Change Your Image
doralover
Reviews
The Cove (2009)
Great documentary, almost perfect
The Cove is one of the most powerful documentaries I have ever seen. Its power comes because the issue in hand is going on right now, as I write this, dolphins are probably being killed in Taijii. The film exposes the horrible whaling industry in Japan, and through a team of high motivated individuals who go out to the cove of Taijii, Japan where the fisherman catch the dolphins using very sadist methods and afterwards take them to a secluded area of the peninsula and kill them. The film follows a group led by Ric O'Barry as they set up to capture in film the methods the fisherman use to kill the dolphins, and continuously demonstrate the serious threat eating dolphin can have on humans and how companies, and the Japanese government, cover it up using briberies and lies. By gluing you to the screen through the use of very appropriate high paced music and x-ray shots that are normally reserved for war movies, the film will make you want to go to your government representatives and force them to stop negotiations with Japan unless they change their legislative powers, and rightfully so. I mean, how is it possible that 23000 dolphins are murdered every year and no one knows anything about it? More importantly, how does the government get away with it? These questions are answered here, and although the film might seem biased to some against the Japanese, it really tries not to be.
What makes this film great though is that it tries to understand the reason behind the slaughter. Although the Japanese are shown as the bad guys from the start of the film, Psihoyos constantly asks the question: why are they doing this? We get the economics side of the argument, the political, but more importantly the sociological. Psihoyos argues that the slaughters have become bigger than supply balancing demand; it is anti-Americanism at its most violent. Everyone has a reason to act the way they do (which is normally money), but beneath it all lies a non- conformist blind ideology that we really cannot understand. When we see this film its torture, but what Psihoyos wants the Japanese to feel is shock to see that they have turned their heads to this problem for so many years. In one of the last scenes, O'Barry stands in the middle of a crowd with revealing images, and he lets the images speak for themselves. This film can be viewed by 2 billion Westerners, but what really makes a difference is what the Japanese decide to do with the film. Hopefully this becomes a hit in Japan, as the film is a real shocker and a great documentary in general.
In the end, apart from getting its point across shockingly well, the film is also captivating and tense. It has a narrative and it keeps you fascinated throughout. You really don't believe you are watching this, and the director makes sure never to bore you with unnecessary details or long history explanations, the background can easily be inferred and he doesn't dumb us down. The film is riveting to say the least. Recommended for everyone, but not for children.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Great character study, deals with interesting theme, yet not perfect
The Hurt Locker follows a group of Bravo soldiers who deal with IED (improvised explosive devices). The film starts off with a devastating sequence in which the leader of the current unit is killed while trying to disarm a bomb, and the survivors of the unit, Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) and Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), are forced to work with the reckless, selfish and arrogant Sgt. William James Ranger (Jeremy Renner) who puts both their lives into danger every time he goes out to diffuse a bomb. Yet Ranger is still the hero, mainly because we get to see how good of a person he really is. The film is filled with tense moments, and the characters of the film know that every second they are out in Baghdad disarming bombs could easily be their last, making this movie one of the more suspenseful war movies I have ever seen.
While Renner and Mackie both give incredible and strong performances, the real hero in this film is Kathryn Bingelow. She is not out to state a political message about Iraq (like Home of the brave or Stop-loss), or even a social commentary about adaption, surprisingly it's a raw look at what life in war is really like. The violence is not explicit like in most war movies; the violence comes within each person, as they count down the hours to go home, or simply countdown to their own deaths, and put their lives in danger for each other. The film is a character study in which the quote "war is a drug" follows the characters like a shadow, showing us how these soldiers can see war as a thrilling excitement and how they can grow to hate it (like most drug addicts do). While the core of The Hurt Locker lies within its character's motivations, the hand- held camera shots and the focus correction make every second more the squad spends in the scene more daring and confusing. We mainly see through the eyes of the soldiers, but that also means that we see how they are in constant danger of death. In one scene when Ranger has to disarm a bomb in a car, both Sanborn and Eldridge get surrounded by viewers, and as we saw in the first scene, you can never tell the difference between a viewer and someone with a remote explosion device. By letting us see through their eyes, and creating chaos through camera movement and desperation, she creates a tense atmosphere which recalls hell more than Iraq. This technique gets interesting as she repeats it throughout the film and makes us realize that Ranger is putting the two lower ranked soldiers in danger, and we want to hate him but we can't. Renner gives a very charismatic and sometimes even heart-warming performance that shows how even some extremely well-hearted people get corrupted and addicted to war.
