23-19

Longe vão os tempos em que havia números que provocavam azar e incutiam medo no comum dos mortais. A maior parte das superstições foram já ultrapassadas, uma relíquia perdida de uma era decente em que eram os números a amedrontar-nos, e não a perspectiva de mais uma notícia sobre o Justin Bieber, ou um novo filme com o Rob Schneider. Agora está tudo muito evoluído, há mais telemóveis do que pessoas, uma criança de 4 anos joga farmville e percebe mais de computadores do que eu, e o Benfica até consegue ganhar jogos... portanto, quem precisa de superstições?

Longe vão os tempos em que o 666 amedrontava. O diabo apareceria nas trevas da noite com uma comichão nos cornos e levaria para a sua fornalha do Inferno todos aqueles que ousassem gozar com a capa vermelha algo efeminada com que se apresenta regularmente. Ontem fui ao Lidl e comprei precisamente uma embalagem de fiambre fatias finíssimas (1,49 euros), dois garrafões de água (1,18 euros) e uma embalagem de bife pojadouro (3,99 euros). Se o leitor for tão perspicaz como a caixa registradora, certamente se aperceberá que a conta dá precisamente 6,66 euros. Estou com o recibo na mão neste preciso momento em que teclo estes devaneios. E o que é que me acontece de mal? Já me queimaram o cabelo todo? Não, ainda hoje de manhã o lavei. Já me apareceram cicatrizes no corpo todo e sinais que só um padre nos Andes consegue compreender? Não, pelo menos que eu tenha notado. Já me destruíram o clube de futebol do coração? Bem, já... mas isso já foi há dois anos e eu só ontem fui ao Lidl, portanto os eventos não devem estar relacionados. Na realidade, o pior que me pode acontecer é ter mesmo que voltar a ir ao Lidl...

Longe vão os tempos em que o 13 também metia algumas pessoas de sobreaviso. E passar por baixo de escadas. E ver gatos pretos. E partir espelhos. Bem, eu faço anos no dia 13, moro numa rua cheia de gatos e costumo andar de elevador. E até sou minimamente feliz. Verdade que uma vez parti um espelho no teatro, mas ainda a semana passada a última peça em que entrei foi um sucesso...

Estes números já não interessam, são "tão século 20", são para aqueles que não têm conta de facebook ainda estando na barriga das mamãs. Nos dias de hoje, só um número atemoriza, só um número faz parar uma nação, faz tremer como varas verdes todo e qualquer indivíduo e respectivos respectivos que se pavoneiam por esse país fora. E esse número é o 23-19.

Esta semana diz que houve qualquer coisa que se passou às 23h19min. Deve ter sido qualquer coisa de muito importante sem dúvida, visto que a hora foi repetida até à exaustão em todos os meios noticiosos conhecidos deste universo e de todos os circundantes. Observando semelhante espectáculo, e o número de vezes que se insistiu em reportá-lo, só posso passar, como bom português que sou, a fazer um minuto de silêncio a essa hora de hoje em diante, todos os dias da minha vida, na saúde e na doença, até que a morte me impeça de prosseguir. A morte ou o sono, se por acaso me deitar antes dessa hora. Nesses casos certamente porei o despertador para as 23h18 e acordarei somente para respeitar esse minuto de silêncio, e depois, de consciência tranquila, regressarei ao meu prazenteiro dormir.

Rapidamente me vêm à memória todos aqueles eventos marcantes que a população mundial sabe a hora na ponta da língua. A assinatura da declaração da independência. A hora de abertura do primeiro McDonalds em 1940. As horas a que o Marco Fortes geralmente sai da caminha... O quê? Não sabem? Se não sabem deviam saber! E as horas a que o Neil Armstrong pisou a Lua? Sabem? Eu não. Mas aqui é duvidoso, pode-se dar um desconto. A Lua tem uma órbita diferente da da Terra, portanto o conceito "hora" fica mais dúbio. Infelizmente, há um país no planeta Terra em que o conceito de "hora" é igualmente dúbio.

Mas o que os portugueses não sabem é que o 23-19 tem um significado muito mais profundo. Os números não são um mero acaso. Não são uma simples desculpa para tirar uma fotografia foleira. Deve ser da crise de certeza, porque em condições normais políticos desta envergadura teriam telemóveis com uma objectiva de muita maior resolução. Lamento viver num país em que há um telemóvel e meio por habitante, mas em que ambos, telemóvel e habitante, têm pouca resolução nos seus objectivos e objectivas.

Escutem com muita muita atenção, e depois digam-me se os mações andam ou não ainda aí a fazer das suas traquinices.

Recorramos à Bíblia, o livro sagrado. No livro dos "Números", capítulo 23, versículo 19, está escrito: "Deus não é mortal, para mentir, nem filho de Adão para mudar de opinião; porventura, Ele fala e não mantém o que diz? Ou afirma e não cumpre?". Reflectamos sobre estas palavras. Diz-nos o livro sagrado que Deus não mente, nem muda de opinião. Diz-nos o livro sagrado que Deus cumpre tudo o que afirma e que mantém a sua palavra. Palavras sábias estas. Palavras que ensinam muito e nos dão a conhecer o caminho da humildade. Nenhum homem é Deus. O único que conheci chamava-se Chaplin e morreu em 1977. Certamente nenhum político português é Deus. Acho eu! Portanto, de acordo com a própria Bíblia, o Homem não pode ser como Deus, portanto mente, muda de opinião, e afirma e não cumpre. O que é preciso dizer mais? Querem falar nas 7 pragas do Apocalipse? Para quê, se o livro dos Números, 23-19, resume em duas linhas com tanta clareza o nosso maior problema? Os políticos portugueses seguem à risca a Bíblia. São bons Cristãos. Não são Deus. Portanto não podem fazer o que Deus faz. Eles não têm culpa. São meros praticantes.

Recorramos ao filme de 2001 "Monsters Inc.". Vários são os momentos de humor na fábrica dos monstros em que se berra "23-19!!! Temos um 23-19!", lançando o pânico pelas fileiras destes monstros outrora assustadores e poderosos. E qual o motivo do 23-19? Qual o motivo do pânico generalizado? Qual o motivo da crise? Uma criança! Um 23-19 é o código de alerta para quando um monstro é contaminado por uma criança. Observando filmagens das longas reuniões do parlamento, ouvindo atentamente os comentários diariamente ejaculados por estes mânfios com as unhas limadas, só tenho a concluir uma coisa. Estes monstros foram efectivamente contaminados por crianças. Quando éramos crianças é que estávamos sempre a apontar o dedo ao colega. Quando éramos crianças é que gostávamos de dizer mal sem saber porque é que estávamos a dizer mal. Quando éramos crianças é que podíamos berrar a tarde toda atirando as culpas à volta da fogueira, e fazíamos birra quando não nos faziam a vontade. Quando éramos crianças é que o tamanho dos pópós dos nossos papás eram sinal da nossa virilidade. Quando éramos crianças falávamos muito, e dizíamos pouco, e fazíamos ainda menos, e quanto mais alto fosse o nosso berro mais próximos estávamos de ser o maior do nosso bairro. Público português, berrem bem alto "23-19! Temos um 23-19!". Pode ser que alguém nos venha salvar desta creche que se apoderou do Parlamento. Se ao menos ainda fossem os tomates assassinos do filme "O Ataque dos Tomates Assassinos", isto ainda podia ser minimamente governado. Assim sendo...

Recorramos, quando tudo o resto falha, à matemática, porque a matemática é nossa amiga. 23 menos 19 dá precisamente 4 (que não é para me gabar mas tirei 20 no exame nacional de matemática, no longínquo ano de 2002, quando os exames não eram dados, mas sim feitos). 2 mais 0 mais 0 mais 2 também dá 4. 23 mais 19 dá 42, cujo primeiro algarismo é 4. 23 vezes 19 dá 437 cujo primeiro algarismo também é 4. 23 a dividir por 19 dá 1,21, cuja soma dos algarismos também dá 4. Curiosamente 4 é o número de neurónios que aquela gente lá de Lisboa partilha entre eles.

Face a todas estas circunstâncias estou ciente de que o 23-19 vai influenciar as nossas vidas num futuro muito próximo. Infelizmente, são precisos 5 números para jogar no euro-milhões, e as estrelas só vão de 1 até 9. Portanto, não creio que esta influência seja por motivos muito positivos.

Assim sendo, apenas me resta rezar que o asteróide 2319 Aristides, que circula entre Marte e Júpiter a uma velocidade orbital média de 17,47662748 km/s, não se lembre de entrar em rota de colisão com a Terra. Se o fizer, espero que caia algures para os lados de São Bento, enquanto eu me refugío com o Bruce Willis na região de New South Walles, na Austrália, que possui precisamente o código postal de 2319.

Ondine (2009)

The most famous of Irish writer/directors, Neil Jordan, had his heyday back in 1992, when he was the surprise winner of the Oscar for Best Screenplay for the equally surprising "The Crying Game". Since then he has divided his time between Hollywood projects ("Interview with the Vampire", "The End of the Affair"), and more personal "irish movies", for which he is best remembered ("Michael Collins", "Breakfast in Pluto", or the absolutely fantastic "The Butcher Boy", the 1997 masterpiece and definitely his best movie). These movies have 3 things in common. 1) they possess some sort of fantasy or magic quality (real or imaginary) about them. 2) this fantasy realm clashes, first softly and then abruptly, with the real world, and the problems of ordinary people in Ireland. 3) actor Stephen Rea stars in the picture. "Ondine" is no exception to this formula. A Hollywood movie would give you a background on the character before showing you the plot. But less than 10 seconds into "Ondine" we see poor fisherman Colin Farrell hoist his net from the water and in it comes beautiful Alicja Bachleda, unknown actress so far, but who will certainly go places. Farrell saves her and gives her shelter, food and clothes, but she doesn't talk about her past nor how she came to be in the water. She just calls herself Ondine and lets Farrell take care of her. Farrell is a poor fisherman in a poor northern town. He his an ex-alcoholic and has an ex-wife, who still drinks heavily, and a child, who is in a wheelchair. The child, played exquisitely and intelligently by newcomer Alison Barry, is perhaps too clever for a child of a fisherman and a drunken woman, but we can understand that she had to overcome her handicap with a lot of intellectual work, so it's believable enough. The plot centers around the fact that the child believes that Ondine is a "selkie", that is, a sort of mermaid, a magical sea creature, and she tries to convince Farrell of it. Truth his that when she is on the boat and sings, the nets of Farrell fill almost by a miracle, and many things of the selkie legend may be interpreted in actions that she has. As Farrell falls in love with her, and she falls back, the viewer accompanies Farrell as he struggles to understand this beautiful woman. Off course that at the beginning, neither us nor him believe her to be a magical creature, but little by little we and him start to get convinced by the child and a succession of events. But is that really true? Or is everything just a coincidence? What is magic anyway? Is it that we truly believe, or what we want to believe? The movie struggles with these questions, as the backdrop of a poor fisherman's town, the gossips, the alcohol dependency of the parents, the disease of the little child and the secrets of Ondine's past give flavor to the plot. And, best of all, there are also the trips of Colin Farrell to the confessionary. The priest is none other than Stephen Rea, Jordan's favorite actor, and the talks between the 2 in church are a delight. There are nonetheless 2 problems with "Ondine". The first is that this is no Hollywood production. The settings are beautiful, the landscapes are incredible and that shot of Ondine coming out of the water is just pure perfection. But the composition and colors of the shot almost deny the beauty of all this. They are crude and dirty. In the night scene, the scene when all is revealed, you can actually see the grain in the picture. This is probably made on purpose, to keep it crude and real, but especially when beautiful mountains and lakes are shown, in this age of high definition, a more gratifying visual experience could have been given. The second problem is the plot twist, or revelation. Who is really Ondine? The first part of the movie is fairy-tallish and is constructed on a delicate balance of emotions. Abruptly it shifts and that shift didn't really fulfill me. I was seeing it coming, there are many clues to the secret of the movie, so there is really not that much of a surprise, but the way it was filmed... Well... it could have been done in a better fashion, not so "in your face", especially because 2/3 of the movie are so well constructed. Aside this point that didn't go down well with me, "Ondine" is truly a good and important movie. One of the best of the year. Why? Because its a humble movie of humble characters, but it has a mighty heart. Its not meant to win major awards, but just show a nice and tender story. It presents an old school style of filmmaking, flows well and is endearing. And Farrell, well, Farrell is brilliant. He is one of the most underrated actors presently. He should have won the Oscar for "Cassandra's Dream", and here he still proves his wide range, this time with his truly deep Irish accent. A little talked about movie with little distribution, but a little pearl in comparison with the utter crap that's been hitting cinemas presently.

Despicable Me (2010)

"Despicable Me" was a pleasant surprise. In an age where another computer animated movie is just another computer animated movie, a film such as this, that can provide a nice equilibrium between laughter and family values is a treat to both adults and children. Pixar has released its animated movie for the year (Toy Story 3). Disney and Dreamworks will make Christmas releases of "Tangled" and "Megamind" respectively. This time, Universal Studios also joined the market, teaming producers and technicians of "Ice Age" and "Horton Hears a Who!" experience. "Despicable Me" tells the story of Gru, voiced by Steve Carell (with the strangest accent ever, a mixture of Russian with Scottish with German...), who is you average everyday villain. In his lair he counts with the assistance of a mad scientist and incredibly funny little yellow guys, his minions, who allow for many moments of visual humor. Gru is old, and never did a really big score, and the "evil bank" rejects him a final loan for his masterplan: steal the Moon, and favor instead a hot young villain: Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). Gru tries, with no avail, to get inside Vector's lair, and when he sees that three little orphans (all of them adorable and oh so cute) who sell cookies can easily go in (Vector is obsessed by cookies) he decides to adopt them in order to have access to Vector's home, and so steal a shrinking gun that will allow him to steal the moon. Off course that he will gradually have to choose between his growing love for the girls and his dreams of world domination... "Despicable Me" perhaps only once made me laugh my head off, but in every single scene made me laugh and smile, even if just a little. The humor is 90% visual, and the images are full of exquisite details. The moral of the story is given with simplicity, without usual Hollywood clichés, and with some ingenious circumstances (thumbs up for the bedtime stories!). Also, there is a nice little humor for adults (the metaphor of bank loans, etc, in these times of world crisis). The only thing they forgot is that if you shrink the moon, and shift it in space, all earth will be severely affected... but I guess children will not know that, and so nobody cares. The first half of the movie, Gru forming his plan, is one funny sequence after another. The second half, his trip to the moon, and the fight with Vector, gives a little more action but lesser laughs, so the movie slows down a little. But in the end it is heartfelt and a treat to the family. Recommend vividly. Not a masterpiece, but high quality family animation. The voice talents nail it every time (Kristen Wiig the best). And stay in for the end credits. There the 3D is really fully maximized, and is amazing, unlike during the actual movie, which basically passes unnoticed, as is starting to be a custom nowadays... Why pay more if the movies are not made to be truly 3D experiences? Anyway, "Despicable Me" is a good movie to take your children to, and for yourself to laugh a long while, after a hard day's work. And I can't take out of my head those dumb adorable yellow creatures. What great characters!

Deep Impact (1998)

Please... One "Armageddon" in 1998 was quite enough, and bad enough. Now two? "Deep Impact" is a more complete movie than "Armageddon", but it has more holes than a freakin' Swiss cheese. It started well enough, became bad, and just finished in downright idiocy. Female director Mimi Leder was no stranger to action movies, having directed the equally average "The Peacemaker" in 1997 with Clooney and Kidman. Here she tries to tackle the subject of an asteroid hitting the earth through human drama (using an all star cast), but fails completely, because one cannot help laughing at the inconsistencies of the plot and the forced emotional situations. Furthermore, this movie follows a well known fact, that is that every asteroid, alien, plague, etc, etc, only hit the United States of America, which only adds to the stupidity of it all, as I will show. As I said, the movie doesn't start as bad as that, and I was enjoying. Elijah Wood and Leelee Sobieski, astronomy students, find a new star, and send it to the Observatory not thinking of it anymore (there is a stupid accident with one astronomer, what the hell, nobody cares). One year passes and journalist Tea Leoni is investigating some sex scandal and stumbles on the asteroid-is-hitting-the-earth-news (so forced...), which leads to president Morgan Freeman doing a speech to the nation, which causes an expected panic. This first part has the best scenes, as the few characters we follow are shown their human side when faced with an approaching death. Maximilian Schell and Vanessa Redgrave shine with a poor screenplay. A la "Armageddon" a team (lead by an older Robert Duvall - another stupid excuse to put him there... as if there weren't any newer astronauts as qualified) is sent to blast the asteroid. Another half an hour of movie and they fail, just breaking the thing in 2, both pieces still headed for earth. Another speech by Freeman and there is a nation wide lottery to decide who is going to go to the underground Noah's Ark, which the US had been constructing in secret. More panic, huge traffic jams, choices being made, people left behind, high drama, I love you, I stay, I go, etc, etc. This leads to more stupid scenes, as for example Elijah Wood going all the way on the selected bus to the shelter (2 days or more), to get there, get out of the bus, and say to his parent "I have to go back for Leelee Sobieski", and alone he goes, getting to his town in less than a day (!?), to find her in a huge traffic jam.. (very believable...). Now I will start spoiling the picture, so if you are still interested, read no further. The inconsistencies begin. Ok, there are 2 asteroids, one small who will hit the Atlantic Ocean and will "just" cause a tsunami that will destroy the cost-line cities, and another, big one, which will create a cloud of dust that will block the sun and cover the earth for 2 years, as is faithfully reported by Tea Leoni, the newsgirl. So, when the astronautsa commit suicide at the last moment and throw their ship against the big one destroying it, humankind is safe. But the film doesn't show that. It shows the little one hitting and the tsunami destroying New York, Washington, etc, etc. In the end, Freeman refers in one sentence that "Europe and Africa have also been hit", and goes on, in a half destroyed White House, that mankind is ready to start again, etc, etc... WTF! WAIT A BLOODY MINUTE. It was a tsunami in the Atlantic... Ok, the East coast of the States was hit, we see it in the movie. So was probably Brazil, and Portugal, and the Uk, and France, all under water now. But California is ok. And Asia. And Australia... So why this crap about the new rebirth of mankind??? More stupid things. The tsunami is big enough to destroy the Twin Towers, but Elijah Wood and Sobieski climb (on foot) a freakin' hill, and the water doesn't reach them!!! Wait, there is more. Tea Leoni heroically gives her spot on the shelter to a co-worker, and off goes by car to meet her father Maximilian Schell, to reconcile before the end. They meet the huge wave on the beech head on, and die together. Wait... I didn't know that Washington DC was on the Atlantic shore?! And if they weren't in Washington, how did she get there by car.. because, as is shown often, there are epic traffic jams all over... the list goes on and on... So, this movie has some degree of emotional drama well developed (for example the suicide scene of Vanessa Redgrave is beautiful), but then just shows fake heroism for the cameras, shocking destruction scenes without reason, and we-will-survive-speeches that make no sense, on face of what has happened. This was a movie that tried to reflect on the conflicting emotions of facing death, but failed because of the attempt to add blockbuster cheap dramatics, that went completely wrong. A failure to say the least.

Valentine's Day (2010)

I saw this movie 2 months ago in the plane coming back from Brazil, but this week someone mentioned it, so I decided to make a nice little review about it, just for the fun of it. Why? Because, basically, this is probably the worst movie I ever saw. Normally bad movies are not bad on purpose, they are a failure on the part of their makers, or just a plain attempt at a money-making product that goes wrong. In the case of “Valentine’s Day”… well, it is actually shameful what they have done, and an insult to every single viewer and to cinema itself. Comparing this to, say, “Love Actually” is like comparing “Attack of the Rotten Killer Tomatoes” to “Ben-Hur”. I will not waste time with the plot. There is no plot. There is basically a set of romantic pairs doing improbable and extremely forced things, complete with obvious misunderstandings (obvious to everyone except the characters), make-ups, heart-breaks, and hopeful speeches. Ok, it is a formula often used in romantic comedies, but in this case everything goes wrong. The screenplay sucks, and sucks big time. Most of the time it was not my eyes I wanted to shut, but my ears. The eyes at least saw an all-star cast, but I had to shut the ears so flabbergasted I was by the extremely lame and incredibly horrible dialogue. How the likes of Julia Roberts, Bradley Cooper, Jamie Foxx, Anne Hathaway, etc, etc, ever agreed to say those lines is beyond me. Some things are so forced that you just let your jaw fall in disbelieve, like the “I’m gay” speech by Grey’s Anatomy’s Eric Dane, a speech which falls from the sky, and who is there just because there had to be a gay man somewhere in the picture. Other pairs, like the one which consists of youth idols Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift, is just plain retarded. This movie is bad, forced, badly written, gives one an inkling to throw up, and was made for one single reason: 2010’s valentine’s day was on a Saturday. I guess the movie was only seen that day, and completely bombed the following Monday. It is a movie that should (and probably will) never be seen again. 2009’s valentine’s hit “He's Just Not That Into You” was average, but at least it was watchable. “Love Actually” is in another category entirely. “Valentine’s Day” is in the moron category, made by people who don’t think for people who can’t think. Trying to use the formula to the fullest, they just made an insulting piece of rubbish. Do not see this movie. Ever. Not even in a plane back from a Brazilian holiday.

The Odessa File (1974)

In the 1960s the tabu subject of WWII was overcome, and major action war productions were set in motion. But in the 1970s, other subject arose: the underground conspiracies of old surviving Nazis, trying to get back into power, with a cold war and spy-movie background. "The Odessa File" tackles such a subject, from the german point of view, successfully almost until the end of the picture, who then bombs completely in a very lame plot twist. A german accented Jon Voight is a journalist who goes to cover the suicide of an old Jew in 1960s Germany. The jew left an old diary behind, telling of his days in the concentration camp, where horrible things happened at the hand of commander Eduard Roschmann (played to perfection in the flashbacks and in the last scene by the great Maximilian Schell). Voight becomes obsessed in finding Roschmann to bring him to justice, and what started as a somewhat political movie quickly plunges into one of investigating journalism, as Voight uncovers the plot of the Odessa Organization, which is basically made of old SS officials who changed their names and infiltrated every aspect of German society. AS he uncovers the plot, the movie takes another turn, to the spy movie, as Voight is trained by the Israeli underground army to infiltrate Odessa, posing as a Nazi, which will ultimately lead him to uncover the location and identity of Roschmann, in the final showdown. Therefore, the movie is full of tension (more so than really action, so things take their time to unwind), and has also a gripping story, as Voight uncovers bit by bit the conspiracy, and the Nazis are after him. There are two major problems. One, the transformation of Voight from a wimpy journalist to a secret agent is not very much believable. Ok, he got a lot of training, but even so... His hesitations in the final scene are more entwined with the character development at the beginning, than really his exploits in the middle of the film. Even so, he nails the part well, especially when he becomes focused in revenge. And second, the last plot twist, besides being stupid, is totally unnecessary, and spoils to a certain extent the mood created by the picture. Even so, director Ronald Neame (more well known for the writing and cinematography of David Lean's 40s films) created a nice little thriller which depicts well the conflicted emotions of the new german generation of the 60s, has a good story, and which, off course, shows everyone's favourite villain, the old nazi trying to rise to glory once more, complete with an I-shall-rule-the-world-again-speech. It may be a little unbalanced, and some performances are a little wooden (because they are playing germans perhaps?!), but it is entertaining and thrilling, albeit the last twist and some more lengthy scenes don't work out so well.

Ransom (1996)

After the light hearted movies of the 80s and before the more "important" works of the 2000s decade, director Ron Howard devoted the 1990s to quality blockbusters. Right after the great "Apollo 13" (1995), and using a straight-from-"Braveheart"-Mel Gibson, Howard gives in "Ransom" a typical Hollywood product, cutting straight into the juice of the movie right from the start, clearly marking heroes and villains, making heroes out of ordinary folks, and giving a very predictable all's-well-that-ends-well-ending. All this with an attempt at tension and fast pace (not that well achieved), but also trying to introduce a deeper emotional drama to the performances, due to the particular intensity of the story, which, aside from Gibson, is again not well achieved. We dive right into the story of Gibson, a millionaire airline mogul who may have done something illegal in his past (scene 1 makes that doubt flourish), married to Rene Russo, and whose son is soon kidnapped (scene 2). Scene 4 or 5 quickly give us that the kidnapper is corrupt cop Gary Sinise (good bad guy performance), and show us his gang (with the likes of Lili Taylor or Liev Schreiber), so there is no element of surprise in that (they could have held it a little longer, just for the tension, no?!). A ransom is demanded and so the movie follows basically all the commotion of Gibson and the police to try to track down the son. Halfway through the movie things appear to be at an end, with the transaction kid for money about to occur, but things go wrong and the chase is on again. The movie would fall in the same pattern all over again if Gibson's character didn't decide to take matters into his own hands and turn the game around, which produces some very interesting scenes and twists to the plot. But frankly, we know who the kidnapper is and where the kid is all along, and we know that this being a blockbuster all will turn out well in the end. The clever twists of the plot at the end may be clever for the characters, but not for the viewers, who know how the end will be like, but just don't know how the movie will get to it. So, most of the tension is dissolved in this screenwritting choice, and the audience doesn't much expect what will happen (for they already know, or at least very much suspect), but only how it will come about. Aside from that, Gibson is good as the man in search of revenge but with a soft family side (like his role on the most recent "Edge of Darkness" (2010)), Rene Russo cries a lot and is just there to pull some drama and tears out of the subject and Delroy Lindo is the smooth FBI agent on the job. An entertaining blockbuster with a strong human element, but which gets too long and predictable, because it lets the audience know everything, who then resign themselves to waiting for the characters to find out what they already know. The bad guys are caught and the bad deeds of Gibson's character, which help give some depth and an element of uncertainty to the beginning of the movie, are mysteriously forgotten, in good blockbuster-the-dad-is-a-hero-style.

Pérolas Poéticas

Pérolas poéticas privadas pela periferia do prazer
Sonhos soerguidos soprados sobre o sentimento sublime
Vociferantes vozes voam voláteis e vibrantes
Estranhos ecos espelham-se errantes eternamente
Cantam corações cadentes coisas criadas
Rasgam rosas rumo a rios remexidos
Arranham âncoras adormecidas através da aurora
Flores filosofam fervendo em filamentos de fogo
Lugares losangulares luminosos liderados pela loucura
Difundem a dureza divinal da diversidade dourada
Bucolicamente brilhando em bolas e bolhas e brumas
Mutando miríades de manadas em monumentos miraculosos
Tartamudeando torrentes de torres terríficas e tons tingíveis
Nitidamente naufragando nenúfares nebulosos de ninguém e nada
Impressionando irascíveis e ilusórios intelectuais intimidantes intimamente
Osculando ovais ostras de ouro outrora oriundas do oceano
Joviais juramentos justos em jardins e jangadas
Grandiosos gigantes guerreiros gloriosos ganhando
Pérolas poéticas perdidas

Ordinary People (1980)

"Ordinary People" is no ordinary movie. It proves that life, real life, is the ultimate drama, and it does not need any cinematic embellishments to be profound and to strike a chord in the viewer. This can only be done with great constraint from the director, but a constraint which hides an incredible skill. Of all the "recent" Oscar winners for Best Picture, "Ordinary People" is one of the most forgotten, seldom talked about, seldom shown. Other nominees "Raging Bull" or "Elephant Man" are more popular today, but the win, although surprising, was totally fair. More surprising still is to know that behind the camera (and winning the Oscar also) is none other than Robert Redford, in his debut as a director, a role he has only repeated half a dozen times since. Unlike the movies of Redford as an actor, "Ordinary People" is a simple, humble and heartfelt story, which tells of a family coping with a death of a son, in a boating accident. The father is Donald Sutherland, a calm man who avoids confrontation and tries to please everybody, hoping in that way that everything will be all right. The mother is Mary Tyler Moore, in a superb performance, as a woman who deals with the death of her son by depriving herself of all emotion, hiding in routine and social events and neatness in everything to get by. But the movie centers itself on the other son, the one who survived the boating accident, and who takes the blow more deeply. He is played by Timothy Hutton, 20 years old at the time, in a completely show stealing performance, powerful, intense, yet delicate. Before the events shown in the movie, he tried to commit suicide after the brother's death and then spend 4 months in a hospital. The movie follows him as he tries to adapt himself, without much result, to family life again and to school. As he descends into the abyss of his emotions, he is rescued by the unorthodox psychiatrist Judd Hirsch (a prequel to Robin William's "Good Will Hunting" performance), and also by the love interest, deep-voiced-bright-eyed Elizabeth McGovern. Little more can be said about the movie, it flows basically between these 5 characters, exploring the reactions of the 3 members of the family, and the way they try to handle each other and continue to live their lives. This, as I said, is given with an enormous constraint, rarely there is music, rarely there is a yelling climatic scene, rarely there is an outburst of emotions. But the camera captures all the hidden emotions, and the actors make incredible humane performances. There are no twists here, no surprises, just human beings trying to move forward, trying to cope with a sense of emptiness, trying to fill that hole, with love, with any sort of emotion. Robert Redford knew exactly how to squeeze from the image and from the actors all that was necessary, and strictly that, no more, no less. The 4 Oscars are completely deserved, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay (real life dialogues, real life emotions, every line is believable, none of those excesses for dramatic purposes), and, most of all, Best Supporting Actor for Hutton. Actually, he is the main actor of the picture, and his performance should be up there as one of the best ever in the history of cinema. Completely magnificent and breathtaking, especially if we think that he was 20 years old and this was his first non-TV movie. But the producers maybe though that this young unknown wouldn't stand a chance against De Niro's Jake LaMotta and so put him in the supporting category. Take it from me, Hutton deserved to kick DeNiro's ass. His performance excels. Pity his career didn't follow up this great start. Anyway, "Ordinary People" is the ultimate movie about loss, set in the backdrop of upper class suburban America, with towering performances, and a delicate and unobtrusive directing, who just lets the characters shine with an incision straight to the heart. Fantastic movie.