rafael_jaramillo_avellan Reviews

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

Sci-fi Anime and Cyberpunk meet again to create an absolute masterpiece.

[9/10 · 14 April 2017]

A must-see film for Sci-fi, Anime and Cyberpunk fans. Even though you are not a fan of any of those, I can assure your curiosity will let you enjoy it. I will dedicate this review to recommend the 1995 film, and why I don't recommend the 2017 remake. Both movies are aesthetically visual, but the difference between this two beautiful "shells", is the very "ghost" within. I'll try to be brief, but with enough content about both. So, let's go:

1995: (9/10)

We were presented to a thought-provoking and question-rising plot, where there are intrigue and political complot; it takes us on a tour about the relationship between environment and character (aspect-to-aspect sequences). Motoko Kusanagi is the center of the rising questioning about humanity, identity, and memory. What means to be human in a world were human functioning has become more mechanical and technological (read: "Ship of Theseus")? If our brains and conscience (ghost) can be "hacked", how do we know if we are living in the real world (direct influence for "The Matrix" - 1999)?

Also, our main "villain", the Puppet Master: A self-aware Artificial Intelligence (AI) whose desire to evolve and be impermanent is the engine for this story. One of the most complex and well-developed characters ever, he is the reference for philosophy, Buddhism and transcendent questions that made this movie, an instant classic.

2017: (5/10)

We are presented to a plot that follows one direction: vengeance. As the trailer shows us: it is about identity theft and making the responsible pay for it. After that, there ain't much more to it. Our main character's only question is why she feels something has been taken from her. Our main "villain", Kuze, follows the same formulaic goal of taking revenge against those who made him what he is. For real, that's basically it: no depth, American clichés, even the action feels flat.

Split (IX) (2016)

7.5/10 - James McAvoy and M. Night Shyamalan showing their true potential.

[7/10 · 13 April 2017]

An underrated actor and a forgotten genius-on-the-rise shows us what they are capable of. This is the long-awaited return to shape from M. Night Shyamalan (MNS) fans have been expecting (including myself).

Our heroin is a classic lonelier with a troubled past. Flashbacks from our protagonist help us feel related to her and her quest to save her life (good narrative skills). A well-written character with enough depth for joining her in the 2-hour road to survival. Nice work from Anya Taylor Joy, applause. James McAvoy shows his true talents for this multi role. A challenge for whoever that take it, this performance steals the show.

MNS does a great camera-work with cinematography that adds the mystery and thrills typical of his movies. Shots from the top or bottom of the scene, close-ups, tracking shots and a creepy use of light help create the atmosphere for a heart popping flick. Shame that his signature twist ending isn't here, but the very end more than compensates for this omission.

At the end, the story might lack depth and may not leave an impression that will resound for weeks; and it takes a little light on the Dissociative Identity Disorder theme... But the movie proves to bring the thrills and chills to make it a success.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Split has the performances and thrilling direction fans from M. Night Shyamalan can expect. The result is a satisfying and chilling experience from the once promising director. Welcome back.

Funny Games (1997)

Michael Haneke is Stanley Kubrick's incarnation: a perfect analyzer of humanity's dark side.

[8/10 · 19 March 2017]

Michael Haneke (MH) is a not so mainstream director (such as Martin Scorsese for example), but he definitely should be. This review will be based 60% in "Funny Games" (FG) and 40% in MH as a director. I find myself very fond of him due to one simple fact: he's a modern-day Stanley Kubrick (SK), which I regard as the best film director/auteur of all time. Dedicated to analyze and explore the dark sides of humanity, he achieves in this film a "funny" portrayal of his point of view about Violence.

FG is not for the faint of heart. MH has a distaste of how Hollywood portrays violence in movies, which is an explicit and morbid exploitation, which sometimes reaches unhealthy levels. Talking about violence in the film: the film is violent, but you never get to see violent or bloody images. MH loves to take the attention away from those detailed moments to create expectations and make the audience's imagination start playing "games". The uncertainty of this moments makes the heavy atmosphere of the flick. The greatest example is: when Paul is making himself a sandwich and you hear the gunshot and consequent screams; you feel desperate for knowing what happened. If the movie was made by a USA filmmaker, it is very probably that you could see what happened, in detail.

The film walks between fiction and reality. Paul makes various fourth-wall breaks throughout the movie, and he even rewinds the scene where Anna shoots Peter (not allowing that to happen). Peter, on the other hand, refers and critic many aspects of the traditional suspense rules established by USA films. We are accustomed to seeing the protagonist win and live to tell the tale, well, not here. Paul and Peter even have an interesting discussion about fiction and reality at the end of the film, which makes you think about it afterward.

Our main villains: charming well-educated sociopaths that will do whatever they please with whoever they want. Taking Paul as the leader, a little perfect Hannibal Lecter (leaving aside Cannibalism and Psychopathy). In the end, they did everything for just one simple aspect: because they could, and no one has ever told them they couldn't do something.

Attention is what MH plays within his movies. He demands complete attention from you to understand. Whether it is with Long Shots or never giving explicit detail of what's going on, MH proves to be a skillful manipulator of the audience to achieve this: you leaving the theater wanting more. We are used to finishing a movie totally satisfied with what we saw and how everything ended (happily ever after). Well, not with MH. He wants you to go browsing and find whatever you can about what you just saw. Most than nothing, he wants you to make your OWN conclusions about the story: "Caché" (2005) and "The White Ribbon" (2009) for naming two.

MH has between 10 to 15 movies to his name, all of them considered good movies, showing different aspects of humanity (often the dark ones), with a perfect sense of direction and meticulous execution. Tell me if this doesn't remind you of SK: Quality before Quantity.

It is also important to state the difference between horror and terror. Horror is for fictional and irrational fears (ghosts and supernatural situations), and terror is for real things (a murderer or an accident). This movie is which? Kind of both isn't it?. On one side, you have a home invasion and in the other an antagonist that can manipulate time and space for achieving success. MH said that the movie was a message about violence in media. He said FG was intended to be neither horror nor terror.

Something funny is that MH hates Quentin Tarantino (QT), mostly because he mixes violence and comedy, and his violence is extremely satirical. MH has a violent and bold style for most of his movies. He believes that violence portrayed in movies should have a serious and deep approach, special reason why he despises QT's movies. MH's filming style, psychological approach, and audience manipulation are his greatest weapons. He doesn't fear to make a movie of any theme or genre, and whenever he does, the final product is an instant masterpiece. He made a shot-for-shot remake of FG in 2007 with an entire USA crew. The film received mixed reviews. Why? Because it wasn't the kind of violence and suspense USA audiences like. MH wanted to prove a point, and he succeeded.

MY FINAL CONSENSUS: Funny Games is out of the question a different kind of suspense and thriller, but a pretty interesting and effective one. Michael Haneke plays with audiences, in order to bring an excellent law-breaker critic of violence portrayal.

Moonlight (I) (2016)

Kind of nothing new, but a journey that has enough emotion and inertia to make a worthwhile.

[8/10 · 6 March 2017]

The movie that got the Oscar. You know, I was thinking that this review would be about "La La Land" (LLL) (I was also hoping for it to win "Best Picture"), but instead is about a very particular, crashing and drama heavy film. What I thought when it ended was: "like nothing new, but the big details about the story are making a really interesting and reflective difference"; one that makes it earn its recognition as 2016's Best Movie.

I was hoping that by the time I would be writing this I would have seen both LLL and Moonlight (ML). But I can assure this: LLL was more of a technical success, and ML is a heavy packed story with a more palpable reflection.

Now, let's get into the analysis. As I said before, I found it not that original: a boy who grows with a drug addict mother, without a father in a middle-lower socioeconomic status. Also, the boy suffers bullying in school. It sounds like the recipe for a not so deeply planned and designed drama. But, But! the difference relies heavily on this: Juan (one the most satisfying secondary characters of the 2010's so far), the boy is homosexual since he is "Little" and he is a young black man growing in a rough neighborhood. The heartbreaking story of how difficult can be growing up in those circumstances and having trouble coping with who you are and your sexuality.

A tenderly crafted flick with relatable storytelling, impeccable performances, and a plausible direction. Juan is one of the coolest, likable and most instantly loved secondary characters from the last 10 years at least. Excellently portrayed by Mahershala Ali (a well-deserved Oscar). The other is Naomi Harris's impeccable personification of a drug addicted mother who apparently loves his son very much. All three stages are also marvelous performances from a skillfully selected trio of young actors. I say that the third one is the best, it demanded heavy, and heavy was Trevante Rhode's specialty. Barry Jenkins does a nice job in the director's chair. He likes to place the camera very near, especially to faces (without them coming close-ups); and to follow everything that's going on in the scene (to move the camera in every direction that is, instead of, example: letting it in a static position). The cinematography works perfectly especially in the nights, where a yellow tonality is added to the scene, working perfectly in contrast (black and yellow).

It is a good movie, and I have the feeling that they did a good choice in the Academy Awards.

MY FINAL CONSENSUS: A heartbreaking coming of age story that has enough energy and perfect realization for making it worth if its recognitions.

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Great Performances, check; Mel Gibson directing, check; One of the year's best movies, not.

[7/10 · 30 January 2017]

Desmond Doss' story is absolutely worth to turn into motion picture, but I left the cinema not that amazed.

First, let's talk about the performances. Andrew Garfield (AG) is committed to his role in every aspect. A hillbilly conscientious objector who wants to find a purpose in the middle of a world conflict. The gestures, the way he leans a little his head when too excited, the uncontrollable laugh, well, everything. All of his nominations are more than well deserved, congratulations. There's also the supporting roles which were taken to high precision by the cast, making this an all believable portrayal of WWII.

Now, direction. Mel Gibson (MG), I love MG, I truly do. If he was able to make AG be worthy of an Oscar nomination, it means he has the ability as a director to exploit acting skills in his performers; that's bonus points for the almighty MG. He succeeds in making this an all emotional and brutal (for not saying gory and explicit) two hours and twenty minute journey you can enjoy for the sake of good will, staying true to what you believe and transcending as a human being. In terms of filming techniques and cinematography I won't comment, I'm still learning about that so, I will jump to what's next.

So, do I find this movie one of the year's best? Absolutely not. The movie does not make a proper treatment about this extraordinary real life event. Some critics say that the movie is at the same height of "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), which I find difficult to believe. Let's go stage by stage; first of all, the love story feels at some times taken out from some clichéd love stories. There's a feeling of excessive heroism depicted in many scenes; the scenes of slow motion entry and blind firing helps to this. The music as well: it plays at the moments where Desmond is carrying someone with explosions behind. This gave me the feeling that the movie was at some level produced by Michael Bay, which is something that can never be good. Reason why I can't catalog this as a MG masterpiece.

Something extra: in some scenes, the film editing fails and seems like a bad green/blue screen effect; the ships also look short of CGI budget.

My final consensus: Hacksaw Ridge takes the best of leading man Andrew Garfield and master director Mel Gibson for delivering a brutal and emotional flick. Sadly, it doesn't proves to be an instant masterpiece due to some excessive heroism and clichéd action sequences.

The Seventh Seal (1957)

Deep, reflexive and thought provoking. Ingmar Bergman's eternal search shaped into motion picture.

[10/10 · 15 January 2017]

The movie that gave us the Grim Reaper as we know it today.

Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal (SS) is a profound examination of faith, the searching of God and human will. Ingmar Bergman (IB) was famous for portraying and analyzing in his movies topics such as death vs life, madness vs sanity, God vs nothing... This is that kind of movie I see as a challenge, because it's hard to understand it at first glimpse; unless you're a literate or someone learned deeply in philosophy or art appreciation.

IB was from those movie directors that every movie, or at least most, he made presented a point of view or a hard analysis. In this case: Where is God?... He chose perfectly the age of the movie: a time where everything wrong with the world was a punishment from heaven and people's ignorance was the foundation for religion supremacy.

Antonius Block (AB) is the protagonist in this search of meaning. A determined and rough man whose face looks wooden shaped. He has trouble believing, his faith has fallen to the height of his feet and can't find a reason to continue living. As he says in one scene, we must believe in unseen miracles. Any person who has had a faith crisis will be immediately identified with AB, and will have no trouble following his journey.

It is interesting how IB chose his characters. Jof and Mia stand for Joseph and Mary in English; though their son's name is Mikael (Mike). Was this a coincidence? Some message from heaven for AB? A guide for his journey? This trinity is the merriest thing in the whole movie, a representation of hope in the middle of a Black Death drowned Sweden.

AB looks without finding nothing, talks to a witch hoping to speak with the devil. Why? Because if the devil exists, also God. The scene of the flagellant's procession is something short of shocking, and beautiful, and impressive. The heaviness of soul and the masochist relation between man and his maker.

Full of metaphors and surrealism, the SS started a more serious look of religion in following years in cinema. Not only that, but immortalized the personification of death in popular culture (pop culture). The chess match between Death and AB is one of the most iconic in movie history. Damn well chosen, from all board games, which else but chess. Well done IB.

IB's style is clear. Static camera work, some close ups and skillful use of colors. The grey sea, the whiteness of death and darkness of his cloak, and many other aspects are IB's work. The movie's tone and pace that he delivers are the mainstay for transmitting the very questions from his childhood. Son of a Lutheran minister he lived his first years surrounded by religion, so you can imagine the environment.

The movie's very ending is a message for all of us of memento mori, the "danse macabre". Our life's are fragile and we must take care of them as the most beloved treasure.

A masterpiece in its own right, the SS may prove difficult and boring for some. The movie feels like a Shakespearean play put in front of camera. But the dialogue feels great, and the moments of comedy as well. Squire Jöns has become of one of my personal favorites, a medieval Swedish Chandler Bing.

For closure, actual movie lovers may find nothing in the SS. The first time I saw it couldn't find much in it. But for understanding, a second watch and reading about the film, it's worth it. Once you understand the SS, you get why it let and created so many standards, and why is considered a world classic.

My final consensus: A classic and masterpiece in its own right, The Seventh Seal is a profound examination from Ingmar Bergman about a quest we all can relate to. A challenge that not all will like to take, but for those willing to, it will be rewarding all its 96 minutes.

Blood Father (2016)

Mel Gibson proves again he's the man for the job.

[7/10 · 27 November 2016]

This is where Taken (2008) meets something like Sicario (2015) or Man on fire (2004), and explodes Mel Gibson's glorious savageness at the moment of becoming the titular hero for delivering an entertaining Sunday night action thriller.

The plot sure isn't nothing new, but the story is engaging and filled with old classic action, sort of like a Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) style. The whole underground world, illicit connections and Mexican mob presence are perfect for an enjoyable hour and a half. Also, thanks to Mel Gibson being kick- ass/dad Mel Gibson (MG) the movie surpasses all of its flaws.

Which flaws does this movie have? Well, Erin Moriarty's performance was a little weak, a little more effort from the director maybe. The dialogue felt sometimes lazily written, like they couldn't think of something else.

Leaving that aside, the action sequences are more than worthy, reaching expectations that fans of MG could expect. Our titular character is a true underdog/kick ass/old fashioned/classic/bad ass veteran that can put hell on earth to whoever crosses his path. Also, John Link, that sounds pretty bad ass too.

My final consensus: Taken meets Sicario, or Man on fire. Although nothing we haven't seen before, Mel Gibson delivers a totally bad ass character that proves enough to leave aside it's substantial flaws.

Club Sandwich (2013)

An honest examination of human relationships, but still something is missing.

[6/10 · 11 November 2016]

Again this sort of dramedy that we see a lot in Latin American cinema. The emotional depth of the movie is heavily felt, but the whole flick feels uneasy.

The movie works fine in the comedy side, for real it has some funny moments. The gags are effective, thanks to the seriousness and sarcasm of Hector, and the restless and young-mom Paloma.

The "family situation" of Hector and Paloma is the one that serves as background for emotions. The appearance of Jazmin, is the trigger for this fragility that is sensed since the beginning of the movie.

Both a dramedy and a coming-of-age/sexual-discovery movie, it is sadly abridged because of the story itself.

First of all, the fact that they are practically alone in a sort of cheap resort feels kind of boring. The very interactions between our main characters are slow and soundless, which contributes to the boredom. Maybe with this, the director tried to create a feeling of eagerness, for the audience waiting to see the real deal. It felt that way, but slightly.

The director's style is clear, static camera work. But I dare to say, that this directing style may not be that effective with this sort of movie.

Fernando Eimbcke took its time to write the characters, but maybe it lack time. If in any part of the movie a backstory from our leading people would have been introduced, it would have helped a lot. At the end the characters felt some sort of undeveloped.

Something I didn't liked at all, was this feeling of incest between Hector and Paloma. Something didn't felt right with their intimate moments. Inside this, our young lings age, which contributes to this feeling of uneasiness.

In the ending scene of the movie, I felt this emotional touch the director was trying to provoke, but the rest of the movie felt like an odd challenge.

My final consensus: An honest examination of human relationships, with strong direction and believable performances; but the very story itself is uneasy, and something doesn't feel right as it goes on.

The Amazing Catfish (2013)

A deeply emotional and sad drama that ends without leaving any tears.

[6/10 · 6 November 2016]

I had to see this movie twice in order to understand it, and why it felt so boring.

The camera work is good, the cinematography fits the movie tone, and the use of light helps to create scenes and atmosphere (especially when Martha says she's scared to die). Claudia Sainte-Luce feels strong behind the director's chair. I like the way she hides Claudia's face for the first 5 minutes of the film; this grows curiosity about our leading character. Also, the choosing of the yellow Volkswagen Beetle; "The Shining" (1980) and "Footloose" (1984). That model gives a familiar environment, and the color transmits joy.

The movie shows fine performances, taking the top spot is Lisa Owen (Martha), the most challenging role in this movie. She does well in the jolly and optimist side, also in the dark and worried one. The other ones that stand out are Wendy Guillén (Wendy), and Alejandro Ramírez (Armando).

I found the music suitable and compliant. It enhances the loneliness of Claudia, the casualty of what's going on and a little bit of sadness. It felt like the music that would appear if you were to take a long, thoughtful and reflexive walk.

The movie shows some funny moments; most of all, thanks to situations involving Armando and Mariana. (It is supposed to be a Comedy, but I find that Impossible).

Main themes are clear: loneliness and fear of loss and death. Also, being grateful for what you have; the moment where Alejandra tells Claudia she wants to change entirely (because of her boyfriend), and Claudia tells her she wants to change her whole life (because she is absolutely alone).

Claudia's face throughout the movie is the very essence of transition from being sad and alone, to be happy and eager for being part of a family (which she never had).

• Claudia: A loner, and feels lonely. This reminds of a quote in "Heat" (1995): "I'm alone, I am not lonely". Two different things, but she happens to be both. She's an expression of how depressing can be to have no family at all, and how fatal can be to feel, and be, alone. I applaud the fact that she's not the stereotype leading woman in a movie.

• Martha: She is an AIDS sick woman who tries to remain optimist and smiling despite her condition. From everyone's point of view it's the fear of losing her, and from hers, it's the fear to die. The character appeals to awareness of this disease and how frightening it can be.

• Alejandra: The older daughter that is a workaholic and seems to be a complex woman, reason why her boyfriend dumped her. She's desperate for a stable relationship, but just so happens that she's always thinking about work. She shows the hard part of being an adult.

• Wendy: She's fat, not too 'girly', and seems to be 'different' in her own way. She has suicide tendencies! And no one realizes that. Thing is: at her age and being a woman, social pressure is high, especially in this 2010's.

• Mariana: She's just this teenager submerged in a high social status in school. This character plays basically that role, being indifferent to everything, except her mother's situation.

• Armando: The awkward and odd kid that maybe is the "different" one in school. This character is played in a satisfying manner, making you believe is the kid no one understands in the recess.

It's time to explain why, it FALLS FLAT:

Distracting factors: Purple cereal, some sort of hidden message about Claudia; Metaphorical title, I still don't get it; Feels like a wannabe hipster movie.

Claudia, as a main character, is a boring one. She's a woman of few words yes, but of few actions as well. If she's going to say almost nothing, and have a slow and low voice as well, she better be doing some @#$%& important @#$%& in the movie. Like: Max in "Mad Max: Fury Road" (2015); The Driver (Ryan Gosling) in "Drive" (2011). OK, this characters are a way different genre. The point is, if your character is not going to be a talker, it better be a doer.

I FOUND IT BORING BECAUSE it has too many subplots and a misguided main one. In some point you get lost in the confusing narrative of the movie, leaving you wondering what's really about. The structure focuses on showing different scenes, like mini stories of a day by day, and no one leads to the next; this feels boring and distracting. Each character feels like a plot to be developed, taking away the attention from what could have been a deep and interesting one.

The ending is this message from the dead mother to each of the family members; their straight looks to the camera doesn't help to create that link. At the end, it feels predictable and fails to transmit those emotions that are supposed to make you cry.

The relationship between Claudia and Armando is odd, especially for that awkward kiss.

I believe, that if they had focused heavily in Martha's situation, or in Claudia's life and background, the movie could have been a lot better. For Christ's sake, Claudia is an aspiring actress, and this is merely mentioned. The movie could have centered in Claudia being miserable because she isn't doing what she truly wants, and Martha's disease as a subplot; or the other way around.

I like some quotes from the movie, specially this one: "Sighs, are a sign that we lack air for breathing".

My final consensus: A deeply emotional packed drama that brings fine performances and determined direction, but falls flat, and end up being boring because of many subplots and a narrative/structure problem.

Epitafio (2015)

Interesting historical drama that isn't overwhelmed thanks to its short length.

[7/10 · 15 October 2016]

If you look close, you realize it tells you a lot more than a retelling of a fracture from the Spanish Conquest. The dialogue and acting feels theatrical and the low budget of the movie is slightly evident; nevertheless, the journey and message is attractive, and the breathtaking cinematography combined with the landscapes help a lot. When the movie ended I didn't believed that the movie was just a showing of an important event in American (Continent, not USA) history. I took a deep thinking about what I saw, and I believe this:

The story is seen through the three different perspectives of the journey: Pedro, who is the young weak soldier who won't be able to climb to the top; Gonzalo, the loyal companion of his captain who tries to understand why are they climbing to the top; and finally, Don Diego, the strong and determined conqueror who sees more than just and order in climbing to the top.

Maybe, the story tries to make a deep reflection about the complexity of the human spirit. How far can we go in order to achieve a goal? Where is our breaking point? Pedro doesn't find the meaning in climbing, Gonzalo climbs because of curiosity, and Don Diego climbs because he searches meaning. That is another spot, the search for meaning. Don Diego climbs because he wants to be remembered, he wants to be important and leave a meaningful legacy. Deep inside us, we search for that in our daily actions.

Something that I highlight from the movie is the ending. That crucial moment when they reach the top of Popocatépetl and Don Diego launches his Conquest monologue; it's an important commentary on the social and cultural aspects of what happened in the Spanish Conquest (Also, Gonzalo makes an important observation about the brutality against the American natives, just before reaching the top). We were conquered (I'm Ecuadorian), slaughtered and forced to adopt a religion. What happened in those centuries defined what we are now, our social, cultural and religious identity. Don Diego is a man who doesn't feel pity for the people murdered or the consequences of his journey to the top, but in the end, he played a significant role in the defeat of an empire. That defeat and many others are the ones that defined who we are now in Latin America.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Filled with a deep message and cultural and social commentary, Epitafio works fine thanks to its short length, otherwise it would be extremely boring.

No Manches Frida (2016)

An often funny, simple minded comedy that doesn't have to take itself too seriously.

[6/10 · 13 October 2016]

The story might be forgettable, the plot and the characters might not be interesting, but it is fun-time. It is that light comedy that relies on grotesque, constant swearing and sexual humor (also slapstick); but it manages well in that route. The movie has its highlights and its flaws, so:

The tone and environment of the film create this sensation of absurdity. Teachers that allow students to bully them literally, and students that in other terms succumb to terrorism; the less than professional attitude of anyone involved with the school and the cheerful secondary characters also make the movie bearable. The humor of the movie establishes on swearing, grotesque and sexual situations, and semi-constant slapstick; which works fine with the movie's essence. The course words and bothering phrases provide morbid and healthy laughs. It might not be quality humor, but functional humor at some points.

The characters though thinly written are very likable: The dumb and senseless students that give meaning to the also senseless plot and the uninterested and unprofessional teachers that fall upon the student's dictatorship. Now, our two leads: the street punk and the shy wannabe-someone-to-change-the-world sweet and dumb girl. These two characters allow you to like the movie, despite certain flaws.

So, the very same strengths that the movie has, are also its weaknesses. The swearing sometimes is taken to the point you get bored of the repetitive and insulting dialogue. The slapstick is also in some moments of the movie too generic and basically that, non-funny slapstick. The movie also focuses heavily on marketing and selling the "pretty faces", which gives more importance to the actors involved rather than the characters themselves. Finally, the sexual humor provides funny moments, but is also taken to the limit, and ends up feeling unnecessary.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Though generic and clichéd, also in a light way exclusive for Mexicans to understand, the movie has some moments.

Nightcrawler (2014)

Holly @#$%&, what a good movie. Jake Gyllenhaal proves he is a force to be reckoned with.

[9/10 · 2 October 2016]

Perversion at the 10000th exponential, and ambition at the 999999999th. One of the best movies of the 2010's so far, Nightcrawler (NC) proves to be dark, twisted, violent and uneasy to watch; but also thought-provoking and unable to stop watching from beginning to end.

Jake Gyllenhaal's (JG) performance is strong, demented, and far believable. He literally becomes Lou, he adopts posture, face gestures (that awfully creepy smile) and throws himself into a complete embodiment of this meticulously written (and way original) character. He just blew it off; looks like Method Acting at its best.

So let's talk about Lou: what a sociopath, opportunist, human-life-insensitive being, Travis Bickle-style wacko. For real, he is a 21st-century Travis Bickle. Also, I can relate him with Leon (The Professional - 1994): it appears that the only friend he has (and only life form he cares about), is a plant. A man desperate to be someone in life, or at least make one, who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals, NOTHING. I'll die to see a prequel (as good as this movie) about how Louis, became Lou. A soft level psychopath, it is one of the most complex and dark characters I've seen in years. He's also mind- gifted, you can see it in his way of treating information. He's like some sort of savant genius with social disorder and contempt for human life.

The movie is scary, thrilling, sick, and most than anything gripping. You just can't stand to go to the bathroom, feeling eager to see what will happen next. It's an atomic bomb of emotions for viewers, not knowing if to sympathize of hate the protagonist. Dan Gilroy delivers a miraculous script and a sinister direction. From close-ups, perfect placed cameras and angles, taking advantage of everything the night can offer. It is amazing how this movie feels like a mix of "Network" (1976) and "Taxi Driver" (1976); with all the nocturnal scenario, broadcast news manipulation and crazy unstable protagonist. Last, but not least, the soundtrack. Both score and original songs are excellent and help create the right tone and atmosphere for the movie.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Taxi Driver Meets Network, a dark and thought-provoking non-stopping thriller with the right amount of energy and glorious central performance for turning it into a must-see.

Pleasantville (1998)

A perfect blend of fantasy, comedy and drama. One of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.

[8/10 · 1 October 2016]

It is deeply touching, undeniably funny and has a resonant message that will touch your heart. There is no denying that Pleasantville (PV) is quality in entertaining, and definitely a 90's classic. PV works perfectly in many ways, so let's go stage by stage:

Smart satire: "The Perfect Family", one of the social commentaries that this movie makes is that one. The concept of how a family should work, based on strong stereotypes from the 50's, but also on all-time ones. The Parkers are presented as an always happy family with a working father, a house-made mother, and energetic teenage children. It mocks about how television can easily sell this kind of ideas to the public. On the other hand, the sitcom's universe is an absolute winning formula.

Precisely funny movie: Most of the movie's humor relies on sexual gags, but that doesn't stop it from being family friendly. The rest of the jokes help to get along with the magical tone of the story. Also, works fine as a coming of age flick. I loved the transition of Jennifer and David throughout the movie. From confused and both relaxed and stressed teenagers to full-aware, independent and emotionally intelligent adults (especially David).

A feast for the eyes: Excellent cinematography and visual effects give points for a dazzling experience. The "color transitions" is a beautiful characteristic from PV. The eternal reflection that PV offers (alongside its visuals) make it one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. I'll love to explain it all, but I try to spoil the less I can. What I can say is this: courage, letting flow, opening your eyes, allow your life get colored by life itself, trying new things. This and more, are some of the themes that the movie throws to the audience in a way that all can receive it smoothly. Drama enters here, both in the TV and real world, and it really reaches the soul.

Last but not least, the cast and acting. Both fresh and young Reese Witherspoon and Tobey Maguire in charming roles that steal the show. Older, mature and talented William H. Macy, Joan Allen and Jeff Daniels give the movie a sense of "it's never too late" that is refreshing. Joan Allen was the winner here, she must have been nominated for a Golden Globe at least.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Family friendly humor, profound social commentary and message, marvelous performances and visuals, Pleasantville is the perfect mix for a magical and heart touching ride.

Don't Breathe (2016)

7.5/10 - A simple but thrilling movie with a perfect villain for a tense hour and a half.

[7/10 · 1 October 2016]

It's tension everywhere: Don't breathe delivers effective scares and thrills with a simple story and last-minute twists. The plot is nothing new in the home-invasion genre, but the story, characters and antagonist help to make it a pretty welcomed addition. There isn't much character development or background, but the precise information given about the protagonists and other flaws are more than compensated by the heavy atmosphere of the flick.

A wickedly written and perfectly casted villain makes this movie a satisfying journey. Stephen Lang is perfect in the role. What attracted me most from the character is the fact that he isn't a psychopath, not a madman, not a degenerate, he is a normal person (well, a very strong and meticulous ex-soldier). He is a father who suffered and takes justice into his own hands, without getting into traumatizing or pervert actions. One thing is for sure if he must be a mean son of a @#$%&, he will be the worst mean son of a @#$%&.

Something cool is the scary end of the movie (don't worry I won't spoil it), but I'll only say this: You will finish thirsty for a second part, saying "Damn!!". Asking yourself: "What if...?" "Do you think that...?" "Holly @#$%&, will he...?"

FINAL CONSENSUS: The simple but thrilling storyline, protagonists, and main villain are highlighted by the tense and chilling atmosphere of the movie, making a worthy horror-packed hour and a half.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2 (2013 Video)

A sequel that surpasses the original, an absolute epic.

[9/10 · 19 September 2016]

One of the most violent, complex, dark and epic representations of the caped crusader, TDKR Part 2 is absolutely unforgettable. The movie is fast paced, taking you to the last journey of Batman in an effective manner. It is true that is less thought provoking, but that little flaw is requited with the other highlights.

The movie continues with its realistic tone with one of the best Joker performances. A Joker in suit and tie, using makeup and no gadgetry; arguably one of the most bloodthirsty, sadistic and psychopathic Joker (or at least tied with John Dimaggio's) in recent history. Michael Emerson has a perfect voice for this humanistic representation of the Clown Prince of Crime, and oh boy does he steals the show. One of the best confrontations between this two nemesis, with an outcome that proves the Joker will always be Batman's ultimate challenge.

Then, there's the amazing battle with Superman. If only the people behind "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" would have stayed faithful to this, that movie could have been from another world (but no, it sucked). A rivalry we all waited to see blowing off, we get a more than satisfactory outcome and result; those quotable lines will have us all remembering, in all the years to come in our most private moments, that one man. The animation is good, the voice performance is excellent, every combat or outcome in the movie is epic, and there's that amazing hunting score.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Reaching the height of big ones like Mask of the Phantasm and Under the Red Hood, this dark and epic conclusion is a more than welcomed addition to Batman's animated pantheon.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 (2012 Video)

Paying honor to its source material, one of the best animated Batman movies.

[8/10 · 19 September 2016]

The movie feels slightly like an animated "Batman Begins": the batmobile is a tank, the batwing is a helicopter and no silly James-Bond-kind gadgets. Bruce Wayne is a tormented retired Batman who just can't stop being the caped crusader.

The story is well structured and rises thanks to the new villains: the Mutants and its ferocious leader. The dark and realistic tone of the film makes it for an attractive ride in the Batman universe. I applaud entirely to the score, a powerful and epic melody that manages to exalt the enduring legacy of one of the best superheroes ever.

One of the movie's main idea is resoundingly reflexive: Batman makes his own enemies. Do superheroes create their own foes? This reminds me a lot of Vision's equation in "Civil War" (2016). Since each hero started to become public, the amount of crime increased. A powerful reflection of the constant battle between good and evil (Batman and Two-Face's confrontation).

I loved Peter Weller as Bruce Wayne/Batman, his deep, commanding and elderly voice make a perfect portrayal of the 55-year-old hero. As well as the Mutant Leader, Two-Face, and Carrie Kelly, which stand out well. I also loved the similarities with "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) (which shows the big legacy of the TDKR graphic novel). In the Nolan movie is 8 years, in which also Bruce Wayne is broken by the death of a close person. Batman's first appearance is almost identical in both movies. A young and old cop in a car chase, when Batman appears, it's "Showtime". And a lot more that I won't spoil.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Unique in style and visuals, voice performance, story and characters, this dark, violent, thought-provoking and faithful adaptation of Batman is one of the best in the whole franchise. (Alongside with Part 2)

Network (1976)

Brilliant, well paced, original, brutal, and last but not least, CLASSIC.

