On Being Elmo

I finally got to watch this documentary about the puppeeter behind Elmo. I grew up watching The Muppet show and I still love them to this day. I´ve seen a few documentaries about the life and work of the late Jim Henson, but this one offers a new point of view. I really like it, if you love The Muppets and Sesame Street do yourself a favor and watch this movie. You´re welcome.

A short CAPTAIN AMERICA review

This past weekend I got to watch CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, and let me tell you that this is a significant improvement over Cap´s last foray into the silver screen.
The movie has a lot of exposition pieces and whatnot because it is, of course, an origin movie. Most of the origin movies suck because they waste too much time telling us (fans) stuff we already know about characters we already are familiar with. Maybe for the casual movie goer that´s fine, to me it gets kind of boring. Even so, this movie takes a small step away from that path. If by now you haven´t figured it out yet this is supposed to become a piece of a bigger picture, this is another one of the pieces that will form the puzzle known as THE AVENGERS.

Right of the bat we are facing the discovery of the frozen body of Steve Rogers, and from then on we go on a journey back in time to see how the super soldier Project came about. That to me was pretty cool. Then it turns into a WWII movie with a touch of Sci-Fi, all in all a smart and well handled combo. One thing that I will defend this movie for its because it doesn´t take itself too seriously. I don´t mean by this that the movie is ridiculous or camp or anything like that, what I say here is that it relays a bit more on the fantasy that fuels the comic instead of becoming too grounded like the Batman films by Chris Nolan. For once it´s actually fun to watch what´s going on on screen without thinking too much about that what you are basically watching it´s a single guy taking on an army of nazis with just a shield. I dig that.



The movie is filled with winks to the reader and the Cap conoisseur, I even came up with the Little doddles of how many times and how they manage to reinterpret the whole “man & shield” idea. Thor was a very good movie about gods, this is about a soldier becoming a man out of time, if this helps to set the tone for the avengers in any way, I think we are in the clear. Also, this one was a lot better that Green Lantern, which I´m sure looked really neat on 3-D and what have you, but as a movie, it blows.

Chris Evans has now turned into some sort of household name for movies based on comic books, and even when he was pretty cool as the Human Torch in both FF movies I don´t see him putting too much into poor old Steve Rogers here. He just fits the role, let´s see what happens when Joss Whedon pairs him up with Robert Downey jr as Tony Stark in The Avengers.

My advice: go watch it, bring a bucket of pop corn and a large soda and prepare to have some nice 100 mins. Or so.

Movie Talk #8

SKYLINE [Don't look up alright, hell.. if you can don't look at all]

When I saw the trailer I remember thinking: “wow, that looks cool, it might be a good movie”

Boy was I wrong.

This his, hands down the stupidest movie I’ve seen this year. Not the worst mind you, but the most idiotic way of spending money I’ve seen in a long time. The worst movie of the year title goes to ‘The A-team’.

I still don’t know what the story of SKYLINE is all about. We are invaded by aliens that kidnap us to eat our brains. So I’ll take it that now we have taken the concept of the zombie one step further. Now they come from outer space.

Wow, I mean what a waste of resources and time, I demand that hour and a half of my life back. On the bright side, it wasn’t as long as the other stupidest movie ever, Avatar, that took three hours of my precious life away from me. I tell you, I’d rather die smoking than wasting my time in movies like this.

This is so based on the visual aspect of filmmaking that instead of Skyline it might as well been called “INDEPENDENCE DAY 2”. It’s equally stupid, poorly acted and filled with eye candy as that dreaded and miserable excuse for a movie as the other one.

It’s worthless to spend words talking about this piece of crap. The only thing I can suggest is for you to stay away from it for as long as you can. I wish they had placed a warning in the beginning saying something:

Disclaimer: the following movie was made for no reason. We didn’t have an idea of what we were doing other than showing up some neat special effects. Be warned that after it is over you might feel the need to punch something. As for the ticket money, well…we tricked you out of it, now it’s ours bitches.

Jesus, I was expecting to see the name Alan Smithee at some point, because let’s be serious, Who in his/her own mind would like to be associated with this?
Apparently they all did. Brett Ratner was somehow involved. That’s about all you need to know. I wish I’d known before hand just to skip it at once.

My advise: Don’t watch it under any circumstances. Not even if you like BAD movies.
I’ll recommend it as much as playing with a vile containing a sample o ebola.

We keep complaining that there are no new ideas in Hollywood (to me this is clearly not an original, because as I said before its Independence day 2) but if you plan to release new ideas like this one, I’ll happily sit and wait for the remake of ‘Gone with the wind’.

‘Nuff said.

Mega post #2

Hullo there!
Long time no see.
This time just to shoot you some pics and cool Stuff I came across while surfing the web. And it's all worth checking out.

First Christopher Nolan thinking how awesome it's gonna be when they start shooting the third installment on the new Batman franchise on may of next year. The movie will be called THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and promises to feature a female villain amongst other new things.


Second, the first picture of Carl Urban as Judge Dredd while they shoot the new foray into the silver screen with the apted title: DREDD.


Then there's this very cool strip pointing out something we all thought at some point:

for more of this strips go here.

And finally, the trailer for the last installment on the trilogy of parodies that Family Guy it's making about Star Wars: IT'S A TRAP!


There are also a new trailer for the Green Hornet, which looks good, but I doubt that it will be a good movie. And then the star of the week, the Green Lantern trailer. All I have to say about this is "Jonah Hex" the movie. think about it.

Well, that's about it for now. Next week I will be posting the special strip I made for the blog's first birthday. It will be in Spanish first and then re-uploaded translated in English.

As usual, thanks for sticking around in silence (because no one leaves a damn comment) and like I always say...

...more to come.

EL OJO ENTRENADO, reseñas en español #2.

SCOTT PILGRIM vs THE WORLD (2010)
Que es lo que hace a una pelicula una Buena pelicula?
Que este bien actuada, bien dirigida, bien producida, bien fotografiada, que sea entretenida?
Cada uno tiene su propia idea al respecto, yo particularmente considero que lo minimo que se le pide a una peliula es que entretenga. Se supone que el cine es escapismo, que es abrir una ventana que nos permita salir de nuestra propia realidad por un espacio de entre 90 o 120 minutos.
Hay gente que no espera nada de nada cuando mira una pelicula y cada vez que terminan de verla exclaman mas o menos el mismo comentario: Que porqueria!

A que viene esta perorata?
Yo leo comics, juego video juegos, dibujo, tengo un vocabulario visual bastante amplio y trato de ver adaptaciones de materiales ajenos al cine con una mirada mas bien subjetiva.
Bien porque he leido el libro, o jugado el juego o leido el comic, lo que me hace estar familiarizado con el producto original y al final me predispone a generar una idea sobre como ha de lucir el producto terminado.

Basta de vueltas, Scott Pilgrim vs the world es un muy buen comic pero es una pelicula bastante dudosa por no decir mala (es que soy muy parcial por el director).

Incluso hoy donde 4 de cada 5 peliculas estan basadas en un comic uno ve una noticia de una nueva produccion y no puede evitar emocionarse. Esto mismo me paso cuando me entere que Scott pilgrim iba a ser una pelicula, dirigida encima por Edgar Wrigth (Shaun of the dead, Hot Fuzz, Spaced) pero mi duda fue la siguiente:

Como van a poner todo lo que pasa durante 6 tomos del comic en una pelicula que no dure 6 horas? (ademas, a la hora de filmar el ultimo volumen no habia salido a la venta, de manera que se puede decir que la historia no estaba terminada)

Scott es un vago canadiense de unos 25 años que se enamora de una chica americana que se llama Ramona Flowers. El problema es que la chica tiene 7 exe’s malvados que Scott tiene que derrotar en una pelea si quiere seguir saliendo con ella. Es asi que con la estuctura de un video juego los ex se van presentando y Scott tiene que pelear con ellos a la vez que va madurando cosas sobre la vida, pues al derrotarlos uno gana puntos de experiencia.


Al ver la pelicula me di cuenta que no es buena idea adaptar cualquier cosa, ni aunque se tenga la mejor intencion del mundo. Esta es una pelicula muy rara, tiene muchos altibajos, de a ratos es muy vertiginosa y por momentos se arrastra. La accion descolla, pero si uno no sabe el trasfondo de la historia del comic queda todo como muy descolgado. Wright hace el esfuerzo de explicar lo mas que pueda, pero para mi se queda corto, lo que causa que la pelicula sufra a largo plazo.

El nivel de produccion es impecable, el cuidado al detalle es asombroso, no es una pelicula improvisada hecha por el mero hecho de provechar una moda que parece dar resultado, de hecho le fue muy mal en la taquilla forzando un apurado lanzamiento en DVD y Blu-ray, mercado donde el director triunfa desmesuradamente. Es aqui donde sus peliculas encuentran a su publico y generan verdadera ganancia. Justo como le pasa a Kevin Smith.

Volviendo a la peli, mientras la veia yo mismo no podia creer lo que estaba viendo. No sabia que hacer, que sentir, que pensar, me descoloco. Una cosa siempre tuve en claro: esta historia funciona perfecto como comic book, pero no funciona ni un poco en el cine.
Ya sabemos que ambos medios manejan lenguajes diferentes y que aunque se las relacione porque son similares en ciertos aspectos un comic es algo que te permite hacer MUCHAS cosas que al hacerlas en vivo y verlas en la pantalla son habiertamente ridiculas.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World hubiera sido un exito y hubiera funcionado mucho mejor si en lugar de usar actores la hubieran hecho en animacion. Lo mismo le paso a “Kick Ass” mas temprano este año. Como comic fue una experiencia radicalmente nueva, como pelicula fallo miserablemente. No porque estuviera mal hecha, sino porque el concepto expuesto en un contexto mas realista en realidad no funciona. Creo que el ‘approach’ tendria que haber sido como esta haciendo Spielberg con Tin tin (ojala no le salga el tiro por la culata).

En ambos casos son dos peliculas que no recomiendo que vean a menos que les guste mucho el genero de las peliculas de comic o que sean familiares con los personajes o los conceptos que manejan. Gente normal va a quedar perpleja y/o digustada pues no estan hechas para un publico masivo. A la persona que mira una pelicula con Julia Roberts le digo que la deje pasar de largo, que ni la descargue pirata de internet y se ahorre el agravio.

Ahi se habre todo un debate en el que no me voy a meter ahora, pero si hacemos una pelicula basada en un comic es para abrir el mercado y tratar de que mas gente se acerque al material impreso gracias a lo amistoso del filmico; no?

Aca fallan las dos, despues de ver las peliculas en si estoy seguro que nadie se va a acercar a un comic por tener miedo a que sean “un bolazo” como las peliculas. Me remito al caso de Watchmen. Tambien una pelicula que si bien es fantastica no esta hecha bajo ningun concepto para el publico casual.

Yo tengo mis reservas, no se si la vere de nuevo pronto gracias a esto de dejarme perplejo por la montaña rusa narrativa a la que somete al observador.

En un mercado donde faltan ver: RED, Thor, Capitan America, Avengers y que se yo que mas, solo se me ocurre decir lo que decia Tu-sam...

...puede fallar.

P.D: Este ultimo poster fue hecho por mi amigo Martin Ansin para el estreno de la pelicula en la "Alamo Draft House", mano de obra Oriental de exportacion.

EL OJO ENTRENADO, reseñas en español.

MOVIE TALK #6 (or#7)
Buenas y bienvenidos a una nueva oferta donde obtienen DOS criticas de peliculas por el modico precio de una. Y porque llega a ustedes directo de fabricante en esta ocasion les agrego el hecho de estar escritas en español sin cargo adicional. Y por ser esta la primera vez le agrego a esta catarata de oportunidades muchas imagenes, para entretener la vista, porque como dice el dicho: mas vale DOS fotos de Milla Jovovich que Una de la mole Molly. ^_^’

Las victimas de esta edicion son dos peliculas de genero, una que tenia ganas de ver y una que no. Los nombres de las peliculas los voy a mantener en ingles, si surge alguna confusion para con ellos los invito a remitirse a los posters y de alli sacar como corno le han puesto a la pelicula en vuestro pais de origen.

Ahora a los bifes.

Arranquemos con MONSTERS, una pelicula que se podria encasillar en el genero de Survival/Horror (supervivencia/horror) cuyo mayor merito es que es una de esas peliculas que de vez en cuando llegan de la nada a sacudir el status quo de hollywood y todos los dinosaurios que hacen peliculas. De lugares como estos surgen los directores de la proxima camada, los que dentro de unos años van a estar dirigiendo el exito pochoclero del momento. Lo bueno del caso es que aca los podemos ver antes de que la corrupcion masiva del sistema los asimile. (ej: Matt Reeves y Cloverfield)

Esta es la sinopsis de la historia: “Hace seis años una sonda de la NASA que regresaba a la tierra con muestras de formas de vida alienigenas se destruyo sobre America central al ingresar en la atmosfera. Poco tiempo despues una nueva forma de vida aparece y Mexico es cerrado bajo cuarentena como zona infectada. Hoy, las fuerzas militares americanas y mexicanas luchan por contener a las “criaturas”...la historia comienza cuando un periodista americano debe escortar a una pobre turista americana a travez de la zona infectada para llevarla a la seguridad de los EE.UU” (sacado de imdb)

Bien, ahora resulta que la pobre turista es una joven que ademas es la hija del dueño de la publicacion para la que trabaja el periodista. Situacion que lo pone contra las cuerdas cuando el padre de la joven poco menos que lo obliga a llevarla de regreso aunque el prefiera quedarse a fotografiar bichos. Las cosas se complican cuando luego de una noche de tequila les roban los pasaportes, alejando asi las posibilidades de ingresar a America, o como la pintan sin decirlo “la tierra prometida donde todo esta bien y todos estan a salvo”. Alli es donde la unica opcion que les queda es hacer el viaje a lo mexicano; tratando de cruzar la frontera de manera ilegal.

La pelicula esta llena de alegorias sobre lo que es america y como la ven los mismos americanos al estar fuera. Tambien habla del permanente racismo y de los incontables esfuerzos que han hecho los gringos para mantener a los mexicanos del otro lado del rio grande. Gracioso es que gracias a la amenaza extraterreste los gringos se dieron el gusto de hacer aquella famosa muralla para mantener la frontera cerrada. Una muralla que hace quedar a la muralla china como una construccion playera.

Tambien tiene un nivel importante de efectos especiales que si bien se notan, no estan mal hechos. Que aporta este comentario? Historia de fondo. La pelicula es una idea del joven director Gareth Edwards, quien luego de haber dirigido unos especiales para la BBC se tiro de cabeza a filmar su primer largo. Siendo una compañia de produccion mas que minima, el escribe, dirige, es director de fotografia y encargado de efectos especiales. La forma de filmar fue mas bien al estilo guerrilla, donde metia a los actores y un par de tecnicos en una combi junto con las camaras, llegaban a un lugar y ahi nomas filmaban, a veces usando gente local como improvisados extras. A la noche, en su cuarto de hotel el joven director se abocaba a la confeccion de los efectos en su laptop con programas que se encuentran disponibles en cualquier Best Buy o su equivalente latinoamericano. Que quede claro, aca no hay Industrial light and magic o Digital Domain, ni siquiera Pixel liberation front, solo un tipo con su laptop. El producto es mas que digno, para hacer una comparacion vernacula, es parecido a lo que se hizo con “Ataque de panico”, pero se ve mucho mejor.

El unico punto flojo que yo le encontre es que la pelicula depende mucho de los personajes, de su relacion entre ellos y de nuestra posible empatia para con ellos. La verdad es que si bien hay quimica la que se come la pelicula es la chica. No hay nunca mucha onda de parte del muchacho, ya que nunca queda claro si el es como es porque ya es de naturaleza apatica o porque la vida lo ha golpeado mucho, la cosa es que se me hace un poco infumable. En conjunto hacen lo que pueden para llevar el peso de la historia y hacerla avanzar durante la hora y media que dura este experimento visual.

A los fanaticos del cine de aliens y explosiones ya les aviso que la pasen por alto, esta entra en la categoria de esas peliculas donde no pasa nada. No esperen explosiones y persecusiones ni nada de eso. La historia esta encarada desde otro angulo y contada de otra manera. Es mas, dentro de su propios margenes es increiblemente poetica, con muchos momentos de calma y silencios que nos dejan sordos al llenar la pantalla. Con grandes logros en el campo de la fotografia que ayudan a crear el ambiente opresivo que los rodea. De hecho hay un momento donde dos “monstruos” parece que copularan, y eso esta hecho con tanto tacto y belleza que hace que la verdad valga la pena.

No se cuando ni como se estrenara esta pelicula por estos lares, para mi tiene pinta de ir derecho a DVD. Como quiera que sea, yo la recomiendo, es una buena pelicula pero aun mejor, es un excelente esfuerzo por salir de lo comun y mostrar lo cotidiano dentro de un mundo que no existe...al menos no con extraterrestres. Muchas similitudes tematicas y tonales con “DISTRICT 9”, digo para el ojo mas entrenado.


Y ahora si...a lo bueno (sonrisa diabolica) RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE.


Yo me considero un critico, le guste a quien le guste, tengo muchas horas de peliculas y muchas criticas leidas como para tener una idea al respecto. Gracias a esto yo soy de seguir Directores, productores, guionistas, etc. Con esto quiero decir, para mi el actor es solo un elemento mas que se pone frente a la camara y se puede reemplazar tanto como un foco quemado, lo que realmente me importa a mi es quien esta detras de la camara.
Tambien a lo largo de los años y gracias a personas como Tarantino me he vuelto fanatico del Escritor/director, ya que el puede estar mas en control de todo lo que respecta a la historia pues la conoce intimamente.

Hay poca gente que sea constante, hay muchos directores que cambian de estilo segun el proyecto y hay algunos que no cambian nunca ni aunque les pongan una pistola en la cabeza. Aca entra en escena PAUL W.S. ANDERSON, un director cuyo mayor merito ha sido el de casarse con Milla Jovovich. El es un ejemplo de constancia...todo lo que hace apesta. Es un experto en tomar una idea medianamente interesante y convertirla en una basura total.

Parte de su filmografia incluye boñigas como: Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat, Soldier, Event Horizon, Alien vs Predator y la proxima a estrenarse Los tres Mosqueteros.
Para redondear, el tipo es un muerto que no puede dirigir ni el trafico en una pista de karting.

Esta entrega nos lleva a ver lo que ocurre luego de que un grupo de supervivientes huyera buscando un lugar seguro al final de la tercera, Resident evil: Extinction. Alice (Milla Jovovich) sigue viva y mas buena que levantarse tarde, y aun sigue buscando venganza sobre la terrible Umbrella corporation, culpable de la creacion del Virus-T y etc, etc.
Si nunca has visto ninguna de las otras peliculas o nunca has jugado ninguno de los video juegos lamento decirlo en este tono, pero: no tienes nada que hacer aqui, asi que vistete y largate.

Desde ya te adelanto, la pelicula no es buena ni a palos, no es tan infumable e insoportable como la tercera pero es de regular para abajo. El guion es una estupidez desde el primer momento en que alguien habre la boca con una linea de dialogo (no cuento voz en off) y a cada minuto se vuelve mas y mas imbecil. Como ya es clasico de Anderson roba de todo y lo hace de todos lados. Hay cosas de otras peliculas que van desde Indiana Jones, Duro de matar, Dawn of the dead y mucho, pero mucho de Matrix.

El dialogo es tortuoso, lleno de cliches de toda indole y va super bien acompañado por un nivel de actuacion que es lisa y llanamente desgarrador. No es que tenga ningun actor de renombre, pero parece que a nadie le importa un choto lo que estan haciendo porque no estan viendo mas alla del cheque con el que les van a pagar. La unica que tiene un minimo de onda es Jovovich, que se ve que la pasa barbaro haciendo volar cosas, cagando gente a patadas y tirando tiros con cara de mala. Tambien se ve que en este futuro las pistolas de mano van a poder disparar 400 tiros antes de recargar. Eso, y una pistola como la Desert Eagle tiene un poder de fuego del real carajo. Eso si, cuando la uso en Call of Duty no mata a nadie, pero bueh, se ve que en Hollywood todo es mejor.

La historia en si ya hace rato que se alejo de la historia de los juegos y sigue de esa manera, el unico punto que mantienen en comun son algunos de los personajes. Estan Claire Redfield (RE2), Chris Redfield (RE5) y el malo, Albert Wesker (RE4 y 5), en los creditos figura Jill Valentine (RE3), que ya habia aparecido en la segunda pelicula RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE, pero o no es la misma actriz o aparece como adorno en algun lugar. El otro personaje que hace su aparicion en esta pelicula es uno de los malos del juego RE5, el grandote del hacha gigante que no se como se llama. Un detalle que tiene en contra (si, otro mas) es que ya ni los personajes se parecen a sus contrapartidas en los juegos (bueno, el del hacha si) pero los demas no. Mirar foto por ejemplo, esos son los Redfield cinematograficos. NADA QUE VER!!!!


Aca la historia es un chiste, llena de lugares comunes y de momentos totalmente predecibles, no da respiro a la idiotez. Eso si, se notan mucho los momentos que tiene hechos pensando especialmente para el 3-D, pero como siempre, el 3-D no agrega nada, es solo un recurso mas para hacer algo un poco mas interesante visualmente. Pero en este caso ni eso la salva de ser una porqueria. Encima termina con un final tan abierto que solo le falta el ...CONTINUARA.
Una leccion que anderson nunca aprendio en la escuela de cine es la de cerrar una pelicula, sistematicamente TODAS las que ha hecho terminan abiertas, dejando lugar a una posible continuacion... Eso es tenerse fe canejo!
Otro detalle, la pelicula dura hora y media, pero si le descontamos todos los momentos que tiene a camara lenta y los ponemos a velocidad normal seguro que dura unos 45 min.

Si es tan mala para que la viste?
Simple, las he visto todas, RESIDENT EVIL, RESIDENT EVIL:APOCALYPSE, RESIDENT EVIL EXTINCTION, incluso RESIDENT EVIL DEGENERATION (la de animacion que hicieron los japoneses, que para mi gusto es la unica que merece llevar el nombre de RE), soy sobreviviente de Racoon City, 3 veces, tambien termine varias veces el RE4 y hasta jugue el RE5, me gustan los zombies y Milla, y siempre que puedo veo lo que hace este muerto de hambre del diretor para despues bardearlo (pero con propiedad)

Lamentable, una perdida de tiempo y dinero de esas a las que el costado mas verdulero de Hollywood nos tiene tan acostumbrados. No vale la pena en el cine, no vale la pena en DVD, no se si en cable, tal vez valga la pena cuando algun canal de aire la de un domingo a las tres de la tarde, doblada al español, despues de comer...

...como?
Que afuera esta lindo?
Deja entonces, no vale la pena ni ahi entonces.

En fin, asi esta la cosa, una de cal y una de arena.
Hasta que salga algo mas para ver los dejo con la frase de siempre...

...more to come.

ECLIPSE review.

Yay! Because nobody requested it, because nobody cares what I have to say; here's my two cents.

Just watched “ECLIPSE”, the third installment in the Twilight saga. Now, as a short disclaimer I haven’t seen anything form the other two besides the trailers.

This is the third one and I’m pretty sure that I got most of the story, what does THAT has to say about it?

So vampires are white and elegant and werewolves are Indian and poor (because they can’t afford shirts). A leading character of each side is in love with a regular girl, so in order for them to get her they fight each other and put their clans against one another. Except that the vampires of the clan Cullen are good hearted and they really don’t want to ruin the young girl’s life.

The whole thing is plagued with sexual innuendo because the girl it’s kinda horny but the one she chose to be with wants nothing to do with sex because apparently, he can really hurt her physically if they have intercourse before she gets turned (into a vampire, not ON). So instead he proposes to her and tells her that after they get married he will turn her into a vampire and just then they will consummate the relationship (because he is OLD school, I really don’t know if the pun is intended)

The wolf guy is horny for the chick but she wants nothing to do with him because she is in love with him but she refuses to admit it. So the guys struggle (with words) about a girl that loves both of them but wants to get laid with the one that can’t touch her.

I wouldn’t call myself a scholar or anything but I have seen and read my share of vampire stories and I think I have their mythology pretty well understood. That said:

I’ve never seen vampires that glitter in the sunlight.
Except counted cases I’ve never seen vamps that can walk freely under the sun.
I’ve seen them countless times burn down and turn to ashes. I have NEVER seen them break down like porcelain (is it because they are sensitive beings?)
I’ve never hear of someone turning into a vampire because he had a hand cut from a bloodsucker.
I never heard the expression: A newly born vampire is one of the most powerful entities in the universe…

…until now.

There’s a couple of things more, the vamps are loaded, presumably because they had such long lives and they might have learned a thing or two about money and the benefit of saving/investing. Also, they are beautiful, men and women, and oh, yeah, they are mostly young, even the elder ones look like they just graduated from high school.

Werewolves on the other hand are savages, walk around ‘naked’, have shitty cars and presumably no money. Not to mention brown skin and strong features. Also, they seem to stink. I hope I didn’t leave anything out.

As you all know the Twilight saga is intended towards an adolescent crowd, conformed mostly by girls. It doesn’t surprise me the fact that the story or the characters tell NOTHING to me, but that shouldn’t shock me or anyone because I’m not a teenager no do I have a vagina.

For some reason chicks love the idea of two handsome fellows fighting over them without getting any of it in return (but they are more than happy to give some of it away). In my times it was a lot easier to get laid or to get romantically involved, but has the movie succeeds pointing out: times change.

Also, there seems to be a sub-plot involving a series of murders in Seattle that lead into the creation of an army of vampires with the sole intention of getting Bella. It seems that there is always a reason to go after her, but that, like Luke Skywalker trying to be devoured by some creature, it’s just a given. Anyway, we care about the romantic plot, not the rest, don’t we?

A few years back we had a similar reaction from the female crow when ‘Interview with the vampire’ opened in theaters across the globe. It starred TWO very hot guys (Cruise and Pitt) and it also showed a sensitive side of these troubled creatures that drove them completely nuts. I mean, they even got turned on by Antonio Banderas as a gay vampire.
Of course, “Interview—“ is a great movie that I will happily watch at any time, while I will try to steer away from eclipse for the rest of my life. And to top the good news, they plan to end the saga by splitting the last book "Breaking Dawn" into TWO movies. Yeah, because we really need more!

Did I ever mentioned that the author of the books is a woman?

As sad and little and pathetic a human being as I can be I’m totally down for a romantic movie. Hell, I’ll take my girlfriend to see them if I had one. In this particular case, I feel sorry for the innocent guys that get driven into a theater to watch this because of the girlfriend.

All in all this is not a complete waste of time, even though the ‘special’ effects are laughable. It might be worth watching it in a Sunday afternoon, on the cable, locked in your house because a blizzard won’t let you out. Other than this scenario, don’t waste your time and specially your money on this.

Now, if you happen to be a teenage girl, like you should totally go and watch it…

…but let’s be real, girls like that don’t read this blog.

ECLIPSE.
Released by Summit Entertainment. 2010.
With: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Bryce Dallas Howard.
Directed by David Slade
Based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer.
Runnning time: 124 mins.
Format: Scope.

P.S: One good finding in this movie was Anna Kendrick, the girl I fell in love with in ‘Up in the air’, who also happens to be in ‘Scott Pilgrim Vs. the world’
The review comes late thanks to the retarded release schedule of movies in south America, a place where a movie titled “The expendables” winds up named “The indestructibles” Oh, the humanity!

Movie Talk #5 (this time it's two for one)

Shutter Island & The Book of Eli.

So, here is the deal, because I now live in a ‘third world country’ the release dates for the movies are not quite the same as the ones for the states. I also happen to work in a small theater and that means that unless the company that makes the distribution of the pictures has enough number of copies available I don’t get the movie right away. Point in case, last week I was able to see ‘Shutter Island’ and this week it was the turn of ‘The book of Eli’. Just to paint you a better picture, apparently here ‘Where the wild things are’ hasn’t even been released yet, oddly enough ‘Iron man 2’ opened here 1 WEEK before than in the USA.


Anyway, I was more than happy to finally watch the latest Scorsese movie, being that he is a tremendous director and I’m a big fan. Now, what is there to say about a psycho-thriller? That there is going to have suspense? A twist at some point? That it’s going to be scary?
Well, yes, mark all of the above, it’s all there. What we can also say by this point in life is that Scorsese it’s not a writer/director, he’s like Ridley Scott, he takes a book or a play or even another movie from someone else and then remake it/adapt it to make his own vision. In that sense he is in a whole other league than people like Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez and the likes. Of course this doesn’t mean that any of the listed above lack talent or anything like that, just that their M.O. it’s different, hence the final product has a different taste in your mouth.

The story is based on a novel written by Dennis Lehane and it’s set in 1954. With this comes a crime noir sort of style that works as a compliment to the story. An U.S. Marshall (Di Caprio) gets via ferry to an island/prison to investigate the disappearance of an inmate. As soon as he reaches shore he is greeted by looks of mistrust and defiance, that’s never good.
As he starts the investigation we are presented with all sorts of ‘colorful’ characters ranging from inmates, guards, nurses and doctors. The atmosphere there is a mix between Mengele’s lab and Arkham Asylum, as the story unfolds we start thinking about what is real and what’s not, and as we fall into Di Caprio’s shoes we also start to doubt everything about that and those that surround us.

Now to the meat of the whole thing, if you give a tailor sheets you can’t ask him to make a tuxedo for you out of it, now can’t you? With the distinction between director and writer/director I made before I was trying to make a point; Scorsese is clearly a film maker, and a damn good one too, but the story falls short (for my taste, that is). The atmosphere he creates it’s very oppressive, he carefully selects the shots that will help to that end, managing the soundtrack to match and using the lights to convey different emotions (hats off to the photographer too), he knows the tricks on the book, and he has a very good and big book.

The main problem here is on the acting level, there is very little of that in this Island, and if there is some I’m afraid that it isn’t very good. Di Caprio is doing the same character he’s been doing since circa ‘The Aviator’ and I’m extremely sure that is the same character he’s playing in ‘Inception’ after doing something like ‘What’s eating Gilbert Grape’ it’s very sad to see that he became a one trick pony. Ben Kingsley hasn’t done anything even close to remarkable since ‘Ghandi’, so, sorry Sir. And all the rest are just filling gaps here and there.
There is one though, the talented one that gets better and better every time and still has his name out of the marquee; Mark Ruffalo proved once that he can sustain a movie without having the lead role (he did that in Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’) and here he does it again. Eat your heart out Bill Paxton!

Now whether you should or shouldn’t watch this movie it’s as usual entirely up to you. It is a little predictable when it would have been better it wasn’t, the acting is poor but it looks gorgeous. I’ll say that it might work of you want to see it on DVD, and maybe more than once, because as you watch it over and over you start to see things you missed the first time and now they make all the sense in the world and in this twisted game.
Like I said before, a tailor can’t make a tux from sheets, but maybe he can give you some damn good shirts and summer trousers.
I like Scorsese better when he comes sans Di Caprio.



Now for the other one. There is something unexplainable about post-apocalyptic landscapes that I find extremely alluring. Every time I see a movie with this premise I watch in awe and I’m amazed by the sheer beauty of total desolation and utter destruction. What doctor? I’ll be right wit’cha.
I mean, I as an artist believe that it takes twice the effort to create destruction than it takes to create something nice and perfect, but that's just me.

Earlier this year (or close to the end of last) we had two movies set in the same post-apocalyptic future; on one hand we had ‘The Road’ and on the other ‘The book of Eli’. Now, as ‘The Road’ was a sort of ‘reaction’ film ‘The book of Eli’ is an ‘action’ one. Why so?
In the first one the characters did everything they did when they were reacting to what was happening around them, in the second one they take action as a way to make things happen, now THAT’S a difference.

Also, this happens to be an Action flick, with arms, knives and nine ways to blow up stuff ‘till Sunday. The other thing about this movie that I liked is that it ALSO has a story.

Denzel Washington is a man with a mission in more than one way. He is carrying a book, a copy of the last bible in existence (if you couldn’t guess it, then it is a spoiler) trying to take it to the west, where the little voices he hears in his head tell him to go. He comes across a little town run by Gary Oldman, who happens to be on the hunt for a certain book, heh heh, wink, wink.
Now, Mr. Oldman says; I want that book,
Mr. Washington says: well, you can’t have it.

And there you have the conflict. It is very clear that when the world comes to and end the answer is to walk, to walk a lot and as Mr. Walker would say it, keep walking. So Eli (Denzel) does just that. I the way he finds other people, because let’s face it, what would it be of a post-apocalyptic future without people trying to eat each other?
Let me tell you, when the end comes the vegetarians and vegans are gonna regret being the way they are.

Anyway he travels around carrying this book and killing in order to protect it, we see how he eats, lives, moves and ‘showers’ in these desperate times. Somehow he has an ipod, a generation one or two that still works (with the longest battery life in human history) and a little device he uses to charge it (you don’t wanna walk forever without music) and that drives him into the aforementioned town ruled by Carnegie (Olman).

What is the thing that you can’t get easily and the more you have the more you want?
If you said sex, shame on you!! If you said Power, bingo. Oldman is looking for this particular book, a book that gives you the power to make all the ignorant people that survived the last 30+ years do your biddings without asking, the kind of book with the power to transform a group of ignorants into a flock of believers, you catch my drift?

So they exchange wits and gun shots all thought the movie. The directors are the Hughes brothers (Albert and Allen), the same ones that raped and mutilated ‘From Hell’ back in 2001, but this time they seem to have learned something and they use it in this movie. There is a clear influence from the “Michael-Bay-school-of-blowing-stuff-up-adorning-it-with-fancy-camera-moves” but there is also a lot of road movie, pardon me, good road movie. They made such an improvement on their work that today they are making the kind of action movie that I’m sure people like Paul W.S. Anderson or Roland Emmerich would like to do themselves (If they had any trace of talent).

The religious tone of the movie is not that bad, at least not as bad as to make me want to ignore it, and although it is ‘preachy’ it never gets to the point of getting annoying.

All in all it’s fun to watch, and it also has a message, not necessarily the one you might think at first but still a valid one. In fact I think that depending from what standpoint you decide to see it it might actually have more than one. I choose to take this one: “there is hope even when there isn’t”
Totally worth having it on DVD, not a masterpiece but at least entertaining, and with a lot more acting on it that ‘Shutter Island’.

Here I leave you with my favorite line of the whole movie. It comes from an exchange between Carnegie and his right hand man, Redridge:

Carnegie: To his men "Search for them"
Redridge: For a fucking book?
Carnegie: IT'S NOT JUST A FUCKING BOOK, IT'S A WEAPON AIMED AT THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE WEAK AND DESPERATE, IF WE'RE TO RULE ONE MORE SMALL FUCKING TOWN, WE NEED THAT BOOK, PEOPLE WILL COME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD IF THE WORD'S FROM THE BOOK!

Up next: Robin Hood by Ridley Scott (I hope)

Movie Talk #4

IRON MAN 2
small review by yours trully.


So I got to see Iron man 2 and in spite of what other critics might say, I give it two big thumbs up. Let’s do something really easy here and stipulate that this is not the first Iron man. That’s obvious you might say, well, for some people it’s not.

The first one was fun and entertaining and what not, so far all I’ve read about it it’s that it’s not like the first one. Well, DUH! That’s the first mistake a lot of critics do, they compare it right away with the previous one because it requires less thinking…way to go!!!

This one is very good on its own feet, I think that Jon Favreau (the director) is doing on hell of a job on this franchise, and leading up to ‘The Avengers’. Looks like it will be HIM the one directing it, so I’ll say: kudos to you Jon, kudos.

There are a million things for the fan in this one, more so that in the first one, they are too many to enumerate without spoiling the movie, but here’s one you can see in the trailer; remember back in the day when Tony traveled with the suit in a briefcase? Well, that’s in the movie, updated to today standards of course, but it’s there. What it’s not there specifically but you can feel it in spirit it’s the whole thing from “Demon in a bottle”, with Stark falling into a down ward spiral of self destruction because he becomes a drunk, something like that happens here and just like it happened in the comics it leads to the creation of War-Machine.

There is one thing I really want to rescue from here, there is a sequence with Iron man, nick Fury and the Black Widow (never referred to as such) in a donut store that transported me into the future and gave me a tease of what the Avengers will look like. I tell you this right now, the Marvel universe being more fantastic and unrealistic that the DC one works better on film than anything else around, when the Avengers movie hits the ground it’s gonna remove Avatar from the top spot in the history of box office, mark my words.

It’s pointless to talk about what the movie its about, they all do it, what we should talk about it’s about how well done it is, how entertaining it is and what an excellent follow up it is to the first one. I think that if you are doing movies about/adapted from comics, these two should be a sort of template for directors to follow, because dear old Jon here it’s taking something old and making it fresh and new, entertaining and exhilarating to new viewers and old fans of good ol’ shell head.

Long story short, go see it, enjoy it and stay all the way till the credits end, if you do there will be a little something for you.

Note: as I played the movie in the theater I work it was dubbed in Spanish, and let me tell you this, you can perceive that the movie its good, but missing the voices of the actual actors makes you loose part of their performance. In that aspect, the movie sucked big time, the work on the voices of the Spanish actors it’s lame to say the least. Wherever you are, whatever language you speak, do the effort and go see it in English. Right now for me the movie it’s a solid 7, I’m sure that when I watch it in English it will bump it up to at least an 8.5 or 9. ‘Nuff said.

Here is a little token of my affection, the first official picture released from the THOR movie and the poster of Captain America, in order the next two Marvel movies before we get to see all of them together in the same frame in 'THE AVENGERS'

Chris Hemsworth as THOR, the god of thunder

and Chris Evans as Captain America, the first Avenger.

Movie Talk #3

Cloverfield Charrua style



You simply have to look at this video!

This is an internet sensation, made in Uruguay by a young commercial director. Reportedly the production cost was around 300 dollars, not including the software of course (3-D studio and After effects). This just shows than when you have what it takes (creativity) all you need is talent and support. Kudos to Fede Alvarez, the director, and the best of luck in his upcoming movie (he signed with Ghost House, Sam Raimi's production company).

Maybe he needs a storyboard artist?

Movie Talk #2

UP IN THE AIR
Everything changes.


I was finally able to watch the only movie I was expecting this season, and I have to say; ‘I was right’ it is the only movie worth watching right now.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) works for a company that fires people when their employers lack the backbone to do it themselves. This keeps him in a very busy schedule that takes him out of home for the better part of the year. He flies all the time, and has his whole life set around those parameters. He’s a very practical person detached of everything, that includes baggage, material stuff, people, even relationships. In fact, the only kind of relationship he has is with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) who also happens to be a road dog, just like him. Their scheduled meetings (product of their similar flying patterns) become the closest thing he has to a regular relation.

Everything changes when his company hires a young new talent just graduated from Cornell to improve the methods they use to do their job. Enter Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who has devised a new system that uses web cams and an internet connection to do what was usually done in person, i.e.: fire people. Ryan feels threatened by this and before he knows it he is assigned to show Natalie the ropes of the business, and thus, they become road buddies.

Here we get to see the differences between both, and they go way beyond the mere age gap, they have very different approaches to both, life and work. Here we get to know each other and the way they act by themselves and around others.

The central theme of the movie is change and how it happens before our eyes even when we don’t want it or are not prepared for it. We can see change happening in Clooney’s face when something major happens or when he comes to the realization that something is not right.

The fact is that we all change, we are not the same person we were two or three years ago, but we are not always aware of how we have changed, this movie offers the chance to take a look at ourselves and explore the past with fresh eyes.

We are all three characters, Ryan, Alex and Natalie, we are or have been in their emotional shoes at one point or another of our lives. We were young idealists with a mapped out plan for our future, and as we come of age we discover that life doesn’t work in those terms, it doesn’t have deadlines, and just like everything else, life and its priorities change, and we also have to do it in order to keep up with it.

At one point Ryan says “moving is living” and that’s just what we have to do, we have to move on.

This is also about alienation, most importantly, about self-alienation and how it affects our lives and our relationships. We all need to make connections, because as they say, life is better with company.

This is what movies should be, for once we are able to care for the characters, when Natalie (in a groundbreaking performance by Kendrick) disappears from the picture for a while, I missed her. This is more than just mere escapism, these are real people, and as such, we care for them. I mean, how invested can you be about Sherlock Holmes when you know for a fact that he is going to solve the case and catch the bad guy? His name is on the title of the movie for crying out loud!

Here is an opportunity to go to the movies, have a good time and get something out of it.
At the end of it we can just go back to our daily routines, but it’s not the same, because in the end, we are the ones that changed.

Up in the air. Paramount pictures. Rated R (for language and sexual content). Running time: 109 minutes.
Directed by Jason Reitman (director of Thank you for smoking and Juno)

Movie Talk #1

Welcome to this new section/column about movies!
Here is the first official post, let's take the Avatar critique as a preview. Now let's go back and take a look at 2009 in what I like to call:

The year in review.

This was a very uneven year regarding movies. There were a lot of releases, but most of them were really poor excuses for motion pictures. In my personal opinion most of them were just awful, jumping from bad to worse, with only a handful of good ones and a batch of mediocre ones that look good only when next to the really bad ones.
Let’s make a distinction right here and right now, all this is personal and the box office grossing for ANY particular movie has nothing to do with where they fall, after all, quality is independent of revenue, and one does not necessarily reflects the other.

Let’s take a quick look:

Good:

Harry Potter and the half blood prince, Where the wild things are, Inglourious Basterds, Away we go, Funny people, Star trek, It might get loud, The Blindside, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Watchmen, I love you man, The Hangover, Up, Zombieland.

The thing that makes these movies good to my eyes is the fact that they show you that in today’s world and original idea is still valuable and that if you are going to make yet another remake or adaptation it can be done with some regard and/or respect for the original piece.
You don’t need to be expensive or have the latest in CGI to make a good movie; all you need is a good script and people with talent. All these exceeded expectations, and they range from highly expected blockbusters to the unexpected underdog. Quentin Tarantino made an outstanding comeback with the basterds after that horrible Death Proof he made as part of Grindhouse. All of these also do something that a movie is supposed to do but everybody takes for granted; they entertain.
Something that the ones on the lower section can barely say.

Bad:

Sherlock Holmes, G.I. Joe, New moon, Paul Blart: mall cop, Avatar, Friday the 13th, Pink panther 2, Fast & Furious, Ninja Assassin, Inkheart, Bride wars, Couples retreat, Push, Street Fighter: legend of Chun Li, Miss march, Crank: high voltage, Night at the museum 2, Land of the lost, Blood the last vampire, The final destination, Gamer, Jennifer’s body, Fame, Orphan, Cirque du freak: the vampire’s assistant, A Christmas carol.

I’m sure that all of these looked like a really good idea during the production meetings, I mean we are talking about Hollywood here, these people wouldn’t back up a project without talent involved. I’m sure they are not gonna risk their reputation putting their names in something without a script, poorly acted, badly directed or with production values that make a subway commercial look Oscar worthy. I mean, c’mon, what are they, purely materialistic pigs that only care about putting crap out for people to watch regardless of quality?

No, right?!

Plain Ugly:

Transformers: revenge of the fallen, X-men origins: Wolverine, Year one, Halloween 2, 2012, Terminator salvation, Dragon ball: evolution, Imagine That.

These are so bad, but sooo bad that in comparison they make any Paul W.S. Anderson movie look like Schindler’s List. One thing to mention though, is Roland Emmerich, who must be the most consistent directors in Hollywood history, everything he makes sucks. All these movies just prove the point that all you need to make money is some sort of established property, no script at all and flashy special effects. At least something good came out of Terminator Salvation, Christian Bale’s rant was, is and will be just priceless, 36 F-bombs in under four minutes. I will never get tired of listening to it.

Right now all I can say is:

Let’s just hope for a better 2010.

More to come.

AVATAR, the last tree hugger?

Last night I was able to watch Avatar in a special showing. I’m not gonna tell you what the movie is about, as in the details of the story and the names of the characters and all that, you can find all that info somewhere else. My point is this, Cameron didn’t do anything since Titanic, like 12 years ago, or so, it’s the wait worth?



Is this the next best thing?

I’m not gonna lie, I was a little disappointed. I am a huge fan of James Cameron and everything that live in his little blue world. I was eager to see his latest ‘masterpiece’, or as the media puts it ‘the next best thing to ever happen to humanity’

And you know what?

I’m glad I did, so I got that out of the way. Now I can concentrate in movies that actually have meaning, ‘Up in the air’ here I come…

Avatar is just a visual feast running on steroids. I saw it in IMAX 3-D and all, and yet, It didn’t knocked me out of my boots. In a nutshell, it feels like going to church and being preached about saving the planet for three hours. The only difference is that here, things explode more often.



Yes, we are human, whatever we touch we destroy, we kill, we maim, we are materialistic machines driven only by greed, and we don’t have enough destroying our planet, we go around the universe destroying other people’s planets.

We go to Pandora, and because it has something shiny that we like we decide to kill everything in sight… and destroy the forest.

Cameron used Richard Taylor and all the people at Weta (the ones behind the effects on Lord of the Rings) to create an entire world filled with very weird and colorful creatures, the whole thing looks amazing, I mean, with this people involved that is a given, but still, it feels like a very nice looking egg with pretty much nothing inside.

It’s kind of sad for me to say this, but this movie feels more like a Roland Emmerich one, only with more money and talent.

Millions are going to watch it, the movie it’s gonna make a lot of money (although I doubt that it’s gonna cover the 300 million it cost to film) some people is going to hate it and some are going to love it. Hopefully most of us will walk out with our own impression and ideas about it after seeing it, and that is a good thing.



All I want to say is, if you are going to watch it, see it in IMAX, the difference it’s not gonna be too dramatic but at least the screen it’s bigger. If you are in doubt, let it pass, you can always watch it in DVD (it is going to look gorgeous in Blu-ray) in the comfort of your house, without paying 14 bucks a pop and the over priced candy, but it will still look good.

The rest, we can probably live without Avatar, the most expensive Greenpeace commercial ever shot.

Disclaimer: For those of you wondering. No, I'm not Roger Ebert, Axel Kuschevatzky, Guillermo Hernandez or even the ever lousy Jeffrey Lyons, but I like movies too and I'm not afraid to say what I think about them, if you don't like it, just don't read it.