by zEke

Están de moda las películas de perdedores. Y no me refiero a perdedores en general, me refiero a esos perdedores que lo son porque se pasan la vida haciendo algo que no les hace felices. ¿Qué es la felicidad? bill es otra película con un perdedor como protagonista, como lo fue en su día por ejemplo american beauty (1999), o más recientemente he was a quiet man (2007). Este tipo de personajes se prestan a situaciones cómicas y dramáticas por igual, además de ser útiles a la hora de hablar de lo infelices que podemos llegar a ser si nos dejamos arrastrar por la inercia. Por supuesto hay siempre un punto de inflexión que será el principio del fin de la agonía del protagonista.

Bill (Aaron Eckhart) vive una vida patética junto a su adultera mujer y bajo las órdenes de su suegro en un banco en el que es enteramente prescindible. Todo cambia cuando decide pasar las tardes con un adolescente rebelde. El principio del fin de la agonía al que hacía referencia antes. Todo esto aderezado con como Bill hace frente patéticamente al idilio de su mujer con un periodista local.

La película les sirve a los debutantes Bernie Goldman y Melissa Wallack para prometer durante los primeros minutos y caer en lo convencional después. Lo cierto es que es cada vez más difícil sorprender con una historia así, por lo manido del asunto recientemente. A pesar de todo, Wallack, que además de codirigir firma el guión, apunta maneras a pesar de algunas lagunas que se le acaban por perdonar. Por lo menos le queda a uno la sensación de que nunca huye de ellas y les hace frente con soltura.

Aaron Eckhart está lejos de su mejor versión y se pasa la película poniendo cara de tonto mientras se mira una incipiente barriga. Aún así, le sirve para estar a años luz del resto, entre los que se encuentran Jessica Alba, bonita pero del todo prescindible, y el joven Logan Lerman, al que hemos visto recientemente en 3:10 to yuma (2007).

Alguna sonrisa sí te arrancará, pero estamos ante una propuesta que pasará sin pena ni gloria por este mundo en el que vivimos. Un mundo, por cierto, lleno de individuos parecidos a Bill, más de lo que a muchos les gustaría. O sea, el mensaje, si alguno, es bastante evidente y equivalente en poder de sugestión al de cualquier galleta de la suerte.

Para las deadhours de los que no están donde deberían estar y los que están donde no debrían estar.

official site | imdb

by zEke

Movies that are based on comic books are on fashion these days. Mostly, because they seem to be profitable enough. Truth is, most of them are just about that and forget about the essence of the stories they tell. Thus, after the initial hype they are forever forgotten. Does anyone remember daredevil (2003), the punisher (2004)? I could keep going, but I will not. Even those who manage to stay in our memory are not more than ephemeral entertainment. Good entertainment, but far from providing anything else, which on the other hand they do not have to. batman begins (2005) might be an exception. All this to say that iron man is one of the latter, good entertainment and nothing else.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is an eccentric industrialist who only cares about the effectiveness of the weapons his company provides to gain peace in the world by means of war, and how to spend his ridiculous fortune. This is until he is captured in Afghanistan by mercenaries who use his very own weapons. To scape he builds an armor. An armor that once back at home and after a severe tuning process turns Stark into his alter ego, Iron Man.

Downey Jr. is perfect as Stark. It is like he was playing himself. Yes, that comfortable he seems playing the role. Unfortunately, he lacks chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow, who plays Pepper Potts. Terrence Howard and Jeff Bridges are symbolic. Specially the latter, whose metamorphosis deserved more attention. But Downey Jr. is able to fill the screen with his presence and it is not that annoying that he does pretty much all the time. I do not think they needed that much time to show us how Stark learns how to fly, though.

Visually, yes, it is what one would expect, spectacular. If you like heavy metal you will enjoy also some of the tunes that liven up the action. Action that mixes well with the humor. Jon Favreau, who is not known for his career as a director, does a good job at mixing all the ingredients of this comic book adaptation. An adaptation that is more an introduction to the characters than anything else. As if they were already thinking about the sequel before releasing it. Of course it was going to work on the box office.

All in all, pure entertainment, with the plus that stands slightly out among comic book adaptations.

For the deadhours of those with an iron heart.

official site | imdb

by zeke

And yet another romantic comedy.

Tom (Patrick Dempsey) is a ladies man. He, following a strict set of rules, moves from one lady to another without ever looking back. But there is one that is always there, his best friend Hannah (Michelle Monaghan). His life teeters when she leaves for Scotland for a few weeks and comes back to get married to a Scottish duke and have Tom being her maid of honor.

Everything this romantic comedy has to offer happens at the beginning. It is not that it has nothing to offer after a while, but as the story develops becomes more predictable. Nevertheless, the inertia achieved during the first minutes is enough to keep things rolling.

Dempsey and Monaghan are both as good as one might expect, being the former the one that carries most of the weight. It is his character’s indecisions the ones that makes things happen. Usually, these roles are always played by females. Truth is, males are less tough than most pretend to be and many will see something about themselves in Dempsey’s character.

Paul Weiland, whose work is almost limited to collaborations with English comedian Roward Atkinson will not surprise anyone with his directing skills. He merely translates into the screen a script that has already nothing new to offer, other than the guy’s perspective. Nevertheless, that is not necessarily wrong, since it can still provide non pretentious amusement. Towards the end, things get a little bit ridiculous, but most will forgive it by means of the happy ending.

All in all, a movie that is not intended to change your life but it is easy to digest and better with company.

For the deadhours of those who wait too long.

official site | imdb

by zEke

Have you ever been dumped? If you have, this is the movie you are looking for. This does not mean that you need to have had your heart broken to enjoy the movie, but if you have, the movie will turn your notches into laughs by means of every single cliché you can think about. Do not expect therefore to be surprised by the plot, which you can figure out right from the beginning. You will, though, by how different things look like when watched on the screen.

Television star Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) breaks up with composer Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) after a five years relationship. To heal, broken hearted Peter takes an impulsive trip to Hawaii, only to discover that he will be staying at the same resort Sarah is staying with her new boyfriend, rocker Aldous (Russell Brand).

Everything Jude Apatow touches these days turns into laughs. The writer and director of the 40 year old virgin (2005) and knocked up (2007), and producer of superbad (2007) and forgetting sarah marshall has found the formula to make everyone laugh. His secret is having been able to step out from the tiring inertia of recent comedies to reinvent a genre and stuff it with freshness.

Segel, who is also responsible for the script shines, while Bell is as good as she has to be. And Brand, well, you will either love his character or hate it, but undoubtedly remember it. The rest of the cast serve graciously as one liners both deliverers and receivers. Behind the camera we find Nicholas Stoller, as novice as Segel as a writer. Both successful enough for a first attempt.

A movie that will keep your mouth bend all the way. Sometimes giggling, sometimes smiling, sometimes laughing.

For the deadhours of those who think there is no way to move on.

official site | imdb

by zEke

Mike Nichols demostró ser un director precoz con su segunda película, the graduate (1966). Sin emabargo y a pesar de contar con una filmografía, si más no, decente, no volvió a estar en boca de muchos, para bien o para mal, hasta el estreno de closer hace ya uno años. Basada en la obra de teatro homónima de Patrick Marber, closer es una incursión pesimista para algunos, realista para otros, en la manera que tiene el ser humano de relacionarse. O sea, una película de enamoramientos y desenamoramientos. Hasta el punto de que los diálogos que llevan a los personajes en una dirección o la otra, son lo único que importa.

El argumento es de lo más simple y consiste en mezclar los cuatro personajes protagonistas de todas las maneras imaginables. Eso sí, manteniendo intacta su heterosexualidad a lo largo del largometraje. Estos son Alice (Natalie Portman), Dan (Jude Law), Anna (Julia Roberts) y Larry (Clive Owen), quien había interpretado a Dan en la obra de teatro.

Es, sin disimularlo, una película de personajes. Así, todo lo que tiene que ofrecer reside en la capacidad de los mismos de hacer creíbles sus encuentros. Lo cierto es que Owen, sobre todo, y Portman, gracias a los matices de su personaje, se desenvuelven mejor que Law y Roberts, pero tampoco mucho mejor y, en general, todos están a la altura de las circunstancias, que no es mucha.

El guión de Patrick Marber, sin ser nada del otro mundo, nos regala un par de momentos que yo personalmente nunca olvidaré por su fuerza. Pero son sólo eso, momentos, frases aisladas que ponen el dedo en la llaga de espectadores meláncolicos. El resto es mediocre.

Mención aparte merece las canciones, dos, de Damien Rice, a quien yo descubrí gracias a closer. Gracias, closer. El prólogo de la película con the blowers’s daughter de fondo es brillante. Lástima que sea de lo poco que brilla en la película de Nichols. Aunque, insisto, no es una mala película y depende del estado de ánimo del espectador.

Sin más una película para ver con tu pareja cuando todo va bien.

Para las deadhours de los que creen que las cosas no pasan de repente.

official site | imdb

by zEke

Have you ever tried to whistle blend together the indiana jones, star wars and superman main themes? Neither have I.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is asked by Walter Donovan (Julian Glover) to go after the Holy Grail after his father vanished while searching for a clue to its location himself. Donovan owns an incomplete stone tablet that might hold the key to the location of the chalize and points them in the right direction. Jones accepts and travels to Venice with Dr. Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliot) where he meets Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) and will discover that they are not the only ones interested in the location of the Holy Grail and that the Nazi army are also after it.

The prologue disassociates itself from those from the previous adventures. It goes back in time and introduce a young Indiana Jones played by once the most promising actor of his generation, River Phoenix. Other than that, the formula is the same successful one. One getaway after another. And I do not get tired of them. Again the script is just an excuse to link them together in a somehow meaningful way. This time they avoid the darkness of indiana jones and the temple of doom (1984) and substitute it by a tone that might be too jokey for some but amusing, anyways. They can always argue that they were experimenting with the comical side of the character. And by them I mean, of course, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, friends and American residents.

The title of the third issue of the adventures of Indiana Jones refers to the last of the crusades undertaken to find the Holy Grail and was thought as well as an end to the trilogy. Now we know that even though that was probably the case almost twenty years ago, it is not anymore.

It delivers what everyone expects, really, it does.

For the deadhours of those who do not care about seeing more or less the same over and over again.

official site | imdb

by zEke

Un filón encontraron Steven Spielberg y George Lucas en la persona de un arqueólogo de culo inquieto. Uno de tantos.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) se encuentra en Shangai negociando con un mafioso local el intercambio de los restos de Nurhaci por un diamante de un tamaño considerable. Las cosas se tuercen y en su huída Jones, Tapón (Jonathan Ke Quan) y Wilhelmina Scott (Kate Capshaw) acaban perdidos en India. Sin comerlo ni beberlo, y a falta de nada mejor que hacer, deciden ayudar a los habitantes de una remota aldea a recuperar una piedra sagrada. Su búsqueda los llevará a las profundidades de un misterioso templo.

Con la segunda entrega del héroe del látigo y el sombrero Steven Spielberg y George Lucas ahondan en lo oscuro del personaje con una historia un tanto menos infantil que la primera. Y eso que para esta cuentan con el inolvidable Ke Quan. Inolvidable por su papel aquí y en the goonies (1985) un año después. Las malas lenguas dicen que lo de arrancar corazones se le ocurrió a Lucas a raiz de su divorcio. Uno no sabe que pensar al respecto. Lo que sí es cierto, es que el resto de la película parece hecho de retales de ideas que no cupieron en la primera. Así, de nuevo el argumento está al servicio de la espectacularidad de las idas y venidas de los protagonistas, con malos malísimos siempre detrás. A pesar de la mayor seriedad, el montante sigue siendo un mero divertimento que incluso osa reírse de sí mismo.

Por alguna extraña razón que probablemente tenga que ver con lo pesado, por existir, de algunos diálogos indiana jones and the temple of doom ha sido siempre menospreciada frente a sus primas hermanas. Por otro lado, y sin desmerecer en absoluto, en mi opinión, la trilogía se tiende a sobrevalorar. Así, ni tan poco en ésta, ni tanto en las demás.

Para las deadhours de los amantes de los parques de atracciones.

official site | imdb

by zEke

Dr. Seuss, born Theodor Seuss Geisel, was an American children book writer and drawer. Among his books I will mention two that have already experienced the jump to the big screen, how the grinch stole christmas (2000) and the cat in the hat (2003). After watching horton hears a who! one thing becomes clear, cartoons, somehow, they were in the first place, and cartoons, they should have been. No matter how much effort Jim Carrey and Mike Myers put. And then again, when talking about the big screen, it seems that neither adult stories can be told with cartoons, nor children stories without them.

horton hears a who! is a story for children. An excellent one, I must say. It sure has an essence that is able to reach the children every single adult carries within, but that is not the ultimate goal of the story. It is made for children and it is not ashamed of it. That does not mean grown ups cannot enjoy the ride, but they are required to play by certain rules they might have forgotten already.

Horton is a charming elephant who teaches young animals a little bit of this and a little bit of that in the jungle. Ned is the mayor of Who-ville. When their paths crossed is for them to realize that Who-ville is on a speck that Horton carries on a flower. Horton’s mission will be to guarantee the safety of Who-ville while facing accusations of being nuts by his fellow beasts. How in this world can a speck host life?

The story has everything a children story should have. There is the misunderstood character, there is an injustice, there is hope, there is a journey, there is a mean character. No surprises there, which turns to be good if you do not ask for them. As for the animation, no surprises either, other than a few seconds of anime. The guys behind it are the creators of ice age (2002). Truth is, there was no need to advertise it, it is obvious right from the beginning. I guess they do a good job at being themselves and preserve the essence of Seuss’s drawings.

An amusing way to spend a rainy Saturday evening. It does not hurt anyone to enjoy being a kid every now and then.

For the deadhours of those who know how to see further than what they are looking at.

official site | imdb

by zEke

It looks like English director Joe Wright likes reading. He has thoroughly read, at least, two novels, Jane Austen’s pride and prejudice (1813) and Ian McEwan’s atonement (2001), and I bet the list is long. He has had to in order to turn them into feature films the way he has. The former qualified as a more than a decent debut, while the latter confirms that he might be on the right track even though he is somehow just at the beginning of his career.

I have not read McEwan’s novel but I have read Austen’s one. Nevertheless I will not say much about it. I am probably repeating myself, but what is the point of comparing a feature film with the novel it might be based on? I have not heard those kind of comparisons when a novel based on a movie is published. Yes, there are many of those as well. Novels do get the credit they deserve but comparing them with the actual outcome is a waste of time. In any case, I know Wright’s perception of McEwan’s novel, and that might bring me towards it, so I can direct my very own movie in my head. For those who do not like to read, atonement is a notable production, no matter where it comes from.

Thirteen years Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) witnesses her cousin being raped in the dark in the surroundings of her family’s English mansion. Having misinterpreted the passion between her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) and the housekeeper’s son Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) she points at him as the perpetrator of the rape. He is sent to prison, which breaks her sister’s heart.

Knightley, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in pride & prejudice (2004), repeats with Wright, and shows again the potential she hided in domino (2005). Nevertheless, the young Ronan manages to steal the movie from the protagonist couple, specially when handling silences. On the other side, English actor McAvoy continues building an interesting career.

Wright approach to the story is more mature that I would have expected for a second cinematographic attempt. The way he toys with Briony’s and Cecilia’s different points of view of the events that untie the drama is both simple and clever. The story relies on the strength of those, and while after that the intensity fades it is high enough on the origin to keep your attention until the end.

The magnificent Academy Award winning music composed by Dario Marianelli deserves a special mention. It is not only beautiful but perfectly suited to carry on a story of guilt and sorrow. Marianelli’s magic flows with the action to a point that at some points manages to somehow lead. Without the succession of images it is also worth listening to.

atonement will not be remembered forever but it is indeed sad enough to make you enjoy. What do I mean by that? You will have to figure it out yourself.

For the deadhours of those who write emails to apologize.

official site | imdb

by zEke

A la década de los ochenta pertenece, a pesar de la inminente indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull (2008 ), el fenómeno que revolucionó el cine de aventuras de la mano de un arqueólogo que repartía su tiempo entre sus estudiantes y el resto del mundo. Revolución que, por más que nos pese a algunos, se atenuó con el tiempo. Y es que el cine de aventuras ya no es lo que fue.

raiders of the lost ark es la primera aparición en la gran pantalla del Dr. Henry Walton Jones, Jr., por todos conocidos como Indiana Jones. Dos apariciones más en menos de diez años. Es sin duda la caracterización del personaje uno de los secretos del éxito de la saga concebida por George Lucas, primero, y Steven Spielberg, después. Jones es mujeriego, sinvergüenza, perdonavidas, pero adorable. James Bond con un látigo como único chisme y un guardarropía mucho más limitado. Si, Jones es Bond sin afeitar. Y Harrison Ford lo entiende a la perfección y convierte el personaje en una mezcla entre Bond y Han Solo, al que por aquel entonces conocía a la perfección.

La historia, no nos queramos engañar, es sobre todo una excusa para encadenar un sinfín de escenas de acción, casi siempre basadas en la huída del personaje. Excusa, sí, pero resultona. Los nazis están detrás del Arca de la Alianza con la que convertir su armada en invencible. Jones es convencido de que su ayuda es imprescindible para evitar tal acontecimiento y se embarca en su primera gran aventura. Para ello auna fuerzas con Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), antiguo amor e hija de su mentor. Tan sencillo como eso y un viaje alrededor del mundo con escalas en Perú, Nepal y Egipto.

No sólo la forma de viajar de Jones se recuerda. Una delgada línea roja sobre un viejo mapa. Son muchos los momentos memorables de una, a priori, dudosa apuesta. Apuesta que hace gala también de cinismo y no disimula cierto gusto por lo macabro, como si de un ejemplo de serie B se tratara. El sorprendente resultado se resume en el inesperado éxito de la escena en la que Jones dispara en El Cairo a un espadero como el que no quiere la cosa en lo que parecía iba a ser un gran duelo. Al parecer, del todo improvisada. La historia de amor es también poco convencional. Poco convencional y como todo en la película, canalla.

La primera aventura de Jones ha envejecido bien porque el cine de aventuras decidió irse por otros derroteros. Así, se la mira siempre con cierta nostalgia. Es una buena película, eso es innegable, pero lo es por lo que supuso y porque nadie se ha dedicado a ahondar en una fórmula que en la década de los ochenta funcionó también con propuestas como the goonies (1984) y romancing the stone (1985).

En fin, un divertimento a base de huídas. Perseguidores y perseguidos al servicio del entretenimiento de los que no necesitan argumentos enrebesados para justificar venturas y desventuras por doquier.

Para las deadhours de los inquietos.

official site | imdb