The odyssey
of a barbarian prince captured by the Romans.
An old
(1960) and forgotten book by Poul Anderson, one of the real masters of genre
literature. I recovered it luckily from a charity shop because it can be quite
complicated to obtain a copy.
A very
early example of historical fiction honestly this is not Anderson best book. Of
course this certainly doesn’t means that it is a bad one because Anderson sub
par writing is still worth it.
The
beginning and the end are very strong but the middle bit is too slow. Part of
the problem lies in the realistic characterization that Anderson gave to his
protagonist. Not only he is a barbarian prince, he actually thinks and feels
like a real barbarian. This make for a very satisfying reading when he eventually
evolves but for most of the book he is insufferable. Maybe if he gave us other
viewpoint characters it would have been better, the notional bad guy look much
more interesting.
While all
the romantic plots are really evident, at least for us, the final twist is
really interesting and caught me totally unprepared.
Too
historical for fantasy but too limited for an historical novel this minor
Anderson is still a good reading.
Five people
are stuck in an elevator; one of them in reality is the devil.
One of the
most popular things to do on the internet is taking shots at M. Night
Shyamalan. It is so popular that it’s even percolating from the movie circles
into the more generic sites.
Now this is
not the place nor the time to go into too many details about how Shyamalan was
pigeonholed into a very constricting role when the deserved success of “The
sixth sense” put so much attention to the famous twist ending and none on his
very good classical filmmaking, reminiscent of an early Hitchcock.
Of course I’m
not trying to say that he didn’t direct any bad movie, just that they aren’t
nearly that bad as the internet likes to describe them. (Yes, even Avatar the
last Airbender, casting faux pas notwithstanding)
Onto this
movie here we strangely have a return to form and to classic Shyamalan. I say
strangely because here he is only producing and creating the concept, with the
actual screenplay and direction in separate hands, as part of an ambitious
three movie deal with Universal called “The night Chronicles”.
So with
only the concept and general direction we have a better Shyamalan than when he
is trying to do everything.
The
situation is reminiscent of a classical Agatha Christie novel with a confined
location and people dying one by one at the hands of one of them. The
supernatural overtones are tuned at exactly the right point to add another
layer without making it all about the titular Devil.
The
direction is competent if not very distinctive. My honest impression was of a
journeyman director following orders but I could be wrong.
In the end
that’s could sum the whole movie. A nice and interesting effort that develops a
good idea in a competent but not very creative way.
Recommended
to all the people who think that Shyamalan is incapable of making a good movie.
Joining the
ever increasing ranks of crossover fiction “Attack the block” is, for a change,
a decent movie.
The plot is
well structured but, most of all, the writer director Joe Cornish understood
that a movie like this is supposed to be fun. So we have none of the insufferable
seriousness of vikings vs aliens, or whatever was its name, neither the high
budget vacuity of Cowboys vs Aliens. The world of the boys is most of all a fun
world.
Of course
there is the big stumbling block of the protagonists. Everybody hates the
hoodies and their ilk, expect hoodies themselves of course. Cornish tries to
make them relatable showing their difficult houses but while I can be sold on
the idea that in an alien invasion they would protect their block fiercely I
still can’t relate to them.
Joe Cornish
of course knew also that and so he gave us a more civil character to get
behind, nurse Sam , played by the ubiquitous Jodie Whittaker with the right
mixture of determination and vulnerability.
The Alien
are very original. Entirely played by stuntmen on screen to give the kids
something to relate (consider that most of the kids are real kids from the
block at their first acting experience).
The drama is
handled in a competent manner. Not really gripping stuff but engaging enough that
he can keep the viewer entertained and interested on what’s going on in the
screen.
A modern B
movie, recommended to the people who hearing the idea think “interesting!” but
with not a lot to offer for everybody else.
In this
period it’s difficult to get more topical than the job interview from hell. The
writer/director Stuart added some scifish elements to the setting, probably to
explain some of the extremes that the candidates go to win the coveted job, but
I could easily imagine it happening somewhere in this very moment.
The basic
concept is brilliant. When the eight candidates discover that the papers which supposedly
contained the questions are blank they resort to increasingly terrible methods
to eliminate each other figuring that the last remaining candidate will get the
job.
The
resolution is satisfying, it’s not as brilliant as the beginning but manages to
tie up everything nicely which, as Lost taught us, is not really that easy.
The
direction is interesting. The film takes place in it’s entirely in a single
room reminiscent of the classical corporate architecture. This gives it a nice claustrophobic
and detached feeling.
The various characters are more general archetypes than real rounded
personas. This is even acknowledged by the movie itself when everybody instead
of receiving a name is given a generic nickname based on its physical characteristics.
So we get Blonde, Brunette, Dark, Deaf etc. This contributes to the sense of
paranoia but gives also a very cerebral sense to the movie. It’s difficult to
really get behind the contestant and you’ll find yourself more engaged by the
ongoing mystery of the true nature of the exam.
A good movie for people that want something different, it could have
been better but as it is it’s still extremely original and interesting.
The “housekeeper”
of a CIA safe house gets in his hands a very dangerous criminal.
Sometimes a
movie works purely on the strength of a performance. Here Denzel Washington
single handedly turn a run on the mill thriller into a pleasurable experience.
He got some
slack for basically being his autopilot on screen persona but nonetheless he is
so good in what he does that even on autopilot he is better than most of the
field.
Ryan
Reynolds, who last time I grudgingly had to admit he can act, got the short
stick. He plays the nice straight guy to Washington charismatic criminal. This
without adding that it’s really hard to play alongside him and not suffer in
comparison.
The movie
in itself is nothing to write about. Pedestrian direction, boring action
scenes, some neat ideas about the concept of the “Safe House” but nothing that
could really hold a full feature together. On the other hand the South African at
least is original.
Action fans
will love it but for everybody else every Denzel Washington performance is a
threat.
Not for the
faint of heart, the big gimmick of this movie is that this is a buried alive
story entirely shot from within the coffin; we literally never see the light of
day. This takes an already claustrophobic concept and amp it up to 11.
Shooting a
movie in such a limited space obviously presents a lot of technical
difficulties. The director, Rodrigo Cortes a name to watch, came prepared to
the game and using an ingenious array of partial coffin managed what can only
be called “the complete essay on the many different angled that you can shoot
from in a coffin”. Not only is the movie clear, the craftiness of the director
makes a very static subject entertaining to watch.
Ryan
Reynolds plays the only character of the movie, an hapless American truck
driver in Iraq who is left in the titular coffin with just some matches and a
mobile phone. With this hard and physically demanding role Reynolds certainly
demonstrates that he is more than the generic white American pretty face.
The plot is
the only real weak point of the movie. While thematically coherent with the
subject it literally goes nowhere. I understand that it’s not easy to write a
movie like this but with a little bit more stuff going on the screen it would
have been more watchable.
If you are
the core audience for this kind of stuff rejoice because the buried part is
perfect, if you are not I suggest you watch something else because, as I’ve
said before, the buried part is perfect and you don’t really want to see it.
A small
criminal needs to decide if he wants to kill the lover of his wife.
Among
cinema fans there is one peculiar kind of guy. I think we all met him at least
once. He is the guy who just loves to repeat his favorite bits of dialogue over
and over. In my personal experience it was the “Taxi Driver” bit, “You talking to
me?!” said again and again at least an hundred times.
If you are
that kind of guy you are going to love “44 Inch Chest”. This movie is just full
of quotable dialogue and snarky character. Up to a certain extent this is pure acting
that we can watch here.
Add to the
mix a bunch of talented character actor, arguably the best kind, led by a Ray
Winstone in perfect shape and you should have a recipe for success.
The problem
starts when we realize that this movie literally goes nowhere. The little
tidbit of plot that I, as usual, put on the top of the page is literally all
the movie. I don’t want to spoiler things but this is really all that happens,
it’s a movie about a decision. An important decision played out trough wonderful
dialogues interpreted by gifted actors but just one decision nonetheless.
So the end
sensation is one of underwhelming, like watching a long prelude that led
nowhere.
Fans of
this kind of stuff will enjoy it but for the rest of us is really too little
for a full feature movie.
A couple
keeps their children segregated and completely ignorant of the outside world.
This
strange little movie from Greece starts with a killer premise and it develops
it in many interesting directions. It’s cool how the couple created a fictional
reality for their children, full of mysterious scary things that await them if
they dare to cross the gate of their house.
