Diego_rjc Reviews

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

Boring but important start - awesome last third, though.

[8/10 · 20 December 2010]

'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia' starts with a beautiful shot of a pregnant girl doing laundry by the river. Later, we find out that her father is a rich Mexican farmer (Emilio Fernández), who puts a 1 million dollar bounty on the head of the guy who made his daughter pregnant: Alfredo Garcia. Bennie (Warren Oates) hears about this bounty, and goes on a road trip with his prostitute girlfriend Elita (Isela Vega) after the head of Alfredo Garcia, who happens to be her gigolo. The script was written by Peckinpah himself, along with Gordon T. Dawson. What we have here is a very well-written script, in my opinion with quite believable dialogs. The problem is that the first 2/3 of the film portraits this road trip, and although it's quite important for character development, this part of the movie is very boring.

Don't get me wrong, Peckinpah fans. I really enjoyed 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia', and though it was much better than others Peckinpah films, such as 'The Getaway' - although I still think 'The Wild Bunch' is the best Sam Peckinpah film. The problem is that I only enjoyed the last 1/3 of the movie. The first 2/3 are boring, and although well- written, were very bad-directed. And what made this part so bad? In my opinion, it's because it focuses on the relationship between Bennie and Elita, and Peckinpah simply doesn't know how to shoot human relations. There is one scene in which Bennie asks Elita to marry him that was so lame it made me wanting to fast forward it. On the other hand, there is another scene where Elita is almost raped by a Biker, in a cameo by Kris Kristofferson, in which Peckinpah was able to transmit so much emotion that you could hardly believe he was the one behind the camera over there. So overall, the beginning of the film serves to character development purposes only, and the real deal starts when Bennie finally finds the head of Alfredo Garcia, and Elita gets sadly killed, in a wonderfully-edited scene.

As I said, I really enjoyed the last 1/3 of the movie, when Bennie finds the head. Here, you get all the classic Peckinpah stuff. The rapid cuts during gunfights, car chases and lots of body, people getting killed and even a few situations that could be called plot twists. And one thing that I find amazing here is the relationship Bennie develops with the head, and this were you realize how important was to show his relationship with Elita during the rest of movie. In conclusion, although I think the 'love scenes' between Bennie and Elita, and therefore, the whole beginning of the picture, bad-filmed, it's in the end that you realize how important those scenes actually are to portrait how dependent Bennie really is, and how he needed Elita up to the point that he developed a special relationship with a dead man's head (!). And much of this depth present in Bennie's character is because of Warren Oates, who delivered a true ground-breaking performance. There is one particular scene were Bennie, after retrieving the head, goes back to his house, and has a conversation (if you can call it that way) with the head that's going to stay in the mind of those who watch the movie for a long time.

In conclusion, 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia' is an excellent Sam Peckinpah film, losing only to 'The Wild Bunch' as the American filmmaker's best movie. The first 2/3 of the movie may seem boring and, in my opinion, bad filmed, because it portraits human relations (what Peckinpah simply doesn't know how to film), but Peckinpah makes up in the last third. In this part of the movie, you realize that those scenes were important to character development and to show the depth of the main character Bennie (in an excellent performance by Warren Oates). This last 1/3 of the movie also has what Peckinpah knows how to do best: shoot violence, with gunfights, kills and lots of fake blood.

8/10

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

An excellent romantic comedy that's able to remain fresh and original even today

[10/10 · 20 December 2010]

First of all, I'd like to say that I pretty much hate romantic comedies. I can't stand them at all. They're all the same, have the same plots, the same characters (in most cases) and even the same actors. The only thing that changes in these kinds of movies is the background in which the characters live. But of course there are exceptions, such as the Hepburn/Grant 1938 flick 'Bringing Up Baby', Woody Allen's Best Picture winner 'Annie Hall', and this movie. 'When Harry Met Sally...' is a romantic comedy that was able to be original in 1989 and remains fresh even nowadays, when most movies from this genre copy what it introduced back then.

'When Harry Met Sally...' story focuses on the relationship of Harry (Billy Crystal) and Sally (Meg Ryan), covering 12 years of their lives, starting in 1977, when they met in a trip (hence the title), and ending in 1989, the year the movie was made. In these 12 years, Harry and Sally go through many phases. First they hated each other, then they became friends, until they finally realized they loved each other. The story may seem simple enough, but the script written by Nora Ephron - who even got an Oscar nomination for it - manages to tell it in a simple but yet complicated matter, a matter that holds the attention of the viewer during the whole movie. Throughout it, Ephron deals with many themes regarding love, and throws a lot of questions to the viewer, such as "Can men and women be friends?" and so on. The script also introduces us to concepts that were used in most of other romantic comedies to come, like the idea of both the main characters having close friends who also fall in love, the feelings that the main characters have for each other, going from hate to love during the movie, and so on. And speaking of the main characters, the character development here is nothing but marvelous, which reflects in Harry's case for example: a character that starts off as a ladies' man, and finishes the movie as guy in love for his then- friend. And it's just this change in the characters that makes the movie so great, and specially, believable. Add this to some fantastic well- written dialog, and you got yourself an excellent script.

There's really not much to praise in what regards the acting here. Both the main actors do a pretty good job in portraying their characters, but it's not really that stand-off job. Surprisingly, the best member of the cast is Meg Ryan, in probably the best performance of her career. She manages to deliver a very strong performance and convince as that's Sally, appealing to both men and women - like the movie itself. And she did a hell of a job in the infamous fake orgasm scene, which has got to be one of the most funny scenes ever. Like Meg Ryan, Billy Crystal also does an amazing job. In this movie, he's the guy every man wants to be. Apart from the main duo, the other two important characters are jess (Bruno Kirby) and Marie (Carrie Fisher), who do an average job.

'When Harry Met Sally...' is directed by the always-great Rob Reiner. I've watched most of his movies, and although this definitely ain't his best work, all can say that Mr. Reiner did a pretty good job directing this picture. Most of the shots don't have much to them, but there are a few scenes where you can watch and say "Rob Reiner certainly shot that." And the way he tells the story, interpolating Harry and Sally's story with real couples telling their love-story is a pretty good addiction to the script. I also thought the cinematography here was quite well-done, giving the feeling of New York to the viewer brilliantly.

Overall, 'When Harry Met Sally...' is an excellent romantic comedy, that's able to appeal to both men and women. The best thing here is Nora Ephron's very well-written script. The acting is not so great, but it could be worst, though. Rob Reiner's directing made the movie what it is: a romantic comedy that was fresh and original back then and remains so nowadays, even with a lot of the movies from this genre copying many things from 'When Harry Met Sally...'

9/10

Lethal Weapon (1987)

The first - and with no thought, the best - buddy film

[9/10 · 18 December 2010]

Action movies. We all love them. They have heroes, explosions, foreign villains, amazing gunfights and pretty much all you need to have fun. But there is one type of action movie that we love the most, the so- called buddy films. They got almost what every action flick has (all mentioned above). But there is one major difference. In this type of movie, instead of one hero, you get two. Generally they are both partner cops and struggle to solve a major case involving drug-dealers. And Richard Donner's 1987's 'Lethal Weapon' is the movie that practically created this buddy movie genre, and it's still copied nowadays. But what makes 'Lethal Weapon' so special? We shall see.

'Lethal Weapons' story centers around its two major characters: Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), both cops who are partnered to solve a case involving a gang of drug smugglers. Although the story may seem a bit cliché nowadays, that is because it was copied so many times - back then, it was fresh and new. But the main force that makes Shane Black's script so great is the depth of his two main characters and their relationship. They are so different that it's hard to understand how they get along so well. Riggs is a self-destruct, and almost suicidal cop, and that makes him the Lethal Weapon referred to on the title. Murtaugh, on the other hand, is just a simple detective, a family man who served in Vietnam and has been on the force for nearly 20 years. And it's this difference of opinion and style that makes the movie as good as it is - it's practically a love story between two thought guys in the middle of chases, gunfights, explosions. The dialog here is also marvelous - you sure are going to remember most of the main quotes. There are also a few funny lines and sequences to light up the mood a little bit.

As stated, 'Lethal Weapon''s script revolves around Gibson and Glover. Therefore, the story simply wouldn't work without good acting of the pair. But thankfully, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover have so much chemistry on screen that you end up believing they are Riggs and Murtaugh on skin and flesh. They both deliver excellent performances, and, in my opinion, even Oscar-worthy ones, Specially for Gibson. The scene where Riggs almost kills himself in his apartment is quite an impressive achievement for Gibson, being the best scene on his career. And Glover also manages to deliver a very good performance. But apart from the main duo, there isn't really a lot to add on what refers to acting. No one from the supporting cast did a above-average job, but they really didn't need to. Gibson and Glover sure can hold the bar on their own.

Another point that impressed me upon watching 'Lethal Weapon' was Richard Donner's directing. I've watched most of his other flicks, and I believe this is the best job he did since 'Superman'. He managed to always keep the pace of the flick, never let the bar go or anything. And also he did a incredible job filming the action scenes. The helicopter scene, to give the best example, is quite breath-taking, so is the chase at the end of the movie. And talking about the end - both the ending and the initial scenes are shockingly well-filmed. Technically, I can't also find many flaws in 'Lethal Weapon' - Stephen Goldblatt's cinematography works very well, so does the editing by Stuart Baird. If you're wandering if the musical score is good or not, there is only one thing to be said: Eric Clapton did it (along with Michael Kamen).

What can I say? 'Lethal Weapon' is the movie that started it all - it started the buddy film genre and introduced us to Roger Murtaugh and Martin Riggs, characters we all know and love. The movie's script is awesome, and it's still copied nowadays. Richard Donner's directing is also great, but what makes it almost perfect is the chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. Donner, Gibson, and Glover would still come back for three other sequels, but nothing can come close to the magic that was the first movie. Recommended to anyone who likes action flicks or just wanna have a good time.

9/10

Yojimbo (1961)

One of Kurosawa's best pictures. If not his best.

[10/10 · 29 April 2010]

Akira Kurosawa is probably the most famous Japanese director of all time. Even a person that doesn't study cinema, she probably have watched a Kurosawa flick or at least heard of him. But this doesn't happen just for any reason. In his career, there are all-time classics, such as 'Ran', 'Dreams', 'Rashomon', 'Kagemusha' and many others. Most of his movies, specially his early ones, such as 1957's 'Seven Samurai', introduced many concepts that are used in Hollywood nowadays, specially in action movies. Another picture quite important for Kurosawa's career and the movie industry in general is 'Yojimbo', from 1961. This movie is widely considered as one of Kurosawa's best pictures. If not his best.

'Yojimbo's story is set in the late-19th century. It tells the story of Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Toshirô Mifune), a samurai without a master, that drifts without any specific destination. He arrives in a small village, dominated by two lords: Seibei (Seizaburô Kawazu), who produces silk, and Ushitora (Kyû Sazanka), who produces sake. Those two lords are always fighting each other, but they are both and his men to coward to make one real fight, so they just threat each other. Upon his arrival, the samurai realizes this, so he offer the services of bodyguard to both of them (thus the title, Yojimbo, which means bodyguard in Japanese). But all Sanjuro really wants is to make the fight come to an end and finally bring peace to the small town. The movie's screenplay was wrote by Kurosawa himself, with the help of Ryûzô Kikushima. It is loosely based on several stories, such as the novel 'Red harvest'. 'Yojimbo's plot may seem somewhat familiar, and that's because this story was revisited by many other directors over the years. But the screenplay is just the one problem I have with 'Yojimbo'. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie and the story, just though it could be better developed, specially on the character's department. It would be nice to know some of the background story of how the town reached that situation. This would help to explain the actions of some characters, that seem somewhat shallow. But the screenplay also manages to deal with excellent subjects in a subtle way, such as the generation conflicts, innocence, cowardly, etc. Another thing that worked very well is that you really don't know what happened to Sanjuro before the events depicted on the movie. The picture already starts with him wandering in a deserted road. This happens to increase the mysteries around his character, which are never really explained. In a nutshell, a very well-written screenplay.

Guess who's the leading actor in 'Yojimbo'? If you guessed Toshirô Mifune, then you are absolutely right. After all, it would be the obvious answer, because Mifune made nothing less than sixteen movies along with Akira Kurosawa. and this movie marks the twelfth collaboration between the two. And one of the best, not only because of the movie itself, which is great, but specially for Mifune's work. He had already delivered excellent performances in other Kurosawa's pictures, such as 'Seven Samurai' or 'Rashomon', but his job in 'Yojimbo' really stands out. Mifune was perfect in his role as Sanjuro. He understood the part do well that you actually believes he is the samurai. And in the scene where he is drunk is like an interpretation class for new actors. Amazing. The rest of the cast was nice also. Of course no one reached Mifune's greatness, but there wasn't one bad actor in the main or in the supporting cast.

Normally in my reviews here on IMDb, this is the paragraph where I say what I tough about the direction of the movie. But there isn't much to comment on Kurosawa's directing job in 'Yojimbo'. That's because it's Kurosawa, what can I say? Everyone knows that Kurosawa is a master, the best of the best, the guy who created all the concepts we use in action movies, so I'm gonna restrict to saying this: as always, Kurosawa makes a perfect job. His direction was so great that only three years after the release of 'Yojimbo', in 1964, one of the best Italian directors of all time, Sergio Leone, made a shot-by-shot remake of the movie. But Leone's picture was set in the American Wild West, and was starred by no one less then Clint Eastwood. Leone's 'A Fistful of Dollars' is a movie as good as 'Yojimbo', and all thanks to Kurosawa. Another thing that I though it was great in 'Yojimbo' is the Soundtrack. A brilliant work by Masaru Satô. Aside from the Soundtrack, other aspect in 'Yojimbo' that really stands out is the cinematography. A beautiful work in black-and- white tones by Kazuo Miyagawa.

Overral, 'Yojimbo' is one of those movies that come close to perfection. The only complain I have with it is the script, that could have been better developed in the characters' department. But this doesn't remove the glow of the movie, that has a perfect direction and an excellent acting, specially by Toshiro Mifune, in his twelfth collaboration with Akira Kurosawa, that made Yojimbo one of his best pictures. If not the best.

10/10

The Wild Bunch (1969)

An excellent tribute to the Old West

[9/10 · 17 April 2010]

The western genre is one of the most popular movie genres of all cinema history. Excellent actors and directors always worked with stories that evolved around the Old West myth. And in 1969, when the genre was at the highest pitch of its popularity, Sam Peckinpah made 'The Wild Bunch'. The movie served more like a homage to the Old West, and is regarded even today as one of the best westerns of all time and one of the best Sam Peckinpah's flicks. It is, indeed, an excellent tribute tribute to the Old West.

'The Wild Bunch' takes place right before the beginning of World War I and in the height of the Mexican Revolution. To be more precise, the movie is set in the year of 1913, just when the mythical Wild West comes to an end. The plot follows the story of an aging bandits gang, leaden by Pike Bishop (William Holden). After stealing a small town bank, the gang manages to escape, with several of its members dead after a shootout with the local police. But when they check the money, they realize that what they stole were mere stones, with no value at all. This fact alone makes the group realize that the Old West is changing, and that it doesn't have room for people like them anymore. With this feeling of being out of place, the gang heads over to Mexico, to try to have one last big score before retiring. But things aren't gonna as smooth as they tough, because a former member of the gang, Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan) is forced by the police to chase and capture them within a 30-day period - or else, he goes to prison. What follows then is a series of happenings, shootouts, and new characters appearing- all representing the changing of the Wild West. 'The Wild Bunch' Oscar-nominated screenplay was wrote by Sam Peckinpah himself, with the help of Walon Green and Roy N. Sickner. Even though the basic argument of the story feels a lot like other westerns, such as 1968's 'Bandolero!', with a smart guy chasing a bandits gang, 'The Wild Bunch' stills holds its originality because of the treatment the screenplay has. It's all done to make the audience believe that those characters simply don't belong to that place anymore. The scenes where the members of the gang start to laugh for no apparent reason is a great example of that. The dialogs here are a little antiquated, but quite nice. And I kinda enjoyed the way Peckinpah tied the whole story together. The shootouts are amazing, and they don't seem out of place at all, different than what happens to other westerns. It's all made to be a tribute to the Old West, but nothing is forced. An overall great script, incredibly well-written, and with some unforgettable lines.

I think that 'The Wild Bunch' is very well-casted. With the exception of the always-great William Holden, which offered a nice performance as Pike Bishop, the gang leader, the acting here isn't what you may call top-notch, but it's not bad either. All the supporting cast does an average job, with Emilio Fernández standing out. I personally thought he was great as General Huerta, one of Mexican revolutionaries to which the gang stumble across, and a character that gets more important over the course of the movie. In the supporting cast, you also have names such as Ben Johnson and Bo Hopkins, actors that worked other times with Sam Peckinpah. And in the main roles, I also enjoyed the work of Ernest Borgnine. But the biggest surprise of 'The Wild Bunch' in terms of acting was someone called Jaime Sánchez. He played Angel, the youngest of the gang members. His work wasn't excellent, but he was far from bad. I can't really understand why his career didn't took off after this movie.

'The Wild Bunch' has all the elements which a Sam Peckinpah movie needs. It has lots of blood and violence, specially for a 1969 movie. It even has nudity (!). As a matter of fact, I think it's the movie that has most of these elements, not only for the violence, but mostly because this movie is widely regarded as been the best directing work of Peckinpah, along with 'The Getaway'. Peckinpah really settled the bar for others movies to come, with a very interesting camera work and the fast-cutting action that made him famous. And this Peckinpah-style is in evidence right in the first scene of the movie, when the gang try to rob the bank and enter in a gunfight with the local police. The way Peckinpah films this scene and all others shootouts scenes in the movie is simply amazing, with lots of close-ups and short shots, what makes the gunfight even more frenetic than it is. But Peckinpah not only shows his style in the action scenes, but in the normal ones too. His use of open-shots and close-ups is excellent, and reminded me a lot of George Roy Hill's work in 1969's 'Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid', a movie that also utilizes these resources. One thing that I though was great in 'The Wild Bunch' was the editing work by Lou Lombardo. It really settled the mood of the picture, specially the opening credits. Very well done. But one thing bothered me about the movie. And it is the original music score by Jerry Fielding. It was quite weak for a western.

Overall, 'The Wild Bunch' is a great western, but it has its problems. It serves as an excellent tribute to the Wild West, and it is the best Sam Peckinpah movie I've ever saw. His directing work here influenced lots of others directors, what makes this a classic in every sense of the word. The screenplay is great, along with an average acting. But the original music score could be better, though.

9/10

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

Almost as good as 'Oldboy'

[10/10 · 5 April 2010]

46 years-old South Korean director Chan-wook Park decided, back in 2002, to film three separated pictures that shared the same themes: violence, salvation, and mainly, revenge. This so-called 'Vengeance Trilogy' started with 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance', and then followed by 2003's 'Oldboy' and 2005's 'Sympathy for Lady Vengeance'. The second movie of the trilogy, 'Oldboy', is widely considered by both critics and public to be the best movie of the trilogy, even winning the Grand Prize of the Jury at the Cannes Film Festival and been nominated for lots of other awards. But the first movie of Park's trilogy, 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance' comes real close to be as good as 'Oldboy', but being much better than 'Sympathy for lady Vengeance'.

'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance' follows the story of Ryu (Ha-kyun Shin). Ryu is both deaf and mute. He has a sister (Ji-Eun Lim) that needs a kidney transplant. Ryu lost his job, therefore he has no money to pay for a legal transplant. So he tries to buy a kidney from the black market, but he is fooled by the smugglers and loses his own kidney and the little amount of money he had. Then his girlfriend, Cha Yeong-mi (Donna Bae), gives Ryu the idea to kidnap his former boss', Park Dong- jin (Kang-ho Song), daughter, Yu-sun (Bo-bae Han). What follows then is a series of events, all evolving acts of revenge and violence. Being a part of the 'Vengeance Trilogy', you would expect that the script is about revenge, but the story Park and his crew created is truly amazing. I'm not gonna spoil it here, but the script takes a few terrific, mind-blowing turns. The characters make weird but real decisions, which provokes a chain of events that you won't believe. The dialogs are also quite well written, so is the rest of the movie. There is also quite a nice share of touching scenes, and also lots of violent and bloody ones. In my opinion, the screenplay is for sure the strongest point of 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance'.

