"The man who challenged Alcatraz"

Title: Escape from Alcatraz

Year: 1979

Genre: Action, Crime, Drama

Director: Don Siegel

Writer: J. Campbell Bruce (book), Richark Tuggle (screenplay)

Runtime: 112min

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Patrick McGoohan, Roberts Blossom, Jack Thibaeu, Fred Ward, Paul Benjamin, Larry Hankin, Bruce M. Fischer, Frank Ronzio, Fred Stuthman, David Cryer, Madison Arnold

Produc.: Paramount Pictures, The Malpaso Company
Budget.: $8 million approx.

In Escape from Alcatraz we are told the true story of Frank Morris (Clint Eastwood), who, along with two other prisoners, carried out, what is believed to date to be the only successful escape from this prison.

On January 20, 1960, and after having already been circulating through various jails, Morris arrived to Alcatraz. Born in 1926, Morris had begun his history background with only 13, after which he would be arrested for his criminal behavior, on successive occasions. His crimes went, from the possession of narcotics, to the armed robbery.

Don Siegel directed this film, which, bridging the gap, would end up having some similarities with the 1997 blockbuster, Titanic. Both were based on the premise that these architectural wonders (a ship and a prison) were inviolables. It was thought impossible to breach the security of Alcatraz, and Frank Morris would do it. It was believed impossible that the world's largest boat went under, and that would also happen.

Escape from Alcatraz was a dramatization, which seek to recreate everything before the feat, and the achievement itself. Siegel, very determined, not to leave aside any detail, would let us see each movement performed by the inmate. Him, as qualified to do this as to have no oversights. Indeed, with an IQ higher than normal, Morris had advantages that others did not.

Once inside, Morris would be stripped naked, neat and made aware of the regulations, before entering his cell. Later he would meet the other prisoners, some of whom, would become his friends.

At narrative level, it would be essential that Siegel described the internal panorama of the place, to make it clear that, seek freedom was only one of several reasons for wanting to leave the prison. The thing is that, far from being a quiet place, this could become hell. One of two things, could happen to you here: or that you calm down and behave properly (getting along with some, and making your stay more bearable), or that you meddle with the others or went, somehow, crazy. And if you were of the meek, and repeatedly runned into someone aggressive, you would have to watch your backs. There would be a scene in the showers, where Wolf (Bruce M. Fischer), one of the most violent ones, stopped before Morris, with a smile and an attitude, that left one wondering between, if was he a homosexual, with temperament problems, or if was he, perhaps, simply a bully.

Out of such incidents, what we would understand at once, was that, if you had been free, to be a bad boy, in Alcatraz it would not take you long to straighten, or otherwise, you would suffer the consequences. English (Paul Benjamin) or Litmus (Frank Rozio), for example, were two guys who had done wrong outside, but now they behaved with discipline, unable to move a finger, if they saw it dangerous. Another of the inmates, the veteran Doc (Roberts Blossom), killed the hours, expressing his talent in his paintings. We would not see, in this way, sleazy criminals, but a lot of frightened men, fearing the possibility of finding something even worse than the very fact of being there, by itself.

I do not know if it might have been given to creative reasons, reality or chance, but this film would not be spared from the trend of showing the prison´s director as someone of bad character. Here, the prison´s warden (Patrick McGoohan), although not precisely "the" villain, would indeed, ocassionally suggest, that from time to time, he had some personal issues with the inmates.

Returning to the main plot, Siegel would care to show us to each of those who, either in a greater or lesser extent, had come to lend Morris a hand. Within an institution of this kind, there is something that has always existed, and that is the possibility of having access to certain types of tools, as long as you knew how to negotiate them. To Morris, for example, some help would cost him all of his desserts, at meal time.

Morris, then, would be by means of patience, long hours and skilled distraction strategies, that he would manage to succeed, with his two companions, Clarence and John Anglin (Jack Tibeau and Fred Ward), to develop the perfect plan, of which he was the thinking mind.

Regarding the weaker part of the movie, I would say that Siegel made the mistake of not delving into aspects of Morris´s psychology itself. Looking back at the fictional, 1994 prison drama, The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont had taken his time for us to meet Andy Dufresne as much as possible. Thus, afterwards, we would live the entire sequence of his getaway, almost as if we were the ones who were leaving behind Shawshank. This in Escape from Alcatraz also occurs, but to a much smaller scale, and thus, depriving magnitude to the last sequence. It is still true, that Morris's feat was far less impressive than what was done by Dufresne. But that does not change that it was up to Siegel, to ensure that the part of the escape, had in us the same effect, achieved by Darabont.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Action - Reaction"

Title: Les Choristes (The Chorus)

Year: 2004

Genre: Drama, Musical

Director: Christophe Barratier

Writer: Georges Chaperot and René Wheeler (1945 story "La Cage aux rossignols"), René Wheeler and Noël-Noël (1945 screenplay "La Cage aux rossignols"), Christophe Barratier (screen story), Christophe Barratier y Philippe Lopes-Curval (screenplay)

Runtime: 97min

Cast: Gérard Jugnot, Jean-Baptiste Maunier, Maxence Perrin, François Berleand, Marie Bunel, Grégory Gatignol, Kad Merad

Produc.: Vega Film, Banque Populaire Images 4, CP Medien AG, Canal+, Centre National de la Cinematographie (CNC), Dan Valley Film AG, France 2 Cinéma, Galatée Films, Novo Arturo Films, Pathé Renn, Productions, Procirep

Budget: €5.500.000 million approx.

In The Chorus, Pierre Morhange (Jacques Perrin) is a French conductor, who is in New York, when he has to go back home, due to his mother´s death. After the funeral he meets with Pépinot (Didier Flamand), a boarding school classmate, and with whom he will recall those times when their lives were touched by the wonderful Clément Mathieu (Gérard Jugnot).

Someone knocks on the door. Pierre opens to a person that he does not recognize. His visitor, however, seems quite sure, that this is not true. To Pierre´s surprise, it is Pépinot. The thing is, it has been fifty years, since they last saw each other.

Pierre invites Pépinot to pass, at which point they begin to talk about when they were pupils. Pierre is particularly interested in knowing what happened to Mathieu, whose diary he has never heard of, and which Pépinot himself, discloses to him now.

This is the film´s prologue, where their experiences in Fond de L'Etang (Bottom of the Pond) are told to us through this diary.

It all goes back to a Saturday in 1945, when Mathieu arrives at the boarding gates. There he meets a very still and quiet child, who, behind the gate, seems to be waiting for something to happen. Later on, Mathieu will find out that the child is Pépinot. An orphan who, every Saturday waits for the arrival of a father, he refuses to accept, has already died.

Mathieu presents himself as the new caretaker, to a staff that does not bother to give him a warm welcome, or speak well of the pupils. Quite the contrary, they only know to describe him unruly boys, who have no respect for the adults.

One as a spectator, even without having seen anything yet, should already be getting an idea, of how things are really. Childhood is the stage where we need, more than ever, to be understood and heard, and attention and understanding are something that these children do not know. It happens that Rachin (Francois Berleand), the boarding school’s director, is a jerk, an egomaniac, and a complete grumpy. Personal issues have led him to vent his anger on those who do not deserve it, and to abide by a ruthless code of: "action - reaction", where any misconduct is severely punished. Rachin and his minions seem to be always eager to indiscipline, as if the confinement in the "dungeon" was the greatest of their pleasures. They are very good, penalizing mistakes, and very bad, rewarding their few successes.

Mathieu begins to fulfill his functions, to what he immediately discovers that what he had been told before was not a lie. In there, there are problems indeed. Despite this, he has trouble getting used to that "action - reaction" thing, and neither he likes the children to be locked up. But then, of course...., Mathieu, unlike the mentally incapable of Rachin, him, with or without problems, does have patience and listening skills. Both essential, if something good wants to be obtained from these children. Then, he comes up with an idea, and he intends to replace punishment with music. Basically, he wants to make the children realize that yes, they are worth it, and that yes, they count for something.

