Bernie (2011): Disappointing Attempt at Dark Comedy

I like some of Richard Linklater's movies. And I also like Jack Black's acting in many of his films and even in the rock video game titled Brütal Legend. I also think Black has done a very good job portraying the main character in Bernie. But in spite of this and contrary to other reviewers I do not consider Bernie a good movie. And even the presence of Shirley MacLaine or Matthew McConaughey cannot save it.

Bernie Tiede (Jack Black) is an undertaker in a small Texas town. He constantly smiles, has a lot of talents and is always ready to help people. Everybody likes Bernie and he loves everybody. Bernie is great in his work as he is in everything else. He begins a friendship with a wealthy sour widow named Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) and both of them become almost inseparable. Bernie accompanies Marjorie in her daily routines as well as in her vacations. Marjorie shifts from a bad tempered widow to a happy old lady and in the process she assumes Bernie is her possession. One day he accidentally kills her. And then the big question is: Will the skilful Bernie be able to make dead Marjorie looking alive and outwit the townsfolk including unsympathetic district attorney Danny Buck (Matthew McConaughey)?

The movie tells the story of Bernie through lots of interviews and the narration has kind of a documentary feel mixed with folklore flavor. To a certain point this actually looks interesting and it is acceptable as an artistic device. The problem is it turns less and less attractive towards the end and the film becomes pretty boring. Nothing new and surprising happens and the movie lacks a real climax. There is not a single character having to overcome any serious obstacle. The events just take place in this movie.

It seems the American audience is in general more favorable to Bernie, probably because the film is based on a true story that has happened in the USA. The movie is supposed to be a dark comedy but it is not quite funny. Many of the jokes are artificial. The same is valid for the whole narrative in fact. Bernie could be a mockery but somehow the entertaining element is lost and after the ending I was more disappointed than satisfied.

The acting is Ok. Jack Black fits well in the role of the chubby and sweet Bernie. Shirley MacLaine does not have a lot to say but nevertheless she easily creates the image of a pretty annoying old lady. Despite being a law representative Matthew McConaughey succeeds to be less adorable than universal favorite turned criminal Bernie. What dooms this movie most is its script and direction. Richard Linklater has been quite good in the making of Before Sunrise and Before Sunset but his re-creation of the story in Bernie won't find place on the list of my favorite films.

Total Recall (2012): Not Offering Anything Better than the Original

If you haven't expected too much from the recent remake of Total Recall, you won't be "disappointed". As usual, it's (not so) debatable whether or not Paul Verhoeven's 1990 film with Arnold Schwarzenegger has needed a remake at all but the 2012 movie actually begins well and is decent till the middle of the narrative. But it looks like shortly after that point the filmmakers have decided it's time to spoil the film and they have achieved it perfectly.

The story of the new Total Recall is expectedly not original. The plot is pretty much similar to that of the 1990 movie and the setting is the main difference between the two. In a future post apocalyptic world the only two inhabitable areas on Earth are a federation over today's British isles and a colony in Australia. The colony provides "cheap" labor for the federation and here is the main issue with the first part of the movie: to make it "faster" the workers travel through the center of the Earth. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is one of the factory workers who do this exercise every day. His beautiful wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) is not enough to make him happy and he has permanent nightmarish dream involving another woman (Jessica Biel). One day Quaid decides to visit Rekall, a company implanting fake memories. But the visit goes wrong and Quaid is forced to run from the authorities and believing more and more he has been previously a spy.

Total Recall is a movie that will hardly surprise you if you've seen its ancestor. It is not set on Mars but this doesn't make the film really different in terms of plot. There is still a resistance movement against the totalitarian federation regime and Quaid is not sure where to look for his origin. The two surviving areas on Earth are well crafted and one of the few highlights of the movie. Quaid and the rest of the factory workers produce robot soldiers whose purpose seems to be to protect the federation against the colony resistance, which is not very smart. If the only benefit of using colony workers were to produce soldiers fighting against the oppressed colony why would you need to master the colony in the first place.

But if there has been any chance to like the movie after its decent but not so convincing beginning this chance is being completely devastated along Total Recall's accession to conclusion. For example, we are surprised by the fact the federation has not thought to search for the resistance in the most probable location. But the "best" is when Douglas Quaid decides to take a walk in his bare skin outside of a "vehicle" running with 20000 miles per hour at temperatures of several thousands degrees. Colin Farrell might be a better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger but even Schwarzenegger rarely does such stupid things in his movies.

The only other bonus making this movie watchable in addition to some good visuals is the presence of Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel but on the other hand if your purpose is just to watch beautiful women Total Recall is hardly the most appropriate film to choose.

Intouchables (2011): A Very Enjoyable French Film

You may read Intouchables is not original, that it is a spin-off of Driving Miss Daisy or it is not plausible. And while there is some truth in the first and the latter, Intouchables is still a very enjoyable movie and it's hard to dislike it despite its minor issues. The movie is funny, touching and hardly boring. It has been a huge box-office success in France and other countries around the world (in fact, it is one of the greatest box-office hits not produced in Hollywood and the highest-grossing non-English language movie of all time). And it deserves to be successful if only because of the good cast it sports. In spite of the numerous not so favorable critical reviews Intouchables got, the average moviegoer would most likely love it.

Intouchables is about a rich man who was almost entirely paralyzed after a paragliding accident. Because of his difficult condition Philippe (François Cluzet) needs permanent cares so he is looking for a caretaker. Driss (Omar Sy) is a young black man who applies for the job only because he needs a signature on his application for social benefits. Surprisingly (for him), Driss is hired and challenged to succeed under circumstances he has never lived and worked before. And naturally, a strong relationship develops between the two men.

What makes this movie so enjoyable to watch is not its premise or exceptional verisimilitude but its cast and acting. Francois Cluzet is very impressive in the role of Philippe. He uses just his head and voice, yet they are enough for making a great impact. It is easy to like his character because he is quite brave in his misfortune. Cluzet is very similar in his look and mannerism to Dustin Hoffman, in some scenes even strikingly similar. This is actually not bad since it somehow helps to relate to his character even better. Driss is intended to be in many ways a contrast to Philippe and Omar Sy fits well in this skin. He is colorful, easy-going and irresponsible at times. Omar Sy actually received the Best Actor César Award for his performance of Driss in 2012 defeating Jean Dujardin who won the Best Actor Oscar for The Artist. The supporting actors in Intouchables are also good, especially the ladies surrounding Philippe.

Something that differs Intouchables from other similar movies, or Driving Miss Daisy in particular, is that Philippe likes Driss since the very beginning. Their relationship improves over time but it is apparent the young man appeals to Philippe immediately upon their acquaintance. It seems the both men do not need a lot of preparation in order to begin enjoying their time together. Philippe is almost constantly having fun and he does not need to absorb Driss' rhythm and soul to become "happier" as other reviewers suggest. It could be argued who is the "happier", the "wiser" or the more influential man and this makes the movie more entertaining regardless of its lack of an original story. The details in a movie often makes a mediocre story good as well as the opposite, a great story is easily spoilt by a weak realization.

In addition to not being very original, Intouchables is also not the most plausible film. It is inspired by a true story but I am not aware of the exact degree of this inspiration. There is a certain sense of incredibility surrounding the movie yet it would be a bit strained to call it a fantasy.

Intouchables sports decent gags, it is not overly sentimental and fills you with affection for the leading characters. If you are not prejudiced against French cinema, you should not need further convincing to see this movie.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012): An Epic... Fail and a Lesson on Lame Filmmaking

Most human beings share an interesting characteristic. They are able to easily misjudge pretty much everything based on their expectations, possessions and own yearnings. If one has been longing to buy a particular car and finally gets it, it will take a lot of time to admit it's garbage even when it really is. I read on an Internet board a statement in the vein of "After half an year everybody will only care about the first two Batman movies because now people are refusing to be let down". It looks like this is really the case with The Dark Knight Rises. Most people, including most critics, are favorable to the movie despite its numerous flaws. This is understandable because of their expectations but it does not change my observation that The Dark Knight Rises is artistically an epic fail (pun intended) regardless of its inevitable commercial success.

I am not a fan of Batman, comic movies or any other particular genre of films or even art. I'm not their "hater" either. I've seen thousands of movies and listened to thousands of music albums. And I think there are good and bad works in every genre and form of art. This is to show I am not prejudiced in any way in regard to the third Christopher Nolan's Batman film. Even more, similar to everyone else I prefer to like a movie when I am paying to see it. But it is really hard to like The Dark Knight Rises. And I'm not talking about inessential or artificial reasons to dislike the film pointed by other people (e.g. how Fox is researching a vehicle that exploded, how Bruce Wayne is walking on ice or returning to Gotham, or how a young policeman is able to guess Batman's identity). These do not bother me and most of them are not actual issues. I could also live with Bane's false statement that he didn't see the light until he was already a man. I can think of it as a figure of speech. I am talking about real flaws to an extent that even Nolan has tangled himself in the mess he has created.

Possible spoilers below!

Christopher Nolan based his Batman trilogy on realism. It's amazing how people simultaneously praise Nolan for this and at the same time they excuse every improbability issue with "Hey, it's a super-hero movie". And there are a lot of improbabilities in The Dark Knight Rises. To mention just a few, healing a vertebra protruding from your back with a punch or having a child making a jump adults cannot make is not what I would call realism.

Many of the faults decorating this film are related to the villains in one way or another. It's ridiculous how a villain who used to hate his father stops hating him after his death. Even more, the hate is changed by a determination to fulfil the father's wrongly understood destiny by destroying a city with 12 million people including the villains themselves. This is absurd on its own but more preposterous is the fact that at least a few of the mercenaries helping the antagonist are aware of the suicidal plan, yet they are also not bothered to die. So the number of mad people in this Batman installment is not limited to just one or two.

It is also impertinent to try to convince Gotham's citizens you want to help, liberate or save them by destroying a stadium and killing a scientist in front of them. Only an idiot would buy this. Maybe Nolan's intent has been to present a city of 12 million idiots, who knows... Actually, the only occasion when Bane looks somehow inspirational as a revolutionary leader is one of the initial sequences when a plane accident is imitated. Throughout the rest of the movie he is more menacing than inspiring (even to his own crew). This is a kind of inconsistency on its own. And the decision of the insane criminals not to destroy the city immediately when they have a chance instead of waiting for 6 months and risk everything does not make any sense. The annihilation of the city is poorly motivated in the first place but the reason for the delay is not better motivated either.

To bind Batman's suffering with Gotham's destruction is stupid. To delay the latter while simultaneously being constantly afraid someone might spoil your plans is more stupid. It looks like the villains are afraid to pull the trigger of self-destruction cause this does not happen even when Batman is back in the city. It is also unclear when and how the antagonist would enlighten Batman with the final revelation if Bruce Wayne weren't able to escape. Maybe with a personal TV announcement in the last minute. And who would take care to finish Batman if the villains had committed suicide? Batman has never seemed a suicidal type despite his moments of desperation. That he has Bane's "permission" to die after Gotham's end does not seem enough.

Why nobody would cancel huge financial operations, which have apparently happened in result of armed intervention, is beyond my imagination. The usage of Bruce Wayne's fingerprints does not make a transaction more likely, especially when he has not been doing anything on the financial markets for at least 8 years. The very idea that a physical presence is required in order to initiate a transaction (hence the need of the attack on the stock exchange) while at the same time only a man's stolen fingerprints are enough to perform it is contradictory in its basis.

Furthermore, it's a movie about a high-tech protagonist, yet instead of using some technologic advantage in a battle against time, Batman decides to confront his powerful enemy with bare hands as if he has months to waste.

There are redundant characters. I suppose nobody has an idea what the purpose of Selina's girlfriend in this movie is. Or why Daggett should be there? Maybe to show there is at least one bad person in Gotham or to delay the revelation of the real villains. The situation is not very different in regard to Foley (Deputy commissioner of Gotham City). He is probably there to demonstrate the incapability of the police but he's not really needed and in an effort to justify his presence there are a few unnecessary scenes between him and Commissioner Gordon.

The excessive use of infodumps is another evidence of a weak screenplay and direction. Every second character with more than an episodic appearance in The Dark Knight Rises is explaining something. Alfred, Miranda, young Gotham cop Blake and a couple of prisoners are a few good examples.

Now, there are people who will justify everything in order to remain convinced about the movie greatness. This includes the incredibly lame motivation of the villains, the redundant characters, the weak script, the infodumps, the inconsistencies. All these could be excused with "it's just a movie" or "this is the director's point of view". These are poor justifications, yet people often use them. But here is something else one wouldn't expect from a professional movie.

This is a thing I unintentionally noticed on my single viewing of the film, yet I haven't read about it anywhere. It's not likely I'm the only one who has spotted it although I am not surprised the majority of people miss this ridiculous moment because of the patchwork the film is. There is a point in The Dark Knight Rises, where Fox is captured by the villains. Additionally Commissioner Gordon and Miranda are captured too. The commissioner is sentenced by the self-proclaimed court and subsequently Miranda is taken away by Bane. Next we see a new captive brought to the place where Miranda and Fox are kept. This is Batman. He talks with Miranda and Fox and after that Batman and Fox are released by Selena. A few scenes later Batman saves Commissioner Gordon at the time of his execution. And now a very strange question follows. Batman asks the commissioner "Where is Miranda Tate?" and Gordon says, "Bane took her." Why would Batman ask a question when he knows its answer better than Gordon? Maybe he has again too much time and just feels in a mood for chatting.

I'm sure there will be people who will be able to justify even this nonsense. But the truth is quite simple. The filmmakers (incl. Christopher Nolan) have lost themselves in the glorious mess they've created so this detail has been apparently overlooked. The mess of "seriousness", epicness and pretentious moviemaking is so huge in this film that it's not strange the audience and the filmmakers have not noticed this issue. It's towards the end of the movie and at that point the audience is already so exhausted of the onscreen chaos that it's easy to overlook this moment. It's harder to excuse the filmmakers though. It's a movie costing quarter of a billion dollars made by one of the most acclaimed directors in recent years and faults like that, which even an amateur director wouldn't make, are hardly excusable. It's a perfect example how Nolan and the rest of the crew have been entangled in what they've been doing.

One of the few good things about this movie is that it is not in 3D. But this can hardly compensate the overall weak filmmaking. The Dark Knight was overhyped, partly due to Heath Ledger's untimely death, partially because of other reasons. But even not perfect, it was quite a good movie. The attempt of serious filmmaking in a super-hero world was not so disastrous and the movie was balanced without huge misconceptions and lack of ideas. This is not the case with The Dark Knight Rises. With a weak script, villains lacking even basically plausible motivation, an excess of characters, inconsistencies, a surplus of infodumps and poor editing, the movie is deeply flawed and an expensive lesson on lame filmmaking.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962): Good Western Storytelling

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance has been released in the same year as the epic How the West Was Won. Both movies share also director John Ford and several of their stars, most notably James Stewart and John Wayne. But unlike the beautiful to watch and colorful Western epic about the westward expansion, the former film has quite a good story despite not looking nearly as good as the latter and the story is what makes it the better movie. It's a fine example how a black and white film could be superior to a color movie of the same time and genre with (partially) equal actors and director.

The story of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is about Senator Ransom Stoddard (James Stewart) who became a legend for killing the famous outlaw Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin). The senator returns to Shinbone, the town where he met his wife (Vera Miles) and which made him famous, for the funeral of Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). Apparently, Doniphon has not been very popular lately so the senator is challenged to tell more about Tom. Ransom Stoddard's narrative begins with his arrival at Shinbone many years ago and recounts his dealings with Liberty Valance, Tom Doniphon and Ransom's future wife Hallie. It appears Stoddard arrives in Shinbone after graduating a law school only to find there are different laws in this territory. With a hope of a better and lawful future, the territory strives for Statehood but this is not to everyone's taste. Ransom Stoddard has to confront with Liberty Valance one more time.

Since we are presented with Senator Ransom Stoddard and his wife Hallie in the very beginning of the movie, the narrative is not full of unexpected twists. You can actually predict where the movie is going although at one point the initial forecast seems to be erroneous. So, huge surprise is not the main instrument of the story. What makes it interesting is the way it is told. It is not until near the end of the film that your expectations are fulfilled. But what is even more charming is how the people prefer the legend to the truth and the way they respect a man because of his fair yet legally illegitimate deed instead of his numerous lifetime achievements.

Of course, the movie benefits from its cast as well. James Stewart, John Wayne, Vera Miles and Lee Marvin all have worthy performances. John Wayne and Lee Marvin are probably more notable as portraying energetic characters that despite being enemies have a lot in common. Stewart and Miles are also good although playing more restrained parts. The supporting actors Edmond O'Brien and Andy Devine are vigorous in the roles of the local newspaper editor Dutton Peabody and the cowardly Marshal Link Appleyard.

The movie commences a bit static including a few almost still scenes, which may put some spectators off if they are not patient enough to wait for the real goods. Once the actual story begins though the audience is quickly involved in the film. It's one of John Ford's nostalgic tales about the good Old West that has been changed irrevocably. The movie is a must for Western lovers but it is also a good choice for any fans of intelligent storytelling.

Kelly's Heroes (1970): Solid Entertainment with Memorable Characters

What is good about Kelly's Heroes is its creators are fully aware they are making comedy. They do not pretend that this is a serious film about war or try to convey any message. The movie is intended to entertain and it does in a very vital way. Similar to Where Eagles Dare, which was also directed by Brian G. Hutton and starring Clint Eastwood, Kelly's Heroes does not have the most plausible war story. But since the latter film is a parody anyway, nobody needs complete plausibility. The main purpose of a comedy is to be funny and this movie achieves it effortlessly.

Kelly's Heroes begins with Private (Ex-Lieutenant) Kelly (Clint Eastwood) capturing a German Colonel during World War II. Kelly notices a golden bar in the bag of the colonel so he makes him drunk in order to find out the amount and the location of the gold. After discovering that the gold in the colonel's bag is just a small piece of a huge treasure, Kelly plans to assemble a team of soldiers determined to go behind enemy lines and steal the Nazi treasure. A lot of colorful characters plus a few tanks join the team and the squad makes the impossible in order to put their hands on the bullion.

The cast of this film is probably its greatest virtue. Clint Eastwood presents his usual restrained and solid acting. He is the leader of the team but there are far more picturesque characters that eclipse his performance. Despite being a private Kelly gets the support of several sergeants and these are arguably the most vivid figures in the film. MSgt. Big Joe (Telly Savalas) is Kelly's direct superior who is initially hesitant about the venture but since everyone else under his command wants to participate in the initiative of making money, Big Joe has no other option unless to agree. Big Joe is almost constantly pissed off even if worried about his boys.

Another notable character in Kelly's Heroes is SSgt. Crapgame (Don Rickles). Rickles gives a very good performance of the get-rich-quick enthusiast who can supply anything in the army. He isn't brave but if a deal can be made somewhere Crapgame is the man to spot it. He is the one suggesting to Big Joe in regard with a German tank commander: "Then make a DEAL! A DEAL, deal! Maybe the guy's a Republican. Business is business, right?" The most remarkable character though is Sgt. Oddball (Donald Sutherland) who is completely out of place and time with his hippie attitude. Donald Sutherland is wonderful in this role and contributes a lot to make the movie genuinely funny. "Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning."

There are other characters like Major General Colt (Carroll O'Connor), Oddball's technician Moriarty (Gavin MacLeod) and the chief of the artillery 1st Sgt. Mulligan (George Savalas) that also help a lot for the great entertainment Kelly's Heroes offers but in addition to the great cast and characters, we should allude a few more things. The story and the writing are strong. The movie is almost permanently funny without using unnecessary violence or too rough language. The director has done a great job as well. I mentioned about the out-of-time psychedelic attitude of Sergeant Oddball but there are also various references to other genres and films. A Western scene referring to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is among the highlights.

Kelly's Heroes is a good example of a comedy based on a balanced story with solid characters and without many of today's brainless techniques and tricks often used to compensate the lack of enough quality laughter. This movie possesses the power to appeal just because it does what comedies should do. It entertains and it makes you laugh.

Why does Windows not support Blu-ray playback?

I see many people are still asking on the Internet why doesn't Windows support Blu-ray playback. Some of them not just ask but also directly accuse Microsoft of being stupid or "bad" because of not making their Windows Media Center capable of playing Blu-ray discs. Of course, Microsoft is not a charity organization and they have a good reason to omit BD playback. In fact, it was reported a few months ago that Microsoft did not plan to support also DVD playback in Windows 8 in addition to not supporting Blu-rays.

The reason why Windows 7, XP and Vista do not support playback of Blu-ray discs is quite simple though. And it is very rational. The companies behind the Blu-ray technology (mainly Sony, Panasonic and Philips) require payment of license fees for everything related to the technology. This includes discs, and every piece of hardware or software. Now, let's assume that about 10% of all Windows users will need Blu-ray playback software on their computer. It would be absolutely unnecessary and a misplaced expense if Microsoft pays license fees for the rest of the Windows copies they sell. And having in mind that 10% was probably an overestimation, there is really not a sensible reason for Microsoft to enable BD playback in Windows. Of course, they could do it but then somebody should pay the license fees for this pleasure and naturally, the end users would be the ones to pay. Well, I don't think most of the users want to pay for something they are not going to use. So despite all constant accusations Microsoft get for whatnot, I think they've made a wise decision on this issue.

But Windows is not the only operating system that doesn't offer playback of Blu-ray discs. In fact, all other competitors do not offer it. And if we go further, there is not also any Blu-ray player software that is free. There are a lot of programs that pretend to be capable of playing BDs for free but actually I haven't heard of even one free software that is able to play commercial discs with all features without ripping, hacking or something else. There have been rumors for months that VLC media player is going to support BD playback but in fact, most people report they are not able to play commercial discs although VLC is a good video player otherwise.

And to stress Microsoft's "innocence" furthermore, even the number of commercial Blu-ray software players is limited to four at the moment. It looks like even companies offering commercial software are not very willing to pay license fees to the holders of the patent rights.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on the future development of the technology and any related software or hardware. But unless Sony, Philips and Panasonic do not stop requiring fees I think they are impeding their own invention and its popularity. Thus it is not so strange there are many people that still do not have an idea about the rather superior quality BDs offer compared to DVDs. In any case we cannot blame Microsoft for this.

What Is Wrong with Manchester United Manager Sir Alex Ferguson?

Photo by Austin Osuide

I am not so much into football, especially in the recent 15 years, but I can write a football related piece if something gets my attention similarly to this article. I've been stumbling across numerous articles discussing Dimitar Berbatov's future in Manchester United for more than a year. They've been contradictory, confusing and often ridiculous. What is more preposterous though is that often Sir Alex Ferguson has contributed to the "chaos" surrounding Berbatov himself.

Today I read another couple of ridiculous statements claimed to be said by Alex Ferguson in regard to Dimitar Berbatov: "The boy has a future, but if he wants to leave it is a different matter." and "I am easy about it if he stays. I would be happy with that." These wouldn't be so shocking if they were said about a young 21-year-old player who had played 25 games with the team since the last summer. But this is not the case.

To say "The boy has a future" about a 31-year-old footballer is not appropriate if nothing more. But it is far more startling when it is said about a player who has been in your team for years and you have used him in about 5 matches for a whole season. What future does Dimitar have in Manchester United? He's not 21 years old. His contract with the team expires in a year. And obviously the manager does not need him. The statement about Berbatov's future is even funnier combined with another of Sir Alex Ferguson's quotes "He (Berbatov) had Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez in front of him, and they are all young men." Maybe Ferguson expects that Berbatov will age in an opposite direction and next year he'll become 3 years younger...

But this is not all. "I would be happy if he stays" Alex Ferguson said. What could make him happy if Berbatov stays? I don't think there is any happiness in having a £30.75 million record deal footballer on your bench. I don't think there is happiness in losing another £10-15 millions for a year by keeping Dimitar in the team. The only "happy" thing coming to my mind is a move like that will show Manchester United is extremely wealthy club. Why's that?

If Sir Alex Ferguson keeps Dimitar Berbatov in his team this will apparently costs him a lot of money. The club will lose about £5-10 millions if they do not sell him this summer because next year Manchester United won't get anything since the contract of Berbatov will expire. At the same time the club should pay Dimitar his huge salary and it will be about another £5 millions. If Ferguson uses Berbatov in 5 games during the next season this will result in a cost of a player per match equal to about £2-3 millions - probably another record, for the most expensive player per game.

Of course, there is a theoretical possibility that Sir Alex Ferguson gives Dimitar Berbatov a lot of playing time during the first half of the next season, Dimitar shows some awesome football and his price goes higher during the winter. But this is just imagination. We are talking about reality here and in this reality, statements like the ones Ferguson makes are hard to be understood. I know there is always politics and nice talking. But in the case with Berbatov a lot of money are involved and the saga with him continues quite too long already. Talking like this is just annoying and laughable if not ludicrous. So what is wrong with Sir Alex?

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012): An Unexpectedly Good Reboot

Movies about comic book heroes proved to be very popular in the last decade. Franchises were even rebooted in order to be exploited again and again. After the recent enormous success of The Avengers now comes the time of The Amazing Spider-Man. It will be unrealistic to expect that this movie is going to repeat The Avengers' success, neither that it will perform as well as it is anticipated from the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises. But the latest Spidey film is a good one and actually it is way better than 2007's Spider-Man 3 so the newest comic book reboot on the big screen deserves a few words.

In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter Parker (this time played by Andrew Garfield) is expectedly bitten by a spider and subsequently turns into a superhuman who becomes famous as Spider-Man. Up to then, Parker is a shy guy who is not among the coolest boys in his school and secretly loves Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Gwen is assistant to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who appears to have worked with Peter Parker's dad in the past on projects trying to enhance human abilities and resistance. After a hasty experiment Dr. Connors mutates into a powerful reptile-like creature known as The Lizard. Now Parker has the task to save himself, his love and the city from the menacing doctor.

What is good about this movie is that it has abandoned some of the annoying treatments in the previous versions of the Spider-Man franchise. For example (eventual spoilers ahead), now, we are not constantly tormented why Peter has to hide his superhero self from the girl he loves (Mary Jane in the past) cause it is not long before he elegantly uncovers his secret side in front of Gwen. He makes a promise later that he will stay away from her in the future but again his human side reveals he probably won't obey the pledge. I find this kind of behavior preferable compared to the excessive dramatization of the former three Spider-Man movies with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. This time the story is touching without being overly melodramatic.

Another good difference is that Gwen has a bigger part in the events that happen than being just a love interest like Mary Jane. The special effects are also good and the script is decent for a movie based on comics. I've read various complaints against the script and/or the director but I think the direction is satisfactory too. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans fit very well the roles they play. Sally Field and Martin Sheen skilfully perform the supporting characters of Peter's aunt and uncle. The same is valid for Denis Leary as Gwen's dad Captain Stacy.

There are some weak spots (e.g., Dr. Connors "evil" motivation is a bit underdeveloped, his relationship with Peter Parker's father is somehow not fully disclosed) but as a whole the story is interesting enough to keep your attention and there are not distracting or boring parts. What I find to be distracting and unnecessary though is the use of 3D in the movie but apparently the 3D technology is something we have to bear more and more often in the films that are coming.

Whether a reboot of the series has been needed is disputable but at least the new film has brought some changes (especially concerning the main female character) that are welcome. So if you are in the right mood for comic book movies the new Spidey is a good choice. I'll even take the liberty to say that without being exceptional in anything, The Amazing Spider-Man is at least a better film than the box-office smash The Avengers.

Ran (1985): A Great Achievement by a Great Director

Ran is an easy recommendation even if you've seen many of Akira Kurosawa's masterpieces in black and white. For Ran is arguably his greatest achievement in color. And although his black and white movies are among the best films ever made, seeing a Kurosawa work in color is a significant experience on its own. Ran is not only shot in color, it is colorful. It's long and exhausting but memorable and beautiful. It offers expert direction and cinematography. It's rich of splendid costumes and it's visually gorgeous. Ran is not the lightest movie for watching. Despite its occasional funny moments, the film is sad and painful but like any creation of a true master, every second is worthy of your attention.

Ran is Akira Kurosawa's version of Shakespeare's King Lear. Yet there are many differences between the film and William Shakespeare's play, especially in the details. The setting is Japanese and the specific language style of Shakespeare is missing. The story is about the elderly Lord Hidetora Ichimonji who decides to abdicate and make room for his sons. He wants to give a castle to each three of them while only keeping the title of the Great Lord for himself. But the youngest son Saburo warns the Lord about the threat he should expect of his older brothers Taro and Jiro. The father neglects the warning and banishes Saburo. Soon, it appears that the youngest son has been right.

Ran depicts the often happening in reality drama of envy, revenge and kinship rivalry. The brothers are not the only plotters here. The movie also involves a vindictive woman, Lady Kaede, the spouse of the oldest son, whose family and possessions have been destroyed by the Great Lord. Contrary to her, Lady Sue, the wife of the second brother is peaceful and not hostile despite having the same (if not worse) fate as Lady Kaede. Surprisingly, Lord Hidetora has a hard time through both of his daughters-in-law. The first brings him havoc, the second remorse.

Lord Hidetora Ichimonji has a court fool who is of course funny but simultaneously possesses his own wisdom and often suffers not less than his master. Ran is discouraging movie. The hope and the good deeds although not entirely missing are almost lost in the web of factitious human relationships, guilt, retribution, punishment, betrayal, humility and suffering. The freshest air is coming from the magnificent scenery and the exuberant use of colors. The colors are not only eye-catching but also utilized to make the characters and factions more distinguishable.

There are a few very minor issues with the movie that could be easily omitted. Instead I prefer to mention two other subjects. I don't know if presence of jesters has been common in Japanese courts so it is possible that Kyoami (Hidetora's fool) is a bit out of place in the Japanese setting of Ran. Nevertheless, Kyoami adds a very distinct flavour to the movie and he is one of the characters that stick to your mind. On the other hand, the youngest son's language in the initial scenes with his father is a bit harsh but I suppose this is not so unnatural in Japan where even the normal Japanese talking often sounds like coming from people who are in the middle of a quarrel.

The movie demonstrates ones again that those who speak the truth are not welcome and people prefer listening to lies and flattering. The masterful presentation of this and other sides of life makes Ran a classic film. It is a great achievement by a great director and everyone who is serious about movies should see it at least once.

Get the Gringo aka How I Spent My Summer Vacation (2012)

Mel Gibson has been recently treated as a very bad guy by many people in real life. Probably this is the main reason why a decent movie like Get the Gringo has been directly released on DVD and Blu-ray discs without paying a visit to the cinema theaters (at least in the USA) first. Gibson has been labelled racist thus some see racism even in the title of Get the Gringo, which is a bit of a forced assertion. In unison with the accusations and similar to his past movie Payback, Mel Gibson plays a bad guy in the also known as How I Spent My Summer Vacation film. But the movie is actually good and it deserves a review despite Gibson's personal life.

In Get the Gringo, Mel Gibson performs the role of a criminal who is arrested by the Mexican police after stealing a lot of money and put in a hard to survive prison. The place is even tougher for outsiders but he is helped by a 10-year-old boy who stays in the jail with his mother. The boy has a secret, which makes him valuable for the local crime boss factually running the prison. Everyone else is against the gringo and he has not much time to save himself and the boy. The only other advantage he can rely on is his creativity.

As in Payback, Gibson's character is a criminal but along the course of the film we begin to care for him more and more. There is a bit of a character development so we can see there's also good in him although you should not expect really much in that direction from a movie like this. The gringo constantly uses smart tricks to ably outwit his adversaries, which easily appeals to the audience and since he does not kill innocent people it's not hard for him to get our sympathy despite his professional occupation.

The boy (Kevin Hernandez) is not annoying as sometimes happens with kids in such roles. The boy's acting is natural and he is not involved in any highly improbable stuff. The latter is reserved for Gibson, of course. Speaking of improbability, in the vein of Payback, Mel Gibson undertakes several fearless initiatives, which would be lethally dangerous in real life but fit perfectly well in the narrative of the movie.

There is a good portion of Spanish dialogue in the movie, which may bother some people. For me, it just makes the film more authentic. There is also a good deal of violence so the content is not suitable for everybody. The movie does not offer any general surprises and except for the details (which are the major virtues of the film anyway) it is easy to predict how everything will develop and end.

Get the Gringo does not sport the epic proportions of Braveheart or Apocalypto. Its actual continuance is less than 90 minutes but this just makes the movie well paced and reduces the superfluous content to minimum. The film is in no way a masterpiece or mandatory for seeing but it offers a high-grade entertainment if nothing more.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986): Good Acting in a Usual Woody Allen Film

Woody Allen's movies have a character of their own. And this is simultaneously good and bad. It is good because you can hardly encounter a film of Allen's that is of low quality. And it's bad since you are rarely surprised by his films. Hannah and Her Sisters is not bad by any means. But it is also quite overrated. The movie is neither as good as Annie Hall or Manhattan nor it is as refreshing as Midnight in Paris. It is a must for Woody Allen's fans but at the same time you can find better Allen's films if you just want to taste his works. The movie sports some really good acting though, which you may like in either case.

Hannah and Her Sisters revolves around Hannah (Mia Farrow), her husbands, her 2 sisters and the mess in their relationships. Hannah's present husband Elliot (Michael Caine) falls in love with her sister Lee (Barbara Hershey) while Hannah's ex-husband Mickey (Woody Allen) shows interest in her other sister Holly (Dianne Wiest). These are only a few of the complications though, because Mickey thinks he has a brain cancer, Holly has a friend (Carrie Fisher) who steals her projected boyfriends, Lee has a romance with a misanthrope painter (Max von Sydow) and Elliot is obviously restricted by his marriage to Hannah. The 3 sisters' parents are also not an ordinary couple so this big family has a lot of problems to have fun with.

The problems the audience has are not so complicated and they are mainly related to the nature of the film. It's a movie completely in the vein of the majority of Woody Allen's works. There is a little surprise. The dialogue is not so witty as in Allen's previous masterpieces. The narrative is boring at times. A spectator gets exactly what one would expect from Woody Allen, only not so original or captivating. The mess in the beginning, which fortunately unravels fast, is so huge that initially I used to think Carrie Fisher's character is one of Hannah's sisters. Well, she's not. Which also means she does not have much screen presence so if you are a Star Wars fan do not count on seeing Princess Leia in this movie too often.

Nevertheless, the film has a good side. The strong performances some of the actors demonstrate make the movie worth seeing despite its flaws. Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest won Oscars for their roles and they are really great: Caine is calm, confused and ordinary looking; Wiest is irritating, chaotic, constantly fighting for her chances in love and life while at the same time she's easily vulnerable. Without winning Academy Awards the rest of the cast is also superb. The other two sisters are fairly interesting due to the competent work of Mia Farrow and Barbara Hershey while Max von Sydow would have fitted well in a bigger role.

Woody Allen won his second Oscar in the category of Best Writing for Hannah and Her Sisters but I do not find the screenplay so award-worthy as the acting performances. It contributes to the film's predictability and lack of originality: we've already seen "this movie" and we've seen it better. Yet, for cinema and acting buffs, it could be a pleasant and rewarding experience to explore the variety of characters skilfully portrayed in the film.

Is There Any Sport Involving More Stupidity than Football (Soccer)?

This article is written on the occasion of the recent football (soccer) match between England and Ukraine from the group stage of Euro 2012. We won't discuss here whether Ukraine should have won or not and which team was better. We won't discuss so much the problematic goal in this game as well. In brief, there was a goal for Ukraine that was not allowed because the referees were not good enough to see the ball passing the goal line. It was a critical mistake resulting from the imperfections of the human body. Some people claim there has been an offside before the goal. Well, even if we agree with this, it does not revoke the goal. An overlooked offside could only show that the human referees are even more imperfect. UEFA refereeing chief Pierluigi Collina said that 95.7% of the close decisions made by the referees on Euro 2012 were correct and according to him this is a huge result. In fact, 95.7% could be a good percentage in many other cases but when it refers to judgements affecting somebody else it is rather weak.

I think it is out of the question that human referees must be aided by technologies. It's 21st century after all. This has been admitted even by Sepp Blatter (FIFA president) who has previously claimed that a referee's judgement must be seen as final and that mistakes are part of the game (in regard to players undeservedly receiving red cards). But... This change will probably take time. Because changes in football happen quite slow. What time is needed for is actually debatable cause such a technology has already been a necessity for decades. It is mainly related to the unwillingness of the football administration (incl. the president of the UEFA Michel Platini) to introduce changes despite the glaring need for them. Of course, the lack of unanimity among the football society does not help either (e.g., the English players and fans are not mad at all after their match with Ukraine in contrast to their attitude two years ago during 2010's World Championship in South Africa when they were the injured side).

Football (soccer) specifics

Unlike other games, in football only a few points (goals) are scored during a match. Overlooking one of them could be (and had been a lot of times) crucial for the outcome of a game. Note, that the so-called Hawk-Eye system is used in sports like tennis where one "wrong" point is actually not so critical (although always unpleasant). Furthermore, similar to the cycle of the Olympic games, football's World and European Championships are rare (once per 4 years). There are only a few big competitions in the carrier of a footballer and sometimes it could be even one (especially if the player is from a country that is not a constant major force in the sport). So imagine what should be the frustration a football player gets after he is dishonestly eliminated from one of the most important events in his not so long carrier. It's a mockery with his continued efforts to achieve something.

Stupidity surrounding football

And now comes the main issue? How is it possible the most popular sport in the world to be surrounded by such a degree of stupidity? And I'm not talking only about the contemporary footballers, which are often accused of being quite unintelligent. I'm not talking about the fans who often do stupid things. I'm mostly wondering why all involved in this sport do nothing about the situation with the human referees injuring their interests and endeavours. Yes, it is true there a lot of conservative people in FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), probably there are even some idiots. But this is not a reason to suffer for so many years. If all football players, managers, trainers, club owners, etc. decide to boycott FIFA and UEFA the problem will be solved in less than a week. UEFA and FIFA are nothing without the men producing the billions of dollars in this sport. Football has become an enormous money making machine. And it is even more inexplicable why the guys that actually make the money do not take any action against the spoilt system.

Making referee decisions in football more accurate is easy. We are not talking about rhythmic gymnastics, for example, where any estimation is inevitably subjective. Introducing some electronic devices will not be so expensive and it will lead to considerably lower amount of wrong referee calls. It is clear that such electronic systems won't be equally necessary in all football competitions. Yes, it is always nasty to be harmed by a referee and lose a game unfairly but if there are not Hawk Eye devices or similar installed for the games in 5th division it will be comprehensible. It's true that if you've lost a game you cannot blame only the referees. Yet, it is a shame that such absurd mistakes happen at football competitions of the highest level.

A revolution in the international football affairs could be achieved in no time. People won't blame a revolution like this because apparently decades have not been enough for achieving better judgement in evolutionary way. The question is why nobody really cares about it. Is it because the best players in the world make huge amounts of money anyway and they are not so concerned about (dishonestly) losing a match or there is more to it?

Miller's Crossing (1990): One of the Coen Brothers' Best Films

I am not a huge fan of Joel and Ethan Coen's work. I find the majority of their films start out really great and intriguing. But what most often happens is at some point after the middle of the movie, they begin to lose momentum and magnificence. It could be they raise the audience's expectations so high that towards the end they are not able to fulfil them. The feeling I usually get after seeing a film of the Coens is of somehow wasted potential. What I like about Miller's Crossing is that it almost does not suffer from the aforementioned problem. It is not perfect but it is a good movie and I would recommend it as one of the better experiences the Coen brothers' have offered until now.

As many other gangster films, Miller's Crossing is set in the Prohibition Era in the beginning of the 20th century. Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne) tries to keep the peace between his Irish boss Leo (Albert Finney) and another gang of Italian mobsters. Leo insists on protecting Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro) after the latter cheats the Italians' boss Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito) cause he is in love with Bernie's sister Verna (Marcia Gay Harden). Tom knows this is wrong and will lead to a lot of trouble for the Irishman but Leo does not listen to him. To make the relationships even more complicated Tom and Verna have an affair too. Reagan has to make some important choices and there are other characters in the mix whose "ethics" is questionable.

Miller's Crossing offers an interesting and rather intricate story. The relationships between the characters are quite complicated as well and most of the time it's hard to understand what is the actual motivation behind their actions (especially in regard to Tom Reagan). The movie features plenty of double-crossing and divided loyalties. There is a lot of outwitting and the exact outcome is not obvious. In a way Miller's Crossing slightly resembles Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (and it is also influenced by Dashiell Hammett's novels The Glass Key and Red Harvest) but Tom Reagan is in pursuit of completely different goals compared to the protagonist in Yojimbo.

The movie is about criminal "ethics" and loyalty. The former is not amongst the virtues of the main character but there are a few ironic (and iconic) speeches about ethics delivered by Johnny Caspar who is skilfully played by Jon Polito. The police in the city is practically bought and controlled by the dominating gang independently which one it is. Episodes of violence and black humour are to be expected (it's the Coen brothers' movie after all). And as usual the presence of symbols is not overlooked either, e.g., look about for a hat.

The acting in Miller's Crossing is very good and the casting has been quite successful. Gabriel Byrne does a wonderful job portraying the smart, restrained, laconic and amoral Tom Reagan. He has his own agenda and we are wondering throughout the whole film whether he has a heart or not. Albert Finney is behind the scene most of the time but when he's in frame, he makes are memorable appearances. John Turturro is really annoying as Bernie and it is not difficult to see why somebody would want him dead. Marcia Gay Harden is decent in her performance of Verna in an otherwise entirely masculine movie.

While the ending of Miller's Crossing could not be to the taste of everyone, I think the film is of an almost steady quality in its whole continuity. The Coens have done a better job than usual and the camera work is at the elevated level one would expect from their movies. The film lacks the grandeur of The Godfather but it is a very solid gangster movie and a good choice if you are an admirer of the crime genre.

Prometheus (2012): A Film Lost in Its Own Obscurity

Ridley Scott's Prometheus have many prerequisites to become a big success. It has a great director. It sports a capable cast. The movie has a cult relative in the face of Alien. It impresses with spectacular well-crafted visuals. The story has a good premise. The narrative is full of surprises and twists. The film has an own (alienated) atmosphere. There is a huge ground for lots of curious discoveries to be expected. Yet, the movie fails to take advantage of all these privileges. What could have turned into another classic movie is doomed by a weak script, plenty of ambiguity and unnecessary (sometimes ridiculous) events and characters.

Prometheus is set in the not so distant future (something not believable on its own having in mind the modest progress of the humanity in regard to space travels in the last decades). A group of scientists discovers clues related to the creation of the mankind, which lead them to a distant planet. They expect to find answers to the important questions about the origins of the humanity. Instead, they find traces of former destruction and an imminent threat for their own existence. The future of the Earth and the human race may also be in danger.

Prometheus is visually stunning. The special effects are very well done and there is not much to be desired in this aspect. As often happens though, 3D is not really needed to make the film better looking. The movie is limited in its location span but this is not an actual problem cause there is still enough space to be explored and discoveries to be made. What limits the film's soaring is that each new secret unveiled to the audience creates a bigger mess instead of answering questions.

Prometheus is not boring and it offers enough unexpected moments but when each event adds to the mystery rather than solving it, the appeal of the movie suffers (at least in the eyes of the broad audience). And I am not talking only about not answering the question of the mankind's origin. Pretty much every other single subplot is lost in obscurity. And what is more bizarre, the lack of distinctness is heavier in the actions of non-human characters. Yes, one can accept all of it by either inventing own versions of the missing pieces of the puzzle or by imagining that everything will be explained in a sequel. But this is not how a self-contained feature film should be done. Even the utterly unnecessary prequels to the original Star Wars trilogy were relatively self-contained and completed on their own.

The acting in Prometheus is generally Ok but there are some strange casting decisions, e.g., Guy Pearce is in an episodic role of a very old man (without any obvious reason for choosing a not-so-old actor). Michael Fassbender as David gives the most memorable performance in a movie that is not supposed to leave enough room for demonstrating great acting. Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are fine in their parts (as far as the script allows them). The rest of the cast with the exception of Logan Marshall-Green and Idris Elba who have a bit more of a screen presence is almost forgettable.

The movie raises some associations with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mainly in regard with leaving most of the questions about the humanity unanswered and the way an artificial intelligence character behaves. Similar to Kubrick's movie Prometheus also offers some great visual effects. Of course, for the fans of the Alien franchise has been thought of as well and there is material for them too.

Prometheus has an interesting story in spite of its numerous flaw. It is not boring and holds your attention most of the time. There is enough to justify seeing it. The problem is the film promises more than it actually delivers and the excessive vagueness spoils its completeness. Prometheus feels more like an episode in a series rather than a separate solid movie.

The Avengers (2012): Not So Good but (Un)surprisingly Successful

The Avengers has been the "biggest" thing in the cinema lately. It made a billion dollars in no time and it continued to be a box office success after that. It broke several box office records. It is in the top 50 movies in IMDb's Top 250 chart (based on user ratings). It dwarfed every other (3D) film released in the weeks after its initial appearance. And it is still very popular. All these suggest The Avengers should be a great motion picture. But is it actually so good in reality?

If you've seen some of the previous Marvel's creations (like Thor or Captain America: The First Avenger) you've probably already had an idea about the story you could expect from The Avengers. The expelled from Asgard Loki threatens the existence of the Earth and the only force that could stop him and his army is a team assembled from super humans and called "The Avengers". The team includes Iron Man, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye: a dream for every comic fan.

The existence of several comics born superheroes is the main advantage of this film. It attracts the fanbase of each of the characters thus greatly increasing the potential audience compared with the single character movies. As we've mentioned before here, Americans are devoted lovers of comic book films but in this particular case the rest of the world help significantly for the enormous box office figures of The Avengers as well by adding a revenue of $800 millions (and probably more later). The question that arises in this regard is if Marvel had joined a few more heroes to the team whether they could top Avatar or at least Titanic in terms of profit.

Most of the principal actors in the movie perform their usual roles in their usual way (especially Robert Downey Jr.) and the most non-repetitive performance comes from Mark Ruffalo who is the new Hulk. Jeremy Renner plays a new character, Hawkeye, which together with Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is among the not so supernatural part of the crew. Johansson is the almost mandatory feminine addition to the group although I think Cobie Smulders (in the role of Agent Maria Hill) is more attractive in this particular movie.

The story of The Avengers is rather weak. There's nothing interesting in the plot, which is only a device to employ our well-known superheroes. Some of the former films about Iron Man or Hulk were in fact more fascinating. Loki is not a very convincing villain and does not help to improve the movie. And there are enough inexplicable filmmaking decisions as for example, the Hulk's inconsistent ability to be in control of himself.

The use of 3D is also absolutely unnecessary. The movie is post-converted to 3D and does not really benefit from the 3D technology. The only advantage is for the film's producers in the form of higher ticket prices. Speaking of 3D films even the recent Men in Black III and Prometheus that have been far less successful in cinemas actually offer more curious stories and overall appeal despite also not benefiting from 3D and having their own flaws.

This is not to say The Avengers is awful because it is a decent movie. But it's far from the quality one could expect having in mind all the hype surrounding it along with the record-breaking news and huge box office success. And I'm not talking here about the virtues of some universally praised classic films. The Avengers is far even from the quality of not so well established contemporary movies like Avatar and Titanic.

Yojimbo (1961): A Classic Samurai Adventure by Akira Kurosawa

Yojimbo (Yôjinbô) is probably one of the most influential films by Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. It's a well-made film with solid acting, direction and cinematography. Over the years, Yojimbo has influenced many movies and filmmakers. Some of those have been an almost exact remakes of Kurosawa's film, e.g., Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (Per un pugno di dollari) with Clint Eastwood and Walter Hill's Last Man Standing starring Bruce Willis. Others, like the more recent Lucky Number Slevin are not so close to the original but share some of its plot's elements. Apart from feature films, Yojimbo has influenced also other forms of entertainment like television series or variety shows but its greatest effect has been on filmmaking.

Yojimbo itself has been inspired by the western genre and especially John Ford's films. Some claim it is more or less based on Dashiell Hammett's novels Red Harvest and The Glass Key. This is to point that despite Yojimbo's story has not been entirely original, it has been told and filmed in a way that has made the movie hugely important for the future film creators.

The story of Yojimbo (meaning "bodyguard"), similar to Akira Kurosawa's own film Seven Samurai from 1954, is about a samurai and a town needing a kind of protection. A samurai with no name (Toshiro Mifune) who has no master comes to a town with two competing criminal gangs. He decides to stay and work for the gangs constantly changing sides in order to make more money and help the peaceful population by reducing the size of the gangs.

Kurosawa uses Toshiro Mifune's competent acting to establish a likeable character regardless of his restrained talking and hasty use of sword. The plot development also favors the samurai's attractiveness. Many of the other actors have previously worked with Kurosawa too thus the director knows them and directs them very well. In addition to the plot's resemblance to western movies, the cinematography also relies on many of the western genre common shots like the hero standing alone in a wide frame or showing dust clouds between the adversaries.

Most of the town (which actually looks like a small village) is never seen and this reinforces the impression that the only important entities in this place are the two hostile crime gangs. There is a man who announces the time as though to remind the time still hasn't stopped in the town. But then he also obeys the gangs.

Yojimbo is a black and white film which may not be to the taste of everyone. On the other hand, The Artist has proved recently there are many who are not put off just by the lack of color in a film. If it wasn't shot in black and white though Yojimbo would be a different movie. Masaru Sato's soundtrack is a great complement to the narrative and its distinctive melodies and sounds help for the creation of Yojimbo's specific atmosphere, as does the usual raining in Kurosawa's films.

Being one of Kurosawa's best efforts Yojimbo is a must for movie buffs. Despite not being loaded with plenty of action it sets the course for many future action films. And even if you are already familiar with the story, don't worry about your high-grade entertainment cause it's a pleasure to observe the details of Kurosawa's masterful filmmaking.

Dark Shadows (2012): Goth Meets Hippies

Familiar style. Familiar faces. Familiar themes. Times change, Tim Burton's films don't. Based on the cult TV show from the 60s of the same name, Tim Burton's latest film Dark Shadows is everything you probably expect from it: black humour, Johnny Depp, ghosts, Helena Bonham Carter, vampires, witches, hippies.

There is that peculiar vigour one can sense while watching a film made by people that had a great time doing it. Dark Shadows has some good gags, lots of cool references, some very clever shots and snappy lines all the time. Really, there is some hilarious stuff in there. Especially some scenes involving synthesizers, hippies, vampires and McDonald's. The period atmosphere is well done. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel does a good job. His excessive diffusion works well for the ghostly setting, removing texture from faces and making them ephemeral. The soundtrack adds some extra believability through the period's hit selection.

The cast ensemble is properly selected and does a pretty decent job. Which is even more notable, considering there isn't actually a real movie in Dark Shadows. Johnny Depp is his usual mannerism infested self. Eva Green is stunning as the steamy witch. Chloe Moretz has grown from an ass-kicking superhero kid to a kick-ass sour and grumpy Michelle Pfeiffer supernatural daughter (whoops, that was a spoiler). Jackie Earle Haley is quite funny as the only family servant. Bella Heathcote almost tricks you to think that she is the protagonist in the first 10 minutes after the starting credits. Christopher Lee appears as a random boat captain leader in a random scene and radiates "What-the-f*ck-am-I-doing-here?!" waves.

The story in Dark Shadows is basic, scenes are disjointed and sketchy, the end confrontation is cheap and uninspired, the dialogue is often abysmal and even its deliberate over-the-top self-awareness can't save it. Characters come to manifest some totally random traits. The characters themselves form the typical Tim Burton freak show, this time even employing Alice Cooper (in the role of Alice Cooper from the 70's) to seal that. There is no character development whatsoever (which isn't really a bad thing in this case).

Dark Shadows is really quite enjoyable, and it is hard to comprehend how something can go wrong. A two-century-old vampire, hippies, the 70's... Sounds like a win recipe. For a lot of people it will be good enough, indeed. Others may be unimpressed if the mood doesn't click with them. Precisely because there isn't any actual movie behind the stylish visuals and the lines exchanges. It looks like the filmmakers have had to include characters just because they exist in the original, which often renders them useless. Together with the above faults this results in a sense of wasted potential. Nevertheless, Tim Burton fans should give this a try. They most likely won't be disappointed.

HostGator Affiliate Program: Strengthening the Scam Tendency

A couple of months ago I described here my experiences with the web hosting affiliate programs of FatCow, BlueHost and HostGator. Those were unpleasant experiences on their own but unfortunately there was a continuation and it was even more objectionable. This time only HostGator staff were involved but their actions were practically more fraudulent than before. So, here is a brief follow-up to the case with HostGator.

About 50 days after HostGator (non-automatically) credited the commission for a particular referral to my Commission Junction account they decided to revert it. Of course, an explanation was not provided so I asked them about the reason for this action. The answer I received was quite surprising (although whatever explanation would be surprising having in mind there should not be any good reason for cancelling this commission). They stated that the guy I had referred had been their existing customer and old customers were not able to generate commissions. This attempt would be a good one if I hadn't known the guy.

But actually, I had known my referral for tens of years and I knew that if he had a HostGator account he would tell me (not to mention that if he had a shared web hosting account, he wouldn't pay for a new one at all). He was not an old customer. He had paid for a couple of years in advance. He had an active website in this account and everything was as it should be per HostGator's terms of service. This time, it was pretty obvious that HostGator just tried to cheat me with a plain lie.

I wrote them back stating their explanation is simply not true cause I knew the guy. I expressed my dissatisfaction of their second try to avoid paying this particular commission as well as the lack of response to some of my previous emails. Well, apparently after seeing their scam attempt was not successful and I was in position to easily prove I was right, they did not continue in the "fraud" direction. Without any excuse they asked for my PayPal account in order to send my commission there. My subsequent question concerning the reason of using PayPal instead of the usual process via Commission Junction was not answered (as I expected). In fact, they did not reply with anything after receiving my PayPal address so I had to remind them once again before finally the payment was issued.

After this case, even if I had had any suspicions that the previous unpleasant events could be due to HostGator affiliate team's lack of professionalism rather than some bad intentions, I would be stupid to continue excusing them. The last action was just a plain fraudulent attempt and it's hard to see any realistic explanation excusing their behavior. I was determined to avoid using HostGator affiliate program anymore even before this final case and it just strengthened my decision. It isn't normal to expect I know personally everyone I refer to HostGator in order to be able to defend my commissions from getting "stolen" by what is supposed to be my business partner. HostGator affiliate people are unprofessional, they do not answer any inconvenient questions and they try to cheat their affiliates. Neither of this is a good reason for using them.

Bullitt (1968): A Boring Classic with a Remarkable Car Chase

Bullitt is probably a moderate classic praised by some and considered boring by others. It sports Steve McQueen, a remarkable car chase sequence, a few other good actors and a decent premise. It's easy to see where the praises are coming from and it is not hard to label it "boring". Cause Bullitt is a well-crafted movie lacking a solid story, unnecessarily prolonged at times and having a redundant character.

Bullitt is titled by the name of its protagonist, the San Francisco cop, Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen). After being asked by Senator Walter Chalmers to protect an important witness for a US Senate subcommittee hearing, Bullitt hides Johnny Ross in a hotel and assembles a small police team to guard him. Ross does not survive to testify at the hearing since he is killed despite his accommodation in a secret location. Chalmers blames Lieutenant Bullitt for the loss of the witness. The lieutenant is not convinced that the Senator is telling him everything though and receives full authority from his superior to lead the investigation. He decides to act without explaining or reporting his actions in order to solve the case and save his reputation as reliable cop.

The story of Bullitt has a good premise and the movie starts intriguing but its promising beginning is overshadowed by a slow pace and boring events later. We do not clearly understand until the end what has been the purpose of the initial events happening in the movie and why such a complicated approach has been chosen by the people involved in them to achieve their goal. We also have to meet Bullitt's girlfriend (Jacqueline Bisset) although her presence is practically redundant. Bisset is a beautiful woman and it's nice to see her but her character does not contribute anything to the plot. She's just there to add some female presence in the otherwise masculine film.

If the above flaws had not been there Bullitt could have been a really good movie. Steve McQueen is very believable as the San Francisco cop having its own ways of investigating a case. In fact, the role suits McQueen perfectly. The rest of the cast is also of high quality. Robert Vaughn makes a notable performance as Chalmers and Robert Duvall has a small but important part as taxi driver. Bullitt makes a good use of the city of San Francisco and its surroundings. The ending is kind of original although I'm not sure it is to everybody's taste.

The main gem in this movie though is the famous car chase scene. It is very natural without myriads of special effects and it would be nice if more recent films containing "spectacular" chase sequences had learned better from movies like Bullitt. The film's cinematography and editing are very good. If director Peter Yates had been able to make the movie more involving in spite of its somehow weak narrative this could be a true classic.

Bullitt is an easy recommendation for car chase fans or lovers of 60's and 70's thrillers. If you are more into modern movies you should probably choose the right mood to watch it or better, read some other reviews of this film before taking a decision.

Young Adult (2011): Weak Comedy and Boring Drama

Young Adult is described as comedy as well as drama. Well, there is almost nothing funny in it. One would expect a solid film when Charlize Theron is in the cast. Unfortunately, the movie is not even close to solid. Young Adult is quite boring, predictable and it makes me wonder why it has been made at all.

Young Adult is about Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron), once a popular teenager, now a divorced writer whose "Young Adult" fiction series are about to be cancelled. She decides to go back to her small home town in Minnesota and win back her ex-boyfriend Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) who is now happily married with a recently born daughter. There is another former classmate of theirs, unpopular Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt), disabled due to a brutal beating back in their school days with whom Mavis shares her progress with Buddy and a few bottles of alcohol.

While this premise could actually be turned into a decent comedy (My Best Friend's Wedding is coming to mind), this is not the case with Young Adult. The story is predictable. The events happening while Mavis is pursuing Buddy are boring. The small details are disappointing. The characters do not capture your attention. There is occasionally a funny line here and there but those are less than enough to entertain you.

The plot's premise allows for a good dramatic work too but Young Adult is nothing like a strong drama either. The main heroine does not provoke empathy. Any eventual suffering is more a product of her stupidity and selfishness rather than being a consequence of some tragic or burdensome development. The whole plot is in a way pointless and just happening without involving the audience. And in fact, there is nothing so dramatic in the movie.

The best in Young Adult is Charlize Theron's acting. She makes a good performance (as usual) but it is hardly enough to save the movie. Patrick Wilson does not have so much screen time but he is also Ok although we've seen him in considerably better productions. Patton Oswalt's character is probably the most interesting and Oswalt plays the role of Matt quite convincing. The screenplay is weaker than expected from a writer like Diablo Cody, especially having in mind her Academy Award for Juno. It's not that such stories do not happen in real life, it's just not narrated in an engaging way.

If you want to see this movie, you can always find a good reason to do it, either being Charlize Theron's acting or something else. The point is you can see better movies with Theron, better films with the other actors, better works by screenwriter Diablo Cody and better efforts of director Jason Reitman. There are more profound dramatic works and funnier comedies. Then why would you look for a decent reason to see exactly this movie?

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Swedish vs. American Films

Almost three years after the release of the Swedish adaptation of the first installment in Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy David Fincher released his reading of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in the late 2011. Both versions share a lot of similarities as based on a same novel and the story is pretty much the same: Lisbeth Salander is a computer hacker with a dark and obscure past, Mikael Blomkvist is a journalist in the investigative magazine Millennium, Mikael is hired to investigate the disappearance of a young woman forty years ago and Lisbeth is involved to help him. The overall quality of the two releases is also at a similar level and each of them deserves a high rating. However, there are a few differences and I am going to list some of them below in case somebody prefers seeing just one of the two movies.

The American release stars more famous actors (Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer and Robin Wright to name a few), which is to be expected considering their Hollywood background. This does not necessarily mean the acting in Fincher's version is better though. Both casts do quite a good job. In fact, the Swedish cast has a small natural advantage in terms of making the performances more authentic. It is hard to surpass Noomi Rapace's and Michael Nyqvist's rendering of Lisbeth Salanader and Mikael Blomkvist cause once seen their appearance identifies the actors with the characters.

The US rendition saves some of the violence and unpleasantness of the Scandinavian release. This is not surprising for it often happens in American films. In this case, David Fincher represents Lisbeth and her mentor Nils Bjurman softer and more "humane". Speaking of character differences, Rooney Mara's Lisbeth Salander is not just less cruel but also more sensitive, not so antisocial as Noomi Rapace's impersonation, more fragile and she even talks. All of these could be attributed to the look of the actresses as well as to the particular vision of each director.

The ending of the American release is a bit extended in regard to the events related to Hans-Erik Wennerström, which in my opinion is actually more confusing. Other minor elements are also rendered slightly differently in both of the movies with variable success. Examples are Lisbeth meetings with her former and present mentors, the way Mikael learns about Lisbeth's existence and the pinch of romance expectedly added in the Hollywood version.

Despite their distinctions both of the films are good enough to be seen even with the disadvantage of already knowing the main storyline after seeing one of the movies first. Since the Swedish adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo possesses a more authentic feel and atmosphere I would recommend starting with it but it is really up to you. In both cases the plot will be kind of spoiled at the time of the second viewing but this is inevitable.