a-ozornin Reviews

Looper (2012)

New standard in action movie storytelling

[9/10 · 3 October 2012]

There are two easy ways to tell whether the movie is good or not. Firstly, you should ask how many times during the showing you have been distracted from the storyline and the action. Good movie, quite obviously, will easily manage to grasp your attention from the start to the very end. Secondly, after watching a good movie one always realizes how crappy the other movies recently watched were.

Looper passes both tests so easily, that you start to wonder what other people in the industry are doing at the moment. The storyline is absolutely impeccable in terms of the interest it generates. Tens of questions and unknowns thrown at you every five minutes; action unfolds unbelievably quickly and seemingly spirals out of the control, yet taken under control so beautifully and gracefully that Inception plot will look like an amateur's work. Smart game about one-way time travel paid off, numerous tricks and treats are hidden inside the plot, and the final logical loop closes only with the final frames of the movie.

And, as per the second test, the movie does indeed make you wonder why this quality of plot is so rare these days. Go back to other action movies of the season: Spider Man had glossy NY but did not have story line; The Dark Knight was hellishly boring first hour and a half; Bourne lacked turns and felt like unsalted butter; Expendables were second-hand. Looper, as any good movie, raised the standards. It feels embarrassing to talk about other action movies mentioned in light of the new evidence: action movie as a genre is alive and well, and I can only say "More of that, please". This kind of excitement about the tightly twisted storyline occurred to me last time only after Inception, yet this is far more superior and smarter. It forces you to try to find answers yourself, rather than sit and wait for them to get delivered.

The storyline is not good enough alone, of course – the cast made this film happen. Bruce Willis, by the way, does not make much of the magic this time, he just smiles with his trademark smile and looks with his trademark look, which is of course awesome on its own. But it is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who shines. He is absolutely brilliant; he delivers fantastic performance with ease and enjoyment. He manages to eclipse the performance of Bruce Willis, and that says a lot.

This movie is a breath of fresh air after the immense mediocrity of recent showings. It plays with you, it challenges, it inspires. There are several action movies to follow this year, but they better learn from Looper as how things should be done. Totally brilliant, easily one of the best movies this year. Must see.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

End of Watch (2012)

Not what cops deserve

[6/10 · 26 September 2012]

The trailer to the film was very promising: one could not tell from those couple of minutes as to what was going to happen in the film, or what the film is about. It all looked just tense, bloody and sweaty ode to policemen – something to look forward to. The problem is that even after watching the movie I cannot tell what the film is about, or why on earth it appeared in the way it did.

The whole movie is done in the mockumentary style: at the very start the main character flashes the camera that he has, and then most of the film the action is shown "as seen" by him – all the talk, all the jokes. It was supposed to give the audience the intimacy and the from-the-first-hand feeling of actually sitting in the police car with the cops or joining them in their operations. Those casual cameras are everywhere: one in the hand of Brian Taylor, two on their uniform, couple in the car – the life of those fictitious cops has been carefully documented.

As if that was not enough, the storyline was brushed up to give us maximum realism. There are many little stories, little jokes, little monologues and conversations, to resemble the real life, with all its complexity and simplicity. The characters come and go and return, and all we have is this couple of cops, best friends, professionals to whom we are supposed to empathise fully come the end of the film. Well, at least that was the plan of the authors.

Now about how it actually feels. I have never been a big fan of the "shaky" camera, which, for example, annoyed no end in Hunger Games, but here is the absolute level of atrocity aimed at the inner ear. Because the camera is in the hands of the cop, authors thought it would be great to force him to shake it as much as he can. By the end of the film I was so seasick that the camera rotating 360 degrees every other minute was chasing me in nightmares. The scenes of Los Angeles from the helicopter felt like oasis – several seconds to have a rest watching steady picture. I presume that this shaky camera was done on purpose, to give us extra feeling of involvement – but in real life I never shake my head ecstatically, how can I feel that way? Then the storyline. Authors probably thought that it was good idea not to have set storyline written in the literature style – instead they have a collection of anecdotes about the life of the two cops. That was probably done, again, for further involvement and all of that, but as the result the movie became absolutely unwatchable in terms of the storytelling. The film picks up the storyline, then drops it, then picks the other one, then drops it and returns to the first one, everything without sense of direction or general understanding of purpose. Aiming to show us the life, authors missed enormously. The story of our lives, I believe, is always beautiful in its consistency, in its fluency. There is no need to invent the wheel to show interesting lives – all you need to do is to show them as they are.

These shortcomings are shameful for two reasons. First is that a very promising film style, mockumentary, has been compromised badly by this movie. Why to choose it if in the end you get mumbling mess stuck somewhere in between the documentary and fictitious movies? End of Watch is the mock part of "mockumentary", and this is shameful.

Secondly, and the reason why I wrote so much about the movie, is that the film about cops is very long overdue. The guardians of law and order (not detectives, but cops) deserve a proper anthem made on celluloid tape, something that will highlight them, and not bury their day-to-day patriotic heroism behind some trendy inventions. This movie was supposed to be about cops, but it is not about them. They deserve Apollo 13 as the professional movie, not the nausea-inducing inconsistent mock of the documentary.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

Worth watching, but definitely not a masterpiece

[7/10 · 10 June 2012]

The fairy tale that we all know from our childhood. Beautiful princess, evil stepmother, dwarfs – sounds familiar, doesn't it? But here is the twist: take this story, add a lot of Gothic style to it, pepper it with stunning visuals, make it slightly creepy, invite the most popular actors and actresses to produce dark story, which won't even remotely remind of the original tale. This is Snow White and the Huntsman for you.

Screenwriters used Snow White story only as source of inspiration, instead of using it word-to-word. They transformed the story beyond the recognition – it is very slick, stylish and Gothic, without even a hint of sweetness of traditional fairy tales. The plot is a pleasure to watch, even though there are not that many surprising turns or characters that we would like to see developed. The story serves only as the basement for the feast of fantastic visuals, the taste of which can be gauged by looking at the trailer. Charcoal monsters, black slick oily dress of the Queen, and the Mirror, of course – they are done with love and cherish, and they look amazing; definitely something authors should be proud of. The atmosphere is there too: dark, creepy, certainly unusual, captivating and balanced. Mushrooms with eyes, sarcastic dwarfs, scarecrows and battle on the seashore – all definitely looks organic in the setting and visually impressive.

The other beautiful component of the movie is Charlize Theron. I cannot emphasise enough how good she is. She absolutely rocks – she looks dangerous, charming and sexy. She really impressed me. She managed to make a multi-faceted character out of a plain villain. Her dresses are well thought and fit her perfectly; every single appearance on the screen feels like Christmas or some other happy occasion.

But then comes the part where the authors betrayed themselves. Kristen Stewart. It is clear as day that she was invited only to add to the popularity of the show, to attract young girls-fans of one infamous movie about vampires. And that was a mistake – I personally still think that Kristen should play poker with her range of facial emotions. She plays anger, fear, smile, embarrassment and death with exactly the same expression and it is beyond my understanding why she cannot release her talents, which should be there, so that she can finally get rid of the poisonous image of Bella she is associated with. In this movie she plays so badly, she drags the whole movie down. It is painful to look at her, and I only wished there were less of her.

Chris Hemsworth, who swapped his hammer of Thor to axe of Huntsman and got rid of blonde hair, was also invited to get the movie popular and to play the very manly man, but he flopped as well and looked alien to the whole setting of the movie, as if he travelled through time.

So overall the movie is definitely a great watch, it is stylish, dark and thrilling, closer to the Pan's Labyrinth than to the Alice in the Wonderland. But unfortunately Kristen Stewart ruined potentially great movie, leaving it only with a title of "Definitely worth watching on a big screen", which is still way better than I expected.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Dictator (2012)

Funnier than Bruno, but very uneven comedy

[5/10 · 9 June 2012]

Sacha Baron Cohen is in this again. After brilliant comedy Borat and absolutely terrible Bruno, he brings another comedy, where he plays Aladeen – the head of small Arab country, who opposes any kind of democracy and will never let anything looking like freedom to sneak into his kingdom.

Cohen got an absolutely unique niche in the entertainment industry. His characters become something more than just fiction. Borat was outstanding in some sense; the jokes from the movie were quickly learned and quoted by almost everyone who bothered to watch the movie (despite the notorious quality of the jokes, which exploited practically only a couple of topics). Bruno, on the other hand, failed badly. Partly because of the high expectations, partly because of the poor plot, but the movie failed to amuse in the same shocking and provocative way. This is why I was a bit worried about the Dictator – the movie could have gone in both directions.

In reality, though, it took a middle ground. It is not a failure, as Bruno was, but it is not incredibly funny either. There are many really funny jokes (jokes about the gender of babies being my personal favorites), that make you laugh out loud. But this movie is too fictional; it does not follow the suit laid down by Borat of mockumentary-style provocations and explicit trolling. The characters are not there to take the mickey out of clumsy and slow men on the street. They are there to say the jokes which were carefully scripted.

And this is what actually distinguishes the movie from other Cohen's works. Rigid, pre-written boundaries do not allow him to enjoy himself. He finds it hard to fully assimilate with the character, simply because there is no need to do so – and the biggest, the funniest part goes straightaway. Cohen forces himself to crack jokes, meaning that in the intervals between the jokes the movie does not exist. It sails from joke to joke, from one background for a joke to another. It does not flow naturally, and this is the reason why it will never be as popular as Borat.

This is very uneven comedy, with brilliant jokes and wooden, unnecessary characters. Of course, it goes without a hint of a doubt, the quality of the jokes remains the signature dish of any Cohen movie. He still exploits the same vulgar, immoral and politically incorrect topics, but if he does not do this to perfection, nobody will ever be able to. And, moreover, this is probably the only thing that Cohen knows how to do: when the only smart joke is performed, where Cohen compares dictatorship with democracy in America, it sounds so unnatural, like from the other planet, absolutely alien to the general theme.

Let us wish Cohen to stay on track, to return to Borat-like provocations and improvisations - this is his comparative advantage, I hope he realises it and exploits it.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Amusing and entertaining

[7/10 · 12 April 2012]

When we were children, we used to imagine who we want to become: astronauts, firefighters, top-models, whoever. Apparently some people live their lives as if they are still playing in the courtyard; they easily change their occupations, looks, even characters. Catch Me If You Can is about such a man.

This is a true story about Frank Abagnale Jr. who, before his 19th birthday, successfully conned millions of dollars' worth of checks as a Pan Am pilot, doctor, and legal prosecutor. He admires his father and from him he learns how to manipulate people and systems. Of course, he attracted attention of the police forces, and in particular of Carl Hanratty, man in charge of falsifications in the US. The pursuit that ensues is the main focus of the movie.

The plot is based on the autobiographical book by Frank Abagnale Jr. himself, where he describes his adventures, and despite the huge potential that the book had to offer to the movie makers in terms of the characters, relationships etc, the movie turned out to be nice extra rather than the stand alone piece of art.

The movie lacks personality. Charisma of real Frank Abagnale Jr. did not allow Steven Spielberg to put anything personal in the movie. It is simply re-telling of the book; the director or the screenplay writers don't have their own opinions on the matters going on, they simply take the back seat and show us what happened to the main character. This approach made the movie automatically inferior to the book – the audience still needs guidance; good movie is always a dialogue, not a monologue, not a dry ascertaining of facts. It is still amusing and interesting to watch, but poor Frank and Carl look like animals in the zoo rather than humans with human feelings and emotions. It starts to feel artificial game of cat and mouse.

The famous director failed to inhale life in the characters. Little surprise that the star cast didn't manage to do it either. Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks clearly do their best. DiCaprio convincingly plays immature kid with little understanding of consequences of his actions. Hanks convincingly plays workaholic cop. But the lack of conflict, lack of deep interactions means that the characters don't evolve, and in the end of the movie we see the same two chaps that we saw in the beginning. Christopher Walken, Martin Sheen, Amy Adams – they all play their parts perfectly, creating exactly the characters they were asked to create. Shame they still look unnatural. And in the end, all the action around the master of reincarnations simply leads to the thought that maybe exciting, fulfilling life doesn't need to be full of action and pursuits and God-knows-what. Maybe what people actually need to live truly interesting lives is the presence of other people, who would guide, teach and just talk meaningful talks. Who needs all the checks and all the millions if there is nobody around to tell you where to spend it?

The story of the man who never stopped being a small child is worth watching only for the sake of this idea.

VERDICT: Good illustration to the book, amusing and interesting, even though it fails as the movie.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Ides of March (2011)

Tense and emotional drama

[9/10 · 30 March 2012]

The politics is dirty business. This assertion goes without proof, it is an axiom. And this assertion also means that politics is a perfect topic to explore in a movie: it is only natural to recall Shakespeare and the tensions and emotions of his plays. The topic, I believe, remains underexplored despite the lack of good and fresh ideas obvious in the cinematography now.

The Ides of March is based on the play "Farragut North" by Beau Willimon, and the influence of theatre can be sensed throughout the movie. Relatively short at approximately 100 minutes, it sets fantastic example to numerous recent movies in terms of how to keep attention of the audience. Just like in a theatre, the movie throws you right in the middle of the action, gives you a couple of minutes to familiarize yourself and then quickly throw a few problems in, and before you even decide for yourself what would be the best course of action, the movie proceeds to catharsis, leaving you pondering about the nature of human beings.

Curious thing: the movie about politics feels more like a good tense action movie. It is like "Drive", but concentrated on people. It can easily leave you breathless for a couple of seconds on some turn of the plot; it is filled with events – a quality that any moviegoer cherishes after watching slow-paced meaningless dramas.

And this is the biggest beauty of this movie: it has everything you may be looking for in a drama. Hopes, ideals, loyalty, betrayal, money, smart people making very smart moves, another smart people trying to outplay the first ones, sweat, blood, tears – everything is in there. The movie reminds of all the Shakespeare plays taken together and pressed to get a fresh mixed juice. Anybody can find in the movie something close to them, something to resonate with. The story of idealistic PR-man, the rising star of the presidential campaign who sees the dark side of the political battle, contains a lot of small moments for us to recognize ourselves in. Here is the fatal choice, determining our life for years to come. Here is kindness and care about people around us, but which does not really help. Here is a mistake, one little mistake that we will regret. Here are the ideals that we had but which were crushed by merciless reality. The Ides of March tell the story of one fictional guy from America, but by the end of the movie you are looking at your own life story. I think this is something the authors may be proud of.

George Clooney is in this movie more as the director than the actor. As the presidential nominee, he doesn't shine; he doesn't show anything outstanding. However, he is solid as director and screenplay writer. The plot holds together perfectly, and every still in the movie is at the right place at the right time. Ryan Gosling as Stephen Meyers is, as opposed to Clooney, shining. Charismatic, convincing and complex – what else could we ask for? He now has "Drive" and "The Ides of March" in 2011 in his portfolio, and these two performances are truly remarkable.

VERDICT: The best movie any drama-lover could wish for. The whole spectrum of human emotions and human problems in one movie. Teenagers and Transformers fans are probably going to be disappointed.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

John Carter (2012)

Boring, non-inspiring, dull and grey movie

[2/10 · 24 March 2012]

The success of Avatar keeps the heads of the world movie corporations awake at night. Cameron managed to create another world, populate it with unusual yet charismatic creatures, create a conflict with humans, drop the main character in and let us watch the development of the story. What sounds simple in theory found a great response in peoples' hearts, allowing Avatar to take in a lot of profit and leaving fans waiting for the sequel. John Carter is so obviously trying to be the second Avatar, it is impossible to escape from comparisons. And comparisons are, unfortunately for John Carter, not in its favor.

The movie is based on the book "Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs, being yet another example of how the movie industry is unable to come up with its own original plots. But that is not a problem, particularly given the fact that Burroughs is thought to have inspired Lucas and Cameron. The problem is that Disney decided to make the film, reducing sharply all the harsh parts to fit into the "family movie" category. John Carter lost immensely because of this. The storyline is dry, straightforward and simple. It is predictable if you watched any Disney movie at all. Princess? Check. Misfit-but-good-person? Check. Outsider? Check. Cute animal? Check. Evil super-powerful genius? Check. Disney's production line is working day and night to produce cliché movies.

But even tedious storyline does not mean the movie is bad. There still is some hope – in action part, in smart dialogues, in carefully drawn characters… But leave your hopes: action is little and still pretty boring. Dialogues are dull, silly and, worse of all, intolerably long. Coupled with predictable storyline, long dialogues make it a pretty big nail into the coffin of John Carter. The storyline jumps around almost randomly, leaving huge logical gaps and holes in the plot. The characters are there as if only to play their part in the main storyline: they have no past and no future. You are left to guess their intentions and motives. The movie is boring, the characters are plain and tasteless. Even Mark Strong fails to bring the arch-enemy to life despite his huge portfolio of evil characters. Smart, ingenious in the book, here the character looks a bit clumsy and definitely not scary. Other actors understandably fail as well, with Lynn Collins playing top-model rather than princess, with Taylor Kitsch playing emotionless wooden soldier rather than opportunistic adventure-seeker. Willem Dafoe lent his voice to Tars Tarkas, but this four-handed king is opaque in his motives as well as all the other characters, making it impossible to enliven him.

Now onto the technical part. It is well-known fact that John Carter has the budget of $250m. The question is where all the money was spent. 3D does not bring any extra emotions as there are no particular effects based on it. Compare it with Avatar or Hugo, and you will ask why one would want to use 3D in the first place. The Martian land is the best representation of the movie as a whole: plain and boring, grey and dry. The movie fails to impress with CGI and looks more like Star Wars Episode 4 than modern age technological breakthrough.

VERDICT: Boring, non-inspiring, dull and grey movie; Pale shadow of the underlying book.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Hunger Games (2012)

Great movie if you don't mind patronising approach

[7/10 · 23 March 2012]

After the rebellion in Empire somewhere in a future, the punishment is set for 12 rebelled districts. The Capitol selects a boy and a girl from each district who fight to death on live television. Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.

The movie is based on the first novel in the Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins, published in 2008. It was probably the most advertised film of the spring, and, given the bestseller nature of the books, the film to wait for. And the fans will not be put down.

Art always follows the mood of the crowd, reflects it and tries to satisfy the desires of the majority. This is why the occurrence of the anti-Utopian and post-apocalyptic movie was actually predictable given the world-wide movements like "Occupy Wall-Street". The society filed a demand for another "V for Vendetta", and the movie industry (as well as book-publishing) rushed to satisfy it.

The whole movie feels split into roughly two parts. In the first part, authors try to produce anti-utopia with all the necessary attributes. Suppression, fear, anger at the elites, excesses of the Capitol; all the components seem to be in place. Lonely hero, revolting masses, uniformed Special Forces – it took all the best from other anti-utopias. The second part feels like "The Last Survivor". Well, a bit more brutal. The movie almost forgets its anti-Utopian start and concentrates on action, reminding more of "Predators" and other movies about survival in the jungles. And the thing is that these two parts are as if they are filmed by two different people.

The action part is tense, full of unexpected turns of the story line and genuinely breath-taking at moments. It is a joy and entertainment to watch, it is easy to empathize with the main characters, it is a thrilling movie to watch. But the anti-utopia part is in reality more of "Anti-utopia for children" – every single bit is carefully chewed and given to the audience for easy digestion. It is like 1984-lite: colorful, stylish, with charismatic characters, but absolutely dull. I honestly believe that the audience is smart enough to understand the purpose of the games. I do believe that everybody will understand what is going on the screen, without any need to revert to patronizing explanations which leave the taste of a kindergarten lessons.

The cast played its part well. No revelations, no awe-inspiring performance, no Oscar-hopefuls. Straightforward work, no more, no less. I would only single out Lenny Kravitz. He managed to put life in his character, a lot of charisma and some personal touch to it, making it very natural and pretty positive. As concerned Jennifer Lawrence who played the main character, I honestly don't understand why there is a need for her to do everything with an open mouth. She hunts with open mouth, she sleeps with open mouth, she is angry with open mouth – etc. It was supposed to make her look hot, but instead she looks a bit lost and silly. Other than that, everybody seems to be in place and knowing what to do.

P.S. I hated the camera work. The shaking image always unsettles me, I never quite grasped why would you want to use it? It is not how people see the world when they are nervous. It is simply a camera given to a man who has shaking hands. As a result, the whole movie feels like a ride on a very poor road rather than nice smooth journey. Maybe that was the intention? Because of this feature the final fight also lacks some pathos and tension. Instead, it looks like the cameraman himself participates in the fight.

VERDICT: Despite pretty patronizing approach to the audience as concerned the ideological part, the movie is still great watch: captivating, breathtaking, interesting and with a little pinch of content for those of us who look for something more than simple action movie.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Super 8 (2011)

All the genres of movie industry packed into one Super-movie. Fast-paced and touching story.

[8/10 · 21 March 2012]

It is the summer of 1979 and a group of friends are filming an amateur movie for the contest. During one of the scenes they witness a train crash which put the start to the chain of events that are going to change the lives of all people in their small town.

I was not intending to watch this movie based on what I saw in the trailer. I am not a great fan of horrors or anything like that, and given the fact that 2011 was rich in good movies, my conscience did not object much. Anyway, as the flow of movies came to a stall, I got back to the Super 8.

Well, J.J. Abrams, writer and director of the movie, fooled me. It is beyond the understanding come the trailer to the movie is so detached and different from the movie itself, as if the trailer was a completely independent unit of cinematography. In a way this is good as it does not give away all the catches of the movie, but the fact remains that based on the trailer you would expect something completely different.

And J.J. Abrams continues to fool the audience throughout the film. This movie is a mystery itself, like the cubes featured in the film. It takes all possible forms and shapes: it starts off as simple rom-com, quickly grows into drama, in a split second becomes first-class action, transforms into classical sci-fi and then back into action. This is the movie-chameleon, movie-enigma, movie-transformer, movie-Rubik's Cube. It quotes directly almost all famous movies in the genres it mimics, starting from the Alien and ending with Saving Private Ryan. J.J. Abrams plays with the movie as if he was not sure himself what he wanted to write about. However, despite the constant transformations, the movie is still coherent, without any logical gaps or inconsistencies. It manages to keep a pretty fast pace, even though it dips sometimes when switched to a more slow-paced genre.

This transformational nature of the movie imprints on the characters created. The film incorporates children who act as adults, and adults who act as children, and children who act as children. In the end you start to wonder whether the roles were assigned correctly, or whether the age groups have been messed up; but stay calm – this is just a part of the movie which tries to understand what and whom it is about. And the actors are perfectly up to the task, with super-serious Elle Fanning (as Alice Dainard) playing like an adult and child-like emotional Ron Eldard as Louis Dainard.

In the end, it becomes clear that the Super 8 just continues the trend of 2011: it is one more movie about the movies. But this one is different from the Artist or Hugo in a sense that it does not hail any particular time period in the history of the cinematography (even though it could be argued it concentrates on the movies of 70s-early 80s), but it explores all the different genres a movie can be, and tries the mask of every single one of them. It is the anthem to the variety on the movie market, as well as the keen amateurs from 70s-80s who used Super 8 to film their view of the world, whatever those views were.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Limitless (I) (2011)

Intriguing advertising campaign, dull movie

[4/10 · 8 March 2012]

Eddie Morra is an unsuccessful writer who suffers from never-ending misfortunes. One day, he meets a drug dealer who sells him a top-secret drug which bestows him with super human abilities. And he is soon to find out that "with the power comes great responsibility"…

This movie made a buzz in 2011 when it launched provocative and smart advertising campaign, which featured a guy hacking into the screens on the Time Square in New York. That was brilliant move, fresh and interesting, and it is probably the only thing which is good about this movie.

It should have been called Brainless. Yes, to hope that this movie would be smart and brainpower-demanding would have been completely unreasonable. After all, from the first frames of the trailer you could guess that this is yet another pop-corn action about difficult life of people with superpowers. However, even these low expectations did not save me from brutal truth: you have to turn your brains off to watch this movie.

The whole topic of the super-drug and super-powers is so over-used, that to come up with something new is virtually impossible – probably this is the reason why authors took the book "The Dark Fields" as their inspiration. I can only hope that the book is better than this boring, dull and silly movie. There is no intrigue; all the turns of the plots are easily foreseen. Authors try to include more characters, but this starts to look like a plaster on the gaping hole when you realise how underdeveloped and, again, brainless all the other characters are. The tricks with the camera are fun the first time you see them, but start to really annoy for the fourth-fifth time. The trick when the whole world gains colors when the characters take the pills is old as the movies about pills, but still nicely done and pleasure to watch. This, however, cannot be said about camera riding through the streets and tilting sideways from time to time.

Most of the actors look like they don't understand what is going on in the movie. Abbie Cornish, who plays Lindy, looks lost all the time. It seems like actors saw the screenplay only on the film set, and were asked to improvise. I have to say though that Robert De Niro as Carl Van Loon is absolutely organic and convincing. He is not trying to impress us with his acting abilities, but he is just doing his job, calmly and impressively.

It seems to me that this movie was designed for insecure people, non-achievers, humble dreamers who just want to see what the life could turn into when you get the super-pill and superpower to make your dreams come true. It is brainless popcorn movie like the third Transformers, but without Transformers and with drugs and sex. Given the fact that 2011 was rich with fantastic movie titles, I would not recommend wasting one's time on the Limitless.

VERDICT: Dull and boring movie with nice advertising campaign WATCH: anything else

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

A Dangerous Method (2011)

Great characters amazingly performed by stunning actors in remarkably short movie which jumps around the timeline

[7/10 · 1 March 2012]

Sabina Spielrein, Russian with extreme psychological disorder, arrives at the clinic where young Carl Yung is working. This is the start of a difficult and intense relationship between Sabina, Yung and Sigmund Freud, which will enrich all of them and will give birth to psychoanalysis.

I am a great fan of Keira Knightly, and I have been waiting for this movie since its release in September 2011 on the Venice Film Festival. Eventually, it arrived in Britain almost half a year later, and it was almost impossible to find it in the cinemas.

The movie is an adaptation of the book "A Most Dangerous Method" by John Kerr, and it is a very poor adaptation. There are some movies adapted from the books that run smoothly, without considerable losses of cohesion or plot details. Just recall the last Harry Potter movie: despite pretty poor source, the movie itself is easy to watch and still interesting even for those who read the book several times.

This is not the case with A Dangerous Method though. The storyline is patchy, it is sometimes possible to guess where the chapters of the book start and end. The film is overloaded with time skips; even in small amounts they could make the movie boring and hard to follow, never mind the amounts used in Dangerous Method.

Also, one might wonder why to use those time skips so extensively anyway. The storyline is fantastic, it captures attention, it makes you interested throughout the film, and I was only begging for more: more details of characters, more events in between what was shown, simply more of the movie! But I was denied – the movie is pretty short at 99 minutes, and it is clear that authors scrambled to squeeze in everything possible at the price of development of the characters.

The characters themselves are amazing. I don't know whether this is what they were at the time, but it is easy to believe so – they are coherent, interesting, smart individuals, and you see how the relationship between them affects their perceptions, beliefs and moral standards. I can only praise the work of Keira as Sabina, Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud and Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross. The latter had a pretty small role but he shined with perfection all the time he was on the screen. Mortensen played as over-confidently as I imagined the real Freud behaved; the gestures and posture were flawless.

WATCH: If you plan to read the book; or simply want to know more about the pioneers of psychoanalysis.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Descendants (2011)

Lacks the spark, cannot capture the interest

[6/10 · 23 February 2012]

Matt King (George Clooney) is the chairman of the family trust which owns massive piece of land on Hawaii. After his wife suffers from the boat accident, he tries to overcome the pain and re-connect with his two daughters.

As somebody correctly put it, this movie is the living evidence of how flawed the new concept of the Oscars is. Previously, each category had only 5 nominees, strictly, whereas now they include "between 5 and 10". This resulted in movies being nominated, which are clearly not up to speed with the rest of the nominees, and that only highlights their mediocrity. And yes, the Descendants is one of those movies.

The Descendants is Alexander Payne's latest film since Sideways, based upon the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, and it already snatched a few awards, including Best Picture (Drama) at this year's Golden Globes, along with George Clooney being awarded the Best Actor (Drama) award. And it is nominated for the Oscars along with Hugo, Artist and Moneyball. And the question "Why was it awarded?" still stays in my head.

The distinctive feature of the movie is that it tries to depict life as it is, so that the viewer should be more engaged with what is going on the screen, will associate him/herself easier with the main characters, and laugh at the simple everyday moments captured by the camera. I have to admit – they succeeded. I, personally, was associating myself with one of the main characters, but not with King or the older daughter's boyfriend, Sid. The whole movie I felt like the dying Elizabeth King, not able to move or regain consciousness, but forced to die slowly and painfully. The movie is annoying in the boredom it manages to inflict. It has clear start but no culmination or catharsis, or indeed anything to keep you alive. 115 minutes of the show felt like 515, endless show of people desperate to present us with drama and emotions, but failing at igniting the passion for the characters.

I won't say the movie is bad. It has all the right components, very nice storyline, great performance by Clooney and Shailene Woodley as Alexandra King, fantastic director's work. But there is a very important component missing, something that helps to distinguish between just good and excellent movies; some kind of spark, something that makes you willing to watch it to the end because you are genuinely interested in what is going on. Without this, pretty good components mix together to form a very mediocre movie.

And of course there were high expectations. I expect a very high level from all the Oscar nominees, and this film clearly does not live up to expectations. It is well below the benchmark set up by the main nominees of this year, and even some movies that were not nominated are better. And this high expectations problem is the final piece that turns just mediocre movie into something intolerably mediocre.

I have to say a couple of words about the soundtrack. When I was faced with the boredom, I intuitively started to look for something entertaining, and I thought I found it: the soundtrack to the movie is light Hawaiian music. The problem is: you will listen to exactly the same song for the whole duration of the movie. 115 minutes of exactly the same song. By the end of the film I started to hate it.

VERDICT: Mediocre movie, definitely well below the level of other Oscar nominees. WATCH: If you are Clooney or Payne fan. Or if you love the Hawaiian music.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Muppets (2011)

Entertaining, light and easy-going movie for everyone

[8/10 · 13 February 2012]

The old Muppets' theatre is in danger: greedy oil businessman Tex Richman wants to get control over it to dig for oil reserves that are under the theatre. Walther, who is on the trip to LA with his brother, accidentally hears the plan, and now it is the race against the time: Muppets have to reunite to raise $10,000,000 to save the theatre.

When I first saw the trailers for the Muppets, I was amazed. Finally, good old-fashioned parody is coming along, with nice little subtle jokes about almost just everything on Earth! "The Immigrant Song" trailer was probably even better than the original one. However, the actual movie lacks this grit, and it is easy to understand why.

It is impossible to judge the Muppets as the normal movie we usually see in cinemas. The biggest obstacle is acting: Muppets don't act! They simply open mouths and run around, trying to make us laugh. So the biggest deciding criterion for this movie is its humorous delivery: is it funny at all? And with respect to that question, Muppets the Movie had to overcome at exactly the same obstacle that Muppets the Show constantly tries to balance: they need to decide whether they are producing something for children or for grown-ups. You try to please everybody – and you fail to please anybody.

I feel Muppets the Movie though tries to concentrate on young audience more. This light festive movie, filled with songs and sunshine, makes a good watch for under-10, funny and entertaining. Of course, there are a few brilliant jokes that keep adults entertained ("Classic!" being my personal favorite), and Muppets are still as charming to everyone as they always were. Cameos by Jim Parsons, Emily Blunt and many other, as well as brilliant performance of Jack Black as, surprisingly enough, Jack Black, bring a lot of shine into the movie.

As for the two real leading actors in the movie, Jason Segel and Amy Adams, I think they didn't understand either what kind of movie they are playing in. Jason Segel keeps this overly kind, "charmed-by-everything-in-the-world" type of face all the time, making you a bit worried about his acting potential. Amy Adams, on the other hand, acts as if she is in rom-com, which is close enough, but definitely in dissonance with Segel.

But, as I said, we don't watch Muppets to see Oscar-winning performance. It is all about jokes, and even though I expected a bit more (expectations were too high after the trailer), it is still a very nice movie, one that you would love to go with your children because you are not going to die from boredom in the end.

Mahna-Mahnam.

VERDICT: festive and charming comedy, which is genuinely for all the family members.

WATCH: if you are with children, or just want to get a nice portion of laughter.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Shame (2011)

Fantastic, amazing play by Fassbender, yet intolerably boring movie

[7/10 · 5 February 2012]

Brandon is a 30-something man living in New York who is unable to manage his sex life. After his wayward younger sister moves into his apartment, Brandon's world spirals out of control… And this is it. The whole storyline of the movie can be summarized in 2 short sentences, and trust me, you cannot add much to the description – and that is probably the biggest shame of the whole film.

Michael Fassbender is definitely in demand. Prometheus, Haywire, Dangerous Method, X-men: First Class, Jane Eyre – he featured in so many movies in the past two years and yet he still looks new to the audience, the definite star on the rise. And Shame is probably the most challenging movie of them all; it required a lot of a talent from Fassbender to act as the sex-crazed man convincingly. I have to give a credit to him for that, he managed to do it very well. The scene on the train, where innocent-come-predatory smile of Fassbender unsettles the young woman sitting opposite to him, is very powerful and proves wrong all the critics who claim that Fassbender is massively overrated. He proves once again that he is fantastically capable, charismatic and skillful actor, and I definitely look forward to see him in Dangerous Method and Prometheus. Carey Mulligan made a perfect support for the Fassbender's performance, even though I still find it hard to admire her always on-the-brink-of-crying slightly hysterical face.

But even though the cast performed to their best, there is insurmountable problem with the movie – its plot. Absolutely nothing happens in the world inhabited by Brandon Sullivan and his sister, absolutely nothing. It could very well be the way to explain to the viewers the severity of the situation encountered by Brandon, but I personally go to the cinema to see the story, not the lack of it. Some people may and will find the movie as very metaphorical, literally putting you in the Brandon's shoes – this is something in which the film succeeds. But in terms of story-telling, it is failing spectacularly, because it is difficult to tell the story when there is basically nothing to tell. The movie plunges you in the depths of boredom, the only thing you will be thinking about: «When will this finally come to the end?!" Actually, as it gets closer to the finish, some story unwraps, but it is too late to save the film.

So even though Fassbender and Mulligan delivered their finest performances, poor plot fails to keep the attention of the audience and to provoke thoughts other than seeking the nearest exit.

VERDICT: Amazing performance by Fassbender, mind-boggling boring plot WATCH: if you want to see Fassbender's star on the rise, or if you generally prefer descriptive rather than story-based movies.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Moneyball (2011)

Moneyball

[9/10 · 25 January 2012]

The Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane finds himself in a very unfortunate position of losing the three star players to other teams. Now he has to assemble a new team on a limited budget, and he employs young Yale graduate Peter Brand to employ statistical analysis to find the undervalued players.

The story is based on the real events and tells us about the real Billy Beane, making it almost semi-documentary. The case study of Moneyball technique is pretty common in business schools and in general on economic courses, and thanks to the book by Michael Lewis it became known to wider audiences.

Hence what is interesting about this movie is not the actual storyline (albeit pretty good), but the fact how different the Moneyball is compared to other movies of 2011. Apart from definitely being nostalgic (have a look at the Artist, Drive and Hugo), 2011 was full of fictional worlds. The entire buzz was going around films which one way or the other recreated parallel universes of some kind: Melancholia, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, as well as the already mentioned Drive and Hugo… the list just goes on. That is why the Moneyball is so refreshing to watch: you actually see that the world depicted is the world around you, without massive alterations.

As all real-life stories, this one is multi-layered and sad. You may know the entire storyline from the book, but that will not prevent you from empathizing with the main character, from trying to understand his decisions and from admiring his courage. The exact fact that you know that the real person stands behind the story makes the film look and feel like biography, prompting some thoughts about the motivation, peoples' aims and desires and achievements. Something that starts as the usual (even though interesting) story about baseball ends up being metaphorical parable. This is the biography to be jealous about.

The choice of actors was crucial in order to create the documentary style of the film. A lot can be said about the brilliant performance of Brad Pitt as Billy Beane, and the nomination on Oscar 2012 as the best actor sums it up perfectly. However, I believe that it is the duo of Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill as Peter Brand which makes the whole film so great. There is some understanding and dynamic interaction between the two, they perfectly complement each other. I don't think that Pitt should get Oscar for best actor without Hill getting the Oscar for best supporting actor – the support was crucial to the success.

VERDICT: Brilliant adaptation of the original story, it is difficult to remain untouched by the difficulties the main characters face WATCH: if you admire baseball or Brad Pitt, or generally want to watch some biographical movie.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Jeeves and Wooster (1990–1993)

Charming comedy

[9/10 · 19 January 2012]

Sometimes I get very nostalgic about good old British series, which had great sense of humor and a very light approach to entertainment. Whenever the nostalgia sets upon, I usually re-watch Sherlock to remind myself of the inescapable glorious walk of the progress, but this time I opted for Jeeves and Wooster instead. And I loved it.

Bertram Wooster is a wealthy gentleman who manages to get himself into trouble whenever he tries to solve other people's problems. Then it is the time for his smart and psychological butler, Wooster, to help to resolve all the troubles.

It is even difficult to say what it is so nice and exciting about the plot, but for some reason it works perfectly. The whole storyline can be summarized as "wealthy people have their own kind of entertainment" – it is difficult to imagine ordinary people getting themselves into the sort of troubles we see in Jeeves and Wooster. And the troubles that we see don't even look like troubles to us, making the series pretty entertaining and relaxing altogether. The good mix of jokes, particularly concerning the habits of the characters, makes you feel home in Britain of Jeeves and Wooster.

Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, who play the lead roles, are absolutely brilliant. It is particularly fascinating to see them there young, without the weight of House or Holmes pulling them down. Poker-faced over-polite Jeeves and energetic big-eyed naïve Wooster make the whole series shiny and fantastically charming. Mary Wimbush, who plays Aunt Agatha, is as stereotypical of the wealthy aunts as it can possibly get.

The word of warning though: only the first 2 seasons are of the high quality. Unfortunately, the actors change pretty quickly, the interest of screenwriters wanes, and the series become pretty boring. Nevertheless, the first two seasons are outstanding and a great fun.

VERDICT: good old-fashioned British TV series featuring humorous Fry and Laurie.

WATCH: if you want to get back in time, enjoy some nice British humor or simply observe the life of wealthy.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Rango (2011)

Best Animation of 2011

[9/10 · 17 January 2012]

It actually caught me by surprise. I expected light cartoon for children, but I saw the best and humorous animation of 2011.

Rango has a very simple, straightforward storyline, mainly for children, the usual "our hero does not know his place in life but then hardship and love help him to figure that out" pattern. But that is not the storyline that grabs the attention, but… everything else. Gore Verbinski uses the storyline as the skewer to stick together all the finer parts of the movie: great animation, characters, humor and Johnny Depp.

Characters in Rango are almost alive. You start to like every single one of them, they are charismatic, funny and much more lovable than, say, the toys from the Toy story. Rango, pondering about his life, Beans, giving a fight to get the water back to the town, old Mayor, Rattlesnake Jake – the positive characters are charming in their clumsiness, negative characters are charismatic in their evilness. It is even hard to single out the character that would be a "supporting actor" only; they all play their important part in creating the festive mood. Even the plastic fish! But it is easy to figure out the character who is outperforming the rest: Johnny Depp as Rango is mind-blowing in his coolness. He actually makes the lizard live on the screen, giving him his habits and facial expressions. It is those little intonations that always make the difference, and Depp nailed them perfectly.

The third component of the success is the humor. Starting with the quartet of the "story-tellers" who keep predicting the death of the main character and finishing with some cliché jokes about cowboys in the Wild West. It is a top-notch parody, which has a go at the Star Wars, Pearl Harbor, and, in the moment of self-irony by Depp and Verbinski, the Pirates of the Caribbean, to name only few. The jokes are nice, sometimes involve black humor but are always funny.

The final component is the animation. The characters move so smoothly and naturally, they are so detailed, you can actually see every strand of wool, every piece of dust. This definitely compares favorably with the Tintin plastic-headed clumsy characters which move like they are from the computer game from 90s. In Rango, every bit of the world is drawn with laser-sharp precision, so that at times it feels like a full-scale feature film.

VERDICT: Humorous and charming, probably the best animation in 2011.

WATCH: with or without kids, but with clear intention to relax and laugh a bit.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Action in its purest

[9/10 · 17 January 2012]

I do not consider myself as the great fan of Mission Impossible franchise. The first part, released in 1996 (!) was action at its purest, with the small intrigue set up by the question "Who betrayed the group?" and the soundtrack which pretty soon was installed on 95% of mobile phones as the alarm clock signal. Since then Ethan Hunt became iconic spy, even though the franchise overall was going downhill. The second part was an absolute failure, already too surreal for a serious action movie but still not surreal enough for Matrix-style movie. The third part improved a little bit but generally it was still laughable.

Little surprise, I expected the 4th installment to be at approximately the same boring level. My low expectations were even reinforced by the fact that Tom Cruise was getting older and, as evident in Knight and Day, where the stunts were repetitive and boring. However, I was walking out of the cinema with the smile; Mr. Cruise managed to beat the expectations.

No doubt, the plot is silly and, from time to time, even stupid. Seriously, terrorist acting alone is trying to launch the nuclear attack? Why not mammoths waking up after the Ice Age and trying to crush all the world capitals? Do not expect the depth of the plot out of this movie. Even the jokes that were included to keep the plot together will entertain only those who have not seen the other parts of the franchise. But this movie was created to amuse us by the dynamic action, wasn't it? And the action part is something that is done well in this movie. I was watching it in IMAX, and the adventure outside the Burj Khalifa is breathtaking when shown on the huge screen. Faster heart rate and round eyes are guaranteed when the screen is large enough or when one is too afraid of the height. But even if we do not consider the episode, there are quite a few stunning scenes, chases and fights to keep the viewer busy holding on their chairs tight.

It would be pretty weird to expect some outstanding performance out of the cast. Tom Cruise is simply doing his job, and doing it pretty well – it requires little acting talent but a lot of effort in performing the stunts. Simon Pegg is always good, he is very convincing yet again as the computer geek (Paul was the movie where he trained the role, I believe). Paula Patton as "the Hunt's girl" needed only good figure, which she has, just watch out the party in Mumbai. Jeremy Renner who played William Brandt requires a line as well. He was absolutely up to speed with Tom Cruise, perfect action figure, I was surprised (in a good sense) with his performance. There are rumors that he is going to replace Tom Cruise in future installments of the Mission Impossible, and I can stay reassured – he will be a good spy.

VERDICT: Much better than the previous ones, breathtaking action featuring forever young Tom Cruise WATCH: if you want to give your brains a rest and simply want some dynamic stupid action.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

Hugo (2011)

For the film-lovers around the world

[10/10 · 17 January 2012]

The movie is set in Paris in 1930s and closely follows the storyline of "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" by Brian Selznick and tells the story about a boy who lives on the train station, his father, a robot called automaton and dreams which never really leave us.

This is the work of well-known director Martin Scorsese, which is notably different from his other works. The Departed, The Shutter Island, The Aviator, Bands of New-York: those are the most famous ones and they have one feature in common, they are not movies for kids or fairy tales. Scorsese's choice of genre for the next movie, Hugo, caught me by surprise; I definitely didn't expect him to take on the Christmas tale. I had a bad feeling about it (I am a great fan of the 3 movies mentioned above), and I am so glad that I turned out to be wrong. The genius of Scorsese shines in whatever movie he decides to make.

Straight to the verdict: I have watched this movie twice, and I found it to be the best movie I have seen in 2011. However, I believe that Hugo is the victim of bad PR and marketing campaign. On one hand, whenever a casual film goer hears "Scorsese's film", he or she will almost immediately think of action or thriller. On the other hand, the film trailer presents Hugo as the bedtime story for children 5-12, nice and cuddly Christmas story, during which the parents of a child can take a quick nap in the theatre.

Well, the movie is neither, and these two considerations might have actually scared away those people who might love the movie most: people who love multi-layered movies that make you look at yourself and to project some of the ideas seen on your own life. On the outer layer, Hugo is pretty simple: little easy story, the boy named Hugo Cabret tries to fix the automaton, and in the process finds its creator. If you dig a little bit deeper, you will find a story about a man who cannot find his place in the world and who suffers in denial because of it. If you dig even deeper, you will see that Scorsese made the ode to entire cinematograph and its first visionaries in particular. Scorsese sympathizes with the main idea of the book: movies are made to carry people away to other, usually imaginary worlds; they are made to bring your dreams into real world; they are magic in essence! Only film-loving Scorsese could deliver this message powerfully, and he is up to expectations. Needless to say that people who expected light fairytale or action movie are disappointed.

The work of Scorsese is difficult to overestimate. Every single bit in this movie is necessary and fits into the bigger picture perfectly, creating the right atmosphere of magic and wizardry. To prove the idea that movies are made to carry us away, Scorsese simply creates another world, the world that feels like comfortable and enjoyable to live in. Huge clock mechanisms that Hugo winds up, shining Paris outside the train station, small toy shop – everything works to create this magical feeling. Even 3D, which I generally don't like, does not feel alien to the movie but rather works for the same purpose – to deliver the idea. As I mentioned in my Best of 2011 post, 3D in Hugo makes me think that Scorsese was watching all the tasteless films which rely on 3D for their success (Transformers 3 being the No1 tasteless film of those) and decided to show how it should be done. By the way, he featured in the movie as the photographer: Even if I stop praising the genius of Scorsese, there is still a lot to talk about. The cast, for example. The biggest discovery for me was the brilliant work of Sasha Baron Cohen as Station Inspector, the villain of the show. Fantastic accent, jokes, his smile, after all – he proved to everyone that he is a great actor (just in time before his Dictator). Chloë Grace Moretz as Isabelle is memorable mainly because of her phrase "Don't you like books?!", spelled out with conviction and passion, making you a bit nervous, forcing to remember when was the last time you opened a book. Ben Kingsley as Georges Méliès, Asa Butterfield as Hugo, Jude Law as Hugo's father – everybody performed to their best, delivering stunning and breathtaking show.

VERDICT: Masterpiece by Martin Scorsese starring Ben Kingsley and Sasha Baron Cohen, serious multi-layered reflection on the purpose and the history of cinematograph. The best movie I have seen in 2011.

WATCH: if you love cinema just as I do.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The most atmospheric film of the year

[9/10 · 17 January 2012]

This was probably the most waited-for movie of this winter, and you can quite understand why. David Fincher, the director behind the Fight Club and the Social Network, took on the bestseller detective by Stieg Larsson and invited Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara to play the lead roles. On every account that should have been a good movie.

But Fincher defied odds twice. Not only had he turned rather boring book into pretty strong plot. He actually filled the Larsson's universe with atmosphere so palpable, you almost see it filling the room from the screen. He didn't lie when he put in the trailer the phrase "The feel-bad movie of the year". It goes against all the Christmas sweetness and fluffiness, it is unsettling and provocative. It realistically depicts psychopaths, rapists, murderers – all the dark sides of life. With almost documentary accuracy he depicts rapes and tortures. This slow-paced movie filled with carefully written dialogs and naturalistic violence, has nevertheless powerful catharsis, inevitably approaching you like the mansion in the trailer. This is not the detective in the usual sense of it – the actual case is solved in less than an hour. This movie was built solely for the purpose of the atmosphere of darkness, and to expect anything else from it would be a miscalculation.

Of course, such powerful atmosphere would not have been possible without the right cast. Rooney Mara, who played in the Social Network under Fincher, is a perfect Lisbeth – very smart outcast, who nevertheless needs love and attention. Cynical and unemotional on the outside, Lisbeth is vulnerable and caring – this is a very difficult role to play convincingly, yet Mara is up to the task perfectly. I have to praise Daniel Craig as well. After this movie I realized, that the Bond role is simply not for him. His Mikael Blomkvist, intelligent but very down-to-earth, is perfect, and I believe this is the type of characters that suit Daniel the best. He plays Mikael on ease, in a stark contrast with Bond where he tries to live up to expectations and make a serious yet ironic face.

There is one flaw with the movie, the missing bit of the overall puzzle – I am talking about Mikael's daughter and her relationship with her father. The line is told just to put a tick in the respective column; there is no exploration, no purpose – nothing that would illuminate why the character was brought in the story in the first place. Other than that, all the characters are fantastically written and played, they are dark and insane yet convincingly alive.

P.S. The opening credits. These are not so popular nowadays, and the last opening credits that I liked were from the Watchmen. Fincher revitalised the old tradition and introduced amazing credits to the tone of the Immigrant Song, seen in the trailer. For some reason they remind me more of Bond movies than generic credits, but they set the right tone straightaway.

VERDICT: One of the most atmospheric movies of the season, dark, unsettling and insane. WATCH: if you are tired of the Christmas craze and sweetness, or just want to plunge into the world of psychopaths.

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com

The Artist (I) (2011)

Absolutely unmissable, charming film of the year!

[10/10 · 15 January 2012]

Hollywood, 1927: Silent movie star George Valentin is famous and wanted by his fans. He meets Peppy Miller, a young dancer, and propels her to the top of the movie industry. But as the sound enters the Hollywood, will George Valentin stand up to the challenge or surrender? I will definitely remember the year 2011 as the year of extreme nostalgia about the old movies. It seems to me that suddenly that feeling overwhelmed all the major producers, and as the result we saw so many films heralding how good the times were. The suit was started with Drive, the movie that initiates a time travel into 1980s movie production with all the main attributes in place: pounding soundtrack, violence and L.A. Then there was Hugo, in which Martin Scorsese took us back to the very beginning of the film production and has shown the fate of one of the pioneers of the industry, Georges Méliès. This time, the nostalgic authors take us to 1927, the era of silent black-and-white movies and booming movie industry.

The Artist is very different from the other two films mentioned. If the Drive hails the style of 80s and Hugo is the ode to the brave pioneers of the movie industry, the Artist talks mainly about the people involved. It asserts strongly that the actors during the 1920s were shining, glossy, glamorous in their own, down-to-earth style, and builds the entire storyline around it, not trying to capture the viewers' attention by anything else.

This was a very risky experiment. The movie is black-and-white and silent in the era of 3D, Avatar and Transformers. But the authors' bet on the charismatic characters paid off – the movie is very lively and charismatic. The simple story about George Valentin who tries to find his place in the rapidly changing world is very touching; the simple jokes easily make you smile. The fact that the movie concentrates on the new technology allowed some amazing plot turns – I promise that the George's nightmare will catch you by surprise. The movie is charming and light in a way that only old movies can be, without being too worried about special effects or the drama in the plot. The authors concentrated on one thing only: that is, to make people empathise with the main characters again, and they succeed – the main characters are charismatic and lovable.

Of course, this would not have happened without the right cast, and it is difficult to underestimate the work of Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo. It feels as if they came straight from late 20s, they look so natural and confident. It is difficult not to smile when seeing Ms. Bejo's smile or watching Mr. Dujardin's dances. They performed to their best, and it is this brilliant performance that guaranteed the charisma and irresistible charm of the movie. Absolutely gorgeous actors literally filling the room with optimistic and upbeat mood, despite all the hardship – they make this film what it is.

VERDICT: The risky experiment in the era of 3D and IMAX, but the most charming film of the year. TO WATCH: if you don't want to miss the most festive movie of the year.

http://m-picturegoer.blogspot.com/

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

The sequel that forgot about what made the original so good

[6/10 · 5 January 2012]

This is the second installment of the Sherlock Holmes franchise starring Robert Downey Jr. as the great detective. The first installment, which I saw exactly two years ago, was very impressing. That was a completely new take on Sir Conan Doyle's never dying detective story, full of style, fascinating action, humorous dialogs and amazing soundtrack. Robert Downey Jr. reinvented Sherlock; his Holmes is arrogant, sociopath but nevertheless absolutely lovable. The movie was peppered with something called "flash-forward" – which is how Sherlock planned his fights. Overall, the movie was easy to watch, the storyline kept attention and visually it was very organic.

No doubt,after the success of the first part producers had to start working on the sequel. Lucky for them, the arch-enemy was mentioned only briefly and hence there was the storyline left unexplored. Clearly, there was pressure to deliver the same kind of Holmes, but more of it. And this is where, I think, the whole myth broke down.

In the race to give us more action and more humorous dialogs, something essential to the good detective story was lost – consistent and interesting storyline. I cannot even consider the Game of Shadows as detective story – it is not classical whodunit, the thrill is added absolutely unnaturally, there are a lot of logical holes in the plot (spoiler alert. The red book story was a shame. Do they really think that criminal mastermind checks his balances once a month?). Guy Ritchie forgot about the storyline and instead started to play with camera and decided to add some new, bigger guns, more action, more fights. Holmes' deduction is not capable of stopping bullets, and hence he looks like an outright loser, outdated but smart man.

Because of this underlying flaw, the first part of the movie is outright boring. We know whodunit, and we absolutely don't care what he is going to do next. The pale try to add some drama to the story makes it all look even feebler because of the main characters. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. don't look natural – they look like two clowns from Chaplin-era movies, trying to play out some "funny" dialogs.(spoiler alert. The whole story about Ms. Adler is weird. I know they wanted to show how smart and cruel Moriarty is. But there are hundreds of ways to do so without needlessly killing lovable character on the 10th minute of the show. Holmes' reaction was weird too. Throw away the handkerchief? And that's it? Ms. Adler looked like child unloved by screenwriters.) The jokes keep repeating themselves; it is difficult to believe in the drama part – the whole plot fails to keep attention.

The second part is more interesting, mainly because authors decided to insert some action. I have to say – the episode in the woods is amazing. That was the moment when I recognized old stylish Sherlock Holmes from the first part – dynamic, breathtaking and spectacular. It was the moment that was worth waiting for an hour. After that movie gains some pace – but the battle for the hearts is lost already. The movie looks more like high profile video to the music of Hans Zimmer, falling apart into disconnected pieces if you start to look at it closer. Apart from chase in the woods scene, there were few great moments. I would like to draw your attention to Stephen Fry's Mycroft and his servant. They managed to fill the movie with festive attitude that attracted people to the first part and so obviously absent from the second part, but other than that…

VERDICT: In the race to give people more of Sherlock Holmes, authors decided to play a bit more serious and lost. Storyline does not hold attention and is not logically flawless. Dialogues are not particularly funny, characters do not surprise and amaze as they did in the first part. WATCH if you have seen the first part many times and want a bit more. Also you may want to watch the Game of Shadows just for the sake of Mr. Fry's performance and the scene of chase in woods.

P.S. The movie looks even worse if you compare it with Sherlock played by Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC's Sherlock series, but that is the story for the next time…

m-picturegoer.blogspot.com/