Reviews

From the question what would Americans do without mexicans to do the jobs they perform? was born this movie (and form a documentary that director Arau did about the same subject). The premise might be good, but the doing goes all the way wrong, and for many reasons. Un día sin mexicanos starts OK, but once it downhill nothing can stop it. From the acting to the inevitable cliché and the soap opera twists, this is a train wreck. Besides, it never decides whether to be a comedy, a farsic documentary, a prolatino manifesto or a sci-fi experience. This film just engross the list of movies that goes just halfway through. Even reality show elements are throwed in the mix, maybe in an attempt to make a better point on its self proclaimed parody, or maybe because it ran out of ideas. It doesn't matter how willing you try to get into it, its own production values take you out in a flat second. This film just fall short to the what if? premise.

Arau is crazy. If just based on the cast was enough to cause goose bumps out of fright, to the cavalcade of so called actors adds an insane plot that goes nowhere. This film tries to enhance the patriot feeling the caudillo from Morelos wore proudly, but in the end is pretentious, with bad structure and an even worst labor from the actors. The plot is incoherent even to its "magixc realism" standards, with nahuales (beings half animal half human from the ancient cultures), prehispanic references, some nuts theories and even a Zapata with more care for "fashion" than revolution itself (he's played by a popular Mexican singer); if at least this movie was entertaining all those things won't even matter, but is not, and to make it worse it has a rush feeling, as if Arau was in a hurry to end it. You can tell by the people involved that it has a doom fate, but you just can't imagine how much.

I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.

All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break.

I can see by now that is rather useless trying to describe how deep our film industry has reached. For every movie released in our country that could be considered worth watching, there's a lot more like this motion picture, just pieces of celluloid lacking body and soul. It's more than evident that we're losing the battle five (or six, or even seven) to one.

The main intend in Fantasías is to be a thriller with some erotic turns, but the thing is that it does so in a generic, empty and emotionless way. There's nudity but no arousal, and there's twists but no suspense. It's a tedious adventure, and worst of all, with a sense of morality hidden between the lines. But here's the obligatory plot: there is a couple (I guess the names of actors are not necessary, since they are almost the same as used), whose 18 years marriage has turned into routine. Certain day at a party, she's talking with a friend who says that she keeps her matrimony and sexual life fresh by trying out some fantasies with her husband (like watching other people naked while making love, or them in the same room). Since then, the bored wife tries out something like that with the maid at the house, just to see how her husband reacts, and encouraged by his response, she starts going further, even considering (and telling him) about performing a threesome with another girl. So far so good for their reborn sparks; but one day, the husband enters in a sex chat and finds this woman (Mujer caliente is her nick), and both starts to seduce each other; the action gets hotter and this leads them to actually get to know the other couple -who call themselves swingers-, and to almost change wives. But then, problems arrive when they start to get blackmailed by the male swinger, who wants money to not show some private pictures of the wife.

Non erotic film turns into no suspense at all. The truth is that it is not that awful, but overall there's always an artificial feeling in the process. The acting range from lifeless to amateurish, no flesh and blood in here; the direction is plain, the colors are bright always (it wouldn't have hurt some somber tones), and never let go it's soap opera atmosphere. Based just in the plot it should be a more raw experience, but in the end, is only a hard theme crafted into a lightweight and bad executed screenplay.

There's nothing new to write or say about Tarantino's fourth effort. This film, as well as he's done with his prior movies, is cooler among the coolest. I strongly believe there's no need on writing stuff about the premise or the multiple and very well used tricks he spent on it -besides, I'm pretty sure hundreds of others here are gonna do it-, so I'll keep it short and say that never mind whether you are a Quentin fan or not, this is a must to see, to appreciate, and to give to the word "joy" a whole new perspective and weight. You now The Bride is on Bill's track, her anger is the strongest will, and this, on Tarantino's hand, is spectacular. That's why both parts are no less than awesome.

Can't wait to have my hands of both on DVD.

There's no other way to describe Lugares comunes but as a beautiful movie. It's a well constructed story that revolves around a literature teacher who's forced into an early retirement due to his ideals. From the beginning he's writing lose notes about the way he feels, and this is useful as a voice in off that narrates high points of the plot as it is also the key that serves mainly as an inner perspective in some matters. He talks about revolution and democracy in the state in an Argentina beaten by the government, depicting the economical and social issues as well as it's day to day surviving culture. The other characters here are his wife (who's from Spain) their son (who lives there) and a close friend of the teacher, who happens to be a lawyer dating a younger woman. Then, by their precarious situation, the couple sell their flat in Buenos Aires and move to the country. That's basically the screenplay: how they learn to live with their new situation.

Luppi, as the professor, is wonderful; he has a natural driven force that get us in the inner struggles of the character, and his insights are clever, methodical and somehow illustrative, describing and dissecting terms like lucidity (in words and feelings). The dialogues are well guided by a smart hand so, even when there's plenty of them, never get to bore. The others characters are well performed, rounding the experience and adding strength to a tone that goes from somber to bright, and even when it's premise is mainly sad, never turns into one to weep at; it is one to wonder and makes us think rather than sink our mood into mourning or feel sorry for them. It is, as my title says, one long and well played tango based on a biting reality which goes smooth hence pretty delightful.

I give it four stars out of five.

Although it starts in some sort of a generic way, step by step the plot in Holes starts to grow in the viewer going to not-too-predictable directions. The way it tells the story is also a plus, adding a second tale or subplot of what happened back in the old days. Once is finished, by reconstructing the movie, you realize an almost perfect fit in all it's parts, something you don't see much nowadays. I mean, even if it's Disney stuff (and we all know what that means), the magic it shares is not as candid as anyone may expect. Of course there is the happy ending, the mean people put in it's place and the good ones rewarded, but is in the way and the warmth which is treated the entire movie as well as the actors involved, the main reason to see it; and enjoy it. A great film.

I rate it 7/10

There's no doubt that Pixar Animation Studio is the greatest thing on animation in modern times. I use to love any effort by them, being Monsters, Inc. my all-time favorite so far. However, yesterday I rented this movie 'cause I've been hearing some great things about it, and after watching it, I just have to say that Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi it is not just a great movie, this adjective is almost insulting: it's awesome, it is spectacular, it is mind and sight challenging, and is a round film from wherever point you wanna see it. Said in a few words, it's a masterpiece of modern times, which spends most of his time in a parallel (and surreal) world of ancient Japan. Sen to Chihiro... has so many powerful stuff to stand out for. It has one of the strongest imagination I've seen in my entire life on animation, and also there's a lot of inventiveness, believable profiles on characters (and they're animated!), perfect on detail drawing (yes, hand made, traditional drawing), pulse accelerating action, humor, an outstanding and subtle soundtrack, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Even the closing song is not less than beautiful.

As much as I love and respect Pixar, this one blew me away enough to place it on the same level as the films made by the most popular animation studio. I just couldn't believe my eyes as I was watching it. Is that simple. This experience is magical, involving, marvelous, and one more great thing about it is that you don't have to be a manga fan manga to truly enjoy the trip; just have to be an animation lover. Well done animation. And that doesn't happen much; it did to me with The iron giant, but that was some time ago.

Mr. Miyazaki, I knew nothing about you or your work before Chihiro, but, from this point on, you have become my hero and I can't wait to have on my DVD player any other piece of animated heaven you've created.

No matter what good things people may say about this film, What to do in case of fire is just one step far from becoming a dull experience. It's spine bone is made out of contrivances, holes and cliché characters. It's not as ironic or clever as I thought it would be based on the plot read on the back cover, and this group of so called "idealistic" people don't catch our attention because there's no way you can feel their commitment neither back then, when they performed minor terrorist acts in the twilight of the eighties, nor now, when they must stop police's investigation about a delayed home made bomb that set off in 2000, and links the bunch with it. Now, almost fifteen years later, they all have changed but two, whom stay "true to the cause": one is a lawyer, other is a yuppie, one more is a teacher or so, and other one is a mother. Can this changed minds reunite to stop what started when their ideals were radical? You'd be better off never finding out (although you guess the ending long before the end).

German movies has put me down in the past and I ought knew this one shouldn't be different (the most recent being Das experiment). I´ll never learn. Usually, they start up with a nice welcome, but as the story unfolds, they loose ground and focus on narrative; I think they just don't know how to tell a story properly 'cause that is exactly what happens here: the beginning perhaps is not a compelling one but at least seems like fun, but then, the movie rolls on and you find out this amateur effort in every possible way is going nowhere. Now, in What..., the visual matters may find every now and then some good eye candy stuff, but overall, just when the end credits starts to roll, you realize this none other thing but a waste of time and money. The one you paid to see it, and the one they spent on it.

They say two times in the movie: "what to do in case of fire?", "let it burn". Well then, let's just follow it's advice and set on fire this one to let it burn until it's consumed to ashes.

From beginning to end, there's always a feeling that this motion picture is without a doubt 50 years old. Mainly because of it's candid plot -a man (Tin-Tán) that happens to arrive on an island ruled by women who is mistaken for a God by it's tribe and the chief of it, named Toronga (Marcelo)-, and for the way it goes developing the story. Tin-Tán falls in love with this one girl, try to create a rebellion by the oppressed men, and when the scam is unveiled (that he's not a deity), and after an auction where he is being sold to the bachelorettes, he convinces the women not to fight against the warriors from a rival island but to surrender the enemy with their charms. This leaves Tin-Tán with the woman he wants and also closes all in a happy ending that comes along full of choreographies and songs that now has become a trade mark on the comic-musical features of this kind of pictures made back then.

But nevermind the aesthetics and aged taste because the main role belongs to Tin-Tán, one of our greatest comic actor of all times; his sole presence in black & white movies make them worth watching, and even if this one may not be one of his best (on this category fall those made as a Pachuco and/or with Martínez Solares directing, and Tun-Tun, Rubinskis and Vitola as sidekicks), this Women's island is certainly a fun experience just because of him.

The great virtue in this film is the persistent sense that something pretty bad is on it's way. Volverás deals with danger in good shape, due to the focused performances by the main characters, two brothers who meet again several years later. One is a decaying gambler who ran out of luck (Carlos), and the other one is an aspiring architect who's gonna leave Spain soon for a scholarship in Los Angeles.

Since the very first scene in the movie, showing Carlos (the elder) pushing the limits of fear in his younger brother Nacho, the parameters are well defined as the risky one and the loving sibling whom adores, respects and obey him blindfold. By the time they get together as adults some crazy things has passed in their lives, and this sets the fuse in a dynamite that comes from the mix of two volatile elements attached by blood. Carlos owes a lot of money, Nacho is still living with their wealthy parents, and both are engaged in strange relationships; when destiny make them cross paths, the clouds of tragedy comes even blacker.

Volverás is a strong thriller because it works as a noir fable about true identity, brotherhood, and sticking to a risky self chosen life. Also, the twists in the plot are clever enough to capture our attention and even if the storyline doesn't restrain itself from being a little bit predictable -but never boring-, is the ever present feeling of something terrible coming along that makes this movie one above the rest of many others and worth watching.

I bet on paper this movie is way better. The story is somehow intelligent and has a lot of clever twists and turns but, on screen, it has some failures and basically in the overall acting zone. I think maybe it's because the main role doesn't reflect the hard conflicts he's living in and with the exception of Byrne and Roth -both giving strong performances-, the rest of the cast is halfway through the intensity I assume was really needed to make us live the plot.

On the other hand, I think the camera does a fine job trying to capture the best angles in order to show the deep core in the story and the settings helps a lot to the looks and mood, full of dark nights, gray skies and very cold buildings. Nevertheless, if on script this idea sounds pretty interesting, the way it is developed by the characters leaves a sensation of underplaying which is something sad due to the somehow edgy material written. You realize how clever the screenplay was once the film is finish, when you reconstruct all the matters and personal motivations in your head.

Emmett's mark it's not a despicable thriller but is not a go-see-it-now either. I give it 6/10

I'm speechless; what else can anyone say after watching over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over this DVD? Pearl Jam is one of the greatest events in music of all time. It's honesty is only surpassed by the godly songs they create, and Touring band 2000 it's a legacy of sheer spiritual sounds live; a frame for the deep communion this five musicians have with themselves and with their audience. It's a must have for any music lover. Period.

México did it again. That regular vision of us, with fairy tales sceneries and realismo mágico stories, has been implanted in this romantic comedy featuring (once again) mostly people from TV. From starters, Ladies' night doesn't look for a profound meaning, but the lightness that bears it's plot is more than just simplicity; it's almost insulting. The story centers in Alicia (for Alice in wonderland, played by Talancón), a candid woman whom has never been really understood since her childhood and that spends her life in a world of fantasy that she draws by and for herself. Her wedding is only a week away and she's engaged to Fabián (Corres), the editor in a teen magazine, and his coworker and best friend is Ana (de la Reguera), a "rebel type" girl who's more than evident that has a crush on him. Ana doesn't like Alicia and vice versa, so when the bachelorette party for Alicia comes, an uninvited Ana comes along and she as a secret surprise for the party, she hired a male stripper named Rocco (Guzmán) to spice up things, 'cause Ana and her friends are very uptight. But, after performing his act, fate arrange things for an instant click between Rocco and Alicia. Then, after some events that involves a small robbery and a video tape with scenes from a previous encounter between Ana and Fabián, both girls have to go after Rocco but with different intentions: while Alicia tries to find him to make up her mind about the marriage, Ana tries to recover the tape so Alicia won't find out.

This plot leads to an odyssey through México City with Alicia and Ana, and it is also the perfect excuse to create a romantic comedy to be treated under the label of a buddy movie but with girls. It's the same old song in which two antagonist characters comes to the end of the trip becoming best friends (take Por la libre as an example) and OK, even if this is not new neither anyone expects it to be, is in the way the plot develops where lies all the holes, failures and misguiding. Also, the level of intelligence in it has been dumbed so low that it couldn't be done without hurting the whole idea, and not to mention that the acting is flat, the characters are unidimensional (it's profiles are based on clothes, not in personality), and the language they use sounds pretty much fake.

Basically, Ladies' night is a very light motion picture with it's target on girls who are supposed to talk "dirty" and feel cool about it. There's some sexual situations but none of them are graphic neither sensual, and for the "irreverent" parts it uses the source of cartoons. And don't get me wrong, this is not about a hunger for seeing flesh but for watch witty, edgy material, that even if it can't really entertain us, at least be one that can make us feel the real needs in the main roles for each other, the deep passion we are supposed to buy, and the fire that burns only as minimum sparks in here. In the end, this film comes across as one more light teen mexican movie which is predictable, not funny, and with no good things to offer at all.

It never ends. It seems that México it´s nothing but a chain of movies that in the end no one cares about, only because they're so bad. Sin ton ni Sonia is one of the latest examples in that matter. It goes nowhere, it's plot is full of characters without charisma or intensity who think acting is based just on say correctly their dialogues. Of course there are some good mexican films 'cause there are alway exceptions to the rule, but leave this one out of that category. The lack of passion is more than evident in this motion picture which plot is fueled by absurdity and basic nonsense, and even if they look for make a relaxed statement in comedy, it falls real short to accomplish that.

Sin ton ni Sonia is full of cliché and formulaic ways to resolve it's many events. Don´t watch it unless you're willing to hate mexican cinema or waste a couple hours.

Miel para Oshún is wrongly called a movie. It's format is based on a documentary style, and very badly done I dare to say; also, it´s premise is so predictable that it almost becomes painful to watch. It´s about some cuban guy that was forceably taken by his father to Miami on his childhood who comes back to the island to encounter his mother (to find out why she didn't leave with them). Once there, he discovers by a cousin that everybody lied about the reasons why his mother stayed and to make things worse, his father, dead by now, made him promise that he'd never go back to Cuba (so he wouldn't find out, my guess). But, as the defiance to a deathbed oath becomes stronger because of his resentful feelings, he flies to Cuba to discover what really happened as well and getting to know his roots. He's helped on the task by his cousin and a taxi driver.

The flat screenplay has nothing to do with the bad results in the film; narrated in some sort of a road movie as well as a travelogue of those little, picture like towns in Cuba, Miel para Oshún is a terrible experience mainly because of it's visual aesthetics, soap-opera like, a very bad acting by everybody that transmits nothing to the viewer, and a long story that usually gives the feeling of going nowhere. Thank God we already knew the plot, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get a clue. There's not much to do with this crap and I think Miel... tries to show the cuban culture but even in this matter fails. It is corny and amateur like, manipulative and dumb in it's dialogue, and generally speaking is boring like hell. By way before the half of the movie we stopped caring enough to not give a damn whether he finds his mother or not.

I rate it 1 star out of 10, and suggest to keep away from it.

I'm obliged to say that the best thing in this movie is the oppressive feel of something terrible coming ahead. Even if you know the event already, 'cause the director warns you from the beginning about it, in most of the times you can't help but sense a kind of a danger, a fear that you don´t see but you do feel. On the other hand, the bad thing in Un jeu... fall on the screenplay, that is sometimes incoherent, and it's pace is rather slow. Also it's atmosphere doesn't help much in setting a scenario for originality because as we watch it, never ceases to give strong reminders of films as The innocents, The others and even the mexican one El libro de piedra (The book of stone). And alright, there´s no gore but I don't think the plot need it; if this films succeeds in anything, is in creating a malevolent space and it is precisely where the family moves: their luxurious flat.

Of course it has some flaws but all in all hits right on the target on it's proposal for a psychological fear. Why does happen what it happens? Because there's evil in the air since the old brothers came in for a glimpse at their old home. It's what set everything for what's coming (or what happened; it depends). And I think is fair with itself in this matter and the portrait of child corruption, in the killing of all innocence, hence the name. Nevertheless, this movie is good beyond just an experience for accomplish a wider range of foreign horror cinema. It may not have the best of thrills, but neither is wasted time nor money.

I've always liked Giménez Cacho's work. He's usually a solid actor but, in this one, he looks like a zombie; and it's not because his part demanded so but for the weakness of the screenplay. If we are talking about jealous (a thing this movie is based on), it should be reflected almost in an animal way; it's about instinct and reactions right from the guts, blind rage and a mad love one step shy of hurting the one you care about. In Aranda's film, this is treated just as a matter of personality, like an accident in life or even in the way you may perceive things. My guess is that since the film doesn't go far beyond the words on paper --to a place where it should actually reach, considering the complexity of the main plot--, this was a no win chance for Cacho as well as Gijón; and everyone else involved too.

The main problem of Celos (Jealous) is that you don't buy the story right from the start because it's impossible to. No matter how willing you are to get INTO the movie, you cant; it´s a fact. Mainly because if you have been a witness on how somebody's extreme jealous makes his life a living hell, then you'll realize how hollow the subject is taken here. And besides being a terrible state of mind it's also a common one, so I think it's not that strange to have known somebody like that. But in the film there's no passion, it lacks real visceral reactions and wiser ways to show a conflicted mind (at least one better than just a man talking to himself). The only way they let us know how really obsessed is this guy (Cacho) with one of his fiancee past relationship, is by showing him traveling long distances and talking to weird persons to get to find the ex boyfriend, which would lead to an answer and then to a cure for his torture; that's the way he sees it.

I believe the message here is that a real deep love may hurt the other person if you don't keep your mouth shut to not let go out your worst doubts from the past, and then inflict an unnecessary pain on your partner. Just give and take love as it is. Realize that, if you're not a teen, then all of your relationships got to be second hand. Just take a look over your shoulder and take a count on yours. But, as I said before, if Celos doesn't make an impact on us is because it suffers from a severe lack of real human factor: serious reactions, flesh and blood bodies and lots of pain, something that cannot be felt without depth in dialogues and believable stages of grief. In it's whole atmosphere it sure fails, but is not an awful movie; nevertheless, in terms of depth, tension, twists and intensity, it's vague and pointless, so you may find it kind of boring every now and then through the experience.

The most important thing in here it's that The turn of the screw works as an adaptation rather than anything else. That's why I think the comparison between this TV movie with The innocents (Jack Clayton; 1961) is unfair. Although both films comes from the Henry James novella, Clayton's emphasizes in the ghosts story while one this focus on corruption and evil and character development; it´s a straightforward story but doesn't looses the strength included in the written words. It´s based on a slow pace, but never falls into boredom. And my guess is that, for a proper enjoy of this film, it's a basic thing is to have read the novel first.

I had to see this movie due to my job. Wish I hadn't, because the last time I had such fun time like this one, it's when I went through two endoscopias in a row (it's when a doctor puts in you a camera by the throat to check your stomach from the inside). This movie is like any sketch extracted from Lente loco or any other TV show made by latin people in the spanish spoken networks in the USA -if you've ever had the misfortune of tuning in any, then you'll know what I mean-, but, an hour and plus long. And if you can't make those gags work in a five minutes range, then guess what happens when you stretch them way beyond their boundaries.

That is exactly the aesthetics in Chasing Papi; this total piece of crap features latin "stars" that are everything but actors, and anything but funny. It´s just a bad cast of cute people speaking in english -or trying to- just because they are supposed to live in Miami, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. I don't know why they talk to each other in a foreign language when ALL of them speak spanish. I was embarrassed by hearing this ridiculous attempt of communicate in english; really. And this is primarily what gets me confused: is it for the latin community living in the US? I don´t think so, since almost every person of it speaks none other language but spanish (and I know it, because I've lived in California). Is it for the people from the United States? I guess not either, mainly because the actors (?) may be barely known between them. Besides watching voluptuous women wearing almost nothing -and that's a more than reasonable excuse for a lot of guys to watch anything; but don't count me in-, this is a TOTAL waste of time. I'd rather follow an ant´s trail straight to their home instead of watching this crap again or any similar attempt to kill the most insignificant sense of film appreciation in a moviegoer.

I know that anybody shouldn't expect a two thumbs up experience due to the people involved, but it's just that I felt real bad for my time being stolen this way that I felt the urge to write this as a kind of warning, so, don't go see it nor even get close to it unless you're a fan of the kind of trash made in the TV show mentioned above, or any other garbage from networks like Telemundo or Univision.