Based on Anne Rice’s book of the same name, 1994’s Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles develops the vampire mythology into a modern context to help further sex appeal of the iconic literary figure. Rice’s books about vampires were immensely popular, echoing the popularity the Twilight series has today. Thankfully the Rice pantheon of blood-suckers carries much more philosophical weight and consequence.

Neil Jordan, the Irish filmmaker behind The Crying Game, makes Interview with the Vampire come to life on the big screen with a star-studded cast, a touch of nudity and a nice amount of good old-fashioned blood. He doesn’t shy away from Rice’s work in any way, choosing to go full-bore into the crimson-soaked material with doses of sudden violence and continual sadness.

Louis (Brad Pitt) is a vampire. The movie introduces him as he sits down to talk to a reporter (Christian Slater) about his life. In an interview format, Louis explains how he became a vampire at the age of 24 in 1791 and how his relationship with his “maker,” Lestat (Tom Cruise), developed through the years. Louis initially rebels against what Lestat views as the necessary component of vampirism and refuses to kill humans, only to see his strength diminish as a result of choosing to eat only rats, chickens and poodles.

Years pass and animosity develops between Louis and Lestat, with Louis looking for more answers from his maker about what the life of a vampire is supposed to mean. It is interesting to hear vampires discuss concepts of purpose in light of their immortality and Jordan’s picture does well to prove the sadness and despair that living forever may bring. Lestat eventually provides Louis with a vampire “daughter” in Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) but she encounters many of the same troubles as Louis.

Louis and his quest for meaning are really at the core of Interview with the Vampire. His relationships come as a result of his searching for a suitable teacher or his thirst for blood. He also takes on the role of a father for Claudia, who struggles with the idea of never aging to be an older woman. All the while, Lestat remains as vicious and misunderstood as ever.

Jordan’s picture gets the whole vampire thing right. That is, of course, in large part due to Rice’s novel series. Her research and her creativity really drive the wheels of this picture, giving the characters depth missing from other more “Mormon” vampire stories. Rice grants her characters weakness, sadness, despair, and fear and Jordan scores major points in bringing all of those elements to the screen.

Cruise is probably at his career best here at Lestat. The makeup job is the beginning of the magic for his characterization, as the pale skin and veins make for a creepy, disturbing appearance. His attempts at a slight British accent, often seemingly forgotten by the actor, add a unique aura to the role as though Lestat isn’t quite sure where he’s come from or who he is.

Pitt is, unfortunately, the weak link in a film of powerful performances. His scenes working with the remarkably good Kirsten Dunst are often hollow and void of emotion and his attempts at conveying the sadness of his new reality come across bland and bare. Still, he manages to look the part of the innocent vampire archetype and that’s never really a bad thing.

In the end, Interview with the Vampire is probably the best of the modern gothic vampire flicks. It certainly makes something as bland and idiotic as Twilight look stupid and it tells the backstory and reality of vampirism well. It’s a good movie for expressing the sadness and gloom of the vampire lifestyle, informing us that living forever and needing blood to survive isn’t exactly the type of living that would make for good-looking, spiky-haired high schoolers.

6.9/10

Trailer:

LIFE IS SWEET av Mike Leigh (1991)
Med Jim Broadbent, Alison Steadman, Jane Horrocks, Claire Skinner, Timothy Spall, Stephen Rea, David Thewlis, Moya Brady

SPOILERVARNING

Det kanske delvis beror på musiken – som påminner om den lätt igenkännbara dragspelsmusik man så ofta hör i franska filmer – men det är inte primärt därför Life Is Sweet känns som en Jacques Tati-film men skruvad 90 grader åt ett annat håll eftersom den är gjord i England och skruvad ytterligare 90 grader åt ytterligare ett annat håll eftersom den är gjord av Mike Leigh. Det känns mycket sannolikt att Mike Leigh varit inspirerad av Jacques Tati, men till skillnad från Jacques Tati gör han inte en komedi som med förundrade ögon betraktar en värld som är fullkomligt absurd – vår – utan en dramakomedi som betraktar en väldigt engelsk och inte alldeles funktionell familj med en svårt dysfunktionell dotter, som lider av både bulimi och klinisk depression.

Life Is Sweet balanserar förbluffande väl på gränsen mellan drama och komedi, och är alltså båda delarna. Med lyckat resultat är det sällsyntare än man kan tro och de flesta filmer som försöker kantrar omgående. Men här utspelas komedin inte bara mot en klangbotten av tragedi, filmen övergår i och slutar som hoppfull tragedi. Det här är något som Mike Leigh kommit att göra även senare, men kanske inte så uttalat som här.

Man borde bli tokig på Alison Steadman, familjens mamma, som kulsprutesmattrande spottar ur sig som hon själv tycker väldigt skojiga kommentarer till hennes och familjens vardag i en engelsk förort och oavbrutet flamsskrattar åt sina egna skämt, men det blir man inte. Tvärtom blir man oemotståndligt charmad. För dels framstår hon med sitt goda humör som så rörande hjärtevarm i en tillvaro där skälen att vara rörande hjärtevarm är få, dels får man så småningom en känsla av att det här är hennes sätt att klara av tillvaron, att det ligger mer i flamsskrattet än man i förstone kan tro. Den misstanken bekräftas, för det här är inte den flamsigt ytliga människa man ser under nästan hela filmen, det är en empatisk och insiktsfull människa, med oväntat stor förståelse för inte minst den svårt problemfyllda av sina tvillingdöttrar – spelad med en säreget överdriven stil av Jane Horrocks, en stil som borde bli ett självparodiskt magplask men som tvärtom träffar mitt i prick. Jag är inte alldeles på det klara med hur Mike Leigh och Jane Horrocks lyckats så väl med att så skickligt balansera på rätt sida om även den gränsen, men det har de. Och därför känns det desto märkligare att Timothy Spalls insats som familjens vän Aubrey, uppenbart en människa med flera bokstavsdiagnoser, spelas så överdrivet att han framstår som en lyteskomisk pajas utan trovärdighet.

