"Evil wears a suit"

Title: Meeting Evil
Year: 2012
Genre: Crime, Drama, Thriller
Writer: Chris Fisher, Thomas Berger (based on his novel)

Runtime: 89min

Cast: Luke Wilson, Samuel L. Jackson, Leslie Bibb, Peyton List, Muse Watson, Tracie Thoms

Produc.: Louisiana Entertainment Screen Services - L.E.S.S, Motion Picture Corporation of America (MPCA), Stage 6 Films

In Meeting Evil, John (Luke Wilson) is a despondent family man who, after arriving home after being fired, is visited by a stranger named Richie (Samuel L. Jackson) who, although seems to only need help with his car, the truth is that he plans much more than that.

John comes home, depressed and unemployed, wanting to kill his sorrows in a whiskey. As soon as he sees his wife he sends the children to their room before beginning to discuss. This is one of those situations where, against an impotent husband and financial problems, she is unable to smile, instead recriminating him his inability to be functional to the cause. Man and woman discuss a little bit and then Joanie (Leslie Bibb) leaves for a walk with the kids.

Next, John hears the bell and opens the door. What he finds is a color person, dressed like him, but with a black hat, and who prompts him a hand with his car. In John remains the same side as before and he is unable to change it for the good neighbor´s face, even though, at the insistence, he decides to help. The thing is easy. He must push while the other guy tries to turn it on. John sets, then, after the car and begins to pry, but not much because he is just one guy. Despite this, the worst comes from Richie that, who knows if he is maybe waiting for rain to come to try turn it on. A little girl that looks at them from close sees how Richie has suddenly opened the bag, in addition to holding a revolver. Richie, who is also aware of her presence, decides to abort.

The picture that Richie shows to John is of the typical good citizen, polite and discreet, who knows the laws and likes to comply them, that does not interfiere with anybody and does not like to be offended. But it seems that he is easily offended. It is also the image of a man who insists once again, this time inviting him for a drink. That's the least he can do as to thank him.

Without going into too revealing details, Meeting Evil reminds movies like The Orphan (2009) or Evil Angel (1993), both concerning people of false cordiality, which were actually demons, and both also, with almost identical endings.

Unintentionally, John ends up being absorbed by the world of pure madness that inhabits his lunatic traveling companion, who committes atrocities to right and left, without his hostage finding it out or being able to do something about it. Is the difference of personalities, both ends of a same line, what gives the film its most attractiveness with, on the one side a family man scared and unsure, and unable to get rid of this nightmare, and on the other, a man who is not at all sane, who thinks the world belongs to him and that the living beings that inhabit it are just toys for his own use. All this description of characters sounds pretty nice, and could have been better exploited if it had not fallen into old formulas.

Samuel L. Jackson gives us a very well-rounded interpretation as that sort of villains one would never want to come across in a corner. However, there is not one of his criminal movements that has not been already seen. He even pronounce one of those phrases that abound in the psychopaths, which in this case says something like, "God has already done the world an evil place and all I do is clean of clogging." (I put in my own words the concept conveyed by the actor in character).

Also, like in a thousand other films, the hostage´s supposed best friend ends up being a second complication. Frank (Muse Watson) is a police lieutenant who behaves inconsistently, and who, very stubborn, blames John for a slaughter in a service station without bothering to find out if he is not maybe, actually innocent. Something similar is what happens between Joanie and police Latisha Rogers (Tracie Thoms), primarily due to a director/writer miss. In his attempt to write intelligent and non explanatory parliaments, has ended up creating an unnecessary confrontation between the two women, by not allowing Joanie clarify exactly how is her marriage like. The communication problems lead Rogers to reach to conclusions so diverted from the right that feels like hitting her, and hence that Joanie deserveldy insults her. With this, the secondary conflicts we see are very forced and without no reason to be.

Then, there is a a matter between John and a sexy ex-girlfriend or lover, Tammy (Peyton List), which is never very clear. Richie takes this matter to John's house, exposing it to Joanie at dinner, at whom also makes some suggestions about why, indeed, he chose John for his ordeal. The problem is that all this remains unfinished, and where one could think that we would see some revelation or twist, nothing happens at all. Only, that we see to increase the level of tension and anxiety in a troubled marriage, when neither party knows what to believe about the other.

Ultimately, the film ends without any novelty, where the resolution is visible and not very promising, from very early.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Criminal love"

Title: Double Indemnity
Year: 1944
Genre: Crime, Film-Noir, Thriller
Director: Billy Wilder
Writer: Billy Wilder, Raymond Chandler (writen by), James M. Cain (based on his novel)
Runtime: 107min
Cast: Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson, Porter Hall, Jean Heather, Tom Powers
Produc.: Paramount Pictures
Budget: $927.262 thousand dollars approx.

In Double Indemnity, Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) is an insurance salesman who comes across Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) when he was going by his house to see her husband, a customer of his. Soon the two begin a romance, while coming together to kill Mr. Dietrichson, make it look like an accident (Tom Powers) and keep the policy money. 

Occasionally I like to resort to the old cinema. I think that while the new Hollywood has plenty to offer, the classical period also had its own and still has it. There are stories that simply do not suffer the passing of the years, and Billy Wilder´s Double Indemnity is one of them. 

Wilder directed here a plot that starts with the end and is then told by the way of a giant flashback. But before jumping to the beginning, the responsible himself, sitting behind a desk, is already revealing us (confessing it to a recorder) how the matter ended. This is a scenario we do not know anything about, except that this man is a murderer. As the film progresses the image of Walter and the recorder will be included, from time to time, in this very short lapses, but that immediately retake the past. 

Interestingly, the first classic movie I remember seeing belonged to the same director´s filmography, on that occasion Sunset Blvd. (1950), somewhat later. It also stemmed from a crime, and also, one of the involved in it was in charge of telling us what had happened. Except that this time, the link between narrator and transgression was somewhat different. 

Thus in one and in the other, Wilder has been able to demonstrate proficiency in the narrative art, doing something that at first might sound obvious, but in reality it is not at all. Not everyone has the ability to intelligently describe the events that lead to a murder, with the audience already half-aware of the end, and that despite that, one still wants to keep watching. 

Double Indemnity parts from the plan that Phyllis and Walter built and then implement, with the illusion (¿naive, perhaps?) of committing the perfect crime. What happens is that an act of this nature involves many factors, but above all to be clear on how the assassination is wanted, in what place and in what circumstances, to come out fully clean. Walter is shown as a guy who is meticulous and who has all the chances to win, having as an ally a woman who loves him, listens to him and obeys without asking and confidently. This appears to be a real estate opportunity, with the exception that Walter is a seller, easy of words, and not an experienced criminal. It would be enough to have one single miscalculation so that everything planned goes off the deep end. 

In this foray of Wilder´s into the crime/film-noir genre, the director works with the fact that, even from outside the movie, the viewer is in the end, the only absolute witness. In addition, alongside the makers themselves, one is also witnessing the whole process of research, attending to how the executives of Pacific All Risk Insurance strive to discover what we already know. 

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"This is how the cinema began"

Title: The Artist
Year: 2011
Genre: Comedy, Romance, Drama
Director: Michel Hazanavicius
Writer: Michel Hazanavicius
Runtime: 100min
Cast: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell
Produc.: La Petite Reine, La Classe Américaine, JD Prod, France 3 Cinéma, Juror Productions, uFilm, Canal+, CinéCinéma, France Télévision, Le Tax Shelter du Gouvernement Féderal de Belgique
Budget: $15 million approx.

In The Artist we are located in the Hollywood of 1927, where George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is an acclaimed silent film actor who meets Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), a hitherto unknown young woman with whom he will share leadership on the big screen. However, when things seem to be going on track will be that suddenly emerge the talking pictures, wich threatens and then leads Valentin to failure, for, on the other hand, catapulting his partner to stardom in the new scheme of the industry.

