A MOVIE LOVER

Should I recommend to see it? Let's see... A few days ago I went to see a new Spanish drama "Ma ma" by Julio Medem starring Penélope Cruz, Luis Tosar, Asier Etxeandia and Àlex Brendemühl. I was warned that this film is heavy, so I was prepared for a hard subject matter, but I wasn't prepared for that much drama and tragedy. The film is very good. It's very solid acting from all of the actors, especially Penelope Cruz who does know how to make you cry every second of the movie. The film is very well done in the way it shows a human nature drama and how people deal with death, loss, terminal illness, raising kids, marriage, divorce, etc. Yes, it's not a light movie at all, but it does give hope and it does put things in perspective as you start to appreciate every minute of your life...

What's the idea behind the movie? I kept asking myself this question throughout the movie "Shame"  , directed by Steve McQueen , as I watched a scene after scene of the main character's full frontal and endless sexual activities, including very graphic masturbation scenes. I wanted to 'read into the lines' to see if there's a point to all of it for the director to actually make a movie that is both disturbing, dark, sad and solves nothing. However, some of you might have no doubt, what the director wanted to show. A man's despair? Perhaps. A sexual deviance? Definitely. A today's modern family? I'd say so. A lonely New York City? This could be possible too.

If you choose to not believe in the magic, at least do not choose to do so during Christmas and New Year's Eve. These should be magical for any age and any gender - always and forever. Do believe in Santa as long as it's possible, it'd be than easier for you to tell and pass a holiday magic onto your kids later in life. Personally, I believe that if believing in magic - [and in love and romance] - is not present in one's life, this person is pretty much dead. He or she is not longer living fully and hope-fully. That's why I'm a strong advocate for the holiday movies, especially when the plot is all about love, dreams and hopes - even if it's a bit on a cheesy side - it's all good, it's all healthy. The whole premise of such movies is to become more hopeful and optimistic about the future, to forget problems at home and work and to start believing in good and bright again - even if it's just for two hours...

I never had any doubts and/or disillusion about the loneliness of Hollywood. In the glamour, popularity and fans' obsession, one can overlook the fact that those Hollywood stars - [most of them]- are very lonely, very sad people in real life. Most of them don't even have the same 'character' as they portray in the movies, where one sees them making jokes and being fun and witty, etc. As a matter of fact, most often, the Hollywood stars are very sensitive and vulnerable individuals who are surrounded by people, most of whom don't really care about them. Just think of Judy Garland, Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe - when in the spotlight, they are beaming and the fans around them are screaming for their attention. Once they are back at home - they are alone, pain-relieving with drugs, dissolving in alcohol and being forgotten by the loved ones.

First of all, If I were Constantin Stanislavski  - [the work on whose Acting Method/System won me an acceptance to apply with the Harvard University in 1999] - I would have left the movie theatre on the first scene... One cannot portray a psychologically ill person by simply freezing in spasms and moving a jaw in all the possible directions. It's not enough to roll one's eyes and start mimicking an ill person. This is exactly what Keira Knightley's character - Sabina Spielrein - did and what almost drove me out of the theatre. I can accept a bad acting, but only in certain movies I usually watch once in a while for the sake of being mindlessly entertained. But Knightley should have known better - not sure why the director didn't notice such a bad acting? She should have studied an ill person - just as Dustin Hoffman did for his part in Rain Man , for which he spent almost a year at a special clinic. She should have spent at least a day or two at a psychiatric...

There's something about an art-house movie - it's honest, it's real, it's applicable to real life, it's natural, it just touches heart, soul and mind. This is the kind of a movie I'd prefer over any blockbuster with special effects, colorful scenery, beautiful actors... But I've already said that many times before, that's why more often I do reviews of independent, foreign and/or art-house films. Yes, I'm being a bit subjective to it. And, of course, there are exceptions to the rules - sometimes those films end up to be too 'artsy', too far from the action plan on how to apply an art form of a film to the reality. Sometimes they are just too 'weird' to be taken both as a life lesson and as a pure entertainment. In this case, although, the film Like Crazy did serve the purpose of bringing real life scenario - or what might happen to everyone in this life - to a film.

I must admit, there are certain actors on this planet, whose films I would see regardless of a plot and/or level of my tolerance for a disguise. It does not matter if these actors would be eating vomit or have sex with a goat - I just know that not matter what they'd do in a movie, they'd do it it superbly. Among such actors - the actors, whose work I greatly admire - are Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Cate Blanchet, and Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks was one of the reasons I went to see Larry Crowne , and not on an opening night, not even on the next day - due to the fact that I have a pretty good natural intuition for a good vs. bad movie. I felt  from the very first day of its promotion that this movie would not live up to the hype. And it didn't, even despite the fact that it had Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks in it - ones of the most respected, great actors working in Hollywood today. Their acting couldn't even save the poorly-written, cheesy plot.

When I walked in the E Street Cinema today to see a movie, I had two choices - to see The Trip or The Beginners, both movies received raving reviews from the American movie critics. So, when I have a choice of two, I usually get a second opinion - from the guys at the register, who, sometimes, see a movie before anyone else does in the city. This is what they said: "The Beginners is a good movie, very funny...and there is a talking dog in the movie..." "But The Trip is even better..." And that made up my mind and I went to see The Trip and.... I've made a great decision. First of all, I must admit, I'm a big fan of British movies. UK does not make many films - at least not like the Hollywood machine. They make just a few, and out of those few, only one or two make it across the border, and when they do - they impress the hell out of international audience... The Trip is a road-movie that combines some of the best elements of the British cinema - great...