Happy Birthday, Kristen Wiig!

Never heard of her? Well, hopefully, you will soon. I first found out about her when a fellow IMDb poster kindly linked me to some of her sketches in Saturday Night Live. (Thanks Zed!) She's been in a few (rather crappy) films and has some projects lined-up, but she's not very well-known. However, after seeing many of her performances in SNL, I can assure you that's she's one of the funniest ladies I've ever seen and a hell of a (comedic) actress. She's extremely talented, and I wish she could make it big in Hollywood; she sure as hell deserves it over many of the people who did make it. Still not convinced? Check out some of her videos at Kristen Wiig Fan under the media section and you'll just have to agree with me. For a start, I would recommend seeing her Penelope sketches; probably the best character she created. Trust me! You won't be disappointed.

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1325419/

Fansite: http://kristenwiigfan.com/

Happy Birthday, Joan Allen!

Well, I haven't seen some of her more acclaimed performances (like Nixon (1995) for which she received a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination; or The Contender (2000), for which she was nominated again in the Best Actress category) but I still think of her as one of my favourite performers. She always manages to shine in the littlest of roles: performances like in The Crucible (1996), where she played Elizabeth Proctor, wife of Daniel Day-Lewis, have her in a refreshingly understated, completely natural and quietly touching performance amidst a plethora of over-the-top theatrics.

Then it was her glorious turn in Ang Lee's The Ice Storm (1997) which earned her a lot of praise but little actual recognition and for which many believe she should have gotten an Oscar nomination as well. She was brilliant, as always, in a multi-layered and completely devastating performance as a woman on verge of a breakdown, displaying heartbreaking fragility through her eyes and overbearing desperation through her body language. 

Now we're on to what's one of my favourite performances of all time. Joan Allen plays Betty Parker in the gorgeous (and criminally underrated) film Pleasantville (1998) with such humanity and warmth that I think it's virtually impossible for anyone not to feel touched by her story. She is so natural here, so luminous, so full of life! This is a masterclass in acting, everyone! Seeing this woman subtly and slowly evolve from a repressed housewife to an independent, free-spirited, sexually liberated woman is one of the best lessons in character development you'll ever be likely to witness. Just thinking about it makes me cry.

7 years later she played a completely different character in the 2005 indie film The Upside of Anger. Had the film got a decent release date and some awards push, Joan Allen would have been a shoo in for Best Actress at the Oscars, or at least at the Golden Globes. As it is, though, she was wrongly overlooked for one of her best performances. This character is nothing like Betty Parker, though. She rides a roller coaster of emotions and is incredibly compelling to watch. It's fascinating to see this often supporting lady dominate the screen with such powerful stage presence. As a neurotic and completely on edge middle-age woman she is often touching and relatable but she's also scarily spot-on in her representation of an angry mom (who doesn't see their own mom in her?) and she's even surprisingly hilarious at times. Really, this performance has it all and it's truly a shame that she was so ignored by the awards circuit.

So as you see, I haven't seen much from her, but she's certainly made an impression. The rest I've seen with her was The Bourne Series (2004; 2007), in which she was incredible but had very little to do, and in her tiny role in The Notebook (2004), in which she was absolutely fantastic. Seriously, I went from actively disliking her character as the conflicted yet thoroughly annoying mother to being absolutely devastated by that very same woman in the glorious scene in which she tells her young daughter about her youth love and the decisions she had to make. Only Joan Allen can deliver such an incredibly convincing performance in such little screen time, giving as a well-rounded character out of a nothing role.

I simply cannot wait to see the rest of her filmography (especially those two for which she was nominated that I haven't seen), but I cannot say the same about her newest release Death Race! Seriously, what was she thinking? Fortunately, her two other up-coming films look more promising, if a little sappy.

I leave you with this (very short) but great clip from The Upside of Anger: Joan Allen bitch-slapping! 

Top 3 Most Played Songs of the Week

Sorry for the delay, again, but I usually find myself starting this thing on Sunday nights and only being able to cover three songs, so I have to finish it on Mondays. However, I'm going to start posting only 3 songs per week so as to ensure a regular (and Sunday-ish) update!

1. The Rolling Stones - Jigsaw Puzzle

 

Album: Beggars Banquet (1968)

Not a hit, not a single, in fact, it has never been performed live, as far as I know, but one of the strongest, definitely most underrated Rolling Stones songs. It's a long song, but it doesn't have the same "epic" quality as the other (very) long song from the same album, "Sympathy for the Devil". Amazing guitar sound and beautiful, soft and wonderfully soothing vocals by Mick Jagger. I'm not really sure what it's about but it's such a relaxing song and the chorus, although it implies having to wait for something to happen, is strangely reassuring and quite uplifting. Shame that it isn't more well-known.

2. Siouxsie and the Banshees - Red Light

 

Album: Kaleidoscope (1980)

This is the period when John McGeoch (guitar) and Budgie (drums) joined the band and the band's sound took a new direction. It was in this album when Siouxsie started experimenting with electronic sounds and this is perhaps one of the best exponents of those experimentations. Oddly enough, the rhythm of the song is basically set by the sound of a camera clicking. Siouxsie's vocals are dark and creepy as she sings about voyeurism and (porno) photoshoots. Eerily atmospheric and one of the album's strongest highlights.

3. Blondie - Kung Fu Girls

Album: Blondie (1976)

From their debut (and quite fantastic) album, this is one of the best representations of the original Blondie sound. Their punk roots are at full display here, but also their New Wave-ish sound and their old-fashioned Pop references. Destri's organ is rocking and Debbie Harry was at her prime here delivering edgy, strong, powerful vocals. The lyrics are kind of silly, but they are hilarious and full of attitude, much like everything Debbie Harry produces..., or used to produce, anyway.

Happy (belated) Birthday Alfred Hitchcock!

Yesterday was the 109th anniversary of the birth of one of my favourite directors! I thought it was fitting to write a little something related to the unbeatable master of suspense that was Alfred Hitchcock. So I'm going to do a Top 5 countdown of my favourite Hitchcock films:

5. Rebecca (1940)

Joan Fontaine, in a breathtaking performance, plays a young, naive woman who meets and then marries a rich widower, Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) and they both set to start their new life in his enormous mansion. However, the memory of the first Mrs. de Winter (Rebecca) still lingers in the mind of Maxim and the house's servants, particularly in Mrs. Danvers, played by Judith Anderson in one of the best performances of all time. The atmosphere Hitchcock creates in this film is astonishing, as Rebecca's presence is felt all throughout the film without her ever appearing on screen. Mrs. Danvers plays a key role in this too and the obvious attachment and creepy fascination she had for her former mistress is both disturbing and suggestive, and she acts as a cruel reminder of the (gigantic) shoes Fontaine's character so desperately wants and needs to fill. Every image reeks of doom and gloom in a striking black and white cinematography and Hitchcock's narrative is suspenseful and eerily compelling.

