FunchoExpress

This film is worth to see, at least because of the extraordinary Amy Adams and her thousand sexy dresses. Her beauty and sensuality are very well explored here. But beyond the sexual aspect of it, she has an important and well acted role, to control both the con artist and the agent.

Enjoyable too is the role of Cristian Bale, the fat, bald con artist. Almost during the entire film he seems to be a not-so-sharp-lad, but at the same time I wondered if he wasn't capable of some surprises...

Then there's the greedy FBI agent, Bradley Cooper, a funny guy who beats his boss...

The other characters that I consider important are the pretty and dumb wife (Jennifer Lawrence) and the goodhearted mayor (Jeremy Renner).

Overall it's an enjoyable film, with some (few) sense of humour, a simple (with one twist) story and good acting.

This film has very good performances from all the actors, but particularly by Geoffrey Rush, a tasteful artistically ornamented background, a solid story. At a certain point we can predict something in the turn of the events - only near the end. But what we can not expect is to share the pain, the nail in Virgil's heart. This end to the film is an act of courage. Some of the critics discarded all the merit shown in the film, just because of the risky end.

There is an intrinsic true in it, no human can ever know another human completely. No human can fully trust another human. We are ultimately isolated, alone.

But this is just who I am, seeking for anguish everywhere.

No one seems to be capable of seeing the full depth of the concierge's brilliant and twisted mind. Those who surface his dark mind are unable to deal with it. Those who ignore him are affected by his wickedness too.

This is a film about the impossibility of happiness, or at least happiness in a conventional way. It was a treat to the senses to see how the protagonist's mother suffers with what his son tells her, and to see the old neighbour being psychologically dissected, till there's no illusion on her pathetic solitary existence.

Raw and mean, accurate on life's complexities, this is a superior film in terms of acting, direction and superb script.

Luis Tosar is the superman, who never sleeps, and whose obsession feeds him and fills the emptiness of a life.

As much as i respect, and in fact appreciate David Fincher's work, this film was really disappointing.

This film is disrespectful to the people from Scandinavia who really did a great job with the adaptation of Stieg Larsson's books. And disappointing because i expected a different and necessary adaptation, once this is a film made shortly after the Scandinavian.

Excellent interpretations from almost everyone in an extraordinary cast. But scene after scene, the feeling of déjà vu is intense and unfortunately accurate. All the key scenes are desperately similar to the "older" film.

If there wasn't the other film, this would be a masterpiece.

A South American immigrant, an unfaithful boyfriend, a prostitute at the end of her carrier, an old man left to rest, by his family, till the death comes an takes her prize. All this characters coexist in a very bizarre, yet simple and believable way. These are the characters that we see across our daily routine, transposed, from reality to fiction, without losing any of their authenticity.

Flowers celebrate life, love and death, and connect both the ends of the limited and closed interval where we stand. The flowers are the most visible and important adornment in this film. Even though they are natural flowers, they need some help to intensify their perfume. Reference, perhaps, to the constant element of artificiality in our lives. Reference to the art of pretending.

The film has a constant and intense summer light. It flows from brief moments of joy and humor to introspection. Dialogues of simple minds, that reach well under the surface of the common places.

This is a simple story, told magnificently.

God is Black and the Devil is White. That's not true. There's no such analogy in the movie. It's just a contrast between different souls.

This masterpiece is the most honest and objective film i've seen in years. It fits perfectly in the gender of an essay - not sure if this is close to be a correct designation, but here it is.

At the beginning it seems that Black is controlling the argument, but hopefully White uses stronger arguments to justify is tormented soul. The dialogs are always intense, from the beginning till the end, and there are no shallow words, every single one has weight and density.

Said so, i'm not a believer in the common semantics of "soul". Soul is just a result of electric impulses with our body. When we die, our soul ends. I'm not a believer in God either. Therefore this film was brilliant.

But its brilliance does not come only from the fact that it has appeal to atheists. It is always measuring both sides. God/no God.

Although the exploration of extreme patriotism is a good theme, the result does not make me laugh at all. Family Guy is from far superior to this tasteless thing. If you get lucky with an episode, on Family Guy it's easy to have a laugh from the start till the end. The nonsense of Family Guy is always pointing towards our laugh. In American Dad things don't work at all. Annoying monochordic voices that's all we get.

I saw five or six random episodes from the first, second and sixth seasons but i don't get what's so genius about it. Perhaps it's just me who's swimming against the current...

Watch Family Guy instead.

The giant James Gandolfini and the immature Kristen Stewart. A very unlikely combination. Perfect performances by Gandolfini and Melissa Leo but a tremulous Kristen. Although it's hard to evaluate her global performance, since this is her first important role in her career, she was not convincing in this film.

With a surrounding OST and precious moments of silence, the action flows warmly through New Orleans. The script was just compelling enough not to make us look to our clock from time to time. Happily the actors outbalanced that factor.

Overall pleasant.

The first sequence of the film - that takes about two minutes - could not be more meaningful. An incessant circulary road run by a roaring sports car.

Now we go to the midst of the film where seems to be nothing but frivolity. Rich and famous people enjoy the best life can offer.

Finally we come to the end of the film.

Seems that there's nothing to talk about. The movie flows in a very sweet mood as usually in Copolla's work.

But then we would be wrong. The sensation of hopelessness is very strong. We are all actors in this world but don't really know what's our role. We move ourselves from a place to another without actually become closer to the sea.

Who are we? Where are we going to? These questions remain unanswered since the time when the first person did them. I'm glad someone reminded me of this endless issue.

Life is often far more complicated than a choice between what we think it's right or wrong. There are so many variables in the game of living, that even after the consequences of the actions we are unable to evaluate the results.

Once again, Michael Shannon surprises us with an extraordinary interpretation of a dense character. The narrative is linear, but the pieces of the puzzle are put together in the right place and time.

Intense darkness and light, irony, sadness, brief fun, every ingredient turns this cocktail into an extraordinary beverage with an exquisite taste.

Make no mistake, this is a superior film.

The comparison between "Infamous" and "Capote" is obvious, inevitable and necessary. Although "Capote" is a good 7 out 10 rated movie, is utterly shallow when compared to "Infamous". Enough with the small talk called "Capote".

"Infamous" captures all the essence of Truman Capote and its literary masterpiece "In Cold Blood". This book made a strong impression on my personality, when i read it about a decade ago. With the book, i realise for the first time that the best way to see the world is with eyes without a trace of morality. The absence of morality, when used properly, can become an improvement in the understanding of human relations.

These are the eyes that brought us "In Cold Blood". These are the eyes that brilliantly brought us "Infamous".

Why do American film makers insist on the subject of the conspiracy against the U.S.A.? The film isn't completely bad, only because of the effort made by Angelina Jolie in a convincing performance (note that i am not not a fan of her). Apart from this, is just a sac filled with clichés and defiance of the laws of physics, which i don't usually care about in action/thriller films, but in this case are extremely annoying.

When was the last time you saw a movie where Russians conspire against the U.S.A.? I bet it was yesterday...

Simply avoid it, you'll be grateful for the time you didn't lose.

I wanted to like this film because it was visually pleasant, filled with pretty teenagers and with some great scenes. But the happiness about it ends here.

A narrator at the beginning seemed to be a good idea, but during the course of the story we don't get rid of him. And i said "get rid" because the excess of explanations diminish film's thickness and turn it into a predictable road. There's a lack of self explanation in the narrative that makes it mediocre.

We like what we see on the screen but never know exactly why. The film does not communicate with us nor is compelling.

Not much films can "be proud" of have been seen several times by me. From time to time i see it again and never get tired of it.

Every time i see it i feel immersed on its darkness. In part by its extraordinary OST, in part by an extraordinary story. Few films refer to human condition and question what a human is, like "Donnie Darko" does. "What's that strange man suit?" Amongst Earth creatures, man has the most strange mask of them all. After seeing this movie you'll never look into another's person face without thinking how awkward human species is.

Strange things happen in the apparent order of life. Life is just chaos that hopefully has an end.

The thematic of violence in reformatories was perhaps started to be shown in films with "Scum". It gets a lot of credit with the fact that it was a pioneer in this subject.

Its controversy comes from the fact that it shows this kind of punishment seldom solves anything, rather it makes the problem worse. Shows the ineffectiveness of correctional facilities and policies.

The film is based not on the exploitation of violence, but in the realism of situations and the pure anger well performed by the actors.

Several decades later a remake is made - "Dog Pound" - with a lot of similarities with its predecessor, but overall is more intense due to a natural accumulation of knowledge in the film making industry.

Although i did not yet see "Scum" - but will see as soon as i can - i think it's perfectly acceptable a remake (still not sure that it's a remake) after several decades.

The thematic of life in a prison or juvenile delinquency is not new. What's new is the extraordinary realism with which this film is made of. Extraordinary violence is processed between the actors and the audience. Awesome performances in all the situations. The less likable aspect about this movie is the sudden and somehow incoherent death of two youths.

But the soul of the project is always there.

Visually interesting and innovative, yet pretentious. It has an excellent cast with great performances. The complexity of its story works perfectly in the way of confusing us. It's easy to think that something that we don't fully understand is great. It's easy to see how so many people liked the film so much. There are plenty of alleged subtleties and symbols which the fans are so eager to comment. Everyone can write a script that is complex. It only needs not be completely logic.

I prefer a narrative that is simple but at the same time thick. This is harder to do.

Far from being a masterpiece, extremely overrated.