State of the Union (1948)

Frank Capra is undoubtedly one of the greatest directors ever. His fame (and 3 Oscars) came in the 30s. After the war period in which he directed "Meet John Doe" and "Arsenic and Old Lace", both brilliant, his career started to decline. The now well beloved "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) was a flop, something hard to believe today. It was followed by "State of the Union", initially though as a Clark Gable-Claudette Colbert pairing (in an attempt to repeat the success of "It happened one night" (1934)), but which ended up being a Spencer Tracy-Katherine Hepburn vehicle. "State of the Union" has a plot similar to many Frank Capra movies. Initially it feels like a "Mr Smith goes to Washington" updated, with twists of "Meet John Doe". Angela Lansbury (oh so young!), a powerful newspaper woman, and Adolphe Menjou, a powerful politician, convince a famous industrialist (Tracy) to run for president of the United States. Tracy is convinced by Lansbury (who connives like a viper backstage) and starts to believe himself capable of wining. Initially, he is humble and true to his principles, but when the dirt of politics hits him, he capitulates, and becomes tangled in the web of corruption, alienating his wife (Hepburn) and children, and accepting everything for one extra vote. His intentions are noble, he wants to win so he can do good, but in order to win he must accept the system, and that tares him apart. But, like all Frank Capra's, near the end, when everything is going for him, he sees the error of his ways and redeems himself. There are many things that are uneven in "State of the Union". The character development takes a long long time. There is a lot of time wasted in the back story of Lansbury, and of her once love affair with Tracy, and none with Hepburn's character. But as the movie progresses, Lansbury is almost forgotten and overshadowed by Hepburn right up to very last scene. But it is also the most poignant of all Capra's fairytales, and the one which attacks most directly the system. The corruption is not given a silver brush. It reminds one of "All the king's man" (1949), only with a much nicer character in Tracy, whom we know will see the error of his ways eventually, having all the way through a hell of a lot of chemistry with his off screen mate Hepburn. Noteworthy is also the performance of Van Johnson as the cynic journalist/campaign manager. Not the best of Capra's films, and one which clearly marks his downfall, but which is nonetheless a violent attack on the political system, with some escape valves of humor, Capra style. It is a pity that the story has been seen, and better, in other Capra's and that it drags a long time for the first hour. But the performances are great, and Tracy's final speech is mesmerizing, the thing to treasure in this film.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

The greatest thing about making a prequel is you don’t have to worry about how you’ll close your picture. All you need is to match everything nice and tightly and show the “how they became like that”, and the fans will cheer. That’s why “Revenge of the Sith” is the best of the prequeles of SW, and that’s why “X-Men: First Class” works so much more than “Wolverine”, definitely the worst super hero movie ever made (and yes, I’m including the 1966 Batman, and Batman & Robin). The Bryan Singer X-Men were more character studies. In the third, “Last Stand” (for me still the best of the franchise), Brett Ratner delivered a much more action packed thriller. “X-Men: First Class”, reboots the franchise taking elements from both these approaches, making a more coherent whole. It is also succeeds in making amends with the public, after that horrible horrible horrible thing that was “Wolverine”. Matthew Vaughn, director of “Layer Cake”, “Stardust” and “Kick-Ass”, presents a story about the origin of the X-Man fraternity, namely the birth of Charles, Professor X (James McAvoy) and Erik, Magneto (Michael Fassbender). After a brief introduction in the 1940s (repeating Magneto’s scene from the very first “X-Men”), on which Charles and Erik discover their powers, the action is set in the 1960s, and the focus is on the Cuba missile crisis. Once you get fictionalized characters into a documented historical event, then your risks are higher. I personally don’t like these alternate realities (the trailer for “Captain America” makes me shiver). If the characters are fiction, stay on fiction territory. Don’t screw with events we know. Erik is on a mission to catch the ex-nazis that killed his mother, and this part resembles a James Bond film (Fassbender will make a great Bond some day). It’s action packed and thrilling. The head Nazi is Kevin Bacon (in a cool bad guy performance), a doctor who experimented with the early X-Men, and who, surprise surprise (well, not really), is one himself. He will become the great instigator of the cold war, and the leader of the bad X-Man. Meanwhile, Charles and Mystic are growing up together, thinking themselves unique. When Bacon starts to strike, events unfold with Charles being recruited by the CIA, and then there comes the recruiting of the rest of the X-Men, the first encounter Charles-Erick, the fight against Bacon, the fight against the racism of the “normal” humans and the learning to accept yourself part, until the final battle at the Bay of Pigs. The comic X-Men fans will be pleased by the little details. The fans of the movies will understand how everything became as we know it (why Charles is in a wheel chair, where Magneto got the helmet, why Hank is a blue furball, how Magneto and Mystic met, how did they get the mansion, etc, etc). Also there are amusing cameos by Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romijn Stamos. The thing with this movie is that it does not need to go full cycle. It does not need to end, it does not need to tie the loose ends, because the prior films have already established the story. So, individually, this movie may have some lapses. Yet it works. It may not be the best of the franchise, but it’s entertaining (the 130 min flew by), it’s well handled by the director (although the action is as usual much better than the cliché sentimental “why am I a mutant” parts), and it has that naiveness in the characters that express still their inexperience as the X-Men. I am not an expert on X-Men comics, but I think it will please the fans. But someone please tell me 2 things. Why, why, with all the mutants in the world, do they only recruit 5. Couldn’t they fight evil much better with 100? But 100 characters in a movie would be too much. Still, that recruiting is for the sake of the film, not of the X-Men. Dumb move by them, I have to say. And second, why, why, Charles Xavier has to put 2 fingers on his forehead everytime the uses his telepathic powers? He can read people’s thoughts but he can’t do it unless he shoves a finger in his head? Ridiculous.

The Fighter (2010)

7 Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture? 8 out of 10 on imdb? Are you kidding? WHO gave "The Fighter" this good reputation? WHAT gives "The Fighter" this good reputation? Firstly, it has nothing that was not already seen before and better. Secondly, half of the movie nothing ever happens and the focuses are on all the wrong aspects. And thirdly, and probably the reason for its success, this is an all-american-fell-good-uplifting story, made by americans for americans, that brushes all the social problems it supposedly portrays very nicely and tidily with a bunch of clichés and sort-of-supposedly-comical situations, to finally portray, after a long, very long, hour and a half, a Rocky-like-from-rags-to-riches story. It was based on a true story. Yeah! That by itself cannot be a reason to get away with expressing deep social problems, such as drug addition, in the light-feel-good-everything-will-turn-out-ok-Hollywood-fashion, and then call itself a drama, only because the characters have the names of real people. "The Fighter" follows two boxing brothers in the 80s. One, Christian Bale, in the one true great performance of the picture, is Dicky, who had one great fight years ago, but now is a crack-addict who dreams of a comeback. HBO is following him around with cameras, ostensibly making a documentary about his comeback, but which is really about his drug addition. He is the trainer of his younger brother, Mark Whalberg, Mickey, who may have a future in boxing, but due to Bale's and his mother's (Melissa Leo) bad management, gets in all the wrong fights. Whalberg meets Amy Adams, and she urges him, after another bad fight, to seek new management, getting herself into a lot of trouble with the family. Meanwhile, Bale goes to jail, and that's the excuse for Whalberg to get away from the clutches of his family and start making it big in the rings. Yet he is torn by his devotion to the family, and his need to win. And the title match is coming up, just as the brother is getting out of jail... Summarized like this, it sounds away more interesting than it is. The boxing scenes are few, and either Walhberg loses big (in the beginning), or he wins big (at the end), always in the same away: getting his ass kicked for 10 rounds and then giving one single KO punch. No surprise ever at the beginning if he is going to win or lose the fights. The movie gives that away always in the way it builds them up. And so what is the rest of the movie? The family drama! I haven't seen a family drama as bad since "Brothers" last year. And most scenes are there just to please the american audience, such as the trying to lynch Amy Adams scene, by Mickey and Dicky's 7 or 8 sisters and their mother. Bale's drug addition is also to laugh at. He is a drug addict who comes out clean as a whistle from jail (there is no drug in jail, did you know that?!), redeemed, and ready to do good for his brother all the way to the title. The Oscar for Melissa Leo is also incredibly unbelievable. Just because she speaks with an accent and has those lines like Sandra Bullock's Oscar performance, she is noticeable enough on screen for the award. Amy Adams, also nominated, much more deserved it. Her performance may not fill the screen with character acting, but is much more powerful in the way it's contained, and especially real. She truly is a great actress, and doesn't need to steal the scene to show it. David O. Russell has given us great films such as "Three Kings". But "the Fighter" is just to make americans feel good about themselves, and believe in the american dream. Believe that every bad person redeems himself, believe that a social drama is a bunch of cliché-like scenes, Oprah style, and believe that a losing fighter changes pace in mid-fight due to love and an uplifting speech. I am sure that the opponent also has a girlfriend waiting in the wings, and his manager also gave in an uplifting speech. But is he the villain just because the fighter the movie is following is in the other corner? I hated "The Fighter" as a film. It gives nothing. It is nothing. Shame on you Academy.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

The Panda is back to kick some ass! The first "Kung Fu Panda" was surprisingly good, with great visual and screenplay humor, and a story which, despite following the usual animation-movie-cliches, was compelling enough. Jack Black, off course, is the man, and taking aside Dustin Hoffman, the other side characters where there just for their visual contribution rather than their screenplay one (Jackie Chan, Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen had each about 5 lines in the first movie). But that's what was great about the Panda. Great humorous visual animation, and a lot of improv by Black. The second film follows the same type of overall structure, with the addition of more lines to Angelina Jolie. Black never fails to impress, and the visual gags, albeit less, are hilarious. One can mention the "sneaking-in" scene, Panda-style, or the one where he tries to make an uplifting speech far away from everyone else, as moments that bring the movie theater down with laughter. Yet the story... well, the story is always the weaker point in these movies. And from the first scene, the prologue, the audience is given the answer to what Po tries the whole movie to discover. So I, as a member of the audience, was not surprised, nor impressed, nor did I discover the truth at the same time as Po. I knew it from the start, so I just waited, without thrills, for Po to get there. Basically, long ago, an evil peacock, Shen (fantastically voiced by Gary Oldman), heir to the throne but going down a dark path (discoverer of gunpowder and cannons), had a soothsayer which foretold that he was going to be defeated by a Panda. Therefore he ordered the slaughter of all Pandas, and only baby Po escaped. For all those who thought strange that Po was the son of a geese in the first movie, here's the answer. After all these years, Shen is back, and the kung fu warriors are no match for his gunpower. This is scene 1. So the rest of the movie, Po and the furious 5, mentored by Hoffman, have to save the world, at the same time as Po unravels the riddles of his past. Same old. Same old. Here again, we have a lot of characters who are kung fu masters, which have trained for years, and fight a hell of a lot better than Po. But here again, all the mysteries (as the dragon scroll in the first movie) are given to Po, because he is the chosen one! What is the moral here? A fat lazy Panda will get all the glory and you can forget about all those true kung fu warriors? Why can't Angelina Jolie's character find inner piece and master the water drops? She has trained for 20 years! Why has it to be the Panda, who has eaten for 20 years instead? Just because the movie is called "Kung Fu Panda". Taking this little detail aside, "Kung Fu Panda 2" is still one of the best animation films this year. Way better than "Rio" anyway. Inferior than the first, because the story is inferior, but there is still material enough to produce a great visual experience (although the 3D was only average), and an amusing one. Like the first scene, the last scene also spoils the movie experience. It clearly tells the audience that there is going to be a Panda 3. If they weren't so preoccupied with building up the story for the next one, they could have focused and done a better job with this one. But no matter how many more Pandas come, just remember how good the first one is.

Portrait of a Lady (1996)

To adapt a 600 page novel, whose richness is in its psychological construction, into a 140 minute film constructed upon spoken dialogue is an impossible task. I mean you can make the most marvelous film ever, but you cannot reproduce in this way one tenth, nor one hundredth part, of the essence of the novel. And although “Portrait of a Lady” may be the best movie that could be made out of such difficult material, it is not marvelous, nor enchanted, nor poetic, and does not even get close to the original. Well, it is close in terms of the story, but not in its power. Jane Champion’s “Piano” in 1993 made her the most important female director to date, and eagerly everyone awaited her next project. The woman’s novel by Henry James was a bold choice, but one which seemed to suite her taste and obvious talent. Yet there were too many obstacles to surpass. Even if you ditch many side characters and side stories (such as Hentietta’s or Warburton’s), there is not enough time to convey the delicate emotional build-up that Henry James so skillfully constructed during the course of 500 pages. In an attempt to deliver the story as fast as possible, all of the early construction of Isabel Archer (Nicole Kidman), and her relation to the Touchetts was discarded, and the movie starts right of the bat with Warburton’s proposal. Almost 2 hours into the movie, Kidman says to Ralph “you are my best friend”, but they only had 2 or 3 scenes together before that, so that connection is not believable. This type of incongruences happens a lot in the film. “Portrait of a Lady” is the story of Isabel Archer, an American poor relation of the wealthy Touchett family. When visiting, everyone becomes infatuated with her. Ralph, a slowly dying man, silently adores her, Warburton proposes and is refused (as was her American suitor Vigo Mortensen), and then old dying Touchett (John Gielgud), Ralph’s father, leaves her most of his money at his son’s request. Free and rich, Isabel moves to Italy, and instigated by another supposed friend, Madame Merle (Barbara Hershey), falls in love with Gilbert Osmond (John Malkovich), a poor aristocrat with a daughter. This time she decides to marry. Years later, when that daughter herself wants to marry young Christian Bale against her father’s will, and trapped in a loveless marriage, Isabel strong personality finally yields, and she crumbles, aided by the impendent death of Ralph. “Portrait of a Lady” is a battle of wills between the major characters, and how they ascend and fall victim of the games they play. It’s the games that keep them alive, but it’s also the games that finally destroy them. The movie, as the novel, and rightly so, sees all this through Isabel’s perspective. But the novel explains to us why Isabel is like this, and why she makes the choices she makes. The movie doesn’t. Character development is missing, right from the start. And so her choices are forced on the audience, without falling in place with the character. Not even if you say “woman will understand her”. No! Because of this, it is also hard to believe how every male loves her, because, at least on screen, she does nothing to justify it. And as every side character appears and disappears at will just to add a needed element to the plot at a given time, they are also artificial. It is strange, in the middle of all this, that the only person believable is Malkovich. Champion attempted, and rightly so, to add a few psychological elements of Isabel’s inner demons through the use of artistic slow motion scenes or dream sequences. These are fewer than there ought to be, but unfortunately most are there to shock and try to make the movie less, well, dialogue-boring, forcing the message of a modern woman’s movie to a 90s modern woman. Why make an open credit sequence with modern women in a garden discussing their kissing experiences? Why make Isabel have a foursome dream with all her lovers? Why make her trip abroad look like a 1920’s silent picture? This is set in 100 years before silent pictures! Anyway, some of these might work (the foursome scene for example) but most scenes fail because they are just a lot of dialogue, said in the shortest time possible, without the proper pauses for emotion. Even if the dialogue is strong and emotional (it is), and even if the actors deliver it perfectly (they do), there is no time to sink it in, because there is a lot of story still the movie wants to cover, and so it pushes itself non-stop. All in all “Portrait of a Lady” tries, and succeeds, to be faithful to the narrative of the novel, and that is an achievement. Furthermore set design, cinematography and camera work all excel. Yet most things are added artificially only because they need to be there, the characters are not developed, and the audience is forced to believe in feelings that have not grown in the picture, but only in the book. Hence this film is a nice complement to the book (come and see the major scenes acted by a lot of famous people!, and Kidman’s very weird hair style!), but is nothing individually. It was too much to squeeze in so little time, and consequently the feeling was taken out of the story, although the actors do their best to keep it there (all except Mary-Louise Parker playing Henrietta – she is just plain bad!). And the 90s modern woman? Can she identify with Nicole? Probably… but not in this picture.