Change Your Image
mausar
Reviews
Never Let Me Go (2010)
Great performances for a very poor story
Warnings! It may contain spoilers! For many aspects, this is a great movie. Acting is quite good, even if not for Oscars. Carey Mulligan, in particular, made her best, just after her other great performance in "An Education". Character development is really accurate: all of them are real and inspire true compassion in the viewer. There are no surprise at all. All of the characters know perfectly that they are doomed, since the beginning. Then they make choice to live their very short life, with jealousy or true love, sometimes hoping in a short delay of their inevitable end. Alternatively they feel proud and shame for their status. Keira Knightley's character, for example, feel herself as a product of the waste of humanity, without dignity. Then her character is the most nihilistic one. Carey Mulligan's character is the proudest and the more patient. She accepts her role, even with fatalism and she can wait (and gain) her true love during her little existence. Garfield's character, the scapegoat of society who would (but couldn't) react, is the third main aspect of this psychology. Basically they represents the three sides of a same person. Basically all the movie is set in the memory of a close-to-death person. It is inevitable that the main mood is sadness. Then, coherently, we have nearly two hours of depressing sadness, a real before-to-death-resignation experience. Eventually the main imagery are broken or rotten objects, colors are always pale, many scenes are taken just before sunset, the music is nostalgic and minimal, almost all people you can see (aside the main characters) is aged. For sure, it's not an "enjoyable" experience, but a very coherent and delicate movie, indeed. Now, let's switch to the darker side of it all. The plot. Of course, this is not Romanek's fault, but Kazuo Ishiguro's, the author of the novel. His main mistake is evident: he contradicts/ignore the basic survival instinct in human nature. Maybe if you are a very traditionalist Japanese, you can better understand a mentalities like those displayed in this movie. But even if you are a noble Samurai, educated to commit suicide in case of defeat or dishonor, for the rest of your life you want to live. Even if you are a Kamikaze, your last performance is not the main purpose of your entire existence, but an exception, dictated by an exceptionally desperate state of your Nation. You could be ready to die prematurely, but a man who makes the death the unique purpose of his life
doesn't exist outside Ishiguro's mind. Even in some culture of death, like Jihadism, the suicide bombers believe in life: life in Paradise, after death on Earth. In the dystopian Britain depicted in this movie, an entire social class is a breeding ground of live human organ donors. A society like that is simply doomed. It couldn't work, because it contradicts the survival instinct. Then, if you can suppress your own survival instinct you simply don't live. You would commit suicide, or you let your body die, in one way or another. If you can't (and you cannot) suppress your own most basic instinct, you have to escape. A society like that couldn't be kept together even with the hardest totalitarianism. Even millions of law enforcers could result ineffective. The characters, here, have already suppressed their own survival instinct: they have all the possibilities to escape their fate, but they don't. Because they want to accept their destiny. But
they hope for some more years of life. They feel love. They are not at all enthusiasts of their fate, at least fatalist like any prisoner in a death row. Then, if they have some remnants of instincts, why they don't try to survive? This is a very hard contradiction. Even an almost B-movie like "The Island" (whose story is very, very similar indeed) is much more coherent and credible: at least those characters don't know their destiny (nor their beneficiaries know about their existence) and when the truth come out, the great escape starts all over. In sum, if you want to see great acting, good music and photography and many human sentiments displayed, this is your movie. If you want to be sad, just for one night, this is your movie. (If you're looking for some motivation, escape this movie!). If you're looking for a good/rational story: this is not the right movie.
Tali-Ihantala 1944 (2007)
The Worst War Movie Ever
Is it really a movie? Is it really a fictional documentary? Neither. It seems more a reenacting amateur video, than a real movie. It's not a documentary. A documentary requires clarity, but here, after almost 2 hours, you understand nothing about the 1944 Soviet offensive in Finland: you can see the reenactment of only a very little portion of the entire campaign, basically no maps (indeed, there is a map which explains quite nothing: no names of units involved in a scale too large to be useful) and no statistics at all. But
wait! We are speaking about a movie! Is this a real "movie"? A movie requires a plot. And here I see no plot at all, just series of little sketches. A movie requires a screenplay. And here I see no screenplay, just series of little textbook-style discussions about tactics, with no emotions involved. A movie requires characters. Here we can see no character, but some people who casually run or speak in front of a camera, with no character development at all. A movie requires actors: are they actors those involved in this movie? Mmmh
A movie, especially a war movie, requires action. But here I see very few actions, not realistic at all. Last but not least: a modern war movie requires magnificence. Oh yes, my dears! If CGI is already invented and introduced in cinema industry (I'm sorry for all the nostalgic of pre-CGI era), please use it! Because, after the stunning war actions in "Save private Ryan", "Band of Brothers" and "Pacific" series, "Letters from Iwo Jima" and so on, we (the average public) want to see something better than few soldiers running in a forest, some guns firing and tank duels involving two or three vehicles. Here is all amateur style: soldiers fall crying few seconds after they are hit and even when a shell hit a tank it makes just a "piff" with a little smoke cloud. OK, you don't have budget and you can't buy "Massive" or any other CGI software, nor you can pay salaries to large crews. Well: don't try to make a movie about Tali Ihantala, the largest battle in Nordic countries. It's just like making a low budget version of "The Lord of the Rings": you can try, just to have a laugh. If you don't have budget, please, try with other subjects. Last but not least: it's a Historical delusion. Because the battle of Tali Ihantala, fought between June and July of 1944 was an epic event in Europe (sometimes compared to a "Nordic Thermopylae" by historians) and, for sure, the most important battle for Finland in Second World War. It saved Finland from the same fate of the Baltic Countries, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and all the Balkan countries invaded or "liberated" by Ussr in 1944. It is indeed a very controversial war episode: outside Finland, while the Winter War (1939-40) is broadly known and morally accepted, the Continuation War (1941-44) is always a taboo. It's a unique case of a real Democracy which fought alongside Nazi Germany against Soviet Union while preserving its own liberty inside. Why waste such an interesting subject with a poor movie like this? Well, all the positive reviews speak about the original and rare war material (especially tanks), used in this movie. OK, if you just want to see some 1944 tanks running and fighting again, just go to a reenactment event. It's much more funny.
Welcome (2007)
Welcome: See no Evil
This short and entertaining horror movie is a real rare jewel. You should have seen it on YouTube only in September 2007, when it was presented in Reel Moments contest. It's the debut of Kirsten Dunst as director, starring Winona Ryder. This work is not perfect, of course. The film contains some disappointing flaws, due to its short format.
(Spoilers)
Its sudden ending doesn't let us to understand the dynamics of the characters, their psychology and the motivations which let Winona Ryder to change completely her behaviour (I don't want to add spoilers
so I can't explain other details!). But during the movie, you could be attracted by the rare atmosphere created by the dark scenes, the sounds of a semi-empty house (and no music at all), the camera which follows every character from a mysterious point of view. Kirsten Dunst is trying to recreate a suspense in which you see nothing but you fear to see something. And she reaches her scope perfectly, until the end of the short. Contrary to many other horror movies, this one reflects a real optimistic sense of life: respect and friendship are always possible, the unknown must not be feared. In this Dunst's movie, at least, we see no Evil.
Tropa de Elite (2007)
The real face of violence
From Brazil with fury: Tropa de Elite shows us, with realistic violence, all the horrors of the drug war in Rio de Janeiro "favelas" (slums). Many other movies shows us the violence and crime of Brazil, first of all the pulp masterpiece "City of God". The same authors of that movie, in this case, explore the world of police. The movie is narrated by Capt. Do Nascimento, a real officer (with a fake name). He's an officer in the elite military police Corp, the Bope. A black uniform with a skull as its symbol (two elements that remind Fascism) to fight the crime. They don't make interrogations: they torture suspects to obtain informations. They don't arrest: they just have to kill. This Corp is employed for extreme emergency, in the most dangerous areas where the police is armless. 1997: before the visit of Pope John Paul II in Brazil, Bope is deployed in favelas, cleaning them from criminals. The violence of special forces is needed
if you want the Pope live and able to speak about peace and fraternity to Brazilian people. In that period, Do Nascimento explain us the career of two Bope's volunteers: agents Neto and Matias, from their beginning in the regular police to their initiation in Bope's parallel universe.
- SPOILERS -
They can't make a career in the regular police because they are too honest to accept all the corruption and the compromises inside it's hierarchy. And so, they have to turn violent and enter the Bope to fight the crime seriously. This is a personal trail full of sacrifices. Neto loses his life in action. Do Nascimento destroys his family. Matias loses part of his humanity: his love affair, his promising career in law. Finally he loses his sense of pity. And he becomes a real war machine. Those sacrifices are inevitable in an uncompromising World in which you have only to choose between criminality and repression. Because all the other rings of the chain are corrupted. Intellectuals preaches theories against an abstract "repression" and they don't understand the crime. Social workers are compromised with criminals (violently punished by them if they don't obey) and they simply can't do the good for society. Regular police (the State) is itself corrupted by criminals. And then: only brute force (with all its horrors) can fight the crime. Tropa de Elite is not only a good movie about Brazil. Its message is universal. Those who repeat that "in real World white and black don't exist, there is only Grey" are wrong. Padilha show us how criminality oblige us to make a radical choice. A choice not easy, not at all.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
An Epic Movie
A good superhero movie is a perfect tool to speak about deep philosophy to common people. Forget about Tarkovskij, Bergman and Kieslovsky: this Spiderman2 touches all the chords of human morality and nature. It's all about choice: a normal man have to chose between a superhuman nature and a normal life. This is a perfect representation of the dual nature of Spiderman: the heroic one (imagined by the Objectivist designer Steve Ditko) and the imperfect one (imagined by the Liberal Stan Lee). The superhuman nature allow him to save humanity, but this is a full time mission imply the sacrifice of all the real joys of life: love, friendships, career and culture. The human nature allow all of that, but imply weakness before the Evil. And then the Evil comes, under the guise of a failed scientist who doesn't want to admit his mistake and that is possessed by its own science. He's a good guy
who doesn't want to accept the weakness of a normal life. Fighting the Evil, Spiderman can find a synthesis between the superhuman and the human: it's possible to make love and war in the same time. A good script makes this movie enjoyable for all audiences. It mixes all the ingredients of a very good action movie (full of new spectacular special effects) and a very good comedy. It's good both for Spiderman's fans and for people who never read a comic strip. The cast is really strong, dominated by an existential Tobey McGuire and a brave red Kirsten Dunst, a perfect image of a heroic woman. The timing was perfect: this movie was in theaters in 2004 and America was in a political crossroad. Most probably, Spiderman helped many Americans to make their choice in a period of a morally difficult war. Well done, Sam Raimi!
Watchmen (2009)
Interesting, funny, politically uncorrect. But it's too much
This is a new History of Cold War through superhero eyes. It's a different America which won the Vietnam War thanks to superheroes. And "now", in 1985, Us faces the risk of a total confrontation with Soviet Union. But someone is killing all the Watchmen, the super-humans who defend America and its society. This is the interesting scenario of "Watchmen", not only a comic-movie, but a comprehensive reflection on America. To make a movie from the graphic novel "Watchmen" is almost impossible. Zack Snider tried, the result is not bad, but not perfect either. Moore, one of the two novelists, boycotted this project. While the plot is developed as a thriller (who want to kill the Watchmen?), the focus shift from one character to an other, each of them reflecting a different philosophy. This is the strength of the movie, but also its foe. In a novel, the authors had all the time and space to develop all their philosophical questions. Which are: when the use of brute force is legitimate? Is man entirely responsible of his actions? Does God exist? If God exists, why he ignores sufferance and considers the complete annihilation of humanity? Is life really a "miracle"? Is peace a value in itself? Does it justify sacrifices and millions of deaths? In a movie is impossible to reach an answer in 160 minutes. When we leave the theater, we can think: "it's too much". And we had no answer as well. The (not so much) happy ending is a great delusion, especially if we compare it to the open ending of the novel. But I don't want to make any spoiler. But there are other strengths in this film: it's fantastically politically uncorrect! And it brakes all the clichés of superhero movies: the Watchmen are not entirely good, they protect society by means of violence, sometimes brutal violence. In superhero movies, usually there no gore and no sex at all. Here we can taste ultra-violence and a lot of sex scenes. Usually in a superhero movie, political debates are off-limits. In Watchmen, politic is the main focus. And we can taste satire against liberals and peace-mongers (and vegetarians) never heard in other commercial movies. This is an act of courage in the era of politically correctness.
Das Leben der Anderen (2006)
Inside Totalitarianism
This is totalitarianism. Finally a German young director understood and exposed the machinery of tyranny. This work resulted in the masterpiece of 2006: "The Lives of the Others". While the totalitarian system of DDR (the former Communist regime of East Germany) is the main character in the first half of the film, human characters emerge during the story. This is precisely the meaning of all this work: the individual rebellion of common people against an oppressive and collective society. This rebellion is embodied by a secret agent of political police (Stasi), one of the most loyal and respected social role in the former regime. His task: seek the enemies of the State. And destroy the personal enemies of "Vips" (oligarchs and ministers) in the ruling élite. To discover the "enemies", he has to enter their lives: no problem for a loyal agent. The problem begins when he discovers the humanity and the dept of his "enemies", when he has to spy the lives of two renowned artists: a theater comedian and his lover, a famous actress. And then he has to face a major change in his own life. But here stops the review, because I don't wanna make spoilers. Against all the "ostalgia" (nostalgia of DDR), this movie explain with clear and plain language that: there is no possible compromise between a totalitarian regime and a human life. "If Lenin did listen the Beethoven's Sonata for a Good Man he couldn't make the revolution" tells the main character in one crucial dialog. The regime imposed by Lenin's heirs encouraged all the worst traits of human character: fear, envy, lust for power, forced prostitution (intellectual and physical prostitution). In that context, the individual resistance was the only possible way to pursue the virtues of man.
The Dark Knight (2008)
An action movie. Nothing more
When I read the enthusiastic reviews in Italy and I saw this movie ranked 1st in the IMDb's Top 250, I thought: "It's strange, the other Batman (Begins) was not so brilliant, what's happening with this sequel? Is it really this masterpiece? Is it really in the same league with movies like 'Clockwork Orange' or 'Apocalypse now'?". No, it's not in the same league. Not at all. When I saw it, my delusion was strong. It's a good blockbuster action movie, but nothing more. Let's see.
The following comments contain spoilers. Be careful.
The script is not so original. There are tons of action sequences, but
what can I say? I've seen it all. I've seen the robbery made by violent people, fighting against the guards and killing each others (in all pulp tradition, since "Reservoir Dogs"). I've seen the ransom in China by plane ("Spy Games"). I've seen those action sequences with cars and armored vehicles in all American movies. (And this Batmobile is really awkward). I've seen the killer who kills by chance ("No Country for Old Men"). I've seen the super-mega-sadistic-mad-chaotic-evil-serial-killer in action who creates dilemmas and plays with his victims (in "Seven" and in the "Saw" saga). I've seen it all: "The Dark Knight" is nothing new. And it's very predictable: you really can predict any sequence before seeing it. There are a lot of absurdities. The heroes could kill The Joleker dozens of times, but they never do it. Why? Are they retarded? The "two ships dilemma" (I don't want to reveal more about that scene) is not realistic at all. There are only a couple of surprises, but the 2/3 of the movie doesn't create any suspense. What about the actors? The only two heroes of acting in this movie are Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Heath Ledger, with his Joker, bears quite the entire movie. All the other characters became secondary. Aaron Eckhart is really powerful and he confirms his talent shown in "Thank You for Smoking". What about the others? Christian Bale is one of the most talented actors of his generation, but in this movie he keeps only one expression all the time, with or without mask. His Batman has no personality. Maggie Gyllenhaal is one of the most interesting (and underrated) independent actresses of the New Hollywood, since "The Secretary". But in this movie she can act only in few sequences and she has no chance to show her real talent. Morgan Freeman and Michael Cane are giants, but in this movie they barely appear. Finally: I've never seen so many waste of talent! The good side of the coin in Christopher Nolan's work is: his philosophy. It's really positive and constructive and all his movie is coherent about it. It's just like the positive answer to "No Country for Old Men" and to modern nihilism: in the Cohen's movie, Evil is the absence of values and it's unstoppable. In "The Dark Knight", Evil is again the absence of values, but it's a minority, not the rule. So, we can fight Evil and defeat it, with or without super-heroes. But all those themes could be and should be explored better. "The Dark Knight" explores nothing.
Batman Begins (2005)
A good lesson in ethics is not a good movie
This comment contains spoilers. A child lost his parents during a robbery in Gotham City and he grew up full of anger. He can't kill the killer of his parents and he decides to become a vigilante. He travels around the world to know criminals (in China but not in Gotham City) and a mysterious man suggests him (after 7 years!) that "criminals are simple-minded" and "You have to know yourself, not your enemies". And a ninja-warrior training begins. But ninjas want destroy civilization and our hero discovers suddenly that Vengiance is worst then Justice. So Batman begins. This is a very good lesson in ethics. Those lessons are repeated all along the movie, explained in monologues and dialogs by friends and foes even when they're fighting each others. But a good lesson in philosophy is not a good movie: Batman Begins is a really boring movie, without humor, self-celebrating and really too dark to be enjoyed. "It fits the spirit of comic books" is the defense-line drawn by it's defenders. Oh yeah, of course: maybe geeks are celebrating it. But Sam Raimi, at least, had the courage to violate, sometimes, the spirit of the original Spiderman comic books and he made three very funny and enjoyable movies. Christopher Nolan's Batman is just boring.
Gomorra (2008)
A masterpiece of realism
Finally a great Italian movie! Matteo Garrone did his best with this mafia-movie. He mixes the lessons of first Italian realism (like Rossellini), with a gangster plot. He takes the much positive characteristics of the two genres: it's not a documentary, because it's a convincing gangster-movie, but it does not contain splatter and pulp effects, because it's real, more than a documentary. This movie denounces a very hard situation, but it's not rhetoric. It has a message, a clear message (like in the book of Roberto Saviano, at the base of the screenplay), but it doesn't telegraph it. All the elements of this work are perfectly balanced. As in realist movies, Garrone took very good professional actors (like Toni Servillo) and make them work with everyday-live people of Naples. Professional acting, plus the faces and noises of everyday live, double the realism of the scenes. I don't want to make spoilers. But I have to say that this movie does not leave you any hope. The only way of living is: surrender to crime or leave. The few moral characters of this movie have to leave and change their lives. They can't win against Evil. Garrone, in his movie (after Saviano in his book) show us that Camorra (the Naple's mafia) is not only a "gang", but a parallel society, with a parallel government, a submerged economy and a secret army, its civil wars and its welfare. Living inside this second State is not easy at all and it's very dangerous. It is possible to escape from it, but not to be free from it, because it rests on the consent of a large, poor and unproductive segment of society. The loss of hope is evident all along the movie. Lights underlines it very well. There are no sunny, nor dark scenes, no light and no shadows: it's all grey, like in a hot and cloudy day. Grey is worse than black-and-white: grey is pure nihilism.
The Happening (2008)
B-Movie + Philosophy = this nice and entertaining movie
The Happening is a very nice movie. Here Night M. Shyamalan did not his best ("Signs" is my favourite and "The Sixth Sense" is a little masterpiece), but he did a very nice and entertaining thriller movie. Like all his other works, Shyamalan starts with one of the fundamental philosophical questions of this time and he tries to answer with a B-Movie theme. In "Sings" the fundamental question was "Does God exists?" and the B-Movie theme was an alien's invasion. In this case, the fundamental question is: "Is man the cancer of our planet?" and the B-Movie theme is an unstoppable pandemic deadly disease. The plot is a typical pandemic movie, but this is not a B-Movie at all: complex characters, realistic situations and shocking scenes of massive suicides give great depth to this movie. There is something wrong with acting: all actors (Zooey Deschanel, Mark Wahlberg and all the others) are always astonished, sometimes they act as alienated people. This is a characteristic of all Shyamalan's works, but in this movie it could be a bit disturbing. Shyamalan creates suspense. And he re-creates very well a desperate situation where humanity is struggling against an unknown, invisible and very powerful enemy. In this struggle there are no heroes, but only victims or lucky people, like in ordinary reality. And all this stuff is really, really entertaining! His plot is very coherent with the fundamental question "Is man the cancer of our planet?". He answers in the very end of the movie. Personally I don't agree with Shyamalan's answer. But I don't want to reveal it. Go to theater and watch it!
Cloverfield (2008)
A revolution in sci-fi movies
This is a great movie, because it changes completely the perspective of sci-fi. We are used to watch monster movies (Godzilla, for example) from three different points of view: the monster, the army and some great hero who is trying to save the city from destruction. We don't care about the people who are under the main action. In a classical sci-fi movie, if the monster or a missile destroys a building, we never think about hundreds of screaming common individuals who are inside or under that building. If the monster or the artillery devastates cars, destroys houses and properties, we never think about people who lost their home and all their properties, we can't even imagine what can do or think someone who is suddenly surprised under fire and loses friends and relatives. We never think or care about it in a monster movie. But they are humans and not ants. They have their own lives, personal stories, passions, frustrations and courage. I asked it every time I watch a monster/sci-fi/super-hero movie. This is the first time I have had an answer: this movie shows us what could be reaction of common people (not heroes, not army commanders, not monsters) facing a sudden and unknown menace. It's a real revolution in sci-fi. And it's a necessary revolution, because of Youtube and modern digital technology. We are living the information-age and everybody can bring a camera, always and everywhere. Sci-fi has to simulate and re-create reality in surreal circumstances. And this is nowadays reality: everyone could be a journalist or a director with his or her camera. Look at amateur's videotapes of 9/11 or the combat cameras in the Iraq War: these are great events documented by ordinary people or private soldiers. If you imagine a fictional great event and you want to make it real, you can't re-create it with traditional means, as the great hero or army commander's perspective. You have to see it from the common people's perspective: common people armed with hand cameras and smart cells. This perspective doesn't mean that the plot and the screenplay become useless. Matt Reeves, the director, keeps a great role. He built complex and realistic characters and the screenplay is a high-standard horror movie, with some reference to the first Zombie (the scenes in deserted supermarkets and the task for survival in a hostile environment) and Alien (the attack in the Underground). The scenario is simply beautiful: just every particular is built with accuracy: the hall of the upper class building continues to transmit soft music, also during the tragedy, the alarms of cars start every time there were hit or shacked, the lights of the city change, all the security systems react to dangers. Of course, this movie is far from perfection and we can't consider it as a real masterpiece. The introduction, the party before the attack, is very realistic, but quite boring and there is some lack of realism: the cameraman recs too much, also in impossible situations. I can't rec when I risk to lose my life, or rec my friends when they are living a painful or intimate situation. A heavy wounded girl can't run and behave as a healthy person. The point of view is limited: only one camera. And this is very reductive. I wish I would have seen a puzzle made by lot of cameras used by different characters, from different perspectives to have a panoramic view of the event. These are mistakes and flaws and could be perfected. But, above all, this movie is a revolution. The next sci-fi movies can't ignore it.