Love and Other Drugs

(112 min, 2010)
Director: Edward Zwick
Writers: Charles Randolph (screenplay), Edward Zwick (screenplay),
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway and Judy Greer

Sex over substance

Maggie (Anne Hathaway) is an alluring free spirit who won't let anyone - or anything - tie her down. But she meets her match in Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal), whose relentless and nearly infallible charm serve him well with the ladies and in the cutthroat world of pharmaceutical sales. Maggie and Jamie's evolving relationship takes them both by surprise, as they find themselves under the influence of the ultimate drug: love.

Ah, how I loved the 90s. The time when MTV actually played good music, when Johnny Depp wasn't the object of incisive salivation of 13 year-old girls, when actual good singers were considered to be good singers, not plastic platinum blondes and when “Friends” were on TV. So the beginning of “Love and other drugs”, set in 1996 when we hear “"Two Princes" in the background started off promising. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from that moment.

There are two things that annoy the living hell out of me when I watch comedies – when it's not funny and you can clearly see when director wanted you too laugh, it was just too lame of attempt to succeed and when you are bored so much you split your focus and start doing something else. During this particular movie I actually started feeding my virtual cat slash dog on Facebook. That's how bored I was.

The biggest problem is that you just don't care. The characters, main characters that is, are likeable but their story is not interesting enough. Maggie has Parkinson's disease and she immerses herself into empty sex and helping older people get medication. Jamie is a guy who also loves empty sex and works for pharmaceutical company. So the two, as you can imagine, meet in doctors office. Maggie hits Jaime with her bag because he saw her breasts, he calls her few days later, they meet, they have sex and so it goes. Maggie doesn't want anything serious, Jaime is good with that, but over time, surprise, surprise! He falls for her.

The first part of the movie is borderline watchable with some funny moments and lovely nudity, which I gathered actually required preparations - in designing the sex scenes, director Edward Zwick had the principals watch romantic comedies and sexually charged films (everything from "Pillow Talk" to "9 Songs" to "Last Tango In Paris") and talk about what turned them on. Then some of those shots and ideas were incorporated into the making of. It seems more effort was put into sex scenes than in actual script. But kudos to the cast and crew for this – actual nudity is hard to come across in movies nowadays, where producers frantically try to cover actors with clothes to get PG-13 ratings and earn more money. I'm talking to you people, who had the audacity to serve us this ridiculous “love scene” in “Public Enemies” where Depp and Cotilliard roll over bed in their clothes. If you don't have the guts to show love or sex don't prolong already mind numbingly boring movie with something like this. You actually made me add one point to “Love and other drugs” for not being ridiculous in at least that department.

It is only in a world where we have to see scenes like before mentioned “Public enemies” where the nudity in “Love and other drugs” can cause scandal. And it did. Hold your horses, people – it's over hyped. For a Hollywood movie it's a lot, but it's actually tasteful. If there is anything good about this film it's the approach towards showing love scenes and the main performances.

Gyllenhaal is very good as charming young man who is on a road to success and Hathaway is excellent as a girl struggling with serious illness. He is attractive, she is pretty. They are adorable and it's only because of casting we have sympathy for Jaime and Maggie – after all he is playboy who uses girls for his own benefit and she is selfish and acts heartless. When they have their casual encounters there is a lot of chemistry, but when movie tries to turn into something serious, it's not believable. We don't believe that they love each other. It's only the script's fault. Whoever wrote this should be publicly whipped, actually. Why go the conventional way? Why try to make us believe people who don't care for love fell pray to it? Why can't a woman just have sex with whoever she wants and why can't a guy just score girls without meeting the one to spend his life with? The script of this movie borders on science fiction. Some people just aren't made for chasing after their “love”.

In addition to being a mess the movie also has wasted potential – there are some great scenes and lines, but overall the experience of watching “Love and other drugs” is extremely tiring. I think the only people who would enjoy this movie are fans of Gyllenhaal and Hathaway. But honestly, if you wanna see them both naked just watch “Brokeback Mountain” again. Don't waste time with the movie, which own makers didn't know what they want to accomplish with.

