Reviews

Just like the German 'Der Untergang' ('Downfall') chronicled the last days of Hitler's life, 'Getúlio' follows the same pattern: it chronicles the last days of Brazilian's controversial/beloved president/dictator Getúlio Vargas, from the Tonelero street attempt on the life of Carlos Lacerda (a well known opponent of Vargas), the unraveling of the case leading to those closest to Getúlio, the political and public pressure resulted from it all, and eventually to his suicide 19 days later, on August 24, 1954.

The film is very well made, beautifully shot, and above all authentic-looking. It was all shot on location, the beautiful Palácio do Catete, and with much care for the characters to look as accurate as possible. It recreates the feeling of the Brazilian 50's nicely as if following a very detailed history lesson.

As any character-focused film, 'Getúlio' depends on its lead actor: Tony Ramos, the actor chosen to portray Getúlio Vargas, is surprisingly good. He is very well-known and beloved by the Brazilian public for his roles in television series/soap operas; while a bad choice as far as looks are concerned (even after the extensive preparation, he does not look much like Vargas), he has the charisma and talent for the job. Vargas was one of the (if not THE) most liked figures of Brazilian history (the 'Father of the Poor', he was called); since the film deals with his latter life, his image already established, it was ideal for him to be played by someone the public would know and could immediately relate to (ie.: Tony Ramos). It helps that he is also a talented actor, and makes the emotional distress Vargas went through in his last days look very real.

The rest of the cast is also very good. Thiago Justino does a great job as Vargas' security chief and right-hand man, Gregório Fortunato; and the actors portraying Varga's family feel like such, with Drica Moraes in special doing a great job as Vargas' daughter. Alexandre Borges looks like Carlos Lacerda, and plays him well enough, but he couldn't achieve the power of Lacerda's speeches; not that he could be blamed for it, though.

Those who know Brazilian history will also like to see other important figures of the time being portrayed as well. Figures like Nereu Ramos, Café Filho, Tancredo Neves, and Afonso Arinos are all very well represented, though their relatively small roles in the film are almost like cameos (Arinos, in special, is briefly shown doing his amazing speech in Congress calling for Vargas' resignation). It is a minor point, but something history buffs might enjoy.

The film is well paced and developed, trying to play like a political thriller and doing the job well enough. It is very historically accurate, avoiding hinting towards the conspiracy theory involving the Tonelero street attack and instead sticking with the historical facts. Like 'Der Untergang', it focuses a lot on the subject's (here, Vargas') feelings and actions in the eminence of his downfall; it overtly humanizes, making him look like an innocent victim of circumstance and overall siding with him rather than making an impartial biopic.

So, while having a bit of bias (though then again, an unbiased biography has never been made), 'Getúlio' is nonetheless a rare good Brazilian picture and a tribute to one of Brazil's greatest historical figures. Because, love him or hate him, Vargas is a very interesting subject and important historical figure. As he himself said, in his suicide note:

"Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity. I leave life to enter history."

Simply put, a biopic about John Forbes Nash Jr., a mathematical genius who went on to win a Nobel Prize after years battling his many problems, including his schizophrenia.

'A Beautiful Mind' is good, that much I'm not questioning. It is very engrossing, at times moving more like a thriller than a drama; likewise, the emotion actually feels natural and effective, without the usual sappiness of Hollywood dramas. The acting is superb: Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly shine here, and deserved the awards that year. Others who shone in a very good cast included Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany.

My complaint comes in that this is supposed to be a biography of John Nash; however, it is anything but. This is Hollywood sugar-coating at its finest: it shows Nash as a troubled individual, having to fight against his illness and overcome his own shy nature to succeed; it completes ignores his more thornier history and changes it all to make him an impossibly sympathetic person.

They flat out make things up as they go for the sake of turning this into your typical 'underdog fighting against all odds', formulaic and not unlike 'Rocky' or 'Good Will Hunting' (those other two, though, do not attempt to disguise themselves under the cover of a true story).

This is partially fault of Nash himself, who refused to let a biopic of him unless they took out all the 'shadier' aspects of his life, and partially of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who extensively makes use of emotion over actual storytelling to win over his audiences in pretty much every film he does (I know what to expect when I see his name on a film, and it is never to expect a great one).

In the end 'A Beautiful Mind' is a very good film, with a great cast, and a rare one which manages to make its emotional moments effective without melodrama or cheesiness; even the more cheesy moments, like Nash's 'Nobel Prize speech' (yet another non-truth), work better here than they usually. On the other hand, being labeled as a 'true story' or as a biopic is not only misleading, but distracting for those who know Nash's real (and far more interesting) story.

I never understood Hollywood when it comes to their sugarcoated biopics. If they are going to change and make things up so his lifestory can support the theme they want to, why still insist with the 'true story' label? Just to fool the viewers/critics?

Lawyer Carly Whitten (Cameron Diaz) ends up discovering her seemingly-perfect boyfriend is married; yet, she ends up forming a strange friendship with the wife, Kate (Leslie Mann). As they find out and end joined by yet another affair, Amber (Kate Upton), the unlikely trio plot a revenge against the cheater while also uncovering his many lies.

A very silly sitcom-styled comedy, which tried to sell itself through its stars (Diaz, Mann and Upton), but that's it. It offers nothing special, nothing that hasn't been done thousands of time again and again; even worse, it does all that badly. The movie picks up a bit towards the end, but only barely.

