Reviews

I have to declare that Fellini 8 1/2 is first on my list of favorite films so it is rather obvious that, as far as I'm concerned, any one that tries to mess with it will be received with a huge amount of resistance. On the other hand I have been perversely attracted to the musical version from its initial opening on Broadway years ago. Nine, both on Broadway and unfortunately of the new film, clearly show that today's culture has exhausted its own creativity and simply lost any shame in accepting the lack of an original idea.

From My Fair Lady to West Side Story or even A Little Night Music, many great musicals are based not on an original idea but on famous classics stories, books or films. Nothing wrong with that when the musical version adds a new layer, a twist to the vision of the original and the music brings a new vocabulary to tell the story.

The film of Nine doesn't feel so much as inspired on 8 1/2 but a real misappropriation of someone else's personal ideas. Whilst the change from screen to stage might have been challenging and innovative, the fact that we are now back to the same medium than the original makes more obvious the inadequacies of the concept as well as the poor talent of the Rob Marshall and his MTV School of film direction style. The use of memorable imagery in black and white in a scene such as the Saragena and the boys on the beach seems not a homage to the genius of Fellini but simply a blatant robbery that should have been protected by copyrights or at least by Marshall's self censorship.

The misconception was there from the start. The film as a musical simply does not work in any way. The music itself seems extremely banal and you know you are in shaky territory when you can tell exactly the next musical phrase or words in a song. Further more the introduction of the songs, the sudden jump from action to singing feels totally forced.

How on earth a talented a actor such as Daniel Day Lewis could ever have got involved in this mess of styles and accent with dubious content escape me. Did he really think he could pass as a reincarnation of Mastroianni or even as an Italian? It might sound odd but in the film not even Sofia Loren sounds convincing as an Italian!

Interesting that at the core of the original 81/2,there is actually the conflict of the creative process and the fear of not being able to say anything new or of value. What's could then be a better idea that cannibalizing Fellini's masterpiece and bringing its level to a lower common denominator in order to try to capture the interest of today's general audiences.

What I found interesting of The Queen is how it manages to exploit the voyeuristic tendencies of a cinema audience without ever transgressing the limits of acceptability, transforming the plot into caricature or a vulgar British farce. It reminded me of the work of photographer artist Alison Jackson who uses celebrities' lookalikes to create images that encourage the viewer to believe they are true, although they constantly play with the idea of collective fantasy. This border between true and untrue is the principle of the attraction of the movie, and the through the keyhole vision of the Royals and Downing Street comes at a time where obsession with fame and celebrity does not in any way escape them. This is a game that Diana knew well to play for her own advantage and won hands down, even after her untimely or, perhaps for some, God sent death.

Stephen Frears clever device of mixing newsreel footage showing real images give credibility to the artificiality of those based in what we assume it might have happened or are just product of his and the scriptwriter Peter Morgan's imagination. Undoubtedly is Helen Mirren the only one that not only carries the weight of the film on her shoulders but blurs, purely through the use of her amazing talent as an actress, all boundaries between what is believable and what is not.

The other aspect of the film that I found interesting and exciting was the suggestion of a dramatic shift of certain British values, a change of character present already since the earlier Thatcher's years and then completed by Blair after wards, that has transformed British society drastically in the last two decades. Although the subject is at the core of the film this could have been dealt with in more depth - what is it that has affected this change and made the British tribe so different to what they once were?

The film seems to present the opposite poles of stiff upper lip unemotional and repressed attitude of the monarch and her entourage to those of the public showing off their emotions and unable to contain them as well as those in government searching for modernization and progress. The corrosive influence that the period of the last two decades or more have had in the fundamental transformation of those presumably permanent cultural and character forming values perhaps is something the film misses by only showing the queen as attached to old traditions and made the way she is as a consequence of her duty and upbringing. At the risk of sounding like defending the monarchy perhaps someone will one day take the challenge of making a film about this loss of values and put a mirror in front of the British population instead of doing so, gently and with a light tone, only to their Gracious Queen.

