Last Days

The final installment of what is known as Gus Van Sant's 'Death Trilogy' brings the story of a rockstar who seems to have lost himself, a story loosly based on the life and especially the last days of musician Kurt Cobain. Last Days is an ambitious work, like the former Gerry and Elephant, but probably the weakest one of the three. Still there is a lot of things to like. The problem though is that like Gerry the movie more feeds from narrativity than a real chronological story. There are a lot of shots of Blake, the film's main character, walking zombie like to the woods, mumbling words that are almost unrecognizable. There seems to be more chronologicallity than in Gerry though, but still lots of the movie is open to interpretation. Showing its characters from a distance, the camera hardly moves. The only movement comes from zooms and pans. Only sometimes does the camera move through its surroundings, but most of the time it's placed in one spot being completely static. It creates a distanciation towards the characters on screen making the camera and the viewers observers and almost voyeurs with the camera often filming from behind branches of trees. Where most films and especially television draw heavily on close-ups in order for the viewers to feel totally connected and interact with the characters on screen, Last Days uses almost none. And when characters are shown close to the camera it's mostly them who walk towards the camera instead of the other way round. The acting therefore stays minimal. Dialogue is made up out of random conversation material. There's a sort of coolness that tries to depict the rockstar's attitude and way of life. Michael Pitt who plays Blake, doesn't get the chance to really show his acting skills. All he seems to do is wander around. Only towards the end he kind of open ups, but it's still to small to call his performance one of real acting. Van Sant tries hard to create a certain kind of atmosphere, in which he partly succeeds. Though as a viewer you sometimes feel lost like Blake, searching for things to cling on to. It's no wonder that the most strongest and haunting scene in the movie is an acoustic performance of the song Death To Birth, originally recorded by Pagoda, actor Michael pitt's own band of which he is the lead singer. It's a great track that fits wonderfully in the movie which sometimes seems to be more of an documentary about music than a real film.

What is it about?

Wandering through the woods, being just a shadow amongst the big green trees, Blake a fallen rockstar, mumbles his way through, having lost complete touch with reality, or so at least, it seems. Characters seem to drift around without any purpose. It's a dreamlike state they're in. They live in a big luxurious mansion, spending their days listening to music and lying on their beds, skimpy clothed. His friends try to get through Blake, but he doesn't seem to want to make contact. While life goes on, Blake's life is moving towards its end, calmly reaching its final. Too lost in his own thoughts and mind it seems noone can save this man who seems to burst with talent that deeply lies in the covers of his outer appearance.

Final Verdict: ***1/2

Last Days isn't a bad film. Even though it's difficult to truly connect, it still has some beautiful moments. This immediately also is one of its weaknesses. Last Days feels more like a string of wonderfully crafted beauty shots than a real film with content. It makes you think, but not as much as with Elephant and Gerry. The film says to be based on Kurt Cobain's last days, but the characters and events are said to be works of fiction. Though at the end there's the message that says, 'in memory of Kurt Cobain'. The film therefore kind of contradicts itself, apparently having trouble of what it truly wants to be. It doesn't want to be critiqued and therefore tells it's just based on events and doesn't tell the true story. But it seems that the movie only states this to avoid collission with fans who can feel hurt by the film's depiction. But even when it does show Cobain's last days it does so very kindly. It's more of a character observation and nowhere near a biopic. It feels more as a tribute to a great musician and the mindstate he found himself in. The scene where Pitt performs the acoustic song, really shows the paradoxical character of Blake's or in this sense, Cobain's persona. Behind all the mumbling and wandering around still hides a gifted musician that had lots of talent and potential. It's a sad portrait of a man who has come to be such a celebrated person. The life of Blake closes with a scene that is very different and which doesn't seem to really fit in. It's one of those moment of which you're not sure what to think, but that just happens in front of your eyes, while you let it be. Overall Last Days is a nice cinematic piece that is more visually interesting than narratively. There's too much distance to the characters, especially Blake. As a viewer you never come to feel for him and don't know what he's like or what it is he wants. Part of this is a good choice as the movie wants to present this image to the viewer. But it's just too long for a film to hold onto an image like that, while nothing really happens. Van Sant is great in putting the right colours together and carefully chooses his angles to present the right images. It makes him a very gifted director with great vision. When we watch Blake walk around with this big jacket during the night time it provides for stunning images. The lighting at times is amazing. But with Last Days it simply isn't enough. Van Sant easily knows how to creep into the insides of the minds of his characters and his audience, but in Last Days it just doesn't work out completely, which is too bad, because Last Days could have been much more than it is right now.

This Is England

This Is England by director Shane Meadows is a hard gripping story about growing up in the beginning of the eighties in England. Following a young boy who comes to be part of a group of skinheads, Meadows serves his audience a delightful portrait of England that has its roots strongly grounded into the country's background and its context. This Is England draws heavily on political subjects and touches on topics that are still very much alive in contemporary England. Especially considering the possibility of falling apart in different independent regions like Scotland or Wales. This Is England gives a lot of thought to what England is, it's own identity and how some people look upon it. It's a film which shows Englands urge to stay pure. The story is poured into a very solid narrative structure, beginning fresh, introducing its characters and setting up their relationships. It's a coming of age story seen through the eyes of a young boy, Shaun. It's he who leads the audience into the ideas and views certain people have and through him these ideas come to show. The cast of the film is very strong, with an especially great performance by Stephen Graham as tough guy Combo who, although very unlikely, seems to also have a soft spot. His emotions are very heartfelt and raw. He lures you in to his side and makes you care for him, even though he's actually the least likely person you, as a viewer, would expect to have compassion with. Only a really good performance can turn an unsympathetic character into a real human being with feelings that you end up caring for. Graham is perfect for the role and gets the full opportunity to show his range. The story is supported by a great soundtrack that combines the modern with the classic. The whole feeling of the film is the eighties. Use of bright colours and specific clothing give the feeling of England in this past time. Meadows takes the time to, besides naratively, telling with a story, also tell visually. Showing the group of teenagers and twenty year olds walking through the streets next to each other, acting tough, boys opposite girls. It reminds you of old music videos that have come to picture this period of time. What is most interesting about This Is England, though, is the way the film goes through this kind of evolution. It starts out very friendly, and even has some funny jokes, showing a bit of comedy and situations the audience can relate to, because they too were once young and naïve as little Shaun. Then the story progresses and a change is caused due to the introduction of Stephen Graham's character, Combo. The balance that was created between some of the characters is broken and the group falls apart into two, with each going its own way. In the middle of all this we find Shaun, who is the main character of the film, but who's role is not as central anymore as it once was in the beginning. There's a gradual change. After this split the film becomes more harsh and a more violent. Suddenly the seriousness of its topic becomes more aware and comes to take its place at the forefront and the whole historical aspect starts to emerge. It's this context the story is placed in which make it so interesting. The film starts with images of real events showing Margaret Thatcher, providing for the film's historical and political context. It's a great way to put the film into a bigger picture. This Is England really is a film that will feed you with thoughts and ideas. Not only does it tell a nice story, but it also shares importance and shows England's history and its views that make you question.

What is it about?

Shaun a young boy who gets teased at school, one afternoon falls into the hands of a group of young skinheads. The leader of the gang soon takes Shaun under his wing and in no time Shaun becomes part of their group. With a bald head and new clothes, he suddenly is one of the cool kids. Finally feeling part of a group and the feeling of belonging, Shaun starts to light up and is thrown into new experiences especially when it comes to girls. All seems fun and cool, until a former member shows up who has spent some time in jail in order to protect the gang's leader. This guy, Combo, turns out to be a man with very dangerous ideas and beliefs that will influence Shaun and introduce him into a world he never knew. Being at times very agressive and suffering from heavy mood swings that can turn him into an uncontrollable animal, Combo breaks the group of skinheads into two. Shaun takes Combo's side and all of a sudden is part of a radical group that fights for the purity of England, meaning they arden't too fond of immigrants and share beliefs that are racist. One of the boys Milky, therefore isn't entirely excepted, because of his skin colour that doesn't match the pure whiteness of the group. Getting more agressive as time moves on, Shaun has to decide wheter to stay and except the ways Combo fights for his beliefs, or head back into his old life choosing his own life's direction without the help of a father figure.

Final Verdict: ****1/2

I was pretty surprised about how good This Is England turned out to be. The social aspect of the film really distinguishes it from other European cinema. It seems that a lot of British directors feel the need to tell stories not only for the people but also about the people. They heavily touch on British culture, either way through comedy like Hot Fuzz or through drama as in Mike Leigh's Secrets & Lies or even Trainspotting. Showing its social awareness makes it more important. This Is England provides a depiction of a certain time and the importance of certain events of that period. It makes the film very interesting and places it in the line of one of those films that really have something to tell and that add to the knowledge of its audience. It's not just entertainment and is far more politically charged than most movies. It's a great mix that I think every film should have and would take it onto a higher level. This Is England not just only shows but teaches and provides information about a lifestyle and certain views people might have. It's a very solid film that has much to offer, both stylistically as well as narratively and historically. With beautiful images and music it draws a great portrait of a time that is still very identifiable today. The story holds relation to both past and present. The topics that This Is England shows are still very much alive and going on. At times it could be hard to watch, definitely towards the end, but it never gets too graphic. There's some violence, but it's not shown in full very often. It is this violence, this switch from light drama with comedy elements to harder drama with some tragedy, that makes it very versatile and likeable for a wide audience. There's a lot you can relate to or recognize, especially with Shaun. The last shots of the film are simply amazing. The cinematography is perfect as is the music that supports these images. The very last shot with which the movie ends is a breathtaking moment with everything coming to a full circle closure. It leaves its viewers with thoughts about Shaun's possible future and certain emotions they can dwell on minutes after the film's ending. This Is England is a film that really makes you want to see it again one day, because it has a lot of beautiful things to offer. It's a very strong film that could become of great importance in the near future.

The Golden Door

The Golden Door (Nuovomondo in Italian) by director Emanuele Crialese is a wonderfully made film with some very interesting and inspiring scenes, but which overall lacks a good and interesting narrative structure. As a whole the film looks great, but it does has some flaws, especially at the beginning. The way it is told makes it hard for the viewer to immediately feel connected with the story and its characters. It takes a while to get the feeling to fully participate into the film's story, but when you do you will come to really enjoy the film and want to linger in it as long as you can. The problem however is that the film by then already is close to its end. The film features actress Charlotte Gainsbourg, who's soft and clear voice make her a person you want to get inside. With the red hair she is even more enchanting than she already normally is. Her presence on screen is absolutely lovely. She seems to be a real part of the diegetic world and gives a nice subtle performance as Lucy Reed. Vincenzo Amato is good as well, but it's Gainsbourg who really mesemerizes and comes to steal the show, even though her part is pretty small. The most interesting aspect of the film is it's style and the way it brings its story into life. It's very ambitious and at times surreal. Wonderful is the scene where the ship leaves the harbour and a gap is shown between the ship slowly moving into the sea and the side of theto harbour. Both ship and harbour is filled with people and as the ship starts to move away, so are the people. It gives a great image of the people who are going on their journey to this new world and the people who are left behind. The Golden Door is very poetic and has scenes that are almost like little paintings. The screen really seems to be a canvas that is filled with the most amazing things. Like a scene shows in which Salvatore and Lucy, the movie's two main characters, are shown in a big ocean of milk, holding on to a gigantic carrot. It's not completely explained what it all means, but it seems to be part of the characters' imagination of the new world and the good it will bring. Another scene shows Lucy sitting next to Salvatore's mother. For a moment time seems to stand still and only Lucy moves. It can be seen as a way of showing the change that she feels and the passing of her life. She's moving while everything around her stands still. In her mind so much is going on and only she knows how she feels. Scenes like these make the film interesting, but unfortunately they can't completely safe the film. Its topic is interesting and it's nice to see a sort of dream like depiction of immigration. It's part fantasy, drama and some light comedy. Its main problem, however, is the lacking of a good and interesting story. It isn't a bad thing when in a movie 'nothing' happens, but in the first part of The Golden Door there's nothing that makes you question or wonder. You're mind isn't challenged to figure things out. The movie doesn't imply anything that as a viewer might give you thought to agree or not. The ending comes kind of abruptly as well and is quite unexpected. But the scene with which it ends, makes up for that abruptness as is the music that kicks in before the end credits.

What is it about?

Salvatore Mancuso together with his two sons, of which one seems to be a mute, and his old mother decides to immigrate to the United States after seeing pictures of golden coins that grow on trees and big chickens that are taller than human beings. Tempted by these images he takes his family on a big ship to start their journey to the new world. On the ship he meets a British woman, Lucy Reed, who searches for a man she can marry. Salvatore who is mesmerized by the beauty of Lucy accepts the proposal, even if it's not about love. Love can grow eventually over the years Salvatore romantically believes. Once they arrive in the US they have to take tests to stay in the country. For a simple farmer as Salvatore the tests are very difficult. For Lucy however, they're very easy. A future marriage ahead, Salvatore's future and the furute of his family, lies in the hands of the American officers who have to give approval for their stay. Only time will tell if they will be able to stay and if the new found land is able to give them the better life they think they it will bring them.

Final Verdict: ***1/2

Apart from some beautiful scenes, The Golden Door has not so much to offer. The story is pretty short and only shows a family trying to immigrate to an unknown land that they believe will bring them prosperity. The way it is told is done very beautifully, though. So, even though narratively the movie hasn't got much to offer, it doesn't mean the film is bad. The settings are great and overall the movie looks beautiful. It just doesn't completely work. The beginning feels a bit empty. You don't know exactly what to think of the first couple of minutes and it takes a while to become enchanted by the movie's beauty. It's strange how for me one particular scene changed my whole view of the movie and its story. Everything suddenly seemed to fit and the characters became interesting. Part of this probably has to do with the characters getting a purpose. The scene I'm referring to takes place on the ship to the United States. Salvatore and Lucy chase each other, curiously searching for each others gaze. The scene is underlined by beautiful well fitting music and is shown in slow-motion. Every person who loves cinema will love this scene. But what this scene does is give the characters some meaning. Their love for each other becomes to show. Without really knowing each other they're prepared to marry and take a risk. Before this scene the two characters don't yet share a bond. But as soon as they are brought together, they start to come alive and as a viewer you start to care for them. And now when you see them you approach them with different eyes and crawl into their minds to think about the emotions that might run through them. It's a beautiful scene that changes the feel of the movie. Unfortunately it isn't enough for the movie to become extraordinary. The story afterall, stays to simple and uninteresting. The way the story is told is too soft or slow. Their isn't a real feeling the movie is going anywhere. At the end the film seems build up out of a couple of interesting scenes that don't really seem to have real coherence. Still the movie shows a beautiful portrayal of leaving to another world without being sure of what this world will bring. The cinematography is great, so are the costumes and the way the camera brings the move into life. The Golden Door is more of a painting, telling its story by images, than by a real narrative.

The Best 3 Of August

After moving to Canterbury in the UK and studying at the University Of Kent, I haven't had much time to watch movies or write reviews about them. Luckily, I am already settling down a bit getting accustomed to everything. So maybe this blog will survive and won't die out because of the lack of updates. August seems already a long time ago. There were a lot of interesting films I saw that month. Some of them I wanted to see for already a long time, some of them I never really wanted to and eventually turned out to be really nice experiences.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Definitely a movie that blew me away, the story with its great themes of life, mankind and evolution, set for a large part in space, 2001 really shows the talent of the late Mr. Kubrick who with movies like A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove can already be seen as one of the great. His films make you question and capture a certain period of time and the atmosphere people in that time find themselves in. 2001 with its effects and story will come to stand the test of time and will still awe audiences hundreds of years from now.

2. Being John Malkovich

Bizarre, different, fresh, original and funny are all words that perfectly describe Being John Malkovich. Directed by Spike Jonze and written by the highly talented and gifted Charlie Kaufman, Being John Malkovich gives a wonderful portrayal of a group of characters that come to lose their sense of reality and who find themselves lost in the unknown. It's a highly enjoyable movie that exceeds all expectations.

3. Fargo

A very fun and smart film by the brothers Coen, Fargo is one of their best. With an oustanding cast the story leads its characters from one strange situation into another. Like all of their comedies the jokes are funny and they manage to show certain types of people in a humoristic manner, but without making them entirely ridiculous. Both a great story and great humour, Fargo holds all the ingredients for a comedy that is really funny and also very well written.

The Bourne Ultimatum

It seems that after this third installment Bourne really has come to stand for quality. Probably the best one of the three, which is a remarkable thing, since the other two are also great, The Bourne Ultimatum has more different locations, brings a female character to the forefront again and is full of great chases by car, motorcycle, and foot, flying from building to building. It's action-packed fun. What is always a treat is when, besides the action, the performances are great as well, which not always happen in action movies, which most actors see more as a side project and to be just for fun. But with the Bourne movies acting has always been important and has come to be one of its strengths. Matt Damon once again is superb as Jason Bourne. He carries the movie very well and seems to have really grown into his role completely with this third film. Even through the action scenes he still shows so much emotion in his face. The tormented look never goes away. This guy has been through a lot and it shows. Still, however, his softer side always shines through, which makes him a real hero audiences can relate to and will come to root for in difficult times. Joan Allen who was introduced in The Bourne Supremacy, regains her role as Pamela Landy and once again her performance is flawless. The eyes, her posture, it's amazing. She seems to be very good in playing these roles of women in a higher function. David Strathairn gives a strong performance as well and if only his little scene together with Allen at a restaurant has lasted a little longer, it would have been fireworks. It's always nice when actors of such calibre are put together. You feel like watching true actors who know what they're doing. And Allen and Strathairn are real professionals. Julia Stiles who after a very small role in The Bourne Identity and a seemingly larger role in The Bourne Supremacy, finally gets to play a big part in the film. Her role in The Bourne Identity was always so small that if you didn't know who Julia Stiles was, you would look at her as being nothing more than an extra. But now she kind of fills up the void that was left by Marie in the Bourne Supremacy. Since the second one was all about Jason, it was nice to see him with an accomplice again. What's nice about Stiles' character is that you really see how she has developed throughtout the different films. It was clear that in this third part she was more comfortable as a CIA agent, even though she's still very young. Stiles fits the role very well. Because of her young age she seems convincing when it turns out this time around she wants to really help Jason. On the same hand she's still also has this frightenedness, because she's a field agent. Her performance was very convincing as she portrayed an agent who gets involved in things an agent of her position should not get involved in. And though a bit frightened, she did stand her own next to Jason. Overall the action is of pure quality. The fight scenes are amazingly great. Even though it's all happening really fast, you do feel you're real part of it and get to see everything. It is shot wonderfully. You feel like you're in the middle of it and even though the fights happen very fast, they're never too fast that you can't hold up. A great part of the appeal of the Bourne films is that the film has always been filmed at real locations and no studios. When they go to Tangiers, they are in Tangiers. The stunts, partly done by Damon himself look very daring and exciting and make for a really good action movie with a very solid and exciting story. All the elements are there to make of Bourne one of the best action series. It's no wonder the Bourne movies have already been compared to the Jamos Bond series many times.

What is it about?

Jason Bourne once again sets out to discover his true identity. Tortured by recurring dreams and thoughts he tries to get in contact with people who seem to know more about the man he once was. After finding out that there's someone inside the CIA who has leaked valid information to a British reporter, the hunt for Bourne once again begins. The reporter who's very eager to write a breaking story, is given information about a branche of the CIA who used to train agents to become killers serving the country. One of them which was Jason Bourne. After contacting the reporter Jason tries to keep him safe, out of the hands of the CIA. Soon the CIA find out about Bourne's involvement and Pamela Landy is brought into the team leading the hunt as she is very experienced when it comes to Bourne. With Landy on the team again, Jason again is on the run. This time, however, he gets some help from Nicky Parsons, the young CIA agent, who used to be a rookie, but now is one of the bigger players. Together she and Jason set out to find out about the truth, leading to dangerous chases and killers who will do anything to stop the two from getting the truth.

Final Verdict: *****

The Bourne Ultimatum is an action packed film, with outstanding camerawork and stunts. Great performances by Joan Allen, Strathairn and Damon lift the film to an higher level and make it stronger than most action flicks. The chases through small streets are perfectly put into view. The camera seems to follow the characters' every trace. It's a great accomplishment and shows what can be done with the technique of today. Which is great as well is that The Bourne Ultimatum involves a twist that has to do with The Bourne Supremacy. People who haven't seen Supremacy in a long while, may recognize some similarities between a scene that's shown in Supremacy and one that is shown in Ultimatum. They may get a little feeling of déjà vu. People who have Supremacy still fresh in their minds, though, will truly recognize it and get that the two don't just share similarities. The Bourne Ultimatum is one of the most exciting films of this year. It's very well made and gives the Bourne trilogy a firm spot as one of the best in the action genre. It's a great thrill ride with never a dull moment. Don't blink 'cause you don't want to miss a thing. Just take it all in.

Reprise

Rule number 1: Never drink any liquids of what kind soever when you know you're going to watch a film in a movie theatre without a bathroom break. Because this is what happens. You'll watch the film and prevent yourself from having to go to the bathroom almost the entire film. But then, just when you realize the movie's almost coming to an end, you really can't hold up any longer and with much pain in your heart you have to leave the room, while the movie's still playing. And then when you come back as fast as you can you find the film to have already ended, without you there. That is exactly what happened to me yesterday evening when I watched the amazing Reprise by director Joachim Trier. Now, when I left the movie only went on for like three minutes and I'm pretty sure I could have stuck in there longer, but at that moment I thought my bladder was going to break. So no way I could stay. Very, very frustrated I was and I am still. You can tell me how it ends, you can tell me I've missed nothing important and that when I went away nothing much happened and the movie kind of already came to a close the moment I left. But no way that that will ever be enough. I have to see it myself, even if I missed only three minutes or even less. I need to see it with my own eyes. So I'm definitely going again. I have to. I can't live like this. I know it's kind of ridiculous, but it's just the way it is. The film however was brilliant, even though some people would probably disagree with me. During the movie people kept changing positions in their seats, one of them even fell asleep and could be heard snoring. I understand why, though. The beginning of this film is a bit hard to sit through, it takes some time for the characters and the story to establish itself. A lot of things are told at a high pace. Flashbacks, all these characters who are introduced during a concert and who all belong to the group of friends of the two male protagonists, and events that are presented to us with much fanfare. But then when all that is over you're left with these beautiful characters that you have come to know and feel you have a bond with. The group of friends seem so real. Nothing about these guys is romanticized. They make fun of each other, even talk trash behind each other's back. They seem close, but yet on an emotional level they don't really seem to know what's going on with every guy personally. Some of them are left with feelings they don't share. When they are together they are just joking and having fun. Like so many friends do. But something has happened to one of them that kind of changes their relationship. At the beginning of the film Phillip, a young twentysomething, is seen together with Erik, his best friend. They both want to become writers. Their manuscripts tightly in their hands they shove them through the big red mail box. Then, everything that happens to them from then on is shown, like a fast flashforward. But eventually the two guys are seen standing in front of the mailbox again and we are shown what really happens. Hence the title 'Reprise', which means repetition or return and is frequently used in music. As a viewer you learn about Phillip's mental state. After his book got published he hurt himself, maybe even want to commit suicide. And as the story progresses it turns out he got a bit too obessed with this girl, Kari. The way director Joachim Trier, who is a former two time Norwegian skater champion, brings the story into view is remarkable. Everyone who loves cinema is going to be sitting in awe watching all the great ideas he put into his movie. One thing that first caught my attention was the way he puts the camera close to Erik's head. A shot that shows Erik from behind, camera close to his ear, gives this great feeling of being close to his thoughts as a viewer. It's like you're being put in a position to look inside his mind. You can almost feel the thoughts that run through it. This shot is repeated a couple of times during the course of the film. Another great, great thing was how he showed the conversations between Erik and the girl he loved so much, Kari. Images are shown of them being at two different locations. You see shots of them walking outside in what seems to be a park. But cuts that are inserted throughout this scene show shots of the two sitting in this little café talking. And the most remarkable thing is that a conversation is heard between the two, but sometimes the sentences are shown being spoken during their conversation in the café and sometimes during their walk outside. But the conversation that is heard is one conversation, all of which is taking place at the same time. It's chronological, but it is suggested the conversation could have happened either way outside or inside. And at the same time the conversation they are having now could have taken place at an earlier time and during that conversation they used some of the same sentences that are coming from their lips right now. And therefore, also, not every sentence is shown spoken when they sit at their table in the café. Their are moments you can hear their voices, hear them speaking, but then on screen the actors stay silent. But then all of a sudden Erik is seen in the café speaking one of the sentences you hear. But the one that went before that was not shown as being spoken by Kari on screen which enhances the effect of not being sure when the conversation took place and where. It gives way for this wonderful dream like state that kind of had me stunned. Also Trier uses a lot of silences. And by that I don't just mean that characters are shown not saying a single word, but there just isn't any sound. All you look at are images. It's a beautiful way of expressing and letting the viewer experience the coldness and the hurt that the characters have to endure. A thing what the film doesn't really seem to have is structure. At least, a lot of the time you feel like you're watching real moments out of the character's lives. A lot happens in this film. And instead of having a clear beginning, middle and end (though I did not actually see the end, you could say I left during the closing scene, so I kind of do know how it ends) it just feels like a mozaïque of events. Of course the film has structure, but not like you are used to. Flashbacks come up at any time. And even though there is a story told chronologically, it doesn't feel as if some of the scenes really had to be shown at the moment they actually were, but could have easily been shown at a later moment without totally breaking apart the story. This is definitely not a bad thing and only made the film more realistic. The characters are very nicely developed. As a viewer you feel you really know what these characters go through and you understand them. You learn much about their relationships and friendships and their inner state. Beside tragedy there's also some comedy in Reprise, even though the tragedy and the drama take the overhand. It's a beautiful sad film, that can be kind of though in the way it present its topics and uncovers them. You feel for the characters, but much more in a way of understanding than in a way of feeling really bad for them. Overall Reprise is a wonderful depiction of sadness and pain felt by this youngsters. At the same time it shows real friendship and is about ideals characters have and dreams. And as all of this is being told and shown you also get a very nice picture of Norway and its culture. Reprise is a film that lingers and has so much to offer. It feels very complete and rich and is carried out brilliantly. Trier is great in presenting the way characters feel. He really seeps through them and makes them understandable for the viewer. Reprise is a wonderful piece of cinema, which I guess not everyone will get. But if you are open and up to challenge yourself and don't run off the very moment you feel this film doesn't seem to go anywhere, you will watch something that not only looks beautiful visually but also tells a beautiful story with great characters you come to really know and understand.

What is it about?

Phillip and Erik, two long time and very ambitious friends, dream of becoming a writer. In order to make their dreams a reality, they send off their manuscripts hoping someone will publish their story. Phillip's book gets published, but Erik's isn't. His novel gets rejected. Finally living his dream, you expect Phillip to fully enjoy everything that has happened. However, it all becomes a too much for him to handle which leads to him having a breakdown. He cut himself a couple of times and is found by Erik with blood on his shirt. Soon he's brought to a psychiatric hospital to get him back on track. One of the reasons he was driven to this insanity is his love for Kari, the girl he believes to be made for him. Together they decideded to leave Norway and go to Paris where they fell madly in love. But for Phillip it all became a bit too overwhelming. Six months after he cut himself, he is allowed to go back home. Erik and the others from their group of friends take him home where he find his mother to have taken away all pictures of Kari that were once hanging on his wall. She never visited him since it was thought to be better if they'd no longer had contact, not until Phillip got better. When he finally is brought back into society again, he gradually meets up with Kari again and they try to resolve their relationship. Meanwhile Erik is writing another book, still hoping that one day his work will get published. Afraid of his relationship turning sour when he will stay together with his girlfriend Lillian during the publishing of his book, he decides to break up with her, but eventually doesn't. After a while Erik manages to find a publisher for his book and is about to gain attention as a professional writer. But now that succes finally seems to be close at hand, he starts wondering if the same that happened to Phillip, might happen to him and he soon will have to find out how he will deal with being a professional writer.

Final Verdict: ****1/2

What Reprise most reminded me of was the film Jules Et Jim (Fr: Truffaut, 1962). Both films make use of a narrator that can be heard as a voice-over, one that isn't a character in the film itself and therefore never appears in the created film world. This narrator, like in Jules Et Jim, talks about both Phillip and Erik, their relationships and the things going through their mind. I'm not sure if Trier was inspired by that particular film, but they felt to be very much the same in that one aspect. Reprise presents a fresh take on topics that have been shown in films many times before, but the way it is done is very original and refreshing. Trier really tells a lot visually. The place where he puts the camera, the angles from where actors are being filmed, it's all done to create some kind of feeling and atmosphere. He uses a lot of whites and blues which perfectly fit the story and the state of the characters. The many ideas that are brought to life in Reprise are very inspiring. Especially those scenes where you never quite know whether they take place in the past or the here and now. It's an aspect that I would include in my film as well, if I would ever make one. Reprise really feels to come full circle with itself. You watch these characters and their big ambitions and see how they cope with the direction their lives eventually tends to take. Reprise gives a beautiful look at the life of twenty year olds. There search for the one thing that they think will bring them happiness and satisfaction, which for both Erik and Phillip is becoming a writer. Trier tells the story so vividly. Especially at the beginning the film sparkles with energy. Lots of cuts provide for a fast pace and the movies soundtrack uses its sound to stress certain cuts and make them look sharper, edgier. Reprise is a film that feels very much alive, has a great young cast of talented actors and tells their character's life story wonderfully. The photography and all these beautiful other aspects that Trier has put inside this film really takes Reprise to a whole new level. Its definitely one of the strenghts of the film. Phillip is played very strongly by Anders Danielsen Lie, as is Erik, played by Espen Klouman-Høiner and Viktoria Winge, who plays Kari, is truly mesmerizing. You can see that they're young, though, and aren't yet that experienced. But it's just that which also gives the film its freshness and makes it so alive. You can see that both actors and the director are still a bit new to this, because of their fresh acting and the daring choices Trier has made with this film. Reprise really is a beautiful film on many levels. Some might not get it and will probably not understand my love for it. But if you love cinema and are very open to things that are a bit different, you will probably appreciate as much as I did.

Antwone Fisher

Denzel Washington's first attempt at directing has led to a beautiful, touching film that, even though it could have, never becomes too over-dramatic, which partly has to do with the very impressive acting debut of actor Derek Luke in his first ever feature film. Slowly unravelling his character's inner state, Luke shows his character's struggle beautifully. There's much character development. As you watch the film you come to learn more about Fisher and get to know him better. Because of Luke's portrayal, as a viewer you really want to come to understand him. You want to know what goes on inside that head of his and causes all his hurt. When he finally speaks, you really come to know of the harm that has been done to him over the years. You then understand why he has built this wall around him that was so difficult to break through. Completely holding his own next to Washington, Luke gives a great performance. Washington really gives him space to evolve and show what he's capable of. Because this freedom he gets to get the best out of his character and dig deep. Being an actor himself, Washington knows how to get a good performance out of an actor. By giving a strong performance himself, in his acting, his responses, he gives Luke things he can really work with. Washington could have easily made a film in which he would have played the lead himself, but instead he puts himself in a supporting role and let's an actor, who at the time the movie came out was completely unknown, shine. He made the decision to give new talent a chance. Everyone already knows Washington can act, he no longer has to proof himself. And with the role of Antwon Fisher Luke gets the perfect chance to show all his potential and he puts it into full use. Told by a couple of flashbacks, like the one the film starts off with and which will later on come to really show its meaning, the film has a very nice pace. It never becomes boring, due partly because of the powerful scenes and interesting characters. Joy Bryant who's not only blessed with a beautiful appearance, but also a lot of talent, plays Fisher's love interest, Cheryl Smolley. Giving a subtle performance, her acting stays very real and natural. The words coming from her lips are spoken as if they are completely her own and the love story between her and Fisher never feels forced, but really is believable, convincing. Antwon Fisher is a very positive, uplifting film with its heart at the right place. It's a story of hope and faith in better things to come, which never gets too sweet, but stays very interesting and engaging.

What is it about?

Antwone Fisher, a young man in the navy, has a dark past he has never told anyone about and which has made him to be very to himself. When one day he gets into a fight with a guy who's also in the navy he has to meet with a psychiatrist. At first Fisher is reluctant and refuses to speak. To him coming to a psychiatrist seems like a total waste of his time. Little does he know, though, that his psychiatrits, Dr. Jerome Davenport, has already much experience with young navy guys like Fisher and knows exactly what to do, or better say what not to do, to get them to speak. After many hours of silence, Fisher breaks the mold and lets his first secret, of not having parents, out. From then on he comes by every week and little by little he unravels his past. Fisher and Davenport soon form a strong bond of trust. However, to really have piece with the harm that has been done to him in the past, Fisher has not only to fight these demons, but pay them a visit, just so he can move on with his life. But the question is, is he strong enough and willing to confront them once again? Fortunately Fisher who has always felt alone no longer is, since he has come to find not only a friend in Dr. Davenport, but also a love in Cheryl, a sweet, honest young woman who, like Fisher, also works for the navy.

Final Verdict: ****

Though the story isn't very original it is told very well. The story is actually all about Fisher, hence the title. As a viewer you watch him process all the suffering that has been done to him over the years. And then when he finally has let it all out and has found trust in Dr. Davenport, it's time to close it off and move on, which only can be done by meeting his caretaker Ms. Tate, who might know something about his parents. There's not much more to it. Still the movie is very interesting and engaging, which is mostly the cause of the strong and powerful acting. Because of the strong acting you come to care for Fisher enough to be rooting for him and hoping he'll find some information about his parents. In one scene in particular you really come to see why Dr. Davenport comes to love Fisher so much. A poem Antwone has written, which really shows Fisher's softer side, sums up all he is and all he has been gone through. Judging by the way he walks and his appearance you might have thought Fisher is that typical tough guy who eventually ends up in trouble. But like he himself at one moment tells he is a good man who never got in trouble with the law and even speaks two languages and has started learning his third. Fisher is an inspiration and even though it's still a film, which means that though it's based on Fisher's autobiography, it's still played by actors, you really feel you're watching someone special. And even if you had never heard about Antwone Fisher, after watching the film, I;m sure you'll agree that this guy truly is worthy of his own movie. With Antwone Fisher Denzel Washington has done a great job directing and I'm already looking forward to The Great Debaters which will be his second film as a director.

Être Et Avoir

Except for one short interview where we watch the teacher, who's the main focus of Être Et Avoir (To Be And To Have) a documentary directed by Nicholas Philibert, Être Et Avoir is entirely made up out of footage where the camera is only observing the people in front of it and in which you're almost never aware of the filmmakers being present. Showing teacher Georges Lopez and his pupils is an experience filled with nostalgia. The children are so real and recognizable from the kids you yourself have been in class with and make you remind of so many things all at once that it can become quite overwhelming. The chance that tears will flow is quite huge. The story is told only through footage of the children in class, at home and as we watch them be brought to the school by a white mini van. Those are accompanied by a lot of shots of the beautiful landscapes filled with different kinds of cows. The shots have very long cuts, which give a great image of how events unfolds in real time and how life flows without interference. It's a relief this film isn't filled with interviews and 'talking heads'. It's just a wonderful portrait of a man who pours his heart and soul into his work. Georges Lopez has been working as a teacher for already 35 years, but the passion for his job is still showing in his eyes. What Être Et Avoir mostly is, is inspiring. It's a wonderful thing to watch someone so dedicated to his job and watch his passion. Almost every day of the week he spends time with these children and makes sure they learn as much as they can, getting them ready for their next phase which is middle school. One of the children who really stands out is Johan or 'JoJo'. Watching him you see part of yourself when you were at that age. He looks like a very smart boy, who sometimes seems to be ahead of the things the children are taught, but at the same time he sometimes has a hard time concentrating. He also likes to be a bit of a joker and doesn't always takes things too seriously. Like the other kids there are so many things you can relate to and that remind you of yourself and the other kids that once were in your class. In one scene in particular you are heavily reminded of the drama you experienced as a kid. Being in little fights, others being impatient while playing, and always making big things out of nothing. In that one scene JoJo is pushed to the ground by another boy Johann after he tried to help close the school gate. Soon after he falls JoJo starts to cry and runs of to Mr. Lopez. Having that innocent look on his face it just screams: 'He pushed me, he pushed me!', and watching that, right there, reminded me of how fast kids can put themselves in that victim role and be so hard on blaming the other person for causing them harm. In another scene the children play outside in the snow and throw snow balls to each other, which remind you of when you yourself would play in the snow and which always led to someone being hit and crying, which in this scenes also happens. Both scenes show things I had not thought about for a very long time, but which Être Et Avoir made me remember so vividly. This feeling of recognition is really one of the strengths of the film.

What is it about?

Georges Lopez has been a teacher for almost 35 years, 20 years of which he has taught at a local school in Auvergne, France. Because the area is filled with hills and cows and is a far stretch from the big city, not many people live in the area. Therefore there aren't many children to attend school. Though, there still is one and that's the school where Georges Lopez not only teaches, but also fills in the position of school headmaster. At the school there are children ranging from the ages of 4 to 11, all in the same class, the class of Mr. Lopez. While the teacher and his pupils are filmed as a viewer you get a very nice portrait of how he teaches the children and helps them out and tries to improve there skills. Some of them are even followed to their homes where they are seen doing homework with their mothers and sometimes even joined by there whole family. It's a beautiful thing to see how Lopez manages to make it work. Not only are the children taught how to write and do math, but also how to live and work together young and old.

Final Verdict: *****

Être Et Avoir is a wonderful documentary giving a wonderful portrait of a teacher giving his best. Without the camera's presence there would have been almost nonone who would have known or heard about the extraodinary Mr. Lopez. He's a great find and makes for a beautiful and moving film. He really takes time for every child, is patient, and approaches them with much love and care. He really becomes a friend and a person they can confide in. Some of the children confide even more in him than their own parents which shows the great bond of thrust he establishes with each child. He pays true interest in their lives ehich the children respond to. The children, besides being adorable, come to really show the process of learning. Watching Lopez repeat the number 7 to Marie, one of the kids, a hundred of times so that eventually she will understand that after 6 comes 7, is a wonderful and powerful moment and is one that is so true and I'm sure everyone has experienced when they were still little themselves. Never does he get mad, he always stays calm and patient. He also teaches the children to be polite and have manners. When he aks his pupils something he expects them to answer with yes or no and then the word 'monsieur', sir. Because that's the way you speak to an elder person and show respect. When JoJo one times answers without finishing with 'sir', Lopez aks him again and again until he eventually says it. This way JoJo learns about the importance of the word and the importance of showing respect to your elders. Lopez is very consistent in these things and really teaches his class discipline. His ways of teaching are a joy to watch and very inspirational. If only the world was filled with more poeple just like Mr. Lopez it really would be a better place to live in.

Te Doy Mis Ojos

Te Doy Mis Ojos (Take My Eyes) is a very confrontational film that at times can be quite scary, which most part has to do with the way director Icíar Bollaín, who herself took credit in writing the film's story, manages to keep the story real, without falling into clichés. Telling a story about a wife who has to deal with an abusive husband isn't very original. Though, the way Bollaín does it deserves lots of praise. In her depiction Bollaín doesn't shy away from being to realistic and too raw. She really makes her characters go through a lot of suffering and doesn't romanticize anything. In Laia Marull and Luis Tosar she really has found the perfect actors to play the movie's two main characters. They both are phenomenal in showing the struggle their characters go through on the inside and make it look very convincing, almost too real. Their emotions seem really sincere and truthful. Tosar, who plays the husband, prefectly manages to show his character's willingness to change. For the viewer it therefore becomes even harder when you have to watch him keep falling back into his old habits. He can look so angry and feels so misunderstood. Tosar is great in showing this anger inside his character, but as you watch him, you also see his frightenedness. Laia Marull you watch going exactly through the same thing. She tries so hard to get stronger and stand up to her husband, but her frightenedness is still too overpowering. Most of the time she's with Antonio she seems scared, scared that he might hit her again. As a viewer you also become very aware of what it is that causes these problems in their relationship. They both don't pay much interest in each other. Pilar loves her new job at the museum and is very interested and fascinated by the paintings and the story behind them. Antonio however doesn't see what could be so interesting about them and therefore is very short in his reply when Pilar tries to start a conversation about them and tries to show her passion for these paintings. Watching scenes like these makes it even more difficult as a viewer, because you come to understand so well why they got issues and realize they will be very hard to solve. And without them getting solved the chances that Antonio will get angry again becomes even bigger and the prospect of that is quite scary.

What is it about?

The film starts out with Pilar waking up her son, Juan, taking her things and leave to her sister's house. It turns out Pilar has left her abusive husband and has come to seek comfort at her sister's place. Her sister who is about to get married with John, a Scotsman, seems to live a very happy life. Compared to Pilar her life is a real fairytale. During her stay at her sister's place, Pilar's husband, Antonio, gradually tries to make contact with Pilar again so they can try and solve things. He feels regret and wants to change and start things over. Pilar however, seems to need some time and is already slowly trying to move on and look ahead by taking a job in a museum. To show he really wants to change, meanwhile, Antonio has got into therapy. Together with other men he attends meetings where they talk about how to control their anger. As time passes by, Antonio slowly comes to take a place in Pilar's life again, to little amusement of Pilar's sister, who believes she deserves much better and who wants to protect Pilar from making the same mistake twice. As Antonio and Pilar start meeting more often it makes Pilar feel as when Antonio and she met for the first time, before they got married. After some time, however, Antonio convinces her he is showing progress and he's already a changed man, even though not completely. Pilar decides to give them another try and only time will tell if history will repeat itself or if Antonio will really change as he so willingly wants.

Final Verdict: ****

Te Doy Mis Ojos isn't so much a hard film to watch, even though it features some scenes that look incredibly real and show some real violence, but its topic and its depiction of it, really sticks and make you think. It's a very good and realistic portrayal. This realism could therefore maybe feel for some as to be one of its weaknesses. The film can feel too realistic at times and make watching the film uncomfortable. Because of that Te Doy Mis Ojos definitely isn't a film for everyone. However, anyone would agree the film is great in its depiction of a family that falls apart because of a husband who abuses his wife. The film makes you relate to its story and characters very strongly. You come to really care for its characters, both husband and wife, far more than what is usual in most films. For people who themselves have gone through a situation like this a film like Te Doy Mis Ojos might be too recognizable, but at the same time it can also help them become stronger because they recognize so much of themselves and their situation in Pilar and Antonio. The film is very tragic and emotional. It is very true in its depiction which is something I can only applaud. It's nice to see a film that doesn't show fear to depict a topic like this and do it so realistically, even though it could make its viewer leave uncomfortable and shocked. Te Doy Mis Ojos is very raw and I myself had to take a brief moment afterwards to really let everything I saw sink in for a moment and it took me a while before I could focus on other things again. But its realism, therefore, definitely should be seen much less a weakness and far more as one of its strenghts.

Scent Of A Woman

Scent Of A Woman is a very beautiful and touching film with a great performance by Al Pacino as the blind Colonel Frank Slade. Directed by the same man who would later on both direct and write the major flop Gigli and who also directed Meet Joe Black, a mediocre film that was a bit too long, Scent Of A Woman doesn't show any of those bad qualities director Martin Brest came to show in his later work. A remake of the Italian Profumo Di Donna and adapted from the novel by Giovanni Arpino, Scent Of A Woman feels to be standing very much on its own and doesn't feel as a remake at all. Without having seen the original I can not judge which one is better, but Scent Of A Woman is definitely a very great film and a great accomplishment. The film feels very warm. It's a drama with comedic elements. Frank its main protagonist is a wonderfully written character, who will make you laugh and some might even cry. A very strong scene in Frank's New York hotel room, shows how gifted Pacino really is. Without being really able to use his eyes, because his character is blind, he still shows so much expression through his voice and body. Pacino is a true delight. This film is all about him, even though Chris O'Donnell gives a very nice and subtle performance as well. He surprised me the most. Being an actor who after this film came to make films that overall have been far from good, he's one of those actors you heard about, but of whom you never knew why he's so well known and what got him that fame in the first place. This film therefore changed my whole perspective of O'Donnell whom I thought to be holding his own very well next to the master that is Pacino. Convincing as a 17 year old he really showed his character's unexperiencedness. Charlie is still very green, has much to learn and isn't yet able to make important decisions all by himself. O'Donnell really showed his character had still much to learn and I liked to see him be really fascinated and surprised by Frank. His emotions seemed very sincere and touching. Gabrielle Anwar who had a very small role has a very striking beauty and elegance. At first I thought her to be actress Sarah Polley. The two look quite similar. The tango scene between Pacino and Anwar was a very nice touch, which really fitted the story well and showed how rich a character Frank is. It really showed his life experience and the different sides there are to him. Philip Seymour Hoffman was nice as well as George Willis, although he too had a very small role. Hoffman always delivers a nice performance nomatter the size of his role. He is a real character actor, who's acting always catches your attention.

What is it about?

Charlie Simms, a 17 year old college student, instead of celebrating Thanksgiving with his family, takes on a job which eventually leads him to New York. Having to take care of a blind man who used to be in the army, he finds himself in a tough position. Colonel Frank Slade who he has to take care for is unexpected in character and quite a big mouth. Meanwhile Charlie has gotten himself in trouble when some boys he knows pull a prank on the school's headmaster, Mr. Trask. Having seen exactly who did it together with George Willis a fellow student, they both keep their mouth shut. However, when Mr. Trask tells Charlie he has chosen him to help get to Harvard, he finds it harder to not turn the boys in. Still he doesn't say a word and when he gets back to take care of Frank, he unexpectedly takes him on a trip to New York. At first Frank's plan seems to be a very casual made decision, he seems to just want to have a little fun. But as the movie progresses it turns out his plan is very well thought out and he came to New York for a particular reason.

Final Verdict: *****

Scent Of A Woman is a beautiful film and definitely could be considered a modern classic. It features one of Pacino's best performances and tells the very touching story between an elder guy with much life experience and a 17 year old who has still very much to learn and isn't quite ready to face the world. The film reminded me a bit of Finding Forrester (US: Van Sant, 2000), a film which stars Sean Connery, and is about an author who comes to take notice of the writing talents of a student playing basketball close to his house and whom he later takes under his wing. Besides the great story of Scent Of A Woman, undoubtedly the best thing in this film is Al Pacino. From the very first moment you hear his voice, which is the first thing we as viewers get to 'see' of him, until the very end, his performance is strong and impressive. In one of the final scenes, Pacino gives a great speech that will really move you, is very sincere and true. Before that he already showed great range during an argument with Charlie who tries to prevent him from doing something stupid. He is great in showing both the joy in his character as well as the anger, for he has to always live in the dark. Frank thinks of himself to be a very important guy, a real hotshot. His 'poowah!' shoutouts are great. Pacino is both heartwarming as funny. He gets to show everything he's made of. He is such a wonderful actor and his performance in this film is very powerful. Altogether, Scent Of A Woman is a very entertaining film and truly makes you forget it has a runtime of what at first glance seem to be a very long 157 minutes. It's a nice high quality solid drama with comedy elements, that can be enjoyed with the whole family and features a performance by Pacino that can not be missed.

Starsky & Hutch

Starksy & Hutch is a very funny film directed by Todd Philips who also directed the great Old School which also featured roles from Vince Vaughn, Will Ferrell and Juliette Lewis. Way funnier than the old TV series it's based on, Starsky & Hutch is not only a parody of the series but cops movies in general, hence the reference to Dirty Harry in one of the scenes. What the movie makes so hilarious is the way they take all these sort of sterotypes and clichés you find in the cop buddy genre and enlarge them to an extent that they become so over the top and obvious that you can't help but laugh. The movie seems to believe so much in itself and characters take themselves way too seriously which make them convincing. Actors don't play the joke and try to be funny, but approach their characters with much seriousness and let their weird habits and persona speak for themselves. Ben Stiller who plays David Starksy, for example, approaches his character like he would have done when playing in a serious film. Starky's character traits are already so ridiculous that they don't need to be made into something funny. Starsky who's the total opposite of Hutch, who doesn't care to break the rules and uses his position as a cop to his own advantage, is the one who takes his job very seriously. Stiller gives him this serious confident look on his face which make Starsky think he looks though when he actually doesn't. His bad hair and clothing enhance this. Starsky thinks he's cool when as a viewer you look at him as being one big loser who is more of an embarrassment to himself. Owen Wilson as Hutch got that laid back attitude, that swagger that makes him appealing and great as Hutch. I loved the scene where he plays his guitar and acts all modest pretending he isn't that good, even though he knows he is great at playing guitar and has a voice that will make their two hot cheerleading lady friends swoon. The story isn't all that original, but this film is more about the jokes than the story. And because the jokes keep coming and coming, it's just a joy to watch these two men go from one place to another trying to get the bad guys which makes that you don't really care what it is they're doing as long as it is fun to watch. One thing that was really cool is that the movie still also pays tribute to these classic cop movies and series, using some of the camera shots they so frequently used in those series and that are so typical to the genre. Like, for example, zooming in on Starksy when he has sneaked into Feldman's house and lurks from behind a wall to see what the guy is up to. Also it was really cool to see both Starksy and Hutch all dressed up like Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda in Easy Rider. Besides Stiller and Wilson, Will Ferrell also stars in a minor role, making a very cool appearance as Big Earl, a guy who likes to embroider and make clothes with images of dragons on them. What makes Ferrell great is that he looks like a normal guy, keeping his voice calm and looking all serious. And then when it turns out he has all these weird habits and Hutch has to bend over and do his best dragon impression, you laugh your behind off, because it wasn't at all what you expected from this Big Earl guy who's doing some time in prison. Apporaching his character in the way he does, Ferrell easily avoids falling into the trap of becoming some kind of caricature. Vince Vaughn who's voice alone cracks me up also is excellent as Reese Feldman, the bad guy with his yacht he's so proud of having. And Snoop Dogg, although his acting isn't that great, is a nice additive in his role as Huggy Bear.

What is it about?

David Starksy and Ken Hutchinson are two cops with opposite characters who have to team up after some information got spread about some big drugdeal. Bad guy Reese Feldman and his partner Kevin have apparently been able to produce a type of cocaine that doesn't taste like cocaine, but is sweet like sugar, and that is odorless so the police dogs won't recognize it. After finding a dead body lying down the road the two cops set out to invesitgate the case. Hutch who in his spare time likes to hang with some bad guys to uncover some information, makes a stop at Huggy Bear's place to find out if he has heard some word on the streets that could be linked to the dead guy. Starksy and Hutch find out about Feldman and Kevin via a card of their company that was stuck inside the dead man's wallet. They stop by to interrogate the two men who don't seem to have caused any harm and of whom Feldman is about to organise a bar mitzvah party for his daughter. Further investigation leads the two cops to two sexy cheerleaders whom they try to impress and a guy named Big Earl who's in jail and likes to do some embroidery work. While they pass through their mission they go from one ridiculous looking disguise to another all in order to get the drugs and arrest the men responsible for it.

Final Verdict: ****

Starsky & Hutch is ridiculously funny and will have you laughing almost non-stop. There's absolutely nothing in this film that should be taken too seriously. It's all done with a big wink. To me a good comedy is one that is really funny and Starsky & Hutch is definitely funny and fun. The film provides many laughs and I'm sure some scenes will have you laughing hysterically. Just like a movie as Blades Of Glory, Starsky & Hutch combines the talent of some of the best comedians working in Hollywood right now. You can see the actors must have had lots of fun making the film. The whole cast is well picked and especially Ben Stiller is brilliant as Starksy and I found him to be funnier than in some of his previous films. As Starsky he's so full of himself and he thinks he's so cool, even though he's quite the opposite. I loved Owen and Stiller in their scene where they are trying to impress the two cheerleading girls. Their chemistry in that scene, as well as throughout the rest fo the movie, is great. Starsky & Hutch is a comedy you can best watch with lots of friends, because the jokes are so great you want to tell them to your friends immediately and convince them of how great this film is and they all should see it. So what better way than immediately watch it with friends and enjoy the film together.

Closer

Both the play as well as the screenplay for the 2004 movie adaptation of Closer are written by Patrick Marber and tell the story of four people struggling with their relationships for each other. In the movie adaptation, directed by Mike Nichols, the characters are all played by very well known Hollywood actors. Because Closer originally is a play, the movie is very character driven, almost leaving no space to show beauty shots of landscapes or showing shots of characters being completely silent. Being only the second time I've seen it, at some points it does make you wonder why they adapted the play to the screen when little is done with using cinematic elements. But even though a question like this rises up, Closer does work very well as a film and a lot of films nowadays that aren't trying to be all arty, are mostly just telling stories. In Closer it's the characters and the dialogue which carry the film and the scenes follow each other very fast. It's very much an actors kind of film, who are fully given the chance to set up a character and filling in its colours. Of all the performances I felt Natalie Portman to be the most impressive, truly excelling in her portrayal of Alice. In every one of her scenes she comes off really strong. From the beginning you never feels she gives away too much of her true self. She's the one who keeps most of herself a secret and who seems to be having the most difficulty trusting people. In a way you also feel she likes to torture herself with not letting her get to close to people and keeping secrets. She's sweet but also can be very cruel in order to protect herself. Portman blew me away showing she can really transform into someone else and proved she could very well handle the character she played. Even though he did transform into someone else other than himself, Jude Law's performance as Dan kind of left me cold. After seeing him in The Talented Mr. Ripley for a second time, I don't think it would be fair to just call him a bad actor. Afterall he does show change. However I didn't like the direction he took with Dan. At the beginning you really feel Dan to be a bit stuck up, all polite, kind of soft and his accent was very present, which at first bothered me, but later on when it softened a bit, made me realise that I kind of liked that part of Dan and that it really fitted him. But then after those first couple of minutes he suddenly shows a completely different side of himself when being with Anna. I felt that whole innocent, nerdy kind of guy, was completely gone and he turned more into a guy who isn't that sincere in his feelings towards women but just likes to play games. I do understand that he tried to give his character multiple layers, but I felt he should have peeled those away more gently, instead of shedding them all at once. It was like he didn't have anything left to develop and I feel it would have been better if he let out his other side through the polite guy he was in the beginning, instead of just changing all of that at once. Towards the end I just felt I didn't really know who he was and didn't care for Dan at all. I didn't feel he showed anything. Even if he was hiding his feelings, he didn't show it. He was kind of blank and empty at most times. Both Julia Roberts and Clive Owen did much better jobs. Roberts gave a very nice and subtle performance making her character seem like a victim on the outside while deep down she was actually the worst one out of the four. As a viewer she really made you care for her, pretending she just was taken over by loving feelings and couldn't help falling in love with Dan, even though she was very aware of what she did and seemed to very much enjoy their love making sessions at her own house. But at the same time you sometimes felt she wasn't really aware of the harm she did. She just seemed to be thinking very easy about the actions she took. Sleeping with someone else didn't seem to be that big of a deal to her. Clive Owen who played Larry was perfectly cast just like Natalie Portman. With his rough voice and appearance he made himself look as a though guy who would be able to really hit women when getting mad. However, of all the characters he's the softest one. His calm voice and gestures make him look very confident and cocky, but deep down he's the one who is hurt the most and is most vulnerable. He seems to be the least fit to carry all the weight of the lies and cheating the characters endure and although he comes of as the one who's most in control of his emotions, he really isn't. Altogether these performances are very strong and take the movie to a whole new level. Because of the important role of the characters, it's a must to have them portrayed very well. Fortunately in Closer this is very well achieved.

What is it about?

Alice, a young girl from New York and Daniel, a Brit living in London, spot each other while walking down the street. Their gazes tangle and get stuck for a moment until Alice is hit by a car. Dan immediately helps her out and get her to a hospital. With no heavy injuries but just some bruises and scratches they sit talking while waiting for a doctor to show. Short thereafter they make for a walk around London town in which Dan reveals he's an obituary writer and Alice a stripper. Next Dan is seen together with Anna, a photographer who takes Dan's picture for the cover of the book he wrote. Anna who is having her own exposition very soon, seems to be attracted more to Dan than she wants to admit. They kiss even though she knows Dan and Alice are living together for quite a while since they've met. When Alice shows up at Anna's place to meet up with Dan she overhears a conversation between the two and finds out they are strongly attrackted to each other. Later on Dan is having a sexually tinted chat with a stranger on the internet and gives himself out as Anna. He sets up a meeting between the real Anna, who always hangs out at the London Aquarium and the guy with whom he was having a chat. The stranger turns out to be Larry, a dermatologist, who isn't aware of the prank Dan has put up. Coincidentally Anna is present when Larry gets to the aquarium to meet her. Even though it was all a joke set up by Dan the two start talking and become seriously involved with each other and when the four of them attend Anna's exposition she presents Larry as being her new boyfriend. However Anna and Dan seem to be attracted to each other still and set out to have an affair from that evening without both their partners knowing. Being all tangled up into this square of lovers the four have to decide how to go on with their relationships and whether to keep living lies or be compeltely honest with their partners.

Final Verdict: ****1/2

With Closer director Mike Nichols has made a very solid drama which is very well written and features great performances. Because of the central focus on the four characters all four actors get to have a lot of screen time and are really given the chance to show what they're made of and are given the opportunity to really build up their characters. Filled with emotion and complexity Closer is a treat for everyone who loves a story about betrayal and people who torture each other with telling lies and keeping their loved once on the line. The conversations between the characters feel very natural, the dialogue is smart and realistic. Each character is very well written with it's own persona and own part in this big love web. The film has a very strong structure without ever a dull moment. As a viewer you feel to be totally involved in the character's relationship with one another and taken away on their journey to battle out their way through. Patrick Marber talks about the construction of the play as being: 'something that has a formal beauty into which you could shove all this anger and fury. I hoped the dramatic power of the play would rest on that tension between elegant structure – the underlying plan is that you see the first and last meeting of every couple in the play – and inelegant emotion.' When looking at the different shots, the most interesting once came up during Alice's and Larry's meeting in the strip club Alice works in. Showing some really nice shots from different angles, the scene kind of felt like a jigsaw puzzle, showing both characters from all these different positions. One shot is even taken from the top showing the setting and characters from above, as if there was a real camera hanging down the ceiling as Alice implied there was. Music wise Damien rice's song The Blowers Daughter fits Closer perfectly both lyrically as melodically. The song is like hearing someone breath softly and felt to be standing for all the thoughts that were running inside Alice's head as she was trying to make sense of all the things the others did to her. As a whole Closer is a very nice achievement, showing four wonderfully written characters who challenge each other and who don't give away the direction they eventually are set out to take, not until the very end.