The characters are awful. Mann's is irritating and even obnoxious at times, and terribly inconsistent at all others, which her terrible ('quirky') delivery and overacting makes almost unbearable; meanwhile, Diaz is always overly cold and bored-looking, completely flat in her delivery. In special, their early interactions (with Diaz reciting her lines rather than acting and Mann overdoing hers) are particularly bad.

The entire first hour or so is terrible, a 1 rating, but not only thanks to them. Nothing interesting happens; whichever amusing situations Cassavetes/Stack attempted end up ridiculous by not only the fact we have seen it all done before, but also because these are situations usually geared towards teen characters. Seeing Mann and Diaz in their scene at Diaz's apartment is cringe-worthy.

On the other hand, Kate Upton is incredible to look at, which is already a great addition, and while quite amateurish she has a cuteness that make her likable; she does the ditzy blonde stereotype quite well, though from what I've seen of her she seems to be a bit like that in real life too. The movie picks up a bit after she arrives and the group band together to get back at the guy, with some of the revenge bits being quite amusing but, even then, nothing memorable.

A little corporate-scamming plot is added near the end; just a weak attempt to make the movie appear a little more 'serious' (i.e.: pretentious). Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, who plays the cheating guy, is good, as is Don Johnson in what little screen time he has. There are a few chuckle-worthy moments, but no real 'laugh out loud' ones, to the point they end up falling back on bathroom/poop jokes to elicit a reaction.

Overall, 'The Other Woman' is just another typical chick-flick comedy, the kind you go to see already knowing it will be a silly pastime and far from memorable. But then again, this kind of film has its intended audience; I'm just not part of it.

'Zathura' is based on another of Chris Van Allsburg's books, from the same series as 'Jumanji'. However, this film is not meant to be connected with 1995's 'Jumanji'... despite being pretty much the same thing, only the game now has a space motif rather than a jungle one.

Maybe it's a fault of Van Allsburg's novel, or just laziness from the director/screenwriters. Nearly everything, from the sibling dynamic, a man lost in time in the game, a being within the game chasing the lost man, the whole thing being a kind of morality play... It feels just too similar for me.

Of course, there is no Robin Williams this time. It has, however, a not-yet-famous Kristen Stewart: her character has little to no importance plot-wise, and from what I get it wasn't even in the book. She is meant to be little more than a minor comic relief, and doesn't do much really.

'Zathura' has very good visuals and a fantasy-like quality that might really enchant younger children, that's sure; maybe even provide for some fun for older audiences as well. On the other hand, while the sibling relationship is done quite realistically and their fighting is consistent with children their age, watching such childish yelling and arguing gets irritating after a certain point.

Some points of the film are a bit too childish, even for a fantasy film; like the children's wishes when prompted by the game. Most of the situations seem like any other child adventure film, in a tried-and-true format that tries to invoke some charm. The actors aren't really great, mostly doing just enough for their roles to work but nothing more.

In the end, 'Zathura' is mostly a film for younger audiences. For me, it did little to nothing: not really a waste of time, but not great either. However, 'Jumanji' did leave a strong impression in my childhood and retains some nostalgia power to this day: maybe 'Zathura' can repeat that aspect with younger audiences, as well?

What happens when you take John Carpenter's version of 'The Thing', add a female lead, reduce the gore-like quality of the special effects (while adding some CGI as well) and an ending aimed towards connecting with Carpenter's beginning?

You get 2011's 'The Thing', the remake-like prequel to an horror classic.

The producers claimed they didn't want a remake, couldn't make a remake, but a remake was what they did. The start of Carpenter's version gave a margin for a prequel, and indicated something similar to the story had happened before; so, the excuse for a prequel-disguised remake was there, truth be told.

But it is just too similar, too 'been there, done that'. The tough-looking cast of Antarctica explorers is there (but rather than led by Kurt Russell and Keith David, we have a very good Joel Edgerton stand out in a good cast). The only difference is they went the 'Alien' route and included a female lead (who is both smarter and more competent than the rest), a very good Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

The effects are good, but appallingly inferior to the 1982 version. Whereas Carpenter's version was a masterful usage of make-up and practical effects, today's films have the bad tendency of relying on CGI. It feels cheated, especially since they never achieve the level of unnerving bodily horror Carpenter did, and even feel too fake at times.

Another problem is that 2011's 'The Thing' is a step down on the thriller aspect. While it flirts with the more twisty parts of the plot, it lacks the extreme level of paranoia and the thrilling atmosphere the former version created. It actually feels rushed at moments, and too action-like to make use of the more interesting moments of the story.

All in all, while it feels too similar and inferior to Carpenter's version, 2011's 'The Thing' is still entertaining enough to work. 1982's 'The Thing' is one of horror's best, and one of my favorite's as well, and even a toned down version of it is still a welcome watch.

I would give it a 6.5. Since I can't, I round it upwards for a nice 7.

'The Godfather' and its first sequel, 'The Godfather: Part II', are both hailed as two of the best films ever made (with the first sometimes considered the very best). A couple decades after them, it was given a proper ending/'epilogue' with 'The Godfather: Part III'.

While the first two dealt with the rise of Michael Corleone, this deals with his fall. Wrecked by guilt at all his wrongdoings and his strained relationship with his ex-wife and children, he attempts to repent for his sins while also taking in his illegitimate nephew as his successor within the mafia business.

As one can expect, things don't go right. A tale of betrayal, murder and power hunger unfolds.

