Reviews

If you are looking for well-crafted sci-fi pop, then Alita: Battle Angel is highly recommended. The CGI's are excellent - if at times overused- and the attention to detail is staggering. One must bear in mind, that the involvement of James Cameron means that the film does get a bit too syrupy at times. Also, there are some superfluous scenes which are only meant to impress the viewer, like when Alita cries and cuts a teardrop in half with her sword. Nevertheless, you are in for a fun ride. All the important stuff are there: the back story is great and the characters are engaging. Meet Alita, the amiable, big-eyed cyborg warrior girl.

I was expecting to hate this, not because I condone the atrocities of ETA, but because the de-politization of art has become a dangerous and ever-increasing trend in the last 10 years or so. Post-crisis Europe is slowly creeping towards to a callous hybrid of feudal-capitalist authoritarianism (some would argue, it's already there) and Spain is no exception. Art can awaken or can pacify. "Fe de etarras" definitely belongs to the the latter category. Nobody will be bothered by this film, not even the Basques. But I do believe it has a saving grace. It shows how most people just want to live a normal life, be safe, fall in love and eat good food. Radicals tend to forget the power of wanting to belong and be normal. The film addresses this issue with zero arrogance (something that would have been easy under the present circumstances: the victory of the Spanish State and the disarmament and dissolution of ETA) and at times even reaches moments of subtlety. Yet, the utter lack of political criticism is very alarming in a time of media and cultural homogenisation.

Despite the director's careful attempt to visually re-enact some of Orwell's descriptions as faithfully as possible, the overall result lacks the complexity, as well as the directness that made the book such a compelling, guttural and chilling work. First, there is no real sense of the omnipresent eye of Big Brother. In the novel the surveillance system is so terrifying and suffocating that the characters are for most of the time tense and never really shake it off (and we along with them). Second, the subtle concept of doublethink, which is at the core of the Party's ideology is completely absent. It is doublethink that distinguishes Orwell's futuristic regime from a 1930s-style totalitarian system. Director Michael Radford's cinematic Oceania seems to belong to the latter category. Thirdly, the bright synth sounds of the Eurythmics are utterly incongruous to the story's mood (perhaps they are more fitting for a film like Chariots of Fire). Additionally, there is an aura of mystery in the film which is very un-Orwellian, caused by the fact that not many concepts and themes shown make sense if you haven't actually read the book (like the concept of newspeak or the significance of the glass paperweight with the coral). If you have read the book, then there is absolutely no point in watching this film. It is much better to trust the director in your head. If you insist in seeing how cinema can capture the spirit of 1984 - that brutal but simultaneously insidious and subtle tyranny - watch masterpieces like Fahrenheit 451 (1966), THX-1138 (1971) and Clockwork Orange (1971).

Re-watching Gremlins after almost three decades and as an adult, the following things struck me:

a) it is actually a Christmas film, albeit an unconventional one

b) it is filled with anarchic and self-conscious humour

c) it is technically much sloppier than I remembered (the cheap fake beard of the old Chinese man, the idiotic and irrational behaviour of the protagonists, the bad acting, etc.)

d) it is essentially a dumb, juvenile and simplistic film

Mix these observations and you actually get a fun - if at times boring and predictable - off-kilter film, that would exist more naturally in the parallel universe of cult cinema, where different criteria about what is "good" apply. Or think of it as the one that got away, the fugitive imp that sticks its tongue out at "dignified" hollywood with its unexpected mainstream success.

Those expecting something in the vein of the imaginative sci-fi comedy-drama Frank & Robot, will be perhaps slightly disappointed by director Jake Schreier's sophomore effort "Paper Towns", a film that does not manage to escape the confines of contemporary coming-of-age teen movies. However, looking deeper, one can discover a subtle thoughtfulness that sets it apart from the genre and its clichés. Schreier's sobering outlook of life marinates the story's mood, giving it hints of that long lost humanism of 70s New Hollywood cinema.

Random acts of violence, cold and detached characters, non-sensical dialogue and a general oppressive atmosphere of passive nihilism. These are the ingredients of the so-called "weird wave of Greek cinema" - a hipster and less guttural version of New French Extremism of the early '00s - that Dogtooth initiated.

The aesthetic influence of Haneke is also present, but here it lacks the Austrian director's historicity and coherence: his films usually take place in a specific time and place, while Lanthimos' films are set in a timeless, insulated world. This allows the director to remove any ethical accountably of his characters's actions - at least in relation to our contemporary society - while at the same time avoid making any risky social statements.

There is an abusive father in the film that locks his family in the house, for no apparent reason. The family members act "weird", again for no apparent reason or perhaps because they are locked up. But it matters little after all, since all we are given as an audience is a dragging into an inhuman and negatively-charged world where the logic of the rules make sense only in the director's self-indulgent head.

The film-makers of Rose Island try their best to inject a hefty dose of idealism in an otherwise prosaic and (understandably) obscure 60s story. In 1967, an engineer by the name of Giorgio Rosa built a concrete platform, 11 kilometres off the coast of Rimini, with the purpose of making it into a tax-free bar. Being true to the offbeat spirit of 60s (but also to his business side), he decided to declare it an independent republic, but as he failed to be taken seriously by the United Nations, the Italian authorities ended up demolishing it. There is absolutely no evidence - not even in the film itself - to suggest of even the slightest serious intention in Rosa to actually build a progressive, "utopian" country. Rosa was audacious, but he had no real political aspirations. Which brings us again to the film-makers, who choose to refashion Rosa's endeavour as a struggle for freedom, resulting in a lack of the kind of down-to-earth humour that stories as such invoke. Instead we get a light dramatic comedy that takes itself too seriously.

An unusual vampire flick. The sense of the macabre, the darkness, the blood, most of the core elements that define the genre are understated in Byzandium. The story' s vampires hide their identity by blending in the world and are separated between those who have taken a more "ethical" or "humanist" approach by sucking the blood of elderly people who are at death' s door, and the more "traditionalist" kind, who uphold the old codes and look down at humans. It is probably not a suitable film for the casual viewer' s taste, but for those - like myself - who love Neil Jordan's odd and idiosyncratic mix of old-age literary romanticism and social realist cinema, it is a beautiful film.

The idea is brilliant (its the 70s and communist China invades capitalist France!), its cinematic application though occasionally walks with a limp.

Made in a time when being on the radical left and calling yourself "Maoist" was still a must, Jean Yanne paints an unflattering caricature of Parisians, utterly shallow in their political convictions, cynical, opportunistic, slavish and flabby pleasure-seekers. There is of course the obvious parallel with the Vichy regime who collaborated with the Nazis in WWII, which provides a dramatic undertow to an otherwise light-hearted satire. Both past and present are cleverly lampooned, unfortunately not so much the future (apart from the fact that the Chinese occupiers prefer to make a shopping mall their headquarters instead of one of the historical monumental buildings offered to them). I don't think the film-makers could even imagine the stealthy ways with wich China would eventually (and essentially) dominate the world economically by 2021. The movie wants to be more of a mirror for post-war France.

Technically it has quite a few pace issues, many scenes drag on needlessly with sloth-speed long take shots. The acting is not always good, especially by the young Japanese actor who plays the central role of Chinese general Pou-Yen. I read somewhere that the only ones that got upset with the film were the Chinese living in France (they should be the last to be upset). And the French were generally apathetic to it. Which justifies Jean Yanne's portrayal of them.

In the first part of Socrate, Rossellini crams too many historical events for a one hour time span. This results in the characters themselves explaining too much to fill in the gaps for the viewer. The rest of the time we watch Socrates as he strolls around with his students, reciting his most overused quotes.

The second part, which is essentially Socrates' apology and his last days, feels almost like a different film in pace and gravity. But Plato's Apology of Socrates is ready-made material to ensure a great, dramatic scene. Another flaw is the awkward contrast between the professional actors playing Socrates and his wife Xanthippe against the rest of the characters, who are non-actors (a common practice in the neo-realist era of Italian cinema). For example, Meletus - Socrates' main accuser - seems completely inept at the crucial scene of the trial, like some teenage urchin that the director picked up from the street a few hours before filming.

On the positive side, it is refreshing to actually hear Mediterranean sounds for once in a film about Ancient Greece. Crickets and random dog barking are natural sounds still heard in Greece. It is not a small detail, as it works to create a strong sence of time and place. All and all, the film is watchable, albeit with quite a few flaws.

A raw, direct, moving, very tightly written, seat-grabber. Excellent acting by all actors involved. Lior Raz's Doron introduces a male hero that has been absent in Hollywood for decades: tough, masculine, courageous, but also compulsive and with a human conscience that clashes with the practical needs of circumstance, very often to the detriment of his personal life. It is the initiatives he takes and the burden of responsibility he carries (often for everyone involved) that make him so attractive and sympathetic to the viewer.

Concerning the always controversial political aspect of the conflict: the fact that it is biased (it is an Israeli production after all) works to its benefit. Who would prefer a sanctimonious pro-Palestinian Israeli production? However, as you immerse yourself in the characters' war-stricken lives, you realize they are all tragic and broken - with no exceptions - trapped in a vicious wheel, which like guinea pigs of fate, are compelled to make it turn.

I expected an emotional, more raw and reflective X-Men universe film that defied the vacant pomposity of the superhero genre. The celebrated cover of "Hurt" by Johnny Cash that graced the trailer surely contributed to that expectation. Instead I watched a movie featuring an 11 year old girl effortlessly slaughtering dozens of cardboard villains in a display of the usual over-the-top video game violence of contemporary Hollywood blockbusters. Still, Hugh Jackman's performance is excellent (as it usually is) and transcends the general silliness, rendering the film watchable.

Overall, a clumsy "blaxploitation" version of the Watchmen story. However, there are some good moments: episode 6, for example, has some great direction and works as an interesting, stand-alone film in itself. Alternative history fiction is always alluring, as you can talk about certain contemporary issues from a (cross-dimensional) distance. Sadly, the creators of the show focus to much on connecting the dots with the source material, that they lose that special insightfulness offered by the genre .

When I first watched Prometheus in 2012, as a Riddley Scott fan, I remember very well how easily I dismissed it by laughing at the predictable stupidity of the protagonists, the shallow philosophical pondering and the Greek noses of our "makers", the Engineers. Five years later, a hunch made me re-watch it. How much I was mistaken then.

"Prometheus" is monster of a film. Profound in a way only daring, ambitious and truthful art can be, I think we have not fully comprehended the scope of its artistic importance, its task of visualizing in film the mystery of creation. Initial flippant reactions changed: The "stupidity" I realized is pure human curiosity for knowledge, as exploration and all it entails could be humanity's only hygiene (to paraphrase F.T. Marinetti, the founder of Futurism). The philosophical pondering is very real, how can it not be when a world view of four(!) different species is investigated and set against each other in remarkable and frightening contrasts. And yes, the noses of the Engineers are Greek, the central theme is also Ancient Greek, the myth of Prometheus, the collision between noble and barbarian forces, the marriage of the horrible and the innocent, the birth of tragedy and beauty.

In his horror films Ti West is master of restrain. Here he tackles the age-old (and not exclusively) western tale of the mysterious stranger who passes through a "closed-society" type of town, reshuffling the cards in the process and putting himself and its residents into the test. West's distinctive style works just as effectively here. Genre clichés are refreshingly overturned with subtle humor and canine honesty. A solid, well-honed, well-crafted film.

Perhaps lacking the equilibrium of contrasting elements that made "Prometheus" such an awe-inspiring and interesting film both aesthetically and philosophically, "Alien:Covenant" is still a great film. Whereas Prometheus was eerie, perplexing and hair-raising, "Covenant" is dark, blunt and gut-turning. Many questions are answered here and not too many questions are raised. A pessimistic film, but tinged with the rejuvenating force of a rare acknowledgement or understanding of the tortuous, both inner and outer, reality that we inhabit.

Somewhere I read a negative critique of the film's old familiar narrative patterns. I completely disagree that this is a sign of creative tiredness: the eternal recurrence of the classic Alien motives (the crew drinking coffee in the ship, the "foolish" entering into hostile and unknown terrain, etc.) is a consciously reenacted ritual and is in fact a testament of Riddley Scott's ingenuity and mastery over his craft. We know what will happen next, yet it is always new, wondrous and frightening; this is the stuff of great myth-telling.

Only Russel Crowe -with his brooding portrayal of the mythical patriarch- manages, without any assistance, to carry with a degree of dignity this clunkiest of films on his shoulders; a film whose "heavier" meanings (whatever they might be) get lost somewhere between hammy acting and substandard CGI.