People say that presumption is like holy water, each one takes what they want. And Blake Edwards, out of conceit, vanity, stubbornness or greed, could not understand that the entire Pink Panther franchise was long dead when he released this ultimate film, an inglorious, almost shameful swan song for a franchise that deserved to have had a most worthy and honorable end. In fact, with the death of Peter Sellers, the franchise lost all viability and continuing it, movie after movie, was a mistake that Edwards couldn't recognize. In this film, the plot picks up several loose ends from the first films, over thirty years old, to build a new story where the princess of Lugash is kidnapped by a terrorist. In the middle of the escape, the terrorist is stopped by Jacques Gambrelli, a young policeman with little sense and very idiot, who lets him escape out of sheer naivety, and to the astonishment of Commissioner Dreyfus. Only later does it come to be discovered that this policeman is, in fact, the son of the late Inspector Clouseau and Maria Gambrelli, who the inspector had previously assisted in one of his cases. The problem I felt the most with this film is the absolutely idiotic plot, and the almost crazy and obscene way in which Blake Edwards tries to make money off of past successes without giving us anything truly new and worthwhile. Slapstick comedy is very much present here, as it has always been in this franchise, but the resources used are old, worn out and not surprising us anymore. The cast also leaves a lot to be desired, making me wonder how much they really wanted to be involved in a project so inevitably doomed. Herbert Lom and Claudia Cardinale try to do everything they can to save their work, but all their effort is ruined by the weakness of the work done by Robert Davi, Debrah Farentino and, most importantly, Roberto Benigni. The film could not be saved. With lackluster but functional cinematography and an elegant and funny animated opening credits sequence, the film manages reasonably well on the technical aspects. The filming locations were well selected, but sometimes poorly used, the editing is neither the best nor the most inspired and the pace of the film is exasperating and tiring.
A complete disaster. It seems that Blake Edwards and the production team of the Pink Panther franchise didn't know when to stop and focus efforts on new projects. If the previous film was almost an insult to the memory of Peter Sellers, but still works as a tribute, this film has no reason to exist beyond the financial interest of those involved. The plot, poor and poorly written, shows Sureté's attempts to find a new chief inspector capable of replacing Clouseau, whose plane has disappeared. It turns out that the story doesn't bring anything special or interesting, and it just doesn't work, a factor that was very important for the failure of this film with the critics and the box office. Herbert Lom is back and continues to look good and committed to his role. The same can be said of Capucine and David Niven, an actor who would pass away months later. Robert Wagner does what he can and Roger Moore shines, but the rest of the cast is limited to going after the main actors without much merit. With a poor but functional cinematography, a satisfying soundtrack and a good sequence of credits, the film manages itself at the cost of the tasks that lie ahead.
What is this?? Let's face it: with the death of Peter Sellers, the Pink Panther franchise is dead, or at least that's how it should have been. There are certain films and characters that are so associated with the actors that they bring them to life that any attempt to continue after their death sounds almost insulting. And that's exactly what happened here. The film is so bad, so negative in its essence, that it deserves little consideration and attention: the plot is extraordinarily confusing, and it was designed to try to articulate in the best way the archive scenes used, where Sellers appears, in a performance almost beyond the grave. , through deleted scenes from previous films, which were reused here and mixed with new scenes, filmed on purpose. Herbert Lom and David Niven do everything they can, but I think even they didn't believe in the project, because the interpretive level is downright bad. On a technical level, it's a poor film: the cinematography limps a lot, can't hide or disguise the file cuts, the colors are washed out and the film looks older than it turns out to be. The jokes often don't work, the film's pacing is exaggeratedly slow, and it stretches the plot excessively. Mancini's music is the only technical element that escapes being a total disaster.
Steven Spielberg is considered, in an almost consensual way, as one of the best film directors of the 20th century, one of the introducers of CGI and one of the main responsible for the great popularization of sci-fi cinema. His record is vast, his list of successes is well known, and his talent and creativity are recognized and acclaimed. This film was one of the biggest hits of his career and is one of the most important alien films ever made. Critically acclaimed, it was a huge box office success and received several awards: in addition to a special Oscar, it won the Oscar for Best Cinematography and was nominated for seven other statuettes, also winning a BAFTA for Art Direction and two Saturn Awards. Personally, I am not an ardent admirer of Spielberg, nor a believer in the idea of UFOs and life outside our planet. It is not for me, and I think it is beside the point, to discuss whether it exists, or whether Spielberg is as good as some say. To me, he's a good director, but he's also made bad movies. In this film, he manages himself quite well, with great personal commitment and great attention to detail. His direction, methodical and attentive, knows how to get the best out of each one involved and guide the cast in the best way to obtain everything they want. Still, I felt at various points that the film suffers from a **** sense of self-importance, and that it feels more aimed at believers in extraterrestrial life than at a more neutral audience or with more mixed opinions on the matter. The strongest point of the film is, without a doubt, the technical aspects: the cinematography was used with great skill and intelligence and the filming is so well executed that this film seems more actual than it really is. The colors are vibrant, vivid, and not washed out like many other films from this epoch. The special effects and CGI used, although in relatively primitive formats when compared to what we can do today, look incredible and authentic. The melody used to communicate with the alien spaceship has probably become one of the most recognizable in sci-fi, and the entire soundtrack, composed by John Williams, is extraordinary and memorable. The cast is led by Richard Dreyfuss, who offers us, here, one of his most relevant and well-achieved performances. François Truffaut is also impeccable in his role, and his difficulty with the English language made his character and his role in the ongoing plot even more believable. Melinda Dillon was also up to her challenge. Unfortunately, everything else is sketchy, underdeveloped characters for actors who really have little to do or add. The script writing is the weakest part of the film and the one that I was least satisfied with. Instead of inserting the visit of the aliens, and all the associated phenomena, in a well-written and coherent plot, the film does the opposite, drawing around the extraterrestrial visit a series of sub-plots of poor quality, sometimes pulling too much to cheap sentimentality. The movie is very slow and takes a while to gain our attention, and I felt like it didn't really need to have almost two and a half hours with so little story to tell. One of the most surreal moments of the film, for me, is the way that the mother reacts so calmly to the abduction of her young son, but the protagonist himself seems to lose his mind at several moments, and doesn't even get the sympathy and solidarity of his mother. Own family.
“Are you talking to me?!”… This film is a milestone in cinema, and elegantly combines a good story, good actors, an exceptional director and a technical execution full of talent and well-achieved artistic notes. A perfect movie? Maybe not… but it came close! The film takes place in New York during a summer of the seventies. The city is dystopian, ugly and dirty in every way: the ubiquitous garbage, the amorality that dominates, the characters from the marginal environment, the misrepresentation of sexuality, the normalization of prostitution and pornography, the violence and crime that occasionally appear to us. . In the midst of this, Travis Bickle, a Vietnam War veteran who lives an unhappy existence in a filthy apartment, makes a living as a night shift taxi driver. A lonely and depressed man, he internally represses his anguish, bitterness and the thoughts of violence that assail him, until a platonic love for a deified woman results in a heartbreak that leads him to a dramatic and brutal outcome, where he will decide the fate of a young minor prostitute who, by chance, crosses his life. I could talk a lot about this movie, because it's one of those movies that is worth watching carefully to see all the little details. The sexy clothes of the prostitutes, the extravagant clothes of the men, drug dealers and pimps, the dirty and disorganized environment of the protagonist's apartment, the symbolic detail of the burning of flowers or that camera that, leaving the protagonist on the phone with his love interest, shows a hallway as empty and bleak as his personal life. Martin Scorsese gives us one of his most masterful works, with impeccable execution and a magnificent sense of aesthetics and taste. The cast includes several well-known and talented names, but it's Robert De Niro who makes the movie work. With a powerful, charismatic, brutally intense and sharp performance, the actor achieves one of the most significant works of his career, an authentic business card that will open many doors for him and help to make him one of the consecrated and iconic actors of the second half of 20th century. Equally striking, an extremely young and beautiful Jodie Foster balances herself, harmoniously and paradoxically, between the childlike sweetness of her character and the harshness, inhumanity and vice of the world she inhabits. Harvey Keitel is excellent in the role of a pimp for teenagers and Cybill Shepherd, despite being an ephemeral and extremely deified character, fulfills her role wonderfully. Even Scorsese decides to appear, in a cameo with an apparently sterile dialogue, but which places the weapons inside the protagonist's mind, as a subliminal message. Technically, the film is extraordinary. Personally, if I were a film student, I feel that I would have to see this film with a student's eye, observing the details and the technical, artistic and stylistic options adopted. Nothing is thoughtless, from the neon ads to the fading of colors in the gunfight scene, which is one of the most bombastic and graphically violent exchanges to date. The cinematography is amazing, the filming work was executed to perfection, the sets and costumes are really well executed. With few effects, the quality stands out. The soundtrack is excellent, atmospheric and powerful, and was the last to be composed by Bernard Herrmann, who would die even before the release of the film, which was otherwise dedicated to him.
The movie "Blair Witch Project" was so well executed and successful that it had to spawn more than one sequel. It was doomed to it. Even so, it is not understood that they were such bad sequels! If "Blair Witch 2" turned out to be totally forgettable, this movie isn't much better, even if it is considerably more faithful to the source material. In practice, the film works as a sequel to the original. If BW2 shows us the efforts of a new film crew, which decides to go after the first one and do something new, this film brings us the way in which James, brother of Heather (the filmmaker of the initial film), looks for clues about what happened to her sister and forms a group that decides to camp there, look for traces, and of course, subject themselves to the same fate. Thanks to the script, I felt I was finally looking at a true follow-up to the story of "Blair Witch Project", and not a film that wanted to stick to the success of the initial film. That was the biggest strength of this movie. The film is directed by Adam Wingard, who is not a horror newbie and has already given us a handful of films with some quality, like "You're Next". The director makes good use of the cards he has and knows how to guide the actors well, even if they are not big stars. On the positive side, I would like to highlight the work of James McCune, Corbin Reid and Wes Robinson. I think these three actors really deserve praise for their commitment and the way they did their job. It's ok... but the character construction is weak, and the story is sometimes confusing, which spoils the actors' work a bit. Technically, the film opts for a minimalist approach where less is decidedly more: in addition to the obvious choice for the "found footage" style, which many criticize (I'm not a fan of this style of filming) but was the right choice in a Blair Witch movie, I would like to emphasize the purity of what we see, in that almost no computer effects or other visual effects were used. There are good sound effects and sound editing, and the editing of the film doesn't feel poorly executed. All of this is positive... what I really regret is that the film is not able to give us something really new or original, as all the scares I saw here were previously performed in the previous films and lost their originality and the ability to scare. Even so, the film can be a little scary thanks to the shaky shooting style, the screams and some jumping that intentionally provokes us. It's little, but it's something.
Another movie in the Pink Panther franchise, and again I feel like nothing new has been added to what we've already seen. In a franchise that has been ruled by ups and downs, and by an inconsistency that doesn't bode well, the film is nonetheless satisfying: it's not excellent, not even close, but it's not bad either. The film's biggest problem turns out to be the plot, which is sparse, excessive and very exaggerated. I felt, on more than one occasion, that the film stretches the plot to the maximum, due to lack of content. Everything revolves around a deranged ex-Inspector Dreyfus, who is transformed into a kind of super villain. After creating a kind of "Spectre" (those familiar with the James Bond universe will understand my comparison better), he manufactures a weapon of mass destruction and threatens the entire world, demanding Clouseau's head. Is it exaggerated enough? Peter Sellers does what he can with what he gets to work with, but I couldn't help but feel that his character is almost a caricature of what we've seen before, and that the actor is underrated and underused. Even more cartoonish and weird, Herbert Lom deserves, however, a praise for the way he took advantage of the madness and exaggeration of the character, turning it into something truly funny. Technically, the film manages to rival its predecessors in terms of cinematography, sets and costumes, giving us exactly what we were hoping to find. There are no great effects, but what was used has quality and does its job. Music is not far behind and satisfies us without, however, standing out.
This film is an adaptation of a comic book, and also a remake of a famous 1982 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a rather weak film, which only stood out thanks to the presence of the famous actor. So I decided to see if this new version was better than the older one. However, when I saw the name of director Marcus Nispel, I feared the worst... and my fears were justified, with the film proving to be extremely weak. The script is very poorly written: taking advantage of the essentials of the story told in the older film (a hero's revenge journey against the villains, responsible for the massacre that killed his family), the film fails to give us a cohesive and functional story. , which seems to rust and creep more and more as the film progresses. Tired and uninteresting, the film unfolds in an exasperating way until it reaches a really disappointing end. If there's one thing the older film excelled at, it was the choice of lead actor, with Schwarzenegger's remarkable collaboration being this film's strongest and most solid point. Without the actor's participation, the film could not hope to match the success achieved, but it could be much better than it is. The truth is, I can't understand why Jason Momoa was chosen for the lead role! The actor may be big and muscular, but he has nothing else to offer us and is particularly dull and boring. The rest of the cast is made up of an amalgamation of third-tier actors that I don't feel obliged to name, with the exception of Ron Perlman, who is not used as he could be. It may be hard to say like that, but the truth is that the characters, merely sketched, and the poor and poorly written dialogues didn't demand better actors. Where the film really bets and stands out is in the production values and technical aspects. With a capable budget and all the machinery of the American film industry, the film is the typical "blockbuster" of action that tries to get the most coins from the public willing to pay to see if it is as bad as others say it is. The work of the make-up and characterization teams is quite amateurish, the editing is regular, the soundtrack is forgettable. On the positive side, the spectacular action scenes naturally stand out, removing any sense of danger and tension, transforming the film into something without emotion, but full of show-off. The work of the stuntmen, as well as the wide range of visual, special, computer and sound effects, helps a lot in these scenes and gives the film an appealing and vibrant liveliness. Finally, and to end with something positive, I must mention the good quality of the cinematography and the good design of the costumes.
When I found this film, I thought it would be a cinematic approach to Lazarus Syndrome, which is the apparently spontaneous reactivation of the heartbeat after all attempts to resuscitate a patient in cardiac arrest have failed. This is a very rare situation to happen, and I thought the movie would be about that. I was wrong. The film's script follows a small group of young scientists who are carrying out a controversial and eventually revolutionary study: the creation of a serum that allows the dead to be reanimated. They are testing it on animals, but a bureaucratic twist ends up denying them the possibility of continuing the study. However, they decide to continue secretly, even though the results of tests on animals have revealed that there are dangerous brain changes, resulting from the application of the serum, in the resuscitated animals. After breaking into the lab at night, the group has an accident and one of the group's scientists dies. They then decide to use the serum to bring her back to life. The film has an interesting base premise and one that will draw some inspiration from the source of "Frankenstein" and other mad or amoral scientists. These are fascinating and frightening topics, because we naturally fear those men who use their genius and wisdom without any moral concern to guide them. However, the film fails to develop this in the best way: the whole question that leads to the expulsion of the scientists from that laboratory is, to say the least, unconvincing, and any minimally serious scientist would be incapable of performing an experiment on human beings without solid positive results in the previous stages. It is a huge nonsense that tramples everything we consider as a "scientific method". The cast has its good moments. Olivia Wilde does a really good job, she's convincing, and it's not difficult to sympathize with her character, for her stubbornness and sympathy. Mark Duplass didn't seem so committed or believable to me, but he has some very good moments, particularly in the second half of the film. Sarah Bolger (who I only knew from her role in the "Tudors" series) is beautiful, but in addition to her feminine beauty, she also gives us a mature and interesting interpretation, particularly in the final scenes of the film. On a technical level, the film doesn't have much to offer us. The cinematography is fairly generic, and the editing appears to have been harsh, with mangled subplots and a total runtime reduced to just over an hour. The sets are good enough, especially the labs used in the filming, and the soundtrack is good enough, though not remarkable.
I found this movie on television by chance and decided to watch it, seduced by a brief plot synopsis and intriguing beginning. At the right time I did, the film was worth it and deserves our attention. The plot takes place some years before the appearance of Jack the Ripper, and recounts the somewhat amateurish way in which the English authorities dealt with the emergence of a bloodthirsty serial killer. Obviously, the inspiration for this film was evident: each of the Golem's crimes bore a very strong signature of Jack the Ripper, a real killer who was never caught or even successfully identified. The crimes in this movie are gory and graphic, and the movie can be shocking at times. But the best thing about the film is, in my opinion, its cleverly written and executed screenplay, in which a Scotland Yard inspector searches for the murderer and all the clues point to a woman he firmly believes to be innocent and, probably, trying to cover up the real criminal. The plot has many twists and turns, and you should be careful not to miss anything important. The effort pays off. The film bets a lot on creating a dense environment, with deep suspense, and makes the best use of the nocturnal, decadent and almost inhumane atmosphere of Victorian London. From the gloomy streets to the poorly theater, passing through the brothels and the Library (one of the most important and symbolical settings), the film has the right atmosphere and is visually elegant. There are several characters who carry within themselves a dismay and bitterness that is part of the Victorian feeling, where disenchantment leads to the need for abstraction and escapism, depression and mental anguish. Bill Nighy's work is really the most solid and consistent of the entire cast, and it sustains the film quite well. The actor is a British veteran, impeccable in his work, and manages to give the character a touch of tiredness that gives him realism and credibility. Olivia Cooke is surprising and did an excellent job here, in a character that is not easy, demanding and full of psychological nuances. Nevertheless, she does manage to captivate and capture our sympathy, even being more pleasant than Nighy's character. Douglas Booth also gives his character a bit of acidity. He's seen too much in a world too ugly. Sam Reid looks good to me, and Maria Valverde also made a very thoughtful contribution. On a technical level, the film makes a serious and consistent bet on cinematography, dark, dense and purposefully foggy, as if to immerse the audience in a foggy, dirty London, full of vices and the smell of coal and smoke. The special and visual effects also worked well, particularly in the crime and murder scenes. The sets were beautifully executed and the choice of filming locations was careful, as was the design of the film's costumes and props, which look excellent and historically rigorous. The soundtrack helps us a lot to live the period and feel the atmosphere of the film.
Cinema is full of little foolish romantic comedies, some of them without any relevant fun. But unlike many people, I liked this movie a lot. It is not a comedy for laughing out loud, but I have to admit that it does what it promises: gives us a few minutes of good entertainment, a nice humor we can see in family without feeling that we waste our time. The script is not particularly brilliant, but works decently: Andie, a promising young journalist, eager to do something better in her career, has to write an article about the mistakes women make in dating and relationships, and for that is challenged to start dating and put these mistakes into practice, so that, after ten days, end up single. At the same time, Benjamin, a macho advertiser with a fame as a womanizer, makes a bet with his boss: if he gets a woman truly falling in love with him in ten days, he will get a very good advertising contract with a huge diamond company. And fate (if we can call fate to another woman, a Benjamin's competitor eager to win the contract for herself) put them both together: he has to make her fall in love, and she has to be the girlfriend that came from Hell. The movie is really funny and has truly intelligent moments, jokes and puns. For me, it is above the vulgar romantic comedy, and I think much of the success is due to the excellent performance of the "couple" of main actors. Kate Hudson was at the height of a career increasingly promising, she had just won a Golden Globe with "Almost Famous" and seemed well-packed to become an increasingly popular and requested actress. She really did a very good job in this movie, which is perhaps her best movie so far. On the other hand, Mathew McConaughey also did an excellent job, articulating himself very well with her and giving his character an aura of charm and sympathy that matched Hudson's beauty and humor. The film also features good participation by Bebe Neuworth, Adam Goldberg and Kathryn Hahn. Technically, the movie is not brilliant, but that's not what is expected of it either. It has good cinematography and good sets, the costumes are within what we expected to see, and the edition was performed satisfactorily. The film has a pleasant pace and the soundtrack does their work discreetly, leaving the actors (and especially Hudson) the stage needed to make humor.
I often like well-executed action movies, but unfortunately American cinema is prolific in spreading action movies that pull a lot to self-loom and hollow patriotism. Movies like "Independence Day" or "Air Force One"... this movie limits itself to follow this path and imitating its predecessors. Just see the code name used to the White House: Olympus! As if the US president were a kind of modern-day Zeus! The film's script is almost just a huge excuse for uninterrupted action scenes. After a few minutes, we plunged into a succession of gunfire and explosions that have no end, and we see the White House be invaded by a true army, armed to the teeth, without Secret Services or US Army doing something to avoid it. With the president held hostage and all the US nuclear weaponry at the mercy of evildoers, it's just a matter of time for tragic consequences. Of course, it will all depend on one man, and the courage and resistance of the president, who will be a true hero. There are, in the midst of all this, some tiring scenes and situations. The action begins almost without any warning, and the first half-hour length must have spent more bullets and gunpowder than the invasion of Iraq. Undoubtedly, a feature that captures the public's attention, but condemns much of the rest of the film to a kind of doldrums, as American secret agents seek to sneak into the White House, sewed to what is left of their walls. There are, however, truly appealing scenes for the good American patriot, such as that Secretary of State who is brutally beaten while reciting the oath to the flag. On the other hand, I felt that there is an exaggerated importance around the president's little son, as if he were some active member of the Government or had the key to some nuclear bomb stuck in his pants pocket. The cast features several big names, starting with the unavoidable Morgan Freeman, in another action movie where he gives us again what has already given us in other similar movies, especially "Deep Impact". This does not mean that the actor has done a bad job, only that it is not particularly original or new. Gerard Butler was equally effective in the way he gave life to the great hero intended to save the day, and Aaron Eckhart was also very well in the skin of the heroic and patriotic president of the US. John Yune, moreover, proves to be worthy of our hatred for his way of acting and his intentions. Technically, the movie bets almost everything in extraordinary visual and special effects, the result of intelligent use of CGI and the green screen. Unfortunately, it is so spectacular and intense that it becomes almost unbelievable, as a video game. The sets are good and seem to reproduce well the interiors and environments of the White House, or at least, what we know that there is. Cinematography is equally very good, and the soundtrack is effective, though not memorable.
There is no doubt that "Blair Witch Project" was a gigantic commercial and critical success, and that it was more than fair, because the movie is really good. Unfortunately, this sequel is all that the original is not. I mean, it's a movie that shouldn't even have been made, because it's really bad, very weak. Comparing both movies is almost like comparing a golden nugget to a bunch of crap. This movie tries everything it can to stick to the first movie and capture something that allows it to work and make a similar success. It is not a "found footage" movie, as was the first, but tries to continue the previous story, with a team of amateur and young filmmakers looking for information about what happened there, and the chaos to settle as the supernatural begins to mess with the mind of each of them. I can't say that the movie is a complete disaster… it starts very slowly, it takes a long time to capture our interest, but it gradually improves from the middle on and gives us a relatively well-made ending, that does not scare minimally, but at least, It makes us intrigued. I don't think it's worth it to highlight any name in the cast. None of the actors really did a good job, the characters are tiring and poorly designed, unable to capture our sympathy or truly deserve our attention. I was simply waiting to see them die all. At the technical level, the film is not remarkable either. Cinematography is weak, the film has the whole appearance and style of a very cheap movie B, the scenarios are not really interesting and there are no production values that are worth highlighting.
This film marks the return of the "Pink Panther" franchise after a few years of absence, that partially made us forget the bad experience in "Inspector Clouseau". Overall, not being an excellent movie, it can fulfill the minimum required by the public and give us some good jokes amid many follies. The film begins with the theft of the Pink Panther Diamond, and the start of an investigation with a view to its recovery. Of course, inspector Clouseau will be called to the case, as he collaborated the last time the diamond was threatened, and it is evident that the suspicions of the incompetent detective will focus on the figure of Sir Charles Litton, which decides to abandon his golden exile in the Riviera to discover the whereabouts of the diamond. The film, in practice, is an almost uninterrupted succession of jokes, most of which make no sense. Blake Edwards does what he can to bring us back what we saw good in the franchise's early films, but the formula used is not so interesting, perhaps because it starts tiring the audience. A joke may be funny told two or three times, but even the best joke loses interest after we hear it ten times, and that's what happens here, since the movie bets everything on very similar jokes, with Clouseau destroying all he touches like a disaster champion. Unfortunately, the main victim of all this is the script, which becomes increasingly difficult to follow. To be able to understand the story in full, I had to see the movie twice, and it almost never happens to me. Peter Sellers, nevertheless, deserves all our attention and sympathy. The actor is very good and gives his best in this movie, as it is an imprint of his work. We are facing a professional, and a weight comedian, in excellent form. Christopher Plummer assumes, this time, the skin of the notorious jewelry thief Sir Charles Litton and can be perfectly up to what was asked. For me, as an actor, Plummer is the strongest and most competent name in this movie. Also, Catherine Schell was fine. Unlike some earlier actresses of this franchise, I felt that she wanted to be more than an attractive body and worked in this regard. Herbert Lom, in turn, never seemed so crazy as here, and that was really funnier than many of Seller's fools, I confess. The movie is not a technical shine, quite the opposite. By betting everything in the comedy, the film leaves a good part of the most elaborate technical aspects. Even the conception of most characters is reduced to the basics if we think well. Thus, what stands out here is the quality of special and visual effects, the good performance of the doubles for dangerous scenes and the good design of the initial, animated and starring credits again, again by the Pink Panther itself, a character very dear to us all today. The soundtrack brings us back the theme of Mancini that we learn to love, but brings us nothing new or interesting beyond that. Cinematography is perfectly banal, and editing and pace are sometimes poorly achieved and tiring.