The theme of addiction to war is what makes this film unique and one of the best of its kind. Ranger is not a misfit to society (recall Born on fourth of July, or Stop-loss for that matter) who doesn't know what life is like outside war. No, on the contrary, he appreciates life outside war, but simply cannot live it. The struggle for adrenaline and those seconds or minutes when he faces death are the only ones that make sense to him anymore. Most people hate war, but he loves it. And the most unsettling part of it is that we can understand where he is coming from! We felt the tension he did when diffusing those bombs, and even if we were worried about death, we felt the need to grasp to our life as hard as we could. That is the magic about Bingelow's film, she made us appreciate life and at the same time understand why soldiers put theirs in danger to one extent or the other. This could be interpreted as anti- war message, but because of the final sequence we see that she doesn't have an agenda, she is just showing us what true life is like in war. We draw our own conclusions. It's magically terrific to understand these characters, and that's what makes it a great war movie.
So is this movie perfect or what? Unfortunately no. It's hard to believe that one simple squad consisting of three people would do all the things their squad did. It's like watching CSI: Iraq, they do everything, and that is not how war works. Also, there is a sub-plot involving a child that is never fully wrapped, we are left to conclude it ourselves, but explaining the confusion of that plot could have helped us understand Ranger more, although I think that has more to do with script than directing. Apart from that, the cinematography is top-notch, Renner is amazing and I want to see him in more films, and the music is also perfect. This film is a great war movie, and I recommend it to everyone.
mariofas.wordpress.com
A Single Man (2009)
A strong performance, yet the film falls apart in the end
There are strong performances that carry an okay film (Monster, In pursuit of happiness), strong films that carry okay performances (Iron Man, Star Trek), and a well... everything in between. What most directors seem to aim at though is a strong film with strong performances (Silence of the lambs, The departed). A single man is a film that belongs in the first category, as this film would have been a complete disappointed if Colin Firth was not in the lead role. His portrayal of a middle-aged English professor in L.A. is both shatteringly sorrowful, and sublimely tragic. He seems sad, but really does not differ from the average very much. Maybe it's because most people are kind of sad one way or another, but I think it's because Firth portrays a man who every living second has to fight his urge to explode and tell everyone to screw off, but has to comply to societal rules of behaviour. In a majestic speech he says that fear is the cause for most of our behaviour, and in this sense, George is even scared of what he can become if he lets his emotions take a hold of himself. He's scared of living in the depressed state he is in for the rest of his life, and as life seems hopeless, he decides to end his life, and we follow him for 24 hours. The concept seems fine for a movie, but it is in the ending that the film falls (I won't spoil anything). A single man is a film that will be remembered by Colin Firth's performance. Nothing else. Although the message of the film is a good one to take in and analyze, I don't know what to make of the ending. It is one of those "you're supposed to make of it whatever can apply to your life" kind of ending (haha, that is very bad phrasing, but you know what I mean), but whichever way I try to see it, it always just ends up being a very pathetic, obvious and pessimistic message. I sat down with a friend and talked for about 20 minutes on better endings for the film to send its message across, and found around 4. I can't go further without going into spoilers, but I think the ending broke the film. That being said, Tom Ford constructed a beautiful script for a directorial debut, and showed us on screen something we rarely get to see: the beautification of a male body. It has been something taboo and rarely seen until Sex and the City, but Ford not only shows us the body as a way of lust, it shows us the body as a way of connecting to another human being, and the beauty of both a physical and emotional connection. The extreme close-ups of lips, eyes and noses make us aware of the beauty in the physique of both men and women, and how that beauty can make our lives just a tad brighter (Ford uses very distinct grey and primary color lighting to explicitly and exaggeratedly show his character's emotions). Apart from the extreme close-ups as a way of incorporating into the character's mind and desires, the music is beautiful, and the way every shot is perfectly edited to the beats of the score is to envy. The film must have had a great editor, because the pacing of each scene and the non-continual editing styles are perfect and symbiotic with the music, something that should be appraised by many. I recommend watching this film if you like a really strong performance by a female or male actor, and don't care as much about the message or story of the film. The supporting roles are okay, although Julianne Moore's British accent is as fake as Pamela Anderson's breasts: obviously false and distractingly overt. It is a very sad story, and moving at points, but it's something that I had trouble remembering because it just didn't stick to me. Colin Firth should get an Oscar nomination and possibly even the Oscar. It is hard to pull what he did. And he did it perfectly.
4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile (2007)
Overrated
One of the most critically acclaimed movies of the last decade is also one of the most overrated. Even though it has great cinematography and performances, the elongated sequences are dreadful and the movie requires a change of pace to be considered the great movie that so many critics praised it was. The movie deals with two friends, Otilia (Anamaria Manrica) and Gabi (Laura Vasiliu), as they decide to have an illegal abortion in Rumania during the 1980s. Nothing goes as planned and the two girls have to take things into their own measures to gather the money to pay Mr. Bebe (Vlad Ivanov, the abortionist). The man playing Mr. Bebe is one of the most terrifying men on screen, he is subtle about his endeavours as anyone can ever wish to be, but as soon as his mask falls down we see a very evil and angry human soul, who does not care about anyone in any way possible. When he screams at Otilia at one point, the yelling penetrated me even if I had no idea what he was saying. We feel remorse for any pity we might have had of him at any point during the movie, because he is truly the personification of a self-centred arrogant man.
My main problem with the film is the pacing of it, which is also the movie's way of expressing its message. The shots are supposed to simulate real life, and the film had very extended tracking shots and long moments when nothing happens, we just see the actors. And this makes a lot of sense, and has worked in films like Elephant, and L'infant, but the lack of action in this particular film gets pretty boring. In Elephant at least the climatic scene shocks us because of its violence. Yet, by boring us, the director of 4 weeks is stating something to us. We expect something to happen, yet most of the interesting plot points happen off screen. We see the aftermath of the events, and the impact this had on the characters in the film, and realize that the actions themselves were not bad or good, it is how they took it and WHY they happened that really shook their souls. We are supposed to see the pain in their faces and realize how horrific this has been, and I perfectly well understand that, but it just got boring. The movie was very anti-climatic, and in a sense it leaves you with the sense of wanting more, of missing something by not viewing what you expect to see from a movie: the fighting, the sex scenes and the complete downfall of the person which eventually leads to maturation and evolution. I don't doubt for a second this is what the director intended: by not showing us the "climatic" scenes, he is stating a metaphor for how people in Rumania (and maybe even across the globe) have turned their back to traumatizing events, and pretended they didn't happen to just move on and go on with their life. The movie is great because it symbolizes something more: it is a movie about how we choose to forget the trauma in our lives, and yet, we never do Even if we pretend to forget what happened and not talk about it, there is still a giant white elephant in the room that changes who we are, and how we interact. By elongated long shots and tracking shots, the director is showing us life as it really is, brutal and for the most part, boring. Most people don't evolve and grow from their traumatizing events, they just pretend to forget about it, and there is a feeling of unsolved issues when they interact with people and also in us when we finish seeing the movie.
That doesn't make the movie less boring though. I can call the movie a great metaphor for condolences and worldwide neglect of violence, but in the end, that won't make the movie less boring. It may be because we are the YouTube generation and we expect the scenes to be 15 seconds long, or we expect most scenes that occur on screen to be either amusing or reveal something major of the character – and this film doesn't deliver any of that, it simply has scenes as life, because that's how life is. It's like if you followed a woman for two hours. You would get pretty bored no? Maybe not if you're a stalker, but if you're normal, probably yes. This is like the real world Rumania without editing. Of course, this is not like Russian Ark where it is just one 90 minute shot, but there are a lot of shots when nothing happens and you're just waiting. And waiting. I guess I'm not that kind of person that simply likes to watch a movie for its cinematography or acting. Maybe that means I can't concentrate as well as some people, but I like to watch stories, and stories with a lot of content for that matter.
mariofas.wordpress.com
Avatar (2009)
A review that doesn't focus that much on the graphics
So a lot has been said about the beauty of Avatar. I can't review this movie without talking about it. The movie is beautiful. It's like nothing you (or I) have ever seen before. The most stunning scenes are the night scenes in Pandora, where Jake (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana... even in a blue suit she looks stunningly beautiful... she plays Uhura in J.J. Abram's Star Strek) are exploring the forests, the glowing pink and blue lights strike your eye and transport you into a world that only a genius can imagine. When Jake flies, we fly with him, and you definitely need to see this movie in 3d as it incorporates you into the action and makes you feel like you're right there. Apart from praising James Cameron, I salute the art director and the special effects coordinator for such a magnificent job in creating Pandora, the attention to detail and computer animated action are well advanced for our time, and even if in the trailers it look like a smurfs computer game, in the movie theatre we forget all that and live in a world where humans live among the Na'vi side by side. Or can they?
Even if the movie looks like the 400 million dollars (or whatever the figure is, I searched box office guru and it's not available), all that money can't buy you a good story. And Cameron presents us a good story indeed – nothing over the top or completely innovative (he is not Tarantino), but a good standard story. The film deals with a paraplegic marine who is sent to Pandora to investigate the Na'vi and learn their ways so a big corporation can get some kind of rock that costs 20 million a kilo. Jake gets his own Avatar, and learns the ways of the Na'vi after his life gets saved by Neytiri. He works for the science department, but it is no spoiler to say that the army is also interested in this "tribe" as they pose a threat to the American capitalist enterprise. Put a marine in between two distinct ideologies, and chaos occurs. And that's what Avatar is about. Plot sound familiar? Yeah its Dances with wolves set in the space and in the year 2154. And less boring. The final 30 minutes are amazing. They are action filled and visually stunning, they provide not one but two climaxes to this story, and left me open mouthed the whole last act.
Now, because the story is not incredible, and the characters are nothing we haven't seen before (Sigourney Weaver even plays a persona from before, we saw the same character in Aliens), the story falls flat in some parts, especially towards an hour and half in, and is predictable. The dialogue is also very cliché, my favourite line is: "We are going to fight terror... with terror", and the acting is not that great. The message of the film (which is a green one) is pounded on your head a little too much, there are several lines in the story that side with being environmentally friendly and anti-capitalistic, a little too much for anyone. In the terror line many people in the audience laughed (including me) as its intention is so bluntly obvious: to be an anti-war propaganda. Now the film is not propaganda, its a metaphor for something bigger, but I can't go into it without spoiling the film.
Yet, after seeing all the flaws of the film, my question is: does that matter? Cameron is not trying to be Payne or Diablo Cody or Reitman (just to name contemporary), he is trying to astound you with his film-making abilities. This film is supposed to make you fall in love with movies again, to make you drool at the spectacles and make you want to be in Pandora. The film has a political, social, environmental, and even existential resonance, but what really matters to Cameron is that you have a good time. And to me that makes this one of the best films of the year. It managed to state a powerful message (sometimes a little too strongly) while amazing us until the very end. Yes, the film's story is not perfect, neither is the writing or pace, but it sure as hell is good, and even enough so to make this a strong contestant for the best picture Oscar. It is not a masterpiece – it is a landmark in cinema. Nothing has ever compared, and until Cameron makes his next film nothing will.
PS: People say it's our generation's Star Wars. In a technical sense, its more innovative than Star Wars was in the 70s. In a story sense, unfortunately it can't compare. Star wars was about becoming a hero, fatherhood, family and more importantly the goodness in all of us. Those themes resonate with everyone in a personal level. Darth Vader is also a villain who brought the definition of evil to a whole new level. Avatar tries to state more of a social commentary. It is a movie about the world we live in, and human's identity, but it is not Star Wars. Maybe if more time is spend dealing with the personal dilemmas of Jake in the sequels can this movie even begin to compare. But until then, Star Wars wins by a landslide.
http://mariofas.wordpress.com
Up in the Air (2009)
A great film, that resonates with both generation-X and Y
Up in the Air is a film that resonates perfectly with the current times. Not only does it involve a terminating company (a company that gets hired to fire people), and women in a position of power to put forth the stand that mentality of gender equality in the 21st century, but the main character, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) represents the rolling stone mentality of so many business people in the 21st century. When asked, on an airplane, where he lives, he responds: "right here". Ryan ultimate goal in life differs from the typical American dream of building a family in a picket fence house – he wants to be the 7th person to reach the 10 million mile mark. He does not have a family, or even the intention to do so, he just wants to life his Up in the Air and do his job wherever it takes him. His ultimate dream is to be the ultimate rolling stone, an independent man who doesn't need anyone, because companionship means you can't life by yourself. He starts a relationship with Alex (Vera Farmiga) because they both, as she puts it, are turned-on by elite status and money. Their relationship might seem superficial, but what saves it from being just that, is that they both find themselves in the other person. She is Ryan's female counterpart, and they foil each other in a very unique way, bringing the best and the worst out of each other. Yet what makes this film magnificent is Anna Kendrick (who plays Natalie, Ryan's protégée in the termination company). She is a Cornell graduate who thinks she has live figured out by 23, and presents innovative ideas to the company that seem to make sense, but don't. If Ryan represents the intrepid entrepreneur who forgets his family because of wealth, and Alex his female counterpart, then Natalie is the Generation-Y equivalent of that. She is not interested in money or wealth in the same way Ryan and Alex are, but she is interested in having it all: the American dream, and the rolling stone dream of being independent. Being a generation-Y myself I know that the American dream doesn't work, but I can also tell that the wealthy independent entrepreneur doesn't either. Where does that live us then? Up in the Air tries to answer this question, while presenting character arcs that are both surprising and emotionally resonant, The three performances deserve the Oscar nominations they are going to get, and I can say that Anna Kendrick deserves the Oscar for best supporting actress. I haven't seen Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart yet (so I don't know if Clooney deserves the Oscar for best actor), but I have seen Precious, and although Mo'nique was extraordinary, it takes a different level of actress to sublimely act with such perfection. Their characters are people who mask their true identity in elegance and class, and when the mask melts away, that's when you see the true performance value of the actors. They don't only carry the movie along, but also make it a heartfelt comedy/drama (dramedy if you will) that resonates with everyone. It is the ultimate anti-capitalist film that is not really anti-capitalist, it's just capitalist. Jason Reitman also has the ability to mix music and dialogue to make it seem as realistic as these characters can be. He delivers his signature witty and sarcastic remarks to most of the character's interactions, and if you liked Juno or Thank you for Smoking, you will definitely like this film. Yet this film resonates more with a film like Sideways because of tone and themes, and it is no wonder the director pronounced Alexander Payne as one of his influences. Jason Reitman has established himself as one of the wittiest and realistic director's working in Hollywood, and this film proves it.
What makes this film a 9/10 instead of a 10/10? Some scenes are too long and some are out of nowhere. This may be in regards to the theme of life just shaking your life around, but Reitman could have handled the timing of these scenes differently, and all of the scenes that are a little off are either in the first 20 minutes, or in the last. They seem to come out of nowhere, and more explanation to the characters actions before or after could have sufficed, but that is just my opinion. In the end, it's both an entertaining film that delivers comedy, romance and the drama we all need and speaks tons to both older and younger audiences. It is a film whose demographic is people 35+ but can talk wonders to people younger who think they have the world figured out and everything is in their hands. A great film with a magnificent cast that I recommend to everyone.
http://mariofas.wordpress.com/
Hancock (2008)
Could have been a great film
I like Will Smith's films. They are not great, but they entertaining. They are a good way to spend 2 hours if you have nothing better to do. This movie is not. The main problem with this picture is the change of tone. The movie started out with potential, a flawed character with superpower who needs to change his ways to accept his true calling. I am not going to spoil anything, but you will notice, there is one scene by the middle of the film when the tone changes dramatically. It becomes from a light comedy with action to a sort of melodramatic Greek tragedy. By the third act I had no idea what was going on. I mean, they tried to put so much in the last half of the film that the film falls apart. The "villain" is terrible. He is poorly acted and he has no motives. The climax of the film is just a train wreck. I think this film could have been 500 times better if they would have added 20 minutes of explanation and more character development. The last half of the film just did not work because there were too many things happening at once. I have a friend that liked it because he compared to Greek tragedy and mythology, and then I compared it to Superman meets a romantic soap opera and starts crying because he just does not belong there. It had a lot of potential, but it just needed to be explained more thoroughly. Charlize Theron is really hot in this film though, and Jason Bateman plays on his Arrested Development character and makes him more complex and idealistic. The special effects are great of course, but that goes without saying in a big budget Will Smith movie. Something interesting that few people have commented about is the soundtrack. It was very explicit on what it was trying to convey in some scenes, it did not sublimate with the scene, it became a part of it because of its loudness. I liked it at first, normally superhero movies have the music in the background as to build for the climax of the scene, this one didn't. It was an interesting idea, was not great because sometimes it interrupted the scene, but it was OK. In the end, this film is not worth watching. If you want to watch Will Smith watch "I am Legend" with the alternate ending, or even "I am Robot". Those films are blockbusters that want to make you watch more of it. And if you are looking for a superhero movie in which the main character is an alcoholic, then go watch "Iron Man". I gave it a 5/10 because I was generous. The first half of the film deserves a 7 and the second a 4 or even 3. In the end, it was just a movie with potential that crashed by the end. Nothing more.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Incredible film
Amazing. The best superhero movie so far. I loved Batman Begins, but this surpasses it with honors. Heath Ledger is one of the key reasons its so good. His acting as the Joker deserves an Oscar nomination, if not the statue. He makes you laugh and petrifies you at the same time. His mannerisms are incredible and Nolan shows the audience a Joker that is no joke, he is a representation of pure and utter anarchism. Bale is great as Batman, not portraying him as a hero, but as the flawed human Batman represents. Gary Oldman (one of my favorite actors since Leon) portrays perfectly Lt. James Gordon, an idealist lieutenant that believes in the goodness of Gotham city. Batman's ideals, as well as Gordons, become in danger when the Joker appears, causing chaos and desperation in a city that is starting to believe in its heroes. This factor makes the film so incredible. The film becomes about society and the greater good instead of just about Batman. Every character in the film becomes affected by evil to different degrees. No character is left untouched and no one is saved from the joker and his madness. The action is incredible and so are the special effects, and Nolan builds up to the climax with perfection. The tempo is the film is rapid and filled with adrenaline, there is not one moment in the film when action does not fill the screen, something that can ruin several films (Lee's Hulk), but because of stellar direction, makes this one work. The only problem I had with this film is Aaron Eckhart. I liked him, but I did not love him. He portrays a Harvey Dent that everyone in Gotham, loves, yet, I did not. He wasn't as charismatic as in "Thank you for smoking" or as sassy in "No reservations", he was dark and at times seemed resented and egocentric, even when he was supposed to be the White Knight, the only "pure and good" character in the film. The audience does not feel for him like for the other characters, he has a negative quality to his Dent that makes us want to stay away from him. Maybe Ryan Gosling or Hugh Jackman could have done a better job. This is not to say that he did a bad one, the role could have just been re-casted better. Apart from that, the movie is incredible and one of my favorites. It is by far the best superhero movie by date, and as a crime thriller it can be compared to "The departed" because of its constant action and suspense. The score, the makeup, the costumes and everything else work to perfection. I had REALLY REALLY high expectations for this film. It excelled them. If you have not seen it, go to the theater right now. This film is going to become a classic. (9/10)