'A Rainy Day in New York', Woody in (his) Wonderland

A Rainy Day in New York

I skipped the last two movies by Woody Allen, ‘Wonder Wheel’ and ‘Cafe Society’, just because one couldn’t help having that very sad feeling the maestro is dealing with a serious case of creative exhaustion. For the same reason, I was also considering passing on ‘A Rainy Day in New York’, but some amiable reviews commenting the veteran director was revisiting 'The Great Gatsby' and 'The Catcher in the Rye' in a romantic comedy settled in his beloved Manhattan made me think it was worth trying. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

There’s a powerful sense of Allen rehashing himself from almost the very first frame of the film, with a plot, a very young couple spending the weekend in Manhattan where, under bad weather, they will live a series of adventures and (romantic, familiar) revelations, being a mere excuse for the New yorker to indulge himself into his most well-known territory, his comforting Wonderland. Because ‘A Rainy Day in New York’ is so woodyallenesque that at some point I thought the movie was done just for his own pleasure. Even more so considering what has been going around his persona and career lately.

With that idea in mind, the movie could be seen as the work of a nostalgic director surrendering to a serene, anachronic yet friendly contemplation of the things he loves. That personal, trademark look to art, cinema, and more importantly, life, runs through Gatsby Wells (Timothée Chamalet), an alter ego with the most presumptuous name ever, who considers himself somewhat of an illustrated beatnik, the last romantic hero, an unbeatable gambler forced to study at Yardley (elite university, of course), and who is rebelling (at least he thinks so) against his extremely wealthy family… while the pay the bills of his dreamlike life. Gatsby’s romantic partner, yet at the same time opposing force in the movie is Ashleigh Enright (Elle Fanning), an optimistic, innocent girl from Kansas (the "other America"), also a young millionaire, whose journalist duties at Yardley allows her to interview a cult-movie director in the 'Big Apple'.

So, we have two very different leading characters involved in a crazy, romantic adventure that splits into two stories, one of them including an inside portrait of the world of cinema (by far the most entertaining side of the movie, with enjoyable supporting roles played by Jude Law, Liv Schreiber or Diego Luna), a lot of jazz everywhere, dozens of literary references, conversations about love and philosophy taking place within stunning apartments, museums and the coolest bars of 'the city that never sleeps'. It’s the kind of stuff that should work smoothly in the hands of Woody Allen… But it doesn’t.

To begin with, because ‘A Rainy Day in New York’ sounds completely unbelievable, Allen’s young people talk as if they were playing a period piece, being posh and annoying as anything he has ever portrayed. One thing is to fall into nostalgia, but being that rigid and from another era (not even a Whatsapp message?) kills the possibility to relate with the main characters. But there’s worse. The film is not funny at all, jokes seems outdated and the situations the two confront (particularly Gatsby) are missing the comical element. Appalling considering who wrote the script, the satire about the upper classes and intellectual elites is pretty shallow in my opinion… And that’s not all folks. Because when Allen tries to shift from a comedy to a serious tale about Gatsby’s finding his true identity… all the lightweight “watchability” of the script and tone of the movie falls apart.

To my eyes, there’s only one aspect of ‘A Rainy Day in New York’, aside from Vittorio Storaro’s photography, that deserves to be highlighted. That’s Elle Fanning performance, graceful, bright and loose enough to make her side of the story engaging (wish the movie would have been about her movie quest instead, so much potential), the lonely anchor of otherwise a pretty lifeless film. Guess I know this might sound pretty harsh. The movie could have a pass as a failed yet well-intentioned comedy. But again, this is Woody Allen who are talking about. He has done this film a hundred times before, and way way better.

SCORE: 4,75/10

'Bad Boys', the villains of basketball

Bad Boys

The Bad Boys Pistons… how I hated them! They more or less dethroned the mythical domination of Lakers and Celtics during the 80s, when this (then quite little) kid felt in love with basketball. And they did it by playing a very rough, at times straightforwardly violent, heavily defensive style of game. For me, that team was the antithesis of heroics although, somewhat, history has elevated that hard-nose, extremely gritty type of play as the most perfected tribute to that modern euphemism of “whatever it takes to win”. But there’s a history behind that team. A great, compelling, shocking one. And that’s what this documentary addresses with brilliance.

Directed by Zak Levitt, ‘Bad Boys’ is one of the best episodes of the ESPN ‘30 for 30’. It works just admirably as the chronicle, quite a ride, of the Detroit Pistons’ rise. From the early days when they were one of the worst teams of the NBA, playing in a near empty arena to the cornerstone moment of drafting Isaiah Thomas, followed to the progressive assembly of an unforgettable (for good or bad) squad, with names such as Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, Dennis Rodman, John Salley, Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley (later replaced for Mark Aguirre) and, of course, without forgetting it’s architect, head coach Chuck Daly. Blood, sweat and tears...

Because it was a long, extremely demanding trip to success, with a Championship run that each year went a little further, like climbing a very high ladder one step at a time, until they managed to win back-to-back titles in 1989 and 1990. A journey that included frustration (Celtics and Lakers early domination), drastic measures (that Dantley-Aguirre trade), tragedy (the death of Joe Dumars’ father), famous mistakes (the iconic Larry Bird steal), heroics and bad luck (that Isaiah injury and his gigantic Game 6 in the 1988 Finals), plus all sort of antics, despicable arts (leaded by tandem Mahorn-Laimbeer hard-fouls tandem) and dubious choices (summed up in that controversial, "class act", walking off the court against the Bulls once the defeat was evident) all in the same receipt. Absorbing is a word that falls too short to define the experience of any basket lover watching the movie.

But that’s not all, folks! Because ‘Bad Boys’ is not just a very interesting summary of a most celebrated and hated team. It digs deeper, trying to find the essence, the mystery behind those Pistons in their quest to the top. Wisely, Levitt lets the characters do the talking, and the cast, gathered and interviewed in full (with the exception of Daly, who passed away before the film was made), pays dividends to a memorable level. Misfits, lone-wolves, hard-workers and tough guys, snubbed and controversial stars, funny characters… Each one of them would deserve a documentary on his own (well, Rodman, Laimbeer and Thomas could have a longer series than Game of Thrones), showing the viewers the complexity, fearlessness, determination, and improbable coalescence of that unusual bunch of human-beings, becoming a family bonded to fight against all odds, and particularly battling against those 'transatlantic teams' of 80s Celtics, Lakers and Bulls.

The amount of scenes, one-liners and breakout moments is mind-blowing (not just from the Pistons’ roster, but also from journalists, broadcasters and players who fought against them, including Jordan, Pippen, Drexler or Ewing). Isiah Thomas, one of the best point guards ever, with a Magic Johnson kind of smile outside the court getting into several jams (with Bird, Jordan and the whole league); Rodman breaking into tears when receives his first best-defender award; Mahorn smashed into pieces in front of the camera when remembers how he was forced to leave the Pistons; John Salley proving he’s the 'coolest cat' ever to get into a basketball court; and the caustic Laimbeer not ready to bury the hatchet yet. I could go on and on…

Through these anecdotes, first-hand informations and revelations, ‘Bad Boys’ talks about something more than basketball or a radical way of playing, one that seems to be long gone compared with today's softness in the NBA. It's offering us a powerful & affecting statement on embracing an attitude, a behaviour, an identity that connected with fans, the city of Detroit, channeling a spirit of toughness and resolution that endured long after the team uglily disbanded (and the Jordan era began), resonating within American popular culture. What lies behind that image of villainy and rebellion (as Public Enemy would sing, a 'Fight the Power' kind of attitude) is competitiveness, even rudeness, passion, and a relentless obsession to achieve a goal.Have to admit it: even a proven hater like the one writing has begun to love the 'Bad Boys' after watching this documentary. Mandatory, both for basket lovers as well as people interested in striking human stories.  

SCORE: 8/10

'The Doctor', the birth of cool

The Doctor
Way before Lebron and Kobe. Before 'His Airness'. And even before Magic and Bird, there was Julius 'Dr. J' Erving, the most exciting player of the second half of the 70s and early 80s. An all-time player that won titles at ABA and, finally, at the NBA, a sensation, a culture icon, a basketball ambassador, and a figure genuinely revered everywhere. But also, somewhat of an eclipsed, overshadowed player, which imo hasn't received that much attention, needless to say overseas (I was an unborn-little baby when he was one of the biggest basketball stars, so didn't have the chance to watch him live). So folks, how excited I was to watch this documentary!

Made by NBA TV, the league-owned network, 'The Doctor' is pretty straightforward and clearly wanting to capture and show the epic and magic of his playing, as well as his human dimension through some deeply affecting tragedies suffered during his life, 'The Doctor' is an engaging documentary for everyone who loves this sport. It advances smoothly, with dynamism and an overall feeling of joy and respect, fuelled by the archival footage and the enthusiastic comments of heavyweights like Magic Johnson, Pat Riley, Bill Walton or Darryl Dawkins, who portray him as a shock to the system, and alien, a revolutionary for basketball, as well as a role model. Because he was a human highlight, someone who seemed to levitate on air, a slam-dunk artist, and some sort of pioneer who made aesthetics, looks and flair translate into the court, as well as off-court (that hair and ultra-cool wardrobe). He was the coolest cat. He was the 70s. 

'The Doctor' development is simple, but the conventional, chronological order, works flawlessly well. We get to know about his college career, where he wasn't, at least initially, considered to be that great of a prospect. Then we know about his first, teenager success and how he became a legend in town after exploding in the mythical Harlem courts of Rucker Park (comments by the great Tiny Archibald and streetball wonder Pee Wee Kirkland, by the way). Julius was coveted as an exciting player but doubts on how his flashy game could adapt to the pros. But he took the Virginia Squires and the New York Nets by the storm. He simply turned into the face of the ABA.

The documentary takes its time (arguably the most exciting moment of the film) to portray that peculiar coexistence,  constant collision that was really a one-sided battle, and contrast between the two leagues, and how Erving ended being the major attraction of the dying ABA. But when the NBA finally absorbed the latter, the Nets ended selling Erving to the Philadelphia 76ers, and the final chapter of the myth began. Doubts about his adaptation to the league quickly vanished, but despite his star-status (in and out the court, being the lure of many commercial ads as well as NBA events) superhero games and otherworldly moves, he struggled to win a title, while the league entered into the unforgettable decade of the Bird-Magic rivalry... until Moses Malone arrived to the team and Julius finally found the well-deserved relief (that's the stressed word) with the 82-83 championship. It's amazing how even rivals seemed to cheer for Erving in these finals. Basketball owed the final recognition to Dr, J. His career slowly faded after that triumph, but his legacy (Michael Jordan and Lebron James acknowledging he was a major figure to imitate) is one of the most solid ever built in the game of basket.

Unfortunately though, 'The Doctor' falls pretty short in several areas, constraining itself to an extremely likeable hagiography that leaves out relevant information. We understand and, as touching highlights of the movie, value the personal side of Erving's life shown. But alongside the traumatic deaths of his young brother (when Erving breaks in front of the camera, it's hard not to get emotional) when he was a teenager playing at UMass, as well as the car accident that took away the life of his soon Cory in 2000, there's some related familiar turmoil "skimped" to us, such as the acrimonious divorce of Erving and first wife Turquoise, the two kids he had with other women when he was married to him, or the the drug problems of his ill-fated son. There's also some strange omissions in what regards to his professional career, like his first failed attempt to shift from the ABA to the NBA that resulted in an ugly feud involving the Atlanta Hawks and the Milwaukee Bucks.

Although as a documentary 'The Doctor' might be rated as a small underachievement, one has to admit I was deeply entertained (and moved at the aforementioned, sensible scenes) during its whole length. Granted, it lacks some depth and avoids controversy, but Erving fans or curious basketball lovers will for sure enjoy the story of the incomparable "human highlight reel".

SCORE: 6,25/10

'Lady Bird', magic at the "wrong side of the tracks"

Lady Bird

Another high school movie about coming of age? Another “indie” film, with the hype this time arriving in her scriptwriter and debuting director, Greta Gerwig (fifth woman in history to be nominated in the latest category at the Oscars), the queen of low-budget cinema? Well, the answer is yes, if you are only interested in the surface and the headlights of things. But if you are willing to go further and allow yourself to get haunted by top-notch acting and storyline (yes, there’s still hope for screenwriting!), “Lady Bird” could be your movie. So, let me introduce you to Christine “Lady Bird” MacPherson...

Effervescent, charismatic, obstinate-to-the-point-of-rebellion and quirky (she gave a name to her by herself, to begin with) 17-year-old Christine, played majestically by Ronan Saoirse, is a teenager in the verge of becoming an adult. She is a senior student in a Catholic high school in Sacramento, California (Gerwig’s hometown), facing her last year of college and the big decisions in the making and ahead of her. She dreams of getting out of “The Midwest of California”, as she called it, aiming for higher expectations, adventures, an artistic future, savoir-vivre and social refinement. Opportunity and struggle are just behind the corner...

Because Gerwig allow us to follow Lady Bird in that last year, one that looks as crucial as well as full of experiences for our leading character: romance, a play, friendships that allow her to be part of the coolest gang of the school, while she maintains a constant battle with her mother Marion (striking performance by Laurie Metcalf, who should have won the Oscar, imo), who wants her to apply for local universities instead, settling her for more modest and less expensive goals. As I said, it looks like a simple and unsurprising development for a movie on the surface. And it’s true there won’t be any groundbreaking revelations, unexpected twists or revolutionary sci-fi scenes. But who needs them when you are rewarded with such an empathic, extremely well crafted, detailed and touchingly rounded film.

The amount of standout conversations (or discussions, or just one-liners), matchless scenes or moments that are going to captivate the viewer in ‘Lady Bird’ is plain impressive. In some sort of way (not comparing the narratives or the tone, very different) is that sort of excellency you find in Richard Yates, Carson McCullers, Anne Beattie or Raymond Carver's writing, that sort of “can't be better said/summed up/encapsulated than this”. I’m thinking on how that dress searching, with mother and daughter arguing again, is resolved. Or the one when both are sharing the bathroom and Lady Bird asks about her father’s depression. Or the first scene when his father drives her to the school (arresting Tracy Letts). Or how he is “located” in the room and how he behaves when the big fight arrives between mother and daughter explodes. I could go on and on... That sort of “screen magic”, aside from pure talent, of course, has to come from Gerwig’s knowing exactly, from the heart, what she wanted her characters to say and, what’s even more mesmerizing, being able to translate from the paper to the screen. It’s obvious this story is an extremely personal, intimate one… one that a masterful director has transformed into something universal.

The other major factor that can’t be praised enough is how Gerwig deals with what’s clearly the most important bond that’s about to be cut with Lady Bird’s leaving home: family. An imperfect, flawed, modest, all flesh and bones (so refreshing) family. Money is a real, burdening issue (how many American movies deal with that?), one that curses the despaired yet kindhearted father, torments the quibbling mother and frustrates our main character, surrounded by well-off classmates at high school, uncertain of her future because of that lack of resources. And with that comes the relationship between mother and daughter, easily among the most fascinating ever shown in a film. The mixture between intimate connection and tough love, Christine’s need of validation from her mother and Marion’s constant pressure towards her daughter looking to help her to be the “best version of herself” is just mindblowing, impossible not to get emotional as the movie conclusion approaches.

On the not so positive side, several secondary characters and plots are not that remarkable. For example, one can argue the “romantic quests” within the movie could be more developed, as Kyle (played by Timothée Chalamet) is nothing more than a caricature, and Danny (I’m seeing Lucas Hedges a lot recently, another great performance) is somewhat lost as the movie advances when her role deserved more. Same applies to the new friendship with the posher girl of her institute, although it's true allows the director to talk about class angst. Or that the head nun of the high school is “too nice” to be credible. But these underachievements are not that relevant to undermine the film. No, ‘Lady Bird’ might not be reinventing the wheel, not even reformulating the teenager coming of age story. As a matter of fact, that's her only real flaw, having the feeling of being in front of a story you have seen several times already. But to be honest, not many come to my mind as fulfilling, heartwarming, smart and moving as ‘Lady Bird’.

SCORE: 7,75/10

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, raged America

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Kind of one of the biggest surprises of the year, receiving nominations and awards here and there to a striking amount (including two Oscars for the main actors), and with the best among the best, Frances McDormand, on it, 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri', was a must-watch for this humble blogger. And after seeing it, I have to say it is indeed pretty astonishing the film is getting so much praise. Because Martin McDonagh’s piece is risky, bold, sardonically funny yet scary at the same time, brilliantly acted as expected (and even beyond) and, although not as top-notch the universal reviews proclaim, mostly rewarding and thought-provoking.

There’s something in ‘Three Billboards...’ tone, atmosphere and scope that gathers Southern literature, The Coen brothers, the music of The Band and the current state of US affairs, with its shameful Trump administration (and their fellow supporters) on top of it. As a matter of fact, Flannery O’Connor’s essential ‘A Good Man Is Hard to Find’ and the legendary ‘The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down’ appear in the film, a couple of clues of what McDonagh is trying to address in his film: grief, rage, despair, violence… and beyond, way beyond (is it possible?) redemption. A movie that, during its first half, works almost flawlessly as an odd yet absorbing combination of tragedy, tension, vengeance, misanthropy, and a shockingly dark, brutal humor which is not afraid to settle over extremely sensitive issues, without 'resting its case' on easy answers.

That first half is firmly sustained by Frances McDormand, who adds another memorable performance to a gigantic career, in her incarnation of Mildred Hayes, a rough, relentless, obsessed mother seeking for justice (or is it just vengeance?), pushing the police of Ebbing not to desist in the investigation of the rape and murder of his daughter seven months ago, convinced she has to do whatever it takes (almost literally, to the point her actions can be questioned) in order to make them keep working in her case. McDonagh presses 'all buttons', harshness and savage comedy, while introducing all the elements of the plot: a small community that doesn’t want to be part of that confrontation between a grieving mother and their police force, as it is directed by a smart, noble man (chief Willoughby, played by Woody Harrelson)… yet alongside him there’s Dixon, a blatantly racist, violent and profoundly stupid cop. A character that, initially, seems to be a secondary, pressing redneck walking cliché, but as the movie develops, turns out to be the other major force of the film, fuelled by the impressive performance of Sam Rockwell (another actor that now might find the recognizement he deserves).

But with Dixon shifting the focus of the film (or, at least, widening to him and Mildred’s actions), also comes the 'issues' with ‘Three Billboards…’ Because, unfortunately, there’s a noteworthy amount of underachievements, dubious scenes and characters, adding some sense of script going overboard or, in the contrary, being undercooked, harming considerably the movie as a result. Some might be consider minor, like the 'deer' scene, or the secondary characters of Mildred’s teenage son, her ex-husband and his teenage girlfriend, carelessly written, in plainly 'broad strokes' (and the 'domestic violence' scene is not funny at all, is gross, by the way). Same applies to Peter Dinklage’s lame role. But more important is the lack of development on why Dixon is always a second away to start kicking someone’s head for no reason (sexuality perhaps?), constantly raged. Why is he not in jail? How are we supposed to believe he can transform himself into that 'other Dixon' just because a letter (we all get the purifying meaning of the fire, by the way, but still)? And linked with Dixon’s 'new found' attitude, how are we supposed to jump on the bandwagon of the threat that, out of nowhere, completely implausible, appears in Mildred’s life and leads us into the film open conclusion? One not only has to concede quite a lot to go with the awkward development of the movie, but in several occasions has to do their bit to 'fill in the gaps'.

As McDonagh’s bet is brave and bold, one really wants to 'have a pass' in what regards to the movie problems and focus in its achievements. Like the aforementioned leading cast, the movie’s intensity, its rhythm and visual imagery (again, the fires). Or acknowledging the viewer should never root for anyone, as every leading character is (heavily) flawed, villains and heroines are not what they seem or, more precisely, the human beings in this film are, at the same time, one step closer to redemption and becoming a monster with their actions, making you stop to think after the initial, impulsive feeling. There's no black and white, no simple answer. True, it’s miles away from her masterful stories, but I have the feeling Flannery O’Connor would be proud of ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri’.

SCORE: 7/10

'The Angels' Share', whiskey redemption

The Angels' Share

Kind of a shocker, here comes what can easily qualifies as the most comedic and upbeat movie in Ken Loach's filmography (teaming up again with screenwriter Paul Laverty). 'The Angels' Share' is a warmth, mostly gentle (with a couple of punches here and there punctuating the harsh social background of the fun) and good-natured comedy, even careless at times for such a serious duo. And despite it certainly won't rank among the most memorable works of the maestro's career, it's hard not to love this joyful tale of redemption... and whiskey.

Set in Scotland (careful with the accents) Loach points the viewer out to a bunch of outcasts (drunks, ruffians, pickpocketers) and their summary of minor (or not so) felonies, recited by a judge. Then he focuses the camera in the story of Robbie (stunning performance by previously unknown actor Paul Brannigan) who is in the verge of confronting a most-demanding crossroad in his life. He has a prison record, as well as a violent and drug-addiction past. He has been sentenced to community services, in what it looks like the very last chance to reintegrate into society. And he is more than willing to do so, because he is also about to become a father. He is determined to reform himself and behave responsible, but like a local, 'scoundrel' version of those sub-genre mafia movies in which the hero can really put away his past, it seems all odds are against Robbie.

Loach plays tricks with us at first. Yeah, there are slices of comedy in the secondary characters, a bunch of hilarious roughnecks, with whom Robbie is paying his dues with society. But the scenes are packed with our leading character's constant attempt to avoid the violence (or death) that threatens him (from the Clancy's, the family he got into the serious "incident" that ended at court, seeking for vengeance, as well as the family of his girlfriend, wanting him to leave the town and disappear from her life), while the possibilities of finding a job seems the tiniest. There's even a brutal scene when Robbie has to face the family and the victim of his most despicable moment as a human being. Everything looks like a Loach-by-the-numbers movie with some oddballs in the form of risible, entirely diverting characters. But this time, the veteran director wants to believe in redemption and second chances as well as the kindness of mankind. Even if its in an almost surreal way... 

Because it's true, you really have to make several concessions, some more than remarkable, with the plot development to keep it going once 'The Angels' Share' becomes a very unusual and amusing kind-of-thriller, with Robbie discovering he has a gift (better said, a nose) for whiskey and a bizarre opportunity to make some money, maybe even a path to start from zero a new, peaceful life, appears. But by then, the charm of characters, the genuine quality of their performances, the awkward friendship among the leading quartet has won you completely. The adventure involving an almost-mythical malt, a glimpse of jet-set (an obvious punch to highest classes willing to waste their money in stupid competitions for status) and ambitious, pretty obscure collector is blatantly flat from a realistic standpoint of view. But we, as viewers, couldn't care less. Robbie, Albert, Rhino and Mo HAVE to make it.  

Because even in its lightweight hour, Ken Loach's movies have something not many directors have. It's the heart, man. Shown in the arresting character of Harry (John Henshaw), the misfits minder, relentless to help and care for them. Willing to give them a chance. Even it that chance has the form (what a simple, perfect, moving final scene) of a bottle of whisky. It's the heart. For the real, common people. Thank you, again, Ken.

SCORE: 6,75/10

'Manchester by the Sea' the living dead

Manchester by the Sea

It’s been a while since a movie nearly moved to tears. But ‘Manchester by the Sea’ did. A moving, content, fiercely acted, poignant and riveting film about grief. One so real that seems to come from some place called heart, yet at the same time, it’s clear it has been carefully 'constructed', masterfully planned and scripted by director Kenneth Lonergan, like this was a lost short "gritty realism" story by Raymond Carver, Russell Banks or Richard Yates turned into a stunning motion picture.

The plot is quite simple. Gloomy janitor, antisocial plummer and obvious fucked-up young man Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) receives the sad news of his older brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) passing away, reluctantly returning to the sailor’s town of Manchester-by-the-Sea, coastal Massachussetts, to take charge of the funeral’s arrangements as well of his nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges). But aside from the loss of his brother, there’s a second mental blow awaiting our leading character: in his testament, Joe made him the sole guardian of Patrick, expecting him to stay with the popular-frisky teenager. An unexpected circumstance that forces Lee to confront the ghosts of his past there. The terrible reasons why he left his hometown.

‘Manchester by the Sea’ then reveals itself as an absorbing, gripping look into human pain. In one hand, we have the struggles of Lee and Patrick to adapt to the new 'environment' proposed by their brother/father, having to deal together with a tough amount of decisions and choices ahead of them. Common, mundane, relatable and somewhat manageable grief, one where routines and silly situations can even brought a smile (deadpan humour) to the spectator despite the affliction (majority of them consequence of the umm, 'lively' day-to-day 'duties' of Patrick). Life is absurd... and tends to end too quickly. But on the other hand, we have a real grasp of what 'hell on Earth' must be in Lee’s existence. An anguish that slowly reveals to the viewer in the form of flashbacks recounting his previous life within the community, his marriage with ex-wife Randi (Michelle Williams) and the cataclysmic tragedy that changed, better said condemned, Lee’s life forever.

In my opinion, what makes the movie works that well is how naturally the development of the film flows despite the dimension of the drama. That’s because Lonergan’s script is simply mind-blowing (most deserved Oscar). He’s able to handle the gravitas of the plot at two levels. There are some key, terrific, unforgettable scenes, but they are encapsulated between a vast amount of little-minor ones, where a facial expression, a small gesture, a subtle detail in a conversation going nowhere (or the lack of it) says it all. All to depict the misery of a broken human being, a person that, in order to keep going, has forced himself to be numb, permanently repressed, completely inaccessible, isolated (even punished?) by choice. And now has to adapt or fail into a new role that demands him to take responsibilities, interact with people and having strength of mind.

And that brings us to talk about acting. What Casey Affleck has done is nearly beyond words (the award was a no-brainer). What a performance for the ages! His ability to convey all the inner unrest, the agony of an impossible existence, the choking guilt, with such self-control and determination cannot be praised enough. But it wouldn’t be fair not to stress the excellent job of Luke Hedges (same can be said to their chemistry together) or the secondary but, as always, perfect performance of Michelle Williams (what a brutal, decisive scene they have) or C. J. Wilson as Joe’s best friend/boat business partner. All the characters have 'flesh and bones', their actions & behaviour gets you, and their suffering affects you. Kudos to them.

Being honest, all the complaints I can think of are so minor compared with the achievements of the movie that are almost ridiculous to point out. The unnecessary highlights of the music in several of the aforementioned crucial scenes. The dubious, not really developed, role of Patrick’s mother (played by Gretchen Mol). The "nightmare" scene, excessive imo. The kind of 'easy' economic conditions the immediate future holds up to Patrick and Lee, something that doesn’t look completely credible (being clearly a white working class story). But as I said, this sort of underachievements are almost anecdotes compared with the overall strength and honesty of the film dealing with such a sensible and difficult subject. So when you hear the 'I can't beat it', these four simple words, you completely understand and feel devastated too.

SCORE: 8,25/10

"I Am Not Your Negro" the song remains the same

I Am Not Your Negro

“The story of the negro in America is the story of America. It is not a pretty story.” And you only need seconds to realize this is not going to be an average, entertaining yet easily forgettable movie. By no means.

‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is based on ‘Remember This House’, an unfinished project the GREAT James Baldwin began in 1979, where he wanted to trace a personal journey & account of the lives and murders of three beloved friends of him and fundamental African-American civil rights activists (and political leaders & social icons) Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Unfortunately, when the masterful writer died in 1987 the manuscript was still merely started (only thirty completed pages). Luckily, filmmaker Raoul Peck found there was a story to be told, to be completed. A story so important and powerful today as it was when Baldwin envisioned his work.

‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is a fascinating piece from every point of view. First, as a documentary itself, it’s just surprising how much, considering the little stuff Peck had initially, there’s to say. It’s not really the somewhat expected historical reconstruction, rich on archival material, but the ability of the director to grasp and build the connections within the film and propel it into today. From slavery to John Wayne or Doris Day movies (oh, the lies we told kids that become fantasies that become political slogans that turn into idiotic policies, now let’s build a wall). From criminally offensive advertising and insufferable injustice to Martin, Malcolm and Medgar to Watts riots. From ultra-dumb reality shows to the latest Ferguson riots caused by the despicable police violence. Here’s why #BlackLivesMatter. ‘I Am Not Your Negro’ examines race relations in a very scary country. Because what this film shows is that America really stands for doesn’t have much to do with the "land of the free", but with the "kingdom of fear" forged by white Middle America. You know the guy who now runs the oval office? Enough said...

Second, because of its starring, involuntary main character. It’s Baldwin’s figure, powerful and delicate, pessimistic and hurt, even broken (the TV interviews reveal a human being so passionate and afflicted it is absolutely compelling), but always bright and lucid, who steals the show. And, needless to say, his words, hauntingly performed (not just spoken) by Samuel L. Jackson in the film, both his writings as well as the fragments of the aforementioned interviews, are not just the brilliant account of his times and the struggles suffered during the country ancient & recent past by a essential part of America’s population, cornered, left behind, oppressed and humiliated by their fellow Americans. They are, sadly, prophetic, revealing, enduring. The wounds are still open and bleeding.

‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is not an easy film. Obviously because of the subject addressed. But also because Peck/Baldwin have things to show and say, and they are keen to sacrifice the rhythm sometimes, as well as, more importantly, they are willing to respect the viewer, not treating her/him as someone stupid that needs everything to be highlighted and pointed out. Instead, a Sidney Poitier classic film can say so much, a meeting with Bob Kennedy can be such a slap in the face for the white (frequently liberal) hypocrisy, making the documentary a movie that goes beyond racism, to talk about the nature and perverse mechanisms of power: win, dominate, maintain the privilege by convincing, creating the mindset you are always the “good guy”. As an European, it makes you think immediately on how the EU is shamefully behaving with the refugee crisis, or how we deal with inmigration at home.

There’s also confusion and fear on the black movement side. Who was the president during the arise of #BlackLivesMatter? And Baldwin himself has real fear, he feels and sees himself as an outsider, and all the clarity he has in his speeches and discourses turns into vulnerability when considering his position (the “accepted” intellectual, the power of the radical but maybe not-so-radical TV-goer). Couldn’t be any other way? Things are really complicated. The task is titanic, challenging, defying. As ‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is. Striking must-watch.

SCORE: 8,5/10

“Certain Women”, what we talk about when we talk...

Certain Women 

One thing is for certain. I’ll try to watch every film that Kelly Reichardt’s direct. In a time and age of an epidemy of movie superheroes (OK, some of them might not be that bad) and hipster movies as shallow as a perfume ad, she’s a real, refreshing, major hope. Subtle, heartfelt, not pleasing in a Hollywodesque (yeah, I mean simplistic) or Drivesque way (yeah, I mean fake, artificial), yet absorbing and, what’s even more important, enduring. ‘Certain Women’ is another example of Reichardt’s fascinating and commanding talents.

Based on Maile Meloy’s short stories collection ‘Both Ways Is the Only Way I Want It‘ (which I hope it arrives to Spain, so intrigued), the film carries us to Southern Montana’s isolated prairie towns to meet four women and her lives in a triple, sequenced storytelling, where the links between them are extremely accidental (well, there’s no connection whatsoever between the second and third story, to begin with), yet the final codas of each story assemble some sort of unified conclusion… that every viewer would have to find & decide by himself/herself. Take your time, don’t rush. Allow yourself for a little more than 90 minutes without looking to your mobile phone. I know you can. The rewards are awaiting you.

The triptych of stories that ‘Certain Women’ is begins with Laura (played by Laura Dern), a provincial lawyer dealing (maybe I should say stuck) with what it seems an affaire going nowhere (he’s a married guy) plus a deeply troubled, close to craziness, client (a building-site carpenter) who is desperate for some sort of emotional support at the same time he seeks for professional advice… in a case he has zero chance of winning. We have a pretty surREAL action scene (don’t look for heroes, everyone one here is all flesh and bones, happily) before we shift to the second story, but despite being the more dynamic of the trio, imo is also the weakest, with some scenes that seem too awkward to relate (the car conversation, for example) with.

But things only get better from now on. The second story (the connection with the previous one is revealed early) is the confirmation Reichardt’s could be the perfect choice to translate all the great stories of Bobbie Ann Mason, Lorrie Moore, Jean Stafford or, sure, Raymond Carver, into arresting films. Lead by Gina (played by the always amazing Michelle Williams, a regular on Reichardt’s filmography), here’s a quiet but poignant and crystal-clear tale of marriage and motherhood (a pure millennial teenage daughter) struggles. One in which trying to convince an elderly and neighbour to give (or sell) them a pile of original indigenous sandstone he has unused in his yard and that she wants to use for their new house, becomes an obsession and a factor for realizing the disaffection, the rupture she feels regarding her family, her hopes. The inability to communicate, the muted depression, the disconnection… the discontent. Terrific.

And then comes the third piece, which is simply majestic, about the connection (and the lack of it) between two women: a timid, good-spirited and solitary rancher (didn’t know Lily Gladstone before, but what a presence in front of the camera, what an eloquence with just a look, what an actress we have found) and Elizabeth (flawless performance by Kristen Stewart), a young education law night school teacher that has to drive for four hours back and forth to reach the town and her home. It might be the oldest love story ever-told, where one part doesn’t correspond the other, but it’s very hard for me to remember many movies in recent times where I have been moved so much. The final car drive, the dreamlike rhythm and colours. The intimacy that doesn’t need words. The conclusion… Masterpiece.

I understand ‘Certain Women’ might not be suitable for everyone due to its pace (could it be trimmed down some minutes? Sure, as every movie, right?) and Reichardt’s conscious refusal to offer the viewer a catharsis or that fundamental, dramatic key scene where everything falls to pieces or gets together. But aside from the aforementioned first story where overall satisfaction can be discussed, I found the film a bold, touching and disarming statement, full of little triumphs encapsulated in a murmur, a cigarette smoked into the wilderness, a desperate look into the horizon or an unhurried horse ride. What a brave filmmaker is Kelly Reichardt.

SCORE: 7/10

'Sing Street', behind the music

Sing Street 

First, kudos to John Carney for making me enjoy a movie that pays a lovely tribute to the New Romantics movement! You have to be a masterful director for making such a haunting film with such terrible bands (imo, of course) as Duran Duran, Hall & Oates or Spandau Ballet being not just your soundtrack, but a really important part of your work.

But I shouldn't be surprised. After all, Carney is the man behind 'Once' and 'Begin Again', two films that already proved he's capable of making movies about that irrepressible, life-changing & life-driving passion named music that entertain, engage and connect with all sorts of moviegoers, not just music lovers. And that's exactly the case with 'Sing Street'.

Settled in 1980s Dublin, 'Sing Street' is the story (or tale, most appropriately) of 14-year-old Conor (surprising debut by Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) who is not having the best of the times. His parents are on the verge of divorce. There are serious money concerns. And his new, catholic school is full of bullies, including the school's director. But after meeting the arresting & mysterious Raphina (magnetic Lucy Boynton), things are about to change drastically. He has to form a band in order to win her love... And so the magic begins.

For nearly an hour, maybe even a bit more, the film is almost, pure joy. The tunes, of course. The hilarious way in which the band gets born. How they compose the first song, 'The Riddle of the Model', that also becomes a really funny, ramshackle video, a refreshing way to talk about the arrival of MTV and the bursting videoclip culture. The imitation of music trends (where's the post-punk phase?), the aesthetics, the young bunch of kids transforming themselves in a creative sponge. The ups and downs of Raphina's heart conquest. The endless music & life talks with Conor's older brother Brendan (Jack Reynor, who steals every scene he is in). Sure, you have seen this tale before (being honest, the story development is far from original), but in such a dynamic, unstoppable way? Can't remember...

But then comes the last part of 'Sing Street', in which Carney has to take decisions. Is this going to be about music or just a romantic movie? Are the dramas (which, as usual, become bigger as the film advances) going to be dealt with, or the "feel-good" vibes are what really matters? To my view, Carney takes the easiest, most pleasing options. Subplots and secondary roles that have a lot of potential (the brothers' relationship, Brendan deserves a movie of his own) get shadowed. Others (the parents, Conor's sister) completely neglected. Even the band is somewhat "displaced" because of Conor & Raphina. Dramas are basically skipped... and then there's the final gig where all seems to fall into place. I get it: music can make the troubles go away, give us the strength and courage to take risks, be brave and fight for your dreams. But for a band looking for the "happy sad" song formula, once has the feeling Carney has decided to skimp on one part of the equation, making whe whole film look like A-ha's 'Take On Me' (and most of the mainstream 80s music): at first appealing, even intriguing... but finally bland. I won't be that harsh with 'Sing Street', because nevertheless, is an incredibly engaging, cheerful movie. But what it could have been with a bit more of punch...

SCORE: 6,75/10

'The Big Short', the real ship of fools

The Big Short

‘The Big Short’ is one of these rare occasions when, after watching a movie, you go looking for the book and, let’s admit, the film beats it (probably because Michael Lewis’ work, despite being absorbing and dynamic, demands a very high level of concentration and knowledge of banking, financial products and American economy). Praise director Adam McKay’s ability to build a film that doesn’t hide the complexities and dramatic consequences of its subject. It has plenty of information, dense yet important information. But manages to remain engaging, enjoyable, thoughtful and, at times, truly vibrant. I left the theater wanting to talk about it: about Ryan Gosling breaking the “fourth wall” and being obnoxious, but also about how the most absurd and blatant fraud ever made by capitalism, out of any control, provoked a global economic disaster based on incompetence, greed and stupidity. But it's worse than that. After all the mess caused, we are still worshipping the market, like fanatics believing on a God with their feet completed covered on blood and mud (how appropriate, right?). Obedient lambs in our way to the slaughterhouse...

‘The Big Short’ tells the story of how the market crumbled down in the US in 2008, causing the major breakdown worldwide, whose consequences we are still facing. But McKay is not interested on a documentary deep on analysis, facts and figures. No, he wants way more than that. He wants a movie of vital pace that entertains while explains you how we got robbed (never forget, it wasn’t a crisis but a gigantic scam). And he delivers, thanks to a script that takes it time to descript sub-prime loans, CODs and other vile financial products, but through the actions and challenges their main characters have while the movie develops. And, when it’s needed, requesting a pretty surprising yet simple and effective resource: pop culture, meaning celebrities. Speaking directly to the audience, detailing economic aspects our regular persona might not be interested to listen to (it’s really complicated & boring) but that a famous star can make understandable and even cool. Brilliant.

But make no mistake, behind all its lush, state-of-the-art surface perfect for Millennials and people who can only watch series, ‘The Big Short’ encompasses all the rage, the hypocrisy and pathetism the story demands. Through the groups of traders who discovered that the housing market, specifically their loans, major pillar of American economy (Spanish too) were actually a bunch of utter crap in the form of repackaged bad loans that, thanks to the freedom of Wall Street, the big sharks’ of the banks and the agency ratings (a true mafia), were about to ruin us all. As they did. And, McKay points out clearly, could very well do that again...

The road to perdition, a real one, is developed here in a poliedric way, so the puzzle shows the most complete picture. Here’s the pioneer, the ultra-freak aka genius Michael Burry (performed by Christian Bale, in my opinion the most dubious performance, too heavy on mannerisms, too 'weirdo' to entirely believe is a real person, as Burry is), the first wager against sub-prime loans, and the guy who discovered the housing marked was built on trash while managing awkwardly his hedge fund. Here’s the trader who detects Burry shocking bet against the “most solid marked in the country”, a posh asshole named Jared Vennett (based on Greg Lippman, and smoothly, easily played by Ryan Gosling, by far the funniest & caricaturesque character of the film, but also including a poignant dose of merciless realism), also in charge to interact directly with the viewers about how unstoppable, but foremost completely dumb, was the whole financial system. Here’s the one Vennett tries to get money from, Mark Baum (based on Steve Eisman and played by Steve Carell who, in my opinion, deserved an Oscar nomination and becomes the real presence of the film, a character so personally damaged and enraged it hurts, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t suffer from a heart attack while he swallows his bile and keeps his educated manners). A troubled person that knows corruption rules the world and joins the seemingly crazy path Vennett is offering him… because he wants to believe him. He wants to be right about his pessimistic look at life… Until he realizes he was right, but the disaster was even bigger than he ever imagined. And there’s a fourth inter-linked story, probably the weakest one (one of the few flaws of the film), about two young entrepreneurs on finances (played by Finn Wittrock and John Magaro) who, almost by pure chance, also discover Vennett’s plan (then we are allowed to know that’s all fiction) and, with the help of a retired trader tremendously critic on Wall Street (very restrained and solid Brad Pitt), get into it.

The film is full of memorable moments (the aforementioned with famous faces making simple explanations of CDOs and “creative finances”) but the best are the ones that, behind the smile or the laugh, also show the cruel, depressing consequences of such a demented and despicable system, as well as highlighting that our “heroes” are far from being nothing more than a group of smart hypocrites. Baum and his colleagues interviewing a couple of over-the-top, insufferable hotshot traders bragging (that’s the key word) about how they worked with the people with lowest incomes. Baum and Co. talking with Standard & Poor's on how the ratings were still so high, despite the economy indexes falling. Brad Pitt reminding his young pals what the banks accepting their “bet” against the housing market means if they are right for the people. The ship of fools. Real fools. The tragedy behind the farce. We should praise movies that are brave enough to talk about the times seriously while taking risks trying to adapt to the times. And, of course, we should never forget. For our own good. Or next time we will have a fascist billionaire running for U.S. president. Oh, wait...

SCORE: 7,5

'When the Garden Was Eden', Knickerbockers' pride

When the Garden Was Eden

Young folk, you probably don't know, but before Patrick Ewing, John Starks and Allan Houston there was life at Madison Square Garden. In fact, there were glory days, during the early 70s, when the Knicks were not only the most exciting team on the league, but also the most iconic and fascinating, as the roster was an incredible mix of personalities and attitudes. The most significant sports epitome of a transcendent, tumultuous period in America. That's what you're going to see at 'When the Garden Was Eden', an absorbing basketball documentary... that goes way beyond the rim, way beyond the game. 

Vietnam, a boiling racial unrest in the streets, the Watergate scandal... America was in serious turmoil... and so were the New York Knicks, a mediocre squad that clearly hadn't connected with the city and their people. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the ever-winning Celtics led by Auerbach and the Lakers, the NBA was still light years away from being the global league that is today. It's pretty interesting how director (more known as an actor) Michael Rapaport takes his time to show how small was the dimension of pro-basketball back then. And how and why that was about to change. Forever.

The story has the strength and the ingredients of a powerful novel (now I'm very curious about the book by Harvey Araton on which the documentary is based) and Rapaport, aside of collecting the opinions of almost all of the surviving players from those years, is wise enough to keep adding elements to his narration, creating a wonderful puzzle. One where facts, statistics and crucial games & moments are secondary compared. The main focus are the leading characters of the documentary. The people who became the Knicks team. A director's choice that makes the film fascinating, even for non-basketball lovers.

As a consequence, 'When the Garden Was Eden' turns out to be a wonderful oddity in this usually constrained territory of sports documentary. We are not invited to see a parade of epic plays of most talented guys (Willis Reed performance at the first Knicks NBA finals would be the exception), but how a team of very diverse people, with extremely different backgrounds, was built, and the sum of the parts worked together to bring the only championship years of the New York Knicks, making the Finals in three out of four seasons from 1970 to 1973, winning two titles (70 and 73) and changed the relation of the city with basketball, since then (and I hope forever) a basketball town, and propelled the media attention to the best of sports.

The work of assembling such a team makes Red Holzman one of the best coaches ever in my eyes because, as I'm saying, it's not just about choosing the right players, but also gathering and align them in the same direction (passing, defense, no stars, teamwork), despite being such an odd collection of personalities. Bill Bradley, a college star from Princeton that after retiring from basket would start a career in politics, two legends from the Jim Crow South, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, a blue-collar guy from Detroit, two in principle "me first" guards from inner-city, Earl "the Pearl" Monroe and Dick Barnett, plus Phil "Action" Jackson from Montana. Then add the extraordinary personality of Jerry Lucas (my goodness, he deserves a film on his own) and you have such a melting pot. Egos, politics, money issues, class and social facts. Rapaport is not afraid to ask the questions, and players are keen to tell us everything. It's mesmerizing. How could it possibly work? The answer isn't clear to me. But it did. They embraced the differences and used the magnificent coalition of talents to became a unique team. Inspiring. Easy to understand the Knickerbockers' pride after watching this movie.

My only complaint (minor, very minor) is how quick the film ends. I understand the team didn't go further than seven years overall (quite a lengthy period in sports), and truth to be told, there's something incredibly intriguing in the way such a winning team vanished (some answers at the film are striking), and how the majority of the players moved to another business, but I would have loved a bit more of detail in that area, because some of the characters were so interesting (Bill Bradley on politics, Jerry Lucas, and of course Phil Jackson, to name just three) and can't help but having feeling there are some things left untold. It's one of those rare films that deserved a longer running time. Because, as I said before, 'When the Garden Was Eden' is not just about sport. It's about people, and how people, despite their differences, can come together.

SCORE: 7,5

'Red Army', playing ice-Cold War

Red Army

Still "happily abducted" by sports documentaries, here's a quick shift from basketball (more to come very soon) to hockey. But it would be a major mistake to consider 'Red Army' just a film about sports. On the contrary, it's an original, very powerful look at history and politics. A simple yet quite deep and sounding insight on the recent past and the dramatic transformations of the Soviet Union/Russia. And a captivating tale on talented individuals being part of the strict and gigantic machinery of a system in the verge of collapse. All on ice!

'Red Army' goes down with the chronicle of the Soviet Union's most successful national team on sports (easily comparable with an almost unbeatable dynasty: the team won nearly every world championship and Olympic tournament between 1954 and 1991, never failed to medal in any International Ice Hockey Federation tournament they competed in): the Red Army hockey team. But forget about epic games, memorable situations and bombastic plays. The legendary team was, of course, a joy to see, with hall of fame players arguably among the best that sport has ever seen... but the film puts the focus on what was behind that USSR dream team. And what the viewer see is equally thrilling and scary. 

Director Gabe Poslky shows us how the soviet national hockey team was a propaganda instrument, one that served the purpose of creating heroes within the country and built an image of being indestructible to rivals. It didn't have much to do with sports. It was a matter of politics in the late Cold War days. The squad dominating world hockey, for USSR leaders at least, meant communism exhibiting its power and glory to the whole planet. Cold War was also a culture war that played in many different venues. Also on ice.

To achieve that goal, the players needed to commit themselves to an incredible amount of effort, with methods and attitudes that crossed the line between what was sport obsession, extreme determination of elite sports, and demented practices. 'Red Army' explains how the national players went from tough but beloved and respected coach Anatoli Tarasov, who emphasized skills and personal abilities to help the team (probably a romanticised, even poetic look) to the dictatorial regime of General /coach Viktor Tikhonov. A tyrant who had nearly absolute control over his players' lives (there's a horrific scene regarding the serious illness of one player's father who says everything), making his players practice for 10/11 months a year, isolating them from their families and friends. Followed everywhere by KGB. Punishing them to after the 'Miracle on Ice' happened (the defeat on 1980'S Olympics against the US). And the nightmares just begun...

The previous lines on Tikhonov are not my opinion, but national team captain's Viacheslav 'Slava' Fetisov (considered one of the best players ever). He is the main character of the film, along with other legendary players and hockey-related journalist, directives and analysts. And the story he reveals, somehow reluctantly (adding poignancy and depth to the film) is the crude tale of a country dealing with a crisis and serious internal conflicts, and how sport mirrored social evolution, announcing the fall of the communist system...  a transformation full of struggles, suffering, injustices and dubious results. Polsky, in an extremely wise movement, is capable of encapsulating such a big and complex topic, the decline and transformation of an empire through the words and expressions of someone whose past and present is so intrinsec of the country. Fetisov, once an indisputable national hero became a country's traitor once he expressed his desire to play in the American NHL, tired of inhuman practices, over-strict regulations and low incomes. His fight against USSR authorities was titanic and appalling, as he obviously risked his life (not to miss the meeting with Soviet Minister of Defence), and sacrificed a couple of years of his extremely successful career, before he could play at the States, thanks to Gorbachev's glasnost policies and, eventually, the collapse of the socialist republic, leading a bunch of Russian colleagues. 

But, as I said, Fetisov is an incredibly interesting character, and that's what makes 'Red Army' stunning. Because he gets mad at the director when he asks him about the Cold War (it was about money). Because he's a tough guy trying so hard not to break in front of the camera, even when he is admitting he was betrayed by his friends, his country. And because the whole picture doesn't end at the States. He struggled at his first American team, the New Jersey Devils (as well as his fellow red army colleagues playing in America). He wasn't really appreciated by fans either (after all, the fear of communism existed)... He missed the game as it was played back home (again, Tarasov's school). Until he was traded to the Detroit Red Wings, where he reunited with some Russian up-and-coming stars to won back-to-back titles... that he took to Moscow. Somehow, he was still playing for his country, although his country was completely different then (chills to see/hear him and some other players talking about the new, capitalist Russia). He then became Russia Minister of Sport under President Vladimir Putin government (until 2008). He was still on a mission. What a mind blowing look into a human being in all his contradictions, idiosyncrasy, virtues and wonders. What a refreshing take on a country experimenting one of its crucial periods in history. Great documentary. 

SCORE: 7,75/10

"I Hate Christian Laettner", the devil in blue?

I Hate Christian Laettner

"Blame" Contra for "making me" watch more basketball documentaries... But this one came out of the blue really. I remember pretty well. Very shocking. Who was the unknown pale kid posing alongside the great of the greatest, the DreamTeam? Why was he among the 12 selected for the 92' Olympic team? The freak on me quickly gathered some information: Christian Laettner was one of the major stars coming from NCAA ever, leader of the Duke University team that made four consecutive Final Fours and won two national championships. Impressive to say the least. What a terrific player he must be. But in Barcelona he didn't play a lot (to be polite) and his NBA career never met the expectations, so Laettner became "the odd one" on an incredible moment for basketball lovers here in Spain... and not much more. Not enough to be remembered.

That's the main problem with this otherwise highly recommendable sports documentary. I can't  really connect with the powerful story because, for Spaniards, Christian Laettner was mostly unknown (back then the chances to watch NCAA games was really hard, no Internet then, kids, can you imagine?). It's a shame, because 'I Hate Christian Laettner' is a very interesting take on a polarizing player, and an even more absorbing attempt to discuss how and why a person can be the main target of the hate from so many people. Remember this happened way before social networks began its predatory and nonsense hate.

Director Rory Karpf wisely structures the documentary on questions raised to be debated upon, making 'I Hate Christian Laettner' easy to follow when it had the risk of became a filmed discussion such an abstract thing as the reasons for hating someone. We see the interviewed people (including himself and his family and Coach K, Mike Krzyzewski, who has a special, moving bound Laettner) have their say on whether Laettner deserved the many negative definitions/accusations he received: cocky, privileged, bully, pretty boy, arrogant. Some, as the ones related with the economic side are quickly dismounted, while others reveal what masses can easily build with a couple of prejudices given, mainly with regards on his looks (he looked like a guy from 'Melrose Place' or '90210', but those were the aesthetics for many back then, on clear opposition of the Fab-Five from Michigan University looks and behaviour) or with the elitist university on which he studied (heavily hated) and played for. He became a symbol, a negative one. It's a very powerful narrative. We get a glimpse of what lies behind all the fierce, bizarrely intense dislike on him. Social, ethnic, class angst, and a brutal example of media construction imagery.

There were basketball reasons too, and that's when the film offers its share of action... and doubt on the character. Laettner was a terrific player, capable of doing so many things on court, but also a tough player and teammate, unafraid of getting nasty and aggressive (the chapter with friend Bobby Hurley is almost scary) if that was he thought it was needed. Capable of stomping on the chest of a downed player, then making the most dramatic shot in the history of NCAA basketball to win the championship. Every single person is more complex than what looks, stats, prejudices and media might say...

A very enjoyable documentary with an unusual depth, even for someone who didn't know almost anything about "the issue" (the hate) which, at the end, asks a great question to people. Do we need someone to hate?

SCORE: 6,75/10

'Magic & Bird: a courtship of rivals', 2 were the colours

Magic & Bird: a courtship of rivals

I just finished reading 'Cuando éramos los mejores' the Spanish translation of Jackie MacMullan's book 'When the game was ours', published by my dear friends of Contra (a publishing house focused on music and sports, amazing people, amazing books), so I thought it was the right time to watch this TV documentary broadcast on HBO, a film partially inspired by the book (MacMullan is one of the main experts interviewed here). What a pleasant week. A double feature of some of the best basketball EVER (arguably the best ever) played. Read, watch, and remember a much beloved time of my childhood-early teenage years being abducted by these two titans. My superheroes.

The documentary is a must for anyone who loves basketball, as it does a fine job of chronicling the unforgettable careers and, foremost, the unmatched rivalry between two of the biggest basketball legends EVER (and unarguably two of their best players). A tale of competition, obsession, respect, friendship and passion for a game that got saved, redefined, blossomed and rocketed to a planetary sport (the greatest one) thanks to them.

From tracing their humble origins in East Lansing, Michigan and French Lick, Indiana, to their first meeting at an international tournament to the first encounter as the greatest rivals at 1979 NCAA Basketball Championship Game, to the mythical Celtic-Lakers finals of the 80s, the story here is simply memorable. Not just the titles (5 for Magic, 3 for Bird), not just the epic of their triumphs, not just the way the saw the game (passing the ball, making their teammates better, always aiming to compete and win, day-by-day) not just the stats and the individual titles, but the sense of both unmatchable players constantly living parallel lives while pushing themselves to their limits. Reaching for the papers to check the numbers of the other, watching their games and getting frantic at the others wins. And, after the Converse commercial, even sharing a dramatic shift of their careers (back injury for Larry, VIH for Earvin) that forced both giants to cut short their formidable trajectories.  

Like a positive version of 'The prestige' a 'Courtship of rivals' does a fantastic job on portraying how a confrontation of incredible talents sparked a whole league to another level, and how a lasting friendship was built against all odds, against being opposite characters. It also explores the racial issues that were an important factor of the rivalry among the fans ('The Great White Hope' versus 'The Hollywood Smile', the redneck and the glamorous) and it's surprising, and refreshing, how both players haven't got anything to do with it. Bird in particular destroys the whole argument in his laconic explanation. They were also bigger than the media, league, their teams and social conventions & prejudices.

The movie doesn't rely on many outside opinions: MacMullan, Pat Riley, Kevin McHale, Michael Cooper, Magic's sister, Bird's brother, a few sportcasters. Simply there's no need for it, as the film has both main actors, keen to tell it in their own words. Magic with his trademark huge smile on his face and his smooth voice, Bird trying to dodge the camera, utterly shy, scared of revealing too much. And director's Ezra Edelman solid work overall is rewarded by a couple of mind blowing moments. When Magic can't held tears after recalling how he felt after Bird called him on the phone when he knew about his VIH infection. And when Bird says how much he liked Earvin's persona (out of the 'Magic' character). That's something than can be acted. Here's a real human, transcendent bound, that goes way beyond the ball.

But, as it usually happens, the book is better. Of course being such a huge basketball fan and such a devotee of both players, I would have loved much more game footage, but I assume Edelman considered that was already known, or easy to seek and watch. But that's secondary. The documentary fails short compared with the book because the second goes deeper in the minds and thoughts of Earvin and Larry, and MacMullan takes them (and us) on an exciting, rich, many times dark and tough too, trip. One where stats, plays, games, championships are not just entertainment, but life itself. The author delves in the VIH question, digging on Magic's marriage and exploring the icon's feelings about the reject and disappointing behaviour of so-called friends (Isaiah Thomas, Karl Malone, still hate them). The Barcelona Olympics (the question on legacy, the role of Michael Jordan) and the latest chapters of their relationship are quickly skimmed on the film, while the book has time to talk about Bird's and Magic's experiences as coaches and managers. Still, a great documentary about two immortal sport legends, and how they built that legend. Together. Another miracle done by basketball. 

  

SCORE: 7,25/10

'Irrational Man', Dostoyevski revisited

Irrational Man

Our yearly dose of Woody Allen is here and, have to say, expectations were pretty high this time, as the combination of one of my all-time-favorite directors with Joaquim Phoenix, one of the best actors out there (now that Philip Seymour Hoffman passed away I would say he's the best) was exciting. And, in my opinion, he does a terrific impersonation of a hedonistic and deeply troubled academic. But he's not enough to save 'Irrational Man' from leaving me with a disappointing impression overall, imo falling flat, at times worryingly flat, as a whole.

Not to say the film is a complete waste of time, as some critics have said. A "serious" Woody Allen film dealing with existence, murder, philosophy is going to be more interesting than 80% of what Hollywood offers you any given weekend. Let me summarise the virtues:

1. Acting is very good. As I said, Phoenix is excellent portraying philosophy professor Abe Lucas tormented. The always haunting Emma Stone does a nice job as the brilliant but smitten student Jill Pollard, and Parker Posey is stunning, a real scene-stealer as the art professor Rita Richards, showing a physical intensity that matches Phoenix fierce way of acting in her desperate crush for Abe, a romance where she is “throwing herself” as her life in Braylin College chokes her.
2. In a pretty powerful depiction of a “womaniser” lying behind a sensitive, broken and misunderstood character, Allen is portraying mercilessly the other side of the romantic bad boy. Even more than that: through Abe Allen is also pointing out that the high class (Vermont private College) and so-called intellectuals in particular, have it all wrong. Check the scene of the Russian Roulette, the standout of the film. Snobs adoring a fake idol.
3. This is Woody Allen taking several risks. The narrative point of view is a surprising one, with two voices (Abe and Jill) telling the story, shifting from one to another. And while the topic he address is a serious, gloomy one, he attempts to blur the lines between his comedies and his dark dramas. True, is not the first, second or even third time we are facing a similar argument. Masterpiece ‘Crime and misdemeanors’, and forgettable ‘Cassandra’s Dream’ & ‘Match Point’ (yes, I said forgettable) deal with the same issues. But Allen is exploring a different tone here, sort of playful and lightweight despite being solemn at the same time. I’m not sure it completely works, but praise the risk on a director with 50 films on his shoulders. A romcom with a very dark soul. Or a noir film with a knack to laugh at itself. You decide.
4. The “envelope” of the film is also different one for Woody, looking gorgeous (Vermont seems paradise), with music and aesthetics (and light!) looking like a new chapter on the new yorker's palette.

But the problem with ‘Irrational Man’ is that the letdowns are almost equal:

1. The movie plot is explained to an obnoxious detail, with Allen stressing everything, reaching a point he almost seems he doesn’t trust the viewer’s intelligence. For me, it was shocking he decided to say everything and not just showing it (he has filmed so many eternal scenes where a face, a shoot tells it all...). The Dostoyevsky/Arendt note was too much for me.
2. Being objective, the plot, despite being smart, is derivative to say the least. Yes, I get (and Allen makes Abe say it too) he wants to talk about chance/luck, but the Raskolnikov-type of murder, Jill discovery and the final scene arrives so awkwardly, there’s a feeling plot works because of pure luck too.
3. The double narrator thing is ruined at the end. No spoiling here, but the mistake on the voices is blatantly huge.
4. Allen doesn’t explore the potential of his female characters, particularly Rita. Can’t help but thinking Jill is also a bit underwritten. Knowing as much as she knows, there was room for a braver twist with her…

At the end, the feeling is that Allen has been there, done that… and with more much punch, wittiness and clarity. Take ‘Crime and misdemeanors’ as the most obvious example: characters look completely human and complex, and mixing Judah’s with Cliff’s problems make the spectator connect with the more extremes turns on life. But on ‘Irrational Man’, the experiment on morality swallows characters and the “flesh and bones” reality, rewarding the audience with 95 minutes of suggestive possibilities and depth… that results in a somewhat lifeless movie. It's not a bad film, and has several points of interest (has some risks to be praised too), but is a flawed one.

SCORE: 5,75/10