10/14/2013

"Looking too high, they ended up falling deep down"

Title: The Bling Ring 
Year: 2013 
Genre: Crime, Drama 
Director: Sofia Coppola
Writer: Sofia Coppola (writen by), Nancy Jo Sales (based on her article "the suspects wore Louboutines") Runtime: 90min 
Cast: Katie Chang, Israel Broussard, Emma Watson, Claire Julien, Taissa Farmiga, Georgia Rock, Leslie Mann 
Produc.: American Zoetrope, NALA Films, Pathé Distribution, StudioCanal, TOBIS Film, Film Tohokushinsha 
Budget: $15 million approx. 

We turn on the TV, and zapping leads us to a channel dedicated to celebrities. Stopping in it, a celebrity being photographed makes us wonder: what would it feel to be in its shoes? 
There are those who, at this moment, are in full space mission with the Curiosity sending information from Martian ground. Meanwhile, for most of us the idea of going to Los Angeles and getting to know how stars live, is as far as the red planet itself. 
But not everyone in LA is a celebrity, and there are, in fact, citizens who have never known what that feels like. And there were once five kids, that being outside of that setting, so much they became obsessed with the glamour seen in magazines that they wanted to be part of it anyway. This would take them to locate their addresses and to verify that they were not at home, to go to steal them. This quintet became known as The Bling Ring
Making of this a movie was an occurrence of Sofia Coppola, inspired by an article of the Variety magazine. This was called "the suspect wore Louboutines” and was written by journalist Nancy Jo Sales. It´s topic would so much call, the director´s attention, so much therefore the attention of the director that she immediately would want to secure the rights. As Coppola then would explain, she thought the concept was fascinating and that said a lot about the current culture, which is undeniable. However, her approach, put into images would be so misguided, that would end up boring. 
Marc (name changed for the film) is a shy teenager, who after joining the Indian Hill High School meets Rebecca, a girl obsessed with fame. 
During a party at Rebecca´s, Marc looks stunned as her friend finds unlocked cars, from which she takes money and credit cards. Then Marc makes the mistake of mentioning a wealthy acquaintance of him, who is traveling, and to whose house they go right away, so that Rebecca can steal a Porsche. Counting now, illegally, with new means of payment, they go shopping to acquire the luxurious garments they have always loved in magazines. Rebecca, very self-confident, the one who takes the lead, while Marc, although surprised, follows hers steps. 
Later, the duo and three girls (Nicki, Sam and Chloe) see Kirsten Dunst and Paris Hilton in a nightclub, celebrities whose addresses they look for, in addition with the right moment to go and steal them. With the group of offenders, now assembled before us, invading other people´s property becomes even more exciting. 
Undoubtedly, Sofia Coppola reflects the superficial and materialistic side of a society that values too much, the inside a wallet, compared to a person´s inside. 
Despite this, if one is not passionate about fashion, or curious to know what a millionaire’s place is like, having, scene after scene, guys trying on others peoples clothes and checking out fashion magazines, could become soporific. Having the director included their motivations to inflict the law; her film would have had much more sense. But she just tells this aspect around Marc, a guy with low self-esteem and just recently popular, when he gets arrested. Here is where it comes to play the unfortunate role of social networks, with Marc, who in Facebook sees himself full with friendship invitations, from hundreds of morbid fans. Regarding the derivations of these crimes, although we are told of the price these guys will have to pay, the instance of the judgment is almost entirely skipped through. 
We cannot even say that, on another level , The Bling Ring was more about intrigue, on complex and well planned theft (as in bank robbery movies), and that made it more entertaining. 
To make matters worse, we see Emma Watson giving a misstep in her career, and who after more than acceptable Harry Potter saga, has become part of this boredom. 

My rating: 1/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

10/02/2013

"For some, what matters is what´s inside"

Title: Corazon de León 
Year: 2013 
Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance 
Director: Marcos Carnevale 
Writer: Betiana Blum (idea), Marcos Carnevale (idea and screenplay) 
Runtime: 94min 
Cast: Julieta Díaz, Guillermo Francella, Mauricio Dayub, Jorgelina Aruzzi, Nicolás Francella, Nora Cárpena
Product.: Argentina Sono Film Telefé 
Budget: $2 million approx. 

Many times we see a film that reminds us of another, and this was for me the case of Marcos Carnevale´s Corazón de León. In it, Ivana (Julieta Diaz) is a beautiful woman of normal height, who meets León (Guillermo Francella), a 4' 5" tall, of whom few would have imagined such a conquest. 
By the way, the other movie I remembered was Shallow Hal (2001), of the Farrelly brothers, where Hal (Jack Black), a superficial guy, begins to see people´s inner beauty, after being hypnotized. The paths taken in each case are certainly different, although it is understood that they share the same message. 
The biggest difference between these two comedies is that Carnevale´s is more serious and intelligent. Not that we could ask too much of the Farrelly, considering to be the same from Dumb and Dumber (1994) and Me, myself and Irene (2000). Because yet, having good intentions, Shallow Hal has inconsistencies, forced jokes and improbable situations, that one manages to ignore when already knows who is behind. 
Moreover, in the Argentinean flick, Ivana falls for a León, whom no one but her, sees as normal, or worthy of her time. Similar to Mauricio´s case (Jason Alexander), in Shallow Hal, and who cannot believe his friend is dating someone who, speaking quickly and badly, looks like a whale. Because in the same way that, according to her close ones, Ivana should not go out with a midget, how could have happened to Hal, to be with an obese woman? 
Continuing on this path, Corazón de León, unlike Shallow Hal, explores, not only the importance of what lies beneath the surface, but deepens in the views of both parties. For León is no small thing, to having been able to date a woman without his problem. However, once they are seeing each other, he does not like to be introduced only as a friend. What happens is that for Ivana, this unexpected relationship has now caught her by surprise and she fears of what others might think of her. The issue, thus, becomes which of them should be more flexible and give the other a larger space, to assimilate what they are doing. The thing is that Ivana does not want her to be looked at as a freak, while León aims, not to be kept hidden. For Ivana all of this is very new, while for León discrimination is an everyday thing. 
Carnevale exposes the prejudices of a society where the physically less fortunate have to show up other attributes to offset what for them is missing, and to be taken into account. 
Carnevale makes León as someone wonderful in so many ways, that his attractiveness goes beyond his physical appearance. What, more romantically speaking could be defined as that, what he is missing in inches; he has got plenty in behavior and personality. On the other hand, shows Ivana as stressed and in need of some support that, as she gets it from her partner, no one sees him to be the right choice.
All this will lead to an ending, where she must choose between if she listens to what others say, or if she lets herself to be guided by what she wants. 

My rating: 7/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

9/12/2013

"To protect your family, first reason with them"

Title: The Purge
Year: 2013
Genre: Horror, C. Fiction. Thriller
Director: James DeMonaco
Writer: James DeMonaco
Runtime: 85min
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder, Adelaide Kane, Edwin Hodge, Rhys Wakefield, Tony Oller
Produc.: Blumhouse Productions, Platinum Dunes, Universal Internation Pictures (UI), Universal Pictures, Why Not Productions
Budget: $3 million aprox.

The year is 2022 and society has achieved something once thought impossible: to eradicate, almost completely, unemployment and violence. In The Purge, unemployment is actually not explained, while violence is the trigger for the entire plot. 
James DeMonaco imagines what a near future would be like, where the political regime (the "New Founding Fathers of America”) had the population living in peace, with isolated exceptions. Also as part of this, it has been implemented the "annual purge". Nocturnal event, that happens once a year, so that anyone who wants it, can commit their crimes freely. 
As far as I am concerned, I must congratulate the director for trying to be original, although I do not think anyone would settle for one night, to commit a crime. 
James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) is, in this movie, a father who sells security systems. The same one he has placed and now he activates, to protect his family during the purge. 
What James does not know though, is that between the foolish reasoning of his son Charlie (Max Burkholder) , and the mistaken relationships of his daughter Zoe (Adelaide Kane ), the night is about to become very chaotic. 
Starting with the boy, once the doors and windows have been blocked, and that the purge has begun, he disables the security so that a black man (Edwin Hodge) who was asking for help can come in. Based on this, I can only say that Charlie lacks of the sense of survival, for not considering the risk he was exposing his own people too. His father reactivates the system, but when they are no longer alone. 
If what DeMonaco wanted was to get the Sandin into trouble, Charlie´s action in good faith was not the answer. Better to have invented a power failure, to give the stranger a chance to get in by his own means. 
Adding more problems, Zoe has a boyfriend (Tony Oller) that goes out the window when they hear James arrive, but to reappear, armed and vengeful, with his girlfriend´s father in mind. If only he was as good shooter as his objective, perhaps he would have fared better. 
Until here, what we have is a James with complicated kids, and to whom yet, awaits another surprise. 
With the security working, one dead body, a disturbed teenager and a visitor, then appears a group of masked people in front of the house. Dangerously equipped, they express their intentions through their leader (Rhys Wakefield), who speaks from a surveillance camera. He grants the Sandin a two-hour deadline, for there man to be delivered to them. After that period, if nothing has happened they will be forced to kill them all. 
James is now aware that this has gotten out of hand. However, he also keeps in mind that it can still be fixed. 
Nevertheless, the logic in DeMonaco´s characters seems like taken straight out from a world upside down, when Charlie shows the intruder where to hide from his own parents. Or the child has got understanding issues, or he has not yet realized that the thing goes this way: or he dies, or everyone dies. 
When the Sandin finally capture the stranger and tie him up to a chair, here it is clear that Mary Sandin (Lena Headey) is not much more clever than her own son. Why, if not, she would have suddenly decided not to obey the outsiders? That, that it is not humane?, she thinks. But, what about her family´s safety? Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this Mary, I would say. 
Definitely, DeMonaco uses not very lucid characters, to carry the argument forward. And, in what could end, so much stupidity? In that the group, breaks into the house, given a, not so solid, security system. Then comes the confrontation, with blows, smashing and dead masked men, before the neighbors arrive, to also take advantage of the purge. 
The Purge ends up being about a family of such mentally retarded, that nothing of what happens to them, surprises.

My rating 3/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

7/25/2013

"Same story. Different Aggressor"

Title: Even the rain 
Year: 2010 
Genre: Drama, Historical 
Director: Icíar Bollaín 
Writer: Paul Laverty 
Runtime: 103min 
Cast: Luis Tosar, Gael García Bernal, Juan Carlos Aduviri, Karra Elejalde, Raúl Arévalo, Carlos Santos, Cassandra Ciangherotti, Milena Soliz, Daniel Currás, Vicente Romero 
Produc.: AXN, Alebrije Cine y Video, Canal+ España, Canal+, Consellería de Cultura e Turismo, Eurimages, Haut et Court, Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), Instituto de la Cinematografía y de las Artes Audiovisuales (ICAA), Londra Films P&D, Mandarin Films, Morena Films, Natixis Coficiné, También la lluvia, Televisión Española (TVE), Vaca Films 
Budget: €5 million aprox. 

In Even the rain, Costa (Luis Tosar) and Sebastián (Gael García Bernal) are a producer and a director, who take the shooting of a historical film to the chaotic city of Cochabamba. 
Costa and Sebastian, just about to begin a casting process, find that the attendance has been excessive. Costa then suggests to the director to do a preselection right there, and those who are not selected will be sent back to their homes. Sebastián goes, in this way, discarding candidates, until he meets Daniel (Juan Carlos Aduviri), an individual who claims his right and of all those present, to be seen, as is set in the call sheet. Sebastián, in spite of what the producer thinks, decides to follow the original plan. 
Already in the next scene, producer and director see Daniel´s tape, this small but explosive subject that appeals to Sebastián, though not, to Costa, who foresees problems. Costa, however, fails to dissuade Sebastián of not choosing him as Hatuey, the taíno chief. 
The film, from here, handles an interesting parallel between the aboriginal situation, during the conquest, and the one of the current inhabitants of Cochabamba. In the late fifteenth century the inhabitants of the new continent had been violated for their gold, and today (2000) the same is happening in this town, though on a smaller scale, with the "Water War". The circumstances have now replaced the colonists with a foreign multinational, besides this not being for gold, but because of the privatization of something more important. This parallelism then comprehends the similarity between scenarios, where a race is always attacked, only changing the disputed resource. 
Columbus, at the time, had disembarked to do as he pleased, with no respect for the colonized, and now here, something similar is happening. Costa himself, in a careless and underestimating Daniel, tells in English to an investor, of the misery they are paid, as if highlighting of these people, their ignorance. Costa does not know that Daniel, who is fairly close, understands the language, although, all the same, there will be just an occasion for apologizing. 
In terms of social complaints, no one is left aside. Here there does not exist to treat certain aspects and let others out. Taking a visit from the heads of the crew, to the Bolivian president, we hear one of the best discussions of the movie. What, with this exchange, more than to make it evident, is emphasized to us, is that, even though these filmmakers want to believe that there is nothing wrong with their work, making art and telling their story, they are actually no angels neither. Costa, speaking scenes before with the investor, is a perfect reference. That would be like pointing out that there, they can take advantage of these people without too many complications. Luckily, still hearing his words, we will then see his most sincere and kind side, helping Daniel's daughter in a touching and dramatic ending. 
Something completely different is what happens with their host. This corrupt and racist politician does not plan to give in to the protesters, according to him, unable to reason, among other things, because of them being illiterate, as if that were of any excuse. 
But beyond complaints, this is a movie from the "film within a film" type. A movie that shows us how it is a movie, exactly created. Where the actor has to rehearse his lines and where the time and the shooting schedule are as valuable as the gold for the Spanish, or like the water for the Bolivians. Or where the lack of communication may result in upset actresses, as happens here, and therefore, in unfinished scenes. 
For all this, Even the rain should interest filmmakers and those preparing to become ones, for how it covers the behind the scenes, and where nothing is ever a piece of cake. 
Furthermore, I think it is a good choice for getting to know another chapter of history, if one is interested in the events of the conquest. 

My rating: 7/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

7/12/2013

"In this therapy they don´t only talk..."

Title: The Sessions
Year: 2012
Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance
Directed by Ben Lewis
Writer: Ben Lewis (written by), Mark O `Brien (from his article:" On Seeing a Sex Surrogate ")
Runtime: 95min
Cast: John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, William H. Macy, Moon Bloodgood, Annika Marks, Robin Weigert
Produc.: Fox Searchlight Pictures, Such Much Films, Rhino Films
Budget: $1 million approx.

In The Sessions, Mark (John Hawkes) is a quadriplegic, suffering from polio, who decides to hire the services of a sexual surrogate to stop being a virgin. 
Ben Lewis wrote and directed this adaptation of the essay "On Seeing a Sex Surrogate" of the actual Mark O `Brien, to be captivated by the described experience, after he had survived the disease himself. 
When, as a child, he contracted polio, the life expectancy he was given was of a few months. 38 years later Mark had, however, overcome the odds. 
Mark O’Brien, described in the film as sympathetic and optimistic, had managed to be a poet and a journalist, despite being paralyzed from the neck down. Unlike what many might think, even depending on a caretaker and an iron lung, he was not of the idea of killing himself. 
One day, in which he and Amanda (Annika Marks), his new caretaker, went together to a store, right there he asked her to marry him, proposal that she rejected. Although he dared to ask, he already knew that no one took a quadriplegic as a partner, and, in the same way, no one would sleep with one. Aware of this, of his condition, and of that his days were probably numbered, Mark thought that at least he would like to lose his virginity. Now aware of the existence of sexual surrogates, what remained for him to solve was the moral issue. 
Born into a Catholic family, Mark believed in the word of God, according to which, having sex prior to marriage was a sin. Still, given his condition, he did not see that anyone would love him as a husband. Then, if he wanted to do it, he would first have to talk to someone qualified in this area. In that way he will meet Father Brendan (William H. Macy). 
As pointed out by the movie, Mark was known to have an attitude and a sense of humor, perhaps, not expected in someone dependent on an iron lung. A man to whom Amanda herself, would come to tell him how much she loved him, and how much he made her laugh, because those were the feelings he aroused in people. Or also, capable of making Susan (Robin Weigert), a hospital volunteer, fall in love with him, when he thought that, from his position, he was not a possible candidate. 
As the title suggests, we see the sessions that take place between Mark and his therapist Cheryl (Helen Hunt), which is why there is, indeed, a minimum of eroticism, but rather suggested than anything else. In fact, unlike the truly erotic or pornographic cinema, the director here seeks only to show us the perspective of the disabled person. 
However, the director neither misses the opportunity to subtly criticize the church. So, premarital sex is a sin? says Lewis. Okay, but what about those who, for reasons of force majeure, will never be able to get marry? Will God then deny to them, the possibility of sex? 
Although it is a drama, every time Mark talks with one of the other characters, it can be seen a tone of comedy. One of the best examples is when Mark asks Brendan for approval on using a surrogate. I think it is inevitable to see as funny this indecisive Brendan that makes a pause, looks at the parish´s cross and then responds that, God will have to grant him a free pass. 
Then when Mark begins with his weekly sexual activity, every appointment with Cheryl goes on to become a new story, and with luxury of details to tell Brendan, and it is funny to hear him talking about their most private moments. 
Ben Lewis clearly seeks to separate religion from sex, with a Mark eager to sleep with a woman, and whose wishes have nothing to do with any deity. Beliefs or no beliefs involved, what he wants is to enjoy a unique enjoyment, which can only be done by two people. It would be sad to think that the only way to access it, without offending the one on top and not being married, would be to be, as Mark, a complicated case. 

My rating: 7/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

5/07/2013

"Family is always first"

Title: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D
Year: 2013 
Genre: Horror, Thriller 
Director: John Luessenhop 
Writer: Adam Marcus, Debra Sullivan and Kristen Elms (written by), Stephen Susco, Adam Marcus and Debra Sullivan (story) 
Runtime: 92min 
Cast: Alexandra Daddario, Dan Yeager, Trey Songz, Scott Eastwood, Tania Raymonde, Keram Malicki-Sanchez, Shaun Sipos, James MacDonald, Thom Barry, Paul Rae, David Born 
Produc.: Leatherface Productions, Lionsgate, Mainline Pictures, Millennium Films, Nu Image Films, Twisted Chainsaw Pictures 
Budget: $ 20 million approx. 

In Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D, Heather (Alexandra Daddario) is a young woman who travels with her friends to receive an inheritance. What will allow her to know her past, while facing a masked man with a chainsaw. 
Long before the world of entertainment delighted us with Saw (2004), Hostel (2005), or Final Destination (2000), the grave robber Ed Gein had already inspired a Tobe Hooper, who in his native Austin would direct a gruesome film about cannibals. 
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre would become an early example of how a trip on a van could go bad. Its scenes of dismemberment, plus the figure of Leatherface would cause sensation. 
After very good results, the man-eaters would appear another five more times. In all of them, on the other hand, keeping the concept of the kids who, for one reason or another, were captured by these madmen. 
As for opinions, none of the sequels would get the reception of the original, to the point that, for example, the fourth Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) would be shattered.
As for me, I would be lying if I said that I did not enjoy them all, and that none of them I found, like others, to be a waste. Only now, with the most recent one, is that its argument has not been to my liking. 
Seven years after his last appearance, to continue to get a profit out of Leatherface would change the rules of the game. The events now, would happened in the new century, it would be used the third dimension, and for the first time there would be a blood link between the murderer and a victim, which I intend to address here. Of the 3D, on the other hand, I will not speak, having seen the movie in its home format and without this possibility.
Archive footage from the seventies success is what opens this chapter, to explain the reason for what follows. 
A group of angry Texans opens fire against the Sawyers, for then burning them alive in a fire. Paying good attention one should notice that this does not belong to what was shot by Hooper, but to a rather much more recent material. 
Ended the attack and with the place burn to its ashes, Gavin Miller (David Born) is who finds the  smallest one of the Sawyers. A baby girl, that he grabs from her dying mother´s arms, to keep her and raise her with his wife. 
Sometime later, Heather is with his boyfriend Ryan (Trey Songz) when the bell rings. Soon after, she argues with her parents, when she learns that she is adopted. This, after knowing that a grandmother of hers, of whose existence she did not even know about, has just died and left her an inheritance. In this way, from her past there are things that she does not know, and perhaps going with her boyfriend and friends, to see the house, she finds about it. 
For having lasted, with its sequels, nearly four decades, it is understood that the new screenwriters wanted to bring something different. However, both in the small details and globally, the image they end up giving to us, is of very unserious writers. If not, how do they justify that a girl let at his place and by himself, a complete stranger? Or that, wandering around the place she finds her dead grandmother in a chair. Could they contact her, but not, bury the old woman, having she got a private cemetery? 
Unlike the other installments, the space devoted to the death of the youngsters is very small, showing that their roles are secondary. 
Burt Hartman (present, the day of the fire) discovers that apart from the grandmother, also still lives Leatherface, who survived. 
The following reveals a major spoiler that many may prefer not to read.
Hartman and Sheriff Hooper (Thom Barry) discuss in an office, while in another room of the headquarters, Heather investigates archived data. There she discovers her real family and what happened to them. The thing is that that masked boy is actually her cousin, and from one moment to another she understands to have lived in a delusion. 
Heather, however, could not have foreseen that Hartman was to project on her that hatred felt toward her family, as to want to kill her. For his psychotic purpose (which includes both cousins), is his son Carl (Scott Eastwood), the commissioner, who helps him. 
In a twisted ending, where the roles of good and bad are exchanged, Heather and Leatherface end up protecting each other of an unscrupulous Hartman. 
Then, once in the house, both try to respect each other’s spaces. It seems like if Heather had forgotten the murders he committed, and instead prefer, from now on, to let his relative alone. 
All that, once had meant The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is lost in a movie that forgets the essence of this saga, to become a story of revenge, and feelings of understanding and belonging, by a character horribly built. Otherwise, it never should have ended with that shot, where both seem to come to an agreement of coexistence. 

My rating: 2/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

4/09/2013

"U.S horror, with uruguayan raw material"

Title: Evil Dead 
Year: 2013 
Genre: Horror 
Director: Fede Alvarez 
Writer: Fede Alvarez, Diablo Cody and Rodo Sayagues (written by), Sam Raimi (1981 screenplay) Runtime: 91min 
Cast: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore, Phoenix Connolly 
Produc.: FilmDistrict, Ghost House Pictures, TriStar Pictures 
Budget: $ 14 million approx. 

In Evil Dead, five friends who arrive at a cabin to intervene a young drug addict, end up becoming victims to a demon with macabre plans.
1981 was for Sam Raimi, a very good year. Having made several short films with friends, he had formed Reinassance Pictures with Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert, with whom he would make a picture based on his short movie Within the Woods (1978). Without much money, but with creativity, they would release what would be a success, both in audiences and critics, and then that story would be extended into two more installments. Evil Dead would thus become a cult movie. 
Some time later, with the wave of remakes was born the rumor of a new version. Bad news for the fans, who would claim that their film was not touched. 
And here is where I appear to take advantage of my "non fanaticism" and describe it for what it really was. In fact, far from an "unbeatable product", but yes, very well conceibed, for the time and the little money. Raimi himself would say, how he would like to see the classic remade with the new tools. 
Switching to uruguayan ground, nobody would have imagined that after Drexler, another fellow were to draw the american´s attention. This time, not to be awarded, but for something much better: to surprise in Hollywood, with a video clip, get a multimillion dollar contract and get the chance to direct a remake that caused controversy. 
But Álvarez would not only have the opportunity of a lifetime. According to his statements, the now director of Spiderman (2002) had placed in him his confidence, also as a writer, along with two partners. 
With the production having been completed, then it would reach the movie theatres, with a very good reception from the public in general. 
For my part, I would say that, technically speaking, this version surpasses its predecessor, but otherwise, I was disappointed. 
Unlike the original, now there is an argument that it is more solid. It is not about going to a cabin to have fun, but there is a much more serious reason: to save Mia (Jane Levy) from drugs. To which her brother and friends force her to get rid of her pills, after which Mia begins to suffer withdrawal. 
Right away, they find in the basement an ancient book. Then Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) is set to read it, in a language that is alien to him, and unwittingly summons a demon of bad temper. In a moment of desperation Mia escapes in the car, has an accident and is possessed, kicking off the nightmare. 
As I said before, this remake is a luxury of effects, but wich do not save it from getting stucked in only that. With correct interpretations, what we have is a feast of screams, deaths and amputations, for the lovers of the morbid, and where, one by one, the youths begin to fall, but without being, nothing else, to consider noteworthy. 
Álvarez, who plays with characters, who at first do not distinguish between a demon and altered girl, makes it clear that he has got no more surprises left. The film is faithful to the task of disgust, but sins for being square in everything else. That is how it became impossible to me, no to think: "this, I have already seen it before.". I think that, with more suspense and showing less, it would have been more effective at the momento of achieving what whith me, it could not: to scare me. 
Given that the screenplay does not stands out from the conventional horror, the film entertains, but like so many others have already done it. 
I got very much excited when I heard of its first repercussions, whereas now I wonder if a US director would not have done the same and with the same quality. 
Despite the above, and because it is a filmmaker, born in my country, I wish him all the success in the world. 

My rating: 6/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

3/28/2013

"He loved his family. She, her divinity"

Title: Prayers for Bobby
Year: 2009
Genre: Drama, Biography
Director: Russell Mulcahy
Writer: Katie Ford (teleplay), Leroy Aarons (book)
Runtime: 90min
Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Henry Czenry, Ryan Kelley, Austin Nichols, Carly Schroeder, Shannon Eagen, Scott Bailey, Dan Butler, Susan Ruttan
Produc.: Daniel Sladek Entertainment, Once Upon a Time Films, Permut Presentations

Inspired by true events, Prayers for Bobby tells us how Mary Griffith (Sigourney Weaver), a religious fundamentalist who refuses to accept her gay son, ends up leading young Bobby (Ryan Kelley) to suicide. 
I saw this drama long ago, when I yet, did not have the blog, and given that now I have the movie in my video library, it occurred to me to watch it again, to refresh my memory to comment it. 
Prayers for Bobby starts at one, with the most dramatic moment of the film. Bobby, in his 20´s and with so much ahead, decides that it is no longer worth living, if by being a homosexual he does not deserve to be accepted, neither by God nor by his mother. Bobby throws himself from a bridge, to be runned over and die instantly. 
The unexpected event has obviously got a strong impact on those who loved him, but not to all, in the same way. Precisely as his mother has difficulties separating this matter from her religious belief, she is not capable of dealing with the fear that Bobby might not be accepted in heaven.
The film is not just about the conflict between a mother and her child, but rather is the starting point, for Russell Mulcahy to denounce the social problem of discrimination. 
By the way, I think it important to clarify that I am not opposed to the freedom of belief, and that believeing is a choice as any other. However, I do consider that, with or without gods, it is essential for one to be able to reason for itself, which is exactly what Mary does not do. 
So devoted is Mary that she lets herself to be guided, in every way, by her faith. She keeps reciting biblical passages and measures people, judging them by her dogma. Suddenly the younger son of hers turns out to be gay, which is contrary to all that, for her, is good and pure, and therefore a sin, so Mary feels that Bobby has strayed from the right path. Her religious fanaticism prevents her from trying to understand him and respect him for what he is, and acts like someone who only wants what she believes to be good at God´s eyes. 
On the other hand, with the secret having being revealed, Bobby Griffith is anything but supported. Instead of understanding, he finds himself with a mother for whom his homosexuality is unthinkable and awuful. A unacceptable offense to the divine plan, which has to be erased, and never accepted. Neither his father is of big help for his poor ability to communicate and for being unable to stop a woman who is solving the issue in a bad manner. It is only then, months after Bobby's death, that Mary finds answers, but when the situation is already irreversible. 
Russell Mulcahy criticizes here the church, but properly, always taking the trouble of showing us its nuances. He also seeks for us to know that, despite its faults, catholicism has also got values. 
Mary, for example, goes to Portland, where she meets Reverend Whitsell (Dan Butler), who tells her of not taking so literally, what says in the Bible. Whitsell explains her that its possible interpretations may vary according to the times, the social groups and according to each person, although most importantly, he gives her to understand that for God, a mother should love her children without conditions. 
Despite this, there is also an extreme negative side. In the mass celebrated in Bobby´s honor we hear Reverend Owens speaking, and who really leaves much to be desired. The incredible thing is that this man has got the courage to say the the kid has been tempted to then sin, when the only sinner here had been his mother, for not supporting him. No one, when Bobby lived, had bothered to ask him if he had chosen his orientation, while, in the same way, now he is so easily accussed of impure. His death is, of course, a terrible loss. But Bobby died a sinner: first, for being gay, and secondly, for taking his life. 
In any case, Prayers for Bobby aims, above all, to expose the flaws of catholicism, being discrimination against homosexuals, only one of the important topics. 
Mary, in her fanaticism, is incapable of reasoning, and she has chosen to understand to the letter the biblical texts, regardless of its consequences. And one thing, in religious terms, is to convey certain values and form thinking minds, while another very different is to shape fundamentalists, who do not even questioned those teachings. 
In the end, I think, no matter what religion one answered to, our religious beliefs should never overlap the acceptance of our loved ones. 

My rating: 8/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

3/04/2013

"An unhealthy, change of look"

Title: La Moustache (The Mustache)
Year: 2005
Genre: Drama, Mistery
Writer: Jèrôme Beaujour, Emmanuel Carrère (novel), Emmanuel Carrère (written by)
Runtime: 87min
Cast: Vincent Lindon, Emmanuelle Devos, Mathieu Amalric, Macha Polikarpova, Hippolyte Girardot, Cylia Malki, Fantine Camus
Produc.: Les Films de Tournelles, Pathé Renn Productions, France 3 Cinéma, Centre National de la Cinématographie (CNC), Cofimage 16, Uni Etoile 2, Région lle-de-France, Procirep, Canal+, Fondation GAN pour le Cinéma, TPS Star

In The Mustache, sitting in the tub, Marc (Vincent Lindon) asks his wife (Emmanuelle Devos) what does she thinks of him shaving his mustache, which he has been using for quite long. 
Emmanuel Carrère, director of this film, makes us clear his intention of not extending too long on presentations, and goes straight to the point. So then we hear, straight away Marc´s voice, who from the tub consults his wife on a possible change of look. Agnès, meanwhile, replies him only vaguely, not giving him a yes or a no, and going on errands. Then, Marc decides to give it a try.
Agnès comes back later, for her husband to have fun in silence. When putting on his shoes he prevents Agnès to see the change, and after her shower, Marc holds the towel up, leaving part of his face hidden. They stop in front of the mirror, where Marc waits to see his wife´s gesuture, when she notices what he has done, but that, that does not happen. Nor does she say anything in the elevator or in the car, when that night they go to the house of their friends, Serge (Mathieu Amalric) and Nadia (Macha Polikarpova), who also, do not say anything. 
The worst, however, is yet to come. Because Marc vents on his wife the anger that he has been building up, until, in bed, Agnes is forced to call her friends. Late at night she receives from them the confirmation that, for the last fifteen years, Marc has never had a mustache. 
But the string of unreal situations does not end there. Marc coworkers also do not notice his shaved, although they realize when he smoks again. As if the madness only revolved around his facial hair. 
Marc takes new pictures of himself and then asks a stranger to have a look a them, along with the one on his ID. The woman immediately points out what looks different, so now Marc understands even less, what is happens. 
Following this, what could be better than to look up for the pictures of his trip to Bali, as an evidence of his sanity. Seeing his album he is relevied to confirm that he is sane. Nonetheless, at the moment of showing them to Agnès she pays him little attention, and I would like to know why, but really, WHY?, he did not insist. If this was the way of keeping us the mystery, I am sorry to say it, but it was not good. Because letting Agnès see that evidence, was something so obvious that it makes no sense otherwise. 
Still, the dilemma of the mustache becomes one out of several. After hearing his father's message on the answering machine, Agnès tells him that, that is not possible, because his father is dead. Marc also mentions Serge and Nadia, so that Agnès ensures him that she does not know them. Marc goes so far as to call to his parent´s place, to what, in fact, the line appears unavailable. At this point he seems to be living an episode of the Twilight Zone. 
Desperate and feeling he has lost track of reality, Marc escapes of the apartment before Agnès hospitalizes him, and arrives in taxis, to the airport, to leave, without luggage, to Hong Kong. 
Marc arrives at hongkonese land to make this city his therapist, and looking to forget about so much nonsense. He settles in a hotel and starts a new routine, which Carrère describes, for several minutes, until getting us bored. He has left unfinished his "long fantasic episode," from the Rod Serling´s kind, to make one wonder, where was it left what we were seeing? 
With China substituting France, the whole mystery of the mustache, Marc´s father and his friends is cast to one side, remaning in a sort of disconcerting stand by. The Mustache undergoes a change of course that leaves us waiting for a nonexistent revealing fact, when, at most, Marc leaves again the mustache and the beard.
Watching him in his days of tourists made me want to accelerate the scenes. Until one day he comes to the hotel, to find his wife in bed, reading, as if nothing. As if he had left on good terms.
At night they get together with a couple, which they, supposedly met on that trip. With them they see pictures of the four, in a digital camera, and in whose snapshots Marc notices as indisputable, the presence of his troubled mustache. However he is convinced he has never met these people, prior to that output, and not to mention that in his memory he has no records of those pictures in which he smiles.
Carrère, in this way, keeps on adding mysteries, regarding what has been lived or not lived by Marc, being married. Not making any attempt to clarify anything and without even giving us clues, his movies finishes as it began, allowing us to interpret as we wish. And to the contrary, I think the idea of the mustache, gave to much more, than such a vague closing.
If not, remember open endings, but well developed, such as in Contact (1997) or The Separation (2011), where at least one knew from which possibilities you could chose, and it was not a simple and indistinct "anything goes".

My rating: 2/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

2/15/2013

"One truck, two destinations, three passengers"

Title: Las Acacias
Year: 2011
Genre: Drama
Director: Pablo Giorgelli
Writer: Pablo Giorgelli, Salvador Roselli
Runtime: 82min
Cast: Germán de Silva, Hebe Duarte, Nayra Calle Mamani, Mónica Coca, Lili López
Prod.: AireCine, Utópica Cine, Proyecto Experience, Armonika Entertainment, Hibou Producciones, Instituto Nacional de Cine y Artes Audiovisuales (INCAA), Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), Instittuto de la Cinematografía y de las Artes Audiovisuales (ICAA), Tarea Fina, Televisón Española (TVE), Travesia Productions

In Las Acacias, Rubén (Germán de Silva) is a truck driver who is asked to carry an unknown woman (Hebe Duarte), from Asuncion to Buenos Aires, on a journey of 1500 km (932 miles). 
Some time ago, and after having heard it mentioned several times, a friend convinced me to see, as an exercise, the uruguayan film Whisky 2004. In the case of the national cinema, I had hitherto known only a few titles, because of prejudice. Something I do not expose as "the" revelation, but far from it. Just to make things clear. 
Like many people, I have also always tended to incline more towards the big industry over the local or other types of cinematography, something on which, for better or for worse, I will not expand with. So, at the time of seeing something done by my compatriots, I have never been as open as I would like, and I admit it. 
But, what's this all about? It is because I think it is sad, that a person have to deal with a movie, not as a recreational activity, but to be able to say later, that he did do the effort to see it. That he sacrificed. If we assume that with the audiovisual world in general we seek for entertainment, that the experience proved to be torturous, would make no sense, something that many fear to happen with what comes from South America or Europe. 
Personally, Las Acacias had not called my attention, until recently, another friend, after seeing it, said to me, well ... I will not say that I remember his exact words, but pretty much it had seemed to him as a "nice little minimalist film, of a man carrying a woman to Buenos Aires." The end. 
Still not quite convinced, I decided (though it cost me) to give it a try, and here is my verdict. 
The possibilities to be shot, are as many as the variety in its scenarios. Also, and believe it or not, while a director could put us on a ship, others might choose a somewhat smaller space, such as a trucks cabin, in Pablo Giorgelli´s film. There is where we see happening the relationship between Rubén and Jacinta, and from the limits of that space, we do not leave much. Is it that, good or bad? Of the talent of it´s director, I think that, that depends. 
Now ... When I say that, from there "we do not leave much," I do not mean it in a derogatory manner. There will be those who like to see large battles, as well as those who would be the supporters of something simpler, like "minimal stories", which is this case. Who said a truck driver and his passenger could not be interesting? It is just as valid as the ship or the war. 
However, I would say that, for no lucid director should be enough to have his characters in full trip, doing nothing. Because, lets see... All fine, with minimalism. But to see a guy driving, and his passenger, motionless, and stay with it, we could just film ourselves and watch it later. I mean, if we wanted to make a movie, better to have something to say and really worthwhile (either with actions, dialogues, or whatever), but, in the end, something worth to be seen. 
What happenes in Las Acacias is that Giorgelli takes minimalism to the extremes. With scenes where the image is quite limited to the shot/reverse shot, to see them, him, at the wheel, and her, watching the road, while taking care of her baby, Anahí (Nayra Street Mamani) . 
At another point Rubén plays with the girl, with his right hand, while driving with the left one, and Jacinta sleeps. Or in another scene, Jacinta teaches Rubén some Guarani. 
Along the route, driver and passenger get to know each other, though very slowly, due to a reserved Rubén. At first, neither is he capable of asking the mother for her name, or her daughter´s. Having very little conversation between them (but with a Reubén, increasingly opening) and with a few stopovers on the way, Giorgelli manages a pace that allows the film not to become eternal, thanks to a simple, but effective montage, and to the distribution that he gives to the dialogues and actions. Here is how he gets us to care about his characters and not fall asleep. As to the end, without being it a big deal, he achieves on making it touching, when they arrive to the argentinian capital. 
Yet, and despite having positive things, Las Acacias fails to convince, because the simplicity of its language is too much, and because it lacks to explore more, a bond between two people, that is so little that does not justify an almost an hour and twenty five minutes of movie. 

My rating: 4/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

2/01/2013

"Beware of what you dream. It could come true"

Title: Ruby Sparks 
Year: 2012 
Genre: Comedy, Fantastic, Romantic 
Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris 
Writer: Zoe Kazan 
Runtime: 104min 
Cast: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina, Annette Bening, Antonio Banderas, Aasif Mandvi, Steve Coogan, Elliott Gould 

In Ruby Sparks, Calvin (Paul Dano) is a successful novelist suffering from creative block, until, sleeping, he dreams of an imaginary girl (Zoe Kazan), that not only inspires him, but also suddenly comes to life. 
By no means I intend to defend the Academy Awards. Not that I pretend to say that these are good or bad, because (business or non-business) supposedly it´s members have to reward, by voting, according to the subjective likes of each of one of them, and in that, I do not see anything wrong. Then, that what this people vote, is not, in fact, the absolute truth, is another matter. 
2006 was for independent Little Miss Sunshine, a positive year. It would be Oscar-nominated in four categories, keeping the best supporting actor and best writing. 
And I repeat, that the opinion of these people should not mean anything. However, personally, I still dare to recognize when they stand out, what has been, I think, a good writing. Deserved or not, the award, Michael Arndt's sceenplay was great. Something that would not happened again with the script of his successor, Zoe Kazan, working with the same directors. 
Ruby Sparks would take a different direction. Now with a young novelist, who, not even his therapist (Elliott Gould) would manage to help him enshape his ideas. Something for which he would have to resort to the dream world. 
A girl talks to Calvin. We do not understand much of what she says, but that does not matter, because Calvin wakes up on his couch, super inspired, and runs to his typewriter (some still prefer them, to computers), where he writes full speed. 
In another session, Calvin has trouble expressing Dr. Rosenthal, that, very weird thing, that is happening to him, until he finally does it. The thing is that, who has come to enlight him is a girl who does not even exist and for whom, for worse, he is falling. Calvin is able to describe Ruby, his new character, with clarity of details, both physically, in personality, or her biography. But most important is that writing is flowing back.
Until something strange happens. 
Ruby suddenly appear at his house, speaking to him (as if it were the most normal thing), to what Calvin goes crazy. 
A couple of situations that follow, one with his brother (Chris Messina), and another, with a fan, give to understand that his Ruby is as real as it seems. Along with Harry, he makes an experiment and discovers that everything that he writes of her, materializes. Something that is great, but crazy. 
Unfortunately, this good concept is quickly shot down by Kazan, who also plays Ruby. 
Calvin is soon, no longer astonished, to accept Ruby as the girl with whom he lives. From this, what we are shown is how the bond evolves, with its good and its bad moments, turning the film, to a large degree, into a typical juvenile drama on friction couple. Everything that, within the fantasy, could have been great, is lost, and almost everything that follows is a waste. 
Ruby Sparks comes to be about the conflicts between a girl who does not seem capable of behaving properly, and her jealous and possessive boyfriend, which adapts to a new girlfriend, as is things were just normal. 
With the problems between Ruby and Calvin, coming and going, Kazan takes too long to show us what we want more, which is, how a girl who came out of a sheet, written in ink, functions. So Kazan does not give to the magical aspect, it´s actual needed space. 
The handled premise is, that Calvin, to such point, is unable to talk to Ruby, that he opts to balance her with writing. Only in the last few minutes, is he taken to the extreme of possessiveness. When the differences between them have become too many, is that he solves to tell Ruby of the most extraordinary aspects of her existence. In a final scene, where Calvin becomes aggressive (though not in a verbal or physical way) uses his typewriter to drive her crazy, forcing her to do what he wants, just by typing in it. 
In conclusion, I think Kazan could have made of the magic power of the written word, the current element to be emphasized, and the movie would have gotten better. 
I can not, however, forget to mention of the excelent fate that Kazan gives to Ruby, when, for Calvin, it has come the time to say: enough! 

My rating: 3/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

1/29/2013

"New house, new family... old resources"

Title: Paranormal Activity 4
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror
Director: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman 
Writer: Christopher B. Landon (written by), Chad Feehan (written by) and Oren Peli (characters) 
Runtime: 88min 
Cast: Kathryn Newton, Matt Shively, Katie Featherston, Allen Bradley, Aiden Lovekamp, Alexandra Lee, Stephen Dunham 
Produc.: Room 101 
Budget: $5 million approx. 

In Paranormal Activity 4, five years after the events of the second part, Katie and Hunter (now Robbie) have moved to another house. It will be their neighbors, across the street, who begin to sence a strange presence. 
The horror genre is the one that most suffers, and in an ugly way, because of the ambition of the producers.
If we thought of animation, with each new release, a viewer would hardly take the trouble of questioning it, either given their tendency to be better constructed, or because there is not so much prejudice here. 
Let us, then, go back to the other gender, and see what happens, in the same circumstances. It could be said that with this cinema, a same rule is, almost always, complied: if the first was successful, the formula has to be repeated until depleted. 
Precisely, Paranormal Activity 4 is an example of squeezing (lengthen) a franchise, until no longer made sense, but because the numbers achieved, satisfied. 
We first had Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah, and their problems with demons. 
We then had, and not to repeat, Kristi and her husband. 
Worn out the present, then the past would be resorted. And the events during Katie and Kristi´s childhood. With a very low cost of production and over 200 million in revenues, it was to expect, that this would not be the closing. 
And here, the matter. Anyone who thought that three movies would have already exhausted all the options, certainly had not imagined the plan B. 
PA 2 (2010) ended with a possessed Katie, abducting Hunter, his infant nephew, to disappear, presumably forever. On that basis we are later surprised, in PA 4, with their return, in a new house, and in Hunter´s case, with a new identity: his name, Robbie. Aunt and nephew are now no more than puppets of an evil being, and their neighbors across the street, the perfect prey. So when Katie is suddenly taken by the emergency, these neighbors will be the only ones for Robbie, with whom to stay. 
The leading role in PA 4 passes to adolescents. This time Alex (Kathryn Newton), the eldest daughter of Holly (Alexandra Lee) and Doug (Stephen Dunham), and his friend Ben (Matt Shively) are those who feel that something is wrong. It also changes, in a way, the how we see what happens, as the whole film is seen from the webcams of this family. 
When one night, Ben's computer, in automatic recording (without him knowing it), saves what it registered by his friend´s camera, soon they have material to have fun with... or be scared. Because to see Robbie get into Alex's room while she sleeps, can not be less than disturbing. 
Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp) and their visitor create a tenebrous bond, becoming the first, as strange as the second. Moreover, noises and things moving without human contact, are present in various parts of the house. As in the others, PA 4 also works a lot with the prolonged suspense, which precedes each event, but this time, without the same results. Attempts to scare us are in vain, because everything is now, very predictable. 
The idea of the relocated aunt and nephew is so contrived, that it is difficult to take it seriously. Above that, we see a child with another name, which makes no sense. 

My rating: 3/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

1/13/2013

"Born in a cabbage patch? No. But, almost.

Title: The odd life of Timothy Green
Year: 2012
Genre: Comedy, Drama, Fantasy
Ditector: Peter Hedges
Writer: Peter Hedges (written by), Ahmet Zappa (story)
Runtime: 105min
Cast: Jennifer Garner, Joel Edgerton, CJ Adams, Odeya Rush, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Rosemarie DeWitt, David Morse, M. Emmet Walsh, Lois Smith, Dianne Wiest, Ron Livingston, 
Produc.: Monsterfoot Productions, Scott Sanders Productions, Walt Disney Pictures
Budget: $25 million approx. 

In The odd life of Timothy Green, Cindy (Jennifer Garner) and Jim (Joel Edgerton) can not be parents, by their own means. Then, one night, they buried a box in their house´s garden, with written inside, all the desires they would like to see fulfilled in their own child. That same night they witness a miraculous result, in the form of small Timothy (CJ Adams).
Only as a curiosity, those who, more or less closely, follow Jennifer Garner´s filmography, may have noticed that this is the second time in five years, in which she plays a woman who can not have children. Her previous role had been in Juno (2007), as the minor character of Vanessa Loring, who waited for the baby of a teenage girl.
Jim and Cindy Green are of those couples, for whom, to be parents would be the icing on the cake. To have built the, dreamed of family.
The thing is that while for some, children come to them as easily as colds, others, such as the Greens, see the time go by without anything happening. It is then, when doctors have given up, that they go back to their home, where they muy settle with being the only ones under their roof.
On this particular night, and not having now, nothing to lose, Jim decides to play that together describe the perfect son, while they take note of each of his fictitious, enormous qualities, in some notepad´s sheets of paper. To, for a moment, fantasize, letting themselves to be carried away, and adding him, every time more attributes, to someone who is one hundred percent invented. Then, they go out in the dark to bury those qualities in a box in the garden.
Both of them are sleeping when the wind gets up, and an unusual rain is unleashed on their ground. Soon, this ceases, but having left for them a very special gift.
Someone suddenly appears in the bed, next to Jim, but disappears as quickly as it came, leaving dirty ground. Immediately, Cindy and Jim are set to find the intruder. Thus, they end up finding a boy of about ten years old, covered in mud, and who they do not know where he came from. Mystery they solve right away, when looking out a window. A hole with the little boy´s dimensions reveals in the same point where they had buried the box before.
To make the event even more surprising, the child has green leaves attached to his legs.
Chances are that, for many, this whole sequence will contain an exciting magic. With a couple that began disconsolate; who later, started to play, to forget their pain; and which ended up being touched by divine hands. And I do not doubt for that to had been Peter Hedge’s goal. Yet, I find that, although a fantastic story, it would have been interesting to tie some loose ends before continuing, to give greater strength to the events to come. Details such as, that it takes so little for the couple to convinced themselves that the child came out of the ground, and that, moreover, it is their son, do not help to that cause. Or that, when discovering that he has got leaves on his feet, they do not think he can be part of a joke, is not very credible. Anyone could think that they were very naive.
After receiving a warm bath and introducing himself as Timothy, a child who feels no fear or shame immediately calls them "dad" and "mom". Something that, neither oh the two has trouble getting used to.
Already, the next morning, the Greens make to know their new member at a meeting with family and friends, where they both assume, too soon, the role of parents, which is not believable. As if they have known Timothy forever and not for just a few hours.
From now on, mother and father will endeavor for every day to be worthy. They will try to convey their love and teachings, as if the kid were ordinary, and forgetting a greater detail: Timothy was not born in a belly.
This heaven-sent, helps the couple, not only to fulfill their desire of parenting, but that, in a very short term they can commit mistakes from that position, to learn from them. Timothy even helps them to confront their own demons, as they never before, have had the courage.
But not everything that glitters is gold. And Timothy´s green leaves also begin to wilt.
Something that is never quite convincing is, for what, exactly, is that the child comes to them. If the couple was then going to want to adopt, it would have been enough for them to be responsible and sincere adults, with no terminal illnesses, psychological or financial problems, for the procedures to succeed.
The entire film is told in a flashback, as the couple tells their story with Timothy, to Evette Onat (Shohreh Aghdashloo), the supervisor. Here, obviously, what we have is a duo that craves empathy and understanding. However, Onat proves to be a sensible veteran, with no time for jokers. She can only be convinced with facts expressing truths, not with children born between plants. They could have told her, for example, that he had been brought by the stork, and, so what? Should we understand she was supose to believe them, just by seeing their anguished faces?
At this point, Hedges ultimately choose an ending that has got holes, but that is happy and makes us smile. Let’s recall that his contract was with Disney, and the film, for adults and for kids.

My rating: 4/10


Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí