filipemanuelneto

I have to say that, although I'm not a comic book fan, I've loved Garfield since I was a child, particularly due to his adaptation into children's cartoons, which I saw in my childhood and loved. I also saw the more modern animations, in digital format, but I can't help but think that the classic material is better, and the stories presented are much more engaging. In any case, trying to compare the 2004 film to any of the Garfield animations or comic books is a real trial by fire: the film is considerably weaker, even though it has certain positive points that deserve our attention.

The film was directed by a certain Joel Cohen, who is not the same Joel from the Cohen Brothers, he is another person with an identical name, who I didn't know. The director doesn't seem to me to have been the best student in the directing class at film school... notice how the film was poorly edited and unfolds unevenly, wasting a lot of time on uninteresting things just to rush near the end. In addition to the pacing problems, the film lacks a good soundtrack and some comic "spark" that gives it soul and charm. Although sarcasm works effectively and is a very solid characteristic of the character, Garfield manages to be funnier and more charismatic than this cat in this film, and most of the jokes sound hollow, especially to adults.

The script, instead of taking advantage of the wealth of Garfield that exists in comics and animations, serves us a story that is dull, uninteresting, poorly written and full of clichés. It seems that the production only had people who didn't like, or didn't know, the character: the film only talks about the friendship between Garfield and Oddie, a cat and a dog who will have to learn to share the attention of their owner, Jon. There is an attempt to do anything more than that by inserting a villain who acts like Cruella De Vil, trying to use animals for his selfish purposes. In the end, he looks like Mufasa in the hands of the hyenas in "Lion King": the scenes are identical, a copy that shows the void of ideas in that production room.

However, despite all these problems being worthy of consideration, the film has quality elements, starting with the CGI and digital animation, which were inserted into the conventional filming with great technical skill. Even for the beginning of the century, it's a reasonably convincing film, with one drawback: Garfield's character. Being a "live action" film where all the characters, human or not, are real and similar to their animated counterparts, why didn't they do the same with the orange cat? The cat remains equal to the animated one, and is the only one, brutally clashing with everything! For a practical example, compare Garfield to Oddie or even Nermal: the two characters look much better than the animated cat.

As for the actors, the film seems to have made safe bets on competent people who could add some talent to the film and guarantee a minimum of quality: Jennifer Love Hewitt does a very competent job, but it is a film that she cannot save, she is in a position too secondary to do it; Bill Murray, despite only lending his voice to the cat, is the ideal actor to do it. Not only does he have the most suitable tone and voice, he also has an extraordinary comedic streak and ability to make jokes loaded with sarcasm. However, even he knows this film is weak, despite the cash he received for lending his voice! Stephen Tobolowsky is a weak, pantomime villain, with no personality or ability to threaten, and Brekin Meyer doesn't give Jon a personality worthy of our esteem, he turns him into a sympathetic fool.

I am aware that my generation, "Generation Y", is the first in the history of my country where the majority of us are only children. With the increase in education, health and food costs and low salaries without corresponding increases, for most families it has become insane to have more than one child. And the truth is that many of us will prefer not to have children, or we will become parents late (I think this helps explain the issue of "love for puppy dogs", in the film and in real life, after all they're cheaper and aren't indelible bonds that connect us to others, ex-wives or ex-husbands). I can speak for myself: I'm close to forty years old, and I have no idea of starting a family, I have no conditions and I feel that my future has been mortgaged by the financial crises that society has been experiencing since the beginning of the millennium. I'm sure I won't be the only one who feels this way.

This film, in a joyful and naive way, is a portrait of all this by showing how a seven-year-old child finds the birth of his brother strange. I already understood that love and rivalry are contradictory feelings that are part of what it means to have siblings: they may compete for their parents' love and attention, but they often come together when necessary. And the film shows us all this by creating a whirlwind story in which the new member of the family is also a disguised executive with authoritarian tics, giving orders, grumbling, shouting, firing everything and everyone like the worst CEO we can imagine. Do you know who this baby looks like? Exactly... a certain Republican candidate for the White House whose name we can't say so as not to be censored by the website... only in diapers.

To be honest, I only saw the film now because, at the time, it seemed so uninteresting and forced that I didn't pay to see it in the cinema, contradicting the success it had at the box office and joining me with a mass of suspicious people who thought that the critics could have been right in the way she bombed the film in the media. And, in fact, we have to agree that DreamWorks has already done better things and seems to be in an inspiration crisis. The quality of the drawings and animations, the vibrant colors, the good character design and the technical refinement are still visible, but there is a lack of good ideas and some soul. This film makes an effort, appeals to fraternal feelings and the public apparently responded well, but it is not a film at the level of past successes. As for the soundtrack, which features some notable songs, it's reasonable, but not so good as to be worth it on its own, and the humor is suitably sarcastic, although the jokes can, at times, be more aimed at adults than children. (I doubt most kids know what a memo is).

The film, being an animation, does not have a cast, but features the participation of several well-known voice actors, with particular emphasis on Allec Baldwin (who gave the voice of Baby) and Steve Buscemi, who gave the voice of the story's villain. Still worthy of mention and a positive note are the contributions of Jimmy Kimmel, Lisa Kudrow and Miles Bakshi.

Portuguese cinema has a restricted range of great classics that everyone knows and that still continue to win audiences today, through regular screenings on RTP (the state radio and television group) and a certain "cult" status. "A Costureirinha da Sé" is not one of those films. It appears late, years after the "golden age" of cinema in Portugal, and seems strange due to the fact that it is a color film. In fact, as far as I could understand, this was one of the first Portuguese films in color. It is a step forward in the technical field, bringing to Portugal the colorization technologies that had already been in vogue for years in the USA, namely the "cinemascope".

The film was created and directed by Manuel Guimarães, a filmmaker who until then drew his inspiration from Italian neo-realism. In close collaboration with Alves Redol, he had made several films in which he portrayed the prevailing poverty and backwardness of the country, such as "Nazaré" and "Vidas Sem Rumo", and was punished by the censorship with merciless cuts that turned the films in an amorphous and incomprehensible soup, which would condemn them to box office failure. Let us not forget that, at this time, cinema was reviewed and censored by the authorities. It was because of this that, after several films documenting sporting events, Guimarães wanted to make this film, more naive and less ideologically charged, which was better received by the censors, but whose financing depended on the sponsorship of brands that inserted a lot of visible and irritating advertising.

Unfortunately for Manuel Guimarães, those who never understood this change in style and position were the Portuguese critics and academics, who seemed to have appreciated his initial stance. It's easy to criticize when you don't feel the difficulty of creating culture in a dictatorial regime. There are those who resist and pay the price, there are those who prefer to do nothing more, and there are those who try to align themselves with the system. Guimarães seems to have opted for the third way, and I don't criticize him. After the failure of this film, several short films that the world forgot and two or three more feature films, Guimarães would end his career in his death. He even saw democracy return to Portugal, but he did not live long enough to enjoy it.

The film did not leave a permanent mark on national cinema and is rarely shown today. As I said, there is a lot of advertising that is quite noticeable, and that the Portuguese are not used to. That's why he displeased everyone. It has some good songs and the actors make a decent effort, although none of them are particularly good or outstanding. The colorization is very beautiful, the cinematography couldn't be more elegant, and the film's technical work is effective. Furthermore, the film makes excellent use of the filming locations in the city center of Porto. For me, it is absolutely delicious to see these images of my hometown when my parents were young, and to see, for example, the gardens on Aliados Avenue, where I myself still played as a child. I still remember, too, when people lived in the old houses next to the Cathedral, where today we only see tourists with a thousand and one languages and an indispensable trolley rolling along the rocks behind their feet. For me, this is the film's greatest value: seeing Porto, my Porto, when it still belonged to the people of Porto and had not become an amusement park for wealthy foreigners, as was the wish of Lisbon's rulers and our Lord Mayor, whose name I refuse to speak.

For starters, I must clarify that I have never seen any other material about Grinch, much less the original book where this character was created. I will judge this movie for what it is, without weaves comparisons. He is not my Christmas favorite, never was, I even think it is a little scary for smaller children, given the mischiefs and attitude of Grinch. But it has a good story, good dialogues and other qualities.

What is Christmas? Many will say that's the family or children's party. I accept, but in fact, it is the symbolic date that the Catholic Church marks the birth of Jesus. No one knows when Jesus was born, but the Church chose the date for convenience, coinciding the feast with an older pagan celebration, Saturnalia. For centuries, Christmas was just a festive day when Catholics confessed themselves, listened to Mass and ate fish (the consumption of meat and candy is forbidden on holy days, even though the elites did, by paying cash indulgences... in my country it's still tradition to eat codfish in Christmas Eve). The "invention" of modern Christmas happened in the late nineteenth century, with capitalism, and the creation of toy industries and food industries that allowed the middle classes a more interesting supper and the gift for children, offered to them by Baby Jesus and, later, for the invented character of Father Natal (in Spain, this exchange of gifts is only made on the day of kings in January, what I think makes full sense). This is how, in England, Germany and the US, Christmas became more commercial, more focused on consuming, gift distribution and conviviality, and the religious aspect was putted in the background.

This movie, released in the 1980s, shows us an evil character who learned to see Christmas as futile due to this obsession with toys, gifts and food. He does not know how to express this in the best way, he's unaware that behind this is a greater meaning, but what Grinch rejects is precisely this "commercial Christmas." And I couldn't agree more with him... So, through his mischiefs, Grinch will help people to rediscover the meaning of Christmas, even if this is not his real purpose. This is the beauty of this story, for me: Grinch will help the Whoos while they will help him to understand that Christmas is more than gifts or food.

Directed by Ron Howard, a director whose credits do not require presentations, the film is very well done and was a gigantic box office hit and critical success. It became a Christmas classic, although today it is not so popular. With no dead moments, it has an excellent pace, it does not lengthen too much, it is not tiring, and the script does what it needs, although with various flaws and several jokes that are not working. I liked, in particular, the narrator's interventions and rhymes, something that reinforces the idea that this is a children's story. Cinematography is amazing, with vibrant and flashy colors, and the soundtrack, not being memorable, has good qualities.

Jim Carrey did very well in accepting the difficult task of bringing Grinch to life. I can only imagine how boring it was for him to be subject to that make-up routine every day, but it was totally worth the time and sacrifice: he's unrecognizable and absolutely credible and authentic under that thing, and has a natural gift to model the voice as he wants and suits to the character. Sir Anthony Hopkins also deserves praise for his participation, having lent his voice to the narrator. The rest does a positive job, but merely supports Carrey in its task of building the movie around it.

This is one of those films that I decided to watch without having a clear idea of what I was going to find. I know that there are many people who like to know, read and even watch the trailers to decide what to watch, and I also do this moderately, but one of the sensations I like most in the cinematic experience is surprise, that feeling of pleasure, difficult to describe, that happens when a film pleases us and surprises us. Of course, the opposite could happen, the surprise could be bad, and the film could be magnificent rubbish. It happens! But I think you understand me...

Robert Altmann is not a director I know much about. As far as I remember, I've only seen one film of his, "Shortcuts", and I wasn't particularly impressed. However, I think any director has their ups and downs, and you can't categorize anyone for just one film or two. In this film, Altmann surprises in a positive way, with very careful direction and an attention to detail that I was very pleased with. The cinematography is good, the editing is very well done, and the rhythm is quite pleasant, with no dead moments. The opening scene is a true cinematic masterclass, with almost ten minutes without cuts and lots of camera movement. And throughout the film, the feeling that prevails is that we are led to peek, in secret, into a story that no one wants to be known.

The script fits perfectly into this feeling of secrecy, taking us behind the scenes of the film industry through the hands of an arrogant and obnoxious producer who finds himself the target of anonymous death threats. He decides to question the person he suspects of, a screenwriter he ignored for many months, and ends up killing him. From then on, viewers are invited to follow him in his attempts to hide everything, along with the studio he works for, which has little interest in scandals. This is, obviously, a punch in the stomach of the Hollywood industry, where there is no shortage of unscrupulous, arrogant, pedantic, obnoxious people, willing to do anything for ambition, and where the moral conduct of the studios has not always been the most immaculate, preferring to ignore and /or hush up compromising situations whenever possible.

With these characteristics, the film had everything to cause hives in many people within the industry. However, it did surprisingly well, garnered a lot of praise, a good box office and was nominated for three Oscars, continuing to be, even today, a film that is regularly shown on TV channels specializing in films. If the technical quality and the intelligent and scathing story are fundamental, the cast also contributed with the union of talents of several renowned actors. Tim Robbins leaves us with one of his most notable works as an actor, with a consistent and impactful acting, and is elegantly accompanied by Greta Scacchi who, in addition to resisting the idiotic idea of appearing naked for no reason, knew how to interpret her character in a deep and controversial. In addition to them, the film also features good performances by Pater Gallagher and Whoopi Goldberg in minor characters, and with a veritable rain of cameos and brief appearances by actors, screenwriters and others, playing themselves, with many of them agreeing to donate the salary for that single day of filming for a social project at the time. The procession of notables is almost endless, making this film perhaps the American film with the most cameos and guest stars in the history of commercial cinema.

I must be one of the few iconoclasts who has not declared here his undying love for "West Side Story", one of the most successful and acclaimed musicals of all time, and which continues, to this day, to seduce crowds of spectators. As I already had occasion to say then, I expected something different. The story is based on the ethnic conflict between a band of young Anglo-Saxons from New York and another band of immigrants from Puerto Rico, and the unlikely love between the leader of the American gang and the sister of the leader of the Puerto Rican gang. I know that, at the time, the issue was not as delicate as it is today, but I couldn't help but feel that there was a certain prejudice against Latinos. Just think that the main actress was not a Latina, but an Anglo-Saxon whose face was painted and who didn't even sing in the film.

Blessed be Steven Spielberg when he had the idea to make this remake. The film honors the source material and respects the older film, but corrects the biggest errors I had pointed out, presenting us with a more enjoyable view. It is not a work without problems, but they are different types of problems than those I had pointed out for the 1961 version.

The director's attentive and meticulous eye is manifested in the careful design of the sets and costumes, in the very complete and profound development of the characters, and in the extraordinary dance choreographies, metrically designed and executed with the greatest professionalism. I also really liked the design of the locations, and the insertion of the entire story in a New York neighborhood that was about to disappear to make way for a modern office space. The soundtrack and songs are, essentially, those that we all expected to find, and are very well performed by the actors, sometimes during filming, instead of in a recording studio.

One of the aspects that I liked most about this version was the extreme brutality of the rival groups. This time, they don't look like bored choirboys who decided to fight after Sunday mass. Knives, guns, sticks, everything they can use to fight, they use, and they seem more threatening and fearsome, just as you would expect from a gang of authentic juvenile delinquents. I was also pleased to see some of the actors still alive from the 1961 film again, in other characters and roles, especially Rita Moreno, who played a friendly merchant this time. I think it was a good way to honor them and honor their work.

Rachel Zegler is a young Latina, daughter of a Colombian mother, and extremely talented. She is an actress tailor-made for the role of Maria, and made the most of the opportunity to advance her professional career. In fact, she is excellent, sings very well and is quite competent as an actress. Ariana DeBose and David Alvarez are also very good choices and enrich the film with commitment, competence and charisma, especially DeBose, who seems to have a huge personality and enormous personal brilliance. Mike Faist is excellent in his role. As for Ansel Elgort... he tries, he tries to adjust and struggles with the character and the material, but I think he never fully found himself on stage. Something is missing there. But this is my personal opinion.

Here in Portugal, there are few religions other than the Catholic Church and there are no Amish, Mennonite or similar communities. Therefore, this curious religious community is an object of fascination for me and also of renunciation: to explain further, I radically disagree with their religious conceptions, I would never be part of such a religious congregation and, however, I find it fascinating, in today's world, the idea of trying to have a simpler life, without excessive technology and in greater harmony with the natural rhythm. It would be a lifestyle that I wouldn't mind trying, even though I knew I would have difficulty adapting and living without access to the technologies that I work and entertain myself with.

In this film, we follow a police officer who, upon discovering a case of corruption in the ranks, finds himself on the verge of having to disappear to avoid being killed and to protect the only witness to a crime in which another police officer was murdered: an Amish boy who lives with his mother, a widow, and his maternal grandfather, in an isolated rural area that is not very receptive to visits from "the English" (as some of them call to the normal people in this film). In the midst of all this, the film shows us the habits, beliefs and customs of these strict religious communities who, out of appreciation for humility and simplicity, renounced everything that could be a luxury and live stoically from subsistence agriculture.

I won't go into considerations about the verisimilitude of the plot, but I believe that the script made an effort to create a convincing and reasonable story that we can believe in. It won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, which means something. What I can say is that, although the film is engaging, there are aspects that could be improved: the identity of the killers and villains could be kept a mystery for longer and, on the other hand, their motivations don't seem clear enough for me. Another aspect that was not clear was the fate of the young Amish widow's husband. The tension created between her and the congregation's elders could have been better explored, as well as the community's acceptance/rejection of the police officer.

Directed by Peter Weir, the film had serious difficulties in finding a studio willing to commit money to the project, and did not have great support from the Amish community, which not only rejects the capture of images but also fears being invaded by crowds of curious, eager of souvenirs and photographs. Technically, the film is exceptional: in addition to the good cinematography, excellent editing (another Oscar that won) and good action scenes, we have good sets and costumes, which perfectly recreate the environment in which the Amish live, and their simple ways of living. Negative note: Kelly McGillis's nude scene, in addition to being out of place in the film, doesn't fit into the story and seems gratuitous.

After many fantastic and sci-fi films, Harrison Ford got a different work, in a style that he would invest heavily in over the following decades: the action hero, with a pistol in hand and willing to do anything to save the day. The actor seems to be completely at ease with the task and gives us excellent work, fully deserving the Oscar nomination for Best Actor. Kelly McGillis doesn't do so well, but she does what needs to be done and doesn't deserve a negative rating. Danny Glover is a convincing villain.

I just saw this movie right now. I've always heard a lot of bad things about him, but now, after seeing him, I wonder what really went wrong here. The film, to be quite honest, is good enough to meet my expectations (even though they were quite low, I confess), and it seemed to me to be a quite acceptable piece of entertainment, if we don't think about it too much and forget the graphic novel by Alan Moore. It's an adventure film, which easily captivates those who like this style and which gives us good action scenes, with characters we know and which is full of that unmistakable Victorian charm that is still in fashion today. After all, what the hell happened here for this film to be such a resounding failure?

Let's start by talking a little about the script, which brings together bizarre characters from various literary works from the same period: Tom Sawyer, Alain Quartermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jeckill/Mr. Hyde, Mrs. Mina Harker, the Invisible Man (who for rights reasons had to change his name in this film), Dorian Gray and James Moriarty, to name a few. Literature connoisseurs have already realized that the amalgamation of different characters from different books and authors has a lot of potential, it could create a kind of "19th century Avengers". The problem is that the potential was lost when the screenwriters ignored the stories of these characters and created "action figures" with the same name and some similarity. There is mutual distrust, attempts to bring some depth to the film, but in general, the story is shallow and bloated.

Throughout the film, we observe that there is no concern about precisely recreating the Victorian environment. In fact, the film is a kind of alternative history where we even see the use of technologies that only appeared long after 1900, such as sonar, radar and automobiles with automatic gearboxes. This "salad" increases the level of special and visual effects and also the creative breadth of the producers, but I don't know to what extent the public accepted it. In addition to these problems, we still have logic holes in the plot and dialogues that couldn't be more cheesy and poorly written.

Directed by Stephen Norrington, the film seems to have had no director at the helm: we can see the technical ineptitude, the disregard for key points of the project and the director's obsession with Victorian aesthetics, action scenes and CGI (the only really good things the film has to give us). In fact, the visual aspects are incredibly crafted, and we can see this in the elaborate decoration of the Nautilus, the recreation of Venice and even Mina's very elegant dresses. The action scenes are immersive, at the level of a blockbuster, and the cinematography and effects are very good. The editing, on the other hand, already fails in several moments, giving the film an uneven rhythm, which accelerates in the action sequences and dies soon after.

As for the cast, what can we say? Sir Sean Connery, despite the terrible working relationship with the director and deep dissatisfaction with the entire project, did a job well done and left the cinema with a bitter taste in his mouth, but his duty done (this was his last film). Peta Wilson and Stuart Townsend do a decent job, but with little soul. Naseeruddin Shah ignores the entire tragic depth of his character and is just a "gadget king" with a solution for everything. Jason Flemyng lives in a love-hate relationship with his fictional alter-ego that makes no sense at the end of the film, and Tony Curran and Shane West seem to have been highly underutilized. And what about Richard Roxburgh? It must have been one of the worst versions of a villain I've ever seen: a barrage of clichés and arrogance don't make a villain, they just make an idiot.

Generally, I don't like films with the living dead, although I've seen several in recent times. This was one of them. Out of nowhere, the characters are thrown into a total apocalypse where people become zombies that they don't know how to kill. The protagonist is a young nurse, who immediately loses her entire family in the first moment. That makes us instantly like her. From then on, we hope that she will save herself and find other survivors to form an alliance with, which inevitably happens when she finds a shopping mall.

Zack Snyder directs this film and delivers a very competent and well-made story, which manages to captivate the audience with a convincing and structured story. The film is, moreover, a remake of an original by George A. Romero, but it is really worth seeing this film for what it is, without comparisons. Technically, the film was well edited and has good sets, costumes and makeup, and a pleasantly stable pace that doesn't leave us thinking about things too much. Of course, there are obvious clichés and logical flaws in all of this, such as the fact that some things never stop working (running water, electricity, etc.), but I forgave these problems.

The cast doesn't have any particularly big names, perhaps it was a conscious and deliberate decision to make this film with lesser-known actors, with whom everyone could identify more easily. Sarah Polley is the protagonist and does a very decent job, as do Ving Rhames and Michael Kelly. It is noted, however, that the entire film was made with very low budgets and that there is some amateurism and improvisation in the work of the cast and technical team. Still, weighing things up, it's not a bad film and everyone did the best they could do.

Directed by Fede Alvarez, an illustrious stranger to me, the film is a remake of the original, from the 80s, directed by Sam Raimi. I didn't like the original film, I found it excessively dated, even in the effects used (which are, without exaggeration, the strong point of the film itself), but I recognize that Raimi is a creative and skillful director who knew how to explore the material well, do a lot with very little, and give us a decent film. This film, in turn, does not bring anything new or original, but manages to improve the original film's major flaw: the virtual absence of a script.

In fact, in this film, there is at least an attempt to create a story around what is happening and to make the whole story more than an excuse for the scenes where the living dead try to eat people. On the other hand, the simple fact that this film serves us with a slightly different story from the original film means we don't feel comfortable guessing what we're going to see next. There is a certain unpredictability that sounds good and feels good. On the other hand, the film cannot match its predecessor in terms of the impact of its effects and its importance to popular culture. It's a remake that has its merits, but will quickly be forgotten.

As for the cast, there is little to say. I don't know them, but I can say that I feel satisfied with their efforts. It's what you'd expect in a film of this type. A negative note about the film: if veterans considered the original film violent and full of gore, this film blows up every scale. It's a bloodbath that brings respect to Lucifer himself, and it made me mentally thank myself for having decided to see him before eating anything.

The film takes place in a cabin in the forest, with a group of friends, and the undead who appear to carry out the usual massacre. There are a lot of points of contact between this film and other living dead films with a similar script, it seems that they all drew from the same primordial source. Furthermore, the film's script was clearly not the most important issue in the conception of the overall work. The story is flawed and it is the most violent scenes that save the film from being worse than it is. The ending is particularly bloody and unsuitable for sensitive people or those with more irritable stomachs.

I've seen other works by Bruce Campbell, and the truth is that this actor has never been able to convince me of his talent. He's a decent actor, but he's not a nationally or internationally talented actor. In this film, he simply does what a hero destined to survive would predictably do, under the same conditions, and jumps from cliché to cliché until the final outcome. The rest of the cast is so immeasurably weak that I won't waste time analyzing it. Suffice to say, they are there to die.

Where this film truly excels is in the use of special effects to visually accentuate the various fight scenes between young people and the undead. From the blood, to the bizarrely colored goo, and several convincing makeup effects, this film is a case study in pre-CGI makeup and visual effects, done in very cheap but surprisingly convincing and pragmatic ways. It lacked the necessary budget for more competent work, and a better cast and story.

There is no shortage of quality films about Prohibition and the many notable criminals of this era in American history: Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel and others form a kind of "golden age" of organized crime. John Dillinger is among them, occupying a top place on the list of great criminals of this era.

After a rebellious and delinquent youth, Dillinger deserted the Navy and ended up being sentenced to almost twenty years in prison after a grocery store robbery. The sentence was considered excessively heavy and left Dillinger resentful. From then on, he made the Indiana State Penitentiary his school of crime until he was released in 1933. With his freedom, he formed his first gang and began the bank robberies that made him famous. In 1934, he was arrested in Arizona and sent to Crown Point, Indiana, from where he made a spectacular escape, using a fake pistol made from a bar of soap or wood. His escape, the notoriety he had already acquired and the interstate nature of his crimes led to the involvement of the recently founded FBI. Meanwhile, Dillinger formed a second group of criminals which included the equally famous "Baby-Face" Nelson, and resumed his robberies, while trying to elude the authorities. Months later, and after almost being arrested on several occasions, he was betrayed and denounced, and murdered outside a cinema.

The film is quite good. It is faithful enough to the events and to Dillinger's life, but mixes things up a bit, changing the order of events in order to increase dramatic tension (for example, the death of "Pretty Boy" Floyd is shown well before Dillinger's death , but it happened months later, in a corn field). Furthermore, the film exaggerates things. However, these are concessions that I accept because the film, in addition to being a fictional piece, is reasonably respectful of historical facts. I don't accept the poorly explanatory narrative so easily: anyone who doesn't know Dillinger and his life well will have some difficulty following the film. This may help to understand why this film was a failure outside the US, where John Dillinger is little known.

Michael Mann is a very competent director, thorough and respectful of the past. We saw these characteristics in "Last of the Mohicans" and "Collateral", among other quality films. The director does a very good job in this film, which follows well the adventures of the criminal's life and his tricks to elude the police. The cinematography is magnificent and makes wonderful use of light and color, especially in scenes filmed at night, and the filming locations, props, vehicles, costumes and sets are convincing and quite realistic. The film's biggest flaw, for me, is the dispassionate way it approaches everything. Considering that the protagonist is an outlaw and that nothing he did was acceptable, having managed to like him would have been a bonus. In fact, what stood out to me the most was the extremely thin line that separated the agents of the law and the criminals they pursued: think about it, Dillinger was not detained to be present at a trial, he was executed in a public square and surrounded by hundreds of people who could have been injured if things had gone out of control. Who is hero or villain? The waters are murky, in the film as in life itself.

All I can do is talk about the cast, which is confidently led by Johnny Depp, an actor who has a special talent for complicated and unusual characters, and who gives us a very competent interpretation. Christian Bale, another talented actor for impactful characters, played the federal agent in charge of arresting Dillinger, and he is extraordinary in his effort. Marion Cotillard does what she can in the role of Dillinger's girlfriend, but the truth is that the film did not need any attempt at romance, even though the character was necessary to understand the life of the heartthrob criminal, and that's why she doesn't add much to the product. Final. There are also notable additions to the cast, including Stephen Graham, David Wenham and James Russo.

This film is a light comedy, very good-natured and full of twists, in which the life of a quiet paleontologist at a natural history museum is completely changed after meeting a volcanic and clumsy young woman. He is about to get married, he is waiting for a large donation to the museum from a rich old woman and he is unaware that the young woman is, in fact, the niece and only heir of the donor whom he wants to please, and who he hopes to receive soon. A domesticated leopard to have in your home, as if it were a cat.

Produced and distributed by RKO, it was directed by Howard Hawks, it was such a failure at the time that it was only more than twenty years later, when it premiered on television, that it began to find its audience. Today, it is a great classic of pre-World War II light comedies and was considered culturally significant.

On a more personal note, I can say that I really liked the film and its comedy style, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I would consider it a cultural landmark, even though I wouldn't deny it the classic label. Let's be quite honest, the film is funny, and it's perfect for family viewing, with its well-mannered humor and without the use of more cheesy jokes, common in our contemporary comedy. The action is so fast, everything happens so quickly that we don't have time to think much. It's not a film to analyze rationally, because it would fall like a house of cards. It's a film to watch with willingness and mental openness to successive jokes.

Cary Grant needs no introduction and, as he has done many plays and comedy work, he is perfectly comfortable with this type of material and the role he has been given. The result of his work is excellent: it will never be one of the defining films of the actor's career, but it is an honorable addition to his filmography and is unmissable for Grant's admirers. Katharine Hepburn, on the other hand, did not have great comedic ability nor had she done significant comedy work before this film. She struggled a lot with the character and with the material received, and this can be seen, at times, in the artificial and somewhat forced way in which she acts. Even so, we cannot give her effort a negative rating.

This is an interesting comedy that shows that British cinema sometimes surprises with small gems of quality. I don't know exactly how the film was received in its country of origin (it was a time when the British were in shock due to the death of Diana Spencer, ex-wife of the current King Charles III), but, in my country, the film received little attention due to the film "Titanic", a box office phenomenon. Still, as far as I know, the film was profitable overall, and was well reviewed by critics. At the 1998 Oscars, it was nominated for four awards, but only won Best Soundtrack for a Comedy or Musical, a category that only existed for a few years.

The story takes place in Sheffield, a British city famous for its steel industry, but which was greatly affected by the economic recession and the closure of many factories, similar to what happened in Detroit with the automobile industry and in Matosinhos, in my country, with canning factories. To try to earn money, six men join forces to become a group of male strippers. They have to overcome their own prejudices and then public ridicule, when everything becomes known. The film has lots of moments of intelligent, well-constructed humor, and the dialogue is quality. Contrary to what some professional critics said at the time, I thought the use of slang and specifically British words was good, as it added authenticity to the dialogue. There are also some touching moments of understanding and mutual help.

The film was very well directed by Peter Cattaneo, and was edited effectively, with a sense of rhythm that allows the film to be engaging and entertaining without wasting time or dispersing into subplots that would lead to nothing. On a technical level, the film has a good set of sets and the filming locations were very well selected, but what deserves the most attention, in my opinion, is the soundtrack, which is virtually a beautiful collection of memorable hits from the 70s. And 80s, including "You Sexy Thing", "You Can Leave Your Hat On" and other well-known songs. This luxurious soundtrack was one of the aspects that I most enjoyed about the film.

Another strong point of the film is the general performance of the cast led by Robert Carlyle, a creative protagonist who gives us an inspired and spirited performance. Alongside him, we also have some great British actors such as Tom Wilkinson (in one of the best comic efforts of his career), Hugo Speer and Mark Addy. Each of them is truly good at what they do and have been given very competent material to work with.

This is one of the comedies that helped establish Eddie Murphy's name as a comic actor, and I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that it was one of the most memorable comedies that came out in the 90s: almost everyone has seen this film, regardless of whether or not they liked him. The story is quite simple and follows the journey of a clumsy university chemistry professor who, suffering from morbid obesity, decides to invent a serum that allows him, instantly, to assume the physical elegance he always dreamed of having... but when he falls in love with a slender woman, decides to test it on himself and discovers a disturbing side effect: a split personality that threatens to banish the real one and take on a life of its own.

I called him a double personality, but it would be more accurate to call him an "alter ego", because Buddy Love - that's his name - is actually the reflection of all the repressed desires that Professor Sherman had and that he never fulfilled: a handsome, seductive, bold and flirtatious man, spontaneous and extroverted to the point of not having any kind of shame and having deeply unpleasant attitudes towards other people. Freudian? It's really something that only a psychoanalyst could understand, but which the film plays with in a deeply effective way.

But not everything is good in this film. The dialogues are quite weak, and the jokes were made with such a low and dirty style of humor that a person like me can hardly laugh. There are several moments in which this is observed more clearly, but all the scenes where the Klump family appears deserve negative attention. It's a part of the film that I, honestly, would have cut and deleted, and that I would never let a son or daughter see before we had a serious conversation about it.

Technically, the film is not a show in any way, except for all the makeup and costume work, developed around Eddie Murphy and the various characters he played in the film. It is a truly remarkable work, in which Murphy ages, rejuvenates, gains weight and loses weight as necessary, and always with a lot of verisimilitude and authenticity. And what about the work of the protagonist himself? I think it's enough to say that he deserves all the praise and accolades he received for the film. Despite the weaknesses and all the defects that I have pointed out, the commitment, dedication, professionalism and talent of an actor who, in a single film, plays eight or nine different characters is undeniable! If there's anything that makes this movie work, it's Eddie Murphy. Jada Pinkett Smith (still single at the time, as far as I know) did a decent job as a beauty who serves as Murphy's love interest, and does a reasonable job with her colleague, without being able to keep up with him for a single minute. James Coburn and Dave Chappelle make some positive notes, but that's all there is to it.

After seeing this film, I had the feeling that I should start this text with a warning: we should not mix our opinion about Larry Flynt with our assessment of the film. I loved the film, but I'm the first to admit that I don't feel any sympathy for the biographed person. Regardless of my opinion, sex sells, people are attracted to anything that has a forbidden aroma and, even today, the magazine "Hustler" is a success, with a television channel dedicated to adult content.

The real Larry Flynt proved to be a provocative and materialistic man: he made a fortune off the exploitation of pornographic magazines and used all means to shock people, ridicule the conservatives who criticized him, and confront society and the judicial system. He demanded to be respected, but was incapable of respecting anyone who criticized him; He used the First Amendment to defend his right to publish what he wanted, forgetting that same document when he heard criticism of what he published. Dear reader, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the same right that protected Mr. Flynt also protected everyone who expressed a negative opinion about him within the limits of urbanity. And if it is true that freedom of expression is crucial to the democratic system, it is also true that it is not an absolute value, it must be limited in a way that protects the rights and freedoms of other people. Unfortunately, the world is full of people like Larry Flynt, who demand the right to say whatever they want, but are unable to tolerate an opinion contrary to theirs. Of course, I also don't feel any sympathy for the professional activity of Mr. Flynt, a sexist man who profited from the objectification of sex and the female body, and I am disgusted by the business he created around that magazine.

However, the film is fantastic. Milos Forman, who accustomed us to great works full of style and personality, surprises us once again with a film that does not shy away from provoking its audience, putting its finger on the wounds that hurt the most. The director made skillful use of cinematography, environments, filming locations, sets and costumes in order to construct a narrative that explores very well Flynt's controversial and contradictory nature. For several moments, I was afraid that the script would make the mistake of beatifying or cleaning up Flynt's image. However, I truly believe that Forman managed to avoid this and give the audience a neutral narrative, where he reveals the best and worst of this complex man.

The film is reasonably discreet in its use of effects and the way it was edited, but it has a strong cast solidly based on the participation of Woody Harrelson. Looking at the finished film, I don't think I could imagine another actor better suited for the character in question. Harrelson gave himself body and soul to this project and produced one of the most consistent and powerful works of his film career, rightly deserving of an Oscar nomination. Courtney Love is perfect for the role she played, especially because the actress knew perfectly well the effects of substance abuse and was uninhibited enough to naturally face the nude scenes she was subjected to (something I tend to condemn, but I can understand, considering the film and the character) In turn, Edward Norton (at the time, experiencing a particularly radiant moment in his professional career) and Brett Harrelson make a frankly positive contribution. Richard Paul and James Cromwell also do a decent job, but they don't have the space or time to add much and seem somewhat wasted.

I've seen several films by the Cohen Brothers and this one, far from being one of the most quotable when talking about them, is full of qualities that deserve note. The two brothers are known and respected for the way they create and direct cinematographic projects, giving little room for interference that would disturb the overall vision they have outlined, and actively interfering in all aspects of production. It's their film, they define the characteristics and, whether you like them or not, they are undoubtedly a talented duo.

And being an author's work, this film follows several characteristics that are hallmarks of the two filmmakers. This is a work full of irreverence, where the narrative stands out for its bizarreness and sarcasm, intelligently constructed and crafted in a way that surprises the audience. The story is simple: a couple, who meet and fall in love under the most unorthodox conditions, discover that they cannot have children and, therefore, decide to kidnap a baby from a family that had quintuplets. There is an entire history of crime in the life of one of the couple's members that contributes to them being the target of a brutal chase by a wild bounty hunter. And there are many moments of acidic and difficult-to-digest humor. Added to this is the cinematography and soundtrack, where the Cohens are completely at ease. Personally, I must say, I didn't really like the soundtrack that was used in this film. I found it excessively intrusive and strident, but this is just my personal taste.

In addition to the artistic and author notes, the film also features a skilled cast where Nicholas Cage has plenty of space and material to shine. He is charismatic enough to give his character all the sympathy he needs to captivate us, and he makes a good romantic pair with Holly Hunter, who received a character tailored to her abilities and talent. The two actors have everything it takes to do an exceptional job, and there is no doubt that they won't leave us disappointed. Trey Wilson, Frances McDormand, John Goodman and Randall Tex Cobb join the project, with all their talent, to shine with very well-made secondary characters.

The universe of horror films about demons, and demonic possession, now seems to be a little overloaded, and the lack of capacity for creative ideas, or those that justify yet another film, invariably leads to the emergence of some bizarre things. This is the case in this film, where Dr. Ember, a man who has psychic powers and can project outside the body, fights the devil directly, going to meet him and helping the soul of the person he is trying to deceive.

Don't get me wrong: the film has its merits and entertains its audience in a pretty decent way. As a horror film, and despite never scaring anyone, it achieves the necessary tension to work and is able to maintain it throughout the action. I just found it bizarre, but that's a matter of personal taste and not a defect. Let me develop: by placing at the center of the action a psychic who uses rational and scientific methods to combat Evil, I felt that the film tried to take a "scientific approach" to demonic possession and, perhaps, reach a wider audience, those skeptic who does not so easily believe in the effectiveness of religious rituals. I could be wrong, but that was the feeling I got.

After that, the script introduces more things and, then, there are more serious problems: did anyone really buy that whole story about Dr. Ember already knowing that demon and chasing him for years? A personal crusade? Seriously? And does anyone really believe that the Catholic Church is going to call in a scientist because they think their rituals won't work? The film ends with an attempted twist that we see coming from miles away.

On a technical level, the film doesn't really have much to present to us: most of the aspects that we usually appreciate are almost all within the standards of common popcorn cinema, which we watch without thinking much about and forget about five minutes after finishing. Cinematography, sets, costumes, editing, filming... everything is up to standards. There are no major errors nor any particular merit. The visual effects and CGI team is a different case: there are some well-achieved, albeit discreet, effects, especially towards the end.

The cast is one of the film's strong points: Aaron Eckhart did a decent job, but what he does is quite far from the best he's ever done in cinema. He is a solid, charismatic and competent protagonist, but he does not have material capable of imposing demands on him and forcing him to make additional efforts. Carice Van Houten (who became particularly famous after her work on the series "Game of Thrones") is convincing as the anguished mother of the boy targeted for possession, but despite this, she is very underutilized. Catalina Moreno, who I met in "Maria Full of Grace", at the beginning of her career, does interesting work and provides welcome support.

Contrary to my custom, I saw this film directly after the first one. It wasn't my will, it was the TV channel that decided to show them in sequence. And that's good: things are clearer and more understandable if we have previously seen the initial film, which explains the origin of the character and her journey. There are some aspects and details of the script that I didn't understand, but as Marvel tends to chain its films together, as if they were the threads of a tapestry, I believe that what I didn't understand will be related to the number of Marvel films that I still didn't have the opportunity to see it.

The film is directed by Sam Raimi, which immediately raised my eyebrows: after all, he is a truly creative and intelligent director, who has already given us works worthy of praise, although hero films have not gone well for the director in the past. As far as I know, production was extremely confusing and, as we know, heavily affected by the recent pandemic. Raimi took advantage, rewrote a good part of the script and revised everything, in order to create a bizarre, somewhat scary story (he started out as a director of cheap horror films, let's remember), about the multiverse, a concept that has been explored a lot in the cinema of this decade.

As expected, the film was a brutal success, both at the box office and in terms of specialized critics, having registered the fourth-best box office of 2022, and was sacramentally ignored by the Oscars, even in the visual and technical categories where, in my opinion, opinion, he could have had a good chance of winning a prize. In fact, the film is a visual spectacle of supreme proportions, making the most of the multiverse's enormity of possibilities for a visual experience that is worth it in itself. If the first film had already been colossal in terms of effects and CGI, this film surpasses it almost in every way. The sets, costumes, props, makeup, everything was thought out in minute detail and makes good use of the huge budget that Marvel made available. And the work of the stuntmen and choreographers was excellent in the action and fight scenes.

The script brings together two characters from the Marvel universe in the same story: the already known Dr. Strange and the Scarlet Witch, Wanda Maximoff. Before this film, and what came before it, I didn't know them because I'm not a big fan of comics, although I recognize Marvel's exceptional work in this field over several decades. There is also a third character who enters here, America Chavez, a young Latina who, honestly, must be some kind of third-line character, but who assumes considerable relevance to the plot. In general, the script seems weaker to me than that of the first film, and this could be a direct consequence of the immense confusion that was the entire process of conceiving and producing the film, between a pandemic, withdrawals and all sorts of setbacks.

Benedict Cumberbatch returns to his character and does a job well done, although the actor seems to be working with slightly less interesting material and entering a comfort zone that makes things more monotonous. Elizabeth Olsen was also perfectly at ease with her character, as she had already played it in other films in the Marvel universe that I, as far as I remember, have not yet seen. She is quite good at what she does, and the actress's work is convincing. There are also several other actors from the first film who return for a new job: Rachel McAdams and Chiwetel Ejiofor have an easier job, but it seems to me that the film doesn't particularly take advantage of them. Much better luck had Benedict Wong, with impeccable work, and Xochitl Gomez, who made positive use of the opportunity, even without deserving the spotlight.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm far from being a comic book expert, but I recognize that Marvel, in addition to creating a huge range of characters, extremely complex and with a biography full of nuances, created a multitude of magazines and graphic albums where it gave almost each one the space to shine. They were often short-lived editions, but they established the "canonical" vision of each of the characters: heroes who become villains and then, again, heroes, who save Humanity or destroy it in petty rivalries. What Marvel is doing now in cinema, and with great financial results, is the same thing: creating films, sequels, spin-offs and variations where each character has time to show value and raise money from fans for the company's coffers.

Without rushing, I have watched several of these films, trying to understand the bizarre stories and characters they bring to us. It's not the kind of film that I would actually pay to see, but it has entertainment value and merits that I recognize, and that make it gold for the company. This film is not even close to one of the most notable or successful, but it was still able to be nominated for an Oscar for Best Visual Effects in 2017. It was directed and written by Scott Derrickson ("Sinister", "Exorcism of Emily Rose" etc.), and has a pleasant narrative that is easy to follow and understand, even for a layman in the Marvel world. The character is one of the obscurest in this universe, an arrogant doctor who becomes a powerful wizard from an important sect based in Nepal. This is how he obtains his powers, through effort and study, and not through chance or some tragic incident. The pace of the film is good, and the entertainment is one of the strongest points of this work.

On a technical level, what stands out the most is the mastery of the effects and CGI team, which takes advantage of the studio's budget to give us a true visual spectacle at the level of what Marvel has accustomed us to. And contrary to what sometimes happens, we never feel like the film was an excuse for the effects. Cinematography is an essential part of the film's visual beauty, with magnificent colors and clarity, intelligent framing and a creative touch. There are some truly remarkable scenes, and the space and time bending effects are surprisingly good. The sets, costumes and props follow the general quality of the work and attest to the attentive look of the production. And the action scenes? Superbly performed and choreographed.

The cast, another strong point of this film, was confidently headed by Benedict Cumberbatch, who gives us work at the level of the best he has ever done in his career. Tilda Swinton, in yet another androgynous character, gives us yet another impactful work that will be difficult to forget. Chitewel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong also do excellent work and substantially enrich the film with strong performances. Despite the centrality of his character, Mads Mikkelsen had bad luck in this project: the material he was given is substantially shallow, and forces the actor to perform the miracle of multiplication, giving us his best with very little. Rachel McAdams was also another victim of the superficial treatment given to most of the secondary characters, but she didn't have the Nordic actor's ability to make omelets without eggs. She's just a shallow cliché: the hero's girlfriend.

Jesus Christ is the figure to which cinema has given the most attention throughout history. We may or may not be believers, but Jesus is certainly the person with the greatest impact in the history of humanity. There is no one who does not know Him or who does not know how to quote something that was said by Him, or who does not know His face (or rather, the way in which we, Europeans, began to portray Him, ignoring any resemblance to the real Jesus). This film followed the famous "Passion of the Christ", it is a non-canonical sequel, so to speak. Unsurprisingly, it focuses on the events surrounding the resurrection, and follows the Roman tribune whom Pilate commissions to investigate these reports and eventually recover the missing corpse.

Obviously, this film is not aimed at atheist or non-Christian audiences, as it assumes the resurrection is certain, which confirms the divinity of Jesus and fulfills all the prophecies surrounding the messiah awaited by the Jewish people. However, despite a subtle aroma of implicit religious proselytism, I don't consider it to be a painful film for the most moderate of atheists. The narrative follows "a pari passu" the Acts of the Apostles, which tells the story of these moments between the crucifixion and the ascension of the resurrected Jesus to Heaven, in body and spirit. Being well versed in the text and a devout Catholic, I am reasonably pleased with the adaptation, which tells everything from the perspective of the Romans rather than the Christians.

For a biblical film, it's surprisingly low-key. For some years now, biblical-themed films seem to have abandoned any epic pretensions, so we don't have great effects and million-dollar productions. Director Kevin Reynolds sought to achieve the greatest realism, and a portrayal that felt authentic and historically accurate. I praise this effort and recognize that, in this field, the film has merits. Even the figure of Jesus appears to us devoid of any obvious sanctity for most of the time, and it is the attitude of His followers that most betrays His impact and status. The sets and costumes are very good, they don't look cheap or exaggerated, and the use of filming in authentic locations, in Spain and Malta, increases authenticity. At points where a greater number of doubts arise (for example, the exact way in which Jesus was crucified), the film seeks to follow a portrait that is realistic and respects the official canon.

Joseph Fiennes did a very satisfactory job as a Roman tribune. The actor has a dose of charm that accentuates his protagonism and leads us to follow him in his search. Alongside him, Tom Felton gives us welcome support and Peter Firth doesn't disappoint us in the role of the infamous governor Pilate, trying to turn the character into a bored bureaucrat, who seeks to carry out his mission in a particularly thorny corner of the Empire. Cliff Curtis is a peaceful, serene, charismatic and magnetic Jesus, but particularly human and tangible. Antonio Gil, Maria Botto and Stewart Scudamore make a positive contribution as some of the foundational figures of Christianity.

Surprisingly, the film did not succeed in the long term: it was a moderate success both at the box office and in physical release, and received reasonably positive reviews..., but being a 2016 film, it is surprising that it did not have any visibility in Europe and is, actually, virtually unknown to the European public. I think that, without being memorable, it still has qualities that justify a recap today.

After the success of "Airplane", there was an immediate desire to make a sequel. However, the creators of the first film had serious doubts about this because they felt that they had run out of jokes about airplanes, that the film had done almost everything it could do and that there wasn't really a logical continuation for that work. And I think that feeling had a strong impact on the way this film was imagined: we are no longer on a plane, but on a space shuttle heading to a human colony on the Moon, somewhere in a future where the technologies and clothes are the same as from the period in which the film was made.

It is Ken Finkleman who directs and scripts, due to the refusal of the original creators to embark on this new project. New direction, new creatives, new team, but the "recipe" used was virtually the same as the previous film: situational comedy, sometimes quite mischievous, in a succession of jokes that may or may not work well and resemble a kind of collage of humorous sketches united by a common thread. The film's humor is reasonably good and I think there was a substantive effort to match the quality of the initial film. However, I believe that the directors/writers of the first film were right when they said that the basic premise was tired, and that it would not be a good idea to make a new film that was too identical.

In fact, the film's atmosphere is very warm, the ideas surrounding space travel are very far-fetched, the dialogues are excessively identical to those of the first film and even some of the best jokes are recycled and reused, in an effort to copy and paste that demonstrates a certain mental laziness. The pacing is decent enough, but the film, in general, doesn't give us an experience that could be said to be satisfactory. In addition to all this, I felt that the film also reuses part of the environments and settings from the first film. That is, if the story is set in the future and inside a lunar shuttle, why on earth does it continue to resemble the interior of a common plane? Once again, laziness, lack of investment in the project and, perhaps, lack of a decent budget.

The cast is, to a large extent, the same as what we saw in "Airplane" with the same characters and saying the same jokes, in the same situations. I can't say that the actors didn't try to make an effort and give us a job well done, but I'm sure they received bad material and were part of a project that should never have gotten off the ground. One of the most obvious absences is Leslie Nielsen, an actor veteran enough to have certainly realized that it would be a bad idea to take part in this new film. Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty are back, but they are not that interesting and the work they do is very weak. William Shatner is one of the few actors who deserves a positive rating, and who manages the job well enough.

I saw this film a few months ago, but for whatever reason I didn't remember to write about it until now. Whatever the case, it's one of those films that I wanted to see again, because it's truly good. It's a satire (those politically correct can leave the room now and save their health) in which we follow the journey of a young German who is part of the Hitler Youth. He is truly fanatical about Nazism and has Hitler as his imaginary friend, so he is shocked to discover a Jewish girl inside the roof lining of his house: the boy's mother, in secret, is part of the resistance and helps Jews.

We are tired of seeing films about the Second World War, but it is such a remarkable and fascinating moment in our history that they will certainly continue to be an inexhaustible source of inspiration for filmmakers. However, what Taika Waititi offers us is quite different from the ordinary: a deeply satirical and comical film, where we see things through the eyes of a child perfectly deluded by the massive propaganda to which he was subjected, and who receives the first reality check of his young existence. I'm not going to dwell on the way in which Hitler used propaganda to create a legion of fanatical young people and indoctrinate society, I think this has already been covered extensively by many renowned historians and good documentaries.

I loved Waititi's light and witty direction, which also brings to life the imaginary Führer that young Jojo has as his friend. The director managed to make a film where good humor does not go beyond the limits, and where there is space for serious things handled with a seriousness that gives depth to the film (this is the case with the way in which the authorities repress dissidents, through visits from Gestapo agents, for example). It's not a dramatic film at all, but it's profound in its own way, and the script creates a good story between the fanatical boy, the mother with a double life and the Jewish girl, who reveals to Jojo all the reality he was unaware about the Jews.

Technically, the film intelligently relies on strongly colored, vibrant cinematography and visuals, contrasting greatly with the normally dark vision we have of Nazi Germany. In fact, this not only accentuates the boy's idyllic vision of this world, but also goes against the way the Germans themselves saw their country in those times, which were undoubtedly gray. The sets and costumes agree with this dominant tone, and the reconstruction of the period was satisfactory, although without excessive concern on the part of the producers.

The film has a good cast where the most notable name is Scarlett Johansson. The actress is deeply competent in her role, she exudes elegance and shows us all the contradiction of a mother who, trying to protect her son, also tried to act, to have an active position in the political situation, even if secretly, in hiding. She knows that only much later will her own son be able to understand the scope and value of her actions. Roman Grifin Davies is very good in the role of young Jojo, but Taika Waititi, an illustrious unknown to me, is even better in his satirical interpretation of a historical personality that the actor himself admits to deeply despising. Much of this film's strength comes from Waititi's irreverent and inspired action. In turn, young Thomasin McKenzie does a competent and interesting job in the role of the Jewish girl.

This film was the hit of 2019, and for good reason: it was directed by Sam Mendes, with a script based on his grandfather's war story and a huge production, of the highest quality and full of well-achieved effects. And of course, the film was made in the aftermath of the centenary celebrations of the end of the First World War, which took place in 2018. Understandably, it was a sensation at that year's awards galas, in particular the Oscars, where it was nominated in ten categories, winning three statuettes: Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography.

I think that even those who know little about history will recognize the First World War as the moment when classical and chivalric warfare disappeared to give way to industrial warfare. It was in this war that we witnessed the development of machine guns (they were not new, but they became standard equipment), the emergence of the first tanks (we can discuss whether they had a significant impact, in addition to technical advances), the first experiments in fighter aviation and recognition, the first attempts at the massive use of chemical weapons (mustard gas, and others of the kind) and more innovations that made wars bloodier and more inhumane than before. It was also decisive in the redrawing of world borders, with the disappearance of centuries-old empires and the rise of new republics, and in particular, the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is a war that the whole world continues to remember and that should not be minimized.

The script is based on a suicide mission: to prevent the massacre of an entire unit of the British army that, inadvertently, marches towards a trap, two corporals have to go through "no man's land" and cross enemy lines to warn them and stop them. Additional detail: one of the corporals is the brother of an officer integrated into the military force about to be annihilated. The absolute simplicity of this script makes it so believable that we immediately feel a strong empathy for such committed soldiers. In addition, we have the strong tension, intelligently worked by Mendes, which leaves us constantly waiting to see what will happen. All the directing and editing work is worthy of being studied by film students, and it is truly impossible for us to saw the cuts and editing.

Technically, the film makes judicious use of visual effects and CGI, trying to have maximum realism and credibility instead of a lot of flashy things. There is a good dose of fake human bodies and corpses throughout the film, and we get the feeling that a good part of those trenches were also, to a large extent, the graves of the men who were there. It's not a film full of blood and gore, but it's not easy to watch and it's violent in its own way. As for historical realism, I'm satisfied: the film is slightly based on Operation Alberich, which actually took place in 1917, and in which the Germans made a strategic retreat, abandoning trenches they left booby-trapped and looking for positions that were easier to defend. The design of the trenches made for the film, and the environment lived in them, is one of the best historical recreations of this environment ever seen in cinema, with a degree of precision that borders on documentary. The weaponry seemed equally realistic to me, the props and uniforms are very good.

Mendes also took a risk by placing second-line actors in the main characters: Dean-Charles Chapman had already shown some talent in "Game of Thrones", but this was his greatest cinematographic work to date, and the actor honorably fulfilled what he set out to do. Asked of him. George McKay had also not had, until now, the opportunity to show talent in the seventh art, and he was able to give us a committed and very deep interpretation of his character. The best-known actors appear in more sporadic roles: Colin Firth played a British officer in just one relevant but short scene; Daniel Mays also only appears a little, but does what he needs to do.

I just saw this film and felt an irresistible need to talk about it and comment on it. However, I recognize that a text of just a few thousand characters is completely insufficient to make a fair assessment. This is one of the most complex films I've seen, and so I'm going to try to make an extra effort not to spoil it, even though I feel like I'm going to need to address some things in more depth to be able to write what I need. Let's start by saying that the film was an overwhelming success, both at the box office and with critics, and that it is worth every cent of our cinema ticket. He was also acclaimed at the 2023 Oscars ceremony, with seven statuettes (Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Editing and Best Original Screenplay) in ten nominations. And in addition to the Oscars, many other prizes and awards that seem completely justified to me.

The script is one of the most creative and insane I've ever seen: it all starts with a middle-aged Chinese lady who tries to deal with the organized chaos of her normal life: a half-bankrupt business, a marriage in ruins, a bad relationship with an authoritarian father and a lesbian and protesting daughter. And problems with income tax. It is in the midst of this that she discovers that there are billions of other universes, with several other versions of the people she knows, and that she needs to help defeat an evil, an evil force that threatens to destroy them all.

The film starts from very bold physics premises, where there are some theories that address the possibility of universes parallel to ours, with our alter-egos living there, and goes further, stating that these universes are born from our multiplicity of options and decisions every day. For example, I'm here writing this, but in another universe, another version of me chose not to watch any movie and sleep. I'm not going to explain much more, not even how the main character discovers this, nor what kind of evil entity that is, but I can say that, deep down, the biggest message I took away from this film is the need to live in the present, but also have faith and cultivate love and good feelings, instead of futile sensations or meaningless nihilism. In effect, the main character needs to believe in herself and in the abilities she doesn't know she can have, in order to combat that malevolent force, which is, in itself, a good representation of nihilism, the feeling that nothing in this life it's really worth it. Still regarding the script, I believe it is fair to say that it was precisely closer to the end that I felt the inspiration running out, the creative overdose of the directors and screenwriters. This is, after so many bizarre and unusual things, the apparently simple ending (even though it wasn't) seemed strangely anti-climactic to me.

There's so much to say about the technical aspects of this film... directed by Daniel Scheinert and Daniel Kwan, it's a surprisingly cheap production (a budget of around thirty million dollars, for Hollywood and considering what this film is, it's a small bag of pennies and quarters), which works incredibly well. On a visual level, it's one of the most devastating films I've ever seen, with cinematography and editing worthy of being studied by film schools. And then, we have the great work of designing sets and costumes, and the impressive work of the action doubles and makeup, among many other subtle details that are so tiny that we almost don't notice them, and that show the detailed, patient nature and commitment of directors and their team. The soundtrack is also a very positive point, with an atmospheric and sometimes very discreet sound. There are lots of references to aspects of pop culture, such as martial arts or even technological gadgets, and the fight and action scenes were made with maximum attention to detail, including sudden stops of the image in the most intense scenes, a style of cinematography very characteristic of kung fu films.

The work of the cast deserves praise. By playing a wide range of cinema styles in the same character, from comedy to physical action, Michelle Yeoh embarked on a tour de force so challenging that it would make any renowned actor think twice. The way she gives herself to the character is total, absorbing. Stephanie Hsu follows her closely and offers us profound work, full of feeling and emotion. Ke Huy Quan is also impressive and does a remarkable job. In smaller characters but still worthy of mention, we have the veteran James Hong, and the prestigious Jamie Lee Curtis, in a performance so far out of her comfort zone that it seems unimaginable for this actress, and yet it could become pivotal to her career from now on.