Search
Search results
MLB Manager 2017
Games
App
Guide your favorite Major League Baseball franchise to glory! MLB Manager 2017, officially licensed...
Paint FX : Photo Effects Editor
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
-- Apply filters, effects, colors, enhancements, adjustments or edit your photos any way, anywhere...
Radio Argentina
Music and Social Networking
App
The best radio application Listen to Argentine radios for free. Radio Argentina is the simplest and...
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 28 Weeks Later starts by having a group of survivors in a boarded up farm house with tension rising a shock visit from a young boy leads to the infected attack the house and lone survivor Don (Carlyle) escaping leaving his wife behind. We are then lead into a flash-forward telling us how Britain is attempting to rebuild after the rage virus 28 Weeks Later. With Britain still being rebuilt Don’s children Tammy (Poots) and Andy (Muggleton) are the first children to return, even though the safety zone is still run by the military.
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Heartbreak Kid (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been almost ten years since Ben Stiller teamed with the Farrelly brothers for the comedy classic “There’s Something About Mary”, which launched a series of highly successful films for Stiller who has championed the likeable loser role to the delight of audiences worldwide.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a turf war on a global scale.
I saw this as part of a “Secret Cinema” event by Cineworld cinemas in the UK. That’s where you go to see a pre-release movie without knowing what it is going to be. It’s an interesting litmus test for a) a movie’s upfront marketing appeal (how many people get up and walk out when the BBFC title appears) and b) the “grab ’em early” appeal of the movie itself (how many people get up and walk out during the first 20 minutes of so).
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
TM
The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution
Book
In the tradition of Theodore White's landmark books, the definitive look at how Donald J. Trump...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
