Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Oleanna (1994)
9/10
Mr. Mamet or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Drop the Bomb
18 July 2019
«(...) don't call your wife "Baby"!»

Oleanna tells the unconventional and controversial story of a female student, Carol, who's deeply upset with some grade on a course she failed and how she tries to persuade her teacher, John, to change it. It's a manipulative game - like the con master, David Mamet, so much loves - of seduction between teacher and student, man and woman and ultimately audience and director - yes, I believe, at some points, we're lead to support one of the sides of the argument. Mamet, with a very straightforward story and 99% set in only one location - the teacher's office -, was able, even without trying to make a point or statement, to invoke a notable variety of serious subjects. Mr. Mamet sets the table and delivers group identity politics - at some point even Carol keeps repeating the words "my group" -, institutional, aggression, violence towards women, political correctness, modern education and the so-called "system" - which both dislike in different ways -, free speech and so on. Remember, he does it just by putting two characters, well, simply talking and interacting on-screen (which is quite brilliant). Throughout the mildly Kafkaesque plot - with all the constants as phone ringing, door opening and shutting, characters interrupting each other -, it constitutes a puzzling clash between "anger" and "fear", which leads to various (even physical) confrontations between the two people. The dialogue is utterly upscale, and where some may rely their critique on the fact that the characters keep interrupting each other is where Mamet reaches for the true and natural essence of human communication throughout centuries (which is just pretty marvelous to be aware in film, if we consider all those Hollywood cliché stuff). Carol, played by the not-so-known Debra Eisenstadt, must be one of the most despicable characters ever to exist on paper. The paradox of free thought expression she presents, by blackmailing John, could well be interpreted as an act of censorship. The way she talks, all the questioning and dumbness are so annoying she really (almost) never reaches to prove her as a victim, which she partially is and partially not. The fact that she saw the touching on her shoulders as a sexual act could say a lot about her past - at some point she even tries to tell a secret to John, but gets abruptly interrupted. The sort of Stockholm syndrome that drives her to always get back to the office, make repetitive and stupid questions and mood shifting also shows she's sort of struggling inside. Macy, our John, is a great actor. His character seems to be one of great knowledge and uses so much rhetoric that he can be easily put in an elite. Also, he's being given a tenure and buying a new house (as if it didn't matter at all...). He's not that full of CRAP, but he sure says a lot of unreasonable stuff and acts often the same way. He ends up talking about education, family, job and careers, this and that, bla bla bla, but his philosophy always seems too confusing to get somewhere specific. Mamet was clearly way ahead of his time, if we consider the #MeToo movement, contemporaneous radical feminism and other sexual politics related problems present in the current decade. Oleanna, as a work of literature, could be he's greatest achievement alongside with Pulitzer Prize Glengarry Glen Ross (in my opinion), but, as a film, lacks some of the "perfection" he achieved, e.g., in his debut House of Games (1987). "Is John, initially, sexually driven by her? Is there any justice upon the denial of his tenure? Is Carol acting by her own? What are her true motives? Are her claims of sexism and attempted rape right?" are just some of the moral questions we could, by the end, ask ourselves. They both crossed a line, for sure, but the ultimate and most ambiguous question is: who holds the absolute objective truth? (Is there a truth?!) Thank you, David Mamet.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
White or Black, the same Material
16 July 2019
«Many things are to be found in Mama's and Papa's homes. But go about it gently. Everyone is entitled to his share. And don't ever forget: What fate has in store for us one can take away. Beware of impostors, smooth talkers, and thieves. As for the white material, the party's over. No more cocktails on shaded verandas while we sweat water and blood. They're getting out and they're right to run scared. Our rulers are already trembling, their suitcases stuffed with booty they amassed while you starved.»