The problem about this movie is that this excellent written screenplay wouldn't work without an at least also excellent cast. And thankfully, the acting here is truly great, indeed. There aren't many actors here, but those who are in it make extremely well-acted performances. Aside from this small list of main actors, there is a considerable amount of supporting actors, that have one or two lines. They play those characters that only serve to glue the whole story together, and they all did their jobs pretty well. Specially Seung-beom Ryu, that plays the retarded boy at the river (when you watch the movie, you'll see what am I talking about). I was quite surprised by his work, specially his body movements and facial expressions. But the biggest surprise of the movie in terms of acting didn't come from him. From the main list of the cast, you get Bo-bae Han, who played Ryu's former boss' daughter. Her performance is short of excellence, specially for a little girl. One of the best kids I've ever saw acting. The unfortunate fact is that she didn't do anything beyond this picture. Another performance that blew me off was Kang-ho Song's one, who played the girl's father and Ryu's former boss'. His interpretation of the character is terrific. The scene where he finds out about his daughter's kidnapping is truly chilling. His role sure is important, but the biggest part of the movie went to Kang-ho Song, who plays Ryu. The story is all centered around this character, and it's funny, because he doesn't say a word throughout the whole movie, being deaf and mute. But even in these conditions, he still managed to deliver a good performance, entering the character perfectly. Doona Bae and Ji-Eun Lim, who played, respectively Ryu's girlfriend and sister also delivered strong performances. An overall great cast, that works nice as an ensemble.

If you've watched 'Oldboy' or any other Chan-wook Park flick, and then stumble across this movie, you're definitely gonna realize that 'Oldboy' and 'Sympathy for Mr Vengeance' are from the same director. That's because Park has this unique style, which makes him different from most of the other directors, Asians or not, that have emerged recently. All of Park's movies are dark, with a crazy but believable story, and filled with violence and lots of (necessary) blood. And this style is in most evidence here. In 'Sympathy for Vengeance', Park utilize all these resources to make the movie as gloomy as possible. And this is certainly helped by the wonderful job that Park does as a director. His camera work is incredible. The use of open shots is superb, so are the close-ups. And you get various tracking shots in here that are hard to forget. And all this is made for you to feel even more sympathy for those characters featured on the screen. This is also helped by the excellent cinematography this movie presents, in a great job by Byeong-il Kim. The color tone is almost always the same in the whole movie. It all feels so sad and pale. The editing work is also very nice, so is the art-direction. The characters clothes and the sets all look amazing.

Overall, the first movie of the 'Vengeance Trilogy' really settled the course for others to come. The movie has all elements that a Chan-wook park movie needs and served sort like of a preparation for 'Oldboy', widely regarded as to be the best of the trilogy. But this movie comes real close to 'Oldboy', with a wonderful cast, cinematography and editing. And the script is one of the best I've ever seen.

10/10

The Witches of Eastwick (1987)

Talk about wasting potential...

[4/10 · 29 March 2010]

There I was in the video-store a couple of weeks ago. Without nothing better to do, I found 'The Witches of Eastwick' DVD in the Horror section. Originally, I haven't never heard of it. But when I read the informations about the movie, I was completely thrilled by it and my hype went sky- high. I mean, how can a movie directed by George Miller (the 'Mad Max' series), with a score composed by John Williams (the 'Star Wars' series, the 'Indiana Jones series', the 'Superman' series, 'E.T.: The Extra- Terrestrial' and many others) and featuring four of my favorite actors of all time (Jack Nicholson, Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer) could be bad? Well, apparently, this movie succeed into wasting all this potential in a boring and non-sense flick...

'The Witches of Eastwick' story is based on a novel by John Updike that tells the story of three single women that live a (very) small New England town called Eastwick. They are Alexandra Medford (Cher), Jane Spofford (Susan Sarandon) and Sukie Ridgemont (Michelle Pfeiffer). The shallowness of their lives is soon to be changed when a new man moves into town. Daryl Van Horne (Jack NIcholson) is exactly what the three of them were waiting. He is filthy rich and wild eyed, and they innocently conjure up to him. But while with him, they discover almighty powers in them selves, finding out that they actually witches and Van Horne is the devil. The plot seems to be kinda nonsense and it is, indeed. And aside from not making sense at all, the movie's screenplay is also badly adapted from Updike's book by Michael Cristofer. This makes the movie worse than it is, because of the horrible development of the story and the completely garbage dialogs. There also some scenes that are unnecessarily disgusting and bad-written. But the script is not all bad. There are a few funny lines, though, and the movie has a surprisingly well-made and fun ending.

With a cast like this, you can't help but wait a top-notch overall acting. And that's why I've got completely disappointed by the acting here. It seems like the ensemble just didn't work, and that's a shame. The always-excellent Jack Nicholson delivered a great performance, as usual, with some nice voice and body work. His final speech is something truly amazing. But the rest of the cast simply didn't know what to do. All the supporting cast was bad, specially Veronica Cartwright and Richard Jenkis as two of the city's habitants. And when you though that Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer were going to equal Nicholson's work, they didn't. All the three female stars were bad, specially Cher and Michelle Pfeiffer. Nothing compared to what they did in movies like 'Moonstruck' or 'Scarface'. On the other hand, Susan Sarandon at least tried to deliver a comic performance, but just couldn't. All she did was embarrass herself (and this statement works not just for Sarandon, but for Cher and Pfeiffer also).

There's nothing to comment on George Miller's directing work in this picture. It's just another point to be disappointed by - he did nothing special. The special effects were great for 1987, but it's sort of thing that didn't age well. Kids these days would laugh at some scenes. Aside from Nicholson's performance, two other things saved the movie in my opinion. They were the set-decoration, which I really liked, and John Williams's original music score. There are some truly great pieces written for the movie, and some of the tunes don't get out of my head.

Overall, 'The Witches of Eastwick' is the movie that wasted most potential in cinema's history. A could've been great flick was transformed into a disappoint because of the horrible acting, writing and directing. If it wasn't for Jack Nicholson's good performance and John Williams' catchy tunes, 'The Witches of Eastwick' would've been a fail in every sense of the word.

4/10

Three O'Clock High (1987)

An 80's teen comedy that shouldn't be overlooked (but it is, unfortunately)

[9/10 · 26 March 2010]

There are a lot of movies from the 1980's that we grew up watching it. At the movies, at the afternoon screenings on TV, movies like 'Back to the Future' or 'The Goonies'. We all remember those movies with great enthusiasm and nostalgia. Who doesn't like 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' or 'License to Drive'? But there is one particular movie from this period that is easily overlooked because of all those classics. Well, it shouldn't, because 'Three O'clock High' is probably one of the best teen comedy of all time and one of the most beloved movies from the 80's.

'Three O'clock High' is set on your regular high school. Rumor has it that the new student, Buddy Revell (Richard Tyson) is a very dangerous guy that doesn't like to be touched. And the rumors are proved to be true when one of the the school's nerds, Jerry Mitchell (Casey Siemaszko), touches Buddy. Now, Buddy challenges Jerry to a fight at the school's parking lot when the classes are over - at three o'clock high. Then Jerry gets evolved in all kinds of strange situations to try to avoid the confrontation. The movie's script seems to have a rather silly and cliché argument like any other teen comedy. It may have, but the way the story develops is great. Near the end, the movie even gets to raise a few moral questions. The dialogs are surprisingly well- written, and you get lots of funny jokes that haven't lost its touch. And that's another great aspect from 'Three O'clock High'. Except for a few clothes and haircuts, the movie doesn't seem to have aged at all. This is mostly for the already-mentioned great dialog, but partly for the characters. Jerry Mitchell's growing during the movie is incredible, and Buddy Revell must be one of the best villains of all time.

And that's mostly because of Richard Tyson's wonderful acting as Buddy. He is quiet, yet quite frightening. But Buddy is a character that even when you fear him, you don't dislike him. You're always there, trying to dislike him, but you can't. And aside from Tyson's performance, which was the best of the movie, the rest of the acting is also nice. All the supporting cast do their jobs very well, with Annie Ryan standing out as a girl who wants to be jerry Mitchell's girlfriend. You even get a cameo from Mitch Pillegi here (the Assistant Director Walter Skinner of the famous TV series 'The X-Files') Casey Siemaszko, just like Tyson, delivers a top-notch performance as Jerry Mitchell. He changes perfectly with the pace of his character, with really great body and facial expressions

While watching 'Three O'clock High', the movie surprised me in many ways. But what mostly surprised me here was Phil Joanou's work as the director of the picture. Joanou is commonly known to get this directing job because he was Steven Spielberg's protégé at the time. and since Spielberg is one of the Executive Producers for the movie (even though, god-knows-why, Spielberg had his name removed from the credits)... -- Joanou directing started to surprise me right into the starting credits, with nice camera angles as Jerry was getting ready for school, and a great 80's-like song playing in the back. but Joanou caught me with my pants down in the end of the starting credits, with a really beautiful tracking shot as kids were getting into school and each group was talking different rumors about Buddy Revell. The passage of time is also perfectly portrayed here. The lots of shots showing a clock with the hours only served to increase the audience's anxiety and Jerry Mitchell's fear for the fight. In my opinion, Phil Joanou portrayed the passage of time as good as Fred Zinnemann did in the classic western 'High Noon'. It's also real pleasant to see that Joanou was able to apply every directing technique into a teen comedy (!).

The movie's budget wasn't exactly big, and we can see this with lots of technical mistakes- in both sound and image. But this doesn't spoil the overall experience- it's incredibly fun to watch this movie. 'Three O'clock High' has an excellent script, that created unforgettable characters and haven't aged at all; the movie's acting is superb, specially because of the work of the two leads (Casey Siemaszko and Richard Tyson); and Phil Joanou's directing was a pleasant surprise, 'cause he was able to apply lots of directing techniques into a teen comedy. This proves why 'Three O'clock High' is one of the best of the 80's comedy classics. It's not a masterpiece, but it's really fun and it shouldn't be overlooked (but it is, unfortunately).

9/10

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

Cage and Shue in the best parts of their careers

[9/10 · 23 March 2010]

Nicolas Cage and Elisabeth Shue are actors that aren't well-known for their acting itself, but more for the sex-appeal they both have. Cage is widely known for his roles in comedy movies (like in the Coen Brothers' 'Raising Arizona') or action flicks, like 'The Rock' or 'Conair'. Shue was discovered in 'Karate Kid' and was also in the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, but never giving a strong performance. But in 1995, both Cage and Shue proved they could act in Mike Figgs' 'Leaving Las Vegas'. This movie gave Cage his first (and only) Oscar, and Shue her first (and only) nomination. Their roles in this movie are still considered today the best parts in both careers.

'Leaving Las Vegas' follows the story of Ben Sanderson (Nicolas Cage), a man that, after his wife runs away with his children, starts to drink, a lot. Now, after he lost his job and has nothing more to do with his life, he decides to go to Las Vegas to, according with his own words, "drink himself to death". In Las Vegas, he meets a prostitute named Sera (Elizabeth Shue), and moves in with her, forming a beautiful, but problematic friendship. 'Leaving Las Vegas' script is based on a novel by John O'Brien, an American author that was also an alcoholic and shot himself to death only two weeks after the movie's production began. Some people say that the character of Ben Sanderson represents the urge of the author to drink himself to death, and I agree with them. One could've only wrote such sad and deep characters on depressive times. Throughout the whole movie, the author discusses themes such as alcoholism, rape, prostitution, etc, but always in a very subtle, almost gentle way. The dialogs are simply fantastic, and the story develops in a remarkable way. O'Brien's novel was adapted here by the own Mike Figgs', who was Oscar-nominated for his work.

The strongest point of 'Leaving Las Vegas' is, indeed, the acting. Aside from Cage and Shue, any other actor here have big roles. The only one with a little more screenwriter was Julian Sands, as Yuri, Sera's pimp. And Julian Sands delivered a good performance, but that's not nothing compared to the job of the two main actors of the picture. Nicolas Cage was almost perfect as Ben Sanderson, giving one of the best drunk-man interpretations of all time. The second best, if you ask me, only behind Ray Milland's job in Billy Wilder's 'The Lost Weekend'. His voice levels, his body movements, everything seems so perfect for a drunken man. And even when Ben Sanderson isn't drunk, Cage managed to give such depth to the character that it's impressive. One particular scene where Ben goes to the bank in the morning but still haven't had a shot, really blew me away. That scene proved all Cage's talents, and beyond. He completely deserved the Oscar he got. My only wish is that he does more serous roles like this, but that seems unlikely, considering his filmography nowadays. Elisabeth Shue was also excellent in the role of the prostitute Sera. She wasn't better than Nicolas Cage, but she came real close. I haven't seen 'Dead Man Walking', so I can't really say if she deserved the best Actress Oscar-award more than the winner for that year, Susan Sarandon.

Aside from his nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay, Mike Figgs was also nominated for his directing job in this picture. and it is truly great indeed. The way Mike Figgs makes the audience connect to all those characters is incredible. Notice how the actors are almost always is close-ups, and if they are not, how the camera is far away from then. Figgs utilizes the music in a perfect way, also. All those Jazz ballads fit into the movie like a glove, and they are all composed by the own Mike Figgs and sung by Sting. Figgs utilized the music specially to increase or decrease the dramatization of each scene, to make the audience feel sorry or not for these two characters. Each scene has also a strange and sad look, thanks to the nice cinematography by Declan Quinn.

Overral, I really liked 'Leaving Las Vegas'. Of course the movie isn't perfect, but it serves as an excellent character study, showing all the dangers of alcoholism or prostitution. Mike Figgs' job is truly remarkable in here, not only for the adaptation of John O'Brien's novel, but also for his directing and composer jobs. But the movie is really marked because of its two main stars, Nicolas Cage and Elisabeth Shue, because the movie shows that they both can act, in the best parts of their careers.

9/10

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

What did everyone saw on this?

[6/10 · 22 March 2010]

'Slumdog Millionaire' was, without a doubt, the most critically acclaimed movie of 2008. Danny Boyle's picture simply won eight Oscars (including for Best Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay) and nominated to two others. It also won seven BAFTAs (also, including Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay) and four Golden Globes, along with tons of other awards, becoming the first movie since Steven Spielberg's 1993 'Schindler's List' to win Best Picture at the Oscars, the BAFTAs and the Golden Globes. The problem is - I'm still trying to figure it out what did all those critics and the audience saw on this movie?

'Slumdog Millionaire' tells the story of Jamal Mailk (Dev Patel), a Mumbai teen who grew up in the slums and is participating on a TV program called "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". In the break of the program, he is accused and arrested of cheating. While he is being interrogated, events from his life are shown, explaining why he knows the answers to all the questions of the program. The Oscar-winning Screenplay is loosely based on a novel by Vikas Swarup and adapted for the big screen by Simon Beaufoy. Through Jamal's story, the movie denounces the hard life in India's slums, showing all the dangers of that little kids suffer when they're alone. But the movie only shows a poor and filthy India, that's why many people are gonna have wrong ideas about the country because of this movie. Even though the story gives the possibility to show a nice adventure, with Jamal, his brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) and a girl named Latika (Freida Pinto) trying to survive in the slums, it is hardly believable. It's impressing how everything in Jamal's life sort of conspires for him to know the answers, how he remembers his childhood in so many details and how the questions are all related to his life. This bugged me throughout the whole movie, but the final question was the most forced one. I'm not going to spoil it here, but you'll see how nonsense it is. I know the basic plot of the movie is how a kid from the slums can win a TV game-show, but that's where I have the problem with.

The acting here is a little under average. All the supporting cast does an average job, with the exception of Anil Kapoor, that was very nice as the game-show host. The three main characters are portrayed at three different ages here. Surprisingly, the best members of the cast were the little kids. Even though most of the cast are newcomers, the kids steal all your attention here. All three of them, portraying Jamal, Salim and Latika, are great, and give strong performances. The not-so-little kids that portrayed the three of them in an early-teen age were fine also. The ones that had more recognition were, of course, the actors portraying them in the late-teen age. They were the ones with more screen-time, but not of them were really good. Madhur Mittal was kinda bad as older Salim, so was Freida Pinto as older Latika. And even the most acclaimed one, Dev Patel, wasn't really good. Even though he got a few nominations for his role in this movie, his performance could've better.

Undoubtedly (or at least in my opinion) the strongest point of 'Slumdog Millionaire was the directing. Danny Boyle does an excellent job directing this picture. If it's not his best work thus far, since he was also excellent in both 'Trainspotting' and '28 Days Later...', it's certainly one of the best. The camera work he uses in the movie is incredible, getting some unbelievable shots. His job in the transition of each scene is also remarkable. Another good thing that I enjoyed on Mr. Boyle's job were the montages, that served to make the movie much less boring. The only thing that I didn't like on his work was the end credits. After all the events depicted in the movie, every actor started dancing on a train station to the sound of A.R. Rahman's original Oscar-winning song 'Jai Ho'. I know it was meant to be a tribute to the Bollywood pictures, but in my opinion it ruined the movie completely. Your good and old black end credits were just fine, thanks.

Chris Dickens was another one that really deserved the Oscar award he got. His editing work is as remarkable as Danny Boyle's directing one. If it wasn't for him, the montages and the shot transitions weren't gonna be as good as they are. Anthony Mantle's Oscar-winning job on the cinematography was excellent. The yellow tones in every scene really set the mood for what's to come, and make the movie feels like India. You get some beautiful shots of India's famous locations and landscapes, like the internationally famous Taj Mahal (of course they had to show it). One quite important thing on 'Slumdog Millionaire' is the Soundtrack. A.R. Rahman composed several songs for this movie, and they are all quite good. Aside from the montages, the movie also utilizes those songs in a very, almost surgically put way. The only time that the music didn't serve well was in the end credits.

Overral, 'Slumdog Millionaire' is not a bad movie. Is not a bad movie at all. Danny Boyle's directing work was of the his best so far, the editing is great, so is the cinematography and the Soundtrack. But the naive writing, the hardly-believable storyline and the poor acting keeps this movie alway from being a masterpiece. And the dancing at the end credits served to make the movie worse than it is, ruining the movie's mood completely. So, with all this, I'm still trying to understand: What did everyone saw on this? Even though 2008 wasn't exactly the best year for movie-making, with the writer's strike and all, there certainly were better choices for the Oscars, the BAFTAs, or whatever awards you mention, than this picture.

6/10

Milk (I) (2008)

Just like any other biography...

[7/10 · 16 March 2010]

Harvey Milk is quite an important name in America's history, but an even more important name in the history of homosexuality. He was the first assumed gay to ever get a political job in the United States. And he did it in the conservative and controversial California of the 1970's. Harvey Milk is also well-known for his death in 1978, when he was shot by a political rival. With a life-story like this, it's impressive that took almost thirty years until Milk's story became a movie. But Gus Van Sant finally did it in 2008, with Sean Penn in the leading role. And the movie came out nice, but the problem is - it feels just like any other biography...

'Milk', obviously tells the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn). But the movie only covers eight years of Milk's story, going from his first encounter with his later-to-be "husband" Scott Smith (James Franco) until his death in 1978, just when he was growing in the political career. Dustin Lance Black is the one who created the movie's screenplay (and even got an Oscar for it). He did a good job, but could have done a better one. I really liked the way the movie was told- with Milk narrating his own life-story in a videotape only meant to be opened in the event of his death. As Milk narrates, we get to see important moments of his life, both personal and professional. The more impressive is that this not a plot device - Milk actually recorded such a tape in late-1977. At first, I really liked the fact that the movie portrays only Milk's life from 1970 to 1978 - but then I was completely disappointed by it. Everything happens too fast in the first years of this period, and in the second half the movie only covers 1978. This left somethings weird, because there are lots of situations that could have been better developed. And even in this second half, I think the movie could better explain Dan White's (Josh Brolin) motivation to kill Milk. The movie also leads you to believe in things that didn't happened in real life - but this a problem with basically every other movie in the Biography genre.

One thing that I really enjoyed in 'Milk' was the casting. The movie is quite well-casted, and everyone seemed just like their life counterparts. This was achieved with an excellent makeup effect- at first, I couldn't really recognize who was who. But this effort in trying to cast look-alike's from the people in Milk's life compromised the acting itself. Almost the whole supporting cast did an average, if not bad, job. Little stars like Alison Pill, Diego Luna, James Franco or Lucas Gabreel couldn't hold their candles in Sean Penn's side. The only two members of the supporting cast that actually did a good job were the always-good Josh Brolin (in his first Oscar-nomination), and Emile Hirsch, that impressed me another time, after his good job in 'Into the Wild'. Better keep an eye in this kid. Of course, the whole attention here goes to Sean Penn, in the leading role of Harvey Milk. He impressed everyone with it, and got his second Oscar for this movie (only the ninth actor to achieve this accomplishment). Nothing more to say, except for: 'Well done, Mr. Penn'.

Gus van Sant also did an average job directing this picture. It's not his best work thus far- but it's not his worst either. He conducts Milk's story in his own way, and a couple of scenes bothered me a lot. It's undeniable that the man has style, I just don't appreciate it. If he made different choices in a few scenes, it would be much better. The scene of Milk's death- with the execution-like feel and the slow-motion was the scene that bothered more about the movie- along with the choice to do not show Dan White killing the mayor. Of course it's not all bad- the beginning in black and white and the speech's' scenes show all Gus Van Sant's talent. The editing here is also average, along with the cinematography and the Musical Score.

Overral, 'Milk' is a nice movie. Even though it feels just like any other biography, with very similarities in the movie of the genre, it has its own style. Gus Van Sant's directing did this, along with Dustin Lance Black's Original Screenplay. The acting, except for Sean Penn's marvelous job and Josh Brolin's nice work was quite average also. It's a nice movie, but could have been better- with better choices in both the direction and the writing.

A 6,5, that rounds up to a 7 only because of Penn.

7/10

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

The perfect psychological thriller

[10/10 · 9 March 2010]

'The Silence of the Lambs'. This movie literally made cinema's history in the evening of March, 30th, 1992. It was Oscar's night, and Jonathan Demme's thriller went home with all the five major awards - Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Director and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, becoming only the third movie is history to ever achieve this accomplishment (the other ones are 1934 Frank Capra's 'It Happened One Night' and 1975 Milos Forman's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'). And the Academy was perfectly right, as 'The Silence of the Lambs' is easily the best movie of 1991 and one of the best thrillers of all-time. It deserved all the awards it got.

'The Silence of the Lambs' is based on one of Thomas Harris' novels about serial-killer Hannibal Lecter. But Lecter only appears in the movie within 13 minutes of runtime. Before that, we are presented to the movie's major plot, that is centered around Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster). Clarice is a young FBI agent that is assigned to the case of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), a serial killer that skins his victims and then throws them in a river. But in order to gather information for the case, Clarice must talk to Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), the most feared and dangerous serial killer in the world. The story here doesn't have a lot of originality, but the way the movie explains it to the audience is simply amazing. The character development is incredible, the dialogs are outstanding and the montages are breath-taking. I couldn't blink not even for one second, which proves how good the writing is. The first of the five major Oscars was certainly very well-deserved. Thumbs up for Thomas Harris for the novel and for Ted Tally for the excellent adaptation.

Now, let's talk about the acting, and there is only one thing to say about it: it couldn't be any better. The whole supporting cast is outstanding, with the exception of Brooke Smith, as one of Buffalo Bill's victims. She was just average, nothing special to it. But the member of the supporting cast that stands out is certainly Ted Levine. He should have been at least Oscar-nominated for his performance as Buffalo Bill, a quite creepy interpretation. Aside from the supporting cast, also composed by Scott Glenn and Anthony Heald, all the attention here goes for the two leading roles. Both Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are perfect, specially Hopkins. Even though he has only 27 minutes of screen-time, Hopkins managed to deliver one of the most memorable performances of the 1990's decade. All his gestures, that creepy coolness, the tones his voice reaches... it's all perfect for the character. None other actor could have done a better job, another very well-deserved Oscar. The other leading role here goes to Jodie Foster. Of course she is not as great as Anthony Hopkins, but she also delivers a very memorable performance. Her naiveness, the hidden South accent, her desperate struggle to impress her superiors - Clarice Starling and Jodie Foster are only one. Again, a deserved Oscar award - this time for Best Actress.

The fourth Oscar award this movie received was Best Director for Jonathan Demme. And the guy really impresses you on his directing work. The movie wouldn't be the same nor it would have the same recognition if it wasn't for him. The places Demme puts the camera are excellent, as he did it for the audience to feel in the skin of Clarice Starling. And in order to do this, Demme makes all the characters look straight into the camera, except for Clarice, that never does this, always looking at another direction. There are also a few scenes (most tracking-shots) designed to be like the the eyes of Clarice. And her childhood memories only increases the audience's approach to Jodie Foster's character. Another deserved Oscar-award.

The movie was also Oscar-nominated for Best Sound and Best Editing. The Sound here is nothing out of the ordinary, with nice Sound Effects, but a lousy musical score. Nothing that takes away the movie's accomplishments, tough. As for Best Editing, it should have got the award. Craig McKay's editing work is outstanding, as the audience is fooled to believe in things that turn out to be others. I'm not gonna spoil it here, but you are gonna feel pretty dumb once you find out the tricks McKay used. The cinematography here is also nothing out of the ordinary, such as the other aspects. Nothing that's worth mentioning.

Overral, 'The Silence of the Lambs' is the perfect psychological thriller. The fact it won all the five major awards at the Oscars only proves my point, and they were all extremely well-deserved. The writing is amazing, the acting is perfect, and the directing is outstanding. You put that with one of the most memorable performances of the decade by Anthony Hopkins, join with a great editing work, ferocious dialogs and an impressive directing, and you have the best movie of 1991. From all the five major awards, the last one was the most well-deserved: Best Picture.

10/10

The Thing (1982)

Easily Carpenter's best

[10/10 · 4 March 2010]

'The Thing' came out in 1982. Back then, John Carpenter was already a quite famous director, with hits like 'Assault on Precinct 13' or 'Halloween'. And with the success of 1981's 'Escape from New York, Universal Studios gave Carpenter a free pass to adapt John W. Campbell Jr.'s short story 'Who Goes There?'. The problem is that 'The Thing' came out only two weeks after Steven Spielberg's 'E.T.: The Extra- Terrestrial'. Therefore, 'The Thing' was a massive fail with the public, and also didn't go well with the critics, saying it was too gore and violent. Now, 28 years have passed, and 'The Thing' acquired a cult status, having the recognition it always deserved - as the best John Carpenter movie.

'The Thing' follows a group of American researchers in Antarctica that are confronted by a blood-thirsty alien creature that assumes the identity of whoever it kills. Now, they don't know who to thrust, and if the other researchers are human or alien. The movie's screenplay is based on a short story by John W. Campbell. Written in 1951, and adapted firstly for the big screen in the same year, this story clearly represents the fear of communists taking over America. But Carpenter's movie came out in 1982, so the Cold War fear is long gone, and he adapts the story in a much more present way. The paranoia subject here is also treated very nicely. The feeling of getting stuck with an alien and to don't know in who to trust builds up along the movie perfectly. There are a few things still unexplained about the movie's story, which proves how well-written this is and also explains why there are so many fans of this. The writing here also allowed John Carpenter to create some of the most scary sequences ever.

The cast here is not very big and is composed only by males, and is headed by Kurt Russell, back then a rising star that also had the leading role in Carpenter's previous movie, 'Escape from New York'. He does his job pretty well, as so did all the other actors. Of course this isn't the kind of movie that depends on the acting in order to work - it's all about the writing and the directing. Aside from Russell, that aren't many famous actors, maybe with the exception of Keith David. A name that is worth mentioning is Wilford Brimley. He was certainly the best member of the cast.

John Carpenter's directing work is, as always, incredible. He has a very strong style, that is present in every single frame of this movie. He manages to create completely scary sequences out of the nowhere, and it's his directing that keeps the movie going. The movie, like every Carpenter one, has that claustrophobic feel to it, and the way Carpenter handles the characters is simply amazing. The opening sequence - with the helicopter chasing the dog, is one of the best opening sequences in the horror movie industry - it settled the mood perfectly, and showed this was no ordinary horror film.

The mood in here is also built by all the other aspects of the movie. The creature design is one of the best in movie's history, and the animations are perfect. As there was no CGI, the movie utilizes makeup to create the illusion of the creatures, and is considered until today a landmark on makeup special effects. It couldn't be better. Ennio Morricone's original music score also did it pretty well, with the use of bass chords pretty common on Carpenter's previous films. The cinematography is also excellent, with a dark and scary mood.

Overral, 'The Thing' is easily John Carpenter's best movie. The reception of the movie when it first came out wasn't really fair to what this movie is. But now, 28 years after the release, people finally realized how good this movie is, acquiring a well-deserved cult status. The excellent writing, along with the good acting and Carpenter's perfect directing make this one of the best and most scary horror movies ever made.

10/10

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

The first and only X-rated movie ever to win an Oscar

[9/10 · 2 March 2010]

The MPAA (Motion picture Association of America) was created in 1922 in order to regulate movie making in the United States by all the six major studios. In 1930, they created the Hayes Code, used to tell what could and couldn't be in a movie. The Code was used for 38 years, until 1968, when it was replaced by the rating system used even today by the MPAA. And when the rating system started, the worst rate a movie could get was and still is the X rating, used in most cases only for Adult movies. But even with a X rating, the 1969 John Schlesinger's movie 'Midnight Cowboy' was able to win 3 Oscars, including best picture, being the only X-rated movie ever to win an Oscar with such a rating. This proves how good and powerful this movie is, and how it shocked the late-1960's society.

'Midnight Cowboy' tells the story of Joe Buck (John Voight), a Texas greenhorn that, bored with his life in the countryside, decides to move to New York and work as a hustler. But he finds out that life in New York isn't as easy as he thought, until he teams up with a city bum, named Ratzo Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together, they struggle to survive in the city's hard life, while they become even more good friends. The movie's screenplay is based on a novel by James Leo Herlihy. I haven't read the book in which the movie is based on, but I can say Waldo Salt did a incredible job adapting the Oscar-winning movie's screenplay. There isn't one bit missing, and the movie flows in a incredible way. It doesn't lose its pace in one single moment, and the story here couldn't be better. Throughout these two iconic and unforgettable characters, the movie develops themes like homosexuality, drugs, the life in the city for those who have nothing, prejudice, etc. These themes are all incredibly presented, in a subtle but very ferocious way, reaching out for the very soul of the American society.

