luis_neiva Reviews

The Gentlemen (2019)

Is Guy Ritchie back?

[7/10 · 31 March 2020]

Guy Ritchie started his career with a bang: "Lock, stock & Two Smoking Barrels" (1998) and "Snatch" (2000) defined a genre and solidified a very unique style of doing British gangster films. They were messier, faster and bolder than their American counterparts but still powered with great scripts and powerful performances. It also created a faithful legion of fans who loved Richie's first two features enough to disregard a streak of subpar films after that and still keep looking forward to any new film he put out.

Being one of those fans, my expectations to "The Gentlemen" were still high and I sat down expecting to watch a true Guy Ritchie film, if not as good as the first two hits, at least something that could make them justice. After all, he was finally returning to the gangster genre and that was enough of a promise.

I wasn't left disappointed. The film brought back many of his traits he had seemed to forgot how to use, presenting at the same time a more mature and cleaner style. I didn't have as much fun as with Snatch, but I felt entertained and at times drawn to that magic and filthy universe filled with violence, quirky characters, and politically incorrect racial and homophobic slurs - it's clear these are not ill intended, it's simply the world where this characters live in.

Grant, McConaughey and Hunnam convincingly exchange jabs at each other, making the most of a very tongue in cheek script with some well directed moments of drama and a few well timed twists. There are also some minor but interesting perfomances by Collin Farrell and Michelle Dockery who seem to be well positioned to have a lot more screening time in any eventual sequel this might have.

It's very satisfying to see Guy Ritchie closer to his prime! May he not lose the balance again.

Joy (I) (2015)

It could be good. But it isn't.

[4/10 · 12 January 2016]

Joy presents itself as an attempt of a fresh take on a very typical Oscar-bait movie: the biopic. Sadly, it doesn't go beyond the attempt.

Joy Mangano (Lawrence) is a poor and overworking divorced mother of two children who lives with her dysfunctional family that in addition to being completely dependent on her are also faithless on her ability to be more than a house wife that will always struggle to get some food on the table. Despite all the negative influence, Joy's imagination and ambition are powerful and she manages to invent a revolutionary mop, which she will try to develop and sell. Despite the fact that this mop eventually turns into a success, she has to endure a path of betrayal, jealousy and corruption (starting with her own family), hardships that she will surpass (or else this would have never become a movie).

What first caught my eye (or in this case, hear) was the soundtrack. Composed by some famous jazz, classical and rock-and-roll songs, the music was highly responsible for other positive features of this film: a frenetic pacing and a very light atmosphere. These two features added to some quirky dialogues and surrealistic dream sequences and flashbacks gave this film a very interesting potential, that could have turned the very basic plot into a fulfilling experience.

However, Joy remains as flat as the synopsis would suggest. The underdeveloped characters made impossible for any actor to perform well here. Even Joy, the title character, seemed exactly the same during the whole movie (the only reason I see possible for Jennifer Lawrence winning that Golden Globe is that she did the most what she could with almost zero material - and I don't want to believe that she was the most deserving actress of the year.) The whole family seemed like one-dimensional caricatures of pessimistic morons, which lead to completely forgettable performances by everyone involved. There was also a very short appearance of Bradley Cooper as an executive who first believed in Joy's idea, but whose character suffers from the same problem as the rest. There seemed to be a slightly romantic chemistry between him and Jennifer Lawrence that I found completely needless, as it lead to nowhere. Another very distracting feature was the constant out-of-focus framing, especially on indoor scenes! Amateurish, to say the least.

Overall, I think David O. Russel tried to do something different from a biopic which is something I respect very much! The fact that he focused on a very particular moment of Joy's life, the invention of the mop, could be something he could have explored better, but in the end we are left with just that, which is kind of frustrating... To finish where I started, Joy could have been a good movie, but ends being nothing more than a typical hollow Oscar bait.

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Who needs opera?

[9/10 · 20 October 2015]

For a Few Dollars More is the second spaghetti-western directed by Sergio Leone and the middle title of the "Dollars trilogy". It's also his second partnership with Clint Eastwood and with Ennio Morricone, one of the most brilliant and prolific soundtrack composers of all time.

The basic plot is quite simple, but Leone takes a while to reveal it: during the first 30 minutes we are presented to Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee van Cleef), a quiet and clever bounty hunter specialist in long range shooting, Manco (Eastwood), also a bounty hunter who's very quick on the trigger and with an obscure moral code, and Indio (Volonté), a twisted and ruthless bandit with a genuine relish to kill. These 3 men stories will naturally cross when Indio, helped by his gang, escapes from prison killing most of the guards what immediately puts a prize on his head, a prize that both bounty hunters want for themselves. Manco and Mortimer eventually meet and, after a tense strength comparison, form a partnership to hunt the villain and his gang, who are in the meantime planning to rob the Bank of El Paso, said to contain a million dollars in a disguised safe. On the center of this story are also two identical musical pocket watches, one used by Mortimer and the other one by Indio. Soon we understand that there is more than money at stake between these 2 men as the pocket watches seem to exert some kind of obsession upon their carriers.

For a Few Dollars More has all the advantages of not being the first major spaghetti western, being more mature than its predecessor, For a Fistful of Dollars (1964). Everyone knows now exactly how to do things: Leone has solidified his style and technique, Eastwood and Volonté are much more comfortable with their characters (Eastwood, in particular, delivers his best performance on a Leone film) and the new guy, Lee van Cleef is an amazing addition to the cast, lending his coolness and experience to this masterpiece. Also in the acting field, it's a pleasure to watch Klaus Kinski and Luigi Pistilli as member of the gang. Small roles but huge actors!

I've already talked about Leone being more mature. In fact, it's his direction that makes of this film such a great one. From beginning to end, the tension is built at a slow yet steady pace, fitting perfectly its 2 hour length. It's not made to be an "opera" like Once Upon a Time on the West (1968) or even The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1965) and it's its almost lack of grandiosity that makes this such a brilliant western. It's hard, gritty and straight to the point and the Italian director is clever enough to make of every aspect of the film perfectly tuned with his concept: the calm but relentless music of Morricone's outstanding soundtrack, the quiet personality of the 3 lead characters, the great pacing management and the glorious cinematography and camera work create the ideal conditions to an apotheotic final duel, where the tension is stretched to an almost nauseating point, and solved with a fast and powerful explosion. And that is Leone's secret: creating impact by contrast.

Speaking of the final duel, the key scene of the film, again the musical pocket watches play a very important part. Indio always used the chimes from the watch to begin his duels: "When you hear the music finish, begin." The obsession he had with that watch and the uncertainty created on his opponent of when the music would actually stop, always gave him advantage. However, Mortimer knew well the tune and had even stronger reasons to be attracted by that watch. For the first time, Indio had no initial advantage. On the other hand, Mortimer is using Manco's gun, lighter and smaller than his own, hence faster to draw. The result is not hard to predict and yet the suspense created is breathtaking. When it's all over and the two bounty hunters go separate ways it's hard not to feel a void inside, as we see Mortimer riding to the sunset perhaps not to be seen again.

Night and Fog (1956)

It happened

[7/10 · 2 August 2015]

The problem with most Holocaust films is that they portray the story as a one time only event. They make it so overly sentimental that the viewer is able to distance himself of what he's seeing and takes comfort on the idea that something like that will never happen again.

But not Night and Fog.

Alain Resnais presents the line between past and present as it really is: thinner than we think. To do that, it relies only on real footage of the concentration camps during the Holocaust and of the same concentration camps 10 years after the end of the WW II. The voice over tells us what we are seeing, making us look at all the details, never letting us off the hook. We're not supposed to feel comfortable, not even by looking at abandoned concentration camps. The fingernail scratches on the walls of the gas chambers are there. It happened and we better remember it! The fact that it has only 30 minutes doesn't make it less powerful. On the contrary, it condenses its message into an overwhelming half an hour.

My only complain is for the soundtrack. Its complexity may get a bit distracting and almost inappropriate. Maybe some absolute silence moments could help make the message even stronger, if that's even possible.

Overall, Night and Fog is a masterpiece. The fact that my mind and my body can't disconnect of what I just seen is the first sign I just witnessed something extraordinary.

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

"For death is not an adventure..."

[10/10 · 8 May 2015]

All Quiet on the Western Front is the first great non-silent anti-war movie and arguably the most powerful one to date. Based on the critically acclaimed homonymous novel by Erich Maria Remarque, it portraits the transformations a young German soldier suffers during the World War I: the innocence before the war and the promise of everlasting glory, the shock with reality and the realization of his own mortality and of the hypocrisy of war and finally the return to the world away from the trenches, a world that didn't stop to wait for him.

Full of symbolisms, violence and impressive camera work, the whole film is a cinematographic masterpiece. The viewer is placed directly in the battlefield to the point he can almost grasp the blood-soaped earth of the trenches and smell the rotten corpses in no-man's land.

There's two layers I can find in this movie: the first one tells us about the physical destruction endured in a war – hunger, dirt, explosions, amputations, diseases, death… The film does not try to hide the truth, war is ugly and dirty, it is constant suffering and painful. If the first layer is strong enough to create a strong impression on the viewer, the second one is even more powerful: the psychological breakdown the soldiers experience is masterfully portrayed. The excitement turns into doubt, the doubt into disgust, the disgust into anger and the anger into complete numbness. A young promising student is gradually transformed into a soulless killing machine.

Also the acting deserves to be mentioned. The entire cast delivers stand up performances, especially Louis Wolheim and Lew Ayres who depict masterfully two generations united by war.

The only flaw I could find on this is the strong American accent on the few German words spoken, fact that can distract a bit especially on the beginning of the movie.

Overall, this is an overwhelming experience and a mandatory watch to every war film lover!

The Green Butchers (2003)

Risky but brilliant!

[7/10 · 7 April 2015]

De Gronne Slagtere is perhaps one of the darkest comedies I ever watched. In fact, it's so dark I even hesitate before calling it a comedy.

Two socially awkward friends who work in a butcher's shop are tired of being constantly mistreated by their boss and they decide to open their own shop. Their anti-social behavior doesn't help them and the business doesn't go well until one unfortunate accident changes everything - suddenly, their butcher's shop becomes a success and it improves drastically their own personal lives.

What impressed me the most about this film is the huge amount of things that could have gone wrong. It could have been so terribly bad and yet, it's brilliant! The whole premise is very original but dangerous. There were two ways this could easily have gone – or it could be absolutely ridiculous or overly dramatic. However, Jensen manages to create an incredibly realistic way to tell the story and surprisingly, it works.

Of course that wouldn't have happened without the two main actors, Mads Mikkelsen and Nikolaj Lie Kaas. They both have very difficult characters – especially Mikkelsen – that any average actor could have ruined by overacting. But these two are not any average actor and they deliver two astonishing performances that bring to life all the realism Jensen was looking for.

Having solved that, a strong script, great soundtrack and very interesting cinematography do the rest and the result is an atmosphere so heavy that you can barely breathe.

De Gronne Slagtere it's not a film for everyone, that's guaranteed! It's dark, twisted and its humor can be hard to swallow sometimes. Nevertheless, it's a must-watch for every person who likes to feed their dark side once in a while.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

We'll meet again...

[8/10 · 6 April 2015]

A psychotic American general launches a nuclear attack on Russia during the Cold War, threatening the life of all mankind. His excuse? Bodily fluids.

This is the basic premise of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", arguably one of the most controversial and yet brilliant anti-war films of all time. It was shot in 1964, when the world was at the verge of a third World War, less than 20 years after Nazi Germany's downfall. So, how did Kubrick manage to create a film where the possibility of nuclear Holocaust is faced with laughs instead of panic? Due to a brilliant use of irony.

From every character idiosyncrasy – an ex-Nazi scientist whose hand did not forget his past ideology; a patriotic American general who's so proud of his pilots he forgets their success means the end of the word; a soldier who prefers to risk the national security to vandalize a Coca-Cola vending machine; the presidents of the two enemy countries talking by phone like two 15 year-old madly in love, etc. – to every piece of dialogue like: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here – this is the War Room", the movie is a giant and sarcastic critique to the hypocrisy of war and of those who think of themselves as being on the right side.

On top of all that we have a historic triple performance by Peter Sellers (Dr. Strangelove, Group Captain Mandrake and the President of USA) and remarkable performances by George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden.

Stanley Kubrick was a man that believed in the worse of every human being, his filmography tells us that. He knew that we tend to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. On the last scene we hear Vera Lynn singing "We'll meet again". Is there a more clear warning?

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Frightening up-to-date!

[10/10 · 27 March 2015]

Judgment at Nuremberg is a 1961 film directed by Stanley Kramer and starring Spencer Tray, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich and Maximilian Schell. Based on the homonymous novel by Abby Mann, which is based on true events, it portrays the events following the World War II in Germany, focusing on the trial of four Nazi judges by an American courtroom.

Much can be said about the technical work and the acting of this movie: Kramer's camera work explores the confined space of the court (stage to 90% of the movie), managing the plot development in a masterful way. His way of solving the language issue of the plot may look strange at first but it gradually turns into the most natural and simple option. As a whole, the brilliant direction places the viewer directly into the courtroom. Once there, one of the strongest casts in the history of Hollywood does the rest. There is no less-shining star on this brightful constellation, one can almost feel that every actor realized the genius of the script they had in their hands and gave it a life that a thousand of years of cinema won't surpass!

And this takes us to the writing. To tell you about how much the whole premise and the writing meant to me I have to tell an episode from my own life: Last year I had the opportunity to visit Anne Frank's House in Amsterdam. After 2 hours of waiting under a cold rain to enter the house, I finally started what would become one of the most terrifying and unforgettable experiences I ever had. I left completely overwhelmed by the whole atmosphere inside those walls, practically bursting in tears and I had to walk for hours to ease my mind. I still have a poster with Anne's face on the wall of my room - so I won't forget it. This movie made all those memories come back. Made me have to pause a lot of times to take a deep breath, made me want to scream of frustration and of hate for all that made so many deaths possible. I have to think really hard if I want to think of any movie better written than this one, and being me a huge fan of great scripts, that says a lot. This is what cinema is all about, in my opinion - create situations and atmospheres that resonate inside oneself like as if they were real. I am not German nor Jew. I wasn't born when World War II took place. My country didn't take part in it. But I felt like I was ageless and countryless. I felt like all mankind should feel about what happened in Europe during the Third Reich. The fact that the Europe is slowly going in that direction again is as frightening as is infuriating. Another reason this masterpiece should be exhibited world-wide – so they won't forget.

Thank you Stanley Kramer

Interstellar (2014)

Good, but not THAT good!

[6/10 · 22 March 2015]

Interstellar is a science-fiction film directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain and Michael Caine, soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema.

In a near future, Humanity is close to exhausting the planet's natural resources. The Earth is now an inhospitable place, pests and constant dust storms destroy the little food that remains and life is becoming unaffordable. Cooper (McConaughey), a former aerospace engineer, now works as a farmer. He lives with his father-in-law and his two children, Murph (Mackenzie Foy) and Tom (Timothée Chalamet), to whom he tries to teach the entrepreneurial spirit lost by a society that only tries to survive. It's because this way of being that Cooper is eventually chosen to lead an expedition through space-time with a mission to find a planet that has conditions favorable to life and where the human race can continue to write its History.

The first section of Interstellar has a very slow pace which is actually alright, because the acting of Matthew McConaughey and the editing of Lee Smith make the ride worthwhile. There's also some interesting cinematography but all this don't really compensate for one of Nolan's endemic flaws: the uninteresting, basic and anti-natural writing.

In the second half of the movie, we witness some brilliantly orchestrated action scenes and a very clever usage of CGI. This is complemented by an impressive use of the sound atmosphere in which the total silence in the scenes in space contrasts with the intensity of a soundtrack that brings together all the typical elements that Hans Zimmer already showed us in the past. Casey Affleck - as adult Tom - and McConaughey show us some really good acting but is Jessica Chastain as Murph in adulthood who really steals the spotlight. On the other hand, Hathaway is the less shining star, lacking strength and sincerity in some moments.

Nolan referred to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) as the biggest influence to the creation of Interstellar, and it shows. This affinity is both conceptual and visual and even the robots in Interstellar are a clear reference to the mysterious monolith of 2001. However, Nolan forgets the reason why 2001 is such a masterpiece: Kubrick didn't want to make it easy for the audience to understand. The beauty of 2001 is its ability to be interpreted in various forms, as every work of art should be. Well, Interstellar fails big time on that chapter!

Although it's a daring work in view of the current reality of Hollywood, this film does not break completely with all the premises of the American film industry as it should, in my opinion. You may leave the theater completely overwhelmed by it, but it's highly likely that you start liking it less and less, the more you think about it. If that's the case, please go back to IMDb and change your rating (8,8 for this film is way high).

Nevertheless, Interstellar presents itself as a breath of fresh air in the science-fiction film production of the last two decades and that is worth something.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

As frightening as a movie can be!

[7/10 · 17 January 2015]

Rosemary's Baby is a gruesome and intense story adapted for the big screen by the Polish director Roman Polanski, from the novel with the same name by Ira Levin. Although it does not contain the elements that traditionally compose a horror movie (blood, sudden shock-moments, etc.) this film is a masterpiece of its genre because it does not depend on these same elements to create a truly frightening and unsettling atmosphere.

Guy (John Cassavetes) and Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) are a young couple facing a promising life together. Guy is an actor looking for his big break and Rosemary longs to be a mother. The two just moved into an apartment in the heart of Manhattan where they have as neighbors Roman (Sydney Blackmer) and Minnie Castavet (Ruth Gordon), a caring but nosy elderly couple. Guy develops a close relationship to his neighbors while his wife does not feel very comfortable around them. Finally, Rosemary's much desired pregnancy happens but brings unexpected complications: the young woman begins to lose weight and to feel excruciating pains in her stomach. A series of unusual events, strange noises coming from the apartment next door and a strange obsession revealed by Minnie for her pregnancy, lead Rosemary to a state of complete distrust on those around her and fear for the baby that she's carrying.

This whole storyline is framed perfectly by Polanski. The unsettling and gloomy atmosphere present throughout the film is immediately introduced by the strange lullaby sung by Mia Farrow during the opening credits. The architecture, decoration and lightning of the settings create in the viewer a constant sense of claustrophobia and the confusing succession of screenshots in some moments - particularly during the odd nightmare of Rosemary - implement in the public an almost asphyxiating feeling of anxiety that lasts for several hours after the end of the movie. In general, all the actors are very convincing in their roles and contribute a lot in creating a great familiarity between the viewer and the scene. However, there are two representations that stand out: Mia Farrow is brilliant in the role of the innocent young pregnant woman, fragile and submissive, personality to which his avant-garde pixie hair cut offers an interesting counterpoint, and Ruth Gordon offers a sublime interpretation of the comic yet sinister Minnie Castavet. Roman Polanski leads the suspense masterfully, revealing the whole plot progressively, creating a very intimate connection between the viewer and the main character. This turns to be particularly brilliant when, instead of ending the film with some unexpected and shocking happening, he chooses a predictable but inevitable conclusion, as if we all knew bad things were meant to happen and there was no way out. This makes the story even scarier.

Personally, I don't like to feel anxious and scared, so to say that I have suffered every second of this film is the best thing I can say about it. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest masterpieces in the history of horror cinema and a must for all lovers of the genre.