Reviews

Lars Von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most beautiful films I've seen in recent years. Though it divided a lot of the critics and public, which called the film "manipulative" and "over-dramatic", I believe this is a film that makes perfect sense in the oeuvre that Von Trier has been creating over the years (and as far as I am concerned is one of his best films, with "Europa", "Breaking the Waves" and "Dogville"). The acting, particularly by Bjork is painfully real and simultaneously magical - she manages to express the fear that her character feels but also the magic (which she imbues in the music numbers). The film manages to balance two different components extremely well: on one side the realistic side of the daily life of the characters, inside the factory (which is also highlighted by the cinematography - digital video at it's best) and the wonderful musical numbers choreographed by Vincent Patterson. The music is simply beautiful and you can truly see the artistry of Bjork and her co-producer Mark Bell at work here - the music starts from sounds that are present in the environment where she is (the factory, the railway). This is a film that I highly recommend, for it's sheer beauty and artistry.

I saw "Melinda and Melinda" recently and I think the title that I posted states the feeling that I had from watching it: it's an accomplished and well done film, but it doesn't add much to the work of Woody Allen. I've been a fan of Woddy Allen since my teens and unlike many comments that I've read that states he hasn't done a good film since "Crimes and Misdemeanors", in 1989, I believe that from his latest output the weakest has been "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion". The 90's saw an incredible amount of masterpieces by the master - "Alice", "Husbands and Wives", "Everyone says I love You", "Deconstructing Harry", and even those not mentioned (like "Shadows and Fog", "Bullets over Broadway", "Mighty Aphrodite", "Celebrity", "Sweet and Lowdon"), were all accomplished works that stand in his body of work. "Melinda and Melinda" ends up being a return to all the themes that Woody Allen has focused on his work: the difficulty of relationships, how tragic and comic sides of life can happen simultaneously, but in this case he takes them in two separate lines (at times it feels like watching "September" and "Everyone ..." simultaneously). The film ends up recycling some situations that Allen has previously probed with a lot more meaning, but you can't help smiling and enjoying this film. The actors, particularly Radha Mitchel excel in their roles. This proves that the universe of the director isn't worn out - he's just finding new ways of presenting it, and even though you may feel this one isn't the peak, it shows that the path is leading up to it.

Constantine is another of the current trend of adapting all comic book characters to the screen. The funny thing about adapting comic books is the fact that most of the times the characters come out as dense as a piece of paper (which reminds the terrible "Batman and Robin", by Joel Schumacher or "Daredevil" by Mark Steven Johnson). Sometimes however you actually have an adventure film, that boasts a great look and also something besides image trickery ("Batman" by Tim Burton is the best example, for there you have characters with some density, motivations, inner conflicts). "Constantine" is a good example of an entertaining film, that doesn't have much pretensions and therefore it's results are quite decent. I personally did not know the comic, and nor do I feel the need to: I went to see the film for it's own merits and I judge it on those premises alone. Francis Lawrence the director has the visual flair of a video-clip director, but without being excessive (Tony Scott and Michael Bay are names that always comes to mind in that department). The look of the film is beautiful, thanks to Philippe Rousselot the french director of photography (he was responsible for "Interview with the Vampire" and "Henry and June"), and the acting is actually not as bad as one might have anticipated. Keanu Reeves manages to infuse some credibility to his part, more so than he has done in so many previous incarnations of his (the most terrible that comes to mind is "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by Francis Coppola). His performance isn't great, but it isn't terrible. The always wonderful Tilda Swinton doesn't have much screen time, but her beauty and talent are on full display when she does appear. Rachel Weisz has an underwritten role as the lady in distress - as a detective I was expecting another kind of character, but her performance is just plain (far from her riskier side in "The Shape of Things" by Neil LaBute). This film ends up being a good entertainment for two hours. It's well written and it's visually engrossing. These days, that's more than you can say about a lot of films on the theaters. Go see it!

Conan is a cult case in Portugal, at least for people who are now around their thirties. Having been broadcast in 1984, it garnered a lot of following and deservedly so (it has been put on sale on DVD the past year - 2004). The story, has most of the themes that populates Miyazaki's work: man as the entity that destroys nature, the conflict between nature and technology, elements that would be developed in features like "Castle in the Sky" or "Princess Mononoke". I've been a fan of Mr. Miyazaki's work for some time now, and that started with Conan (and I personally remember having the cards that were placed on sale at the time it was first shown) - this show was magical, funny and the main character represented a freedom that every kid longs or aims for. The animation nowadays is dominated by computers, but somehow this work is a true classic: you still look at it with awe and amazement, for all the uniqueness that made it so special when it first was shown is still all there. A must see!

I have to start by saying that I've had this film on videotape for so long and have seen it so many times that I believe the tape must be damaged by now. I'm a huge fan of Francis Ford Coppola's films, not only his "Godfather" films, but also what he has produced in the 80's and 90's. "One from the Heart" stands as one of most beautiful and poetic art pieces I've seen, ever. He created an entire world on set, something that resembles Vegas, but that I feel, extends a bit beyond that, someplace where love does exist (and Frederic Forrest and Terri Garr are great, because they do represent the average man and woman that want to surpass their mediocrity and have the dream, represented by the late Raul Julia and the gorgeous Nastassja Kinski). The beautiful score by Tom Waits, and the entire dance acts are so wonderfully entwined, that it's impossible not to feel the taste of real cinema there. The cinematography is stunning and I can only sum this up by saying that this film is an incredible experience to watch. Please do so.

Jane Campion's latest film continues her personal voyage through women's universe, using as backdrop the thriller. It's fascinating to see her previous efforts (from "Sweetie", "An Angel at My Table", "The Piano", "Portrait of a Lady" to "Holy Smoke"), and to realize this one is a wonderful companion piece to all of them. Meg Ryan's character is in the same vein as her previous heroines - women seeking their own space, that find in men an obstacle or an accomplice, seeking the ultimate love that will liberate them. The sexuality here comes as a form of communication and extending their own barriers and touching someone (the longing that Jennifer Jason Leigh's character feels). I found this film beautifully filmed and acted, particularly by all the four leads, the wonderful Meg Ryan, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Kevin Bacon. There's a striking beauty in the way this film was shot, and if for that alone, it should be seen and admired. Since it has so much more and is accomplished in so many other levels, please do see it.

Six Feet Under is quite possibly one of the great shows that television has managed to produce (and it's curious to verify the amazing directing talents that have been put on this show, from Lisa Cholodenko to Michael Cuesta). What strikes me the most about this show is the way it just manages to show the total surreality of life in general and still present it with just enough philosophy to keep you asking all the right questions. After all, if television aims to somehow stretch over and empathize with the viewer, isn't this the best way to do so? To present some truthful situations in environments that aren't necessarily yours. The artists behind this show (credit must be given to Alan Ball, but also the team that manages to pull this whole package, from the actors to writers, everyone), have achieved an amazing accomplishment: they have created a piece of contemporay television that perfectly reflects what reality is without alienating (or for that matter simplifying) the audience that sees it. And that, if for that alone, is already worthy of all the praise there is. Maybe television has been leading us up to this...