raphaklopper Reviews

Jaws (1975)

Steven Spielberg first MASTERPIECE!

[10/10 · 21 November 2013]

What was the cinema before this film? A sublime art that attracts attention of critics that could be rather positive or negative, and that people would rarely see only as a hobby. And the rookie Steven Spielberg, who was known for only 2 films with good reviews but commercial flops, and television directing episodes of unknown TV-series, found a dropped script and made a landmark in cinematic history.

The story takes place in the peaceful community from Amity Island, where a young girl is found dead on the beach, in what appears to have been a shark attack. The new town sheriff Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) decides to give the order to close all the beaches from the island, but Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton) prohibits the order at the request of several merchants of the island, because the city's trades relies on summer tourism. But when the mysterious shark attacks become frequent, the sheriff hires a marine biologist from the Oceanographic Institute, Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) to help him find and kill the mysterious killer shark. And for this hunt it joins the mysterious local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) offering his boat. But the small group barely know they will need a bigger boat.

This movie had everything to go wrong. Costs increase in the middle of the production of 4 million to 9 million due to several flaws in filming with cameras being damaged and problems with the mechanical shark. The Company was willing to give up the movie, but the young Spielberg insisted he wanted to go through with the job. And who would have thought that what was the predictable failure eventually end up grossing over 400 million dollars, no film before had hit that mark at the box office (which would reasonably up to 10 or 20 million). This film was the 1st blockbuster of cinema history, way before "Star Wars".

Pity that nowadays people just see this film as a mere classic and nothing more. Nothing to compare with today's movies, right?! WRONG! This masterpiece (yes, masterpiece), has qualities of any great movie. "Jaws" not only marked just for have been the No. 1 blockbuster in film history, but its history also left critics and audiences amazed. The story is not just about three men chasing a white shark, well, it is, but how it is constructed. The screenplay by Carl Gottlieb and Peter Benchley (who wrote the book on which the film was based) building realistic and relatable characters, no film had ever done that before, bringing human reality to the film. Getting to make a realistic narrative characters, and several hilarious moments, bringing the film an excellent entertainment.

But even with laughter, the film brings terrifying moments when the hunt starts. And Spielberg delivers one of his best directing debuts provided with excellent chilling scenes to breathtaking action scenes. And that's why Spielberg proved to be so talented, managing to have a large variation in he direction, ranging from sublime scenes of dialogue to the terrifying scenes of shark attacks, and the chilling last 30 minutes of the film. It also thanks the classic and terrifying soundtrack of John Williams, who will live forever and frighten us by his "dandan dandan dandandandandandandan" with the mysterious monster getting closer ever more.

And also the performances are no bat at all, actually they are all superb. Almost the entire cast came from movies and unknown plays and even in the case of Robert Shaw as the magnificent and unforgettable Le Quint Dickey (which serves almost as a parody of Captain Ahab and his hunt for the white whale Moby » Dickey). This film also has also secured the fame of both Scheider and Dreyfuss entering in other films which would guarantee their first Oscar nominations and here they won their first fortunes.

If you wonder why Spielberg is so well known and appreciated today, see this masterpiece. The master with this film not only mixed a loyal adaptation of a book with humor and horror, but redefined modern cinema forever. Thanks to this film, actors and directors today earn fortunes, people line up to see and be entertained with a movie, which gave us cinema of quality cinema. All thanks to a terrifying soundtrack from John Williams and Steven Spielberg, with "Jaws", one of his first of many masterpieces.

10/10

127 Hours (2010)

Danny Boyle's "Cast Away".

[9/10 · 21 November 2013]

One question: what happens when director Danny Boyle, who made the classic zombie movie "28 days later" and the gripping drama "Slumdog Millionaire", decides to make a biopic of the climber Aron Ralston based on a book that himself wrote? Perhaps one of the best cinematic experiences that someone will have in a movie.

For those who don't know the story on which the film was based on, here is a small synopsis here: Aron Ralston (James Franco) is a simple professional mountaineer who plans to one day do canyoning in the Grand Canyon National Park (canyoning » Canyon, get it?) in Utah. When he is climbing through a narrow passage in the middle of the mountain, Aron slips on a loose rock and falls in the middle of the hole with the same rock trapping his right arm. Aron tries to push the stone but fails, cries for help and also fails. Now Aron will have to try to survive and escape that hole before his food and water finish, and he ends up having to amputate his own arm with a blunt penknife.

Hell, we can almost say that this film is Danny Boyle's "Cast Away", only that is located in the Grand Canyon and it doesn't has no coconut called Wilson, only James Franco in a hole, with only two or three other secondary characters. Many may think that this can be boring or tedious, but as I said before, Boyle gives us an unforgettable experience.

"But how the hell 94 minutes of James Franco in a hole can be interesting?". Well, I don't know, maybe the good script of Boyle and Simon Beaufoy maintaining a great line of realism in the story with well-written and even reflective monologues with the character of Aron talking to himself recording everything by its own camera. But what Boyle really makes is literally put ourselves in Aron's place. Not only doing he a relatable character, thanks to an outstanding performance from Franco, but showing what any human being would do in that situation, since scream, cry, think and then later, hallucinate.

The parts of hallucination were (and are) a target of criticism from the public, saying that it is where the film fails exaggerating the story, but it is exactly the opposite. When Boyle focuses attention on those moments of hallucination is exactly when he puts us in Aron's place. I mean, how many times we humble humans are with nothing to do, we imagine situations with ourselves and fill our minds with thoughts and memories. Giving himself a chance to show another magnificent direction, both in the flashbacks and memories, but also making us feel the claustrophobia and asphyxiation of the hole with a beautiful cinematography.

In short, "127 Hours" is an experience with mandatory viewing at least once in your lives, and believe me, it will be worth it. From a magnificent direction, good script, and (finally) a performance worthy of an Oscar from James Franco makes "127 Hours" not only one of the best films of Boyle, but also an unforgettable experience.

9/10

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

The Second best war movie ever made is a timeless experience!

[10/10 · 7 November 2013]

Spielberg during his career has always shown a certain interest for the World War II, in movies like "1941", "Empire of the Sun", "Schindler's List" and of course "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Last Crusade" that was perfect clear. He affirmed that in a interview that he considers the WWII one of the most significant events of the last hundred years, and always sought to portray it somehow. It took the screenwriter Robert Rodat and Tom Hanks to show to Spielberg a story almost like "Apocalypse Now", inspired by an event of the civil war, taking place during the Second World War, to the master retract the war in the best way (possibly) ever made.

"Saving Private Ryan" is takes place soon after the invasion of the Normandy at Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944. With Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) getting a mission, coming from the General George C. Marshall itself, to rescue a paratrooper private James Ryan (Matt Damon) who lost three brothers in combat, two on D-Day and one in New Guinea. Now the Captain along with 7 of his best men have to travel in the middle of the war in France and cross enemy lines to save the life of a man who doesn't even know. But the dangers and sacrifices will bring challenges and moral dilemmas to the soldiers and their mission.

When I said that Spielberg retracted the WWII in the best way ever made I wasn't bluffing. Of course he showed the consequences of the Holocaust in a terrifying and brilliantly in his masterpiece "Schindler's List". But here, Spielberg completely redefines the genre of war films forever. What was always shown (except for "Apocalypse Now") always with a romantic and patriotic story, Spielberg manages to show its brutality.

Many today consider this film the best war movie ever made, and others think "Apocalypse Now" already occupies this place. Both films follow different paths and tones, but tell a story very similar with almost the same dilemma: "The sacrifice of many lives by one live". But Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" went much further than that, exploring the psychological and disturbing side of the Vietnam War including its origins without ever taking a patriotic side as Spielberg does here momentarily. So "Apocalypse" is by a far superior film.

What Spielberg and screenwriter Robert Rodat do is follow a simpler path but still excellent. Showing for several moments in the film dilemmas about saving a man in the middle of hell. And that leads to relationship of the soldiers, that early in the film was a brotherhood of partnership, begins to fade with the sacrifices being made by a soldier who they never saw or met and it is probably dead. But there is where one of the few of the problems in the film appear, some of the characters deserved a better development but anything ruins our feelings at the end of the film.

Well, so far I've only been talking about moral dilemmas and comparisons. Now let's cut to the part where Spielberg revolutionizes everything, in his direction. Coppola gave in "Apocalypse" the classic "nalpam" bombing of the village, followed with marines stealing surfboards and surfing. Spielberg gave the best battles and shootings ever made and put in a war movie. Literally putting us in the middle of the flying bullets and explosions hurting our ears. And for the people that still criticize Spielberg for making children's and cheesy films, get ready to see bodies being mutilated and blood splash on your face. Showing the terrible reality and brutality of war, the real hell.

In the performances level, the film doesn't disappoint at all. Each of the 8 (9 if you count Ryan at the end of the movie, oh, spoiler). Since Barry Pepper as the best sniper in a movie since Robert De Niro; Tom Sizemone as the best partner to have in a battlefield, and Tom Hanks as Tom Hanks is, simply brilliant.

While not be the best war movie ever made (thanks to Coppola), "Saving Private Ryan" is a essential viewing film. Spielberg through another magnificent direction shows the cruel reality and brutality of war, coated with bright dilemmas thanks to Rodat's script, presented with yet another brilliant performance by Tom Hanks. "Saving Private Ryan" is not perfect or the best war movie ever made, but it is sure a timeless war and movie classic.

10/10

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

The Best Western ever made??? Not quite, but still is AMAZING!

[10/10 · 23 October 2013]

After the great success of the masterpiece "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" which perfectly finished the "Dollars" trilogy. Sergio Leone get bored with nothing to do, and decided to start another trilogy, the "America" trilogy with "Once upon a time in the West". That today is considered the best Western ever made in the history of cinema.

"Once upon a time in the West" begins when the farmer Brett McBain (Frank Wolff) and his sons are murdered in cold blood by the hands of the ruthless bounty-killer Frank (Henry Fonda) who puts the blame on the criminal Cheyenne (Jason Robards). Frank was hired by the legged-rail baron Morton (Gabrielle Ferzetti) to just scare away McBain and his family of their land, because she would be much valued with the advancement of the railroad. But on the same day Jill (Claudia Cardinale) arrives in town, coming from New Orleans, and when she finds out of the crime she reveals that she married Brett McBain weeks before in New Orleans and therefore the land still had a owner. On the same day, Jill meets a mysterious man who is known for Harmonica (Charles Bronson) because he always carries with himself a harmonica, and offers itself as a protector of Jill. And when the criminal Cheyenne knows that he is being unfairly prosecuted, he decides to join forces with Harmonica to help Jill keep the lands of her deceased husband. But a web of mystery and deceit circulates between the contradictory relationship of the characters.

When the film premiered at the time it was poorly received by critics and was a box office failure, only today that the critics and the public praised the film as not only the best Sergio Leone's movie, but also the best Western ever made. Well, not quite (in my opinion), but I understand why people praise him as such. The main complain of the critics to the film at the time, it was that the film was extreme slow. But this slowness is caused by some reasons.

The first one is that the film was completely different from all the Western films ever made, even from the "Dollars" trilogy because Leone gives the film a dramatic tone. What Leone tries to show in the story is the end of the Old West, the title shows that perfectly. The original translation from Italian to English was "Once upon a time THE West", that is, the end of the Old West. And that originally came in the time of the advance of the railways, and the grand corruption and death that she brought to the population. Leone shows that giving the film an excellent script (written by him and Sergio Donati), which gives the film a superb narrative with beautiful dialogs between the characters, but like any Leone's film, it never loses his great sense of humor.

The other reason is, as always. the magnificent direction of Leone, which once again shows advanced for its time. With its perfect close-ups on characters and enormous scenarios, making everything beautiful and epic. But there it comes the problem that prevents the film to even beat "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". Leone was known for his quiet moments brilliantly filmed, and "Once upon a time" is full of them (but maybe too much). Without considering the first 10 minutes of the film (which is brilliant, putting us in the heat of the scene), but others seem to boring taking the power of narrative and our investment on them.

Another problem with the film is the relevance of the characters. Not that they are not superb and memorable (which they are): Jill is nothing more nor less than the representation of the women in the world of men in the Old West and its extreme strength and intelligence, along with an excellent performance from Cardinale; Cheyenne can be compared with Tuco from "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly", both characters are cruel bandits, but in several times they are shown to be simple human beings with their problems and their kind and innocent side; Frank is another cruel-badass villain that Leone built in his films, Frank is a bounty-killer who in previous films its showed that they are honored to their "job", do whoever they were told and paid for and nothing more. But Frank in the film betrays its own principles, and gets into the corrupt world of the railways; Harmonica is almost the same character that Clint Eastwood was in previous Leone films. Mysterious, don't talk much, and never shows his true motives (only at the most epic and badass moment of the film). All characters are fantastic, but thanks to the silent moments of Leone, their relevance and relationship fails in several moments in the history.

I don't agree that this is the best Western film ever made, but I understand why people consider it so. From a fabulous story that shows excellently the end of the era of legends with a flawless script, magnificent direction and unforgettable characters. All this makes "Once upon a time" not only one of the best Western films ever made, but a beautiful masterpiece of cinema and the beginning of another amazing trilogy!

10/10

Black Swan (2010)

Best....ballet movie....ever made (with some scary ass sh#t!

[10/10 · 20 October 2013]

Director Darren Aronofsky that already had presented us: the disturbing and broken world of drug users in "Requiem for a Dream"; the connection of different lives at different times; made us cry and laugh with the life of a retired wrestler. And now with "Black Swan" not only he wanted to show the world the actress that Natalie Portman is, but also wanted to scare us mentally from start to finish in this fabulous film.

"Black Swan" tells the story of Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) a dear and innocent New Yorker ballerina that, like all in this business, dreams to shine on stage and perhaps achieve perfection in dance. One day Nina's life changes when her art teacher Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) gives her the leading role in his remastering of the play "The Swan Lake" which is the Swan Queen (that actually consists in two roles, the White Swan and the Black Swan). But Thomas thinks that Nina as the White Swan is perfect, capturing the grace and innocence of the character. But not as the Black Swan that requires malice and sensuality. Qualities that another dancer Lily (Mila Kunis) manages to convey in the dance, impressing Thomas. So now the two girls begin a contradictory friendship expanding their rivalry. But with this Nina gets to know her malicious and cruel side, which can destroy her terribly inside and as a person, or perhaps help her incorporate the role of the Black Swan.

If you know the story of the "Swan Lake" then maybe it can be a spoiler for the story...... if you have the mentality strength to see it. Darren Aronofsky didn't participate this time the script giving the job to Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John J. McLaughlin, but nothing is lost, but personified. The writing from start to finish creates a great metaphor in the film involving the story of "Swan Lake" and the life of Nina.

Nina is the innocent White Swan trapped in her world wanting to somehow break free. And when she meets the gentleman Thomas he gives her a chance to shine, replacing the dying swan Beth (Winona Ryder) in the role. But it becomes impossible when the malicious Black Swan Lily steals everyone's attention with his guile and sexuality. Now Nina has only her friend and mother the swan queen Erica (Barbara Hershey) to aid her.

But not only is the metaphor of the story in the narrative shines in the film, but suddenly the script takes the film to a dark and terrifying side. That happened when Nina meets Lily which is clearly Nina's opposite: she lies, makes fun of people, and of course uses her sensuality to her advantage. Things that Nina had never been able to be or do, and strikes up a friendship with her rival to might try to find her malicious and sexy side, but it starts to bring great dangers with disturbing visions and changes of attitudes. That's where the terrifying dialogs shown concepts that we all have a dark and evil side in each one of us. Not only in dialogs that this is shown, but also in the magnificent direction.

The direction of Aronofsky has never been so great as it is here. Yes I know, "Requiem" had that depressing and disturbing tone. And in "Wrestler" he put us in the place of Randy both walking the streets as faking a fight in the ring. But here is a little bit of both, not only putting us in places that Nina goes in her home or on stage during the show, but also dark and disturbing moments where Aronofsky uses the perfect use of a beautiful cinematography and (surprisingly) visual effects (which helps in the most beautiful, creepy and metaphorical scene in the movie).

The entire cast is fantastic: Winona Ryder as always superb; Vincent Cassel as always with that British air challenger and cocky; Mila Kunis with a good level of performance. But as I said earlier, who stands out is and Natalie Portman, from start to finish simply phenomenal.

Many may disagree, but I believe that this movies is so far Darren Aronofsky's masterpiece. "Black Swan" with its metaphors about the fight between our good and evil side within the play of "Swan Lake", along with an engaging script and brilliant-terrifying direction with the phenomenal performance of Natalie Portman manages to stand out as a masterpiece of this generation.

10/10

The Godfather Part III (1990)

Part 3 of the BEST movie ever made (here is the review from parts 1-2-3 together)!

[10/10 · 19 October 2013]

Does anyone ever asked the question about what is the best movie ever made? The movie that never get wrong in conveying its history and get right on all the points? The film that is very close to the word "perfection"? Well, "The Godfather" parts 1-2-3 are undoubtedly the answer to this question. Separate the 3 movies and judge them separately is easy. Of course the 1st is where we get marveled, and the other two we had already noted some mistakes, but that's why the three movies together are not only a masterpiece from Francis Ford Coppola but also (perhaps) the best story ever told in a movie.

While in the 1st part, we are introduced to the Italian mob-family the Corleone's facing various threats from rival mob-families. That forces Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) tries to push his youngest son Michael (Al Pacino), to be his successor and be the next family's godfather; In part 2, we have the exact continuation of the story of Michael in the power of the family trying to raise the family business to other countries but he ends up making mistakes along the way. And simultaneously, we have the story of the young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) showing how he came to America and started raising his family; And finally the 3rd and last part we see a older Michael Corleone, suffering from mistakes that he committed in the past. But now he tries to redeem himself before his children Anthony (Franc D' Ambrosio) and Mary (Sofia Coppola) and his family trying to finally legalize the family business going into business with the Vatican and elect his nephew Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) as the new family godfather. But the dangers have always followed the Corleone's closely.

As I said, all parts form the masterpiece that Mario Puzo (Screenwriter) and Francis Ford Coppola (director and screenwriter) brought to the world with his vision of the Italian mafia. Many criticize the film by worshiping the Italian Mafia, which it technically does, but the way that both genius explore it is fantastic.

Throughout the history of the Corleone's, Coppola and Puzo explore the life and business of the mafia and how it works, demonstrating the business and the wars between the Mafia families that are shown realistically and terrifying. BUT, it is not just a story of violence and tragedy as many accuse (which is 60 % of it), because as the film progress it raises throughout the history various concepts of honor, justice and family, all revolving around the Corleone. Making the public really feel part of the family and start to worry about each family member in all parts of the story, at the same time with the family business and his honor.

The writing from Puzo and Coppola help much in this regard. The script is extremely "perfect" in all parts. The narrative is so superb that it never gets boring or leave loose ends, and always raise the values of honor and family through the best dialogs ever put on film. But Puzo and Coppola can make these long dialogs in simple conversations between human beings facing their problems, putting ourselves in their situations and relating with them, leaving the film more exciting and engaging.

But Coppola not only explores the Italian mafia and their families but also puts at various points in American history: the first part is right after the 2nd World War and Michael is a war hero returning home, but he ends up becoming the godfather from his family; on the 2nd part in the history of young Vito Corleone we see him coming in America at the time of the great Italian immigration meeting the "American Dream"; on the 3rd part with Michael going into business with the Vatican we see a huge line of corruption and murder within the church .

Both in writing and directing the film is excellent too but the performances are the highlights of the movie: Al Pacino is excellent in every detail with a penetrating gaze and frightening expressions (and still annoys me that in 3 films he didn't get a Oscar for his role); Robert De Niro is a perfect young Vito Corleone in both voice and gestures reminding us of the badass and unforgettable old man from the first part with a simply perfect performance from Marlon Brando.

Many say that the 3rd part should never be connected to the first two for be to horrible. I think the film is still a masterpiece but obviously it has his inconveniences leaving loose ends like: what happened with Tom (Robert Duvall), the family's lawyer, he died or he started his own family as he wanted in part 2? And also adds a lot of plots and little development, at least in the 1st hour of the film. But after a huge chopper scene everything settles superbly and concludes the trilogy or rather the film perfectly.

Simply putted is the best movie ever made, the drawbacks and inconveniences are almost invisible (except in the 3rd part). Concepts of honor and family within the Mafia; full of suspense and drama; criticizes America and the church. All this in a movie with excellent performances, direction and writing simply perfect. All that makes "The Godfather", the strongest brand of cinema till today 10/10

Citizen Kane (1941)

The BEST movie ever made??? Well, I'm not sure, but at least is one of them!

[10/10 · 17 October 2013]

Many critics today consider this the best movie ever made in the history of cinema. This statement has led many people today think the film is very overrated. Which statement is the right one it is impossible to say, but I think I can understand both opinions.

"Citizen Kane" begins after the death of the journalism magnate Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), who moments before dying uttered the word "Rosebud". Days after of journalism hype over the news of his death, the journalist Jerry Thompson (William Alland) is sent by his boss to investigate the life of Kane, in order to discover the meaning of his last word, in which no one knows. Then he begins to interview all living people who knew and met Kane. Going from his best friend Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten); his secretary Bernstein (Everett Sloane); the 2nd ex-wife Susan Alexander Kane (Dorothy Comingore). The journalist begins to discover that he plunged into the life of a lonely man who from childhood is obliged to follow the will of others. Nobody around Kane cared about him, and then he began looking through the acquisition of things the worship from the people, but it all led to his tragic and painful end.

Many said at the time that Orson Welles (who also directed and wrote the film) based the life of Kane on a real tycoon from journalism William Randolph Hearst. Welles at the time denied such claims publicly, especially after Hearst negatively criticized the film saying it would denigrate his image. But the comparisons are almost obvious: Hearst was known to have transformed the simple New York Morning Journal to a sensationalistic newspaper (buy news from other newspapers or invent them) the same thing Kane did with the newspaper "Inmaker"; Hearst built a castle with his name, the Hearst castle in Florida, and Kane made "Xanadu" in the Gulf of Mexico, both Hearst and Kane had nationalists and communists concepts (they were part of a political party but then denounced them).

The critics doesn't idolize this movie for nothing. Mainly because it is WAY ahead of its time, to imitate the life of a tycoon on a fiction film was almost crime at the time, but not only that. Welles gives the film a magnificent direction with gigantic footage such filming today require multiple cameras (more than 20) and at the time they used a very limited number (less than 5). Including a amazing photography and beautiful cinematographic with spectacular scenery.

Not only in direction but Welles gives the film one of the best screenplays ever written, primarily because it can be smart and fun giving a modern language and humorous moments. But above all, gives a timeless narrative to the history, that is, it doesn't follow a single timeline, going back and forward to the past and the future all the time telling pieces of Kane's life from childhood to the arrival to wealth. This technique was very advanced and almost impossible to do at the time. And along the incredible story of Charles Kane, the film uses elements of politics, romance, and even musical. And for several moments, it critiques the rich society and American politics (another thing that at the time was almost a crime).

But of course, today many people will find problems in the film compared to today films. It is almost inevitable a film having problems, and "Kane" is no exception of this. The main problem is with so many characters in the film, somehow it fails in making us care about them (except for Kane), but once again we have to have in consideration the constraints of the script and cast at the time.

Speaking of cast, that was also a great revolution. All actors were newcomers, making their first appearances in movies. Not only this fact, but also the fact that they are all extraordinary. Since Joseph Cotten and Dorothy Comingore simply superb, but who stands out is Welles himself. He in their 20s, considered the wonder boy, then took his skills as an theater actor and radio announcer and not only give a excellent directing and writing to the film but also a magnificent performance from start to finish.

People have to take in consideration the time that the film was made and not criticize it comparison to today. Early there, it was the beginning of the 2nd world war with much of the economy focused on armaments, Orson Welles with a magnificent direction, superb script and splendid performance managed to make a mark in the history of cinema that should be remembered forever!

10/10

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Is this a comedy or a political drama??? It can't be both can it? Oh wait, its Kubrick, yeah it can be!

[10/10 · 16 October 2013]

Does anyone ever stopped to think about the consequences if the nuclear war between the USA and the Soviet Union during the cold war had happened? How it would start and what would be the consequences? Many theories and ideas have been raised over the years, all almost similar always pointing to a possible nuclear apocalypse. Then the director Stanley Kubrick decided to take these theories and joined them with his own ideas and made the masterpiece "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".

"Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" is a satire that tells the consequences (in Kubrick's mind) of the nuclear war between the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It all starts when the ultra-patriotic and ultra-paranoid General Jack Ripper (Sterling Hayden) seems to have a crazy and patriotic attack, and gives the order to all B-52 bombers that surround Russia initiate the nuclear attack. Such an order reaches the ears of the also very patriotic General 'Buck' Turgidson (George C. Scott) to rapidly informs the President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers). Now the general, the president and his aides, the Russian Ambassador Alexi of Sadesky and the former Nazi scientist Dr. Strangelove (also Peter Sellers) have to find a plan to prevent the attack from the bombers starting the nuclear war.

Can you imagine the controversy that this film caused at the time it came out? The world after the Vietnam War and America still redeeming itself. But not only the subject, but the way that Kubrick presents it. What could be a political drama with the theories and ideas of the consequences of war can be presented with great dialogs (which are actually 80% of the film), Kubrick made it a comedy. From start to finish Kubrick delivers a intelligent humor and silly at times without losing the mood, always presenting the "possible" consequences in a hilarious and satirical way, thanks to yet another flawless Kubrick script.

The use of the ultra-patriotism from the General Jack Ripper (if you pay attention his name is a tribute to Jack the Ripper) and the General 'Buck' Turgidson is exactly the statement of the "ultra - desperation" that the Americans had during the war. General Ripper has a huge patriotism and love for his country that led him to give the order to the nuclear attack, only for precaution. And General Buck is a clear representation of the lazy and ignorant patriotic American people.

And where Dr. Strangelove gets into all that? Not only as comic relief (in all his scenes), but also explain the title: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb". In all his scenes, the former Nazi with one hand with own will, tends to try to convince everyone in the war room to accept the situation that they are, accept the nuclear apocalypse. It all comes in all its hilarious scenes where he presents arguments behind arguments silly and clever at the same time, showing the benefits of the nuclear war, all to do with a new era for human kind.

Not only the humor and genius of Kubrick that are superbly presented that give strength to the film, but also the fantastic performances of the cast. Both Sterling Hayden and George C. Scott shine with their ultra-patriotism; also Peter Bull as the weird Russian ambassador and Slim Pickens as Major King Kong (pilot from one of the B52s that will launch the bombs). But who steals the show with AMAZING performances is Peter Sellers in all his three roles. As much as the president of the united states, or the crazy and smart ex-Nazi and the friendly gentleman Captain Lionel Mandrake (that tries to convince the general Ripper to stop the attack), Sellers shines (I think he was the only actor who gave ideas and improvisations in the film and Kubrick liked them and changed things on the script because of it).

Many critics consider this the best film of Stanley Kubrick, and not for anything. Kubrick joined with his genius, years of ideas and theories of war in a hilarious and intelligent comedy, making not only a governmental critic but also entertains us from start to finish. Thanks to flawless script and direction together with splendid performances. Maybe not the best film of Kubrick ("2001" already has this place), but surely one of them!

10/10

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Funny and smart Script and astonishing performances makes you laugh like a lunatic, and cry like a little miss sunshine after losing a contest! (oh, wait)

[9/10 · 14 October 2013]

Have you ever heard of those "Little Miss Sunshine" contests? The ones that glosses, fantasize and pamper girls between 6-9 years old and put them to compete to see which one is the most beautiful (in other words beauty contest for spoiled children)?! And it always ends up with the winner flattering herself and the losers crying?! Well don't worry, this film is not about that, at least not 80% of it. And actually makes you crack-yourself laughing, and teaches you a lot about family relationship.

"Little Miss Sunshine" begins with the Hoover family. A really problematic family, with: the father Richard Hoover (Greg Kinnear), an advertising manager that tries to sell his campaign about the 9 steps to achieve success, but the poor guy just don't want to admit that he is a poor loser; the mother Sheryl Hoover (Toni Collette) trying to put peace in the house but it always fails miserably. Even more when she brings her problematic-homosexual brother Frank Ginsberg (Steve Carell) from the hospital after trying to kill himself by depression (his boyfriend cheated on him with a teacher that end up being super rich and famous); the older son Dwayne (Paul Dano), a teenager who hates everyone and made a vow of silence to his parents let him be an airplane pilot; the grandpa Edwin Hoover (Alan Arkin) who was expelled from his retirement house and now he swears and smokes weed every day, every hour. The family day-to-day changes when Olive (Abigail Breslin) the youngest daughter (and probably the most normal member of the family) gets a call saying that she was approved and can participate in the "Little Miss Sunshine" contest in Redondo Beach, which had always been her dream. The family "couldn't resist" her cuteness and decided to travel to Redondo Beach in their old Volkswagen Type 2 to take Olive to the pageant. But crazy drawbacks will appear on the road.

For the synopsis you can imagine that it is a road trip movie and in the end she wins the contest and the whole family ends up happy. But thanks to Michael Arndt screenplay things go through the crooked and not only makes the family happy but also we. With this I mean that this film, that is considered a family drama, expect many die-laughing moments. Of course the film doesn't lose its dramatic side (which is quite heavy in the film) showing family and life situations with a beautiful narrative. But Michael Arndt with a really smart humor can make all the really sad situations, really really funny.

Even the directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris help spice up the humor and drama of the film. It has moments that seem to be Wes Anderson making the film (drama and comedy together with a funny vision of the world sounds his style), but the directors put very well the situation of the film in our world. Especially at a emotional time in the trip, and on the arrival in the contest, but it never loses his sense of humor making us laugh by every minute.

But for everything to work out, a really great cast would have to be up the height of the movie, something that doesn't lack in this film. Yes, Alan Arkin took the Oscar in the film, and it wasn't for nothing thanks to his funny swears and his pure human side, but in the cast doesn't lack out great performance. Since: the little Abigail Breslin (superb); the troubled teenager Paul Dano (excellent as always) that it doesn't say one word till half of the film in the most emotional and funny scene; and Steve Carell surprises with a hilarious and superb performance (and proved to be perhaps the most important character in the film).

A gripping drama that teaches us a lot about family and life, but thanks to a superb cast and amazing script, makes us laugh after laughs and get fun by every minute that passes. And after the end, this little masterpiece makes us open a huge smile on our face! 9/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Part 1 of the Longest movie ever made! (This is the review of the entire trilogy)

[10/10 · 7 October 2013]

The longest movie ever made, so long that the director had to divide it in three parts, and that's why people call a trilogy. 10 hours of a phenomenal spectacle that will leave anyone with tears and a heavy heart after the magnificent end.

In "The Fellowship of the Ring" we start with the journey of Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) towards to Mordor, lair of the dark lord Sauron. And we see the great training and union of the Fellowship of the ring, an alliance of all the living beings of Middle-earth on a mission to destroy the "One Ring" and thus save the world from the darkness.

In "Two Towers" we have the beginning of the Great War between humans and orcs, with the army of Saruman (Christopher Lee) marching against the kingdom of Rohan. And Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) along with the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) joining in the battle. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are getting closer every day to the lair of Sauron, now having the help of the strange creature Gollum / Smeagol (Andy Serkis) who wants by all means his "precious".

And finally in "The Return of the King" we have the spectacular ending to the trilogy / film. Since the beginning of the film we felt the feeling that everything is coming to an end. Frodo and Sam finally reached Mordor and try to find a way to infiltrate into the enemy territory and Gollum / Smeagol plans to take the ring from Frodo, who becomes increasingly heavy. And on the other side we have the beginning of the great battle that we expected since the first movie, the showdown between humans and orcs in the battle that will determine the fate of the world with all the characters we have learned to love here together in this fight to the uncertain ending.

Peter Jackson (director-writer) brought to life the masterpiece of books, "Lord of the Rings" by the genius JRR Tolkien. This can be the best adaptation of a book to film ever made, if the book is already a masterpiece in the world of books, Jackson made a masterpiece of cinema. The gigantic story that was told in six books, in film it was told in one film. A film of more than 10 hours, it had to be divided into three parts forming the best trilogy already made. I say it's just a movie because all three movies work as one, from the beginning to the end we realize that.

Since the first film (or first part) we have the magic of Tolkien's working here, along with Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens (writers) have recreated and remained faithful to Tolkien's work and the film managed to raise the themes of friendship, courage and while it has always had religious references in the book and the film manages to convey everything in the greatest perfection.

Not only the writing is phenomenal, but the visual effects are stunning giving a gigantic scale the movie, so well detailed visual effects that make everything look so realistic. And the effects are not only stunning but also that the soundtrack that is simply magnificent.

A trilogy that works as a single film that is a true masterpiece. A landmark in film history thanks to excellent writing and direction of Jackson and fantastic performances from all the cast, "The Lord of the Rings" is the epic fantasy stunning in every detail and be loved by all.

10/10

The Godfather Part II (1974)

Part 2 of the BEST MOVIE EVER MADE, period! (Here are the reviews of parts 1-2-3 together)

[10/10 · 7 October 2013]

Does anyone ever asked the question about what is the best movie ever made? The movie that never get wrong in conveying its history and get right on all the points? The film that is very close to the word "perfection"? Well, "The Godfather" parts 1-2-3 are undoubtedly the answer to this question. Separate the 3 movies and judge them separately is easy. Of course the 1st is where we get marveled, and the other two we had already noted some mistakes, but that's why the three movies together are not only a masterpiece from Francis Ford Coppola but also (perhaps) the best story ever told in a movie.

While in the 1st part, we are introduced to the Italian mob-family the Corleone's facing various threats from rival mob-families. That forces Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) tries to push his youngest son Michael (Al Pacino), to be his successor and be the next family's godfather; In part 2, we have the exact continuation of the story of Michael in the power of the family trying to raise the family business to other countries but he ends up making mistakes along the way. And simultaneously, we have the story of the young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) showing how he came to America and started raising his family; And finally the 3rd and last part we see a older Michael Corleone, suffering from mistakes that he committed in the past. But now he tries to redeem himself before his children Anthony (Franc D' Ambrosio) and Mary (Sofia Coppola) and his family trying to finally legalize the family business going into business with the Vatican and elect his nephew Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) as the new family godfather. But the dangers have always followed the Corleone's closely.

As I said, all parts form the masterpiece that Mario Puzo (Screenwriter) and Francis Ford Coppola (director and screenwriter) brought to the world with his vision of the Italian mafia. Many criticize the film by worshiping the Italian Mafia, which it technically does, but the way that both genius explore it is fantastic.

Throughout the history of the Corleone's, Coppola and Puzo explore the life and business of the mafia and how it works, demonstrating the business and the wars between the Mafia families that are shown realistically and terrifying. BUT, it is not just a story of violence and tragedy as many accuse (which is 60 % of it), because as the film progress it raises throughout the history various concepts of honor, justice and family, all revolving around the Corleone. Making the public really feel part of the family and start to worry about each family member in all parts of the story, at the same time with the family business and his honor.

The writing from Puzo and Coppola help much in this regard. The script is extremely "perfect" in all parts. The narrative is so superb that it never gets boring or leave loose ends, and always raise the values of honor and family through the best dialogs ever put on film. But Puzo and Coppola can make these long dialogs in simple conversations between human beings facing their problems, putting ourselves in their situations and relating with them, leaving the film more exciting and engaging.

But Coppola not only explores the Italian mafia and their families but also puts at various points in American history: the first part is right after the 2nd World War and Michael is a war hero returning home, but he ends up becoming the godfather from his family; on the 2nd part in the history of young Vito Corleone we see him coming in America at the time of the great Italian immigration meeting the "American Dream"; on the 3rd part with Michael going into business with the Vatican we see a huge line of corruption and murder within the church .

Both in writing and directing the film is excellent too but the performances are the highlights of the movie: Al Pacino is excellent in every detail with a penetrating gaze and frightening expressions (and still annoys me that in 3 films he didn't get a Oscar for his role); Robert De Niro is a perfect young Vito Corleone in both voice and gestures reminding us of the badass and unforgettable old man from the first part with a simply perfect performance from Marlon Brando.

Many say that the 3rd part should never be connected to the first two for be to horrible. I think the film is still a masterpiece but obviously it has his inconveniences leaving loose ends like: what happened with Tom (Robert Duvall), the family's lawyer, he died or he started his own family as he wanted in part 2? And also adds a lot of plots and little development, at least in the 1st hour of the film. But after a huge chopper scene everything settles superbly and concludes the trilogy or rather the film perfectly.

Simply putted is the best movie ever made, the drawbacks and inconveniences are almost invisible (except in the 3rd part). Concepts of honor and family within the Mafia; full of suspense and drama; criticizes America and the church. All this in a movie with excellent performances, direction and writing simply perfect. All that makes "The Godfather", the strongest brand of cinema till today 10/10

The Godfather (1972)

BEST MOVIE EVER MADE, period! (Here It is the review from Parts 1-2-3 together)

[10/10 · 7 October 2013]

Does anyone ever asked the question about what is the best movie ever made? The movie that never get wrong in conveying its history and get right on all the points? The film that is very close to the word "perfection"? Well, "The Godfather" parts 1-2-3 are undoubtedly the answer to this question. Separate the 3 movies and judge them separately is easy. Of course the 1st is where we get marveled, and the other two we had already noted some mistakes, but that's why the three movies together are not only a masterpiece from Francis Ford Coppola but also (perhaps) the best story ever told in a movie.

While in the 1st part, we are introduced to the Italian mob-family the Corleone's facing various threats from rival mob-families. That forces Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) tries to push his youngest son Michael (Al Pacino), to be his successor and be the next family's godfather; In part 2, we have the exact continuation of the story of Michael in the power of the family trying to raise the family business to other countries but he ends up making mistakes along the way. And simultaneously, we have the story of the young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) showing how he came to America and started raising his family; And finally the 3rd and last part we see a older Michael Corleone, suffering from mistakes that he committed in the past. But now he tries to redeem himself before his children Anthony (Franc D' Ambrosio) and Mary (Sofia Coppola) and his family trying to finally legalize the family business going into business with the Vatican and elect his nephew Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) as the new family godfather. But the dangers have always followed the Corleone's closely.

As I said, all parts form the masterpiece that Mario Puzo (Screenwriter) and Francis Ford Coppola (director and screenwriter) brought to the world with his vision of the Italian mafia. Many criticize the film by worshiping the Italian Mafia, which it technically does, but the way that both genius explore it is fantastic.

Throughout the history of the Corleone's, Coppola and Puzo explore the life and business of the mafia and how it works, demonstrating the business and the wars between the Mafia families that are shown realistically and terrifying. BUT, it is not just a story of violence and tragedy as many accuse (which is 60 % of it), because as the film progress it raises throughout the history various concepts of honor, justice and family, all revolving around the Corleone. Making the public really feel part of the family and start to worry about each family member in all parts of the story, at the same time with the family business and his honor.

The writing from Puzo and Coppola help much in this regard. The script is extremely "perfect" in all parts. The narrative is so superb that it never gets boring or leave loose ends, and always raise the values of honor and family through the best dialogs ever put on film. But Puzo and Coppola can make these long dialogs in simple conversations between human beings facing their problems, putting ourselves in their situations and relating with them, leaving the film more exciting and engaging.

But Coppola not only explores the Italian mafia and their families but also puts at various points in American history: the first part is right after the 2nd World War and Michael is a war hero returning home, but he ends up becoming the godfather from his family; on the 2nd part in the history of young Vito Corleone we see him coming in America at the time of the great Italian immigration meeting the "American Dream"; on the 3rd part with Michael going into business with the Vatican we see a huge line of corruption and murder within the church .

Both in writing and directing the film is excellent too but the performances are the highlights of the movie: Al Pacino is excellent in every detail with a penetrating gaze and frightening expressions (and still annoys me that in 3 films he didn't get a Oscar for his role); Robert De Niro is a perfect young Vito Corleone in both voice and gestures reminding us of the badass and unforgettable old man from the first part with a simply perfect performance from Marlon Brando.

Many say that the 3rd part should never be connected to the first two for be to horrible. I think the film is still a masterpiece but obviously it has his inconveniences leaving loose ends like: what happened with Tom (Robert Duvall), the family's lawyer, he died or he started his own family as he wanted in part 2? And also adds a lot of plots and little development, at least in the 1st hour of the film. But after a huge chopper scene everything settles superbly and concludes the trilogy or rather the film perfectly.

Simply putted is the best movie ever made, the drawbacks and inconveniences are almost invisible (except in the 3rd part). Concepts of honor and family within the Mafia; full of suspense and drama; criticizes America and the church. All this in a movie with excellent performances, direction and writing simply perfect. All that makes "The Godfather", the strongest brand of cinema till today

10/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Part 3 of the longest movie ever made!

[10/10 · 7 October 2013]

The longest movie ever made, so long that the director had to divide it in three parts, and that's why people call a trilogy. 10 hours of a phenomenal spectacle that will leave anyone with tears and a heavy heart after the magnificent end.

In "The Fellowship of the Ring" we start with the journey of Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) towards to Mordor, lair of the dark lord Sauron. And we see the great training and union of the Fellowship of the ring, an alliance of all the living beings of Middle-earth on a mission to destroy the "One Ring" and thus save the world from the darkness.

In "Two Towers" we have the beginning of the Great War between humans and orcs, with the army of Saruman (Christopher Lee) marching against the kingdom of Rohan. And Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) along with the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) joining in the battle. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are getting closer every day to the lair of Sauron, now having the help of the strange creature Gollum / Smeagol (Andy Serkis) who wants by all means his "precious".

And finally in "The Return of the King" we have the spectacular ending to the trilogy / film. Since the beginning of the film we felt the feeling that everything is coming to an end. Frodo and Sam finally reached Mordor and try to find a way to infiltrate into the enemy territory and Gollum / Smeagol plans to take the ring from Frodo, who becomes increasingly heavy. And on the other side we have the beginning of the great battle that we expected since the first movie, the showdown between humans and orcs in the battle that will determine the fate of the world with all the characters we have learned to love here together in this fight to the uncertain ending.

Peter Jackson (director-writer) brought to life the masterpiece of books, "Lord of the Rings" by the genius JRR Tolkien. This can be the best adaptation of a book to film ever made, if the book is already a masterpiece in the world of books, Jackson made a masterpiece of cinema. The gigantic story that was told in six books, in film it was told in one film. A film of more than 10 hours, it had to be divided into three parts forming the best trilogy already made. I say it's just a movie because all three movies work as one, from the beginning to the end we realize that.

Since the first film (or first part) we have the magic of Tolkien's working here, along with Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens (writers) have recreated and remained faithful to Tolkien's work and the film managed to raise the themes of friendship, courage and while it has always had religious references in the book and the film manages to convey everything in the greatest perfection.

Not only the writing is phenomenal, but the visual effects are stunning giving a gigantic scale the movie, so well detailed visual effects that make everything look so realistic. And the effects are not only stunning but also that the soundtrack that is simply magnificent.

A trilogy that works as a single film that is a true masterpiece. A landmark in film history thanks to excellent writing and direction of Jackson and fantastic performances from all the cast, "The Lord of the Rings" is the epic fantasy stunning in every detail and be loved by all.

10/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Part 2 of the longest movie ever made!

[10/10 · 7 October 2013]

The longest movie ever made, so long that the director had to divide it in three parts, and that's why people call a trilogy. 10 hours of a phenomenal spectacle that will leave anyone with tears and a heavy heart after the magnificent end.

In "The Fellowship of the Ring" we start with the journey of Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) towards to Mordor, lair of the dark lord Sauron. And we see the great training and union of the Fellowship of the ring, an alliance of all the living beings of Middle-earth on a mission to destroy the "One Ring" and thus save the world from the darkness.

In "Two Towers" we have the beginning of the Great War between humans and orcs, with the army of Saruman (Christopher Lee) marching against the kingdom of Rohan. And Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) along with the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) joining in the battle. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are getting closer every day to the lair of Sauron, now having the help of the strange creature Gollum / Smeagol (Andy Serkis) who wants by all means his "precious".

And finally in "The Return of the King" we have the spectacular ending to the trilogy / film. Since the beginning of the film we felt the feeling that everything is coming to an end. Frodo and Sam finally reached Mordor and try to find a way to infiltrate into the enemy territory and Gollum / Smeagol plans to take the ring from Frodo, who becomes increasingly heavy. And on the other side we have the beginning of the great battle that we expected since the first movie, the showdown between humans and orcs in the battle that will determine the fate of the world with all the characters we have learned to love here together in this fight to the uncertain ending.

Peter Jackson (director-writer) brought to life the masterpiece of books, "Lord of the Rings" by the genius JRR Tolkien. This can be the best adaptation of a book to film ever made, if the book is already a masterpiece in the world of books, Jackson made a masterpiece of cinema. The gigantic story that was told in six books, in film it was told in one film. A film of more than 10 hours, it had to be divided into three parts forming the best trilogy already made. I say it's just a movie because all three movies work as one, from the beginning to the end we realize that.

Since the first film (or first part) we have the magic of Tolkien's working here, along with Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens (writers) have recreated and remained faithful to Tolkien's work and the film managed to raise the themes of friendship, courage and while it has always had religious references in the book and the film manages to convey everything in the greatest perfection.

Not only the writing is phenomenal, but the visual effects are stunning giving a gigantic scale the movie, so well detailed visual effects that make everything look so realistic. And the effects are not only stunning but also that the soundtrack that is simply magnificent.

A trilogy that works as a single film that is a true masterpiece. A landmark in film history thanks to excellent writing and direction of Jackson and fantastic performances from all the cast, "The Lord of the Rings" is the epic fantasy stunning in every detail and be loved by all.

10/10

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

The Trilogy: 1st-The AMAZING; 2st-The Epic-Badass; 3st-The BEST Western ever made!

[10/10 · 6 October 2013]

Leone after the underrated failure that was "The Colossus of Rhodes", Leone decided to put his career in order doing the remake of the Japanese classic "Yojimbo" turning it into a American-Western filmed in Europe. "A Fistful of Dollars" not only launched his career, but started a new era of Western films. And then came the superb sequel that was "For a few dollars more". And as if that was not enough, Leone made the 3rd chapter of the story of the man with no name. And not only surpassed its predecessors but ended up being (maybe) the best westerns ever made.

"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" starts when Tuco (Eli Wallach), an Mexican outlaw, finds in the desert a Confederate convoy with all soldiers killed inside a wagon. But one of the soldiers was alive and tells Tuco about a certain treasure he hid in a coffin in a cemetery. Tuco goes to fetch water on his horse, to give to the soldier so that he could speak better, but when he is back the soldier died, and the only one who heard the name of the coffin was Blondie (Clint Eastwood) Tuco's former business partner which was being tortured by Tuco crossing the desert without drinking water because Blondie had betrayed him. Blondie knows the name of the coffin but it doesn't know the location of the cemetery, which Tuco does. Now both bastards have to work together to find and maybe split the treasure. But the mission becomes difficult when both meet Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) a lieutenant of the union army that knew longer about the treasure but it didn't know the name of the coffin. Now the three men who hate each other will have to join and across an America at war to find the mysterious treasure.

And why this movie is (in my opinion) the best Western ever made? Again, it was the fault of Leone and the exuberant cast. What Leone made in this film, was bring was what was excellent in the first two films and put it all together in this masterpiece. From the 1st movie is the superb narrative that flows in history always perfectly highlighting their characters in the story with chilling and (believe it or not) reflective dialogs.

And of course, Leone also destroys (in a good way) in his amazing direction. Giving not only spectacular and epic duels (which here contains the best ones of the trilogy), but also with breathtaking Italian landscapes serving as the Old West. Thanks to the success of the previous films Leone manages to give the film a huge magnitude, with gigantic landscapes and moments with beautiful scenery. Not only landscapes but presents us with one of the greatest cinematic battles, the Battle of Langston Bridge.

But as I mentioned before, Leone uses his genius in both script and direction, giving reflective moments to the story. Not only humanizes his characters, but gives the film a huge critic to America using a Western cliché. This cliché is the civil war, if you look at most Western movies (especially John Wayne's ones) they always had as stage the civil war. And through it Leone makes his criticism. It comes in moments like when Blondie and Tuco met Angel Eyes, they had been imprisoned by Union soldiers. In this open-air prison, the Confederates soldiers are forced to play and sing songs against their will, while the guards torture other prisoners. Clearly a metaphor comparing the Union soldiers to the Nazis, but this is based on facts. In many prison camps during the war, there was heavy torture and even rumors of cannibalism. And even a time when Tuco unwittingly confuses Union soldiers to Confederates ones, because they were covered in dust. Another metaphor trying to say that no matter what side you are, everyone is equal.

In performances the movie definitely surpasses its predecessors: Clint Eastwood once again the badass as he ever was in the trilogy. In this film we can see more of his human side and clear, despite his schemes and greed, it has clearly a "good" side; Eli Wallach excellent. Maybe his performance certainly reach the performance of Eastwood, as this character that even with "ugly" attitudes have a pure side; Lee Van Cleef again superb now as the villain. But maybe he's the only "bad" thing in the movie. Not his performance, but his character doesn't has moments of exploration that Tuco and Blondie had, but Leone does an excellent job showing why he is the devil in the movie.

In conclusion, Leone did absolutely in his masterpiece the best Western ever made. Thanks to an ambitious narrative that not only gives unforgettable characters but makes a big social criticism. Thanks to a huge and beautiful direction with incredible views that captures tense and epic moments; thanks to a creepy and classic soundtrack by Ennio Morricone; thanks to superb performances; thanks to Sergio Leone with his genius that brought us a masterpiece trilogy that redefined the Western forever, concluding it here perfectly making it legendary.

10/10

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

One of those sequels that stays one step behind its predecessor, but it still freaking EPIC!

[10/10 · 5 October 2013]

Thanks to the huge success of "A Fistful of Dollars", which thanks to Sergio Leone began a new era for Western movies and mark the beginning of his and Eastwood career. Sergio Leone began to make the "sequel" with the same cast of his predecessor, bigger, but with small errors it doesn't surpasses its predecessor, but continued epic and Badass!

"For a few dollars more", begins with the cruel criminal El Indio (Gian Maria Volonté) escaping from a Mexican prison with the help of his gang killing in cold blood all the guards on their way. The news comes fast with wanted posters with his pictures scattered in all American cities. One of the posters captured the attention of Col. Douglas Mortimer, a bounty hunter who soon begins to plan how to get Indio dead or alive. Not only Mortimer, but also caught the attention of Monco (Clint Eastwood), another bounty hunter who also covets the reward for the capture or death of Indio. When both hunters unwittingly meet each other face to face, knowing Indio's plan to rob a bank heavily guarded, they decide to work together to get Indio and share the big reward for Indio and his gang. But Monco discovers that Mortimer objectives go far beyond that to receive the reward, much darker than that.

Many consider that this movie is not a sequel, but according to Eastwood it is. The reason for this consideration is mainly Eastwood's character. While in the predecessor he was this mysterious man who called himself Joe, trying to take advantage of a gang war cashing out at the end. And in this one he is a bounty hunter who calls himself "Monco" who makes a certain justice catching and killing criminals, those are the differences but the age of time is the same. The first movie was located at the time of the gang warfare on the frontier and the time of the American cavalry, and this one is happening in 1873, the same historical age. And, Joe-Monco in the first one he heard advices from the city's innkeeper saying that one day everyone had to sit in one and honest work, that is exactly what he does this one. Killing bad folks and earning money.

The film's problems are few and forgivable, but compared with the 1st movie, it makes a certain lack. I'm talking about the film's narrative, while in the 1st movie she was very well written and flowed perfectly in a superb script. In this one, the 1st hour of the movie almost nobody says something, and we only know most of the story in the remaining hours of the film, now flowing perfectly. And in the first film since the first half hour we were completely coated in history. But this was actually Eastwood's own idea. He liked so much of his character that he starts investing and exploring a lot (the Joe-Monco fur were from Eastwood). And advised Leone to him give less dialog to increase the mystery of his character, and of course, increase our Goosebumps when he talks.

But this little problem, paved the way for the magnificent direction of Leone. Not only in the duels scenes, which here are not only better than the 1st movie but are more tense and the direction in each one is simply superb. But the moments that stand out are the fantastic Italian and Spanish landscapes serving as the American Old West.

And the performances simply excellent: Clint Eastwood.....do I need to say something?; Gian Maria Volonte who was almost the same role in the 1st movie, the good shooting and cruel villain, but thanks to his exuberant performance it lends an air of a psychopathic villain; Lee Van Cleef superb. Leone's idea of putting two Badasses shooters is a experiencing that at the time of the film no one had ever seen it, jaws went straight to the floor and the chills came by every word. And the duel between the two, it was advanced for the time, is not a duel with both shooting each other, but each one testing the skills of each other.

This movie is one of those sequels that are only one step behind the predecessor. But thanks to the genius of Leone in both direction and screenplay, and the exuberant performances, "For a few dollars more" remains an excellent continuation and an important part in the masterpiece trilogy.

10/10

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

The beginning of the best Age of Western movies.

[10/10 · 3 October 2013]

After the great classic "Yojimbo" from the master Akira Kurosawa, the Italian Sergio Leone, known only by the great failure "The Colossus of Rhodes" decided to do the remake of the Japanese classic. None American production company wanted to produce the film because of the process that Japan put in Leone, and only managed to start producing and make the film in Spain. The budget was little, the actors were unknown, the failure that everyone thought was going to be today is considered a cinema classic.

"A Fistul of Dollars" begins with a strange cowboy who call himself Joe (Clint Eastwood), arriving in a small town on the Mexican border that suffers a war between two gangs. On one side the Americans "Baxter's" led by John Baxter (Wolfgang Lukschy) and his wife Consuelo (Margarita Lozano), and on the other The Mexicans "Rojos" led by the Rojo brothers: Esteban (Sieghardt Rupp), Don Miguel Benito (Antonio Prieto Puerto) and Ramon (Gian Maria Volonte). Joe only sees in this rivalry a chance to gain an advantage working for the two gangs without them knowing, increasing the rivalry between them and just letting him in the end. But Joe barely knows that the Rojo's leader Ramon is not be underestimated, but neither is Joe. Yes, the plot of the film is identical to the classic "Yojimbo", but what Leone did with it, was magnificent.

Before this film, the Western genre was dying. John Wayne was getting old and boring, and many others failed to capture the public's interest. What Leone did thanks to Kurosawa classic was simply redefine the Western genre putting: humor; tense moments; scary and disturbing villains; and Clint Eastwood.

The biggest difference between this movie and the prior westerns and Yojimbo, is the "hero". The western hero was known for his ideals of justice and to do good; Joe is someone who seems cold and just wants to get advantage of situations thinking only of him and him alone. And Sanjuro, Yojimbo's hero, wanted to free the people of the city from the gang rivalry. Joe, at the end does the same thing only unintentionally. But not only the excellent performance of Eastwood as the anti - hero who stands as one of the best things in the film, but also the master Leone, giving not only a superb and humorous narrative to the film, but gives a hell of a direction.

Leone not only managed to put the story of Yojimbo adapting perfectly to the style of the Old West, but it gave-it a humor but also violent and dark tone. And even with the small budget Leone capture unforgettable moments since the chilling duels scene with perfect close-ups on the characters capturing his nervousness before the shooting to come, and also beautiful landscapes and the huge Spain desert serving as the Mexican border.

The film that at the time was considered a class B movie, but it had a great success in Europe and America. And thanks to Leone and his genius in both directions and script, picked the Japanese classic and transformed-it in a history of the old west, redefining the Western genre forever. Also thanks to formidable performance of Eastwood, starting his long career in style. Today this masterpiece is considered a classic of the cinema, and it isn't for nothing!

10/10

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

The most underrated movie from Spielberg!

[10/10 · 2 October 2013]

Stanley Kubrick projects were known for take a long time for their debut, but whenever they come out it was a success and caused polemic and controversy. "A.I." was another one of those projects that take years on pre-production. Suffering from production problems since 1970, changing companies and Kubrick laying off several writers that didn't captured his view of the story. Until after the death of Kubrick, and his wife Christiane Kubrick asked longtime friend of her husband, Steven Spielberg to directed the film, and Spielberg ended up making one of his masterpieces.

"A.I." takes place in a future where the glaciers finally melted due to global warming, flooding most of the costs of the countries. The human race continues to move forward, with what is still available from food, technology and with minerals that still exist. And with the advancing years, they start building robots with human appearance and with artificial intelligence, each programmed for a certain function (babysitter, housekeeper, lover). Until Professor Hobby (William Hurt) begins to manufacture children robots with human feelings and emotions, to be sold to families who have always wanted to have children. One day Henry Swinton (Sam Robards) decides to buy a robot named David (Haley Joel Osment) for him and his wife Monica (Frances O'Connor) who suffers from the lack of his son Martin (Jake Thomas) who is in a terrible coma. Over the months Monica creates a great mother's love for David, and David treats her with great love of a son to his mother from admiration and obedience. But everything changes when the son of Henry and Monica wakes up from the come and get back home and start involving David in a lot of confusion. The "brothers" relationship gets even complicated when David inadvertently almost drowns Martin in the pool, causing distrust of Henry and Monica thinking that David can be a serious danger to the family. Monica then takes David away from home and expels it in the middle of the road. David suffers and puts the idea in his mind that if he becomes human he can go home, starting a massive journey through the country where robots are enslaved by humans.

Kubrick and Spielberg even being longtime friends both had completely different styles of movies. Kubrick had his brilliant scripts giving the story an air of mystery and disturbing moments with a sly touch of humor, followed with excellent filmmaking and perfect photography. Spielberg, always changed the style of his film, he is even today known for changing style film capturing perfectly the different movie tones.

Since the beginning of the film, it all looks like Kubrick, like was really him writing and directing. His elements are everywhere: old and scary voice narrating the story (element from Barry Lyndon); disturbing and mysterious narrative with a sly touch of humor. And of course, always criticizing society by every minute. All this thanks to Spielberg's script, the 2nd that he writes since "Close Encounters", which in my opinion captures the style of Kubrick's screenplays. And its beautiful direction, even that didn't surpasses Kubrick direction, feeds very well the story, and also giving the film amazing visual effects and incredible CGI.

And of course, Spielberg couldn't resist and putting his own elements. Some may see this as a negative, but gives so much to the history. Putting to the disturbing and mysterious story heart, making us relate to David and feel his pain when our future society rejects and him, and makes us care about his search for become a human being. And in the end makes us believe that dreams can come true.

We will never know if Kubrick would be happy with the final product, but I like to think that he would. Spielberg with a superb script and fine direction captures the style of Kubrick, with excellent performances by Haley Joel and Jude Law as the robot lover. It all ends in a masterpiece that it didn't captured the deserved respect from critics and the public, which gave us a story that mixes Pinocchio with post apocalypse, with disturbing and emotional moments, a film that in one word is beautiful! 10/10

Unforgiven (1992)

Clint Eastwood first MASTERPIECE!

[10/10 · 1 October 2013]

After three decades as an actor and one as a director, Clint Eastwood had already received bad critics after bad critics. It was a matter of time until in 1992, Eastwood joined his director skills and his long career in Western movies, and finally had the deserved respect in perhaps his ultimate masterpiece.

"Unforgiven" begins in a dark cold night in the small town of Big Whisky, when suddenly it's heard screams coming from the cabaret with two clients cutting the face of a young prostitute. The sheriff Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman) is called and his men manage to catch the two criminals, but Little Bill doesn't condemn the two deadly, instead they have to deliver 5 horses to the owner of the cabaret as the price for the poor young woman. The other prostitutes are dissatisfied with the justice posed by Bill, and join all their money putting a bounty of $ 500 for the death of the two cowboys. The rumor of the bounty reaches the ears of a young cocky that call himself The "Schofield Kid" (Jaimz Woolvett). Kid decides to go after the cowboys, but not to face them alone he seeks the help of Will Munny (Clint Eastwood), a former cowboy known for cruel and terrible crimes from the past with his gang, who Kid heard through his uncle. Will hesitates at the beginning because it is now a family man and left his murdering live in the past after the death of his wife, but his farm is dying and his children are starving. Then decides to take up arms one last time, also asking for help to its former partner Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman). Now the three men ride to fulfill the job and claim their money, but they barely know the naive and sadistic man that Little Bill is.

Let stepwise, Eastwood worked with two masters of Western, Sergio Leone and Don Siegel, both ensured the career success of Eastwood. Sergio with the masterpiece trilogy "The Man With No Name" and Don in "Dirty Harry" (come on, full of western elements) and other westerns. So we can almost say that the entire career of Eastwood was based on Western movies. "Unforgiven" is not only the homage he does to both Sergio and Don (right after the credits this seems obvious), but also revolutionizes the Western genre forever.

It all begins again with Eastwood, none of his characters from old westerns never missed a shot and always were the badass gunslinger from start to finish. In this movie, he misses the shot, falls off from his horse, gets beat up A LOT. And how this can be any good? Mainly because this had never happened to any Western hero, and tries to take the film also lead to a more realistic and human tone (years without using weapons is completely normal to happen).

Thanks to David Webb's script, the film flows with a superb storytelling, giving the movie human characters who are facing the cruelty of the Old West. And also make use of the cliché of the Old West legends and turns it into simple rumors. For example, in Western movies there was a time when they mentioned a legend of the west, cowboys that never missed a shot and always killed the bad guy. This is demonstrated in the film when the British cowboy English Bob (Richard Harris) appears in town (also behind the bounty) honoring himself for his legendary past, and suddenly everything turns into nothing when Little Bill imposes its concept of justice.

But while the film turns clichés into anything and humanizes his characters, even at the beginning with a humoristic tone. Eastwood never wrote the scripts of his films, but he always changed something them by adding their genius in history, giving the film a dark and violent tone as well. Also showing to the story, several times where a concept of what is violence and what is killing appears. They come from both words and epic scenes with the stylish direction of Eastwood, and thanks also to an explosive and gloomy 3rd act where everything comes together and makes up a chill in your bones.

Eastwood shines behind the cameras, but also in front of her along with a exuberant cast: Eastwood, as I said shines; Morgan Freeman with one of his best performances; Gene Hackman who already had played the arch-rival of Superman proves to be one of the best villains ever put on a western movie (if you can call him villain, I would call him a sheriff very naive with a terrible bad-temper, building his beautiful home on the hills).

The film that many consider the best western ever made (which is not, "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" is, dah). Well, surely one of them, with Eastwood paying tribute not only to his western-movies-career but to the long years of Leone and Siegel movies. Giving the story realistic and gloomy touches thanks to magnificent performances, excellent storytelling and superb direction. Eastwood presented us with his first of the many other masterpieces that he was yet to give us, who showed us the human side of the western mans, but in the end shows that legends will live forever.

10/10

Chinatown (1974)

Best NOIR ever made!

[10/10 · 28 September 2013]

After masterpieces like "Knife in the water", "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby". Roman Polanski (one of the best directors who ever lived, and lives), proved to be a competent director and screenwriter in various genres, decided to make a tribute to the genre that he grew up watching, "Noir", in the best way possible. Doing in my opinion his ultimate masterpiece!

"Chinatown" tells the story of J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Jack Nicholson), a private detective in L.A., specialized in cases of marriage. One day, he is hired by Evelyn Mulwray, who suspect's of her husband Hollis Mulwray (Darrell Zwerling), the builder of the water supply system of the city, thinking that he is having an affair. Jake then does what he does best with his assistants and follows and takes photos of Hollis with his young lover, inadvertently causing a huge scandal in the press. Later after a job well done, Jake gets into his office the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) putting a process in Jake accusing him of fraud. Jake knowing that he was set-up, he begins to investigate who was the fake Mrs. Mulwray, and trying to get in touch with Hollis Mulwray, because he believe that who cheated him wanted to hurt Mr. Mulwray. Only when Jake tries to contact Mulwray, he is found dead in a channeling of the water system of the city. Now Jake asks the help of the real Mrs. Mulwray to help him in his investigation of those responsible for the death of the poor man, but this will take him into a web of lies and corruption, keeping horrible secrets of the city.

Polanski from the beginning wanted to do a tribute to the films noir of the '40s and '50s, and he did it "perfectly". First unite the types of cases and scandals of a usual noir film: policy; familial cases; xenophobia and racism; corruption; and of course murder. Mixing humor, and also dark and thrilling moments to the history. Thanks to a superb direction of Polanski, and also the strongest point of the film (and surprisingly the only Oscar that the film received), the script.

The script by Robert Towne, who was initially written by Polanski, is superb in every possible detail. Very well written from start to finish, giving the film a wonderful narrative that flows perfectly without ever getting boring and also, thanks to the influence of Polanski, is full of humor. But it also never ceases to be serious and dark when needs to be, giving superb dialogs to the film, adding a lot to the history. Not only long conversations about the case, but also on the definition of what is justice, spread all over the film. Jake before he was a private detective, he was a police officer in Chinatown, and saw many terrible things. And he says in a moment in the film that justice doesn't exist, only we can make-it.

Not only the script and direction that construct the film excellently, but also the magnificent actors. Jack Nicholson at the beginning of his career is definitely superb, from start to finish with his huge smile and his angry face, opening a huge future in front of him; Faye Dunaway simply wonderful, she is the mixture of all the heroines of a Noir film, and mature fragile; even Polanski with a small and dark appearance.

Polanski, at its best, making an incredible tribute to the Noir genre (perhaps the best Noir movie ever made) with a superb script, beautiful direction, excellent performances, a story that leaves you intrigued and drag you to the end with laughs and chills, and after the end even tears.

10/10

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

This is what I call Archeology!

[10/10 · 27 September 2013]

After two masterpieces (one very underrated), the dual Spielberg and George Lucas had achieved complete success, and didn't plan to stop there. Spielberg promised Lucas since the beginning that if would make one he would have to make a trilogy. And they didn't disappointed closing their trilogy with a golden key with another underrated masterpiece that captured millions of fans and made Dr. Indiana Jones legendary forever.

Our great adventure this time begins when our unforgettable Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) in another of his adventures in the middle of the Pacific ocean being beat-up by pirates. When Dr. Jones takes control of the situation and steal a strange diary from the leader, manages to escape with a job well done (the first in the trilogy). Days later, we see our hero back to his college teaching job educating young mind. After the class, Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) chief and friend of Jones comes and warns him that Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), a relics collector want to offer him a new job. Shortly after the conversation with Walter, Jones discovers that the work involves the diary that he recovered from the pirates, showing the path to find the "Holy Grail" (for those who do not know, the cup that Christ drank at the Last Supper). And Jones also finds out that this job had already been offered to his father Dr. Henry Jones (Sean Connery), who disappeared in a museum in Venice. Now Jones embarks on a mission to find his father with Marcus and the path to the Holy Grail, which will take them from a museum in Venice to the Arabic deserts with danger following them closely.

I think Lucas and Spielberg in this film have decided to put all that was good in the first and second film and joined perfectly (which the last movie of a trilogy usually does). Proof of this is the return of Marcus making him a very important character in the adventure, and later the return of Sallah (John Rhys - Davies) who doesn't have much relevance, but it is fun to see him again since the first film. But the main thing that Lucas and Spielberg gave the story was to humanize the character of Indiana Jones.

They do this through the first sequence of the film where we see a younger Indiana Jones, where we discovered many secrets of his past and finally the origin of the cowboy hat and the whip, even his name (and finally the reference to the Western genre in a film Spielberg). And when his father Henry Jones appears, and perhaps the best thing of the film. Since the first meeting in the movie of the Joneses, we already see the type of relationship between them two. Henry is a born lover of artifacts and history, giving more attention to study than the son who has created some resentment to his father. But their relationship throughout the film not only evolves, but thanks to the actors, they have an exceptional chemistry, making us laugh and love them even more.

All this also thanks to the screenwriter Jeffrey Boam. Since the first film Lucas and Spielberg always changed the writers. Lawrence Kasdan in the first (considered one of the best screenplays ever written) and the couple Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz in the second (underrated). But Jeffrey didn't disappoint, making almost equal to Lawrence in the first, giving moments of dialog in the film, none of them gets to be boring, always flowing along very well in the story, especially between the Jones duo. Also filling the movie with a laughing out loud humor (perhaps the most humorous of the trilogy) but never gets to be stupid, but works very well in all the situations and the relationship of father and son.

Mention direction and performances this time is stupid. Since the 1st movie Spielberg never disappoint in their direction, and wouldn't be different this time giving spectacular (and hilarious) action scenes from start to finish. And Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones never disappointed, and would not be this time (perhaps his best performance as the unforgettable and badass teacher). This also involves Sean Cornery giving an unforgettable character with a superb performance, and he and Harrison giving an incredible chemistry in their characters.

Maybe not the best of the trilogy, but it's a fans favorite, and not for nothing. From a superb script that gives humor and soul to their characters, a marvelous direction, excellent performances, the best chemistry ever put between two characters in a movie. Spielberg and Lucas finished their trilogy giving heart and soul to Indiana Jones, reminding us why we love him, and making this saga forever legendary! 10/10

Drive (I) (2011)

Best Art-house movie ever made, with shi#t blowing up!

[9/10 · 26 September 2013]

Nicolas Winding Refn, the Danish director of "Art -House" genre, who already had explored various themes in his films with a beautiful-looking: the Danish mafia in the "Pusher" trilogy; a violent prisoner in "Bronson"; a mute-dumb badass Viking without an eye in "Valhalla Rising"; all with a beautiful direction and full of metaphors on the subject on study, and FULL of violence. But his greatest critical success and ultimately the public's attention would be with this masterpiece!

"Drive" tells the story of Ryan Gosling's character, a mysterious man with several jobs: one as a part-job being a movie-stuntman making stunts with cars; the rest of the day as a mechanic; at night he enters in the world of crime as a getaway driver. Everything seems to change in his life when thanks to his boss of the workshop, Shannon (Bryan Cranston), the driver begins to approach his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan), who has a long nurtured passion. Days pass and the driver gets closer and closer of Irene and her son creating a great relationship. But everything changes when Irene's husband returns from prison bringing with it immense dangers to the only family that the Driver ever had.

I know, the synopsis sounds like another cliché action movie with a badass character, but that's where the genius of the film begins. Nicolas Winding Refn is known for putting in his films varied metaphors in the topic to be explored. And what is the topic of the movie? Well, it is simply the action genre (a theme exploring another theme, intriguing right?). Perhaps this is the reason for the poor reception that the film had with the young crowd, the trailers and synopsis sounded like a good action movie just for good popcorn, and ended up going much deeper than that, but all the clichés are here.

Gosling's character is the typical movie's action hero: don't talk much and when he speaks are phrases that make you crack a smile on your face and think (wow, what a badass); know how to handle weapons well and never gets hurt after a fight; drive cars as a master engaging in awesome car- chases; and of course, has a soft heart. Nicolas along with screenwriter Hossein Amini try to explore the human side of this type of hero, they are human with its good and pure side, but at the same time dark and violent side. Giving the film a lot of metaphors.

Nicolas is known for its intense moments of silent in his films that many consider boring, but serve as reflective moments. Here, these moments are not only reflective but show the reality of the film (come on, ask yourself, how many times have you been in a room with someone you doesn't know without saying word embarrassed? Neither the badass hero escapes this.). And this is possibly the film of Nicolas with more people talking, even the driver (no main character of the films Nicolas almost never said a word), giving the film an excellent, realistic and even humorous narrative to its characters.

In technical aspects, the film is almost perfect. As always, Nicolas deliver's a beautiful direction and the right use of lighting and slow motion at the silent and dialog moments, and also the superb action scenes. And the movie contains a varied and beautiful soundtrack; all songs have the same theme, what is to be a hero, also serving as a metaphor.

In performances, all exceptional: Ryan Gosling predictably has an extraordinary performance, even not speaking much he shines as the troubled-badass hero in the quest to be a good person; Bryan Cranston, if you ever watched "Breaking Bad" knows how great it is here. He also another cliché in the movie, at the same time he is the old mentor he is the comic-relief; Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman as the villains Bernie and Nino, both superb but also serve as a metaphor for the story, even the bad guys are human villains with their own problems.

Surely, the masterpiece of Nicolas, a magnificent direction, with a great narrative, splendid performances. All together and put into a theme that seemed inexorable, that ended up being an excellent aesthetic and human study of the action genre in perhaps the best art -house movie ever made, with amazing sh#t blowing up.

9/10

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

A Magic Masterpiece long forgotten!

[10/10 · 25 September 2013]

Spielberg had already proved his great talent in the underrated masterpiece "The Sugarland Express ", but it didn't receive the deserved appreciation at the time. And then he directed the timeless classic "Jaws", the first big box office film, which opened doors to him to show his geniality like someone never did before in this forgotten masterpiece!

"Close Encounters" begins at a night as any other in the live of Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) the typical American citizen, working at the power station in their small town of Indiana, playful with his kids and loving to his wife. When one night, the entire city suffers a huge power blackout, and Roy is called to try to identify the source of the problem. In the middle of traffic, Roy's truck is covered by a strong white light coming from above, and then he sees strange bright objects in the sky and the light fading around the city. Days pass and Roy begins to have strange visions of a mountain, and five musical notes start running in his head always at the same pace, taking Roy to have attacks of insomnia and do crazy things, thus losing his job and his family fleeing from home. But Roy finds out later that he is not the only one having these visions when he meets Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon) who also has visions and his son Barry was captured during a storm with red lights, and the mountain of his visions exist in the country and is being used by the military as a study center recently. Roy then begins to embark on a research to find out what musical notes means and what will happen on that mountain.

This was the first personal project of Spielberg, thanks to the success of "Jaws" he managed to realize it, and showed his genius as ever. The film from the beginning follows a realistic style, as their characters are like any other human with their own problems, and as if everything was happening in our world on a day like any other (something that had already been demonstrated and guaranteed success the "Jaws"). Thanks to the realism that Spielberg puts in the film and its characters, we can totally put us in place of Roy and into his confused mind by the whole mystery around them, and our minds begin to take turns asking what the heck is going on.

Spielberg in the film, kind of uses the same style that Stanley Kubrick used in "2001", both films totally different but share the same technique. It shows little dialogue and uses scenes and more scenes brilliantly. And the scientific theories used to build the mysterious climax of the film comes from years and years of real mysterious cases that happened in our world, everything come together in small pieces along the film through a brilliant narrative and majestic scenes (as I said , the same technique of "2001" though not better).

A story strongly told thanks to the brilliant screenplay (written by Spielberg himself), the film also does not disappoint with a brilliant direction and a superb soundtrack by John Williams. And it contains one of the most beautiful visual effects ever made up, that even today left people speechless.

A masterpiece that showed the genius of Spielberg to the world as no other director had ever shown before, mixing facts and more facts of strange cases that happened in our world with a philosophic and religion tone, and the most original sci - fi style ever made. All together with a superb performance from Dreyfuss and a strong script that holds your attention until the great 3rd act where all the mystery and the facts come together and the philosophical symbolism that makes your mind explode and your eyes sparkle when witnesses the best sci - fi ever made and the most ambitious movie of the legendary Spielberg!

10/10

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

Yeah, "Empire" was a movie that was really really hard to overcome. But DAMM, what a finale!

[9/10 · 24 September 2013]

The trilogy that marked and changed cinema forever, that gave George Lucas an huge success, and in this last chapter Lucas once again ask the help of Lawrence Kasdan on the script and delivery the direction to Richard Marquand. All together concludes with a golden key to the magnificent trilogy.....but unfortunately the movie nearly surpasses its magnificent predecessor.

"Return" begins months after the events of the previous film with Han Solo (Harrison Ford) imprisoned in the palace of his great rival Jabba the Hutt. Luke (Mark Hamill) begins a rescue plan sending the droids R2 - D2 (Kenny Baker) and C - 3PO (Anthony Daniels) and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) as bait while Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Lando (Billy Dee Williams) come infiltrated, Lando as soldier and Leia as bounty hunter. Soon after the great rescue, the group joins with the rebels and begins to know that the Empire is rebuilding the battleship "Death Star" under the command of Darth Vader (David Prowse) and begin to dominate the galaxy. The rebels now begin a massive plan to destroy the "Death Star" and finally put an end to the war. But Luke, with the instruction of Yoda (Frank Oz) and Obi - Wan (Alec Guinness), knows that Vader is not the monster that appears to be and begins to try to bring him to the good side of the "force". Such a task will be difficult with the cruel Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) controlling the mind of Vader with the dark side of the force strong in his side.

The film never gets to be awful or terrible, as I said before, Lucas and his coworkers end the trilogy perfectly but the film suffers from a serious problem. Since the beginning of the film to the last moment with Yoda (unfortunately) the film flowed superbly, well written and directed by keeping the humor and well action packed. BUT, suddenly the plot jumped to the Rebel base nor explains how Han is feeling after his rescue and now we see very quickly the plan of attack against the Empire. And soon after, we see our beloved crew in the immense forest of Endor entering into a tense action sequence, the action is not a bad thing at all but the rush that the script took over there has a huge problem of narrative that in the end really hurt the film, but everything is reward with a thrilling and exciting final act.

Even with a certain problem in the script at the 2nd act, "Return of the Jedi" is a worthy conclusion to one of the best trilogies ever made, thanks to Lucas that since the beginning redefined the genre of sci - fi forever giving her unforgettable characters with an incredible evolution; thanks to stunning visuals effects giving stunning and unforgettable scenarios;, thanks to John Williams with his unforgettable and powerful soundtrack. The trilogy that not only gave us absolute entertainment and genuinely tense moments, but also taught us that we can always reach our dreams just fighting, we all despite the problems and sins can redeem us and that if we all get together despite our different races can destroy all the forces of evil. "Return of the Jedi" doesn't surpasses its predecessors, but is a thrilling and epic conclusion to the trilogy that changed cinema forever.

9/10

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

BEST SEQUEL EVER MADE (before The Dark Knight)

[10/10 · 23 September 2013]

After the huge success of "Star Wars" both critical and in the box office, giving birth to a new era cinema. George Lucas was already planning its sequel, but decided to divide his work with the director Irvin Kershner and screenwriters Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett, many fans were afraid (even with Lucas writing the story), but this group brought the saga to a all-new and unexplored level.

"Empire" begins shortly after the huge events of its predecessor with the entire rebel army after destroying the " Death Star", fleeing through galaxy with the powerful imperial fleet right behind them with ruthless Darth Vader (David Prowse) in command. And with the rebels we see Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) finally realizing his dream of becoming a pilot in the rebel army against the empire, and alongside him his "inseparable" friends: the brave and cocky (and Badass) Han Solo (Harrison Ford); the brave and intelligent Leia (Carrie Fisher); the.....Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew); R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels). But their lives begin to suffer a great risk when the Empire finds the rebel position in the ice world of Hoth, where a huge battle starts forcing the rebels to retreat. Han, Leia, Chewbacca and C - 3PO manage to escape in the Millennium Falcon, but end up being captured later by Darth Vader thanks to a betrayal of Han's friend, Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams). Meanwhile, Luke and R2 were able to escape as well, but with the voice instruction from Obi - Wan (Alec Guinness), Luke is advised to go to the Dagobah system and meet the Jedi master Yoda (Frank Oz) which will help Luke know and control the "strength", which later will bring him sinister secrets and the sacrifice for his friends.

At the time it came-out, the film was poorly received by critics and fans, but perhaps understandable. No one at the time expected to see a major change in direction that the director and writers, hell, even the Lucas led to film and its history, and today the film is considered not only the best Star Wars ever made, but also one of the best sequel of a saga in the cinema.

If Lucas in the 1st film had already revolutionized the modern cinema, so here he and his team raised barriers never explored. While the 1st movie had the great adventure of Luke going to rescue the princess from evil forces in a massive sci-fi style full of humor and thrilling moments. In this one he maintain the great sense of adventure and the humor is not lacking thanks to Han, but here everything is brought to a much more human side thanks to its unforgettable characters. And also thanks to the writers who deliver an amazing and beautiful narrative to the characters since small to big dialogues between the characters showing their human side, and also further exploring the "Jedi" topic that it wasn't been well explored in the 1st movie. But also the other side where the film is taken is into a very dark twist that began when dark secrets from the past begin to appear.

A flawless script and characters very well evolved, but also at the technical aspects the film rises completely. From the incredible visual effects with a beautiful visual direction from Kershner. And also the new and memorable soundtrack from John Williams "The Imperial March", you know, that dan dan dan dan dandan dan dandan, dan dan dan dan dandan dan dandan (I know, it's strange to describe a song writing and not listening, well anyway)?! Not only the best "Star Wars" or the best sequel ever made, but also one of the best movies ever made will be marked forever in the history of cinema. All thanks to a flawless script, beautiful direction, strong performances (especially Mark Hamill with an incredible evolution of acting) and the biggest twist that cinema ever had makes "Empire Strikes Back" an eternal masterpiece!

10/10