The Descendants - Alexander Payne (2011)

How can one write about a human drama after just writing about a human drama by Mike Leigh ? I saw The Descendants before, so I'll be considerate and remember the things I liked about it, because in all I liked it. After all, there are many many reviews praising The Descendants (I guess they didn't see it together with Another Year).

Surprise! George Cloonney can act! I think that's the first thing people who've seen the film thought. And yes, he can act (I am tempted but I will not compare him to Jim Broadbent). I think he's got a good role in this film (different from most parts he gets): father of two daughters who discovers his wife, who is dying, has cheated on him. Good place to start for any actor, he really makes the best of it. Most reviews want to make you think it's about him having to bond with the girls... I disagree. That isn't the problem. If he was an absent father before, it's not in the film. They have a hard time but their relationship isn't the problem, their relationship with the mother's action might be. One thing that is quite weak is how they cope with the feeling of actually losing her (it seems that's more important to find this person she's cheated with, rather than face the fact that she'll die). It makes me think of Genova... there's a real sense of loss and pain in Colin Firth and his girls, there isn't in George Clooney and his girls.*


Surprise! It's an adaptation! Yes, well, I didn't know it was a best-seller. Often I have problems with adaptations. They tend to want to include everything a reader of the book would like to see, when a film should be for a different audience entirely. I won't get into that now, because I will have a chance when I have time for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Back to The Descendants, yes, it works very well as a film. I thought it had weak things (like I mentioned the real grief of losing a mother/wife) but in all it was well structured. The fact that there's a dying wife situation and there's also the dying heritage situation helps it a lot. The heritage situation is clearly set and perfectly settled, it makes sense. Part of me would have been happy with just that conflict in a shorter film, but that's just me and my love for small films.

The rest is okay, the cinematography is nice, lovely Hawaiian landscapes, the music is Hawaiian... does everyone in Hawaii dress colourfully? If they do follow the Hollywood cliché, then it's fair enough. Nothing is extrodinary. Entertaining film.

*When did leading men started playing fathers?!

The Descendants

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Tomas Alfredson (2011)

Where to begin with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy?

Gary Oldman. Who doesn't love Gary Oldman? Is there a film where his presence doesn't own everything?! Such a great actor, he can play Dracula, Beethoven or George Smiley and be each one of those and at the same time still be Gary Oldman. In this film he plays someone older than he is... and manages to get away with the ageing make-up (I think this is tricky for most actors). He carries the drama on his shoulder mostly because his character isn't just looking for a mole, he is also human and has weaknesses of his own.

(I don't believe in spoilers, but if anyone who does is reading this, perhaps skipping the following paragraph is a good idea)

Colin Firth. I have said this before, but he's too strong of a presence in any film to just play a supporting role. So from the moment he appears, I knew who he was and what was going to happen. He plays it well though... I think we get distracted until at a certain point we say "Aha! I knew it!". He's an actor who doesn't over do it, he's always in control of his character and all of himself.

/ end of "spoilers"

The Screenplay. How do you judge a good adaptation of a book? By not even noticing it was originally a book, especially if it is a famous book (and it had been done for television too). Tinker Tailor... doesn't really need any other explanation... nor gets into obsessive details the book reader will be waiting to find there. You just understand the rules of the world from the beginning and follow the story, because you engage with these characters who all have a story behind them. It's a thriller all along and it works wonderfully: well paced, the information is well administered.... unlike other adaptations like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

The visuals. The cinematography and art design are amazing. The camera is used to see through things, it's a spy story after all. It's a clever trick and it looks great too. The seventies are always classically stylish and the films looks just like that, everything is shiny and elegant (I've yet to see a dirty car from the seventies... dust just didn't exist back then). The only problem is the lovely Tom Hardy's hair. Something there didn't quite work, unlike Gary Oldman's ageing effect.

