"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

"Jack Goes Boating", Indie Movie Sinking

Jack Goes Boating

I've been delaying this review, for personal reasons, but mainly because I wanted to put some distance between Philip Seymour Hoffman's death and writing the following lines. ""Jack Goes Boating" was his only movie as a director and, needless to say, I was hoping for the best. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Something that hurts.

"Jack Goes Boating" is an odd relationship's drama, adapting the 2007 play, directed by Peter Dubois, where Hoffman starred in. He and two of the three other lead stage actors (John Ortiz and Daphne Rubin-Vega) also reprise their roles in the movie. The story itself is pretty simple. Jack (Hoffman) is an extremely shy, socially awkward (anti-social?) man whose married friends Clyde (Ortiz) and Lucy (Rubin-Vega) arrange a blind date with Connie (Amy Ryan), a woman with even bigger social problems than him (mental illness?). There's a connection between the two, one that impulses Jack to take risks in his life and try to learn doing things that would please her. 

Jack's character is ultimately sweet and, to some extent, optimistic. He realizes the interest Connie has in him, and that makes him change. The screenplay puts the weight in what look as mundane activities, like learning to swim or cook (eventually also going boating), but the spectator feels compelled for what it seems a conscious transformation of a curious man trying to improve, get out of his extremely lonely and narrow world. For love. Add some fascinating scenes at the pool, the special lightning the snowy city seems to have, and we could be in front of an odd sequel of the wonderful "Punch-Drunk Love". That's not the case.

Why? Because this is an actor's movie (it should be) but I couldn't believe them, not to mention be engaged, with any of the characters. Characters are exaggeratedly closed-off emotionally and we don't know anything about their past, so the spectator lost them (imo). To my view, this is an example of a movie on which we clearly cross the line between the much needed ellipsis to an under-defined, insufficient script. Trying to be more precise: with the amount of information we have while watching, to me Jack and Connie have serious emotional and mental issues, but that's left wide open. "The normal couple" that helps Jack, Clyde and Lucy, soon reveal as not so normal, as they have been struggling with pretty bad relationship problems themselves, but again, the spectator is left to fill the plot holes by itself. For me, it was completely unbelievable. And although this could be just a personal impression, the lack of engagement with the actors provokes the disappointing feeling of watching a very slow, dragged, lifeless movie with very occasional sparks (the foursome dinner, the friends conversation inside a car) and what could have been a very interesting take on sentimental relations.

To my understanding, "Jack Goes Boating" tries so hard to be quirky. It's "indie" in that annoying way that makes a vast amount of people avoid this sort of "small" movies. In this case, I would blame a script that looks too secluded and airless, relying too much on the physical presence of the characters, as it we were still in front of the original play at the theater. I still owe you a last discovery, a last amazing performance Philip.  

SCORE: 4,75/10

The Indie Anthology 37: essential songs

Sometimes the songs you want to hear are there waiting for you. Our next chapter at the Indie Anthology  is one of the finest examples Spanish music has given us in the latest years (ok, decade). The singer-songwriter's tradition honoured and reinvigorated thanks to a man of many talents (Mr. Ramón Rodríguez composes, sings, writes and draws extremely well), with an unmatched ability to find the perfect line.

Song: Por Tradición
Artist: The New Raemon
Year: 2009

The end is always closer than you imagine. Or better said, what we, silly humans do, is try to negate the truth until it explodes right in front of our faces. The New Raemon really knew (should I write on past tense? I'm unsure he'll perform again under that nickname, hope he does) how to pen a tune about that. It has to hurt, has to be poignant and, for a while, merciless. But it has to be wise too. "Por Tradición" puts the listener right in the middle of a scene he/she also knows (pretty well) while the song, and the story slowly builds up. Characters share the blame, which goes along the tune's crescendo. The point of no return arrives at the explosive chorus, making you eager for the resolution in the epic's finale. But as the good writers are capable of doing, there's no final answer. You'll have to find it by yourself. A piece of our daily miseries, our personal demons and weakness, encapsulated in 3:30 minutes. There are few things mighty pop can do... when a talented man is on command. Thanks Mr. Rodríguez, for putting music to real life.

"Enough Said", Is All about Chemistry

Enough Said

You already know of my personal crusade against films "about nothing". So I'll be clear from the very first sentence. Huge thanks to Nicole Holofcener for making movies about "regular people", with credible situations and feelings. The script (in this case written by Holofcener herself), I will always defend is all about the script. And the actors involved in transforming words and ideas into "flesh & bones" characters.  

"Enough Said" might qualify as a romantic comedy, and indeed some little twists here and there, plus its finale, which might be too much of a slight turn into bland, pleasant territory that "mainstream rom-coms" are exploiting ad nauseam. But this is a movie so full of honesty, solid acting and enduring charms the aforementioned little flaws become almost incidental. 

