marcosaguado

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita dates back to 1962, 56 years ago and the film is as alive and pungent as it ever was. Adrian Lyne's Lolita is only 21 and it's already forgotten. Jeremy Irons is very good but it doesn't have any of the embarrassing self awareness of James Mason's Humbert Humbert. James Mason was monumental. Then, Kubrick has Shelley Winters as Mrs. Haze - in my book, her best performance - she's a jarring human spectacle. superb. Lyne chose Melanie Griffith in what very well be her worst performance and one of the worst in any movie, ever. Kubrick had Peter Sellers and his performance is already part of film legend. Frank Langella is a bit of a shock in Lyne's version, not the good kind. And then Lolita herself Stanley Kubrick had Sue Lyon and although she was a bit older than Navokov's Lolita, she is sensational. The innocent temptress and destroyer. In Lyne's version, Dominique Swain is pretty and crushingly obvious. Kubrick's version is a masterpiece, exciting to be able to say that 56 years later.

A remake of Michael Winner's Death Wish, that in itself is kind of depressing. How can the filmmakers be so unaware of the times we're living in or maybe they are not, unaware. If they know what they're doing then it's just unforgivable. But if one tries to put all that aside and try to see it just as a movie without any deep or ugly intentions, still doesn't work. No, not for a moment. We've all seen it before, a million times. and much, much better.

A terrific dark tale by Alex De La Iglesia with a phenomenal Carmen Maura. The film is a crazy relative of Polanski's "The Tenant" and Donovan's Apartment Zero" It takes the sinister neighbors from those two masterpieces and creates something unique. Tension and laughter alternate and commingle in a constant state of euphoria. Compelling viewing for lovers of dark comedies, this is one of the most surprising and entertaining I've seen in a long time.