Reviews

This is an interesting comedy that shows that British cinema sometimes surprises with small gems of quality. I don't know exactly how the film was received in its country of origin (it was a time when the British were in shock due to the death of Diana Spencer, ex-wife of the current King Charles III), but, in my country, the film received little attention due to the film "Titanic", a box office phenomenon. Still, as far as I know, the film was profitable overall, and was well reviewed by critics. At the 1998 Oscars, it was nominated for four awards, but only won Best Soundtrack for a Comedy or Musical, a category that only existed for a few years.

The story takes place in Sheffield, a British city famous for its steel industry, but which was greatly affected by the economic recession and the closure of many factories, similar to what happened in Detroit with the automobile industry and in Matosinhos, in my country, with canning factories. To try to earn money, six men join forces to become a group of male strippers. They have to overcome their own prejudices and then public ridicule, when everything becomes known. The film has lots of moments of intelligent, well-constructed humor, and the dialogue is quality. Contrary to what some professional critics said at the time, I thought the use of slang and specifically British words was good, as it added authenticity to the dialogue. There are also some touching moments of understanding and mutual help.

The film was very well directed by Peter Cattaneo, and was edited effectively, with a sense of rhythm that allows the film to be engaging and entertaining without wasting time or dispersing into subplots that would lead to nothing. On a technical level, the film has a good set of sets and the filming locations were very well selected, but what deserves the most attention, in my opinion, is the soundtrack, which is virtually a beautiful collection of memorable hits from the 70s. And 80s, including "You Sexy Thing", "You Can Leave Your Hat On" and other well-known songs. This luxurious soundtrack was one of the aspects that I most enjoyed about the film.

Another strong point of the film is the general performance of the cast led by Robert Carlyle, a creative protagonist who gives us an inspired and spirited performance. Alongside him, we also have some great British actors such as Tom Wilkinson (in one of the best comic efforts of his career), Hugo Speer and Mark Addy. Each of them is truly good at what they do and have been given very competent material to work with.

This is one of the comedies that helped establish Eddie Murphy's name as a comic actor, and I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that it was one of the most memorable comedies that came out in the 90s: almost everyone has seen this film, regardless of whether or not they liked him. The story is quite simple and follows the journey of a clumsy university chemistry professor who, suffering from morbid obesity, decides to invent a serum that allows him, instantly, to assume the physical elegance he always dreamed of having... but when he falls in love with a slender woman, decides to test it on himself and discovers a disturbing side effect: a split personality that threatens to banish the real one and take on a life of its own.

I called him a double personality, but it would be more accurate to call him an "alter ego", because Buddy Love - that's his name - is actually the reflection of all the repressed desires that Professor Sherman had and that he never fulfilled: a handsome, seductive, bold and flirtatious man, spontaneous and extroverted to the point of not having any kind of shame and having deeply unpleasant attitudes towards other people. Freudian? It's really something that only a psychoanalyst could understand, but which the film plays with in a deeply effective way.

But not everything is good in this film. The dialogues are quite weak, and the jokes were made with such a low and dirty style of humor that a person like me can hardly laugh. There are several moments in which this is observed more clearly, but all the scenes where the Klump family appears deserve negative attention. It's a part of the film that I, honestly, would have cut and deleted, and that I would never let a son or daughter see before we had a serious conversation about it.

Technically, the film is not a show in any way, except for all the makeup and costume work, developed around Eddie Murphy and the various characters he played in the film. It is a truly remarkable work, in which Murphy ages, rejuvenates, gains weight and loses weight as necessary, and always with a lot of verisimilitude and authenticity. And what about the work of the protagonist himself? I think it's enough to say that he deserves all the praise and accolades he received for the film. Despite the weaknesses and all the defects that I have pointed out, the commitment, dedication, professionalism and talent of an actor who, in a single film, plays eight or nine different characters is undeniable! If there's anything that makes this movie work, it's Eddie Murphy. Jada Pinkett Smith (still single at the time, as far as I know) did a decent job as a beauty who serves as Murphy's love interest, and does a reasonable job with her colleague, without being able to keep up with him for a single minute. James Coburn and Dave Chappelle make some positive notes, but that's all there is to it.

After seeing this film, I had the feeling that I should start this text with a warning: we should not mix our opinion about Larry Flynt with our assessment of the film. I loved the film, but I'm the first to admit that I don't feel any sympathy for the biographed person. Regardless of my opinion, sex sells, people are attracted to anything that has a forbidden aroma and, even today, the magazine "Hustler" is a success, with a television channel dedicated to adult content.

The real Larry Flynt proved to be a provocative and materialistic man: he made a fortune off the exploitation of pornographic magazines and used all means to shock people, ridicule the conservatives who criticized him, and confront society and the judicial system. He demanded to be respected, but was incapable of respecting anyone who criticized him; He used the First Amendment to defend his right to publish what he wanted, forgetting that same document when he heard criticism of what he published. Dear reader, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the same right that protected Mr. Flynt also protected everyone who expressed a negative opinion about him within the limits of urbanity. And if it is true that freedom of expression is crucial to the democratic system, it is also true that it is not an absolute value, it must be limited in a way that protects the rights and freedoms of other people. Unfortunately, the world is full of people like Larry Flynt, who demand the right to say whatever they want, but are unable to tolerate an opinion contrary to theirs. Of course, I also don't feel any sympathy for the professional activity of Mr. Flynt, a sexist man who profited from the objectification of sex and the female body, and I am disgusted by the business he created around that magazine.

However, the film is fantastic. Milos Forman, who accustomed us to great works full of style and personality, surprises us once again with a film that does not shy away from provoking its audience, putting its finger on the wounds that hurt the most. The director made skillful use of cinematography, environments, filming locations, sets and costumes in order to construct a narrative that explores very well Flynt's controversial and contradictory nature. For several moments, I was afraid that the script would make the mistake of beatifying or cleaning up Flynt's image. However, I truly believe that Forman managed to avoid this and give the audience a neutral narrative, where he reveals the best and worst of this complex man.

The film is reasonably discreet in its use of effects and the way it was edited, but it has a strong cast solidly based on the participation of Woody Harrelson. Looking at the finished film, I don't think I could imagine another actor better suited for the character in question. Harrelson gave himself body and soul to this project and produced one of the most consistent and powerful works of his film career, rightly deserving of an Oscar nomination. Courtney Love is perfect for the role she played, especially because the actress knew perfectly well the effects of substance abuse and was uninhibited enough to naturally face the nude scenes she was subjected to (something I tend to condemn, but I can understand, considering the film and the character) In turn, Edward Norton (at the time, experiencing a particularly radiant moment in his professional career) and Brett Harrelson make a frankly positive contribution. Richard Paul and James Cromwell also do a decent job, but they don't have the space or time to add much and seem somewhat wasted.

I've seen several films by the Cohen Brothers and this one, far from being one of the most quotable when talking about them, is full of qualities that deserve note. The two brothers are known and respected for the way they create and direct cinematographic projects, giving little room for interference that would disturb the overall vision they have outlined, and actively interfering in all aspects of production. It's their film, they define the characteristics and, whether you like them or not, they are undoubtedly a talented duo.

