"Disturbing the new neighbor, in God´s name"

Title: Henry Poole is here

Year:  2008

Genre: Comedy, Drama

Director:  Mark Pellington

Writer: Albert Torres

Runtime: 99min

Cast: Luke Wilson, Radha Mitchell, Adriana Barraza, Morgan Lily, Rachel Seiferth, George Lopez, Cheryl Hines, Richard Benjamin

Produc.: Overture Films, Lakeshore Entertainment, Camelot Pictures

In Henry Poole is here, Henry (Luke Wilson) is a deeply depressed man, who refuses to believe that on his house´s back wall, may have appeard the image of Christ.

In his depression, Henry just wants to pay for the purchase of his new property and to be left alone to suffer. The first thing we know is that something bad is happening to him, but it is not until later, that we find out what it is.

One day, Henry is inside his house, when suddenly, looking out a window he recognizes Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), a neighbor of his. For some reason she is in his garden, facing his patio´s back wall. Immediately, Henry goes out to find her, moment in which he realizes that the woman has crossed to the next door´s yard. Us, who have earlier seen her cross herself, now see how she talks exalted, on the phone.

Henry then approaches the wall between the gardens and in a very quiet tone, asks Esperanza what was she doing behind his house. To respond, the woman invites him to accompany her, to what, moments later, we have them both peering into a wall, where there is a stain.

Esperanza looks at this stain with the same awe of someone who had just found oil. Meanwhile, Henry is sure to be only seeing dirt. Esperanza is a very religious woman and Henry instead, a complete atheist. For her, what is before their eyes is the face of Jesus and a true miracle, but for Henry it is nothing.

So far, both views are perfectly respectables. However, the situation will get complicated, when Esperanza crosses the line.

Henry, who had been wanting to be left alone, begins to be bothered by his neighbor. Esperanza, determined to make him understand that what is on his wall is a sign from God, again and again, insists on showing up. First, she goes back to his house with Father Salazar (George Lopez), and then goes back again, sereval times, with different neighbors. All of them in need of the help of the Almighty.

At the same time, Henry meets young Patience (Rachel Seiferth), cashier of a supermaket that he frequents, and Dawn Stupek (Radha Mitchell) and her daughter Millie (Morgan Lily), from whom he is now next door´s neighbor. All three will be important elements, that make the story move forward.

One night, Millie crosses to Henry´s patio and touches the stain. In no time she has regained her speech, inasmuch as she had not said a word since her father´s abandonment. By the way, who had encouraged her to go touch the wall, and knowing that Henry would not like that? Esperanza Martinez. Now, at this point, it seems as if the world was conspiring against him.

As if this were not enough, Patience also goes to touch the wall, to which suddenly, the girl claims to have miraculously recovered her good eyesight and to no longer need glasses. For poor Henry this is the last straw, and he tries for everyone to understand that these "miracles" are nothing more than pure coincidence. Fortunate events, which have had to coincidentally happen, right when both had just touched the wall.

A whole community of believers end up turning his backyard into a kind of sacred site and filling the wall with offerings. Regardless of this being a private property, they all take the opportunity, without anyone even considering, that one's freedom ends where another's begins. This is to say that if Henry wanted, he could perfectly report them to the police.

The film reaches a point, where Esperanza insists Henry on that he touches Jesus face himself, to get rid of his depression. Henry then, rejects this possibility, still refusing to believe her. But now with greater difficulty, since it is clear that he does that, more for fear of the unknown, than anything else. These so-called "miracles" that he has witness, have begun to increasingly make it harder for him to maintain an skepticism that, anyway, he refuses to drop.

Henry Poole is here does not begin in a bad way. First, Henry meets Dawn and Millie, and later appears the religious matter. Here, the film has already got a main character with a good conflict, and whose only negative thing would be all that sentimental side with his Stupek neighbors, that might get us a little bit bored.

However, what we have in the end, is nothing more than a great advertising movie of the Christian religion, and where the director tells us that finding faith is how we could free ourselves of all our suffering, and also Henry, of his. With characters trying to give us the reasons why, according to them, it is good and necessary to believe in something. When the right thing would have been to show the idea of ​​religion as just a possible alternative, for us to decide if to choose.

Here no one wants us to think about it and choose the way we like, but rather, we are inclined to the way of faith. It is a message that, to a large degree could offend many people.

My rating: 3/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Breaking the traditions requires bravery"

Title: Brave

Year: 2012

Genre: Animation, Action, Adventure, Comedy

Director: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell (co-director)

Writer: Brenda Chapman (story), Mark Andrews, Steve Purcell, Brenda Chapman and Irene Mecchi (screenplay)

Runtime: 100min

Cast: Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson, Julie Walters, Robbie Coltrane, Kevin Mckidd, Craig Ferguson, Steven Cree

Produc.: Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios

Budget: $185 millions approx.

In Brave, Merida is a Scottish princess of the DunBroch clan, who refuses to strictly comply with her role in the family tradition. Once she decides to change her situation, will be when things turn to her upside down.

This new adventure, born of a collaboration between Disney and Pixar, comes at a time when, I think, it was essential, given the overabundance of sequels. But, do not get me wrong. Except rare cases, I would say that there has, almost never happen, that a major studio animation were to disappoint.

Today it is the case of Brave, which, for the first time has a female protagonist as a lead character, also taking place in the early Middle Ages.

Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is a teenage girl, daughter of Fergus (Billy Connolly), warrior father, and Elinor (Emma Thompson), mother of elegant manners. From his father she inherited the spirit for action, and from her mother... it remains to be seen.

Right at this moment, Elinor is nervous, as the heads of three neighboring clans are coming to her kingdom with their sons, the princes, so that they compete for Merida´s hand. What Elinor wants is for her daughter to behave, act politely and accept her fate, already established.

To Merida, to obey to her mother sounds very dificult, as this is a tradition that she does not share. Elinor has always seen herself as a lady, educated and refined. Unable to eat, using her hands, sit hunched or stain her clothing. Quite the opposite to her daughter´s way of life. The relationship between the one and the other is of cats and dogs. A tie with which many will, for sure, feel identified.

In an act of rebellion, and after the princes faced each other in archery, Merida shows up to compete for her own hand. Under the rules, the suitors must be firstborns and she is too. It is to be understood that this does not applies, but to Merida, little it matters. Furious, and driven by a nagging mother, she aims to the three targets and hits the three in the middle.

At this point, for Merida her mother has become an ogre, and she, a misunderstood. In an early climax, where the two discuss, Merida breaks a tapestry, woven by her mother, in which she and her parents appeared together, after which she flees on horseback into the forest. Soon, Merida reaches the cabin of an old woman (Julie Walters), part witch and part saleswoman, and manages to get a promising spell. With this, she will be able to change her mother, her way of thinking, just by giving her to try a little cake. What the old woman, however, forgets to mention, is that this will also change her body image. Not aware of this, Merida turns her mother into a bear, animal to which her father had sworn revenge.

Spells and the struggles to finish them are something we have already seen. Take, for example, the case of Beauty and the Beast (1991). The difference here lies, in that this type of conflict between mother and daughter, is for many, much more closer and real.

Elinor and Merida do not want to listen to each other. Elinor believes that she is the one uncomprehended, and does not understand what did she do wrong, when in fact it is her daughter the aggrevied. The sad thing is that they had to reach to the point, where the mother had to leave her human condition and her dialogue capacity, for both, to finally agree.

Daughter and mother (now bear) leave the castle to put Elinor safe from a husband, who does not know about the spell. It is from there, in the middle of the woods, that both give themselves the chance to make a radical change in their relationship, even if forced by extreme circumstances. Merida is now the only one that can express herself. Her mother can only hear or roar. Here it becomes very funny, to see how an Elinor that, hairy, about six feet tall and with paws instead of legs, still maintains the same impeccable behavior of a perfect lady, besides still carrying her crown.

Throughout the film, the humor, the entanglements and some important information about the past of the clan itself, are always accompanied by this good lesson of coexistence, which dictates that there is a reason, why we have two ears and only one mouth.

Nevertheless, nor is that, necessary, one had to go to the movies to understood about certain truisms. The film only reinforces concepts that we all already knew. Because it is unfortunate, but true, that many parents, unwittingly make the mistake of wanting to always decide for their children. Not allowing them to live their lives in their own way.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"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