gga Reviews

La señal (2007)

Avoid at all costs

[2/10 · 9 October 2007]

One of Argentina's most expensive films is a really horrible one, where *NOTHING* works well.

The script is extremely boring and predictable, with absolutely no turns as you'd expect in the genre (film noir) it is trying to emulate.

The period reconstruction serves NO purpose to the story other than allowing a couple of characters to wear hats. They could have shot it as happening in 2007 and there would not be any difference. Peron, Eva and their politics are mentioned in passing but they play little to no role in the movie.

Darin is horribly cast as the main character. His character is often referred as "The Kid", which makes you think that the character was thought and written for someone in his early eighties, and not in his late forties. It becomes hilarious at one point when a seventeen year old calls him "kid".

Julieta Diaz, who is a mildly attractive and interesting woman, fails completely like the "femme fatal". She lacks the curves, sensuality, acting and good dialog that made, for example, Kim Bassinger's character in LA Confidential such a classic. Peretti starts really ridiculous with some of the most horrible lines in the film but it is the only of the title characters that manages to save face by the end.

The photography is competent but nothing to write home about. There's also several shots that look badly lit and like they were done on video.

The soundtrack is an extremely over the top melodic score that would fit perfectly in any soap opera and makes no sense here.

For those speaking Spanish, another oddity is that all characters speak to each other too respectfully, never calling themselves by name (but by using "usted", "señor" and their last names). This is even true with those that are clearly old friends. While there's no doubt that in older times there was much more courtesy when speaking, the diction used in this movie becomes ridiculous very quickly.

Finally, as far as the title of the movie (The Signal) goes.... everybody will be left wondering, as at no point it becomes clear what that signal is.

Argentina latente (2007)

Excelente

[9/10 · 7 July 2007]

Pino Solanas is a controversial figure in Argentina due to some of his political views, which have a clear left-wing and socialistic (if not communistic) tendencies.

Regardless of this, it is worth recognizing than in this film, Solanas achieves perhaps his best movie, while creating one that is extremely important to the Argentinian citizenship and which should be an almost obligatory part of the teachings in school (and of every Argentinian government official!).

This film, considered the last part of a trilogy that Solanas began with "Memorias del Saqueo", can easily be seen individually. Contrary to his other two films, which pretend to become a historical document of the the financial and social crisis in Argentina at the beginning of the twenty first century, this film is an optimistic bet to the current and future generations.

His previous movies were shot somewhat poorly (lots of hand-held video cameras), but this film has an excellent production. Solanas shots completely in film, with trips to several different points in the country and visits to national organizations usually unknown by most Argentinians. The film documents both the potential and current technological, mineral, energetic and scientific state in the country with an objectivity and scientific methodology that is laudable.

The film is structured simply and gives an even simpler message: we can also do it here (for Argentina). More explicitly, the film conveys the message that if you are of Argentinean citizenship, you have suffered brain washing propaganda to make you feel inferior to the rest of the world. Propaganda that the film tries to debunk. And it does so very effectively, avoiding the potential for demagogy.

Principally through interviews and visits to different areas of the country, Solanas narrates (very well, I might add) and personally interviews engineers, physicists, workers, researchers and teachers and lets their comments be the ones to guide us and educate us.

It's style is similar to Michael Moore, but much more objective (in this film, at least). There's no cynicism nor publicity stunts like what happens with that other director.

Solanas also attempts to promote an ideological change towards a more socialistic thinking or, at the very least, a less inhumane capitalism. It is perhaps in this point where the film is not entirely successful. There's not a very serious discussion of the problems that brings in the case of an increasingly more open global market or what tools, other than protectionism, can be used to successfully compete against multi national companies.

The film is a tad long and it is something that without a doubt will not be of much interest to those foreign to Argentina's history. However, every Argentinian should be compelled to catch this film. You won't regret it.

Ana y los otros (2003)

The birth of a great new director

[10/10 · 2 September 2006]

Ana y los Otros is the first feature film of Celina Murga, who previously acted as assistant director to Damian Szifron (Los Simuladores). And what a great debut it is. The film's first half is slow and a character study. Mostly random encounters of Anna and previous people that knew her in her life, as she returns to her native city. Yet, in each encounter, we learn a little bit more about Anna, without her whole life story ever been told. We are never told why she's back in Parana, but the film lets the spectator begin guessing. This first half of the first film is pretty depressing as the feeling of displacement and awkwardness is prevalent and may easily turn viewers away. But, it is during her dancing that the movie begins shifting its depressing mood. Suddenly, all the pieces come together, as Anna goes on her final quest. It is the last 30 minutes of the film that, with great subtlety, Murga teaches about love and optimism. What had seemed random shots done by a student director, shows us a brilliant person who has seen a lot of cinema and loves it with a passion. Highly recommended. It may indeed be the birth of a great new Argentinian director.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Atrocious

[1/10 · 6 December 2003]

I want two hours of my life back. Tarantino set out to create a homage to those martial arts movies he watched as a clerk in a video store. Sadly, he succeeded. This movie is plain and simply unwatchable. It has the same badly and unbelievable action scenes, extremely corny dialogue, and an almost complete lack of plot. If this movie had been a foreign import, instead of coming from a cult filmmaker, it would be sitting collecting dust in the C section of your video store, probably right next to the pornos. The Matrix and the Run Lola Run movies were cool in that they mixed genres in truly original and entertaining ways. Tarantino just makes a pathetic attempt at copying those films, trying to recover the aura of genious that he earned with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and later lost with all his other films. There's plenty of gimmicks in this one to spare: amputated limbs and decapitations that quickly become hilarious, anime thrown in for no reason, a final battle in black and white, and Tarantino's trademark of non-linear storytelling... take away that, and quite frankly, you will be left with not much more.

Heidi: A Girl of the Alps (1974)

A true classic

[25 October 2003]

This TV series was one of the first anime hits in Argentina that crossed all barriers of age and gender. Extremely sweet and gentle, Heidi has a charm that both girls, parents and even boys love (but they'll never admit to it, of course). Heidi is such a pure girl that is impossible to ignore its charm. This TV series marks one of the earliest collaborations of Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata. By now, you can already see the genius of both. Looking back at these 52 episodes after their successful carreers, it is interesting to see many of their themes and leit motifs appearing in Heidi that would later also surface in later works (young heroines, love for country life, lazy and silent dogs, etc). Sadly, the TV series does not seem to have been published for later generations so the only way to watch it is likely thru some old fan subs. Technically, Heidi is also very impressive to see even today. The traditional use of shadowing in anime is instead replaced by a more flat look but a bigger emphasis put in animation. Looking at it today, animation buffs will be amazed at how good the animation of Heidi was for its time, the traditionally tight budgets of TV production and the length of the series.

Melody (1971)

What to say?

[10/10 · 15 October 2003]

What to say about this gem that has not been said before?

That it was written by Alan Parker, before he was recognized as a world famous screenwriter/director? And that even then, it is a movie that has unjustly remained without being re-released.

No, that's just theory. It is the feelings evoked that matter.

I watched this movie once, as it played in an Argentinian TV channel at a time when there were only 4 TV channels. I probably watched it because of a recommendation from my father, who during my forming years, had gained my respect for introducing me to Spielberg in films such as Close Encounters and Raider of the Lost Ark. My guess is that I was probably about the same age of the main characters when I sat in front of the set.

I remember also the following day at school, as all the boys and girls that had watched it would whisper about it. Girls would probably whisper if it could happen to them, too... if those stupid boys would wise up one day. We boys... we were not willing to admit we had seen and liked a "love" story -- a chick film. As such, we had to make fun of it. But deep down, all of us could tell... we could tell when we looked at each others' eyes that we were lying. That this movie had told perhaps our own story of first love and touched us in a way perhaps no one else had before, in a way we would not forget, we could not forget.

I am 33 now, I grew to work in the TV and film industry both in Argentina and abroad and have watched literally thousands of films since. It is a testament to this film that after watching it only once, I not only remember the film fondly, but that some scenes are still etched in my mind: The Frere Jacques scene as the two main characters talk about how they feel.... a scene that has no dialog, and it is just played with music and visual narration. The farcical view on authority and that funny ending, which could be called a teenage The Graduate.

I have since been looking in vain for a copy of this movie or for the chance to watch it again and again and again.

--- Update: I found it. In Argentina, this movie is now finally being redistributed, by a small private company. Alas, albeit it is on DVD, the copy is not a very good one, with muted colors and a somewhat jittery transfer.

Adaptation. (2002)

Disappointing at best

[3/10 · 24 December 2002]

