Valkyrie (2008)

Genre

Drama | History | Thriller | War

Director

Bryan Singer

Country

USA | Germany

Cast

Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson, Carice van Houten, Kevin McNally, David Schofield, Christina Brekel, Jamie Parker, Eddie Izzard, David Bamber, Thomas Kretschmann, Harvey Friedman, Kenneth Cranham, Matthias Freihof, Matthias Schweighöfer

Storyline

In Nazi Germany during World War II, a cadre of senior German officers and politicians plot to topple the Nazi regime before the nation is crushed in a near-inevitable defeat.

Opinion

I wasn't a bit interested about this film when it came out. First, I don't like Tom Cruise. Second, I labeled it as a boring film. I don't know why, probably because it's a historical/war film and I don't like the genre. But since Bryan Singer has done some pretty good stuff, including "The Usual Suspects", one of my favourites, I (finally) gave it a shot. How bad could it be, right? Well, I surprisingly found myself enjoying the film way more than I thought I would.

Truth being told, "Valkyrie" is a quite solid and engaging historical thriller that works very well despite knowing the outcome before the film even starts.

In fact, even if you are an ignorant like me, and you didn't know about this plot to assassinate Hitler and to topple the Nazi regime, you know how this ends - unless you don't know anything about history -, but the story does have a good pace and the narrative is so good it really engage the viewer.

I do really admire the filmmakers for deciding to tell a forgotten/unknown-to-most story about real life heroes, men willing to sacrifice their lives to live in a different Germany, far away from the Nazi regime.

To my understanding, many have complained about the characters speaking in English without a German accent. I don't see the problem. Actually, I don't see why they should have an accent. That's the most clichéd thing one could do in a WWII film. And I liked that the film opened in German only to transition to English.

All of that being said, the film is by any mean perfect, and it's biggest flaw is the leading actor. I don't know how Stauffenberg was in real life, but Tom Cruise is a little stiff in my opinion. Also, he doesn't really do a thing with the character, and therefore it's hard to see a real person in him.

The Wicker Man (1973)

Genre

Horror | Mystery

Director

Robin Hardy

Country

UK

Cast

Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee, Britt Ekland, Diane Cilento, Ingrid Pitt, Lindsay Kemp, Russell Waters, Aubrey Morris, Irene Sunter, Donald Eccles, Walter Carr, Roy Boyd, Peter Brewis, Geraldine Cowper, John Young

Storyline

Sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward) is sent to Summerisle, a Scottish island villain, to intestivage the disappearance of a young girl whom the townsfolk claim never existed.

Opinion

Years ago I watched the remake starring Nicolas Cage. It was truly pathetic, and I had no interest whatsoever in seeing the original. Then people started telling me how much better the original was, so I finally gave it a shot. But it didn't blow me away. The thing is that I found "The Wicker Man" a weird and creepy combination of a horror and a musical. And it has aged terribly.

That, however, doesn't mean the film is bad. The most impressive thing about it is arguably the story that, as bizarre as it gets, manages to be very interesting since the very beginning, building suspense as it increases in oddities and creepiness. Also worth of a mention is the story's ability to grab the viewer's attention and keep their interest all the way to the ending, even when that person already knows how the story is going to end.

The film is also an attack and a criticism to the rigid British morale, portrayed to perfection throughout the protagonist, Sergeant Neil Howie, a virgin and bigoted man that will stick to his Christian beliefs until the end.

What I didn't like about the film was the impossibility to categorize is into a genre. It is not a pure horror - that also would require shock elements, gore and/or killings -, it isn't a true mystery film - despite the final twist, the story still is quite predictable. Also there is a lot of dancing and singing, which makes the film look more like a musical than anything else. (Does that even make sense?) And I was expecting a horror/thriller. 

Other than that, everything else is fine. The music fits the story; the characters are interesting and well developed, but mostly important they are brought to life by an outstanding cast, from Edward Woodward who gives a tremendous performances as the police sergeant, to Christopher Lee who is terrific and creepy as the eccentric lord. And by the way, Lee totally steals the show.

Rambo III (1988)

Genre

Action | War

Director

Peter MacDonald

Country

USA

Cast

Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna, Kurtwood Smith, Marc de Jonge, Sasson Gabai, Doudi Shoua, Spiros Focas, Randy Raney, Marcus Gilbert, Alon Abutbul, Mahmoud Assadollahi, Yosef Shiloah

Storyline

When his friend Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna) is captured by Soviets during a mission in Afghanistan, John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) sets out to rescue him while taking on the brutal Colonel Zaysen (Marc de Jonge) and his army. 