The acting here couldn't be any better and this movie couldn't be more well-casted. I dare to say it's one of the best overall acting ever, along with movies like 'Kramer vs. Kramer' or 'A Streetcar Named Desire'. The whole cast does a perfect job, even with small parts. The Oscar-nominated performance by Sylvia Miles as Cass, one of Joe's clients is excellent. The rest of the supporting cast do an equally incredible job, especially Brenda Vaccaro as Shirley, other Joe's client. Aside from the not so-famous but excellent supporting cast, we have in the main roles two major stars, in probably the best performances of both's career - John Voight and Dustin Hoffman. They were both Oscar-nominated for their roles as Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo respectively, and they both lost to John Wayne for his role in 'True Grit'. John Wayne was good, indeed, but his performance wasn't even the half of the job Hoffman and Voight did. This is certainly one of the biggest injustices in Oscar's history, but more for Dustin Hoffman. Of course Voight was also incredible, doing a naive but at the same time wild interpretation, which is perfect for the character, but Hoffman did what is probably one of the best performances by a male actor in movie's history. There isn't anything I can say to describe his work. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

And even with this incredibly good screenplay, and one of the best overall acting ever, this movie wouldn't be the same without the Oscar- winning John Schlesinger's directing work. His direction is very experimental, but who wasn't in 1969? Now that the Hayes Code went down, anything was possible, and Schlesinger utilizes this in a incredible manner. He uses a few long, gentle shots, and others more vivid, with a fast editing when the character was stoned or in his dreams, for example. The use of flashbacks here is also great, as we follow the past events only in Joe's mind, so we don't really find out what happened in Texas with his ex-girlfriend, a quite important subject for the movie's story. Throughout the film, we hear a lot of the original song made for the movie by Fred Neil, called "Everybody's Talking'". While the music is great, in a very nice folk style, its constant use bothers you after a while. The cinematography here also bothered me a little bit, the movie could have a darker treatment.

Overral, 'Midnight Cowboy' is an almost perfect piece of cinema. The winner of the best picture Oscar in 1969, and the only X-rated movie to accomplish this, has a perfect screenplay, with unforgettable characters and dialogs, excellent lines, and a very nice pace. It also features one of the best acting work ever, specially with Dustin Hoffman, in the best work of his career. John Schlesinger is equally great, making this movie a must-see for anyone.

9/10

The Mist (2007)

Darabont and King do it again!

[8/10 · 1 March 2010]

Stephen King. You probably know him. The 62 years-old American author is one of the best writers in the horror genre. His novels, novellas, and tales have been adapted to the big screen more than 100 times. All-time classics like Brian De Palma's 'Carrie' or Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining' and many others are all based on his novels. Frank Darabont. You probably don't know him. He is the guy behind two of the best King's adaptations - the 1994's 'The Shawshank Redemption' and the 1999's 'The Green Mile'. And back in 2007, six years after after Darabont's last picture ('The Majestic'), he decided to adapted another King's novel, 'The Mist'. Well, he did a pretty good job.

'The Mist''s story is focused on a small group of people that are trapped into a supermarket after a giant mist covers the whole town they live in - a small city in Maine. Afraid of what is outside, they lock themselves into the market - only to find out later that there are blood-thirst creatures hiding in the mist. Among these people, there is David Drayton, a local artist (Thomas Jane), his son Billy (Nathan Gamble), Mrs. Carmody, a very religious woman (Marcia Gay Harden), Brent Norton, a lawyer (Andre Braugher), etc. While 'The Mist' could be defined a a monster movie, it shows more of human relations than anything else. The movie's story is all about how people react to the unknown and the unexplainable. This script, focused on character development ans study, is great, with a excellent storyline and development. The only problem me and most of the critics is the movie's ending. Frank Drabaont completely changed Stephen King's original ending - and for worse. Of course I'm not gonna spoil it here, but Darabont's ending is just plain stupid and doesn't make sense with the rest of the movie. Only if he had sticked to the original ending...

The acting here is average. Of course this isn't the kind of movie where the acting is the strongest point, but they did a nice job. At least the movie was well-casted, and while you get a few members doing a good job, like Marcia Gay Harden and Nathan Gamble, in a good performance by a child, others are too normal, like the own Thomas Jane. Of course there isn't no one really bad here, but no one is great either. Nothing award-worth.

The directing here is absolutely perfect. This movie wouldn't be the same without Frank Darabont. His directing is calm when it has to be, frenetic when it has to be, sentimental when it has to be, and scary when it has to be. That, combined with a incredible unique style, utilizing all the directing resources, and with a perfect editing, making the movie neither too long or too short make his direction work perfect. The movie''s budget wasn't big. This is proved with the lame special effects and the bad sets. But Darabont did what he could with it. The soundtrack here isn't marvelous either, but sets the mood when it has to. When thing that bothered me was the cinematography - the movie could have a more dark mood.

Overral, 'The Mist' is a great horror movie from 2007. Of course it's nothing compared to the previous Dabaront/King cooperations, but it holds its own rights. The script has some really good character study, but it's ruined by the bad ending that Drabont changed from King's original story. Darabont's directing is great here, and the acting is average. Good thriller, a really nice addition to the horror genre.

8/10

The Lion King (1994)

One of Disney's best animated flicks

[10/10 · 26 February 2010]

The Walt Disney Company is without a doubt the biggest animation studio of all time. They created the genre back in 1937 with 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' and kept making animated movies, even until today. The company holds credit for some truly all-time classics, such as the own 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', 'Cinderella', 'Sleeping Beauty', etc. But back in 1994, when 'The Lion King' came out, it seemed like Disney was losing its touch, without the magic of the movies in former times. But 'The Lion King' changed that, showing that Disney still had it what it took to make a great movie, and they managed to make one of their best flicks.

'The Lion King' tells the story of Sinbad, a young lion, son of the village's king, Mufasa. But the brother of Mufasa, Scar, always wanted to be king, and he feels threatened once Sinbad is born, because the throne goes to Sinbad, not to him. He then performs an elaborated plan to kill his own brother and convince the young Sinbad that he did it. Now Sinbad runs away because of shame, only to be persuaded to come back already as a grown lion and try to rule the kingdom instead of Scar. 'The Lion King's story is assumed as been a crossover of 'Hamlet' and 'Bambi'. It does have lots of elements of both's story, but the movie hold its own rights by telling the story, in a very excellent manner. The character study and development is amazing, extremely well-written script, except for a few parts, where characters make stupid choices, but it's really minor and you don't realize it. One thing I didn't like is the movie's running time, I mean, of course it's a children's movie, but it could run a little longer, showing missing parts like Sinbad growing up with Timom and Pumbaa. And talking about them, these are some of the best and most charismatic characters in an animated movie. They really stole the whole show. And the charisma Timom and Pumbaa have left, the main character doesn't. I really didn't like him, and when he grows up he is just like his father, you can't really distinguish them.

The voice-acting in here is truly great. I think that the movie is quite well-cast, with some famous names like Matthew Broderick as the main character, Rowan Atkinson as Zazu, the king's adviser, Jeremy Irons as Scar, Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi, one of the hyenas, and others not so- famous names, like Nathan Lane as Timon and Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa. In my opinion, the best member of the cast is Jeremy Irons. He managed to put such a depth on the villain, Scar, which I dare to say it's one of the best performances by an actor in a animated movie. It really blew me off. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella were also great as Timon and Pumbaa. Excellent chemistry between both.

This movie was directed by two people, Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff. Generally, people say that directing an animated picture is easier than a live-action one, because you can put the camera wherever you want. It's true some times, but the animation has other challenges than a normal picture, and the both directors did a good job, except in the final fight scene. The use of slow-motion bothered me, it seemed like one lame action picture. But aside from this, the rest of the movie is greatly directed and animated. As for the animation, it's simply fantastic, there's nothing more to say about it. It one one the best 2-D animation ever. All the character's moves, the background, the effects of light and shadow, the representation of Africa's nature, the effect of depth and mainly the effects of fire and water are so real, but at the same time they have a beautiful, unique style. Thumbs up for the animators and the art-director, they used the huge movie's budget to animate it perfectly.

This movie is also well-known by having one of the best soundtrack of an animated picture. It's true indeed. Elton John's and Tim Rice's songs are great for a children's film, but it's Hanz Zimmer's original music score that sets the mood perfectly. It has such a depth, such a soul to it, it's hard to imagine the movie without it. All the sequences are perfectly composed and executed, but it's the opening scene that still gives me chills every time I watch it. It's one of the best introductions to a movie of all time. That's mainly because of the perfect score and also the great cinematography, another perfect aspect about this movie. It's an animated movie, yes, but it has an excellent cinematography. There some scenes with a groundbreaking photography, the kind of thing to set the bar for others to come.

Overral, 'The Lion King' is one of the best Disney's animated flicks and one of the best animated movies off all time. Personally, been a Pixar fan, I still prefer 3-D animation, but I can't deny that the 2-D animation here is excellent, with some great effects. The voice acting is nice, and Jeremy Irons delivered an incredible performance. Hanz Zimmer's original music score is one of the best of all time, together with the cinematography. 'The Lion King' proved Dysney still had it on them to make excellent pictures, but unfortunately they didn't make anything that even comes close to 'The Lion King' after it. It's a true shame.

9/10

Black Rain (1989)

A lousy script extremely well-directed

[7/10 · 23 February 2010]

Ridley Scott is probably one, if not the, most underrated American director. The guy behind all-time classics like 'Alien', 'Blade Runner', 'Thelma and Louise' and more recently 'Gladiator', 'Black Hawk Down' and 'American Gangster' doesn't have all the recognition he deserves. He only had been nominated for three Oscars, and never won a single one, not even for his outstanding directing achievement for 2001's 'Black Hawk Down'. And 1989's 'Black Rain' is another example of this.

'Black Rain' is focused on a New York cop called Nick Conklin (Michael Douglas). Nick loves motorcycles and has a disturbed family. But the movie really begins when he and his partner, Charlie Vincent (Andy Garcia) get involved with the Japanese mafia, witnessing a murder. They arrest the killer and bring him to Japan, but he escapes. Now both, in a foreign country, have to arrest him back. The plot sounds interesting and it really is at first, but the movie has every single cliché that any 80's cop movie has. When watching the movie for the first time, I got a weird deja-vu felling, that's how used the story is. The movie script also treats Japan in a quite strange way, using every kind of stereotypes on the book.

The acting here is not so great. Aside from the two leads, the other members of the cast are most entirely Japanese actors, and they don't do a great job. It's just plain normal, with the exception of Yusaku Matsuda as the movie villain, Sato. A really nice performance. As for the two leads, I never liked Andy Garcia, and this movie didn't change my assumptions. He isn't good as Charlie, any other actor would go better instead of him. Michael Douglas, on the other hand, is the definition of bad-ass in this movie. He delivers a quite strong, cold interpretation. Thumbs up for him.

