Reviews

Rigby: "We will never get to where we were" Conor: "Where was that?" Rigby: "Some place good"

Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #5

Man I can't believe for how long I've been hearing about this film, probably since early 2013. It's been well over a year since it premiered at Toronto with glaring reviews, with Oscar buzz surrounding it, and it seemed like a winner since it was in the hands of someone like Harvey Weinstein. The version I saw though was not the version that was applauded at TIFF, but the shorter version that was shown up at Cannes. This version did not raise that many eyebrows and many called it useless. I was reluctant to see this version (Them) first than to see (Him and Her) like I wanted to, but it was the only option I had so I took it.

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them is Directed by Ned Benson and it stars James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Ciarán Hinds, Bill Hader, Viola Davis, Isabelle Huppert, Nina Arianda, Jess Weixler and William Hurt.

The picture starts with what is one of the film's best scenes. Conor and Rigby run away from a restaurant after realizing that they had no money to pay the bill. The cinematography, the acting, the whole environment created around this scene is something extraordinary, as the whole theater was immediately sucked into the picture, everyone must have been smiling. The sense of joy, excitement and love is tangible. The next time we see our characters though, they are not in the same mood, there's a 360º turn. A bold narrative twist that left the audience a bit surprised. What happened? What happened to the couple that we had just seen on screen? These are the questions that we ask ourselves and these are the questions that the film and its characters tries to hide. Why? Maybe because answering them would be too painful. Because not confronting the "situation" might be easier and less agonizing.

We keep trying to understand what happened, trying to find an answer to those questions through most of the film. Ultimately that's what our characters Conor and Eleanor are doing themselves, trying to deal and coupe with what happened, trying to figure out what happened to those two people that they once were. They are left trying to find that place good. I really liked that the film never threw the answers to our faces, in a big climax where everybody ends up happy and all the questions are answered. Ned Besson gives us enough to keep us engaged, to keep focused and sharp but he never takes the easy paths. His narrative construction was intriguing, the editing of this version was sharp and in the end he didn't have to spell everything out to make a satisfactory, rich and overall engaging (on an emotional and entertainment level) film.

Conor and Rigby, they do live for a little while off the screen. The strong screenplay and natural, fabulous performances by both Chastain and McAvoy make the film shine at times. The supporting characters are more than just background but they are not nearly as established. Some of them still manage to shine, William Hurt as a great scene (the only worth mentioning) where he tells a story, a terrifying memory of his that he hadn't ever told to nobody. Even though we are looking at Hurt, we are indeed transported into his memory in a way. The still sexy Isabelle Huppert also appears (with little to do) and Viola Davis and Bill Hader also show up with funny roles (even though with little meaning or depth)

When the film ended I was left satisfied, but I felt as though there was something missing, maybe that was lost in the cut of this version or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. I will definitely see the three hour two part version (at home or in the theaters in a few weeks). It does have its ups and downs but it's undeniably compelling and I was always involved with these two characters and their story. A story that's smartly built up, that does have its clichés and familiar moments but that in the end raises above the generic, poor romantic films (this one isn't even one of those) because of its strong performance, good direction (from first timer Ned Besson) and moments that capture something true. See it.

Rating:B-

"To scandalize is a right to be scandalized is a pleasure" -Pier Paolo Pasolini

Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #4

Pasolini was undeniably one the Festival's highlights, I considered it a must see and so did many because the theater was packed. Not only we were going to see the picture but we were also have the opportunity of hearing Maria de Medeiros (who's in the picture) reading some of Pier Paolo's poems and then after words of having a talk with Abel Ferrara. I was pretty excited, but I really just hoped for a decent movie.

Pasolini is Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini and it stars Willem Dafoe, Maria de Medeiros, Riccardo Scamarcio, Giada Colagrande, Adriana Asti and Tatiana Luter.

To be sincere I left disappointed, I mean this is just not a good movie. Still though I'm glad I saw it and I'm glad I had this experience, it was worth it even if just to see Abel Ferrara. I'm a fan of the man, I have seen very little of his filmography but he certainly made an impression on me and on the rest of the audience that stayed. The highlight was the interview bit, Ferrara was a bit off the hook, very loose, feeling at home, cursing and being super sarcastic and honest at the same time. It's sad but yeah, I think Ferrara himself had more energy and life than the picture. Even sadder because you could see that Ferrera was an admirer of Pier Paolo's work.

In Pasolini we follow the last few hours of Pier Paolo's life, as we follow him through his lunch with his family, through an interview, through his memories and ultimately his death. This kind of narrative can work, this idea has definitely worked out in the past but it doesn't here. It's incredible to see how the film lost focus and control of it's narrative, even though it was only 80 minutes long and even though the concept is so simple. I felt lost and emotionally unmoved by it all. Sequences like the "film sequence" of the picture are scenes that ruined the movie.

I was actually extremely surprised to see how little Pasolini (Willem Dafoe) there actually was in the picture, it was almost as though he's a supporting character in his own picture. It's as though there is no lead actor. Some people say that that was a good thing, that less is more and I agree to some extent, I admire the unsentimentally with which the story is told but that ultimately led into becoming a cold picture. Pasolini, a man whose life was so fascinating since he was revolutionary figure with his ideas and his approach to art plus the controversy and talk that he brought with him. I wanted to take a look into the man's thoughts, ideas, I wanted insight, I guess that was what I was looking for and that I did not get.

Before seeing the film, I was so excited to see Willem Dafoe impersonating Pier Paolo, in the end though, we don't even see that much from him. When he's on screen he's able to capture something true and he grabs the screen, however his performance is far from memorable which is disappointing. There's not enough of him. Dafoe is good while on screen and one example is the interview scene, which is the highlight of the picture. The mood and tension are palpable and Dafoe owns it.

The audience and I were left disappointed, as I could hear whispers saying "I didn't like it". Many immediately left the theater and didn't wait for the highlight which was Ferrara's presence. He was more entertaining and had more life than the film itself. A film that feels awfully pale, with little to say. It's a little bit of a mess, from underdeveloped characters and plot, to bad narrative construction choices. Dafoe's performance and Ferrara's love for the picture were not enough to save the film.

Rating:C-

"When I experience a masterpiece such as yours, I'm struck by the clarity with which you have captured the moment" -CR Leslie

Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #3

This was one of my most anticipated films not only for the festival but of the year itself. Mike Leigh probably is one of the most unappreciated directors out there, he ranks amidst the best film- makers of the last thirty years and he's undeniably one of the best British directors to ever be. His style is not for everyone, usually making raw, human dramas that have at least won the critics heart, being highly regarded and even having 7 Academy Award nominations.

Mr. Turner is Directed by Mike Leigh and it stars Timothy Spall, Lesley Manville, Richard Bremmer, Ruth Sheen, Martin Savage, Marion Bailey, Dorothy Atkinson and Paul Jesson. "Mr. Turner explores the last quarter century of the great if eccentric British painter J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851). Profoundly affected by the death of his father, loved by a housekeeper he takes for granted and occasionally exploits sexually, he forms a close relationship with a seaside landlady with whom he eventually lives incognito in Chelsea, where he dies. Throughout this, he travels, paints, stays with the country aristocracy, visits brothels, is a popular if anarchic member of the Royal Academy of Arts, has himself strapped to the mast of a ship so that he can paint a snowstorm, and is both celebrated and reviled by the public and by royalty."

Unfortunately I got to say that I am slightly disappointed with the film. I'm an admirer of Mike Leigh's work, he's been in a long streak of good movies and I don't necessarily think that that streak ended here but I do have to say that I believe this to be his weakest effort in over ten years. It makes me a bit sad to say this because the film has so much of good in it, it has a brilliant central performance, the management of the craft is unbelievable and even the personality that we follow is interesting but all of that didn't add up to much. I left disappointed and I think the audience left too, this was the first film of the festival that wasn't applauded at its end. Like all Mike Leigh's pictures, this is far from being a crowd pleaser, but this time I found myself rather unmoved by the story.

The film like the title says follows Mr. Tuner's journey in his professional and personal life. J.M.W. Turner was one of Britain's biggest names in the art world in the 19th century. He's skill, boldness and inventiveness awed many as he shook the art world to their knees. At the peak of his career he was seen as a genius, as a god when it came to the art of painting but has he got older, his fame and respect started to fade and so did his mental health. He was a lonely man, like many of the world's greatest artists. He was kind and delicate with the brush and the canvas but he was cold and distant in his personal life, never being able to have true relationships with anyone.

Turner's talent was undeniable and I think that much of the story is intriguing and I'm glad that this personality has now a legacy on film and not only on his paintings. I'm glad it was someone as passionate as Mike Leigh is with the project to write and direct. This is the film that took Leigh the most money and the most time to make, still there's something missing. Much of the reason why the film doesn't work is because of the way it is put together. I don't know if it was Leigh's screenplay that was like this or if the film got lost in the editing room because I think the picture is badly put together. There are huge jumps in time, there are jumps from his professional life to his most reserved personal life, these shifts are abrupt and it left me confused and unengaged. I wasn't able to either connect with his artist side or his private life because of those rude twists in the narrative of the film. There's a total lack of focus and this undeniably the film's biggest lose.

This is really upsetting because you can feel the love that Leigh and his crew have for the project, at times the film itself becomes a beautiful painting, as the audience's breath was taken away with some of the shots but the truth is that due to its challenging and out of focus narrative, the story gets lost too many times and so do we and I'm going to remind you that this is a 150 minute picture and you can, to an extent, feel those weighing on you.

Mr. Turner is a film that I appreciate and I'm glad I saw it, but I can't say that I necessarily enjoyed it, which is disappointing. All the more because the film is brilliant in many ways, from the astonishing cinematography by Dick Pope to the Costumes and Set- Design which will probably be nominated for Academy Awards. On the race for best actor is Timothy Spall who's marvelous in movie, this is at awards level no doubt about, I can see why it took the prize at Cannes. His grunts say more than one thousand words, unbelievable how he was able to create such a unique persona on screen. Mike Leigh throws you back in time in an effortless way, the film never feels like one of those clichéd historical pieces, you breath the air that the characters are breathing. The thing is that Leigh forgets about us and leaves us there in the past, with little to grab on when it comes to narrative. I felt emotionally disconnected and wasn't able to take much out of this experience.

Rating:C+

"You're actually a well-educated, honest, fair and conscientious man. But sometimes you use those virtues to suffocate people, to crush and humiliate them."

-Nihal

Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #1

This was the first time I attended the Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival, this year being its 8th edition. This year's festival opened up with a must see, Winter Spleep, a film I absolutely could not wait to watch. It has gotten a lot of great buzz around it, especially since it won the Palm d'Or back in May, which basically catapulted this film into the radar of all movie lovers. I went in with reserves still, because I mean, it's a two hundred minute movie and it is not every picture that can own that run-time, still I was excited and hoping for great things.

We follow the mountains and the landscapes of the startling and breathtaking Anatolia, in Turkey. Winter has arrived for these poor, distanced, isolated villages and with it some cold winds and trouble have to come stay. Aydin is a retired theater actor, a rich, influential man within the villages near him. He has now settled down in his hotel in central Anatolia. He seems to be lonesome but mildly happy and satisfied with the life he leads, a simple life that one is. He writes for the local newspaper, he writes about too important matters for such a small newspaper which no one reads. He's working on his new book about the Turkish theater and this way, he's able to keep focus and not lose his mind for the hopeless silence and isolation of the landscapes.

Trouble starts when a family, who has lived in a house that Aydin has rented them for many years, can't pay him for their stay in the house. Has a consequence, Aydin's lawyers are obliged to go and rifle that family's belongings and leaving them with little to live with, even their dignity. Aydin, knows little about the matter and lets the lawyers and his friend Hidayet to take care of the problem.

The first episode happens when a child, that leaves in that house with his poor family, hits Aydin's car with a rock and consequentially breaking his car window and almost making a car accident happen. Aydin and Hidayet take the child back home, where his father is waiting. The child is soaking wet, since he had fallen in a river while trying to run way. It is here that we have a confrontation between the man who has seen his dignity and the dignity of his family taken away because of their lack of economical possibilities and the man who's basically, even if in an incidental way, the one who has taken it. This is a 5 minute dialogue, which starts very quiet, building up an unbearable tension until a climax that felt unavoidable.

That's basically what the film is all about, the movie is narratively driven by its dialogue. The film is divided into a more or less episodic series of dialogues where people ultimately lose control, let their masks fall and speak their mind, even at times more with the purpose of hurting each other, more than to have an actual argument. There's a clear contrast here between the pale, quiet beautiful natural backgrounds and the strain and hate that's being unleashed. We are talking about twenty minutes sequences of just dialogue, some may be even longer. This could have resulted in a bore but it doesn't, because we can totally relate to some of the dialogues that always feel genuine and because they are so compelling, rich and filled with several layers of development. Almost every single sequence, ultimately leads up for a quiet climax (when it comes to sound) but a catastrophic one to the characters that we are following.

Winter Sleep was far from being a bore at the theaters, the environment was fantastic, the film does have its wits, whimsical moments that often resulted in huge laughs and I thought the run- time was totally bearable, but yeah I mean it is a two hundred minute picture and I think it's safe to say that the movie extends its visit for a little too long. I had had a long day behind me and I started to feel the weight of its run-time in the last forty minutes or so. My numbing neck and aching legs probably didn't help, so I was a bit inpatient for the film's ending. I was impatient because the film was starting to lose me, the dialogues were no longer grabbing as tight and because I wanted to know in what note this film would end.

When it comes to craft, well this is pretty much spotless. Cinematography is gorgeous, some tremendous images go through the screen through its run time. It's not only well crafted when it comes to cinematography for example but also when it comes to storytelling. Narratively it's bold and engaging and it creates its own set of rules.

Winter Sleep is a film that I respect massively, I probably have to say though, that I respect it more than what I actually enjoyed it. It's a huge, colossal film that nearly owns it's two hundred minutes, even if it was way too much for my numbing back and drained energy. It's a film that will surely only be appreciated by a small amount of people, Nuri Bilge Ceylan has gained in me a follower but I don't believe he will make many friendships with main audiences who will soon discard such a long, slowly paced Turkish drama. It is a challenging film that ultimately rewards its audience with some powerful images and palpable strain. The audience in the theater seemed to be in awe, me I was simply left satisfied and with a huge respect for the piece.

Rating:B-

"Do you recognize me?" -Nelly

Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #6

Phoenix has been one film that has been going through the fall film festival circuit (it premiered at Toronto and it has been all over the place around Europe), and even though it has gotten fantastic reviews and it was directed by already established director Christian Petzold, the film has received much attention. So I was thrilled when I saw that this film was in the line-up for the festival, I knew little or nothing about it, I hadn't seen any trailers and it seemed as though this one could be the festival's revelation. Still I went in just hoping to find a decent picture.

Phoenix is Directed by Christian Petzold and it stars Nina Hoss, Ronald Zehrfeld, Nina Kunzendorf, Uwe Preuss, Michael Maertens and Valerie Koch.

The war has ended and the survivors are returning home. Are they really lucky that they survived? A woman comes back home, to Berlin, with a disfigured face and a shattered mind. Nelly is going to have her face reconstructed, the doctors ask her what face she wants, maybe of a film start, but Nelly just wants her face back. Nelly just wanted everything to be as it was before the war, she wants her life, her husband, she wants to sing in the coir again, she wants to be able to live one more time. She searches for what's lost, her husband…Johnny. Johnny who might have betrayed Nelly and sent her to a concentration camp. She ultimately finds Johnny alive, working at a cabaret in Berlin. He doesn't recognize her and her heart is broken. But he sees that her new face is similar to his wife's face and he tells the stranger (Nelly, is own wife) that they could both get a lot of money by pretending that she was his wife. Nelly's healing face and broken spirit accept the challenge of impersonating herself, or at least what she once were. Johnny gives her lessons and through these lessons Nelly hopes to become what she wants was, through these lessons she hopes to win his husband back.

Only a few weeks ago Fury was released, a tired, familiar World War II picture with very little to say. An America *beep* Yeah kind of picture with a lot of violence, where the Germans have the depth of the Nazis in Dead Snow and where every single character in that tank was a mere cliché. If you are going to make a World War II picture at least have some respect for your own subject. The fact that this one was a World War II picture made me a little scared, this sub-genre is way too iterant as it seems as though they make these pictures for the explosions. Really? Should you turn such an important subject into a Michael Bay depthless picture? This one though, fortunately, it is not Fury. It pays respect to its subject and it actually has something to say.

Looking back Phoenix is actually an incredibly simple film, that doesn't even take many risks when it comes to narrative. It is simple but undeniably effective. The film is built up quite slowly and to say the truth it never takes many risky, unpredictable paths as what happens is pretty much expected. Still I found the picture to be incredibly compelling on an emotional level. Much of that is due to the fantastic acting by both Nina Hoss and Ronald Zehrfeld and because of Christian Petzold approach. An approach that might seem reserved, cold, too simple to some but I found it to be rich and absorbing. The film is like a big countdown, a crescendo, to a huge emotional climax that's simple and expected and still it struck me quite hard.

Nina Hoss continues to be the target of Christian Petzold's attention and she continues to show why she's worthy of his attention and of the attention of many others. She has already been this year in Anton Corbijn's fantastic A Most Wanted Man delivering a strong performance. I really hope to see more from her in the future because she's got some talent. She carries this picture, she doesn't only give the face to the character, she becomes the character, she shine.

I can see many being upset with the fact that the film doesn't make many bold moves and it ultimately takes the path that you expected it to take. Still it is beautifully constructed and crafted, the acting is excellent (especially from Nina Hoss, who was supposed to be present but didn't make it), it's emotionally complex and rich and it ultimately delivers the goods with a strong climax that will likely wreck you.

Rating:B

"Life is different from when you live it to when you look back at it"

-Julien

I first heard of this picture when it was selected to be a part of the Cannes Film Festival. I was curious to see what the buzz would be since the film was directed by Mathieu Amalric, a French actor I very much admire and I found to be very underrated. This was not his first shot at directing since I believe this is actually his fourth or third picture. The buzz that eventually came was good and I was interested to see it since it had been recently released in theaters near me.

The Blue Room is Directed by Mathieu Amalric and it stars Mathieu Amalric, Léa Drucker and Stéphanie Cléau. "A man and a woman, secretly in love, alone in a room. They desire each other, want each other, and even bite each other. In the afterglow, they share a few sweet nothings. At least the man seemed to believe they were nothing. Now under investigation by the police and the courts, what is he accused of?"

I was interested, curious to see what this film was all about, still I had my expectations low, which opened room for surprise. I got to say that the film was indeed a little surprise, it didn't at all disappoint. It's a modest, even if tidy little picture that's unexpectedly inventive in its film-making and narrative/storytelling choices.

This is one of those films that the grand majority wont see, even major film buffs, and I do think that that is a shame, because although far from being a knockout, it is still worth your watch. This small, tight tiny 75 minute picture is an adaptation of a novel by Georges Simenon, a novel of the same name. Simenon would probably be impressed with the run-time since the man could write novels in only a few weeks.

It's small film, that never really aspires to be anything bigger, I did think that I lacked a little bit of ambition and when the film ends we don't feel totally fulfilled mainly also because we don't see much of the point in this story. "So what" is probably going to be the reaction of many going out of the theater, and others will undeniably be thrown out by an unconventional way of storytelling, which made things a bit confusing at times but all the more engaging, fresh and exciting as an whole. It's a film that will probably disappoint bigger audiences (those who even get to see it), since it's a film with a high level of ambiguity and it has disorienting story-telling, you will leave with little answers, or no answers at all. The film focuses on the ambiguity and interpretation of memory, actions and intentions.

I left with the theater with little answers and I did get the feeling of "So What" when the credits start to roll but still I got to say that I did enjoy myself. Amalric beautifully constructs and puts together this film, honoring its source material. We are kept in two different times and spaces during the film, first inside Julien's head and his memories, or at least his perception and we also get to see things from the future, where he is in jail and being questioned about his love affair with an old friend from high- school who is now his lover. What did the man do? Are we seeing the memories of a murder? Is he guilty of whatever he is being charged with? Those questions keep going through our heads as we soon start to find more and more meandering pieces of this jigsaw who's eventually left undone.

The acting is also excellent. Mathieu Amalric leads his own cast and he's as always fantastic. Is this the face of a killer? Is he innocent? Great display of talent once again, he doesn't either give easy answers in the directing or in the acting, effective and powerful though. We believe for every second his on screen, that that guy is really there and we believe in his existence. The supporting cast is also very good, nothing too showy but they do their jobs. Amalric is really the man to be applauded, he directs, acts and adapts the source material, all with little or no flaws at all. I applaud is boldness and creativity when it came to storytelling and putting the film together in the editing room. It is successful as a modest suspense picture and as a drama, it fails a bit because it feels a bit too tame, small and it ultimately doesn't leave a big mark on you, even though I wont forget it soon.

Rating:B-

"The idea of my life as a fairy tale is itself a fairy tale" -Grace Kelly

Grace of Monaco, Jesus it seems like it's been ages since i first heard about this movie, i think the movie was already on post production by the end of 2012 and only at this year's Cannes Film Festival it finally premiered. Until that premiered much was talked about, first Oscar buzz was all over this movie, people seemed to see Nicole Kidman as a lock for the Best Actress category and since it was directed by La Vie en Rose director Olivier Dahan and with a powerful producer like Harvey Weinstein backing the movie up, well it seemed like we could expect great things from it. This was until the movie was delayed from Cannes 2013 and the fights between the directors cut and Weinstein started, and well this went on for basically a whole year with the movie being postponed several times and with a lot of controversy on top of it as well. The movie finally premiered at Cannes 2014, it was the opening movie and the directors cut was shown and the Weinstein name doesn't even appear on screen when the movie starts. The reviews bashed the movie, many said that it was unforgettable because it was the worst Cannes opener they had ever seen. And although the movie has only been released for about a month, everybody seems to have already forgotten it, well i still had interest in seeing it, i mean how bad could it actually be?

Grace of Monaco is Directed by Olivier Dahan and it stars Nicole Kidman, Milo Ventimiglia, Paz Vega, Tim Roth, Parker Posey, Frank Langella, Derek Jacobi, Geraldine Somerville and Roger Ashton- Griffiths. "The story of former Hollywood star Grace Kelly's crisis of marriage and identity, during a political dispute between Monaco's Prince Rainier III and France's Charles De Gaulle, and a looming French invasion of Monaco in the early 1960s."

Well Grace of Monaco is not a straight up F movie, the movie does have it's redeeming things but for a movie that had such big buzz, for a movie that has such talent involved(in and out of camera), i got to say that this is still an incredibly flawed movie and very disappointing indeed.

I think this was a semi-interesting story, Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier III relationship and her whole adaptation to the her new life was kind of an interesting story, that could be told brilliantly and even earn some awards but this is not that story. I chose that quote from the movie: "The idea of my life as a fairy tale is itself a fairy tale", because basically what the movie presents us is a fairy tale version of actual events, the movie shows us a fairy tale that is quite ludicrous and naive at times but it shows us without being aware of what it is, the story is presented in a very self-serious way. The movie's major flaw is really it's screenplay and direction, the screenplay is totally insane, it's plain stupid at times and basically the director takes this script and tries to make a kind "King Speech" bio-pic.

Arash Amel's screenplay is really where it all begins, it's an empty screenplay. So we have Grace Kelly who is having some problems in her marriage, she feels to much pressure being a princess and she feels a disappointment Kelly is really the only character that at times pops out of the screen and it's really because of Kidman, the rest of the characters have nothing to say and when they do the dialogue is dull and incredibly bland. Tim Roth, Paz Vega, Derek Jacobi, Frank Langella are the supporting roles in this movie and their characters simply have no weight, they are boring they really are just cardboard tick. This movie should never had gotten such talented actors for such a weak screenplay.

And unfortunately the direction is not any better, with Olivier Dahan giving violent shifts in tone, at times the movie is very but very serious and it tries to focus on Kelly's problems as an artist and at other times it kind of becomes a comedy i mean not only because what's written it's ridiculous but because the approach is not the best either, i mean even the score at times makes it feel like we are watching a comedy. The movie does hit a low point when all the the sudden, we are not watching a Bio-Pic nor a Drama or Comedy but a thriller with spies and sh*t it was at that time that threw the towel down because things had gotten a bit to ridiculous and the movie is really just all over the place tone wise. I mean i also have to mention that all those meeting scenes about whether or not there would be an invasion were really terrible too, i mean just amateurish with no kind of tension or even believability.

Nicole Kidman is a great talent and she rally gives her all here but even her was kind of hard to buy as Grace Kelly. She really gives her heart and talent to this movie that didn't really deserve it, her performance is really what kept me watching this movie and she carries it on her back but even her was not nearly enough. The movie does look pretty good for the most part, with some good cinematography and Set-Decoration but i mean that is more or less expected from this kind of period piece.

Grace of Monaco is quite a big fat mess although not as terrible as some said. This is a bad movie no doubt on that, with a disgusting screenplay and direction that's out of hand, still it's elevated by a good lead performance by Kidman who could not save the day.

Rating:C-

"Mr. Pants is here, Mr. Pants would disapprove."

-Jenny

Okay i'm not going to lie and pretend that i was very excited to see this movie, i mean it got some decent buzz back in the beginning of the year at the "Sundance Film Festival" but after that i was basically forgotten. This is from the same guy who directed last year's Drinking Buddies, a pretty good movie that's probably regarded as one of 2013's best independent films. Though Swanberg's(the director) last picture was surprisingly decent as i said i still just couldn't be bumped to see this one even though it had decent critic love, i mean it's hard to get excited for something that has no publicity and the marketing that it has is trash, i mean that has to be one of the worst looking posters i have seen and the sappy name Happy Christmas didn't help either.

Happy Christmas is Directed by Joe Swanberg and it stars Anna Kendrick, Melanie Lynskey, Mark Webber, Lena Dunham and Joe Swanberg. "Irresponsible 20-something Jenny arrives in Chicago to live with her older brother Jeff, a young film-maker living a happy existence with his novelist wife Kelly and their two-year-old son. Jenny's arrival shakes up their quiet domesticity as she and her friend Carson instigate an evolution in Kelly's life and career. Meanwhile, Jenny strikes up a rocky relationship with the family's baby sitter- cum- pot dealer."

Well thankfully Happy Christmas is not as terrible or out of place as it's marketing, Jesus that poster is just bad, but it's still far from being anything great, this is one of those pictures that's a good time but ultimately is unmemorable and i will have forgotten this one by the end of the week(probably being a little bit generous).

Drinking Buddies was one of last year's most talked about independent films, it was up there with something like Frances Ha in terms of talk but the fact is that i now realize that after having been released for over 90 days the movie only grossed a disgustingly low 343.000. dollars. An independent picture that was such a success critically and talked about only earned that! That's explains the why Joe Swanberg, wasn't able to move to something bigger because this film's budget has to be much lower than his previous work. The budget must have been really but really small, you can see that by it's run-time and by it's technical quality that's rather unimpressive.

But for such a small budgeted, little and limited picture Joe Swanberg is still able to offer it's audience something that's far from being terrible, by all means, Happy Christmas is never dramatically powerful and to say the truth there are not a lot of legitimate laughs in here but it's a film that's always able to be entertaining and it manages to keep a smile on our faces for the grand majority of it's run-time.

Happy Christmas is a movie that ultimately never surprises it's audience and it never really stands out but it also doesn't let you down. Again it's not ever that funny but it's always at least amusing, the performers here are lovable and real and that's probably the film's biggest stand out, the fact that it manages to sell these characters as real people, and because they are real people, we oddly seem to relate to them and be engaged by their stories and about what they have to say, though they at times seem short on things that they have to say.

Again you wont find anything memorable nor one of the year's best pictures in this movie, but Happy Christmas is certainly an entertaining and amusing enough of a watch, you wont regret if you see it i think, it's a movie that's easy to follow during it's short 80 minutes run-time but unfortunately also easy to forget.

Rating.C

Cassie: "If you went to the pub now, around the corner and you were like: "I everyone, I'm Scottish." Someone would punch you in the face" Eve: "Absolutely"

I knew absolutely nothing about the film, going in i didn't even know it was a musical. I remember it premiering at Sundance and getting some good buzz but after that, it kind of faded. But it has been now on a limited release and the talk is that it's flawed but worth seeing, and so i did.

God Help the Girl is Directed by Stuart Murdoch and it stars Emily Browning, Olly Alexander, Hannah Murray, Pierre Boulanger and Cora Bissett. "Set in Glasgow, Scotland, the film is about a girl called Eve who is in the hospital dealing with some emotional problems and starts writing songs as a way of getting better. Songwriting becomes her way forward, leading her to the City where she meets James and Cassie, two musicians each at crossroads of their own. What follows is a story of renaissance over the course of a long, dream-like Summer"

"WE ARE SEX BOB-OMB!!! ONE-TWO-THREE-FOUR"...Wait...wrong movie. Sh*t i have just seen this picture and i literally can not remember any of it's musical performances, which tells a lot about the movie itself. Unfortunately this is not something nearly as awesome as Scott Pilgrim VS The World. This is too a coming of age story of sorts, that unfortunately loses itself in a middle of a sugar coated and tonally inconsistent melodrama that i pretty much hated.

As said, i didn't know what the film was about, i was expecting some kind of coming of age story and ultimately i guess you can say that this is what that is, but not one that features musical numbers. Early on i realized that this was going to be a musical but it seemed as though it was going to be a serious one, since the sub- plot of the main character contains heavy and serious subjects as anorexia.

It actually even took me a while to realize that the characters were adults since from the poster and the actors themselves, it seemed as though they were thirteen. The film also took some time in deciding it's tone, well to be fair it actually never decides. That's one the film's biggest problems, the fact that it is inconsistent. One minute we follow the dramatic moments of Eve's like and her health issues and the other moment we see James running in front of a on growing mob, like he is Buster Keaton in Seven Chances or The Beatles in A Hard Day's Night. Tonally the film meanders from being sentimental, to being silly, to being straight up awkward and even dramatic. The problem is that it's not ever good at anyone of those.

I struggled a lot to care for any of it. In it's first act the film settles up with a more serious tone and it focuses more in Eve's health decease and overall depression. Then in the second act, i finally started to enjoy myself, especially with the entry of Cassie's character whose actually pretty funny and as some good lines. In those moments, the three actors were at times able to capture the friendship of their characters, but all of that seems to be a minor part of the film after it's third act. In the third act the film's tone is completely off as it goes from being joyful to being depressing. I was confused and didn't care much for any of what was going on. It's also in the last third of the film that we find a series of musical numbers that were woeful and vexatious. They weren't musical numbers they were almost video clips within an actual film. Their presence felt awkward, most of the songs were superficial and lacking on emotion or dept (or at least i didn't feel any)

The actors are not particularly bad but i can't say i was amused or welcomed their presence. These hipster looking kids never manage to charm me and to say the truth by the end of the picture i could barely stand seeing them.

God Help the Girl is a film that might touch and charm some, but my cold stoned heart was not moved in any way. It's sugar coated to an extend where it's whimsy actually becomes numbing and annoying. It has good intentions and it even might be close to the heart of those involved but that did certainly not translate into the screen. It's never funny enough and it's songs are never catchy or good enough to make this an enjoyable or worth seeing experience. I almost couldn't finish it, one of the worst pictures i have seen all year, now i have to go and to an exam to check if i have diabetes.

Rating:D+

I was somehow curious to see this picture, it seems like it was yesterday that i first head about it last summer when it premiered at Telluride, sh*t i can barely believe that it has been a whole year, that makes me kind of depressed but i guess it's a side-effect of seeing this picture. I knew little about it but the solid buzz and the fact that it was directed by the Gia Coppola(Francis Ford Coppola's granddaughter) certainly made me interested in seeing it.

Palo Alto is Directed by Gia Coppola and it stars Emma Roberts, James Franco, Val Kilmer, Colleen Camp, Jack Kilmer, Keegan Allen, Nat Wolff, Olivia Crocicchia, Christian Madsen, Zoe Levin and Don Novello. "Shy, sensitive April is the class virgin, torn between an illicit flirtation with her soccer coach Mr. B and an unrequited crush on sweet stoner Teddy. Emily, meanwhile, offers sexual favors to every boy to cross her path - including both Teddy and his best friend Fred, a live wire without filters or boundaries. As one high school party bleeds into the next - and April and Teddy struggle to admit their mutual affection - Fred's escalating recklessness starts to spiral into chaos."

I went into Palo Alto without really knowing what it was about, i knew nothing about it actually and i got to say that that definitely opened some room to be surprised, which i certainly was, this is a flawed but yet remarkably true depiction of a coming of age story in modern society.

I'm usually not a fan of coming of age stories, they are usually corny, have happy endings and i found them boring and hard to relate to, here we have a familiar but yet unique coming of age story that follows the discovery and problems that adolescence brings. Some of the remarks that have been regarding this movie is that, it follows the problems of white rich kids and their meaningless problems, that these are just spoiled kids. Well i wont deny that because it is true, these are rich spoiled kids and their problems when faced with "adult" problems probably seem meaningless, but i mean did you forget what it was to be a kid a teenager? It's all about meaningless problems when you look back but the fact is that they didn't seem that way at the time didn't they. Are these problems really that meaningful, these spoiled kids might have everything a parent could wish to give them, a good education, a car and freedom but these kids lack love and our lead characters April and Teddy certainly feel alienated in this modern superficial society they live in, they feel unloved, out of place and to make that pain go way they use drugs, they hurt themselves, they call for attention when all they needed was a little care and something to relate to. They just needed to be with each other.

Some people will likely hate this film because it seems to be pretentious and over serious over it's subject matter, because the characters portrayed aren't exactly likable because their problems seem superficial and empty. I didn't find that to be that way, yeah these characters aren't exactly likable but i couldn't help but to care for them, these kids aren't bad, they might be a bit ungrateful but certainly not bad, they are just lost and there's a time in everybody's life where you don't know what's your place in this world is and i think that's what the film is all about, about discovery, about trying to find yourself in this harsh, rotten but ultimately beautiful world. I think the film also deals with subjects of corruption and superficiality that we find in our society, in the end we might put masks but like the characters in here we just want to find love.

I got to say that i found love in this picture and that love is Emma Roberts, oh my god this girl is just beautiful. I fell in love right way probably because she reminds me of a high school sweat heart of mine. She has done things in her past but nothing nearly as good as this, this is a very good performance, i think the whole cast makes quite a good performance, these character do really come to life in the hands of these talented actors and director. Emma Roberts is followed by Jack Kilmer who is a fantastic surprise here, giving an excellent debut performance that hopefully will help him in the future to get more solid roles such as this one. Nat Wolff is not a first timer but he also does a solid job as the crazy over the top Fred. James Franco, whose short stories actually inspired this film which certainly deserves to be mentioned, also appears here and so does Val Kilmer himself.

Palo Alto might be a little bit inconsistent especially as it gets towards it's end but i always found it to be a surprisingly true depiction of what it is to be an teenager, i didn't and you probably also didn't have such an exciting adolescence as these kids when it comes to drugs and alcohol but i do think that most people will be able to still relate and find something of themselves in these kids problems, well at least i did. Gia Coppola's first feature film ends up being quite a surprise, good performances, palpable tone, i could almost smell the pot, overall good direction that just comes to prove that talent must really go through the blood of Coppola's family. *I'm quite excited to see what some of these actors and Gia herself will have to offer in the future, let's hope for a fine career.

Rating:B

"I will look, if you'll look"

-Chantry

It's been a long while since i first heard of the this film, it was more than a year ago when it premiered at Toronto. God damn it's been a year and this year's edition is already gone. It's the biggest film festival of the year, of all the pictures that were there i have now seen a massive fifty, which tells a lot about the Festival's quality (since most were good). Though more than done a year ago, the film has only been recently released with a nice warm embrace from critics and audiences. I didn't expect one of the year's best but still hoped it would be a worthy romantic comedy.

What If is Directed by Michael Dowse and it stars Daniel Radcliffe, Zoe Kazan, Rafe Spall, Megan Park, Adam Driver, Jemima Rooper and Sarah Gadon. "WHAT IF is the story of medical school dropout Wallace, who's been repeatedly burned by bad relationships. So while everyone around him, including his roommate Allan seems to be finding the perfect partner, Wallace decides to put his love life on hold. It is then that he meets Chantry an animator who lives with her longtime boyfriend Ben. Wallace and Chantry form an instant connection, striking up a close friendship. Still, there is no denying the chemistry between them, leading the pair to wonder, what if the love of your life is actually your best friend?"

Well What If does end up being a worthy romantic comedy i guess. This meaning that's entertaining and charming enough to be worth a watch, no questions asked but i don't really know if it can be much more. I did have an overall good time with it, the movie has enough laughs and the stars are quite brilliant too, the thing though is that i felt as though i had already seen it. This is a fine time at the movies but it does feel way too predictable and overly familiar.

It makes me sad not to really like this feature because, you know, i actually really wanted to. Mainly because of the two leads who are quite charismatic and have a good on screen chemistry, but also because it's so clear that the film's intentions are good and that made me overlook some flagrant flaws. And the movie has many of those.

I'm having a battle within me right now, a battle between my cynical and cold side who thinks (and rightfully so) that this picture is way too familiar and foreseeable and the other side of me who was quite entertained and charmed by these characters and performances. In the end i think i met somewhere in the middle. Because albeit this is always an enjoyable film to be watching, i did get some moments where i couldn't help but to roll my eyes. It's full of clichés and it's a shame. Full of sub-plots (and the premise too) and supporting characters that felt way too conventional and plain. I mean really the supporting characters though amusing, are little more than card board pieces in the movie's screenplay.

So yeah the film is basically saved by it's two lead performances from Potter Daniel Radcliffe and Ruby Sparks Zoe Kazan. I really liked both here and i thought they were also good together on screen. Radcliffe plays his characters well, never makes him too weird or annoying, he gets the right tone of his character. Zoe Kazan is just so cute...i mean how could you not like her. Big blue eyes, i had already liked her in the better and more original Ruby Sparks and she once again charms the screen.

What If is undeniably a pleasant movie going experience but unfortunately it does fall short from being much more than that. The two lead performances and a screenplay that ha some funny gags in it, elevate a material that's overall not that great and was made with an approach that wasn't really that inventive. Still i had a good time and i would feel a bit guilty giving a negative score to a film that didn't impress but didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth either.

Rating:C+

"You said no one would get hurt!" -Dena

I was not particularly excited going in to see this one but I was certainly interested, Night Moves is another of those movies that premiered a year ago at the Toronto Film Festival that are only now getting released in my country though this one has also taken a while to get it's release in the U.S. It was a year ago then that two films premiered at "TIFF" that stared Jesse Eisenberg, one of them was The Double and the other one was this one, both received good reviews, The Double continued to get it's share of talk while this one kind of was forgotten, still though I remembered the good early buzz that had continued throughout it's promotion so I still went ahead and saw it.

Night Moves is Directed by Kelly Reichardt and it stars Dakota Fanning, Jesse Eisenberg, Alia Shawkat, Peter Sarsgaard, Katherine Waterston, James LeGros and Griffin Newman. " Three radical environmentalists coming together to execute the most intense protest of their lives: the explosion of a hydroelectric dam-the very source and symbol of the energy-sucking, resource-devouring industrial culture they despise."

Night Moves is not a picture that I loved, I didn't it's no doubt flawed and I can see many getting way of this one but I got to say that this is a good little film that's being underseen. I am not familiar with director of the movie, I had heard about some of her pictures but she seems to be someone who divides audiences and I guess this is another picture that will divide audiences. It will not break audiences because it's weird or too complicated but because it's too simple and many will probably find it uninteresting and boring.

Though the movie certainly has a slow pace I would disagree with those who say it is boring though I got to say that I would understand those people too because I feel there's a lack of character development. I'm not saying they should have gone with some cheap clichéd sh*t and put up a background on the characters but they could have made a bit more effort. We are never truly able to understand these guys, their motivations seem awfully weak, they are basically people who want to protect the environment and all that jazz but the fact is that the movie's tone is much bleaker, these characters are completely alienated, especially Jesse's and we never get the sense of why. They basically are acting like terrorists doing some "Mickey Mouse" job that doesn't really have a great deal of importance in the big scheme of things but they take it like they are revolutionizing the world and I think that made it kind of confusing for the audience.

It was also confusing what happens afterwards, I mean was it really that surprising that someone got injured or killed, I mean that blew up a f*cking dam like tough guys but then they couldn't handle the consequences of their job that was ultimately successful. I mean this collapsing of the characters in the afterwards of the job is certainly an interesting character study on guilt, on fear and on redemption and I think it's handled quite beautifully but I still I couldn't help but to feel confused. It's kind of a paradox because that made me feel confused but it also helped me relate with the characters because they are no big timers they are just normal people, with good intentions and a heart and it's very interesting to their reacting to the consequences or their actions, their reactions aren't from a gangster where he doesn't feel anything, this the way probably a normal person would react.

The film takes it very slowly but then again it's never boring even though the movie is never really exciting or thrilling it's always at least engaging and an interesting watch and certainly quite tense to. It's a very intense film with doubt and I got to applaud the director for creating such a mood where you feel trapped, claustrophobic, very gloomy and heavy. It's a very simple story with few twists in it, very straight forward and there are not a great many deal of surprises but again I say the movie is always very tense and there's quite an emotional complexity to it all.

The performances certainly helped. Peter Sarsgaard is such a great actor, very underrated, good in everything he's been and unfortunately he's face doesn't bring audiences and because of that he usually is not given big roles, here he does have a good little role that he plays well, not a great deal of showy scenes where he lets loose his talent but still worth mentioning. Dakota Fanning is still seen as a child by many, such as myself, but the fact is that she's already taking big roles such as this one with a performance that I'm not going to lie, impressed me. She's great in this though she's not the star of the movie. The star of the film is Academy Award Nominee, Jesse Eisenberg, who gives he's best performance since The Social Network. What a good performance, very contained performance, as a seemingly shy, quiet, lonely, alienated young fella. He almost reminded me of Travis, this guy is really quite sick, very paranoid, it seems like he's always cooking up something and I mean those last 25 minutes just showcase Eisenberg's talent, he here proves that The Social Network wasn't just luck.

Night Moves is a simple yet beautifully made picture, with a slow pace but gut wrecking intensity at times and performances that alone are worth your while, it also raises up some interesting questions like "when do legitimate convictions truly demand illegal violent behavior?" and a good meditation on consequences when it comes to political extremist acts. See it!

Rating:B-

"It's for you Sarah. It's all yours now, yes? Why not take the box? Why not do what you should do? Why not this sad? Why not run to his grave? Why not bring me flowers? Why didn't Tom speak at the church? Why i let my son visit me? Because he said he would call and write! What kind of accident was it? With whom was he? How was it when, where, how! Nobody dies at 25! Nobody, Nobody, Nobody!!!

-Agathe

Well last year when this premiered at Venice i was pretty interested in seeing what kind of buzz it would come out with, and the buzz was overall great, the Toronto buzz was also good and since then the movie as been on my watchlist. Before this one i had only seen two movies from Dolan those being "Laurence Anyways and "I Killed my Mother", i liked "Laurence" quite a bit but i was disappointed by "Mother" and non of those movies were really my cup of tea although something like Laurence Anyways was undeniably good. So i went in to Tom at the Farm reluctant but hopeful that it would be a worthy experience.

Tom at the Farm is Directed by Xavier Dolan and it stars Xavier Dolan, Pierre-Yves Cardinal, Lise Roy, Evelyne Brochu, Manuel Tadros and Jacques Lavallée. "The story of Tom, who is in the grip of grief and depression following the death of his lover. When he meets the family of the deceased, it is revealed the mother was not aware of her son's sexual orientation, or his relationship with Tom either, for that matter."

It's been more than half a year and still only a few fortunate people have been able to see this movie, that hasn't even been released yet at the U.S. Tom at the Farm was well received, mostly positive reviews but i still get the feeling that this was Dolan's less applauded work and i got to say that i don't really understand why because Tom at the Farm might be my favorite of his. OK well it might not be the movie i enjoyed the most, maybe i enjoyed Laurence Anyways a bit more but i would probably say that this one is the one that audiences will find easier to watch . I found "I Killed my Mother" to be completely uninteresting and i was bored out of my mind and "Laurence Anyways" was a bit to long and Tom at the Farm does not have any of those problems. One of the problems i had with the previous two movies was to follow the narrative, it was a bit to abstract(probably not the right word) and it was hard to keep an interest in what was going on. But this doesn't happen here, i was actually surprised by how engaged and interested i was actually in the movie's plot.

The movie follows the title role, Tom, and the movie begins with him crying clearly heartbroken and we soon get to see that someone who was close to him died. He drives into the country, into a farm where he breaks in to a house. We soon find out that there a lady and his son live there and that there is a family connection between Tom's lover and this family. The name of the lady was Agather and her son Francis and the person that died was Agathe's son(Guilahume) and Francis brother.

No one was expecting Tom although he was his boyfriend, worst than that no one seems to know that Guilaume was gay. The only one that knew this was Francis his brother and he is a redneck motherf*cker and he is making sure that his mom is not going to know the truth and he says that a Sarah was dating him although she doesn't even go to the funeral.

Tom seems to be in a difficult situation, he can't say the truth to Agathe but well something worst happens. Francis starts playing games with Tom, he wont let him get out of the farm, he will beat him and then treat him well. There is also some palpable sexual tension between the two. It's kind of weird but between the beating, and the dancing and the cow's birth Tom actually gets familiar with the farm and kind of fells in love with Francis.

There is a lot going on at the same time. At times Tom tries desperately to get out of the farm and then later one saying that he loves the farm that there everything is really. We never really get a sense of Tom and Francis mental state they are both clearly disturbed, Tom seems to love and hate Francis at the same time and the same thing with Francis that seems to despise Tom and to heterosexual being proud of being on and then being sexually attracted to Tom. These physiological nuances make Tom at the Farm be a edge of the seat physiological thriller and a movie that is no doubt worth seeing.

Technically the movie is also pretty great, the does look great and all the camera work and score really intensify the physiological instability of these characters. The acting is also great, Xavier Dolan not only proves to have some talent behind the cameras but also in front of the cameras, all the rest of the supporting cast is goo by the way. Overall i enjoyed Tom at the Farm much more than i was actually expecting to, good movie no doubt on that but i'm still reluctant in saying that i'm excited about this new comer Xavier Dolan

Rating:B-

"So Richard i got a little joke for you, you might like this one, you too Lewis. A Dude goes to the doctor: Doctor says: Sr. you have to stop masturbating. The patient goes: Why? And the doctor goes: Cause i'm trying to exam you."

-Ordell

I first heard of this film when it premiered last year at the Toronto Film Festival, i believe this was actually the film that ended the festival. It's been a year and Toronto 2014 is a couple of days away and only now am i finally seeing this film. I'm not going to lie, the main reason i was interested in seeing this film, is because this is a prequel to Jackie Brown. I was curious to see if the tone was going to be the same and i was interested in seeing the same characters being portrayed by the different actors. I went in without much of an expectation just hoping to have a good time.

Life of Crime is Directed by Daniel Schechter and it stars John Hawkes, Mos Def, Jennifer Aniston, Tim Robbins, Isla Fisher and Will Forte. "Two common criminals get more than they bargained for after kidnapping the wife of a corrupt real-estate developer who shows no interest in paying the $1 million dollar ransom for her safe return."

Life of Crime eventually ended up being released this year and it made very little noise. It didn't open in a great deal of theaters and it's one of those films that has already been forgotten. The critical buzz was not great either, the film was received with mixed opinions and there seems to have been a consensus that this was a passable film. But i have just recently re-watched Tarantino Jackie Brown, and though not favorite of his, i still got to say that's a pretty exciting ride with some characters that i would be glad to see again on the big screen, even if in the hand of another director and different actors.

Life of Crime isn't obviously as good as Jackie Brown and i think nobody was expecting that. It's a flawed picture that isn't exactly memorable or riveting but i think this is still a pretty entertaining little picture.

One of the surprises i had is that this time the film isn't focused on Ordell but it's actually more focused on Lewis. It's also interesting that Lewis character in this film is completely different from De Niro portrayed of Lewis in Tarantino's work. De Niro's Lewis feels almost like a bum, a no life and here Lewis is a bad motherf*cker, he seems to be way more dangerous than Ordell. And he has a heart too something we don't find in Jackie Brown

Ordell and Lewis though are the only characters present from Jackie Brown. The material from the two films comes from the same auteur but it is there where the two movies similarities end.

Life of Crime does share from it's own share of problems. I think one of the things that makes Tarantino's version more exciting is not only that his writing is much better than the one found here. Jackie Brown is a much more twisted story and it feels more exciting and it's also much more funny. This one is always amusing and there were some laughs here and there, the story is also twisted and we are never sure to whether the picture is going to move next but i felt an overall lack of energy. I guess it's because the lead characters just ain't as memorable here.

The characters here feel a bit lifeless when compared with characters such as Ordell and Jackie Brown in Jackie Brown. I don't blame it on the actors, i blame it on the screenplay that simply ain't as good. The performances here are fine, John Hawkes is a very underrated actor and it was good to see Jennifer Aniston playing a different role for change and by the way she plays it well. Faces like Tim Robbins also appear on screen and Isla Fisher, Will Forte and Mos Def all turn with decent performances. Just that non of them is particularly electrifying.

Life of Crime ain't a particularly dull or bad experience. It has some decent performances in it and it's in the end an entertaining amusing experience but i can't say it's much else. That's why this film as kind of been already forgotten. I would still say though that it is worth a watch.

Rating:C+

"It's not a picture of loved ones i seek, i want to touch them, their voices are missing, so i wont tell. I want to leave it all, leave my language, my country in vain and my childhood returns. Now it's the boy who seeks me out, i see him, he wants to speak to me but words are hard to find." -Randal Douc

I think i first heard of The Missing Picture more than a year ago when it premiered at Cannes and got out of there with the Un Certain Regard Award. The early buzz was good but the film did not stay with me and it was quickly forgotten until it's name came as a surprise in Academy Award Nominations that gave the film a nomination at the Best Foreign Picture. Then i check out the film again and realized that it had gotten great reviews overall and the film entered my watchlist but only seven months after that event was able actually able to see it. I was now still curious but not exactly excited to see it.

The Missing Picture is Directed by Rithy Panh, "For many years, I have been looking for the missing picture: a photograph taken between 1975 and 1979 by the Khmer Rouge when they ruled over Cambodia. On its own, of course, an image cannot prove mass murder, but it gives us cause for thought, prompts us to meditate, to record History. I searched for it vainly in the archives, in old papers, in the country villages of Cambodia. Today I know: this image must be missing. I was not really looking for it; would it not be obscene and insignificant? So I created it. What I give you today is neither the picture nor the search for a unique image, but the picture of a quest: the quest that cinema allows."

As said i was interested but not exactly excited to finally see this, i felt like it was more of an obligation since it had received great praise and even an Academy Award Nomination. Well i got to say that i'm a foll because i was completely overwhelmed by this film, it's a shame that it have only seen it now and a shame that most people have not yet seen and are likely to never see this wonderful little movie.

It's funny because i had heard from the film for so long but i went in knowing absolutely nothing, i had no idea what it was about, i had heard that it was an unusual kind of documentary, but the film was not nominated for that category so i was a bit confused. The film is indeed a documentary that follows the life experience of a man who lived under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. So after gaining independence and fighting the Vietnam War and a Civil War the Cambodian people went through a lot more they went through the Communist Regime, where the slogan are everyone is equal and those who complaint are enemies, where ignorance and hunger are kings. The Cambodian holocaust went through four years of enslavement and working fields that killed over 2.500.000. people. You probably didn't know that right? Me neither.

The film certainly as a moving, touchy subject but only having an important subject doesn't make a good documentary, it's direction sure is important and here the direction is certainly unorthodox and the results are nothing short of outstanding. Documentary does feature live action images of the working fields but most of the film's narrative and storytelling is done through clay figures. Yes clay figures are used to dramatize the horrifying images that the director as a child saw and experienced. The results, are nothing of amazing, this could have gone real goofy, or maybe it would have been impossible to us audience to make a connection with the story if it's being told by clay figures but non of that is true. Weirdly or not we are able to connect and relate to the clay figures and the film is able to be emotionally wrecking and have an enormous deal of power even if through those little pieces.

Never in a million years would i have thought that those little figures would have moved me in the way they did, they are quite disturbing too, the faces of the figures, very expressive at times it was like the fear, the hunger it became palpable, it's amazing. This is also due to the documentaries fantastic direction that reminded me of Hiroshima Mon Amour, it's poetic, breathtaking.

The Missing Picture is an amazingly underseen picture, last years best documentary(yes better than The Act of Killing) and by the way why was this not nominated for that category. Well continuing...if you have the chance see it and you won't be disappointed, it's emotionally shattering, it's unusual, innovative, poignant and overall an extremely well made documentary that is among last years best.

Rating: A-

"I love secrets"

-Claudia

I was semi-interested in seeing this film, i had herd a couple of things about it but really i knew very little about the movie. I remember it premiering at Venice where it didn't make much of a splash and it continued throughout Europe in many more festivals and it's now been released in the U.S. The picture is directed by a highly regarded French director whose work was basically unknown to me so i thought i would give this film a chance and who knows maybe i would be surprised.

Jealousy is Directed by Philippe Garrel and it stars Louis Garrel, Anna Mouglalis, Emanuela Ponzano and Arthur Igual. "A 30-year-old man lives with a woman in a small, furnished rental. He has a daughter by another woman - a woman he abandoned. A theatre actor and very poor, he is madly in love with this other woman. She was once a rising star, but all offers of work have dried up. The man does everything he can to get her a role, but nothing works out. The woman cheats on him. And then she leaves him. The man tries to kill himself, but fails. His sister visits him in hospital. She's all he has left - his sister and the theatre."

I went into the this picture without much of an expectation, i had heard that this was not the directors best work but i was still hopeful that this would be a pleasant experience, but unfortunately i can not say that. This was a little bit of a painful watch to say the truth, the movie does have it's moments but overall this picture did very little for me.

I mean i should also remind that this film has a mere run-time over 72 minutes, this is a very quick little run but unfortunately it does not feel that way. I was pretty much bored the whole way through and this felt like a long, tiresome watch. The plot is pretty simple and so are it's characters and to say the truth that's one of the problems. The film doesn't really have much of a plot, the picture is composed by episodes that have the same characters and are all within a context but they don't come together as fluently as they should, narrative wise there's a sense that the film is stuck on the same page.

I thought the story was presented in a too episodically but i think the characters themselves are not exactly exciting either. We know very little about these people, we understand little of the motivations and they never manage to pop out of the screen. They feel vague and unmemorable and i never cared for them.

I will say that the the cinematography is pretty good, it's done by legend Willy Kurant. The tone of the black and white are quite beautiful and it does capture the depressing mood of the characters. The highlights of the film are the scenes where Louis is with his daughter, those are the only joyful moments in the whole movie, where the acting and the characters fells genuine and for once i found myself attached to the screen in any way.

Jealousy addresses it's theme and plot with a surprisingly lack of melodrama which is good, but only to an extent since there is a sense of lack of emotion, the acting feels rigid, the story itself is very bleak, slow and joyless. I cared little for what i saw, i for the most part was bored, i could barely make through the 70 minutes.

Rating:C-

"Miss Cuddy. I appreciate the offer, the supper the concert and all. But i cannot marry you, will not, wont. I ain't perfect but you are too bossy and too damn plain" -Bob Giffin

The Cannes film festival lineup is presented and among the pictures that will be running for the big prize, the Palm d'Or, is Tommy Lee Jones new feature in the director's chair and between the cast too. The early buzz was good and talk of potential Oscar power seemed eminent. The fact is that the film premiered without much of a splash, the reviews were mixed and it was taken as a kind of disappointing second effort. Still, I was hopeful and interested on checking this one out, had low expectations, was just hoping it would be worth the watch.

The Homesman is Directed by Tommy Lee Jones and it stars Hilary Swank, Tommy Lee Jones, Grace Gummer, Meryl Streep, Miranda Otto, Tim Blake Nelson, Hailee Steinfeld, Sonja Richter, William Fichtner and James Spader. "When three women living on the edge of the American frontier are driven mad by harsh pioneer life, the task of saving them falls to the pious, independent-minded Mary Bee Cuddy. Transporting the women by covered wagon to Iowa, she soon realizes just how daunting the journey will be, and employs a low-life drifter, George Briggs to join her. The unlikely pair and the three women head east, where a waiting minister and his wife have offered to take the women in. But the group first must traverse the harsh Nebraska Territories marked by stark beauty, psychological peril and constant threat."

One such as myself looks at the intriguing premise, looks at the amazingly talented cast and looks at an already proved to be talented director and thinks: "How much can it really go wrong, when you have all the pieces?". The answer to that question is: "A lot". Cannes had already put my expectations down, since at first the picture ranked among the most anticipated of the year. But nothing could really prepare me to such a low figure. This isn't just disappointing, this plain simply ranks among the worst films I have seen all year. A total misfire if I may say so. This is really sad, since there are tons of a talented people in the picture.

The picture never ignites. It never launches. Even though we are supposed to follow a really exciting, tricky journey through the dangerous west, we never really get to see any of that excitement. Instead we are locked up with five crazy people through a painfully long and dull ride through the old west.

It's hard to like a film where the characters are so unsympathetic and unrelatable. First of all we don't care for the purpose of the mission. Jones gives the three woman some generic flashbacks, that show a glimpse of the difficulties of what they've been through and that is it. So the first mistake is already been made since we never care for the purpose of this "mission". The lead characters don't get much more depth asides from the one note background. We know little about them, the dialogue between them is almost non-existent and when it's there, it's boring and their actions are more stupid than the ones the mental woman do. Bottom line: We end up being bored with a journey that either lacks the excitement and thrills it promises, and the interesting characters that are switched with empty vexatious ones.

It's sure is a long ride too. This felt like The Lord of the Rings both in length and in the fact that it has several endings. After Swan's character is gone the film was over for me. Even though I cared little for her, it was her character with whom I felt more close to. The film tries to explore her a bit, without much effect but we do get a sense of her struggle with loneliness and lack of love which made her a cold woman. After her disappearance from the screen, things get excruciatingly dull as we now follow for more half an hour, Jones' character through a journey I had already jumped off a long time ago.

It's a real shame to see that so many great actors are simply thrown away. What a talented cast this is and yet most of it is wasted on small cardboard characters. It's hard to believe that from such an enormous cast, not one performance would stand out and yet that is what happens. Jones' and Swank are the best of the bunch, they are the only ones who have enough material to make a performance out of it.

The Homesman is a true mess. And I got to say that much of the fault has to be put in Jones' shoulder. He both directed and wrote the screenplay. The screenplay is very weak and the direction feels misguided. Boredom installs soon as I found hard to care for any of the character, plus the fact that it never becomes engaging or even comes close to being intriguing and entertaining. Just a bad movie that could not be saved by arresting visuals and two average but well intentioned lead performances.

Rating: C-

"Before i was alone, now i'm not"

-Bea

Honeymoon is getting released this week in the U.S and it's name sounded awfully familiar. So i went and checked it out and found out that this had premiered in Sundance earlier this year and that was probably why it rang a bell. The film has been nicely received by those who have seen it and even though it was a horror film (which is far from being my favorite genre) i decided to go in blind and give it a shot.

Honeymoon is Directed by Leigh Janiak and it stars Rose Leslie, Harry Treadaway, Ben Huber and Hanna Brown. "Young newlyweds Paul and Bea travel to remote lake country for their honeymoon. Shortly after arriving, Paul finds Bea wandering and disoriented in the middle of the night. As she becomes more distant and her behavior increasingly peculiar, Paul begins to suspect something more sinister than sleepwalking took place in the woods."

Well although i went into this picture with no expectations and just hoping i would not be wasting my time, i still have to say that i'm a little bit disappointed because there was a time during this picture where i thought i would like it much better than i ultimately did.

I'm not a fan of the horror genre, it's my least favorite genre, i just don't get my kicks from getting scared. I do regard higher horror films that put suspense and tension over gore and the actual scares. To me the build up is what i find to be more intense and ultimately satisfying in horror films. I went into this one, not really knowing which of the two this would be like and fortunately and unfortunately it is a mix of the both.

Honeymoon follows a recently married couple, Paul and Bea who are young, happy and their relationship is sparkling with energy and there's a sense that love's in the air. They decide to go on their honeymoon to a cabin in the woods. I know (-.-) i thought myself that too, but don't start rolling your eyes out just yet.

In first act we basically follow around the couple that's clearly in love. That first act is not particularly exciting but it works on establishing the characters that it presents. Leigh Janiak the Director and Writer, smartly takes its time for us to get to know the characters and it does it so successfully.

In the second act (the best), things start to get a little bit interesting as some sort of light calls Bea during the night to the woods. Paul finally finds her creepily naked and clearly disturbed. As something happened to Bea? The fact is that from now on Bea starts to act a little bit odd. She has some sort of bite in her leg and she seems to have lost part of her memory. These are the best moments of the film, as we wonder what the f*ck happened to Bea in the woods. What the f*ck happened to Bea in the woods? Is she even Bea? If she's not Bea then what are her intentions when it comes to Paul? These are unanswered questions that rolled through my head. The film does with these questions and with some fine acting and direction ultimately build a lot of palpable tension and intensity. I was surprisingly really into it, intrigued and having much more fun than what i initially expected.

Then everything kind of collapses on a third act that gives too much away and trades the surprisingly effective suspense and apprehension with ineffective and awkward scenes of gore. Honeymoon felt much more of an impressive effort while i didn't know its complete premise. It ends up falling into a climax that just didn't move me in any way. I wasn't grossed out nor was i scared, i guess i was just disappointed. The ending does try to run from plot conventions but it ultimately just felt unmemorable, ineffective, familiar and even a bit dull. A sad ending for a picture i was having quite a lot of fun with.

The movie basically just stars two actors Rose Leslie Harry Treadaway who play Bea and Paul. They do a decent job here, most of the picture relays on their performances and they ultimately do deliver. They had to have a convincing chemistry between the two, without that the film would have just sunk but fortunately they are great together and they carry the film through its dramatic sequences.

Honeymoon could have been a quite an impressive horror film but unfortunately it ultimately settles up being just a decent one. It's a little bit of a frustrating experience as it is a nicely crafted little picture, with smart direction and performances. It even is quite intense and exciting at times but in the end downfalls with a third act that feels awkward and out of place because it trades those with gore and not so great writing.

Rating: C+

So a re-watch, and i was very interested in seeing this one again, because this is considered to be a masterpiece, and i actually found it overrated the first time i saw it, but i remember being very tired and not in a good mood when i first saw this, so that probably affected the way i saw the movie, and that was why i felt like i needed to re-watch this, after i had long seen this movie.

The Third Man is directed by Carol Reed and it stars Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Bernard Lee and Trevor Howard. And i got to say that unsurprisingly my opinion has changed, the thing is that it changed much more than i though it would, because this is quite something.

An out of work pulp fiction novelist, Holly Martins, arrives in a post war Vienna divided into sectors by the victorious allies, and where a shortage of supplies has lead to a flourishing black market. He arrives at the invitation of an ex-school friend, Harry Lime, who has offered him a job, only to discover that Lime has recently died in a peculiar traffic accident.

From talking to Lime's friends and associates Martins soon notices that some of the stories are inconsistent, and determines to discover what really happened to Harry Lime. The Third Man is almost a perfect Noir, although not the column one, a man trying to find the truth, he sees himself dealing with criminals, he sees himself in love, he is completely confused and Joseph Cotten shows that perfectly on screen. And its funny to think that this 64 year old movie, actually had me in the edge of my seat, not knowing what was going to happen, quite a few times.

The movie's power is enlarged by some AMAZING cinematography, The Third Man, might have the best cinematography i have seen from a movie that was made in the first half of the century. Most of the movie is shot in some peculiar angles, the shadows are amazingly beautiful, the cinematography adds A LOT to the movie, we feel this gloomy feeling on the air, it truly captures the devastated Europe after WW2. Quite weird to see that Robert Krasker only got this Academy Award win and nomination, because he shows here some very impressive work. Another two great technical things that the movies has, is its score by Anton Karas and its editing by Oswald Hafenrichter, both very impressive worthy of AT least a nomination.

Then we get to the performances, and Joseph Cotten is the star of the movie, to say that Orson Wells is the star, would be very unfair to Cotten who does here some of the best work of his career, quite sad to see that such a good and charming actor never got any recognition. Alida Valli, is probably more known for some foreign language movies, but this one is by far the best English movie she did, she great in the movie, she does not play the usual girl that was in almost every movie made at this time. She proves that in the end of the movie, and what an ending. Orson Wells is undeniably great, as the charming manipulative villain, but the thing is that, i felt like he was not enough on the movie, i mean the plot is about this character, but just has 15 minutes of screen time, but he is great in every single minute.

Carol Reed does here some fantastic job, he truly made a masterpiece here, an almost flawless movie that manages to survive time, a great story, with a big moral issue ( should you support your friends even when they are doing bad things, or should you try to stop him no matter what consequences) does rat on your friend make you a bad person, we know what Anna Schmidt thinks.

The Third Man also has some great charming performances, good writing, amazing cinematography,score, editing and direction, it is one of the best movies of the 40's, and i would not raise an eyebrow if someone told me that this was some of the best work he had ever seen. Rating:A

So i was very interested in seeing this movie, what first made me interested in seeing the movie was the fact that it was directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski, the director of the well known Three Color: Trilogy, which i really like, i had also seen another movie of his,A Short Film About Love, so i had liked what i had seen from him, certainly not mainstream stuff, but very interesting work. Another reason was the fact that this was his first collaboration with Irène Jacob who later appeared in his masterpiece Three Colors: Red. So yeah i wanted to see their first collaboration. My expectations i would say were not big, because i had heard that many people did not get the movie, but i hoped for the best.

The Double Life of Veronique is directed and written by Krzysztof Kieslowski and it stars Irène Jacob, Wladyslaw Kowalski and Halina Gryglaszewska. And i got to say that my biggest fear has come true, because i cant understand not in a whole what this movie is about. The movie follows two identical Veroniques, born on the same day - one Polish, one French, both with an identical heart condition and the same great operatic singing voice,both look like each other, they are like separated twins.

We never really truly understand the connection between the two Veronique's they both look the same, the same thing is happening to both, and they feel something that they cant describe, they never feel alone, they always in a way feel each other.

Its weird because i cant say that i disliked the movie, and i don't understand much of what happens, at times i felt like i was under a spell, very weird felling, some scenes are almost hypnotizing. Because of Kieslowski visual beauty, the yellows and oranges on screen perfect, but also because of Irène Jacob, she is amazing. The luminous Irène Jacob does wonders with her difficult double role as Veronika/Véronique, which requires her presence in nearly every frame of film. Guided by the sure hand of Kieslowski, Jacob projects an authentic goodness and innocence, coupled with a palpable sensuality and sensitivity. And this seems effortless. And to think that Andie MacDowell was almost cast to be in the movie, No way she would had been as great as Irène.

While watching it i was amazed by the visual beauty that once again Kieslowski managed to put on screen, by the charming star that Irène Jacob is on screen, but after the movie ended, the movie left me with questions lots of them, it left me confused.

I think Kieslowski wanted us to end the puzzle by ourselves the thing is that he doesn't give enough pieces, maybe the puzzle just cant be done, and in film i like to finish my puzzle. Rating:B

So this was coming out this week, and i said why not, i remember hearing good things about this movie when it came out at the Sundance Film Festival in the beginning of the year, so yeah, i gave this movie a chance. Concussion is the directorial day view for director Stacie Passon and it stars Robin Weigert, Maggie Siff, Johnathan Tchaikovsky.

And i don't think i have much to say about this one, i mean it has some quality, its a decent directorial debut, but the movie just did not hit me. Concussion follows Abby a lesbian who is going through a mid-life crises, she has no sex with her partner Julie Fain Lawrence, and she goes to see a hooker. And then things get a bit more complicated. So this actually came first than Blue is the Warmest Color another lesbian story, that unfortunately i have not seen yet, but i am very excited too.

But the movie is not really about lesbians, or the social problems or anything like that, this movie is about a women that is repressed sexually and is trying to help, another women that are also sexually repressed, she is really discovering herself doing this process. Justin says to Abby that she has to stop doing what she is doing, that what she is doing, he says "this isn't you" and she answers "something has to be me by now". She is really trying to figure things out, inside herself, she knows that she cant keep up with her boring sad life, she wants change.

The performances are really good, Robin Weigert does some very impressive work in this movie has Abby, but really, that is just it, the movie just does not have enough to offer. And when i left the room i was feeling nothing. Decent debut for its director Stacie Passon and good performance by Robin Weigert but that is basically it. Rating:C+