On Room

The film Room is a study on adaptation and survival under tragic circumstances. Our protagonists Ma, played by Brie Larson, and jack, Jacob Tremblay, reeducates the viewer on how to manage and make the most out of the ultimate kind of prison, utter seclution.

In part Room is a space, a time setting that both alienates and ironacally shelters. In this case in particular, it is the only place known to jack since birth: his whole universe is the confinement of Room.
The viewer quickly understands the survival mechanism that takes place here, and it's Ma who successfully shelters jack from knowning any better, in this case, their horrible reality.

The film also addresses the psychological toll that takes place from its aftermath. It's by all means a thorough film that gives us a struggle, a means to overcome it, a triumph, a life after, and a readaptation process.
Room powerfully comes full circle, when jack having a heart to heart conversation with his gramma, Joan Allen, reveals that Room was happiness for him: a moving scene played by both actors.

Room not only presents us with such nostalgic situation and understanding from jack's perspective, but it questions our own assumption of what was best for both characters: reporter asking Ma how come she didn't send jack away before? Why she opted on rejecting the "ultimate sacrifice" as a mother? Not only these questions brutally demolish Ma, but it also enlighten the viewer  on the lingering option that at that point the spectator never thought of: isn't the best place of a child  at his/her mother's side?

Catching up on MAMA MIA!

Barely for the first time, MAMA MIA the film: enjoyed the abba songs, but the film is chronically flawed.
Meryl Streep did her thing and put on a great fight, but not even that could've convinced me to actually get into its world: the movie was too Stagy , prob since it is a straight port from the stage show. Not believable , the story absurd, and the way they transition into each song was like a cheap commercial gimmick.
I truly enjoy musicals, and there are far better stage show to film musicals out there Like HAIRSPRAY. But mama mia, it felt like a mediocre high school project

On the great Gatsby

If the past tells something is the benefits that come from chasing/wishing upon a star. The bible speaks of a guiding north star that oriented the three wizzard kings to the nativity of Jesus. Disney reimagines the Italian tale of an old clock craftman, whose untainted nobility is acknowledged by a mercyful fairy that grants him the life of Pinocchio. BAZ LURHMANM adaptation of the novel by F. SCOTT FITZGERALD's THE GREAT GATSBY sets iteself as a modern tale in which its protagonist strives for that wishing star. The film is a fairy tale made real in a capitalist world where distinctions, regardless of monetary station, like in reality, weight heavily.

The film at its core is a sociological commentary of an ever present division that dwells culturally. The great Gatsby examines the character GATSBY played by LEONARDO DICAPRIO as a subject determined to reach beyond his stationary in an almost fairytale like idealism that's devotingly unbreakable, even for his own sake.

Lurhmanm's presentation is of visual oppulence and a frivolous jubilation that swirls around the enigma that's Gatsby. From beginning to end, Gatsby is enshrouded in mystery and ambivalence: a constant derail that builds effectively anticipation in every aspect of the present and yet absent Gatsby. In one of his best performances, DiCaprio ads charm and humanity; he evokes mistery, enchantment, entertainment, fear, and ultimately empathy.

Gatsby's introduction to the audience is so interesting to observe. The character seems to be almost embedded in the film's universe, and concurrently resides on a separate plane: a plane created solely for himself that's both above and under from the rest. It's a kind of omnipresent entity that's constantly latent, even when he's missing from screen. By the time he's introduced, it becomes a cinematohraphical spectacle where characters move from one point to the other in a hit and miss sequence, until the elusiveness of Gatsby prevails and he presents himself to them (fireworks and all.)

If we'd put it from a Disney perspective, the film is a tale that narrates the prince charming part of the story: his return, sacrifice, endeavors, and even the inclusion of his struggle to contain his own darkness.  DiCaprio adamantly becomes the character and without any inhibition, he lets "hero" take charge and presents us to his fanattic idealism to rescue a princess that in a typical fairy tale, she'd have waited for his return, but did she? Gatsby is so attached to such ideals that his very entrails shake, when the purity of his picture perfect plans are doubted by the very princess that he seeks to save.

CAREY MULLIGAN plays DAISY. the ever ambiguous daisy that takes us by surprise, for those of us that never read or saw the previous encarnations of the story. In fact, I've heard critiques that credit Mulligan for adopting a slightly different approach from the book. Perhaps it was the need to provide an actress like Mulligan's caliber enough material to work with the character that moved the writers to detour from the book's shallow Daisy. Whatever power that may be that opted for the film's approach, Mulligan gives a solid multilayered performance; not quite as spellbinding as DiCaprio's, but she  manages to ride on the same league.

Mulligan's Daisy is sympathetic, which is more merited oppose to TOBEY MAGUIRE's NICK  that seems to blatantly flat out from the get go.
Fortunately, Lurhmanm's Gatsby has more stellar moments than hit and misses; eventhough ISLA FISHER's character seems almost muted and blended on the background, JOEL EDGERTON gives a veritable performance as the self confident TOM. Only second to Dicaprio, Edgerton's  character is both an amicable antagonist and a supporting nemesis that in my opinion deserves a best supporting nomimation. And since Maguire is the narrator and the eyes of this luscious world, he was expected to pick our interest, but instead he drags the film with his voice over and peter parker like performance. Unwillingly I bet, he paves the triumphant entrance for Dicaprio that saves the film from an early character driven lackluster call.

On Lincoln

My discernation on the lastest war epic film by Steven Spielberg LINCOLN is of a profound admiration for the caliber of its performers. I've never been a fan of Mr Spielberg ever since JURASSIC PARK 3. These last few years, he has delivered entertaining and remarkable historically educational films that excel in epic proportions that center on pure human drama: AMISTAD, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, MUNICH, WAR HORSE to name a few. The epic scale is submersive and riveting; they revolve around the nuclear core that's emotional human conflict.
In my opinion this is where he triumphs unquestionably to the point of exploitation. The emotional prowess is so remarkably overused. It's a manhandling situation where the viewer is told where to feel a sentiment. Most of Spielberg's films share the common factor that's best described as a sentimental manipulation. I'm not saying that cinema doesn't exploit human empathy to establish connections, a rapport with the audience. It's what drives a good script. But in the case of Spielberg, I dare to suggest that he has mastered the art of dictating emotions to the audience. Where and on what scene we're supposed to cheer, cry, hate, feel intensity, etc.
In Lincoln something refreshing and interesting happens; it's as if Spielberg distances himself from the film, and in turn he allows the characters to drive and overtake each scene. Every act feels like an adrenaline rush that's non stop with clever performances from a stellar cast led by SALLY FIELD, TOMMY LEE JONES, DAVID SPADER, and DANIEL D. LEWIS. 
Lincoln is a historical piece a-la-SOCIAL NETWORK where the narrative is intense and brilliantly dinamic. We have a piece that could've easily been a heavy convoluted mess due to its huge cast, and the three instead one historical events happening almost at the same time: the american civil war, the abolition of slavery, and the life/death of president Lincoln. Instead, the film focuses on the passing of the 13th amendment and the last moths of Lincoln. It presents us with an intimate and closer perspective, inside the cabinet's conflict at the house of representatives.
We get glimpses of the civil war; and yet it's uncanny how Spielberg, known for his war epics, opted to use a minimalistic approach regarding the proportion of the conflict. He emphasizes on Lincoln's own war to win supporters for his reelection and for the achievement of measures so drastic at that time but needed to end the war once and for all. Perhaps it's just a Spielberg's evasion from having two civil war epics back to back given that his war horse film was released a year before. Or perhaps, Spielberg's attempt was to create a genuily intimate atmosphere: placing the audience so close to Lincoln, his office, his family, his conference table, his arguments, and his never before portrayed humanity.
Day Lewis delivers one of the best performances of the year; he brings the legend back to life, and he breathes freshness to the character with such tactile  realism that it's hard to picture the real Lincoln being any different. We see a Lincoln that's more of a conversationist, a seducer of words that charms with anecdotes funny at times, but solid in execution to get a point across. DayLewis's Lincoln is a man of conviction aware of his shortcomings; he's also aware of the immense influence that his tittle rightfully gives him, and he doesn't hesitate to invoke, and abuse it if needed.
Lincoln is a film led by its character driven narrative and mesmerizing performances; Sally Fields gives a sympathetic characterization of Mary Todd Lincoln both hipnotic and rich in its psychological shades. My personal favorite, Tommy Lee Jones delivers one of the best supporting performances of the year as Thaddeus Stevens; he's a force to reckon whenever on screen. Jones gives a jack of all trades feature to his character. From beginning to end, Jones is an unpredictable wild card through and through that never ceases to surprise.
Lincoln is a film that carries well, as a political play field, historic piece, drama, and character driven story; the cast is top notch that reminds us of the versatility and nuclear artistry that establishes Daniel Day Lewis as the best acting performer of the year. 

On perks of being a wallflower

Writer Stephen chbosky debuts as a director of his own PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER story based on the same book: a dream come through for many writers, which is to loyally transplant the envisionment of their own book on screen. The result is a loyal and refined product that triumphs. Perks is a film that captures that cherished and yet somehow remote era of innocence meeting excitement and friendship; you know the one that lasts a lifetime no matter how distant you grow apart.

Chbosky stays so close to the material that it translates amazingly on screen. As I mentioned before, it's totally due to the fact that Chbosky is directing his own story. Perks stars as your typical highschool film where you're introduced to its world by the new kid, which like us the viewers, is an outcasted outsider. How can someone be both at the same time and still retain a well convincing charm to drive us through the journey so attentively? Perhaps the answer lies within the authenticity of charlie, played by Logan Kerman, to find kindship: an anchor in life to keep him grounded.

Compared to other high school films, FAST TIMES, CLUELESS, MEAN GIRLS, Perks provides us with a deeper insight into the lives of its main characters; it isn't just an experimental discovery of the self. Neither is just the resolution to fit into a crowd that by the end of the movie, everybody will magically notice how precious the newbie is. Don't get me wrong, we get plenty of laughs from the class clowns, and your typical school dance where the cool guys stand out. We get all of that, but in a refreshing manner where all of the above find Charlie and befriend him: this film twists the formula of the outsider that struggles to earn the respect and trust of the cool kids.

Sam and Patrick, played by Emma Watson and Ezra Miller, are those cool kids. They're the cool kids that anyone would love to hang out with and socialize with their respective interesting friends, and yet we discover that they're outsiders/castaway kids just like charlie. It's a wonder to see what Charlie sees and contemplates in them; he is shown to a window of excitement through these kids and he's invited to step in.

Many of the wonders that life provides are those that are lived in the moment without planing for too much. Charlie takes us by the hand and shares with us all the new experiences that he's introduced to. Perks is a well crafted narrative that's as exciting as its characters. They're strong supportive characters with layers of depth. We see their careless free fashion to see life in highschool, or life in general as teenagers, which is not always fun or exciting. For many teenagers, these years are tough, life defining. The film presents us with the darkness of those defining years in every teenager, and it doesn't shy away from them. Sam, Patrick have their own demons to deal with. Demons that make you realize the level of bravery that must take for adoslecents to confront: a courage to stand up and face life. Charlie is no exception. One of the saddest and heartbreaking moments in the film, or any teen films this year, comes from the darkest revelations in Charlie's life.

Perks is an age defining story, a come to age film where its protagonist and supporting characters are captivating and inviting. Thus is the enthralling performance of its three main actors. Lerman, Watson, and Miller: a triplet of young actors that unconventionally come together to work out something special. And I found it unconventional, since these three come from different acting backgrounds. Lerman is better known for the kids action adventure, PERCY JACKSON, which is promised to be a future franchise. Watson popularly known for her debut/growth inside the proudly 100% British HARRY POTTER saga. And Miller is sadistically remembered for his child of evil performance in the amazingly played and mesmerizing WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN. I found Perks to be a quite diverse ensemble that truly vibrated with credibility and chemistry.
Perks is that kind of film that becomes part of you and stays.

From LIFE OF PI

Is it a film about a hard to tell story, or one about the most amazing journey never told?

One could argue that the latest ANG LEE'S LIFE OF PI adaptation from the same book, it's a compilation of extraordinary events a la fabula style where dialog, narration, even storytelling are to its minimalistic context. To  some is the opposite, which is a well elaborate story that's so detailed and so embeded in its events that takes two screenings to discern its message. But either way, I personally find the film to triumph in its fashion to communicate its message: an impressive and visually outstanding feast.

To me, the film is more about the journey. I get to relate to it the more that the journey progresses. It's not what I learn from the dialogue or narrative. it's what i see, and witness with my own eyes. Never a sentiment is dictated, hence you don't feel emotionally manipulated by its events (I'm watching at you Spielberg.) It reminds me of one of those fable books that I read, when I was a little kid where the reading is slim and the colorful presentation of men and fauna is rich. To its core, Life of Pi is a throwback to that innocence: a moral that's sublime where men and animal meet and confront together adversities.

Make no mistake though, Life of Pie is neither solely for kids or adults. It reaches beyond our conventional rating system. The film is too beautifully painted with breathtaking sceneries that are far from being dark; even in its dark scenes, the film provides an almost magical, no, a mythical array of colors and lights that cause an enriching splendor. In the same way, the film presents situations and events that are crude, rough, and too nerve wrecking for kids to behold even traumatizing per say. Life of Pi is such that epic in its journey: an ever told epic of kid vs. nature, boy vs. beast, and ultimately man vs. god. As Roger Ebert says, "The film could've might as well be called LIFE," such is the journey that's always beautiful to behold with its triumphs, and failures.

Life of Pi achieves a tehnological landmark of movie making both CGI and 3D. Never before I've seen a well crafted and inviting world, which technology fully supports the film so well without distracting the attention of the viewer. Quite the opposite, such technological means cause an utter submergion of the viewer in its world. The audience is virtually part of the journey: an extended reality of the film where objects seemingly connect with the viewer. I found myself not only witnessing the events, but i'm also part of them.

3D here is the culmination of what the 3D technology was meant to achieve, since its conception. The third dimensional plane is employed in every bit of the film, not just in chasing sequences, thrilling scenes, or dramatic shots like it has been poorly overused on blockbuster films. Life of Pi doesn't want you to get distracted or impressed; it wants you to experience its path. 3D is not a gimmick in the film, but a new found ground that triumphantly expands its universe, and oh boy, what an amazing universe to behold. Only last year SCORSESSE'S HUGO comes closer at achieving the evolution of 3D. ANG LEE finds it and successfully applies it in Life of Pi.

I can't recommend and urge people to go and experience this film any more than what I'm already doing it so. Go and see it, live it, and embrace the overwhelming feeling you'll feel in its climatic moments. I'm not gonna tell you what the film is about because is your own interpretation of what the film is about what makes it so mesmerizing. Do pay attention to its concluding scenes and dialogues though, it might open your eyes to extraordinary possibilities .

On 9/11

At home on 9/11; woke up at 8am to be ready for school. On my way out, I saw my mom watching the news of the plane crash against one tower. There was smoke and fire covering the new York sky on TV. I stepped outside and even the sky of our own western coast felt dry and grimly opaque.
It took me one hour to get to school that morning due to traffic. When I arrived to my anthropology class, the instructor was curiously delayed, unlike her. As soon as she walked in, she delivered the news to all of us. The immensity of the catastrophy that just befell on new york, and all of us. In her scholar way, she made the comment, "another drainage of genetic pool has occurred […] so many generations of genes lost forever" and with watery eyes she said, "another genocide on the pages of anthropology" i never forgot her words. Then as if foreshadowing the prolonged war to happen, she told us what that meant for America as well: she feared for the youth and men of our country; America needed to respond to such an attack. And we did...for good or for bad.