servizio di LUCA SVIZZERETTO

(tratto da Nuovo Oggi di sabato 28 novembre 2009) – ‘La dura verità’ è una divertente commedia americana con protagonisti Katherine Heigl (‘27 volte in bianco’ e ‘Molto incinta’) e Gerard Butler (300). La battaglia dei sessi diventa feroce in una commedia intelligente e sexy sugli uomini, le donne e il gigantesco abisso che separa il modo in cui ognuno di noi ragiona, dà sfogo alla propria immaginazione e cerca di sedurre l’altra persona. Mike Alexander, presentatore del programma televisivo The Ugly Truth, sottopone la sua produttrice ad una serie di prove per aiutarla a trovare l’amore. I due inizialmente si scontreranno, dati i diversi caratteri per finire poi con l’innamorarsi. Tema centrale lo scontro infinito tra uomini e donne. Interessante come il regista Robert Luketic abbia deciso di affrontare la questione e come tutto assuma dei toni assolutamente comici se presentato sotto l’ottica giusta. Esilarante e riflessivo al tempo stesso.

* 21 : Black Jack [DVD]. Madrid : Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, D.L. 2008. Director: Robert Luketic. Intérpretes: Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth, Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Spacey.

Basada en la historia real narrada en la obra “Bringing down the house” de Ben Mezrich. Unos alumnos del prestigioso Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT) se convirtien en expertos en el arte de contar cartas que les permite ganar millones de dólares de los casinos de Las Vegas. Ben Campbell es un tímido y brillante estudiante que, al no poder pagar la matrícula de la universidad, encuentra la solución en las cartas. Se le da la oportunidad de unirse a un grupo formado por los estudiantes más dotados de la escuela, que viajan a Las Vegas cada fin de semana con identidades falsas y con un complicado sistema para inclinar las probabilidades de éxito en el black-jack a su favor. Bajo la dirección del poco ortodoxo profesor de matemáticas y genio de la estadística Micky Rosa, han conseguido descifrar el código del éxito. Ahora, su reto será no perder el dinero y mantenerse alejado de los casinos antes de entrar en una espiral fuera de su control.

- Crítica desde el punto de vista matemático (Matemáticas en tu mundo)

- Sinopsis y críticas en FilmAffinity

- Sinopsis y críticas en El Criticón

- Tráiler

Nei Cinema dal 27 novembre 2009

1. Francesca – di Bobby Paunescu – Romania
2. 500 giorni insieme – di Marc Webb – U.S.A.
3. Triage – di Danis Tanovic – Irlanda / Belgio
4. Dorian Gray – di Oliver Parker – Gran Bretagna
5. La dura verità – di Robert Luketic – U.S.A.
6. Cado dalle nubi – di Gennaro Nunziante – Italia
7. Meno male che ci sei – di Luis Prieto – Italia
8. La cosa giusta – di Marco Campogiani – Italia
9. Senza amore – di Renato Giordano – Italia

Francesca

titolo originale: Francesca
nazione: Romania
anno: 2009
regia: Bobby Paunescu
genere: Drammatico
durata: 96 min.
distribuzione: Fandango
cast: M. Barladeanu (Francesca) • D. Boguta (Mita) • L. Gheorghiu (Ana) • T. Corban (Ion)
sceneggiatura: B. Paunescu
fotografia: A. Butica
montaggio: I. Stroe

Trama: Francesca è una giovane maestra d’asilo che sogna di emigrare in Italia. Nella speranza di una vita migliore, la giovane è pronta ad affrontare qualunque ostacolo, persino i dubbi e le preoccupazioni delle persone che le sono vicine. Il piano prevede che Mita, il suo ragazzo, la raggiunga in Italia non appena porterà a termine un piccolo affare in cui è coinvolto. Ma le cose prendono una piega infelice, vengono alla luce penose verità e le priorità cambiano.

Se avete scorso, come me, qualche rivista di critica cinematografica, avrete avuto modo di verificare l’attenzione verso la cinematografia rumena, che, dopo un lungo silenzio, grazie ai festival, è tornata agli onori della cronaca per merito soprattutto dell’opera di alcuni registi, tra i quali come non menzionare Cristian Mungiu autore di “4 mesi, 3 settimane, 2 giorni“, Palma d’Oro a Cannes.

All’ultima Mostra di Venezia è stato, peraltro, proprio questo film a ricevere il privilegio di aprire la sezione Orizzonti, ovvero quella che, come molti di voi sanno, tenta di fare il punto della situazione sul cinema meno in vista, più lontano, meno spettacolare.

La scelta si è rivelata vincente, non tanto però per le qualità o meno del film, ma per il caos di polemiche che si sono trascinate poi subito sui giornali.

Piccolo gossip: il film salì agli onori delle cronache all’epoca della rassegna di Venezia, a causa di due insulti pronunciati da un suo personaggio contro Alessandra Mussolini (PdL) e Flavio Tosi (sindaco di Verona, Lega Nord).

Il tema ovviamente è un di quelli molto attuali: l’immigrazione di una ragazza rumena in Italia.

Ve lo consegno come film contro i pregiudizi.

500 giorni insieme

titolo originale: (500) Days of Summer
nazione: U.S.A.
anno: 2009
regia: Marc Webb
genere: Commedia
durata: 96 min.
distribuzione: 20th Century Fox
cast: J. Gordon-Levitt (Tom Hansen) • Z. Deschanel (Summer Finn) • G. Arend (McKenzie) • C. Moretz (Rachel Hansen) • M. Gubler (Paul) • C. Gregg (Vance) • P. Belcher (Millie) • R. Boston (Alison)
sceneggiatura: S. Neustadter • M. Weber
musiche: M. Danna • R. Simonsen
fotografia: E. Steelberg
montaggio: A. Bell

Trama: “500 giorni insieme” racconta il rapporto tra Summer, una ragazza poco incline all’amore, e Tom, un ragazzo sognatore che si innamorerà perdutamente di lei. Nell’arco di 500 giorni viene raccontata la bizzarra storia d’amore, dal punto di vista di Tom, sulle note di celebri brani pop.

Diciamo che pur trattandosi di un film americano credo che nonostante tutto questa sia l’uscita migliore della settimana.

Ed aggiungo che di esordi così ce ne vorrebbero uno alla settimana.

Senza considerare il difficile filone nel quale il film s’incanala.

Quello della commedia a sfondo musicale.

Ve lo consegno come film da non perdere.

Triage

titolo originale: Triage
nazione: Irlanda / Belgio
anno: 2009
regia: Danis Tanovic
genere: Drammatico
durata: 96 min.
distribuzione: 01 Distribution
cast: C. Farrell (Mark Walsh) • C. Lee (Joaquín Morales) • K. Reilly (Diane) • R. Ritchie (Shiite Boy) • J. Stevenson (Amy) • P. Vega (Elena Morales) • B. Djuric (Dr. Talzani) • J. Sives (David)
sceneggiatura: D. Tanovic
musiche: L. Godoy
fotografia: S. Deasy
montaggio: F. Calvelli • G. Young

Trama: Due esperti fotoreporter, Mark e David, lavorano nel Kurdistan in guerra. Mark è molto ambizioso e vuole seguire i combattimenti da vicino alla ricerca della foto della sua vita, ma David ne ha abbastanza e molla tutto per ritornare a casa dalla moglie incinta, Diane. Quando anche Mark viene ferito e fa ritorno in Irlanda, rimane sconvolto nell’apprendere che non si hanno notizie di David. Esausto, disorientato, ossessionato da fantasmi di violenza e incapace di ritornare alla sua vecchia vita con Elena, l’uomo peggiora a vista d’occhio. In ospedale, i medici giungono alla conclusione che la sua paralisi è un problema psicologico legato a qualcosa accaduto a David e che Mark non vuole ricordare. A scoprirlo sarà l’anziano nonno di Elena, uno psichiatra esperto in traumi bellici e che si è occupato del ‘recupero’ dei criminali di guerra dopo la guerra civile spagnola.

Questo film e questo regista Danis Tanovic ci piacciono assai.

Già con il suo No Man’s Land (2001), sulla nota questione della faida tra Bosnia ed Herzegovina, di cui fu oltre che regista anche sceneggiatore, ci aveva convinto assai. (Qui la mia analisi al film).

Sarà che mi piacerebbe addentrarmi in un mistero cupo che ha per scenario l’incubo della guerra, e per interpreti la splendida Paz Vega che letteralmente adorai in “Lucia y el sexo”, uno dei miei attori preferiti, Colin Farrell, ed un’icona del calibro di Christopher Lee.

Sarà per queste e molte altre cose che potrei dire ma che riassumo nel concetto film da vedere.

Dorian Gray

titolo originale: Dorian Gray
nazione: Gran Bretagna
anno: 2009
regia: Oliver Parker
genere: Drammatico
durata: 112 min.
distribuzione: Eagle Pictures
cast: C. Firth (Lord Henry Wotton) • B. Barnes (Dorian Gray) • R. Hurd-Wood (Sybil Vane) • R. Hall (Emily Wotton) • E. Fox (Lady Victoria Wotton) • B. Chaplin (Basil Hallward) • C. Goodall (Lady Radly) • F. Shaw (Agatha) • P. Torrens (Victor)
sceneggiatura: T. Finlay
musiche: C. Mole
fotografia: R. Pratt
montaggio: G. Bensley

Trama: Trasposizione del “Dorian Gray” di Oscar Wilde: un giovane corrotto riesce in qualche modo a mantenere la sua bellezza giovanile eterna, ma un dipinto speciale rivela gradualmente a tutti quanti la sua mostruosità interiore …

Trasposizione del celebre romanzo di Oscar Wilde, contro il puritanesimo vittoriano, e sul culto esclusivo della bellezza.

ll racconto è celeberrimo, Oscar Wilde un maestro, ma non lasciatevi ingannare da questo film che non è piaciuto in madre patria.

Né tanto meno al “Toronto International Film Festival” mentre al “Sitges – Catalonian International Film Festival“si è conquistato una nomination come miglior film.

Direi dubbio amletico.

La dura verità

titolo originale: The Ugly Truth
nazione: U.S.A.
anno: 2009
regia: Robert Luketic
genere: Commedia
durata: 101 min.
distribuzione: Sony Pictures
cast: K. Heigl (Abby Richter) • G. Butler (Mike Chadway) • B. Turner (Joy) • E. Winter (Colin) • N. Searcy (Stuart) • J. Goins (Cliff) • C. Hines (Georgia) • J. Higgins (Larry) • K. Connolly (Jim)
sceneggiatura: N. Eastman • K. McCullah Lutz • K. Smith
musiche: A. Zigman
fotografia: R. Carpenter
montaggio: L. Churgin

Trama: Abby Richter è un’ambiziosa produttrice di un talk show mattutino, “A.M. Sacramento”, ma nel campo dei rapporti di coppia è disastrosa. Quando il suo show soffre un calo negli ascolti, è costretta a dare spazio al nuovo corrispondente speciale Mike Chadway, un uomo capace di farla andare su tutte le furie. Il suo spazio televisivo “La dura verità” promette di rivelare quello che pensano veramente gli uomini, e il suo stile decisamente scioccante mette Abby in una situazione poco piacevole. Come se non bastasse questa parte del programma fa impennare gli ascolti del network. Una sera Abby incontra il suo vicino Colin, un medico single: lui è tutto quello che Mike Chadway non è: elegante, educato e assolutamente non interessato alle cose volgari. Abby ha bisogno del punto di vista di Mike sul pensiero maschile per compiere le mosse giuste …

Nonostante due nomination al Teen Choice Awards (Choice Summer Movie Star: Female Katherine Heigl e Choice Summer Movie: Romance), non credo che questo film americano valga poi così tanto la pena, in verità.

Sarà che Robert Luketic sia un regista che abbia fino ad oggi lascito segni evidenti della sua opera.

Nonostante due nomination: una al Young Hollywood Awards ed una al Aspen Shortsfest.

Io lo archivierei tra gli evitabili. Ma proprio tranquillo tranquillo.

Anche questa è una dura verità

Cado dalle nubi

titolo originale: Cado dalle nubi
nazione: Italia
anno: 2009
regia: Gennaro Nunziante
genere: Commedia
durata: n.d.
distribuzione: Medusa Film
cast: C. Zalone (Checco) • D. Abbrescia (Alfredo) • G. Michelini (Marika) • F. Troiano (Manolo) • F. Chillemi (Luisa) • R. Cremona (Roberto) • G. Angelillo (zio di Checco) • A. Ferruzzo (madre di Checco) • I. Marescotti (padre di Marika)
sceneggiatura: G. Nunziante • C. Zalone
fotografia: L. Adorisio

Trama: Checco è un giovane pugliese che sogna di diventare cantante. Lasciato dalla ragazza perché insegue sogni irrealizzabili mentre lei vuole sistemarsi, Checco decide di lasciare Polignano e raggiungere Milano, dove forse riuscirà a sbarcare il lunario. A Milano viene ospitato dal cugino Alfredo ma ovviamente fatica ad adattarsi alla mentalità aperta milanese. Incontra Marika ed è un colpo di fulmine per entrambi. Checco la fa ridere e a lui piace il suo sorriso. Ma il padre di Marika è un leghista vero e proprio, pieno di pregiudizi sui meridionali, figuriamoci poi quando vede Checco! Contemporaneamente trova lavoro in un ristorante e comincia a partecipare a diversi provini fino a quando una volta viene addirittura cacciato perché arriva tardi… Poi d’improvviso il suo talento canoro unito a quello comico vengono riconosciuti: Checco può essere il nuovo fenomeno e il discografico che l’aveva inizialmente cacciato comincia a cercarlo per tutta la città. Checco sta per coronare il suo sogno, ma riuscirà ad avere l’amore di Marika o tornerà al suo paese da vincitore riconquistando l’ex fidanzata?

Checco Zalone è un comico dell’ultima ora.

Fa ridere, è bravo, si è distinto per le parodie di cantanti, ed in questa Italia in cui i comici devono necessariamente approdare, magari a ridosso di Natale, al cinema, eccoci di fronte all’evitabile … anzi che dico all’inevitabile film di questo comico.

Sarei tentato a sospendere il giudizio.

Il film ha un forte imprinting pugliese.

Credo che due sane risate le faccia anche fare.

Personalmente, però, continuo a credere che il Cinema sia un’altra cosa.

A chi piace il genere dovrei mettere da vedere … ma complessivamente considerando le cose lascio un dubbio.

Meno male che ci sei

titolo originale: Meno male che ci sei
nazione: Italia
anno: 2009
regia: Luis Prieto
genere: Sentimentale
durata: 106 min.
distribuzione: Universal Pictures
cast: C. Gerini (Luisa) • C. Martegiani (Allegra) • A. Sperduti (Gabriele) • M. Giallini (Federico) • G. Caprino (Giovanni) • S. Sandrelli • G. Cinque
sceneggiatura: F. Pontremoli • M. Raineri

Trama: “Meno male che ci sei” è la storia di due donne: la diciassettenne Allegra a volte si sente invisibile; i genitori la trascurano, le compagne la escludono, Gabriele, il ragazzo perfetto, la tratta come una sorellina minore. Luisa ha trentacinque anni e a volte si sente ingombrante. È single, tormentata da un mutuo trentennale e da una relazione con un uomo sposato. Allegra e Luisa non si conoscono, ma un incidente le fa incontrare e cambia la vita a entrambe …

“Meno male che ci sei” … ehm … ma siete proprio sicuri????

La scritta [Dal regista di "Ho voglia di te"] messo sulla locandina del film sembrerebbe volere trasferire una garanzia, che, per quanto mi riguarda, si traduce effettivamente in una garanzia … ma non in quella che auspicavano gli spietati markettari cinematografici italiani.

Anche se c’è Claudia Gerini (inedita ?) ci sarà, tra me e questi film, un gap generazionale.

Vi sentirete dire che non è il solito film giovanilistico, che ci sono due generazioni a confronto, ma non fidatevi.

Sono, per i miei appena un po’ più raffinati gusti cinefili, pellicole troppo intrise della Moccia Cultura, di adolescenti con le loro pastoie e le loro seghe mentali, che non riescono a stimolare considerazioni che vadano verso la condivisione di questa ontologia di cinema, che rimane un po’, ahimè, lo specchio del degrado culturale in cui il nostro paese sta crollando.

Non evitabile … evitabilissimo.

La cosa giusta

titolo originale: La cosa giusta
nazione: Italia
anno: 2009
regia: Marco Campogiani
genere: Poliziesco
durata: 93 min.
distribuzione: Istituto Luce
cast: P. Briguglia (Eugenio Fusco) • E. Fantastichini (Duccio Monti) • A. Hafiene (Khalid) • C. Filippi (Serena) • A. Gharby (Youssef) • S. Abbary (Sofia)
sceneggiatura: M. Campogiani • G. De Feo
musiche: T. Teardo
fotografia: M. Calvesi
montaggio: M. Menicocci

Trama: Eugenio Fusco e Duccio Monti sono due poliziotti diversissimi, per carattere, metodi, linguaggio, storie personali. Estranei. Incompatibili. Eugenio è un agente giovane, preparato, curioso, con delle ambizioni personali e ancora idealista. Duccio è invece un uomo pratico, d’esperienza, che il tempo e il mestiere hanno reso realista e forse cinico. I due si conoscono e subito si detestano, ma dovranno passare molti giorni insieme. Sono infatti incaricati di pedinare uno straniero, Khalid Amrazel, liberato dopo mesi di detenzione in carcere per il sospetto di appoggiare una cellula di terroristi. Scarcerato per decisione di un GUP, ma in attesa di una sentenza definitiva, di una verità chiara sul suo caso. E’ un pericolo reale? O si tratta di un altro grave errore giudiziario – come teme Eugenio – nel clima di paure e sospetti post 11 settembre? O forse, come ritiene Duccio, l’errore è stato proprio quello di liberarlo? Con queste domande ha inizio l’inseguimento dei poliziotti, ognuno con le sue risposte e i propri segreti dubbi …

Un altro film italiano sull’integrazione razziale?

Maddai?

E basta.

In effetti c’è una cosa giusta da fare … non andare a vedere questo film evitabile.

Senza amore

titolo originale: Senza amore
nazione: Italia
anno: 2007
regia: Renato Giordano
genere: Drammatico
durata: 100 min.
distribuzione: Mediaplex
cast: F. De Vito (Pedofilo) • G. Furia (Prete) • F. Verginelli (Gaetano) • L. Vitale (Madre)
fotografia: F. De Maria
montaggio: E. Giunta

Trama: Luigi vive in una piccola città di provincia e proviene da una famiglia socialmente emarginata. A scuola mostra segni di insofferenza, dettati forse dalla voglia di emergere, e le prime attenzioni nei suoi confronti da parte di un vigile, addetto comunale per l’istituto, vengono considerate da tutti quasi paterne. Con il passar del tempo, però, la presenza dell’uomo nella vita di Luigi comincia a farsi ingombrante: gelati, regali, esenzione dal pagamento della mensa scolastica e una certa “complicità” con la madre di Luigi …

Un film del 2007, carente nel linguaggio audiovisivo, nel rapporto tra forma e contenuto ce lo propinano oggi. Perché?

Carente anche nella recitazione.

Pessimo nel montaggio.

Siete avvisati.

Evitabile.

A cura di cinemavistodame.com

21 è un film del 2008 diretto da Robert Luketic. Il film è basato su una storia vera.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Robert Luketic | Jim Sturgess | Kevin Spacey | Kate Bosworth | Aaron Yoo

6

Adevărul gol-goluţ

• Regia

  Robert Luketic

• Cu

  Gerard Butler, Katherine Heigl

• Gen film

  Comedie, Romantic

Descriere

Lupta dintre sexe se încinge în Adevărul gol-goluţ, o comedie isteaţă şi sexy despre bărbaţi, femei şi prăpastia dintre felurile în care gândim unii despre ceilalţi, visăm, sau ne încercăm puterea de seducţie asupra sexului opus. Între Katherine Heigl (Knocked Up, “Grey’s Anatomy”) şi Gerard Butler (300) ies scântei pentru că ei sunt doi colegi care par sortiţi să se dispreţuiască veşnic. Ea e hotărâtă să-şi găsească partenerul ideal, scornit de visele ei. El vrea să le transmită femeilor mesajul că trebuie să fie mai realiste şi să admită că bărbaţii nu au decât un singur scop. Dar exact atunci când el se decide să o ajute pe Abby să obţină ceea ce vrea, cei doi îşi dau seama cu stupoare cât de tare se pot atrage firile opuse.

Trailer

Matthew McConaughey is one of those actors I can’t help but like. He’s a man who — in the real world — seems like a perfectly affable party fiend who would be fun to hang around with. Someone who doesn’t really give a damn, who makes movies to fund his lifestyle, and only gets to make movies because he’s just popular enough to justify a continued career. He’s famous for pot-smoking, naked bongo playing, and anecdotes about goat sex. His website is so completely “him” it’s as if he has been reduced to a computer echo of himself, a la Jeff Bridges in Tron, and then blasted onto our screens as a series of chill statements and photos of him on mountains, complete with lazy faux-dub rhythms in the background. The most lovable things on the site are the randomised “McConaughey Facts” that pop up at the bottom of the screen. Sample McConaughey Fact: “In my most recent trip to Papua New Guinea I was inducted into the Kuppa Tribe of the Malagan Clan.” That’s just so McConaughey.

As I’ve said many a time, anyone who can laugh at himself is all right in my book. When presented with footage of Matt Damon doing an impression of him on Letterman…

…he seemed to take it with good humour. (It’s about two minutes from the end of the clip.)

My favourite thing about that clip is that at the end of the interview, as the presenter is trying to wrap things up, he goes off on a tangent about spending his Christmas with a family he once visited as an exchange student. It’s right out of nowhere, but that burning need to communicate some random fact about himself for no reason other than that he seems to be looking forward to the excursion is something I — a notorious blabbermouth — can really relate to.

Even though I find McConaughey the Man endlessly entertaining, McConaughey the Actor is another matter. Watching one of his movies is a bit of a crapshoot. Will we get one of his committed performances, such as his delicate turn in Robert Zemeckis’ Contact, or as the demented Van Zan in Reign of Fire (which he was easily the best thing about)? Or will it be a frustratingly light but not particularly funny effort, as in Ron Howard’s instantly forgettable EdTV? For every Frailty or Lone Star there is a Wedding Planner, a Fool’s Gold, and probably a Failure To Launch to boot. Appearing in disposable romcoms might work to keep him in sex wax and bandannas, but it makes following his career difficult. Any hope that he might become Brad Pitt to Richard Linklater’s David Fincher fell apart when The Newton Boys came and went without making a ripple in the popular consciousness. He’s doing better than former girlfriend and fellow romcom stalwart Sandra Bullock right now, but it’s becoming touch and go.

He doesn’t even have an action career to fall back on. U-571 is only memorable for the shameful lies about the Enigma decoding effort, and Sahara — a film I quite like — is notorious for being one of the rare projects whose financial workings have been put on display for all the world to laugh at. Though not me. Seriously, I liked it. It was refreshingly irony-free, just a big crazy adventure about guys who get into scrapes for fun and do the right thing with no soul-searching. It was not of its time, sadly. It’s another film used as a short-hand for excessive Hollywood trash by people who haven’t seen it. Yes, it was obscenely expensive, and there’s no argument for that, but it’s got some charm. With about 20-25 minutes lopped out, it would’ve been treated with a lot more affection.

Unfortunately Ghosts of Girlfriends Past sees too much of the coasting McConaughey, with only hints of his real film-star energy. In a very loose adaptation of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore aim for easy emotional targets and don’t bother to complicate the story too much. McConaughey plays Connor Mead, a photographer with Austin Powers’ hunger for consequence-free sexual encounter but none of the dental problems. Forced by a flicker of conscience to attend his brother’s wedding, Mead quickly upsets and alienates the wedding guests with his cynical anti-marriage attitude, until he is visited by the ghost of his lothario uncle Wayne, played as a Robert Evans/Hugh Hefner hybrid by Michael Douglas. Wayne warns his Scrooge-like nephew that he will be visited by three “ghosts” (though at least one of them is still alive; the movie ties itself in knots trying to be light while addressing themes of death and loneliness). These apparitions — who enjoyably treat the “visions” like interactive videos — show Mead the miserable consequences of his actions, and reveal the reason he’s so emotionally disconnected: as a teenager, he was snubbed by his true love, Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner). It broke his heart and sent him to find solace in the dubious wisdom of Uncle Wayne.

Mead’s dark night of the soul forces him to accept the idea of true love just in time to help his brother (Breckin Meyer) marry his long-term sweetheart (an unbearably whiny Lacey Chabert), and to rescue Jenny from a relationship with potential suitor Brad (Daniel Sunjata). This last task is the most problematic one in a movie that otherwise has too many easy answers. Though we’re meant to side with Mead as he throws off his selfish persona, he’s also trying to ruin a potential relationship between Jenny and a scarily handsome volunteer with Doctors Without Borders who seems to be a really sweet guy. Mead, on the other hand, is intolerably arrogant and thoughtless, though he maintains the same level of oily charm throughout. McConaughey isn’t given enough room to adequately show his conversion to the cause of love, so that while Dickens did a thorough job of showing how Scrooge could change from curmudgeon to saint, Mead’s post-revelation persona seems much like his previous personality, except more manic.

This isn’t the only problem. Lucas and Moore’s script holds few surprises and fewer laughs than even their inexplicably popular breakout hit The Hangover. Director Mark Waters, whose work on The Spiderwick Chronicles was so impressive, manages to bring some life to this formulaic project, with the added bonus that he lights the movie with something other than a very very bright light — a concept that seemed to elude the directors of other 2009 romcoms, especially the biggest romantic comedy hits of the year, Robert Luketic’s The Ugly Truth and Anne Fletcher’s The Proposal. Waters also gets entertaining performances from Michael Douglas and Emma Stone as the “ghost” who deflowered Mead in college. Garner is given less to do, but she sells her big emotional moments, including a moving bedroom scene midway through. It’s also McConaughey’s best scene, with Mead forced to watch his past self mistreat the woman he loves simply because he’s scared of his feelings. In moments like that, the conceit of making the romcom Christmas Carol seems more inspired than it actually is.

My affection for Garner is even greater than my support for McConaughey. Ever since her career-making turn in Alias, I’ve been a huge fan, obnoxiously maintaining that she would get an Oscar nomination (at least!) by the end of the decade. Unless the Academy is going to surprise me and give her a nod for her extremely entertaining turn in The Invention of Lying, I think I’m going to come up short on that one. Her decision to cut down on film roles while raising her children is an understandable one, but I wish she made more movies. There hasn’t been a single film featuring Garner that wasn’t massively improved by her presence — even something as weak as Daredevil occasionally flies thanks to her. In fact, the only thing that didn’t suck about Electra was her performance as the titular assassin; she brought far more pathos and commitment to the project than it deserved.

Compare Ghosts of Girlfriends Past to The Invention of Lying, which was even more fascinated with the interplay of honesty and self-deception. After a brilliant riff on belief and religion, it spends a long, entertaining time banging its head against the disparity between the concepts of love and biological necessity, playing games with the conventions of the genre while at the same time pointing an accusing finger at the audience for expecting such cliches. (500) Days of Summer plays a similar trick; a love-struck Joseph Gordon-Levitt is beguiled by a romantic vision of life soundtracked by The Smiths and Belle & Sebastian and then left crushed by the realisation that he’s been deluding himself as much as he has been lied to by Zooey Deschanel’s idealised Summer. Compared to those two movies, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past has no big ideas to share, other than that love is all you need.

Maybe it’s unfair to give Ghosts of Girlfriends Past a black mark for not matching up to the ambition of Gervais and Robinson’s high-concept fantasy or Mark Webb’s deconstruction, but now that filmmakers seem eager to break the genre down in order to build it back up, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past might end up being the last even vaguely entertaining traditional romcom made. Surely we can at least give it gold stars for being a more involving, charming, and imaginative movie than those flat and cynical laugh-free disasters The Proposal and The Ugly Truth. Where they trade in cheeky, strained jokes about sex and modern gender politics, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past has more luck focusing on the people in the relationship than the gimmicks that get in their way, and then trounces those films completely by casting two charming actors who seem to have some sparks together. Though McConaughey’s performance is disappointing and lacks modulation, the relentless charm that stops him from hitting a deeper note still has its uses. More so than many male leads in recent romcoms, at least he can flash a winning smile and drawl some flirty come-on with naughty aplomb, and when he’s matched with Garner’s wholesome persona, it’s hard to dismiss the rote shenanigans completely. Sometimes, making a reasonably successful movie really is that simple.

Last Friday, while attempting to write yet another lengthy post about the London Film Festival, I was repeatedly distracted by Twitter. This is nothing new. However, one of the people I follow whose name escapes me now (sorry) linked to an article posted on the film discussion site The Auteurs. I’d heard of it before but stayed away as I thought it had something to do with the dreary Luke Haines band, but in fact it’s a nice way to completely waste hours of your time, rating and “favouriting” movies to create a Profile for yourself, complete with representative movie still selection so you can have an iconic image next to your name (I went with Gene Hackman in The Conversation). It was pleasantly pointless, though I did take enormous pleasure in giving Slumdog Millionaire and Happy-Go-Lucky one star each, and Kung Fu Panda the five stars it so richly deserves. Take that, Sight and Sound subscribers.

The article that directed me to this site via Twitter was this lovely little prose poem half-heartedly giving Michael Bay some credit while referring to “fascism” and suchlike. This is possibly the only even vaguely positive critique of Bay’s work I’ve seen on the Internet that hasn’t been written by a teenager with an apostrophe allergy, and as such deserves to be preserved in amber. It might never happen again. As I said earlier this year, my opinion of Bay is torn between fascination and revulsion, the latter becoming more pronounced after the casual (but no less odious) racial insensitivity of Transformers — with the breakdancing jive-talking African-American parody known as Jazz getting killed in the final act, as is sadly the norm in movies — “transformed” into the full-on indefensible racial stereotyping of Skids and Mudflap. Shades of Caruso reader and former Transformers fan Lindywasp (one of her noms de Net) once sent me a very passionate disavowal of the sequel after an upsetting experience at a screening where the audience went from excited to silence once the extent of the caricature settled in. I was concerned by Bay’s decision before, but after reading her heartfelt condemnation, I became furious.

Though I’ll not be able to think of Bay without thinking about that incredible cloth-eared arrogance, I have still long been fascinated — as Daisyhellcakes can attest, having listened to me go on about it at length — by his public persona as the Fratboy DeMille, a man who stomps around like an over-excited teenager while making canny backroom deals for profit points, keeping the cost of his (sill expensive) movies down with obnoxious product placement, and buying effects houses such as Digital Domain. This bravado is ripe for parody, most brilliantly by the faux-Twitterer Fake Michael Bay (sample tweet: “Dammit, if I had a dollar for every time I dropped my iphone out of a helicopter doing a barrel roll…”), though I suspect he’s in on the joke.

Even more fascinating to me than Bay the Man/Douchebag is that signature style of his. Like haphazardly edited two-hour-long trailers, his films are plot-light endurance tests; a relentless swarm of images that he hurls at the audience, seemingly not caring why image B must follow image A. As long as the barrage of glowing, flashing, swirling pictures and the cacophony of multi-tracked sound effects keeps audiences pinned to their seats, Bay seems to think “Job done!” and then returns to his swanky Bay-Cave to drink Crystal and watch Total Wipeout. Is this good filmmaking? Hell no, and as I’ve attempted to explain before, I would never be able to argue that it was (though Danny Boyle’s similar everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach wins critical approval and Oscars). However, he does create an experience that no one else has the studio backing, the technical know-how, and the obnoxious confidence to be able to pull off.

Examples: Transformers ends with a city being pulverised, complete with epic firefights on a main street that totals buildings and blows up cars. The destruction-gasm setpiece in Pearl Harbor — a wretched film of enormous ethical dubiousness — contains the single most expensive shot caught on film, which is ghoulish, wasteful, and logistically impressive all at the same time. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is capped off with a huge scene where an Egyptian village gets mashed into the ground, pretty much (I’m sure it was not a real village, but if it’s fake he still managed to get it built before blowing bits of it up). He shows aircraft carriers getting split in half as if it ain’t no thing. These are stereotypically big and dumb crowd-pleasing moments that I’m sure Eric Rohmer’s fanbase would consider utterly vulgar, but they look impressive in slices. It’s not in Bay’s interest to coral these images into a coherent narrative other than “Man go from point A to point B while the world explodes.” It’s enough for him to hint that there is a goal that his heroes are trying to achieve, and as long as it seems there is some kind of forward momentum while he stages bravura visual orgasms containing complicated visual and physical effects, that’s enough for him.

Again, I’m aware that this is not technically artistically valid on a large-scale level, but on a micro-level, I cannot look away. Every dumb populist miscalculation like his nasty treatment of women, or his blindness to the wrongness of using racial stereotypes for stupid lowest-common denominator jokes, or his infantile reliance on slapstick and screaming instead of nuance and character growth, or any number of other admittedly dreadful habits, run parallel to his facility with composition. There are so many shots he has created that make my eyes wobble with pleasure that I cannot forget them. His reliance on patriotic button-pushing aside, he can create stirring moments just through imagery in a way that would probably make propagandists salivate. That ability to capture an emotion through manipulative visuals, aided by the pounding music of Hans Zimmer or Steve Jablonsky, is unparalleled. He truly is Leni Riefenstahl with a baseball cap and a collection of sports-cars in his Beverly Hills mansion.

And yet, despite this facility with imagery — perhaps the one thing I think even his detractors should accept, even if really really really grudgingly — he is treated like the Boogeyman. Numerous people accuse Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen of being the worst film of the year. Granted, it’s not very good, but I’ve seen far far far worse movies released this year. Just a cursory flick through the Auteurs site sees a number of forum threads based around hating him, including Why is Michael Bay on Criterion?, Is Michael Bay the worst director of all time?, and Reasons to *HATE* Michael Bay. The thread NAME THE FILM MAKERS YOU THINK SHOULD RETIRED OR SHOULD NOT BELONG TO THIS INDUSTRY AT ALL is filled with calls for Bay’s immediate withdrawal from the film industry. I get the feeling that this is a running joke, though it is borne of genuine frustration at his movies and his success.

They’re not the only ones who dislike him, of course. Mainstream critics are revolted by his movies, and even on a site oft-visited by the people you would think comprise his most ardent fanbase (Ain’t It Cool News), Bay is treated like a pariah. “Damn You Michael Bay” is a long-running Internet joke that has become a mantra. Bay hatred appears to be reflexive, the last word in an argument. Why accuse any other filmmakers of crimes against decency? Isn’t it obvious that Bay is the worst of the worst, representing everything that is debased and evil about modern cinema? He’s an unpleasant man with poor taste who appeals to the slack-jawed yokels and the hoodies and the youths with their popcorn and their knives and their mobile phones and suchlike and so on and so on etc. ad infinitum.

He’s the Hitler of films. Mike Godwin postulated that the overuse of mentioning Hitler in online arguments was sadly inevitable (“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”) Well, I reckon that there is another law we can accept as fact by now. “As an online discussion about film or culture grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Michael Bay approaches 1.” I don’t think this law should be associated with my real life name, which doesn’t have the Ooomph that “Godwin” has (that’s the kind of name that belongs in front of the word “law”). Therefore I propose we refer to this as Burke’s Law, named after the TV series from the 60s that was revived in the 90s. Why Burke’s Law? Because I always hear that phrase said in the same way as in the 90s title sequence, i.e. with this voice…

…and there is nothing more awesome than that. Sex up that show title, Sexy-Voiced Lady. (Here’s the first part of a full episode, just to show it in amazing context.)

So yeah, whenever a discussion about sucky film directors inevitably begins to focus almost exclusively on the vapidity of Bay’s destructo-porn epics, feel free to mention Burke’s Law. If Bay is what people think represents the true nadir of modern filmmaking, that’s up to them, but if they’re not willing to expand their search to other far less talented individuals out there, then I just can’t take them seriously. I see Dr. Uwe Boll get mentioned a lot, and he’s certainly a candidate. He’s made a shit-ton of laughably awful movies in the past — many more than Bay — and he has now tried to make himself seem classier by making a film about Darfur. However, he’s filming real rape victims re-enacting their own rape for his camera. Making fun of his shitty output suddenly doesn’t seem so funny.

If we’re going to talk about directors who create deafening, poorly storyboarded and edited action scenes that substitute crashing, clashing cacophony for flow and plot momentum, how about Stephen Sommers? He combines Bay’s inability to understand the clear, unambiguous narrative progression of a movie or an action scene with a flat eye for visuals, as evidenced by the busy but tedious G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra? Or Rob Cohen, a man who has yet to make even a half-way decent action movie? Though I’ve not seen his most recent movie — Fast and Furious — I did endure Stealth (where some of the best visual effects ever committed to film were wasted on a farrago of galactic proportions) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which actually managed to be the worst film in the Mummy franchise. It takes a special kind of witless hack to out-Stephen-Sommers Stephen Sommers. I’d rather watch a Bay action scene than something by either of these guys any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I’d also like to make the case for Robert Luketic, who keeps pumping out the most artless dreck, seemingly with no understanding of what cinema can do. His last three films were lifeless committee-borne crowd-pleasers that couldn’t even be bothered to do anything pleasurable, rendered even more unbearable by being presented in a lifeless cavalcade of wretchedly awful compositions. As a bonus they also featured either reductive, retrograde gender-politics (Monster-In-Law and The Ugly Truth) or ethnic white-washing (the utterly worthless 21). Or what about Jon Avnet, aka the modern day Ed Wood? His last two movies — Righteous Kill and the incredible 88 Minutes — were among the most catastrophically misjudged movies I have ever seen, made by someone without a single artistic bone in his body. It’s so bad that I suspect he doesn’t even understand the scripts he adapts. No matter how hard he tries, he will never be able to come up with a single memorable or inspiring image in his entire career. Not counting this one with Leelee Sobieski taking aim, that is.

If you’ve thought long and hard about it and have come to the conclusion that Bay is less talented than these directors, or that he represents something far greater than just bad filmmaking (i.e. he’s a mascot for the debasement of the culture at large), or that his Platinum Dunes production company is committing a terrible crime by making bland remakes of great horror movies, or that the compositions I love are just ugly but shiny commercialised parodies of actual art, or that he’s the worst kind of patriotism-spouting pro-military arrested adolescent, or even that he’s just an obnoxious douchebag (James Cameron without the brains or the talent), that’s perfectly understandable. I’m cool with that, if you show me your calculations. But don’t just say, “Michael Bay is the worst director ever” because that’s the accepted wisdom. That’s not film criticism. That’s letting someone else do your thinking for you.

Atenção para as estatísticas, meninas:

- 98% de chances de atrair a atenção dos homens

- 83% de chances de receber convites para jantar.

Então, BEND AND SNAP!

Ah, ele tá no papo!!

La dura verità (The Ugly Truth) è una commedia romantica del 2009 diretta da Robert Luketic, interpretata da Katherine Heigl e Gerard Butler

Leggi altre notizie su: | Commedia | Romantico | Robert Luketic | Katherine Heigl | Gerard Butler

Ar brīnišķīgo prātu apveltītais talantīgais misters Kempbels (Dž.Stērdžess) studē augstāko matemātiku un kopā ar diviem briļļainiem botāniķiem būvē necilvēkveidīgu un nekaujas robotu, ar kuru piedalīties konkursā. Kādu dienu teicamnieks atklāj, ka fakultātes dzīlēs atrodas telpas, kurā profesors Rosa (K.Speisijs) māca apdāvinātākajiem studentiem kāršu skaitīšanas principus blekdžekā, kas ļautu piejāt viskrutāko kazino. Kempbels tā kā pretojas kārdinājumam, taču kad koledžas triecienblondīne Džila (K.Bosvorta), kura arī ir bandā, mūsu galveno varoni aplaimo ar zemāko instinktu pavadiņu un uzpurni, robots tiek aizmirsts, un jaunais ģēnijs padevīgi sāk strādāt pie Lasvegasas galdiem. To visu kazino monitoros vēro pieredzējušais tumšādainais ornitologs Viljamss (L.Fišbērns) – žaketes kabatā iekrātā desmit gredzenu kolekcija labi palīdz pārrunās ar dabas nemīlētājiem. Ar ko viss beidzas, domāju, nav jāstāsta. Taču interesanti arī ne pārāk.

in 2009 martcore says
ok

“la gente è preda delle emozioni, a te non deve succedere”

Un magistrale, ancora una volta, Kevin Spacey insieme a ottimi giovani attori (Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth, Aaron Yoo) ci portano nel mondo del Black Jack. A Las Vegas. Nell’incantato e periglioso universo del gioco d’azzardo. Vincere una grossa somma al gioco d’azzardo, una somma che ci permetta di assestarci economicamente, è un po’ il sogno di tutti noi. Ed era anche il sogno di Ben Campbell.

Ben Campbell ha, guarda caso, solo 21 anni. E’ uno studente modello. Più che modello, è un genietto della matematica, un nerd vecchio stile si potrebbe definire. Il suo sogno non è la matematica; il suo sogno è la facoltà di Medicina di Harvard. Per pagarsi Harvard, tuttavia, ha bisogno di 300mila dollari. E il lavoretto in un negozio di vestiti a otto dollari l’ora non lo aiuterà di certo. Grazie alle sue doti viene notato dall’avido Professor Mickey Rosa. E viene in contatto con un gruppo di studenti che si dedica allo studio del Blackjack. Da quel giorno in poi la vita dell’impacciato studente di Boston cambierà radicalmente. Lo scenario si sposta da Boston a Las Vegas, la patria dell’azzardo in ogni senso. Qua non c’entra nulla la fortuna. Qua è tutto calcolo.

Il gruppo, composto da cinque studenti più il professor Rosa, si propone di studiare il Blackjack attraverso un complicato sistema di conteggio delle carte che permetterà loro di sbancare i tavoli delle sale da gioco. Il sogno di tutti. Sapere di investire i soldi in un gioco sicuro. Vincere grazie alla matematica. In realtà, così si dice nel film, non è neanche illegale il sistema suddetto. Si tratta “semplicemente” di un calcolo statistico e di probabilità applicato al mazzo da 56 e… “21 vittoria, Grande baldoria!”.

Il giovane Ben non immaginava così la sua vita. La immaginava a inseguire la vittoria in un concorso sulla robotica, a studiare anatomia e chimica organica. Non immaginava di trovarsi in poche settimane in uno strip club di lusso con in tasca centinaia di migliaia di dollari e sotto le coperte della più carina del College Jill Taylor. Tutto semplice. Tutto grazie alla matematica. E c’è chi diceva che era inutile. Purtroppo, il cambio radicale di vita non è sempre rose e fiori, specie in un film. I vecchi amici si perdono, il gioco d’azzardo ti prende più del dovuto, e qualcuno si accorge che stai usando il calcolo. In questo mondo frenetico dove ogni secondo vale migliaia di dollari, basta un attimo per rovinarsi.

Buffo pensare che si tratti di una storia vera. Qualcuno, davvero, è riuscito a entrare nel mondo del calcolo applicato al gioco d’azzardo. Gioco d’azzardo che diviene, quindi un calcolo. Vincere grazie a un calcolo. Tutto tradotto in un film senza troppe pretese, piacevole, che ti tiene a tratti incollato allo schermo. Abilmente diretto da un regista dinamico, un’ottima colonna sonora, e uno straordinario Kevin Spacey, che come cattivo rende sempre benissimo.

Un film per chi crede solo nel caso. Per chi si affida troppo alla fortuna. Per chi vuol sognare. Anche solo per 138 minuti.

You have to be two people. The saint and the sinner. The librarian and the stripper.

– Mike

I was shocked that The Ugly Truth is still playing at my local theater. I heard the bad buzz surrounding this movie, but I was bored. I needed something to distract me before Where the Wild Things Are opens. Besides, I heard from on interview with Jimmy Kimmel that Eric Winter bares his ass in the movie. I want to go to there. (If you know where that’s from, you are my friend for life.)

Katherine Heigl unintentionally recreates her character from Knocked Up by playing Abby. She is an uptight hypercritical ice queen, who produces a fledgling morning show with co-anchors, Larry and Georgia (John Michael Higgins, Cheryl Hines).

One night, she stumbles upon a crass, misogynistic guy named Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler) from channel 83, who hosts a cable access show called “The Ugly Truth.” In one conversation, he deconstructed her type A personality in one fell swoop.

The next day, the bosses at the station hire Mike as a guest commentator to give their ratings a boost. After his first day, the ratings are through the roof. Abby doesn’t want Mike anyway near in front of the camera.

She thinks she has found her Mr. Right in Dr. Colin Anderson (Winter) whom she met when she sprained her ankle while getting her cat of the tree in their apartment building they share. She wants to know how to get him. Inadvertently, Mike becomes her personal relationship expert.

In any typical cookie-cutter romantic comedy, complications occur and the two leads find some inexplicable way to fall in love with each other. Have some comedy of errors that leaves them broken up, then one of the lovebirds towards the other, they kiss and live happily ever after.

Hold up! Why on the God’s green earth does this woman end up with this man? He is a Neanderthal. Why is she remotely interested in him? Because he put up a wall that had been broken from relationships past. Give me a fucking break!

This crass ogre of man that has no respect for women or any sense of decorum would fall head over heels in love with the neurotic, OCD woman that measures a man’s worth with her “top ten list.”

I want to know. When she falls in love, marries and has children with this man, his gutter-butt, talking with his little head rants will be circulating around in some future version of YouTube. Would Abby proud announce that that this was your father? Every hateful, amoral, spiteful, venomous, vindictive word that had ever come out of his mouth.

Speaking of mouths, did Mike have Bell’s Palsy? He’s giving me a Drew Barrymore talking out of the side of your mouth type thing. He also looked a little bloated with his chipmunk cheeks. There I said it.

I cannot believe that this movie has been made. It’s so offensive that my mouth was agape at times. There were some laughs, but it had to go to the lowest common denominator to get those laughs out of you.

Judgment: Avoid this movie at all costs. Trust me.

Rating: *1/2

LA CRUDA REALIDAD (estreno  16 de octubre)

Género: Comedia-Romántica
Producción: EEUU
Director: Robert Luketic
Intérpretes: Katherine Heigl y Gerard Butler

Sinopsis:  La historia se centra en una romántica productora de un programa de televisión (Katherine Heigl), que sin quererlo se ve inmersa en una serie de extraños tests de un corresponsal, que prueban sus teorías (las de él) sobre las relaciones, y que le ayuden a ella a encontrar el amor. Esas tácticas ingeniosas, sin embargo, terminarán en un final inesperado, o no. Más información.

I am not comfortable with the notion of gambling yet I love Vegas. I have never been yet and if I have enjoyed a movie, I really feel th urge to visit the city where it was shot. The bright lights, casinos, hotels, the colors, the excitement. I know I said I am not comfortable because well, I have two good reasons. One, I have an addictive personality – my addictions include rock n’ roll, movies,writing,coffee,cocktails,chocolate,dancing -and I am guessing if I like gambling half as much as I like the stuff I listed above, boy I’m in big trouble. And second, I don’t have much money. So the notion of the possibly of losing what little I have is well, alarming. But I really want to go to Vegas and go crazy for a couple of nights…Oh,yeah: we have 21 to blame.

I don’t want to go all emotional here but some movies hit closer to home. Of course 21 is not exactly a emotional movie. It has some emotional moments about the lead character Ben. But overall, it is based on the real life story of five MIT students who regularly went to Vegas, counted the cards and made some serious cash. I don’t know how much the movie sticks to the real story,but the storyline goes something like this:

Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess)  is an excellent student.He is about to graduate from MIT with honors to continue to Harvard Medical School. Although his qualities are perfect, he has one gigantic problem: he doesn’t have the insane tuition amount. The fees add up to $300,000. His only chance to go to the school he has been accepted to is to get a scholarship.But the scholarship will only be granted to one student and it will all depend on the extraordinary essay he is going to write about his life- except there is nothing even remotely exciting about his life. All his life, he has worked hard and been the amazing student. But he makes one good impression on the one guy that he is going to change his life forever: his Professor Mickey (Kevin Spacey). Mickey is secretly managing a unique group of students from MIT. Together they practice on perfecting a team play. Mickey is reluctant to join them at first but ultimately he doesn’t have much choice. And then the time of his life begins. Luxurious hotel suits, pretending to be someone else every time they play, the thrill, the chemistry growing between him and his team player/his big crush Jill (Kate Bosworth), ludicrous shopping rounds, oh and a danger they are not noticing: the seasoned yet smart head of security Cole (Laurence Fisburne) .

Of course complications occur when he neglects his best friends, and he has a big fall out with his professor. The thing is Mickey doesn’t play nice when he thinks he is crossed…And yet that is exactly when the real adventure begins…

The movie has been directed by Robert Luketic who recently directed The Ugly Truth (2009). Despite having loved it, I have to stay this movie beats any other movie he has done. Rom-com is one of my favorite genres and Robert is good. But if you want to see him direct something more different and definitely more intriguing, watch 21.

We all need money to make our dreams come true. And I need a similar amount of money-at least- to start my own dream school program. The idea to try your hand in Vegas when all else fails makes sense. But then again, I am no math genius, I don’t go to MIT and I can’t count cards. Not to mention, I am not a fan of the Vegas’ casinos’ security systems and the measures taken when you get caught. Of course my knowledge on the subject is based on what Hollywood tells me, yet somehow I am not inspired to challenge that…

Watch 21. It is fun.It is exciting. It makes your fantasies come alive through a character you can easily identify yourself with. I might be neither able nor willing to cheat, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to play.

for the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzZX2aN3I0

NOTA : 8 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare The Ugly Truth

Trailer The Ugly Truth :

Por Bruno Pongas

O bom e velho gênero das comédias românticas produz anualmente uma quantidade infindável de filmes. A qualidade deles, no entanto, é discutível na maioria dos casos, pois raramente vemos uma que definitivamente valha a pena. Com finais óbvios, personagens bobos e roteiros canhestros, o gênero se desgasta cada vez mais, a p0nto de afastar os próprios fans das salas de cinema. A boa notícia é que de vez em quando aparece uma grata surpresa; foi assim com A Proposta – alguns meses atrás - e agora com A Verdade Nua e Crua.

É bem verdade que a fita passa longe da originalidade que tanto se cobra do gênero, mas tem bons momentos suficientes para sobreviver num campo disputadíssimo. Pois é… e o ponto de partida para isso é a química entre o casal de protagonistas (Gerard Butler e Katherine Heigl). Sempre que em cena, Butler e Heigl enchem os olhos do espectador, já que em certos momentos chegam a fazer chorar de rir. A dupla segura o fraco roteiro com bastante habilidade, e mesmo que a comédia seja óbvia, ela se diferencia pelo bom desempenho do par principal.

Tenho para mim que o maior objetivo desse tipo de longa é divertir. Sou contra aquele pensamento que dá valor apenas ao cinema reflexivo. A sétima arte também surgiu como forma de entretenimento para as massas… sabendo disso, qual o mal em garantir boas risadas com algo fútil e estúpido? Nenhum! A Verdade Nua e Crua cumpre seu papel exemplarmente, sempre com o apoio de piadas pesadas e cenas escrachadas – que algumas vez até extrapolam o limite do bom senso.

Elogiei bastante a obra, mas como crítico devo apontar alguns defeitos que em minha leitura foram prejudiciais à história. O primeiro deles, claro, é o roteiro. Como é difícil sair do óbvio, buscar novos horizontes, tentar algo diferente… os roteiristas de comédias românticas parecem acomodados demais para pensar, pois chupinhar o que já existe é bem mais fácil mesmo… o filme caminha num ritmo muito bom até a metade, enquanto a personagem de Gerard Butler tenta aconselhar Katherine Heigl a conquistar o ‘homem perfeito’. Contudo, quando o enredo parte para outro viés e tudo é manipulado para acabar ‘bonitinho’, há uma queda abrupta de qualidade, o que deixa o espectador enfadonho e com um ar: “Poxa, já vi isso umas mil vezes antes!”.

Apesar desse deslize e do amontoado de clichês, A Verdade Nua e Crua ainda é forte o bastante para divertir sem compromisso; sem dúvidas uma ótima pedida para um casal num domingo à noite sem muito o que fazer. E lhe garanto, caro leitor, o emaranhado de cenas sugestivas e instigantes mexem com os hormônios, e fazem, de alguma maneira, valer o ingresso. Tá aí a dica!

Minha Nota: 6.5

Direção: Robert Luketic
Gênero: Comédia/Romance
Duração: 96 minutos
Elenco: Katherine Heigl, Gerard Butler, Bree Turner, Eric Winter, Nick Searcy, Jesse D. Goins, Cheryl Hines, John Michael Higgins, Bonnie Somerville e Kevin Connolly.

“Comédia para homens rirem das mulheres – que por vezes vão ao cinema para rirem de si mesmas.”

Abby é uma produtora de tv muito competente e controladora, porém os números do ibope de seu programa estão cada vez mais baixo. Desesperado, seu chefe contrada um apresentador de tv polêmico para conseguir audiência. O problema é, Mike Chadway é a representação do macho primitivo e seu programa é justamente sobre isso: escancarar “A Verdade Nua e Crua” sobre homens, mulheres e o sexo entre as duas raças.

Abby, que idealiza o homem perfeito, acaba odiando tudo isso e compra uma briga com Mike. É então que ele propõe uma aposta, se suas dicas não funcionarem e Abby não conseguir fisgar o vizinho em quem está de olho, Mike se demite. Abby topa e aí começam os problemas do filme.

Por ser uma comédia romântica, obviamente, seguindo a fórmula, os dois se apaixonarão ao final do filme. O que diferencia este filme dos outros é os absurdos machistas que o roteiro comete: Mike começa a moldar Abby de forma que ela agrade o vizinho “perfeito” (gosta de vinho, limpa os dentes com fio dental, é bonito, etc.) – que ao longo do filme vai mostrando-se um machista tão estereotipado quanto a idealização de homem perfeito – e Mike só se dá conta de que se apaixonou por Abby quando ela já está moldada como a mulher perfeita, ou seja, o contrário do que era antes.

Logo, segundo o roteiro escrito por, pasme, três mulheres, uma mulher não pode ser uma boa profissional preocupada com o trabalho porque isso desviaria o foco do que realmente é importante para as mulheres, o amor. Porque o trabalho faz da mulher uma pessoa amarga, afinal elas foram feitas para amar e constituir família, para serem dóceis e prestativas e só assim, juntamente com uma dose de vulgaridade para excitar e manter o relacionamento, um homem pode se apaixonar por elas.

O terceiro ato esboça uma tentativa tímida de mudar isso, mas não consegue, pelo contrário, piora a situação de forma velada. A certa altura o público fica sabendo que Mike só é grosseirão porque várias mulheres “amargas” partiram o seu coração. Ou seja 1# as mulheres são responsáveis por caras como ele serem tão repulsivos e machistas e 2# o personagem não pode de maneira alguma ser como é por fatores orgânicos, ele precisa de um motivo, e um bem comovente, para justificar sua visão preconceituosa. Não adianta agora dizer que mulheres são poderosas porque fingem orgasmos e partem corações.

Sem contar as diversas vezes que o roteiro expõe as mulheres ao ridículo, em situações pretensiosamente cômicas que na verdade são de um mau gosto impressionante (uma criança brincando com o controle remoto de uma calcinha vibratória enquanto a mulher tem orgasmos).

Katherine Heighl que interpreta Abby definitivamente não está confortável no papel e já fez coisa muito melhor se tratando de comédia romântica (Vestida pra Casar que cai nas mesmas contradições deste, porém encontra resoluções muito melhores e mais simpáticas) enquanto Gerard Butler deita e rola como Mike Chadway forçando seu sotaque escocês.

Robert Luketic, o mesmo de Legalmente Loira e A Sogra, começa bem mas logo prova que tem sim como piorar o absurdo roteiro com um timing pro humor que parece ter saído de um filme pornô oitentista.

Obviamente esses argumentos não seriam válidos por se tratarem de fatores externos, mas o filme importa isso para sua proposta e acaba com uma auto-sabotagem.

Curiosamente, a única comédia não machista em cartaz é sobre um reporter gay, o ótimo Brüno. Embora ótima, Se Beber Não Case não poderia ser mais machista e Os Normais 2… bem, na trama a mulher pode se submeter as fantasias sexuais do homem, mas na busca pelo terceiro elemento que constitui o tal ménage à trois o casal nunca cogita a presença de um homem. Em cartaz, filmes que abordam a questão de maneira inteligente são o francês Enquanto o Sol Não Vem e o terror cômico Arraste-me Para o Inferno.

É uma tendência, comédias para homens e comédias para homens rirem das mulheres – que por vezes vão ao cinema para rirem de si mesmas. Se elas não se incomodam com isso, por que eu, que sou homem, deveria me importar?

Ficha do filme com informações, trailers, críticas, curiosidades e etc : www.xcine.com.br/filme_averdadenuaecrua.html

The Ugly Truth
Starring Katherine Heigl and Gerard Buter
Directed by Robert Luketic

Rated R
Run time 96 minutes
4 out of 5 Frames

Let me start off by saying that this is a movie geared towards women primarily in the hopes that they will drag men to see this. Men should go and see this, they will be pleasantly surprised. The Ugly Truth stars Katherine Heigl (Grey’s Anatomy, Knocked Up, 27 Dresses) as Abby, an uptight News Program producer, whose morning show‘s ratings are sinking faster than the Titanic. Corporate is in a panic and are on the look out for some fresh ideas to drive up ratings or else the show is off the air. Abby’s career path has seen more success in recent years than her love life. Abby is like every other successful woman type that has mad the list of qualities that she is seeking in a man but has yet to find, which does this type ever really exist?

After going on particularly awkward date, she comes home and on the TV is guy ranting and raving why the women calling into his public access show and get a date. Meet Mike played by Gerard Butler (300, P.S. I Love You). He’s the overtly shallow, macho, masochistic male that is stereotypical. So kettle meets the pot. You are both black.
Abby, horrified at what Mike is preaching calls in to the show and they duel it out. Can you guess who wins? After the war of words, Abby frustrated, scares her cat who jumps out of her second story window and she follows. From this view she meets the man of her list, uh dreams, by saving her cat and getting more than she bargained for a first impression by her new neighbor.

The next morning, Abby, now euphoric, walks into her staff meeting with the station manager where they have hired a new employee. Bet you you’ll never guess who it is? Yep. It’s Abby’s favorite person in the world, Mike. Now that they meet face-to-face, Mike is smitten by Abby in a weird male way. Abby, smug that she has met the guy of her dreams, need some help landing him. Mike proves his worth by helping Abby land a first date.

With the ratings up and Abby’s career and love life back on track will she ever be friends with Mike? Or is there too much sexual tension between them that even Mr. Perfect doesn’t stand a chance when put to the test?

The Ugly Truth is a raunchy chick flick. Plain and Simple – nothing ugly about it. It’s refreshing to have a romantic comedy have an R Rating and let it push past the boundaries of traditional rom-coms that are pretty cheesy and predictable. Not that this movie doesn’t fall into the predictability trap, but it is more realistic and fun than most movies of this genre. It basically boils down to that men and women both have misconceived notions about each other and if they cut the crap and communicate they will be better off.

Who should see this movie: Women, men and dating couples.

Great moment to watch for: The restaurant scene for the work dinner. It takes the diner scene from When Harry Met Sally to a whole new level.

Gerard Butler stars opposite Katherine Heigl in this romantic comedy. Actually, I could leave my review at that short and consise note as you probably already know exactly what’s going on. I could just as easily refer to my review of The Proposal a while back (somewhat unfairly – The Proposal falls under the romantic side of romantic comedy meanwhile The Ugly Truth falls under the edgy/comedy side. Imagine, if you will, a cross between any old chick flick and any old guy flick (read: any Judd Apatow film) and this is probably what you’ll come up with.

Let’s get the good out of the way first of all. I really, really like Gerard Butler. Speaking in terms of romantic comedies with your Mathew McConaugheys (whose name I have acquired the talent of consistently spelling right!) and your Aaron Eckharts or whomever as your run-of-the-mill prince charming who comes to swoon women away by presumably having been chiseled out of granite, it’s really refreshing to see Gerard Butler, who is none of this. He’s a man’s man, behaves mostly as men do and, you know what, is probably the single best male character I’ve seen in a romantic comedy. Butler makes him work, you can believe him in the role, and the three laughs I got out of the film was all thanks to him. Heigl is fine as well, mostly because the two have chemistry and not really because her performance is that extraordinary. I do believe this is the script’s fault, however, as every line she’s forced to say is utterly inconsequential and in true George Lucas style the writers seem to have no idea how a woman might behave or talk. Which, frankly, is baffling considering the film’s writers are women (Karen McCullah Lutz & Nicole Eastman).

I’m not going to discuss the film’s gender issues. I honestly don’t think calling it sexist is fair, but it’s also worth noting the fact that this is a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy, which most studios try to spew out about 5 of a year and maybe, just maybe, the people involved weren’t as interested in gender politics as they were in writing a romantic story. Not that this is in the film’s favor, I think raising a bunch of these questions and pretty much just giving two completely opposite answers to each and leaving it all up in the air is worthy of some critique. Still let’s just settle on the conclusion that this is probably not sexist, it’s more likely that it’s just nothing at all.

This brings me to my biggest problem: It is nothing at all. Lately it has become the thing for these kinds of films to throw in loads of swearing, loads of talk about sex, loads of just nothing at all in order to get an R rating and seem edgy because for some reason once you say the F word a few times, well, it’s not like anyone under the age of 18 has heard that before. God forbid. Here’s a fun fact: This film is rated R in the USA. Most other countries has it rated 10-16 according to IMDB. In Norway it is rated A. General admittance. A 3 year old could go to see this movie. In the US they won’t even let people who are 17 see it. It’s clear that the US rating system is more a commercial than a practical thing and the whole trend of saying the f word a lot and talking about sex for the duration of the film in order get an R rating and make the 20-somethings interested is ridiculously lazy. My theory is that if the F-word wouldn’t warrant an R rating there would probably be a lot less of it going around. Swearing a lot and not actually showing anything offensive on-screen is the easiest way to draw a more adult audience than the teenage girls who presumably go to see these kinds of films without offending any of said audience. Because honestly, people aren’t nearly as offended by swearing as an R rating would indicate.

Overall, meh. The film is awfully written, but luckily Butler somewhat saves it and brings something to his character that makes him at least seem alive. A few laughs are to be had, but not many, and there are more awkward moments than there are funny ones.

2,5/5