If I was asked about, I would say that the reason why this film received such extraordinary welcome and acclaim from critics, has been the very good marketing with wich it was provided. There are, and I have no doubt, movies that are applauded by the world, and when one finally see them, ends up realizing that, or its director has had a moment of divine inspiration, or that he was neither more nor less than a genius. Now... has this been the case of Michel Hazanavicius? I think not. On the other hand, has this been the case of a very well laid out flick? I think so.

What happens to The Artist, is that without even wanting to would end up creating many detractors, for being almost completely soundless (with the exception of its soundtrack and its very brief dialogues), besides being in black and white in a society accustomed to pictures where the absence, either of one or the other, has not crossed no one´s mind.

Personally, I think the trap that so many have fallen into, has been to let themselves be amazed by something different from the daily. When we are used to seeing something in a certain way, and suddenly one day we are shows a version of that something that goes out of the rule, what can basically happen is that we are drawn and pleased with this new point of view, or by contrary, we flee away from it. To be more precise, in an era in which we are used to the sound and color movies, a picture that has allowed itself to break this code has meant for many the equivalent of something "revealing". What I mean is that for many, once they got into the argument and got adapted to its language, they have probably fallen into a somewhat romantic idea of ​​letting themselves to be carried, more by the beauty of its art and clothing, and more by the smiles, the friendliness of its characters and the score, than by the main plot.

In case this leads to any doubts, it is enough just to remember another of the candidates to the Oscar. Terrence Malick´s The Tree of Life (2011), also performed very differently than usual, would then be praised by many and rejected by others. The second group, for this movie not fitting to the to the more conventional and conservative cinematographic standard.

Following the analysis, it is singular for us to be against a film whose language is exactly the same as the Hollywood productions of the historical period being addressed.

The Artist opens with a huge theater full of people who enjoy the last minutes of a film by the legendary George Valentin, a sort of Clark Gable of the moment. To all this, the very Valentin himself awaits at the side of the stage with his pet Uggie (also a movie star) and the producer of the film, Al Zimmer (John Goodman), among others. When the function finishes and his character ends up victorious, celebrity and pet come out to set up their own show. Valentin greets his audience, the dog does his tricks and the sympathetic duo is applauded.

Later, Valentin sits smiling for fans and reporters when he meets Peppy Miller, who will soon get her ticket to the big studios after being chosen by audition. Starting from here, will begin to unfold the friendship and romance arising between them, until the crisis of silent films, quickly trampled by the sound, distance them. Valentin will be forgotten and instead, Miller will be consolidated with the new system.

The Artist, therefore, becomes a fictional drama that combines the problems between its two main characters with the historical reality that the film industry lived at the time. What happens in this way is that, although there are quite well made moments and very well musicalized, it is equally difficult to cope with the void left by the lack of sound of the spoken word, as we must be content with inter titles and with the language, purely and simply, gestural. This is why a film that was intended to pay homage to early cinema ends up failing, by bore many, because it is a language from other times applied to a story that perhaps deserved more strongly narrative.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Stressful, but masterful"

Title: Jodaeiye Nader az Simin (A Separation)

Year: 2011

Genre: Drama, Mistery

Director: Asghar Farhadi

Writer: Asghar Farhadi

Runtime: 123min

Cast: Peyman Moadi, Leila Hatami, Sareh Bayat, Shahab Hosseini, Sarina Farhadi, Merila Zare'i, Ali-Asghar Shahbazi, Babak Karimi

