Dubliners by James Joyce

Dubliners is a classic and it's often considered ground breaking work. It brings Dublin to the world, by showing the lives of several dubliners realisticaly ceating a touching portrait of life, not just in Dublin but in al the world. As there are characters of all ages, it shows the experience of growing up by the eyes of different characters. So, alone each story has its value and interest, but together they are masterful and meaningful. Some of the stories are much more interesting than others, even if all have good characters and something to say. My favorites were Eveline with its amazing leading character developed in 6 pages, Counterparts with another powerful lead and a horrifying ending, A Little Cloud, with another great point of view and heartbreakingly funny and The Dead, a subtle character study with a haunting twist and every emotion beautifully described. The writing is beautiful, with every feeling and emotion subtly captured and a realistic, even if poetic feeling about it. This is a deep, quite intense book with beautiful stories and writing.

The Straight Story

So, uh, what's the worst part about being old, Alvin?
Well, the worst part of being old is rememberin' when you was young.

The Straight Story is a beautiful, simple movie, a reflection about life and growing old. The story is simple: 73-year-old Alvin Straight makes a 500 km journey in a lawn mower to mend his relationship with his ill brother. During the way, he reflects about growing old, his life and his mistakes. The subtle way this is done is effective and gives the movie beauty, but the story is sometimes too slow, with nothing happening. The dialogs are good, sometimes quotable, even if once or twice I spotted obvious stories that could have been avoided. The characters are all very natural, and you believe them from the first minute you see them on the screen. They are all likeable because they are normal people, but always hopeful and with a certain innocence and able to accept life. The ending is, too, very simple but it works extremly well leaving you touched and moved.

The acting is very good. Richard Farnsworth gives a wonderful perfomrance. His character, on paper, isn't very interesting, but he's able to give Alvin dramatic nuances. He creates a man that slowly accepts growing old, ignores his pride and goes in a journey to meet his brother. He is stubborn, with a simple but pure morality. He has an amzing delivery of his lines, slowly, realistically, showing his character's controled emotions in a touching way. Sissy Spacek gives Rosie vulnerability and barely visible pain, never overacting. All the other cast members that make brief appearences do a good, even if not remarkable job, with good delivery of their lines.

The direction is brilliant. Lynch fills the movie with gorgeous shots and camera angles, that allow you not only to see the meaning of the screenplay and the great work by the actors', but you can see the beautiful roads and vegetation all around. His shots are steady and reflective just the right style for this movie.

The cinematography is very good, capturing the beauty of Lynch's wide shots and the faces in a clear way. The music is beautiful, giving the movie a nostalgic feeling. This is slow moving and sometimes boring; even so, it's technically impressive, beautiful and meaningful.

Frida

At the end of the day, we can endure much more than we think we can.

Frida is a beautiful, inspiring movie about the amazing Frida Kahlo and her struggles through life. Not only it gets you to understand her art much better but it's also a story about life and suffering told beautifully. The screenplay is very good, it doesn't have the feeling that most biopics have, like they're rushing to the end and don't really know the person they're talking about. This feels like fiction, because Frida Kahlo feels like a person, she has flaws, a convincing personality, she's not just a victim, and some moments of her life matter more than others. Her reactions have a reason, not like you're supposed to think that, as she's a genius, she's a bit mad. The other characters have a realistic feeling about them too, and Diego Riviera is fascinating. The dialogs are quotable and there are some inspiring lines.

The acting is very good by all the cast, but Salma Hayek has the most powerful acting and outacts everyone. She looks a lot like Frida Kahlo, but there's a lot more to her performance. She creates an impetuous, sensual, intelligent, able to enjoy life character, someone that suffers but endures everything. You can't take your eyes off her, her performance is just magnetic. She never overacts, and the most emotional scenes are beautifully done and really touching. Alfred Molina gives Diego Rivera an edgy charm and has a good body language, acting subtely and he has a great chemistry with Salma Hayek even if I think she's more responsible for this than him. Geoffrey Rush is great, he creates an humble, intelligent thoughtful character perfectly. Valerie Golino is very good playing a lost, drunk, sad woman and has very expressive eyes. Diego Luna and Edward Norton are very believable and make the most out of their small parts.

The direction is excellent. Julie Taymor gives her movie originality, having perfect control over every aspect of the mvoie. Not just the camera angles are beautiful and able to express ideas, feeling and thoughts greatly, but the music and the part of the movie in which it is placed is perfect. Besides it sounds beautiful and has a great rythm. The color of the movie is well chosen and makes it look exotic, warm and envolving with all the red, yellow and bright colors, contrasting with the dark themes aborded but giving you a sense of South America. The editing is often good, but some scenes last too much. It's a matter of seconds, but it can give those scenes an awkward feeling. Overall a great movie I recommend.

