The Crow

Released in 1994, this movie was directed by Alex Proyas and is based on a comic book with the same name written by James O'Barr. Starring Brandon Lee, Michael Wincott and Rochelle Davis, it tells the story of Eric Draven, a man brutally mudered who comes back to life as an undead avenger of his and his fiancées murder. 

With a dark scenery and leather-clad characters The Crow has been for many years a classic in the 'goth'-scene, as it shows many of these scene's topics - the whole topic of the dead avenger, the crow,  halloween, etc. 

I haven't read the comic books, but I've seen a few of the series chapters, the first one tells the same story as this movie but I like the movie better than the series, which appeared 4 years later. 

One of the many pros of this movie is the music, which is very beautiful and melancholic. I specially like the guitar solo of the rooftop scene. 

The scenery's very dark and kind of sad, it shows clearly the melancholy and solitude of the characters, which is also portraited in the outfits. 

The most characteristic is Brandon Lee's dark pullover and trousers, the leather coat and the mime make up, which are the caracteristic of every 'crow' in history. 

The acting's nice too. Brandon Lee as Eric Draven and Rochelle Davis, who plays the young Sarah are spectacular. This is the last movie of Brandon Lee, as he was accidentaly killed while shooting it. Fortunately they had nearly ended shooting then, so that one can truely enjoy his acting. 

I like a lot the way the director combines the action with the cheesy and sad flashbacks, that broaden the main character's story. I think that's something most of the avenger-themed-movies  don't have and that only help to simpathyse with the character's pain. 

THE CROW TRAILER

Well, this is one of my favourite movies, so I obviously recomend this to you in earnest. 

Sherlock

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss direct this modern update of Conan Doyles' famous Sherlock Holmes. This British series was released in 2010 and it has already ended it's second season which tell the story of the famous sleuth and his doctor partner solving crime in the 21st century London.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays Sherlock Holmes, Martin Freeman is Dr. John Watson and Mrs. Hudson is interpreted by Una Stubbs.

The series is made of rather long chapters and short seasons, being each season of only 3 chapters, yet every one of these chapters is 90 minutes long. One can watch the chapters as separate 'movies' because they're auto conclusive cases. The connection between the chapters is made by the background story of the characters and the progressive apparition of Sherlock's nemesis: Jim Moriarty, played by Andrew Scott.
What can be said about this series other than it's perfect? It goes better by the season and the biggest problem is the long time between the release of them.
The worst chapter would be the first one "A Study In Pink". The plot of the case is rather easy to crack and it annoyed me no end the fact that Sherlock Holmes -  the most intelligent detective and so on - only solved it on the second go. Yet one has to understand the circumstances: being this the first chapter of the season, there has to be a somewhat deep presentation of the characters and setting.
The characters are very complex and their relationships intense and somewhat diffuse. The principal duo does an extraordinary job.

[Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock]

Benedict Cumberbatch manages to arise real hatred in the viewer and only thanks to the second season one gets a glimpse of the human feelings inside his cold genius self. During the first season - brilliant as it may be - one sees in Sherlock an inhuman, know-it-all jerk, who cares very little about what others need, think or want. He's some kind of machine that solves crimes. The second season changes in that respect, but we'll get there later.

[Martin Freeman as Dr. Watson]

During the first season it's Dr. John Watson who tends to get the sympathy of the audience, as the viewer can identify himself with this character. Martin Freeman   does also a great interpretation and reflects very good his inner struggle between being Sherlock's friend and punching him in the face. Has he himself says: "I always hear 'punch me in the face' when you're speaking, but it's usually subtext." [S02E01]

Another amaizing character in this series is Jim Moriarty, who appears as a shoadow through out all the first season and doesn't show himself until the las chapter. 

 

[Andrew Scott as Jim Moriarty]

He's a criminal mastermind that equals Sherlocks intelligence and unscrupulousness. Their power-game reaches its first peak at the end of the first season which ends with an extraordinary cliffhanger and the second one is at the apotheosic ending of the second season. 
Andrew Scott impersonates Moriarty and does a wonderful job showing with ease his multiple faces and cunning character. Moriarty performs some shiny tricks on screen, but the true genius is shown in the script, with his way of playing with all the characters around him to get whatever he wants. 

*******

The story is set in modern London and turns around an injured ex-army-doctor, John Watson, who starts living with Sherlock Holmes as his roommate in 221B Baker Street. Sherlock Holmes is a detective consultant, to whom the police goes when they're clueless. 

The first season has three chapters, as I said before, from 90 minutes each. 

1. "A Study in Pink"
• When asked for help to solve several identical apparent suicides by Inspector Lestrade, Sherlock drags his new roommate, John Watson, into the investigation of the first of many cases they will solve together. 
• As I said before this case is rather easy to solve and the lateness of the brilliant and eccentric Sherlock in solving the crime was rather annoying, but understandable as they had to present the characters and start creating the friendship between the main characters. 
• Watson is repeatedly warned against the friendship with the lonely Sherlock, but he refuses to listen and ends up tangled in the succession of events that unfolds in the next chapters.
2. "The Blind Banker"
• A banker and a reporter a both shot dead in identical slayings, in rooms locked from the inside. Meanwhile a Chinese museum employee tells Sherlock Holmes and his friend, John Watson, that the responsible for these deaths is the Black Lotus crime syndicate. 
• The difficulty of this case is a lot greater than before and the clues are perfectly hidden, so that in the end they all click together perfectly. 
• The development of the main characters friendship is shown as one that Watson sees in both ways: as appreciated and exciting, and as somewhat annoying and difficult to maintain in balance with his private life. 
3. "The Great Game"
• A sadistic bomber abducts a string of hostages, who will be released after Sherlock has solved a series of puzzles, including a twenty year old murder, an insurance scam and the alleged forgery of a long lost painting. 
• The rhythm of this chapter is extraordinary and it gets on ones nerves from minute one. The danger is clearly portrayed and the script and acting excel themselves. 

The second season has also three chapters of 90 minutes each:

1. "A Scandal in Belgravia"
• Dominatrix Irene Adler has incriminating photos of a royal princess which Sherlock is engaged to retrieve. However, having engineered a meeting with Irene, Sherlock realises that she has far more dangerous evidence in her possession, sought by rogue CIA agents, which cause her to fake her death and pass the facts, encrypted in her camera phone, to Sherlock.
• Here appears very clearly the rivalry between the main character and his brother, Mycroft Holmes, which was only hinted in the first season. Also Cumberbatch's acting shows some humanity - not much - but some, and it also hints - vaguely - to a great interest from the mastermind to the Dominatrix. This interest which tends to sexuality on Irene's side, seems profoundly rooted on an intellectual interest on Sherlock's. 
2. "The Hounds of Baskerville"
• Twenty years earlier a boy saw his father torn to pieces by a monstrous creature at Dewer's Hollow near their home. Now the boy has seen the footprints of a huge beast and suspects that the nearby Baskerville government research station is breeding mutant animals. Using fake I.Ds the main characters infiltrate Baskerville to investigate the truth behind the story. 
• This chapter also helps building the humanity of the detective. And Cumberbatch interpretation of a scared-to-death Sherlock is extraordinary.
3. "The Reichenbach Fall"
• Moriarty comes close to stealing the Crown Jewels to prove it might be done but allows himself to be caught. Sherlock gives evidence at the trial where Moriarty has scared the jury into acquitting him and later visits Sherlock, camply taunting him with his superior computer skills, seemingly capable of any crime and tells Sherlock he "owes him a fall", setting in motion a dangerous game in which he trys to destroy the detective. 
• Freeman's acting is heart wrenching. Being the first and the last few minutes of the chapter the most emotive of all the series.

The montage of this series is fresh, original and very intense, every shot carefully planned. The script is interesting and has not the strange irregularities of Moffat's Doctor Who. The characters are all perfectly acted and developed. The setting into modern times is extraordinarily well done and it is very plausible, showing both Sherlocks genius and his troubles to fit in a society that's simple, boring and has no respect for greatness. 

SHERLOCK TRAILER

I highly recommend this series, even if you're not a great fan of Sherlock Holmes. 

Love Never Dies

Also known as "Andrew Lloyd Webbers' Love Never Dies", this is the Australian version of the second part of Andrews Lloyd Webbers' famous musical The Phantom of the Opera. It tells the story of The Phantom [Erik] who lures Christine de Chagny [former Christine Daae] to America, where he has made fortune and created an freak show. 

It was directed by Brett Sullivan and Simon Phillips and it stars Ben Lewis as The Phantom, Anna O'Byrne as Christine de Chagny, Simon Gleeson as Raoul de Chagny [Christine's husband] and Sharon Millerchip as Meg Giry. 

Well, I'm afraid that this one could be a rather long review for it has a lot of points to be singled out. I'll try very hard not to make any spoilers, which will be rather hard. So please excuse me for the vagueness of some descriptions. 

First of all I'd love to make a special mention: Jack Lyall, who plays 10-year-old Gustave, Christine's son. He has one hell of a long role for a child. He's present in a good half of the action. And has some rather long songs.  And he does really good. 

Now, let's get into the musical. 

I had listened to the soundtrack ever since the CD came out, plus I had watched as much footage as I could get. The story is based on the much hated novel "Phantom of Manhattan", which doesn't have a lot to do with the original novel by Gaston Leroux, but is completely based on A.Lloyd Webbers' Phantom of the Opera.

For what I had heard of the soundtrack, the original characters had been perverted and turned into some caricature of themselves. The Phantom - famous for his murderous and selfish ways - had turned into some sort of loving puppy. Raoul - the French gentleman - was a drunken gambler who mistreated his wife and son. The only character that didn't change a lot was Christine. 

Well the DVD has had some mayor changes, which leave the characters a little bit - not a lot - closer to themselves. Some songs have vanished from the movie - among those two of my favourites: 'Heaven by the Sea' and 'Heaven by the Sea Reprise'. The whole prologue has gone, replaced by the song 'Till I hear you sing once more', sung by Erik. A very good change has been done to 'Madame Giry confronts the Phantom'. In this version Madame Giry does not confront the Phantom but his daughter, who defends both his former friend and his Master. With this small change - Meg uses the Phantoms lines and says exactly the same things the Phantom said - the Phanom's character is spared, for anyone who knows the Phantom knows he'd never put up with Madame Giry - or anybody for that matter - talk to him in that fashion.

But no amount of tinkering with the lines could cover all the holes in this plot, so the ending is held completely upon Madame Giry's evilness. Yet the DVD helps alot in creating the new character of - lets call her - Evil Madame Giry. The woman manipulates completely his daughter into falling for a hideous, psychopath who's in love with another woman and can only think of her - the other woman. And Evil Madame Giry does so only to ensure that once the Phantom dies she will inherit it all. 

[Evil Madame Giry, Australia]

That from the woman who raises an orphan and helps a wretched, mistreated freak, giving him a place to stay and servicing him as good as she possibly can.... Good Work Folks!

Anyway, we should be getting to the wretched, mistreated freak: the Phantom. Let's not pay much attention to the fact that the guy should be around 60 years - if we take Lerouxes novel as  a starting point. Let's believe that the good Erik is actually 30 or 40 years old, why not? But, guys, this man has been treated as a freak. He was displayed publicly, called 'the Devil's Child', beaten up and laughed at. The man despises human beings and has no regard for human life, no pity and no tolerance for ugliness - specially in music. 

Now that was the Phantom. 

Let's take a look at Phantasma: a freak-show, with bad light music, full of stupid ugly people. 

Do you see the problem?

Come on Andrew Lloyd Webber! You've worked with the character. You should know! Plus it's common sense: why would Erik make a freak show. Why would he write bad music? The very same guy who wrote criticising the ballet of the Opera Populair saying: "the chorus was entrancing but the dancing was a lamentable mess". One that doesn't allow anything but the very best creates an abomination like "Bathing Beauty". COME ON! 

Another important point that marks Eriks character is the fact that he loathes himself. He's like glued to that mask of his. The unmasking scene in this movie has no sort of logic and somehow looks like the Phantom trying to traumatise Christine's child for the rest of his life. The whole development after that is rather difficult to understand and doesn't make sense at all. 

On the other hand we have the fact that Erik's a freaking genius. "He's a magician and a composer. A  genius, Mosieur"[words of Madame Giry in the Phantom of the Opera]. Let's think about this point and then look at the ending of Love Never Dies,  shall we?: Meg Giry is completely maddened by the fact that the Phantom is still in love with Christine and pays her no attention. Erik sings to her making her believe that he understands her and calming her. He sings until he's by her side and at that point this genius says "we can all be like Christine" - after that she snaps and the thing goes pear shaped. 

OK that he's a psychopath but, the guy's supposed to be a GENIUS. 

The whole ending has no sense at all. Every character goes 'OoC' and it is all a "lamentable mess". 

**********************CAUTION SPOILER IN THE NEXT LINE***********************

The best thing of the ending is Christine forgetting that she's wounded. I laughed myself sick 

**********************SPOILER ENDS*******************

OK, I think it's not necessary for me to keep bitching about the characters inexplicable multiple personalities. We talked about the story and the characters. So let's compensate with something. 

The staging of this is awesome. The atrezzo and dresses are very beautiful. The changes in the scenery are very good and Phantasma is really interesting. From what I've seen from the footage of London's Love Never Dies, the strange labyrinth in which Gustave and the Phantom sing "Beauty Underneath" is different in this version. This one gives a sensation of great danger and is full of freaks, whereas the one in London is dominated by a huge automaton monkey. All the sets are really cool and the atrezzo pieces interesting: among them the carriage with which the De Chagny trio is picked up from the pier. 

The dresses, as I said before very beautiful, yet I prefer the dress Sierra Boggess wears in London's version of Love Never Dies in the aria she sings for the Phantom ["Love Never Dies"] than the one worn by Anna O'Byrne. The rest are very nice indeed and I can't say anything bad about it. 

Another positive point before we go back to criticise: The acting of  Fleck, Squelch and Gangle played by Emma J. Hawkins, Paul Tabone and Dean Vince respectively. Their acting is impeccable and they do a very good job. I specially liked Emma J. Hawkins' voice. 

[Ben Lewis, Australia]

[Ramin Karimloo, London]

Let's get back to the negative: which is the filming of the movie. I can understand that this was thought to go directly to the TV screen. But after seeing the filming of other musicals I'm afraid that this one is the worst by far. Even the MTV did it better! The shots are mostly medium shots, too close to the characters to take the setting in, which makes the viewer miss a lot [of details] of the stage. The long shots are very few. The camera movements make the viewer loose the feeling of viewing a staged representation. I think they should have put fewer cameras, play less with the editing and relay more on the acting and spectacularity of their stage. For example the final cut of "Beauty Underneath" is really confusing and the viewer can't really take all the details in.

[Sierra Boggess, London]

[Anna O'Byrne, Australia]

Finally I'll talk about the cast [of the main characters] and I'm afraid I won't be very impartial in it. OK, my problem is probably that I've listened to the soundtrack which was made by Sierra Boggess and Ramin Karimloo as Christine and the Phantom respectively. And then I watched the DVD 'The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall', with both Ramin and Sierra. And I think those two are the best Phantom and Christine [with the exception of Sarah Brightman, who's the very best Christine ever]. Don't get me wrong, Ben Lewis and Anna O'Byrne are very good singers. I liked him better than her, but that's only because I don't really like sopranos. They both do it very good. But... why, if they where going to film it, and had filmed the Phantom of the Opera the year before, couldn't they film the London version too? With the original cast? I really missed these two actors.

Yet I didn't miss Mamadame Girys french accent! It sounds a lot more natural. Meg is just adorable and I really despise what they've done to her in this plot. And Raoul sings very nicely too. He could have been Hadley Fraser, but OK.

Well I think we have arrived at the end of this my longest review. I hope those who followed 'till the end are satisfied. I tried to be as objective as possible with this and I think that, all in all, if you're a phan you will check it up no matter what I say. If you're not, then, don't bother and go directly to "The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall", which is so much better in every aspect.

If you find yourselves in need of more I leave you here a link to one of the best Phantom-Related-Things-Reviewer the Internet has to Offer and his Review to Love Never Dies: The Phantom reviwer reviews Love Never Dies.
Enjoy

Police Academy

This american comedy was directed by Hugh Wilson and stared by Steve Guttenberg, G.W. Bailey and Kim Cattrall in 1984. It tells the story of a good-hearted but incompetent misfits that enter the police academy, yet the instructors there are not going to put up with their pranks. Steve Guttenberg plays Carey Mahoney, a cadet forced into the police academy because of his bad behaviour, Soon Mahoney finds that his efforts to get thrown out establish him as the leader of the group.

I watched this movie without very high expectations. There are around 7 movies of Police Academy, and I've watched bits and pieces of the other parts and didn't find them funny in the least. Yet the other day I had a huge urge to watch a comedy, so, coming across this one I decided to watch it in Spanish as I didn't have the movie in V.O

And it was a good decision. 

Starting with the name of the NY Mayor - Mary Sue - up to the last second, I laughed myself sick. The characters are very well created, and  the script is really funny. It has both stupid and intelligent humour and the movie balances both really good. 

 The music is your typical American 80s comedy music, so don't look for a great BSO. The acting is fine, and even the dub is OK. 

All in all a very agreeable movie, and funny above all. 

Young Frankenstein

Released in 1974, Mel Brooks directs this comedy about Dr. Frankenstein's grandson, who, after years of living down the family reputation, inherits granddad's castle and repeats the experiments. 

Gene Wilder plays Dr. Frankenstein, Peter Boyle the Monster and Marty Feldman plays Igor. 

I have to say that I started watching this movie because I had been told that it was a very funny comedy. I had seen Mel Brooks' 'Men in tights', which I find very cool and hoped for something along those lines. 

Pitifully I found it rather dull. It has some funny moments, but most of the time it was previsible and a little bit boring. The funniest one in this movie is Igor. 

The famous scene of Frankenstein and his monster dancing, which is supposed to be one of the most funny of this movie didn't even make me smile.

I don't really know why it is black and white, but it doesn't add anithing to the whole movie.

This movie is a rather grotesque one, but it is well done and the acting isn't bad. If you like Mel Brooks you'll probably enjoy it. I, myself didn't really like it. 

The Lion King

This Disney animation movie was directed in 1994 by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff and it stars Matthew Broderick (as adult Simba, whereas young Simba is played by Jonathan Taylor Thomas), Jeremy Irons (as Scar) and James Earl (as Mufasa). It tells the story of Simba, a lion cub that flees into exile and abandons his identity as future King when his uncle Scar tricks him into thinking he killed his father. 

Well there's actually not much to say about this movie. It is exceptional. Pure Disney classic. The animation is wonderful, the music more so and the acting is very good. It's my favourite Disney movie ever and it gets me every time. 

Probably the thing I like less is the song "Hakuna Matata" - which is one of the most loved. Timon and Pumba are the annoying comic release of the movie, but are a lot less annoying as other annoying companions in Disney movies. 

I love the movie in all his versions, but I recommend you check Scars German voice, which is the most bad ass voice I've ever heard. And if you find it in 3D I think you should most definitively watch it in 3D, because it's one of the best I've seen lately.  

And that's all. A rather short review, but this movie is so good that a longer review would end up being repetitive. 

The First Men in the Moon

Directed by Damon Thomas, this movie is another adaptation of H.G.Wells' homonym novel. It tells the story of an eccentric scientific called Cavor, who creates a substance that repels gravity. Together with a business man called  Bedford, Cavor travels to the moon, where he encounters the Selenite. Staring Rory Kinnear as Bedford and Mark Gatiss as Cavor, "The First Men in the Moon was produced by the BBC and released in 2010.

The worst thing of this movie are the exceptionally crappy special effects.

The acting is very nicely done and the script is both funny and deeply critic. From the first moment one loves Cavor's eccentricity and his seemingly useless rambling. Bedford's ways are, if not very agreeable, a good portrait of the way of thinking of people in his time and of a lot of people nowadays. The Selenite are not only cute and sweet - specially their way of talking - but a very interesting species with ways very different that the ones in of earth.

A very interesting sequence is the one of Bedford's dream, that's made like Méliès silent movie "A Trip to the moon" [1902], which is both a nice tribute to H. G. Wells and George Méliès.

I have yet to read H. G. Wells' novel, but I think that Damon Thomas' adaptation is a very agreeable one, interesting, funny as well as critic. It has a lot of romantic touches and it's very well acted. I recomend it to you. 

Neverland

Neverland was released in 2003, directed by Damion Dietz and played by Melany Bell and Rick Sparks. It's another adaptation of the classic tale of Peter Pan, this time set in the present. It tells the story of three teen-agers (not really teens as one of them is actually 23 years old) that follow a strange boy, Peter Pan, (not so boyish as he too is a little bit too grown up) into a theme park. There they live some adventures and understand the meaning of growing up. 

 When I first started watching this movie I was somehow sure that it was the work of some just-graduated college kids that had done a low budget movie. It turns out that Damion Dietz is actually a somewhat known indie director, but it was low budget. So this explains a lot. 

The movie starts in a quick and unpolished way. I was at first a little bit confused about the fact that Wendy was black while all the rest fo her family where white people - but that's explained (much) later in the movie, so it makes sense in the end. The begining is like the original tale but instead of going to a party which is important for the fathers reputation - like in the original - these parents dress up into their best dresses to go to a dancing contest and won't come back in a few days time. It's a little bit wierd that they dress up to travel, but ok. Let's leave it there. By changing their destination the director - who's also the writer - tryes - and somehow fails - to make them into shallow, depicable people. But as they don't appear again in the movie, it's ok.  

One has to admit that putting the whole action into moddern times was a risky and difficult work. Giving the same script - some of the parts are just copy-pasted from the original play into this one - to teenagers is really, really, really not good. I mean the children that go to Neverland in Barrie's play are really young. Wendy's the oldest and I'd dare say she's around 10 years old. One has to think about that: 10 year-olds in 1904 act very differently than 20 year-olds in 2003. It is plausible in the case of Peter, who's the representation of a child but not in the case of Wendy's brothers and deffinitively not in her case. 

The acting could have been a whole deal better. But Peter and Wendy do a fine job. Plus I really liked one of the lost boys. The presence of a small child that the Lost Boys seem to babysit is a complete mistery for me and I won't get into it. 

The setting of Neverland in a theme park is acurate, yet I don't think that one has to put the lost boys as junkies. There's a difference between a drug addict and a child and I don't think that "childish men" need to be portraited as adicted. Inmature, childish, uncareing, ok. But not addicts. I think that's only a frivolisation of a really serious problem and a cheep excuse, that wants to stand for 'social critique' that really bothered me. Plus Tinkerbell. There's something really off with her, and I think she  - and I say this from my total loathing of the original Tinkerbell - disgraces the character. I think the movie would have improved a lot without her. And somehow Captain Hook is a creepy, perverted, gay man, and I didn't really get what his problem with Peter was or what the whole deal with the hook was about but after seeing this, I don't think I want to understand. 

The editing of the movie is really quick and at some points the images and the audio doesn't really mach. The loads of silences aren't very apealling either, but the music's not bad, if scarce. 

Another thing that really bothered me was the texture of the movie. It starts of with a home-made-movie texture, and it improves a little bit when the characters arrive at Neverland, but through the whole movie there's something odd in it, something I can't really place, but that bothers me no end. I think that (profesional) movies are so great because of their texture, something in the image- I think that it has to do with the light - makes every frame special and I think that's one part of the great magic of cinema. And this movie just don't have it. 

To this movie's credit I have to give it the last 2 or 3 minutes of it. The final dialogue between Wendy and Peter is a master piece. 

Here ends my disertation about Dietz Neverland: I think you either love this or you will hate it. I didn't like it. In fact, if it weren't for the last 3 minutes of action, I wouldn't put a single good word for it. But those made me rethink my review. So, if you're into indie lowbudget movies, or if you're fond of Dietz, go ahead. 

Midnight in Paris

Written and directed by the genius Woody Allen this fantastic fantasy comedy tells the story of a young engaged couple and her parents that travel to the French capital. There they have to confront their differing views of a perfect life. Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams and Kathy Bates, this Spanish and American co production was released in 2011 and has won some important awards so far.

I have to say I had had some very good reviews from this movie before I saw it, and that those where the ones that encouraged me to watch it. I didn't really feel compelled to see it as I don't like Owen Wilson, and I'm not that drawn to Paris or the Vanguards. Another fact is that I've watched it because it was in the wikipedia list of time-travel movies and I'm checking those up. 

Now, as I said I don't like Owen Wilson, and I usually don't watch his movies, but this is some really amazing work he does here. He's perfect, and I don't mean only the acting - which is flawless - but all him. His face is so expressive and it expresses so good the astonishment and naivety of the character, that you can only like him. 

The story is nice and it pictures the anxieties that a lot- if not all - of us go through in relation with the past. Woody Allen underlines this by putting the main character through a somewhat horrible present.  The past is full of his idols whereas the present is full of uncertainty and boredom and threats. His main 'enemies' are his girlfriends parents - specially her father, John, played by Kurt Fuller - and an old friend which is a real pest called Paul, played by a very convincing Michael Sheen. Both are brilliant and absolutely detestable and one really feels the urge to punch this pedantic Paul guy in the face - if it weren't for the fact that Michael Sheen is also Lucian in Underworld, whom I absolutely love... 

Back to our movie: 

The music isn't bad. If you like music from the 20ies. I'm not very fond of it, but it's nice in the whole context of the movie and helps for the setting. 

The impeccable setting changes between  2 Paris: the one in 2010 and the one in the 20ies. I love the light of each Paris and I think that it pictures perfectly the nostalgia Gil - Owen Wilson - feels towards the past. And every setting is so full of detail, I just love it. 

All in all this is a very, very, very good movie. The acting, the music, the setting, the camera action, the simply everything. I highliy recomend it. 

Minority Report

Starring Tom Cruise, Colin Farrel and Samantha Morton, this science-fiction movie directed by Steven Spielberg in 2002 is set in a near future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes. Trouble arises when the chief officer of that unit, John Anderton, is himself accused from a future murder and forced into hiding. 

The background idea goes the lines of: up to which point is it morally correct to put someone in prison for a crime he hasn't committed? and Spielberg does an amazing job here, showing the various flaws - as well as the many positive points - of this  way of action. One cannot forget the political reality set behind this movie: the USA was looking for reasons for a preventive attack in Iraq. 

Back to the movie: one specially interesting point are the visual effects. It doesn't have a lot of explosions - which are always nice - but the whole car scene is very interesting and the moving plants are very nice. Plus all the little gadgets are original and beautiful. 

There's nothing much to say about the acting. It's an excellent work of professional actors, very enjoyable. 

The rhythm and music are very intense and it keeps your attention and interest through all 2 hours of the movie. 

All in all, this is one of my very favourite science-fiction movies and a must if you're interested in this subject. Or if you like Tom Cruise or Colin Farrel, both of which are very nice to see. 

Moulin Rouge!

This is a musical drama directed by Baz Luhrmann and staring Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor. It was released in 2001 and it tells the story of a bohemian penny-less poet, Christian, that falls in love with a beautiful courtesan from the famous brothel Moulin Rouge. The problem is that, in order to transform the Moulin Rouge into a proper theatre, the courtesan, Satine, has to woo the investor, a jealous duke, who will do everything in his hand to possess her.

A part from the spectacular music and the beautiful voices of Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman, as well as John Leguizamo (who plays Toulouse-Lautrec, a bohemian dwarf), Jim Broadbent (as Harold Zidler, the owner of the Moulin Rouge) and Jacek Koman (who's the hilarious "unconscious Argentinean), a very interesting aspect of this movie is the montage. Every scene is perfectly planned and the editing is just very good, keeping the attention of the viewer with the quick succession of images and the thrilling rhythm, specially at the beginning. The way it start leads to thinking that's a comedy of some sorts (leaving, of course, the prologue with the weeping and unkempt Ewan McGregor out of it). Adding  to that are the crappy effects of the Elephant Scene, which are mindblowingly
The characters are very picturesque and easily defined. They don't have many twists and turns, and one can very soon know what to expect of them. Yet their flatness is kind of necessary for not stopping the whole rhythm of the movie.

All in all a very interesting movie, which I find extremely heart wrenching, corny and sweet. The acting's quite good and the best songs are:

1. "El Tango de Roxane" --> a thrilling tango sung by the Unconscious Argentinean and Christian 
2. "The Show must go on" --> Zidler, Satine and Moulin Rouge Stagehands
3. "Your Song" --> Christian
4. "Elephant Medley" --> Christian and Satine
5. "Come What May" --> Christian and Satine's secret love song

Reefer Madness

Directed by Andy Fickman, "Reefer Madness" is a cheeky, musical comedy adaptation of the classic 1936 anti-marijuana propaganda film, released in 2005. In this one a group of parents are called into their children's school to watch an extravagant documentary about an marijuana addicted 16 year-old called Jimmy Harper, who's played by Christian Campbell. His girlfriend, Mary Lane, is played by Kristen Bell and the Lecturer is Alan Cumming. 

After seeing this one has somehow a deep interest in watching the 1936 propaganda film. For everything the Lecturer is such utter crap, that one is left wondering what was exactly said in the earlier version. I found the whole movie hilarious, the acting is pretty good and the music catchy and full of rhythm. 

The  choreography's are exaggerated imitating the style of early musicals, with a lot of cheesy scenes between Jimmy and Mary Lane. 

On the other hand there are some extremely disturbing scenes, like "Listen to Jesus, Jimmy" and the one in which Jimmy is initiated into marijuana. 

Very amusing are the reactions of the parents, and the way in which the Lecturer slowly drives them into believing everything he says. If the viewer has  - somehow- any doubt that this is a critic against propaganda-films, the sentence "When danger's near, exploit their fear", said by the lecturer to the viewer - speaking directly to camera - erases any doubt. 

All in all a very interesting, yet disturbing musical movie. If you're into musicals then you should definitively watch it. If - on the other hand - you don't like musicals, you should probably watch something else, as "Reefer Madness" is your typical old school musical with loads of dancing and people popping up out of the blue. 

Battle for Terra

This 3D animation movie was released in 2007. It was directed by Aristomenis Tsirbas. It tells the story of a peaceful alien planet, which faces annihilation, as the homeless remainder of the human race sets its eyes on it. Mala, a rebellious Terrian teenager, will do everything she can to stop it.

Evan Rachel Wood gives voice to Mala, Luke Wilson gives vocie to Jim Stanton, the male leading role; David Cross is Giddy, an ironic and cheeky robot and Justin Long is Mala's friend Sen. 

I really like this movie, even though it could be better in a few points, as for example: the animation. This is a pitty, as the disign of Terra is really beautiful. Every inhabitant of this new planet is new and beautiful in its own alien way. The Terrians look extremely different to anything we may know and this is normaly used as an excuse to put the audience against the alien race - we'll get there later. It's a pitty that the humans are so badly done. The textures of the cloth and skin of the human kind is so badly done, that it leaves a sort of bad feeling. 

Another point that bothers me is the voices of the Terrians. I don't know if they're able to comunicate in a sort of telepathic way - they certainly don't have any ears - but they certainly seem to talk to each other no matter how far they are without rasing their voices. I don't know how they could have explained this point, and it really doesn't interfere in the enjoyment of the movie. 

For my part, that's about everything that I didn't like. The music and the scenery are very, very beautiful. And the Terrarians are funny and beautiful. A fact that's remarcable is that, even though the Terrarians are pictured as some 'nature-loving' spices, they're not some nothing-doing wild-running creatures that do nothing but sit around being friendly with the trees as other aliens that are nature-friendly. this creatures have an inteligent society, they work, go to school, have their doctors and their enjoyment, and these activities are not only pictured, but help the viewers to identify themselves with these creatures. They may look as different from us as can be, they may float around and don't have many fingers, but in essence their lives are not different from ours. 

Another interesting point that distinguishes this movie from others, is that their happy little society is actually an autocracy. The Terrarian liberties are very controlled by the "Elders", for example they can't create anything that's not aproved by them. Another example of this autocracy is that the Elders decide whatever they have to believe. Yet the power wasn't gained by force and the fact turns into some sort of background information, that helps creating the background history of Terra. 

Another thing I really liked about this movie is the main problematic: I think it's an original take and the viewer can't see a clear and peacefull solucion, and it's difficult for the viewers to take sides either for the nearly extinct human race or the peacefull Terrarians. 

All in all, this is a very interesting and entertaining movie and I highly recomend it.  

Third Star

This was British movie was produced by the BBC in 2010 and directed by Hattie Dalton and it tells the story of James - played by Benedict Cumberbatch - who goes on an ill-advised trip to the stunning coastal area of Barafundle Bay in West Wales together with three of his closest lifelong friends. 

I can't really think of anything to say about this movie except that's absolutely stunning.The only problem I found was with understanding some parts of what the characters said, either because some mild mumbling, or because of their accents. But other than that this is a truthfully good movie. 

The argument may  not be one of the most original ones you come across, but don't let that fool you, as it is executed in a really original fashion. There where other movies tend towards a heavy melodramatic view of a sad situation Dalton gives everything to show that - even if sad - these characters can be happy and have a fantastic time. The comic relieve doesn't lay completly on one character, like it usually does, but everyone laughs and cracks a joke now and then. 

Another fantastic novelty of the execution fo this movie is the fact that it seems very, very natural. At some points you can completly forget that this is a profesional movie, because it really looks like  four joung guys going on a trip, and having the same adventures you would have, encountering strange people, starting fights and laughing at each other. And as you easily get the whole mood of the situation, the fact that's a little bit complicated to understand what they're saying isn't really a problem. 

At this point I don't think I have to say anything more about the extraordinary work of the four actors: Hugh Bonneville, Tom Burke, JJ Feild and Benedict Cumberbatch. Even if I wanted, I couldn't find any flaw in their acting. 

The scenery is entrancing and I really have to get myself to Wales. It's fascinating. And I find myself not remembering a single note form the music, which I find excelent as - I distinctly remember that there was music - it helps leaving the idea of 'home-made' trip movie. 

And that's all, folks, I highly recomend this movie, if you like Cumberbatch, and if you don't, too. 

Wuthering Heights

Played by Juliette Binoche (as Cathy) and Ralph Fiennes (as Heathcliff) and directed by Peter Kosminsky in 1992, this movie is one of the many adaptations of Emily Brontë's book "Wuthering Heights". It tells the story of Heathcliff, Cathy Earnshaw's foster brother, who's not only that but her other half. When forces within and without tear them apart, Heathcliff wreaks vengeance on those he holds responsible, even into a second generation. 

This movie's rather slow. If you're not really interested in Brontë's novel, or you don't really like the plot or the book I wouldn't recommend it to you. I really had to struggle to watch it whole. 

The problem doesn't really lay in the acting, which is rather good, specially that done by Janet McTeer, who plays the role of Ellen Dean, a maid. Not to mention Juliette Binoche who plays Cathy and her daughter. Ralph Fiennes interpretation is really flawless and you grow to hate the guy. 

The music isn't really worth mentioning. It stays in the background most of the time, and can be overlooked except for a few times, in which if it weren't for the music, you would definively smash the whole screen. 

I think the problem lays in the rhythm. There are loads of beautiful scenery, and awfully long shots. It's tiresome and the action is slow, very, very slow. A lot of the scenes only relay on the looks the characters throw each other, which is very nice and good in a book, but gets on your nerves in a movie. 

One must give this movie the credit that it stays close to the book - at least at the beginning, which is the only thing I've managed to read so far. 

I really didn't like this movie, mostly because I think the characters a bit silly and - in Heathcliff's case - evil and idiotic, so as I haven't been able to sympathise with any of the characters, I was really unmoved by their adventures. 

Heartless

Heartless is a British movie that centres around Jamie Morgan, a young photographer with a large heart-shaped birthmark on his face, who - after discovering that there are demons on the streets of East London - strikes a pact with the Devil. Directed by Philip Ridley and released on 2009, the main characters are played by Jim Sturgess, Clémence Poésy and Noel Clarke.

This movie is actually interesting to watch, specially because of it's make up. Nearly all the make up pieces that are shown in it are exceptionally well done, starting with the heart-shaped birthmark on the main character and ending with the devil's appearance. It's startling and spectacular.

Unfortunately the acting of the main character could be a lot better, although he's bearable. Noel Clarke does a fine work, as do the mother and the devil. The little Hindu girl is also talented. Yet the main character's nephew is the worst by far.

Another flaw in this rather interesting movie is - pitifully the plot. It has more holes in it than a strainer, and can be very confusing if not paying a lot of attention. The appearance of the Devil is the most confusing part. And the ending is a little bit sudden and a little bit disappointing.

That'd be it. I think is very interesting and the make up should be checked up. If you start watching it, I think you'll be compelled to watch it 'till the end, which won't be a complete waste of your time.

Un monstre à Paris

Kown as "A monster in Paris" is a french 3D animation movie directed by Bibo Bergeron and presented the 12 of October 2011 in Belgium. The movie is set Paris in the year 1910 and centered on a young and beautiful singer that protects the monster that's terroriced the city after an accident in the laboratory of a mad scientist. The original cast are Mathieu Chedid (as Francoeur), Vanessa Paradis (as Lucille) and Gad Elmaleh (as Raoul). As I don't know french I watched it with the english cast that has Sean Lennon in the role of Francoeur, Catherine O'Hara as Lucille.

I cannot recomend this movie enough! The animation is very beautiful, the music is fantastic and the script is both funny and beautiful. It's not a very long movie and the characters are not only well animated, but round and full.

The background idea is a reinterpretation of the famous "The Phantom of the Opera", made into movie several times. The references to this story are both subtle and bold: for example the fact that Lucille wears a set of white wings while singing and called in a few ocasions "angel", is a plain hint towards the line 'angel of music' that's frequently used to refer to Christine Daae - the Phantom of the Operas main character

 A Monster in Paris hints graciously towards the 1943 adaptation by giving the main character two suitors and making one of them a Police Chief. Another hint towards this movie is the mask that Francoeur wears in several occasions.

Like those we can find a lot of hints, and if you're a fan of the Phantom of the Opera, you can find in it an incentive for watching this original reinterpretation.

Another good point for watching A Monster in Paris is the music. The singing cast has an amaicing and sweet voice. The song "Le Seine" can be found in Youtube and is the central piece of the movie. As for the instrumental music,  the best piece can be found towards the ending, in the Eiffel Tower sequence.

The creation of the characters is very well done also. Not only the main characters have a full plot, but also those sidecharacters that are often neglectd in animation movies. They all have their flaws and interests, neither the main characters are presented as perfect. For example Raoul has an allergy towards feathers that's actually not really important for the plot developement, but gives place for a few funny scenes and presents the character as a normal guy in love with a normal woman.

It's also nice the little news report with which the movie starts. I don't know if it's real or made to fit the movie, but's really interesting, and beautifully interlaced with the whole story.

So I think that would be all. As I said before, I can only recomed this movie and remind you that even though it's animation it's not only for children, but can be enjoyed by everyone.

Before we start, a few important points

Dear Mr and Ms Reader:
This would be the first entry in this new blog about  movies and series. 

It will turn mainly around american, british and spanish movies and tv series, yet I'll review also every other audiovisual product that'll cross my path, mainly musicals that I find on the Internet or theater - that specifically seen in Barcelona, since that's where I'm living and therefore the one that I can go and watch 

The language used on this site will be english. Yet as my first language is spanish, I apologice for any misetake. I ask for forgiveness in advance and I'll try and improve in every post. As a matter of fact, I'm writing a twin blog called El Rincón de Ghelik, in which I will publish in spanish. 

The information  as well as any image I may put in here about movies belongs mainly to IMDB and their respective owners. Mine will only be the drawings and the reviews, which can also be found in a reduced maner in gomiso.com.

Faithfully Yours,
                  Ghelik Black