Finally, I got to watch Disney’s latest 3D animated flick, A Christmas Carol, which stars Jim Carrey as the voice of the protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge.

As this movie is obviously based entirely on the Charles Dickens Christmas classic novella, I will not delve into the story. Go read the book. I find it a must to do so in order to comprehend the movie. If you go into the story of A Christmas Carol for the first time through the film, you will not understand it and you may be disappointed for paying so much just to see it. The language is in the old British-style English and, knowing Filipinos’ comprehension of this type of spoken English, you might never get to understand the dialogue. This is not to mock every Pinoy; take it from me, because while watching, I wasn’t entirely listening to what the characters were saying. I was just engrossed in the visuals and relied on what I have read on the story for the script. Basically, it is essential to read the text first and formulate your visual interpretation in your own head.

Downloaded wallpaper from Disney's minisite of "A Christmas Carol."

Critics have given it a moderate rating—not exactly a very much anticipated ranking, considering that it is from Disney and is based on a classic. Some critics have said that it is an excellent visual version of the classic Dickens story, but lacks in heart or spirit. I have to agree. I didn’t feel exhilaration or a sense of inspiration after watching it. It was plain fun with elements of comedy, horror, and drama. The thrill, in my opinion, was absent. Even if Scrooge was being chased down the alley by a huge horse-drawn carriage, I wasn’t at the edge of my seat, hoping that he wouldn’t get caught. I just stared, watched, and enjoyed the 3D ride.

A heartless and worldly-possesive Christmas critic and atheist...

“If I could have my way, every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips should be boiled in his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart!”

–Ebenezer Scrooge

...transformed into a caring and fun-loving jolly man.

Catches himself laughing like the Ghost of Christmas Present:

“I’ve heard that laugh before…”

Resumes laughing.

–Ebenezer Scrooge

There were several scenes that were non-existent in the book. Although I hate a love-hate approach to this kind of practice by directors, I approve of it for this particular movie due to the interpretation and significance that it lends to A Christmas Carol. Take for instance, the death of the Ghost of Christmas Present. In the book, it wasn’t stated that he died—he simply vanished into thin air. In this animated movie, he actually grew old (and fast!), stumbled, and was shed of his skin up to his skeleton. He was laughing the whole time he was dying—even his skeleton was laughing. Afterwards, his remains were blown away like dust. I have formulated the significance of this scene: The Ghost of Christmas Present, albeit dying, was laughing because finally, Scrooge was being stripped off of his “Ignorance” and “Want”—worldly and selfish characteristics of man. It meant that Scrooge has finally come to his senses and is willing to propagate change into him. It was a laugh of triumph in being able to divert a man from his greedy ways.

Of the three Spirits of Christmas, I prefer the Ghost of Christmas Present just because he is so damn jolly! His laugh will make you want to laugh along--simply infectious!

I applaud the visual-creation department of Disney and Pixar. The environment was very much realistic. The humans were hardly recognizable as CGIs if shrouded in shadows. The only thing that made them look like CGIs was when they were moving too fast and performing feats not seen in reality. I also liked the style where in the end, Bob Cratchit suddenly evolved into Charles Dickens himself, stating the closing lines of his book. I have to say, he really did look like the man himself. Not really surprising, but still, a surprise.

Hey guys, don't you just love it when at an old age, you can look back to the day in your life when you fell so hard in-love? That special girl, how she looked back then, and how everything all around, including time, seemed to stop and just vanish. *sigh!* Yeah, I'm a hopeless romantic.

All in all, I could say that my excitement for the movie has paid off, but it never reached my expectations. I was hoping for a film that would get through me, more than what the book did. Still, it was a great cinematic panorama, and it certainly helped me understand certain vague points in the novella. The 3D experience was fine, but not enough to convince me that 3D cinema is best enjoyed in live action films.

Son and I are jetlagged as hell in our Bev Hills hotel room. We are on the 11th floor overlooking downtown L.A. and the Hollywood Hills. So nice. But we are pretty much sleepwalking. Ordered up two extra pillows and a club sandwich. The club sandwich was really crap and only cost us $25  for what was essentially two slices of bread, some chicken cold-cuts, a slice of tomatoe and some mayo. Oh well, can’t pay the prices stay outta the hood I guess. I saw the movie UP on the plane, and I thought it was adorable.  I also saw Julie & Julia.  Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci are out of this world. They are as delicious as any of the dishes that are prepared. Amy Adams is hard to dislike, but Chris Messina is the most annoying fuck on screen. He eats like a pig and looks like a ten year old. He is so dull and god knows how he got this job. Maybe because he is so dull. I also watched a little of Dorian Grey with Colin Firth. It’s unwatchable and god only knows why people keep remaking this story. Anyway, I now smell of the Four Seasons. I am in their robe and covered in their house deoderant and feeling comfy and almost famous. Just wish we could stay awake.  Had one sighting at Heathrow – Lily Cole.

Is this man too old to be sexy?

No, I didn’t think so…It’s that unassuming air that just makes him all the more tempting as well. I could have done the wet shirt look from Pride and Prejudice, but that was 14 years ago. And now I feel old…

It could simply be a case that as someone who is 38, not everyone has to be in their twenties to be hot. Though I don’t think I’m the only one who appreciates a man, regardless of his age. Johnny Depp, 46, was voted People Magazine’s sexiest man alive last week, managing to beat off the hot young thing Robert Pattinson.

Though ultimately, the sexiest aspect of a man has very little to do with his looks. The thing I find sexy about a man is his brain. Intelligence, the ability to argue, have an opinion and make me laugh scores points for me.  And if you can do a Scottish accent, well, I’m yours…

Given the silly season is upon I can relate to this post- yes my kids have way too many toys and my husband and disagree on what to do with said toys. I’m all for removing them from the home entirely, particularly when I have had enough of clearing a pathway to the window to open the curtains- I mean my daughter has 3 strollers for her dolls, each given to her by various well meaning relatives. Mr BG on the other hand is reluctant to do so as it is a blatant disregard for  their possessions. Hmm.  I can feel a cleanup being done on my next day off sans kids and husband…

Should a library reflect the mores of a community it serves, or should it simply reflect the community, who might not like what it sees? A library in Connecticut purchased a book which related a story of a shocking murder within the town, and faced considerable opposition from the public who felt such a  purchase was inappropriate. Having read what the murder entailed, I can only say it was a brave choice to purchase the book. There are lots of things in libraries which some people may consider inappropriate and challenging. They’re usually purchased for a couple of reasons

1. They are popular and well used. The books above were unlikely to hit the shelves as there was a waiting list for them.
2. They fit a criteria established within a collection development policy which has been drafted over a long time by professional staff- librarians.
3. They have been requested.

In my time as a public librarian I was responsible for ordering items I wouldn’t be caught dead reading- Chopper Read and Ralph magazine come to mind. And librarians do have their own prejudices and beliefs, but we are also professionals. Which I think is pretty sexy .

Having a good conversation is one of my favorite feelings. That moment when you feel almost buzzed with the excitement of how much you want to respond to and absorb what the other person is saying. These conversations happen both with the people I love most and oddly, the people I know least. With the latter category, the buzz comes from the fact that neither one has any expectations for what the other will contribute. I live for these chats.

Peace,

Sources: weheartit, imdb

Blog title from “The New Year” by Death Cab for Cutie

A Single Man (2009)

Dir. Tom Ford

Things learned from A Single Man: Fashion designers-turned directors do not observe things like subtlety. Stick Julianne Moore in non-contemporary clothing and settings and you’ve already guaranteed yourself respectability.  Colin Firth has never shown talent like this in his entire career.

A Single Man is uneven, as is to be expected from a debut film, especially of this stature.  There are times, especially early on in the film that it seems just a bit too pleased with itself and its audacious visual design; (we’re talking dream sequences, slow-motion underwater shots, and even a dramatic color palette shift during certain symbolic scenes).  Add to that an emotional heft that is both moving and manipulative in its over-arching symbolism.

Then it hit me; A Single Man is essentially the history of queer cinema wrapped up in one evocative package.  The film evokes everything from Pink Narcissus in its provocative twist on the male gaze, to the pop culture imagery of Scorpio Rising, to even the re-appropriations of Sirkian melodrama of Far From Heaven.  Tom Ford certainly knows his film history, but if this sounds like faint praise, it honestly shouldn’t, because Ford maintains an unwavering hand throughout the film, so much that it’s honestly quite hard not to get swept up in the operatic cockiness at display here.  It does not hold a very intimate emotional grasp I must say, but Firth and Moore do provide a much-needed grounding to the grandeur.   (It must be noted also that Nicholas Hoult, the awkward young boy of About a Boy-turned GQ-ready man-meat, provides an impressive performance as well, one that shows a talent for ambiguity.)

So here we have it: a very impressive debut from the most unlikely of candidates.  Tom Ford clearly has a cinematic intuition and an eye to match, and he even has a gift for finding the perfect performance out of Colin Firth, an always pleasant but never, until now, great actor.

Oh, and how about this trailer… Cocky bastards…

Fashion designer Tom Ford makes his directorial debut with this dramatic outing starring Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, and Matthew Goode. Ford and David Scearce adapted the story from a book by Christopher Isherwood, which tells the tragic tale of a professor’s loss of his longtime partner.

Director Robert Zemeckis after his successful “Polar Express (2004)” and “Beowulf (2006)” has taken his crush with 3D technology to the next level with a neat presentation of what greed can bring to a man in “A Christmas Carol”. The classic novel written by Charles Dickens has been adapted well on screen and this adaptation is quite different from the previous attempts made by our filmmakers. In fact this is a big budget animation tale which utilizes all available technology to the optimum level possible and the final product is a visual treat to watch. Read More

Will Colin Firth be nominated for an Oscar in this one? Will he win an Oscar? Who knows, but he has been getting rave reviews for it.

George Falconer (Colin Firth) is a 52-year-old British college professor struggling to find meaning to his life after the death of his long time partner, Jim (Matthew Goode). George dwells on the past and cannot see his future as we follow him through a single day, where a series of events and encounters, ultimately leads him to decide if there is a meaning to life after Jim.

It is the directorial debut of Tom Ford and stars Colin Firth, Juilanne Moore and Matthew Goode. It opens on 11 December 2009.

Source: Collider

Basically, that we all want to go to there.  ”There,” of course, being Tom Ford’s visually stunning drama set in the 1960s in which Colin Firth gives one of the year’s best performances as a professor morning the loss of his lover, who is played by Matthew Woode.

Ooh, or a land where everybody’s hair, makeup, and accessories always look as dazzling as Julianne Moore’s.  I could be just fine with that “there” as well.

All my love to Movieline for this beaut.

Colin Firth swims naked in the ocean and kisses young male costar, Nicholas Hoult, passionately in “A Single Man“.

Using Hollywood to promote philanthropic causes is an old story.   It’s not clear whether the new batch of Brangelina do-gooders and N. Portman-causes are that different from celebrity charities of yesteryears.  Still, this NYT piece dissects the celebrity-charity industrial-complex as it stands today.

An entire industry has sprung up around the recruitment of celebrities to good works. Even an old-line philanthropy like the Red Cross employs a “director of celebrity outreach.” Oxfam has a celebrity wrangler in Los Angeles, Lyndsay Cruz, on the lookout for stars who can raise the charity’s profile with younger people. In addition to established figures like Colin Firth and Helen Mirren, Oxfam is affiliated with Scarlett Johansson, who has visited South Asia (where the organization promotes girls’ education) and is scheduled to go to Mali. Cruz notes that while “trendy young people” are attracted to the star of “Match Point” and “Lost in Translation,” Johansson had “great credibility with an older audience because she’s such a great actress.”

The stars themselves have their own retainers to fend off the celebrity recruiters and to screen and sift charitable opportunities; publicists say their major clients get dozens of requests every week. The more deeply committed figures, like Angelina Jolie, retain firms like the Global Philanthropy Group, which, according to a representative, offers “comprehensive philanthropic management.” This includes establishing and staffing foundations, bringing in subject-area experts or even helping the novice philanthropist figure out what he or she actually wants to do. A similar organization, the Giving Back Fund, works with athletes like the quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and the basketball players Jalen Rose and Shane Battier.

Both the stars and the causes, in turn, depend on corporate sponsorship. It is the sponsors who pay for the galas at which the stars raise money for their causes; sponsors normally pay for the stars’ first-class air tickets and hotel suites. Corporations need causes as much as stars do. Like the stars, they understand that they must shape and protect their brand identities; and they understand that those identities will be judged by the broad public, through public acts. As Howard Bragman puts it, “Celebrities, sponsors and a cause: it’s the golden troika of branding.”

The costs are small compared to the good will. Thus Alicia Keys’s Keep a Child Alive, which provides antiretrovirals to victims of AIDS in Africa, has 78 “corporate partners,” including CBS, Continental Airlines, Condé Nast and Chanel, to pick a few from the C’s. And just as stars have philanthropic managers to help them with causes, corporations with a cause can turn to celebrity recruiters to find just the right star. Thus Rita Tateel, who describes her occupation as recruiting and coordinating celebrities for “cause-related marketing and public relations,” recently hooked up Purina, which wanted to support “small animal-rescue organizations,” with Emily Procter, a star of “CSI Miami,” who, Tateel says, “lives and breathes animal rescue.”

Le Film: Un excellent “Feel Good Movie”.

Synopsis:

L’amour est partout, imprévisible, inexplicable, insurmontable. Il frappe quand il veut et souvent, ça fait pas mal de dégâts…
Pour le nouveau Premier Ministre britannique, il va prendre la jolie forme d’une jeune collaboratrice.
Pour l’écrivain au coeur brisé parti se réfugier dans le sud de la France, il surgira d’un lac.
Il s’éloigne de cette femme qui, installée dans une vie de couple ronronnante, suspecte soudain son mari de songer à une autre.
Il se cache derrière les faux-semblants de ce meilleur ami qui aurait bien voulu être autre chose que le témoin du mariage de celle qu’il aime.
Pour ce veuf et son beau-fils, pour cette jeune femme qui adore son collègue, l’amour est l’enjeu, le but, mais également la source d’innombrables complications.
En cette veille de Noël à Londres, ces vies et ces amours vont se croiser, se frôler et se confronter…

Critique:

Une excellente comédie/comédie romantique ! Richard Curtis, scénariste entre autres, de 4 mariages et un enterrement, Coup de foudre a Notting Hill et des Bridget Jones passe derrière la camera, avec un casting 5 étoiles.

Ainsi, on retrouve Hugh Grant, abonne a ce genre de films en premier ministre et plus particulièrement en sorte Tony Blair, mais aussi Liam Neeson (Taken, Star Wars), Colin Firth (Bridget Jones, Mamma Mia et l’étrange noël de Scrooge), Emma Thompson (Je suis une légende, Harry Potter -Prof Trelawney), Alan Rickman (Severus Rogue dans Harry Potter), Chiwetel Ejiofor (2012, Les fils de l’homme, Inside Man), Bill Nighy (Walkyrie, Hot Fuzz, H2G2, Pirate des caraïbes, The constant Gardner, Underworld 2 &3), Keira Knightley (Pirates des Caraibes, King Arthur, The Duchess, Domino) pour ne citer que les plus importants. Mais aussi des apparitions de Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean), Elisha Cuthbert (24 heures chrono), Shannon Elizabeth (American Pie) et Billy Bor Thornton (The Barber, Eagle Eye, A l’ombre de la haine).

Tout ces acteurs s’en donnent a cœur joie dans leurs rôles respectifs, et bien que comme on le voit, un grand nombre de personnages se croisent et se décroisent (et c’est la l’idée du scenario) celui-ci est construit de telle manière qu’on ne sent sent jamais perdu, confus et au final, les 2h15 de film (ce qui est plutôt rare pour une comédie/comédie romantique) passent toutes seules. La photographie, très axée sur le rouge est magnifique et parfaitement retranscrite par cet édition. Si certains pourront reprocher le trop bien de bien-être et de tout le monde il est beau, dégoulinant pour certains, on répondra que c’est bien le genre de ce film qui le veut et une fois de temps en temps, un « feel good movie » ca fait du bien, surtout de ce calibre-la !

Un excellent film, qui plaira a tout le monde dans la famille que ce soient des amis, votre copine, et même votre belle-mère ne pourront que passer un bon moment pendant 2h.

90/100

L’image: Un très beau transfert

Ce transfert en Blu-Ray apporte un plus indéniable sur les éditions parues sur d’autres supports et on découvre une image encore meilleur que celle vue en salle.

Si ce genre de film ne se prête en général pas a un top démo, force est de constater, qu’on prend une claque des le début du film si tant est qu’on ai vu les précédentes versions disponibles.

La colorimétrie est magnifique avec des couleurs éclatantes, d’autant plus que la période de noël est une excellente base de ce point de vu la ! Les contrastes sont particulièrement bien retranscrits, les couleurs de peau naturelles et aucune tache, grain trop présent, ou autres défauts ne viennent altérer notre expérience visuelle.

On ne dénote pas d’Edge Enhancement et emploi heureusement minimal de Noise Reduction.

Et si on ne perçoit pas d’effet 3D, et que le piqué n’est pas au couteau, il se dégage une belle sensation de détails dans l a plupart des cas et au final, il est plus que sympathique que de redécouvrir (visuellement) ce film !

Au final et pour les possesseurs de précédentes éditions, la qualité de l’image est telle qu’il serait dommage de passer a cote de cette édition, peut être pas un rachat obligatoire,  mais pour les fans du film et ceux qui ne l’auraient jamais vu, achat recommandé, surtout vu le prix demandé !

80/100

Le Son: Une piste DTS HD MA 5.1 pas tonitruante, mais bien sympathique !

Qui dit comédie/comédie romantique dit bande son principalement frontale. Qu’en est-il ici ?

Malgré l’emploi d’une piste DTS Master Audio 5.1 en VO, pas de miracles ! Les voix sont parfaitement bien retranscrites dans le mix, quelques petits effets d’ambiance viennent ponctuer certaines scènes, mais dans l’ensemble rien de folichon !

La scène arrière reste timide, ainsi que le caisson de basses. Certes les passages musicaux, d’ailleurs assez nombreux, profitent au mieux de cette nouvelle édition, mais a l’exception de ces passages et de quelques petits effets, l’activité reste principalement frontale et dialoguée. Pas de quoi casser trois pattes a un canard, mais une piste son qui reste fidèle à l’esprit du film.

68/100

Genre: Comédie/Comédie romantique.

Durée: 2h15

Vidéo : 1080p AVC 2:35:1

Zone: All

Doublage: VFF

Langues: Anglais DTS-HD M A 5.1 / Français DTS 5.1 / Allemand DTS 5.1/Espagnol DTS 5.1

Sous-titres: Français / Anglais / Allemand / Espagnol / Italien / Néerlandais /

Colin Firth is in the running for A Single Man (check out the trailer), but one of his next films is the final screenplay from Pulitzer Prize and Academy Award®-winner Horton Foote. It is a luminous and timely tale of a down-and-out small town that receives a mysterious visitor – a stranger with a promise to turn things around and bring the town back to its former pride and glory.

Georgiana (Ellen Burstyn) is a stately tobacco heiress faced with a real estate problem; she has an empty warehouse on the town’s foundering Main Street. She rents the facility to the visitor, Texas businessman Gus Leroy (Colin Firth) – sight unseen and no questions asked – and she has no idea that his risky business will soon impact her friends and neighbors. From her niece Willa (Patricia Clarkson), to the local police officer (Orlando Bloom) and the girl he has his eye on (Amber Tamblyn), everyone in town begins to question the trucks arriving in the middle of the night unloading cargo into Georgiana’s warehouse.

When it is finally revealed that the material being stored is hazardous waste, there is an uproar. Leroy explains to the Mayor that several towns throughout the south are experiencing full economic recovery as a result of doing business with him, and the town must face the ultimate question – to do what is needed, or do what is right. The new business could enrich their economy, but put all its inhabitants in peril.

I posted photos of Orlando Bloom on the set of this film a while back.

Source: Collider

At least you know it will look good.

Director Robert Zemeckis (THE POLAR EXPRESS) continues to work his holiday magic with A CHRISTMAS CAROL. This 3-D adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic will use the motion capture technology previously seen in the filmmaker’s BEOWULF.

Starring: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn, Cary Elwes, Fionnula Flanagan
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Screenwriter: Robert Zemeckis
Producer: Steve Starkey, Robert Zemeckis, Jack Rapke
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures

MOVIE TRAILER :

I wanted to see this movie because of Colin Firth, though I wasn’t crazy about the notion of a sad, mopey Firth when I like him awkward and silly as in Love Actually and the Bridget Jones movies. But his performance in A Single Man (limited release, Dec. 11) proves he’s a first-rate actor who can make grief not only watchable but compelling.

Set in 1961 and based on Christopher Isherwood’s novel, Man deals with college professor George Falconer’s (Firth) struggle to cope with the death of his long-time partner Jim (Matthew Goode) in a car accident. The whole movie takes place on the day George decides to commit suicide. We see him putting his affairs in order and internally saying goodbye to his students and best friend Charly (Julianne Moore). Ironically, as he prepares to die, he becomes more alive, taking in details about his surroundings he hadn’t bothered to absorb during his grief-stricken stupor.

And that’s about it as far as plot goes. Being a fan of plot-driven stories, I was greatly surprised I wasn’t bored by some tedious navel-gazing. Most of the credit goes to Firth, who’s in every scene and holds my attention in all of them. He pulls off the difficult act of covering up feelings you suspect are roiling inside George, but he doesn’t bury them so deeply that the character becomes inaccessible. You can see his thoughts as they flit behind his eyes, the mental screams he’d like to release. For all his graceful suffering, George should bring Firth his first Oscar nomination.

Moore is also impressive; is that news to anyone? She plays a woman in mid-life crisis, feeling worthless because her husband and son have left her and her looks are fading (she’s still gorgeous to me). As strong as her performance is, though, I’ve seen better from Moore—in The Hours, for example. If she does get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actress, she has no chance (no one does) of beating Mo’Nique for Precious.

Hoult in SINGLE MAN

The biggest surprise here is Nicholas Hoult as a conflicted student of George’s who slowly awakens the older man to feelings he thought he no longer had. Hoult is so impossibly pretty with his golden hair, flirty baby blues, and pink pout, I was shocked to realize he’s the same actor who played Marcus,

Hoult in ABOUT A BOY

the plump, awkward kid who pestered Hugh Grant in Almost a Boy. Well, he’s all grown up and ungainly no more.

First-time director and co-screenwriter, Tom Ford, known primarily for his work as a fashion designer for Gucci, knows a thing or two about beauty. All his actors are ridiculously good-looking and he made sure you know it. It got to be a bit much after a while; I actually chuckled when the camera zoomed in for the umpteenth time on Hoult’s and Firth’s naked bodies floating in slo-mo in the ocean, or lingered on a starlet’s bee-stung lips exhaling cigarette smoke seductively.

Ford said during the post-Variety-screening Q & A (more on that below) he wanted a Bernard Herrmann-esque score as homage to the composer known for his work in Hitchcock movies, but the plaintive strings are too overpowering for such an introspective film. Ford needn’t try so hard; he has potential as a filmmaker and was smart enough to cast superb actors who added class to a project that could’ve been dismissible.

When Ford showed up for the Q & A, he was soft-spoken, articulate and unexpectedly vulnerable. He told a lot of personal stories which he said informed the movie. Some details:

• He first read the book 25 years ago when he was living in West Hollywood and working as an actor.
• George didn’t want to kill himself in the novel but Ford added that plot point because of a suicide in his family.
• Firth originally turned down the film so Ford cast another actor. When that actor dropped out 3 weeks before production, Ford flew to London, pitched Firth personally instead of going through his rep and this time Firth said yes.
• The film was shot in 21 days, with only 3 of rehearsal. Ford simply had Firth watch a clip of Bill Clinton denying he’d done certain things to Monica Lewinsky, then told Firth to have George cover up his emotions like that.
• In a scene where George is supposed to chastely kiss Charly, Firth wouldn’t stop kissing Moore, resulting in several unusable takes. Ford had to keep reminding Firth he was playing a gay man.

Nerd verdict: Man is imperfect but Firth is impeccable

“A Christmas Carol” is the first 3D movie I’ve actually watched in 3D, since it took a long while for Rio de Janeiro to implement the technology (and considering how gimmicky and overused 3D currently is, I can’t say I was looking forward to it). As you can probably guess, I’m not a fan of 3D. I find it to be the exact opposite of what it should be — it’s unnimersive.

The very composition of a shot is hurt by any foreground object calling too much attention to itself, and if a character points something at the camera, like a finger or a gun, instead of noticing the action you notice the way it seems to be jumping out of the screen — while what’s relevant is the action. Sure, this can be a matter of getting used to it, but I fail to see the point. I do not find it visually dazzling, I do not see many narrative opportunities for 3D and it doesn’t sit well with modern cinematic language, requiring a complete re-thinking on how to film — and why? Because people want to see more depth in the screen? Am I the only one who was perfectly happy with a 2D screen?

Once again, though, I must admit Robert Zemeckis is not the ideal director to introduce me to the world of 3D. Despite his genius, he is probably the guy who has the wrongest idea of how to use it. Before I really form my opinion on this technique/gimmick, I’ll have to wait for films like “Avatar”. After all, when a man of James Cameron’s brilliance decides to use 3D, there must be a good reason. And also, I’m told some films like “Coraline” have used 3D cleverly (the film has two worlds, and one of them was depicted in 3D, which is a simple, but rare narrative use for it — but the movie theatre I saw it in wasn’t equipped with the technology, and if I remember correctly, no theatre nearby was).

So, “A Christmas Carol”. I mentioned Zemeckis has the wrongest idea of how to use 3D. The reason for this is that, when given 3D, Zemeckis acts like a hyperactive child given a toy. He always was an inventive cameraman, but while this was motivated by narrative needs, in the latter stage of his career Zemeckis just started showing off. I loved “Beowulf” mostly due to the script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, because Zemeckis’ direction, albeit full of inspired moments, also had its share of exaggerated camera angles, like the hideous moment a guard points a spear at us, and Zemeckis ridiculously pushes the depth of field back to make the spear jump out of the screen, then changing it abruptly to pan the camera to Beowulf’s face in that which must be one of the worst camera movements in Zemeckis’ career.

I had hoped he’d be more restrained in “A Christmas Carol”. Which just proves why I should give up trying to be an optimist.

He always finds some way to distract the viewer from whatever’s going on, like slowly moving his camera around a talking character until a lit candle appears on the foreground — a composition that not only calls attention to itself (especially in 3D), but makes no sense, because the character in the background is usually the bitter Ebenezer Scrooge — and showing him next to a warm candle kind of goes against the nature of the character as far as symbolism goes (unless the candle puts itself out eventually, but I cannot remember if it does — yeah, this movie left a strong impression on me, no doubt).

But that’s mild next to the way Zemeckis introduces the victorian London where the story happens, making his camera fly past chimneys and smoke at insane speeds, and never missing the chance to make something pointy jump out of the screen, like the only reason we put on those ridiculous goggles is for the illusion of having our face impaled.

Sadly, as a storyteller, Zemeckis doesn’t show much common sense either. I was, after all, under the impression this is a movie for children. And while I think children can be shown much more than they’re usually allowed to see, when the first image in your story is a rotting, pale corpse inside a coffin with a coin in each eye (coins which Scrooge promptly pockets to pay himself back from another debt), you kinda kickstart the movie on the wrong tone right away.

And yet, throughout the film, Zemeckis goes for a constant slapstick humor that makes absolutely no sense, considering Scrooge’s age. He’s portrayed as the most athletic old man ever, capable of falling on a set of stairs and just getting up, no harm done. Even worse is the moment a spirit dislocates his own jaw, making it hang from his face, and then uses his hand to move the jaw up and down as he speaks.

And wait until you see a fat guy being reduced to a skeleton while he laughs maniacally. This was the point where a kid started crying in the movie theatre, if memory serves. I thought I heard it sob “THIS IS — THE WORST — FILM I’VE — EVER — SEEN”, but probably just my imagination.

“A Christmas Carol” has a brief moment of inspiration, when Scrooge visits his old home from when he was a child, but that’s the only moment the film hits the right emotional note, getting everything else wrong. It’s particularly pathetic the way Scrooge becomes Mr. Nice after his experiences, laughing at everything and being so kind it was sickening. Apparently, the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future succeeded in turning the worst man in London into the stupidest man in London.

Visually, the film is a failure thanks to bad cinematography that forgot to take the 3D glasses into account. As a result, the entire film is so dark I felt tempted to try and watch it without the glasses, and man do I look forward to the day that choice will be actually possible. The animation achieved through performance capture is decent, but the moments the film relies on “handmade” animation (a ridiculously overdone dance sequence, for example) can be painfully obvious and mediocre. However, the art design is at least competent, from the depiction of London to the visual of the characters.

I can’t really comment about the performances because the session I went to was dubbed in Portuguese, despite the ticket stating very, very clearly it was only subtitled. But the film left me too bored to actually complain about it to the theatre staff, plus I was with my sister, who urged me not to, afraid it would result in confusion (which I doubt, I’m not the shouty kind, but I didn’t want to waste her time).

“A Christmas Carol” is an overdirected mess that never decides on a tone. Someone take the 3D from Robert Zemeckis before he remakes “Back To The Future” in depth-o-vision.

I went for a Twilight/New Moon double feature last night and that is all i will say about it…cause I’m cool like that. I dont usually go for movies in a theatre but when i do…wow its an experience all right…As of today I started my “Screw you Chris Hansen, TLaut and I are losing our V-cards to each other” savings account which will ensure that I will be watching Eclipse in America with my BFF’s. So i think it’s only fair that everyone knows what I will do during this situation…

*I will cry…

Yeah...thought he was dead...*sob*

Dead...? *sob*

Dead...for reals...no resurrections there....*sob*

Dead? In real life? No? ....*sob*

* When i am excited about something, I will do stuff like this…

It's ok Jacob..the butter wont go straight to your hips but I will....rawr!

*I will sing along with the soundtrack….

Hoo..hoo... hoo..the hale is ruining the movie by singing along? That would be me...

*I will squeeze your hand during certain scenes…

Hmmm? what's that? You want some of this bay-bee?

*I wont squee but i will sigh and “hmmmm” and do the occasional fist pump….

Insert pineapple instead of her...Please Lord...world peace can wait...I cant...

*I will mouth the words…

Yeah I totes know all the monkey's lines....

*I wont wear tees like this…

Nothing makes a man want you more than writing his mom's name across your boobs

Ditto for the 17 year old who may or may not still be a virgin...

So are you guys sure you want me around for Eclipse? I may or may not be as bad as the 14-year-old who wore pink shorts with”Christine Pattinson” on her ass… Let me know….

Jim Carey is haunting...himself.

(Disney) Starring the voices of Jim Carey, Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins, Colin Firth, Robin Wright Penn, Cary Elwes, Ryan Ochoa, Jacquie Barnbrook, Lesley Manville, Molly C. Quinn, Fay Masterson, Fionnula Flanagan, Leslie Zemeckis. Directed by Robert Zemeckis

No matter how badly we behave, no matter how heinous the acts we have done in our lives, there is always a possibility of a second chance. It is one of the most wonderful things about being human.

Ebeneezer Scrooge (Carey) is a miserly fellow, bitter and curmudgeonly. He is feared and despised by the citizens of London circa 1842. After his partner Jacob Marley (Oldman) dies on a Christmas Eve in 1835, Scrooge continues to operate his counting house, bullying his clerk Bob Cratchit (Oldman again). Scrooge saves particular vitriol for Christmas, which he proclaims as “humbug.”

Scrooge is visited that Christmas Eve first by his nephew Fred (Firth) who patiently invites his uncle to Christmas dinner, which is refused. Fred is puzzled as to why his uncle despises him so, but it seems to be tied to his marriage. Later, a pair of businessmen collecting for charitable donations receives Scrooge’s distinctive philosophy on life (the famous quote “Are there no jails? Are there no workhouses?”) but no cash.

Upon returning home, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of Jacob Marley who warns Scrooge he is to be visited by three ghosts; the Ghost of Christmas Past (Carey), the Ghost of Christmas Present (ditto) and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (you got it). At stake his Scrooge’s soul, and the life of Cratchit’s son Tim (Ochoa).

This is one of the most beloved and best-known stories on the planet and director Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, The Polar Express) has the tall order of making a story so known to many seem fresh and new. Most of us can quote Charles Dickens’ original story word for word and know the story backwards and forwards. With so many already-filmed versions to choose from, the public can afford to be choosy and set high standards for any new films. Making one that stands out from the crowd is no easy task.

Most versions of A Christmas Carol depend heavily on the performance of the actor playing Scrooge. Actors have generally been classically trained English thespians, but from time to time comedians (Bill Murray comes to mind) have also tackled the role. Carey is perhaps the most unusual choice for the iconic miser. I’m not particularly fond of Carey – he tends to mug around a bit in my opinion – but one can’t deny the talent. He tackles the roles of Scrooge in all his iterations, as well as all three of the ghosts. For the most part, he restrains himself but from time to time Ace Ventura shines through.

The supporting cast is pretty good. Hoskins displays bonhomie as Fezziwig, while Penn is solid in the dual roles of Belle, Scrooge’s love interest and Fanny, his sister. Better still is Oldman, whose portrayal of Bob Cratchit (complete with Cockney accent) is superb. His scene during the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come sequence mourning his son is incredibly moving.

After a great start with The Polar Express, motion capture hasn’t really lived up to its promise. The visuals are spectacular, eye-popping really. Zemeckis has a terrific visual sense and crafts a movie that captures the imagination. Unfortunately, it doesn’t capture the heart (except for the Cratchit scene mentioned above). There’s far more emphasis on spectacle than there is on the story, and some fairly important vignettes are glossed over or cut out entirely and yet Zemeckis conducts an extended hearse chase scene that is striking to look at but ultimately feels more like a placeholder for a future theme park attraction. That gives the movie a rushed feeling that I found unsettling.

The animation isn’t perfect. Cratchit’s head is disproportionate, and his daughter Martha towers over him by what appears to be about a foot and a half or more. It looks unsettling. Also, while the faces and movements are lifelike, there is a curious lifelessness to the eyes that makes the characters look a little bit like zombies. In many ways, the more clear-cut animation of Pixar and DreamWorks is preferable because it’s more consistent; you know it’s an animation so there’s a standard for realism or its lack thereof. Here, you’re expecting a more life-like quality and frankly the technology isn’t quite there yet.

People who love Jim Carey are going to enjoy this movie because you get a whole lot of him here. People who love the original Dickens tale are going to be a bit more critical and may find this a difficult pill to swallow. The 3D effects are terrific (the snow falling is particularly nice) and definitely enhance the movie nicely. However, I can’t recommend this unreservedly. All in all, the package comes in gaudy wrapping paper with an elaborate bow, but all the pretty paper in the world can’t conceal that what’s inside is a bit empty and light.

REASONS TO GO: There are some amazing visuals here, particularly the ghosts. Zemeckis puts the story on its biggest and boldest canvas ever. Oldman gives a moving performance, particularly in the Christmas Yet to Come sequence.

REASONS TO STAY: Zemeckis sacrifices story for spectacle in several instances. Some of the figures, particularly Cratchit and his daughter Martha seem to be disproportionate. The hearse chase scene is completely unnecessary and seems to be there only to provide the inspiration for an eventual theme park ride. A little Carey goes a long way.

FAMILY VALUES: Some of the ghost sequences, particularly Marley and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come might be a bit too much for impressionable sorts.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The earliest known filmed version of Dickens tale was made in 1901 by British film pioneer Robert Paul and was under three and a half minutes long. It can be seen in its entirety on the British Film Institute YouTube channel.

HOME OR THEATER: The dazzling visuals should be experienced on the big screen, preferably in the 3D presentation (and IMAX if you can get to an IMAX theater).

FINAL RATING: 6/10

TOMORROW: The Tale of Despereaux

Drama sobre la corte británica

Helena Bonham Carter encarnará a la Reina Madre

Foto: Reuters	Ampliar

LOS ANGELES, 17 Nov. (Reuters/Ep)

La actriz británica Helena Bonham Carter interpretará a la futura Reina Madre en The King’s Speech, un drama sobre los entresijos de la corte británica en el que compartirá protagonismo con Colin Firth (Mamma Mia!, La última legión) y Geoffrey Rush (Piratas del caribe, Munich)

La cinta, que según apunta una información publicada por ‘The Hollywood Reporter’ recientemente comenzó su filmación en Inglaterra, relatará la relación entre el rey Jorge VI (Firth) y el logopeda Lionel Logue (Rush), quien ayudó al monarca a perder su tartamudeo y liderar a Gran Bretaña durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Bonham Carter encarnará a su consorte, la reina Isabel, quien se convirtió en Reina Madre tras la muerte prematura de su marido en 1952. La esposa de Tim Burton no deja la corona, ya que interpreta a la Reina de Corazones en la versión de Alicia en el País de las Maravillas que dirige su esposo.

El elenco de la cinta también incluye a los actores Jennifer Ehle, Guy Pearce, Derek Jacobi, Timothy Spall y Michael Gambon. El cineasta Tom Hooper (The Damned United) dirigirá el filme con un guión escrito por David Seidler. Su estreno está previsto para mediados del próximo año.

Sinopse: Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) é um homem avarento que não gosta do natal. Comanda a punhos de ferro um escritório em Londres e conta com a ajuda de Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman), seu pobre, mas feliz empregado. Numa véspera de natal, Scrooge recebe a visita de seu ex-sócio, Jacob Marley, morto havia sete anos naquele mesmo dia. Marley diz que seu espírito não pode ter paz, já que não foi bom nem generoso em vida, mas que Scrooge pode ter um fim diferente e, por isso, três espíritos o visitariam para lhe mostrar que ainda há chance de mudar. O filme baseia-se no clássico conto natalino “A Christmas Carol”, criado pelo escritor inglês Charles Dickens.

A história em que se baseia o filme é amplamente conhecida e várias foram as adaptações e menções já feitas a ela na história do cinema. A que mais me vem à cabeça é a versão de 1983, da Disney, onde o papel equivalente ao de Ebenezer Scrooge é do Tio Patinhas e Bob Cratchit é o Mickey Mouse. No quesito “originalidade”, o filme deixa bem a desejar.

O filme foi feito em 3D com a tecnologia de captação de movimentos, o que encareceu bastante a produção: custou aos cofres da Disney a bagatela de 200 milhões de dólares. Seu diretor, Robert Zemeckis, já usou tal recurso antes, em outro filme com a temática natalina, “O Expresso Polar”. E isso fez a total diferença. Ainda mais visto em uma sala IMAX 3D Digital, que foi o meu caso! Eu estava visitando Curitiba (uma das duas únicas cidades no Brasil com IMAX – a outra é São Paulo, também com uma sala)  e aproveitei para ver como isso funcionava… Estou louco para uma sala dessas aparecer aqui pelo Rio!

Quando o primeiro fantasma aparece e leva Scrooge para um passeio foi eleita a melhor cena do filme, já que eles voam e a sensação de poder voar que o IMAX proporcionou foi mágica! Foi a melhor experiência cinematográfica do ano para mim e uma das melhores e mais excitantes da minha vida… Juntando isso tudo com a melhor companhia que se pode ter para se ver um filme no cinema, aí já viu, né? Fiquei extasiado. rs

Jim Carrey, como de praxe, deu conta do recado. Assisti à versão dublada do filme. Nela, Guilherme Briggs (dublador oficial de Jim Carrey para versões brasileiras), além de fazer a voz do Scrooge, também dublou as vozes dos três espíritos, assim como Carrey fez na versão original. Gostei do resultado. Gary Oldman merece críticas à parte. Seu personagem dá à história o tom de dramaticidade necessária para que ela vá em frente e não fique apenas nos planos aventurescos inseridos pelo diretor. Oldman carrega essa responsabilidade com maestria.

Apesar de o filme ter em todas as cenas a assinatura e o “jeito de ser” da Disney, o longa apresenta elementos sombrios e pesados. @Mirabelaas, uma amiga e seguidora no Twitter, me perguntou se o filme era entendível para uma criança de quatro anos. Respondi com sinceridade que eu não sabia, apesar da classificação indicativa ser livre. Ou seja: o filme não tem um público-alvo definido. Embora seja um tipo de animação, ele apresenta muitos sustos, mensagens subliminares e é vertiginoso em algumas cenas. Se possível, veja em 3D. Se for mais possível ainda, veja em IMAX 3D. Dentro de suas peculiaridades, é divertido.

Trailer:

Os Fantasmas de Scrooge (A Christmas Carol), distribuído por Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, EUA/2009, um filme de Robert Zemeckis, com roteiro de Robert Zemeckis, baseado em livro de Charles Dickens, com Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth e Lesley Manville (dublagem: Guilherme Briggs, Mauro Ramos, Reginaldo Primo, Sílvia Goiabeira, Fabrício Vila Verde), Animação/Aventra, 96 min. Classificação indicativa livre.

This I need to see:

It’s  menswear designer Tom Ford’s first foray into filmmaking which explains the structure and style, and Julianne Moore and Colin Firth are both in it. If that isn’t tempting enough, there are two shots in the trailer worth watching it for.

First, close-up of Moore’s mouth, she smiles the screen floods rouge and lights up (37 seconds into trailer).

Second, Firth and Moore collapsed on a cream carpet with messily strewn hair. Factor in a 60s shift and TV sized spectacles and you have yourself a shot akin to Kate Winslet and Jim Carrey in bed, on a beach, in the snow (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) or Zach Braff and Natalie Portman screaming in bin bags in Garden State.

They make you want to trade in reality for really pointless prettiness and flimsy memories that stand up for art but not so much narrative. That I can definitely aspire to.

Resulta que Tom Ford hizo su primera película, la llevó al Festival de Venecia y fue un éxito. A single man es el título y está basada en la novela homónima de Christopher Isherwood.  El debutante director obtuvo el Queer Lion, que otorga la prensa, y el protagonista, Colin Firth, fue ganador del León de Oro a la Mejor Interpretación Masculina. También actúa la bellísima Julianne Moore, pero no sé mucho más, no vi la peli. Buscando información sobre ella me encontré con esto:

Estar en Yves Saint Laurent fue una experiencia negativa para mí, aunque el negocio floreciera durante la época en que estuve allí. Yves y su compañero, Pierre Bergé, eran tan difíciles y tan malos que hicieron de mi vida algo miserable… Nunca he hablado de esta experiencia antes, pero fue una época horrible para mí. Pierre e Yves eran simplemente malvados. Por eso, Yves Saint Laurent no existe para mí.

Forma parte de una entrevista que le hacen a Ford en The Advocate. Acá se puede leer completa.

Me dejó una sensación extraña por ese puritanismo de que no se habla mal de los muertos, o por lo menos no tan pronto. Pero revolviendo en mi memoria –créanlo o no, siempre encuentro algo– me acordé de una entrevista a Lagerfeld realizada por Eugenia de la Torriente para EPS. En ella, hablando de YSL, el Kaiser dice:

Lo conocí muy bien a los 20 años. Hasta que apareció Pierre Bergé y lo estropeó todo. Pero la auténtica historia es muy distinta a lo que lees por ahí. Yves interpretaba el papel de la víctima, pero no lo era. Me parecen patéticos todos esos lloros sobre el chiffon. Hay algo impúdico en semejante despliegue de emociones. En el fondo, el diseñador torturado esconde un complejo de inferioridad por no ser artista. Todos querrían ser grandes artistas, pero han acabado haciendo ropa. Igual que querrían ser de la alta sociedad y sólo pueden vestirla.

Otra perlita:

¿Vacaciones? No, gracias. Eso es para los que tienen que ir a una fábrica a diario. La idea de viajar a una isla remota y exótica pertenece a una generación que cree que tiene que escapar de su realidad. ¿Para qué iba a querer huir de mi mundo si lo he creado a mi medida?

Duro ¿no?, incluso para alguien que puede decir: “ir en mi contra es un lujo que sale muy caro”.

Pero estaba hablando de una película y se me hizo tarde… Les dejo el trailer.