The movie retains much of the great cast of the first two. Al Pacino is great as ever playing Michael Corleone, now in a much more emotionally pained and fragile vision than the ruthless kingpin he was in the second. Diane Keaton and Talia Shire also return well (Keaton more so, while Shire does get annoying at times), and the entire supporting cast (where Eli Wallach in special shines) is great. Andy Garcia is also good, though he doesn't shine (which is made worse by the fact Robert Duvall didn't return).

The film also retains the sophisticated atmosphere of the first two. And their excellent soundtrack, excellent directing and pacing, and dialogues.

On the other hand, it still falls short of living up to the expectations. It ends up too continuity based; it is almost impossible to understand it well without knowledge of the first two films. A good deal of what made 'The Godfather: Part II' such a masterpiece was exactly the fact it didn't rely on the first; it could stand on its own.

'The Godfather: Part III' would be a mess if you take it for itself.

Another problem was Coppola's usual nepotistic tendencies. It is common of his to cast his relatives in his films, though usually in minor roles (he did that in the first two). This time he went overboard: rather than search for a new actress once Wynona Rider withdrew, he decided to cast his own daughter for the major role of Mary Corleone (Michael's daughter). She is an amateur, no wonder her acting career didn't pick up; she is still watchable, yes, but her scenes lose so much of intensity and believability she could have single-handedly sunk a lesser film.

So, despite not being the masterpiece 'The Godfather' and 'The Godfather: Part II' were, 'The Godfather: Part III' is still a terrific film. It just suffers from the absurd expectations the first two generated.

A kind of flashback-inside-a-flashback, where we first get an aged writer (Tom Wilkinson) recalling his younger self (Jude Law) meeting with the important Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham); then, another flashback (this one the movie) of Zero's youth working in the hotel under Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) and eventually inheriting it.

This is Wes Anderson's usual farce of a 'comedy', where he tries to be amusing or quirky, with a big meaningful cast even in the smallest of roles, colorful visual and 'hip' soundtracks. As usual, this is a matter of 'style': you are either the artsy type who glorifies him as one of modern cinema's finest or, like me, sees him as a pretentious hack.

Like in all his previous films, such as 'Rushmore' and 'Moonrise Kingdom', Anderson's style annoys me. He attempts to be 'different' in a sense, trying to force a quirky feel to his movies that only ends up making his characters and plot lines feel forced and unrealistic, almost cartoonish, to the point halfway through the film they might get unbearable.

His entire 'trademarks' (character presentation, chapter separation, reaction shots) are interesting ideas, but he tries to be so fancy doing that that it becomes... Cheesy?

'The Grand Hotel Budapest' is no different. The plot develops nicely, but by the end it is so pointlessly complicated it's not even funny. Characters come and go for seconds, so much you have to wonder why cast names like Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, Ed Norton or Jude Law for cameo- like minor roles. Just to add to the poster?

At least his more irritating casting choices (Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton) also get the same cameo-esque treatment (i.e..: they are almost inexistent in here).

Among the actors that get more screen time Ralph Fiennes does a very good job, though his accent distracts a bit. Jeff Goldblum, Saoirse Ronan and Willem Dafoe are also good to watch, while Adrien Brody is atrocious as usual; Tony Revolori (the young Zero) is quite inconsistent, though his scenes with Fiennes are usually good.

The scenarios are beautiful, that is undeniable. But even that is not enough to compensate for all its shortcomings. Some scenes, like the whole mountain chase, felt like a failed attempt at recreating a Looney Tunes sketch.

In other words, this is the same old Wes Anderson formula made slightly more bearable. Fans of his style will get the usual 'fun' they find in it, while anyone else should be free to avoid it. Truth be told, I only watched it because of its unusually high rating.

As usual, 'Nattvardsgästerna' (aka 'Winter Light') is your typical Ingmar Bergman film. Slow, monotonous and dialogue-heavy to a fault, yet rewarding for the patient (or, better yet, the VERY patient) viewer by means of its highly intelligent, even thought-provoking discussions it creates.

I'm no fan of Bergman, that is to be said. He is a bit TOO slow and dull, to the point I usually watch his films on fast forward. And the 'reward', while good, rarely is worthy of sitting through over an hour of intense monotony.

Yet, when tackling religious themes, I find Bergman to be much more bearable. This, 'Det sjunde inseglet' (aka 'The Seventh Seal') and 'Jungfrukällan' ('The Virgin Spring') are the only ones I've seen yet that were truly remarkable. His main characters are religious, yet face belief-shattering situations that make them question; he questions religion, yet never flat-out attacks or dismisses it but leaves it in a way the viewer is to decide. Just like his own struggle with faith in real life.

In here, he does so by means of a priest (Gunnar Björnstrand) who is losing his faith. His confrontation with a depressed farmer (Max von Sydow), who tries to turn to the faith to quench his worries, as well as his romance with an atheist teacher (Ingrid Thulin) pave way for his increasing doubts. The ending dialogue with the church's sexton, in special, is brilliant and one of my favorite moments.

The acting is great all-around. Not only do they rend their speeches (both dialogue and monologues) impeccably, they all convey the seriousness and the grim mood of their characters and situations. The fact they manage to keep things slow and monotonous (i.e..: no one goes out of their way to steal the show, or overact) is proof of their success.

If one can get past the boredom of his films, Ingmar Bergman was undoubtedly a great director. But that is exactly the problem: cinema is supposed, first of all, to be a means of entertainment. How can you entertain with such a slow, monotone film?

Even if you are trying to relay a message, to generate a thought-provoking reflection, how are you supposed to reach for the casual viewer, how are you supposed to make a wider audience interested in your work? This is a problem Bergman, as well as most 'art' directors, have always ignored.

While good, and far more entertaining than Bergman's usual, 'Nattvardsgästerna' still suffers from the same faults as his entire filmography. Still, being both bearable and rewarding, this is one of his best.

Another story about a group of strangers locked together in an enclosed space, hoping for a way out. In here, these five are job applicants; in the last step to join a powerful corporation, only one can leave the room with the job... and their life.

I really like this kind of film; it is always such a psychologically heavy concept, often accompanied by interesting twists and thought- provoking mindgames...

Unfortunately, 'The Employer' fails in that aspect.

The movie is too short and moves too fast to create the necessary tension in the room scenes, and the characters/actors are so bad they are unable to create any interest in the viewer. And it is far from just the actors' faults (though they have their share on it): the characters are horribly conceived and developed, their actions not making sense and being overly ruthless/psychopathic to the point of being unbelievable/almost cartoonish.

This makes the twists almost pointless and their impact almost nonexistent. The psychological aspect the film needed ends forgotten and ignored.

Malcolm McDowell is the only one to do a good job, and his character is quite fun to watch (though equally bad). A sharp contrast to the otherwise terribleness.

In the end, this film is far too moronic and badly made. It can't even pass as a idiotic, semi-gory thriller, as the anti-capitalistic stance the film seems to defend (considering the way they portray the big corporations) show they tried to make this have some kind of half-assed message. In other words, they actually believed this could be good.

I give it a 4 just because I love this concept, which made me try to like it, but in the end it could very well receive a lower rating. Much better choices would be 'Exam', 'La habitación de Fermat', and even the 'Cube' franchise.

It's been a while since I found a movie this fun to watch. Not brilliant, not ingenious and maybe not all that great, not something that will go down in cinema history. Just that: some very fun and entertaining 90 minutes.

Al Pacino plays an old criminal, a 'stand-up guy', who leaves prison after 28 years. Christopher Walken, his friend, is assigned to kill him by a vindictive mob boss; so the two decide to live Pacino's last hours with style like their old days.

The movie is quite a delight to watch. Pacino and Walken are both brilliant actors, and even if not at their best their performance here still shows. Their characters feels real, almost as if they aren't working but really just having fun with each other. Alan Arkin, who joins both for a good part of the movie, also gives quite a flair of talent, even if not as snarky as I prefer from him.

The music, mostly by Bon Jovi, really complements the story and there is plenty of black humor. Something about the political incorrectness of their 'adventure' (which involve a cat house, breaking into a pharmacy, beating up other criminals and 'saving' a friend from a retirement house) helped making me like the film, and make the characters seen very much real.

The chance to see Pacino and Walken (and Arkin to a lesser extent) in a nice, less serious but fun showing of their skills, coupled with the entertaining and almost heart-warming story, makes this film a sure recommendation.

For a long while Tolkien's work was deemed almost unfilmable. Yet, anyone who has seen 'The Lord of the Rings' knows this maxim is not true anymore. Peter Jackson did an excellent job in bringing to life Tolkien's masterpiece, so he decided to go back and also do his other introductory work: 'The Hobbit', an adventure that kinda sets up the events for the LotR adventure.

Yet, this time around Jackson didn't manage the same amount of success.

'The Hobbit' was already much more light-hearted, quasi-comedic in relation to its sequel, but 'An Unexpected Journey' goes a bit farther than needed. Far too much buffoonery, specially in its overlong introduction of the characters. Overlong introduction which, by the way, describes two points of my complaints against this.

Like with 'Fellowship of the Ring', this ends up as mostly an introductory chapter. This is comprehensible, as most of these characters weren't even on the LotR films; still, while 'Fellowship' introduced and made sure to give each character an uniqueness, 'Journey' does not. The company of dwarfs are mostly personality-less; other than Thorin and the old dwarf, all others end up as mere background characters to the point it is not worthy (nor necessary) trying to remember their names. The addition of even more plot elements, some of which weren't even in the book, also hurts this a lot.

Another problem is its length. Unlike LotR, 'The Hobit' is not big enough to warrant a trilogy (maybe two-parts, but not three). As such, Jackson has to make the film move at a snail's pace, dragging events and scenes far too long; at times, it makes what could have been a good scene boring and/or lose its impact/importance. Its terrible pace is such, this movie is almost 3-hour long when it could have been told and finished in mere 2-hours.

Not only that, Jackson (or possibly Guillermo Del Toro, who was originally the one to do the script) litters the film with unnecessary scenes/plots not from its original source. They still keep to the nature of Tolkien's world, true, like the bit with Radagast and the whole Orc plot line, but they are overtly unnecessary. Like when he did LotR, Peter Jackson seems insecure of his storytelling and public's reaction to it, and forcefully changes the source material to seem more 'mainstream' and 'attractive' to audiences.

As a result of its terrible pace and changes, the film drags on too much and takes away from the enjoyment, from the magic of Tolkien's mythos.

The film is still good, despite those flaws. It still retains the incredible visual quality of the LotR trilogy, which helps making its pace somewhat bearable; still, as good as its effects are, at points it feels like it is dragging on purposefully to show off them (ie.: the 'mountain fighting' scene, which was kinda ridiculous). The casting is great as well: not only the returners from LotR (Ian McKellen once again steals the show as Gandalf, and we also get Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett and even Andy Serkis as Gollum), but Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo (in special, his altercation with Gollum) and Richard Armitage as Thorin.

The action and adventure aspects of the story are very good and the film still is entertaining, though very far from 'Lord of the Rings' level.