Even if notionally
this reminds a lot that famous case of the children kept prisoners in the
basement the horror here is more psychological. The children could go out
practically at every moment but they are kept in by a web of lies.
The problem
starts when they have to actually develop a story. In this sense the movie is
kinda frustrating. There is always a sense that something is going to happen,
the children are getting restless and new elements are introduced but in the
end the plot never lift off.
Also the
direction is somewhat pedestrian. There is some nice composition work but it
feels too much kitchen sink realism for its own good. A movie like this need
some creative camera work to make up for the confined location, a dreamy
atmosphere is not enough.
This novel,
which won both the Hugo and the Nebula in 1979, is widely considered a
masterpiece and is justly famous for popularizing the concept of the space elevator.
A space
elevator is, to put it briefly, a literal elevator which goes along a cable
from the surface all the way up to the satellites. For very complicated reasons
this futuristic contraption would be much less expensive than our traditional
rockets and therefore could make space colonization economically sound.
Clarke is maybe
the archetypal hard sci-fi author and here he manages not only to be clear in
all the fairly complicated explanations, he entertains while doing it. This is
a much harder thing to pull off.
Sadly he
fails on the various sub plotting. While the construction of the elevator is
very engaging he tries to build a plot about science versus faith. Now there is
nothing bad on the concept, the problem starts where Clarke basically cheats and
eschews any meaningful confrontation between the two.
Orson Scott
Card smartly noted how the vast majority of Sci-Fi creations are atheist world
and here it’s not an exception. Of course Clarke can make whatever side he
wants the winner but when one is side is just full of craziness then it becomes
not very subtle propaganda.
He
introduces other various sub plots without following any of them trough. The
overall impression is that Clarke was rightly enamored with the idea of the
elevator but feared that without more narrative stuff the book would have been
too boring.
As it is
the book is oddly disjointed, still very well written and deserving a place in
any sci-fi lover library but sadly it’s not the masterpiece that it ought to
be.
A ghost
story set in an isolated house during the Edwardian period.
This is a
movie about archetypes. Probably many will be surprised by discovering that
Susan Hill original novel came out just in 1893 but, as it often happens, the
purest example of something are not concocted by people living it, they are
made afterward during the inevitable revivals by people who have the perfect
hindsight about it.
So “The
Woman in Black”, both the novel and the movie, is the archetypal gothic horror
story. It contains all the tropes of the genre, you name it, it’s there.
This leads
us to a somewhat tricky point for the standard internet reviewer. See in this
revival oriented age where the grownup fan boy leads the masses towards new
trends, or at least thinks he is a big trendsetter, originality is a sacred
value. We are ready to slaughter a lamb on the altar of star wars and its ilk
but we never forgive new iterations of them. We want to relive the classics of
our youth but we are never satisfied if it happens.
Getting to
the case in question “The Woman in Black” will give you a distinct sense of déjà
vu. If you ever saw a gothic horror you know exactly what you’ll see, up to the
minutiae. To the ever angry masses of the internet it will be boring and dumb
but if you open your mind a little bit you’ll discover a movie that actually
revels in being cliché, that goes for the best and most complete gothic horror
experience possible and manages it perfectly.
What really
matters of course is execution and here everything is pitch perfect. Even if
you know what’s going to happen, in reality knowing exactly what’s going to
happen, all the scares are perfectly set up and executed. Apart from the very
scares this movie real success is the eerie and unsettling atmosphere that they
created, full of foreboding and tiny details that make a world of difference in
screen.
The plot of
course is really cliché and often you’ll marvel in disbelief at the choices
made by our protagonist but, as the trope dictates, our hero always does the
most stupid choices in these movies.
Speaking of
the protagonist here we have the first post Harry Potter role for the titular
wizard actor. Daniel Radcliffe, who by now is clearly just an actor by hobby
considering all the money he made, impress with what a smart casting choice
that plays well to his strengths. As Harry Potter he played mostly two expressions,
fearful and determined. Here he uses mostly the first one and while he looks a
little bit too young for a father, they gave him a stubble to compensate, he
excels in the role.
A bunch of established
thespians, led by the very good Ciaran Hinds, surrounds him and elevate the
tone of the movie.
If you like
gothic horror, this is a movie you have to see.
The story
of the famous strike of Ford sewing machinists in 1968.
Behind is bizarre
title, which for unfathomable reasons in Italy has been changed in “We want sex”
(maybe they marketed it as a sexy comedy), there is actually an hot issues
movie, a kind of movie which lied dormant for a very long time but now is on
resurgence.
The real
story behind the movie is certainly an important one, that strike was a
landmark moment on the long road to equality between men and women, certainly
worth to make a movie out of it. It is also a very cinematic, clear cut story.
There is a lot of scope for rousing speeches and personal drama while the bad
guys, evil corporation and male centered trade union, are easily despicable.
The movie
dramatize some moments but get most of the details right, maybe it could have
done a little bit more with the dialogues and the characters but in the end it’s
better that they presented a fairly accurate and engrossing depiction of the
events.
Sally
Hawkings of “Happy go lucky” fame stands out again as the strike leader. There
is something in her that makes it easy for us to believe in what she believes.
As many noted in Happy go lucky it’s much harder to laugh convincingly on
camera than it is to cry.
An agoraphobic
guy relives a traumatic road trip through Europe.
As they
often say, execution is paramount. Here we have a nonsensical darkly comic
story that doesn’t make a lot of sense but it translates to the screen in an
amazing way.
See, to
recreate all the events of the infamous trip the writer / director, Paul King,
decided to make our hapless protagonist relive them entirely in his flat. So
when a flashback starts the apartment literally transform into a different
place that is composed entirely of everyday stuff.
It’s
difficult to describe but amazing to see. It reminds me of the surreal
landscapes in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil.
The story
itself, as I said earlier, is completely bonkers and disconnected but it
manages to hold itself enough for the movie to go on. It’s very difficult to
connect and relate with these surreal types and so in the end the big
revelation has less impact than it ought to.
The jokes
are mildly funny, in the cringe inducing way that seems to be so popular
lately.
Verdict: The
movie itself is not that good but the visuals alone are worth it
A
photojournalist needs to get his boos daughter back to USA but to do so he’ll
have to cross an alien contaminated area.
As an achievement
this movie is impressive. The director, Gareth Edwards, went to Mexico with a
troupe composed of only 7 people, and one of them was the driver, and managed
to film a fully fledged sci-fi movie. The idea was to film everything on
location using as extras the actual inhabitants of the place or simply people
that was passing nearby and then add monsters in postproduction.
Edwards,
who had previous experience as a special effects guy, added all the CGI shots
by himself, alone, in his bedroom using only off the shelves software. The
resulting effects are surprisingly good, big summer blockbuster level. Of
course there’s no real interaction with the monsters because he had no way to
properly set the shots but the monsters themselves are weird amazing octopus
like creatures.
The problem
starts when we look at it as a movie. In the end this is a glorified road trip
with sci-fi sceneries. With all the extras recruited on the spot Edwards
quickly had to throw away the script so much of the dialogue is improvised.
This of course means that the plot is meandering and unfocused.
There is
some chemistry between the two protagonists, in real life already boyfriend and
girlfriend but it’s really not enough. To sustain a whole movie you need stuff
to happens, plots, things. Here, I must concede, there is a somewhat dreamy
experience but it would have been much better as a short.
An attractive
journalist goes back to her rural hometown.
Adapted
from a comic strip published in the guardian that is also a loose adaptation of
“Far from the Madding Crowd” by Thomas Hardy, at least according to the wisdom
of Wikipedia. I didn’t read either of those and so I can confirm that you don’t
need any insider knowledge to approach this movie.
This is a
joyful and satirical farce full to the brim with good laughs and interesting
situations. The plot is a little bit convoluted but following the axiom that in
a little town everybody is talking about everybody else the intricacies of the
events are thematically correct and a pleasure to follow.
Stephen
Frears won every possible award for “The queen” and here he shows that he didn’t
lose his touch. Not only the setting is beautiful, which by itself is a running
gag considering how many characters wants to escape to the big city, but all
the characters get their chance to shine in this ensemble movie. This is much
harder than it looks; many directors struggle to properly develop a plot line,
even when that is the only plot line of the whole movie. Frears juggles
expertly a dozen different characters, everybody with his own motives, moving effortlessly
from one to the other.
Gemma
Arterton deliver her strongest performance yet in the year that saw her get to
the brink of superstardom. Tamara Drew got so much going on that in sloppier
hands she could have easily come as a very unsympathetic character.
The cast is
rounded up by a crew of British Thespians, lead by the always wonderful Roger Allam,
and a couple of young up and coming, Luke Evans and Dominic Cooper. Evans in
particular works nicely as the notional male lead and shows a nice amount of
charisma.
Maybe not a
masterpiece on the level of “The Queen” but this is an excellent movie that
will keep you entertained for the evening.
On paper it
was really a match made in heaven (or in hell in this case). They got Neveldine
e Taylor who are famous for the over the top action of Crank and its sequel and
gave them a big budget superhero movie. The character, Ghost Ryder, was also
the kind of dark antihero that really worked with their peculiar aesthetics and
demented sense of humor. But then production stepped in and neutered them.
What a real
shame.
So instead
of over the top crazy antics that made them famous we got standard superhero
fare. Actually, considering the new standard set by marvel and Christopher
Nolan, I must say that what we got here is sub standard superhero fare.
Unimaginative, repetitive and kinda boring.
There are
like a couple of scenes where we glimpse the Neveldine and Taylor of old but
they are just a sad reminder of the movie that could have been.
It’s really
a strange system where you become famous by thinking and acting outside the box
but then, when you get to the next level, they put you in a much tighter one.
Nic Cage is
back as the titular character both in and out of costume. See one of the many
terrible mistakes of the first Ghost Ryder was that the transformed Johnny Blaze
was played by a stuntman while here it is played by Nic Cage himself. So
instead of being a wooden presence with no personality he becomes something
quite awesome.
Nic Cage is
still an extremely good actor, even if his output is anything but regular, and
here he elevates practically by himself, very boring material.
The movie
in itself is much better than the first one. It’s certainly watchable and it
got it’s fun moments but I’ll recommend it only to fans of the genre (or to Nic
Cage fans of course).
“The
scarlet letter” happening all over again on the school grounds.
With much
fanfare and a lot of praise we get what was called by many the defining teen comedy
of this generation.
Now maybe
the problem is that I’m not a teen anymore and so I don’t really relate with
all that stuff but I really don’t see that much to hype about.
The basic
plot is interesting and fairly well written with at least some amount of good
funny lines but my impression is that what hypnotized many critics was basically
a meta reason, a reason that in reality lies outside the borders of the movie.
A good
comedy is simply something that makes you laugh, when you put it over another
genre, be it a teen movie or a romantic one etc., you can botch the
romantic/teen part and still have a good comedy because it’s still funny. But
to really get a particular kind of public all you need to do is basically
cheating.
Case in
point, our protagonist practically knows that she is in a teen comedy and continually
compare herself to classic movies and situations from the gold standard of the
genre, John Hughes 80s (Breakfast club, Pretty in pink etc.). The film critics
nods sagely and everything became so much better but actually the movie is not
better if you refer to a masterpiece, it simply become a movie for movie fans.
This is
also the big breakout for Emma Stone. While I don’t agree that she was that
good I must admit that she certainly demonstrates here that she can carry a
movie on her back.
To sum it
up this is a nice teen comedy but it’s missing that critical factor, be it the
right amount of good laughs or a really engaging storyline that would have
propelled it to the next level.
Two very
wealthy friends are trying to get even wealthier when they are saddled with
little kids.
This is the
kind of movie that we should all point at when we say that Hollywood exec did
lose touch with reality. Even on paper the concept is really retarted. It’s the
same old boring routine of “Oh my god! Having children is hard!” followed by
the obligatory realization “Babies are wonderful”.
Mix it up
with two characters with whom it’s impossible to identify unless you are an Hollywood
producer and you are left wondering “what they were thinking?”
On the
other side this movie grossed very well, 100 million on a 30 million budget, so
apparently there is a market for this.
Maybe John
Travolta and Robin Williams still have enough star power among them to justify
the intake but really this is the requiem for two illustrious careers of two
very talented actors. I was a real fan of both of them and I understand that at
that age, Williams is 61 while Travolta is 58, decent roles are dwindling down but
I also hope that they got enough money in their banks to be a little bit pickier
with their career choices and enjoy their life and their respective families.
Don’t see
this movie; the brain damage is not worth it.