Mike Leigh har alltid befolkat sina filmer med vardagens människor, men inte så sällan med dem av vardagens människor som har problem som gör dem i någon mening dysfunktionella. Jag tror att han utforskar den sidan hos nutidens människa – och ur alla möjliga synvinklar, från oförmåga att skaffa barn och det livstrauma det innebär för ett par som verkligen vill ha barn (inte i den här filmen) till ovanstående nämnda bulimiska, kliniskt deprimerade unga kvinna till en änglamakerska (också en annan film), och så vidare – helt enkelt för att olika former av dysfunktionalitet är väldigt mycket mer utbredda än någon egentligen låtsas om eller för den delen ens tror. Mike Leigh söker sig in bakom väggarna hos utvalda invånare i den enorma, moderna, anonyma storstaden, där sådana väldiga sjok av befolkningen på ytan är så strömlinjeformat lika varandra, där individerna som väller fram i mångtusenhövdade folkmassor på väg till jobbet varje morgon vid en hastig anblick kan förefalla utbytbara mot varandra. Så är det förstås aldrig och när Mike Leigh väljer ut någon eller några av individerna – för det mesta en familj – ur den väldiga folkmassan och tränger innanför huden på dem, visar han oss drama efter drama, med komiska men oftare tragiska inslag, som ständigt pågår runt omkring oss i den verklighet där vi lever, men oftast innanför hemmets väggar.

Mitt i allt detta, mitt i en problemfylld tillvaro som ytligt sett skrattas bort av en flamsig Alison Steadman, vågar folk även drömma och därför mot bättre vetande, som man skulle kunna tycka, exempelvis som hennes man Jim Broadbent köpa sig en rostig gammal husvagn till överpris i avsikt att förvandla den till en ambulerande korvkiosk. Den drömmen ter sig säkert inte särskilt storslagen för nästan någon av oss, för även om den med hårt arbete går i uppfyllelse är den inte rimligen något som står särskilt högt upp på de flesta människors önskelista över livsmål – men är den verkligen så ynklig?! Är det inte det faktum att man fortfarande förmår drömma som är det väsentliga?! Spelar det någon större roll vari drömmen består?!

Det som kanske mer än något annat griper tittaren i Mike Leighs filmer är den respekt och förståelse han visar de på ytan anonyma men i själva verket mycket älsk- , ömkans- och beundrandsvärda människor i vars liv han tränger in, och den respekten och den förståelsen förmedlar han på ett sätt som gör hans filmer till betydande filmkonst.

Kör hårt,
Bellis

Soused in tall tales, volatile repartee, and introspective pauses, Sam Shepard’s play takes place on a wooden porch somewhere in backwoods America. At the request of Ames (Stephen Rea), two old friends have met up for the first time in many years. The opening scene finds them sitting outside, steadily knocking back bourbon, and catching up in their own inimitable way. Byron (Sean McGinley) is the milder and more poetic of the two. However, his occasionally flowery language and his regular need for clarification and precision typically get on the nerves of the much more blunt and temperamental Ames.

There then follows an engaging, free-flowing, and quick-fire exchange between the pair of them, with plenty of abrasive remarks and attempts at one-upmanship. Ames would have us believe that he casually picks up so many women that he cannot specifically remember an encounter with a girl well under half his age. Byron boasts of once enjoying a $1,000 glass of whiskey. Through a combination of drink and proximity, though, their confident facades are slowly peeled back to reveal far more vulnerable aspects to each character.

Ironically, given Ames’ protests about how he does not care for metaphor, the gradually setting sun and the eventual onset of a lunar eclipse underscores their reminiscences about past events and their ruminations about how they both have aged. Indeed, Ames even takes Dylan Thomas’ powerful urging in respect of the dying of the light quite literally in the play’s most memorably comic scene. Nevertheless, for all of the playful laughs along the way, there is something distinctly Beckettian about how Byron stoically reveals the depths of his suffering at the end.

Time and memory are equally explored in the play. At one stage, Byron cannot remember how long he has been at the cabin. At another juncture, they squabble over how long they have known each other. At various points, there are cantankerous disputes over dimming recollections. Ames even seems to age as the play goes on, with his conversation arcing from fellatio to an old man’s complaints about bus travel. By way of contrast then, attention is drawn to how the moon is billions of years old – a gentle reminder of how we are faced with the paradox of living in this huge, ancient, and uncaring universe and yet be overwhelmed, at times, by our own personal tragedies and dilemmas.

Shepard wrote the play specifically with these two actors in mind and the slick interaction between McGinley and Rea is fantastic to watch. Equally, Brien Vahey’s wooden cabin and Paul Keogan’s lighting combine well to fill what is otherwise a huge stage for a two-character play. While the final act may be a tad maudlin, it is arguably consistent with the amount of booze that the pair have consumed over the course of the day. Moreover, in keeping with the spirit of Ames’ likely thoughts on the matter, it is not the sort of play that needs to be understood deeply in order to be enjoyed greatly.

Photos – Ros Kavanagh

According to Variety, Ibon Cormenzana’s Arcadia Motion Pictures is going to produce director Mateo Gil’s Blackthorn.

The film is “a reprise of the Butch Cassidy legend.” It takes place in 1910 and will star Sam Shepard, Stephen Rea and Eduardo Noriega.

Shepard is going to play Butch Cassidy 15 years after he was thought to have been gunned down by the Bolivian police. He is now planning to come back to the U.S. and retire. Noriega will play a free wheeling cowboy who loses Cassidy’s life savings. This pushes Cassidy into a final job which is a mine heist. Rea is going to be a railroad employee who is hunting Cassidy.

Blackthorn will go into production this March in Alicante, Spain. It will also shoot in Bolivia. The film is budgeted at $7.5 million.

It all sounds very cool and I have visions of a Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid kind of vibe to the film.

In Sam Shepard’s ‘Ages of the Moon’, not a lot happens. Two men drink, sitting on a porch. Nobody else comes along. One of them leaves, briefly. Most of what they talk about is objectively meaningless: rambling musings on life, alcohol, women; shared memories of past misadventures. A fan hums above them erratically, till one of them shoots it. They have a fight. One of them is hurt. It seems bad. They watch the moon.