It's all about second chances, real (and therefore complex) people and their emotional fears. It's all about mature love, something that Hollywood tends to either neglect completely or transform into an extremely silly type of film. Holofcener devotes a wonderful amount of time in dissecting her main characters without failing into too narrative ventures, so Eva (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Albert (James Gandolfini, forever missed) are so well defined their little manias, actions and habits say enough about them. The things that are left unsaid are also there, and any viewer willing to watch the film will recognize them. This idiotic and schizo society tries to make us invulnerable, but we are (fortunately) "fragile things". Because we have feelings, and getting hurt is so frightening. "Enough Said" exposes that ugly truth with a surprising, defiant naturalness. And humour.

It might be true the subplots of the film are somewhat flawed. Marianne (played by infallible Catherine Keener) is too one-dimensional, but I guess it might just serve to counterpoint Eva's attitude towards life and love. Same can be said about Sarah (Toni Collette) and Will (Ben Falcone), Eva's closest friends and a couple always in a quite funny (and surreal) conflict and the daughters subplots (James and Eva have both daughters) might have some more poignancy, as involves some more interesting characters (also a curiosity, Tess, James' daughter, is played by Bono's daughter, Eve Hewson) but they also remain a bit blurred, being there just for the purpose of completing the detailed picture of James and Eva.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and James Gandolfini are excellent in their performances as Eva and Albert, making every bit of their relationship so credible and endearing. I guess the combination of great script plus great actors still gets the job done (let's hope someone in Hollywood listens). They both carry the weight of their pasts, the failed marriages, the challenges with the growing daughters about to become fully independent (the "empty nest" syndrome) and, foremost, the clash between their life as independent individuals and the chance of being with someone again. The chemistry between the actors is undeniable and every time they share the screen the movie goes way beyond your average, light-hearted comedy. Here's a heart.

And chemistry is precisely the key, the message of the film. You have to risk yourself, defeat your understandable fears, when romance appears. That Holofcener uses a trick (no spoiling) to make Eva decide between the information about James she gathers from an unbeatable source and her own feelings is just a comedic resource. But also an interesting one about perception, misjudgements and excuses: all blatant examples of our human weaknesses. At the end the wise director makes a clear bet, but without a happy ending guarantee. Will it work? Who knows, but it's worth trying. Like Woody Allen would say (check his masterpieces "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" if you like this film). We (still) need the eggs.

SCORE: 7,25/10

"About Time", Charming Sci-Fi Rom-Com

About Time

Who would have guessed? Me liking a Richard Curtis' film! Me being moved by the director who perpetrated the crimes against humanity that are "Love Actually" or "Notting Hill". But I can't lie: I enjoyed "About Time" a lot. And despite the flaws and the sugary fat tricks that surround the second half of the film, putting it on the verge of collapse, the final feeling is of genuine satisfaction.

This could have been a predictable rom-com with several, potentially worrying cliches (that England's fakey postcard, the lack of economic strife, the slightly dubious female roles, the syrupy soundtrack)... but somehow the shortcomings are forgettable and totally forgivable. Because "About Time" is a charmer.

The use of the time travel sci-fi (freaks don't get too excited, not that kind of movie) resource gives the film a new dimension, much refreshing at first, really funny at least for more than half of the movie (laughs are granted, and I mean laughing, not acting like an idiot pretending acting as if you were having fun, because everyone around you seems to do so, particularly girls, in front of a silly rom-com with Julia Roberts, Richard Gere or even more annoying, Hugh Grant), and by the time the movie shifts and gets more serious, and admittedly, things could get ruined by the tear-jerking excesses, you are too engaged and pleased with it.

And that engagement from the audience has to do with the plot, a lightweight digression, with hints of some somber thoughts on what does it means love and family, that mixes comedy and drama with balance, although the last half of the film clearly aims to reach (a bit too much probably) the viewer emotionally, it's full of remarkable scenes. Many are quite hilarious, as a the time travel device is used wisely by Curtis, who despite not being interested at all to offer an explanation, creates several memorable situations. And some others are undeniably loveable (the blind date, meaning that in a literal way).

And of course, it also has to do with the actors. Domnhall Gleeson is the perfect, uncharacteristically (because he is not what girls would call handsome) charismatic star of the movie, geeky, quirky, clumsy in what regards to sentimental issues and utterly recognisable (men's solidarity here). Rachel McAdams is adorable as Mary, even more because she has a type of job that I would die for and thought I could only see that on screen on a Woody Allen's film (no spoiler but it does allow the couple of having a very cute dining scene). And Bill Nighy, Tim's dad, is just the older version of Jarvis Cocker, so he rocks, as usual. The chemistry is terrific and makes every scene involving at least two of them memorable.

As I said before, not everything works. Kit Kat's subplot, the lunatic sister fragment, squeaks. Something that, to a extent, could be said, to every female character on the film. But I would say that's going too far. "About Time" is not aiming to be THAT deep or even bittersweet. This is not "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "Groundhog Day", but a genuinely pleasant movie that goes way further than your average rom-com, with lovable characters, lots of laughs and an enduring charm. What a great surprise. Now, Mr. Curtis, why don't you go back in time and forget about doing "Love Actually"? The world would be a much better place without it...

