Change Your Image
agent_starling_1999
Reviews
The Village (2004)
Disappointing *and* presumptuous
How many more crappy movies will it take to convince me that M. Night Shyalaman cannot write a decent screenplay to save his life? Even after Unbreakable I was making excuses for him, because you know, there's some pretty decent ideas amidst the rubbish and visually his storytelling is quite interesting...
Enough. I don't think I am spoiling everyone when I said that The Village was absurd and laughably BAD.
First the good (there's very little of it, though): the actress who plays the blind girl is wonderful and very expressive. The look of the movie is for the most part lovely. Not brilliant, occasionally corny and ridiculous, but good for the most part. Shyalaman is still good at scaring us half to death when he wants to. The music is quite pretty.
But when you have a ridiculous plot, a screenplay that takes itself far too seriously and a director that appears to construct a whole movie based on his OMGSOCOOL cameo you end up wanting to throw things at the screen.
Mind you, I had no problems with the pacing. Or with the lack of gore and blood and creepiness. And yes, I did get the Oh So Deep And Meaningful Metaphors Shyalaman so kindly spelled out for me a dozen times (how some people can call this "subtlety" I don't know, and will never understand, all I know is that the apparently intelligent political reading was far too obvious) - it was still complete crap, and all the more crappy because in other hands, it might have worked. Because the concept was not at all bad, even if it seems laughably bad after watching it. But people, if you want to see about people running from the evils and the scariness of the real world only to find it in their little idyllic community... well just rent Dogville already, don't watch this stupid thing, made by a man that not only has no sense of humor but fancies himself the most insightful film-maker in Hollywood. Please.
In short? Some interesting images and a few good ideas completely ruined. Oh, and the plot twist that was apparently The Coolest and Most Surprising Thing Ever? I totally saw that one coming. And I have to say it's a pity to watch Shyalaman completely waste his talent as a director and his skill for suspense by making this sort of senseless rubbish that is nowhere as good as the stuff he could, and should be making. And good god, please force him to work with a decent screenwriter for a change. PLEASE.
Kamchatka (2002)
China attacks Kamchatka
Like "Harry", I always enjoyed playing TEG. If you have never played it, don´t worry, for it´s actually pretty simple: one board with fifty countries, and three or four players trying to control 30 of them to win the game. But Harry has never played with so many people - he just plays with his dad. And when its only two players, it is a fight to the death: all 50 countries or nothing. Harry has never won before, and he is very close to winning - but his dad, controlling this little, obscure region on the edge of the board, this remote place with a tongue twister of a name, Kamchatka, still manages to resist for hours and hours. As Harry will learn later, surviving against all odds is indeed possible... and as he warns us as the movie begins, this will be the last and most memorable lesson he has learned from his father.
A touching tale made up of childhood memories, Kamchatka tells the story of a middle-class couple in Argentina in the mid-70s, during the military dictatorship that horrified and scarred the country. One day, without warning, the couple take their two children to an abandoned house, desperately trying to escape. But of course, the children understand nothing of this - instead they are forced to leave their lives behind and even change their names. The movie cleverly focuses on the older of the two boys, Harry (who actually names himself after Harry Houdini), and suggests the horrors of the period through subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) metaphors, sometimes with a sense of humor you wouldn´t expect for this type of pictures.
The good thing about "Kamchatka" is that it is not a history lesson - you never know exactly what the parents (and the other people that come and go into the children´s lives) did to be hiding, but it doesn´t really matter. What matter is that the film accurately portrays the heartbreaking situation of a man and a woman who do not know if they´ll live to see their children grow, and are still strong enough to fight back and try to smile for them. We don´t know what they did when they left the house every day. We don´t know what happened to their friends and co-workers. We don´t even learn their real names - like so many of the "desaparecidos", they are the anonymous victims of a goverment that almost destroyed a country. We only see the couple through the innocent - but oddly wise - eyes of their children.
Ricardo Darin and Cecilia Roth have once again proved with this movie that they are some of the best actors in Argentina right now - I´ve seen them both in more demanding roles, mind, and this is far from being their best performances... and yet they are both believable and their chemistry with the children is perfect. Director Ricardo Piñeyro knows what he is doing, and it shows: with this type of material it is dangerously easy to fall into the trap of making a cheap melodrama, and yet he manages (for the most part) to avoid making the picture overly sentimental or manipulative. Kamchatka may not be a perfect film, but it´s heart-felt and beautifully filmed.
For viewers who wish to know more about this dark time in Argentina´s history, you may rent the excellent Oscar-winning "The Official Story".
The X Files (1993)
Well, it´s over now...
... and oh my, it was a fun ride. For better or worse, The X-Files has left our screens to become a part of TV History. Was it time for it to end? Hell, yes. There´s no need to state (again) that in its last years, the show had lost its edge, Mulder or no Mulder. But going bitter at Chris Carter, David Duchovny and the world, producers and writers in general is no good for anyone, and it makes us forget the simple truth (well, not that any Truth in the X-Files could ever be simple): that overall, this was as good as TV shows come.
Did Carter, Duchovny and Gillian Anderson knew what they were getting into back then in 1993? Probably not. I have little doubt that they saw some potential in the clever, intriguing script that combined "serious" documentary with B-Horror movies and crazy conspiracy theories. But they couldn´t have known that they were to create the show that would change the face of Sci-fi/fantasy/mystery television for ever.
So, what was so great about it? Carter took advantage of our greatest paranoias and fears to create an atmosphere full of darkness, where nobody could be trusted and creepy things we could not explain were out to get us. Add religious symbolism, scientific background and a bigger-than-life goverment conspiracy, and you had the setting... all you needed was the characters... and in came Duchovny and Anderson as the famous duo of the 90s: Fox "Spooky" Mulder and Dana Scully.
Mulder was the believer in all things paranormal: the brillant man that had once been the FBI´s favourite... only to be left abandoned in the Headquarters basement among old files and blurry pictures of UFOs. Paranoid, excentric, sarcastic and at times seemingly emotionless (Duchovny´s at times expressionless face became the character´s trademark), Mulder was a crusader: a man nobody understood and not many took seriously. Enter Special Agent Dana Scully, the small redhead that looked like a bad copy of Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs. Scully was the escceptic, the woman of science, reluctantly inmersed in a dark underworld full of things her logical thinking and training couldn´t explain, yet somehow seduced by Mulder´s never ending quest. They were equals, yet opposites. They had the unresolved tension of the will-they-or-won´t-they? dance that drove fans crazy. They were the unstoppable team that faced monsters, aliens and conspirators every day, loosing everything in the process: sisters, parents, faith... and any possibility to lead a normal life. All for The Truth.
Discussing this "Truth" with capital T would be too long to attempt to do here, and I suspect pointless as well. The X-Files isn´t really about The Truth... the truth is out there, yes, but where, we don´t know. The truth is difficult, if not impossible to find. The Truth is, if you think about it, a truly horrible thing. For their knowledge, Mulder and Scully paid with years of suffering... and the revelation of the last episode I´d rather not discuss. In a way, The X-Files wasn´t really about this revelation... it was a show about faith at a time when all seems to be lost, when science has proven to be a poor substitute for religion and we turn our eyes to the skies and wonder who is out there watching us. A show about faith at a time when you feel you cannot trust those who have power, in a world where goverments lie and deceive. Mulder and Scully were alone against the world, trying to find an explanation for those things that defied any. They didn´t always succeded. Sometimes they lost faith. But they always had each other. The X-Files wasn´t simply a show about aliens and conspiracies: it was a show about a man and a woman´s Quest. For the knowledge they were denied, for something to believe in, for that Mulder called The Truth. It was a one hell of a ride... and we were there every week with them, us and Mulder and Scully against the world, sharing the adventure. There were good times and bad times, times that scared us to death and times that made us laugh... but over all? Thanks for the ride, guys. We wanted to believe.
8 femmes (2002)
Who needs men anyway?
Eight great actresses. One set. And a lot of mysteries and revelations in this fun French movie that is at the same time sharp satire, hilarious crime comedy, and not-so-serious drama.
8 femmes is not so much an Agatha Christie mystery (although at times it seems as if it were), but a study about womanhood... a quite clever an satirical one, with a touch of black humor. Sex, murder, incest, you name it... this little film has it all and more. And although the plot seems awfully forced at times, and the script directionless, it´s still a lot of fun to watch.
The look of the film reinforces the feeling of parody and unreality: it´s bright, colourful, stylish and at times over the top (they even break into song! Ah, Baz Luhrmann would probably love this movie...), but it works perfectly for the film. It feels more like a play than a movie though, and it probably would have been better as such... but I, being for Argentina, am quite happy this got made into a movie anyway... otherwise, I don´t think I would have been able to watch this brillant star cast with some of France´s best actresses: everybody does her best with the material they are given (sadly some of the characters are simply stereotypes lacking depth, but with actresses like these, any flaws in the script are easily forgiven), although of course some shine more than others. Huppert steals the show with a wonderful comedic performance as the bitchy and bitter sister-in-law, Augustine, but Beart, Ardant and Deneuve are a pleasure to watch as well.
So all in all? A very good movie, clever and enjoyable. Could it have been better? Absolutely. It could have easily been brillant. But the movie is flawed and the ending feels forced, and even though some scenes more than make up for it, truth is 8 femmes is a very good movie, but not quite as wonderful as it could have been. 7/10
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Disappointing, but still much better than Episode I
Well, first of all, let me tell you: I was expecting worse. Much worse. So Episode II wasn´t as traumatic as I thought it would be. I´ve never been a huge Star Wars fan, but I do love the original trilogy, so watching Attack of the Clones was something I just had to do, no matter how much I dreaded the outcome.
So, what´s good about it? The visuals are about ten times better than in Episode I. I still think some CG shots are way overdone, but some shots looked incredibly real, so I am willing to forgive Lucas for some not-as-good effects. Also, Ewan McGregor is a breath of fresh air... obviously this is hardly his best performance, but when compared to the rest of the cast, it´s like having the world´s best actor in front of you. The costume design was also brillant (although I missed the craziness of Amidala´s early outfits). And the first chase scene in the city, though almost shamelessly stolen from movies like The Fifth Element and Blade Runner, was still a pleasure to watch.
But sadly, the bad elements still outnumber the good ones: to start with, I guess I should just state the obvious: Anakin Skywalker is a complete disaster. Note I won´t say Hayden (who´s full name I can´t remember, sorry) can´t act... I am well aware that Lucas is not exactly an actor´s director, and is never as focused on the performances as others. Besides, he wasn´t always all that bad... I´ll admit that evil glare he has in his eyes at one point in the movie is perfectly chilling. Problem is that lasts about three or four seconds... and this movie is a *bit* longer than that.
Natalie Portman wasn´t exactly at her best, but still much more convincing than her co-star... the complete lack of chemistry between the two of them didn´t help, though. And this brings me to my next point...
The writing. It´s... well... how to say this... BAD. The SW trilogy has never been a Shakespeare play, but still... it gives you the idea Lucas is so in love with his new CG toys that he has forgotten about a certain little thing called "plot". Not to mention another thing called "believable character development".
But still, over all Episode II was rather enjoyable, despite everything. Had some enjoyable sequences, some funny moments and Ewan McGregor, beard or not, is still a pleasure to see. Let´s just hope things get better for Episode III, because I will be watching it. Can´t promise I´ll like it, but at least I´ll try. ...
Oh, and the fight scene between a certain old Jedi and Christopher Lee´s character? That part was simply too much for me, and I have now lost all respect for Master Yoda... who now I´ll just call "the little green thing with the big lightsaber" (my friend´s words, not mine).
(5/10)
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Confessions from a Jude Law fan...
First of all, I have a confession to make: I don´t watch war movies. I am just your average movie-loving 18 year-old female who only rented this film because Jude Law was in it. I did not watch Saving Private Ryan mainly because I don´t like war movies, and it looked overly violent for my taste. I have no doubts that it´s one of the best war movies ever made and that this one doesn´t even come close, blah, blah, blah (as the 200 or so comments before me so clearly state), so if you choose not to take this humble review into account because I am just a young girl who was probably too busy drooling all over the main actor to pay attention to the plot, then it´s your choice. But personally, I like to think that both my distaste for war movies and my love for Jude Law are a good thing when it comes to this movie, as it helped me watch it without being constantly comparing it to other similar films (and in the case of Jude Law, well, it helped me watch it in the first place, and for that I am grateful!).
The thing I loved the most was the "feel" of the movie. Some say the pacing was slow; I say it wasn´t. Come on, spending hours and hours paying cat and mouse with your enemy can´t be like a day at the circus, and I like the fact that it was more than just pointless action - which is what Hollywood loves doing. - The cinematography was GREAT, as was the direction... I am not familiar with the director of this movie, but something tells me I should be. It´s actually refreshing after so many dreadful Hollywood movies to find a director who actually understands that there is more to the task that just following the actors around. The images are incredibly powerful - and not just because of the cinematography and the work of the director, but also because of the acting.
I knew Law, Fiennes and Harris could act. And yes, I even knew Weisz could act as well (her small role in Sunshine opossite the older Fiennes, Ralph, was certainly memorable). So I can´t claim that the actors were a surprise. I had no problems at all with the lack of accents... as another reviewer said, if they wanted realism, they wouldn´t have Russian characters speaking in English, accented or not. My only problem with the casting was that Jude Law was simply too handsome for the role. I doubt men could look that good in the middle of a war! (same must be said for Weisz sadly... Yes, she was hardly glamorous in this film, but still I refuse to believe that female soldiers looked like that)
Law and Harris´ game of cat and mouse dominates the film... the suspense is very well done, and it´s indeed amazing how some of the movie´s most memorable scenes are achieved without a single line of dialogue. Harris´ role is not that of your typical Nazi... it´s quite refreshing to see that he is actually human, and not just a two dimensional villain (see standard Hollywood filmmaking).
Fiennes´role as Vassili´s friend, the intellectual Danilov - who certainly knew how to play dirty for an idealist if you ask me - was not as important as Law´s, but it was certainly equally (or even more) interesting. Sadly,
the main weakness of the script lies in that his motivations are never quite clear. If Danilov works, it´s because of Joseph Fiennes - who already showed audiences he was an excelent actor in his memorable Lord Robert from Elizabeth and the title character from Shakespeare in Love -. Fiennes role goes from best friend to traitor to hero... and sadly the transition does not run smoothly. The ending just screams "plot hole!" and it´s not quite satisfing, although Law and Fiennes acting is flawless in their last scene together.
So all in all? No, it´s not perfect, and no, it´s not the best movie ever, but does that mean it´s bad? Hell, no! On the contrary, it´s a very good movie, beautifully filmed, very well acted and a breath of fresh air if you ask me. And if anybody says "oh, Pearl Harbor was better" I´ll have to shot myself (or shot them, I have yet to decide it).
Oh yes, and if you were wondering: yes, I still think Jude Law is hot (although Joseph Fiennes is not half bad himself!)
A Knight's Tale (2001)
Hardly original
No, no, no... What was that?! Take a good looking hero, a pretty princess who behaves like a 90s girl even though she lives in the Middle Ages (or late middle ages, or god knows when, since the movie mixes up so many references from different time periods it´s obviously impossible to tell for sure), a violent sport, an evil villain, cool sidekicks and a conventional plot, and you have "A Knight´s Tale": simple formula, that´s for sure.
Ledger is actually quite good in the leading role, although the part obviously doesn´t help in showing his acting talents (that is assuming he has any... from his work in "Ten things I hate about you" and "The Patriot" I´d say he does).
Sossamon on the other hand, is a complete disaster. I don´t know whether to blame the poorly-written character she was stuck with, the work of the director, the HORRIBLE costumes or just the actress... but the result was dreadful anyway. Jocelyn was flar, uninteresting and just plain boring.
Rufus Sewell´s Count Adhemar is also flat, and the way he kept glaring at Heath Ledger reminded me too much of Joaquin Phoenix´s character in Gladiator, although Sewell´s villain in nowhere as entertaining and ambiguous as Phoenix´s was.
The sidekicks on the other hand are the only thing that could redeem this movie: the lighthearted humor Mark Addy, Alan Tudyk, Laura Fraser and specially Paul Bettany (who plays Geoffrey Chaucer wonderfully) bring to the movie are the only thing that make "A Knight´s Tale" remotely entertaining. They are like the gang that used to follow Hugh Grant in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" but in the Middle Ages, and the result is oddly amusing.
So in short? Thank god the movie doesn´t take itself too seriously (well, at least not most of the time), otherwise it would have been a disaster: this way it´s a silly, yet entertaining movie, with a predictable plot but a couple of good laughs thrown in. Let´s hope Ledger chooses roles more wisely from now on, as he obviously has the charisma to play leading man... if only he´d play an *interesting* one in the future! 6/10
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
As GRAND as it gets...
Wild. Excessive. Cliched even... but, oh so fun! This movie is a feast for the eyes and ears, a completely insane production full of romance, laughs, melodrama and some of the finest pop tunes from the 80s and early 90s, all together... Ewan McGregor is absolutely fantastic as an innocent and overly sentimental lovesick puppy (who knew the guy could sing like that?!), and Nicole Kidman´s cold beauty mirrors that of the leading ladies of old Hollywood. The direction, costume design, cinematography and musical numbers are to die for... it´s wild, it´s crazy and at times absolutely hillarious (highlights? Think "Like a Virgin" sang by a fat old man with a riddiculous moustache or an Argentinian mixing tango by Mariano Mores with Sting´s Roxanne). I can´t promise you that you´ll like this film... there´s a good chance you´ll absolutely despise it. But there´s also a chance that you´ll enjoy it inmensely and will get out of the movie threater singing "The hills are alive with the sound of music" at the top of your lungs... just watch it, and then you´ll tell me ;)