In the past, there have been many December blockbuster hits including the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. This December seems to be the month of potential blockbuster hits with Academy Award winning directors behind them. Plenty of promotion has gone into James Cameron’s latest film “Avatar” which is an action/fantasy film starring Sam Worthington (“Terminator Salvation”). Clint Eastwood’s latest film “Invictus” has some Oscar buzz to it and it stars Matt Damon and Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman. Peter Jackson directs the screen adaptation of “The Lovely Bones” which has also garnered some Oscar buzz and it is definitely one of my top picks to see this December.

Rob Marshall (“Chicago”) brings “Nine” from stage to screen with an all-star cast including Academy Award Winners Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Academy Award nominee Kate Hudson. Another film that has Oscar buzz surrounding it is “Up in the Air” starring Academy Award Winner George Clooney. Before Robert Downey Jr. reprises his Iron Man role this summer, he first tackles on the role of “Sherlock Holmes”, which looks fun and action packed. Robert De Niro, Drew Barrymore, Sam Rockwell, and Kate Beckinsale star in “Everybody’s Fine” which is probably the only film that takes place during the Holiday season. In terms of family films, there’s “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel”.

My spotlight picks of the month are “The Last Station” and “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”. “The Last Station” is a historical drama based on author Leo Tolstoy’s life and the cast is top notch. The film stars Christopher Plummer (“The Sound of Music”), James McAvoy (“Atonement”), and Academy Award winner Helen Mirren (“The Queen”). “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is Heath Ledger’s (“The Dark Knight”) final film and looks to be quite a show. Well that’s my December overview, click on the link below to check out the rest of the movies coming out in the next month.

**NOTE: Theatrical Release Dates are subject to change.**
Source: Comingsoon.net

December 2
• Before Tomorrow (NY)
• Made for Each Other (NY)

December 4

• Across the Hall (NY, LA)
• Armored
• Brothers
• Everybody’s Fine
• The Last Station (NY, LA)
• Paa (limited)
• Serious Moonlight (NY, LA)
• The Strip (limited)
• Transylmania
• Until the Light Takes Us (NY)
• Up in the Air (limited; expands: Dec. 11; wide: Dec. 25)

December 11

• A Single Man (NY, LA, SF; expands: Dec. 25; expands: Jan.
• Invictus
• The Lovely Bones (limited; expands: Dec. 25; wide: Jan. 15)
• My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? (NY)
• Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year (limited)
• The Slammin’ Salmon (limited)
• Yesterday Was a Lie (limited)

December 12

• Ricky (NY)

December 16

• Town Called Panic (NY)
• Crazy Heart (NY, LA)

December 18

• Avatar (conventional 3D theaters and IMAX 3D)
• Did You Hear About the Morgans?
• Nine (NY, LA; wide: Dec. 25)
• The Young Victoria (limited; expands: Dec. 25)

December 23

• Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel
• Police, Adjective (limited)

December 25

• The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (limited)
• It’s Complicated
• Sherlock Holmes

December 30

• The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond (NY, LA)
• The White Ribbon (NY, LA)

O Mundo Imaginário do Doutor Parnassus

Ontem fui naquele evento onde colocam uma tela gigante no Jóquei Clube, na Gávea, Rio de Janeiro. (Cada ano eles mudam de nome, ano passado era Vivo Open Air, este ano virou Vale Open Air. Qual será o nome ano que vem?) Era a pré estreia do novo filme do diretor Terry Gilliam, “O Mundo Imaginário do Doutor Parnassus”!

A trama: nos dias de hoje, uma trupe teatral no estilo daquelas que a gente vê em filmes medievais circula por aí. É dirigida pelo Doutor Parnassus, que tem um misterioso pacto com o diabo.

Terry Gilliam tem um estilo visual único – aliás, foi por isso que escolhi este filme para ver na tela gigante. As imagens de sonho, no tal “mundo imaginário” do título, são fantásticas. Figurinos, fotografia, direção de arte, efeitos especiais, o cuidado do diretor neste sentido é enorme, vide obras como “Brazil”, “As Aventuras do Barão Munchausen”, “Os 12 Macacos” e “Medo e Delírio”. Os efeitos especiais de seus filmes já nos tiravam o fôlego numa era pré-computador, e agora, com os ilimitados poderes dos cgi, a sua criatividade atinge patamares nunca antes imaginados.

Gilliam é muito talentoso, mas é um cara azarado. Frequentemente, seus filmes têm problemas na produção. Se “Munchausen” chegou a ser cancelado antes de finalizado, e o filme sobre Dom Quixote que ele tentou fazer nem mesmo ficou pronto, “Doutor Parnassus” perdeu um de seus atores principais. Heath Ledger, que faz Tony, morreu durante as filmagens. Mas a solução encontrada foi muito boa: chamaram outros três atores diferentes, e cada vez que Tony entrava no “mundo imaginário”, ele mudava de cara. Talvez em outro tipo de filme isso não funcionasse, mas aqui, ficou genial! Assim, temos, além de Ledger, outros três Tonys, interpretados por Johnny Depp, Jude Law e Colin Farrell. Além deles, o elenco conta com Christopher Plummer como o Doutor Parnassus, Tom Waits, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer e Andrew Garfield.

O resultado final do filme é meio confuso, não sei se a morte de Ledger teve algo a ver com isso. Mesmo assim, o filme merece ser visto, nem que seja só pelo visual deslumbrante.

Por fim, acredito que todos aqui sabem que Terry Gilliam é ex-membro do Monty Python, lendário grupo de humor inglês. Pois bem, uma das cenas é a cara do Monty Python, aquela que mostra policiais cantando e dançando. Muito boa esta cena!

2006: Inside Man di Spike Lee

Meritorio grande successo ai botteghini di tutto il mondo, lodi a non finire da parte della critica.

Prime sequenze: quattro persone travestite entrano nell’affollata hall di una prestigiosa banca. Nel giro di pochi secondi, i rapinatori sono padroni della situazione e in più con 50 ostaggi.
Cosa c’è di più visto sullo schermo? In più di cento anni di cinema quanti esempi di “bank robbery” (come dicono a Hollywood) sono stati realizzati?

Eppure qui ci troviamo di fronte a qualcosa di nuovo, qualcosa di molto originale e sorprendente. Non stupisce, visto chi è il regista.
Basandosi su un sceneggiatura particolarmente brillante ed intelligente (l’autore è un esordiente), Spike Lee ha diretto con evidente entusiasmo un film eccezionalmente non ricavato da un suo copione (il filmmaker afro-americano appartiene alla scuola “do it yourself”, “fa’ tutto da solo”). Non smentisce però la sua fama di realizzatore di lavori dinamici e controversi che smuovono il pubblico (e nell‘opera non manca la critica sociale: polizia, mass media, pregiudizi razziali…).
Inside Man (cioè “L’uomo che sta dentro”) non è un semplice tipico thriller: è un film che ti spinge a guardare dietro le apparenze, un film in cui niente è come sembra, un lavoro in cui le false piste abbondano e solo lentamente e gradualmente si comprende il perché le cose accadono.
Un poliziesco (ma forse è riduttivo definirlo tale) che finalmente non si basa su sparatorie e inseguimenti di auto, ma su una “idea”.
Un’opera «in cui nulla è vero ciò che sembra all’inizio, in cui nessun dettaglio è trascurabile, in cui nessun indizio è casuale» (sono le frasi di lancio del film e questa volta la pubblicità non mente).

Un lavoro che, se avesse avuto una maggiore stringatezza nella parte centrale, avrebbe potuto aspirare al titolo di piccolo gioiello del genere e che è senz’altro da consigliare agli amanti dell’intrattenimento puro che non obblighi il cervello al momentaneo letargo.
Il film è impreziosito da un montaggio serrato, una colonna sonora funzionale al massimo, una fotografia e una scenografia da dieci e lode.

Stellare il cast.
Da Denzel Washington (alla quarta collaborazione con il regista afroamericano, ma qui offre una performance semplicemente corretta limitandosi a rifare se stesso) a Willem Dafoe (con la sua sorprendente capacità di adattarsi completamente al ruolo che interpreta). I migliori in campo sono senza dubbio Clive Owen (sempre intenso e dalla presenza imponente, da molti critici giustamente avvicinato ad H.Bogart, R.Mitchum, S.Connery…) e Christopher Plummer (che dopo aver partecipato a più di cento film conferma la sua straordinaria bravura disegnando perfettamente il personaggio affidatogli). Dà lustro al film la presenza, sempre gradita, di Jodie Foster: appare in poche scene ma raramente l’abbiamo vista così seducente, sofisticata e sexi. Presenza magnetica la sua: poche attrici “riempiono” lo schermo come lei. 

pubblicato su Cinema4Stelle

sito ufficiale

“ Up “ prezinta povestea unui batran, Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asner) si a sotiei sale, Ellie.
Visul oricarui copil dupa vizionarea unui scurt metraj alb-negru la cinematograf este acela de a deveni un aventurier, sa viziteze America de Sud si cascada Paradise . Carl o intalneste pe Ellie ( atunci copii ) si devin cei mai buni prieteni, ani mai tarziu devenind sot si sotie.
Inceputul filmului, arata povestea celor doi indragostiti, Ellie o adevarata aventuriera care stie sa savureze fiecare clipa din viata iar Carl, putin introvertit se lasa indrumat de aceasta in “marea aventura” a vietii !
Neputand avea urmasi, acestia isi traiesc viata in continuare, inca visand la calatoria lor catre cascada Paradise. Lucrurile cotidiene insa ii impiedica, astfel ca peste ani, se vad batrani si inca neimplinindu-si visul, necompletand cartea lui Ellie “ The Adventure Book” . Ellie moare, iar Carl ramane singur, intr-o casa plina de amintiri.
Insa atunci cand orasul lor devine un centru urban, Carl nu vrea sa se mute din casa lui si a lui Ellie. Ghinionul lui, vine o data cu un cercetas urban, Russel, care trebuie sa ajute oamenii in varsta, dar il trimite la plimbare in josul strazii. Carl trebuie sa se mute intr-un azil de batrani, insa nu poate sa se desparta de casa si nici de visul sau si a lui Ellie de o viata. Asa ca singura solutie este aceea de a umple peste 5 000 de baloane cu heliu ca sa ridice casa de la sol si sa plece in zbor ( “ Up “ ! ). Surpriza cea mare, e atunci cand Russel(Jordan Nagai), cercetasul urban, se intoarce la domnul Fredricksen acasa si este prins la usa in timp ce isi ia zborul. “Aventura” incepe cu aceste doua personaje, in calatoria lor spre America de Sud.
Pe parcursul povestii, Carl si Russel se intalnesc cu o rasa de caini care cu ajutorul lesei in care sunt prinsi pot vorbi si sunt trimisi special pentru a prinde o pasare rara multicolora numita dragastos de cercetas : “ Kevin “. Carl se vede pus in situatia de a alege intre a il salva pe Kevin si de a-si indeplini visul, acela de a locui langa Cascada. Desigur, ca in orice film de animatie, personajul principal face ceea ce trebuie, asa ca isi risca viata se infrunta cu personajul negativ , Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), un aventurier acuzat de frauda in urma cu mai mult de 2 decenii . Dug(Bob Peterson), goldenretreiverul vorbitor li se alatura celor doi devenind prieteni. Astfel, Carl continua povestea lui Ellie, impreuna cu Russel, copilul cu acelasi spirit de aventura pe care il aveau si ei odinioara. ( si desigur + Dug. )

Esenta acestui film este exact acest personaj episodic , Ellie care intr-un fel sau altul ii sugereaza lui Carl sa continue aceasta aventura.  ( “ Thanks for the adventure – now go have a new one!  Love, Ellie.” ) Sfarsitul este cu adevarat impresionant si pune capat unei povesti uimitoare despre dragoste, felul in care iti traiesti viata si prietenie. O alta productie marca Pixar si Disney Pictures, o colaborare de exceptie ( dupa parerea mea ) si merita 10/10. O animatie pentru toata familia + umorul marca Disney & Pixar Animation Studios.
+ ca este 3D si se vede fenomenal din cinema cu niste ochelari B-)

Casa de productie : Disney & Pixar Animation Studio
Director : Pete Docter; Bob Peterson
Release Date: 12 June 2009
Genre : Animation | Family | Comedy | Adventure
Durata : 96 min

Autor recenzie : twisted.mind
Data : 27 noiembrie 2009
Nota : 10+/10

Bonus : Quotes

[Dug is suddenly attacked by Kevin, who shrieks in Dug's face after pinning him to the ground]
Hey, that is a bird! I have never seen one up close, but this is a bird. May I take your bird back to camp as my prisoner?
Carl Fredricksen: Yes, yes, take it! And on the way, learn how to bark like a real dog!
Dug: I can bark.
[barks]
Dug: And this is howling.
[howls]
Dug: [Kevin screeches]
Russell: Can we keep him? Please, please, please?
[Carl says "No."]
Russell: But it’s a TALKING DOG! ( his expression was hilarious =)) )

Carl Fredricksen: You’d better get up, Russell. Or else, the tigers will come and eat you.
Russell: Tigers don’t live in South America. Zoology.

Carl Fredricksen: Tell your boss he can *have* my house.
Construction Foreman: Really?
Carl Fredricksen: Yeah. When I’m dead!

Carl Fredricksen: This is crazy. I finally meet my childhood hero and he’s trying to kill us. What a joke.
Dug: Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, “I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead.” Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.

Starring the voices of Ed Asner and Christopher Plummer

Rated PG

Total Running Time: 96 minutes

Few non-animated movies have as much heart as this movie does.  As did Wall-E before it, Up harnessed the emotions in me that make me feel damn good once I turn the TV off. 

Many folks may not be interested in seeing animated movies as the stigma might be that they’re “cartoons” or “they’re for kids”.  Hell… if half the adults in this world had the same values portrayed in movies like Up… humankind would have a much better track record.

Up starts pretty slow… but this slow time allows the main character to be built.  In a period of about 15 minutes, we see Carl Fredricksen go from a small child to a tired old man.  Up effortlessly portrays in this 15 minutes how quickly life can go by and if we’re not careful, we may not enjoy them as much as we could have.  Carl and his wife share an incredible love for adventure and from the moment they met each other as kids… they vowed to one day make it to Paradise Falls in South America: the epitome of their adventurer dreams.  Unfortunately, life gets in the way.  Despite numerous efforts to save money to go… they have to dip into their savings time and time again to help pay for things and before they realize it… they’re too old.  Then, in a blink of an eye… she’s gone.

Up to this point, Up doesn’t seem to me like it’s going to be that great of a movie.  I’m an emotional person and tears were welling up in my eyes as I went, “What the freak?  I thought this was going to be funny!”

Well… I was fortunately correct in my assumption as Up gradually gets to the moving and accomplishes what it was set out to do… and that’s “put a happy feeling in your tummy”.

At the final moments before Carl is forced into a retirement community, he rips the only home he’s ever known from its foundations aided from about a million helium filled balloons.  His destination:  Paradise Falls… to fulfill the lifelong dream he and his late wife had shared for so long.

With the surprise addition of a pudgy kid named Russell to his floating, runaway house, Mr. Fredricksen is forced to realize it’s never to late in life to start a new adventure and the fact that age is just a number… OLD PEOPLE CAN HAVE FUN TOO DAMMIT!!

I loved this movie.  Last year when Wall-E wasn’t nominated for “Best Picture” (although it won “Best Animated Movie”) I was a little put out because I think that animated movies get pigeon-holed a little.  The message that a lot of these animated movies portray are the same values that movies like “A Wonderful Life” did back when it won Best Picture back in ­­­1947.  Now movies, actresses and actors that win revolve around films portraying violence, murder, hatred and the like.  When is it going to be time to give movies like Up the credit it deserves?

By gosh… let’s give the award to a movie that depresses the poop out of you rather than a feel good movie like this one.

Gimme a break.

So… In the spirit of Thanksgiving… I give Up FIVE out of FIVE turkeys with tan lines:

I wouldn’t recommend renting this movie… I would recommend buying it.

Parnassus – L’uomo che voleva ingannare il diavolo

Film presentato fuori concorso al Festival di Cannes 2009

Date e orari delle proiezioni:

• giovedì 17 dicembre 2009, ore 21:00

Scheda:

• Paese: Canada, Francia, Gran Bretagna, Stati Uniti
• Durata: 2h e 02′
• Genere: Fantastico
• Regia: Terry Gilliam
• Anno: 2009
• Distributore: Moviemax Italia

Sinossi

Il Dottor Parnassus viaggia per il mondo alla guida del suo straordinario ‘Imaginarium’, fiera itinerante che offre ai suoi spettatori la possibilità di vivere esperienze fantastiche e che travalicano la normale realtà grazie ad uno specchio magico in suo possesso. Parnassus è anche in grado di guidare l’immaginazione del prossimo grazie ad un patto che ha stretto con Mr. Nick, alias il Diavolo in persona. Il problema è che Mr. Nick inizia a pretendere da Parnassus il compenso che gli era stato promesso, ovvero l’anima dell’affascinante figlia Valentina. Per evitare di perdere l’amata figlia Parnassus negozia un nuovo patto: Valentina sarà di chi sedurrà cinque anime. Ad aiutare Parnassus nella sua opera sarà un nuovo arrivato dell’Imaginarium’, Tony, misterioso personaggio salvato dal cappio e dal passato misterioso, che pare affascinato più dalla bella Valentina che dalla filosofia degli artisti di strada…

Sito ufficiale: http://www.parnassus.it/

J’ai trouvé les critiques assez sévères à propos du dernier film de Terry Gilliam. À les entendre, le cinéaste anglais n’aurait gagné ses lettres de noblesse qu’avec Brazil pour ensuite s’embourber dans une réputation d’artiste maudit dont les films auraient moins d’intérêt que leur making-off (on se souvient des fiascos que furent Munchausen et surtout Don Quichotte dont le tournage fut interrompu). Moi qui ne suis pas particulièrement fan du bonhomme, je lui reconnais tout de même une signature et des thèmes qui lui sont propres. L’Imaginarium du Docteur Parnassus est un exemple parfait : lors du visionnage, on ne peut attribuer l’imaginaire qui se déploie sous nos yeux à personne d’autre qu’à Terry Gilliam. Même Tim Burton, à qui on le compare souvent, ne se serait pas envolé aussi loin dans l’abstraction. Alors, pourquoi ôter le titre d’ « auteur » à un cinéaste dont le style est reconnaissable entre mille ?

L’histoire nous emmène en Angleterre parmi les saltimbanques d’un spectacle de rue dirigé par le Docteur Parnassus (Christopher Plummer). Capable de matérialiser les rêves d’autrui, le vieil homme est pourtant loin de rameuter les foules. Les temps sont durs, d’autant plus que sa fille (Lily Cole) approche des 16 ans. Or, il y a des années de cela, il fit un pacte avec le diable (Tom Waits) et lui promit de lui donner l’âme de sa progéniture une fois atteint l’âge en question. C’est alors qu’un soir, la troupe tombe sur Tony (Heath Ledger), un escroc qui tente de remettre sur pied le commerce de Parnassus et, tant qu’à faire, à briser la malédiction qui plane sur sa fille.

Comme toujours chez Gilliam, le scénario mérite un grand coup de sécateur. Bien que touffu, il n’est pas pour autant à ranger parmi les désastres inextricables qu’étaient Les Frères Grimm ou Tideland. L’Imaginarium fonctionne sur l’opposition traditionnelle entre rêve et réalité. Ceci dit, chez Gilliam la différence est difficile à faire tant la réalité ressemble au rêve : des nains et des magiciens s’y promènent, de même que le diable qui parfois passe faire un petit coucou. On serait donc plus tenté de parler d’opposition entre rêve et cauchemar.

Comme toujours, le cinéaste exploite son thème fétiche : l’imagination. En cela, le film fait figure de mise en abyme. L’Imaginarium est un film-nuage, aussi merveilleux qu’insaisissable. Le théâtre de Parnassus rappelle celui des films de Méliès. Gilliam se présente en hériter, et sa fantaisie se veut tout aussi débridée. Les moments les plus merveilleux du film éclatent lorsque le personnage d’Heath Ledger accompagne les clients de l’imaginarium de l’autre côté du miroir. Dans les rêves de Monsieur et  Madame Tout-le-monde, on croise des friandises géantes, des échelles qui montent jusqu’au ciel, des gendarmes en bas résille et des rivières qui se transforment en serpent. C’est extravagant, incohérent, et pourtant on se laisse embarquer. C’est dans la folie pure que le génie de Gilliam atteint son paroxysme.

En revanche, lorsqu’on retombe dans la réalité/cauchemar, l’intrigue patine. Les personnages tombent un à un dans la caricature et finissent par complètement nous échapper. Heath Ledger est seul à faire exception. Le décès de l’acteur en plein milieu du tournage aurait pu pousser le film à rejoindre Don Quichotte dans la fosse des films maudits. Le choix de recourir à trois acteurs différents pour l’incarner dans les scènes rêvées (Johnny Depp, Jude Law et Colin Farrell) confère à son personnage une dimension schismatique inattendue et féérique. C’est finalement quand Gilliam fait preuve des audaces les plus extravagantes que son cinéma gagne en intérêt. Après tout, l’art est un langage universel auquel les fous ont aussi accès. Je déplore d’ailleurs qu’il y en ait si peu.

‘

THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS (UK-Canada-Fr., 2009) R. : Terry Gilliam ; Sc. : T. Gilliam, Charles McKeown ; Ph. : Nicola Pecorini ; M. : Jeff Danna, Mychael Danna ; Int. : Heath Ledger / Johnny Depp / Jude Law / Colin Farrell (Tony), Christopher Plummer (Dr. Parnassus), Lily Cole (Valentina), Tom Waits (Mr. Nick), Andrew Garfield (Anton), Verne Troyer (Percy) . Couleurs, 122mn.

Oscar bait.  That sums up this movie.  I’m sure it’s a good movie, but you don’t hire Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer and Paul Giamatti without the Oscars on your mind.  Also the fact that it’s about the drama in Leo Tolstoy’s personal life doesn’t hurt.  I won’t pretend that I know anything about Tolstoy, but War & Peace is somewhere on my list of books to read (sure it is).

And look it’s Octavia of the Julii.

Click poster to watch trailer.

From Apple.

- izi

Thanks to New York Magazine’s Vulture blog for posting this, this morning. It totally made my day.

Excesiva. Barroca. Desmesurada. La última película de Terry Gilliam, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, es todo eso. Y mucho más. Es una obra maestra. Es una película imprescindible. Porque Terry Gilliam ya ha demostrado varias veces (Brazil, The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys) que posee un universo absolutamente propio y eso es algo que casi ha dejado de ocurrir en el cine moderno. Hoy lo que única que importa es la taquilla, así que las sagas y los remakes, que son los que garantizan recaudaciones de nueve cifras son el producto que manda. Y sobre esta ola de mercantilismo asfixiante, un creador como Terry Gilliam tiene que pelear incansablemente para llevar a la pantalla un nuevo y casi siempre desaforado experimento. Esta vez, por suerte, lo ha conseguido.

Hablando de la película en sí, aunque el reclamo publicitario (lógico, por otra parte) es que se trata de la última película del malogrado Heath Ledger, lo cierto es que para mí este película se resume en dos nombres: Christopher Plummer y Tom Waits. Ambos, Parnassus y Mr. Nick, establecen una relación tan especial, tan mágica y tan divertida (en cierto sentido) que cada diálogo resulta impagable. En especial, me ha sorprendido muchísimo y muy gratamente volver a ver al gran Christopher Plummer (a quien echaba mucho de menos en la gran pantalla) en un papel tan hermoso como difícil, a la altura de su talento.

Heath Ledger, merece la pena comentarlo, está bien. Incluso podría decir que muy bien. Y su desafortunada desaparición, cuando aún no había terminado el rodaje, llevó al equipo a una solución tan ingeniosa y brillante que mejora incluso el planteamiento original. Y de todos los Heath Ledger posibles… me quedo con Johnny Depp (tendréis que ver la peli para seguirme en esto… y de hecho es lo que trato de que hagáis!!!).

En fin, no os perdáis Doctor Parnassus, dejaos introducir en el mundo circense y alucinado de este gran creador y descubrid a este personaje, tan maravilloso como trágico, consciente (como nadie) de que el universo sigue existiendo porque, en algún lugar, alguien está contando una historia.

My name is Dalton Russell. Pay strict attention to what I say because I choose my words carefully and I never repeat myself. I’ve told you my name: that’s the Who. The Where could most readily be described as a prison cell. But there’s a vast difference between being stuck in a tiny cell and being in prison…

– Dalton Russell

Considered Spike Lee’s most critically and commercially successful movie of his career, Inside Man is not your average bank heist movie. I own this movie on DVD for a while, but I never cracked it open and watched it. I have given it to former co-workers to watch, but I never did because it came out of a subscription I had with Columbia House a couple of years ago. Watching it now, I don’t know why I waited this long.

At first, you think that this would be a typical bank robbery, but it’s not. A masterful criminal, Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) and his crew holds up a Manhattan Trust Bank disguising themselves as painters armed with AK-47s and smoke bombs.

Det. Fraizer, (Denzel Washington), a hostage negotiator that is in some hot water over a drug dealer, check cashing and $100 thousand missing dollars is assigned to the case with his partner, Det. Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor). They rendezvous with Capt. Darius (Willem Dafoe) to let the duo know about what is going on.

The robbers usher to the hostages to the bank vault level to confiscate their keys, cell phones and clothes. The hostages are asked to change into the identical painter coveralls the robbers have on. These are not your ordinary robbers.

With all the news coverage about the robbery spreads to the news, the chairman of the bank, Mr. Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer) calls a “fixer” Madeline White (Jodie Foster) to protect special items in his safety deposit box.

They all come together to try to diffuse the situation. There are more layers to the movie when Dalton strings Frazier along like a puppet. He always stays one step ahead of him. It’s a cat and mouse game.

Nothing is what it seems to be when the purpose of the robbers is not about money, but it’s about a person getting their due justice. It’s a morality play that is reminiscent of the legend of Robin Hood.

The performances were solid across the board. The dialogue is quick and biting. The action keeps you on your toes with twists and turns.

The only gripe I have about the film is that the film wrapped up to nice and neat with any loose ends are solved. Nothing is left to the imagination of the audience to think about when the end credits begin.

Judgment: A solid psychological thriller that keeps you on your toes.

Rating: ****

Carl Federickson (Edward Asner) was at the cinema watching a movie about his favorite idol Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), who is a famous explorer at Paradise Falls. Charles Muntz was later stripped of his merits at he later swore that he will capture and return with the tropical bird. On his way back home imitating his idol, he passes by a hut and heard sounds of girl with the same passion imitating his hero. He snuck in and found lots of newspaper cutting about his idol.

The girl named Ellie startle him as he as looking at the info and later made Carl a member of the club. They got a lot well and later both of them got married. The movie then kind of fast forward and they both grew old. Both of them wanted kids but Ellie was unable to conceive a child when they went to a health check-up. However, they move on with it. Ellie’s dream since young was to built a house near a waterfall in Paradise Falls and Carl bought 2 plane tickets to fulfill her dreams and try to cheer her up. The plan fails as she passed away.

After Ellie passed away, Carl lives on his own doing the same old daily routines. However at his residential area, the development has taken place except for his house which he refuses to sell. Later a wilderness explorer named Russell (Jordan Nagai) came knocking at the door to offer him some help so that he can complete his task of helping an elderly and be promoted to the Senior Wilderness Explorer. He was being pestered by Russell and Carl sends him to search for a snipe which does not exist.

A contractor accidentally nudges his mailbox, he ran over try to protect his precious item he built with Ellie during younger days. A worker tried to fix it for him but he refuses and hit the contractor with his walking stick. The worker got injured and he was summoned by the court and was ordered to stay in the old folk home.

At night when he reaches home, he was reluctant to shift there and came up with a brilliant plan. He stood up the whole night and filled up thousands of balloon with helium gases. His house uprooted and sail away. Just when everything was sorted out, someone knock the door. Carl was surprised to find Russell at the porch feeling terrified and later invited him inside the house. Things went bad to worse for Carl and there was a thunderstorm ahead. He fainted and Russell steered them out of trouble.

Russell was relieved when Carl awakens as he thought he was dead. Russell explained what has happened to him and when he looks outside of the window, he found out that they where at some mysterious place. Carl later realizes that they were in Paradise Falls but was quite far apart from the waterfall, the location of Ellie’s dream. They walked all the way there by tying the floating house to their body (I don’t understand how 1 elderly and 1 kid can hold on to a floating house) Russell then told Carl that he needs to ease his nature call and this is when he adopted a tropical bird and named it Kevin which he thought is was the snipe which Carl had lost.

Carl was stunned when Russell brought it too him and later he tried to chase it away but it kept following them. Later they also stumble across a dog named Dug (Bob Peterson) which can speak human language with the aid of a machine. Dug was supposedly tracking Kevin and try to separate itself. Dug also made Carl his master with his consent.

A group of dogs found out that Dug has found the tropical bird and went after them. The group of dogs tracked them using a GPS like system which was installed on Dug. Carl and company were later brought to a cave hideout and this is when he met his childhood hero Charles Muntz. Charles invited him for dinner and later known that he had the bird but when Carl was reluctant to release the information on where he kept the bird, he show signs of murdering. Carl and company fled the scene with the help of Dug but Kevin got injured during the escape.

Kevin was trying to go back to her chicks (yeah, Russell named it wrongly) but was unable to travel due to the injury. Carl felt sympathize and promise Russell to send her back. Charles tracked them down once again using an airship. He sets Carl’s house on fire, forcing him to choose between rescuing an injured bird or the house. He chooses the house while Charles retrieves the bird and left.

Carl succeeded to land the house where his wife wanted all along and settle down. He then found his wife’s memento and took a look inside. It reminds him of the memory lanes and there was a message of appreciation from his wife to him. Russell who was disappointed that Carl’s decision of not rescuing Kevin and later went on his own. Carl later when to fetch Russell and later realized he went after Charles using some helium balloons. He chucked all the stuffs in the house which he treasures very much and went after Russell who is trying to save Kevin.

Russell manages to break into the airship but was caught by the dogs. He was tied up and was about to be thrown down to Earth by Charles but was being saved by Carl in the nick of time. Carl then promised Russell that he will saved Kevin and asked him to stay put in the house as he will take care of the matter with Dug.

Carl took care of Charles while Dug took care of the other dogs. Carl and company manage to free the bird but Carl lost his house in the process (short summary of what happen as if I elaborate it will be a spoiler). Carl then send the bird back to its chicks and Russell back to home. Carl even attended the Senior Wilderness Explorer ceremony and presented Russell with the merit he has wanted for a long time.

Carl is now residing in the airship with Dug. As for his lost house, it has landed in Paradise Falls where his wife has envisioned it all along.

The movie has a simple storyline and very few characters. The movie can be summarized into 2 old men, a fat kid, some talking dogs, a house and a bird at Paradise Falls. It will be a brilliant movie to watch in 3D has it has bright colors of colorful balloons and some really awesome graphics with fine artworks.

Dir: Terry Gilliam, 2009

The Imaginarium is a shoddy prop mirror, a cardboard frame containing two sheets of reflective plastic which form a kind of curtain. But when you step through the mirror, you are transported to a wondrous realm where your imagination is unchained and allowed to run riot. It could be seen as a metaphor for Terry Gilliam’s films. They always appear gritty and lived-in, lacking that Hollywood sheen. But if you allow yourself to step into the film, you can be rewarded with great depths of imagination. In The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, however, we seem to looking at the mirror from the other side. On the surface it’s all polish, that Hollywood sheen. And if you step through, you’ll be lucky to find anything at all.

The titular Doctor (Christopher Plummer) leads a theatre troupe, consisting of his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), dwarf Percy (Verne Troyer) and leading man Anton (Andrew Garfield), around London in their combination stage/gypsy caravan. In alleyways, outside nightclubs, even in a Homebase car park, they invite members of the public to step through the mirror into their own imagination. It transpires that this is all part of a competition between Parnassus and the devil (also known as Mr. Nick, played by Tom Waits). Parnassus thinks he can save people’s souls through the power of imagination, while the devil thinks he can ensnare them through their vices.

There’s another, more sinister side to the competition. As Anton tells the audience at the beginning of each performance, Parnassus is thousands of years old. He achieved everlasting life through a bargain with the devil. In exchange for immortality, any children Parnassus begets will belong to Mr. Nick once they reach sixteen. Valentina’s sixteenth birthday is fast approaching, and in an attempt to save her, Parnassus enters another deal with the devil. The first to claim five souls wins, and the winner decides Valentina’s fate.

Much of the buzz surrounding The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has centred around Heath Ledger’s performance as Tony, it being his last before his tragic death. Ledger brings a certain oily charisma to the apparent charity worker the troupe finds hanging under a bridge. Unfortunately, Ledger died before completing principal photography. In a bit of creative problem solving, Gilliam cast three other actors as Tony. Each seems to personify a different aspect of Tony’s character as he steps through the mirror: Johnny Depp is the charisma; Jude Law the selfishness; and Colin Farrell the womanising.

It’s an interesting idea, and works well within the film’s internal logic. But each of the three actors portraying a single trait, and when compared to Ledger’s more nuanced performance, they all come out as one-dimensional and uninteresting. This is perhaps the film’s biggest problem: Ledger’s death and the casting of Depp, Law and Farrell has given the character of Tony an almost mystical air. The problem is, Tony isn’t a particularly extraordinary character, and after the tour de force that was Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight, audiences may come away disappointed.

The rest of the cast doesn’t fare much better. While Christopher Plummer effectively combines nobility with dejection to give a surprisingly sympathetic performance, and Andrew Garfield’s easy charm works well against Ledger’s smarm, Tom Waits’ phoned-in performance does not impress, and Verne Troyer does dwarfs a disservice by displaying no acting ability whatsoever.

The same unevenness comes through in the film’s visuals. At times it looks stunning. A tracking shot up a decaying, quasi-Buddhist temple, for instance, or a giant stone bust of Parnassus bursting up from the ground. But, disappointingly for a Terry Gilliam film, these moments are rare. Most of the time the production design is bland and uninspired. It’s not bad; it just lacks Gilliam’s visual wit. Maybe it’s the overreliance on CGI; Gilliam is not a director who works well with computers. The charm of his earlier work, such as Jabberwocky or Time Bandits, came from the physically constructed sets and props. They gave the films soul. And soul is exactly what CGI has denied Gilliam’s latest.

Thematically, too, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a mess. Gilliam and co-writer Charles McKeown want to say something profound about human nature, but never quite get round to it. At one point it seems the film is about the importance of stories. Or is it about the power of the imagination? Or maybe redemption? Unfortunately, it’s impossible to tell, as each potential theme gets buried underneath a series of chaotic set pieces. Ultimately, the film lacks the direction of Gilliam’s early work. Even The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, another film fit to burst with elaborate set pieces, was tied together by a singular purpose.

In some ways, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus treads the same ground as Neil Gaiman’s Sandman comic series. Both deal with the power of stories and the imagination, set against the backdrop of the real world and various fantastical realms. But, while Gaiman weaved a dense narrative with dazzling artwork and rich characterisation, Gilliam has constructed a thin veneer of visual sparkle with little underneath. All we can do is wait until he steps through to the other side of the mirror.

Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) besitzt die außergewöhnliche Gabe, Menschen in wundervolle Fantasiewelten zu entführen. Zusammen mit seinem Wandertheater lädt er das Publikum ein, mittels eines magischen Spiegels dem banalen Alltag zu entfliehen und in ein Universum unbegrenzter Fantasien einzutreten. Dr. Parnassus wird jedoch von einem dunklen Geheimnis verfolgt. Für Unsterblichkeit und ewige Jugend hat der unermüdliche Spieler einen Pakt mit dem Teufel in Gestalt von Mr. Nick (Tom Waits) abgeschlossen. Dr. Parnassus‘ hinreißende Tochter Valentina (Lily Cole) ist dafür an ihrem 16. Geburtstag Mr. Nick als Gegenleistung versprochen. Nun, da dieser Tag näher rückt und Valentina sich in den charmanten Außenseiter Tony (Heath Ledger) verliebt hat, versucht Dr. Parnassus verzweifelt, seine Tochter vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren. Die Theatertruppe um Dr. Parnassus macht sich deshalb zu einer aufregenden Reise gegen die Zeit auf – in eine surreale und berauschende Welt voller Wunder und Verlockungen.

Nach der „Monty-Python“-Kultreihe, „12 Monkeys“ und „Brothers Grimm“ stellt Regisseur Terry Gilliam ein modernes, mitreißendes Märchen mit einem beeindruckenden, internationalen Cast vor. Nach dem tragischen Tod von Hauptdarsteller Heath Ledger während der Dreharbeiten vervollständigen seine Freunde Johnny Depp, Jude Law und Colin Farrell die facettenreiche Figur des Tony.

Filmstart: 07. Januar 2010

(Bild und Textquelle: http://concorde-film.medianetworx.de)

“9 – A Salvação”, a fantasia épica e pós-apocalíptica do diretor Shane Acker, é, na verdade, a versão longa-metragem de seu curta homônimo, indicado ao Oscar em 2005. O roteiro dessa é de Pamela Pettler, que também escreveu o ótimo “Casa Monstro”. Completando o time de estrelas por trás das câmeras, a produção ficou a cargo de Timur Bekmambetov – diretor de “O Procurado” – e ninguém menos que Tim Burton. A participação de Burton em “9 – A Salvação” gerou um imenso ‘buzz’ em torno do filme, o que acabou sendo um forte chamariz para os expectadores nas salas de cinema mundo afora. Dublando a animação, temos figuras igualmente conhecidas como Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connely, John C. Reilly, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau e Crispin Glover.

Ta bom pra você? Até estaria, mas o filme – para o nosso deleite – não se sustenta só através desses nomes famosos. O mérito dessa animação é a combinação de 3 elementos preciosos: o estilo visual peculiar de Burton, as sequências de ação de Bekmambetov e a história idealizada por Acker. A síntese disso tudo é uma produção cinemaográfica imperdível, inteligente e cativante. Mas não se engane com o aspecto amigável do protagonista 9 e seus amigos; eles são simbólicos, assim como quase tudo no filme. Estamos diante de uma animação totalmente voltada para o público adulto. Toda a ambientação catastófrica, as referências claras ao nazismo, a brutalidade de algumas sequências e até um cadáver (sim, um cadáver!!!) em ‘cena’ corroboram esse aspecto.

Quando 9 desperta, ele se encontra em um mundo pós-apocalíptico onde não há mais humanos. Explorando esse cenário cataclísmico, descobre uma pequena comunidade de outros como ele, se refugiando de assustadoras máquinas que perambulam pela Terra em meio à extinção de todo o resto de vida. 9 convence o grupo de que esconder-se não adiantará por muito tempo. Para sobreviver, eles precisariam tomar a ofensiva da situação e ir em busca de respostas, e entender por que as máquinas querem destruí-los. É então que eles aprendem que o futuro da civilização pode depender somente deles.

No entanto, em meio a todo esse caos e destruição, ao longo de “9 – A Salvação”, nos vemos sumariamente envolvidos, tamanho o carisma dos 9 pequeninos bonecos de pano. Cada um com características bem específicas, estereótipos, que foram muito bem explorados nos cartazes de divulgação que você pode conferir na galeria ao final desse post. O aspecto gráfico é outro ponto alto. A tecnologia de animação de que os estúdios dispões hoje em dia, permitiram a criação de um ambiente igualmente belo e estéril. E nele, se desenrolam envolventes cenas de ação, com pitadas de heroísmo e humor. Assista-o em uma boa sala de projeção ou em seu home theater fodástico e se delicie com a riqueza de efeitos sonoros, satisfação garantida!

O Ogro recomenda e, assim que sair em dvd, esse é um filme certo de estar em uma estante aqui da Caverna! Se liga no trailer:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

A new era in animated storytelling begins on 9.9.09. Visionary filmmakers Tim Burton (The Corpse Bride, Charlie and The Chocolate Factory) and Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted, Nightwatch) join forces to produce wunderkind director Shane Acker’s distinctively original and thrilling tale. 9 stars Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Martin Landau, Christopher Plummer and Crispin Glover and features the music of Danny Elfman.

When 9 (The Lord of the Ring’s Elijah Wood) first comes to life, he finds himself in a post-apocalyptic world. All humans are gone, and it is only by chance that he discovers a small community of others like him taking refuge from fearsome machines that roam the earth intent on their extinction. Despite being the neophyte of the group, 9 convinces the others that hiding will do them no good. They must take the offensive if they are to survive, and they must discover why the machines want to destroy them in the first place. As they’ll soon come to learn, the very future of civilization may depend on them. –© Focus Features

A film about the final days of Russian author Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace, Anna Karenina) may sound like a bore to the average moviegoer, and indeed, The Last Station is admittedly a very bookish, Merchant Ivory sort of film. But it’s also utterly engrossing, superbly acted, and full of big ideas that ring very true. It was a joy to watch this film and I’d be surprised if it doesn’t pick up a respectable amount of awards in the coming months.

The film boasts one of the best casts of the year and features incredible performances from Christopher “Captain Von Trapp” Plummer as Tolstoy and Helen Mirren as his wife Sofya. James McAvoy also turns in one of his best performances, as the wide-eyed protégé/secretary of Tolstoy. Paul Giamatti is also quite good in a villainous role.

Based on the novel by Jay Parini, The Last Station is a film about the complex two-facedness of love; It’s about passion and devotion and the tension between what we think and what we feel. It’s about how love is often simultaneously our greatest source of joy and suffering, and how sometimes the love of an ideology can eclipse the love of another human being (to the detriment of all).

The film is about Tolstoy, a brilliant thinker and writer who at the start of the 20th century has a worldwide reputation and fan base. There is a growing “Tolstoyan” movement (a sort of utopian Christian anarchism) of which he is the figurehead. He is larger-than-life icon and celebrity, and yet he is also a husband and father. His wife (Mirren) wants him to love her first, and yet she fears that his “work,” his ideas and legacy, are a higher priority for him. She loves him deeply and wants him for her own, but near the end of his life he has become “the world’s.” The film is about the pain of loving someone so much that you don’t want to share them, and the problem of feeling closer to a conviction or ideal than an actual physical person or reality.

The Last Station tackles huge ideas that resonate deeply, but it does so in a way that never feels didactic. It’s an entertaining film, first and foremost. And yet it’s all so true. I think all of us deal with this tension between wanting to love and be loved but also wanting to make a difference in the world. Sometimes those desires are compatible and sometimes they are not. Relationships often fall victim in an individual’s pursuit of significance. Does it have to be that way? I doubt it. But more often than not it’s a truism of life: We can’t have our cake and eat it too. There’s only so much energy and will in any given life. Should it be focused on our love or our work? It’s a deep and unsettling question, and The Last Station is one of the best films I’ve seen that asks it.

Pixar return to the big screen with Up which has a lot to live up to.  Wall-E is, in my opinion, their best movie to date and the follow-up needed to be as stellar.  For the most part, I am pleased to say it delivers!

Up tells the story of an old man, Carl Fredericksen, who is now on his own and trying everything to avoid a one-way ticket to a local retirement village.  Having promised his wife that they would have an adventure and having failed to carry out his promise, he decides to up and leave, literally, by tying balloons to his house.  As anyone who has seen the trailer for Up will know his plan does not completely work as he finds a young wilderness explorer, Russell, on his front porch who joins him along for the ride.  Once he makes it to deepest, darkest South America, he finds himself embroiled in a battle of wits with former childhood hero, explorer Charles Muntz.

As with Wall-E, this is a film which I believe should appeal to adults and to children but that there is a very definite arc of interest.  The first 20 minutes and the final 30 minutes is likely to appear to adults whereas the middle section is much more slapstick and akin to films like Madagascar which are more likely to appeal to younger audiences.  This is a slight flaw as I found the middle section of this film to be a bit flabby and it struggled to fully keep my interest.  But that should in no way take away from the opening 20 minute sequence which shows Carl’s life and how he got to where he is when the film’s adventure begins.  It comprises predominantly montage but it is so well done and incredibly emotionally effective that I will admit that by the end of the montage, I had tears in my eyes. 

In fact, I will admit that I cried (a little) on not one but two ocassions as a throwback to the opening montage sequence in the last 30 minutes had me again.  The relationship between Carl and his wife is so well rendered it is such a shame that there isn’t more of it and it is a shame that rest of the film doesn’t have that level of depth.  The South American stuff is good knock-about comedy as Carl and Russell (whose relationship is simply not as interesting as those which have gone before) encounter a colourful stork like bird who quickly takes on the unlikely monicker Kevin and a talking dog, who sounds suspiciously like Alec Baldwin (but isn’t).  The animation and the story telling work well together and includes a creepy performance from Christopher Plummer as Muntz which is a good contrasting character to the sweet natured performance put in by Ed Asner as Carl.

I really enjoyed the film but I don’t think that it reaches the intelligence of Wall-E or the storytelling of Monster’s Inc.  Having seen the film in 3D, I struggled to see what I gained from seeing it in 3D.  I can’t say that I found the film particularly immersive other than the screen had more depth.  My view is that seeing the film in 2D is unlikely to spoil your enjoyment and you will enjoy it (you may even cry).

9/10

PS - One of the joys of seeing Pixar films at the cinema is the short films which play before the feature presentation.  These are always some of the most memorable and enjoyable parts of the whole viewing experience and Up’s featured short Partly Cloudy is no different.  Brilliant animating clouds and storks, it takes the child’s mythology of where babies come from to a whole new level.  It is worth making sure you are in your seat to see it or catching it on the DVD.

Whilst I impatiently wait for my Christmas pre-order of Pandorum, I thought I should review the highly anticipated ‘9‘, directed by Shane Acker and produced by Tim Burton. Which subsequently brings me to my first point. Many people thought that this was a direct piece of work from Burton, meaning they thought he was directing. Unfortunately that isn’t the case and as a result, many individuals were slightly disappointed by the film primarily due to the shoes which Acker, never in fact had to fill.

It is fair to admit, however that Acker did an amazing job considering ‘9‘ is his first feature-length film in which he played the role of director. Acker, who may be known for his CG animation in ‘Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King‘, took the role on head first and came out with some surprising results. Astonishingly, something that no one truly appreciated was the script, although to be fair, it was not that entirely illustrious and because of that, the actors voices weren’t really appreciated also. On the other hand, 9 proved positive amongst critics for it’s CGI.

The plot, whilst fairly original, lies within a post-apocalyptic world where the only questionable living things are a series of 9, doll-like creatures who are referred to only by number. It’s safe to say that this has hardly be attempted before, with a pretty impressive execution at that, but despite all this, I found the way the film was made less favourable. For a start, even though I severely enjoyed the trailer for ‘9′ I didn’t expect the quality of the CGI of the characters to be as it was. The landscapes and lighting on the other hand, were genius with an impressive amount of detail. After re-watching the film it appeared that the simplified CGI wasn’t so much as a bad thing as it was good, not being constantly distracted from the character profiles, or plot line, or the film score allowed me to focus especially on those things. Whether this was intended or not, I was still moved by the 79 minutes of film.

As I already mentioned the film score, I can say that it is uniquely poignant and similarly nonchalant, as if the score doesn’t need to live up to the film, as if in fact, the other way around. In some ways it’s similar to ‘‘The Dark Knight’s‘ score, in my mind, but during the actions scenes, it’s some of the better compilations I have ever heard; if you can comprehend a mixture of the awesomesauce of ‘Star Wars‘ and some random epic film with an equally representative epic score, then you’ll have a measurement of what I’m referring to. Kudos to Danny Elfman who pulls off yet another amazing soundtrack, only on the action part however, Deborah Lurie was brought in for the more orchestral sounds and her luscious work pulls you in from the start. Admittedly, it did take me re-watches to fully appreciate the entire score, as I do with many of the films I review, I re-watch them to focus on different aspects of its creation. Quality over quantity, right? Overall the film was rather good, however if you’re looking for a Tim Burton experience, this isn’t it.