MaMMa Mia!

Mamma Mia!

I don’t know how I could have passed without commenting this movie which I adore, no doubts at all, before.  You already know that I became a great fan of Meryl Streep thanks to this movie, but what you don’t know is that seeing the movie opened my eyes in some way. I realized that I was a movie musical girl, something I should have noticed years ago due to the fact that I already, in my early childhood, loved them thanks to Mary Poppins but, for God’s sake, who doesn’t like Mary Poppins? Later, movies like Moulin Rouge, Sweeney Todd or The sound of music confirmed it.

Without more waiting I start with my critic.

Why I watched it?

Once upon a time, the 26^th December of 2010, there was a girl who was getting a shower and her mother came to inform her that night they were going to pass a movie musical, in the TV, called Mamma Mia! This girl went out of the shower and waited patiently on the sofa till it was the due hour. She enjoyed the movie, she enjoyed it a lot. All the songs were known by her and it turned out that it was because her father used to put some ABBA music when she was little.

Original title: Mamma Mia!

Duration: 105min.

Director: Phyllida Lloyd

Screenwriter: Catherine Johnson based on the Broadway play Mamma Mia!

Country: Great Britain.

Genre: romantic comedy, musical.

Year: 2008

Music: Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus based on the ABBA songs.

Cast: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Amanda Seyfried, Stellan Skarsgard, Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, Dominic Cooper.

Summary: Sophie (Seyfried) is going to marry and she wants to find her father before her big day comes. There is only one problem: she doesn’t know who her father is. After reading the diary of her mother Donna (Streep) she discovers her father was one of her mother’s old lovers. Although she knows her mother wouldn’t approve it, she invites her three possible fathers, Sam (Brosnan), Harry (Firth) and Bill (Skarsgard), to the wedding.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCVpJ8x1Tnc&hd=1

First impression: wow!

Second impression: double wow!

If the story isn’t just enough to convince you it is a great movie then you must know that the plot is decorated by the marvelous ABBA songs sung by actors whose singing doesn’t go unnoticed but shine with intensity thanks to their voices and their performances.

This musical was brought to the theatre and it had a huge success in all the countries where it was performed.

The movie contains at all of anecdotes such as the one told by Meryl Streep who went to see the show in New York, after the September 11 when Ms. Streep’s family had moved to the city, to celebrate the birthday of her youngest daughter. She took her daughter and friends to see it in October, and she was marveled by what she saw. Therefore, she wrote a letter to the cast and the producers of the play to congratulate them for their magnificent job. Years later it was she the one who marveled the world with the same musical, this time in the big screen.

Pierce Brosnan’s father had passed away a week before he took the role. When he went to see the play he knew which role would be his, Sam Carmichael, when he hear the names of the “fathers”. Carmichael was the second name of his father and he took this as a signal to accept the role, and he did it right after hearing “Meryl Streep, Greece and ABBA”. These are the three main pillars of the movie.

The place where the events take place couldn’t have been better. Although some of the scenes were filmed in London, in the Pinewood studios where Pierce Brosnan shone as the agent 007, Greece, being the second localization of the movie, has a really important role in the movie. A musical has to have a lot of color and the sunny Greek islands of Skopelos and Skiathos give this, perfectly, and much more.

The story of the movie follows the relationships between the characters; thus, the main subject of the film is, without doubt, love. Love between mother and daughter, love between friends, love between lovers, love for living. The story starts with love and ends with love. Of course within the movie there is at all of this strange feeling, a feeling that the majority of people, if not all, is looking for along their lives owing to the fact that love is the force which moves the world. If you ask yourself why you are doing this or that you will see that the main reason of why you, like the rest of people, do something is because of love. Not just love for a special person but love for your family, your friends, material things, or even for yourself. [Ex: I study due to the fact that I love myself and I want to have a good future, or I make the bed every day because if I don’t make the bed my mother will be angry with me and I don’t want to see her angry due to the fact  that a) I love her too much, b) I love me too much to listen to someone reprimanding me.] In this movie we see how love can lead our future and how it can define everything which is around us, even ourselves.

Everything starts owing to the fact that Sophie (Seyfried) wants to have her father with her in her wedding. She is marrying Sky (Cooper) because she loves him; here we have the love element. Although the problem comes from the past, love is once more the cause of everything. Sophie’s mother, Donna (Streep), fell in love with a man who was engaged (this fact was unknown by her) and who left her after having spent one night with her. After a heart-broken Donna looked for a man who could reply the hole which Sam (Brosnan) made in her heart, she discovered she was pregnant not knowing who of the three men who have share a night with her is the father of her unborn child. We continue with the plot and we find again love being the leader of the film. Donna had to go when her mother found she was pregnant to keep her baby with her (love). Sophie is getting married (love) and invites her possible fathers because she wants to meet him (love). Sam, Bill and Harry come because they were madly in love (LOVE!) with Donna and they want to see her again. On the other hand we have another type of love, between friends. Sophie invites her friends to her wedding and Donna hers owing to the fact that they want to share the special day with their dear ones.

About Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan.

This movie was the origin of the fandom “Peryl Brostreep” and I must say I ship it. The chemistry between the actors is seen in the moments where they share scenes and even out of the screen. They make such a good cinema couple creating the illusion of them being in reality Donna Sheridan and Sam Carmichael. The kiss of the end is AWWWWW. She strips him, something which was not in the screenplay. These little details are the ones that make them have that wonderful chemistry or maybe they are the consequences of that great chemistry.

I post here a video where you can hear a song sang by them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFaXN3NAQLg&hd=1

Many fans of the play have complained because they did not think Mr. Brosnan’s voice was the adequate and I won’t deny that his voice isn’t the greatest, but it is because he isn’t a singer but an actor. An actor who did a splendid job, taking into a count that he didn’t know how to sing. His voice is very “masculine and sexy” according to the declarations of Ms. Streep. The big problem is that the other actors sing like if they were professionals and when we hear him it sounds worse than how it is.

The surprise?

The young lovebirds. Both Amanda and Dominic were a total cinematic revelation. They give me hopes for a new generation of good actors. Besides, they have marvelous voices.

The worst?  

I’m afraid that I don’t find something which is not great.

The best?

The songs and the performances. In addition, the place.

Mark: 9’5. (I would give it a 10, but 10 is a perfect movie and perfection it’s very difficult to acquire and to be recognized.)

Remember that this is my opinion, so it isn’t necessary that it concurs with yours.

That’s all!

The devil wears Prada.

The Devil wears Prada.

After a long, long, period of time I have come back. In my defense I have to say I stopped writing due to the fact that I had to do research papers, presentations, final speeches and exams, all in a short period of time. Now, I’m happy to announce you that I have succeeded in my first year of University and that I can devote myself to this blog. This means that I will try to upload more regularly at least until I find a summer job, something which is going to be difficult.

My last critic was about a movie starring Anne Hathaway so I have decided to return with a movie of her to link both films. This girl, well…woman, is, for me, one of the best and luckiest of her generation. How many actresses, apart from her, can say they have worked with Dame Julie Andrews and Meryl Streep? There are some actors like Liam Neeson or Colin Firth who share credits with both of these marvelous actresses, but no actress has except from Ms. Hathaway and, more or less, Christine Baranski; Mr. Neeson appeared with Ms. Andrews in Duet for one and with Ms. Streep in Before and after, and Mr. Firth appeared with Ms. Streep in Mamma Mia and with Ms. Andrews in Relative Values. Besides being lucky she’s also very talented; that’s why she won an Oscar for supporting actress in 2013for her role of Fantine in the movie musical directed by Tom Hooper, Les Misérables.

Enough of Ms. Hathaway.

Why I watched it?   

I think I have told you before my story as a fan of Meryl Streep; therefore, I will not tell it all over again. I suppose there is no doubt of why I watched it.

The first time, I saw a few minutes of the movie and it was because they were passing it at the TV and my mother was watching it. I didn’t like very much what I saw but that time doesn’t count owing to the fact that I caught the movie in the middle and I couldn’t follow the plot. Then, the second time , it was because my aunt bought me the movie as a Christmas present and this time I could enjoy the movie properly.

Original title: The Devil wears Prada

Duration: 105 min.

Director: David Frankel.

Screenwriter: Aline Brosh McKenna based on the book of Lauren Weisberger.

Country: EE.UU.

Genre:  Comedy, romantic comedy.

Year: 2006.

Music: Theodore Saphiro.

Cast: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci, Emily Blunt, Simon Baker and Adrian Grenier.

Summary: The young aspiring journalist Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) has found her first job in New York, where she has just moved to, as the second assistant of Miranda Priestly (Streep), the exigent editor in chief of the fashion magazine "Runway". A million girls would kill for this job except Andy who realizes that to obtain success in this business she must forget about having a personal life.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicgut4gpwUHYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicgut4gpwU&hd=1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicgut4gpwU&hd=1"hd=1

First impression: this is a movie for fashion lovers.

Second impression: there is much more than what it is seen at first sight.

After having seen the movie I decided to read the book due to the fact that books are usually better than the movies based on them. This time it wasn't like that. I started reading the book and I stopped after the second or third chapter. The book goes deeper in the fashion world and it wasn't the kind of book that I usually read; thus, I didn't like it.

The movie talks about normal people who have as background the fashion world, but the movie isn't focused on fashion at all. For me, it talks about various types of relationships and how they change in a matter of short time.

1st short of relationship-couple: Nate (Grenier) and Andy/ Christian (Baker) and Andy/ Miranda and Stephen (James Naughton).

In this category we can see three types of love couples:

·         Nate and Andy: they have been together for a long time, they love each other and all seems to be perfect until Andy starts working for Miranda. This is the typical couple that romantic comedies present us: a young couple very much in love that, at the end of the movie, obtains its happily ever after.

·         Christian and Andy: the one night stand. I understand as Christian liked Andy he tried to seduce her, but what about Andy who used to be in love with Nate? Yes, they broke up before Andy went to Paris and spent that night with Christian, but if you love someone you don't forget him or her because you have broken up. Besides, she flirted with him before being left by Nate. That tell us that the first relationship wasn’t as perfect as it seemed due to the fact that more than a couple they were a love triangle in which Nate doesn’t know that someone else is involved.

·         Miranda and Stephen: a fail marriage. It isn’t the first time Miranda was married. This is put this way so we can understand that it isn’t the first time and that probably won’t be the last one that Miranda divorces; owing to her obsession towards her job. In addition, they want to compare the relationship of Nate and Andy with the one of Miranda and Stephen. The man who always waits for his wife/girlfriend to arrive at home and wants to make things figure it out, and the woman who is focused on her professional career too much to care about something else.

2nd short of relationship-friendship: Andy, Lilly and Doug.

We hardly know the characters of Lilly and Doug because they have short appearances in the movie. They are the best friends of Andy and Nate at the beginning of the movie, and even if their relationship doesn't change too much we see how it is also damaged by “Andy’s work” and the breaking of the couple.

3th short of relationship-professional: Miranda, Andrea, Emily and Nigel.

In the labor world every person is seen as an individual who races against the other ones to be the best in what he or she does. Working is the center in which the characters mentioned above focus their lives. However, even if they live to work and they work to live they are still rational persons who can choose, having elections. They protect themselves saying that they have “no choices” but this isn’t true. You can always choose what to do. Of course, you would have to face the consequences of your actions but this is whether you make one thing or another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKqTseJIouo&hd=1

About Miranda and Andy.

The film wants to tell us that we don’t have to blame Andrea’s work as much as we have to blame the aptitude she adopts because of the kind of job she has. The key is at the end of the movie, in the scene in which Andrea and Miranda are in the car and Miranda is impressed by how much Andrea tried to warn her about the intentions of Irv Ravitz who wanted to get rid of Miranda giving Miranda’s job to Jacqueline Follet, the editor in chief of the French version of the magazine Runway. Miranda says that she sees something in Andrea which makes her see herself in her. Andrea answers by saying that she wouldn’t make a thing like the one which Miranda did to Nigel and Miranda tells her that she already did to Emily. After that, Andrea leaves her job realizing for the first time the thing that the film was telling us during the entire movie, that the problem wasn’t the job but how Andrea changes for her job instead of change her job for her.

