You must never ask me or Paolo what we think of this movie unless you are a person who can handle watching someone yak and try to choke themselves with it to escape the hell of their own memories.

Castor Troy: It’s like looking in a mirror. Only… not.

This John Woo movie is so, so, so ridiculously bad that it almost makes you say, “Wait, is it so stupid that it actually orbited around to being awesome?” But the answer is a qualified no. It falls a hairsbreadth short of being so bad that it’s good, remaining just plain poorly written, stupid, and a waste of your time.

Sean Archer: I want to take his face… off. Eyes, nose, skin, teeth. It’s coming off.

The slash in the title and the number of times that people run their fingers down each other’s faces like mentally challenged chimps are a huge part of why the movie falls short of awesome. The people involved in it took it too seriously. A true cult film has to be more accidentally shitty than this.

Dietrich: No more drugs for that man.

The only good part is this guy, Alessandro Nivola, who played the villain’s even less balanced brother. The character’s ridiculous name is Pollux Troy (his brother, the main baddie, is “Castor;” you know, like astronomy shit? *cringe*), but the freaky performance Nivola turns in surpasses that of anyone else but forever-tragically-underused Joan Allen in this film. He’s having fun with it and so it is, like, unhinged — super, super hot. I love crazy!

Castor Troy: You’re not the only one in the family with the brains.
Pollux Troy: No, although now I am the only one with the looks.
Castor Troy: Touche.

Un film del 2009, regia di Lasse Hallström, con Sarah Roemer / Richard Gere / Joan Allen / Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. Prodotto da Lucky Red (94min)

Drammatico / Ragazzi

Un professore universitario instaura un legame fortissimo con un cane abbandonato che ha adottato.

Death Race è un fil del 2008 prodotto, scritto e diretto da Paul WS Anderson. Il film è un remake di Death Race 2000 del 1975, basato sul racconto di Ib Melchior “The Racer”.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Paul W. S. Anderson | Jason Statham | Joan Allen | Tyrese Gibson

Authorities informed and complaint signed to the Police Department,
registered documents for the following charges:
extortion
public slander
threatening
intimidations
for the following names in the Los Angeles County:

Michael Lohr Photography – wedding photographer
Joan Allen – Joan Allen Photo – wedding photographer
Hollywood Loft – managed by Michael Lohr

details and updated informations with the authorities:
http://www.hollywoodloftstudios.com

regarding the illegal and criminal actions of the

hollywood loft

thanks

Martina Missoni
Editor in Chief

Tudo começou assim…

e, então, o agente do FBI Sean Archer (John Travolta) tornou-se o psicopata Castor Troy (Nicolas Cage)…

…e ficou bem menos chato.

And remember: everytime you look in a mirror you’ll see my face.

Es cierto, quien escribe no tiene más remedio que confesarlo: uno, que, como en todo lo demás, cuando ama, ama en exceso (lo que vulgarmente se llama “hasta las trancas”), no es en cambio de puertas para fuera un tipo especialmente romántico. Al menos no hasta que se pone (o se ponía) a ello con algo de esfuerzo. Quizá, a lo Bogart (ya quisiera uno ser como Bogart… en eso), tras su espíritu cenizo, su sarcasmo sin descanso y su cinismo abierto las veinticuatro horas, se oculta un sentimental (como le decía Claude Rains en Casablanca). Pero romántico, en términos almibarados, lo que comúnmente conocemos como “moñas”, lo que se dice romántico, uno no es. Así que volvemos a ir contracorriente en esta sección al recoger la apología de la moñez que supone El diario de Noa, azucaradas dos horas de mermelada de grosella dirigidas por Nick Cassavetes (ilustre apellido mancillado en esta ocasión) en 2004 y que para un amplio espectro de público se ha colocado junto a Ghost o Dirty Dancing (puaj, me crujen los dedos al escribir este título) como una de las referencias habituales a la hora de rescatar algún producto digno dentro de ese endemoniado género de pastiches sentimentaloides que ha dado en llamarse “comedia romántica” y que tantos pestiños incluye, entre los cuales, para este enfant terrible de la cosa del cuore, figura ésta en un puesto de honor.

Vaya por delante que se trata de una película no especialmente mal filmada sino que, al contrario, como toda cinta a caballo entre épocas distintas, supone un notable esfuerzo de producción y ambientación, sobre todo a la hora de componer los distintos escenarios que contiene la historia, desde un pueblecito de los años treinta y cuarenta hasta las breves escenas que tienen la guerra como marco, en la que Cassavetes no se mueve mal, consiguiendo una factura visual y técnica sin alardes pero eficaz. El problema, como tantas veces, no es la forma, sino el fondo, empezando por la previsibilidad del guión. Construida como una acumulación de flashbacks o una retrospectiva fragmentada, la película usurpa en buena parte la estética y la atmósfera del cine mal llamado independiente para contarnos una historia a partir del relato que Duke (James Garner), un anciano que vive en una residencia, lee continuamente y siempre que hay ocasión a Allie (Gena Rowlands), otra residente que arrastra acuciantes problemas de memoria. La historia, claro, trata de dos jóvenes que se conocen durante los años treinta y que viven un amor que es la pera: Noah (Ryan Gosling, otro actor de una sola cara) y, atención, Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams). Los mocetes se encuentran en un verano en Carolina del Norte y se encandilan a pesar de que son de extracciones sociales muy opuestas, ella de familia bien y él hijo de un peón (Sam Sephard). Y, cómo no, la cosa empieza con azúcar: el chico se queda tan prendado de la chica que, habiendo subido ésta a la noria de una feria con otro mozo, el joven Noah trepa hasta arriba y amenaza con arrojarse desde lo alto si ella no acepta salir con él. La chica lo toma por un lunático pero, en el fondo halagada y empezando a segregar sustancias corporales varias, por supuesto, acepta.

Desde ese momento, salpicada por continuas vueltas a la residencia en la que la pareja de ancianos comenta la historia, la narración se construye sobre todos los tópicos habidos y por haber sobre lo cursi, tanto en los diálogos como en las situaciones, para mostrarnos el gran amor que viven estos muchachotes: comparten algodón de azúcar, pasean de la mano, contemplan puestas de sol en el campo y, tras haberse mojado con un repentino chaparrón veraniego en mitad del campo se dedican a fornicar, de modo muy romántico, eso sí, en una habitación iluminada con velas de la que el día de mañana ha de ser la casa de sus sueños… Pero claro, los papás de la nena, como el chaval no tiene dónde caerse muerto, lo toman como algo pasajero y no aceptan que, cuando la cosa se pone chunga y la niñata pijotera consentida se empeña en continuar con su novio, su hija se comprometa con semejante mangurrián. Así que, de manera igualmente tópica, la cosa deriva en el drama de un amor imposible por oposición paterna, correo postal inteceptado y Segunda Guerra Mundial incluidos, y en cómo los chicos se separan para reencontrarse años después, cuando él es un tipo de éxito y ella está comprometida con otro (otro tópico), un hijo de papá forrado y de futuro económico asegurado. El drama oscila pues entre ese amor renacido y las comodidades materiales de un matrimonio económicamente próspero entre gente guapa (más tópicos, es la guerra…), y claro, el triunfo del amor es inevitable: no hace falta ser un hacha para que, a través de la coincidencia de nombres mal disimulada averigüemos quién es la pareja de ancianos de la residencia y por qué él le cuenta a ella una vez tras otra la historia.

Además de esta sorpresa que de tan telegrafiada resulta de lo más previsible, es precisamente la tremenda cursilería la que arruina el ingenio que todo esto pudiera tener, sobre todo el juego entre los ancianos desmemoriados y su interés en una historia que presuntamente trata de dos jóvenes desconocidos (y, con perdón, un poco gilipollas). Bien contada pero sin mordiente, sin garra, fuerza ni pasión, la película no deja de ser un drama ajeno en el que el espectador entrará o no según su propio grado de azucaramiento, en el que cuesta encontrar humor, ironía, inteligencia, brillantez en los diálogos u originalidad en las situaciones y en la que sobran clichés y pasteleo. Tanta glucosa se atraganta tanto que uno casi llega a desear que tanto amor se vaya por el sumidero, y el único condimento que podría salvar este monumento al tedio gelatinado, la mala baba, brilla por su ausencia. Será que uno no es un romántico o que la vida no le ha dejado serlo…

Acusados: todos
Atenuantes: la dirección artística
Agravantes: azúcar, mermelada, miel, gelatina, merengue y todos los dulces que el lector sea capaz de imaginar
Sentencia: culpables
Condena: supositorios de sal a tutiplén

Eines Abends findet Professor Parker auf seinem Heimweg einen herrenlosen Hundewelpen am Bahnhof. Zunächst hofft er noch möglichst schnell den Besitzer ausfindig zu machen, zumal auch seine Frau nicht gerade begeistert von dem verspielten Vierbeiner ist. Doch nachdem sich niemand meldet, ist es um Parker bereits geschehen: Er hat den Hund in sein Herz geschlossen. Er findet heraus, dass der knuffige Freund bereits den Namen Hachiko trägt und ein Akita ist – eine sehr alte und edle Hunderassen aus Japan. Damit erklären sich auch die Eigenheiten von Hachiko: Er wird zwar ein treuer Gefährte, ist aber nicht dafür zu gewinnen einen Ball zu aportieren. Zwischen Parker und seinem Hund entwickelt sich im Laufe der Zeit eine immer tiefere Bindung. Schließlich begleitet Hachiko sein Herrchen jeden Morgen zum Bahnhof und holt ihn am Abend wieder dort ab. Auch als Parker eines Tages nicht mehr am Bahnhof ankommt wartet Hachiko geduldig…

Wer sich einmal wieder einen richtig anrührenden Film anschauen möchte und noch dazu Tiere mag, ist in diesem Streifen genau richtig. Regisseur Lasse Hallström verfilmt einen alten Stoff neu und lässt seinen Freund Richard Gere gerne die Hauptrolle übernehmen – von ihm bekam er nämlich das Drehbuch und war sofort neugierig. Der wahre Hachiko und sein Herrchen Professor Hidesaburo Ueno lebten in den zwanziger Jahren, in denen es bereits nur noch etwa 30 reinrassige Akita-Hunde in Japan gab. Nachdem der Professor an einem Herzinfarkt starb, kam Hachiko dennoch den Rest seines Lebens jeden Tag zur gleichen Zeit zum Bahnhof, um auf seinen Gefährten zu warten. Ihm und seiner lebenslangen Treue zu Ehren wurde am Bahnhof eine Bronzestatue von ihm errichtet. Bereits 1987 wurde Hachikos Geschichte in Japan verfilmt und wurde ein Blockbuster. Diese US-amerikanische Version zeichnet den Lebensweg Hachikos einfühlsam nach und macht den Hund eindeutig zum Star des Geschehens. Natürlich überzeugt auch der alte Hase Richard Gere in der Rolle des wesensguten und anständigen Parker. Mit dieser Mischung ergibt sich ein rührender Film über eine einzigartige Freundschaft zwischen Mensch und Tier, die nicht nur Tierliebhaber begeistern wird. Die Geschichte lädt zum zurücklehnen ein und kommt völlig ohne haarsträubende Action, brachialen Humor oder Special Effects aus. Stattdessen besinnt der Film auf andere Werte und erinnert fast ein bisschen an die alten Lassie-Filme. Aber hier geht es nicht um einen perfekten Hund, der auf wundersame Weise alles versteht was man ihm sagt und der damit sogar Leben zu retten vermag, sondern um eine wahre Geschichte eines treuen Hundes. Das rührt noch mehr als ein ganzer Haufen süßer Collies.
Hachiko startet am 12.11. in den deutschen Kinos – und Taschentücher nicht vergessen!

5 von 6 Sternen (*****)

2004: The Notebook di Nick Cassavetes

Un film che l’intera critica italiana ha giustamente bocciato, riconoscendogli un unico merito (“In una produzione made in Usa che sembra sempre più orientata a soddisfare le aspettative di un pubblico giovanissimo, «Notebook» si pone in controtendenza. Il target si ribalta, prevalgono le donne e la fascia di pubblico più anziano”, Il Manifesto).

Nick Cassavetess, figlio di una coppia d’oro di Hollywood (John Cassavetes e Gena Rowlands), si  è fatto soprattutto apprezzare come regista di She’s so lovely (ottimo psicodramma che regalò la Palma d’oro a Sean Penn nel 1997).

Per il suo nuovo film trae spunto dall’ultimo romanzo di Nicholas Sparks. Questi, già autore dello zuccheroso “Le parole che non ti ho detto”, ha firmato un altro bestseller con gli stessi ingredienti: romanticismo a più non posso, sentimento (sentimentalismo) in abbondanza, passioni che sfidano il tempo e la decadenza fisica, tramonti rosso sangue e albe abbacinanti… (un critico ha detto: è uno scrittore “che, nel dar vita ai suoi libri, si arma di un calamaio colmo di miele, nel quale intinge la penna prima di lasciarla cadere su ogni pagina, conquistando così chi le volta leccandosi le dita…”).

Trattando un materiale di questo tipo è chiaro che il giovane regista si pone su una linea diametralmente opposta a quella scelta dal famoso padre (morto nel 1989), autore di lavori sempre anticonformisti, molto personali e spesso non facili.

Nick Cassavetes, che col nome che porta e con un film come She’s So Lovely alle spalle (ma qui aveva rispolverato un vecchio copione del padre) pareva destinato a ben altro, si è catapultato nel melodramma d’altri tempi descrivendoci una grande storia d’amore old style che in America ha riscosso un notevole successo e che, stranamente, è piaciuta alla maggioranza della critica statunitense.

Si parla di un uomo anziano che in una casa di riposo sta leggendo a una donna, anche lei anziana, pagine sbiadite dal tempo di vecchi quaderni di appunti: la storia di due giovani innamorati negli anni Quaranta…

Servendosi di una fotografia dai colori forti e molto patinata e di una ricca colonna sonora d’epoca, il regista intende mostrarci l’America felice, ingenua, libera di un tempo (ma è mai esistita?) in cui tutti sono spensierati, pieni di aspettative e fiduciosi nella vittoria contro i pregiudizi e le ingiustizie della società: un mondo dove l’amore supera ogni ostacolo e impedimento. Ma vi è un altro tema: il dramma esistenziale, la vecchiaia, la decadenza fisica, la malattia, l’oblio della memoria e il bisogno di ricordare.

A differenza di quanto accadeva in Pomodori verdi fritti… (la cui struttura Le pagine della nostra vita ricorda) i due piani non si armonizzano, non si integrano ma uno disturba l’altro e la loro combinazione appesantisce il tutto e fa sembrare l’opera più lunga di quanto effettivamente sia.

Il film non coinvolge, non commuove, non induce lo spettatore alla partecipazione: spettatore che è portato a chiedersi cosa stia vedendo (anche perché l’insieme sa tanto di soap televisiva). Se N.Cassavetes intendeva fare un omaggio al cinema di un tempo (come fece qualche anno fa Todd Haynes con lo splendido Lontano dal Paradiso) l’operazione è senz’altro fallita: troppa ricercatezza, troppa artificiosità, troppe ovvietà, troppe frasi ad effetto, troppa melassa elargita senza alcun pudore.

Buona la prestazione di James Garner e di Joan Allen, sprecato e inutile Sam Shepard.

Coraggiosa nel mostrare in pieno la sua vecchiaia Gena Rowlands (ma il trucco è eccessivo) e ci si sente quasi male quando vengono mostrate le sue vecchie foto (come dimenticare che donna splendida, e che attrice magnifica, era in Gloria del 1980…).

La coppia giovane è costituita da Rachel McAdams (piuttosto insulsa e monocorde) e da Ryan Gosling (di cui ricordiamo le notevoli performance in Lars e una ragazza tutta sua e Il caso Thomas Crawford).

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

sito ufficiale

Okay guys. I literally just finished watching my favorite movie of all time. This is a documentary about a man named Dalton Trumbo. It is so eye opening, hilarious, inventive, and has the best excerpts in any movie I have ever seen, ever. I’ll break it down for you. We’ll start with the excerpts.

Okay, so all of the excerpts in this are read by very famous celebrities. Two of them are a couple of my favorite actors of all time: Liam Neeson and Paul Giamatti. However I have to give credit to all of the actors who read the excerpts because they did an amazing job. They were all extremely charismatic and brought Trumbo’s words to life so well that I felt like he was in the room saying them to me. It was incredible absolutely incredible. I won’t spoil anything, but my favorite one’s were the last one, the first Paul Giamatti one, and the one on masturbation (it’s a friggin’ scream).

Anyhow, the excerpts were so well done and I am so proud of everybody involved with the making of them.

Now you may think after what I’ve said that the excerpts overshadow the documentary part of the movie, but no. The great thing about Trumbo, is that the importance of both parts of the movie is balanced perfectly. You’re always excited to get to the excerpts, and you’re always excited for more documents. And some of the stories are amazing. They’re all told in great detail and you feel very satisfied after each one has been told. Some are very sad, but some made you laugh out loud. Some are very heartwarming and some are very mysterious, making you feel like a detective on the biggest case of your career. It’s an awesome thrill ride that anybody can enjoy.

I recommend Trumbo to writers and people in the movie industry, as well as people considering getting into politics. This movie is practically flawless and there is a reason I call it my favorite movie of all time. Buy this movie, now! It may be a little late to be talking about this, since it was made in ‘07, but hey, if you think that way consider it “an oldie but a goodie.”

servizio di LUCA SVIZZERETTO

(tratto da Nuovo Oggi di sabato 17 ottobre 2009) – Ieri seconda giornata per la Festa del Film di Roma e se giovedì non molto pubblico si era presentato ai bordi del red-carpet per accogliere Christopher Lee e Paz Vega, con l’arrivo di Richard Gere la situazione è notevolmente migliorata.
Nonostante il freddo che in questi giorni sta colpendo la capitale molta più gente è accorsa per vedere una delle star più famose e quotate di Hollywood.
Ma andiamo con ordine perchè prima di Gere è stato il momento di Franco Zeffirelli, del vicesindaco di Roma, Cutrufo e della Ministro del Turismo, Michela Brambilla.
Franco Zeffirelli celebra la capitale e il suo rapporto di odio-amore con la città in cui ha vissuto per 40 anni. S’intitola ‘Omaggio a Roma’ il documentario-spot che il maestro ha girato con Monica Bellucci ed Andrea Bocelli, che danno vita all’opera romana per eccellenza: la ‘Tosca’ di Puccini.
Fortemente voluto dal vicesindaco della capitale, Mauro Cutufro, per promuovere l’immagine della Città Eterna nel mondo, il documentario è stato presentato stamattina al Festival internazionale del Film di Roma, alla presenza oltre che del regista fiorentino e del tenore, anche del sindaco Gianni Alemanno, del vicesindaco Cutrufo e della Ministra del turismo Michela Brambilla. Dal corto sono stati tratti due diversi prodotti promozionali: un frammento di 3 minuti e tre spot da 30 secondi l’uno destinati alla diffusione sui media internazionali.
Zeffirelli racconta Roma seguendo il filo conduttore del cinema (le immagini della città sono inframezzate da celebri scene che l’hanno resa immortale), dell’arte monumentale e dell’acqua (sulla quale è nata la città).
“L’idea non è quella di svelare una Roma che è già stata scoperta -  ha spiegato Zeffirelli – ma di continuare a raccontare una storia senza tempo e senza fine, come quella di Roma, un capitolo che non si chiude mai”.”Quello che più mi ha affascinato – ha spiegato il maestro – è quanto Roma sia semplice. Ce l’abbiamo addosso tutti. Appartiene a tutti”.
“Per promuovere Roma è necessario affidarsi ad una grande immagine artistica che spieghi una città che non appartiene al passato ma che è un’idea che si rigenera continuamente – ha detto il sindaco Alemanno -  e coinvolgere in questa operazione di promozione tre artisti di questo calibro è stata un’idea vincente che ho sposato immediatamente”. Il sindaco della capitale ha poi confidato di credere molto nel fatto che questo spot d’autore possa concretamente aiutare Roma nella sua candidatura alle Olimpiadi del 2020. ‘L’idea di Cutrufo è arrivata molto prima di quando si è pensato alla candidatura di Roma alle Olimpiadi – ha precisato Alemanno -. Ma adesso sara’ importantissimo per parlare della nostra citta’ in tutto il mondo e credo che il Coni ne potra’ tenere conto quando dovra’ scegliere”.
Al termine della conferenza stampa Alemanno e Cutrufo hanno consegnato a Zeffirelli il primo premio Colosseo, un riconoscimento che da quest’anno in poi sarà attribuito alle professionalità che maggiormente diffonderanno positivamente l’immagine di Roma nel mondo.
Tornando al glamour parliamo della più bella sorpresa per ora. Infatti la pellicola che vede protagonista il sempre bellissimo Gere è fino ad ora la migliore presentata alla stampa.
‘Hachiko: A dog’s story’ è una commovente storia che assume i connotati di una meravigliosa fiaba tratta da un fatto realmente accaduto in Giappone poco prima dello scoppio della Seconda Guerra Mondiale.
Il vero protagonista del film è Achi un cane di razza Akito. Questo amico molto speciale accompagnava ogni giorno il suo padrone, professore universitario, alla stazione ferroviaria e ritornava a prenderlo quando rientrava dalla giornata lavorativa.
Purtroppo il suo padrone un giorno morì di arresto cardiaco mentre era all’università. Hachiko fedelmente ritornò alla stazione il giorno successivo, e ogni giorno per i nove anni successivi, in attesa del suo amato padrone.
Con il passare del tempo, durante la sua visita quotidiana, Hachiko tocca la vita di molti che lavorano nelle vicinanze. Insegna così alla popolazione locale l’amore, la compassione e soprattutto l’irriducibile fedeltà.
Oggi, una statua in bronzo di Hachiko siede nel suo posto di attesa al di fuori della stazione di Shibuya in Giappone come un ricordo permanente della sua devozione e di amore.
Un film semplicissimo e dolcissimo che senza buttare troppa carne al fuoco è assolutamente perfetta proprio nella sua assoluta innocenza.
Prende il cuore di tutti il cane Hachi perchè la sua vita è la metafora dell’amore più vero e più puro, quello in cui si da completamente la propria anima senza chiedere nulla in cambio, senza interessi. Amare per istinto, amare per natura. Quel sentimento che tutti noi vorremo avere al nostro fianco ma che forse solo chi ha un amico a quattro zampe può comprendere fino in fondo.
Richard Gere in conferenza stampa parla di “Una storia che colpisce tutti noi perchè magica. Non c’è una spiegazione a ciò che si prova ascoltandola. Le emozioni nascono spontanee e basta”.
Parla anche della sua fede buddista e con questa spiega il motivo che lo ha avvicinato a questo racconto che nasce in Giappone e affonda le sue radici in quella cultura che l’attore statunitense ama tanto.
Un film assolutamente da vedere quindi, nei cinema ufficialmente uscirà a Dicembre poco prima di Natale quando le fiabe come quella di Hachi sono perfette per far sognare bambini, giovani e non.
“Questa è una favola, che per i temi trattati, è dedicata non solo per ai più piccoli ma anche e probabilmente soprattutto agli adulti” ha concluso Gere in sala conferenze.
Tanto per specificare anche la regia di Halstrom è buona e ben curata, dalle luci alla fotografia passando per una ricerca delle riprese affatto scontata.
Altre pellicole a cui abbiamo finora assistito sono state ‘Viola di Mare’ (con Valeria Solarino), la vita di due siciliane lesbiche ad inizio secolo; ‘City of your final destination’ (con Hantony Hopkins), commedia americana che racconta di Omar Razaghi uno studente di origini iraniane diplomatosi all’università del Colorado al quale viene assegnata un borsa di studio per scrivere la biografia ufficiale dell’autore scomparso latino-americano Jules Gund; ‘Dawson Isla 10′ (di Miguel Littin), ambientato dopo il colpo di stato militare del 1973 in Cile dove tutti i più stretti collaboratori e ministri di Salvador Allende vengono rinchiusi nel campo di concentramento dell’isola di Dawson, all’imboccatura dello Stretto di Magellano dove, per cancellarne le identità, sono ribattezzati con un numero.
La Solarino delude ogni aspettitiva con un prodotto costruito male e che non riesce a coinvolgere fino in fondo, Hopkins si è dedicato ad un’opera estremamente lunga e pretenziosa che se fosse stata più breve forse avrebbe potuto divertire ma così finisce per diventare purtroppo lunga e tediosa, infine il film di Littin è la visione comunista di ciò che avvenne in Cile dopo la caduta di Allende e non aggiungiamo altro, lasciamo immaginare a voi quanto possa essere molto di parte e molto poco obbiettiva storicamente.
Tanti film e tanti attori abbiamo già visto dopo 48 ore e il più bravo di tutti è… un cane.

La Maquimaria de Hollywood no para,y Las Prom,ociones en posters estan cada dia mas actualizadas.

Comenzamos revisando La nueva produccion de ”CELDA 211”,que tiene como protagonistas a Antonio Resines

Dentor de los nuevos films que se nos vienen,tenemos el nuevo trabajo de Cameron Diaz,”THE BOX”

Y los estrenos suman y siguen,en navidad tendremos lo nuevo de Jim Carrey ”A CHRISTMAS CAROL”

Dentro de las novedades que vienen,esta el nuevo trabajo filmico de Joel Schumacher ”BLOOD CREEK”

Para quienes gustan del cine Tierno y familiar,tenemos lo nuevo de Richard Gere ”SIEMPRE A TU LADO”

Como ven ,son bastantes las nuevas producciones que tendremos pronto en la gran pantalla,pronto estaremos con mas novedades en

Watch the entire Georgia O’Keeffe movie online now!

Georgia O’Keeffe | myLifetime.com

I will start by saying I was at one point an Oliver Stone fan and at this time I was at the point. For some particular reason though I did not expect to like this movie. He actually unexpectedly gave a very fair depiction of Nixon. Nixon really transformed before my eyes in here. That was in many ways something special to see.

The acting was quite good. Anthony Hopkins single handedly though, totally uplifted this movie. I could imagine many people saying his performance was over-the-top or a bit too surreal at times. Yet that is what really made his performance so amazing. The way he was able to transform the many crazy and totally off the wall aspects of Nixon and make them into a forseeable reality. To me as the movie went on I felt I was in some way able to see his paranoia, anxiety, hunger for power and just the simple fact of wanting to be liked. I could see he was more of a troubled and vulnerable man than a monster yet at times he certainly proved to be one. He never quite connected with anybody which made him bitter and fueled his paranoia and greed even more. To me Hopkins portrayed this all perfectly, all the complexities and inner feelings of Nixon. Hopkins slipped into this role in way that you rarely see. He became Nixon, and at times I was speechless or should I say thoughtless watching him portray such an important figure in such a way. More and more I felt sorry for Nixon, as he looked more and more like a schizophrenic but simultaneously angered at him. To me this role was more psychologically bone-chilling than even as his role as Hannibal Lechter in Silence of the Lambs and I have no problem debating that.

The rest of the cast was quite good as well. Joan Allen was very good in showing the complex relationship/marriage she had with Richard Nixon. James Woods was quite freakish at times displaying that pure evil and hatred which  Hopkins showed as Nixon. Paul Sorvino was a little unusual to see as Henry Kissinger but was no disappointment as he has proved to show his wide range in roles. Mary Steenburgen was interesting to watch in the very limited time she played in the role of Nixon’s mother. The two actors though other than Hopkins though that really stood out to me were Bob Hoskins and Sam Waterston, who both didn’t necessarily have spectacular performances. Despite Hoskins not giving an amazing performance and having very limited time he gave a darker edge just by seeing J. Edgar Hoover being portrayed in some sort of way. Sam Waterston despite being limited to really just one scene was the most and certainly more chilling than the rest of the cast(excluding Hopkins) combined in that one moment. That moment was one of the most intense face to face scenes that I have ever seen, definitely in that from Sam Waterson. It was grimmingly memorable.

The directing was very good. It was not the best I have seen from Oliver Stone but it was up there. For the first 45 minutes or so I was a bit confused about what was happening and the flow of the movie but I got used to it. The first portion of the movie did feel unbalanced at times but the feel of the movie got better as it wore on. Going back to that one scene between Sam Waterston and Anthony Hopkins, I felt this scene was one of the best directed and written scenes I have seen from Oliver Stone or anyone ever. That scene was a microcosm of the movie. The motion-sickness, mind scrambling, paranoid feeling of that scene captured the entire movie. The feeling of even seeing the president himself being treated like a puppet, despite not that shocking, was mind numbing to watch. That scene was true testament to the writing and directing abilities of Oliver Stone.

The writing was also very good throughout. It seemed as if everything Oliver Stone wanted to get across got across. The cinematography was another great aspect and feature though. Stone always knows how to get his point across in the way he photographs a movie even if all of other aspects of the movie fail. It has always been a main-stay with him. That dark and haunting feeling kept on creeping in on every scene, but also that dark psychological feeling that he had put in Born On the Fourth of July and Platoon also was felt through the cinematography. The music by John Williams, who always knows how to capture a moment musically, was simply perfect in here again.

I can understand this movie being  considering boring to a lot of people or it being considered propaganda. Yet I think this movie is an overlooked masterpiece. Just seeing and watching Anthony Hopkins perform as Nixon is a more then good enough reason to see this film. He took control of this movie by force and took it to another level. Despite this being an Oliver Stone movie it is more fair than you would think. Despite it being great in my opinion, I don’t know if this is a movie for everyone. This movie seems to be crazy and surreal but isn’t that how life seems to be at times as well?

“Going up to the lake all the time is one thing, but going to a library?! What’s next?”

Retro Review & Recap of:  Pleasantville

Released:  1998

Main Cast:  Reese Witherspoon, Toby Maguire, William H.Macy, Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels , Paul Walker, and Don Knotts

Seen the movie?  Skip the recap and head to the review.

In honor of Banned Books Week Retro Review takes a break from reviewing the small screen and ventures out to an oldie, but a goodie, from the silver screen.  And by oldie I mean from about 10 years ago…Ah, 1998.  How I miss you so.  The choker necklaces, valley girl speak, and MTV being popular (Oh my Gawd, like, TRL is on!).  Ok, not really, but Reese’s character, Jen, is only a walking 90’s cliche for the first ten minutes of the movie.  After the differences between her and her brother are established she and Toby’s character, David, are zapped into a 1950’s television show Pleasantville as it’s two main characters Bud and Mary Sue.

Pleasantville is a fictional town set in the 50’s where nothing bad ever happens, mainly because fire doesn’t burn anything, the roads don’t lead anywhere but back to where they started, everyone always makes a basket in gym class, and the books are blank so no one knows any other way exists.

Don Knotts’s character, “TV Repair Man”, sent David and Jen into the world of Pleasantville (and black & white TV) thinking of it as a way to reward David for being such a huge fan.  Unfortunately for TV Repair Man, David and Jen’s arrival shakes up the town of Pleasantville in more ways than one.  Their inability to play along with the mundane life of the people of Pleasantville ends up being a catalyst for major changes in the lives of Pleasantville’s residents.

Once Jen introduces sex and David introduces the concept of changing your routine, thinking for yourself and going for your dreams (he sure aims high without even trying, doesn’t he?) the people of Pleasantville who’ve experienced something new start experiencing the world in technicolor.

In addition to color sprouting up around town, the world of Pleasantville goes from always pleasant, to sometimes not so good.  When the town basketball team looses their first game ever the initial reaction of the town is that change feels wrong, but hey you can’t win ‘em all – right?  Just when you think the town will embrace change after all the stereo typical big bad walks in and declares that change should be avoided.

While most of the grownups start to panic in all they’ve lost, totally missing what can be gained, the teenagers start to explore their new freedoms and abilities.  The empty pages of books begin to fill with print and the kids are eager to learn.

As more and more people start to change, those that haven’t been affected become even more eager to return things to how they were before.  The fathers of Pleasantville see the changes of their children and wives as an attack on the moral values of the town.

“If you love a place you can’t just sit back

and watch this kind of thing happen.”

-Mayor Bob

The town soon becomes segregated and rioting begins after a nude painting on the window of the soda shop is smashed, the shop destroyed and piles of books burned.  People who are “colored” are harassed on the street and a “Pleasantville Code of Conduct” is put in place.

David (as Bud) and Mr. Johnson paint a mural (see above) on a brick wall, depicting Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  In the mural winged books rise from piles of burning literature, men and women are dancing together to rock music, and other things relevant to the changes in their world are depicted.  David and Mr. Johnson are jailed and a trial is held in the town courthouse with everyone present.  The events of the trial lead to the entire town becoming colored and the people of Pleasantville are introduced to the world that exists outside of their own.

So what in the world does Pleasantville have to do with banned books week?  A major theme of Pleasantville is that the town seems like the perfect place to live, but is actually a world devoid of the freedom of choice and expression.  The town is averse to change and the citizens unable to cope when change is put upon them.  Pleasantville doesn’t change because they are introduced to sex and the outside world, the people of Pleasantville begin to change when they are given autonomy!

Director Gary Ross states, “This movie is about the fact that personal repression gives rise to larger political oppression…That when we’re afraid of certain things in ourselves or we’re afraid of change, we project those fears on to other things, and a lot of very ugly social situations can develop”

Free people read freely.

Celebrate Banned Books Week, September 26 to October 3, with a visit to your local library or bookstore. For more information, visit http://www.ala.org/bbooks.

After having just seen Joan Allen as Georgia O’Keefe in Lifetime Channel’s Red Carpet Event of the same name, it occurred to me that we, as media participants, are in the midst of several films that highlight the success of women.

The Lifetime version I actually sought out–having seen it advertised about town and television–and was a bit disappointed by the significant amount of time spent on the O’Keefe/Alfred Stieglitz relationship in the TV drama. I know of his presence and impact on her work and life–it was overwhelming–but I was really looking to delve further into the mind of this magnificent painter and the story of her artistry.

Another biopic that I am intrigued by is director Anne Fontaine’s Coco Avant Chanel, a film about the life of Gabriel ‘Coco’ Chanel before she becomes the world renowned courtier. In the preview, Coco Chanel, played by Audrey Tatou of Amelie fame, ascends to the height of French culture from her orphan beginnings. She seems a fascinating woman.

After my recent viewing of Georgia O’Keefe, and the relationship-heavy Chanel preview (the film premieres in New York this weekend), I wonder again how much the drama of life is dependent upon the drama of its relationships–and how much this film would focus not on Chanel’s work, but on the men in her life. Sometimes love is hard to disentangle from success.

In October, director Mira Nair will release Amelia, her biopic about one of the most heroic women of the modern age: the aviatrix Amelia Earhart.

Knowing that any good drama takes a story loaded with conflict and struggle, this film will most likely hinge on the action-oriented work of this woman’s passion: flying. I look forward to Nair’s cinematic landscapes and color schemes and wonder if Hilary Swank might not find her third Oscar in this performance.

What other soon to be released female driven films do you know about?

Posted by: Autumn.

from mylifetime.com – Deleted scenes and cast interviews:

In these deleted scenes from the Lifetime movie “Georgia O’Keeffe,” Alfred Steiglitz discovers O’Keeffe’s art and is struck by it’s uniqueness. But his interest seems to distract him from his familial duties.

In this deleted scene from “Georgia O’Keeffe,” Georgia walks and talks with the handsome poet, Mr. Toomer, who shows his romantic interest in her.

In this deleted scene from “Georgia O’Keeffe,” Georgia walks and talks with the handsome poet, Mr. Toomer, who shows his romantic interest in her.

Georgia and Mr. Toomer have an intimate moment together, in this deleted scene from “Georgia O’Keeffe”.

Mr Toomer, the poet, comes to Georgia while she paints in the desert, in this deleted scene from “Georgia O’Keeffe.”

More intimate moments are had between Georgia and the handsome poet, Mr. Toomer, in this deleted scene from “Georgia O’Keeffe.”

eremy Irons, who plays Alfred Steiglitz in “Georgia O’Keeffe,” gives his insights on his character and Alfred with Georgia’s complex relationship.

Joan Allen, who stars in the title role of Georgia O’Keeffe, talks about what it was like to portray the remarkable and intriguing artist.

Tyne Daly, who plays Mabel Dodge Stern in “Georgia O’Keeffe,” discusses her colorful character as well as the friendship that forms between Mabel and Georgia. Mabel serves as a support to Georgia in hard times and teaches her skills that help broaden her horizons as an independent woman.

Ed Begley Jr., who plays Alfred Steiglitz’s brother, Lee in the Lifetime movie “Georgia O’Keeffe,” talks about the characters’ relationships.

Joan Allen, Tyne Daly and director Bob Balaban discuss the importance of New Mexico as an influence and inspiration in Georgia O’Keeffe’s life and art.

Watch this announcement for the Georgia O’Keeffe exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City, N.Y., from September 17, 2009- January 17, 2010.

Holland Cotter’s NYT review of the Whitney’s new Georgia O’Keefe exhibit is very fine, to be sure, but no match for colleague Ginia Bellafonte’s delicious review of Saturday’s Lifetime movie named for the painter.

The TV movie, not too surprisingly, revolves around O’Keefe’s juicy affair, then marriage, with mentor and promoter Alfred Stieglitz. Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons fail to adequately convey such messy emotional characters, the reviewer notes before observing that Stieglitz is depicted “as a sort of publicist who today might hatch a higher-brow Paris Hilton.”

This is the guy, after all, who “shepherds O’Keeffe to the altar of celebrity by displaying his nude photographs of her alongside her own work.”

My favorite line, however, comes at the very end:

The unintended effect of “Georgia O’Keeffe” is to leave its audience wondering if a painter who prized integrity madly loved a man only because he could play Phil Spector to her Ronette.

For more, check out Bellafonte’s review, Independent Protegee and Needy Starmaker, and Cotter’s take on the Whitney exhibit, which is accompanied by a slide show of O’Keefe’s formative abstract work. There’s another O’Keefe slideshow at NY mag’s Vulture blog.

Above postcard of O’Keefe circa 1948 has been hanging in my home office for years.

Movies, fashion, society and art all came together on Wednesday night at The Whitney Museum on the Upper East Side. The evening celebrated the opening of “Georgia O’Keeffe: Abstraction,” a show that runs through year-end.

Actress Joan Allen portrays O’Keeffe in a Lifetime movie premiering this Saturday that focuses on her rocky relationship with her husband, photographer Alfred Stieglitz.

“Stieglitz was very effusive, very talkative, intellectual, debating and he also liked the ladies besides [O'Keeffe] and that became an issue. So they ran into their snags in their relationship,” says Allen. “His photography influenced her painting a great deal in terms of framing and selection, and so in some ways it was a really wonderful coupling but they were also very, very different people.”

“You think, ‘Why did this pair stay together? What is the attraction?’ There was a big age difference, so that exploration was a very interesting one for me,” says Jeremy Irons, who plays Stieglitz.

Pamela Roland’s designs at Fashion Week were inspired by O’Keeffe.

“So you obviously see the flowers and Georgia is obviously known for flowers and very abstract flowers and the oranges and the bright colors,” says Roland.

Barbara Haskell, the Whitney Museum’s curator, believes O’Keeffe was a very important artist.

“She’s made paintings that for decades have tapped into people’s emotions when the mind stops and you’re completely absorbed in the thing itself, and that kind of universality has endeared her to generations of people,” says Haskell. “From the very beginning of her career she was a star.”

Between O’Keeffe’s paintings in the Whitney and O’Keeffe-inspired dresses on the models, Alfred Stieglitz would have been pretty proud.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Susan Lucci, Jeremy Irons and Joan Allen were among the attendees at the Georgia O’Keeffe: Abstraction exhibition opening at The Whitney Museum of American Art on Wednesday in New York City.

The exhibition includes more than 130 paintings, drawings, watercolors, and sculptures by O’Keeffe as well as selected examples of Alfred Stieglitz’s famous photographic portrait series of O’Keeffe.

Susan Lucci, Jeremy Irons and Joan Allen

Click the links to read reviews of Georgia O’Keeffe

New York Daily News

New York Times

Los Angeles Times

The Boston Globe

The Huffington Post

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

San Francisco Examiner

Miami Herald

The Wall Street Journal

California Chronicle

The Bay Area Reporter

My San Antonio

Jeremy Irons defends Alfred Stieglitz, applauds Joan Allen

Jeremy Irons as Alfred Stieglitz in "Georgia O'Keeffe"

The Hollywood Exclusive: Jeremy Irons Defends Alfred Stieglitz, Applauds Joan Allen

by Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith

Jeremy Irons, who plays the world-renowned photographer Alfred Stieglitz in Lifetime’s Sept. 19-debuting “Georgia O’Keeffe,” comes to the defense of the man with whom O’Keefe engaged in a turbulent 20-year relationship.

The Oscar, Emmy and Tony-award-winning actor declares, “Stieglitz was difficult, but forgivable. O’Keeffe loved him until the day he died. I do think creative people like she need a partner who excites them deeply, and that person does not have to be the easiest to live with. I wonder if she would have become a great artist without him. Sometimes we need a thorn to make us realize our greatness.”

Irons continues, “Granted, Stieglitz was difficult to live with. He had a record of picking talent for his art gallery and controlling them until it got so bad, they moved on. Georgia had to go to New Mexico to get away from him, but she never stopped loving him.”

Irons has nothing but kudos for his leading lady. “Joan Allen was born to play Georgia O’Keeffe,” he says. And, he adds, the story of O’Keeffe and Stieglitz was born to be made. He just can’t understand why it took so long to make it.

“It was shopped around for about seven or eight years as a motion picture and could never find a taker,” he reveals. And then, he notes, “It was offered to HBO and they turned it down. That was a shame. It was a big mistake. I must tell you, when I saw the completed film, I was thrilled.”

Death Race has a simple premise – a bunch of prisoners fight for their freedom by competing in a super violent version of Wacky Races.

Jason Statham, although typecast to hell these days, is excellent in this sort of monotone beefcake role.

He plays Jensen Ames, a former race driver, who winds up inside after being framed for the murder of his wife.

He is persuaded by the head prison Warden Hennessey (Joan Allen) to pretend to be famed masked Death Race driver Frankenstein – who died following the last race.

There’s all kind of other bit parts that make up the plot but quite frankly no-one will be watching this for the engaging storyline and well rounded character arcs. It’s all about the cars and guns.

And there is plenty of car and gun action.

The races are really well handled and the fact the cars have to drive over on track symbols to activate their weapons is a nice nod to Mario Kart et al.

This is fast, violent stuff – it’s a bit like Twisted Metal but without the supernatural cast of characters.

Death Race is a fun film. It’s one of those titles that you can park your brain to one side and watch, safe in the knowledge there is nothing here to challenge you.

Of course that isn’t necessarily a bad thing – some of my favourite films are like that (Con Air, The Rock etc) and the performances are good enough for this to pass as an enjoyable film.

Rating: 7/10