Reviews

"The Good Guy" was one of the "comedy/romance" films I got myself when, for the first time in my life, I found myself craving a chick flick (which I usually despise) to relieve myself of the stress I've been immersed in lately. To tell the truth, I only chose it for Alexis Bledel (not because I find her a particularly good actress, but because she gives me that cozy familiar feeling that I was looking for) and because the movie poster looked good (now that's a futile reason). Since I looked it up beforehand, I knew it was rated 6.2/10 on IMDb, so my expectations were pretty low -- I tend to be a hard critic. However, I was up for a surprise: to begin with, I got something that could and SHOULD have been labeled as "drama" as well. In fact, "The Good Guy" has very little "comedy" to it, except for the intelligent, well-measured and well-placed jokes that make the film even more enjoyable without detracting from the story's seriousness or credibility.

This film focuses on a very interesting concept that Beth (Alexis Bledel) directly alludes to in a scene where she mentions "The Good Soldier", a book sharing the same basic idea: that we automatically trust a story's narrator out of habit, without taking the time to realize there might be other versions to the events, and that they may not be as innocent as they make themselves look. "The Good Guy" takes on this challenge amazingly well by presenting us with a likable protagonist/narrator (Scott Porter's character, Tommy) that, as the story unfolds, turns out to be (pardon the language) a total jerk, and definitely not trustworthy at all. His betrayal is not only harshly felt by Beth, his girlfriend, but also -- and this is the highly praise-worthy part -- by the viewer, who does not see it coming, partially because the well-constructed events make the "twist" very subtle at first, and partially because, well, he is the narrator, after all! -- this unexpectedness is a lot like what being betrayed in real life actually feels like, and that's why the film becomes so personal, making it even easier to hate Tommy and relate to what Beth is going through. In fact, the story is so well-built that, in the beginning, Beth seems to be the more loose, less trustworthy one, and you expect her to mess up somehow -- until the tables turn and the truth about Tommy is exposed, leaving us, the viewers, with a feeling of having been cheated on by the narrator, who has made fools of us all along, as he has Beth.

In addition to a very original and successfully achieved core concept, "The Good Guy" is composed of decent enough acting and directing (with a few minor mistakes -- but it must be noted that Julio DePietro is a newcomer), is never boring, is funny only when it has to be (and serious most of the time) and does NOT overdo the cheesiness that necessarily derives from its "romance" label: on the contrary, the story and characters feel realistic enough; everything seems "possible", and everyone's actions are justifiable.

All in all, where I expected a light chick flick, I ended up with something much better: a light relationship drama, with some comedy and romance mixed into it. While it is certainly not a great film, The Good Guy is a very enjoyable one with many strong points, and definitely deserves more than the 6.2 IMDb is currently giving it.

Fully written and directed by its starring actor, Zach Braff, this film tells the story of Andrew Largeman (Braff), a young man that has been on prescribed medication for emotional control ever since an incident involving his mother at the age of nine convinced his father, a psychiatrist, that a combination of drugs and, later, attending a boarding school would be best for him. After many years of detachment and now in his mid-twenties, he briefly returns to his hometown in New Jersey for his mother's funeral; during his stay, he reunites with old friends whose personal and professional lives have taken curious turns and meets Samantha, a lively, heart-on-the-sleeve girl who is everything he is not.

Garden State is about life and living; it portrays Andrew's journey from almost two decades of absolute drug-induced numbness to learning how to feel again: how to laugh, how to cry, how to scream, how to care. In this sense, it is a hymn to life, showing us how, whether good or bad, it is everything we've got, and how human beings must learn to accept that and make the best out of it.

However, despite having a wonderful base concept, this film has some flaws that ultimately make it a lot less remarkable than it promises to be in its early parts, its one major letdown being, of course, its old-fashioned, unrealistic ending: having been meds-free for only about four days, it makes no sense for Andrew's progression as a character to decidedly shackle himself to a girl whom he had known for an even shorter amount of time. For the down-to-earth viewer looking for some realistic dissection of the human mind and nature, Andrew's happy ending with Sam is not romantic: on the contrary, seeing our protagonist jump from one prison (his medication) to another (a love interest) without allowing himself the time to readjust to life on his own two feet, as well as get his newly-found feelings in order, is simply downright disappointing. This "lovey-dovey", naive ending feels displaced in a supposedly "alternative" film, and ruins whatever "lesson" you might have extracted from the previous 90-something minutes.

Unrealism, however, is not Garden State's only downside: the film is also somewhat diffuse in its essence, sometimes appearing to lose itself (and, consequently, the viewers) and forgetting what it is that it is trying to convey at a given moment; in short, you are likely to often find yourself wondering exactly what point they are attempting to make -- and, sadly, rarely getting a satisfactory answer, because thought-provoking subjects are often taken on and almost immediately put aside without any sort of closure. On a different note, it must be noted that our protagonist is not directly to blame for most of the things going wrong in his life; his circumstances have begun to mold themselves (or rather, impose themselves on him) when he was merely a child, and therefore were always somewhat beyond his control. This, in a way, excludes the need for personal, inner redemption right from the start, consequently weakening his character and/or his chance for emotional progress, an important factor to any protagonist that is further neglected in the already mentioned fluffy ending.

Still, many good points are undeniable; the film is well-directed and well-acted, with Natalie Portman's Sam coming off convincingly annoying in an overly cute way as desired, and the soundtrack is simply superb: Braff has managed to bring many obscure, alternative (and, may I say, awesome) artists and bands together (Zero 7, The Shins, Frou Frou, Remy Zero, the amazing Coldplay and Cary Brothers,...), and the result is awe-deserving. In fact, were it not for its seldom derailing and its truly mischosen and unoriginal ending, Garden State could be a 10/10 film: after all, it does explore the great and never overused premise of life and learning to feel it in all of its forms.

I apologize for the unrelated, grammatically poor Eminem quote, but it does wonders at expressing my feelings towards this film. I won't even bother to write an elaborate review (not that I'd have much material to work from if I wanted to, anyway), so these are just some quick, random thoughts.

When a movie is THIS different from its written counterpart, it becomes obvious that the changes are intentional. However, some things just aren't supposed to be messed with. Don't try to change a winning formula. Don't play God. More importantly, don't play Emily Bronte. This film introduces dramatic changes to Wuthering Heights's storyline, and while originality is a valuable thing and I'm usually one to praise it, I don't feel the same way about altering classics of literature that I happen to be extremely passionate about. This film is not about creativity, as the screenwriter and director probably intended for it to be: it is murder.

Murder of a beautiful, dark, intense masterpiece: Hindley a tortured soul? Joseph a relatively nice servant with normal speech ability? Ellen an annoying girl with a silly crush on Hindley? Hareton and Catherine (daughter) *unexistent*? Edgar nothing more than a cowardly wimp? Heathcliff and Catherine's love consummated? *Heathcliff shot to death*? Some of these things just go way beyond originality and into the domain of stupidity. I could perhaps forgive some changes, were at least the rest of the film -- the part that attempts to be faithful to the novel -- worth anything, but it's just no good. The scene where Catherine tells Ellen about her potential marriage to Edgar and her feelings for Heathcliff is pathetic: where's the night setting, where's the violent summer storm? And what's up with Cathy's speech, anyway? Where are all the gorgeous quotes? Why subvert even *that*?

Murder of Catherine, too, and that I would never find to be forgivable, under any circumstances. Anna Calder-Marshall's Catherine is ridiculous. She's short, unattractive, awkwardly built and possesses what is likely to be the most annoying voice to ever exist: her screaming out "Heathcliff!" is horrible and embarrassing. Cathy is just not in this woman, and vice-versa. I'm not sure how anyone could bear to be responsible for such huge, terrible miscasting: it almost feels like a cruel joke. Her overall performance actually makes me sincerely thankful for Juliette Binoche's (and to think that I used to find *her* Catherine a little blank... she seems heaven sent now).

Timothy Dalton (and a couple of background music pieces, and Ian Ogilvy's hotness) is the only good thing about this film. He makes a fine Heathcliff, despite the wrong eye color, but that's something most movie versions are wrong about, so let's just swallow it and move on. He's attractive in a wild, intense way, and truly genuine.

I really, really recommend that you do NOT see this movie, especially if you're in love with the original novel. I suppose it's not the worst thing you could do, but it's certainly a waste of 104 precious minutes.

What urged me to write something about this film was the unbelievable way critics (and even its current IMDb rating) made it sound like a boring waste of time. Like some users have said before, this is a _work of art_. The scenarios, the colors, the sounds -- the *silence* itself (which seems to bother so many people in today's society) -- are what makes "Silk" a great movie. Yes, I would have gone and seen this in a movie theater one way or another because I've been highly interested in checking out as many performances from Keira Knightley as possible since "Pride & Prejudice", but the truth is, by the time I finally got to, I was terribly afraid it would be a regretful mistake. Turns out it certainly, truly wasn't.

Everyone mentions how aesthetically gorgeous this film is (even I have said so already earlier in this review), but what many fail to see is that beauty is _not_ its main trait -- it is not even its best one. To me, "Silk" is about how irrational passion can drive you away from the "straight lines" in life (as Alfred Molina's character hints in a beautiful metaphor near the end). I don't mean this in a bad way, and certainly not in a moralist one: on the contrary, what our protagonist goes through is far too human to be detestable or harshly judged. He's beautifully stupid, humanly blind. Choosing an irrational mirage over devoted love is something we have all done once, or will, or at least consider and think about (and if you don't have a life of your own to be sure, you can trust me on this one). Passion just has a way of making you clueless... and, well, Knightley's character is truly admirable, and a great human being, in the forever-devoted way she deals with the "dark" reality she's subject to.

This, and not just nice scenarios, is what "Silk" is about: the most normal of men, dealing the most normal of lives, falls in love with a beautiful, loving woman, whom he marries; yet, he's bored, like so many of us are. He leaves in business to a faraway country - Japan -, to a remote village he's only allowed to reach blindfolded, and he's caught under the spell of the forbidden, unreachable, exotic feeling about this place, from the "strange trees" to a certain woman he never actually gets to touch (at least, in a satisfactory way). He becomes obsessed with this woman, and irrationally proceeds to ignore his quiet life and devoted wife back in France, instead attempting to get as close to this mysterious woman as possible. In the process, a child is murdered, and more than just a couple of people get hurt over our lead character's lack of common sense. But who can blame him? He's not a likable character (not in my book), but his many flaws are human. When he finally comes to his senses and learns to value what he's been lucky to have in the first place, terrible circumstances cut his newly-found, mature happiness back at home unfairly short. In addition to all this, a final, unexpected revelation will turn Hélène into an even more awe-deserving character, as well as make this film worth your while, if it still hadn't by then.

Hervé's "trip" -- from boredom to lack of rational thought and pursuit of an unattainable mirage and, finally, to mature grounds of happiness -- is one most of us have to overcome when we first engage into a serious relationship and a settled lifestyle, even if we don't go through all that in Japan -- and the fact that we all have, or have had, our life derail at one point or another is what makes this film so easy to relate to in its essence (not necessarily on the more shallow levels, of course).

This is a wonderful work of art. Yes, it's slow, and you need patience if you plan to watch it -- oh, and a brain, too. And, on top of all that, feelings. A life. The acting is pretty good, the characters are all unique in a way or another, and the idea behind all this is beautifully true. So, if you think you fit the requirements, do yourself and your many senses a favor and go watch "Silk" and soon as you can.

Despite director of photography Eduardo Serra's firm claims and wishes of the opposite, Girl With A Pearl Earring is a film where each frame leaves the impression of being a fine painting instead. This is not meant in a bad way; on the contrary, the concept of silent and motion over actual words explored in this piece of work goes unbelievably well with the games of color, light and dark played at all times on the fantastic sceneries, which are gorgeous and extremely loyal to the reality that was 17th century Holland.

Scarlett Johansson, with her fitting fair and exotic beauty, does an amazing job, mostly based on natural instinct, on her portrayal of young Griet's repressed naive nature as a girl who's trapped in an overwhelming love she can not pursue, while, at the same time, never expansively expressing any feelings of angst or frustration towards this situation: instead, her unique, platonic relationship with Vermeer (pleasantly played in all of his lone wolf nature by legendary, eternal Mr. Darcy, Colin Firth himself) seems to be something she holds dear and sacred above all things; something she does not quite understand in her ignorance, lack of experience and consequent fear, maybe something she doesn't realize the real importance of, but definitely the one thing she has a fullest, most instinctive acceptance of.

As for other technical details, while sound is often purposely neglected, the soundtrack itself blends nicely with the rest of the fine artistic feeling about the film, mostly coming out quite fitting, as well as pleasant listening to. The other actors, in general, also manage to give a minimum of substance to their roles in a decently convincing way.

It strongly seems to me that the lack of further development of Griet and Vermeer's story is the movie's biggest strength and weakness, all in one. For better understanding of the way things unfold (or don't, as the case may be), while watching this film one must not forget that Girl With A Pearl Earring is based on a fictional romance about the possible story behind one of Vermeer's most famous paintings of the same name; Griet is not a historical figure, neither is the model-painter relationship a fact of the past: not even remotely (on the contrary, all aspects of the real Vermeer's life have been kept in the shade for centuries, and probably always will). Exactly because of this, such bond deserved to be explored and exposed in a way which could help make the girl's pose, look and likeness plausible and explainable, and this didn't imply any kind of explicit physical manifestation of a relationship: one that's not even once admitted to out loud in the film. Due to this, all shallow, pseudo-romantics out there will probably be pretty much disappointed.

Girl With A Pearl Earring is a piece of art about as much as the painting it's about, from the photography to the theme. No kiss could ever come close to the intensity and power Johansson and Firth manage to bring into, for instance, the ear piercing scene (the silent, the contact, the painful moan, the single tear down Griet's face), and the fact that it's up to the viewer to put all the unspoken puzzle pieces together and feel (or imagine) what could have been, instead of what actually was, is exactly what makes this film, the supposed model-artist bond and the painting itself all so beautiful, challenging and intriguing. For something more concrete and physical, we must content ourselves with the actual relationship gradually established between Pieter's character and Griet, as she, herself, did, giving out the impression that while it is Vermeer that she's hopelessly involved with in higher levels than one could imagine, it is to Pieter that she must go to in order to vindicate her feelings: Griet's natural acceptance of the multiple impossibilities with Vermeer, as well as of the different roles the two men play in her life, comes off as total and instinctive.

No matter what might or might not be said about it, Girl With A Pearl Earring remains a film about an unspoken, extremely unlikely bond stronger than any other, one that goes against all age and class barriers and that we must discover and put together ourselves: a challenge to our own creativity and interpretation skills. In two words, defying and beautiful, not at all to be watched by close-minded, less patient people who value certain manifestations above the often more meaningful lack thereof: for those, it might become boring, dark and empty after the first ten minutes. Otherwise, it's a very human masterpiece, and, more importantly, a work of art and passion.