The play is softly melancholic, with a streak of bleakness and despair, and a countervailing seam of hope and humanity. It is a gentle entertainment, in which the meandering earlier scenes, which are dominated by a sometimes-awkward burlesque comedy, lead to the payoff of a closing sequence of simple, stark beauty and emotional clarity.

The action, such as it is, takes place across a long day’s drinking, as the two men await a pre-dawn eclipse of the moon. One of the men (Stephen Rea) has been thrown out by his wife for having an affair; in distress, he has summoned his best friend (Seán McGinley) to join him at a rural retreat. The men are old, old friends; their tone with each other is laconic, occasionally antagonistic, all the while disguising real affection.

Stephen Rea is an extravagant clown to Seán McGinley’s straight man. Rea hams it up something almighty, but he is playing for absurdity rather than for straight laughs, stretching his face and frame into comically exaggerated positions, and then holding them, or refining them, till they become almost uncomfortable to watch. McGinley sits back and lets Rea do the work, till the final scenes. Then, Rea’s character is suddenly deflated, unsure, and McGinley holds the stage with a monologue of loss and loneliness that is riveting.

Sam Shepard is by now well known to Abbey audiences: this is the fourth Shepard play in three years that Jimmy Fay has directed at the Peacock, and the second play that Shepard has written for the Abbey, after ‘Kicking a Dead Horse’ in 2007.

That relationship is something of a coup for the Abbey, internationally. Since the 1920s, the Abbey has been a standard bearer for Irish culture in the US, in particular; though it is no longer alone in that regard, with Druid and the Gate surpassing the Abbey in terms of raw impact in recent years, the Abbey remains a touchstone for Irish theatre and culture, and it is important that it maintain an international reputation.

Brian Cowen spoke to this theme in his ard-fheis address. “Ireland is a brand,” he said. “Our country, her landscape and her culture are known the world over. We must connect with that brand now and use it to give us the competitive advantage in a globalised world that is increasingly the same.” You could spend all day parsing that statement for its implications for the role of the arts; most simply, though, it acknowledges that the work that the Abbey, and other institutions, do, is important in driving some sense of who we are in the wider world.

The relationship with Shepard is clearly also a boon to the National Theatre’s standing amongst our own theatre community; the presence of Rea and McGinley on stage is a statement of ambition and status for the Abbey.

These are good, pragmatic reasons for the Abbey to cultivate Shepard. But what of the principles? Does Shepard add to the ‘national theatre’? Are his plays talking to us as a nation – or are they simply glamorous imports?

Fiach MacConghail, the Abbey’s director, has said that a key reason to stage Shepard here is because of the strong influence of Beckett in Shepard’s work: Irish audiences can ‘get’ Shepard, in a way that, perhaps, other audiences can’t. (I am extrapolating from previous comments by MacConghail.)

Certainly, Beckett’s ghost is a looming presence in ‘Ages of the Moon’, though Shepard seems gentler and more optimistic in his vision. But while it may be of use to Shepard to have an audience that is (supposedly) closer to Beckett’s roots, I’m not certain that the relationship works in reverse. Beckett became perhaps the most influential playwright of the second half of the 20th century. Being influenced by him is not novel.

There is another Irish connection in Shepard’s work: the theme of rupture with the land. His characters are familiar to us, even though their speech sounds like something from the movies: they are sundered from their (sometimes mythical) past, a time when they lived in synergy with a harsh environment. But do we need four productions to explore this?

When I spent a few years burrowed away in a college drama society in the mid 1990s, Sam Shepard was one of the dominant influences. His plays were sexy, violent, ambivalent, sad, and required American accents; they had everything a student group could want.

Fifteen or so years on, there remains much that is attractive about Shepard’s work, and much that is engaging and provocative. He is a consummate playwright. But there are other companies putting on the work of leading international playwrights (Rough Magic this week brings us an Irish premiere by a leading Canadian writer, Michel Tremblay, ‘Solemn Mass for a Full Moon in Summer’, at the Project Arts Centre). For all their proficiency, the Abbey brings little more to Shepard’s work than did those student productions. There are a host of Irish writers under commission by the Abbey: the Peacock is their stage. Bring them on.

Sam Shepard’s ‘Ages of the Moon’ returns to the Abbey Theatre, this time on the main stage. This is a piece I wrote for the Irish Independent on the original production on the Peacock, in March.

NOTA : 8 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare Stuck

Trailer Stuck :

Your body’s dying. Pay no attention, It happens to us all.

– Lestat

I haven’t seen Interview with the Vampire in years. It has been so long that I forgot that Neil Jordan directed the film that was based on the book by Anne Rice. She wrote the screenplay and was famously know for disliking Tom Cruise being cast as Lestat. I still enjoy watching it again.

Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt) is a 200-year-old vampire recounts his life story to an interviewer, Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater) in his sparse apartment in San Francisco. At first, Malloy doesn’t believe that he is one, but Louis’ ability to movie stealth speed convinces him.

Louis starts in beginning circa 1791 Louisiana when his wife and child die within a year each other. He doesn’t want to live until he meets Lestat de Lioncourt  (Tom Cruise), a vampire that could grant him his wish for death.

Louis decides that he wants to have the gift of immortality. Newly turned, Lestat teaches Louis about how to be a vampire. Lestat has an unquenchable thirst for blood, going through three victims a night. Louis has the hunger, the desire, the thirst for blood, but he doesn’t want to take a human’s life. Over time, Louis hates Lestat for giving him his undead life. He resents him.

Lestat turns his attentions to the slaves in the surrounding area that rises concern with their servant girl, Yvette (Thandie Newton). When Louis’ desire takes over and tries to bite her, the slaves along with himself burns the mansion him and Lestat share, down.

Louis is always tortured about being vampire. They become nomads, moving from the place to place, feeding the people of New Orleans. Everything comes to a head when Louis couldn’t kill a young woman that Lestat wants him to do.

On the streets, a young orphaned girl is dying of the plague, Claudia (Kirsten Dunst). Louis takes pity on her. She is taken in and fed Lestat’s blood when she turns. She becomes their surrogate daughter when the thirst takes over her.

She becomes Lestat’s protégé. She matched his thirst for the kill. Lestat want to rule over their lives. Over three decades pass and Claudia wonders why she cannot grow up. Both Claudia and Louis are tortured because they realize that they will never grow old, never die. They want to leave Lestat.