A mysterious tale about a woman and how she dealt with a civil war between some young rebels and the so-called patriots in her "own" soil. She's white, French and lives in an enigmatic unnamed African country, set in a postcolonial time. Chaos, fight and destruction reign, as she desperately tries to take further the wish to harvest her coffee plantation, almost blind to the consequences regarding that same wish, something even the poor and innocent workers, striving for food and money, can acknowledge - we don't quite know if that's what she's really struggling for, but we assume it as a superficial remark about her character. Isabelle Huppert, one of the all-time finest, doesn't give us that kind of powerhouse performance like only she can. Instead, she takes a shyer path, giving Maria - the name of her character - a great sense of persuasion, always hiding her true colors from people around her. In other words, her performance is quite remarkable and helps the movie to grow in a natural humanism (even if we don't want to admit it, she's a true heroine with good intentions that simply aren't strong enough to prevail). Her best and most merciless scene comes near the end and it's superb. Denis, of course, directs with an unparalleled soft but cruel style, working with our brains instead of our eyes (and her visuals are amazing). White Material - the name echoes what African child soldiers called to the personal belongings of their "superior ones" - is food for thought, if we consider the crisis that surrounded so many African countries and the revenges, full of death, taken after years and years of oppression. With a story that essentially explores the roots of evil, it's a movie that rewards every viewer and offers a lot, especially if you're a concerned individual.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Benny's Video (1992)
9/10
Reality within frames, frames within reality
16 July 2019
«- Why? Why did you do it?
  • I don't know. I wanted to see how it feels like.»


Haneke's ultimate critique of the contemporaneous bourgeois lifestyle - alongside with The Seventh Continent (1989) - ranging from problems regarding neglectful parenting to mass media and pop culture waste, in all its excess, comes in this movie. Through his cold lens, the Austrian director dismantles the evil consequences of isolation/alienation during childhood: passive-aggressive behavior, psychological disorder and - in last stages - merciful violence and thirst for blood and death. The reason some (myself included) consider Haneke one of the masters of European film is very clear in Benny's Video: although we can watch pretty clear almost everything that's happening, his cold style and aesthetical point of view, sometimes using the powerfulness of the invisible, leave space to interpretation and discovery for underlying themes - and yes, I personally think we could be talking here about something like Oedipus complex, incest and even necrophilia, but let's not assure it. Arno Frisch's performance as young Benny is chilling, somehow unleashing the devil he'd use to create Funny Games's Paul. Angela Winkler and Ulrich Mühe, the parents, are also brilliant (that scene after their son's revelation, as she bursts into laughter, is disturbing, to say the least): their portrayal as the ones who seeded the violent nature on Benny is perhaps one of the most intriguing points of the movie. All that overprotectiveness and compliance to end up ingeniously betrayed sure seems disappointing for those who were seeking a moral victory and genius for others... Audiences will tend to declare the poor triumph of evil, but who is the real evil here? Mr. Haneke, sir, you sure are a tough one.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Personal Fear
16 July 2019
«Lewis, is it you?»

Personal Shopper is a different kind of ghost story: one where what may creep the audience isn't the ghost himself - at least it shouldn't -, but other themes that surround the narrative, such as mortality and all the grief associated with losing someone we deeply love. Spirituality also plays an important role, as our main character is a self-proclaimed medium (besides of being, of course, also a personal shopper for a famous woman, hence the title). Ambitious as it is, the movie deals with fear and anxiety in almost paradoxical terms: sometimes mysterious, others even illogical, it goes from art and discovery to paranoia, from fashion and futility to depression and ends up being a little too much flawed, even if, with all the tension and twists, we don't want to believe it, a bit like Kristen Stewart's character. Oh, and is she great... Such an unrestrained performance, leading the movie all the way with courage and a tremendous effort of emotion depth. I don't actually recommend the brilliant ending scene for those who suffer from pathological/chronic anxiety, as I saw myself having a "mini" panic attack. It may haunt you for the rest of your life.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3 Faces (2018)
9/10
Taste of Iran
16 July 2019
«I've always dreamed of being an actress.»

It is a road movie basically all about people talking and wandering, with a particular camera focus on Nature and the simplicity of life. In this kind of fashion, it constantly resembles the late Abbas Kiarostami's metafictional style: the director, Panahi, pays homage to his compatriot, elaborating on very similar scenes - note to Taste of Cherry (1997) & Through the Olive Trees (1994) -, camera angles, themes and issues. He also works with non-professional actors, except for Behnaz Jafari and himself, who both play themselves, choosing not to credit his alter ego to another person, in contrast only in this last chapter with what Kiarostami would do. Based in a simple, but effective story, it works as Iran's self-portrait, exposing its religious, oppressive, sexist and misogynist traditions. Saying that, (NOT ONLY) in the movie, there's an urgency about mentioning women's role in Iranian society. The director's sense of humanity is so bright that he tackles this worrying subjects tracing a very thin line between a very fine humour and deep seriousness. Suicide is also a subject, but sadly gets somehow lost on the way. As a social commentary that lies on the plot's outcome to declare a "victory", audiences may not comprehend it at the end or even feel unrewarded, but I assure you: it's all there.

