Triangle

Over and over again

(this review contains spoilers)

Inglourious Basterds

95/100 (153 min, 2009)
Plot: In Nazi-occupied France during World War II, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis.
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Stars: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger and Eli Roth

"We got a German here who wants to die for his country! Oblige him!"

Some say that the cinema is the true escapism. But for me the escapism only occurs when I'm watching a truly great movie, one that is able to pull the audience in its world so completely, you are not only forgetting you are watching a film, but also you don't question how far from actual reality the events portrayed in it are. "Inglourious Basterds" is one of those movies. It captures the true cinematic magic, that for few minutes alters the history, the real events and presents something incredibly satisfying. It is a movie where the evil is punished and when the actual events are changed in an extremely satisfying way.

Despite the movie's title, The Basterds, the group of soldiers who capture Nazis and scalp them is only a small part of the film. The Basters are lead by Aldo Raine, charismatic and capable leader and they are quite a diverse bunch - there is a psychopathic Nazi killer Hugo Stiglitz, Donny Donowitz who bashes Nazis heads and others, devoted to haunting down Nazis and bringing them justice. A very bloody justice.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

75/100 (130 min, 2009)
Plot: Edward leaves Bella after an attack that nearly claimed her life, and in her depression she falls into yet another paranormal relationship- this time with werewolf Jacob Black.
Director: Chris Weitz
Writers: Melissa Rosenberg (screenplay), Stephenie Meyer (novel)
Stars: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner

When forever ends...what do you live for?

„Based on the worldwide phenomenon”.It is hard not to agree with the statement shown in one of TV spots for 'New Moon'. I have never get any trouble with getting tickets – not for Lord of the Rings, not with Harry Potter movies or The Matrix sequels. But this time, I was attempting to make a reservation 2 days before the movie and I couldn't get any tickets, in any of the cinemas. Everything was sold out. Not just here – all over the world people went to see the movie, daughters and mothers are asking Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattison to sign their panties and there even was a riot in Brazil, where 2000 girls fought with security and tried to get to the room to meet (let's just presume that...) cast members. I have never seen a craze like this. Why is it all happening?

80% of the audience are girls. Because it is so easy for us to relate to Bella.
She is a typical teenage girl. She has goofy friends. She wears stripped shirts. She has divorced parents. And oh yes, she is in love. So much in love. What makes the story a tad different – her love is vampire. And her best friend is werewolf.

Orphan

86/100 (123 min, 2009)
Plot: A husband and wife who recently lost their baby adopt a 9-year-old girl who is not nearly as innocent as she claims to be.
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Writers: David Johnson (screenplay), Alex Mace (story)
Stars: Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard and Isabelle Fuhrman

Do you wanna play?

The tagline reads 'There's something wrong with Esther' and that pretty much sums up everything - little girl is taken from orphanage to live with the nice family. But that little girl is so disturbing, does things so unthinkable that I think she is the only psychopath who could challenge Patrick Bateman for a fight and actually stand a chance at winning it. She is capable of committing murder in cold blood, attacking others, even endangering little child's life.

The character of Esther is played by, then 11-year old Isabelle Fuhrman. That was the best performance given by a child I've ever seen - I have no idea how she did that. Esther is also one of the most interesting movie-psychos all around and I'm sure girls dressed as her during Halloween back when the movie was in theatres. In many reviews people wrote she is creepier than Damien in 'Omen'. I agree - the scene with Russian roulette especially froze my blood. Esther was originally written as having fair skin, delicate features, and platinum blonde hair. Isabelle Fuhrman doesn't look like that at all. However, the filmmakers, understandably so, were so impressed with her auditions that they cast her anyway.

Public Enemies

44/100 (140 min, 2009)

Plot: The Feds try to take down notorious American gangsters John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd during a booming crime wave in the 1930s.

Director: Michael Mann
Writers: Ronan Bennett (screenplay), Michael Mann (screenplay),
Stars: Christian Bale, Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard

 The case of missing script

I remember when back in 2009 I went  to see "Angels and Demons" and "Terminator Salvation" with no expectations and I left the cinema amazed because they turned out to be decent and quite entertaining pictures. Before watching "Public Enemies" for the first time I had very high expectations and when I left the theatre I felt like someone had crashed them completely. Now that I saw the movie for a second time it turns out that it doesn't get any better or worse - it's simply a very forgettable movie and horribly wasted opportunity.

I am disappointed because, as most people, I loved Michael Mann's "Heat" were Al Pacino and Robert Deniro had terrific showdown. The only scene they have together in this movie was powerful and filled with such tension everyone who saw the movie was amazed and years after its release, they are still naming it one of the best sequences in the history of cinema. When I heard that Johnny Depp, fine actor who is not bad to look at and Christian Bale, for whom I'd probably give up my own kidney share just one scene in that film I thought "wow this is going to be exciting!". It wasn't. It was one of the dullest scene of their careers, actually and the point where I begin to wonder whether or not watching this movie is actually worth of my time.

Grey Gardens

(104 min, 2009)
Director: Michael Sucsy
Writers: Michael Sucsy (teleplay), Patricia Rozema (teleplay)
Stars: Drew Barrymore, Jessica Lange and Jeanne Tripplehorn

Freedom in the prison of memories

“To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.”
― Oscar Wilde

Based on the life stories of the eccentric aunt and first cousin of Jackie Onassis (both named Edith Bouvier Beale aka "Big and Little Edie") raised as Park Avenue débutantes but who withdrew from New York society, taking shelter at their Long Island summer home, "Grey Gardens." As their wealth and contact with the outside world dwindled, so did their grasp on reality. They were reintroduced to the world when international tabloids learned of a health department raid on their home, and Jackie swooped in to save her relatives. 
- imdb.com

Had "Grey Gardens" been cinematic release instead of HBO movie, the history of the awards season in 2010 would be so much different.. This is a very unique, character driven film with two fabulous performances - Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore, both in career best turns. The story alone is fascinating - two women, mother and daughter, relatives of Jaqueline Bouvier, refusing to leave decaying estate, living among the filth and stray animals. That story actually happened - in 1975 a documentary was made about the Beales and it was even screened in Cannes.

We meet Beales as Edith senior is still married, little Eddie is objecting to finding a husband and Grey gardens are in their prime. Both women were always very eccentric - Edith loved singing and threw extravagant parties, openly showing affection to her kids' music teacher, even in front of her husband. Little Eddie didn't want to get married, wanted to be an actress and a singer. Both women had incredible joie de vivre, one thing they would never lose. They were warned many times - that the money will run out, that they have to think about their future - but they insisted on living in the present, with no worries, only joy.

The Young Victoria

(105 min, 2009)
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Writer: Julian Fellowes
Stars: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend and Paul Bettany 

The girl, the queen.

I'm in love with this movie. So rarely I get to see moving, touching, fascinating depiction of reign. "Golden Age" was a huge disappointment, "Alexander" sucked immensely. The only two recent good films about monarchy that come to my mind are "The Queen" and "Elizabeth". And this one is better than both of those, in style and emotions presented, at least.

From few years UK has one historical drama they push to Oscar race - "Pride and Prejudice", "The Dutchess", "Atonement". This time there is no Keira in the movie. And perhaps this is why I loved it. Each year I give my own oscars and I was almost sure I will reward Tilda Swinton for Julia. But no, the hell I won't. Emily Blunt's performance in this movie is masterful. I love this actress - she was superb in 'The Devil Wears Prada' and the best thing about 'Sunshine Cleaning'. In this film she reminded me a lot of young Kate Winslet, before she started her epic award-baiting - I mean lovely, lively and unforgettable Winslet from 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'Titanic'. Blunt's role in this movie is just so...beyond words. She plays the queen, but first of all she plays young woman - lively, filled with energy, frolic, proud and joyful. The scene where Victoria finds out about death of the king and the fact she is now the ruler is amazing - Blunt captures so many emotions in such short scene. The movie is worth seeing just to witness her performance, so peaceful and calm and yet complex and filled with passionate emotions.

I had no idea who was in the supporting cast prior to seeing this movie - it turned out to be very impressive ensemble - Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, Mark Strong, Paul Bettany - great performance - and Rupert Friend, young soldier from 'Boy in striped pyjamas' as prince Albert, Victoria's love interest.

I cannot even express how much I loved seeing a royal couple in love. Usually when we see drama like this the princess always hates her husband and whines for 3/4 of the movie about her fate and usually has passionate, tragic romance with other man. Here the queen and prince were in love and Blunt and Friend had awesome chemistry. I cried like an idiot during the proposal scene.

The score for the movie is beautiful, I have to say in top 5 of that paticuliar year. The costumes are amazing. As for accuracy I believe some things - like Albert getting shot - were made more...spectacular than they really were. But the movie is not only beautiful, it is interesting, funny at times, contains wonderful performances and it holds viewer interest throughout the film. Finally a film, that I will definitely see more than once.

91/100

Time Traveler's Wife

(107 min, 2009)
Director: Robert Schwentke
Writers: Bruce Joel Rubin (screenplay), Audrey Niffenegger (novel)
Stars: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams and Ron Livingston

You pull me through time

Confusion never stops, closing walls and ticking clocks
Come back and take you home, I could not stop, that you now know
Come out upon my seas, curse missed opportunities (am I),
A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease
You are
And nothing else compares,
Oh no nothing else compares,
And nothing else compares
You are
Home, home, where I wanted to go
- "Clocks", Coldplay

I love romances with a bit of science fiction in them, like Vanilla Sky, Solaris, The Fountain and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. All of those are in my top 25. Why? Well for one, those are exceptional movies. Also - I believe love is a miracle, something that cannot be explained. That kind of magic, deserves more magic around it, hence on screen it conquers death, it conquers science, it conquers time. That is not unusual, love can do all those things. It is the only thing, in fact, that can.

I was very hyped to see this film, the trailer looked incredibly emotional and I take so much sick pleasure in watching romances. The key to the success is to have chemistry between actors - lovely Rachel McAdams and very handsome Eric Bana definitely had a lot of it. Bana is playing a man who travels through time, back and forth, to see the woman he loves. The movie is incredibly bittersweet and has many powerful scenes, I even shed a tear on certain of them and that's a sign of a good love story.

Chloe

(96 min, 2009)
Plot: A doctor hires an escort to seduce her husband, whom she suspects of cheating, though unforeseen events put the family in danger.
Director: Atom Egoyan
Writers: Erin Cressida Wilson (screenplay), Anne Fontaine (motion picture "Nathalie")
Stars: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson
(spoilers)

Hairpin fiasco

This movie had a potential but one of the worst casting decisions I've seen blew it. That and in addition implausible script, but sometimes the actors are so good, you try hard not to notice how silly the story really is. However, Amanda Seyfried has managed to screw up so badly, even actors like Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore at their finest cannot rescue „Chloe”.

I have no idea who thought casting Seyfried as exclusive hooker would be a good idea. She doesn't have the looks for it. You know, how the reviewers write things like „an actress of unique beauty” when they don't wanna say someone is far from being beautiful? Yeah, that's the case. She has nice body and very pretty hair, but out of thousands of hookers in the world the idea that this one would actually get clients is just preposterous. Bulging eyes don't make her interesting. But that's not the worst - she acts slutty, she behaves in a vulgar way, common way, without giving viewer a hint of knowledge that she would actually be capable of making a man desire her. She was supposed to be mysterious and fascinating, instead that whole performance is forced and laughable. To call her 'whorish' in this film would be a compliment, I find the word itself to have more class than her performance. When trailer triumphantly says 'and Amanda Seyfried as Chloe” I guess it was supposed to drag all the „Mamma Mia” fans to the theater. Horrible, horrible casting. I mean are we really in such deep crisis that we don't have beautiful young actress? Is Scarlett and Angelina all we got? Amanda should stick to the roles like her work in “Big Love” and “Jennifer's Body”. This is, well, out of her league.

(500) Days of Summer

(95 min, 2009)
Director: Marc Webb
Writers: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
Stars: Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Geoffrey Arend
 

I want the one I can't have

"I want the one I can't have
And it's driving me mad
It's written all over my face"

- The Smiths, "I want the one I can't have"

Meet Tom. He writes catchy phrases for postcards, he likes the Smiths, he is a romantic.

Meet Summer. She's individualistic, independent. She never wants to get married and she doesn't believe in true, romantic love.

500 Days of Summer is a romantic comedy, told in nonlinear narrative structure, jumping between 1st and 500th day of Tom and Summer's relationship. There is one thing that will kill every movie, especially romantic comedy - lack of chemistry. Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are a terrible match when it comes to personality and on screen presence. But it's not their fault - Zooey is like a separate entity - she is in the movie, but she is never a part of it. Sure, her character was supposed to be independent, but in the light of Summer's final choice, casting Deschanel was a big mistake. Zooey is a wonderful person but she is a terrible actress - I don't know if I can even call her that - her characters are exactly like her. Had I not made mistake of watching interviews with her I wouldn't know that. I never saw a single interview with her sister Emily (who plays doctor Temperance Brennan in well known show Bones) and I still regard Emily as a good actress. But Zooey is always the same, the only two times that I may, just may, admit she tried something new was in “Winter Passing” and “The Assassination of Jesse James..” but her performance there was very brief – I still hope we will get to see more of her in rumored Director Cut of that film, which is almost holding a legendary status, since only few saw it and no one knows if it's ever going to be released.

After.Life

(109 min, 2009)
Director: Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo
Writers: Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo, Paul Vosloo
Stars: Christina Ricci, Liam Neeson and Justin Long

Dead or alive?

(spoilers)


“You can laugh
A spineless laugh
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you
Now we are one in everlasting peace”
- Radiohead, “Exit Music (For a Film)

“After.Life” deals with a subject that is very popular and I'm sure all of you sometimes wondered about it. What happens after we die? Is there nothing or something,
basically unimaginable for human mind? Each religion has a view on afterlife, because it offers a promise – the ultimate promise of continuity. No, you won't cease to exist. There is something more. But the movie goes beyond that, maybe even not focuses on it, whilst touching the subject. Despite its title “After.Life” is more like one of the episodes of HBO hit and absolutely superb series “Six Feet Under” where the morticians were able to talk to the deceased.

After a horrific car accident, Anna (Ricci) wakes up to find the local funeral director Eliot Deacon (Neeson) preparing her body for her funeral. Confused, terrified and feeling still very much alive, Anna doesn't believe she's dead, despite the funeral director's reassurances that she is merely in transition to the afterlife. Eliot convinces her he has the ability to communicate with the dead and is the only one who can help her.

Splice

(104 min, 2009)
Plot: Genetic engineers Clive Nicoli and Elsa Kast hope to achieve fame by successfully splicing together the DNA of different animals to create new hybrid animals for medical use.
Director: Vincenzo Natali
Writers: Vincenzo Natali (screenplay), Antoinette Terry Bryant (screenplay)
Stars: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley and Delphine Chanéac
 

Meet Dren.

Vincenzo Natali, director of famous and very good movie ”Cube” does a decent job with “Splice” sci-fi horror (?) movie. I rarely watch movies like this – I'm grossed out by weird genetically modified things and whenever some sort of crazy science and experiments are involved in the movie. But I was bored and the movie has Adrien Brody in it, which I thought was very unusual, but given Brody's last choices I'm gonna go ahead and declare that the man has obviously chose new path.

Elsa (Sarah Polley) and Clive (Brody), two young rebellious scientists, defy legal and ethical boundaries and forge ahead with a dangerous experiment: splicing together human and animal DNA to create a new organism named "Dren" (Delphine Chanéac), the creature rapidly develops from a deformed female infant into a beautiful but dangerous winged human-chimera, who forges a bond with both of her creators - only to have that bond turn deadly

Up in the Air

(109 min, 2009)
Director: Jason Reitman
Writers: Walter Kirn (novel), Jason Reitman (screenplay)
Stars: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick

The Escapist

And in the end
we lie awake
and we dream
of making our escape
- Coldplay, The Escapist

Ryan Bingham has quite an unusual job. He travels across the country and fires people. He spends most of his life flying from one location to another to „let employee go”. He hates his home, he has no contact with his family. He has no real girlfriend, just occasional ones. Apparently, he doesn't even have friends. Yet he is happy, he smiles, he acts friendly, he keeps it together. Somehow the shallowness and superficial nature of his life doesn't bother him. He has one goal and one goal only to reach 10 million airlines. Why? He has no idea why. This is his only aspiration, his only dream. That magical thing that keeps people going. Even when we don't realize, our passions and our hopes and dreams are the only things keeping us going, when we are as alone as Ryan is.

And suddenly one day Ryan's boss introduces him to young employee of their company - Natalie Keener. Natalie invented the system which allows them to fire people over internet. No need to fly to the location, no need to keep living the way Ryan lives. The conflict is already there.

Ryan is so sure of himself he doesn't even feel threatened. Everything Natalie is and does – clumsy suitcase, boyfriend, complete lack of experience – Ryan is sure she is going to fail because of all of this. He is assigned to show her around his job, to teach her how their business works. In the effect Ryan ends up answering tons of questions about love, marriage, kids and other stuff Natalie dreams about. His utterly realistic point of view, where there is no place for love and family shocks Natalie. Ryan doesn't realize that his mission to reach the impossible number of miles spent in the air is his substitute for normal life.

Thirst (Bakjwi)

(133 min, 2009)
Director: Chan-wook Park
Writers: Chan-wook Park (screenplay), Émile Zola (inspired by the book "Thérèse Raquin"),
Stars: Kang-ho Song, Ok-bin Kim and Hae-sook Kim

Between God and desire.

“She took my heart, I think she took my soul
With the moon I run
Far from the carnage of the fiery sun
Driven by the strangled vein
Showing no mercy I do it again
Open up your eye
You keep on crying, baby
I’ll bleed you dry”
- Kings of Leon, “Closer”

In Korea, the dedicated Priest Hyo-Sung volunteers to work in a special research of the Emmanuel Virus, a.k.a. Curse of Bazira that does not affect African, only Caucasian and Asian; However he contracts the disease and dies, but after a blood transfusion, he surprisingly survives among the fifty volunteers and is considered saint by the worshipers. Sooner Hyo-Sung finds that the transfusion was made using vampires blood and he is thirsty for blood and lust for woman, Tae-ju.

If I had to make a list of five best vampires movies ever made “Thirst” by the director of Vengeance Trilogy Chan-wook Park would be on it. The movie brilliantly shows vampire's lust, in all forms of it, has one of the best characters I've seen in vampire movie (Tae-ju) and is beautifully shot. It's a delicate and sometimes even poetic movie about brutal and irreversible aspects of vampires' lives.

I Love You Phillip Morris

(102 min, 2009)
Plot: Steven Russell is happily married to Debbie, and a member of the local police force when a car accident provokes a dramatic reassessment of his life.
Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writers: John Requa, Glenn Ficarra
Stars: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor and Leslie Mann

 

Gigantic waste of time

This movie is not only boring and uninteresting, but in the addition of being bad it's actually offensive. I support gay cause and I often say there should be more movies with homosexual couples, movies like “Brokeback Mountain”, “A Single Man”, “Milk”. So the more the better, here I was thinking, before I saw this movie. After all, love is always the same, no matter if it is between woman and man, woman and woman, man and man. The strength of it may be exactly the same, the emotions ARE the same. But “I love you Phillip Morris” proved to me that there is only one thing worse than few movies about gay people comparing to overwhelming amount of movies about straight people. The movie about gay love that is not only offensive to people in homosexual relationships and everyone supporting them, but worst of all – written by people who don't have any courage in them.

So here is the story - Phillip is married and has kids. He has a job, he has friends, he has a family. He lives modest life. He's not happy.
And then BANG! He decides to be gay but not just gay – the biggest stereotype of gay I've seen. And what's worse is that everyone in the movie who are also gay are just like him – shiny watches, glamor everywhere, pretentious restaurants, houses, yachts. The jokes are not funny and worse yet – even though it's 21th century it's still middle ages at certain places of the globe. Showing stereotypes like that, without even providing good laughs results in two things – one - we see writer's pathetic attempts in making movie funny and it's physically painful, two – people who are hostile towards gays aren't proven wrong. Because they think “hey it's not funny, why would that be in comedy then? It must be true!”. Dangerous, poorly written, just plain horrible. And to anyone who writes “oh, you took it too seriously”. Well, given that 99% of this film wasn't funny I assumed, after all, it's not comedy and only director and producers who are blind and deaf would still think it is.

And the ending is disgusting. Steven is sentenced for life in prison and he looks up to let God know he sensed he was punished. So the message of the movie is – live in the lie with your boring catholic family or you'll rot in jail. Again – horrible.

Why did he steal in the first place? He said because that's what he does. But somehow when he was with his wife he didn't? When he was unhappy? And after he found love and decided to be openly gay he suddenly became criminal? Please.

The only assets of the movie are Carrey's and McGregor's performances. The latter actually manages to be funny, which in the movie that awful is a miracle. I laughed few times during the whole movie, once when Carrey missed the dumpster (wow what an intelligent joke by the way, it's a good thing I laugh at anything) and when McGregor was delivering his lines, which weren't funny, but at least he has a talent. Oh, and the remarks Carrey made during golf game. That's it.

Not only are the writers lousy and not brave – it's years after tent love scene in “Brokeback Mountain” and they only include few light kisses and the camera operator is so awkward and shy, along with the director, they change the shot or the scene in insane hurry. People, where are your balls? I suspect some of you may know what I'll write – Shame on you! It's 21st century, gay people are rising kids, getting married and you move the camera away? You make the movie about two men who are in love and you don't even have the guts to carry on with the signs of affection on the screen? And if any of you, and I read a review where what's going on in this film is being called “explicit” (!) consider dance scene to be brave, then it only shows that some heterosexual people consider gay scenes to be as shocking as mini skirts worn by girls were decades ago. And any hints of sexual contact are either vulgar or make it seem like sex was something so insanely casual to homosexual people. Again – shame on you, writers of this “film”.

I suspect that in addition of being untalented, the director of this may also be schizophrenic. He seemed not to know whether he wanted to shoot comedy or drama. In the effect he didn't shoot either. He shot despicable piece of crap and wasted Carrey's and McGregor's talent and time. And mine for that matter, which is the worst. Some of the scenes felt as out of place as that godawful scene with Malkovich and his father in “Burn After Reading” which was completely pointless, not funny and awkward to watch. In case of “I love you Phillip Morris” it's not only one scene. It's almost an entire movie.

30/100 for Carrey, McGregor, golf and dumpster scene.

Ondine

(111 min, 2009)
Plot: The story of an Irish fisherman who discovers a woman in his fishing net who he believes to be a Selke (a water nymph).
Director: Neil Jordan
Writer: Neil Jordan
Stars: Colin Farrell, Alicja Bachleda and Dervla Kirwan
 

Stories from the sea...

“I'm sitting with you
Sitting in silence
Let's sing into the years, like one
Singing in tune, together
A psalm for no one
Let's sing in tune
But now it's home”
- Sigur Ros, “All Alright”

“Ondine” tells the story of an Irish fisherman who discovers a woman in his fishing net who he believes to be a mermaid.

This is a very lovely and charming movie. It's directed by Neil Jordan, fairly well known director who is responsible for one of the best vampire movies ever “Interview with the Vampire”. But this movie is nothing like it – it doesn't have glamorous stars in the cast, overwhelming images and music. It's set in a simple Irish town, at the coast, where ordinary people have their ordinary lives.

But with the appearance of the mysterious girl, the life of one of those people, fisherman named Syracuse (Colin Farrell) changes. His ill daughter thinks that the girl is a mermaid and starts researching legends about them. The girl herself, who doesn't want to be seen by anyone, tells Syracuse her name is Ondine which means sea fairy. When Ondine is around, Syracuse finally has some luck – he catches a lot of fish, he's happier and his life doesn't seem so ordinary anymore. There is a sense of mystery and enchantment about Ondine, her secrecy and curious song she keeps singing.

The movie is doing great job at showing that even if there may be no real magic in our world, some of the events in our lives may be perceived as one – luck, love, happiness. Mermaid or not, Ondine brings a lot of charm to the lives of Syracuse and little Annie – him, leading dull life so far, filled with regrets and guilt (he is an alcoholic), and Annie having serious illness that costs her much pain. Even though the characters of this film have been through a lot of hurt and misery, they never lose their spirits, they never complain about their fate. They keep on going, because really, what other choice do they have.

The town the events take place is small so Syracuse doesn't go to AA meetings – there aren't any in the area. Instead he goes to confession and talks with the Priest (Stephen Rea, who appears frequently in Jordan's movies). Those scenes bring a lot of comic relief and insight in the character of Syracuse.

There are many lovely scenes between Syracuse and Ondine – she is played by Alicja Bachleda, Polish actress. Farrell and her began their love affair during shooting of this movie, they are still together and have a son. In my country they are probably more popular than Brad and Angelina. And no wonder they fell in love on the set of “Ondine”. Despite the fact it's not a glamorous Hollywood love story, the films is very romantic and has some beautiful lines of dialogue between the two of them.

Even though the movie had fairly low budget the cinematography is outstanding – there are some astonishingly beautiful shots in the movie that combined with the score created by Kjartan Sveinsson from Sigur Ros add to the movie's mystery and frequently create enchanting, dreamlike feeling. All of that builds amazing atmosphere and despite movie's fairly slow pace it keeps you watching.

Farrell's performance is great, he is a very talented and under appreciated actor. He displays such sadness and understanding of his simple fate that it's hard not to feel for him. He is great in his scenes with Annie, played by Alison Barry, who creates very mature and sweet character. Bachleda is perfect fit for Ondine, Jordan chose her because he wanted little known actress to play the part – she is terrific in her scenes with Annie and when she charmingly avoids Syracuse's questions.

Somewhere along in the movie an element of danger appears and results in the answer for the movie's mystery. But in every fairytale there has to be a villain. Near the ending scenes are not as good as first hour of the film, because the amazing atmosphere achieved so far is somewhat abandoned, but I guess the director had to tie all the lose ends somehow. But I did enjoy the ending, which brought us back to the seductive charm of this film.

“Ondine” is a great movie, very original love story between two characters that are lost but had the amazing luck of meeting each other in truly magical circumstances. The movie is not a masterpiece and there are plenty of better love stories, but it has very well developed characters and this unique feel of delicateness – it doesn't hurry the story, the director let's the events unfold slowly. And whilst it's all happening, the mystery is about to be explained and the feeling between Syracuse and Ondine keeps getting stronger, the viewer finds out that there is really so much magic in the world - even in the most unexpected places.

79/100

Sherlock Holmes

(128 min, 2009)
Plot: Detective Sherlock Holmes and his stalwart partner Watson engage in a battle of wits and brawn with a nemesis whose plot is a threat to all of England.
Director: Guy Ritchie
Writers: Michael Robert Johnson (screenplay), Anthony Peckham (screenplay)
Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams

Deduction, Seduction, Destruction.

Sherlock Holmes is known everywhere – the iconic brilliant detective, the main hero of countless books and movies. Is there anything less in tone of Guy Ritchie movies? I thought not. And I was most likely right. But Ritchie is so good he actually manages to sneak his own style into a classic tale of detective and his sidekick making it a unique film, unlike anything I've seen before.

I was surprised when I first heard Ritchie is set to direct the movie about the most famous Baker Street inhabitant. Ritchie, let's call him faithful Tarantino disciple, has shot 2 terrific movies about ruthless mobsters, money and freak occurrences - “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and of course, one of my favorite movies of all time “Snatch”. Then it was only way way worse, during his marriage to Madonna he shot movies that don't even deserve to be seen. But apparently after the marriage, or as I call it kiss of coma for his directorial talent was over, he returned to his senses and made very good “Rock'n'Rolla”. But Sherlock Holmes? When I first saw the trailer, as thrilled as I was to see Downey Jr's wit and nakedness, it was a bit freaky. The movie seemed to be packed with mindless slapstick comedy and tons of fighting and explosions. Luckily, trailers are misleading.

Town Creek

(90 min, 2009)
Plot: A man and his brother on a mission of revenge become trapped in a harrowing occult experiment dating back to the Third Reich.
Director: Joel Schumacher
Writer: David Kajganich
Stars: Henry Cavill, Dominic Purcell and Emma Booth

Nazi demons and third eyes

Until I saw “Town Creek” I was under the impression watching “Sex and the city 2” and “Daybreakers” was an awful experience. Boy, was I wrong about that.

I hate gore. I like horrors – but only the ones with dense, mysterious atmosphere like “The Others” or “The Ring”. I don't really enjoy “Saw” series, because it is not scary at all. It's simply gross. I'm not delicate or skittish, I don't mind blood – In fact I cannot wait to go to the morgue (I'll clarify – my studies include that kind of trips, not that I want to go there as a corpse). But I only watch gory movies if I have a reason. The best reason. Hot actor in the cast – Henry Cavill. Bad reason? Hey, I know a lot of films because of this practice.

To summarize the plot – two brothers, one of them is trying to avenge what happened to him, go on a farm where apparently, immortal family and nazi demon are hiding.

I have so many questions about this movie – why the hell Joel Shumacher directed it? What is Michael Fassbender doing there? Haven't Cavill suffered enough (he didn't get the parts in “Batman Begins”, “Casino Royale”, “Twilight” although he was at the very end of race) and God decided to punish him some more?

Joel Shumacher is a good director. He did “Falling Down” - brilliant movie, “Phone Booth” - great movie and “8 mm” - movie I really like. But he had the bad luck of doing “Batman and Robin” the most laughed at movie ever and apparently he didn't manage to win the trust of the producers back ever since. His last film “Number 23” had the same problem “Town Creek” has – good idea, good concept, awful movie. It's not Shumacher's fault – it's the script – boring, slow, with awful dialogues. The basic idea is good, there are some intense scenes and if somebody with actual skills wrote the script the movie would be good. I see the dude who is responsible for this also wrote “The Invasion”. I'm not surprised. I read that Schumacher actually re-wrote certain parts of "Town Creek". I hope I'll never see original script.

Fassbender, from “300”, “The Hunger” and yes, “Inglourious Basterds” manages to be good here. He is scary, menacing and not laughable. Very good actor, I'm certain we will hear about him many times in the future. But he makes some questionable decisions lately – this and “Jonah Hex”, which appears to quickly become the worst movie of 2010 according to the critics. But I think as long as the actor does great job it doesn't really matter that job takes place on the steaming pile of crap those movies are.

The brothers are played by TV stars, which is never a good thing – from “Prison Break” Dominick Purcell and from “The Tudors” Henry Cavill. Now, anyone who ever saw at least one episode of those shows knows what follows and what is seen in “Town Creek” - Purcell can't act, Cavill can. Too bad the only thing they do is – running, shooting and then running again. But when the occasional dialogue appears Cavill is plausible as human being and Purcell is not. The immortal girl, Liese who lives in the farmhouse was played by Emma Booth. She was quite good, definitely better than the brothers.

The movie features some of the most ridiculous scenes I've ever seen. Get this – the Nazi demon can be defeated when the blood or bones or whatever of his ancestors gets to his blood stream. So Liese finds the bones – they are on the farm of course. Why? No idea. She crashes them, Cavill takes off his shirt and she ties his arms and cuts his back after which she places the bone powder in his wounds. Then Fassbender, I'm gonna write this again, the man who was in “Inglourious Basterds” appears and licks Cavill's back. I don't even now how to comment on that. I'm pretty sure Shumacher by this time figured out he was directing awful movie and at least with that scene some of the girls would be tempted to watch. Hey, it worked on me.

The movie deserves only 2 stars. I wish I could give it more, but it's the kind of a movie that should be aired on TV after 3 am, when nobody is watching. Those 2 stars are for a good prologue and Fassbender's performance. Both the director and actors deserved better than this.

22/100

A Single man

(99 min, 2009)
Plot: A story that centers on an English professor who, one year after the sudden death of his partner, is unable to cope with his typical days in 1960's Los Angeles.
Director: Tom Ford
Writers: Tom Ford (written for the screen by), David Scearce (written for the screen by)
Stars: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore and Matthew Goode

Daydreams.

When I first heard of „A Single Man” I knew I need to see this movie. Then I heard the soundtrack and I couldn't wait. I waited for many months, so there was a very big risk of disappointed. And after seeing the film I was in awe. Not only did it met my expectations, it was actually so much more. I heard a lot of good things about the performances and the movie itself but to actually see it and admire it first hand was unforgettable experience.

The movie shows one day of George's life. He is a modest, elegant, educated professor. He lives alone, his students and neighbors like him, maybe even too much. He is polite, reasonable, handsome. On the surface you couldn't say there is something going on. But eight months before the day presented in the movie George lost Jim, his lover, with whom he spent 16 happy years of his life.

Law Abiding Citizen

(109 min, 2009)
Plot: A frustrated man decides to take justice into his own hands after a plea bargain sets one of his family's killers free. He targets not only the killer but also the district attorney and others involved in the deal.
Director: F. Gary Gray
Writer: Kurt Wimmer
Stars: Gerard Butler, Jamie Foxx and Leslie Bibb

 

Seeking justice.