Opinion

"First Blood" was nothing short of great. "Rambo: First Blood II" was nothing but an exciting action flick. "Rambo III" is nothing. Period. No, actually it is something, a dreadful and unwatchable action flick.

The plot has finally lost all the plausibility. It is also boring. There is so much nonsense going on, it's impossible to keep track of it. I'm still trying to understand why the Russians attack the Afghan village but then decide to leave. But what do you even need a decent plot for when you have John Rambo? The answer is simple, you don't need one. Apparently.

And it would have been fine with me if only the filmmakers kept portraying Rambo as a good man repeatedly being let down by his country. Like in the first film and kind of in the second. But it's so much more fun to have a character that is a shirtless, indestructible killing machine capable of destroying Russian armies and taking down helicopters with a bow and arrow that is also a stupid, one-dimensional, flat character rather than having a real person.

But those are not the only problems here, after all those are pretty common in action films. Not very common (or normal) for an action flick, however, is the lack of good action. Awfully paced, it is very poorly done and ridiculous - especially in that "climactic" final battle - and it completely fails to amaze or to be exciting.

What else can I say? "Rambo III" really deserves a mention for definitively ruining a character/franchise.

The Incredibles (2004)

Genre

Action | Animation

Director

Brad Bird

Country

USA

Voice Cast

Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Sarah Vowell, Spencer Fox, Jason Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Elizabeth Peña, Brad Bird, Eli Fucile, Bud Luckey, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Dominique Louis, Michael Bird, Jean Sincere, Kimberly Adair Clark, Bret Parker, Lou Romano, Wayne Canney

Storyline

Forced to adopt civilian identities, Bob Parr aka Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) and his wife Helen aka Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) live a boring life with their three super-children. Until something happens, and they get back into action.

Opinion

I don't know why but I kept avoiding this film over the years. It's not like I thought it was bad, I just didn't seem to be attracted by it. Given the poor outcome of several superhero flick this year, I anyway decided to give it a try, and I'm glad I did because "The Incredibles" is a charming, fun and truly incredible animated superhero film.

There is nothing special about the plot, it is pretty much a simple, quite typical superhero story where the villain is just a poor misunderstood and mistreated boy grown into a man that is seeking for revenge. Also, the whole idea of outlawing superheroes isn't new either, but what really makes the difference is the way the story is told. With a quite melancholic atmosphere, the film makes you sense the nostalgia of the protagonist for his glorious days behind the mask almost to perfection and makes you empathize with him.

But don't worry though, this is not a sad film. It is actually funny. Not constantly laughing out loud funny, but still very funny. There are some fun characters - actually, most of them are. And the jokes are awesome if you are a comic book fan. And it kind of makes fun of superheroes as well, from the pointless capes to the villains' monologues.

Luckily for the comic book fan, the references don't end with the jokes. Each member of the family indeed reminds of a notorious superhero, from DC to Marvel. Mr. Fantastic is Superman and the son is the Flash, while Elastigirl is Mr. Fantastic and the daughter is the Invisible Woman. And all the other characters, but the villain, are likable as well. Especially Samuel L. Jackson's Frozone. Actually, he was the coolest thing on the film.

And at last the animation. It is Pixar's so of course it's great. It has been 12 years since the film was released, and it still impressive. Or should I say incredible?

Diablo (2015)

Genre

Thriller | Western

Director

Lawrence Roeck

Country

USA

Cast

Scott Eastwood, Walton Goggins, Camilla Belle, José Zuniga, Danny Glover, Nesta Cooper, Adam Beach, Samuel Marty, Joaquim de Almeida, Tzi Ma, Rohan Campbell

Storyline

A young civil war veteran (Scott Eastwood) is forced on a desperate journey to save his kidnapped wife (Camilla Belle).

Opinion

Scott Eastwood made me want to watch this film. After seeing him in romances, comic book movies and so on, I was really interested in seeing him following his father's footstep aka starring in a western. 

My expectations, however, were quite low because of the film's rating everywhere. But "Diablo" didn't turn out to be as bad as I thought. It is still a mediocre western, but it's quite interesting, and it's worth watching to see Scott Eastwood.

Remember, I said mediocre, which means, for starter, that the plot isn't great. Actually it is very simple, clichéd and a little dragged which makes the film boring at times. But then comes the twist, which is probably too smart for the film, arguably the best part of the story, and I personally didn't see coming, and makes things a little bit more interesting.

While the story is simple, the characters are a real mess. Most of the supporting characters come and go with no known reason, but the real problem is the main character, Scott Eastwood's. With no character development at all, the lead is so weak it almost makes sense for Walton Goggins' character to keep playing into the story.

That being said, there are some good aspects too. The cinematography is outstanding and breathtaking. Kudos to the director and crew for capturing the American Frontier in all it's glory. The musical score is also nice. The acting isn't great, but, given the script, I'd say both Scott Eastwood and Walton Goggins did a good job.

Ultimately, Lawrence Roeck's idea of putting together elements from westerns and psychological thrillers is nice, but poorly executed. And a waste of talents. 

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Genre

Horror

Director

Ronny Yu

Country

USA

Cast

Robert Englund, Ken Kirzinger, Monica Keena, Kelly Rowland, Jason Ritter, Chris Marquette, Lochlyn Munro, Katharine Isabelle, Brendan Fletcher, Zack Ward, Kyle Labine, Tom Butler, Garry Chalk, Jesse Hutch, Odessa Munroe, Chris Gauthier, Paula Shaw, Sharon Peters

Storyline

Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) and Jason Voorhees (Ken Kirzinger) return to terrorize the teenage population, but this time they are out to get each other too.

Opinion

Before remaking both the original movie starring Jason Voorhees and the one starring Freddy Krueger, someone had the brilliant idea to bring them together for a fight to the last blade. Only it wasn't a brilliant idea at all as "Freddy vs. Jason" is a boring, laughable, utterly dumb horror film that delivers no thrills whatsoever.

The storyline is just plain dumb. Freddy, who is finally dead, is no longer remembered and therefore no longer feared. Since he is fueled by fear, he has to find a way to torment and kill those kids on Elm Street so he resurrects a colleague of him, Jason. But things don't go as planned and they clash. Well, what can I say, I'm still trying to figure out how a human being with a brain could have had such a stupid idea.

But this isn't even the worst part of the film. The fact that it is not scary at all is. It is so predictable, you already know what is going to happen. There aren't even little jump scares. Nothing at all. That dialogue though, it is so bad, it's scary.

I'd love to mention the characters, but I can't even remember their names. Why even bother when they are just a bunch of stupid, stereotypical, one-dimensional teenagers? And they are likable only after they are dead - credits for that also go to the cast for doing such an awful job.

The film also features nude women - I don't know, maybe the filmmakers were trying to scare gays -, an obvious and rather pointless use of CGI, and, surprise, surprise, a good performances from Robert Englund. I'm serious, he is the only good thing about this film.

Thursday Movie Picks: Westerns

Welcome to Thursday Movie Picks, a weekly series hosted by Wandering Through the Shelves where each Thursday you have to pick three films to match the week's topic.

This week password is western aka stories involving cowboys, gunfighters, Native American, bandits, bounty hunters, outlaws, and so on. Actually that's not what comes to my mind when I think about westerns. Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach are. Maybe because they were in first westerns I've seen - thank you highschool teacher for that. That being said, even though I liked those films, I went on a different road and picked my favs. 

Slow West (2015)

At the end of the nineteenth century, a 16-year-old boy journeys across the American frontier in search of the woman he loves, joining a mysterious traveler and being pursued by an outlaw in the process. I only watched this because of Michael Fassbender, but it turned about to be such a touching and engaging western, even despite its very slow pacing.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

It's winter in Wyoming, and eight travelers, all headed to the town of Red Rock, seek refuge at a stagecoach stopover, and will come to learn that they many not make it to Red Rock after all. I know a lot of people hated this film, I didn't. It is so insanely brilliant I can't help for love it. There's everything I love about Tarantino, from the witty and engaging dialogue, to the sick characters. And the violence, of course.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

After being exiled to a remote western Civil War outpost, a Union Army lieutenant befriend wolves and Native Americans. Kevin Costner's directorial debut is a spectacular, adventurous and romantic film that tells a story about Native Americans so beautifully. It's a "what if" story, but it's still truly beautiful.

Julieta (2016)

Genre

Drama

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Country

Spain

Cast

Emma Suárez, Adriana Ugarte, Daniel Grao, Inma Cuesta, Michelle Jenner, Darío Grandinetti, Rossy de Palma, Susi Sánchez, Pilar Castro, Joaquín Notario, Nathalie Poza, Mariam Bachir, Blanca Parés, Priscilla Delgado, Saram Jiménez

Storyline

After casually running into an old acquaintance, Julieta (Emma Suárez) decided to confront her life and the most important events about her estranged daughter Antia (Michelle Jenner).

Opinion

After a disturbing yet delightful thriller, "The Skin I Live In", and a comedy, "I'm So Excited",  Pedro Almodóvar finally comes back with a drama about women and once again amazes with his ability to explore women's universe with such sensitivity.

In fact, Palme d'Or - and hopefully Academy Award - nominee "Julieta" is a very realistic, touching film that explores a woman's life beautifully.

So, as usual, the Spanish director puts women at the center of the story and pushes men aside, but this time he does something different. While the film's main character, Julieta, still is a woman marked by the hard life she had, this time Almodóvar doesn't focus on the harm men can do, but on the choices women can make, and how responsible they are for their lives.

"Julieta" can also be considered Almodóvar's "All About My Daughter" since the mother-daughter relationship is the center of the film and easily one of the best aspects.

As for the writing, the story is simple yet very interesting and has such a smooth flow it manages to hold the attention for the entire running time. Also, the way the story is written and told plays an important role as it is as if we discover what happened at the same time of the Julieta. And therefore this helps us connecting to the character.

Technically, I have no complain. The camera work is spectacular, so are the colours and the scenery. The score is rather suspenseful and always fits the situation.

And since this is a film about women, I have to mention the leading actresses, Emma Suárez and Adriana Ugarte, both playing Julieta, the first as a 50-year-old, fragile woman, the latter as a younger woman who has her entire life ahead. They are not Almodóvar's regulars, but they both do a great job portraying Julieta.

Zodiac (2007)

Genre

Mystery | Thriller

Director

David Fincher

Country

USA

Cast

Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., Anthony Edwards, Brian Cox, Elias Koteas, Donal Logue, John Carroll Lynch, Dermot Mulroney, Philip Baker Hall, Chloe Sevigny, John Getz, John Terry, Adam Goldberg, David Lee Smith

Storyline

Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist working for the San Francisco Chronicle, starts investigating a serial killer known as Zodiac and soon becomes obsessed with the case. 

Opinion

David Fincher's "Seven" is one of my favourite films. I love everything about it. And I did go into this film expecting something like that. What I found myself watching was something completely different. But different doesn't always mean bad, and this is the case.

Although it is more of an investigative film than a thriller, "Zodiac" is a very interesting, engaging and intricate mystery film that is also surprisingly suspenseful. And the film's length - two and a half hours - isn't too long.

Based on a true story about a serial killer in California during the 1960s and 1970s, who named himself Zodiac - and of whom I have never heard of before, probably because I wasn't born yet and I don't live in the US -, the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. The most appropriate words would be, it is addictive.

What's the great thing about it? Well, instead of focusing on the serial killer, who is arguably a very interesting person to analyze, the story is focused on the people that are trying to catch him. And it is so interesting because the investigation is not only viewed through the eyes of the police - as usually happens -, but through those of journalists as well. It is intriguing because, while for the police the investigation is just part of their jobs, for the journalists it is more of a challenge. Like solving a puzzle. By the way, the characters are so complex, credible and feels so real, it is refreshing.

The other great thing about "Zodiac" is that Fincher doesn't spend time exploring the psychological reasons leading each character to become obsessed with the killer; rather he invites the viewer to observe and make up his own mind to why the characters do what they do. I have a complain though, he should have explored more Robert Downey Jr.'s character obsession.

At last but not least, the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal does a fantastic job as cartoonist, wannabe detective Robert Graysmith, and truly becomes his character. The other stand out performances comes from Robert Downey Jr. as reporter Paul Avery and Mark Ruffalo as SFPD detective David Toschi.

Girl Week 2016: My Top 5 Inspiring Female Characters

I know what you are thinking, what is going on? This post doesn't look like a review. Well, Dell over at Dell on Movies decided to make a Girl Week blogathon and invited other bloggers to join him. This is not the first time he does something this cool, actually he does it a lot, but it's only the second time I take part. The rules are simple, it has to be about girls. It can be a review, a Top post or something similar.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Genre

Adventure | Fantasy

Director

David Yates

Country

UK

Cast

Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Colin Farrell, Carmen Ejogo, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton, Ron Perlman, Jon Voight, Josh Cowdery, Ronan Raftery, Faith Wood-Blagrove, Jenn Murray, Johnny Depp, Zoe Kravitz

Storyline

After completing a global excursion to find and document magical creatures, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrives in New York, where some of his fantastic beasts accidentally escape, putting in danger both the wizarding and the No-Maj worlds.

Opinion

As someone who read J.K. Rowling's novels and watched the eight films that followed - doing several marathons as well -, I was more than excited for this film. I do have to admit though that I was a bit worried about the film not living up to Harry Potter. 

Well, I'm happy to say that "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" delivers everything a fan would have dreamed of. In fact, from the very beginning, the film brings the viewer on a spectacular, engaging, exciting journey to the discovery of a magical New York in the 1920's.

The story is easily one of the best parts of the film. First, although it takes place in the Harry Potter universe, it doesn't try to be a prequel, rather it is a very independent story that can be therefore enjoyed separately from Harry Potter's. Second, after a quite long introduction before actually seeing what the story is about, it unfolds with a perfect pace, it also features some solid twists and interesting turns, and develops the right romance. Not to mention the comedy. Seriously, I doubt I've ever laugh so much while watching any other film of the series. 

However, without the characters the story wouldn't be the same. Even though not all of them are properly developed and don't have the screen time they deserve, they all play a role in the story. Also they all are interesting, from the awkward and introverted Newt Scamander, to muggle - or should I say no-maj? - Jacob Kowalski who adds so much humour to the film and makes the story work so well. The villains are also nicely done, but I won't talk too much about them because not knowing exactly who the villains are is kind of the best part.

Technically, the film is quite good. David Yates does a good job directing and the visual effects are outstanding and breathtaking. But the cinematography isn't perfect, even though it has some very beautiful colours.

At last, the cast. I was skeptical about Eddie Redmayne if I have to be honest, but he proved me wrong. Not only he is the perfect fit, but he also gives a great (flawless) performance as Newt Scamander. Katherine Waterston is equally brilliant as the female lead, Porpentina Goldstein. Dan Fogler steals every scene he is in as Jacob, and his potential romance with Queenie, Alison Sudol's character, is one of my favourite things about the story. Colin Farrell's performance as Percival Graves is simply amazing, and I loved watching every moment he was on the screen. Among the others, Ezra Miller deserves a mention: even though his character deserved more time, he gives quite a performance.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)

Genre

Action | War

Director

George P. Cosmatos

Country

USA

Cast

Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna, Charles Napier, Steven Berkoff, Julia Nickson, Martin Kove, George Cheung, Andy Wood, William Ghent, Voyo Goric, Dana Lee, Baoan Coleman

Storyline

John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is released from prison by his government for a top-secret rescue mission to the jungles of Vietnam.

Opinion

"First Blood" and "Rambo: First Blood Part II"? Two completely different movies. Actually, the latter should have been called "Rambo: How to Destroy First Blood".

In fact, other than having great action, this film doesn't have much to offer, starting from the plot. The predictable yet believable plot of the previous film has been replaced by a very weak plot that reaches the limits of absurdity: Rambo single-handles not one, but two armies, the extremely stereotyped Vietnamese and Russian troops.

For a reason I will never understand, the filmmakers also thought it would be nice to thrown into the mix a needless, irrelevant and undeveloped romance.

And the Rambo I came to love in the first film is gone. Remember that broken man that at the end starts crying while talking about his past? Well, forget about him, this time we get a "hero" going around shirtless, once again for no reason at all.

And while "First Blood" portrayed a true side of American, how losers are treated, "Rambo: First Blood Part II" portrays Americans only like people obsessed with shooting and bombing, and the criticism of America's priorities when it comes to their men on the field is not very effective, there's just a glimpse of it.

So it is definitely not a serious film. On the other hand, however, if only considered as an action flick, the film takes the viewer on an incredible, exciting ride.

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

Genre

Adventure | Animation | Fantasy

Director

Travis Knight

Country

USA

Voice Cast

Art Parkinson, Charlize Theron, Matthew McConaughey, Ralph Fiennes, Rooney Mara, George Takei, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, Brenda Vaccaro, Meyrick Murphy, Minae Noji, Alpha Takahashi, Laura Miro, Ken Takemoto

Storyline

In order to defeat a vengeful spirit (Ralph Fiennes) from the past, Kubo (Art Parkinson) mush locate a magical suit of armor once worn by his late father, a legendary Samurai warrior.

Opinion

Over the past few months, I've become a pretty big fan of Laika Studios work, so I caught the chance to watch this as soon as I could. And those people did it again. In fact, "Kubo and the Two Strings" is an absolutely beautiful stop-motion film for kids and adults alike.

Just like in their previous films, once again Laike went for a different route, and instead of going with a complex story filled with dramas, they choose another simple yet quite profound story whose biggest strength is the storytelling. Actually I could say it is a brilliant tribute to storytelling.

Through the art of storytelling, the film explores a darker kind of themes - from death to remorse, what's the value of memories and how we can never forget people that are gone - is such a unique, breathtaking and quite sensitive way.

Another thing I absolutely loved about the film is the characters. They are not the typical animation flick likable character. Well, they are still likable and you can't help but root for the young Kubo, but they also are very charming and the characterization is so on point. Also, each character has their own backstory. And they fit it all in 100 minutes. Unbelievable, right?

The great writing is supported by great performances from all the cast. Game of Thrones Art Parkinson is impressive and so aborabe as Kubo; Charlize Theron really gives her best as a stern Monkey and Kubo's mother; Ralph Fiennes is simply terrifying as the villain Moon King; and Rooney Mara does a great job as the Sinister Twins.

Then of course there's the animation. A blend of stop-motion animation and CGI, once again it is stunningly breathtaking, each character and their movements look great, and it all looks very realistic.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)

Genre

Adventure | Comedy | Drama

Director

Taika Waititi

Country

New Zealand

Cast

Julian Dennison, Sam Neill, Rhys Darby, Rima Te Wiata, Rachel House, Oscar Kightley, Toreore Ngatai-Melbourne, Troy Kingi, Cohen Holloway, Stan Walker, Mike Minogue, Hamish Parkinson, Taika Waititi

Storyline

When a rebellious kid (Julian Dennison) and his foster uncle (Sam Neill) go missing in the wild New Zealand bush, it's ordered a national manhunt.

Opinion

I am new to Taika Waititi's work - yes, this is my first time -, so I had no idea what to expect from this, but since it was highly recommended to me, I was expecting it to be good. I was wrong, "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" is not good, it is a lot more.

It is a charming, funny, heartwarming and entertaining adventure story, beautifully written and wonderfully delivered both by the director and the cast.

The film could have been a predictable story about a "damaged" kid who looks up to an older man and that finds in him friendship. Kind of like a live action version of "Up". And it's basically what happens, but the honesty and the realism brought to the story by every and each character really makes the difference.

But it's not all. The films explores several issues such as teen pregnancy and bureaucracy, and it also deals with mourning and loss in a way I've never seen before. And somehow - I suppose that's Waititi's thing - the director managed to make this simple yet complex story so incredibly funny and to balance drama and comedy so beautifully.

And, once again, the credits go to the characters. Well, actually to the writers, Barry Crump, author of the book, and Waititi, who also wrote the screenplay. All characters are funny and quite likable, even the evil social inspector, and especially the two main characters, Ricky, the orphan, and Hec, his foster uncle. But those characters aren't just funny, they also are very interesting, compelling and they have such depth they make the film emotive. Also they all are fed with great dialogue that fits each situation and the film perfectly.

Then there's New Zealand's stunning scenery that makes you appreciate the film even more. And of course the cast. The leads, veteran Sam Neill and young Julian Dennison, are wonderful in their roles, and it's a real pleasure watching them together, and the supporting cast isn't far behind.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Genre

Horror

Director

Samuel Bayer

Country

USA

Cast

Rooney Mara, Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Clancy Brown, Connie Britton, Don Robert Cass

Storyline

The spectre of Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) hunts the children of those who murdered him, stalking and killing them in their dreams.

Opinion

Oh dear god why. Why on Earth did anyone think the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" needed a remake? Or why did anyone think this thing would have made a decent horror flick? Seriously this new "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is a real and atrocious nightmare that is a tremendous slap in the face to the definition of horror movie.

Being a remake, I cannot help myself but compare the two films, starting of course from the best parts, which basically is the entire original film. One of the greatest thing about the original was the story. It was original because who would have thought of creating a child murderer that hunts people in their dreams? And that idea was at the same time terrifying. And it was actually solid, which is a lot considering the type of film it is. 

Some of the sequels have been able to do that, so it wasn't a mission impossible. This version, however, not only doesn't have a solid plot, but that tiny plot is also very incoherent. Not to mention all the plot holes they managed to fit into a single film.

The other great thing about the original was the characters. Nancy was a badass, such a strong female character and a heroine because for once instead of letting the creep kill her, she found back, and she kicked his ass. The other one is Freddy of course. I don't know how it is possible, but in 2010 the filmmakers managed to make a so less scary, and menacing Freddy. I'm not only talking about the poor characterization, but also about the goddamn awful makeup. It looks like he was wearing a rubber mask for god's sake.

And how about the CGI? It can't even compete with the original's camera work. No wonder Robert Englund didn't take part to this. Sure, he was in the awful sequels too, but this is nothing near the sequels. And don't even get me started on the cast. I'm speechless.

Thursday Movie Picks: Movies Based On a TV Series

Welcome to Thursday Movie Picks, a weekly series hosted by Wandering Through the Shelves where each Thursday you have to pick three films to match the week's topic.

It's TV Series week, which is great because other than watching a lot of movies, I do watch a lot of series. What can I say? I enjoy other people's lives more than mine. Anyway, there are so many movies fitting this category, and at first I was going with three different movies. But then I realised I could do a theme within a theme, so here you are, stuck with me and my three Star Trek picks. Not three random picks though, the best ones. 

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

In the 23rd century, Jim Kirk is resigned to the fact that he is on his last mission, but then Khan Noonien comes back, an infamous conqueror from the 20th century, and Kirk and his crew must stop him. This should have been the first movie in my opinion because it's compelling, thrilling, it has great special effects and Ricardo Montalban is simply spectacular as Khan. 

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

To save Earth from an alien probe, Jim Kirk and his fugitive crew must travel back to the 20th century to retrieve a humpback whale, the only being who can communicate with it. I know it sounds ridiculous. Actually, ridiculous is the least I could say, but it's still an exciting and charming entry in the franchise, and definitely the funniest. Spock trying to understand human behavior is the best thing ever. 

Star Trek (2009)

As young Jim Kirk tries to live up to his father's legacy and Spock keeps him in check, a vengeful Romulan creates black holes to destroy the Federation, one planet at a time. Hands down to the best film of the new trilogy. It is exciting, thrilling, packed with action, it has a solid story, there's a good dose of humour, and the new cast is amazing.

The Lunchbox (2013)

Original Title

Dabba

Genre

Drama | Romance

Director

Ritesh Batra

Country

India

Cast

Irrfan Khan, Nimrat Kaur, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Denzil Smith, Bharati Achrekar, Nakul Vaid, Yashvi Puneet Nagar, Lillete Dubey, Shruti Bapna, Nasir Khan, Lokesh Rai, Sadashiv Kondaji Pokharkar

Storyline

Thank to a mistake of the lunchbox servire, Saajan (Irrfan Khan), a lonely widower, and Ila (Nimrat Kaur), an unhappy housewife, start a relationship as they exchange notes through the daily lunchbox.

Opinion

Even though I've been suggested this film, I didn't have great expectations. Don't judge me, it's just that I haven't had great experiences with Bollywood. 

Until now. In fact, "The Lunchbox" not only exceeded my expectations, but it turned out to be a film that I'll definitely remember for a long time. It is a delightful, heartwarming and charming drama that shows the power of food.

Originally supposed to be a documentary about the dabba food system in Mumbai (which is a spider-spread delivery system of home food made by wives for their husbands), Ritesh Batra's first feature eventually became a story about ordinary lives that allows us to witness a love blossoming slowly, one letter a day, between two people that couldn't be more different as well as a beautiful, unexpected friendship. 

But don't let you be fooled by appearance, this is not just a romance. The film actually shows the difficulties of life, how unexpected it can be, and that it's really never too late to start living again. And it's quite heartbreaking to see the main character feeling trapped and unable to pursue his dream.

Even though a lot consider this annoying, I found the film's slow pacing perfect. Not a single moment is rushed or dragged, Batra just took the time to slowly develop the story, and even though not much happens, it is highly engaging.

At last, the unknown cast - other than Irrfan Khan for his role in "Life of Pi" and "Jurassic World" I don't know anyone - does a good job.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Genre

Biography | Crime | Drama

Director

Steven Spielberg

Country

USA

Cast

Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Christopher Walken, Nathalie Baye, Amy Adams, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, Nancy Lenehan, Brian Howe, Frank John Hughes, Chris Ellis, Jennifer Garner, Ellen Pompeo, Elizabeth Banks, Kaitlin Doubleday

Storyline

The true story of Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, before his 19th birthday, successfully conned millions of dollars' worth of checks as a Pan Am pilot, doctor, and legal prosecutor.

Opinion

I didn't remember much from the first time I saw this - which happened more than 10 years ago -, only the arrest in France scene. Since I was very young back then, and I watched the whole film, I told myself "this has to be some great film, let's rewatch it". Best decision ever because "Catch Me If You Can" is such a brilliant, engaging and fun film.

This time Steven Spielberg brings to the screen the real story of American con artist Frank Abagnale Jr. and FBI agent Carl Hanratty's attempt to catch him. The film is only inspired by the real story though, so I don't know in how many ways it is true, and how many things have been changed in order to make a Hollywood worthy product. I know, however, that I couldn't help but wish for more. 

Also, the plot starts at the end and jumps back, and it is told so beautifully with so much energy and it's so well paced that it's impossible not to have fun - I actually found myself smiling constantly. And even though the film is more than two hours long, it never lingers and not a single scene is longer than it is supposed to be. The time really flies by.

Unlike its poor attempt in "1941", this time Spielberg successfully manages to demonstrate a great sense of comic timing. And I understand and highly appreciate his decision to make a film that isn't supposed to have a moral, but it's just entertaining.

John Williams provides the film with a fantastic score that fits the film to perfection, and along with the costumes and set design portrays the 1960s in a quite sophisticated way.

The best part arguably is the cast. First off Leonardo DiCaprio who gives an impressive performance as Frank Abagnale Jr. He is a born charmer and fits the role to perfection. Tom Hanks is also excellent in the role of FBI agent Hanratty - and likable as usual I'd add. But let's not forget about the supporting cast though, with Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen both providing solid support.

Lucy (2014)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi | Thriller

Director

Luc Besson

Country

France

Cast

Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Choi Min-sik Amr Waked, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Pilou Asbaek, Analeigh Tipton, Nicolas Phongpheth

Storyline

Accidentally caught in a dark deal, Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) turns the tables on her captors as she undergoes unimaginable changes that unlock her mind's full potential. 

Opinion

The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. I wonder how much was Luc Besson using when he made this film since he had all the elements to make a great film yet "Lucy" ended up being a horrible film.

The story, even though it's not original - seriously people, stop saying that, it's basically a rip-off of "Limitless" -, could have been interesting if properly developed. And of course that didn't happen. What happened is a weak and utterly ridiculous plot that sees Scarlett Johansson taking a drug that enhances her brain functions, just like Bradley Cooper did, but instead of using it to make money, she uses it to make things float, to stop time and to get people killed for no reason, all in the process to put the entire knowledge of humanity into a USB drive. I won't even try to point out how stupid that is. Okay, I just did.

The other little problem with "Lucy" is the impossibility to identify its genre. Usually sci-fi films blend science and fiction, that's why they are called so. But this is not the case. This film just blends fiction with other fiction starting from its tagline since the whole 10% thing has been proven wrong a while ago.

Maybe it's just an action film. After all the film has plenty of action. There's so much action, it feels like watching the same scene over and over again. Oh, wait, that's because the action sequences all look the same. And they also lack excitement, and sometimes it's even hard to understand what is going on. Honestly, I would have never expected something like this from Luc Besson.

It also seems pointless to me to spend a lot of time talking about the performances. Rather I'd like to talk about the reason why Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman agreed to work on this. I have a theory about it, it's not scientific, just fiction. So here's the theory, they were high. There is no other explanation. And by the way, Johansson's performance is hilariously bad, and Freeman just doesn't have anything to work with.