Critical Film Condition

To understand this review you must first understand my personal history with Meryl Streep.

I think that among the biggest film freaks in the world (a group I consider myself to be an honorary member of), I am one of the very few whom Meryl Streep had to impress, even though I was born after she got her first Academy Award. Streep was an actress that didn’t impress me, didn’t interest me, and who seemed really unsympathetic as a person. I realize now that this is just because she is such a great actress and, on more than ten occasional films I watched with her in either starring or supporting roles, she played a real bitch. Be it in “Kramer vs. Kramer” or “The Devil Wears Prada”, she seems just so unlikeable that it reflected on my thoughts of her real life. It don’t think I didn’t like her, I was just not mature enough to appreciate her skills.

And “Julie & Julia” is all Streep. The plot is neat, as you’d expect from Nora Ephron, and the rest of the leading cast is OK, with a special nod to Stanley Tucci, that has the most likable character to work with. But all stay in the shadow of Meryl Streep, who incorporates Julia Child to an extent that it becomes scary. Seriously, take a look at some YouTube videos after watching this movie!

Not to distance herself all too much of the genre that made her, Nora Ephron spends most of her efforts in telling the story of Julie Powell, a New York nobody who decided to spend one year cooking the shit out of Julia Child’s book on french-cuisine and talk about the experience in a Web Log (or Blog, for those reading this Blog). This story is told in parallel to the real Julia Child story, as told in her book… So, in essence, it’s a movie with two main characters based on two books (Powell got a book-deal after the Blog’s success) and one Web Log, and as confusing as it may seem, it’s told in typical Nora Ephron style, with many giggles and tear-jerking moments along the way, being an ultimately enjoyable experience that will make you hungry as hell after watching.

While it is Ephron’s most “mature” effort so far, it is impossible not to notice the linearity and clichéd development of the plot. I’m not a hater of linearity and clichés… Not all movies can be written by Quentin Tarantino or Oliver Stone. I’m just saying that, even with two parallel storylines, it still has the feeling of been there, seen that, and its OK… As in all of Nora Ephron’s stuff, when the credits roll, you are intensely filled with joy.

Popularity: 1%

I’m not the vampire flick kinda guy. I mean, I like it, but I didn’t rush to the movies to see “30 Days of Night” even though my friends said it kicked ass. But with “Daybreakers”, ever since the first teaser, I was definitely excited because it finally gave us the promise of something new in the genre. Sure, there’ve been other movies with different points of view on the “myth” behind vampirism, but this is one that really goes all the way into asking: “what if it really happened”?

Now, if you remember, there has been a series of movies about vampires that thought the best approach to the subject was to sacrifice some mythical vampire rules in order to achieve proximity to the audience. Heck, even “True Blood”, the hugely successful series, takes a lot of liberties, like different rules as to how a human is turned, blablabla… And I am all for it, but “Daybreakers” sticks to the classic rules and, from one storyteller to another (or not) it seemed to me that classic is the new fresh. Vampires came from Bats, hate sunlight, LOVE human blood and, one of the coolest gimmicks in the film, they don’t have a reflection. And instead of ignoring this to bring the subject closer to our reality, it uses these “silly” elements to intensify a frightening reality where vampires have taken over our world. Cars don’t have personal mirrors, but instead have micro-cameras with small LCD screens so that vamps can fix their make-up, cars have a day-driving mode where all the windows are blackened down, etc. It’s really cool.

Were it only for the successful creation of a believable world for the movie, I’d already have liked it. But “Daybreakers” offers a convincing cast of characters and an entertaining story, that while being sort of a let-down for those expecting a highly moralistic plot, it still stands above most of what horror-movies can offer today mainly because, while offering a concise plot and believable characters, it’s remains fun, bloody, gory and everything else you could wish for as a horror fan.

The movie does feature a great cast, with Ethan Hawke as the reluctant vampire hemo-whatever (scientist working on a blood-substitute, since most humans are already dead/dry) being the least inspired of the main-characters. Sam Neil scares the crap out of everyone as the CEO of the company that supplies blood to the vampire-population, but it’s Willem Dafoe who steals the show as an ex-vamp who was “miraculously” brought back. And that’s where my biggest grudge with “Daybreakers” comes from:

The trailer promised a frightening vision of a future ruled by vampires who need humans to live, and treat us like a sub-species, not much unlike the Nazis. The vamps were both portrayed as the evil-doers, but more importantly, it showed that most of them didn’t have a choice (like Ethan Hawke’s character)… That, the actors involved, and the beautiful rendition of “Running Up That Hill” by Placebo made me believer, or at least want to believe real hard, that this would do for vampire and horror-flicks what “The Dark Knight” did for comic-book adaptations. It really looked like a slick, noir-ish vision of the genre with solid performances and a deep, convincing, moralistic plot… What it delivered was one of the coolest horror-flicks in recent memory, but still not achieving that next step.

Popularity: 1%

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

It’s funny how it happens, when alternativo directors like Guy Ritchie get their big-budget projects, they get tame all of a sudden. Not that it’s a bad thing. When I first heard Ritchie was doing Sherlock Holmes, I though to myself that doing Holmes in “Snatch” style was a bad, bad idea. And, to my surprise, Ritchie picked the right elements that made his crazy movies so much fun, left the sarcastic, over-the-top, multi-plotting craziness aside and picked the best elements of modern action movies, mixing them into an enjoyable mix of entertainment product that has his personal flair at the same time and, more importantly, is very faithful to the Conan Doyle stories.

First, the shenanigans. It is noticeable that Ritchie used his extra budget on some toys, most notably the frequent presence of high-speed shots are notable because, as is expected, they don’t look like Bekmambetov (“Wanted”) or Wachowsky (“The Matrix”) high-speed shots, but rather like Guy Ritchie shots. And the wow-factor is really present in all these shots, explosions, etc. because they have a really raw feeling to them. Ritchie proves in this movie that he is capable of handling said budgets without problems and knows how to make things look really cool with a heavy visual effects team under his command. We knew he had it in him to make smaller efforts look cool, but handling bigger budgets is a whole different ball-game.

But with Sherlock Holmes, the story is a factor that shouldn’t be put aside for action and martial-arts sequences, because, well, he’s Sherlock friggin’ Holmes. And as much as the people who were watching with me, who didn’t know as much about the character as I did (his vices, his characteristics and, more importantly, how Doyle solved the mysteries), they were enjoying themselves all the same. For me, though, this was a visualization of a non-existing Doyle novel that was fun simply because it added elements to the world of Sherlock Holmes without ever disrespecting it. The most important aspect, mainly because most stories were narrated by Watson, is that the screenwriters managed to give Watson a stronger personality, taken out of his input in the classic stories. Watson is reluctant to follow Holmes in his endeavors, wants to get married and be normal. They love and hate each other at the same time, and while the fact that Watson felt a lot like Murtaugh in the Lethal Weapon movies, I just happen to love the Murtaugh character so much that this didn’t bother me at all. Sherlock Holmes becomes, among other things, and mystery being the most relevant of them, a 19th century buddy-cop action-comedy with a despicable villain who was invented for the movie, but an ubervillain from the Doyle classics that promises to spice up the inevitable sequels.

In the end, “Sherlock Holmes” is a very enjoyable movie that is not unforgettable in any way, but delivers two hours of fun for those who read every single novel, or those who just hear the name Sherlock Holmes once or twice in their lives.

Popularity: 1%

When the first trailer for “Pandorum” came out, I couldn’t help but think it was one of the many “Event Horizon” wanna-bes that tried to blend horror with Sci-Fi with little budget. It was both its geatest flaw and its greatest triumph from a marketing point of view, because while it sold the movie as horror Sci-Fi with cheap production values and ideas and visual styles stolen from many other movies (aside from “Horizon”, “Dark City”, “Dead Space”), it ended up being much much more than that, with the horror elements just adding to the fun factor of what is otherwise a smart and very complex plot centered movie.

The main reason why I liked “Pandorum” so much is because it surprised me in a sense that it marketed itself as something that had been done a thousand times before and ended up being something else entirely.

The overall development of the plot, the reason for the monsters to be in the ship, the conclusion and more importantly the CLIMAX are astonishingly satisfactory. Screenwriter Travis Milloy has come close to what I consider a holy grail among futuristic horror movies, which is finding a conclusion that doesn’t rely on being overly dramatic by thinking it is cool to kill everyone, but doesn’t go the opposite way trying to please all the kids in the audience. What’s even cooler is that by saying this I am not spoiling anything from the movie.

Christian Alvart directs the movie with enough skill to make bigger flaws unnoticeable, and the cast drives it convincingly. Ben Foster gives a powerful performance, which is duly deserved by the fact that his character Bower (Bauer is Builder in German) is the one that goes through the biggest development journey, from being lost and confused to having the fate of all in his hands. The other characters are interesting as well, but Bower is a winner because, while others play unique roles throughout the movie (with Dennis Quaid’s Payton being really stable, noticeable if you pay attention or watch the movie a second time), Bower transitions through many roles throughout the story until finding his definitive one shortly before the ending. It’s a really well-written character from a screenwriting point of view.

The verdict? “Pandorum” is anything but new in the visual department, but the smartly developed plot and strong acting from the entire cast make it an absolute winner for those intrigued by just what the hell is going on in the ship Elysium. Amazingly, the screenwriter managed to tie up all loose ends and if you doubt the consistency of the plot, it is definitely worth a second viewing.

Dont miss this one.

Popularity: 1%

“Dead Ringers” meets “The Reader”

Europe, early 17th century. Hungarian Countess Erzebet Bathory (Julie Delpy) is a virago, strong-willed and vain, the most powerful and also the most feared in her country. She is beautiful, intelligent and unwilling to accept that men make and break the rules as they please. She meets the much younger Istvan (Daniel Brühl) and they immediately fall for each other and start a passionate affair. But their bliss is short-lived. Istvan’s father Count Thurzo (deliciously cold: William Hurt) forces his son to marry another woman and initiates a scheme to bring down the commanding Countess. Erzebet however is convinced that Istvan left her because of her fading beauty. Slowly going mad, she starts to believe that the blood of virgins, extracted by an iron maiden (the torture device, not the aptly named band) will preserve her youthful visage. She embarks on a murderous undertaking, risking everything: her reputation, her wealth, her standing, her life.

Disturbingly, the movie is based on an actual person and actor/writer/director Delpy meshes legend and fact: The real Countess Barthory (1560-1614) is possibly the most prolific female serial killer in history, convicted on 80 counts, with one witness attributing more than 600 deaths to her and her myrmidons. In actuality she was never tried in court and the legendary bloodbaths were never verified. Yet she is remembered as the “Blood Countess” or “Countess Dracula”.

All of this being said, this is definitely not a splatter movie! It is disturbing, but not on a “slasher” level. There is structure and unruliness. Lesbians and S&M. Bloodthirst and romance. Vanity and power struggles. It’s a feast for the hobby shrink.

The movie starts off with a structured stab at a behavioral explanation. I think that Delpy tried to explore the main character in a very honest and exploratory fashion without excusing anything. Little Erzebet is conditioned to cruelty from childhood. Delpy employs two crucial childhood experiences and a merciless disposition to round out the character profile. Mix in unrequited love, madness and high social ranking and power and what do you get? Bloodbaths galore.

I have got to applaud writer/director Julie Delpy for a cunning psychogram of a very complex woman that was part victim and part perpetrator simultaneously. Like Stephen Daldry in “The Reader” she is trying to explore the facets of an inherently cruel, sangfroid and narcissistic character that falls for a much younger man. It is immensely difficult to chronicle the demise of a lover turning into a quenchless murderess, much less portray it. Although Delpy does a great job with the acting, the poetic license and the visual effects take away from the serious attempt at a character study. The combination of power and indefeasibility in this character is what makes it intriguing. The question arises how cruel anyone could become if they had the freedom to be. The Countess viewed herself as a devout Protestant and hardship and cruelty were a sign of the times then. But the quote “Time has no respect for beauty” is one that could be uttered by anyone in Hollywood today. Still – it is a long way to dead virgins lining the woods.

I like the psychology behind “The Countess” and that Delpy isn’t afraid to explore the wrath of a woman scorned in all its splendor. She isn’t afraid to portray herself as ugly or “old” (though I am sure 39 looked different in 1610). However, combining fact and fiction, the movie is crippled by the Cronenberg style of presentation. Which results in, sadly, the movie sometimes bordering on the comical.

A large portion of the movie was filmed in Germany and there are a number of German faces, spearheading is Daniel Brühl (who might be familiar as Jason Bourne’s girlfriend’s brother) and Anna Maria Mühe as Erzebet’s first victim, Sebastian Blomberg as her masochistic playmate Dominic Vizakna and a short appearance of Nikolai Kinski (son of the late Klaus Kinski).

I am a fan of Delpy’s work. I liked her directorial debut “2 days in Paris” and I think that “Before Sunset” is a nearly perfect sequel to the magical “Before Sunrise”. This movie has a distinct, dark style. And it is truly European: a French director shooting an English movie in Germany about a Hungarian tale. Still, it demands an acquired taste for the genre and human contradictions.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Release Date:

June 25th (Germany)

[starreviewmulti id=1]

Popularity: 24%

If the boat’s a rockin’, do come a knockin’.

I dig the whole sex, drugs and rock’n’roll thing. Well, except for the drugs. My vice of choice is green tea and I know that makes me a total wuss. And my guess is that this movie was made for people exactly like me.

I totally admit, I like almost anything that writer/director Richard Curtis has ever done (Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually). Love it. (I know, wuss, wuss, wuss). This movie, I didn’t like so much and I hate to write that. It hurts like Mark Darcy saying this about Bridget Jones: “Mother, I do not need a blind date. Particularly not with some verbally incontinent spinster who drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimney, and dresses like her mother”. Ouch.

“The Boat that Rocked” is an ensemble comedy about a bunch of mutinous DJs on an illegal pirate radio station in the North Sea in the 1960s. It is based on the true story of “Radio Caroline” that broadcasted pop music to the British masses from a ship anchored in international waters three miles off the coast of Felixstowe, Suffolk. Around 22 million people tuned in every day (remember, kids, downloads weren’t around that time). They dared to play the music that defined a generation and defied a government that considered jazz the only playable popular music.

Curtis, the “king of romcoms” is really threading through uncharted waters here. This one is very, very mainstream and at times cringingly constructed. It mighty have worked better as a full-on musical (and I am certain, there will be a musical version of this movie at some point). Granted, the movie is very well done, a riotous celebration of hedonism and debauchery, but mixed with fabric softener. It is light-hearted and groovy entertainment, it is actually, dare I say it? – almost American. I missed the Brit wit.

When boyish Carl (Tom Sturridge) is sent on the “Boat that Rocked” to see his godfather Quentin (the gentleman boss of Radio Rock, played brilliantly by the consummately and quintessentially British Bill Nighy), he finds camaraderie, friendship, his father and loses his virginity. Along for the ride is the crew of Radio Rock:

The Count (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, the outstanding American in an almost entirely British cast), a big, bearded and brassy American DJ. Dave (Nick Frost from “Shaun of the Dead”) as the funnily jocular jockey of the airwaves. Interesting nude scene.

Rhys Ifans plays Gavin, Britain’s most verbally outrageous DJ. Just returning from his drug tour of America, he makes the Ladies go gaga. Sporting one of the cooler entrances I’ve seen in a long time. He is however outsexed by the sultry Midnight Marc (Tom Wisdom) who knows the secret to seducing women, putting the naughty into nautical.

Completing the cast are Chris O’Dowd as the lovable Simon, Rhys Darby as the comical Angus and Ralph Brown as the early-bird Bob.

And of course there are tons of easy womenfolk on that boat (including Bond girl Gemma Arterton) and a lesbian named Marianne (played by Talulah Riley).

And there’s a veritable bad guy with interesting hair: Kenneth Branagh as Minister Dormandy, a fearsome British government official out for blood against the drug-takers and the law-breakers and the bottom-bashing fornicators of his recently great country. Joining him is his equally repressed sidekick, the interestingly named Twatt (Jack Davenport).

Can they stop the music?

No, they can’t. Music is the saving grace of this movie. And great music it is.

The soundtrack features tons of fantastic music by The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Otis Redding, The Kinks, Moody Blues, Dusty Springfield, The Isley Brothers and David Bowie – among many, many others.

If you go see it, see it for the music.

Release dates:

UK – 1 April 2009

Germany – 16 April 2009

USA – 28 August 2009

[starreviewmulti id=1]

Popularity: 5%