Reviews

Two scenes make this otherwise unwatchable melodrama slightly interesting. It is when we see the fishermen's wives looking out at the sea from the shore: first one woman only, while the boat carrying her husband is launched and leaves to sea, then three wives in a stunning composition, as they wait for their men. Scenes like these are probably among the first in cinema showing -from a subjective point of view- the concerns and desperation of a character being abandoned by a loved one. And they do it in a fashion that has become almost common cinema grammar ever since.

Other than that, this is a typical Griffith one-reeler: trite melodrama, slow pacing, unwatchable acting.

...before I read any other reviews.

* At the end, the "story", or "plot", is seemingly made understandable. This is what I understood after one viewing and without reading other reviews or googling anything. All is seen through the eyes of a nine years old boy at the moment when he is faced with the choice whether he wants to stay with his father or mother. All happens in those few seconds he is running after the train that is bringing his mother away. Finally he stays with his dad and, of all the possible lives that could be, one finally materializes as true, i.e. life with Anna, the only one of the three girls that would effectively make him happy. In fact we have seen how the Elise and Jean lives would have made him unhappy. As all the reverie ends, time starts to wheel back through all the possible paths, towards the original moment of the train and then forward from that moment to the only life, the one with Anna. As this happens, centenarian Nemo dies and is reborn in a backwards fashion, all the while saying that this has been the best day of his "life", which in fact has been only an imaginary life, made up in the mind of a child.

* There is only one thing that disturbs me, that is: we see Nemo not making it to the train, which would mean he stays with his dad, not his mom. Which would lead to either Jean or Elise, not Anna, whom he would find following his mother. And yet, the final denouement involves Anna. Why? I think there are two possible answers. One: Nemo does not make it to the train, but later decides to join his mother. This would stress the fact that not everything, after all, is left to chance in our life, but we can make effective decisions. Two: Nemo stays with his father, but as things go, this does not prevent him to meet Anna. This would imply that the reverie in Nemo's head is just that, a reverie, and we cannot possibly predict the future. (Note that one of the imagined Nemos says that he can predict the future sometimes).

* This said, it is very possible that I have not got it all and some other things are escaping my interpretation. E.g. a lot is done with colours. Red and blue and yellow (primary colours) are dominant in the different threads. I am not sure how to connect the different colours with the different paths/girls, but Anna seems "to be" red and Jean blue. However I am not sure about Elise/yellow (except that Elise is a blonde).

* Formally this is a very good movie. Acting performances are solid. Leto is excellent. Polley and the child/adolescent actors are also good.

* The imagery is astounding. The direction and photography are top notch. So much so that occasionally Van Dormael seems to go a bit over the top with unnecessary camera movements.

* The score is perfect, melancholy and ironic. I especially liked the use of the song "Mister Sandman", whose lyrics make it clear in the first place that the movie is based on a dream or, rather, on a daydream.

* The special effects are extremely good although they still leave a light, plastic CGI aftertaste. For example when we see those helicopters building the sea, it looks more like the CGI crew are showing off than a compelling scene. If the child is making it all up, why would he need helicopters? A simple wave filling up the sea would be sufficient, I say. However, of all the heavily CGI-ed movies I can think of, this is amongst those that make the best use of this technology by keeping it understated most of the times. I noticed that Inception uses CGI effects in a very similar way, also to portray dream-like situations and landscapes. Nobody, though, does it better because, with few exceptions, is less of a showing off than Nolan's movie. I.e. the CGI aftertaste is there, but does not ruin the overall flavour like it did in Inception (a heavily overrated one, in my opinion).

All in all, I am satisfied by this movie but a bit overwhelmed by the occasionally excessive camera tricks and CGI. I am also still too puzzled by it and think I need another viewing at least. Mr. Nobody succeeds in this, it summons the viewers to put the pieces together, although at times it also spoon-feeds them a bit too much (see the final resolution revealed by old Nemo in a too blatant verbal explanation).

And now on to see what other people think...

An affluent American family of three (a woman, played by Bergen, and her two kids) living in Morocco is kidnapped by the chief of the Berbers (Connery), who will ask the Americans for an important ransom. Connery and the kidnapped become closer and closer, especially when he singlehandedly rescues them from a dangerous situation. Meanwhile the Americans plan to overcome the Berbers with their military, pushed by president Teddy Roosevelt who is campaigning for reelection back in the States. The military succeed, although they have to slaughter dozens of men, and at the last minute free the Berber chief, that had been treacherously captured by the Germans.

There are not many memorable things in The Wind and the Lion. Being it a Milius flick, what I mostly expected was epos. And on this level, the movie works just fine. We get all the battles and the monumental scenery. The Moroccan setting, recreated in Southern Spain, is good and credible. (Although after a while I got the trick, when I recognized Seville in one of the scenes). Another interesting aspect is the scenes involving Theodore Roosevelt, played by an excellent Brian Keith, back in the States. These overseas intermissions in the Moroccan tragedy are well crafted and show the game of politics behind the drama of the kidnapping set on the far Rift mountains of Morocco. Roosevelt is depicted as an all too fatuous character, in love with manly sports and self-assertion but ultimately weak in keeping promises. And so the American coup in Morocco, somehow backed by Roosevelt and carried out by the military and the diplomats (among the latter a good performance by Geoffrey Lewis), is openly made to look despicable for its surreptitious and illegitimate motives. There is an image at a certain moment of a waving American flag that occupies the full screen. This reminded me of one of the last scenes in Altman's Nashville, when another Stars and Stripes banner waves in the wind to signify the ambiguity of politics in the face of the people.

However, after having set a good pace, the movie fails to keep its promises. In an unlikely inversion of roles, the American turn out to be the good guys, as if all of a sudden the courage to hold the position kept in the first two thirds of the movie had left. So the American soldiers, held at gun point by Bergen (a quite doubtful event to say the least), admit that they must rescue the Berber, now held hostage by the real bad guys. Who, of course, are the Germans!! In this, the American are joined by the Berber warriors.

I am also disappointed by Connery, not quite credible as a Berber. He does a lot of tricks and the usual Connery grins that are full of charisma, but that just does not make it less British, or at least, Anglo-Saxon than he is. In another scene, Connery's character, who is otherwise full of "honor" and "respect", decapitates some of his people in cold blood for having stolen his fruit. Meanwhile Bergen's children look at him bewildered and admired. What absurdity. It is not clear whether we need to look at him in the same, admired awe. I hope not.

Bergen is beautiful and does a reasonable job, but her character is also flawed, as nobody would expect all that bravery in a rich blonde American widow violently subdued and kidnapped by what is depicted as an aggressive band of desert warriors. So she is driven to do illogical and impossible things like disarming an entire American brigade and convincing them to attack the Germans, that so far were like allies. Again, what a blotch in the script! Once the movie starts rolling downhill, there is nothing to stop it. To the point that the final battle looks boring and bogus (look for those fake looking gunshots in the ground). Bergen rescues the Berber in the most stupid way: he is hanging from a rope, which she severs so he can free fall head first on the ground! Connery's skull must be very strong because he gets up ready to fight the Germans.

All in all, this is a spectacular movie that is blessed by Milius' direction and some good locations, but flawed by a more than poor script that does not do justice to the good cast. Which, by the way, includes a useless but likable cameo by John Huston, playing an adviser to the President.

What I liked:

• The directing and editing: amazing job by Cuarón. This is an outstanding directorial and editing achievement. There is mastery in every scene. This, together with the superb production design, totally succeeds. The dystopian 2027 England that comes out of the picture is just frightening. It made me think of Boyle's "28 Days Later", a movie that is similar to "Children" in many respects. However "Children" is superior to "28" in almost all regards and certainly Cuarón achieved finer directing than Boyle. Take e.g. some amazing scenes. Those with the Fishes ambushing the car and the escape from the Fishes' country house with Theo pushing the car etc., what astounding pieces of action film! Surprise, rhythm, camera perspective from Theo's point of view, with the attackers close, then far, then close again, then gone: perfect! And of course, a lectio magistralis in long takes: the scene at Bexhill with Theo escaping from certain death into the besieged building to retrieve the baby: hats off, again! (Although Cuaron here is too self-assured in showing how good he is and ends up getting the obvious wrong: I was distracted at the silliness of Ejiofor talking of how nice is to hear a baby's voice while bullets are hitting the wall one inch from his head). And of course the emotional moment of the three fugitives walking through the suddenly silent and astonished guerrilla.

• The sheer level of detail that is put in every scene. Tens and tens of small clues or secondary dramatic elements lurk in every shot and enrich it. Far from creating useless distraction, they add flavour and meaning to the movie. See e.g. all these animals that appear and disappear, like dogs and sheep. Same goes for the graffiti, the newspaper clippings, the props, the furniture.

• Clive Owen: I am not a big fan of Owen's but this time he got it right. He is convincing in the action scenes, where he does a good physical job but manages to understate the action and thus gives it credibility, as his character is not a super-hero type. He also gets it right in the dialogue scenes and builds nicely on the relationships with Caine, Moore and Ashitey.

• The London 2012 jumper: sublime touch. It was the future, it will soon be the present, in the movie the Games are far past, no more than a reason to keep memorabilia in the wardrobe. Plus, how chilling to think that in fictive 2012 the sterility epidemics was already widespread. What could have been the resulting climate during an event that is supposed to celebrate peace among the peoples and the dignity of the human being?

What I did not like:

• The implausibility of the plot: a major problem here. I just can't get it. So, for reasons unknown, Kee is pregnant and is going to give birth. In the first place, it is never explained why she does not go public and tells the authorities. OK, it is an evil dystopian society, but I am sure she would have got safer by doing so rather than escaping under the menace of being shot down. Ah, because she is an immigrant. I still don't get it (Theo states something about this in the movie but to no avail: why?). And then, why this conflict among Fishes and Theodore? He wants to bring the baby to the boat, because this was Julian's wish. But again, why would Kee accept to do it, if she runs the risk to die together with her baby? The promise of the boat and the "Human Project" seems too vague and unconvincing.

• The ending: just adds up to more implausibility. A meeting with a fishing boat at a buoy off a Channel harbour... I am sorry, but this is not credible! How could the fugitives be there on schedule? A boat approaching a buoy in the mist is not like the 2pm train to Clapham... So they get there, just in time for Theo to die and, like one minute later, the boat to show up. Of course Theo manages to steer a small rowboat right to the buoy in the thick fog. (Although I guess that the choice of having this meeting at sea and having the small rowboat in it does have some figurative, poetical reasons).

• Ashitey/Kee: especially in her early scenes, her acting is poor and she spoils them ("Wicked!").

• The music: most of the '70s music just does not fit. I do not understand why Cuarón would choose this, instead of a solid, original score. Or just more silence, maybe it would have helped as well.

What I don't know whether I liked:

• Michael Caine. I love him, but does he get it right here? I am note sure, maybe they should not have had him wearing that silly wig in the first place. Yes, long hair tells us straight away that he is a hippie, but there were a lot of other clues to it. So we have this silly old good man jumping around Owen and saying things about faith and destiny, but I am still not sure to what purpose. And yet... and yet Caine is Caine, he is likable even with the stupid wig.

All in all, this movie is a consistent, brilliant, raw yet understated piece of action-packed dystopia with a depressingly convincing depiction of the very close future and some interesting, if hardly noticeable, takes on the world of our days, including mass immigration, the role of nations, the clash of civilizations, the meaning of (bearing) life and, ultimately, the sense that the human species gives to the universe.

Seen at Sitges Film Festival. Before entering the theatre I thought this was going to be an obviously self-conscious splatter b-movie, as we see so many these days. The mother lode was started by "Scream" and has not stopped since then. All in all, however, Rogue comes out as a honestly, straightforwardly enjoyable pop-corn movie with some good moment to remember.

The film superstar is -not surprisingly- the crocodile. The croc is realistic, fun and quite scary. Thumbs up for the special FX guys who did a really good job (otherwise I suspect the movie would be unwatchable). The best scene with the croc is when, after showing itself in full glory, the beast goes under water in the little pool in the cave, and you know it is going to come out in 1 sec or so and you scream for the good guy to do something (which he eventually does). These scenes are a major innovation of the classic "Jaws" stuff we see during the rest of the movie. The most typical "Jaws" shot (swimmer seen from below, hypothetical beast's POV) is repeated several times. Once we even see the back scales of the croc looming over the water like a shark's fin. More Spielbergean inspiration from "Jurassic Park": crocs are explicitly referred to as modern dinosaurs; like JP this is a tale of tourists chased by a reptile during an excursion; croc thuds boat like T-Rex thuds jeep, etc.

Other influences I smelled: "Deliverance" (men in boat cross the wild and get their holiday messed up), Terrence Malick (the cricket close-up), "Alien" (croc's den) and John Carpenter (people on small island besieged by invisible forces).

Acting is surprisingly solid, above all from the supporting characters. Overall, telling who dies next is not 100% predictable, which I consider good value for a b-movie like this; for example, the bad guy turns out to be a hero but gets butchered anyway and the nice doggy dog is not luckier than that. Script is not so bold as to have hero and heroine slaughtered as well, although you may think they are doomed at one point. Score works well underlying scary moments and luxuriant landscapes.

The only thing I am a little upset about is why the hell the guys do not turn off their torches when swimming across the swamp. I am not into crocodiles that much, but I am pretty sure they are not blind

Many may expect from this movie a story totally focused on the way of life of young people in Spanish suburbs. At least, the movie has been advertised accordingly. But "Yo soy la Juani" is like this for just about the first 40 minutes. The core of the story is set far from the suburbs, as Juani and her friend Vane leave for Madrid to make their way to happiness.

Juani is attracted to acting, i.e. "serious entertainment", more than, say, reality shows and such stuff (which sounds a little strange). In Madrid, while she pursues her dream of becoming an actress, Vane attains her personal, and humbler, objective: having a breast implant. The Madrid segment is a bit confused above all because it contains too many subplots (castings, parties, football players, surgery...). It is effective though in that it conveys a general feeling of tremendous distance between capital and suburb. Overall, it works because of the strong presence of Echegui.

This actress is amazing, very effective, perfect as the determined, almost ruthless Juani, a girl with a high opinion of herself and a gigantic personality (the ringing tone of her cell phone is a recording of her own voice saying "Viva la Juani"). Plus, Echegui is gorgeous... Am I wrong or she bears a striking resemblance to Natalie Portman?

"On-screen" SMS writing and video game sequences are edited in the movie, which may sound like old and cheap tricks to someone, but instead I think they are used in a good way. Cell phones and VGs are in because they are somehow important to these poor suburbanites, but at the same time they are used as funny cinematic tricks. The risk of representing cell phones, SMS writing and video games is high and in proportion to the age of the director/screenwriter, but Luna avoids the trap by placing those paraphernalia in the right context, without describing them in an overenthusiastic or moralistic way.

I felt that something was missing in the description of the world of car tuning and "nengs". Why these people live for their cars is never said. The topic of drugs is absent and should have been mentioned somehow (even if Laya Martí can be seen rubbing her nose at the VIP party in Madrid). But I think the story is about La Juani, a very strong and fascinating character, and not, thanks heaven, a sociological treatise on suburban Spanish youngsters.

Quite interestingly, this movie is based on a novel written by director Cristina Comencini herself. It is the story of Sabina (Mezzogiorno), a woman that suddenly discovers that her late father had sexually abused her. As a consequence of this epiphany, she flees to join her brother, now a professor of classical literature at the University of Virginia. During that fortnight she realizes she was not the only one in the family that had gone through such a nightmarish experience. Meanwhile, back in Rome, her partner is unfaithful to her and her two best girlfriends (one of whom is blind and the other has just been left by her husband for a girl of 20), fall in love with one another.

Yes, this is a bunch of material to work with and to squeeze all of it in a single 100' movie is a bit risky. Actually not all is credible. For example, the parallel story of Franco, Sabina's boyfriend, is not really interesting. Sabina foretells he will go to bed with the first girl he meets while she is away… and quite obviously this proves right: a young girl forces her way into Franco's apartment on New Year's Eve and when he tells her to go, she stays because she knows there won't be taxis available… (what the hell should the guy have done?). All in all the character of Franco is a bit dumb.

The Sapphic love story between the blind girl and Sabina's colleague could have been weird, but is interesting instead, most of all thanks to the quality of the two actresses (Rocca and, especially, astounding Finocchiaro). Beautiful Giovanna Mezzogiorno, not surprisingly, does a good job.

The main issue of the movie, incest, is focused in the right way, not too melodramatic, but rather balanced between Sabina's nightmares and her brother Daniele's quiet hate and rational will to carry on. Unfortunately, the ending is not really interesting. Plus, Lo Cascio is correct, but nothing more.

I liked the flashbacks from what seems to be an apartment in the 70s: a dark, dusty place, with seemingly no windows at all, a perfect place for perpetrating sinister family crimes and bearing them silently (the character of the mother). The Charlottesville segment is convincing, if a bit long. It is not a digression, but rather the most important section of the story. During Sabina's US stay we almost forget about her connections with the characters she left in Rome, and for half of the movie the stories run parallel. Later they suddenly reunite, which results in something of a clash.

In a sequence, Comencini pays homage to some great Italian directors of the past (I caught a glimpse of pictures of at least Fellini, De Sica and Pasolini). Ironically, the sequence is set in a TV studio where a laughable series about a hospital is being shot. TV fiction is explicitly criticized, although later in the movie this attitude changes a bit (Franco, who has worked on the stage and for the cinema, accepts the part of an anesthetist with stupid dialog and even says they occasionally shoot scenes with virtuoso camera movements!).

Comencini is not a Fellini or a Visconti, nor are her Italian colleagues of her generation. But it is not their fault: cinema and the movie market have changed a lot since then. But as long as correct, high standard movies as La bestia nel cuore are produced in Italy, there is nothing to complain about. Go on like this.

This movie starts just as if it were a new sequel of the Karate Kid saga (has this something to do with Swank acting in Karate Kid IV?)... how many times have we seen the lonely and tough hero desperately trying to work her/his way out of the mud thanks to sport competition? How many wise life-beaten trainers have we already seen? And of course all of them have to have their hidden past, which they try uselessly to forget and redeem. Which past is always condensed in one single epiphany, in perfect Hollywood style. Here poor Clint-Frankie is haunted by that last fight of his friend's: Clint was incapable of forcing him to give up. His friend Freeman-Scrap lost an eye for that.

Nevertheless Scrap's presence is a clear break of the scheme "old trainer and young guy manage to overcome difficulties and win the championship". Scrap is a sort of wise double of Frankie, himself having something to regret in his past (he has something of a personal redemption when he knocks down a young smart ass at the gym).

And, naturally, the movie eventually comes out of the cliché when we see that there is no final win. A more tragic ending could not have been devised. Giving no happy ending is supremely honest and makes the movie absolutely bearable. But maybe nobody deserved such a tragic finale. What of poor Frankie Dunn? He does not manage to reestablish any kind of contact with his daughter, loses his adoptive one, and is even obliged to kill her! Even his religious ethics is thus ruined. I do not feel better because of this terrible ending. Did we need it other than for weeping a bit before the credits? Or for giving our vote, if we are incidentally members of the Academy? Luckily, some gags are sprinkled over the story, which make the whole thing better. The character of Danger is very funny and a definite relief for the audience.

Well, anyway the movie is splendidly directed and acted. This is the very best about it. Mighty performances by Eastwood (both as actor and director), Freeman and Swank. Technically Million Dollar Baby is almost perfect (take production designing for example). Another thing I liked is the chilling portrait of Maggie's family, unfortunately much too credible.

Moreover Million Dollar Baby is obviously remarkable, and it would be so even if it had been a total failure, for being the first great film about a woman boxer. As a she-Rocky, Maggie is no stereotype. The fight and training scenes anyway are not convincing, Swank moves in a strange way, even if she seems to punch real hard.

All in all the movie is good. Technically it is excellent. It is even honest in that it tries occasionally to escape easy solutions. But it definitely lacks originality.

No doubt, The Aviator was better.

No doubt, this is a masterpiece. There are at least two unforgettable sequences in this movie. The first is the puppet show, with those children's faces looking at the stage, quite out of anything that can be expressed by words... being so childish and perfectly baby-like, but at the same time so desperately resembling to the faces of us, adult spectators of movies and life. A second, extraordinary moment is the final encounter of the boy Doinel with the ocean, at the end of the movie. Out of the school-jail where they have sent him, he runs through the French countryside until he finds this long beach. When he finally reaches the water, he gives that sudden and unexpected look into the camera... that is when the movie ends, and we can't help being pervaded by a full, cosmic empathy with Antoine Doinel. Thank you Mr Truffaut.