"Her", Eternal Sunshine of the Digital Mind

Her

Thanks Spike Jonze for delivering one of the most special films this blogger has ever seen. Her is a unique tour-de-force. Sweet, wise and ahead of its time. Soulful and intriguing. Romantic and adventurous. Could be adding adjectives for days...

Her is a ridiculously smart and risky film. Smart because Jonze uses a just-barely-sci-fi setting, with a dreamy, pastel sun-setting but isolated L.A., the scenario in which he develops a profoundly deep and touching tale about human relationships in the digital age. And risky because the director is not afraid to take his time, making the movie a very peculiar one in terms of rhythm and tone (elegiac, dreamy). He's also brave enough to breath-in and breath-out. He demands an effort to the spectator (I admit the pace and the acceptance of the idea can be a bit too much for many), but the reward is mind-blowing, only comparable to, imo, to another undeniable contemporary masterpiece with whom Her shares quite a few resemblances, Eternal Sunshine of the Eternal Mind. Like Gondry's superb quest on memory and love Her connects with you in a way very few movies have.

Like Joel Barish in Eternal Sunshine, Theodore Twombly can't move on from his failed relationship, once that a hopeless romantic like him always was fated to last forever. He's lonely and self-protective, despite his work as a personal letter's writer requires him to be a very special connoisseur of human emotions. But then technology, in the form of an artificial intelligence operating system named Samantha appears. And a dozen of paradoxes and questions too. Can we reach a deeper level of communication with an OS? Can a machine, perfected to adapt itself, created to please his/her user, to meet all our requirements, understands us, also at an emotional level? Can we develop affection, empathy and finally, love, without physical attraction? Could that qualify as a real relation? What is this thing called love, anyways? Spike Jonze builds a slightly deformed, exaggerated mirror, on which he speculates with the overgrowing virtual affairs: are they the inevitable evolution of relationships? Are we that far of that scenario in our tech-blooming society (please try not to check you Iphone for at least ten minutes)?

Of course, this thoughtful and ambitious amount of dilemmas wouldn't make for a great movie without a script and real actors that transform the ideas into compelling scenes. But to this date, if Jonze was known as a masterful director in what regards to create surreal, bewildering worlds and situations (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Where the Wild Things Are), this time he has exceeded all expectations, penning an equally arresting and witty script, that flows gracefully from drama to comedy, entirely on his own, allowing actors to excel with the material they have. Joaquim Phoenix as Theodore just carries the movie on his shoulders, he's the perfect fit: vulnerable, needy, confused, introvert, annoying, possessive, frightened. So human and recognisable. Scarlett Johansson, never on screen, also does for a very surprising role (let's admit I was thinking who wouldn't fall in love with her a couple of times while watching it, but keep the secret). The director does an incredible job on capturing the intimacy of the impossible couple. If you don't feel for the characters, you are made of stone (or made of Iphone, even worse). Amy Adams is also impressive in her secondary but very relevant secondary role as Amy, Theodore's best friend (and something more) who is struggling with a "real" marriage that goes nowhere...

I have developed several theories about the movie and its near-perfect puzzle, the crossing of parallel lines between real and technological. But I don't want to spoil you the film (or bore you). All I can do is enthusiastically recommend you to go watch this film. An arresting, uniquely beautiful and rich movie. Masterpiece.

SCORE: 9/10

"American Hustle", the Big Empty

American Hustle

How many times I have written this before? Hype, the problem is the hype. You can have a flamboyant cast, the coolest aesthetics, a thousand nominations and all the favourable praise... but do you have a movie, one with substance, one that endures after the final vanish? I'm afraid not. "American Hustle" is a well-designed, extremely well in what regards to looks, entertainment product, but not a film that deserves to be remembered.

The other word that comes to my mind with "American Hustle" is fake. David O. Rusell wanted to have it all. Professional grifters caught by the police, who want to use them to catch a "bigger fish", so here's a thriller aiming to be the next "The Sting" (but loosely based on a real case, the ABSCAM operation)? Check. A tale about late 1970s -early 1980s, so every single scene must say something about how people dressed and behaved then?. Check. An eccentric comedy, with husbands, wives and mothers, all full of obsessions (again the looks)? Check.. Some sexual tension between the main characters, so we can add something else to the betrayal's game? Sure, check. A bit about corruption, but including an honest man? Check. Some dances? Check. And even Robert de Niro doing the mob impersonation once again, so you can proudly show what you are aiming for? Check, check, check. I know you already know what I'm going to write about: too much. Obviously, and that make the movie hard to believe.

"Silver Linings Playbook" was less pretentious, and to my view, although far from being memorable, it worked better as a whole. Primarily, because there was space for the characters to develop their roles, so Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence had the chance of showing their acting talents throughout the film. But in "American Hustle" the stunning cast doesn't have the chance. Lawrence's role as the vulgar and explosive Rosalyn Rosenfeld is just a need of the script (pretty weak imo) and a resource for funny scenes. Cooper as the cop Richie DiMaso and Christian Bale as Irving Rosenfeld do as much as they can with the material provided, but they are supposed to be suffering hell in one scene to be making fun in the next. Hard to believe. Amy Adams as Sydney Prosser might have the most interesting role... I can't see why does she need to be showing her cleavage in every single scene, but I'm certain she makes the film get going.    

I won't spoil the film for you, don't worry, but being a movie about scams, there's a gigantic one, and then THE TRICK. Couldn't buy it sorry, and wasn't that interested on the process to achieve it. Same goes about the finale, seriously lame. I concede that it could be just me. Entertaining? Yes. With some charm and some sort of originality? Agreed too. But not much aside from that. Seriously overhyped.

SCORE: 5/10

"The Master", under the auteur cult

The Master

Another example, perhaps one of the finest to add to my recurrent debate on the purpose of cinema and the concept of auteur. Paul Thomas Anderson has, in my opinion, three extraordinary films in his, to date, great career: "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia" and "Punch-Drunk Love". An ok debut with "Hard Eight", and then two movies where everything has become too "intellectual": "There Will Be Blood" and now, "The Master". I think I will call it the "Malick's syndrome", or the "Dude, where's my movie syndrome?". 

Perfectionism and ambition should be considered virtues on a filmmaker. Also being a polariser of audiences isn't bad per se (probably producers won't agree), as it usually means the director takes risks and wants to leave the mainstream pattern. Anderson, like Malick, have been following their own path since they decided to put themselves behind a camera. But rejecting commercial success doesn't automatically mean making great movies.

Anderson's way of filming is pure perfection. It's pointless to waste time trying to find something to criticiseize in what regards to technical aspects, so critics, you can sharp your pens here and look for the most bombastic praise: it will be more than deserved. On the other hand, I don't agree with the annoying score of Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood, who repeats all the tricks we heard on "There Will Be Blood".

As a matter of fact, "There Will Be Blood" and "The Master" seems to be connected. Both are epic, reflective depictions of human behaviour in heavy turmoil. Both are spectacular, uncomfortable and absorbing study-characters. And both have deep resonances with the country in which they both take place: the United States. But for me the difference lies on what Anderson cares about their stories. While on "There Will Be Blood", the "superficial" story, the oil prospection, was the solid pillar among the film evolved, on "The Master" there's not much for the audience to keep them focused on.
 
Indeed, the main attraction on "The Master" comes from the mind-blowing performances of two gigantic actors, Joaquim Phoenix as the tortured Freddie Quell and the infallible Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a peculiar cult named The Cause in post-WWII America, plus the more subtle but equally powerful work of Amy Adams as Hoffman's wife. Their relationships and attitudes are what keeps the viewer connected with the film. But unfortunately that means "The Master" works better as a collection of distorted scenes that will blow your mind, not really as cohesive unit. Each time Hoffman and Phoenix share screen the film ignites, but the narrative structure doesn't allow that intensity to last. Anderson trio of characters should be included among the most-complex, fascinating and absorbing that have been ever written in cinema. But even the best characters need a story in which they evolve.

My concern is that I'm sure Anderson made his film less straightforward, more oblique, on purpose, convinced that credits him as a better auteur. The superficial story of the cult, on which the clash and connection of the two leading roles arise, had an incredible potential in its own. Fanaticism, religion, loyalty and belief, with the Scientology clearly on the background... But Anderson doesn't care about telling us a story, abandoning the cult subject and letting his film sinking into a regrettable chaos. Yes, at times its a highly and perversely attractive chaos, thanks to his filmmaking talents and propelled by the amazing actors. But the lack of cohesion and direction results into a frustrating and forgettable film as a whole, once finished.  

Powerful, masterfully filmed, with a superb trio of actors ready to knock you out with their performances... but at the same time little direction, resulting on, for me, a failed film.

SCORE: 5,75/10

"The Fighter", boxing and family triumph by K.O.

The Fighter
Great surprise. Wasn't expecting much, because boxing has been overused by Hollywood, and so the topic of redemption/second opportunity through sport, which is on the verge of being a worrying cliché. But luckily, "The Fighter" offers a lot more.

To start with, because boxing remains on the background of the movie, and although it is based on the true story of "Irish" Micky Ward, a local hero from Lowell, Massachusetts, the film instead reveals itself as a familiar drama where there are far more punches at the emotional level that inside the ring.

During the first hour of "The Fighter", we saw a family holding on to nothing, struggling with the decadence of Dick Ecklund (Christian Bale), once a boxing local legend, but now a human waste, consumed by crack addiction. The family is sticking with him, living of the past glory, dragging his younger brother Mick Ward (Mark Wahlberg), who also tries to be a boxer, with them. There's no glamour in this portray, as director David O Russell shows us how poverty is around the corner, and how family and the familiar business boxing is, is disgusting and ugly.

Russell really manages to make us feel the suffocating environment in which Mick is trapped because of his family. He also is able to bring the outsider character into the mix, in the form of a girlfriend (played solidly by Amy Adams), someone really meaningful to Mick who has no fear in saying the things he cannot say to his mother and sisters. She's liberation for him, a reason to keep fighting, and deciding to walk his own way. 

It might be true the second half of the film is more uplifting, with a happier, friendlier tone with the characters. Being a true story I feel inclined to believe it, or maybe, by the time the second opportunity arrives, I cannot avoid to feel a bit compelled by it. But even then, the film has glimpses of harsh reality in a poignant dialogue, a gesture, or awkward situation where the unbalanced relation between the brothers still arises. This wouldn't be possible without the brilliant job of the actors, not just Bale's manic impersonation of Dick, which made him won a deserved Oscar, but everyone on screen. Special credit to Wahlberg's performance, carrying the film on his shoulders, sometimes with just an appalled face.

So, yes, this is another movie about underdogs trying to succeed. But this time the fight is for survival, there's real darkness, filthiness, consistency, and a remarkable honesty in the script, acting and direction. Overall, a knockout triumph.

SCORE: 7,5/10