Reviews

Whenever a movie is made based on an iconic character - Condorito is one the most popular comic-strips in Latin America for the last 60 years - the first one is supposed to be expositional, meaning it introduces audiences to the setting and characters. Even though most people know the origin story of Superman or Batman, the first movies start at the beginning because it makes sense; people want to see the backstories, the fictional town the protagonist lives in, their families and friends, etc.

Condorito The Movie does not do this. Instead they opt for a Lord of The Rings-style opening, then the movie jumps to present time where Condorito and his friends, his nephew, his girlfriend Yayita and mother, and his archrival Pepe all know each other. Next thing you know, though, the narrative has moved into outer space.

Why not show how Condorito met his friends, their adventures in sleepy Pelotillehue, and how he and Yayita met and became a couple? This last one is important because it has so much potential: she's respectable, attractive and fashionable, while Condorito is a happy-go-lucky guy with no ambition who lives in a shack. That would have been great! The comics don't provide their origins because each strip was an independent joke, but since this is a 90-minute movie the filmmakers could have set up a bona-fide franchise by starting at the beginning. This is why this movie feels like a sequel; the creators made the choice to skip conventional storytelling and set an adventure in outer space. It does have its funny moments, I'll admit, but I keep thinking about what could have been.

On another note, I think we should have all had the pleasure of watching this movie with the original Chilean voices. I don't know why they re-dubbed it with Mexican voice-actors for North America. I don't think Pixar is re-dubbing Coco with South American voices for that market. We should have heard the originals!

Hey Pajarraco Films, it doesn't mean it's over. Paddington 2 is universally acknowledged to be better than the first, so you can do better.

I saw this movie at a special screening at Pixar Studios in Emeryville, CA. What an experience for the heart, mind and sou!

We generally think of family films as those aimed at children, that happen to be enjoyable enough for adults. Coco, however, will be as much a hit in nursing homes as it'll be among grade-schoolers, who will laugh and cry in equal parts as the people at my screening did. It's about a family, a multi-generational family living together. I won't spoil anything, but I wish I'd been as good a great-grandson as the boy in this story.

Here are my six takeaways from the morning after. I'm sure more will come to mind in the coming days and weeks, because it definitely deserves a second or third view:

1. The story is probably the most rich, complex and well-written narrative I've seen in an animated film. It breaks into, and surpasses, some worthy live-action screenplays. Pixar should start campaigning for a Best Original Screenplay nomination in my opinion.

2. The animation and production design are as expected, first-class. There are feast-for-your eyes visuals in the creation of imaginary places and characters, but what most impressed me was the everyday places and people, and how they filled them with cinematic wonder and color. Note: everyone I was with agreed that the detail of the titular character of Coco was unlike anything we've ever seen in animation.

3. I'm a guitar player, and I can say with certainty that this is the first time I've seen animated characters correctly playing the instrument. Even in live-action movies this is not always the case, but in Coco it's obvious the filmmakers captured real guitarists playing note-for-note what you hear in the music.

4. All the research and consulting into Mexican culture/sociology has paid off. To the rest of us the movie seems very respectful of family dynamics and the Día de los Muertos celebration. But the best proof lies in Mexico: since its release (which was one month before it appears everywhere else) it has become the highest-grossing movie in Mexican box-office history. After the screening I read that many of the minor characters were drawn as an homage to legendary Mexican entertainers.

5. The filmmakers created a good balance between the characters' use of English and Spanish, as well as in the visuals (streets and shop signs, etc.). English-speaking audiences will understand the plot, while learning some vernacular in the process.

6. Stay until the last credits roll! The filmmakers added a heartwarming segment at the very end. You'll be glad you stayed.

Here in the US it's being released around Thanksgiving, and just like Saving Private Ryan made us respect The Greatest Generation, this movie will make you want to hug and kiss all your elders at the table.

You can see The Monuments Men was well shot. I liked what Clooney was doing, putting an Ocean's Eleven flavor in a World War II setting, and the Director of Photography Phedon Papamichael does quality work on films with large exterior landscapes like Nebraska (2013), The Descendants (2011) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007). Furthermore, you couldn't ask for a better cast. There was a lot of expectation for this movie to pick up Oscar and Golden Globe nods which is why it was originally scheduled for a December release (but later moved to February). In spite of its assets, however, in the end it leaves you somewhat disappointed.

Three main issues that made me think this could have been a gem, if only. First is that it couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious historical movie. Usually a drama has some humor, and a historical comedy has drama. This one felt like a tug of war between the two, and in the end there was no clear winner.

Second was the editing. They could have shed 3 or 4 scenes without sacrificing the story, and trimmed a few others to keep the movie from lagging. But then in the DVD Bonus Features you see them shoot a victory scene with large crowds; why was that cut from the theatrical version?

And third, as phenomenal as Alexandre Desplat's score was, some scenes felt like they were missing music, again giving us a tug of war between a lush Hollywood production and French minimalism. Maybe it was re-edited at the last moment and some scenes were left bare.

So there you have it, one of the most interesting stories of World War II that could have been an awards favorite. I put it somewhere in the Top 15 non-violent, non-atrocity WWII films. They are (not necessarily in order):

1. The Bridge on the River Kwai 2. The Imitation Game 3. Casablanca 4. Sophie Scholl 5. The Sound of Music 6. Judgment at Nuremberg 7. Ike 8. The Reader 9. A League of Their Own 10. Valkyrie 11. The Book Thief 12. Five Graves to Cairo 13. South Pacific 14. The Monuments Men 15. 1941

Very much enjoyed this, and Bryan Cranston is a wonderful performer. The scenes inserting the actors into stock footage were top-notch. So now let's run down the Oscar-bait checklist:

A biopic about one of the most important figures in Hollywood? Check.

Released during awards season? Check.

A period piece? Check.

Makes the film industry look (mostly) good? Check.

A cast of actors' actors giving stellar performances? Check.

Shout-outs to beloved cinema classics like Roman Holiday and Spartacus? Check.

So why didn't it place on most people's Top 10 list, and more importantly why wasn't it nominated for Best Picture? Because it didn't have the extra "artsy" stuff that sets it apart from very good HBO or Showtime movies. Here, in my opinion, are the things that could have pushed it towards getting more nominations than just Best Actor for Bryan Cranston:

1. Don't make it entirely linear. When dealing with a plot that spans several decades critics and voters like a story's timeline to be juggled through dreams, flashbacks, memoirs, the good old "Let me tell you a little story" and then take audiences for a ride. This could have very easily been done when you see how the film ends but I won't spoil it.

2. Make the first scene grab you or whet your appetite for something coming. After the opening text we get a shot of Trumbo at work, basically, then credits begin.

3. Add establishing shots of Los Angeles in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Who doesn't want to see classic Hollywood? If an Amazon Prime series can create amazingly good aerial shots of an alternate San Francisco in the 60's (The Man in the High Castle), surely a theatrical release can and should as well. Clint Eastwood's The Changeling, set in 1920's Los Angeles, had more scenic shots and small details, and Spielberg's Bridge of Spies took us to 1960's New York and Berlin wonderfully (in fairness Trumbo only had half the budget though). But you want an awards-worthy movie to be distinct from the production value of TV and this didn't.

4. Trumbo's political beliefs were a little more dangerous than this film shows. Don't be afraid.

5. Add an element of suspense. The story moves along to its logical conclusion but doesn't really tug at your emotions that much. It reaches the end of the ride without having made your heart race.

6. The score by Theodore Shapiro was good! But the movie could have used more songs to mark the decades. Think how on films that span many years like Forrest Gump or Catch Me If You Can popular songs are used to emphasize the movie's place in time, even though both were blessed with a great score from noted composers. Trumbo uses a few tunes (A Billie Holiday standard is noteworthy) but not enough in my opinion. Was budget again the reason? Furthermore the movie opens in 1947 while playing some very un-1947 modern jazz.