Produc.: Asghar Farhadi

Budget: $800 thousand dollars approx

In A Separation, after several years of marriage, Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to leave Iran with her husband and daughter, to start a new lifestyle. Moreover, Nader (Peyman Moadi) refuses to leave the country where he also lives with his father, an elderly man with Alzheimer's and who needs intensive care. Although they attend together to a courtroom, seeking a divorce, this is not granted, the reason why Simin decides to go to live with her parents. Complicated with his work, Nader is forced to hire a maid to look after his old man whle he is not in the house. It is then that one evening, when Nader returns from his working day, he finds that the old man has been tied to the bed and there are no traces of his employee. When the woman returns, will be that things get worse.
            Asghar Farhadi has managed with this film to make it clear that he's a genius, for building a drama,  whose excelent scripting, together with some very convincing performances and a difficult but well done work of handheld camera, succeeded in getting one completely into the dilemma and the stress of two couples.
            The story created by Farhadi for Nader and Simin is a continuous nightmare, that we already see from the opening scene, and that does not finish untill it ends the last one. The first thing that shows to us is a medium frontal shot of them, where Nader and Simin, located in separate chairs, discuss and argue with a judge about the possibility of divorcing, considering the situation that confronts them and the discrepancies that has them upset with each other. On the one hand we have Simin, who wants to leave the country right now, and on the other hand her husband, who does not want to go anywhere, and even less, with his ailing father. When the meeting with the judge finishes, they will still remain the same.
            Simin temporarily leaves with her parents, while things are not solved, forcing Nader to hire a woman to take care of his own, and is in this way that he meets Razieh (Sareh Bayat). Settled this matter, everything seemes to go fine, except that, to an oversight in her chores, the old man disappears, being Razieh fortunate enough as to find him a couple of blocks from the apartment, where he was looking in a kiosk, for the newspaper.
            Razieh then reports to Nader that some personal issues prevent her from attending to work, but that he can count on her husband, and that is how Nader and Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini) meet. Later on, Razieh is finally the one who ends up going back to doing her jobs.
            Shortly afterwards, one day Nader gets home to see his father was handcuffed to the bed and lying on the floor, and that in turn she is not present. Fortunately, the matter is just a scare, both to him and his daughter, who gets to mourn. Immediately, as soon as Nader sees his employee again (of whom now he has reasons to distrust) and under the circumstances, it also overlaps the matter of a missing money, leading him to verbally attack Razieh, and unfortunately, also going further. At the insistence of Razieh to deny the offense, Nader is taken to the extreme of pushing her through the front door, getting her to hit on the stairs, in a bad way.
            With this, Farhadi has opened us the door to a conflict that, although it but was already intense, we could equally say that it was just in diapers.
            Back in her apartment, Simin says to Nader that Razieh has accused him of beating her and now she´s in a hospital. They both go to visit her, coming upon instead with an angry husband, who claims that his wife was pregnant, and who along with Nader, then they will battle againts each other, bare-nuckled. Thus, the director has shown us the "enough" moment of the situation, at which point it is essential that justice intervenes.
            From now on, all the plot development will elapse on the basis of a stressful brawl, where one as a viewer does not have much of an idea, at first, of who is it that is right, who is to be sentenced to imprisonment or fine, or why, and where everything is very confusing. These are two families of rather unfavorable economical conditions. In the case of Razieh and Hodjat, which are those who are worse, and if Hodjat was incarcerated, he wouldn´t have a chance to go out and earn the daily bread.

Farhadi gives his characters some moments of rest, which leaves room to both, their reflection as our own, but to only go back again to the fighting, yelling, the insults and the distress. Farhadi skillfully handles when pushing to the bounderies the fighting capacilty of his characters, to be the owners of the truth, and before a judge (Babak Karimi), who regardless of their financial situations, has no option but to be completely impartial about it. He, for example, tries to use the honest and objective testimony of Nader and Simin´s daughter, as a proof for the case.

At one point, it is not even clear how things have actually occurred, with versions that seem to be changing, minute by minute. To make matters worse, it also happens that Razieh reveals that at the time when the old man escaped her, as she went looking for him she had been hit by a vehicle. So this raises questions. Did she lost her pregnancy for being run over, or was it because of Nader´s fault? Was it so violent and savage the aggression committed by Nader, or is that Razieh is lying? Did Nader knew or didn´t, about the pregnancy? As if this were not enough, we are also aware that Razieh, being a religious woman could not afford to lie in court to get away, or else she would end up fearing to be punished by the God she fervently believes in. But overall, it is possible that she needed to lie to save herself and her husband, from larger family misfortunes.

With this film, Farhadi reminds us that the most attractive arguments may be perfectly right around the corner, and that there is no need to go any further than that. Besides being, on the one hand, a very tough and complex issue that could occur to anyone, and therefore relatively easy to feel identified with its characters. Also, while the film is set in an Asian country, may well have been located in Montevideo, if one so wished it to.

My rating: 10/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"From Hergé´s hands, to Spielberg´s cameras"

Title: The Adventures of Tintin

Year: 2011

Genre: Animation, Action, Adventure

Director: Steven Spielberg

Writer: Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish (screenplay), Hergé (comic book series "The Adventures of Tintin")

Runtime: 107min

Cast: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkins, Daniel Craig, Nick Frost, Simon Pegg

Produc.: Columbia Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Amblin Entertainment, WingNut Films, The Kennedy/Marshall Company, Hemisphere Media Capital, Nickelodeon Movies

Budget: $130 million approx. 

In The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, after having himself portrayed in a craft fair, Tintin meets a salesman that offers him a model of a boat. The young journalist gets the purchase, at a price that will later come to sound overly cheap, when he finds out of the incredible adventures that this ship holds to him and the fortune to which access he could be reaching down the road. But of course, none of this process will be easy, when he must face the fearsome Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine, who plans to sabotage his plans. In this way, Tintin must rely on the help of his dog Snowy, his new friend, Captain Haddock, and of police officers Thomson and Thompson, two clumsy, but always well-meaning servants of the law, to succeed.

With The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, famous American director Steven Spielberg has finally got to work, fulfilling his dream of bringing to the screen the most recognizable cartoon character of Hergé´s work, created in 1929.

Long time had to pass before this director got busy in the film, if we consider that he already owned the rights in 1983. It is also interesting to know how it was that cartoonist and director knew about each other. On the one hand, Duel (1971) was the first film that Hergé claimed to have known from the spielbergian filmography, and in his own words, he liked it so much that from that moment he tried not to miss any other.

On the other hand, Steven Spielberg would meet the cartoonist, following his 1981 release of Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark. On one occasion, when he was looking at a French criticism, the director noted that in the text there was made constant reference to a certain Tintin, at which he decided to refer someone to translate it for him. Right away he could learn that, according to critics, the film was a clear homage to Hergé. But the funny thing was the fact that Spielberg had never heard of this guy until now. It would be so, that Steven decided to learn more about it and read the comic, which would result in his immediate fanaticism and his subsequent acquisition of the adaptation rights. Something that would even serve as a greater inspiration for this man, would be to find out that Hergé himself considered him as the ideal filmmaker to make a movie out of his character. According to the author's own statements: "If anyone can bring Tintin successfully to the screen, it is this young American film director." This was written by the cartoonist shortly before his death in 1983, when negotiations between him and Spielberg had just started.

In this way, and even after, a somewhat late start, Spielberg finally directed the shooting of the film in March of 2009, in a total of 32 days, for then cede the recorded material to the special effects experts, responsible for giving color to a work until then, only of Motion Capture. It is worth to mention that Spielberg initially wanted to adapt Tintin in a live action film, to what Peter Jackson would have to convince him that a movie with actors of flesh and blood would not do justice to the comic. Jackson's idea was that all the characters were designed based on this capture, with the exception of Snowy, whom he saw better as all-digital. So, The Adventures of Tintin would become the first animated feature film directed by Steven Spielberg.

Turning now to my own observations, I think it is important to distinguish between "animation" and "argument". After watching it, more than once I made the mistake of saying aloud: "It's Indiana Jones, but in cartoons." This statement, in the end could end up looking bad for anyone who considers himself to be a fan of the comic, as well as erroneous, considering that Tintin came long before the archaeologist, in which case it would have been correct to say: "It's Tintin, but with actors." Despite this, I must clarify that my intention was never to lower this film adaptation of our beloved character, nor underestimate the tetralogy of Dr. Jones. In contrast, what has always been indeed my intention, was to imply that this adventure, made into a movie looks remarkably similar to those experienced by the flesh and blood character, played by Harrison Ford. Thus, anyone who saw it, either being or not a comic book fan, I think, should contemplate it with the sufficient lucidity to notice the undeniable similarity between the two protagonists. Because one should accept that both, each within his universe (one, a journalist and the other, an archaeologist and history teacher), they live their adventures under the same model of circumstances, such as, always been looking for treasures, on the verge of death, being constantly persecuted and always dodging bullets, to say a few.

Beyond that, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn ends up being an entertaining film to pass the time. Yet, regarding to its animation, both, in terms of its characters and settings, it is very reminiscent of what was done in movies like Avatar (2009) or Alice in Wonderland (2010). This two, synonyms of outstanding visual quality, and where three-dimensional images were endowed with such realism that it was difficult even to believe that they were not made of real footage, but generated images.

Finally I put up what it meant to me seeing this flick. And I have no doubt I might be expressing myself as someone who has never touched a single Hergé comic and lacks of a real understanding of the true essence of his character, when I say that as I watched it, there was a time when I thought, "I already saw this before." What happens is that if one took the trouble to take away all its mysticism, it would be possible to think that what one is watching is kind of like a fifth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise, except that fully adapted to the animated format. So, if we ignored for a moment all it means the wonderful art of animation (in this case, in 3D), it all could well be reduced to: young adventurer who faces the worst dangers in search of the most hidden of the secrets and the greatest of the rewards. Seen from this perspective, The Adventures of Tintin ends up being much more about action and adrenaline, than of a good argument, which is not really a bad thing. This simply means that it´s creators intention (in this case, the director) is not to explore in the fields of human relationships, because that's not what it points to.

In short, and having said the above, in The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, whether one sees it in 2D or 3D, the entertainment is assured, and won´t be few the ones to grant Hergé the reason, concerning to Spielberg.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Four people, four walls and a lot of dialogue"

Title: Carnage

Year: 2011

Genre: Comedy, Drama

Director: Roman Polanski

Writer: Yasmina Reza (based on the play by: "Le Dieu du carnage"), Yasmina Reza, Roman Polanski (writer by)

Runtime: 80min

Cast: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly

Produc.: SBS Productions, Constantin Film Produktion, SPI Film Studio, Versátil Cinema, Zanagar Films, France 2 Cinéma, Canal+, CinéCinéma, France Télévisions, Polski Instytut Sztuki, Filmowej, Wild Bunch

Budget: $25 million approx.

One day in a park, because of a dispute between children, Zachary Cowan (Elvis Polansky) hits Ethan Longstreet (Eliot Berger) in the face with a stick, taking out two of his teeth. After the incident, Zachary's parents decide to visit Ethan´s parents to make it up as civilized adults. Except that for none of them will be easy to keep that so polite attitude.

Carnage is the title of this film, in which two eleven year olds are just an excuse for us to see their parents face each other. The hit scene is served to as a first course, after the opening credits, but is shown to us from a distance, through a static camera and in a barely chopped, open frame, from which we see the action that matters, in broad strokes.

In the next scene we get to meet the two couples (Michael and Penelope Longstreet, and Alan and Nancy Cowan) that will occupy the screen for the rest of the film, these, played by John C. Rilley, Jodie Foster and by Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet, respectively. Specifically speaking, Alan and Nancy have been those who decided to stop by the Longstreet´s place to show how civilized they are in response to the incident their son took part in.

The truth is, that I have never been a big fan of Polanski, and in fact this is only the second movie I have seen of this filmmaker, something that leaves me with very few tools at the time of reviewing his work. However, I will take the boldness to assert that, wether this man is the genius people talk about (and he probably is), I regret having to point out that I honestly could not find any trace of that talent, in the approach that he gave to this film. I think Polanski has committed a serious blunder in his vision of this movie.

The thing goes this way: In every movie we are located in terms of time and space, we are introduced to the corresponding characters and explain what the conflict is. Needless to say there is no story without a conflict. However, for this case, one will notice that is not even the conflict that matters to the director, and instead he shows us that what has fascinated him was the idea of ​​having four people stuck in the same room during the course of 80 minutes. This was the challenge that Polanski set out to solve, which ended up forcing him to find some way in which tying up four actors to work within four walls would be appealing, with a previous issue to resolve, designed only as an excuse, and whose resolution, either for better or for worse, was never of significance.

So, here the question. Once one has seen about 15 or 20 minutes of the movie, and has begun to notice that something strange is going on in terms of the space (because it seems that the visiting couple has been magnetized to the department), one could begin to worry about the enclosure of the characters being more important than the plot.

I will stop here a second to make a brief parenthesis, because I also want to be fair to Polanski. It would be wrong to say that in his work he has done "all bad" because it is not like that. With Carnage he has been able to show us an excellent ability to display certain, very interesting aspects of the human behavior, through dialogues and viewpoints that are fairly well handle, and where he gives us the possibility to find out about what humans hide from others, that, that is restricted by the social barriers of our psychology. This, thats seems very complicated, I explain it in other words: Polanski shows very accurately how people is in reallity, when they speak their minds. And I close the parenthesis.

Back to my eariler point, and for those who have had the opportunity to see The Man from Earth (2007), you will recall that it also took place almost entirely in one room, in which a group of profesors was engaged to discussing, whether or not one of them was actually an immortal human being, born in the days of cavemen. This movie referred to several moments in the history of mankind, but always to promptly focus in that one of the teachers claimed to be a lot more older than his peers. That is, that the question to be solved by the other teachers was, what is commonly called "conflict". In this case: several skeptical teachers, refusing to believe they were in the presence of Mr. John Oldman, an ancient being. And so us, viewers, would follow the film until the last minute to find out the truth about this insane or liar fellow.

Another very clear example is 12 Angry Men (1957) by Sidney Lumet. Those who have seen it, will remember that it took place 99.9% in a jury´s deliberation room, where 12 individuals were to define the fate of a boy, ruling among all if the boy would be o not, declared guilty. In this film the conflict was quite clear from the first minute, and probably no one had wondered if they would or wouldn´t leave the room, because one was too attuned to the very development of the situation, of how the opinion of each of the present was changing or showing evidence of doubt, second to second. Then it is clear that the walls surrounding this group, little mattered, rather than to know where the scene was taking place.

Then, if one jump from 12 Angry Men to Carnage, ends up understanding that little really matters if the parents of the child offender will have their kid to apologize, or how the situation be resolved. Which leads to, that after a while, the discussion regarding the children becomes terribly boring, because we know that we will not see their kids making it up, that we will not witness a scene of serious dialogue between parents and children, in which they reflect. By contrast, basically what we are going to see is two couples trying by all means to stay calm and be respectful, but at the same time feeling offended, insulted or attacked, and then responding to these verbal assaults in an increasingly worst way. But no matter how much this could continue, how deep could they come to discuss, or how much, more or less, everyone could remain calm, because they would never actually come to a "conflict resolution", as this is secondary. Polanski has taken this film to experience with certain aspects of human behavior, so that when we leave the theater, we won´t yet know what was of the aggression in the park. Instead, this director has indeed managed to show us how he was perfectly able to lead four people to the edge and make one to get drunk, another to throw up, or that a third raise his voice and shout and insult another. But as to have an argument... From that, nothing. When we leave the cinema room, what are we going to say we saw? A film about four people fighting in a living room. No more than that. Four people talking about their children's behavior, either to defend or admit their mistakes. But to then go to other issues, talk about problems in Africa, criticize each other's ways of dealing with life, and end up stressed out. Them, stressed, and us, bored.

My rating: 3/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Winter´s story, told by herself"

Title: Dolphin Tale

Year: 2011

Genre: Drama, Family

Director: Charles Martin Smith

Writer: Karen Janszen, Noam Dromi

Runtime: 113min

Cast: Nathan Gamble, Cozi Zuelhsdorff, Harry Connick Jr., Morgan Freeman, Ashley Judd, Austin Stowell, Kris Kristofferson 

Produc.: Alcon Entertainment, Arc Productions

Budget: $37 million approx.

In Dolphin Tale, Sawyer (Nathan Gamble) is a child who after meeting a bottle-nose dolphin stranded on a beach, he communicates with a team of rescuers. The team arrives on the scene and transfers it to an aquarium, where the animal must lose its tail to survive. Sawyer will soon feel more and more attuned to the dolphin and will be thereby assisting Dr. Clay Haskett (Harry Connick Jr.), along with his daughter Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff), in its care. Within a short time, Sawyer and the now named Winter, will have created a very strong bond.

Dolphin Tale could be defined as one of those cute little movies that are for the enjoyment of the whole family. In this case, while one becomes aware of the circumstances which once surrounded Winter, after the cetacean was rescued in December of 2005 off the coast of Florida.  

The film uses some characters that although never existed in real life, helped to create the drama that we see on the scene. 

The first one we know is Sawyer, a dejected boy and who in an emotional level, has not been able to cope in the best of ways, either with his mother and in terms of his studies. So we are facing a worrying child and which is in need of something that excites him. This "something" will come up just when one morning, a fisherman (Richard Libertini) sees Sawyer from the beach (where they are man and dolphin) and asks him if by any chance hasn´t he got a cell phone to call for help. Sawyer, who does have one, inmmediately goes down to help him and soon releases the dolphin from the crab trap. Not much later, rescuers arrive at the scene and she is taken to there facilities. Then, when the action has moved from a first, secondary location, to the most relevant place of the plot, all ingredients have begun to combine for us to enjoy a story, mostly intended to reach the smaller public.

So Sawyer is curious to know what became of the dolphin, which leads him to venture to a part of the aquarium that is restricted to the public. This is when we meet Rufus, a pelican who lives in the aquarium and that is in charge of putting a certain amount of humor to the narrative.

Then Sawyer meets Hazel, with whom he will share many moments and who will be his best friend (except for Winter, of course) throughout the movie. As expected, Sawyer manages to please Hazel´s father, who allows him to collaborate with Winter. Thus the link between Sawyer and the staff of the aquarium and marine life becomes very narrow, except that Sawyer tries to keep it hidden from his mother, who eventually ends up knowing and giving in.

In Dolphin Tale its director cares not to serve us all the information in a row, showing us some very general aspects of Kyle´s (Austin Stowell) going and coming back from war. Kyle, Sawyer´s cousin and a figure who the kid admires, has to go to fight, in spite of the anguish this causes to Sawyer, to later come back wounded, to occupy a wheelchair.

The rest of the film is developed with a Winter who has had her tail amputee for her own health. It is now that Sawyer uses the collaboration of Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Morgan Freeman) -who he knows through his crippled cousin-, an expert in the development of prosthetic limbs. Sawyer presents him his friend´s case, to what the man says he will see what he can do, but making no promises about it. Obviously, Cameron will be able to give much more than he had thought. Us, on the other hand, will discover how it is given the relationship between the kid and the dolphin, while Cameron dedicates himself to getting Winter´s new tail, and up to the moment of the truth, where we learn whether it was or not worth the waiting.

Furthermore, Dolphin Tale covers important issues such as the meaning of friendship or of the personal effort to achieve what we want, and that never hurts to translate into the language of cinema.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí