Arachnophobia

Arachnophobia (1990) has the tagline, “Eight legs, two fangs and an attitude,” although it’s safe to say that really doesn’t sum up the sheer terror this film creates.

Deep in the Venezuelan rainforest, a group of researchers discover a breed of spider never seen before.

One of the arachnids decides to tag along back to the researchers’ camp and kills photographer Jerry Manley (Mark L. Taylor) with a toxic bite.

Hitch-hiking in the make-shift coffin of the dead photographer, the spider arrives in small village Canaima, in California.

Mating with a normal house spider, the two create a deadly batch of killer arachnids that start terrorising Canaima’s inhabitants.

It takes new doctor in town, Ross Jennings (Jeff Daniels) – who suffers from severe arachnophobia – and resident insect terminator Delbert McClintock (John Goodman) to annihilate the creatures before they kill everybody and take over the town.

Directed by Frank Marshall, this film will make you itch and jump even if you aren’t afraid of spiders.

A bit of an oldie, but the special effects and the acting doesn’t date the film at all, and with the infusion of comedy consistent throughout, Arachnophobia is a classic thriller that feels so real it’s almost too close to home.

Away We Go is the 5th film from Director Sam Mendes. Known for American Beauty, Road to Perdition and last years Revolutionary Road which are very dark in tone and content, this is a step away from the norm from him and frankly is a breath of fresh air. Away We Go is the story of Burt, played by John Krasinski (The Office, Leatherheads) and Verona, who are a mid-thirties couple who find out they are going to have their first child. Burt’s parents played by Jeff Daniels (Gettysburg, Speed) and Catherine O’hara (Best in Show, Beetlejuice) decide to move to Belgium a month before the baby is born. Burt and Verona, having no ties to their home town any more, go exploring for the perfect place to raise a family. visiting lots of friends and family across  the country, it is a fun adventure of possibilities.

The performances in the film are all pretty good, but the one surprise performance that stands out is that of Maggie Gyllenhaal (Secretary). She plays Burt’s cousin and takes the idea of being close as a family to a whole new level, to the point of being creepy. Her performance is spot on as she delivers her lines with complete confidence without batting and eye as she talks about sharing a bed with her husband….and her kids! She is so good in this role, I could see her getting a Supporting Actress nomination.

Overall I don’t think this is Sam Mendes best film as the movies mentioned previously are very powerful films, but this is a very light, intelligent and delightful film. I would recommend seeing this movie, it is something fresh and not the usual rehashing of a story line you have seen twenty times already. Worth watching for sure!

Cada vez que sale un trailer de una cinta con Ben Stiller no me tomo la molestia de verlo. No es que el tipo me caiga mal, de hecho me parece que ha hecho cosas geniales como Reality bites o Zoolander, pero en serio basta de actuar siempre como el goofy de There’s something about Mary. Sin embargo este trailer me llamó la atención

Y es que cada vez que Noah Baumbach hace una nueva cinta, merece como mínimo una celebración con fanfarrias.

No saben quien es este tipo? Pues es el guionista de dos pelis de Wes Anderson: Life Aquatic with Steve Sizzou y Fantastic Mr Fox. Aparte ha dirigido cosas como Kicking and screaming (no la de Will Ferrel), Margot at the wedding y una de las mejores cintas de la década: The Squid and the Whale.

Con ese currículum ya entienden porqué deben prestarle atención a esta peli. Y es que hay que tener talento para lograr filmar a Ben Stiller sin su cara de idiota de costumbre.

Un thriller polític molt bo, a mig camí entre Todos los hombres del presidente i Spy Game, i que no entenc perquè no ha tingut més èxit.

Potser és que la gent ja en té prou amb els telenotícies per a empapar-se d’històries de corrupció, delictes i conspiracions, però la qüestió és que aquest film mereix més atenció que la que ha tingut.

La llista de bons aspectes és complerta: el repartiment (encapçalat per Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck i Helen Mirren) està brillant, especialment la recuperada Robin Wright Penn i la bufona Rachel McAdams. El guió, basat en una minisèrie anglesa (igual que Traffic) està ben construit, i la direcció de Kevin Macdonald (Last King of Scotland) li dóna un ritme prou viu per fer-lo emocionant i prou pausat per entendre tot l’enrevesament. Afegiu un bon disseny de producció (la redacció del diari és una maravella) i una bona banda sonora i ja teniu una molt bona pel·lícula.

Què li falta a La sombra del poder per ser excel·lent? El paper protagonista recau en Russell Crowe, que no aconsegueix fer entendre de debó què pensa i sent el seu personatge, ens falta alguna cosa per identificar-nos amb ell, igual que tampoc no es pot ni empatitzar amb els d’altres ni odiar els dolents. Magistral per cert el Jeff Daniels fent de polític maquiavèlic.

El millor de State of Play (per cert, l’expressió vol dir una cosa així com l’estat de les coses) és que no passa allò que esperes des del primer moment, i que el que t’expliquen té molt de sentit.

Adient per un bon debat sobre la política i el periodisme actuals. Contraindicat si busqueu un film d’acció.

Salut i sort,
Ivan.

NOTA : 7 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare Blood Work

Trailer Blood Work :

Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale arrived with great fanfare when it was released in 2005. Critics hailed it. Audiences adored it. Well, those that saw it did. Baumbach was the toast of critic’s circles, the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Globes, and the film wound up on over 200 Top Ten Lists. Or so the DVD case claims. When I saw it way back when, I felt conflicted about it. There was something about it that was undeniably appealing, but it was also an undeniably flawed piece. When revisiting it this past week those flaws came bubbling to the surface.

In a breezy 81 minutes, Baumbach tells the story of a failed union and the realization of two children that their parents were not the titans they imagine them to be, but are instead two flawed individuals. The children (the elder played by Jesse Eisenberg, the younger wonderfully portrayed by Owen (son of Kevin) Kline) are the center of the film, which makes the story of the crumbling marriage also the story of two boys’ coming of age and the ways in which they deal with their parents’ inadequacies.  Baumbach does a masterful job at handling both the adult and child side of this dysfunctional family tale. Neither parents’ (played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney, both of whom turn in spellbinding performances) nor childrens’ emotional arcs are given short shrift.

The parents’ part of the story, in particular, is where Baumbach hits most often. His depiction of the jealousy, insecurity, infidelity, and inability to communicate that rot a marriage from the inside out are the heartbreaking work of a man who has seen this kind of deterioration first hand. Neither parent comes out looking good. Linney’s Joan seems faultless until the infidelities are revealed, whilst Daniels’ Bernard is a constantly condescending, selfish man-child whose insecurities are always more apparent to those around him (and the audience) than they are to the character. There is a great deal of honesty in the scenes between the two parents, both when they fight with one another (which they do frequently) and when they don’t.  She takes lovers and he jealously tries to keep up. He uses the children against her, and she keeps all ten of her fingers in the dam to ensure all of her secrets don’t come spilling out. Neither party is completely innocent, but neither holds all the guilt, either.

Much more problematic is the treatment of the story of the two children. The younger, Frank, spins his parents’ divorce into a sexual uproar. The elder, Walt, sides with his father, and takes his word as gospel. Surprisingly, however, the scenes with the children come across as false. There is pain and there is confusion, but the characters are drawn shallowly. Walt, in particular, seems unable to reach his own conclusions about his parents’ divorce, which seems natural for children in broken homes, however it is here that we see the flaws of Baumbach’s writing, as Walt’s innocence in this area never fully melds with the character’s blindly self-assured facade. Sure, mindless confidence is itself a form of innocence, but Eisenberg is simply not a strong enough actor to convincingly portray any kind of inner turmoil to go with that front. He is a product of his father’s worst tendencies. As a result, we are forced to see him as an easily manipulated, irritating teenager, and our ability to care about him is rendered inert by the half hour mark. When he reaches his unremarkable epiphany at the end of the film all we can do is shrug. He might just go out there and think for himself, but who really cares?

Therein lies the film’s central problem, who cares about Walt? He is, ostensibly, the main character, but he is also the least compelling. Frank’s sexual awakening, Joan’s past indiscretions, and Bernard’s suppressed inadequacies as a writer and husband all make for more compelling stories than Walt’s teenage angst. It’s a false note in a film that rings incredibly true for most of its running time; from the handheld camera work to the performances by Daniels, Linney, and the revelation that is young Owen Kline, it almost adds up to a perfect and truthful portrait of failing marriages and youthful anxieties. But it is missing a compelling center, so as it stands we are left with a series of truths that collectively sound like fallacies.

NOTA : 7 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare The Lookout

Trailer The Lookout :

- por Luiz Carlos Freitas

Um filme realmente estranho, mas no melhor sentido que possa se atribuir à essa palavra. Ao mesmo tempo que é de uma poesia e beleza indescritíveis, tem um peso em alguns momentos insuportáveis. O filme é pessimista, uma grande alegoria à sujeira humana por meio de um conto de fadas.

Aqui, o mestre Allen nos transporta à vida de Cecília (Mia Farrow), uma moça simples, com um péssimo emprego, um marido que a maltrata e a explora, vivendo às suas custas. Além disso, o filme se passa em plena Grande Depressão pós-crise de 29, o que torna toda a situação ainda mais angustiante, haja visto que o clima de pessimismo imperava na vida de todos, e não só de Cecília. E, para completar, ela também perde o emprego (é, realmente, nada tem dado muito certo). Entretanto, ela ainda mantinha sua única diversão: ir todas as noites ao cinema assistir ao mesmo filme, “A Rosa Púrpura do Cairo”, estrelado por Gil Sheperd (Jeff Daniels), que vive Tom Baxter, o protagonista que é a perfeita representação do homem dos seus sonhos.

Então, num belo dia após várias visitas ao cinema, Baxter, encantado pelos olhos de Cecilia, resolve (para espanto de todos) sair da tela do cinema e fugir com sua nova amada para viver o que há de melhor no mundo real. É, isso mesmo, você não leu errado. Durante uma das exibições do filme, Baxter simplesmente pára e resolve sair da tela do cinema para o mundo real. À partir daí, a lógica “foge” do roteiro como Baxter do filme. Há um certo alívio cômico (que faz-se presente por todo o longa, mesmo nos momentos mais tensos), damos bastante risada com os inconvenientes da ‘fuga’ de Baxter, como o resto do elenco do filme desesperado sem poder dar continuidade ao roteiro, os demais “Baxter’s” querendo sair das telas em salas de exibição pelo resto do país, entre outras coisas totalmente surreais. Porém, o foco permanece sempre no casal e nas descobertas de Baxter sobre o nosso mundo.

Tudo isto, na verdade, acaba sendo uma grande alegoria para nossa visão e conceitos de um “ideal” de mundo, de vida, sempre envolto pelos paradoxos e contrastes dessa idealização. A fuga de um personagem fictício para o mundo real, este achando que ‘aqui’ é onde se encontra a felicidade, onde tudo é belo e maravilhoso. E sendo guiado justamente por alguém que queria estar ‘do outro lado’, longe dessa realidade pesada, crua. Então, com a chegada de quando Gil Sheperd, interpretando o ator que vive Baxter nas telas (Jeff Daniels em dois papéis), que a “mensagem” do filme começa a ganhar forma.

Cada uma dessas vertentes de ideais é representada por um dos personagens centrais da trama. Baxter é um verdadeiro personagem da fase clássica do cinema, completamente estereotipado – o Daniels demonstra tal personagem com uma atuação bastante “canastra”, inclusive, bem enfática ao arqueótipo do “galã” – e carregado de valores “belos” (não seria incoerente citar que ele poderia ter saído de um filme do Capra, inclusive). A ele, ficou o cargo de representar os idealistas, pessoas carregadas de conceitos de valores inatingíveis, sempre otimistas. Já Sheperd (assim como Cecília) representa o mundo real, mostrando-se tanto mais frio, racional, quanto “sacana” em dados momentos (até seu porte, trejeitos e modo de vestir são diferentes, mais imponentes).

Baxter é o que há de mais encantador no filme. Na cena do restaurante, por exemplo, ele tenta pagar um jantar caríssimo para Cecília com dinheiro falso. Quando vê que não consegue, que seu ‘dinheiro cenográfico’ só vale em cena, ele simplesmente se levanta e fogem. Em tese, ele deveria ficar ciente disso, mas novamente, algumas cenas após, lá está ele dando o mesmo dinheiro a um mendigo, e com pleno olhar de satisfação por estar ajudando a um necessitado, como se não lembrasse que aquele dinheiro de nada adiantaria. E é essa persistência dele em querer manter-se ‘puro’ (mesmo que sem saber disso) que vai contrastar tanto com Sheperd.

Os diálogos entre ele (Sheperd) e Cecília revelam que ele nada mais é que uma pessoa normal, um ator com certas ambições profissionais, que tem medo e receios, que conhece a vida e sabe o quão as coisas podem ser difíceis de verdade, ou seja, o total oposto de seu personagem.

E isso, de certo modo, encanta Cecília. Ele não tem a magia do outro, mas era alguém real, que parecia com ela. Daí fica a dúvida. Porém, ela não tem muito tempo para pensar nisso. Há o reencontro com Baxter e, num dos momentos mais mágicos e belos do filme, ele a leva para dentro do filme, onde a presenteia com vestidos caríssimos, levando-a para jantar em um restaurante finíssimo, cercada de grandes celebridades, todos ricos e pomposos. Pela primeira vez na vida, Cecília teve uma experiência digna de seus maiores ídolos do cinema.

Todavia, essa noite de encanto era apenas o prólogo ao momento mais difícil de sua vida. À volta, Cecilia se encontra frente à uma escolha entre seus dois novos amores, entre a mágica e fantasia com os quais tanto sonhara e a segurança de uma realidade difícil, mas ainda assim real. A escolha seria fácil, em tese, afinal qual de nós pensaria duas vezes antes de cair de cabeça num mundo perfeito onde tudo é puro glamour? Mas ali estavam os pequenos detalhes entre os dois que aos poucos nos foram jogados na trama.

Na luta com Monk (Dany Aiello), marido de Cecilia, Tom não se machucou, pois por ser fictício, ele não sangrava, sentia dor (ele sequer “despenteava”). Ele era virgem, nunca havia “feito amor”, pois nesses momentos, “a tela escurecia e a cena cortava”, o fade os consumia. Ele era impossibilitado de sentir qualquer prazer além dos que estavam no roteiro. Eram limitações com as quais Cecilia haveria de lidar. Do outro lado, Sheperd, como dito antes, real, e por isso tão capaz quanto.

Cecilia pensa e escolhe ir com ‘o real’ e, numa das cenas mais tocantes e “pesadas” do filme (e que sempre me leva às lágrimas), ela profere a fala que resume o que Woody Allen quis dizer aqui:

“- No seu mundo as coisas sempre acabam bem. Sou uma pessoa de verdade.. Não importa o quanto eu me sinta tentada, devo escolher o mundo real.“

A sua vida difícil num mundo imerso em dor e pessimismo (vide o contexto da época onde a trama se desenvolve) a havia ensinado que não tinha como melhorar. Ela se sentia condicionada àquele sofrimento e duvidava de tudo que não fosse a dor. A esperança era duvidosa.

Tom volta ao seu ‘mundo’ e Cecilia se prepara para fugir com Sheperd para Hollywood, onde poderia ter o melhor de dois mundos, da fantasia do cinema e da segurança da realidade.

Aqui, a crueldade desse “conto de fadas” se manifesta em seu ponto máximo: Sheperd não está esperando por ela. Após terminada sua missão de fazer com que seu personagem retornasse ao filme, partiu no primeiro avião de volta ao ’seu mundo’. Cecilia abandonara sua casa em busca de um novo romance que não a esperou. Sem o marido (que mesmo um traste, ainda era o dono da casa – e, após tantas humilhações, não a queria mais por lá), estava sozinha e completamente perdida. A única coisa que lhe restava era dinheiro suficiente para uma última entrada no cinema.

O filme não era o mesmo, um novo havia substituído o ‘problemático’, dessa vez um musical com Fred Astaire. Cecilia senta e começa a olhar pasma para o casal de protagonistas dançando. À medida que a cena se desenrola, vemos Sheperd no avião, com um olhar perdido e uma expressão de tristeza. O foco volta ao olhar admirado de Cecilia e os créditos sobem.

Realmente, é um final carregado de pessimismo e que soaria um tanto quanto incoerente perante a mágica e beleza de toda a história. Mas não seria esse o castigo de Cecilia por não se arriscar? Somos levados a crer que, por mais que busquemos um refúgio em uma fantasia, sempre estamos presos a essa realidade assombrosa. Devemos buscar um equilíbrio que Cecilia não tinha. As sucessivas idas ao cinema para ver o mesmo filme demostravam seu desespero em se agarrar a alguma coisa boa, pois esta sabia que ao término da exibição, ela voltaria a ser uma fraca submissa e que, justamente por isso, havia perdido a grande oportunidade de sua vida.

Tudo bem, o mundo pode parecer terrível (e às vezes eu concordo que pareça – e seja), mas será que isso não é culpa nossa? Temos, sim, todo o direito de sonhar, assim como Cecilia sonhou. Contudo, entre tantos “direitos”, devemos levar mesmo até os extremos o de sermos covardes como ela foi? Ou será que aquela covardia é algo ao qual estamos condicionados, algo do qual não se pode fugir e que nem deve ser chamado de covardia propriamente dita, apenas uma reação natural ao nosso mundo?

Isso (e me perdoem a expressão clichê que virá a seguir) é algo que somente cada um de nós pode dizer, afinal temos essa liberdade. O próprio Allen deixou isso claro, fez esse ‘balanço’ no roteiro, equilibrando a fala citada há pouco, extremamente pessimista, com um desfecho belíssimo e com um toque de esperança (e que também sempre me leva às lágrimas à cada vez que revejo – e há vezes que coloco o DVD somente para ver esse trechinho):

“-Adorei cada minuto ao seu lado e nunca vou esquecer daquela noite que passamos juntos na cidade.
- Adeus!”

Num lance de gênio, Allen deixa em nossas mãos definir qual a escolha de seus personagens. Ou alguém pode dizer com certeza se a expressão de tristeza no olhar de Sheperd no avião era de dor por ter perdido um grande amor que acabara de surgir ou por simples remorso por ter usado da pureza de Cecilia? E o olhar admirado dela nos momentos finais, assistindo ao filme do Astaire, seria uma expressão de tristeza, de desgosto pela oportunidade perdida ou mais um encantamento, uma outra fuga que ali surgira com o novo ‘astro’ em cartaz?

A única certeza que fica é a de que os sonhos por si só não se sustentam, esta passada pelo destino de Baxter (personagem que representa o idealismo e a pureza cega e inocente dos sonhadores), em outra cena sublime: abandonado por sua amada, volta ao filme, o restante do elenco finalmente pode ir à “festa no Copacabana” e ele, sozinho, suspira e, de cabeça baixa, sai de cena (e mais uma vez me pego chorando).

De resto, se Cecília e Sheperd foram felizes em suas escolhas, assim como o equilíbrio entre nossos sonhos e nossas possibilidades, cabe a nós decidir.

5/5

Ficha técnica: A Rosa Púrpura do Cairo (The Purple Rose of Cairo) 1985, EUA – Dir.: Woody Allen – Elenco: Mia Farrow, Jeff Daniels, Danny Aiel lo

You don’t want to help or know anybody. I feel more alone now than the day we met.–Elizabeth

Arlen Faber commands “10% of the God Market” from writing one book, God and Me, two decades ago. Is he for real or a fraud? Is he really this enlightened spiritual master who can speak to God, has God’s ear or is he just some grouchy, cranky guy like the rest of us? No one has ever seen what he looks like. He’s never been interviewed. As the 20th anniversary of his book approaches, his agent urges him to reveal his identity. He meets two people that change his perspective on his own life. First, there’s a bookstore manager, Kris [Lou Taylor Pucci] just returned from a rehab program. He’s lost, confused and looking for answers. Soon he finds out who Arlen truly is and they broker a deal where he can ask Arlen questions and Arlen can trade him books weekly. Second, Arlen throws out his back moving books at his apartment and literally crawls to a chiropractor, Elizabeth [Lauren Graham], who immediately enchants him. They begin to date and he’s charming to her and sweet and nurturing to her son. But Elizabeth also begins to see another side of Arlen she does not like. Arlen may have written a know-it-all book but he doesn’t have the answers anymore. He needs support and validation just like everyone else. Arlen Faber is the best role Jeff Daniels has had since The Squid and The Whale. The depth and layers of indie characters suit him. The Answer Man is a sharp film, filled with complex characters.

November 15 marks the start of the firearm deer hunting season in Michigan, and it is almost like a holiday to many people who make this an annual tradition.

Many travel “Up North” to Northern Lower Michigan or the Upper Peninsula; others prefer the southern part of the state during the 15-day firearm hunting season.

Hunting is big business in Michigan.  According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan ranks 3rd in the nation in licensed hunters (more than 750,000) who contribute $1 billion annually to the state’s economy.

Experts are predicting that hunters may find the hunt more challenging this year because lots of corn is still standing in the fields, making it difficult to see deer.

Don’t be surprised if you hear hunting tales from MSU faculty, staff or students in the coming days.

Michigan’s own — actor Jeff Daniels — captured Michigan’s hunting culture in his movie “Escanaba in Da Moonlight.”

DVD Top 10.
Bestsellerliste der Woche
von Illuminati bis State of Play

Illuminati:
Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) entdeckt Beweise, dass die mächtigste Untergrundbewegung der Geschichte, ein uralter konspirativer Geheimbund, den man als ‘Die Illuminati’ kennt, wiederauferstanden ist. Kurz darauf wird er damit konfrontiert, dass die katholische Kirche, der zutiefst verhasste Erzfeind der Illuminaten, einer tödlichen, existenzvernichtenden Bedrohung ausgesetzt ist…

Nachts im Museum 2:
Seine Tage als Museumswärter sind passé: Larry Daley ist als Erfinder nutzloser Dinge erfolgreich, kehrt jedoch ins Museum zurück, als er erfährt, dass die seinerzeit zu Leben erwachten Ausstellungsstücke in den Keller des Smithsonian in New York verfrachtet werden sollen. Ruhe ist allerdings auch dort nicht angesagt, weil auch die mystische Tafel von Akhmenrah, die den Exponaten Leben einhaucht, versehentlich zum neuen Ausstellungsort transportiert wurde. Nun bricht dort das Chaos aus, und Larry muss für Ordnung sorgen…

Slumdog Millionär:
Glauben Sie an das Schicksal? Für Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) ist es der größte Tag seines bisherigen Lebens. Nur noch eine Frage trennt ihn vom 20 Millionen Rupien-Hauptgewinn in Indiens TV- Show ‘Wer wird Millionär?’

Der Womanizer:
Der Junggeselle Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) gehört zu den Typen, die drei Freundinnen den Laufpass geben. Gleichzeitig. Per Telefonkonferenz. Auf der Hochzeitsfeier seines Bruders hat er also nur ein Ziel: Er will die einzige Brautjungfer herumkriegen, die er bisher irgendwie übersehen hat. Doch der Geist seines verstorbenen Onkels Wayne (Michael Douglas) – der Connor beigebracht hat, die Frauen zu wechseln wie die Hemden – verfolgt ein ganz anderes Ziel…

Star Trek – Die Zukunft hat begonnen:
James T. Kirk ist ein rebellischer Hitzkopf im amerikanischen Niemandsland, der nie den Tod seines Vaters bei einem Angriff eines romulanischen Raumschiffs verkraftet hat. Nach einer seiner Prügeleien fordert ihn Captain Pike, einst ein Freund seines verstorbenen Vaters, auf, der Sternenflotte beizutreten. Dort macht sich Kirk zunächst keine Freunde, bis ihn eine Mission zwingt, endlich Verantwortung zu übernehmen: der Romulaner Nero bedroht Vulkan, den Heimatplaneten von Kirks späterem Weggefährten Spock…

Transformers 2:
Nachdem Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) die Welt mit Hilfe der gutmütigen Autobots vor den bösartigen Decepticons gerettet hat, freut er sich auf ein normales Leben. Als er aufs College geht, lässt er nicht nur Freundin Mikaela (Megan Fox) zurück…

X-Men Origins: Wolverine:
Hugh Jackman schlüpft wieder in die Rolle, die ihn zum Superstar machte: Wolverine – der Mann mit den unverkennbaren Stahlklingen, bemerkenswerten Selbstheilungskräften, ruppigem Charme und einer gehörigen Portion trockenem Humor. ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ erzählt die Vorgeschichte Logans mit Augenmerk auf seine mysteriöse Vergangenheit, seine komplexe Beziehung zu Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber) und das ominöse Weapon X-Programm. Der Zuschauer erfährt, wer Wolverine wirklich ist…

Duplicity:
CIA-Offizier Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) und MI6-Agent Ray Koval (Clive Owen) standen früher im Geheimdienst ihrer Regierungen. Derzeit haben sie in die Privatwirtschaft gewechselt, um mit lukrativen Verträgen das meiste aus dem Kalten Krieg herauszuholen. Beide jagen jeweils für ihre Bosse Tully (Tom Wilkinson) und Garsik (Paul Giamatti) einem milliardenschweren Patent nach. Keiner ahnt, dass sie eine heimliche Affäre und eigene Pläne haben…

Männersache:
Tagsüber arbeitet Paul (Mario Barth) in einer Berliner Zoohandlung und abends an seiner Karriere als Komiker. Zugegeben, seine Auftritte laufen mies… bis Paul anfängt, Witze über seinen besten Freund Hotte (Dieter Tappert) und dessen Freundin Susi (Anja Kling) zu reißen. Auf einmal läuft es auf der Bühne: Pauls Gags über Hottes Beziehungsgeschichten, nicht enden wollende Shopping-Orgien von Susi und den Pärchen Kaffeeklatsch bei den Schwiegereltern sind ein Renner…

State of Play – Stand der Dinge:
Ein junger aufstrebender Politiker und ein Washingtoner Enthüllungsreporter finden sich mitten im Epizentrum einer Reihe von Morden wieder, die nur scheinbar nichts miteinander zu tun haben. Der Kongressabgeordnete Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) ist Hoffnung und Zukunft seiner Partei – ein aussichtsreicher und ehrenhafter Newcomer, unter anderem im Vorsitz des Komitees für Verteidigungsausgaben…

Weitere Informationen, auch Top 100 Liste, erhalten Sie hier

Je n’arrive plus à comprendre Sam Mendes. Comment le cinéaste d’American Beauty a t-il pu tomber aussi bas ? Non pas qu’Away we go soit véritablement un film détestable. Je constate juste avec déception la chute de tension d’un cinéaste qui, clairement se laisse aller, et en arrive à nous pondre un film relativement bâclé, qui plus est de facture mineure. Où est l’homme qui a fait Les Sentiers de la perdition ? Avec Away we go, Sam Mendes semble renier tout son passé de cinéaste hollywoodien pour se ranger du côté de la production indépendante. On s’envole avec Burt et Verona, un couple de trentenaires qui s’apprête à accueillir un heureux évènement. Le but du voyage ? Trouver un nid et au passage, passer faire un petit coucou aux amis perdus de vue depuis longtemps.

Vous admettrez que le pitch est plutôt simple et promet une généreuse rasade de bons sentiments. Mendes glisse sur la même pente que Jason Reitman dont le très mauvais Juno traitait peu ou prou du même thème. Serait-ce la crise de la quarantaine ? Est-ce parce qu’il considère son cinéma trop adulte que Mendes l’infantilise aujourd’hui ? Nous sommes à des années lumières du regard clinique qui opérait dans Les Noces Rebelles, son film précédent. Certes, le sujet est toujours le même (le couple américain), et Away we go pourrait en un sens être considéré comme son antithèse : mari et femme ne sont plus cloitrés en banlieue et peuvent désormais partir en voyage initiatique pour leur bien être. En revanche, vous imaginez bien que l’issue sera cette fois bien plus légère.

Je ne serai pas cruel au point de dire que le film est bon à jeter. Away we go n’est pas désagréable en soi et Mendes y fait d’ailleurs preuve d’une gentille efficacité comique qu’on ne lui connaissait pas. Cependant on a préféré le voir traiter de sujets plus graves, loin de cette mise en scène rudimentaire qu’il pratique ici et qui plus d’une fois s’affale dans la caricature propre aux indépendants. Le travail photographique, pourtant si précis dans ses précédents films, est quant à lui curieusement passé à la trappe. Il semble d’ailleurs en avoir été de même concernant le point du vue de l’auteur, son intelligence acerbe s’acharnant à roupiller six pieds sous terre. Pas de doute, l’encéphalogramme général de son talent n’a jamais été aussi plat. Et si on passait vite à la résurrection ?

v

AWAY WE GO (USA, 2009) R. : Sam Mendes ; Sc. : Dave Eggers, Vendela Vida ; Ph. : Ellen Kuras ; M. : Alexi Murdoch ; Int. : John Krasinski (Burt Farlander), Maya Rudolph (Verona De Tessant), Carmen Ejogo (Grace De Tessant), Catherine O’Hara (Gloria Farlander), Jeff Daniels (Jerry Farlander), Allison Janney (Lily), Maggie Gyllenhaal (LN). Couleurs, 98mn.

Dir. Kevin Macdonald
(2009, PG-13, 128 min)
★ ★ ½

I have an affection for State of Play that makes me want to bump it up that extra half star, but nagging reservations that won’t let me. It starts as an intelligent, unpretentious, straight-ahead thriller about the kind of hard-boiled investigative journalist who Gets Too Close To The Story, and its gradually unraveling conspiracy is exciting, but over time it starts to give in to laziness, and its plot undergoes one back flip too many before I’ve just lost interest.

Russell Crowe, soft in the middle and bedraggled with long hair, stars as Cal McAffrey, an old-fashioned investigative reporter for The Washington Globe who has been using the same computer for eighteen years and driving the same car for just as long. He’s unkempt; in his opening scene he’s driving to the scene of a homicide, munching on Cheetos and tossing the wrapper into his rat’s nest of a backseat. He has a friendly/adversarial relationship with the detective on the scene, Donald Bell (Harry Lennix), and we can guess pretty well their roles in this story: Cal is the veteran journalist resisting the changing times, and Donald will complain that Cal is getting in the way of his case.

In much the same way, we can peg pretty much every character on screen, and that’s one of the film’s problems. There’s Rachel McAdams as Della Frye, who blogs for the newspaper but may as well be writing for Tiger Beat as far as Cal is concerned; she’s the young, ambitious, but lightweight cub who finally gets her hands dirty on real investigative work. There’s Helen Mirren as Cameron Lynne, the officious newspaper editor, who of course stands in Cal’s way at every turn and complains about deadlines and diminished circulation and beating other papers to the story even if it means crippling the story. And there’s Ben Affleck as crusading Congressman Stephen Collins; he has the most dimension of any character, but that just means he’s subject to the most plot twists.

The film is based on a six-hour British miniseries from 2003. I haven’t seen it. Perhaps in that amount of time these characters would have had room to grow beyond their respective archetypes, but compressed into a 128-minute feature, they stay mostly confined to their boxes.

Stephen was college roommates with Cal, which strikes me as odd because Crowe is eight years older than Affleck and looks it; Stephen must have skipped some grades. The congressman is married to Anne (Robin Wright Penn); there is an underdeveloped love triangle between them and Cal that stretches back to their college days and contributes nothing to the story; trimming it from the screenplay might have left room to expand some of those hurried investigative montages — knocking on doors, making phone calls, hitting dead ends — into actual scenes.

Stephen comes under scrutiny when his top aide, Sonia Baker, winds up dead; the details of the investigation are slick and paranoid and cool. Were they having an affair? Did she commit suicide? Did it have something to do with a committee investigation Stephen was spearheading? The story leads us to PointCorp, a private defense contractor that may have greater ambitions than just hiring out for foreign conflicts. A few fragments of investigations that seem unrelated at the outset (though of course we know they’re not) start to dovetail, and I liked the accumulation of evidence that suggests deeper and deeper and deeper corruption. But the details are many, and they come fast in a narrative that often feels overly truncated. It holds interest up until that last wonky twist, which I suppose is as plausible as all the other ones but feels like a twist for twist’s sake. Maybe it would feel less so if the characters felt like characters and not just extensions of the plot.

Una pareja de treintañeros se ve sorprendida por el embarazo en mitad de un cunnilingus. A partir de aquí, los dos protagonistas, deberán decidir qué hacer con sus vidas. Formar el mejor hogar posible. Una familia. Para ello, rebuscarán en su pasado e improvisarán en su futuro a través del presente.

Un presente materializado en un viaje por la geografía estadoudinense, un viaje  en busca de su hogar. Un viaje por Phoenix, Tucson, Madison, Montreal y Miami. Un viaje en el que contemplar diversos tipos de hogar. En Phoenix, una familia destrozada por la depresión crónica del padre, y la desfachatez sonrojante de la madre. En Tucson, una hermana a la que consolar por un pasado muy nostálgico y un presente triste. En Madison, una prima y su novio que viven en continuum con sus hijos, es decir, en plan hippie pedante. En Montreal unos antiguos compañeros de facultad ahogados en la tristeza de no poder tener hijos propios. Y en Miami, un hermano destrozado por el abandono de su esposa y el futuro incierto de la hija de ambos.

De todo ello, los dos protagonistas aprenderán. Comprenderán que lo importante por encima de todo es el amor. Da igual si la ventana de la casa es del mejor material del mundo o de cartón. Un hogar no se cimenta en lo material, sino en lo sentimental. El amor, la añoranza por el pasado y el deseo de un futuro mejor se darán de la mano en esta cinta otoñal que habla acerca de la vida, acerca de la familia, acerca de las parejas. Bonita película de Sam Mendes que, una vez más, vuelve a romper el mito del sueño americano.

This film is outstanding, I’ve watched it three times already since Saturday (it’s rare for me to see a film more than once, aside from classics like The Big Lebowski or Clerks.)  Written by Dave Eggers (Where the Wild Things Are,) and Vendela Vida.  Directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road,) music by Alexi Murdoch, fantastic performances all around.  See it.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt measures life lost to a brain injury in "The Lookout."

Too often thrillers, in the hands of the wrong directors, make one of two mistakes. First, the pacing is too fast, the action too furious, which leaves the characters undeveloped and forces viewers to watch a series of things blow up. Or the pacing is too slow, the action too sporadic, which allows the characters to develop but leaves viewers too bored to care. “The Lookout,” a gripping character study directed impressively by Scott Frank, makes neither of these mistakes. The briskly-paced film, which features another stunning performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, starts off with a literal bang and never lets up … until the slightly deflated end.

The film’s opening credits give viewers a brief introduction to Chris Pratt (Gordon-Levitt), a hotshot college hockey star who’s got everything, including a gorgeous girlfriend (Laura Vandervoort). But a split-second error in judgment violently separates his life into “before” and “after”: Pratt crashes his convertible into a stalled farm combine. The resulting traumatic brain injury ends his career and his charmed existence.

Fast-forward four years. Pratt, now a night janitor at a no-name Kansas City bank, has no life to speak of: He has no girlfriend, his only friend is his sarcastic but kind-hearted blind roommate, Lewis (superbly acted by Jeff Daniels), and he has to record everything he does in a pocket notebook to make it through each day. His memory sequencing problems, mood swings and disinhibition make him reluctant to interact with anyone, including his well-to-do family. Into his gray world comes Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode), an ex-classmate who meets Pratt at a bar and tells fumbling loner he once looked up to him – he even dated Pratt’s older sister. The serpentine Spargo plays on Pratt’s insecurities and introduces him to “Luvlee Lemons,” an eager, attractive exotic dancer (Isla Fisher). It’s then Spargo reveals his ulterior motive: He wants Pratt to help him rob the bank whose floors he mops every night. Set all this intrigue against the blank, colorless, obliterating wintery Midwestern landscape — captured wonderfully by cinematographer Alar Kivilo — and “The Lookout” becomes as chilling as it is captivating.

What’s more intriguing is the way Frank, a screenwriter-turned-rookie-director, lets his characters take their time whittling away at our nerves. Goode banishes all memory of his icky-sweet role in “Chasing Liberty” here. His Gary possesses an oily, slightly menacing charm: He’s got a near-psychic (or sociopathic) ability to read people, discover their weaknesses and exploit them for personal gain. And what’s frightening is that he’s a downright likable fellow, the sort of chap who’d buy a round for strangers at the local dive bar. It’s a layered, commendable performance. Creepy, too, is Greg Dunham as Spargo’s right-hand man – he has but four lines of dialogue and exudes ungodly menace. The kind that, if you saw him in line in front of you at Bi-Lo, would make you pick up and move somewhere far away. Like Timbuktu. 

Daniels more than holds his own as Lewis, a wannabe restaurateur (he’s even picked out a name: “Lew’s Your Lunch”) who looks out for Pratt but never coddles him. His comic timing is dead-on (prepare to cackle when he tells Luvlee how he lost his sight), but better is his ability to show Lewis as a no-nonsense man who can peg a phony in a heartbeat. And Gordon-Levitt provides yet more reasons why he’s this generation’s finest working actor. His work here is unshowy and almost heartbreaking in its simplicity. As Pratt, he extracts maximum emotion from the character’s minimal dialogue (observe the wrenching clip where he tells his bewildered father “I can’t play chess anymore”). He looks and sounds like a man on the verge of collapsing beneath the weight of guilt and unfulfilled dreams.

Such commendable acting doesn’t disguise the frustrating flaws in “Lookout.” Fischer’s character does a disappearing act that’s puzzling. The robbery feels oddly out of place, since Frank spends so much time letting us know his characters. And the closing moments are too neat, too simple. Still, it’s not enough to ruin “The Lookout,” which is filled with characters who are anything but simple. 

Grade: B-

The honor of being “F.I.L.M. of the Week” is now officially bestowed upon “The Squid and the Whale.”  It is perhaps one of the most brazen movies I have ever seen, and I loved every minute of it.  I should have known by reading the movie’s tagline, “Joint Custody Blows.”  The movie is based on events from the life of writer/director Noah Baumbach (a frequent collaborator with director Wes Anderson), a fact that only enhances the experience.  Chronicling the events following the separation his parents in the 1980s and the chaos that ensues, “The Squid and the Whale” joins “Revolutionary Road” as one of the few domestic dramas that I buy completely.  The believability is a result of Baumbach’s clever dialogue, which got him an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay, and two powerful performances from Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels that deserved to be lauded much more than they were.

The film is a masterful piece overall, but it is particularly deft at showing the psychological effects of the divorce on all involved.  16-year-old Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) becomes a prime example of how we all become our parents whether we like it or not as he uncertainly navigates a relationship while pondering other options.  On a similar note, 12-year-old Frank (Owen Kline) begins to probe into the sordid secrets of the world of drugs and sexuality with potentially harmful consequences.  And the harm doesn’t stop at the kids.  Both Bernard and Joan, played respectively by Daniels and Linney, have to deal with the breaking of the fragile joint custody agreement.  Their personalities lead to split alliances between the kids; Walt sides with his father while Frank sides with his mother.  And Bernard and Joan only deepen the divisions as poor decisions are made and new romantic relationships are formed.

Even though a comparison was drawn earlier to the heavy “Revolutionary Road,” “The Squid and the Whale” is much different.  It provides plenty of laughs, many from the profuse profanity from Daniels and the young Kline, but equally from some biting, witty dialogue from Baumbach.  His knack for finding the lighter side of the bitter dissolution of a marriage that makes “The Squid and the Whale” such a marvelous film.  And did I mention that it runs only 80 minutes long?

In the Farrelly Brothers’ classic, Dumb and Dumber (1994), Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels star as two of comedys most ingenious characters: Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne.

Throughout the film, the two never fail to impress as their endearing stupidity makes for great laughs.

Source:
http://www.dailyfill.com/15-Most-Memorable-Dumb-And-Dumber-Moments-39591/

Sam Mendes and the American family unit (or substitutions therefor) is a combination which has appeared in all of his films so far.  Whether it be suburban malcontents (American Beauty and Revolutionary Road) struggling to make the family work, the question of whether blood is thicker than water (Road to Perdition) or a family of a different kind (Jarhead).  Away We Go is a much more low key, modest entry into the director’s CV but nevertheless the family is the key to the story.

American TV stalwarts John Krasinski (The Office) and Maya Rudolph (Saturday Night Live) are Bert and Verona, a young(ish) couple very much in love and 6 months pregnant.  They are also living in what could best be described as a shack, despite the fact that they seem to have decent jobs.  Having moved there to be near Bert’s parents (played by Jeff Daniels and Catherine O’Hara) ready for the birth, their plans are turned upside down when they suddenly announce they are upping sticks and moving to Antwerp.  What follows is a road trip to parts of the US and Canada where Bert and Verona’s friends and family live seeking to put down the familial roots.

A road trip movie without the travelling save for some small scenes on board planes and trains, this is another example of a film which relies on chemistry and likeability of our leads and this is something on which this film scores highly.  It will come as no surprise to those who are aware of the work of Krasinski and Rudolph on television that they are incredibly likeable and have great chemistry as a believable couple in love.  Where problems emerge are with some of the friends and family.  Whilst they are mined for comic effect and their antics did, mostly, make me laugh, they do come across as far less likeable (which is kind of the point) and less real than our leading couple.

Allison Janney is an actress that I enjoy a lot, particularly recently in Todd Solondz’s Life During Wartime and here, she is incredibly funny as a loud mouthed, brazen friend of Verona’s but given that she is such a horrible presence, it is hard to believe that Verona would ever really be friends with a person like that, let alone travel cross-country to see her.  However, she is only character that you really don’t believe.  Other characters come and go and whilst some, most notably Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character comes across as complete caricacture of a hippy earth-mother mined for further cringe comedy, others are completely natural such as Verona’s sister, Carmen Ejogo who has an ease of presence which works really well and others induce heart-breaking anguish, particularly Melanie Lynskey’s “tears of a clown” routine.

This is a film which is funny but packs an emotional punch and Mendes just about manages to balance the two tones.  His direction is unfussy and there is a very nice scene of a plane floating across an airport’s mirrored glass which is a telltale sign of the quality of direction.  I enjoyed it although I can see why it would be a film that would enfuriate others.

8/10

Sam Mendes takes the indie road.

Away We Go is a film about a young couple who are expecting their first child. After learning that the child’s paternal grand parents are moving away, the couple decides they have no reason to remain in their rural town, and begin visiting family and friends across the United States and Canada to try to find the perfect place to raise their soon-to-be family. Along the way they learn vicariously through other couples what they should and shouldn’t do once they become parents.

Director Sam Mendes seems to always make films about the basics of the human relationships, just look at his other films like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road, but instead he takes a fresh and humorous take on relationships.

The one really great thing about this film is that it was really nice to see the couple already in love, and how they actually do understand each other, and really can communicate with one another. They take on their lives together as a team and you see how they comfort one another when things are looking their worst.

The film is more sweet than it is actually funny. The writing team consist of real life husband-and-wife team Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, and you can tell these are how real couples talk and react to one another after knowing each other for so very long.

The only problem I had with this film is that it starts to get a little to indie for me. The soundtrack that consist of indie folk starts to get a little over-played as each song almost sounds the same, and the usual scruffy looking people staring into space. Also it seems to pose too much as a low-budget film, when really it wasn’t low budget and made for 21 million dollars. Also the quirky humor mixed in with a very melodramatic and convenient ending just seem to make this film a little bit too over indie.

The thing that really makes this film is it’s performances from the two leads. When you have a road film about a couple you really do need 2 strong performances from the leading stars and in this you get it. Maya Rudolph really does step up from her stints on SNL, and shows the depth she can have within a character in a drama. I was a little hesitant with John Krasinski because I thought he was going to be too much like Jim, from The Office, but he really does a great job and adds a lot of good humor to the film. Many of the side characters are all great in this film, and to point out one would be unfair cause each do great with their respectable parts.

Consensus: Though it get’s a little too indie, Away We Go is brutally honest, well-acted, and actually pretty funny, but overall shows a wonderful portrait of the real blessings and sometimes the real tragedies of parenthood.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!