LATEST REVIEWS

ROTTEN TOMATOES PAGE

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

OFFICIAL SITE

Finding Nemo

*****

by Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich

That Pixar is becoming the surest bet in terms of entertainment and quality when going to the movies is just pointing the obvious. The creators of gems like both "Toy Story" and its sequel, "A Bugs Life" (which had an enormous debt with Kurosawa) or the outrageously underrated "Monsters, Inc." have made it once more: a vibrant, poignant and funny comedy that takes the audience to never seen this way places. Forget "The Little Mermaid" or "The Abyss"...you haven't seen anything like this before.

With a highly dramatic starting point, "Nemo" never fails to develope its characters, making them complex and funny at the same time (count me in to the shark "Bruce" fan club) and at the same time delivering a fast paced wild ride for all audiences. Never truly predictable, surprises and engaging characters and situations flow naturally on screen, with highlights as the shark meeting, or the ritual Nemo has to face (a truly important sequence, full of subtlety and meaning).

Hats off to Disney and Pixar for creating another classic.

Hot Links:

C+

Ken Park

*** 1/2

by Larry Clark and Edward Lachman

with James Ransone, Tiffany Limos, Stephen Jasso, James Bullard, Mike Apaletegui, Adam Chubbuck, Amanda Plummer and Wade Williams, among others.

“Is it art or is it pornography?” That quote was subtlety made in the famous U2’s “Even Better Than The Real Thing” video referring to Jeff Koons’ work... actually Koons is a provoker, in the line of John Waters, Pedro Almodovar, Madonna or Larry Clark...

Clark, who became famous with his brilliant, daring and shocking “Kids” is back to the scandal field with this insight – another – on the generational clash in America, in which fathers and grandfathers use, abuse and misunderstand their children and grandchildren, and get no other answer from them than hate... we see all this through the eyes of a group of teenagers who doesn’t understand their parents – odd – behaviour and get the same misunderstanding from them... Harmony Korine’s screenplay delivers a kind of “Short Cuts” over this group of teenage friends, focusing in different issues in each parallel story, and while obviously interesting, can’t avoid falling in the stereotype from time to time (and so on, predictability, specially with Wade Williams’ character). Fanatism, abuse, boredom, arrogance, are among these issues that both Korine and Clark handle with different results... they obviously are heavy on the visuals, trying to shock the audience and go too over the top sometime, blurring the message to an audience blinded by minor aspects as the explicit sequences...

And that brings the real point of discussion with this movie... what limits are there for graphic sexuality in movies? The characters portrayed having sex in the movie are underage – I checked at IMDB the age of the actors, and only found one: Tiffany Limos was over 18 when she played the character – and while the sex is obviously an artistic choice, and not the reason of this movie’s existence, I also think that Clark wanted this movie to be a scandal... maybe he was aiming to “love it – hate it” ratings... I don’t play that game... the movie, summarizing, is interesting, with really good performances all around, but suffers of going over the top with what should have been more discreet, less graphic, search for the easy shock. Kids was much better, Larry.

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

Charlie's Angels:

Full Throttle

***

by McG

with Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Bernie Mac, Justin Theroux, Crispin Glover, Demi Moore, Robert Patrick, Luke Wilson, Matt le Blanc and John Cleese

How should I review what is not intended in any ways to be a film?

Charlie’s Angels was a party, so that’s what this sequel is... we have good music, good bodies – both female and male – and fun, so much fun... It’s refreshing to have a summer blockbuster that doesn’t try to justify the visual effects gimmicks behind a pretentious philosophy – yes, Matrix, I’m looking at you – or hide the pulp roots of the characters by changing the original concept – are you reading this, Ang Lee?. Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle is a series of over the top situations being the next one even more weird, surreal or huge than the one we just saw (well, the opening sequence doesn’t count, OK)...

So, we have three – four – really wonderful kick-ass women doing what we want them to do... kick ass, obviously! This is not Shakespeare, folks, and it never wanted to be it... but at least they care to give a background to the story (as most second parts of sagas) explaining some origins and a replacement (Bernie Mac for Bill Murray, they don’t explain why Murray is not anymore, but they care enough to justify why Mac has the same name), letting us know a little more of Nathalie, Dylan and Alex, three extremely charming characters that are perfectly performed by a trio of actresses that are having a great time (and it’s contagious). If I were to rank them, Barrymore would be the least convincing – even thought that she delivers – Liu is given a really funny acting threesome (with Matt le Blanc and John Cleese... it’s actually great to see Friends meets the Monty Python for a second, but unfortunately Cleese basically reacts and doesn’t “attack”) and as in the first one, the movie is owned basically by Cameron Diaz (and her “swirling” ass), an actress that has me in awe with many of her performances (as Marilyn, she’s a great looking talented actress that is seriously underrated)... Demi Moore, the 4^th “Angel” has a great comeback in the few minutes she’s given in the movie...

On the men side, Theroux basically makes a spoof of de Niro’s Max Cady (Cape Fear), Wilson and le Blanc repeat their characters (and le Blanc’s is a repetition of his Friend’s Joey Triviani), Mac is funny most of the time (sometimes he’s NOT), Glover is a wasted comeback (I didn’t like what they did to his character in this one, well, most of it) and Cleese is basically wasted, too.

But watching the movie, I got the sense that McG is a talented director that SHOULD be given a musical, the genre where he obviously feels more comfortable... the movie is contagious if you’re in the mood to embrace its nosense... it has the kind of charm that cult movies are made of: shameless, daring, and a cast and crew that seems to be having the time of their lives. Superman directed by McG? Yes! Make Superman fun!

Hot Links:

B+

Mondays in the Sun

**** 1/2

By Fernando León de Aranoa

with Javier Bardem, Luis Tosar, José Ángel Egido and Nieve de Medina

The great shock of 2002's Oscar race was maybe Talk to Her's not-submssion by Spanish Academy for Best Foreign Film... Almodóvar's film was almost locked not ony for a nod, but also for the win... Sony Pictures Classics confided in it for being one of the big players at Oscar nigh (it finally went to win Original Screenplay and be nominated for Best Director)... Hollywood began wondering why the spaniards picked ANOTHER movie. Was it better?

The answer is clear: No. It's a great movie. Let's go to review it.

Fernando León de Aranoa is the dearest baby-child of Spanish Cinema. He's not Almodóvar, Amenábar or de La Iglesia... he doesn't make box-office oriented movies and he's heavy in the social issue. As this country is ruled by conservatives and the majority of the artistic proffesionals in this country are on the left wing, Aranoa is well protected among his colleagues. He's an obviously talented director and writer, but I also have the feeling he's very manipulative... I must admit that this is the first Aranoa movie I see (I haven't seen the much awarded "Familia" or "Barrio").

First of all, the movie focus in the ordinary tragedy of ordinary unemployed in an ordinary town... it has a great ensemble and a bigger-than-life starring character, complex, sad and funny at once, played to perfection by the words-can't-describe-how-talented-this-guy-is Javier Bardem... this character, "Santa" spends his time in the bar, lives in a rented room, does whatever is necessary to earn some money - or to avoid paying it - and becomes the centre of this exploration of the crude reality of unemployed people in Spain.

Through the eyes of these characters we have a not-pleasing dramedy with the highs and lows of this middle-aged characters, too old for the employers, too basically trained, and that are not given real alternatives to earn a living. The feeling of outrage is a feeling you can feel growing in you as the frames goes by... it is an unfair situation, a real one hundreds thousands spaniards - and this can be translated universally - suffer everyday... dealing with the sense of frustration, of being useless and a waste.

Aranoa smartly avoids making the film too depressive, but it is still the effect he gets... rage arises from time to time in the characters, sometimes with funny results, sometimes with a feeling of unease.

Let's point out that the movie is highly political and vindicating, something that given the actual events that happened in Spain while its box-office run and the award season, helped it to become a b.o. hit and sweep all major awards (and replace Talk to her as the Oscar submission). Every award they accepted became a vindication and a attack on the conservative government, something that still, like in a vicious circle, helped the movie to earn more box-office and more awards. I stand in the left side, also, but I recognise that the movie is very good but not deserving of the sweep it earned.

Why? Because at some points, the movie falls in puerile reasoning, it is like it was preaching to the converted. The movie is realy great, though, specially because a superb cast, lead by Javier Bardem in a complete transformation that rises the level of what we see on screen to such a believability that is difficult to argue anything against it. The double sense of some situations is perfectly handed by both Bardem and Aranoa, adding to the movie's unease feeling... The rest of the cast give life to some a bit stereotyped characters, but that work in their interreactions.

On the technical aspects, nothing to worry, but the too repetitive and mediocre score, not on par with what we see on screen (wonderful cinematography, realistic art direction) and, well, everything you could expect from a social european movie.

In the end, a very good movie, made it almost a "must-see" one thanks to the awesom performance by Javier Bardem. Check it out.

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

THE HULK

***

by Ang Lee

with Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte and Sam Elliott

Has Ang Lee lost "it"? Is he suffering from the same Steven Spielberg illness? You know, the "I'm the one who's going to make the definitive - insert genre here - movie"? Because it's his - at least - second failure in a row (I haven't seen "Ride with the Devil" yet, but given that flop it can be suggested that it is his third artistical failure in a row).

Wait a minute, you'll say... yes, I can already feel the outrage of the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fans (the most overrated movie of the 2000's), a movie that can fool people who isn't familiar with estern (Chinese, Japanese) cinema (the work of Yimou, Imamura, the Honk Kong martial arts movies, "A Chinese Ghost Story"...) and who didn't get that the movie was only a "oriental philosophy for western dummies", that the dialogue at some points was simply embarrasing and that the fights looked horribly fake (specially the roof top chase). Why that mess was the critical darling of 2000 is beyond me.

But back to The Hulk. I'll admit this... I'm a Marvel fan, but never liked The Hulk. Never. I think it is one of the poorest Stan Lee characters (a simple Jeckill / Hyde rip off) and that depends SO much on the quality of the writer (Peter David anyone?) to be enjoyable and avoid being a repetition of the same schemes and situations (look also a the TV series). The last good The Hulk story I read is Corben's "Banner" that could make a masterful sequel for this one (exploring the possibilities of Hulk as an army massive destruction weapon)... let's hope that someone in Hollywood notices.

My problems with the movie started really, really soon. As soon as the new "origin". No Gamma bomb, no Rick Jones... I'm not a purist, but the genetic twist is simply too complicated and forced, distracting and pretentious. Lee turns an iconic story upside down to tell his own obsessions, simply ignoring why The Hulk has survived for 40 years in the Marvel Universe: because the inner drama that was filled with kick-ass actions. Lee developes a series of interesting characters, making a duet of not-as-complex-as-they-seem-at-first-glance of father-son relationships (David and Bruce Banner, and "Thunder" and Betty Ross) that he wants to parallel with Greek tragedy (that horribly bad final David-Bruce confrontation before their fight) making the film dull, extremely dull for a movie whose budget is intended for a summer blockbuster. Take for example other "origin" superhero movies as "X Men" or "Spiderman"... we have real action while developing the characters... In "The Hulk" we're given an unnecessary long and suspenseless - because it is so predictable - background for an hour of movie... what it is more... at some moments I felt like watching The A-Team movie, as The Hulk's actions didn't translate into a reasonable body count... to see people harmless after receiving so much harm... well, the credibility of the movie is zero. Of course, some people die, but hey, the death of a key character is simply laughable, even thought I know Lee wanted to give it a "comic-book" feel... that enters in great contradiction with the "seriousness" he wants to give this material. In the end, I think Lee hasn't understood at all what is a comic book, how it works and how to correctly adapt it to cinema. And no, that showy - and more than interesting - editing is not enough... that only shows he didn't get it at all... that the strenght is in good, beliveable characaters and pacing, as in a good movie.

Enough on that. Performers? Bana is good, Nolte ranges from the awesome to the extremely over the top, Sam Elliott and Josh Lucas are just OK (they do what they're told) and Connelly basically repeats - and improves, in my opinion - her "A Beautiful Mind" role (the suffering partner of a mentally troubled genius). The fact that the CGI performance of The Hulk is more memorable than most of the movie's acting is something that gives too much to think of. On another level, the geek inside me loved the Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee cameo: not distracting at all.

On technical notes: Elfman's score is at moments laughable (moorish sounds in the AMERICAN desert sequences!), the editing is showy and sometimes confusing, the cinematography is top notch most of the time, and the art direction shows us how expensive this film is. The Visual FX, are great, even thought that Gollum is still the best achievement in CGI (well, both are green)...

To summarize: an improvement over Ang Lee's CTHD, as at least this is a more risky movie, but far, far away from the Masterpieces (The Wedding Banquet, Eat Drink Man Woman, The Ice Storm) he has directed. Funny how "The Ice Storm"'s novel parallels its starring family to "The Fantastic Four", the comic book project that Lee should direct... Lee is a master of disfunctional families analysis.

Hot Links:

28 days later

****

by Danny Boyle

with Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns.

Wow, finally a good zombie movie in the theaters... it was since - maybe - Peter Jackson's Braindead that we haven't got one... (repeat with me, Resident Evil can't be seriously consider a zombie movie nor good despite many thrilling sequences). And it's been the less expected of the directors - Trainspotting's Danny Boyle - and with the less expected of the techniques - video - who has delivered the ultimate spin on the genre.

Does it means that we've got a new addition to the Olympus of horror? Hell, no! 28 days later stays obviously under the names of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Night - and Dawn - of Living Dead", "The Exorcist", "Nosferatu", "Bride of Frankenstein", "The Shining" or "The Blair Witch Project", all groundbreaking movies. 28 days later doesn't even try to join that pack, thank God for the lack of pretensions... "Later" wants only to be an amusement with an obvious satirical component but doesn't this to eclipse the fun (even though the movie pauses in the thrills surely one time too many for the average horror fan).

Because it is a slow movie, that loses tension some times, maybe more than needed (maybe another cut in which some character developement would have been sacrificed would have result in a wilder joyride, but then, the believabilty of the starring characters wouldn't have been so good). I know it should have been a hard decission for Garland and Boyle to choose what movie they were creating: a box-office hit, a cult favorite... they tried a mixture of both: a movie that would gain followers and that would earn enough money to be considered a hit - and probably allowing them to get their place in the sun back after the "The Beach" disaster.

What we have here is then - yeah, I'm on the plot now - the story of a "birth" to a new reality: a man wakes naked from a coma only to find out that London is empty of people (well, if we don't count those zombies that are 2 fast 2 furious for their own good)... gets contact with other survivors and they both decide to follow a broadcast - the only - radio and get to somewhere else in order to join other humans.

From that moment on, every situation can remind you of another horror movie sequence... there are plenty of Zombie movies references, as well as one that surely was inspired by Stephen King's "The Stand" and that implies one at first glance stupid decission (but if you think about it twice, it was a correct one). Boyle and Garland don't bother about that... these are actually common places in horror iconography, so why avoid them? Their interest is to take their view on them, and sometimes wink the audience and take a different sollution to some obvious problems... I was particularly pleased by the way the death of two characters was handled (no, I'm not going to spoil them, only to say that one is near the beginning of the movie and other is truly emotive).

The cast, plenty of unknowns, actually helps to the sensation of "reality" the video formant - with a great cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle (whose credits include Festen and Dogville, both Dogma movies) - and only Brendan Gleeson could be put above a good ensemble... in some key moments.

Garland's great screenwriting is here also, and despite some minor problems, Boyle's direction is at command, so it's a satisfying experience to see both talents back at work and with great possibility of scoring funding for more important projects. In six words: good horror flick for summer chills.

Hot Links:

my life without me

*****

by Isabel Coixet
with Sarah Polley, Scott Speedman, Deborah Harry, Mark Ruffalo, Amanda Plummer, Leonor Watling, Maria de Medeiros and Alfred Molina.

First of all: I AM NOT AN EL DESEO OR SONY PICTURES CLASSICS INSIDER.

Why do I claim that? Because these companies have offered me three masterpieces in a row, three films I went mad about... first it was the horror drama "The Devil's Backbone" by Guillermo del Toro (2001), and then the Almodovar drama "Talk to Her" (2002)... Now, there's Isabel Coixet's "My life without me", a superb drama about death and its consequences.

Don't get wrong. We've already seen this kind of movie before... in Chris Columbus' "Stepmom", Susan Sarandon tried desperately to deal with her fate while leaving everything in order. Bruce Joel Rubin's "My Life" changed the sex of the character, leaving Michael Keaton in that ugly situation... both movies had the same important flaw... over the top sensibility, searching for the easy tear, and maybe even having the Academy Award in mind...

From the modesty of an independent production, the honesty of an obviously personal story, and the credibility of a extremely well cast ensemble, "My life without me" raises any inicial expectation to a level that makes me guess this is going to be one of the movies of the year.

And it is in a perfect screenplay that cares not only for the lead character, Ann (it cares enough to NOT making her cry all throughout the movie, but making her a threedimensional and complex character that wants to take profit of her limited lifetime) but also for a strong and human supporting pack, ranging from the kind and gentle husband (Scott Speedman) to the depressed mother (Deborah Harry) and from the lonely guy who can't buy new furniture (Mark Ruffalo) to the friend obsessed with food (Amanda Plummer) without forgetting the unforgettables Ann (Talk to Her's Leonor Watling) and Dr. Thompson (Julian Richings) who both have very limited screentime but take an impressive use of it, thanks to Coixet's caring screenwritting.

Here we have believable characters: the doctor that can't look at his patients' eyes when giving them bad news, the hair dresser (Maria de Medeiros) obsessed with Milli Vanilli, the girl whose only affordable present to her family is to make them unaware of her illness or the nurse that decided to not have children due to a terrible experience. Every one - and others - of these situations are presented with honesty, credibility and avoiding any unnecessary sensibility, letting the emotions flow naturally and never fooling the audience with crocodrile's tears and "Oscar clips" sequences ready for the Academy.

But Sarah Polley's Ann is a memorable performance, and should - will - be present at Oscar night, if there's some justice in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if Mark Ruffalo or Leonor Watling (even thought she's not much on screen) also earn supporting nods for their truly moving performances, and I think that, if cleverly promoted, Isabel Coixet's screenplay will be almost a lock for a nod... The movie itself plays like a new "Ordinary People" or "Secrets and Lies", and have it all to be considered a contender for Best Picture and Director (Sony: YOU'VE GOT A WINNER HERE!).

I named two examples of similar movies, but I left the best one for the end: Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru". Does Coixet's movie stand the comparison? Yes... not that this one is perfect and superior, but that it can be considered a different approach to the same issues: how the most important thing in death is what you leave behind.

What's left? Me, thinking - and feeling miserable - why I haven't seen any Coixet movie before. Watch out for this one!

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

D+

Bruce Almighty

** 1/2

by Tom Shadyac

with Jim Carrey, Jennifer Aniston and Morgan Freeman

I've seen this movie before. No, Mrs. Pitt and Mr. Freeman weren't in it but it obviously had Jim Carrey and was directed by Tom Shadyac... it was a huge success worldwide and even won some critical respect because it was SO fun when it was funny that those reviewers thought it balanced at least the film numerous and outrageous flaws.