Cinema Trindade
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Goodbye, Laura
16 July 2019
«Through the darkness of future past, The magician longs to see. One chants out between two worlds...»

Another step of surrealism in Lynch's filmography, and quite a strong one. Fire Walk with Me is a psychological horror picture that depicts the last days of Laura Palmer and her descent into madness, in the superficially peaceful and quiet town of Twin Peaks. In many ways similar to Blue Velvet (1986), it terrifyingly exposes the bizarre underworld behind what seems so pure and innocent, a bit like Laura herself. With an approach nothing similar to the TV-series, it's like seeing David Lynch, free from all constrictions, in automatic pilot: it has all the elements of a great Lynch movie, from the hypnotizing score of Angelo Badalamenti to the seductive and, mostly, nightmarish moments involving Sheryl Lee's bravura performance. Of course, the movie is so dense and full of mystery, it has its flaws. However, if we consider the best moments that this parallel universe presents us, we can almost forget them. Although it doesn't work as a puzzle solver, but as the opposite, it's a must watch and rewatch for every Twin Peaks fan.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A new Phoenix
5 January 2019
We hear a man aggressively speaking to someone else, with the voice-over of what seems to be a girl counting backwards. We can't see nothing yet, only dark. The man, then, begins like the girl: "43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37". "You must do better. You must do better!": he says. I guess he could only be talking to himself.

The first thing we see is the creepy image of someone desperately breathing inside a plastic bag. A flashback of a child hits. A man burns the photograph of a girl and throws it into a bucket together with a bible, takes off a plastic of a fire alarm, cleans up the blood of a ball-peen hammer and collects small items laying in a bed into a white bag (we can clearly see a necklace similar to the one used on Ramsay's Morvern Callar (2002) and duct tape). He hesitates before leaving the hotel room where we were until now. If you read the synopsis, by now, you already know: his job's done for today.

We get some hints of what he looks like, but not before he leaves a guy spitting blood on the floor. He's brutal. He takes a cab down to the airport, whose driver ironically sings the movie's title. There, he calls his boss, John, and confirms what we have guessed right away: "It's done.".

When he returns home, a kid notices him and tells his friend to hide. Our man noticed him too. He lives with and takes care of his old demented mother, who calls him by the name of Joe. Scars are seen all over his body: we learn his tormented past. Flashbacks hit again.

He reaches the local grocery store where his contact, Angel, works, in order to pick up last job's payment and to warn him that his son saw him. He surely doesn't want to be known.

By the time our plot gets started, the camera shows the half hidden bruised face of a woman, starring at Joe, while both wait at a train station.

He's about to meet with his nose bleeding boss, who tells him about how his deceased woman loved flowers. "Angel's out.": they agree. Like a little boy, he eats candy balls while lying on the couch and complains about not founding green ones, the ones he likes the most. When he finds one, smashes it with his fingers: is Miss Ramsay trying to tell us something about him? We'll find out later on.

His new job involves a Senator's daughter, who's been missing since her mother killed herself: how tragic are the lives of our characters? Although he looks distracted, Joe tells his boss he's listening, while he's dissecting the job's details. When John starts talking about leisure and futile stuff, Joe turns off: he's the kind of guy that only focuses on his work, but does he care about the morals of it, though? Is he able to understand (or even relate to) the pain of those who he's saving? Does he care about his own brutality on the disgusting pedos?

The director intelligently takes us back to the station. We suddenly remember about the mysterious woman. Who is she? Maybe she was never really there...

What we ultimately get is a movie about a sad, mentally unstable, traumatized man, whose self-inflicted pain never seems to be enough. He has a very close relationship with his mother and from there comes what, personally, was the picture's core emotional side. Joaquin Phoenix plays an important role, as he captures the essence of that man on a (well, another!) masterful performance. Will he ever free himself and turn his days into "beautiful days"?

I won't reveal the plot, but I can say that not much happens, at least in the eyes of those who like complicated double-crossing type of stories. This is a much sophisticated movie - forget about cliché talk and twists -, although some have the courage to call it "garbage".

I really enjoyed how the director used such an anxious score and rough editing (constant flashbacks are heavy part of it) to makes us, too, nervously engaged with the story and characters.

When I first watched this, I wasn't yet aware of the Taxi Driver comparisons (yes, we can all see the similarities). It didn't really hit me that way, though, maybe because I was too distracted thinking about other movies, e.g., Drive (2011) - essentially given the protagonist's silent but masterful introduction - or No Country for Old Men (2007) - resembled by Ramsay's thrilling action and clever way to hide most of the movie's shocking violence. Also, I was clueless about Lynne Ramsay's work, so I went on after to see her other features.

When I further read the self-indulgent/pretentious comments regarding Ramsay, I laughed. She likes to put personal elements in her cinema and possesses her defined style: isn't she in her own right?

I can't humbly understand those who complain about the "slow" pace throughout the movie: I felt like it wasn't slow, that if I'd blink, I'd be missing something important. I've seen myself stuck to the screen, mostly because Miss Ramsay made me feel obliged to do it.

We had Morvern, Eva - We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) - and now we have Joe. It is quite fair to say that Lynne Ramsay is a master, and she might just be the master of the traumatized ones.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Roma (2018)
9/10
What if...
28 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
We all know by Cuarón's work that he isn't the most prolific of directors, and also that he doesn't reach the highest of personal levels in his filmmaking. In Roma, though, we must forget those facts: it is the most intimate we can get from the Mexican. This is a movie made essentially of emotions (and beautiful shots), where Mr. Cuarón takes almost all the credits (direction, photography, edition, writing, production).

In the opening credits, we get to see a still shot of what seems to be someone cleaning a tile floor. The water reflects the sky and there's a plane slowly passing by: we're outside. This kind of wavy motion of the water made me recall Fernando Pessoa, who, in Mensagem, wrote: "Deus ao mar o perigo e o abismo deu, Mas nele é que espelhou o céu." Something tragic is about to unfold before our eyes.

Suddenly, the camera shifts its angle and we meet Cleo, the young girl that characterizes Libo, the person that Cuarón dedicated the movie to and whose identity I don't want to reveal. She speaks Spanish with a dog. In a hurry, leaves the house where we believe she is a housekeeper and walks to the nursery, picking up a little boy, Pepe. As she returns home, other girl tells her that Fermín is on the phone, waiting to talk to her. He's her new boyfriend. As the girls are talking, the rest of the family gets home, but we don't see the father, who is leaving to Quebec for work next Friday. At the end of the day, the father returns, still earlier than usual. He is presented as a superior character, hearing classical music and smoking inside a big car, with some difficulties to park it inside the house, as he also can't avoid the dog's feces: he doesn't really fit in this place.

In the evening, the family gathers in the leaving room watching TV and we see the mother's "jealousy": she asks Cleo to bring a tea to the father, when the kids start to embrace her. Before the end of the day and everyone goes to sleep (possibly the best photographed scene is seen here), we hear the couple fighting in their room.

Some other day, Cleo and Adela (the other housekeeper) go to the movies with their boyfriends. The first one changes her mind when Fermín asks her to take a walk instead, ending both in a room. Fermín talks about his hard days as a teen. Then, they have sex.

Cleo wakes up Friday morning. The following events change the whole scenario.

When Antonio, the father, is about to leave, Sofía, his wife, holds him and kisses him, very strongly: something's not right, and we start to doubt about this father figure (maybe he is leaving definitely). A military band passes by their house, which, for me, symbolizes the dark days that this family is about to experience. This time, the mother is the one who walks the young Pepe to the nursery, after shouting with Cleo to clean the dog's feces. While she does it, we hear the plane passing by again and we're taken to the cinema, where Fermín and Cleo are kissing. She, then, reveals that she might be pregnant and the boy disappears, leaving the poor girl helpless.

Cleo's thoughts wander while she looks at a hail storm. Again, Mr. Cuarón is telling us that something went very wrong. It is time for her to ask her bosses for help, which she does. At the same time, the grandmother, Teresa, is speaking to her daughter about Antonio's departure. We are now sure: this movie is about these two women, whose men left them behind, and what they'll do to make it without them.

The big difference between these two is that Sofi, in contrast with Cleo, never had to fight for nothing, which is clearly seen by the way she drives her car, when both women go to the hospital. But, at least, she has a car and, possibly, a license to drive it, something unthinkable for people like Cleo.

Inside the hospital, we learn, in one hand, that Fermín is the only man who had intercourse with Cleo. In the other hand, the drama between Sofi and Antonio intensifies as she talks with Dr. Zavala about her relationship problems. An earthquake hits the town while Cleo contemplates a new born baby (who probably died following that moment). We shift to some new place where some Christian crosses are shown. This is where the director starts to "overemphasize" with his symbolism. Wasn't the "omen" brought by the previous scene enough to tell us that, maybe, her baby is sentenced? Why do we need this shot for? It doesn't even stand at the level of the majority of the picture's frames. In this moment, we start to question Mr. Cuarón's (not so) subtle way to warn us.

The family spends the Christmas holidays in the countryside with some other bourgeois families that speak some English. This is possibly the most boring part of the movie and it only serves the director's mission to, once again, clarify that Cleo and Sofi live in different worlds: didn't we already know that? The New Year starts with another one or two hints of tragedy. Cleo doesn't want to have toast with her "low class" friend, but when she agrees, some other woman hits her: the glass falls, and breaks. When she leaves the room where all the servants were celebrating, a fire starts to consume the woods. At this point, I'm starting to doubt the story and who wrote it, even more when all the people (including children) are helping to extinguish the fire and a mysterious man, shown before, starts to sing something... well, something! Before returning home, Cleo walks through the fields with the exact same woman who pushed her and talks about how that place reminds her home. Cleo doesn't talk that much, so we must listen when she does, even if it means nothing...

The sunny breeze turns into a rainy day: the family's back home. Their big Maverick that Sofi scratched is now fixed. Antonio, though, still ain't home. Toño, the oldest of the brothers, wants to go to the cinema. Antonio is there. Cinema is now a place related with betrayal, and we must never forget Fermín, who Cleo ultimately finds in a martial arts training. The most important moment of this scene, apart from the fact that Fermín leaves Cleo helpless once again, is that, when Profesor Zovek, a famous figure in Mexico, challenges people to pose in a certain way with their eyes closed, Cleo is the only one who can accomplish the demand: she is the movie's strongest character, and she'll make through this storm.

Everything seems to be in a downfall: the kids fight in the afternoon and, in the evening, Sofía returns home drunk: "We're alone. (...) We, women, are always alone!". Cleo doesn't reply. Did she need to hear that? Did we? And did we need to hear that, in the following scene, where we clearly see people protesting that they're protesting? If Cuarón wants to make an allusion to something, well, he has to be specific, not just talk about violence and leave the matter like that. He really made an effort to show us a reality that his people lived, but, somehow, failed: what follows is the movie's worst scene.

After we get a "cliché" kind of piece of story, we reach the movie's emotional "clímax" (and its best scene, in my opinion). This is where the director shines. All we can do now is to keep quiet and simply look at the screen. If we pay attention around us, we'll then notice an empty, but understandable, silence, a silence that matches the birds' and the dogs' sounds, colored by frames where we see the family's neighborhood and house.

Cleo is now a different, maybe stronger woman. Sofía buys a new, smaller car. The family goes to the beach. Sofía tells the children the truth about their father. They face it with different reactions: Toño freezes, Paco cries more than everyone else, the young Sofi hugs Cleo and little Pepe just seems to have some anger inside, leaving us with no clear understanding of what he's feeling. They talk about divorce and then sit silently eating ice-cream next to some couple getting married, which reminded me of how good Cuarón can actually be, sometimes.

When the family finally confronts the sea of problems surrounding them, the movie seems to be over. As they return home, the same military band passes by. Same thing happens with the plane. The sunlight is now strong. Cleo wants to talk with Adela, and not the other way around. Everything's in its right place now.

I preferred not to talk about the movie's core issue/subject matter, so that people go on and see it like I did. When we reach the end, there's nothing more than that issue to really deeply think about. Not always easy to see, this is a touching movie, but not a perfect one. When we start to imagine other ways Cuarón had to pull this off, we reach the conclusion that it could've been his best movie, because it'd certainly be one of the best movies of the decade. Doing things in his own flawed fashion, he made a flawed movie, but certainly one that's worth watching and re-watching.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed