Sin #51: Love and Marriage

On the surface, the Wheelers seem like an ordinary couple living in suburbia circa 1950. Frank works for a boring company (following his father’s example) and April stays at home acting like a proper housewife. Ever since they met at a party years ago, Frank has dreamt of becoming an artistic refugee in Paris and April has loved Frank’s rebel spirit that currently seems to have been crushed thanks to the ambitions of corporate life; she suggests moving to Europe but she knows, deep down, that that dream will never fulfill itself.

“Revolutionary Road” is a tragic story of loss and unspoken angst that is simply devastating to behold. The Wheelers aren’t bad people but we sense that Frank and April have given up hope on their understanding of each other; there simply isn’t a way out of their misery. The movie explores some of the same issues as the TV series “Mad Men” that also analyzes the hypocrisy of married life and stereotypes in the fifties, especially the intrinsic sexism found in society (its hero works on a male dominated advertising company). Sam Mendes directs “Revolutionary Road” with fearless directness that both skims the surface and, at the same time, cuts very deep into the psyche of its characters. The film is boosted by the amazing performances of Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Michael Shannon (in a staggering supporting role that shakes the foundation of the couple’s perception). This is a difficult and sad movie that brings a jolt of realism to the conventions of romance and married life on movies.

Now picture, on the other side of the spectrum, Burt and Verona, a happy and optimistic couple about to have a baby. They journey through the Unites States visiting friends and family, searching for a new home. In “Away We Go” Mendes lovingly portraits a couple that has found true happiness in each other’s arms, practically the antithesis of the Wheelers. The times have changed from the repressed fifties to a more open modern age and young and healthy people like Burt and Verona are allowed to enjoy a steadfast and communal life without the pressures of society’s burdens. They are young, smart and hip individuals unable to understand why other couples allow the kind of repressions that destroys lives or the bizarre methods of children’s education (seen in a hilarious and heartfelt sequence featuring Maggie Gyllenhaal). The movie works as a comedy but also as a touching story of hope.

“Away we Go” doesn’t carry the glum and depressing tone of “Revolutionary Road” and is more in touch with younger audiences with its criticism of snobbery. But Sam Mendes is a master of tone and never leaves his characters stranded in a plot on auto-pilot. With both films he shows a very distinctive view of relationships and its consequences. In one film it’s a tragedy and in the other it’s a blessing.

Sin #50: Crash of the Titans

Something happened during the screening of Louis Leterrier’s “Clash of the Titans”; as I was watching it I violently realized how different audiences were back in 1981, when the original premiered. The new movie shifts motivations and personalities in order to satisfy the hunger for overblown special effects and in the process sacrifices the humor, adventure and romance that made the original so entertaining and effective.

Let’s begin with Perseus, the hero in both versions. In the 1981 version he was played by Harry Hamlin as a stiff and awkward young man who doesn’t realize he is actually the son of Zeus and is caught in a journey where he falls in love with the princess Andromeda, about to be sacrificed to the Gods. It’s his love for her that makes him want to defeat the Kraken, a mythical creature, and save her.

In the 2010 version he is played by Sam Worthington, in a lazy performance that isn’t too far off from his Jake Sully in “Avatar” (he even gets to keep his modern haircut). In this movie he doesn’t even fall in love with the princess, his motivations for defeating the Kraken are purely egotistical as he seeks revenge against Hades, who was responsible for his family’s demise. The movie is so poorly written that there really is no emotional connection whatsoever.

Now, about the gods themselves; in the 1981 version there were a lot of scenes featuring Zeus, Thetis, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Athena and others. There really was a sense of true scheming and discussion around the council, but that Zeus ruled justly and firmly. In the 2010 version we barely get to see the council at all and virtually nobody has any dialogue except for Zeus and Hades (an unnecessary additional villain for the remake); there’s no sense of a dynamic within the council, it’s all about Zeus. In the first movie he was played gracefully by the great Shakespearean actor Lawrence Olivier and in the remake he’s played by Liam Neeson in an over-the-top performance that drifts between seriousness and campiness on equal measures. His Zeus is a confused deity who can’t decide if he wants to kill the humans or save them, if he loves his son or despises him. The movie also creates a character named Lo who is Perseus’s guardian but doesn’t really contribute anything to the plot (there’s a brief flirtation between them that never pays off).

The special effects in the new version are better than the previous one but still there’s a sense of wonder and joy that is missing. While the original combined stop-motion and rear projection to create the menacing creatures, the new one overuses mediocre CGI. The sequence of Medusa is a thousand times more suspenseful in the 1981 version even though Medusa was basically a clay doll, but the way the filmmakers approached the design of her layer made it frightening. The new one feels like a dumb action sequences that lacks rhythm and falls flat. The same can be said about the Kraken who is too similar in design to the creature in “Cloverfield”; he never goes beyond an obvious effect.

“Clash of the Titans”, the remake, is a dumb action picture with bad performances and a cheesy script that turns the mythical journey into a bore. It’s proof that Hollywood likes to dumb down their blockbusters for audiences with short attention span. While special effects extravaganzas can be involving (like with the “Lord of the Rings”), most of the new films lack heart and soul; that’s why “Clash of the Titans” of 1981 is better in the areas that actually count.

Sin #49: The Critics

The general consensus among moviegoers is that film critics are pompous assholes who sit above the rest praising high art and demeaning popular entertainment. Since virtually anyone can write a review, why the hell do we need them, right?

Well, while it may be true that anyone can spurt an opinion about a movie, a critic will always have a more thoughtful criteria, merely because of the fact that he sees a lot more movies than the average moviegoer. A good critic will analyze different aspects of the production, reveal its emotional impact and state an opinion that doesn’t claim to be an indisputable fact (he has to acknowledge that there are people that may enjoy the movie even if it rebukes their personal assertion). My favorite critic, Roger Ebert, whom I not always agree with, is a terrific writer (winner of the Pulitzer Prize, no doubt) and always brings important points to his reviews that deserve to be considered.

The job of the critic is not to agree with the majority of the population’s view but to state an educated opinion, helping the viewer to come up with his own conclusions. The extent of their influence depends mostly on the education of their readers; casual moviegoers don’t even care in taking their time choosing worthy movies to watch on the weekend (this attitude helps turn fiascos like “Transformers 2” into huge box office hits).

It’s been a difficult time for critics. Todd McCarthy, the respected critic for Variety was recently fired and the show “At the Movies”, which a long time ago was hosted by Ebert and Gene Siskel, has been cancelled. Some blame the internet, since bloggers and web critics instantly publish their reviews on websites and offer a more convenient (and economical) approach than buying a magazine or newspaper. Technological advances like Facebook or Twitter have even enabled people to instantly publish comments, even during a screening in theaters (most of these comments however read something like: “OMG! The movie was awesome!! J”)

Still, I find fascinating reading “old-school” critics like Ebert (whose blog is also a marvelous example of fine and evocative writing), A.O. Scott, Peter Travers and Michael Phillips; of the web-based critics I enjoy James Berardinelli who is also a talented writer. I enjoy that they are smart people who write out of joy and enthusiasm for cinema and are mere observers of its evolution; it’s them who give film criticism a good name.

They can be read at their respective websites:

Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

A.O.Scott: http://movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html

Peter Travers: http://www.rollingstone.com/

Michael Phillips: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/

James Berardinelli: http://www.reelviews.net/movies.php

Sin #48: Beatlemania!

Imagine the roaring crowds in the stadium so mighty that they drown the music you’re playing or dozens of girls chasing you through the already crowded streets of London while you’re making your way to rehearsals. Back in 1964 it was a pretty ordinary ordeal for the ultimate Fab Four, The Beatles. John, Paul, George and Ringo rose to fame pretty quickly and delivered some of the best music ever recorded. In “A Hard Day’s Night”, we meet them at the peak of their careers in a movie that isn’t really a documentary but more of a fun reimaging of their public personas; John was quirky and cynical, Paul was more serious and responsible, George was playful and smart and Ringo was kind of a hipster doofus (to steal a line from “Seinfeld”). As we watch them avoiding rehearsals and frustrating their manager beyond his point of sanity we realize that these guys are having the time of their lives (the “Can’t Buy Me Love” sequence perfectly summarizes their ultimate sense of joy).

Even though The Beatles were involved in several movies, their most memorable remains “A Hard Day’s Night” and “Yellow Submarine” (“Help”, which reunites them with director Richard Lester, is a mess, the only thing worth are the amazing songs; buy the album instead). Even though more than four decades have passed since the release of “A Hard Day’s Night” it hasn’t aged a day. It remains relevant thanks to its playful tone and all the more fascinating because it proves that the band members had engaging personalities and held our interest, also because we now know about Lennon’s tragic demise (he will forever remain as one of the great heroes for his message of peace and tolerance).

“Yellow Submarine” was a completely different endeavor for The Beatles. First of all, they weren’t even involved directly on the production of the animated feature (the voices belong to other actors who are remarkably convincing playing them) and it was only when it was finished that they saw the true potential for the movie (they finally appear as themselves at the end cracking some jokes and having fun). “Yellow Submarine” is an exhilarating psychedelic trip that seems crammed with hundreds of details worth exploring with multiple viewings. We follow a fantastical journey on the submarine against strange and obnoxious creatures called blue meanies and how they are defeated by the Fab Four’s great songs (with a few detours like the encounter with the Nowhere Man).

In today’s world The Beatles have become a pretty recognizable brand (the proof of this can be seen with the release of Rock Band: The Beatles, which I got to admit, is a pretty fun videogame) but they remain, nonetheless, terrific musicians with a great legacy of rock and roll albums.

Sin #47: Fathers and Sons

I’ve always had a problem with Tim Burton’s “Big Fish”. In it we encounter a man who neglected his family for many years and now, lying on his death bed, tries to make amends with his son, who barely knew him at all; all he knew about his father were his loony and contrived fantastical stories of his youth. I know we’re supposed to smile at the flashbacks and the wacky characters but I cringed knowing that the father was in reality a pathological liar and that not even at the end could he be honest with his family (his wife looks resigned looming over the man, as if she accepted a long time ago that some people really never do change). To this day I find “Big Fish” to be one of Burton’s lesser efforts (along with his ill-advised “Planet of the Apes” remake).

There are, however, more honest encounters of fathers and sons on film. One of the most powerful happens in Paul Thomas Anderson’s magnificent “Magnolia”, when a character played by Tom Cruise confronts his father, a man who abandoned him when he was very young. The scene is heartbreaking and the actors bring ferocious intensity; not only is it Cruise’s best performance ever but the movie is a tragic mosaic of regret and sorrow. It may be one of the most powerful dramas ever made and the scene between father and son (the father was played by a very sick Jason Robards, who passed away after filming) is among many unforgettable moments of explosive and corrosive emotion (another memorable scene is the singing montage featuring a song by Aimee Mann).

Recently I had the chance to watch a Hungarian movie called “Taxidermia” that, in a way, also deals with a relationship with a father and his son (this takes place in the movie’s third act). The film has a curious three-way structure; in the first act we meet the grandfather in his youth, a soldier with a very strong libido who gets shot after raping a large woman on a farm (the raping part could be debated, I guess), the second part is all about the father, an obese man who enters in extreme food competitions and is in love and finally the third act deals with the son who is a taxidermist, taking care of his father, who’s become so large that he can’t even stand up anymore.

“Taxidermia” is such an audacious work that many will find it unbearable. It contains images that are repulsive and grotesque, morbidly fascinating and utterly repugnant, and yet there is something meaningful and artistic about the whole endeavor. At the end it left me baffled and confused (especially at the actions of the taxidermist at the end and its moral implications) and yet I was fascinated at how daring and provoking it really is, changing characters and tones between segments and juggling between black comedy, psychosexual drama and horror. It really is a unique piece of cinema even though most audiences wouldn’t dare give it a chance.

Sin #46: Road Kill

The Fireflys’ aren’t your typical run-of-the-mill family; they live in an old decrepit house that would settle in the” middle of nowhere” if only “middle of nowhere” were an actual address on the map. The mother is a screaming lunatic and her oldest son is a serial killer who loves to practice the art of vivisection with his victims (usually cheerleaders) and turn them into grotesque trophies; the less said about the rest of the family the better (and that’s not counting the depraved Dr. Satan who lives in the subterranean catacombs beneath the house).

When Rob Zombie released “House of 1000 Corpses” back in 2002 it was reviled by almost every critic. Since the horror genre has been paralyzed for some time thanks to hundreds of retreats and remakes, I pretty much thought Zombie’s debut (he began as a musician and a music video director) as a filmmaker would be a witless bore.

I was very wrong, “House of 1000 Corpses” is a manic and thoroughly entertaining freak show of a movie, and while the film is hardly scary or suspenseful it is amusing, funny and engrossing thanks to some of the most original characters I’ve seen in a while (Captain Spaulding has already become a popular icon). Zombie directs the movie with gusto using lots of visual trickery that includes split screens, old grainy footage, reverse negatives and psychedelic colors making the experience a kaleidoscopic wild ride. It may be shallow but it’s a lot of fun.

For the sequel “The Devil’s Rejects”, Zombie went for a more brutal, down-to-earth approach. Gone were the gimmicky visual tricks and instead there’s an unrelenting focus on these psychopaths and their journey towards doom. “The Devil’s Rejects” feels like a Grindhouse 70’s picture (right down to the barren landscapes, the violence and Lynyrd Skynyrd’s classic “Freebird”) and is a lot more disturbing than “House of 100o Corpses” thanks to its stark and realistic scenes of torture and overall mayhem. Even though the movie features some of the most despicable characters ever seen on the screen, Zombie achieves the difficult task of giving them dignity and empathy; the last frames even acquire an unexpected poignancy (he fails, however, to add any shred of credibility or interest to his “Halloween” remakes which make the mistakes “The Devil Reject’s” avoids).

Most movies focus on their heroes and forget about their villains; their motivations never go beyond punishing those who trespass their lands and they never get to become more than mere movie monsters. With “House of 1000 Corpses” and “The Devil’s Rejects” however we care about the villains and their destinies and have a blast watching them on their inevitable spiral of death. How many horror movies can claim to do the same?

Sin #45: Coming Attractions 2010

I’m taking a break from writing about great movies and filmmakers to delve into 2010’s most anticipated movies based on directors, actor’s or even trailers (there are some pretty good ones, surprisingly). So, here we go:

-Clash of the Titans (Letterier): The Original “Clash of the Titans” (1981) boasts some pretty dated special effects but it was simply a lot of fun, this new remake promises to be, at least, technically superior. Will it deliver some of the charm and entertainment value of the original? We can only hope so.

-The Ghost Writer (Polanski): Controversy has surrounded Roman Polanski for most of his life and now that he faces trial and conviction for his rape accusations more than 3 decades ago it’s unfortunate that his personal life has overshadowed his movies. “The Ghost Writer” seems like an interesting political thriller with a terrific cast; the reviews so far have been great.

-Kick-Ass (Vaughn): This ultraviolent movie about kid superheroes features one of the best trailers of the season. Watching the rapport between Nicolas Cage and his on-screen daughter may be worth the price of the ticket alone and, not only that, but it also features McLovin as a superhero. This I got to see.

-Iron Man 2 (Favreau): The first “Iron Man” was a pleasant surprise, a smart superhero movie that cemented Robert Downey Jr. as one of cinemas most charismatic actors. This sequel adds terrific actors to the mix, like Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell and Scarlett Johansson. Let’s hope the movie lives up to the original.

-Robin Hood (Scott): Even though it looks like Gladiator-redux, “Robin Hood” at least promises awesome battle sequences from Ridley Scott, who is the master of this kind of thing. This movie is also in charge of opening the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, so we can hope it delivers rousing entertainment.

-Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (Newell): Ok, most of videogame to movie adaptations have really sucked (sometimes to epic levels of awfulness) but this movie at least looks visually interesting and a lot of fun. Director Mike Newell might just succeed in making a worthy adaptation, we’ll have to wait and see.

-Micmacs (Jeunet): Every Jeunet movie (except for “Alien Resurrection”) is a fantastic work of art and “Micmacs” doesn’t seem to disappoint. With quirky characters and a stylized look reminiscent of “Amelie”, this movie promises to be one of the most imaginative works of 2010. Can’t wait to see it.

-Splice (Natali): From the director of the original “Cube” (which is really an original and underrated thriller) comes this new horror movie about a couple of scientist who create a new kind of organism. The reviews have been mixed so far, but at least it looks interesting and features two engaging actors, with Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley.

-Toy Story 3 (Unkrich): After more than a decade since the release of the second film, “Toy Story 3” is one of the most anticipated sequels of the year and surely a guarantee for box office success. The most promising aspect (besides the return of all our favorite characters) is that the screenwriter is the man who wrote “Little Miss Sunshine”, so expect bittersweet delight.

-Predators (Antal): This might not look like a great movie but it features a good cast and promises plenty of predator action. With Robert Rodriguez as producer it might even be fun; it certainly can’t be worse than those horrid “Alien vs. Predator” movies.

-Inception (Nolan): This is my most anticipated movie of the year (it could potentially be one of the very best, too). Although the plot remains a mystery, the cast (which is one of the great ensembles I’ve seen) and with the presence of director Christopher Nolan, it promises a wild ride.

-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Wright): The first trailer for this movie is awesome. With a stunning visual style that remains very close to its comic-book source and the talent of director Edgar Wright (of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” fame), this might be one of the most exciting movies of 2010.

-The Expendable (Stallone): Yes, this might be one big steaming pile of shit (or surprisingly entertaining like Stallone’s “Rambo IV”) but just look at the cast! It’s like a flashback to the 80s all the way.

-The American (Corbijn): Anton Corbijn is an amazing music video director who debuted in movies with “Control”, the story of Ian Curtis, leader of Joy Division. “The American” teams him with George Clooney. Let’s hope the results are as intriguing as they sound.

-Buried (Cortes): “Buried” has the gimmick of being completely shot inside a coffin and only featuring the performance of Ryan Reynolds (the rest of the cast is only overheard). At Sundance it got rave reviews and it certainly promises to be a tense thriller reminiscent of “Phone Booth” or “Cellular”.

-Machete (Rodriguez): For anyone who has seen the brilliant fake trailer for “Machete” on the “Planet Terror” DVD you can easily figure out what this movie is about (“You don’t fuck with this Mexican”, says it all). Surprisingly enough, “Machete” features a strange cast that ranges from Lindsay Lohan to Robert Deniro. Might be great.

-“Tron Legacy” (Kosinski): Even though the original “Tron” was made more than 30 years ago, this sequel seems destined to update its effects in glorious 3D(…). The teaser trailer is intriguing and the visuals are pretty hallucinatory (not to mention the soundtrack is by Daft Punk). This looks like one trippy ride.

And for those into art cinema here’s a list of potential masterpieces.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/cannes_film_festival_wish_list_2010/

Sin #44: Kubrick: Master and Commander

A man raises his eyebrow and stares directly into the camera. He is sitting down in the Korova Milk Bar next to his chums while he gives a monologue about rape and a little bit of the ultra-violence.

A little boy drives his tricycle through the open halls of an ominous hotel as he encounters twin sisters; suddenly an overwhelming wave of blood comes pouring in. At the same time, his father starts seeing ghosts.

Dr. Strangelove begins explaining the dire consequences of a nuclear strike by the Russians who are ready to deploy their weapons after an insane American military commander has disrupted protocol and initiated an invasion.

An intelligent machine named HAL is responsible for taking a couple of astronauts on a secret mission to uncover a distress signal. HAL begins to boycott the mission and one of the astronauts decides to shut him down. As he drifts off he begins to sing: daisy, daisy…give me you answer do…

All these classic scenes come from the same imagination; the imagination of Stanley Kubrick, a filmmaker who brought us some of the most powerful images on the screen. He began his career as a photographer and turned to feature films after his fascination with the mechanics of film technique. To his co-workers he was a perfectionist who oversaw every aspect of the production and endlessly repeated takes until he found the perfect moment (which drove many of his actors insane, especially Shelley Duvall on the set of “The Shining”) but he usually delivered works of art that became part of popular culture. With each movie Kubrick began to consolidate himself as one of cinema’s great masters and one of the essential film auteurs.

Every time he released a movie, it became an event; that is until he passed away on March 1999, days before the premier of his last movie “Eyes Wide Shut”. In the documentary “Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures” he is remembered by family and friends as a cold, detached and obsessive artist but also as a loving and caring husband and father. The impact of his films was undeniable (some to the point of controversy, like with “A Clockwork Orange” which was held responsible for a wave of crimes that emulated the characters in the film).

Today, his movies are seen as classics; works that pushed the boundaries of each genre and colonized a new place in the subconscious of audiences. As an artist, few directors were as influential as Kubrick and few were as beloved; his brilliance echoes in the works of today’s talents (like Darren Aronosfky or Paul Thomas Anderson) and will, undoubtedly, carry on.

Sin #43: Devil in the Church

Father Olive O’Grady is a devious predator who began his sexual molestation rampage back in the seventies whilst living among naïve catholic families that trusted him. For decades he abused their trust, engaged in sexual activities with young children and moved to different parishes in California, hiding behind the hypocritical veil of the holy church. For them pedophilia remained merely a nuisance and not a sin or even a destructive force among families; it’s almost an ancestral tradition for the clergy, after centuries of enforcing a ridiculous celibacy oath, to take children and “touch” them as they simply put it. Frankly, all this is sickening and disgusting.
“Deliver us from Evil” gives faces to the victims of pedophilia and to its perpetrators making the movie a devastating document against the attitudes of the church and the conspiracy to cover up and even protect members of its organization. These charges go all the way to Pope Benedict XVI who is, even today, receiving criticism for his choices on the matter. Can the church survive this scandal? I hope not, since they need to account for the thousands of molestation cases all around the world.

Watching this documentary I was confronted by a series of conflicting emotions. Hearing O’ Grady’s confessional made me angry and enraged; here’s a man that’s clearly damaged and somewhat detached from his terrible actions and yet he is a monster that enjoys hiding in plain view, whose regrets are clearly insincere and who remains a cold and evil human being. As for the victims, I felt compassion and utter sadness since this man ruined their chances of happiness forever; their stories are the hardest parts to watch.

There’s also another movie related to the subject that’s more ambiguous about the moral implications of abuse. That’s “Doubt” starring Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams, in which a priest is accused by a nun of molesting a child in her school; of course she doesn’t have definitive proof but she senses something wrong and becomes transfixed in punishing him. People around her think it’s merely a personal vendetta and that the priest has always been exemplary in his behavior but she sees behind his lies.

Of course, the audience can draw their own conclusions about the characters in “Doubt”, but after watching “Deliver us From Evil” they acquire another layer of complexity. One might be a stimulating and intellectually challenging movie but the other is simply heartbreaking and unforgettable. It’s a shame that justice will never be served as these men roam around in their cloaks and betray the faith people bestowed on them.

Sin #42: Pen Pals

There’s something quite special about writing a letter, and when I say letter I mean an actual hand-written piece of paper. Even though we’ve become accustomed to the wonders of computer advancements, I’ve always thought there was something impersonal about e-mails; sure, they are quite easy to send and practical to write but I’ve never been as interested or stimulated by them and I’ve grown frustrated by the amount of spam currently sitting in my inbox. Of course these are troubles of modern times; some decades ago all people had were pens, paper and writing machines (which use can be equally frustrating, at least for me).

For a lonely girl living in the seventies in Australia it must have been hard, considering that her school mates make fun of her and at home her father is distant and mother is a raging alcoholic. It seems that her only friends in the whole world are some ugly figurines of a cartoon show on TV; this is the life of Mary Daisy Dinkle.

On the other side of the globe, in New York City, an obese man with serious psychological problems lies in his couch watching TV and eating chocolate hot dogs. He spends most days as a recluse and suffers from constant nervous breakdowns; this is the life of Max Jerry Horovitz.

One day Mary goes to the post office and rips a page from the archives that feature Max’s address. She decides to write to him and explain her current situation; he writes back and suddenly an unusual friendship starts to develop.

“Mary and Max” is a delightful stop-motion animated film from Australia that may be too mature and sophisticated (and rather sad) for younger audiences. We follow the journey of these two characters and care for them; they are more human that many of the ones that feature in live action dramas.

I don’t know why the Academy failed to nominate “Mary and Max” in the best animated feature category but at least they honored “The Secret of Kells”, a fantastic Irish cartoon that returns to the classic 2D tradition of animation (which is getting rare in the American animated industry).

In a way “The Secret of Kells” is also about writing; this one is more about passing the traditions and ideas of a community. The book of Kells remains one of the most important objects of Celtic folklore and the movie does a great job in taking these tales and make them accessible for all audiences.

Both these movies are superior entertainments that not only amuse but also move us. They are testaments to the power of ideas.

Sin #41: Good Luck!

“The man who said "I'd rather be lucky than good" saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose.”

Chris Wilton

These words open Woody Allen’s great “Match Point”. In it Allen takes us on a story of jealousy and betrayal that ends in tragedy (he gives us a big clue by having Chris read Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment at the beginning of the story).

Reading the opening words again reminded of a Spanish film called “Intacto” that features a group of characters with very good luck indeed. They engage in a diabolical series of tests where they bet all of their possessions and even the fates of other people (there’s a particularly thrilling sequences where the characters are blindfolded and forced to run through the woods).

“Intacto” was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and represents another fascinating Spanish thriller that’s smart, suspenseful and utterly original (much like “Cronocrimenes”, another wonderful film). It’s fascinating to contemplate characters who gamble with their lives in bizarre situations. If there’s really such a thing as good luck, then it’d be interesting to deal with the consequences of fate and destiny (if indeed there’s a cosmic purpose in each life).

On the other hand, there’s got to be people with very bad luck, people like Bernie Loots, the hero of “The Cooler”. Bernie works in a casino in a very curious role; he goes around the tables looking for people on a winning streak and with a simple touch brings them bad luck (hence the name, cooler). This amazing trait, however, comes with a price; in order to bring bad luck Bernie has to be endlessly depressed. For years this hasn’t been a problem but now he has met a beautiful woman named Natalie; for the first time in his life he is happy and in love.

“The Cooler” isn’t a supernatural drama; its down-to-earth approach to Bernie’s ability is refreshing and the film is sometimes sexy, sometimes funny and always very entertaining.

Do I believe in luck? I think so. Sometimes things happen beyond our reach and understanding. If people could control those uncertain events they’d have a great and mighty power. At least we have the good fortune to experience terrific movies about luck, that’ll do for now.

Sin #40: The Two Sides of Lonely

Some people are really lonely. Take Lars, for example; he’s a socially awkward young man who works in an office and doesn’t have any friends, he lives next to his brother’s house and isolates himself on most of his spare time. He’s so distant that even human touch physically hurts him.

One day something strange happens; he informs his brother and his wife that he’s found a woman he likes and that he’d like to introduce them to her. Of course they’re delighted by the news since it means that maybe Lars can eventually become an active member of the community once again and lead a normal life. The curious thing about her is that she isn’t a woman at all; she’s in fact a sex doll named Bianca and part of a delusional fantasy created by Lars.

“Lars and the Real Girl” isn’t about madness or even loneliness but rather understanding and forgiveness. With its premise it could work as either drama or comedy but the film is wise and tender about its subject and empathizes with Lars. Even though the attitude of Lars’s community isn’t realistic, there’s a naïve sense of joy and at the end it even leaves us with a smile.

On the other hand loneliness can indeed lead to madness. Imagine a stranger arriving on a barren wasteland of a town. He can be kind and somewhat charming but there’s something odd about him lurking beneath the surface; a woman starts falling for him and invites him to live with her and after that very strange things happen that include a crazy paranoid conspiracy theory and the notion of a bug infestation.

“Bug”, directed by William Friedkin (who also made “The Exorcist”) is a diabolical thriller that gradually becomes more and more ominous. It starts with simple characters that eventually delve into madness and never come back. The last scenes of the film are so far the deep end that we admire the acting even more since the actors go to risky places losing all sense of vanity in the process.

The movie resembles the play it was based on since it mostly happens on a single set and uses a lot of dialogue. Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd are simply amazing but this hardly qualifies as a feel-good movie. It may begin as a movie about loneliness but it ends being about disease and utter lunacy.

“Lars and the Real Girl” and “Bug” are completely different movies, both in tone and structure, but both deal with troubled human beings. “Lars” suggests redemption for its hero while “Bug” pretty much implodes at the end. Both films are interesting and risky experiments that don’t settle for conventions.

Sin #39: Religious Ways

It always seemed to me that Catholicism was all about guilt; after all, Christ died for our own sins and the bible is filled with stories about human frailty and weakness. Confession and penitence became means of clemency to a God who happened to change his ways from Old to New Testament, by sanctimoniously punishing or forgiving in accordance to the laws of the prophets who wrote the passages in that holiest of books.

Judaism on the other hand seemed more about taking back. After all, they survived a holocaust that threatened their extermination and some even rose to become the richest men in the world. Their traditions and celebrations always felt a little foreign to me; the Bat Mitzvahs, the Kabala, the appearance of their Rabbis or even their unorthodox ways of mixing Hebrew words. It’s a fascinating doctrine that evolved from centuries of mysticism and wonder.

It’s apparent that the Coen Brothers grew in that world and that they finally made a movie about it with “A Serious Man” which may be their most personal film and the most curious on an amazingly singular series of films. The brothers have always had a strange sense of humor in their movies (“Fargo” was said to be based on a true story which they later said was a playful lie and “O Brother Where are thou?” was said to be based on “The Odyssey”, even though they admitted to never having read the book); here they start with a bizarre and intriguing prologue that may o may not have anything to do with the rest of the movie. In it we learn about a curse that arrives when one is visited by a spirit; can we really trust this story?

The rest of the movie focuses on Larry Gopnik, a physics teacher whose wife is about to leave him for his best friend, a student is trying to blackmail him, and whose brother-in-law recently moved in with him. Even though he suffers a lot of humiliations throughout the movie he remains calm and patient. As a means of therapy he decides to visit a series of Rabbis who don’t offer him much help (one even tells him a baffling dentist story that, again, may not have anything to do with anything).

With “No Country for Old Men” the Coens were criticized with their ambiguous ending (and the unexpected fate of Anton Chigurgh) and once again they leave us baffled with a sudden and unexpected conclusion in “A Serious Man”. It made me smile how the brothers avoid closure and instead leave the audiences to come up with their own thoughts; by doing so they make the movie unforgettable.

Sin #38: Brutal Awakening

There are some scenes that simply stick in the mind like a haunting dream. Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” has a few that provoke disgust and fascination on equal measure (it has to be noted that this movie had the most walkouts of any film the year it was released).

“Irreversible” utilizes a backward narrative to tell a rather simple revenge story that ends (or rather begins) with true irony. The film starts with a series of strobing lights blinding us and a manic movement of the camera that finally settles after a while. In its initial sequence a man enters a gay club and viciously attacks a man who he thinks raped his wife. This scene is astonishing in its use of special effects to simulate an uncut shot of stunning brutality. Then there’s the infamous 10 minute rape scene (with a static camera that morbidly observes and becomes a passive bystander) that also uses computer effects to enhance the cruelty of the moment.

As the movie progresses we realize that the deep sadness and hate starts turning gradually into a naïve sense of happiness; the couple enjoys energetic and loving sessions of sexual intimacy (actors Vincent Cassell and Monica Bellucci are married in real life) and when the movie is over we reflect on how good and ordinary people can become victims of violence and turn themselves into monsters of the society that failed to protect them.

It’s been a while since I saw “Irreversible”, but its power stayed with me long after its screening. It is not an easy movie to digest and its cruel imagery and powerful performance make it resonate beyond any conventional drama.

Recently I saw another powerhouse of a movie called “Martyrs” that also starts out as a revenge thriller and later becomes a psychological horror movie of astonishing cruelty and difficult moral implications. It evolves from its themes of child abuse and torture into a demented and operatic play with spiritual undertones.

This movie also uses pretty sophisticated special effects to convey very graphic scenes of mutilation and leaves us pretty shaken up with a conclusion that defies logic and enters the realm of diabolical fanatism.

Both “Martyrs” and “Irreversible” are French movies that go beyond any possible genres; they don’t believe in formulas or “happy endings” and their audiences are so specific that it’s a wonder they even get made (most audiences would find them cruel and repulsive). But they are works that go for the fences and whose images haunt the subconscious.

Sin #37: Eddie

Has anybody seen “Glen or Glenda”? This is director Ed Wood’s cautionary tale about intolerance at a time when cross-dressing and homosexuality were seen as society’s scurrying diseases (it’s sad to think that in 60 years much hasn’t changed). Nobody argues against the morals or overall message of “Glen or Glenda”; most people nowadays focus on its ineptitude. Here’s a film that’s so awful and incompetent that even though it’s only 68 minutes long it feels like it takes a lifetime to be over. I’m sure it was a passion project for Wood (himself a cross-dresser) but why did he decide to make it so inaccessible, bizarre and utterly incomprehensible?

It is said that Ed Wood was the worst director in cinema history but I digress sometimes on the subject…Uwe Boll might be worst than Wood (I’m not really in the mood of watching their entire catalogue of productions to really find out, although watching “The House of the Dead” was pure torture). The point is that even though Wood’s movies are pretty terrible, they were deeply personal and there’s a sense that he tried his very best to deliver. It’s a shame that they don’t acquire the quality of being so bad they’re good (they could at least have been unintentionally funny like the recent cult classic “The Room”, but no, they are all boring as hell).

The best thing associated with Ed Wood is Tim Burton’s film about the director. In another wonderful performance, Johnny Depp plays him as a cheerful and energetic moviemaker that was just too happy to be making movies. He didn’t care about cheesy sets or costumes, bad performances or incoherent narratives; he just thought about giving his audiences an unforgettable spectacle. The most touching aspect was his relationship with Bela Lugosi (brilliantly played by Martin Landau), an actor too washed out and deep in his drug addiction for anyone to ever want to work with him anymore. Bela appears in “Glen or Glenda” as a sort of puppet master or god-like character (“pull the strings!”) that doesn’t really have a reason to appear on the film (the devil also makes an appearance, it must be said).

“Ed Wood” is my favorite movie of Tim Burton because it’s a celebration of Kitsch and it introduces the joy of moviemaking. Ed Wood might have made the worst movies ever but few people had more fun making them; his energy is contagious enough to cheer for him.

Sin #36: A Dry Journey

Three brothers find themselves on a train to India in search of some kind of spiritual answer and a chance to meet their mother after she went to live on a monastery.

Peter, the oldest, is married and expecting a child; even since before their father’s funeral he has always considered himself his father’s favorite son. Francis, the middle son, recently tried to commit suicide and is the most anxious to bring the brothers together. Peter, the youngest, has been traveling a lot and is currently on a strange and undesired relationship; he’s the most eager to get off the train and return to his mellow existence.

“The Darjeeling Limited” starts out with a brief prologue called “Hotel Chavalier” in which we meet Peter and his on-and-off girlfriend (played by Natalie Portman). It’s a lovely short film that actually expands on the emotional impact of the film. As for the movie itself, it’s another one of those Wes Anderson gems that focuses on a family using dry and witty humor. Much like “The Royal Tenenbaums” and even “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” it’s about how a dysfunctional family can find ways to work together y discover that beyond their differences they actually love each other.

One of the things that strike me the most in an Anderson film is its visual palette. He loves warm tones, saturated colors and a stylized use of textures. In “The Darjeeling Limited” he finds a perfect marriage between his style and the Hindi culture, that is itself quite bright and colorful.

The one film that failed to connect was “The Life Aquatic with Steve Sizzou” which was as visually interesting as the rest of his movies but felt more like a hollow exercise in stylized dramatization without any emotional resonance. One watches this movie at arm’s length, waiting for something really interesting to happen (while we are kind of entertained by the nice images). And even though it features good performances from a wonderful cast it remains merely a curiosity.

Wes Anderson is a true talent and remains one of the great filmmakers to emerge from the indie movement. His movies are dry and charming (sometimes even a bit tragic) but at the end they make us unreasonable happy; I think they have to seen more than once to appreciate all the little nuances creeping under the surface. Even in his latest venture, his first family film “The Fantastic Mr Fox”, we can still recognize his trademarks and smile (even though this time we see puppets instead of people).

Sin #35: Nature's Calling

There may be wars and hunger, frailty and death, but while you’re watching a Miyazaki film all is right with the world. Hayao Miyazaki is a true humanitarian, a man who makes movies about people and their connection with nature. In “My Neighbor Totoro” we’re introduced to a family moving into their new home in a Japanese village. Two girls find a giant tree that houses a big and fluffy creature named Totoro who quickly becomes their friend; meanwhile, their mother is sick in the hospital and their father works hard to provide for them as a professor in a university.

The movie has no villains and no formulas; it combines visually dazzling hand-drawn animation with a mature and absorbing narrative. The details of daily life are lovingly captured and add to the fantasy elements that have a spiritual quality of their own. After more than 20 year, “My Neighbor Totoro” remains one of the best and most loved family films of all time (Totoro even makes a cameo on Pixar’s “Toy Story 3”) and a success on video and DVD (there’s no doubt that anime has found its success on the shelves of video stores since they hardly get released in theaters).

Miyazaki most recent adventure, the enchanting “Ponyo”, tells the story of a boy living with his mother on a house on the cliff by the sea. He meets a fish who wants to desperately become a girl so she can be with him. Just like “My Neighbor Totoro”, it’s a film where the realism of the community blends seamlessly with the whimsy and fantastical. When a child tells a grownup a story, they believe them and accept that magic is hidden beneath the mundane and that spirits live among them.

The themes of ecological conservation are essential in Miyazaki’s filmography. In the epic “Princess Mononoke” there’s a serious conflict between men’s industrialization and the ecosystem that has kept all creatures in a state of stability. This movie may be Miyazaki’s most radical since it deals with heavy subjects and features some fairly violent images. But as in all his works, it’s a film about tolerance and understanding. He is one of the few filmmakers who has never failed to provoke and create beautiful human parables. One can approach each one of his movies and discover worlds of happiness and personal growth. It may sound ridiculous but one could say they’re a better person by watching his movies.