Stranger than Fiction (2006) by Marc Forster is the epitome of self-reflexive postmodernism. The film revolves around an accountant, Harold Crick (played by Will Ferrel), who leads a very boring, ritualistic and steady life. His life is disrupted when he starts to hear a female voice that narrates what he thinks or does. With the help of literary Professor Jules Hilbert (played by Dustin Hoffman) he establishes that he is not going mad, but is in fact the creation and protagonist of one of the latest novels of award-winning author Kay Eiffel (played by Emma Thompson). Kay is still in the process of completing her novel and when Harold discovers that she has a history of killing off her protagonists, survival becomes a race against time. Especially since his boring life has been pleasantly disturbed by Ana Pascal (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal), a baker he meets on one of his IRS investigations and falls in love with.

The film is scattered with self-reflexive references which constantly remind the viewer that he/she is indeed watching a film, a fictional piece of art. Yet the director succeeds to breathe so much life into the protagonist, just like novelists often do with their main characters, that the viewer cannot help but regard Harold as more than just a fictional character. Harold becomes a real person to the viewer who empathises with him and secretly hopes that he will not be killed off. Forster ingeniously blurs the boundaries between reality and fiction, literature and film, tragedy and comedy. Even though Harold’s life seems to be a tragedy from his own viewpoint, the viewer regards the film as a comedy – therefore the dramatic irony.

Harold is the typical sad and weak anti-hero (like Winston Smith in Nineteen-Eighty-Four or Lester Burnham in American Beauty). Will Ferrel gives a somewhat unexpectedly impressive and subtle performance as the serious Harold Crick.

SPOILER WARNING: The viewer knows and expects that Harold has to die for the sake of art and for the sake of staying true to what would make the story more literary and powerful. But director Marc Forster goes against these principles, as does novelist Kay Eiffel, and Harold also breaks the mold of being an anti-hero. The act of surrendering his life into the hands of his makers, which ironically is his maker Forster’s choice anyway and might be construed as the ultimate example of weakness, makes him a hero in the eyes of the viewers and his makers. His life is spared, and even though the end is not as literary or as powerful as it could have been, the viewer is not bothered for he/she rejoices in Harold’s new lease on (a more exciting) life. SPOILERS END HERE.

The film makes one think about the issues regarding the creation of art: Do these characters, created by novelists or filmmakers, have a life apart from the artwork they are a part of? Do they only exist when the novel is read or the film is watched? Or do they exist as a separate entity within the artwork as soon as they are created by a writer, even though no one has ever set eyes on the artwork? I believe they exist from the moment they are read about or viewed, when the world of the characters and the world of the viewer collide, and that they then live on in the memories of the readers or viewers. But still, if no one hears or sees a tree falling, does that indeed mean that the tree does not fall? Something can exist apart from being observed, can it not?

Genre: Comedy-Drama / Romance
Running time: 113 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Marc Forster
Writing credits: Zach Helm
Producers: Lindsay Doran
Cinematographer: Roberto Schaeffer
Editor: Matt Chessé
Editor:
Britt Daniel
Brian Reitzell
Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
Main Cast:
Harold Crick – Will Ferrell
Prof. Jules Herbert – Dustin Hoffman
Kay Eiffel – Emma Thompson
Ana Pascal – Maggie Gyllenhaal
Penny Escher – Queen Latifah

007 Quantum of Solace (Un quanto di sollievo) è il 22º film di spionaggio della serie di James Bond prodotta dalla società cinematografica EON Productions.
È il sequel del film Agente 007 – Casinò Royale (2006) uscito in contemporanea nelle sale cinematografiche di gran parte del mondo, tra cui in Italia, il 7 novembre 2008.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Azione | Spionaggio | Marc Forster | Daniel Craig | Ol’ga Kostjantynivna Kurylenko | Mathieu Amalric | Gemma Arterton | Giancarlo Giannini

1. Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner

Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner stirred up some New Moon buzz south of the border when they posed at a photo call at the Four Seasons Hotel in Mexico City.

2. Marc Jacobs and Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga teamed up with Marc Jacobs—who dressed her in an ensemble from his latest collection—to make sure she made a memorable appearance at the 13th annual Ace Awards, held at New York City’s Cipriani restaurant. Gaga picked up the Stylemaker Award at the fashion fete, hosted by the Accessories Council.

3. Molly Sims and Diane Von Furstenberg

Also at the ACE Awards, Molly Sims had the honor of presenting Diane Von Furstenberg with the Accessory Visionary Award. Other winners included Tom’s Shoes founder Blake Mycoskie, Bottega Veneta’s Tomas Maier and InStyle’s own Hal Rubenstein, who was presented with the Marylou Luther Award for Fashion Journalism.

4. Rashida Jones and Olivia Wilde

Rashida Jones and Olivia Wilde kicked their heels up in celebration of the Jimmy Choo for H&M collection during a party at a private residence in Los Angeles. The buzzed-about line hits stores November 14th.

5. Kate Bosworth and Diane von Furstenberg

Kate Bosworth showed her appreciation for Diane von Furstenberg at the opening of the designer’s “Journey of a Dress” exhibition at Moscow’s Manezh Exhibition Hall. The revelers in Russia for the event later moved to the We Are Family nightclub for an after-party.

6. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore

The day after hanging with the boys at the GQ Gentlemen’s Ball, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher enjoyed a more low-key evening during a party for the new beauty book, All You’ve Ever Wanted, hosted by Vanity Fair and L’Oreal at New York City’s Monkey Bar.

7. Kerry Washington and Georgina Chapman

Kerry Washington helped honor Marchesa’s Georgina Chapman for her creative contributions to the fashion industry at the Young Patrons of Lincoln Center’s fall masquerade gala, held at Alice Tulley Hall in New York City. Despite the chill in the air, both ladies wore mini Marchesa party dresses and Georgina Chapman for Garrard and Marchesa clutches. After the ceremony, Chapman continued the celebration at the Interview magazine after-party, held at the Library on Hudson.

8. Julianne Moore, Francisco Costa, Kylie Minogue

Calvin Klein creative director Francisco Costa enjoyed the company of tablemates Julianne Moore and Kylie Minogue at the Rob Pruitt Presents: The First Annual Art Awards, held at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York Cty.

9. Marc Forster and Zoe Saldana

Film director Marc Forster and Zoe Saldana were thinking green during a dinner hosted by Audi Diesel. Jaime Pressly, Radha Mitchell and New Moon star Elizabeth Reaser were also among the crowd at the car maker’s celebration, held at the Sunset Tower Hotel in West Hollywood.

10. Patrick Robinson and Stella McCartney

Stella McCartney met up with Gap Creative Director Patrick Robinson and his son Wyeth in N.Y.C. to celebrate the launch of her new kids collection for the brand. “It has a mix of the playful and practical,” McCartney said of the eclectic lineup. “There are pieces that are classic and sort of timeless, mixed with more playful and a little bit cooler pieces.” Stella McCartney for GapKids and babyGap will be available in stores starting November 2nd.

11. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher

Demi Moore (in Prabal Gurung and Cartier diamonds) and Ashton Kutcher (in Calvin Klein) were color coordinated when they attended GQ magazine’s Gentlemen’s Ball at New York City’s Edison Ballroom.

12. Adrian Grenier and Mark Wahlberg

Also at the Gentlemen’s Ball, Adrian Grenier and Mark Wahlberg—who just announced that he and wife Rhea Durham are expecting their fourth child—celebrated their participation in this year’s GQ Gentlemen’s Fund. While Grenier will raise funds for Oceana, Wahlberg will drum up support for his own Mark Wahlberg Youth Foundation.

13. Sheryl Crow, Jessica Capshaw and Amy Smart

Sheryl Crow and Jessica Capshaw (in Diane von Furstenberg) showed their motherly love for a greener, cleaner, safer home at the Healthy Child Healthy World gala in Beverly Hills. The duo helped honor this year’s “Champions of Children’s Health,” which includes InStyle’s own Cyd Wilson, who is the founding Director of Development of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

Aki Quang (from IS)

]]> http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/usc-broccoli-centennial/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:37:03 +0000 The HMSS Editors http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/usc-broccoli-centennial/

James Bond fans lucky enough to be living in Southern California can look forward to a nice weekend: starting this Friday, November 6, the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts will be celebrating the life of James Bond film producer Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli. The three-day festival will feature panel discussions, an exhibition of 007 movie props, costumes, and other ephemera, and, of course, screenings of selected Bond films — introduced by USC film professor Rick Jewell.

Jewell, who teaches a pop-culture course on James Bond, will also be heading up two panel discussions on the subject. One, on “Bond Today,” will feature Barbara Broccoli, Michael G. Wilson, Marc Forster, and our good buds Neal Purvis and Rob Wade. The other, completely about Cubby Broccoli, will feature Broccoli & Wilson again, with Tom Mankiewicz, Richard Kiel, and the most yummy Maud Adams.

After this weekend, the exhibition will continue through Friday at the Hugh M. Hefner Exhibition Space in the George Lucas Building on the USC campus. (Ya gotta love SoCal institutions of higher learning!)

Read all about it at the USC website. There’s also a good story about it at the Los Angeles Times website.

Monster’s Ball

Director: Marc Forster

Guión: Milo Addica y Will Rokos.

Intérpretes: Billy Bob Thornton, Halle Berry, Heath Ledger, Taylor Simpson, Amber Rules, Peter Boyle, Charles Cowan Jr.

Música: Asche & Spencer.

Fotografía: Roberto Schaefer

Montaje: Matt Cheesse

EEUU. 2001. 111 minutos.

        Levantarse y andar

        Monster’s Ball podría definirse como un drama racial, si bien su más plausible adscripción tiene que ver con el hálito intimista, psicologista explorado por los realizadores que solemos denominar indies o que se mueven un poco en los márgenes de la industria –caso de Sean Penn, por citar un ejemplo-. Nos plantea una introspección en las motivaciones, luces y sombras espirituales de dos personajes cuya cerrazón deviene catarsis a partir de diversos acontecimientos trágicos que los enlazan y que, inopinadamente, logran abrirles nuevas esperanzas.

Por pulir

        Aunque se trata de la tercera película de Marc Forster, la persistente búsqueda de la sugerencia y de la lírica visual a cualquier precio podrían hacernos pensar que Foster es un realizador de lo más esforzado y que ésta es su opera prima. El guión al que el cineasta sirve asume tantos principios como riesgos, y no logra salvarlos todos. El espectador de Monster’s Ball se enfrenta a una serie de situaciones dramáticas cuya innegable capacidad de sugestión o de impacto no siempre sigue parejo a la congruencia. Probablemente ello es debido a que el filme, que al fin y a la postre sigue la estructura convencional del drama, sufre de una descompensación entre los tres actos: el planteamiento se demora, y asfixia el nudo –que deviene la sección más irregular del filme y que cae en diversos clichés que se habían salvado en el primer segmento-. Para el desenlace, en cambio, a Forster le basta resolver con mano maestra una única secuencia, la última, de innegable belleza. Los problemas narrativos a que hemos hecho mención se palian en parte merced de la superlativa actuación de Billy Bob Thornton, que construye su personaje a la perfección. Halle Berry también nos depara momentos interpretativos muy intensos.

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285742/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/monsters_ball/

http://www.cosmopolis.ch/english/film/65/monster_s_ball.htm

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020201/REVIEWS/202010304/1023

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores 

Maybe it’s because I just did not care enough, but “Quantum of Solace” made no sense to me. An organization exists that everyone knows exists but no one knows the name of the organization or who runs it or how many members it has. In fact the only thing anyone seems to know about it is that they know nothing about it. Then suddenly at the end of the movie, James Bond (Daniel Craig) mentions its name – Quantum. When did he find this out? No one seems to know or care – especially the makers of the film.

“Quantum of Solace” was one giant excuse to put James Bond in as many roof, hotel, car and plane chases as possible. The plot was thrown in to keep it from being a silent film. It is one of the most confusing and contrived movies that I have ever seen. To even try and explain the plot would give me a migraine. The action scenes were almost as confusing as the plot with an average shot length just above a nanosecond. All of the humor and innuendo of the Bond franchise seems to have been tossed to the wayside in order to capitalize on the Bourne franchise formula and success. But James Bond is not Jason Bourne and we don’t want him to be.

This movie is a perfect example of the Hollywood mentality: what movie/movies have been successful recently and how can we cash in on it? By copying them, of course. James Bond is one of the most beloved characters and franchises in movie history, but Hollywood has managed to forget this and conform it to their cash cow mentality. I don’t blame Daniel Craig or Judi Dench (M) or Olga Kurylenko (Camille) or Giancarlo Giannini (Rene Mathis) or Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene). They all did the best they could with the material that they were given which leads us to the writers (Neal Purvis, Paul Haggis and Robert Wade) and director (Marc Forster).

What happened with this movie? This group of filmmakers should not have messed this movie up as bad as they did. These men have made movies that are good. Movies like “Monster’s Ball,” “Stranger Than Fiction,” “Finding Neverland,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Crash,” “Million Dollar Baby,” “Flags of Our Fathers,” etc. So how is that the men responsible for these wonderful films made such a disappointing Bond movie? The dialogue was arbitrary. The action sequences were confusing and conducive to seizing. The sexual tension and innuendo commonplace in the Bond movies was inexplicably missing. There were no over-the-top gadgets or vehicles. It was all very…plain. And if James Bond is anything, it’s not plain.

It’s clear that there were obvious missteps and mistakes in “Quantum of Solace.” It’s just unexplainable how they happened – especially with writers and directors that we know are talented filmmakers. I think it all comes down to the studios. Hollywood studios fight tooth and nail to reach the top of the box office charts and, in order to do so, they often “borrow” from other successful franchises. Movies like the Bourne trilogy or “The Transporter” series are all studio responses to the Bond franchise. So how did the producers or studio heads forget that “Quantum of Solace” was a Bond movie and not one of their carbon-copy rip-offs? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that if you are in the mood for a Bond movie, skip this one and go rent “Goldfinger.”

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Running Time: 105 minutes

Starring: Daniel Craig (James Bond); Olga Kurylenko (Camille); Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene); Judi Dench (M); Giancarlo Giannini (Rene Mathis)

Directed by: Marc Forster; written by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade based on a character by Ian Fleming; produced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. A Sony Pictures release.

Hi, everyone! Eric here, reporting on the latest, greatest, and other things not so recent or very good. I just saw Stay again, a film destined for the lands of semi-remembrance. It has big stars, a semi-famous director, and a story that is fractured and non-linear. These three factors create a place in history for Stay that is mercurial and half-recollected, alongside similar titles like that one with George Clooney, that one directed by Tom Tykwer, or, you know, that one that kinda feels like Memento but it’s about the guy photographing fairies. It’s a bit of a shame, but it did it to itself.

Stay is primarily about a psychiatrist Dr. Sam Foster, his lady Lila, and his disturbed patient Henry. Henry is a lonely artist with a touch of the crazies, and he has decided to give Sam a disheartening announcement; he will be killing himself Saturday at midnight. Sam will do anything to stop this from happening, and decides to investigate the young man further. What he finds is that nothing is as it seems. Henry has parents that he told Sam were dead, a girl he fancied that seems a little too aloof to have even known Henry. All the while, Lila begins to act strangely towards him, as if there’s something wrong. In fact, everyone seems to be acting rather strangely towards him. Will he find Henry in time before it’s too late? What has happened to Sam’s life since he started searching for the young man with a mind to kill himself? Are there deeper implications to these bizarre circumstances than Sam could guess?

Stay suffers from a case of the drabs. There’s a fine line between moody and dull, and at times the tone and the color scheme comes together in a perfect storm of blasé. I was hoping for a bit more life to be injected into this movie with the addition of the Saturday deadline for Henry committing suicide, but even then the movie trots along at a pace that would heighten the experience of a more interesting-looking movie, but bogs down this dark green and brown frown-fest.

I won’t deny its intelligence, though. Marc Forster has a real eye for details here that he used in Monster’s Ball to Oscar-winning effect. It’s all about the things that people catch that make them second-guess themselves. Certain details like pant-leg lengths and minor characters that have more meaning than we think they do abound in this complex world. Like a fracturing mirror, the image we see is the same image, but as the cracks branch out it feels more and more twisted. It actually feels very literary at times, which I appreciated. An interesting tidbit that needs to be kept in mind at all times during this movie is that Lila had also tried to commit suicide at some point; that’s when she met Sam. This little point should be digested after the movie has ended and the ending is revealed (it’s a bit of a shocker).

But these little bonuses for the audience still can’t convince us to care about who these people are. They’re damaged goods, yes, and their stories are sad, but they’re not told very well. Like an erudite man who just cannot tell a joke, this film has the capacity for so much, but just not the ability to make open itself up to us and captivate. The actors excel, for the most part, so it’s not them; it’s just that they’re set in a world where the characters are too far away and unreadable at times that they seem a little distant. Ryan Gosling as antagonist (?) Henry is almost ice cold. He might not even have a pulse. His character is artistic and highly intelligent, but hs failing is that we don’t know enough concrete things about him to care for him, only wonder about him. Ewan McGregor’s Sam is the best character. His kindness and his earnestness is very aww-shucks and endearing, and the idea of a psychiatrist taking this much interest in a patient outside of a session is refreshing. Naomi Watts is also a cold slice of bread in this moody hoagie, but, again, I don’t know if she can be blamed. Her character itself is somewhat of a riddle, and I’m not exactly sure how she should have been played. So maybe she’s doing it right, but you don’t really know who she is and where her heart lies.

I’m not sure where anything lies in the world of Stay. The whole concept reeks of Vertigo, but doesn’t maintain that film’s eventual lucidity. There is no resolution to the ending, only another reason to watch it over again. I think there is a lot of potential here, and although it MIGHT be a tad too soon to remake it, I think it’s an excellent territory for another storyteller to take it and mold it to a more emotional and aesthetically pleasing form. The basics are all there, though, and when its effective at its artistic aims, you really feel it, like at Henry’s mother’s house. And cameos from Janeane Garofalo and Bob Hoskins lend the film a louder voice, so nobody can say that this is a dull movie. But what it says and why is anyone’s guess, and I have the strong feeling that wasn’t their intention. I give Stay 5 moody hoagies out of 10. Check it out at your own discretion.

Tomorrow I’m going to do a short-but-sweet review of the very first talkie! The Jazz Singer! Until then!!!

Título: Quantum of solace
Título original: Quantum of solace
País:  Reino Unido y USA
Estreno en USA: 14/11/2008
Estreno en España: 21/11/2008
Productora: Metro Goldwyn Mayer / Columbia Pictures
Director: Marc Forster
Guión: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis y Robert Wade (basado en los personajes creados por Ian Fleming)
Reparto: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Jesper Christensen, Joaquín Cosio, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton

Sinopsis:

Traicionado por Vesper, la mujer a la que amaba, 007 se enfrenta a la necesidad de convertir su nueva misión en algo personal. En su búsqueda decisiva para revelar la verdad, Bond y M interrogan a Mr. White, quien revela que la organización que chantajeó a Vesper es mucho más compleja y peligrosa de lo imaginado. El servicio de inteligencia forense vincula a un traidor del Mi6 con una cuenta bancaria en Haití, donde un caso de identificación errónea lleva a Bond a conocer a la bella pero combativa Camille, una mujer que tiene su propia venganza. Camille conduce a Bond directamente hasta Dominic Greene, un despiadado hombre de negocios y miembro importante de la misteriosa organización. En una misión que lo lleva a Austria, Italia y Sudamérica, Bond descubre que Greene, conspirando para tomar el control de uno de los recursos naturales más importantes del mundo, está fraguando un trato con el exiliado General Medrano. Utilizando a sus aliados en la organización y manipulando sus poderosos contactos dentro de la CIA y del Gobierno Británico, Greene promete derrocar el régimen existente en un país latinoamericano, cediendo al General el control del país a cambio de una porción de tierra aparentemente estéril. En un campo minado de traiciones, asesinatos y engaños, Bond se alía con sus viejos amigos en una batalla para desenmascarar la verdad. A medida que se acerca al hombre responsable de la traición de Vesper, 007 debe mantenerse un paso por delante de la CIA, de los terroristas e incluso de M para desenredar el siniestro plan de Greene y detener a su organización.

Opinión:

Definitivamente James Bond se ha Jasonbournizado. Basta de cachivaches estrafalarios, aventuras excéntricas y chistes fáciles. Ahora todo es serio de cojones y Bond es una maquina de matar bien engrasada que no se detiene ante nada ni ante nadie. ¿El problema? Que James Bond no es un maldito héroe de acción, leñe. Han pasado de un espía glamuroso, elegante y pelín misogino a convertirlo en algo parecido a Charles Bronson.

A ver quien me cargo ahora...

Y la verdad es que la película es un carrusel imparable de increíbles escenas de acción que no dan un respiro con una de las tramas mas ridículas e inverosímiles que he visto en años. ¿Todo ese pifostio por un poco de agua bajo un desierto? Si por lo menos se hubieran dado de leches por el coltán, lo hubiera entendido, pero esto… Dirigiendo todo esto, Marc Foster, que ha pasado de dirigir dramas intimistas a intentar clonar a Greengrass y marear al personal.

Ni un rasguño, tú.

En suma, un decepcionante film respecto a “Casino Royale”, ya que supone una continuación de esta y no un film independiente en si. Es de desear que en la esperada tercera parte la saga remonte el vuelo con el desarrollo de todo lo que supone la organización Quantum. Veremos.

Puntuación:

6 / 10

Quantum of Solace | Marc Foster, 2008

James Bond’s rip-roaring return to the screen just a few years ago brought praise from all quarters, and with the help of seasoned director Martin Campbell a great franchise was raised from its knees once more. This year, once the dust has settled, those involved will be able to gaze down once again upon a legend of the screen reduced to a supporting role in his own film. Last time it was Halle Berry, simulating the memory of a dripping Honey Ryder and acting just empowered enough to merit a prominent place upon the Die Another Day promotional material. Here it is Europe’s latest hot property that can be seen trotting side-by-side with Mr. Bond on the widely distributed Quantum of Solace posters: Ukrainian ex-model Olga Kurylenko, who plays Camille, a Bolivian assassin whose main motivation is to control a burning revenge to bring justice to those who tore her family apart many years ago. Unfortunately this is where the clichés end plot-wise, for Quantum of Solace owns by far the most contrived, convoluted, and downright confounded Bond plot I’ve seen in quite some time: its unnecessarily bloated form can be boiled down to one major point; that a cheeky Frenchman has somehow waltzed off with Bolivia’s entire water supply and plans to sell it back for a nice profit. A concept that might well be offensive if it wasn’t so ridiculous. The Frenchman in question is played by Mathieu Amalric, whose pasty form and suitably haughty accent fit the part rather well and certainly represent one of the film’s few highlights.

Of course, it isn’t unusual for a Bond villain to take his role past the point of insane cackling and well-placed monologues. However it’s an entirely more depressing affair when one finds themself pointing towards this villain as the standout performance. Daniel Craig does well enough once again as 007 Mark VI, but Marc Forster seem only too happy to push Craig’s muscles to the limit instead of actually taking advantage of the Brit’s natural ability in the role. The idea no doubt being to portray Bond’s post-Vesper rage and emotional struggling. Less dialogue, less humour, less of the real James Bond and instead a character/role perhaps better-suited to an ex-wrestler. The better parts of Casino Royale revolved smartly around Bond’s poker face and utilised Craig’s smirking ability to obtain the last laugh from most conversations. His train scene opposite a beautiful Eva Green exuded everything about Bond and his persona; that charm we have come to know so well and exactly how much trouble it can get him into. If Green’s character Vesper Lynd was a giant – and quite understandable, considering the story – step from the disposable Bond girls of old, Kurylenko’s dangerous Camille is a bona fide heroine. Despite the pyrotechnics budget, Quantum of Solace doesn’t really offer one single, defining action spectacle that helps unhinge the jaw in the way Bond’s construction site chase did in Casino Royale. Here Forster manages to stuff separate car, plane, and boat chases into the plot yet none of these match that high-flying sequence from Craig’s initial outing. It’s a case of business as usual then for poor Mr. Bond, who doesn’t seem to like sequential plotlines one bit.

Our Rating:

Casino Royale es un peli de James Bond de 2006. Una franquicia de Ian Fleming que ha pasado de protagonista en protagonista y de director a director. Esta vez el ejercicio es para Martin Campbell, un director con un no muy afortunado portafolio para mi gusto pero que con esta peli se reivindicó completamente conmigo.

La primera vez que la vi fue en cine y salí muy emocionado. Para mi la peli es espectacular desde los créditos de Johnnie Frankel trabajados para Rattling Stick, acompañados por Chris Cornell interpretando la canción especial para esta versión hasta Daniel Craig elegantemente vestido con un extravagante arma automática diciendo “Bond, James Bond”.

Pueden decir que Craig no es un verdadero Bond, que la peli no hace parte de la serie y que lo que se pierde es el espíritu del sofisticado espía inglés que enamora a sus mujeres con tan sólo el brillo de sus ojos. Yo soy fanático moderado de las pelis de Bond, puedo decir que de niño trajeron de nuevo, en algún ciclo de cine, Diamonds Are Forever protagonizado por Sean Connery y quedé embelezado por la historia. Un agente del MI6, que la mayoría del tiempo viste un smoking, está siempre muy bien peinado, sostiene un vodka martini y usa una serie de aparatejos y artilugios que lo ayudan a lo largo de la peli a atrapar a sus antagónicos.

Vi otras pelis de Connery, vi otras tantas de Roger Moore (que para mí siempre fue El Santo), nunca vi una peli de John Fiedler, Bob Simmons, David Nimen o George Lazemby, detesté las pelis de Timothy Dalton, volví a reencontrarme con el personaje con Pierce Brosnan quien aparentemente había nacido para este papel y, finalmente, Daniel Craig. Un actor que nos tenía acostumbrados a fuertes y poderosas actuaciones en el cine independiente, Road to Perdition de Sam Mendes en 2002, The Mother de Roger Michell en 2003, Enduring Love también de Roger Michell en 2004, Munich de Steven Spielberg, no tan independiente, en 2005, The Invasion de Oliver Hirschbiegel en 2007 y Flashbacks of a Fool de Baillie Walsh de 2008.

Fue exactamente eso lo que me atrajo de este nuevo capítulo de Bond, cómo lograrían aprovechar todo el potencial de este actor en una peli medianamente sobria y de corte aventurero.

Bueno la respuesta es impactante, la peli es el nacimiento de este personaje, un hombre seco, maduro, mayormente tosco, elegantemente vestido pero que prefiere un whisky a un martini esnobista. Frágil de carácter y permeable al amor. Un hombre que cuando pelea sangra, que cuando le duele un golpe llora, un hombre que es capaz de sufrir y, sin embargo, un hombre con un excelente sentido del humor. Varias veces sonreí con sus chistes, varias veces logré carcajearme con sus frases de cajón. Intenté pedir alguna vez en un bar de renombre aquí en Bogotá un Vesper Martini, un trago de tres porciones de Gordons, una porción de Kina Lillet (un vermouth blanco bastante exótico) y una rodaja de cáscara de limón; no lo pudieron armar porque no sabían que era el Kina Lillet, en ese entonces tampoco yo lo sabía pero ansío poder probarlo y poder saber a que sabe Eva Green en un trago quien interpretaba a Vesper Lynd la Chica Bond de este capítulo.

El amigo con el que fui esa vez a cine, me dijo que fue demasiado el tiempo que le dedicaron al romance del hombre, anoche me ví la peli en DVD y mientras fue el romance, bajé y me hice un té doble, pintado con leche y galletitas, al subir, ya había empezado la acción y si fue un poco más placentera, pero en ir y venir tan sólo me demoré tres minutos, tres minutos que le sobran a la peli no está mal.

Al lado de Craig hay un gran equipo actoral que se comportó a la altura, muy bien señor Campbell, excelente dirección. La bellísima Eva Green, el noble Giancarlo Giannini, la majestuosa Judi Dench, el carismático Jeffrey Wright y el fabuloso antagónico Mads Mikkelsen con sus lágrimas de sangre.

Es una peli entretenida de principio a fin, la secuencia en Praga al principio de los créditos es hermosa, luego la secuencia en Madagascar estrenando su nueva categoría como Agente Doble 0 es sencillamente increíble y todo Montenegro es James Bond al 100%.

Ojalá la franquicia hubiera seguido así de bien, pero Quantum of Solace dirigida por Marc Forster en 2008 es una pérdida de tiempo, no sé qué le habrá pasado a Forster un excelente director que nos ha provisto excelentes pelis. Lo gracioso es que volví con mi amigo a seguir la secuela y a él le encantó :-S

Antes de tudo preciso dizer que esse filme foi uma ótima surpresa. Sábado fui à uma loja comprar um presente de aniversário pra uma amiga, aproveitei pra ir na sessão de DVDs e tinham tantos filmes que eu queria comprar, muitos que já vi e amei, mas fui e comprei esse que nunca havia visto. Poderia me decepcionar e ter gastado o dinheiro à toa, mas aconteceu justamente o contrário, foi um dinheiro MUITO bem gasto, pois eu amei o filme. É, sem dúvidas, um dos filmes mais sensíveis que já vi.

Pra quem não sabe o filme conta a história de James Barrier, muito bem interpretado por Johnny Depp, e a criação de sua mais famosa obra, Peter Pan. No processo de criação de sua nova peça ele conhece uma família composta por uma mãe, Sylvia e seus quatro filhos: Peter, Jack, George e Michael – todos belamente representados por Kate Winslet, Freddie Highmore, Joe Prospero, Nick Roud e Luke Spill, respectivamente. Os laços estabelecidos por eles são o centro do filme, que desenvolve com cuidado a relação de James e a família.

Se me perguntassem quais assuntos são abordados no filme eu certamente esqueceria de pelo menos um. O filme aborda diversas questões, fala sobre diversos assuntos sem sair do foco, do ritmo e isso é louvável. Ao acabar de assistir me senti como se tivesse aprendido um pouco sobre escrita, teatro, família e muito mais.

Um dos aspectos que mais me chamou atenção no filme foi o seu elenco. Não há ninguém inferior, todos fazem um trabalho maravilhoso. Embora o filme contenha estrelas como Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Julie Christie e Dustin Hoffman, é o então pequeno Freddie Highmore que rouba a cena. O trabalho do menino é impressionante e me arrancou lágrimas diversas vezes. Tanto nas cenas contidas, quanto nas mais “exageradas” ele deu um show de olhares e expressividade, coisa que muito veterano não faz. Ainda me pergunto como esse garoto não foi indicado ao Oscar, visto que o papel tem muito a cara da premiação.

Mesmo os grandes destaques do filme estando no roteiro, na direção e no elenco, a parte técnica não fica nenhum um pouco atrás. É tudo de primeiríssima, a trilha vencedora do Oscar é um clássico contemporâneo e deixa as cenas mais mágicas ainda, sem atrapalhar em nenhum momento. A belíssima fotografia junto da direção de arte e do figurino fazem um excelente trabalho ao retratar a época (1904) e são um deslumbre para os nossos olhos. Os efeitos visuais e sonoros do filme são de causar inveja, visto que os primeiros são praticamente imperceptíveis e se ajustaram perfeitamente ao filme, sem chamar atenção desnecessária.

Quando vi no menu do filme na sessão de filmografias e vi que o diretor é o mesmo de “A Última Ceia” quase caí pra traz. Marc Forster faz um trabalho um milhão de vezes melhor aqui, mas ele é também auxiliado por um roteiro excelente, o que não aconteceu no seu filme anterior. O diretor está de parabéns e retratou essa história que é sensível da maneira que deveria ter sido feita.

* Fícha Técnica *

Título: Em Busca da Terra do Nunca
Título Original: Finding Neverland
Ano: 2004
País: Inglaterra/EUA
Direção: Marc Forster
Roteiro: David Magee
Com: Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Julie Christie e Freddie Highmore
Cotação: A+

well this is another space of the blog, its where we talk about the movies we saw recently and give our opinion. the movies will have a kind of scores of one to five.
i’m going to do this in portuguese because i feel more comfortable.
sorry

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

O filme conta a história (literalmente) de Harold Crick, um empregado das finanças que é por assim dizer uma verdadeira seca. Tudo está prestes a mudar quando Harold começa a ouvir uma voz feminina a narrar todos os seus passos com uma imensa precisão e a anunciar a sua morte.

A partir daqui tudo foi uma surpresa para nós, eu já tinha lido boas críticas do filme mas nunca demonstrei grande interesse em vê-lo. Mas ele acabou por vir ter connosco como oferta de uma revista cor de rosa durante as nossas férias no alentejo.

Will Ferrell surpreende bastante neste papel (sem fazer grandes macacadas sem piada) gostei imenso de o ver, apesar de não morrer de amores por ele, Maggie Gyllenhaal apesar de não estar mal acho que o papel não era para ela e Dustin Hoffman e Emma Thompson como já nos habituaram.
Não é um filme ”massudo” e depois dos primeiros dez minutos acaba por nos prender à história e a partir daí é agarrar em um copo de leite e um pacote de oreos e deixarmos-nos levar até ao fim. Esse sim é previsível demais.

In lieu of introduction of both me and this article, I present to you my view upon Marc Forster. He makes sweet films. Not meaning the taste or “awww, that’s so sweet of him to bring you flowers”, but the modern, somewhat exaggerative meaning of sweet. The kind you say when go to your friend’s house and see his brand new sparkling 52” lcd, led-backlit, television. His repertoire include Stranger Than Fiction and the new Bond flick; Quantum of Solace, needless to say both being sweet.

Most people agree with my point of view, it being that Quantum of Solace isn’t really a Bond film by the traditional sense but it is a pretty action movie. Some, including me, might even call it pretty sweet. More traveling, better locations and by far better car chases than the preceeding film; Casino Royale. But there’s less Bond-y dialogue and such. He’s even instructed by a bartender whether what to drink and how. He’s more of a depressed alcoholic than Bond. But the film is nontheless very sweet.

Stranger Than Fiction stars Will Farrel in a film about an IRS-agent who hears a narrative. It turns out  that the voice he hears is a famous writer who solely writes tragedies, and after he knows he’s going to die an imminent death he takes a firm grip of his life and turns it around. He starts playing the guitar and falling for a girl. Anyway, the movie is sweet and all. Marc Forster has also directed the Kite Runner, which I haven’t seen the ending of, but seems worthy of it’s appraisal. As is Marc Forster, though he has gotten a lot of shit for Quantum of Solace. Though the film was rather worthy of such, even if it was sweet.

First there were delays then there was the news that J Michael Straczynski’s script was being rewritten by script hot shot Matthew Michael Carnahan.

Now a rumour that came from the San Diego Comic Con that Paramount Pictures is currently looking for a new director.

Currently attached is Marc Forster who directed Quantum of Solace. To me Quantum was a huge disappointment after the excellent Casino Royale. The action scenes in Quantum just didn’t work. Therefore, the news that Forster may not be doing World War Z is actually pretty cool to me. I just really want to see Max Brooks excellent book on the big screen – The Battle of Yonkers, lobos, the astronauts on the space station watching the swarms of the undead, underwater zombies and more.

This is a rumour at the moment, but who would be a good director for this adaption? Zack Snyder, Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, Lloyd Kaufman? Who could it be?

HOME

2007: De Kite Runner di Marc Forster

Alla critica è piaciuto: “A magnificent film” (Chicago Sun-Times), “Dal libro al film con intelligenza” (Il Tempo), “… una trasposizione di grande potenza narrativa” (Film Tv), “…all’altezza dell’amato bestseller” (La Stampa).

Regista che, tra l’altro, ha al suo attivo lo splendido Neverland ma anche il poco convincente Stay, Marc Forster (svizzero tedesco trapiantato in America) si è presa una bella gatta da pelare trasportando sullo schermo il romanzo di Khaled Hosseini, il più grande fenomeno letterario degli ultimi anni, idolatrato da milioni di lettori in tutto il mondo.
Chi non ha letto il libro, vedendo il film non capirà il perché di tanto entusiasmo. Chi ha amato l’opera scritta rimarrà inevitabilmente deluso.

Forster ha realizzato una produzione che si fa ammirare per gli originali titoli di testa, la messinscena colorata, la smagliante fotografia, l’imponenza delle masse ben guidate, la ricostruzione ambientale (l’Afghanistan e il Pakistan sono riprodotti in Cina): un grande spettacolo nella migliore tradizione hollywoodiana ma…
L’impatto emotivo è modesto, i sentimenti le sofferenze le ferite… poco approfondite, le sfumature latitanti, il coinvolgimento manchevole. Non tutti i personaggi principali sono narrativamente sullo stesso piano, non tutti gli interpreti sono completamente convincenti.

Formalmente la pellicola (che ha avuto una nomination agli Oscar e due ai Golden Globe) appare rispettosa del romanzo di cui trascrive i fatti salienti (ma non tutti) ma non ne riproduce l’anima, l’intimo, il profondo significato.
Un’occasione persa: ci si aspettava un capolavoro, abbiamo un prodotto semplicemente dignitoso che persuade del tutto.

p.s.
Il film è stato proibito in Afghanistan (motivazioni: si umilia l’etnia dei “pashtun”, oltraggiose le scene dello stupro di Hassan e della danza erotica del ragazzo hazara, Shorab).

Pubblicato su FilmAgenda

Regia: Marc Forster
Sceneggiatura: David Benioff
Cast: Khalid Abdalla, Homayon Ershadi, Shaun Toub, Atossa Leoni, Saïd Taghmaoui, Zekeria Ebrahimi, Ali Danesh Bakhtyari, Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada, Nabi Tanha, Elham Ehsas, Bahram Ehsas, Maimoona Ghizal, Abdul Qadir Farookh, Abdul Salam Yusoufzai, Tamim Nawabi
Fotografia: Roberto Schaefer
Montaggio: Matt Chesse
Musiche: Alberto Iglesias
Produzione: DreamWorks SKG, MacDonald/Parkes Productions, Neal Street Productions, Participant Productions, Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, Wonderland Films
Distribuzione: Filmauro
Paese: USA 2007
Genere: Drammatico
Durata: 131 Min
Uscita Italia: 28 Marzo 2008
Uscita USA: 14 Dicembre 2007

Sito Italiano
Sito Ufficiale

Trama:
L’amicizia tra due bambini appartenenti a etnie e classi sociali differenti: Amir, figlio di uno degli uomini più influenti di Kabul, e Hassan, il suo piccolo servitore. Sullo sfondo le vicende storiche che, in trent’anni, hanno portato alla progressiva distruzione e devastazione della cultura e del paese afgano: la caduta della monarchia, l’invasione sovietica, l’esodo di massa verso il Pakistan, l’avvento del regime talebano e la sua eliminazione dopo la caduta delle Torri Gemelle. Amir e Hassan sono inseparabili, accomunati anche dalla passione per le gare di aquiloni. Ma un tragico evento irrompe e sconvolge le loro vite…

Note:
In Afghanistan gli hazara non sono visti come pari dai pashtun, da quando nel 19° secolo sono stati sottomessi e portati come schiavi a Kabul.
Su IMDb riconoscimenti e premi.

Steven Zeitchik – Hollywood Reporter

Warner Bros. and in-demand screenwriter Brad Ingelsby will develop a feature based on “Sacred Prey,” Vivian Schilling’s novel about a hit man who becomes the victim of his own takedown.

The high-concept thriller centers on a loan shark who kills a man he believes duped him, only to wake up and find himself in the body of that man three days before the murder. He then embarks on a furious effort to prevent the murder he committed.

Tentatively dubbed “Sacred Prey,” the project might yet get a new title, with “Hit Man” among the names being considered.

During the past 15 months, Ingelsby has climbed from an unknown to the top of the screenwriters’ pile.

An insurance salesman from Pennsylvania, Ingelsby created a sensation with “The Low Dweller,” a spec script he wrote on a lark. The dark thriller, which Leonardo DiCaprio and Ridley Scott quickly signed on to produce, ignited a bidding war that Relativity Media won.

Ingelsby soon had other projects set up at Hollywood studios, including the Todd Field-directed “Nancy & Danny” at Paramount and the Marc Forster-produced “Die Bad” at Universal.

Título Original: The Kite Runner

Amir e Hassan

Site Oficial: www.kiterunnermovie.com

Sua alma sumiu, subiu pelo fio, num céu cor de mel, em cor e papel.