Corazones solitarios

I'm losing faith in this forum and some of the people that vote here... How can you possibly rate this film as a 1 or 2 or 3? Each to their own I suppose and for whatever reasoning or motives... For myself, I found this movie to be excellent. It held my interest from start to finish - and the finish was satisfying. Gandolfini and Travolta were excellent as you would and should expect. Salma Hayek gave what I think should be an award winning performance. Jared Leto was also superb... I can't say I've noticed him in anything of note before this. It was also nice to see Laura Dern again - I've been hot for her since watching Rambling Rose : ) All I can say is watch this movie and decide for yourself. I definitely recommend it.

Lonely Hearts (2006)

A steady, interesting, colorful crime movie packed with both great old tropes from the film noir days and lots of familiar tricks. Amazingly, it's based on a true story from post-war America that goes way way way beyond the slimmed up version here.

The result is good, yes, but never mesmerizing, never a complete surprise, and never up to the potential of the either the source material or the talented cast. The very dependence of well known formulas for a kind of classic look and feel is what holds it back, because we know those formulas so well. The one aspect to the movie that is forcibly modern is the one that feels so forced it's almost pandering to a contemporary audience--lots of open swearing and sexual references in a manner not really "right" for a 1951 America.

Several lead actors are terrific. Salma Hayek, once she arrives, is an edgy bad girl, a woman with little moral code and a comfort level with blood and manipulation that makes an old school femme fatale look like schoolroom stuff. Her bad boy companion, Jared Leto, at first comes off as a Robert Downey Jr. wannabe, but he gradually hardens up his edges and by the end is pretty believable as a cocksure murderous idiot. The two cops, John Travolta and James Gandolfini, are a great pair, the one restrained and more in tune with the criminals, the other the sidekick with a good heart. (They might be modeled after, say, Glenn Ford and William Bendix, as two 1951 actors who could have pulled off the same roles with more conviction.)

The filming, the editing, the pace, the sets, the old cars, the interior and exterior location shoots, all of the nuts and bolts are in place here for a good movie. (Of these, the photography is the most routine, partly because of how it's directed, as in the last scene when the cops swarm the house--it could have been really exciting.) But overall it's the script--the script, not the story--that holds it all back. The parallel plots of the two criminals in their love affair crime spree and the cops on their trail is clear and fine, but unrevealing. The events happen, and we sort of know how it will end. And it does (not to give away anything!). If you want the true facts, go to the really long but readable account at trutv.com and type in the Lonely Hearts.

As a quick and hopefully helpful movie comparison, you can look at recent films like "Road to Perdition" or "Shutter Island" and see how a period piece film can brim with originality and better filming. A movie comes closer to this kind of familiar quality, based on older classic Hollywood models, is "Public Enemies" with Johnny Depp, though that one had some really beautiful moments in the photography. And what about that title? It is derived from the male killer's original tactic for getting money, which is given a comic treatment at the beginning of the movie--he writes to lonely women, gets them to fall in love with him, and steals their assets.

A final revealing note: the director is the grandson of the cop who led the original investigation into the crimes. That means he's really well placed emotionally, but as a director he's really incomplete. It's amazing, in fact, that he got the budget and talent he did with such a short track record. Opportunity squandered? Partially. Give it a chance.

This is not a poor film. Yes I did some research and found some flaws but it's HOLLYWOOD! Hardly any movie out there is 100%. I really respect the director and how well he did with such little experience at the time handling this powerhouse cast! The movie flows well, the scenes look great, the cast delivers the lines, and you ultimately end up with a damn decent crime thriller. John, Jim, Jared, and Salma are all excellent in this. They all weren't lacking by any means. I really am flabbergasted by the hate this movie gets. I have definitely seen way worse period pieces. If you're looking for an interesting, well acted, semi true story then check this out! I really enjoyed it.

Within two minutes of starting this movie it became clear that it was very well put together. Excellent cinematography and costume design.

I'm not sure exactly what it was that disappointed me so much. It could have been the lack of drama. I didn't feel like the plot escaladed to a climax. I understand that this is based on a true story, but it certainly could have been done in a more dramatic way; especially during certain parts of the chase.

The acting was excellent on all parts. In agreement with everyone else, Salma Hayek was a stand-out. However, I feel that Jared Leto (who plays Ray Fernandez) was miss-cast. I think that's the part that prevented me from enjoying this movie the most. I was excited to see this because I am a HUGE Jared Leto fan, and I've always loved the films he's been in, and he's always become one with his character (e.g. his role as Harry Goldfarb in Requiem for a Dream). Although his acting was excellent as always, I just couldn't buy it. As I watched his character evolve I felt more and more conflicted between the good-hearted vulnerability I felt from him (perhaps as a result of watching countless interviews of him), and the bad-hearted almost monster-like character he was meant to be portraying. I just couldn't buy him as a sleaze-bag . In Chapter 27 he portrayed a psychotic man so well you forgot it was Jared right from the get-go, so I know it wasn't his acting that got in the way.

On top of that, I felt that Leto and Hayek didn't make a good on-screen couple. He seemed small in comparison to her. This was a couple that worked together to lure in rich folks; I wanted them to seduce me. Instead I was repelled by them, even in the scenes where they are "sucking in" new prey. I felt that they looked, and even acted, awkward together.

In summary, heightened drama and a more befitting Ray Fernandez would have made this an excellent film.

"Lonely Hearts" tells us the real story of the "Lonely Hearts KIllers", the couple Martha Beck and Raymond Martinez (played by Salma Hayek and Jared Leto) and the police investigation conducted by an obstinate detective (John Travolta) recently traumatized with the unexplainable suicide of his wife. The couple's "name" came from the scam they practiced against lonely women who wanted to engage in a relationship with a man through adds on newspaper's personal columns.

Looks like 2006 was the year to rediscover the film noir. This came out on the same year as Brian De Palma's "Black Dahlia" but attracted less attention. With justice, that was a better film. "Lonely Hearts" presents a good story that pays some small reflection on people who were looking for something good, tried of everything to have a relationship but failed at that, being tricked into the unknown, letting themselves get fooled by looks and charm, and it's also a story about serial killers who take advantage of such situation to simply steal money and take away lives. It sounds very contemporary the small appeal the movie has, just think bigger how this plot would be treated today with the internet and new ways to meet people. We would have what we're get used to see in the news.

Being "accomplices" of the couple in their spree of killing is interesting, wild, an exquisite relationship they have with each other (ironically, Raymond always make the con alone and he was about to try on Martha, who noticed it and started to help him); the background story for Travolta's character sometimes work, other times doesn't involve us at all, the investigation when made right works fine with some thrilling scenes. But the majority of scenes here is constantly showing the lack of cooperation between the detectives played by James Gandolfini (and his annoying voice-over) and Scott Caan. Why we're forced to watch them fight and play like kids all the time, what's the point?

The acting deserves some credit, specially for Leto playing a character that rare young actors would like to play, sacrificing his good looks to appear less beautiful to the camera with a hair piece to hide his slightly baldness. He's a weak fella, someone who at first only wanted to get money from his victims to later be seduced by this woman who'll boss around him to make anything for her, including the murders of the worst kind. Hayek is a little over-the-top but she knows how to leave a good impression anyhow. Laura Dern is very good in the ungrateful role of the female detective who takes interest on poor Travolta, always trying to be more than just an affair.

For the most part, characters and the movie sink little by little into a dark corner, too much predictable but somehow it manages to not disappoint. Compared with "Black Dahlia" since both are film noir updates of the 21st century it fails for not being more clever, more intriguing. Clearly, De Palma had to imagine many unbelievable devices to present the story but at least it was great. Here, even if the story is very close to the truth, and the fact of the director being related to the main character doesn't count much. To quote Kubrick: "It is real but it's not interesting". 6/10