"One truck, two destinations, three passengers"

Title: Las Acacias

Year: 2011

Genre: Drama

Director: Pablo Giorgelli

Writer: Pablo Giorgelli, Salvador Roselli

Runtime: 82min

Cast: Germán de Silva, Hebe Duarte, Nayra Calle Mamani, Mónica Coca, Lili López

Prod.: AireCine, Utópica Cine, Proyecto Experience, Armonika Entertainment, Hibou Producciones, Instituto Nacional de Cine y Artes Audiovisuales (INCAA), Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), Instittuto de la Cinematografía y de las Artes Audiovisuales (ICAA), Tarea Fina, Televisón Española (TVE), Travesia Productions

In Las Acacias, Rubén (Germán de Silva) is a truck driver who is asked to carry an unknown woman (Hebe Duarte), from Asuncion to Buenos Aires, on a journey of 1500 km (932 miles). 

Some time ago, and after having heard it mentioned several times, a friend convinced me to see, as an exercise, the uruguayan film Whisky 2004. In the case of the national cinema, I had hitherto known only a few titles, because of prejudice. Something I do not expose as "the" revelation, but far from it. Just to make things clear. 

Like many people, I have also always tended to incline more towards the big industry over the local or other types of cinematography, something on which, for better or for worse, I will not expand with. So, at the time of seeing something done by my compatriots, I have never been as open as I would like, and I admit it. 

But, what's this all about? It is because I think it is sad, that a person have to deal with a movie, not as a recreational activity, but to be able to say later, that he did do the effort to see it. That he sacrificed. If we assume that with the audiovisual world in general we seek for entertainment, that the experience proved to be torturous, would make no sense, something that many fear to happen with what comes from South America or Europe. 

Personally, Las Acacias had not called my attention, until recently, another friend, after seeing it, said to me, well ... I will not say that I remember his exact words, but pretty much it had seemed to him as a "nice little minimalist film, of a man carrying a woman to Buenos Aires." The end. 

Still not quite convinced, I decided (though it cost me) to give it a try, and here is my verdict. 

The possibilities to be shot, are as many as the variety in its scenarios. Also, and believe it or not, while a director could put us on a ship, others might choose a somewhat smaller space, such as a trucks cabin, in Pablo Giorgelli´s film. There is where we see happening the relationship between Rubén and Jacinta, and from the limits of that space, we do not leave much. Is it that, good or bad? Of the talent of it´s director, I think that, that depends. 

Now ... When I say that, from there "we do not leave much," I do not mean it in a derogatory manner. There will be those who like to see large battles, as well as those who would be the supporters of something simpler, like "minimal stories", which is this case. Who said a truck driver and his passenger could not be interesting? It is just as valid as the ship or the war. 

However, I would say that, for no lucid director should be enough to have his characters in full trip, doing nothing. Because, lets see... All fine, with minimalism. But to see a guy driving, and his passenger, motionless, and stay with it, we could just film ourselves and watch it later. I mean, if we wanted to make a movie, better to have something to say and really worthwhile (either with actions, dialogues, or whatever), but, in the end, something worth to be seen. 

What happenes in Las Acacias is that Giorgelli takes minimalism to the extremes. With scenes where the image is quite limited to the shot/reverse shot, to see them, him, at the wheel, and her, watching the road, while taking care of her baby, Anahí (Nayra Street Mamani) . 

At another point Rubén plays with the girl, with his right hand, while driving with the left one, and Jacinta sleeps. Or in another scene, Jacinta teaches Rubén some Guarani. 

Along the route, driver and passenger get to know each other, though very slowly, due to a reserved Rubén. At first, neither is he capable of asking the mother for her name, or her daughter´s. Having very little conversation between them (but with a Reubén, increasingly opening) and with a few stopovers on the way, Giorgelli manages a pace that allows the film not to become eternal, thanks to a simple, but effective montage, and to the distribution that he gives to the dialogues and actions. Here is how he gets us to care about his characters and not fall asleep. As to the end, without being it a big deal, he achieves on making it touching, when they arrive to the argentinian capital. 

Yet, and despite having positive things, Las Acacias fails to convince, because the simplicity of its language is too much, and because it lacks to explore more, a bond between two people, that is so little that does not justify an almost an hour and twenty five minutes of movie. 

My rating: 4/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

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

Title: Ruby Sparks 

Year: 2012 

Genre: Comedy, Fantastic, Romantic 

Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris 

Writer: Zoe Kazan 

Runtime: 104min 

Cast: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina, Annette Bening, Antonio Banderas, Aasif Mandvi, Steve Coogan, Elliott Gould 

In Ruby Sparks, Calvin (Paul Dano) is a successful novelist suffering from creative block, until, sleeping, he dreams of an imaginary girl (Zoe Kazan), that not only inspires him, but also suddenly comes to life. 

By no means I intend to defend the Academy Awards. Not that I pretend to say that these are good or bad, because (business or non-business) supposedly it´s members have to reward, by voting, according to the subjective likes of each of one of them, and in that, I do not see anything wrong. Then, that what this people vote, is not, in fact, the absolute truth, is another matter. 

2006 was for independent Little Miss Sunshine, a positive year. It would be Oscar-nominated in four categories, keeping the best supporting actor and best writing. 

And I repeat, that the opinion of these people should not mean anything. However, personally, I still dare to recognize when they stand out, what has been, I think, a good writing. Deserved or not, the award, Michael Arndt's sceenplay was great. Something that would not happened again with the script of his successor, Zoe Kazan, working with the same directors. 

Ruby Sparks would take a different direction. Now with a young novelist, who, not even his therapist (Elliott Gould) would manage to help him enshape his ideas. Something for which he would have to resort to the dream world. 

A girl talks to Calvin. We do not understand much of what she says, but that does not matter, because Calvin wakes up on his couch, super inspired, and runs to his typewriter (some still prefer them, to computers), where he writes full speed. 

In another session, Calvin has trouble expressing Dr. Rosenthal, that, very weird thing, that is happening to him, until he finally does it. The thing is that, who has come to enlight him is a girl who does not even exist and for whom, for worse, he is falling. Calvin is able to describe Ruby, his new character, with clarity of details, both physically, in personality, or her biography. But most important is that writing is flowing back.

Until something strange happens. 

Ruby suddenly appear at his house, speaking to him (as if it were the most normal thing), to what Calvin goes crazy. 

A couple of situations that follow, one with his brother (Chris Messina), and another, with a fan, give to understand that his Ruby is as real as it seems. Along with Harry, he makes an experiment and discovers that everything that he writes of her, materializes. Something that is great, but crazy. 

Unfortunately, this good concept is quickly shot down by Kazan, who also plays Ruby. 

Calvin is soon, no longer astonished, to accept Ruby as the girl with whom he lives. From this, what we are shown is how the bond evolves, with its good and its bad moments, turning the film, to a large degree, into a typical juvenile drama on friction couple. Everything that, within the fantasy, could have been great, is lost, and almost everything that follows is a waste. 

Ruby Sparks comes to be about the conflicts between a girl who does not seem capable of behaving properly, and her jealous and possessive boyfriend, which adapts to a new girlfriend, as is things were just normal. 

With the problems between Ruby and Calvin, coming and going, Kazan takes too long to show us what we want more, which is, how a girl who came out of a sheet, written in ink, functions. So Kazan does not give to the magical aspect, it´s actual needed space. 

The handled premise is, that Calvin, to such point, is unable to talk to Ruby, that he opts to balance her with writing. Only in the last few minutes, is he taken to the extreme of possessiveness. When the differences between them have become too many, is that he solves to tell Ruby of the most extraordinary aspects of her existence. In a final scene, where Calvin becomes aggressive (though not in a verbal or physical way) uses his typewriter to drive her crazy, forcing her to do what he wants, just by typing in it. 

In conclusion, I think Kazan could have made of the magic power of the written word, the current element to be emphasized, and the movie would have gotten better. 

I can not, however, forget to mention of the excelent fate that Kazan gives to Ruby, when, for Calvin, it has come the time to say: enough! 

My rating: 3/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

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

Title: Paranormal Activity 4

Year: 2012

Genre: Horror

Director: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman 

Writer: Christopher B. Landon (written by), Chad Feehan (written by) and Oren Peli (characters) 

Runtime: 88min 

Cast: Kathryn Newton, Matt Shively, Katie Featherston, Allen Bradley, Aiden Lovekamp, Alexandra Lee, Stephen Dunham 

Produc.: Room 101 

Budget: $5 million approx. 

In Paranormal Activity 4, five years after the events of the second part, Katie and Hunter (now Robbie) have moved to another house. It will be their neighbors, across the street, who begin to sence a strange presence. 

The horror genre is the one that most suffers, and in an ugly way, because of the ambition of the producers.

If we thought of animation, with each new release, a viewer would hardly take the trouble of questioning it, either given their tendency to be better constructed, or because there is not so much prejudice here. 

Let us, then, go back to the other gender, and see what happens, in the same circumstances. It could be said that with this cinema, a same rule is, almost always, complied: if the first was successful, the formula has to be repeated until depleted. 

Precisely, Paranormal Activity 4 is an example of squeezing (lengthen) a franchise, until no longer made sense, but because the numbers achieved, satisfied. 

We first had Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah, and their problems with demons. 

We then had, and not to repeat, Kristi and her husband. 

Worn out the present, then the past would be resorted. And the events during Katie and Kristi´s childhood. With a very low cost of production and over 200 million in revenues, it was to expect, that this would not be the closing. 

And here, the matter. Anyone who thought that three movies would have already exhausted all the options, certainly had not imagined the plan B. 

PA 2 (2010) ended with a possessed Katie, abducting Hunter, his infant nephew, to disappear, presumably forever. On that basis we are later surprised, in PA 4, with their return, in a new house, and in Hunter´s case, with a new identity: his name, Robbie. Aunt and nephew are now no more than puppets of an evil being, and their neighbors across the street, the perfect prey. So when Katie is suddenly taken by the emergency, these neighbors will be the only ones for Robbie, with whom to stay. 

The leading role in PA 4 passes to adolescents. This time Alex (Kathryn Newton), the eldest daughter of Holly (Alexandra Lee) and Doug (Stephen Dunham), and his friend Ben (Matt Shively) are those who feel that something is wrong. It also changes, in a way, the how we see what happens, as the whole film is seen from the webcams of this family. 

When one night, Ben's computer, in automatic recording (without him knowing it), saves what it registered by his friend´s camera, soon they have material to have fun with... or be scared. Because to see Robbie get into Alex's room while she sleeps, can not be less than disturbing. 

Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp) and their visitor create a tenebrous bond, becoming the first, as strange as the second. Moreover, noises and things moving without human contact, are present in various parts of the house. As in the others, PA 4 also works a lot with the prolonged suspense, which precedes each event, but this time, without the same results. Attempts to scare us are in vain, because everything is now, very predictable. 

The idea of the relocated aunt and nephew is so contrived, that it is difficult to take it seriously. Above that, we see a child with another name, which makes no sense. 

My rating: 3/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

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

Title: The odd life of Timothy Green

Year: 2012

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Fantasy

Ditector: Peter Hedges

Writer: Peter Hedges (written by), Ahmet Zappa (story)

Runtime: 105min

Cast: Jennifer Garner, Joel Edgerton, CJ Adams, Odeya Rush, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Rosemarie DeWitt, David Morse, M. Emmet Walsh, Lois Smith, Dianne Wiest, Ron Livingston, 

Produc.: Monsterfoot Productions, Scott Sanders Productions, Walt Disney Pictures

Budget: $25 million approx. 

In The odd life of Timothy Green, Cindy (Jennifer Garner) and Jim (Joel Edgerton) can not be parents, by their own means. Then, one night, they buried a box in their house´s garden, with written inside, all the desires they would like to see fulfilled in their own child. That same night they witness a miraculous result, in the form of small Timothy (CJ Adams).

Only as a curiosity, those who, more or less closely, follow Jennifer Garner´s filmography, may have noticed that this is the second time in five years, in which she plays a woman who can not have children. Her previous role had been in Juno (2007), as the minor character of Vanessa Loring, who waited for the baby of a teenage girl.

Jim and Cindy Green are of those couples, for whom, to be parents would be the icing on the cake. To have built the, dreamed of family.

The thing is that while for some, children come to them as easily as colds, others, such as the Greens, see the time go by without anything happening. It is then, when doctors have given up, that they go back to their home, where they muy settle with being the only ones under their roof.

On this particular night, and not having now, nothing to lose, Jim decides to play that together describe the perfect son, while they take note of each of his fictitious, enormous qualities, in some notepad´s sheets of paper. To, for a moment, fantasize, letting themselves to be carried away, and adding him, every time more attributes, to someone who is one hundred percent invented. Then, they go out in the dark to bury those qualities in a box in the garden.

Both of them are sleeping when the wind gets up, and an unusual rain is unleashed on their ground. Soon, this ceases, but having left for them a very special gift.

Someone suddenly appears in the bed, next to Jim, but disappears as quickly as it came, leaving dirty ground. Immediately, Cindy and Jim are set to find the intruder. Thus, they end up finding a boy of about ten years old, covered in mud, and who they do not know where he came from. Mystery they solve right away, when looking out a window. A hole with the little boy´s dimensions reveals in the same point where they had buried the box before.

To make the event even more surprising, the child has green leaves attached to his legs.

Chances are that, for many, this whole sequence will contain an exciting magic. With a couple that began disconsolate; who later, started to play, to forget their pain; and which ended up being touched by divine hands. And I do not doubt for that to had been Peter Hedge’s goal. Yet, I find that, although a fantastic story, it would have been interesting to tie some loose ends before continuing, to give greater strength to the events to come. Details such as, that it takes so little for the couple to convinced themselves that the child came out of the ground, and that, moreover, it is their son, do not help to that cause. Or that, when discovering that he has got leaves on his feet, they do not think he can be part of a joke, is not very credible. Anyone could think that they were very naive.

After receiving a warm bath and introducing himself as Timothy, a child who feels no fear or shame immediately calls them "dad" and "mom". Something that, neither oh the two has trouble getting used to.

Already, the next morning, the Greens make to know their new member at a meeting with family and friends, where they both assume, too soon, the role of parents, which is not believable. As if they have known Timothy forever and not for just a few hours.

From now on, mother and father will endeavor for every day to be worthy. They will try to convey their love and teachings, as if the kid were ordinary, and forgetting a greater detail: Timothy was not born in a belly.

This heaven-sent, helps the couple, not only to fulfill their desire of parenting, but that, in a very short term they can commit mistakes from that position, to learn from them. Timothy even helps them to confront their own demons, as they never before, have had the courage.

But not everything that glitters is gold. And Timothy´s green leaves also begin to wilt.

Something that is never quite convincing is, for what, exactly, is that the child comes to them. If the couple was then going to want to adopt, it would have been enough for them to be responsible and sincere adults, with no terminal illnesses, psychological or financial problems, for the procedures to succeed.

The entire film is told in a flashback, as the couple tells their story with Timothy, to Evette Onat (Shohreh Aghdashloo), the supervisor. Here, obviously, what we have is a duo that craves empathy and understanding. However, Onat proves to be a sensible veteran, with no time for jokers. She can only be convinced with facts expressing truths, not with children born between plants. They could have told her, for example, that he had been brought by the stork, and, so what? Should we understand she was supose to believe them, just by seeing their anguished faces?

At this point, Hedges ultimately choose an ending that has got holes, but that is happy and makes us smile. Let’s recall that his contract was with Disney, and the film, for adults and for kids.

My rating: 4/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Sicker, scarier and more fun"

Title: The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence 

Year: 2011 

Genre: Horror 

Director: Tom Six 

Writer: Tom Six 

Runtime: 88min 

Cast: Lawrence H. Harvey, Ashlynn Yennie, Maddi Black, Kandace Caine, Dominic Borrelli, Lucas Hansen, Lee Nicholas Harris, Dan Burman, Daniel Jude Gennis, Georgia Goodrick, Emma Lock, Katherine Templar, Peter Blankenstein, Vivien Bridson, Bill Hutchens 

Produc.: Six Entertainment Company 

In The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence, Martin is a security guard, who inspired by the fictional Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) prepares to carry out his own version of the insect. 

November of 1957. Plainfield, Wisconsin. The police investigating the disappearance of Bernice Worden checks Edward Theodore Gein’s house, which they see as a possible suspect. When they enter into his property, they find Worden´s body hanging from its ankles, beheaded and open at the torso. But, that is not all. They also find ten women’s heads, missing the top, lampshades and seats made of human skin, and soup bowls made out of skulls, among some crazy crafts. After being arrested, Ed Gein is declared mentally ill and locked up in a psychiatric. 

September of 1987. Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer meets Steven Toumi in a gay bar, where they drink together; to then leave to a hotel. On The next morning Dahmer finds Toumi dead, without remembering how it was that he killed him. Right away he buys a suitcase, where he takes him to his grandmother’s basement. There he has sex with the dead body, to then dismember him and throw him away to the trash, except for his head, which he boils and bleaches, to expose it as a trophy. 

The descriptions above are brief segments of the work of two of the most famous U.S. serial murderers, and that unlike Tom Six, they “where” crazy, indeed. 

Many are those who have labelled this director of abnormal, for the grotesqueness of his movies. I, however, do not think I have seen anything to prove otherwise, than his great power of imagination. I believe that taking horror to new extremes should not be a synonym of dementia, or a reason for rejection. Being this also the case of the genre of the macabre, nothing is better than a director willing to wring our intestines. 

But... The day that I found out that Six actually experiments with people, then yes, I change my mind. Meanwhile, I keep my position. 

The image is in black and white. Two girls, attached to a corpse, suffer because of a retired surgeon who is mad as a hatter, but does not lack of anatomy knowledge. The camera, then pulls back, to get away from the scene and give way to the end credits. One cannot help it but to feel confused, until suddenly, everything becomes clear. Six places us in Martin´s booth, a parking lot security guard, who, in his notebook, has just watched the movie. 

Suddenly one notices that the chrominance is still missing. The thing is that Six had had, from the beginning, the intention of shooting both films in this way. However, only now has he implemented it. His impression of that the black and white would add a greater touch of horror, was not mistaken. 

Lawrence R. Harvey´s choice as Martin could not have been more perfect. Obese, of medium height, large eyes and broad forehead, he is more than appropriate for the role of the criminal. 

As the names of the technical team run through, thoughtfully, Martin slightly grabs his lower lip. This is a man who has seen something disgusting, and meditates on it now. What could possibly come out of this? Certainly, nothing nice. 

Moving in his chair, Martin turns away to his other monitor, where it shows was it caught by the surveillance cameras. Right off, he witnesses a couple in full dispute. Martin grabs an iron, with which he stands up, and practices the way he intends to hit them, although he carries a gun as well. 

Six also includes part of his home life. Martin lives with a mother who mistreats him, and who gets to tell him, and to another unhinged neighbor, her desire to die. In one scene she intends to kill him in his sleep, but in the end, she is the sentenced one. Nothing, she knew about, what her son was capable of. 

Yet, we have not seen the most interesting, but Six has already given us something for the impatience. 

So far, The Human Centipede II has almost no dialogue. Whether Martin´s at home, or outside, we only hear him utter grunts or screams of rage. Great choice of a director, who has known how to, make use of the silences. 

Long before the title sequence arrives, Six dedicates his good space to the gathering of victims, and he does not exaggerate. In this way we appreciate the declining health of Martin, to whom Lawrence´s very good interpretation assures as a tenebrous atmosphere and a character that scares. We are also delighted with some scenes of tension and suspense, which Six includes without hesitation. When sweaty, attacked by the asthma, and unable to hit a pregnant woman, Martin uses the inhaler; Six has made his character to even disgust us. What happens is that Martin is ugly, aesthetically displeasing, has a pervert´s look, that is visible from a mile away, and above all, still has to do his project. 

Once we have assimilated all these traits, we understand that no athletic and well dressed Patrick Bateman American Psycho (2000) would have had the same effect. 

Martin could be criticized for many things, but never for the lack of effort. His close study of Tom Six´s flick, has led him to build a folder with notes. In it is where he keeps his drawings, about how to perform the procedures. 

Every day, he gathers new unfortunates in his hiding, whom he delivers to the obscurity of the almost abandonment, to hear others muffled screams, or to join them. 

On one occasion in which he is preparing one of the bodies, another victim manages to scream: is just a movie! from his underprivileged position, as if that would change a thing. 

Then, comes the long-awaited moment. Martin has already got the twelve pieces. These, scattered across the floor, terrified, wait for the inevitable to happen, gagged, sweaty, grimy, tearful and starving. The most fun game in which Martin has ever participated, is about to begin. From here on out will far exceed that of Dr. Heiter. The only thing, though, is that it will be messier. Martin, nothing knows about anatomy, his victims will not be sedated before being joined together, nor his method will demonstrate any skill. 

Wich his first film, Six gave shape to, what had started as a joke between friends, although, not squeezing it enough. With this sequel he gets instead to reshape and give better (and higher) dimensions, to his idea, to frighten, and simultaneously, delight us. Six discards a colorful photography, and used the spoken word only, as a last resort. 

If I had to mention any problem, I would say that the fact that Martin was inspired by a movie has sincerely, been for me needless. We are given to understand that he takes up the idea of the centipede, after having seen Tom Six´s The Human Centipede I. So, Six has designed a universe where Martin inhabits. A person who is, indeed, deranged, and willing to imitate, now yes, what he´s seen in a product of fiction, written, directed and produced by this director. Six could have left them both, Heiter and Martin, to be part of same universe, and thus avoid us seeing his name in hi security guard´s notebook. 

My rating: 8/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Watching it was hell"

Title: Suing the Devil

Year: 2011

Genre: Comedy, Drama

Director: Timothy A. Chey

Writer: Timothy A. Chey

Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Bart Bronson, Roslyn Gentle, Shannen Fields, Tom Sizemore, Chad Lammers, Annie Lee, Gabrielle Whittaker, Gemma Kaye, Robin Querre, Jeff Gannon

Produc.: Mouthwatering Productions

In Suing the Devil, Luke (Bart Bronson), a Christian and law student takes the Devil (Malcolm McDowell) into court, for believing him responsible of everything, tired of his problems and of the chaotic society.

The film begins with a white text on a black background, where we read a passage from the Bible, that refers to the king of heaven and of darkness.

We now appreciate the Mouthwatering Productions logo, followed by images of Sydney and of Luke's voice, until he appears on the scene. He works at day and studies at night, but lately, his mother´s death has discouraged him.

Luke falls asleep in the library. Then, at home he looks uneasy, for all the chaos described in the news. In the kitchen he disscusses at the phone and worries Gwen (Shannen Fields), a wife who coughs a lot.

Bart Bronson proves that he is unable to act, when talking to Gwen about the Devil and his evil. In addition, the screenplay that he has been given is unbearable, and his monologue, totally disposable. Timothy A. Chey is introducing us to a religious fundamentalist, in need of psychological help.

Shortly before, definitely loosing his mind, Luke in his truck, goes in search of revenge with a revolver, but without bullets. Something that has not happened with his Bible, which awaits to be used in the glove compartment.

Without pausing to think it over, he decides to go on with his demand, which includes distributing  fliers, inviting Satan to show his face. Here it is very funny how he delivers some to Devil worshipers, as if they knew his whereabouts.

In charge of the case is Judge Woods (Roslyn Gentle), who at first does not know if it is a joke, or if the man is crazy. When she realizes that he is doing it for real, the process continues.

One day before Luke files for default judgement, and to the surprise of Luke himself, a tall, slim and gray-haired fellow appears in court, claiming to be the defendant. Woods laughs, recognizing the good sense of humor, and asks about hidden cameras, that in fact, do not exist.

At this time, the unexpected visitor argues that there is no evidence of him beeing the Devil ... but neither, otherwise. Affirmation, that although unsustainable in any wise movie, can be overlooked, as its other, so many atrocities.

The Devil also makes them see the reach of his powers, as he raises the room´s temperature without moving a finger, and making it clear what he is capable of. So we realize that this individual is not normal, although nobody in the film notice it, as if they were all blind.

Given the nature of the case, this is televised worldwide. Then, from everywhere, people will be able to have fun with the the lawyers incompetence. Having already a judge, a jury, a claimant and a defendant, everything that follows is a sample of that Timothy A. Chey had no idea of what was he doing. His no common sense is seen in a film full of potholes. So many, that amazes that this director would receive financial support.

Prior to the trial, The Devil meets who are supposed to be the best ten lawyers in the country. All of them of high coefficients, and excepcionally gifted for this matter, provide impeccable answers to his questions. However, it is understood that he is only looking for fun. If not, why would anyone with his powers, put to his services these despicable beings, whose rules, for him are worthless, and for then, having to pay them?

Regarding his opponent, Luke is either very naive, or just not too bright. Because "he who defends himself has a fool for a client" and although, he gets the support of a friend, is him who ends up going to the front.

As the trial progresses, the plot coherences are conspicuous to be found. This is the case of a subject, able to change the color of his eyes, become transparent or spit fire, but whom no one is afraid to approach, or becomes convinced that he is telling the truth.

Nor should we forget of it´s director´s audacity, for taking entirely, one of the best phrases of A Few Good Men (1992). Not only Timothy A. Chey has not written a good script, but he has chosen to copy from others.

Each new session of "Luke O'Brien vs. The Devil" seems like a joke, with lawyers whose titles could be snatched away. So it is so that, one by one they take turns, as the arguments from the defense begin to fail. What, however, is not to panic too much, because Luke O'Brien himself can not handle things properly.

It becomes even contradictory to understand how those talents are unable to distinguish the antichrist from an impostor, even after his deployment of powers. And worse. In this group are not even able to agree with each other, to the point of fighting or disavowing each other.

Once we have reached the final stretch, the only rescatable thing is Malcolm McDowell´s interpretation, whom could have given acting classes to the rest of the cast.

Almost at the end, Luke is still fighting, and now knowing that his wife has a tumor. Therefore, her cough. However, he prioritizes the demand to his wifes condition.

If all this way A. Chey work was laughable, it would not be unusual not to give us a break. Both, the closing of the trial and what comes next, would be like not to give him a camera ever again. All A. Chey achieves is for us to ask ourselves what the hell he wanted to do.

Suing the Devil may be summarized, as a very misguided religious propaganda, which bores and, above all, offends, by its shortcomings.

My rating: 1/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Teddy loves you: friends for ever"

Title: Ted

Year: 2012

Genre: Comedy, Fantasy

Director: Seth MacFarlane

Writer: Seth MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild (written by) and Seth MacFarlane (story)

Runtime: 106min

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Seth MacFarlane, Mila Kunis, Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi

Produc.: Universal Pictures, Media Rights Capital, Fuzzy Door Productions, Bluegrass Films, Smart Entertainment

Budget: $50 million approx.

In Ted, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) is a lonely and unpopular boy, that on Christmas morning receives a teddy bear (Seth MacFarlane). That night John makes a wish, with no idea that this will be fulfilled.

At the age of 8, John (Bretton Manley) has troubles to relate with others. Every time he tries to approach other children, they reject him, making him someone lonely. Christmas arrives and with it, a special gift. A stuffed bear.

No other gift could be more harmless. However, when the bear becomes a substitute for other children, the matter becomes quite different. A bear that only says "Teddy loves you" is now his only friend, and its affectionate recorded message, something that makes John feel appreciated.

If already, in itself, the situation was not good, John makes at night a wish, with similar characteristics to the one of Pinocchio´s Geppetto. Of course, who would have thought that it would come true.

MacFarlane passes, in just a few minutes, to show how the new Ted, first frightens John parents, then becomes a public figure, and finally ends up being just another citizen, only hairy and lower. If something the director has not intended, is that this bear called the attention.

Shown the title and the initial credits, MacFarlane jumps directly to what has come to be, nowadays, the buddies relationship between man and bear. Already in the first shots we distinguish in the duo, clear signs of decay. 27 years after the so innocents John and Ted met, his plush friend is now a disordered, a foul-mouthed and an avid drug´s lover. Meanwhile, John has had some progress. He talks with his officemates, besides having his girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis).

As a determining element for the film to fail, is that between conflicts there are too long scenes, and which end up not being functional. About this, the only thing I can say is that, to see it and understand it, it is required patience. Evidently, the director not always sought to give us information, but sometimes he simply expected the public to just laugh.

When one has already psyched about what has got in front, will notice that John is a character, to whom to cling to his childhood doll has hindered him to mature. With Ted at his side, for John it is impossible to maintain a responsible bond with the woman he loves, to still continue stalled.

There is also a sub plot about a father (Giovanni Ribisi) who wants to give his son (Aedin Mincks) that bear that he never got, after seeing it on TV, as a kid. With the inclusion of these two characters, we are given a little more suspense, with a kidnapping and a car chase, but above all, that for a brief moment we have another persepctive about suffered childhood.

Beyond its excessive length and some forced situations, Ted anyhow has a resolution that gives us to think, besides having some wise moves. To see how this plush, that previously distanced John from Lori, is at last what unites them, has no waste.

Unfortunatelly, globally speaking, MacFarlane´s lack of seriousness as a librettist is clearly visible, in a film that has too many minutes to be skipped.

My rating: 4/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí