Reviews

The word "bekas" means orphans (or something quite similar). The film BEKAS (Karzan Kader, 2012) is set in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. A couple of orphan kids living in that place during that particular period is, without a doubt, synonymous of a difficult story, that will probably worry the viewer. The orphans, two little brothers, do have a complicated life, they need to work, but they're too normal kids, innocents, ready to be blown away by the magic of cinema. BEKAS is in general a very sweet movie about childhood, in which the protagonists provoke empathy and charm, some great laughs and constant criticism to the Hussein regime as well.

The film begins with a little homage to cinema, 'cause in Iraq they love it too and when SUPERMAN arrives everything is worthy to can watch the images projected. It begins an exploration to the impact that a movie can have in a kid, and at the same the same a reflection of the influence the United States have on Iraq and the rest of the world – SUPERMAN changes the life of the brothers, who now want to travel to the United States to meet that superhero in person (that's the premise that's just too attractive to miss). The boys, is worth adding, don't really know how to localize America in the map… and neither Iraq!

They're innocent but for us is sort-of difficult not to think I that issue that deals with cultural imperialism. Superman is famous in Iraq, as well as Coca-Cola and the king of pop Michael Jackson. However, and before you think of the film as criticism to the US, this is part of the comic side, truly hilarious stuff for moments, that more than anything just wants to celebrate kids and create meaningful situations. It's similar to what we got with EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED (Live Schreiber, 2005), with Ukrainian characters that are fans of American culture – the young man who loves hip-hop, Jackson and dresses himself like an African American, and the grandpa who decided to name his dog Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. in honor of the singer. It's very curious that in BEKAS the youngest brother decides to name Michael Jackson their (pet/transport) donkey! This kid seems to overact at first, but later it's clear that all is part of his (loud-mouthed) personality, and turns out very funny.

The dark side of the film has a constant: physical child abuse. To paraphrase a Hans Landa dialog, it's a hostile world for the orphans; and the director Karzan Kader achieves the transmission of that injustice feeling with some scenes that show adults mistreating the boys. The story goes for some common issues as well, typical dramatic stuff, and that's kind of annoying; the close relationship of the brothers, and their mission to get to the US, is threatened at one point thanks to a young girl (the oldest boy is in love with her). Still Kader manages to save the picture, and even has some time to give it a great dose of pure tension – the Iraq with military, people who want to get out of there illegally and explosive mines is present for the last minutes. BEKAS, being light-hearted, make us believe that the impossible will happen but at the same time it says that the best thing that could happen to a couple of orphans from Iraq is, simply, to remain together.

*Watched it on 01 May, 2013

It's possible that THE PEOPLE VS. GEORGE LUCAS (O. Phillippe, 2010) is thought as a work done by STAR WARS (Lucas, Kershner, Marquand, 1977-2005) fans for the satisfaction of other geeks of George Lucas' magnum opus. And yes, the debate of who shot first (in a scene of STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE), if Han Solo or Greedo, is in essence only relevant for hard core followers of the saga, however exploring its origin take us to other discussions that without a doubt are incumbent on anyone interested in cinema, its social relevance (and mercantile production), or in the preservation of the arts.

THE PEOPLE VS. GEORGE LUCAS is presented in four episodes but the thematic is mostly divided in a couple of issues. Firstly you'll discover, or understand better for that matter, why STAR WARS is one of the most important films ever made. Authors like Neil Gaiman give us an idea of what was EPISODE IV back in 1977. Later, we examine why people now hates the mind behind the films that they still love. Even persons that worked in the original trilogy criticize Lucas, and it's certainly not gratuitous: thanks to Lucas and his necessity/stubbornness for actualizing/changing his work (even when he testified in 1988 against the colorization of black and white films), now is impossible to watch the original version of the 3 first movies on a home format extracted from the negative, unless you still own a LaserDisc. According to Lucasfilm the negative of the original was permanently altered to create the "special editions" of 1997.

"The SOUTH PARK episode had more impact on Indiana Jones fans than INDY 4" – Brandon Kleyla, director of INDYFANS

SOUTH PARK has helped to spread this generalized feeling of frustration and disenchantment that huge STAR WARS and/or INDIANA JONES (Spielberg, 1981-2008) fans has developed thanks to the decisions of the creator of both universes (those decisions certainly include Jar Jar Binks!). However, and even when he wrote episodes like "The China Probrem" (2008), in which Indiana Jones is literally raped by Lucas and Spielberg (in allusion to the childhoods that INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL "raped"), the creator of SOUTH PARK Trey Parker can be seen in the documentary 6 DAYS TO AIR (Bradford, 2011) showing off his lego STAR WARS toys. The love/hate feeling for Lucas is omnipresent in THE PEOPLE VS. GEORGE LUCAS.

If SOUTH PARK has given voice to Lucas' fans, this documentary gives them full presence, and fanatics of all types express their opinions without reservations. Is really funny to watch the great compilation of fan works inspired by the saga (and some by Indy) – we get from parodies that combine the world of Luke Skywalker with SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (Donen, Kelly, 1952) to the classic stop-motion animations with the toys. Jean-Luc Godard said it: "In order to criticize a movie, you have to make another movie". And STAR WARS fans have done this over the years, creating their very own versions of editing the originals. Thanks to this, THE PEOPLE VS. GEORGE LUCAS becomes great as film criticism too.

With an exceptional work, interviews made in Spain, France, Japan and other countries, and correct use of stock footage (the life of Lucas is perfectly told with previous interviews), O. Phillippe dedicates to the man from Modesto, California a love letter that's truly complicated, and to us a documentary that's just fascinating on all levels.

*Watched it on 03 March, 2013

With only 1 hour and 10 minutes the Mexican documentary VUELVE A LA VIDA (Carlos Hagerman, 2010), still playing at Mexico City's Cineteca Nacional, make us understand the essence of a peculiar man known as the "perro largo" ("the large dog"), as well as that of the old Acapulco, that paradise place that people from Mexico City and the US too chose for vacation or even to live. With only 1 hour and 10 minutes, VUELVE A LA VIDA also manages to offer a look to Mexico through American eyes and a great reflection that touches themes like nationality and defines the word "home". Yes, it's a quick documentary, but without a doubt it'll remain with you much more time than any of the recent Mexican fictions (like LLUVIA DE LUNA or 5 DE MAYO, THE BATTLE).

The protagonist, a diving expert from Acapulco, is omnipresent thanks to stories and memories from those who knew him while he was still alive. Those stories are about his experiences but we have as well those that he used to tell, some completely fictional that nevertheless have survived and now are immortal thanks to cinema. It's a BIG FISH (Tim Burton, 2003) sort- of thing, with the "dog" who, just like Edward Bloom, told stories full of fantasy (apparently a manta ray was in love with him!), although his main one, related with the sea and its big fishes, was lived by all of Hagerman's interviewees – a story about the hunting of a big fish (a shark in fact) that treated the Acapulco bay in times of JAWS (Steven Spielberh, 1975) and TINTORERA (René Cargona Jr., 1977 – regarded as the Mexican rip-off of the mentioned Spielberg picture, with the real Hugo Stiglitz!).

The documentary is mostly told from the conversations with two key people in the dog's life: his wife Robyn (a former model from the US) and his stepson John (who was also the film's DP). They are the protagonists of the other issues of the film, the one that's related with the US certainly. Robyn is the beautiful model (and junkie) who decided to live the "Mexican dream" and went to the Acapulco paradise. And John, the little blond kid who grew up far away from home, surrounded by dark-skinned people, and who learned to speak Spanish like any Mexican (although he now lives in LA).

Hagerman uses some resources, like doing some sort of recreation of the facts and filming musical moments, but what stands out more is the spontaneity of his characters (like the man who firmly believes in aliens). Something curious is that at the beginning the typography used seems antiquated, almost giving the film a cheap look, but that is forgotten thanks to a nice ending, with the creation of the family tree and the cool credits that show what you need for a "vuelve a la vida" dish (the production crew and needs are listed as it they were food ingredients – "you need 3 extra cameramen and 3 years of editing", something like that).

This is the type of documentary that will make you accept its imperfections – Hagerman is a filmmaker who says something like "it doesn't matter that the noise ruined my shot, I'll use it anyway". It's a lot of fun too, with a truly interesting mix of cultures that can be resumed when we see the "dog" (the typical man from Acapulco) and at the same time we hear his stepson playing a blues (typical American music).

*Watched it on 27 April, 2013

The "sort-of sequel" of KNOCKED UP completely forgets the main characters of that 2007 movie, the couple of Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl. The characters of Jonah Hill and Jay Baruchel don't appear as well and aren't even mentioned; these guys now perform for Tarantino and Scorsese (Hill) or for Cronenberg (Baruchel was in COSMOPOLIS).

So, they are all replaced with Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann (Pete and Debbie) – the unhappy married couple that was a complement for the fantasy main story of the first movie, about the geek-stoner-slacker that ends with the sexy blonde (that aspired for more). In THIS IS 40,the fourth feature film from the godfather of modern American comedy Judd Apatow, everything seems to be closer to real life, or at least the stress that a married couple with two daughters lives is very well represented.

It's an extension of some scenes we saw in KNOCKED UP, with the woman that suffers because she's not a 20-year-old girl anymore and the man who's feeling suffocated and (now) stressed since his labor/financial situation is getting worse and worse. Plus, their daughters are at complicated ages (the teenager who's fan of technology and LOST, and who doesn't tolerate her 7-year-old sister) – the drama is totally convincing. Do you remember that THE SIMPSONS episode when Maggie is about to born? THIS IS 40 feels pretty similar, with a real issue that always keeps the characters worried, and at the same time with a dose of absurd humor that mostly works really good.

On one hand, Rudd is definitely a very funny protagonist. His character is compared, in a bad sense, with Ross from the sit-com FRIENDS but certainly is difficult to picture Ross exploring himself (in the search of a hemorrhoid) or going nuts with "Debaser" by the Pixies and defending Layne Staley. Equally, Albert Brooks (who leads the supporting cast as the father of Pete) is just hilarious. Once again the situation with this character is real, the father that needs economic support and so becomes a charge, but the result is quite cartoonish (in a good way).

On the other hand, Apatow had some excesses and used too obvious comedy. The cameos of people like Graham Parker and Billy Joe Armstrong, as themselves, are really irrelevant unless you're a huge fan of them. And Megan Fox gets involved in the most obvious thing of the film; everyone treats her right while her less attractive colleague is basically ignored – it's pretty much like seeing her appearance in TWO AND A HALF MEN.

So, THIS IS 40 never stops being a funny cartoon with actors since Apatow didn't lose his characteristics; lots of gags, scatological humor, tons of references to the pop culture (the names of Tom Petty and Justin Bieber are said in a same scene – the audience, by the way, only reacted with the Bieber joke!), citing his favorite movies, cameos or personalities, and doing all in more than 2 hours. There will be people who say that Apatow is just doing the same movie over and over again, but you have to recognize THIS IS 40 as his most personal yet and consequently the one more people will feel identified with.

*Watched it on 11 April, 2013

Dustin Hoffman debuts as director at the age of 75 with a British cast that's mostly just as old, and with a story that's set at a retirement home for musicians. QUARTET is certainly a film about the old age, however more than exploring deeply things like diseases or having thoughts about that period of life, it focuses on a pleasing (and quite nostalgic) love story.

In the film we get to see a resident being taken to the hospital (with serious health problems) and the dialogs of one of the protagonists indicates how much he hates being old; but all of this becomes secondary material to give some space to the main conflict of the movie: the reencounter between Reginald (Tom Courtenay) and Jean (Maggie Smith), two retired musicians that once were a married couple.

We could think in QUARTET as the opposite film of AMOUR (Michael Haneke, 2012), in which the protagonists are a couple of (retired, as well) music professors. These two are films with elements in common but nevertheless very different from each other – in AMOUR we have actually the end of a marriage.

One of the first elements that stand out is the comedy that's leaded by Billy Connolly, playing the character (Wilf) that hates getting old. Wilf is the classic funny old man who's "chasing" young girls all the time; in specific the beautiful doctor Lucy (Sheridan Smith). The other thing that identifies the movie is, obviously, the music – we get some performances and there's also memorable dialog about the connection between opera and hip-hop, for example.

This music thing becomes part of the structure that follows the formula of the romantic comedies – the idea for a little concert emerges and this could be the successful reunion of four musicians (Reginald, Jean, Wilf and other lady named Cissy) that once shared the glory, as well as a great monetary benefit for the retirement house, but as the formula dictates, a problem will appear.

QUARTET lacks of surprises and as it goes on it becomes more and more conventional, still some refreshing moments can be enjoyed. Besides, the main objective of Hoffman is always something respectable and noble – paying homage to music exponents that now are old persons. In a curious final credits sequence we see pictures with the "before and after" of said exponents, and that confirms the great interest of Hoffman to immortalize with a film the musicians and his very own love for opera and orchestral music.

*Watched it on 19 April, 2013

STOKER is a key piece in Park Chan-wook's filmography. It's his first American production, and that reaches a wide distribution in Mexico, but mostly is the only one until today in which he doesn't have a credit as writer. Nevertheless, the newcomer that begins watching the films of the Korean director with this one (there will be many for sure) will immediately notice the voice of an auteur, the beauty and perfection of each one of his shots, and his interest for exploring the violence of the human being.

In my country, at least, the film was sold sort-of like a typical horror picture "starring Nicole Kidman". I heard a young woman after the screening I attended saying that "it's horrible". You know, maybe the constant sexual tension between daughter (Mia Wasikowska), mother (Kidman) and uncle (Matthew Goode) wasn't enough to get this girl's attention; or maybe she expected something faster, gorier, in the vein of the new EVIL DEAD (Fede Alvarez, 2013).

What doesn't make any sense to me is the discredit of a scene that's 100% cinematic, with a simple yet beautiful symbolism: the father of the protagonist, India Stoker (Wasikowska), has given her each year, as birthday present, a pair of shows (we see how the shoes become smaller until the first present India got is shown). It's impossible and useless to explain a sequence like this one, so I just want to point out STOKER is something you have to experience/enjoy in the biggest screen.

The writer of the film is Wentworth Miller, famous for acting in PRISON BREAK. Without a doubt he deserves too a huge recognition. Hitchcok is the obvious influence. It all begins with a death that could have been murder, and the arrival of a familiar, the mysterious uncle. When we have in our heads the whole story, well, it's just a brilliant, violent tale of pure horror, which focuses on an evil that almost comes within the genes of a person.

So the script is great but still no other director could have achieved something similar to what Park Chan-wook did. Let's see… at one moment, after it's clear for us that India and his father spent many time hunting together, a scene that shows these characters while hunting appears but the outcome doesn't. And while any other director would have shown us everything, a simply flashback to see what India used to do with her father, Park Chan-wook, on the contrary, perfectly understands what hunting represents for the India Stoker character. He understands the connection it has with her present, and certainly he's interested in exploring the resources that are unique to cinema. Park is a master of the language of cinema and STOKER just confirms that.

*Watched it on 05 April, 2013

The awaited remake of Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD arrived with a sentence, written all over the poster: "the most terrifying film you will ever experience". While it's not, since there are things like MARTYRS (Pascal Laugier, 2008 – the most "terrifying" film of the new millennium in my opinion), the gore fest that Fede Alvarez offers is one of the most satisfying horror movies in recent memory.

Just like Eli Roth came with his "godfathers" Quentin Tarantino and Peter Jackson, the young Uruguayan Alvarez arrived with the backup of Raimi and Bruce Campbell and without many experience (EVIL DEAD is his very first feature film). Alvarez ain't the disappointment that Eli Roth was with CABIN FEVER and HOSTEL, and without a doubt his next project (it seems it will be EVIL DEAD 2) looks instantly attractive.

The elements of the plot change – the sister of the hypothetically "new Ash" (turns to be played by an actor who's too "juvenile") suffers of a severe drug addiction. It all starts with her new attempt of getting sober… inside a cabin in the woods, certainly. The transition feels natural and it all works: the friends of the girl, just like his brother, think the supernatural changes she's having (you know what type of changes) are just effects of the abstinence. Obviously, we know what it means to have those scenes with the camera quickly moving through the woods.

Part of that fun vulgarity of the original is present here too; there are some moments of pure black humor ready to be appreciated by fans of Raimi. The characters suffer and suffer again and from our point of view it all looks really f****** painful; it's a movie with enough mutilations. When I watched it on the big screen some people left the theater, so the deal is quite simple: if you like bloody movies, EVIL DEAD will not disappoint you for the lack of gore. It's fast, entertaining, and has an emblematic climax with blood literally everywhere, obscenities, and the classic chainsaw!

*Watched it on 02 April, 2013

I first heard about THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT thanks to the DVD commentary of UNDERTOW (2004), featuring director David Gordon Green and actor Jamie Bell. Gordon Green expresses his love for Michael Cimino's debut feature; "I'm obsessed with this actor (Bill Mckinney) from THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT, he has an amazing role where he picks up Jeff Bridges and Clint Eastwood and he's got the raccoons in the car and the bunnies in the trunk. Have you seen that, Jamie? That movie maybe is the best movie ever made". After finally watching the film, plenty of years after hearing that commentary actually, I'm kind of surprised that Tarantino hasn't publicly expressed some love for it – maybe he has but at least I haven't heard any. Anyway, he must love it.

THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT is a sort-of mix of many elements – it's a road movie that becomes a heist one, and that's always a buddy film, all with some folk music. Seeing Clint Eastwood and young Jeff Bridges as new buddies in a car, and a folk song as background music, reminded me of the Jamie Foxx/Christoph Waltz/Jim Croce's "I've Got a Name" part of DJANGO UNCHAINED. And yes, this is too a Clint Eastwood picture of the seventies – one that begins with Eastwood as a preacher actually but that can't "pretend" it's "different" for more than 5 minutes, I mean, the runtime marks 6 minutes and preacher Eastwood is already dealing with some tough guy and some bullets!

Nevertheless the film does ends being something *different*. Like I said, first we have a road movie with Bridges' character "Lightfoot" seeking the friendship of Eastwood – on the road there's some chases, folk music and crazy characters (like the one Gordon Green mentions), but this is just the setting for the real deal: the heist picture. If RESERVOIR DOGS is a "heist movie without the heist", then this is a heist film with the heist and the preparation of it. Yes, I know that sounds like an average thing but trust me, the preparation of the heist is pretty darn unique – the whole thing becomes funny in a good way, like a great absurd comedy with, for instance, some of the criminals working as ice-cream vendors and having problems with their child clients!

Eastwood's performance isn't his coolest of the period, certainly it can be seen as a minor work made between the DIRTY HARRY movies. Bridges steals the show for sure. I haven't seen a lot of young Bridges but this has to be one of the most distinctive roles from his early days; he's really funny and even dresses himself as a woman – crazy stuff overall, with a bittersweet conclusion in the vein of other seventies films.

*Watched it on 17 March, 2013

I haven't seen tons of short documentaries but I can't imagine finding one that's more inspiring, definitive, funnier, crazier, and just better for the film aficionado than this piece by BURDEN OF DREAMS director Les Blank. With only 20 minutes you get a definitive portrait of one of cinema's greatest: Werner Herzog. And it's as simple as this: if Herzog doesn't inspire you here, if after watching WERNER HERZOG EATS HIS SHOE you don't end admiring him (or admiring more if you already did), well, why do you admire a filmmaker then if not for something related to their bravura? I mean, even if you haven't seen any of his films, this short documentary should be enough to get Herzog.

Here we have his views on television, filmmakers (he mentions big ones like Orson Welles and François Truffaut) and on film as a social issue. But most importantly, we have the proof that there's at least one filmmaker, 'cause yes he's still around in 2013 making one or more films per year, that's honest, daring, a bit f****** crazy, and that really cares for art.

The title perfectly indicates what we are going to watch but the reason why he'll eat his shoe is what matters – Herzog made a promise to the then unknown Errol Morris: if Morris could complete a feature film, Herzog would eat his shoe. Pushed by Herzog and his "having no money ain't an excuse to not make a film as you can steal a camera like I did" philosophy, Morris did complete his first feature GATES OF HEAVEN (1978), which I have yet to see (Herzog loved it).

Herzog's little speech on making your first picture should definitely be in any film student's mind all the time, not to mention his willingness to do pretty much anything (like throwing yourself to a cactus) for the people that work for you in a film. So there, if you don't know Herzog or his films, this could very well be a great starting point. It's extremely well made, really funny, inspiring, unique and crazy (certainly), hell, it even has Charlie Chaplin eating too a shoe!

*Watched it on 10 March, 2013

Cinema and literature have explored the themes of THE HOUSE I LIVE IN many times before. If you talk about "war on drugs" you'll inevitably find that everything is related, from the kid who wants to follow the steps of the most recognized gangster in the ghetto (something similar to one of the stories in Garrone's GOMORRA) to the penal system debate (not long ago Werner Herzog touched this theme with INTO THE ABYSS).

THE HOUSE I LIVE IN, documentary about the war on drugs in the United States, take us to many states, shows us the perspective of all the involved in this complex situation, from the recluse that trafficked with methamphetamines to the cop that appeared in the series COPS. Even when the documentary's duration is only 2 hours, it seems that director Eugene Jarecki had enough material for a 10-hour miniseries, so with a single viewing it may be a bit difficult to retain every one of the stories here featured.

Jarecki began his project thanks to a personal issue: the African American woman that took care of him when he was a child saw her family being destroyed by drugs. The director quickly delimitates his theme and decides only to explore his country – the Mexican war on drugs, for instance, is mentioned only once, simply to conclude that the problem is much bigger in the United States. Jarecki never questions where the drugs that enter to his country come from, or why people use them – that's somewhat clear: people involved in the drug traffic or use do it "out of pain", as one of the interviewed persons remarks. So, the objective of the documentary is to find out what causes that pain.

We get concise answers and thoughts, that shows an impressive brutality and at the same time contradict the final message, sort-of encouraging, of the film. That message is, by the way, illustrated with the image of an African American woman watching on her TV, with a smile, the first victory of Barack Obama back in 2008. Yes, the same woman that took care of young Jarecki.

THE WIRE (2002-2008), brilliant but not very popular American series, has been described as a cop show that doesn't move fast, with tons of action and gunshots. The series' big amount of information can be a little difficult to digest at the beginning, but we are talking of an ambitious project that starts with a simple detective case and ends exploring many aspects of the American society (in Baltimore specifically), being the drug trafficking one that stands out.

One of the interviewed persons with more presence in the documentary is actually David Simon, former police journalist for the Baltimore Sun and also creator of the mentioned TV series. Undoubtedly, Simon was a huge inspiration for Jarecki, and both works, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN and THE WIRE, complement each other. If you know the fiction, watching the documentary is like returning to the same places (the housing projects) and also to some situations (the cops that prefer doing quick drug-related arrests rather than working on bigger, more important cases).

Another person that stands out is one historian with an expertise on Abraham Lincoln. With his look from those civil war years, this man take us by hand to give a look to the history of drugs in the United States, going till the days when the Chinese people (who were directly related with the use of opium) began to took the jobs of the white Americans. The stock footage shows us the classic American propaganda, and Jarecki finds some answers and parallelisms in the type of political speech that was used by someone like Nixon.

Like I already mentioned, the principal virtue of THE HOUSE I LIVE IN is that it provide us concise answers – even a theme like the origin of the ghettos is explained better than ever. In fact, this Lincoln look-alike man is who concludes in a brutal way the war on drugs theme, and more than Jarecki's own sort-of conclusion, this is the one that will stay with us – the war on drugs is an holocaust that, unlike the other holocausts, has evolved and no longer distinguish races, only social classes.

*Watched it on 16 February, 2013

When the closing credits of BEWARE OF MR. BAKER appear, alongside some funny scenes that show the constant dose of insults that director Jay Bulger received from Giner Baker during the filming, it's clear that completing a documentary about a rock n' roll legend as crazy and hostile as Mr. Baker was nothing less of a miracle, something will hardly be repeated. The good news is that Bulger's film is definitive so even if Baker were a little more accessible it would be unnecessary and absurd to search him in a near future for a new documentary about his life.

The young Bulger was lucky enough to fool Baker and make him believe he worked for Rolling Stone magazine back in 2010. Bulger didn't miss the chance, and he certainly knew that going to South Africa to talk with the former drummer of Cream was the great opportunity in his life. Since the first minutes we realize the documentary is quite personal, with Bulger's first-person narration that take us to the origins of the project. Along the way we have a sort- of father and son relationship between Baker and Bulger; the honesty of both is priceless, and that relationship something quite special that delivers those moments every documentary aspire to achieve, although we have too moments that none – there's no documentary maker in the world that expects to be physically attacked by his central figure, right?

If the documentary LEMMY: 49% MOTHERF*****, 51% SON OF A BICH (Orshoski, Olliver, 2010), about Motörhead leader Lemmy Kilmister, another living legend of British rock and survivor of the excesses, showed a pretty noble side of its main figure, and even his strong critique for drug use (especially heroin use), here it's impossible to do something similar. For the good (of his legend) or for the bad (of his family, Eric Clapton and everyone who knows him), Baker is pretty much the real "49% Motherf*****, 51% Son of a Bitch" of rock n' roll. Even some of his noble acts are seen as craziness – spending the millions he got for the Cream reunion on horses, and on a veterinary hospital for them, took him again to near bankruptcy.

The portrait is quite fun, you just have to see Baker's facial expressions in the pictures, but has depressing touches as well that fits perfectly with the "and I'm wasted and I can't find my way home" line from Blint Faith's beautiful tune "Can't Find My Way Home". For moments, it's almost like being watching that strangely sad world of Robert Crumb in CRUMB (Zwigoff, 1994). Jazz music plays a very important role for Crumb, and in the whole work of Zwigoff for that matter, and for Baker too. In one of the most memorable tales of the film, Bakers talks about the introduction to heroin and African rhythms he had thanks to an encounter with his idol, British jazz drummer Phil Seamen.

Bulger could interview people like Jack Bruce and Clapton from Cream, Johnny Rotten (Sex Pistols), Charlie Watts (the Rolling Stones), and Baker's own family (his children and ex- wives). One of the brilliant touches of BEWARE OF MR. BAKER is the decision to go beyond the already memorable tales. Some words are illustrated with remarkable animation, therefore we have something I would call the rock version of WALTZ WITH BASHIR (Folman, 2008). Think again in that story about jazz music, heroin and African sounds, add to it an animation with obscure and surrealistic stuff, and you'll have a great representation of that madness and genius that made of Baker the idol of such brilliant drummers as Stewart Copeland (the Police), Neil Peart (Rush), Bill Ward (Black Sabbath) and Nick Mason (Pink Floyd).

If you're into the music of any of the previously mentioned bands, I can't think in a single reason why you wouldn't enjoy BEWARE OF MR. BAKER. Also, it's a great way to discover more about Africa, its music and some of its past conflicts. Great stuff!

*Watched it on 15 February, 2013

"They start the same and they end the same", said brilliant director Paul Thomas Anderson about the characters of THE MASTER in a recent brief interview with Charlie Rose. "We're all children of Stanley Kubrick, aren't we? Is there anything you can do that he hasn't done?" – that's another quote from PT Anderson.

THE MASTER did remind me of Kubrick a lot; it basically follows the same path of a film like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971), with a protagonist, a war veteran with an obsession for alcohol and sex, going through a series of attempts by different people to help him, "cure" him and put him back into society, only to end pretty much where he started. THE MASTER also shares things with Anderson's previous effort THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) – both are character studies of long duration, meant to be seen by patient viewers and to be thought long after the closing credits appeared.

It's basically the most fascinating disappointment of 2012 – a weird case, with the best performance of the year (Joaquin Phoenix as the mentioned war veteran Freddie Quell – one thing's for sure: you will never forget the Freddie Quell name), one of the most brilliant sequences with the use of the flashback, and a terrific score (and vintage songs like "Get Thee Behind Me Satan" by Ella Fitzgerald), but still not as mind blowing as I hoped. Needless to say, for my money it's nowhere near the best work of PT Anderson.

As the so-called "Scientology film", it's quite interesting – it sure offers a great view at the power of a preacher, Philip Seymour Hoffman (as Lancaster Dodd) will intrigue you, echoing the f***** up thinking of L. Ron Hubbard (for more you have to check out the brilliant SOUTH PARK episode "Trapped in the Closet"). THE MASTER is a strange one but at the same time not at all. In fact, I would have preferred that my disappointment had more to do with the word "strangeness"; THERE WILL BE BLOOD, for instance, left me intrigued and thinking a whole lot while this one didn't. In other words, I don't think I didn't "get" something about it.

The strangest thing is definitely how Freddie cross paths with "the master" Lancaster Dodd and "the Cause" (this is how the Scientology-like cult of Dodd is called) – during a lonely and cold night, Freddie decides to break into a yacht (Dodd's one) and he's allowed to stay there because he can prepare unique alcoholic beverages. Sounds sort-of weird, right? But trust me, this whole thing is the best stuff of the film. This guy Freddie ain't your typical alcoholic – this is a guy who drinks fuel, photographic chemicals, thinner, etc. He has a gift to mix deadly stuff like these liquids and create irresistible drinks.

My favorite sequence of the film begins with Freddie and Lancaster drinking a glass, well less than half of the glass for obvious reasons, of a yellow beverage that Freddie created with whiskey, thinner and stuff. The sequence lasts for 20 or so minutes and ends with both characters drinking their second glass of the (practically) poisonous beverage. What's great is that during those 20 or so minutes we get to know Freddie's past, something that up until that point wasn't yet very clear, as well as the core of the proceedings that the Cause uses.

Scientology, or well "the Cause" is interested and believes in so-called "past lives". We're interested in Freddie's past – we know that he came home from war and then went under some proceedings and met with doctors who tried to unravel his past and thoughts without many success. Master Lancaster, on the other hand, achieves what the doctors couldn't and in consequence we get to hear more about Freddie's family and see flashbacks with the thing that truly bothers him. Like I said, it's a fine, brilliant sequence and sets for an engaging issue with a war veteran finally finding some peace through a group like the Cause.

Unfortunately, after that the film never has again a really powerful part, and coincidentally we never see Freddie playing with his beverages again. It felt a bit fragmented and couldn't achieve a huge overall impact. There's another long sequence with Freddie going under the proceedings of the Cause but nowhere as engaging, hell it's even boring (but still I have to say it works as an exposure of the craziness behind the cult). Good news is that PT Anderson won't take another 6 years to release a film and INHERENT VICE is coming in 2014 according to some reports. I couldn't be happier with the fact that Joaquin Phoenix is starring it, as I truly wanted to love THE MASTER as a whole as I loved his performance – in other words, I like to believe this ain't the definitive collaboration between these brilliant masters.

*Watched it on 21 & 23 February, 2013

"People think we're whining or crying about success if we're just really trying to tell you that there's some intense pressures and really some things that could be helped"; these are words of Eddie Vedder from Pearl Jam, stated three days after the death of his contemporary Kurt Cobain in 1994. The pressures in the music industry that Vedder is talking about are really well exposed, like few other times, in this documentary, which turns to be something interesting even when it's mainly just for the Journey fan (and that's something I'm infinitely far from being).

We have a great take on music as a business. Journey is a band that began in the seventies in San Francisco, with a progressive rock that took them to be compared with the Grateful Dead – the lead guitarist, Neal Schon, had been working with Carlos Santana. Sounds like a promising beginning right? However, the band was a financial failure and had no trouble in changing their sound for something more "radio friendly". For Journey, the (horrible) eighties were synonymous of millions of dollars and certainly of that "arena rock" that was later replaced by Cobain, Vedder and company.

If that "arena rock" from the eighties, with its weak ballads, is not something you like, DON'T STOP BELIVIN': EVERYMAN'S JOURNEY won't give you any reason to change your mind. Neal Schon, for instance, is shown as the classic rock star with no charisma, that always shows off his ability with the guitar but never loses himself with the magic of the instrument like the great ones (if that makes sense). But there is some good news; with the central character of the documentary we have interesting material that counteract, for instance, the decision of the director to show a live performance of a famous Journey ballad in its entirety.

Meet Arnel Pineda, a little man from Manila, Philippines, who is the protagonist of a, in his own words, "Cinderella story": in 2007 Journey needed a new vocalist and thanks to the magic of Youtube they found this Philippine, who had videos of him and his group playing Journey cover songs. The fun begins not only for Pineda but for us as well, since watching him in action, at his first show with the band (in Chile), and hearing his story about how the adrenaline made him run and jump literally in the whole stage, is as hilarious as this brief description of him (made by the drummer): "He's like David Lee Roth and Bruce Lee put together".

As the film goes on, the great pressures of music previously mentioned appear in a notable way for Pineda. He and his wife enjoy the money, obviously, but it always looks like the charismatic Pineda ain't ready to bear the weight that comes when you're part of an act that sells more than the Jonas Brothers (yes, this bizarre fact is part of the film); the previous moments to each show are some sort of internal fight, in which the Philippine convince himself that he couldn't be in a better place. All of this is by far more relevant than any Journey song, although if you're a fan of this band, what are you waiting to sing along to them?

*Watched it on 16 February, 2013

UNDER African SKIES may be one of the best "making of" ever made. There are many other elements that certainly make it something more than just a "making of", but in essence it's just that, a look at how Paul Simon's classic album "Graceland" was created. In fact, the project began as many others: to celebrate a special anniversary of the record, the number 25, with a concert. To begin, and if we think only in the musical stuff, the fact that every key musician in the realization of "Graceland" are still alive and could be localized for the first reunion in years with Simon give a whole lot more value to the celebration idea. So, director Joe Berlinger went to South Africa to capture this reunion of Simon and the African musicians, their rehearsals and finally the anniversary concert (celebrated in Johannesburg).

Is a real joy to see these musicians together, and you don't really have to know "Graceland" or any other Paul Simon record for that matter. Soon you'll get the essence of the record, you'll know its origins, the composition process (of both the music and the lyrics), the recording process, personal experiences of the people involved, and mostly the context. If as a "making of" this is a very rich work, as a documentary on the apartheid is even more. I don't think I'm the only one who some months ago came out from the theater thinking that Bob Marley has been socially the most important musician ever. In the documentary MARLEY (Kevin Macdonald, 2012) we see a couple of issues that in specific show the power of music – Marley provoking a peaceful encounter between two rival politicians in Jamaica, and his visit to Zimbabwe during the independence celebration.

There's no doubt UNDER African SKIES achieves its main goal and exposes how important was "Graceland" for a South African society that was devastated by the apartheid. The interesting thing can be observed with the little big differences between Paul Simon and someone like Marley. A year prior to the independence of Zimbabwe, Marley wrote a superb anti-colonization piece, simply titled "Zimbabwe". Simon, on the other hand, was never interested in political subjects and the only reason why he traveled to South Africa was the huge love he had for African music. So the interesting is that the admirable conviction of Simon to make music with the Africans didn't mean anything but the liberation of a nation that suffered its government and the international boycott too. Simon's message was almost involuntary but just as important as the ones of people like Marley.

The richness of this documentary can be summarized with a couple of situations that involves the South African vocal group Ladysmith Black Mambazo. One is just a musical gem, and the other makes us think; but both are about discovering and emotion. For our delight, two members of Ladysmith Black Mambazo take us to their first musical encounter with Simon, the preparation of the "Graceland" tune "Homeless". The other situation is something we will never fully understand: what did the South African musicians feel when they leaved their country to see the "free" world, walk in the streets of Manhattan, enter the Saturday Night Live studio?

UNDER African SKIES shows a battle for art, for the freedom of its creators and the need to keep it independent of any political force, all with a controversial but mostly just fascinating soundtrack.

*Watched it on 16 February, 2013

Two weeks ago my girlfriend and I went to the movies and decided to watch two movies instead of the usual one; we didn't think much in our double-feature, I mean in the selection which certainly needs always to be featuring two similar films but not for the obvious reasons (like for instance just because both were directed by the same dude, as Tarantino once remarked), but we just based our selection in the show times: FLIGHT at 17:00 hrs. and THE IMPOSSIBLE at 19:30 hrs.

We knew both were not feel-good experiences, but the similarities we found between them were more than we expected and luckily the double-feature was just damn right, with those magic movie moments – going out from a film that shows and is based upon an air crash to enter to one that begins with a sequence inside of a plane (not to mention that only a couple of a weeks ago I had enter a plane for the first time in years!).

FLIGHT (Robert Zemecki's comeback from "motion capture") and THE IMPOSSIBLE (Juan Antonio Bayona's first feature since 2007's EL ORFANATO) are about the consequences of, respectively, an air crash and a natural disaster. The structure in both is quite similar and none takes much time to show us the disaster (the big, important sequence we all know exists and therefore are waiting); in fact, both do it in a not very different way and at the moment of the impact (of both the plane with the surface and the tsunami) everything gets confused, the lose sound, certainly they are trying to put us in the victims' perspective.

Both films bring us hard and sad issues during almost the whole time to end in an optimistic note (the characters that suffered find some light). "Classic Hollywood style" you might be thinking, and yes, both are comforting for the average viewer (especially THE IMPOSSIBLE) but at the same time never forget that their subject is a tragic one – in FLIGHT the main character doesn't have the best ending (even if he finally finds some peace) and in THE IMPOSSIBLE the horror of the 2004 tsunami is always well exposed.

The great Terry Gilliam once criticized Steven Spielberg's SCHINDLER'S LIST, saying that "they save those few people, happy ending… but that's not what the holocaust is about, it was about complete failure of civilization to allow 6 million people to die". Also, Gilliam compared the Spielbergs of this world with the Kubricks (it was Kubrick actually who first said that "SCHINDLER'S LIST is about success and the holocaust was about failure"); the first ones give you answers ("even if the answers are stupid") and comfort the audience, while the second ones leave you always intrigued, make you think and provoke ideas and discussions.

When you make a film about a human tragedy, namely the holocaust or one natural like the 2004 tsunami (which caused the death of approximately 280,000 persons), you're taking some important risks. When you decide to place a story about hope in any of those tragic scenarios, well, you're taking even more risks. THE IMPOSSIBLE begins with the words "based on a true story", and in fact this is remarked when the screen only shows "true story". Juan Antonio Bayona had to do that for obvious reasons, as the main story of his film is the one that comes for every 10 thousand tragedies of the tsunami.

Some images are simply brutal (a truck full of dead bodies, for instance). THE IMPOSSIBLE could be thought as a movie with a completely different horror to the one of EL ORFANATO – a graphic horror, which requires a daring work especially from its main actress Naomi Watts. And Watts is indeed daring, great and leaves no doubts why she got nominated for the Academy Award.

It would be easy to "destroy" THE IMPOSSIBLE as Gilliam did with SCHINDLER'S LIST, because and as I already said, Bayona's film turns to be comforting, with a climax that's totally a "movie thing" (even when it's based on facts), and since it constantly shows the good side of things (the protagonists helping other victims and vice versa). However, Bayona perfectly understands what this tragedy is all about – yes, the protagonists' ending is a happy one, yet in the same scene we can see the other people that weren't as lucky still suffering the consequences. For this I would say that in this film Bayona has aspects of both, the Spielbergs but also of the Kubricks of this world.

*Watched it on 08 February, 2013

In that recent directors talk from the Hollywood Reporter, David O. Russell told his colleagues about the hard times as a director (and on a more personal level too with a divorce) he had after making THREE KINGS (1999) – he feels he "lost his own way" after that film and began to "overthink things trying to be too interesting, too particular… nothing feels right, no project feels right". It was until THE FIGHER (2010) came, more than ten years later, that Russell felt he was doing what's he's best at; in the meantime between "Kings" and THE FIGHTER, Russell had more darkness -he did a film that was never finished, began having financial problems and couldn't get the money for his much wanted adaptation of the novel THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK- than light -he directed only one feature, 2004's I <3 HUCKABEES-.

For Russell, THE FIGHTER was, at first sight, too conventional, with a story that has been seen before. He is convinced that 10 years ago he would have let go THE FIGHTER or any similar project, but I imagine when his actual chance to direct that boxing film came he wasn't really in a position to refuse the job, saying to himself "why don't you try to do this really good? See if you can do this from the heart and mean it". The rest my friends is history – in my book, THE FIGHTER is a great one.

Following this success, Russell didn't waste time and only two years later he returned, doing finally the "Silver Linings" adaptation. He has repeated the success with tons of accolades, including the Oscar nomination for best picture (not to mention the four nominations for his cast). Good for him, as SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK may not be my favorite of the year but it doesn't disappoints.

Let's see, here we have a protagonist (Bradley Cooper) that suffers of bipolar disorder – it's definitely interesting and very well portrayed, with remarkable scenes that let us see what's like to live with someone who can be at times notably happy but at others extremely irritated by issues like finding a not-really-happy ending in a Ernest Hemingway book (!).

But let's make no mistake folks, as at core SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK features a story as conventional and rehashed as any dealing with the struggles of a sportsman. Russell insisted in doing "Silver Linings" because of his son, who suffers too of bipolar disorder. But I like to think that this director said once again to himself something like "Yes, I've seen hundreds of romantic flicks, with a guy who's wrong and doesn't sees who is the girl that truly loves him. Nevertheless, I'm doing the film and I'll try to do it *really good*".

As a matter of fact, of all the romantic comedies in recent memory, this ranks amongst the most memorable ones, just as THE FIGHTER as one of the best films about sport (and addiction too). The main reason why "Fighter" was a superb picture about yet another common issue like drug addiction is certainly the incredible performance of Christian Bale. Don't expect, however, to be blown away by the Oscar-nominated supporting cast of "Silver Linings". I'm really happy for Robert De Niro but he really doesn't do much as a hardcore Philadelphia Eagles fan; the same goes for Jacki Weaver – recently, she was a whole lot better in 2010's ANIMAL KINGDOM (she lost an Oscar for that performance to "Fighter"!).

Nobody "stole" the show from the main couple (Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence) – Cooper doesn't look anymore like a spoiled dude, giving the performance of his life so far, and Lawrence is really sweet as the classic girl who has to be the friend and adviser of a guy who can't move on from a failed relationship. Arguably, when you have a formulaic story the thing has to be about those details and unique elements. "Silver Linings" is rich in those: like I said, we have the bipolar issue (look for a great temperamental scene of Cooper set to Led Zeppelin's "What Is And What Should Never Bee"!), and another look from Russell to the sports world (from the fan perspective this time) – definitely anyone who knows a real fanatic of any sport will connect as here football, for De Niro especially, ain't any sort of entertainment but really a way of life and of making (and losing) money.

You know you're watching a worthy film when its key scene, the one that sets the tone of the conclusion, mixes all of the elements to create a unique, crazy and memorable thing. Football, superstition, therapy, everything is there to clearly expose that Jennifer Lawrence is the right girl for Cooper. Hell, at the dance that represents their soon-to-be great love, they dance and jump and go crazy to the White Stripes' "Fell In Love With A Girl"! What's not to like?

*Watched it on 10 February, 2013

Last Friday my girlfriend and I went to the movies and decided to watch two movies instead of the usual one; we didn't think much in our double-feature, I mean in the selection which certainly needs always to be featuring two similar films but not for the obvious reasons (like for instance just because both were directed by the same dude, as Tarantino once remarked), but we just based our selection in the show times: FLIGHT at 17:00 hrs. and THE IMPOSSIBLE at 19:30 hrs.

We knew both were not feel-good experiences, but the similarities we found between them were more than we expected and luckily the double-feature was just damn right, with those magic movie moments – going out from a film that shows and is based upon an air crash to enter to one that begins with a sequence inside of a plane (not to mention that only a couple of a weeks ago I had enter a plane for the first time in years!).

FLIGHT (Robert Zemecki's comeback from "motion capture") and THE IMPOSSIBLE (Juan Antonio Bayona's first feature since 2007's EL ORFANATO) are about the consequences of, respectively, an air crash and a natural disaster. The structure in both is quite similar and none takes much time to show us the disaster (the big, important sequence we all know exists and therefore are waiting); in fact, both do it in a not very different way and at the moment of the impact (of both the plane with the surface and the tsunami) everything gets confused, the lose sound, certainly they are trying to put us in the victims' perspective.

Both films bring us hard and sad issues during almost the whole time to end in an optimistic note (the characters that suffered find some light). "Classic Hollywood style" you might be thinking, and yes, both are comforting for the average viewer (especially THE IMPOSSIBLE) but at the same time never forget that their subject is a tragic one – in FLIGHT the main character doesn't have the best ending (even if he finally finds some peace) and in THE IMPOSSIBLE the horror of the 2004 tsunami is always well exposed.

The first sequence of FLIGHT, with the pilot "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington) waking up together with sexy flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadie Velazquez) after a night of sex, alcohol and drugs and just before a commercial flight, left no doubts we were seeing something not very common – this film takes no more than 10 minutes to end with the idea of security and professionalism we have or want to have of a pilot and a flight in general.

With FLIGHT I recalled the good but overrated ARGO, not only because here too we have John Goodman in a little yet very important role but also for its tension. And personally, seeing Washington trying to save his plane from a crash turned out to be as tense, if not more, as seeing Affleck and the group of Americans trying to get out from Iran. Contrary to what happens in ARGO, here the big tension arrives soon; the central theme of FLIGHT is in fact a common issue that has been explored by cinema many times before: alcoholism. FLIGHT, I dare to say, is destined to become a referent of the subject and is definitely one of the best movie about addiction in recent memory.

We also have a look at the world of heroin; yes, one more, and maybe what we get isn't something new but still Zemeckis is doing it right and, for example, gave us a perfect musical selection, in a scene that should have been longer: "Under the Bridge", a song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers that's about the consequences of drug addiction, is used to illustrate the character Nicole (Kelly Reilly), a heroin addict. The soundtrack, by the way, is full of other iconic songs like "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones (Marty Scorsese, anyone?) and "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye – not a surprise since Zemeckis did of the GUMP soundtrack a compilation of classics.

The film puts together those characters (Washington and Reilly) and with this move we get to see the two extremes of an addiction case (besides the romantic side of the picture). With Reilly we have the case with hope, the addict with desires of moving on and remain sober (classic situations like the visit to help groups are featured). On the other hand, the pilot falls in the worst period of his life after the accident, drinking tons of alcohol (few cinema characters drink as much as "Whip") and going through a constant fight (internal and external).

Washington is absolute golden; his performance as an alcoholic can't get more believable, and he is too a "bad motherf*****" at times. And precisely, that "punk rock" touch ends being the extra of a very complete piece. The external fight of "Whip", for instance, offer us an interesting enough argument for a good climax, even when we know it will be done with the classic "audience at a jury". The key here is the previous sequence to the one of the audience at the jury – one that's totally punk rock, that will surprise you and make you laugh with a John Goodman shining like in the good ol' THE BIG LEBOWSKI days, and a cool as hell Washington completing the circle and repeating the first sequence. Great stuff!

*Watched it on 08 February, 2013

SOUND CITY, the just released documentary project (a record is coming as well) from -former Nirvana and currently Foo Fighter/Crooked Vulture- Dave Grohl and about the Los Angeles music studio of the same name, is in essence, and for more than one reason, a testimony of the well-known "battle" between digital and analog, the traditional and the new technologies, and the current state of both the film and music industry.

It's an interesting case; let's see, the way the documentary is being distributed is proof of what we already knew: every day is getting harder and harder for an independent project to reach the movie theaters of its origin country (not to mention the rest of the world), no matter if it has such people as Paul McCartney involved. To Dave Grohl and company's fortune, the new technologies make possible that since last Friday (February 1) anyone, with Internet and $13 bucks, can watch it online or download it (the film, by the way, was showed back in January at the Sundance festival).

Then the curious thing is that many of us are using a computer to watch a documentary that precisely talks about how the digital destroyed what everyone involved in the film loved and, on the other hand, that tries to return to the roots of the analog by the creation of an album. Yes, SOUND CITY not only tell us the story of the studio but also of Grohl's musical project – some years ago he bought Sound City's legendary console Neve, which was used to record classics by Fleetwood Mac, Neil Young, Dio and some others, and decided to use it for a brand-new record.

Some elements of SOUND CITY could be easily criticized, but in the end of the day it turns to be a must-see documentary for any rock n' roll fan, person who wants to be musician, or wants to learn more about production or basically anything related with this business. I'll begin with those questionable things, which really are few and all related to Grohl himself. Even that I really like this character, and at first sight dug his role as director, I ended thinking someone else should have made the decisions, simply to not let Grohl look like he was constantly paying homage to himself and to Nirvana.

The thing is that Nirvana and their quintessential record "Nevermind" are a vital part in Sound City's story (they basically saved the studio from going bankrupt), therefore was impossible not to pay special attention to this chapter. Also, and like I said, the documentary ends being a look at Grohl's most recent musical adventure; is just terrific and interesting to see such great musicians as McCartney and Josh Homme (from the Queens of the Stone Age) in their composition and recording process (in this case is basically the same as everything begins from improvisation sessions), but if you don't dig Dave you'll end tired of seeing him in the screen (maybe you were already tired thanks to his constant presence in the media).

At the same time, and personally, is always admirable when a real fan accomplishes a dream (and knows to spend his money in something worthy). Some time ago Quentin Tarantino bought the cinema he loved and said that "As long as I'm alive, and as long as I'm rich, the New Beverly will be there, showing double features in 35mm" – maybe Grohl didn't buy Sound City (after its final debacle thanks to the rise of Pro Tools – the studio closed its doors in 2011), but he sure is giving it new presence in the now digital world.

SOUND CITY is a professional documentary. Its structure may not be the best (with the second part it loses rhythm), but visually is highly attractive, and the use of photographs (with the covers of the albums) and music, as well as some details (like using subtitles to show what someone is thinking, ala Woody Allen in ANNIE HALL), are the positive aspects and indicate that when he wants, Grohl can tell a story in a pretty darn good way.

The story of Sound City is that of a studio that without any luxury, and lots of dirt, beer, a unique console and a great "drum sound", ended having the presence of real legends of the seventies, eighties, nineties and the past decade. Fleetwood Mac, and their relation with Buckingham Nicks (Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks), Rick Springfield and Tom Petty are the protagonists here.

The diverse interviews (we also have Neil Young, producer Rick Rubin and obviously the people who were in charge of the studio) bring us stories that are always entertaining; some bring memories about legendary encounters between Tom Petty, Carl Perkins and John Fogerty. The joy comes too from some footage; seeing, for instance, a young Petty at the studio, the clown from Slipknot with no makeup but with his distinctive style, RATM recording their classic tune "Killing in the Name", or Johnny Cash and his version of Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage". Needless to say, all of this is a real banquet for the rock n' roll fan!

*Watched it on 04 February, 2013

I watched KILLING THEM SOFTLY two weeks ago. The fact that right now nothing from it is relevant for me certainly indicates that I strongly believe this film is pretty much unimportant, forgettable and ultimately its main point wasn't something I care for. It's an average crime film; clearly, the intention of director Andrew Dominik (whose still short filmography only includes CHOPPER and "The Assassination of Jesse James"; I have yet to see the first and the later is a fine film in my book) wasn't to tell an intriguing story or to play with narrative forms.

Let's see, this is as simple as this: we have a couple of not-really-professional criminals who get involved in the execution of a robbery plan of an older man. After they complete the theft, gangster Brad Pitt (with a sort-of "Johnny Suede" look, doing, for the first time in many years, nothing really special), on the other hand, will work to find them and make them pay for their crime.

Before I continue to write about the performances and stuff, I have to mention something about the pace of the film and the screening I attended. The trailers shown before the main show were the ones of the new Sylvester Stallone (BULLET TO THE HEAD), the new Jason Statham (PARKER) and ALEX CROSS – three films that overall seem to be the same: action- packed, fast-paced, just average, big and loud, Hollywood stuff (no offense meant to the great Walter Hill though). I'm not sure how KILLING THEM SOFTLY was sold but I came back home with no doubt people wanted more action, noise and all of those things the trailers showed – at least five persons walked out.

My problems with it have nothing to do with the lack of action and its long talking scenes. I found, as a matter of fact, some interesting material out of that, like for example how the faith of the mentioned not-really-professional criminals is basically decided with conversations inside of a car between Pitt and Richard Jenkins' characters. There are good, stylish sequences, and Dominik is definitely a gifted filmmaker. Performances are good too – I especially liked ARGO's Scoot McNairy. On the other hand, a guy like James Gandolfini is completely wasted – I ended wondering about the whole point of his character (a hit-man with drinking problems) as Dominik didn't care much for him.

And really my main problem is how the film leaves you thinking you sat down for almost two hours just for a speech (made by Pitt) about the United States, Barack Obama, and money. This is what KILLING THEM SOFTLY is all about: the American 2008 crisis. You know that as it opens with a speech by Obama, and constantly there's stuff dealing with that. The crime world deals with an economic crisis too and ultimately Pitt's speech is the only thing that stands out, as the situations we have (two criminals with money problems being the specific one) aren't something we haven't seen before; I mean, yes, the setting with the crisis may be different but really the content is not.

*Watched it on 20 January, 2013

The way Quentin Tarantino begins his little yet very rich essay on Sergio Corbucci (published by Fangoria magazine on its January 2013 edition) could very well be a perfect beginning for a review/essay/article on DJANGO UNCHAINED, Tarantino's fist feature film since INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009). "Reimagining the Western genre for his own ends, Sergio Corbucci used cowboy pictures, and his vast knowledge of them -not to mention his expertise on Japanease samurai pictures- to explore and examine the evils inherent in fascism"; if we change the name Sergio Corbucci for Quentin Tarantino, and the word "fascism" for "slavery", we would have a great resume of what DJANGO UNCHAINED is.

In his essay, Tarantino talks mainly about the great violence and cruelty featured in the work of Corbucci – whether DJANGO UNCHAINED is Tarantino's most violent film or not is a matter of perception (KILL BILL could be my other choice, but there will be people who think that INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is or even RESERVOIR DOGS for its ending and that famous torture scene), but without a doubt this is his most cruel movie.

Forget every other performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, even his brilliant collaborations with Martin Scorsese. This is his very best work so far, and it's a real shame that he's not even nominated for the Oscar. His villain Calvin Candie is the pure representation of that cruelty Tarantino found in Corbucci's world; Candie is a young man who was born and raised in the plantations, who is used to everything related with slavery and therefore bored, so he finds the fun he needs in the Mandingo fighting business: black slaves who fight to the death.

DJANGO UNCHAINED turns to be a brutal slavery movie; if INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (with the exception of one sequence) didn't show the brutality of the Nazis to the Jews (with tons of films about the holocaust it wasn't necessary), here we do see the tortures and all of those slavery issues that apparently are often ignored by American movies. The commentary is certainly strong (Samuel L. Jackson and his great character Stephen is a proof of that), but this being Tarantino in his purest form, the hilarious moments are constantly present.

Tarantino plays with the way white racists are (and with the classic look of the KKK) – in one particular scene, for instance, we see Django (Jamie Foxx) as a free man, riding a horse, and the plantation owner "Big Daddy" (little but brilliant performance by Don Johnson) can't easily explain to one of his female slaves how she has to treat Django (his guest): yes, he ain't no slave but neither is white!

For the second consecutive time, Tarantino took the name of an old Italian film, focused on a genre and on a violent and sad chapter in the history of humanity. In "Basterds" he had the presence (and blessing) of Enzo G. Castellari (director of the original), so it was obvious that Tarantino was going to seek the same with the original Django Franco Nero (Corbucci passed away in 1990). Nero's cameo, if you know the context, is quite memorable; otherwise is probable that, specifically, the scene between him and Tarantino's Django feels a bit out of place. But the presence of Nero is only one of the many elements that indicate the great determination Tarantino had in order to not disappoint his fans and himself with his first official Western.

The director has had Ennio Morricone music in more than one of his films (KILL BILL, DEATH PROOF and "Basterds"), but never before *original music*. With the tune "Ancora Qui", "Unchained" became in yet another Western scored by Morricone – at this point is almost unnecessary to say that Tarantino perfectly knows those details that make a modern movie something glorious for the old fans of the respective genre.

As a pure Western, "Unchained" offers some sort of alternate version of the beginning of THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY, in which the Good and the Ugly are a bounty hunting team. Here we have Django and the German Dr. King Schultz (played by Christoph Waltz, who once again shines and make the Americans read some subtitles). Jamie Foxx is genius – I never thought Tarantino was going to do again a similar scene to that from KILL BILL in which Bill is by a bonfire telling a story to the Bride. Much less with both Foxx and Waltz; Foxx's Django shows some innocence, and obviously he's too a mythical figure from the Old West (the Deep South really) that won't disappoint anyone seeking for a violent Spaghetti Western.

This is the first Tarantino movie with a straight love story – in KILL BILL love was certainly a constant motivation, but here his protagonist Django is an ex-slave whose one and only goal is to rescue his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who is a slave of Candie's plantation in Mississippi. Tarantino doesn't show any kind of fear and he is making from a Western, with the slavery thing as background, a fable with a princess that waits for her hero.

As any great film, "Unchained" was much better the second time I watched it an I have no doubt Tarantino has a new MASTERPIECE; with great action, tension, music, brilliant performances, dialogs, sequences and decisions (mixing songs by 2Pac and James Brown for the great climax, for example – this left me a bit confused the first time). Best movie of 2012!

*Watched it on 17 & 18 January, 2013

The trailer of JACK REACHER, the new Tom Cruise production starring (of course) Tom Cruise, played in pretty much every darn screening during the past few months. This trailer left no doubt that this was a genre movie, that was going to be out there just to satisfy its target audience; action and cars fans, and of course those Cruise admirers. However there was an element that indicated that it could be something much more interesting: the participation of the legendary Werner Herzog as the main antagonist of the story. It's quite strange for Herzog to act (although not long ago he did it for the film MISTER LONELY), and I don't think there's someone who imagined that someday he would work alongside Cruise on a 100 million dollar movie.

At the same time it's not hard to imagine Herzog, with his distinct voice, as a villain, and the general idea (I'm saying this as a huge Herzog fan) seemed the only remarkable thing of the movie. I think Christopher McQuarrie (director and writer – it was based on the novel "One Shot" by Lee Child) didn't give Herzog enough screen time. The development and conclusion to his character are quite disappointing (pretty much nothing happens with him), even with the promising beginning and with the fact that, indeed, the German filmmaker looks sensational in his antagonistic role.

This character is only known as "the Zec" ("the prisoner") and his mythology is similar to some other fictional crime bosses. The character only known as "the Greek" from THE WIRE, for instance, is also a mysterious European that operates in the US – an almost mythical figure that with a low profile controls part of the criminal world. It's a cool mythology but ultimately "the Zec" is just another extra in Cruise's spectacle. So let's forget about Herzog to focus in what JACK REACHER really offers.

The movie opens with the sequence of a sniper doing a killing job. At one point we get to see the sniper's point of view and how each one of his victims (five in total) gets killed. If an opening like this one doesn't makes you think in the Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood classic DIRTY HARRY, well, is simply because you haven't seen that 1971 picture! In general terms, JACK REACHER feels like a descendant of "Harry" – and it's pretty obvious that it will be a franchise too.

Reacher ain't officially a detective (he served in the military), however he acts like one; therefore the movie moves just like any other that involves someone trying to solve a murder mystery. The protagonists, Reacher and the lawyer Helen Rodin (played by Rosamound Pike), will try to complete the puzzle and find the truth about the sniper and the five victims. There's nothing quite innovative and its few "surprises" remain inoffensive; but it's enjoyable, especially if you like classic detective moments.

The work of Tom Cruise also makes me think in DIRTY HARRY. No, I'm not comparing Cruise with Eastwood, is just that Reacher's attitude is somewhat similar to Harry Callahan's. However, you don't buy to the 50-year-old Cruise the idea that he's a dirty ol' bastard who couldn't care less for the law and literally smashes the heads of his rivals. When JACK REACHER tries to deliver the absurdist humor (that we could see in the trailer too), Cruise doesn't have any trouble to accomplish the mission; I'm not saying the result is always effective, as sometimes is just absurd, but for that kind of material, Cruise is all right. Robert Duvall is, by the way, pretty cool here.

Like I said, JACK REACHER has elements from those action movies from the seventies; and yes, it has a car chase too. Quentin Tarantino made it clear with DEATH PROOF that if you want to pay homage to the classics (like VANISHING POINT or DIRTY MARRY CRAZY LARRY) you better forget the CGI. It seems McQuarrie understood that; and Cruise didn't require any stunt double and drove the chase. This is certainly remarkable, but nevertheless the car chase with Zoe Bell and Kurt Russell from DEATH PROOF is still, and by far, the best, most exciting and impressive car chase that Hollywood has given us in the last ten years. So just like its car chase, the new Tom Cruise production is something the fans of action and mystery movies will appreciate but will soon forget.

*Watched it on 09 January, 2013

My summary is part of the lyric of a Soundgarden song; which pretty much captures the essence of some of the stuff that goes on in HESHER (the first "new" film I watched in 2013 – before it I experienced once again KILL BILL 1 on Blu-Ray). Here we have a family, composed by Paul (Rainn Wilson), his son T.J. (Devin Brochu) and the grandma (Piper Laurie); they recently suffered the loss of a loved one: T.J.'s mother.

The thing is that the family basically died as well after the tragedy (a car crash); not literally, of course, but when you have a completely unknown man breaking into your house -first to wash his clothes and immediately after to live full-time there- and you just don't give a damn, well, you're most likely "dead". I know this sounds a bit weird but that's what really happens in the film; T.J. coincidentally meets the title character Hesher (Joseph Gordon- Levitt), who all of the sudden moves into his place.

It's always quite clear what's the point director/co-writer Spencer Susser is trying to make (one of the other writers, by the way, is David Michod, who directed the great ANIMAL KINGDOM!). There's a father whose unshaved face represents the little to none interest he has for continuing with his life after the death of his wife; a son who every day wakes up to suffer (there's bullying also); and there's grandma, who basically doesn't get any attention from her familiars. On the other hand there's Hesher – everything seems to be wrong with this young, crazy man but at the same time we know he's the one who can bring some life to the family. Yeah, this movie is that kind of thing, with the protagonists learning some valuable life lessons when least expected (in other words: from a pothead, full-of-drunken-tattoos, fan of Metallica and Motörhead).

Even when things are always messed up for the characters, the ride is a whole lot of fun (thanks to Gordon-Levitt). Hesher is the perfect representation of the *rock star* term; he's living in another world with a do-what-you-please-or-else-f*ck-off sort-of attitude. I just read here in IMDb that this character was based in the persona of Cliff Burton – Metallica fans rejoice, obviously (hell, they just have to see the typography in the poster), as there's indeed some tunes too.

So Susser decided to do a classic family drama and throw some rock n' roll in it. Sometimes is bizarre and I ended seeing Hesher as some sort of omnipresent god. Gordon-Levitt is fantastic – I found him great in 50/50 but this is from now on my favorite performance by this young actor. The movie has a speech by him that alone makes it worthy. Actually that speech represents what HESHER is all about; I don't wanna spoil it, so I'll just say it's about Hesher's nuts but still offers a nice life lesson! Damn good stuff to star the year!

PS: Natalie Portman is here, as I guess you already know. It's a weird situation – she's all right, very lovely actually, but nevertheless she doesn't stand out much.

*Watched it on 01 January, 2013

This is the most powerful drama I had the fortune to experience this past year. It's up there with Michael Haneke's AMOUR, but this definitely made me *feel* more. When, near the ending of THE HUNT, we have some hope for the protagonist, a kindergarten teacher who has been unjustly accused of child molestation, I actually thought something like "I hope the movie ends right now!"

This because Thomas Vinterberg (director of movies like FESTEN and DEAR WENDY) makes us feel each and every moment of the great injustice that is shown in the screen. Yes, we feel for the protagonist Lucas (top-notch performance by Mads Mikkelsen) but also for his family and friends, especially for his teenage son. Obviously the, really wished, "happy ending" is highly unlikely as this is a realistic portrait of human nature.

In the beginning of the film we have a group of Danish hunters (Lucas included) sharing good times, drinking, talking, just having fun. Apparently they're a real "family" of friends. The little daughter of Lucas' best friend is the one who begins the sexual abuse rumor, by telling the kindergarten director that Lucas showed her his penis. The parents of this girl didn't give her the enough attention; finding more important to be arguing than taking her to school, for instance. And Lucas was there to help the girl – it's a really ironic film.

The way the families of the supposedly victims react; how the behavior of a family affects their infants; the general thought we have about children; and also those subjects of violence and friendship. Everything is shown here in a very credible way. The violence really "hurts" you; and I think if a film like THE HUNT doesn't provokes you *rage*, well, none will. Highly recommended, and for sure one of my favorites of 2012.

*Watched it on 26 December, 2012

"Larry Charles' "THE DICTATOR" is the best comedy of the year; and nothing comes close, really". That I wrote back in early September 2012, before watching TED of course (and MOONRISE KINGDOM). Recently I had to do my top 12 of 2012 for an online magazine I began collaborating in – I didn't include Seth McFarlane's first feature film but when I recalled its fantastic and hilarious homage to the FLASH GORDON movie from the eighties I realized it deserved a place.

This is the best thing McFarlane has created; basically with this movie he lived the dream of every geeky fanboy: to work with his heroes and make tons of references to his favorite movies, like STAR WARS. Obviously he has been doing that for many years with his series (if you have seen enough FAMILY GUY you'll recall some of its scenes with this flick), but nothing is as cool as doing it for the big screen. Nothing as cool as ending your romantic comedy in the pure style of an action adventure that features Indiana Jones!

Some people will think TED is a sort-of excessive proof of the power that MacFarlane has in the industry; having Norah Jones herself for the musical climax is perhaps as excessive as random (yes, MacFarlane did everything he wanted to). TED ain't a perfect film but, and like I indicated, few others from 2012 were as funny.

Its story is the very same of any romantic flick: the man (Marky Mark) loses his girl (Mila Kunis) but soon gains her back. The key here is that the reason why Marky loses his girlfriend involves, surprise surprise, Flash Gordon himself! And certainly the title character, the teddy bear with life Ted (voice of McFarlane himself, aka Peter Griffin) turns to be the classic crazy- irreverent-hilarious bastard.

I would love to hear the opinion of filmmakers like Edgar Wright and Guillermo del Toro, since both are huge fans of FLASH GORDON; but I'm pretty sure TED made them very happy and they weren't like "hey! I would have done a better homage to Flash".

*Watched it on 11 September, 2012