[9/10 · 19 September 2016]

We are all mad as hell, and we won't take it any longer. After 40 years, Network (NW) remains a true classic, not only as one of the 70's best movies but of all time.

The original screenplay written by Paddy Chayefsky is one of the bests to date. The story is so smart and intriguing, it is impossible to get bored in any second of the film. The strong dialogue helps to connect with every character, especially Ned Beatty and Beatrice Straight's monologues, which are astonishing for being so short. Both introduction and closure of the story introduce you effectively into the commentary made on television and media power over society.

Behind the television and corporate cloak, there's also the complex human relationships surrounding Max. From his friendship with Howard, his affair with Diana, and the confrontation with his wife, the human touch is strong with this one, making it easier to feel related with this protagonist. Sidney Lumet does an excellent job, challenging his cast to exploit their dramatic skills. Also, very precise with the camera. I applaud Ned Beatty's scene, where the angle and camera position of the speech emphasizes the powerful message of Mr. Jensen to Howard.

Time to talk about the performances. All of them, convincing and lasting impersonations of deeply written and complex characters. These are brought to life with such talent you can't lose sight of any when they are on screen. William Holden makes an honest hero with the most ethical intentions; Peter Finch is precise and over the top being the "mad prophet" who loses his mind; Faye Dunaway transforms into the calculating and fragile main antagonist. The short appearances of Max's wife and Mr. Jensen are ephemeral and potent, making them worth of their nominations and prices.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Black comedy, drama, human relations, controversy, terrorism, manipulation, media commentary, romance, Network mixes in pitch perfect these elements to make one of the best movies ever made.

War Dogs (2016)

Maybe not the best Dramedy Biopic, but undeniably an entertaining one.

[7/10 · 11 September 2016]

Not the best film of the year and neither bringing anything new to the Biopic/Drama/comedy genre, but amazingly entertaining with characters that you can identify with, and lots of quotable one-liners. I definitely believe Jonah Hill's performance is going to be nominated for the Golden Globes for Best Comedic Performance. Efraim's unique laugh is practically another character; it's like the role was made for him.

Besides Jonah Hill's performance, Miles Teller doesn't get behind. Both actors have great chemistry between them, making the movie an enjoyable ride. Another thing that I loved was the soundtrack; for real, excellent song choices. Young viewers will find themselves wanting to be this couple of youngsters running for the millionaire contracts, strict viewers may not find anything plausible, but I'm pretty sure they will at least laugh a few times.

FINAL CONSENSUS: Committed performances and entertaining moments help to elevate this mild treatment about concerning real life stories.

Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001)

An excellent examination of an excellent artist.

[8/10 · 6 September 2016]

An excellent examination of an excellent artist, but also, an honest one. "A life in pictures" depicts every essential moment in Stanley Kubrick's life, not leaving aside any detail, just as he used to do at the moment of making a film. It is true, he was an odd person and different from others, some hated him and others loved him; at the end, he wasn't praised for being an example of human being, he was praised for the quality of filmmaker and artist he was.

The film has the testimony of people who knew him, from schoolmates to actors. This gives you a more wide perspective of who he was as a person, and as a filmmaker. It will prove a challenge to label him as a person, especially when you see his relationship with Shelley Duvall, but his work as a director is miraculous. One thing that I found amusing was the fact that he shared one specific characteristic with Alfred Hitchcock: he assumed complete control of his movies. That's what made his movies, well, HIS MOVIES! Gloriously detailed work from the life of undeniably, the best movie director of all time.

FINAL CONSENSUS: From birth to death, from personal footage to actual interviews, A Life in Pictures portrays in an excellent manner both the man and artist that worked behind the lens.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

First class scares without Hollywood clichés.

[7/10 · 2 September 2016]

Though Heather Donahue's performance was at some points frustrating and seemed forced, there's no denying that "The Blair Witch Project" delivers first class scares without the need of blood, gore or a physical monster. This is the reason why the movie stands out because it leaves aside all kind of Hollywood cheese. Also, it helps to make all scares psychological, leaving everything to the imagination of the viewer.

The movie helped popularize the "found footage" style, which is its core; making you feel as lost, desperate, and frustrated as the characters. This style helps to make the scares more effective, creating an environment that will at least trouble your sleep for one night, or more... For real I don't get why this movie was nominated for "Worst Movie" on the Razzie Awards of 2000.

FINAL CONSENSUS: One of the first of its kind, The Blair Witch Project proves how haunting the mind can be, showing us a compelling kind of horror.