The casting of Jennifer Anniston in the leading role of Friends with Money is not a mere coincidence. She is perhaps the most representative impersonation of a formula, tried and tested effectively in the small screen that seems to make rather frustrated attempts to colonize the hearts and minds of a cinema audience. The formula's theory has been worked and overworked in every single detail. This is script writing at its more ambitious and at its very worst. I can just imagine a group of people discussing every nuance of the individual characters psychology so every spoken line, every gesture expressed gives an intended inside to the individual personality and their interaction with others. This formula, American to its teeth, is unfortunately empty at the core. The characters seem empty of any soul, of any real blood or flesh. They are totally robotic and incapable of becoming real human beings, showing real feelings, real pain, real humour. Is this just the inhabitants of the film or this kind of human nature and ways of inter relating are at the core of today's American society? This is even more intriguing as the film seems to try to deal with the subject of caring or lack of care for others, the nature of affection and the emotional involvement leading to a so called meaningful relation between couples and friends. There is only a glimpse of interesting characterization and acting, a small light of real feeling and a more convincing realism in Aaron, the fashion aware sensitive husband married to Frances Mc Dormant character, believed to be gay. It might be the sound of a British accent that differentiates him from all of that formulaic little intonation and trait predictability. Unfortunately neither the character or its conflict is central to the concept of the film nor neither is ever developed to its full potential as it could have been. It is quite obvious that the Chejovian spirit of Woody Allen's Hannah and her Sisters is present in the inspiration of the film but what then felt somehow real and had human depth has been bastardised to the point of nausea.

It is amazing what Almodovar can do, simply and without traces of a great effort: humanising cinema, bringing it to life and without having to appeal to easy sentimentality. The story is, as usual, complicated by a number of unbelievable twists and turns but the characters are real ,even the ghosts are, the feelings are deep, the humour black but full of wit.

This is an antidote to Hollywood film-making without ever trying to, a film that could never come from what the American film industry has become, particularly when it comes to comedies. It sets up its own rules and never follows known patterns or logic of narrative, the viewers never quite knowing where they'll be taken next. There are some fun film references that many film buffs will be only to happy to spot in the story , from Crawfords' restaurant in Mildred Pierce to Hitchcock Trouble with Harry or Magnani's mother in Bellissima, and references in Cruz's look not just to Sophia Loren but more to Claudia Cardinale in "Girl with a suitcase", but it is always surprising, never formulaic - unless compared to other Almodovar films.

I've never quite bought the idea that Almodovars's stories are "women films" and that he understand their personality that much better than he does with men. The fact is that in Spanish culture- and this film is 100% Spanish- women in general terms, have the upper hand, the matriarchal medieval society is still alive and well and still leaving in La Mancha, men having a more passive and less relevant role. Almodovar films only tend, directly or laterally, to reflect this fact, even in those where he deals with male principal characters such as Law of Desire or, to some extent, Talk to her.

Volver is probably not Almodovar's best, it seems rushed and not quite smooth around the edges, the script as well as the direction not quite as well considered as in others. However the cast, and specially Carmen Maura, although followed closely by the rest of them, give amazingly detailed performances with a sense of joy and pleasure in performing and doing their jobs, which comes across and is clearly communicated to the audience.

There is a say in Spanish language that could be translated as "in the land of blinds a one-eye man is a King" and in today's sea of mediocre and formulaic film-making Almodovar's sense of fun and intelligence is quite an achievement.

Why a film about Che now? Why suddenly a revival of a revolutionary hero?

Apathy, political blandness and complacency are the characteristics of today's world when compare with the 60's generation, and any left revolutionary dogma seems, for many reasons, to have been put at rest for the time being and until further notice. The relevance of this film today has many different facets and its success is particularly interesting at a moment of change, when wars, political and economical crisis and their global effects, are starting to provoke some reaction suggesting that involvement might just be around the corner. Wisely the film concentrates on following Guevara diaries before becoming radicalised and in the process of gaining knowledge and awareness of the struggle of the Latin American unprivileged classes and prior to breaking up with his middle class ties. The film has had many viewers that have criticized the lack of a stronger political definition in the portrait of the lead character, a more radical view of Guevara and of its political stand even at that early stage in his life. The film makes his image more digestible for a general audience, showing him in a sympathetic light and from a softer perspective. In my view this is exactly what it makes it relevant and interesting for today's audiences. Although the film grows in the memory as being a touch more political than what perhaps Walter Salles aimed for, it doesn't intend to preach politics or even try to be a full-blown biopic of an historical and controversial figure. What makes the message strong is the fact that we actually know who the character eventually will become after the story of the film finishes and the end titles start to run, that makes it rather more poignant. We only witness the beginning of his personal journey and know how much he will travel. The film is more about personal choices, experiences and decisions that eventually might change the course of a life, and particularly about the spirit of being young. The film recreates the freedom of adolescence, a time for absorbing and experimenting, the start of a trek where we discover the world and where justice and a hope for change is strongly embedded with the attitude of the young. Or at least that happen in the 60's generally and particularly in Latin America. The real quality of the film is that through a subtle, engaging, fun tale allows the audience to connect with a period where change, personal and internal, was possible, and where there was hope for a fairer future.

For anyone like myself from Argentina, part of a generation that were there and young at the time, the film evokes just that starting point. It is a rather emotional journey that takes back a whole generation that had firm beliefs in these ideals, as relevant today as they were in 1952 where the action of the film ends and Guevara flights back home shaken by the whole travel experience. It is rather significant that not that much has changed for the better in the Latin America of today, where the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' has, if anything, grown wider. The film is simple and straightforward showing the real talent of Walter Salles for avoiding patronising his audience as he conveys an accurate portrait of the landscape and its people. There is perhaps some excessive 'under acting' on the approach from Gael Garcia Bernal to his performance [ ...was Che really ever such a "softie"?] but still, it is great to see him growing as an actor and as Che through the film. To counter balanced such a restrained interpretation, Rodrigo de la Serna projects the right dosage of charm and Argentinean street wisdom that gives the warmth and humanity the film exudes. The music of Gustavo Santaolaya adds a layer of depth and intensity whilst rightly avoiding, like the rest of the film, most of the traditional clichés of the South American image.

The most skilful attribute of The Barbarian Invasions is the clever way in which the film intertwines a personal story with our collective history. I don't remember another recent film that has managed to move and making me feel involved as much, and in both respects. The film is incredibly accurate in capturing a "moment", an undercurrent, difficult to articulate and to put in words, of what it is happening in our world today. It does this with remarkable restrain and in small measures in the delivery of details, giving us few but quite powerful facts. This accurate, sharp perception of life gives the film a rare strength and reinforces the flow of emotions that make us care for Rémy, its main character, as he would be a part of us. His terminal illness, his cancer is not only his but ours as well, and as a consequence his suffering has bigger and more meaningful implications.

These emotions are placed at points we all inevitably share. As human beings, the coming to terms with facing death, the "embracing of the mystery", but also the death of culture as we knew it, a way of approaching life that characterised a generation that has just passed the torch to a new and younger one. As individuals and as part of today's society, the film questions our embracing or rejection of the changing of values such as honesty, care and trust being replaced by those that make our daily experience a less humanistic and more cynical affair. This is today's world where the barbarians rule, where the brutes, the over ambitious, the corrupted, and the ignorant reigns.

The references to 9/11 are key to the film's content and not just and opportunistic or unnecessary detail. Its significance in the context of the story is twofold. It is an historical breaking point that marked the "Invasion" that follows the fall of an empire already showing signs of crumbling, together with its way of life. But are the barbarians the invaders or are those who are being attacked?

Although there is no straight answer in the film to this question, in Arcand's world there is still room for intense human relationships, the barbarians have not yet won the war. Sébastien, the son's character, with all his cultural and business driven alienation manages to convey certain uneasiness towards the end and a possible change through the experience seems to be suggested. But our hopes are for those sensitive and weak enough to express their pain and isolation. For those like Nathalie, the tortured heroine addict, that perhaps still have the wisdom to create a new future and to care for others, in spite of her own shortcomings and failings.

What is remarkable of the film is that what sounds incredibly pompous and embarrassing when spoken or written on paper, has a natural flow in the film, a totally unpretentious tone in spite of the seriousness of the issues, that makes it even more touching and convincing.