SCORE: 7,25/10

“Laughable Loves”, Collecting Bad Jokes

Laughable Loves (Smesné Lásky, Czech original title)- Milan Kundera 
“Sex is the most fun you can have without laughing” Woody Allen

Am I missing something? Because I just hated this book almost from the very beginning. Laughable? Funny? I must have a problem with my sense of humour then. "Laughable Loves" wasn't funny at all. Not in terms of style, and not in what regards to the stories that conform this forgettable (hope that happens soon, please, I want to forget it so badly) read.

First, let's talk about the style, which in my opinion poisons the book and makes it a serious struggle to read, despite being a collection of short stories and not having an extended length. It's not my first time with Kundera, so I was already aware of his prose, frequently saluted by many as philosophic, virtuoso, and enlightening. Plus, in this case, adjectives ranged from irreverent, graceful and ironic. But no, this is not ironic. It's just pedantic and boring. Sure, my preference, the literature I defend is the opposite from Kundera's style, the so called "minimalist school" (Carver, Yates, Wolff, Fante, Bukowski). But I also love McCullers, O'Connor, Fitzgerald, Cheever, and a long etc, writers that go beyond the "dirty realism" definition. Anyway, I don't believe this is an issue of personal taste. It is just a matter of Kundera "explaining us all". He is the narrator, superficially in third person, but also being omniscient to the extreme. The consequence is that the reader is unable to get into the development of the story by himself/herself. Kundera tells him what to understand, when to laugh and when to applaud the author for his wisdom. That's not funny, that's not wise. It's just annoying.

And annoying are also the vast majority of stories. Sex, love, friendship might be topics of the tales, but Kundera is not interested on his characters of developing what's going on. He just want to mock(?) about pretty silly stories to explain a paradox/contradiction. But why can't he just show it on a good story about personal relationships? Why does he have to dissect what goes on from scene to scene as if he were explain it to a baby? "The Hitchhiking Game", third tale of the collection and the strongest by far, might the best example. A young couple on holiday decide to change their "regular roles" to play a flirting game that subverts their usual behaviour, arriving to a pretty challenging, let me add depressing conclusion. The potential of the story is there, but Kundera completely ruins it by constantly shifting from one character mind to the other, to let the reader make no mistake of what he/she should think about what's going on. Same goes with "Edward and God", another interesting plot involving faith, devotion and communism as strategies to... umm.. to be clear... get laid. So, go figure what happens with the less remarkable stories: they are just weak and lame, like the tiring "Symposium" and the irritating "Let the Old Dead Make Room for the Young Dead".

A writer should not give lessons to the readers. The reader should do it by herself/himself, thanks to the quality of the story.

SCORE: 1,5/10

"Jeff Who Lives at Home", quirky feel-good fun

Jeff Who Lives at Home

Feel-good movies is not exactly a film category, but there are so many out there I'm convinced it deserves a genre entirely of its own. And the vast, immense majority of them are awful, bland and phony numbers. That's why, despite its flaws and shortcomings, one doesn't want to be very tough (there are also some personal reasons, as where and with who I was watching it)  with a movie like "Jeff Who Lives at Home". A feel-good film that is not embarrassing? Hey, these are surprisingly good news, folks.

Indeed, there's nothing to be ashamed of in "Jeff". Mark and Jay, the Duplass brothers have penned a quirky little movie, mixing comedy, an off-beat and surreal sense of humour, with some pretty serious issues, like relationships, familiar as well as sentimental, or our definition of "what's normal and reasonable"... oh, well, the meaning of life, you know. Not shy on ambition, ehm? Honestly, it had all the elements for being insufferable, but you know what? It is not. The film is really enjoyable. Although sometimes moving on a very thin red line, shifting from almost slapstick scenes to utterly dramatic moments, "Jeff"'s  awkward, nearly impossible script works, also offering a vital, positive message with charm (and without being too cheesy).

Such and odd-ball couldn't work without committed and credible actors. And in that sense Jason Segel deserves a separate mention. He carries the whole film of his shoulders. He turns Jeff, a 30 years-old slacker-loser by definition, into a fragile, sweet and collapsed adult that is going to be the major force on a series of life-changing situations for him and his family with compelling freshness. Extraordinary job. In comparison, the other main actors, Ed Helms, his brother, and Susan Sarandon, his mother, are just ok.  

Precisely, if "Jeff" fails short is on the parallel stories of Pat and Sharon, leaded by Helms and Sarandon. The first one lacks verisimilitude because the drastic personality shifts on the character, which makes him hard to believe in what regards to the dramatic side of the story, around his failing marriage with Linda (played by Judy Greer). While the second is by far the less inspired, looking somewhat forced (the shower scene is a bit gratuitous). That unbalance on the stories, and the epic, bombastic finale makes "Jeff Who Lives at Home" a flawed film. But as I said, thanks to Segel, the originality in how the story develops and its comedy side, is nevertheless a recommendable movie that can endure with the spectator. A remarkable feel-good movie.

SCORE: 6,5/10 

"Just Kids", the bipolar memories of Patti Smith

Just Kids- Patti Smith

I had really high expectation with this one. The spectacular reviews, (National Book Award included) and my appreciation for the author (she's Michael Stipe's muse and close friend, and although I'm just an occasional fan of her music, she's a legend that I would love to see live). Guess I was hoping for a memorable book, something in between Dylan's "Chronicles" and Mark Oliver Everett's "Things the Grandchildren Should Now". Unfortunately, all I can say is that "Just Kids" has been a disappointment.

There's a bipolarity on "Just Kids". As an autobiography of the beginnings of a rock icon might not be ground shaking, but it does has a lot of strength and points of interests. Mainly because it reveals a young, vulnerable Patti Smith coming to New York to fight for her dreams, but really looking to find herself, on a time when she didn't know what she wanted to be. That, together with the incredibly intense and really intimate depiction of her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe, would made the book a must read without a doubt. Friend, shelter, colleague, artist partner, lover... Patti Smith allows the reader to adventure into her most intimate feelings, not afraid of showing none of them were yet fully formed as individuals when they met, needing each other to grew up together, as artists and persons. That honesty goes beyond any labelling, its pure, like Smith and Mapplethorpe's relation. That's really rare to find.  Impossible to have a better title than "Just Kids".

Judging by the previous paragraph, I realise "Just Kids" had the potential of being one of the best music biographies I've ever read. But it is not. And sadly, the only responsible is Patti Smith alone. I'm afraid to write that, but I believe this is a case of... seriously flat, poor writing. Unending name dropping, with anecdotes that doesn't add much to the story except showing how many "important people" she met back then, and a constant self-laudatory "artistry" that becomes seriously annoying because is never connected with the real, flesh and bones world. She transforms her reality, a starving young, confused but ambitious couple in a cliche: the starving, tortured artists.

That's why I wrote before the book seems to be bipolar. All the insight, honesty and interest on the Mapplethorpe-Smith relation, with some other few moments (mostly when she recalls or goes back home) disappears or are seriously ruined by the cliches among which she builds her image (and Mapplethorpe) of unique artists. The fact I consider Patti Smith a genuine, remarkable artist only makes it more painful. To make it more clear: repeating endlessly how much you love Rimbaud doesn't make you an artist. Or describing with full detail every single piece of clothing you wore. That's superficial and, at least for me, irritating.

Intense and remarkable at times, but also frustrating and shallow. A two-sided, failed memories as a whole.

SCORE: 5,5/10

"A Pistol in Each Hand", Men Overboard

A Pistol in Each Hand 
(Una Pistola en Cada Mano, Spanish Original title)

In my opinion, Cesc Gay is among the top Spanish directors, being one of the (regrettably) few that focuses their films on human relationships, always with honesty, coherency and credibility. Script and actors direction along with the construction of believable, very recognisable situations are his main (huge) talents, mixing drama and comedy with excellent results. In that sense "A Pistol in Each Hand" is no exception. As a matter of fact, is a sublimation of the aforementioned factors.

"A Pistol" might be defined as a comedy with tragic elements on men. But this is not "The Hangover III" now located in Barcelona. Very far from that. This is an episodic collection of five stories all showing the same issue: the male identity crises. Eight men in their late 30s-40s, all struggling and sharing pretty huge emotional turmoils, revealing all their insecurities, fears and fragility in different situations.  

With these episodic structure, Gay makes a bold statement in several levels. First and foremost, with the topic he is portraying. The men on the film could be interchangeable, they have no name. Eight minds, attitudes, manners and inner conflicts that together, are a kaleidoscope of male sentimental troubles. Secondly, with his script and, in particular, with the power of dialogue. There are several locations, but they are only serving the different environments on which very "real" people talk about "real" issues. And third, Gay makes a pretty amazing bet on actors. Without them, their commitment and talents, the film would be completely impossible.

The director has assembled an impressive cast with some of the (arguably) best national and Latin American actors. All of them are flawless, playing their roles with a mostly puzzling naturality that makes the movie flow wonderfully. I bet they enjoyed themselves a lot while they were part of this film.

With all this elements, the success or failure of "A Pistol In Each Hand" resides on the strength of the five stories. The first one, with Eduard Fernández and Leonardo Sbaraglia starts the film on a very high note. Both actors do have a splendid "interpretative duel" in which they play a hide & seek game just to reveal how fuc*** they are. The following story benefits of (another) excellent performance from Javier Cámara, with a very hard role to play, a character exposing his feelings so much he's just on the verge of being pathetic, being convincingly responded by a puzzled Clara Segura. Next comes the central piece of the film, which might be its more powerful. Being the most "dramatic" story of the lot, in the hands of other actors/directors it could have been a very embarrassing moment, but thanks to the gigantic performances of Luis Tosar and Ricardo Darín, it justifies alone viewing the film.

Unfortunately, the last two stories aren't quite remarkable. The fourth story, let's say the most related with sex, is by far the weakest, despite Candela Peña and Eduardo Noriega. The final "chapter" uses double couples and is more rewarding thanks to the work of Leonor Watling and Cayetana Guillén-Cuervo, but its quite simplistic in comparison with the rest of the stories, leaving Jordi Mollà and Alberto San Juan little room to develop their characters, that are built on that "man only talk about football" silly cliche.  

Despite the last two stories, "A Pistol In Each Hand" is a very recommendable film, with excellent acting and story development. Without achieving the greatness of "In the City" ("En la Ciudad") or "Fiction" (Ficció) it adds another noteworthy and coherent work on the career of director Cesc Gay.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"Killing Yourself To Live", Myth America?

Killing Yourself To Live: 85% of a True Story- Chuck Klosterman

Misleading advertising on a book again. After enjoying "Fargo Rock City", a work where auto-biography and music are blended with pleasant results (yet also some concerns) it was a matter of time I was going to read another Klosterman's. "Killing Yourself To Live" seemed the ideal choice, being built around the premise of Spin's magazine feature on death rock icons. A road trip through "Myth America" by a passionate music commentator looked great. But that's not what the book exactly offers.

Unfortunately, America's most famous rock and roll death places, from where the plane with Big Bopper, Ritchie Valens and Buddy Holly crashed to where Kurt Cobain's shot himself, is a mere excuse to talk, primarily, about something else.

That something else is, of course, Chuck Klosterman. "Killing Yourself..." is in reality a not very subtle dose of the writer's obsessions, in particular his troubled relationships and the confusion provoked by them. This might sound like Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity", this time on a car through the States, but believe me, it doesn't have the British's book charms. And no, I won't say this can be compared to gonzo journalism either, even if there's some booze and drug situation involved. No way.

Don't get me wrong, the book is very enjoyable and, thanks to his recognisable prose and what he is talking about, meaningful to many. But Klosterman has a serious issue with digression. "Fargo Rock City" suffered from that. But this one has several parts where its practically ruined because of that. The reader will quickly have the feeling there's no focus.
 
And damn it (sorry) but Klosterman can really be engaging when he talks about music. The best parts on "Killing Yourself..." to me are about Radiohead's Kid A (spectacular), the Chelsea Hotel or the brave (and so true) comment on Nirvana's end and the creation of Kurt Cobain's myth. But he shifts, better said hides, these sorts of opinions in between an overwhelming amount of pages that go back and forth through his three most significant relationships by then.... and the music becomes just the background of the book, sadly.

Why the death of a rock star is the "smartest" move any musician can do? Why do they matter that much to us? I'm afraid we didn't know. Klosterman wasn't that interested in his own premise.

SCORE: 5,75/10

"Your Sister's Sister", relationships & talks

Your Sister's Sister

Something had gone really wrong with cinema if an audacious, brave and laudable idea is a film where all that matters are dialogues and actors. These are the pivotal elements over which "Your Sister's Sister" is built upon to develop a tale of human relationships that, for almost all its length, looks natural and refreshing.  Let's say it clear: this is an indie film (loved the Fleet Foxes/Band of Horses reference) to make the ever-present Hollywood romantic comedies pale in their dumbness. So, sorry blockbuster's lovers, never-ending action scenes' fans, digital/animation's hooligans. Nothing much for you to watch here, I'm afraid.

Unless you like stories about people behaving like people, instead of wearing strange outfits, masks and capes, that is. That's what director Lynn Shelton wrote for "Your Sister's Sister", with a quite simple premise, and filmed in only 12 days, with almost no funding. A house on an island, almost hidden in the woods by a lake, where Iris suggests Jack, her best friend, to go for some time to "reboot" from his stuck life, as he's still paralysed because of his brother's death, a year ago. There he will met Hannah, Iris' sister.

A couple of scenes aside, there are only three characters with screen presence. The lack of external factors (no phones, internet, work issues), and the peculiar, isolated environment in which the film develops helps putting the absolute focus on the trio, their behaviours, talks, connections, and the emotions that they bring as well as they hide from the table. Some feelings are as secluded as the island where they located, ready to burst. Love, friendship, sex, family ties (magnificent pillow talks between the sisters), pasts, all around tables and beds. Shelton revealed the script had only 70 pages, so around 75% of the dialogue was improvised together with the cast. I'm seriously impressed by that. The biggest triumph of the film is building such a solid trio of characters, making them credible, likeable despite its flaws, and understandable, despite their actions. The bonds and boundaries of their relations are brilliantly and naturally exposed.

Of course, to achieve such mesmerizing and engaging results, you need a formidable trio of actors.The three performances, Mark Duplass as Jack, Rosemarie DeWitt as Hannah, and (the gorgeous) Emily Blunt as Iris are excellent, individually and collectively. They are fun, fragile and touching. All in a natural way, instead of much drama or exaggerations they are capable of condensing their emotional and revealing "voyage" in their chats, gestures and facial/physical expressions. Bravo.

With so much praise from my side, you might be thinking "Your Sister's Sister" is going to be considered as a masterpiece on this review. Unfortunately not. When tensions and revelations finally explode (as I said, kudos for not being melodramatic), the film chooses a much more predictable path. Not to say disappointing, but conventional (despite its peculiarity) and pleasing one. There's too much exposed and needed to assume to accept that end in such a little time, in my opinion. It is wonderful that love between humans can overcome everything, but with characters so well constructed, some more time for their evolution would have been recommendable. Otherwise, its final part looks like a sitcom, and the film didn't deserve that resolution.

Overall, a really remarkable, fun, refreshing and charming film, with three actors excelling in their performances, that misses a bit of their potential to be unforgettable towards the end. But nevertheless, this is an admirable  proof that all that matters in cinema is having a good story to be told, and having the courage of telling it.

SCORE: 7,25/10

"Carnage", the darkest verbal comedy

Carnage

Verbal comedy. Is that a movie category? Because that definition fits "Carnage" incredibly well. The film is a dialectical battle of two couples, the Cowan, Nancy and Alan, and the Longstreet, Penelope and Michael, gathered to resolve, as the civilised and sanctimonious people they are, a quite serious "issue": the Cowan's son has beaten the Longstreet's kid with a stick, seriously injuring the latter's teeth. But soon the viewer will realise the four are not what they suppose/presume to be...

"Carnage" is clearly the screen adaptation of the play "God of Carnage" (Yasmine Reza, the original author, also co-writes the film script). Wait, it is more than that. It looks as if t we were watching the play itself. It all happens in virtually one room (the Longstreet's living room), in one afternoon and (almost) with only the four characters being on screen. And this fact has several virtues, as well as a few limitations.

Director Roman Polanski has to be praised for not "throwing" his ego on the film. The short length and straightforward timing in "Carnage" are key elements that allow the film to exude rhythm and dynamism. Together with the simplistic setting and lack of grandiloquence serves the comedy very well. What matters are the characters and its collection of one-liners and bourgeois traumas. I also liked Polanski's clinic eye to give, with subtle and noteworthy talent, such importance and presence to the objects on the Longstreet's apartment.

Of course, if we talk about characters, a major factor are obviously the actors. And Polanski relies on a very experimented and reliable quartet. Penelope Longstreet, played by Jodie Foster, is the more histrionic of the four, a passive-aggressive wife really wanting to push the boundaries of her guests as she is not only the concerned mother of the injured son, but a moral watchdog of Western civilisation. She is the hardest role to play and Foster's mannerisms are arguably the more dubious. Foster is closely followed by Nancy Cowan, performed by Kate Winslet. She, as the stressed mother of the "abuser" kid wants to be nice at first, but she turns, on the most extreme transformation of the lot, into an uncontrolled beast, physically speaking too.

In my opinion, the husbands are the most satisfying characters. Michael Longstreet, played by John C. Reilly starts being the kindest and accommodating person of the quartet, then evolving into a much more complex character, and amalgamation of frustration and resignation. Reilly excels in giving a natural and convincing force to Michael. And then we have Alan Cowan, performed by Christoph Waltz. He probably steals the show with his mobile phone addiction and his aggressive-aggressive, malicious nature. He for sure has the best and funniest one-liners of the film.

Unfortunately, "Carnage" also suffers from the "play structure" constrictions. For sure, the spectator has to make an effort and believe on the credibility on such an awkward situation. The first half of the film is funny and subtle, as we know that each character is hiding (well, except Alan Cowan) his/her real nature for the sake of showing her/his good manners. We could say the film shines for what it insinuates and not for what it shows, in one word: tones of hypocrisy. But the turn of events and evolution of the characters on the second half of "Carnage" is a social example of the "snowball effect" taken to a hardly credible extreme. Funny still, and somewhat understandable as we are in front of a play, but the conversation derives into a very different territory from the initial abuser-victim too quickly. Hard to believe such solid social masks would crumble so easily after a couple of whisky shots (enough said). But hey, the truth is that before you will start complaining, the movie will reach its end. So overall, there's not a lot to regret after a straightforward, smart, funny and entertaining dark (very dark) verbal comedy, packed in less than 80 minutes.

SCORE: 6,75/10

The Indie Anthology 12: essential songs

Back with the Anthology after some weeks, focused on hearing as many bands as possible from the Primavera Sound 2012 line-up. But on the last days a much needed Spanish band has returned: I'm referring to Los Punsetes with "Una Montaña es una Montaña", their third album, so they made me remember their very peculiar hymn. Very appropriate in the current "state of affairs"...

Song: Tus Amigos
Artist: Los Punsetes
Year: 2010

You know when you would really like to say things openly, but circumstances, fear, doesn't allow you to do so? Yeah, its better to keep relations in a diplomatic, politically correct way. But how liberating is being able to express your frustration, discomfort with how life is treating you and your partner lately. Many times, a song can help, become the vehicle for letting these sort of feelings go out. Los Punsetes condensed all their proverbial nastiness into a straightforward, crystal clear, and in that sense relieving lyric singing what we all think but we don't dare to say when we are fed up with people/work, and we just want to hide away with our beloved one. Behind an indie-pop tune with crispy guitar lines you'll find lines like "Que le den por culo a tus amigos" or "Tu trabajo me toca las pelotas". Sing it out, loud and clear and give yourself a break.

The Indie Anthology 5: essential songs

Back from a another work trip mixed with holidays. And we do it with our fifth "anthologic" tune, in this case another song that in barely 2 minutes, says it all. A personal favourite hailing from Sweden that I hope you enjoy.

Song: The Quiz
Artist: Hello Saferide
Year: 2006

Annika Norlin is an incredible songwriter, and one of her finest moments is this little indie-pop wonder. Made with the intention of completing her live setlist, the tune became very popular and demanded among her fans, so she finally recorded it for the EP "Would You Let Me Play this EP 10 Times a Day?". This peculiar test is fun, witty, fragile, close and fully recognisable to anyone scared of starting a relationship, declaring herself. A phenomenal example of how sometimes "less is more", and how important are lyrics. Simple, concise, compelling, enduring, charming.

"Crazy, Stupid, Love.", one-night stand entertainment

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

Ok, "Crazy, Stupid, Love" is not going to shake the foundations of film industry, and won't (shouldn't) go down in history. But as a romantic comedy with a limited palette, it has an undeniable charm, thanks to the chemistry of their cast, and some very funny and rewarding moments, plus an engaging vibe that lasts almost the entire film.

As I just said, the plot of "Crazy, Stupid, Love" is pretty archetypical. Won't go into it because I would easily ruin it for you, but very briefly: is the sort of coral rom-com, with love affairs for every age group, from teenage years to a 40-some couple that breaks their marriage after 25 years, where no one is taking what he/she wants.

Despite the pivotal story of the film is the Weaver's breakup, soon one realise this is mainly the show of two characters/actors: the heartbroken Cal Weaver played by Steve Carell, and Jacob Palmer, the ladyslayer played by Ryan Gosling. They met in a pickup bar and build an awkwad, pygmalionesque, relationship, where the young one teaches the out-of-the-market, old-fashioned middle-aged one, how to pick up girls. Honestly, in the hands of many comedians this argument would have been annoying, but Carell and Gosling make it amusing. Praise Carell for being capable of showing so many different faces with that credibility on the same film.

The movie keeps going and the related stories start evolving, with some hilarious situations and a flowing pace. Also with some strange and anticlimactic moments, I guess the way directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa want to subvert the obvious and trite paths of romantic comedies. Unfortunately, the movie only "seems" original, but is far from being really brave or revolutionary. On the contrary, as we cross the halfway point, it becomes evident "Crazy, Stupid, Love." makes a conscious decision for a commercial, conservative ending. Not complaining, because I didn't think the movie had any other pretension than being a good entertainment.

Aside for its more foreseeable second half I have two other concerns too add to the film. One is typical of the coral movies. Stories tends to be unbalanced. In this case I would say the youngest "love affair" is a flimsy argument, and it gets a bit overexploited, despite babysitter's Jessica is a character fantastically played by Analeigh Tipton. Also, is a bit disappointing wasting such a great actress like Julianne Moore, or in a more secondary roles, Kevin Bacon and Marisa Tomei, for their limited (the latest two are pure caricatures) roles. And the second one is the end. We get almost 20 unnecessary (in my opinion) extra minutes from what could have been a much better scene (that fight is among the funniest of the film) to close the film on a high note. But instead we have a very typical, commercially safe one.

Overall, this is a quite pleasant movie, thanks to the great performance of Steve Carell, well backed by Ryan Gosling and the rest of the cast, with some memorable scenes (one involving "Dirty Dancing" which is remarkable) that makes it a nice entertainment. Following its argument, don't expect the "love of your life", but  will do for a one-night stand.

SCORE: 6/10

"A Happy Marriage", love, death and everything else

A Happy Marriage- Rafael Yglesias
This is an example of a novel with the potential of being a masterpiece... that I couldn't really like. Author Rafael Yglesias exposes all, a brave and risky decision that has to be valued, and tell us the story of a marriage (not the most original thing to write about) in a quite refreshing way. But, at least to me, the book never takes off from being a very personal, intimate and sometimes even a bit morbid, take on a particular couple.

In what regards to style and structure, "A Happy Marriage" is an excellent work. Yglesias' prose flows with grace but without any pomposity, sounding real. The book combines two timelines, the first being how Enrique and Margaret meet and started their relationship, and the second, the last days of Margaret's life, as she is dying from cancer. That dual structure shocks at first, and I'm a bit undecided whether I like the brutal contrasts on the tone, from a more lightweight, with hints of comic situations during their first encounters to the depressing (and in my opinion, a bit too detailed) final days of his wife, but then becomes a very interesting and original approach for telling the story of a marriage from its start to the end.

But it is clear the book is more an autobiography of Yglesias' life (he was too hailed as a young masterful writer with his early novels, had success with Hollywood scripts and with a long marriage that ended with the death of his wife in 2004, due to cancer) than just a fiction novel, and to me, that takes its toll on the book. First, because this is, exclusively, the husband's point of view. Enrique Sabas is a pretty well defined character, and Yglesias must be praised to present his alter-ego as a flesh and bone person, with many defects and obsessions. But I can't say the same about the rest of characters. Margaret, the couple kids, her parents, friends, aren't very far from being sketches.

Second, and something that made me question even to continue reading the book a couple of times is the need of detailing everything. Do we really need to know everything about how Margaret’s deals with her terminal illness? Does it add something to the novel? Why is that relevant? Is not pure morbid curiosity? Sure, that's just my opinion, but I don't see the point of carefully writing about the colour of the food that can be seen through the tubes that Margaret is connected with. In that sense, a few passages of "A Happy Marriage" seemed to me "masturbatory". Sorry if it seems an angry criticism, but to me the whole point of such a personal book is to reach emotional impact through the identification of the reader with the characters and their situations. Cancer, love, disappointment, betrayal, loss... Familiar topics for many, but with "A Happy Marriage" I couldn't empathize with the characters, in particular with Enrique. And that builds a distance between the book and the reader. A distance that, like in relations, ruins the final result.