Ridley Scott does a surprisingly incredible job directing this movie. Of course this is not his best work, but the way he shoots the lousy script is truly amazing. Every scene has some really interesting camera work, specially the action ones. He doesn't let the audience bored in not one single moment of the movie. If you still doubt of Mr. Scott's talent, just watch this movie. The soundtrack here is also good. In the first collaboration between Scott and Hans Zimmer, he managed to perform a great original music score. The other problem I have with this movie is about the cinematography. Everything it's too dark and grey that it gets freaking disgusting after some time. There could be also a better editing work.

Overral, 'Black Rain' is a very nice cop movie from the 80's. The lousy script is extremely cliché and stereotyped, but at least the movie is fun to watch. The acting work here is very so-so, with the exception for Yusaku Matsuda and Michael Douglas. The movie also has a great original music score, but some bad cinematography and editing. The biggest attractive to watch this is Ridley Scott and all his talent as a director. A lousy script extremely well-directed.

6,5/10, that rounds up to a 7 because of Mr. Scott.

Reign Over Me (2007)

The 9/11 treated in a more personal way

[7/10 · 19 February 2010]

We always hear of the sad events of the misfortune day of 9/11, but who actually knows a person that's been through all those things? A person who had to go through the pain and griffin of what happened in New York in 2001? A person who lost everything because of these tragic facts? Well, I certainly don't, and 'Reign Over Me' shows the 9/11 not just as images on the TV, but how it actually changed lots of people's lives using a fictional character.

'Reign Over Me' tells the story of Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a man who lost his wife, three daughters and his dog because of what happened in that tragic day of 9/11/20001. And 6 years after all this, he still didn't get past the pain, living alone in his apartment, with no job or friends. But it all changes when Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), his former college roommate, happily married and father of two, encounters Charlie in the street. They start to hang out together and Alan starts to help Charlie get over his loss. The original screenplay written by the also director Mike binder is really good, especially the way it tells the story, first showing Alan's perfect life and then moving on to Charlie's recluse. The script can get a little sentimental at times, and with the exception of the two leads, the characters aren't really good, and the ending is quite weird, but overall it's a good original screenplay. A really interesting story.

The acting here is slightly above average, with nice performances by the whole supporting cast, with the exception of Liv Tyler. I never really liked her, and in this movie she feels a little bit out of place. Another actress would go better in the whole of the shrink. Don Cheadle, as always, does a competent job. Of course it's nothing compared to his role in 'Hotel Rwanda', but he's quite good. Much to my surprise, Adam Sandler was the best member of the cast. Of course it's no outstanding performance, but he should have been at least Oscar-nominated for his role as Charlie. The scene where the character breaks down and starts to talk about his family has some really good acting by him. Watching this movie, I realized he has talent, he just have to pick better projects.

Mike Binder's direction was nothing out of the ordinary. Of course it's almost impossible to be original these days, but he did a nice job. Not bad, not great, but normal. There were some scenes really well-directed, but in others, the hand of a great director would have make a difference. One thing that I really like about this movie is its soundtrack. it features really good songs, and the inclusion of lots of 'The Who' songs really pleased me. The editing is also nice, because the movie doesn't have one scene that could have been deleted or scenes missing, and has a perfect runtime that doesn't let you bored at all.

Overral, 'Reign Over Me' is a very nice movie from 2007. It treats the 9/11 in a more personal and natural way, with some really well-developed main characters. But the over sentimental script, the ordinary acting (with the exception of Sandler, in a nice performance) and directing keeps this movie alway from been a masterpiece. Good to watch once, but that's it.

7/10

Terms of Endearment (1983)

Well acted, but inconsistent, flawed and not that sad

[6/10 · 18 February 2010]

James L. Brooks made his debut as a director in 1983 directing 'Terms of Endearment'. Until then, he had only wrote a few TV series and produced them, but never worked as a director. He is more well-known as the writer of the episodes of 'The Simpsons', and after this movie he directed only three more movies. But his first one is still considered his best one, winning five Oscars in 1984 and still been highly acclaimed by the critics. That's what I call a debut!

'Terms of Endearment is based on the book of the same name by American- writer Larry McMurtry. James L. Brooks adapted the story for the big screen, and also directed and produced it. It tells the story of Aurora and Emma Greenway, mother and daughter. The movie follows several years in both lives, showing the people around them, their loves, their lovers, their illusions, their disillusions, but mainly portrays the so- called 'terms of endearment' between them and the people around their lives, and how these terms can be broken and reunited.

I haven't read the book that the movie is based on, so I can't really say how James L. Brooks adapted the story. All I can say is that the story is really good in the movie's first three quarters. It has some really nice character study and powerful scenes. But after that, in the end the movie started to decline and appealed to the cliché and predictable. I'm not gonna spoil it here, but they recurred to the biggest cliché of all. The other problems I have here are with some characters, like Danny DeVito's one. He could be much more well developed. DeVito is top billed here, but doesn't appear at all in the movie, except for a couple of non-important scenes. By the end, lots of things were not explained, which really made me angry, like Aurora's relationship with Garett Breedlove, Jack Nicholson's character. But this character wasn't in the novel, so it's a nice addition. And there were lots of scenes which seemed to have only the purpose of increasing the movie's runtime, like when Emma goes to New York. Completely unnecessary.

This movie is known as one of the biggest tearjerkers of all time, because of its extremely sad ending. Well, I don't find it quite so. The ending is, indeed, sad, but it is also very cliché, which completely ruined the whole experience for me. It it also didn't hit me because of James L. Brooks not so good directing. If he had only directed these parts of the movie in a better way, and included scenes that really matter, it would have made me cry. Except for the final parts, James L. Brooks directed the rest of the movie quite well. But I would be happy to see a tracking shot, though.

At least the acting is one good point here. This movie has truly an all- star cast, with big names like Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger as the two leads and a supporting cast featuring Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, Jeff Daniels and John Lithgow. The two main leads deliver a true show as mother and daughter. There isn't one scene were there was lack of acting with MacLaine or Winger, and Maclaine even got the Oscar for best actress that year, but in my opinion Winger deserved it more. Jack Nicholson also won the Oscar, with a good, but not great performance. In my opinion, John Lithgow deserved it more. Jeff Daniels was really good as Emma's husband, and Danny Devito almost isn't in the movie, so I can't really evaluate his performance.

One thing that I was really pleased with in this movie is the Soundtrack. The main theme is quite amusing, and it is used on the right parts, only when it is necessary. Great sound editing. I also found the cinematography well-made, but I don't like the editing. Lots of scenes could've been cut off, to make the movie less boring and more interesting. The set-decoration is also excellent, extremely well done, so it's the representation of the periods on which the movie is portrayed.

Overral, 'Terms of Endearment' is the kind of movie made with only two purposes: first, to make make people cry, and it could've have been way more well-succeeded on performing this task; second, to win lots of Academy Awards, and it was extremely well-succeeded on this job. The Academy loves those kinds of stories, and me too, but only when they are well represented. This movie isn't, appealing to the predictable, which is really sad, because it has some really nice acting, and the beginning was great. Good movie for a directing debut, but that's what it is. The movie is inconsistent, flawed and not that sad. Good, but could've been better. Completely overrated.

6,5/10, that goes back to a 6.

The Snake Pit (1948)

A very ahead of its time 1948's drama

[9/10 · 15 February 2010]

The late-1940's were a very important period for Hollywood. Lots of movies came out back then dealing with subjects never dealt with before in American movies, like the alcoholism taboo seen in Billy Wilder's excellent 1945's 'The Lost Weekend'. 'The Snake Pit' is one of those movies, dealing with the until then non-explored subject of insanity. And dealing with it in a marvelous way.

'The Snake Pit' tells the story of Virginia Stuart Cunningham, a common American woman that suddenly finds herself in a state insane asylum, but she can't remember how she got there. With the help of her husband, and a kind doctor named Dr. Kik, she starts to treat her illness, and seeing how sad it is the reality of the people living in that asylum. The story is based on a novel by Mary Jane Ward, which is based on what really happened to her. The plot is extremely powerful and intense, and it's outstandingly adapted from the book. It shows the reality in a brutal, but romantic way, with Virginia's own vision of the facts. And Virginia's own story is great also, with Dr. Kik going way back into her childhood to explain why she is crazy. The only complain I have about the script is Virginia's husband, a character who could've been better explored. But after all, the story is excellent, extremely well-told and well-developed. I couldn't blink not even for one second. It should have won for Best Screenplay in that year's Oscar, instead of 'The Treasure of Sierra Madre'.

The acting here is absolutely superb. All the supporting cast does a great job, especially Helen Craig as the head-nurse of the hospital. Al the actresses playing the other crazy interns also did a excellent job, but that's mostly because of the good direction. Both Mark Stevens and Leo Glenn do a good job as the husband and the Doctor, respectively. But the main attention goes to the main role. Olivia de Havilland is perfect as Virginia, in probably the best performance of her incredible career. She deserved the Oscar much more than Jane Wyman for 'Johnny Belinda'.

I watched this movie after seeing 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. I absolutely loved that film, and decided to watch another Anatole Litvak movie. In both pictures, he does an incredible job directing, specially in 'The Snake Pit'. The scene showing the title's 'Snake Pit', which is the hole were they used to throw crazy people at, is marvelous directed. I also liked the way Litvak used the flashbacks on this picture. They are used in the right measure, not too much, not too few. Even with a great work by Litvak, John Huston deservedly got the directing Oscar.

The other aspects of the movie also worked really well. It's great the way they shot the movie in a really mental hospital, which helps for it to feel more natural, with the great set-decoration also. The black and white cinematography also worked, if this movie were colorful, it would lose all that dark and tense atmosphere. But the aspect that stood out was the sound, and the movie even won an Oscar for it. The sounds effects are incredible, the soundtrack is nicely made, but the use of the 'Going Home' was perfect. It's probably one of the best uses of a non-original song in the cinema history. It gives you the chills.

Overral, this is a excellent 1948's drama quite ahead of its time. It was the first time that the subject of craziness was dealt with in a Hollywood movie, that's why it's a landmark. This picture also features one of the best performances by Olivia de Havilland in her excellent career, a great screenplay and a powerful directing, but the fact that it didn't won any of the major Oscars in 1949 made this movie not so well-known today. It shouldn't, it's the kind movie that everyone should watch at least once, especially those who like cinema's history.