Happy Feet

We've got personality with a capital Y. Why? Because we're HOT!

This is another movie about pinguins, those lovely, cute, sweet-looking animals. It has gorgeous images, some of the best, most amazing animation I've ever seen. It's a joy to look at and a very enjoyable movie. The story is nice and you can relate to the pinguins and feel some empathy towards them. Some of the subplots are very good: the love story is beautiful, the coming-of-age is deliciously innocent, the family/society rejection subplot is intelligent but sometimes a bit forced and the «macho» pinguins subplot is laugh-out-loud funny. The worst subplot was the ecological one, it just tries too hard to pass its message. The dialogs are often very funny and intelligent, with a lot of jokes young kids won't get. The pace of the movie is mostly addequate and keeps you entertained, but it gets a bit to slow and forced in the end, which I didn't like.

The cinematography and the animaton are beautiful. They create gorgeous images, with a wonderful dimension, cute, lovely pinguins, and the humans are the most realistic I've ever seen. The water and the ice lok real as do all the other animals. The angles are amazing, they make the images even better. The music sounds great and has beautiful lyrics. Nicole Kidman, Brittany Murphy and Robin Wiliams are good singers especially Kidman, who has the most cristaline, pure voice that fits the part. Overall, it's a fun movie, good to look at but lacking a great story.

Crash (2005)

You think you know who you are. You have no idea.

I have no idea in why this won Best Picture and had so many great reviews. Here, every character is either racist or a victim of racism, and if he/she is a racist it's because there's a reason, some sort of trauma in his past. Every character is one-dimensional and learns a lesson in the end. The dialogs sound fake, and the ONLY theme is racism, racism, racism. That even makes it less realist because people tend to speak about several subjects. Paul Haggis seems to think people will only onderstand the message if he repeats it all the time. All with me "Racism is bad, racism is bad, racism is bad". Now repeat this 500 times and you'll have a good part of this movie done. Even if obviously this is an important message, you don't need it to be thrown into your face. The stories come together in unnatural way, using to many coincidences, making it look false and predictable after some time. The changes some of the characters go through in the end are ridicolous and there's no reason for the to happen. Even if this is not a boring movie, it tries too hard to get you to feel something. If the characters had been better this would have been possibly a good movie. I'm not saying all were bad; a few had a certain dimension and their struggles were touching.

The acting is the best thing about this movie. All the actors are very talented and make the most out of ther parts. Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Michael Peña, Thandie Newton, Terrence Howard aand Sandra Bullock (during the first part of the movie) were very god. The worst perfomance was by Ludacris, who just seemed too self-conscious and fake to me.

Paul haggis direction is lame.I know he lacks experience, but I think this movie needed a raw, realistic style, not the emotionally manipulative shots used. Al the slow moving scenes, the bad use of sound and the still camera in angles that lack interest are useless.

The technicals are good. The editing is simple and common in this type of movie, not original but well executed. The music is well chosen and beautiful. The photography, even if sometimes it should have been dirtier loking, creates some images with the right mood. Overall, this is NOT a great movie or even worthwile, but it has a bunch of good performances and a good message, even if badly transmited.

The Conversation

I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of murder.

This is a brilliant study on obsessive and paranoid behavior and the effect technology has in our lifes and society in general. It's about a surveilance expert, Harry Caul, who has a crisis of conscience when he susects that a couple he is spying on will be murdered. This had happened before and he feels very guilty about it. But can he really know what's happening, or did he lose something with the capture of the sound? Or is his mind playing tricks on him?

This has a briliant screenplay. The leading character is fascinating, and the pther characters are seen by his distorced eyes in a frightening way. The dialogs, especially the conversation the title mentions, are mind blowing, meaningful and hold clues to what's going to happen. The pace of the movie is just right and it keeps you guessing and on the edge of your seat. The story is interesting, reflective and intelligent, and all the touchy subjects the movie talks about are aborded with sensibility, even if sometimes they can make you feel uncomfortable. You get to a point in which you don't know what's reality and what isn't, making this thought provoking. It's simply a great screenplay.

The acting is all at least above average. Gene Hackman gives his tortured, paranoid, character complexity and sincerity. He disappears into his part and you believe everything he does. He gives the character vulnerability and his acting is one of the main things that made me see the story by his point of view. Frederick Forrest and Cindy Williams do a good job in creating dream-like characters in just one scene, and Cindy Williams has an amazing delivery of her lines. John Cazale makes his character likeable and has a convincing chemistry with Hackman. Harrison Ford makes a good impression in playing the bad guy, with his soft spokenways and strong eye expression that contrast.

The direction is amazing. Francis Ford Coppola not only gets great performances from the casting, but he choses meaningful camera angles, giving his movie an unique feeling, and gets the best work from the crew. The angles he choses suggest an invisible presence, peeking into Harry Caul's life. They can be truly claustrophobic and make you know the characters' feelings. They give you a sense of space and time the way it's experienced by Caul.

The technicals are all great. The sound plays a huge part in this movie, and it's intelligently manipulated. It connects with the images during the conversation itself in an original fashion, in a different rythm, volume and tone than reality, showing us Harry's point of view and how what we hear is not always what is there. The cinematography, with all the dark, dirty colors works in showing us Harry's trip to a personal hell and the sudden flashes of red-the hotel scene-are shocking and used hauntingly. The editing gives the movie its exciting, but reflective pace. I really recommend this. It's thought provoking, technically brilliant and haunting.

Night On Earth

Don't blind people usually weardark glasses?
Do they? I've never seen a blind person.

This is a truly amazing movie which I love. It has five different stories, each on a different city, with very different people, but al in a taxi. All the people are very different, with different background, ambitions, culture and personality, but in the end, so similar. I loved every part of it, some of them are very funny, others touching, depressing, heartbreaking, enjoyable or simply beautiful. They are all wonderful portraits of the city in which they happen. They don't show touristic locations, but how the cities really are and how people behave and think. Every story is well told, with great pace, amazing, believable dialogues and realistic characters that you get to know very well in little time. They work both together and alone. They're all great and I can't choose my favorite.

In the first segment, a young tomboy taxi driver meets a wealthy talent seeker, who wants to cast her in a movie. In New York, an afro american meets an immigrant, his cab driver, lost in the city. In Paris, a blind girl takes a ride with an irritable cab driver from the Ivory Coast and they talk about life and blindness. In Rome, a cab driver picks up a priest and starts confessing, and in Helsinki a miserable driver picks up three drunks and they speak about the most depressing things that ever happened to them.

The direction is amazing in al its simplicity. The camera angles are steady, usually focusing no the actors and allowing you to concentrate on the dialogs.But there are some that show the city, the cars passing, the buildings, lovers in the middle of the night, junkies, etc, and these have ususual quality.

The acting is great by everyone. Winona Ryder, frequently criticized, is in my opininon very funny and totally different from her other roles. I really enjoyed her acting. Gena Rowlands plays her "opposite" in a nice, underacting way. Armin Mueller-Stahl is very touching and expressive (the moment he says he was a clown is very beautiful), with an amazing use of his eyes. Giancarlo Esposito and Jennifer Perez are fun to watch, too. Béatrice Dalle is incredibly charismatic and believable as a blind young woman, and Isaach De Bankolé is good. Roberto Benigni is about as hilarious as you can get, in his one man show. His speech is obviously very funny, but Benigni makes it mind blowing. Some will hate it, though I couldn't stop laughing. Matti Pellonpää delivers his speech in a dramatic, depressive way but without overacting.

The cinematography and the music are beautiful, make this movie feel nostalgic and help linking the segments. This is a very original, worthwile movie.

Chinatown

Forget it, Jake,. It's Chinatown.

This is a noir mistery, with a dark, haunting story, great acting and a brilliant direction. Its ambience is just perfect. In this story, every character has complicated issues thgat can't be solved, a troubled past and sins they can't atone for. It's all very dark and misterious, and it gets you in the edge of your seat. The political part of the mistery keeps you guessing and it's incredibly competent, but the character development and their personal issues are even better.

The screenplay is mind-blowing. All of its subplots are perfectly developed and are understood just at the right time, they keep you guessing. The characters are all believable and interesting: Gittes (Jack Nicholson) and his obsession, Evelyn (Faye Dunaway) trying to get her life back together and, Noah Cross, the personification of evil, have a convincing, elaborated relationship with each other. They are all, in a way or another, trying to atone but in Chinatown there's no redemption. The dialogs have a lot of meaning and are thought provocking. Some show the hypocrisy of people and others just their weakness, always ina tense, disguised way. There are a bunch of quotable lines too. The ending is surprising but well done and very fitting. The themes are spoke of with maturity and sensibility.

The acting is great. Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway and John Huston have a very believable, amazing chemisrty between them, they seem to be always messing with the other's mind, trying to mistake him and convince him. All this is noticed just by a gaze, a movement or a blink. It's very subtle, but it makes the performances outstanding. Jack Nicholson creates a haunted character, strong but human. Faye Dunaway makes her character remarkably vulnerable and sad, even if at the same time a bit of a femme fatale. John Huston is evil, in his two scenes he's just perfect. All the secondary actors are talented and they make this movie better.

I highly enjoy Polanski's way of shooting, all the angles and camera movements he tends to use. He does a great job once again. The movie never gets tiring and some of the shots are breathtaking. They are a beautiful homage to older noir movies, even if still have their originality.

The music is haunting and it gives a movie a touch of originality. The editing pays homage to the noir movies from the 40's, showing the many layers of the story slowly and there's not one minute tat shouldn't be there. The cinematography, glossy but dirty, with an harsh, dark lighting creates the right ambience. Just brilliant and unmissable.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit' em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.

This is considered a literary masterpiece, and I found it very good. It's about racism in a small town during the 30's, and it's seen by the eyes of a young girl, Scout. The story is told in an old-fashioned, traditional, comforting way, and the pont of view is truly great. It captures the feeling of childhood and all the kids are realistic, not annoying little brats. The adults are all believable and interesting, especially Aticus. His advice is wise, it never sound forced and you have to like him and respect him. The building social and racial tension are well written, as is the kids' life, with all the everyday routines, small mysteries and adventures. All the attitudes peaople have and their irracionality ar just greatly portrayed. The writing is beautiful and simple, but full of remarkable sentences and quite lyrical. This book is general culture, and it's really beautiful. From the innocent Boo Radley mystery to the thought provocking trial goes a long way, but Lee is able of creating fascinating characters and a really thought provocking story.

The DaVinci Code

As long as there as been one true God, there has been killing in his name.

The DaVinci Code, the bestseller that sold as much as possible. This movie works...as a comedy. (Almost) everything is wrong on this, with the exception of Ian McKellen and some of the supporting cast. Come on, the book was a fun, exciting, light read, with a good sense of pace and a lot of interesting puzzles to solve. Not perfection or anything, but nice.

The movie just sucks. The screnplay has no sense of pace and it fails to keep you interested or making you feel anything by the characters. It just provokes a total detachment , and you can't avoid to feel all the story is ridicolous. The dialogs are clichéd and even if I didn't read the book (I didn't remember it very well, anyway) I would have been able to guess what was gonna happen next. All the flashbacks are useless and badly written, the emotional scenes lack any sort of meaning and all in all, this movie can't even entertain decently.

The direction is really, really awful. Ron Howard uses all the clichéd shots on the most clichéd order. He seems to think he's doing a brilliant job, with all the flashbacks done in a degradé way, so very kitsch, melodramatic and funny (that was not the objective). He fails to make this movie consistent or interesting, he isn't even OK.

The acting was the best thing about the movie, even if not too good. Tom Hanks is automatic and severely underused, you'd never say this is the same guy that delivered such an amazing performance in Forrest Gump and The Terminal. The same can be said for Audrey Tautou who was so amazing in Amélie. Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina and Jean Reno are underused and can't even develop their characters. Ian McKellen is the standout. He uses such a funny irony, wittycism and cynism in this character that he just becomes a joy to watch and the only thing worthy on this.

The music is very annoying, It's always trying to make scenes exciting, but it doesn't. It just manages to sound overplayed and too loud. The editing is terrible; the movie lacks a decent pace and the scenes come and go in a meaningless, boring order and the transitions are amateur. The cinematography is sappy, with the colour used in an obvious way. It's meant to be very touching and beautiful, but it isn't. Overall, a movie that should be avoided by everyone. Recomend this to your worst enemies. I pity them.

Chicago

You wanted advice? Well here it is...straight from me to you...keep your paws off my underwear.

I watched this movie with low hopes, since admittedly I don't like musicals (Moulin Rouge and Romance & Cigarettes are the exceptions). This isn't bad, it's just fluff with everyone dancing and a happy ending. The story is fine, the directing is pretty good, the acting in worth watching, the wardrobe, cinematography and sets are all OK, and the editing is mediocre.

Even if the story is clichéd and very moralistic, it's entertaining. The characters aren't really well written, but they're well played and so it's not too noticable. The dialogs and relationships between the characters are very predictable. It lacks meaning and it seems like it has nothing to say, it just wants entertain a bit.

The actors all work effectively, but the clichéd characters don't help. Renee Zellweger looks a bit unconfortable while dancing, but she can express the contradictions, feelings and transformations of her character quite well. Catherine Zeta Jones isn't half as sexy as her character is meant to be, but she uses her eyes, body and voice in an interesting, sometimes funny way. Richard Gere can be annoying but charming and John C Reilly has the most likeable, touching character, even if awfully stereotyped. Queen Latifah nomination for Best Supporting Actress is a total joke, she did nothing worth seeing.

The main problem I have with this is that question that always comes to my mind when watching a musical: "Why the heck is everyone dancing all of sudden?". As the movie didn't absorb me, I just found it ridicolous. Still, I admit these were good choreographies, even if too theatre like. This feels like a stage play, not like a film, so the adaptation isn't realy good. The lyrics and the dances go from very good to laughable.

The directiong is good but... well, let's just say it's classic and without brilliance or originaity. The colors of the movie, glamorous and fluffy, fit the rest of it and accentuate the glamour. The editing is far from good, I can't see how it won the Oscar. Everyone just seems to start dancing out of no where, without any type of real connection. The sets are too much like stage play ones but the wardrobe is fitting. This didn't deserve Best Pic, far fromit, it's just an OK movie.

Manhattan

I think people should mate for life, like pigeons or catholics.

Manhattan might just be one of the best movies ever. Its style, themes and humor are obviously similar to other Allen movies, but this one has a touch of class and beauty that makes it quite unique. It talks about a group of new york intellectuals: Isaac (Woody Allen), a man on his 40's dating a 17 year old girl, Tracy (Mariel Hemingway), and lusting for Mary (Diane Keaton), who's his best friend's lover. At the same time, he's trying to come to terms with his lesbian ex-wife, Jill (Meryl Streep). The story keeps you hooked, and the realistic, very flawed characters are interesting. The dialogs have a lot of wit and intelligence, as in all Woody movies, but there's something else: some of the scenes with Mariel Hermingway are heartbreaking, and a lot of others are dramatic and sad. The storyline and the characters are some of the best ever, the nostalgic mood and the insignificance of these lifes are just beautiful.

The acting is simply great, and all the actors have a good chemistry between them. Woody Allen plays himself, but damn well, Diane Keaton is funny and good, too, but Mery Streep and especially Mariel Hemingway steal the show. MerylStreep plays a totally different character, I had never seen her like this before. She has the funniest delivery of lines, the best way of disappearing into her character ands showing all type of emotions. Mariel Hemingway transmits beauty, innocence and love in a pure, believable way. Her character is the most likeable and she makes the most out of that.

The gorgeous cinematography helps making this movie great and gives it its ambience and mood. The simple way Allen shoots the movie, with wide shots that capture a moment, a feeling, an emotion subtly, lets it breathe. It shows you New York with a lot of beauty and obviously Allen's love comes across. The editing is simple but effective, and there's not one second of the movie that shouldn't be there. Simply brilliant.

How To Be Good by Nick Hornby

Sometimes we have to be judged by our one-offs.

Wonderfully funny, enjoyable and intelligent, these are some of the adjectives that best describe this book. I had never read anything by Nick Hornby, but I had watched two movies based on his books, High Fidelity and About a Boy, which I enjoyed. The best thing on How To Be Good is its originality and freshness. A subject almost no one else has written about- how would a truly good person get along in the 21st century?, a witty, funy voice, and thought provoking questions make this truly great. The beginning isn't that good, but the witty remarks start and the characters are slowly, smartly developed. Then all the story changes, and that's when things get interesting. Katie, who's unhappily married to the cynical David, sees all her life changing when her husband meets GoodNews, a spiritual healer that makes David wanna change the world. It sounds pretty dumb, but all the dillemas the characters face, the empathy you feel for them make this worthy. I highly recommend this to anyone looking for a nice, original, witty and still sweet book.

The Last King of Scotland by Giles Foden

This is a dark drama about a young scottish doctor in Uganda during Idi Amin's brutal regime, and the relationship he has with this dictator. This is a slow paced book, and the leading characters are well developed and have depth. This book is filled with descriptions, and all of them have a beautiful feeling of Africa and can be breathtaking. Idi Amin's personality is fascinating and contradictory, one of the most evil villains I've ever read. Nicholas Garrigan, the doctor, suffers an amazing, even if realistic, change during the book. The supporting characters aren't really good; Sara and Marina are clichéd and the later should have been cut from the story. The ending could have been better, but the fascinating leading characters, the beautiful, sometimes horrifying descriptions and the exotic feeling of this book make it worthy if you're looking for a character study or descriptive thriller. This is a good, even if flawed, first book.