Reviews

SPOILERS

I haven´t seen the Mariachi´s previous movies ("El Mariachi" and "Desperado"), nor have I seen any of the Sergio Leone westerns this movie homages so maybe that´s a drawback. I don´t know.

This flick stars Antonio Banderas as the Mariachi mourning the death of his wife Salma Hayek and his daughter. Johnny Depp is a CIA agent that arrives to Mexico just in time to get him out of boredom and bring back the action to his life because the President of Mexico is gonna get killed. So he pays a visit to his old pals Enrique Iglesias and Marco Leonardi and the shooting begins. There are two handfuls of other characters, most of them blatantly misused (I would have loved to learn something about Mickey Rourke´s soft-hearted gangster and Willem Dafoe´s villain).

So, the good parts. Johnny Depp (most of the fun of this movie is entirely owed to him), the jokes and a couple of action sequences (the flashback to the Mariachi´s wedding day, the shooting in the church). All the rest is either forgettable or lame. The music gets reiterative and the lack of coherence begins to get in one´s nerves after the first initial joy. So all in all I wouldn´t recommend this movie too much. Of course that Depp is a delight to watch -he has a sixth sense for picking the coolest characters.

SPOILER

"Sábado" is a nice little movie that didn´t had quite the success it deserved at the time of its release here in Argentina. So it´s not really likely that anyone outside Latin America will ever get a chance to see it, which is a shame.

The movie depicts the wandering of six characters (three couples) through Buenos Aires one saturday afternoon. They ran into each other practically all the time, sometimes literaly (Daniel Hendler seems to crash his car at least twice in every movie he´s in), to the point that every single one of them has had a chat with any other, and most of the time without being aware of the relation. In the end, they all return to their lives one sunday morning and nothing has changed. The film thus shows the inner boredom of a certain class of young people in Buenos Aires.

The juicy part is the dialogue. Every single piece of dialogue here is superb and extremely quotable. Villegas pays a lot of attention to the delivery of the speech and it shows: none of the characters says anything honest about himself but by the end we know them all very well just by the way they speak about stupid things. The camera, on the other hand, is very static and straight-forward (it almost never moves), which in a way fits the mood of the movie but becomes a little tiresome. If we have to summarize I´d say that the only flaw of "Sábado" is that of being a little too long -even with 76 minutes. We don´t need all those scenes to get the point that this is one empty existence. But it never gets downright boring so why even bother to point that out?

SPOILERS

"The virgin suicides" is Sofia Coppola´s first directorial debut (her acting debut in her father´s trilogy being a traditional source of rage for all film fans), based on a popular best-seller. It had all the elements to be a very praised movie and it certainly was.

James Woods and Kathleen Turner star as the worried parents of five beautiful girls (Kirsten Dunst, A.J. Cook, Hanna Hall, Leslie Hayman, Chelse Swain). We are given practically no insight on the girls but in a way that´s the point. A group of teens in the neighborhood practically live their lives obsessed with the beautiful sisters (one of them is Josh Hartnett in a sympathetic role as the boy obsessed with the Dunst character). You don´t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what happens with the sisters in the end (although not all of them end up being virgins). The boys continue to live obsessed with them.

Sofia is not a bad director. She has picked up some nice things about her father, like the very stilized dramatic scenes (the boys finding the dead girls) and the courage to use unusual shots (Kirsten Dunst´s panties when Hartnett arrives at her house). The cast is all OK without anything mind-blowing. The story is mysterious, yeah, but at least for me the mistery is more elaborate than interesting. All in all, the movie is not bad in any aspect, but it´s really a forgettable affair. Not flawed enough to be bad and not inspired enough to be good.

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Seriously, how can anyone with at least one brain cell can say that this is a masterpiece? And how can anyone call Peter Jackson a genius? You want masterpieces, there are plenty of them out there... Vertigo, Barton Fink, from more recent years Gosford Park, almost all of Kubrick's filmography, Chinatown, Rosemary's baby, Otto e mezzo...

First of all I didn't walk in the cinema expecting a masterpiece like the ones mentioned above. I like a lot the Tolkien novels and I wanted to see a good adaptation. Having not liked the first one I thought I could spend an entertaining time watching excelent special effects. The film was so bad I couldn't even do that.

First of all, does any of the five (five!) screenwriters know what the word "adaptation" means? It's imposible to be faithful to such a long and detailed novel. You have to remember you're making cinema for people who didn't read the book and write a screenplay of your own and direct a movie of your own. That's the whole point, not just taking scenes from a book and shoot them as they are.

Second, the jokes. Gimli's one of my favorite characters. Why turn him into an idiotic buffon? Maybe because Jackson and his crew don't have a sense of humor? Gimli's jokes are pathetic and you want to strangle the guy sometimes. What a way of spoiling a good character.

Third, the direction style sucks. It has no epic notions, no drama... A lot of the scenes are completely spoiled because of Jackson's idiotic focus on the special effects, completely forgetting the means he has at his hands to make as scene exciting. This p***es me off- a guy is given such a high budget and completely spoils it. The reason? Lack of talent.

Finally the dream sequence with Arwen. Jackson is such a lousy filmmaker that he doesn't realize that he's shooting the dream in the same style as the rest of the scenes. This is a movie wich must be filled with an wonderful, magic atmosphere. Something that is from the beginning out of reality. How to make a dream in this context? It's an interesting question. But Jackson's answer is plain pathetic.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

After his great hit "Psycho" Hitchcock never made an excelent outstanding masterpiece again (with the posible exception of "Frenesi"). In fact he made rather bad (bad not only for Hitchcock's standards) films like "Torn curtain" and "Marnie".

This one, fortunately, is a little better. In fact it's not bad at all but being Hitch's final good-bye to the world of cinema makes it a disappointing film. All in all is an amusing thriller/comedy about two couples of crooks fighting each other with some funny scenes like the one where the phoney psychic gives the keys to her lover while she pretends to be in contact with the dead. Fun stuff.

Watch this movie if you're already familiarized with most of Hitchcock's truly great work (and I'll not provide a guideline- most of his best films are famous enough to be already known by everyone). If you've never watched a Hitchcock movie before you'll get the wrong idea about them.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

The best animated film that ever came out of DreamWorks completely beats its competence "A bug's life" by Disney in almost every aspect. Funny story, very good one-liners (some taken from Woody Allen films -"I was going to include you in my erotical fantasies" from a deleted sketch of "Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask"; "Trouble is my middle name" from "Manhattan") and great voices not only by Woody, also by Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Christopher Walken, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez and John Mahoney from "Frasier".

The jokes related to marxism and comunist sistems, although smart, might not be understood by very young children. Not a flaw of the filmmakers because the movie is oriented to +10 I think.

About the animation (I've just re-watched the film) it HAS got a little old, but it still holds up OK.

We have something that it's rare to see in an animated superproduction: good story (typical but good), intelligent jokes, good characters, insprated direction. Go and watch it, it's worth it.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

When I'm asked what my favourite film is, I often say "Vertigo". I don't know if it's true; it's a way out of a question that I'm unable to answer without quoting an enormous amount of films that mark me as a film buff and as a wannabe filmmaker. But the truth is that it is a movie that hooked me deep inside and that I can watch over and over again. Sometimes I want to pay atention to little details of lightning, camera movement and things like that, but I am always carried away in the end by the story and the characters.

I think it can be considered Hitchcock's most personal film (and he was often embarassed about it and didn't want it to be shown). It's a thriller, but at the same time it's a dramatic story about the delusion of love and a psychological study on manly desire.

I've always prefered James Stewart to Cary Grant in Hitchcock's movies. With Grant you can always look forward to see a lot of humor, but Stewart's characters are more interesting and his interpretations superior by all means. This one I think it's his best work ever. Novak is amazingly sensual as Madeleine/Judy, the woman that haunts Stewart in his dreams.

And speaking about dreams, don't miss the dream sequence in the middle of the movie. The animations are senile but it's so well done that it's impressing even for today's audience.

There's a lot more I could say but although it's a movie often analyzed by critics I find that it's much better to just watch it without warnings. Take your chances in the amazing world of "Vertigo".

