The Man from Earth

Screenwriting lesson.

Jerome Bixby's script (apparently finished not long before his author's death) almost starts like a joke to unfold in a most engaging and fascinating story that challenges all sort of preconceptions. Some of the most elaborated dialogue lines of all-times cinema, excellent characters, emotional performances and beautiful, seemingly irrepetible moments, contribute to this ode to humanity, this triumph of reasoning over beliefs, to this pure message of hope for the future.

If you see it with an open mind, The Man of Earth is, I believe, all the above and more. And all with a very low budget, one set and a bunch of actors.

I saw this film recently in DVD, nearly by mistake. I then found out that it had only been released in some countries and always at a small scale. I didn't have high expectations, and I'm delighted to have found gold. As I said to a good friend recently, I'm still pondering whether this might be the best script I've ever have enjoyed.

Then again, you may hate it. Anyway, still worth watching and decide then.

Madagascar

(IMPORTANT: This is an old review. No matter how fast you run, it won't be showing at the local cinemas when you get there. You can always get in on DVD though...)

By using the same vivacious and quick style present all over their previous blockbuster “Ice Age”, Twentieth Century Fox’s latest picture offers another simple –but still fresh and effective- story with a handful of animals as protagonists.

“Magascar” combines numerous enjoyable moments (above all those involving the hilarious penguins’ activities, which really make us laugh) with a few others, kind of dull and boring (that we secretly feel were not needed).

The 3D characters and the environment, like in a two-dimension cartoon, don’t look real, but didn’t mean to, either. Still, the chosen abstraction works, showing roles that, despite not being human, look familiar and believable to our eyes. All encapsulated into a scarce-in-details atmosphere which also works out.

Except for some easy jokes about cartoon-like falls and blows, which actually happen in a couple of occasions, the movie holds itself on a neat and clear storyline, dressed with very few sub-plots. It almost reaches unexpected deepness, however, but apparently the reflections such an event would have led us to would not have been appropriate for a U-classified (suitable for children) film.

So fun that does not go any further then, but is absolutely worth enjoying.

Hotel Rwanda

(IMPORTANT: This is an old review. No matter how fast you run, it won't be showing at the local cinemas when you get there. You can always get in on DVD though...)

Director Terry George found in the material that inspired “Hotel Rwanda” a perfect excuse to let the inhabitants of ‘the first world’ know about African struggles. This particular story, although sadly real and shockingly human, is just an example of what usually happens in those forgotten areas of the planet.

Whether or not the film fulfils one of its missions (the main one, the director says) of raising people’s consciousness about the situation that the movie shows, “Hotel Rwanda” is a beautiful and touching story properly shot and told.

In general, the actors know how to create intense personalities and give outstanding performances, favoured by the propitious and hopeless war environment.

Don Cheadle plays Paul Rusesabagina, a man who finds out what kind of human being he actually is during the terrible events. His character -a real person, by the way, who did save more than one thousand people from the slaughter that many other suffered- is difficult to separate from the rest of the movie since, in a way, they both are the same thing.

The appropriate choice of shots, containing all that the audience needs to know in order to feel along with the protagonist, undoubtedly helps him. But Don Cheadle’s work amplifies what happens on the screen, widely supported, for his part, by the rest of the cast. This is the case with the seemingly passive Nick Nolte or the awesome Sophie Okonedo, Don Cheadle’s wife in the film.

Apart from the actors, there are some breathtaking moments in which we can barely blink because of the intensity of the emotions that spill out of the screen. Some Don Cheadle’s lines, like the conversation with his wife in the roof or the meaningful speech to his guests, are especially remarkable.

The director counted on a very tasty material at his disposal: war between neighbours, families, brother against brother, the evasive attitude of the rest of the world (“the civilized part”), … But, instead of getting too excited, he wisely handles all these ideas without overusing of ghoulish or bloody resort.

His crew’s choices also achieve an adequate atmosphere, which makes us feel empathy, guilt and responsibility. The light and the music, for example, are appropriately used for this purpose.

Since that’s not my task here, I won’t finish this cold piece of writing trying to tell the reader, in a moral-like way, what they should do after watching the movie (or what we should have done before). I won’t even wonder if Joaquin Phoenix’s words in the movie, speaking about some shots of the conflict that he has shot, are truth: “If people see this footage, they’ll say: ‘Oh, my god, it’s horrible’, and then go on and eat their dinners”.

Ray

(IMPORTANT: This is an old review. No matter how fast you run, it won't be showing at the local cinemas when you get there. You can always get in on DVD though...)

“Ray” covers the early years in the life of the pioneering musician Ray Charles. The movie tells us about what the road to fame is like, going through the different steps and aspects of this intense experience quite faithfully. But it’s also the story of a man –who, despite being amazingly good at playing piano, singing and composing, is as any other- struggling for a chance to live his life without becoming a monster in the process.

Only someone like the director Taylor Hackford, who, as we realise during the first minutes of the movie, deeply admires Ray Charles, would have been capable of going through such a difficult and long project (which, incidentally, involved Charles himself in the early stages, before his death). On the other hand, this vast love ends up ruining some moments of the film (and some others that, because of the same kind approach, were never created) in which the behaviour of the philandering and heroin-addicted soul singer remains unscathed instead of being condemned by the eventually too belligerent director.

The same thing happens, in some way, with the subplot that takes us to explore the past from time to time. Although it’s in general well handled, it becomes quite tedious by the end. And the almost celestial final image is definitely too much and doesn’t contain any new meaning: after an almost-three-hour film –seemingly longer because of the constant fades by the end-, the director feels he forgot to include a deep moral (which is not needed) and hurries to ruin another moment of the story.

Yet “Ray” is an enormously human story, in part because of a meticulous script and in part thanks to the actors.

The choice of Jamie Foxx -by the way, approved by none other than Ray Charles, who also taught ‘some piano tricks’ to the actor- as the protagonist give us the chance of enjoying a delightful unrepeatable performance. Foxx, also pianist, looks and sounds like the original Charles. And he offers nerve and authenticity while playing and pretending to sing his recordings.

Let's not forget the impressive Sharon Warren, as well, in the role of Ray’s mother, so shocking and decisive at all times like a whole life of maternal schooling encapsulated in a few minutes.

But, the way I see it, the best present that we receive from director and scriptwriter with “Ray” are various wonderful scenes, two in particular: one, belonging to Ray’s childhood, in which he falls over already being blind; and another, close to the end of the movie, in which Ray’s wife tells him about what he could lose if he didn’t give up drugs. I still feel something special while I write these lines. Scenes like those remind me of the power of good storytelling and would make the movie worth watching even if it told nothing else.

The music is, as expected, one voice more, speaking about that period and its composer’s attitude before it (as the gospel music subject). It’s easy to fall in love with the toe-tapping rhythm as you watch the movie. And particularly enjoyable are some parts in which lyrics completely integrate into the story to tell part of what is happening.

The incredibles

(IMPORTANT: This is an old review. No matter how fast you run, it won't be showing at the local cinemas when you get there. You can always get in on DVD though...)

Incredible indeed!

“The Incredibles” is the last CG film (completely generated by using computers) made by Pixar, who already surprised us with “Toy Story”, “Monsters Inc.” and “Finding Nemo”. As any Pixar film, this is a movie which appears to be sometimes a very funny comedy, sometimes a moving story capable of touching the toughest spectator. And, as any Pixar film (it doesn't matter if they use toys, bugs, monsters, fish or super-heroes) it remains a powerful story about relationships between human beings.

This time, they tell the story of a family of super-heroes using lots of references to super-hero movies, TV serials and comics, as well as adventure films. “The Incredibles” delights our senses with a powerful script full of sub-plots brilliantly treated, including several relationships inside the family (Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl’s love, parents and siblings, children's problems) which are easily believable as well as amazingly familiar.

By combining virtual people and real actors’ voices, the characters (all them, not just the main ones, but every single one) end up having more personality than many human actors: nice characters whom we get attached to and whom we worry about. Their bodies and faces make us believe in them and create a favourable atmosphere for humour. Pixar accomplishes the most difficult thing in this kind of movie: credibility. And this is the point: when a character is beaten, we know it hurts; when a character runs, we know he's going fast. When a door is opened, a train is trying to stop and people or objects are falling, we are sure that they are all heavy, as if they were real elements. From the character's expressiveness to the fanciest effect seen in the film, Pixar’s animators and programmers achieve the impossible.

Completely believable hair, muscles and fabric, including several costumes per character (for the first time in a movie like this). Explosions, water, explosions in the water, lava, ice, shattering windows, energy fields, invisibility effects, light beams, plane reactors, robots… everything is possible, even stretching human limbs. We have no reason to not believe in it because it’s very well done.

In regards to music and lighting, the film opts for a colourful environment typical of old-fashion comics and Saturday morning cartoons which turns into a James Bond-like environment as the story moves forward. Of course, every effect related with light and used to personalize each moment of the film (daylight, dust, clouds, fog) is perfectly created.

The “60's 007”-like look is reflected as well in the multi-location design of the film. From the interior of a volcano to the open sea, from remote forests to common cities, we visit many different beautiful sceneries. Furthermore the director consistently uses the camera intelligently throughout each set (he seldom overuses the fact that everything is 3D to take odd shots), so we don’t have to see spectacular yet absurd views.

It’s difficult to decide if “The Incredibles” is only one of the best animated movies so far or it’s one of the best super-hero films ever created as well. Whatever the case, this is not a story just for kids. In fact, this is the first PG (Parental Guidance) movie made by Pixar. And this only means that parents will enjoy as much as their children. Or perhaps even more.

So, technical perfection, an enjoyable story and tons of fun in a film which maybe is a bit long -for an animated movie- but is incredible in all other respects.

Old film reviews (old the reviews, not necessarily the films)

I start re-posting some of my old reviews in Canalmanchester as well as new ones for the following reasons:

• The main reason (and also the most outrageous one) is that, since they are already written, old reviews will save me some time and effort and may make me look like I'm a lot more productive than I actually am, leaving, at the same time, more time to dedicate to pleasures of life other than writing.
  
• The original website where my old reviews were kept, is now dead and buried, and so I'd like to re-post these old reviews so I can have them on-line again and even link back to them like I did with my latest (new) review (comes in handy sometimes!).

Some of the Canalmanchester reviews in their original format.

Robots

(IMPORTANT: This is an old review. No matter how fast you run, it won't be showing at the local cinemas when you get there. You can always get in on DVD though...)

”Robots”, the latest 3D production by “Twentieth Century Fox”, is built on a too obvious and little original story which eventually turns out to be only and excuse to fill the screen with lots of colourful robots during almost two hours.

It’s a true shame when something like this happens. The audience is asking for more and is actually able to absorb much more content. And since this need doesn’t disappear during the movie –because the script is too simple, like it was only meant for our kid brother- we appreciate the always amazing 3D environment but don’t enjoy it as much as we should.

Still, the film offers some hilarious moments, until we bitterly find out almost all the jokes are based on the fact that the characters are living machines and start to hate them. Again, this helps us to unconsciously switch our attention to different things; like the music, for instance (which is really enjoyable, by the way, but this is beside the point).

The messy cast contains millions of unnecessary characters, each of them with a different colour, slightly different shape and seldom showing more than one sign of personality. The good guys are kind and pleasant and have many merry friends; the bad guys have no feelings and of course no friends. Inside this context the audience doesn’t get to believe in them, since neither of them seem to have powerful motivations nor even show a different facet at some point.

On the other hand, our senses are delighted by a feast of 3D graphics, credibly created and satisfactory animated (along the lines of the fast and vivacious “Ice Age”). After a while, however, so many robots on the screen at the same time become tiring and pointless, as it happened before even with the numerous armies of evil creatures in the multi-award-winner “The lord of the Rings”.

As a computer-generated film, we must say that, although the 3D effects are in general believable (except maybe that oil which doesn’t convince completely…), “Robots” is not as daring as other recent products in regard to virtual effects development. By the time it was released, “Shrek” came up with the best liquid effects; “The Incredibles”, along with many other improvements, contained the first attempt to use create human character for the whole cast. But, what is it that “Robots” has to offer as its new and revolutionary contribution?

When the script heavily arrives at the ending, we are given the oldest and most overused message of the film history: “Be yourself”. Unfortunately, we are quite fed up with the movie in question by then and feel our intelligence has been insulted in some way. I wonder if even the little kids won’t feel the same.

In short, few surprises in a film which probably shouldn’t have been made and undoubtedly deserves oblivion.

See here the original Canalmanchester format.