It was called Liar, Liar.

After that success, it was a bit surprising they didn't make a sequel... were Shadyac and Carrey smart enough to avoid covering in mud by making a sequel of a movie that had an idea good for a single feature but bad for a franchise? More or less. They finally came to do what is obviously almost a remake. Sigh.

Bad times in Hollywood, and this movie proves it beyond reasonable doubt... we've got Carrey given the powers of God for a couple of weeks and using them - as most human beings would do, given the chance - to improve his car, his career, his dog and his girlfriend. Sometimes - many, many times - it is funny, even some jokes and situations can only be described as hilarious... but Shadyac and Carrey haven't got a good timing notion and in one particular sequence, the same joke runs in what it seems FOREVER... it was fun the first 10 seconds, then it bores.

Carrey's overacting reach great levels sometimes - hey, the movie knows Carrey will overact, and allows him to do it - but other times - as in his worst (Ace Ventura) films - his performance literally pulls you out of the story in ways that can only be described as disappointing, coming by a man who has proven himself as a comedic genius in films like "The Mask", "Dumb and Dumber" and "Man on the Moon"... to see him back in pure comedy is great, but I wanted something a little more original...

The supporting stars (Anniston and Freeman) are good - funny - enough... Anniston at some moments is simply "Rachel", from Friends, and that's not a bad thing as she's a so lovable character... in key dramatic sequences, she and Carrey have sparks of the chemistry they could have had with a better screenplay... Freeman's God is another issue. I personally think that this man was born to play God, thanks to the credibility he puts in every one of his performances... and it's nice to see he tries to be funny - and he's fun! - when he's onscreen with Carrey. But then again, it's a mediocre screenplay the one that by deepening in the cheese possibilities of the story kills every chance of Morgan making a memorable performance...

And truth is, that is the screenplay to blame. Even a mediocre director like Shadyac could have made a fun movie with Carrey from the shitty screenplay - the movie is actually fun - because the script obviously counts with Carrey's improvisation skills... and that's a bad thing when the movie is heavy on visual effects... this is not when Carrey beated himself in Liar Liar (did he read Fight Club in advance?), an actor making a memorable sequence that lead to an hilarious dialogue between him and the judge... here, the improvisation on the great material - using the powers - is limited by the budget. There are some clever touches that went unnoticed for the audience when I saw the movie, as when he was pouring wine from water to guests in a party... so subtle for a film that has one of the best shocks when you see a dog reading a newspaper in...

That's what I mean... there's no equilibrium on the jokes, and also the screenplay doesn't take profit of the whole possibilities of the situation... their will of making a family blockbuster prevents since the very beginning to exploit all the chances... Just figure out what Trey Parker and Matt Stone - of South Park fame - could have done with such material... Instead of doing a satire about religion, this film decided to be a cheesy romantic comedy. Sad but true.

To summarize, a waste of the talent of the starring trio, but with several good laughs... check it out if you're bored or in the mood for some good laughs.

Hot Links:

B-

11' 09'' 01

september 11

****

Samira Makhmalbaf **** 1/2 B+

A group of afghan refugee children learns about the disaster, thanks to a willing teacher who's afraid of USA reaction. Moving, well acted and poignant.

Claude Lelouch **** B

A breaking couple in New York waiting for a miracle to happen. Lelouch focus on human nature rather than in the disaster itself.

Youssef Chahine * E

Irritantly pretentious, this piece of "fantastic" includes some puerile - but true - observations about the events that took the world to September 11th.

Danis Tanovic **** B-

September 11th through the view of the widows of Srebenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Moving empathy flows from these women to the people suffering in New York and Washington.

Idrissa Ouedraogo **** B

Deliciously naive tale of five kids in Burkina Fasso that discover that Osama Bin Laden hides in their town and try to catch him in order to get the reward.

Ken Loach ***** A-

Brave look on another Tuesday September 11th, when the attack on freedom and democracy came from the USA from the point of view of a Chilean exilee in London. Disturbing and moving, as he only request Americans to remember both September 11ths.

Alejandro Gómez Iñarritu ***** A+

A true masterpiece that has moved me to tears... a black screen with flashes of the disaster and sounds taken from broadcasts... and a final title that summarizes it all. This man is a genius.

Amos Gitaï * E

Horribly flawed comparison between a Palestinian terrorist attack in Jerusalem and the attacks on New York, through the eyes of a journalist that is ignored by her broadcast in the middle of the mayhem. There are some laughably bad moments in this pretentious short.

Mira Nair **** 1/2 B+

A real story is the target of Nair's insight. She focus on one of the dramas that caused September 11th and the suffering of muslim community in the USA... a story with a surprising twist ending that should wake consciences.

Sean Penn **** 1/2 B+

Poetic look into the effects in an elderly man in the verge of madness. Superb performance of Ernest Borgnine. This one may irritate audiences with a "WTF???", but it's a very valid movie.

Shohei Imamura *** C

A japanese soldier believes he's a snake in the last days of World War II. The consequences of war in a flawed metaphor that maybe well directed, but in the end it is just interesting.

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

the city with no limits

(en la ciudad sin límites)

****

by Antonio Hernández

with Leonardo Sbaraglia, Fernando Fernán Gómez, Geraldine Chaplin, Roberto Álvarez and Adriana Ozores.

The surprise Best Picture nominee in last year's edition of the Goya Awards (Spanish Oscars for those who didn't know) is a visually appealing dramatic thriller about family and the secrets and sacrifices that usually are beneath the smiling surface parents and sons show each other, friends and strangers.

The plot is quite simple at first glance: old man (Max, played by veteran actor Fernán Gómez) is dying and his mind is going away, and pleads his younger son Victor (Sbaraglia) for help, who despite the obvious signs of mental insanity, decides to investigate and believe him. The rest of the family (among them, Álvarez, Ozores and Alex Casanovas) follows the mother's wishes (Marie, Chaplin) and ignore the old man's lament.

What follows is a slow paced but engaging drama told in the key of a thriller... a risky way to tell this story, following Victor's discovering of the truth behind his parents happiness, a mirage that hides a couple of shocking secrets that could change the family forever.

Told in a striking visual style, and with powerful performances by Sbaraglia, Fernán Gómez, Ozores and - above all - Geraldine Chaplin, the film slowly hooks you and changes your view on the characters, making you care for them and truly believable, threedimensional people you could easily met in the real world.

But there's something wrong in this movie... the sense of letdown when the secrets are revealed... it is not that they're not important - of course not - but I felt that the expectations - oh, well, and that it's easy to imagine one of them - didn't met the results on screen, that the dramatic possibilities of the conflict weren't fully shown. If you see the movie - which I highly recommend anyways - you'll understand. Another - minor - complaint is why Sbaraglia's character is Argentinian? It is very distracting to have a family with Spanish father, French mother, two Spanish sons and another Argentinian son (the mixture of accents is sort of weird)... of course the performers do their best to avoid that sensation, and most of the time they succeed.

On the technical notes, a good haunting score (but a little repetitive, for my taste) by Victor Reyes and a perfect cinematography by Unax Mendía give the film the looks of your latest Hollywood thriller, only that it is set in Paris and Spanish spoken.

Overall, a good movie, in the line of the best spanish cinema of the 00's (Intacto, Darkness, Talk to Her), stylistic, atmospheric and haunting, with great performances and solid writing... I wouldn't be surprised if an American remake is on the works.

Hot Links:

ROTTEN TOMATOES PAGE

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

OFFICIAL SITE

dark water

****

by Hideo Nakata

with Hitomi Kuroki and Rio Kanno

Dark Water is better known to be Nakata's departure from "The Ring" series to explore new textures of horror... well, actually, Dark Water could have been another Ringu sequel, as the same issues - and gimmicks - are again back on screen, in what can be easily called a "deja vu" that may irritate the horror movie fan that captures the similarities of structure, story and subtext between the original Ringu and Dark Water. More of the same.

But I can't seriously complain... Dark Water is a very good horror movie on its own. It deserves to be seen, to remind us that a good horror movie doesn't depend on the gore, blood and guts that is shown on screen... that it doesn't depend on the wit or powers of a villain... that real horror comes from the unknown in ordinary life, that the less you show, the more you scare.

And Nakata stages this movie almost as a mother / daughter duet, with captivating performances of both lead actresses (specially Kuroki), and - as every good haunted house movie - transforms the building into another character... It is thanks to his competent work as a director that actually the movie survives to the "Ringu" ghost and comparison... Let's make clear that the "surprise" ending in this one can be seen coming from long, long ago... so, the actual chill you're feeling is genuine... you guess what is going on, and still, it scares you. And, as in "Ringu", the truth it is equally scary and sad.

But given Nakata's persistence in taking on the same issues over and over again, I begin to wonder if he will ever dare to try something different or will simply bore us in the end. Good movie, but in the end, something you already saw.

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

OFFICIAL SITE

don't tempt me / No News from God

(sin noticias de Dios)

** 1/2

by Agustín Díaz Yanes

with Victoria Abril, Penélope Cruz, Gael García Bernal, Fanny Ardant and Demian Bichir.

One of the most love-it-or-hate-it movies of the last years, No News from God (much better title that the simplistic, dumb, Don't tempt me) was a box-office failure and shut out of any victory at the Goyas (even thought it scored a Best Picture nod and other 10 nominations!)... was the movie itself a failure?

Yes. But thank God (or devil?), it wasn't a disaster.

Do your remember a movie in which dialogue was equally important both in Spanish, English, French and Latin? No kidding here... Yanes screenplay reserves Spanish for the Earth's dialgue, French for Heaven's, English for Hell's and Latin as a middle point for understanding (!). Of course there you have the starting point of a satire between Europe and America, if you want... a flawed one, by the way.

The plot: God has disappeared, and Heaven and Hell begin to fight for a boxer's soul (Manny, played by Demian Bichir)... why is it so important? Well, you have to actually watch the movie to find out... so, here we have two "women" entering the boxer's life: Lola (Victoria Abril) and Carmen (Penélope Cruz). Lola, representing Heaven, wants Manny to quit boxing as he's one hit from death and will eventually go to Hell for his past sins... she tries hard to make Manny change his lifestyle and balance his actions and gain him for Heaven... but under the same ceiling is living Carmen (Penélope Cruz), who's sent from Hell to make Manny go back to the ring as soon as possible and secure his soul.

From that point, the movie never defines itself as a comedy, a thriller, a drama or whatever... it seems too concentrated in offer us striking visuals and an acting duel between its two international stars: Abril (whose career outside of Spain focus in France) and Cruz (who is becoming an underrated film star in the USA)... no wonder Abril - a better actress - wins the duel, but Cruz is really impressive and stands the comparison, which is no small wonder.

Unfortunately, the film is mostly a mess... interesting, but a mess. The material isn't new (recently Kevin Smith's Dogma was a similar movie, which equally flawed results), and the film pacing suffers too much because of the continous Heaven - Earth - Hell jumps (and specially from the language trade). Yanes does his best when directing to make us forget about its too erratic writing, but is too late... No matter how spectacular can be a sequence, if the next one throws you out of the movie, in the end it's pointless.

In the end, it is an interesting failure, made it good by performers and worth watching for those interested in see two stars (Cruz, Abril) colliding.

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE

OFFICIAL SITE

THE MATRIX: RELOADED

** 1/2

by the Wachowsky Brothers
with Keanu Reeves, Larry Fishburne, Carrie Anne Moss and Hugo Weaving

OK, let's call it a small decemption.

The obvious will of the Wachowsky Brothers to make it Bigger, Longer and Uncut has resulted in one of the most overlong and oversized action movies of the last years...

Bigger? Yeah, the action sequences are larger than life, so the movie is a sucession of "wow"s and "holy sh*t" from beginning to end, specially with the born to be legendary fight between Neo and AgentS Smith.

Longer? Even thought that actually the movie has a similar running time (watching at my clock) than the first one, this one is longer in speeches, action sequences, and - forgive me for saying this - pretentious bullsh*t. It isn't like what the plot has to offer isn't deep... it is that it felt sometimes so pretentious, as there wasn't really much meat beneath the surface... maybe with "Revolutions" the whole plot will make real sense, but right now, on its own, "Reloaded" faints one time too many, and I got really tired throughout many sequences, even in the action ones that were too long for my taste (a shorter resollution would have given the movie a better pacing!).

Uncut? Obviously, as result of the oversizing of the sequences that break the film's pacing. But what is more, the Zion party (which I liked) introduced us to an subtle "orgy" and a "clean" sex sequence unexpected in "The Matrix" series, and giving a subtle satirical tune to the movie... we see the Messiah making love. Cool, bearing in mind the religious subtext.

So, what's left? Some good performances (Weaving is the standout, as he was in the first one), NOT SO PERFECT Visual Effects (for God's sake!), bad pacing, abuse of songs (the score is for something, not for selling the CD!), and maybe the most awesome actions sequences ever filmed (but not the bests!). Worth watching in a theater once, and saying a prayer for "Revolutions" to be better.

A very short review, but I haven't much time today.

Hot Links:

B+

X-MEN 2: X-MEN UNITED

**** 1/2

Directed by Bryan Singer

With Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian MacKellen, Anna Paquin, Famke Janssen, Halle Berry and others.

What can be said of the surpassing of already high expectations? It is so strange when you walk into a theater afraid of feeling decemption and you walk out a couple of hours later with the feeling of awe chilling in every cell of your skin...

X Men 2 did that to me.

From the ass-kicking introduction of the Nightcrawler character to the absolutely amazing final shot of the movie, we get a second chapter in a series that can absolutely rival to "Empire Strikes Back" or "The Two Towers", finally. The multi-layered and multi-character plot explores once more the edges and details of the important issues the film deals with (tolerance, racism, abuse of power, etc.). Once more, Magneto is not "evil" in the extreme sense of the word, but rather "angry", a Malcom X you can talk with. Xavier on the other side, is shown not only as the Martin Luther King of the Mutants, but also as a seriously potential menace (something comic-book readers already knew). Even Stryker (Brian Cox, in a great performance) is presented as human rather than a stereotyped cartoon.

Should I get to the details? No, for sure... just a quick summarize of the pros and flaws of the movie:

Pros: Great plot, great cast with the perfect timing for every role (every character is given the time and lines to show up and not be seriously missed), perfect hints for the future (names like Remy Lebeau, Franklin Richards and Hank MacCoy appearing in the background), and a perfect capture of the spirit of the comics both in the dialogues and fights (I loved specially how did they stopped Pyro in the fight with the cops). And of course THE ENDING? Can't wait for X3

Flaws: Not really much... Nightcrawler's tattoos and maybe Cumming not being seriously believable as german (but I didn't bother for too long) and specially a no-sense (I need explanation): what were doing Mystique and Magneto in the forest, so ready to help???? Also, cheese almost appears at many points of the film, but that also happened in the comics, so...

So, the best superhero film to date, period (I won't include The Matrix in the genre yet) and of course one of the best comic-book adaptations I've seen. The hint of a possible Fantastic Four / X Men movie in the future almost made scream in joy, if that serves as a proof of my level of enjoyment with this movie.

My actual #1 2003 movie so far (but I haven't seen much yet).

Hot Links:

B+

darkness

**** 1/2

Directed by Jaume Balagueró
With Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Iain Glen, Stephan Enquist, Fele Martínez and Fermí Reixach

You may don't know who Jaume Balagueró is. You may ignore his debut film, `The Nameless' (Los Sin Nombre) which - undeservingly - became a cult film worldwide. Well, I am one of the few film lovers who knows Balagueró work

since his breakthrough shorts `Alicia' and `Días sin Luz', two visually stunning and disturbing films that put him in the map of Spanish fantastic cinema. While `Alicia', was promising but obviously overrated, `Días sin Luz' showed that this man could do one day an horror classic. When `Los Sin Nombre', his debut film appeared, my hopes were high, and buzz was that it was great. My deception ranks between the biggest I ever had while watching a movie. `Los Sin Nombre' was complete, absolute garbage... obsessed in being the new `Se7en', the acting wasn't engaging and the stunning visuals were completely empty. Worst of it all is that I could see the great story beneath the trash that was offered to my eyes. I hated Balagueró.

But years pass and I hear news that one of my favorite actresses, Anna Paquin has signed to star in Balagueró's new movie, `Darkness'. I seriously didn't know what to think. After thinking a bit and learning about the shooting in Barcelona, my interest grew. It reached the point of really anticipating the movie when I heard that Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini joined the cast. The acting, this time, simply couldn't go wrong, could it? Three Academy Awards nominees (one of them, winner) couldn't be that bad. But then I remembered `Los Sin Nombre' and fear came back.

So, I went to see this movie just after watching `Austin Powers in Goldmember' dubbed to spanish in one of the WORST dubbings I've ever heard in Spain (I had previously seen the movie in English, so I can judge the movie in its own merits, ***) and I was feeling a little disturbed... was it going to be two deceptions in a row?

And the movie started... it wasn't long into the movie when Balaguero's trademark visuals appeared. I was starting thinking in `Los Sin Nombre' when suddenly the plot and the cast hooked me. I must warn that this movie's first half is SLOW. Don't expect much to happen, but what happens NEEDS to be shown, in order to fully construct the movie. Paquin and Olin gave two remarkable performances, and Iain Glen and Stephan Enquist are two pleasant surprises, and is no wonder Giannini does a great job. Fele Martinez, however, doesn't shine but does a just OK job.

You may notice that I'm avoiding the plot. Confide in me, the lesser you know about this one, the better. I'll just hint films this movie somewhat resembles: `The Others', Robert Wise's `The Haunting', `Rosemary's Baby' and `In the mouth of Madness'. Yes, mix all those movies and you'll get close to what this movie offers. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to hear reviewers blame Balagueró of copying, but it would be unfair. `Darkness' is a movie in its own, and deserves to become a classic horror movie.

Why? Because this one is all what `Los Sin Nombre' could have been and isn't. The same subjects lie beneath its frames. The same sad feeling. But this time, a superb cast and an inspired Balagueró (even thought he occasionally inserts too much) gave me a great experience.

I won't lie to you. Some people didn't like the movie at all. Even a couple walked away from the theater saying `even it wasn't an horror movie'... well, I wonder if they actually paid attention to the anguish the finale had. But apart of this couple, the rest of the people still were in shock. There are some twists that you can predict, and Balagueró knows that, so he just offer a wide range of possibilities, including of course the real one, and lets you guess for yourself what CAN happen next, but not what is going to happen for sure. From the movie's half, things begin to show, to happen, to puzzle the characters... when a great sequence is shown (the potatoes) and you think it won't be toped, the next one tops it... and so on till the magnificent finale that is LONG, and emotionally overwhelming and left the audience exhaust. It is not only horror, it is emotions... and there's a choice that can puzzle at first, but it makes total and horrifying sense.

So, summarizing, this movie is better than `The Sixth Sense' and almost as good as `The Others'. Go see this movie when it open in your country. This SHOULD be a blockbuster. This is the horror movie of the year, or so I guess.

Jaume, if you read this, I forgive `Los Sin Nombre'... what's next?

Hot Links:

METACRITIC PAGE

BOX-OFFICE MOJO PAGE