Damn that Nan and her grooviness! Trina, you are just a doormat. Of course, it is possible to go too far in the other direction…

Whoa, Twink — how ’bout you crawl out of Jill’s butt about this? What a lady does behind closed bedroom/car/McDonalds’ restroom doors is her business.

So. Which one would you choose? And remember that things are not always what they seem; Trina could be a doormat because she has been raised according to a view of fundamentally-Biblical, sublimated femininity that also extends to keeping it on clampdown ’til after marriage, and even then, just every third Saturday and only if neither one of you enjoys it! Do you really want a lifetime of hot meals but frigid nights?

Still from Blue Velvet (1986), l to r: Laura Dern, Isabella Rossellini, and unbelievably gorgeous slice of ’80s man meat Kyle MacLachlan — three guesses who the next Hot Man Bein’ Hot of the Day is going to be.

Meanwhile, that alleged whore Jill might actually be acting out because she has been abused, and, like a kicked cat who has not been loved well enough, will just as easily cut you with a broken bottle as blow you.* She may even be one of those chicks who downs a bottle of bourbon and sleeps with your dad so you’ll beat her up, just so she can feel anything.

Ups and downs, blondes and brunettes, femmes fatales and ingenues –and which is which??– deconstruction of assumed codifications. Oh! Such a Lynchian conundrum!

Naomi Watts and Laura Harring, Mulholland Drive (2001).

*Your cat blows you, right?…right??

Naomi Watts e Clive Owen Pouca Sintonia…

Em Cartaz

 
Gênero: Suspense e Drama
Censura: 16 anos
Duração: 118 min
Direção: Tom Tykwer
Com: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Jack McGee, Angelina Aucello, Ulrich Thomsen, Brian F. O’Byrne, Patrick Baladi, Remy Auberjonois, Victor Slezak, Ty Jones, Luca Calvani, Luca Barbareschi, Amy Kwolek.
Local de Filmagem: 59th Street Bridge, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA; Autostadt, Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany; Berlin, Germany; Hauptbahnhof, Berlin, Germany; Istanbul, Turkey; Jüdisches Museum, Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany; Midtown, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA; Milan, Lombardia, Italy; New York City, New York, USA; Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum – 1071 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA e Studio Babelsberg, Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany.
Produção: Lloyd Phillips, Charles Roven, Richard Suckle,
Roteiro: Eric Singer
Fotografia: Frank Griebe
Trilha Sonora: Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek, Tom Tykwer
¨

SINOPSE
A trama acompanha a trajetória de um agente da Interpol interpretado por Clive Owen [Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007), Shoot 'Em Up (2007) e Sin City (2005) / Sin City 2 (2010)] que investiga uma instituição financeira suspeita que financia o  tráfico de drogas, armas e práticas de terrorismo. Naomi Watts [Funny Games U.S. (2007), King Kong (2005) e Eastern Promises (2007)] vive uma promotora de justiça de Manhattan que o auxilia na empreitada.

CRÍTICA
Do mesmo diretor de Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006), Tom Tykwer errou na escolha do casal, Naomi Watts e Clive Owen, bem como na execução do longa, que de longe é extremamente chato e difícil de se conectar com a trama, que demora a se desenrolar e quando o faz, se perde entre um roteiro mal escrito e um elenco sem sintonia.

A primeira vista o filme atrai, e muito, mas infelizmente decepciona mais, começa pela falta de sintonia do casal Naomi Watts e Clive Owen, cujos personagens tem uma relação superficial e pouco explorada, bem como o universo de cada um deles que tão pouco é revelado ao ponto de criar uma conexão com o público, tornando quase impossível seguir a trama sem olhar no relógio algumas várias vezes.

Apesar de ser um tema pouco explorado, do ponto de vista Instituição Financeira x Política x Guerra (Revolução), nada de novo nos é apresentado, ficando um certo ar de “só isso” – no entanto a fotografia do filme é muito atraente, com ares de 007, passando por vários países da Europa, mas sem as perseguições frenéticas de Bond, apenas pontos da trama, que de alguma forma deveriam complementar o enredo, mas não o fazem com eficácia, criando mais pontos de distração do que de conexão.

Esperem para assistir em DVD, sem dúvida alguma o longa metragem não merece ser assistido nos cinemas. Mas para aqueles que ainda assim querem arriscar, escolham um horário bem cedo, pois assim quando acabar, dará tempo de pegar outra sessão para assistir algo que realmente valha apena!

bom filme!

roberta vieira

www.everybodypays.com/

www.sonypictures.com/movies/theinternational/site/

www.sonypictures.co.uk/movies/theinternational/

Confira o trailer abaixo.

Okay see the reason why I said actually cool people would totally embarrass me the way I mock internet nerds who are culturally retarded can be derived from this movie. It’s a psychological thriller and boy can I not handle it. It’s one thing to read gruesome texts and another to expose yourself to the visual and aural experience. Jesus fucking christ.

That merits some clarification. Basically I read tons of random shit that is way scarier than whatever this movie was, but I was shitting my pants from about 30 seconds into the movie until the end. In fact, about an hour and 40 minutes into the movie I just stopped watching it in full screen and flipped to the wiki article because I needed to know what was coming up. The suspense defeated me. Okay, let’s be fair. I don’t watch nearly enough movies and thus this thing was really awful for me–anyone who watches a lot of movies will keep their wits about them. That in itself is another discussion (as a film critic, can you really allow yourself to get emotional about the film for its full impact? Or do you remain rationalizing when the film demands you to be soft (for it to take effect)?).

I can’t really say much about the movie, because even though wiki lays out a pretty decent explanation for what happened I honestly just don’t know what any of the scenes mean. I’m pretty bad at this crap in general. For example, I missed the part where Diane can’t climax which is supposed to represent the dissatisfaction of her existence. When I watched it, it was just really awkward. I guess that’s what makes me a science person despite my desire for balance.
I can say however that the entire thriller genre is lame. What the fuck. Do you really need to play creepy music for 2 hours of a 2 hour and 20 minute movie? Do you really need to have a first person perspective every 5 minutes in a dark room? Does there really need to be all this yelling? AHHHHH. Isn’t that sort of a lame way to er… have an emotional impact/cause suspense/something? I mean, it’s not the director’s fault, just whoever thought of this genre. Basically fuck you for making me shit my pants for 2 hours.

Oh and this is my crazy theory on one tiny aspect of his filming choices. The entire movie has these first person shots where you are freaked out about what’s around the corner/on the other side of the door. And 15 minutes into the film there is one which actually ends with something scary. That way Lynch has rightfully caused you to be freaked out for the first person scenes in the rest of the film.

Finally on a more important note, Naomi Watts is/was (I guess she’s old now but whatever) fricken attractive (though less so when she plays the really… drained, I guess, Diane). But having immediately seen Amy Adams before watching the movie (XKCD for today made a reference to Disney’s Enchanted) I have concluded that though they have the best possible nose a woman could have. They both have this strange dimple at the bottom of their nose. In other news I am extremely bothered by my nose which is part of the reason why I’m so obsessed about this. Not only is it flat and wide, but there’s so much goddamn fat on the tip ewwww. And where they have a dimple I can actually feel (though not see) a piece of flesh poking out. Hmmm I should probably go read Twilight now.

Naomi Watts

Amy Adams

I was about to apologize for choosing photos that don’t have plastic-looking skin, but I sort of like them this way. Maybe I’m not as into little girls as I thought I would be.

Funny Games is an Austrian movie by writer/director Michael Haneke starring Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Arno Frisch and Frank Giering which he then remade shot for shot ten years later with Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

Plot:
A well-off family travels to their weekend getaway at the shore of a lake. While the father Georg(e) [Ulrich Mühe/Tim Roth] and the son get the boat ready, the mother Ann(a) [Susanne Lothar/Naomi Watts] stays in the house to prepare dinner. Suddenly a young man, Peter, [Frank Giering/Brady Corbet] comes from the neighbour’s house to ask for some eggs. He’s joined by another young man, Paul, [Arno Frisch/Michael Pitt] and while both of them are very polite, things become threatening really quickly. When the father and the son return to the house, Peter and Paul take the whole family hostage to play “games” with them.

Both movies are heavy cost – a thorough and deep analysis of violence in movies and what it does to the viewer. Haneke uses the horror genre conventions to hammer home a point – and hammer it he does. This is no subtle pointer that maybe violence in movies is not such a good thing but a huge, blinking neon sign that screams about the depravity of the average movie consumer.

[SPOILERS]

I watched both movies basically back to back (U.S. version first) because I was curious if I could find out how detailed a Haneke script is. Two things I have learned from this:

1: Don’t watch these two movies back to back if you are not completely stable and have either already lost all faith in humanity or have some magic formula to retain your faith. One of them is bad enough, but seeing the whole thing twice is soul shattering.

2: Haneke scripts are very detailed. But interestingly enough they detail other things than I would mention in a script of mine. For example, in the U.S. version pretty much everything’s white, not only the clothes of Peter and Paul, but also the complete interior design. So, as I’m personally a little obsessed with colour in movies, I figured this would have some significance. But in the Austrian version, only the two guys are dressed in white, the interior design isn’t. On the other hand, the entire layout of the house is completely identical – something I would have thought unnecessary.

After watching the first movie, I desperately needed a break. I felt like throwing up and crying. Just not knowing what to do first kept me from doing either. Seeing the second movie (sometimes I’m a mean bitch towards myself) was a little better. I don’t think it had anything to do with the quality of the films – honestly, all performances were great and other than that, nothing much had changed – but with knowing what to expect.

Because the thing about it is: Haneke doesn’t let the audience be an audience; he incorporates them into the film in the form of Paul. Paul, one of the perpetrators and the leader of the two, turns round in the middle of the film and winks at the viewer. I first I thought nothing much about it – it was a shock, being pulled out of the comfortable role for a second, but you quickly settle back into it.

And then Paul does it again. But this time, he talks to you, asks you about your expectations etc. And this time, you can’t just wave it away, can’t just pretend like nothing happened: you are forced to consider your own role in this. And you can feel the judgment, the nagging question: “Why would you watch such a movie in the first place?”

But the coup de grace is when Ann(a) manages to grab the gun and shoot Peter. Paul is thrown off for a second, searches for the remote control – and just hits the rewind button. The movie, obediently, rewinds.

Up until this point you might have still been able to kid yourself, but even the most unreflected movie goer surely most have felt the pressure Haneke built on the viewer at this point.

Because – or maybe despite – of this pressure, what I felt while watching the movie was not horror or even disgust, but desperation: Desperation that the family’s siuation was so completely chanceless, but even more desperation about us humans as a species who watch stuff like that as an entertainment [I'm not judging here, I watch these movies myself and I do enjoy them. (Even after Funny Games.)]. The conclusion of this film seems to be that we’re all completely fucked. [Which might be true, but do I really want to think about that?]

And Haneke manages to invoke all of this without showing us any act of violence directly. Contrary to what is usually the case, he only shows us the effects the violence has: The physical and emotional wounds.

So, if you want to be challenged – intellectually and as a movie goer - one of these two films will be perfect. Just make sure that you’re sufficiently anchored. But it’s definitely worth to give the movie a try and examine yourself in the course of it.

Uff. La cosa pasa en Hollywood. Una peli negra pierde la memoria en un accidente automovilistico, de película, y tras el empujón que le da una perfecta desconocida, enuncia: Mullholland Drive. El recuerdo de la pelinegra trae la desorientación de la peli clara. Entretenida, cautivante, pestañar se vuelve preocupante ante el vertiniginoso despliegue de una compactísima trama que incluye la espesa fauna cinematográfica, desde el director de cine hasta el jardiner que duerme con su mujer.

A ratos tormentosa, a ratos paradisiaca, Mullholland Drive. ¿Quién escribió el guión? Debe ser el mismo Lynch. Una locura. Saltos, vueltas. Momentos memorables, una red de acción y caracteres impresionantes por sus detalles, sus cualidades, sus universos sus quereres, sus devenires, sus condenas.

Sí, hay balazos. Y una enigmática llave azul. Bueno, dos enigmáticas llaves azules, pero admirablemente la llave es mucho más enigmática que su representación.

Tras el encuentro sexual de ambas, salen a la calle, la pelinegra quiere que la peliclara le acompañe, a las dos de lamañana, salen y hay un Teatro abierto, eso sí: No hay Banda.

Qué intensa y que importante me parece la escena de los hombres en el café. Él recuerda la ensoñación, la revive. Salen en busca del hombre tras la muralla y ahí está el hombre. Intensa. Importante, no en el sentido convencional. Si ahi está la delicia de Lynch, la tensión de lo convencional hasta su derrumbe y rearticulación. Porque el hombre tras el muro es quién tiene el cubo que abrirá la llave azul, la enigmática y es en el mismo café-restaurante, dónde nos presentarán la llave, y tras el café-restaurante, el hombre con el cubo azul.

Las historias noa aparecen cómo lógicas, cargadas de sentido, porque hemos aprendido a conocer sus partes, a identificars sus fragmentos, tal cómo es posible identificar las piertas, los brazos, el cuello, el tronco, la cabeza, los pies, las manos y los dedos. Pero así cómo parece esta una muy clara descripción de un cuerpo, es también de una generalidad y superficialidad horrorosa. La cantidad de tejidos, funciones, aparatos, órganos y sistemas involucrados en cada parte nos permiten reconocer una unidad, pero esa unidad, paradojicamente, es posible gracias a la multiplicidad de elementos que le componene. La simplicidad, no es sencillez, y a ratos, se confunden y entristece así nuestro panorama cinematográfico. Mullholland Drive es una historia simple, no sencilla. Deliciosa y hermosa por eso. Por su simplicidad. Podemos, tal vez, extraviar el hilo de un momento a otro, desconocer algo o a alguien, los nombres cambian, las situaciones se deforman, ante el ojo mal criado, claro, pero es de una exquisites cuya concentración de sabor puede molestar a los paladares adormecidos.

No necesito tu histori, parece gritarle Lynch a Rita, no necesito tus antecedente, todo nace aquí, y después de ahora. Por supuesot podemos imaginar, y hasta creer descubrir quién es Rita, que hace,que hizo, por que estaba así, pero la verdad es que no importa, pruba de eso la cinta. 

Un asesinato triple que trae las risas. Un asesino poco prolijo puede resultar bastante expansivo. ¿Y las reuniones de producción? Qué audición de la peliclara. Qué fastidio lo del café. Dios mio, que esta vez le guste el café por la cresta. Intensidad, de pie se agradece, contundencia, escenas que son un mundo en cada segundo que les compone. Un tratamiento depurado, que nos permite dar vueltas y más vueltas al rollo de la olivetti a fin de acercarnos a un comentario que invite a acercarse y disfrutar del encuentro con una pieza del arte de nuestra historia.

Películas de las que es difícil hablar, más allá de la experticia o la tendencia que se cultive, es un asunto complejo, de la categoría de lo complejo, tal cómo es complejo hablar de los grabados egipcios.

Maravillosa contradicción; alabamos su simpleza y adoramos su complejidad.

Que mantengan la consecuencia los expertos, nosotros hacemos el ejercicio del espejo, y que lindo reflejo nos entrega Mullholland Drive, que complejidad que nos contiene, que simplicidad que nos convoca, que cantidad de capaz superpuestas componen nuestras historias más ligeras. Qué agradable es saber que podemos guardar en un cajón el alma.

Para abrirlo y encontrárla desperezandose por las mañanas.

November 23, 2009— An international campaign to spotlight World AIDS Day, December 1, has been organized by a partnership among amfAR, UNAIDS, the World AIDS Campaign, and Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. The Light for Rights campaign urges all of us to “keep the light on HIV and human rights,” and involves the dimming of public lights, followed by their return to full brightness.

In New York City’s Washington Square Park, dignitaries and speakers including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, amfAR Chairman Kenneth Cole, actress and UNAIDS goodwill ambassador Naomi Watts, and other special guests will watch as the floodlights illuminating the Washington Square Arch are extinguished and then restored. As part of the event, the marquee lights of major Broadway theaters will also be dimmed.

amfAR and its partner organizations have created a special World AIDS Day website (www.lightforrights.org) that provides facts about HIV/AIDS, descriptions of Light for Rights activities can be organized in other locations, social networking ideas, and templates for op-eds and letters to the editor.

Since HIV/AIDS was first reported almost three decades ago, the virus has decimated populations around the globe and results in approximately 2 million deaths each year.

In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, 2.7 million people were newly infected with HIV, 40 percent of whom were young people between the ages of 15 and 24. The number of new infections continues to outpace the number of people receiving treatment.

Una pareja(Tim Roth y naomi Watts)  junto a su hijo van a una casa en la playa para pasar unos dias de descanso, cuando dos jovenes de clase acomodada y aparentes buenos llegan para torturarlos física y sicológicamente en su propia casa, por el sólo gusto de hacerlo.

Versión americana de la película de 1997 de Michael Haneke, el mismo que dirige este remake, que  puede parecer interesante sólo si no se ha visto la original. ***

He aqui los posters mas interesantes de las peliculas que espero con ansias, todavia no hay niguno de Harry Potter and the deathly hallows part I, pero me conformo con los de Alicia en el pais de las maravillas y Avatar, no les pierdan la pista a estos proximos clasicos!

click en las pics para agrandar

Gratulerar Will Ferrell, som utnämnts till världens mest överbetalda skådespelare, nåja Hollywoods i alla fall.

För varje betalad dollar har Will Ferrell bara tjänat in 3,29 dollar. Jämför med Shia LaBeouf, pengarligans ledare, vars filmer tjänar in 160 dollar per dollar enligt lön (efter en äldre lista, tyvärr) Generellt sett tjänar dock kvinnorna in mer pengar än männen.

Se listan över de mest överbetalda skådespelarna eller listan över de som genererar mest pengar. Den här listan är mer aktuell lista, en lista över de mest inkomstbringande kvinnorna i Hollywood. Enligt den toppar Naomi Watts listan, med 44 dollar intjänade dollar per film.

Liev Schreiber e Naomi Watts, mantendo a forma. Foto: Reprodução

A resposta para o “Guess Who?” de ontem é: Liev Schreiber e Naomi Watts, que são sempre vistos treinando pelas ruas de Nova York e no Central Park. Ponto pra eles que treinam juntos! Pontos pra você que acertou!

Naomi Watts

Esta semana ví dos tremendas películas que quiero compartir con uds.

Por Christian Quezada

Funny Games U.S

Dirección y Guión: Michael Haneke.
Países: USA, Francia, Reino Unido, Alemania, Austria e Italia.
Año: 2007.
Duración: 111 min.
Género: Thriller, drama.

Interpretación: Naomi Watts (Ann), Tim Roth (George), Michael Pitt (Paul), Brady Corbet (Peter), Devon Gearhart (Georgie)

SINOPSIS: Las vacaciones comienzan con Ann, George y su hijo Georgie de camino a su casa de verano. Los vecinos, Fred y Eva, ya están allí. Quedan de acuerdo en jugar al golf la mañana siguiente. Es un día perfecto. Ann empieza a preparar la cena, mientras su marido y su hijo están ocupados con el barco de vela recién arreglado. De repente, Ann se encuentra cara a cara con Peter, un joven educado e invitado de sus vecinos, que ha venido a pedir unos huevos porque a Eva se le han acabado. Ann está a punto de darle a Peter los huevos, pero tiene dudas. ¿Cómo ha entrado en su propiedad? Peter explica que hay un agujero en la cerca, se lo enseñó Fred. Desde el principio las cosas parecen extrañas y bastará un pequeño incidente para que estalle la violencia. “Funny games” es un remake de la película de mismo título dirigida por el propio Michael Haneke en 1997.

COMENTARIO: Interesante y perturbador film, realmente a ratos se hace enfermizo ver algunas escenas. Si bien el punto de inflexión en la historia al inicio, en lo personal, me parece débil y absurdo, la película te logra meter en su trama y ver como estos dos tipos (Meter y Paul) desarrollan esta masacre sicológica con esta familia adinerada. Pensando en el año de la primera versión de este film (1997) se logra plasmar perfectamente un grado de inhumanidad y violencia explícita digno de estos días o de un noticiario como de Chilevisión o Mega. Lo curioso del remake, es que además de ser su mismo director, la construcción en cuanto a planos, es idéntica a la original. Un tremendo trabajo sicológico de Michael Haneke (su director) que plasma sobre los personajes. En resumen una película más que recomendable. A ratos desesperante, y ojo, que en un par de secuencias, dirás que fome y lenta se está poniendo, pero justo hay un momento que deja marcando ocupado y pidiendo más de esta repugnante y controversial cinta. Al final pensé. “Que película de mierda más buena”, te hará pasar un momento tenso y de no entretenimiento, si bien a ratos es muy absurda, el trabajo sicológico realmente es muy descatable.

DESCARGA Vía Torrent, versión año 2007 / Subtítulos AQUÍ

DESCARGA Vía Torrent, versión 1997 / (Incluye Subtitulos)

Trailer comparativo, al costado izquierdo la versión de 2007 (la que vi) y el costado derecho la versión del año 1997 (la que estoy descargando)

Trailer Funny Games año 2007

Slumdug Millionaire  ¿Quien quiere ser Millonario?

Dirección: Danny Boyle.
País: Reino Unido.
Año: 2008.
Duración: 120 min.
Género: Drama, comedia, romance.
Interpretación: Dev Patel (Jamal Malik), Freida Pinto (Latika), Madhur Mittal (Salim), Anil Kapoor (Prem Kumar)

SINOPSIS: Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), un joven huérfano que vive en un barrio extremadamente pobre de Bombay, decide presentarse a la versión india del concurso  ”¿Quién quiere ser millonario?”. Ante la sorpresa de todos, Jamal responde correctamente a todas y cada una de las preguntas. ¿Cómo es posible que un chico como él sea capaz de conocer todas las respuestas? Cuando Jamal está a punto de responder a la última pregunta, la que le hará ganar 20 millones de rupias, la policía lo detiene y se lo lleva para interrogarle. Jamal deberá explicar por qué conocía las respuestas, teniendo que recurrir para ello a relatar diferentes momentos de su vida, que además nos ayudarán a descubrir la verdadera razón de su participación en el concurso.

COMENTARIO: INCREIBLE!!!. Es genial de inicio a fin. Yo hace tiempo que la tenía en DVD y por flojera no la había visto. Sabía que era una colaboración Hindú-británica y que había ganado 8 premios Oscar en el 2008. Esta historia muestra la realidad de un país totalmente estancado como India. Donde hay un hacinamiento y pobreza de su gente que asusta y conmueve. Lo particular de la cinta es la forma en que logran conectar el pasado y el presente de Jamal, su personaje central. Como tiene que explicar porqué sabe todas las respuestas del programa “Quien quiere ser millonario”.

Estas historias son tremendas y no es nada más que su vida misma. Al inicio del film entran en acción los co-protagonistas, que son Latika y Salim. Amigos de niños que verán como la vida los separa y junta por distintas situaciones. En sí, esta película es de montaje muy veloz y no te da respiro en ningún momento, mezcla perfecta de imágenes, colores y música que son realmente increíbles, pero lo excelente de esta película es que es un complemento y no logra distraerte del eje central de la historia.

Es uno de esos films que sí los analizas, piensas que trata sobre la típica historia de amor, pero nada que ver. Nos refleja una vez más como en el Occidente nos estamos equivocando con los valores imperantes. Acá afloran y prevalecen los valores y sentimientos más sencillos. Es una búsqueda constante de los sueños y del amor más verdadero y profundo, con un camino tan crudo, que a diferencia de las películas de EE.UU, son reales, violentos e impactantes, lo cual logra que al final, uno sienta tanta alegría, emoción y satisfacción como los propios personajes de la película.

DESCARGA Via Torrent / Subtitulo AQUÍ

Trailer Slumdog Millionaire

Poster for Tank Girl; image courtesy of 24hourstomidnight.files.wordpress.com

So I was originally gonna roll up all cavalier-like and blurt out my opinions on Tank Girl, which I watched for the first time a few nights ago. I had some pre-conceived notions about the movie and what I’d think of it, as the film adaption of the beloved Jamie Hewlett comic is widely regarded as a commercial and critical flop.

Now I’m not entirely sure how to approach the subject matter, because a) I’m not sure how to read this movie, as it is disjointed and oftentimes inscrutable, b) I didn’t realize going into my viewing that several friends were fans of both the movie and the comic, and c) . . . I haven’t gotten around to reading the comic. I’m more than willing to read it, especially since I’m a fan of Hewlett’s work with Damon Albarn on Gorillaz and am interested in their ongoing professional relationship. I simply haven’t had the chance yet, as I just finished Truman Capote’s super-dense In Cold Blood and started Margaret Atwood’s promising The Blind Assassin. If anyone has a copy they’d like to push into my hands, my palms are flat and open.  

I'll gladly read this; image courtesy of hero-trailers.blogspot.com

But I still wanted to see the movie and write about it because:

1. Lori Petty stars as Rebecca Buck and I wish her career had taken off instead of stalling around the time of this movie’s 1995 release. While she’s recently run into some legal troubles and I still haven’t seen Point Break or Prey for Rock’N'Roll, I’ve long had a soft spot for this tough, mouthy, gender-queer tomboy ever since her turn as Kit Keller in A League of Their Own. It’s too bad that she was replaced by Sandra Bullock in Demolition Man and that Gwen Stefani sounds just like her, with both women having more visible, financially successful careers.

2. Speaking of Stefani, did she rip off Tank Girl’s style to cultivate her own look, because oh my damn do they look alike. 

But maybe I’m being unfair in pitting Petty/Tank Girl against Stefani against one another and instead should remember the cultural context from which they were formed. I’m reminded of my thesis adviser Mary Kearney, whose dissertation focused on contemporary discourses around girlhood and youth culture. Joy Van Fuqua draws on Kearney’s work in her essay ”‘What Are Those Little Girls Made Of?’ The Powerpuff Girls and Consumer Culture.” In her discussion of the show’s popularity, Van Fuqua borrows from Kearney to suggest that, like many other girl characters during the 1990s, Bubbles, Buttercup, and Blossom had to embody both genders in order to succeed in athletics and other male-dominated activities.

Buttercup, Blossom, and Bubbles are gonna fuck yr shit up; image courtesy of msdn.com

3. Speaking of promising actresses, Naomi Watts plays her sidekick and was a total nobody in the states when the movie was originally released. She’s also rockin’ a brunette bob haircut, which I appreciate.

4. Speaking of wacky ladies, Ann Magnuson makes an appearance as a madame who runs a state-of-the-art brothel where folks like Iggy Pop run around in drag and the talent break out into Busby Berkeley-esque routines to Cole Porter’s “Let’s Do It.”

5. Speaking of musicians, the soundtrack is an alternative rock behemoth. Hard to imagine many of the artists represented here got radio play in 1995. Alternative was commercially successful, allowing rock music to splinter off in various, musically diverse directions. Hootie was of course a major player, but Pulp could get a hit single. Beck was at this point a one-hit wonder, but was working on an era-defining record that would come out the following year. The bubble hadn’t burst yet. Man, 1995 was a strange and amazing time. Bush, Björk, Veruca Salt, L7, Belly, Portishead, Hole. They were all on commercial radio playlists and they’re also on this soundtrack.

6. Speaking of Hole, note that Courtney Love was the movie’s music consultant. Now, I’m not entirely sure what her title means here. Titles like “music consultant” and “music supervisor” tend to be flexible. The latter term is usually held by people who work closely with the director, the editor, and multiple representatives from various record labels, as well as help tend to legal matters like acquiring publishing rights, and clearing songs to be used in the movie and often the accompanying soundtrack. 

Courtney Love, 1995's burgeoning hyphenate; image courtesy of rollingstone.com (Ouderkirk/WireImage.com)

My hunch is that Love’s duties were picking what songs she liked and would work with the movie, but had little involvement in the production. After all, she was a busy lady who was trying to heal from the death of her husband, raise her daughter, become a respected actress, and headline Lollapalooza with her band Hole. I don’t think she had time to field phone calls with label execs, although I’d like to imagine what those conversations might be like.     

7. Oh, and since the first six points all involved women, let’s add the cherry on top. Tank Girl was directed by a woman named Rachel Talalay.

But as far as reading this movie . . . hummina. I don’t know what I saw. I know it takes place in what is now a not-too-distant, dystopian future and involves our fearless heroine leading a rag-tag group of girls and mutant kangaroo boys against a corrupt faction that control the earth’s water supply. Still with me? Here’s the trailer.

So, things I enjoyed or found interesting about the movie.

1. Naomi Watts kicks ass as Jet Girl. At first shy and fretful, she learns to embrace her intellect and technological savvy and develops the confidence to take charge of the crew and help beat the cast of baddies.

Jet Girl holding it down; image courtesy of kideternal.com

2. Tank Girl has strong relationships with Jet Girl and Rebecca, Tank Girl’s boyfriend’s young daughter. Homosocial bonding and female mentorship, holla!

3. OMG, the costumes. They could be a chapter in a dissertation on third-wave feminism’s fragmentive, performative, and self-reflexive relationship with fashion (note: if such a chapter exists, I want to read it). Tank Girl never wears the same outfit or hair color twice, and her wardrobe toys with historical periods, film genres, youth culture movements, often playing with age, gender, and race as well.

What are you wearing, Tank Girl?, image courtesy of theage.com.au

4. I can’t tell if Ann Magnuson’s Madame, who briefly kidnaps and attempts to employ Rebecca, is a sex-positive feminist, a critique against the then-timely rise of media’s interest in d0-me feminism, or just morally bankrupt.

And then there were things I hated.

1. While Tank Girl’s costuming is fascinating, that’s really the extent of her characterization. Much of this seems to be the fault of the writing. Petty is engaging enough, but Tank Girl is written as less a complex action heroine and more of a buzzword-and-slogan dispenser. Thus, she brings to mind characters like Itchy and Scratchy’s Poochie, who was created to make fun of corporate-friendly extreme, in-your-face, subcultural cash cows. Perhaps her perceived lack of depth speaks to the awkward process of adapting a comic book into a movie, but her cinematic flatness betrays the torpedo bras.

Torpedo bras don't always provide dimension; image courtesy of mermaidligan.blogspot.com

2. Tank Girl also kicks a disappointing lack of ass here and has questionable methods. I can’t speak to her defense strategies in the comic, but the movie repeatedly has her lure disgusting men with her feminine wiles. Sometimes they get kicked in the balls, but she still shows them her bra or promises sexual favors beforehand.

3. Man, how did Malcolm MacDowell fool people into thinking he could act? He’s the villainous Kesslee here and is making himself quite the ham sandwich. Some may want to bring up Al Pacino and note that some actors deliver progressively broader performances as they age, but I think MacDowell’s accent played a role in snowing audiences as well. I think his Britishness even convinced people he was better in If . . . and A Clockwork Orange than he actually was. Charismatic and handsome? Yes. Once a great actor? I don’t think so.

4. I feel like there’s something racially problematic about the mutant kangaroo soldiers who take up with Tank Girl’s crew. Thoughts?

In short, Tank Girl makes for a maddening but interesting spectatorial experience. Now to get a hold of the source material . . .

By Nickie Wang

There have been debates whether the Australian film industry still needs the control and support of the government or not. The cinema of Australia can thrive without any assistance and the industry can do more in terms of global competitiveness if it is not controlled by the government’s funding body, Screen Australia.

The Black Balloon director Elissa Down

The films from Down Under have done more in making people around the world become aware of the country, thanks mainly to the success of actors like Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce, Naomi Watts and Cate Blanchett who have become synonymous to modern filmmaking.

Australia’s world-class facilities, state-of-the art digital and visual effects production services, acclaimed cast and crew and spectacular locations also make it a sought-after location for foreign films including Superman Returns, Matrix Trilogy, Charlotte’s Web, Ghost Rider and The Ruins. It is, of course, something that our local cinema lacks.

This month, six critically-acclaimed films from Australia are going the rounds of cinemas in Manila and Cebu as the Australian Embassy presents the 7th Australian Film Festival. It runs until Nov. 14, and the last leg is the Ayala Centre Cebu.

“The embassy is pleased to continue its tradition of providing Filipino moviegoers the opportunity to experience Australian film excellence and learn more about Australian popular culture, history and contemporary values,” Australian ambassador to the Philippines Rod Smith said at the opening of the festival.

The festival is opened by visiting Australian director Elissa Down with the premiere of her film The Black Balloon. The Los Angeles-based director arrived in Manila for the screening of the film and to conduct master classes at the University of the Philippines Film Institute and Mowelfund Institute.

“Down’s visit will further strengthen ties between the Australian and Filipino film industries which have developed through the film festival and Cinemanila during the past few years, through workshops for student film producers and directors conducted by visiting Australian actors and directors,” Ambassador Smith said.

The Black Balloon, starring Academy Award-nominated and Emmy Award-winning actress Toni Collette (Sixth Sense, About A Boy), follows the story of 15-year-old Thomas (Rhys Wakefield) who tries to fit in his new life as his family moves to a new home while taking care of his autistic older brother Charlie (Luke Ford, The Mummy-Tomb of the Dragon Emperor) and nurturing a budding romance with new girlfriend Jackie (Australian supermodel and actress Gemma Ward). Charlie takes Thomas on an emotional journey in a story that is funny, confronting and ultimately heart-warming.

“This film is about unconditional love. It’s a dramady [drama-comedy] inspired from the story of my own family,” Down told Standard Today. “I’ve got two brothers who have autism so if you could imagine, growing up with them was a little crazy. Making this movie was really a therapy on my part.”

Down, who also co-wrote and co-produced The Black Balloon, said that the film was awarded by the prestigious Berlin International Film Festival Crystal Bear for Best Feature-Length film last year. Back in her hometown, it received the Australian Film Institute awards for Best Direction, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Film, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing.

“It won numerous awards abroad and it’s inspiring in a way that it motivates me to write stories and make more films that talk about families, real people. The Black Balloon, as I’ve said, talks about love that knows no limit and everyone can relate most especially to the lead character,” the director said.

Also featured in this year’s festival are Unfinished Sky, a romantic drama about the nature of loss and the language of love; The Bank, a political thriller set in the world of high finance; the romantic comedy Danny Deckchair; Garage Days, a story about a teenager’s dream to be a rock star; and The Hard Word starring Guy Pearce (Memento, The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, LA Confidential) and Golden Globe winner Rachel Griffiths (Six Feet Under, Brothers and Sisters).

Me fascina la habilidad que tienen algunas mujeres de llevar siempre los pezones empitonados. Pero siempre, siempre. Bueno, a ver, al menos, el tiempo que las he visto en la tele, porque tampoco he tenido la suerte de vérmelas en vivo y en directo. Y no me refiero a la mujer de a pie, que también tiene esa curiosa habilidad (alguna aguafiestas podría decirme ‘lo que tu llamas habilidad se llama frío, o sensibilidad. Me da igual lo que sea, para mi es un don, como el escalar paredes o ser invisible o llamarte Jude Law) sino a las famosas. Dos ejemplos. Jennifer Aniston y Eva Santolaria. Rachel en “Friends” y Valle en “Compañeros”. La primera serie, una de las mejores sitcoms de la historia, tenía el valor añadido de que, día tras día, te garantizaba una sesión de pezones erectos bien despachada.

La segunda, la verdadera inspiración de “Física o química” pero cambiando los porros por la ketamina, sólo tenía el valor de los pezones indomables, tiesos, gordos y rayacristales de la eterna adolescente señorita Santolaria. No he encontrado ningún frame de la serie, así que os tendréis que contentar con una foto de ella enseñando las tetas, básicamente.

Hay una tercera que responde al nombre de Naomi Watts. Verla despachar tetas (que no son gordas, pero con esos pezones se le perdona) en aquella mierda llamada Mulholland Drive no tenía precio

Veamos su enorme pezón más al detalle

Asombroso, ¿verdad? Digno del “Freaks” de Tod Browning. El caso es que todo esto venía a que últimamente a la Britney Spears se le está pegando eso de ir empitonada a tós laos. O sin sujetador. O pasando frío. Yo prefiero verlo como un don, como escalar paredes o ser invisible o llamarte Jude Law.

Naomi Watts, was spotted with her sons Alexander and Samuel. I am loving Naomi’s outfit, she looks so warm and cute!

Source: X17

Naomi Watts and Liev Shreiber were spotted out for a stroll with their sons, ‘Sasha’ and Sammy in SoHo today. >{?
Liev yelled at one of the paparazzos who was getting too close them. He asked her to use a long lens and shoot them from faraway so as not to scare his kids.

Sammy stays warm in a JJ Cole Bundle me stroller insert while riding in a Phil and Ted’s Dash stroller.

{SPLASH}

Louis Sallinger (Clive Owen) é um agente da Interpol que, juntamente com Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts), a promotora de justiça de Manhattan, busca levar à justiça um dos bancos mais poderosos do mundo. Para tanto eles investigam diversas atividades ilegais, tendo que rastrear quantias espalhadas ao redor do planeta.

Forget about “balls out” acting, what really impresses me these days are the actresses who bare their bushes, and it’s about time. I’m not talking your average porn star. I mean respected actresses who win prizes at Cannes (although I must admit that line is getting blurred all the time). Let’s take a look at some notable examples of renowned actresses who have exposed their nether regions for art:

A terrific actress and truly beautiful, Julianne Moore proved she was a real red head in Altman’s Short Cuts (1993).

Another fabulous redhead is the great Tilda Swinton in an equally great film Julia (2008). Tilda acts with her boobs and her crotch in this movie and she’s genius. Trust me, see it! Plus she utters probably the best line reading in the past thirty years of cinema, “You! I wouldn’t wipe my ass with you!”

Kate Winslet in Holy Smoke (1999). I love seeing Kate Winslet nude in movies and Jane Campion captures a nice full frontal shot of her young, gorgeously zaftig body in this film that I loved and hardly anyone saw. Kate Winslet is probably the best film actress alive today, and she’s famous for revealing a “less than perfect” body. Of course “less than perfect” means she’s a size 8 as opposed to a size 2, which by Hollywood standards makes her a plus size, which means that I’m really fat.

Isabella Rossellini went from gorgeous lounge goddess draped in a blue velvet gown to emerging from the hedges of a suburban lawn naked, brutally exposed and bruised in David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986). Her full frontal reveal was done in a long shot, but it sent shock waves of fascination and repulsion. Lynch later trumped it in with his hot lesbian scene in Mulholland Drive (2001), but for some reason gorgeous brunette actress Laura Harring’s “down there” is digitally scrambled. WTF? I wonder why that decision was made. Ratings perhaps? Who knows, it’s one of the hottest sex scenes ever filmed. Mulholland Drive is a great film, probably my favorite film from the past decade. In fact, I think it’s time for another screening.

Speaking of Mulholland Drive, Naomi Watts’ masturbation scene is Oscar worthy for its realism, but the big prize for baring it all, and I mean ALL is Charlotte Gainsborough in Antichirst (2009). I just saw it last week and it’s still fresh in my mind and in my nightmares.
Charlotte Gainsborough looking like a young Patti Smith with a soft voice that is capable of escalating into horrific shrieks is the perfect casting for Von Trier’s twisted fairy tale of a movie. I threw my scarf over my head and closed my eyes during the genital mutilation scenes, but they were wide open during the scene when she’s down on the ground in a forest masturbating completely naked. Whoa! That shocked me just because it was so raw and so real.

I am sure there are other examples, but these are the ones that come to mind. Art cinema will always push the boundaries, and I think it’s about time that sex is depicted truthfully. I don’t know if Antichrist is a great film, but its power to break through a barrier of what can be considered appropriate for cinema versus pornography cannot be denied. I don’t think I will ever want to film what Von Trier does in Antichrist, but his willingness to “go there” encourages me to be bolder in my vision as a filmmaker. And the actresses who also “go there”? Sexuality is part of being human. For an actress to depict that truthfully in the hands of a director’s artistry is an exercise in trust. It’s very interesting to contemplate what separates a Charlotte Gainsborough, looking chic on the red carpet at Cannes and a porn star doing the same thing in Vegas. And while we’re showing it all, why not show the guys’ stuff too. Did Willem Dafoe’s dick double have to belong to a well-endowed porn actor? Couldn’t he just be an average size, or can’t we handle that naked truth yet?