The new caretaker comments to Rachin his intention to form a choir, as it is not a matter of, coming one day and start doing whatever he pleases. The director, bitter, as usual, never smiles or encourages him, for his idea. He merely shows his disdain, and warns him of what could happen if things went out of control.

                Soon, Mathieu has had the children tested, has separated them by the type of voices, and has formed a choir. Soon, too, certain incidents lead Rachin to forbid him to carry on with his experiment. This is when things get even more interesting, because Mathieu disobeys, and practices, then, on the sly.

From now on, whenever the children sing, it will be a magical moment of pure beauty, and where Rachin will have momentarily become something distant and harmless. Mathieu also establishes, throughout the film, a very special bond with two of his students, Pépinot and Morhange. These are those, who tell us the story, from the beginning.

Once, I read a famous line from Alfred Hitchcock´s, in which he said: "Never work with children, animals or Charles Laughton." The truth is, I have no details on Laughton, but I do know of the nerves he suffered, when filming with kids and dogs. Something tells me that this English man must have been a director of little patience. Because after enjoying the choir of pupils from Christophe Barratier, it is difficult to think that these children could be so rowdy.

The actor’s direction here is superb. So is the way the kids get into their characters. This makes me think that, unless those children were then, dubbed by other chorus, Jean-Baptiste Maunier and his companions must have loved those moments, where the director said action, so that they could have fun with their voices.

In The Chorus, each scene has these child actors, who, far from being of stone, one can understand their feelings, either, they suffer or they laugh. One can see how Mathieu goes from being a teacher, not only to become a choir director, but also a therapist. Because sometimes, it is not a master's degree in psychology what is needed to help, but to know to listen to the other and to be able to feel compassion.

My rating: 8/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"It´s raining, and not drops"

Title: Shoot ‘Em Up

Year: 2007

Genre: Action, Comedy, Crime

Director: Michael davis

Writer: Michael Davis

Runtime: 86min

Cast: Clive Owen, Paul Gamatti, Monica Bellucci, Stephen McHattie

Produc.: New Line Cinema. Angry Films

Budget: $39 million approx.

In Shoot ‘Em Up, Smith (Clive Owen) is a mysterious lone gunman, who, unwittingly finds himself trying to thwart a government conspiracy.

Smith is relaxed. He is enjoying one of his only pleasures, eating a carrot, while resting on a bench on the sidewalk.

Suddenly, Smith finds himself facing quite an unusual situation. A young pregnant woman (Ramona Pringle) shows up running, very agitated, and continues into an alley. Anyone who had seen her would not have hesitated to help. This, however, does not seem to affect this man, who shows no signs of going to do anything. Not until he sees that the lady is been chased by someone armed and with a scowl. Just then, is that he changes his priorities. But not without first giving a bite to his vitaminic food.

Smith follows victim and attacker to the alley, even though he is not armed. Seconds later, the offender has already got the girl in the spotlight, ready to liquidate her, moment in which Smith appears. In the middle of a shooting, Smith manages to carry out a labor, after which he show the mother into a corner that he believes safe, but it is not, for herself and her child. Meanwhile, he will continue to try to save both their skin.

The opening scene shows us this good citizen, putting him right away, between a rock and a hard place. The result ends up being the fierce persecution, between a man and a battalion of hired assassins, all led by the fearsome Hertz (Paul Giamatti), who, if he does not like you, he tells you so, but with the trigger.

There are lots of action and lots of shooting. And such a cool fellow, that he even gets somebody else’s gun for his own advantage. Then, to finish with the first adrenaline scene, it could not be missed the spectacular jump from a balcony to an apartment, that Smith does with the little one in arms. It is of those circumstances in which the only thing missing would be the bad guy shouting something like, "I will avenge!" But, fortunately, it does not happen.

As the plot progresses, Smith's past is not necessarily too important, but we do know some demotivaiting details.

Here what we have, is a guy who has gotten where he should not, but who, coincidentally has extensive knowledge of anatomy and use of firearms, combat techniques or escape routes. Why not say it: a sort of MacGyver. And all for wanting to save a newborn, who, in the end, indeed, has become an orphan.

Starting from this premise is that everything else flows, where each situation is a constant, of shooting and being shot at, and where, no matter if there are dozens of assassins against just one guy, our hero is who is to be victorious.

It should be noted to the director, that all the scenes worked, all based on shootings, with pistols or machine guns, and without resorting to other elements. Together, Davis leads his hero to the extreme, but without looking ridiculous. Wich were, indeed, for example, the case of Darius Stone in XXX 2, who made a vehicle work without wheels on a railroad track, which was already excessive.

With this what I am saying, is that it is known that a director can, and often "needs" to take certain liberties with his characters, though, always considering that there "must” be set a limit.

Davis does not forgot of the female component, either. Donna Quintano (Monica Bellucci) is a prostitute who ends up being Smith´s sole support, and which allows for a romantic and erotic component.

Shoot ‘Em Up is action and shooting, from start to finish. Is, the good guy versus the bad guy. Both built under the usual stereotypes, but here, relaying on Michael Davis nice touch. Who, although, did not discovered gunpowder, he certainly knew how to use it.

My rating: 5/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Until the zombies do us apart"

Title: [Rec] ³ Genesis ([Rec] ³ Génesis)
Year: 2012
Genre: Drama, Horror, Thriller
Director: Paco Plaza
Writer: Paco Plaza, Luis Berdejo
Runtime: 80min
Cast: Leticia Dolera, Diego Martín, Mireia Ros, Ismael Martínez, Emilio Mencheta, Álex Monner, Javier Botet, Ana Isabel Velásquez, Blai Llopis, Itziar Castro, Claire Baschet, Xavier Ruano, Borja Glez. Santaolalla
Produc.: Canal+ España, Filmax, Ono, Rec Génesis A.I.E., Televisió de Catalunya (TV3), Televisión Española (TVE)
Budget: €4 million approx.

In [Rec] ³ Genesis, what had began as a beautiful wedding, for the bride and the groom, Koldo (Diego Martínez) and Clara (Leticia Dolera), will soon go to hell, when the guests get infectted by a virus.

Paco Plaza has undertaken, this year, to show us why the word "sequel" is so often frowned upon. 

If we went back to 2007, we would see an example of when, filming in the style of The Blair Witch Proyect, and getting in between a few living dead, did make sense. Throw in addition, that everything was going to happen in a quarantined building, what made the conditions for causing us fear, quite suitable. 

With [Rec] ², released two years later, the scenario would be the same, only changing the main characters. Now the leading role was granted to a SWAT team that, equipped, both with weapons as with cameras with night vision, entered the building to clean up the threat. 

This sequel would also have a dose of suspense and surprises, but that would not approach the level achieved before. However much the directors try to give to it an adequate pace, the idea itself was lacking of novelty, and it was relatively easy, to know what was coming and at what moments. On top of this, now religious elements, such as possession and crucifixes, had also been blended. Thus, the film had indeed got its good things, but only to some extent. 

Between the second and the third part, the timeout would lengthen, and to see what would be a film with some variations. To begin with, Plaza and Balagueró do no longer direct as a duet, but now it has been left to the hands of the first one. As if this were not enough, the screenplay is not provided by three individuals. Now, only two of them write it. Meanwhile, Balagueró has chosen, this time, to produce. 

To speak of the result, I guess would be to make reference to what for many has come to be as a real disappointment. It happens that [Rec] ³ has more of Robert Rodriguez´s Grindhouse, than of a true horror movie. With scenes like that, in which Clara, with her innocent and beautiful wedding dress, is filled with fury to gut zombies with a chainsaw (which appears precisely, in the place and right time), and which is more to enjoy laughing, with some friends, than to cover the eyes. 

I am not saying that the movie is bad. Moreover, if we forgot that it is indeed a sequel, it is likely that there would not be so many complaints. But then the problem comes from that side. [Rec] ³ "is" a sequel. One that fails miserably, not being able to continue with an already established aesthetic, which was what the fans were looking for. 

Paco Plaza replaces suspense, with guts and more blood. He is not even able to stay in the pose, that what we see is only what the characters shoot with their available cameras. Something that happens, only at the beginning, which lasts short, and that makes the title itself, meaningless. 

The action, as I already said, takes place in the setting of a marriage, starting shortly after the moment of union between the couple and before God, in a church, and with the great importance that takes the priest, afterwards. Here, Plaza has decided to continue deepening into religious matter, and that the almighty, is in all this, not exempt of some blame. In fact, it is enough to consider the other part of the title. 

Apart from all this analysis, if there is something to highlight, that would be Clara, the bride. Character played by Leticia Dolera, and which, once she has cried, got her makeup run, got covered in blood, got the chainsaw set in motion and got rid, so rudely, of part of her dress, she is quite unique. A magnificent and bizarre combinaton, between the "loss of innocence" and the "rebellious woman". A girl who does not hesitate a moment in cutting off the head of one of the guests, freshly bitten, when, being this, still alive and conscious, they both know it is just a matter of time. 

My rating: 5/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Herzog in the lands of Kilt"

Title: Incident at Loch Ness

Year: 2004

Genre: Adventure, Comedy, Horror

Director: Zack Penn

Writer: Werner Herzog, Zack Penn

Runtime: 94min

Cast: Werner Herzog, Zack Penn, Gabriel Beristain, Russell Williams II, Kitana Baker, Michael Karnow, David A. Davidson, Robert O'Meara, Steven Gardner

Produc.: Eden Rock Media

Budget: $1.400.000 million approx.

In Incident at Loch Ness, Werner Herzog and a group of filmmakers embark themselves into the waters of the famous scottish lake, to be documented by John Bailey.

Year 2004. Los Angeles. A cameraman records every movement of the veteran german director, who, in his house, gets ready with his wife, all the preparations to welcome the guests. John Bailey, who is the man behind the camera, follows Werner while they make dinner, and also when in his office, Werner tells both, to him and to us, what is this movie exactly about.

For the occasion have been invited Zack Penn, Jeff Goldblum, Crispin Glover, Gabriel Beristain, Ricky Jay or Russell Williams II, among several important personalities, all linked to the world of cinema. Not all, although some of them, will travel to Europe with Herzog and Penn, to see if the Loch Ness monster is it or not, just a myth.

At first glance, many might see this as a teasing. Being this the case of a serious person as Herzog, than what he has for us were to be a documentary about a creature, whose inexistence, at this point, has been, for most, more than confirmed.

Then, if so: What the hell would we see? This is precisely where we must take a pause and dig a bit more. None of this is more than just a big game to have fun for a little while. A typical "mockumentary".

Something that is interesting, is that from the beginning it is Herzog who runns the show, who is always followed by the camera and who leads the expedition, when it is actually Zack Penn who holds the reins, because in the end credits he is who directs. Herzog does not come to be more than the "false head" of a "fictional crew."

The utmost importance has been given to, that the line between fiction and reality is not easily detectable. What is clearly seen as Beristain and Williams are both true professionals in their respective areas. The first is a cameraman and cinematographer, and the second, a sound engineer and sound mixer, and both are going to be crewmen in this fantasy, in which they play themselves.

Also among the members of the Discovery IV (the vessel) will be seen Kitana Baker as the sonar operator and Michael Karnow as the cryptographer on board, both hired by Zack, as "part of the fiction." They will also have a direct involvement in some of the conflicts that are lived on board, as they give to the movie, comical (for us), while terrible and insulting (for Herzog), twists in the plot.

But if it is not yet understood, let's briefly review.

Incident at Loch Ness is a "mockumentary" directed by Zack Penn, written by Herzog and Penn (this, I add it now), and starring people that all play themselves. Herzog, who in turn plays the documentary´s director, "within" the fiction of this mockumentary. Penn, who plays the producer of the documentary, both, in and out of fiction. With the rest of the cast (the other crew members), the same happens in near all. Although there are some details that I do best, not to reveal.

Herzog and Penn combine comedy, suspense and horror, but mostly it should be noted that they parody themselves and the film industry itself. The comedy, in this case may be seen, for example, when Herzog intends to shoot a take, talking to the camera, and the cryptologist, who he has not invited to appear, gets with him in the frame. Or it is simply enough, to just have a look at the curves of the girl Penn has put in charge of the sonar. Really, it seems like a bad joke.

There is, to complete, a self-reference to an alleged incident in an earlier Herzog film, which involved a firearm.

Anyway. Penn and Herzog show us how the crewmembers of a ship may begin to have frictions between them, when disagreen on how to do things. All of this, while also routed to an even worse fate, including a very moved end and an angry Nessie. A beast, that if few have seen, maybe that is for a reason.

Incident at Loch Ness is not a great movie, but it entertains, and that, I beleve, is good enough.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Living other´s lives"

Title: The Final Cut

Year: 2004

Genre: C. Fiction, Thriller

Director: Omar Naim

Writer: Omar Naim

Runtime: 104min

Cast: Robin Williams, Mira Sorvino, Jim Caviezel, Mimi Kuzyk, Stephanie Romanov, Michael St. John Smith

Produc.: Lions Gate Entertainment, Cinerenta Medienbeteiligungs KG, Industry Entertainment, Final Cut Productions

In The final cut, in a world where memories are retained by memory implants, Alan Hakman is a cutter specialized in compressing thousands of hours of material to only reduced segments, once we have died.

Sometimes a film goes unnoticed. What ends up being a real injustice, if the argument had been good, as in the case of director Omar Naim, who would have to be satisfied with only four weeks in the theaters.

In October of 2004, this is what would happen with the latest of Robin Williams, who personified Alan Hakman, a cutter of other lives memories. Something very, very delicate.

The film took us into an imaginary reality, where only some, those who could afford it, would have the access to memory implants, invention developed by the program Zoe, whose function was to record everything captured by our eyes, since our birth until our death. Hence, that the big question here were of an ethical issue.

Coexist all life with a sort of chip, device, or whatever one wish to call it, had initially got a fairly useful purpose. When we died, the implant would be delivered to a cutter (in this case, Robin Williams), who, from his editting room would see the material, would select what believed to be more enjoyable and appropriate, and delete everything else. The chosen selection would be projected at the funeral´s "rememorial", a couple of hours screening, where those present would see the deceased loved one, to remember him in the best way.

The idea in itself, did not appear to be bad. Attending to a relative or friend´s velatory, in a moment when we were wrecked, and suddenly see him laughing one last time. To enjoy the best of his childhood, adolescence or adulthood. All very nice.

But none of this took away, that the experiences recorded in the chip would no longer be personal. Whatever we did, from the most trivial to the least, or even the most horrible things, everything would be, in the end, a great movie to be seen by a cutter, who have to avoid any kind of value judgment and never speak up about it. The question here, then would be, with what right?

If the deceased had been, for example, a murderer or a rapist, it would just be enough to push a button to dismiss all the evidence, thereby creating a false image of someone who would be remembered, not for what he had been, but for what would be seen in the lie of his montaje.

In the film, Mira Sorvino would be Delila, and Jim Caviezel, Fletcher. She would work to Allan as an emotional support, and he, as a problem. Of Delila could be added, that we missed to know more about her character. About Fletcher, just that, he is who would endeavor to purchase the latest implant obtained by Alan, corresponding to some Charles Bannister (Michael St. John Smith), a deceased offender.

Finally, it could be emphasized, that while it has been a quite original concept, the story written by Omar Naim has a small inconsistency. Since the chip keeps such long records, it is intriguing how a cutter might be able to see all this stuff in such a short notice, before a funeral. A mistake that, although takes away some realism to the plot, it is more convenient to ignore it and give the approval to the director,  given his attempt.

As a curiosity, only to say that this would be the second of Robin Williams´s forays in the science fiction genre, in a feature film, but, above all, touching controversial matters. He had earlier been an extraterrestrial in the serie Mork and Mindy (1978-1982), but this, being a comedy. However, his previous dramatic work, also on issues in dispute, had been the 1999, Chris Columbus flick, Bicentennial Man, where Williams was a robot.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"How to conceive a good idea... and a new life"

Title: Maybe Baby
Year: 2000
Genre: Comedy, Romance
Director: Ben Elton, Hugh Laurie (some scenes, uncredited)
Writer: Ben Elton (based on his novel "inconceivable"), Ben Elton (written by)
Runtime: 104min

Cast: Hugh Laurie, Joely Richardson, Adrian Lester, Tom Hollander, Matthew Macfadyen, James Purefoy, Rowan Atkinson

Produc: Pandora Cinema, BBC Films

In Maybe Baby, Lucy (Joely Richardson) and Sam (Hugh Laurie) are a young couple who seeks, by all means, existing or yet to be, to have a baby.

Lucy is going through that moment, in which becoming a mother has become absolutely essential, to happily continue with her life in London, and Sam also welcomes the idea of ​​fatherhood. Still, none of this takes away that it is her who actually dies to be a mother. Because what Sam wants, more than anything, is for Lucy to be happy, and if a baby is what it takes, then, it is welcome.

Sadly, to try to get pregnant, and that for a woman, that this in fact, actually happens, are two entirely different things. It does not take much to Lucy and Sam to understand that this may be more complicated and stressful than what they had thought. Such, ends up being the effort for that some damn sperm decides to cooperate, that what should have been the pleasure of having sex, ends up being the constant, tiresome routine, to see if they happen to be lucky.

This is the concept that Ben Elton works so skillfully, in a screenplay that is full of good jokes, which, although of high tone, never fail to stay stylish, though obviously, aimed towards a mature audience.

Already, the film begins with Sam at the BBC, where he is an editor. There, he and George (Adrian Lester), his friend and colleague, attend a meeting, which is leading the idiot of Nigel (Matthew Macfadyen), head of both. They listen to their superior from the last row, where they can speak more quietly, without being heard. Suddenly, Sam cell phone rings, he apologizes for the noise and answers it. This is his wife, who it seems, has everything under control, and now is when, according to her calendar, she is needing of his bit. Here is just great, how Sam must escape from the meeting, to put on a helmet, ride his bike, and go running to the bed. Something we will see happening several times.

But the film is far from staying in just this.

Lucy goes to a gynecologist, Mr. James, played by the remarkable Rowan Atkinson, and who makes her go through a lot of fertility tests, from which Sam does not get rid of. All this happens just when Sam had recently met with the stupid and eccentric Ewan Proclaimer (Tom Hollander), a film director whose idea of ​​a good script was of wild sex and drugs, and Sam would soon discard. Then, angry and eager to humiliate him, Nigel transfers him to the children's programming. And now, when Sam thinks he has reached the lowest that he could afford, he decides it is time to fulfill his dream of writing.

Unfortunately, the big idea that has emerged to him is to write about their own, more intimate relationship issues: their seeking for a child. To Sam will not cost practically nothing, to construct the most successful of the comedies, and with the most original jokes ever. The only thing wrong here is that Lucy, who disagrees with the idea, had already taken his word that he would never adapt their own lives.

Maybe Baby is a very funny comedy that brings humor to something that in reality would not be funny at all. It also, cleverly caricatures the world of movies, and that whole business of how films are conceived. Were producing good art is only one part, in a whole big chain.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí