"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

"Great power means great responsibility"

Title: Chronicle

Year: 2012

Genre: Drama, C. Ficción, Thriller

Director: Josh Trank

Writer: Max Landis (screenplay), Max Landis and Josh Trank (story)

Runtime: 84min

Cast: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, Ashley Hinshaw

Produc.: Davis Entertainment, Adam Schroeder Productions, Film Afrika Worldwide

Budget: $12 million approx.
 

In Chronicle, three friends are exposed to a strange substance found in a forest. From that moment they begin to experience the power of telekinesis. 

Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHann) and Matt Garetty (Alex Russell) are cousins. However, the relationship of intimate friendship that they held in their childhood, no longer exists. Meanwhile, Andrew is a young shy man, unpopular, and who manages to feel comfortable at a party by carring a video camera, which also brings him problems. Andrew ends up leaving the party, beaten, and sitting in the open air. 

Soon, another boy, his name Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan), goes to Andrew for a favor. He and Matt have found something and want Andrew to register it. Andrew follows Steve to the scene of the events, which could be described as a curious hole in the ground. Within it, they find something inexplicable, a substance never seen before, that makes noises and emits very sharp colors, and which endows them with a power that is perhaps too large for them to control. Later, the two cousins enxperience together, shortening their distance again. 

Chronicle is one of the first novelties of 2012, in the line of The Blair Witch Project (1999), Paranormal Activity (2007), Trollhunter (2010) or Grave Encounters (2011), in a time when the sugenre of movies on the type of "fake documentary" or "found footage" has become the new fashion. 

Here we have, obviously, the typical guy who carries his camera everywhere and no matter what happens, which is an excuse for us to see, almost at first hand, all that happens. The largest differences compared to similar products is that, while in Grave Encounters or The Blair Witch Project we were expectant to the appearance of ghosts, monsters or demons, the focus here are the main protagonists, of whom we are always expecting to see move or break something, or do something that surprises us. Each scene is another occasion for discovering how far they can go, from having fun doing harmless pranks, up to comiting almost fatal mistakes. The latter, which leads Matt to see a need to establish certain rules. 

It is possible that some see a resemblance to Brian de Palma´s Carrie (1976). On this, I can only say that Chronicle is far from being a copy of the classic of the 70s, as evidenced by its starting point, which is another completely different, or for the approach given to the characters, along with the sort of staging. 

From time to time, the different paranormal circumstances are set aside for addressing Matt´s complicated family situation. The boy lives under the same roof with his ailing mother, who is always in bed, and with his disabled father, a former firefighter, and a man terrified by his wife´s illness and who only knows how to express himself through reprimand. 

The film leads us through this world full of possibilities, which involves being able to manipulate objects, almost regardless of the number or sizes and without having to lift a finger. From playing with the pieces of a Lego, to tow a car or even fly like Peter Pan, through the clouds. However, something that these guys should have never forgotten is of the enormous responsibility that means having something so huge. Because Matt is an intelligent and lucid guy, the same can be said about Steve, but not, about Andrew. 

Andrew is not a bad boy and has no bad feelings, but not even the greates of the powers has been able to evade him from the weight of a dying mother, or of a father who can only yell or question him what he does and who he hangs out with. 

Fortunately, Chronicle have been able to offer us a concept that went beyond the flying and moving stuff. It deals with the problematic of a boy who, unable to stop to reason, is forced to go to the extreme, to distrust of all, seeing them as enemies and feeling that they should be punished. Andrew ends up becoming a sort of male version of Carrie, only that his possibilities of action and destruction are much larger and more catastrophic. 

With the wanderings of these guys is revealed to us how each one enjoys his superhuman ability, to then see, in the ending, the actual deployment of visual effects. That's where the action fills the screen with extras, vehicles and glassess flying everywhere, because of a disturbed kid. All we see constitutes the sum of a work of pyrotechnics, extensive use of chrome (green screen) and large variety of digital additions. In this very same ending is where the film loses part of its dramatic dimension, so that everything becomes something purely entertaining, similar to the battle between superheroes and vllains. Out of that, this new successor to The Blair Witch Project is certainly worth it, and is not, just another one of the pile.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Scorsese in the birthplace of cinema"

Title: Hugo
Year: 2011
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Family
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: John Logan (written by), Brian Selznick (book)
Runtime: 126min
Cast: Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winston
Produc.: Paramount Pictures, GK Films, Infinitum Nihil 
Budget: $170 million approx.

In Hugo we are located in the Paris of the 30's, where Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan who lives hidden in a train station and whose specialty is to repair appliances. Hugo leads a solitary existence, with an absent guardian, his alcoholic uncle Claud (Ray Winston), a good for nothing, unable to care for him or to fix the clocks in the terminal, work that does his nephew. 

Among his belongings Hugo has an automaton, a machine that mimics the shape and movements of a living being and that constitutes the greates legacy left by his father. He knows that this device has been designed to express something on paper, either a phrase, a drawing or some kind of message. However, his automaton is not complete and Hugo must find certain items to facilitate the functioning of its mechanism. Thus, one day that Hugo is active doing his stuff, he meets Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley), a toy salesman from the station, who has no sympathy towards him, in addition to calling him a thief. Furious, Méliès takes away another of his most prized possessions: a book, to the child, of crucial importance, and without which he will be lost. To make matters worse, his very presence at the station is not well seen, where in the eyes of the inspector, he is nothing but a fugitive. This means that Hugo has to approach Méliès business to recover what is his, but without being arrested in the act. A little bit later Hugo will meet Isabelle, a girl, goddaughter of Méliès, whom he will ask for help to retrieve his book and who, along with him, will discover a wonderful secret. 

After many years telling us of tough guys (1990 GoodFellas, Casino 1995, Gangs of New York 2002 or The Departed 2006), Martin Scorsese has decided to go into a story that finally children and adults can enjoy the same, and where we do not hear a single insult along the entire film. Scorsese leaves the world of corruption and violence to try and provide his signature to Brian Selznick´s book, granting himself the possibility of doing homage to one of the key moments of the emergence of this entertainment world, that opened its doors to him once. 

Brian Selznick previously addressed this history, showing the circumstances that surrounded Georges Méliès, illusionist, and later, filmmaker. Méliès was a man who in a fair, after meeting the Lumiere brothers and their intriguing movie projector, had been fascinated and wanted then to buy it to them. But the brothers had refused to sell it and in the end Méliès had designed his own version of the device. 

In the book, on the other hand Selznick invented Hugo, a child, skillful with his hands and who would link us to Mr. Méliès. 

Concerning the film, Scorsese shows us who Hugo is and what he seeks, using flashbacks to explain it better. The kid lives entirely by his own and in a reality that is alien to the rest. Now, when Hugo sees how injustice or bad luck accompany him again, it becomes very difficult to feel his suffering from the outside, because at all times he is seen with the exact same expression on his face, which speaks of a not very good job at directing actors. If one put the film, looked closely at Hugo in three or four scenes and then speeded up the tape about forty minutes, would be surprised to find the exact same gestures, ineffective at the moment of conveying what the child feels or thinks. Being then a film which subject is indeed interesting, easy to understand, very well photographed and superbly recreated in terms of historical reconstruction, the perfect finishing touch would have been a more convincing and heart-breaking performance, that we certainly never see. 

On the other hand, it should be emphasized Scorsese´s quality to make a brief review of the history of cinema, whose origin was precisely in France. Drawing on Georges Méliès as a motor trigger, the director gives us a glimpse of the primitive cinema, and where we are pointed out how did all began and how did the special effects appeared, from the first few hundred meters of celluloid. 

I think the worst that could happen at this point would be that the audience was oblivious to these circumstances. Those who know the more basic historical details about the beginnings of this art may be excited and feel the hair on the back of their neks stand up against this segment. Those who, however, do not know nothing about it, will probably believe that this is a very entertaining little story, but invented. To those of this second group I recommend Forgotten Silver (1995) by Peter Jackson. 

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Caught, by a secret"

Title: Brake

Year: 2012

Genre: Crime, Thriller

Director: Gabe Torres

Writer: Timmothy Mannion

Runtime: 92min

Cast: Stephen Dorff, Chyler Leigh, JR Bourne, Tom Berenger

Produc.: Walking West Entertainment, La Costa Production

In Brake, Jeremy Reins (Stephen Dorff) suddenly awakens to realize that he has been trapped in a strange glass box, illuminated by a red light, and that, no matter where he sees, everything is completely dark and unknown. Jeremy does not know his location on the map or how he got there.

Two years ago I was able to see Buried (2010), from spanish director Rodrigo Cortes and starring Ryan Reynolds. In it, Reynolds was Paul Conroy, an innocent citizen who, in need of money had taken the truck driver job in Iraqi territory to transport soldiers, not involving this him in the battle. Still, things had come to go wrong and now he awoke in a wooden coffin, who knows where, with a cell phone as his only resource.

Coming now to the present, yesterday I could enjoy myself with another very similar proposal, but for my taste, far superior in a plot level. In Brake, Stephen Dorff has a wider range of tools, and while his image is what dominates the screen in 99% of the time, the action, suspense and drama that are built around him are such that one has no time to get bored.

Initially, the concept is exactly the same as in its predecessor. A guy who has been locked in a small space and tries to escape, and a language presented under the only alternative of showing the character and his claustrophobic prison from all the possible angles of interest. Something nothing new by now, if we think about Phone Booth (2002) or 127 hours (2010). However, unlike its more direct predecessor, here the rhythms are much better achieved and no scene becomes too slow. Every event that occurs around somehow affects inside the box, so that we know that Jeremy, even from his enclosure, also suffers from the troubles out there. Even when there is a gunfight, a stray bullet passess through the glass and hits him in one leg.

One may find some resemblance to any of the installments of the popular horror franchise Saw (2004), although in this case, the use of the clock is never out of place either. As soon as Jeremy wakes up, he immediately realizes about the existence of a counter, located outside the windows, just above him. And then he finds, located next to him (but, on his side) a radio with an intercom. It will not be dificult for him to see that, whenever the numerical count reaches zero means that something else is going to happen, and that with every countdown, new communication possibilities are at his extent. What Jeremy has to do is to find a good frequency and talk to the right person, if he wants to get out alive. Meanwhile, he will have to discern why they are torturing him like his.

At one point, Jeremy gets the answer to his biggest question, but, this does not mean that things would stop getting more complicated, as he faces certain obstacles which prevent him from fulfilling with what he has been asked to.

Finally, and speaking of the end, I can only say that I have rarely seen anything like it. When one is expecting for something to occur and it ends up going the other way around, more surprising and original, is when one more realizes about the value of a good plot.

My rating: 8/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Evil wears a suit"

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

Runtime: 89min

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Criminal love"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí