Taxi Driver. Martin Scorsese (1.976)

Taxi Driver is a vintage Scorsese movie. Unrelentless street violence, deeply disturbed characters, the streets of New York, brilliant acting and one of the best sequences ever shot on film.

The movie follows the life and tribulations of Travis Bickle, a New York cabbie who racks in an enormous number of hours a week as he doesn't have anybody to go home to and suffers from insomnia. This allows him to earn money to spare, and with this, he buys weapons.

Scorsese slowly takes us through the complicated mind of Bickle, who through his travels gets to meet people from all walks of life and absorbs a little bit of each one. He feels like a man with no purpose, so he decides to find one. he runs into a young hooker by the name of Iris and he insists in taking her out of this life. At the same time, he falls for a beautiful woman, played by Cibyll Shepperd, who happens to work for the campaign of a politician. In a plain attempt to gain attention, he cuts his hair mohawk style and, packed with several guns, shows up at this politician's rally, possibly to shoot him, but has to escape in a hurry when a security guard starts asking him questions.

There's a segment where Travis practices with his gun at his run down apartment in front of a mirror. He confronts an imaginary oponent as he draws his gun while saying "Are you talkin' to me?" in a memorable and frequently quoted scene.

Travis then shows up at the brothel where Iris works. He meets Sport, her pimp, played by the ever versatile  Harvey Keitel and shoots him with no previous warning. He walks into the building and shoots the man who assigns the rooms and is also shot in the neck himself. He continues on to the room where Iris is with one of her customers and also shoots that man. Travis then slumps to the couch, possibly bleeding to death. This action sequence is beautifully shot (if this term is applicable) and shows Scorsese's direction mastery.

At the end of this scene, a voice reads out loud a letter sent to Travis, who obsviuosly survived, by Iris' parents who thank him for saving their daughter and bringing her back to them.

In the end, Travis became a hero, a person of notoriety, something he was anxiously looking for. But, what does the future hold for him?

In the end, Scorsese displays what the streets of New York are like. An ugly underworld filled with drugs, violence and prostitution. Travis Bickle is just a simple man with a social problem, possibly a sociopath, who absorbs what he sees and feels from his bleak surroundings. He's just a by product of modern society.

This is at least my opinion. And I could be wrong.

Donnie Darko. Richard Kelly (2001)

Well, I finally got to see it. Donnie Darko has become some sort of a cult classic and for some reason I had never come accross it either at the theatre or on TV, and it was my teenage son who came up with the idea of renting it last night.

What a pleasant surprise it was.

Although at some point it looks like a coming of age movie, a teen comedy or a teen slasher flick, it combines elements from these three genres with some dark humour and supernatural themes to create something really unique.

Donnie Darko is a mature and brilliant teenage boy with schizophrenia problems who sleepwalks. He has weekly sessions with a therapist who tries to get to the bottom of Donnie's problems. He then starts to see a giant bunny who gives him instructions which he carries out, things like flooding his high school or burning someone's house. On the other hand, Donnie tries to survive high school as well as he can, dealing with friendship, love and social acceptance. His life is a complicated series of events which inevitably come to an abrupt and complicated climax.

Donnie is surrounded by a multitude of quirky characters ranging from a controlling teacher, the usual high school bullies, his tragedy ridden girlfriend, an old neighbour suffering from dementia, and his imaginary bunny friend. These array of strange characters give the movie a special appeal. It is evident that the director, Richard Kelly, decided to create an environment where nothing was normal. Surprisingly enough for an American movie, he decided to make Donnie's family completely normal and supportive. That I found confusing, giving the overall tone of the film.

Given the complexity of the story, it's difficult to summarise the strange events that ultimately occur at the climax of the movie, which I'd need to see again to totally understand (remember Inception?) but in short, Donnie unravels a time travel mystery in a book which was written by his old and crazed neighbour. Once he solves this, he decides it's best for him to die, placing himself in the spot where a lost airplane turbine will fall on his house. He gives up his life so his girlfriend can survive.

I strongly recommend this movie, although I understand its not just for everyone. My son and I enjoyed it, but I'm sure my wife and daughter would have walked out after 15 minutes. A too heavy and intricate story overloaded with strange  and disturbing characters Perfect for a Saturday night at home.

This is, at least, my opinion, and I could be wrong.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Stephen Chbosky (2012)

I have to admit this is the type of film that I'd never see just based on its name and the actors involved. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ezra Miller in "We need to talk about Kevin", but this seemed to me like a rom com teenage movie. It wasn't until my good friend Fabiola recommended the movie that I decided to rent it on a Saturday night with no exciting footy games on TV.

This what could be defined as a typical "coming of age" film, but lucky for the viewer it's not made in the "American Pie" tradition of comedy nor is a cheesy first-love experience teen movie. The story is based on the novel of the same name, written by the Director of the movie, Stephen Chbosky in 1999

The movie tells the story of a group of high school misfits who get together and support each other in a world ruled by popularity. The main character, Charlie, is a scared and insecure freshman with no friends or social ability. He's received by the group with open arms when they discover the kid lost his only friend after he committed suicide. Charlie, excellently portrayed by Logan Lerman, is a complex character who is brilliantly described by the Author/Director Chbosky. We start to pick up bits and pieces from his past as the movie progresses. At one point, in series of flashbacks, we find that Charlie is prone to blackouts he suffers when he commits acts of violence. We learn that the boy was abused at a very young age by an aunt, whom he supposedly killed during one of the blackouts.

Charlie's best friends and mentors are Patrick and Sam. They are brother and sister and both are high school seniors. Patrick is witty, very social and openly gay. He's played by a brilliant Ezra Miller. Emma Watson, of Harry Potter fame, is Sam, a troubled girl who chooses the wrong men to hang out or have sex with. Charlie inevitably falls for her, understanding that she's beyond his reach. This unusual threesome cruise through the last year of high school for Patrick and Sam, overcoming several obstacles as well as their insecurities.

After Charlie suffers a crisis, he's confined to a psychiatric hospital for examination. During his sessions with the therapist, the abuse he suffered from his now deceased aunt is revealed, and his family, including his elusive sister, give him support while all of a sudden understand the reason for his erratic behaviour.

The group inevitable splits as all the seniors leave town for their respective universities, leaving Charlie at home. They eventually return and ina memorable final scene Patrick  Sam and Charlie go out on a ride to a spot they used to go.

It's definitely a teenage coming of age movie, but without too many cliches. The characters are rich and complicated, and it doesn't have a happy ending where Charlie regains his sanity and gets his girl. We expect that these three teenagers will continue their lives with Patrick struggling with his sexuality; Sam fighting her insecurities and Charlie confronting his internal demons.

This is, at least, my opinion. And I could be wrong.

Game of Thrones. David Benioff (2011 - Ongoing)

Spoiler alert!!!

I've never written about TV in any form, but after watching the first season of this series, I simply had to. A very good friend of mine here in Australia had been suggesting the books and TV series for a while, but since I've never been a fan of the fantasy genre, I never cared to give this a shot. Until a few weeks ago, when finally I decided to give it a try. On a Sunday, I rented the first season and started watching it with my wife. We were immediately hooked by it. Now, there's no turning back!

This epic story revolves around the complicated land of Westeros (on planet Earth?) where seven families, who rule different kingdoms, struggle to detain power at any cost. The series evolves slowly, as we're introduced to its many characters, their strengths, weaknesses, desires and fears. It takes the viewer a while to start realising who's who and how they're related to each other. Season one is more like an action adventure story in the middle ages than fantasy, as there are hardly any fantastic or supernatural elements (until late in the season)

The casting is superb. Every character seems real. Ned Stark is portrayed by one of the few cast members I had seen before, Sean Bean. He could be branded as the main character of the story in season 1. He's the head of the Starks, a powerful family who rule the Northern land of Winterfell. Then you have the Lannisters, a group of cold hearted scheming brothers seeking to control the land of Kings Landing. The best acting however, is by Peter Dinklage, a dwarf that was usually cast in comedy movies like Death at a Funeral. He plays the brilliant but physically impaired Tyrion Lannister, who wanders through these perilous lands using his wit as a weapon. 

The dense story line is full of subplots and you can clearly see how the story branches out to many sub stories that at some point seem to expand out of control. The author, George R. R. Martin, created a world comparable to that Middle Earth of The Lord of the Rings and you can see clearly how he was influenced by Tolkien. New kingdoms appear while you're still trying to figure out what happened in the previous one. One good thing about renting the entire series is that the DVD's have plenty of features explaining each and every character and each and every family. This helps out in putting the entire web of characters together and having a better idea of what's going on.

I ended up watching the first two episodes again and both me and my wife went "Oh, that's why she didn't get burned" or "Oh, so they are really brother and sister"

I strongly recommend this piece of television, possibly the most exciting and expensive serial ever to be filmed for the silver screen.

This is at least my opinion. And I could be wrong.

The Master. Paul Thomas Anderson (2.012)

Every once in awhile, we come across a movie that defies mainstream cinema, and forces you to watch it with a different approach. I find this very challenging, and most of the time I enjoy the exercise. This doesn't make a movie automatically a work of art, but it is good to be put in a position where you have to think outside the square. This is the case with "The Master"

Freddie Quell, played by Joaquim Phoenix, is a WWII veteran with mental problems that is walking adrift in life, with no home and no purpose. After a wild night he awakens in a boat belonging to Lancaster Dodd, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, also known as "The Master". Dodd is the founder and leader of a cult named "The Cause" Like any other cult leader, Lancaster Dodd is narcissistic and intolerant. His views on life and his decisions are not to be questioned by his followers who respond to him blindly and with devotion.
These two odd characters engage in a relationship of dominance and admiration. Freddie, whose behaviour has always been erratic and bordering on bi polar, physically attacks those who dare to question The Master's theories and beliefs.
The movie moves along without a clear story line. It's mostly the strange relationship between these two characters. The point is, the acting is so sensational that you are drawn into the lives of these two men, knowing for sure that this could not end well. I was expecting a fatalistic grand finale, with Quell turning violent on his new mentor and possibly committing suicide. And who knows if this would have happened if you gave this movie fifteen more minutes. The thing is, Anderson was not interested in a climatic ending, or an ending with a twist. He leaves us there, wandering what would come next.
The mastery of Anderson's creation lies in the construction of these two characters. Better yet, three characters, as Amy Adams does a subtle but powerful impersonation of Peggy Dodd, Lancaster's wife who seems to be the only person with any control over his life and actions. Adams had prviously teamed up with Seymour Hoffman in "Doubt" where both of them had remarkable performances. I hope she gets the recognition she deserves for this role.
Even when Phoenix has been nominated for Academy awards before (Walk the line and Gladiator) I truly believe this is his best work so far. Just watching him walk and gesture in this movie made me uneasy. He portrays his role as an oversexed psychotic person well. Seymour Hoffman also delivers a masterful performance, but we're used to that already. His role as an intolerant, manipulative, possibly lunatic but very intelligent cult leader is fantastic. My only question would be that he seems to portray this character the same way he has done with others in the past.This is not a bad thing, just not that original.
Overall, this is a great movie, which needs to be seen bearing in mind there will be no clear story line or major developments. Only the rants and tribulations of three very peculiar people.

This is, at least, my opinion. And I could be wrong.

Les Miserables. Tom Hooper (2012)

Spoiler Alert!!!

As a fan of musical theater it's somewhat difficult to evaluate this movie from strictly a cinematic point of view. Les Miserables is the last in a long list of hit Broadway/West End musicals which have been made into successful movies. It seems like a good formula. Choose a hit musical, build up a cast of famous stars (who can actually sing), and throw in  $100 MM. The result, a blockbuster like Les Mis. To refresh your memory, these previous musicals have become instant screen record breakers: The Sound of Music; Mary Poppins; West Side Story; Chicago; Oliver; Grease; My Fair Lady and many others. At least three of them won Best Picture awards.

Les Miserables, or as it is usually known, Les Mis, is based on the best selling novel by Victor Hugo and tells the story of Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman) a man who was given a very stiff penalty for stealing a loaf of bread in the aftermath of the French Revolution, where France was immersed in poverty. Valjean serves his duty and upon release refuses to report to the police as a paroled man. He becomes a businessman and changes his name. Javert (played by Russell Crowe), a committed policeman, looks for him everywhere and their lives cross paths several times, with Valjean narrowly escaping all of them.

One of Valjean's employees, Fantine, is fired by Valjean's merciless foreman, and she turns to prostitution in order to provide for her little girl, Cosette. Fantine is beautifully played by Anne Hathaway. It's a short but powerful role, where the misery and degradation of prostitution in 19 Century Paris is explicitly displayed. Valjean finds out about Fantine and, feeling responsible, vows to take care of Cosette. Fantine dies very young and sings one of the most important songs of the musical "I dreamed a dream" This is a very powerful and dramatic scene. I felt really moved by Hathaway's performance and singing.

The story moves ahead a few years, with Valjean starting over yet again, this time with Cosette by his side, who he treats as his daughter. A few youngsters unhappy with the ever powerful government, organise a protest. Among these men, a young lawyer, Marius (played by Eddie Redmayne), falls in love with Cosette, something that is not approved by Valjean.

At the height of these protests, Javert once more spots Valjean. He (Valjean) then decides to leave once again and alerts Cosette, who doesn't want to as she's in love with Marius. The protests escalate and a whole section of the city is barricaded off. The soldiers, with sheer force, manage to contain these protests and eventually go over and around the barricade, killing most of the young men involved, with Marius being gravely wounded. Valjean decides to help him and carries him away to safety through the underground sewers as he's pursued by Javert.

Javert, who at one point was imprisoned by the protesters and whose life was spared by Valjean, commits suicide, putting an end to a life long pursuit and to Valjean's troubles.

The movie ends with the death of Jean Valjean, while he's reunited once again with Cosette and Marius.

A highly dramatic plot, loaded with fantastic songs and settings. The acting was spot on, especially by Jackman, Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried. I guess Russell Crowe was Ok although his voice didn't do him any favours. The director, Tom Hooper, used extreme closeups with all actors, especially Jackman, I believe to emphasize the drama. I found this really distressing at times, but I guess he manages to obtain that effect. For those who are not particularly fond of the musical theater, I believe this could be a long and slow movie. But for those who admire this art form, this movie is a must see.

The renditions of "I dreamed a dream" by Hathaway and "In my life" by Amanda Seyfried were nothing short of brilliant. Most of Jackman's solo's (a heap of them) were terrific. He has a strong musical background and has played the main part in several musicals. I can recall him as "Curly" in "Oklahoma", where he took me by surprise for his strong tenor voice. The part of Jean Valjean is possibly the most sought after male role in all of musical theatre, possibly rivaled by The Phantom. It;s a difficult, tiresome and long script loaded with songs. The whole movie revolves around him and his internal struggles to find himself and to be a better person. I haven't seen "Lincoln" and once I see it I'll have to compare Daniel Day Lewis' part with Jackman's, but regardless of this, I strongly believe this was a major piece of acting by Jackman.

Once again, if you like musicals, then this is a must see. If you don't, you might get bored.

This is, at least, my opinion. And I could be wrong.

Argo. Ben Affleck (2.012)

I've never believed in the Oscars as a benchmark to define the quality of a movie. I understand though, that it's definitely a good reference of movies you should see. I took that decision many years ago when a cheesy romantic comedy like "Ghost" was nominated for best picture. This theory of mine was once more proven this year with "Argo".

I usually like films based in historic events. "The Right Stuff"; "Amadeus"; "Ghandi" are some of the titles I've truly enjoyed throughout the years. These movies encourage you to read more about the events that took place in real life therefore you end up learning a bit more about history. However, you have to be careful about what you see because there could be a big gap between reality and what the Director wants you to believe. This is the case with "Argo".

Ben Affleck intends to portray the events that took place in Iran when in 1.979 a group of fanatics took the US Embassy in Tehran taking 50 Americans as hostages. Six of them managed to escape and holed up at the Canadian Embassy. The US Government, through the CIA and an officer named Tony Mendez, device a  clever plan to retrieve these six Americans by pretending them to be part of a film crew that were looking for locations for a sci-fi film named "Argo".

The movie itself is interesting, as you realise this happened in real life. The tensions keep mounting because everyone is aware that is the plan is uncovered, everyone would end up executed and tensions between the two countries would escalate. In this sense, the movie is good. A thriller complete with last minute escapes and phone calls taken on the last ring. But in the end, something I'd rather watch on TV during a Saturday night at home.

The acting was relatively good, only Alan Arkin standing out, as he usually does.

But the part I really disliked was the manipulation of the truth for cinematic convenience. Tony Mendez, who is Ben Affleck's character, only spent 2 days in Iran when this all happened. It was mostly the Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor, who risked his life for weeks by hiding these Americans and issuing false passports to all of them.

In the end, it was another so-so movie made to look important by touching the American's sense of patriotism. Good old USA saving the day once again. 

This is, at least, my opinion. And I could be wrong.

My favourite movies (III)

Spoiler alerts!!!


9.- Pulp Fiction. Quentin Tarantino (1.994)  A film like no other. Tarantino expresses himself through a series of events that seem like random acts of violence put together in no particular order. That is, until the viewer starts putting the story together. Tarantino uses time as he pleases and therefore you see Vincent Vega (John Travolta) happily eating a hearty breakfast when minutes ago he had been shot in the chest with 12 gauge shotgun. This is not the first or the last time that alternative times are used in the narrative of a story, but it really is unsettling for the viewer, something I find fascinating. Then you have Vega's partner, brilliantly played by Samuel Jackson. A cold blooded henchman who recites the Bible while killing with no remorse at all. His monologue prior to shooting the drug dealers who owed his boss money was fantastic. And then you have "The Shark" played by Harvey Keitel, another of Tarantino's favourite actors. An extremely cool character who cleans up after someone else's mess. The dance sequence between Travolta and Uma Thurman is now a movie icon and the music is overall fantastic.Like any Tarantino movie, there's a lot to talk about but it's not the intention here.

10.- The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Sergio Leone (1.966) The quintessential Western. You can call it a Spaghetti Western if you like, but it's still the best that's ever been made. Leone uses three American actors in Clint Eastwood (The Good); Lee Van Cleef (The Bad) and Eli Wallach (The Ugly) to create a story of violence in the far West of the mid to late 1.800's The characters are cold hearted, with nerves of steel and with pinpoint accuracy when shooting. They are all relentless and violent and don't take no for an answer. Leone gives us a sound score that everyone remembers through the mastery of Enio Morricone. The landscapes are extremely dry deserts shot actually in Southern Spain instead of Texas, as most of the actors were either Spanish or Italian. A must see for every movie fan, an especially if you're also a fan of Tarantino, who has imitated and Leone in several of his movies.

11.- 12 Angry Men. Sydney Lumet (1.957)  One of these movies that get better with time. Everytime I watch it, I find something new I hadn't noticed before. It's the story of a jury of twelve males gathered to deliberate about a murder case. They are only referred to by their numbers. You have people from all walks of life and of every age and religion. These men argue about the case and sometimes their arguments are clouded by their own biases and personal baggage. The jury is a sample of society and how people are mostly not good or bad, but respond to feelings, personal issues, their upbringing, etc. Henry Fonda plays the very centered juror who doesn't want to send a young boy to the electric chair without being fully convinced he's guilty. He embodies the essence of Justice: people are innocent until proven guilty. The strong script and exceptional cast along with Lumet's perfect use of cinematography, made this film a classic everyone should watch.

12.- One flew over the cuckoo's nest. Milos Forman (1.975) The famous Broadway play brought to life by Milos Forman and then producer Michael Douglas. A movie that showcased Jack Nicholson as a great actor, but also encased him into the "crazy" characters he'd play along his career. A small time crook fakes his way into an psychiatric asylum trying to avoid a third conviction, and once inside, he becomes the undisputed leader of the place. The strict and somewhat cruel nurse Ratched, played by a fantastic Louise Fletcher, knows that Nicholson isn't totally insane and they immediately start a personal war that ends when Nicholson is lobotomized and then murdered by one of his closest friends in the ward, who escapes the asylum. A very hard to watch film, beautifully acted, that plays with the viewer's emotions. I find it hard not have this film among my favourites.


There's my first twelve, again, in no particular order. There will be more in future posts

My favourite movies (II)

Spoiler alert!!! The reviews below may contain spoilers.

5.- Full Metal Jacket. Stanley Kubrick (1.987)  The best war movie ever. At least in my view. Extraordinary script and actually two movies for the price of one. The first part is about the Marine's training camp at Ellis Island depicting how a bunch of youngsters become fearless fighters and some of them are even brainwashed. This first part of the movie ends with a memorable scene, beautifully shot, with the suicide-homicide by Private Pyle. The insults by Sargent Hartman are extraordinary. The second half of the movie is in the actual Vietnam front, where the fresh recruits are put to test. The film reaches its second climax with the sniper scene at the end. By having a teenage girl as the sniper, who kills and sometimes deliberately keeps her targets alive for more suffering, Kubrick wants to show the world the absurdity of war. This concept is enhanced when the Marines walk out of the battle singing the Mickey Mouse Club song. 

6.- Goodfellas. Martin Scorsese (1.990)  This is Scorsese at his best. Great characters and superb casting. Lots of violence. Based on a true story, Scorsese tells us about mafia in New Jersey not long ago. It's like the Godfather 30 years after. Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci team up once again in a Scorsese movie. They had done it previously on "The Raging Bull" and would do it again on "Casino" a few years after this movie. It's the story of Henry Hill, a young boy who ends up working for Paulie, a New Jersey mafia boss. It contains the same elements you expect top find in this genre: violent assassinations; codes of honour; double crossing; drug trafficking. Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta) ends up as the star witness against Paulie and his other band members in exchange for his freedom and anonymity.

7.- Cinema Paradiso. Giuseppe Tornatore (1.988)   A movie about friendship, nostalgia and coming of age which is almost perfect in every way. The story of a boy named Toto growing up in a small town in Sicily who develops a love for movies and works at the only cinema in town. He befriends the projectionist, Alfredo, and eventually becomes a famous director. Many years later he returns from Rome for the funeral of Alfredo and we're told the story of his younger years as Toto remembers it. Like every other kid, Toto gets in trouble, finds love and loses the love of his life. Tornatore develops his characters in a way the audience are drawn to them. You just can't help but loving the young boy and the friendship he develops with Alfredo. The town's priest, who is the highest moral authority and who decides which movies the people can watch and even edits the love scenes off the final cuts. The end of the movie, when Toto receives a gift Alfredo had left for him and which is a movie made up of all the scenes cut off by the priest, is memorable to say the least. Cinematography and music are also important elements that help make this movie one of my true favourites of all time.

8.- The Shawshank Redemption. Frank Darabont (1.994)  A movie that contains one of the best story lines I've ever seen in film history. This fictional tale of friendship, hope and survival has many sub plots, twists and great characters, all of them masterfully portrayed by an extraordinary cast. It's funny that there are two movies based on Stephen King's novels in this list and none refer to a horror story or have anything related to the supernatural. Like I've always said, if the story itself is great, the movie is 75% complete. Just add up the casting, direction, music and cinematography. Another one of the great movie endings. 

My favourite movies (I)

I've done this before but, like everyone else, my list keeps evolving as I watch more and more movies. These days I've been renting movies from way back in the 50's and 60's, classics I had either forgotten about, never seen before, or found a new appreciation for.

Last time I posted a list of my favourite movies must have been a couple of years ago. A lot of movie water has gone under the bridge, so I felt the need to update my choices. Let's see how many I come up with, because while I'm writing these lines, I'm still unsure as to how many I will refer to.

Let's start.


1.- Midnight Express. Alan Parker (1.978)  Although this list has no particular order, I have to say this one tops my list for a very personal reason. I was 17 when I watched this (not in 1978 but a few years later) on tape. I can certainly say this was the first movie ever to move me. For the first time I took notice of the elements that make up a movie like direction, acting, original score, script, cinematography, etc. But two elements really had an impact on me. For starters, the fantastic story line, with a sensational ending, which manipulated my emotions throughout the film. I was really shaken at the end, and couldn't keep the story out of my head for days or weeks. The second aspect was Brad Davis' impersonation of Billy Hayes, and his powerful monologue when the court sentences him. This movie is ranked No.1 because it opened my eyes in many ways towards film.

2. - Stand by me. Rob Reiner (1.986)  A movie about friendship, loyalty and coming of age in small town America. I loved the simplicity of the story and felt deeply identified with the main character, Gordie LaChance, a geeky kid who loved writing and telling stories and had a best friend whom he admired and respected. The relationship between the four boys reminded me of my own best school friends, who even when we're distant, are still my closest mates in the world. The phrase at the end of the movie always stayed with me, and even inspired me to write my first short story: "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?" Brilliant.



3. - The Godfather I and II. Francis Ford Coppola (1.972-1.974) The ultimate movie(s) Great storytelling, superb casting. Violence like nothing ever seen on screen before. Brilliant direction and editing. The music by Nino Rota was perfect, with a touch of nostalgia to it. To me, these are perfect movies in every sense. I consider them as one movie because that's exactly what they were. Shot almost simultaneously which made the transition from I to II very easy and smooth. The story of how an innocent patriotic soldier gets dragged into a life of crime by his mobster family is extraordinary in every sense. The scene where Michael (Al Pacino) shoots Sollozzo and the Police Chief McCluskey is one of my favourites in cinema history, those seconds when, prior to shooting, he realises what he's about to do will change his life forever. It was brilliant acting and directing. The story of how Vito Corleone migrated to America, slowly became a respected figure in the Italian community and then returns to Sicily to avenge his family, is also fantastic. Too much to say about these movies. True cinematic history.


4. - Incendies. Dennis Villenueve (2.010) This is new to my list. A French - Canadian production which became very popular at Film Festivals over the world in 2.011, this film tells the story about two young Canadian twins looking to track down their brother and father in a war torn Middle eastern country. The country is fictitious but is very similar to Lebanon. Told in two times, the first one 30 years ago when a woman is forced to let go of her young child and he's brought up by Islamic forces. We're shown the cruelty of war as she goes around the country searching for his son, only to be imprisoned and abused. The story then moves forward 30 years and we have her twins who, after their mother's death, leave their comfortable life in Montreal to embark on a search for their past. Everything unfolds in the end, with one of the most dramatic twists in film history, that left me thinking about this movie for a week. Another aspect I loved was the fact that I knew nothing about these actors, never seen them before. This truly made it more appealing as the story seemed more real to me.

I'll continue with this in a new post

The Kite Runner (2007)

Spoiler Alert!!!

A few months ago, we started a very good book-exchange relationship with our friends Fabiola and Oscar. We use to recommend books to each other and sometimes get together to watch a movie at home. The first book Fabiola recommended us was "The Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini, an Afghani immigrant in the U.S. who tells a powerful story about friendship and his upbringing in a once peaceful and beautiful Afghanistan

This was one of these books that as soon as you grab them (or they grab you?) you can't stop reading until you reach the back page. And even then you still want more.

The movie was released in 2007 with a moderate success and mixed reviews. I believe there were very high expectations given the success of the book, which was first published in 2003 I admit I was also eager to watch the movie and had high expectations as well. But the movie didn't let me down.

The Director, Marc Forster, tried to keep the story as tight as possible to the actual book. This is always difficult because there's so much information you can cram into two hours of film. He left out some bits but, to me, he managed to maintain the book's idea and the screenplay even contained many quotes taken word from word from Hosseini's book.

This is the story about Amir, a child growing up in pre conflict Afghanistan in the seventies, and his relationship with his best friend and servant, Hassan. They live a peaceful life in Amir's house, a big place in Kabul's best residential district as his father, Baba, was a wealthy man. His mother had died during childbirth, so Amir felt his father ignored and even hated him. Amir grew up trying to please his father, and cherished every little gesture his father had towards him. He idolised his Baba.

At the same time, Hassan, son of Baba's longtime servant and friend Ali, was devoted to pleasing his friend Amir in every way he could. Hassan admired and loved Amir and was loyal to him to the end. Hassan was a Hazara boy. Hazara's are considered as low class people in Afghanistan, only suited to be servants or blue collar workers at best. Amir and his father were Pashtun, one of the leading tribes in the country.

Amir and Hassan were close friends and shared everything, but in front of others, Amir changed quickly and treated Hassan as a servant, sometimes even humiliating him. On one occasion, Hassan is cornered by other Pashtu boys and is raped, the ultimate humiliation. Amir watches everything from a hiding spot and doesn't dare to intervene to save his friend. He is so shocked by this act, and feels so much guilt for not helping Hassan, that his easy way out of his guilt is faking a robbery at home blaming Hassan. Ali, his father, is so embarrassed  that he quits his job and leaves with Hassan, much to Baba's dismay and disapproval.

In the meantime, the Soviets take control of Afghanistan and Baba leaves the country in a hurry with an adolescent Amir. They finally settle in the U.S. where they live an uneventful life, deprived of the luxuries they had at home. Amir gets married, and eventually Baba died. Amir then is called by Rahim Kahn, his father's best friend who stayed behind in Afghanistan. He wanted to discuss something about Hassan with Amir and needed him to fly back to Pakistan, where he was living now. The Taliban were now in control of the country.

This where the movie starts, with the phone call, in the middle of the night, made to Amir, who was happily married and already in his early forties. He and his wife couldn't have children and had recently stopped trying. From here onward, the story is told in two times, while Amir is a boy playing with Hassan is Kabul's streets and his adult life in the U.S. followed by his adventurous trip back to Afghanistan.

Once he meets Rahim Khan, he's told Hassan is dead. He got married and had a son, but him and his wife were killed by the Taliban while defending Baba's old house, which Rahim asked Hassan to look after. Rahim asked Amir to rescue the little boy, Sohrab, from an orphanage and bring him back to America with him, to give him a better life. Rahim also tells him Hassan was his half brother, because his Baba had a one time relationship with Hassan's mother, a beautiful woman who ended up leaving Ali.

Amir decides that he must find Sohrab and bring him back to America. That's his mission, and he owes this to that honorable man named Hassan, whom he had hurt so much once. he then crosses over to Afghanistan and after locating the boy, a nine year old who was being used as a sex slave by a Taliban officer, manages to escape with him, not after being badly beaten almost to death.

Upon his return, his wife is happy because they now have a son and they both try very hard to get to know the boy, and they struggle to gain his trust and love as Sohrab had only known about death, violence and abuse since he was born. The final scene is a great one, where they fly a kite and the boy engages in a kite fight the same way Amir used to do when in Kabul. After winning the fight and the losing kite flies away, Amir tells him he's going to get it for him "For you, a thousand times over", the exact same phrase Hassan used many years ago. Sohrab, who finally engaged with Amir when flying the kite, gives him a big smile, and the movie ends.

With this simple gesture by Sohrab, we feel there's finally a hope for redemption for Amir, who spent his entire life with this enormous sense of guilt for having abandoned his best friend and hidden the truth of the false robbery accusation from his father.

The movie is beautifully acted and scripted, although all it took was to follow the book step by step and employ many of its memorable quotes. The time factor, the story told in two different eras, was also managed very well and was not confusing at all (sometimes it tends to be)

This is a powerful story anyway you look at it. There's suffering, forced migration, longtime friendships and of course, a long war which torn a country to shreds. The main character is not perfect. He's not a hero in shining armor but only a confused boy whose actions had far worse consequences than he expected and he paid the price for this. And finally, redemption, or at least a the beginning of it.

This is, at least, my opinion, and I might be wrong.

Django Unchained (2012)

I’m a big fan of Tarantino, and also of Westerns, so when Django Unchained was released here in Melbourne, it didn’t take long for me to see it. And once again, Quentin didn’t disappoint me.

Not only the movie is a Western, but Tarantino used many elements of the old spaghetti Westerns Sergio Leone directed back in the 1.960’s. To start with, the original music score was composed by Enio Morricone, who became famous for his whistling-charged tunes feature in Leone’s films, most notably “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”

For anyone who didn’t know, this is not casual at all. Tarantino has always loved spaghetti Westerns and has previously utilised Morricone’s talent in other films like “Kill Bill” and “Inglorious Basterds”

The use of quick close ups, where the camera zooms in from an open take to a tight close up; the relentless violence and the black humour, are other elements used by Tarantino in this film (and also in previous ones)  which are a tribute to Leone. If you haven’t seen any of these films, I highly recommend you find the trilogy of “For a few dollars more”; “For a fistful of dollars” and “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” I’m surprised Tarantino didn’t at least tried to convince Clint Eastwood to participate in this movie.

The movie tells the story of a slave, Django (played by Jamie Foxx), who is freed by a Schultz, a German bounty hunter disguised as a dentist. This part was brilliantly played by Christoph Waltz, who had previously portrayed a sadistic Nazi officer in “Inglorious Basterds” He once again excels in his role of the extremely well mannered but decidedly violent bounty hunter who, after giving Django his freedom, forms a lucrative relationship with him as his criminal-killing partner.

This unlikely partnership leads them to a farm in Mississippi where it’s powerful owner, Calvin Candie, keeps Django’s wife as one of his many slaves. Candie is played by Leonardo Di Caprio, who is nothing short of magnificent in this role. Di Caprio’s butler and faithful right hand is Stephen, a free black man played by one of Tarantino’s favourite actors, Samuel Jackson. A long way from his memorable Bible-reciting henchmen Jules in “Pulp Fiction”, Jackson is still one of the coolest actors on Earth, and in this movie delivers equally well.

Schultz and Django come up with a plan where Schultz would offer to buy one of Candie’s prized Negro fighters, called Mandingos, and ask for Broomhilda’s (Django’s wife) freedom as well. Candie didn’t know his slave was Django’s wife.

During an elegant dinner, after Schultz had agreed to buy the Mandingo for $12.000 and return with the money three days later, Stephen (Jackson’s character) picks up the scam and, at gunpoint, Schultz is forced to pay the money but just for Broomhilda’s release. Just before leaving Candie’s house, Schultz fires a shot to Candie’s hart at close range, killing him.

What happens next is a vintage Tarantino bloodshed. Candie’s bodyguard shoots Schultz and Django shoots him in return. A dozen gunmen, Candie’s guards, enter the house and Django shoots everyone in sight. The shots are not the single red hole shots of old Westerns, but all wounds spurt blood in a fountain like manner, with splashing sounds and everything. Needless to say the house is turned upside down. Django ends up with no ammunition and finally gives up after killing at least 10 men when his wife is held by Stephen. To my amazement, this wasn’t the climax of the movie. There was still more.

Django is then sent to another farm to work as a slave along with other three coloured men, and travels in a caged carriage. While stopping to rest, Django convinces his captors that he’s a bounty hunter and that there’s a hefty reward for three wanted criminals back in Candie’s farm. He shows them the flyer he kept in his pocket with the bandit’s names. As soon as he’s released and they put a gun in his hand, he quickly proceeds to kill the three guards. One of them is Tarantino himself, who dies not by the shot, but in an explosion caused by the dynamite he was carrying with him. He just loves dying dramatically in his own movies.

Django then returns to Candyland (the name of the farm) where he meets the party that was just returning from Candie’s funeral. He proceeds to shoot almost everyone, including Candie’s sister, and after picking up Broomhilda, leaves Stephen wounded. As he leaves the house, he lights a fuse and the whole place explodes. He then proceeds to gallop out of the farm and, presumably, lives happily ever after with Broomhilda.

It doesn’t matter what kind of movie Tarantino shoots. It could be a mobsters movie (Pulp Fiction); a Japanese anime (Kill Bill); a Nazi movie (Inglorious Basterds) or a Western. He is always faithful to his basics: deranged violence with lots of spurting and splashing blood (cut off limbs a plus); extreme characters; long and tense scenes which end up in a bloodbath; magnificent casting and impossibly exaggerated plots. God, he’s good. I hope next time he opts for a Mafia movie. Can’t wait to see who he’s going to cast.

This is, at least, my opinion. And I could be wrong.

The Life of Pi

This movie left me puzzled after I saw it. I quite didn't know what to make of it. As I write these lines, I’m still unsure whether I liked it or not, but I least I felt it was interesting enough to write about. This should be a good start, shouldn't it?

The movie is based on the bestselling book of the same name published back in 2001, which went on to win the Man Booker award, one of the top literature awards for English written publications. I never read it, which would have helped in writing about and analysing the movie.

The story is fictional, and refers to an extraordinary adventure endured by the main character, Pi Patel, when he was a teenager. A writer meets an adult Patel, now in his forties, wanting to know about a shipwreck where Patel was the only survivor thirty years prior. Patel agrees to tell him all about it, and the story begins to unfold.

The story of the shipwreck and subsequent events is told by Patel in two times, as an adult and as a teenager. A young Patel left India for Canada with his father, mother and older brother. The family owned a zoo and wanted to move it, animals included, to a better market in Canada. They board a big freighter ship that capsizes during a storm of epic proportions. The only survivors of this were Pi, a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan named Orange Juice and a tiger named Richard Parker.

It then becomes a story of survival, the search for faith and the relationship between a boy and a tiger.

Without reading the book, it’s difficult to interpret what the author wanted to highlight on this story. I presume it would be the search for God. At the start of the movie, prior to the shipwreck, Pi had been intensely looking for the truth about God and had embraced three religions. He was born a Hindi, but then learnt about Jesus Christ and prayed as a Christian. He even told his parents he wanted to be baptised. Later on, he is seen praying as a Muslim. During the 227 days he was adrift, he talks to God, thanks him for the life he’s had. On other occasions, he confronts God, demanding to know why he keeps punishing him. In other words, all the struggles humans go through in the course of their lives trying to understand, to justify, the existence of an almighty God that controls our lives.

As explained previously, after some awkward events, Pi ends up in a boat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan and the Bengal tiger. The hyena ends up killing the zebra and the orangutan and is killed by the tiger. From then on, Pi and the tiger fight over the control of the boat. After many incidents where the tiger (named Richard Parker by Pi) almost kills the boy, they end teaming up and learn to survive together. They become close mates, brothers in arms, struggling for survival against the Pacific Ocean and its many dangers. This relationship reminded me of that between Tom Hanks and Wilson, the volleyball in “Cast Away”. Pi initially feared for his life and at one point he could have let the tiger drown, but the possibility of being left alone at sea made him change his mind and saved the animal, risking his own life in the process.

Pi even finds an island, which is occupied by thousands of meerkats, and Pi believes they’re finally saved. The tiger has a feast with the meerkats and Pi eats leaves and roots, but at night Pi finds out the island is “carnivore” and feeds on its occupants (something that is not fully explained in the movie, but possibly much clearer in the book) Next morning, Pi and his pet tiger board the boat and off they go again, avoiding been eaten by the island.

It was just when both Pi and the tiger were about to die of starvation, thirst and exhaustion, that they reach the shores of Mexico. An exhausted Pi, laying face down on the beach, watches helplessly as the tiger walks into the jungle, leaving him forever. As he’s been carried away to a hospital by locals, Pi cries for losing his friend and companion through his adventure.

Pi is then questioned in the hospital by the insurance company, who wanted to know why and how the freighter capsized. After Pi tells them the story, tiger and carnivore island included, they don’t believe him. He then told them “another” story, where he ended up on the boat with his mother, a sailor and the ship’s cook. The cook ends up killing his mother and the sailor and Pi kills the cook, ending up alone. This story they buy. As he finishes telling his story, in actual times, to the writer, he asks him: “Which story do you prefer?” and the writer says: “The one with the tiger” to which Pi says: “Thank you”

That’s when the movie, and presumably the book, wants you to make a choice: Which story do you prefer?; Was the story of the tiger the true one or was this made up, or dreamed up by Pi? Of course everyone wants to believe the tiger story.

I the end, I have to say enjoyed the overall story line  the music, the cinematography. I liked both old and young Pi. The computerised tiger was nothing short of remarkable. But I sincerely think that the movie failed in expanding on the inner search of Pi for the existence of God. Yes, this is mentioned, but something else could have been done. It seems that the director wanted to expand more on the unusual relationship between boy and tiger, surviving together against all odds. Maybe it was the author’s focal point the whole time, and I was expecting something else.

For me, an enjoyable night at the movies that lacked a bit of punch to make it a truly remarkable cinematic experience.

This is, at least, my opinion, and I could be wrong.

We need to talk about Kevin

There are movie critics who say it’s not fair to evaluate or judge a movie after they've read the book on which it’s based on. They say it messes their judgment as they naturally tend to compare both and invariably the outcome of such comparison would be: “Nah, the book was better”

Having said this, I am going to analyse a movie I've just seen and shortly after I read the book. I’m talking about “We need to talk about Kevin”, based on the bestselling novel of the same name written by Lionel Shriver.

Right off the bat I have to say I enjoyed the book. I found it to be bit heavy to digest during the first few chapters, and had trouble dealing with Shriver’s prolific command of the English language which led to lengthy descriptions of characters and situations. But this is not demeaning of the book at all. It’s just that she took the time to carefully develop the main characters, in particular Eva and Kevin, and their complicated mother-son relationship.

After reading the book, I was really eager to see the movie. I guess most people are. But in my case, I was really curious about how in hell the director was going to bring to the screen a book that is written in letters from Eva to his husband Franklin. But from the opening scene, you can tell this isn't an ordinary movie.

The director, Lynne Ramsay, is a little known Scottish filmmaker for whom this is her first major feature film. She lets us know, from the very beginning, that this is not going to be an easy movie to watch. Ramsay employed a narrative technique where the story is told in two and sometimes three different times, and the viewer has to compose them into a coherent sequence. Eva is portrayed with a shorter and neater haircut and fashion clothing in her entrepreneur younger years, when she had an idyllic relationship with her husband Franklin and a thriving travel books company. When older, after the “incident”, Eva is shown with a badly styled and disheveled haircut along with baggy clothes, maybe second hand. We can even detect that, as she begins to comprehend the complicated nature of her son, she stops dressing in designer clothes and cares little about her own appearance.

Once we grasp that we have to build the story from scratch putting together past and present, we start to notice the magnificent job Tilda Swinton does as Eva Katchadurian. Through her facial expressions and body language she manages to transmit to the viewer the despair of a mother who struggles to deal with a problematic child who challenges her in every possible way. Meanwhile, the father is oblivious to all of this and is reluctant to see the evil behind his beloved son. Ezra Miller couldn't have been cast any better as the troubled Kevin. This up and coming new actor has penetrating eyes which alert the viewer to the enormous evil that resides in him, but doesn't give it away that easily. Through several actions, he tells his mother that he hates her. He is even reluctant to learn to go to the toilet by himself and stays in diapers until he’s six or seven years of age, just to annoy and challenge his mother.

Several of Kevin’s actions in the book are left out of the script for practical reasons. I figure you would need between 8 to 10 hours of continuous reading to finish the book whereas the movie only lasts little over two hours. This makes you realise how hard it is to convert a novel into a movie without losing its intent. And I think Ramsay was able to pull it off by her smart way of telling the story as well as the fantastic casting of Eva and Kevin. Even John C. Reilly was terrific as Franklin. OK, I admit this isn't a complicated character to play, but he really embodies the playful and unsuspecting father who is reluctant to concede that his only son is troubled and blames everything on Eva.

Ironically, when the movie reaches its climax, which we anticipated from the very beginning but didn't know exactly what it was going to be, Kevin chooses to sacrifice his father along with his sister. His father, who was so complacent and loving and totally unaware of any of Kevin’s wrongdoings. It seems like Kevin, by antagonising his mother since he was born, created a bond with her. A wicked bond that is but one that Kevin, in his own twisted way, respected. But he despised his father and his little sister Celia, who loved him dearly as well.

I've always loved powerful movies. And I’m not talking about car-chase-powerful, bomb-blast-powerful or blood-and-gore-powerful. I’m talking about movies which tell a powerful story that gets into our skin and we can’t stop thinking about it for days. Movies that make you want to dissect them as if it were a frog in a high school science lab.

This is one of them, at least in my personal opinion. But I could be wrong.