I felt like it was soooo close to being Oscar-worthy in a few categories. It's really good and it made me read up on Trumbo's history. What an amazing thing that he found a way to continue being active in the business and take care of his family. Bryan Cranston gives a beautiful performance and I'm glad he got a Best Actor nomination. I hope Jay Roach gets to make other movies like this because these are good stories that need to be told.

I'm a sucker for movies about musicians, and John Carney has already given us Once (2007) and Begin Again (2013). Now he delights once more with Sing Street, a tale told with humor, drama, and some pretty catchy songs, all set in the backdrop of 1980's Dublin.

Yes, Sing Street is set in the 80's so it undeniably lends itself to comic relief as these schoolboys are forced to navigate through hair, makeup, clothing and music video choices along their artistic journey. We get plenty of laughs as we watch them try to forge an identity and look like bona-fide rock stars in this crazy MTV generation. And for good measure, they insert the obligatory Phil Collins joke in the mix.

There is quite a deal of drama as well. We see bullying in an all-boys school, dysfunctional families, the economic hardships of Ireland in the 80's and young people's wish to break out of societal malaise and seek their fortunes elsewhere. I haven't lived in Ireland but the desire to pack your bags and start over in another place is a universal one. Audiences in every continent can relate to that.

The cast is solid and I was very impressed with the leads, especially Ferdia Walsh-Peelo who plays Connor. He can be charming, kind, insecure but out-of-nowhere gutsy which is an accurate depiction of a blossoming musician. After the first hour I began to be doubtful of the character of Connor's brother Brendan for seeming to be too wise for his age, but by the end of the film it all made sense, and Jack Reynor was a fine choice for that role. Lucy Boynton (Raphine) is great as the love interest and mysterious but troubled muse; she packs an emotional performance and probably looks the most natural in 80's fashion, although she didn't quite convince me as a 16 year-old and it wasn't because of all the excess hair and makeup. On the other hand Mr. Walsh-Peelo (Connor) was only 15 when the movie was shot and he's got that boyish appearance. Finally Mark McKenna (Eamon) has such an uncanny resemblance to Julian Lennon it's scary! But a good actor too.

As far as concerns I had only a few major ones but they didn't detract from the enjoyment of the film. First is that the story moves very quickly in the first 30 minutes or so, then takes the foot off the pedal for the remainder. And second, it's a little unrealistic that these kids can write quality songs right out of the blocks. It would have been fun to hear a real stinker when they're starting out. I'm a musician and believe me, our first attempts are pretty bad. That's true even for the all-time best.

There were a few other minor things but they're not worth mentioning. This is a great story, it got all the laughs, cheers and tears in the right places and I would recommend it to everyone, especially those who want to express themselves through art and aspire to greatness. Dream big, all you adolescents. A big thanks to John Carney et al for reminding us of that and making a quality film.

Why Be Good? was shown at the Silent Film Festival 2015 in San Francisco, in a 1920's movie house with a live orchestra. You can't get better than that! The line to get in went around the block, but it was sooo worth it: a rediscovered and just-restored silent film at a packed art-house theater which happened to be built a few years before this film's original theatrical release, with live musicians playing along so marvelously, it's hard to top it.

We were given brochures and there was a pre-screening talk. It was there I learned that the film's star, Colleen Moore, died thinking all copies of the movie had been forever lost, including her reels which she'd given to a museum for preservation. But just like with Metropolis recently, someone at a cinematheque found a copy and after years of painstaking restoration work it was brought again to the world.

I loved it. Colleen was so great portraying a flapper, and in a full house she and the other actors sure made us laugh a lot. I was very impressed with the Art Deco sets, the ingenious Boiler Room scene, and the moral of the story which I won't spoil. But yes there was a moral in the midst of all the dancing and comedy, and it was one that made all the women in the theater cheer!

So big kudos to the restoration folks, and the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra for the superb live accompaniment. It makes me wish every movie I attended had live musicians now.