SCORE: 5,25/10

"Every Song Is About Me", of love and literature

Every Song Is About Me (Todas las Canciones Hablan de Mí, Spanish original title)

A cool title and a wonderful homage to Woody Allen's Manhattan on the film poster made me curious about this Spanish film. After watching it, I can say my curiosity was partially justified.

There are many good things to point out of this film. First, the attempt of relating a relationship mixing comedy (not one where you will laugh a lot, but with the feeling the film is not taking itself too seriously) without avoiding some somber parts of a relation. One of the true merits of the film is that the leading characters are pretty intelligent but ordinary people trying to make something with their life.

Second, the remarkable ability of newcomer director Jonás Trueba (check his interesting blog) in capturing the confusion of a self-obsessed generation, poised by music and literature (a minority, at least), hoping, like the title, of finding some comfort in a song where we are stuck in real life.

And third, the flair of the movie, with its episodic structure and the Nouvelle Vague atmosphere mixed with a dialogue-first composition of scenes. We can say Rohmer, Truffaut and Woody Allen's styles are all present. Nice to see a Spanish director with different references, filming a quite romantic/attractive Madrid and showing a great deal of inventive and wise ability to homage his favourite directors. In that sense, a couple of scenes will make you smile for sure.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn't fulfil its promises. The aesthetics/style gets a bit over the script, so there's not really a dramatic tension on "Every Song" despite the topic. Then the film decays and develops at a slow pace. A fact that has something to do with leading character Ramiro (played by Oriol Vila). Winning is a pretty realistic behaviour, but the development of the film (without spoiling the film, let's say Vila doesn't get locked at home despite being supposedly heartbroken) contradicts his understated attitude.

Then there's the tone. I said the film doesn't take itself so seriously, but that, mixed with an unnecessary voiceover or some lengthy dialogues, hurts its dynamism. And finally, and on the minor things side. There's no sense of reality in terms of social and economical background, making the characters live in a sort of surreal-parallel world. The literary references (Kundera on top) are pedantic. And Franco Battiato as the music choice for a thirty-something is a really weird choice...being polite. 

Overall, an attractive but unsatisfying film, that hast to be valued as an unusual proposal on Spanish cinema, with some fantastic moments and a charm in the way it is presented.

SCORE: 5,75/10

"Blue Valentine", dancing to the end of love

Blue Valentine
First advice: be aware of the moment (your emotional moment) when you decide to see the film, as it is going to affect you. And second advice: don't miss it, try to watch it by all means (probably won't get a release date in Spanish cinemas, that's why I say "all means", I know you have read this rant before).

Because "Blue Valentine" is devastating. Like reading Richard Yates. Like listening to "Blood on the Tracks" by Dylan, "Ultraviolet" or "Love is Blindness" by U2. Is one the of most raw and compelling dissections of the death of a relationship I ever seen. A realistic, profound and utterly sad study-character of a couple, showing us, back and forth, their relation as a complex puzzle (as every human relation is), a collection of moments and situations: the great, the good, the bad, the worse.

First, I have to praise the writing and direction of Derek Cianfrance. The premise of the film is far from being original (the superficial story could be defined even as pretty conventional), but he's capable to craft a movie that breaths, exudes honesty and its poignantly alive. A big part of it success lies in the terrific script. Measured scenes where the joy of love is condensed on a sentence, a look, a song (excellent soundtrack), or on the contrary, dialogues like sharp knifes, ready to become daggers to harm the one you once loved.   

Second, and intrinsic to the script, is the acting, which is simply exceptional. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are Dean and Cindy. I mean you are not seeing just characters evolving during a film, you are seeing flesh and blood persons crumbling in front of you, alternated with scenes when it seemed nobody/nothing can stop them from being together. It's scary (because of the topic) how well they complement each other on screen.Though I'm not surprised because I already considered both actors the best of their generation (30 and under), with "Blue Valentine" they have added one of the best performances of their careers.

Dean (Gosling) turns from a charming, romantic and careless guy to a frightened, insecure and verbally aggressive person. Cindy (Williams) evolves from a lovely, shining sweet and caring girl into a consumed, frustrated mother. Their degradation is obvious, even physically. And you can sense easily their desperation as well. We have "disordered" glimpses of their relationship: the past just before meeting, how they fell in love, and how their choices turned their happiness into the regret and misery of their present. But we don't need to know it all. Filling in the intentional holes (just a couple of times, minor regarding the story, where ellipsis might be too broad), like on good literature, is our task. That way Cianfrance direct us to a personal connection, sometimes even a recognition of ourselves in the film.What we see is far from being comfortable or pleasant (hard to remember a film where sex scenes have been so relevant and poignant for example), there's even a physical threat all around, but is sincerely human.

"Blue Valentine" is a rare, brave and fierce, brilliantly acted, masterpiece, about the most important subject: human relationships and love. Don't miss it, please.

SCORE: 9/10