(spoilers)
I really wanted to see this movie because of the extremely mixed opinions about it – the public seems to like it, the critics, with the exception of 3 on metacritic, hated it. I don't really like vigilante justice movies, but this one was actually quite strong and for the first time in weeks I saw the entire film in one sitting.

Here is the story of a man, Clyde, who witnesses the murder of his wife and little daughter and because of the legal system the man who did that only gets 3 years in prison. After 10 years Clyde starts his revenge taking down everyone who harmed his family and were responsible for the lack of justice.

The movie has moments of greatness – it is very entertaining, filled with suspense and tension. You side with Clyde immediately, even after you find out he was constructing deadly inventions for a living. But imagine the event he went through – seeing his little girl, his flesh and bones, killed, seeing his bellowed wife raped and slaughtered in front of him. I think most of the people will sympathize with Clyde when he kills the murderers – one of them is being chopped to pieces while he is still conscious, even so – what would you to the rapist of your wife and the murder of your daughter? But then Clyde goes after everyone – he leaves murderer's attorney to die buried alive, he kills people in the district attorney's office, even the sweet assistant. Did those people deserve to die? No. In many cases they had no influence on the trial and the sentence. Even the judge – she was just doing her job, maybe I can understand her death, given that it was her decision how much did the criminals get, but murderer's attorney? Everyone has the right to defend themselves in the court of law. That's everyone's right, one of the basics written in Constitution. But even if Clyde's actions were awful and he killed a lot of yes, indeed, innocent people, I can understand it. 10 years of the anger, the unbearable feeling of loss and pain was cooking up in this man. How sane can he be? How many cases are there like this? When is the justice actually served by the court of law? Is few years of prison enough for a murder and a rapist? No, of course not.

As much as I want to praise the movie for complex characters and moral questions, the screenplay is filled with plot holes – Clyde is supposedly brilliant engineer, most likely working for dangerous men, yet he opens the door so carelessly at the beginning? No security? He builds huge tunnel under the prison and nobody notices that? And why doesn't he kill Nick, attorney who made a deal with the murderer?

And another problem – in the end we are supposed to believe Clyde's goal wasn't just revenge but teaching Nick a lesson – not making deal with murderers, putting them in prison, serving justice. Well in that case he failed – Nick is a terrible character – he is weak, he has no respect for law (“fuck civil rights!”), for his colleagues, for his own family. In the end of the movie he commits murder – yes on, in the face of law, criminal – but still he is not held accountable for this. He just keeps on going. Despicable. His character, from what I read, was supposed to be a protagonist? Well, I sided with Clyde and had no sympathy for Nick. The movie lost a lot of points for the ridiculous ending.

The film also seems to be a bit chopped, which probably happened in the post production. Take the character of Chester – he is supposedly the guy the girl who works with Nick knows. He helps them out via phone and e-mail. Yet his identity is never revealed. Yes, it is quite possible in the end that there was no Chester and that was just Clyde's alias, but still in the action/thriller movie which tries to explain a lot, something like that being left out without explanation was bizarre. Why would Clyde provide them information which would help in stopping him? After all he was determined in gong through with his plan and I don't think he intended to die. It doesn't make any sense to me. And if Chester existed? Why make him such a secret?

What I'm surprised is that people who say how stupid some scenes are are missing the point – Clyde takes off his clothes when police comes to apprehend him not (only) because the director wanted to show Butler's butt but because Clyde had to show he was unarmed. As for him having elaborate legal knowledge – the man had 10 years to plan this. During his first investigation when he answers Nick's questions, even me, a second year law student, knew that Nick had no case. No wonder the dude who had 10 years to learn knew that too. What is stupid is that attorney didn't.

The acting is actually quite decent. I don't find Gerard Burtler particularly handsome (which is odd, since I find many actors hot and he is very masculine, dark hair – my type) or interesting but he really rocked that part. I don't know why he is wasting himself on silly comedies with TV starlets. He was intense, driven and yet even though he is cold blooded murderer the audience sympathizes with him. Jamie Foxx, on the other hand is one of the worst actors around and one of the biggest mistakes the Academy ever made, and there is a heavy competition. He was awful in “The Soloist” and here he is only slightly better than terrible. I think his character was supposed to gain audience's sympathy but Foxx is so extremely unlikeable, in the end I was mad he was alive. His character is weak, seems to be corrupt and totally misinterpreting the words like “law”, “constitution”, “rights” which is the worst thing a prosecutor can do. Had they hired good actor I think the outcome would be different.

Because of the ending and huge holes in the story I give the movie 6/10 but there are moments when it is a solid 8/10. It will make you reflect, it won't bore you and it will certainly make you wonder what would you do if you were in the characters' position. The movie would be much better, though, If Clyde murdered those people solely to revenge his innocent family and Nick was actually a likeable character, who was just doing his job, without all the disrespectful remarks and awful personality.

60/100