This movie is very indigestible and hard to see, as it brings us a heavy story with very intense themes, as well as a powerful interpretation of Jack Nicholson. The movie is intense, visual, brutal and can sometimes shock the most sensitive. The script is based on a book, which in turn was based, very slightly, in real cases of murder. The film begins with the retirement of Jerry Black, a police officer who is leaving the force. It turns out that, in his last case, the **** and murder of a young girl, he is led to solemnly promise that he will find the culprit, in an effort that he will really take seriously as he seems increasingly evident that he will not accept its own retirement without solving this crime. The movie is slow, and the audience is led to really like and import with the characters, in particular with the children, which can be a torture for the most sensitive people, who will feel the danger around them more intensely, and the anguish of that man, who transforms his life to investigate, at his own risk, those crimes. Faced with all this, the end of the movie works almost like a punch in our stomach, an interrupted intercourse that makes us deeply dissatisfied and vaguely annoyed. That's why I don't give this movie a higher grade. I must recognize the performance value of Jack Nicholson, an exceptionally capable actor for obsessive, maniac or depressive characters. Patrícia Clarkson and Aaron Eckart also close very well and give the public a very good job. Helen Mirren appears for a short time, but is also excellent, and Benício Del Toro, responsible for one of the most visually remarkable scenes in the movie, deserves congratulations. Technically, the film has a good cinematography and a satisfactory edition, although an exasperating pace, slower than a walk in the park, but it seems to me to have been chosen precisely to allow a greater relationship of sympathy between audiences and characters (And if that was the case, it was a smart move, and it worked well). The film has good scenarios and a good set of costumes, but it is the soundtrack that deserves applause, as is the visual and sound effects.
A touching and moving film. I was very happy with this movie. I didn't know him, and I decided to watch him these days because I saw that the film had the participation of Robin Williams, an actor that I really appreciate. But the film goes beyond that, and gives us a deeply moving story, based on a real situation, in which a team of doctors who, in the 60's, sought to help the recovery of catatonic patients who had survived an epidemic of encephalitis lethargica that occurred a few decades earlier, between 1915 and 1926. A relevant and current topic, especially at a time in history when the human race is facing a pandemic that seems to be here to stay. Despite the fact that this disease has always been known, the epidemic of the 1920s is, nowadays, totally forgotten, and by itself deserved more studies and attention from doctors and historians. In fact, I have to conclude, after a brief reading on the subject here and there, that we know very little about what happened: we don't know the causes of the outbreak, nor the mechanics of propagation or what led some patients to death or to catatonia. What we do know, and the film shows us, is that the disease has killed more than a million people and condemned about four million to a life absolutely dependent on others. Living statues. The film is really well done and shows how an original doctor, through creative ideas and a fresh perspective on things, really helped patients that others simply preferred to ignore, to consider as hopeless cases. Robin Williams is excellent and employs a lot of charisma and presence in his work, making his character particularly touching, human, authentic and sympathetic. More surprising was Robert De Niro's performance: far removed from the tough roles that made him famous, the actor had the courage to give life to a vulnerable, insecure, dependent character, a little self-absorbed and eager to make up for decades of lost time. The film also has the participation of Julie Kavner, Ruth Nelson, John Heard and other actors. The film has good cinematography and careful direction. The film was well filmed and edited, and has good sets and costumes, although it is the story told and the performance of the actors that are key to everything else working.
Continuing to watch the "Pink Panther" film franchise, we come across a film that manages to be radically different from the two predecessors. It is a return to the franchise in which it seems that no one has returned together with it: Blake Edwards left his director's chair vacant to be occupied by Bud Yorkin and Peter Sellers, occupied in another job, was unable to wear Inspector Clouseau's raincoat, giving the opportunity to Alan Arkin. This, coupled with a weak and uninteresting script, makes this film an irritating failure. The script doesn't even bother to create a good story that justifies the way Clouseau is called upon to collaborate with British justice after a series of mysterious robberies: the idea that they suspect a traitor among the police forces just doesn't seem enough to justify it, though I believe the French saw with relief the departure of this clumsy investigator for Her Majesty's lands. Of course, thanks to an almost insane dose of luck, the detective will stumble on the truth, as he is the target of a series of attacks, which leads us to think that the thieves can be bipolar: at the same time who seem intent on taking advantage of Clouseau's stupidity and making fun of him, also seem to regard him as a serious threat to their interests and activities. The cast work is regular: despite not winning us over and making us feel like a usurper, Alan Arkin is effective and does a decent job. Unfortunately, he copies a lot of Peter Sellers' formula instead of believing in his own abilities and giving a more personal touch to the character he has been given. Frank Finlay appears little, but what little he does is convincing, and it works. Delia Boccardo is also not bad and gives the film some feminine charm, but she is far from being a sex symbol or a fashion icon like Claudia Cardinale or Capucine. Much less interesting, almost a mistake in itself, is the participation of Beryl Reid. Barry Foster is an obvious villain and proof that a ridiculous, poorly chosen hairstyle can make anyone laughable. In fact, the most serious problem with this film turns out not to be the cast, but the bad script, the poorly written dialogues and the almost idiotic humor, which a disinspired Yorkin must have simply accepted with a careless shrug. There are moments in the film that make us wonder where the screenwriters had left their wits when they wrote the script: this is the case with the entire Scottish Festival sequence and an almost obscene advertisement for the Lindt chocolates. In fact, the film has very few accurate jokes and a lot of stupid humor. The film has a regular cinematography, within what was done at that time, and brings to the film good scenes and easily recognizable London settings. There are few special effects, and what was used seems too cheap to be acceptable. The soundtrack, in turn, comes from the skillful hand of Henry Mancini and completely disappoints us, as does the horrible animated opening credits sequence, without any humor or creativity.
I believe that we cannot underestimate or forget the importance of this film for British cinema, for its international projection and for its reputation. From its release until today, it has been one of Britain's most beloved and respected films, as well as being a box office hit, critical acclaim and award-winning. Nominated for two Oscars (Best Film and Best Original Screenplay), it won three BAFTA (Best Film, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress) and was the first English film to win the prestigious Cesar Award, from the French Academy. It is a considerable record for a film with a low budget, and which had a good dose of improvisation and creativity. Even so, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the film. Maybe it's my mistake and my expectations were too high, but I feel it's more serious and less funny than I expected. I know British humor is quite peculiar, but I kind of like that kind of humor, and I find it lacking in this movie, where the marriages follow one after the other. The script focuses its attention on the romantic dynamics between characters, and we see them getting to know each other and relating, with the film showing the result of this in the next marriage, without focusing on anyone in particular except for the main character, a bachelor. The idea is original but tiresome and, for a lot of people, the movie will be nothing more than a succession of pompous weddings. I also didn't really like the story between Charles and Carrie: they don't know each other, they're not really friends, but they have sex after two of the marriages in the movie, and that happens before they even really have romantic feelings... that is, before love comes sex, and that's something I really don't approve of, call me a moralist if you want because I don't give a damn. I think the script should have foreseen that, creating a common past for these characters, like old boyfriends or schoolmates... Hugh Grant is the star of this film, and here he uses all the British bachelor charm that has earned him success in other romantic comedies: a pretty face, a shy smile, a voice that stutters nervously before settling in and saying the lines in the script, eyes that don't seem to want to fix on anyone in particular. I can understand why the actor has become so popular, particularly among women with a penchant for shy and heavily accented guys. And I must admit that the actor did very well with what was asked of him and gave the character the right tone. Andie McDowell, on the other hand, doesn't seem so genuine in her character and seems old for the role, besides that her chemistry with Grant doesn't work (I preferred the intensity and spontaneity of David Haig and Sophie Thompson, they seem two rabbits in heat, but they also seem passionate and involved enough). The film also has good appearances from Simon Callow, John Hannah, Kristin Scott Thomas and Rowan Atkinson. There are many other well-known British actors here, but in roles that are reasonably less remarkable. The entire cast, in general, excels in restrained interpretations and the dialogues often have something philosophical, in the ramblings of the characters about love and marriage. There's something dreamy about it, but the film doesn't delve into the theme. Technically, the film has many interesting points to consider, starting with a good cinematography, which makes good use of weather variations and English rain. The locations where the recordings were made were very well-chosen, although the pomp of the weddings, with dozens of flowers, hats, dresses, frock coats and top hats, makes the public wonder if really all those people are rich or aristocrats, or simply decided to go bankrupt to pay all that. The film also has a discreet but effective soundtrack, where some best-known songs end up deserving the spotlight.
An excellent comedy. I was very happy with this movie. It is the second in the “Pink Panther” franchise, and it is curious that it was not made with the intention of being part of it, but only a work of adaptation for the cinema of material that had been successful in the theater. Released a few months after the first film, it gave more relevance to the character of Inspector Clouseau and bet heavily on non-sense humor. The result is a better and more entertaining film than its predecessor. The very entertaining plot of this film is based on an investigation into a murder. Clouseau will immediately bet that the prime suspect is, after all, innocent, and intent on covering up and aiding the real killer. He then decides to follow her everywhere, including to nudist colonies. In the meantime, he will manage to drive the rest of the French police out of their minds, and be arrested several times and in the most unusual ways. The film is not perfect: the plot, I have to admit, is sparse, serving only to support a succession of comic routines that, in fact, make the film worthwhile. The absurd jokes and silly situations work very well, especially when coupled with the remarkable performance and effort of the protagonist, Peter Sellers. The actor is perfectly at ease and uses all his capacity for comic improvisation, being very well assisted by Elke Sommer, who gives life to the main suspect, Maria Gambrelli. George Sanders and Herbert Lom also leave us an excellent work here. Technically, it's a regular film in most respects, from cinematography to scenery and costumes to editing. The soundtrack brings some interesting melodies, as is the case of “Shadows of Paris” and the opening credits song, which are another of the points that value this film.
One of the smartest and most excellently shot horror movies where what we don't see is what really makes us afraid. I was too young to be able to see this movie when it first hit theaters, but I saw it a few days ago at home, although it's obviously not the same thing. Even so, I was really pleased with what I found. It's not an absolutely perfect film, there are some things there that I would change, if I were the director, but they are issues of such little importance that I feel that they do not detract from any merit or quality from the finished work. The film was a quasi-experimental production, with a very low budget, with young and unknown actors. However, the quality is evident and is intelligently associated with the advertising campaign that was put together to sell it and make it profitable. In fact, this film is perhaps one of the best examples to show the importance and weight of publicity for the receptivity and commercial success of a film: even today there are people who believe that the story told in the film is real, that the Witch really existed, that those young people really disappeared… The actors' work is impeccable. After reading a bit, I discovered the importance of the way the film was shot for the final result, with the actors alone, isolated in the woods, firmly believing in what they were doing and permanently in the characters. They lived the experience, and they believed in it. They weren't acting for us, they were acting for themselves and believing in their acting, giving the characters a real personality, worthy of our compassion and sympathy. This turns out to be something that holds and seduces us to a certain extent, leading us to wish that everything is true, although we do not wish any harm to any of the actors, of course. They are also responsible for all the shooting work, and their poor ability to shoot in 16mm explains why the film has such shaky and amateurish cinematography, even though this is intentional and something that makes it more genuine in our eyes. . Stripped of expensive effects, great technical apparatus or other resources, the film bets everything on extremely basic but functional resources, and on an almost military discipline that prevailed throughout the eight days of shooting, in which the actors maintained minimal contact with a production that acted like a “big brother”, attentive and watchful but invisible. Children's voices over loudspeakers, the strategic waving of the tent at the right moment, sticks that break without anyone seeing... simple but scary resources when you're alone, in the middle of a dark place, where anything can happen and no one will know. What is frightening about this film is not what we see, but the anticipation, the skillfully constructed tension, the almost certain prospect of a disaster that we don't know when it will happen. It is our imagination and our mind that frightens us, suggested by the film. And I don't see how terror can work more subtly and intelligently.
This is one of those movies that leaves me not knowing what to think. On the one hand, it has become very popular and has a legion of fans, but the truth is that it looks like an extremely dated film and an extraordinary surrender to kitsch, with those costumes and props of somewhat dubious taste, fanciful and inspired by the original comics created by Robert E. Howard. The screenplay, written based on the original stories, takes place in an uncertain time in Antiquity, and begins with the massacre of a town or village by a group of warriors. A child, Conan, is taken as a slave and grows up as such, acquiring enormous stamina and strength at the expense of hard work. He thus becomes a bounty fighter and learns to kill. When he is free, he finds the path that leads him to a quest for revenge against those who massacred his family and took his freedom. Personally, I can't swallow the way this film (like the source material) chews up the past and creates a completely strange space-time reality, where Neolithic elements intersect with medieval props and creations invented for the film, such as the sword of Conan. The construction of the characters, the writing of the dialogues, the conception of the story, everything leaves something to be desired and reveals itself to be average and poor. If there's anyone for whom this movie was important, it's Arnold Schwarzenegger. This actor, now renowned, had his first big box office success in this film, and a job that opened the door to other films, particularly "Terminator". And in fact, the actor lived up to what was asked of him (it wasn't much, because his character is basically a muscular animal driven by anger and without any dramatic depth) and his work is the determining point for the success of the film. To be frank, seeing the way he manages, being aware of the relevance the film has had to his career, is the only plausible reason to see it. James Earl Jones also appears here and is the only actor capable of effectively playing a character, but he doesn't have much to do, appears little and seems to be out of his element and uncomfortable with the character. On a technical level, the film has an effective direction by John Millius and good cinematography, which makes good use of the filming locations. The sets and costumes, apart from any matter of personal taste, were well executed and look realistic. The biggest technical problem I've noticed is the primitive special effects and visuals, some of them shockingly obvious like the extra who, to simulate the swing of a sword, takes his hand to his shoulder, strategically placing a bag of fake blood that breaks out. The action scenes are the film's strong point and are heavily staged and theatrical, but they work and are somehow genuine. The film also has an atmosphere that leads us to think that it has given itself too much importance, something that the heroic soundtrack emphasizes and reinforces, which ends up being comical in itself.
The "Die Hard" franchise has had its moments of glory and helped a lot to consolidate the career of Bruce Willis. The first and third movies were really good and well executed. The second film, not so good, also had moments of merit. And if the fourth film was less positive, and less interesting, I still don't think it was a bad ending for the franchise. Yes, an ending, because the franchise should have ended there. This movie is so bad it shouldn't have been made. The film's biggest problem is the poor script, along with the incompetence of John Moore's direction. He bets everything on pure action, giving us a film that, almost five or ten minutes after starting, throws the audience between bullets, gunshots and explosions. The feeling I got is that there is no script, but an excuse for an action movie: John McLane goes to Moscow to try to free his son from a heavy penalty, while he offers to help the Russians to arrest a mafia oligarch. If, on the one hand, shooting the film in Russia was a good bet, and it allows us to see environments conducive to such a film, the absence of a cohesive story takes away the solid foundation that this film could have had. The bad construction of the characters and the bad dialogues didn't help either. After sacrificing all the psychological and moral construction of the characters, the film leaves us figures, faces without will or personality, and the actors are simply invited to give their bodies and voices to each one of them. Bruce Willis is clearly the most outstanding and notable actor in the cast. He's a good actor, but even a good actor fails when he doesn't get good material, and doesn't have a director to help him. Willis shows too many signs of old age in a character who seems to need a cane to, five minutes later, run, jump, shoot and act like he's 20 years old. Jai Courtney does nothing but follow him, but doesn't establish a believable chemistry with Willis' character. Sebastian Koch, Sergey Kolesnikov, Roman Luknár and others limit themselves to doing the basics and the villains are superficial and more tiresome than menacing. For a moment I thought that Yulia Snigir would be Courtney's love interest, but the character took another path and I feel like she's in the movie just to please the male audience. On a technical level, the only point where the film really does something positive is in the action scenes and in the visual, special and sound effects. The film has action for all tastes and doesn't give the audience much space to think about what they're watching (if you think about it, the film falls apart and becomes stupid and illogical). Even so, the film feels a lot like a noisy video game, and we never felt the danger, threat, tension or emotion the film was supposed to evoke. In addition to the usual clichés (enough bullets to invade Afghanistan, random explosions, the heroes virtually unharmed regardless of the situation etc.), the film offers us a very good opening scene, with a maddening car chase through the avenues of the Russian capital, American-style, this being the best-executed scene in the film. The use of close up or slow motion scenes is exaggerated and reeks of presumption. The choice of filming locations was judicious and very well done, and the cinematography does what it can with them and is generally well executed, although the editing may have gone worse afterwards.
Honestly, I expected much more from this movie. It has good actors, it has a script with good dramatic premises and a promising story, in short, it could have been frankly better. It was a failure at the box office, it passed on the sidelines of the film careers of its main actors, and it turned out to be better that way, being forgotten until the present. The screenplay is almost entirely centered on the figure of a father devastated by the death of his daughter, who was accidentally run over by a drunk driver. A goldsmith by trade, he never overcame loss and grief never closed the wounds, leading to the end of his marriage and a life made of emotional, moral and psychological wreckage: occupying the time between his jewelry shop, strip clubs and occasional affairs. With prostitutes, he knows his life ended there. In this, the man who killed his daughter is released from prison, and he becomes obsessed with the idea of killing him. So far, so good... despite the main character being acid and unpleasant, we understand the reason: he is an angry person, under enormous inner suffering. But the assassin is not much different! He is a visible and sincerely repentant person who, even so, does nothing to arouse our sympathy. Thus, we have two characters that, despite being essential to the whole story, are not able to reach the audience and generate some empathy. In addition to the bad conception of the characters, the film has an anti-climatic ending, with a boring and boring foot chase. A succession of clichés, preconceived ideas and forced messages. I can't say that I liked the work of Jack Nicholson or David Morse. Both were given quite poor material and are never able to really show merit or value. Anjelica Huston appears little and is always in conflict. Technically, it's a banal film, without great reasons for interest. The cinematography fulfills its role, but the film is badly edited and has serious pacing problems, dragging tiringly until the end.
After the success of the first film (although it was a success heavily amputated by competing films), it was predictable that Pixar would bet, sooner or later, on a film that continued with the same revenue as the first. The follow-up, however, had to wait more than ten years in the drawer, and ended up not being a sequel, but rather a prequel that shows us how the main characters met and their journey. The script is not original, and the story is very similar to a thousand other films in an American high school or university environment, but the fact is that it works well. It begins with Mike and Sullivan's arrival at Monsters University, where they must attend a degree in Scare, the most prestigious degree the university has to offer. However, the highly respected college headmistress is extremely demanding and will not like them at all, taking advantage of an unfortunate incident they cause to expel them, based on Mike's inability to instill fear and Sullivan's total neglect of studies. However, Mike is determined to graduate and prove his worth, and will take advantage of a college scare competition to challenge the headmistress. The film proved to be a very honorable continuation of the first film: the prequel works well and the characters we liked in the first film are almost all present (of course the human girl is not). Thanks to a very well written script, we see how they get to know each other, and how their friendships and enmities are forged. There are many intentional similarities between the University of Monsters and Harvard University, and the US academic environment is well reproduced here (being totally different from the Portuguese or European university environment). The digital animation is exquisite, the drawings were very well executed, there is excellent color and brightness throughout the film and the soundtrack seems to me to have been better and better chosen this time around. For the voices of the characters, the film once again summons John Goodman, Billy Crystal and Steve Buscemi, to which well-known actors such as Helen Mirren, Alfred Molina or Joel Murray will be joined.
There are many people who think that this movie was one of the best produced by Pixar. Well, my personal taste differs a little, there are some other films from this studio that I prefer and that I like more (Inside Out, Up and Wall-E are some of them), but that is a matter of personal taste and not properly a matter of merit. It's a great movie, worth watching as a family. The script couldn't be better: the film takes us to a world parallel to ours, where the monsters of our childhood nightmares live. They have found a way to get in and out of our world through a machine, and harness the energy of frightened children's screams to generate electricity for their world. Sullivan and Mike are two monsters who share a good friendship and work together on this task, with Sullivan holding the record for scariest monster. However, things get out of hand when a human child ends up entering the world of monsters (they think children are toxic, and they poison everything they touch) and become very fond of the two friends, who now need to get rid of her. The film has a very good cinematography, full of color, light and movement. The digital animation is excellent, creative, original (the details are the key to understanding the originality of the whole set) and very well done. As is the hallmark of this studio, very good actors were chosen to voice the various characters, starting with John Goodman and Billy Crystal. I also liked the participation of Steve Buscemi, who gave life to the villain, Randall, and Jennifer Tilly also deserves praise for her work here. The soundtrack, honestly, didn't add that much to the film, in my opinion, with the exception of a few occasional jazz tones.
Despite being an average film, Will Smith does a very good job and is worth seeing. Life is not easy for those who are poor and have to fight every day to support their family, pay bills, and eventually improve their lives. This film gives us a pretty good mirror of all the difficulties that a man like that can live: from the ever-imminent bankruptcy, through precarious and poorly paid jobs and ending up in the breakdown of the family, he lives everything we could consider a nightmare. The script is one of the strengths of this film, thanks to a painfully realistic story that will probably make many people see themselves in the characters. There's a bonus here, which is that the film is based on a true story. There are some points that, if we think about it, can raise some pertinent controversy, such as the case of the dispute over the child between father and mother being “won” by the father, while the mother only seems to care about herself. Even today, there is a lot of pressure (including from the authorities) for the mother to have the preference in disputes of this type, which does not always work and is highly discriminatory for the parent. The precariousness of work is also addressed here, with the character going through enormous difficulties to get some money from her unhappy and miserable job. Will Smith is the soul and body of this film, in every way. He is more than the protagonist, he carries the film on his back in one of the best dramatic performances of his career. And I feel quite free to say that, since he was never an actor I really liked to see perform. We can debate whether the actor really deserved the Oscar nomination for Best Actor here… but I think that's the only thing up for debate, the rest seems to be consensual. Next to him is his real-life son, Jaden Smith, who doesn't do more than he really has to, but is young enough to really impress us. The rest of the cast is average and doesn't do much for the film, if you look closely. Technically, the film is pretty average. The soundtrack doesn't do much for the film, the sets and costumes are pretty much what we would expect and the filming locations overlook many of San Francisco's most iconic and identifiable locations, so I never remembered that the film was set in this city. . The cinematography is also average.
This is another adaptation of Jane Austen's novel of the same name, widely known and considered a classic of English literature. I've never read it, I confess... I've never seen it for sale, but one day I'll read it, I'm curious to do so. However, taking into account what I saw in this film, it is not very different from other works by the author, who approached several times themes such as the life of the English middle and upper classes of her time, the rules and social conventions or the way how marriages were arranged according to the size of the dowries and possible inheritances, and not exactly the affections and feelings of the betrothed. The two protagonists of this film are Marianne and Elinor Dashwood, two young sisters of marriageable age. They are the daughters of a father who has just died, but who is legally prevented from leaving them part of his fortune, which the law obliged him to leave entirely to the son of his first marriage. So the Dashwoods have to move to a small country house rented cheaply by a distant cousin. There, they will rebuild their lives, integrate into the local social life and begin to receive suitors. Films like this always run the risk of becoming boring, with so many comings and goings, turns and revolts, where the relationships and courtships between the characters seem to go backwards and forwards. In this case, however, I must say that I found the film quite light, less melodramatic and tiring than I expected. The pacing of the film also helps, as it doesn't seem to waste much time pointlessly. The script is full of subtleties, intelligence, criticism of the way of living and thinking of the time. The cast is very good and is full of well-known and proven names, starting with the protagonists, Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, two strong names who adapted well to the characters and knew how to give them what they needed. I'm not a Hugh Grant fan, but I recognize that his stilted posture and thick English accent work well for his character in the film. Alan Rickman is also excellent, in a register that adapts well to a more mature character, like his. However, there are several actors who did not do well, starting with Greg Wise, who was not convincing in my eyes and is very touchy-feely. I also thought that Elizabeth Spriggs was very histrionic and made the character tiresome. Technically, the film has many merits: Ang Lee directed it intelligently, bringing out the best in everyone. The cinematography is very good and makes the most of England's rains and clouds, as well as the candlelight and the subtle, soft colors of the dresses. The sets are good, and together with the costumes, they manage to insert the audience into the historical period in which the story takes place. Of course, there are some anachronisms and small details where the production clearly had to improvise. The soundtrack also does a competent job.
I waited a long time to see this movie. When it was released, it benefited from the whole propaganda machine of the big studios and was successful. Currently, however, I feel that it is a little forgotten, and I am sorry, because it is a film of great quality and worthy of our attention. It's not a perfect movie, it has some flaws, but I think they're forgivable and don't diminish its value. The script is heavily political: set in the midst of the Sierra Leone Civil War, the film directly links the diamond trade and conflict financing. It's not something that we didn't already know or that was unknown when the film came out: the merit of the film is that it shows us that in such a raw, intense and disturbing way. Since the 1970s, Africa has been a pole of continuous conflict between countries, ethnic groups, creeds and tribes. From the Rwandan genocide and the war in Darfur to the civil wars and bloody coups in Guinea, Liberia, Angola or Chad, examples abound and have filled the news and also contributed to a small group of people (arms dealers, diamonds, other resources) to make enormous fortunes bathed in blood. If war is a business, Africa is fertile ground to invest, boosted by the abundance of natural resources and the lack of scruples of governments and chiefs, indifferent to civilian losses, hordes of refugees or humanitarian crises, mere collateral damage. The script begins with an attack by the RUF, the Sierra Leonean revolutionary guerrilla, on a village where they kill many civilians and cut off the hands of those who remain alive. Solomon is taken away from his family by the guerrillas and put to work as a slave in the diamond mines, where he happens to find a huge diamond of great value. He quickly hides the stone, but the guerrillas notice, and he has to flee. Later, the existence of the stone reaches the ears of Danny Archer, a smuggler, who decides to obtain the stone to sell it, taking advantage of Solomon's despair, who only thinks about finding his family and rescuing his son, who the guerrillas turned into a child soldier. Willing to help is journalist Maddy Bowen, who is looking for a truly relevant story to publish. The cast has immense quality and is intelligently directed by Edward Zwick. Leo DiCaprio is the best-sounding name and the one that stands out the most: used to playing heartthrob roles, this film marks a turning point in the actor's career, determined to become versatile and prove that he is more than a pretty face to spice up his fans dreams. The actor is amazing and does a truly challenging job with a very amoral, complex and psychologically challenging character. Djimon Hounsou is not far behind him, and he also offers us a very competent work, albeit more conventional. Jennifer Connelly also handles the challenges she faces very well, giving life to an active and courageous investigative journalist. Technically, the film is of immense quality. The cinematography is very good, it takes advantage of the African landscapes and the action scenes are truly raw, intense and fast, taking full advantage of the special effects and the impeccable work of the stunts and sound and sound effects technicians. Very well shot and edited, the film has an excellent pace, and we hardly feel the time passing while we watch it. The editing and sound work deserved an Oscar nomination, along with the efforts of DiCaprio and Hounsou. Despite this, I think the film suffered a lot from strong competition from other high-quality films and only Hounsou really had a good chance of winning the coveted statuette, as Best Supporting Actor. There was still talk of DiCaprio, but I always thought it was impossible for him to surpass the greatness of Forest Whitaker, who won the Oscar for Best Actor with an impeccable work in a film that, curiously, also has Africa as a privileged stage. Finally, with these considerations made, a word of appreciation for the soundtrack, signed by James Newton Howard.
World War II and **** are themes that cinema has explored abundantly, and the list of good films grows every decade. The particularity that makes this film remarkable is that it takes us to see everything through the innocent eyes of a child, who cannot understand what is really happening, and to what extent his own family is involved in the atrocities that we know happened. Bruno is a child who lives a sheltered and carefree childhood. He is the son **** army officer, and the family is wealthy. He knows that his country is at war and that his father is important, and he is helping his country to win the war. But this is basically all he knows or understands about what goes on in the Germany of his time. When his father is ordered to go to the countryside, Bruno is very sad to leave his house and his friends, but he meets a strange child, who wears striped pajamas and lives inside a fenced enclosure, which his mother does not wanted him to see. She's the only one in the family who really understands what her husband is there to do, and the only one to protest it all. The film is based on a novel written by John Boyne, but despite the source material and the film's fidelity to it, I wonder how immune a ten-year-old could really be to the avalanches of **** propaganda, considering that his father was a high-ranking official and the family had natural political connections to the **** regime. I don't mean to say that I disagree with Bruno's innocence and the way he doesn't know what's really going on, but it just seems hard to believe, since the **** used all means, including youth organizations and public education, to convey their ideology to younger people. The cast does a truly remarkable job. The spotlight naturally goes to Asa Butterfield and Jack Scanlon. The two young actors knew how to work perfectly and created a very good working relationship, which gives credibility to the friendship of their characters. It's their effort that makes the film particularly touching and human. David Thewlis also did an extraordinary job, incarnating in his character the contradiction of a loving and caring family man who is responsible for the planned and meticulous slaughter of a huge number of people. Is he a monster? Was he turned into a monster? In clear contrast, Vera Farmiga gives life to a courageous mother and wife, who finds herself in the need to protect her children from a reality she cannot agree with, and in which her husband is totally immersed. She is, like Bruno, able to see the human and innocent side of the people her husband says aren't "really people", even though she eventually has to silence what she really thinks about German politics in order not to suffer. Its consequences. Amber Beattie, on the other hand, shows us what happened to many German children and young people, victims of massive **** propaganda from an early age. Nevertheless, she is human, and her love interest in a young SS man reveals it, though it sends her further into the **** frenzy. The film also has the very relevant participation of Rupert Friend and David Hayman. Shot mostly in locations around Budapest, the film has a very beautiful, vivid, colorful and luminous cinematography, which fades and shadows as the film moves towards the end. There is a remarkable contrast between Bruno's house in the city (warmer colors, more light) and the gloomy house he goes to later (washed out colors, shadows, less light and a much heavier and more tense environment). The sets, costumes and props are good and in keeping with the time and context. I didn't see any anachronism errors. The soundtrack, signed by James Horner, is memorable and stays in the ear.
A competent and effective work, but devoid of any originality. In this film, we see the FBI's attempts to stop a mysterious killer whose face was never seen by anyone left alive to tell the authorities. He was hired to act and avenge the death of the brother of a Russian mafia boss, killed by US agents in an operation in Moscow. In order to identify their man, federal agents must go to prison and negotiate the release of a former IRA agent, the only one who has seen the killer's face. The film is quite good, but to a certain extent it reminds me of another one I saw, “The Rock”, a thriller where, as in this film, the success of the authorities' efforts depends on the help of a foreign prisoner. In both films, we also see the human side of this character, who is presented to us in the most sympathetic way possible. The time element is also an important factor in both films, where all the action takes place in a true race against the clock. I cannot, however, say that everything works perfectly: there are several points in the story that seem to me to have been included without any real use for the plot and perfectly illogical, exaggerated situations (the final climax with the machine gun is the most obvious since a real killer would never do that) or absurd (for example, the amount paid to the killer, who appears to be being paid to rob Fort Knox, given the exorbitant amount). Despite embodying a truly brutal and cold character, Bruce Willis is the actor who stands out the most in this film. For me, he really managed to deliver what the character demanded of him: a methodical, sinister and cruel brutality of someone who made killing his profession and is very meticulous in what he does. Richard Gere was also good, although in a much more monotonous, monotone, sometimes boring and lazy register. The rest of the cast is simply giving them the support they need, without really standing out, especially Sidney Poitier. Mathilda May is the actress who receives the worst material and the one who does the worst in the film, as a result. Despite being an action thriller movie, the pace is relatively slow, although that is a lesser evil and allows for the development of some sub-plots that would otherwise be stillborn. The cinematography does a very competent and safe job, and the filming was very well executed. The props, sets and costumes helped, but it's the special effects used, in conjunction with the excellent work of the action doubles, that bring the most impressive scenes to life.
This movie is really good. Its story is set in a fictional city that mixes a lot of Californian and Japanese environments, and revolves around the theme of high technology, robotics and, also, superheroes. Granted, none of this is original... over the last ten to fifteen years, there have been hundreds of films that have tackled these themes, but that doesn't detract from this animated production's merit. The screenplay focuses on the figure of Hiro Hamada, a young teenager with a brilliant mind and enormous ability for science and technology. He makes his own robots to illegal fights until his brother, Tadashi, shows him the advanced laboratory where he studies, which awakens his desire to work there. For that, Hiro has to convince the director, Professor Robert Callaghan, thus inventing a series of micro-robots that fascinate everyone and everything with what they seem to allow. However, shortly after, the laboratory is mysteriously destroyed by a fire where Callaghan and Tadashi die, leaving Hiro completely aimless... until he finds Baymax, a prototype of a robot nurse that his brother used to work on. Produced by Disney Studios, this film manages to bring the best of both worlds: on the one hand, it is a modern film, with very appealing themes for a new generation of children and young people, for whom technology is something fascinating, and on the other hand, it manages to match the studio's classics and live up to them, due to the visual beauty, the meticulous work and the ability to approach and work with complex themes, such as the loss of a dear family member or the desire for revenge. Made with modern technological resources and massive doses of CGI, the film is a visual and graphic spectacle, providing us with excellent colors, good lighting, sharp drawings and a pleasant dose of realism. The film has almost no songs and the soundtrack is not really a strong point of the film, but the visual and narrative qualities make up for it, even if we take into account some specific weaknesses. In addition to all this, the film has very well conceived and developed characters, with personality and some joke, in addition to having a competent voice cast where we have names like Ryan Potter, Scott Adsit and James Cromwell.
This film starts very well and takes advantage of good horror premises that, however, are nothing really new: other films have already used mirrors, and their supernatural and psychological connections. In this case, the film brings a good ghost story involving the mirrors of an old luxury department store. However, director and screenwriter Alexandre Aja was not able to give us a satisfactory conclusion to a film that starts so well. The script, really, starts off in the best way, introducing us to the main character, a former New York policeman who killed a person in a shootout, getting psychologically shaken and abandoning the police. With alcoholism, the end of his career and marriage, the unwanted post as a night guard in an abandoned building is unavoidable. And that's how we got to know the Mayflower, a multi-story luxury department store that was badly damaged in a fire. It won't be long before he discovers that the building has a past and that there's something dark that seeks to do evil through the store's mirrors. The biggest problem I found with this movie is the insipid way it ends. In fact, by going through the archaic clichés involving psychiatric hospitals, the film completely disappoints us and introducing a nun into the story was even stranger. I don't even want to talk about the open ending, bad enough to make us want to slap the film's director. There are, however, good horror scenes, quite macabre deaths to make us widen our eyes and a good job of suspense and atmosphere that give the film a pleasant tension. The cast is led by Kiefer Sutherland, an actor capable enough for the task, but who, however, does not go beyond the average. Even so, he is the best actor present and the one that stands out the most. Jason Flemyng and Julian Glover barely appear, Paula Patton and Amy Smart are boring and seem to be there only because it takes a good-looking actress or two for the movie to work. Technically, the film displays very good and well-executed cinematography, which takes full advantage of the decaying building (located in Bucharest, capital of Romania) and the darkness that reigns inside. The film also has good scenarios and an effective soundtrack, although not memorable.
I think this film was really my first contact with the work of Guillermo del Toro, a Mexican director who has done a colossal job of taking advantage of fantastic themes in his films. This film was one of the director's most cherished projects, and we can feel how much he committed and invested in it. Despite being a fantasy film and starring a girl, the film is quite intense and not suitable for younger children. All the action takes place in the final years of the Spanish Civil War: we follow Ofelia, a dreamy and kind-hearted girl, who travels to a remote place in rural Spain with her mother, in order to join Captain Vidal, a superior officer of the Francoist army whose mother got pregnant and who occupied an abandoned mill with a battalion to hunt down a group of communist partisans. From the start, it is quite clear that Ofelia dislikes her stepfather and her mother is determined to make her forget her real father, now deceased, by forcing the girl to treat him as a father. Indifferent to political issues, Ofelia pursues and finds a magical world in the forest around her new habitat. There, she meets a faun who tells her that she is, in fact, a princess, daughter of the King of the Enchanted World, who long ago left and was lost in the human world, living without knowing the anguish and longing for her true father. In order to return, she will need to complete three challenges and prove that her soul is still pure, that is, that she has not turned into a human. If we want to do a cold and harshly realistic analysis, this film will quickly crumble and show several weaknesses. The most obvious, for me, is the absolute insanity of a military man who insists on taking his companion, in a terminal stage of pregnancy, and a minor child to the battlefield. I also didn't like the feeling that the film ends up being so politically charged, with communist guerrillas being considered champions of freedom and with the demonization of Francoist soldiers. Anyone knows that there are no saints in war, and that atrocities are always committed on both sides. But I feel that we are being unfair if we continue to view the film from this perspective. Despite all this, this is a charming cinematographic work full of magic and dreaminess, which makes us want to believe in fairy tales again, to be in that girl's shoes. The film has an excellent cast of Hispanic actors (I don't know if they are all Spanish in fact) and is entirely spoken in Spanish, which for me was a bonus as it gives the film a very welcome additional realism. Ivana Baquero did an exceptional job on the skin of young Ofelia. Despite not showing his face, very well disguised, Doug Jones is the man who gives body, soul and life to two of the most memorable characters in the film: the wise faun and the terrible Pale Man, a monster that almost devours the protagonist. Jones gives us one of his best works in cinema. Surprisingly calm and terrifying, Sergi López turned his Captain into a character worthy of our hatred and contempt. In addition to these three great actors, the film also has splendid performances by Ariadna Gil, Maribel Verdú, Álex Angulo and César Vea. Being a Del Toro film, it is guaranteed that we will have a wide range of visual effects, CGI and characterization, all the highest quality and privileging the maximum of realism. In fact, we couldn't ask for more when it comes to all of this. There are a number of discreet and realistic CGI features, ranging from explosions and the intense green of the forest to the maze itself, fantastic and unreal, where an important part of the story takes place. The costumes are very good, especially Ofelia's dresses and the soldiers' uniforms. The scenarios, especially the labyrinth and the mill, are wonderful and the characterization of the fantastic characters was thought out in the smallest details. Cinematography makes clever use of color, shadow, light and shooting angles to achieve greater expressiveness and visual symbolism. No less important is the excellent soundtrack, with emphasis on the central melody, which has a sound that reminds us of the lullabies that mothers used to sing to children.
There are some films that are so powerful and remarkable that they remain in the collective memory. This is one of them... not because it is a film about the Jewish holocaust, because there are a lot of films about that, but because of the raw way in which it approached it, without artifice or heroism. Directed with absolute mastery by Roman Polanski - himself a Holocaust survivor, with many harsh memories of the time, some of them used here - the film seeks to mirror the personal account of the difficulties experienced by Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Jewish pianist who worked on the radio when the Poland is invaded by **** Germany. I have not read the original account written by Szpilman, who would die at a time when the film was being made, but I give credit to Polanski's efforts. The director wanted a faithful, realistic and sincere account, and managed to turn his film into a historically faithful and credible portrayal of the facts and events that took place in Warsaw during the German invasion, including the occupation of the city, the forced relocation of Jews to the ghetto and transport to the extermination camps, the harsh living conditions experienced by those who lived in the ghetto and the way in which the Polish resistance and confined Jews collaborated to oppose the invaders, in a work that reached its peak with the Ghetto Revolt, suppressed with extreme violence, as we know. The pianist's story unfolds among all these facts, making Szpilman the eyewitness of all this. In the midst of absolute barbarism, dissonant notes that help us not to see reality in black and white: a Jewish police that collaborates with the **** by oppressing their ethnic brothers, a Polish housewife who does not hesitate to denounce that Jew that hides in the apartment next door, and a German officer who, against all odds, is willing to help him, even giving him his military coat, so he won't get cold. War and life have these things. Adrien Brody, still young, achieved with this film the most striking and powerful interpretation of his career to date. He's a great actor, he'll have a lot of opportunities to do something as good or better, but I have to admit that it's going to be difficult to give us something so powerful and intense. Next to him, we have good performances by Frank Finlay, Emilia Fox, Michal Zebrowski and Thomas Kretschmann, among other actors, all of them two or three steps below Brody. Technically, the film makes the most of the chosen filming locations in Warsaw, where filming was concentrated. The sets and costumes are loaded with detail and realism, transporting us to the time and historical context with a truly enviable rigor, worthy of a documentary. To this work, we have to associate impeccable and beautifully thought out cinematography, where light and color gradually disappear, as all the action progresses and the atrocities become more and more evident. There are also some very well executed CGI effects that take us through a city devastated by bombing and fighting. The tension and harshness of the events keep us stuck with the film until the end, and the brutality and destruction of the war are the icing on the cake. The soundtrack brings together a series of magnificent melodies by Chopin, a composer who knew how to explore the harmony and nostalgia of the piano as almost no one else knew how to do after him. Ironically or not, this Polish composer was anti-Semitic (like many people in his time), which did not prevent pianists of Jewish blood like Arthur Rubinstein from poring over his scores to the great delight of music lovers...
Personally, and despite recognizing its legion of admirers and fans, this is one of the classic Disney films that I least appreciate. I don't really know why. As a child, I could have seen it if I wanted to, but it never attracted me, nor did it charm me when I saw it as an adult. Maybe because it's set in a circus (I hate the circus, I always have). However, I recognize that it is a quality work, even if it is not as exquisite and detailed as other films from the same period. After some reading, I discovered that the film was released at a time when the studio needed to make a financial hit, following the box office failures of “Pinocchio” and “Fantasia”. That's why the film is less beautiful, it has simpler and cheaper animations. And interestingly, it was a great success, although I feel that, at the moment, it is a little forgotten. The story of the film is very simple. So simple that it almost can't handle a feature film! It all starts with the birth of a baby elephant, which is brought by a stork to a visibly emotional mother elephant. Everything looks perfect, but the little baby sneezes and his ears immediately take on an immensely large size, turning the baby into a strange creature that everyone makes fun of. Things get even worse when his mother is arrested and separated from him for trying to defend him. Sad, lonely and friendless, transformed into the clown of the circus, he will have to trust a little mouse to figure out how to turn around and win his place and everyone's respect. The movie is a lot shorter than most Disney movies, and that's a good thing, because, as you can see, it doesn't have a script solid enough to last much longer. The film drags on and makes several musical breaks in order to last at least an hour, and there are a number of songs that seem like real parenthesis, or intervals, in the story told. This happens with the tender song “Baby Mine”, in which Dumbo is affectionately snuggled by his imprisoned mother, and with the dreamlike scene of the pink elephants, which provides us with a psychedelic and frenetic visual that only reappears in the film art many decades later. Between pauses and advances, the story works satisfactorily and gives rise to a good soundtrack full of quality songs. As I've already mentioned, the visual quality of the animations in this film is far from the best ever made by Walt Disney Studios. I appreciated the softness of the colors and the light, but the line is quite blurred and faint, and we don't have drawings as detailed and rich as we have seen in previous and later films. Although the title character is mute, communicating his emotions and thoughts through non-verbal language, the film has a good cast of voices including Sterling Holloway, Edward Brophy, Verna Felton, Cliff Edward, Herman Bing, Dorothy Scott and Sarah. Selby, among others.
The way people react to difficulties tells us a lot about them. There are those who get hysterical, there are those who care more about others than themselves, there are those who do the exact opposite and there are those who take everything calmly and try to act rationally. Illness and death are situations that no one likes to think about... but they are inevitabilities of life, and the way we face them tells us a lot about who we are. Patch Addams is a real-life doctor who advocates the use of joy and humor as part of medical therapy, and I agree with him. Here in Portugal, we even have a popular saying about it: laughs is always the best medicine. In this film, we see Patch Addams' life course since he was admitted to a psychiatric clinic. The film is eloquent in the way it reveals the resistance of his university, which defended more impersonal methodologies, putting more distance between the doctor and his patient, and in the way it shows the modest beginning of the Gesundheit Institute, founded by Patch according to his view of medicine and medical practice. I don't know if the film was rigorous (I don't think so, since even Patch Addams himself repudiated the way he was portrayed by the film), but the truth is that the script works quite well, balancing between the funny and the sugary, and brings us a topic that makes us think. I'm glad Robin Williams was chosen as the main character. He was the ideal person to give it a touch of irreverence that manages to kick the comedy to a level of true madness. It's not the actor's best work, but it's in the top ten. In total contrast, we have the characters of Phillip Seymour Hoffmann and Bob Gunton: the first is the model medicine student, studious, serious and committed, but also envious of his irreverent colleague; the second is the dean of the medical faculty, determined to forbid Patch's graduation despite the excellent grades he obtains in the several disciplines. They are cliché characters, quite stereotyped, but they work thanks to the performance of both actors, who give us a job of merit. Monica Potter is less interesting. She's pretty, but the chemistry with Williams is nil and their romance never feels as intense and solid as it should. The rest of the cast does what need to be done, without great notes to highlight. The film is not a visual or effects show... that is not even desirable here. With such a solid story and good humorous premises, it is the script and actors that should be given the spotlight, and that is precisely what happens. Thus, we have a discreet cinematography that offers us an elegant look, but it does not stand out, with warm tones and good light and sharpness. The costumes and sets are within what we could expect, no surprises, and the filming locations were well-chosen. I especially liked some landscapes, like the mountains where Patch decides to found his hospital. The soundtrack harmonizes with this discreet tonic thanks to an orchestral and smooth sound.
After a period of social and moral puritanism, inspired by the consolidation of the Church of England and a more austere political regime - the English Republic - the first decades of the return to the monarchy saw a reversal of this scenario, with society allowing itself to do more mundane customs and habits, especially in court life. It is in this context that appears John Wilmott, 2nd Earl of Rochester, whose father was a crucial figure in supporting the House of Stuart and to whom King Charles II himself owed gratitude. This film approaches, in very generic lines and with a dose of fiction, the life of this controversial playwright and poet and his relationship, fluctuating and unstable, with his royal benefactor. Rochester married Elizabeth Mallet after kidnapping her, but it was not a happy marriage in the long run. As the film shows, he lived a dissolute existence, squandering his family fortune among the most infamous theaters, taverns and brothels in London and tarnishing his reputation with various scandals: in addition to the numerous mistresses, actresses and prostitutes with whom he involved, will have had dishonorable conduct in a situation that ended in the murder of one of his friends, in addition to being accused of quackery and illegal practice of medicine. Although the film prefers not to talk about it, Rochester got to know several European countries, where he left a good intellectual reputation, and was also notable for his bravery in the naval combats of the Anglo-Dutch War. After a life of sexual and alcoholic excesses, the poet ended up paying the bill at a young age, dying at 33, profoundly weakened by syphilis. For posterity would be his last words, in which he renounced atheism, and a work of poetry and erotic and satirical dramaturgy deeply caustic for the time and which is still considered quite adult and provocative today. The film is quite good, and I think it just didn't receive more recognition and visibility due to the provocative and controversial nature of the character it focuses on. It is not, at all, a suitable movie to watch with grandparents or the parish priest. Laurence Dunmore directed with skill and talent, beautifully combining historical realism with the creative need that a film demands. The casting choice was smart, and Johnny Depp is the most suitable option to bring the libertine to life. The actor has a penchant for bizarre characters, and Rochester fits him like a glove. John Malkovich also did an excellent job, giving Charles II a good dose of realism, without exaggerated pomp. Samantha Morton also lived up to her character, an actress who wants to approach her career professionally and not just be an occasional hooker for wealthy patrons. Finally, a word of appreciation for the work of Rosamund Pike and Richard Coyle. The film exudes realism in the way it exposes the environments of the restored court. Far from the luxury of European monarchies, the English court appears here in dark and almost violent tones, with an omnipresent humidity. London looks like a muddy and dirty sewer rather than a big capital. Nevertheless, the costumes and sets betray the luxury and sumptuousness of the environments and mansions of the aristocracy. I especially liked Rochester's clothes and the long wigs that pontificated in men's fashion at the time. The cinematography makes good use of these shadows and existing light to nuance the look, making the film as dark as its main character's personality. Finally, I cannot end without praising the skill and elegance of Michael Nyman's score.
In this film, we follow the adventures of the life of Melvin Udall, an established novelist who, despite his fame and public recognition, suffers from an obsessive disorder, combined with a profound misanthropy. That is, he is virtually a hermit, who lives confined at home and has fits of rage if forced to escape his routine or socialize with the people around him. The most regular victims of Udall's caustic and rude temper are his gay neighbor Simon, his dog Verdel, and Carol, the waitress who serves him coffee every day, always at the same table, and which he eats. using plastic cutlery that you bring with you. Everything changes with the robbery of Simon's house: confined to a bed, wounded and broke, Simon becomes partially dependent on Melvin, who will gradually learn to do acts of kindness and generosity towards the people he has hurt. The cast is led by Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt, two proven actors, who here manage to give us two excellent performances. Personally, I thought Hunt was too young to be a love interest for Nicholson, but the fact is that they both seem to be totally at ease with the characters and also with each other. Greg Kinnerar gives us an equally mature and consistent work, in which he is assisted by Cuba Gooding Jr. And a final word for the excellent dog used in the film. Technically, it's a standard film, within most Hollywood works. It has good cinematography and editing, with good colors and a very safe pace. The scenarios used are very good, with a natural highlight for Melvin's apartment. The soundtrack fulfills its role well and there is a lot of situational comedy to make the most serious audience laugh.
This film exceeded my expectations, giving us a pleasant family drama around a son's illness and a father's difficulties in getting the treatments he needs because he can't afford them. In fact, the US is a particularly ungrateful country for people who, unfortunately, find themselves in need of expensive and ongoing medical care. The absence of a public health system that tends to be free of charge, along the lines of those in most of Europe, limits the care that is available to those who have no money, and makes private health insurance particularly powerful, to the point where they can decide whether it is worth paying for the treatment of someone who is sick and needs help. What this film does is fiction, but I felt that its story can find reflection in many stories of real people, if we look for them. In this film, John Quincy Archibald and his wife Denise must secure an urgent and very expensive heart transplant to save their son's life. It turns out they don't have the money, and health insurance refuses to cover the treatments. With the hospital already threatening to discharge the boy because his parents can't pay, John gives up on acting rationally and, in desperation, takes a pistol and barricades himself in the hospital's emergency room, with several hostages, including the heart surgeon responsible for his child. The film may seem exaggerated or melodramatic, but it manages to make us put ourselves in that father's shoes, making us think a lot about what we are seeing. That's what happened to me, at least, and it helped to make the movie more serious and uncomfortable. In the midst of all this, however, there are weaknesses: what bothered me the most was John's exaggerated kindness, really caring about not hurting the people he's arrested. That looks good, makes the character palatable, but it wouldn't work in real life. The way in which the hospital director changes her mind about including the boy on the waiting list for organs also seems forced, as do many other situations that arise during the film. Nick Cassavetes' direction proved to be effective, although not without flaws or criticism. The cast is led by a powerful and pleasant Denzel Washington, an actor who manages to give the character charisma and presence without losing a human touch. Robert Duvall works well in the role of a policeman in charge of negotiating with John, but he is far from having real relevance. The rest of the cast is average: Kimberly Elise just needs to cry and look grief-stricken, Anne Heche is worthy of our deepest contempt, James Woods just needs to look very hypocritical, and Ray Liotta says nothing more than a few cynical words. Technically, it's a standard Hollywood drama film, with a reasonable budget and a relatively middling set of production values. With competent cinematography and good filming locations, the film combines good editing and satisfactory sound work. It's not a film that stands out for its technical aspects, but it has what it takes to work.
I had pretty low expectations for this movie, as I don't really like teen movies. However, I must admit that the film is good and well-made. It's not perfect or exceptional, but it works and entertains without our time being wasted. I can understand why so many people consider this movie a classic, but I don't agree. It's not such a good movie to have that designation, and it has maintained a certain aura to this day, this is due to a certain cult status it has acquired over the years. The film takes place in a school on a Saturday, in which five students who do not know each other will be grounded, each for their own reasons. The teacher, however, is an idiot, and they will end up enjoying the day, listening to music, talking and discovering that they are not so different from each other. The film has weaknesses, starting with the thin script it presents. In fact, there is no story or action here. If the movie didn't have so many humorous scenes or where the characters escape and walk around the school, we would have an hour and a half of dialogue. Another problem is the use of all the most common stereotypes in high school movies: we have an idiotic teacher with no authority, a rebellious student with problems at home, a good student under pressure to have good grades, a beautiful and smug student from a wealthy family, an athletic student with anger issues, and a lonely, weird student. The only thing that saves them is, deep down, the way they gain depth and personality as the dialogues flow. And could I still speak of the illogicality of this punishment, in which five troubled students are left alone in a deserted school? Regardless of the script's weaknesses and other issues, the film has a young cast that does a very committed and interesting job. Of them all, the one who impressed me the most was Judd Nelson, who managed to impart a genuine rebelliousness and irreverence to his character. I also really liked Ally Sheedy. She starts the film almost silently, letting her pose, and bizarre costume dominate our attention, but then she presents us with an intense, intelligent and pleasantly unpleasant and sarcastic character. Anthony Hall has a more palatable and emotional character, which he plays satisfactorily, as do Molly Ringwald and Emilio Estevez, and they also worked well in their respective characters. A word, more, for Paul Gleason, and the impeccable way in which he played a mediocre teacher. Technically, it's a low-key film. It has good cinematography and was very well shot, with sharpness and good colors. It doesn't feature great visual or special effects, but what it brings us is well done and works pleasantly. The library set was well-built, and the school is credible. But what amazes us is, clearly, the soundtrack, and particularly the theme song "Don't You (Forget About Me)", which is heard in the credits and which became one of the biggest hits of that decade, in that many were young or (like me) born.
This film was based on a play that ran for some time on Broadway, and which gave rise to a film in the Thirties. However, I feel some reluctance to say that this film is a remake because this film, in order to be shown commercially, had to change important parts of the original story, very controversial. Be that as it may, it was not a very happy one: despite its merits, it was largely ignored when it was released, and continues to be ignored and forgotten to this day. The script brings us a very good story in which two school teachers are accused by one of the children of having a lesbian romance. The accusation is slanderous, and this film shows us how mean and deceitful that particular child can be, and how interested she was in using every weapon to get out of that school and convince her rich and influential grandmother to take her out. Even so, the grandmother gave credence to the lie told by her granddaughter and used all her influence to harm the school. Let's face it, it's a film released in the 60s, and if the topic of homosexuality was no longer as problematic as in the past, it was still far from being taboo. This is so true that only on a couple of occasions do the dialogues truly say that the teachers are accused of being lovers. In my way of looking at it, it was a bold take on a topic that couldn't be talked about, and I see the film as one of the first to take the gay theme seriously in cinema. In fact, there are even several moments when we realize that the accusation, although empty and slanderous, was never far from the truth: Martha really had feelings for Karen, without admitting it to anyone, including herself. And so confused was she with everything that happened that the movie ends as it ends. The film has a good cast, headed by Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine, in the roles of the two outraged teachers. I don't think it was the best film of either one, but I must highlight the presence, commitment and drama of MacLaine, who was really good here. That's not to say Hepburn didn't respond in kind! The actress did a good job, and gives us a good interpretation, but it wasn't the film or the ideal material for the actress. Also, James Garner did a good job, collaborating very well with Hepburn, and Miriam Hopkins brought some madness to the film, giving her character a touch of nonsense, devoid of real malice. Fay Bainter, finally, is quite believable in the role of a rich, cynical and selfish grandmother. Technically, the film features a regular and well-crafted pace, a sure direction that is signed by William Wyler and a very well done black-and-white cinematography. All the filming work was carried out competently and confidently, and the film is sharp, has a pleasant contrast and relatively well-made sets.
This is an undoubtedly tense film, in which the story of an unsolved murder serves as the backdrop for a much deeper and more elaborate drama, in which the victim's inconsolable mother seeks, by all means, to force the police to seriously investigate what happened to his daughter. It's not the first film where the police are seen as villains, but it's far from being a lighthearted film, with friendly heroes and execrable villains. The film strives to create and highlight the nuances of the plot and each of the characters. I remember perfectly that this film was one of the heavyweights of the 2018 Oscars, and one of the great candidates for the Oscar for Best Picture. It didn't win the statuette, nor a good part of the nominations received, but it left the Dolby Theater with two awards in important categories: Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor. Personally, I believe that the film would also have been a fair deserving of the award for Best Original Screenplay, since the differential of the film, for me, is to give us a script with an elegant and well done story, with drama and depth, and in that each character deserved a close look and an interesting development. The biggest problem with this incredible script turns out to be, in fact, the open ending and the feeling that it doesn't give the audience the conclusion they expect to see. It's not about wanting a happy ending... it's just about wanting an end point and not just ellipses. In the wake of the story of the unsolved crime and the billboards, we observe the tense relationship and mutual misunderstandings between mother and daughter, and the way that mother feels remorse for the way she acted with her murdered daughter. We see how the police want to act, but they can't for lack of evidence, for being forced to follow the law and not being able to simply arrest everything and everyone or treat each one as a suspect. We see how honest and potentially good men can be lost if they do not have an opportunity to improve their conduct, and how there are indeed people who are committed to their work, despite the criticism they receive. And we see how, at times, the voice of the people can be more caustic and unfair than any other. Martin McDonagh is a new director, who many didn't know well before this film. I had seen one of his films before, "Bruges", and he really improved a lot, not only as a director, but even as a screenwriter. Frances McDormand presents us a complete, intense, committed and powerful performance, which holds us from beginning to the end. Needless to say, it was probably her life's greatest work, and that it would be an injustice of titanic proportions not to reward it fairly, as it did. But she doesn't carry the film alone: Woody Harrelson is also very good here, in a difficult character that gives the film an added density. He also gave us, in this film, the best of himself. But even more powerful and intense is the work of Sam Rockwell, an actor I've never seen work at this level, and who was truly impressive in the way he grabbed the character and gave it body and density. The film also has satisfactory collaborations with Peter Dinklage (an actor who was not always treated well in the films he was in, despite being very good at what he does) and Caleb Jones. Technically, the film is truly a quality parade. Let's start by looking at its elegant cinematography. With an exquisite work of filming and very well executed, the film has excellent colors, sharpness, framing and makes the best use of the beautiful filming locations where it was made. I especially enjoyed some shots at dusk, where the sunlight gives the scene a poignant nostalgia. The editing was equally well done, and the cuts are not even felt. The sets were very well done and are full of details, and I would highlight the police station or the store where Mildred works. Finally, we have to talk about the soundtrack, sad and introspective, signed by Carter Burwell, and the wise inclusion of the song "Last Rose of Summer" by the incredible voice of Renee Fleming, the icing on the cake in those opening scenes.
This film is a comedy set in wartime and based, very fictionally, on the life of a real person, radio announcer Adrian Cronauer, who spent some time in South Vietnam, in Saigon, in the service of USAF Military Radio. Despite the truthful bases, most of the things we see in the movie are fiction, as Cronauer himself mentioned. However, without this fictional component, I doubt the film would have been as successful. The film's story begins with Cronauer's arrival in Saigon to take up a radio job. He will soon capture the soldiers' sympathies, with his contagious joy and a rebellious, sharp and irresistible sense of humor. However, it also becomes evident that he will not be easy to control, and high ranks will have difficulties in dealing with him and imposing the limits they think he must respect. At the same time, he will socialize with the Vietnamese, learn local customs and even teach English. But the enemy is subversive, and not even in the city they can know where he will attack, or where he will be. Despite being a comedy, the film does not treat war lightly. There are several moments when we feel that danger lurks, and enemy agents can be anywhere. Despite the way Cronauer wins friends, the grim faces of the population reveal the prevailing antipathy, understandable among a population that feels that their land has been occupied by foreigners who, supposedly, came to help them defend themselves, but who then treat them with suspicion, when not with violence. The film paints an acidic portrayal of the war in Vietnam, with cruelties committed by both sides. By the way, there is one scene that is particularly critical, and where war scenes are accompanied by the Louis Armstrong song “What a Wonderful World”. To be more ironic, it's impossible. Robin Williams was the ideal man to bring Cronauer to life, and the right person to revive his sense of humor. With this character, Williams was able to let his imagination run wild and invent the craziest puns and jokes. It is not by chance that the film became a classic of the 80s comedy, and one of the most memorable films of this actor's career. With him, we have an excellent Forest Whitaker, a great Robert Wuhl and an obnoxious, but equally funny, Bruno Kirby. The film also features splendid collaborations by Tom T. Tran, Noble Willingham and J.T. Walsh. Technically, the film doesn't have any major demerits, but it knows how to keep a low profile, leaving humor to take center stage. Even so, I think it's fair to highlight the exquisite quality of the visual and special effects and the exceptional soundtrack, with a series of songs that we can easily recognize. Set in a military context, the film has good props, costumes and sets that automatically transport us to that environment and period. Finally, a word of praise for the cinematography and editing.
There are childhood friends who are inseparable and whose friendship lasts a lifetime, but I think they are exceptions. The truth, unfortunately, is that it seems difficult to maintain these friendships for so many years. As we change, as life changes us, we create and build facets of our personality that may, or may not, match well with our friends. Thus, the friends end up moving away because they don't understand each other like they used to. In addition, each one's own life course moves people away and closer, and the friends that childhood brought us will probably follow their lives away from us. I myself, thinking about my childhood, remember nostalgically the faces of those friends that I never saw again, and who followed their lives along paths that separated us. I can only hope, and wish, that they are well, wherever life has taken them. The story follows the lives of three Boston kids named Dave, Jimmy and Sean. Their lives are marked by a day when Dave is kidnapped and subjected to horrific sexual abuses. Years later, Jimmy's eldest daughter turns up dead, after a few hours missing. The investigation, led by Sean, who became a policeman, will focus precisely on Dave, who maintains a suspicious attitude and seems to have something to hide. But Sean must hurry to find out the truth, as Jimmy is determined to take matters into his own hands. This film talks about how life separates friendships, about how small moments can be decisive. Simple things, like getting into a car we never should have, or waiting a day before taking action. Clint Eastwood's meticulous direction combines perfectly with Helgeland and Lehane's impeccable script for a film that is truly memorable. It is a film with difficult themes, which make us think. The theme of friendship, of the way life shapes and changes us, is for me the center of the film, although it passes discreetly under another theme, which is that of sexual abuse perpetrated by pedophiles. It's a film made during the pedophilia scandal that shook Boston and its Catholic community, so it was a very current topic at the time (still is, let's face it). The film has a luxury cast, which is fully committed to work. Sean Penn does an impeccable job, perhaps one of his best works, having rightly deserved the Oscar for Best Actor, which he got with this performance. Equally impressive, Tim Robbins could hardly have done better, also earning the highest award in the film industry. Kevin Bacon presents himself in a much more restrained and discreet register, but equally powerful and effective. Also noteworthy is the impeccable work of Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney, and the excellent help of Lawrence Fishburne. Personally, I think Eastwood's films aren't the most remarkable in the most technical aspects. He is a director who knows how to privilege the story told, the work of the actors, the building of atmosphere, suspense and tension. However, being meticulous as he is, we must be aware of the effective way he uses cinematography and camera work to create tension: that scene where Dave is taken away and sees his friends left behind is simply anthology-worthy, and we don't need more words to understand what will follow in the life of that innocent character. Also the editing and mixing was done impeccably. Finally, a word for the soundtrack, which does not stand out or stay in the ear, but is perfect in the effort to create and work on suspense and dramatic tension.
This movie is a light and fun comedy that takes us back to school days. After all, who hasn't wanted to take a day off and simply enjoy their youth? I think all teens have felt this urge, and often have, or played sick for one more day to themselves. What, surely, will never have happened is something as complex and sophisticated as what Ferris Bueller decided to do. The film is fun and uses a tasteful comedy style, without good resources, able to delight the whole family. John Hughes assures a firm and intelligent direction, who guides the film with skill, combining a creative and intelligent story with a very well written and thought out sense of humor. The still young and inexperienced Matthew Broderick does a good job as the protagonist, and is already showing signs of the talent he will develop in mature works. He knew how to give his character a strong charisma, combined with a rebelliousness and stubbornness typical of a teenager who has been pampered too much. Mia Sara did an equally competent job, even though she's a more cliché character: she's the pretty, popular girlfriend, who's obviously also one of the school's cheerleaders. We find characters like her in virtually every teen comedy! Personally, I didn't like Alan Ruck very much. The actor is good and does what he can, but the character is irritating with all his spoiled rich boy whining. However, it's not just Broderick that makes the movie worthwhile: Jeffrey Jones' incredible work also deserves applause. He gave life to the school principal, who wants to prove that Ferris Bueller is deliberately skipping classes, and at the expense of that, he goes through a series of hilarious situations where, of course, he suffers hard. It's an impressive work by this actor, which makes us laugh until we cry. Technically, it's a film that doesn't have any major demerits, but it also has little that stands out: it has good cinematography, an excellent soundtrack and a series of witty and well-written dialogues, but everything else is within the standard you would expect from a 80s comedy.
I confess that I didn't really like this movie the first time I saw it, but I felt that it was not the time to evaluate it, because I wasn't fully aware and expected something different. After a few years, I watched the film again, with a different mindset, other expectations and more prepared for what I was about to see. The result was totally different: I loved this movie. The film is set in the period of the Cold War, and addresses the fear that many North Americans had of communist activities on American soil, mainly of communists who were supposed to be infiltrated within the government, army and high finance. The face of all fear was, for years, Senator McCarthy, who gave substance and voice to a policy of purging suspected communists from the state apparatus. In a short time, suspicion became widespread and even the most unsuspected were under scrutiny for things as trivial as having a communist friend or having attended an activity promoted by communists. Against this situation, so bizarre that it goes against our notion of democracy, stood up journalist and television anchor Edward R. Murrow, from CBS News. On his television show "See it Now", he will do a job of deconstructing Senator McCarthy's allegations, questioning his methods and way of thinking. The film works wonderfully and manages to get the message across very well. However, it is one of those films that has the problem of only working for those who already know the basics of what is going to be talked about: the Cold War, the "Red Peril", McCarthyism. Anyone waiting for the movie to explain something about it or make some sort of introductory note will miss it. Therefore, I recommend to those less versed in contemporary history a brief read before the film. The film addresses yet another subject, albeit much more superficially: the advent of TV and television journalism, of which Murrow was one of the first great figures in the US. George Clooney is, in this film, an almost omnipresent figure, since he is responsible for the direction, the script and for one of the main characters of the plot. Impeccable as always, the actor does a very good job. The cast is intelligently led by David Strathairn in the lead role. The actor is competent, charismatic, intense, sharp and skillful, giving us, in this film, the strongest interpretation of his career. Also Robert Downey Jr. And Patricia Clarkson deserve an applause for their work. Most of the cast smokes a lot, but that was something really common at the time. On a technical level, the film makes a strong impact as it is entirely in black and white. It was something I didn't expect the first time I saw the film, but it made perfect sense when I saw it again... in addition to immediately transporting us to the time in question, the feature allowed the original black-and-white scenes perfectly match the film, as if they were one and the same. It doesn't have a very noticeable soundtrack, but the jazz themes chosen for the soundtrack are really good.
Saying that all old Disney movies are classics is like saying that all cars are classics just because they are old... anyway, whether it's a classic or not, this Disney movie deserves our attention: it entertains quite well and gives children an innocent and funny story. I will not dwell on the analysis of the story: anyone who knows the work of Lewis Carroll (the film focuses on "Alice in Wonderland" but will get some elements from "Through the Looking Glass") will surely identify the story and its characters, some of them as immortal as the Mad Hatter, the March Hare or the Cheshire Cat. They are iconic and recognizable even by those who have never read Carroll's books and stories. The film is beautifully animated, with vivid and elegant colors, and a limpid, crisp and very well executed look, for which contributed the skillful hands of hundreds of designers from Walt Disney's studio. The film was made at a time when the studio did its best graphic work and the quality is visible. The songs are another important part of the movie, and there are several important and noteworthy songs here. Personally, I really like listening to "A World of My Own" or the march "Painting the Roses Red". The film counts with the impeccable collaboration of many voice actors, of which I want to highlight Kathryn Beaumont, Ed Wynn, Sterling Holloway and Verna Felton. Despite everything, I think the film was pretty much forgotten for a long time, and it didn't have the success that it could have had: in fact, the crazy and illogical story that it presents can both attract or repel the audience... it's not a story for everyone to enjoy, as palatable and cute as "Cinderella" or "Peter Pan", films that are much easier to sell. Paradoxically, the recent appearance of live action films centered on Alice's tale may, in a way, have revived the interest of more recent audiences in Carroll's work and, consequently, in this animated film.
This film deals with the trajectory of the life of George Jung, a famous drug dealer who was one of the main responsible for the entrance of Colombian cocaine in the American market in the 70's and 80's. Very marked by the figure of his father, and the way he desperately tried to take money home despite his mother's criticism, George Jung had more money than he could really spend, went through prison several times and learned, inside prison, to be even better at drug dealing. The film follows his trajectory until his arrest for good. The film is good, and it approaches the subjects treated with dynamism, and even a certain irony. It has a good rhythm and the editing, as well as the direction, works quite well. The film tries to be light, not overly heavy, which allows it to assume a less dramatic stance than we might expect at first glance, and which reminded me of other similar films such as "Wolf of Wall Street" (although without the avalanche of slang this movie used). The cast is led by Johnny Depp, in a job considerably different from what he's used to, but in which he manages reasonably well. Ray Liotta is good, but not as good as would be necessary to give credibility to his character... Penélope Cruz is thrown into the film like someone throwing a huge rock into a small pond, but despite the presence and the somewhat dominant form that the actress assumes, she can't bring that much to the film and ends up becoming a kind of passionate, histrionic Latin lover. Technically, the film has decent production values and appears to be expensive. The cinematography is good and does its job well, as are the sets and costumes. Some of the scenarios, such as an apartment absolutely full of bundles of money, are really illustrative of a reality they want to portray. It doesn't have great effects, but what it does have is effective, and the soundtrack also works quite well, and it's atmospheric enough. The film takes place during the 70's and 80's, but it didn't always manage to set us in the intended period.
I honestly have doubts whether or not this little film can be considered one of the Disney classics. It's old and has quality, it's a really good movie to see with the kids, without any contraindications, but I've always seen it as a little-known work, and I even thought that Disney itself never seemed very willing to make us remember it... so I leave the question: is it age just enough to be considered a classic film? The film is a retelling of the old tale of King Arthur: here, the king is a child, still, and is being trained to become the squire to a noble knight. However, his curiosity and initiative, as well as the inspiring and educational words of the wizard Merlin, will lead him to a very different path in life, after inadvertently removing an old sword from a stone... the sword that could only be removed by the right person to assume the vacant throne of England. The film is good, it has joy, it has color and movement. Even so, it's visually rough, with slightly imperfect features. The film was hand-drawn, and many artists were involved in its production, as was once common at Disney. Even so, the limited production budget has led to cost cuts that are surely at the root of this look, less elegant and smooth than the studio's older films. Karl Swenson does an impeccable job of voicing, but I also liked the thin voice of Martha Wentworth, who lent her voice to the witch Madame Min, one of the characters who would, later, move into comic books and other works in the Disney universe. Junius Matthews also did a very good job. A very important part of this movie is the music, and there are songs for almost every taste. The movie has a long list, but I honestly didn't feel touched by any of the songs, and none of them stayed in my ear for very long. That doesn't mean they aren't good... it means they lack something to make them truly memorable.
This film was released in 1985, at a time when mob movies were still in vogue and light romantic comedies were much more highly regarded than they are today. The plot revolves around a couple who fall in love and quickly marry: it turns out that both are professional killers in pay from the same mob family, the Prizzi (any resemblance to the Corleones is obviously no coincidence). Of course, everything looks fine, but the day comes when the heads of the family start to complicate their romance to the point where they demand that they kill each other. Personally, and I'm going to be very honest, I expected a lot more from this movie. The mob premise is nice, and I really like Mob movies, but it's missed by a script that just can't write a compelling romantic story with some fun and movement. The film wastes a lot of time on insipid dialogues, and there are loads of scenes that look like they were inserted just to add some extra length. The pace is heavy, slow and tiring, and the plot, after a certain point, completely loses its interest. The cast includes several big names in the industry, starting with Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner. The two deftly secure co-protagonism here, and are very good at their work, individually... but I felt their chemistry doesn't work and there isn't an overwhelming passion there. They're as warm as possible together, and that doesn't give the characters' romance any authenticity. The film also features an interesting work by William Hickey and Lee Richardson, two good actors to watch closely. Much less happy, Anjelica Huston seems completely lost here, despite looking magnificent.