9/10

Changeling (2008)

A strong emotional drama

[8/10 · 13 February 2010]

Clint Eastwood is probably one of the most versatile and respected filmmakers today. He started off his career as an actor in the 1950's and became a director in the 1970's, and moved on with both careers, until his retirement as an actor in 2008 with 'Gran Torino', but his directing career is moving on at a fast-paced rhythm. And the also 2008's 'Changeling' proves thar he, at almost 70 years old, still got it.

'Changeling' is set in the Los Angeles of the late-20's. It tells the story of Christine Collins, a hard-working woman that finds out her son, Walter Collins, was missing in one afternoon. After searching for him during months, the police gives back Walter to her, but she doesn't fells that's her son. This is an actual story that really took place in that period, therefore the screenplay is accurately based on what really happened. The script is extremely well-written, taking the actual events and transforming then a little bit for dramatic purposes, based on actual statements, newspapers, etc. Even though this is a very powerful story and it was well-told, the script can be a little annoying at some parts, with the too-often repetition of Christine saying 'my son'.

The acting here is nice. Most of the supporting cast delivers a nice job, the movie was well-cast, John Malkovich is great as the Reverend that helps Christine and no one else other than him stands out. The problem with the acting I have here are the child actors. Of course you can't expect much of children, but most of them don't act their ways out. The only child actor that delivers a good performance is Gattlin Griffith, as Christine Collin's son. The main part here went to Angelina Jolie. I've never saw a movie with her other than the 'Tomb Raider' series, so it's nice to see that she can act. She gives a strong performance as Christine Collins, and it was even Oscar-nominated for it. I really can't think of any other actress to portray the lead role so well as Jolie did.

As always, Clint Eastwood directs this movie brilliantly. His talent as a director is absolutely undeniable, and he proves it once again. I think any script would work on Eastwood's hands. As of the other aspects, the soundtrack here is so-so, it serves for dramatic purposes but it isn't memorial at all. The cinematography is well-made, with some beautiful shots, but the art-direction and set-decoration transform this movie into a great representation of the 1920's.

Overral, this is a very strong emotional drama. The true story is very interesting and used in a very nice way by the script. The cast is all nice, with a exception for the children actors. Jolie delivers an excellent performance in the leading role. As always, Clint Eastwood makes a very competent job directing. The soundtrack and cinematography are both nice, and the movie is a nice representation of the 1920's Los Angeles.

8/10

Howards End (1992)

The perfect representation of Victorian England

[9/10 · 7 February 2010]

Generally, when I start writing my reviews, in the first paragraph I explain the movie's plot. This is not gonna be the case here, because 'Howards End' has such a complex plot that I would lost about four paragraphs talking about it. All I'm gonna say is that this movie follows the events of three families in the early 20th century Victorian England - the aristocrats and capitalists Wilcox, the humanistic and philanthropist Schlegels, and the poor and hard-working Basts, and it shows how these so-different families are related to each other.

The Oscar-winning screenplay here is based on a novel by E.M. Forster. Even though I haven't read the book, the story itself is impressive, and it seems like Ruth Prawer Jhabvala took full advantage of it, making the movie extremely believable and understandable. Of course that are maybe parts of the book missing, but the overall effect is great. It's one of those movies that you don't want for it to end, it could easily have another hour. That's why I find the ending very unsatisfactory, since it doesn't explain what happened to some of the main characters, and a few things are just weird. The script has also a few flaws, but they doesn't tear up the whole experience.

There's really nothing to talk about the acting in this movie. Only that its's absolutely marvelous. The cast features names like Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Vanessa Redgrave and Helena Bonham Carter, and they are all great. There are also not so well-known names that do a nice job, but they don't obfuscate the glow of these stars. It seems like an acting contest, where everyone is a winner, especially the audience, that is able to witness one of the best overall cast in movie's history. Everything here feels so real and natural.

This excellent acting and story really sets the mood, but it wouldn't work with a weak director. A thing that James Ivory absolutely isn't. In order to direct this great cast and conduct this incredible script, James Ivory never lefts the audience feel bored or with that feeling that the movie never ends. There are some really intelligent angles and shots here, some of which you'd never seen before. That's right, James Ivory got to be original in 1992 (!).

Every other aspect of this movie is perfect. The set-decoration and art- direction put you into that period in history, and the photography, along with the soundtrack composed by an original music score and well- known classic songs, the mood here couldn't be better.

Overral, this movie is an incredible adaption. The excellent script, along with a perfect acting and incredible direction, set-decoration and art-direction, makes this movie the perfect representation of Victorian England.

9/10

Deadline - U.S.A. (1952)

An excellent tribute to journalism

[10/10 · 28 January 2010]

Up until this afternoon, I though the best journalism movie was 'All the President's Men'. But when I watched this movie on cable TV, I was proved wrong. 'All the Presidents's Men' comes close, but 'Deadline - U.S.A.' is much better.

The movie is about a big city Newspaper called 'The Day' that is about to close and be sold to the rival, because of the owners' heirs. But 'The Day' editor (Humphrey Bogart) tries to prevent the closing down of the newspaper by investigating a gangster, Thomas Rienzi. Going from this, the story takes lots of unexpected turns, with an excellent character's development and mix-up of events.

The whole supporting cast is marvelous, so is Bogey. No one really stands out, because they all did an excellent job. It's one of those movies where people doesn't seem to be acting, because everything looks so natural. The working environment on 'The Day' looks very real, it seems like you are there investigating with Bogey and his crew.

I always liked Richard Brooks, and after this one, I'm definitely gonna watch much more of his movies. 'In Cold Blood' and 'Cat On a Hot Tin Roof' are between my favorite movies, and this one definitely joined the list. In every other aspect the movie is also marvelous, from the editing to the cinematography, from the art-direction to the set- decoration.

Overral, this is an excellent movie that is a perfect tribute to the journalism profession. The best journalistic movie I've ever seen, with everything looking so natural. It is also great to see how the newspapers worked back in the day. It's a shame that it isn't on DVD yet.

10/10. Absolutely perfect.

Bugsy Malone (1976)

A excellent idea well-executed by Alan Parker

[7/10 · 28 January 2010]

What if there was a gangster movie starred by children? What if this movie were a musical? Alan Parker took this idea and transformed into a movie in 1976. And it worked really well.

As i said, 'Bugsy Malone' is a gangster movie starred by children, and there isn't much more to say about the story. The script has that feeling of 'I have seen this before', telling the story of Bugsy Malone (Scott Baio), a gangster in the late 1920's New York, in the middle of the Depression. The predictable script is really no problem, because it's told in a different way than any gangster movie you've ever seen - through songs. The musical feeling really works, and original songs are absolutely great. Two days after I've watched the movie, 'Tomorrow', 'My Name is Tallulah' and 'Bugsy Malone' kept playing on my head. Definitely gonna buy the Soundtrack.

The acting in this movie is not marvelous, but with every member of the cast been under 16 you can't expect much. For kids, they did a nice job. I was amazed to see that most of the cast didn't do anything after this, which is a shame, 'cause they sure had talent. Scott Baio is nice as the lead, but when you watch the movie, your eyes can't help it and are going to focus on Jodie Foster. She was fine as Tallulah, and 1976 was a great year for her, also appearing on Scorsese's 'Taxy Driver. She is the only member of the cast that turned into a star.

The British-born Alan Parker writes and directs here and does a good job in both functions. It's amazing to think he did this in 1976. With almost the whole movie been shot in the set, he putted the camera at so- interesting that you don't realize it's not location. There is one scene at the end of the movie that really resembles the also Alan Parker's later 'Pink Floyd - The Wall'. Maybe he did it on purpose, who knows... The cinematography is quite weird, having that old-European movie feel to it. One thing that I particularly liked was the art-direction. The cars and guns were a nice catch.

Overral, Alan Parker written and directed this excellent idea, and he executed it very well. Of course 'Bugsy Malone' is no masterpiece, but it's really fun to watch. Hope they don't remake this - it would that take away all the magic.

7/10

Raising Arizona (1987)

The Coen Brothers were just as good in 1987 as they are today

[9/10 · 28 January 2010]

Back in 1987, the Coen Brothers weren't as well-known as they are today. Back then, they only had made the 1984's 'Blood Simple.', an extremely low-budget, but promising film, that showed all the talent they had. 'Raising Arizona' is only their second movie, and in my opinion, just as good as their movies today. This movie was also low-budget, but it did well in the box-office and putted they on the Hollywood spotlight.

When 'Raising Arizona' starts, even if you don't know what is it about, you realize in the same minute it's a Coen Brothers' film. All the elements of their movies are here - extremely eccentric characters, very smart dialogs and an absurd story, with lots of absurd situations. The movie begins with H.I (Nicolas Cage) narrating how he, an ex-con, met his wife, Ed, an ex-cop. This sequence takes about 10 minutes of smart and funny images, and then the titles are shown. After this, they try to get pregnant, to only find out that Ed can't have babies, so they both try to steal a baby from a couple that had five of them. I though, by watching the movie, that I knew where this was going to, but believe me, I didn't. Ethan and Joel Coen write an unpredictable and crazy script, with even more better characters appearing on screen.

When 'Raising Arizona' came out, its two leads, Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter weren't famous at all, he had only been in his uncle's (Francis Ford Coppola) pictures, and she did inexpressive films. So this movie helped them to turn into stars, and it also shows their excellent comic vein. The supporting cast has names like John Goodman and Frances McDormand, two actors that would become regulars on the Coen Brothers' films, both doing a nice job. William Forsythe is also brilliant, so is Randall 'Tex' Cobb, in one of the most funny character I've ever seen in a Coen Brothers' movie.

Joel Coen does an excellent job directing this picture. The already- funny situations become even more funny with his brilliant direction. The scene where H.I. tries to steal a diaper is simply one of the most funny and well-directed sequences I've seen in a long time. The Coen Brothers are also famous for their work of editing, and it isn't different in this one.

Overral, this is a extremely funny and absurd movie. It showed the Coen Brothers, Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter to the world. Of course this isn't better then the Coen's masterpieces ('Fargo', 'The Big Lebowski' and 'No Country for Old Men'), but it's an excellent picture that has everything that a Coen Brothers' fan need - smart dialogs, eccentric characters and absurd situations. A must-see for any comedy fan.

9/10