Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)

"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" consists of a lot of dancing, a lot of singing and a lot of brawling all mixed together in a package of cinemascope, bright colours and beautiful (albeit all studio) mountainous setting. It works as musical entertainment, in the old style, and has all the charisma of its director Stanley Donen, in between the masterful "Singing in the Rain" (1952) and "Funny Face" (1957). Howard Keel stars as a mountain hunter/farmer who shares an isolated cabin with 6 brothers, all rough, dirty, long-beard man, who long have been deprived of manners and etiquette. One day he goes to town "to get a wife", and he quickly does (in 2 scenes!!!), in the form of Jane Powell. Again in the mountains she starts to teach manners to the rest of the brothers, so that they can all find a wife of their own. The best scene is clearly at a town festivity, when the 6 brothers find 6 girls and try to win their affection against the competition 6 other town-man, in a 10 minute fantastic dancing sequence between the 18 persons, which will eventually end in another unforgettable brawl. When the boys "kidnap" the woman and bring them to the cabin, when they will be isolated for the whole winter, the "hate" will eventually melt into affection, through funny sequences and a lot of song and dance, as Keel and Powell also fight and make up for several reasons. The screenplay is not very deep, and has a lot of things that today may be considered, well, not very kind to woman, although the stereotypes of a woman's only uses for cleaning and cooking are fought throughout by Powell's character. In the end all turns out well, and the 7 couples will of course stay together, but that's not the real essence of the picture. The dancing sequences are fabulous, and the choreography of several others (for example the wood-chopping scene) are masterful. The songs are a little worse than the dancing, but the powerful (dubbed) voices of the cast sing them beautifully, and, despite the low budget and the filming in studio, the open air feeling is very well captured. A light movie to entertain, to get carried away with technicolor dancing, although not very much believable story-wise. But hey, its the power of 1950s fairy-tailish musical productions... and no-one could do them like Donen. Worse than the two above mentioned and "On the Town" (1949), but a good musical nonetheless.

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)

Woody Allen... a genius no doubt. But his work is most definitely more grandious as a whole than individually. Yet, as Agatha Christie could write 2 or 3 books with the same basic plot without anyone realizing it, so can Woody Allen infinity recycle his material. The basic stories can be the same, but the strong cast, the endlessly funny dialog and a few climatic emotional states give flavor and strength to the vulgar situations of life depicted in Allen's comedy/dramas. Unfortunately "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" is a failure, because is neither dramatic nor amusing, it hangs there in a limbo where nothing really happens for 90 minutes. The cast is still strong, but the screenplay never has power enough to entice. The situations are the same as other Allen movies, but each scenes lacks the funny touches to make them captivating, and most of the characters are lost along the way as the movie closes on only one and two more dramatically. So we get Gemma Jones, an old woman getting more and more hooked on spiritualism, who is the ex of Anthony Hopkins, who marries a much younger hooker, and whose daughter is Naomi Watts, an art gallery worker, who is married to low-down writer Josh Brolin (who starts having an affair with beautiful neighbor Freida Pinto), and who is in love with the art gallery owner Antonio Banderas, who in turn is having an affair with a painter, and so on, and so on. The first half of the movie establishes all these stories in a very slow boring way, with "normal dialog" seldom sprinkled with the Allen spices. Besides, voice off is provided, as in Vicky Christina, and again is not Allen's voice, who could have given a much needed rhythm. In the second half more dramatic events unfolds, and most characters are forgotten in favor of Brolin stealing a novel from a friend in coma, Jone's involvement with the occult and Hopkin's realizing the mistake he has made. Despite picking up a little bit and having better scenes, it never is enough, and the end product is a mushy statement about relationships and the twists and turns of life, unworthy of Allen's talent. We have seen the same, and much better, in other Allen's films. "Melinda and Melinda" (2004) was the last really bad movie of Allen. Here we have another. In the middle 5 great films. If Allen produces a bad movie ever 6 years, I personally don't mind it. But this one just really isn't worth spending the talent of the actors, and of Allen's. We eagerly await this year's "Midnight in Paris".

Once Upon Perfection

Once upon perfection there you lay, in an ebony path untrodden, across the table, across the room, across the floor, across the sofa, shinning a light of pearl in my dismal face.

Once upon perfection there I was, a toddler traveller, lost in a maze of silent music, stumbling over the crevasses of desire, mesmerized in beauty, conjuring foolish tricks of folly, for I was nothing but a fool, full, intoxicated, with the inebriating scent of delicacy, with the inebriating side-glance smile, the half-shinning eye, which I pursued in you.

Once upon perfection my sofa burned with the wind of your soft breath, my lips vanished into eidolons of desire, the nightly air was oozing with the flavor of the heart’s unspoken murmur, and it stood steady, and it skipped a silent beat, to be, just to be, stretched to infinity inside the contours of your skin.

Once upon perfection there we were, melting into each other, whirlpooling our emotions into the maelstrom of memories, which clashed together as our understanding draw near, and draw us near, until one end was the beginning of another story, sang in firelight, hushed into caves of wonder and pyramids of passion and pages of poetry.

Once upon perfection nothing ends, the colors expand, explode and ecstasiate, kisses engulf forgotten goodbyes, and the waves of your hair snuggle between my fingers, taking me on a journey, redeeming, purifying, igniting my heart.

Once upon perfection let me tell you a story, I know your light, I come near, I see my reflection in your eyes, I am lost in your ethereal soul, I tremble, I sigh, I bow, I fear, I hope, I conquer, I fade, I see, I feel, I know, I am.

Once upon perfection I am here, I am available, and I am me, and that’s all I can offer, burning silently with these bare hands, shoveling snowy paths of glory, ascending, yelling, kneeling, knowing, feeling, feeling you.

Once upon perfection, the galaxy surrenders to your imperfect whim, and the visceral want of being eclipses the ages of madness. Heed to my romance, surrender to my plea, instill, unsettle, unrest my fire, so that it can consume, and conquer, and care, and caress, and burn me into you.

Once upon perfection there are no more stories, but the story of us, forever after, and I know, I just know, the colors of your song.

Marty (1955)

Never have I understood the fascination with "Marty", a simple, low-budget story with a thin humane storyline and without much cinematic interest, which won both the Oscar for Best Picture and the Palm D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. True that in that year the nominees for the Oscar where also not that great, but even so, I guess this is probably one of the worst to ever win. I can only explain it as a fad (enhanced by the publicity, which supposedly cost more than the movie itself), and a social need at that particular time for such a movie, the same way that "Slumdog Millionaire" was widely well received, due to the need for uplifting material on the verge of a world crisis. In any other occasion, neither Slumdog or Marty would have been much noticed. Based on a play and a TV film of a few years before, and with 85 minutes of running time (the shortest ever Best Picture Oscar winner), Marty has a plot that can be explained in two lines. Ernest Borgnine plays to perfection a 34 year old single man, shy and awkward, who works at a butcher shop, and at night just hangs out with low down beaten friends at bars or stays at the house with his mother. While everyone else has girls and gets married, Marty stays single and lonely, tired of the pressures of his mother to find a girl, and of his friends who are always seeking a new easy adventure. One day he meets his female self, a shy school teacher played by Betsy Blair. They have a terrific time because they are made for each other, both kind and simple souls, who have always been left on the margins by the others. Their innocent time together takes most of the time of the picture, during that single night. He promises to call her the next day, but his mother and friends don't like her, for different reasons, and he puts off calling her, until 10 minutes of film latter, at that very night, when he finally does, and the movie ends there. Aside from a subplot about Marty's aunt this is it. This is a movie which will hardly appeal to anyone who is not shy, nor has ever had a difficulty in finding a relationship, nor has ever understood what it is to be lonely. It is also a movie which will hardly appeal to anyone under the age of 30, and to very few of those who have beyond that but have had a series of relationships. It is a movie for the lonely spirits, a movie of a decaying hope, and a movie whose ultimate message, that every man can find his soulmate despite everything and everyone, is given in a straighforward way without any drama nor cinematic embelishments. Maybe this sort of social cinema, "true cinema", true to life, was the reasons why the critics liked it. There are other examples of other movies all striped of the Hollywood essence that have worked. But not, in my opinion, "Marty". Doing a film in a certain way does not mean it is immediately part of that way. Here we have a gentle mother who wants the son to get married but changes her mind at the moment she fears to be left alone (hence the aunt plot to make it believable- and also to fill the picture). We have a man whose "dilemma" is solved in less than half a day. We have got a woman whose only inkling of a personality is a 15 second scene where she is crying because Marty hasn't called her yet. "Marty" isn't build enough to be true powerful cinema, even in its simplicity (simple can be powerful, but not here). Marty meets a girl one night, turns his life around, next morning he goes to church, next afternoon his friends and mother persuade him not to call her, 2 hours later he changes his mind and calls her. The movie does not even give us the call, it ends as he is dialing, and forces us to believe that everything will turn out all right. What if the girl was so sad that she refuses to see him again? What if they go out again and it doesn't work out? What if... a million things... A movie that hails to be so true to life, so insightfully social, then ends in a Hollywoodesque way. Who will it uplift? Perhaps the lonely and sad ones. And maybe not even those. For all these reasons I don't think that "Marty" works. It can be simple and pure. But it does not have the necessary bulk to be a film, and its thread is too thin, even more so at the end. Of its 4 Oscars (Picture, Director, Actor and Screenplay), I can only agree with the acting, and I totally disagree with the screenplay. And by the way, what horrible Italian accents his mother and aunt have...

Reds (1981)

"Reds" in one of the most strangest but magnificent films ever to come out of the category "epics". It is a grand political epic, but I say it is strange because it actually is much more than that. It spends a larger amount of its 3h10 minutes with a human and humorous portrayal of its lead couple, in a fantastic and funny screenplay and a large array of superb supporting characters, and only half way through does it plunge head on into politics, without leaving the thread of its humane side. It may not be grandiose as Lean's epics, or lavish or melodramatic, but its a work from the heart which strikes a powerful chord without being condescending nor imposing on the audience. This is the labor of love of actor-turned-director Warren Beatty (initiating a long tradition of such famous actors who won recognition and Oscars for directing and not for acting, such as Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson), which was nominated for 12 Oscars and won 3 (director, cinematography, and supporting actress). Actually its the last movie ever to be nominated for the 4 acting categories, which reflects the magnificence of its cast. It tells the real life story of John Reed (convenient name!), a political journalist who in the 1910s became fascinated with the communist teachings and revolution and eventually lead the movement for the Communist Party in the USA, ending up being prossecuted by the US government and ending his days in Russia. Beatty tells the story as a semi-documentary, with real interviews to persons who knew him being shown from time to time, as the "movie" itself portrays episodes of his life, in a brilliant flowing way, with clever editing and a fabulous, and I mean fabulous, use of voice-off narration for the time-passing sequences. Most notably, as I said, the first hour and a half portrays his relationship to Diane Keaton, a free spirited writer who would become his wife, in the 1910s society at the point of the first world war. The screenplay is amuzing and slowly gives some inklings of the communist "threat" but maintaining the focus on the couple and the social environment they live in, with the likes of playwriter Eugene O'Neil (played to perfection by Jack Nicholson, with whom Keaton's character eventually has an affair), and revolutionaries Edward Herrmann and Maureen Stapleton (unnoticeable for 2 hours almost, but powerful enough in the last stretch of the film to clench her the Oscar). After the Russian Revolution and when Reed goes there to be recognized as the leader of USA's communist party, the movie becomes, then yes, much more political, as he struggles to keep true to the principles of communism and propagate them, when all the world around him falls apart. Keaton lives her life but always comes back to him, and their love is powerful, and we don't need any scene to show us that. We just know it. Warren Beatty became, as its known, very much politically involved in his middle age, but here he was clever enough not to be clouded by a full frontal attack nor judgement. He created a movie masterpiece, a story centred on characters and not ideologies, a story centred on people and not on politics. Yet, at the back of it, the principles are there and try to penetrate at various points of a picture, but you can accept them or not, its up to you. "Reds" is a 3 hour epic about a love of a man and a woman, who happened to live at a time of great social uproar, and who tried to make a statement whilst trying to hold to their relationship. There is a political message inherent, yes. It attacks some of the base traditions of the american system, yes. But it wouldn't have won the Oscars it did if it was not above all those things. It is. It is indeed. This is the last great stand of Warren Beatty, both as a director or an actor, but what a great stand it is, especially the first half. I am a non political man myself, and I loved this picture. The second best "russian epic" ever, after, off course "Dr. Zhivago".

The Blind Side (2009)

"The Blind Side" is one of those movies which made me indifferent most of the time. It was neither good nor bad, just a plain ordinary movie. There are many reasons that can justify its interest and success, especially to an american audience, its social and class misconceptions, its american football background, its rags to riches story, and some just all-american-jokes, but, as I said, little more depth exists. Actually the movie for me worked the other way around. I found the supposed "serious and real scenes" as full of cliches and stereotypes (and the classic "dilemma/misunderstanding scene" incredibly lame and textbook-screenplay, following all the rules of a first year screen-writing class), and the "comic/light scenes", "time passing/family scenes" much more real, and much more interesting. The story follows Michael (Quinton Aaron in the best performance of the picture), as a poor black boy from the slums, who has no place to sleep and only one set of clothes, who is, in a fortunate series of circumstances, accepted in a school that wishes to use him for his athletic skills. He sleeps secretly in the gym and does badly in school. One day Sandra Bullock, who is a rich catholic wife whose kids attend the same school, notices him and offers him shelter at her house. This is the beginning of a new life for Michael, who little by little integrates the family, starts to do well in school and in the football field, and soon gets noticed by the big universities. Meanwhile events happen that try to give the movie more scope and drama, a trip down memory lane to the wrong side of the tracks, a few failures before he achieves greatness (and his football techniques which strangely resemble Adam Sandler's in "The Waterboy"!!!), his official adoption by the family and the struggles of Bullock to make him succeed. This is based on a true story, so we know that he will eventually become an NFL player (a lot of NFL people make cameos), but this movie tries to show the human side of that rise. Director John Lee Hancock does his most personal work to date, and he handles the material with the proper touch. No one can, however, handle with the classic american cliches. Off course that all the friends of Bullock resent her adopting a black boy. Off course that all his friends from the "hood" are bad influences. Off course that in the first football game, of all the crowd, the camera films probably the only 2 people in that stadium who made a racist joke. Off course that the teachers and the students don't like him at first but then grow to like him. And off course that all the way Bullock is a saint, a knight in a shinning armor, without any doubt, and who gets away with anything. That aside (and forgetting the "dilemma" thing in which someone tries to convince him that the family just took him in to make him go play football at a certain College, which causes some misunderstandings etc etc... lame), the movie is very watchable and a good inspiring story. About Bullock's Oscar winning performance, well... we all know that the Oscar for Best Actress in recent years is an award for famous actresses reaching 40 years of age who need a recognition before ceasing to have major roles. Bullocks performance is very good when the screenplay shines, and she is allowed to be cocky and very amusing. In the rest is just a normal performance required by the role. She does not outgrow the material, and many actresses could have done that, and better. A fashion is a very unpredictable thing, and Bullock, in this role, was a fashion. Without any discredit to her performance, it didn't seem to me Oscar material. Although Quinton Aaron would loose (obviously) to Christoph Waltz in "Inglorious Basterds", it is a shame that he was not even nominated. Bullock won the statuette and he was not even nominated? It makes no sense! "The Blind Side" exists in a world of pre-conceived characters, and although based on a true story, is more of a fairytale, interesting to a point, but nothing more, and is inspiring because of the story in itself that we understand as the movie goes along, but not by any particular specific scene in the movie.