Movie Reviews - no spoilers

2011-10-15T11:36:00.000-07:00

reading "Cloud Atlas" right now... close to the end... such a magnificent engrossing read. picked it up because i got word that the new wachowski project involves tom tykwer (of "Perfume" fame).

despite an article saying the novel is unfilmable, I could totally see it on the whitescreen as I read it. Here, David Mitchel speaks of the movie adaptation:

guardian article

I haven't been this excited about an upcoming movie since... well, I can't even remember.

filler

2011-02-10T07:12:00.000-08:00

haven't been writing a lot of reviews lately. Here's something I stumbled upon today

The karate kid 1-1995-0711 (don't ask me what this number means)

Ideas for the review:
· Should be called the kung fu kid, not the karate kid – this is obviously opening up pop-based relations between the american and chinese public. Mainly the American -
· Jaden smith definitely hits the spot as the young kung-fu apprentice. Very talented actor and on his way to becoming the next young Hollywood superstar, if he wants to.
· The movie is 2 and a half hours long, yet time flies by when you’re watching it – sign of a well executed film.
· Jackie chan as the new mr miyagi (here called mr han) finds a perfect role as the new coach. He is quiet, reserved, yet constantly in tune with what’s going on. His only fight scene is masterful and worth the wait – as were Miyagi’s. Though, this time around, we get to see his emotional flaws and faults in this first chapter, as opposed to waiting until the third installment, as the previous franchise did (I remember thinking of Mr Miyagi as a perfect man and mentor for the first two chapters). This condensed version of the story is one of many indicators of how audiences have changed/evolved, as I will try to explain later on.
· Filmmakers now realize the influence of pop cinema in audiences – photos displayed during the credit roll show jaden and his movie counterpart hugging and posing as the friends they got accustomed to being during the rolling of the film. With all these special edition dvd’s and behind the scenes featurettes, audiences know beforehand that it’s just a movie. Not too long ago, we left the movie theater with the story still fresh in our minds, the feeling of it all still stirring inside. As soon as I saw that picture of jaden and his buddy, the feeling of their confrontation that the story imprinted in me suddenly vanished. The feeling I experienced during the film which I wanted to prolong as much as possible just wasn’t there anymore. Now, the movie is the one in charge of snapping you back into reality; if you stay for the credits, that is!
· Any political implications of this film? As we see nowadays in the news, USA now must visualize china as their equal, mostly from a socio-economic standpoint. Well, the film could be seen as a metaphor for American and Chinese relations. First they meet, it doesn’t go so well, they have problems getting along; America seems to be right, and china, honorable as it is, admits American “superiority” and goes home with their honor unscathed. Maybe it’ll be Chinese filmmakers who continue this story/metaphor pending the outcome of the next UN meeting in NYC! In any case, drawing parallelisms in this respect is almost impossible given the current world state of affairs.

Caligula - The Unrated Edition

2010-10-23T12:00:00.000-07:00

I had heard a lot before going in to watch this film. Given the stellar cast and the fact that it had been directed by the recently deceased Bob Guccione, I had to see it. I was pretty sure what I was going into - certainly not expecting any "Gladiator" or "Lawrence of Arabia" type of grandness; though that is precisely what the film tries painfully to be - an epic story of the rise and fall of Caligula Ceasar. Does it fail? Oh yes it does. It's almost laughable, to an extent.

First of all, simply put, the movie is terrible. It drags on and gives no hint of improving. The story is poorly told, having no depth whatsoever, and the production design is just a reflection of all this. Though the wide shots of the sets are to be appreciated by whoever works in theatre production, when seen through the camera, it looks fake and cheap. Costumes are laughable at times.

The pornographic bits are "well" executed - if by well you mean the regular filming of your typical pornographic movie - though it's unclear whether Guccione wanted to film an epic tale of betrayal and decadence, or just just a porn flick. And this is why the film satisfies neither style fully. Is there really a very bold line drawn between the pornographic film industry and say, Hollywood? If so, this film would be used as evidence in trying to prove the affirmative case. I would like to see a film that blurs this line, though.

Malcolm McDowell is loud and pompous in his interpretation of Caligula - portraying a character who you are not sure at times if he's really enjoying all the hell he's breaking lose. But this insecurity is not his fault as an actor; I'm sure he was just listening to Guccione telling him to be as crazy as he can be, and this overshadowed the character. Helen Mirren doesn't speak much - another bad thing. Peter O'Toole's small onscreen moment is extravagant and nasty - he plays the part of Tiberius mischievously well. And the late Sir John Gielgud, who I remember playing the sensible Carr Gomm in David Lynch's "Elephant Man", basically plays the same type of character here and quickly commits suicide - knocking two birds with one stone.

The gory aspects of the film are there, and are somewhat hard to watch. I won't go into details, but there are some pretty disgusting moments which I would've rather not watched. In the end, watching this film made me feel not so good afterwards. This is one I would recommend skipping.

1/5

2010-08-16T19:13:00.000-07:00

I'm right in the middle of watching the second season of Twin Peaks (Log Lady speaks the truth, yo...) by master filmmaker David Lynch. Being a Lynch fan it is inevitable to talk about dreams in movies and television and how it is brought on to the screen. Lynch has his trademark style - his shots, the music by Angelo Badalamenti, the quirky characters, etc. Dream is one of Lynch's favorite topics, no doubt - and it seems to be up Nolan's alley as well (Memento, Insomnia). Though Nolan's cinematic approach to it is more simplistic, eclectic, and intellectual. Where Lynch tries to decipher what the messages in dreams mean, Nolan concerns himself with how they got there. Nolan, in this script, treats the mind as prized possession which can be broken into and tampered with. In the information era in which we live in, nothing is more valuable than an idea. An original idea. But such ideas, as well as being susceptible to theft from special agent Dom Cobb (played by Leo DiCaprio), can be implanted in the mind as well. Such is Inception's premise. The film is completely story driven - as are most sci-fi flicks - and at its core, its a heist movie.

Some would dare say it's Nolan's masterpiece, and the reviews that came pouring in as the film was released were praising it beyond belief. Yet, it's not. Though a fine film, Nolan has demonstrated more depth of character and story complexity in other films (The Dark Knight). Nolan's gift is in fact to take what is simply understood and make it seem incredible and marvelous. This simplicity pervades even his film-making style. Though effects for this film are awesome and plenty, they are enhanced not by the effects themselves but by simple techniques like slow motion and tracking shots. There's a moment that incredibly creeps you out, and I'm still trying to figure out why since there were no actual special effects in that sequence. Probably the amazing score by Hans Zimmer is responsible...

The audience should really have no problem understanding this film, since characters at times are there explaining what is happening and what is going to happen, step by step. It's almost as if those scenes were explicitly put there at the request of the test audiences. Still, the film suffers little for it, and there is the emotional aspect well portrayed by Leo. We see him navigate through regret, guilt, and forgiveness and we experience the stress this causes him. Marion Cotillard is haunting as Mal. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is slick and precise as Dom's sidekick. The ensemble cast is near perfect.

All in all, a great movie experience. It also has one of the longest and most perfectly executed action sequences in recent movie history. The price of admission is worth it, if only for that sequence.

4/5

short, unpublished wolfman review

2010-06-04T06:14:00.001-07:00

Will make your hair stand up

It’s been a while since “Honey, I shrunk the kids!”, yet Joe Johnston has proven he continues to be a quality director with his latest assignment, “The Wolfman”. With Benicio del Toro starring and producing, you can tell this film is a sort of labour of love. From the fidelity to the time period to the ultra violence (you heard right) every detail is taken care of. This is not an ordinary horror film. You can tell the original material was approached very carefully and meticulously in all directions. The old school yet quality make-up effects mesh up seamlessly with the CGI, for example. The performances are top notch, although there does seem to be a lack of more emotional involvement. Maybe there’s some chemistry missing between the two lovers, or maybe it’s that the adaptation is so faithful to the original to the point that anything lacking there was lacking here, too. In any case, it’s just great to see a modern day, well done adaptation using today’s tools for filmmaking.
Another thing this film has going for it is how reminiscent it is of the contemporary instant classic “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, for example. Watching “the Wolfman” follow in the steps of “Dracula” in terms of moodiness, camera angles, and even music is not annoying at all. More movies should do the same of Coppola’s masterpiece simply because it is a landmark film in modern horror. It’s amazing what he was able to do with simple camera movements and angles.
Make no mistake, “the Wolfman” is one very scary film that will have you jumping in your seat when you least expect it, and squinting your face in disgust at the different instances of gore.

Prince of Persia

2010-05-30T21:46:00.000-07:00

Spawned from a video game and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer – the same movie mogul that brought us golden blockbusters such The Rock and Crimson Tide, and more recently, Pirates of the Caribbean – Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time tells a story of an orphan boy turned prince of the Persian Empire during 6th century BC. The premise does sound rather simple and the film really doesn’t elaborate on it more than that. Then again, the movie does come from a video game where all you know about the main character is what the buttons on the controller make him do. It is a characteristic of modern mass entertainment that both the video game and the movie industry share: the ability to create a work of art that comes from an almost absurdly simple idea. Yet, it has been a most rewarding fact of watching movies that you can feel so much and grasp and retain a lot intellectually from a ridiculously uncomplicated story. And now with the great tool of special effects used wisely, simple stories can be told significantly.

The effects on this movie are rather impressive and well done – yet not overused. For the fanatics of the original game, there are visual elements that I’m sure they’ll find quite amusing. Not as straightforward as Lee’s use of comic-book-like frames in Hulk, for example, but present enough that in some parts you’ll feel dizzy from the 3D camera that vertiginously moves around Jake Gyllenhaal – who lightheartedly plays Dastan, the orphan prince. His performance does the job of conveying the prince’s humble origin, and thus we have no problem identifying with his somewhat mystical mission, that of fumbling through the desert with a beautiful young princess – played by Gemma Arterton – to return a mysterious and magical dagger to its rightful place of origin. Princess Tamina (Arterton) is completely adored by the camera: her looks and presence are reminiscent of great moments of arresting female beauty; Princess Dahla in the Pink Panther comes to mind (don’t tell me you didn’t jump out of your seat when you saw her on the screen for the first time…)

It was also refreshing to see Ben Kingsley back in form. A far cry from Gandhi and Itzhak Stern’s modest calmness, Kingsley plays the prince’s uncle, who has been for many years right hand to the king of the Persian Empire. Alfred Molina makes his appearance in the film as well, granting comic relief whenever he shows up looking for treasure and trying to capture prince Dastan. The film is a rollercoaster ride worthy of the Bruckheimer seal. What Newell brings to it is a depth of story and emotion that characterizes him as a director. He successfully manages to take the title of a video game and makes into a satisfying and entertaining 2 hour emotional joyride – I personally thought his involvement in the 4th installment of the Harry Potter franchise was one of the best, if not the best adaptation from the book.

Hence, we have here a solid action film, with romance, great visual appeal, and a twist that will have you thinking about the film’s moral core hours after it has ended. Definitely recommended. 4/5 stars.

los abrazos rotos - the broken embraces

2010-02-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

A worthy addition to Almodóvar's list of instant classics, “The Broken Embraces” tell the tale of family drama and tragic love, achieving more in two hours than most soap opera's do in a whole season; all the while doing it in a visually stunning way.

For those of us who had the pleasure of watching “To Return”, said film portrayed women (personalized brilliantly by Penélope Cruz) as a heroine, as every woman in one. Well, if “To Return” is the woman seen as a heroine, then “The Broken Embraces” is the woman as the victim – the victim of love and of men.

Almodóvar glorifies the “mujer chismosa” – the gossip girl – in a movie within a movie (and he also uses this technique to teach us a little bit about film making: the final scene is just magnificent). Just as Tarantino saved the world through cinema in his “Basterds”, Almodóvar praises every aspect of femininity with profound family dramas and exquisite cinematography. There are moments in the film where you have to rub your eyes to believe that what you just saw was a simple landscape, for example. The film is a feast of color and texture, and given that one of the main character in the story is blind, the irony makes the situation even more tragic. Almodóvar asks us, “of what use is a blind filmmaker?” Still, hope remains that the filmmaker may touch the screen and feel those things he felt when he could see... and Almodóvar is such a brilliant filmmaker that he makes us feel blind; blind to the tragedy, heartache and powerlessness.

As usual, Almodóvar weaves the story through a non linear script – which is a useful tool for storytelling – and he uses this tool masterfully. In this way, he creates vacuums in the story that end up being more than filled up by the time the movie ends. In this way, the apparently false statement “the sum of the parts is greater than the whole” ends up being true.

It is a bit sad that the film actually came out during March of last year, and just barely made it here. Also, there's a lot to be said to the fact that this film didn't receive the accolades it received in its own country. Almodóvar is a master of the craft, and to not appreciate that is to not appreciate the art of film making. I strongly recommend watching this film on the big screen. In an age where the latest blockbuster can be downloaded off the Internet, nothing will ever replace the experience of watching a visually and emotionally stimulating movie in the theater, with some popcorn and great company.

4.5/5 stars

Wolverine/Lobezno/Guepardo

2009-05-11T09:11:00.000-07:00

After a long wait and a fantastic trailer that has been online for months, we see the arrival of the first film in what we hope will be a long series of "Origins" stories from our beloved X-men saga- "Wolverine". I am of the opinion that this should've been the last (or at least certainly not the first) Origins story. The reason for this being the fact that Wolverine is the glue that keeps the X-men story together, at least from the viewer's perspective: no matter what Magneto's next human anhilation plan is, and no matter how passive Charles' defense will be, if not for Wolverine - it's just another good guys vs bad guys story - which is the last thing we need. And it has been indeed the secret of the X-men franchise success, in this writer's humble opinion. The mythology behind his character, the wonders and frustrations of always being in the middle and never being 100% sure of doing the right thing (and not knowing where you came from) are just some of the big reasons why Wolverine's viewpoint of the whole X-men drama is so interesting and relevant to the viewer.

Having said all that, it's hard to imagine which X-men story should start the Origins saga other than Wolverine's, in the transition into the movie world. One of the stories I am now looking forward to is Magneto's. And it's hard to say which others will be drafted for the comic-into-movie switch.

Now for the review: Wolverine-Origins is not as good as you'd expect it to be. Simple as that. Of course there were reasons to drool for it: Wolverine (as stated before, is an Awesome character), the trailer (in which other characters such as Deadpool and Gambit appear in the midst of incredible action scenes), and of course the fact that Gavin Hood was directing. In watching Gavin appear on interviews prior to the film, it was clear he had the right intention and understood the nature of Wolverine's character and was not going to betray it any time soon on the move from comic to film. Seems at times that this was to blame for the movie's lack of success. Too dense and lengthy a story crammed into a 2 hour time span did not help matters at all. The story is told, and faithfully, but you get a sense that the pacing is rushed and that a lot of the story was not told (Logan's childhood, for example). In other words, a solid, complete, and enrapturing Wolverine-Origins saga could've been told in 3 acts á la Matrix Trilogy (and would've been well deserved, in my opinion). But here, there's a lot going on and there's no choice but to rush through it. Needless to say that die-hard X-men fans will recognize lots of different characters and other "hidden" surprises, but that will most likely be overshadowed by the aforementioned shortcomings.

Overall, Wolverine gets 3 out of 5 stars. Most people will disagree with me here, yet I can't help but notice that there's an integrity to the movie that other failed comic book films don't have. As another fellow movie critic said, "Sorry, haters".

(for Olivia)

Holy Summer Movie Hype, Batman!

2008-08-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

Seems like a century ago, but I for one haven’t gone to see a movie this hyped up since Star Wars Episode 1, back in 1999. And we all know how the rest of the story goes. The film didn’t meet the exponentially hyped up expectations. And when you come to think of it, it’s very hard for a movie to do that. There are many different criteria to be met; by the fans, the filmmakers, and by the story. Lucas confidently walked away a proud father after performing the final cut on his masterpiece, though the fans on their end were left wanting more.
On the other hand, I’m also pretty sure the director/producer/writer of this summer’s most hyped up film – The Dark Knight – walked away proud and satisfied as he always does. Christopher Nolan is one of those filmmakers whose movies you don’t wanna miss – more on him later. As for the fans, well, I hate to elevate the hype factor, but yeah. It’s that good. Nay, it’s better. When you walk out of the movie theater, you leave feeling satisfied and refreshed, because you know, hype or no hype, this movie is a masterpiece. Some critics are bold enough to christen it as “The Godfather” of comic book films. And this description is not far from the truth when you consider, for example, Heath Ledger’s interpretation of the Joker – It leaves an indelible mark in the Cinematic Universe as one of the greatest, most powerful, and magnetic performances yet. So much so, that not only does it remind us of Nicholson’s Joker back in 1989, but improves upon it. Besides, we all know Jack Nicholson basically plays the same character in all the movies he stars in…
Bale's performance as Batman doesn't go unnoticed, although there really is no significant change since "Batman Begins". And yes, his voice when dressed as the caped crusader still does sound a lot like Patty and Thelma Simpson. As I kept watching Ledger play the Joker, I couldn’t help but think to myself, “What a waste!” What a waste of talent! Such a pity he died so young. A few more interpretations on the big screen, and Ledger’s stature and talent would be beyond Oscar scope. He would be in that rare place in the collective conscience alongside Ralph Fiennes (Schindler’s List), Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York), and Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange). For some, he probably already is.
I was also incredibly impressed with Aaron Eckhart’s interpretation of Harvey Dent. The tragedy surrounding his story and the eccentricity of his character made Eckhart’s performance that more difficult. But I had no problem believing his side of the story, and actually ended up empathizing with his character the most.
Back to The Dark Knight. This is, by any standard, an epic film. The story is so tight, it would snap if you were to look for any loose ends. The performances are grandiose, and very well balanced. For a film with so many “main” characters, it never feels overloaded or cumbersome. And for a film based on a comic book, I’ve never seen such a serious adaptation without it being pretentious. Nolan gives a serious tone to his films unlike any other filmmaker, and he manages to balance this out beautifully together with the wit and lightheartedness of a comic book story.
If there is a movie that you shouldn’t miss this summer, it’s this one. 5/5 stars.

No Country for Old Men

2008-03-09T20:12:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Cine Magaly’s Oscarfest, “No Country For Old Men” finally made it down here, and as a Coen brothers’ fan, I was thrilled. I couldn’t wait to see what everyone was calling the best film of the year, and some were even bold enough to say that it was the Coen’s best. Is this one of the best films by the brothers? Hardly. Is it the Best Picture of the year? Oscar seems to think so.

The movie begins. A dead man with empty eyes appears. The audience is silent. Another one covered in blood. Still silent. Then a dead dog appears, and a generalized “Aw…” is heard. Apparently a dead dog evokes more compassion than seven dead corpses. Audience’s desensitizing toward violent images is a complementary theme of the film’s philosophical backdrop; as well as how times are changing, how new generations are at odds with old ones, and about the feeling of impotence that comes from not knowing how to deal with new challenges. However, the Coen’s bread and butter is murder. It’s their favorite tool to use when wanting to do comedy (The Ladykillers), drama (Fargo), or film noir (The man who wasn’t there). The difference is that this time around they’re not as articulate in getting the message across. I left the theater with a sense of incompleteness. I felt the credits rolled too soon. The twist in the film was a nice surprise, but it lacked closure. Maybe they expected everyone in the audience to have read the book, who knows. Having not read it, I cannot say what exactly went wrong, although maybe nothing really did. My opinion is that movies must be self contained, and must entertain, both visually and mentally. This film was certainly not the case.

I saw it as a book adaptation that tries to be film noir, and film noir that tries to be an adaptation... In my opinion, the best “film noir” comes from original scripts. An example is the Coen's "the man who wasn't there", whose entire story was conjured up when one of the brothers looked at a haircut poster in the set of "The Hudsucker Proxy". On the other hand, the best adaptations are those that have an original, artistic touch to them. "Oh, brother, where art though" comes to mind (loosely based on Homer’s “The Odissey”; and by “loosely” I mean “artistically”), which is sort of baffling after watching “No Country”. My movie-watching experience has been that the more faithful the script writer is to a book, the more difficult it becomes to make a satisfying, entertaining movie.

Putting that aside, performances were solid and accurate. Bardem has a knack for playing troubled characters, and Anton could not have been better portrayed. Josh Brolin succeeded in conveying a treaded innocence that drove Llewelyn Moss to his inexorable fate. Tommy Lee Jones is great as always.

Overall, not the Coen’s best, but worth a look.

3/5 stars

Michael Clayton

2008-02-13T13:40:00.001-08:00

I ask my friends if they want to go with me and watch Michael Clayton. Their first question is, “Why do you need to see him?”
Michael Clayton (the movie), starring George Clooney and Tilda Swinton, is the latest legal-suspense-thriller that Hollywood has to offer. Having a superb cast, the only reason a film like this would fail would be because of those behind the camera. Thankfully, that is not the case. Newcomer Tony Gilroy makes his directing debut with this film which I’m sure is a textbook case of how to successfully write and direct a suspense thriller, not for dummies.
The movie is excellently executed, although the pacing is a bit slow and the plot a bit predictable. In a recent surge of ending plot twists and unexpected turns that we’ve seen come out of Hollywood, Clayton makes no effort to warm you up to a mind-blowing twist at the end. What he does is quite the contrary; it manages to keep you interested the whole way through. Predictability is not a fault of the movie but a strength that the plot relies on to establish a solid storyline, tense and taut.
Still, it doesn’t really have the entertainment value it seeks out to have. With the possible exception of those fans that have seen every legal thriller out there and read every John Grisham novel, this movie can definitely wait for home viewing if you really want to see it. And then if you don’t, you really haven’t missed much. The formula used here offers nothing new for those of us familiar with the genre.
Performances are excellent. Examples of this is the large amount of unknown actors in supporting roles whose presence does not go unnoticed; they perform well in the backdrop of the story and with their unknown faces give it a more genuine sense of reality. And as mentioned before, this is Tony Gilroy’s debut as a director, with already excellent writing credits under his belt, like the Bourne series. Gilroy definitely has an eye for stimulating shot compositions, and I will be first in line when his next film comes out (“Duplicity”, which is already in the works with stars Clive Owen and Julia Roberts), with what I’m sure will be a more mature and experienced approach. Finishing up the star-studded cast is Tom Wilkinson and Sidney Pollack. For a while now, the Soderbergh-Clooney team seems to be trying out a new kind of movie-making territory where new talent is being sought to complement already known names.
“It’s the latest movie by George Clooney. You know him, right?” is my answer to my friend’s question…

2.5 stars

English Movie Club (not a movie... but my very first article!)

2008-02-13T13:39:00.001-08:00

It was Thursday evening, and I had just come home from work. The idea of going to watch a movie at 6pm was not exactly appealing to me; but then again, it was close to the weekend… so I decided to go. On second thought, I’d be surrounded by fellow movie fans, and at the end of the screening we would get to talk about the movie we just watched. This Thursday the movie was George A. Romero’s “Night of The Living Dead”. Wait a minute, the original “Night of The Living Dead”? And there’s no entrance fee? And I get to practice my English?

I’m there.

And so I was. I got there at about a quarter to six and the chairs were still empty. A special area was designated for our movie enjoyment at the Mark Twain library in the “Centro Cultural Costarricense Norteamericano” (CCCN) in Barrio Dent. Surrounded by (quiet) books, we would sit and watch the iconic 1968 movie that has served as mold to most present-day horror films. This and more was discussed at the end, with mostly ticos making up the crowd there to enjoy a great night of classic movie watching and also to take a shot at practicing English. And that’s precisely the idea behind this activity hosted by the CCCN and organized by an unlikely trio from the west side of San Jose.

Caroline, Ricardo, and Gunnar are three movie fans from different places that came together thanks to their love of cinema. Caroline Kennedy is an English writer who lives in Escazu and is now the president of the “Little Theater Group” in charge of stage production and the like. Ricardo Jimenez, a 30 year old psychologist at the private school ILPPAL, gave us the introductory remarks on Thursday’s show and shared his movie wisdom with all of us at the end. He is also directing an upcoming play, “Hysteria”, which he describes as “Dali meets Freud”… groovy. Gunnar Kihl is a freelance TV producer from Norway who is here in Costa Rica enjoying movies with us ticos, and enjoying Costa Rica as well.

It was Caroline who came to the CCCN to see if they could set up a play there. When it was discovered that these guys have a movie-watching fan club in Escazu, the idea to bring it over to San Pedro was an inevitable one. Organizing on behalf of the CCCN is Sandra Candamo, who was kind enough to provide us with all the information regarding the activity and also the upcoming shows for this month (see sidebar)

About 20 people made it there that evening, and I started scanning around for ticos and gringos. The only foreigners that night were precisely the organizers and our photographer, Chris. They were almost completely all ticos, young and old, with ages ranging from the teenage years to senior citizens. The movie started and at once we were all enraptured by the old black and white images being projected on the screen. The movie is shown using a video projector (not a 35 mm projector as one would hope!) but the size is excellent and the sound is good (although it could be better).

Watching an old movie always makes you laugh at certain parts which were originally not meant to be funny. Cinema has evolved so much through the decades, especially if one takes into account that the art of making movies has only been around for a little over one hundred years. What filmmakers back then thought to be a poignant and serious scene is now, in many cases, pretty laughable. For example, seeing Barbra freak out at the sight of the undead is most funny, considering that back in 1968 it was probably a heightened scary scene, keeping audiences at the edge of their seat. But right here is the marvel of this film: as the movie progresses into the climax, you really feel the tension that has been building up. After almost 40 years since its original release, you still get the chills. And it’s not because of the undead, mind you. The scare factor in the movie is as effective then as it is now because in the end, we are scarier than the living dead. Telling you more at this point would be giving the movie away, and even after four decades, I’d rather not! I’ll let you check it out for yourself. I definitely recommend this film to anyone who has an interest in the human condition. As Ricardo explained after the movie had ended, this film was released upon a time of great social turmoil in the USA and the film works to mirror that situation in many aspects.

At the end, it was our turn to talk and express our points of view. Although most were clearly a bit nervous about expressing themselves in English, Adriana Hidalgo, a 28 year old workplace psychologist from Moravia, decided to break the silence and talk about scary movies in general. It was inevitable for her to mention Albert Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick as masters of the genre. She was accompanied by her father, ICE worker Manuel Hidalgo. He too, participated in the discussion.

It is hoped that by some time next year, the activity will have its own screening room. For now, every Thursday night will be movie lover’s night and the only requisite is the desire to practice your English. See you there!

Sicko (unpublished)

2008-02-13T13:37:00.001-08:00

After becoming a Moore fan and arguing with people on internet forums about the validity of calling his films “documentaries”, I can say that Sicko – his latest effort focused on the deteriorated state of the American Health Care System (HCS) – was insightful. It is an eye-opener to many Americans about the HCS of other countries. Let’s see why this isn’t exactly a documentary…
One of Moore’s gifts as a filmmaker is his ability to oversimplify. He thinks like the average Joe. He breaks everything down to a yes/no good/bad scenario, where whomever disagrees with his film will have to face all the hard proven facts that Moore has double checked with his lawyers. That’s the documentary side to the film.
On the other hand, there are those who disagree with Moore’s way of portraying the situation saying that to move the audience he has, for example, edited certain key scenes that would probably end up telling another story. He has manipulated what actually happened so that he can tell the story he wants. Therefore, his movies cannot and should not be deemed documentaries.
Still, I think it’s safe to say that the core message to each of Moore’s films is pretty direct and forthright, and that he likes to “fight the good fight”:

Roger and Me: The complete ruin of certain communities in Michigan due to the outsourcing of American jobs, all while corporate executives continued to pay themselves obscene salaries and bonuses

Bowling for Columbine: Gun control and a society that views violence as a primary, rather than secondary, solution to conflict

Fahrenheit 9/11: the false justification and egregious mismanagement of the Iraqi invasion and occupation

Sicko: the inadequacies and outright failures of the current healthcare system in the United States

Of all these films, Sicko is definitely his weakest effort. Not to detract from the enjoyment of the film, but basically, we already know what we’re in for here: How the poor in the USA suffer from a HCS that is engineered mainly for profit, compared to other systems around the world which are socialized. It’s hard to talk about this film and not talk about related issues that affect Americans living and/or visiting Costa Rica. Although our visitors from the north come down here for cheaper medical attention in the private health sector and not the socialized one – (Medical tourism grows 15% over the last year/Saturday, July 15, 2006/La Nacion) – the irony of a more humane HCS in a third world country like ours or Cuba - as the film portrays – is what has Moore and his followers asking, “What seems to be the problem?”. He delves deep into the Canadian, the English, and the French HCS’s, and he actually visits Cuba and has his crew treated by Cuban physicians. We even hear Che Guevara’s daughter speak wise words about how a government should treat its people. These are really valuable scenes in the movie that any person will enjoy watching.
While it’s not a must-see at the movie theater, it’s worth giving it a shot.

3/5 stars.

Crank

2008-02-13T13:36:00.000-08:00

I’m sure you’ll agree with me here: bad guys are stupid. When they finally have their nemesis overpowered, they just can’t avoid talking just a bit too much or coming up with some ridiculous “slow death” to kill their victim. It is, indeed, their downfall. Without these precious moments, our hero wouldn’t have enough time to free himself. (take for example Tuco and the one-armed man from “The Good, the bad, and the Ugly.” After killing him, Tuco says, “When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.”)

“Crank” – starring Jason Statham and Amy Smart, can basically be seen as an essay on how absurd things can get when you don’t kill your victim immediately. It’s that small instant of freedom stretched into 90 minutes of movie mayhem. And oh what mayhem!

The premise for Crank is simple and clever: Chev Chelios needs to keep the adrenaline pumping or else his heart will fail; he’s been injected with some “synthetic Chinese shit” that should kill him within the hour. Being the professional hitman that he is, he figures out that he can stay alive long enough to execute his revenge.

Watching Chelios look for his next hit of adrenaline is absolutely hilarious. He starts inhaling coke: good, but not good enough. He lands any fight he can get. He rides his car through the mall. He takes artificial adrenaline (after breaking into the hospital, of course). He pays his dear girlfriend a visit… he must do everything and anything he can or else his heart will stop pumping and there will be no more crazy epinephrine-searching moments.

Insanely funny and with a chock full of imagery for the pop culture enthusiasts, “Crank” gets the juices flowing and never lets down. For example, the filmmakers use “Google map” to illustrate the different locations where the action is going to take place. I guess they reduced the movie budget there quite a bit…

Don’t expect plot or character development (though they’re there, and they’re not exactly moronic) beyond that of the basics. This is a full-blown action movie that makes fun of its surroundings although it never does it to a point so as to not take the action seriously. The action scenes are excellently crafted and the camera work is dizzyingly delightful.

A certified B-movie effort in its unusual style, “Crank” is among the funniest, action-packed movies you’ll see this year. But you can’t take it seriously. It’s an amusing, wild ride meant to entertain for the length of its duration. No more can be asked of it. Except maybe a sequel…
4/5 stars

Hairspray

2008-02-13T13:35:00.000-08:00

What if I told you that John Travolta’s latest performance has him playing an overweight mother to a darling adolescent girl whose main interest in life is to dance in an “integrated” TV dancing show?
“Hairspray”, Hollywood’s latest musical offering is a refreshing surprise in many ways. In the first scene of the movie, we have Tracy Turnblad, a happy, cheery, adolescent girl who sings her way to school, dreaming of being on the local TV dancing show: The Corny Collins Show. Nikki Blonsky’s performance as Tracy is delightful and genuine; she lights up the screen every time you hear her sing or see her dance. You could say she was made for the part.
Hardly the same can be said for John Travolta…
Completely recognizable behind all the “fat” makeup, Travolta plays a shut-in mom for Tracy, that prohibits her from watching TV and tries to prepare her to inherit the family’s ironing business. Despite reflecting her own failures on Tracy, Edna Turnblad loves her daughter very much, and this relationship is at the core of the story. On the other hand, Travolta plays his part so unequivocally that it’s hard to imagine any other actress playing it. Tracy’s light-hearted father (played by Christopher Walken) works just downstairs living his dream as the owner of the “Hardy-Har Hut”, a specialty store selling masks, pranks, and magic tricks. It is not unlikely for a John Waters film to have a social agenda, and this remake based on the Broadway musical is no exception. Everything is going great for Tracy until she decides to cut class to go audition for the show. She gets rejected and as she returns to school gets detention. Here, a whole new world opens up to her: that of the negro community. Conveniently enough, most kids in detention are black. They dance and sing all the way through, in a way that would make any TV dancer jealous. The show has its monthly “Negro Day”, but Tracy asks herself, “Why can’t every day be negro day?” Here, a chain of events unfold that will change Tracy and her family forever.
Hairspray is directed and choreographed by Adam Shankman, director of such movies as “The Pacifier” and “Cheaper by the Dozen 2”. Turns out he has a more renowned career as a choreographer than as a director. This makes me wonder what other directors haven’t found their calling. Maybe soon we’ll see David Fincher directing comedies, or the Farelly Brothers heading off to Broadway to produce their first musical drama… who knows. Until then, we’ll keep getting great movies like this one (and others not so great) as Hollywood keeps experimenting so as to keep their business flourishing.

4 out of 5 stars

Harry Potter 5 (unpublised)

2008-02-13T13:34:00.000-08:00

TEDIOUS

If you’re a movie fan (emphasis on the word “movie”) like I am, that would be the word to best describe “The Order of the Phoenix”: Tedious. Watching this film on the big screen was as entertaining as watching the paint dry. And to make matters worse, I was really looking forward to it. I had spoken to a close friend of mine (we have similar movie tastes) and he highly recommended it. He even compared it to “Prisoner of Azkaban”. I was sold. The only thing I didn’t know is that he had already read the book. I hadn’t. In fact, I haven’t read any of the 7 books that are out there. And there’s the rub: if you have read the book and are a Potter fan, this movie will seem great. It is apparently the one that less deviates from the original story. And after all, that’s what book-based movies are all about, right?

Wrong.

I’m a self-proclaimed movie fan. I go and watch movies because I want to be entertained for two hours, and I can’t be expected to read a book on which a movie is based, least of all if the book is about teenage witches. This is one of the many reasons why the third instalment in the Potter franchise is still my favorite, and probably still will be when this whole Potter movie mania is over. Ironically, the third movie is apparently the one the book readers dislike the most. But that’s another story. Moving on…

Several things fail miserably here. First, the director. David Yates is a British TV director who makes his movie debut with Harry Potter. This is why watching this flick is like watching the longest and most boring episode of “Harry Potter: The Miniseries”. Rest assured this chapter will translate unchanged when this moves over to television. Second, the pacing was all wrong. There are unnecessary scenes all over the place, as well as quick cuts from one scene to the next. The movie just never manages to lift off into a convincing climax. And third, there is no script. It’s just a direct translation from the book. This is why the book fans love it. There is a possibility that the book is to blame for the failure of the movie, but that is relative. Movies are, after all, a different medium. And I have yet to hear a book fan say something bad about this fifth instalment.

There are some good things I could mention, I guess. It’s good to see the owners of the franchise experimenting with different directors. That is, after all, how Alfonso Cuarón ended up directing the third one. It’s also good to see the same cast. The actors are all the same ones that started with the first one.

It’s too bad that watching 2+ hours of this film seems WAY longer than taking a week to read the book.

Finally I’d just like to say something to all those movie fans out there: don’t watch this movie. Read the book, instead. I promise you’ll get more enjoyment out of the story and by the end, you won’t feel like you wasted your time.

Transformers

2008-02-13T13:32:00.002-08:00

Not a Failure

Well, at least, not a complete failure. Transformers, this summer’s most talked about, most hyped, and probably most expensive film, had it tough from the start: trying to please a dedicated fan base that’s at least 20 years old, translating a difficult theme to the big screen, and being involved in some legal arguments in reference to the original cartoon’s trademark. At the same time it was the easiest film to execute, as long as you have a budget that exceeds 150 million dollars. The film’s greatest attribute is also its weakness: to know it has the potential of a blockbuster movie. Allow me to elaborate.

The digital effects in this film are, by almost any standard, incredible. The CG shots blend almost seamlessly with the real action going on. The robots fight in the middle of the city throwing cars and trucks at each other, tackling each other down like pro-wrestlers, skidding down the highway tearing up the concrete as if they were ice-skating happily down the track. This is all very enjoyable to watch, and it is, basically, what you paid to see. It’s every fan’s dream come true. Really. You won’t be disappointed.

Now, about the plot. Well, simply put… it sucks. The makers of the film (among them Michael Bay – Pearl Harbour, Armageddon) knew they didn’t have to pay much attention to it, and that’s precisely what they did. A lot of us wanted to see a more mature approach at the story; maybe some sort of twist, or some character development beyond that of the cartoon’s many years ago (Was it really too much to ask?). But alas, they made the plot simple, trite, and corny. I personally was losing interest half way through the film until all the destruction began. Then I was wide-eyed and watching in amazement as the robots smashed everything that stood in their way, including any chance of a decent storyline…

Only the very basic characteristics from the cartoon still survive in the movie, like the names of the robots, and how they interact with each other. It’s pretty fun to see Megatron bickering at StarScream, and Bumblebee’s relationship with the boy is nicely established and developed. There are differences, though. For example, the transforming “method” of the robots is different than that of the original toys 20 years ago, and Bumblebee is a Camaro, not a VW beetle. Of course, these are only details that fans of the cartoons notice, and they don’t really detract from the whole movie experience.

As a blockbuster movie, Transformers delivers, yet it had the potential for so much more. Numbed by the final action sequences, you probably won’t even notice the latter.

2 1/2 stars out of 5

Apocalypto

2008-02-13T13:32:00.001-08:00

I loved “The Passion of the Christ”. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a sadist, but the character development Mel Gibson did for Jesus Christ was a fresh and poignant take compared to previous efforts: an exposition of unconditional love and compassion between Mary and her Son. This film did an excellent job in helping me understand and feel this relationship on a more intimate level. Though most people will disregard the core of the relationship as an excuse for the bloodshed that follows, I like to think of it as a strong attribute of the film. Gibson has practice in this: he also succeeded in moving audiences with Braveheart. Yet, his latest effort takes the same route with a different outcome…
Synopsis: A small tribe of Indians in yet undiscovered America gets ravaged by another, more violent one. As the men and women are taken prisoners, one man leaves his family behind, hidden, in hopes of returning and saving them. Little does he know that he has been selected as a sacrifice to the gods, so that the injustice and poor living conditions the Mayans face may end. Any similarity to actual events is purely coincidental; though nowadays, sacrifices are less public, more discreet, and speedier.
Just as with his previous movies, Apocalypto is centered on this one character: Jaguar Paw (played by newcomer Rudy Youngblood), whose story, for some reason, Gibson thought was worth telling. Yet, in fact, there is no hint in the movie that distinguishes this man’s story from that of his tribesmen, except for the fact, of course, that his life was spared under very singular circumstances. The whole idea of destiny that the movie tries to play with gets spoiled by the failure to introduce further motives for the viewer to believe in this character. In other words: we don’t see a reason to root for him. At no moment was I persuaded to see Rudy’s story as different or special. Hence, I left the movie theater feeling as if I didn’t know what exactly had happened. I knew I had watched an action flick of sorts, with meticulous production design and excellent performances by (yet) unknown actors. An interesting feature is that the entire movie is spoken in Mayan (with subtitles), which gives the experience a more authentic feeling. Still, I was longing for some involvement, some empathy. What went wrong?
The only explanation I can think of is that Gibson is trying to tell us something in signs (pun not intended!); maybe in some other language (like Mayan). Something like, “If your life is spared, your destiny has not been fulfilled”. Perhaps it’s more along the line of, “Eclipses happen every other quarter century”. Or maybe the message of Apocalypto is, “Run, Rudy, Run!” Whatever it is, don’t assume you’ll find the answer at the movie theater.

3 of 5 stars

Children of Men (unpublished)

2008-02-13T13:31:00.001-08:00

Unwavering. Implacable. Cruel. Gritty. Emotional. Gripping. Relentless. Like few experiences at the movie theater. That and more is “Children of Men”, the latest motion picture by Mexican filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón; who manages to bring together actors like Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, and Michael Caine. (Caine signed up for this movie after announcing his retirement; apparently he said he just had to be part of this project) In minutes, the story paints us a monochrome picture of the characters, their situation in war-ridden London, and shatters all expectations in seconds. Let’s just say that the trailer does not do the movie justice. (then again, which trailer does?)
The story begins with a bang (literally), giving us a glimpse of things to come. I say this with all honesty: the movie just does not stop in its portrayal of violence. But it’s not done gratuitously: everything is at the mercy of the story (and a simple one at that). It’s 2027, and mankind has suffered an infertility crisis that threatens its existence. The youngest person has died at 18 years of age. The world is in chaos: there is widespread fear of illegal immigration. London looks like a new age ghetto full of areas designed to hold illegal immigrants ( fugis), crammed in cages small enough so that you can feel their pain and desperation. There’s a graffiti that reads, “Last one to die turn off the light!!!” And the sky is grey. Scratch that – everything is grey. The buildings, the people, the rubble: everything. It’s as if the colors had been sucked out of the world; as if life dissipated along with youth. And all anyone’s doing is waiting to die; in grief.
Suddenly, humanity’s hope lies in a pregnant prostitute (it figures). And it’s up to an unlikely hero to save her from the government and the fishes (renegade group), before they use her for their own political gain. And just when you think everything’s worked out and salvation lies around the corner, something happens that feels nothing short of a slap in the face, telling you, “you fool, there is no hope!” Instead of awesome special effects (of which there are plenty) the movie portrays its realism most effectively by shredding our hope in a two hour time span.
As mentioned before, the story is simple, and it can definitely be criticized for it. But the rollercoaster ride of seeing it on the big screen more than makes up for that shortcoming. It was, by far, the most intense two hours I’ve spent in a movie theater in the past five years. Very few films have come close to its enrapturing power. Cuarón is definitely posing himself as one of the most versatile directors today (“Y tu mamá también”, “Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban”). Go see it. And if by the end you still feel hopeless, stay for the credits.

There is hope.

Borat

2008-02-13T13:30:00.002-08:00

When you watch comedy, you’re really not expecting much. After all, any fool can make you laugh. How else can Hollywood get away with crappy comedies like the recent “The Cleaner” (which hasn’t hit theaters here; and let’s hope it doesn’t), or Rob Schneider’s flicks like “Animal” and “Hot Chick”. We could also talk about Will Ferrel and his collaborations. Entertaining? Maybe. Worth a second look? Not likely. Movies like these just need to survive for a couple of weeks in the box office and then they’re gone: They’ve made their profit. Does Borat fall under this category? No. Let’s see why…
It’s impossible to talk about Borat and not mention Sacha Baron Cohen. (which would be the equivalent of talking about The Pink Panther and not Peter Sellers) Cohen is a Cambridge graduate, a Jewish Englishman considered a comedic genius in many respects. For those of us who have seen skits from his TV show, “Da Ali G show”, there’s no doubt that this man has talent. Not only does he have a chameleonic approach to acting (only approach, in my humble opinion), but also the subject matter of the show is controversial and relevant on a social level. He wants to make you think and laugh at the same time. A key ingredient to this is how he invites real-life professionals, social workers, drug experts; interviews them and asks them what would seem to be ridiculous questions; but are in fact relevant questions which merit reflection and thought. Upon realizing that they really don’t have an answer, the guests are ridiculed live on stage, all the while Cohen brilliantly plays his Ali G part.
In “Borat”, Cohen plays, well, Borat, a reporter on a mission: to gather “Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan”. The “guest in the show” this time around is the USA. Explaining more on this point would be either be giving away the movie or criticizing the USA; both of which I’m sure you could probably do without. I guess I could tell you that he falls in love with a magazine photo of Pamela Anderson.
On the other hand, it’s a movie you should see at most once if only for the renowned naked fight scene. And that is all I’m going to say about that. There are dull moments that really disconnect you from the experience. But then again, it’s filmed documentary style, so it’s got the documentary lag to it. All in all, it’s worth seeing at the theater or as a rental for the sheer enjoyment of watching people ridicule themselves. It’s definitely not your usual slapstick comedy. There’s substance to it.

3 of 5 stars.

PS: I found a video online of Borat paying a visit to NY on SNL. Check it out.

The Prestige

2008-02-13T13:30:00.001-08:00

Are you watching closely?

“The Prestige”, the latest offering from meticulous filmmaker Christopher Nolan, is a movie that’ll teach you a thing or two about performing magic tricks, put you in the middle of late 19^th century London, and have you at the edge of your seat; all at the same time. The story of two rival magicians and their obsession with the perfect magic trick, the film transports you into an era when magicians and performers were at their peak and audience paid good money to watch dangerous magic tricks being performed, like the lady in the water tank, or the transported man (the transported man? Yes! The transported man!).

What does it take to perform the perfect magic trick? What resources do the magicians and their ingeniers have at their disposal? What sacrifices are they willing to make? Along this train of thought, Nolan probes the unconscious, by telling us that we want to be fooled, that we’re not looking close enough; and yet, in the end, we are pleasantly entertained. At whatever cost for the performers, that is. I guess you could say that we, the audience, are a cruel audience. Living vicariously through others, and watching pain and misery happen, from a safe distance.

The title of the film is excellently explained in the movie trailer (although, the best way to see a movie is knowing nothing about it). According to the film, the prestige is the third act of any magic trick, where what disappears is brought back again; what was locked up is finally freed. It’s the moment immediately before the instant when we’re holding our breath to see what happens. Thanks to Nolan, the execution of the story is impeccable, and a grand “prestige” conclusion awaits the audience. The story is actually split into the three acts that make up a magic trick. So you could very well establish a parallel between a magician’s trick and Nolan’s film. Anyone familiar with the director’s work knows what to expect: non-linear storyline, profound psychological characters, and excellent production design. Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman star; and while the performances are very good, I’m personally getting a bit tired of seeing Jackman’s face in every other movie… (X Men: The Last Stand and The Fountain are just a few examples)

Apparently, Nolan is now infatuated with Bale, Michael Caine (who stars as brilliantly as always), and comic books. This film, as well as his previous one (Batman Begins) are both comic book adaptations. It’s not easy to translate the intricate plots, the twists and turns that make up a comic. Thankfully, this just happens to be up Nolan’s alley.

The Prestige is rated 12 years and older.

Volver

2008-02-13T13:29:00.000-08:00

TO RETURN… (4.5/5 stars)

Are you superstitious? Do you believe in ghosts? Would you come back to amend a family situation left unattended? These are some questions that might cross your mind when thinking about life, death, and family. It’s topics like these that Pedro Almodóvar addresses in his new movie, “Volver” (Return). Almodóvar (Talk To Her, The Bad Education) has a tendency to make emotionally charged films with intricate plots relating things like sexuality, life, death… and sugar-sprinkled donuts.

In a small town in Spain, strange and tragic events unfold that make a mother (Carmen Maura) return to the lives of her two daughters (Penélope Cruz and Lola Dueñas), after her funeral had already come to pass. As the story progresses, we are thrown deep into the characters lives and we identify with them almost immediately (not that it’s hard to like them from the very beginning); and as the plot evolves, events unfold in a manner that seems to resemble the blooming of a flower; that is, slowly and beautifully. The way we are carried through the plot’s intricacies is done magnificently; and it’s no surprise; this is one of Almodóvar gifts. He weaves the story from the inside out, naturally showing us the outside first, and finally showing us the core of what he wanted to convey; which differs considerably from the first impression (it’s very different to see a flower in full bloom than to just see the bud). It’s this artistry that is very evident in the film, and it’s also why good artists like him take their time making movies.

The acting is grandiose, and Penélope Cruz shines as she portrays a strong, hardworking woman, in love with the simple pleasures of life. She has family problems, of course. She visits her sister frequently, is a full time wife for her less than grateful husband, and whenever in trouble, is not afraid of asking for help when she needs it. Cruz’s character gives the movie a wonderful dynamic, and you may just find yourself grinning inadvertently when she appears on the screen; no matter if you’re a boy or a girl…

Some five or six years ago, a movie like this one would have no Hollywood endorsement. Thanks to the creative draught present nowadays in movie city (or hopefully our shift in taste), producers have turned to TV remakes, comic books, and foreign films; among other sources. “Volver” is released for the mainstream audience by “Focus Features”, which is a Hollywood studio that backs independent film. It’s a fine film that you should not miss, whether you’re a fan of mainstream movies, independent films, or you simply happen to like anything Almodovar makes; which is not a bad thing, at all.

Miami Vice

2008-02-13T13:27:00.000-08:00

“The show is written for an MTV audience, which is more interested in images, emotions and energy than plot and character”, said Lee Katkin, one of many directors of the Miami Vice series, back in the eighties. We all remember James “Sonny” Crocket and Ricardo “Rico” Tubbs, the two undercover cops of the Miami police dept, set to infiltrate and disarm the underground drug operations that were taking place in beautiful, tropical Miami. The series (executive-produced by Michael Mann, the film’s director) is mostly remembered for breaking new ground in the cops and robbers genre; establishing itself as a trend-setter. The episodes, visually fresh and hip, were geared to reach the TV audience of that time; like Mr. Katkin said, an MTV audience.

Well, the movie adaptation is no exception. Only that now the MTV audience demands more sophisticated, gory, in-your-face effects and trinkets. The movie starts out by placing the viewer in the middle of an undercover operation inside a disco club. Mind you there are no credits at the beginning. The director is brash enough to be able to pull this off, and its audience (most acquainted with the TV show) really doesn’t miss the formal introduction. After an informant goes bad, the plot sets in motion what will be the mission that our detectives will have to face. More than well-known stereotypes are exploited heavily in the film; like the Colombian drug lord and his drones, but the film can’t be blamed for it. There’s also a love story in the mix, that tries to develop, but doesn’t quite cut it; as is the case with the rest of the picture. Basically, you’re waiting for the next big action scene; and in the midst of this, Sonny and Rico are doing their best not to blow their cover. Slow moving and not completely satisfactory, the plot sticks to Katkin’s definition, and the movie suffers for it.

Michael Mann is well versed in the movie-directing business (Heat, Collateral). Yet good movies about cops and robbers get better when the viewer is allowed to pick at the plot and at the characters’ strengths and weaknesses, but it’s hard to do that when what you’re watching is an extended episode of the TV show.

The movie is shot in documentary style, giving it a more realistic, gritty feel to it. Reminds me of Paul Greengrass’ “The Bourne Supremacy”. The soundtrack is a highlight of the film, including a rock cover of Phil Collin’s song, “In the Air Tonight”. Other pop rock songs are pleasantly chosen throughout the different parts of the movie; like the new Audioslave song that cues the love story scenes. Overall, it’s an entertaining film that MTV audiences will enjoy.

3/5 stars

by Hugo Marenco