A masterpiece.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

"Barton Fink", often ignored and misunderstood when talking about great movies of the nineties, is Joel and Ethan Coen's best picture and one of my favourite movies of all time. It's great because it manages to work in a lot of levels and to deliver a lot of speeches without actually never choosing one single direction. It's basically a dark comedy about writer's block, but it's also an acid joke about Hollywood, the role of the artist in society and even Arthur Miller-type writers, and it's also a metaphor for Hell, and of course a character study put in comparison with a familiar alter ego like no other, as well as a plot rich in references to classic cinema, and a homage to the great director Roman Polanski (who directed the Cannes jury in 1991 when this movie received the three major awards, and by George it deserved all of them and a few more!).

A lot has been said about all these meanings and a lot of critic has been written about them, so I won't explain or justify my aseverations, just as the Coens don't in the movie. Let's just say that I can perfectly understand why most people don't like it. It's deliberately obscure, slow-moving and the jokes are far too complex and often too dark as to provoke laughs in people that don't have an odd sense of humor like I do. And don't try to watch this movie if you are not familiarized with Coen cinema -I mean it. Their unique style joined in this film with this particularly complex and twisted as Hell (all right I had to make my own pun, everybody does it) might put you off pretty fast. Try first with "The big Lebowski", "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" or "The man who wasn't there". If you don't dig their style (they have a whole cowboy thing goin' on there") you're not the man for this movie.

A brief note about the great performances of John Turturro, John Goodman, Judy Davis, Michael Lerner, Steve Buscemi, the amazing Tony Shalhoub and the star from "Frasier" (the best sitcom out there in my opinion) John Mahoney. And the cinematography by Deakins (a good substitute for previous Coen cinematographer Barry Sonenfeld, who left to became a rather lousy comedy director). And the music by Howard Shore. I'm an absolute Coen fan and this movie ranks high on my golden list (wich changes way too often, but this one always has a place).

By the way yes I'm being deliberately fatuous.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

I'm almost about to give up Herzog films: after watching the amazing "Aguirre", wich hooked me to see most of his stuff. Later I saw "Nosferatu", wich was way too conventional a vampire film to really interest me.

Now here's "Woyzeck", another Herzog movie and another disappointment. The problem with this film is that it has a few scenes wich are great... surrounded by an incomprehensible and boring plot. I understand that is adapted from a theather play, and I'm afraid that Herzog forgot that he was making cinema here. The camera work lacks a lot of inventive wich makes the progress of the movie really dull.

Once again I rescue the good parts: the wonderfull and hilarious opening scene and the ending of the movie from the murder scene. And the Klaus Kinski acting wich is always superb and almost unbelievable in all these films.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

I'm not exactly an Almodovar fan. I don't like him, I don't like his style, but however I'm bound to recognize that from time to time he delivers a truly great and moving picture. This is one of those.

The casting is probably his best up to date. Javier Cámara, Darío Grandinetti, Rosario Flores, Leonor Waitling and specially a small role wonderfully played by Geraldine Chaplin. This would make up for it even if the movie wasn't very good, and it is.

It's basically a dramatic comedy (or, even more appropiate, a comic drama) about two lonely men going through the same ordeal, but ít's also a passionate study of friendship and relationships. All of this crafted, if not with subtlety, at least with true emotion and talent. The movie has a lot of high peaks of emotion, and even the most dramatic happenings (like the death of Benigno) don't seem like low punches.

A very good movie, then, that I enjoyed a lot and that I'm sure Almodovar fans will love.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

A remake of the 1922 Murnau classic "Nosferatu" directed by German master Werner Herzog staring his fetish actor Klaus Kinski. Slow-paced and sinister, this movie however was disappointing for me. Having seen previous Herzog-Kinski colaborations I expected a surprising and personal film, instead of a Dracula adaptation that has its good and its bad points, but overall a classic horror film.

Klaus Kinski's interpretation of Nosferatu is over the top and for me he's the best thing in the whole movie. The first scenes in the castle are really delightfull, especially when he has to prevent himself from drinking Jonathan Harker's blood. Isabelle Adjany's also very well. A few scenes are very good, like for example the one featuring the party of the townfolks that are doomed to die or a hilarious one when a man insists in sending Van Helsing to prison when the whole town has been devastated and there's no institution. This dialogue should be in the "memorable quotes" section.

On the other side some parts are just too reiterative. As it's basically a straight-forward adaptation of the book with a few important but unexplainable changes (the characters of Mina and Lucy are interchanged and Van Helsing is transformed into a sceptical scientist) there're some scenes wich we have seen a million times in many vampire movies. This is my critic: Herzog doesn't provide as personal a view in the genre as he should have.

The best vampire movie in my opinion is still "Dance of the vampires" and the best Dracula movie the Francis Ford Coppola one.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

As an Allen absolute fan I'm not sure if I should try to make an objective review of any of their films, but I'll give it a shot.

"Manhattan" is a perfect mixture of what Woody Allen wanted to make in his previous films "Annie Hall" and "Interiors". While in "Annie Hall" he provided a hilarious view into human relationships in a big city, but that on its sketchy structure (although very funny) failed to be really moving, in "Interiors" he tried to do a Bergman-style movie about the same subject and failed absolutely. Here he mixes way better the drama and comedy elements and makes a much better movie.

The acting is over the top, and some of them get too little screen time, like Meryl Streep or Mariel Hemingway. Hemingway's character is truly lovely (although some people find it annoying). All the characters are good and the aproach is so good that we (or, at least, I) feel simpathy for all of them.

Very good and worth seeing more than one time. Beautifully shot also by Gordon Willis, and with a lot of great Gershwin music for background.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Yesterday I watched "Arizona dream" for the tenth time or so. It's truly a wonderfull film and Kusturica's style is not comparable to that of any director I have ever seen (I've read another comments comparing it to Gilliam's-- I love Gilliam, but nah). The lovely quirkyness of the characters and the odd beauty found by the director's eye hooks me deep like few movies can.

As for a more objective criticism, I find the casting to be superb. Johnny Depp is an amazing actor, if not watch "Ed Wood" (one of the best movies ever made-- the third, according to me) and watch him in his best performance. Faye Dunaway is another breathtaking (as an actress and as a woman as well) star, and she's been also in one of my favourite movies ("Chinatown", wich ranks fourth on my list). As for Jerry Lewis, I've never been able to bear him: his comedies have never made me laugh. As a dramatic actor is much better, being a good example of this "The king of comedy".

Kusturica wisely chooses to fill this movie with his very personal sense of humor and a certain auto-parody to avoid the messagge from being reiterative and boring, specially considering the unusual lenght of the film (wich, I admit, is its only fail nevertheless).

I'd like to find the soundtrack -each time I watch it I mumble the songs for months.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

"How to steal a million" is a nice, light, sophisticated caper comedy with an unusual but great starring couple. William Wyler's direction is good but not brilliant and the script provides a lot of fun (besides the line copied above) and a simple, straight-forward storyline. Unfortunately it's too easy to guess what will happen next, and the twists are few and not too-well executed, so the interest decays.

Let's say that this is a nice comedy wich could have been so much better. But it's worth seeing, don't get me wrong, at least for the leading actors (Audrey Hepburn is lovely and beautiful and Peter O'Toole is very funny).

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

I decided to watch this movie because of Woody Allen's personal admiration for Bergman and my personal admiration for Woody Allen. I was at first disappointed with it, mainly I think because I fell asleep in the middle. After watching almost a year later "Serpent's egg", wich I enjoyed much more, I had a better Bergman reference and when oportunity came I gave "Persona" another try, and I don't regret it.

It's a very complex movie so If you don't get the point you might have a good nap like I did. Maybe because I knew already what was coming, I watched it a bit more "relaxed" and got finally the messagge. Also I appreciated more the purely esthetic beauty of the film. It's mainly a psychological drama about two women who have to live together for a period of time but it's also a study of the dilema of identity and a movie about the existential question.

But, as I said, don't judge it the first time you watch it. It grows on you after a second view, maybe because it's way too much to swallow for one movie, wich it's not necessarily bad.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

When Truffaut interviewed Hitchcock about this movie he said that it was a Broadway comedy he bought just to do something while a bigger project was being discussed (a spy story in the line of "North by Northwest" that finally wasn't made) and that it wasn't an interesting film at all. All right, I agree that it isn't one of Hitchcock's deepest or most personal films but it's really worth seeing -more than once- for it's great, twisted, plot, the acting of Ray Milland and John Williams and Grace Kelly.

He originally released it in the 3D-vision system but as the big 3D hit was already over, most theathers didn't give the glasses to the audience.

Let's say that it's a really thrilling movie, based on dialogues (wich is very odd coming from Hitchcock) but with a great timing that doesn't let the tension down for a single minute. The "good" characters, specially Robert Cummings, are really very annoying, but this probably can't be considered a flaw because the villain played by Ray Milland is very charismatic.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Again I'm surprised by the unbelievable talent of the Coen Bros for creating their own, personal, unique atmospheres for each one of their films and by their awesome creativity. And I also love, as a fan of classic cinema and a constant reader, their constant references and winks to books and films.

This one features the enormous Gabriel Byrne playing the part of a cold-hearted assistant for a gangster who surprisingly has never killed anybody and has a recurrent dream in wich he's standing in the middle of the Miller's Crossing forest and his hat is taken away by the wind to never come back. The funny part of it is that during the whole movie this stands as a metaphor, for the hat is constantly falling from his head but he always manages to get it back when it seems it's too late. Finally, is really too late because he does murder someone (and for no reason at all). But in the end he goes to the guy's funeral in Miller's Crossing and the hat stays in his head all the time. Again we find a completely meaningless subject paid too much atention.

There's also a lot of laughing-out-loud parts, specially the ones featuring Jon Polito and constant witty remarks, just like on the classic film-noir novels by Dasshiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler.

The acting is another chapter entirely. Gabriel Byrne's superb in his role, but the supportings really deserve the palm. John Turturro, Jon Polito, Albert Finney, Garcia May Harden and a short but well-played Steve Buscemi character.

However, I still prefer the Coen's most recent works (and I'm talking about "Oh Brother", "The man who wasn't there" and specially "The big Lebowski" here). But this one's worth more than a view.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

When it comes to analyse Hitchcock's filmography it's necessary to make a difference between the films he chose to do and the ones that were imposed to him. "Rebecca" is one of the imposed ones (he wanted to make a movie about the Titanic -probably then Cameron wouldn't have dared to touch the subject and we would have one crap movie less in the world, but never mind- to gain himself a place in Hollywood -for until that moment he had worked only in England- but O'Selznick -the american producer- changed his mind about the Titanic project and gave Hitchcock this best-seller by Daphne DuMaurier; by the way, another tale by the same writer was the base for "The birds", another Hitchcock classic; what a long parenthesis I've made; but I digress). Surprisingly, it's the only Hitchcock movie ever to win an Oscar and a truly cinema classic, besides one of his best movies from the Selznick period (the other being the amazing "Notorius"; but I digress again).

Ok, I'll focus in the movie. It tells the story of an un-named heroine, shy and innocent, who marries the tormented mr. De Winter, a rich fellow tormented by the memory of his dead wife, Rebecca. When the new couple arrives to the castle that De Winter owns, the girl finds herself oppressed by the constant reminders of the dead mrs. De Winter and frightened by an evil maid. The story is waaaaaaay too twisted when the crime angle appears, and it appears quite late, so don't expect a masterfully executed plot. But the truly amazing aspect is the psychological situation of this girl who is doomed to fail in comparison with Rebecca (who later on the movie reveals to have been a femme fatale who kept cheating on mr. De Winter) and in the beautiful direction style. And of course, a special mention to the astronomical dumbness of the Hollywood censors, who couldn't spot a tacit but obvious lesbian character, mrs. Danvers the maid.

The actors couldn't be better chosen, specially Joan Fontaine who is truly admirable and an astounding beauty. Laurence Olivier is also great and the cast in general, exclusively british -although, like I said before, it's an american production-, is amazing.

So, I can highly recommend this film to those who want to see one of Hitchcock's earlier gems. And for those who want to have a hell of a time with a good piece of cinema.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is one of the funniest (and smartest) comedies ever. It deals with the story of Brian Cohen, a jewish man, contemporary of Jesus Christ who, when he discovers the fact that his father was a roman, joins a group of roman-haters who are trying to bring down the empire. While he's trying to do this he's captured and gets confused with the Messiah and crucified.

It can be watched a hundred times you'll always find a new joke. What seems to be pure nonsense in some parts is instead a quite significant joke. And, of course, there's also pure nonsense (the sci-fi part).

Although it's a parody of the classic epic Rome movies, it's not built as a parody. It's actually a well-done epic movie turned into a savage joke. Some parts put your sense of humor in trial. Are you capable of laughing at Ben the Prisoner, or at the Jewish Suicide Squad? Python's message is: do it!

"Life of Brian" is, for me, a cult movie and its teachings are my only religion.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Eastwood has been making these kind of "little movies" for quite a long time now, and they sure are a breath of fresh air. This one in particular could've had a most elaborate script but it was good anyway.

McClane's a famous FBI agent who has a nemesis that leaves him strange messages with code numbers near to the corpses. When he sees the killer's shoes besides a crowd of reporters he runs after him and has a heart attack, although he manages to shoot him. Now, two years later, McClane has had a heart transplant and lives retired in a boat. A young mexican woman comes to him and tells him that her sister was killed. Apparently her heart was the one used in the transplant operation, and so McClane has a debt and agrees to investigate the murder. Along with his neighbor "Buudy" Noone they track this man down. Finally the killer turns out to be the "Buddy", and the surename Noone the key to the secret code (the only digit missing from the code was 1, so there was no one: get it? get it? ha!). McClane and his new mexican girlfriend sail with the boat in the way to paradise, with a ten-year-old monster fishing behind them.

A nice detective story. Classic development and story, solid, believeable although typical characters... The story's not predictable, however. At least I couldn't work out the final twist. The filmmaking is good, because Clint's as good a director as he's an actor. So, it's a great movie if you want a hour and a half of a well crafted piece of cake to enjoy. And only if you have a special thing for the genre, and I do.

In the board there were some guys pointing out a couple of plot holes. I disagree with them. 1) They never said it was a piercing earring, so "Buddy" didn't have to pierce his ear to use it. Of course it may sound kind of tricky, but hey, it's possible, isn't it? 2) The Good Samaritan's face wasn't seen in the tape, and the shop didn't have why to have a second camera, so what's the big deal? There was no way they could sort something out with just the tape.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Robert Redford has helped cinema by creating the Sundance festival and supporting talented filmmakers. I strongly encourage anyone telling him that he's already done enough.

The movie's argument deals with the internal dilemma of an ex-golfer and war coward who has "lost his swing", both in golf and in life, and who is helped by a misterious black caddy named Bagger Vance who gives him a strong piece on advice on how to grab a club, both literally and metaforically speaking again.

The metaphore in the movie is poor and reiterative. The funny touches are really un-funny and so "I've seen these a million times". In fact, I've seen absolutely everything in this movie a million times before, and better done. Add to that a conventional storytelling and about one hundred "unbelieveable swing-- everyone stares, the crowd yells, John Williams-like music sounds while Matt Damon smiles stupidly" scenes.

And about Matt Damon. He's not really that hell of an actor. I strongly think he's overrated, although he's not bad. Will Smith is not an actor. And Charlize Theron, although she's good, can't hold a movie by herself. Although if you have to find a reason to see this movie, it must be Theron's body. Don't waste 120 minutes of your time, please.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Brian de Palma's gangster movies are much better (much more emotional, perhaps) than his regular thrillers, with the possible exception of "Carrie". And although his best piece of work on the subject is "The untouchables", this one is worth a look.

It features the journey of Carlito Brigante, an ex-con trying to live a life off-crime, to the Bahamas. He runs his own pub (ironically called "Paradise") in order to get the 70.000$ he needs to hit it off to Bahamas with his ex-girlfriend Gail. Unfornately, he owes one to his lawyer Kleinfield, who ends up getting him in big trouble.

First, the bad part. The movie is the opposite of subtle. People yell their opinions about the gangster world all the time, all the shots are big and grandilocuent, even the ones that don't need to be that way, and the final shooting is completely unbelievable. But that's not necessarily bad if it doesn't bother you.

The good part features an excellent interpretation by Al Pacino and good supporting by Sean Penn and Penelope Ann Miller. There's a small and very good role played by Viggo Mortensen, wich is also one of the best scenes in the movie. De Palma movies always have very intense moments, and even when the whole package is not that satisfactory, these scenes remain in your head.

Overall a very good gangster movie by a good director and with good acting. Enjoyable as hell if you don't look for a very witty and subtle story.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL OVER IT

Ed Crane is a laconic barber who discovers that his wife is cheating on him and, indifferent to the fact, decides to take advantage from it by blackmailing her lover to get money to invest on dry cleaning. His plan goes wrong when the blackmailed man asks him for help and then, discovering that he planned it (or maybe not, it's not at all revealed)attacks him as he screams: "What kind of a man are you?". Crane kills him with a knife.

This killing scene is absolutely wonderful. Crane is driving his drunken wife to bed and he begins to remember the day he knew her. Suddenly the phone rings. It's Great Dave, the blackmailed guy, asking him to go to his office (he's already paid). Crane goes there and finds a devastated man. Great Dave punches him and begins to strangle him. Crane kills him and walks out slowly of the building. He goes back home, sits in the same position where he was when the phone rang, and continues the trail of memories with the same sentence he was using before.

The movie's full with those little, subtle and clever details that really make a Coen film. Let me say something about the Coens: they never do what you expect. Their movies are either excellent or very good (with the possible exception of "The hudsucker proxy"). But they NEVER do what you expect from them. Not only in the storylines, absolutely fresh, original and twisted as hell (during the course of "The man who wasn't there" not once did I guess what was about to happen), but also on their philmography. After filming a version of the Odyssey set in the 1930's in America and reminiscent of the Preston Sturges comedies ("Oh Brother, where art thou?") and a hillarious modern interpretation of "The big sleep" that replaces Phillip Marlowe by The Dude, a former hippie who lives trying to make the less amount of effort possible ("The big Lebowski") they come up with this. Genius stuff.

Besides this the movie has other atractives. The acting is absolutely wonderful, almost unbelieveable. We'd already seen how great Frances McDormand was in other Coen movies. Plus we got Billy Bob Thornton (who BECOMES Ed Crane), Jon Polito and Michael Badalucco. And a special mention for Tony Shualhob (or however it's spelled), the star of the great TV series "Monk": this is one hell of an actor, believe me. And the black and white photography is superb. I know there's a color version of this movie shown in the theathers in Europe, and I simply can't imagine it. This movie should be seen in black and white.

I don't recommend this movie to everyone, though. Joel and Ethan Coen're not everybody's cup of tea. Someone might complain about the very (deliberately) vague script, the very personal sense of humor or might get bored by the slow, contemplative way in wich they shoot. But if you wanna get your chances, go for this picture.

SAY NO MORE

SPOILERS ALL AROUND IT

Allen's a comic genius. That said from a man who has read at least seven times each one of his short stories books. And his early movies (specially "Bananas"), featuring the same nonsense and anarchic sense of humor, are also a great watch when you feel like laughing out loud. Of course the late Allen films, his consolidation as a filmmaker, are the also very funny but on a more mature level "Annie Hall", "Manhattan", "Crimes and misdemeanors" and "Hanna and her sisters".

Being a whole fan, then, both of the early and the mature Woody Allen, I find this picture good but not top quality. A very funny title scene with the music of "Let's misbehave", by Cole Porter, followed by sketches that have their ups and downs. The Middle Age sketch, for example, is quite boring and predictable, with little great lines. Then comes the sheep sketch, great fun but way overlong. The one with Allen as an italian (reminiscent of Antonioni's style) is eccentric and great. Then comes the one with the man who dresses as a woman, hmm not so good. The one with the giant breast has hilarious moments and features a great parody of many movies. The top quality one with the TV show and the rabbi and, finally, the human body one, a classic. "Well, at least he's jewish", says sperm-Allen before coming out of the testicles.

Watch this only if you've already enjoyed other pictures by Allen, specially the absolutely wonderful "Annie Hall". And PLEASE read the tales- you don't know what fun you're missing.

SAY NO MORE