Reviews

39 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Chet as many will recognize as accurate and others as the actual Chet.
27 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
To start is necessary to say that this movie wouldn't be half as good without Robert Budreau's vision. Otherwise, it would be just another bio-pic about a musician that people kinda forgot.

Burdreau's bold decisions, like using the black and white "footage" of the movie Chet was staring as flashbacks, and by that, having one actress, the lovely Carmem Ejogo, playing two parts, both as Jane and Elaine, or having two actors on one row, like Dick, by Callum Keith Rennie and Joe Cobden.

If half of the success was on the decisions of the director, the other half it has to be on Ethan Hawke's performance. He incorporated completely the character of Chet. Everything, from the body language, the gestures, the expressions, the pantomime at the trumpet and the voice. The way of talking was pure Chet Baker, part smooth and romantic, part cynical and hopeless. The insistence with the fake teeth. All of that was pure Chet. Hawke is a hard actor to lose on the character, there's always something that identifies Hawke, that makes you remember "Training Day", the "Before Trilogy" and even "Sinister", that common thing to his performance in those otherwise completely different movies. But in "Born To Be Blue" Hawke vanishes inside the character, maybe for being as cool as the actor, but in no moment I could see other person but Chet Baker. For me, that will be his image, more than any other actual footage of the musician.

Talking performances, the co-star Carmem Ejogo was just delightful. And even both parts not being superficially much different, there was nuance. Elaine and Jane had different dynamics with Chet, and most of it pass under the radar, but to make it work as it did in the final cut, it was great. And there was Callum, the eternal Great Ashby, but here he delivers a solid performance as the producer Dick Bock, sometimes a worried friend, sometimes a guy that is tired to trying to save someone who don't want to be saved.

The story. Well, that's an unauthorized bio-pic, and its synopsis state already that this is "A re-imagining of jazz legend Chet Baker's musical comeback in the late '60s". How much of what we see in the movie is factual? How accurate is Budreau's script? Does it matters that much? Born to be blue is engaging, not 'cause its a bio- pic, but 'cause it's a good movie, with a good script, a good directing and good performances. What's true or not, we may let it to the next documentary on Chet Baker.

This is a must watch!!!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
SOMM 2 - Into the Bottle, Seeking Revenge! Damn, that movie made me fall back again into the alcoholism (I'm joking...Kinda...)
21 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Director Jason Wise brings once again a glance in the wine universe with the "sequel(?)" to his 2012's feature debut, "Somm".

But after all, what does "SOMM: Into The Bottle" bring to the table? In the last two decades, in the whole world, there's been a Boom of the wine culture in its many aspects. Knowing wine became the cool, classy, charming thing. With that, naturally, many documentaries about wine, drinks, cooking and sommeliers popped-out all over the place, and some were fine, some were shameless propaganda, still, all of 'em had some input, some valuable information to the non-initiated in the subject. So, what does "Into The Bottles" have to offer?"

Well. To start from the very beginning of the movie, a question, and the first controversy. What the hell is a sommelier? (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Different opinions but not the imposition of it. After all, everyone got its own perception of reality. And that is the first thing that the second statement of the "Somm Franchise(?)" delivers. Isn't a exposition, isn't a lecture, isn't a disguised infomercial, is a discussion.

In the sidelines of divergent insights about a couple other subjects, the movie explores wine, from the making, to the drinking of a vintage wine, in the year it was made or 10, 20, 50 years later. At some point is shown a tasting of a wine from the 1800's.

It approaches every aspect of it. The history, the work, "the alchemy", the business, the art of drinking. Ten chapters, ten stories about wine, ten precious vintage wines. People changing the international panorama for wine by making what, where and how no one else did or would do at that time. Inovating to improve the product, the perpetuation of that craft-work in the family, through generations. The celebration of a special occasion.

In resume, the director made a nice work of explaining wine. The movie goes into the bottle, and shows the essence of what wine is, beyond the spirit. Delivers information in many levels, and still is able to engage the most alienated viewer, for being a good movie. The authenticity of the experts interviewed was also a plus. They were having a good time, and giving their sincere opinion about the stuff, not marketing some product.

Again, if fall into the propaganda topic. I really hate to sit through any kind of truth preaching propaganda, that wants to be right by all means and tries to shove that idea into my mind with every word in the script. As a documentary, "Into the Bottle" give me information, thrills me with stories and opinions. And great inputs, like "Sometimes you just need to drink a $5 bottle of wine" or "Wine is to drink, wine isn't just culture, it is also food" and many other quotable moments.

To finish, a little more technical, I thought that the photograph was just delightful, great shots of the vineyards, awesome transition shots with those drawings. And the edition also deserves a big compliment, 'cause none of the old footage felt forced or out-placed, and the transition were smooth, natural.

If all the documentaries in the world were a little bit more like it, people would watch more documentaries. If you know a lot about wine, you will really like it, if you only like to drinkin' it and passing out after the third bottle, you might like it as well, but try not to pass out during the film, you might loose some nice information.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A disappointment in every aspect...
17 June 2016
I was kinda hyped to this one. It felt like the right when I first heard of it. The cast, the posters, the trailer, even the mysterious plot about a hole that just appears in the middle of the living room of some girl and swallows her boyfriend. I was sold, I wasn't expecting for nothing like a runner-up to the award season, but I was sold to a little indie funny and cute rom-com.

Well, high expectations has its downsides... The shitty thing, I can't be apologetic towards this movie... I tried hard to like it, but the movie wasn't able to hit the right nerve in no moment, and dude, I watch movies with an open heart...

The movie doesn't actually delivers any of the expected cuteness, comedy or quirkiness of the story that actually sounds lovely, funny and pretty intriguing. The cast, mostly Brie and Chatwin, as protagonist, aren't able to work all they can, and proved in previous works, 'cause the characters are pretty much flat, even more when the expositional dialogue tries to state the opposite. The supporting characters, unfortunately, are as much as shallow.

The movie does not tackle none of the big points it brings. It feels pretty much like the writer Steve Adams just had a good idea to a movie, but wasn't able to put it in the right way in the script, and the director Nick Wernham, in his feature directorial debut, just stuck with it 'cause it was what he had.

The movie failed to be one fine rom-com, and turns out just as a silly cautionary tale, that waste the chance to make great statements, about art, love, sex, fidelity, and people.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Far from a masterpiece... But a fun flick to watch!
10 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Electra Woman and Dyna Girl is the perfect great movie to a lazy afternoon, and I don't say it like its a bad thing, au contraire, its a great thing! The movie doesn't take itself too much seriously, and sometimes that is all someone wants.

Unlikely most stuff I watch, I didn't see this one coming. I watch Hannah Hart's and Grace Helbig's every other videos in their youtube channel, but the announcement for this movie, or series(?), passed under my radar. The suggestion popped out, and I had to see it, 'cause the girls are genuinely funny. And it was a lazy afternoon. Turned out, I didn't know, but it was exactly what I wanted to watch.

