"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

"Never trust the ice"

Title: Ice Age 4: Continental Drift

Year: 2012

Genre: Animation, Adventure, Comedy

Director: Steve Martino, Mike Thurmeier

Writer: Michael Berg, Jason Fuchs

Runtime: 94min

Cast: Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, Queen Latifah, Keke Palmer, Chris Wedge, Jennifer López, Sean William Scott, Josh Peck, Wanda Sykes, Peter Dinklage, Aubrey Graham, Josh Gad, Heather Morris, Nick Frost, Alain Chabat, Aziz Ansari, Nicki Minaj, Alan Tudyk

Produc.: Blue Sky Studios

Budget: $95 million approx.

In Ice Age 4: Continental Drift, Manny (Ray Romano), Sid (John Leguizamo), Diego (Denis Leary) and the rest of the group must face relentless earth movements, while in turn they protect themselves from the menacing pirate Guts (Peter Dinklage).

Long before arriving into theaters, we had already been able to enjoy a preview of what would be, more specifically, the entanglements in which Scrat would be stucked with. It seems impossible, but with just 3 minute this rodent suddenly worked as an excellent stand-up comedian, capable of getting us more laughs than all the other characters together. Undoubtedly, this squirrel is among the best, that currently reaches developed in the Blue Sky studios.

Continuing with Scrat, this acorn addict has always been an example, both of the brilliant animation work of these filmmakers, as of their immense creativity. This time, all this accompanying, in it´s latest short film, a preview of what we would see later. Ice Age 4 promised to parody the ancient process by which the Earth would end up looking like it is now. What is more, showing us, also in a tone of comedy, the emergence of some of the most important constructions made by man, of which, in this case, Scrat would be responsible.

But so much to emphasize of this character, means so much to "deemphasize" of everything else. To begin with, because it´s shorts have rarely got more than little to do with the rest of the argument. Once one has seen them, can maybe be getting an idea of what the prehistoric moment that it´s being lived in is, while Manny, Sid, Diego and the rest of their friends live their adventures. Outside of that, they tend to a mainly independent tone that, rather than anticipate us some clues, tell us nothing of, if they will be good or bad movies.

The film directed by Steve Martino and Mike Thurmeier touches everyday issues such as adolescent rebellion or piracy. It does it, on the one hand, using the uproar Morita (Keke Palmer), Manfred and Ellie´s daughter, who being in that stage where hormones have fun as the please, can not resist Ethan (Aubrey Graham)´s charm, a mammoth, to her, very cute and very cool. Against this she forgets all about her friend Louis, a mole with quite good feelings.

Furthermore, we should understand that much of the argument results from the clashing between this family led by Manny, and their new enemy, the pirate captain Gut and his crew. From this confrontation is that will come out, that some of them want to capture, torment and eat the others. But at a given moment, also a very subtle wink to piracy is made, this seen as the illegal downloading and distribution of unauthorized material.

However, I believe that, if something ought to really be highlighted, that would be that in Continental Drift (where at all times, earth movements and the icebergs´s breakdown, are the most imminent danger), Manny´s relentless effort to go back to Ellie and to his daughter, is always accompanied by the heroic group work that all of them (Manny, Sid, etc.) make to keep themselves, friends, alive and together. From all this it is understood that, the values ​​of family strength and loyalty among comrades, are what is sought to convey to the kids.

Each Ice Age sequel has meant a new challenge. Tell a different story, because otherwise, viewers would already be bored. In addition, introducing new characters, as this would give it a greater atractiveness.

But if one has paid good attention at each of them, should have confirmed that, indeed, all the arguments have always been the same retouched idea, that we could define as "the going back home". Whether it was that the herd helped someone return to it´s own ones, that they themselves wanted to go home, or that, because of the natural phenomena, they had to seek other destinations, always trying not to leave anyone behind.

Always seeing themselves in the obligatoin of recycling, I think it would be very difficult to ever reach the level of the first one. There are, out there, people who probably believe that the quality goes with, the more action the better. Although I think that, that's not right. Personally, I do not think that quality concerns that aspects, but the originality of what is counted.

The problem, then, of Ice Age 4 is, that no matter how entertaining it might be and no matter how many innumerable variants they could add, if they do not tell a "different" story that grabs and excites those who pay to see it, but in a completely new (and not recycled) way, we will always be seeing more of the same, and where we will find the best of it in a short film of a squirrel and it´s acorn.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Cherrys with no flavor"

Title: Ta'm e guilass (Taste of Cherry)
Year: 1997
Genre: Drama
Director: Abbas Kiarostami
Writer: Abbas Kiarostami
Runtime: 95min
Cast: Homayon Ershadi, Abdolrahman Bagheri, Afshin Khorshid Bakhtiari
Produc.: Abbas Kiarostami Productions, CiBy2000, Kanoon

In Taste of Cherry, Badii (Homayon Ershadi) is a man who, for the purpose of committing suicide, travels in his car, looking for someone who would then, bury him. 

With a runtime of 95 minutes, what we mostly see in it is its main character, a depressed Badii, always driving. Badii travels along a road, sees someone who considers capable of carrying out the task, stops, invites him to get in, and then goes to explain, how by helping him out could be making good money and very quickly. The job details are, however, obviated in the beginning, not to scare them with something so delicate. 

Kiarostami tells much of the film with a camera pointed on its lead actor, Homayon Ershadi (or Badii), in the car, always in medium shots, and inserting panoramic images from time to time. So, when Badii stops and picks up a Kurdish soldier, in first instance, an Afghan seminarian (Mir Hossein Noori), in second instance, and finally, a Turkish taxidermist (Abdolrahman Bagheri), in each case goes to the typical shot reverse shot of him and his companion, and that´s all. It is not more complex than that. The director does not bother to put to our disposal any different alternative. 

If anything this Iranian director is really the master that is so much said, this is, definitely not, the best example. His visual monotony recalls a heart monitor for patients who are no longer among the living. Looking back, one could recall claustrophobic cases such as Phone Booth (2002) or 127 Hours (2010), where the directors had worried about not inducing us to fall asleep, to instead, keeping us wide awake with their scenes. Anyone could conclude that Kiarostami made his actors (or, amateur actors) improvise for the camera, and that, whatever they say, all of it would remain in the final montage. Thus, the taxidermist would end up being the only one who stood out, given his admirable account of his aborted attempt at self elimination. 

This flick got me thinking about, what would the public say if suddenly a famous director, like Tarantino, offered us something similar. Because if Kiarostami can do it, and be for that, admired, why not, other filmmakers? Although I think that, if any of these days Tarantino shot in the same way, the public would not hesitate to boo him. 

It is also true that we are talking about completely different styles, except that, in my opinion, the minimalism of the Iranian photography, along with his long dialogues, lead one to start thinking of, which part of all that is said, will be worth retaining, and what parts to discard. Kiarostami is in trouble, if he has not yet realized that movies are primarily a visual language and which is told through actions, that the spoken word is to be used with caution, and that in the case of putting long conversations, one must be able to demonstrate that it is an excellent dialogist. 

His work seems worthy of a film student, moderately trained to use a camera and cut and paste frames, which leaves this director looking very badly. 

So, is it the topic, at least, interesting? Well... It could be said that it is. I guess that everything concerning suicide is quite suggestive. Especially because human beings are morbid and curious by nature. However, a good movie is not only achieved by having a good subject, but also needs to be known how to tell it, and here it seems that, once elected his scheme, Kiarostami had forgotten about other options. 

I imagine that, undoubtedly, many will be able to find in it other ingredients that I have overlooked, and that give to it greater narrative depth and meaning. Like for example, in the very same geographical area in which all takes place, on the outskirts of Tehran. Different people may look for things here and there, and perhaps it is a movie that, although very simple in structure, requires a lot of work in the head. 

Nevertheless, something much more concrete is still missing in a visual level and in its characters. I'd say it comes down to what we see on screen, and to the emotions, here slim, that that transmits to us. 

My rating: 1/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Till memory do them apart"

Title: The Vow
Year: 2012
Genre: Drama, Romantic
Director: Michael Sucsy
Writer: Jason Katims, Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein (written by), Stuart Sendler (story)
Runtime: 104min
Reparto: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Sam Neill, Jessica Lange, Scott Speedman
Produc.: Screen Gems, Spyglass Entertainment
Budget: $30 million aprox

In The Vow, Leo (Channing Tatum) and Paige (Rachel McAdams) are a happily married young couple, until one night, because of a car accident Paige loses her memory and is unable to recognize her husband. From that moment, Leo must do what ever he has at his reach to get her to remember him, and go back to what they had already built. 

Aside from being the typical romantic movie, The Vow is about what could mean for a person, that given some circunstancies wich where no ones fault, suddenly you were for your soul mate, someone completely unknown. That that person with whom you had decided to share it everything, put you to one side in the blink of an eye, but for reasons that went beyond her own understanding. 

The film reminded me of 50 First Dates (2004) quite a bit, with what I am not saying that it looked like a copy of it, as memory problems suffered in each case are very different. It is the idea of ​​the boyfriend and/or husband who must make her partner love him back, what they share, and that in both is magnificently handled. 

One night, Leo and Paige, fresh from theater, get in their car. On their way home they entertain themselves joking, until Leo stopps at a stoplight. There, Paige becomes affectionate and Leo gets excited. But suddenly, a runaway truck hits them from behind and Rachel is thrown through the windshield, what we see in slow motion, and allows us to appreciate the brutality of her coup. One can even anticipate what is coming after, even while sees her flying through the air, among fragments of shattered glass. 

The director, however, chooses for another way. Leaving us with the question for a few minutes, he uses a flashback to tell us how Leo and Paige had met and hit it off, then marry and read, each their vows, during a museum ceremony. Personally, I would have omitted all that background, except for the marriage, which I would have included, but later. To begin with, because after having us on hold and with even slowed up images of the accident, what one would have liked, would have been to pass directly to the whole "post - clash", with the nursing home admission and the bad news. Michael Sucsy prefers to delay us the awaiting, casting a whole, overly romantic context, that is irrelevant and would probably bore the male audience. Because, actually, how did Paige ended up?, Is what one would like to know, not, how they ended up together. 

The other reason responds to a matter of repetition. Throughout the film Leo is continually striving to help her. With this goal is that he leaves some material in the open view, classified as “evidence” that they really loved each over. However, when Paige sits down to watch the video, it is basically the same wedding that we had already been shown, but now from the viewpoint of one of their friend´s camera. 

Paige awakens from a coma and it is the moment of the truth. Leo updates her on what happened, to what then Paige confuses him with her doctor. It happens that she has forgotten the last five years of her life. Leo had already been warned by Dr. Fishman (Wendy Crewson) on this possibility, of total or partial memory loss, and that could in turn be reflected, in short or long term. Everything, depending on the severity of the brain damage. 

Paige's injury means, amazingly, that she has not only lost all memory of her marriage, and of any aspect in general, from that period of her life. Together, she preserves in her head, and vividly, every memory of her past at her parents' house, before her departure, plus remembers to be committed to Jeremy (Scott Speedman), her old boyfriend. 

In short, memory loss could alienate her from the person whom she loved the most until just a while ago, and work in reverse with respect to her parents, who having lost contact with their daughter, are planning to retrieve her. Bill and Rita Thornton (Sam Neill and Jessica Lange), with whom she had fought even before the accident and did not spoke with. But Paige does not even remember having left the house. For Jeremy (Scott Speedman), on the other hand, memories of that relationship are now fresher than ever. 

That Paige does not recognize Leo is to say that for her, who claims to be her husband is a complete stranger. And how is that suddenly you wake up, for someone you guarantee never to have seen before, says to be attached to you in the strongest of bonds? On top, when you get discharged, that same person intends to take you with him. 

With Bill, Rita and Jeremy in the middle, The Vow becomes a complicated interweaving of existential and loving dilemmas, and the struggle of interests between a poor young unfortunate and three ruthless opponents. Both sides want to win the confidence and affection of a confused Paige, who has no idea of ​​which way to chose. 

As for Paige, the fact of having to assume that she is no longer the girl she remembers, which, in her head, still lives with her parents and wants to study law, is another heavy blow. Having been erased everything about her marriage, she finds it very dificult to worry about not hurting Leo, when he loves her, and instead, again and again, she can no longer be reciprocal. It seems as if it was a constant act of selfishness, but it is not. What happens is that in her mind everything is confusing and she needs to think it over. 

Although Paige is the one who has suffered the worst luck in the impact, it actually becomes easier to sympathize with Leo, and not with her. Because Paige lost her memory, but Leo, his partner. To Paige, everything could even become as simple as returning to her parents and pick it up where she had already left it. But that, for Leo would mean to make a clean slate and start from scratch. 

The Vow invites us to reflect, if we have not already done it, about what is really the meaning of saying yes to that legal, but most of all, sentimental union that is marriage, in both, the good and bad, but especially in the bad, no matter in what field, and even if the other does not know who you are. 

For all of this is that I see no right to say that this film is one of the bunch. It is true that, somehow does meet the same general structure of any romantic flick, although its development, I could say, raises a conflict that has nothing silly, and deserves a close following. 

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Applying extermination policies"

Title: God bless America

Year: 2011

Genre: Comedy, Crime

Director: Bobcat Goldthwait

Writer: Bobcat Goldthwait

Runtime: 105min

Cast: Joel Murray, Tara Lynne Barr, Mackenzie Brook Smith, Melinda Page Hamilton, Rich McDonald

Produc.: Darko Entertainment

In God Bless America, Frank (Joel Murray), an unemployed misfit, and Roxy (Lynnne Tara Barr), a rebellious teenager, unite to carry out what they both believe the U.S. has been needing for quite some time: to end with all the filth.

Many would probably see this film as a respite from the typical cinematic entertainment. God Bless America seems to be the work of a director really angry with the Americans. More precisely, we are talking about Mr. Robert Francis Goldthwait, better known as Bobcat Goldthwait, born May 26, 1962, no more and no less than in Syracuse, "United States". What leads one to wonder what might he feel, exactly, for his country. We might assume that it embarrasses him.

In God Bless America are precisely revealed, a number of reasons why any lucid U.S. resident could think, "God damn this country full of ignorants, materialistic and egocentric people." The film is, quite simply, the critique to a society in which certain sectors have been quick to fall into the worst of the decadences, and this, for example, expressed through consumerism, the disrespectful citizen and the television programs, that rather than encouraging the good individual growth, we could assume they have proposed to finish with any posible evidence of thinking beings. Bobcat does not waste a single minute and addresses some of the flaws he sees in his people, without beating around.

Frank is a divorced office worker, of about fifty years old, whose former wife is a dim-witted, his daughter a spoiled child, and his neighbors, a couple of feeble-minded, unable to quiet a baby that keeps crying all the time. All of this panorama not only lacks of positive aspects, but has also turned Frank into a time bomb. The entire society is full of inepts and someone should take hands in the matter.

Already in the first scene Frank is far from being relaxed. While watching TV (with all the crap that is in its channels) he must bear with the, already mentioned bastards next door, who are on the other side of his living room´s wall. Frank just wants some peace before returning the next day to his cubicle, surrounded by more idiots.

Bobcat takes this wonderful opportunity for us to see what is happening, internally, to Frank. Suddenly he has entered armed to his neighbor´s house, to do something good for humanity and end both with them and their baby in a radical way, at gunpoint. Fortunately, as soon as we see the situation we come out of it, as to be assured that everything has been a montaje, constructed in his fantasies.

It is highly attractive the way the director describes it to us, making use of the "idiot box", the loss of values ​​and the unfortunate course this society has taken. All Frank has before his eyes can be summarized to vandalism, jokes to politics, discrimination, advertising guidelines that set out the garbage that is sold today on the market, and the most amazing of the new television era, destructive reality shows. Of those that have the power of reducing owr reasoning to the size of a hazelnut.

Frank, who suffers from migraines, sees a doctor to be told that he has a tumor and has only little time left. After the news, the most immediate option is suicide. The thing is that the whole society has gone to hell, and given what awaits him, sees no reasons to delay his death any longer.

But suddenly, a TV show captures his attention. The turning point occurs precisely when, through a reality show, Frank finds that there are still reasons for delaying his own departure. In this particular reality, some girl called Chloe (Maddie Hasson), a blonde and attractive young teenager, with a well maintained body but horrific nature, demonstrates such a lack of brain that makes it even more visible when she says: "My name is Chloe, I live in Virginia Beach, and everyone loves me because I'm so pretty". Then we see her parents and understand that, "like father, like son." Frank certainly has had enough.

If there was ever a citizen that dare to call out "God Bless America", then one of two options: either he was raving mad, or perhaps he have had found sane and decent people, but who had then been reduced by a large majority of lunatics. Erroneous or not this phrase, Frank is willing to give it meaning, and his first goal will be that so pretty girl.

From now on and through black humor, is that are mixed some of the best examples of a daily reality, which many will, surely, feel identified with.

Soon, Frank meets Roxy, a young girl with whom he shares in many ways his general view of things, except that there is in Roxy a much more settled position. He wants to choose their victims and then just finish them up, and she instead intends to move faster and go right now to sow panic, willing of adrenaline, to kill and then celebrate it.

Roxy does not hesitate to join him in what is going to be a massacre in the style of Bonnie and Clyde, except, without the banks. Both are even wearing hats like those of their predecessor, criminal duo. Later, in a motel, Frank acquires better weapons, running from a pistol to a shotgun. And now, yes ... the real fun begins.

Bobcath Goldthwait ultimately created two characters that are able to perfectly represent human idiocy. Frank, who has his problems, of both health and for being a misfit, and who has not ocurred nothing better than, before dying, going out shooting a gun. And Roxy, who is so mad as a hatter that, to start with, has fled from two parents who loved her and now suffer her absence, arguing that she was abused at home. That is to say that, the same ones who have proposed themselves to clean up the scum, are nothing but a part of the problem.

Once the film reaches its end, we have met a director who did not spare anyone and who pretended to call the attention of those who had the fortune of not being part of that majority with limited capacities.

On my part, not being myself a resident of the United States, or being neither of American origin, little is actually what I should say in the matter. It's easy, sometimes,  to talk or criticise from the outside, but very preferable not to. Bobcat, in his viewpoint is very clear, but I initially take it as just that, a viewpoint.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Nonsense at its best"

Title: The Tree of Life
Year: 2011
Genre: Drama
Director: Terrence Malick
Writer: Terrence Malick
Runtime: 139min
Cast: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Sean Penn
Produc.: Brave Cove Productions, Cottonwood Pictures, Plan B Entertainment, River Road Entertainment
Budget: $32 million approx.

In The Tree of Life we meet the O'Briens, a family of the 50's, where Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain) is the loving mother and Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pit), a hard father who raises their children in a very strict and controversial way. Jack (Hunter McCracken), one of those kids, who after going through that childhood, once adult (played by Sean Penn) won´t be able to forget those moments so far away, that changed his life forever. 

After six years of absence behind the cameras, Terrence Malick has returned to the director's chair. This time to devote to a movie whose plot is simpler than its execution. 

There are those who claim to have perfectly understood it and to have been captivated by its unfolding, especially, in a visual level. Others, however, say to have not understood anything at all, and this is partly, understandable. 

What in it is stressed out, is the clear need to watch it, with the senses quite sharpen. This is, because it´s almost certain that if you were thinking of something else, you would end up letting out some essential elements of its thread. 

Something that struck me, even, before having seen it, was to run, on the Internet, with reviews ranging from those who had loved it, to those who had hated it. This curious fact made me become more analytical. Considering that The Tree of Life is not easy to digest and that Malick himself has taken care of complicating our existence, I would say that it is not odd that many feel confused and upset (and even, a little bit mad with this man) and might wonder what on earth did he intended, with this unique cocktail of images. 

Several hundred people who went through a before and after this experience, decided, without even noticing, to join into two different streams of very extremist views, each of which was completely opposite to the other. On the one hand would be the Malick worshipers, to whom the veteran director had been able to convey very strong feelings and to touch them deep inside, and therefore, saw in the movie the excellence of a filmmaker whose sensitivity was extraordinary. 

On the other hand would be those who, feeling insulted, would be able to throw it into the toilet and flush it away. The Tree of Life would not even qualify as a consumable product, in the eyes of its members, but as the meaningless indifferent assembly of several sequences, taken and mixed by a man without much clarity of ideas. 

In the end, I still have some questions. For example, if those who claimed to have grasped the message without difficulty, had actually achieved it. Or, if any, had maybe played a key role, one´s level of understanding. That is, if perhaps to tune in with Malick in his complicated odyssey, had maybe been essential to, whether, be very smart, or have a high level of "cinephile culture" already built up. 

All these would represent valid alternatives. Although I believe, that many of those who had the nerve to say that they got everything right away, have not been sincere even with themselves. There are people for whom the more complicated and intelligible a film is, the more they like it, who knows why, and who are able to look for the fifth paw to the cat, where sometimes, in fact, there is nothing there.These geeks, who enjoy pretending to be the enlightened consumers of the “good cinema”, one could hear them mention under the label of snobs, although, this is incorrect. 

Another element to consider responds to the ease that some people has when praising certain films over others. Lets suppose that Malick had approached it in a different way, with the traditional narrative, with a beginning, middle and end, all, well defined. The question that arises to me is if these intellectuals, enthusiast of the odd, would dare, to this approach, to stand out with the same excitement. Or perhaps, having in hand a flick of too lineal content, could lead them to put into question its apparent, narrative quality. 

