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%

Sue me, but even though I work with movies I don’t rush to the theater to see a Spike Jonze movie. It’s a question of taste, and his style is not compatible with what I love, which is a good thing, because I evaluate his films like movies, and not the work of a genius… Like some people.

With that said, “Where the Wild Things Are” is brilliant! Jonze was born to adapt Maurice Sendak’s book and his unique visual style is exactly what the story needed to transport the book’s feel to the audience. Although I liked “Being John Malkovic” and “Adaptation” I don’t like them as much as other people because I do like to have a little color and a little more movement in my movies. “Where the Wild Things Are” uses his washed out colors, patient story and character development as tools for the public to really feel Max’s anger, allowing for everybody to be transported to his world. Karen Orzolek’s score rounds it up with perfection for this feel-good trip, and listening to it even after the movie is over is just delightful.

And while the movie does justice to what I understand the novel to be about, its effect on me as an adult was what made me like it so much. The fact that it was marketed in greater part for adults to take their kids and not the other way around (also because the book was released in a time where most parents of today were children) made all the more sense when I felt transported into those angry moments in my childhood where I though my parents didn’t love me anymore because they had to be adults for a short while. What’s more, the fact that the Wild Things are parallels to Max’s personality or subconscious images of those close to him is astonishingly clear and fun to watch. Carol is really sweet and fun to hang out with, but his lack of responsibility is troublesome for the rest of his family, and in a sense this is what the story is all about… That plus the fact that he is voiced by Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) only helps in achieving a feeling of mischief, charisma and compassion from what is my favorite character in the movie.

But like many movies of its kind, “Where the Wild Things Are” is much more about the feeling rather than the product in itself, and that is a little difficult to put into words. Among other good movies by Spike Jonze, this one stands out because it is so compatible with his vision that it becomes just an awesome joy to watch. It’s not overly long, it doesn’t have that many moments of brilliance, but it becomes one of the few examples of an experience where the whole is much better than its parts.

Popularity: 1%

I just LOVE watching movies that get bashed by critics and, as a shameful consequence, by audiences, for two reasons: the hype is low AND I hope to understand something nobody else didn’t. “All About Steve” isn’t one of those movies. It isn’t nearly as bad as the media made it out to be, but it isn’t much more than a Sunday afternoon slapstick romedy, but it never aims to be either.

Sandra Bullock is getting bashed for it, but this is just the result of the movie being released the same year as “The Blind Side”, which is supposed to be the best role of her career. Bradley Cooper wouldn’t have bothered about it either, but his recent run of good roles and the impending release of “The A-Team” and the huge success of “The Hangover” made him noticeable enough to be bashed by this as well… People take life way too seriously.

If the story were relevant, it would be about a girl (Bullock) stalking a news camera-man (Cooper) along the road and, well… Girl meets boy, boy doesn’t want girl, girl doesn’t quite get it because she’s a supersmart talking encyclopedia freak. It’s neat and sometimes even unexpected.

Supporting the cast is Thomas Haden Church, who seems to be having loads of fun, which brought me to thinking: it seems that everyone is having fun. Bullock looks incredibly stupid, as does Cooper, and I kept asking myself if both didn’t owe a studio-head a movie in their contracts, and that might still be the case… But nonetheless, I always got the feeling that it was a relaxed shoot where everyone was just going nuts with their characters, and this may be the reason that I didn’t end up hating “All About Steve”… It was just fun for everybody.

Popularity: 1%

Where is this world going to if having fun in a movie theater has become something that’s frowned upon?

I am not talking specifically about “Avatar”… I mean, come on, the movie has more positive reviews than anything released lately and it shattered the box office last weekend, so James Cameron is not losing any sleep over the people complaining about the movie.

But here are the facts: as a screenwriter I must say that from the hype I was expecting some big plot twist, some fantastic revelation or something like that. “Avatar” has a predictable, linear and shallow script, and after sitting through the first five minutes, I realized that it was exactly what I liked most about the movie. YES, I love it when a movie challenges me, makes me question my ethics, but I also agree that the 80’s were the best times to sit in a movie theater, eating loads of popcorn and having FUN… It seems that there’s a growing tendency in world cinema to say that anything that doesn’t have depth is BAAAAD. Come on, people! Movies are entertainment, among other things, and James Cameron has the balls to spend a shitload of money in an experience that will make you cry, laugh and feel excited throughout two and a half hours of the greatest entertainment spectacle of the last decade.

Sure, the script is predictable… And before any script-doctor wanna-bes say something, let me shut you up by saying that it features great character development, very precise payoffs for its plot points, interesting (and deep) characters and a villain that will remain as one of the most bad-ass in recent memory. Jake Sully, the hero, is as complex as it gets, and the quick establishment of his personality is one of the many winning aspects of “Avatar”.

If I really wanted to (but don’t) I could tell you how great the acting is, how amazing the effects are and all that. I am sure you read it from other critics out there… The fact is that “Avatar” is the most fun I remember having in a movie theater recently… Me and my friends cheered, some of them cried, everybody laughed and after 160 minutes, I complained that the movie might have been a little short.

Movie of the year? Probably not… I would call it the coolest movie since “Terminator 2″. In any case, do yourself a favor: watch it (if you haven’t yet), and watch it in 3D. It is the first movie in the format that I truly enjoyed watching.

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%

Well, he did it again.

I am not an Emmerich hater, but you gotta give it to the guy. It looks like he goes to great lengths to ruin the expectations of anyone with a brain in the audience.

My problem with “2012″ is that it sends out a clear message that Emmerich and co. lack the cojones to go that extra mile to make his movies an enjoyable experience. Sure, “Independence Day” was cool and needed a hope filled ending, while “The Day After Tomorrow” got close to what I thought could extend his craft of destroying shit a little further.

And when I saw the full-length trailer for “2012″ I thought he was finally ready to take that next step. If you are still not understanding what I am getting at, here it goes in plain ENGLISH: I wanted him to just destroy everything, us humans included.

The movie is about the end of the world… the END of the WORLD!!! Get it? The world is supposed to END!!! It doesn’t get any simpler than that. And we get that in the movie… We get it a lot. But then he spirals down in an attempt at a dramatic third act where everybody knows each other, Russians are selfish, the US Government goes boo-hoo and half a million people get saved because through some miracle the government was able to build ships that protects everyone from the flood resulted in the whatthefuck is wrong with these people solar flairs and tectonic displacement horseshit.

It’s a flood… It’s not the end of the world, IT’S A FUCKING FLOOD! To make it even worse, the evil waters don’t do all that much damage and start to go back as the new highest point in the planet in AFRICA will be the start of the new human civilization. I am trying, but even my years of training can’t come up with words to describe how stupid everything is, and all these insanely retarded excuses to make a happy ending could have been solved by simply saying: OOPS, IT’S OVER! It would have been much more satisfying because the movie is (I love repeating this) THE END OF THE WORLD!

If you understand the molecule of a fart that comes close to story development, you would understand just how bad this is when it comes to being cohesive with the mood that had been set in the first, oh crap, 120 minutes of film, when you destroy everything, send out messages of dozens of different messages from dozens of different cultures that humanity’s days are being counted and you solve everything by making sure John Cusack gets back with Amanda Peet. WHAT?!!!

Then there’s casting choices. Black president: good idea, but not Danny Glover. Can somebody tell me what the hell Murtaugh is doing in the Oval Office? And then you get the worst joke ever when “John Kennedy” comes back to Washington in a tidal wave (I wish I could make shit like that up) to kill the While House with the Black President inside. It’s just BAD.

Then you get the president’s daughter and his scientific advisor. Both black, because hey, “maybe vee can make it ze new trend”, but both played by British actors in the worst roles of their lives. Cusack is Cusack, Peet is Peet (neutral here) and the only breath of fresh air is Woody Harrelson, but he dies so fast you forget he was ever there. And please, PLEASE, don’t ever cast Oliver Platt as a bad guy ever again… He is just too nice for that.

And if you expect me to talk about the effects, forget about it. It’s the very fucking least you can expect from a U$260 MILLION Dollar production.

Popularity: 1%