And being an author's work, this film follows several characteristics that are hallmarks of the two filmmakers. This is a work full of irreverence, where the narrative stands out for its bizarreness and sarcasm, intelligently constructed and crafted in a way that surprises the audience. The story is simple: a couple, who meet and fall in love under the most unorthodox conditions, discover that they cannot have children and, therefore, decide to kidnap a baby from a family that had quintuplets. There is an entire history of crime in the life of one of the couple's members that contributes to them being the target of a brutal chase by a wild bounty hunter. And there are many moments of acidic and difficult-to-digest humor. Added to this is the cinematography and soundtrack, where the Cohens are completely at ease. Personally, I must say, I didn't really like the soundtrack that was used in this film. I found it excessively intrusive and strident, but this is just my personal taste.

In addition to the artistic and author notes, the film also features a skilled cast where Nicholas Cage has plenty of space and material to shine. He is charismatic enough to give his character all the sympathy he needs to captivate us, and he makes a good romantic pair with Holly Hunter, who received a character tailored to her abilities and talent. The two actors have everything it takes to do an exceptional job, and there is no doubt that they won't leave us disappointed. Trey Wilson, Frances McDormand, John Goodman and Randall Tex Cobb join the project, with all their talent, to shine with very well-made secondary characters.

The universe of horror films about demons, and demonic possession, now seems to be a little overloaded, and the lack of capacity for creative ideas, or those that justify yet another film, invariably leads to the emergence of some bizarre things. This is the case in this film, where Dr. Ember, a man who has psychic powers and can project outside the body, fights the devil directly, going to meet him and helping the soul of the person he is trying to deceive.

Don't get me wrong: the film has its merits and entertains its audience in a pretty decent way. As a horror film, and despite never scaring anyone, it achieves the necessary tension to work and is able to maintain it throughout the action. I just found it bizarre, but that's a matter of personal taste and not a defect. Let me develop: by placing at the center of the action a psychic who uses rational and scientific methods to combat Evil, I felt that the film tried to take a "scientific approach" to demonic possession and, perhaps, reach a wider audience, those skeptic who does not so easily believe in the effectiveness of religious rituals. I could be wrong, but that was the feeling I got.

After that, the script introduces more things and, then, there are more serious problems: did anyone really buy that whole story about Dr. Ember already knowing that demon and chasing him for years? A personal crusade? Seriously? And does anyone really believe that the Catholic Church is going to call in a scientist because they think their rituals won't work? The film ends with an attempted twist that we see coming from miles away.

On a technical level, the film doesn't really have much to present to us: most of the aspects that we usually appreciate are almost all within the standards of common popcorn cinema, which we watch without thinking much about and forget about five minutes after finishing. Cinematography, sets, costumes, editing, filming... everything is up to standards. There are no major errors nor any particular merit. The visual effects and CGI team is a different case: there are some well-achieved, albeit discreet, effects, especially towards the end.

The cast is one of the film's strong points: Aaron Eckhart did a decent job, but what he does is quite far from the best he's ever done in cinema. He is a solid, charismatic and competent protagonist, but he does not have material capable of imposing demands on him and forcing him to make additional efforts. Carice Van Houten (who became particularly famous after her work on the series "Game of Thrones") is convincing as the anguished mother of the boy targeted for possession, but despite this, she is very underutilized. Catalina Moreno, who I met in "Maria Full of Grace", at the beginning of her career, does interesting work and provides welcome support.

Contrary to my custom, I saw this film directly after the first one. It wasn't my will, it was the TV channel that decided to show them in sequence. And that's good: things are clearer and more understandable if we have previously seen the initial film, which explains the origin of the character and her journey. There are some aspects and details of the script that I didn't understand, but as Marvel tends to chain its films together, as if they were the threads of a tapestry, I believe that what I didn't understand will be related to the number of Marvel films that I still didn't have the opportunity to see it.

The film is directed by Sam Raimi, which immediately raised my eyebrows: after all, he is a truly creative and intelligent director, who has already given us works worthy of praise, although hero films have not gone well for the director in the past. As far as I know, production was extremely confusing and, as we know, heavily affected by the recent pandemic. Raimi took advantage, rewrote a good part of the script and revised everything, in order to create a bizarre, somewhat scary story (he started out as a director of cheap horror films, let's remember), about the multiverse, a concept that has been explored a lot in the cinema of this decade.

As expected, the film was a brutal success, both at the box office and in terms of specialized critics, having registered the fourth-best box office of 2022, and was sacramentally ignored by the Oscars, even in the visual and technical categories where, in my opinion, opinion, he could have had a good chance of winning a prize. In fact, the film is a visual spectacle of supreme proportions, making the most of the multiverse's enormity of possibilities for a visual experience that is worth it in itself. If the first film had already been colossal in terms of effects and CGI, this film surpasses it almost in every way. The sets, costumes, props, makeup, everything was thought out in minute detail and makes good use of the huge budget that Marvel made available. And the work of the stuntmen and choreographers was excellent in the action and fight scenes.

The script brings together two characters from the Marvel universe in the same story: the already known Dr. Strange and the Scarlet Witch, Wanda Maximoff. Before this film, and what came before it, I didn't know them because I'm not a big fan of comics, although I recognize Marvel's exceptional work in this field over several decades. There is also a third character who enters here, America Chavez, a young Latina who, honestly, must be some kind of third-line character, but who assumes considerable relevance to the plot. In general, the script seems weaker to me than that of the first film, and this could be a direct consequence of the immense confusion that was the entire process of conceiving and producing the film, between a pandemic, withdrawals and all sorts of setbacks.

Benedict Cumberbatch returns to his character and does a job well done, although the actor seems to be working with slightly less interesting material and entering a comfort zone that makes things more monotonous. Elizabeth Olsen was also perfectly at ease with her character, as she had already played it in other films in the Marvel universe that I, as far as I remember, have not yet seen. She is quite good at what she does, and the actress's work is convincing. There are also several other actors from the first film who return for a new job: Rachel McAdams and Chiwetel Ejiofor have an easier job, but it seems to me that the film doesn't particularly take advantage of them. Much better luck had Benedict Wong, with impeccable work, and Xochitl Gomez, who made positive use of the opportunity, even without deserving the spotlight.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm far from being a comic book expert, but I recognize that Marvel, in addition to creating a huge range of characters, extremely complex and with a biography full of nuances, created a multitude of magazines and graphic albums where it gave almost each one the space to shine. They were often short-lived editions, but they established the "canonical" vision of each of the characters: heroes who become villains and then, again, heroes, who save Humanity or destroy it in petty rivalries. What Marvel is doing now in cinema, and with great financial results, is the same thing: creating films, sequels, spin-offs and variations where each character has time to show value and raise money from fans for the company's coffers.

Without rushing, I have watched several of these films, trying to understand the bizarre stories and characters they bring to us. It's not the kind of film that I would actually pay to see, but it has entertainment value and merits that I recognize, and that make it gold for the company. This film is not even close to one of the most notable or successful, but it was still able to be nominated for an Oscar for Best Visual Effects in 2017. It was directed and written by Scott Derrickson ("Sinister", "Exorcism of Emily Rose" etc.), and has a pleasant narrative that is easy to follow and understand, even for a layman in the Marvel world. The character is one of the obscurest in this universe, an arrogant doctor who becomes a powerful wizard from an important sect based in Nepal. This is how he obtains his powers, through effort and study, and not through chance or some tragic incident. The pace of the film is good, and the entertainment is one of the strongest points of this work.

On a technical level, what stands out the most is the mastery of the effects and CGI team, which takes advantage of the studio's budget to give us a true visual spectacle at the level of what Marvel has accustomed us to. And contrary to what sometimes happens, we never feel like the film was an excuse for the effects. Cinematography is an essential part of the film's visual beauty, with magnificent colors and clarity, intelligent framing and a creative touch. There are some truly remarkable scenes, and the space and time bending effects are surprisingly good. The sets, costumes and props follow the general quality of the work and attest to the attentive look of the production. And the action scenes? Superbly performed and choreographed.

The cast, another strong point of this film, was confidently headed by Benedict Cumberbatch, who gives us work at the level of the best he has ever done in his career. Tilda Swinton, in yet another androgynous character, gives us yet another impactful work that will be difficult to forget. Chitewel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong also do excellent work and substantially enrich the film with strong performances. Despite the centrality of his character, Mads Mikkelsen had bad luck in this project: the material he was given is substantially shallow, and forces the actor to perform the miracle of multiplication, giving us his best with very little. Rachel McAdams was also another victim of the superficial treatment given to most of the secondary characters, but she didn't have the Nordic actor's ability to make omelets without eggs. She's just a shallow cliché: the hero's girlfriend.

Jesus Christ is the figure to which cinema has given the most attention throughout history. We may or may not be believers, but Jesus is certainly the person with the greatest impact in the history of humanity. There is no one who does not know Him or who does not know how to quote something that was said by Him, or who does not know His face (or rather, the way in which we, Europeans, began to portray Him, ignoring any resemblance to the real Jesus). This film followed the famous "Passion of the Christ", it is a non-canonical sequel, so to speak. Unsurprisingly, it focuses on the events surrounding the resurrection, and follows the Roman tribune whom Pilate commissions to investigate these reports and eventually recover the missing corpse.

Obviously, this film is not aimed at atheist or non-Christian audiences, as it assumes the resurrection is certain, which confirms the divinity of Jesus and fulfills all the prophecies surrounding the messiah awaited by the Jewish people. However, despite a subtle aroma of implicit religious proselytism, I don't consider it to be a painful film for the most moderate of atheists. The narrative follows "a pari passu" the Acts of the Apostles, which tells the story of these moments between the crucifixion and the ascension of the resurrected Jesus to Heaven, in body and spirit. Being well versed in the text and a devout Catholic, I am reasonably pleased with the adaptation, which tells everything from the perspective of the Romans rather than the Christians.

For a biblical film, it's surprisingly low-key. For some years now, biblical-themed films seem to have abandoned any epic pretensions, so we don't have great effects and million-dollar productions. Director Kevin Reynolds sought to achieve the greatest realism, and a portrayal that felt authentic and historically accurate. I praise this effort and recognize that, in this field, the film has merits. Even the figure of Jesus appears to us devoid of any obvious sanctity for most of the time, and it is the attitude of His followers that most betrays His impact and status. The sets and costumes are very good, they don't look cheap or exaggerated, and the use of filming in authentic locations, in Spain and Malta, increases authenticity. At points where a greater number of doubts arise (for example, the exact way in which Jesus was crucified), the film seeks to follow a portrait that is realistic and respects the official canon.

Joseph Fiennes did a very satisfactory job as a Roman tribune. The actor has a dose of charm that accentuates his protagonism and leads us to follow him in his search. Alongside him, Tom Felton gives us welcome support and Peter Firth doesn't disappoint us in the role of the infamous governor Pilate, trying to turn the character into a bored bureaucrat, who seeks to carry out his mission in a particularly thorny corner of the Empire. Cliff Curtis is a peaceful, serene, charismatic and magnetic Jesus, but particularly human and tangible. Antonio Gil, Maria Botto and Stewart Scudamore make a positive contribution as some of the foundational figures of Christianity.

Surprisingly, the film did not succeed in the long term: it was a moderate success both at the box office and in physical release, and received reasonably positive reviews..., but being a 2016 film, it is surprising that it did not have any visibility in Europe and is, actually, virtually unknown to the European public. I think that, without being memorable, it still has qualities that justify a recap today.

After the success of "Airplane", there was an immediate desire to make a sequel. However, the creators of the first film had serious doubts about this because they felt that they had run out of jokes about airplanes, that the film had done almost everything it could do and that there wasn't really a logical continuation for that work. And I think that feeling had a strong impact on the way this film was imagined: we are no longer on a plane, but on a space shuttle heading to a human colony on the Moon, somewhere in a future where the technologies and clothes are the same as from the period in which the film was made.

It is Ken Finkleman who directs and scripts, due to the refusal of the original creators to embark on this new project. New direction, new creatives, new team, but the "recipe" used was virtually the same as the previous film: situational comedy, sometimes quite mischievous, in a succession of jokes that may or may not work well and resemble a kind of collage of humorous sketches united by a common thread. The film's humor is reasonably good and I think there was a substantive effort to match the quality of the initial film. However, I believe that the directors/writers of the first film were right when they said that the basic premise was tired, and that it would not be a good idea to make a new film that was too identical.

In fact, the film's atmosphere is very warm, the ideas surrounding space travel are very far-fetched, the dialogues are excessively identical to those of the first film and even some of the best jokes are recycled and reused, in an effort to copy and paste that demonstrates a certain mental laziness. The pacing is decent enough, but the film, in general, doesn't give us an experience that could be said to be satisfactory. In addition to all this, I felt that the film also reuses part of the environments and settings from the first film. That is, if the story is set in the future and inside a lunar shuttle, why on earth does it continue to resemble the interior of a common plane? Once again, laziness, lack of investment in the project and, perhaps, lack of a decent budget.

The cast is, to a large extent, the same as what we saw in "Airplane" with the same characters and saying the same jokes, in the same situations. I can't say that the actors didn't try to make an effort and give us a job well done, but I'm sure they received bad material and were part of a project that should never have gotten off the ground. One of the most obvious absences is Leslie Nielsen, an actor veteran enough to have certainly realized that it would be a bad idea to take part in this new film. Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty are back, but they are not that interesting and the work they do is very weak. William Shatner is one of the few actors who deserves a positive rating, and who manages the job well enough.

I saw this film a few months ago, but for whatever reason I didn't remember to write about it until now. Whatever the case, it's one of those films that I wanted to see again, because it's truly good. It's a satire (those politically correct can leave the room now and save their health) in which we follow the journey of a young German who is part of the Hitler Youth. He is truly fanatical about Nazism and has Hitler as his imaginary friend, so he is shocked to discover a Jewish girl inside the roof lining of his house: the boy's mother, in secret, is part of the resistance and helps Jews.

We are tired of seeing films about the Second World War, but it is such a remarkable and fascinating moment in our history that they will certainly continue to be an inexhaustible source of inspiration for filmmakers. However, what Taika Waititi offers us is quite different from the ordinary: a deeply satirical and comical film, where we see things through the eyes of a child perfectly deluded by the massive propaganda to which he was subjected, and who receives the first reality check of his young existence. I'm not going to dwell on the way in which Hitler used propaganda to create a legion of fanatical young people and indoctrinate society, I think this has already been covered extensively by many renowned historians and good documentaries.

I loved Waititi's light and witty direction, which also brings to life the imaginary Führer that young Jojo has as his friend. The director managed to make a film where good humor does not go beyond the limits, and where there is space for serious things handled with a seriousness that gives depth to the film (this is the case with the way in which the authorities repress dissidents, through visits from Gestapo agents, for example). It's not a dramatic film at all, but it's profound in its own way, and the script creates a good story between the fanatical boy, the mother with a double life and the Jewish girl, who reveals to Jojo all the reality he was unaware about the Jews.

