'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

Primavera Sound 2017 in brief, day 2

As promised, here's the second round of our quick chronicles of how it was Primavera Sound 2017 for us. After the first post devoted to Thursday 1st of June, here comes Friday 2nd, a day that seemed the weakest in paper, but still had several noteworthy moments to enjoy and highlight. Let the good times roll!

The Good

Lawrence Arabia: Charming pop music at the Hidden Stage courtesy of James Milne (what an amicable frontman) and his locally assembled band (Hi-jauh to the rescue!), putting out an impeccable, gentle and immediately lovable show to start the afternoon with a big smile.

Lawrence Arabia, Christchurch-Barcelona pop connection. Photo: Bloodbuzzed

Mitski: Among the best album debuts of last year, Mitski Miyawaki stark, minimalist staging approach might make you think on a cold performer on a first impression. What a mistake that is. She lets the music do the talking, with the fury coming from the bursting guitars, the visceral screams and the blows of her melodic vocal turns. And soon you realize she is going to be in the same league of St. Vincent or Angel Olsen. She is untamable.

Mitski, static wonder. Photo: Bloodbuzzed

The Make-up: You might find the band very unsurprising, too classic in their attempt to recreate that "vintage" funk-soul-rock spirit. But NO ONE can't deny the power, joy and good vibes a night with Ian Svenonius can provide to any willing to listen & watch. Summoning the spirits of James Brown and Iggy Pop, giving everything he has and beyond to engage the audience, the wild frontman and his well-oiled band are a guarantee of fun (and a threat to that hipster self-absorption).

The Make-up, rock'n'roll suicide. Photo: Bloodbuzzed

The Bad

Queing for Auditori: There has to be a better way to organize this sort of massives events at Auditori. I mean, you waste a lot of time just queueing to buy the mandatory extra-tickets in advance... and then you spend another lifetime queueing again to enter the gig. The result? You have missed the four first tunes of the show. Frustrating.
Eating at Primavera: Rephrasing a famous Woody Allen quote "The food in this place is terrible. Yes, and it's so expensive one would expect not even the Brits will pay for it". Enough said...

The Queen
The Magnetic Fields: Another "first time" and a mandatory gig was seeing Stephen Merritt live presenting his new concept album '50 songs memoir'. Splitted in two shows (Friday and Saturday), of 25 songs each, The Magnetic Fields proposal was a serious threat to every PS17 line-up planning... but a lovely experience to be seen and heard. Cute and intimate stage setup (very nice visuals) a seven-piece band enveloping every single tune with grace and elegance. An entertaining story-biography (more engaging the first day, imo the songs were more diverse and less languid) to be told with that deadpan, offbeat sense of humour that is one of Merritt's trademark. But another of his "signatures", by far the more important one (and just in case you didn't know it), is that the man can write POP TUNES. At Primavera Sound we were lucky to hear a great bunch of them.

Special guests at Stephen Merritt's home. Photo: Bloodbuzzed

Brief of the third and final "big day" of the PS17, Saturday 3rd, arriving very soon!

'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

"While We're Young", bohemian like you

While We're Young 

Very nice and welcomed surprise. Didn't know what to expect about 'While We're Young'. I have a strange relation with Noah Baumbach's movies, Loved 'The squid and the whale', liked the utterly dark 'Margot at the wedding', but I don't want to watch it again. 'Greenberg' was quite ok too, but I'm scared to death to watch 'Frances Ha' (seems a movie for hipsters), and I thought this one could be a very weak film, something several reviews stressed. Happily, there was no reason for my fears.

'While We're Young' might easily be the most balanced and, I guess, accessible of Baumbach's films to date. That assessment means two important facts. First, the bitterness and poignancy of many of Baumbach's previous works is virtually gone. As a matter of fact, the movie is a comedy, a satire. And second, the characters are likeable. This is, of course, a matter of personal taste. But aside the aforementioned 'The squid and the whale', in my opinion, his best movie yet, that makes leading characters Josh and Cornelia, played with conviction and some sort of charm by Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts, the most interesting, relatable, well-rounded, flawed, irritating at times and, therefore, human Baumbach has ever created.

Yeah, I have read the comparison with Woody Allen and, although I admit it hurts me quite a bit (I'll always be a fan) it is true that Baumbach has constructed a more credible, contemporary and refined story about the behavior of intellectuals than Allen's latest efforts. 'While We're Young' portrays this stucked couple trying to prove themselves they are still "in", still bohemian, still hip, although they have grown up. How do they try to connect with the times? Befriending, Jamie and Darby, played smoothly by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried, a free-spirited couple still in their twenties, after the younger hipsters approaches Josh after one of his boring classes on filmmaking (Josh is a documentary filmmaker).

'While We're Young' works admirably as a funny game of contrasts. Old friends having kids and making their existence surrender to the babies, while the couple of hipsters celebrate a 'street beach' event or an Ayahuasca ceremony (leaded by Dean Wareham in an hilarious role). One looks scary, the other one intriguing... but scary too? Baumbach is just saying: both generations are quite ridicule, and is pretty easy to mock them. Oh yes! Here's another unmissable vynil for your record collection. Oh yes! Can I have a better Ipod for my daily running exercise? Cool and laughable, childish, at the same time. It also makes you think about yourself for a second (and in a lightweight manner). As someone who is in between both ages, and who works/deals within a hipster environment but has never been or felt part of it, many of what appears in 'While We're Young' sounds extremely familiar... I'm writing this review while listening the new Churches album, completely shocked this is "what you should listen now" when to me sounds suspiciously similar to Carly Rae Jepsen. Didn't we agree 80s electro-pop is embarrassing?

The movie also attempts to explore one of the 'controversial questions': what's authentic then? It might the weakest side of the film, because Jamie's convictions as a filmmaker (Darby's to a lesser extent too) are not really exposed if compared with Josh's adamantium but lost aims. But despite that might be a shortcoming, it do serves well Baumbach's purpose of showing people with good and insufferable qualities as well, complex and multidimensional, trying to do something with their life as they keep growing. Highly recommendable, whether you are a young hipster or an old bore, hahahaha...

SCORE: 7,25/10

"Magic in the Moonlight", Good Ol' Woody

Magic in the Moonlight

Before 2014 ends, here's our yearly date with our dear Woody Allen. Despite being a devoted fan, one has to admit the quality of his latest works is far from, sometimes light-years distant from, his better moments, and for that reason, there's a growing little fear his next attempt is going to be a serious let down, like “From Rome with Love” and “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger”. On the other hand, even this less memorable Allen period has offered moments of genuine brilliance, with top-notch “Midnight in Paris” summoning all the talents the director has.

So where does "Magic in the Moonlight" stands? Luckily, in a much comfortable zone. Without achieving the levels of accomplishment of "Paris", but delightfully pleasant and full of undeniable charms. A lightweight affair, armed with a sweet-natured contrivance, solved without much mystery, but packed with grace, thanks to the cast and the funny (maybe not memorable) storyline, mixing magic and romance.

The plot of “Magic in the Moonlight” is pretty straightforward. Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth, playing the traditional Allen's alter ego), is a famous magician (Wei Ling-Soo), but also a realist-pessimist person (Nietzsche meeting Kierkegaard meeting Schopenhauer), skeptic and with a knack to identify a fraud when he sees one. That's exactly what his friend and also fellow magician Howard ask him to do: help him unmask Sophie Baker (played by Emma Stone), a supposed clairvoyant, who is amazing a wealthy family with her ability to guess things she couldn’t possibly know and contacting with the missed ones. As you might guess, too, Sophie is not just an intriguing woman, with Stanley slowly believing she might be a real psychic, but also an adorable one. summarized on Stanley's great one liner "Her smile is rather winning". 

Granted, you see the romantic side coming way even before the two appear on screen. Is predictable, sure, but it doesn't harm the movie as one would expect. Two obvious reasons explain why. One is the cast. It's impossible not to fall by Emma Stone impossible eyes and magnetic light in her face, with these flapper looks. And it's hard not to laugh with Colin Firth's messed up head. The skeptic collapsing, his solid way of thinking no longer valid, while neglecting he's starting to have feelings for Sophie. The dialogues between the two (funny, philosophic, flirtatious) are the highlights of the film. And they are also surrounded by a whole bunch of secondary roles that, like the memorable, almost final dialogue between Stanley and his aunt Vanessa, played by the  great Eileen Aitkins, puts the cherry on top of the cake. The Cote d'Azur impressive surroundings also does help.

The second, and luckily the main plot line of the movie is to discover whether or not Sophie is a fake, and Allen's has a far more interesting "trick" to play here, building up the mystery in a simple, yet effective way, letting the movie develop and finally, end in a well-rounded, thoroughly satisfying manner. Again, not groundbreaking or rating high among Allen’s filmography, but entertaining, smart and rather enchanting. Good ol' Woody doing some magic, again.

SCORE: 6,75/10

Indietracks 2014 in brief, day 1

Back home from our first Indietracks Festival and as we regularly do with Primavera Sound, here's our quick chronicle, summarizing each day. To begin with, Friday 25th of July, the opening day!

The Good

The darlin's of pop
Photo: Bloodbuzzed

Unique vibes: Everyone had "warned" us. And they were right. Relaxed, friendly, pleasant atmosphere. Unique place.
Teen Canteen: The first gig of the Festival was a great discovery. Lovely band that goes straight to our Discoverer section!
Allo Darlin': First time I saw them in Barcelona, a couple of years ago, the gig was pretty disappointing, flat and full of disrespectful, yelling people. But at Indietracks, they just nailed it. Fun, solid performance from start to finish, with band and guests (Emma Kupa from Standard Fare and two Just Joans) enjoying themselves while making the whole crowd happy. Great way to close the opening day!

The Bad

British diet: As one of the best Woody Allen's jokes says: "The food in this place is really terrible. Yes, and such small portions". He probably didn't know about the Festival's food offering, because he would have added. And so expensive!
Warm drinks: Hot sunny day and drinks are hot? No ice? Come on!

Martin Phillipps, bringing the
Dunedin Sound to Derbyshire
Photo: Bloodbuzzed

The Queen

The Chills: Was really looking forward to this. One of the Flying Nun most mythic bands, completely alive and kicking, as the powerful new tunes of forthcoming album 'Silver Bullets' showed. The New Zealand combo was flawless, with frontman Martin Phillipps showing his range and absolute command of the gig. And timeless classics like 'Pink Frost' (oh, these shimmering guitars lines) or 'Heavenly Pop Hit' were stunning. Long live to the Dunedin Sound (the old, the new and the always alive)!

"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

"Blue Jasmine", from Riches to Rags

Blue Jasmine

An overwhelming praise of a "serious" Woody Allen film? That should had been a warning for me, like "Match Point", that was saluted as a masterpiece, when at its best (Scarlett Johansson magnetic screen presence aside) it was an ok noir recreation with a solid script but a non-Allen film. "Blue Jasmine" is worse. I'm very sad to say that Allen's latest movie seems to come from another planet and characters are mostly unbelievable.

I could blame it to the fact Allen is too far from his natural environment here. Truth is that the world of Allen's filmography has been always pretty constrained in what regards to his sociodemographic scope. An intellectual, slightly upper-class American, recurrently related with arts or cultural industries. But that wouldn't be completely fair. Brilliant and very different works like "Purple Rose from Cairo", "Radio Days" or "Broadway Danny Rose" just to name a few depicted middle and lower classes with more depth an charm that "Blue Jasmine". And that's terrible considering Allen's new piece really wants to say something about social class in the new millennium, in this age of economic crisis where capitalism is showing (even to the most stupid) what a wrong system this is. The problem is that he tries to explore human nature, and its darkest sides, without getting there. Like the failed "Cassandra's Dream", the terrible "You'll Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", or the better but still sterile "Match Point", "Blue Jasmine" lacks depth and heart. And coming from Woody that's a huge disappointment.

"Blue Jasmine" is not a terrible film. The life of Jasmine French is the tale of a downfall, from riches to rags (not enough of these in real life sadly), that Allen exposes in a quite dynamic and wise juxtaposition of current and past events. It does seems it could work, as Cate Blanchett is the perfect actress to give her character sophisticated an elegant looks mixed with the vulnerability of someone who is always on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She is completely lost when she arrives to San Francisco (cool to recognise many locations of the city) looking for a shelter and a new start at her sister's house, a character so different to her that when the spectator knows that they were both adopted there's a relief. 

But right then things to feel pretty unbelievable. Jasmine's sister, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, who seems to repeat her "Happy-Go-Lucky" role to an exaggerate extreme. Her naivete seems a bit silly to me. And so are many of the situations, conversations (not very funny) and secondary characters that appear on the story. In particular, I even felt a bit of embarrassment for Allen with the lame and ridiculous dentist as well as the wealthy Dwight (wasting an excellent actor like Peter Sarsgaard).

Then it occurred to me that maybe Allen was just pointing how delusional this woman can be after losing her status and lifestyle. That maybe we were looking to the story though her neurotic, bipolar eyes. That maybe would explain the "wild mood swings", the "going back and forth", not in terms of structure, but in what regards to Jasmine's behaviour... but it didn't really worked out either. Because I didn't care about Jasmine. Not talking about feeling empathy for her character, but I'm referring to interest in the story. Everything kept going, but nothing grabbed me, with the feeling some parts were pretty forced and the whole narrative-dramatic arc being a bit flat (Alec Baldwin's crumbling empire could have been better developed). 

There's a glimpse of brilliance at the end, with a cruel twist in the turn of events on which Allen seems to be punishing not only Jasmine but also Ginger (resignation). I believe the director wants to hold Jasmine as responsible for the crimes of the greedy class, as the perfect wife who profited from corruption, and when reality gives the final slap in her face, she lets madness win. Like in "Midnight in Paris", the impossible desire to be somewhere else and escape from your neuroses and a life you are incapable of living. But if the Parisian dream was lovely and full of magic and wonder, "Blue Jasmine" is just the image of madness. That darker twist saves the film from being a flaw in Allen's career, but it's a big deception nonetheless. 

SCORE: 5,25/10

"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

101 Greatest Screenplays, really?

Casablanca gets the number one spot? Shakespeare in Love? Tootsie? Jaws? Jerry Maguire? Really? Are you kidding me? I find this list pretty ridiculous, offensive, to be honest. Even more considering the list has been created by the Writers Guild of America (WGA). I'll make mine (shortlist) in the forthcoming days. Revenge!, revenge!

1.	CASABLANCA
2.	THE GODFATHER
3.	CHINATOWN
4.	CITIZEN KANE
5.	ALL ABOUT EVE
6.	ANNIE HALL
7.	SUNSET BLVD.
8.	NETWORK
9.	SOME LIKE IT HOT
10.	THE GODFATHER II
11.	BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID
12.	DR. STRANGELOVE
13.	THE GRADUATE
14.	LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
15.	THE APARTMENT
16.	PULP FICTION
17.	TOOTSIE
18.	ON THE WATERFRONT
19.	TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
20.	IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
21.	NORTH BY NORTHWEST
22.	THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
23.	GONE WITH THE WIND
24.	ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
25.	THE WIZARD OF OZ
26.	DOUBLE INDEMNITY
27.	GROUNDHOG DAY
28.	SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
29.	SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS
30.	UNFORGIVEN
31.	HIS GIRL FRIDAY
32.	FARGO
33.	THE THIRD MAN
34.	THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS
35.	THE USUAL SUSPECTS
36.	MIDNIGHT COWBOY
37.	THE PHILADELPHIA STORY
38.	AMERICAN BEAUTY
39.	THE STING
40.	WHEN HARRY MET SALLY
41.	GOODFELLAS
42.	RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
43.	TAXI DRIVER
44.	THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
45.	ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
46.	THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
47.	THE MALTESE FALCON
48.	THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
49.	SCHINDLER'S LIST
50.	THE SIXTH SENSE
51.	BROADCAST NEWS
52.	THE LADY EVE
53.	ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN
54.	MANHATTAN
55.	APOCALYPSE NOW
56.	BACK TO THE FUTURE
57.	CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
58.	ORDINARY PEOPLE
59.	IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
60.	L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
61.	THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
62.	MOONSTRUCK
63.	JAWS
64.	TERMS OF ENDEARMENT
65.	SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
66.	JERRY MAGUIRE
67.	E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
68.	STAR WARS
69.	DOG DAY AFTERNOON
70.	THE AFRICAN QUEEN
71.	THE LION IN WINTER
72.	THELMA & LOUISE
73.	AMADEUS
74.	BEING JOHN MALKOVICH
75.	HIGH NOON
76.	RAGING BULL
77.	ADAPTATION
78.	ROCKY
79.	THE PRODUCERS
80.	WITNESS
81.	BEING THERE
82.	COOL HAND LUKE
83.	REAR WINDOW
84.	THE PRINCESS BRIDE
85.	LA GRANDE ILLUSION
86.	HAROLD & MAUDE
87.	8 1/2
88.	FIELD OF DREAMS
89.	FORREST GUMP
90.	SIDEWAYS
91.	THE VERDICT
92.	PSYCHO
93.	DO THE RIGHT THING
94.	PATTON
95.	HANNAH AND HER SISTERS
96.	THE HUSTLER
97.	THE SEARCHERS
98.	THE GRAPES OF WRATH
99.	THE WILD BUNCH
100.	MEMENTO
101.	NOTORIOUS

"2 Days in New York", funny or irritating?

2 Days in New York

I wouldn't say that "2 Days in Paris" was a masterpiece or an unforgettable movie, but it was enjoyable, and what matters in a comedy, it had quite a bunch of funny moments. Unfortunately, this sequel in NYC seems to have lost all the charms of its predecessor.   

A clear attempt to follow Woody Allen's path, "2 Days in New York" aims to be a lightweight comedy about a smart, intellectual couple (he's a hip talk-radio host and journalist and she's a photographer/conceptual artist) that receives the visit of her French family, provoking all sort the disasters and impossible situations. Like "2 Days in Paris" the majority of gags are based on the possibilities of French-American culture clashes, plus a few neurotic behaviours (Chris Rock's obsession with Obama might be the funniest of the film). But with frustrating results.

Director and leading actress Julie Delpy (dying to see her again on Richard Linklater's "Before Midnight"), really fuels the film with a beating, energetic pace. Dialogues and chaos (the NYC apartment really looks like an invaded and devastated place once the French arrives) are two basic elements that provide some kind of realism to the whole movie premise. But while Chris Rock, his boyfriend on the film, opts for a more stark, straight performance that gives a much needed balance in front of the crazy visitors, Delpy decides to drawn her character amidst the disaster. In my opinion, with that decision she completely ruins the story tension and as a consequence, the film has no drive. 

It's quite sad, but without room for contrast (as I said, the only exception being Chris Rock) most of the gags, the farcical humour is doomed. To the point of being unnerving for the audience. Most of the "French family" is just insufferable, exhausting. But is Delpy's character who takes the cake. To me, she was annoying, irritating (and I can't buy the film's ending, that justifies her behaviour) and the major factor there's little fun on "2 Days in New York". The dynamic path, the chemistry between Delpy and Rock as a couple and a pair of gags make the movie watchable, but that's not enough. 

SCORE: 4,5/10

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

Woody Allen: A Documentary

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

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

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

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

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

SCORE: 6,25/10

"To Rome with Love", Allen's postcards from Italy

To Rome with Love

I owe too much to Woody Allen in terms of "cultural education". The way I understand cinema, my interest in some literature, and even more important, a sense of humour and in certain aspects, a certain view of life, that we more or less share or says a lot to me.  So it will take a major landslide for me to miss a new film of him. It almost came in the form of the awful "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", but last year's "Midnight in Paris" brought us back my old great master and buddy.

Honestly, wasn't expecting a lot, so I can't say I'm disappointed after watching it. On the contrary, for quite a while, the film is enjoyable, and despite its extremely lightweight scope, it works. As it is almost mandatory with Woody, laughs are awaiting the viewer (many reserved for his own, eternal paranoid character).

"To Rome with Love" also benefits from the "touches" of surrealism, something he explored with brilliance on "Midnight in Paris" and a recurring element of his filmography. All four stories have an element of surrealism on it: being the impossible situations (the Benigni story, his own, the one about opera and death, and Alec' Baldwin, where past meets present) or the interaction between unlikely characters (the young couple arriving to Rome). Topics as fame (and its incomprehensible, ridiculous logic) and the pass of time are present, along with sex and of course, love, all through the perspective of a surreal comedy.

But the problem is that Allen has dealt with these topics throughout his extraordinary career, so there's little to be surprised about, aside from the surreal situations itself. After the "shock" of the odd moment happening in the film, there's not a lot to highlight going on. So at the end, I had the feeling the four episodes have all their great moments but are somewhat underachievements, and the overall result, although pleasant, is forgettable.

Another negative factor is the length of the film, something that has never been an issue with Allen. The two hours are unnecessary and weakens the whole affair. Several scenes, quite a collection of postcards from the "eternal city" are just there for the sake of make a tribute of the gorgeous landscape of Rome (a view that looks completely taken from old movies from 50 years ago by the way). I'm pretty sure that without them (and the annoying music) the film would have been much more dynamic and better closed.

This is an "operetta" film, sort of homage to Italian Cinema, and as the genre allows, there's space for going a bit "loose" and "crazy". But there's no balance between characters. On the ones that light up the scenes in which they take part are Penelope Cruz, (she steals the show, it's almost her episode) Alec Baldwin, Roberto Benigni (perfect as Mr.Pisano), Ellen Page and Allen itself (Judy Davis and Jesse Eisenberg are ok too). But they are not enough to balance the amount of roles that are underused. Some characters, like the ones played by Greta Gerwig, Flavio Parenti, Alison Pill are looking even a bit silly. And the situations are also uneven. Quite a few are over extended (the opera moments, for instance), the most "serious" (Baldwin's) one would benefit from some more depth. They work as jokes but loose part of his potential as the joke keeps going.

So, there's a lot of fun and enjoyable moments/situations on "To Rome with Love". But they don't mix together as they should. Come on Woody! You have been capable of doing so much more dozens of times before with such stuff!

SCORE: 5,5/10

"The Skylab", pleasant family memories

The Skylab (Le Skylab, French original title)

All families are quite similar, and all family gatherings are horri.... just kidding. "The Skylab" uses that simple and recognisable plot to gather an impressive and diverse French Cinema cast, celebrating a family meeting in the summer of 1979, to build a comedy, with several hints of drama, that works also as a personal homage from writer, director and actress Julie Delpy to her family (in particular her mother).

"The Skylab" is built upon a flashback, so these are supposed to be the memories of the adult Albertine, remembering those days when she was 11-year-old and took part of a familiar get-together, celebrating the 67th birthday of her grandmother, matriarch of the clan. Getting picky, from a technical point of view, either the initial/closing scene and the whole premise are quite loose and obviously erroneous (young Albertine wasn't in every scene, so how can she remember them?).

But anyway, that's not really important for the film, who has one of its strongest points in the lack of pretensions and the aim to focus in a nostalgic, mostly kind and warm, take on those familiar days in the French Brittany. Delpy wants to portray her own family memories with affection, care, and a very natural sense of humour. She, thanks to the help of the ensemble cast and her talent for dialogues achieves that goal for almost the entirety of the film.

We all have been part of one of these never-ending get-together reunions, so it's no surprise to see silly/ridiculous situations, even sillier conversations (the one that involves NASA's Skylab space station that was going to fall somewhere that night gives the name of the film), some sex remarks, very different characters dealing with their own stories and trying to catch-up with the other quickly, many communication breakdowns, and the inevitable tensions, all while drinks and food are constantly served, even despite the capricious (and very funny) weather.

As this are Albertine's memories, childhood is a pivotal focus of the film, and Delpy proves she's got a very remarkable talent to recreate with artlessness that age, its revelations and traumas as well it provides several moments of laughs. First love (although she seems quite precocious for her age), death, arts (thanks to her bohemian parents), the transition from childhood to teenager period in particular mark Albertine's evolution throughout the movie. No, she's not a young female version of Woody Allen, although that wouldn't be the first time Delpy has the New Yorker director as a reference.

But I couldn't help thinking "The Skylab" has a couple of "issues" that harm its overall enjoyment as a whole. First, and a common one nowadays, its lack of balance, and directly linked with that, the excessive length: two hours might be necessary to present and expose such a long family and the developing situations, but there are some scenes clearly overlong (and not all of them can be justified as the film is the flashback of one person, therefore completely subjective) while other "matters" are presented just to disappear immediately. And second, when drama appears, in some selected scenes, the tone of the film gets really dark. Political discussions that could end heating-up too much are usual among families. But there's more than that here. These scenes are awkward considering the movie flows as a comedy, and with the aforementioned lack of balance, look also strangely isolated and disconnected from the rest. Maybe Delpy wanted to include too much.

Overall, a lightweight and quite pleasant film, one that you try to be even more indulgent with its flaws thanks to its undeniable charm, that works quite nicely as a nostalgic comedy.

SCORE: 6,25/10