interesting to listen to the comments by director Jim Sheridan, who co-wrote the screenplay with his daughters. The movie is semi-autobiographical and it is interesting to hear what Sheridan has to say, although he speaks more of his personal life than about the technical problems they faced during the making of this film.

The acting is superb. Samantha Morton and Djimon Hounsou are the ones that got Oscar nods, but I love the performances of real-life sisters Sarah and Emma Bolger. I also think that Paddy Considine was excellent. I like the moment when he is playing with his two daughters and he calls his little son, who is dead.

This is a movie about magic... But not that magic realism crap... Or at least, magic realism in a more subtle way. The people depicted in this film are poor, but poverty is not their problem. They are not complaining about not having any money, they are more worried about how much they love their children, and how it is very hard to let go from our memories the people that have died.

Anyway, I loved this film. There's a couple of things that I would have probably done in a different way, but that's not really important. The story is interesting and well written, as I said, excellent acting, and of course, a gifted director.

My Architect (2003) ●●●

2004-06-02T23:13:00.000-07:00

I was amazed to see a full house when the movie that was about to be shown was a documentary. Specially since I was at Tinseltown Cinemas.

The movie is directed by Nathaniel Kahn, and it is about his father, Architect Louis Kahn who died in 1974 and had one official and two non-official families. When this guy died, his only son was only eleven, and he would only get to see his dad once in a very while. Nathaniel Kahn interviews his mom, his half sisters, and other people that knew his father. All of them have opinions, most of them have big respect for the work of this man, but not for his personal life. We get to see most of the buildings that he made. Some of them are beautiful, others, I just didn't like them, but of course, I don't know much about architecture.

I liked the scene where Nathaniel roller blades in La Jolla, in a building designed by his father. I liked some of the interviews, and the way he decided to tell the story, very straight forward. However, I think that the film was too long. It must be very hard to edit things out of a film that you are making, and it most be even harder if the film is about your father, and he is dead. The movie has some touching moments, especially when some people learn that the director is Louis Kahn's son. They hug him or shake hands with him. I found interesting the way that the architect's two lovers (the wife is dead now) talked about him. I mean, they are both intelligent, educated people, and yet, they believed everything he told them and they were always hoping that he would leave his wife and move with one of them.

I'm sure that if you're into architecture, you'd love the film. Also, if you've never met your dad or if you have some unsolved issues with him and he is no longer around, you might be touched by this movie. For the rest of us, it is an interesting film, but a bit too long.

2004-05-31T23:19:00.000-07:00

Read Roger Ebert's Fargo Review:
Chicago Sun-Times - Entertainment

Fargo (1996) ●●●●

2004-05-31T16:27:00.000-07:00

Fargo is probably the Coens' best film. It is more subtle than any other of their movies, and I believe that is the key for its success. The first time I saw the movie I didn't think much of it (I saw it in 1996 or 1997). However, after repeated viewings I began to understand how well constructed the film is. I guess that the biggest achievement is the screenplay. Just study how careful it is written. The plot, although it is kind of simple, starts developing little by little, taking its time. Little secrets are revealed to us as the movie progresses. Of course, the performances are very strong. William H. Macy is wonderful as Jerry Lundergaard. Notice the look on his face when one of the kidnappers asks him why doesn't he request the money from his father-in-law instead of going through this kidnapping scheme. Just look at his face and you can see how he resents his boss/father-in-law... How he hates him, but respects him... And how desperate and stupid he is. You feel sorry for him, although he is not a nice person. And then there's Marge Gunderson (played by Frances McDormand). She is not in the film during the first 30 minutes, and yet, she is perhaps the character that people remember the most. I love the scenes between Margie and her husband, Norm. Buscemi and Stormare are excellent as well. One performance that should also be noted is the one by Harve Presnell as Wade Gustafson. You can see that this guy is an assh*le, but you can also understand why he despises his son-in-law. I hate people that are like this Gustafson character in real life, but I can understand how their minds work and why he chooses to deliver the ransom money himself.
Regarding the comedy, the movie is, as I said, more subtle than, say, The Big Lebowsky or The Ladykillers. The jokes are in the way that people behave and we also smile when we acknowledge how life doesn't always happen the way we've planned it. Of course, the more familiar you are with the "Minnesota Nice" way of talking (or the "Canadian Nice" for that matter) the more you will be able to enjoy the dialogue.
And the ending is kind of poetic, and philosophic... "And here you are. And it's a beautiful day".

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003) ●●●

2004-05-29T17:11:00.000-07:00

Before watching this movie, I had only seen one Jim Jarmusch film (Night on Earth), although I know that he is a favorite of indie film-lovers, and his followers sort of worship him. I had a good time watching Night on Earth (and I have seen bits and pieces of Down by Law, I'm not that ignorant) and I also had a pleasant afternoon watching Coffee and Cigarettes.
The film is actually a bunch of short films that Jarmusch shot during the past 17 years or so. Each segment involves two or three people talking, while at the same time they are drinking coffee (or tea) and smoking those little cancer vehicles.
I had great expectations for the meeting of Roberto Benigni and Steven Wright (one of America's most under-rated comedians), but I was really disappointed. They have a couple of funny lines but their segment is way too short. My favorite bit is the one where Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan get to meet. It is the funniest and it is also the better constructed one. Second place goes to the segment with Cate Blanchett and Cate Blanchett, where the actress parodies herself and also plays her cousin.
The worst segment, in my opinion, involves two people that I had never heard of before: Renee French and E.J. Rodriguez. This bit is more like pseudo intellectual crap than a short story.
I guess you start getting the rhythm of the film after you have seen the first two or three vignettes.
As a touch of irony, I went to get some coffee before going inside the theatre and, since I am a member, I was able to get a large coffee for the price of a regular one (don't you just love North America?) and, once the movie had started I wanted to pee...
This film offers an interesting concept. The movie is fun to watch, but it is not for everyone.

50 First Dates (2004) ●●

2004-05-27T16:33:00.000-07:00

I'm not a big Adam Sandler fan, and I love intelligent romantic comedies... Therefore, I didn't enjoy this movie a lot. I think that I prefer the mean Sandler as opposed to the sort of sweeter guy he plays here. Regarding Drew Barrymore, I like that she is pretty but not too pretty, so you still feel that this is a romance between average looking people.
Most of the jokes were not very funny... Once you have seen too many comedies, you pretty much can predict what is going to happen next. However, I must say that I wasn't expecting that ending... Although it is kind of sick, if you think about it, at least it is not your traditional Hollywood ending.
The movie is not boring, and I guess that is the biggest compliment that I can make.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) ●●●●

2004-05-27T16:31:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, this movie is almost a masterpiece. This is a movie for film noir lovers that also happen to be crazy about American cartoons from the 20's, 30's and 40's. The director, Robert Zemeckis, says that this is 3 movies in one: a cartoon, a special effects movie and a period film. The movie has all this little jokes that only true fans of Disney and WBs cartoons will get. It also has lots of jokes for the general public. I just love to see Donald and Daffy playing Lizst with their pianos, while beating the crap out of each other at the same time. Another great moment is when you get to see Mickey and Bugs together.
Roger Rabbit is a great character as well, and I like the fact that his decisions are taken in order to make people laugh. The movie is funny because all the "real" people are acting straight... their performances are as if they were in the most serious of films. I'm glad this movie was made before computer animation was in vogue, since the film requires the animation style of the 1940's.
I have the 'Vista Series' 2-DVD box. It has lots of great special features. The ones that I like the most: the DVD commentary, by Zemeckis and a bunch of other people, and the three short films that were made by Disney in the late 80's early 90's, featuring Roger Rabbit and Baby Herman. The only complaint I have about these DVDs is that Disney modified a couple of frames that feature in-jokes from the animators (one of them has to do with Betty Boop and the other one with Jessica Rabbit).
Every time I see this movie I have a great time... It might not be Zemeckis' best film (I think most people will agree that Forrest Gump is superior), but it is my favorite.

The Gods Must Be Crazy II (1989) ●●

2004-05-22T23:59:00.000-07:00

Although I bought the two-DVD box of "The Gods", I only saw the movie yesterday, after reading half a chapter on Digital Watermarking. I first saw this movie when I was 16. I was excited to see a follow-up to The Gods Must Be Crazy, a movie that none of my friends had seen and that I was only happy to show them. I remember enjoying the Gods II, laughing almost as often as I did in the first one. However, now that I saw it for, I think, the third time in my life, I discovered that I had become way too cynical, picky and, I guess, snobbish. It was easy for me (for everyone) to see that the plane was fake, and so was the sky... The frame freezing in some scenes really bothered me this time (although I had noticed it since I was 16), some of the jokes were not funny anymore... But, this is odd, I found out that I could remember a few lines from the film. Now that I have seen the two [real] Gods movies, I can say that the first one is way better than the second one (and from what I've heard, way better than the other three... I read that in one of them, N!xau gets possessed by the spirit of Bruce Lee!... The director of the first two God's was not really involved with the following movies). Anyway, the second one has some nice moments... Some of them funny, some of them touching. Of course, nothing beats the story of the coke bottle and the end of the world.

Shrek 2 (2004) ●●●

2004-05-20T16:54:00.000-07:00

I saw Shrek 2 on Wednesday at midnight (people say Tuesday, but it is actually Wednesday). I must say that I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice movie. I had fun, I laughed a few times, I was happy to see those characters again... However, this is not "Shrek". I think that the story became very standard... For instance, I knew that the King had to do something heroic at the end, since he had been such a bad person during the first hour of the film... And of course, he did. I hated the Fairy Godmother, but not because she was evil, but because she was not funny. That is the worst character of the movie. And I also believe that they tried too hard with the anachronisms... It is funny to see how Far Far Away resembles Hollywood... But the joke repeats itself over and over again.
I was thinking, if the moral of the story is "be yourself", how come Princess Fiona becomes an ogre... I mean, she was originally a beautiful princess... Make Shrek an ogre and Fiona a princess...
I liked that the Gingerbread man and Pinnochio had more screen time, they are my favorite supporting characters. I didn't like closing the movie with "Livin' la vida loca"... It's not a good song, really.
Anyway, the movie was fun, I guess the technical stuff is impressive, but I only wish they could have spent more time writing the script.

The Saddest Music in the World ●●

2004-05-16T23:29:00.000-07:00

I guess you could call this film both surreal and camp. It is a Canadian movie with a very strange plot... the idea is to pick the country with the saddest music in the world. It was shot on 8 mm and it looks like a silent film that was never digitally remastered. The film is not silent, but it looks like it was made in the early 1930's.

The plot is funny in a very particular way... not everyone will like it. A lot of people walked out of the cinema after 10 minutes of the beginning of the film. I did get the humor, and I laughed more often than I usually laugh... but the problem I think, has to do with the style. It would have work for half an hour or 20 minutes, but not for a full length film... the style is just one joke, but a very long one. My eyes kind of hurt right now from watching this movie.

And to prove that this material is a great idea for a short film, read my previous message regarding the short film "Sombra Dolorosa" by the same director. If you are Mexican, open minded and you enjoy camp and pseudo surreal stuff... oh, and if you are not offended by cliches, then this short film is certainly for you.

2004-05-16T23:22:00.000-07:00

IFCFilms.com > Saddest Music in the World > frontdoor >
Watch the short film "Sombra Dolorosa" buy Guy Maddin.

When Harry Met Sally (1989) ●●●

2004-05-16T14:04:00.000-07:00

I saw this movie again yesterday evening, on DVD. I like some of the dialogues between Crystal and Ryan. Both of them are good in their roles... I always think of Annie Hall, though... the movie is not a copy of Annie Hall, but it has some similar ideas... the use of split screen for instance, and also the song "it had to be you"... oh, and New York. I like the old couples talking. They sound very natural. The 3rd act is not as good as the first two, though. The problem is that the romantic comedy becomes more of a romance than a comedy at the end. Girls always love the part where Meg Ryan fakes and orgasm... it is funny, I must admit, but as other people have pointed out, it doesn't seem natural that that character would behave like that in front of that many people.

2004-05-14T23:59:00.000-07:00

NYTimes.com Review FILM REVIEW; When All Those Big Macs Bite Back
I liked this review regarding "Super Size Me".

Super Size Me (2004) ●●

2004-05-14T23:20:00.000-07:00

I just saw this movie at the Fifth Ave Cinemas. It's a documentary about fast food in the US. This guy eats only at McDonald's for 30 days. After something like 20 days he has become a candidate for a heart attack and stuff like that. The message, I think, is do not eat fast food and eat healthy meals. I had read that the movie was very funny, but I think that I only laughed a couple of times. I was disappointed, I must admit. The movie was shot with a digital video camera, so it looks crappy, but it also brings hope to all of us poor bastards who have no money and want to make ultra-cheap films. I'm seriously considering doing a documentary, and I found out a great topic today... but I won't reveal it right now. I have to go to Mexico to shoot it anyway. That's it for tonight.

Reservoir Dogs

2004-05-13T23:55:00.000-07:00

I saw this movie again today. I first saw it in '94 or '95 after Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" had amazed me like it amazed every normal 20 year-old. The dialogue from "Reservoir Dogs", and from any Tarantino movie for that matter, is always witty and cool. This of course is clearly movie dialogue: Tarantino is not trying to make his characters sound like ordinary people. I liked the argument about tipping and I liked the friendly-unfriendly fight between Mr. Blonde and Nice Guy Eddie. Buscemi and Keitel are perfectly cast, I think. I liked the long, single shot sequences, and of course, the 'stuck in the middle with you' moment is now a classic (even spoofed in The Simpsons). Tarantino is not one of my favorite directors but I recognize how talented he is, both as a writer and as a director. I wished I had seen the 10 years special edition that has a commentary track, but I didn't. So the only thing left for me was to read the trivia section from the IMDB. With only two films (Dogs and Pulp) Tarantino has influenced more directors and other people than any other recent filmmaker... and just wait for the awful "Kill Bill" wannabes that we will have next summer.

Io non ho paura (I'm not afraid)

2004-05-12T22:47:00.000-07:00

This is a very simple story... the trailer is somehow misleading. It is a thriller about two 10 year-olds. It involves kidnapping. I don't remember being as tense as I was during this movie for the past few years. The movie really involved me and every action the main (free) kid took seemed logical. I never felt cheated, although the ending was somehow ambiguous. It is the best movie I've seen this year, I think (new movie, I mean)... although "Shrek 2" opens on Wednesday May 19.

Mon Oncle

2004-05-11T16:00:00.000-07:00

I remember seeing this movie when I was like 9 or 10. It was the weirdest movie I had seen... it seemed like the people in the movie didn't know they were being filmed... but yet, it was obvious that this was a work of fiction... everything was choreographed. Later I did some research and learned that the film was "Mon Oncle" and the director was Jacques Tati, and that he played M. Hulot.

But it was not until DVDs arrived that this movie was available... but then, the DVD is sooo expensive... anyway, I rented this movie on the weekend and I really enjoyed it. It is still a weird movie... it was like Buster Keaton in slow-motion. The gags are not funny, they are beautiful... I don't know if you understand what I mean... everything is very well constructed... all the accidents are planned. The joke that made me laugh the hardest was when the neighbor shows up in a weird outfit and the family thinks that she is just someone trying to sell blankets (zarapes). I loved the Sunday lunch and the automatic garage door.

The movie is too long (almost two hours). I think that 90 minutes would have been enough. Some scenes I didn't get the point... but when the gags work they are amazing. I still have to see "Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot" and the rest of Tati's films. I'm not sure if I'll buy the DVDs, though.

(Go to Tati's website)

The Gods Must be Crazy

2004-05-11T10:21:00.000-07:00

I discovered this movie a long time ago. I must have been like 13. My dad was in charge of the remote and he started watching what I thought was a documentary about the bushmen in the Kalahari desert... I didn't like those kind of documentaries but I decided to stay and watch TV with him anyway. But suddenly, an element of clear fiction took place: a coke bottle. I think that the idea of the coke bottle is one of the finest ones I've seen in movies in terms of plot twists.

Little by little I began to understand that the movie was actually a comedy. By the time the zoologist started driving his jeep I was laughing and still not sure about what was going on. This movie really surprised me.

The guy that always gets all the praising is N!xau, but I think that the zoologist also deserves credit. Look at the moment when he meets the school teacher. Great timing, great performance. It's a very interesting psychological phenomenon. Jamie Uys directed. Unfortunately there's not a lot of information about him on the web. It seems that the only movies that are easy to get are "Animals are beautiful people" and "Gods I and II".

I just bought the DVD and although the movie is sort of dated, it is still great fun. I can't wait to go home for Christmas and show this film to my young ahijados.

The Corporation

2004-01-23T14:38:00.000-08:00

This is a documentary. A long and semi-boring one. It has occasional humor. The idea is to let us know that corporations are evil. Big news. What I didn't like is that the movie is so biased to show corporations like the source of all evil... it is typical globaliphobic crap. They show all this demonstrations... do you know why I haven't been to a demonstration? Because I have to work for a living. I don't know how these pseudo-hippies have money to travel all around the world and join demonstrations... anyway... they show how evil corporations are. I guess that is it. The movie takes advantage of Michael Moore... the greatest parts are when they show bits of Moore's documentaries... what they don't get is that Moore is witty and smart.

Something's gotta give

2004-01-23T14:35:00.000-08:00

I knew this was a chick flick... but I like Diane [Hall] Keaton and Jack Nicholson. The movie was very predictable. Same idea for every romantic comedy... two very different people fall in love, then something happens and they separate. Finally they get together again. Most of the jokes were for women and the movie was too long. I think that's all I have to say about the film.

Along Came Polly

2004-01-23T14:23:00.000-08:00

Well... if you have seen my short film "Miercoles", you'll see that some of the jokes appear as well in the film "Along Came Polly". Of course that they did not copy my jokes... I doubt that they have seen my short film... I doubt that more than a 100 people have seen my short film. It is just a big coincidence. And well, to be quite honest, there's not much you can do with toilet humor. This movie is one of those "There's something about Mary"-type of movies. Romantic comedy meets toilet humor. Romantic comedies are my favorite genre... I know I am a bitter person... but I think that romantic comedies are excellent if they are done properly. Examples: "The Apartment", "Annie Hall", "High Fidelity". Anyway, what I enjoyed about the main character is that he is very much like me in terms of avoiding risk and especially, I liked that he doesn't eat nuts from a bar plate. I don't do that either. This guy is played by Ben Stiller who, in my oppinion, is one of the best actors of his generation (close to my generation). I wouldn't mind seeing Ben Stiller in a Woody Allen film. His father, Jerry Stiller is also one of the funniest actors that I have ever seen... and he looks a little like my grandfather did. Jennifer Aniston plays Polly. I think she has great timing and she is excellent doing comedy as well. And as a supporting actor you get Philip Seymour Hoffman. The movie has some very funny moments, although the romance story is pretty standard. They meet, they like each other and then, there has to be a problem and they separate. Something has to happen so that they can realize that they belong to each other... that I don't like about this kind of movies... some of the jokes do not work. For instance, when Stiller arrives with his wife (Debra Messing) to a hotel where they are about to spend their honey moon... the beginning is not funny and it is pointless. But anyway, I had fun watching the film and I will see it again if they're showing it on TV.

Big Fish

2004-01-23T14:17:00.000-08:00

I'm not a huge Tim Burton fan, but I have always liked his flims. My personal favorite is "Ed Wood"... I should get the DVD soon (hints for birthday gifts... although it is not available yet). "Big Fish" is his latest film. It didn't get awesome reviews, but I liked it. There are some very funnny moments. My favorite: the ventrilocuist and his dummy. There were lots of Burton moments... I would say that he paid homages to his most popular films... there were references to Edward Scissor Hands, for instance. I also liked the sequence where Danny deVito, little by little, reveals "key" information to the main character (Ewan McGregor) about the girl he loves. I was happy to see this movie.

2004-01-23T14:13:00.000-08:00

I know what to do with this blog! I will talk about the movies that I have seen. I won't be writing classic reviews... it will be more like my thoughts once I have seen a film... I suggest that you read this once you have seen the film or else, I might spoil something for you.