The acting in general is quite remarkable in what easily could have gone wrong by overstating the emotions, making it all sound dreadfully syrupy. My only concern with The Barbarian Invasions is what happens to that part of the audience that has not belonged to the generation central to the film. If one has at least witnessed, at an early stage of their lives, a different world where idealism, hope and change were just about possible, it might be easier to enjoy the film and more, understand its point. It is somehow alarming that, in spite of the high marks of the IMDb site, some of your contributors did not enjoy the film or commented quite negatively on its content. Let's hope that those that strongly felt that way about the film are not the new barbarians!

So much expectation could only lead to disappointment. What happened to the talent of Bertolucci? Is he the same director that made The Spider Stratagem, The Conformist or Last Tango? It is sad to see someone that represented a vision of liberation, of creativity, of intellectual rigour to have lost the touch of genius. Even his trademark directing style, the composition of the shots, the brillant camera movements and the sophistication of the editing seems to have been totally lost and replaced by middle of the road Americanised blandness. It is understandable in all creative artists to reach its peak and to gradually lower that very level of groundbreaking work. But to get this low? The Dreamers feels fake, forced, opportunistic, poorly acted, it doesn't flow naturally, using and appropriating itself of every cinematographic detail that would give it a feel for authenticity and credibility in the name of an homage to the Nouvelle Vague.

A cocktail of Goddard, Truffaut et al that in spite of its attractive packaging fails to delivered the goods. It is not only the very essence of what the cinema d'auter was trying to achieve in'68 that is missing but also the real spirit of the Paris revolution, the search for a better order, idealistic as it might have been.

The central characters and the context in which they live never seem to mix. They are like two different systems running in parallel but separately. The political and social context becomes a backdrop, a place and a moment but nothing more than that. The characters motivations, neither their political or sexual rebellion never brought into the surface of the story. They seem to be spectators and not participant of what it is happening outside, an audience in many ways similar to that of the Cinemateque film buffs they are. There is no holly innocence in these "enfants terribles" but mere stupidity.

Perhaps Bertolucci had this in mind and it was his intention to show this light commitment of the petit bourgeoisie and the futility of their social and political pretensions.

Also the role of their parents seems false. Their attitude when coming back to find a kind of domestic Jules et Jim scene in their living room seems more appropriate to post-liberated people brought up after the '60s that real French middle class parents at the time, even accepting the characters intellectual aspirations.

In spite of these comments and quite a few longueurs in the script the film is still enjoyable to watch. There is an aesthetic voyeuristic eye in Bertolucci's film and who can not but enjoy being inside a rather grand Haussmanian Paris apartment with three beautiful young things inside shockingly walking around in the nude. If this was the intention of its possible commercial appeal the success de scandal is guaranteed.

I've always doubt of films with an international cast speaking in English. A multi-accent approach that should be sufficient reason to keep anyone away from the idea of joining the Brussels euro-bureaucrats. In this case however this approach is totally justified. The film is about immigrants to the UK, "aliens" searching for a better life at any cost. How much are human beings prepared to pay for escaping injustice, poverty or a repressive society? Or are they escaping from something else and their aim to live in an apparent "free world" totally misdirected? Isn't this new Home to some extent just a milder version of the same corrupted world and the bleak poor quality of life they believe to have left behind?

Stephan Frears takes a straight, almost dead-pan approach to the styling of the film making it more like a docu-drama, a journalistic approach which seems totally appropriate to the story and its characters. To "stylised" the film is a manner more appropriate when filming Les Liaisons Dangereous. In the case of Dirty Pretty Things we're closer to Frears roots when telling small local stories of immigrations and marginal lives. There are however touches of corrosive humour in the characters and situations. It reminded me of Lindsay Anderson' Britannia Hospital or O'Lucky man, certainly in the description of a sad and rather hostile Britain where the unbelievable can happen but also in the changes of pace from drama to almost surreal situation comedy.

It is great to see a British film that deal with a current problem and not with east-end gangster boys , adaptation of Jane Austen novels or false descriptions of Notting Hill Gate. The acting is also excellent, with sweet "Amelie" Tatou leaving Montmatre well behind and Chiwetel Ejiofor giving a subtle but effective performance although the character is sometimes a bit too good to be true.

What I did like best is that there is no final moralising with the exception of the fact that Sergi Lopez, the organ selling ring leader, get what he deserves. Both characters get away with their intentions, and rightly or wrongly they leave us to start what they believe to be a better life.

I wish them well.

"Cidade de Deus"is without a shadow of a doubt a worthy film. Judging by today's cinema standards it is rather unusual. Life in the Rio favelas and the struggle for survival of its inhabitants don't come first to mind as the ideal formula pitch for the latest Hollywood blockbuster. A quote of reality is these days extremely shocking and, funnily enough, a welcomed relief from our culture general lack of content and genuine disinterest in reflecting anything too uncomfortable to watch with the exception of cheap and easy-to-digest thrills.

The film left me disturbed but also with this very feeling of discomfort.

Are our thresholds for levels of excitement and sensation growing to a point that require more and more images of stylised extreme brutality and editing at supersonic speed in order to get in contact with the reality of today's world? Is this the only vocabulary in which the message can reach home?

Is this generation of new creative filmmakers only going to take Scorsese as their prime inspiration, their mentor and their aesthetic leader?

When with Scorsese the style rings true, his followers sound hollow at the core. They are full of beans and energetic pathos but empty of cinematic ideas, of innovation in their vocabulary and ultimately of real feeling to convey the humanity and real dramatic intensity of the characters of films such as Mean Streets or Goodfellas.

The fast cutting MTV editing style, the "de rigour" voice over narrative, the multiple stories, the continuous bombardment of sound, the split screen easy device are all the signs of an advertising breeding and of a method of telling a story as subtle as a pop video. "Cidade de Deus" pretends to be a docu-drama faithful to the facts and the lives of the characters it portrays. Far from this intention we learn very little through the film neither of the socio-political context in which these events take place or, unlike its predecesor Amores Perros, the intensity of feelings of the characters surrounded by so much misery and death.

There is a touch of intending to emulate the neorealism of say a Bicycle Thieves or La terra Trema in the use of non-professional actors playing their own lives. The ambiguity created by the use of real inhabitants recruited from the favelas itself add to the sense of reality but also a voyeuristic touch that left me with a bitter taste and a sense of exploitation of the real place and people.

It reminds me of that Vogue magazine photo shoot in the 70's were incredibly sophisticated models in their latest Cardin or Pucci outfits were being photographed,Avedon style, with the Brazilian slums for background.

Is life another box of chocolate? Perhaps this times a rather bloody and morally reprehensible one. Is this road leading anywhere worth going? Road to Perdition tries so hard to be something that ultimately it can not accomplished that all its efforts seems so prefabricated, so full of mannerisms, so contrived that there is no room for reality or even true feelings to influence or penetrate neither the story narrative or its delivery.

The film feels totally empty at its core, empty of those same values that in spite of the bloodshed and violence of the gangster world it portraits it pretends to highlight: love between father and son, filial trust, honesty. It plays with the audience natural alliance to its main character and its moral ambiguity by casting Tom Hanks as a distasteful hero but giving him an aura of respectability by focusing in his caring fatherly love.

The film's contrived cinematography, the soft focus brown and sepia tones of the photography, the immaculate new repro-sets, the constant intrusion of a highly sentimental sound track that feels the need to emphasise every little nuance of the plot seems to try to make the audience an accomplice in hiding the true nature of the film's main character: a merciless gangster and a miserable b****rd. This is not The Sopranos territory where moral ambiguities and soul searching dilemmas constantly mark the plot neither The Godfather's world where character development and a genuine sense of realism prevails through the questionable characters that inhabits it.

I found the film so incredible distasteful, so sickening in its Hollywood sugary levels of story telling that it makes me seriously doubt about the future abilities to mix popular culture with subtle touches of sensitivity that Sam Mendes so clearly demonstrated in his first film. Let's hope he still has something to say and he is yet not totally lost, at such a tender age, to that road leading to vacuous and meaningless success.and with another Oscar waiting at the end of it.

With "Hable con ella" Almodovar seems to have reached the peak of his personal style. Most traces of his trade mark camp humour have been almost entirely eradicated and we seems to be invited to penetrate a more humane, less acid private world of his own. We do this however with some trepidation.

On the surface he is, like in his most recent films, telling a story. But his concerns are more to do with story telling as a genre, his interest being more the knots that link the characters and the "texture" of the narrative. He manages to make us believe every twist and turn of a plot that becomes almost entirely unbelievable by the minute but that we can not resist to care about whilst we watch. And we watch in amazement and at the edge of our seat. And this care turns into deep emotions. Sometimes subtle, others quite crude the nuances and unpredictability of the storyline make us drop our cynicism, stirring our sensitive nerve and leaving us unable to rationally control our reaction.

It is here that Almodovar carries the torch of the Hollywood melodrama of the 40's and gets even closer to the Latino soap opera, the "telenovela", present in the pop culture of every Spanish speaking country since TV created them in the early 60's.

"Hable con ella" focuses, unusually for him, on two male characters but it is really about sexual roles in a wider sense and here Almodovar attitude is subversive. No one is quite what it supposes to be. Men are sensitive, they cry, they are givers, they care and look after others, they are abandoned, they are faithful and loyal to the point of passivity. Women are more complex and fill either a traditional men role par excellence, the torero, the macho bullfighter, or they transcend an ethereal, spiritual quality that transform them from sensitive dancers into sleeping beauties and mothers-to-be.

In his world men are confused not quite knowing how to be able to determine their real roles in life or how to act in control. The short silent "film within a film" is, in this particular context, quite revealing. Closer to the surreal spirit of Buñuel & Dalî's L'Age d'Or rather than Grifith or Pabst, the ingredients of the fantasy exposes both men characters more frightening feelings of inadequacy and castration. Textbook psychology but also basic Almodovar's theory of life. In the film men are reunited amongst them, their friendship and support of each other their main strength and most valuable asset. But in Almodovar's world are women who continue to be on top even when in a state of coma and, this time, not just on the verge of a nervous breakdown. That is in fact, men's stuff.

With "Hable con ella" Almodovar seems to have reached the peak of his personal style. Most traces of his trade mark camp humour have been almost entirely eradicated and we seems to be invited to penetrate a more humane, less acid private world of his own. We do this however with some trepidation.

On the surface he is, like in his most recent films, telling a story. But his concerns are more to do with story telling as a genre, his interest being more the knots that link the characters and the "texture" of the narrative. He manages to make us believe every twist and turn of a plot that becomes almost entirely unbelievable by the minute but that we can not resist to care about whilst we watch. And we watch in amazement and at the edge of our seat. And this care turns into deep emotions. Sometimes subtle, others quite crude the nuances and unpredictability of the storyline make us drop our cynicism, stirring our sensitive nerve and leaving us unable to rationally control our reaction.

It is here that Almodovar carries the torch of the Hollywood melodrama of the 40's and gets even closer to the Latino soap opera, the "telenovela", present in the popular cultural of every Spanish speaking country since TV created them in the early 60's.

"Hable con ella" focuses, unusually for him, on two male characters but it is really about sexual roles in a wider sense and here Almodovar attitude is subversive. No one is quite what it supposes to be. Men are sensitive, they cry, they are givers, they care and look after others, they are abandoned, they are faithful and loyal to the point of passivity. Women are more complex and fill either a traditional men role par excellence, the torero, the macho bullfighter, or they transcend an ethereal, spiritual quality that transform them from sensitive dancers into sleeping beauties and mothers-to-be.

In his world men are confuse not quite knowing how to be able to determine their real roles in life or how to be in control. The short silent "film within a film" is, in this particular context, quite revealing. Closer to the surreal spirit of Buñuel & Dalî's L'Age d'Or rather than Grifith or Pabst, the ingredients of the fantasy exposes both men characters more frightening feelings of inadequacy and castration. Textbook psychology but also basic Almodovar's theory of life. In the film men are reunited amongst them, their friendship and support of each other their main strength and most valuable asset. But in Almodovar's world are women who continue to be on top even when in a state of coma and, this time, not just on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

That is in fact, men's stuff.