Reviews

Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos has made a name for himself with strange, absurd films, so it's not unexpected that 'The Lobster' falls in the same category. The story is set in a dystopian world where all single people get sent to some sort of hotel where they have a limited number of days to find a partner or they'll be transformed in an animal of their choosing.

The methods the staff at the hotel use to convince people it's better to be with someone, although shown with deadpan humour, are very disturbing and unexpectedly effective. For instance, when people arrive at the hotel one of their hands is tied up behind their backs to show them that "everything is easier in pair". But there's also a way to extend your stay and remain single. The nearby forest is a hiding place for a group of runaways from the hotel who the residents go out to hunt once in a while. For each successful capture they get their stay extended. It's a pretty straightforward representation of society's fight against diversity and those who don't adhere to rules, but Lanthimos doesn't stay there.

In the second half of the film, when the focus moves from the hotel to the forest, we get even more rigorous rules and brutal demonstration of intolerance for those who don't follow them. It's one of director's ironical twists, but also a disturbing example of illogical and revengeful human nature. Those who were forced to find a partner formed a community in which it is forbidden to have a partner, or even just flirt. Main character proves to be an constant exception and keeps breaking the rules wherever he is and whatever they are (which brings to question whether there's any possibility for him to have a happy ending), symbolizing in that way a fight for individuality inside an oppressive system.

I've wrote more about its messages and themes (although I've mentioned but a few) than about the film itself because I find them more interesting. That's not to say that the film isn't good, on the contrary. It's a film with great acting, haunting music, bleak, washed up cinematography (which perfectly suits its themes) and many standout scenes. It's just that the philosophy behind it is more impressive than what goes on on the surface. 'The Lobster' is more than meets the eye, all the way to its questioning, if not engrossing, ending.

I don't know many details about Abraham Lincoln's presidency so I came into "Lincoln" unburdened by historical facts. There were some expectations though, considering the director is Steven Spielberg, and they ended up completely fulfilled. The film begins in the midst of the Civil War and follows Lincoln's attempt to bring an end to it, as well as to slavery, and the difficulties he faced doing it, ending with his death after the assassination at Ford's Theatre.

The real focus of the film is on Lincoln's battle with slavery. While most of the other politicians just wanted the war to end, he postponed the peace arrangements, risking their failure, in order to get the thirteenth amendment (which abolishes slavery) passed by the United States House of Representatives (also known as the House). It is in itself a controversial decision and the means which he used in doing all of that are even more so. He stalled the Confederacy negotiators, made some members of his party lie about their beliefs and even bought votes from Democrats promising them better positions. It was interesting to see the most loved American president doing things for which anyone would be condemned today. The other unusual and refreshing thing to see was portrayal of the Lincoln as an ordinary man. Although (as I later learned) he came from a poor family and was mostly self-educated, it was surprising to see a man of such importance presented as a funny storytelling commoner. Of course, his decisive nature and strong leadership weren't omitted, which only contributed to the impressiveness of the character.

Most of the credits for making Lincoln as compelling as he is nevertheless go to Daniel Day-Lewis. Once again he proved his versatility and ability to become one with the character giving a performance so minute and delicate, and at the same time so powerful that one could easily watch just him for 150 minutes (film's running time). He's aided by a brilliant cast of supporting actors including James Spader, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, John Hawkes, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jared Harris, Jackie Earle Haley and Michael Stuhlbarg among the rest. Sally Field's performance as Lincoln's wife Mary was not so good as the hype suggests but still helped keep the standard high.

The technical side of the film, as was expected from Spielberg's work, is flawless. Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski), editing (Michael Kahn), production design (Rick Carter), costume design (Joanna Johnston) and of course, music by John Williams, all made the long film as easy watch as can be and a pleasing experience for both eyes and ears.

Spielberg made a film about a very well known, but also a very important, character and an equally known and important episode from American history. It was a safe bet from the beginning and the screenplay from Tony Kushner, his Munich collaborator, just solidified it. However, it feels more as an exploration of the way politics work than as an ode to freedom, and the question remains whether this was Spielberg's intention. The main problem of the film is that it doesn't bring anything new. There is a little bit more humor than expected but other than that all classic Spielberg characteristics are in place: strong characters, simple plot, a touch of melodrama, great acting, impressive visuals, touching music, and so on. Unfortunately that stopped being enough some time ago.

There is no doubt that "Lincoln" is a very good film. If only Spielberg had the courage of his main character to impose a change where it is an absolute necessity it would have been great. This way we have nothing to do but to enjoy Day-Lewis' magnificent performance and hope that the great director's next film won't be just for the people but also for the history.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

Often these days prominent filmmakers decide to tell a story already told. Sometimes even a story told multiple times. Whether it's for a lack of ideas or because of their love of the subject and confidence they can make something special out of it is debatable, but whatever the reason the expectations from such endeavour are always high. That was also the case with the latest of that kind, Tom Hooper's Oscar hopeful "Les Misérables".

Adapted from a famous musical play which was in turn based on the novel by Victor Hugo (both having the same name as the film), the film retains the musical form and does it in an unusual way, with actors singing and recorded live during the shooting. It makes for a somewhat uneven experience due to the difference in actors' vocal capabilities and dependance on the conditions at given time. While the acting is solid across the board, more famous names like Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Sacha Baron Cohen or Helena Bonham Carter do mostly mediocre work singing-wise. Fortunately the young ones: Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit and Daniel Huttlestone, save the day with some great singing. And then there's Anne Hathaway with the performance which there's no sense in writing about but really just has to be seen.

Technically the film is very good but has some minuses. Production design, cinematography, and editing while generally good make some scenes, especially those with the barricade, feel staged. That's probably the legacy of the play, which doesn't work as well in the film. That applies to parts of the story and some of the songs too. I don't know to what extent Hooper and the screen writing team (in which there were the authors of the play among others) stuck to the play but the theatricality is sometimes too apparent. Costume design on the other hand, as well as makeup and hairstyling, is as great as you would expect from a high budget period piece like this.

As far as the story is concerned, there's little done to escape from its predictability. I imagine the screenwriters didn't want to steer too much from the source material, but they even didn't have to. A lot would be accomplished with just a little different balance of the themes. The revolution part of the story is left underdeveloped in spite of some striking scenes while too much time is spent on Jean Valjean's lamentations and a sense of thematic connection between the two is, I feel, not properly addressed. Also the relationship between Javert and Valjean is shown mainly as one between the hunter and the hunted while there's much more to it. For example, Valjean as the symbol of change is locked in the seemingly endless battle against Javert as the man who can't break from his own constraints. However, the end comes and Valjean emerges victorious, showcasing that a change will come despite of presently suppressed revolution. All of that and probably more is present in the subtext but Hooper unfortunately failed to put any emphasis on it.

While the singing presents the story without any difficulties and make for some truly rousing scenes, its occasional lengthiness slows the film down making it unbalanced and overlong. In addition to a couple of overly pompous scenes, that degrades "Les Misérables" turning it into a good movie instead of a great one it could have been. It's a shame, but it is what it is. At least we can hear the people sing.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

It's hard to make a good romantic comedy. There are dozens of them every year and they (almost) all recycle the same formula: guy meets girl, they fall in love but won't admit it, encounter some obstacles, and overcome them all to live happily ever after. There's often a little drama too, added to make for some serious moments, but rarely it bares any real weight. Seeing the trailer it was obvious to me that the same is the case with director David O. Russell's new film "Silver Linings Playbook" so I wondered how can it be that the film was nominated for an Oscar in all important categories, counting the nominations to eight. I've recently watched it and stopped wondering. Sure, it has the same formula, but Russell (who also wrote the screenplay) and his cast make all the difference in the world.

It's a story of Pat, a history teacher who found his wife with another man and went a little crazy. They put him in a mental institution and diagnosed him with a bipolar disorder but eight months later his mother takes him back home. He meets Tiffany, a good-looking young widow with similar problems to his, but in spite of his impulses decides to only make friends with her as the means to get his wife back. Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper are simply fantastic in the roles of Tiffany and Pat. After a great turn in the "Winter's Bone" a couple of years ago, Lawrence here does completely different but equally great work showing her admirable range, and Cooper finally proves he is a serious actor after a series of comedic works of dubious quality. No less appealing are those in supporting roles. Robert De Niro (his best role in a long time) and Jacki Weaver as Pat's parents and a special treat, as Pat's friend from mental institution, Chris Tucker in his first non-Carter role in 15 years. All of them did an excellent job and it's no surprise that the film is an Oscar contender in all four acting categories.

Of course, the actors needed a good material to work with as well as a guiding hand and that's were Russell strongly delivered. I didn't read the novel by Matthew Quick which the film was based on so I don't know how much of the credit goes to him but the script is great. It is rare enough seeing most of the characters in the film having some kind of mental disorder, but to see them presented so emphatically, keeping in sight that they are human beings just like the rest, but also realistically, with all their good and bad sides, was almost impossible until now. The reason for that approach is probably in the fact that Russell's son has bipolar disorder as well as OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) so he has understanding both of and for the mental disorders. His familiarity with the subject can also be felt by how he handles family relations within the film. The relations between Pat, his father and his mother are at the same time simple and complicated due to the problems they have, and they are portrayed in a way so natural and sincere you can easily imagine something like that happening just around the corner.

That still leaves the clichéd love story, but in a much better position than initially. Although we've seen it a thousand times and know how it ends, it keeps us invested and make us feel the emotions of its characters. That's because, due to sincere performances by Lawrence and Cooper, it doesn't feel contrived, and the ending we've gotten used to this time feels truly deserved.

"Silver Linings Playbook" also has one more universal theme. Through showing us how those with some kind of disability deserve to be happy, it actually shows us that we all deserve it. And if we try real hard to be our best selves we have a chance at it. It's optimistic attitude is reinvigorating just as is Russell's take on the genre. After initially being surprised by its Oscar nominations, now I'll be surprised if it doesn't make at least some of them into an award. It's one of the best films of the year and I look forward to watching it again. Oh, and did I mention that Chris Tucker is in it?

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

On May 2nd 2011, SEAL Team Six of U.S. Special Forces killed Osama bin Laden. That messed up plans of director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal who were working on a film about a years-long and unsuccessful hunt for the man. They of course changed the story and reportedly scrapped all of their previous work to start anew. The result is "Zero Dark Thirty" (a term marking time between midnight and dawn), one of the most lauded films of the year with five Oscar nominations but also one of the most controversial with its depiction of torture at CIA black sites.

The torture scenes caused a lot of fuss in USA with many taking them as a sign of approval of the methods and politicians from both sides of the spectrum condemning the movie, claiming that no piece of information which lead to the murder of Osama bin Laden came from torture. But are that scenes really that problematic? It is widely known that US military utilized torture in interrogation and it's fair to assume that was so in those first few years of the hunt for bin Laden when the emotions were running high. Not to mention that in the film the torturing really doesn't prove all that useful. It gives Maya, a CIA operative and main character, a name which she never heard of before yet she decides to pursue it relentlessly only to find out that everyone else know of that name, which makes us wonder how she never heard of it in the first place. What's more interesting is that, although both politicians and the authors of the film claim that the whole operation was a product of hard and dedicated work by a group of extraordinary individuals, the film shows it just as a combination of one person's hunch and persistence and pure luck. Now, an idea of US intelligence services functioning just on hunch and luck, that's something really controversial, but to my surprise no one seems to have noticed that.

"Zero Dark Thirty" is in its essence a classic underdog story. A young, unexperienced, but talented operative has everything going against her but in the end prevails. Although the end is not a happy one for her as she realises that she has no life outside the just completed mission. The main problem with the story is a lack of emotions it provides. We never find out what is it that's driving Maya, making her disregard everything else in favor of her job. The only thing I can assume is that it's a desire to prove she is equally capable as the rest of her colleagues (if not more so) and to make a name for herself amongst them. That adds the subject of male-female (in)equality to the film, parallels with director Bigelow being more than obvious. However, the fact she succeeded more due to a coincidence than to hard work and especially the characterization of the other female operative don't do it justice.

As with any other work based on a true event there is a conversation on how closely does it follow the truth, but, as always, it's completely misplaced. It's not a documentary and its goals should lie elsewhere, namely in making a compelling and tense middle part because we all know how it begins and how it ends. But it's right there where the film fails. After learning of Abu Ahmed's existence and of his connection to bin Laden as his personal courier the investigation reaches a dead end. It becomes more and more obvious that they really can't find the guy but then a file which no one knew existed miraculously appears and Abu Ahmed's true identity is revealed. It still doesn't help much though. Maya and her colleagues narrow the search to two cities in Pakistan from which he's calling home, but he always calls from a different public phone and they simply don't have enough men to cover all of them. Another situation with no way out requires another miracle. This time the courier buys a cell-phone and they get his number. Why would a man so careful to cover all of his tracks suddenly buy a cell-phone thus allowing the CIA operatives to track him down is beyond my comprehension. But even after that the film doesn't pick up pace. It took around half a year of surveillance to get permission to invade the residence of Abu Ahmed, and the film makes sure we get that. For most of the time the characters do nothing but show their powerlessness and all the scenes that could leave some impact on the viewer are brought down in advance by suggestive filmmaking which make us foresee the outcome. When in the final half an hour came the much anticipated raid scene, my attention was in spite my best efforts much lower than in the beginning and I found the way it is filmed pretty messy and unclear. While my low attention no doubt helped it feel that way, it's a fact that Bigelow didn't care much for the clarity on that one. I can imagine that lack of clarity would easily be the case if I were to look at a real operation, still I feel that in the film the viewer should know who's where doing what.

Read the complete review at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

Croatian cinema isn't well known in Europe, mainly because of the war that took place here in the nineties and practically put a stop to any serious film productions. But it isn't just Europe that ignored Croatian films. Home audiences also got used to skipping them. It took a lot of time to change that and in the new millennium things started to slowly get better. It still awaits wider recognition but the productions get more numerous every year and the films get more and more diverse. Positive reviews and awards won at international festivals also encouraged people to go to the cinema and see a domestic production. Riding on that wave a new film by well known Croatian director Vinko Brešan called "Svećenikova djeca" ("The Priest's Children") came to the Croatian film theatres and made the biggest opening ever for a domestic film.

"Svećenikova djeca" tells the story of a young priest named Fabijan who came to work on a small Croatian island. It takes only a short time for him to notice how the population is rapidly decreasing, but after a seller from the only kiosk on the island confesses to him how he "kills people" by selling condoms to everyone, Fabijan gets a great idea. He teams up with the seller (later the pharmacist joins them too) and they start piercing condoms, thus bringing the possibility of pregnancy back in God's hands.

As you can imagine, that makes for a lot of hilarious situations. The problem is not all of them are that hilarious. Brešan can't seem to break off his mould, revisiting the same or similar setting and characters in each of his films, small island with a close-knit community where everyone represents some stereotype. The audience here is largely used to laugh at stereotypes but for a little more demanding film fan it's just not enough. The other main problem with not just Brešan's but almost all of the Croatian films is acting. For some reason most of Croatian actors can't (or won't?) make their characters feel natural. Their performances feeling staged and unconvincing for a film. It's probably because of their theatrical backgrounds but that's an explanation, not an excuse. To be fair, there are a couple of good performances in the film, especially that of Nikša Butijer as Petar, the seller, with a mixed one by Krešimir Mikić in the main role. There are two things that particularly got my attention, one very bad and one very good. The bad one is music by Mate Matišić (also a screenwriter). It's unimaginative and repetitious with main theme playing over and over again. The good one is cinematography by Mirko Pivčević. The shots are simply fantastic, giving a greater sense of characters and plot and providing beautiful scenes at the same time.

Considering all of the above, it could be hard to understand what drove all those people in the cinema, but it's in fact very simple. Croatia is a country still greatly divided between secular and religious, in fact just right now there is a big debate on Health Education with fierce rhetoric from both sides. Considering the main good guy is a priest (and the main bad guy too as it unveils in the end) and the film looks at both the good and the bad face of the Church, it's destined to attract people from both sides of the conflict. But what makes the film interesting for home audiences doesn't necessarily make it so for the rest, especially when you consider that what is a flat out comedy right until the very end, makes a shift so abrupt that it just doesn't make sense (even with all the implications and message it's supposed to deliver) and ends as a great tragedy. "Svećenikova djeca" isn't a bad film, but it becomes obvious that it won't be Brešan who will put Croatian cinema in the focus of the film world.

It is awards season now and like probably most of the film lovers I'm trying to watch all of the serious contenders. The latest I've watched is "Amour" ("Love"), new work from acclaimed German director Michael Haneke. The film already won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, swept the European Film Awards, and won most of the year's Best Foreign Language Film awards including a Golden Globe, as well as got nominated for five Oscars and a lot more. All of that gave me more than enough reason to view it, and the film itself gave me more than enough reason to review it.

After dealing with causes in "Das weiße Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte" ("The White Ribbon"), his previous work, in "Amour" Haneke deals with consequences. The causes and consequences are of different things, true, but that is not so important. It is the shift of focus from one to another which is interesting. While Haneke was always the one to ask questions, this time it feels more like he's making a statement. To be clear, his treatment of the subject matter is for the most part equally restrained here as is in his other recent works. He stays an objective observer of the elderly couple dealing with death, not once trying to sentimentalize the situation or lead the viewer towards some specific point of view. Yet the feeling I got is that the whole story is a message how things should be, a message that says the way Georges care for Anne and subjects his life to her is the right thing to do.

It could very well be so because of Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant, actors playing the couple. Their performances are so sincere and natural that they without any trouble carry entire film on their own. There are just a few more roles in the film, none of them with serious screen time, though it's worth to mention standardly good Isabelle Huppert and it's nice to see William Shimell in his only second starring role. But Riva and Trintignant are those who deserve our admiration. It's fascinating to watch them depict what could very easily happen to themselves soon, especially considering that some of the things Haneke puts them through are very tough and deeply disturbing.

Although it may seem so, "Amour" isn't all dying and depression. The beginning of the film serves as an explanation of what's to come. It shows a beautiful relationship full of understanding and compassion between two old people still in love, something we're not so used to see. It is exactly that love and devotion which give Georges the strength to care for Anne and do all that must be done. It is love without any romanticizing. Its purest form. With all the hard work, tough decisions and incomprehension bound to appear between even closest of lovers, but also tenderness, faith and smiles existent only in those who completely embraced one another.

Regardless of my praise on objectiveness and naturalness of Haneke's depiction I should bring to attention that it is after all just one of the choices of artistic expression and as such ultimately involves some degree of deception and playing with the viewer. He does it using long, static shots which give us time to feel the full impact of that which transpires. The ordinariness of the shots, which are not composed just to make a beautiful sight, also forces you to think while watching the movie, inviting you to recognize their meaning, which serves as a witness to a great cinematography by Darius Khondji and his excellent understanding with Haneke.

While there are probably a lot of people who won't like the film and will blame it for being too arty, my guess is there are also a lot of those who will praise it without fully understanding it. "Amour" is a depressing drama only at first sight. When you take a second look at it, you realize it's a tribute to a great and long life filled with love every step of the way. The way death comes in it surely isn't the one anyone would like for themselves, but what is more important, a beautiful death or a beautiful life?

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

I must admit I'm not a loyal fan of either J.R.R. Tolkien's or Peter Jackson's work. I've read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy long time ago, and haven't even finished watching Jackson's adaptations. I found both books and movies fun and good but nothing more. Therefore I wasn't very excited when news of "The Hobbit" adaptation finally came. Even less promising was an announcement that the book will be adapted as a trilogy of movies. Decision to go and see the first one (titled "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey") nevertheless was motivated almost entirely by the 48 fps in which Jackson decided to film it, and in the end I'm not that sorry for it.

The story of "The Hobbit" is already known by everyone, young and old alike, so there's no need to go into it in detail. A young Hobbit by the name of Bilbo Baggins joins thirteen dwarfs and a wizard named Gandalf on a quest to kill a dragon and reclaim the lost dwarven kingdom. That's the basic outline. The problem is there isn't much more to it. As we can expect, the journey can't pass without difficulties, so the merry bunch gets attacked by trolls, goblins and orcs only to be saved by the wizard over and over again, very much like in the LOTR trilogy. But this time it all happens in a dissimilar manner. Instead of creating tension, a feeling of urgency, or any sense of peril, Jackson mostly decided on comedic approach. Thus the dialogues are comedic even when the characters are in great danger as is the way they behave. This, of course, is not the case in all of the situations, but it's present enough to make apparent Jackson's intention of bringing the movie closer to a younger audience. The intention is also apparent in the esthetics of some scenes which resemble video games, like the battle of stone giants or the escape from the Goblin lair. In fact, the whole movie is made similar to a video game, introducing and forming the party in the beginning and then venturing from one battle to the other, occasionally resting on safe ground (Rivendell).

All those things orienting the movie towards youngsters are in fact nothing bad. We mustn't forget that the book was written for children in the first place. What is a little disappointing though is that Jackson obviously didn't have the adults in mind at the same time. The movie has some unnecessary flashbacks and story arcs which may prove too complicated for the youngest to understand while simultaneously being too blunt and shallow for the older audience. Those could have been replaced with some real characterization and meaningful dialogue, or at least left out to give a greater sense of urgency, considering the deadline the characters have. There is also too much dependency on LOTR with the reappearance of the old Bilbo, Frodo, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond, most of which are completely redundant. It's clear that Jackson wants to connect the trilogies as much as possible, it just isn't as clear why. Although, with a classic trilogy behind us and a first part of a prequel trilogy aiming for children, something smells conspicuously like an inside of a tauntaun here.

In spite of all the minuses I've mentioned (or maybe even because of them), the movie is fun. It's a three-hour-long ride through the land of Middle-earth featuring great comedic performances by Martin Freeman as Bilbo, Ian McKellen as Gandalf and all of the thirteen actors playing the dwarfs, as well as the always fantastic Andy Serkis as Gollum. Cinematography, production design, costume design and makeup, as well as the visual effects are all on a level expected of a movie this big, and enriched by the always great Howard Shore's music. The young will probably love "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" as well as the fans of the book and the whole LOTR franchise or those who would like to visit the Middle-earth once again. So if you belong to any of those go to the nearest movie theater and let the journey begin.

P.S.

I've mentioned that I've watched the movie practically only because of the frame rate in which it was shown, so I feel obliged to write a few words about it. The opinions are divided between those who are saying that it looks like a documentary about filming the real movie and those who find the frame rate more immersive. I've been skeptical about it but in the end found out I belong to the latter group. The most obvious advantage of a higher frame rate is in quick camera movements which are fluid as they simply cannot be in 24 fps. The problem is that Jackson abuses it in some scenes, inducing dizziness with all the twisting and spinning at high speed, and even the movements of the characters sometimes seem too fast. 48 fps really make the movie look more real, but not in the bad way. The additional frames help the world of Middle-earth and all that inhabits it feel more palpable, as though it really exists, and they even do so more than the (really good) 3D. No doubt Jackson needed a capable crew and a big budget to make everything feel like an actual thing instead of a prop but he largely succeeded. There are probably some things which could've been done better, but it's a fantasy movie, needing much more to create an illusion of genuineness. I can't wait to see some present-set story filmed in such way. 48 fps make a more immersive visual experience than 3D and with immersiveness being the current goal, my guess is that Jackson just set a new standard.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

The latest Ang Lee movie, "Life of Pi", is an adaptation of a beautiful prize-winning novel of the same name written by Yann Martel. For a long time the novel was considered to be unfilmable so Lee's work was awaited with reserve, but only to thrill almost everyone upon its release.

"Life of Pi" is a story of Piscine Molitor Patel, or Pi as he renamed himself. Pi grew up in Pondicherry, a little town in India, where his father ran a zoo. He was a curious boy who looked for answers beyond his father's scientific approach and embraced Hindu, Christian and Muslim religions along the way. The life was sweet in Pondicherry but unfortunately, due to financial difficulties, Pi's father had to close the zoo and the family prepared to move to Canada. They were traveling on the same boat as their animals from the zoo which were sold to western buyers when a great storm hit them. After the storm came down Pi found himself as the only human survivor, in a lifeboat with zebra, hyena, orangutan and a tiger named Richard Parker. There began his true search for God, meaning and the limits of human strength.

For a movie most of the time containing only one boy and a tiger to succeed, those two really had to be something special. Suraj Sharma, who plays Pi, is a newcomer. A risky choice for a role so important and complex, but one that enables us to focus on the character without the distraction of a familiar face. Considering his inexperience, Sharma has done a very good job with just a few unconvincing moments. The tiger on the other hand remained flawless. It's mostly CGI with only a few scenes containing a real animal, but the CGI is incredibly lifelike and among the best I've ever seen. It gives so much depth to the tiger, making it a rounded character completely deserving of a full name.

The movie was filmed in 3D which is an unusual choice for a serious drama but Lee and cinematographer Claudio Miranda made it an indispensable part of the completed work. The cinematography is mesmerizing and its effects are greatly helped by the 3D which feels so natural you simply enjoy it without even being aware it's there. The beauty of the images emphasizes the meditative nature of the story, its plot serving only as the ground for spiritual ideas to grow.

The message of the movie can be interpreted in different ways. Some will say it is a religious one, but it can also be said to deny the existence of any kind of god. There's also the message about the importance of stories. The way we pick them, digest them, and the impact they have on us. Nevertheless, it's not the precise meaning Martel or Lee had in mind what's most important, but the one every person finds for oneself, for "Life of Pi" is one of those rare movies which are not complete without someone watching them. Therefore it has as many interpretations of the story as there are those who watched it. In that way it does two of the most important things every piece of art should do, it makes you think and it makes you discuss it. If for nothing else, it should be seen because of that.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

Every once in a while there comes a movie which strives to break the boundaries of cinema and storytelling and go beyond the limits of our imagination. Those movies provide unique viewing experience and leave marks on your heart as well as your mind. Just from watching the extended trailer (probably the best I've ever seen) it was apparent that the latest work from directors Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer falls into that category. It is a movie called "Cloud Atlas", just like the book written by David Mitchell which it's based upon.

The movie contains six interwoven stories spanning from 19th century to distant post-apocalyptic future and converging into a timeless message about love, justice and the importance of human actions. It unravels thematically rather than chronologically, showing similar situations in different stories as though they all take place simultaneously. That resulted in a lot of short scenes and required extensive editing which, although it finely underlines common themes, will no doubt prove to be too demanding for part of the audience. Another thing which could be confusing for some but really works to the movie's advantage is the casting of the same actors in a multitude of different roles. Although the characters are different, there is a common denominator to the roles played by the same actor. Sometimes it's a stereotype like in the case of Hugo Weaving who plays a villain in every story, and sometimes it's a more nuanced trait like with Tom Hanks whose characters follow their own interests whether motivated by love, greed, or self-preservation, heroes and villains alike. The casting, consisting of the actors of both genders and all of the races where each of them plays characters of both genders and all of the races, has a special and unique role in this movie carrying in itself one of the messages the authors wish to share. The one of equality between all human beings. Considering all that is said about the casting it's obvious the actors had to be in their top form, and fortunately for most of the parts they've been. It's worth pointing out Hugh Grant and Tom Hanks doing great job in roles completely against the type. Hanks is a little less convincing in his standard good-guy roles, trying maybe too hard to make a difference between them, but that doesn't diminish the great work he's done here.

As in acting, we can see oscillations in other areas such as make-up and prosthetics. While some of it looks great (Hugh Grant as a Kona Chief, Hugo Weaving as Old Georgie), some is disappointingly poor (Caucasian actors as Koreans). The same disbalance is found in the music, with great main theme and not so interesting rest of the soundtrack. Trying to cover as many genres as they could (thriller, romance, history, comedy, sci-fi, drama, adventure), the directors made a commendable effort, and even the single comedic story, which feels a little disconnected because of its tone at first, greatly fits in the overall movie. There are many other things making more sense after watching the movie for the second time, and some completely new revelations too. At first I thought some stories were weaker than the others, but now I manage to see them as one, just as the directing trio, and the author of the book of course, imagined it.

The main message of the movie is that of the importance of battle against oppression which, at least that's what the authors believe, is never in vain, for our every action leaves consequences we're not even aware of. The oppression is always that of people in power over those they consider less worthy, whether because of their skin colour, age, sexual orientation, social status or just because they are weaker. It's a story well known in today's world. We see the same thing happening all over it. Thus the message is as important as it can be.

"Cloud Atlas" is probably one of the most ambitious movies, if not ever, then certainly of this century. It connects what seems unconnectable in terms of genres, stories, characters and messages. It brings together art and entertainment in a glorious fashion, engaging all of our senses and making us think and feel at the same time. It acknowledges the obvious but still gives hope. It tells us it's worth being ourselves. And I can't think of a greater thing a movie can do.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

The line between fiction and reality is nowadays often blurred, with television and newspapers assaulting people with all kind of half-checked information, so it's refreshing to see a piece of work that makes clear distinction between the two. And it's even better that it does so by mixing them together.

"Argo", Ben Affleck's latest effort as both, a director and an actor, is a fictional work about a real event which consisted of creating a fictional event about a work of fiction. Confused? If you've seen the movie you're not. It is all displayed so clearly that it's easy to overlook its complexity. In 1979 Iranians took hold of US embassy in Tehran as a retaliation for US sheltering their overthrown Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. They held people who were working there as captives, but 6 diplomats managed to hide in the house of the Canadian ambassador, and escaped two months later with the help of CIA exfiltration expert Tony Mendez, posing as a Canadian film crew making a (fake) sci-fi with an eastern vibe. It sounds like one of those things that could only happen in a movie, so it was a logical decision to put it there. And putting it there means crossing from reality to fiction. So a joint CIA and Canadian Government operation can become one man's quest to save his fellow countrymen, as it basically did. There are, of course, other involved, but the movie's main character is Tony Mendez. He came up with the idea, found all the people needed to do the job, and himself went to Tehran to help the diplomats escape.

Affleck the director does a very good job. Although we know how it's all going to end, there's an unbearable tension and a sense of fear for the characters we feel right till the last minute. What's even more fascinating is that we're at the same time aware of the silly and clichéd solutions utilized to create those feelings (everything happens in the nick of time) but we don't care about them. Affleck the actor isn't as good. He's mostly expressionless and makes the weakest link in the otherwise almost perfect cast. A shame considering he gets most of the screen time. Fortunately, the likes of Clea DuVall and Christopher Denham present us with some of the most intense performances we've seen in the last couple of years. Make-up, costume design and the overall production design make us go back in time as well as see and feel the differences between the east and the west, while Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography makes the fear and tension palpable with the help of great editing by William Goldenberg. There's a brilliant interchange of Iranian woman reading accusations against the US and the cast of the fake movie reading the screenplay, which displays all of it.

In spite of its serious subject matter the movie contains a lot of humour, presented mostly by the two Hollywood characters and directed towards the same movie industry. And while the Hollywood gets criticized for a lot of things, it's ultimately lauded for the hope and sense of magic it brings to people whether the movie is real or fake. But, as Affleck shows us by naming his movie after the one it tells about, all the movies are actually fake. It's only their meaning and the impact they have that matter.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

Ralph Fiennes, a famous British actor, recently decided to step behind the camera. For his debut he chose an adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy "Coriolanus". It's a story of Roman general Caius Martius and his downfall. Martius is a member of Roman high society who looks down upon common people considering them a primitive, uneducated mob. After a victory over his arch-nemesis Tullus Aufidius from the Volscian army for which he is given a title "Coriolanus", Martius runs for Consul. But some of the tribunes don't have it in their best interest for him to be elected so they decide to use his well known contempt for people and short temper, and pit him against those who must acknowledge him as a consul, leading to his banishment from Rome. Once banished, his resentment for Rome grows so big he goes to Aufidius and offers him help in conquering the city.

All of the dialogue in the movie is Shakespearean and you can easily imagine warriors in their armor with swords and shields, as well as Roman senators and tribunes walking around in their togas. But here comes the interesting part. The movie transports the story in our present (or at least some variation of it), so instead of swords we have guns and instead of senators walking around we see them driving in cars. That modern setting emphasizes the parallels with the current situation in the world, where the gap between the rich and the poor becomes wider and wider and common people complain against those in power. But the movie does something even more interesting. It shows that people, how ever smart every one of them might be, when put in a group fall under the influence of mass mentality and need guidance. The question is, is it better for them to be led by someone with sweet words but selfish mind or someone who looks on them from above but is smart and noble. It seems that Shakespeare gives us such flawed candidates on purpose, suggesting the imperfection of the world we live in and showing us we'll often have to choose between two evils.

But the movie isn't just about showing us the flaws of the system or mass mentality. It also focuses on the relationship between Martius and his dominant mother Volumnia, which feels almost incestuous. There's a scene in which Virgilia, his wife, walks in on Volumnia nurturing his wounds, and withdraws with shame like she caught two lovers in the act. But the power his mother has over him, shaped Martius as a person of many contradictions and ultimately made him sacrifice himself for the city he wanted to destroy.

Although the first half of the movie is filled with gunfire and explosions, it's a full-blooded tragedy with larger-than-life characters, pompous dialogues and some, presumably deliberate, overacting from Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes in the roles of mother and son. Placing the plot in a modern setting, Fiennes adds a kind of post-apocalyptic feel to the tragedy and makes a 400 years old story feel fresh in spite of Shakespearean language. Beside Redgrave and Fiennes, I should point out Brian Cox as Menenius, one of the senators, as well as Jessica Chastain as Virgilia. The role of Aufidius is played by Gerard Butler, who, I feel, lacks the conviction of the others, and is one of the movie's weakest points.

"Coriolanus" is an interesting, if not completely successful, experiment. Though the Shakespearean element can be difficult for most, it pays off once you get accustomed to it, creating a unique experience. Fiennes has done a very good job and I can't wait to see his take on Charles Dickens' life in "The Invisible Woman". However, I hope there won't be any machine gun fire and driving around in cars this time.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

It has been fifty years since "Dr. No", the first James Bond movie came out, and to celebrate that anniversary we have before us twenty-third installment in the series, "Skyfall". For the first time in the hands of an Oscar winner (Sam Mendes), new Bond has a list of very respectable names attached to it. First draft of the screenplay was written by Peter Morgan while one of the authors of the final version is John Logan. The music is written by Thomas Newman, and Roger Deakins was handling the cinematography. The cast is surely one of the best ever, with Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney and Ben Wishaw. And of course, there's Sam Mendes at the helm. Having liked the previous two Craig's Bond movies and looking at that list of names, I was really convinced that this could be the best Bond ever. After watching it I'm not that convinced anymore.

So what's it all about? Someone stole the list with the names of every British secret agent and trying to recover it Bond went missing. It becomes obvious that whoever has the list has some personal quarrel with M. After an attack on the MI6 headquarters Bond comes back and helps M find the person behind it. It turns out to be Tiago Rodriguez a.k.a. Raoul Silva, a former MI6 operative who's after M because of some things from the past. Luckily, Bond is here to save the day. Or is he?

With the arrival of Craig as James Bond, the character, as well as the series, was given a new look. Bond became vulnerable, more violent and not so well-mannered. But this time there is another change, with considering Bond's age and is it interfering with his abilities. Probably motivated by 50th anniversary and the talk of the series becoming old and redundant, the movie discusses Bond's ability as well as the ability and necessity of the whole MI6 department and shows us in the end that they still have a lot to give and we still need them. Talking of course not about just Bond and MI6 but the movie series as well. This theme is not the only thing inspired by the anniversary. In fact, there are a lot of smaller and bigger details pointing back to the series' roots. From the classic silver Aston Martin DB5 ("Goldfinger", "Thunderball") which even has the same license plate number, and the locations in Turkey and Scotland ("From Russia with Love"), to a criminal mastermind with his own island ("Dr. No") and a little deranged personality (all of the early Bond villains). There's also a sense of going back to the roots in introducing new versions of key characters, and even the office in the end and M giving Bond a new assignment remind of old Bond movies.

Alongside that with the early entries in the series, there's another parallel "Skyfall" draws, the one with Nolan's Batman trilogy. Nolan's Batman and new Bond are both troublesome characters trying to overcome their weaknesses to do a greater good, which isn't so uncommon, but some of the similarities with "The Dark Knight Rises" are striking. In the first place it's the relation with the main bad guy. Just like Batman and Bane, Bond and Silva share the same training and mentor. For the first it's the League of Shadows and Ra's Al Ghul, while for the others it's MI6 and M. Both Bane and Silva were discarded by their mentors which filled them with rage and both of them brought chaos to the cities of their enemies (in Gotham it's the stadium which collapses while in London it's a part of the London Underground). There's also previously mentioned issue of being too old and incapable to do what has to be done, discussed in the latest Batman movie as well. The movies even share a line foreshadowing the imminent destruction ("A storm is coming.").

But this is still a Bond movie. It has great action, beautiful locations, beautiful women and a sense of humour, although not all of that to the same extent. The action really is great and the locations more than beautiful mostly thanks to Deakins's cinematography which is outstanding and deserving of his 10th Oscar nomination. Of course, credits go to Dennis Gassner's (interestingly, another frequent Coen brothers' collaborator) production design and Mendes's direction as well. The other two things I have a problem with. There are two women in the movie, aside from M of course. One of them can't really be called a standard Bond girl due to her probably continuing appearance in the series, and the other is given very little screen time, appearing and disappearing in the middle of the movie, and thus for the first time making M the most prominent female in a Bond movie. In accordance with the story, of course, but strange nonetheless. With the lack of women, but without greater meaning than to provide a comic moment, comes Bond's first homo-erotic moment, Silva touching his legs and Bond implying it would not be his first time. It gives Craig a great line, but sticks out as unnecessary in the same time making us aware of how little humour there is in the movie.

Read the complete review at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

What is more important, a theme of the movie or how it is presented? That's what I wondered after watching Leos Carax's latest picture "Holy Motors". It's a movie without classical narrative but it seems to talk of many things. In it we see a man named Oscar, driven through the streets of Paris in a big limousine, assume many different roles as a part of his job. He becomes an old woman, a motion-capture actor, a dying man and a head of the family of monkeys amongst else, each of his roles having another kind of story, conveying diverse emotions and different messages. In between his roles Oscar changes clothes and make-up, talks with his chauffeur, gets a visit from who seems to be his employer, and has a chance meeting with his former love.

The movie opens with a shot of an audience in a theatre and thus from the beginning makes us aware that it speaks of cinema. One of the first things we conclude is that Oscar is some kind of an actor whose job is to play a couple of different roles every day with other actors like him, all of them being driven around in big limousines. That assumption is confirmed when his employee appears and Oscar complains that he can't get in the role as well as he used to since he can't see the cameras because of how small they became. Also, his name immediately brings to mind the most famous American movie award, and we can easily see him as a metaphor for the award for best actor, his performances as ones for which the award has been given, and a critique from his employee as a critique of the Oscars. But that's not all that points to American cinema. At the beginning of the movie the director himself gets to the movie theatre through the wall covered with painting of the woods which, together with the name of the movie, reminded me of Hollywood and could indicate that everything we see afterwards is an allegory of it. Of course, I could very well be wrong, but since Carax don't want to talk about the meaning of the movie, all we can do is find our own interpretation of it.

In addition to being parables for the award-winning performances, Oscar's roles are also representations of the various characters every one of us is composed of. When we first see Oscar, he's a wealthy banker arranging a dinner with some colleagues. Later in the movie Oscar sees that character having dinner at the restaurant and leaves the limousine to kill him, showing in that way the repulsion we feel towards some of the characters within us, or, if you want, some segments of our personality. The exploration of our personality is additionally revealed as a theme through one of the songs in the movie, sung by Oscar's colleague and long lost love Jean, with lyrics like: "Who were we, who were we, when we were, who we were, back then?". That segment also explores the possibility of love between fragmented people as we have become.

All of that we could say makes the theme of "Holy Motors", but what about how it is presented? It's a series of bizarre looking unconnected vignettes which create very little emotional impact. The acting is great, especially by Denis Lavant who plays Oscar and through him ten more roles, doing all of that impeccably, as well as Kylie Minogue whose performance probably amazed me so much because I had low expectations, but nevertheless makes one of the highlights of the movie. The cinematography by Caroline Champetier and interesting choice of music help keep the audience interested, but they're not without flaws. The main problem is the author himself. He publicly said that he didn't write screenplay because he doesn't know how to write. And that shows. The movie misses any kind of coherency and often feels unnecessary eccentric. I can't help thinking, maybe with a good screenplay the movie could be more than the sum of his parts, just like it should.

So to turn back to the question from the beginning. I still don't know what's more important, but it seems that having an interesting theme isn't enough, for it can very easily be turned into uninvolving mess. Just like in "Holy Motors", a movie which is better to talk about than to watch.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

The horror genre lost its originality years ago. With the exception of few refreshing movies ("The Descent", "Rec", "Amer", original "Saw"), it's comprised of remakes, sequels, and multiple reiterations of the same themes done in the same way. Yet people still watch horrors. It's like there's some kind of need for brutality and gruesomeness. Can it be that getting scared and seeing other people die makes us feel more alive? "The Cabin in the Woods", a new horror directed by Drew Goddard from a script by himself and Joss Whedon, seems to think so and takes that premise to the extreme.

Five friends are going on a trip to some cabin deep in the woods to spend a fun weekend far from all kinds of commitment, people, and civilization in general. That sounds like a standard horror plot, but what neither they nor we know is that it's also as far from truth as it can be. The movie opens with two guys in some kind of office building going about their daily routine and seeming pretty indifferent about their jobs. It will turn out their job is much more serious than it looks in the beginning. From there we go to the friends packing for the trip and as we're watching them connections between the two are gradually revealed. Since the movie can't be properly discussed without an abundance of spoilers anyway, I'll just briefly explain the plot. In the earth beneath us live ancient gods who demand sacrifice or they'll destroy us all. So the rituals are created all over the world to appease the gods. What we see in the movie is basically one such ritual, with five people being killed to save us all. But as in any ritual there's a procedure that must be followed, and here comes the fantastic homage to horror genre. The characters are given a chance of survival, but that chance is only illusory as there is a whole crew modifying their surroundings, just like in a horror movie. So it's like watching a movie and behind-the-scenes simultaneously. There are also specific roles for each character: the whore, the athlete, the scholar, the fool, and the virgin. And, of course, they must all be young. They also must choose the weapon of their destruction by themselves, so in the cellar of the cabin they are introduced to a whole bunch of creepy and mysterious objects each representing one kind of monster the crew from the "office building" has at their disposal. Another parallel with the movie-making business.

But the movie goes far beyond the homage to horror genre. It actually speaks about the end of humanity and what would we do to stop it. One of the most horrifying things is the easiness with which the crew responsible for the ritual does their job. And yet it is one that is so human. We as a species survive by adapting to circumstances (if we can't change them) and excluding emotions. At the same time we want to differentiate ourselves from other animals and have notions like fairness, nobility or friendship. All of those instincts and notions come together in this bizarre fight between the two groups of people. One being immoral and cruel for sacrificing people and the other being selfish for putting themselves before the whole world. Sort of collectivism vs. individualism battle with no definite answer.

On top of all that layers "The Cabin in the Woods" functions as a great horror, creating suspense and scaring us with more than just cheap tricks, and also as a great comedy in its behind-the-scenes segment. The credit for that goes to all the cast and crew. The acting is simply fantastic. From Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth and Fran Kranz as part of the five friends to brilliant performances by Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins as those pulling the strings. All the other elements like cinematography, editing, music and production design are flawless and brought together by Goddard's assured debut direction. But the thing that rises above all else is the screenplay. What Goddard and Whedon have written is simply amazing. The originality of the idea, the beauty of the dialogue, the perfect balance between the two sides of the story, it just makes you want to watch it again and again. At least it did that for me.

"The Cabin in the Woods" is a movie about horrors, a horror about movies, a comedy about human sacrifice, a thriller about five people in the woods, a story about the end of the world, and above all an excellent piece of work that gets even better with each subsequent viewing. So be sure to watch it more than once. Who knows, maybe next time they will finally choose the merman.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

"Cesare deve morire" ("Caesar Must Die") is the latest movie from brothers Paolo and Vittorio Taviani, experienced (both over 80 years old) Italian directors and screenwriters. In February 2012 it won the Golden Bear, the main prize of the Berlin International Film Festival, and a very strong reception from the audience which seems to continue. So what's it about? Some time ago a friend told the Taviani brothers about the great experience she had watching a play in a small theatre in Rome and so they went to visit it. They went there, loved the actors, and decided to film them creating another play, Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar". All of that doesn't sound like something special but there's a catch. The theatre is in fact in Rebibbia, a high-security prison, and all of the actors are convicts sentenced for various crimes and to a various amount of time (some even for life). That's the most peculiar but also the most problematic thing about this movie.

The movie establishes three levels: one on the scene, the enacting of play, and two in the prison, prisoners as what should be their normal selves talking about the play and in their roles rehearsing for the play. The interesting thing is that on all of the levels the movie feels scripted. The moments of rehearsing are, with the help of camera work, editing and music, made to look like they are parts of play itself, whilst the situations when the prisoners are out of character see them still acting ,thus ironically making the actual play on the stage the only nonfictional part of the movie. As you can imagine, it all leaves you a little confused. Of course, it's questionable if the directors even wanted to create everything in that way. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. But "Cesare deve morire" obviously tackles the theme of the theater-reality relationship and the fact that it's a movie undeniably adds to the equation.

What the Taviani brothers pointed as their main intention in doing this movie is drawing the viewers' attention to the human side of the prisoners, and I'm not sure if they succeeded in that. That they in fact worked with amateur actors didn't help. As I've already said, the prisoners seem to act all the time thus denying us any real emotion and depriving us of any empathy. What we can assume is the usefulness of creating the prison theatre group. Both as a useful way for convicts to spend their time and as means to enable their interaction with the outside world. Bearing that in mind, the movie becomes useful as a sort of advertisement reaching to a broader audience.

Being the advertisement of course isn't enough to be a good movie, however good the cause it advertises may be. Fortunately, there are a few more good things about it. Most of the movie is shot in black and white and the cinematography, done by Simone Zampagni, is beautiful. The use of the camera transforms prison cells to Roman houses and makes simple courtyards become the Senate and the grand Forum of the Eternal City. It successfully embodies "less is more" principle. The music composed by Giuliano Taviani and Carmelo Travia in the beginning feels mismatched, but when you recognize the rehearsals as the play and the other levels accordingly it clicks in emphasizing the pathos of the tragedy.

"Cesare deve morire" isn't a movie without its charms. I just feel like the directors didn't successfully accomplish what they were trying to, even if in the process they created something interesting (deliberately or not). That said, it puzzles me why it got the Golden Bear and I can't wait to see some of the other movies from the competition.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

From October 2nd to October 6th 1997, Pope John Paul II visited Brazil for the fourth time. Since his first visit in 1980 the social inequality has grown exponentially and the safety conditions deteriorated. But as we all do, Rio de Janeiro tried to show itself in better light. Homeless families and children have been temporarily cleared off the streets and Pope's safety was entrusted to more than 20,000 detectives, military police officers and soldiers, amongst whom were the members of Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais (Special Policial Operations Battalion) better known as BOPE. BOPE is a special unit of military police concerned mainly with battle against organized crime and famous for its incorruptibility unlike the rest of the police.

Nine years later, and just a few months before the new Pope's first visit to Brazil, sociologist Luiz Eduardo Soares and two BOPE officers, Major André Batista and Captain Rodrigo Pimentel, have written a semi-fictional book talking about preparations for Pope's 1997 visit and called "Elite da Tropa". In 2007 director José Padilha, with the help of screenwriter Bráulio Mantovani, adapted the book into a movie called "Tropa de Elite" ("Elite Squad"). It draw controversy for its portrayal of BOPE as a brutal and uncompromising force and police as being corrupted on every level.

Movie is narrated by Captain Roberto Nascimento, a member of BOPE who must lead his men to clean the favelas (slums) before the arrival of the Pope. It's his last assignment before retiring so he must also find someone to replace him. Along Nascimento, we follow two candidates for his position, young police recruits André Matias and Neto Gouveia. While André is studying law, and believes in peaceful solutions and good police work, Neto is honest but short-tempered and rash. Discovering how corrupt the police force is, they decide to register for BOPE.

Although the movie is narrated by a member of BOPE, it takes a fairly distant approach. It is so because Nascimento himself tries to quit BOPE. His wife is pregnant and he got sick of his work which is why he's looking for his replacement. The methods his team uses are troubling at least. They are ready to torture and kill anyone they assume might be connected with the criminals and show almost no compassion. The methods they use are problematic and discarded as savage and immoral by Matias's colleagues at the law school, whom Matias then accuses of being ignorant to true problems and theorizing and criticizing from their privileged positions without true knowledge of the situation. It is interesting because it gets you thinking. All of us criticize something from time to time without knowing a lot about the subject. We criticize politicians for how they run a country, football players for how they play, heck, I criticize movies although I've never learned how to direct or act, and don't really know how the whole movie-making process feels and works. Knowing theory is good, but it isn't enough. Sure BOPE's methods are morally wrong, but the situation isn't black and white. It never is.

The way those problems and dilemmas are shown is great. Mantovani did a fantastic job with the screenplay, probably helped by the great source material. The story is simple yet effective. It makes us think and also gets us emotionally involved. The camera-work is superb. Scenes showing the moving of Nascimento's squad through favelas are exciting and suspenseful and the movie for most of the time makes you feel like you're watching a documentary. Padilha did a great work. The actors are also fantastic. Wagner Moura as Nascimento and André Ramiro as Matias did a great job showing us troubled characters, as did Caio Junqueira as resolute Neto and Fábio Lago as cruel leader of the gang, Baiano, to point out just a few.

Rarely a movie functions on so many levels as is the case with "Tropa de Elite". It's a personal story, a great action movie, a display of the problems that social inequality creates, an introduction to a debate about moral issues and limits of law enforcement, and much more. I've watched it for four times now, and I can't wait to watch it again. You should do the same.

"Despite possible coincidences with the reality, this movie is a work of fiction." This is a disclaimer at the beginning of "Tropa de Elite 2 - O Inimigo Agora É Outro" ("Elite Squad: The Enemy Within"), a sequel to the fantastic "Tropa de Elite". It also constitutes the first difference between the movies. While most of the crew stayed the same, including director Padilha, screenwriter Mantovani and former BOPE member Pimentel, they didn't film real life inspired events like in the first movie. Although, one can easily assume what the sequel depicts isn't far from the reality. The other difference is that in "Tropa de Elite 2" the focus moves from the BOPE unit to the politics.

Roberto Nascimento returns as a narrator of the story, which is this time more centered on him, only now he has a different rank. He became Lt. Colonel and got in charge of whole of BOPE. But that doesn't last for long. Soon he's made Deputy Secretary of Intelligence in the state of Rio de Janeiro and changes BOPE uniform for a suit and tie. Nascimento decides to use his new position to make BOPE stronger and eradicate drug trafficking from the favelas. It takes him some time to realize it isn't him who's using the system but the other way around. Several other characters reappear, such as André Matias who became a Captain, Fábio, a dirty police Captain who got to the position of Lt. Colonel, or Rocha, another dirty cop who's taken over favelas. There are also some new characters representing the world of politics such as Governor of the state Gelino, Secretary of Intelligence Guaracy and Diogo Fraga, left-oriented State Representative who's married to Nascimento's ex-wife. The problem is that this time all of the characters are simplified. Each one has its views and no one revisits them except Nascimento. That's why he's such a great character. Going through different situations he learns and evolves, and he's ready to change his opinions in light of new information.

Moving the focus of the story to politics, the movie got more diverse but also lost its punch. While Padilha combines various office meetings and street murders the best he can, the combination of the two just can't repeat the impact of the first movie. What doesn't help is that he already showed us the police is corrupt, and corruption of the politicians is a thing, I believe, well known amongst the people all over the world because it's present in probably every country. Maybe it's not as extreme as shown here, but it doesn't surprise to see some of them are willing to go one step further.

So the movie shows us things we already know, but does it in a very good way. Most of the elements like Padilha's direction, Lula Carvalho's cinematography, Daniel Rezende's editing, and especially the acting by Wagner Moura, Irandhir Santos, Sandro Rocha and others, are as good as in the previous film. One thing that I found a little underwhelming is screenplay. Not that it's bad, but some of the characters seem inconsistent and everything is a bit over-explained.

That is also the main problem of this movie. Everything that was subtextual in the first one is now explicitly shown, and, while in the first one you had to think and make your own conclusions, here it's mostly done for you. "Tropa de Elite 2" plays on emotions more than reason and does it skillfully. It just doesn't benefit from its detailed account as much as the first one did from its rawness.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

"He'arat Shulayim" ("Footnote") is an Israeli 2012 Oscar contender, a 2012 Cannes screenplay award winner, and altogether a very highly praised movie. It tells a story about Eliezer and Uriel Shkolnik, a father and son, both Talmud scholars but with different amounts of public recognition. Eliezer devoted all of his life to comparing different versions of the Talmud but never published anything since his colleague beat him to it leaving as his greatest achievement a footnote in his mentor's book. On the other hand, his son Uriel wrote a lot of books on all kind of subjects and got praise for all of them. As a matter of fact, the movie opens with Uriel getting accepted to the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the honor which his father never got, and it's immediately clear that Eliezer doesn't take it well. The plot thickens when Eliezer finds out he won the Israel Prize, the most prestigious national award, after 16 consecutive failed nominations, and Uriel learns that it is he who should get it and his father got notified by mistake.

The profession of the characters could really be anything, it isn't of much relevance. What the film talks about is how easily people get infatuated with greed, jealousy and the (imagined) importance of their work. It also talks about the father-son relationship, not just through the example of Eliezer and Uriel but Uriel and his son Josh too. It shows the difference between generations but also the inevitability of our family ties. It is all well displayed in the behavior of Uriel. He tries to be a better father than his own but still makes some of the same mistakes. He also tries to help his father despite of the contempt Eliezer shows for his work, but can't help being angered by it.

The movie is very precise in depicting how an academic community functions. It is all about prestige. Who will publish something first or who's work will be cited in a footnote. It is unbelievable, but true, what would people do just to get their name mentioned or written somewhere. A colleague of mine told me today "It's all about immortality.". But what does that really mean? A hundred years from now someone will be reading something and my name will be there. So what? Neither of us gets anything from that. But let's get back to the movie. In the beginning you sympathize with Eliezer. He has been working hard for years and just because someone got lucky it turns out it has all been in vain. But as the movie goes on we learn that he's no better than everybody else. He just wants the spotlights on him. In the end it's even suggested he realized that the award shouldn't go to him but he accepts it anyway. It isn't shown explicitly because the movie ends just before winners get on the stage, but I can hardly imagine any other outcome. And because of that we wound up feeling sorry for Uriel who won't get the deserved award and can't even get nominated ever again (part of the deal with the president of the committee) because of his selfish father.

The acting is very good. Shlomo Bar-Aba in the role of the father and Lior Ashkenazi in the role of the son give subdued but impressive performances. Cinematographer Yaron Scharf did a good job showing libraries and houses crowded with books, emphasizing in that way the absurdity of wanting for your name to be mentioned just to be lost in a heap of others. Probably the best part of the movie is editing done by Einat Glaser-Zarhin. In the first part of the movie narrator lists things we should now about Eliezer and Uriel and it's a joy watching those sequences. The movie balances between serious drama and a little less serious comedy and is greatly helped in it by Amit Poznansky's amusing soundtrack. He often uses tense music to create a comedic moment, at the same time keeping us aware of the seriousness of the whole situation. The only thing that got me disappointed was the most lauded one, screenplay. While it has some great moments, like the one in which a numerous committee holds a meeting in the tiniest of rooms, it feels stretched and unpolished in places which decreases the overall impression.

There's one more thing. The movie talks about many things. Greed, excellence, compassion, jealousy, revenge, dedication, fear, happiness, and more. But I just can't figure out what's the point. What did the author, Joseph Cedar, want to say with it. Just to be clear, this isn't one of those movies where people are wondering what is it all about. It's all very clear, it just doesn't feel like Cedar had a point to make. Maybe he just wanted to show how the things are functioning without drawing any conclusions. If so, I would find a documentary a better way to show it. If not...I don't know. Maybe I'm just too demanding. It's best you see it and decide for yourselves.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

"Looper" is a new action Sci-Fi getting overwhelmingly positive reviews and comments and even named movie of the year by some, which is pretty unusual for a movie of that genre. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, it tells of a world where time-travel was invented and immediately prohibited but is still used by criminal organisations. When they need to get rid of someone they send him 30 years in the past when an assassin kills him. Those assassins are called loopers and we follow the story of one of them, a guy called Joe. Joe is the youngest looper but he does his job without mistake. That is, until he has to kill his older self. You see, in the future they started hunting old loopers and sending them back to their younger selves with a big payment. That is called "closing the loop" and essentially means early retirement. So Joe finds himself closing his loop but things go amiss and older Joe escapes. The criminal organization led by a man from the future named Abe immediately starts searching for Joe, Joe searches for his older self, and older Joe searches for the Rainmaker, a mysterious figure who rules by iron fist in the future and gave away an order to kill all loopers, but is just a little child in 2042.

The movie is deemed as very original and is applauded for it, and while parts of the script have a refreshing originality, the concept of time-travel and the ideas of facing your older/younger self and changing the future by intervening in the past are nothing new. Some of them (and some other as well) are explored in last year's another critical favourite, "Source Code" (be sure to see it if you haven't already) which came to my mind while watching "Looper". Both are uncommonly complex and smart Sci-Fi movies and they share some themes, but they have a crucial difference. While "Source Code" is a Sci-Fi only because of its unusual idea of inserting thoughts and personality of one person into the body of another (who is by the way in past, so time-travel plays a role here too), "Looper" is a true genre movie. Johnson creates a believable futuristic world enriched with small details like hovering bikes, telekinesis and (inevitably) a new drug consumed as eye-drops and makes us want to see more of it. It's really a shame we don't but the movie aims for much more and there has to be room for everything.

The main concern of "Looper" are moral and philosophical issues. It asks questions like: "Can killing innocents be justified by what could happen in the future?", "What are we willing/allowed to do to save ourselves?", "Is our future predetermined?", "Can we change it?", "What is our life worth?", and many more. And it's a great achievement that it succeeds in making those questions relevant while simultaneously offering a great dose of action, somewhat clichéd love story and a whole lot of time-travel issues. Those issues are being discussed in detail all over the Internet but, while entertaining and interesting as a conversation theme, shouldn't be put in the foreground because they easily let you forget about all aforementioned great things in this movie.

The movie has a very well written screenplay and benefits from an inspired direction, which wouldn't be enough had it not a great cast too. Bruce Willis, and especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt did a great job portraying the same character. Gordon-Levitt wears prosthetics which help him look like young Willis (although he looks kind of awkward occasionally) but most of the job is done by him. The facial expressions, gestures and tone of voice are first-rate and young actor once again shows his huge range. There are some less captivating performances like those of Emily Blunt and Paul Dano, but there are also memorable, although short, appearances by, always great, Jeff Daniels and Garret Dillahunt, which give the movie even more appeal. Talking about appeal, Steve Yedlin's cinematography is fantastic. The movie is full of beautiful wide shots and striking close-ups and really demands seeing in a movie theater for full effect. An important contribution to the overall atmosphere is one of the best Sci-Fi soundtracks in years, done by Nathan Johnson, Rian's cousin and frequent collaborator (and partner in folk duo "The Preserves", but that's some other story). It makes a great job emphasizing all the emotional moments and injects additional suspense in the action sequences.

So I've written a lot and said only a small part of what's on my mind. That's the sign I should stop or else I'll never finish. "Looper" is above all else food for thought, and as that it deserves all the attention it got. Add to that its genre basis and you'll realize what we have here is a very likely future cult movie to be talked about for the years to come. Don't know about you, but I will definitely loop back to the beginning of it the first chance I get.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

Yesterday we had a real treat at our local cinema. Director Etienne Faure came to introduce his new movie called "Désordres" (its international title is "Chaos", although a literal translation would be "Disorders"). The movie was finished just a couple of weeks ago and that was one of the first showings. "Désordres" tells the story about a seemingly ideal family who moved from Paris to the country, to escape the madness of the big city and come close to the nature. The husband, Vincent, is a professor of geography and history and gets a job at a local school. His wife, Marie, is a well-known pianist who quit playing at a young age and now has nothing to do but take care of their son. Not long after they settle in their new house their lives start to change with the intrusion of Thibaut, one of Vincent's students.

The movie tackles several themes and does that mostly successfully. Right from the first scene, filmed with a hand-held camera, it creates a kind of discomfort, even fear, and it doesn't stop right until the end. In the beginning it is created by a suggestion that someone is stalking the newly moved family. That suggestion creates all kind of questions, most of which are answered in the final part of the movie. The fear of stalking is greatly imprinted in the viewer throughout the first part of the movie, as is in Vincent, who overcomes it by telling himself it's just a figment of his imagination and welcomes a stalker into his family. That's when things start to get worse. The central part of the movie talks about marital problems, adultery, excitement of something/someone new and coping with all of it, but still it maintains the feeling of discomfort giving us hints which show there's something else at play. And then, in the last part, all is revealed and the audience is given more themes to think about, such as psychological disorders and their causes, and the concept of guilt. There is also an interesting lesson about the importance of history. Vincent tells his students that without knowledge of history they can't understand present, and that's reflected in Thibaut's case. Except in that case professor forgot his own lesson and his wife turned out to be a better pedagogist, proving in that way that people's qualities have an emotional trigger. I should mention that the movie, somewhere between all of the above, also talks about love and desire, and strange ways through which people can connect.

The actors are all on spot. Especially Niels Schneider as devious Thibaut and Sonia Rolland as naive and seduced Marie. I've already mentioned the great camera work creating discomfort and suspension. There are also some enigmatic scenes which create even more suspension, such as Thibaut carrying food to some unknown flat, or picking up a hidden pack of cigarettes from the wall behind Vincent and Marie's house. Things like that tell us there's something more going on, and director reveals it gradually trying to create not a shock effect but an emotional impact on the audience, and he succeeds in that.

There are some weak spots, like when Marie goes to help the neighbor or some decisions she makes which are puzzling. And there are some loose threads, for example in the end we can understand why Thibaut came that way, but the other kids' behavior remains unexplained. Also, Thibaut mentions being poor which doesn't seem to be the case throughout the movie. Regardless of that, the movie nicely balances between its themes and keeps the viewer involved all the time. It also caught my attention how director created some situations that seem meaningless at that moment but make sense afterwards (leaving the shotgun, introducing the journalist).

After some thought I must say that "Désordres" is surprisingly non-chaotic but seriously disordered, nevertheless containing some beautiful scenes and causing all kinds of emotions in a viewer. It's also an interesting food for thought with its convoluted but compelling plot and various themes. All of that makes it a great watch, so be sure to catch it when it comes to cinemas.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

Many speak of "Savages" as Oliver Stone's return to form. It certainly looks that way at first glance. Gritty, violent story about Chon and Ben, two drug dealers trying to rescue their mutual girlfriend O from the hands of the Mexican mafia powered with such stars as John Travolta, Benicio Del Toro and Salma Hayek as well as youngsters Blake Lively, Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Taylor-Johnson in leading roles. But then I became sceptical. Oliver Stone hasn't made a noteworthy movie (documentaries aside) for more than fifteen years and the other writers don't have appealing resumes (one of them, Don Winslow, is also the author of the book which the movie is based on, but writing a good book doesn't mean you can write a good screenplay). Still, I couldn't help hoping this one would be a hit so I went to watch it.

And what a hit it was. A succession of hits, actually. It first hit me with useless and badly done narration by O, the girl who gets kidnapped. Then it hit me again with really bad characterization. All the characters are just a pack of clichés, without an ounce of personality in them, doing whatever is necessary for the story to progress. Another hit. Acting. I must admit the actors weren't given much to work with but some of the blame lies on them too. Blake Lively is awful as a spoiled addict O and Taylor Kitsch isn't much better as PTSD-suffering Chon. even the pros like Travolta and Del Toro seem like they don't know what they are doing. Travolta plays Dennis, a DEA agent so corrupt and double-crossing, I don't know how he manages to remember which side is he on at any given moment, and Del Toro plays a professional killer who likes to torture people and rape girls. Bearing that in mind, their acting is straightforward comedic. And here is where the final hit comes in. Screenplay. It's so poorly written that you wonder how did they even get it filmed. You get the feeling that the tone of the movie is supposed to be serious but then, out of the blue, happens something undeniably parodic. It is maybe intentionally so, but it makes the movie very uneven and just doesn't work. Not to mention completely unnecessary and incomprehensible decisions like revealing Elena has a daughter in the beginning of the movie and crossing her with O while shopping in some mall. What purpose does that have? It just lets us conclude what will happen later in the movie thus removing any suspense. Or showing us Elena getting close with O to make nothing of it and simply discard it a few minutes later. There's just no sense in most of the things in this movie.

What's even worse, the movie doesn't seem to have an answer to the most important question. What is the point of it? Why do we have to sit and watch it for over two hours? What does it tell us? It seems there is no point. The most corrupted guys end up as winners while our ménage à trois moves to some exotic place and, in O's words, regress to living some kind of primal, savage life (although savages didn't have bathing suits from what I recall). So okay, they're all savages. Or we're all savages? Is that what the movie is trying to tell us? Does it have a point after all? Maybe. The problem is that it just doesn't make you care.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

"Shame", a new film by British director and screenwriter Steve McQueen tells the story of a troubled young man struggling with himself in a big city. Brandon is in his mid-thirties. He has a boring but probably pretty safe job in some office, the nature of his work not being relevant. He's a lonely guy. The only two persons in his life are his sister, who comes from out of town with no place to stay and is as troubled as he is, and his wife-cheating boss, who gets drunk and sleeps with his sister. Brandon is a sex addict. He spends every available moment masturbating or having sex with whomever he can. The problem is he doesn't enjoy it. It's a pain and torture to him, almost as if he's punishing himself for something.

As you can see it's a very simple plot and the movie avoids any kind of exaggeration in depicting it. It's deemed controversial because of its many sex scenes and some probably consider it vulgar and excessive because of that, but the sex is necessary to tell the story and the movie is one of the most realistic that I've ever seen. What director concentrates on are the thoughts and emotions of the characters (mostly Brandon and his sister Sissy) and that's what carries the movie and keeps you involved. McQueen has done a great job both directing and writing this movie. He has provided the actors with an opportunity to display all their skill and they've done it masterfully. Both Michael Fassbender as Brandon and Carey Mulligan as Sissy gave fantastic performances, with their faces as the main tool for expressing all the sadness, fear, anger and loneliness of their characters. That can especially be seen when Sissy sings a melancholy version of "New York, New York" or when Brandon has sex with two women near the end of the movie (this scene even gives a feeling of horror). The other few actors that are appearing in the movie do a good job, but the emphasis is on Mulligan's and especially Fassbender's performance.

Beside the work done by McQueen, Fassbender and Mulligan, there are two more important elements which make the film as good as it is. Sean Bobbitt's cinematography makes a fantastic job showing us loneliness and despair of the main characters through every frame, and Harry Escott's music evokes the sadness and melancholy which make us feel their pain and empathize with them. I should also point out the scenes of sex which are greatly filmed and yet lack the ability to arouse. Instead, they just deepen the prevailing feeling of hopelessness.

Whoever talks about this movie points out Brandon as a sex addict. I'm not sure what would be a definition of a sex addict but I think there's something else we should focus out attention to here. At one point Brandon goes on a date with his colleague Marianne. A proper first date with walking, dinner, talk about relationships and a promise of a second one. It's the only time we see Brandon genuinely having fun. I think he's even happy and looking forward to the second date. But when it comes, all is ruined. Brandon can't have sex with Marianne. He can't get his penis hard which causes him to break and he lets her go. Here is revealed his inability to establish a normal relationship. Is it a consequence of his sex addiction or maybe a cause of it we don't know, but it's the most tragic thing about him.

The title "Shame" is ambiguous, showing us all the complexity of the movie within itself. There is disgrace in Brandon's way of life, embarrassment he feels about it, and pity we feel for him. But there is even more to it. Because it's not just about Brandon. It's about all of us, trying to escape from our troubles in all the wrong ways and losing ourselves in the process, which seems to happen more often as time goes by. And that really is a shame.

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

And so it came to an end. After eight seasons (it started back in 2005) "Weeds" concluded its run. I won't try to make some kind of review of the whole series here for it would be impossible. There are more than a hundred episodes and some of them I watched so long ago I can't even remember them. I just wanted to bid this series farewell with a few words.

During eight years The Botwins traveled all over America, met a lot of people, killed some, avoided getting killed themselves, some of them went through prison, some of them even lived in Denmark for a while, they were running from Mexican drug kingpin, DEA, FBI, police, you name it, and all of that because of weed. It's somewhat ironic then, that in the last episode of the series we find out the weed has become legal. That of course brought Nancy and her family a lot of money, but it has done something else too, it made them ordinary citizens again. Practically all of them embraced it, some more, some less successfully, all but Nancy. All her reasons for feeling special gone, the end of series finds its main character without a purpose and, even more interestingly, leaves us wondering should we really feel sorry for her.

"Weeds" had highs and lows throughout its course. Its start was fantastic but it got lost somewhere along the way and tried to save it all in the last season. And, if you ask me, though it probably failed quality-wise, it succeeded on an emotional level. It was nice to see all the characters once again and the ending was bittersweet just as it should've been. Speaking of ending, it may be the end of the series but that surely doesn't mean I'll stop watching it. Till we meet again, farewell!

More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/