filipemanuelneto Reviews (1,952)

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

A magnificently anti-nihilistic and brutally well-executed film, with a cast of deeply committed actors and an insane story.

[10/10 · 15 April 2024]

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

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

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

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

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

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

A good film, but not as memorable as some people say.

[7/10 · 14 April 2024]

Director Sidney Lumet created this film based on a true incident that is still the subject of study by police cadets today: a homosexual who decides to rob a bank to pay for his partner's sex change, but who takes the manager and the employees as hostages when things get complicated, and desperately tries not to be killed or arrested by the policemen, who surround the place and try to control a maddened crowd, who are not sympathetic to the authorities. The film was made and released in 1975, and it could not be more appropriate to the time in which it was made: the great decade of civil disobedience, of challenge to authorities and the affirmation of the gay movement.

I confess that I'm not quite aware of the real incident behind the script. For that reason, I prefer to focus on this very well done dramatization. In addition to the design of sets and costumes, and an intelligent choice of the filming location, the cinematography is very well executed, and the film has very good visual qualities. The pleasant pace is reasonably fast at first, but slows down midway through, perhaps emulating the back and forth of negotiations between the authorities and the clumsy robbers. And if history is a mirror of its time, the same can be said of the dialogues, where swear words are used with a liberality previously unthinkable.

Although many consider this film a must-see, I honestly disagree. It's a must-see for fans of Al Pacino or Lumet, it will certainly be a good suggestion for a 70s film cycle, but that's basically it. It's a pretty good film, but it can hardly be classified as memorable. Al Pacino is a great actor and is experiencing a particularly happy moment in his career when he makes this film, but I have to recognize that he made several better films, before and after. Just think of "Godfather 3", "Scent of a Woman" or "Devil's Advocate", to name a few. John Cazale is good in a more understated role, and Charles Durning and Chris Sarandon both deserve praise for a job well done.

Sling Blade (1996)

A film full of challenges, to which Billy Bob Thornton, in his greatest work, responded categorically.

[9/10 · 14 April 2024]

I didn't really know what I was going to find when I decided to watch this film, and I'm happy about that: it's a really good, convincing and moving story, which doesn't try to escape the harsh reality of things to create unbelievable heroes. And it is probably the most solid and significant work of Billy Bob Thornton's career. In fact, he not only plays the main role, but is also responsible for the script and direction. It is a labor of love, of total and absolute commitment, which makes this film a "Magnum Opus", even though Thornton has done other works that are equally notable and full of talent.

In this story, we follow a seemingly kind and harmless man who has lived his entire life in a mental institution where he was imprisoned as a child, after killing his mother and her boyfriend. Now, he is a mature man, but he doesn't know anything about the outside world, he has no connections of any sort with anyone (he has a father, but there is no emotional bond between them) and he has a serious mental disability. However, doctors consider him well enough to return to a normal life. When he leaves, he returns to his homeland, where he meets a boy who is roughly the same age as he was when he was institutionalized. The friendship between the two leads him to meet his mother, a young woman who has a complicated relationship with a man with a violent nature. And despite her limitations, he quickly realizes that this man could be dangerous to his new friends.

The whole story revolves around values that are very dear to us: friendship, kindness and altruism. It's not a completely unpredictable film, but it works very well and presents a deeply credible story. After all, you only need to open a newspaper to see dozens of situations of domestic violence and dating abuse that end badly. It is a subject that deserves deep social reflection: in a world where possessive relationships are increasingly observed, it is essential to understand that love only makes sense if it is based on trust, understanding and mutual acceptance. The film also challenges us to rethink our prejudices about mentally disabled people: they have feelings and emotional needs, just like us. After all, being mentally ill does not mean that you are a psychopath or sociopath.

Technically, the film presents us with excellent cinematography, in addition to a wise choice of filming locations and a careful design of the costumes and sets in Rural America. If the film is not very clear as to the geographical location where the action takes place, filming took place mostly in Arkansas, and it seems appropriate to place the fictional story somewhere between this state and its neighbor, Missouri. The well-modeled rhythm does not cause drowsiness or wear out the audience.

As I already said, it is Billy Bob Thornton who deserves the most praise for his work in the general work, and particularly as an actor. Playing dramatic roles as mentally disabled people is always challenging: there is a permanent risk of transforming the character into a caricature worthy of condemnation and offensive to people. Thornton manages to be authentic, credible in his interpretation, and reaps the fruits of this magnificent work. In addition to him, Dwight Yoakam also deserves an applause for a challenging and difficult job, in which he did wonderfully well.

Breaking the Waves (1996)

An ugly film on all levels that insults our intelligence.

[1/10 · 14 April 2024]

For me, cinema is an art that tells good stories, whether fictional, true or a mix of fiction and real facts. It has a clear social role, often makes people think or raises difficult questions. However, there are directors who seem to live off controversy, that is, they try to use cinema to shock or impress, attracting attention for the worst and most selfish reasons. Lars von Trier is like that: he loves a good controversy and doesn't mind about criticism, as long as they talk about him. And that's why I don't like him and I don't consider him a good director. It's not enough to have talent, you need to know how to use it.

As in many other films by this director, sex is the epicenter of this film: the script begins by introducing us to an incredibly naive and submissive woman, who lives in a kind of narrow-minded religious community in the North of Scotland. Anyone who likes to criticize Catholics for allegedly being followers of a conservatism that has no place today should get to know this Protestant religious community, where I, a conservative Catholic, would feel like I was in Iran or Afghanistan. It is clear that the director, a confessed atheist, wanted to show his horror towards religious dogmatics in general. It was a way to "caricature" religion and express a personal opinion.

This young woman, whose innocence is so absolute that she would probably believe she could get pregnant just by sitting on a chair previously used by a man, marries a modern foreigner who works on an oil rig. And she discovers sex. And she loves sex, and gives herself to love. All this is beautiful until the day he suffers a serious accident. As he could lose his reproductive capacity, he asks her to meet and "relieve" herself with other men. Naturally, she is horrified, and he convinces her that this will help him heal. And against any rational logic, she believes, and becomes the biggest libertine in Scotland.

We have to agree on one thing: this film proves that even the stupidest story wins awards at Cannes, and that there is an audience capable of consuming the most complete idiocy that a film can present to them. In addition to ridiculing religion in a way that is offensive to any believer, I believe, the film does not care about the rationality and logic of the decisions made by the characters. If I cut myself with a knife, of course I'm going to try to make sure it doesn't happen again because it's dangerous, but what the film proposes is that I do the opposite and intentionally cut myself, believing that I'm curing a loved one's cancer by doing so. This is so stupid that it doesn't deserve qualification. Von Trier, in an act of absolute intellectual arrogance, insults our intelligence. I don't even need to talk about the clumsy and distorted way in which the film approaches love and the most genuine human feelings.

Technically, it's a cheap film. Cheaper than the worst indie films. We don't have a production worthy of the name, the cinematography is horrible, the filming is so amateurish that even I could do better. The rhythm is heavy, slow, like a mournful funeral. Stellan Skarsgard, an actor I respect, lends some renown to the film and shows talent, but his character deserves contempt. In an extraordinary dramatic effort, Emily Watson deserves praise for her commitment, but it is perhaps this actress' most forgettable film.

Gallipoli (1981)

Australia was "born" in Turkey.

[8/10 · 14 April 2024]

This is a very interesting film that addresses Australia and New Zealand's joint participation in the First World War. Both countries had recently gained independence from the United Kingdom, there was no real sense of national identity and, despite the proximity of German colonies in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, there were many Australians who did not want to go to the war alongside the British. It was the English's war, not theirs. The same thing was felt in my country, Portugal, the United Kingdom's oldest ally, but which only entered the First World War in 1916, against the wishes of the English. Portuguese politicians saw the war as a means of giving international prestige to a young and discredited republican regime, and of securing Portuguese sovereignty in Africa and India. Despite having no relationship with each other, the journey of Australians and Portuguese in the First World War had the same end: the CEP, the Portuguese military brigade, was decimated in France, in 1918, in the greatest defeat in the multi-century history of the Portuguese Army; ANZAC almost completely lost itself in the Dardanelles, in the face of the obstinate Turkish defense commanded by Mustafa Kemal, who knew well the terrain and foresaw what the Allies were going to try.

Historical considerations aside, the film does not focus on military action or what happened in the unsuccessful Battle of the Dardanelles. We are taken there by the beautiful friendship between two young Australian athletes with a lot of potential, who enlist in ANZAC (one of them even had to lie because he was too young). I don't know exactly what they expected to do, nor if they did considered the possibility of not returning home alive. I think, as often happens, they wanted to enlist because all the other boys did it so. The script doesn't explore this as it could, and perhaps one of the film's weaknesses is the lack of this emotional and mental depth in decisive moments. I also missed a greater effort at contextualization: anyone who doesn't understand history may not know exactly what that battle was about.

A nível técnico, o filme destaca-se pela sua excelente cinematografia, cenário e figurino, e uma reconstrução do período que, no geral, funciona satisfatoriamente. Claro, não é tecnicamente perfeito. Por exemplo, em cenas de combate há uma grande falta de efeitos visuais e especiais que adicionam intensidade à ação, resultando em batalhas que não são exatamente emocionantes de assistir nas telonas. Há também uma grave falta de sangue aqui. Não sou fã de gore ou dos efeitos mais chocantes visualmente, mas pare e pense comigo: é uma batalha, é guerra. Há mortos, há feridos, há mutilados, há pessoas a gritar deitadas no chão em agonia, à espera da própria morte e a pedir ajuda. O filme não nos mostra a realidade crua do combate, talvez para permitir uma classificação parental mais baixa, o que eu entendo, mas honestamente não aprovo.

Apesar de o filme ter um elenco maior, naturalmente, a verdade é que os dois protagonistas, Mel Gibson e Mark Lee, dominam absolutamente toda a ação. Vale a pena prestar atenção no trabalho dos dois atores: Gibson ainda não tinha o status estelar que alcançou em Hollywood, e sua modéstia lhe convinha bem. Era um jovem ator, mas já tinha o talento que o caracteriza, e um sorriso amigável, um carisma que torna seu personagem agradável e digno de empatia. Lee é mais importante no roteiro, mas não tem a força e a presença do colega. Ele é bom, mas mais discreto e menos carismático. Pode ter sido isso, de fato, que não o ajudou a avançar em sua carreira de ator. O filme também apresenta aparições positivas de Bill Kerr em um papel curto, mas significativo.

Rebecca (1940)

One of the greatest films of Hitchcock's career.

[10/10 · 12 April 2024]

Alfred Hitchcock was truly a master, and there are not many directors who can present a CV so vast, so rich and so deserving of acclaim. Ironically, he did not win a single Oscar for his work as a director and even this film, which was one of the most awarded in his work, only won two Oscars (Best Film and Best Black-and-White Cinematography) at the 1941 ceremony.

The film was produced by David O. Selznick through his own studio, which was then busy completing and releasing "Gone With the Wind". He had acquired the film rights to the original novel, by Daphne du Maurier, and hoped that Hitchcock would be faithful to the material. He reluctantly agreed, but imposed his deeply detailed working methods, significantly delaying filming, which was just one of the points of friction between producer and director. Things got to the point where Hitchcock banned Selznick from "his" studio and prevented his interference, filming only what he thought he was going to use in order to restrict the final cut.

It goes without saying, I believe, that Hitchcock gave us another memorable work worthy of every cinephile's bookshelf. The cinematography, in black and white, is modeled with great care and beauty, using some very innovative techniques for the time. The soundtrack also works wonderfully and is very atmospheric. The mansion's sets and costumes were also points in which the production invested a lot and applied itself, in order to provide greater realism. It appears that the exterior of the house was, in fact, a scale model.

The script is impressively effective: after a quick courtship, a very rich man marries a young woman from modest origins and takes her to his impressive mansion. However, he was a recent widower, and the house is filled with disturbing memories of his previous marriage, as if his first wife still roams around, and could become a palpable presence that threatens to tear the couple apart. There are more elements in between, such as the housekeeper's strange obsession with her previous boss, to whom she devoted a bizarre loyalty, and the deepening of the mysteries leads to a surprising ending, so it's worth not reading anything about the film before watching see it in its entirety. Of course, if we think about it, it becomes incomprehensible that, with a new wife, that man kept the housekeeper in his house, along with all the objects that belonged to the deceased...

Joan Fontaine was chosen for the main character, giving us a quality, very convincing performance. She seems to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown for a huge period of time and that is what certainly earned her the Oscar for Best Actress for this work, one of the best in her career. Laurence Olivier also does a good job and, despite hating Fontaine's choice (he pressured the production to give the role to his real-life partner, Vivien Leigh) and not having a good, friendly relationship with her colleague, he is extraordinarily competent when they are on stage together. Judith Anderson also deserves praise for her work.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

The film that practically founded the zombie subgenre.

[5/10 · 11 April 2024]

As I've said on other occasions, I'm not a fan, at all, of films about zombies and similar creatures. It's a type of horror cinema with a strong graphic appeal that doesn't really captivate me. However, I confess that I liked this film. It is much more moderate in its approach to these types of monsters, and effective in building tension and suspense. It's not scary (I believe it was very scary at the time, but these are different times), but it's entertaining.

The story told doesn't give us much explanation: we see two brothers who visit a grave in an isolated cemetery and, upon returning to the car, they are chased by what looks like a very disturbed man. It's obviously a zombie, and we know it, but the characters don't know and are extremely confused by what happens next: a growing group of zombies attacks them and forces them to seek shelter in a nearby house, where shortly afterwards they realize that they are not alone and, thanks to radio and television, that the problem is not just there, but it's national.

George Romero was very intelligent in the way he conceived and wrote the film, which is an entirely independent production and the result of the ingeniously of everyone involved. It is an innovative work, it was one of the first films to bring zombies to the horror universe and the influence of "Carnival of Souls" is very clear in the cinematography, in the way the sound and soundtrack were worked on. The short budget forced the production to be very pragmatic and efficient, to do a lot with little and prioritize credibility and authenticity. I would like to highlight some effective effects such as the flesh eaten by zombies, fake blood and Molotov cocktails. The design of the sets and choice of filming locations is also to be congratulated.

The cast has a few points in its favor, but it is essentially amateur and only tries to do what has to be done. Despite being a minor issue and not usually subjected to reflection, it seems significant to me to highlight the choice of a black actor for the main role. Duane Jones, in the film of his life, does a very well done job, with great commitment and that fulfills everything necessary. Karl Hardman is just annoying and the two actresses, Judith O'Dea and Marilyn Eastman, don't really add anything positive to the film, simply appearing helpless the whole time.

The Big Sleep (1978)

A remake that neither won me nor convinced me.

[4/10 · 11 April 2024]

When I saw the original film, with Bogart and Bacall, from 1946, I was very pleased with the technical and artistic qualities, and also with the excellent acting by a top cast, but frankly sad with the script. I found that whole story very far-fetched and confusing, and I thought it would have been more fun to watch if the script had brought us something simpler, clearer and easier to follow, while maintaining the dose of mystery. This film is nothing more than a remake made thirty years later, and as such it is very difficult to resist making comparisons. I'm going to try to resist as long as I can and analyze this film for what it's worth.

For this production, director Michael Winner called for a strong cast headed by Robert Mitchum, a veteran actor who, however, did not seem inappropriate for this character who, in the original written material, is half his age. Philip Marlowe is an experienced, serious, suspicious private detective who has extensive knowledge of the criminal world and authorities, and if we consider all these characteristics, it seems sensible to call a middle-aged actor with charm and a heartthrob air. I also really liked James Stewart's work. I was surprised by the actor's frail and aged appearance, and even more surprised to see that he lived for another twenty years after the film was made. He was the right man for this job and shows his tenacity and love for his art. Candy Clark is as naughty and seductive as she can be, making her character a true nymphet. This seemed a bit extreme to my eyes, but considering it was the 70s and sex was selling like hotcakes, it makes some sense. Sara Miles is a frankly positive addition, while Oliver Reed seemed more neutral and dull to me. Richard Boone just does what he has to do, but what he does is done well.

On a technical level, I have some objections: if this is a kind of neo-noir, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable for them to use color cinematography instead of traditional black-and-white, but it seems to me that the second option would be more favorable to the construction of dramatic tension and suspense. This becomes even more legitimate if we consider that the color is quite faint and the luminosity is not beautiful, perhaps due to the choice of lens or a certain type of film material. I really like the filming locations and transferring the action to the United Kingdom allows the use of the country's large aristocratic mansions, as well as good street filming in quiet neighborhoods in London and other cities. The change of country, however, has more cons than pros: much of the story loses credibility outside the USA, where the circulation of weapons is more liberal and crime is different. The action scenes also seem out of place here, which is perhaps why they seem so bland and sleepy. I also didn't like the nude scenes, although the plot involved the illegal sale of pornographic material, something very much in keeping with the time in which the film was made.

Honestly, there isn't much to say about the script. The story is essentially the same as what we saw in the older film, with some more discreet variations and nuances. It continues to be a complicated plot to follow and where a lot happens in a relatively small amount of time, where a lot is said in a short time and involves too many characters and twists, in my opinion. They could have used the film to present a smoother version of the original story, but they decided not to do so.

West Side Story (1961)

An old musical with some hints of ethnic prejudice, and it didn't seem as good as I thought it would be.

[5/10 · 11 April 2024]

This is one of those films that, honestly, I find difficult to understand. It is a production that brought to the cinema an interesting Broadway musical, which is still shown in several places today, and which tells a story similar to Romeo and Juliet in the context of youth gang wars in New York in the mid-20th century. The idea is seductive, and developing it from Shakespeare's source material is a point of quality. But sixty years have passed, and it is worth rethinking some things.

The film was directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, and makes great use of the action and music of the theatrical version, having achieved resounding box office and critical success, in addition to a plethora of awards, including ten Oscars (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Art Direction in a Color Film, Best Editing, Best Cinematography in a Color Film, Best Costume Design in a Color Film, Best Film, Best Soundtrack for a Musical Film, Best Sound). Since then, it has placed on the list of the greatest and most memorable musicals ever made. It is understandable, therefore, the film's impact at the time and its classic status.

The studios spared no expense, taking advantage of their budget to create a huge visual and sound spectacle, in a luxurious production with impeccable cinematography and magnificent light, color and filming work. Taking advantage of all the Broadway material, the film inherits Leonard Bernstein's songs accompanied by exuberant dance numbers by magnificently choreographed groups, something challenging and innovative for this time. I think it goes without saying that the melodies and songs can stand on their own and have its proper value. In addition to all this work, the film has good sets and costumes.

Although all of these are enormous qualities, I have to be honest, even though it will offend some people: while watching the film, I didn't feel empathy for the characters or enjoy the story. The steering is decent, but it doesn't go beyond that. The script is the same as the original musical play, but it is not engaging or convincing, and that romance seemed forced and far-fetched. If the two dance groups are dangerous gangs of delinquents, they are certainly harmless and only use their knives to peel fruit. But worse than all these are the Puerto Ricans: the group was represented according to unacceptable ethnic and cultural prejudices, with racist contours. This makes it even more insulting that they chose painted-faced Anglo-Saxon actors for several of the Latin roles, with Natalie Wood being the most obvious case.

This brings us to talk about the cast. As it turns out, for me, Wood was a total casting mistake. She may be the right age, the smile, but she's not even Latin, she doesn't even sing a note, she doesn't even know how to dance. She simply took the opportunity to be part of a great film. Richard Beymer, her love interest, does a better job, but is still very bland and not very interesting. Russ Tamblyn and Rita Moreno do positive work, but they don't help much.

Papillon (1973)

A classic film with a remarkable story and great actors.

[9/10 · 10 April 2024]

This is a work that almost everyone remembers if the theme is films about the prison environment. It's a classic that takes us to a universe of pain, suffering, deprivation and fight against oppression, solidly based on a somewhat autobiographical book by Henri Charriere, called Papillon, a Frenchman who was imprisoned for decades in the penal colony of French Guiana and wrote a book that should be a memoir, but is so full of inventions that it deserves to be considered fiction inspired by real bases. Of course, the issue doesn't matter much to the film: let's forget the man and focus on the character, his alter-ego.

Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and released in 1973, it was filmed in Spain and Hawaii. And taking into account that the real prison was abandoned, a faithful setting was created in Jamaica, with some shots filmed in the real location appearing in the end credits. An interesting note: needing a tropical filming location, the production thought it was a good idea to go to a poor country, famous for its soft drugs, in the 1970s. It is, therefore, not surprising that works in Jamaica were marred by robberies and plunder, and by an extraordinary abundance of good marijuana. In addition to the good design of sets, costumes and props, and an inspired and elegant cinematography, the film has a very well done soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith, which is worth listening to and appreciating in itself.

With almost two and a half hours in length, the film focuses on portraying the poor conditions of that huge penal colony, and the mistreatment to which the inmates were subjected. I think this contributed greatly to the film's success at the box office: in the aftermath of recent protests, May '68, the Sexual Revolution and peace movements, a film where a single and persistent man faces an entire system of oppression and violence is doomed to success. Specialized critics, however, were not at all convinced, and made harsh comments about the film. Shortly afterwards, at the bizarre 1974 Oscar ceremony, the film was largely ignored, losing the only award for which it had been nominated (Best Dramatic Original Score). But considering the way it has persisted, stood the test of time and remained popular, perhaps the critics and Oscar judges were all wrong.

However, the success of this film cannot be attributed solely to a good story released at a propitious time, and convincingly told and acted. Steve McQueen is a key part of this success, thanks to an incredible dramatic interpretation, one of the best in his artistic career. The actor manages to express, in his face and mannerisms, the pain and tenacity of the character he embodies, and commits himself entirely to what he is doing. Next to him was also Dustin Hoffman, in a very interesting and elegant work that the actor fully responded to. On a much lower level, the film has positive contributions from Woodrow Parfrey, Don Gordon, Ratna Assan and Val Avery.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

Unique among the westerns, we understand this film better in the light of the time in which it was made.

[6/10 · 9 April 2024]

Butch Cassidy, Sundance Kid and the Hole in the Wall gang are in the "Hall of Fame" of the greatest thieves and robbers of the Old West. They had a long, varied and violent criminal career, with spectacular robberies of trains, stagecoaches and banks before moving to South America, where they spent all their money before returned to their old ways. They were persecuted by authorities in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, where they apparently met their death at the hands of law enforcement. And I say "apparently" because, in fact, there are several theories that say that the two thieves somehow survived, and may have returned to US soil under the cover of new identities. True legends like that are always difficult to kill and, even in death, find a way to survive and endure in our imagination.

Directed by George Roy Hill and written by William Goldman, the film is quite good and very well done, trying to follow the path of the two robbers. However, it is far from being a faithful portrayal of the facts, giving us instead a story sympathetic to the thieves, without the inflated patriotism of western films. It is necessary to consider that the film was made and released in 1969, in the midst of social protests that occurred due to the Sexual Revolution and the challenge to conventional values and concepts and, also, against the US participation in the Vietnam War. At a time of social and political turmoil, when many felt embarrassed by the attitudes of the USA, the film transforms each heist by Cassidy and Kid into an act of rebellion, of fight against the "establishment", of disobedience and rebellion against the authorities. Of course, it's a mindset that never occurred to them, and that ignores ethical and moral issues surrounding the eventual glorification of organized crime, in addition to forgetting the innocent lives that Cassidy and Kid were sacrificing.

Director Hill did a very elegant job, especially in cinematography and footage. Look at the opening credits, or the first sequence in sepia, and the way color is gradually introduced during a cavalcade. The sets, props and costumes are also very good, although I have doubts about the historical accuracy with which they were designed. There are scenes that I can't understand in any other way than as deliberate winks at hippies, the most obvious of all being that bicycle scene, set to the suggestive melody "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head". And let's face it, there are more comedic moments than serious action.

For me, the biggest reason to see this unusual film is the impeccable performance of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, two great actors that we know well and whose talent is recognized by everyone. This is not one of the best that they have starred in, each of them has done better works, before and after, whether comic or dramatic. However, the way Newman and Redford played together is the film's greatest strength. Their partnership is remarkable, as the way they overcome each challenge. The film also features good work by Katharine Ross, who was experiencing the peak of her artistic career.

Swingers (1996)

A film about characters and dialogue, made by men and for (some) men.

[6/10 · 9 April 2024]

Watching films with a lot of dialogue allows us, sometimes, to find some very good works in terms of the construction of lines and development of characters. In these films, these elements become the essence that justifies their existence. And we can think of several examples, such as "Before Sunrise". This film isn't bad either, but it targets a niche audience that I don't find myself in: single men, somewhat bitter and dissatisfied, misogynists and womanizers. I am single, and I feel peacefully satisfied, without a hint of misogyny and never closing doors to love, but also without any despair. And in fact, I haven't set foot in a bar since my college days. As you can see, I'm not the kind of man who could identify with these characters.

The plot revolves around three friends, aspiring actors, who seek to make it in challenging Los Angeles. One of them is depressed due to the end of a long-term relationship, and the other two friends decide to take him to bars, to drink and flirt as much as possible. From drink to drink, from one flirtation to another, the conversation between the various characters reveal a lot about themselves, and the way they see the world. It's not a narrative film, it doesn't have a very solid story, but it has good characters and an excellent collection of dialogues.

Directed by Doug Liman, the film has simple, but effective and credible cinematography, sets and costumes. Being an independent film, made outside the multimillion-dollar studios, the production had several budget problems that forced practical and functional choices. This may have been positive, allowing for greater verisimilitude and the choice of realistic locations and situations. Being a film so focused on the male mentality, and a world of bars and flirting, it is likely that the female audience would prefer to see something else.

Screenwriter and actor John Favreau plays the main character, supported by two longtime friends, Vince Vaughn and Ron Livingstone. Each of them does a good job and explores their character very well, expressing a lot of themselves, which turns these characters into "alter egos" of the actors who play them. This is unusual in cinema, but not unheard of. The film also features the participation of other actors and friends of those involved, in smaller and less well-crafted characters.

The Gallows (2015)

Predictable, unoriginal, without great qualities, but still minimally decent.

[3/10 · 8 April 2024]

I usually have low expectations when it comes to horror films because, in order to find a hidden gem, we have to dig through a lot of rubbish. This film, however, isn't as bad as I thought it might be: it's not original (the "Stage Fright" films are good examples of very similar material), it's not memorable, it's not perfect, it's stupidly predictable, but it entertains and creates some dramatic tension.

The story is anything but new: a high school theater group will try to stage the play in which, around twenty years earlier, a student met a tragic and stupid death because of a failure in one of the stage props. It turns out that, in these twenty years, this play has become almost cursed, saying the name of the boy who died on stage has become bad luck and the very theater where it all happened seems to be haunted. To make things even more complicated, several members of the cast are disgruntled and don't want the play to go ahead. That's how three of them decide to go to the theater at night and vandalize it. From here on, everything is prepared for the scare show that the ghost will offer us.

The film intelligently bets on "found footage" cinematography, which would be better and more credible with fewer cuts, edits and sudden transitions to night footage. I've seen several films with this style and this was the most imperfect and unpleasant. I dare say that Travis Cluff and Chris Lofing, directors and screenwriters, were happier filming than editing their work, and that this was, in part, the consequence of several failed attempts to obtain a softer parental rating. The production budget is visibly weak and there is an effort to make the most of what there is but, as a whole, the film is surprisingly effective, without complicated graphic resources or expensive effects.

The cast doesn't have any big names, but young promises trying to make their way in the tough world of entertainment. None of them seemed particularly gifted to me, but Reese Mishler and Pfeifer Brown at least tried to do something good. Ryan Shoos is simply stupid, and Cassidy Gifford is only in this film because the directors felt it necessary to include a girl with breasts big enough to widen the eyes of teenagers in the audience.

Snu (2019)

A striking woman behind a striking man.

[8/10 · 8 April 2024]

Making biographical films around notable figures from the recent past is never an easy task, and this one deserves praise for its effort and courage. I say this because it is not possible to talk about Snu Abecassis without talking about Francisco Sá Carneiro, one of the most notable politicians of the Portuguese 20th century (not for his deeds or work, but for his charisma and impact on the national political mentality).

Even though we are celebrating fifty years since the revolution of April 25, 1974, which paved the way for the democratization of Portugal, I can't help but think that it is an imperfect past, an unfinished story in the country's life. If almost no one dares to question the value of the restoration of democracy (restoration because, despite what many are claiming, the revolution was limited to returning a democracy that Portugal had already had with the constitutional monarchy, and which was firstly established in 1834), there is no similar consensus in the political reading of the events of the time. The proof is the fact that nothing has yet been concluded about the causes of the crash of the aircraft in which Snu, Sá Carneiro, Adelino Amaro da Costa and others died. Accident? Sabotage? We probably will know when there is no way to touch a hair of those responsible, or those who are, or were, closest to them.

Snu Abecassis was not Portuguese: she was from a country with a strong democratic culture and had a different way of thinking, a breadth of ideas and vision far beyond what most Portuguese women achieved in a backward country closed to the world. This not only allowed her to succeed as leader of the Dom Quixote publishing house, dodge the censors and position herself as a defender of dangerous ideas (such as contraception, abortion, family planning), but also helps to understand the fascination of Sá Carneiro and others who knew her. I have no doubt that her ideas helped shape his thinking, but that she will also always be in the shadow of the man she loved, and whom she could not marry.

The script does a reasonable job and allows us to follow the life path of this elegant Nordic woman. Time and the couple's discreet personality do not give rise to sentimental outbursts, Latin soap operas or melodramas, so none of that comes into play here. Therefore, I am pleased with the way in which Patrícia Sequeira understood the limits to be respected. On a less good note, the ending: when the film recreates the passengers boarding the aircraft that would crash in Camarate, the other passengers, starting with Amaro da Costa, disappear. Why? It is understandable that the hypothesis of a sabotage is not mentioned in order to make the film politically more neutral, but the reconstruction should include everyone who, in fact, perished in that "incident". The cinematography is very good, the choice of filming locations was careful, the props and vehicles were well selected and the design of sets and costumes is impeccable. This, added to the introduction of videos and news from the time, helps to reconstruct the time period. The soundtrack is atmospheric and does a competent job, without being overpowering.

Inês Castel-Branco received the opportunity of a lifetime to show talent and ability outside of theater or television. She gripped it firmly and untangled it frankly well, with a light accent that never seemed forced and a natural elegance. Pedro Almendra doesn't always follow her: despite being very similar, physically, to Sá Carneiro, he has no charisma or presence, but the film isn't his either. Inês Rosado and Maria João Pinho make positive contributions. Pedro Saavedra is cunning enough to play Mário Soares, but he doesn't have the substance, material or time to develop the character.

The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)

A good action and suspense film, although with several flaws to point out.

[6/10 · 8 April 2024]

This is a pleasant thriller, which presents us with a story that does not seem original or unusual, but that works perfectly and pleasantly entertains the audience. It all starts when a young suburban teacher, married and mother of a girl, begins to have particularly violent flashes of memory. She has amnesia, she doesn't know who she is, and the increasingly palpable prospect of a dark past leads her to investigate things further, fearing the consequences that could come to her family. In order to carry out her inquiries, she hires a private detective, who appears to be just trying to charge her as much money as possible.

I prefer not to reveal much more about the script, in order not to spoil it, but the truth is that I felt, when I saw the film, that the ideas were not at all original and that I have seen some films that sound similar. Of course, considering the number of films made per year, it is a reasonably minor problem and the most important thing is whether things work as they should. In this case, the film is effective and offers the audience what it promises.

Director Renny Harlin is competent enough for the job at hand, and ensures capable direction, but not without flaws. For example, he was unable to realize that the plot sounded excessively far-fetched, after a certain point, and that the film was a little long for its genre, making it advisable to make some surgical cuts in the editing room to remove fifteen or twenty minutes without notable damage. Somewhat as a result, the film has an uneven pace and sometimes wastes too much time, immobilizing the action and damaging the build-up of suspense.

Considering that it is a film with a lot of action, I believe it is fair to give special praise to the work of the stunts and also the makeup, special and sound effects teams. They are the ones who help create the chases, the shootouts, the explosions and all the other incredible scenes that put the audience on the edge of their seats. Without originality, but with effectiveness and professionalism, these artists made a magnificent contribution to the film, and it must be said. Without much original material (just one or two melodies), the soundtrack includes a series of quality themes that include Muddy Waters, Patti & Labelle and other artists, as well as a beautiful song by Neneh Cherry as the final theme. The cinematography, sets and costumes are standard and only give what they have to give.

Geena Davis heads a cast full of good actors. She is a creditable protagonist and a good bet, giving us a consistent interpretation. However, she is much more insecure when the plot enters the romance. She is not a good romantic actress, and does not seem to have established a very good partnership with Samuel L. Jackson. This actor, who has no difficulty with action scenes, also seems like a fish out of water if things take a turn for romance. Luckily, the film doesn't require much of that, and the actor does an essentially positive job. Craig Bierko is a competent villain, and David Morse is a good addition, even if he has little time to do anything. Brian Cox didn't have time for anything, and I honestly think he was wasted.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

A "gay friendly" film with some qualities, but which seems unfinished in some important aspects.

[5/10 · 5 April 2024]

This has been one of the most beloved films among the transsexual community, even though it seems obvious to me that being a transvestite and transsexual are not identical things. A transvestite is anyone who wears clothing belonging to the opposite sex to look like that. A transsexual is anyone who believes that they should have been born with the opposite sex to the one they have, and who, not infrequently, begins to undergo medical treatments in order to achieve the physical appearance they desire. What do they have in common? Both are minorities of little expression within the "gay" movement and, despite being visible, they have demands that sometimes contradict those of the homosexual movement, leading to some internal friction.

None of this really matters, but it helps to understand why the group keeps this film on their favorites list. Filmed in Australia, it shows us the bumpy journey of a troupe of transvestites through the Australian desert to a remote town, where they are supposed to have some shows. The film has an intelligent script, where the adventures and misadventures of the trio intersect with other caricatured characters and, of course, with the intolerance and homophobia of isolated rural communities, where the "gay friendly" film takes the opportunity to make certain criticisms of these attitudes. Unfortunately, the film doesn't give us more than this, the characters are poorly developed and the feeling that remains is that of a project made to please a niche audience and not to tell a good story.

The cast has three strong names at the front who ensure consistent protagonism: Terence Stamp, Hugo Weaving and Guy Pearce. The three actors are solid bets and do a very decent job with the material received, with Pearce, more extravagant and bizarre, being the one who least satisfies me. The character he offered us is a caricature and not a credible human figure. He is the one who purchases the tourist bus that will be used on the trip, and which he bizarrely names Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

On a technical level, the film does not present great quality scores, for which it deserves special praise. With a couple of exceptions: the first is the design of the costumes worn in the film by the trio of main actors, full of bizarre details that allude to the world of the show; The second is the cinematography, very well conceived and crafted, and to which the exquisite choice of desert filming locations and, also, the good filming and lighting work largely contributed.

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

An adorable, cute and melodramatic teen romance.

[8/10 · 5 April 2024]

The film begins with a teenager who stands out for his artistic ability - he draws well and also paints - and his love of automobile mechanics. He is not rich and is jealous of his wealthier schoolmates. Is it a problem of lack of self-esteem? Maybe, but things get worse when he falls in love with a beautiful, rich girl with a handsome, rich, stupid boyfriend. From then on, he will use the money his parents saved to pay for college in an attempt to humiliate his rival and impress his beloved, with the help of a friend, a drummer and rocker, who is secretly in love with him.

Firstly, the film is very moving due to its main message around love, and the way we should value and love those who truly value and love us. This is the main message of the film and what has made it work so well for decades. However, I recognize that teenage rebellion is unpleasant, especially if we are adults and tend to identify with the position of parents, who want the best for their child and know that having higher education, no matter how little it is worth, still helps to open up doors in the job market. The issue is the focal point of the relationship between the main character and her parents, but it goes unnoticed in this film, focused on rose-colored romance.

If the film does not strictly stand out for its technical qualities (absolutely the standard of films of this time), it is in the acting and cast that the film bets most safely, casting Eric Stoltz in the main role. He's young enough for the role, but mature enough to give a solid performance. Mary Stuart Masterson also does an excellent job. Much less interesting, because one-dimensional, Lea Thompson and Craig Sheffer do what they can in characters without much juice, while Elias Koteas takes advantage of every opportunity in a supporting role.

Young Frankenstein (1974)

One of the great comic films of the 70s.

[9/10 · 5 April 2024]

Mel Brooks is one of those names in comic cinema that I haven't explored much yet, and that I know more from his fame than from having seen his work. I decided to change that a little by watching this satirical film, which he directed, and in which a grandson of the infamous German doctor and nobleman Dr. Frankenstein, after years denying his name and any association with his grandfather, is called to the family castle for... what? In fact, the script badly explains this decision, but it is important for the film that he returns and that is what he will do. There, he contacts the locals and decides to further explore his grandfather's attempts to reanimate human corpses.

As already understood from these lines, the script is not this film's strong point, with a weak story and many problems with a lack of logic. The film needs the characters to make certain decisions, and they will make them without worrying that this corresponds to a logical and understandable attitude. Of course, being a comedy, this is unimportant, and the nonsense also adds to the film's joke, but there are one or two moments where I missed this logic.

Brooks' direction is inspired and well done. On a technical level, the black-and-white cinematography stands out, clearly designed to emulate the visual aspect of the great Frankenstein films from the 30s, with Boris Karloff. The lighting work also deserves a positive note, as does the design of the sets, costumes and props. The dialogues, sometimes improvised, work wonderfully and the jokes are excellent, even those that are a little more naughty. As for the cast, the highlight goes entirely to Gene Wilder's inspired performance, in one of the most memorable comic roles he left us. We will always remember him as Willie Wonka, that's for sure, but this film is not far behind and deserves an honorable highlight in the actor's filmography. Alongside him, we also have Marty Feldman, in his most iconic film and in an incredible performance. Peter Boyle and Cloris Leachman also deserve a note of praise.

Evil Dead II (1987)

I don't understand the hype.

[2/10 · 4 April 2024]

When watching this film, I got the serious impression that "Army of Darkness" ended up being a kind of sequel or spin-off to this work, considering the themes involved and the persistence of the main actor, Bruce Campbell. Both films have similarities, and it's hard not to think about it.

Sam Raimi is one of those directors who have made a name for himself in horror cinema, but I can't help but think that this is one of his poorest works. "Evil Dead" is dark, it's bizarre, it's full of gore and scenes that make you want to throw up your popcorn, but it's not the kind of film I would watch again. With a miserably low budget and a lot of creativity, the director manages to disgust us more than to scare us, and there is little in this film that can really instill fear or dramatic tension. In fact, there are scenes that dangerously border on comedy.

Bruce Campbell does what he can, and what he does is enough to guarantee protagonism due to the absolute lack of a capable and competent cast. The actor is not completely devoid of ability or talent, but he seems to have limited himself to this, and similar films. It goes without saying that the rest of the cast doesn't even deserve a mention in this review, as they are absolute amateurs or people who made mistakes in their profession. And of course the Necronomicon, a book created by the fantasy imagination of H. P. Lovecraft, has a relevant role in the plot and is absolutely fearsome. In the midst of this funny disaster, what saves this film a little is the way Raimi takes the opportunity to study cheap visual and special effects, and the results he can get from them. Buckets of paint, raspberry juice, bizarre synthetic makeup similar to carnival faces, we have almost everything.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

A strangely current film that, using comedy, shows us well the problems that affect our democratic system.

[7/10 · 4 April 2024]

I only discovered this film a few days ago. It is quite evident that it has fallen into total oblivion and few people remember it. However, it is worth revisiting. It's a comedy in which an idealistic scoutmaster is recruited for the position of senator, finding himself in a corrupt environment where idealism seems to have disappeared. There is also a romantic plot essay between a congressman's daughter and the main character, but I think this is unnecessary as it serves absolutely no purpose.

Despite being a comedy, the film brings us very serious messages that are worth reflecting on. The most obvious is the importance of fighting for noble values and just causes, regardless of whether they are difficult, raise objections or result in discomfort. There is a special nobility in pure idealists, even if their ideas are not very doable. The film also highlights the corruption in the political system, the promiscuity between politics and business, and the way in which a few men with political power and money control the media and stifle press freedom, restraining journalists and forcing them to tell their versions of the truth.

Unfortunately, these problems persist, they have worsened and make the film very current. Politics has never been as badly attended as it is today; never has the poor quality of politicians been so evident; it has never been easier to be corrupt in positions of power; it was never been so clear the connection between political parties, big companies and banks, where politicians go when they leave the office. And with the amount of fake or highly manipulated news that circulates on social media like wildfire, it has never been easier to manipulate truth. For these reasons, our democracies, which we strive to build and want to preserve, are seriously ill. If people have dissociated themselves from politics, disgusted by what they see, and don't want to hold an office or exercise the right to vote, it's our fault, we let the rats take over the ship.

The film is not subtle, even though there is never any mention of political parties or North American states, and a clear warning is made that the story is absolute fiction. I can, therefore, understand the terrible reaction it aroused among politicians and the party apparatus, but it is still curious that it was banned in European dictatorships (I don't know if it reached Portugal, but it was banned in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and of Francoist Spain), fearful that the film would show the advantages of the democratic system. In fact, despite ending well, the film shows its most serious weaknesses. I also don't understand why the US Scouts refused to be associated with the project, considering that the film portrays a really good image of them! Nominated for eleven Oscars at the 1940 ceremony, it was one of the favorites that year, but only won the statuette for Best Original Screenplay, which makes it one of the losers of the night.

With excellent cinematography and incredible work on sets and costumes, it was one of the studio's biggest bets that year. The number of renowned actors among the cast is quite remarkable and shows the commitment and budget available for the project. James Stewart knew well how important it could be for his career, and his commitment was total, providing us with one of the most intense works he has done. Beside her, the friendly Jean Arthur ensures a strong and impactful female presence. Claude Rains and Edward Arnold also deserve praise for their work on this film, as does Harry Carey, who said more with a smile than with a full speech.

Airplane! (1980)

A memorable comedy that deserves to be revisited occasionally.

[9/10 · 4 April 2024]

I can't say how innovative this film was in its time because I'm not one of those cinema experts who know almost everything (I'd like to know more, and I always learn more, but I'm reduced to the insignificance of knowing little). However, as far as I can understand, I think it was one of the first nonsense American satires, heavily inspired by Monty Python, an English group that was having its biggest successes at that time, and the film "National Lampoon Animal House", which had also been released at this time.

For this work, Jim Abrahams and the Zucker brothers (who direct and write all the script) made a hilarious story around a domestic flight in the USA that goes very wrong when almost everyone, including the pilot and co-pilot, eat a spoiled fish. There are some jokes that work better, others worse, but the film's humor is intelligent enough to escape the easy laugh label. The joke where the pilot tries to seduce a child is perhaps the most infamous moment in the film, but I'm not a huge fan of political correctness and I handled it very well. The writers also can't resist the temptation to include some sex jokes, but I didn't see anything that I really think crossed the line of what was acceptable.

For the film, they're called actors with a notable satirical and humorous streak, but who had not always had the opportunity to focus on comedies, or had not made films before. This was the case with Peter Graves, Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty or Lloyd Bridges, but also with Leslie Nielsen. It's quite surprising, considering we remember him for his comedies, but he hadn't done any notable comedies before this film. The cast seems to be having so much fun working that I believe the entire group has great memories of the project. As a technical and aesthetic work, the film stands out for the quality of the cinematography and filming work, but also for the good props and effects achieved.

Kardec (2019)

A kind of film that doesn't deserve to be called cinema.

[1/10 · 2 April 2024]

The "film" that brings me here today is truly bizarre: it is a kind of Brazilian production that focuses on the life of a kind of French researcher, whose texts became the cornerstone of a kind of religious-philosophical doctrine that never wanted, or managed, to assume itself as a religion, although it is considered as such by many of its followers.

The person who presents this is Wagner de Assis, a kind of obscure director who has dedicated his life and (few) talents to making "films" about Spiritism, which he defends and of which he is probably a follower. I, as a thinking human being, do not feel capable of defining what Spiritism is, or is not: if not even its followers know how to say what they are, I will not be the right person to help them through this existential crisis. What I can say is what this work is not: a film worthy of its name and worthy of our time and money.

Esteemed reader, I have a very old and simple rule: always be suspicious about films sponsored by religious organizations. They are almost never good, and almost always made with the aim of surreptitiously indoctrinating unsuspecting audiences. I acquired this rule in the hardest times of my militant atheism, and maintained it after discovering faith and abandoning the "Nietzschean" nihilism in which I lived. I may be a faithful theist today, but I have not lost my discernment and critical spirit, and I do not sign without reading any law or dogma, not even those of my church. And although I cannot say for sure, it is almost certain that this "film", made by members of Spiritism to praise the man who is its founder, deserved sanction and certain funding from the organization, which has Brazil as its nerve center. Therefore, it could not be more biased: look at it ignores the way in which Rivail became rich at the expense of the books he wrote and the controversy he fueled, or the way he took advantage of the help of self-styled mediums to write them, taking the credit and opposing their thirst for personal publicity. We've seen this before: almost all religious sects today have had similar leaders. Some were investigated by the Justice, but even so, religion remains an attractive business.

My objections to this "film" do not just center on its likely connection to a "church", or its hagiographic narrative. It also doesn't have any characteristics that make it a cinematographic work: the visual effects are very poor; I have never seen Paris, the city of light, so dark, empty of people or movement. The sets and costumes seem to have been assembled with material borrowed from Globo and sound as fake as in any period soap opera by Walcyr Carrasco. The actors are talentless unknowns, removed from obscurity where they deserved to remain. Leonardo Medeiros and Sandra Corveloni, the only ones worthy of attention, are still trying to act, but they would have done better investing their efforts in a worthy production. This "film" lacks everything, starting with the budget. Maybe the "church" wasn't very generous when it came to that?

Brazilian cinema, contrary to what some Brazilians say, has its merits and its value. Brazil has great actors and competent people, but the lack of money and the language barrier have always deterred our Brazilian friends from seeing their efforts recognized internationally. Fernanda Montenegro can complain about this, even though it is one of the few cases that has received foreign attention. However, this work by Wagner de Assis can hardly be considered cinema, much less a work with the qualities that Brazilian cinema needs.

Paul, Apostle of Christ (2018)

An excessively preachy film, aimed at more devout audiences.

[3/10 · 2 April 2024]

It really costs being a historian when we feel like watching a film based on historical facts. We never manage to take off our academic attire and enjoy it, we see errors and inaccuracies where no one sees anything special. And this is tiring. When the film has a biblical theme, things tend to get worse. And what we have here is one of the weakest biblical films I've seen in a long time.

Based on solid material extracted from Paul's letters and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the film seeks to show us a little of Paul's life as a preacher and Christian leader, focusing on the events that followed to the burning of Rome in 64 AD, and showing the rest through episodic flashbacks. The film starts from the correct presumption that the majority of its public is aware of the events and knows who was Paul. And in fact it is difficult to imagine any well-informed Christian who do not recognize the decisive action of this leader: initially, he was a pagan and helped the Jews to persecute the Christians, whom they considered a schismatic sect of their faith. Later, he became one of the defining figures of the early period of the Christianity, and was fundamental in bringing it to other races and peoples, definitively separating Christians from Jews. Tradition tells us that he was killed in Rome shortly after the fire, which Emperor Nero attributed to the fanatical actions of the city's Christians.

The film is not bad, but it could have made a better effort to capture Paul's preaching and action among other leaders: there is no mention, for example, of his participation in the first ecumenical council. Nero does not appear, but we see Roman repression in vibrant and exaggerated colors: although Roman chroniclers provided colorful descriptions of the massacres of Christians, it is known that such reports were exaggerated and archeology has never confirmed such ferocity. It was also difficult for me to see how the Mamertine Prison was transformed into a modern penal colony, with strong walls, guards and gates. Anyone who barely knows Rome, and has visited what remains of this place, knows that it was a small prison, used in temporary situations, and that Romans were not in the habit of having large prisons, preferring to send criminals to galleys, quarries and other forced labor: much more practical than feeding lots of prisoners who do nothing all day, the Romans would say. The film also places Luke with Paul in Rome, which doesn't make sense: we know they knew each other and cooperated, but it seems unlikely that Luke would stay calmly in Rome, and in full view of the authorities, after Peter and Paul's arrest.

The general atmosphere of the film is somewhat preachy, and resembles a long Easter sermon, which will greatly displease audiences who are less devout or practice their faith. I didn't have any major problems with it, but I also preferred a different approach that was more likely to please a generalist audience. I don't know if the film was financed by a church or something, but that could very well have been the case. James Faulkner is effective in the role of Paul, Olivier Martinez does what he can in a role in which he has to be unpleasant and Jim Caviezel is clumsy and not very interesting in this effort, the second in his career in which he addresses biblical themes.

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

A film that has qualities, but that has also been overvalued over the decades.

[5/10 · 2 April 2024]

This was certainly one of the most interesting films of 1940, a time when the world was more attentive to the development of the war in Europe than to what was done by the actors. Based on a play that had great success on Broadway, George Cukor offers us an elegant and practical film, with material that allows the actors to show some talent, but which is still too theatrical at several moments, like a recorded play.

Despite being considered a classic at times, I think it is a minor work for everyone: Cukor will always be best remembered for "My Fair Lady"; Cary Grant shined much brighter in "North By Northwest" and "Charade"; Hepburn will always be remembered for "Lion in Winter" and Stewart, one of Hitchcock's favorites, ensured eternity in "Vertigo" and "Rear Window". However, it is undeniable that they are great actors and Cukor was one of the great directors of the time, which allows us to guess the importance the studio gave to this production then. The director's work is elegant, clear and well executed; Grant is good at playing the funny cynic and Hepburn follows him without a problem. It's worth seeing these two great actors in the same scene. Stuart, however, seems strange, does not develop properly and the result of his efforts is frankly poor, considering his capabilities.

Where the film makes the most mistakes is in the script, a conventional play with a contained and discreet humor, based on word puns that are lost every time we have to watch subtitled versions in our language (that's my case, as a native speaker of Portuguese), and which never goes beyond the average. The characters wander around the house, talking sarcastically, and the action is slow and predictable. I can't understand how the film won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, nor the Oscar for Best Actor, for Stewart. Especially if we consider that it had a pair of superior films alongside it, namely "Rebecca" and "Grapes of Wrath". It's bizarre.

Strange Days (1995)

A sci-fi dystopia with a good political conspiracy plot in a film that cinema preferred to forget.

[8/10 · 2 April 2024]

I think I've seen at least twenty films about the Millennium where times are shown with great pessimism. In this specific case, the end of the millennium is a time of social and political chaos, in which society moves without a clear direction, given over to fleeting pleasures and criminal acts. And in the midst of all the dissolution of morals and values, a mechanism emerges that allows the recording of the memories and sensations of the person who uses it, leading to a black market in illicit recordings of crimes, sex and controversial acts: thus, a man who never stole, killed or cheated on his wife can experience all of this without necessarily having to do so. But what happens when a recording keeps evidence of a murder?

The film has qualities, and presents a story that mixes sci-fi, political thriller and a little romance, in a mix that has aged very well, even though we are now firmly into the millennium. The project began around 1985, and is one of the few results of the partnership (professional and loving) between Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron. He had the ideas for the script, and she assures us of the elegant direction, the impactful and suitably dark cinematography, effective visual and special effects and a costume and set design strongly influenced by punk and metal aesthetics. The film was named after a song by the "Doors", and was a huge critical and commercial failure. Therefore, everyone involved preferred to forget it.

I can't help but consider the oblivion as unfair: it's not a perfect film, the story is too complex, it seems too stilted, like a hot air balloon, and it's excessively long (less than thirty minutes of dead scenes would have made things more dynamic). However, it is an immersive film that addresses, in some depth, people's appreciation for superficial pleasures and ways to escape a cruel and oppressive reality. This is still a very topical issue, as is the whole plot surrounding excessive police violence. And finally, I need to highlight the quality of the "first person" footage, when the mechanism is used, and we see things through the character's eyes.

Ralph Fiennes gives us one of the most complex and interesting dramatic works of his career, making the most of his character's multiplicity of contradictory feelings and emotions. Angela Bassett also shone in this film, in an intense and action-packed role. Juliette Lewis does a pretty decent job, especially when she sings, but I can't help but consider that the actress's nudity is somewhat gratuitous and exaggerated, perhaps to sexualize the character. Michael Wincott is an effective villain.