Technically, the film intelligently relies on strongly colored, vibrant cinematography and visuals, contrasting greatly with the normally dark vision we have of Nazi Germany. In fact, this not only accentuates the boy's idyllic vision of this world, but also goes against the way the Germans themselves saw their country in those times, which were undoubtedly gray. The sets and costumes agree with this dominant tone, and the reconstruction of the period was satisfactory, although without excessive concern on the part of the producers.

The film has a good cast where the most notable name is Scarlett Johansson. The actress is deeply competent in her role, she exudes elegance and shows us all the contradiction of a mother who, trying to protect her son, also tried to act, to have an active position in the political situation, even if secretly, in hiding. She knows that only much later will her own son be able to understand the scope and value of her actions. Roman Grifin Davies is very good in the role of young Jojo, but Taika Waititi, an illustrious unknown to me, is even better in his satirical interpretation of a historical personality that the actor himself admits to deeply despising. Much of this film's strength comes from Waititi's irreverent and inspired action. In turn, young Thomasin McKenzie does a competent and interesting job in the role of the Jewish girl.

This film was the hit of 2019, and for good reason: it was directed by Sam Mendes, with a script based on his grandfather's war story and a huge production, of the highest quality and full of well-achieved effects. And of course, the film was made in the aftermath of the centenary celebrations of the end of the First World War, which took place in 2018. Understandably, it was a sensation at that year's awards galas, in particular the Oscars, where it was nominated in ten categories, winning three statuettes: Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography.

I think that even those who know little about history will recognize the First World War as the moment when classical and chivalric warfare disappeared to give way to industrial warfare. It was in this war that we witnessed the development of machine guns (they were not new, but they became standard equipment), the emergence of the first tanks (we can discuss whether they had a significant impact, in addition to technical advances), the first experiments in fighter aviation and recognition, the first attempts at the massive use of chemical weapons (mustard gas, and others of the kind) and more innovations that made wars bloodier and more inhumane than before. It was also decisive in the redrawing of world borders, with the disappearance of centuries-old empires and the rise of new republics, and in particular, the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is a war that the whole world continues to remember and that should not be minimized.

The script is based on a suicide mission: to prevent the massacre of an entire unit of the British army that, inadvertently, marches towards a trap, two corporals have to go through "no man's land" and cross enemy lines to warn them and stop them. Additional detail: one of the corporals is the brother of an officer integrated into the military force about to be annihilated. The absolute simplicity of this script makes it so believable that we immediately feel a strong empathy for such committed soldiers. In addition, we have the strong tension, intelligently worked by Mendes, which leaves us constantly waiting to see what will happen. All the directing and editing work is worthy of being studied by film students, and it is truly impossible for us to saw the cuts and editing.

Technically, the film makes judicious use of visual effects and CGI, trying to have maximum realism and credibility instead of a lot of flashy things. There is a good dose of fake human bodies and corpses throughout the film, and we get the feeling that a good part of those trenches were also, to a large extent, the graves of the men who were there. It's not a film full of blood and gore, but it's not easy to watch and it's violent in its own way. As for historical realism, I'm satisfied: the film is slightly based on Operation Alberich, which actually took place in 1917, and in which the Germans made a strategic retreat, abandoning trenches they left booby-trapped and looking for positions that were easier to defend. The design of the trenches made for the film, and the environment lived in them, is one of the best historical recreations of this environment ever seen in cinema, with a degree of precision that borders on documentary. The weaponry seemed equally realistic to me, the props and uniforms are very good.

Mendes also took a risk by placing second-line actors in the main characters: Dean-Charles Chapman had already shown some talent in "Game of Thrones", but this was his greatest cinematographic work to date, and the actor honorably fulfilled what he set out to do. Asked of him. George McKay had also not had, until now, the opportunity to show talent in the seventh art, and he was able to give us a committed and very deep interpretation of his character. The best-known actors appear in more sporadic roles: Colin Firth played a British officer in just one relevant but short scene; Daniel Mays also only appears a little, but does what he needs to do.

I just saw this film and felt an irresistible need to talk about it and comment on it. However, I recognize that a text of just a few thousand characters is completely insufficient to make a fair assessment. This is one of the most complex films I've seen, and so I'm going to try to make an extra effort not to spoil it, even though I feel like I'm going to need to address some things in more depth to be able to write what I need. Let's start by saying that the film was an overwhelming success, both at the box office and with critics, and that it is worth every cent of our cinema ticket. He was also acclaimed at the 2023 Oscars ceremony, with seven statuettes (Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Editing and Best Original Screenplay) in ten nominations. And in addition to the Oscars, many other prizes and awards that seem completely justified to me.

The script is one of the most creative and insane I've ever seen: it all starts with a middle-aged Chinese lady who tries to deal with the organized chaos of her normal life: a half-bankrupt business, a marriage in ruins, a bad relationship with an authoritarian father and a lesbian and protesting daughter. And problems with income tax. It is in the midst of this that she discovers that there are billions of other universes, with several other versions of the people she knows, and that she needs to help defeat an evil, an evil force that threatens to destroy them all.

The film starts from very bold physics premises, where there are some theories that address the possibility of universes parallel to ours, with our alter-egos living there, and goes further, stating that these universes are born from our multiplicity of options and decisions every day. For example, I'm here writing this, but in another universe, another version of me chose not to watch any movie and sleep. I'm not going to explain much more, not even how the main character discovers this, nor what kind of evil entity that is, but I can say that, deep down, the biggest message I took away from this film is the need to live in the present, but also have faith and cultivate love and good feelings, instead of futile sensations or meaningless nihilism. In effect, the main character needs to believe in herself and in the abilities she doesn't know she can have, in order to combat that malevolent force, which is, in itself, a good representation of nihilism, the feeling that nothing in this life it's really worth it. Still regarding the script, I believe it is fair to say that it was precisely closer to the end that I felt the inspiration running out, the creative overdose of the directors and screenwriters. This is, after so many bizarre and unusual things, the apparently simple ending (even though it wasn't) seemed strangely anti-climactic to me.

There's so much to say about the technical aspects of this film... directed by Daniel Scheinert and Daniel Kwan, it's a surprisingly cheap production (a budget of around thirty million dollars, for Hollywood and considering what this film is, it's a small bag of pennies and quarters), which works incredibly well. On a visual level, it's one of the most devastating films I've ever seen, with cinematography and editing worthy of being studied by film schools. And then, we have the great work of designing sets and costumes, and the impressive work of the action doubles and makeup, among many other subtle details that are so tiny that we almost don't notice them, and that show the detailed, patient nature and commitment of directors and their team. The soundtrack is also a very positive point, with an atmospheric and sometimes very discreet sound. There are lots of references to aspects of pop culture, such as martial arts or even technological gadgets, and the fight and action scenes were made with maximum attention to detail, including sudden stops of the image in the most intense scenes, a style of cinematography very characteristic of kung fu films.

The work of the cast deserves praise. By playing a wide range of cinema styles in the same character, from comedy to physical action, Michelle Yeoh embarked on a tour de force so challenging that it would make any renowned actor think twice. The way she gives herself to the character is total, absorbing. Stephanie Hsu follows her closely and offers us profound work, full of feeling and emotion. Ke Huy Quan is also impressive and does a remarkable job. In smaller characters but still worthy of mention, we have the veteran James Hong, and the prestigious Jamie Lee Curtis, in a performance so far out of her comfort zone that it seems unimaginable for this actress, and yet it could become pivotal to her career from now on.

Director Sidney Lumet created this film based on a true incident that is still the subject of study by police cadets today: a homosexual who decides to rob a bank to pay for his partner's sex change, but who takes the manager and the employees as hostages when things get complicated, and desperately tries not to be killed or arrested by the policemen, who surround the place and try to control a maddened crowd, who are not sympathetic to the authorities. The film was made and released in 1975, and it could not be more appropriate to the time in which it was made: the great decade of civil disobedience, of challenge to authorities and the affirmation of the gay movement.

I confess that I'm not quite aware of the real incident behind the script. For that reason, I prefer to focus on this very well done dramatization. In addition to the design of sets and costumes, and an intelligent choice of the filming location, the cinematography is very well executed, and the film has very good visual qualities. The pleasant pace is reasonably fast at first, but slows down midway through, perhaps emulating the back and forth of negotiations between the authorities and the clumsy robbers. And if history is a mirror of its time, the same can be said of the dialogues, where swear words are used with a liberality previously unthinkable.

Although many consider this film a must-see, I honestly disagree. It's a must-see for fans of Al Pacino or Lumet, it will certainly be a good suggestion for a 70s film cycle, but that's basically it. It's a pretty good film, but it can hardly be classified as memorable. Al Pacino is a great actor and is experiencing a particularly happy moment in his career when he makes this film, but I have to recognize that he made several better films, before and after. Just think of "Godfather 3", "Scent of a Woman" or "Devil's Advocate", to name a few. John Cazale is good in a more understated role, and Charles Durning and Chris Sarandon both deserve praise for a job well done.

I didn't really know what I was going to find when I decided to watch this film, and I'm happy about that: it's a really good, convincing and moving story, which doesn't try to escape the harsh reality of things to create unbelievable heroes. And it is probably the most solid and significant work of Billy Bob Thornton's career. In fact, he not only plays the main role, but is also responsible for the script and direction. It is a labor of love, of total and absolute commitment, which makes this film a "Magnum Opus", even though Thornton has done other works that are equally notable and full of talent.

In this story, we follow a seemingly kind and harmless man who has lived his entire life in a mental institution where he was imprisoned as a child, after killing his mother and her boyfriend. Now, he is a mature man, but he doesn't know anything about the outside world, he has no connections of any sort with anyone (he has a father, but there is no emotional bond between them) and he has a serious mental disability. However, doctors consider him well enough to return to a normal life. When he leaves, he returns to his homeland, where he meets a boy who is roughly the same age as he was when he was institutionalized. The friendship between the two leads him to meet his mother, a young woman who has a complicated relationship with a man with a violent nature. And despite her limitations, he quickly realizes that this man could be dangerous to his new friends.

The whole story revolves around values that are very dear to us: friendship, kindness and altruism. It's not a completely unpredictable film, but it works very well and presents a deeply credible story. After all, you only need to open a newspaper to see dozens of situations of domestic violence and dating abuse that end badly. It is a subject that deserves deep social reflection: in a world where possessive relationships are increasingly observed, it is essential to understand that love only makes sense if it is based on trust, understanding and mutual acceptance. The film also challenges us to rethink our prejudices about mentally disabled people: they have feelings and emotional needs, just like us. After all, being mentally ill does not mean that you are a psychopath or sociopath.

Technically, the film presents us with excellent cinematography, in addition to a wise choice of filming locations and a careful design of the costumes and sets in Rural America. If the film is not very clear as to the geographical location where the action takes place, filming took place mostly in Arkansas, and it seems appropriate to place the fictional story somewhere between this state and its neighbor, Missouri. The well-modeled rhythm does not cause drowsiness or wear out the audience.

As I already said, it is Billy Bob Thornton who deserves the most praise for his work in the general work, and particularly as an actor. Playing dramatic roles as mentally disabled people is always challenging: there is a permanent risk of transforming the character into a caricature worthy of condemnation and offensive to people. Thornton manages to be authentic, credible in his interpretation, and reaps the fruits of this magnificent work. In addition to him, Dwight Yoakam also deserves an applause for a challenging and difficult job, in which he did wonderfully well.

For me, cinema is an art that tells good stories, whether fictional, true or a mix of fiction and real facts. It has a clear social role, often makes people think or raises difficult questions. However, there are directors who seem to live off controversy, that is, they try to use cinema to shock or impress, attracting attention for the worst and most selfish reasons. Lars von Trier is like that: he loves a good controversy and doesn't mind about criticism, as long as they talk about him. And that's why I don't like him and I don't consider him a good director. It's not enough to have talent, you need to know how to use it.

As in many other films by this director, sex is the epicenter of this film: the script begins by introducing us to an incredibly naive and submissive woman, who lives in a kind of narrow-minded religious community in the North of Scotland. Anyone who likes to criticize Catholics for allegedly being followers of a conservatism that has no place today should get to know this Protestant religious community, where I, a conservative Catholic, would feel like I was in Iran or Afghanistan. It is clear that the director, a confessed atheist, wanted to show his horror towards religious dogmatics in general. It was a way to "caricature" religion and express a personal opinion.

This young woman, whose innocence is so absolute that she would probably believe she could get pregnant just by sitting on a chair previously used by a man, marries a modern foreigner who works on an oil rig. And she discovers sex. And she loves sex, and gives herself to love. All this is beautiful until the day he suffers a serious accident. As he could lose his reproductive capacity, he asks her to meet and "relieve" herself with other men. Naturally, she is horrified, and he convinces her that this will help him heal. And against any rational logic, she believes, and becomes the biggest libertine in Scotland.

We have to agree on one thing: this film proves that even the stupidest story wins awards at Cannes, and that there is an audience capable of consuming the most complete idiocy that a film can present to them. In addition to ridiculing religion in a way that is offensive to any believer, I believe, the film does not care about the rationality and logic of the decisions made by the characters. If I cut myself with a knife, of course I'm going to try to make sure it doesn't happen again because it's dangerous, but what the film proposes is that I do the opposite and intentionally cut myself, believing that I'm curing a loved one's cancer by doing so. This is so stupid that it doesn't deserve qualification. Von Trier, in an act of absolute intellectual arrogance, insults our intelligence. I don't even need to talk about the clumsy and distorted way in which the film approaches love and the most genuine human feelings.

Technically, it's a cheap film. Cheaper than the worst indie films. We don't have a production worthy of the name, the cinematography is horrible, the filming is so amateurish that even I could do better. The rhythm is heavy, slow, like a mournful funeral. Stellan Skarsgard, an actor I respect, lends some renown to the film and shows talent, but his character deserves contempt. In an extraordinary dramatic effort, Emily Watson deserves praise for her commitment, but it is perhaps this actress' most forgettable film.

This is a very interesting film that addresses Australia and New Zealand's joint participation in the First World War. Both countries had recently gained independence from the United Kingdom, there was no real sense of national identity and, despite the proximity of German colonies in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, there were many Australians who did not want to go to the war alongside the British. It was the English's war, not theirs. The same thing was felt in my country, Portugal, the United Kingdom's oldest ally, but which only entered the First World War in 1916, against the wishes of the English. Portuguese politicians saw the war as a means of giving international prestige to a young and discredited republican regime, and of securing Portuguese sovereignty in Africa and India. Despite having no relationship with each other, the journey of Australians and Portuguese in the First World War had the same end: the CEP, the Portuguese military brigade, was decimated in France, in 1918, in the greatest defeat in the multi-century history of the Portuguese Army; ANZAC almost completely lost itself in the Dardanelles, in the face of the obstinate Turkish defense commanded by Mustafa Kemal, who knew well the terrain and foresaw what the Allies were going to try.

Historical considerations aside, the film does not focus on military action or what happened in the unsuccessful Battle of the Dardanelles. We are taken there by the beautiful friendship between two young Australian athletes with a lot of potential, who enlist in ANZAC (one of them even had to lie because he was too young). I don't know exactly what they expected to do, nor if they did considered the possibility of not returning home alive. I think, as often happens, they wanted to enlist because all the other boys did it so. The script doesn't explore this as it could, and perhaps one of the film's weaknesses is the lack of this emotional and mental depth in decisive moments. I also missed a greater effort at contextualization: anyone who doesn't understand history may not know exactly what that battle was about.

A nível técnico, o filme destaca-se pela sua excelente cinematografia, cenário e figurino, e uma reconstrução do período que, no geral, funciona satisfatoriamente. Claro, não é tecnicamente perfeito. Por exemplo, em cenas de combate há uma grande falta de efeitos visuais e especiais que adicionam intensidade à ação, resultando em batalhas que não são exatamente emocionantes de assistir nas telonas. Há também uma grave falta de sangue aqui. Não sou fã de gore ou dos efeitos mais chocantes visualmente, mas pare e pense comigo: é uma batalha, é guerra. Há mortos, há feridos, há mutilados, há pessoas a gritar deitadas no chão em agonia, à espera da própria morte e a pedir ajuda. O filme não nos mostra a realidade crua do combate, talvez para permitir uma classificação parental mais baixa, o que eu entendo, mas honestamente não aprovo.

Apesar de o filme ter um elenco maior, naturalmente, a verdade é que os dois protagonistas, Mel Gibson e Mark Lee, dominam absolutamente toda a ação. Vale a pena prestar atenção no trabalho dos dois atores: Gibson ainda não tinha o status estelar que alcançou em Hollywood, e sua modéstia lhe convinha bem. Era um jovem ator, mas já tinha o talento que o caracteriza, e um sorriso amigável, um carisma que torna seu personagem agradável e digno de empatia. Lee é mais importante no roteiro, mas não tem a força e a presença do colega. Ele é bom, mas mais discreto e menos carismático. Pode ter sido isso, de fato, que não o ajudou a avançar em sua carreira de ator. O filme também apresenta aparições positivas de Bill Kerr em um papel curto, mas significativo.

Alfred Hitchcock was truly a master, and there are not many directors who can present a CV so vast, so rich and so deserving of acclaim. Ironically, he did not win a single Oscar for his work as a director and even this film, which was one of the most awarded in his work, only won two Oscars (Best Film and Best Black-and-White Cinematography) at the 1941 ceremony.

The film was produced by David O. Selznick through his own studio, which was then busy completing and releasing "Gone With the Wind". He had acquired the film rights to the original novel, by Daphne du Maurier, and hoped that Hitchcock would be faithful to the material. He reluctantly agreed, but imposed his deeply detailed working methods, significantly delaying filming, which was just one of the points of friction between producer and director. Things got to the point where Hitchcock banned Selznick from "his" studio and prevented his interference, filming only what he thought he was going to use in order to restrict the final cut.

It goes without saying, I believe, that Hitchcock gave us another memorable work worthy of every cinephile's bookshelf. The cinematography, in black and white, is modeled with great care and beauty, using some very innovative techniques for the time. The soundtrack also works wonderfully and is very atmospheric. The mansion's sets and costumes were also points in which the production invested a lot and applied itself, in order to provide greater realism. It appears that the exterior of the house was, in fact, a scale model.

The script is impressively effective: after a quick courtship, a very rich man marries a young woman from modest origins and takes her to his impressive mansion. However, he was a recent widower, and the house is filled with disturbing memories of his previous marriage, as if his first wife still roams around, and could become a palpable presence that threatens to tear the couple apart. There are more elements in between, such as the housekeeper's strange obsession with her previous boss, to whom she devoted a bizarre loyalty, and the deepening of the mysteries leads to a surprising ending, so it's worth not reading anything about the film before watching see it in its entirety. Of course, if we think about it, it becomes incomprehensible that, with a new wife, that man kept the housekeeper in his house, along with all the objects that belonged to the deceased...

Joan Fontaine was chosen for the main character, giving us a quality, very convincing performance. She seems to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown for a huge period of time and that is what certainly earned her the Oscar for Best Actress for this work, one of the best in her career. Laurence Olivier also does a good job and, despite hating Fontaine's choice (he pressured the production to give the role to his real-life partner, Vivien Leigh) and not having a good, friendly relationship with her colleague, he is extraordinarily competent when they are on stage together. Judith Anderson also deserves praise for her work.

As I've said on other occasions, I'm not a fan, at all, of films about zombies and similar creatures. It's a type of horror cinema with a strong graphic appeal that doesn't really captivate me. However, I confess that I liked this film. It is much more moderate in its approach to these types of monsters, and effective in building tension and suspense. It's not scary (I believe it was very scary at the time, but these are different times), but it's entertaining.

The story told doesn't give us much explanation: we see two brothers who visit a grave in an isolated cemetery and, upon returning to the car, they are chased by what looks like a very disturbed man. It's obviously a zombie, and we know it, but the characters don't know and are extremely confused by what happens next: a growing group of zombies attacks them and forces them to seek shelter in a nearby house, where shortly afterwards they realize that they are not alone and, thanks to radio and television, that the problem is not just there, but it's national.

George Romero was very intelligent in the way he conceived and wrote the film, which is an entirely independent production and the result of the ingeniously of everyone involved. It is an innovative work, it was one of the first films to bring zombies to the horror universe and the influence of "Carnival of Souls" is very clear in the cinematography, in the way the sound and soundtrack were worked on. The short budget forced the production to be very pragmatic and efficient, to do a lot with little and prioritize credibility and authenticity. I would like to highlight some effective effects such as the flesh eaten by zombies, fake blood and Molotov cocktails. The design of the sets and choice of filming locations is also to be congratulated.

The cast has a few points in its favor, but it is essentially amateur and only tries to do what has to be done. Despite being a minor issue and not usually subjected to reflection, it seems significant to me to highlight the choice of a black actor for the main role. Duane Jones, in the film of his life, does a very well done job, with great commitment and that fulfills everything necessary. Karl Hardman is just annoying and the two actresses, Judith O'Dea and Marilyn Eastman, don't really add anything positive to the film, simply appearing helpless the whole time.

When I saw the original film, with Bogart and Bacall, from 1946, I was very pleased with the technical and artistic qualities, and also with the excellent acting by a top cast, but frankly sad with the script. I found that whole story very far-fetched and confusing, and I thought it would have been more fun to watch if the script had brought us something simpler, clearer and easier to follow, while maintaining the dose of mystery. This film is nothing more than a remake made thirty years later, and as such it is very difficult to resist making comparisons. I'm going to try to resist as long as I can and analyze this film for what it's worth.

For this production, director Michael Winner called for a strong cast headed by Robert Mitchum, a veteran actor who, however, did not seem inappropriate for this character who, in the original written material, is half his age. Philip Marlowe is an experienced, serious, suspicious private detective who has extensive knowledge of the criminal world and authorities, and if we consider all these characteristics, it seems sensible to call a middle-aged actor with charm and a heartthrob air. I also really liked James Stewart's work. I was surprised by the actor's frail and aged appearance, and even more surprised to see that he lived for another twenty years after the film was made. He was the right man for this job and shows his tenacity and love for his art. Candy Clark is as naughty and seductive as she can be, making her character a true nymphet. This seemed a bit extreme to my eyes, but considering it was the 70s and sex was selling like hotcakes, it makes some sense. Sara Miles is a frankly positive addition, while Oliver Reed seemed more neutral and dull to me. Richard Boone just does what he has to do, but what he does is done well.

On a technical level, I have some objections: if this is a kind of neo-noir, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable for them to use color cinematography instead of traditional black-and-white, but it seems to me that the second option would be more favorable to the construction of dramatic tension and suspense. This becomes even more legitimate if we consider that the color is quite faint and the luminosity is not beautiful, perhaps due to the choice of lens or a certain type of film material. I really like the filming locations and transferring the action to the United Kingdom allows the use of the country's large aristocratic mansions, as well as good street filming in quiet neighborhoods in London and other cities. The change of country, however, has more cons than pros: much of the story loses credibility outside the USA, where the circulation of weapons is more liberal and crime is different. The action scenes also seem out of place here, which is perhaps why they seem so bland and sleepy. I also didn't like the nude scenes, although the plot involved the illegal sale of pornographic material, something very much in keeping with the time in which the film was made.

Honestly, there isn't much to say about the script. The story is essentially the same as what we saw in the older film, with some more discreet variations and nuances. It continues to be a complicated plot to follow and where a lot happens in a relatively small amount of time, where a lot is said in a short time and involves too many characters and twists, in my opinion. They could have used the film to present a smoother version of the original story, but they decided not to do so.

This is one of those films that, honestly, I find difficult to understand. It is a production that brought to the cinema an interesting Broadway musical, which is still shown in several places today, and which tells a story similar to Romeo and Juliet in the context of youth gang wars in New York in the mid-20th century. The idea is seductive, and developing it from Shakespeare's source material is a point of quality. But sixty years have passed, and it is worth rethinking some things.

The film was directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, and makes great use of the action and music of the theatrical version, having achieved resounding box office and critical success, in addition to a plethora of awards, including ten Oscars (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Art Direction in a Color Film, Best Editing, Best Cinematography in a Color Film, Best Costume Design in a Color Film, Best Film, Best Soundtrack for a Musical Film, Best Sound). Since then, it has placed on the list of the greatest and most memorable musicals ever made. It is understandable, therefore, the film's impact at the time and its classic status.

The studios spared no expense, taking advantage of their budget to create a huge visual and sound spectacle, in a luxurious production with impeccable cinematography and magnificent light, color and filming work. Taking advantage of all the Broadway material, the film inherits Leonard Bernstein's songs accompanied by exuberant dance numbers by magnificently choreographed groups, something challenging and innovative for this time. I think it goes without saying that the melodies and songs can stand on their own and have its proper value. In addition to all this work, the film has good sets and costumes.

Although all of these are enormous qualities, I have to be honest, even though it will offend some people: while watching the film, I didn't feel empathy for the characters or enjoy the story. The steering is decent, but it doesn't go beyond that. The script is the same as the original musical play, but it is not engaging or convincing, and that romance seemed forced and far-fetched. If the two dance groups are dangerous gangs of delinquents, they are certainly harmless and only use their knives to peel fruit. But worse than all these are the Puerto Ricans: the group was represented according to unacceptable ethnic and cultural prejudices, with racist contours. This makes it even more insulting that they chose painted-faced Anglo-Saxon actors for several of the Latin roles, with Natalie Wood being the most obvious case.

This brings us to talk about the cast. As it turns out, for me, Wood was a total casting mistake. She may be the right age, the smile, but she's not even Latin, she doesn't even sing a note, she doesn't even know how to dance. She simply took the opportunity to be part of a great film. Richard Beymer, her love interest, does a better job, but is still very bland and not very interesting. Russ Tamblyn and Rita Moreno do positive work, but they don't help much.

This is a work that almost everyone remembers if the theme is films about the prison environment. It's a classic that takes us to a universe of pain, suffering, deprivation and fight against oppression, solidly based on a somewhat autobiographical book by Henri Charriere, called Papillon, a Frenchman who was imprisoned for decades in the penal colony of French Guiana and wrote a book that should be a memoir, but is so full of inventions that it deserves to be considered fiction inspired by real bases. Of course, the issue doesn't matter much to the film: let's forget the man and focus on the character, his alter-ego.

Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and released in 1973, it was filmed in Spain and Hawaii. And taking into account that the real prison was abandoned, a faithful setting was created in Jamaica, with some shots filmed in the real location appearing in the end credits. An interesting note: needing a tropical filming location, the production thought it was a good idea to go to a poor country, famous for its soft drugs, in the 1970s. It is, therefore, not surprising that works in Jamaica were marred by robberies and plunder, and by an extraordinary abundance of good marijuana. In addition to the good design of sets, costumes and props, and an inspired and elegant cinematography, the film has a very well done soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith, which is worth listening to and appreciating in itself.

With almost two and a half hours in length, the film focuses on portraying the poor conditions of that huge penal colony, and the mistreatment to which the inmates were subjected. I think this contributed greatly to the film's success at the box office: in the aftermath of recent protests, May '68, the Sexual Revolution and peace movements, a film where a single and persistent man faces an entire system of oppression and violence is doomed to success. Specialized critics, however, were not at all convinced, and made harsh comments about the film. Shortly afterwards, at the bizarre 1974 Oscar ceremony, the film was largely ignored, losing the only award for which it had been nominated (Best Dramatic Original Score). But considering the way it has persisted, stood the test of time and remained popular, perhaps the critics and Oscar judges were all wrong.

However, the success of this film cannot be attributed solely to a good story released at a propitious time, and convincingly told and acted. Steve McQueen is a key part of this success, thanks to an incredible dramatic interpretation, one of the best in his artistic career. The actor manages to express, in his face and mannerisms, the pain and tenacity of the character he embodies, and commits himself entirely to what he is doing. Next to him was also Dustin Hoffman, in a very interesting and elegant work that the actor fully responded to. On a much lower level, the film has positive contributions from Woodrow Parfrey, Don Gordon, Ratna Assan and Val Avery.

Butch Cassidy, Sundance Kid and the Hole in the Wall gang are in the "Hall of Fame" of the greatest thieves and robbers of the Old West. They had a long, varied and violent criminal career, with spectacular robberies of trains, stagecoaches and banks before moving to South America, where they spent all their money before returned to their old ways. They were persecuted by authorities in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, where they apparently met their death at the hands of law enforcement. And I say "apparently" because, in fact, there are several theories that say that the two thieves somehow survived, and may have returned to US soil under the cover of new identities. True legends like that are always difficult to kill and, even in death, find a way to survive and endure in our imagination.

Directed by George Roy Hill and written by William Goldman, the film is quite good and very well done, trying to follow the path of the two robbers. However, it is far from being a faithful portrayal of the facts, giving us instead a story sympathetic to the thieves, without the inflated patriotism of western films. It is necessary to consider that the film was made and released in 1969, in the midst of social protests that occurred due to the Sexual Revolution and the challenge to conventional values and concepts and, also, against the US participation in the Vietnam War. At a time of social and political turmoil, when many felt embarrassed by the attitudes of the USA, the film transforms each heist by Cassidy and Kid into an act of rebellion, of fight against the "establishment", of disobedience and rebellion against the authorities. Of course, it's a mindset that never occurred to them, and that ignores ethical and moral issues surrounding the eventual glorification of organized crime, in addition to forgetting the innocent lives that Cassidy and Kid were sacrificing.