4. Rope (1948)

One of the most thoroughly entertaining films I've ever seen. The premise is already quite fascinating: two young men murder a fellow classmate (just because they feel he was "inferior" to them) and then throw him a party in order to challenge the perfection of their crime. It is so amusing to watch the party guests chat about the usual Hitchcockian topics (the perfect murder, for example!) and wonder where the celebrated man could be, while his actual body is right there in the very same room they are all in. The film feels a lot like a play, all in one setting and with no "noticeable" cuts (Hitchcock wanted to shoot the whole thing in one take but didn't have the technology to pull it off; nevertheless he did his best to hide those cuts) but the camerawork is mind-blowing. The performers are all a joy to watch, the standouts being John Dall as the charismatic killer and James Stewart as the two boy's teacher who becomes increasingly suspicious as the evening wears on.

3. The Birds (1963)

The basic plot is: Melanie Daniels, a spoiled socialite (Tippi Hedren in a delightful and criminally underrated performance), "chases" hunky bachelor Mitch Brenner (played by Rod Taylor) when suddenly, a seagull attacks her in what's to be the first but definitely not the last bird attack in Bodega Bay. It's never explained why the birds attack, but that just makes the whole thing even more terrifying. The idea that nature can turn against us like that is something that's been haunting me since I first saw the film. But anyway, this is only the immediate, superficial layer of the film. It's interesting how people are still being fooled by the B-horror appearance of the film and think that it was only meant to work on a literal level when it’s actually an extremely complex and richly layered film and probably Hitchcock's most purely cinematically brilliant film. This time the usually fundamental Hitchcock score is replaced by the groundbreaking use of sound, which, together with the cinematography and editing, combine to create as tense and creepy an atmosphere as I've hardly seen before. Add to that the ahead-of-its time visual effects; the birds look dated today, no doubt, but were primary reference to films such as Jaws and Alien. The sense of dread Hitchcock creates is astonishing. The film works as a metaphor for many different things (left open to interpretation), and if one is familiar enough with Hitchcock's most recurrent themes (sexual repression, family, Oedipal conflict, etc.) one might be able to guess exactly what he had in mind when he made this film.

2. Vertigo (1958)

James Stewart, playing against type, is a retired cop who is hired by an old friend to follow his wife, a beautiful Kim Novak in a challenging role. She is evidently distressed, and Stewart's character Scottie believes she's under some kind of spell. However, he becomes increasingly obsessed with the distant, cold and more importantly, blonde woman as the film moves along and that’s as far as I will go as plot is concerned. The most interest aspect about this film is the parallelisms between Stewart’s character and Hitchcock himself. In fact, this (sexual) obsession mirrors no other than Hitchcock’s own freaky fascination with blondes (most notably Grace Kelly). This is far and away Hitchcock's most personal film and probably his ultimate masterpiece. It's spellbinding from start to end relying less on dialogues and more on Bernard Herrmann’s magnus opus of a score and Stewart and Novak's astonishing performances. Vertigo is without a doubt Hitchcock's best directional achievement, the deliberate slow pace and the lavish visuals create an irresistible and incredibly unforgettable dream-like ambience which draws you in and never lets go.

1. Rear Window (1954)

Much like Rope this film is set all in one place: L. B. Jeffries's (James Stewart) claustrophobic apartment, but again, much like Rope this film is incredibly compelling and never loses steam. Jefferies is a photographer who needs to spend some time on a wheel chair recovering from an accident but the regular visits of his beautiful girlfriend (Grace Kelly) and his nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter in a hilarious performance) fail to keep him entertained enough, so he starts peeping out of his window and "spying" on his neighbours. The plot thickens when he thinks he's seen one of them committing a murder. James Stewart as the voyeur and pseudo-psychologist is as great as he's ever been, but he's not the only one who is completely mesmerized by what he sees. Indeed, Hitchcock expertly lures the audience into these voyeuristic habits and one quickly finds oneself guessing and drawing conclusions out of what we can see through Jeff's window. Everything about this brilliant film is perfection: the clever script, the stellar cast and Hitch's masterful direction, but it’s its fascinating study of these psychological aspects of the human mind that makes Rear Window stand out as one of the best films of all time. 

Top 5 Most Played Songs of the Week

1. Dusty Springfield – I Only Want to Be with You

 

I recently got a compilation album with her greatest hits and I fell in love with her powerful voice and her catchy, beautiful songs. This was her first solo single (1963) after having been with The Springfields for a while and one of the first hits of the British Invasion in the US. It’s strange to think this is usually labeled as Pop, putting it in the same category as most of the appalling Pop outings nowadays, when this is so enthrallingly soulful and honest. Beautiful song and what a voice Dusty had!

2. Joao Gilberto and Caetano Veloso - Garota de Ipanema

 

Music by the wonderful Tom Jobim and written by the hand of a poet (Vinicius de Moraes), this is one of the all-time classics and one of the primary exponents of Bossa Nova. The authors attributed the song’s composition to Helô Pinto, a striking woman they watched pass by as they sat in a now famous bar, which was fittingly renamed “A Garota de Ipanema” after the song’s success. This song has such an intangible sadness, and yet it is so gorgeous: a simple, understated arrangement with beautifully dreamy lyrics.

3. Amy Winehouse – Tears Dry on their Own

Album: Back to Black (2006)

My favourite track on this incredible album and her second most successful single (after the unstoppable “Rehab”). This song combines Amy’s unique, jazzy, soulful voice singing melancholy lyrics and the upbeat, cherry music from Marvin Gaye’s “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough”. The lyrics speak to me about a woman in a sexual relationship who unwisely falls in love with the man, who quite obviously is not interested in having a serious relationship with her. Amy's lyrics reflect her uncertainty, seeming at times hopeful and at other times defeated. It just sounds honest and incredibly humane, as everything Amy produces. 

4. Billy Joel – My Life

Album: 52nd Street (1978)

Peaking at #3 in Billboard’s Hot 100, this song is a single from one of Joel’s best albums and it’s a fine representation of the quality present in the album. It’s just perfect for those moments when someone is pestering you with advice and telling you how to live your life, when you would just rather be left alone. Contagious beat, great vocals (I love the little growls) and fantastic lyrics, as always.

5. Siouxsie – Into a Swan



Album: MantaRay (2007)

First single out of Siouxsie’s first solo album, after years fronting the bands Siouxsie and the Banshees and later The Creatures. Magnificent beat, I loved it instantly, and every time I listen to it my body just wants to dance. It actually reminded me a lot of Goldfrapp, and interestingly enough, I recently discovered that one of Goldfrapp’s producers worked in this album. Just like the lyrics constantly repeat, “Into a Swan” feels so much like the unstoppable force Siouxsie describes and I can totally identify with those kinds of strong feelings and the passion with which Siouxsie sings them. And I just love it when she goes: “do-do-do-do”…!

Recent Viewings

In Bruges (2008)

One of the most acclaimed films this year and many even say it's the best one so far, so I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I didn't think it was very good. I guess it's a very personal thing but I did not enjoy the humour in the slightest and I was only amused by the "You're a fucking inanimate object!" line. Too dark for my taste and I didn't think the director handled the screenplay very well. The tone was all over the place and I seriously started wondering if this was supposed to be a comedy at all. I believe the material would have worked (better) in the hands of a more skillful director, but alas, some "writers" insist on shooting their own screenplays. Fiennes was fantastic, far and away the best part of the film: he was consistently funny and was convincing enough in his dramatic scenes. Brendan Gleeson is a tough one..., he was very good as a dramatic actor but I think he made his character way too sympathetic, to the detriment of the film. As for Farrell, I think he showed FANTASTIC promise and was absolutely mind-blowing in his dramatic scenes but he didn't sell the comedy. However, this was more the director's fault and than his (or Gleeson's, for that matter). I can appreciate dark humour when done well (Coen brothers, for example) but this was too uneven: the cuts from "funny" moments to the depressing ones were too quick and ruined the flow of the film. I also couldn't tell if the film was going for realism, but if it was, then it failed miserably. However, I should point out the strongest point of the film for me: Bruges was photographed beautifully and I really liked the strong presence it had during the film (sure, it was set there, but it still felt much more like a character than a setting).

Personal rating: 5/10

School of Rock (2003)

What a wonderfully endearing film! I rewatched this one a couple of days ago only to fall even more in love with it and with the wonderful Jack Black, whom actually makes my lineup for Best Actor in 2003. First thing one needs to do to enjoy this film, is not to take it seriously, it’s not supposed to be realistic, we are not supposed to believe that something like this would happen in real life, but it’s a wonderful story, with a rocking soundtrack and a wonderful cast. The kids are incredibly natural (and really quite talented), Joan Cusack is her usual funny self but it’s Jack Black the one who sells this film. He’s incredibly charismatic, hilarious, has fantastic chemistry with the kids and more importantly, he’s thoroughly believable. His passion for music is extremely convincing and his general enthusiasm wonderfully contagious. Linklater casts a spell on the audience, making us fall in love with the characters and deeply care for them (I even shed a few tears here and there) while we enjoy the music. It’s one of the best feel-good movies I’ve ever seen and when it ends, it never fails to leave me in an elated, just plain happy mood. 

Personal rating: 8/10

Dazed and Confused (1993)

This portal to another era feels more like a documentary than a fictional film. Indeed, the camerawork, general look of the film and the understated, natural performances greatly enhance the realism Linklater was trying to convey. Aided by a rocking soundtrack, Linklater’s camera flows through the lives of a bunch of teenagers and kids and the ways they spend the last day of school. The characters are all ages (mostly in their teens) and all types (nerds, footballers, cheerleaders, potheads, the incoming freshman and the graduated seniors). It is a very well-constructed screenplay, full of humour and believable characters. But what’s most interesting to watch, at least it was to me, is the huge group of who had just started acting and went on to bigger things in the future: Adam Goldberg, Matthew McConaughey (one of the best of the cast, no doubt), Milla Jovovich, Ben Affleck (I almost didn’t recognize him; he was perfect) and Parker Posey. This is not usually my kind of film, but I thought it was very well-made and one of the best of its kind. Indeed, this is a very enjoyable film and one of the best teen comedies out there. 

Personal rating: 7/10

Top 5 Most Played Songs of the Week

I decided to start a new series on my Blog which will basically consist of posting my Top 5 favourite or most played songs of the week every Sunday. I'm definitely not the best music savvy out there but I thought this would be interesting and that it could perhaps inspire the readers (if there are any) to check out the artists, songs or albums I'll be mentioning here. Needless to say, comments, suggestions, recommendations and whatnot are more than welcome.

1. The White Stripes - Ball and Biscuit

Album: Elephant (2003).

This song has a fantastic bluesy sound to it and it's the best example of modern (old school) Rock 'n' Roll that I've ever heard. The lyrics could be about sex or they might simply be a group of words that sounded good together (with a few facts thrown in here and there - Jack is the seventh son-). According to Jack, "ball and biscuit" is a kind of vintage microphone, but regardless of the lyrics, this song is all about Jack's guitar solos: raw, highly-distortioned and apparently improvised in studio; and the best part is that they are always different when he plays it live. YouTube it; you won't be disappointed! The only thing that it's not perfect about the song is Meg White's drumming. Trust me, I am definitely not a hater and I think her drumming is incredibly effective in most of their songs, but they're a bit boring in this one.

2. Blondie - The Hardest Part

Album:  Eat to the Beat (1979).

This song was released as a single in the US in 1980 reaching #84 in Billboard's Hot 100. Commercially appealing but still maintaining the Blondie/Debbie Harry edge, this song is incredibly catchy and has one rocking bridge. Again, the lyrics can be interpreted as sexual and Debbie sings them with incredible attitude and smashing sex appeal. Fantastic drumming by Clem Burke and awesome guitar playing by Chris Stein, who co-wrote this song with Debbie. Such a great, ahead-of-its time video too!

3. Goldfrapp - Strict Machine

Album: Black Cherry (2003).

Another song from a 2003 album, although this one is almost an antithesis to Ball and Biscuit. While the latter has substandard production values and a minimalistic approach, simply relaying on the power of Jack's guitar and vocals to make it work, Strict Machine is a psychedelic elcetronic-dance song, highly stylised and carefully crafted. It was released as a single and it was successful in both the US and the UK. Alison Golfrapp claimed this song was about lab rats being connected to electrodes that were attached to the pleasure centres in their brains, which "told them" to love and enjoy what the scientist made them do. However, I think there's another level to this song and that is about the nature of BDSM relationships. Whatever the meaning of the song might be, I cannot help but dance when I listen to its fantastic bass line and Alison's entrancing vocals.

4. The Smiths - Still Ill

Album: The Smiths (1984).

Much like every song written by Morrissey, the lyrics are meaningful and absolutely essential to the song's effectiveness: full of witty references to historical or political issues but always keeping a primary theme. Because there are so many layers to his songs, it is pointless to "state" what this song is about, but one should rather attempt to describe what it means to oneself. To me, they are talking about depression, especially after a romantic disappointment. Whatever he is saying though, the lyrics are painfully sad and depressing and contrast ironically with the upbeat, cheery Johnny Marr riffs. 

5. The Cranberries - Dreams

Album: Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We? (1993).

What a gorgeous song! The lyrics are simple and yet strangely relatable. Because they are rather vague and universal, anyone can apply their own meaning to them. I personally think they are about love and falling in love, but sometimes I feel they are more about life in general and one suddenly waking up and seeing everything in a different light. Such is the nature of Dolores O'Riordan's innocent, hopeful lyrics and together with Noel Hogan, they created the most beautiful melody to go with it. Interestingly enough, Faye Wong did a wonderful cover of this song in Mandarin, which features in one of my favourite films: Chunking Express.

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Wow. Why is it that I don’t usually hear a thing about this film? It finally got released here and I went to see it with no expectation of any kind, only to spend one of the most enjoyable and exhilarating two hours in a cinema that I’ve had lately. James Mangold might not be the best director out there, but he sure knows how to keep an audience entertained, has covered many genres throughout his somewhat short career and always makes his actors deliver great to fantastic performances. This is his most cinematic and mature work to date that was sadly and largely overlooked by the awards circuits last year, only noticeably garnering two well-deserved Oscar nominations for Best Score and Best Sound and a SAG nod for Best Ensemble.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a small-time rancher, who lost a leg in the Civil War and then got ruined by the drought and finds himself owing a large amount of money to one of the most powerful men in Bisbee. He has a wife and two children, the oldest of which has very little respect for him as he sees him as a coward and a failure. After witnessing a stagecoach robbery by the ruthless outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his subsequent capture, he joins a small group of men in an extremely perilous mission: taking Wade to the 3:10 to Yuma train in Contention, for a reward of $200 dollars. There’s at least three reasons why that is a suicidal mission: 1) Ben Wade: incredibly fast and cunning cold-blooded murder, whom Evans saw killing another man of his gang during the stagecoach robbery; 2) Ben Wade’s gang leaded by the total psycho Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) who weren’t captured and are sure to attempt saving their leader; and 3)Apaches: Evans’s party decides to talk a shortcut through Apache territory, who would welcome an opportunity to have revenge on white men.

The two main characters are extremely well-written and their arcs unfold in a subtle, effective way. We find that Evans, for example, is not only thinking about money but about his older son William (who follows the party for a while and jumps in to help at the perfect time, much to his father’s amazement) and how he sees him. Christian Bale brings this character to life with amazing pathos and restrained, subtle passion. One of his most understated and underrated performances to date; he would have been equally convincing with no dialogue at all, as he speaks tons with his intense, powerful gaze. The “transformation” he has before our (and the character’s) eyes is incredibly striking as he goes from a weak, feeble, defeated rancher to a strong, determined, fearless man. Ben Wade is an extremely complex character and Russell Crowe’s portrayal is so charismatic and nuanced that if you blink you might miss a glint in his eye or an imperceptible gesture that could shed light into his true nature. By being a cold-blooded murdered he earned his gang’s respect and the people’s fear, but there is a method to his “madness” and he has rules, however unfair and sadistic they might be. I think the film gives enough clues to discover his character, but reading through the Internet, I’ve found that many people weren’t convinced by his character arc and were therefore disappointed by the ending. However, I am convinced that at least half of them missed some of the details in the script, Mangold’s direction and Crowe’s performance that worked together to give the character unusual depth and believability. Perhaps more hints were needed to make it even clearer, but I myself loved the way it was done. Bale and Crowe’s chemistry is unmistakable and fascinating to watch. Two of my favourite actors working together, I do hope they repeat it!

Dan’s son, William, is immediately captivated and fascinated by Ben Wade and I was ready to hate him and dismiss him as the prototypical annoying, disrespectful, loathsome son when I found out that there was much more depth to his character and he is a vital part of the film. Logan Lerman does an adequate job of portraying him but his eyes were opened a bit too wide sometimes, giving him a satanic, slightly disturbing look. Aside from that, however, he does a good job. Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, the killing machine, was all right in a mostly one-note character, but I didn’t think he looked the part and therefore found him somewhat unconvincing. The rest of the cast is excellent: Dallas Roberts as Butterfield (the man with the money) and Alan Tudyk (the “doctor”) provide good comic relief; Peter Fonda is exhilarating as the rough, old-timer; and Gretchen Mol as Dan’s wife is lovely in a very limited role.

The cinematography and score are absolutely gorgeous but none would make my respective lineups in 2007 as they were both particularly strong categories last year. Flawlessly edited, the pacing of the film is definitely one of the strongest aspects of 3:10 to Yuma and one of the main reasons of why this film is so effective. Morally complex (there’s no good vs. bad guy simplistic logic here), often times I would find myself thinking about what I would do in those situations and if the right thing to do outweighs the more personal, selfish reasons or vice versa. In short, this is an excellent western boasting an incredibly rich screenplay, tightly directed and expertly acted which provides wonderful suspense, breathtaking action and moving, affecting drama (I even teared up in a couple of scenes). A compelling watch all the way through and highly recommended!

Personal rating: 9/10

WALL-E

WALL•E is filmmaking at its best. Forget the naysayers who stupidly dismiss an animated film as a kids movie, this film ranks up there with the best of Kubrick and Chaplin (to name two of the directors this film clearly got some inspiration from). The first half an hour or so, is pure visual storytelling, without a word of dialogue being spoken, Stanton manages to set the film in space and time and introduces us to the two main characters. WALL•E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) is a character much like Chaplin’s tramp, incredibly lovable, someone we can all sympathise (or even empathise with) and much like in Chaplin’s films, there is virtually no dialogue (the two main characters hardly speak a word, aside from each other’s names) and the humour is mostly physical. The animation is top-notch, probably one of the (if not the) best ever and the amount of emotion the characters express through their “drawings” is truly unbelievable. They are only robots, and yet they felt so undeniably human. In fact, I think EVE and WALL•E’s romance is as touching as any of the best romances portrayed by real actors. And it’s all in the details.The lack of dialogue is replaced with some fantastic visual storytelling.

The first shots of the film get us acquainted with the world “today”: stark, sad and desolate and then we finally get a glimpse of the last robot that remains on Earth. With no other robots (or humans) around, WALL•E only has a tiny little cockroach to keep him company (and who knew cockroaches could be so cute?) We follow the adorable robot and his friend for a while, as he endlessly piles rubbish cube after rubbish cube but we immediately realise there’s something different about this robot: he occasionally finds “little treasures” (Rubik’s cube, lighters, light bulbs) that he carefully keeps in his home as his private collection. One particularly important item for WALL•E is a video tape of ‘Hello, Dolly!, which is greatly responsible for his “humanization”. He’s fascinated by dancing, but more importantly, by love (as he sees the characters holding hands and whatnot). WALL•E’s mundane existence, however, suddenly changes when a new robot comes to Earth. 

EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) came down to Earth with a mission: to find a source of life and bring it back to space so that humans can return to their homes. Although not as immediately obvious as WALL•E, EVE is not an entirely normal robot either as she seems to enjoy flying and occasionally even giggles, but at first she is not interested in his stalker friend WALL•E, who is clearly fascinated by her and continually follows her around (only to fall deeply and madly in love with her). Eventually, the two robots meet properly and WALL•E takes her to his special place, where he starts showing her his most valued objects. Among those, however, there’s a plant and when EVE sees her she automatically grabs it, puts it inside of her and shuts down, waiting for the ship where she came in to return and take her back to space again. WALL•E, already in love and unaware of her mission, however, takes care of her day and night (protecting her from rain, taking her out on “dates”), until one day, the space ship comes back to take her. Nevertheless, he somehow manages to follow her and their space odyssey begins. 

The film is a commentary and critique on today’s society values, sure, and the idea that humanity’s “last hope” is a robot (more humane than any of the robotized “real people”) is highly ironic, but at the core of the film there’s a love story and that’s what makes the film particularly special. The chemistry between the two robots, WALL•E’s undying, passionate love for her, EVE’s sudden realisation of her own feelings (in what’s perhaps my favourite scene of the film) and everything related to these two are what make this film as wonderfully touching as it is. It’s PIXAR’s most ambitious and mature work to date and in that it loses some of the humour of the rest of the films and is instead much sadder, but in turn it gains points for pushing the boundaries of animation and creating one of the most powerful, visually arresting, and incredibly moving films of all time.

Personal rating: 9/10

La Double Vie de Véronique (The Double Life of Veronique)

Kieslowski’s film is of such ethereal beauty as is the star of the film herself. Indeed, this film seems more like a love letter for the wonderful Irène Jacob who appears in almost every frame of the film as the title character. First as Weronika in Poland, an amateur singer of extraordinary talent, a stargazer of the purest form of innocence, a child in a woman’s body almost, a free spirit of incomparable openness. In the film’s most powerful scene, however, she unexpectedly dies during her debut performance. Cue Véronique, a French music teacher, played by the same actress. Both women seem to be aware of each other in a deep subconscious level. Werokina feels that she is not alone in the world and when she dies Véronique suddenly feels like she lost someone. Moreover, Véronique seems to act upon instinct, like there’s someone whispering to her what she should or shouldn’t do. In fact, after Weronika dies, she decided to drop her singing lessons because “something” told her to do so; and as the film advances we learn that that wasn’t the first time Véronique “learned from Weronika’s mistakes”. Add to the story a mysterious puppeteer, Veronique’s love interest if you will, who is somehow linked to the two women and you have this film’s basic “plot”. 

The similarities between the two are obvious beyond the fact that they look the same physically. Both exude a mysterious aura of purity and generosity of spirit, but Veronique appears to be the more practical of the two. These women share a bond, but the degree to which they are connected is something the viewer has to decide for theirself. Are they the same person? Do they share a soul? What does the puppeteer represent? Could he be Kieslowski or God? Or is Kieslowski actually represented in the title role? What is the meaning of the ending? These are some of the questions this film might raise, but the answers to all of them can only be found in oneself. 

The director takes joy in showing us the little details that make this character so absolutely fascinating and perfectly connects their stories through the recurrence of objects (threads, a little toy balls), people (fathers, missing mothers, old hunched woman – also in Three Colours: Blue, I think), colours, places and camera angles, making the feeling of déjà vu all the more intense. The cinematography is strikingly gorgeous, the colour palette (predominantly of yellow hues) and lighting all working together to give the film a dreamlike look. The beautifully atmospheric music works both as a contributor to the highly spiritual vibe of the film and as a powerful reminder of the connection of the two women. But if there’s one element without which this film couldn’t have worked it’s Irène Jacob and her luminously humanistic performance. Her dreamy eyes, her delicate beauty, her innocence and purity are incredibly compelling. Dialogue wasn’t needed at all. In fact, she could have delivered an equally impressive performance if this film had been silent because it is in her body language and especially in her eyes where she conveys emotion.

The Double Life of Veronique is a film which doesn’t need to be explained for one to appreciate it. It is true that it’s an incredibly metaphysical piece of work, but in philosophy it’s all about the questions, not the answers; and believe me when I tell you, Kieslowski definitely understands that.

Personal rating: 9/10

Happy Birthday Philip Seymour Hoffman!

So, today is my favourite working actor's birthday, so I decided to do a little post about him. I discovered him back in 2005 with the release of the Capote trailer. Rather late, I know, since he was already famous for being one of the best character actors around, stealing scenes in supporting roles and even leading a few independent films as well. However, it was with the trailer of this particular film that I first noticed him and that's when I decided to do some research on his work. Needless to say, he blew me away in every single film of his I saw and then with Capote he was ready to top my favourite actors list.

What follows are all of the Philip Seymour Hoffman performances I've seen ranked in order of preference (but they are all extraordinary):

1. Truman Capote in Capote (2005)

Personal awards: Best Actor* (2005)

2. Andy in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

Personal awards: Best Actor (2007)

3. Dean Trumbell in Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Personal awards: Best Supporting Actor (2002)

4. Jon Savage in The Savages (2007)

5. Gust Avrakotos in Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

Personal awards: Best Supporting Actor (2007)

6. Dan Mahowny in Owning Mahowny (2003)

Personal awards: Best Actor (2003)

7. Phil Parma in Magnolia (1999)

8. Rusty in Flawless (1999)

9.  Jacob Elinsky in 25th Hour (2002)

10. George Willis, Jr. in Scent of a Woman (1992)

Personal awards: Best Supporting Actor (1992)

11. Allen in Happiness (1998)

Personal awards: Best Supporting Actor (1998)

12. Lester Bangs in Almost Famous (2000)

Personal awards: Best Supporting Actor (2000)

13. Freddie Miles in The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

14. Joseph Turner White in State and Main (2000)

15. Brandt in The Big Lebowski (1998)

16. Sandy Lyle in Along Came Polly (2004)

17. Owen Dawian in Mission: Impossible III (2006)

18. Scotty J. in Boogie Nights (1997)

19. Reverend Veasey in Cold Mountain (2003)

20. Freddy Lounds in Red Dragon (2002)

21. Charlie Mayne in Empire Falls (2005) (TV)

22. Dustin Davis in Twister (1996)

23. Mitch Roman in Patch Adams (1988)

* Indicates win.

I apologise for the poor quality of some of the images, but it was impossible to find better ones. 

Anyway, happy birthday to the best actor of the generation! And here I leave you with a little something, a taste of his talent. One of the funniest performances of the decade, no doubt:

The Dark Knight

So, I haven't updated in a while. But I've probably seen more films this month than any other in the year. Anyway, what follows isn't exactly a review, there are virtually no plot details (no spoilers either), but a collection of thoughts on the film. 

The Dark Knight is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious films to come out recently and this is both what makes it so great and what makes it fail. The film tries so hard to be taken seriously that if there weren't any fantastic costumes or over-the-top makeup this would be the crime film that has garnered such valid comparisons to films such as Scorsese's The Departed; and Mann's Heat. Nolan's vision strays from the campy Burton films and attempts to be as realistic as possible, but it's not one thing or the other, rather, it falls into an awkward middle, and this is the The Dark Knight's most glaring flaw. This problem stems from the screenplay, which is rich in characterization (especially when we consider it's a sequel to Batman Begins, which gave us enough insight into Bruce Wayne/Batman's character) and incredibly smart in terms of plot and story (although some suspension of disbelief is required, but isn't it always?), but the dialogues leave much to be desired. The film had a very uneven tone and couldn't avoid falling into those campy/cheesy moments every superhero movie has. While those moments feel natural in films like Spider-Man, here they stood out too much and simply didn't fit the atmosphere Nolan was attempting to create. This is why, in my opinion, some of dramatic scenes aren't as effective as they should have been. Moreover, the three storylines are very well-linked in terms of content (the two extremes Batman - Joker and the man in the middle, Two-Face) and in terms of screen time devoted to each one of them; however, the second half of the film felt incredibly rushed, a continuation of build-ups to moments of climax and anti-climax and then the film ends almost abruptly. 

Now onto the characters and performances: Christian Bale is one of my favourite actors, but he was a tad disappointing. Yes, his Batman voice is awful, but that's not it. Perhaps it's because four other members of the cast completely outshined him, or perhaps it's more related to the material he had to work with, but he wasn't entirely convincing this time around. It's a difficult role, nevertheless, not only given its duality but also the fact that Bruce Wayne, the rich playboy, is in fact a man pretending to be a rich playboy. In this, Bale succeeds, superficially looking blasé and also, when the situation requires it, having that glint in his eye, almost like a knowing wink to the audience, saying that there’s another man underneath all that pretence (the "double date" at the Restaurant comes to mind). 

Jim Gordon is probably the most human character in the film, and Oldman more than makes it justice. He gives Jim such humanity, a sense of justice and pathos, making him the most approachable character in the film. A very restrained, subtle turn from Mr. Oldman that looks like it'll be the most overlooked performance of the year, unfortunately.

Aaron Eckhart, another one with a character of dual nature (in the most literal sense!), is incredibly charismatic as the newly appointed D.A. and incredibly chilling (and devastatingly sympathetic) as Two-Face. The effectiveness of this character is one of the screenplay's strongest points. We spend so much time with Harvey Dent that seeing him become Two-Face is especially tortuous. Harvey Dent feels more like an idea than an actual human being, which makes his whole descent into madness all the more real and, yes..., human. He is the hero with a face that Gotham needed, morally righteous, ambitious, determined to the point of being stubborn;, a daredevil, even. However, he is a human and he can be broken. Enter Joker.

The Joker is such a primitive, extreme character, so devoid of any real humanity that to be able to portray him without him becoming a caricature is no small feat. Prove of that is Jack Nicholson's amusing, yet absurdly self-indulgent attempt in Burton's Batman. Heath Ledger's turn is, quite simply, astonishing. His performance is what his character becomes in the film, an unstoppable force. What he creates is so real, so natural, so fresh and exhilarating. He is brilliant in every aspect of the performance, from the mannerisms and physicality (the constant lip-licking, the eyes giving quick glances to the side, the chilling voice, the body-language, his slightly hunched posture), his body movements are so spontaneous, his sudden bursts of laughter and perfect comedic-timing, and then the depth he manages to give a character with no real "depth" at all. He is an agent of chaos, as he says, but he doesn't so much want to create chaos but to prove order wrong and Heath Ledger's performance embodies all of that. It was inspired casting, no doubt, but the results exceeded all expectations. Who knows how many more earth-shattering performances this man could have given?

The rest of the cast is uniformly great. Maggie Gyllenhaal creates the perfect balance in her character; she is sexy and feminine, yet strong. Her role is extremely underwritten and the material she has to work with is particularly poor, but she gives it her all and the results are very good. Tell me if you weren't moved by her final scenes! Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are their usual charming selves, acting as Batman's conscience and voice of reason. 

The score is one of the best improvements from Batman Begins and now feels complete, although I still find it slightly underwhelming. The action scenes are poorly shot but entertaining nevertheless. In fact, the cinematography is not quite as striking as its predecessor. But just what makes this film so special? Is it deserving of the almost unanimous accolades it's receiving? For a film so dark in nature and so serious in tone (even the tagline refers to this) it can't get away from the cheesy dialogues and general over-the-topness and ends up slightly alienating the viewer. Nolan wants so much to transcend the original medium but falls short and even runs out of steam at the end. However, the two and a half hours fly in this highly entertaining film. The characters are very well-drawn, richly characterized and incredibly well-acted. The story (although much is left to the viewer's interpretation) is incredibly smart (also highly intricate) and deals with several themes, and at the core of the film there's the question: is it possible to be decent in a world full of corruption, and more importantly, for how long can one fight it and what does one have to give of theirself to do so?

Personal rating: 8/10

The Incredible Hulk

First of all, this really is a step forward in the right direction after the disaster that was Ang Lee's 'Hulk'. That being said, this is not a very good film. It works as a summer blockbuster just fine but it's not generally a good film, and this year's Iron Man is certainly the better of the two. It seems that The Hulk is a rather troublesome character to adapt to the big screen because of its particularly complex dual nature. It is true that most of these films deal with the issue of having "2 identities", but in the case of the Hulk, he is not your average superhero and he despises his condition more than anything in his life.

So the film starts with a very inventive and rather effective sequence of credits where the beginning of the Hulk (Edward Norton) is explained. In a couple of minutes the film covers the accident in the lab and Bruce Banner's subsequent retreat to an unknown location. That location is a favela in Brazil where he practises different relaxation techniques and where he's actively looking for a solution to his problem. On the other side of the world, William Hurt (a U.S. military general) the man who was in charge of Bruce Banner's scientific research and father of his ex-girlfriend (Liv Tyler) is desperately looking for him and hires a combat veteran, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), to help him with his quest.

The main problem with this film is that it tries to be many things but only succeeds at one: being an action film. The action sequences are undoubtedly fun and the special effects are quite impressive; the Hulk himself, although looking nothing like Edward Norton, is incredibly well-done. But then most of the dramatic scenes in the film are very poorly done and even cliched. This problem stems from the screenplay, which is very flawed. The characters have no depth to them at all and while that is not a major problem for a character like Blonsky, who we just want to see as the unstoppable bad guy, it tends to detract from the film when it is so difficult to care for the good guys. So, we know Bruce Banner is not content with his current situation but that's about it as far as "character development" goes. Moreover, Liv Tyler's character is laughable; we first find that she has moved on after Bruce’s disappearance and that she is in a serious relationship with some guy, but as soon as he sees Banner, she is able to forget all about her recent life, which is not even mentioned again. William Hurt's character is perhaps the one with the most solid background and the least 2-dimensional of the bunch, but then that's not saying much. Most of the performances are solid: Edward Norton is fine but not thoroughly convincing, which probably isn't his fault anyway, and both William Hurt and Tim Roth are very good. Liv Tyler is without a doubt the weakest link in the cast, with her unbearably monotonous voice and overall flaccid persona, but she had the worst character of the film, so it wasn't that terrible all things considered.

Despite all the above, this really is an enjoyable film. The editing is probably what saves the film from disaster because the film's strongest point is its vibrant pace which keeps the viewer engaged even during action-less scenes. The build up to seeing the Hulk in its entirety is perhaps a cheap technique but a very effective one. We are able to catch bits and glimpses of the creature for the first part of the film and then when we finally lay eyes on the whole thing, it doesn't disappoint. Overall it's a film that flies by and keeps you entertained all throughout with decent performances and killer special effects. Recommended if you like this genre.

Personal Rating: 6/10

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover

It is hard when dealing with films of allegorical nature to refer to its plot, because the actual plot is simply not meant to be taken literally, rather it serves as a metaphor for something much more general and universal. However, for this to work the film needs to work on a literal level as well and Greenaway's film unquestionably accomplishes that. Albert Spica (Michael Gambon) is a gangster, owner of the restaurant where most of the film takes place and where he dines daily accompanied by his wife Georgina (Helen Mirren) and a bunch of yes-men (a young Tim Roth among them). Spica is as loud, vulgar and abominable as a character can get and he is seen continually tyrannizing everyone around him including the suffering wife, silent and mysterious. Despite the abhorrent behaviour of Spica and his men, the restaurant is not without clients, all looking like the quiet subdits of the omnipotent dictator. The restaurant's chef, Richard Borst (Richard Bohringer), an expert at his craft, seems oblivious to Spica's depravity as he dishes out his fine cuisine to the uncultured mouths of the gangsters, but he finds a worthy consumer in Georgina, who he says has exquisite taste and to whom he prepares especial dishes. It is deduced that all of this happens routinely, until one day a customer's and Georgina's eyes suddenly meet and they are both enthralled by each other. This man, Michael (Alan Howard), looks like the complete opposite of Albert: intellectual, cultured, a book-lover and it is soon after they see each other for the first time that they meet, silently (for not a word is spoken), in the bathroom. Thus begins their affair; their love-making sessions occur during Georgina's bathroom breaks (later at the kitchen, aided by the cook) as Albert becomes more and more suspicious of her wife's recurrent visits to the toilet.

The film is full of symbolism, not only in the allegorical content of the plot or the characters, but also in its visual presentation. The art direction is particularly important to enhance its metaphorical status, as each set has a dominant colour which clearly represents a particular state or mood. The restaurant, as in the actual place where people eat, is red, the colour of passion, power, rage, authority and intense emotions. The set decoration is sumptuous and almost claustrophobic. Here Spica’s power is obvious and his presence unquestionably dominates every frame. It can also be seen as a metaphor for Hell (Spica being the Devil, of course), but that will depend on the viewer and what he brings to the film with him. Greenaway’s symbolisms are vague in that they are general and universal, which makes the film more interesting to discuss with several people, because everyone interprets it differently. The kitchen is green, as in life (food, sex: the basic bodily functions, which is why the set decoration seems to be almost primitive). The bathroom is white, a colour of purity, innocence and cleanliness and the set decoration aptly magnifies these values and is almost futuristic looking. This is were the lovers have their first encounter and it’s the most neutral set in the film. Finally, the parking lot, of a disturbingly dark blue colour which can be associated with power, confidence and authority. Indeed, it is in the parking lot where the majority of the most brutal scenes take place and where Spica’s presence seems the most threatening. 

The editing and score give this film continuity between sets and scenes and Greenaway’s masterly direction is present in every aspect of this engrossing picture. All the actors portray their characters with the utmost conviction and authenticity: Gambon is extraordinary as Spica, his ever threatening presence dominates even the scenes he is not in and he is not afraid to imbue his character with the worst human traits possible making his character incredibly loathsome, absolutely terrifying and even pathetic, at times. Helen Mirren’s performance is sophisticated, restrained, subtle and wonderfully brave. Her line delivery is flawless: sharp and commanding in a quiet way; her last line (also the film’s last) is one of the most memorable lines in film history and it’s the ironic, bitter-sweet way in which Mirren delivers it which makes it so compelling.

What this film is really about is not something that can be said in a film review. Everyone can interpret the film to their liking, which is what Greenaway intended. Some say it is a critic of Margaret Thatcher's regime; others have a more religious-oriented understanding of the film and others simply choose to see it as a more universal allegorical tale; and they are all without a doubt valid interpretations of the film. But whatever meaning you find in Greenaway’s masterpiece, this is one of the most utterly complex, inherently demanding, disturbingly shocking, powerfully visceral and undoubtedly brilliant viewing experiences you will ever be likely to experience.

Personal rating: 9/10

Tropa de Elite (Elite Squad)

First of all, I should say that I don't think this film was intended for me. Rather, its target audience is what I like to call the "definite fanboy": young male with a strong liking for films like 'Fight Club', 'The Matrix' and well..., you get the idea. The set up of the plot is Captain Nascimento (Wagner Moura) wants to leave his position at the BOPE (a special military police in Rio) because of work-related stress but he first needs to find himself a replacement. The first half of the film focuses more on showing the situation with the favelas (slums), the corruption of the regular police and is basically trying to demonstrate how the system works. The second part, however, is more about the BOPE's boot camp and the training and searching for a decent candidate for Captain Nascimento's replacement.


The film is all seen through Captain Nascimento's eyes whose narration throughout the film is sometimes informative, sometimes overbearing and mostly just unnecessary. He is a bitter man, a thoroughly one-dimensional character, a "hero" Rambo style. The film presents him and the BOPE's "violence is the only way to combat violence" tactics as the only possible solution to the problem of the favelas. Others may argue that the film was just trying to portray a reality, the reality in Rio, but the truth of the matter is that that alleged "reality" was disgustingly imbued with the director's personal political stances, who exalts the BOPE's methods to the max. This is achieved by a series of camera angles, camera movements and different combinations of music all of which combine to give the film that sense of glorification. Perhaps this was not the director's intention, but if it wasn't, then he is a complete hack with no knowledge whatsoever of the filmmaking art. He could have escaped this obvious bias had he shown the other side of the spectrum, but the screenplay thoroughly lets him down.

Indeed, the screenplay is, without a doubt, the worst part of the film. The dialogues are mostly superficial and add next to nothing to the story, in fact, they only serve to enhance the one side of the one-dimensional characters. Not even the two leading characters get any background to their story. Captain Nascimento, as I mentioned before, is a bitter, extremely violent man, all probably as a result of work-related stress. He is married and has a child during the course of the film, and yet he's still always seen as an authoritative, aggressive person, even among his family. The other important character is the man who's to be his replacement. André Matias (André Ramiro) is without a doubt the character with most depth to him, but that's not saying much. He's the reflective, passive and intelligent man who is torn between being a lawyer and being a law-enforcement man. He does both things, until one, predictably prevails over the other. Moreover, there is no room for women in this film. There are a couple of extremely poor female characters, but the only one worth mentioning is a fellow law student, Matias's love interest and active member of an NGO aimed at aiding people in the favelas, played nicely by Fernanda Machado. She was a character with potential, but again..., the screenplay lets her down. The performances are what one would expect out of the terrible script: superficial, simply lacking in any kind of depth.

All these flaws aside, the film was not unwatchable for me. It is quite entertaining (for the wrong reasons, but who cares?) and its quick-paced editing make the two hours fly by. It is a complete hack job in every possible way, but it works as a pseudo-intellectual, extremely violent, action film which (if it hasn't already) will find its niche in the movie-watching public.

Personal rating: 4/10

Blindness trailer, at last!

Blindness (2008): based on a novel by Nobel prize winner José Saramago (a personal favourite of mine - if you haven't read it, you should as soon as possible!) and starring one of Hollywood's best actresses, Julianne Moore, the film revolves around a city which is suddenly sticken by a terrible disease. People start going blind for no apparent reason. However, the condition seems to be contagious and the government is forced to separate those who have already been affected by it from those who haven't... at least not yet. Indeed, the only person who doesn't go blind is Julianne Moore's character and like the trailer says: "The only thing more terrifying than blindness, is being the only one who can see".

Le Scaphandre et le Papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)

Jean-Do is the editor of Elle Magazine. He inexpectedly  suffers a stroke that paralyses his entire body, except for his left eye, which is the only way in which he can communicate. 

The first part of the film is all seen through Jean-Do's eyes. It's a technique that works wonders in itself, but it's even more effecitve together with Jean-Do's voice over. Both elements combined give us a pretty good idea of what the character is going through. The cinematography is undoubtedly one of the best of the year. The film is gorgeous from start to end. The shots of nature and basically all the scenes involving Jean-Do's past life are very easy to admire, but equally impressive are the scenes in the hospital (particularly when everything is seen through the character's point of view) as the camera and lighting are what make them so powerfuly effective.

This film can be quite sad, and by 'sad', I mean emotionally devastating. But, it's not depressive in tone. In fact, it's a celebration of life. I'm not only referring to the flashbacks of Jean-Do's past life, which are gorgeously vivid, but also to his actual present in the film. He's almost completely paralysed and yet he is more alive than many people with perfect health. This is not to say he immediately accepts his condition, this is an extremely humane character with flaws and strengths and the film doesn't hesitate to show both sides. But things like his sense of humour (his voice-overs are often quite funny and he shows that he's able to laugh at himself in more than one occasion), his active and colourful imagination (it plays a very important role in the film as Jean-Do is often seen fantasising and it's really what makes him feel alive), his heartbreaking regrets of his past life (he can't even atone for his faults) and his admirable determination to write a book describing his life are what make this character so vividly real and sympathetic.

The acting is all around spectacular. Amalric gives a very convincing performance as Jean-Do, nailing both his persona before the stroke (confident and somewhat cocky) and after he's completely paralysed, managing to express different kinds of emotions only using his eyes. The women are also fabulous: Emmanuelle Seigner's performance as the mother of his children was very carefully crafted and is full of nuance. There's a particular scene in which she has to "mediate" between Jean-Do and his lover/girlfriend over the phone that's especially heartwrenching. Marie-Josée Croze (Henriette) and Anne Consigny (Claude), the two women who helped develop the system Jean-Do uses to communicate and patiently wrote every word he dictated, respectively, imbued their characters with an honest kindness and warmth that's especially touching. Last, but not least, Max von Sydow as Jean-Do's father gives the best performance out of the cast. His scenes are very brief but the range of emotions he manages to display in them is mind-blowing. Before his son's stroke (as seen through the flashbacks) he's seen as physically weak, sure, but looking strong and content with his life and his son. Later on, during the conversation he and his son have over the phone (Jean-Do's blinks interpreted by Claude) he shows devastating vulnerability and painfully expresses sadness through every inch of his feeble body. This is the most emotional scene of the film and I dare anyone to see it and not (at least) tear up!

The title might appear to be quite odd, but it fits the film's themes well. The diving bell is a metaphor for his condition, a suffocating prison for his body; while the butterfly refers to his mind, and more specifically, to his imagination. On the whole, this is a very empowering and uplifting film with a great ensemble and breathtaking visuals. Highly recommended!

Personal rating: 9/10

Introducing Scarlett DuBois

Hey everyone! So, this Blog will be mostly about cinema ([mini]-reviews of my recent watches), different kinds of favourite lists, yearly lineups and whatnot. It's not restricted to only that, though, and I might want to embark on other topics: music, being the most notable example. I'm not a very good writer, but I'm trying my best to improve: "practice makes perfect", after all.

Hopefully, someone will find my posts interesting enough to read and, needless to say,  you are all more than welcome to leave a comment/question, to which I'll reply as soon as I am able. 

Anyway, enough of all of this. I guess I haven't really introduced myself, but yeah, whatever.