The plot is basically the same of many buddy movies from the last thirty years, and the movie acknowledges that almost proudly, again, for not taking itself too much seriously, and for a comedy it is indispensable. Even in the clichés characters as the success thirsty protagonist and her idealistic and slighted partner, the greed "evil" agent, the popular douche-bag and his awkward and kinda rejected friend, the socially inapt "nerdy" prop guy and the bitchy girl. They pulled off those "I've seen it already" moments quite fine, with a funny turn out of events or good punch lines.

But the thing that makes Electra Woman and Dyna Girl different from every movie of his genre is the fact that movie relies more in the performance of the two leads, than in its plot. The viewer is able to disclose the whole plot in the first act, there's no big twist, but our eyes are drawn to the heroes, expecting the next funny moment. The performance of Grace and Hannah was sincere, it was something you are acquainted from Not Too Deep or My Drunk Kitchen. And it is enforced by the everyday joke, like getting an Uber, vertical filming with the phone, or the joke about every superhero being an orphan. And lets not forget the chemistry between the two, that are big partners in many projects and friends(I suppose!), and gave more credibility to the relation between the characters.

Bottom line it is a funny movie, with some silly bits, but everything you want for a lazy afternoon! If you had a chance you should watch it.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Urge (2016)
6/10
I understand the hate... But I kinda liked it!
5 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When the trailer first came out I was thrilled, like expectations through the roof... The flick came out and so did the bad reviews... Still, I decided to take a shot... Maybe the "Urge" would kick for me like it didn't for anyone else... (awful joke! Mea culpa maxima!)

Please, allow me to be gentle... Lets begin then... Great premise, not that much original, but if drugs are involved, also am I, in the best of times... The first act was fine or even very fine... The second one was interesting, kind of thrilling... The final act made the movie a zombie flick and sucked!

There wasn't a development of the characters, but I don't feel like that was important... In my POV, they were just that kind of people that you know and you meet casually in a party... You may hang out with them for a while or even all the night, but you wouldn't remember their names if your life depended on it! It feels like, although, that many characters background and "important inter-character moments" were lost in the editing room. For example, the graffiti... Neil died thinking that Jason did it... And it was a big deal, worthy a toast with a 62 years and $100k whisky. And just like that, it didn't matter... That kind of stuff happens when you work a script in eight hands... Or it didn't got into the final cut...

Talking cuts... Way too many cuts... Way too many unnecessary cuts... For example, the "cake-f*ck" scene (I don't believe I wrote that, meaning to write that!)... I was OK with the back and forth cross-cutting... I wasn't OK with the number of inserts in the master shot, that didn't even changed the angle of the shooting. Made it looks like they were trying to put together the best bits of performance of their many takes. It was Kaufman's directional debut, but that was just messed up.

Good parts... It had many good parts... The dialogue, I loved the dialogue! Simple and believable in casual moments, clever in its jokes, and interesting in its philosophy. Actingwise, Nick Thune was the best hands down! His character going crazy is mesmerizing. But the movie is made of good moments. Like at the entrance of the Volcano, with the eyes in the wall, how cool was that?... Or the beginning of the party... Or Theresa going kinda dominatrix on Neil... Or the cake- f*ck (I still can't believe!)... Put it all together it doesn't sounds like much, but those moments, and others, are quite awesome by themselves.

007wise... I liked the Man... Pierce was good, not as much as Thune, but still good... But they screwed him in the last scene... A villain without a goal can do anything, is f*ckin' unpredictable, interesting... In the other hand, a villain that aims for the Apocalypse is boring, and can go just as far as the end of the world... And in the movies, the end of the world never is a end of the world... BUT HE GOT SOME GOOD LINES IN THE TWO FIRST SCENES HE WAS IN!

Bottom line... The first two acts are quite decent, just a couple problems with the writing and some execution issues... The third act is where things go sideways and the movie losses in it self... And the end credit scene is so generic that could be of any zombie flick ever made. WOULD FIT ANY ZOMBIE MOVIE, MORE THAN DID TO URGE!

Give it a try... Won't hurt... You may even have a good time... In the end you will at least know what not to do when making a movie...
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Get a Job (2016)
5/10
It's really a shame it isn't better...
26 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It is a shame, 'cause this cast is pretty much incredible! It is such an assemblage of great talents. Cranston and Brie, for starters, two of the most engaging performances in the movie. The two loved by the silver screen, Teller and Kendrick. Mintz-Plasse, the eternal McLovin! Braun and Jackson, with subplots much more interesting than the main plot! The cameos of Jorge Garcia and Jon Cho!

Acting wise it was quite fine, actually, nothing mind-blowin', but fine.

The problem was the writing. The subject is serious. The "millennials issue" is serious, I should know, I'm one of them. The problem with student loans, with finding a job, following your dreams, living among grown-ups. MAN, that is subject enough to pull a two hour drama to fly high in the awards season.

But, the writers and director decided to do a comedy, with flat characters, silly plots and some non-sense jokes that are funny every once in a while.

Marcia Gay Harden had to be the mean corrupted executive; Anna Kendrick had to be the uptight girl with a plan that is fired, smokes weed once and out of the blue becomes the hippie follow your dreams type; Miles Teller had to be the free spirited that sold himself for a good job and is put in a moral dilemma; Alison Brie had to be the nymphomaniac co-worker type; It makes me wanna say "scr*w it!" to the movie.

But, there was stories I enjoyed. Bryan Cranston's was delightful, until the final chapter. The doubt, anger, shame, hope and all the other feelings that come along when he looses a life time job, and isn't able to get back on his feet, switch places with his own son and dreams about the dream job. There's a good story. A story that feels real.

Brandon Jackson's storyline also was real, but sadly had so little time to evolve. That passion for the first job, that amusement almost hypnotic, the work, the money, even the feeling of finding others like yourself. And the fear and shame of scr*win' up. That's real.

Or even Nick Braun's, a little over the top, but still feeling real- ish. A person who don't gives a f*ck about his work and suddenly falls for the job and really find himself in the activity. That kind of stuff happens like everyday.

To finish that argument. No one works for the incarnation of evil. You might think that your boss is the anti-Christ itself, or that douché called Chad in every coming of age movie. Your boss can be a prick, but he wont the villainous type, that will do villainous things for his own profit. That kind of stuff is more nuanced.

And that's way the main plot was such a lousy thing to watch. Miles' character had an attitude about his work, that can only be called stupid. And Marcia's character had one that can only be called ridiculous.

In resume - Is an OK movie 'cause assembles great actors, that deliver some nice performances, but sadly it's poorly written. Isn't funny as a comedy or convincingly as a drama. It is a shame.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
And then Hollywood ruins two great novels at once...
12 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Before I begin: Jane Austen's novel is one of the greatest novels of all time, beautifully written, delightful as it gets. Then along came a crazy man called Seth Grahame-Smith added zombies, ninjas and martial arts to the story. Right, as if such thing would work! That guy is on crack! THEN YOU BITE YOUR TONGUE CAUSE THE NOVEL WITH THE ZOMBIES IS AWESOME!

If you haven't read it yet, do it, it is so much fun! And don't worry if you already watched the movie, they have the same name but their stories are totally different. I'm serious! Not "it's an adaptation of the book" different, but "I'll keep the title and the characters, the rest I'll throw away and re-write it!" different. THAT DIFFERENT!

Damn you Burr Steers!For all it! First for a PG-13 zombie movie. I see more blood when my girlfriend bites my lip than in this movie. For ignoring ninjas. You tried to keep it safe with a zombie movie, man with that source material you should have gone totally bananas! For just saying f*ck it to all the strong female characters of both novels. For making me say that Wickham was right! He was the only reasonable among homicidal pedant aristocrats. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ZOMBIES!

Lydia and Wickham "love-story" was completely ignored. We had a two minutes dance between Jane and Bingley... They never saw each other until their marriage at the end of the movie. We barely had any Liz and Darcy time on screen. And the battle royale. It is teased a battle between Liz and Lady Catharine, but in the end just a ridiculous battle between Wickham and Darcy.

What I saw was the corruption of literary work about women. Both sources are about strong woman who stand up and don't let themselves be subjugated by any male. The Bennet sisters, the deadly Bennet sisters are no more than damsels in distress, in this movie. They kick some ass and then nothing. THAT IS A SHAME!

Casting-wise. I liked Sam Riley, Matt Smith and Jack Houston. Sam could play Darcy in a straight adaptation of the original novel and would be amazing. Matt as Collins was the comic relief, sometimes forced, sometimes perfect, he was quite well in the part. And Jack's Wickham was very good, he was quite charming as was supposed to, but because of the poor writing there was no deceitful Wickham.

Among the women. I didn't really saw three of the Bennet sisters, they were barely in the movie. I liked Bella Heathcote as Jane, she was no Rosamund Pike, but balanced the delicate and lovely, but didn't had enough time on screen. Lena Headey was another one. Visually perfect as Lady Catherine, but the few lines she had were kind of lame. She would be awesome kickin' zombie ass and Lizzie's ass also.

The so called protagonist, Liz Bennet, by Lily James. As the whole movie, the character was poorly written, so I don't know if she could do any better. Just for taste, I would change her for Lily Collins. I think Collins would fit better as Liz Bennet and is a better actress than James.

Bottom line... I was really looking forward to this movie, probably the first one of the year, but it was a mess... It's hard to imagine how it could be worse... The writing was the thing that doomed this project.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Benefactor (I) (2015)
6/10
What if Gregory House were a rich philanthropist and not a nihilist douche?
13 February 2016
He would be Francis Watt! (Ok, and we wouldn't have one of the finest TV-Shows of recent television)

One thing is for sure about The Benefactor. Richard Gere brought the thunder with his performance and pretty much took the whole movie by his own. Then there was Theo James and he did well, I think. I mean... He's the guy from the last Underworld and the Divergent Series... How much can you ask?

Of course that is not fair with the guy, he's a professional actor and he can deliver good performances. In the case of The Benefactor, there was not much to do with it. Even Dakota Fanning, one of the most brilliant actress of her generation, didn't have much to do or say... AND THAT SUCKS, 'CAUSE SHE CAN DO MORE!!! C'mon Hollywood, can't you give her good parts for Christ's sake? Does she charges for line delivered?

I think... That's all to say that there's not much to say about the acting or the cast, besides Gere. Well, and there was the resemblance between Bobby (Dylan Baker) and Luke (James). Not much as twins, but enough to make clear that Puddles (Fanning) had serious Freudians issues!

The Benefactor is the fiction feature debut to the writer and director Andrew Renzi, and I'll say that I liked and I'll wait to see more of that young filmmaker. The work in the directing wasn't anything mind-blowing but didn't let down.

The writing... Well, the writing is far from brilliant. Actually, is very flawed. None of the characters is somebody, not even Franny, they all are a mosaic of characteristics. They have no story, no ego. And that's pretty much the reason the acting from the supporting cast is "meh". But the dialog saves it from being a total flop. The dialog is the thing that makes possible Gere's outstanding performance. Imagine the dialog full of exposition, not even Gere suffering the effects of abstinence in silence would make it better.

The third act also had a problem. Everything happened so fast. There was no development to all of that and the conclusion lacks credibility for osmosis. Ten or twenty minutes more in the final cut could make all the difference. Turn the silly ending in something really emotional and believable.

Nothing else to be said, just enjoy the movie. It isn't a top-shelf but it works for a simple dose of entertainment.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Misconduct (2016)
5/10
A a-list cast, a quite fine photography and a plot that sounds interesting... With that you can do a good movie... I mean, you CAN, but that doesn't mean you WILL...
6 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
There is always an up-side in watching bad movies. I learn with their mistakes and when I'm writing my own stuff I try to not repeat their mistakes.

Misconduct taught me one thing: Don't push the twist button too hard. And don't push it too many times. AND THINK BEFORE YOU PUSH IT!

The thing is Misconduct was poorly written. Lame dialogs, flat characters and enough plot twists to make the viewer dizzy... AND NOT IN THE GOOD WAY! It was just confusing... Like "At the end they were all a bunch of sociopaths, is it?"

Man I had no sympathy for none of the character, through the whole movie. Malin Akerman didn't deliver the batsh*t crazy, maniac and suicidal ex... Josh Duhamel didn't convinced as a guy who lost his unborn child and work his mind out of it... Alice Eve and Julia Stiles didn't care much for part... Anthony Hopkins had some good lines, but played "Hannibal, The CEO of Pfeizer"... Al Pacino was fine, had a couple good lines and little of John Milton's charm as the lawyer, but looses at the climax and becomes just a bad joke... And I still haven't figured out Byung-hun Lee's character...

It is the directorial debut of Shintaro Shimosawa. He got some resume. Produced The Grudge 1 & 2; wrote and produced a couple episodes of The Following and Ringer; wrote a couple episodes of The Dead Zone. IF you don't consider the acting, you might say that his work wasn't half bad...

The photography was good. That gave the right tone to the history and they were able to pull off the dark scenes. Well done in that point.

To finish a couple tips to the guys who made it:

1 - DON'T KILL MALIN AKERMAN! But if you have Alice Eve to kill Malin Akerman during a fight, SHOW THE F*CKIN' FIGHT! (Yeah, that's sexist, I'm sorry)

2 - Don't turn the lawyer that can handle the situation into a f*ckin' suicidal, HE WORKS WAYS OUT OF THOSE SITUATIONS FOR LIVING!

3 - Don't make the coolest killer (the trick with the bike to kill the girl was cool!) an idiot when he's about to kill the main characters, HE KILLS PEOPLE FOR LIVING! And Alice should be dead at the end of the movie, I mean she was stabbed in the chest...

At last but not least...

I got the point that Ben is a dick, but he has his heart in the right place. And I got that even his wife being a beautiful nurse, his ex was a crazy-hot-lady (pun intended) and he thought "what the hell, why not?"... I even get the part of he turning her down... But there are two things that wont be able to swallow.

1 - He had a date with his wife. And before even knowing that his ex had some intel in the case that could make his career, he stood his wife up, went for drinks with the ex... NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD DO THAT... HE COULD CHEAT HER, BUT HE WOULDN'T CHEAT HER THAT DAY!

2 - He had the intel, he had the girl and he had a drink. Look good to him that he didn't went that far with Emily... BUT PLEASE, AFTER THAT SLAP? IF THAT SLAP COULD TALK HE WOULD SAY "I'M ALL FOR IT, BABE!"... My point is he could stop before taking her dress off, but after is bullsh*t!

I'm sorry, I lost the focus on the couple last paragraphs... My point is that Misconduct had everything to be a good movie, a good thriller... But bad writing had doomed the project from day 1.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grandma (2015)
9/10
One of few movies that you can see the all the cast deliver a very committed performance
27 January 2016
Take the cast list here in IMDb... From Lily Tomlim to Sam Elliot, everyone acted in such perfectly suitable way that fit their characters, and that was so f*ckin' delicious to watch. Everyone? Yes! John Cho with his cameo as the cafeé manager/owner or whatever... He pulled off that part, 'cause more than once a manager at Starbuck's came to me in the same way, the same tone, probably the same words... In anyway, how he pulled of? 'Cause you didn't laughed at him trying to do it... He convinced you as a coffee manager/owner... For sure you recognized him at sight but it wasn't the actor John Cho in screen. The same for Nat Wolf... He was the *sshole in the scene and he got his *ss kicked by his ex's grandma... It wasn't Nat Wolf there... Maybe that is the definition of acting, but c'mon, you will say that you can't recognize lazy acting or that typical self acting? In Grandma the cast embrace their roles and that is f*ckin' awesome!

You, on the other hand, might not even get interested in Cho's or Wolf's performance... You might be as well a protagonist kind of person... Not judging... Scene one already deliver a very emotional moment between Lily Tomlim's and Judy Greer's characters. You don't know them, you wasn't really paying attention till this point so you not sure if you should know who they are or why they are fighting for... BUT, the feelings are so real and intense... Olivia opening her chest and expressing all her feelings about the situation while Elle keeps it "cool" and shows a b*tchy side of her, right at the start... Scene one is raw feeling...And both actresses keep delivering that raw feeling while they're on screen through the whole movie. Needless to say that Lily Tomlim's performance is one of the best by a lead actress in the year and should have get a nomination from the Academy.

About Julia Garner. So little was talked about that young actress. OK, I agree that Tomlim took the movie to the next level, but lets not forget the girl that shares the screen basically through the whole film. How many times the role of a pregnant teenager was played in the movies? Many or more... Credits to the writer/director 'cause he designed a delicious character for that pregnant teenager, so much layers and some kind of contradictions that skips completely from the stereotypes and from the clichés... But writing a good character is only halfway through. Julia Garner was able to incorporate each and every one of the little complications of the character and in result she was perfect. The awkwardness, the rage, the doubt, the fear... It was all so authentic! She is not a first timer, we all can see her delivering great performances in "Electrick Children" and in "We Are What We Are" and "Grandma" is one more great performance to put on her resume. A final thought on her... Actually in young actresses... By heart I can mention four really good performances of young actresses in the last year, and that's a lot considering my awful memory... Saoirse Ronan in "Brooklyn", Elle Fanning in "Trumbo", Olivia Cook in "Me, Earl and The Dying Girl" and Julia Garner in "Grandma". And those are the ones that I can remember... The film industry has to look out for many new talents.

Well... This is already longer than I thought... Sam Elliot and Marcia Gay Harden were great also!

Paul Weitz is an incredible director and writer, and his resume shows that clearly, so i think that extend my compliments would be like thin rain in the ocean. BUt is necessary to say that the dialogs in the movie were just clever and delightful as possible.

"I like being old, young people are stupid." HOW GREAT IS THAT?

And that is just one line of many that I loved, but I couldn't quote by heart. My point is the story is very well written, such as the characters, and the dialogue is just great!

But at the end of the day, this is one of those movies made by the cast. The movie could be flawless in some technical point of view, the script could've been wrote by Shakespeare and be directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The acting would still have outshined all of that.

I'm just surprised with the budget... Just $600.000, really? There's a zero missing probably!
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Creed (II) (2015)
8/10
"HE BLEEDS TOO!"... Outstanding performance of Jordan and Stallone!
9 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not a fan of the whole franchise, but Rocky Balboa (2006) hit the right spot and this sixth statement knock me down to watch the previous movies with other eyes.

Stallone is at his best in the movie, and deserved the nomination for the Golden Globe. In this film I was able to see the same Rocky that I loved from nine years ago, but now in a fight outside of the ring, where the character shows his real value, and with a backup of the new generation, gritty, messed up, young Adonis Creed, brought to life by the amazing performance of Michael B. Jordan.

The directing is pretty awesome. A couple masters through the fights, a great work in the montage of the training and the fights, and shots that capture the intimacy between Unc and Donnie. A very nice work that made the movie different of other sports flicks. It wasn't about the fighter, the legacy, the cancer, the final fight itself. It was subjective in a point that few movies can get.

Other thing that really hooked me into it was the make-up. You were able to see a bruise appear just after the punch and the way that they escalated. That f*cked up eye in the final fight was like, "Sh*t, I almost threw up my dinner!". But not only that! The make up on Stallone during the fight with cancer was pretty amazing either. He isn't a young boy anymore, but the make up made him look a couple years older and really sick and so.

The story is very good, with a good tone and in no moment appellative in the cancer point. After all it isn't a movie about Rocky, is about Adonis, and they kept in the right way. They didn't made a movie about Rocky the trainer, trying to bring back the hero of the 70's and 80's. He was part of the movie about a new star! And that worked fine!

It is a great movie, check it out as soon as possible!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Of course it was a flop... Jem is a silly little series of mistakes...
8 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When the first trailer came out, it get me hooked... The rise and fall of a young pop-star, that started with a video that went viral and signed with a major label... Sounded cool...

I wasn't aware that it was inspired or adapted from a 80's cartoon... But it probably wouldn't make any difference... Jem and the Holograms is a miss in many ways...

The beginning with the vlogs were pretty nice... It made sense... Then it pulled the presentation of the characters, which as also fine... And came that moment they start to harmonize together, that sounded silly, but in some way made think that it is pretty cool... They were fighting, out of tune and then they start to harmonize and realize that they are fine together... Sounded silly but I'm not heartless... And then came the trouble with money, with felt so forced, like "Okay, we need put a problem in the point... Oh, I got it! Money problems!"... Unnecessary at some point... Then they decide to make a video-clip in a DIY way... I thought, oh that's how they become a band... Cute... They make a couple of those and voilà they get notorious... But it didn't happened like that... I was OK with it... Jerrica was a shy one, OK... She remember her dad and decide to record a song on her own... Try a dozen times until she realize that Jerrica is an horrible name (with all the respect to all the Jerricas in the world) and becomes Jem... The nosy sister post the video and it goes viral... Uhull!

And it is downhill from here... Until this point it wasn't a bad movie, neither a really good one... It was just OK...

Jem went viral and so and so... My problem is that she posted ONE song and then a major label already wants to sing with her... WHAT THE HELL... And then the head of that label just shows up, IN PERSON, at her door, being a corporative b*tch villain type... WHAT THE HELL!!!

They go to LA, start a going pro montage...They go home, then protagonist has a moment with the young nice looking guy, who is responsible for them... Cliché as hell... But one note... Jem and the girls are like somewhere between 17 and 19... Rio is at least in his late 20's if not in his early 30's... I mean, c'mon that's creepy!

AAAAAAANNNNDDD THEEEEEN... F*ck... I don't even know how to say it... And then the robot starts to work... Jesus H... YEAH...

A discount crossover between R2-D2 and Echo from Earth to Echo, which is an homage to ET... So... Synergy is 4th class rip-off... Or, if you like better, it is just bullsh*t...

Then, just as in Earth to Echo, the kids go around trying to fix the robot... They trespass and are busted by the young guy who they stole... And they run from the police by jumping from the pier... In the middle of the night... In a sea that does not look calm... THEY ARE DEAD!!! Sadly they survive... AND START TO SING UNDERNEATH THE PIER! Oh and he reveals that he is son of his b*tchy boss...

Man... Is hurting writing this...

Lets resume 'cause it doesn't get any better or interesting... They do a show in a legendary house... It is sold out... The power goes off... The money problem forces Jem to accept the offer of going solo... The girls fight over that... She has a minor break... And the girls make up... And because of the robot have to break in the label building and recover the earrings that are in the vault... Elaborate a ridiculous plan, instead of just ask for them to the b*tch, who had no reason to say no to that! Then they discover that Rio's father left the Label to him... So he takes over, fires her mother, Jem makes a speech and the girls play the gig... And the end...

IT HAD SO MUCH Potential... Visually is pretty good... You can see some kind of change in the characters along the way of becoming pop- stars... The clothing and the makeup of the band is nice... The videos as tension builders during some scenes is quite cool... As the vlogs that appear all along the movie...

The characters were simply flat... All of them... And Juliette Lewis character is just too much...

It has a surprisingly "high" metascore... I mean 42? Really? Max Joseph's We Are Your Friends is a way superior movie and has only 46... Kirsten Sheridan's August Rush has only a 38, and it is one of the most brilliant family movies about music ever made...

Jem and The Holograms could be the movie to truly capture the essence of the music scene in the era of the internet... And fails... I'm really disappointed!
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Isn't a bad one, but some not so good stuff got into the final cut...
3 January 2016
The proposal of Happy Christmas is crystal clear: show some kind of real interaction between people/characters... Minimum script, minimum direction... Maximum improv.

That said, I need to say that I liked most of what I saw... The six actors (including the baby Swanberg) gave good performances doing their own thing together... It was nice to see Melanie Lynskey in a more dramatic role... As it is always delightful to watch Anna Kendrick... And even Joe Swanberg pleased me while in scene...

The story is pretty good and the movie delivered what it has promised... BUT... I do think it is a weaker movie than his predecessor Drinking Buddies and his successor Digging For Fire... And that happens mostly 'cause a couple scenes weren't the best they got... A couple scenes felt forced, artificial, inorganic, when the whole point of the movie is to be the most organic possible...

They meant well, did fine, but could have done an amazingly better work with a couple more hours in the editing room...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The kind of movie who takes you back to Woody's work in literature, like in Without Feathers, Side Effects and Getting Even
28 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Dark comedy, intellectual talks and piano bar(ish)-lounge(ish)- jazz(ish) tunes in the background... A combination that screams Woody Allen!

I actually didn't read any of the critics review, but as people talks seems like they didn't enjoyed the movie at all... But, it is Woody Allen playing his game, and he knows how to play it!

The philosophical debate and the murder comedy appear in many of the texts, not always together, but always through a comedic prism... And it is on top of everything, more than just enjoyable...

Woody puts on screen, in a light way, many big debates about morality, philosophy, human interactions and psychology... Those ingredients can make some heavy dramas, incredibly deep, but in the wrong hands, the most boring picture yet to be seen... COULD WOODY ALLEN DO A HEAVY DRAMA ABOUT THOSE POINTS AND NOT S*CK? I don't know...

But why to think in a drama? Woody is one of the very few (if not the only) movie makers in activity (or of all time) that isn't just not afraid of doing black comedy, but knows how to do it well! A breakdown, a murder, an adultery... Those are not the funniest situations, but that doesn't means that it can be fun! (In fiction of course!)

The dialogs were all that lovely Woody Allen's dialog... The production design were amazing and the photography pretty fine... The soundtrack was the icing on the cake...

The acting was just fine... Phoenix, Stone and Posey did a decent job but nothing that blows anyone's mind... I do think that is hard to give a big performance in a Woody Allen's movie cause all the characters are always so much Woody Allen, that must be hard to portray it perfectly... Is the second movie in a row that Emma Stone works with woody in a lead role, and I would like to see more of that...

To finish... Irrational Man was a delight in many ways and I'm already looking forward to what he'll deliver to that man kind next year!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Youth (I) (2015)
8/10
An statement about the opposition between youth and elderliness...
13 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Paolo Sorentino's Youth isn't one of those movies that aim to be something else... It is a statement about life in the form of incredibly realistic paintings. Above all things, the movie isn't about the characters or their story, about the hotel or the beautiful setting in Switzerland, it isn't about Mick's movie or Fred's concert. The movie is simply a exposition of the opposition between elderliness and "YOUTH".

The photography is pretty much impeccable and as I said every frame looks like a painting, I mean, ANY still of the movie would look amazing in your living room wall. The hand of the director appears in many of those shots that you can only say, "Oh my"... And it is pretty much only production design and camera... The only two times you see special effects, they kinda suck...

About the acting... I don't think there's much to say... Lately, in the non- blockbuster flicks, I watch Michael Caine and just see him doing his thing... Pretty much as him playing himself... And he's good, even very good, but there's not that spark that makes it a "brilliant performance". I feel the same way about Harvey Keitel. Rachel Weisz was good, but I don't think her character was so well constructed, Paul Dano's on the other hand had the most interesting character of the whole movie and was impressive as Jimmy Tree. Jane Fonda received a nomination to the Golden Globe, but she was on screen for two scenes only, so... I don't know...

The movie was pretty much about the visual and left the story to be read between the lines (or between the frames)...The story is pretty good but the movie is not about it... Is just a way of expressing an idea...

At the end of the day... Paolo Sorentino will be indicated to every award for directing, this season... The movie is a work of art, but not to much as cinema indeed...
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Salomé (2013)
9/10
A play on screen... I do feel obligated to stand for a round of applause...
5 December 2015
WOW!

I'm breathless after watching it... The play Wilde is of course a great material to work on... But it could suck in so many levels...

I have to say a loud and clear "F*CK OFF" to anyone who thinks that Al Pacino is over... He's a legend, both in screen and stage... As actor and director... And as Herod... Man, its only possible to think that Wilde only wrote the play to Al Pacino direct this version...

Some people complained about the clothing... Great actors were on stage, and they could be wearing black capes, futuristic clothes or even costumes of that time... I doubt that would be that different... Maybe with the proper costumes they wouldn't be that good... I mean, they would have the visual at their favor... Maybe they wouldn't put as much effort... OF COURSE THEY ARE GREAT PRO-ACTORS AND THEY WOULD BE GREAT EVEN IF THEY WERE NAKED!

For me, the movie have only one flaw... It was a little confusing at the beginning... Voices in off... Shots of stage and out-stage... BEFORE SALOMÉ ENTER IN SCENE I WAS KIND OF LOST... Unable to really get what was going on... I was distracted...

But Jessica entered... From that point to the very last scene, I couldn't blink... WOW!

Today, is pretty much obvious that she is one of the greatest actresses in activity... But the movie was rolled, I guess, between 2008 and 2010, before Jessica Chastain be THE Jessica Chastain. Al Pacino was the one who shown the world what a great artist she was.

I can only dream of watching it live... Its probably transcendental...

In resume: GREAT PLAY, great direction, Al Pacino was really good as Herod and the rest of the cast played their part very well either. BUT JESSICA CHASTAIN JUST BLEW MINDS WITH THAT PERFORMANCE...
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Listen to him guys...
15 November 2015
Not just a bio-documentary. Far beyond that... Listen to Me Marlon is the presentation of a legend... AS A MAN... By the own legend...

To younger people, such as myself, Marlon Brando was Don Vito Corleone (The Godfather), Colonel Kurtz (Apocalypse Now), Stanley (A Streetcar Named Desire), among many other great performances. But who was the man behind those iconic characters?

In Listen to Me Marlon, is delivered a compilation of many recordings by the actor to the actor himself. I don't think that he would be very pleased to have such tapes out there!

Troubled, charming, talented, politically engaged, passionate... The many faces of the man. Of the liar. When would I imagine that the man who played Don Vito Corleone and Colonel Kurtz, had problems with Francis Ford Coppola? And the tragedies of his personal life? How could I think about Brando as a ordinary guy?

He was no ordinary. And his tapes show it very clearly. Marlon was one unique human being. NO! Not one, two or even more... Marlon talks to himself. But himself is not Marlon... He was no ordinary...

As an art, the movie is beautiful. Not a typical boring documentary, with some footage, a couple interviews, and so and so. The director Stevan Riley was able to capture so many beautiful shots alongside with the music and the very voice of the actor. Flawless...

I know now many more than I ever imagined about Marlon Brando. And now it's like the experience of watching his work means to open so many other doors... Flawless bio-doc. It's a must see if you are interest in the motion picture industry as a whole.
43 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Meadowland (2015)
7/10
One of very few movies that would be better if it was longer!
31 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I think it would be, at least...

The movie is pretty much flawless, thanks to a wonderful work of Reed Morano in her directional debut and to the writer, also a debut, Chris Rossi, that delivered that beautiful and sad story.

A good director can save a shitty cast... A wonderful cast can't work with a lousy director. Don't know why i wrote that, 'cause there's nothing to do with the movie! Maybe, I was preparing my queue to say that the cast was also brilliant.

Olivia Wilde, Luke Wilson, Giovanni Ribsi, John Leguizamo, Elizabeth Moss, Juno Temple... The boy... Ty Simpkins... This boy is everywhere! From blockbusters to smaller movies... Literally, he's in the biggest Box Office of the year and in the one of year's most praised movies by the critics. Still, I think he needs do more, play more parts, before he can be called a great actor.

As I was saying, with that amazing cast, the movie could have at least more ten minutes. Leguizamo and Ribsi... Man I love them... They are that guys who do an awesome work in comedy... You recognize them, you recognize the signature, is good, you love it... Then, they do a drama, and you are like "How is that possible? How can they be that funny and be also so great in that drama?". It goes to Luke Wilson also. I don't think he is funny at all, but he is more then the guy in Legally Blond... And the rest of the cast... One scene with Elizabeth Moss, a great scene... One with Juno Temple, also a very good scene... BUT, after all, was a movie about Olivia's and Luke's character. The focus were in that couple that passed through grief in its on terms. Man that movie hurts sometimes.

Allow me to make a comparison. We have Reed's Meadowland (2015), on the red corner, and John Cameron Mitchell's "Rabbit Hole" (2010), in the blue corner. Both movies are about a couple trying to deal with the loss of a son. Meadowland has 105 minutes, including credits, while Rabbit Hole has 91, also with credits. Still, I feel like Rabbit Hole is the longest movie that I've ever watched in my life. AND I WATCHED THE EXTENDED LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY IN ONE WEEKEND! Rabbit is a sad movie and most of the time you just have to look away 'cause you are sick of it! Meadowland is a completely different story. I mean, the story is very alike, still is a different story, but what I meant was that "This is not the case with 'Meadowland'".

Meadowland is a sadistic voyeurism. You watch that couple "deal" with their loss, you watch'em "try" to move on, you watch'em hurt 'emselves and each other, you watch they grow apart, you watch Phil receiving alone the news about his son's death, while Sarah is f*cking the foster-father of the boy who she's obsessed with. AND TRY TO GO WITH THE KID TO AFRIKA! MAN THAT IT HEAVY STUFF... And still you're not able to blink, or even breathe sometimes through the movie, 'cause you don't want to loose anything.

And it is over.

You want more, but the story came to its end. You had the start, the development and the end. It came in a straight line, a clear path, but all you can think is "... man, I wouldn't mind to know a little bit more of the rest of the characters, as Tim or Alma, or Even Joe and Shannon..." But this movie is about Sarah and Phil, and in that case, mission accomplished.

As an epitome, "Meadowland" has the greatest performances of from the two protagonists, and a perfect debut from the director and writer.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Paper Towns (2015)
7/10
Margo Roth aka The One that got away
26 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Is the world full of coming-of-age movies? Yes! Are we tired of it? For sure! This make a coming-of-age movie something bad? Not necessarily...

Paper Towns has all the basic/cliché stuff for a movie of the genre. The cool kids, the odd balls, the comic relief, the cool kid that isn't just a cool kid... All the one dimensional bull*hit that makes us tired... But that does not resume all the picture! The history written by John Green, has its good catches, like the lead left by the runaway, or the night of crime with Margo... But this is not enough, you know what I mean!

What Schreier had to do, to make this movie more than any other of the same gender? CASTING! 'Cause casting IS 90% of the work of the director...

Nat Wolff is in the scene for a couple years now. And is like an obligatory presence in movies like that. Stuck In Love, Palo Alto, Fault In Our Stars. He done a good in the first and second movies... I did not actually watch Faults In Our Stars, 'cause I can't stand Ansel Elgort (or some like that). My point is, Nat Wolff is a good actor and lead in his way this movie. The problem is that there is no other kind of work to compare. This is a problem with many young actors... Twenty years old and still with the high school parts... Even Shailene Woodley and Miles Teller... And that kinda sucks!

At the end of the day, Nat Wolff was a good choice. But the big hit was the model... The future DC girl... Cara Delevingne wasn't just a surprise, as an actress, but was the perfect casting.

Living the free spirited, but kinda lost girl at the same time, she leaves the audience always wanting more, just like Nat's character (Q)... A little disappointing? Maybe too many expectations... Not much into the actress, but in the character... I really wanna see more of her pretty soon...

The rest of the cast... Well it wasn't a big challenge for anyone... One dimension characters that would be just as pleasant as with any other actors... I actually believe that RJ Cyler (Me, Earl and TDG) would be even better in the role of Radar!

My seven goes to the one that got away. 'Cause you haven't lived if you never had a Margo in your life! And I think its cool to tell the story of a romantic boy and the most amazing character you could ever meet in your life... Nat and Cara delivered good performances... Its a good story... A pleasant movie... But you will forget pretty much any scene without Margo!

P.S.: The Pokemon theme was pretty much forced but still in a perfect moment for being in the most no-sense moment possible! Point for hit the nostalgic nerve...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A British neo noir, headed by Andrew Garfield at his best!
4 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This first part of the trilogy does exactly what the first part of any trilogy should do... Build it up to certain point and leave the audience waiting for a couple answers to the next movie... BUT Red Riding is no ordinary trilogy.

A (neo)noir crime and conspiracy led by the young and reckless journalist Eddie Dunford, one Andrew Garfield's greatest performances so far, look for his big break in the case of the lost girls of Yorkshire. At first he looks just as any bloodsucking' a**hole journalist, not just look as one but indeed is. But he look for evidence and his character grows in the eyes of the audience. He doesn't become the most likable character of the movie for sure, but at least he is less unlikeable than Sean Harris' character (What a great performance!). Sean Bean is a walking spoiler, 'cause I knew that he would die! He always dies!

The cast is a big ensemble of Britain favorites, as the before mentioned Andrew Garfield, Sean Harris and Sean Bean, as also Michelle Dockery, David Morrissey, Robert Sheehan, Eddie Marsan, Daniel Mays, Peter Mullan and Rebecca Hall. With a cast like that I feel like it is impossible to make a bad movie.

Visually, the movie is stupendous. Sometimes very dark and is filled with very visual stuff. As torture scenes, a little bit of sex and disposition of corpses. Andrew Garfield and Sean Harris just blow minds when they share the screen. Let's just say that my hand still feels the pain felt by Dunford's hands.

As I said, Red Riding isn't an ordinary trilogy. Is very possible to watch the sequel, 1980 or 1983, without watching the previous movie. At least is how I feel... 1974 had its beginning, development and conclusion; 1974 is a whole picture. In noway just a construction to the next movie. and I do believe that the sequels treat 1974 the same way. They are linked but they can be easily three independent movies. That said, it does not mean that the sequels don't tease the audience's curiosity. Next weekend I'll watch 1980 for sure.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Go-Getter (2007)
8/10
Mercer looks for Arlen... Then he finds Kate...
3 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A nice and easy comedic drama, or dramatic comedy, with a little touch of romance, delusion and self discovery.

Mercer, Lou T. Pucci's character, was well constructed. A little to cliché, but if clichés are something, they are a representation of truth that nobody likes to admit. The loner with serious self-esteem problems, no sexual experience, a crush on the hot/promiscuous young lady, a somehow platonic relation with a less promiscuous lady and at last, not at all least, the goal of a journey. Lou Pucci really got the essence of the part and the viewer falls in love with Mercer, and join literally him in the road trip through America.

One of the greatest things in this movie is the journey. The way construct itself as they go, or as we go. There is this goal and that is it. Don't matter what the way or when we will get there, but we keep going until we start to come back. The next lead could send us to anywhere in the whole world and it wouldn't stop us from continue. Mercer would probably find a way to break a minor law and get away with that. On the other hand, how we hoped that the next lead was the final one, so Mercer could come back home? How much we were scared when he lost the car? How devastated we were when he lost Kate, and when he left Kate? It is fatal... When you inside someone's head, there is no way of not caring...

Zooey's character for very long, as Wilson, the ball, in Robert Zemeckis' "Castaway", was some kind of bond between Mercer's mind and the public. She was at first just a beautiful voice, evolved as Mercer and ourselves evolved through the movie, acquiring a face, a body, feelings and history. Did she needed all of that to being likable? Not at all... She could be just someone who knew that the car would be back sometime, or someone who just want to know how it would end... Or just someone who didn't give a f*ck about the car! Her background history is shallow, and her motives weak... But is Zooey! And you will love Zooey... Even more after Jena Malone's Joely shows herself as a HUGE b*tch... In this movie Zooey deliver a more realistic character than you can watch in Peyton Reed's "Yes Man", Marc Webb's "500 Days of Summer" or in the TV big hit "New Girl". Her part in this movie actually reminded of her part in Adam Rapp's "Winter Passing"... Well, if you don't count the coke addiction as a key quality of her character in "Winter Passing".

The music, mostly M. Ward, capture the atmosphere of the trip. A dusty and winding road, with a couple U-turns and some big rocks on the way as well some odd people and some lessons... And finally growth.

To finish. I really liked the direction in the moments of parallel between reality and Mercer's thoughts or memories. Hynes made a very good work in expressing himself artistically. Many directors would not dare to use some low budget special effects, but when used to express a feeling and not just a image, you don't need groundbreaking special effects. You need a camera and feeling to know what to record.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inside Out (I) (2015)
8/10
Joy is a megalomaniac bossy b*tch, Sadness is a nosy and lazy w*ore... Fear, Anger and Disgust: a little too one dimensional for my taste...
29 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It is a good movie, there is no discussion about that! Pixar animation work is just amazing as always... The first scene with the baby Riley was "WOW"! I could feel the texture of the skin... I can't describe it any better... Many viewers didn't like the movie, 'cause it was too dark or sad for kids. Guys, Disney do that since always! Fireworks and colors for the kids and a portrait of the reality with criticism, noted by some more observant adult viewers. Mickey F*ckin' Mouse is an adult single man that have a relationship with an adult single woman... They are not married... AND IT WAS THE F*CKIN' 1930's! Walt Disney laughed at the moralism of his time! The characters... Well... I already said that I didn't like any of Riley's emotion... Maybe that was the idea... I think that Joy was not supposed to be the good guy... But it is pretty weird a figure so visually likable being a b*tch... She stole Disgust's spotlight! Disgust, Fear and Anger... I wanna a spin off with those three ONLY! You can call it Inside Out: Puberty! For me they were character much more interesting than Joy and Sadness... One of the most accurate swings of the movie, the moments that don't matter who you are or where you're from, the moments you will enjoy the most... When they show other minds... His parents, the boy in the hockey match (I'm still laughing about it)... The credits scene was all about it, so I'm not the only one who really liked it!

At the end of the day... I'm sure that Inside Out is the great favorite for best animation at the Oscar's... Mininos and Hotel Transilvania 2 don't stand a chance... I think that it will be between Inside Out and Peanuts.

Summing up... Great animation work, a very good idea and plot, not so great characters, but very nice moments... It is a must watch!
3 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It feels just like a compilation of advertising... Good ones!
22 September 2015
It is kind of funny..

In about one minute, with an actor, a few words, a cool song on the background and a beautiful photography... Just that, or all that... And it is artsy...

As I wrote at the top, it really feels like a bunch of advertising... Advertising what? Movies, Hollywood, even the Oscars or some like that...

