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. 

let me tell you the uncanny story of a nameless guy and his far from obedient dog named tamarindo...

they lived together in a small, but decent house at the top of a hill crowded with other houses. 
the nameless guy would offer parties, and tamarindo ridiculed him in front of his guests because the dog refused to be obedient; he would host gatherings, but tamarindo would interrupt them with his lack of discipline inside the house. he would invite his date in for drinks, and yet tamarindo would make a mockery out of his master by bitting him, whenever the nameless guy tried to give him commands.
shortly after, the poor nameless guy found himself in confusion because neither relative, friend, or date would call or reply back to his messages.
he then locked himself away inside his house to never be seen.
til' this day, it's speculated that tamarindo finally took control and showed his former master who was the real alpha male, and forced him to live a hermit life inside the small, but decent house on top of the crowded hill
---the end---

And the oscar SHOULD go to...

The nominees are anounced, but only those that performed stupendously can walk away victorious: to my own delight, 2011 brought us two of my new favorite films: THE ARTIST, and HUGO. both films are different in style and genre from one another, but with one mutual feeling: the love for cinema itself. The academy has shown its sympathy by honoring both pictures with the most prestigious and numerous nominations (among best picture.) I'd like to see that at the time of the awards, either film goes home with all the categories that they're being  nominated for. But if the awards end up being spread out, I already have a list of my own favorite contenders.
To begin, i personally think that the BEST ACTOR category should go to JEAN DUJARDIN for its brilliant performance in THE ARTIST. Dujardin manages to give color and voice to a film that ironically pays homage to the black/white silent era of cinema: his versatility is extraordinary on camera. He dances, pantomimes, and pulls effortlessly gags that invoke both the style and charisma of harold lloyd, and the adventurous bravado of Douglas Fairbanks.
There's no other actress this year thats shines, and i mean it, shines by her own merit in the BEST ACTRESS category like MICHELLE WILLIAMS for her performance in MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. Williams captivates as the most talked about blonde of all times, Marilyn Monroe. Williams inhales a public idea of Marilyn, and exhales a portrayal that convinces sensuality, frailty, and innocence: her performance is sublime, but bravest at its core. She tackles whatever misconception, and public consensus of what it historically was Ms Monroe, and instead she emphasizes on what it symbolized to be the icon: evokative, inhibited, charming, sympathetic, captivating, and full of insecurities that for the public and til these days remain secreted.
    
CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER should take home the BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR category for THE BEGINNERS; And BERENICE BEJO deserves the BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS award for THE ARTIST.
The BEST DIRECTOR category should go to MARTIN SCORSESE for its brilliant construction of one of the best 3Dfilms yet, HUGO. From the very beginning all the way through the end, Scorsese envisions a world that bring us back to a time where the magic of film first emerged. He presents us with characters that are engaging, mysterious, and almost magical in their own way. Scorsese triumphs in directing a film that's bound to be a classic and part of extended catalogues of many film history apreciation classes worldwide.
The BEST PICTURE award should definitely go to a film that's like no other in recent years, THE ARTIST. I'm fact, there haven't been any film like it that honors the silent era with a style that never falls flat, uninteresting, and unentertaining.  Perhaps its brilliance lies in its self-awareness. It reminds us how good silent cinema was, is, and it shall continue to be.

response to The Legend of Zelda Timeline shifts.

The Legend of Zelda Timeline... Revealed? - Wii News at IGN

click link above if you'd like
 to know what i'm basing  this response on:


In terms of the paradigm of planes involving the legend of ZELDA, the one and only that seems to be latent, even to be the skeleton of the series is the one that follows scenario B. why? simple, it's the one that's subsequent of the actual events that transpired in front of the camera, monitor, video game's reality.
we the players, see it come true and, as a result of the physical final fight against GANON, the triumph, and ultimately LINK's physical reward given by zelda; although zelda's gift is a paradox on its own that raises many other questions; among many that may rise, we have the most important one that leaves us wondering even after the game ends:
was that what link's heart really desired? was that what zelda longed?
but the theory remains hypothetical, since scenario B deals with the actual physicality of Hyrule's own reality, which is what we. or at least, what NINTENDO allows us to see regardless of what we could've contemplated. the reward is of a physical nature: returning to link those lost 7 years, make him relieve and grow in his own pace and enjoy the skipped childhood life.
Scenarios A and C, without jumping too much into detail because all i want is to point which one is the skeleton, are more of an etherial even conditional fabric.
they failed to exist on its own without basing its foundation on a conditional time shift event. they are never presented, or at least so far to us the spectators, in any physical form like a video game or even a side story in its own universe. Both happen outside of what we witness or live through link. i might even dare to say that where scenario B is the physical form of zelda's reality, scenario A and C are like the soul and mind of it. they exist without a corporal script or manifesto. they are part of the universe that is shattered in different planes by the omnipresence of the WHAT IF.
Connected to OCARINA OF TIME, scenario A is the what if link would have never awaken from his slumber? what if ganon managed to create other realities to assure his own existence, given the abundance of his new godly powers: the piece of the triforce of power? what if ganon managed to destroy the temple of time, in order to never allow link's spirit to return?
In the same manner scenario C deals with the rhetoric idea of what if link, after saving hyrule and being rewarded by zelda, never returns to his actual time or space? what if he gets lost in the time continuum? what if link is returned to the kokiri forest and in fact manages to live a normal life unaware of the events that are happening outside?
therefore scenario A and C are existing in the same zelda universe, but in different planes respectively; they are the outcomes of different metaphysical occurrences, as in not inside or shown on any actual game. Scenario B becomes the actual solid link to the game's own and original reality before the disruption begins in Ocarina of time.

My top 10 bad news of the year

The year 2011 hasn't ended yet but so far, im able to name and point my 10 most disagreeable news of 2011. By all means, these topics provided discomfort and a certain level of awareness from my own subjectivity;they don't mean that they were the worst either:
The impending booming of the kardashian trash show. Needless to say, why do the world needs to make these women even richer than they already are for being nothing and doing nothing? It beats me why the world watches and follows the ecstatic and stagnant lives of these people.
The tyranny of apple. Scared of competition, apple put itself in bad eyes before countless of consumers over the year for its insanity to sue everything and everyone over trivial and generic details, and everyone that proved to be a rising competitor. Many speculated that its next target was gonna be mother nature for using a shape and name that they claimed invented, the apple.
Nintendo's void to maintain its hardcore fans satisfied. After years of top popularity and sales, Nintendo's wii begun to lose momentum and interest. Mostly based on its obsession to cater family casual gaming to the new masses that sought the wii as a good distraction. At the end, the distraction lasted for so long and the new masses moved on to the next big thing, xbox kinnect. The only people that stood by Nintendo are the hard core gamers that embraced the wii since its release date (where everyone else was still skeptical about the new motion control system.) unfortunately, those same people were the same ones that Nintendo neglected for so long. It added more fuel to the fire, when nintendo refused to bring more hard core games to the states, and the absence of its biggest promised stars.
The death of a rising old school soul muse, Amy whinehouse: her early departure brought grievance to many, to the music world in general. She opened up the door to many out of the main stream artists to pursue and stick to their individual styles and be honest to their music.
The beheaded of a Saudi woman that's accused of witchcraft: this one in particular provided such a level of shock for its archaic inhumane and not tolerable occurrence. How come there are governments that tolerate and even accept such acts? It doesn't matter what country or religion you're in people. How dare you accuse and execute someone with ridiculous charges of witchcraft? Would you have enjoyed being accused of the same chargers hundred years ago because your religion was not considered the religion of the catholic church? No. Now a day, it would've been a global genocide.
Pain on the rising sun land. It seems that Japan was the target of mayor disaster. The scope of the tragedy was not really even matched by the frequency of events that seemed to happen one after the other. Many even dare to say that the potent earthquake was no match for the amount of destruction that the following tsunami caused on the land; country side and small providences in particular were almost completely washed away by the waters of an invading sea. The pain of its people, specially the poor and working class had no rest. Houses, cars, and lives were lost in such a short time.
Occupy Wall street protesters martyrdom. What else can be said about this that the media hasn't covered crystal clear? The fact that the motivational movement inspired billions around the state to walk out and march for a good cause is not in question. What shattered many hearts and ideals was the witnessing of how authorities handled the peaceful protests was the shocking and almost disturbing factor.
The legacy of a publicly opened jerk, ill mannered individual, and that after death is turned into an iconic symbol for polishing and making more accessible a technology that already existed. I give him merits, but not to the point of making him a cultural icon. Specially if he had no recollection of helping back society or the less fortunate: not even going into detail for having complete knowledge of the hard labor imposed on young workers, children even, of his factories in Asia.
The many misfired theories of the end of the world: this year was marked with several false or over indulged prophecies regarding the arrival of the apocalypse. From the internet to Mayan's calendar, people have gathered theories that involved a numeric sequence that's mathematically readen that predicts the exact day and time of the upcoming doom. I seriously do not know about that one, since the man formulating these hypothesis have missed multiple times on his own predictions or frantic fanaticism. The calendar mayan on the other hand, it evokes a certain level of curiosity that leaves you thinking.
Two very close tragic losses. One of a relative that left in pain and mourn a beloved cousin and her three children. then shortly after, the sad death of a former coworker that was a given time a great and close friend. It is sad to see young people leaving this world in abrupt manners, but it is even heart breaking to let them go. Cheers to you pastor and you beloved bailey. Always Hoping that the new year brings to all loved ones and friends more joy than pain.

From MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

What we get, it's a subtle and heart felt genuine non sexual affair that reaches the borders of innocence. Sex is an idea not a fact outside the camera: sensuality is at every corner, but the notion of sexuality is an abstract submerged in an alluring and beautiful portrait.
Eddie redmayne plays Colin clark, the protagonist, whose perspective gives a fair amount of highlights during his employment in the production of the british film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL; which is always the case of subjective stories to retell experiences that are seen through the own narrator's point of view. In most cases, those stories are always tainted or colored by the narrator's memories. We don't get the details or most intimate bits: the narrative at points seems to play in colin's own favor, and some parts are as credible as filling in the blanks of a quasi surreal nonfictional story. Nevertheless, the ambience of the film is inviting and relevant on every turn due to the amazing acting of Michelle Williams, redmayne, and a prominent supporting role by Judy dench.
My week with marilyn prevails as a coming of age experience. Its richness in characters adds color to a would be sad fairy tale. By any means, the film is far from being a sad/moody affair. It's in fact full of laughs and radiance. The characters are sympathetic and nonlinear.
It's always a joy to see the amazing one on one scenes between marilyn and colin that one only wishes that their one week affair could've turned diffrently in real life. There's a certain level of sadness that springs from the realisation of what comes next historically speaking for each character. The film wastes no time in telling us their outcomes, except from a couple of text descriptions, cause it emphasizes on what was hidden inside the pages of a young Colin's journal.
Michelle Williams gives shine to the character like no other could've had: her performance is astounding and simply mesmerizing in a way that flashes a spell on you and makes you relieve Marilyn again. Ebert suggests that the film is a homage to what Marilyn Monroe was and continues to signify: a devotion of a peculiar admiration for beauty, sensuality, sex appeal and innocence that altogether equal Marilyn Monroe, the icon.
If this is what Simon Curtis, director, was going for, then it remarkably triumphed. It's a story of a young man tackling his dreams that by chance meets and shares an unforgettable week with Ms Monroe. He shares with the public a glimpse of a juxtaposed woman that stole breaths away publicly as the most famous bombshell of the 1950s, and yet it yielded frailty and a charming child like innocence up close that only few were aware of.

on gods of the arena: beneath the mask

gods of the arena: beneath the mask. an episode full of intensity and twists and turns, more twists that turn darker and darker. among them is the sudden infatuation between melitta and gannicus, who at an earlier episode were forced to entertain the rich by having a sexual display. nothing could've stopped the ever building lunacy of tullius, and the silently menacing conception of batiatus conspiring against his too moralist father. the episode was of grief for the death of gaia, who brought spark and allure to the show so far, and the mourning of lucretia that claims blood on behalf of her beloved only friend. it is true that the house of batiatus walls were built in blood and sacrifice, but its columns are concrete efforts coming alone from lucretia's devotion and unwilling offering of her friend.  

on SPARTACUS:GREAT AND UNFORTUNATE THINGS

on SPARTACUS:GREAT AND UNFORTUNATE THINGS. it's not by fighting/ winning on behalf of his master that spartacus seeks consolation because of the murder of his wife, the only link remained to his former free life, but to serve justice to an innocent; behind THE HOUSE OF BATIATUS walls only the strong endure. "the boy was to weak to be here" says cruxious on notice of petrious death. "not all of us can be strong" a young maid replies. without a lover to defend his death, it's spartacus who takes vengeance. was it a rage coming from a hurt man mourning the death of his wife, or the purity of humanity that still lingers in him?

on dexter's everything is illuminated

DEXTER: EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED shines as the best episode so far in season 5. where the shocking aftermath of MYBAD didn't quite paid off to the dramatic urgency needed, ILLUMINATED puts in perspective the protogee teacher relationship between dexter and Lummen: the episode plays with her increasing ill formed obsession and the realization that there's truth in her clouded judgement. "there are some experiences so powerful that change your DNA" dexter. the episode also has one of the funniest moments of the show provided towards the end by masuka's twisted-explicit-explanation-visuals of the two murders.

on super 8

Latest Spielberg production claims to be a nostalgic slide of a vision that a younger Spielberg himself envisioned and explored during his early, and to my opinion the peak years of his career.
SUPER 8 comes across as a collection of slides pertaining to different time periods where the remembrance is a tribute of cumulative work: a photoesque Montage linked by a narrative that revisits an early style that ultimately goes no where but back to the nostalgia left by the same lost style.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film quite a lot, more than I'd like to admit; but the film feels scrambled, turned into a mechanical homage that aimes at many, but bullseyes at none. From the initial invokation of the GOONIES til the ET, gone wild and on steroid, climatic conclusion, the film felt like a mixture of everything that Spielberg has succeeded doing in the past: sense of adventure, brotherhood in the face of crisis, aparatic explosions, community, collective fear and horror.
To my taste, the film is a cinematic resume that pitches important works of Spielberg's career without caring for a coherent narrative.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.1

I wanna love again

I wanna feel warm and cherish the amazing feeling of love; even if it's a mental estate that lasts for so long, it sure is extraordinary.
No one can deny that having the privilege to love is incalculable. Even if It's a one way venue like most of the times, it still blissful.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

stellar snubs

The OSCARs ended, and the academy clossed the list of its nominees and awarded its winners. I'm happy that this year was broader in terms of genre, style, and budget; we had blockbuster films like INCEPTION and last minute rare gems like THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT and THE KING'S SPEECH. It's really pleasing to see how Hollywood is making an effort to include variety each year. Unfortunately, the academy couldn't have finalized a list of nominees without leaving out plenty of talent that for some weird voting fashion couldn't fit in among the contenders. To my disappointment, some of my very own favorites did not even make the cut nor get the recognition that such nomination represents. Talents like TOM HARDY in INCEPTION, TILDA SWINTON in I AM LOVE, CHLOE MORETZ in both KICK ASS/LET ME IN, and ARMIE HAMMER in THE SOCIAL NETWORK were left incredibly unnamed; through out 2010, they received such critical and audience acclaim for the amazing job that literally stole and continues stealing the spotlight, whenever they are on scene.
The support that TOM HARDY brings to INCEPTION is simply a joy. When he's introduced, we're right away presented with one of the most interesting, suave-ly played, and yet minimalistic characterization on recent screen. Hardy's character seems simple: direct, playful, charming, with expertise, one dimmentional, and easily identifiable as loyal. But the quality lies in the caliber of Hardy's performance; he inadvertently gives us an amazing JAMES BONDesque incarnation that breathes certain similarities but with a freshness and appeal that complement the cast in any level. Here's to you Hardy, in my opinion you're among the best supporting actors of the year.
I AM LOVE is a story about an aristocratic housewife that for years has dedicated her life to serve her family: a foreigner resident in Italy around the turn of the millennium. Through TILDA SWINTON's character, we get a glimpse in the life of the rich, charismatic, and powerful family that's strengthen by tradition and continuity. In fact, the sense of continuity is such a strong theme in the film that any matter that seems to rock or even alter the everyday life of the family seems like a threat. And if you've seen the film, SWINTON's relinquish to absolute passion becomes that unwilling, over the years dormant, and unthinkable threat for the dynasty. SWINTON is an actress that exudes sensuality without falling into the mundane. She delivers one of the most amazing portrayal without considering that she had to learn Italian with a Russian accent; SWINTON is already one of the best leading actresses of 2010.
Few young actors make such prominent and striking performances without going over board but by providing the right amount of credibility and life to its characters; in the case of ARMIE HAMMER in THE SOCIAL NETWORK, he gives us two characters that outstand with subtly and charisma. They're in fact the antagonist/victimized force in the film. twin brothers that differ from each other like ATHENA differs from ARES:one is the diplomatic strategic face of war, while the other one is the sheer passion to confront and destroy. Before THE SOCIAL NETWORK, I had no idea of who ARMAND HAMMER the actor was. It took me a long while in the film to discover that both characters were one sole actor. The acknowledgement blew me away because of the brilliance and royal treat that is watching HAMMER two timing act. You can read my previous blog on THE SOCIAL NETWORK where I talk more about HAMMER'S performance: a best supporting actor, in my opinion.
No other actress received as much positive buzz online, verbally, and on paper as last year's revelation CHLOE MORETZ. She became an immediate sensation in KICK ASS where she performed an aggressive ninja like trained vigilante: her arsenal of brutal kicks, punches, slices, and even R rated dialogue impulsed her to the front on one of the year's most gruesome and bizarrely satisfying comic-action films. KICK ASS reminds me plenty of WATCHMEN another film based on self proclaimed super heroes/ vigilantes that confront crime in a brutally close to reality without super powers world. The biggest difference is that KICK ASS is inhabited by adolescents that seek to change society for a better good. MORETZ introduction is literally a purple hurricane of kicks and swords. She is in fact the real deal where the protagonist is a wannabe trainee. I felt shocked and yet compelled by MORETZ performance in KICK ASS that I couldn't believe how much brute energy was coming from this young character. Aside from the highest level of violence found in recent teen action flicks, KICK ASS pushed and punched the envelope in teen comic action drama; where MORETZ is the centrifugal force behind it.
But later that year, MORETZ put aside her mask and cold purple raging nature to give us an even more perplexing performance in LET ME IN. The vampire horror flick came out in a time where girls and vampires have only one association, TWILIGHT. The expectations were not greater than your next vampire B rated film, but as already stated on her previous work, MORETZ overexceeds any conventional role. LET ME IN proves to be a true surprise cinematographically and in character drama: this contempo interpretation of the Swedish LET THE RIGHT ONE IN completely pushes the envelop in terms of overall performance. It's critically superior to its predecessor. MORETZ contribution of both tender and lethal nature is remarkably moving. The creepy scenario of a more than platonic first time romance for both protagonists is more in touch with human nature than any love/forbidden affair in recent films. Needless to say, it puts many teen-adult on screen romances to shame. LET ME IN shines with a splendor that engulfs its viewer in a tale of a lonely predator that kills for survival and yearns for an unknown life otherwise of her own. MORETZ simply tackles with assertion the complexity of the character, and the result is one of the most fascinating vampire portrayal in years. To me, CHLOE MORETZ is already a best actress Oscar winner that sets the standard high for kids performances in film.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7

on the assumption,"I THINK THAT I'VE MET MY SOULMATE"

I just heard my friend saying, " I'm so happy. I love him a lot. I really think that I've met my soulmate this time." How many times have people committed the mistake of confusing one from the other? Probably countless of times, but none is to blame cause in all of us lies the urgency to feel deeply connected to someone. Where does the differenciating line is drawn though? In the notion that a soulmate and a life companion are two similar but not identical cells; they r both easyly confused, specially when a special dementia, love, introduces itself.
For example, a soulmate is someone that seemingly has been by your side forever, and yet ironically you just met. It's the overwhelming DEJA VU of feeling compatible with someone u rarely know from the get go. Someone that you got along and trusted , since the first moment. It could be a best friend male/female. It's a certain love that's deeper than a physical attraction or even sex itself: Which it is here where the biggest difference resides. It's a love that's inexplicable. It's far from being lustful and not quite brotherly either.
A life companion/partner, it depends severely on the attraction of the body: that love is born from an ever growing infatuation. Unlike the described soulmate love, the life partnership love is beneficial. It strives to obtain something desired, which in this case is physical. The resulted love comes as a side effect.
This theory doesn't reject the miracle that rarely in life, both forms of love are born as one. It's a precedent that comes seldomly. Many claim it, but it's rare like a jewel. Just like my friend, it seems that everyone that he matches with seem to be true soulmates for him; soulmates that usually ranged between 2-5 weeks duration.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

on "Dancing on my own"

Don't know, if any of you have heard the new song "Dancing On My Own" by Swedish artist ROBYN, the point is that the song resonates with such a lingering truth. The truth that I invoke of is of that one that lurks and swarms us all, at a certain point or several in our lives when we need to corroborate a fact in our own flesh.
There's a saying that denounces the necessity that humans have to slap ourselves from dreamy lies, even the blissful ignorance, as many call it: "eyes that ain't seeing, heart that ain't feeling." It's precisely what many of us do, when confronted with hard wake up calls that linger around us latently, but we are always the last ones to accept it.
The affairs of the heart are the most common and painful ones to confront. Even if we live in a romance that is sinking, we still refuse to accept defeat; so we enshroud that destination with a mist of lies, fantasies, and hope. The more we conceal it, the farther we get from the truth. Although it never takes the pain away, it fools us by believing our own lie: a dimension that has only one perspective, which is our own desire to retain something lost.
Being the victim of an adulterous relationship always breaks down our most sanctum defenses. It leaves us full of insecurities that are forever present in us. It's our part to control them or let them rule our future affairs. The thing is that we may see all the signs, witnesses, and even substantial proofs that something is afloat. Something that was under dark waters, and later it deliberately swims on the surface. Taking the side of the adulterous ones, it might be an unconscious desire to be caught and be forced to pull the plug on a comatose relationship; we even opt to lie or be lied in order to avoid hurt. Confrontations are often dreaded; Although there are a few that look for reasons to ignite arguments, in order to find that courage required to take out what's burning for the longest inside and deal with it. Oh how I do truly wish that honesty will shields us all from pain, but that same shield can cause us even greater grief. And yet the inability to see beyond the thickness of our own fog of hope prevent us to accept and hear the flagrant voice of reason. We reside in the shadow cause we feel safer in the bitter-sweet gap of denial. Until we don't see it with our own eyes, then there's no definite evidence. What's even beyond pain is to know and live with the corrosive doubt: suffer in pain, and yet put up a good face to keep our beloved one close and perhaps fool ourselves that the extinguished spark is not entirely gone.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5