Short Take: Three Horror Movies.

The scariest thing about the Paranormal Activity movies is still how popular they are. How this brand of cheaply done and cheaply looking films can manage to outgross much better projects is a sad reminder that today's audiences are victim of cattle thinking. Once they get used to a "series", they don't care how many times they are told the same story. These movies prove that audiences enjoy the act of not thinking. The third installment in the series, goes back to the very beginning and explores why numbers 1 and 2 happened. To say the reasons are preposterous would be nothing compared to the way in which the filmmakers rely on facile trickery and obvious techniques to try and scare us. The effects have been getting consistently better, something which can't be said about the acting and plot devices. This one, set in the 80s, has us wondering how did these progressive people guess that everything should've been filmed in case a movie was made about them decades later. The film doesn't rely try to adjust itself to the settings and to the spirit of the era, it goes straight for the established process that's worked for them in the past, the only thing they've changed is the medium by which we see the demonic activities. One must wonder, by the time they get to Paranormal Activity 45 will the stories be displayed using cave paintings? Grade *

The only good thing that came out of Dream House must've been Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz getting married. The rest is an outrageously bad attempt at mating Shutter Island, Memento and any Stephen King novel involving snow and houses. If you've seen the trailer, you don't need to bother with the rest of the movie. What remains mysterious is why people like Sheridan, Watts and pretty much everyone else involved in the production (the underrated Elias Koteas for example) saw in the lazy screenplay and the redundant characters.  Grade *

The Change-Up tries to invent the wheel by taking Freaky Friday and adding curse words, boobs and poop jokes. Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds play bets buds who go through a body exchange situation after peeing in a magical fountain. One's a control freak lawyer, the other's a slacker. You don't need to try hard to guess which one plays which; one of the many reasons why you wonder why was this movie even made. Everything about it has been done before and in much better ways. Props to Leslie Mann for always adding a very human layer to her characters. Grade *

Style Sunday (Rawr edition!)

Emma Roberts is just so cute! She's a vision in this remarkable Marchesa cocktail dress. the whole thing is very Audrey Hepburn by way of Givenchy, no? Gotta love the animal print and the delicate belt that gives her figure more prominence, notice the Tiffany blue color of it too.

Rachel Weisz seems to get more gorgeous by the minute! Look how effortlessly sexy she is in this short Giambatista Valli dress. The print, although similar to Emma's, makes her even more seductive. The pattern in Emma's dress have impressionistic touches, while this Valli just says "grrrr".

Which of these two beautiful creatures is your favorite?

Very Short Takes: Sci-fi and Rachel and Abs! (Oh My!)

Daniel Craig seems to be having the time of his life in Jon Favreau's Cowboys and Aliens an awkwardly titled nod to B movies, trashy sci-fi and the sexiness of the rugged male hero. Craig plays the lead opposite the aging, but still fantastically charming Harrison Ford (who plays a villain!). The movie lingers too much on character details that eventually make no difference - nobody came to this movie for John Ford melancholy - and by the time we get to the showdown between the title characters, our interest might've drifted elsewhere. Mostly meant for fans of the Western, the film takes too long to figure out exactly what it wants to be and other than Daniel Craig's ass in leather chaps, it offers nothing new, or exciting under the sun.
Grade: **

Out of all the comic book movies that have come out in recent years, none have been less spectacular, thrilling or fun than Green Lantern. Martin Campbell's film is an ode to how wrong CGI can go when used for the wrong reasons (a respectable superhero message if that's what he was truly going for). Ryan Reynolds tries to hold the movie together as the title superhero, even if the effects that make up his suit often make us think his head will move in the opposite direction of his body and you have to respect him for not relying on his abs so much this time around. Blake Lively gives rocks a run for their money in the dull department (all of her lines elicit laughter) and poor Peter Sarsgaard is relegated to playing a giant bugger. Then again, what can you expect of a movie that features a character who looks like a devil, is named Siniestro (Mark Strong) and still thinks we'll be shocked upon realizing he's a villain...
Grade: *

Rachel Weisz means business in The Whistleblower a real life story where she plays an American police officer who becomes part of a peace keeping committee in war ravaged Bosnia. Once there she realizes there's a huge human trafficking ring that involves UN members, army officers and even diplomats. Weisz remains a beacon of serenity and morality throughout the film and infuses her character with some rich ambiguities, reminding us of her brilliant portrayal in The Constant Gardener. The film however doesn't know what to do when she's not in the scene and makes a waste out of perfectly good actors like Vanessa Redgrave and David Strathairn. For a movie that tries to paint a time appropriate tale of corruption, the villains and heroes are too clearly divided most of the time and for those inclined to a good old fashioned social heroine tale, the lead never feels under actual danger, the cause in the end feeling like something she does out of an ulterior motive, in the very same way the movie feels made to get its leading lady some awards.
Grade: **½

If Alfred Hitchcock and Chris Marker decided to have a baby, it would be something like Source Code, this sci-fi thriller feels like a hybrid of Strangers on a Train and la Jetée. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a time traveling soldier sent to prevent a mission not even he's aware of. Revealing too much about this movie's plot is to deny the audience of the rich writing in Duncan Jones' sophomore feature. After the breathtaking Moon it's perhaps safe to say that the genre is in good hands with David Bowie's son. With moving performances, an unexpected climax and one of the most sincere romances portrayed in recent cinema, Source Code sends you away with a feeling of utter exhilaration. Like one of its major plot twists all you want to do is revisit it the minute it's over.

Grade: ***½

Style Sunday.

Someone should tell Mila Kunis that the audition is over; Nina Sayers got the part of the Swan Queen. I kid you. Mila looks absolutely ravishing in this delicate Elie Saab dress. The color and the ethereal top make it seem a bit too ballet-y but Kunis proves she can always play the part.

Rose Byrne's hair usually annoys the crap out of me, somehow I truly love it here. She's the image of careless hip fashionista (she was going to a concert) in this stunning ensemble which includes a leather skirt courtesy of Zimmerman. I wonder if she pulled off the mosh pit in those shoes though.

Has Rachel Weisz always been this freaking gorgeous? This Louis Vuitton dress and the way in which it highlights her stunning body is sex. As simple as that.

How do you feel about Rose Byrne's fringe? Has Rachel, indeed, always been so sexy?

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.

Rachel Weisz is looking to the side as if she suspects someone is after her, there are tiny squares with actors featuring worried faces and Weisz is wearing a leather jacket...we get it, she's the title whistleblower. For a poster that could've paid homage to 70s films with such class and eloquence it's a shame that this one does Bourne redux so lazily.

The newly minted Mrs. Craig is said to be fantastic in this though, so we shall wait and see...

Her husband on the other side looks all kinds of Indiana Jones glorious in this poster for Cowboys & Aliens. The man sure knows how to work a picture doesn't he?

Excited about the happy couple's upcoming projects?

Agora **

Director: Alejandro Amenábar
Cast: Rachel Weisz
Max Minghella, Oscar Isaac, Sami Samir, Rupert Evans
Michael Lonsdale, Ashraf Barhom

Agora is a highly ambitious, if not entirely effective, parable that uses the life of Hypatia of Alexandria to deliver its views on modern times.
The famous philosopher is played by Rachel Weisz who with her timeless, ethereal beauty does justice to the crush the director has on the character.
His Hypatia is a strong willed woman who becomes the center of men's lives and ignites passion, fear and admiration within them.
One of them is her slave Davus (Minghella) who secretly becomes a Christian to see if this god will grant his wish of making Hypatia fall for him. Another is her pupil Orestes (Isaac) who declares his love for her in song form.
But she remains indifferent to their feelings and dedicates her time to the study of the universe, particularly what is its center and how gravity, stars, circles, orbs and planets all interfere with one another.
Because we know that most of the topics she's obsessed with, became concepts until centuries later (and the film never really makes her discoveries exciting enough), Amenábar has an easy way to get rid of her emotional depth and turn her into a selfish character whose obsession with knowledge isn't as prominent as her detachment from humanity.
When in the film's centerpiece (a remarkable scene that teases us of the epic possibilities the film loses), the Christians destroy the Library of Alexandria, Hypatia sobs at the loss of books and not at the destruction of life around her.
Her dedication to the written word and science at least distract her from the conflicts between Christians, Pagans and Jews.
Christians being the new religion and all try to impose their views on everyone and seek to exterminate those who disagree. We all know how this went but instead of rubbing in our faces how misled our conception of religion has been, the film really turns the Christians into outlandish movie villains.
Fully dressed in black they wreak havoc across Alexandria, screaming "hallelujah" and looking like Satan's minions.
While it's true that Christianism (especially Roman Catholicism) has proven in the last decades to be plagued with immorality and corruption, what does the film achieve by reinforcing viciousness?
What can we make of the film's discourse when it only explores motives on the surface? The director seemingly wants to say something about the way intolerance has shaped history but mostly ends up revealing his own shortsightedness.
It's quite clear that he's on the side of "reason", seeing how he tries to glorify Hypatia in every scene and Weisz does a convincing job playing someone who's both muse and heroine.
"I feel that what you say can be refuted but now I don't know how" she says at one point and Weisz provides her for a second with a warmth that reassures us that she will find how before she's skinned alive by Christians in the end.
Agora's biggest setback is its inability to see its limitations. When it becomes clear that the screenplay (written by Amenábar and Mateo Gil) doesn't know how to create characters, the director should've worked with their flaws instead of perpetuating them.
Seeing how Davus, Orestes and Hypatia all have secret, perhaps unjustified, motivations, why not use them as metaphors of selfcenteredness and its relation to eternal intolerance?
It's clear to the audience at least that because all the characters are living exclusively for themselves they're unable to perceive the world around them.
In the same way the movie, in its effort to rediscover the center of the universe, ended up losing its own.

The Lovely Bones ***

Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon
Stanley Tucci, Rose McIver, Nikki SooHoo, Carolyn Dando
Michael Imperioli, Thomas McCarthy, Reece Ritchie

Based on Alice Sebold's bestseller "The Lovely Bones" tells the story of Susie Salmon (Ronan) a fourteen year old girl who is raped and murdered by her neighbor George Harvey (Tucci) on December, 6, 1973.
"Back when people believed things like that didn't happen" narrates Susie from beyond the grave as the film follows the aftermath her murder has in the lives of her family and friends.
Stuck in a sort of limbo ("the blue horizon between heaven and earth" she calls it) she seeks redemption for her crime and tries to comfort her family by communicating with them.
In that way we meet her mother Abigail (a terrific, understated Weisz) who has denial issues, her father Jack (Wahlberg who had rarely been so moving),who becomes obsessed with solving the murder, sister Lindsey (McIver), little brother Buckley (Christian Thomas Ashdale) and crazy grandma Lynn (Sarandon who despite being the kind of character who always has a lit cigarette and a drink, remains compellingly watchable in the actress' hands).
Coming from an extensive special effects background Jackson once again tries to push boundaries creating Susie's personal heaven.
The results consist of majestic New Zealand vistas enhanced with computer effects which represent Susie's mood.
Jackson comes up with some clever setpieces, but there's nothing we hadn't seen before.
The most spectacular "effect" in this in-between is Ronan herself. Giving yet another breathtaking performance, the actress turns Susie into a girl next door. The kind of which you would've noticed if she went missing. She's sweet in scenes where she tries to reach out to her father (she's spectacular with Wahlberg) and punches your gut in her scenes with Tucci.
Ronan's ability to act like someone her own age seems easy to achieve, but definitely requires a special effort because child actors are always thought to be playing themselves.
Most special of all are her reactions with Reece Ritchie, who plays the guy Susie has a crush on. Her blushes are honest and real and when she escapes his kiss, but then accepts an invitation from Harvey, she doesn't become an accomplice in her own death, but acts like a girl that age would. When faced with the prospects of love she doubts herself and naturally trusts an adult more.
Whoever ended up adapting Sebold's book would've had trouble encompassing the author's rejection of the howcatchem and her delicate portrayal of grief. Jackson is no exception and sometimes he dedicates all his resources towards creating unjustified tension and police drama (Imperioli plays the detective in charge).
Scenes involving Harvey are all overwrought and storybook creepy, Tucci overdoes it by using every creepy trick in the notebook. Suspicious hairstyle, conniving mustache, weird accent, weirder walk. It's a surprise that it takes them so long to even think of him as a suspect.
But this makes sense when you think that the whole film is seen through Susie's perspective. When someone else becomes suspicious of the quiet Mr. Harvey, it's not an adult, or even a human being, but the Salmon family dog; who probably cared for Susie.
Maybe the Mr. Harvey we're seeing has nothing to do with how adults see him and Susie-being a child and all-overdoes the creep factor so that we too get to hate this man.
If this was Jackson's intention it gets lost from time to time in the war between style and substance he holds throughout the movie. "The Lovely Bones" has some serious elliptical problems and some characters act out of seeming deus ex machina.
But most of this can be forgiven for Ronan, who makes this almost heavenly.

The Brothers Bloom **

Director: Rian Johnson
Cast: Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz
Rinko Kikuchi, Robbie Coltrane

Writer/director Rian Johnson tells the story of the title brothers, Stephen (Ruffalo) and Bloom (Brody), two con artists for whom every new job is a play of sorts.
They get into character, develop twists and orchestrate grand finales. But eventually Bloom wants out, he wants to live "an unwritten life".
So Stephen comes up with one last job: conning eccentric heiress Penelope Stamp (Weisz). Things go wrong when Bloom falls for her and before you can say "an inverted 'The Lady Eve'", Johnson has delivered a restless film-straight out of the Wes Anderson book of witty- that thrives on quirk, movie and music references and utter aimlessness.
The actors are pretty good, but bring nothing we hadn't seen before to the table. Brody mopes, Ruffalo shows-off and Weisz uses her Victorian beauty to evoke novel heroines.
But the film's problem is Johnson's script and smugness; he tries to pull a million rabbits out of the same hat, without considering that by the third the audience is already in need of something different.
He has so much fun with his characters that he turns them uninteresting-for people who aren't him at least-and by the second half of the film it's difficult to want to invest any sort of interest in them.
Heist movies should be enjoyable-even if the end to their means is not legal-but make it so that the audience is fooled and the characters within the movie have no idea what the hell just happened.
But not a single thing in "The Brothers Bloom" feels organic or unwritten. Some movies are too quirky for their own damn good.

Is anyone else excited about...

Definitely, Maybe **

Director: Adam Brooks
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin
Isla Fisher, Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz
Kevin Kline, Derek Luke

After learning about sex at school, 10 year old Maya (Breslin) begins to question her father, Will,(Reynolds) about his own experience before her mom.
Slightly surprised by this request Will comes up with the original idea to tell his daughter the story of his life, but changes the names of the women in order for her to guess which is her mom.
Flash back to 1992 when Will is working for Bill Clinton's campaign and the three mother candidates are: Emily (Banks), Will's college sweetheart who is having trouble following his pace, sexy erudite Summer (Weisz) who has a thing for a seasoned writer (Kline) but can't help liking Will and finally April (Fisher) a kooky, free spirit working as copygirl for the campaign.
While original in concept, the film lacks spirit in the execution and before long ends up feeling like the extension of a joke that wasn't so good to begin with.
Sometimes forgetting that it's supposed to feel like a love jigsaw, it tries to cover all the right bases and instead of focusing on something, goes for a "feel good" sense in every single way.
Nobody is dislikeable and the script manages to be condescending without ever feeling selfconscious.
Reynolds makes for a satisfying lead, even if his performance is fueled by inertia more than anything else, since he knows everyone can overact him here, which is why it's the girls who stay with you the most.
Banks' "all American" beauty has a sweet effervescent mood, while Weisz is sexy, intriguing and the most real of the characters.
But leaving the film you will probably have stronger impressions from Fisher who does her best Amy Adams impersonation to become the girl you root for the most and of course Breslin, who unlike other child actresses is able to keep a balance between being a child and a child thinking they can act like an adult, which helps her deliver a performance that goes from "staple cute kid" to fully formed character.
While it's true that revisiting our love histories is a double edged sword, "Definitely, Maybe" has the innocence none of its characters does and is able to remain hopeful amidst a world that constantly tries to remind you hope is practically gone.
Whatever you decide to make out of it, the one unforgivable thing the film does is try to treat you like Maya, when truth is even she knows best...

My Blueberry Nights **

Director: Wong Kar Wai

Cast: Norah Jones, Jude Law

Rachel Weisz, Natalie Portman, David Strathairn

At first glance Wong Kar Wai's first English feature film seems to be like all his others.

Dreamy atmospheric mood? Check.

Conventional situations approached in unconventional methods? Check.

Sexy, heartfelt performances from his cast? Check.

Flawless musical taste and a fixation with one particular song? Check.

Why then is the film so lacking in something? A purpose perhaps or an emotional truth to support its ethereal themes.

The answers must have gotten lost in translation and what we get is the story of Elizabeth (Jones) a New Yorker with a broken heart who befriends Jeremy (Law) a café owner with whom she finds company, trust and all the blueberry pie she can eat.

It's obvious that they like each other, but in the blink of an eye we find Elizabeth unexplainably living in Memphis and working as a waitress, while sending postcards to Jeremy who has no idea why she left.

Apparently neither does she and much less do we.

She goes across the country meeting people only to realize what she needed was always in front of her. This story has been told a million times, one of the best renditions occurs in the land of Oz, which is why the charm should lie in the anecdotical appeal this should have on Elizabeth's life.

What we get is a series of quirky characters, beautifully acted, but with not much to say or add to the plot.

Portman is particularly good as a feisty gambler with a sad family history who makes the film glow with life despite an awful hairdo.

Weisz is also affecting, but her Southerner comes off looking more femme fatale than grieving victim playing the wife of an alcoholic policeman (Strathairn).

Law has never been so charming and sweet and Chan Marshall from Cat Power gets a small cameo which she infuses with melancholy and regret.

But most of the film rests on Jones' debut performance and she moves through the film in a manner reminsicent of her approach to music: with a lethargic seductiveness that can immediately captivate or irritate you.

Her unusual beauty is bewitching (and curiously the other women in the cast seem to have her same type) but she lets Elizabeth fade too much within the stories of the other people.

She is easily overacted by most of the ensemble, some of her scenes with Portman are cringe worthy, but if you can notice this so easily you have to ask yourself why did Kar Wai choose her as his heroine.

Her ability to disappear might make a point within itself, because maybe the story isn't even supposed to be about her and more about the world which she hadn't seen.

But if he turns Elizabeth into a McGuffin what is the point of having her at all?

The same can be said for the settings. New York City becomes a, beautifully shot, café with painted letters, neon signs and fluorescent pastries.

Memphis becomes a red country bar and Las Vegas is a series of slot machines and poker tables with a view of the desert now and then.

If the places were not important either, why the hell travel then? Even more important why should we want to come along for the ride?

The film might try to explain itself when it argues that "sometimes it's better off not knowing and other times there's no reason to be found".

But it will probably have lost you long before.