You see, I've watched many one minute or so advertising that were much better than many high budgets features!

For a short, it is nice... For an advertising, I would buy whatever they were selling!

The whole concept, I think, was to show that good actors are good actors even sleeping... And it succeeded!

This should become a thing... Anual, I mean (if it isn't a thing already)... Gather the "bests of the year" and make it... You know, just for fun...
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Diana (2013)
7/10
Diana: One of the most loved women of history, through a romantic prism.
13 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There are many challenges in producing a Biopic. The visual aspect, the audience already knows the characters, the impossibility of recreating at details every moment of one's life, and try to summarize it in a 90-180 minutes movie, the responsibility of keep up with one's legacy. The list to not even try to produce a biopic goes on and on and on and on.

Hirschbiegel's "Diana" was heavily criticized by specialized press for not keeping up with Lady Diana's legacy. Or many of those critics just wanted to see more of all the scandals, or even a little more of the humanitarian Diana, more of a political movie. They wanted more than the simple love story in which stars, just by chance, one of the most influential woman in the 20th century.

When Lady Diana died in August of 1997, I was a three year old in Brazil, which is to say that I don't really know how I reacted to the news, but I don't think I suffered it at all. In fact, Lady Di hardly lived in my imagination in my two decades of life, except to think how "exotic" or "unique" was her wedding dress (that thought was courtesy of many TV-Specials about Royal Marriage, as a preparation to Prince William's and Lady Katherine's marriage in 2011).

So as a layman in the subject, Diana was a very interesting movie. It shows a troubled woman who have a hard time living by the crown's rules, who wants to make the difference in the world and make it a better and peaceful place, and somehow finds love in the arms of the only person in the world who don't care about her.

By far the thing that I mostly enjoy about the movie was Naomi Watts. As in John Ridley's "All Is By My Side", Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln", Richard Glatzer's and Wash Westmoreland's "The Last of Robin Hood", David Fincher's "The Social Network" and Anne Fontaine's "Coco Avant Chanel", I was only able to see the protagonist as the character and not as the actor performing it. The image that I have of Lady Di, Abe Lincoln, Coco Chanel, Hendrix and Errol Flynn are the image of their characters in the biopic, being a romanticized version or an accurate representation of reality.

"Diana" have their share of cute but non-believable moments between Lady Di and Dr. Khan, even if those moments actually happened in real life. They lived a romance, but not IN a romance is what I mean. And those silly little moments that do not look anything like real life upset me a little bit. Feels like cheating in a test. On the other hand, there are moments with other Lady Di. The humanitarian Diana isn't very developed in scene, but you can feel it deeply and real, not just as a propaganda for fame, but as real care for the world and the situation. Some bits of the self deprecating Lady Diana also feels organic and real, with a couple exceptions of course.

As a romantic drama, "Diana" is a good choice. Beautiful shots, a cool story and all that a good romance needs, once it is an adaptation of Kate Snell's book, "Diana: Her Last Love". As a biopic, it won't fulfill expectations, if you look for a historical piece. Is an introduction to the subject "Lady Diana", a good one I think, but it calls for supporting material if you wanna go deeper in the history.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Overnight (2015)
8/10
Sometimes, at a party you don't really know whats going on... Then, when you think a little later and the only word you can say is F*****************CK!
8 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
First of all... F************************CK!

Moving on!

Earlier this year, when the trailer to overnight was released, I was sure that I would watch it and it would be awesome, for three reasons: Adam Scott, Jason Schwartzman and the Duplass Brothers. That far I was already sold! Then you got Taylor Schilling and Judith Godrèche, two beautiful and very talented women, in a plot about "swinging". Shut up and take my money!

In the start, it felt like Noah Baumbach's "While We're Young". The uptight couple meets the hipsters and so and so. For a minute I thought that it would be silly, when Jason Schwartzman came on screen at first. But it turned alright or even better with the development of the characters.

The four actors were totally in tune, and each one of them filled completely their spot, like pieces of a puzzle, fitting exactly in their places and together creating a image. Kurt the all-over-the- place host, being the smooth, nice and easy, confident and attractive as it gets; Charlotte, the foreigner wife, sexy and exotic, that beauty of the unknown, the dubious french woman; Alex as the uptight and insecure guy, looking for someone else's approval; and at last, not least, Emily the perfect guest and faithful wife, who don't let the embarrassment become a border between she and her hosts.

It is the first time I watched Taylor Schilling work, but I was aware of her award worth acting in Jenji Kohan's "Orange is The New Black", so I didn't expect anything but good and sincere performance, and gladly she did not let me down. I might say that, analyzing the individual performances, she was the real deal in the movie. She was so sincere with the camera, that anything that her character felt was real, don't matter if she was uncomfortable, horny, suspicious or jealous. Emily was less of a character and more of a real person. Different than the other three characters. Kurt and Charlotte were some kind of caricature, they were in a super reality, stuff you don't usually see in real life (That doesn't mean that people like Kurt and Charlotte don't walk through the real world). And Alex. Well, I feel like Adam Scott played that role a couple times already, the most recent I think is in Stu Zicherman's "A.C.O.D.".

Despite all of that, as I said, all their performances together were amazing. Product of a brilliant work in the script as well in the directing. Patrick Brice deserve all the compliments for his second featured film (I think it is considered featured film with 79 minutes, right?).

The story is very clever. It is a portrait of the marriage at the 21st century, and the sexual life of couples with young kids. It talks about insecurities, curiosity and acceptance. It the full plate. One of my favorite scenes is the first one, where Alex and Emily were having a morning sex, and they got trouble to reach the climax with each other, and their son interrupt them. It was a really good start!

Directing. As I said it was fearless. And very sincere. And to me what made this movie a winner. The montages of the two couples partying together, were extremely fun. The body language was captured at its details, and Patrick Brice shown to the audience what the audience needed to see, to understand what the hell was going on. Showing a full nude of a human being on screen is kind of hard. But in this movie was necessary. People needed to compare both genitalia, Kurt's and Alex's, to say "No, that's really an issue!". A visual euphemism would not work. You would see Jason Schwartzman and Adam Scott, don't matter how big or how small both penises were. And you got Kurt and Charlotte, the free spirits. Alex's breakthrough. Again visual euphemism wouldn't work. AND IS A MOVIE ABOUT SEX LIFE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Would be hypocrite not show anything.

I admit that I wasn't totally comfortable with the scenes with the full nude. I think that my reaction was pretty much like Emily's reaction. I was embarrassed, cause people don't just take off their underwear and walk around naked as if it was nothing. But it turned out O.K.! I got the idea. This isn't porn cause it showed a penis.

But for me the most intelligent shot was the climax scene, when after a group hug, the four characters fall into bed and start the foursome, the director didn't put some music playing in the background. No dialogue either. It was completely silent, except for the sound of their kisses. It felt again like the real thing, not some artificial situation with a cute or sexy music, to symbolize something. It was just the characters.

Anyway. It is a must see. And open your mind just a little bit, before watching it. I assure you it will be a lot of fun.
26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed