dierregi

I had the impression the whole movie played as a "mocumentary" about the life of Turner. It is basically nothing more than following Mr. Turner around while he interacts with friends and family. Not being a particularly likable character, I grew fed up with him quite quickly. In fact, I'd much rather admire his paintings without knowing anything about his obnoxiousness. Super-boring movie.

This is a terrible movie. The plot is roughly divided in two parts: the first third of the story is about Zamperini surviving a plane crash and the remaining two thirds are extremely repetitive scenes of him suffering at the end of a sadistic Japanese camp warden. Both parts seem to drag on forever, the part in the prison camp being particularly bad and nothing more than the same scene played differently time and again. In the end, the movie is in itself a torture inflicted to the viewer by an over hyped, mediocre director.

Having watched this after "Unbroken" I could clearly appreciate the difference between a good movie about WWII in the Pacific and a terrible one. Colin Firth does a very good job as the troubled man who struggles to recover from the torture and pain of his days as a prisoner (PSD, if I ever saw a case). He is helped in his recovery by his new wife and a fellow veteran. Nothing particularly new, but a story well told. Pity about the uninspiring title.

This is a good option for anybody in the mood for some uplifting comedy not targeted to teens, Bill Murray is a grumpy man (not much of a stretch from previous movies), who is forced to babysit his new neighbor's son. He is a rather disgraceful person, with some redeeming qualities. The plot is quite predictable, but sometimes it is pleasant to follow a simple movie, without too many twists and turns. Besides, I like Bill Murray in most of his movie and I enjoyed this one, too.

Much as I like Julianne Moore as an actress, I was not going to watch this movie because I thought it was going to be predictable and depressing. Turns out it was neither... well, actually rather melancholic but not depressing. The slow fall of the Moore character into Alzheimer is described with tact and realism. I was also pleased to see that for once the Academy awarded the Oscar to an actress truly deserving it. The supporting cast was also good, inclusive of Stewart who proved to be a better actress than I thought.

A most unfortunate title for a movie that is actually very tame. The main character is an oil trader who must face some tough competition. The violence boils down to beating and threatening, which may be bad enough in real life, but certainly not what one would expect from such a title. It does not help that the pacing of the story is glacial and the movie seems to last forever.

There are very few stories with strong female leads not involving children and/or romantic partners. Therefore I was looking forward to “Wild”, since I read it was about the journey of discovery of a single woman.Turns out, the “single” woman was a promiscuous divorcee and her discovery boiled down to “whatever I did wrong, I would do it again”. Even if much criticized, I did not find Witherspoon’s performance bad. Her character was not supposed to be sunny and easy-going; therefore her bad attitude, fear and depression were appropriate. However, I agree that her character is mostly unlikable and the only word she seems to know and use is “F..k”… so much for her alleged level of “sophistication”.

A good, solid story about the fall from glory of an arrogant pilot. It can be seen as a metaphor of addiction. Substance abuse makes you fly high, but you lose track of your limits and people around you start to dislike your self-centered attitude. Some of those people are lost forever; others may still be around to forgive you. The plot itself is about cocky airline pilot Whip, who manages to save most of his passengers during a disastrous flight from Orlando to Atlanta. Despite (or because) being high on cocaine, Whip successfully performs a daredevil move and lands the plane on a field. There are six casualties though and legal actions to follow. Whip is in full denial of his addiction to cocaine and alcohol and manages to alienate everybody around him. Linked to the main story is a rather unnecessary subplot involving a female addict.

This is one of those movies that totally flat-lined for me. I watched it only because a friend liked and recommended it. However, I had serious doubts about it, after having read the synopsis and seen a photo of Sean Penn in drags. I am not a Penn fan, although I would not rule out a movie just because he is in it. In this particular movie, I really disliked him for lots of reasons: the exasperating monotone of his speech; the phoniness of all his “conversations”; the weird and yet dull interaction with the many bizarre characters populating the movie, etc… The word “boring” is used quite often when we explain why we did not like a movie. Basically, we did not feel emotionally or intellectually engaged by the story unfolding onscreen. Nothing works against this type of disengagement. No rational explanation will convince you about the deep, inner meaning the director, scriptwriter, actors and other reviewers saw or tried to instill into the story. Therefore, for me this is the ultimate boring movie. A plot so thin I lost track of it after 10 minutes, totally disengaging and disengaged characters, far too much artsy Penn. I gave up, 1 hour and 6 minutes into it and I am not even sure why I lasted that long. By then, I still had no clue about what was going on and I definitely stopped caring even earlier …..

This is the story of a bunch of creeps, Hollywood-style. If you can sympathise with the following characters, you probably will like the movie: *Benji, ex-junkie teenager TV show star, jealous about child actors; *Cristina and Stafford, couple of weirdos parents, exploiting said teenage junkie; *Agatha, homicidal schizophrenic girl stalking her family; *Havana, washed up movie actress consumed by the desire of playing her mother's part in a remake. On the other hand, if you think that the rich are different from you and I and you find it difficult to feel empathy for a "poor" kid who will earn only 6 million per season instead of 8, you might not get the point of this flaccid tale. Unless that is "even rich people have their problems". If emotional engagement is not your thing, you might still have problems with the script and editing. The movie contains several overlong scenes that add nothing to story, except underlining how depraved people are in Hollywood. The party scene, with the despicable conversation among teenagers is a very good example. Then there is a scene with Havana, the Moore character, sitting on the crapper and farting away, while having a conversation with her assistant. This is usually described as "vanity-free" interpretation by the critics. Which means Hollywood stars looking like you and me in the morning, rather than their red-carpet version. In turn, this is interpreted as "mega-stars demeaning their supernatural status, thus deserving an Oscar". Finally, several "ghost scenes" are scattered liberally in the story. They are among the worst I have ever seen, Havana's ghost mum being the most risible of the bunch. Eventually bad things happen to bad people and the movie ends not a second too soon, but who cares: this is a movie –as somebody wrote – that you want to forget you saw.

An uneven mix of Moon, Star Wars, The Matrix and any post-apocalyptic movie. Cruise stars as usual as the hero of the story (in this case, even multiple hero), a guy named Jack who is watching over planet earth after an alien invasion destroyed the moon. He lives in a wonderful, futuristic villa with a beautiful, stylish, well-dressed woman and commutes by helicopter around the planet to fix broken weapons. Not a bad job or accommodation, if you ask me. Desolate earth looks quite peaceful and not having traffic jams of annoying neighbors looks great. Unfortunately for Jack, dark secrets are lurking around. Jack discovers that things are not quite as he thinks and that perhaps it would have been better if they were. The discovery involves the crash of an "old" spacecraft containing mysterious Julia, who is in mysterious ways related with Jack. After the crash the movie lose steam and it turns into a boring ride involving too many video-game style fights. The end is quite a let-down. Throughout the movie, which is a good 20 minutes too long, I just kept wondering what Jack and co. were eating, since there was no visible sign of agriculture, fishing or any other activity that provided food. And also, where there those stylish clothes coming from…

I loved this movie. A tight script with two, nasty, dueling main characters. The teacher/student relationship has been explored many times before, but in this movie the twist is that both are unpleasant in their own way. Both Teller (as Andrew the student) and Simmons (as Fletcher the teacher) were very good and Simmons definitely deserved the Oscar. For once, I loved that I did not need to pick a side but I could just enjoy the ride and see how these two ambitious, arrogant and toxic personalities were going to hurt (or help?) each other. Also, I do not usually like open endings, but in this case I found it very appropriate. The music is great, as it was expected. The photography is also good and the story does not drag along for a single minute, as it happens far too often nowadays. Highly recommended.

Cumberbatch pays Alan Turing, the mathematician who managed to crack the Enigma code, WITH a team of other people and then proceed to get infamously arrested for indecent exposure. The core of the movie is the cracking of Enigma with some flash back to Turing youth and flash forward to Turing last year (actually, the movie starts in the 50s and then jumps back to the war years – a completely useless editing idea). Altogether not a bad story and certainly a great Cumberbatch and Knightley interpretation. The supporting actors are also good and there is some moment of British humor to lighten the atmosphere. The only thing I find objectionable is that the movie gives the idea that Turing was the only one who actually cracked the code. The solitary genius who did it all on his own and even against his own team - with the exception of the Knightley character. All this to put Turing on an even higher pedestal and to underline that he was such as genius AND gay. Basically gay = genius in this movie. Which seems rather far-fetched, because it surely is a fact that not all gay people are geniuses, just like not all straight people are….. Then again, the “solitary” hero concept is a lot more fascinating than “team work”.

McGregor plays stuffy government employee Dr. Alfred Jones, forced by his boss to pursue the dubious plan of introducing salmons in Yemen. The plan is encouraged as a PR stunt, to prove that good relations between the UK and the Middle East are not impossible. Therefore, Dr. Jones unwillingly cooperates with Harriet (played by Emily Blunt) and gets to know the Yemenite sheikh (Amr Waked) who is willing to invest lots of money to fulfil his dream. Scott Thomas plays the hilariously insufferable Press Secretary to the British Prime Minister. Romance ensues, but with some hindrance along the way. Luckily, no knowledge of fishing is required to follow the story. McGregor and Blunt have chemistry. Scott Thomas and Amr Waked are excellent supporting actors and the movie is simply delightful. A rarity nowadays.

Washed up Hollywood star Riggan wants to prove he is a “real” actor by directing and starring a play on Broadway. But perhaps he cannot, because he is mental. Wrapped around the claustrophobic world of actors, the movie is an exercise in navel-gazing and smugness. I guess it must be a big deal for a Hollywood superstar to prove to his peers that he is not just a money-making machine but also a talented actor. However, I truly do not care about the hysterics and anguish of Hollywood actors. That is why, when Birdman was acclaimed by the critics I already suspected yet another inflated balloon full of nothing. I waited until I could watch the movie for free, because I was very reluctant to waste money on yet another “Academy-worth” piece of crap and I am very happy I saved my hard-earned money. The joke is twice on the audience, because the other theme explored by Birdman, besides narcissist actors, is audience stupidity. Not being the sort of person who cares about superheroes movies, I was nevertheless annoyed by the fact that the public of said movies is vilified by this piece of elitist crap. It is difficult to point out what I disliked most about Birdman, since I hated everything: the overbearing drum soundtrack, characters shouting their lines, the smugness of the whole concept, the patronizing dialogues, etc… I do not even think Keaton was so great in it. Finally, it is depressing to notice that the number of movies I want to walk out from is increasing exponentially. After decades of watching movies, what I expect is an interesting story told in an engaging way, but what I find is more and more egotistic directors busy only with producing crap bearing their trademark signature, being it Tim Burton Goth-chic or Wes Anderson smug-naïve.

If you want to enjoy “The lake house” you should know that it requires plenty of suspended disbelief and no rational approach. Chronologically, the story “sort-of” starts in 2004, when Alex comes back to the Chicago area and settles in a glass house built many years previously by his architect father. Alex and dad don’t get along, even if they share the same profession. In the house Alex finds a note from alleged “lodger” Kate, who recently moved out with regret to central Chicago. However, Alex knows that the house was closed for years and writes back to Kate, basically asking what is wrong with her. A correspondence follows between the two, during which they discover that Kate rented the house after Alex, possibly in 2005 (the timeline is a bit confused) and she moved out at the beginning of 2006. The two exchange letters using the mailbox outside the house, regular postal service clearly not being an option. Although I agree that writing letters is very romantic, one may wonder why they do not exchange photos, emails or phone calls… They quickly discover to be soul mates and Alex tries several times to meet Kate. It should be remembered that in 2004 Kate is still unaware about his existence, so when they actually meet the experience is very different for them. To complicate things, Kate has a boyfriend in 2004 – but not in 2006. Alex knows to be in love and want to be with Kate. At this stage, enters the plot twist, which feels highly contrived even in such an unlikely scenario. However, we are supposed to root for Alex and Kate, two people who can truly connect with very few around them and who are bound to be together against all odds. Will 2008 be the year when they can finally be happy together? The time paradox is the most intriguing part and should be explored more in details, but the movie can still be considered a satisfactory, unusual romantic movie.

The movie opens with a sex scene which is simultaneously excessive and boring. The Cruz character, named Laura, asks to be pleasured “down there” and the Fassbinder character, the nameless Counselor, obviously obliges. Follows a series of disjointed and disconnected scenes, to introduce the other main players: Reiner, a Mexican drug trafficker with a bad haircut; Malkina, a “femme fatale” with a weird name and attitude and Westray, a guy who knows other guys. All these people are played by top of the crop actors, directed by Ridley Scott, with a screen play by Cormac MCCarthy and yet the final result is an overlong, bloated, boring movie. The plot involves a vague, messy drug deal and an even vaguer involvement of the Counselor. As everybody who watched Breaking Bad knows, Mexican drug lords get very upset when somebody messes with their drugs, so rightful revenge ensues. Unfortunately, in this case the revenge is not fair and the Mexican guys should know. In one of many weird scenes, we see a main player spying a conversation between the Counselor and Reiner, during which it is spelled out that the Counselor is innocent. And yet the ax will fall on him and on his beloved Laura. The violence is disturbing but predictable. When Reiner and the Counselor coolly discus about decapitation devices, you can be sure that someone will be decapitated before the end credits. The same when they talk about snuff movies… Cameron Diaz playing femme fatale Malkina is especially disturbing. Sporting appropriate sprayed-on clothes and super high-heels, with huge sculpted cheekbones, she is supposed to convey fear and mystery. But I just found her cheekbones too distracting.

When I first watched the movie in 2001 I was still hoping Lynch had actually something to say, despite the disappointment with Wild at heart. I was surprised by the high rating and good reviews this movie got, but finally when I watched the movie again tonight on TV I got the point: hot, young, naked actresses and plenty of lesbian sex. Watts and Harring starring as the mysterious Rita and Betty go all the way, titillating the viewers with their antics. It is pointless to summarize the plot, since the movie switches into a different one two thirds into the story. Anybody can interpret the complete lack of logic in whichever way they want and then "accuse" whoever does not "get" it of being dumb. The point is, there is nothing to "get", apart from Lynch frustration, unleashed on paying audience, a plot that does not make any sense and a couple of good actresses, only one of them actually making a career out of this crappy movie.

Roughly divided in three parts and taking place not too far away in the future, the story follows the adventures of Cooper, NASA ex-astronaut turned farmer. Cooper lives in Dusty Somewhere, USA, with his two children (Murphy and Tom) and dad in law. Mankind destroyed Earth ecosystems and our heroes are facing dire consequences. Cooper finds “by chance” the secret location of the new NASA and he is immediately assigned the very important mission to retrace some astronauts sent into a wormhole 10 years previously to check some promising planets in another part of the galaxy. Much as I like Nolan’s films, I found Interstellar the weakest of his production. There are some major plot holes in the script, such as why new NASA does not just call Cooper to guide the new mission instead of waiting for him to “accidentally” stumble upon the super-secret location. The whole first part of the movie feels like wasted time, except for establishing the strong bond between Cooper and Murphy. We also get plenty of cringe-inducing dialog about love, relativity and gravity and a glued-on happy ending after over 2 hours of extreme gloominess.

The third and last installment of the Hangover saga gives far too much screen time to the increasingly obnoxious Alan character. Erroneously described as a “man-child”, Alan seems to be a borderline narcissist psychopath. The plot includes plenty of cruelty against animals, abuse of the elderly and shocking lies (such as telling a child you are his father when you are not).

Jane Campion likes the grotesque. In most of her movies some characters are always distinctively weird in looks and behavior. The Piano is no exception. Main character Ada, played ferociously by Holly Hunter, is a bit of freak. Stubborn and self-contained she “decided” to remain silent from age six and never spoke a word since. Her inconsistent behavior creates all sorts of trouble to those around her, inclusive of unloved "husband" Alisdair, obnoxious daughter Flora and reluctant lover George. Some beautiful landscapes and hunting music hardly make up for the fact that most of the movie is shot in claustrophobic and dark rain forest and three out of four main characters are creepily weird.

Probably one of the most boring movies I ever watched in my life. Even the title is misleading, because only the first and last scene have something to do with the actual separation. We see Simin (the wife) and Nader (the husband) in front of a judge debating the reasons why they want to split. Actually, Simin wants to split, Nader seems not to care one way or the other – which certainly does not give much motivation to continue a marriage. I am sure such a story based in Europe or the US would not have won an Oscar, but it is not the first time – nor will be the last – that a movie wins a prize for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with cinematography.

It is astonishing to think that this piece of shallow silliness got two Oscar nominations. However, it works very well as an indicator of the sorry state of contemporary society. The story revolves around Annie Walker, a most annoying woman who would be a perfect character for a cheap sitcom. Annie alleged best friend Lillian is getting married and that horrendously stressing event that is an American wedding must be organized. Countless chick flicks have been there, only to underline how the true meaning of getting married and any shred of happiness are lost in the process of having so much “organized” fun. Produced by Apatow and co-written by Kristen Wiig, who is also starring – and appearing in every scene - as main character Annie Walker. If you know a bit about movies, this can explain why it is so bad. Apatow is the king of crass, vulgar, unfunny comedies. Wiig wanted to make clear she is the star. Unfortunately, like most female comedians, she seems to think that the only way to make women “funny” is to degrade them. Surely they get plenty of humiliations in this movie, but this does not make the movie funny in any way.

Frances is an "apprentice" dancer - which is hard to believe since she is very ungainly. Apart from "dancing" she never worked a real job in her life. Frances shares an apartment with BFF Sophie, in a sort of a "celibate" lesbian relationship (at least, from Frances' side). Both girls have boyfriends, but Frances has no problem with dispassionately dumping hers, when he proposes she moves in with him. Unfortunately for Frances, Sophie actually moves in with her man, Patch. Frances, feeling hurt and betrayed (more strong lesbian vibes) cannot pay rent and moves in with another couple of slackers. Then she gets "temporarily" sacked from the dance company she works for and "sort of" runs out of money. This does not stop her from flying to Paris for a weekend and from refusing a job as a "mere" accountant, which would not fulfil her artistic delusions. She meets with Sophie and Patch and comes to terms with them getting married. In the end, Frances accepts the "normal" job and moves into her own apartment, while maintaining her status as "undateable". Shot in black & white, by director Baunbach, the movie tries and fails miserably to look like a mix of French nouvelle vague (specifically Jules & Jim) and early Woody Allen (specifically Manhattan). Gerwig plays Frances as a lethargic young woman, lacking elegance and discipline, which presumably are needed for such a competitive and physical profession. Sophie is played by one of Sting's children and one of Streep's daughters plays another dancer, completing the cast of VIPs. Neither shines, but I guess being mediocre actresses will not hurt their careers. Baumbach and Gerwig were (still are? Really don't care) a couple during the filming. Actress/director relationships usually produce mediocre movies, and this is just another one to add to the list.

The Savages is a tough movie. It deals with unpleasant themes such as mediocrity, failed relationships and taking care of aging relatives who did not do a good job at parenting. The results are excellent, thanks to the outstanding cast and script. It starts on a sarcastic note, with dad Lenny Savage (a great Philip Bosco) behaving badly in sunny Arizona. Lenny is an unpleasant old man, spending his retirement in a senior-only community. When his female companion dies suddenly, we learn that they were not married and that the house belonged to her. The woman's children want Lenny out ASAP, so his two estranged children, Wendy and Jon (equally great Linney and Seymour Hoffman) must come and take him back to the East Coast, where they live. Also due to their difficult childhood – only hinted at - Wendy and Jon have issues of their own, such as being unable to have healthy, long terms relationships. Wendy is involved in a dispassionate affair with a married man and Jon cannot commit to his long-term Polish girlfriend who must leave the US before being deported. The siblings have a strained relationship of their own, fed on the frustration of having both literary ambitions, but holding mundane jobs. The movie develops their relationship nicely, as the only metaphorical ray of sunshine in an otherwise frosty and desolate landscape. Despite the abuse they suffered at the hands of Lenny and a mother who just "left", they try to do their best to care for their hostile, demented dad, who does not show a shred of gratitude. The movie has a sort of melancholic humour and even manages to end with a much needed uplifting note. Definitely top-class film-making for discerning audiences.

Movies linking different stories taking place all over the world are usually are praised for the interweaving plot coming together with some big revelation. Think about Babel, universally praised for mixing intercontinental tragedy. I liked it moderately, as it was a bit too gloomy, and I would not put it in my top-ten list. On the other hand, 360 working on a similar take, was vilified almost unanimously. On a different merry-go-round we have the stories of an English businessman ready to stray with a prostitute in Bratislava, while his wife is already straying in London with a Brazilian guy, whose fiancée is dumping him for said infidelity and travelling back home, etc… Since the prostitute is having her photos taken by a photographer for her online advert, the movie starts and finishes with a girl entering the study, thus coming round 360 degrees. A couple of stories are quite weak, such as the Brazilian girl meeting a sex offender en route to Brazil and the prostitute's sister running away with a stranger. However, compared to Babel what is missing here is mega tragedy and that is exactly what made Babel so pretentious, with its existentialist grandeur. Therefore, I liked it better because in 360 characters' lives are more "normal" – except, perhaps, the Russian mobsters – and their lives are not experiencing huge calamities. They just change or adjust slightly. I guess that was not liked by the critics (and public). Nowadays, a level of extra-drama seems to be required in ever massive doses to relieve with excitement our numbed existences … at least for a couple of hours.

I am usually not a big fan of "documentary style" movies, which are an excuse for sloppy scriptwriting, poor editing and bad photography. Following the life of a boy from primary school until college may easily have fallen into the category, but it has none of the above problems. The main character is Mason Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) literally "growing up in public". Arquette plays mom Olivia and Hawke is dad Mason Sr. Annoying Lorelei Linklater (the director's daughter) plays sister Sam. The script moves swiftly through some important moments in Mason Jr.'s life from age 6. Dad is often absent and has problems accepting "real" life, such as a normal job which would not fulfil his dream of becoming a famous musician. Mom tries to improve family life and fails, marrying an abusive drunkard professor. Mason Jr. is relocated a couple of times, losing his childhood friends and going through the difficulties of adolescence, compounded by mom's divorce, new job and new boyfriend. However, the best part of the movie for me was the normalcy of the situations. No super-drama, just ordinary life with the usual disappointments and small traumas (bullying at school, first love, etc…) Luckily we are spared Mason Jr.'s first sexual experience and explanations about what is going on in his head. We observe him and may be reminded of episodes from our own childhood, such as why our parents made us play the "game of silence". Anybody can find a familiar episode, which will probably remind us that there is just a limited number of "first" experiences in our life. Coltrane is fine as the young introverted boy, but I started to dislike him as a gloomy adolescent. I am not sure which part of it was acting. The scene with Mason Jr. and his girlfriend walking around Austin a whole night might have been an ideal link with the "Before" series, unfortunately Coltrane does not have much of the charisma and acting skills of Hawke. Finally, the first 2/3 of the movie move smoothly, but the story gets stuck towards the end, just when morose teenage Mason Jr. gets most screen time. Contrary to the "Before" series, I am definitely not interested in a follow-up.

I do not find movie about sick children entertaining, Even less so, if based on a real story of suffering. I stumbled upon this movie on TV and thinking it was a thriller I started watching it. Big mistake. Turned out this was the “fictional” version of the story of a rich guy with two children, sick with a rare genetic disease and his efforts to save them. Very noble in the intent, but noble intents do not necessarily make good movies. If anything, this is a very manipulative one, in between the fine line dividing inspirational and delusional. A documentary would have been more appropriate. Brendan Fraser never looked puffier.

Being uninterested in Pattinson as a vampire, teenage heart-throb, I thought myself unbiased and ready to appreciate his acting skills. Unfortunately, this movie did not reveal any such talent. Pattinson plays Georges Duroy, a penniless ex-NCO, who seduces and manipulates rich women despite a complete lack of wit or endowments. Besides not showing any of the charisma required by the part, Pattinson's rough features add further hindrance. The role would have suited an actor of refined handsomeness, to make the contrast with Georges personality even more striking. What we get instead is Pattinson's boxer nose, coupled with a flat delivery of his lines. It makes it hard to believe that so many women would find him irresistible. The story follows Duroy meeting in a brothel Forestier, a former comrade. For reasons impossible to understand, Forestier invites him to dinner and ends up offering Georges a job. During this dinner Georges meets three women willing to be manipulated like puppets, despite the fact that they all seem smarter than Georges. The first is Clotilde is a rich, dizzy married woman, who just wants to be Georges lover at all costs. For their first sexual encounter, Georges invites her to his squalid abode and Clotilde decides to rent an expensive love nest to continue their relationship. Madeleine is Forestier's wife, played by Thurman. She is an independent, clever woman who ends up marrying Georges, although she has absolutely no reason whatsoever to do so. Their relation is completely inexplicable. Mme Rousset, played by Scott Thomas, is a middle aged married woman who loses her head for the completely charm-free Georges. The seduction scene that involves the two of them is cringe-inducing. Finally, a fourth woman also falls for Georges, making the whole movie a sequel of sexual encounters strangely lacking any passion. Not bad for a boy who would hardly get a second glance, but incredibly tedious as a movie plot

Unusually sweet movie about lonely people adrift in LA. Also a proof that a “romantic” comedy does not have to be yet another boring chick-flick. Mirabelle is a girl, working at the gloves counter of a department store. She does not have much to do, since gloves are not much in demand. In her spare time she draws in Edward Hopper’s style. At the laundry, she meets James, a young aimless slob. They have an awkward date and sex, mostly due to lack of social and emotional intelligence than to personal flaws. Then Mirabelle starts to be “courted” by Ray, an elderly, rich gentleman, equally unable to connect emotionally, but very much skilled in old-fashioned gallantry. The two embark in a sexual relationship which in Ray’s mind will never turn into “commitment”. Although Mirabelle enjoys the obvious perks of dating a rich, kind man, she starts longing for emotional fulfillment. In the meantime James leaves LA to be a roadie of some sort and while travelling with a rock band, he gets some self-help books about relationships. When James comes back to town, sort of mature by his experience, the Mirabelle/Ray relation has reached stalemate. Reluctant to give up on Ray, Mirabelle fells into a depression, probably triggered by her unspoken needs. Eventually Ray breaks it off, setting in motion a more assertive Mirabelle, who finally decides to quit her boring job. The two meet some time after the break-up. Mirabelle is working in an art gallery showing some of her work. She and James are now happily together, while Ray is visiting the exhibition with another “girlfriend” of some sort. Mirabelle and Ray have a short private conversation during which he admits of having loved her, but that does not matter anymore to Mirabelle. I really enjoyed the simple storyline and the interpretation of the three main characters.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I never believed that Sienna Miller was a “real” actress but she actually managed quite well in Factory Girl. I am not sure if it is because she can act or just because – having been an IT girl herself - she identified with Edie Sedgwick, the IT girl of the 60s. Whichever way, it worked out. Based on the real story of Sedgwick, we follow her from her art studies to the world of the Factory, where an exploitative Warhol is ready to take advantage of her beauty and connections to get a hold to the upper class of New York. It is not clear what Edie’s talent was, as she was a mediocre actress and modeled very little, but talent was not a requirement for Warhol’s superstars. Warhol was a complex figure, perhaps a great artist or just an able manipulator, but his unpleasant nature is no secret. He had an adoring gang of “superstars” and would be artists, working for him in the Factory (probably the most pretentious art lab of the time). In the movie we see how he liked to pick the next “superstar”, to replace the previous one he grew bored with. The script suggests Sedgwick was replaced by Nico (who undoubtedly was a more complex and interesting woman). More controversy is added by the mystery love story with Dylan (which might or not have happened, but is denied by Dylan). According to the script, Edie interest (even love?) for Dylan was another reason why the jealous Warhol dropped her. Not being able to have her undivided attention, not her money – since her father cut her of her inheritance – Edie was dropped by Warhol to deal alone with her addictions. Luckily the script does not even try to make the audience feel sorry for poor little rich girl Edie. Coming for old money, she had a difficult relationship with her father and tragedy struck early in her life with the suicide of her brother. However, her problems were compounded by her self-destructive nature and her Factory experience contributed only to send her down faster, where she probably would have ended anyway.

Romantic comedies are very difficult to get right. This “old classic” signed Nora Ephron is a good example of everything that can go wrong. Built on the success of “When Harry met Sally”, we have cute heroine Meg Ryan playing one of her romantic leads roles, inclusive of tics and weirdness that were her trademark. She could easily be a slightly older version of Sally, with a worse haircut. This time, her character is called Annie and she lives in Baltimore. Annie is engaged to Walter, whose main defect is being dull. This must be a terrible crime in Ephron’s book, since Walter is treated with zero respect. One night, Annie listens to Sam’s phone call to a radio station. Sam is a young widower, living in Seattle with his son Jonah. Just listening to his story Annie fells for him. Many criticized this idea of falling in love, which however is not the worst point of the movie. People fall in love for lots of different reasons, so I could buy Annie falling for Sam and trying to meet him. What I do not buy is the artificiality of all the events presented after that. Annie is a journalist and manages to be sent to Seattle to meet Sam, but somehow manages not to do so, even if she sees him twice (and he sees her too, managing to fell in love at “first sight”). They do not exchange words, even if she could have waited for him and introduced herself in a normal way. But that would have been way too dull for Ephron. Then there is a letter which makes unbearable Jonah instantly like Annie. Jonah tries to push Sam to meet Annie on top of the Empire State Building on Valentine’s Day. This is contrivance at the highest level, built in the script together with many references to the movie “An affair to remember”. Since neither Sam nor Annie live in New York, this “romantic” meeting on Valentine’s is supposed to prove that “love at first sight” does exist and can even be the basis for a long lasting relationship….. or whatever. What I got instead, is an overlong, unfunny movie where the two leads meet only at the end, which is certainly not the way I like onscreen romances to go.

George Clooney directed this old-fashioned movie and starred in it looking like Clark Gable. Despite the negative reviews, there is nothing basically wrong with the movie. It tells a straight story, based on facts. It has a short introduction, where we get to meet all the main characters; a development, where we follow the different characters in their adventures and an end that wraps up the whole film. Granted, today’s audience, used to fast editing, special effects, gore and over the top scripts may find it difficult to appreciate what is really old school story-telling. However, some of the reviews I read do not make any sense: somebody complained about “lack of character development”, but they should know that in movies with a large cast, character development is hardly a priority. Somebody else mentioned that it is “absurd” to leave gold and art in cave. Well, that actually happened for real, as the retiring **** could not carry all that stuff with them. Just check the historical records… Other complained about “yet another movie about WWII”. Perhaps they should check in advance which movies they are going to see, if they do not care about WWII movies. I agree about the fact that given the premises it could have been a better movie, but I still found it entertaining. Murray, Damon and Clooney were good as usual and even Blanchett, in a small role, managed a decent performance. Definitely not a masterpiece but an enjoyable movie to watch, especially if you like classic movies moving at a slower pace.

The very messy plot should be about a convoluted scam played by a couple of swindlers, “forced” to work for the FBI. The swindlers happen to be Irving (Bale) and Sydney (Adams), also involved in a torrid extramarital affair. Irving is married to Rosalyn (Lawrence) a single mum, whose son he adopted. Like most married men, he stalling divorce because the “child would suffer”. Irving and Sydney get busted by Richie (Cooper) an ambitious FBI agent who forces them to get bigger fish into the agency net. Or, at least this should be the plot, because it gets derailed in all directions, none of which even remotely interesting. It feels like the whole movie is a scam played on the audience, starting with Lawrence. I understand that she is the present ”Hollywood-IT-hot” girl, but her part is bloated out of proportion, when her character was at best a marginal one. She is constantly on screen, shouting all her lines and going on endlessly about her relationship with Irving. Who cares? I wanted to see a movie about a hustle, not a dysfunctional couple in action, especially when their dysfunctions are not the core of the plot. We also get plenty of the Sydney-Richie relationship (and again, who cares?) Everybody is exceedingly verbose, and situations that would require at most 30 seconds of screen time drag on for several minutes. Even considered as a “character study”, the movie still does not work. Besides, the “moral” of the story is a murky one and an additional joke played on the audience: whoever makes more money (regardless of their methods) is smarter than anybody holding an honest job. Corrupted politicians are portrayed as minor offenders, dealing dirty deeds for the good of the community. Richie is played as a fool, while mediocre Irving and Sydney are glorified as first-class tricksters. Even dumb and insufferable Rosalyn gets a happy ending of her own The best thing about American Hustle is the 70’s atmosphere, with some amazingly tacky clothes and a good soundtrack, but it is definitely not enough to save the movie. Unbelievable to think this mess got 10 Oscars nominations….

The paper-thin plot of this movie revolves around working mother Kate, juggling her way through life. It sounds dull and more appropriate for a sit-com – and definitely would be. I read that the script is based on a novel, which I am determined to ignore, especially after having seen the movie. Kate is played by SJP, an actress who could easily be described as the female Tom Hanks – albeit slightly less talented. Her likability is enormous, but unfortunately her choice of roles very limited; in her repertoire there are only comedies, most of them remarkable failures at the box office. Her sidekicks in this movie are Greg Kinnear and Pierce Brosnan, two good actors with a wider range, who play respectively her husband and a business associate. One wishes there was more of them on screen. Unfortunately we get plenty of SJP and of her friend played by Christina Hendricks. It could have been any other actress playing second fiddle to SJP, as poor Christina is used only to enunciate a string of questionable statements. For a comedy there are very few laughers. Actually, none at all from me. The punch lines sounded tired and unfunny and the "real life" situations abused and stale: what about an envious colleague who would like to steal your glory? Or a supportive best friend with a lousy love life? Not to mention the neglected husband. All seen in a million other comedies, most of them better than this one. The problem with this, and an increasingly larger number of movies, is that they are targeted to a very restricted public. This one is targeted strictly to 1) working mothers with young children, and 2) die-hard fans of SJP. I doubt anybody else will find it even mildly amusing, as it does not work at all as a comedy. Indeed, in the cinema where I saw it, even if the audience was mostly female, only a woman in her mid-thirties laughed out loud. Besides, SJP starts to get a bit old for this type of role and her constant touching her hair drove me almost crazy. I wanted to shout: "Just cut it if it bothers you so much!". She used to have gorgeous hair, but even that is growing thin and limpy.

There are so many wrong things about this un-funny comedy that I am not sure where to start. The very loose plot revolves around a rich married couple, with two daughters. All the members of this family spend most of their "quality" time shouting at each other. Despite this, hubby (Paul) and wife (Debbie) carry on their dysfunctional marriage for reasons impossible to understand. They both are immature, self-absorbed and kept together only by sex. Several scenes involve trivial language and cringe-inducing situations. To mention but a few: Debbie insults a kid, after having read his comments on her daughter's facebook page (how utterly pathetic to see an adult woman losing it with a kid for such a trivial reason...); Debbie going to the disco with her employee and behaving like a teenager; Paul spending a lot of time in the toilet (we have the pleasure of seeing him taking a dump not once but twice), etc..... The only saving grace for me was that this was supposed to be my in-flight entertainment, so at least I had the pleasure of not paying for a ticket.

As everybody knows there are only two actors in the movie and they wear spacesuits and helmets most of the time. Therefore, acting and human interaction are not the key. Personally, I think too much time was given to Sandra Bullock and her dramatic situation. Clooney would have provided some buoyancy and made the movie more interesting character-wise. If I have to point out one major defect, I found it silly to have Bullock look so good, with no sign of injuries or dirtiness and with her hair perfectly combed. Yes, she was mercifully make-up free, but otherwise she looked like she had just stepped out of her bed after a refreshing night’s sleep. For me, the film is an ode to the beauty and dangers of space, the only “virgin” territory left to explore. I used to think that being an astronaut was great, but I had to reconsider. Besides, the film is an example of 3D put to good use. The three-dimensional effects worked wonders in most sequences. We see earth and all the meteorological events we observe from down here, we see sunrise from an astonishing angle, small objects float towards us and we even get the “personal” point of view of gazing through the helmet of one astronaut. The soundtrack was also great, underlying dramatic moments without being too bombastic. There was also a major technical blunder which you can found out by yourself, but on the whole I must confess I am a **** for movies set in space where the space is the main character and I got totally lost in this one.

Victor is a proletarian guy, born on bus by a mother working as a prostitute (shown in an overlong introduction and pointless to the rest of the movie) who falls for Elena, an upper class junkie. Actually, he just has casual sex with her once and becomes erotically obsessed with her. He stalks her to her apartment and stubbornly refuses to leave her alone. A fight ensues and Sancho and David, a couple of cops appear on the scene. David gets paralyzed by a gunshot and ends up married to Elena. Victor gets to jail, but he is still obsessed with Elena and continues stalking her once he gets out four years later. Already unconvincing, the story takes a turn for the absurd when Elena shows a growing interest for Victor, who continues to confuse obsession with love. In the meantime, Victor is also sexually involved with Clara, Sancho's wife (very believable plot twist). Clara is giving him lessons to become the best lover in the world, Victor's top ambition so as to astonish Elena with his performance. It sounds like a demented plot, but I am not making it up. Probably one of the weakest Almodovar's films, it contains the inevitable steamy sex scene, which are Almodovar trademark and it is disgraced even further by an absurd "happy ending", which sees stalker and prey happily together, while Elena is giving birth to their child on a car (back to the start, in a sort of circular move). P.S. to make the matter worse, throughout the whole movie Victor blames Elena, David and everybody else for his misfortunes, conveniently avoiding to notice that the whole drama arose from his obsession.

This gloomy tale is about ex-addict Kathy (Connelly) being evicted from her house and Colonel Behrani (Kingsley), a refugee forced to leave Iran with his family due to the fall of the Shah. Behrani buys the house in a desperate attempt to redress is financial situation, thus starting an escalating fight with Kathy. Behrani is a stoic man, burdened with an impractical wife and a couple of children who are eating up all his income. The man works two jobs, while his family seems blissfully unaware of what is going on. Kathy is introduced while on the phone, lying to her family. The camera shows a dirty house and unopened letters on the floor. Not the sort of introduction to elicit sympathy. Enraged by being evicted from her house (because she was too lazy to open her mail), Kathy hires a lawyer and proceeds to manipulate Lester, a married cop, into doing some dirty work for her.Like most addicts, Kathy seems incapable to take responsibilities. Throughout the movie she is constantly blaming someone else or on the verge of drowning in self-pity. The only thing Kathy and Behrani have in common is that they both lie to their families. They both are slightly unsympathetic, but the antipathy award goes to Lester, the policeman who embarks in the extramarital affair with Kathy, dumps wife and kids and starts threating Behrani until the bitter end. I read the novel and liked the fact that the writer did not take sides. You really get the idea that two wrongs do not make one right. However, the movie failed to produce the same effect. Kathy comes across as the wrong one, the pushy, needy, weak, spoiled woman with a passive-aggressive attitude who can only manipulate or cry her way through life. Therefore, I found the movie disappointing.

A story about a tormented young singer committing suicide on the verge of **** is bound to have a certain appeal. However, the risks of falling into melodramatic or morbid are high. Corbijn avoids both, directing this minor masterpiece with restrain and respect for all those involved. I loved the B&W photography. It recreates the atmosphere of those years, which seem long gone, the bleak but bubbling music scene, and the excitement about the new wave just about to explode. Youth having everything and not realizing how fragile life is. Ian Curtis was a particularly fragile creature, both because of his epilepsy and his problem with communication. A confused boy without guidance, who wrote some of the most depressing lyrics ever, he still has a huge following. Maybe because his anguish is universally understood. I am not a Joy Division fan, nor was I particularly shocked by Ian Curtis early departure. However, this movie is so well made that made listen again to their music. After more than 25 years their songs sound even more claustrophobic and depressing and I wonder how Curtis would have developed as a singer. Had he lived on, I doubt he could have transitioned easily into the light-hearted pop atmosphere of the late 80's. By checking out so early he became unforgettable. Even more so, with this sober but poignant movie celebrating his short time on earth.

Jesse and Celine are my favourite fictional couple. I followed them from their first meeting 20 years ago and I am still not tired with them. As I expected, this instalment is a great movie, both as stand-alone and as the third part of the series. In this chapter, Jesse and Celine deal with the inevitable problems and disappointments of approaching middle age. They are both still very attractive and well-articulated, but now they carry the burden of responsibilities and are starting to consider the idea of their final demise. This time they walk and talk in Greece, during the last day of a six-week holiday. Their first conversation takes place while they drive back to their friend's house. They talk about the burden of parenthood, work problems and relocating to the US. No flirting, but still excellently executed. The second long conversation is at dinner, with their friends. It touches several subjects, among which the different perception of love, according to your age. Since the age of their friends varies from early 20s to late 60s, the conversation is very compelling. Then Jesse and Celine walk to their hotel, where their friends insisted they stay to get one night of privacy and romance. We understand clearly that nowadays they hardly ever have conversations that are not utilitarian, which makes the situation very realistic. Once they reach the hotel, drama ensues in the shape of a major argument. Anybody who quarrelled with a loved one will undoubtedly admire the skilled way in which the argument is presented: the anger about trivial matters, the resentment about past events, the illogical change of topics…. During this exchange their national idiosyncrasies are exploited in a subtle, yet funny way (Celine cannot pronounce an English word, etc…). But no matter how bad things get with them, I still hope they will stick together and will transform their passionate love into a mature feeling.

Lovely bitter-sweet comedy about Tom, a guy who believes in love at first sight and Summer who apparently does not. The plot and characters are believable, and the movie is edited in a clever way. We follow some of the most important moments of the Tom/Summer relationship (and break-up) in a non-linear sequence, which for once improves the story. Moreover, the movie is interspersed with quirky scenes (the black & white "movie" Tom watches after the break-up; the dance scene and scored with brilliant music. Romantic comedies are hardly ever this good and watchable. It does not hurt that Tom and Summer are played by actors likable and good looking, but in an ordinary way more than in a Hollywood superstar way. It is funny to note that some male reviewers hated the Summer character, describing her as a "tease" often using more impolite words. In fact, Summer is honest and straightforward. She is adamant with Tom about not wanting a serious relation and Tom accepts this condition. Unfortunately, when it comes to feelings, how can you really assure anybody that you will not fall madly in love? That is Summer's mistake: expecting Tom to accept a carefree relationship, when nobody can really foresee how deeply they will love somebody else. But can she be called a tease for that? Tom, harbouring his notion of the "perfect match" is living in an illusion of his own making. He gets obsessed about the fact that Summer is that perfect match and blames her for not living up to his expectations. In fact, Summer herself falls into the love trap, showing that even the best intentions can crumble down unexpectedly and the girl who did not want a serious relationship ends up married. That is what real life is about, illogical and vastly unforeseeable.

Beautiful, moving story. Filmed at a slow pace, it allows the viewers to follow the development of Keats and Brawne relationship. Some unforgettable photography (the butterflies farm, the slow passing of seasons). Even more admirable in an age of speed and noise. The soundtrack is also quite delicate. A masterpiece of sophistication and substance.

As described by many, Killer Joe is a neo-noir set in Texas. For lovers of noir, it is a welcomed occurrence, because the genre is not popular. However, it definitely carries things very far. It breaks censorship's boundaries unimaginable in the 40's and pushes the limit very far even for 2012. The plot revolves around a family of dim-witted red-necks plotting a murder to collect insurance money. The key word being dim-witted. Chris (played to perfection by Hirsch) is the son, a pathetic looser who sets the plot in motion due to his debt with a drug lord. Despite his many shortcomings, I could not help feeling sorry for Chris, also because of all the beating he takes. Enter father Ansel and step-mum Sharla (some entrance she makes). They both agree with the plan to kill Chris's mum, a drunkard with an insurance policy and a boyfriend named Rex. The beneficiary of the policy is said to be daughter Dottie. Being the dumbest of the family, she is also the more dangerous, because her actions are completely unpredictable. Chris hires Killer Joe and from then on the movie takes an even darker turn, as if planning to kill one's mother is not bad enough. Joe decides to keep Dottie as a retainer, since the family cannot pay in advance for his services. This upsets Chris, who is protective towards little sister Dottie, although in a disproportionate way. After mum's been disposed off, huge trouble erupts. Without giving too much away, I would suggest keeping double indemnity in mind and not only as a reference to one of the best classic noirs ever made. Also, do not forget about Rex, those face remains unseen…For what concerns the notorious scene at the end, I never saw a drumstick used like Joe does and I hope never to see it again. As far as disturbing goes, that will be a scene difficult to top. Think about Blue Velvet/Rossellini/Hopper, but sicker. Contrary to audiences in the US, nobody left the screening room in Brussels. However, considering the level of gore reached by horror movies, I wonder why part of the audience is squeamish only about some scenes but can watch bodies being dismembered without any problem… The biggest surprise of the film was McConaughey playing cool and brutal cop/hired killer Joe. I am so used seeing him playing the bland boyfriend I did not think he could be convincing. I loved the scene of Joe arrival and the watch dog shutting up, after non-stop barking. It just sets the right atmosphere without any word being spoken. So far I thought of McConaughey as an American Hugh Grant, but I honestly do not think Grant could manage anything of the sort. Hope McConaughey will continue trying interesting roles and drop the "boyfriend" route.

Stripped down of all the Bond usual decorations (girls, chases, gadgets, exotic locations, etc…) Skyfall has a very simple plot: a disgruntled ex-employee wants to take revenge on the employer who dumped him. Unfortunately, and proving once more that Bond films are just appearance over substance, this logic premise falls down the drain at every twist and turn. So as not to attract attention to his plan, the villain steals a top secret list and makes it public. That is definitely the best way to be inconspicuous…. But what the villain wants is simply to be captured and taken into custody, close to his intended victim. Such victim is a frail old lady who presumably can be dispatched very easily, just by taking a trip to London and ambushing her at her house. However, it turns out that killing the lady is a lot more difficult than it seems and even placing a bomb inside the HQ of the secret service is not up to the task although it spreads serious doubts about the professionalism of MI6. Added randomly to the mix are bits and pieces from countless other successful movies: Mission: Impossible (the stolen list, which is forgotten half way into the movie), Blade Runner (the stunning Shanghai night scape), Inception (the Oriental casino), and The Silence of the Lamb (Hannibal's glass cage) **** result is a boring, overlong mess that does not make much sense. The villain, played by an embarrassing Bardem wearing a blonde wig, is hardly scary at all. He acts like a rejected child who wants to attract the attention of his mummy. Bond is weary and demotivated (and so are we, at this stage). He beds a couple of gorgeous women in a couple of bizarre scenes, both superfluous. He is out of shape, but he manages to kill almost single-handedly a dozen baddies assaulting his home. One of the field agents is actually a secretary. Ralph Fiennes looks fat, bold and very middle-aged… whatever… Throughout the movie I started thinking that even Quantum of Solace was better than Skyfall and that leads to the final questions: what about the delirious reviews about this being "the best Bond ever?" Were the official reviewers bribed to glorify the 50th Bond anniversary? What did they drink (or smoke) before writing their reviews? Did they watch the same Skyfall movie I watched or perhaps a special edition just for them? Die-hard Bond fans will love it anyway. They love them all, even if it is always the same story, re-told with small variations: Bond is invincible and irresistible to women and he always saves the world, thanks to a few gadgets, his Martinis and his beloved car. No need to invent anything new.