"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 The skeptic collapsing, his solid way of thinking no longer valid, while neglecting he's starting to have feelings for Sophie.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

"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", frozen Cold War film

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I'm starting to get a bit annoyed to this sort of tendency in cinema of recreating a movie genre, being it from the 60s, the 70s or the 80s, where the only concern seems to be the style. I was expecting quite a lot from "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", but honestly, this is just a mimicking recreation of the 70s spy-thriller genre, too focused in looking perfect on screen, and not caring of what really matters, the content.

I'm sorry, but if a spy-game film works its mainly because of the story. Sadly, that's the weakest point of "Tinker...". I've read some reviews where critics use expressions as "for mature audiences", "classy", "brainy", "adult viewing drama", etc. Elitist arguments anticipating the sense of confusion/boredom audience can have watching it. Or euphemisms to defend the indefensible.

This is a film portraying the small world of powerful men fighting, conspiring to be number one, with their personal world of traumas, relations, loyalties and sex. Its also a tale of the Cold War, and I use the word "tale" on purpose, because on the film (I don't know about John Le Carré's books) it looks like a separate, mythical, fantasy dimension. And finally, is a very British story, a grey Britain that seems slowly moving from past times into an uncertain future. Believe me: we get the idea. Can we include these interesting elements on an attractive story then?

Unfortunately, not. The problem with "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" is not that is developed in a way that can only please "older generations". The problem is that for almost two slow paced hours, we are asked to assume something is actually going on, and that matters, at least to keep you watching. But at the same time we must believe all the "misteries" proposed, and all the inexplicable cuts on the key scenes. The result is a very high effort to get into the film for a very little reward in return. Director Tomas Alfredson pose a blurred bunch of ideas and situations without exploring any, offering zero suspense, in my opinion, and a serious problem of fluidity, the result of a very questionable editing. Its worse at the end (side note: what an unfortunate choice for the music, by the way), where everything is resolved in a matter of seconds, crossing the line of being ridicule.

But it is not just a matter of a confusing and unattractive plot. I simply didn't care. There is no emotional development of the characters. Gary Oldman, a terrific actor, is confined into a exaggeratedly still, pensive, underplaying role as Mr. Smiley. His forced retirement, his past and personal story, and his involvement with the characters he must investigate had a lot of potential, but  Alfredson didn't care about acting, reducing Oldman's work to a silent mannequin. The rest of a very impressive cast, including John Hurt, Toby Jones and Colin Firth is also wasted. Only Benedict Cumberbatch, who partners Smiley in his investigation, is able to bring some valuable emotions to his role. Some secondary actors, in particular Tom Hardy and Stephen Graham offer some very remarkable moments too. Them, the oppresive and bleak atmosphere and the aesthetics are the highlights of an unremarkable, extremely cold film. A huge dissapointment.

SCORE: 4,5/10

"The King's Speech", a very conventional message

The King's Speech

Best movie of the year? Well, I couldn't find a better argument to demonstrate how low is the quality of cinema nowadays that the “King’s Speech” obtaining 4 of the “biggest” awards at the latest Oscar's ceremony, arguably  (really?) the most important recognisement a movie could achieve.

Not saying the movie is bad. It is entertaining, and pleasant, fundamentally because of the chemistry between Colin Firth (King George VI) and Geoffrey Rush (Lionel Logue, his speech therapist). The scenes in which they are together are the only ones remarkable, where something genuine goes on. Both actors are the pillars of the film, although in the case of Firth I would say his best interpretation, one that could seriously deserve an Oscar, can be seen in “A Single Man”.

But aside from that, the “King’s Speech” is quite mediocre. There are many sides that are hidden or that the director avoids to treat. It’s quite disappointing to see how George's brother abdicates from the throne just because of “love” when among the reasons, there was one very transcendent and not very admirable, and linked with that, the almost inexistent role prime ministers Baldwin and Chamberlain (or Churchill) have. In general, the lack of history in the film, when surely the most attractive thing about George’s period (Hitler's rising in Europe, the start of Second World War) weren’t his speeches, but the times when these speeches have to be delivered, is frustrating.

The script is predictable and conservative (jokes about saying "shit, fuck, etc." or "funny" situations based on the fact the Royal family is at Logue's house doing normal things, something that made me recall films like "Notting Hill") and it has that tone of a commercial biopic where the hero succeeds and becomes a "better man". Let’s be honest, the movie is a conventional hagiography. Nice and pleasant, but very far from a film that deserves to be recognised, or simply remembered.

SCORE: 5,25/10