Reviews

(The following review is a follow-up on the reviews written for Julian Jarrold's "Red Riding: 1974" and James Marsh's "Red Riding: 1980"; for further info on the Red Riding trilogy and content related to the series' continuity, read the other reviews before this one.) The excellent Red Riding trilogy has finally come to a close...and it went out with quite a bang! Anand Tucker helms the final film, "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1983" and does a pitch-perfect job of joining the two previous films, solving up most of the enigmas that had been ignored, and closing the circle. Tucker is a master at his characters' catharses and at carefully observing and commenting on the infinitely heartbreaking human characteristics of revenge, redemption and atonement. Tucker concludes Jarrold and Marsh's films in this way: he extracts Jarrold's poignancy from "1974" and Marsh's intelligence from "1980", mixes them and adds his own masterful touch while tying the loose ends of each film's plots. The result is, as I've said before, an excellent closure to this harrowing series and a very satisfying finale.

The film returns to 1974, and the opening scene shows us the corrupt and darkly evil group of villains we've already come to know assembled in a country estate, including Harold Angus (Jim Carter), the seedy police superintendent, and Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey), the mysteriously cryptic and detached crime investigator. The child murders we saw in the first film are only just being discovered by the police, and their shady dealings with John Dawson (Sean Bean) are beginning to be discussed. Then the film shifts us to the year 1983, where attorney John Piggott (Mark Addy) is being commissioned to appeal for the killer of the three girls, whom his family believes to be innocent (and secretly, so do we).

The film dangerously shifts between 1974 and 1983 without letting the viewer know. At first we're confused to see so many characters who're supposed to be dead already involved in present-time events, but as the film goes along it is all explained. Tucker is interested not in the chronology of events or making sense out of the twisted plot...after all, what sense can ever be extracted from such base crime and corruption? We eventually manage to sort the plot out, and by then we just KNOW that no matter whether the events make sense or not, the depravity and evil behind it all can never explain itself to our consciences. Tucker digs deeper into the Yorkshire murders than Jarrold and Marsh could because he can play with all of the characters from the previous two films, giving us everybody's side of the story, everyone's point of view and every person's true face (as opposed to the mask they've been painting all along). And the new character (Piggott, the attorney) who we've only come to know is such an ambiguous, flawed and relatable character that (even through his weak points) he becomes the most human character of the film. Piggott leads the investigation taking place in 1983 and Maurice Jobson leads a covert investigation back in 1974 parallel to Eddy Dunford's (but obviously laden with a corrupt agenda).

Once again, the film builds a steady tension that reaches unbearable heights as each minute passes on, as as the answers to all the questions we had are revealed to us, we can't help but lift our hands to our mouths and stare open-eyed at the horror behind the truth. The first two films dealt with one person trying to expose the guilty murderers and crime lords; this film is about the murderers and members of the Force seeing how they can cover up their footprints, how they can redeem themselves from tainted consciences, and how they can go on living while internal disagreements arise. And Anand Tucker, who has shown us with films like "Hilary and Jackie" and "Shopgirl" that he's a master at exploiting guilt and internal conflict, makes the most of his characters and blows them up from the inside out.

I can't say anything about the ending without spoiling everything for you, but I WILL say that the series couldn't have ended better. I saw these films on DVD, in the comfort of my bedroom, and as soon as "1983" was over I felt like jumping to my feet and clapping my heart out. I'll never tire of repeating this: I am amazed! Overwhelmed, really.

I've recently heard that Ridley Scott's been taken into consideration to direct an American film which joins this trilogy into one full-length feature. That is just ridiculous. These three films put together amount to over FOUR hours and a half, and not a minute is wasted in any of them. Trying to summarizing this will take out the POINT of it all, and is sure to be a flop (after all, there's a reason why the British made this into a trilogy). I seriously recommend you see this before the USA releases its own reduced version. This is as good as trilogies are ever gonna get. Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

(this review is a follow-up on the "Red Riding" trilogy; for previous references, including further information on the trilogy, read the review for Julian Jarrold's "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974") Once again, Yorkshire's Channel 4 and Revolution Films' admirable "Red Riding" trilogy has managed to completely absorb me. The second part of the series is directed by James Marsh (from the exceptionally good documentary "Man on Wire") and here we see how hiring three different directors for each film works to the trilogy's advantage: Julian Jarrold established an emotional basis in "1974" as well as the main characters who sully the British government with unimaginable corruption; his work hovered on poignant emotion, his characters opened our minds to the horror behind the crimes his film exposes...in short, "1974" served as a gritty introduction to what promised to be a fabulously dark series. Now James Marsh takes over with the second film, "1980", in an even grittier and more suspenseful tone.

This second film introduces us to Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine), a criminal investigator who (like Eddy Dunford in the first film) is transferred to Yorkshire to investigate on a series of brutal crimes. This time, Yorkshire has been haunted for over four years with the infamous Jack the Ripper, who's already claimed thirteen victims, all prostitutes, and who has all of England terrified. Unlike Dunford who was an over-excitable but keen rookie, Hunter has ample experience and a very methodical and controlled way about him; we can see he's an expert at what he does and that he has no trouble managing his team and interpreting his information. He's replacing Bill Molloy (Warren Clarke) as the chief criminal investigator of the Yorkshire police (much to the Force's chagrin) and is met with instant dislike from his new co-workers and once again, the ever-cryptic Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey) leaves him on his own, mysteriously distancing himself and reserving any kind of comment.

Unlike Dunford too, Hunter has all the files available to him and is working with the support of the police, which should make his job easier; he's been allowed to assemble his own team, and he includes an agent/old lover of his, Helen (Maxine Peake), on the investigation. He comes to discover that the Yorkshire police is contemptuous of him not only because he's basically taking over their investigation but because, while making his inquiries, he comes into contact with many people involved in the shooting at the Kawasaki club (the place where the denouement of "1974" happens in one of that film's final scenes). Naturally, his involvement with this incident speaks of danger to the corrupt elite of the Force and Hunter will soon find that his life is in danger...and that Jack the Ripper is NOT the greatest of Britain's troubles.

James Marsh does an excellent job. He's not as keen to observe the poignancy behind his characters' emotions, but that may be because his characters aren't meddling rookies but true professionals. Paddy Considine does an excellent job with the lead role; observe how Hunter always keeps his cool, how he gauges each situation and intelligently leads his words into exacting truths from the people- even when the film climbs to nerve-shattering heights, this man seldom fails to control the situation. Even the romantic subplot between Hunter and Helen is very controlled; unlike Dunford and Paula in the first film, the couple here are matured, logical people who rarely let their emotions betray their actions, no matter how much pain we read in their eyes.

The pace of this second film is quicker, too. Here we see Marsh's "Man on Wire" skill over again; scenes roll by quickly, the multi-layered plot twists and turns almost seamlessly, there's rapid-fire dialogue and some very logical, quick-witted analysis of facts...we can see how meticulously well Marsh (and screenwriter Tony Grisoni) worked over the story. That's NOT to say, though, that the film is merely an exercise in plot and story-writing, leaving characterization and emotion completely to the side. No, Marsh uses his characters' personalities, troubles and traumas to move the plot along. Let's just say that this film has a more 'mature' air about it, that it seems more logical and intelligent than the previous one, which means that the horror and suspense will be plot-driven rather than emotion-driven.

Once again, the film starts out with the investigation of gruesome murders but strays into a completely different subject (namely police corruption). This is not a flaw in the film- it wasn't a flaw for the first film either- because this "Red Riding" trilogy is interested in shedding some horrifying light on the nature of corruption; it makes us think about how deeply-rooted it is in our society, how we can't run from it...the murders are the inciting incident, a subplot even. In the first film, Dunford was an inexperienced journalist so the police had little trouble dealing with him; here, they're dealing with one of their own so the stakes are raised. THAT, I think, is what heightens the suspense of it all.

By the end of "1974" and "1980" you'll be more than overwhelmed with the harrowing world you've been introduced to. James Marsh, his cast and his crew do an excellent job with "1980" giving us some of the best crime noir in a long time. I can't wait to see the third and final film! Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

There's a new fashion going about European filmmakers, and it's to hire a great number of important directors to work on the same project: there's "Paris, Je t'Aime" which was a film consisting of various short films by a great number of highbrow artists which, put together, made up a poignant portrait of the city; then there's "Chacun son Cinéma", another film where various vignettes made up a very intelligent view of people's love for cinema; and now we have the "Red Riding" trilogy, which has recently become internationally famous due to its powerful storytelling and harrowing complexity. The "Red Riding" trilogy are three films by three important directors which, put together, explore the shocking truth behind crime and police corruption in Scotland and sheds light on some of England's most bizarre murder cases (including Jack the Ripper). This was a huge project commissioned by Yorkshire's Channel 4 and produced largely by Revolution Studios; it made quite an impact on English viewers, the three films were joined into a 4 hour and a half-long movie in the USA, and is now being released in DVD to critics and audiences' wide acclaim. Intrigued by all the rage, I decided to rent this huge project to watch at home.

The trilogy begins with "1974" directed by Julian Jarrold (in a bold departure from his usual style, like "Brideshead Revisited"). Jarrold, as you may know, is a director who opens up his films in a very slow, meditative pace and methodically gathers up the pace to nerve-shattering intensity. "1974" introduces us to Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) a young investigative reporter working for the Yorkshire news. He's no doubt talented, but is new to the job and, like any excited rookie, is prone to some blunders and is in need of experience. One of his first assignments on the job is to report on the recent death of a ten year-old girl, who was found murdered on a large, abandoned plot of land, dreadfully tortured and featuring a pair of swan wings stitched into her back. Dunford starts investigating and soon finds that this murder may be connected to the murder of two other girls in previous years.

Due to his lack of experience and unduly-channeled zeal, he starts asking very problematic questions and meets opposition from most of his co-workers, including investigation leader Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey). He gets involved in a couple of miscarried interviews and draws attention upon himself...but learns from his mistake. Little by little, he starts putting the pieces together and ends up with a dumbfounding web of police corruption, high-level crime involvement, an unexpected lover (Rebecca Hall) who's linked to his investigation and who seems to be keeping some information from him, and some very powerful enemies including a corporate magnate (Sean Bean), who's presence itself is more than fearful.

Jarrold has really outdone himself. The web is spun with countless twists and intrigues and as the minutes run by, you can't help but be fascinated and scandalized at the kind of events unfolding. The film explores Dunford's character in depth (and Andrew Garfield's performance is pitch-perfect) but far from only being an exercise in character development, the film excels at commenting on the horror of corruption. This is a psychological thriller, and the terror behind the plot lies on how deep this corruption runs; it forces the viewer to accept the fact that we are alone when our safety and protection are involved, and that the police and government are actually the ones behind the atrocious murders we so frequently read about in the papers. Dunford will eventually find himself alone, fighting against (or running from) the highest powers of his country. As intelligent viewers we're tempted to inhabit the story and walk into Dunford's shoes...to extremely frightful conclusions.

The story is excellent. Based on David Peace's renowned crime noir novels, the screenplay by Tony Grisoni is practically flawless. Adrian Johnston's score is (once again) both sublime and haunting, and Rob Hardy's cinematography is some of the best I've seen this year. The acting is very good too (especially Garfield, who day by day shows me he's bound to be one of Hollywood's best one of these days). There are some scenes especially that will be etched into your memory perhaps forever: notice, for instance, the two meetings Dunford has with John Dawson (the character played by Sean Bean), first in his car and then in Dawson's private club. These scenes are the work of an expert and are so flawlessly executed you KNOW they're bound to be dissected and thoroughly analyzed in some film school This is only the beginning of what the trilogy promises to be a revelatory, intelligent work of art. It MAY have some flaws, but they most certainly can be overlooked. I can't wait to see the other two films; "Red Riding" has become my new addiction.

Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

There's something I really enjoy about films focusing on dysfunctional families and it's the fact that it leaves a lot of room for character development...and character development, it must be said, is one of the principal decisive factors for a great movie. Most independent films nowadays thrive on this, as a matter of fact; and, I mean, who doesn't enjoy a movie that works as a character study where the main character is as round as can be? Where his convictions and manner of thinking come full circle and are affected by the events unfolding on screen? Raymond de Felitta's latest "City Island" is exactly that: a film that functions because of its characters and not because of the events. I can imagine film buffs and film students dissecting this movie from head to toe in the attempt of deeply analyzing the character changes within.

The movie deals with Vince Rizzo (Andy Garcia), a prison guard whose life seems stagnant and uneventful. Vince lives in City Island, a colorful adhesion to Brooklyn, a small fishing city where there's a distinct line between the natives and the outsiders, and where the natives are VERY willing to establish their power and domain over the sea-kissed land. To save himself from utter boredom from his dysfunctional family, Vince moonlights as an actor, taking classes from a politically incorrect teacher (Alan Arkin) and trying to audition for his first role on a Martin Scorsese film alongside with Robert De Niro. Vince is an exceptional character: he wouldn't look out-of-place in "The Godfather"; he has the accent, the slang, the moves and the motivation. He looks like some dude from a gangster movie, but he's actually a good-hearted man who cares for his family (even though it takes some analyzing to discover this), who's mild as a prison guard, and who reads Woolf's "Orlando" while nobody's watching him. He's just like any other human being: born to play the role he's living but having trouble adapting to his true life.

His wife, Joyce (Julianna Marguiles) is a phone operator who feels her life as the expected suburban wife to be too much to handle. She lives up to her role as the Italian-American wife but her sturdy, metallic personality hides a deeper, more poignant desire to outstand. Vince's two teenage children are your typical, troubled and confused kids: there's Vince Jr. (Ezra Miller), who's infatuated with terribly obese girls, and Vivian (Dominik Garcia-Lorido, Andy Garcia's true daughter) who's been kicked off her university scholarship and now works as a seedy stripper to pay off her school tuition. One day Vince discovers Tony (Steven Strait) just got into prison for grand theft auto and immediately recognizes him to be his son from a past flame; Tony has filed for parole, but he has no family to accept the responsibility, so Vince takes him into his home (without revealing his true identity as his father) in an attempt to establish a bond. Along comes Molly (Emily Mortimer), who Vince meets in his acting class, and she becomes his confidante, sharing all of his secrets and smooth-talking him into accepting his responsibility.

What follows is a little over an hour and a half of hilarious events that make Vince and his family come full circle into accepting each other (with their respective quirks) and maturing. The acting is pitch-perfect: Andy Garcia and Julianna Marguiles shine in their respective hard-headed roles which must come to terms with each other by the end of the film. Like I said before, De Felitta listens and ponders his characters to perfection, and the actors carry out their performances to a tee.

There's a scene which makes the audience ponder: Alan Arkin is teaching his acting students that pauses are unnecessary when acting and that a character should not pause when delivering his lines but rather make them come out as a spontaneous reaction to the screenplay. Vince listens to the advice with interest but soon learns, via the poignant events he's undergoing with his family, that pausing to reflect upon what is being said is the ONLY way to effect a perfect symbiosis between the character and the actor's personality; his pausing to reflect on his character will eventually lead to one of the most interesting casting sessions he'll ever have.

The movie's straight-out hilarious. There's two scenes overall (a scene early on where the entire family's having a family dinner and a final cathartic scene where all the truths are discovered) that are flat-out outrageous...but it's the actors' control over their characters and their skillful performances that raise the story out of common melodrama and comedy into something resonant of greatness.

The film has its flaws: for one, it's slightly uneventful and (apart from Garcia's and Marguiles' characters) many of the characters achieve a rapid and unsatisfactory catharsis. This can all be overlooked, though, because De Felitta aims his movie to be a character study rather than a successful exercise in plot. Besides, the film's somewhat dark and intelligent comedy is very refreshing and is bound to have you entertained for quite a while.

The score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek (a favorite composer of mine) is also very good. If you're familiar with Kacmarek's scores ("Finding Neverland", "Unfaithful", "Evening") you'll know that his music is somewhat heart-breaking, reflective and poignant. To have one such score as a background to the seriously funny events and dialogue going on screen is nothing short of satirical and genius and one can't help but appreciate the finer point it makes.

See the movie. You're bound to have a good time. Rating: 3 stars out of 4!

Wow. I really mean it, WOW. A Hollywood blockbuster that doesn't only deliver action and special effects galore, but which also has a perfect screenplay, enough depth and which raises enough moral questions. A film which adventure/thriller lovers worldwide will praise for years to come and which critics are hailing as this year's best film (so far). Who would ever have thought that such a commercial film could pack such a punch? Yes, I am talking about Christopher Nolan's recent "Inception"...so it makes sense, doesn't it? Perhaps the only mainstream director who can actually make intelligent Hollywood thrillers (let's not forget 2008's "The Dark Knight" which will live on for eternity), he continues to live up to his name.

As we've seen from his previous films ("Memento", "Insomnia" and "The Dark Knight"), Nolan excels at playing with his audience's minds and twisting the story to such complex but perfectly understandable depths that we can't help but marvel and be awed. This is one such film, which I'm sure will prompt film lovers to sit for hours in cafés and restaurants discussing the plot and which, try as they might, won't have a flaw to its name. It takes place in a very near future, where the ability to link two or more people while they sleep merges their dreams and creates an alternate reality. In their dreams, these people can imagine and live out fictional adventures which might never be possible...but they can also unconsciously reveal their deepest secrets. There's a secret agent Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is known for his complex imagination and for being able to wrestle any hidden truth while jointly controlling their dreams; he's being hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe), the CEO for a huge company which seeks to control most of the world's energy resources. The only thing standing in Saito's way is Fischer (Cillian Murphy), his greatest competitor's son, who's about to inherit his father's entire corporation.

Saito approaches Cobb with the task of performing an 'inception' on Fischer. An 'inception' is when someone enters a person's subconscious via their dreams and plants an idea within, thereby changing their thoughts and tampering with their will. What Cobb is being hired to do is to mess with Fischer's thoughts and dreams and to incite him into breaking up his father's corporation; in return, Saito will use his contacts to free Cobb of the erroneous charge of murdering his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), thereby permitting him to return to the U.S.A. to live with his kids again. To do such a complicated procedure as 'inception', Cobb enlists the help of his right-hand man (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a talented dream architect (Ellen Page), a wise forger (Tom Hardy) and a respected anesthesiologist (Dileep Rao), but he'll find that so many different imaginations pose a veritable threat to all their sanities including his own, which is plagued by the memory of Mal and her fictional appearance in all their dream sequences that aim to destroy their plan.

To try and explain the plot in more detail is absolute madness; it's so complicated and multi-layered that I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble making sense of the entire mélange. But unlike other films whose complexity leads to their downfall, "Inception" is enriched by it and the audience doesn't find too much trouble in understanding it all as the film goes along. Audiences and critics alike have called it "mind-blowing" and, believe me, that's just THE right word to describe this feat. You'll feel dizzied and disoriented for many hours after the film's over because it deals with so many levels of consciousness and dreams, it poses so many existential questions and it furiously toggles between reality and imagination where we're dragged to question our own realities and our own convictions.

Like any other Hollywood film, it's packed with almost non-stop action, thrills and special effects, but the intelligent dialogue, the excellent characterization and the frequent twists and turns always keep it interesting. It's one of those movies where the suspense grabs hold of you since the very first scene and doesn't let go until the credits start to roll. It has Nolan's name and reputation stamped out all over it, and even being close to three hours long, it's so fast paced you won't notice time fly by (it feels no more than an hour long). Simply stated, this movie reminds us why we like to go to the multiplex, why we love the movies: it's both artistic and entertaining.

All of the acting is superb (I mean, just look at the long list of A-list stars it has, including Oscar nominees DiCaprio, Watanabe, Page and Oscar winners Cotillard and Michael Caine). The cinematography is perfect, the ominous score shatters your nerves, the production design is the stuff of dreams and the screenplay (its best asset by far) is as original and refreshing as they come. We're already in the middle of August and so far I must agree with what is being proclaimed around the world: that this is the best movie of the year so far! See it! I can't stress this enough. Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

If there's a director that everyone should admire and respect it's Roman Polanski (admire him for his work, I mean, not his shady past). He's given us some of the best films ever like "Chinatown", "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Pianist". With each new film he manages to blow our minds away and prove that good cinema isn't dead but flourishes distinctly under the touch of his mastery. His new film, "The Ghost Writer" has become an instant hit with critics and audiences alike and takes its place now along Polanski's arsenal of intriguing, extremely intelligent works of art. That he managed to direct, co-write and co-produce the film while being kept under house arrest because of his age-old rape charge is no small feat; even if he was forbidden to leave his home, he managed to orchestrate the film to perfection, and every scene, every line has that Polanski touch we've come to love and expect.

The film is based on Robert Harris' ("The Silence of the Lambs") novel. It deals with a ghost writer (Ewan McGregor), a man who is hired by publishing houses to finish and edit novels for other people with no credit to his name. The ghost is hired by Rhinehart Publishing to finish the memoirs of a famous former British Prime Minister, Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), a great political figure who has come to the end of his term and whose memoirs have been long-expected by the public. Lang isn't a very good writer, and his right-hand man, who had been editing and perfecting his memoirs, died in a mysterious ferry incident a few days ago. The ghost visits Lang on Rhinehart's small château in the U.S. (where Lang is currently vacationing until the completion of his book) and stays with him and the two women who manage his affairs: his efficient, secretive assistant Amelia Bly (Kim Cattrall) and his sharp, activist wife Ruth (Olivia Williams).

Upon his arrival, the ghost is treated to very private, somewhat discomfiting scenes of Lang's private life that give him an edge and an insight into Lang's life; he thinks he knows how to complete the book and becomes very involved in discovering anything about Lang's past that might embellish the book and give it more depth. But all of a sudden, Lang is being investigated by the International Court of Law for various alleged war crimes and he must flee to Washington to take cover; the ghost is left at the beach house retreat to work on the book, where he discovers a variety of disturbing information and clues concerning Lang's past that may just directly tie him to some of the cruelest war crimes ever committed. Not only that, but the deeper he digs (obviously), the deeper his life is in danger.

Yes, it's a suspense thriller with heavy political references. It's the kind of story that reminds us of Joel Schumacher's "The Client" or Tony Gilroy's "Michael Clayton"...and much like the aforementioned films, it grasps our attention from the very first scene and never lets us go until the end credits are over. It also reminds me of "Rosemary's Baby" in the way that although the plot is fairly slow it never really feels like it, and also in the way the suspense builds very slowly but VERY surely, to the point where we're literally sweating and anxiously scratching the filling out of the tortured pillow in our grasps. Few films (and few directors) can manage to give us that nowadays. This year, only Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" and this film have done it.

Not only is the screen writing perfect, but the other elements of the film are practically flawless. McGregor plays the ghost to near-perfection, as a confident man who takes on 'just another job' and ends up scared out of his wits and fighting for his life. Brosnan and Olivia Williams are edgy and witty as ever in their political roles and they deliver some of the most audacious lines in the film. Alexandre Desplat's score compliments the plot and heightens the suspense to sky-high levels; the cinematography is excellent, much like the editing. Basically, it's one of those films where, try as you might, you CAN'T find a thing to condemn. And it's also one of those cases where a famous director delivers once more and our love for his work remains in high value.

By the way, the Oscars usually love political thrillers, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see this film short-listed for next year's Academy Awards; and it should be so. I mean, there's something about a good political thriller that rings true to us: even if the story's pure fiction, there's enough corruption and shady doings by powerful government representatives to keep us aware that it's all happening in our countries.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

Step over, "The Godfather". Move a bit to the side, "Goodfellas". The world has found a new contemporary classic to name THE best crime movie ever...and it's not an American film, you know. It's Jacques Audiard's "A Prophet" which (having come out only a year ago) has already established itself as a perennial classic and as a gang movie that will be remembered for ages to come. It's not like Coppola's "The Godfather" or Scorsese's "Goodfellas" will move on to oblivion, no; they remain in their altars, but "A Prophet" manages to take the mafia genre to new, modern heights and an equally or more profound level of storytelling. It's that kind of a film you're extremely thankful to have watched before dying.

It takes place in a French prison. Malik (Tahar Rahim) has just turned 19 and must be moved from a juvenile penitentiary to complete the remainder six years of his sentence in a gritty, high-security jailhouse where the most dangerous gangs orchestrate their outside shady deals. He's an arab, which means that he comes into instant trouble with the French-borns, and being but a sapling to the overgrown lawn of crime, he is in need of protection and maturity if he expects to survive; not only that but he hardly knows how to read and write, so he's basically screwed.

Upon his arrival, his lack of social skills and obvious alienation drive Luciani (Niels Arestrup), a crime boss of the French-Italian mafia, to take interest in young Malik. There's a new Muslim recruit who threatens to give Luciani trouble with the kind of information he has, so this guy must be taken out as quick as possible, but none of Luciani's prison gang can kill him; they need an inside guy, someone who can get close to the Muslim without exciting the attention of the Arabs. Malik is perfect for the job.

Luciani tasks Malik with killing the dangerous arab, and in exchange he'll protect the sapling and, well, won't kill him. Malik undertakes the job and therein encounters his commencement into a many-layered, complexly nuanced world of crime which his avid mind is only too keen to absorb. The film follows Malik's progression into Luciani's gang and his painful, discomfiting maturity from a naive human being into a drug-trafficking, coldly-calculating and VERY intelligent crime war boss. I can't even explain more about the plot; it would a) give out too many spoilers, and b) destroy my poor brain trying to write some sense into the heavily complicated plot (complicated to explain, by the way, NOT complicated to understand). It's one of those stories where you begin out by trying to sort-out and predict the events and outcomes, but there's a point where it all overwhelms you and there's nothing to do but sit back and watch in wonder and the utter perfection of the screenplay.

Jacques Audiard has outdone himself. This is the first Audiard film I see, but I've read that with it he's reached a maturity level he never could have hoped to accomplish with his previous films. I need to watch them to form my own analysis, but there's no doubt that Audiard has eased his way into my list of Most Respected Directors; this is a film which shatters your nerves and never cares to reassemble them. The DVD's been off for ten minutes and I can't stop running my hand through my head in stupefaction.

The mafia has always been a disturbing topic, and one which appeals to audiences worldwide because of the unimaginable web of corruption it reveals. "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas" did an excellent job exposing us to the blood-paved, double-timing world of crime, but "A Prophet" presents it to us in the grittiest, most horrifying way possible; not only that, but it carefully and poignantly studies the transformation of the human being from a 'normal' person into a crime machine. The character of Malik is a character which not only film lovers will remember and ponder upon, but it's a perfectly analytic sociological dissection of the nature of corruption (both social and psychological) and the dog-eat-dog situation we're born in. The prison the film takes place in is an allegorical microcosm of the lives we lead; the blood, the violence, the cruelty, the painful maturity...EVERYTHING is the same to the lives we lead, everything but the prison walls.

THIS is the kind of film every human being should watch. It's expertly-made, every technical aspect is perfect (especially the cinematography and Alexandre Desplat's suspenseful score), the dialogue and screenplay couldn't possibly be better and, most importantly, it'll have you thinking and thinking for many time to come. It's called "A Prophet" because of some visions Malik sometimes has concerning future events and because, like a prophet, he came into the prison silently proclaiming an eventual change of power. For me, it's also called "A Prophet" because it paints a horribly true portrait of the eventual dehumanization of men and the spread of social corruption in our youngsters' minds. Put any teen or young adult you may know into Malik's shoes and see if the resulting thoughts don't scare the living hell out of you. Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

"She'll stop at nothing," reads the ominous tagline on the poster of Bong Joon-ho's latest cinematic triumph "Mother". I remember seeing Bong's thriller "The Host" (the one filmed documentary-style where a giant octopus threatens a city) and I didn't think much of him as a director; sure, the movie was interesting and thrilling enough, but it didn't make it great or memorable. One year afterwards he turns up with "Mother" and quickly establishes himself among the greatest and most respected of foreign directors. I mean, how can I sufficiently give honor and credit to such an intelligent film? In one year, Bong has managed to mature cinematically and challenge audiences worldwide with a film that's deep, VERY thrilling, intelligent to a tee and indubitably important.

The film's short title and its ominous tagline tells us a bit about the plot: obviously, it's about a mother who'll stop at nothing. Duh. The mother in the film is nameless, perhaps so we can identify with her and her unending quest. Played to perfection by Kim Hye-ja, she's an over-protective, extremely affectionate woman who sells a variety of herbs and medicinal plants and who performs acupuncture to her rich customers on a South Korean city of no name. Her son, Do-joon (Won Bin) is one step away from retarded, mild-mannered and all-around silly; we fail to identify with him at the beginning and go as far as to condemn his passiveness. In his stupidity, he hangs around with a local tough guy named Jin-tae, who's his best friend, and who accompanies him to the local country club to collect stray golf balls whom Do-joon plans to offer as a gift to a girl he likes. From the beginning scenes where a car runs over Do-joon and Jin-tae goads him into wrecking the culprit's car on revenge, we know their friendship is flawed and the latter can do nothing but lead the poor retard on a wrong path.

Well, it so happens that one night Do-joon gets drunk and, as he goes back home to his worrying mother, he follows a girl down a seedy path looking to have sex with her. She ignores him and he returns home, as planned...but on the following morning, the girl is found dead on a rooftop and one of Do-joon's golf balls is found near the scene of the crime. The police guesses he's guilty, they present him with a document where he pleads guilty which the silly Do-joon signs in his naïveté. Having accepted the guilt for the crime, he's imprisoned, much to the rage of his affable mother. She knows him better than anyone and is SURE he's not guilty, but the police won't hear otherwise, and she has no money to entice a lawyer into thoroughly investigating the case. So, like any concerned mother, she starts playing detective around town trying to solve the mystery behind the girl's death so she can acquit her son. But as truth after disturbing truth is uncovered, our protagonist finds that 'she'll stop at nothing' to save her son's freedom.

The film shines. The many technical aspects (such as the muted, ominous score, the perfect editing and the cinematography) aid in making this an interesting experience, but the REAL triumph behind the movie is a) the clever screenplay and b) Kim Hye-ja's flawless acting. First, the plot thickens and thickens to insurmountable depths, and it leaves virtually no plot-holes; it's a well-devised mystery unlike any I've recently seen. And second, Kim's performance of a cunning, methodical, calculating mother truly deserves an Oscar nod. Every second she's on screen she turns up the thrills. We can't help rooting for this enraged mother trying to protect her son, even as the mystery leads her deeper into a web of violence and murder, and the depth she gives to her character alone make the goings-on all the more nerve-shattering.

I can't say more about the plot because I might give away some spoilers, but trust me when I say every single scene, every single character counts, and Bong Joon-ho has gone meticulously through the film to present us one of the most exciting thrillers ever. John Powers from Vogue calls it "darkly funny", and I have to agree. Even though it is a detective thriller, it's enriched with some VERY dark comedy (seasoned with cinematic irony and social commentary) that will have you meditating on the absurd nature of crime scene investigations. Not only does the movie present you with a swell story, but it touches on themes such as crime, prostitution, no-secrets towns, the stupidity of our youngsters and, most importantly, the zealous nature of mothers towards their sons. Few films manage to exact surprised laughs from us at the same time that it keeps us riveted to the edge of our seats, our minds shattered by what we see.

I recently discovered this was South Korea's official entry for the 82nd Academy Awards last year (2009), and I am enraged to see it wasn't nominated in the end. A film of such power and such depth shouldn't be overlooked, and quite frankly, I'm appalled to see films like "Mother" be snubbed from the Oscars (even Italy's excellent film "Vincere" was snubbed and overlooked for other films like Peru's "La Teta Asustada" which, even though it was very interesting, doesn't reach "Mother" or "Vincere"'s height). "Mother" is a film every thriller-lover should watch, and I can assure you it won't be easily forgotten.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

Noah Baumbach. What can I say? He's a respected filmmaker and one of the funniest, most introspectively intelligent minds of the American Underdog nowadays. His first film, "The Squid and the Whale", became an instant classic back in 2004 when it was released and is still being discussed (and even studied) six years afterwards. His next big release, "Margot at the Wedding" wasn't as successful as his previous feat but managed to take 'serious comedy' to an infinitely profound level, bearing open various veins of social commentary and establishing Baumbach's maturity. It is, therefore, not surprising that his latest film, "Greenberg", was one of 2010's most anticipated independent films, and one which I immediately went to see once it was available in my country. But...what can I say? It's not PRECISELY that Baumbach has failed to uphold his increasingly respected position, but he most definitely has failed at achieving expectations.

The film deals with a man named Roger Greenberg who follows Baumbach's vein of ambivalent characters which makes the audience toggle between adoration and utter loathe; he's the kind of man we admire for his intelligence, wit, and humanity but whom we condemn for his egotistical personality, his tiresome self-centeredness and his somewhat unnerving neurosis. Baumbach's main characters are always people we alternately hate and love and for whom we simply can't come to a conclusion by the end of the film, but Greenberg goes beyond that: he's the kind of character we love to analyze (and we applaud the director for such an original creation), but after the first hour he's tedious to watch. I mean, I KNOW Baumbach meant it to be so, but when 99% of the scenes feature him and his personality-flawed intelligent monologues and dialogues with other ambiguous characters, there comes a point where we simply want it to stop. We lose focus of Greenberg and opt for paying attention to the plot, instead. BUT like every other Baumbach picture, this is a character-based movie and the sparse, slow plot serves mostly as a simple medium through which they can develop their personalities. So what do we get? A film that starts out as possibly the best film of the year and ends up in your checking your watch to see if it's nearly over.

Greenberg (Ben Stiller) is a 40-year old man who basically does nothing (he's a carpenter, but that's sort of like his hobby). When he was young he played in a band with his three best friends, had a good time, but now he's hit a point where he feels challenged by time's constraints. He recently had a nervous breakdown and has only just come out from a short sojourn at a mental institution, so his brother (Chris Messina) lets him stay at his huge house while he and his family take a vacation through the Middle East. Greenberg lived in New York and his brother's house is in Hollywood (his old stomping grounds), so upon his arrival he starts getting in touch with his past friends and acquaintances, including his old 'best friend' Ivan (Rhys Ifans), who has never forgiven him for breaking up the band, and his old 'girlfriend' Beth (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who is now happily married, has kids of her own, and isn't too keen on having Greenberg and his problematic personality back. While staying at his brother's house, he meets Florence (Greta Gerwig), his 25-year old assistant, and starts developing a) a crush on her, b) a certain nostalgia for the past, and c) a sudden reality check on the ridiculously empty road his life has taken him.

Stiller turns in a powerful performance as the egotistical, tiresome but intelligent Greenberg, a man as remarkable as he's quirky. And Gerwig equally shines as the simple-minded, bored and somewhat confused Florence. The best scenes are actually those when they're together, and even though we can't identify ourselves with these characters, even though we're not sure we even LIKE them, we root for them and their growing dysfunctional relationship. Baumbach embellishes the film with his trademark witty dialogue and his modern yet simple plot but, like I said before, there comes a moment when it grows TOO tiresome. Even Stiller's practically flawless acting (his very best, I guarantee it) can't save us from condemning Greenberg.

Also, it's obvious Baumbach wants to raise the bar with each of his films, and we notice that with "Greenberg" he tried to give even more depth and more brilliance to his screenplay and his marvelous characterization. Perhaps he achieves it, but there's a point where we simply don't care anymore. It's like you just KNOW you're watching an important film, but there's no appeal within the characters or within the story to keep us interested. And that's really sad coming from a film that's less than two hours long.

I hear that critics really liked this. I mean, REALLY liked it. I understand them and acknowledge its depth and power but, honestly, I was yawning halfway through. My advice is: see it and see how you like it. Rating: 2 stars and a half out of 4.

I just love allegories. I love the way so much imagination is poured into the re-telling of a story via new material. We all know our history, so we know about Benito Mussolini, Il Duce, and his reign of Fascism over Italy. But we don't know about the adulterous relationship he had with a certain Ida Dalser, who gave birth to his child and who Mussolini, in his unforgivable cold-bloodedness, calmly strived to strip apart. That's what Marco Bellocchio's new film, "Vincere", is all about: it's a historical drama about the woman Mussolini tried so hard to ruin after economically and sexually using her...and it's also a sublime allegory of how he used all of Italy.

Critics worldwide have seen the genius behind portraying Mussolini's reign of terror as a headstrong but powerless woman. Ida Dalser (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) instantly falls under the spell of a young, handsome Mussolini (Filippo Timi). Italy is only beginning to experience the first waves of Socialism, and among those first to rebel against the government is this young man who has a certain power with words; in a scene where he runs away from the police for being involved in a riot, he shields himself behind the curious Ida who stepped out for a look, and passionately kisses her. I mean, Benito is a good kisser, or so he seems to be, because Ida melts in utter passion in his arms while he kisses her and he...well, he's a really good actor too, for he can focus his strength on this steamy kiss at the same time that his full concentration and awareness are scrutinizing the area to see if the police are gone. Sure enough, once they're gone he pushes Ida away and runs without so much as a half-hearted smile...but the kiss was enough for Ida to fall mercilessly in love with him.

In a matter of days, she's stalking him, getting into his fights and showing him glimpses of her crotch which get our all-too human Benito hot for her. The first twenty-something minutes of the film our two main characters spend passionately and intensely going at it. Well, Ida does the passionate part and Mussolini, as I've said before, is a really good actor; while Ida spends her every second in a sexual Nirvana, he is all steam but his stare is distant, serious, no doubt thinking about anything else but the woman coming in his arms. Ida's obsession with the dude takes her as far as selling almost all of her things and giving him all the money so he can establish his own Socialist newspaper. Notice the incredibly sarcastic scene where Ida finally asks Benito to tell her 'I love you.' Mussolini, who at this point of the film hasn't gotten over his hate for Germans, plainly answers 'Ich liebe dich.' But this is an allegory, so here's where the plot thickens. Mussolini just happens to be married, Ida finds out, but he can't move himself to even let her go properly because he's becoming really powerful so he doesn't need her anymore. Ida gives birth to his child, but he couldn't care less. Ida's obsession is so deep, though, that she really starts pestering Benito every living moment she has...and by the time Benito is a 9-year old boy, Ida spills the cup and our villainous dictator sends her to an insane asylum and gives the custody of her son to one of his right-hand men. From here on, it's chaos...both in Italy and on our tragic heroine's life. Just as a side note, the film claims to be based on true events; obviously, the rise of Fascism in Italy IS a true event, but I can't vouch for the verisimilitude of Mussolini's secret lover. I'm ready to believe it, though, because he was such a horrid man that he must've done to thousands of women the very same thing he did to Ida. And not only women: I mean, didn't he screw up millions of people's lives by using them? The film brings the suffering of an entire war-torn country into a very intelligent perspective by allegorizing it into the character of Ida Dalser, and that's more than can be said by any recent historical drama.

Sounds good, doesn't it? The acting is pitch-perfect, especially Mezzogiorno who redeems herself for her atrocious main performance in Mike Newell's "Love in the Time of Cholera" and manages to give us a heart-breaking, poignant, sublime and VERY powerful performance (I wonder why she didn't get an Oscar nod? Academy voters must've definitely been high). We see a woman who has no chance of survival, who'll never see her son again, whose life has been ruined by Italy's most powerful man, but her strength and courage stand true to the very last. The screenplay is VERY good, actually; Carlo Crivelli's score is one of the best scores I've heard in a long time (which sounds like a perfect cross between Philip Glass and Dario Marianelli) and Marco Dentici's cinematography couldn't possibly be better. Also, the film never lags, and it touches on so many levels of human suffering and cruelty, that you can't help but me moved to deeper thought. What more can you ask of a film? See it. Italy has outdone itself this year with such an excellent film. No one in their right minds could possibly be disappointed. Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

Leo Tolstoy. My God, what more is there to be said of such an excellent human being? Not only was he the best writer in Russia, he's quite possibly the best 19th century writer that ever lived. We are all more than acquainted with his two masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina", and we're aware of the Tolstoyan movement he inspired around Europe which fought against private property and based its ideology on love and freedom. But we, the common public, know very little of his private life, especially of his last days which were lived (in their majority) in quiet turmoil at his estate. Michael Hoffman's delightful new film "The Last Station" brings it all into beautiful focus and gives us a deep, troubling but poignant peak at one great man's mind and his discordant relationship with the woman of his life.

In the film, Countess Sofya Tolstoya (played to perfection by Helen Mirren) is a dramatic, outspoken and witty woman who, notwithstanding her devotion to her husband, is against his every ideology. Helplessly she watches as Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) is goaded by his political party to give up his copyrights to the Russian public, releasing all his ideas and works to the ownership of public domain. This would be good, really, and it goes along with Tolstoy's hate for private property, but it would also mean the lost of their family's inheritance and the security of all future well-being of all their children. Tolstoy is a kind, warm-hearted and influential man torn between following the ideals he set for the public and the love and responsibility he has toward his wife.

His best friend, Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) and political leader of his party and virtually all his affairs, loathes Sofya as much as she loathes him, and sees her as the only threat to the Tolstoyan movement; the author's work is constantly delayed and set back because of her influence over him and he seeks to vanquish it. Since he's under house arrest at the beginning of the film, he enlists the help of a visionary, pure yet naive young man, Valentin (James McAvoy), and he employs him as Tolstoy's private secretary. Valentin literally worships the ground the author walks on, and believes whole-heartedly in the movement...but he's so naive and so moved by Tolstoy's words that he makes them his own rather than adhering them to his own thoughts. Valentin moves into a small community near Tolstoy's estate where people live purely under the ideals of the movement, and he's meant to keep a close watch on the celebrated thinker while reporting back to Chertkov any hazardous influence Sofya might exert on him. Little does Valentin know that his pure, naive mind is being infiltrated into the household of a very dysfunctional couple who love each other to death but whose ideals are conflictive (to say the least) and which will end up rocking his world altogether.

The film's plot is relatively slow, and it is driven by the words and decisions each of the characters take. Everyone in the film has the best intentions in mind, but their zeal end up causing unbearable discord. There's Sofya and Masha (Kerry Condom), Valentin's love interest, who question the movement and who appeal to his sentimentality and free thought; there's Chertkov and Sasha (Anne-Marie Duff), Tolstoy's zealous daughter, purists who use cold logic to convince Valentin of the righteousness of the movement; and there's Tolstoy himself, at times partial, at times ambivalent, and they all touch Valentin's life deeply and send his mind into a constant turmoil and shock through which he'll have to come out under his own terms. Michael Hoffman does a very good job of focusing the story on all these characters, having Valentin as the spectator of so many influential minds and of so many private fights; it makes the audience identify with young Valentin and take his place among the storm.

The film's technical aspects are all superb; the lighting, sweeping, luscious cinematography, grand score, perfect costume design, excellent production design all do their share in giving the film its undeniable brilliance. But what makes this film so special, so lasting in our memories, and TRULY worthy of commendation is the acting, especially that of Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer in the lead roles. They've been getting loads of buzz around the world, and they do deserve it. The quality of their acting, their pitch-perfect performance never wavers and gains its force each second of the film, making us wonder at all the talent that's gone into the film. I guarantee Sofya Tolstoya and Leo Tolstoy are going to be roles they'll be remembered for forever.

The only flaw of the film (if urged to find one) is that the intensity of the characters make for too much forced ambivalence on the audience, and we as viewers aren't left with the freedom to take sides or make our own conclusions to the topics and discussions we're treated to. Then again, the importance of the film is basically historical, and I don't think it is Michael Hoffman's point to raise important questions or thoughts in us, but merely to treat us to a poignant shard of this extraordinary man's life.

See it! You can't possibly be disappointed. Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon" is a crude, dark film that haunts you endlessly- and I mean HAUNT in the highest sense of the word. I watched this film last night out of curiosity for the buzz it earned last year at the Golden Globes and the Oscars. As I was watching it I was both enthralled and appalled by how it vividly represented the darkest faults of human behavior, but I failed to consider it a masterpiece (like many other critics are doing). The film was over, I turned the DVD off and was soon asleep. I can't even come close to explaining how much the film haunted my dreams (and still does to this moment); I tossed and turned in my bed all night, my mind thrown into turmoil by the moral implications the film explores and the amount of difficult questions it forces you to face. It's a difficult film to swallow, but it's also a cinematic experience you'll think over for years to come.

The film takes place in a small village in pre-WWI Germany. It is filmed in black and white, and the cinematography is perfect in giving it its aged, depressive feel. The story follows each (or most) of the villagers' lives throughout the year and a number of disturbingly mysterious crimes or 'accidents' that oppress the villagers' peace and in which many of the children seem to be involved. It would be utter madness to try and describe each of the characters, or each of the mysterious 'accidents' that unfold. Suffice it to say that Michael Haneke has managed to give us a thoroughly-nuanced story, and even though it deals with a great number of characters, they're all well-developed and of multi-layered depths; a heaven-gifted screenplay, if I ever saw one. I remember that I kept thinking "This is what M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Village' would have looked like if it had been done flawlessly." It's a suspenseful story because of the mystery behind the 'accidents', but it's actually more of a drama- a deeply-felt, crude but poignant exploration into the human soul and of the simplistic beauty in us all that rivals the beastly evil we all repress. It's about the loss of innocence to a world of war, greed, violence and envy; it's about love, and how such a pure feeling becomes adulterated with the hellish passion for sex; it's about the basest characteristics of humanity, and how they taint the existence of a few people living secluded in their village, quiet witnesses to the horrors around them but unable to act against them.

It's not a simple film, no. And it's not a film to watch on a rainy Monday night, cozily snuggled under your covers. It's a film meant to be taken seriously, to be thoroughly analyzed, to have its every frame dissected and squeezed from its significance. I watched it for mere pleasure and discovered that I was almost bored to yawns: it's two hours long but feels like five, it's incredibly slow-paced, there is no raw emotion meant to be immediately understood (but everything must be interpreted from the characters' faces and tone of voice), every single scene has a definite, non-literal meaning...in short, it's NOT a movie you'll enjoy, but a film you're supposed to analyze and then to treasure for the amazing message it conveys. I went to sleep after watching the film pleased with it but unable to understand how such a... slow, emotionless thing had managed to capture critics' attention so. And then came the sleepless night, where I unconsciously ran over many scenes in my mind, analyzing their meaning and coming up with the horrid, deep and frightening conclusions the film gives us.

Well, actually, it's not like the film itself gives us any conclusions, but it leads us to ask ourselves many questions concerning the abhorrent nature of humans and it points us to the turgid answers we'll be sure to get. It's a film that flawlessly presents beauty and horror as twin brothers who can't leave apart from each other. There's the mystery of the 'accidents' combined with the tragically dysfunctional lives of each villager, with the unfair treatment of the children, with the expressly marked roles of men and women, with the growing ambiance of war around them, with the loss of innocence in the town's children, with the inhibition of sexual discovery in each of them, with the refreshing love story between the narrator and a naïve teenager…well, the movie imparts cold, direct facts of life, pieces of humanity in all their wonder or horror, and it's up to the audience to make any sense of it all and to come to one's terms with the implications of the film's message.

I think of "The White Ribbon" and I see it being the topic of discussion in cine-circles around the globe and in film classes. It's destined to become a classic because of the sheer amount of things it deals with and the absolute power one manages to uncover while analyzing it. If I were to start analyzing now I'd be giving away spoilers by the second and ruining what will surely be one of the best foreign films you'd ever watch. I can't recommend it enough! Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

We all miss Heath Ledger. We remember him as one of the most charismatic and endearing Hollywood actors, one whom, despite his many forgivable flaws wowed audiences with some of the most memorable performances in recent years (including his legendary turn as the Joker in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight"). He passed away more than a year ago, and the posthumous release of his last film, Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" earned immediate buzz. Just like every other person in the world, the main attraction to the movie was seeing Ledger one last time and little did I think of any other motive for doing so. Now that I've finished watching the movie I come to say that even though the film IS memorable because of it being his last work, it's bound to become much more memorable simply because of the wonderful story and incredibly imaginative production design...so let me deviate your minds from Ledger a bit and focus on the film itself, which has made my mind swim in a boundless sea of imagination and creativity.

You know Terry Gilliam. Ever since he became know to the world as one of Monty Python's ingenious members, he has never failed to come up with imaginative, quirky, WACKY films that spur viewers minds; from the perennial "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" to the not-so perennial but equally surreal "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", we've come to expect only the best stories from him. This latest movie tells the story of Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), a wise, old man who once made a deal with Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), the devil, and earned immortality. Tired of life he asks for mortality again, and Mr. Nick grants it to him provided that his daughter is given to him once she turns 16. Parnassus accepts, but as the girl, Valentina (Lily Cole), draws to the doomed age, Parnassus is in turmoil because he loves her too much to hand her over to the devil. So he strikes one last bargain with the devil: Parnassus owns an imaginarium, a circus-like contraption through which people can walk through and live out their wildest dreams for a short period of time. Inside the imaginarium, the very root of their souls comes alive and, should he wish to, Parnassus can tamper and coax their wills to change. To save his daughter, Parnassus must win over five souls before Mr. Nick does and do it before Lily's 16th birthday is over (which in the film is two day's time). But even with such a wonderful contraption, Parnassus seldom manages to get people to go into his imaginarium, so when a mysterious young man named Tony (Heath Ledger) appears and is willing to help him with his task, the riotous race against the clock begins as we, the viewers, are taken into a surreal, unbelievably creative ride into the imagination of this wacky old doctor.

That's the general (or initial) plot, actually. But the film is over two hours long and so wildly-conceived that, like many other surrealist films, it eventually loses track of the plot and becomes nothing more than a rapid fire of quirky, magical events and interesting sort-of camera shots into dream sequences and fantasy. The characterization starts out wonderfully, with a certain depth and background given to each of the characters and with some emotional build-up...but as the quirky imagination of each of them start controlling the events on screen, the film forgets its depth and chooses to engage our imaginations only, NOT our minds. This is the film's downfall, and it's the reason why many critics condemn it. And those who praise it simply do so out of respect to Heath Ledger. But I must insist, we shouldn't be too harsh on the film. After all, it IS surrealism, and did we condemn Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí for not injecting depth and intelligence into their splendid "Un Chien Andalou"? No! Surrealism should never make sense because our minds and imaginations rarely do so and, let's face it, we do NOT live in a world with entirely round characters and where all ends meet at the end of the story.

Besides, an intelligent story has never been Gilliam's strongest appeal. He's well known for his quirky brilliance (possibly rivaling that of Tim Burton), and this film is, by all means, the most imaginative thing I've seen in a long time. It's also one of the most entertaining and pleasing films I've seen this year...which made me think of something: I'm usually a critic who demands depth, intelligence, wit and well-developed characters in his films, but have I forgotten the principal point of cinema? It is an artistic medium through which artists let their souls loose, it doesn't ALWAYS have to make sense. And besides, it is meant to generally entertain audiences and give them new experiences and that IS something "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" excels at.

The technical aspects of the film are very good to. The score (by Mychael and Jeff Danna) is pitch-perfect, the costume, production and art design are simply superb, and the acting is very good too. Just as a side note, I recently learned that since the film wasn't completed before Ledger's death, the plot was modified to incorporate three other actors in his same role (Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law), a physical change which Ledger character goes through whenever he walks into Parnassus' imaginarium. I tell you, the way Terry Gilliam saved the film by his inventive plot change still marvels me...and, needless to say, it helps the surrealism and imagination of the movie.

See it. It's not THE best film of the year, and it's not like it will spur you into deeper thought and neither will it move and touch you, but I guarantee you won't be disappointed. Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

It's so hard to find a decent suspense thriller nowadays, isn't it? I mean, most thrillers out there DO thrill, but once the film is over you realize all the movie did was spook you momentarily, and you don't even wanna start identifying and analyzing the various goofs, mistakes and unbelievably stupid twists it took for fear of ending up with pieces of a failure in your hands. Yeah, Hollywood tends to do that nowadays with the so-called thrillers that are spewed out by the week. Thank heavens there are still people around who know how to make a thriller that thrills AND manage to make it a heck of a film, complete with a practically flawless plot, characters to die for and an ending that begs for a sequel. One such film is Niels Arden Oplev's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", which I just finished watching and which I love beyond words. And, um, the film's Swedish, by the way...and just as a small side note, I think Swedish filmmakers should all teach Hollywood a lesson or two where thrillers are concerned: in 2008 the Swedish thriller "Let the Right One In" wowed audiences worldwide and now comes "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" with equally powerful results. Need I say more? Anyway, the film's about reporter Mikael Blomqvist (Michael Nyqvist) who's been accused of libel to one of Sweden's larger companies because he published an article in the Millennium journal which he couldn't prove afterwards. Before Mikael serves his short sentence in jail, he accepts a job offer from Henry Vanger, the leader of a highly wealthy family, to investigate the disappearance of Harriet Vanger (Ewa Fröling) who mysteriously went missing 40 years ago and whom no reporter or private investigator has managed to track ever since. Henry suspects someone from his large, wealthy family killed Harriet and is bent on discovering the truth before he dies of old age. Henry believes Mikael is the right man for one last go at the search because of the Intel he's received on his private life, a dossier which a highly intelligent, highly pierced and tattooed computer hacker called Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) has managed to built up. Mikael and Lisbeth team up to solve the age-old mystery surrounding Harriet's disappearance and the disturbing family connections that they must uncover before finally reaching the truth.

Remember Jonathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs"? A flawless thriller if I ever saw one. Remember what made the mystery and the suspense reach out to us? Flawless leading performances by Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster, that's what. We'll, we have the same exact case with this film. The story is very mysterious, the truths that are being unraveled on screen are nerve-racking, the suspense keeps you at the edge of your seat...but the lead characters, especially Noomi Rapace (whom I'm ready to hand over the Academy Award to) convinces us that it's not just another thriller à la John Grisham, but that there's actual HUMAN, believable characters there in the mix. Lisbeth is a goth, troubled young woman heaving a heavy past on her shoulders, and she turns up the attitude to the max playing out the fearless heroine of the story... but her down-to-earth performance, her multi-layered characterization, her pitch-perfect acting make her Lisbeth character jump out of the screen and touch us, win us over. We soon find ourselves actively rooting for Mikael and Lisbeth, actually CARING about what happens to them and believing every single thing that happens on screen...and all (or most of it) because of her wonderful performance. The film's focus is principally on Mikael, but whenever Lisbeth's on screen she steals the show hands down.

The story is extremely well done too. Based on the best-seller by Stieg Larsson, it's the first part of his Millennium trilogy (which he managed to complete before his death, may he rest in peace) and which chronicle Mikael and Lisbeth's adventures. While I was watching the film I kept thinking "this is the modern version of The Godfather meets Sherlock Holmes". The Vander family is everything the Corleone family might've been like in the 21st century; they're scary, evil, powerful and degenerate, and each member hides dark, gruesome secrets, and they're all being faced by Mikael and Lisbeth, common people like you and me but extremely intelligent and resourceful. Quite the cinematic mix, don't you think? I heard the sequel, "The Girl who Played with Fire" is already out in Sweden, and that gives me something to look forward to. They also tell me that the American remake of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is also underway, and that gives me something to fear. The U.S. just loves remaking the best films from around the world and they always end up destroying them; and I can't live with the idea of someone else destroying Lisbeth Salander. I heard they're thinking of casting Kristen Stewart in the American version; I recommend casting Noomi Rapace instead. Or better, just digitally insert Rapace's scenes into the American version and the film will have a good chance of being saved.

Look, the film's excellent. It shines with a special brilliance I seldom see in thrillers nowadays, be them American or foreign, and it's a movie experience I'm bound to remember. I highly recommend it. Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

An important, world-wide event ALWAYS gets made into a film...several films, as a matter of fact, but it's rare to find a film that truly reaches out to audiences and lays the political facts straightforwardly and easy to understand; one such event is the ill-fated war between Iraq and the United States, and how it all began back in 2003 with the supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that were reported to be withheld within Baghdad and which the whole world swallowed these news without a second thought (I know; I'm a Honduran and I immediately tagged Iraq as 'the bad guys' but I couldn't have been farther from the truth). There are two films about the ongoing war in Iraq that have moved me and made me truly comprehend the amount of absurdity and visceral human evil that fuels it: they're Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" and Paul Greengrass' recent blockbuster "Green Zone". Last year, "The Hurt Locker" tackled the emotional aspects of the war and it shed insight to human suffering and the nature of war; this year's "Green Zone" gives you facts plain-as-day and reveals the blunders of both the U.S. and Iraq governments and how each corrupt government had its share of the blame on the fate of so many human lives.

Many critics find it necessary to castigate the lack of answers Paul Greengrass gives us; they say there's no purpose behind the film. I mean, why make a film about something we all know if not to provide some answer as to how the problem might be solved? This is the film everyone had been expecting, but to release it seven years afterwards and not deliver something NEW to the intelligent public out there, why even bother making it? Oh, I'll tell you why! The U.S. admits its share of the blame, we KNOW about the corrupt government officials that withheld important information and fabricated fake news about WMDs in Baghdad to justify the war and gain political control over the growing anarchy of the government. But however much the U.S. accepts the blame, they still hate having the blame smeared on their faces and portrayed so unflinchingly in a blockbuster starring Matt Damon. True, this film proposes no answers but it DOES reach out to audiences worldwide and gives us full comprehension of the subject. Even in 2010, there are still millions of people unable to face the truth or ignorant enough to turn away from it. So take the director of the Bourne trilogy, add Matt Damon and a bone-chilling script by Brian Helgeland and what do you get? A superb film that will make audiences flock to movie theaters around the world and find out the truth.

The plot: There's commanding officer Miller (Matt Damon), who heads a unit in charge of retrieving the WMDs from wherever intelligence from the Pentagon tells them to...but how weird is it, that they've already been to three sites containing highly dangerous weapons and there's nothing there? All their Intelligence is relied on a classified source code-named 'Magellan' who never seems to be right and whom the lead Pentagon Intel officer Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) is intent on keeping classified. Miller starts to question this and is met with startling opposition from every mayor official in the U.S. army, and they state that it's his job to go to the sites they tell him and ask no questions. Meanwhile, the press is getting antsy as to confirm the existence of WMDs and the Wall Street Journal's correspondent in Iraq (Amy Ryan), whose information is being spoon-fed by Poundstone, is beginning to grow impatient. Meanwhile, Miller picks up an Iraqi informant named Freddy (Khalid Abdalla) who claims to have seen Mohammed Al Rawi, a Shiite Muslim and Saddam's right-hand man in a meeting on a house nearby, and Miller follows this lead, stumbling into one of the biggest discoveries of his life. Miller joins forces with the Middle East expert of the army Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) in an attempt to uncover the truth behind the WMDs.

This film is a thriller, and it DOES thrill audiences, Tom Clancy-style; but the true nerve-shattering aspect is the way we're treated to a vividly corrupt portrayal of the war in Iraq and to how the U.S., far from helping re-establish peace through its involvement in a foreign country's affairs, fabricated some dime-store democracy and fed it to the public. The film offers no answers to the problem the U.S. got itself into, but how can you expect Greengrass to come up with an answer by himself? He's made the film for a completely different reason: to inspire deep thought and consideration in his public. The questions he poses are hard ones: Why did the U.S. get involved in this? How can we trust their government after such a terrible blunder? How can we, as a free-thinking public, believe all the trite they send to us? How can we condemn an entire country for what a couple of newspapers report to us? How can the free press be trusted when they don't bother to check up on the facts supporting their most controversial stories? True, the film has some flaws: it's one part cold, intelligent facts and one part Hollywood action. The cinematography is a bit tiresome after a while and proves to be a strain on the eyes. There's no character development whatsoever and little or no closure to the story. But hey! This film is more like a documentary meant to shed light on the war in Iraq and to raise awareness through a good cinematic mélange of Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon. And, true, it doesn't even come close to mirroring "The Hurt Locker's" immense power and near-perfection...but I tell you, never has a film both entertained and educated so much at the same time.

Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

There's something about Nick Cassavetes that makes me both look forward to and feel apprehensive about a film. He's a director frequently involved in either a) corny love stories that aim to impress a profound life lesson on the viewer, or b) 'poignant' dramas that spoon-feed artificial emotion to an unsuspecting audience. I mean, look at some of his films like "The Notebook", "Unhook the Stars" and "Alpha Dog" and see if you don't find a connection...or a typecast. In short, he's a director audiences have fallen in love with but which critics know better to stay away from. His latest film, "My Sister's Keeper", carries the rightful tagline "a film by Nick Cassavetes", for every frame of the film bears his suffocating signature of trying too hard to exact tears, sighs and touching remarks from the audience. But surprise, surprise! Unlike previous films which only skim the surface of the characters' emotions and seldom prod into the depths of their plot, "My Sister's Keeper" FINALLY manages to do so; it self-consciously tries very hard to move audiences, and it achieves its goal. I'm amazed at Cassavetes' sudden maturity.

The film has a mature enough plot. It's about an eleven-year old girl called Anna (Abigail Breslin), who has sued her parents seeking to win medical emancipation from them. Anna was an entirely planned pregnancy, but the sole reason why her parents decided to have her was so she could be relied on to donate blood, organs, and etc. to their leukemia-stricken firstborn Kate (Sofia Vassilieva). Anna and Kate love each other, but Anna feels angry and discouraged to discover that her sole purpose in life is to keep her sick sister alive. Her mother Sara (Cameron Diaz) is a lioness of a woman, a good-hearted lawyer who fights against all odds for what she believes is right...and right now, she believes Kate's survival is right. I mean, Sara loves ALL of her children equally: Kate, Jesse (Evan Ellingson) and Anna, and like the responsible mother that she is she always KNOWS what is right for them. And right now what's 'right' is having Anna keep on donating blood and a kidney to sustain Kate a while longer, right? Kate, Anna and Sara are the three characters the film revolves around. There's also Aunt Kelly (Heather Wahlquist), Sara's husband Brian (Jason Patric), the lawyer Anna hires called Campbell Alexander (Alec Baldwin), Kate's specialist (Jeffrey Markle) and a boyfriend, also leukemia-stricken, that Kate once had, named Taylor. These characters sadly remain in the background to let our three leading ladies take over the emotional impact of the story...and it's very well that it should be so. Sara and her daughters, each has a very disturbing question to ask themselves, and only together will they find the way to be at peace with their doubts. Sara wonders whether her happy family is beginning to unravel and believes the death of Kate will separate them all. Anna is torn between living a long, normal life with her body organs intact or donating to keep her sister, whom she adores, alive. And Kate is torn between staying with her family who has done so much for her or giving up and dying once and for all to end ALL their sufferings.

See? A mature, poignant and intelligent plot. And on a Nick Cassavetes film! What's more, the film really does dig deep into the internal conflicts these people are going through. The dialogue of the film is laden with endless clichés: corny interior monologues, catchy and overused love phrases, typical Cassavetes scenes where everyone hugs or where people take a trip to the sea or where emotion is spoon-fed to the audiences, a heavy reliance on melodrama, etc. Sofia Vassilieva turns on the cuteness level to hazardous levels, Abigail Breslin plays down on her gifted acting ability, Cameron Diaz is, well, likable but unimpressive, and um...the rest of the actors are forgettable. Oh! There's also Joan Cusack who plays the judge in the court hearings of Anna vs. her mother, and for the two or three scenes she's on screen she blows audiences away (she should've been given a larger role).

Yes, it's a clichéd film...but for the first time in AGES the overuse of clichés actually works! Call it the plot, call it the superb Jodi Picoult novel (on which the film is based), call it the killer combo of Diaz-Breslin-Vassilieva, whatever. But this film aims for your heart and manages to engrave itself there despite its bluntness. The score is muted, the cinematography is interesting but unimpressive, the editing is very effective, and the production design is expectedly good. I can't pinpoint exactly when and where this film managed to rise over its clichés and flaws, but I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a Cassavetes film so much as I did this one (and yes, I AM excluding "The Notebook" from my list).

An independent critic at IMDb.com called it "heroic, realistic and truly inspiring." The film's heroic in the way it tries to nuance so many shreds of the human spirit and rescues them from its preordained fate of oblivion; it's realistic on how happy and dysfunctional the family is; it isn't inspiring, though, but it DOES move you and makes you cry. Nick Cassavetes just raised his own level a couple of notches; I'll be expecting nothing less come his next film.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4!

How can someone not love Martin Scorsese? He continually reinvents himself and usually comes up with some of the best films ever seen in Hollywood. And he's also tried almost every genre there is: from deep sports dramas ("Raging Bull") to horrifying case studies ("Taxi Driver") to poignant period pieces ("The Age of Innocence") to blockbuster action thrillers ("The Departed"), he adds a generous touch of greatness to all his films and makes them memorable in our minds. He does the same with his latest cinematic triumph "Shutter Island", a psychological thriller of almost surreal proportions and breath-taking beauty; it's not your typical Martin Scorsese film (then again, no Scorsese film is TYPICAL Scorsese), but his genius is apparent throughout the entire two hours and twenty minutes of the film.

The story follows Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), a war veteran who's investigating the disappearance of a dangerous psychotic murderess from Shutter Island, a secluded high-security prison for the criminally insane. The island itself is enough to give you the creeps: the only building is the prison itself, and the rest of the island is a vast wilderness of falling trees and jagged rocks. It's constantly being beaten by rough waves and storms, and the island is situated in the middle of nowhere; the only way in or out of the island is through its feeble port, which is controlled by the US army. The wardens at the island are mysterious and creepy (they're Ted Levine and John Carroll Lynch, the psycho murderers of "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Zodiac", so you get the picture) and the chief doctors and psychiatrists at the prison are even creepier: Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) and Dr. Naehring (Max Von Sydow), very intelligent specialists who always seem to be on the 'patient's' side and who mysteriously are uncooperative with Teddy's investigation.

A patient named Rachel, a woman who drowned her three children, is one of the most dangerous inmates at the prison. She's quite violent (they say), and she lives in a delusion where her children are still alive and where the prison is actually her home and the inmates are her neighbors. During a stormy night, Rachel goes missing from her cell...which is quite strange, given the amount of security this particular prison offers, and she is now out and about who knows where. Teddy arrives to Shutter Island with his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) to investigate her disappearance and to aid the wardens in her search. Nevertheless...Teddy has a secret agenda in accepting to help this investigation. As a war veteran fighting in the liberation of Dachau during WWII he learned of some horribly inhuman psychological experiments that were being conducted by the US government on the criminally insane, and he plans to uncover if Shutter Island has some connections to these experiments (which it probably does).

Teddy is a highly tormented man: his experiences in Dachau, where he came in full view of the horrors humans are capable of have left him scarred. Not only that, but his wife Dolores (Michelle Williams) had recently been killed in a fire accident in his LA apartment, where the pyromaniac janitor who worked there had been proved guilty and had been sent to Shutter Island but of whom (mysteriously) no one in Shutter Island has heard of. With a heavy heart and a heavily-laden agenda, Teddy aims to uncover the truth these creepy wardens, psychiatrists and patients are withholding from the world...but Shutter Island turns out to be more than Teddy can handle, and he soon finds himself in a nerve-shattering race to stay alive and, more importantly, to keep his sanity.

The movie has all the elements of a pitch-perfect thriller, and it is just that. It's a thriller that has you breathless from the very first scene all the way to the very last horrifying twist at the end. Over two hours long and it doesn't waste a single minute. Once again, Scorsese gives a heavy dose of depth to his characters, especially Teddy whom we come to understand and identify ourselves with very early in the film. Every single scene is perfect! The cinematography is breath-taking and sublime, the lighting is a thriller's dream of perfection, the sound design and the music augments the film's tension to nerve-shattering levels and the exemplary acting makes the events unraveling on screen and the truths we discover all the more astounding. The screenplay, adapted from a Dennis Lehane novel has little or no flaws, and Scorsese seamlessly weaves all these quality aspects into one of the best films of the year! What can I say? I'm afraid that I can't say too much, for if I utter another syllable of the plot I would be giving the game away, and the individual aspects of the film work in such perfect symbiosis that they CAN'T be reviewed piece by piece lest the film is deprived of the wonder it conveys upon watching it. Suffice it to say that it's one of the best Scorsese films ever: VERY intelligent, suspenseful to a tee, deep, poignant, entertaining...you'll want to see it at least twice; I did, and the second time around it hadn't lost an iota of its greatness. Rating: 4 stars out of 4!! Oh, by the way: I can't fathom a possible reason why this film was left out of the Academy Awards this year. There's no reason, human or divine, why it shouldn't have received some nods. I can only hope it will be taken into consideration for next year's Academy Awards lest the Academy wants to indirectly declare themselves a fraud.

What does it take a film to be immortalized? What moves audiences and critics alike to carve a special place in history for them? James Cameron would argue that it's innovation in special effects; Francis Ford Coppola and Peter Jackson would have you know it's the depth of a story and its epic development through trilogies; Orson Welles was quite sure it was a film's ability to perform above its time and deal with perennial topics. They would all be correct, and their respective films have triumphed and remain must-sees to the world at large. But what would be Monty Python's answer to the above questions? How would the members of this perfect English troupe deal with the pure genius of their films and the depth of their comedy? They'd stand by the fact that, um, a good deal of moose, coconut-carrying African swallows, cheeky revolutionary peasants, 'Ni'-saying knights, Broadway-style numbers and a famous historian are the key to a great, pitch-perfect comedy that stands the test of time...and you know what? Even through their silliness, they'd be correct.

Monty Python is a group of English thespians composed of Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Michael Palin. Just to read their names together makes the reader raise his/her eyebrow in amusement, for their household names, synonyms of pure comedy. Monty Python gave England its laughs with their satirical, modern and outrageous humour reminiscent of Peter Cook, Harold Pinter and Samuel Beckett, and the few feature films they made together caused such uproar around the world that they're now considered utter classics by critics, film associations, cults, universities and families. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", possibly their most iconic film, is my personal favourite.

The plot follows King Arthur, who has only just retrieved Excalibur from its stony perch and has been informed by the Lady of the Lake that he's to become the greatest king ever. He now travels through the entire country searching for brave, wise, gallant knights who'd like to join him at his round table at Camelot. Sounds quite epic and historical, doesn't it? Well, it's anything but. The film is hilariously nonsensical, too outrageous to be believed, silly at its core; it constantly strays from the plot to present different ridiculous sketches of the knights, it presents events that are not only unbelievable but preposterous...it is, in short, a farce of what comedies and epics have come to be. But unlike other silly movies like "Scary Movie", the film's parody is pure genius and manages to make heavy political, religious and cultural statements throughout, and the silliness is actually uproarious. I laugh every single minute of it, and younger audiences will find that, even if THEY'RE not doing so, the wit and intelligence underlying the ridiculous events astonish them. Audiences of every age and generation have found this to be a comic gem to be treasured.

The film begins with THE wittiest opening credits I've seen to date. They're shown upon a black screen featuring ominous, dramatic music and Swedish subtitles. Through the course of the credits roll, the subtitles no longer translate what is being written in English but give out the weirdest, most non-sensical statements about moose; soon after the credits stop and a disclaimer announces that those responsible for the stupid subtitles have been sacked. The subtitles resume, and once again the disclaimer appears saying that those responsible for sacking have been sacked too. More credits appear, like "Moose special effects," "Moose trainers," "Miss Avery's moose", "No moose have been harmed in the making of this film," etc...to the point where a third disclaimer appears saying that everyone responsible for the credits has been sacked and a new set of people have been quickly rounded up to finish the credit sequence, which grows sillier and sillier to the very end. The opening credits foretell the silliness of the film aptly, for the remaining hour and forty minutes is a wild and crazy romp that will have you in awe. Never (and I mean NEVER) has a film been simultaneously silly and profound like this.

I can't name any particular scene to exemplify the film's genius. I rather have the reader rent or buy the film and be treated to its wonder without any warning of the surprises in store. There's epic fight scenes, outrageous musical numbers, heavy parody, controversial political and religious statements, interwoven modern scenes, some animation and, well, just about the best screen writing and acting I've ever seen. So...What DOES it take for a film to be immortalized? The answer is pure and simple: it needs to be the inspired work of geniuses, and Monty Python lives up to those standards.

Please, if you know what's best for you, SEE THIS FILM! Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

Let me write this right away, right after I've turned the DVD off and while the experience still lingers warmly in my mind. Oh, how I do love a good independent picture: quiet, subtle, but an emotional powerhouse fueled by a strong lead performance for which there are no words. Such is the description that immediately comes to mind for Scott Cooper's "Crazy Heart", a film that urges the viewer to accept a bittersweet shred of life and savour its tenderness and rawness equally.

The film is a fictional biopic of Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) a once famous country singer who is well beyond his prime, whose career is reduced to playing on random bars and bowling alleys and who, at the age of 57, is forced to look back on his life and accept the fact he never amounted much to anything. The film's first scenes give you a breath-taking view of New Mexico's arid landscapes: beautiful, sparse, lonely and poetic...and these first images set the precise tone the film is gonna take. They will follow Bad through his minor, depressing gigs around the West, they'll see his life unravel under the influence of alcohol, and they will see his spirit rise to indescribably poignant levels after meeting a small-town journalist called Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who's to become the most important lover he'll ever have and the catalyst that incites a major change in his personality, eventually leading him to become a better man.

Now, I'm not a big fan of biopics, especially if they deal with down-on-their-luck country singers and their booze addiction- we've seen too many of those, haven't we? There's not a single new thing to learn from yet another biopic peppered in country music. Well, that's wrong. This film came out last year and I immediately KNEW I wanted to stay away from it. Not even after Jeff Bridges won worldwide accolades and the film's theme song "The Weary Kind" started earning so much buzz did I think to care about it. A friend of mine got me a copy of the DVD some months ago and it had been sitting there in my shelf for quite some time without the slightest thought...until a lonely night like this found me wallowing in my boredom. I reached for the DVD, shot it into the player and, oh my God, was I prepared for the emotional tour-de-force! Jeff Bridges is heavenly perfection in this role...and that's too soft a word to credit his performance. My God, he inhabits Bad Blake in ways few actors have ever managed to make characters their own. We've seen him play a wide array of characters through his career (with films so extremely different like "The Prince of Tides," "The Big Lebowski," "Masked and Anonymous", etc.), and in most cases he manages to do a very good job with his characters...but there are just some roles you're BORN to play, and Bad Blake was his role. Bad is a man of few words, he's not a troublemaker, he's...well, he's your common Joe. He's REAL, he's a man I can assure you've met before. But how to make this man seem special, seem familiar, seem HUMAN in a two-hour and forty-seven minute film is no easy task. Screenplays can give an excellent characterization, great acting can give depth, great directing can make a character believable to us...but to make a character jump out of the screen, move you and treat you to such sharp pieces of life, and all through his normalcy, well that's the work of a genius, no less.

The plot of the film is something we've seen a million times before. Nothing unexpected happens; no huge or witty twists move the plot forward. The charm of it all is how life-like it all seems, how every gesture, every line, every character seems familiar and warms us to them. Life is never as interesting as Hollywood pictures make them out to be; life is never an intelligent social commentary or even a profound work of art...life is life: simple, hard, bittersweet and undeniably poignant. THAT'S what both critics and audiences love so much about "Crazy Heart": how, in its simplicity, it so faithfully projects life back at us, injecting our minds with the invigorating truths and heartaches that trouble us all. The center and heart of the film is Bad's relationship with Jean, and we root and cheer for them every second they're together and crave their return whenever they're apart; whenever something bad or sad happens to them, we feel just as bad as they do, because they're people we actually care about. They're real.

Not only the acting is excellent, but many other aspects of the film are too. I've already mentioned the beautiful landscapes, but the cinematography as a whole is very good too: it embraces the scene whatever the action therein may be- no camera tricks, no specialized lighting, no sweeping movements or dramatic dollies...it's straightforward and convincing. The music is excellent- the score is muted and the songs compliment the action on screen (especially the aforementioned Academy Award-winning 'The Weary Kind', which closes the entire film and the topics dealt therein in such subtle beauty that you can't help but weep at its message), the costume and production design are very good. And the screenplay is very, VERY good, featuring naturally-flowing dialogue and some believable, show-stopping one-liners (including the now legendary scene where Jean, beautiful and half-hidden under lamp light asks Bad what he's thinking about and he, after pondering a few seconds, struck by her beauty and by the dangerous topics the conversation is going through, answers "I was just thinking how bad you make this room look, and I hadn't noticed that until you came here.").

See the film. Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!

Rob Marshall has done it again: he's taken a famous Broadway musical and made it all his own...but unlike his previous feat "Chicago" which was a flawless, electrifying masterpiece his new movie "Nine" never even comes close to mirroring the wonder of the former. It seems like after "Memoirs of a Geisha" (not a musical but an engaging, breath-takingly beautiful film nonetheless) Marhsall said "I wanna do another musical!," recycled some ideas from Chicago, came up with some stale choreography and decided to have an all-out musical romp without the slightest concern for a story, art and audiences.

He didn't have much material to work with in the first place. The Broadway musical "Nine" is a spin-off of Federico Fellini's immortal classic "8 and a Half" albeit with a simplified story. Both "Nine" and "8 and a Half" have the same storyline: Guido Contini, an internationally famous screenwriter/director has no idea what his next film's gonna be about and he gropes futilely for ideas while revisiting the influence (past and present) that seven women have had in his life. The difference here is that Fellini's film is unbelievably deep and artistic, with an incomparable characterization and prodding of human concerns while the Broadway musical is simply the storyline with little or no focus on its characters and excelling only on the musical aspect.

In the film, Guido (Daniel Day-Lewis) goes about making a film which doesn't even have a script and, struggling to find a decent plot, consults a variety of women which have made a great impact in his life, including: Claudia (Nicole Kidman) a celebrated international star and Guido's muse; Luisa (Marion Cotillard) his supportive wife; Carla (Penélope Cruz) his obsessive lover; Lilli (Judi Dench) his best friend and costume designer to all his films; Stephanie (Kate Hudson) an American reporter who adores the ground he walks on; Saraghina (Fergie) an exhibitionist coquette whom he meets during his childhood; and, most importantly, his mother (Sophia Loren) whom he worships above all women but who is, unfortunately, deceased.

You look at the cast and you can't help your mouth going agape at the amount of talent the film has brought together: all the women are beyond famous, five are Academy Award-winners (Kidman, Cotillard, Cruz, Dench and Loren), one is the queen of rom-coms (Hudson) and one is a Grammy-winner recording artist (Fergie, from the Black Eyed Peas). And all the women in the film portray their characters flawlessly, especially Marion Cotillard and Penélope Cruz...but that's because they have the most screen time. With the exception of Cotillard and Cruz, each of the other women appear for around fifteen minutes tops and Sophia Loren, who's supposed to have the greatest influence over Guido, appears a whopping ten minutes! They're flawless actresses, but they're not miracle-makers and they did their best with the little time that was given to them. They each sing one song only (except Marion Cotillard, thank heavens, who sings two), and the songs don't even come close to the glory and pomp we all expect from a Broadway musical.

Daniel Day-Lewis does his best too, but what CAN you do when your character's flat, monotonous, unengaging and emotionally stifling? Fellini's Guido was a flat character too, but he mirrored countless social truths and portrayed the decadence and death of Hollywood and Italy. Marshall's Guido is, well, just flat. Nevertheless, we could try to forgive this because, after all, this isn't a remake of "8 and a Half", it's a musical and musicals are all about the music, right? Well, not even the music is engaging. For example, while each number in "Chicago" is a classic and had audiences singing along and clapping, most of the numbers in "Nine" are unimpressive and feature an overused choreography; the only number that actually remains with you after the film is over is the main theme "Be Italian" performed by Fergie (which also features a fresh choreography involving sand and tambourines), but what is a musical with only one engaging musical number, I ask you? The cinematography, editing and costumes mirror "Chicago" and it IS wonderful to see how effective they are.

I don't blame Rob Marshall, though; neither do I blame his screenwriters Michael Tolkin and Anthony Minghella (may he rest in peace). I blame the musical itself, which pales in comparison both to Fellini's film and to countless other Broadway musicals that remain engraved in our hearts. The film is entertaining, though, and I recommend you to see it if only for the excellent acting and the typical Marshall musical dream sequences which mingle with present-time plot we've all come to love.

Rating: 2 stars out of 4.

Valentine's day will from now on remind me of three things: a) that special day where people are free to express their love for their partners as cornily as they want, b) that rueful day where partner-less people are forced to endure those who are in love and their corny clichés, and c) that awful film called "Valentine's Day" which Garry Marshall has managed to inflict upon unsuspecting audiences and therefore transformed one of the cutest holidays around into a bad experience. Yes, it's THAT bad. Marshall had earned the respect of his fellow filmmakers and audiences with cute, poignant films such as "Pretty Woman", "Runaway Bride" and "The Princess Diaries", but his latest "Valentine's Day" will have people worldwide fleeing the Cineplexes in terror from now on.

The movie features no less than twenty-one famous actors and actresses acting badly, portraying (according to them) a mosaic of interconnected Los Angeles couples during Valentine's Day. Spare me the emotional exhaustion of describing them all, and don't even think I remember a single one of the characters' names (it isn't even worth the effort to look them up in IMDb.com). All of the story lines are messed up, all the characters are flat and unimportant, all the actors do a bad job (but what can you expect when they're all fighting for some screen time?), and the film, which runs for a little over two hours never accomplishes a single emotional or romantic moment.

I'll try enumerating those story lines I've been unfortunate to remember. Let's see...there's Ashton Kutcher who's a florist in the busiest day of the year and who's proposed to his girlfriend, Jessica Alba, and there's Jennifer Garner who's his best friend and who's boyfriend, Patrick Dempsey, is a busy doctor (I chuckle at the "Gray's Anatomy" reference). Um, there's Emma Roberts who goes about planning on having sex for the first time in a coldly-calculating and repulsive way, and she's the babysitter of some cute kid whose grandparents are Shirley MacLaine and Hector Elizondo. There's Topher Grace whose girlfriend is Anne Hathaway, who's a phone sex playgirl and who works for Queen Latifah, who in turn works with Jessica Biel managing the life of Eric Dane who's (not a doctor!) a football player. Umm...there's Jamie Foxx, whose boss is Kathy Bates; there's Bradley Cooper and Julia Roberts who meet on a plane and there's Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift who are a high-school couple. Oh, and there's George Lopez, who's Ashton Kutcher's confidante and co-worker. There! Make sense? Don't worry if it doesn't, cause it's just as unimportant as the film.

Many people have gone wild comparing and contrasting this abysmal movie with Richard Curtis' "Love Actually" (which is another romantic film about couples), but they ALL agree in the fact that Curtis' film is actually poignant, has an excellent characterization, involves us in the lives of each of the couples and reaches over to audiences...while "Valentine's Day" repels us, feels too long, is boring, and makes us wonder what the heck so many good actors and actresses where thinking when they accepted the part. I mean, I wanna shake the likes of Julia Roberts, Kathy Bates, Anne Hathaway and Shirley MacLaine! Why go along with this self-degradation?! Was it because of the money? Was it because of the famous actors? And even if they had minuscule eight-minute parts, didn't Judi Dench win an Oscar once for an eight-minute performance? So many excellent, Academy Award-winning thespians, and you can't squeeze one minute of true emotion from any of them! I mean, I can understand Garry Marshall's reason for doing the film. He got the screenplay written by Katherine Fugate ("The Prince and Me") which was bound to appeal to brain-dead tween girls even through its rancid-ness. Then he called some of his long-time actors such as Julia Roberts, Hector Elizondo and Anne Hathaway and convinced them to act in it; then he got the rest of the famous actors convincing them that a star-studded romantic mosaic would hit the pot of gold with audiences; he added Taylor Swift, who would win over every tween in the world; and finally he decided to screen it on Valentine's Day to attract the love-struck couples with big names and a romantic plot. I can see those poor, embezzled beaus who were no-doubt dragged into the Cineplex by their V-day dates, and the hoards of girl-friends who went arm in arm to see this latest chick-flick. I tell you, it's amazing what young people will subject themselves to just to see their favorite stars in the same movie.

Frankly, I have no idea why I stuck to the end of this film. I'd like to say I stood bravely till the end just to see if the film could redeem itself during the last scenes, but I suppose it's much more dramatic to say that I was so horror-struck by how silly the movie is that I simply couldn't move. I can't give a film zero stars, so I'll justify the half-star I gave "Valentine's Day" with the facts that a) Julia Roberts doesn't demean herself much in the only mediocre role there is, b) Anne Hathaway has an amusing Russian accent when talking to one of her phone sex clients, and c) Taylor Swift's song "Today was a Fairytale", which was written exclusively for the movie, wasn't half bad.

Rating: Half a star out of 4.

Yes, Tim Burton is a director one should marvel about. He's directed such masterpieces like "Edward Scissorhands", "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and the somewhat recent "Sweeney Todd", but like many other immortal directors he has a flaw. He's a visual genius who creates entire worlds out of scratch and quirky, involving characters that haunt our minds for many days to come...but he usually focuses too much on the visual aspect of his films and the result is that many of them lack the necessary luster in their story lines or character development, and its his characters precisely the ones who try to reach over audiences but who ultimately fail to do so in most cases. His latest box-office smash "Alice in Wonderland" is an example of one such film, where every scene is a breath-taking picture that fails to remain in our hearts and minds in the end.

We shouldn't be too hard on him, though. I mean this IS Lewis Carroll adapted to the screen, and the film is based on both "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" two heavily surrealist books for children which never focus on plot but rather on frequently non-sensical situations. The film has an additional twist, also: 19-year old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) returns to Wonderland without a previous memory of ever being there before, where she discovers her ultimate destiny is to defeat a monstrous dragon commanded by the villainous Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter, who plays her role to comic perfection). To do so she'll need the help of the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), the twins Tweedledee and Tweedledum (both played by Matt Lucas), the Cheshire cat (voiced by Stephen Fry), the Blue Caterpillar (voiced by Alan Rickman) and many others. The film is rank with quirky, Burton-esquire characters which are paraded before us one after the other and are seldom given a chance to actually make an impression.

These characters do wonders with the few time that's given to them, though. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are especially hilarious in their lead roles, and most of the animated characters actually manage to make us laugh (the March Hare, voiced by Paul Whitehouse, is especially funny albeit the fact he's on screen for less than ten minutes). The film's point, much like the book, is to take children through an imaginary fantasy where nothing makes sense; but like many recent children' books adapted to the screen, an actual storyline has been introduced which tries to make sense and be profound but which fails entirely.

A point which has critics and audiences in high debate is the CGI aspect of the film. Over 80% of the film is animated, and all of the flesh-and-blood actors have had their features exaggerated and altered with computer imaging; Burton's famous settings and Gothic magical landscapes are all animated now, giving them additional beauty and quirkiness but taking away every sense of wonder they had before. I mean, remember Edward Scissorhands' dark castle or Halloweentown? Now imagine them being CGI'd, paired with sweeping, fleeting camera takes. A pity, isn't it? The magical realism is lost, the artistic meaning behind Burton's film is diminished and we're left with an adventure comedy kids are bound to adore but adults are bound to quickly dismiss.

Costume design and production design are perfect, as usual. Everything is meticulously detailed and it's a breath of fresh air to see actual art direction and production amongst all the CGI. The costumes the humans wear are a marvel of the imagination (but then again, it's Colleen Atwood, Burton's long-time costume designer, so what can you expect?). Danny Elfman's score is sadly forgettable, and I find this hard to digest since he's the composer of some of Hollywood's greatest scores ever. The plot is...well, disappointing even while factoring in the fact that it should be a plot-less movie. Why, Luis Buñuel's "Un Chien Andalou" had a more intriguing plot and you ALL know how sarcastic I'm being by saying that. Burton's direction is interesting enough, but this isn't bound to be a film he'll be remembered for.

Now, that doesn't mean it's not entertaining. It's VERY entertaining, as a matter of fact. I felt engrossed by the fleeting characters and the wonderful production design throughout the entire film, and once it was finished I had a sense that my time had not been wasted (much more than I can say for recent Hollywood flicks). It's a film full of blunders, though, and it's so much less than Burton is accustomed to give us that, even through its excellent points I fail to be much impressed. Oh, and poor Lewis Carroll; if he only knew how screenwriter Linda Woolverton has massacred his stories! See it, just for the hell of it. I liked it...but not too much. Rating: 2 stars and a half out of 4!

Who thinks Drew Barrymore could direct a film? I used to ask that question to my cinephile friends and the room would fall under a sepulchral silence, complete with the chirping cricket in the background. I mean, some people are simply BORN to be type-casted into their roles...like Drew Barrymore usually is- you know, the cute, cuddly girl with the wide smile, inviting eyes and somewhat childish personality. She's always being the character who begs to be hugged. What it boils down to (and this is the answer I used to provide to my own question) is that Drew Barrymore can act acceptably well but could never direct so much as a Care Bear commercial, because she just wasn't born for it.

Well, yeah, I was wrong... After seeing her directorial debut "Whip It" I found myself choking on my own question. I mean, sure, it's not an incredibly good movie, but it is far more exceptional and intelligent than the mediocre crap Hollywood dishes out nowadays and contains a few scenes that I just KNOW I won't forget. Now, for your information, this film isn't about cute and cuddly creatures or a flower-hearted, martial-arts bounty hunter employed by a sultry man named Charlie. It's actually about womens' roller skating derby and the thrill that it is. I know, it's SO un-Drew-Barrymore-ish but that's where the wonder comes from...it's not expected and the surprise you get is a really good one.

So! The movie follows Bliss Cavendar, a seventeen year old girl from a small town few people have heard of in Texas. The role is played by the incomparable Ellen Page, whom I've learned to respect and admire after her miraculously flawless work in "Juno" and "Hard Candy". Here, she plays a milder version of her "Juno" character (the same rock-hard personality but will less sass and irony), a girl who's being smothered by her mother (played to comical perfection by Marcia Gay Harden). She's the weird kid who walks around in dark attire, wears unappealing glasses, has only one friend in the world and is THE rebel and free-thinker against a town of retreads who strive to keep an image of 1950's Southern perfection amidst their sexually active, brain-dead teens. Her mother forces her to go to these Blue Ribbon contests where she's to demonstrate what a prim, perfect belle she is. (The other contestants are all dressed in demure, charming gowns and praise the Lord and their deceased ancestors; Bliss appears with spiky, blue hair and praises Amelia Earhart among a disgustingly shocked audience. Yeah, it's THAT kind of town) One day, Bliss sees some derby girls handing out flyers at the mall in Austin, and finds herself awakened to her true calling: skating with the roller-skating derby girls. Now, the derby is a new sport for me, we don't have that where I come from. At least it WAS new for me before watching the film. Bliss escapes to Austin to watch the derby, falls in love with it, signs up for practice with the derby girls and ends up being one of them on account of her blinding speed and her capacity for taking hits without complaining (the roller coaster derby is a brutal sport, you know? It's all about skating fast, blocking people and kicking and slamming them until they've got huge bruises, a hemorrhage or a broken bone).

In plot, it's your typical sports film where the main character is a teenager who's unhappy with the society and family she lives in (though Bliss' family is actually an exemplary one; her mother is just too overprotective and demanding), engages herself in the sport, gains nationwide attention, falls in love with a cute guy, strives to find the recognition of her family, etc... It has the necessary plot twist where everything goes wrong in her life, but then (through a clichéd make-up with her team members, family, best friend, etc.) everything is right again and it all ends in a big match.

The good thing here is the way the movie is crafted. The dialogue is amazingly good and it sounds as real as it gets; while the plot is clichéd and flawed beyond repair, the dialogue is a breath of fresh air that softens the rank odor of the plot. The performances are very good, indeed, and there are those moments I mentioned above which you just can't get out of your head. There's Marcia Gay Harden, naively admiring the "lovely vases" in a store, when they're actually bongs. There's a musical interlude, where Page and her love interest dive into a pool and kiss underwater in a family-friendly sex scene. And there's the scene where Bliss is receiving some advice by the derby team leader Maggie Mayhem (Kristen Wiig), which is poignant in its simplicity and powerful in its directness.

Talking about Maggie Mayhem, aren't those names the derby girls get simply hilarious? I mean, Bliss' team members are called Smashley Simpson, Rosa Sparks, Bloody Holly, Eva Destruction, etc. I read in Roger Ebert's review that it's quite usual for derby racers to choose witty pseudonyms such as this, and I can fully believe; the film IS based on Shauna Cross' novel, after all, and SHE was a derby racer back in the day. Also, most of these wittily-named characters are mostly played by real derby racers, and it makes up into a sports-accurate film.

Is there a flaw? There are many! For some reason, the dialogue and the performances are the only good things about the movie- its saving graces. Whenever there's no dialogue the film seems to lag and to lose its point. Also, like I said, you know what's gonna happen from minute one until the very end because of its recycled plot. But...how can I convey the fact that, even through all the flaws, the film is quite enjoyable? It's good, and it's one of the most entertaining sports film of the year.

I remember my fifth grade English teacher making us read Padriac Colum's "The Golden Fleece", a long children's novel about Perseus, the sorceress Medea (the love of his life) and their adventures around the world, hunting for titans, monsters and defying the Gods. I remember this clearly, for she warned us that when we got to Mythology in our advanced English classes in college we were sure to flunk lest we learned our mythology right then and there, "and what better way to do so than through this extraordinary introduction to the subject?" I've always been a literature fan, and I love doing my research correctly. Back then, my research amounted to having my mom taking me to the Cineplex to watch Disney's "Hercules". She took me on a weekend, and I remember returning to school on Monday anxious to inform the teacher and my classmates that Colum was wrong, because Disney didn't depict the mythological gods and heroes like he said. My teacher, bless her, set me straight and explained to me how films will never resemble the book, and how the book, in turn, will differ in many points from what Mythology scholars would say.

That was 1997. I've never taken a single course of Mythological Literature since, but it was a surprise to go to the Cineplex again to watch Louis Leterrier's "Clash of the Titans" and find that it didn't differ much from the portrait of Mythology our English teacher had painted for us back in 1997. The story is very much the same as I remembered it: Perseus, son of Zeus and a human woman, is seeking revenge from Hades for killing his Earthly parents, and is traveling with a bunch of soldiers from Argon to the ends of the world, seeking a way to stop Hades' Kraken from destroying Argon and trying to come to terms with his being a demi-god and his falling in love with the demi-goddess Io (not Medea, as my book would have it).

There are three quite notable differences from film to Mythology, though: a) the characters' beards are wildly long and unkempt (I wanna say 'Neanderthal') unlike the clean-shaven heroes I saw in my book, b) their costumes don't fit into the preconception I had of Greek apparel; rather, the people are dressed in battle-wear and silk robes that scream "The Passion of the Christ meets Frank Miller's 300", and c) there was no Kraken in any part of the Mythology that was taught me; I remember a Leviathan in The Bible and a Kraken in "Pirates of the Caribbean", but no more.

Then again, I had to constantly remind myself that this is Hollywood we're talking about, and no amount of unshaven Neanderthals in Greek armor can deter the main hero from being an Adonis, clean-shaven, perfectly-built and bearer of a modern port, handsomeness and demeanor which teenage girls would melt over. So, according to the Hollywood standards, casting Sam Worthington as Perseus is nothing short of infallible. Then there's the casting of Ralph Fiennes as Hades, God of the Underworld...and no, he's not dressed in a smoky dark tunic or has no blue flames as hair (like Disney would have you believe), but looks rather like Genghis Khan with ethereal fiery wings. Talk about imagination. Then there's Liam Neeson as Zeus, God of Lightning; his shining armor almost blinds the viewer and I was sure he'd join King Arthur any moment, brandishing his shiny sword around and having his braided and flea-infested beard flying behind him...but I digress.

I guess I made my point about the costume design. Yes, they went too far and yes, it doesn't even look remotely Greek, but that can all be forgiven because of the imagination that went behind the design of the titans and demons Perseus and the Argonauts fight against. You'll find yourself in awe at the serpentine Gorgon, the stone scorpions, the Eyeless Fates, Pegasus, and even the non-mythological Kraken, who looks simply awesome.

The plot is predictable, whether you know your mythology or not, but one doesn't see "Clash of the Titans" because of its plot, but because of the action scenes, and it DOES deliver at that. Action scene after action scene leave you awestruck, even if the so-called drama and seedily clichéd dialogue attempt to destroy them whenever the battles stop for a breather and we're left with the characters simply staring and talking at each other à la Transformers Two. But to be sure, "Titans" is your usual Hollywood action flick that bases its success on the special effects and a pair of steaming hot leading actors; the difference between "Titans" and any other commercial money-milker, though, is that this one actually entertains the audience and pumps you up.

Yes, it's a heavily flawed film. Yes, it's not the best film of the year. But it IS a great time at the movies and it IS guaranteed to entertain. Rating: 2 stars and a half out of 4!

Wes Anderson is my hero. No, really, I mean it! I mean, look back at all the films he's made: all the way from his debut masterpiece "Bottle Rocket", to his elegantly poignant "The Royal Tenenbaums", and even his box-office flop (but critically-acclaimed) "The Darjeeling Limited" and all the others in between. He's a filmmaker that takes dark comedies and takes them to hilariously high and moving levels, and his screen writing (usually teamed with another excellent filmmaker, Noah Baumbach) is among the best that Hollywood can come up with. He's a man who seems not to be able to do a superficial film, and each character he creates has infinite depth and wisdom and seems much more human than any, um, Jerry Bruckheimer could come up with (even though his films ARE good, too).

Whatever. The point is that Wes Anderson has surprised me beyond limits. Here is one of the masters of dramatic, depressing comedies taking a book written by Roald Dahl (one of the most whimsical and best-selling children's' novelist) and making it into a stop-motion animated film for the entire family. Impossible, you say? I used to say that too, but after watching the end result, I can declare that Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" won't disappoint any adult or child this year.

Most of you already know the sinopsis of Dahl's book, but in a nutshell, the film is about Mr. Fox, Mrs. Fox and their son Ash who live a somewhat poor but content life in their burrow. Mr. Fox (George Clooney) used to be a chicken thief in his day, but after meeting Mrs. Fox and putting her in danger after discovering she's pregnant, he vows to stop the adrenaline-packed life of a chicken thief and becomes instead a columnist for a newspaper few people read. Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) seems to be okay with this, but Mr. Fox is going through heavy existential problems where his spirit is at unrest and where his animal instincts overpower him. Ash (Jason Schwartzman), their son, is a depressed and sour young fox who begs for society's attention but is usually overlooked or ignored because, let''s face it, he's unimpressive.

Mr. Fox buys a beautiful, large tree from his real estate agent against the legal advice of his Badger attorney (Bill Murray), and it all seems ideal at first, but Mr. Fox is very much aware that his neighbors are none others than Bogis, Bunce and Bean, the three meanest farmers around...and also the wealthiest and the ones who farm and harvest the best chicken, turkeys and apples respectively. His instincts kick in, he begins stealing again, and soon finds himself in a heap-load of trouble. But, as the title of the film aptly highlights the word 'fantastic', this is no ordinary fox! Yes, it's a children's' story, and yes, it's a fable, but as much as it's fantastic and preposterous it's profound and intelligent. Obviously, Anderson has taken the artistic liberty of adapting the story as freely as his imagination (and his PG-restrained rating) will let him. He's omitted a character or two, he's added about seven more, he's stretched the story to include many more plot twists and he's given each character a roundness and a credibility that you'd never imagine seeing in a fox, a badger, a mole, or their likes. As in previous films, Anderson deals with topics such as existentialism, nature vs. nurture, not fitting in, dysfunctional families, excess of envy and, most of all, repressed emotion which will eventually explode in sudden bouts of depressing anger; yeah, definitely NOT topics for children...but how can I put it? Anderson has managed to tone himself down without reducing a smidgen of depth to a point where the film is adequate enough for children and marvelously moving for adults. Tell me, how many other filmmakers can do this? The dialogue is pitch-perfect, as always. The cinematography is grandiose and frames not characters per se, but entire settings; it makes the viewer feel like a voyeur including him or herself into these animals' life instead of simply an audience at a movie theater. Camera positions, cuts and dolleys add comedy to the events going on screen, and the sublimely country-ish score by Alexandre Desplat make this the perfectly-ambienced film.

There are scenes of raw, heart-wrenching emotion: notice a scene where Mr. Fox fights with Rat during their second encounter, or the scene where Mr. Fox gives a toast at a supermarket; these scenes take your breath away and launch your brains into a cataclysm of thoughts and opinions about a wide array of topics. Notice other scenes, like the one where Ash is working at his chemistry school lab or where Ash and his cousin Kristofferson watch a train set in their room; these are incredibly hilarious, and speak of genius in each second of them. I think that, with the obvious superiority of Disney/Pixar's "Up", "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is the second best family film of the year.

See it! And have your children see it too. Films don't get any more rewarding than this! Rating: 4 stars out of 4!!