Old Jindabyne, located in New South Wales, Australia, is mostly invisible. Mostly. Flooded in the 1960s to make Lake Jindabyne, the abandoned town sits quietly under the rippling surface. But on some days, when lake waters drop low enough, parts of Jindabyne come into view — a reminder of sorts that buried things have a tendency not to stay buried forever.

That Old Jindabyne serves as the setting of Aussie director Ray Lawrence’s tense, eerie character study “Jindabyne” is certainly no accident. The watery ghost town seems to attract residents nursing old grudges and long-suppressed emotional pain. However, it takes a murder and the discovery of the body to force all the hurts to the surface and even bigger, more dangerous ones. Early in their fishing trip, Stewart (Gabriel Byrne), Gregory (Chris Haywood), Rocco (Stelios Yiakmis), Billy (Simon Stone) and Carl (John Howard) discover the nude body of an aboriginal woman (Tatea Reilly) floating in the river. The men decide to finish their weekend before reporting the gruesome finding, going so far as to tether the body to tree so it won’t float downstream. She’s dead, they seem to agree silently, so what does it matter?

It’s a decision that has enormous and damning repercussions. Though the men elect to create a story to explain their choice, Billy spills the truth to a reporter. The story hits like a bomb blast. Stewart’s wife Claire (Laura Linney) is horrified by her husband’s cruel behavior and tries to make amends with the family of Susan, the dead girl. This alienates her from her friends: Carmel (Leah Purcell), who believes Claire has no business intruding on aboriginal rituals, and Jude (Deborra-Lee Furness), still recovering from the death of her own daughter. Tensions between the whites and the aborigines, who believe Stewart and his friends wouldn’t have dismissed Susan so easily if she’d been white.

Though Susan’s death plays a key role in “Jindabyne,” the film is about much more than a murder and the discovery of her corpse. Much like Karen Moncrieff’s sadly overlooked “The Dead Girl,” ”Jindabyne” explores the ways that one death creates a kind of butterfly effect, changing everyone from the family of the deceased to complete strangers, and untethers all the little hurts we weight down. Susan’s murder affects each character differently. For Stewart, it brings to light his anger over the post-partum depression that caused Claire to leave him and their son for 18 months. On one level, Claire simply wants to atone for her husband’s mistake; on another, she’s seeking absolution of her own unresolved guilt. The incident makes Jude and Carl confront their grief over the death of their daughter and the stress of raising her daughter (Eva Lazzaro). Even the killer seems surprised by the firestorm his crime has created. In this way, “Jindabyne” is very much a character study, but one with many interconnected threads.

Telling a story this complex requires patience and time, and Lawrence, who adapted “Jindabyne” from Raymond Carver’s short story “So Much Water So Close to Home,” has both in spades. He lets the characters unravel the plot threads at a pace impatient viewers will call “maddeningly slow” and minimalist fans — including this viewer – will deem “exactly right.” Along the way he focuses much attention on nature, including Lake Jindabyne, and wide, expansive shots of Australia’s wilderness. These scenes do much to reveal the continent’s harsh natural beauty, but they also cultivate the feeling of loneliness so central to the film. In the face of such vastness, man is, in essence, very small and alone.

The people of Jindabyne know this feeling all too well, and the actors give voice to this. Furness deftly shows the weariness and the sheer frustration that come after the death of a child, while Stone understands Billy’s immaturity renders him incapable of processing something this complicated. Byrne lends Stewart an air of stubborn and tense silence; his motivations are a mystery to everyone. There’s a hardness in him that frightens his wife, a part of himself he refuses to show her. Linney’s performance, though, shakes us hardest. Her Claire is a woman bell-jarred by guilt. She cannot go backward or forward, and it is she who reminds us that a life of perpetual penance is its own kind of hell.  

Grade: A

“General opinion studies make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don’t see that. Seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it’s not particularly dignified or news-worthy, but it’s always there. Fathers and sons. Mothers and daughters. Husbands and wives. Boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the twin towers as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge, they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaky feeling that you’ll find that love actually …is all around.”

“Love Actually”(2003) opens with a collage of the faces of ordinary people at Heathrow airport, one of the busiest travel portals in the world, where people from all different backgrounds, ages, sexes, colors, collide. They run toward each other, hugging, kissing, greeting, uniting, accompanied by the quote above. The film’s message is clear: open your eyes, and see the love that is everywhere, undeniable.

This is an age old theme that has been prodded, molded, stretched out and pressed in, turned inside out and upside down and twisted and re-presented in a thousand different deliveries: how love endures. And with a title that blatantly showcases another such attempt, it’s easy to write the film off as a cheesy cliche of holiday flicks. However, Love Actually is so brazen and enthusiastic in the pursuit of its vision, so skillful and sincere in the delivery of its message, so comprehensive in the plotlines that it engages, and so perfect in its casting, that it actually….succeeds.

Love comes in all shapes and sizes, but its form does not dictate its outcome. The great thing about love is that it’s available to everyone, and it does not discriminate. Here, we are treated to a plethora of characters and stories, each threaded through and with one another.

There is the love between husband and wife, lasting through years and withstanding the test of time, now having settled into a stable routine of domestic bliss.

There is new love, between newlyweds who somehow in this crazy world found the one they want to spend the rest of their lives with, and bask in the joy of their union amongst their loved ones.

There is love that is lost, through illnesses that is unexplained and unfathomable, at a time that is all too untimely.

There is love that is broken, through lies and betrayal, with no warning signs and no good reasons.

There is unrequited love, the kind that is heartwretching and bittersweet, the kind that suffers at the trickery of untimely timings, the kind that you have to live with because, well, you love them too much to do otherwise.

There is love that is too heavy to bear, because you already carry so much on your shoulders, and your sense of loyalty to your responsibilities are too great to overcome, and there is simply not enough room for the new love that you long for.

There is love that defy all logics, love that cross oceans, the kind that only happens in movies.

There is love that defy reasons, the kind that does happen…even in movies, because at the end of the day, you are only two lonely souls looking for company.

Then there is love that is totally unexpected, the kind that comes out of the left field and just kicks you in the gut and leaves you breathless, the kind that you will learn a new language for, the kind that you will learn to play drums for, the kind that you will chase a girl through the airport, through security check, to the boarding gate for, the kind that will lift you out of death, out of grief, and into the future.

There is all of those loves, and more. Love Actually is a film about love, for those who believe in love. Or, even if you are a non-believer, it seeks to warm your cold, cynical spirit and will make a valiant effort to convince you. Some will no doubt point to how saccharine the stories are and how unrealistic the payoffs are, and in a sense, they may be right. But before you turn it down, turn the movie on. Because it is necessary. Because for every over-enthusiastic heartwarming cliche it may carry, there exists a real, genuine moment of humanity. This film is full of them, these little moments of real gems. These moments are particularly moving because of both the amazing cast of actors and the amazing soundtrack that director Richard Curtis has chosen, which ranges from pop to jazz, from voices young to old, and so delicately evokes the emotional color of each scene. One of my favorite moments is when Sarah, played by the infallible Laura Linney,  finally dances with Carl, a man that she has secretly loved from afar while working alongside him for years, at the annual Christmas party. They stand awkwardly in the midst of the dance floor, then Norah Jones’ “Turn me on” breathes through the air, and they touch for the first time. I watched Linney’s face as he held her, and I held my breath just for a second. How that scene eventually played out is one of the saddest moments in the film, even though putting myself in her shoes, I probably would have done the exact same thing.

What is love but hope? No love is perfect, but we long for it anyway because we can’t live without it. Many of the stories in this film is probably a little too nicely wrapped up for real life…but it is not ridiculous. It is not so far out of our imagination or so lamely construed, like most romantic comedies produced, that it is implausible. In fact, it is very plausible, and hopeful, and it celebrates love, instead of glorifying it. This is a movie worth seeing. And during the holiday season, when the TV is filled with incessant noises of re-runs and carols and sales, pop this on, let it play, and spend time with your loved ones. This is a movie that does not have a bad bone in its entirety, only love.

On the DVD bonus features, Richard Curtis said that he received his emotional education from Joni Mitchell…whose song “Both Side Now” echos hauntingly in one of the best scenes of the film, with the great Emma Thompson. The song speaks of what life is about and what love is about, first written by the singer in her 20s and re-recorded in her 50s, her voice now smoking with emotion and wisdom…a thousand cigarettes later. It said everything that the moment held, and all that could not be said, but can only be heard. Hear this:

Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairytale comes real
I’ve looked at love that way

But now it’s just another show
You leave ‘em laughing when you go
And if you care, don’t let them know
Don’t give yourself away

I’ve looked at love from both sides now
From give and take, and still somehow
It’s love’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud
To say “I love you” right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds
I’ve looked at life that way

But now old friends are acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I’ve changed
Well something’s lost, but something’s gained
In living every day

I’ve looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know life at all

I’ve looked at life from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know life at all

Ya hace algunos años que me había alejado en mis lecturas, de la novela negra, pero tuvo su momento, y los clásicos, Hammett, Chandler, M. Cain, Jim Thompson, Sciascia, Simenon, o Patricia Highsmith, me hicieron disfrutar con las historias que sus creativas mentes habían concebido.

He observado con escepticismo el giro que las editoriales han dado para alejar a los devoradores de bestsellers, de la literatura que se ha estado consumiendo estos últimos años (que marcó “El código Da Vinci”), conduciéndolos hacia la novela negra (con la trilogía de Stieg Larsson a la cabeza). Y seguía sin intención inmediata de volver a introducirme en el género (no me gusta que me dirijan en la elección de lo que leo), pero, visto el retraso con el que se iba a estrenar una película que ha despertado en mí gran interés, si que me planteé comprar un libro que pertenece a la novela negra. Me refiero a “Shutter Island”, de Dennis Lehane, que Martin Scorsese ha llevado al cine, y que se estrenará en Estados Unidos el 19 de febrero próximo.

Con “Shutter Island” me ha ocurrido exactamente lo mismo que con “The road”, llevada al cine por John Hillcoat, sobre la novela de Cormac McCarthy, y pendiente todavía de estreno. En ambos casos, tener que esperar su llegada a la pantalla, me ha “obligado” a leer antes la novela.

Pero en realidad, no es de “Shutter Island”, ni de “The road” de las que voy a hablar en este post, como ya habréis podido imaginar por su encabezamiento, pero como una cosa lleva a la otra…

Como llevar en mente comprar “Shutter Island”, me llevó a comprar antes “Mystic River”.

Y fue casual.

Aunque conocía la noticia de que una editorial había lanzado una nueva colección de libros de bolsillo dedicados a la novela policíaca para la venta en kioscos, no me había despertado ni el interés de conocer los títulos que la componían. Pero hace unas semanas, recargando la tarjeta del bus en uno de esos kioscos, reparé en la entrega que se había puesto a la venta aquellos días. Era “Mystic River”, la novela de Lehane en la que se basó Clint Eastwood en 2003, para realizar una de sus mejores películas.

El recuerdo de la magistral película de Eastwood, mi decisión de leer “Shutter Island”, y, todo hay que decirlo, su asequible precio (4,95€), me decidió a comprarla.

Estaba acabando por entonces “Nocturna”, la novela de Guillermo del Toro y Chuck Hogan (si esto fuera un foro literario, le dedicaría un capítulo aparte, y no muy favorable -pero podéis pinchar en el título y leer una reseña que coincide plenamente con lo que yo diría de ella), y a los pocos días, pasando por alto otros libros que esperaban su turno de ser leídos, comencé su lectura. Aunque, confieso, con ciertas reservas, porque en ningún momento pensé que la novela pudiera ser tan plena como la película. Y me equivoqué.

Sin quitarle ningún mérito a Eastwood, que supo aprovechar al máximo el magnífico material que contiene la novela, el libro sirve en bandeja para su adaptación al cine, una coherente e interesante historia, bien redactada, con unos personajes que derrochan autenticidad y un dominio de los diálogos que la convierte en notable.

Son precisamente los diálogos (y en la novela hay muchos), uno de valores que más he apreciado en esa pequeña joya que es “Mystic River”, y los que al igual que yo, seáis aficionados a la lectura, sabéis a lo que me refiero, pues cuantas veces, un libro que te ha contado una buena historia, te ha dejado un mal sabor de boca porque en la de los personajes han aparecido frases que piensas nadie hubiera dicho de esa forma en la vida real.

Cuando hablamos, sobre todo la gente corriente (que somos los más), no preparamos las frases para que suenen bien, ni introducimos palabras de adorno en ellas. Todo es espontáneo, y salen de nuestra mente comentarios, preguntas o contestaciones que no suelen tener una segunda oportunidad de ser rectificadas como cuando escribimos. Y ese es el fallo de muchos escritores. Por mejorar la forma, abandonan el realismo, lo natural de los diálogos. Y Lehane lo domina. Jimmy Markum, Dave Boyle, Sean Devine (los protagonistas), y todos los personajes que aparecen en la novela e interactúan con ellos, se expresan como lo haríamos cualquiera de nosotros en sus circunstancias.

“Mystic River”, la novela, no es tan sólo una buena historia del género negro o policiaco. Su profundidad en el tratamiento de sus personajes, de sus sentimientos y reacciones, la convierten en algo más.

Si habéis leído este post desde su principio, sabéis que este libro ha sido mi primer contacto con Dennis Lehane, pero… ahora estoy por la mitad de “Shutter Island”.

No voy a hablar de ella hasta que no vea la película de Scorsese, aunque sí quiero comentar una opinión compartida con una amiga tan aficionada y veterana en la lectura como yo. Es nuestra opinión, y discutible, pero nos hemos confirmado con el tiempo, en la idea de que en la producción literaria de un autor (hablamos de los buenos), siempre hay una novela que sobresale sobre las otras. Un libro “redondo”, al que prácticamente no puedes encontrar ningún defecto. En el resto de sus escritos, anteriores o posteriores, volverás a encontrar muchos de los valores de esa gran obra, pero nunca la igualan, y menos, la superan. Creo que “Mystic River” es la obra “redonda” de Lehane.

LA PELÍCULA DE CLINT EASTWOOD

No es mucho lo que puede añadir mi opinión personal a un film aclamado en su momento como uno de los mejores realizados por Eastwood, nominado a seis Oscar en la edición de 2003, y ganador de dos (Mejor Actor, Sean Penn y Mejor Actor de Reparto, Tim Robbins), pero quiero alabar su trabajo.

La película arranca, como en la novela, una tarde de verano, en la que Jimmy Markum, Dave Boyle y Sean Devine, tres niños de once años, juegan en las calles del barrio obrero East Buckingham, situado a las orillas del río Mystic. Una pelea por un desacuerdo entre ellos, ocasiona que un hombre que se identifica como policía, salga de un coche, y obligue a Dave a acompañarle, ante la mirada impotente de sus amigos. Dave aparece unos días más tarde. Ha conseguido escapar del hombre y de su compañero, pero todo el mundo sabe que ha sido víctima de abusos sexuales. La mala conciencia de Jimmy y Sean, que no hicieron nada para evitar que Dave subiera al coche, hace también que su amistad acabe diluyéndose. Veinticinco años más tarde, la vida de cada uno de ellos, ha seguido un rumbo diferente: Jimmy (Sean Penn), que se inició en la delincuencia y pasó un tiempo en la cárcel, se casó muy joven, tuvo una hija a los 17 años y está casado en segundas nupcias, porque su primera mujer murió tempranamente de cáncer, regenta ahora un pequeño supermercado en el mismo barrio que le vio nacer. Sean (Kevin Bacon), en cambio, es policía y abandonó el barrio al casarse, pero su mujer le ha dejado. Dave (Tim Robbins) no ha dejado el barrio, se ha casado y tiene un hijo, pero aunque aparentemente es un hombre normal, lo ocurrido en el pasado continúa atormentándole. Un día, la hija Jimmy de 19 años, desaparece, y su cuerpo sin vida es encontrado a las pocas horas en un parque. Esto motiva que las vidas de los tres vuelvan a cruzarse, pues Sean, junto a su compañero Whitey (Laurence Fishburne) es el encargado de investigar el asesinato, en el cual llega a relacionarse a Dave por una serie de circunstancias que lo convierten en sospechoso. Jimmy, por su parte, inicia una investigación paralela a la de la policía, porque quiere vengar la muerte de su hija…

Muy poco altera Eastwood, el desarrollo de la novela, y a los principales personajes en su película (Whitey, que es un hombre blanco en el libro, y su personaje está más elaborado, sería una de esas mínimas alteraciones), y pone con magistral acierto, escenario y rostros, para contar la trama, en la que los diálogos, tanto exteriores como interiores, al igual que en la novela de Lehane, son los protagonistas.

Y se ve su mano al dirigir a los tres actores principales, sacando lo mejor de cada uno de ellos. El comedimiento de Sean Penn (excelente actor, pero que si no es bien dirigido tiene tendencia a los tic y al histrionismo), aún en la escena más desgarradora de la película, sus expresiones, con las que nos cuenta su tortura interior… La aparente apatía del personaje de Tim Robbins, pero que con su mirada y movimientos, nos dice que algo está ocurriendo dentro de su cabeza… Y la corrección de Bacon, en la que yo diría, la mejor de sus interpretaciones…

Si los tres actores principales nos ofrecen magníficas actuaciones, no quedan atrás las de Marcia Gay Harden (que da vida a Celeste Boyle, la esposa de Dave), y Laura Linney (la esposa de Jimmy Markum), personajes secundarios, pero importantes en el desarrollo de la historia.

Magistral es también el tratamiento que ha dado Eastwood a la violencia contenida que subyace a lo largo de todo el film, y que en algunas secuencias llega a sobrecogernos. Arropado todo, por una adecuada banda sonora compuesta por él mismo.

Y mucho más podría extenderme comentando la película, pero no quiero repetir lo que otros ya dijeron cuando se estrenó.

Lo que sí quiero, es recomendar la novela a los que no la hayáis leído, pues sea o no, vuestro género favorito, sé que os satisfará su lectura. Igualmente recomiendo el film. He vuelto a verlo después de leer el libro, y me he confirmado en la idea de que es una gran película.

-

Para ver la ficha de la película, pincha aquí

-

Swanson 

CLICK FOR TRAILER

What?

Distraught by the sudden, tragic death of his wife (Debra Messing), John Klein (Richard Gere), a journalist for The Washington Post, finds himself mysteriously drawn to a small West Virginia town when his car inexplicably strands him. Rescued by the sympathetic but skeptical local police sergeant (Laura Linney), he soon learns that many of the town’s residents have been beset by bizarre events, including sightings of an eerie “moth-like” entity, similar to the one seen by his late wife. Investigating further and having his own terrifying encounters with the creature, he becomes obsessed with the idea that this supernatural being can predict impending calamities and is trying to warn the town of one. Is this a psychic delusion brought on by his grief or can he convince the police sergeant that there’s a tragedy that must be averted? His life, and potentially other’s lives, depend on his making the right choices before time runs out.

Where?

That hotel room again.

With?

The girlfriend for about 40 minutes, then she fell asleep.

Why?

Since watching Paranormal Activity, I’ve been inspired to delve into the scarier side of things. As a result of trawling message boards and google, I found that this movie was being recommended in quite a few places.

I’d already dismissed it upon release due to the drab trailer and the drab Richard Gere, maybe I was wrong?

Worth It?

I wasn’t wrong.

Aside from the creepy opening 20 minutes, this was a chore to watch and I found myself struggling to stay awake. Even the one saving grace of Will Patton isn’t in the flick enough to redeem a one note performance from Gere.

And the first 20 minutes are the kicker, they really are. They led me to believe I would be entangled in a spooky mystery and found myself drawn in a lot quicker than most of the “based on true events” movies that come about, so whilst it sold me on a Sixth Sense-esque creepy slow burner, It actually ended up being a slow, dull, Final Destination style premonition flick, which didn’t work on so many levels.

Shame, another movie that promised so much but delivered so little, and as for Gere? Well, his watchable movie count still stays as 1.

4/10

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.

FILME: A FAMÍLIA SAVAGE

Título Original: The Savages
Gênero: Drama
Duração: 113 minutos
Ano de Lançamento: (EUA) 2007
Site Oficial: http://www.foxfilm.com.br/familiasavage/
Estúdio: Fox Searchlight Pictures / Lone Star Film Group / Ad Hominem Enterprises / Cooper’s Town Productions / This Is That Productions
Distribuidora: 20th Century Fox Film Corporation
Direção: Tamara Jenkins
Roteiro: Tamara Jenkins
Produção: Anne Carey, Ted Hope e Erica Westheimer
Elenco
Laura Linney (Wendy Savage)
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Jon Savage)
Philip Bosco (Lenny Savage)
Peter Friedman (Larry)
David Zayas (Eduardo)
Gbenga Akinnagbe (Jimmy)
Cara Seymour (Kasia)
Tonye Patano (Sra. Robinson)
Guy Boyd (Bill Lachman)
Debra Monk (Nancy Lachman)
Rosemary Murphy (Doris Metzger)
Hal Blankenship (Burt)
Joan Jaffe (Lizzie)
Sinopse: Wendy (Laura Linney) e Jon Savage (Philip Seymour Hoffman) sempre buscaram escapar do jeito dominador de seu pai (Philip Bosco), sendo que agora lidam apenas com suas próprias vidas. Wendy trabalha como dramaturga no East Village e passa seus dias buscando doações, namorando o vizinho casado e roubando material de escritório. Já Jon trabalha como professor universitário em Buffalo, tendo escrito alguns livros sobre assuntos obscuros. Um dia eles recebem um telefonema que os informa que seu pai, Lenny, está aos poucos sendo consumido pela demência e que apenas eles podem ajudá-lo. Isto faz com que Jon e Wendy voltem a morar juntos, o que não ocorria desde a infância, com ambos tendo que lidar com as excentricidades do outro.

Comentário: cruel e visceral. Nada mais a declarar…

MÚSICA: FRIENDLY FIRES – SKELETON BOY

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.

Jake Gyllenhaal

By Dave McNary – Variety.com

Jake Gyllenhaal is in negotiations to star in sci-fi thriller “Source Code” for Vendome Pictures and The Mark Gordon Co.

Duncan Jones will direct and Mark Gordon will produce with Vendome’s CEO Philippe Rousselet and Jordan Wynn. Production is slated to begin during the first quarter.

Summit Entertainment will distribute the film in the U.S. Summit International is also handling the international sales, which began at the American Film Market with over 15 territories licensed.

“Source Code” centers on a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown commuter and is forced to live and relive a harrowing train bombing until he can determine who is responsible for it.

Project had originally been set up at Universal in early 2007 when the studio bought Ben Ripley’s screenplay and attached Topher Grace to star. Uni tapped Shane Abbess to helm last year. Current script includes revises by Billy Ray (“State of Play”).

Rousselet noted that “Source Code” will launch the Vendome slate, adding he believes it will appeal to a world-wide audience and exemplifies the types of producers and filmmakers with whom Vendome plans to work. He and co-CEO Fabrice Gianfermi plan to produce a minimum of a dozen films over the next five years.

Licensed territories for “Source Code” include France (SND), Benelux (Belga), Germany (Kinowelt), Spain (Aurum), UK (Optimum), Canada (E1), Australia (Hopscotch), Scandinavia (Sandrew Metronome), South Korea (The Daisy), Latin America (Sun Distribution), Middle East. (Jaguar), Turkey (Fida), Thailand (Sahamongkol), Israel (United King) and Greece (Odeon).

Gyllenhaal is currently filming “Love and Other Drugs,” helmed by Ed Zwick, and will next be seen in Jim Sheridan’s “Brothers” and Disney’s “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.”

Jones is currently writing the screenplay of the upcoming film “Mute,” which he will also direct. He has previously directed “Moon,” starring Sam Rockwell.

Gordon’s most recent projects include “2012,” “The Messenger,” starring Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson,” and “The Details,” with Tobey Maguire and Laura Linney.

Amazon Specials!

El amante, The other man, 2008, Richard Eyre

 

¿De qué trata?:  Peter (Liam Neeson) y Lisa (Laura Linney) están asentados en la comodidad de su largo matrimonio. Lisa es una exitosa diseñadora de zapatos, y Peter dirige su propia compañía. Es la noche del lanzamiento de la última colección de Lisa, que durante la cena parece evasiva y, después, extraña. “¿Nunca has deseado tener la oportunidad de acostarte con otra persona?”, pregunta ella. A continuación, desaparece. Peter lucha por buscar respuestas, y sigue su rastro hasta Italia. Allí se encuentra con Ralph (Antonio Banderas), un hombre astuto y encantador que es, claramente, el amante de Lisa. Pero Ralph tiene sus propios secretos.

Cuando vi que se estrenaba esta película corrí de inmeadiato al cine por que el director suele ser sinónimo de calidad, pero esta vez, se quedó corto y me descepcionó. No sé que pensaba, Richard Eyre, al dirigir esto. Es infinitamente inferior que su trabajo anterior, Notes on a Scandal. No alcanza momentos de gran intensisad como en esa anterior propuesta. Aquí se siente desdibujado, cansado y el poder de interés de la película no se palpita.

Es una lástima teniendo a 3 buenos actores sentirse incómodos y desperdiciados. Están encorsetados en papeles demasiado forzados que para nada les ayuda a demostrar su calidad interpretativa. Laura Linney es quizás la que mas se esfuerza por transmitir a la cámara, Antonio Banderas se ve falso y Liam Neeson frío y parco.Los personajes  se hacen demasiado típicos y previsibles y sus actos no deparan ninguna sorpresa. En cuanto a la historia, podría haber dado mucho de sí, por lo dramático, por lo erótico o por lo real de la situación, pero todo se queda en una historia vacía y fácilmente olvidable. Al final no logra la intriga que busca ya que todo se hace demasiado convencional y previsible.

Al grano: Drama endeble y falso. Lleno de tópicos superficiales, que ni sus propios actores pueden salvar. Eyre ha logrado mejores cosas que esto.

*  1/2 / 5

Over the course of this week, we will uncover twenty titles you need to seek out at your local DVD store. Here is Part 3.

The list is laid out something like this. The title, year it was made, genre, synopsis and finally my rating. I hope to do more of these lists as I uncover some of the treasures hidden at the local videostore.

10. Zero Effect (1998) (Comedy – Mystery)

Daryl Zero (Bill Pullman) maybe the world’s most reclusive private investigator. Along with his assistant, Steve Arlo (Ben Stiller) he solves impossible crimes and puzzles.

When these two crack professionals are on a case they are brilliant but during the off time they drive each other bananas. In their latest case, Zero must find out who is blackmailing a rich executive, and when his client won’t tell him, why. 

What makes this film so unbelievably clever is the performance by Pullman. Imagine a man with no-social skills, a horrible musician and recluse having to deal with the emotions of love. For years, Zero has lived vicariously through his assistant but for once he has to deal with everyday issues that are right in front of him.

Pullman plays this type of character to utter perfection and to top it all off you have the comedic talent of Ben Stiller to play off of. Stiller is hilarious as he tries to deal with how eccentric his goofy boss really is. The mystery in the film is a little flat but the comedic combination of Pullman and Stiller is pure magic. (3.5 of 5).

9. Dead Ringers (1988) (Thriller)

The Mantle brothers (duo role played by Jeremy Irons) are both doctors – both gynecologists – and identical twins. Mentally however, one of them is more confident than the other, and always manages to seduce the women he meets.

When he’s tired of his current partner, she is passed on to the other brother – without her knowing. The whole plot is upset when the shy brother falls in love first and the balance is upset. Brutal, unnerving and sinister, director David Cronenberg weaves a tale that is bound to get the blood pumping.

Jeremy Irons gives the performances of his lifetime as the world of Mantle brothers explodes into a very sinister plot. A lot of the time you aren’t really sure which brother is which and that is part of the magic. It’s a wonderfully eerie ride. (4 of 5) .

8. Love Letters (1999) (Romance – Drama)

“Love Letters” is an adapted play about an ambitious U.S. Senator (Steven Weber) reflects back on his life after the death of a woman (Laura Linney) whom he loved and kept in contact with only through correspondence.

“Love Letters” is told in a series of flashbacks as the two first meet as children and begin their lifelong correspondence. “Love Letters” is a strong and passionate story that is bound to make you cry.

The performance of Laura Linney is unbelievably moving. This version of the stage adaptation is filmed like it’s being played out on a stage in your TV.

The director doesn’t drop in a lot of twisted camera movements but instead focuses on the actors and the story.

It is a pure delight. (4 of 5) .

7. Deceivers, The (1988) (Adventure)

In 1825, India lives in fear. A mysterious religion’s followers murder everyone that stand in their way. When William Savage (Pierce Brosnan), a tax-collector of a British-Indian company, discovers the new sect. Savage disguises himself as a local and joins the sect as he tries to solve the mystery. 

 This is the first of 2 little-known Brosnan films on this list. It’s strange how much interesting stuff he did between “Remington Steele” and James Bond.

With beautiful exotic locales, this Merchant-Ivory production, this film is also a mindbender of a mystery, as Brosnan’s character is pulled deeper and deeper into the cult.

There are times when you aren’t really sure he wants to uncover the mystery but just live it. He falls in love with two different women and that struggle almost develops a split personality. It truly is one of Brosnan’s greatest performances. (4 of 5) .

 6. Gothic (1986) (Drama – Horror)

What happened the night that Mary Shelley (Natasha Richardson) concocted to the horror classic “Frankenstein”?

Drug induced games, ghost stories and betrayals occur during one night at the mad nobleman, Lord Byron’s country estate.

As Mary begins writing her classic story, she is drawn into the sick world of her lover Shelley (Julian Sands) and her cousin Claire (Myriam Cyr) as Byron (Gabriel Byrne) leads them all down the dark paths of their souls.

“Gothic” is a Victorian story turned upside-down. It’s filled with shocking revelations and euphoria that is bound to keep you guessing.

How a great and twisted story like “Frankenstein” was created is a fascinating story but presented, as a gothic horror story itself is mind-boggling. (4 of 5) .

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?

Movies have always challenged us and given us unique perspectives on things we didn’t consider. Some of the greatest arguments of our time have been fought out on the silver screen. From abortion to evolution, these memorable debates are powerful and always deliver both sides of the story. Emily Rose’s story is one of those debates.

Inspired by a true story, Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson) is put on trial for the negligent homicide of 19-year old Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). The priest’s claim is that Emily had been possessed by the devil and that an exorcism had to be performed to release the devil’s grasp on the girl. The young girl died.

Defending Moore the priest is rising courtroom star Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) who has a difficulty believing the priest’s story at the beginning. The prosecuting attorney (Campbell Scott), is a devote Methodist who has to present the scientific side of the case and debunk the priest’s claims.

“The Exorcism of Emily Rose” is a hard film to get your head around. The film is smart, creepy, compelling and has a tasty argument to send to trial but why didn’t it hit home for me.

As the film progressed I often found myself remembering scenes from the 1960 classic “Inherit the Wind” where a teacher is put on trial for teaching evolution in a devote religious system. The film was a blood-boiler as both sides of creationism and evolution were debated in fiery detail. It is still one of the best courtroom films ever made.

I think the problem I had with “Emily Rose” was that I found the courtroom scenes in the film to be rudimentary and photographed rather dully. After seeing countless court scenes on TV and film it was hard to get into this one even if the case was intriguing. There was no passion in the court proceedings but just seemed to be a rigorous game.

This lack of passion in an intriguing case reminded me of the controversial 1989 TV movie “Roe vs. Wade” where a pregnant mother (Holly Hunter) wants to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure is illegal. The film itself had a good argument but the film itself is heavily flawed and never is each side of the case fairly represented. Especially the prosecution since the film is biased to one side. I felt the same was evident in “Emily Rose”.

To counter-measure the court, you have quite excellent flashback sequences that can be quite unnerving and often stray us away from the factual case. The flashbacks give more meaning to the priest’s case while stealing the audience away from believing the other side of the story.

Even if the story isn’t presented as powerful as it could have been I did like the performances of both Linney and Wilkinson. Newcomer Jennifer Carpenter “no-holds-barred” contortionist performance as Emily Rose is jarring and brilliant. I liked Carpenter but found that the filmmakers let her scenes get way over the top in portions.

I think the film can best be described as “Inherit the Wind” meets “The Exorcist”. Even though the film is probably not what you would expect I wished it was more powerful and delivered a more even handed debate.

3 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer

Thee boys reunite over a lost childhood, in both ways.

Tragedy reunites childhood friends Sean (Kevin Bacon), Dave (Tim Robbins) and Jimmy (Sean Penn) when they’re linked together in the Boston-based murder investigation of Jimmy’s teenage daughter. But while detective Sean works the case, Jimmy launches his own quest for the truth.

Mystic River is Clint Eastwood’s 24th directorial effort and it is one of his best. This is an extremely well-crafted and powerful film that shows us the real feelings of a childhood lost. Mystic River is based off of the novel from Brian Hegeland which works both as a taut thriller and a important character study.

After seeing all, the critical acclaim this film has gotten I will say that I was expecting to be taken away with one of the greatest films I have ever seen. But to be truly honest I wasn’t. Much of the story is great but there are some plot holes that I just didn’t believe such as the plot concerning Sean and his wife how she always calls but doesn’t say a word. Also Tim Robbins’ character as a young boy was molested, and throughout the whole movie he just acts like a nutcase, and throughout the whole time I was thinking, how did this guy have a smoking hot wife and a kid.

I liked how the film shows how these three men’s lives were changed when the incident with Tim Robbins occurred. The film isn’t a fast-paced thriller, but features elements that everything mysterious and wrong all lurk in the air.

Its a tremendously powerful film about the American tragedy that features characters that I did actually believe. I felt like the setting they were in was very true and actually was a character in the movie itself, and how each character reacts with one another felt true as well.

The performances are what really captivated me in this film however. The whole star-studded cast does a great job and all the performances jell together really well when their all on screen at once. Sean Penn gives one of the best performances of his career, and shows that he can take your typical average working American and switch him into something more than just that. There is a scene where he finds out his daughter has been killed and it is amazing to see his reaction, that scene though so early in the film kept me standing in my one spot. Tim Robbins does a great job as well despite his character being a little nutty, but he plays him real well.

The problem with this film that ultimately killed it for me was the ending. I don’t want to give anything big away but the ending was total junk. I felt that by the end of the film it was supporting murder, and vigilante justice, and didn’t make any sense or create a feeling of anything was right in this film.

Consensus: With some upsetting plot holes, Mystic River is well-acted, suspenseful, and full of great emotional power that shows a great portrait of real characters in real situations.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Can I have another movie? Another movie where Banderas teams with Neeson? Because this can’t be it. It shouldn’t be. Liam Neeson is a marvelous actor. I have tremendous respect for his work. No matter what the genre, he shines through his role. Take a look at Nell, Schindler’s List, Michael Collins, Love Actually, Kinsey…The list goes on. And last but not least I have seen him in Taken- a breath-taking action drama, where he proves to be an impressive action hero – at the age of 56, which is downright cool. And in the same year as Taken, I saw him in The Other Man, where he plays the husband, as opposed to the other man portrayed by Antonio Banderas. And Antonio Banderas is a good actor. Sure he has to play roles that greet his Hispanic roots (he has never mastered the American accent, as you might have noticed) and this of course blocks his diversity to some level but other than that, he is almost always fun to watch. And under normal circumstances, he would be perfect to play the lover. He has made a name for himself for being hot – and rightfully so. Remember Desperado? Femme Fatale? Original Sin? Never Talk to Strangers? Even if he played guys that fall for the lead females deceptive ways (apart from Desperado), he is perfect as the sexy man. Hell, the first two Spanish guys  were blonde, boyish and not nearly half as masculine.

So normally, it is a good idea to cast Neeson as the devoted husband who gets crushed to find out his wife had an affair. And it would make perfect sense that a woman could fall for an exotic looking stranger. But then there is the movie plot where I didn’t get or sympathize with any of the characters.

The movie overall has a very dark, gloomy and tedious atmosphere. Instead of mystery and curiousity, boredom is much more likely to happen. I couldn’t understand for the life of me why Laura Linney’s Lisa would fall for Antonio’s Ralph. He doesn’t have anything going for him (not even looks- you should see the haircut and the white socks). He is an average guy who doesn’t even have an ounce of mystery around him (well- that’s what you think a woman cheating on a devoted,stable and predictable husband would go for). So Lisa cheats and we can’t see why. I can’t see what it is about Lisa that made those two men love her that much…

Did I not go into the plot? Well, when Peter (Neeson) finds out, he finds out who and where he is and sets out to…well to kill him. The cat and mouse thing gives the movie a little thrill, but then it is slow again and the twists we get do more harm than good.

If it hadn’t been a movie with Neeson and Banderas – and I really like Laura Linney’s work too  (especially The Life of David Gale with Kevin Spacey) – I would have just said that it was a slow movie and not exactly my thing. But I know how much excitement the actors can bring to the right parts and how capable they are of picking good scripts. So the result is disappointment and well, hopes for a reunion – fingerscrossed, with a different director and a screenwriter. 

Un film del 2009, regia di Mark Ruffalo, con Orlando Bloom / Mark Ruffalo / Laura Linney / Noah Emmerich. Prodotto da C.D.I. ()

Drammatico

Dean O’Dwyer è un DJ paralizzato che lotta per sopravvivere con la sua sedia a rotelle nelle strade di Los Angeles. L’uomo si avvicina alla fede nella speranza di guarire e acquisisce misteriosamente l’abilità di curare le malattie degli altri senza però poter far nulla per se stesso. Sarà un prete gesuita ad aiutarlo a comprendere i limiti del suo dono.

Through all of these years I have watched and loved Edward Norton movies. Then I wonder where was his start? Now I found out, its in a courtroom drama starring my all-time favorite (sarcasm), Richard Gere.

Primal Fear is a 1996 motion picture which tells a story of a defense attorney (Richard Gere) who defends an altar boy (Edward Norton) charged with the murder of a Catholic archbishop. On the other side of the courtroom defending the archbishop is Gere’s ex-girlfriend, played by Laura Linney.

The film does not take full part inside of the courtroom, most of the time its either outside on the streets or in Norton’s cell. For this film to be truly great and effective I would’ve preferred their to be time inside of the courtroom and have more of the drama stems from inside there.  But only about a total of 40 min. from the film is inside the courtroom, and the rest is filmed outside, which I think kills all the suspense and drama this film could’ve really built on.

Richard Gere ,who in case you all know I strongly dislike with a passion, actually does try his hardest to give a grade A performance. Though his character is so egotistical and arrogant its hard to root for him as this case goes on. Though Edward Norton, one of my favorites, does a phenomenal job at portraying Aaron Stampler. You can feel the emotion for this poor character and have a sort of sympathy for him as his case goes along. Laura Linney in her own right does a very respectable job as the one lawyer who fights hard for justice, as they all do.

However, I thought the script was too cliche written and featured many predictable happenings. With a better screenplay and better direction this film could’ve been a total courtroom classic. But in all fairness it’s not, and without an incredible performance by Norton and a crazy twist ending this film would’ve fallen under the waist side.

7/10=Rental!!

I’m clinging to the last shreds of my 30s and freaking out a bit more than any of us could have predicted. Granted, much of my anxiety is caused by endless drama in just about every aspect of my life, but turning 40 is a milestone or benchmark and you start to realize some things which I won’t get into here.

I never thought I would be vain and ridiculous about turning 40 – I always pictured myself giving one of those, “I’m so PROUD to be the age I am because every wrinkle and smile line…I’ve earned!  I’ve never felt so powerful and beautiful!” speeches, but instead I predict the fetal position under my bed and/or sitting in my snuggie eating oatmeal pies.

To cheer myself up, I’ve collected an ‘inspiration wall’ of celebrity women over 40 whom I think are beautiful. If THEY can do it and be happy about it, then so can I.   Or at least I can work on it.  Whatever.

Courtney Cox - 46

Elle McPherson - 46

Julia Louis Dreyfus - 47 or 48?

Laura Linney at 43

Jenn Aniston - 40 and Loving It

Nothing like watching a big ol talking gorilla and explosions for an hour and half!  I’m not sure how the hell they got that damn gorilla to do what she did all during the ruckus, but I gotta hand it to her, she pretty…. fuckin.. *toke* *toke*… smart!…   Good flick overall!

Two Bong Tokes….

TSAAM

Congo DVD CHEAP!

Sinopse:

O filme é uma crítica e também uma sátira da persuasiva manipulação da mídia. O vendedor de seguros Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) tem todos os momentos da sua vida capturados por câmeras escondidas. Tudo é televisionado para uma audiência gigantesca, sem que ele saiba. Seus amigos e sua família são atores que lhe sorriem agradavelmente. Tudo não passa de uma farsa, incluindo a cidade onde vive e seu casamento com Meryl (Laura Linney). Aos 30 anos, Truman desconfia que há algo estranho em seu mundo.

- Fazia tempo que não assistia esse filme. Bem legal!

- Assistido em 12/10/2009

Arf, je sais je sais… Je suis en retard, très en retard dans les billets que j’avais prévu et je suis pas allée à l’Auberge depuis des jours ;o. Je me suis un peu reposée et j’ai regardé des séries (oui je sais, ça change ).

Bref, ce soir, je m’attèle au petit article concernant mes “achats de rentrée” (et plus si affinités).
Vous constaterez peut-être que sur la quantité, j’ai déjà lu deux des livres et que j’en lis un troisième, mais spa grave, vous verrez les autres.

Bleak House, Charles Dickens (ouais désolée, y’a le flash ;o) :
Achat typiquement copinesque, c’est-à-dire “pour faire comme” xD. J’étais plus motivée pour acheter le livre que le DVD de la mini-série, et il se trouve que c’est à cause de Doctor Who. En plus.

Kings and Queens of Britain :
Si on m’avait dit que les cours de civi britannique me manqueraient… Oh une minute. Oui, je l’aurais cru presque tout de suite. J’ai commencé à le lire juste avant de regarder les premiers épisodes de The Tudors , enfin ça se picore, ça de toute façon. C’est très intéressant. Moi qui ait plein de lacunes alors que je vénère (ou presque) le Royaume Uni et l’Irlande, ça en comblera au moins quelques-unes.

The Fish Can Sing, Halldór Laxness :
Si je vous dis ce qui a attiré mon attention sur cet auteur, vous allez hurler. En fait, il y a quelques mois, Robert Pattinson a été vu avec Independent People, de Laxness donc. Comme je suis curieuse, quand il est vu un livre à la main, je me renseigne un peu sur le livre. Et comme je suis curieuse, une fois sur Amazon, je navigue. Ce qui était dit sur The Fish Can Sing m’intriguait davantage que The Independent People, et puis j’ai fini par le commander. Je l’ai commencé mais j’avais pas trop envie de lire un truc anglais à ce moment, donc j’ai laissé tomber. En plus, les mots islandais, ça m’effraie un peu pour l’instant xD.

Escale au Pays du Nougat en Folie et Retour à la Case Égouttoir de l’Amour, Louise Rennison :
C’était biennnn !! Bon je rejoins pas mal d’avis que j’ai lu, y’a de plus en plus d’expressions à la Georgia et parfois on s’y perd. Plusieurs fois, j’ai dû m’y reprendre à 2 ou 3 fois pour comprendre parfaitement la phrase. C’est pour ça que je ne lis pas les livres en anglais .
Petites phrases en vrac : Le coup des chaussures est absolument hilarant et ridicule à la fois. Je le répète, Massimo, je l’aime pas trop. Il est trooop… italien ;o. Je n’ai rien contre les italiens, mais je ne peux pas swooner à mort sur un italien, c’est pas dans mes gènes.

Journal d’un Vampire, tomes 1 et 2, LJ Smith :
Je kiffe. Sincèrement. Sans en faire le bouquin du siècle etc, j’aime beaucoup. Même si je n’aime pas trop Elena, même si je ne suis pas une grande fan de Stefan (hoho, j’ai même pas fait cette rime volontairement), même si certains passages me font rire alors qu’ils ne devraient pas, j’aime beaucoup ce livre. Et Damon… Damon est une bonne raison de lire ce livre. Bref, y’a un cocktail qui fonctionne bien, et le tout arrive à inspirer le malaise que les vampires sont censés faire naître par exemple, ce que Stephenie Meyer qui on sait n’avait carrément pas réussi à faire. Et ouais, dans ce livre, il y a des morts et des blessés, trop gue-din quoi ;o.
J’en suis au début de la 2e partie/tome 2.

Doctor Who, The Official Annual 2009 :
Ahem. Alors euh, très sincèrement, je ne savais pas que c’était pour les enfants. Quand je m’en suis rendue compte en ouvrant le livre, j’étais déçue. Mais en fait, c’est pas mal (et puis pour le prix auquel je l’ai payé, c’est pas bien grave). Je dois dire aussi que les soirs où je n’avais pas l’ordi et que je ne pouvais pas regarder mon épisode de DW, ça m’a été bien utile. J’me suis pris une dose en lisant les petites histoires et les BDs (qui sont très inégales ;o)(y’en a une qui est presque naze).
Mis à part ça, vous pensez quoi du nouveau logo ? Au premier coup d’oeil j’étais horrifiée, mais au deuxième ça allait, je pense que je vais m’y faire. J’aime assez le principe de modernisation avec mine de rien un rapprochement par rapport aux vieux logos.

Bon et depuis le temps, j’ai craqué à nouveau ! Cette après-midi en fait. Je savais bien que je ne devais pas y aller, mais ça faisait longtemps…

Love Actually & Shakespeare in Love :
Deux films que j’ai déjà vus et aaaaadorés. Quand je suis entrée dans le magasin, je suis tombée nez à nez avec un coffret (je vous dirai pas le nom du coffret, c’est trop ridicule, en plus le dos est très très rose ;o hihi). J’ai eu beaucoup de mal à résister comme vous le voyez. J’y ai pensé après mais “oh, deux films avec Colin Firth, mince alors “.

Walk the Line :
Je vais enfin pouvoir le voir *bounce*.

Mais d’abord, je dois regarder un film que Vivi m’a prêté , à savoir…

Notez que TomStu est dans la case violette . Cela dit, Rhys m’a l’air prometteur…

Vais ptet me faire une soirée Bill Nighy moi… ♥

Purée, normalement je mets les principaux acteurs des films dont je parle en tags, mais avec Love Actually c’est long ;o.