"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

"Hitchcock", zero suspense, dull biopic

Hitchcock

Biopics can be a real torture or, when memorable, a fantastic excuse to discover or re-connect with the film's subject. But there's a third "category", which is usually the most common: a movie that leaves you completely indifferent. Not annoying, but really insipid. "Hitchcock" could be the perfect example. Reminded me to "My Week with Marilyn". Take a cultural myth/icon and put it on an unsubstantial movie.

In this sort of films, it doesn't really matter if you are a fan or a hater, because there's not a real attempt of offering any insight of the biopic's character. That is the case of "Hitchcock". Worse, this film doesn't want to talk about the way Sir Alfred Hitchcock approached cinema, being labelled as the "Master of Suspense" (not me). Doesn't aim to show his peculiar relations with her cast (particularly women), wife, or studios. Doesn't pretend to offer any real tension or obsessions. It's just a expensive tv movie, suitable to anyone. Entertaining enough to keep you going, but nothing else.

"Hitchcock" biggest failure is the lame plot. The whole movie is focused on the director's battle to make "Psycho". Yep, director Sacha Gervasi probably believed that having such a movie classic (not for me) as the plot's subject he didn't have to care about the screenplay. Wrong. From the very beginning we are in front of a game of incoherencies, plotholes. Gervasi chooses a supposedly very dramatic scene that should justify why Hictchcock needed to do "Psycho"... forgetting that before that moment all we had was a triumphant director presuming of their latest success, "North by Northwest". Gervasi gives Vera Miles a shot, on which we assume there was a very "special" issue regarding her relation with the director, then her character gets almost abandoned. I could go on. And the nightmarish scenes on which Alfred "lives" inside the novel that inspired the film are ridiculous.  

With such an empty script, what keeps the movie alive is the marital/work tension between Alfred and his wife Alma. Not because it has any particular strength, but at least it does have coherency and a very solid actress, Helen Mirren, carrying the weight of the film on her reliable shoulders. The rest of the impressive cast does what they can. Good actors on secondary roles like Toni Collette or Michael Wincott have very unrewarding lines. Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh and Jessica Biel as Vera Miles have barely no space to be more than mannequins. On a side note, its a crime that two of the most beautiful actresses look that unattractive on screen. 

And of course, Anthony Hopkins as the "great man himself". Well, he looks like a perfect caricature of the man. You can put all the prosthetics you can, gain weight, and perfect voice and mannerisms as much as you can. That will only mean a fantastic recreation of the person's aesthetics. But you still need a direction, a purpose, a turmoil to get the character alive. Hopkins tries, and as the gifted actor he is, he saves dozens of scenes... but it's still an artifice. He is the epitome of the whole movie, pointless, weak, lifeless. Doesn't harm, but save it just for killing time.  

SCORE: 5/10

"Woody Allen: A Documentary", life through a camera

Woody Allen: A Documentary

I already wrote this: I owe a lot to Woody Allen, not only in terms of "cultural education" but also in terms of humour and a certain view of life. I was sixteen when a friend of a friend passed me a couple of films. The first one was Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" (Les Quatre Cents Coups). It grab me and shook me as very few things before. But it was nothing compared with the impact of the second film. I'm referring, of course, to Allen's "Annie Hall", that not only remains as a fundamental movie for me. I know that will "remain with me" forever.

This personal introduction explains why it was virtually mandatory for me to watch this documentary, even though I suspected there wasn't going to be a lot of new information for me on the director (seen it all, read it a lot). The surprise was that for a while, "Woody Allen: A Documentary", it does proof to be a quite revealing and very entertaining film.

Seems that director Robert Weide has had access (which is remarkable) not only to deconstruct the career of the Brooklyn artist, but also to film a bit of his daily life and creative process. During its first half, we have the chronicle of Allen's rising from teen writer to stand up comedian, TV star to a movie writer-director praised as an iconic auteur. For any devoted fan, the archive footage of his monologues and jokes on TV, along with the opinions of the people who are (look at his film credits!, always the same people) "Allen's gang": Jack Rollins, Charles H Joffe, Letty Aronson...is hugely enjoyable. But the contrast with his opinions on camera, his memories of childhood, and his writing habits (the scenes when he shows his working desk, his impossibly outdated German typewriter, and the scrapped notes he keeps that then will become scripts are precious), make this documentary A MUST-SEE.

Seriously, it could have been close to perfection. We start the recap of his filmography going movie after movie for a while (nice to see Martin Scorsese sharing his views on Allen's career). There's another precious chapter (it couldn't be any other way) with the apparition of Annie, or better said, Diane Keaton. Yes, as the movie says, count me among the ones that felt in love with her in this movie. There's one wonderful scene, with Allen incapable of not laughing in front of her, that it reveals much more than any declaration on their level of connection. But after "Stardust Memories" Weide changes the film structure. Gone is the idea of going film-by-film, and everything seems to be rushing from there on. A glimpse on the Mia Farrow-Soon-Yi scandal, although it is remarkable Allen share a thought on that too, a very quick jump into the 90s, another one on his late "lost period", and then his unexpected success with the charming "Midnight in Paris", all mixed with opinions on his legacy, and how actors (Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Penélope Cruz, Scarlett Johansson or Naomi Watts among others) enjoy his peculiar way of directing them. Too much in too little time, forgetting too many things...

Now I have found the film I've just seen is the cinema-release version of a PBS documentary which originally clocks at 191-minutes. That is an enormous difference in length (almost 80 minutes) which might help explaining why the second half of the film looks more disjointed and pressed. I'm sorry to say that if that's the case, well then it seems that, again, business defeated cinema. A commercial decision (reducing the film length) was prioritized instead of consistency and coherency of what potentially was a superb documentary on one of the most important directors, if you allow me to say, ever. I know that I will end watching the complete documentary sooner or later, so I'll let you know... For now, a recommendable documentary that could have been a must-see.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"The Avengers", superheroes' all-star game

The Avengers

That's the last superhero movie I'm watching in a long while, promise. Too many in the last two years, the majority of them being quite mediocre. "The Avengers" is not going to be any landmark in these overexploited sub-genre, but at least achieves its ultimate goal: being a pleasant entertainment.

After watching "The Avengers", I think I resolved myself a question regarding superhero/action movies. I prefer to have a no-brainer but quite spectacular, and for the most part, entertaining film than a supposedly more serious, but eventually more pretentious and sorry to say, tiring film like the last Batman. After all, a superhero film is not author's cinema and, if the material you are working with doesn't allow you to do so, maybe is better to concentrate in what you can offer: a couple of hours of fun. Besides, Marvel's factory has never been known for its adult/very mature pretensions, something that is completely reasonable, if you keep your coherency. So director Joss Whedon probably realised he had the potential (and budget) to film the most spectacular superhero film ever made. And decided to go for it, leaving the most substantial elements of a film (namely the plot or the premise) in an obvious second place. He probably chose well.

So, if you expected an intricate and tortured villain, look somewhere else. The bad guy is that kitsch version of Loki we saw on the laughable Thor, who by the way, looks exactly as silly as it was on that film, more likely to be participating on Smack Down/RAW than understanding what's going on Earth. If you were thinking on an elaborated major crisis that would force to assemble such a superhero "all-star game" this is not your film: the evil comes from another world, and with no other goal than provoking total war. Basically, "The Avengers" is that battle, and the so-called plot is the excuse to keep you waiting for it.

Well, the good part is that "The Avengers" doesn't pretend to take itself very seriously either. No one really cares about the Tesseract, and that extremely long scene on S.H.I.E.L.D. awesome headquarters, where scientists Bruce Banner and Tony Stark try to find a solution about the energy issue while they discover the real reasons of Nick Fury's behaviour, has the only purpose of being funny.

No, the questions on "The Avengers" are who would win in a fight: The Hulk or Thor? Who will be do the last action, who would be the one that saves the world? Can Captain America pair alongside the powers of the other superheroes? And what are the real motivation of the S.H.I.E.L.D. soldiers? The sort of questions to please the comic fans, providing a feast of amazing scenes of action, the mother of all battles and quite a few hilarious moments (best one being The Hulk hitting Thor by surprise). Actors doesn't have a lot to prove. Scarlett looks sexy as anyone can expect, but her character doesn't have an important role. Chris Evans has the same lame character as Captain America as their solo film. And Samuel L. Jackson is quite ridiculous again as Nick Fury. The only ones remarkable are Robert Downey Jr's impersonation of the cynical hero as Iron Man and the good actor Mark Ruffalo mutating into the green beast.

"The Avengers" combination is pretty engaging. Pretty silly, understanding silly as some kind of compliment, as it refers to its lack of pretensions. So it's a good, fun option, for having a couple of entertained hours at least. 

SCORE: 6/10

"Iron Man", Robert Downey Jr. disguised show

Iron Man

Back from New Year's Eve and a false start of 2012 with a pretty serious flu, that, unfortunately, didn't let me watch any movies, with just one exception, "Iron Man". Which is a very easy film to rate. It's Robert Downey Jr.' show. Sometimes even disguised in a quite tacky armoured suit.

Because honestly, if it wasn't saved by Downey, the perfect choice to play Tony Stark, the vain, arrogant and cynical playboy that is also the greatest engineering genius on Earth, the movie would be outrageously silly. All the script fluctuates between the weak and the simply dumb, with some "memorable" moments to highlight, that can be summarised in the quite pathetic and completely unbelievable scenes in Afghanistan, where Starks designs the first version of the "Iron Suit" out of nowhere, while their captors are so stupid they can't realise he's not building the missile he has promised them (something you can easily do on a grotto in the middle of the desert, by the way). It has to do more with McGiver or the A-Team. It also puzzled me how lame was Stark's emotional "conflict". You build the most devastating and powerful super-weapons, but you are surprised they can be used by the "bad guys", really? Really? I'm not a fan of Iron Man, never read the comic. But if you are going to create a superhero without superpowers, at least the premise should be somewhat credible.

Anyway, this is (another) superhero adaptation so substance shouldn't be the main incentive. The rest of the film, there's a mixture of quite cool CGI effects, wasted secondaries (Terrence Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow) a villain, Obadiah Stane, that could have offered a lot more, specially considering it is played by the great Jeff Bridges, and action scenes where the luxurious budget can be justified, but also sacrificing any sense of verisimilitude (sure, it has to be very "cool" having a weapon that detects villains from innocent civilians... but my God, don't you realise it is absurd?) 

Having said that, I insist, the movie is a fine entertaining, and keeps you going. It has rhythm, it is well-packed, doesn't take itself very seriously (luckily) and benefits of the charisma and presence of Robert Downey Jr. I have the impression the "Iron Man" saga will only make sense while he is on board. I remember watching its second part (on a plane back home from Malaysia) wondering why director's Jon Favreau didn't put him on every scene of the film (he could have had some more room for the gorgeous Scarlett Johansson/Black Widow too), as it was obvious the whole movie suffered without its main attraction.

But again, as a mere, no-brainer entertainment, "Iron Man" works more than fine. 

SCORE: 5/10