Tolkien's characters and fantasy world is always good to watch, and Peter Jackson (despite all his insecurities) truly knows how to capture it in all its visual splendor; however, the film itself drags on to the point of boredom thanks to its horrendous pacing and the whole deviancy from the original storyline proves not only unneeded, but might actually put off the more rabid Tolkien followers.

Sylvester Stallone is better remembered for playing Rocky Balboa, the underdog boxer from the Oscar-winning 'Rocky' and its subsequent franchise. Robert De Niro, among an outstanding career of many memorable characters, might be remembered firstly for his Oscar-winning performance as Jake LaMotta, a real-life boxer. Both characters and performances are noteworthy and quite consistent with real boxing.

'Grudge Match' pretty much screams the question of which was best, Rocky Balboa or Jake LaMotta, by means of pitting their actors one against the other in another boxing film.

The problem with this is the same that other recent Stallone films have had. It came too late. Like with Schwarzenegger in 'Escape Plan', or the other old action stars in the 'The Expendables' franchise, Stallone pits himself against another heavyweight old-timer far past the time where such pairing would truly have their impact (AKA the 80's and possibly early 90's).

It doesn't help that the whole story is just an enormous walking cliché; it feels like another entry on the 'Rocky' franchise. It is not just the confrontation that is outdated, but the entire plot; their rivalry, the underdog storyline Stallone often has on his films, a father/son redemption storyline, the emotional final fight and 'tense' 'who was the winner?' finale... It has been done so many times, it is tediously predictable.

The cast is quite good, though. Stallone does play a sluggish boxer well, which is pretty much why Rocky has kept going. Meanwhile, De Niro plays the same arrogant type he did with LaMotta; he is nowhere nearly as good as he was on that film, but he is still very good to watch. Alan Arkin is another really good one, playing the kind of cynical character he is often at best with; the actors playing De Niro's son and grandson are also quite good.

Kim Basinger is uneventful, another point in which the film seems to have come from the 80's (where I guess she was a big thing). I didn't like Kevin Hart at all either. Being labeled as a rising comedian star, I actually thought for a moment during his first scene that it was Chris Rock: unfunny, with an irritating voice and mannerisms and hopelessly bad acting. But then, considering many of modern comedians like Jack Black, Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell, he might get far.

Despite this all, I can't really be too hard on this flick. It is not meant to be serious, just a silly comedy with a interesting (at first glance) premise. It manages to be interesting at times, a lot thanks to its very good main cast, and the actual boxing scenes are good enough (plus seeing Chael Sonnen being knocked out was priceless); yet, even then, it is not a great comedy either and no moment where I can say I truly laughed out loud.

Then again, considering its director and writers, 'Grudge Match' is not half-bad. Just keep low expectations, and you might even enjoy it.

The Coen brothers are really a cinema apart. They have their unique style, blending multiple genres in a way that feels natural, with an interesting cinematography that makes them easy to differentiate, (usually) great and original music and often witty dialogue/characters. Yet, I often find them polarizing: while I've loved some of their films ('Miller's Crossing', 'Barton Fink', 'The Big Lebowski'), I often found some difficult to like others.

Not since 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?', over a decade ago, have I liked a Coen-directed film (except for 'True Grit', though that one doesn't feel like a Coen movie at all). In fact, I could consider 'The Ladykillers' and 'A Serious Man' among the biggest disappointments in the decade (among the worst too, at least among 'big, important' productions).

Surprisingly, it was 'Inside Llewyn Davis' that peaked my interest again. This simplistic, almost pointless slice-of-life yarn about a fictional 60's washed-up folk singer doesn't look like much, but just like 'Fargo' in the 90's it is deceptively captivating. It is heavily a drama, yet with a somber humor and wit, where the characters aren't forced but actually realistic and the reason you keep watching on. Oscar Isaac is also part of the reason, being able to naturally convey a Coen character's wittiness; he is kind of a downer, yet sympathetic, and Isaac even manages to sing well.

We have some good casting in here too (which became less common within the Coen's films as time passed; they've never casted as well as they did on 'Barton Fink' or 'Miller's Crossing'). John Goodman is really good on his small part, as is F. Murray Abraham in a cameo-like role and Max Casella as the bar owner. Carey Mulligan was quite cute, and her interaction with Isaac's was very fun to watch; moreover, she has a very good voice and is nice to hear sing.

Adam Driver was a surprise with his deep voice, but again had little screen time. Justin Timberlake seems to be becoming quite popular lately; he sings well enough, true, but he isn't a good actor at all and makes his character look like too much of a wuss. Even if they insisted on casting a singer for the role, they could have chosen better.

The songs are all original, collaboration between the Coens, their musical supervisor and sometimes Timberlake. Maybe because I like folk music, or because Isaac is a surprisingly good singer, but I loved them; coincidentally, Timberlake's 'Please Mr. Kennedy' was the only song that I didn't like at all, though he kinda repents in his other song with Mulligan.

Overall, a simplistic to the point of pointlessness, but nonetheless engrossing and likable picture. Oscar Isaac is the highlight here, as are the excellent cinematography and the songs. Also worth noticing is that, as often, the Coen brothers leave a lot of references to Homer's 'Odyssey'; pay attention to the cat if you wish to get it.

This relatively simple, good Frank Oz comedy is to me one of Bill Murray's best. In here, the former 'Ghostbuster' star is Bob Wiley, a good-hearted obsessive-compulsive who tracks down his new psychiatrist when he goes on vacation with his family; his annoying but good-hearted actions, coupled with the doctor's upcoming TV interview, cause the man to slowly go crazy himself.

I find this film rather polarizing, exactly because of Murray; or, to be more precise, his character. Bob Wiley is good-hearted and enthusiastic to a fault, to the point of being obnoxious. You can't help feeling sorry for the psychiatrist (a very good Richard Dreyfuss) for having to put up with him. And Murray, himself, does a great job; he is not obnoxious in an overly cheerful/clownish way (like Robin Williams, for example), but rather in the comedic OCD way his character is supposed to be. His is merely great acting; a bit TOO good acting, though, as sometimes I myself felt irritated with Bob.

Richard Dreyfuss does a very good job too. His character, an overly-uptight and arrogant 'genius' psychiatrist, is shown in a way that we should feel he deserves the hell Bob inadvertently brought him; yet, because of Bill Murray, we can't help sympathize with him. Still, his breakdown moments are hilarious and the interactions between Dreyfuss and Murray are perfect.

The supporting cast exists, but it is really Murray's and Dreyfuss' show.

In the end, it comes down to how you cope with Murray's character. Whether you can stand him and laugh, or whether you find him so irritating to the point of being unbearable. I certainly found it quite funny and liked it, and would not hesitate to recommend.

'Tucker & Dale vs Evil' is a really good satire of the hillbilly subgenre of horror films. In this subgenre, we often find ourselves with psycho, often inbred, serial-killing rednecks chasing young people in the woods (i.e..: 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'). In 'Tucker & Dale', the title characters are actually good guys on a vacation, who are targeted by young college kids who mistake them as stereotypical psychos.

The premise works just like one would expect after thinking it over. Very funny, full of references to the subgenre, death scenes that really pay off, but its quality starts dropping after a while. It needs to rely too much on comedy-of-errors and coincidences, plot devices that end up being recycled/repeated to the point of getting tired. By the time it ends, it got too repetitive to work as well as it did near its beginning.

Yet, despite its predictable unsustainability, the final product is so well executed it takes a long while for the quality drop; the main duo, Alan Tudyk (Tucker) and Tyler Labine (Dale), are excellent and one of the mains reasons this happens, being both very likable and funny as the straight-mans.

The character of Chad (Jesse Moss; a sociopath proper boy), though a reasonable poking at a few horror clichés, is one of the weakest points of the film. Likewise, the romantic subplot between Dale and Allison (Katrina Bowden), while quite likable and even funny, tended to get a bit too sentimental in the latter portion of the film.

Rather than an all-out parody, like the 'Scary Movie' franchise, 'Tucker & Dale vs Evil' bets on actual tale-telling. The premise predictably loses some power later in the film, but it still delivers nicely in a fun and satisfying way.

Another complaint I have is the spoiler in the title.

One of Shakespeare's best works, yet incredibly underused in cinema; involving such memorable characters like the Venetian merchant Antonio, his friend Bassanio, Bassanio's beloved Portia and, of course, the Jewish moneylender Shylock.

Antonio takes money from Shylock so Bassanio can use it to compete for Portia's hand; however, when he fails to pay the debt, Shylock takes him to court for the right to his bond: a pound of flesh, from Antonio.

The story is very good, as often with Shakespeare's plays. Director Michael Radford (who had previously made the best adaptation of Orwell's '1984' so far) manages to make a captivating scenario in the form of 1586 Venice; almost every scene is nice to look at, with both the city itself and the costumes looking straight from a Renaissance painting. Jeremy Irons is excellent as Antonio, conveying the sad and contradictory nature of his character without needing words; yet, he is upstaged by Al Pacino, one of the best and most sympathetic Shylock I've ever seen, complete with one of the best rendition's of the famous 'Hath not a Jew eyes?' speech.

It is often with 'The Merchant of Venice' that Shylock completely steals the show, and because of it a film adaptation of it is often avoided. It is no wonder: as a Jew character written in a time Jews were badly seen, he (and his ultimate fate) often makes the play seen anti-semitic. Yet, Shakespeare doesn't make the mistake of portraying him as any less than a human; Radford reinforces it, which combined with Pacino's masterful acting makes us truly feel for Shylock, sad for his daughter's actions, for his treatment by the Venetians, and makes his anger and actions comprehensible though still wrong.

There are problems, though. Within the play, that is often a fault of Antonio and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. They are far too contradictory and Antonio is often too mopey, to the point of both being unlikable without a good performer portraying them (and flat-out insufferable with a bad one). Thankfully, Jeremy Irons is a great one: his Antonio isn't the 'oh I suffer so much!' kind of character I dislike in most plays, but one whose suffering is both explainable and sympathetic.

On the other hand, Zuleikha Robinson does an overly poor Jessica; yet, by making Jessica that unlikeable it ends up making Shylock the more sympathetic in his suffering. On another negative note, is the 'comedy' side of the play; far less compelling than the tragedy of Shylock and serving little other than starting and ending that side, it doubles here by having a very weak performances. Joseph Fiennes gets around by way of his pretty-boy looks rather than acting skill (the opposite of his brother, Ralph Fiennes); plus, he looks far too mischievous and treacherous for the good guy Bassanio.

Lynn Collins, likewise, is rather uneventful as Portia and, while far from bad looking, doesn't really seem all that worthy of Bassanio's and Antonio's sacrifices. However, she shines in the courtroom scene, not really matching but being a worthy foil for Pacino's Shylock.

Overall, a very good film and adaptation of one of my favorites from Shakespeare. The excellent scenarios and visuals, along with masterful performances from Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino, more than make up for the minor drawbacks; I just wished this story would get to see the light of day more.

A very fun science-fiction where Jeff Bridges ends up trapped inside a computer world, being forced to partake in gladiatorial-like competitions with other program's AIs.

This film seemed somewhat overlooked in the rise of beloved child-focused sci-fi, 'ET'; just like another infinitely superior sci-fi, 'Blade Runner', was. Now, while 'Tron' is still far from a 'Blade Runner', it is a very fun and entertaining science-fiction that deserves its fair share of praise.

The cast is good, with Jeff Bridges and David Warner being particular highlights. But the true highlight is in the special effects that compose 90% of the film; they might look silly and overly-dated to most people, but that is the point. They aren't supposed to look real, they are being used to showcase one's idea of a digital world, to show it as being very different from our own, and do so marvelously.

I would take 'Tron's special effects over most of modern CGI any day, especially its sequel's CGI. It is also helped by the fact that the plot is very nice and entertaining, not very clichéd but actually quite original, and it allows the use of the effects in some very creative and even impressive ways.

It is both a visual feast and a very fun adventure, a great combination that makes for excellent science-fiction.

Police inspector Wens is on the case of mysterious serial killer 'Monsieur Durand'. As he determines the killer lives on a boarding house, he goes there undercover... Only to be followed by his mistress, determined to help him.

Quite a fun and effective detective thriller, more on the vein of Sherlock Holmes than a film-noir. Quite a bit of Hitchcock too, with a lightheartedness and comedic tries to go with the tension creating scenes; plus Pierre Fresnay does an excellent job as Inspector Wens, being witty and charming.

The plot is good, the mystery develops nicely and never gets dull, and the explanation is satisfying; however, Henri-George Clouzot's use of his mistress, Suzy Delair, as a comic relief character was a really bad move. She is both irritating and completely meaningless, serving no purpose to the story; I actually fast-forwarded her singing scenes.

A problem that I often find in Hitchcock's formula, though, is that the comedic attempts tend to fall flat and the indecision of whether he wants a thriller or a comedy undermines the end result. Thankfully Clouzot seemed to understand it, as he never made such a heavy use of Hitchcock's mood-lightening tactics again.

Overall, despite the drawbacks created from its silliness and Suzy Delair's abysmal performance, "L'assassin habite... au 21" is still a nice, fun detective thriller. A good start to Clouzot's career and early proof of his talent.

James Bond is sent to investigate Max Zorin, a leading businessman in the microchip market, who unknowingly to him not only has a shady past with the KGB and the Nazis but also intends to destroy the Silicon Valley.

The last of Roger Moore's 007 films, and frankly his worst. This might be the very first Bond film I didn't really like before the Brosnan-era.

The plot is far too outlandish and all over the place. While this is very common within the franchise ('A View to a Kill' looks like a documentary in comparison to, say, 'Moonraker'), this particular entry lacks the fantasy-esque quality the series always employed. It tries to be slightly 'gritty' yet keeps the silliness of an action-fantasy (for example, the car chase); this ends up only making it lose the flash and style that makes 007's films so fun to watch.

Roger Moore looks far too old, and his Bond feels tired; not only are his stunts even less believable to the point of ridiculousness, but he lacks the wit and charm he was known for. But not all fault falls on him: the girls are terrible in this one, with Grace Jones being an eyesore while Tanya Roberts is lacking in charm or acting competence.

The movie has its moments, true. The opening ski scene, the later dirigible confront, and above all one of the best Bond villains in the form of Christopher Walken's Max Zorin (even in his better outings Moore would be hard-pressed to match him). But that is pretty much it.

'A View to a Kill' is one of the weakest entries in the Bond franchise, and easily Moore's weakest. Still, when taking in consideration his history, it is only a minor bump. This might not be good, but it won't destroy any fond memories either.

A mysterious drifter, identifying himself as John Smith (Bruce Willis), arrives in the small town of Jericho, at the Mexican border. As the city is controlled by two warring gangs, Strozzi's (Ned Eisenberg) and Doyle's (David Patrick Kelly), Smith starts playing both gangs against each other as a means to earn some cash as a hired gun.

Yet another adapted version of Akira Kurosawa's 'Yojimbo', this time turned into a gangster film (with a touch of western). It is proof of how good that story was that, decades and multiple re-adaptations later (my favorite being Sergio Leone's 'A Fistful of Dollars'), the story still manages to be interesting and entertaining.

The movie is well directed by Walter Hill, who manages to give it a very stylish yet desolate look. The cast is absolutely perfect, everyone looking and acting their roles to perfection; in special: the gang bosses, Christopher Walken as Doyle's right-hand man, Bruce Dern as the sheriff and William Sanderson as the bartender and Willis' helping hand.

It is a very good action film, never boring, with very good dialogues and very stylish and entertaining action scenes which are made to be quite similar to the old Italian westerns' shoot-outs.

Speaking of Italian Westerns, Bruce Willis does his best Clint Eastwood impersonation (he is, after all, playing the same role Eastwood did in Leone's film). He does the eye-squinting, often silent and very, very muffled whispering-talking with a good deal of success; however, he often comes across as too silent, being difficult to hear him sometimes (though that is really my only complaint regarding his performance). Christopher Walken too, though his character at least is given a reason for doing that.

Unlike Gian Maria Volonté or Tatsuya Nakadai, Christopher Walken actually manages to upstage Bruce Willis' nameless protagonist when in scene together. Bruce Dern and Ned Eisenberg, likewise, steal the show in their scenes.

A group of university friends make a party to celebrate the New Year. However, a strange epidemic of violence erupts all around the world, apparently related to social networks, and they are forced to fight for survival as everything goes mad around them.

It sounds good, it feels good. My thoughts, as I first read about this film and started watching it, was that this could be like a 'Pontypool' type of zombie/outbreak film mixed with 'Pulse's technology based horror. A try at social commentary, which could work well with this horror style.

Well, I guess I shouldn't have been expecting an intelligent horror. The comparison to 'Pulse', rather than the much better and original 'Kairo', was the only of my expectations to be met.

The whole 'social network zombies' concept the film seemed aimed for (and some reviewers seemed to believe make it deep and original) ends up as nothing but a half-assed excuse to indulge on the usual horror clichés (in special, the zombie ones). Weak, drowzy acting cast performing stereotyped or disengaging characters prone to stupid and nonsensical decisions, together with a complete disregard for logic on the plot development or even in basic research (the way the 'virus' spreads... seriously?).

The set-up is relatively promising, and the concept could be developed nicely. A problem most modern horror makers do is believing everything needs to be fast-paced; 'Antisocial' ends up moving so fast it rushes through the good parts of the concept. Rather than doing like 'Invasion of Body Snatchers' or 'The Thing' and building up the suspense, playing with the whole paranoia situation the film could easily create, they instead rush through for the zombie gore and Resident Evil-like 'action girl fights zombies' 'action'.

As it turns out, the conflict and the tension are far too phony to work, the characters are both moronic and cannot bring the audience to care about them, and the only thing this whole film offers is the usual clichés rather than something new.

Some reviewers here are trying to defend the film with the 'argument' that it pretty much 'tries to be socially engaged, exploring new themes for an horror'. It is not exploring or engaged at all; it is just the same old with a half-assed excuse to try and hide the film's shallowness. Trying something new is good, but if you do so like 'Antisocial' it is better not to try at all.

After losing the Critic's Circle Award for Best Actor, which he felt he deserved for his recent season of Shakespeare plays, enraged and mad actor Edwin Lionheart (Price) commits suicide. Unbeknownst to everyone, though, he survives and with the help of some vagrants start dealing his revenge on the critics, killing each of them in accordance to his plays' deaths.

A darkly humorous horror/thriller, performed magnificently by Vincent Price and an excellent British supporting cast (such as Milo O'Shea, Ian Hendry and Diana Rigg); this is easily Price's best role and one of his best films. Leagues above his previous 'Abominable Mr. Phibes', even if the two feel very similar concept-wise.

One of the film's main sources of profit comes from the way Price's character is set. Lionheart is a theater actor with a tendency to overact (which is acknowledged by one of the critics); this simple fact gives Price an excuse to overact as he wishes, to ham things up as he goes, and makes his performance both fun to watch and consistent with his character. Seeing him in outrageous make-up, performing for the city's bums, is priceless (excuse the pun).

The Shakespearean motifs are also very well done. Not only the killings, which are both amusing and quite consistent with the plays they are based on (including a 'rewrite' of 'The Merchant of Venice's trial), but Price actually does play Shakespeare's characters nicely: he pulls off some of the monologues (in special Hamlet's and King Lear's) better than some Shakespearean actors I've seen.

The film is quite colorful, a especially delightful trait of 50's-70's British horrors; this, coupled with the pervasive humor even in the more serious scenes, makes this work more as a comedy-horror than as a pure horror/thriller.

No matter how you wish to look at it, though, the fact is that 'Theatre of Blood' is a very entertaining and fun film.

In 1893, HG Wells (Malcolm McDowell) manages to create a time machine. When a friend (David Warner), who turns out to be Jack the Ripper, uses the machine to escape into the future, Wells follows after him to 1979, where he must stop the murderer while also having to come to terms with the shocking future, which is far from the utopia he expected it to be...

A very interesting and surprisingly lighthearted thriller/adventure, with quite a bit of comedy thrown in, 'Time After Time' has a silly and fantastic feel to it that kinda reminds me of the more young audience aimed films of the 70's and 80's.

The actors are very good. Malcolm McDowell's HG Wells is a nice counter to his usually darker roles (like in 'A Clockwork Orange' or 'Caligula'); he pulls off a brilliantly convincing and even comedic performance as the naive futurist. Likewise, David Warner is also very good as the villain; rather than making the Ripper a psychotic monster he makes for a more sophisticated, almost gentlemanly antagonist that is no less of a menace.

Mary Streenburgen is charming and cute, and has great chemistry with McDowell, making their characters' romance convincing and entertaining to watch; however I didn't like her character too much and something in her delivery felt a bit... off sometimes. For example, when she is being threatened by the Ripper her lips curl a bit, as if trying not to smile/laugh.

The plot has quite a few problems, both story-wise (the usual thriller clichés and nonsense, like the police not questioning Mary's character to check Wells' claims) and concept-wise (it is time travel based after all, though the movie smartly does not delve too much on the implications it carries); it develops quite predictably too, and sometimes far too silly at that. On the other hands, the movie does have an excellent visual quality and an excellent soundtrack, which helps bring a certain charm to the story.

Overall, 'Time After Time' is a charming and fun film with a rather good cast. Despite its nice concept, it ends up as little more than a lighthearted variation of your run-of-the-mill thriller; not so much, however, as to take away from the overall entertainment, and in the end there is more than enough of it in here.