The Oxford Murders

I think The Oxford Murders is a very contradictory movie (who knows, maybe it's just me).

First of all, it's very catchy most of the time. There are some very unnecesary scenes during the entire film that were literally a pain in the ass. Secondly, it had very interesting camera shots (there was one in particular that was practically endless, that's very hard to achieve and fun to watch!), but maybe too many because I felt dizzy several times because of some angles, extreme close-ups and weird and/or fast movements.

On the other hand, the lack of visuals was certainly an issue. What bothers me the most is that they are in England for Christ's sake, good visuals are all over the place and easy to achieve. And of course, it would have been really nice to see more of the famous university too.

The performances are honestly flawless. John Hurt made me want to contradict Seldom during his class, to argue with him, he produced in me some kind of displeasure and mistrust that were characteristic of Seldom. He produced in me something similar to what he produced in Martin, I wanted to proove that he was not a genious at all, that he was closed and cold hearted. I wanted to fucking destroy him. Just kidding. But he produced a certain anger in me that wasn't like the anger you feel for a typicall villian, it was more than that, I kept talkin aloud during the film, when he spoke I contradicted him. It was great. Though it would have been nice seeing an Argentinian actor in the role of Martin (as it was in the book), I really think Elijah Wood provided his best performance so far. Completely flawless. I too felt Martin's "anger", his pride yet his insecurity, his desire (or need) to proove he's capable, his weird obsession with his idol that because of his pride (or rather, his insecurity) he needed to overthrow. That's all latent, specially the scene when he breaks the glass. Powerful performance. Julie Cox represented insecurity and isolation better than anyone. You feel so sorry for her that it doesn't even occur to you that she might be guilty. The blind fascination she had for Martin, caused evidently by her need for affection is very well seen when she asks him how does he do to be happy.

Overall, this wasn't as bad as the critics said.

Big Fish

A magnificent tale about a man that sees the world with another eyes, who exagerated the truth to make life more interesting. I haven't read the book, but I can tell you this movie stands on its own. I'm not a fan of Tim Burton, but I think this is his best work (maybe because he finally does something different here). It's different, but still, you can understand why it's a Tim Burton film, so he doesn't lose his identity. At the beginning, we see three time periods, three stories one inside the other. That could get quite confusing, but actually it doesn't. Not at all. Surprisingly it manages to delete one of the time periods, and it does it very well, almost in an unnoticed way. The movie goes with the flow, the plot advances with no issues at all, very well developed. You get very attached to the characters, even with the ugly ones like the giant. The art direction and cinematography are excellent as well as the performances. I specially liked Ewan McGregor and Marion Cotillard, thay were stunning choices for the cast. I also loved the symbolism of Ed becoming his stories, beoming the big fish, which is kind of what he always was, born to stand out, the big fish is his alter ego. Also, the sybolism of Spectre, which I believe, Ed was using it to tell about a period of drug use in his life: Firstly because it seems wonderful, but when people go there, they get nothing done and drugs seem like a great way to escape, but people become unproductive; secondly because when people go there, they take off their shoes which makes it difficult to get out, same with drugs, it's very easy to get in, but extremely har to get out; Shoes are thrown over the line, which is also a sign of drug dealing territory in inner cities; Spectre is wonderful at first, but in time it deteriorates and needs to be saved, and drugs may seem very glamorous at first, but in the end they break down people and reduce them to nothing. And so much more symbolism, that's my favourite thing in a movie. INCREDIBLE film, to recommend and watch several time, it's very fun to learn something new about what Ed' stories mean each time you watch it.

8 femmes

One thing is certain about this movie: it tries. And it tries really hard. It tries really hard to find a esthetic, to be original, to be unpredictable. But it fails. I can't say that I didn't find it entretaining, at least at times, and t does have brilliant moments, it actually started really well, but it wasn't able to mantain that quality during the whole film. The Agatha Christie theme, and the plot itself could have worked way much better, but in its search for identity it ruined its chance to do that. Bizarre and even kitsch movies are fantastic, at least I find them extraordinary, the problem is when they try TOO hard. Over the top in art can be really good, but believe me, this is simply too much. TOO over the top. It could have worked without the singing, I think that was what really ruined it, becaused it went from a good bizarre comedy-thriller to something that can't be taken seriously. On top of that, it kept trying to add alibis and facts to confuse you and to be "unpredictable", but I just kept guessing everything that was going to happen. Although, I must say, I didn't guess the very ending, that did surprise me, but it still seemed like such an effort, it never moved fluently because you were always feeling their effort to make it work. The movie, however, has got stunning performances by France's (and the world's) most beloved actresses such as Catherine Deneuve, Isabelle Huppert and Fanny Ardant, and very intereting newcomers or not so known actresses. If you don't take it ver seriously, this movie is not EXTREMELY bad.

Silk

I quite liked this movie despite its several flaws, disloyalties to the book and all negative reviews. I'll start with what I didn't like: First of all, Michael Pitt. I think he didn't understand Herve at all. He didn't understand why he loved Helene (he actually didn't seem to feel that extreme love for her as he does in the book, it seems as if he shares a stronger bond with the mistress) or why he had that certain fascination with the mistress, he didn't get at all what was Herve Joncour's core. There were also several misunderstandings with the book, but then again it was not a proper book to be made into a movie because the important thing there is Alessandro Baricco's unique way of writing, the story itself isn't appealing enough to be turned into a movie because it's only enjoyable with such writing, and Baricco's writing can't be showed in the movie.
One thing I found quite annoying was the fact that the dialogues in Japanesse weren't translated in the subtitles and it made you feel kind of lost, as if you were missing part of the movie. Perhaps the director wanted to show the alienation of this French man in foreign lands, very foreign lands, but it certainly doesn't work for the audience it just confuses it.

I think the movie was loyal to the book in general lines, the whole anger with the Asian chick was monumentally stupid, in the movie it was mentioned several times that she was not Japanesse, so drop it. If any, that's not the major problem with the adaptation, it's like telling me they couldn't cast, I don't know, Anne Hathaway for Becoming Jane because she was not British, it's the exact same argument, if the actor's right for the role, it doesn't matter his nationality. I know it was a big deal the whole not-asian-eyes thing, but still, there were worse problems. And I also didn't mind the censorship of the letter.

Its runtime certainly isn't an issue either. Many people have consider this an extremely slow movie, but I must say I didn't at all, I actually found it really entretaining. So, I guess that's subjective.

The real and most important problem, apart from Pitt's poor performance (because other issues mentioned weren't major), is that the emphasis of the film is concentrated in the visuals rather than in the development of the characters (which I consider to be way more important in order to make a movie work).

However, the film has got a breathtaking cinematography that manages what the script (and Michael Pitt) couldn't: making Baricco's poetry visual. The score is also very good. Keira Knightley shows us once more that she's to be taken seriously and that she is for sure the most promising young actress nowadays. She played Helene in such a sutil way, so innocent, o loyal and in love, so authentic and yet so intriguing. Overall, it's a very good film, I think the objective was achieved, despite some adaptation and other minor problems.

Chicago

Three things we've certainly learned from Chicago:

• They had it coming
• And all that jazz
• They both reached for the gun

The songs are amazing and makes you want to sing and dance, the editing is astonishing and very creative, especially the way they mixed the performances with the events. It's got some memorable scenes and a stunning and unique humour, very classy. It's got excellent visuals, the make-up, hair and costume people did an amazing job, I applaude, really. The performances are actually really good, both Renée Zellwellger and Catherine Zeta Jones, and even Richard Gere who I couldn't imagine singing and dancing, really surprised me. I think it exceeds by far the first version, but it isn't even close to movies like All That Jazz and Cabaret, the ultimate jazz musicals par excellence. Nevertheless it's a great movie, enjoyable, original, visually beautiful, funny, to recommend.

Casablanca: Where it all started

Watching this movie, even when you've already seen it thousands of times, is a unique experience, a journey to the very origin of all Hollywood movies. Casablanca is the ultimate classic, and that's a fact. From its memorable and ever-repeated quotes to Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, all the way through its music (the enduring As Time Goes By), the postcard scenes and the mix between a drama about the always attractive nazi subject and occasional ironic jokes. How could we ever forget the scene in the airport, "Play it, Sam" and "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"? We never will, not only because of what they represent, but because we'll keep on hearing them and watching them in every movie, TV show, book and every single artistic expression. Casablanca marked a before and after in art history and opened a whole new theme in it. In fact, every Hollywood movie we watch has some element of Casablanca, and it will always be like that. Every movie heroine is, in some way, Ilsa, and every movie hero has something of Rick in him, as well as every movie love story has something of theirs. But all this doesn't mean at all that this is a cliché, and that's because this one started it all. Casablanca will endure in time and will always be in our hearts and memories. That's why it's a classic. It is where it all started.