Reviews

In The Valley of Elah, Paul Haggis' 2nd film, is a definitive improvement over Crash, his controversial debut picture about racism and racial relations set in Los Angeles, which may rank among the worst Academy Award-winning movies of all time. For the most part, it avoids the over-the-top moments that became infamous in his previous work, and it seems to try to escape from moments done for shock-value alone. Still, even though it could have been worse, Mr. Haggis has failed to make a good movie.

Even his admirers admit that the Oscar-winner writer is not very subtle, but, while in Million Dollar Baby and The Flags of Our Fathers (both movies had screenplays adapted by him), Clint Eastwood managed to do great films, by, among other things, injecting minimalism and seeing beyond stereotypes, Haggis' directing lacks the capacity of making the already unexceptional screenplays work. His heavy-hand is quite clear in several moments, like in some of the scenes with Susan Sarandon (in one of her worst performances to date), and, specially, in the ending, which certainly will make some Bush and war opponents smile, but, even for most of those who were against both from the beginning (including this reviewer), the way the message is presented kills any chance of it work, with it's brutal lack of subtlety and elegance; like in Crash, Haggis not only cannot let viewers get to their own conclusions by making the the point blatantly obvious, but has to beat it in the head of the audience over and over again. Also,not unlike his first feature, what he is saying is far from being a fresh and new insight, and the writer/director ends up underrating the intelligence of the viewer, making the movie even less enjoyable.

The cast does the best they can, for the most part; while the previously mentioned Susan Sarandon disappoints, Charlize Theron delivers a solid performance as a single mother who is not respected by her fellow co-workers, and Josh Brolin and Jason Patric have smaller roles, but do a good job.

Still, if the movie has any redeeming quality, is without a doubt the magnificent work of Tommy Lee Jones. Except for Daniel Day Lewis, no actor was as important to his movie this year as he was here, but unlike the former, Jones doesn't have a masterpiece being built around him, and has to carry the movie on his own; and he actually manages to do so for most of the time, avoiding any excess that a lesser actor would commit, and making his character believable and sympathetic. While the single Oscar he received was for the Fugitive, almost 15 years ago, his two performances in 2007 (the other one was as sheriff Ed Bell in No Country For Old Men) will be the ones he'll be remembered for.

You know that everything is possible and cinema has no limits when the most austere, minimalist and anti-conventional director of all-time shoots his version of the story of Camelot... and makes a masterpiece. In the first shot we see two unknown knights having a typical medieval fight; one of them eventually is hit and fall dead, and some blood runs through the ground. The winner goes away. But the difference is that it is shown in the most raw way possible, without any kind of beauty or visual show to please the audience. That's the essence of Bresson's cinema: "only the necessary", said the master. Then, after the credits, we see that is not the Holy Grail story, the traditional story, but what happens next, it begins were the legend ends. The knights return demoralized to the kingdom. Their leader, Percival, is lost, and Lancelot blames himself and his adultery with Guinevere as the reason that the Grail was not found- the search for it was, for him, also the search for God. The Queen is not convinced, and ask his love with words which have nothing extraordinary alone; however, the emotionless way she asks makes it unusual, and somewhat disturbing. The knights are completely demystified and shown not as legend, but men, and men which lack something: is it love, God, a reason to live now that their search is over (and was unsuccessful)? Maybe all that, maybe more, but the fact is that eventually it will explode, and Camelot's decadence will be inevitable. Bresson's ultra-naturalistic and anti-conventional style makes it's images very powerful. The best are a tournament when he applies one of his principles "to give something for the ears and then for the eyes, never both", increasing the effect of the combats, which would have seem even foolish otherwise, and the ending, which is a very shocking one. Because of all that, Lancelot of the Lake is one of the finest films of one of cinema's greatest masters. Mainstream audiences will probably hate it, but one who's eager to see another side of a very known story should see it.

PS: I'm quoting out of memory, so it maybe not be the exacts Bresson's words

I was expecting something very inferior to Dogville, which is, but i forgot that it did not need to be as good to be great. Again, one or another person (many of them not very bright) will say that it's only anti-American crap, but, again, it's more, way more than that: a brutal critic to the idealism which recognizes no national barriers and can be applied to any ideology, without any exception that i know; Communism/Socialism and Christianism specially comes to my mind; Grace could be seen as the socialist leader who brings the Marxism and releases the workers (the slaves) from oppression of the bourgeoisie (Mam and her family), or the priest with the word of God to the savages (again the slaves), and punishing the sinners (Mam and her family one more time). The weak point is that aesthetically is not close to be as interesting as his previous film, and i think that Trier knew it and so the style is not so important here. Bryce Dallas Howard delivers a great performance, and does not try to imitate Nicole Kidman, but create her own vision of the character, like they were 2 sides of the same person. In my opinion, this one is only edged by Dogville in Von Trier's career.

This movie gained a cult-status because it won more than 30 international awards, received more praise from the Brazilian critics than any other feature of that year, but was never released on DVD or VHS until last week. But the waiting wasn't worthless: the movie is a masterpiece. Few films are so honest and love their characters so much as this one, and has so much faith in it's material. Carvalho's directing is clearly very elaborate, and makes every frame seems poetic... The baroque cinematography and the score reflects perfectly the mood of the characters, the sound mixing is nearly perfect, and the cast is, without exception, magnificent. Certainly one of the most overlooked films ever, but this time, the public cannot be blamed.

Winner of the Un Certain Regard in Cannes, is like a version of "E.R" truly realistic, with the good, bad, indifferent, attentive, humble, arrogant, and, above all, human doctors. The title-character is far from being a hero, but that makes it easier to sympathize with him, which is essential here: we really feel like we were Lazarescus, going from hospital to hospital waiting for the help, never being treated properly, and the situation getting worse and worse as times goes by. Puiu's creates a documentary-like atmosphere to an almost Kafka-like situation, and fills the movie with dark humor and moments which can be shocking, but are never there just for that purpose. The entire cast delivers solid performances, specially Fiscuteanu as the remarkable Lazarescu Dante Remus and Luminita Gheorghiu as the paramedic. Reminded me of Hitchcock's "The Wrong Man" (one of his best and certainly the most overlooked), another documentary-like film about a man in a absurd, but also realistic, situation in a system that doesn't care about him. One of the best pictures of 2005.

Since there is civilization, the society stimulated the conformism and standardization of behavior; even today you are told to buy the "X" product, to watch the "Y" film, or to love your parents, you country, etc, and if you don't, can or will be excluded of many circles. Under a fascist government, in which the State is above everything and the individual is secondary, this is particularly true. What we see in Bertolucci's "The Conformist" is a man's attempt to become just another one, the "ordinary man"; Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Tritignant), haunted by a experience in childhood, marries a bourgeois woman, beautiful but shallow, and joins the fascist party, becoming in the surface the typical Italian. However, he receives a mission from the party: go tho Paris and kill a former professor, a anti-fascist. But the main conflict is not the external, if Clerici is going to kill the professor or not, but his inner one to control his impulses and act in the way he is supposed to. Notice that, despite his seriousness, he is often making faces and even jumping around, when nobody is watching (for instance, when entering the house after telling Manganiello to beat the driver). Trintignant, which is an actor that often seems to be hiding something below the calm surface ( which was used very effectively also in Three Colors: Red), and who was in the peak of his career, after winning the Golden Palm for "Z" and star also in Eric Rohmer's "My Night At Maud's", is the ideal actor for the role, and delivers a truly magnificent performance. Few actress had such a screen-presence as Dominique Sanda, and perhaps none so inexperienced. The supporting cast works very well too. Bertolucci's directing, like Visconti's, is very elegant, but is not afraid of showing sex and violence, although never or doing it just for the shock- which he continues to do even today, in movies like the underrated "The Dreamers". Costumes and art direction are very rich. But any review of this film can not be complete without talking about Storaro's cinematography, one of the greatest of all time, and which can only be completely appreciated on the big screen, like i watched this time (i had already seen it before in terrible conditions); his use of the color and composition and the way it enhances the mood of the movie and of the characters is unique, and creates a lyrical atmosphere that has never been surpassed. It's a shame that few have seen this great work due to being almost impossible to find; it's wonderful in every way possible and ranks among the greatest achievements of this art.

Unlike Letter From an Unknown Woman, the only other film by Ophuls that i have seen, this one doesn't have much emotion, and it's harder to like the characters (for me, at least). Probably because of that, the title character is not as interesting as she could be; the men, whoever, are, probably more due to the great performances by Charles Boyer and the maverick director Vittorio de Sica. But any problems are forgivable due to the irreproachable costumes and art direction, the marvelous cinematography, and the very elaborate and rich camera work. It's the most beautiful film to look at that i have seen in a long time. Stanley Kubrick (like he said himself) owns much of his visual style to the German filmmaker. It's one of those unforgettable films, not because of the performers, or the plot, or the message, but the images; Vittorio de Sica and Danielle Darrieux dancing elegantly through the nights of Paris is one of the most remarkable moments in the history of cinema.

In Providence, his only film in English Language, Resnais again approaches the most recurrent subject in his career: the memory. Here, he explores how one's feelings can affect it: the life of the writer reflects directly on his view of his son and the wife of this one, and their respective (supposed) lovers, which actually are a representation of the writer's alienation, guilt and self-depreciation. It shows how memory can be more painful than any pain of the flesh, and even worse than reality itself. Like everything i've seen from Resnais so far (Night and Fog, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Mon Oncle D'Amérique and one of my favorite films, Last Year in Marienbad), this one is a very deep and original masterpiece.

My Darling Clementine, for those who haven't seen it, may seem just another version of the life of Wyatt Earp, arguably the most famous legend of the West. But the approach of maverick filmmaker John Ford is unique: Doc Holliday is shown as a tormented man, both in mind and soul, and Earp is not a hero fighting the evil, but a honest man doing the job he is paid for- and Ford done the right thing calling not the movie-star-like John Wayne, but the more "fellow next door" Henry Fonda, which gives one of his best, if not the best, performances ever. The lives of both are changed when Clementine arrives: she is very polite, cultured, and sweet as possible, like a vision of another world, and in a certain way, is indeed, because she symbolizes civilization. And what the real subject of the film is (not unlike The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), is the beginning of civilization and the end of the anarchy of the then Wild West. Both in style and substance, this is quintessential Ford, and although he made several masterpieces, it certainly ranks among my the very best, and one of the best pictures ever made.

When it was released, All That Heaven Allows was coldly received by most critics, who saw only a romantic melodrama in it. Unfortunadely, some depreciate the film even today, because it is melodramatic, "soap opera like", they say. I disagree about it is that some of the greatest films ever made were melodramas or have plenty of melodramatic moments. Examples: Rocco and His Brothers, The Bicycle Thieves, any of Chaplin's films, and others. And there are many romantic melodramas which are masterpieces, like Brief Encounter and Casablanca. About this specific film, say that it's "just a melodrama" is pretty much like saying that The Searchers is just another western or that The Rules of the Game is a silly comedy and nothing more. The movie has a serious critic to the American Dream, which sold the country and it's way of life as perfect, but behind that perfection, there is plenty of superficial, gossiper and hypocrite, like... well, the rest of the world. The cinematography, filled with very vivid colors, seems a little artificial, but i think it's intentional, symbolizing the message of the picture. Because of the courage to make that critic and defend the freedom of action and thought, the movie is decades ahead of it's time, and it is still relevant today.

Known as a director of "weird" films (unfortunadely unusual means bad for many), Cronenberg is actually a serious studious of the human mind, not unlike Ingmar Bergman, and here he does it better than in any other of his films i have seen (Spider, The Fly and Videodrome- the last one about the influence of TV in society and the least introspective of them). Like in the pictures mentioned above, the very strange premise is a excuse to a deep analysis of the human psychology: what is identity? where is the line between love and obsession? how dependent of another person someone can be? where does one ends and the other begins? It can be seen the influence of Bergman, most notably Persona and The Hour of the Wolf, and arguably Hitchcock's Vertigo, and, as the masters, Cronenberg does not provide easy answers, or any answer at all. But no matter how great the director is, the film would not be successful without the talent of Jeremy Irons. An actor capable of very good performances even in bad films, like The Man in the Iron Mask, he delivers here one of the greatest performances of all time, playing two extremely complex characters without being over-the-top or inexpressive in any moment, confusing us of which is Bev and which is Elly when he is supposed to, and making clear who is he playing in the right moment. Dead Ringers is not an ordinary film, so is not for ordinary moviegoers: it is very complex, not commercial at all, can be very hard to look at it in some moments, and don't expect to feel good after watching it. But if that does not drives you away, i strongly recommend.

If Alexander Nevsky was a filmed opera, this one, the first part of Eisenstein's incomplete trilogy about the title character, looks more like a Stalinist version of a Shakespere play, with a lot of conspiracy and characters so desirous for power that are willing to do whatever it takes, but manichaeist and with almost undisguised propaganda of the infamous Russian dictator. Exactly for being theatrical, it is too formal, but it is so intense that it is impossible to be indifferent, the visual composition is extraordinary, using very well the light-and-shade game typical of the German Expressionism, the alternation between very open shots and close ups, and very rich costumes and set decoration. In the end, although it is not perfect, is a remarkable film that deserves all the praise it received.

As most Hawks' films, Hatari! a light and unpretentious film in which the plot doesn't really matter, the most important things are the characters and their relationships. Although here both are not very deep, they are responsible for some great moments. The cast is good, specially Red Buttons in the traditional Walter Brennan role as the comic relief and the best friend of John Wayne, who plays the tough guy who wants distance from women after being left by one, nothing new in his and Hawks' careers, and seems to be having a lot of fun. but the elephants are the ones who steal the show. Mancini's score is pretty good, one of his best, and the pacing is slower than the director's screwball comedies, but faster than Rio Bravo (which is a little too slow), and because of that and the other elements mentioned above, it's perhaps the best one to begin with him.

The first Rohmer i saw, and justifies his reputation of slow pacing and almost non-stop dialogue, but also his fame as a great director. He does not have anything of the joviality of his Nouvelle Vague friends Truffaut and Godard, which work i know better, being more serious and mature. The picture is filmed almost as a documentary, being very realistic, and in opposite of 99% of the movies, Rohmer doesn't move the camera all around in the dialogues, abusing of shots and reverse-shots, keeping the camera in one character. The many and long conversations are very intelligent, and all the characters are complex and interesting, specially the Jean-Louis Trignant' one, which reminded me of Prince Míchkin from The Idiot, because of the Christian quietness (Dostoiveski's words) that both have in common, i don't know if it was intentional. I usually doesn't like to rate movies, because it's hard to put how much you like a film in a scale of quality, but in cases of perfect works like this one, there's no doubt: 10/10