Scene City #7: Warrior (O'Connor, 2011)

The story of the underdog is the most clichéd and predictable in the sports genre. Last year we got “The Fighter” in which Mark Wahlberg became a boxing champion whilst dealing with the drama of his family that included a controlling mother and a drug addict brother. The movie gave Oscars to both Melissa Leo and Christian Bale but beyond their performances it is predictable and monotonous in its portrayal of a family’s struggle. In many ways, “Warrior” is the movie “The Fighter” wanted to be, a rousing, powerful and moving drama that focuses on interesting characters and gains momentum in a series of well choreographed fights (so involving that members in the audience at my screening were cheering).

The film focuses on two brothers who went to take on very different lives. Tommy, played by Tom Hardy, became a marine after taking care of their mother (who ultimately died of cancer) and Brendan, played by Joel Edgerton, became a physics teacher after he married his high school sweetheart. Both became fighters from a very early age but Tommy was always the strongest one. Now they both enter a mixed martial arts tournament for a prize that might save Brendan’s family from losing their home and give a sense of closure to Tommy, who wants to give the money to the widow of his best friend.

Both Hardy and Edgerton are convincing in their roles and the script gives them moments of raw and intense emotion. Nick Nolte is also great as their alcoholic father (a role that maybe strikes too close to home for Nolte), living a life full of regrets.

I must confess I wasn’t very familiar with MMA fighting but after watching “Warrior” I found it to be ugly and brutal but cinematically very visceral and exciting. The tournament scenes bring energy and tension and the final confrontations packs an emotional wallop. “Warrior” is a movie that doesn’t avoid clichés but enhances them through character development turning it into a compelling drama.

Scene City #6: The Skin I Live In (Almodovar, 2011)

Few filmmakers portray passions as vividly as Pedro Almodovar. With a lush and vibrant visual style and heavy and operatic themes running its narratives, his movies are dense and melodramatic while they juggle between a morbid fascination and heartfelt emotions. “The Skin I Live In” takes a detour into the queasy and perverse while still maintaining his usual motifs of lust and obsession. It performs a risky high-wire act in telling its revenge story (it’s wise to avoid spoilers beforehand, especially with a shocking revelation in its final act).

The film is fragmented in dissociative scenes of underlying resonance giving the audience pieces of information that seem to confuse early on but intrigue us throughout. Almodovar also does something quite interesting in revealing snippets of back story to the audience without sharing it between the characters.

Antonio Banderas plays a brilliant plastic surgeon who lives in a mansion whilst keeping a young woman who, for some unknown reason, remains his captive (she is played by the lovely Elena Anaya). As the film reveals flashbacks of characters we haven’t met yet we begin to find ourselves adrift en Almodovar’s messy narrative game but, in a strange way, hooked on the possibilities and outcomes of its diabolical predicaments.

“The Skin I Live In” is a fascinating experiment that holds an eerie power. It’s a film that’s rough around its edges, cool and glossy on the surface but raw and ugly on its center. It’s an uncomfortable and unforgettable psychological thriller that belongs in my top ten movies of 2011.

Scene City #5: Contagion (Soderbergh, 2011)

I can vividly remember the 2009 H1N1 pandemic that caused massive panic worldwide. In Mexico people walked out with disposable mouth covers, hand sanitizers were placed virtually everywhere and the overall fear was palpable. That particular virus strain caused the death of over 17,000 people (and billions of dollars in revenue for the pharmaceutical companies).

Movies about epidemics can be quite scary. I can remember watching “Outbreak” as a kid and being terrified every time I saw someone cough and in 2001, when Danny Boyle released the great “28 Days Later, its raged fueled inhabitants gave me nightmares for days. “Contagion” isn’t really a thriller but more of a clinical procedure documenting a possible worldwide pandemic scenario. It contains lots of scientific mumble-jumble and a large cast of recognizable actors playing doctors, scientists and politicians desperately trying to find a cure and avoid as much social panic as possible. This might sound like a tedious experience but Steven Soderbergh directs with style and keeps the story interesting even when characters randomly keep biting the dust. A problem with the movie is that even while the actors are convincing in their roles, some feel unnecessary and rather contrived. Take Jude Law’s character; he plays the kind of blogger who believes in conspiracy theories and bringing the truth to the people. All fair enough, but when the movie reveals him as a fraud and a manipulator, the movie leaves a frustrating void. There’s a sense that the movie would benefit without the character.

Still, “Contagion” is an entertaining movie that simply observes the workings behind a crisis. It is skillfully made even though it isn’t as memorable as it could have been.

Scene City #4: We Need To Talk About Kevin (Ramsay, 2011)

There’s no guide to parenthood. Eva wasn’t certain she wanted to be a parent but still did the best she could to give her son, who was problematic almost from birth, a fulfilling childhood. Kevin is every parent’s worst nightmare, a malicious and calculating little ingrate without pity or remorse. In many ways he is the representation of pure evil; an evil oblivious to everyone except Eva, who understands his darkness (his father, played by John C. Reilly, remained painfully naïve his whole life).

“We Need to Talk About Kevin” argues that malice is inbred and that violence inevitable. Eva lives a life of guilt and a constant harassment that follows her everywhere. The film cuts back and forth in time showing us a happy marriage, a frustrated period of motherhood and at 16 the culmination of a terrible act of violence that changes both the lives of Kevin and Eva.

Tilda Swinton is a great actress and here delivers a fantastic performance that is bound to get an Oscar nomination. The movie is a hard and uncomfortable watch with an emotional climax that leaves us in shock and disbelief. Eva and Kevin have a complicated relationship that is somehow tied within a pain they’ve shared their whole life (when Eva accidentally breaks her son’s arm in a dispute, he recalls it later as the most honest thing she ever did for him).

Is “We Need to Talk About Kevin” a horror story? In many ways it could be called that, as the film pulls us into the lives of a psychopath and his victims but it’s also a fascinating portrayal of a woman and her life of misery. It is, without a doubt, one of the more interesting works of 2011.

Scene City #3: The Tree of Life (Malick, 2011)

Most movies are content with dealing with formal narratives while aspiring to tell a compelling story. They usually let their characters dictate the story’s themes but “The Tree of Life” lets its themes dictate the characters. Here we have a film that contemplates existence through the prism of an ordinary family life and pulls us in through the beauty of nature to contemplate our own.

Movies rarely get more ambitious than “The Tree of Life” and also, rarely more polarizing. The reactions from the audience at my screening were mostly of frustration and tedium and even though it won the coveted Palme D’Or at Cannes, the movie was met with both applause and boos in equal measure. I’m not a huge fan of Terrence Malick (I think “The Thin Red Line” is one of the most exhausting and dullest war movies ever made) but I admire the craft of his movies even though most of the time they feel like meandering philosophical statements. “The Tree of Life” starts with whispers and an amalgam of scenes from a family in the fifties, the cosmos and an extended sequence on the creation of life on our planet that includes dinosaurs (this sequence my baffle viewers who don’t see a connection with the rest of the story).

“The Tree of Life” is a beautiful and haunting work of art. Whether it works or not as art depends entirely on the viewer but there’s no denying that Malick pours himself into the picture and dares to take the audience on an astonishing journey, the journey of life itself. The actors embody perfectly their roles (except for Sean Penn who wanders aimlessly through the movie; Penn himself wasn’t satisfied with his role and the final product since he feels it fails to represent the beauty of the script). So divisive is the movie that even Penn fails to grasp Malick’s intentions but I was so moved by the family scenes that I started to wander into my own childhood and my love for my mother, father and brother (feelings evoked by empathy towards this memory, even though it’s quite different from mine).

It’s rare to find spirituality in a multiplex but “The Tree of Life” is a communion for the believers. It’s a soaring work that goes deep in its humanity and delivers a transcendental experience. It’s by far my favorite movie of 2011.

Scene City #2: A Better Life (Weitz, 2011)

There are almost 50 million Latinos living in the United States (it is estimated that by 2050 they will represent 30% of the total population); many reside after crossing illegally and seeking jobs as gardeners, construction builders, kitchen staff members or even as maids for the rich. The issue of illegal immigration has become a hot topic in almost every election (especially in the state of California) but “A Better Life” isn’t trying to make any political statement in the matter. It wants us simply to empathize with a father desperately trying to raise his son and give some stability to their dire situation. The father, named Carlos Galindo, is played by Demian Bichir in a powerful and mature performance; there’s no denying that although there’s a sense of regret on taking his family across the border, he has always tried to give his son a good example in life (definitely tough for a teenager growing up in a rough neighborhood where the gang related violence has taken over).

“A Better Life” was directed by Chris Weitz and it proves how he is able to create intimacy and drama in a story that could’ve easily become a Hallmark movie filled with forced sentiment. Weitz made this film after “New Moon” (yet another terrible chapter in this atrocious series) and I hope he continues making this kind of cinema since big blockbusters don’t seem to suit him (he was also responsible for the economic fiasco of “The Golden Compass). The movie gets the Latino culture right and plunges us in authentic locations. It also introduces tension after Carlos’s truck gets stolen forcing him to do what he can to get it back. The final scenes in the movie are powerful and the speech Carlos delivers to his son is heartbreaking.

“A Better Life” isn’t preachy and avoids being corny thanks to its fantastic performance. It’s definitely a movie that might open the eyes of many people in the audience (especially American ones).

Scene City #1: Melancholia (Von Trier, 2011)

I try to watch every movie with an open mind but some movies trigger uneasy thoughts in my subconscious way before I even watch them; “Melancholia” is one of those instances when a director’s personality hovers so intently over his work that it’s impossible to review it objectively. I dislike Von Trier (and it doesn’t have anything to do with his silly antics at the Cannes Film Festival); its mostly because every one of his movies (at least the ones I’ve seen) feel like some sort of shared therapy session and we can almost pinpoint when his characters stop being themselves and become catalysts for Von Trier’s prejudices. It’s what I like to call “The Chaos Reigns Von Trier Rule of Thumb”.
“Melancholia” is about the end of the world. In Von Trier fashion, there’s a stylish prologue that confirms the doomed fate of its characters and the movie is divided into two chapters, the first one focusing on Justine (Kirsten Dunst’s character) and the second one on her sister Claire (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, who apparently didn’t mind working again with the director who made her appear in scenes of genitalia mutilation on his previous film). The first half of this movie takes place at Justine’s wedding party, with the usual assortment of character actors who make an impact even though we might, just as well, call their appearances mere cameos. I confess a certain fascination with these scenes even though Justine’s depression seems contrived at every turn. The second act turns Justine into a catatonic wreck, while subtly (or maybe not so subtly) suggesting some sort of clairvoyance psychic nonsense to her character.
Kirsten Dunst won the best actress award at Cannes and, to be fair, Dunst shows maturity in her role even though Von Trier doesn’t give her much to work with. The impending doom scenes drag down until we find ourselves just waiting for the damn planet to hit Earth already. Since the characters are miserable in virtually every scene, the end feels more like a relief to both its audience and its players. “Melancholia” is a movie designed to be discussed by those who really admire Von Trier’s body of work (and, astonishingly, he seems to gather a large following). For haters it offers no hope or redemption, no sense of purpose or reason; it’s conceptually within the boundaries of Von Trier’s continuous self exploration. In other words, it’s just another pretentious bore.

Sin #97: Summertime 2011 Part II

The summer season of 2011 is finally over; let’s take a look at the remaining movies.

“Kung Fu Panda 2” is a sequel done right. Here’s a beautifully animated and exciting adventure that pleases both kids and their parents. It’s curious how Dreamworks showed a lot more heart in this story than Pixar did with “Cars 2”, which was a departure for a studio that usually deals with emotions much more sophisticated than we are accustomed to in animated features. “Cars 2” is a shallow and forgettable action romp, boasting some impressive visuals but lacking a lot in the narrative department. Still, it’s an entertaining movie but it’s also a disappointing one from a studio that’s made some of the best family films of all time.

Some might remember this summer for its sequels or superhero movies but I will remember it for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”, easily the worst movie of the year and one of the most wretched so-called pieces of entertainments I’ve ever had to endure. To watch a movie this dumb, vulgar, senseless and mean and to watch it gross an enormous amount of cash at the box office is to witness a complete disregard for the value of cinema as an art form. And I know that we shouldn’t expect high art in a Hollywood blockbuster but at least we should expect an engaging storyline and characters we care for. “Transformers 3” is a 157 minute waste of time; utter garbage that cements Michael Bay as a showman for imbeciles and a freak impresario, eager to cash in from the puerile fantasies of the male adolescent.

The one bright spot about watching this movie is that it sets a standard so low that practically any movie looks good by comparison. That’s why I’m glad I saw Duncan Jones’s “Source Code” after Transformers. Here’s a smart sci-fi parable about a man reliving the same instant before a bomb explodes on a train. It is terrific entertainment and a nice tonic to the toxic waste of Bay’s spectacle.

One of the most eagerly awaited releases for the year was the final installment in the Harry Potter franchise (the most commercially lucrative series in movie history). After a chronically tedious start to the Deathly Hallows story, it basically redeems the weaker aspects and becomes one of the summer’s most exciting blockbusters. The film boasts terrific acting and special effects and a thrilling pace bringing the action back to Hogwarts and tying all the loose ends. For fans it’s an emotionally satisfying ending.

A couple of fantastic movies followed with “Captain America: The First Avenger” and “Super 8”. “Captain America” is a gloriously retro adventure in the style of those Saturday morning serials from the 30s and 40s promoting so-called American values (the movie makes fun of its cheeky propaganda aspects). Chris Evans proved to be a great casting choice for the titular hero making the film one of the best of the summer and Marvel’s best offering (on par with “X-Men: First Class”).

J.J. Abrams “Super 8” is also a retro piece of entertainment that takes us back to those 80s Amblin movies where a bunch of kids find themselves on an extraordinary adventure. There’s a lot of debt to Spielberg in “Super 8” but Abrams crafts his movie with style and a special gift for casting since all of the kids are terrific. I confess that the monster is the less appealing aspect of the film since the story with the kids is much more engrossing. The one superhero I missed in theaters was “Green Lantern” but since its reviews ranged from mediocre to terrible I don’t think I missed on much.

One of the biggest disappointments of the summer was “Aliens and Cowboys”, an ungainly mishmash of genres that’s so clumsily executed that it works neither as a western nor an alien invasion picture. The cast is completely wasted with the usual array of stereotypes and the aliens are so generic they lack any menace.

The best was saved for last, however, with “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, an impressive and surprisingly provocative work that goes beyond any of the Apes sequels and stands on its own as a fantastic summer entertainment. The CG in the movie is amazing and so convincing that it turns Ceasar, an animated ape, into a full living character that’s much more human than his real human counterparts.

Overall, the summer of 2011 provided a good time at the movies. There were some big surprises and some big disappointments but it was mostly a successful introduction to superheroes, reboots and sequels.

Sin #96: De La Iglesia

A lot of people hate clowns. I tend to blame Stephen King’s “It” for the damage; its deranged clown played by Tim Curry caused endless nightmares for every kid that caught the miniseries on TV back in the 90s. I’ve often wondered what kind of people volunteer to become clowns. For every honest bloke wearing a wig and heavy makeup there must be a dozen of repressed man-childs on an everyday psychotic breakdown.

In “Balada Triste de Trompeta” (released in the US with the silly title of “The Last Circus”), a wickedly dark and audacious comedy of sorts, we meet a clown who’s been suffering since his early childhood (his dad, also a clown, was killed during the war in Spain). As a young man he becomes the “sad clown”, destined to never make anyone laugh. Not that there’s a lot of funny material in Alex de la Iglesia’s movie (except for incredulous laughter for its brutal and grotesque scenes).

Alex de la Iglesia is a director with a great sense of humor who almost always stamps his own brand of humor on each of his genre pictures. I remember one of his earlier comedies, the inventive “El Dia de la Bestia” about a priest trying to prevent the birth of the antichrist and therefore the end of days. It’s a funny movie that manages to be slightly blasphemous but terrifically entertaining (one of its stars is Santiago Segura, a comedian best known for his “Torrente” series). After “El Dia de la Bestia” I saw “El Crimen Ferpecto” (having missed Iglesia’s western spoof “800 Bullets”). The title is purposefully misspelled and its is a bit more grounded on reality than “Bestia” but, in a way, equally outlandish; it starts with a man desperately trying to become the general manager of a top retail store and ends as a grotesque battle between him and a very unattractive coworker who is obsessed with him. It ain’t exactly a love story.

“The Oxford Murders” is a strange departure for Iglesia. It’s his first English speaking feature, set in England and featuring Elijah Wood and the great John Hurt in a mystery thriller in the style of “The DaVinci Code”. Well, I hated “The DaVinci Code” and its sequel “Angels and Demons” (this one a little less I guess) mostly because those films are wall-to-wall with twists that cheat its narrative and make us care very little for any of their one-dimensional characters (Tom Hanks is especially dull as Robert Landon). “The Oxford Murders” is smarter, focusing on an intriguing premise and using a lot of mathematical and philosophical banter to solve its mystery and even though the ending is a little silly the movie remains intriguing and very entertaining.

“Balada Triste de Trompeta” remains Iglesia’s best movie because it transcends its genre and becomes a grotesque tragedy. It perfectly demonstrates Iglesia’s strange but compelling imagination and over-the-top sense of humor. He remains one of the most interesting directors in Spain.

Sin #95: Summertime 2011 Part I

Every summer brings a series of blockbusters that hardly produce anything original in the movie landscape. The summer of 2011 breaks records for sequels and 3D offerings (not to mention superhero movies) demonstrating that Hollywood is eager to exploit franchises and ignore any shred of artistic qualities for its big productions. Even though that’s the case for most, there are still some good movies to be found.

Marvel opened up the season with “Thor”, which was a fun adaptation of the comic book about a Nordic god stripped down of his powers and cast off to Earth (while his mischievous younger brother takes control of the mythological kingdom). “Thor” is by no means a great movie, but it’s lightweight and entertaining, with a charismatic cast who actually bring some gravitas to their silly roles (Chris Hemsworth proved to be an inspired casting choice for the title character).

“Thor” was followed by “Fast Five”, which actually takes the tired franchise on a fresh new direction. Instead of focusing on street racing, the story now develops into a surprisingly entertaining heist movie filled with impossible action sequences and a breezy pace (not to mention the exotic location of Rio de Janeiro). “Fast Five” was a surprise and a decent reboot which benefited from a marketing campaign that exploited the clash of action icons Vin Diesel and The Rock.

Next was the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie, “On Stranger Tides”, which might be one of the most unnecessary sequels in recent memory. While the first Pirates was a genuinely original piece of Hollywood entertainment, its sequels felt like bloated and meandering cash cows.

Still, they all carried Gore Verbinski’s quirky vision which made for some surreal and entertaining moments. This new movie, directed by Rob Marshall, is so stale that even Captain Jack Sparrow is clueless as to why he is present for most of the picture. The addition of new and uninteresting characters only makes the experience more frustrating. “On Stranger Tides” is so forgettable and banal, that even Johnny Depp feels like he’s phoning it in (even though he was once nominated for an Oscar for playing Sparrow).

One of the most disappointing summer movies is “The Hangover 2”, which saw the return of the wolf pack after their hilarious series of misfortunes in Las Vegas. The first Hangover was a very funny movie that kept us interested with its mystery format and delighted us with its outrageous characters (especially Zack Galifianakis’s Alan). The sequel doesn’t push the story as much as repeat the events in a different setting. There are some funny moments in “The Hangover 2” but none register as powerfully as in the original (a movie that makes me laugh out loud every time I watch it). Even though it’s an inferior sequel, I would still go see “The Hangover 3” just to enjoy the company of the guys.

The best movie so far was also a pleasant surprise. “X-Men: First Class” is a prequel that actually goes back to basics and delivers a compelling story. “First Class” is blessed with an excellent cast and smart enough to create believable relationships amidst the special effects. Director Matthew Vaughn mixes the real Cuban crisis with the mutant revolution and creates an intriguing fantasy that holds our attention even though we know what’s in store for the characters.

There are still many movies to be released this summer including JJ Abrams’s Spielberg-like “Super 8”, another two comic book adaptations with Captain America and The Green Lantern, and sequels to Kung Fu Panda, Cars and Transformers among others.

To be continued…

Sin #94: The Loss of a Child

I don’t think I’ll ever understand the pain of losing a child and I hope I never have to. Two recent, albeit different, movies I saw dealt with the repercussions of this tragedy on a marriage. The first movie focused on the man that forever changed scientific studies and the other on a middle-class couple dealing with loss.

“Creation” is the story of how Charles Darwin came to write and publish his controversial “On the Origin of Species”; a book he knew would defy the principles of his own faith. The film humanizes the man and avoids an oversimplified view on the science versus religion issue. It wisely keeps us focused on Darwin and his frail grip on reality as he continues to see his 10 year-old daughter long after her death. The film could have easily been as controversial as its subject but it remains neutral preferring to portray the drama of a family torn by pain and disease. Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly (a real life couple) are very convincing on their roles and help elevate the picture from the cheap Hallmark TV production it could have easily become. I had always thought of Darwin as a devoted atheist and a spokesman for rational thought but it surprised me to learn of his conflict of ideas since he attended church regularly and his wife was a devoted Christian.

“Rabbit Hole” may be one of the most honest dramas I’ve seen in a while. It plunges us directly into the life of a married couple 8 months after the death of their 4 year-old son. His death was an accident (he was hit by a car after chasing his dog) but the couple continues to grieve and attend therapy sessions that don’t seem to help much (especially for Becca, who hates all the “god talk”). Their struggle to continue with their daily lives is sometimes unbearably painful in a movie that’s equally hard to watch.

Nicole Kidman delivers one of her best performances as Becca, a strong woman trying to find some comfort; Aaron Eckhart as Howie, her husband, is equally good, as a man realizing that his marriage needs to heal in order to survive.

Director John Cameron Mitchell is a curious choice for this material after making “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus”. This story might feel more conventional but he shows great detail and care for moments of raw honesty and heartbreak (especially the scenes between Becca and Jason, the teenager who was driving on that tragic day). Mitchell avoids clichés and finds redemption for its characters; he also balances the more intense moments with sweet humor (mostly between the husband and a woman he meets at the therapy sessions, played by Sandra Oh) than in no way underplays the hurt.

What I like about both movies is their sincerity and their reluctance to overplay the drama giving a lot of dignity to their characters. “Creation” takes one of the most important figures in history and successfully turns him into a complex human being (thanks to Bettany’s moving portrayal) and “Rabbit Hole” is a heartbreaking and unforgettable story that truly resonates.

Sin #93: Higher Ground

Imagine a stark, dirty room on top of a complex housing building, facing a city highlighted by bright neon lights. A man lights up his pipe and, suddenly, the bright stains outside become abstractions, kaleidoscopic fractals of surreal, ethereal beauty. The bliss of this heightened reality doesn’t last very long and the man turns away and goes on his very last job as a dealer.

We are forced to relate to this man, forced to see through his eyes and forced to remember his childhood, his parents’ tragic accident and his relationship with his sister, another lonely soul wandering the streets of Tokyo through the dangers of drug addiction and prostitution.

“Enter the Void” is a fascinating experiment, but not quite a successful one. It pulls us in, deeply, into the lives of broken and ultimately empty human beings and tries to give some spiritual weight to their experiences. Some images burn the screen and remain powerful as isolated shorts but they never quite gel as a cohesive whole. And after the film goes through the very simple arc of its characters, it goes on in a compulsory and repetitive succession of meaningless transitions. Here’s a film that could easily lose about 45 minutes of its run time and probably benefit from it.

The director, Gaspar Noe, shows a unique vision by seamlessly blending digital effects with optical tricks and weird camera angles. The movie is visually amazing even if ultimately pointless (it establishes its creativity from the very beginning with a chaotic and startling title sequence).

Noe was also responsible for the controversial “Irreversible” with its infamous rape scene featuring Monica Bellucci. That movie was also a visceral experiment in revenge and sexual violence in film filled with visual panache and focused performances. “Irreversible” is not a pleasant time at the theater but it’s a more accomplished movie than “Enter the Void” (even though its technical wonders kind of compensate for its lack of structure).

The best movie about addiction remains Darren Aronofsky’s “Requiem for a Dream”. It’s an acting tour de force and also an intense experience that plunges us into the very heart of darkness. The first time I saw it I was completely blown away by its directing style (Aronofsky uses close-ups, acute sounds and split screens to emulate the experience of taking drugs), and after multiple viewings I focused on the actors who really bare their souls for their roles. Ellen Burstyn in particular, achieves an astonishing transformation as a lonely widow gradually losing her mind. The film closes with a brutal and mesmerizing montage that culminates with the horrific consequences for each of the characters. “Requiem for a Dream” invests in its characters and sort of makes them implode through their addictions and, by avoiding any kind of catharsis, it gives the story a heartbreaking ache. “Enter the Void” isn’t nowhere near as poignant since its characters are empty shells; merely narrative vehicles for its audacious style.

None of these movies, however, glorify the experience of taking drugs and offer a raw glimpse into hell. By not patronizing an audience and offering a contrived happy ending, they remain powerful indictments against addiction.

Sin #92: Killing Field

Every smart psychopath finds a way to avoid getting caught. But, in a way, they’re flirting with that danger at every moment, relishing the wit of their actions. Some men kill as a form of punishment, others kill to satisfy an uncontrollable urge.

Take Lou Ford in “The Killer Inside Me”. As played by Casey Affleck he is the shy and likable sheriff of a small town, an exemplary citizen. After he gets entangled with a troubled prostitute, dark passions get stirred and Lou not only finds himself a beater but also finds a victim who enjoys it.

“The Killer Inside Me” is a dark movie, not only because of its graphic violence against women (as seen in a brutal scene with Jessica Alba that stirred great controversy after its premier in the Sundance Film Festival) but mostly because of the cold nature of its protagonist. Ford always remains an enigma throughout and even when we see flashbacks of a disturbed youth, we never truly get inside his head. It’s this sort of detachment that makes the movie strangely compelling as if saying that true evil can never be fully explained.

Every time I see a movie about a psychopath I’m reminded of Patrick Bateman, one of the most memorable killers ever portrayed onscreen as adapted from one of the most controversial books ever published. Bateman sits in a luxurious penthouse, waking every morning to perform his body rituals and staring into a mirror that doesn’t quite reflect the monster within. His life is really just a superficial façade of vanity and poise; except when he is killing, when it can get really dirty.

I love “American Psycho”, mostly because of Christian Bale’s fascinating performance that walks a fine line between restraint and madness but also because how director Mary Harron keeps pulling the rug on our perceptions of Bateman. After its ending, we’re left wondering if in fact the murders were all in his head.

When Bret Easton Ellis published his novel in 1991, feminists around the country called it misogynist and sadistic, failing to view it as a satire of the Wall Street mentality of the 80s. Ellis was surprised since he never intended to write a work of violence towards women but more of a twisted depiction of male vanity. “American Psycho “became a hot item in Hollywood during the 90s with many actors and filmmakers interested in the project (at one point it was going to be directed by Oliver Stone and Bateman was going to be played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who later turned it down for the simple reason that it was definitely going to affect his good boy persona from movies like “Romeo and Juliet” and “Titanic”). It’s great irony that a woman became the director of “American Psycho” and that she made a great adaptation of the material. Ellis’s novels are often hard to adapt since they’re mostly overindulgent with their dark undercurrent of the rich and glamorous (I admit that his “Glamorama” was a pretty dense read).

Some killers find a code to base their immoral actions. Dexter Morgan, from the brilliant TV show “Dexter”, punishes criminals in orders to satisfy his thirst of blood. His father was a policeman who understood his killer instincts and helped him to use them as a way of vigilance. Dexter’s whole life has been about control although sometimes it slips his grasp, especially in his personal relationships.

Ford, Bateman and Morgan are completely different killers but they all live with what Dexter lovingly calls his “dark passenger”. While their actions are morally reprehensible, as characters, they are very entertaining to watch.

Sin #91: Parlor Tricks

Films about magicians share a common thread; they’re usually about loners. In Sylvain Chomet’s “The Illusionist” we meet an aging magician working in cheap pubs and old theaters (whose simple act involves hats and rabbits while performing to a very small audience, sorry leftovers after a Rock and Roll show). To survive, he also takes jobs on clothing stores and garages, jobs which he detests.

“The Illusionist” brilliantly captures the everyday details of the city of Edinburgh (a rich city known for its gothic architecture that, kind of, smells of wet stone and seaweed the last time I visited it). The visual style of the movie is similar to Chomet’s “The Triplets of Belleville” but the tone is different, it goes for nostalgia instead of whimsy. I wanted to love this movie as much as I loved “The Triplets” but I missed the sense of joy of the earlier film. “The Illusionist” introduces a young woman who follows the magician around but we’re never sure about the nature of their relationship (although it could be deemed creepy considering their age differences, it’s never depicted in a sexual manner).

Chomet’s “The Illusionist” shouldn’t be confused with 2006’s “The Illusionist” starring Edward Norton, Jessica Biel and Paul Giamatti. That “Illusionist” was a traditional love story set early in the 20^th century. I liked the movie as an innocuous adventure with romantic undertones. Even though every actor is playing a stereotype (none more obvious than Rufus Sewell as the evil prince), the acting makes the film believable and very entertaining (even Biel shines in a role that is not your typical damsel in distress). The movie is a throwback to the more story-driven Hollywood genre pictures of old.

Shortly after “The Illusionist” was released in theaters, Christopher Nolan released “The Prestige”, a very different magician’s tale. The movie is yet another Nolan mind-bender focusing on the rivalry and obsession of two competing performers. The story is set within the invention of electricity, introducing Nikola Tesla as the inventor of a strange machine that may have supernatural powers (a whole movie could be made depicting the rivalry of Tesla and Edison during this period).

“The Prestige” is the kind of film that rewards multiple viewings, as every one of Nolan’s movies. The obsession in the story takes it to self-destructive consequences (in more than one sense) and the film clearly shows the risks of performing live stunts (we have to remember that Harry Houdini died in a fatal accident while performing). “The Prestige” is a richer experience than “The Illusionist” but it appeals to a different audience altogether (one more interested in dark and cerebral parables).

I’ve always liked magic. My father used to impress me with the most simple and banal tricks and on TV I always enjoyed watching David Copperfield and, more recently, David Blaine (even though I’m aware that editing is a big part of their performances). Still, there’s a fascination and awe for performers willing to give us seemingly impossible sights. Sometimes that’s all we need to distract ourselves from our mundane lives; what I didn’t know was the toll it took on them. After all, it’s hard to keep an audience’s attention.

Sin #90: Transcendental Crap

It’s no secret that Hollywood churns out dozens of bad movies every year; some of the worst break out through the gates right at the beginning, on January and February (months that have infamously become a dumping ground for failed productions).

Making a bad movie is easy enough (just ask Uwe Boll) but making a terrible movie that suddenly becomes a cult item must be a great feat (even though, as they’re making it, filmmakers have no clue as to the public’s reaction to the finished product). Take “Troll 2” for example; according to voters on the IMDB website it is the worst movie of all time. It was written and directed by an Italian couple who barely spoke any English and who thought they were dealing with some heavy issues.

Watching “Troll 2” is a curious experience. I expected to be entertained with its ludicrous plot but grew tired at its obvious incompetence and seriously bizarre sequences. There’s a kind of lunacy at work here that might have resulted appealing to the hundreds of “Troll 2” fans around the world but that failed to interest me in the slightest (was it too much to ask for campy fun?). The popularity of the movie was truly unexpected for its cast who were rightfully embarrassed at the film. The one positive aspect with the whole “Troll 2” fan lore support was the release of the documentary “Best Worst Movie”, which chronicles the impact of the movie as well as the lives of the people around the production (mainly George Hardy, who played the father in the film and who is a successful dentist, and all around nice guy, in his home town). He loves the attention and is thrilled to go around the United States promoting it.

“Best Worst Movie” is a much, much better film than “Troll 2”. It’s funny and poignant and entertaining. I saw it before even knowing of the existence of “Troll 2” and it made me curious to go back and check it out, only to realize that you really don’t need to see it in the first place.

One movie that does live to its infamy is Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room”, a hilariously incompetent drama with some of the worst performances ever captured on film. The worst is by Wiseau himself, who manages to turn every line of dialogue with a hysterically funny delivery (“You’re tearing me apart, Lisa”, “oh, hi Mark”). “The Room” has become the pun of every joke since its release but it has gathered a cult following (even celebrities like Paul Rudd have embraced the film) and there’s still packed midnight screenings. The first time I saw it I found myself appalled at how every scene was seriously misconceived and the whole story was stuck in a narrative blender that was sort of…brilliant. I saw the movie again and was equally enthralled and by the third viewing I truly realized how special “The Room” was. Tommy Wiseau is the real deal, a man so endearingly incompetent (think of him as a successor to Ed Wood) that his films become instantly addictive. He recently released a short film titled “The House That Drips Blood on Alex” that is very funny, once again, for all the wrong reasons.

There are a lot of reviews making fun of Wiseau and his “Magnum Opus” but it’s a movie that lingers on our mind like a parasite refusing to die. That is no small feat for a movie with such a banal plot (in a way, the film is an experience, impossible to describe). So, is “Troll 2” worst than “The Room”? Definitely, and expect a “The Room” and Wiseau documentary anytime soon.

By the way, Wiseau is planning a 3D version of the film and is ready to release the Bluray edition with loads of extras. Thank you, Tommy.

Sin #89: The Royal We

Few can deny the public’s fascination with the British Monarchy. Amid the hundreds of books and movies written about the nation’s royalty one can find a real-life melodrama playing to all our voyeuristic needs. One of the most acclaimed movies at this year’s Academy Awards is “The King’s Speech” starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter and Geoffrey Rush. It chronicles the rise of King George VI, a man who’s had a terrible stammer his whole life and now has to give a speech amidst the beginning of another terrible war with Germany. Bertie, as his family called him, is a man unsure of himself who never thought he’d be King (in fact, his older brother was heir to the throne but was forced to resign after he chose to marry an American divorcee). The film is impeccably shot and acted and could represent a prime example of what insiders call “Oscar bait”, a term used to describe movies more interested in garnering awards than connecting with audiences (this term might be a tad unfair for the movie since the story is quite engrossing). The main reason to see “The King’s Speech” is to marvel at the performances, especially Colin Firth’s brilliant portrayal that captures every physical nuance in the stammer and also makes the King a wholly sympathetic and yet deeply flawed individual. He’s the frontrunner at the best actor award, deservedly so.

In recent years there have been several films about the monarchy. A few years ago “The Queen” gave Helen Mirren a best actress Oscar. The movie poised itself among the controversy of Lady Di’s death in Paris sparking enormous criticism for the Queen and the establishment after she refused to give her a proper Royal burial (even though she divorced Prince Charles, in the public eye she remained the “People’s Princess”, a term coined by Tony Blair). The story also introduces Blair as prime minister, portraying a clash between liberal and conservative views. What I like about the movie is that it remains neutral to its characters; the Queen herself seems to rise from the stereotype of an old bitter woman resenting the public’s sudden disapproval although that’s not to say that she’s portrayed in a flattering manner since there are times that her scorn for Diana is quite obvious.

One can go through every history book and find an interesting story to tell. On TV we had Jonathan Rhys-Myers playing Henry VIII (in an unlikely yet entertaining portrayal) with “The Tudors”, which just ended after four successful seasons. Once again Helen Mirren played a Queen in the great HBO miniseries “Elizabeth I” and at the movies Cate Blanchett played that same role in two films (the first was widely acclaimed while the second one was mostly ignored).

A recent example of a handsome and involving production is “The Young Victoria” starring Emily Blunt (very good in the title role), which portrays the romance with Prince Albert. The movie is beautifully made with great attention to period details and shot with a fresh and modern perspective (although it isn’t as jarringly anachronistic as in Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” which was all about blending pop sensibilities to a stylized version of 18^th century France).

There’s no denying that these movies play to our fantasies about monarchs. We place them among the common man and yet identify with their plights and even care for them. In a way, except for maybe their wealth, they might not be all that different from us.

Sin #88: Oscar Season 2011

After the Golden Globes nomination fiasco, where some of the worst-reviewed movies of the year were in for big awards (namely “The Tourist” and “Burlesque”), the Academy Awards nominations show a much saner choice of candidates for the top prizes. The 10-best list include: Black Swan, The Social Network, True Grit, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The Fighter, Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3, The King’s Speech and 127 Hours. There are fantastic movies on this list (including “True Grit”, a movie that was completely ignored at the Golden Globes), but since there are only 5 directing nominations, those usually reflect the five films that are truly in the race. The nominated directors are Darren Aronofsky for “Black Swan”, the Coen brothers for “True Grit”, David Fincher for “The Social Network”, Tom Hooper for “The King’s Speech” and David O. Russell for “The Fighter”. So those are the real best picture nominees. If I had to take a guess I would say that the winner will be “The Social Network”; not only has it won in almost every major awards event but it is also representative of our times and our cultural obsession with digital communication and social media (there seems to be rumors that “True Grit” is gaining momentum and that maybe “The King’s Speech” might take the award since it is a more “traditional” Oscar movie).

Just as in any year, there are upsets; one of the most prominent is Christopher Nolan’s snub as a directing nominee. After “The Dark Knight’s” snub a couple of years ago as a deserving Best Picture nominee, it is now clear that the Academy doesn’t really appreciate Nolan’s talent to produce smart and sprawling entertainments. His “Inception” is an outstanding movie of great imagination and technical craft; it is a grand work of ideas that caused endless debate among audiences. Even though it is my favorite movie of 2010, it is highly unlikely that it will be rewarded in any category except for the technical ones.

I am glad though that the Academy recognized the brilliant “Black Swan”. Aronofsky is quickly becoming one of cinema’s most audacious directors and his latest work is an amazing descent into madness set in the competitive world of professional ballet. It is safe to say that Natalie Portman will take the award for Best Actress, she surely deserves it. Colin Firth, the most probable winner for male acting, also deserves the recognition (he should have won for “A Single Man” a year ago).

It’s sad (but unsurprising) that the Oscars showed no love for “Scott Pilgrim” or “Tron: Legacy”. “Scott” should’ve been rewarded for its awesome editing and special effects and “Tron” for its brilliant soundtrack composed by Daft Punk. In the acting categories it’s incredible that Noomi Rapace wasn’t acknowledged for her work in the Millennium Trilogy or any of the actors in “Never Let Me Go”.

There are actually two happy surprises as Javier Bardem was nominated for his amazing work in “Biutiful” and the film got also a nod in Best Foreign movie (representing Mexico); also that “Exit at the Gift Shop” got a nod as best documentary (I would love to see a Banksy doppelganger at the podium, accepting the award). The one Oscar that nobody doubts is in Best Animated Feature with “Toy Story 3” which seems to be universally loved (except for maybe critic Armond White).

The Academy Awards will be hosted by Anne Hathaway and James Franco (who is also nominated for his great performance in “127 Hours”) and will air on February 27.

Sin #87: Let Go

Remember Michael Bay’s “The Island”? In the movie we were introduced to an underground colony of clones that were told that the outside world had suddenly become inhabitable (don’t really remember the specific reasons). After one clone discovers the secret of their seclusion (basically that they were being harvested for their organs) he decides to escape with a fellow prisoner (the gorgeous Scarlett Johansson). “The Island” is not interested in the child-like personalities of the clones and their tragic fates; it starts with an intriguing dystopia that never becomes more than window dressing for the later action sequences. The special effects were really good but the movie had a strange and ambiguous marketing campaign that turned it into Bay’s only box-office flop. I didn’t hate the movie (it’s certainly much better than “Pearl Harbor”, “Transformers”, “Armageddon” or any one of Bay’s spectacles for audiences with short attention-spans) but there’s a wasted potential in this intriguing premise since there’s no attempt to delve into the clones’ plight. And don’t even get me started on “Episode II: The Attack of the Clones”.

Just when I think that I won’t find a provocative science fiction story about clones, here comes a beautiful existential drama that goes deep into the issue. That would be Mark Romanek’s haunting “Never Let Me Go”.

It all starts at one of those British boarding schools where the children are well-groomed and well-behaved. But there’s something not quite right since the children can’t even cross the fence to pick up a ball and there’s a sense of despair when they gather to listen to the daily announcements from their principal. One day, a teacher decides to tell her students the truth; they will never grow old and lead happy lives. Their destinies are to become organ donors.

Kathy, one of the girls, begins to develop a crush on Tommy. But he is shy and angry and becomes seduced by Ruth, envious of Kathy’s harboring love. As the years pass Kathy begins to drift away but is always in wait for Tommy to love her. In one of their trips together they hear about a rumor that if a couple truly proved they were in love they would be given some more years to spend together before their donation.

“Never Let Me Go” is a heartbreaking film that makes us wonder about what it really means to be human. I’ve read some fascinating inquiries about the nature of the story relating to why didn’t the clones escape if they had the possibility to roam free and if there were really any “real” versions of themselves out there. I don’t think they had anywhere to go and that there were any “real” versions, which makes the story even more tragic. The performances are amazing all around, from Carey Mulligan who was Oscar-nominated for her performance in “An Education” to Andrew Garfield who will be the new Spiderman in next year’s reboot and who showed great range in Fincher’s “The Social Network”.

“Never Let Me Go” is yet another literary adaptation whose book I haven’t read; all I know is that it’s considered a masterpiece and impossible to film. As a stand-alone piece, the movie is amazing since it evokes a mood that we rarely see in Hollywood productions (it also refuses to end with a tidy and happy conclusion that would betray its fragile nature). Here’s a movie whose images and characters are not easy to forget.

Sin #86: Coming Attractions, First Half of 2011

Here are the most anticipated movies based on directors, actors and trailers for the first half of 2011:

-The Green Hornet (Gondry): Here’s the movie that takes Michel Gondry’s inventive style to the mainstream. Based on the popular TV series (which had Bruce Lee as a sidekick) the film features a much slimmer Seth Rogen in the title role (and also in the role of screenwriter) and an appealing visual style (which might be ruined by the 3D conversation). We can only hope for campy fun.

-Paul (Mottola): Another Rogen movie (this time he lends his voice to an alien) along with two of the funniest actors in British cinema as partners (I’m talking about the invaluable team of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg). “Paul” is directed by the guy who brought us “Superbad”. I’m sold.

-Rango (Verbinski): Johnny Depp is one of cinema’s busiest actors; here he takes the part of a chameleon (with the help of motion capture). “Rango’s” trailer is intriguing with a fantastic animation style and a talented cast (they all had to act out the movie and then were animated). There are always a handful of mediocre animated films every year but this one looks interesting.

-Jane Eyre (Fukunaga): Yet another adaptation of the famous Charlotte Bronte novel (I remember an excellent version with Charlotte Gainsborough and William Hurt in the nineties). This one features a very strong cast with Mia Wasikowska (of “Alice in Wonderland” fame) and Michael Fassbender, who is an amazing British actor who will star in the new X-Men movie later this year.

-Sucker Punch (Snyder): If anything, “Sucker Punch” has the most awesome trailer of 2011; it features hot girls, guns, robots, ninjas, you name it. Here is another kick-ass action movie by Zack Snyder (who is ready to bring his style to the Superman reboot). “Sucker Punch” might be one of the most entertaining movies of the year.

-Source Code (Jones): Duncan Jones’s film debut was the rather brilliant “Moon”, a classic sci-fi movie with a terrific performance by Sam Rockwell. For his next film he takes on another sci-fi premise working with a very strong cast lead by Jake Gyllenhaal. Even though it looks more commercially appealing then “Moon”, Jones has proven that he is a promising talent.

-Hanna (Wright): A 14-year old girl trained as an assassin? A global thriller from the director of “Atonement” and “Pride and Prejudice”? “Hanna” is quite an intriguing movie thanks to a promising trailer and an excellent cast (with Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana and lead by Saoirse Ronan, whose performance in “The Lovely Bones” was the best part of the movie).

-The Tree of Life (Malick): I’m not a fan of Terrence Malick (I hate the self indulgent mess that is “The Thin Red Line”) but the trailer of “The Tree of Life” is simply stunning, if a little ambiguous. The film has been in post-production for ages and the story is not yet quite clear. This might be an ambitious masterwork or yet another pretentious mess. We’ll have to wait and see.