Monsieur Cinema

An apology is due

2010-07-07T19:08:00.000-05:00

I know some people consider it bad form to apologize for inconsistent posting. "Just post more often, don't continually apologize for it" they say. Well, I still think an apology is due over the time it took for me to evaluate my priorities and goals. We're now back to our regularly scheduled programming, mes amis. Thanks for your patience.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

Supporting Actress Blogathon: Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark in Inglourious Basterds

2010-01-16T19:49:00.010-06:00

My second entry to StinkyLulu's 2009 Supporting Actress Blogathon is a performance that grabbed my attention from the moment it first appeared on screen.

Diane Kruger (who pleasantly surprised me here) plays Bridget von Hammersmark, a German actress and Allied double agent tasked with being the film's eponymous Basterds German liaison and helping them with
Operation Kino, a plan to end WWII in one fell swoop. She's stylish (even her leg cast is high-heeled), beautiful, glamorous and (key ingredient) snarky. In other words, she's a diva.

The problem with divas is that playing one cannot really be taught. You can make them snappy with the script and glamorous with the wardrobe and art direction. However, the true diva has something else; something intangible, a certain je ne sais quoi. A diva has to be larger-than-life; human, yet unattainable.

Which is exactly what Kruger brings to the role. Yes, her wardrobe is gorgeous, but it would not look half as good if she did not carry herself the way she does. Her poise in everything from the way she smokes her cigarettes to the way she charms an entire room full of Nazi soldiers is astounding. But a delicate flower she's not. When (after a particularly messy gunfight) she's shot in the leg and and forced to cope with a redesigned strategy for Operation Kino, she doesn't hide her frustration. Rather, she directs her anger and wit at the dumb Basterds she's forced to rely on. It's during this scene that Kruger truly won me over. The gusto with which she delivers her lines is what finally tipped her into film diva territory, at least for me.

All of this would be fine and good for a truly decent supporting actress performance, but a remarkable one? That would require a little plus, and Kruger, once again, delivers. As her schemes begin to unravel, she's forced to deal with Cristoph Waltz's Col. Hans Landa (my favorite male supporting actor performance of the year). As she begins to realize, with ever-growing panic, that he's figured it all out, her perfect mask of poise and charm falters once more. Except, whereas before we saw a fierce attitude that wouldn't back down, now we see fear. She shows terror in her eyes, in the quiver of her lips, in her gasping breath. And then, she pulls herself together and manages a halfhearted smile before calmly, defiantly asking her executioner "What now, Colonel?"

For all of these reasons, it is my pleasure to nominate Diane Kruger as one of 2009's best supporting actresses.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

Supporting Actress Blogathon 2009: Marion Cotillard as Billie Frechette in Public Enemies

2010-01-16T17:54:00.011-06:00

This is the first time I ever participate in StinkyLulu's Supporting Actress Blogathon. Actually, it's the first blogathon I ever participate in. With that in mind, I wanted this first contribution to be something I could be proud of. So, I racked my brain and thought of a supporting performance that had grabbed my attention. Sure enough, plenty sprung to mind; but I wanted to avoid the obvious choices (Mo'nique), at least for my first post. And so, I chose a performance that was one of the few things I enjoyed in Michael Mann's Public Enemies.

Academy-Award-winner Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose)could have rested on her laurels in this movie. Plenty of her costars were doing just that. Instead, Cotillard delivers a remarkable turn as a supporting actress in a movie that was otherwise just not that interesting. Let's break it down.

Cotillard plays Billie Mary Evelyn "Billie" Frechette, a coat-check girl that meets notorious bank robber John Dillinger and becomes his lover. Her reasons? She was bored with her life and felt like she needed to be protected. Now, these simplistic reasons coupled with a stale script could have spelled disaster for most actresses, but Cotillard handles it expertly.

The way Cotillard avoids the double-whammy threat mentioned above is by sticking to what I think great "actressing at the edges" is all about: the details. Cotillard doesn't rely on a fantastic script or an engrossing story. She just gives the role little idiosyncratic touches that make it her own. And while maybe she does have an advantage over other potential contenders because she has an "Oscar scene" (the interrogation), that's not what kept me interested. Rather, it was scenes like her first date with Dillinger and the way her eyes twinkled with interest as he told her about his exploits that made me fall in love with her. Her interrogation scene wouldn't have been half as effective if we didn't care about her character, and we would've had no reason to do so if it wasn't for her wonderful performance. For all of this, I nominate Marion Cotillard as one of 2009's best supporting actresses.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

P.S. For more fantastic "actressing at the edges", head over to StinkyLulu.

In the blink of an eye

2009-12-31T14:12:00.006-06:00

First, I'd like to explain why, unlike my fellow cinephiles, I have not been busying myself writing end of the decade lists. The 2000s have come and gone and now is the time we look back fondly (or not) on what happened over the last ten years. And while I find these efforts to sum up the Oughts in clever lists and articles a fun and perhaps even necessary exercise, I will not take part in them.

The reason I'll abstain from such things is my birth-date. I was born on January, 1992; on the same day as my sister's birthday. I grew up a child of the 90s and when the new millennium rolled around I was still a little boy. So, while I was alive throughout all the 2000s, I was much too young to see the majority of the films that came out in the first half of the decade. Yes, I have seen films from years past to fill the gaps in my film education, but I still think I am not qualified to provide an adequate review of the entire decade.

So, what is left for me to do, my dear readers? Well, one thing I am prepared to review is 2009. And on this last day of the year, as you uncork the champagne and count down the seconds to a bright new beginning, I'm prepared to entertain you with one last bit of my opinion.

I raise my glass today to this past decade, and for all it has brought. Bonne année, mes petits.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

P.S. And for those of you interested in such lists, there's a fantastic group of them over at Cinematical.

Alice in Wonderland

2009-12-17T16:17:00.002-06:00

A new trailer for Tim Burton's upcoming Alice in Wonderland has been making the rounds and I thought I'd share it with you. The film looks wonderfully Burton-esque. I specially love Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen. Do you love it? Do you hate it? Do you cover your ears at the Queen's insane scream (love!)? Let me know in the comments.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

Portrait of the Ad as a Short Film

2009-12-13T18:06:00.006-06:00

You may have noticed a trend that high-end ads are following these days. The thing nowadays is to turn ads into short films that happen to showcase the product in one way or the other. This type of advertising, where the line between an ad and entertainment gets blurred, is technically knows as branded content. The first of these commercials I remember watching is No. 5 The Film, a Chanel advertisement for the legendary perfume of the same name directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!). Featuring Nicole Kidman and Rodrigo Santoro in a simple, star-crossed-love story, the commercial raised the bar for advertisement everywhere (in my mind, at least).

This year, Chanel released a new ad for No. 5, this time a short film directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amélie), where he once again worked with Audrey Tautou. And although it's not as glitzy as the first one, it still is miles above what most fashion commercials are doing these days.

However, competition being what it is, rival fashion house Dior has released it's own contribution to this emerging genre. The Olivier Dahan-directed The Lady Noire Affair features a gorgeous Marion Cotillard and a dark color palette to go with the noir mood, along with the promise of Cotillard returning for the sequel, The Lady Rouge. Not only this, David Lynch is set to direct. Now, don't get me wrong, I find the Chanel ads much more charming than this one, but the thought of Lynch directing Cotillard in a John Galliano-styled short film is pretty interesting to me.

All of this leads me to the question; are these any good? Are these competently made short films? Or are they just above-average, different advertisements that grab my attention due to their originality? And if they are, are they an indication of what advertisement can aspire to be? Are these lofty aspirations even accomplishable? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

On Summer Plans

2009-10-25T11:28:00.007-06:00

I know what you're thinking. Why would you make plans for summer 8 months or so in advance? Well, my dear readers, that's because I just got told that next year my school's theater department is taking a trip to New York. I, being the NY-obsessed boy I am, immediately asked them if I could join them. They said yes and that means I've got a chance (however small) of actually going to Broadway. Needless to say, this makes me a very happy camper, mes petits. The plan is to go and see four musicals (not chosen yet) and I'm lobbying to go see Hair. The show's gotten rave reviews and it has an amazing cast, so I'm dying to go. I leave you here with a couple of choice videos showcasing the amazing performers and specially the outstanding Gavin Creel.

Wish me luck, darlings.

Au revoir,

M. Cinema

Thoughts on Inglourious Basterds

2009-10-12T14:31:00.024-05:00

Approaching a film like Inglourious Basterds is a complex thing. You don't just consider the film itself, but what went into making it and the history surrounding it. In the case of this film, that would be a more-than-a-decade-in-the-making script and Tarantino describing it as "epic". And with a two and a half hours length, it certainly feels that way. The film delivers on its promise of everything a Tarantino film should be and more. Allow me to elaborate.

Inglourious Basterds opens with SS-Standartenführer (Colonel) Hans Landa (Cristoph Waltz) and his arrival at a dairy farm. Landa (a.k.a The Jew Hunter) is there to perform a search for the last remaining Jew survivors in the area. While questioning the farmer who owns the property about the survivors, Landa remains utterly charming in a way no film Nazi has ever been, in my experience. He's eloquent, fluent in three languages (so far) and dangerously charismatic. He is also evil, ironic and absurd; in a thoroughly enjoyable way. Waltz deserves praise for bringing to life what Tarantino considered his greatest character ever. His Hans Landa is the kind of rotten character that you kinda want to watch get away with it in the end. Landa also provides unexpected comedy several times in the film; keeping his character solidly on our good side. I can thus honestly say there wasn't one scene he was in where I wasn't completely enamored with him. I wouldn't be surprised if Waltz got an Oscar nomination to go with his Cannes best actor award.

Escaping from Landa's clutches is a teenage girl named Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent). Laurent delivers an outstanding performance here that shall get her (much like her compatriot Marion Cotillard) in the international spotlight. Laurent's face is very expressive throughout the film and it is clear from the luscious (quasi-fetishistic) shots Tarantino takes of her (specially near the climax, where she dons a red dress right out of cinematic mythology) that she is his star, his archetypal tragic siren. Even if Shosanna's revenge story is played alongside a bigger, more action-packed portion of the film, her tale still involves you in ways the rest of the plot, perhaps, can't.

It's through Shosanna's machinations that Tarantino's plot to rewrite history becomes possible. It is through her clever calculations that most of the climax is possible. Some of these machinations include flirting with Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a Nazi war hero who is now getting his own Goebbels film, "The Pride of the Nation".

I had seen Bruhl before in Good Bye, Lenin!
and it must be said even as a Nazi war hero, he still retains his boyish charm. It is also through Bruhl's skill, however, that we get a glimpse at the darker motivations of his character.

Aiding the Basterds in their quest is Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), a German movie star working as a double agent. Kruger is pitch perfect as von Hammersmark; being at once charming, glamorous, and wonderfully diva-esque. Her character is a ton of fun, adding some welcome snark to the proceedings. Kruger pleasantly surprised me with this role, showing talent I hadn't realized she possessed. Don't get me wrong, I've never disliked her or anything; but she hadn't ever really stood out for me.

Also aiding the Basterds is Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), a suave British agent that pokes fun at the British stiff upper-lip humor stereotype like it's nobody's business. Fassbender is truly surprising here. Having previously only seen him in either small roles or his gruesome role in Hunger, I didn't quite expect the comic style he offers here. It is, nonetheless, a decent (if a tad small) part.

As for the Basterds themselves, their roles are relatively small (if idiosyncratic and special in their own way), but the focus remains on Brad Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine (a.k.a. Aldo the Apache). Pitt is here tasked with playing a character that has to be at once funny and menacing. It is in his heroic southern patriot that the Basterds leadership and morale rest. I had my qualms about Pitt's role when I first heard about it, but he quickly puts those concerns to rest once he's on the screen.

Which leads me to the director himself. Quentin Tarantino has always been a divisive director. His films often lead to fierce discussion between die-hard fans and skeptics. What I've always said is that even if you find his style abrasive and lacking taste, he is technically a good director. He certainly knows how to handle a camera's angles and how to communicate a clear vision. He also has a knack for pushing actors to deliver iconic, larger-than-life performances that don't go overboard. He is, ultimately, a director that loves movies. Those two things might seems bound to each other, but if one looks around there is clearly a shortage of cinema-loving directors. He is, for lack of a better term, our very own enfant terrible. A lot of directors wish such a label be applied for them. The difference between Tarantino and the avant-garde hoi polloi is that he actually has the talent and vision to back it up.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie a lot and wholeheartedly recommend watching it and even re-watching it. Much like the relationship with a friend, a Tarantino film always benefits from repeated visits.

Le verdict: ****

P.S. And because I'm a shameless actressexual with a thing for vintage looks, here's one of the alternate film posters and another image of Laurent, in-character. Everybody now: gorgeous.

On Gala Darling

2009-10-07T16:05:00.002-05:00

As promised, here is my homage to the wonderful Gala Darling. Who is Gala Darling, you ask? Well, she's only one of the most marvelous inspirations in my life. I first became aware of Gala's work through StumbleUpon. Even though now I can't find the link anywhere, I remember the article perfectly. It was called Gala Darling's Rules for Life, and it featured a picture of a cotton-candy pink-haired girl and her five tips to be happy (and stylish!) in life. At the bottom of the article, there was a link to her site, iCiNG. I clicked on it and instantly fell in love.

iCiNG is a site full of helpful articles on everything from how to dress for a summer wedding to how to become your ideal self. Gala delivers these articles in such a thorough, caring way it's hard not to want to become a part of the community (for she's repeatedly stated iCiNG is as much her project as it is our community and that we're all a vital part of it). Her articles became an inspiration to me, an anchor during a particularly low point in my life. I credit her with much of the progress I made during that period and with the person I am today. No one else had ever, so unapologetically, told me that my differences were something to be cherished.

Gala Darling is a force of nature, an agent of change and goodness. The sheer volume of her articles is a testament to her undying commitment to provide content for her readers. And not just any content; valuable, interesting or just plain amusing content. What's more, her words ring true. She's not one of those people that just tells you to be happy and denies the existence of unhappiness. She was once herself very unhappy and negative and consciously decided to turn her life around. She quit her day job, started iCiNG and never looked back.

Aside from all of this, she's also phenomenally stylish. She always manages to make something look good and all her own. Her fashion advice is also seriously good; never failing to be at once helpful and amusing. And you can't help but love the pink-haired dynamo as she shares her outfits and ideas with you.

All in all, I love Gala Darling and feel a great deal of pride when I see my link on her site. So, what are you waiting for. Go and soak yourself in iCiNG.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

Thoughts on Gomorra (Gomorrah)

2009-09-22T16:36:00.013-05:00

There are a number of films (The Godfather, Scarface, et al.) that seem to glamorize the criminal underworld. Gomorra is not one of those films. It is unflinchingly faithful to the sordid reality that ensnares the lives of so many people trapped in the web of the Camorra (an Italian crime syndicate originating in the region of Campania). The film, as noted, is based on a reality. Cinematic-wise, however, a film can deviate from reality. Realistic films still hold on to some veneer of style in order to interest us. The opposite is true for documentaries, were the cinematography tries to be as faithful to reality as possible. This film treads a fine line between the two. It's precisely this that repelled me when I was watching it. Allow me to explain why I go against most people in saying this is not a great film.

The movie focuses on five different stories, all of them tainted by the crime surrounding them. Don Ciro (Gianfelice Imparato), an accountant who distributes money to the families of imprisoned gang members, wants to escape his job and move to a safer location. Toto (Nicoló Manta), a grocery boy, wants in on the action. Pasquale (Salvatore Cantalupe) is an haute couture tailor looking to make an extra buck by training Chinese garment workers how to counterfeit the real deal. Marco (Marco Macor) and Ciro (Ciro Petrone) are two teenage wannabe gangsters that dream of the life shown in movies like The Godfather and (their favorite) Scarface. On the other side of the coin, Roberto (Carmine Paternoster) and his boss Franco (Toni Servillo) are illegally disposing of waste in unused quarries. The common denominator to all these stories is more than their involvement with the crime around them. It's that they're, all of them, victims in some way or another. Neither them nor the local ganglords we see are really enjoying the glitz and glamour crime promised. They're all victims, in one way or another, of an uncaring system.

The film is quite skillful in depicting the bleak reality of the crime-soaked lives it explores. It uses unadorned camerawork and photography, nearly documentary-level in style. Though, objectively, I can see the point to this, it just isn't my taste. Even in realistic films the world is heightened, even if it's just in the visual style of the film. You look out your window and the world doesn't look exactly like in the movies. The closest we come to that is a documentary. This film walks the line between the two approaches, but I would've much preferred it choose a side and stick with it. I realize the film's fiction is a lure to get the audience to pay attention to the reality it wants to shine a light on. In the end, though, I just feel duped. It was the ending notes that did it in for me. If the film was content with depicting reality as it is and nothing more, why would it try to push us in such a moralistic, after-school special way?

I like fantasy (think The Godfather) and history (think Excellent Cadavers) in different ways, which is not to say I prefer either one over the other. History (hopefully) offers us a way to overcome our mistakes, while fantasy offers us a welcome escape from these mistakes. I would've much rather the film choose a side in these polar opposites in the film spectrum, rather than sit in the middle. I understand the power of film as a tool to comment on the state of society, but I don't want that to be used as an excuse for a film being mediocre in other areas.

Le verdict: **

A star in the Galaverse (a.k.a. Twitter works, people!)

2009-09-17T18:49:00.008-05:00

Isn't she the most gorgeous candy-haired International Playgirl in the land?

Okay, let me set the scene for you. I'm in my philosophy class and it's workshop day. We basically sit and write essays for our final project (a book detailing our personal philosophy) during workshop days. I was writing and hit a block and decided to clear my head for a few minutes by checking out some of the blogs I usually read. I was checking iCiNG and decided to see what Gala (a truly outstanding person. But you know that already from checking out my Required Reading, right?) had changed on her link list, since she's posted something to that effect on her weekly Carousel. Imagine my surprise when I saw a pretty little link to Monsieur Cinema, right there in the thick of it. I proceeded to do the one thing I could manage to do in that situation and did my own version of Kathy Griffin's gay inhale. Now, this might not sound like much; but picture it happening during a quiet lull in the classroom and you have everyone turning their necks to look at me like I'm a mental patient (and me not caring one bit. Much too huge a deal to care.). Granted, I had sent Gala a link to the site when she asked her nonpareils (iCiNG codeword for Gala's undying legion of fans) for links to their sites since she was updating her link list. I, however, did not expect her to actually put me in the list, given her humongous following. I thought I would only be a blip in a flurry of tweets. Well, call it the little blip-that-could because I'm in! I think, my dear readers, this is one of those moments that tell me starting this blog was definitely a good idea. Expect a Gala homage (the woman is deserving of it, link-list-add or not) post tout de suite.

Au revoir, Monsieur Cinema.

P.S. I realize this post could be construed as more than a little self-serving, but bear with me; those are not my intentions. I merely want to share the joy I felt when I saw this with you, my dear and faithful readers. Je suis très hereux, mes petits. Très hereux, indeed.

What a Glee-ful start!

2009-09-12T10:34:00.009-05:00

This my friends, will no doubt sound like a fluff piece to you when you're done reading it. But, I swear to you, it's not! I just really, really loved it. And by "it" I mean the second episode of the marvelous Glee. The pilot showed a lot of potential, but potential doesn't always turn into greatness. Well, my dear readers, here it does, and in spades of it.

"Showmance" is the much-hyped series second episode, arriving a full 4 months after the pilot premiered in May. With something as hyped-to-the-heavens as Glee, one has reasonable fear that it'll disappoint when it actually shows up. This, of course, is a mistake. Not only did the episode deliver on the pilot's promise, it went above and beyond. The script had some brilliant, snark-tastic bits of dialogue. Of special note in this department is Jane Lynch's cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester. I swear, there's not a dull moment when she's on the screen. The rest of the cast, however, is not neglected by the script, which delivers equal parts satire and heart.

Of course, one of the main features of the show is the musical numbers, and they did not disappoint. Whether rapping to Kanye West's Gold Digger (who knew Matthew Morrison could rap? Apparently, Lea Michele: "We don't call him Mattie Fresh for nothing...") or belting out to Rihanna's Take a Bow (in a scene that is further proof that Lea Michele really is as good an actress as she is a singer), the show really delivers on its musical premise.

Overall, I really liked the series and hope the rest of the public will agree with me, lest this turn into my new Pushing Daisies. And you, my readers, what did you think of Glee? Let me know in the comments.

Le verdict (so far): ****

P.S. All images in these post can be originally found in gleeimages.com's gallery.

Thoughts on Orphan

2009-09-05T21:58:00.018-05:00

Scary movies have a love-hate relationship with me. I always see the trailers and grow interested and then fight my reticence to see them. Almost always, immediately after exiting the theater I feel regret. Regret because I know I'm gonna be skittish all night long after watching a scary movie, yet again. Orphan, however, was enough of a draw (the trailer was suitably intriguing) for me to momentarily put aside my fears. I do not regret it.

Orphan is the story of the Coleman family and their newest member, Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman). We learn at the very beginning of the story that Coleman mother Kate (Vera Farmiga) had a miscarriage and that prompted her to attempt adoption. She already has two other kids: a partially deaf daughter named Max (Aryana Engineer) and a spoiled-yet-ignored son named Daniel (Jimmy Bennett). Her desire to make up for the miscarriage and get another kid is just too much, so she and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) register and start looking around orphanages. They eventually find a very charming and proper girl named Esther.

As is customary in these kind of movies (the child-from-hell genre, specifically), everything seems fine at first. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Esther has a dark side to her charming persona. Not only has she lied about her past, she actively undermines Kate and manipulates the people around her. One of the more odd things surrounding Esther is her fixation with the ribbons around her neck and wrists. She never removes them and any attempt to do so results in her screaming and flailing around. All of this arouses Kate's suspicions, but her misgivings about her new child are not well received by the people around her.

Even if the heroine-who-nobody-believes is a tired element in the horror genre, here it plays seamlessly; all thanks to Esther's machinations. What isn't half as easy to swallow is Farmiga's performance. She overacts in each and every scene she's in. You would think it's a bit hard to look fake when you're screaming after your endangered children (not much to do really, just scream and run after them), but Farmiga is so ham-endowed she even botches this.

More decent (though not by a long shot) is Sarsgaard's John, who (along with Kate, come to think of it) plays the stereotypical yuppie XXI century father. The scenes where he does lash out at Kate in frustration, however, ring true. Sarsgaard manages to remain bitter and oblivious yet oddly relatable.

The film's standouts lie not, however, with the adults. Rather, it's in Engineer and Fuhrman's performance's that the film really shines. Not only does their twisted sister dynamic manage to stay interesting; they also manage very decently when on their own.

Engineer's Max is a role that (much like Jadagrace Berry's in Terminator Salvation)requires her to be very expressive with her face without going overboard. Her fear and pain also genuinely make you feel sorry for her situation.

The cause of this fear and pain, of course, is the increasingly deranged Esther, who shines in Fuhrman's hands. She is charming, as noted above. This, of course, does not stop her from also being a chilling sociopath. It's the little things really: an evil glare here and there, a sadistic smile watching a fire, a realistic Russian accent, et al. The movie uses a lot of psychological thriller conventions, so the villain role really has to stand out for us to get interested. If it weren't for Fuhrman, the film wouldn't be half as interesting (or spooky) as it is.

Like I said above, the film works entirely within the conventions of the genre. These go from the lone-standing female heroine nobody believes to the shocking reveal of the villain's nature/identity. As a friend of mine noted, the makers of this film must have worked pretty hard to avoid stepping on clichés in this department. The ShockReveal isn't as shocking as others, but I'll still give it points on originality. Some better casting decisions and a tighter script around some scenes could've really elevated this to classic, Rosemary territory.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on The Breakfast Club

2009-08-20T11:43:00.013-05:00

As many of you may know, 80s teen flick auteur John Hughes passed away recently. In honor of this, I decided to show The Breakfast Club to my Film Club. I started the year with something light and teen oriented (Charlie Bartlett, more on that later) so as to get them going in the right direction with something that wasn't as heavy as, say, The Seventh Seal. The film is far from perfect and I don't agree with it being the ultimate high school movie, but it's cultural impact is still undeniable. Allow me to elaborate.

The film follows a Saturday in the lives of five high school students in detention. They're all from different cliques and don't really get along. Because of their locked-in circumstances, they're forced to interact and get to know each other. Throughout the day they manage to get behind the assigned personas of their cliques. If this sounds cliched, it's because this film practically started this trend in teen and coming-of-age movies. Even if the character labels are a tad obsolete and simplistic, the movie's intention is what's remarkable. The reason they simplify the characters into archetypes even as they attempt to remove their masks is that this way it's much easier to explore a wide range of topics.

On the acting front, I must say I didn't truly dislike anyone's performance, but I did feel some of them could've been done better. Chief among these is Molly Ringwald's Claire, who I just couldn't ever like. Ally Sheedy's Allison, however, nicely treads the line between Ringwald and Judd Nelson's overacting. Even if the message they send through her character in the end is atrocious, I enjoyed watching her go from quiet and insane one second to pathological lying and crazy dancing the next.

The movie succumbs to some of the 80s most dreadful film making mistakes (music video-esque montages, random exaggerations, etc.), but it manages to relay it's message somewhat convincingly. There are films I say could've been better, but weren't, and as such deserve no special consideration. This film on the other hand, is not one of those films. The film is not interesting for what it could've been, but for what it attempts to say. The message, not the product takes precedence here. Of course, the film makes mistakes regarding some of its messages (the aforementioned Allison storyline), but overall the script is not half-bad. Maybe I'm just removed from the generation that grew up with this film, but I still understand what it meant back then. Should this impact my verdict on the film?

Le verdict: **1/2

Thoughts on The Hangover

2009-08-19T16:46:00.014-05:00

The comedic front in cinema has been on a rut as of late. "Where is the big comedy of the year?", we clamored. Well, mesdames et messieurs, The Hangover should assuage us all (at least for now). Here is a movie that squeezes every ounce of fun it can from one of the most random, chaotic script we've seen this year (even if its chaos detracts from it as a whole). Even if the movie's brand of crass humor wasn't always my taste, I have to recognize there's no situation or line that wasn't funny within it's own style. That's ambiguous, isn't it? Let's get on with the explanation, then.

The movie's premise is quite simple: four guys wake up in a trashed hotel suite after a night of debauchery with no memory of the events that happened in the aforementioned night. They must now find the fifth member of their motley crew, who just happens to be getting married in two days. As they go about piecing information about the night's events, they run into such random characters as a pair of sadistic police officers, a hooker with a heart of gold and an enraged Chinese gangster. See what I meant about the chaos?

The guys get divided into regular, male comedy archetypes. The whipped wimp, the socially awkward idiot, and the suave ladies man all make their appearance here. The roles are decently portrayed by Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis (I had to double spellcheck that name), and Bradley Cooper, respectively. It's nothing we haven't seen before, but within the context of the film it manages to still be fun. Even if at times Helms' whining and Galifianakis idiocy get a tad grating, it doesn't detract too much from the film.

The film's star, of course, is not its leads, but rather the random messes they stumble into on their search for their friend Doug (Justin Bartha, who just can't seem to get his big break.). The situations are, more often that not, politically incorrect and go from merely embarrassing to outright dangerous. If there's one issue the script has regarding these encounters is the fact that they don't really have cohesion. To put it another way, even if the situations are funny, they're not really connected. They're like roommates that don't hang out much; they share the same space but don't have much of a relationship.

Overall, the film provides a healthy amount of laughs and will keep you entertained from start to finish. It is not, however, anything we haven't seen before. Nor is it, as some people seem to think, the next Big Thing. It's a summer comedy, and a good one at that, but nothing else.

Le verdict: ***

On sharing what you have

2009-08-14T20:14:00.006-05:00

This week was the first week of school and the first week of the semester I've once more tended to my duties as creator and president of my school's Film Club. This year I have twelve members, an all-time high for the club. I am very excited to be able to share my love of movies with them and to maybe even be able to teach them a thing or two. Even better is the fact that if all goes according to plan, we may take a trip next year to the Sundance Film Festival. Cross your fingers, people!

Au revoir,
Monsieur Cinema

New York, I Love You

2009-08-09T22:06:00.004-05:00

The first trailer for New York, I Love You is making the rounds and I gotta say I am in love. I enjoyed its predecessor, Paris, je t'aime, so this was a no brainer. However, I was still surprised at how much I liked the trailer. I've seen better trailers than this, sure, but there's something about this one that gives me a gut feeling few others do. Maybe it has to do with my lifelong love of New York and my undying desire to one day live in it (Clichés are there for a reason folks. It's people like me that keep them alive.). In any case, here I give you the trailer. Enjoy!

Let me know if my feelings on it are mine alone or if you share them.

Au revoir,
Monsieur Cinema

Thoughts on Valkyrie

2009-07-31T23:44:00.018-05:00

Let's get something out of the way. I've never really liked Tom Cruise. I don't necessarily dislike him, but I don't get excited when I hear he's on the cast for an upcoming movie. Valkyrie does not provide a 180° on my opinion of him, but it does change it up a bit.

Valkyrie tells the story of the 20 July plot, a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler that was orchestrated by the German Resistance. The film's protagonist is Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise), a war veteran who lost an eye and a hand during a British attack. Stauffenberg, disillusioned with the Third Reich, joins a clandestine group planning on staging a coup.

Overall, the supporting cast in the coup plot does a decent job but no one really stands out. Particularly alluring, however, was David Bamber's Hitler, who was subdued yet deranged. He doesn't have much screen time, but he works wonders (particularly with his eyes) during that time.

Carice van Houten (marvelous in Black Book) is wasted here as von Satuffenberg's wife, Nina. It's really a shame when a great actress is given a role she can't do anything with. This is not the same as saying small roles should go to bad actors. Dame Judi Dench did marvelous in Shakespeare in Love, despite her limited screen time. Carice's performance doesn't lower its quality standards from her other work, but we just don't see enough of her.

The film is interesting, but it's main flaw is that it is never truly engaging. For a film inhabiting as tired a historical period as WWII, this is particularly problematic. The way I see it, if you're gonna get into WWII, you must either bring something new into the game or be really good at what everyone else has done. The fact that the proceedings play as a thriller in a scenario whose ending we already know further sink this into exercise-in-futility territory. As I've asked before, if a thriller isn't particularly thrilling, is it failing? Maybe as a thriller, but the other thing this film has going on for it is its attempt to inform us; to let us know that not every German (indeed, that not even every Nazi) in WWII was a monster. Some attempted to fight back, to redeem themselves. It's a shame their courage is exploited here with such low quality standards.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on Terminator Salvation

2009-07-30T21:00:00.016-05:00

Let me be the first to say my dislike of this film is my own fault. I shouldn't have raised my expectations. Did I expect anything but loud explosions from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Of course not. But with other succesful franchise reboots/reinventions still fresh in my mind, I allowed myself a bit of optimism for Terminator Salvation. This turned into excitement when I learned that both Christian Bale and Anton Yelchin were to star in it. Bale's performance in The Dark Knight was still fresh in my mind and I've found Anton Yelchin thoroughly alluring ever since I saw Charlie Bartlett. Alas, all of this would work against me when the film finally came out (a full two months after it had premiered elsewhere, I might add).

For those of you uninitiated to Terminator, the film concerns itself with humanity's struggle against Skynet, an artificial intelligence bent on our annihilation. Skynet became self-aware shortly after being activated and lauched a worldwide nuclear attack. The survivors must now square off against Skynet's machine army. This is the first movie in the franchise that is primarily set in the future, during the war. And what a bleak setting that is. Mankind is outnumbered and facing a ruthlessly efficient foe in a deserted world. Sure, there's the occasional ruined landscape or two, but they're filled with potential hiding places for the machines and as such are more dangerous than helpful; their mere existence being a reminder of Skynet's lowest blow against humanity (the cinematography in these scenes is actually quite good; all cold, gray and sandy, effectively conveying the dead landscape's feel).

On the human resistance we have John Connor (Christian Bale), who was prophetized to be mankind's leader against the machines but is having a hard time rising to that post on account of those who aren't ready to believe him. To say Bale's performance here is a disappointment would be an understatement. He's one-note and uninspiring. This wouldn't be so bad (it is a big budget, summer action film after all) if it wasn't for the fact that we've seen him do infinitely better. Not only have we seen him do better, actually, but the character too. And when your performance doesn't measure up to Edward Furlong's, you know you're in trouble (not to say he didn't do well in T2, just saying he squandered that later. An entry in the The Crow franchise? Hello?). The possibility was there, but he just didn't grab it. Maybe the direction's at fault here too, but I'll get into that later.

Playing (quite literally, sometimes) opposite Bale is Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a newly resurrected murderer who's trying to make sense of his new surroundings and atone for his past sins by helping out other survivors. Worthington is a breath of fresh air after Bale's listless performance, being both believably heroic and emotionally perturbed. Of particular note is his chemistry with Moon Bloodgood (more on her ahead). All thing considered, he could've let the character flounder, much like Bale, but doesn't. Since the script isn't that more gentle with him (giving him some truly awful lines near the beginning), I'll have to attribute that to Worthington's skill. But let's not get carried away. Opposite Bale, Worthington is nice, but he isn't anything we haven't seen in other (better) shapes elsewhere.

Moon Bloodgood's Blair Williams is one of the highlights of the film. Unlike her female co-star Bryce Dallas-Howard (who portrays Kate Brewster, John's romantic interest), who doesn't have much to do during the film, Bloodgood is pure female action star (inheriting Linda Hamilton's mantle of strong female lead performance). Not only can she sell her combat sequences, she also skillfully shows a more tender side of her around Marcus, resulting in some surprisingly endearing scenes. Plus, the girl can seriously rock the post-apocalyptic wardrobe.

Jadagrace Berry's (debut role) Star is a mute, orphaned survivor who works alongside Anton Yelchin's teenaged Kyle Reese to stay alive. Her role is small and doesn't require much of her, but I still liked her. She goes from a blank face to a very communicative expression aproppiately and doesn't utter a sound throughout the entire film, only occasionaly descending into gimmick territory. For a first timer 9 year old, she did a very decent job.

Last but certainly not least is the film's standout performance. Anton Yelchin's Kyle Reese (the boy who would, through time travel, eventually become John's father) is a testament to his acting skills. I'm a big fan of Yelchin and with each passing role I grow more confident that he has the chops to carve a longlasting, great career ahead of him. He convincingly conveys the furious sense of frustration and despair a teenage boy would feel if his entire world fell apart. He's fierce, and energetic, but doesn't ever descend into overacting. He also, apparently has the skills to pull a thrilling action scene (something Star Trek, his other summer job, didn't require of him). Yelchin continues to show a lot of promise and he's one of those people that gives me hope the future of young hollywood rests in good hands.

All in all, the film wasn't suppossed to be a standout dramatic outing, so we forgive some of it's acting and plot weaknesses. But if, as an action film, it doesn't reach the bar set by its predecessors (Terminator 2: Judgement Day is to this day, one of my favorite action movies), what does it have left? Maybe Joseph McGinty (I refuse to adress him as McG) should have done a better job in the execution department. Maybe someone else should have been given the job. Whatever the cause, this film ended up being an average action film. The disappointment here isn't in what it is, but what it held the promise to be.

Le verdict: *1/2
Le Verdict (Anton Yelchin's performance): **1/2

Massive Movie Catch-Up: 2008

2009-07-29T22:48:00.004-05:00

I am so excited! Today, while perusing my local blockbuster I was blinsided by a sudden 2008 catch-up they're apparently doing. Every (and I do mean each and every one) of the movies I'd been craving (or in the case of Valkyrie, merely curious about) to see from 2008 that didn't come out on theaters (or that I was too busy to go see) here hit the shelves at the same time. Expect an onslaught of posts regarding this in the coming days.

Au revoir,
Monsieur Cinema

Thoughts on My Sister's Keeper

2009-07-29T18:32:00.016-05:00

Before you bombard me in the comments with complaints of me being heartless and how could I not feel moved by this film, let me clarify something. I am not heartless. I cried at the end of Atonement, I cry during Stepmom (even if it is a tearjerker much like this one, I'll be damned if Susan Sarandon doesn't sell a melodramatic scene like nobody's business). My point is: I am as emotionally available to a movie as the next guy, but I don't like it when a movie tries to force it out of me. Which is the main problem My Sister's Keeper, the eponymous film adaptation of Jodi Picoult's novel faces. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start with the fundamentals, shall we?

The film is about a family, a family who, after learning their two year old girl suffers from a rare form of leukemia, decides to have a second daughter, genetically engineered to be able to donate as many body parts as her sister might need. Thanks to this, Kate (Sofia Vassilieva)has lived far beyond her initial life expectancy of 5. Her sister Anna (Abigail Breslin), however, has been in and out of hospitals her whole life, all in an effort to prolong Kate's life. When she was born her cord blood was used to treat Kate. This soon progressed to donating blood, bone marrow, stem cells, etc.; all for the benefit of Kate. She loves her sister, so she's willing to go with her mother (Cameron Diaz) Sara's plans to do anything it takes to keep Kate alive. But when Kate's kidneys fail and Anna is about to be forced to donate one of her own, she decides to end it once and for all. She seeks the help of Campbell Alexander, a notoriously successful attorney, in order to become medically emancipated.

This creates a rift between the different members of the family (those who agree with Anna and those who don't) and Sara (who before discovering Kate's disease was a successful lawyer) decides to go against Alexander in court. Here is near where the film hits its first true problem. The film shows us flashbacks of the family from their various points of view (complete with voiceovers). For a tearjerker, this is not anything new and as such (even if it is a tired storytelling method) I had no beef with it. What really bugged me was the way these flashbacks were introduced. Right as we focused on a particular character, the screen fades to black for a few seconds and then we're in the past. It was lazy, clunky, and repetitive.

But let's forget about the direction and plot for a second and consider the performances. While Cameron Diaz's tough mother act was believable and a nice change of pace from her usual comedic roles, it was still nothing new. This is not to say her acting was flawed, but she didn't really add anything to the character either. Alec Baldwin's Campbell Alexander is a nice mix of cheekiness and heart that I didn't expect from him. He's not an exemplary human being but he cares about Anna and Baldwin's performance makes all the difference between corny kindness and engaging sympathy. The true standout here, however, is Joan Cusack as Judge De Salvo. Her courtroom scenes are not anything we haven't seen elsewhere, but her interview with Anna is a very nice scene. She's recently lost her own daughter in a car accident and talking about death with Anna only brings her pain back to the surface. While most actresses might have gone overboard and turned this into a ham session, Cusack makes us feel her pain in as simple and understated a manner as she can muster.

On the main performances arena we have Abigail Breslin's Anna and Sofia Vassilieva's Kate. Not only do they shine in their individual scenes, their sister dynamic is also believable. Breslin is, of course, the better performer of the two. She's convincing when trying to rebel and when concerned for her sister's well-being. This is one of her first truly dramatic roles in the spotlight, and the promise she shows is truly astounding. Sofia Vassilieva's performance is nice, but, oddly enough, I liked her better during the flashbacks. Even though her performance during the present scenes is decent, her I've-accepted-death-and-am-now-calm act is something that plagues this genre. Is it moving? Yes, but it falls to the worst traits of the tearjerker drama. On the flashbacks, however, Vassilieva strikes a nice balance between likable and bratty. Her teenage rebelliousness is a normal response someone in her situation would engage in. She's tired of her disease and of not living like a normal teen and isn't afraid to show it.

This leads me to a particularly poignant aspect of the film. While in the hospital, Kate meets a fellow leukemia patient named Taylor (Thomas Dekker, he of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles fame). They begin a relationship (both in and out of the hospital) and he even invites her to the hospital's "prom". The scenes detailing their relationship are sweet and touching without descending into sentimentalism. This is all due to the young actors' talent and the script's deft handling of their teenage romance.

Overall, the film is nothing above the standard tearjerker. Some of the problems it has could've been easily fixed by a more skilled director. Also, it's message and sadness are delivered in too heavy-handed a way for us not to feel like it's being shoved down our throats. And what happens when someone shoves something down our throats? We gag and choke, that's what. The film does contain some poignant moments and its honest attempt at portraying the minefield that is bioethics nowadays was not lost on me. Overall, if you're stuck on a bus or plane and this is playing, you won't cringe at it. But you won't exactly be thrilled either.

Le verdict: *1/2

Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-29T18:31:00.021-05:00

Let's start by getting the obvious out of the way. This post is futile. Why you ask? Because regardless of what I say, if you're a fan of Harry Potter you've already seen this movie and if you're not nothing I say will make you see it. However, my compulsion to share my take on things pushes me onward and will not be assuaged. So, with that out of the way, let's carry on, shall we?

All things considered, I must say this is my favorite entry in the franchise. While some people prefer the third or fourth films, I felt the third was great but lacked something I couldn't quite place my finger on. The fourth on the other hand, seems to be the most highly regarded by the critics, but as a fan I felt it left out crucial sections of the plot. I understand it's not easy to compress such a large book for a movie adaptation, but it could have done a better job. The fifth was a return to form, but it concerned itself with the teenage first love subplot in too awkward a manner. In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, however, David Yates and company have risen to the occassion marvelously. It's the tightest script we've ever seen out of the series, balancing humor with darker sections nearly seamlessly and providing a genuine good time. Thanks to the special attention payed to verbal comedy this time around, the film's two and half hour runtime doesn't feel nearly as long as it should.

Let's start with the three leads, shall we? Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have been on this since the start and I can confidently say this is the best we've seen out of them. Daniel Radcliffe is, perhaps for the first time, truly likeable. He still sells the boy-hero thing, but he also plays the straight man to Grint's (unexpected) comedic chops. He also plays for earnest comedy in the Felix Felicis scene and it works in ways I hadn't realized he could manage. On the other side of the comedy front we have Rupert Grint's Ron, who for the first time isn't just a sidekick, but a star all on his own. Not only is the script generous with him, his comic timing works great with it. And last but not least, Emma Watson's Hermione nicely balances comedy with teen drama without overdoing either one.

If we look past the leads we'll also discover a supporting cast that works wonderfully within the film. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is as excentric and wise as ever, but the performance is still engaging. Furthermore, this is the first film in the series in which we get to see a vulnerable moment in Dumbledore's life. This is of course during the cave scene, in which his pain and pleading ring true with us, even if we only get a glimpse at them.

Evanna Lynch continues her excentric character (Luna Lovegood)'s use as comic relief. Even if this time around her role is smaller and her use as comic relief is all they get out of her character, she still manages to steal every scene she's in with her quiet demeanor and oddball antics.

Jim Broadbent (so thoroughly different from his role in Moulin Rouge!, I questioned whether it was the same man) portrays Horace Slughorn, a self-serving, connections obsessed professor who's memories are vital in aiding the defeat of Lord Voldemort. The performance is nicely layered, balancing humor, cowardice and shame in such a way that as pathetic a character as Slughorn is, we sympathize with him and even end up liking him.

Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix Lestrange, on the other hand, is a dark force of destruction. She doesn't add anything this time, but I'll be damned if it isn't fun (and still somewhat terrifying) watching her destructive vixen act. There's a particular scene near the conclusion of the film where after taking part in a murder conspiracy, she runs through the woods, cackling and twirling like a murderous, gothic dervish.

Another highlight on the supporting cast is Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, who plays the child version of Lord Voldemort. His role is very small, but his performance is still wonderful (specially for a 12 year old with only one other film credit under his belt). His portrayal of the twisted child that would become the series antagonist is dark and subdued. Of special note to me was the gleeful fascination he shows when he realizes Dumbledore really is a wizard. We only get a glimpse of his face, but it shows so much (surprise, glee, wonder, desire, piqued interest). I can't wait to see what he'd do in a bigger role.

Alan Rickman's Severus Snape is at his most menacing here. Even though his wardrobe hasn't noticeably changed throughout the series, his cape looks like never before, like a black cloud of misery trailing behind him. He still balances the darker moments with some dry comedy, as he's wont to do; but it's still a nicely dark (if a tad small) performance.

Which leads us to the film as a visual experience. The sets are beautifully detailed and the wardrobe is still very decent compared to most big budget franchises these days. Deserving particular note is the film's cinematography, which in the final scenes uses cold, metallic colors and light to heighten tension and when combined with the aforementioned sets truly is a marvelous visual thrill.

And speaking of visual thrills, the other thing this movie consistently pulls off better than most big budget movie franchises out there is the visual effects. They're great, of course, but the thing they do remarkably well is blend seamlessly with the rest of the movie. They never overpower scenes they're in unless they have to (as in the ring of fire in the above picture, which is truly wonder to look at). It's refreshing to see a movie where even though there's magic and whatnot flying across the screen every so often you don't wonder midscene how much that digital effect cost or if it even is a digital effect; you just go with the flow.

Overall, I have a very positive opinion of this movie, even if the ending felt slightly truncated. This is not something it could've done better, as the book it's based upon also felt this way. The book's place in the series is a final exposition and setting of plot points before the grand finale. Even considering this, the movie was very entertaining and I applaud its darker plotlines and heightened efforts in every department. I highly recommend it.

Le verdict: ***1/2

P.S. It is a testament to the film's visual delights that this has been my most picture-heavy post. And just because I love you, here's another shot of Bellatrix looking deranged yet oddly alluring, as it should be.

Thoughts on Public Enemies

2009-07-29T18:22:00.003-05:00

Public Enemies is not what I expected. As a period film, I expected beauty shots, a lavish art direction and a formulaic structure. Don't get me wrong, I love period films, but even I have to admit it's a genre that's particularly difficult to add anything new to. Leave it to Michael Mann to defy all the trappings and conventions of the genre in this 1930s crime film. I do, however, have mixed feelings about this. Allow me to elaborate.

Public Enemies concerns itself with notorious bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and his struggle against FBI agent Melvin Purvis's (Christian Bale) attempts to capture him. Along the way, Dillinger picks up a girl named Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl to whom he reveals "My name's John Dillinger and I rob banks" shortly after meeting. It is unfortunate that this line doesn't sum up or define him; it's everything there's to him. This is not to say Depp isn't in fine form. He gets everything he can out of Dillinger, making him at once menacing and likeably roguish. Ultimately, however, it's not enough to engage us. Paradoxically, even if Depp's performance isn't one-note, his character is much too simple to get anything out of him.

Which leads us to the other side of the equation. Bale's Melvin Purvis is an experienced, driven man who nevertheless can't seem to outwit Dillinger. He admires his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, but can't help disagreeing with him on how the FBI should operate. While Hoover wants a legion of clean-cut men to lead the nation's premier law enforcement agency, Purvis knows that's not what the job requires sometimes. Accordingly, his straight-laced demeanor gives way to a military efficiency once he's on the field. I'd like to say Bale's performance is better than Depp's and becomes the focal point of the film, but that would be a lie. We've seen Bale in finer form recently (The Dark Knight, 3:10 to Yuma), so this performance feels just a tad too listless.

Without strong enough leads to focus on, our focus turns on the supporting cast. A standout here is Marion Cotillard. This is her first role after her amazing performance in La Vie en Rose (Yes, I realize the actual, French title is La Môme, but I've always thought La Vie en Rose just sounded so much better). Her Billie is no more complex than Dillinger. Her life is boring and she feels a need to be protected, so she tags along with him. What Cotillard does beautifully are the simple things. Her interest in him on their first date, her defiance at the officer that question her when she's captured; all of these things are handled superbly by Cotillard. The role doesn't have anything more than what Dillinger's did on paper, but Cotillard's performance elevates it to something else. Perhaps because she's free of the burden placed on Dillinger's shoulders as protagonist her role works much better. After all, Depp also works the little things in his role and it doesn't end up helping him as much as it does her.

Which leaves us with the direction. The movie is entirely shot in HD, something which (coupled with the camerawork) gives it a very distinctive look. It also serves underlines Mann's attention to detail and discipline and the film's realistic angle on the 1930s. While objectively I appreciate all of this and understand the point the film tries to make, it ultimately works against it. By presenting us with nearly two-dimensional characters and an unengaging plot, the film's realism only heightens our lack of interest. The fact that the movie's runtime is over two hours also doesn't help it in this aspect. Furthermore, the film's trailer suggested an epic crime drama. Generally speaking, epics do not benefit from realism. We need dramatic flourish to make the uncinematic cinematic, and this film doesn't work in our favor here. This is not to say realism is bad, merely that we were misled by the trailer and our expectations weren't met. As I left the theater I couldn't help but wonder what else was there to it. I thought that the fact that his name was John Dillinger and he robbed banks was only the circumstance, that there would be more to it. Was there? No, there wasn't.

Le verdict: **1/2

P.S. Just for the heck of it, here's another shot of Marion Cotillard from the movie and a picture from a photo shoot for GQ she did a couple of months ago. Isn't she just gorgeous?

Thoughts on 17 Again

2009-07-21T16:23:00.004-05:00

17 Again snuck up on me. The day I saw it, the original plan I had was to go see Public Enemies with some friends. With no tickets for that available, we chose the next thing showing none of us had seen. My knowledge of the film covered the basic premise and that Zac Efron was in it. I expected a tired formula, insipid acting and a happy ending. I was actually looking forward to it in a twisted way. I thought I would see it, take it all in, and then skewer it. Yes, my dear readers, I am one of those people who watches horrible films purely as a way to hone my mocking skills (although I do draw the line sometimes. Picture This, anyone?). Well, color me surprised, I actually enjoyed the movie. Now, make no mistake; the movie is a typical summer teen comedy, but it has some things that set it apart from the pack.

The plot concerns itself with Mike O'Donnell (Matthew Perry), a 37 year old ex-high school basketball star who's seen better days. Not only did he get passed up for a big promotion at work; his wife wants a divorce and his relationship to his kids could be described as distant, at best. During a visit to his old high school, he talks with a Santa Claus-esque janitor who asks him if he would choose to do it all over again, should he get the chance. Mike does the obvious things and says yes, which as we all know can only mean one thing: Body-Switcheroo-Extraordinaire! He falls through a vortex and comes out his 17 year old self (Zac Efron). Newly re-teenaged, he decides to make things right in his life by fulfilling the dreams of basketball success he abandoned to marry his high school sweetheart. His nerdy (as in memorabilia-collecting, rich-through-software-invention) friend Ned (Thomas Lennon) thinks that's actually a bad idea, and that his "spirit guide" (a.k.a. Clean-Up Santa) gave him this chance so that he could set his life right in less selfish ways. One of them being helping his kids right their own paths.

As it is, his daughter Maggie (Michelle Trachtenberg) is dating the basketball captain, Stan (Hunter Parrish). This being the same Stan that's been bullying her brother, Alex (Sterling Knight). Now, don't get me wrong, I like Michelle Trachtenberg. I liked her geek-turned-princess act in Ice Princess (Don't judge! We all have dark spots in our pasts. I was thirteen and that movie is still surprisingly good.) and I love her psycho-bitch act in Gossip Girl. This movie, however, is not her finest moment. Her character doesn't have much to do as it is, and the few moments she does have for herself are average. Hunter Parrish is treated even worse by the script, which begs the question: if you're gonna have a character that does nothing and is not interesting in the least bit, why waste a talented actor like Parrish in it. The man has a hit show and a critically acclaimed Broadway role under his belt, for God's sake!

Saving the supporting acting on the teen side we have Sterling Knight as the thoroughly adorkable Alex. He was adorable and amusing in every scene he was in. The role didn't require much of him, but I'll be damned if he doesn't make it worth our whiles. It's no surprise he's part of a surprisingly enjoyable comedy show now (more on that later). His deadpan awkwardness at Mike's flirtatious behavior around his mom was at the very least snicker-worthy.

It is a testament to Zac Efron's previously unbeknownst-to-me prowess that the three horrible, clunky monologues the script gives him kinda work. The cafeteria one was funny, the letter was sentimental but not corny and the parenthood one was decent enough. It is things like this that put this movie a notch above most of the teen comedies of recent years. Is it genre defying and above cliché? No, but it is enjoyable and fun. If, like me, you were forced by circumstances outside your control to watch it, you won't suffer through it. If you're free to choose something better at your local rental video place, by all means do so. For me the film represents a glimmer of hope. Hope that future teen comedies can be this good (or even better: Charlie Bartlett, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist et al.) so that I won't have to sit through pointless drivel like Picture This in the future (Yes, I was made to sit through that. We watched it in my O.Chem class during one day the teacher was in a particularly good mood.).

Le verdict: *1/2

Thoughts on The Proposal

2009-07-17T22:51:00.002-05:00

For those of you who bemoan the current state of Hollywood and its tired attempts at injecting creativity into the romantic comedy genre; steer clear from this movie. For those of you with some time on your hands and an open mind, by all means go ahead. The Proposal offers nothing we haven't seen before in different shapes and sizes. What it does offer, however, is a rather entertaining and harmless comedy that will brighten a slow day.

The premise is simple enough. Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock, looking mighty fine at 44), executive editrix-in-chief extraordinaire (say that five times fast) at a book publishing company, is the boss from hell; or so the script would have it. While Bullock does a respectable attempt at portraying a cold, calculating businesswoman, its simply doesn't measure up against the still-fresh-in-our-minds Miranda Priestly that Meryl Streep gave us in The Devil Wears Prada. She does much better in the second half of the movie (i'll elaborate further along).

As it is, Margaret is being deported because of her imperious disobedience regarding immigration laws. In response she decides to marry her assistant, Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) in order to get the immigration officers off her back. Andrew, of course, hates her, but is forced to play along since his future is tied to hers. This doesn't stop him, however, from using the change in the status quo to cause her humiliation and discomfort. He starts easy on her, just making her bend her knee (in Louboutins and a pencil skirt, no less) outside the immigration office and propose properly. This is followed by making her drag her heavy luggage around his small Alaskan hometown and setting her up for an uncomfortable run-in with a male stripper.

The trip coincides with the 90th birthday of his "Gammy" (a brilliant Betty White) and also serves the purpose of announcing the engagement to his family. Along the way, Margaret begins to feel guilty about the deception because Andrew's family takes her in so well. This is where her key scene happens. She's getting fitted for the wedding dress and Gammy gives her a family heirloom. She begins to tear up at more than the gesture, being reminded for the first time in years what it's like to have a family to depend on (she's an orphan).

As is customary in this kind of comedy, Margaret and Andrew learn about each other on the way and eventually fall in love. You probably know what's coming and I certainly knew what was coming, but the experience was not any less enjoyable because of this. As Roger Ebert puts it, the movie "recycles a plot that was already old when Tracy and Hepburn were trying it out". But the movie still provides legitimately funny moments and executes them with so much cheer and energy that you can't help but go along with it. I recommend it as one of your next i'm-bored-and-don't-know-what-to-rent choices or if you have a light-movie evening with a group who hasn't seen it.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on Up (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the 3-D)

2009-06-24T15:44:00.002-05:00

It is no secret that Pixar's 2008 film, WALL-E, moved me in ways I'd forgotten a movie could. The movie was delightful, adorable, and had an enchanting love story adding to its appeal. With such a hard act to follow, it's no surprise Up falls short of the bar WALL-E raised. This is not to say the film was bad; it just wasn't as great as their previous project. The movie is, however, thoroughly enjoyable. It's also the first Pixar endeavor presented in Disney Digital 3-D. The film uses this effect very skillfully, adding depth and character to its scenes. It is a true testament to how much 3-D has grown up from the days it used to be mere flying-out-of-screen effects (I'm looking at you My Bloody Valentine 3-D).

The main characters are Carl Fredericksen and Russell. Carl is an old and curmudgeonly man who refuses to sell his house to a company building a skyscraper in the land surrounding it. Russell is a Wilderness Explorer who annoys Carl by asking whether he needs assistance so he can earn his "Assisting the Elderly" merit badge, the only one he hasn't earned.

Carl's wife Ellie passed away before either of them fulfilled their lifelong dream of visiting Paradise Falls, a South American jungle. Since her passing, Carl has become a sour hermit, missing her terribly. Design touches in the furniture and accesories of the characters lend glimpses into their natures. Ellie's furniture and glasses are all rounded and soft while Carl's are very square and severe. Without her adventurous and free-spirited presence, he's lost the joy she used to lure out of him. There's a brilliant sequence near the beginning that shows us Carl and Ellie's life from the moment they get married, through their discovery of their inability to have children, to her death. The whole thing lasts less than five minutes and yet it's the most moving scene I've seen this year. The effect is augmented by an excellent soundtrack (Key track: Married Life) that perfectly compliments what we see on screen.

Finally faced with an ultimatum, Carl finally decides to take the trip Ellie dreamed about and uproots his house using a cloud of balloons. What he doesn't realize is that Russell has stowed away with him; having been on his porch at the moment of liftoff. Together they reach Paradise Falls and find themselves dragging the house toward its destination. Russell then finds an enourmous and very colorful bird he names Kevin. Unlike Russell, who's comic relief annoyed me (Most characters like him do, it's not neccesarily the movie that's at fault.), Kevin provided some genuinely funny moments. The motley crew is rounded out by Dug, a talking golden retriever hunting Kevin on his master's orders.

This master turns out to be Charles Muntz, an explorer both Ellie and Carl admired as children. His adventures are what inspired Ellie's dream to move her clubhouse to Paradise Falls and Carl is ecstatic to meet his idol and talk about his advetures. What they don't realize is that Muntz has been hunting Kevin's species for years, trying to capture a live specimen to return with him to civilization. Muntz is a very effective antagonist, balancing heinous acts with some comic relief (Mostly poking fun at his old age.) and provides a nice contrast to Carl's ideas about his exploration dreams and what it'd be like to meet his hero.

All in all, the film is both an excellent adventure tale and a sweet story about how fulfilling your dreams should not keep you from realizing that life around you holds enough delights to keep you interested. It's fitting that Carl ends up happier back at home with Russell than isolated on Paradise Falls. It also has a very good message that doesn't get pushed on us like on most animated films. Having seen both the regular and the 3-D versions, I completely recommend you go with 3-D here. It's a much more enjoyable experience that way.

Le verdict: ***1/2

Thoughts on State of Play (2009)

2009-06-23T19:33:00.004-05:00

Having never seen the original BBC-television-serial version of State of Play, I cannot say if this version is an improvement over it. I will say however that this film is reasonably entertaining and while none of the performances are truly great, some are noteworthy, to say the least.

The main players are Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), Cal MacAffrey (Russel Crowe), Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), and Cameron Lynne (Dame Helen Mirren). Stephen is a congressman who's leading an investigation into a private defense contractor (Blackwater, anyone?) named PointCorp and becomes involved in a political scandal of ever-growing proportions. Helping him deal with his newfound infamy is Cal, an old-school reporter who used to be his roommate in college. Cal's reluctant companion is Della, a blogger working for the same paper with a very different approach to news. And rounding out the group is Cameron, the paper's British, no-nonsense editor.

Even though the film is a political thriller, it concerns itself less with the inside going-ons of Capitol Hill than it does with the way the media surrounding it works. Sure, Stephen's actions (both past and present) are what give the plot its raison d'être, but the film would much rather focus on the relationship between Della and Cal. Cal is concerned with getting the facts absolutely right and pressing in as far as he can before putting anything to paper. Della, on the other hand, is more concerned with speedy delivery and frequent updates, even if that sometimes means getting the facts wrong and delving into speculation. Balancing these two's differing perspectives and styles is Cameron's job, even as her corporate bosses are breathing down her neck due to low circulation numbers.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Messrs Affleck and Crowe, but this movie belongs to the women. Affleck does a decent job in his portrayal of a frustrated, embarrassed congressman, but I just didn't think it was anything out of the ordinary. Crowe's not too shabby either, and it must be said the way I felt about his character may not be his fault entirely. It's just such a tired character, the old, grizzled insert-profession-of-your-choice-here taking the rookie under his wing. Maybe that dampened my opinion of Crowe's performance, even if he does have the whole scruffy, street-smart thing nailed.

So, that leaves us with the women. The performances and characters are very different. Mirren's Cameron is a strong-willed editor who's up to her neck in arrangements to change the newspaper's format. She knows the printed media is near the edge of oblivion and her contempt for the generation meant to replace her is shown in the condescension she displays with Drella. She treats her more as a tolerable nuisance than as a true reporter. Dame Helen Mirren does a wonderful job at making Cameron believably tough, helping us see a glimpse into what got her the editor job in the first place. She runs the place with high expectations and an iron fist that only the likes of Cal would dare defy.

McAdams's Drella is a sharp turn from her past performances as mean girl Regina George and feisty heiress Allie. There is however, some of Red Eye's Lisa in her. Drella's a mousy girl who represents the new media as a blogger for the Washington Globe. Beffiting her quiet tendencies, Drella often wears a heavy yet fitted cardigan. This is supposed to tell us she's meek, but hides a feisty side that will one day come handy. Despite what the previous sentences might lead you to believe, I quite liked Drella. McAdams turns a rather dull character interesting by making her seem believably mousy and yet not so much that it becomes annoying. Drella does, after a while, find her guts and stands up to Cameron along with Cal. This character develoment, though expected, is done in a rather pleasing manner. In other hands, Drella might have succumbed to either side; either becoming too mousy or doing a 180 in the second half and suddenly standing up for herself. McAdams makes her human for us in that aspect, giving us glimpses of her inner self at times so that this development doesn't feel out of place. It may not be a great performance, per se; but it shows McAdams understands her characters and how to do them justice. I'm hope she makes good on this promise and becomes more than that girl from Mean Girls and The Notebook.

All in all, the film was decently intriguing and the new media vs. old media leitmotif was (If pushed just a tad too hard on us.) relevant and interesting. It's not the best work we've seen out of these actors and the script is not the best thriller I've seen, but it takes a 6 hour drama and sums it up for us at a much quicker pace. Also, at a neat 127 minutes, the film never feels slow nor boring. Catching it in theaters, however, might have been paying a bit too much. A movie rental will suffice for this.

Le verdict: ***

Thoughts on Kunsten at Graede i Kor (The Art of Crying)

2009-06-21T20:54:00.002-05:00

I went to see this movie with no previously conceived opinion of it. I just knew it was danish and that it had won some awards at film festivals around Skandinavia. I wasn't expecting much but I wasn't groaning at the porspect to see it either, so you could say I was slightly optimistic. As the great Lorelai Gilmore would put it, "I guess this goes on the 'Boy-was-I-wrong' category. Right above gauchos, but just below the Flashdance phase." The movie's classified as a tragicomedy chuckful of dark humor. And while that same classification holds some truly good movies (Network, Dr. Strangelove, etc.), this movie should never hold a spot next to those genre masterpieces. The main problem The Art of Crying faces is its inability to settle on what it wants to say. One minute you're sniggering at then dramatic music (Not the ironic kind, either.) comes out of the speakers and you're left bewildered at what you're supposed to be feeling. There are many other films that manage to achieve a wonderful balance of sad and happy, tragic and funny parts. But The Art of Crying just doesn't pass muster in that area.

I'm not saying the film doesn't have some snicker-worthy moments, but they're few and far between. One must also bear in mind that those scarce moments are also dampened by the effect the more cringe-worthy scenes have on the viewer. I realize it's hard to put a fun spin on the subject of child abuse, but it could have still done a better job at it. And while the misplaced sweetness of a boy willing to go to any lengths to keep his manipulating, pseudosuicidal father happy sounds interesting on paper, here it plays out as something so wrong no child would ever do it without pausing to consider whether it's right or not. And don't even get me started on the father who is such a horrible character you can't ever relate to him or hope he sees the error of his ways. You just sit there hoping he'll finally make good on his threats and finally slash his wrists or something.

The one character you can truly understand and relate to, ironically, is Sanne. As the middle daughter and the source of consolation for his father, she's the most disturbed, stressed character in the whole movie. Despite all this, she's the only one that makes sense in the end. Anyone in her position would have gone mad (Her arents thinking she's amd to begin with sure doesn't help.)

Of course, despite the movie's flaws, the direction is pretty impressive for a debut. Peter Schonau Fog has a very distinctive style for a first timer. The beautiful countryside is given a very cold, gray look that fits the tone of the film and his use of shadows during the night scenes is actually very good as a contrast to the daytime gray brightness. All in all, much like The Good Night, this movie is an above-average visual experience but not much more. I recommend you seeing it and telling me whether it really is a matter of taste regarding dark humor or if I'm right at suspecting this movie has left critics so bewildered that they've been giving out positive reviews merely to avoid having nothing to say.

Le verdict: *

For those of you wondering...

2009-06-18T00:03:00.002-05:00

For those of you wondering why the films I've reviewed so far seem to jump from very different times and places I believe some explaining is in order. Firstly, as my last review demonstrates, I may be late reviewing movies currently playing in theaters because I live in a rather small city and we get movies a bit later (Some not at all, so that means I miss some great films that sadly don't really get the masses moving.) than other, larger cities. Also, I have a friend who works at my local Blockbuster and I get free rentals, so I'm taking full advantage of that by catching up on my film education this summer. I'm using James' system (Yes, I've been pushing Rants of a Diva on you a lot lately. So, what are you waiting for? Go check it out!) because it works like a charm. It forces me to choose movies I might pass up on otherwise and really works to fill out some holes in my film list. In case you're not familiar with the system it works like this: You rent one classic film, one foreign film and one "modern" film. James defines modern as something that came out sometime within the last 20 years but I use my birthday as a gauge. Thus, anything that came out between 1992 and now that for some reason or the other I missed and want to watch is a candidate. Hope this clears up any doubts you might have had regarding my unorthodox review choices.

Au revoir,
Monsieur Cinema

Thoughts on Star Trek

2009-06-16T21:09:00.007-05:00

I've noticed most reviews of Star Trek start with the writer either claiming he's never been a trekkie or embracing that identity for all it's worth. I fall into neither camp. I'm not a trekkie, but I cannot comfortably use that claim since I've never seen a Star Trek film or show. I attribute that to me missing it's major zeitgeist moments. I just wasn't old enough during the franchises more modern attempts at success and as such never took interest in those projects or the older shows and films. Star Trek's presence in my life had thus been reduced to punchline status in many a sitcom or movie. With all of this in mind, I cannot claim to dislike or even be indifferent to something I've never been exposed to. But then I saw the trailer and read some of the reviews and it started to look more and more interesting. It was a summer blockbuster, sure; but why shouldn't I enjoy some hours of mindless action and fun, right? I went to see the movie with a friend who was in the same situation as me and we both came out with almost the same opinion of the film.

Star Trek is indeed a summer blockbuster full of action sequences and light comedy but it didn't feel old or tired. The action sequences are decently thrilling, the plot is not too punishing on newcomers to the franchise and there were no overly annoying exposition sequences. The movie even manages to balance the loudness of the obligatory summer-movie explosions with decent comedy from its ensemble. I'd never seen Chris Pine anywhere before, so I didn't quite know what to expect from him. I was pleasantly surprised to discover he has the charisma to lead a role in addition to his pretty face. Also in this ensemble is my hoping-he-becomes-big favorite, Anton Yelchin (Go see Charlie Bartlett, now). Here he again uses his talent with accents and caricaturesque body language to full effect. In anybody else's hands, Chekov might have been to ridiculous and annoying a character, but under Yelchin the character truly becomes fun and dare I say it, even somewhat cute.

The other great thing Star Trek has going for it is the visual experience it provides. Th set design is like watching a futuristic Apple store (Wow, redundant.), all white, shiny and with vibrant color accents. The lighting helps bring this to fruition by truly bringing out the sets' shiny aura. And like I said before, this visual excitement isn't offset with stuffy characters or terrible storylines who no one but the die-hard fans get. Granted, it's not an altogether easy-to-follow movie. My friend got a bit lost during parts of it and I tried to explain it to her and she got back on track real quick, but the fact that I had to explain still means something, right? This is however, a minor concern. If you've been holding out on seeing this because you think it's for trekkies, I'm here to tell you that is not the case.

James' review over at Rants of a Diva posed an interesting question in regards to the film's quality. I would say that The Dark Knight isn't necessarily a better film, but I did enjoy it more. Chalk it up to Heath Ledger's amazing performance or my love for Batman stories since my years as a wee lad watching the Batman the Animated Series show (On hindsight, way darker for a kid's show than you'd expect.). Star Trek is, however, still a darn good film. Yes, it doesn't come close to matching Atonement or anything, but it was still a pretty darn entertaining two hours. I heartily recommend you get off your butt and go watch it if you haven't already.

I give it: ***

Thoughts on Casablanca

2009-06-14T22:50:00.002-05:00

I've wanted to commit to writing my opinion of Casablanca for quite some time now. I wanted this critique to be as accurate as possible, so I rewatched it to make sure I remembered all the details right. It's a testament to the quality of this film that on my third time viewing it the brilliance of it is still every bit as good as the first time.

It's not just one element in Casablanca that's memorable; like all great films, what makes Casablanca a joy to watch is a seamless combination of excellent factors. The excellent script is paired with excellent leads and a marvelous supporting cast. Anyone who thinks old (specially black and white) movies are boring affairs lacking feeling should definitely watch Casablanca. Not only is the plot intriguing, the dialogue is witty and fun when it needs to be and passionate and soulful when the situation demands it. Many films try to emulate this sort of joy-and-sorrow-it's-all-a-part-of-life kind of script and fail miserably not because the logic is untrue, but because they just don't mantain the neccesary level of quality to pull it off. Even more amazing is the fact that Casablanca manages to do this in a script that focuses on a lot of different aspects of the film at different times (One second you're watching a political melodrama, then comes a romance scene and finally, a quip later we arrive at comedy.). How the script achieved this level of consistency and union using five contributing writers is beyond me.

The first time I saw Casablanca I couldn't see what everyone was talking about when they said Humphrey Bogart was a good actor. To me he just looked plain, lacking any real emotion. It takes a careful eye to notice the awesome subtleties of his performance. It all revolves around his eyes, which transmit such sorrow and bitter heartbreak I kept thinking he would've been perfect for a silent movie role.

Not to be outdone by the Bogart, Ingird Bergman balances his suave Rick with her equally charming Ilsa. She uses her eyes with the same expertise Bogart displays but not once does she look like a stale copy. She manages to look both innocent and joyful in her romantic scenes and bitter and sorrowful for her dramatic ones without ever going over the top.

In any other movie, the supporting cast wouldn't be able to match the presence of leads as strong as the ones here; fading pitifully into the background. Casablanca avoids this pitfall with a very strong supporting cast that matches their leads every step of the way. Specially remarkable is Claude Rain's character, Captain Louis Renault. Renault is often placed opposite Rick in scenes, matching his quips and wit nicely and at times even shows that there is more to him than just an intelligent corrupt officer.

All in all, there's a reason Casablanca consistently ranks at the top of lists of the greatest films ever made. It's a movie that understands that a movie is not defined by the quality of the acting or the lighting or even the script. A great movie is defined by a harmonious combination of all these elements in which all of them raise the bar in some way. It is my great pleasure to wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who hasn't watched Casablanca do so as soon as possible. I usually hate those kinds of lists, but for this occasion I'll go ahead and say this is one of those films you have to watch before you die.

I give it: *****

Thoughts on Todo Sobre Mi Madre (All About My Mother)

2009-06-11T19:01:00.002-05:00

Despite a friend of mine's overwhelming recommendation that I watch Volver, I chose Todo Sobre Mi Madre as my first Almodóvar film. Of all places, I had first read about it in my french textbook. The title and poster intrigued me, so I researched it thoroughly without reading any plot details outside of the outline. It looked good enough to merit the expense, but I didn't get my expectations up to anything beyond that. I was pleasantly surprised, however. The film exhibits a great set design, a solid script and performances that in any other hands might have fallen into caricature territory but here are portrayed in a very human light.

The film puts its focus on Manuela (a brilliant Cecilia Roth), a single mother working as a nurse in Madrid. She oversees donor organ transplants and lives with her seventeen year old son, Esteban (Eloy Azorin). Esteban wants to become a writer and is fascinated by his mother's past. He wants to know who his father is, but Manuela will have none of it. For his birthday, Manuela takes him to see a production of A Streetcar Named Desire, a play she starred in when she was younger. Afterwards, Esteban requests an autograph from one of the stars of the play. The actress exits the theater and gets on a cab, ignoring Esteban's request for an autograph. As he chases after the cab, he doesn't notice a car coming from a side street and he gets run over. Manuela is overcome with grief at the loss of her son and is forced to look for the boy's father, who apparently knows not of the existence of his son.

Here is where the real character development begins. Manuela finds her old friend Agrado (Antonia San Juan), a transsexual prostitute who also knew Esteban's father (Apparently a transvestite named Lola). Agrado could have been made a mere caricature, and at times walks a very fine line close to exactly that. But it is through Antonia's portrayal that the character truly becomes likeable, dynamic, and human. In a particularly interesting scene, Agrado informs the audience of a play that the two lead actresses are incapacitated by reasons beyond their control and that the performance will have to be cancelled. She does, however, offer a different show to those that wish to stay. Agrado begins to tell them about her life, about what her different body modifications cost and about how the more you resemble how you dream yourself to be, the more authentic you are. It's a relatively simple scene, but Antonia's performance here makes all the difference.

The other two rounding this ensemble are Penelope Cruz and Marisa Paredes as Sister Rosa and Huma Rojo, respectively. Cruz gives a very nice performance as a confused character who faces circumstances in her life that she didn't expect. She also has to deal with a judgeamental, bigoted mother who is constantly nagging her on her choices, including her decision to work with prostitutes and drug addicts in a shelter. Rosa is never a saint nor a doe-in-the-headlights. She makes wrong choices and she faces lots of tough facts. All of this confuses and scares her but she never once looks like a damsel in distress. Cruz convincingly conveys her being scared, yet determined to survive it all.

Marisa Paredes's Huma is a woman who owns the stage and truly lives for her acting career. She does, however, have one major cause of angst in her life. That would be Nina, her stage partner and lover, who is a drug addict and has the tempestuous moods to prove it. Huma shows the dynamic of their relationship whenever someone tells her Nina is hurt or sick by showing concern typically displayed by a mother. She wants to protect Nina, and this vulnerability is what makes Huma dear to us.

On a final note, let me just tell you about the lighting and sets. The sets are all colorful and the warm lighting only helps to bring this to our attention even more. It's a nice contrast to the seriousness of the issues the characters deal with. It also lends, at times, a sort of seedy underton to the proceedings, nicely complimented by a soundtrack featuring spanish guitars and a very spanish noir-ish feel to the whole thing. All in all, a solid script paired with powerful performances and a great direction make this a thoroughly enjoyable film. I highly recommend it as your first Almodóvar film.

I give it: ***

Thoughts on "The Good Night"

2009-06-09T23:00:00.002-05:00

When I saw the trailer for The Good Night, I was genuinely interested. I didn’t expect it to reach a Gone with the Wind level of quality, but it looked entertaining and the premise seemed interesting. The movie follows the life of Gary Shaller (Martin Freeman, of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy fame), former keyboarder of a one-hit wonder band who now writes commercial jingles for a living.

He is dissatisfied with his job and with his girlfriend, Dora (Gwyneth Paltrow). Now, here’s where the film first stumbles. Dora is mean and disinterested in Gary’s needs or desires. This would all be fine and good if she had a redeeming quality to balance that (Or if she was mean and fabulous. Yes, James is not the only one with a diva fetish.). Dora is simply too drab and uninspiring to add anything to the film. Adding to Gary’s uninspiring world is his former bandmate and friend, Paul (Simon Pegg, brilliant in Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead), who provides much of the film’s comic relief with his uncaring and outrageous attitude.

Gary begins to have dreams about a beautiful woman named Anna (Penelope Cruz). Unable to shake the memory of her the next morning, Gary seeks out a lucid dream enthusiast, Mel (Danny DeVito), who coaches him in achieving lucid, sustained dreams where he can meet Anna. DeVito surprised me with how amusing (not funny, merely amusing) he was with such a small role. That said, his character was mostly used as a plot point and nothing more. He does, however, have a nice scene where Gary realizes through a converstaion with Mel that he is pretty much looking at his future self if he doesn't do something immediately.

Gary then meets a woman who looks exactly like Anna. Against his expectations, the woman, Melodía, has a behavior and style that are very different from Anna’s, and he becomes disappointed in her. Here I was expecting some light comedy illustrating the contrast between his dreams and the real world and for him to eventually overcome this and leave his tedious existence behind with Melodía by his side. Instead that plot point is completely abandoned and the film goes in a completely different direction.

This movie could’ve been a simple enough romantic comedy with some dark comedy undertones, but thanks to an intriguing (if at times uninspired) script, the movie manages to provide insightful commentary about the nature of dreams and how they relate to our lives and expectations. The visuals, as previously stated, are great at times and above average the rest of the time. The dream sequences, with their cold lighting and lush locales, provide a nice contrast to the warm and earthy tones of the real world, where the dull look has been thoroughly accomplished. All of this, however, is not able to save the film from unlikeable characters and the poor execution provided by first time director Jake Paltrow. I know, I know; Francis Ford Coppola wants his nepotism back (Yes, I'm putting the decision to cast Gwyneth up there with the Sofia decision). Although, now that I think about it, maybe it's not so much nepotism as a sibling passive-agressive attack. Gwyneth is so boring, mean and plain-looking here it sure doesn't feel like her brother's paying her any favors. Even for a first-timer, Paltrow makes a mess out of what, otherwise, might've been a pretty decent film (though still not as great as the ones it was trying to immitate id est, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Science of Sleep).

Overall, I could recommend watching The Good Night based on the visuals alone (Yes, I'm a lighting fanatic.), but that would be misleading. Instead, I recommend watching this film and enjoying the visuals and sets if you have nothing better to do that day. It is not a worthless film, but I'm sure you can score something better at your local video rental place.

I give it: *1/2

Le Manifesto

2009-06-08T23:27:00.001-05:00

You might wonder, my dear readers, why would I want to further crowd cyberspace with yet another blog about a topic that a lot of my contemporaries already discuss in depth. Well, I guess you might say I just want to put my opinion out there. Is that vain and self-centered of me? Not really. I just really like to share things; be it my opinion, cool things I find, etc. And putting my perspective on this so oft-discussed topic might be a welcome addition to the impressive roster of film devoted bloggers out there (Nathaniel, of Film Experience Blog and James, of Rants of a Diva come to mind). So, without further ado, let me lay out my manifesto, this blog's raison d'être, so to speak.

Le Manifesto
Monsieur Cinema is a place where the great art known as film will be discussed, critiqued and praised by yours truly. It is a place where movies that would otherwise never be caught dead next to each other (think Star Trek vs. Todo Sobre mi Madre) share the stage for your pleasure. I promise to find ways to put a sparkle in your day in one way or another everytime you look here. Movies are magical, making our dreams come to life. I believe no other art form can come close to what cinema accomplishes because no other art form can appeal to our senses like it does. It's a visual and aural medium, but also an expression of literature. It is also a canvas for some of the most committed, wonderful performers ever to live. To sum things up, I love movies and I certainly hope that if you don't love film as much as I do at the time of your reading, that after spending some quality time with me you can grow to appreciate this marvelous art form, even if it's only a tiny bit more.

Once again, welcome to Monsieur Cinema!

Welcome

2009-06-08T23:15:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the world of Monsieur Cinema. (Yes that's Monsieur, for you.)