46/100

Read More

Eden Lake

(91 min, 2008)
Director: James Watkins
Writer: James Watkins
Stars: Kelly Reilly, Michael Fassbender and Tara Ellis

oh, Children!

Stephen Taylor (Michael Fassbender) invites his girlfriend (Kelly Reilly), a kindergarten teacher Jenny, to spend the weekend in Eden Lake, a paradisaical and remote place in the woods. However, his true intention is to propose Jenny. While camping at the lake shore, they are disturbed by a gang of loathsome boys leaded by the punk Brett. The next day, the couple realizes that they have been robbed and are stranded in the woods without their car. While walking through the forest trying to reach the road, Steve and Jenny meet the gang and they are brutally attacked. Steve is captured by the youths while Jenny is seeks a way out of the woods with the criminals chasing her.

I want to say upfront – I love kids. I want to have three myself. Whenever I turn on the news and I hear something bad happened to a child I instantly have tears in my eyes. But as I sometimes wonder about my future kids' possible names and how would they look like I always think of infants and kinder garden kids, never about the time when they start to rebel. Teenagers are hell, no matter where they are and who raises them. But hell has many different shades - there is a difference between smoking cigarettes in school bathroom when they are fifteen and torturing strangers when they are twelve.

“Eden Lake” tells a story that can happen to anyone and that is the most petrifying aspect of the film. When you're watching it you think that something like this cannot possibly happen in today's world, but then you start thinking and you come to the conclusion that sadly it is, in fact, our horrible reality – that children like those in the movie can be seen anywhere around us. Stephan and Jenny are a normal couple – she's sweet, loves kids as she is kinder garden teacher. He is trying to look like a macho in front of her, but as he wants to propose, he takes her for romantic weekend at the lake.



The two ride to isolated area near small English city, inhabited by poor and uneducated people. Comparing to them, Stephan and Jenny look almost like snobbish yuppies. Soon upon arrival the couple has unpleasant encounter with the kids from the city – they play their music too loud and Stephan comes over to ask them to turn it down. They don't listen, they mock him and then they are starting to become more and more aggressive. What we witness for the rest of the movie is a horrifying escalation of pointless violence. Awful especially that it is inflicted by 12-year old kids.

We all know that if a minor commits the crime his responsibility for it is treated differently. The criminal doesn't go to prison, but to juvenile hall, he serves less time. But why is it exactly? It is because those children are supposed to be shaped, thought and guided in life by their parents and if such guidance is not provided, if from the very beginning they entered this world they had no role modes, no moral rules, no ethic code to follow, they had no chance to grow up to be decent human beings. As we see kids' parents in this movie, one may wonder if the right solution wouldn't be for parents to get more serious punishments for how they children behave.
As I watched everyone in this movie with the exception of Stephan and Jenny it has occurred to me that these creatures are like mutants from “The hills have eyes” with one exception. They do not groan – they spit out primitive swear words. I like thinking that people are in fact highest form of evolution, that we have souls, that we will go on, but I know, deep inside, that it is not true. This movie like very few others before it shows something that is the truth – people are animals. And maybe even worse. If nobody gave us rules or punished us when we did wrong, we would still kill each other on daily basis, each and every one of us. Cave people, no more or less. Left by society, that's how people end up.

Apart from brutal conclusions after its over, “Eden lake” serves brutal things throughout – I do not know what was worse in terms of unpleasantness – the gore or the primitive behavior of the trash that tortured protagonists. It's rare that I cheer when someone dies in the movie and I did here and I think for the first time ever I cheered when, let's face it, somebody's child was killed. At least Damien from “Omen” had class.

Stephan and Jenny are far from perfect. Stephan does something foolish and Jenny does so too by not stopping him in his actions – first they go to remote place inhabited by people, near whom I'd personally be afraid to sit next to in the bus, let alone stay in a tent. Then, Stephan actually tries to reason with them. You do not reason with people like this, you go away, fast and as far as you can. One thing that puzzles me and it's just me as I'm sure not many would actually do what I'd do – why not take a gun with you? Or some other kind of weapon? I can't even imagine going somewhere that remote without bigger group, but if someone actually convinced me to go to such, pardon my french, shithole only with my boyfriend I'd agree on one condition – we take a gun. Another thing, that not so much confused as enraged me, was when Stephan was bothered when the music was too loud but when one of those pitiful excuses for human beings took out his penis and started to wave around it in front of Jenny, he did nothing. If I was her, he'd be in a lot of trouble.

But because those characters make mistakes, as idiotic as those mistakes are, we sympathize with them especially that they don't give up and put up a fight. Especially Jenny, whose profession was quite simple but a smart move on screenwriter's part and her incredible strength and will to survive are impressive. Kelly Reilly, whom I only saw before in “Sherlock Holmes” and “Pride and Prejudice” is excellent here and Michael Fassbender, one of the cinema's raising stars (his recent projects include “Jane Eyre”,”A Dangerous Method”, X-Men-First Class” and “Prometheus”) is as usual great. The film's ending is as brutal and uncompromising as is its message. It's a very shocking movie and it's definitely not for people with weak nerves.

70/100

Read More

The Young Victoria

(105 min, 2009)
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Writer: Julian Fellowes
Stars: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend and Paul Bettany 

The girl, the queen.

I'm in love with this movie. So rarely I get to see moving, touching, fascinating depiction of reign. "Golden Age" was a huge disappointment, "Alexander" sucked immensely. The only two recent good films about monarchy that come to my mind are "The Queen" and "Elizabeth". And this one is better than both of those, in style and emotions presented, at least.

From few years UK has one historical drama they push to Oscar race - "Pride and Prejudice", "The Dutchess", "Atonement". This time there is no Keira in the movie. And perhaps this is why I loved it. Each year I give my own oscars and I was almost sure I will reward Tilda Swinton for Julia. But no, the hell I won't. Emily Blunt's performance in this movie is masterful. I love this actress - she was superb in 'The Devil Wears Prada' and the best thing about 'Sunshine Cleaning'. In this film she reminded me a lot of young Kate Winslet, before she started her epic award-baiting - I mean lovely, lively and unforgettable Winslet from 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'Titanic'. Blunt's role in this movie is just so...beyond words. She plays the queen, but first of all she plays young woman - lively, filled with energy, frolic, proud and joyful. The scene where Victoria finds out about death of the king and the fact she is now the ruler is amazing - Blunt captures so many emotions in such short scene. The movie is worth seeing just to witness her performance, so peaceful and calm and yet complex and filled with passionate emotions.

I had no idea who was in the supporting cast prior to seeing this movie - it turned out to be very impressive ensemble - Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, Mark Strong, Paul Bettany - great performance - and Rupert Friend, young soldier from 'Boy in striped pyjamas' as prince Albert, Victoria's love interest.

I cannot even express how much I loved seeing a royal couple in love. Usually when we see drama like this the princess always hates her husband and whines for 3/4 of the movie about her fate and usually has passionate, tragic romance with other man. Here the queen and prince were in love and Blunt and Friend had awesome chemistry. I cried like an idiot during the proposal scene.

The score for the movie is beautiful, I have to say in top 5 of that paticuliar year. The costumes are amazing. As for accuracy I believe some things - like Albert getting shot - were made more...spectacular than they really were. But the movie is not only beautiful, it is interesting, funny at times, contains wonderful performances and it holds viewer interest throughout the film. Finally a film, that I will definitely see more than once.

91/100

Read More

The Hours

(114 min, 2002)
Director: Stephen Daldry
Writers: Michael Cunningham (novel), David Hare (screenplay)
Stars: Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman and Julianne Moore

Hours, days, years, moments, lives.

(spoilers ahead)
“The Hours” is one of the most powerful movies I've seen. But before I get to describe the actual story I want to go through the structure of the film. There are many common motives in the movie – suicide (Laura's attempt, Richard's death, Virginia's final escape), eggs, flowers, books, service people who don't understand their customers (Flower lady who didn't get Richard's book, Virginia's cook who is mean to her, Laura's babysitter friend), kids we can rely on, that somehow make us confess more than we wanted to, devoted partners, on whom we can count on, even if we don't deserve it, moments of total desolation, the release of real feelings when important visitor comes around, the kiss – whether it is long overdue (Clarissa), the dream come true (Laura) or quick impulse and the sign of affection (Virginia).

Three women, each living in different time, different city. But they all have all those things in common. They actually have something in common with all of us – the feeling of despair, of being lost, alone. Solitude. Although they are surrounded by people.

The bravest one of all three is Clarissa. She lives with her partner Sally, she is a publisher, she has a daughter. She also takes care of her friend Richard, who is dying of AIDS. Every single day she is busy, she is in constant motion, running errands, doing housework, working, buying flowers she adores. "Always giving parties to cover the silence". It's her way of coping with the fact her life is running away from her, before her own eyes. And her dream ran away long time ago. She loves Richard and she only had one magical summer with him. After that he left her for Louis. When Louis visits Clarissa, on the occasion of big party she is throwing for Richard few hours later, she breaks down. He was the one, her one and only, and he spent his life with someone else and now she is taking care of him, long after his best years, watching him slip out of consciousness, sanity and life, being reminded every single day that her dream will never come true.

Virginia Woolf is kept in the countryside, for her own good, by her husband. She had deep depression, she tried to commit suicide. She can't find joy in this quiet place and hopes desperately to get back to frenzy and life beaming London. Virginia is working on the book, „Mrs Dolloway” which will make the most literal connection in the plot between three women. Virginia is a rebel, she doesn't except any rules or conventions Her servants mock her and she is scared of them. Being left alone in a peaceful place like that only makes her feel worse – after all, all she has is the time and peace for her thoughts and ideas. Sometimes too much thinking, especially abut dark matters, especially by someone with vivid imagination and great brilliance is the worst possible thing. Her husband who deeply believes he is saving her, by keeping her away from havoc, finally comes to understanding that she will never be happy in the place like that. Her selfishness and his love is perfectibility portrayed in the scene on train station, where Virginia finally understands exactly how much her husband loves her. So much he condemns himself of being alive when she'll be dead, so much he will willingly go through her illness worsening and her condition deteriorating.



The only coward in the story, and I will always view her as coward is Julianne Moore's character – Laura. Trapped housewive, living in a marriage with a husband she presumably doesn't love, with a son she doesn't have much of a connection. Pregnant, alone, strange. How many wives like that were portrayed in movies? It seems to me fifties were some terrible time for relationships,.like literally the worst time to get married. But with Laura I just cannot understand – she has nice son, she has a new baby inside her, let's not forget – the greatest gift. And she knows it is a greatest gift – her neighbor, who Laura likes, maybe even loves visits her and says that she maybe not able to have children. She says that she envies Laura being a mother. She doesn't understand that. I don't think she has any maternal instinct, at all. Later on Laura will attempt to commit suicide in hotel room, dropping off her child to the neighbor, after reading „Mrs Dolloway”. She won't be able to do it. I think she didn't do it out of fear – fear of death itself, fear of guilt, if she had killed her own child. But as we find out later – she did leave her family shortly after giving birth to a daughter. Her son will later on grow up to be Richard. Filled with issues, unhappy, crying whilst seeing his mother wedding picture. Laura will visit Clarissa many years later, after her son kills himself. Clarissa's daughter will hug her. I think in this moment of being hugged, by somebody's daughter Laura realized exactly what kind of monster she was. I don't think she could have found happiness – the woman who abandoned two of her kids, will never have that. The very guilt she was fearing in that hotel room must have haunt her through her entire life.

The great deal of the film is devoted to the subject of escaping. But escape is never an answer. Laura didn't find happiness and she condemned three people in her life, and then people in their life to sadness. Maybe if she didn't leave, Richard would never jumped out of the window before Clarissa's eyes? She is responsible for so much misery and pain, because of her selfish actions. As is Virginia who killed herself and left her devoted husband in mourning. But at least she gave warnings, something Laura never did. Her husband seemed like a good man and she never opened up to him. I cannot believe there are people out there calling her actions „courageous”.

Let's talk about symbolism in the movie – egg, which is being used in the kitchen Virginia is when she is arguing with her cook – the camera deliberately shows the shell being broken – a sign of tension rising. Same thing happens in Clarissa's story when Louis visits. Life is escaping, going farther and farther away with each second. Laura uses eggs to make a cake for her husband. The cake is ruined, she has to do another one. But not before she breaks down. She knows the cake wasn't perfect because her intention and feelings are filled with lies. The other symbol is flowers – given to somebody who is either dead – the bird – or who will die literally – Richard – or metaphorically – Laura. They also the symbol for woman, on whom the story is focusing.

The most important line in the movie is being said by Leonard Woolf “Why does someone has to die?”. He asks Virginia, who is working on her novel and who insists on killing off one of the characters. She responds that this is necessary so that other people would appreciate life more. And sadly it is true. We all appreciate life only when someone close to us is gone or when we are about to lose it ourselves. But not only then – we just need to realize how mortal and fragile we are and that's it. Clarissa gets to see the love of her life's death and that makes her appreciate that above all she has people who love her and after all, despite the void - she is alive. She is actually free to do whatever she wants. After talking to Laura, after seeing that choosing, allegedly, easier way is not an answer, Clarrisa kisses her partner and finally finds relief. Because all her work didn't go to waste. She has good life and another human being's death let's her appreciate that. With Virginia it is the dead bird she finds in the garden. “Females are larger and more colorful” - that line is not a coincidence. Virginia sees how peaceful the bird is and she envies that feeling. Years later she will find her own peace. Perhaps had Laura encountered death she would appreciate her situation more. Her neighbor Kitty is worried about her health, perhaps the fear it induces on Laura went the wrong way – instead of realizing how fortunate she is, Laura focuses on what may happen if her neighbor will disappear. And she runs, hides and condemns herself on everyone's damnation.

The movie has three powerful performances – Nicole Kidman in very unusual role won Academy Award for her portrayal of Virginia. That is great performance, but not nearly as great as Moore's and Streep's. Julianne Moore created her best performance here – her character is not likeable, I doubt if there are many who would understand her – maybe her situation, but definitely not her choices. However this is an outstanding work, built with very subtle details. Certainly, she created very memorable performance. But the best one is Meryl Streep, who can be extremely convincing in any role. Her Clarrissa has both strength, admirable strength and vulnerability. The moment when she breaks down in the kitchen is one of the best acting moments I've seen. The rest of the cast is so acclaimed it is rare to see such ensemble – terrific Ed Harris as Louis, John C. Reilly as Laura's husband, fantastic Stephan Dillane as loving Leonard Woolf. It also features Claire Danes, Toni Collette, who can be so incredible even if she only appears in one scene, Jeff Daniels and Miranda Richardson.

The movie has beautiful cinematography, fantastic editing which shows poignantly the connections between all three stories and wonderful, haunting soundtrack by Philip Glass, which is one of my favorite music scores of all time. This film asks difficult questions and leaves answering them to the audience. By the end of the film, much like Clarissa it makes us appreciate what we got, even if we seemingly have so little. It is very heavy, thought-provoking and difficult. But it's certainly one of the best films I've seen.

"To look life in the face, always, to look life in the face and to know it for what it is. At last to know it, to love it for what it is, and then, to put it away. Leonard, always the years between us, always the years. Always the love. Always the hours." 

97/100

Read More

Time Traveler's Wife

(107 min, 2009)
Director: Robert Schwentke
Writers: Bruce Joel Rubin (screenplay), Audrey Niffenegger (novel)
Stars: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams and Ron Livingston

You pull me through time

Confusion never stops, closing walls and ticking clocks
Come back and take you home, I could not stop, that you now know
Come out upon my seas, curse missed opportunities (am I),
A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease
You are
And nothing else compares,
Oh no nothing else compares,
And nothing else compares
You are
Home, home, where I wanted to go
- "Clocks", Coldplay

I love romances with a bit of science fiction in them, like Vanilla Sky, Solaris, The Fountain and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. All of those are in my top 25. Why? Well for one, those are exceptional movies. Also - I believe love is a miracle, something that cannot be explained. That kind of magic, deserves more magic around it, hence on screen it conquers death, it conquers science, it conquers time. That is not unusual, love can do all those things. It is the only thing, in fact, that can.

I was very hyped to see this film, the trailer looked incredibly emotional and I take so much sick pleasure in watching romances. The key to the success is to have chemistry between actors - lovely Rachel McAdams and very handsome Eric Bana definitely had a lot of it. Bana is playing a man who travels through time, back and forth, to see the woman he loves. The movie is incredibly bittersweet and has many powerful scenes, I even shed a tear on certain of them and that's a sign of a good love story.



The sci-fi element is basically a background to the story, it creates another obstacle in already difficult subject of love and all that drama. I am eternally confused about time travel stories so I didn't even try to understand how it works in this one, instead I just kept watching. After all, ultimately it's all about the feeling itself and the characters.

Bana is incredibly talented, I knew this since I saw “Troy” - actor who can create actual performance in a movie that bad is really a great one. And Bana can truly be anyone – cold soldier in “Black Hawk Down”, villain in “Star Trek” or cheating husband in “Funny People” - to this day I cannot believe the stuff that came out of his mouth in this one. Here he is lovestruck Henry and he fits the role perfectly. He seems like such a nice person so I prefer seeing him as hero not as a villain.

Rachel McAdams is too lucky – in recent years she appeared in truly wonderful movies - “The Notebook”, “State of Play” and of course “Sherlock Holmes” - even though I see her as huge miscast in that one, she still managed not to disappoint. And she is really lucky with the actors who play her love interests. Maybe that's why I cannot bring myself to like her. She is good and believable, but she lacks that magical spark which all great actress have. With Blanchett and Swinton I watch the movie because of them. I don't think it will ever be the case with McAdams for me.

The movie features perfect song for it “Clocks” by Coldplay and oh man, did they screw up on this one. The final meadow scene where Clare and Henry are running towards each other would have been so much more powerful if it had featured the climax of “Clocks”. I love music in movies, I often wonder which song would fit the scene best, the only thing that can make certain scenes more beautiful then they already are is a good choice of song. But even without it, it's still a lovely scene. And that great tragedy – In the novel the movie is based on, Claire spent her whole life waiting for Henry to see him again. And he knew precisely how many times he will get to see her. Not only was their life chopped to pieces, they kept waiting for more, knowing that there is a great chance they will never see each other again. Even if Henry tells her not to wait for him, she will. The only worse tragedy than falling in love is being unable to spend your life with the person you most want to.

The visual side of the movie fits the story well, the music by Mychael Danna, which was criticized by many, actually plays out nicely in the background. And the structure of the story is not very confusing – you won't be lost, even if like me – you don't know much about time travel.
The film is not as good as the ones I mentioned in the beginning, but it is very moving, beautiful and it features fine acting. What more to expect from love story?

70/100

Read More

August Rush

(114 min, 2007)
Director: Kirsten Sheridan
Writers: Nick Castle (screenplay), James V. Hart (screenplay)
Stars: Freddie Highmore, Keri Russell and Jonathan Rhys Meyers

Saccharine sounds

As a romantic, I love heartwarming movies and fairy tales - I believe in soapy stuff like soul mates, destiny, love at first sight - it's rare, but one can't be sure it doesn't happen. But I hate too much sugar and sweetness and there is such thing as too much sentimentality in a film - „August Rush” is an example of the sentimentality and sweet lovey dovey moments in such concentration it will make you nauseous, maybe even sick to the point you fast forward.

The story goes like that – Lyla, violinist and Louis, singer for rock band spend the night together and fall in love. The boy is not right for her according to her dad, so their ways part. But a child is born some time later and because of lies and intrigue Lyla doesn't know it is alive. 11 years later that child uses music to find his parents.

The child, named Evan has a wondrous music gift and can create symphonies out of nowhere – too bad that, except for the last few moments in the movie, those symphonies of his sounded more like irritating noise to me. I never thought I'm going to say that but „The Soloist” puts this movie to shame in this area. And „The Soloist” is an awful movie. Plus the amazing gift to create music subplot doesn't even work here - it's too absurd. When you are watching a movie like this you are supposed to automatically buy the things you see. When I was watching "Perfume" I didn't have to wonder why Grenouille had this amazing gift of hightened scent, I just kept watching the movie without any "but how?". Here not only I couldn't listen to that "music" without cringing, its origin - which basically was, what? God, magic, unicorns and rainbows? - puzzled me throughout the film.



To make matters worse the kid is played by Freddie Highmore, whom I can't stand. The kid apparently impressed Johnny Depp because after they worked in „Finding Neverland” Depp recommended him for „Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. Why, I can't understand. He is not awful. but he is so whiny and acts so silly I really can't care for him enough to stare at his actions for 120 minutes. Haley Joel Osment used to bug me too, but not to this level.

I have no problem with fairytale elements, but somewhere around the time when Robin Williams appears, he begins to ruin the movie. The Lyla/Louis story is fantastic to watch, but halfway through the film I didn't care about the kid and what is going on around him. Williams's awful performance was so annoying it reminded me of those creepy old people from each part of „Home Alone” and brought the, at first, magical movie to the level of Disney's television movies played on TV on Sunday's afternoon. I'm reading Williams was inspired by Bono during creating that character, well, in that case If I were Bono I'd sue. Why was he in the movie? Because every time kids and fairy tales are involved Williams just has to be on screen?

And about that sentimentality – that is the movie you can't understand, dissect – you have to feel its mood and take a leap of faith. You have to get in this fragile, amazing mood when you sense everything is possible. Too bad the cluster, the noise and awful scenes with Williams snap you out of this illusion, brutally. The movie is too uneven to be good. There are really good scenes, only to be followed by awful ones, the screenplay seems like a raw version which nobody corrected and director Kirsten Sheridan's work is so lousy no wonder she didn't direct any more movies since “August Rush”.

It is a shame, a big shame because the scenes with Lyla and Louis, then Lyla's frantic effort to find her son and Louis's search for Lyla are wonderful. Now, had the movie only focused on them, it would easily get at least 8 stars from me. I can't believe Jonathan Rhys Meyers played nice guy. He always seems very arrogant to me and his performances proved that – he is always so good playing jerks, sending the women he lusts over to get their head cut off or shooting them with huge shotgun himself. Here he is very sweet and even vulnerable - I was stunned. And Keri Russel who played sweet violinist Lyla was very good too – her angelic looks fit the character and she was convincing plus she had few really good scenes.

The music in the movie is altogether messy but has some good moments – I forgot how well Meyers can sing – after all he sung in „Velvet Goldmine” which I love, but it is always astonishing to me when I watch the movie and suddenly I hear actors singing better than most vocalists nowadays.

"August Rush"is worth watching for Lyla/Louis story, some decent songs and quite good final sequence, which, ironically is not sweet enough – no hugs? No kisses? I have to admit - that is one peculiar movie, but most of all it's very overrated.

60/100

Read More

Chloe

(96 min, 2009)
Plot: A doctor hires an escort to seduce her husband, whom she suspects of cheating, though unforeseen events put the family in danger.
Director: Atom Egoyan
Writers: Erin Cressida Wilson (screenplay), Anne Fontaine (motion picture "Nathalie")
Stars: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson
(spoilers)

Hairpin fiasco

This movie had a potential but one of the worst casting decisions I've seen blew it. That and in addition implausible script, but sometimes the actors are so good, you try hard not to notice how silly the story really is. However, Amanda Seyfried has managed to screw up so badly, even actors like Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore at their finest cannot rescue „Chloe”.

I have no idea who thought casting Seyfried as exclusive hooker would be a good idea. She doesn't have the looks for it. You know, how the reviewers write things like „an actress of unique beauty” when they don't wanna say someone is far from being beautiful? Yeah, that's the case. She has nice body and very pretty hair, but out of thousands of hookers in the world the idea that this one would actually get clients is just preposterous. Bulging eyes don't make her interesting. But that's not the worst - she acts slutty, she behaves in a vulgar way, common way, without giving viewer a hint of knowledge that she would actually be capable of making a man desire her. She was supposed to be mysterious and fascinating, instead that whole performance is forced and laughable. To call her 'whorish' in this film would be a compliment, I find the word itself to have more class than her performance. When trailer triumphantly says 'and Amanda Seyfried as Chloe” I guess it was supposed to drag all the „Mamma Mia” fans to the theater. Horrible, horrible casting. I mean are we really in such deep crisis that we don't have beautiful young actress? Is Scarlett and Angelina all we got? Amanda should stick to the roles like her work in “Big Love” and “Jennifer's Body”. This is, well, out of her league.

It is almost insulting for me as a movie fan, that Liam Neeson and Julianne where in the same movie with Seyfried. They are both outstanding – from what I gathered “Chloe” shooting took place at the same time Neeson's wife passed away. He took a break and then came back to finish his performance in two days – this absolutely shocked me. He really is a tremendous actor to be able to create such a great performance in the time of enormous emotional distress, in the movie that mediocre. Moore is shining powerfully in the film - I cannot even give you the one particular scene that I find the best in terms of her acting – the whole performance is very convincing and consistent.

The story is absurd – wife is suspecting that her husband is cheating on her, so she pays money to the prostitute, in order for her to seduce him. Now, dear reader, you probably think what I was “she wants evidence, perhaps to make a killing in a divorce!”. No! She doesn't. All she wants, and now prepare for it, is to know what excites her husband, 'cause she misses him. If that's not pathetic, then I don't know what is. Anyways, the hooker lies, the wife cheats, the husband forgives, the idiotic ending follows. Cliché is chasing after cliché.

There is however a lesbian love scene, which I am sure will be reason good enough for many to watch it. Given that I have not seen many scenes like that, I am not gonna judge it, but words of admiration for both actress are required.  No body doubles were used, which is courageous, especially for Moore, who after all is 50 years old and still so beautiful, that I have no idea how would any man prefer slutty little 20 year old over her.

The movie has great atmosphere, the interiors, the clubs, the glasshouse, the cafes – it's all very cool and backed up with Mychael Danna's music – he is nowhere near of being a great composer, but it all fits nicely. However the best thing about the movie is that Chloe aggressively promotes band called Raised by Swans, of which two songs are featured in the movie. That band's two albums are so much better than this film.
If you want to see good erotic thriller you will not be happy with "Chloe", the climate is there, the characters are there, but there are also too many distractions of poor quality. Still, fans of Neeson and Moore will be very happy, if they won't let the anger of those two terrific actors staring in the movie like that take over them.

If only they found someone interesting to play Chloe and change the screenplay a little that could really be a good movie.

52/100

Read More