With already a few films under my belt, some, more simple, and others less so, some more linear, and others, not so much, I believe to have been relatively well trained when to judge, when one has stood out for its good use of the cinematic expression, and I do not think that approaching an idea in a simple, linear way, understandable and uncomplicated, can often mean nothing more than, that it has come to the right filmmaker or filmmakers. Because "simplicity" should not be confused with "poverty." Erroneous would be to think that, by telling a story through the more direct of the languages, you were sinning by a lack of "artistic stamp." Such language, translated into an effort to make us reason and not wanting to give us the information already diggested, so that we squeeze our brain. 

Any good director should be able to reach out the mass audiences without falling into the offensive and ridiculous simplicity. Then, that a director wanted to shoot something just for himself, of more than three hours, in silent cinema, and told, for example, in one single shot, fixed and frontal, would also be permissible, why not? But, then. Better forget about exposing it to a wide audience, because the personal whims of a filmmaker are just his business and no one elses. Otherwise, should better wake up and forget about his absurd fantasies, leave aside the nonsense and produce something for which nobody will want to hang him. 

I think that, a more or less lucid director is one that, beyond his artistic and/or financial interests, would care to attract and not repel, his audience. I do not see nothing more pleasant and comforting that to know that when you expose your work, the halls of the theaters are going to be quite or very full, and thus, you were going to be able to convey your viewers a certain personal perception of something your care about. On this basis, if then they started to fall asleep or get up from their seats, it would sound to me as a cheap excuse to argue that, that was because of a too complicated pose and was not within reach of the most. Because, if the first were to occur, it would not have failed the public, but, the director. 

If filmmakers like Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have been able to tell their stories without entangling us, and likewise, they are described as geniuses, what sense would have to present a family with shots where they almost never speak, in which mattered, more than anything, the expressivenss or inexpressiveness of their faces, and where we repeatedly heard voice-overs of some of these characters, by the way of their thinking? On top of this, after the introduction, the director comes to us with the occurrence of mounting a number of images worthy of the Discovery Channel, to see from The Big Bang, to the early days of the Earth, the appearance of the dinosaurs, and again, the use of the voice-over, throwing loose phrases. The problem arises when one realizes that, all that to what Malick has dedicated about half an hour could have been skipped through or reduced to five minutes, not to get us bored. It is possible that Malick may have wanted to reach us through our senses, looking for something different to what we were accustomed. Equally true is that movies have always been to be addressed in many ways, being very well seen, to innovate. However, Malick here has been anything, but, realistic, directing a picture just for fans of the oddities. Always has been and will continue to be admitted, that everyone direct his own projects as pleased, as long as one has the means to. The issue is that Malick crossed the line. In the same way that he has made us look at shots of the universe, planets, volcanoes and even underwater takes, he could have perfectly added two timeless minutes of a pan on a deserted beach, and we would have had someone explaining us its meaning, like a greek philosopher. 

Finally, I see as importat to point out that if we departed from the idea that in the movies anything goes, then, today we have Malick with this (I say it again) "rareness". But, lets imagine that tomorrow, three of four similar films like this one began to be distributed. What would we, the spectators, do in that case? Which would be the benchmark, to define between a good movie and bad one, between a fun movie and a boring one?, if then we are saying that all of this is part of the same objective to communicate something to us all, only varying the structures. Because if we saw another flick like this, say that we do not like it, and to what then appear to counterattack, the offended ones who thougth we should open up more to new things, rather than criticize, where would, our “linear and menaingful cinema” end up being positioned"? If someone else came to refute our negative comments, saying: "Why do you say that it is slow? Maybe that's what the director wanted. Why do you say that? Maybe what Malick wanted was the other".

Then, no matter what kind of flaws we saw in an extremely rare and complicated, or rare and boring movie, for all of this we would have someone playing the defense attorney. For every negative that pulled it down, there would be an answer to raise it back to the podium. The same as saying that, it does no longer matter to follow any criteria. Anything is valid. 

My rating: 1/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Weapons are loaded by the devil and unloaded by the stupid"

Title: 96 Minutes
Year: 2011
Genre: Drama, Thriller
Director: Aimee Lagos
Writer: Aimee Lagos
Runtime: 93 minutes
Cast: Brittany Snow, Christian Serratos, Evans Ross, Jonathan Michael Trautmann, David Oyelowo
Produc.: First Point Entertainment, Katonah Pictures, Perfect Weekend

Inspired by real events, 96 minutes is a very well made film that cares, more than anything, to show us the society that we have come to built. Recreating the events that would lead four people from two very different worlds to spend a stressful situation that would change them forever, director Aimee Lagos takes the trouble of calling our attention, to remember us that we are all, even if we don´t like it, part of a society that is increasingly going down. 

One can be born in a privilege position, in a family with high or medium-sized financial possibilities and a rich cultural level. This probably means that one will have more options, at the moment of making certain choices in the right direction. Or in the case that they were not, presumably there would always be time to retrace the steps and try another way. This is the fate of those who were born in "golden cradle", but that are a small group. For these privileged ones, to meet someone of the most marginalized sector could wipe out their joys. 

Carley and Lena (Brittany Snow and Christian Serratos) are two smart college girls. In Carley´s case it is made quite clear when she is seen in action with her debating group where, faced with their opponents, they exchange with strong determination, their different viewspoints on the treatment that should be given to criminals. Then, in Lena´s case, she is shown in other circumstances, suffering from an unfaithful boyfriend. 

On the opposite side we have Dre (Evan Ross) and Kevin (Jonathan Michael Trautmann), two boys born under difficult conditions and to whom is terribly hard to distinguish the fine line that separates the good from the bad behavior. 

We know Dre as a boy who goes to class, that is, that strives to make himself a future. Today, precisely, when he is about to receive an important and encouraging high qualification, something to be proud of. After the good news Dre meets his girlfriend, whom he updates, but when she talks about meeting later, Dre says that he can´t because he is catching up with his friends. Kisha (Jamila Thompson) tries to talk him out of joining those people, to what Dre, apparently sure of his arguments, insist on knowing exactly what he is doing. 

Despite his unfortunate attitude, Andre ends up not being quite the person we should be worrying about. Kevin, however, is here, the time bomb. 

Kevin, among the characters, is the one who has it worst. With a background that leaves much to be desired, the poor boy has no idea of what to do or what he is getting into. His every day consiste in acting on impulse, believing he can do what he pleases. Yet, he ends up letting himself be manipulated by the worst of the influences, a bunch of guys who look really bad, individuals lacking of the sense of civilized behavior. 

The fact that before, I described Kevin with the adjective of "poor", may sound wrong to many, and more if it is taken into considetarion the atrocities that he is about to do. What happens is that, if one actually stopped to think of it, perhaps could understand that this guy is not what we see, just because this is what he always wanted. With the kind of existence that leads, with, for example, a mother who is beaten, we are talking about a guy whose role models are not the most helpful. Adding to this that Kevin has set as a target to be accepted by the gang, have full access to guns and shoot to death anyone he wants, is the same as to indicate that Kevin is lost, has no idea of what he is dealing with, nor what is to comit a felony. Kevin is angry, who knows if with someone in particular or with everybody, given the so screwed up environment he has come to call "home". 

Night falls and Carley and Lena go have fun to a bar. There, Lena sees her boyfriend from the distance and that anguish her. Lena now wants to leave when the party is just beginning, but fortunately, the very sweet Carley offeres to drive her back. 

Unfortunately, sometimes without realizing it we are taking a decision at the wrong moment. Carley and Lena go toward their vehicle, just as two other boys are coming close (Dre and Kevin), one of which is at his worst (Kevin) of the day. Then, the destinies of this four people from two opposite realities, intersect, and comes the disaster. 

Carley and Lena are in their own car, prisoners of a stranger, and Lena has been seriously wounded. Dre, who is the one driving and who could already be prosecuted for assault and kidnapping, begins to operate without a fixed course, but his goal is to reach a hospital. His seatmate, aware of what happens but terrified and angry, knows that he is going to jail and prefers his freedom, to the girl to survive. Therefore, no health center is an option. 

Dre tries to think. The stupid of Kevin, who won´t stop speaking, does not allows him to do so, and on top he turns on the radio to get distracted with his damn music. Nothing good can come out of all this. 

96 minutes is of those movies where everything goes from bad to worse, but has a great lesson that tells us to be aware of who we are, of whom we coexist with, and that sometimes we “do have" options, and use them depends only on us. 

Thanks to a very good work of handheld camera and a well-chosen cast, was that Aimee Lagos would manage to show us as near as possible, and also, in the more realistic way, how is that a conflict that looks like hell, takes place. 

My rating: 8/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí