2006/Drama/Direção Gabriele Muccino/ com Will Smith

CRÍTICA:
A Procura da Felicidade é uma jornada linda. Will Smith no papel de Chris Gardner dá uma lição de vida e mostra como nenhum problema, por maior que seja, é capaz de impedir que alguém determinado a vencer o faça. Sua esposa (Thandie Newton) o deixa, e ele precisa passar por situações realmente muito difíceis com seu filho Christopher (Jaden Smith), quando eles são despejados por não conseguir pagar o aluguel.

Uma linda história, com ótimo roteiro e atuações impecáveis: A Procura da Felicidade é um filme inesquecível.

DOWNLOAD: (leia nosso aviso)

-opção 1:

Dublado – MegaUpload 380MB
http://lix.in/-65714e (link não testado)

-opção 2:

Inglês sem legendas – 5 partes no Rapidshare (procurar legendas)

Parte1
Parte2
Parte3
Parte4
Parte5

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:

Mark Wahlberg stars in a remake of the 1963 classic “Charade” which starred Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn.

The story opens with Regina (Reggie) Lambert (Thandie Newton) arriving back in Paris to find her husband Charlie Lambert (Stephen Dillane) has been murdered.

A mysterious stranger, Joshua Peters (Mark Wahlberg) swears to help the fractured Regina track down her husband’s killer. Is Peters to be trusted? Who are the three people following Regina? What secret died with her husband?

“Truth About Charlie” isn’t your average “whodunit”. The film has elements of the “noir” pictures of the 1930’s as well as a lot of influence from European films in texture and tone.

The way some of the scenes are shot reminded me a lot of Roman Polanski especially his film, “Frantic” with Harrison Ford.

There is a lot of grit in the shadowed streets of Paris which seem to enhance the scene.The scope and photography associated with the scenes in the “flea market” are a perfect example of what I mean.

For the most part I really enjoyed this film. I had never seen the original film “Charade” for which this adaptation is based. I did however notice that Mark Wahlberg’s character’s name is Joshua Peters and Cary Grant’s name in the original was Peter Joshua. But in some ways it helps single this film away from the classic.

The new film delivers a very interesting look no matter if the film is based on another movie.

The film echoes the elements and emotion ripping through Reggie’s head. We as an audience don’t feel secure until some of the plot points are revealed to Reggie.

I like movies that take their time divulging information. It helps the audience understand the characters and feel their emotion when revelations begin. This definitely does that theory justice.

I have always thought Mark Wahlberg to have great on-screen presence and a debonair leading man quality.

Wahlberg proves once again that he has leading man presence in his performance as Joshua Peters.

There are even some elements of 1930s and 1940s style leading man in his portrayal. From wearing a fedora to doing everything possible to help Reggie, Wahlberg does a fine job of making Peters a sort of echo the leading men of the past.

I first noticed Thandie Newton in 1995’s “The Journey of August King” where she played a feisty escaped slave who farmer (Jason Patric) must help. I was sucked in by her gripping performance and to this day it has stuck with me.

Her cinematic allure was amazing in that she was meek and withdrawn one minute and strong-willed and feisty the next.

In “Truth”, Newton uses her “meek” persona with cinematic accuracy when she plays Reggie but as her character evolves we can see the actress slowly let go. With critically hailed performances in “Beloved” and “Besieged” to her credit, Newton is on her way to becoming a very interesting actress to watch.

The only problems I had with this film were some of the oddities director Jonathan Demme inserted into the film. The final scene has a man step in front of the camera like a news reporter and burst into song. That was a little strange. I also wasn’t sure if the film’s final ending was the strongest it could have been. There was a lot of Charlie I liked.

3 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

2012 actress and InStyle UK December 2009 cover girl Thandie Newton and husband Ol Parker were decked out in matching black ensembles for Lulu Kennedy’s champagne party at Tach.

Oh yes at Thandie’s Chanel quilted 2.55 clutch! Gotta.love.it!

Over at Royce Hall, UCLA America’s Next Top Model alum Ya Ya Dacosta wore black and red at Debbie Allen’s “OMAN, Oh Man!” opening night. Be sure to check out the YouTube clip for a brief red carpet glimpse of clip YaYa via J’Adore magazine!

Did Ya Ya (of Nigerian/Brazilian descent) flip the switch on her hairstyle from natural to relaxed??? It’s a good look…but congrats are in order for Ya Ya’s (a Brown University graduate, I must add) latest acting gig on Ugly Betty as Wilhelmina’s (Vanessa Williams) daughter.

photos: wireimage//getty//JustJared

Actress Thandie Newton, attended a champagne party at Tach over in London a few days ago.  Thandie was accompanied by her husband Ol Parker.  Fellas could Thandie get the business or is she too thin?  More images when you

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

Theatrical Release:Nov 13, 2009 Wide

Roland Emmerich has given movie watchers several apocalyptic films in the past in INDEPENDENCE DAY and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and he offers another look at the end of the world in 2012. This… Roland Emmerich has given movie watchers several apocalyptic films in the past in INDEPENDENCE DAY and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and he offers another look at the end of the world in 2012. This action film stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Amanda Peet.

2012 (2009)
★★ / ★★★★

Written and directed by a disaster movie aficionado Roland Emmerich (“The Day After Tomorrow,” “Godzilla,” “Independence Day”), “2012″ was about a writer (John Cusack) who stumbled upon information about government operatives preparing for the end of the world and decided to take his wife (Amanda Peet) and children (Liam James, Morgan Lily) to safety. Meanwhile, scientists, humanitarians and politicians all over the world (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover) scramble to plan on what to do when the major disasters finally strike while at the same time try to contain the information from the public. I thought “2012″ was not as bad as critics claimed to be. I was entertained from beginning to end because when I decide to watch a disaster flick, I’m not concerned so much about the story and character development. I’m more focused with the special and visual effects of destruction and mayhem. On that level, I think “2012″ delivered. Unfortunately, I felt like this picture had too many characters and it essentially had trouble juggling each of them. In addition, I felt like the storyline regarding Cusack and Peet’s characters have been done before: how the man and the woman of the family rediscover their passion for each other after years of disagreements and workaholism. In fact, there were times when I thought it tried to inject too much story when it really did not need to. After all, when disasters happen, finding refuge should be a good enough incentive to work together. Reigniting any sort of passion should be left in the back burner. It quickly became repetitive and I constantly wondered how many more minutes until the next natural disaster. I did like some of the supporting actors in this film because they provided a nice breather from the typicality of it all: Thandie Newton as the daughter of the president of the United States and Johann Urb as the Russian pilot. Granted, they did not get to do much but I was actually interested in their back stories. I definitely wondered how the movie would have been different if the focus was on them instead of the family. Personally, as far as disaster features go, I prefer “The Day After Tomorrow” because I thought it was a little more intimate and it was not as all over the place. But I can see why a lot of people, such as my mom who doesn’t really care about the story as long as there are explosions, think this one is very enjoyable because of the many intense action sequences. My advice is too see it for the fluff, not for its emotional core.

Never before has a movie looked so much like a ride at Universal Studios, Hollywood.

No but like seriously, they could change the tram ride just a tiny bit, and it would be this movie.

Now this begs the quesion: is that a bad thing?  Not necessarily.

When I agreed to see 2012 with my dad on Thanksgiving, I was agreeing to check my brain at the concession stand, stuff my face with popcorn, and watch some shit blow up.  And that is exactly what I got, and I was happy.

In terms of visuals, it’s getting harder and harder to argue with these movies.  I’m starting to feel as though if I ever do see a volcano erupt, or a city crack open and fall into the Earth, I’m gonna shrug and say that it didn’t look as real as it did in some movie or other.  Because they are really figuring out how to make this junk look better and better.  But as good as it looks, a ridiculous scenario is still a ridiculous scenario.

So how ridiculous were all of these situations we found ourselves in?  Pretty freakin ridiculous.  If I needed to judge this movie on an artistic basis (which, luckily, I don’t), there are a lot of flaws going on here.  The fact that these particular people survive so many unbelievable disasters while everyone else seems to die is, for lack of a better term, impossible.  It can also be a little frightening how this film can reduce human life to, basically, nothing.  We see millions and maybe billions of people die, and we kind of just shrug.

In terms of acting… well… c’mon now, did you really go to see this movie to witness some incredible thespian skills?  Because I know I didn’t.  You might as well have had cardboard cutouts for a lot of the actors, just a face looking in fear at whatever was happening on the blue screen behind him or her.  But I am being a bit unfair.  Woody Harrelson did his usually goofy fun job, Danny Glover is a pretty baller president, and the two old dudes on the cruise turned in really fine performances (according to my dad they are old famous actor dudes I guess…).  And the Russian dude might as well have been Mr. Lund.

And in terms of plot!  Well yeah, okay, I guess there wasn’t really one.  But those ships at the end were totally awesome.

So yeah.  Thank you, Mr. Emmerich for giving me exactly what I wanted.  And now that I’ve seen the world end, I’m excited to see The Road, or the depressing reality of the end of the world.  Or I could just go to Universal Studios and relive the end of the world over and over again.

Casting: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton

Sypnosis: An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.

1. Of all presidents in the world, the US one is always the noblest.

2. When the government tells you “The worst thing is over”, then it’s time to run.

3. Several hours after her Dad’s death, a girl can smile and talk about why she’d got no first kiss at high school.

4. Several hours before his Dad’s coming death, a guy can smile and talk about the very sad fact that he’s got no girlfriend.

5. You need a co-pilot to drive an Antonov 225? No need to worry, take a plastic surgeon and sure that will do.

6. Presidents could bury information during 3 years, leaving all their people dying not knowing the truth, but at the last minute, it needs only a cheesy speech to wake them up to show their humanity, even if this may harm their lives.

7. Pouring tea till it spills means “Death is not so big a deal to me.”

8. As long as you and your ex wife still feel for each other, rest assured that her current boyfriend gonna be dead some time. High chance is when he finishes his mission of flying your family from US to China to escape a disaster.

9. There’s of course no need to shed a thinnest tear for him, just hug onto each other and enjoy living happily ever after.

10. The summer Olympic Games is held in December.

11. Believe me, English will have become the worldly-spoken language in 2012.

12. For the first time in the movies’ history, there are more than one African American key heros in a film: one is the US president, the other is the scientist who saves the day. Is it a sign for the sunrise of an African-centric era in Hollywood, or, just kinda Obama-effect?

Final verdict:

This film was so bad that it turned into a comedy, which in the end made me find it kinda acceptable =)) !

P.S: The best line in the film is “I’m coming home, Dorothy”, which comforted me with the pleasant memories of The wizard of Oz. All the other lines are either cheesy or over-cooked, which made me giggle even if they’ re from a death scene : ).

And “sorry” to a certain someone who did go watching this film with one of his dearests, but I have to tell the truth : ).

Due storie diverse: un geologo di successo – che avvertito da un amico fisico di un aumento dell’attività solare e conseguente scioglimento del sottosuolo terrestre che porterà nel 2012 a catastrofi in tutto il mondo, diventa il responsabile dei consiglieri scientifici del Presidente degli Stati Uniti – e uno scrittore, la cui devozione verso il suo romanzo fallimentare lo ha portato a distruggere il proprio matrimonio. Due storie diverse che seguono strade differenti per congiungersi nel finale, quando sulla terra giunge la fine e solo pochi fortunati possono salvarsi a bordo di arche gigantesche e ricominciare una nuova civiltà.

La locandina di 2012

Due ore e mezza di visione, per vedere tanta ripetitività, poco ritmo e il peggior buonismo immaginabile. Una quantità inimmaginabile di effetti speciali, molti dei quali di bassa qualità, e  scene che dovrebbero – in un film del genere – lasciare senza fiato, ma che – invece – risultano stupide, confuse e ridicole. Come le battute da avanspettacolo, le soluzioni narrative scontate che non brillano mai per originalità e gli eventi che risultano particolarmente artificiosi e forzati.

Eppure con oltre 200 milioni di budget ci si aspetta che oltre agli effetti speciali (alcuni dei quali ottimi, per carità, ma altri che lasciano davvero inorriditi per il basso livello, da confonderli con film degli anni 70) un po’ di soldi possano essere utilizzati per ingaggiare uno sceneggiature, almeno, di media bravura. Invece 2012 è un film che non offre niente di nuovo: le solite relazioni difficili tra padre e figlio, i soliti cattivi contrapposti ai soliti buoni, l’immancabile cattivone senza cuore che alla fine si converte per salvare la vita agli altri, eroi che sono gli unici a capire cosa sta succedendo, ritrovandosi pure nell’unico punto della Terra ancora intatto.

Tra situazioni che sprofondano nel trash più puro, il film non si impegna neppure di fornire una giustificazione simil-scientifica a tutto ciò che accade, portando immediatamente lo spettatore difronte a tutti i modi possibili – già visti e rivisti – in cui questo mondo può autodistruggersi, per arrivare al solito prevedibile e scontato finale.

Well a couple of weeks ago I posted about all the “worries” about the end of the world on 12/21/12 and how the odds are big time against it in Vegas and everywhere else.

This past weekend we went to see the movie, “2012”, the number one movie of the year (according to the movie’s own site).

I have to say that even though everything is destroyed and we all die, it was a good flick.  OK, some of what I said in the preceding sentence wasn’t quite right, but I can’t give you any spoilers here.

And let’s look at who is in it: Danny Glover, John Cusack, Thandie Newton, how could it go wrong.  Well it could have but it didn’t.

Was it worth the $7 a ticket?  Probably, “yes” for the huge screen view of things coming apart.  I would recommend this one for you to spend the extra $$ on.  The story will be the same on your widescreen TV but not quite as destructive looking.

British-based actors Chiwetel Ejiofor and Thandie Newton attended the Los Angeles premiere of their new film, 2012 earlier this month. Chiwetel (a two-time Golden Globes nominee) portrays Adrian Helmsley and Thandie (a BAFTA Award winner) acts as Laura Wilson in the epic thriller about the heroic survivors who endured the world coming to an end in 2012.  The Roland Emmerich-directed film opened at the number one spot in the box office and went on to earn $225 million worldwide and $65 million domestically! (Hmm..I have yet to see this film as the plot about the apocalypse seems sort of played out in Hollywood. I did however saw This Is It but that’s for another blog post.) Maybe these two should appear in Half Of A Yellow Sun?? JUST A THOUGHT!)

Empire magazine interview Chiwetel and Thandie who both talked about where and what they hope they’ll be doing by 2012. The publication called Chiwetel – Britain’s best kept secret! <-Cosign that sentiment! Thandie showed off a bit of her funny side as she imitated her 2012 co-star Danny Glover (pictured with Chiwetel in the above photo collage).

Next up for the Zimbabwean-British actress Thandie are two films, Huge and Vanishing On 7th Street. 2010 would be Chiwetel’s year to shine as he has five films -plus a co-starring role alongside Angelina Jolie- due out according to his IMDB page.

NOTA : 7 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare 2012

Trailer 2012 :

By Gabriel C. Tyler

The before and after of Sammy Sosa. Photo courtesy of Yazmar.com

Out of nowhere, Sammy Sosa ─ legendary baseball player, hero and media-proclaimed poster child for the Dominican Republic ─ has found his new brighter, whiter face plastered across television screens across the world. Headlines that once praised the baseball player now taunt him and his seemingly new physical appearance: “Is Sammy Sosa the New Michael Jackson?” and “Sammy Sosa Bleached, Sammy Sosa White.” He claims that his lighter skin pigmentation is an accident. A result of a skin revitalization cream that he has been using to reverse the harmful effects that playing baseball in the blistering sun for so long has done to his skin. (To read more into the controversy click here.) Those who have viewed photos of the former baseball player claim that Sosa, like many other celebrities of color, has bleached his skin in an attempt to obtain whiter skin and higher social ranking. No conclusive answers exist yet, so all we can do now is speculate. However, whether Sammy’s new skin complexion is an accident or intentional, one thing stands true: among people of color all across the world, there still exist a great distinction and animosity between light-skinned and dark-skinned individuals.

The importance of skin color in the lives of people of color is one that begins early on in life. From preschool to kindergarten, children soon shift from learning to color in the lines to learning to distinguish between colors. This new awareness leads to children separating themselves into groups based upon their own colors, which then becomes the foundation for discrimination and hatred within people of color. With division comes the idea that one group is different from another and in those differences dwell the idea of inferiority and superiority among groups. It seems to be the proclivity of human beings to separate themselves into groups based upon similarities and differences. On a larger scale, these divisions are created between races and classes. However, this idea of division has deep roots in the African-American community ─ some individuals place great emphasis on skin pigmentation, so much so that it becomes a way to evaluate one’s worth.

Even I, as a child and still as a young adult have had to confront issues with my skin color. Everyday I strive to not be pigeonholed by my complexion. Being the youngest of two boys, it’s not unusual for me to be compared to my older brother. He was always referred to as “light,” “fine” and “a looker,” while I faked smiles at being called a “handsome brown boy.” I never fully understood why the words “brown boy” had to be attached to me like a nickname ─ it is apparent to me that my skin is brown but it is not my title. As a young child, I stared at my ceiling many nights, angry at a God who would make me this “brown boy.” I often asked God to make me lighter. Obviously, I never got my request. I just grew into a “brown young man.” The battle with being comfortable with skin complexion is nothing new, especially for those in the black community.

Social drugs pumped into the minds of people of color over time have intensified the division between those of different skin complexions. From the plantation to the Jim Crow era, blacks have fallen prey to the idea that the whiter the skin, the greater the opportunities. A culture raped by white blood lines birthed children of various skin tones. Those children, as a result of vicious cycle such as slavery, argued that the brightness of their skin entitled them to inherit the privileges of white men and women. Individuals began to marry into lighter-pigmented families to produce children with lighter skin, and just like that, “light, bright and damn near white” became the ideal for obtaining great social status.

Another large part of this skin whitening process is bleaching, or chemically removing the color from the skin using creams and even lemons turned into bleaching agents by the sunlight. It can be a harmful process for an individual’s skin ─ bleaching agents containing hydroquinone kills off the melanin-making cells, melanolyte, while bleaching agents containing mercury (ammoniated mercury or mercrous chloride) have been scientifically proven to cause mercury poisoning in excess. The bleaching process shows how deeply ingrained the quest for whiter skin is in people of color. People are willing to risk their health for an external appearance. It is as if white skin is so great to certain individuals that bleaching turns into an addiction.

The media perpetuates the ideal of having lighter skin among blacks. The Los Angeles Times did a piece, entitled “The Beyoncé ad and skin bleaching,” about the controversy with Beyoncé’s L’Oreal ads, which feature her with lighter skin than she actually has. For years, people pointed fingers at celebrities, such as Michael Jackson and Lil’ Kim who have apparently had unnatural skin transformations. Womeninquire.com offers women of color the “secret to lighter skin,” claiming that stars, such as Rihanna, Halle Berry, Beyoncé, Amerie and Thandie Newton get whiter skin from their products. An episode of the Tyra Banks show entitled, “Black Women & Their Children Bleaching Their Skin” showed how ingrained the idea of having a lighter complexion still is in the African-American community. Women were not only bleaching themselves, but their children, claiming that “their children would be better, if they were lighter.” It becomes evident that many have sacrificed their mental and emotional well-being for lighter skin ─ it seems the minds of many people of color have been poisoned.

An already fair-skinned Beyoncé next to the controversial lightened L'oreal Ad. Photo courtesy of ClevelandLeader.com

I do not know what the truth is behind the Sammy Sosa scandal. I do not know if there is a simple solution to the divisions among people of color based on skin complexion. However, I do know that black is beautiful (not that white is not), and there is no need to be anything but who you are, whether that be a “brown boy” or a light-skinned boy. When we stop looking at color or physical appearance as an aspect of an individual’s character and value in society, then progress will finally happen. Until then, we’ll keep on bleaching, literally and figuratively, until the scraps of identity that we do possess disappear. What happened to “Black Power” and “Black Pride” ─ are we running from our roots by trying to externally be something that we are not?

No one blows up the world with quite the same aplomb as Roland Emmerich. Whether it’s aliens decimating our major cities in Independence Day or global warming burying the statue of liberty nipple-deep in snow, it’s hard to shake the feeling that Emmerich regards being filmmaker as something akin to a six year-old with a massive set of LEGOS. Sure you can build stuff, but the real fun is smashing it. His unique talent is melding this sensibility with storytelling talent just mediocre enough to keep the audience from emotionally-connecting with the world he presents onscreen. If he were a better filmmaker, we might feel a moment of dread at watching the wanton devastation unfold before us. Thankfully for us all, he’s not. This was a liability in his last film, 10,000 BC, in which he was called upon to, you know, tell a story. Instead he ended up meandering through a bunch of half-baked ideas, while expecting us to care about his characters (never a strong point in a Roland Emmerich movie),  and in the process did to history what Roman Polanski did to that 13 year-old girl in Jack Nicholson’s hot tub. With 2012, he is back where he belongs: using the spectacle of destroying everything in sight to distract us from the annoying characters that populate the movie.

2012 takes its title from the belief that the Mayans predicted that the world will end in December of 2012. Of course, that reading of Mayan calendar is by-and-large bunk, but whack-job conspiracy theorists still believe it (society having aged out of the whole “moon landing was a hoax” thing). Anyway, the Mayans do not really factor into the movie apocalypse that unfolds in 2012, and if I have one regret about this movie, that would be it. I was really hoping for some cool tie-in to the ancient Mayans—maybe the end of the world was brought about by rampaging Quetzalycoatls or an enormous Olmec head. No dice. Emmerich basically ditches the Mayan thing for a planetary alignment which causes the sun to create mutated neutrinos which superheat the Earth’s core and cause the crust to become unmoored. Tell me you wouldn’t rather see the Quetzalycoatls now.

Anyway, the movie mostly follows two separate plotlines: in one Chiwetal Ejiofor plays the National Geology Advisor (*skicker*) to the President  (Danny Glover), and warns of the impending disaster. He then assists them with the preparations for continuity of governance in the aftermath of the end of the world (this is a real optimistic administration). The other plotline sees John Cusack—who falls ass-backward into the knowledge of the upcoming endtimes—trying to rescue his estranged wife Kate (Amanda Peet), her new husband Gordon (Tom McCarthy) and their children (who cares). This involves utilizing Gordon’s sub-par piloting skills and turboprop they stole from a wrecked airport. It also involves a lot of last-minute take-offs in which the little plane must outrun a crumbling runway and dodge falling debris. They do this, like, eight times.

But along with those two main plots, we also have (in no particular order):

*  First Daughter Thandie Newton attempting to preserve the world’s great works of art

* The blossoming romance between Ejiofor and Newton.

*  Ejiofor’s jazz-musician father stuck on a luxury cruise ship playing a gig when the disaster hits. Mostly, this shows us what it looks like when a big cruise ship capsizes (and what it looks like: pretty cool!)

*  His buddy and musical partner (George Segal) trying to reconnect with his son, whom he hasn’t spoken to since the kid married a Japanese woman (apparently, in Segal’s world it’s still 1943)

* Cusack’s attempts to reconnect with his children, who seem to prefer Gordon to him (his efforts are ultimately successful when he repeatedly saves their lives, and Gordon is ground up in the gears of a massive ship).    

* Cusack’s daughter’s efforts to overcome her bedwetting (seems like a relatively minor thing in the face of the end of the world, but hey, I’m not a parent).

The plotlines converge in Himalayas, where the world governments have built a fleet (well, three) ships to carry a couple hundred thousand people to safety, as well as various and sundry animals to repopulate the Earth (we’re treated to shots of giraffes being airlifted, which are simply glorious is their sheer absurdity—and what the hell would you need giraffes for, anyway? Wouldn’t cows be a little more helpful?) This leads to much sturm und drang over who gets onto the ships and why. Seems the government sold seats to billionaires and Ejiofor feels real bad about that and so does Newton, and the movie takes a whole populist tone. Of course, by this time most of the world is destroyed, so their bold stance is mostly moot. Emmerich isn’t real good at pretending to care about people.

But the movie’s big draw is its scenes of unmitigated carnage, and lemme tell you: they do not disappoint. California sinks into the sea (hah!). Vegas is swallowed by the Earth (holy crap, the Bible-thumpers were right!). And Washington DC is swept away by a massive tsunami, which dumps the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy onto the White House (I’m tempted to call this a bit of editorializing against massive defense spending, but really, it’s probably just Emmerich’s love of smashing things into each other.) This is a movie that must be seen on the big screen. You cannot fully appreciate the details (like tiny CGI people dangling off of collapsing buildings) unless it is seen on the big screen. Also, I give Emmerich mad props for sparing us the site of New York being destroyed and, instead seizing upon the potential of so many other cities to be decimated (hey, the Vatican just squashed a bunch of praying Catholics! Awesome!).

Of course the character scenes are dumb enough to make my eyes glaze over, but you just run out for popcorn during those. Or nap. It’s a long movie, you need your rest. The first time something blows up, the Dolby BOOM! will wake you up. Or you can mentally write love letters to Thandie Newton, who—let’s face it—you really want heavily donating her genes into the pool to repopulate the Earth.  

Still, I can’t help but think all of this could have been improved by a Quetzalcoatl or two.

W. è un film del 2008 diretto da Oliver Stone ed interpretato da Josh Brolin.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Oliver Stone | Josh Brolin | Elizabeth Banks | Thandie Newton | Ellen Burstyn | Ioan Gruffudd

i’m a little late getting this review out.  but hey, i been busy.  i just now got around to seeing this film and i can honestly say it didn’t suck.  it’s way better than the day after tomorrow.  which did suck and was the last movie by director roland emmerich.  wait, i take that back.  his last movie was 10,000 BC.  which also sucked.  but anyway…

they should have named this film 20012: an apocaliptic odyssy.

this thing is not really strong in the story department, but these catastrophe films rarely are.  not enough time for any good plot when all you are doing is trying to run from the destruction of the earth.  the special effects are what this film is all about.  but you also have some very likeable actors to make this thing run along quite smoothly.

who doesn’t love john cusack?  and everyone loves danny glover.  amanda peete is great.  the chick that plays danny glover’s first daughter is super hot and reminds me of thandie newton.  oh wait, that’s because it is thandie newton.  and even though i can’t pronounce his name, chiwetel ejiofor is one of my favs.  he plays the role of the scientist.

and it is great to look at.  watching the ocean roll over the himilayas is pretty awesome.  as is all the destruction.

bottom line this is a big budget hollywood blockbuster type of disaster film.  with a special appearance by woody harrelson.  and it flows along nicely as i’ve just said.  it doesn’t seem near as long as it’s 2 hour and 45 minute run time.  just go easy on the large soda or you might miss seeing hawaii as a giant volcano.

i’m probably not going to run out and buy this when it comes out on dvd like i did star trek last week, but this is a very enjoyable movie perfect for the big screen.

three popcorn tubs out of five.

Guy Ritchie en noviembre del año pasado se divorció de Madonna. Esta peli fue lanzada en diciembre del año pasado pero su lanzamiento estaba preparado para octubre. No sólo el lanzamiento fue el más afectado en la peli creo Ritchie como director tiene un producto iconoclasta que raya muy fuerte en esta ocación con aburrimiento y poca sorpresa.

Una peli sin ritmo, sin un protagonista claro, sin una consistencia bien establecida, una historia medianamente hilada pero con todos sus personajes súper desarticulados. La mayoría de la peli viene sin audio protagonista y es precisamente cuando hay un “flashback” o momento recordado en el pasado de la historia cuando se muestra el robo a los rusos donde se prende la banda sonora y volvemos a recordar que es una peli del director, con humor negro, excelentes tomas, valga la repetición, una muy buena banda sonora.

El reparto tampoco es el mismo equipo de siempre de Ritchie, se siente la falta de su actor fetiche Jason Statham que aunque encasillado en el mismo papel siempre es mejor narrador que Mark Strong o Gerard Butler quien está completamente perdido en la historia. El reparto lo encierran el magnífico Tom Wilkinson que es el que medianamente salva la peli y la bellísima Thandie Newton que definitivamente paga la boleta o, en mi caso el alquiler.

No es más lo que se pueda decir de esta peli más allá que los créditos son hermosamente manufacturados y que esperemos que esté completamente recuperado de su divorcio para que Sherlock su siguiente peli sea más interesante.

Antes do último texto sobre a Mostra de Cinema, preciso escrever sobre a ’super produção épica catastrófica’, que esta em cartaz em quase todos os cinemas, “2012″. Prometo que finalizarei em breve analisando “500 dias com ela”.

Já era de se esperar um filme com pouco embasamento teórico, mesmo porque ninguém vai para o cinema esperando uma película sobre o fim do mundo acreditando em algo extremamente realista com bases científicas muito plausiveis. Como a maioria dos projetos para o cinema do diretor Roland Emmerich (veja a lista aqui), o espetáculo visual está muito a frente do roteiro. Ainda é fácil encontrar uma linha narrativa muito semelhante em todos os seus projetos, quase uma fórmula, que ele não tem medo de repetir. Com uma pequena exceção de “Caça- Fantasmas”, que de certa forma diverge (não muito) dos outros.

Voltando a “2012″, o seu maior problema não está no roteiro batido, nas cenas impossíveis ou mesmo nos fracos personagens, porque afinal, o que queremos ver é o mundo acabar, não? Aliás, se vamos ao cinema para ver um cara que lança teias dos pulsos, outro que voa com a cueca por cima das calças além de Elfos e Hobbits, porque não um delicioso fim do mundo? A questão aqui, é que em nenhum momento ele consegue nos colocar dentro do filme, o tempo inteiro estamos seguros em nossas poltronas, toda destruição e Cristo sendo demolido não ‘mete medo’ em ninguém. Somente para citar um filme, com tema catastroficamente semelhante, abordado de uma forma diferente e tecnicamente excelente, temos “Guerra dos Mundos” (eu sei, eu sei, o desfecho estraga, mas o filme é muito bem feito). Steven Spielberg utiliza diversos planos seqüência, quase impossíveis, a câmera em vários momentos nos coloca ao lado dos personagens, como se fossemos as próximas vítimas dos terríveis alienígenas.

Continuando esse paralelo, é possível citar uma cena muito ’semelhante’ de destruição. No início de  “Guerra dos Mundos”, existe a famosa passagem aterrorizante, quando Dakota Fanning vê os Tripods destruindo um viaduto atrás do carro que sua família esta em fuga. Em cena de “2012″, com aspectos muito semelhantes (vários viadutos sendo destruídos), parece muito mais um espetáculo circense, onde o carro indestrutível, ‘quase’ voa. Até pode divertir, mas cinematograficamente posso afirmar é muito fraco.

Outro aspecto técnico que incomoda é a fotografia, a câmera digital descaradamente utilizada nas cenas onde ‘não existe fim do mundo’, contrasta com as outras cenas de computação gráfica, a imagem tem uma qualidade diferente. Em certos momentos empobrece o filme, e deixa ainda mais evidente a falta de credibilidade dos próprios atores na trama. Citando o elenco que conta com John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, entre outros. Rostos conhecidos que pouco podem fazer para evitar a catástrofe mas cumprem o papel da maneira que podem.

‘Para não dizer que não falei das flores’, “2012″ pode sim agradar, se você esquecer qualquer nexo com a realidade, e isso que quero afirmar não tem nada a ver com o fato do calendário Maia ou da forma que o mundo acaba. Reparem que os ‘cavaleiros do apocalipse’ podem desfilar toda sua ira sobre a terra em um mar de fogo, mas a energia elétrica e a telefonia celular continuarão funcionando ‘firmes e fortes’. Despindo-se da razão, não esperando nada, apenas mais um filme de catástrofe, sim “2012″ diverte, mas com certeza qualquer esperança de provas que o mundo vai acabar em 2012, ou a sensação que seria se ocorresse este fato, desmoronam junto com o fim do filme.

A cena de “Guerra dos Mundos” da destruição do viaduto e o pavor nos olhos de Dakota.

O trailer de “2012″. Só cuidado, porque nele tem pelo menos um trecho de todas as cenas interessantes do filme.

#por Jonas Ribeiro#

Here's the real star of 2012.

(Columbia) John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Thomas McCarthy, Liam James, Morgan Lily, Zlatko Buric, Beatrice Rosen, Johann Urb, John Billingsley, Jimi Mistry. Directed by Roland Emmerich

Nearly every culture has an end-of-the-world scenario, as does almost every religion. What would happen if one of them actually came to pass?

Dr. Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor) is a junior geologist working for the U.S. Government. When he gets a call from colleague and old friend Dr. Tsurutani (Mistry) summoning him to India, he is happy to go but a bit mystified by the urgency. When his friend shows him figures regarding the temperature at the earth’s core, Helmsley immediately gets on a plane and crashes a fundraiser where presidential advisor Carl Anheuser (Platt) is holding forth. When Helmsley shows Anheuser the report, Anheuser leaves the fundraiser and informs Helmsley that he now works for Anheuser.

Flash forward several years later. Unsuccessful science fiction writer Jackson Curtis (Cusack) is resorting to driving a limo for an overbearing Russian billionaire (Buric). He gets a weekend off to take his kids – angry Noah (James) and incontinent Lilly (Lily) – camping at Yellowstone, where he and estranged wife Kate (Peet) once canoodled.

He meets a whacko end-of-the-world nutjob named Charlie Frost (Harrelson) who tells him why he and Kate’s favorite lake has dried up, and in the best conspiracy theory fashion, that the government not only knows about it but has been feverishly building spaceships to save the human race, the locations of which he conveniently has a map to.

Initially Curtis dismisses Charlie’s ravings but when they start to come true, he hightails it back to L.A. in his stretch limo and races against the earthquakes that will soon render the City of Angels a disaster zone, which might bring the property values down somewhat. From then on, Curtis and his family along with Kate’s nebbish plastic surgeon boyfriend (McCarthy) try to stay one step ahead of Armageddon.

Those special effects are absolutely worth the price of admission. Realistic and spectacular at the same time, we watch things in the words of the immortal Farm Film Report “blow up real good” and then blow up real good some more. Fleets of helicopters fill the skies as do flocks of hysterical birds escaping their impending doom. Waves crash over the Himalayas like they were pebbles on a beach, and we lap up every mind-blowing second of it knowing that it’s a little ghoulish but nevertheless we love it.

Cusack makes for an attractive lead. He’s not really suited for the action hero genre being much more of a hip indie sort but he soldiers on like the trooper he is. Ejiofor is one of those actors who I tend not to think about as a really compelling performer but every time I see him I notice how good he is – I think he’ll be on my list of must-see actors soon. Glover makes for a dignified president but compared to the Morgan Freeman presidency we got in Deep Impact doesn’t hold up quite as well, but still it’s nice to see him. Peet and Platt are two outstanding actors who take what they can out of a script that really doesn’t deserve them.

The big problem here is that the script is so predictable and cliché that after awhile you just long for a twist or a turn that you aren’t expecting. Also the movie at nearly two and a half hours is about 20-30 minutes too long. Still, these are things that get swept aside when you are in your special effects happy place.

Emmerich in that respect has become the Irwin Allen of his generation, and 2012 might just be his masterwork in that regard. He takes some pretty good actors who know well enough to just go with the preposterous dialogue and lets loose his digital effects subcontractors. The results are great entertainment and if that’s what you’re after then you’re in the right theater.

REASONS TO GO: Spectacular apocalyptic special effects overwhelm the many script deficiencies. John Cusack even in his weaker performances is worth seeing.

REASONS TO STAY: The script is predictable and riddled with clichés. Character development is nearly non-existent.

FAMILY VALUES: A good deal of disaster violence and some occasional salty language.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The character name of Jackson Curtis is the real name of rapper 50 Cent backwards (Curtis Jackson).

HOME OR THEATER: The eye-popping disaster scenes must be seen on the big screen to get the full experience.

FINAL RATING: 6/10

TOMORROW: Superbad