Director Hill did a very elegant job, especially in cinematography and footage. Look at the opening credits, or the first sequence in sepia, and the way color is gradually introduced during a cavalcade. The sets, props and costumes are also very good, although I have doubts about the historical accuracy with which they were designed. There are scenes that I can't understand in any other way than as deliberate winks at hippies, the most obvious of all being that bicycle scene, set to the suggestive melody "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head". And let's face it, there are more comedic moments than serious action.

For me, the biggest reason to see this unusual film is the impeccable performance of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, two great actors that we know well and whose talent is recognized by everyone. This is not one of the best that they have starred in, each of them has done better works, before and after, whether comic or dramatic. However, the way Newman and Redford played together is the film's greatest strength. Their partnership is remarkable, as the way they overcome each challenge. The film also features good work by Katharine Ross, who was experiencing the peak of her artistic career.

Watching films with a lot of dialogue allows us, sometimes, to find some very good works in terms of the construction of lines and development of characters. In these films, these elements become the essence that justifies their existence. And we can think of several examples, such as "Before Sunrise". This film isn't bad either, but it targets a niche audience that I don't find myself in: single men, somewhat bitter and dissatisfied, misogynists and womanizers. I am single, and I feel peacefully satisfied, without a hint of misogyny and never closing doors to love, but also without any despair. And in fact, I haven't set foot in a bar since my college days. As you can see, I'm not the kind of man who could identify with these characters.

The plot revolves around three friends, aspiring actors, who seek to make it in challenging Los Angeles. One of them is depressed due to the end of a long-term relationship, and the other two friends decide to take him to bars, to drink and flirt as much as possible. From drink to drink, from one flirtation to another, the conversation between the various characters reveal a lot about themselves, and the way they see the world. It's not a narrative film, it doesn't have a very solid story, but it has good characters and an excellent collection of dialogues.

Directed by Doug Liman, the film has simple, but effective and credible cinematography, sets and costumes. Being an independent film, made outside the multimillion-dollar studios, the production had several budget problems that forced practical and functional choices. This may have been positive, allowing for greater verisimilitude and the choice of realistic locations and situations. Being a film so focused on the male mentality, and a world of bars and flirting, it is likely that the female audience would prefer to see something else.

Screenwriter and actor John Favreau plays the main character, supported by two longtime friends, Vince Vaughn and Ron Livingstone. Each of them does a good job and explores their character very well, expressing a lot of themselves, which turns these characters into "alter egos" of the actors who play them. This is unusual in cinema, but not unheard of. The film also features the participation of other actors and friends of those involved, in smaller and less well-crafted characters.

I usually have low expectations when it comes to horror films because, in order to find a hidden gem, we have to dig through a lot of rubbish. This film, however, isn't as bad as I thought it might be: it's not original (the "Stage Fright" films are good examples of very similar material), it's not memorable, it's not perfect, it's stupidly predictable, but it entertains and creates some dramatic tension.

The story is anything but new: a high school theater group will try to stage the play in which, around twenty years earlier, a student met a tragic and stupid death because of a failure in one of the stage props. It turns out that, in these twenty years, this play has become almost cursed, saying the name of the boy who died on stage has become bad luck and the very theater where it all happened seems to be haunted. To make things even more complicated, several members of the cast are disgruntled and don't want the play to go ahead. That's how three of them decide to go to the theater at night and vandalize it. From here on, everything is prepared for the scare show that the ghost will offer us.

The film intelligently bets on "found footage" cinematography, which would be better and more credible with fewer cuts, edits and sudden transitions to night footage. I've seen several films with this style and this was the most imperfect and unpleasant. I dare say that Travis Cluff and Chris Lofing, directors and screenwriters, were happier filming than editing their work, and that this was, in part, the consequence of several failed attempts to obtain a softer parental rating. The production budget is visibly weak and there is an effort to make the most of what there is but, as a whole, the film is surprisingly effective, without complicated graphic resources or expensive effects.

The cast doesn't have any big names, but young promises trying to make their way in the tough world of entertainment. None of them seemed particularly gifted to me, but Reese Mishler and Pfeifer Brown at least tried to do something good. Ryan Shoos is simply stupid, and Cassidy Gifford is only in this film because the directors felt it necessary to include a girl with breasts big enough to widen the eyes of teenagers in the audience.

Making biographical films around notable figures from the recent past is never an easy task, and this one deserves praise for its effort and courage. I say this because it is not possible to talk about Snu Abecassis without talking about Francisco Sá Carneiro, one of the most notable politicians of the Portuguese 20th century (not for his deeds or work, but for his charisma and impact on the national political mentality).

Even though we are celebrating fifty years since the revolution of April 25, 1974, which paved the way for the democratization of Portugal, I can't help but think that it is an imperfect past, an unfinished story in the country's life. If almost no one dares to question the value of the restoration of democracy (restoration because, despite what many are claiming, the revolution was limited to returning a democracy that Portugal had already had with the constitutional monarchy, and which was firstly established in 1834), there is no similar consensus in the political reading of the events of the time. The proof is the fact that nothing has yet been concluded about the causes of the crash of the aircraft in which Snu, Sá Carneiro, Adelino Amaro da Costa and others died. Accident? Sabotage? We probably will know when there is no way to touch a hair of those responsible, or those who are, or were, closest to them.

Snu Abecassis was not Portuguese: she was from a country with a strong democratic culture and had a different way of thinking, a breadth of ideas and vision far beyond what most Portuguese women achieved in a backward country closed to the world. This not only allowed her to succeed as leader of the Dom Quixote publishing house, dodge the censors and position herself as a defender of dangerous ideas (such as contraception, abortion, family planning), but also helps to understand the fascination of Sá Carneiro and others who knew her. I have no doubt that her ideas helped shape his thinking, but that she will also always be in the shadow of the man she loved, and whom she could not marry.

The script does a reasonable job and allows us to follow the life path of this elegant Nordic woman. Time and the couple's discreet personality do not give rise to sentimental outbursts, Latin soap operas or melodramas, so none of that comes into play here. Therefore, I am pleased with the way in which Patrícia Sequeira understood the limits to be respected. On a less good note, the ending: when the film recreates the passengers boarding the aircraft that would crash in Camarate, the other passengers, starting with Amaro da Costa, disappear. Why? It is understandable that the hypothesis of a sabotage is not mentioned in order to make the film politically more neutral, but the reconstruction should include everyone who, in fact, perished in that "incident". The cinematography is very good, the choice of filming locations was careful, the props and vehicles were well selected and the design of sets and costumes is impeccable. This, added to the introduction of videos and news from the time, helps to reconstruct the time period. The soundtrack is atmospheric and does a competent job, without being overpowering.

Inês Castel-Branco received the opportunity of a lifetime to show talent and ability outside of theater or television. She gripped it firmly and untangled it frankly well, with a light accent that never seemed forced and a natural elegance. Pedro Almendra doesn't always follow her: despite being very similar, physically, to Sá Carneiro, he has no charisma or presence, but the film isn't his either. Inês Rosado and Maria João Pinho make positive contributions. Pedro Saavedra is cunning enough to play Mário Soares, but he doesn't have the substance, material or time to develop the character.