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

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

(118 min, 2011)
Plot: Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore) have the perfect life together living the American dream... until Emily asks for a divorce. Now Cal, Mr Husband, has to navigate the single scene with a little help from his professional bachelor friend Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling).
Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writer: Dan Fogelman
Stars: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Julianne Moore

The only one?

I'm gonna sell this movie to you right here right now. Ready? It's the best romantic comedy since “Love Actually”. It's not as good, it's not as funny, but in the sea of mediocre comedies with the obligatory presence of 1) never ending swearing 2) marijuana 3) forced pro-family messages in the end so that nobody would accuse the film of being cheap and stupid, “Crazy stupid love” which doesn't have any of those things is a breath of fresh air.

You may not like Steve Carell, the departure of whom from “The Office” I still mourn, but he is the heart of this movie. He is very funny, easy to relate to and nothing he says, even if it's dangerously close to being sentimental sounds cheap. The movie has very odd pairing – it has Carell, who appeared in silly comedies for years now and Ryan Gosling, who does serious dramas, mostly indie ones. I have seen most of Gosling's movies and I would never suspect him of being capable of being that hilarious. He is. He is the true star of the movie – from the funny one liners to the continuous looks of disgust he gives Carell as he looks at his wardrobe and behavior, Gosling steals every scene from professional comedian Carrel. He also has this way about him – you see him picking up all those ladies and you don't question it. He is the kind of guy you would love to go home with.

The movie would be fine just with those two major actors but no, it doesn't end there. Cal's unfaithful wife is played with a lot of charm and wit by Julianne Moore, her lover – remember that name – David Lindhagen – is played by Kevin Bacon and whenever Bacon is not playing villains, trust me, you have to check this out. The film also features sensation of recent year Emma Stone. Stone is one of those actress who may become new Meg Ryan – she is sexy, she is cute and even if she isn't drop dead gorgeous you know it's so easy to fall in love with her. Her character Hanna is a love interest for Jacob. It's so lovely to see actual chemistry between actors on screen and its so rare to see convincing chemistry between two characters, so different from each other. It happens here. Hanna isn't interested in Jacob and then she picks him up just to hook up with him because she is upset. She is unlike anyone Jacob met – she keeps talking, she doesn't hide the fact she is nervous and she openly makes fun of him. And the magic happens – those two, instead of having a one night stand, keep talking, laughing, connecting. As different as they are, it works, because of how well we got to know their characters and how odd and unfamiliar the scene plays out. Hanna does all the things she is not supposed to do. And that's what so special about her. I also have to give praise to amazing kissing scene between Stone and Gosling, genuinely passionate, lovely and breathtaking.

As “Love Actually' the movie has many love stories between characters somehow connected to each other. Cal's son is in love with his babysitter, Jessica. And Jessica is in love with Cal. Cal loves Emily, Jacob loves Hanna...all those stories will find it's hilarious finale in the film's most amusing sequence taking place in front of Cal's and Emily's home. The movie is a mix of funny, hilarious, romantic and poignant scenes. There is a wonderful scene near the end where Cal and Jacob talk to each other. Each one of them is motivated by different, but very powerful kind of love and each has to say and do things to another that will hurt. Carell and Gosling really put their hearts in this scene.

While the film has its obligatory cliché moments – the heartwarming speech near the end, happy ending, conflict and its resolution just before the movie is over, there are two genuinely surprising twists – one of witch includes Marisa Tomei who in just few scenes she is in shows her almost forgotten comedy talent. And the ending – while happy is very realistic. Is there hope for Cal and Emily? They laugh, they talk, they connect. And as long as they do that, there is no way love can just vanish.

90/100

Read More

Midnight in Paris

(94 min, 2011) 
Plot: A romantic comedy about a family traveling to the French capital for business. The party includes a young engaged couple forced to confront the illusion that a life different from their own is better.
Director: Woody Allen
Writer: Woody Allen
Stars: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams and Kathy Bates

From Paris with magic

“The unreal is more powerful than the real. Because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. Because its only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die. But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on. If you can change the way people think. The way they see themselves. The way they see the world. You can change the way people live their lives. That's the only lasting thing you can create.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Choke

I went to see “Midnight in Paris” because ever since I was fifteen I haven't missed any of Woody Allen's movies. I knew nothing about the film and I really didn't expect for it to have a fantasy element. I thought it's going to be typical Allen's movie with neurotics and amusing situations, witty dialogues and classy cinematography. Well, “Midnight in Paris” has all of that but in the fashion of “The purple rose of Cairo” it also has fantasy in it. It's not the best movie Allen made since “Hannah and her sisters” as many overeager reviewers seem to think, but it's certainly one of his best films.

Gil is about to marry Inez, but before they get married he goes on a trip with her and her parents to Paris. Gil is an aspiring writer and he instantly falls in love with the city. All he wants to do is walk in the rain and soak up the atmosphere. One evening he is walking around the town alone and when the clock hits midnight, much like for fairy tale's Cinderella, a carriage appears and magically takes him back to the 20's – Gil's favorite era. There he meets Scott Fitzgerald and his erratic wife Zelda, Ernest Hemingway and others. He also meets Picasso's muse Adriana and falls in love with her.

Gil and Inez are completely not right for each other – in fact Inez is the most annoying female in Allen's universe since Cristina Ricci's Amanda in “Anything else”. McAdams is doing really good job here – I was hoping somebody would slap her across the face. When she is asked why she wants to marry Gil she responds “he is smart and successful”. If a character responds like that, you know by the movie is over those two will not be together.

Owen Wilson plays Gil with a lot of humor and charm and may be the only one of two actors – along with Jason Biggs – who actually succeeded in channeling Woody Allen's typical main hero vibe without coming out as fake and annoying (as for example Kenneth Brannagh did in “Celebrity”). Not only is Wilson making Gil likable he is actually very funny. But acting standouts include Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway, and Adrien Brody, quite possibly the most memorable part of this movie, as rhinoceros obsessed Salavdor Dali. Marion Cotiliard delivers charming work as Adriana, muse of the painters, but I liked Alison Pill's Zelda Fitzgerald portrayal much more. I was a bit disappointed to see how few scenes Michael Sheen had, he was fantastic playing pseudo intellectual who annoys Gil and impresses Inez every step of the way. There are also three scenes featuring France's first lady herself Carla Bruni and we get to see Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein.

The film opens differently than other movies by Allen – usually we immediately see black cards with credits on them, but this time they are preceded by 210 seconds of shots of Paris. That prologue manages to accomplish something that was done in, for example, “Before Sunset” - it makes you feel as if you were there. Also like the best of Allen's movies the film reveals a little bit of truth about each and every one of us – we will always idealize the past, the era we don't live in.But if we were there it would become our present and we would want to change it yet again. Why? Because life is one big chase and we are always looking for something better than we already have.

The movie is light as a cloud on Paris sky – it is filled with likable and sweet characters, funny situations and excellent dialogues. It also has a lovely ending - the kind that we saw in Allen's movies many times – all is well and thanks to one line spoken by lovely Lea Seydoux we see that there is such thing as magic. Even in our world, even in our time.

90/100

Read More

Trick 'r Treat

(82 min, 2007)
Plot: Four interwoven stories that occur on Halloween: An everyday high school principal has a secret life as a serial killer; a college virgin might have just met the one guy for her; a group of teenagers pull a mean prank; a woman who loathes the night has to contend with her holiday-obsessed husband.
Director: Michael Dougherty
Writer: Michael Dougherty
Stars: Anna Paquin, Brian Cox and Dylan Baker

 Tricks are for kids

Halloween, Samhain, Hallow's Eve.
The most magical day of the year when the line between the world of the living and the world of the dead is at its thinnest. Halloween has magnificent traditions that have been cultivated for centuries - dressing up, scaring people and of course - trick or treating. "Trick 'r Treat" not only captures the atmosphere of Halloween but also does the rare trick of being both good horror movie and good comedy.

We get to see all of the most famous traditions - carving of pumpkins, getting dressed in either scary or slutty costumes and giving kids their candy. Since it's a horror movie we also see obligatory guts and blood - it's definitely not a film for the squeamish as it has a maneuver that I previously saw in "Hostel" and to this day it remains one of the worst things I've seen - cutting of one character's Achilles' tendon. There are also scenes that will remaind you of other films - the crawling severed hand brings "Addams family" to mind and the creepy prologue with scarecrows inevitably brought me back to that horrible afternoon I was freaking out while watching "Jeepers Creepers".

One of the best things about the film is the main monster - the spirit of  Halloween incarnated in the form of a child with pumpkin for a head. That spirit ensures that everybody honors Halloween's traditions and if they don't...well, there is a bloody trick coming. There are four separate stories in the movie, each containing fair amount of scares and laughs and just the right level of gore and creepiness. Something that distinguishes "Trick 'R Treat" from other productions is that writer/director Michael Dougherty doesn't abscond from something not many would do - killing children on screen. But as Halloween is the most fun for the kids it's probably the best  and the most effective scare in the movie - I myself would never let my child go trick or treating alone in the evening on the scariest day of the year.



Other stories also have monsters - some of them are well known in culture, some of them are common - humans simply killing people. The fun thing about the film is that much like with "11:14" there is a great diversity of characters and although they are idiotic and sometimes annoying you really don't want something bad happening to them. Group of four friends dressed as Disney princess or group of kids being mean, because well, that's what the kids do - you don't want to see them hurt. And when their stories come to an end, rest assured, something unexpected will happen.

The cast includes Anna Paquin in surprisingly sexy role in which not only she's a lot of fun but she does something she never accomplished before - she is not irritating, Brian Cox in a homage for John Carpenter and Leslie Bibb who in "Scream" fashion as a pretty blonde dies as the first character in the movie. The film has terrific twist and the amount of Jack O'lanterns alone makes it very atmospheric and a perfect movie to watch on October 31st. The cinematography is lovely and the whole film is covered in darkness and shades of orange, there is a great school bus sequence that proves that even in full day light some things stay just as creepy as during the night. And there is Marilyn Manson's cover for "Sweet Dreams" playing in the film's most amazing sequence. Some say it's overused but I think when the song is that sexy and creepy, you can't use enough of it.

If you are having a huge horror marathon on this year Halloween "Trick 'r treat" will be perfect to see in between hardcore horror movies, the one with either ridiculous amount of horrific gore or somber, depressing atmosphere. It will be a perfect piece between, let's say "Carrie" and "Eden Lake" or "Martyrs" and "The Descent". It's not as spooky as "Drag me to Hell", not as campy as "Scream" and not as funny as "Shaun of the Dead" but it certainly captures the spirit of Halloween the best. Because let's not forget - that day is not only abut getting scared and telling horrifying stories - It's also about having fun and smiling, just like those adorable carved pumpkins do.

76/100

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

Alice in Wonderland

(108 min, 2010)
Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Linda Woolverton (screenplay), Lewis Carroll (books)
Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter

Rescued by rabbits, cats and queens. 

What a disappointment. I've always said "Alice in Wonderland" is a dream material for Burton. Lately it seems that balls are falling off the great directors - first Jackson did "The Lovely Bones", so sweet it made me want tovomit with candies and pink ponies and now this. Burton clearly was not thinking a lot about his own movie or he suffered some major head trauma because his Alice bounces from usual grotesque and morbid scenes to completely childish resolutions and cartoonish, silly sequences. In the effect it is a movie....for nobody. Adults will find it too silly, kids will find it too scary, Burton's fans won't like the art direction which is so tacky and vulgar my eyes were hurting - and since it was in 3D used maybe in 5 scenes, my eyes were REALLY hurting.

There is no atmosphere - nothing is fascinating, everything is just...fake. Jabberwocky was embarrassingly poorly done, the creatures were animated in a very rookie way and the whole thing was just...painful to witness.

Having said that, the dialogues are sublime and the tea party sequence is the most insane and fantastic thing since 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. The entire audience went nuts along with the characters - nobody could comprehend what the characters are talking about and what is going on.

The actors were great too - Rickman made fantastic caterpillar, Michael Sheen was absolutely adorable as the white rabbit - god, I could just hold him and never let go, Depp was fine, but the whole weird romantic tension between Mad Hatter and Alice - Burton was never good in portraying chemistry - even in 'Big Fish' we sorta have to believe the words the characters are saying - we don't see their love, Depp on the other hand never has chemistry with women - maybe this will change next year when we see him alongside Angelina dynamite Jolie in 'The Tourist'. However he is very suggestive and there was something incredibly eerie and disturbing in Alice/Hatter relation. But apart from that his make up is awesome, but by the end of the film...well clearly Disney holds Depp very close to money chest and he will do anything for the studio. That dance reminded me of Slumdog's ending and that's never a good thing. Mia Wasikowski was good as Alice, but there is not a single drop of passion, energy or charisma in that girl. But her looks were ok and she did interesting job.

The best ones in the show are the queens - Red one, played with a lot of force by director's muse and always lovely Helena Bonham Carter and the best one in the whole movie - Anne Hathaway as the white one. She stole the show, she was absolutely fantastic and hilarious. She played crazy vegetarian, not so much walkiing as floating, dealing with disgusting things and showing her disgust but underneath all of that her love and compasion for all things on Earth. She looked incredible and created one of the most memorable characters to appear in Burton's film. I also loved Stephen Fry as the floating, disappearing Cheshire Cat.
The music by the always terrific Danny Elfman is memorable and main theme is very good. The movie is lovely, but it could have been so much more. But the actors...ah, it's a real treat to see their performances here.

 68/100

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