umyde Reviews

A Selva (2002)

A well polished production with a steady direction

[6/10 · 6 November 2002]

This is the first Leonel Vieira movie I see, so my expectations were based on what I knew of his previous work - which was that he directed two of the most famous recent mainstream movies in Portugal - A BOMBA and ZONA J. I also knew that this was the biggest portuguese production ever.

In fact, the production was very good and care was taken to make this an american standart-quality work. Also, for the first time, one gets to see convincing acting, which is something to praise on a portuguese movie. Ironically, the main character, which is one of the few portuguese actors, displays the worst and least convincing acting in the set. The distance from Diogo Morgado to the brazilian diva Maitê Proença (the woman to which he falls in love) is immense. This flaw, however, is well hidden in the nature of his character and on the reduced speech it has.

All in all, considering the huge difficulties surrounding the making of this motion picture (starting with it being filmed in Amazonia), I would say that it pretty much managed to pull itself together. Aside from the acting of Diogo Morgado and some minor storyline weaknesses (but then again, I haven't read the novel on which the movie was based), it has a well polished production quality and direction steadiness that surpasses by far most of what is made in Portugal. Too bad, though, that the cast is presented in spanish.

One from the Heart (1981)

The musical beauty of romance, as only Coppola or Woody Allen could picture it

[7/10 · 5 November 2002]

I have never been in the United States, least of all in New York. But through some directors' works I have built up an image of the city that never sleeps that's made of jazz, petty crooks and gangsters, Godard-lovers, intellectual wanna-be socialite... For all I know, New York is what can be seen through the eyes of Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese... and Francis Ford Coppola.

I would pretty much compare ONE FROM THE HEART to Allen's MANHATTAN, in the sense that both are new-yorkers visions of romance and beauty, filtered through a broadway theatrical and glamorous sensibility. This film, however, unlike MANHATTAN, isn't about New York. It's about spining through the spotlights of a city that parties all night long (cabarets, jazz, dance and magical flirts), only to realize that in the end, it's going to be your simple significant other waiting for you in the backstage.

The staging of the whole movie helps a lot, in the sense that's it's all filmed in studio. Magical skies and dawns that make it easy to pass from a store-window directly to a sunset in Bora-Bora; lust and life and music in what I would consider the last great musical. Every once in a while, Coppola gives us a glimpse of his more passionate side. This would then be the sunny side of the melancholic DRACULA.

Add to the magical staging the nightly cabaret-like musical score by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle and one can't help but be amazed with it all. And I thought I was surprised by Woody Allen's EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU.

If this is the way new-yorkers see life, that's the city I want to live in.

Signs (2002)

When will Shyamalan direct a REAL thriller again?

[3/10 · 1 November 2002]

The day before I viewed Signs, I saw The Sixth Sense for the third time. This made me think of the way Shyamalan's verve has been evolving - in my opinion, on a downwards spiral. In The Sixth Sense, Shyamalan knew what a thriller was all about - to thrill the viewer. Instead of scary monsters, troubled people who don't realize they're dead are used. In Signs, things get blurred. Stuck between the thrill and the spoof of itself, this movie wastes whichever creativity one could expect. Is it AT ALL credible that the sequence of events wich lead to understanding that coincidences have indeed a purpose can be put to a serious use in this plot? Haven't movies such as Julio Medem's Los Amantes Del Circulo Polar treated the same plot device in a much better way? Top this with the all too frequent humurous moments (which completely wipe away any seriousness one might feel towards this movie) and you've got a useless piece of would-be thriller with occasional jumpy frights. As for the acting, things just don't get any better. Movie after movie, Mal Gibson only proves to be Hollywood's most wasted talent. As for Joaquin Phoenix, he surely needs to rise from his ashes. I can only think of two things that salvage (though not save) Signs. First of all, Tak Fujimoto's cinematography - by far the greatest artist to be perceived here. Secondly, Shyamalan's own directing skills, wich remaining intact. But one does not have to look further than some of Spielberg's movies or Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down to understand that fine craftsmanship does not necessarily make a good film. Shyamalan needs to find his twist of inspiration, which seems to be further away in every new movie he directs.

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

American horror (horrible) franchising

[4/10 · 20 October 2002]

I guess fans of this type of movies will always give a dime for their icons, may they be Jason, Freddy, Candyman or whoever else. These icons are the offspring of a tradition that started with the late 50's b-series and spawned into the 70's gore. There is a slight difference, however: no real commercial sense was implied in the making of these movies. In the case of the HELLRAISER series (as well as NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, FRIDAY THE 13TH, etc.), a bright idea, instead of being explored, gets exploited. Nothing left but to be startled at the stupidity of it all. Although I wouldn't go as far as to consider myself a fan of the series, the original HELLRAISER was the first cinema fright I remember as a child. Also being a fan of gore, trash and underground cinema, I cannot consider HELL ON EARTH anything but a laugh of a movie. Sorry this review didn't focus on the movie itself, but the comment should fit better when bearing this sequel in mind. For bearing it is all about, one cannot hope to enjoy this movie and understand a straw about real cinema.

Truth About Demons (2000)

Why not?

[6/10 · 17 October 2002]

We all know more or less what to expect when announced a horror movie coming either from Australia or New Zealand. B-series, in that wonderful 1970's tradition, have survived only there. In the case of THE IRREFUTABLE TRUTH ABOUT DEMONS, modern technologies and punk imagery have caught up with the genre. I would say it is worth seeing, it has not lost its raw horror spirit, even if updated into nothing really new.

God's Comedy (1995)

The weaker mask of João César Monteiro

[9/10 · 16 October 2002]

Every João César Monteiro movie I see drives toward one conclusion: although being, in Portugal, the soul director whose vision of life, lust and decay is comparable to that of Baudelaire, Monteiro lacks the force of will that would make him a Rimbaud. The character João de Deus, central figure of a trilogy of which A COMÉDIA DE DEUS is the first part is none other than João César Monteiro masked as a detached and unsure version of himself. To see and to reflect on the weakest side of idealism.

The Last Dive (1992)

A confused way of mapping down lust, life and death

[5/10 · 15 October 2002]

The one great thing about this movie is its subject. Never before have I seen in cinema an exchange of the type shown here: a mid-aged man offers a suicidal teenager the lust of life and, in return, gets his peace from suicide. Only the way this is mapped down, as a cinematic object, is somewhat confusing. Also, many sequences take two long, with no apparent purpose.

C4 (1996)

Does not give or take

[5/10 · 12 October 2002]

This is just another French short comedy sketch that does not add or take anything from previous films of the same kind. The narrator could have been put to better use to create a better comic situation. As for the female character, the way she starts talking to the man beside her is just not convincing.