Norbit

I like Eddie Murphy. But this was just embarassing. No stars at all.

The Brave One

This is, IMHO, the most satisfying Neil Jordan film ever. I personally find "The End of the Affair" boring. "In Dreams" is much better, but still lacks something. "We're Not Saints" is great, and used to be number one on this list, but it's no match for "The Brave One". Mostly, I believe, because of Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard. They're not only great actors, but also had this amazing chemistry on screen. To me, it worked.

I can't say for sure whether I liked this movie because it makes a statement I fully agree with, or because of its actual quality. There are a couple of things that bother me about it, such as Jodie's character achieving a sort of excellency in what she was doing just a little too quickly. And the fact that there never seems to be a downside about what she's doing. I'm not a fan of such black or white things when discussing such a controversial topic. But it doesn't compromise how much fun it is. I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Death at a Funeral

When I think of english comedies, two things come to mind: great script and amazing cast. I'm trying to think of one bad english comedy and honestly can't. Maybe the second "Bridget Jones", if that's an english film at all, but "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "The Full Monty", "Love Actually", "About a Boy", and many others, all great movies. Not only a lot of fun, but good writing and acting as well.

"Death at a Funeral", directed by Frank Oz ("In & Out", "Bowfinger", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"), is no exception. I don't think it's up there with its aforementioned compatriots, but very very good. Finding humor in the bizarre is not as easy as it seems, and this movie delivers it. I give it 3,5 stars out of 5.

Brother Odd

I love reading. It's not an easy thing to do, and it was specially hard to acquire the habit of reading, which is the only way you can go through many books at a reasonable pace. It doesn't seem like an important point but it is, because the faster you read, the greater is the probability of stumbling across something that will truly rock your world. It doesn't happen very often, I must tell you, but when it does it becomes a special experience, and fills you with anticipation for the next time it will happen. It's a sort of high one can never get tired of, and I'll tell you why. It's the real deal. Think about it. When you watch a movie, you're getting an incredibly huge amount of input, and it's visual input, which kinda overcomes all other kinds, since it's so powerful, not only in the amount of information it contains, but also in the ease with which we are able to absorb it. Music is sort of different, but it still demands little from the listener to be absorbed. But a novel is something else. It takes hours, days, weeks, sometimes months (ever tried reading "David Copperfield"?). Anyone who can take an absolute stranger on a journey of concentration for days and still come out with success on the other end is amazingly gifted. And the most interesting thing of it all is that the greatest amount of work in the process is not done by the author. Yes, of course, his words are the basis for the story and characters, but it's really the reader who plays the bigger role. Imagination is the key word here. All the author does is sort of take you by the hand and encourage you in the first steps (pages), but at some point, he just lets go. And then it's all up to you.

I don't even remember why I read "Odd Thomas", the first book of the Odd series. I had read something by Dean Koontz a long time ago ("By the Light of the Moon"), and although it wasn't a bad novel, it didn't motivate me to pick up any other of his books. But Odd found its way to me anyway and I ended up having one of the most incredible and fullfilling literary experiences of my life. I couldn't really grasp the concept of Odd (and still can't), and how he can, at the same time, be everything you want to be, and everything you don't. I wouldn't say he's adorable, 'cause that wouldn't express it correctly. I'd go with ... addictive. Yes, that's a better word. You can't get enough of Odd.

Brother Odd, the third novel of the series is just terrific. I am sort of biased to talk about it, because I became such a huge fan of the Odd universe, but I just feel I can't stress enough how amazing this is. And there's something else. It just doesn't feel like a series at all. It feels like one long story, where completeness is something you don't want. And just like Odd, you're not only unafraid of what's to come, but you're more ready than ever to welcome it.

I give it 5 stars out of 5.

3:10 to Yuma

I simply hate it when the marketing strategy adopted for any movie is based on comparing it to another one. That is usually a bad sign of what's to come. In one of the trailers I watched for this movie, the voice over guy (are they all the same person or do they just sound the same?) said "The best western since 'The Unforgiven' ", or something like that. My instincts told me not to watch it, but I thought to myself: "Well, there's Russel Crowe, Christian Bale, Peter Fonda. It just can't be that bad." I wasn't too psyched about the director, James Mangold. "Walk the Line" wasn't bad, but that's about the nicest thing I can say about it, so it's not hard to see it didn't do much for me.

I'm not gonna say my instincts were totally right, because the movie is not really bad. It's well done, Russel Crowe has once again done a very good job, and so has Christian Bale, as usual. But the story is just ... well, what's the word? Shallow. It's just sort of empty. The empathy between the two characters, which is supposed to account for the way things work out in the end, never really worked for me.

Anyway, to sum things up, it wasn't a total waste of time, but I could have definitely waited for this to be released in DVD. I give it 2 stars out of 5.

An Inconvenient Truth

A few days ago, in a prior post, I remarked how bold it is to talk about God to an audience formed, in its great majority, by cynics. Personally, I think it's really sad that the fact that information is now closer and more available than ever has given every single dumb-ass out there (of which one fifth can't even locate their own country in a world map, or so I've heard) the idea that he or she is an expert in all matters of human knowledge. It would be cool if it served the purpose of engaging those same dumb-asses in conversation about such topics, which could actually lead them to learn something, but instead it just bestows upon them the false authority to mock and criticize whatever they disagree with or can't understand.

It is the case with the notion of God, and also Global Warming. And by simple association, I allow myself to conclude that trying to raise awareness about the latter issue is just as bold and admirable as doing so for the first one.

The challenge with both actions is to try to find a way to do it without sounding judgemental. Without climbing on the pedestal of your own opinions and claiming to be the only source of truth in the Universe. In these kinds of discussions, listening is just as important as speaking.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a work of art. The fact that a prominent political figure in America stands up and points the finger back at America itself saying "It is up to us" would be enough to convince me of the seriousness and good nature with which this documentary was made. Al Gore, during his presentation, questions some of the very basic aspects of the american way of life and how they're directly related to the climate-crisis we are so obviously going through.

It explains the problem as easily as possible, in a way that anyone can understand (even the aforementioned one fifth) and alerts us to the very fact that in very few years, we'll be facing the consequences of our own choices in a much harsher way we ever thought we would.

This should be watched by everyone, not matter what country they live in, no matter what life style they lead.

Al Gore opens his presentation by joking about how he used to be the next president of the United States. After watching this, and recognizing in him true qualities of a leader, I'm left to say this: "Too bad, Mr. Gore. Too bad. I wish someone else were making that joke. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he turned out to be part of the one-fifth."

Excellent film. Let me say this again: EXCELLENT film. I give it 5 stars out of 5.

Mr. Bean's Holiday

Not much to say about this movie, except that I had quite a few laughs and had a nice time, which is the most you can expect from something like this. If you like Mr. Bean (like me), you'll probably enjoy it as much as I did. It pretty much follows the same style of the episodes (which is a good thing) and even manages to make an interesting observation about how phony and pseudo-intellectual the film scene can get when the major festivals happen. I give it 3 stars out of 5.

The Celestine Prophecy

I'm a big sucker for any attempt to instill kindness and a bit of awareness in this cynical little world of ours. Throw in a sense that some benevolent spirit (or collection of them for that matter) is behind seemingly random events that lead to a greater existence and I'm all in. I am a firm believer and find it not only noble but worthy of high praise any attempt to touch that kind of subject nowadays, when cynicism and pseudo-scientific reasoning drives people further and further away from all oportunities to look down into themselves and try to understand that having faith is in no way a synonym for being dumb. I don't mean specifically believing in God. I mean believing that it is possible that something greater than ourselves exists, even if whoever's asking him or herself those kinds of questions is not the least bit interested in finding out exactly what. Keeping yourself open. That's what I mean. And not mocking other people's beliefs. I tend to think it's much better, even if you don't agree with a certain theory/philosophy/explanation, to try to find what's nice and positive about it than focusing on trying to deconstruct and ridicule it. What's the point of doing so anyway?

Let me start out by saying I haven't read the book, so when I rate this movie, I'm not rating the adaptation, but the movie alone.

The story revolves around a group of people trying to figure out/discover/uncover/put together nine insights that will lead Humanity to a greater understanding of our role in existence.

Unfortunately, I wasn't pleased. I wish this had been done with a rawer approach. The whole film can never detach itself from that "made-for-TV" feel, which is usually a very bad thing. It's extremely cheesy in some parts and the score is used in a sort of cheap way in many scenes to instill the emotion the script/directing/acting failed to do. Don't get me wrong. No one appreciates a Thomas Newman, a Rachel Portman or a James Horner more than I do. But this is definitely not the same thing. I'm talking about increasing color-contrast and doing a close up of someone's teary-eyed face with a violin in the background. It's just sad.

The script (even though written by the book author himself) lacks rythm, and is sometimes as hasty as a Ridley Scott movie (this is not a compliment, trust me).

Anyway, I don't really feel it's worth talking about it anymore. I appreciate the idea and the noble intention behind it, but as a movie, it just lacks almost everything a good movie must have. I give it 1 star out of 5.

Little Children

"Little Children" is the latest release by director Todd Field. Since 2001, when "In the Bedroom" came out and was, in my opinion, highly overrated, he hadn't brought anything new to the theatres.

To be perfectly honest, I had a very good reason to watch this, and a very good one not to. So it took me a while to work up the courage to face the almost 2,5 hours of this movie, and I'm so glad I did.

The reason to watch it was Kate Winslet, hands down and by far my favorite actress. Since "Titanic", in which she delivered an elegant and contained performance (up until the point where her character rebelled against the status quo, and it just made no sense to be contained anymore), she's been continuously building a more than impressive resume. There are just so many beautiful and praiseworthy performances throughout her career (Quills, Iris, The Life of David Gale, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Finding Neverland, The Holiday, and the list goes on) that whenever she stars any picture, I can't help but think that there's at least an 80 % chance that it's gonna be great. She's made so many good choices (and delivered accordingly) that her participation in any movie works like a quality flag inside my head, and I'm usually not disappointed.

The reason not to watch this movie was "In the Bedroom", and the fact that I couldn't quite turn my mind away from the idea that, once again, Todd Field was doing a piece around the american family in suburbia. It was a pretty pre-conceived concept, I'll admit, but I was just so disappointed with "In the Bedroom" (how can anyone make a movie with Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek at the top of their game and still make it so boring?) that the idea of going through it again didn't appeal to me at all. I'll admitt "In the Bedroom" was a great vehicle for strong and Oscar-worthy performances, but it just couldn't keep me interested after the first 30 minutes of the movie.

But I decided to stick with my quality alert and watched it. Thank God I did.

After two hours of it had gone by, I found myself wishing what I had on my DVD player was some sort of extended version of "Little Children", that would last for at least another two hours, and not the 20 minutes it said on the Netflix movie pack. I know it sounds disturbing, since the movie is anything but light-hearted, but it was just so beautifully done, and once more, Kate was nothing short of perfect, that I just wanted it to go on and on and on.

I can't really put my finger on what this movie is about (which is usually a very good sign). I'm really out of words as to what the story is about, given the fact that it talks about so many different issues, and starting a list of those here seems like a waste of time, when you can just pick it up and watch it for yourself. Should be way funner.

A warning though: I know a few people who have watched this before me and completely and absolutely hated it. So be careful; it's a great movie, but I'm not sure what kind of audience it's aimed at. I give it 5 stars out of 5.

Dave Matthews Band at the Gorge

Yesterday, September 1st, 2007, I went to the Gorge and saw the Dave Matthews Band perform the second of a series of 3 shows the band is doing in the beautiful venue.

Let me tell you something about the Gorge. It's gorgeous (I don't do puns), but it's also far. Very far. So if you have an upcoming concert to go to, and it will take place at the Gorge, make sure you really really like the band.

Thankfully, that was the case yesterday. I've been a Dave Matthews Band fan for over 7 years now, and even though the last 3 records released by the band (Everyday, Busted Stuff and Stand Up) are not as great as the Holy Trinity (Under The Table and Dreaming, Crash and Before These Crowded Streets), the DMB still maintains its incredible and indisputable excellence on stage. It's funny how everytime you see them play, they do it as if it were the last time they ever would. You get total commitment to the audience and the music as Dave and his buddies drive people crazy with monster jams that keep music lovers in a sort of ecstasy, and at the same time tire out the people who've never listened to an entire CD and can't really enjoy good music unless there's a catchy chorus somewhere in the middle of the song. It's so easy to tell the two kinds of people apart. For people of the second type, as soon as the band starts playing a new song, if they don't recognize it as something they've heard on the radio, they quickly lose interest and start chatting to someone equally disinterested close by, waiting for the next song. By the way, those people are usually drunk or semi-drunk. Unless they're the ones onstage. :)

Anyway, the show was incredible, one of the best I've ever seen up until this point of my life. The set list follows below.

1. A Dream So Real
2. Two Step
3. Loving Wings
4. Where Are You Going
5. Corn Bread
6. Hunger for the Great Light
7. You Might Die Trying
8. #27
9. Don't Drink the Water
10. Eh Hee
11. Smooth Rider
12. The Stone
13. Dancing Nancies
14. Warehouse
15. Shotgun
16. So Much To Say
17. Anyone Seen the Bridge?
18. Too Much
19. Sister
20. Tripping Billies

As a band, the DMB has numerous memorable songs that every fan wants to hear live, but of course, it would be impossible for the band to keep its spirit of fun and originallity if they just went ahead and decided to play those songs in every performance. It just wouldn't fit the profile of this amazing and competent band. And even though, because of that, sometimes a fan (such as me) will leave the concert without hearing that one special song (Ants Marching, for instance), one of the unknown/unreleased ones will stand up (no puns, remember?) and fill the void. And this time it was a tiny yet powerfull song called "Sister". What a beautiful and pleasant surprise.

To wrap things ... when I left the Gorge yesterday at 11:30, after 2 and a half hours of great music, I was one happy motherf*cker. And I was gonna need all the happiness I could get, for the 2 and a half hour drive back to the Seattle area. I give it 5 stars out of 5.

Halloween

To anyone who's a huge fan of the cheesy (yet brilliant) horror movies from the 80's, a remake that brings back memories of the greatest monsters ever created in the history of movies (Freddy Krugger, Jason Vorhees, Michael Myers) is big news. Unfortunately, the last one I could think of (before tonight) was the hideous and totally unnecessary Freddy X Jason or vice-versa, I can't recall exacly and don't care enough to look it up. And that is why tonight I sit here writing this entry with a smile on my face. I mean, I'm not actually smiling, it's a mental smile, but you get the idea. When I watched "Devil's Rejects" a couple of years ago, persuaded by an old friend of mine who really had to work hard on convincing me to watch it, I saw in Rob Zombie a reasonably talented director, who employed a kind of raw style in most of his shots that made you cringe every time the knife went in. And believe me, it went in a lot of times. An even though I wasn't amazed with his directing skills (remember, I've been educated by the masters: Carpenter, Raimi, Romero, Craven, etc), it was clear enough that he would soon become better than most of the guys doing horror films today. Sadly, most of them need to engage in competition to see who can create the most explicit and disgusting gore scene to keep people on edge. And the sad thing is that many of them are talented (Eli Roth, James Wan), but still get corrupted by the power today's special effects give them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get the make-up and CG guys unemployed. I'm just trying to explain that I prefer the old school stuff, the ability to scare without showing much of what was going on. Ever seen "Jaws"? If you did (and you're the kind of person who pays attention to that sort of stuff), you know what I'm talking about. And you don't have to be Spielberg to do that kind of thing. Rob Zombie is far from being Spielberg and pulled it off just fine.

The new Halloween is not amazing. But gained my admiration for the simple fact that it respected the tradition created by this kind of movie. It was old school from beginning to end (except for the very violent scenes from the beginning, where little Mikey Myers goes beserk on his whole family - that you wouldn't see in the 80's) and still managed to get a great deal of screams from the audience. Of course you have the cynics (you always have the cynics), who spend the entire movie trying to make sure everyone around them understands they're not being fooled by what they're seeing on the screen, and that by God, they are not afraid, by giggling nervously at the most idiotic scenes, but I'd say most of the people in the theater were into the experience of the nostalgic movie made by Rob (nostalgic for me, at least). It's a bold movie, considering most horror movies that make big bucks nowadays have to try to outsmart the audience all the time, and this one doesn't. It's happy with showing the killer on the hunt, the sex scenes that ALWAYS end badly, and the dame who can't stop screaming when she should be quiet. And all of that, as if it weren't enough, enveloped by the classic and phenomenal theme created by John Carpenter, which turned out to be probably the most compelling and recognizable theme in the history of horror movies.

Other than that, I don't think I need to say anything else about the movie. It's Michael Myers. You know what to expect. And if you don't, too bad for you.

PS: The line "Was that the boogey man?" is a definite low in the movie. But I'll pretend I didn't hear it. I give it 3 stars out of 5.