I was swept up with the allure of these vampires. The dialogue is still sharp. The costumes were fantastic. I have a few minor gripes with Antonio Bandera’s heavy accent as Armand. Sometimes I couldn’t understand what he was saying. You can tell that there was some wire work in this movie. It shows. There is also a portion of the film that I need explained. Spoiler section time.

Judgment: A great vampire story that makes you wonder why people are into Twilight.

Rating: ****1/2

(SPOILER SECTION)

After Claudia betrays Lestat by slicing his throat, he bleeds all over the carpet, her and Louie dump his body in the Mississippi. When the two want to leave, Lestat comes back as a zombie vampire to kill them. Louis sets him on fire, New Orleans burns to the ground. Fast forward to 1988 where Louis is back in New Orleans, he could sell Lestat who is still in his same clothes from when they left. At the end of the movie, Lestat bites Malloy in San Francisco and he knows how to drive a car.

My question is how does Lestat survive all that when Louis burned that vampire hive in France the very same way. They burned to a crisp, but when the same thing happened to Lestat he manages to survive. How does that happen?

Mena Suvari suddenly realizes the best part of her career may be behind her.

(THINKfilm) Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea, Russell Hornsby, Rukiya Bernard, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, Lionel Mark Smith, Wayne Robson. Directed by Stuart Gordon

We love the catharsis of a good horror movie because it allows us to exorcise our inner demons safely. The reason we have inner demons, however, is because real life can be far more horrific than any movie.

Brandi Boski (Suvari) is a sweet-natured nursing assistant at a care facility for the elderly. She is so compassionate that the sometimes hostile residents, particularly the increasingly demented Mr. Binckley (Robson) want her to tend to them exclusively. That hasn’t escaped the notice of the shrewish facility director Ms. Peterson (Purdy-Gordon), who tells Brandi she is up for a promotion.

On the other end of the spectrum is Thomas Bardo (Rea), a man who is hitting bottom. Laid off from his job as a project manager, he has been unable to find work and is being evicted from his apartment. He is trying to get unemployment benefits at a faceless agency but his application has been lost. Rather than trying to help, the faceless drones force the penniless Bardo to pay for their mistake by filling out the forms all over again and waiting for yet another appointment. With the kind of long-suffering sigh that actor Rea is a master at, he walks off to the local park to find a bench to sleep on, although even that is denied him by a pitiless cop who orders him to hoof it to the mission across town – on incongruously named Hope Street.

Meanwhile, Brandi has been partying with a Tanya (Bernard), a sympathetic co-worker who has been the target of Ms. Peterson’s wrath and her drug-dealing boyfriend Rashid (Hornsby) who has been plying both women with alcohol and X. Even though she’s reeeeeally intoxicated, Brandi elects to drive home – after all, she has to work the next day.

As Bardo trudges towards Hope Street pushing a shopping cart left by a sympathetic homeless man named Sam (Smith) that carries his few belongings, Brandi is on her cell phone calling her boyfriend…you know, the one she just left at the bar. You know the two are going to meet and when they do, it will be with a bang. The distracted, inebriated Brandi hits Bardo head on and he plunges through the windshield.

As you might guess from a white girl wearing cornrows, she panics and after getting spooked trying to drop off her unwanted passenger – who is still alive, miraculously – at the hospital, drives home and parks her bloody car in the garage. When her boyfriend arrives, she chooses not to tell him more than that she’d been in an accident and spends the night having sex with him over a loud rap soundtrack.

As the next day arrives Brandi thinks that by letting Bardo expire naturally, she can then convince her boyfriend to get rid of the body after dark but since Bardo stubbornly refuses to die, she must consider other options, some far more dark than the one she’s already chosen.

This is based on an actual incident, in which a Texas woman named Chante Jawan Mallard struck a homeless man with her car and drove him to her garage and left him to die, although coroners would later say that he could have been saved had she just called for help. Her victim actually died within an hour or two of the impact, while Bardo survives for a great deal longer despite horrific injuries.

Director Gordon is responsible for some excellent cult movies dating back to the 1980s. Stylistically, he is known for a very dark sense of humor – think of the term “black comedy” and multiply it times a thousand here. For example, while Bardo suffers in agony in the garage, a local dog finds its way in and decides to chow down on a bone – one of Bardo’s, sticking out from his leg. It’s the kind of thing you laugh at then wince at then wonder how sick you are to have found it funny.

Suvari, who has come a long way from the American Pie movies, does a reasonable job in Stuck. She plays a character that has a veneer of compassion but it deserts her when her comfort is threatened. She’s not evil per se, but self-centered to the point of psychosis. I thought the movie would have worked a little bit better if Brandi had been a little more likable, but perhaps it might not have been possible to paint the character that way without making her actions completely unbelievable so I guess it will have to do. As it stands other than Bardo and Sam, nearly everyone in the movie is completely self-absorbed.

Rea, so good in movies like The Crying Game and V for Vendetta has the hangdog look that befits the character. Given the fact that he spends most of the movie impaled on the windscreen with little to do but moan and rage at the heavens, he makes this movie work. While he isn’t like a Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, he does take a licking and keep on ticking leading to a conclusion that is extraordinarily bloody but nonetheless satisfying.

This is not a laugh out loud funny joke-fest but it could be classified as a comedy. It doesn’t keep you on the edge of your seat but it could be counted as a thriller. There are no major scares but it certainly might be found in the horror section of your home video emporium. The fact is, it fulfills the criteria for each genre quite nicely and manages to be quite a good little movie that escaped under the radar. It is certainly worth a rental.

WHY RENT THIS: Gordon is a splendid director who knows a thing or two about ratcheting up the tension level. A not so thinly veiled commentary on the state of the American people – self-absorbed to the point of psychosis.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: Suvari’s character is so loathsome that it is difficult for the audience to get behind her, which might have elevated the film a bit had we been able to.

FAMILY VALUES: There is a good deal of violence, some fairly horrific, much nudity and sex and some drug usage. As you can see, not terribly appropriate for the kiddies.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Director Gordon appears in a cameo as a resident carrying a bag of groceries who gets yelled at by Rashid’s girlfriend.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: On the Blu-Ray edition, there’s a feature that touches somewhat in-depth on the incident that inspired the movie. Note that on the DVD edition, there are no extras whatsoever, not even a commentary track.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

TOMORROW: Final Day of Six Days of Darkness

Desde pequena, sinto um certo fascínio por vampiros. Talvez pelo toque de erotismo, talvez pela áurea misteriosa que envolve suas vítimas, as crônicas vampirescas sempre me atraíram de uma forma sedutora. Na adolescência fui apresentada a Anne Rice através do livro “O Vampiro Lestat”, que no filme “Entrevista com o Vampiro” é preciosamente interpretado por Tom Cruise. A partir de então, só pude mergulhar mais e mais nesse universo de sangue, imortalidade e romance. Depois de ler e me aprofundar bastante, restou-me apenas as boas lembranças destes vampiros apaixonantes que nos envolvem numa trama bem elaborada e contada pelo belo Louis.

Elenco
Tom Cruise …. Lestat de Lioncourt
Brad Pitt …. Louis de Pointe du Lac
Antonio Banderas …. Armand
Stephen Rea …. Santiago
Christian Slater …. Daniel Malloy
Virginia McCollam …. Prostituta
Kirsten Dunst …. Claudia
Thandie Newton …. Yvette

Informações Técnicas
Título no Brasil:  Entrevista com o Vampiro
Título Original:  Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles
País de Origem:  EUA
Gênero:  Suspense
Tempo de Duração: 122 minutos
Ano de Lançamento:  1994
Direção:  Neil Jordan
Qualidade: DVDRip AC3
Tamanho: 1100Mb
Midias: 01

DOWNLOAD DE TORRENT E LEGENDA

2006: V for Vendetta di James McTeigue

Presentato fuori concorso al Festival di Berlino, V per vendetta (ma il titolo traducendolo dall’inglese in modo corretto dovrebbe essere “V come vendetta”) è certamente un film superiore alla media (benché alcune scene abbiano il difetto di ricordare troppo Matrix).

Catalogabile nel genere fantascientifico, l’opera prima dell’australiano James McTeigue pur basandosi su un fumetto inglese degli anni ‘80 non è un puro film d’evasione né un semplice blockbuster spettacolare: ha evidenti ambizioni di essere qualcosa di più, offrendo parecchi spunti per riflettere e porci domande sul nostro prossimo futuro (con la sua denuncia verso i massmedia e la manipolazione dell‘informazione, le politiche guerrafondaie e le bugie di tanti governi “democratici“, le varie forme di totalitarismo e di pregiudizi razziali, l’esercizio della paura per il controllo del potere…).

Qualche critico ha parlato di Fahrnenheit 9/11 fantascientifico. “Chiunque può vederci chi e che cosa vuole – ha detto il regista – George W. Bush, Blair, Guantanamo, i campi di concentramento nazisti. È una storia senza tempo che parla di tutti quei governi che non rappresentano più la voce del popolo ma soltanto se stessi”. (1)

Intelligentemente le scene d’azione non la fanno da padrone (ma ci sono e bellissime e il tutto arricchito da una scenografia veramente suggestiva , da immagini particolarmente curate, da una azzeccata colonna sonora). Si privilegia il parlato e l’intreccio.

Seducente e ricco di invenzioni visive, il film è coinvolgente al massimo col suo ritmo incalzante e il susseguirsi di sorprese.

Ottima la prestazione di tutti gli interpreti, da Natalie Portman a Stephen Rea a John Hurt. Da sottolineare che il protagonista Hugo Weaving (il cui personaggio è un po’ Zorro, un po’ Batman, un po’ Fantasma dell’Opera, un po’ Primula Rossa, un po’ Conte di Montecristo…tenero e brillante, solitario e violento) coraggiosamente non si toglie la maschera nemmeno in un’inquadratura (è doppiato benissimo da Gabriele Lavia).

p.s.

Negli USA e in Inghilterra il film è stato proiettato anche in versione IMAX (da Wikipedia: “IMAX -da Image Maximum- è un sistema di proiezione della pellicola cinematografica che ha la capacità di mostrare immagini con una grandezza ed una risoluzione molto superiore rispetto ai sistemi di proiezione classici. Le dimensioni standard di uno schermo IMAX sono 22 metri di lunghezza e 16 di altezza, ma l’estensione dello schermo può essere anche maggiore. IMAX è il più importante sistema di proiezione di pellicola su grandi schermi ad alta risoluzione, ed attualmente negli USA sta gradualmente sostituendo i multisala classici”).

———–

(1) Per Hollywood Reporter è “la più coraggiosa e determinata raffigurazione della corrente amministrazione americana”. Per Marco Spagnoli “non ha niente da invidiare ad altri grandi film come Syriana e Munich”. Per Marino Cattaneo è “una profonda riflessione sul significato di libertà individuale, sul diritto/dovere di mantenere integra la propria unicità, un invito a restare sempre attenti e vigili contro il pericolo delle dittature e le lusinghe del potere” . Per Piergiorgio Ravasio “la sintesi del messaggio politico, ben ribadita nelle due ore di spettacolo, si può ricondurre ad un eloquente monito da rivolgere ai nostri governanti: ‘Sono i governi a dover temere le folle e non viceversa’”.

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

]]> http://superheroesofvideo.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/the-reaping-2007/ Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:00:53 +0000 costelix http://superheroesofvideo.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/the-reaping-2007/

Thousands of years ago there was a series of bizarre occurrences that many believed to have been the Ten Biblical Plagues. No one thought they could happen again. Until now.

No domingo passado fui à missa, não com a intenção de expurgar a minha alma, nem com a intenção de passar tempo, mas sim de olho na bucha, com que me iria banquetear, logo após o referido castigo. O homem da bata preta, aquele que de vez em quando papa crianças, começou a falar das pragas que assolaram uma terra qualquer nos tempos antes do Judas ter perdido as botas. Eis então que se faz luz na minha cabeça e me lembrei do The Reaping. Porquê? Porque aqui as pragas aparecem todas e até pela ordem que vem no livro mais publicado no mundo. Não, não é a Playboy, mas sim a Bíblia. A história é bastante simples. Aldeia redneck típica. Habitantes redneck típicos. Musica Country redneck típica. Eis então que o riacho lá do sítio fica com um cor, digamos, tipo sangue. Uma profissional da área do oculto, sendo também missionária renegada, decide investigar o dito riacho e eis então que começam a chover sapos. Incrédula e não querendo acreditar no que estava a acontecer, é convencida de que a culpa é de uma criança que por ali anda. De Stephen Hopkins com Hilary Swank, David Morrissey, Idris Elba, AnnaSophia Robb, Stephen Rea, William Ragsdale, John McConnell, David Jensen, Yvonne Landry, Samuel Garland, Myles Cleveland, Andrea Frankle, Mark Lynch, Stuart Greer e Lara Grice.

Gafanhotos salteados com couve-flor em molho de chocolate. Vai ser só facturar no Restaurante Chino lá da esquina

Vale a pena deixar de ver a bola e a caneca da cerveja a aquecer para ver isto

The play opens to a small cottage on a hillside, surrounded by daffodils in full bloom, and a barefoot maiden plaintively singing. The eye is then drawn towards the darkened figure of an inert man, kneeling, as if deep in prayer, by the hearth. Thus, right from the outset, the audience can feel some form of tension between this timelessly idyllic scene, filled with the promise of renewal that spring brings, and these two characters who seem to have cause for sorrow and introspection. Unsurprisingly, so, this latest play from Sebastian Barry does draw inspiration from the creation of a confluence between time, Nature, and humanity respectively.

Ballycumber is a fictional rural village located on some valley slopes in Co. Wicklow. The cottage is the life-long residence of Nicholas, a middle-aged sheep farmer and confirmed bachelor. In the opening scene, he regales the much younger Evans (Aaron Monaghan) with the titular tales of the village, as a way of casually cautioning his friend and neighbour against embarking upon an amorous affair. However, as Nicholas is to later discover to his horror, his words possess a terrible power.

Indeed, this is a play rich with language, where the dialogue of each character is seeped in both idioms and anecdotes. Moreover, the imagery used is rooted firmly in Nature. This all culminates in a form of communication between the characters that is almost entirely bounded by the world around them in Ballycumber. While there may be references to international places, figures, and events, in essence, they seem to be no more than fragile wisps of information on the wind.

Moreover, through these stories, the past not only remains alive, but it can colour the present and shape the future. Barry appears to use this concept to then to pose harrowing questions about the nature of life and death and about family and community. The cleverly constructed circularity in the play implies how unanswerable some of these enquiries may be. Instead, the cottage becomes a crossroads between different times and different realms. It is a place for the cathartic expression of anger, grief, and frustration at matters that are beyond our ability to overcome or even just to properly comprehend.

In support of such ideas, this production, as directed by David Leveaux, is breathtakingly beautiful and bleak in equal measure. From the strong visual imprint of the gold and green sea that is Mike Britton’s set design to the ghostly video projections of Dick Straker, the cycles of life and seasons respectively are clearly illustrated. All of the cast deliver their many monologues in an impressively natural and flowing manner, with the ever-present Stephen Rea particularly strong as the distraught and tormented Nicholas.

When this is all taken together, then, the result is a play of grim and remorseless intensity, which challenges the audience both during the performance and for some time afterwards. In effect, it raps on the doors behind which sad and upsetting memories get kept.

Former PM backs new pavilion

FORMER prime minister Sir John Major was the guest of honour at a dinner to raise funds for Nettlebed Cricket Club’s new pavilion.

It was held at Manor Farm, Nettlebed, the home of Bessie Kelart, last Friday, when 125 guests enjoyed a champagne reception before sitting down to a three-course meal.

Sir John, who was introduced by local actors Jeremy Irons and Simon Williams, entertained the guests with cricket stories before an auction of 15 lots was held, with Tim Eggar acting as auctioneer.

By the end of the evening a total of £21,000 had been raised towards the £80,000 needed to replace the current pavilion, which was built more than 100 years ago.

from www.henleystandard.co.uk

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Un film del 2009, regia di Neil Jordan, con Colin Farrell / Stephen Rea / Dervla Kirwan / Alicja Bachleda-Curus. Prodotto da ()

Drammatico / Fantastico

Un pescatore irlandese scopre nella sua rete da pesca una donna e la scambia per una sirena.

Back in 1981, critically acclaimed graphic novelist Alan Moore conceived an unrelentless vision of the future. His main character was a dark and twisted revolutionary who would stop at nothing to bring down a corrupt futuristic government. Only known by “V” the character was deeply scarred and at times unrelatable. V was a bastard of society and also society’s worst nightmare.

In the film version, Evey (Natalie Portman) is making her way to a romantic rendezvous when she is confronted by three men who want to rob and rape her. That is until a man in black wearing a Guy Fawkes mask appears in the night. The man quickly dispenses of the rapists and rescues Evey. He asks Evey to join him for a vision that will change her life. Caught up in the moment she joins him. She watches from a roof-top with the masked man as he blows up a bell tower and claims to have ushered in a new dawn in society. His voice is eloquent and his words almost hypnotizing as Evey becomes more curious about this man.

The film intensifies as a detective (Stephen Rea) is assigned to investigate the socially dubbed terrorist known only as V (Hugo Weaving). Evey is now dubbed as an accomplice in V’s plight and she is forced to live with the masked man where she learns more and more about this man of shadows. Is V evil or good? How far would you go for revenge and freedom?

The graphic novel asked a lot of questions about who we are as people and how society sculpts it. It was one of the landmark graphic novels of the past 30 years and the film helps make it relevant today. With so much corruption in government and social paranoia running rampant it is interesting to see that Hollywood has resurrected this complicated character.

I never really wanted to see this turned into a film because I guess I knew what V stood for. I was appalled of all the “Matrix” references associated with its promotions. I guess I felt that was like saying “Frankenstein” brought to you by the creators of “Date Movie” and “Big Daddy”. I guess I forgot to tell myself that Hollywood has no scruples or is it just super-producer Joel Silver. Sorry I keep getting that mixed up.

“V” was meant to be an indie movie that taught its lesson to everyone not just the spam-filled minds of the “Matrix” demographic.

As I watched this new version of “V”, I actually found myself enjoying it even if there were blatant pop culture references in some sequences. I guess the reason I found myself liking it was that I found myself relating to “V” which I couldn’t do in the novel.

Then the film dove into Evey’s capture and I found myself losing my grip on what the film was trying to convey and my like for what was transpiring. On the other hand, it also made the novel make more sense. If V isn’t relatable and more psychotic than you probably understand what he does in the film’s second half more. Making him likeable and being almost heroic makes his actions have less impact. This guy isn’t Batman nor should he ever be conceived as so.

I have to commend Natalie Portman for her performance in this film because she is astoundingly good. I also loved Hugo Weaving as V even if we never get to see him. I couldn’t imagine anyone else giving such a powerful performance in voice alone. He projects such magic, presence through every word spoken by this tormented yet eloquent monster.

I have to say that Hollywood didn’t destroy the true nature of the story and characters but when you have something this deep slapping Hollywood glitz and tinsel on it is just wrong.

3.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Photo courtesy Pelican Publishing Company

We’ve changed things up a bit for this third episode of the LMSL Podcast, with co-founders Matthew Semisch and Ross Andrew Gallacher co-hosting the show.  They’re joined for Part 1 of the podcast by Kevin Walker, head of the Own Goal Network, a football blog community that has recently taken LMSL under its wing.  Here, Kevin gives you, the listener, a little information on OGN, and both he and the hosts discuss the week’s extremely important FIFA World Cup qualification matches in Europe and North South America.

This edition of the podcast features an interview conducted this week by Matthew with Stephen Rea, author of Finn McCool’s Football Club: The Birth, Death and Resurrection of a Pub Soccer Team in the City of the Dead, a review of which you can find at our website, lasminsecleg.com.  In the interview, Rea discusses his upbringing in Belfast, Northern Ireland, as well as the differences between life and the footballing cultures in Belfast and Rea’s current hometown of New Orleans, how the Finn McCool’s pub football team was formed, what life was like for FMFC’s players and their families before, during and after Hurricane Katrina, and much more.

Finally, Matthew and Ross give you a sneak preview of what you can expect next time, but you’ll have to listen to find out exactly what that is.  In the meantime, don’t forget to send your questions and comments to matthew.lmsl@gmail.com and ross.lmsl@gmail.com, our website, or our Twitter page (twitter.com/lasminsecleg).

Enjoy the show, and thanks for listening!

Photo courtesy Pelican Publishing Company

The next episode of the LMSL Podcast, due out a week from Friday, will feature an interview with Stephen Rea, the author of Finn McCool’s Football Club: The Birth, Death and Resurrection of a Pub Soccer Team in the City of the Dead, a book we reviewed recently ahead of its paperback release in Europe on Sept. 10.

We have plenty of questions of our own to ask Stephen, but we would also like to open up the forum to you, our blog readers and podcast listeners.  If you have any questions you’d like Stephen to address about FMFC, life and/or football in New Orleans or anything else, then please do us a message in the comments area of this article, and also leave your name and location so that we can read it out on the air.

Also, if you have any questions or comments for us here at Last Minute, Second Leg, feel free to drop me a line at matthew.lmsl@gmail.com, and I’ll try and get back to each and every one of you.

Photo courtesy Pelican Publishing Company

For those of us that didn’t live through it, it’s hard to believe that this Saturday will mark the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s landfall upon the southeastern United States, leaving cities like New Orleans, Louisiana on the brink of extinction in the storm’s wake.

For people like Stephen Rea, though, it will likely always seem as though it was just yesterday that the levees broke, but their happier memories will involve what happened thereafter.

In Finn McCool’s Football Club: The Birth, Death and Resurrection of a Pub Soccer Team in the City of the Dead (out in  paperback in the U.K. on Sept. 10), Belfast-bred Rea paints the autobiographical picture of an off-beat character who has visited over 100 countries, all 50 U.S. states and all seven continents but decided to make his home away from home in a city forever known for being a wee bit off its rocker.

As Rea points out in the book, the notion that he had moved into a parallel universe really hit him when he first stepped foot in Finn McCool’s Irish Pub on New Orleans’s Banks Street.  Glasgow Celtic paraphernalia was plastered all along the walls of the Mid-City pub, but there was one big difference between Finn’s and many of the pubs that Rea had grown up around:  Not only did Finn’s welcome Rangers fans, but it also warmly embraced punters wearing any football top of their own choosing.

Rea knew this would be his home base for drinking and watching football; away from his house, anyway, and wife Julie who catches a lot of playful flak throughout her husband’s story.  The pub also provided Stephen with a place to play the game himself, as the pub had formed a football team whose name and badge adorn the cover of Rea’s book.

The book spends a fair bit of time chronicling the formation of Finn McCool’s Football Club and how it began to take shape playing against other local clubs.  More than that, though, the book focuses on the team away from the game, holding onto each other as best they could and keeping together despite being torn apart geographically by the costliest hurricane in the history of the United States.

Hurricane Katrina may have flung hundreds of thousands of citizens in New Orleans and outlying areas from their homes and from one another, but it failed to tear apart the Finn’s family.  The pub itself was ruined by the storm and subsequent flooding, but both the pub and its football team could be and were rebuilt, both of which stand as testaments to the sense of community that Finn McCool’s and its eccentric cast of characters created for themselves.

Finn McCool’s Football Club accomplishes what all good books should: It’s about much more than simply what you get on the surface.  Fans of the sport may pick up the book under the supposition that it’ll be about the game that they love – emphasis on ‘game’; I’m trivializing it for a reason – but they’ll quickly find that the book is about much more than that.

It’s about witnessing rival factions coexist in harmony whereas goodwill between those groups was once nowhere to be found.

It’s about being torn apart from near enough everything you’ve come to know and hold dear but still holding on to it all anyway.

Most of all, though, it’s about a city that has rebuilt, reemerged and ultimately laughed in the face of a catastrophe that would have meant the end for a lot of cities of lesser character.

Modern-day New Orleans was made for people like Stephen Rea, and he for it.  Many of those that grow up around civil war, hatred and bigotry acquire survival skills beyond the comprehension of those of us that had it easier in our youth, and Rea has made good use of those skills as he and his adopted hometown have rebuilt despite the environmental and political obstacles that have tried to stand in New Orleans’s way.

In writing Finn McCool’s Football Club, Rea has continued to do his part in the city’s rebirth, and if there’s any justice in the world, the book’s extended release will make further known the story of what New Orleans and its citizens were, are and will continue to be.

LMSL Verdict: 9/10 (Any higher and I’m afraid Julie might try and track me down!)

Matthew Semisch

V for Vendetta is a film made by Americans about London. I mean, I can see how it’s all right, given it’s a big budget nonsense blockbuster, but there’s something so incredibly lame in the last scene of the film–I’m going to ruin it for you–the dead people, those murdered by the evil British state, are all united with the living people as the events of the film lead them into some glorious new future. Or some nonsense.

It’s obvious and lame. The scene could have been shot so it wouldn’t have been noticeable, possibly even have been subtle… instead, it’s like the end of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang but without the joke.

There’s a lot of okay stuff about the film. Natalie Portman isn’t terrible. She isn’t any good, but she isn’t terrible. Rose Byrne would have done a great job (a rewrite would have helped too). Stephen Rea and Stephen Fry are both fantastic. John Hurt is fine. Rupert Graves is good. I’m not sure why Hugo Weaving got the part of the titular character, since it’d have been a stuntman for most of it and there’s a mask and no performance, but whatever. His voice acting is clearly dubbed in, regardless of whether he had to wear a stifling outfit.

The script’s got some awful moments–as a police procedural starring Rea in the lead, it would have been great. McTeigue’s occasionally okay. The visual style is all flash, no substance.

It’s really quite bad.

CREDITS

Directed by James McTeigue; written by Andy and Larry Wachowski, based on the comic book by Alan Moore and David Lloyd; director of photography, Adrian Biddle; edited by Martin Walsh; music by Dario Marianelli; production designer, Owen Paterson; produced by Joel Silver, Grant Hill and Andy and Larry Wachowski; released by Warner Bros.

Starring Natalie Portman (Evey), Hugo Weaving (V), Stephen Rea (Inspector Finch), Stephen Fry (Deitrich), John Hurt (Adam Sutler), Tim Pigott-Smith (Creedy), Rupert Graves (Dominic), Roger Allam (Lewis Prothero), Ben Miles (Dascomb), Sinéad Cusack (Delia Surridge), Natasha Wightman (Valerie), John Standing (Lilliman) and Eddie Marsan (Etheridge).

a/n: I haven’t updated in a while because my computer has been sending me lovely messages about it exceeding its maximum temperature limits and threatening to explode, embedding molten shards into my flesh. Oh well…

“What’s your name?”

“The phantom lady.”

“That’s a funny name.”

“I know that– I’m a funny lady.”

The film Breakfast On Pluto is 128 minutes, and I’d have to say it is the first film I’ve viewed in a long time in which each and every minute is aptly used and purposeful. Breakfast On Pluto is a film adaptation of Patrick McCabe’s novel of the same name which recounts a young transwoman’s search for her biological mother against the backdrop of tumultuous 1970’s Northern Ireland and London. The main character, Patrick “Kitten” Braden, conceived from a priest’s fling with his housekeeper,  is abandoned to a fanatically Catholic foster mother. Struggling with her identity throughout childhood and adolescence, Kitten rebels against the staunch social climate in various ways, be it cross-dressing, writing scandalous in-class essays, taking home-economics, or even bejeweling her Catholic school uniform. But her hometown is unrelenting, so Kitten leaves for London in search of her biological mother who has been internally glorified as a movie star, an idolized escape from the religious fanaticism of Kitten’s foster family and the IRA’s militancy that has engulfed her childhood friendships. Leaving home, Kitten’s journey of self-discovery is nothing short of fantastical. She finds love in curious places and people, including a musician, a magician, an officer, and friends, though she ultimately seeks love and acceptance from her elusive mother, nicknamed “the phantom lady.”

I found this film beautiful not only as a biography of Kitten, a transwoman, but also of Northern Ireland as fate intrinsically binds her to the workings of the IRA’s rebel forces.  At its core, this film illustrates the construction of a personal identity, from self-discovery to love to self-acceptance. At times Breakfast On Pluto is optimistic, lighthearted and humorous, and at other times, vulnerable, confused and devastatingly poignant; its power increased tenfold by its chapter-like storytelling and phenomenal soundtrack…not to mention top-notch acting by both starring and supporting roles (Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson, Stephen Rea, etc…)!

My only critique of the film would be its trepidation in exploring Kitten’s sexuality. Firstly, her film nickname is a somewhat censored version of her literary nickname “Pussy.” Furthermore, in her relations throughout the film, sexual interactions don’t extend beyond intimate hugging. As par for the course in most media, it is okay to parade around characters of an array of sexual orientations as long as they are seemingly desexualized; PDA is wholly unacceptable! Fortunately, there are films that give characters of various orientations free-range to explore their sexuality on-screen; the first that comes to mind is The Crying Game due to the Neil Jordan and Stephen Rea connection to both films.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend Breakfast On Pluto for anyone looking for a film that is not only about a transsexual’s self-discovery, but explores a universal sentiment of learning to love and accept oneself while finding others to do just the same. Kitten’s life exemplifies that though “the course of true love never did run smooth”, no one said it couldn’t be fantastic.

This starts off as a decent thriller, with Stephen Rea’s IRA terrorist reluctantly holding Forest Whitaker’s likable English soldier hostage (Whitaker with an English accent…what?), but once it moves on from that and becomes something different, it also becomes a lot less interesting. Rea and Jaye Davidson have no real chemistry together, which is a huge detriment to the film, since the second half is all about their relationship and what it means for the both of them. The oft-discussed twist is pretty laughable, not to mention predictable, and the song choice at the end is utterly ridiculous. I couldn’t fucking believe my ears when it started playing. Was this supposed to be a comedy? Props for some good dialogue and a terrific performance by Miranda Richardson as one vile bitch.

C+