The music. I like the idea that Alberto Iglesias has an international career. He's done extensive work in Spanish cinema (mainly writing for Almodóvar) and I think he deserves to compose for all sorts of films. I like the work he did for Tinker Tailor... it's subtle, it goes well with the drama. At times, it's a bit too much music, but that's because I would have liked to listen to more of those lovely sounds.

The Sound. It is so good it made me want to cry. Little details, lots of clear crisp sounds that just set you in the drama and together with the characters. It's such a good film visually that I'm glad they made the effort to also take that level of work to the sound, it makes it a much better film.

Something strange. The lack of women characters. There's the Russian wife who suffers so she has an affair with a British spy. There's the cheating spy's wife (whose face we don't really see!). There's this lady who used to know too much but now is retired... So yes, it's mainly a boys film, perhaps the world of spies was all about boys? Anyway, it is still a good film.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

La piel que habito - Pedro Almodóvar (2011)

Somehow I was expecting a much better film, a thriller, something darker. 

I was also expecting Antonio Banderas to act better... he wasn't a bad actor in his Spanish era. English was a barrier for him so I thought maybe now after many years without working with Almodóvar he'd be better. No, he wasn't. He also has a sort of strange dubbing... to make his performance more serious? It doesn't work. Perhaps because everyone is outshone by Elena Anaya. She's just perfect in her role, not a hair out of place, the perfect main character... nobody else could have been better.

The film is very stylish. The art and photography are as good as Anaya. But aren't all Almodóvar films like that? 

The big problem is the story. It is an adaptation, but very much adapted to Almodóvar's world: transgender characters, crazy people, kidnapping, loving mothers... it's just not all the way weird as most of his films are (if someone is going to kill someone else, they use a gun, not a ham now...). It's also predictable. It's not a story telling problem, it's a plot one. You just know what it's going to happen.

The music. Alberto Iglesias is a good composer. The score isn't bad, it's just too overused. If the suspense isn't in the film, the music won't help a lot. Especially if you use music as a dramatic resource all the time. 

It isn't a terrible film but it's not a great film either... which isn't good. See the look on his face? That's how the film leaves you.

La piel que habito

Martha Marcy May Marlene - Sean Durkin (2011)

MMMM is a good film, it's simply made, it's engaging, the actors are good at their roles... I did find it a bit disturbing. 

The storytelling is very convincing, you end up thinking that the scary thing is that this can be a true story (and probably is).  I think it's got to do with how naturally everything is told. 

The photography is pretty (a bit too obvious having the dark memories darker than the brighter present?). It's very nice to watch. There are the odd zooms. Oddly enough they didn't bother me too much. 

One thing I like was the transitions from present to past. Often flashbacks have cross dissolves or a white flash.. or something. Here it's done by simple cuts, the continuity makes things become closer- the idea that she's constantly living with her traumas as if it was still happening to her. 

I liked the ending. I like the idea that not everything needs to be explained. This is her story, her confusing, her paranoia... it's something that will stay with her. Whatever happens next... is another film. 

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Violeta se fue a los cielos - Andrés Wood (2011)

Films about real people are always tricky. Especially when the character is someone like Violeta Parra, who was so complex, multi-faceted and interesting. I've seen a documentary about her and it was quite interesting in terms of the interviews it had and how it should a lot of her aspects (in terms of documentaries, it wasn't particularly innovative or creative). With fiction of course it's accepted that dramatic licenses will be taken. I the problem here is how the view they are showing on her is so poor. Compared to a film like La Môme, also a very interesting character, it's very poor. 

Perhaps it fails as a biopic, but does it still work as a film? I suppose so. There's a story to it, you engage in her story... you're introduced to the world of Violeta Parra, just not in all its complexity. One thing is that characters are confusing, I've heard people talking about it (who's that?!). It wants to be an introduction but it also doesn't explain everything (which would mean it's for people who are already familiar with her life.

Still, it's visually very attractive. The music is used reasonably - entirely performed by the actress who does an amazing job as she really turns into her. The sounds... is ok, not great. The editing is a bit weird. There's something wrong with the continuity in between takes (who else notices but me?).

By the end it gets a little... hm. Okay, everyone knows she committed suicide. She had several attempts. So I was curious to see how it was shown. And it doesn't show anything gross or demeaning, which is good. But it doesn't really portray the sadness and difficult times she was in (not just because a lover left her, but because she was suffering in other aspects of her life). It makes it look like a sudden thing, an impulse, when she had been in pain for a while.

I enjoyed the film, I can't say I didn't but it could have been a lot better (especially for all the things I had read about it).

Violeta

The Tree of Life - Terrence Malick (2011)

I've heard a lot of praise regarding this film. If you read the reviews you'd find that it's meant to be deep and meaningful... well I didn't think so. It doesn't really created the mood for you to engange into deep thinking. It might pretend to, but it doesn't get there. It's beautiful to watch, every frame is, but that's as far as it goes. The narrative is... interesting, but it's not that innovative. It's not bold enough for you to have to recreate the story, you can still follow it. I don't know. I felt a bit ripped off.

The Tree of Life

Habemus Papam - Nanni Moretti (2011)

We all expect something from a film. Even if we don't know exactly what. Perhaps because there's something that made us think we'd watch it. 

It took me a while to figure what was it that I expected from this film and why I didn't get that. 

The plot sounds simple and attractive enough: there's an elected Pope who doesn't want to assume his role (so they find him a psychologist to help him). Fair enough. 

The problem is that the film isn't that. 

It's meant to be a satire of some sort. But it's not. It could be consideered a dramatic comedy, it has funny moments, but it all goes wrong at the end. 

Michel Piccoli saves the film. I think he does capture the feelings the character has. He's a very nice old man, with a something in his eyes. He's not over the top either. He is really suffering. 

And Jerzy Stuhr! Okay I just recognised him. He's changed a lot since his films with Kieslowski. He's a great actor and here is very good here too. If the story had been about the man who doesn't want to be the Pope and the man whose job is to convince him that he must... that would have been a completely different and excellent film.


It's a very visually attractive film, the photography and art and very nicely done. The sound... has one or two good moments... with a terrible terrible music moment. They picked a nice song and put it in the middle of a sequence meaning nothing but something that was put there just because. 

The psychologist (played by the director) shouldn't have been there. He's not likeable, he doesn't have an important role in the drama, he's not even funny... It makes it a completely different picture and a much less interesting one too. 


The ending... well I think the film had lost me long before but it's just terrible. I think the script suffered from a lack of direction and in the end it went nowhere.

"A story centered on the relationship between the newly elected Pope and his therapist." No, not really. But this wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't such a boring film in the end.

Habemus Papam

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2 - D. Yates (2011)

So yeah, one day is Angelopoulos the other Harry Potter... you never now with me.

I was curious to see the end of it. I thought part 1 was rubbish and boring. Of course it's got information you'll need for the second part, but two films were unnecessary. Rules of the market.

Though it's the same rules of the market that allows for it to have a great sound. I've always thought they tend to have good sound.. but this was quite impressive. It had all the conditions for it: fantasy film, lots of action, non-real creatures... I'm glad it wasn't wasted. As I was watching it I kept thinking what a great experience it would be to work in such a film. When I found this video I confirmed it... big budget sound making seems like a lot of fun!

SoundWorks Collection: The Sound of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 from Michael Coleman on Vimeo.

The perfomances. The ones that stand out are Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. They play the bad ones and it's easy to over do the bad ones. But they are so measured. Especially Fiennes who at times seems to just be using his eyes to be evil. 

The one thing I hated: the age effect. "19 years later".. is basically the same teenage kids with grown up clothes (a bit too big for them) pretending to be grown ups. No. It doesn't work. You can still tell they are young. Awful way to ruin... well the end, really. Finding adult actors would have been better (not that they haven't grown it's just that they still look young). 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2