Spoilers Having Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufmann reunited once again after their hilarious coupling in "Being John Malkovich", the most original and zaniest comedy in years, the expectations for this future film were high. Unfortunately, this film does not deliver. Adaptation is one-trick pony which really runs out of ideas pretty fast... much faster than its protagonist. The problem is the movie never decides what it wants to be and, this time around, the crazy combination of ideas, just does not work at all. And while Kauffman is likely a good screenwriter, his alter ego is not that interesting to watch. The main thread following Charlie Kauffman as he struggles to adapt a book that is not movie material at all is simply not deep enough. After we see him be stuck in front of his typewriter, being ignored by coworkers, how he struggles with his relationships and how he relieves his frustrations masturbating... well, there's not much else to see and what we saw... let's face it... was pretty cliche. And yes, the inner monologues are not funny enough to be justified. His fictitious brother Donald could have been the salvation: an odd-couple pairing who could have contributed to Charlie's additional frustrations. But Donald's role is kept to one side, never being the annoying brother that could have been and most laughs seem to be of Charlie's putting down Donald, which makes Charlie even less sympathetic. And finally, the somewhat real/fictitious story of Chris Cooper (as the real Laroche on which the book is based) and Meryl Streep (as Susan Orlean, the reporter for the New Yorker and author of the book) is quite out of place. On one hand, it is being set-up as a variation of The Bridges of Madison County but the film never seems to find the subtlety or touching feeling of such a movie. And when juxtaposed with the other stories... well, we know Kauffman is pulling our leg already. Problem is... this backfires... we just end up not caring about any of the characters in that way. Quite frankly... if this was the real draft of The Orchid Thief that Charlie was stuck with... well, it was a pity he was not good screenwriter enough to try adapting the screenplay seriously. It could have been decent, instead of this crap he ended up with. Unlike "Being John Malkowich" where we never knew where we were going and we were laughing aloud during the process, Adaptation generates only some tiny little smiles at best. Probably the best character ends up being Charlie's agent, who in a short scene, instead of listening to Charlie's issues, spends his time boasting of his sexual conquests in the office. That is likely the only scene really funny. And well... what can you say about the last half-hour of the movie? That Donald wrote it? Being John Malkovich also suffered from a last act that was a little out of sync with the rest of the movie, but we forgave Charlie for it, since the rest had been so brilliant. However, when the final act of Adaptation arrives, you just cannot be other than angry for just having wasted an hour and a half in the theatre.

It may be funny to Kauffman, but not to the audience. In summary, skip this movie. Your time is better spent with The Two Towers, Gangs of New York or About Schmidt this holiday season.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Money down the drain

[1/10 · 27 October 2002]

And I don't mean mine. I mean the studio's. It really drives me up the wall that someone such as Paul Thomas Anderson, who keeps proving more and more that he was a one trick pony with Boogie Nights, can get the financing to make as insipid movie such as this one. As if that self congratulating piece of rubbish that was Magnolia had not been enough, he now brings us another one. In a year that has so far given us a string of terrible movies, the quirkiness and unpredictability of Punch-Drunk Love might seem like a breath of fresh air. Original, uncomfortable to watch (as was Boogie Nights) and unpredictable are indeed the biggest qualities of this film. Alas, that does not make this a good film. Not by the least. One of the problems is the two ridiculous plots that drive the movie: a love story that is so far fetched and unbelievable that makes even the worst romantic movie look good and an extortion scheme that absolutely goes nowhere and has no sense or purpose. However, it is the characters' personalities (the little of them that is there) that fare even worse. Somehow we are supposed to believe that a retarded man, prone to fits of anger, and played by Adam Sandler owns a business and has several employees. We are told he comes from a family of seven sisters (what for? I don't know. We only see them once and none of them really plays any important role in the movie, either). We are also supposed to believe that Emily Watson (gorgeous and down to earth and with absolutely no personality in the script) not only will develop a crush at first sight after seeing a picture of him but she will also be desperate to initialize a relationship with him at all costs. She also happens to be forgiving to the extreme, finds his insipid conversation charming and she is completely oblivious to the fact that this man she's trying to date is a retard and has serious personality disorders, including aggressive and compulsive behavior. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays against type here as the owner of a phone sex business and a somewhat mafioso want to be. Could be a funny and charming character or even a threatening one, but even that goes to waste. Luiz Guzman seems to be the only actor that really gets the movie and who seems to be a representative of the audience. Having basically no lines other than maybe asking some obvious questions that we are all asking (what's up with that piano? what's up with puddings? what's up with you and how come I work for you?), he just stares into the air every now and then with a face that seems to imply his recurring mantra of "Sigh... I'm in a worse movie than even my occasional bad one, but if I keep repeating this to myself, it will soon be over". And it is. Unlike Magnolia that just kept going and going, this movie is still in the realm of the two-hour films. And two hours after it's done, you will hardly remember this film anymore.

Crest of the Stars (1999)

Amazing scifi story, not so great on animation

[1 September 2002]

Crest of the Stars is one of rarities among films and more so among anime. It is a tv series that actually has a great script behind it and it covers a lot of background very fast. Based on several Japanese science fiction books, Crest of the Stars is still a relatively short tv series (13 episodes, covering its first season), that was a hit in Japan and word of mouth is also slowly making it a hit in the States within anime fan groups. The series has now expanded to be three seasons' length. Crest of the Stars turns a lot of the predictable science fiction conventions on its head: a race that experiments with human genetics but ends up being more human than those that don't; a Galactic Empire more interested in trading than political conquest and that instead of destruction relies on bribery to obtain its worlds, you will soon know this is not your average sci-fi series. It is probably not even your average sci-fi movie either, being way above most Holliwood offerings. This is the sort of film that fans of true and more brainy science fiction epics may enjoy (think Asimov's Foundation or Herberts' Dune). Fans looking for non-stop action in the vein of Aliens, Evangelion or Robotech will, however, most likely be disappointed. The animation, character and mechanical design (all of which tend to be of decent quality in even the cheapest anime productions) is, in my opinion, is not the strongest point of the show. I found it average at best and many times it is bottom of the barrel (most of the first episodes), even for a tv show. However, what will keep you watching this series is the intriguing story and more so, the interesting characters. And the overall feeling, as with "Blade Runner" that yes... this was a possible society... that we could evolve into this. Using flashbacks, multiple threads and subtitles to give you a lot of information (which surprisingly never becomes confusing), the tv series does ask you to be patient. It starts very, very, very slowly as it tries to convey a whole universe in a short amount of time. Eight years ago, the genetically engineered Abh race claim the planet Martine. Martine's leader, Rock Lin, surrenders and makes a deal to keep on ruling the planet and becoming part of the Abh nobility. It is so that we meet his son Jinto, now a 17 year-old boy, who has kept his identity secret all this time. But now he is about to enter the military Abh academy as part of his training to becoming a noble. He is not exactly sure about his feelings for his father who some consider a traitor. Albeit legally an Abh, ironically he has never ever seen one. But now he is about to: Lafiel, a beautiful girl a year younger than him, who also happens to be part of the nobility. She's his escort and crewmate aboard the ship that is to transport him to the academy. Both make for a strange couple as Jinto would like to be accepted as a noble, while Lafiel would rather not be part of it. The Abh empire is not the only conglomerate of planets and unknown to them all, a war is soon about to break...

Reign of Fire (2002)

Yawn

[3/10 · 15 July 2002]

This is a movie with a great premise, the sort of thing you could sell in Hollywood easy: A race of dragons awakens into our world and threatens to eliminate mankind. With that premise, you imagine modern armies fighting dragons, cities being destroyed and great human drama. Unfortunately, the resulting movie out of that premise is one of the most horrible pieces of trash I've seen in a long time. The biggest problem is the 2 million plot holes that cannot be filled by any amount of dragons. Sci-fi and fastastic stories do require suspension of disbelief. Fine with that. But, this movie requires that turn your brain off completely or that your age does not exceed that of a 4 year-old. Having chosen the time for the action sometime after the dragons have obliterated civilization puts the movie in Mad Max and Waterworld territory and we have been there before, several times. And please, are we supposed to endure several additional sequels just to patch the holes of the original movie? Its sad when the best scene in a movie is an unlicensed re-enactment of the Darth Vader battle in Empire of the Jedi. The second problem is the director. After the X-files movie, this guy is still given another chance? Why? Oh why? All action sequences are low on suspense, there's not much direction of actors, and the photography and lighting is unispired. Even worse, some battles are simply badly edited and it is hard to believe the actors and dragon are in the same location. Matthew McConaughey steals all his scenes as the tough army man and seems to have gone out of his way to pump his physique. His role is cliche as they come, but he pulls it off. Christian Bale, once again given a starring role, blows it, delivering okay acting but far from the much needed hero in conflict that the movie asked for. His character arc and motivation seem to much telegraphed and let's face it, this is a role that requires charm. Bale does not have that. He ain't Mel Gibson. The beautiful Izabella Scorupco comes out decently, as both tough girl and subtly implied love interest. And then there's the dragons... After Draco, it is hard to create a more realistic CGI dragon. And the movie does not break any new ground. The dragon here is a monster and performs as such with good animation, but its integration is many times unbeliavable. Even worse are the depictions of dragons and mayhem seen thru photographs and newspapers. In terms of effects, the fire pyrothecnics are indeed the main attraction. In summary, I know you saw the preview and know a little about the story and sounds great. It isn't. A movie to avoid.

Macross Plus (1994)

Very good, but...

[14 January 2002]

...if you can, watch the actual miniseries. The compiled movie, albeit it adds some new animation, it also cuts a lot of material. Due to a completely new editing, it lacks much of the suspense of the original series which was specifically written as a serial. The miniseries had its problems, but these holes in the story are even more pronounced in this compilation movie. As people have mentioned, the original 4 episode miniseries was a rare combination. The first two episodes are simply masterpieces. Without a doubt some of the best episodic television you will ever see (animated or otherwise). Episode 3 was not bad but it adds little to the story. The biggest problem is without a doubt episode 4, when all of the mysteries come to their conclusion. Let's just say that disappointment is not a strong enough word. Still, this production stands on its own due to other achievements. Good animation, breathtaking art direction, amazing designs, and its use of music.

Memento (2000)

No substance

[4/10 · 14 October 2001]

Very little substance in this movie, with the gimmick (very well done) of telling the story in non-continuous sequences and almost in reverse order. But it is a frustrating and non-rewarding movie that cheats the audience at every step: a fictitious illness, characters that do things more to startle the audience rather than for a realistic reason, and an ending that is way too predictable and really silly at the same time. Basically, if you told the movie in a normal fashion, it would show more holes than a certain cheese I am fond of.

Man Facing Southeast (1986)

A thought provoking movie

[8/10 · 14 October 2001]

This is the movie that brought recognition for the first time to Eliseo Subiela. Many times described as "ET" for adults, that cliche is both accurate and misleading. As I write this, a movie with an identical premise is being advertised in the States (K-PAX). I hope lawyers have a field day. The mysterious patient Ramses, who has suddenly appeared in this Argentinian clinic, is convinced to have come from another world. Capable of rational thought and of an apparent high IQ, a doctor begins a treatment to cure him from his dellusion. But does he need to be cured? Isn't the doctor more insane that his patient? Haven't we forgotten what it means to live and enjoy life? The movie moves slowly, but keeps itself interesting. The dialogue is sometimes too academical to be believable (even in Spanish), but its intentions are more powerful than the presentation. Except for Beethoven's Ode to Joy sequence, the movie is not very cinematic, but once again, it never feels to drag. The depiction of the asylum is also one of those you won't see in your typical Hollywood movie: as we see how the dead corpses of the inmates are carried over to be used for medical studies.

The Official Story (1985)

Worth its awards

[14 October 2001]

I saw this movie for the first time right after it had been nominated, in my home country of Argentina. And it bored me to death. I really could not understand why would anyone in its right mind nominate it, other than for trying to be politically correct. It also felt opportunistic and relative redundant, since all Argentinian films at the time seemed to be about the recent crimes of the latest dictatorship. However, years later, in 2000, while on the States, I saw it again. And I sat not believing my eyes. I felt so attached to Norma Aleandro's character, as she slowly uncovers the mystery. Alterio's portrait of the typical Argentinian husband felt too real. The use of Maria Elena Walsh's lyrics (a traditional Argentinian nursery theme) is just almost too painful to bear, and a touch of genius. And the 'abuela' (grandmother), as she discovers the truth and wants to take the granddaughter away from the family predicted many similar stories that were to happen in Argentina later on. In summary, if you watch the movie already knowing what has happened to Norma Aleandro's daughter, the movie will seem a boring soap opera. However, if you don't or pretend you don't, you will realize that you are in the presence of one of the best Argentinian films of the 80s.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold (1987)

A very good adaptation

[10/10 · 31 October 2000]

"Cronica de una Muerte Anunciada" (Chronicle of a Death Foretold) is based on the novel of the same name by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Garcia Marquez, together with Jorge Luis Borges, is the most recognized name in Latin American literature and one of the exponents of what is usually called magic realism. If you are an American reader and are familiar with the works of Isabel Allende, you should definitively read Garcia Marquez, who is her original inspiration. Most of his stories occur in a fictional world that resembles provincial Colombia at a time right where the traditional values of Spanish colonialism are slowly beginning to clash with the new laws and customs of modern society.

Garcia Marquez writing is dense and, as a good story teller of old, he slowly gives us pieces of the plot, while vividly describing the surroundings and, most importantly, his characters' state of mind. Nowhere is this more true than in this novella, which, as the title implies, will retell the story of one single death.

This film adaptation is one of those rare cases where the spirit of the book has been kept intact, and, in my opinion, by changing the order of two incidents in the conclusion, the film has even improved upon the book. This is a compliment not only to Garcia Marquez but to the talent of Tonino Guerra, one of Fellini's long standing collaborators. Right away we are told that Santiago Nasar has been murdered and we already know who the killers are. What we are not completely sure is how and why. And what is not understood is how it was possible for this to happen in the center of the plaza, in front of the whole town.

These are the mysteries that propels the narration. And, just as with 'Citizen Kane' or 'Rashomon', we listen to the different testimonies of the witnesses to the incident -- each one holding just a small piece of the truth.

The non-linear story and slow peeling of layers of truth will confuse and maybe bore some viewers, but those paying attention will enjoy one of the most satisfying films in a long time.

While many of the actors will seem unknown to American audiences, this film has a stellar cast of international European stars, and is a display of the talent of the veterans Irene Papas and Gian Maria Volonte. But where the casting shines is also in that of the main protagonists of the drama: Ornella Muti, as the beautiful and mysterious Angela Vicario who motivates the drama, Anthony Delon (son of the great Alain Delon) as the man she falls for and the yet unknown Rupert Everett.

This period piece is recreated authentically, in both the costumes and the surroundings.

Pay It Forward (2000)

A pity...

[4/10 · 21 October 2000]

Pay It Forward has a great premise: take the concept of a pyramid scheme (a la Amway) but make it about giving away favors. Unfortunately, that's all the movie has going for it. I happened to read the book the movie is based on about a year ago and I thought that there was something there, somewhere, for a great movie. But the book just didn't work. It was a group of emotional and personal stories of people (great), until the third act, where the book became too "literary" and just drifted into complete fantasy. Also, there were a huge number of Disney elements (strange random events) in it that just wouldn't be believable in a movie. Therefore, when I found out that a movie was already in the works, I was certainly curious to see how many of the problems of the book would be resolved. I was even more curious to learn about the casting of Spacey, Osmond and Hunt. Unfortunately, the movie is as much -or more- a disappointment as the book is. At some times, it seems nobody read the book, which leads to some good and bad things. First the bad ones: - The main character of Reuben St.Clair (Trevor's teacher), was changed from a one-eye African American Vietnam -with a frightening and repulsive face-, to Eugene Simonet, a Caucasian teacher with a past history of child abuse and with a makeup that is neither scary nor repulsive. Sure, with that, you get Kevin Spacey to play it and he does a good job, but this was a role for Denzel Washington, Lawrence Fishburne, Sidney Poitier, or any other great black actor. I'm surprised noone has complained about this. - Unlike the book, here there are in total FOUR characters with alcoholic problems in the movie, which is too much. There's also TWO homeless characters, one of which is absolutely ridiculous (come on, would you let your old MOTHER be homeless?). - The beautiful story (in the book) of the old neighboring lady here is changed for the grandmother of Trevor. And you just can see the big hole in the script how this has nothing to do with Trevor's Pay It Forward plan. - The 'movement' of Pay It Forward is not seen as something taking over the world, but barely effecting one or two cities (and how this happens is confusing at best). This makes the ending and the final scene have no emotional significance. - The reporter. He is never given a good character arc as in the book and he is almost redundant. The casting of Jay Mohr (who, since 'Jerry Macguire' plays unsympathethic characters) was a great choice, but only if you brought him from being a despicable figure looking for a prize story to actually caring. - The reason for the teacher's burns.

The good changes: - The change of location to Las Vegas. It makes a much more visual setting and there's a great irony of having something extremely good come out of what is usually considered a city of sin. - The mystery surrounding the burns of the teacher. - The school violence. While this event is still heavily handed, the setup, hints and conclusion are way more plausible than what was in the book. - Some of the dialogues -since the book had no memorable ones. Although they are uneven, and almost seem to have been written by two completely people: one in tune with the material and another one not at all.

Pay It Forward is a very uneven movie and that is why the criticism will vary so much. Although I was hooked for the first 20 to 30 minutes, I started glancing at my watch by the end. There are some great scenes: the Kevin Spacey monologue introducing himself to the class, the fight between mother and son, the silent dinner eating cereals with the homeless man, the love making scene and its aftermath, etc. However, there are also some horrible ones: the revelation of Eugene's burns, Eugene and Trevor's talk on the benches and after class, all the scenes with the character of Angie Dickinson, etc. The score is very unoriginal and almost a copy of the one in American Beauty. The cinematography is competent and sometimes even beautiful during some high school scenes. Haley Joel Osment, once again, performs miraculously well while Spacey and Hunt do a decent job, but not a great one. In summary, this is a movie that would be worth doing a hopefully better remake several years from now.

Dekalog (1989–1990)

Masterpieces

[10/10 · 10 October 2000]

Written in little over a year and a half and done with a budget that any Hollywood production would consider ridiculous, Krysztof Kieslowski and Krysztof Piesiewicz created some of the most thought provoking and emotional films of all time with this miniseries. What was even more dramatic is that these pieces were unavailable on video for almost 15 years due to its distributor. Based on an original idea of Piesiewicz, Kieslowski's long time collaborator, the series was to be given to different directors each time. But Kieslowski fell in love with the project and ended up filming all of them. What makes these pieces unique is their rhythm, their unique images and their amazing scripts. Very little dialogue is used all along. Instead, Kieslowski gives you a full knowledge of his characters by little incidents in their lives, which end up having more resonance. Each one of the stories are linked by location, all occuring to different occupants of an apartment complex over the course of what's very likely one year. Each piece is an entity by itself and can be watched separately, although some of the characters do reappear in different episodes in bit parts. Most significant is that one who has been called "the angel", a mysterious figure whose gaze serves as a warning sign to the main characters. Since the films are loosely based on the ten commandments (and the different ways we break them every single day), the mood is one of anguish and solitude. And Warsaw and that inhumane apartment complex are a perfect setting for these desolate stories. Still, there's no need to be a Christian or even a religious person to enjoy these films. Most films deal with human issues and tough moral choices. Although the stories have received a subtitle to associate each of them with a commandment, these were not present in the original vision of the director and were added later by the Venice Film Festival's press office. Also, if you've seen two of the films in their longer versions: "A short film about Killing" and "A short film about Love", you should also watch them again here in their original versions, since they provide a small glimpse at the genius of Kieslowski who changes and adds small scenes that make the movies (specially "a short film about love") different experiences and almost vignettes of a people's lives.

The Love Letter (1999)

Haven't I seen this before?

[18 July 2000]

For those of us that were teenagers in the 80's, the premise of 'The Love Letter' will seem like an exact copy of the of the comedy called the 'Secret Admirer'. Then again, I'm sure someone here will also be able to come up with a literary (and thus older) comparison just to prove there's nothing new under the sun. But then again, as my father says, sometimes how you say it is more important than what you say. Unfortunately, that does not happen here. While the target of the movie is a more adult audience and there's more warmth put into this version, the reality is that that old teenage movie was funnier and, shall I say it, more romantic. The biggest problem is the main character. It's hard to feel any compassion for Helen (Kate Capshaw) who is fooling around with one guy, while pretending to be interested in another. And, for being a 'chick' flick with mostly female protagonists, it is amazing how underdeveloped most female characters are. We hardly know anything of Janet (Ellen De Generis) other than she gets angry, we know little or nothing of Miss Scattergoods, or about Helen's mother or grandma. The only female character that does seem to share some trace of humanity is Jennifer, the young and slightly dumb girl. Tom Selleck seems to be the only one in tune with the material and the only that can make us feel something as a poor man who has been secretly in love with Helen all his life. Still, you can enjoy yourselves trying to guess how many Capshaw's and Spielberg's are there in this movie.

The Goodbye Girl (1977)

At their best...

[9/10 · 29 April 2000]

There are movies that find their respective creators at their best. When that happens, it's magic and we remember why we pay a lot of money to be entertained. "The Goodbye Girl" is one of those movies. Any good movie starts with the script, and in this case, Neil Simon was at his best, right after having finished "Barefoot in the Park" and "The Odd Couple". Dealing with a familiar territory by borrowing from both of those previous movies, he created this magnificent mix of romance and strangers under the same roof. It is, of course, Neil Simon's dialogue that shines, as the main characters seem to come up with some of the wittiest lines you ever heard. Herbert Ross, fresh from "Goodbye Mr. Chips", "Play It Again, Sam" and "The Sunshine Boys", another Simon's piece, was up and ready for dealing with a romantic comedy and created a perfect cast with both Marsha Mason and Richard Dreyfuss. Mason had already proven herself to be an outstanding actress, in more dramatic pieces like "Cinderella Liberty", and a romantic comedy was a perfect change of pace for her. The Goodbye Girl she plays is a heroine but with a more passive and traditional (and maybe realistic) personality than one given to women in the 90's. As any good actor, she knows her character needs to be underplayed to let her partner show off. Because this is a movie for Richard Dreyfuss. Very few people at the time doubted Dreyfuss' ability to be an every day man. He had proven himself in "American Graffitti" and "Jaws". But he was not what you consider a leading man. He had played every single Neil Simon's leading role on theatre but the movie versions always went to the likes of Robert Redford. But with "The Goodbye Girl", he was finally given the chance to shine. And, oh boy, he does.

Slap Shot (1977)

A gem of a movie

[9/10 · 6 April 2000]

A Canadian friend of mine recommended me this movie as one of his favorite comedies. Since he loves hockey, I did not give it much thought. But, eventually, I rented it.

It stunned me. This is a movie that is just too smart for its own good. A fabulous script that any studio nowadays would reject. This is a film that an be read on so many levels. A jewel of American film that has been disregarded by critics and audiences. By the reviews here, it seems even hose who love it might not have seen how deep this movie goes.

This is a movie that is in the comedy genre, but just as with Chaplin's films, it switches back and forth to drama, too. And just as with The Great Dictator, there's a huge irony and social criticism behind it.

On the surface, it is a comedy about a small losing hockey team and how they turn their luck by the use of violence. With this new tactic, they end up attracting fans, critics and disorienting rivals as the team rises to the top. The characterizations are vivid. Paul Newman's character is given a true motivation behind his antics: to win back his wife, who is about to divorce him. This is all standard Hollywood stuff, but still is some of the best. The scenes are terribly realistic, the dialog is never direct but subtle, and the comedy, except for the fights in the ice, is never played for laughs. There's excellent slapstick humor, but there's also some great lines that fans of the movie will probably repeat forever. The main characters are so real that it feels you can touch them. Paul Newman's role is a complex one and this is one of his best performances I've seen from him, with many facets. Both manipulative, romantic, womanizer, workaholic, leader and father figure. And the other characters share also that complexity: the other players, his wife and the wives of others, the team manager/agent, etc.

But... this is just the surface. Sure, violence in the NHL may not be such a hot topic now that new rules have been put in place and sanctions have become more severe.

But it is the secondary themes that really earn this movie my respect. It is in these areas that it has aged so well. In some aspects, it is even more important today than when it was made. The isolation of the wives of the players, enduring cheating and struggling with drinking and divorce. A real reflection of the dark side of our society then and now -- an analogy of the struggle between work and family, between professional and personal success. There's a good punch aimed at the sports media, another topic that could not be hotter in a time where basketball, football and even golf players are quickly turned into movie stars.

Watch this movie once. Watch it twice. Watch it several times. It will keep getting better each time.

Seven Samurai (1954)

Not as good as...

[7/10 · 5 April 2000]

...his other work (Ikiru, Rashomon, etc), still this movie is loved by audiences since it is one of Kurosawa's films with a traditional Hollywood script. Inspired by American westerns, it is only fitting that the film was later adapted several times to that setting. There's little depth in this movie, compared to Kurosawa's other pieces. It is just pure entertainment, dealing briefly with issues such as honor, mismatched lovers and solidarity. The movie feels a little long nowadays, and it does take some time to get started. But this setup pays off later on. Battle plans are explained before hand so the public can follow the action sequences in the same way a general can. And once the battle begins, you won't be able to stop watching. Mifune steals the best, funniest and of the most memorable scenes in the movie, as an infiltrated soldier in enemy lines. The action is dramatic and the stunts are outstanding. With hundreds of extras, great b&w photography and an impressive production, the movie takes on epic qualities that have little to envy to any Hollywood production.

Ikiru (1952)

Kurosawa's overlooked masterpiece

[10/10 · 5 April 2000]

There's no doubt that Kurosawa was one of the best storytellers of the 20th century, appreciated by critics and audiences alike. Still, when mentioning his greatest achievements, most people place "Rashomon", "Ran" and "The Seven Samurai" as his most notable pieces. Only a few will remember this little film that has so much more significance than those others. "Ikiru" is a movie that can bring you to tears with very little manipulation. It's a movie you will not forget, a life lesson. It's a movie that will forever change how you think about movies. It is a social criticism. It is a discourse on bureaucracy. Improving on Rashomon's non-linear way of storytelling, this is a film that forces you to pay attention. There are no samurai fights here. There are no melodramatic dialogues where characters scream at the top of their lungs. There are no forced tears in the character's cheeks. This is a movie of very subtle, inner conflict, with a very simple premise: What would you do if you had three months to live? Kurosawa's answer is so devastatingly powerful, smart and original that it will change you forever. Or maybe, it won't, proving that the director's pessimistic view of humanity was correct.

Friends (1971)

"The blue lagoon" in modern times

[8/10 · 29 March 2000]

First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own.

Here on Earth (2000)

What a waste of time and money.

[1/10 · 28 March 2000]

Sometimes I wonder how films like these actually get made within the studio system. Here is FOX 2000, probably investing several millions into a production that should have never been distributed as a feature film. "Here on Earth" is a film worthy of a video release only. From the first line of dialogue, you know you will see characters that are stereotypes. You are disappointed afterwards to find that they are not even that. They are just cardboard characters, whose motivation is never understood at any time. Things happen to them and they make decisions, but never with any real motivation. As with any love film, the chemistry between the leads is the most important aspect. The two actors do make a fine couple visually, although emotionally they are not so touching. Leelee Sobieski is a really fine actress, as she has proven in both "Joan of Arc" and a not so great Merchant-Ivory film. But her talents are completely wasted here. Why she ever decided to take this role is beyond me. It is a more adult and sexy role, but not a deep one. For Chris Klein, on the other hand, this could have been step forward. He has already proven himself as a comic actor, always taking the role of the not-so-intelligent hunk, in both "Election" and "American Pie". Here he goes for both the leading man and a more dramatic role. I hate to say that he does not succeed in either. His most memorable moment is his funny bit speaking drunk to the cows. But it is not entirely his fault, when the material is so weak. The film does offer some nice photography here and there, but there's very little creatively done in the composition of the shots. While obviously trying hard to be the "Love Story" of 2000, with a very similar structure, the film fails to capture what made that old movie an instant classic.

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Wow

[28 March 2000]

After watching Julia Roberts in "Notting Hill" and "My Best Friend's Wedding", where the secondary characters were the only thing actually worth anything, I was not expecting much from yet another film starring this overpaid actress. Boy, I was wrong. She deserves every penny of her salary. With this movie, Roberts strikes gold and, unless several magic movies shows up along the year, she'll probably land her first Oscar nomination. The same goes for Albert Finney (not his first, but another one). But, just as with "Shakespeare in Love", a chick flick that guys could enjoy, the script is the real star of this movie. A perfectly crafted hollywood product, but with enough surprises, heart and great dialogue to reach out to today's hypercritical audiences. In the hands of the director Steven Soderbergh, who is showing more and more talent with each film he makes (Out of Sight, The Limey, etc), the film never looses its entertainment value. Does it mean that it's a perfect movie? No. Things that did not quite work all the time are Erin Brockovich's personal life and romantic relationship (some scenes are extremely touching, others don't ring true), and some of the lawyers that are comic stereotypes. But it is the focus that this movie places on personal conflicts and people themselves that rises this product way and above a similar themed movie like "A Civil Action". Erin Brockovich has all the strength of a Norma Rae of the 21st century.