Moral: Don’t change for anything or anyone because you will lose what you had.

Surprise?

Emily Blunt who was perfect in her role of Miranda’s first assistant. Cold, obsessed and hard-worker, thin and beautiful, her character gets alive thanks to her performance. She gives something to the character of Emily that wasn’t firstly there, she gives her personality, a personality that consist in not have personality at all or at least don’t let the others see through you and discover the real you.

The worst.

This isn’t the best performance of Anne Hathaway; I even think she was better in the Princess diaries.

The best.

The performances. I know I always say the same but it isn’t my fault if I’m more concern about the performances than in other things and that they end up being the best thing in the movie. Besides, the perfect selection of costumes and great work of the director.

Mark: 7’5.

Remember that this is my opinion, so it isn’t necessary that it concurs with yours.

That’s all!

Brokeback Mountain

Brokeback Mountain.

Hello, hello bobbseys

How are you my readers? I'm so sorry for the delay but I’m writing you since the commodity of my bed due to I’ve been a little bit ill, nothing to worry too much about it because I’m strong enough. After this week when San Valentine’s day has taken place, I’ve been thinking about love and its weird aspects; like the one of make you fall in love with someone of your own sex when you’ve always been sexually attracted to the opposite genre, how in the world can this happen? Therefore I’ve decided to talk about Heath Ledger’s gay movie Brokeback Mountain winner of three Academy Awards, to try to explain you and myself these crazy things that love has.

Why I watched it?

I admired Ledger’s short career, and I still do, and I hadn’t seen this movie I don’t know why, but in the moment that I saw Rendition and fall over heels in love with Jake Gyllenhaal I reprimanded me myself for not watching it before. I got attached to Jake, so one day I found Brokeback Mountain on the movie’s section of a shop and I bought it. And a few weeks ago I took advance of me being alone at home in the morning to saw the film and thanks to that I could  cry my eyes out without having anybody around me to see my tears.

Original title: Brokeback Mountain.

Duration: 133 min.

Director: Ang Lee.

Screenwriter: Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana.

Country: EE.UU.

Genre: romance drama.Homosexuality.

Year: 2005.

Cast: Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Linda Cardellini, Anna Faris, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams and Randy Quaid.

Summary: one summer, one herd, one job, one love but two men. A ranch hand and a rodeo’s cowboy meet in 1963 to work together protecting the heard of a ranch chef during the summer. When the summer ends both of them have built a big relationship. Dennis del Mar (Ledger) tries to convince himself that his love affair was just because they were alone without women and they got attracted to each other whereas Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) knows that what they had wasn’t just lust but that love was floating around them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xuugq7fito

The most difficult definition for a word must be the one that defines the abstract concept of love because who of you could give me an accurate definition of what is it? Or easier, what do you feel when you’re in love? It’s true that we can say that there are some biological aspects; these which are related to the physical and rational part of love, but can we say that this is love or it will be more exact to say that is just lust? And what is love but lust mixed with feelings such as possession? Can we say that the love that we feel for our family is the same that the one that we feel towards our couple but without the sexual attraction? Is love equal to all the people that have the pleasure or the inconvenient to feel it? There’re so many questions and so many things unknown floating on every one’s mind.

Last week my teacher of literal analysis sent us as homework read and analyze “The Clod and the Pebble” by William Blake and with that poem I’ll give you an example of why love can’t be defined.

"Love seeketh not itself to please, Nor for itself hath any care, But for another gives its ease, And builds a heaven in hell's despair."       So sung a little Clod of Clay,     Trodden with the cattle's      feet,     But a Pebble of the brook     Warbled out these metres meet:   "Love seeketh only Self to please, To bind another to its delight, Joys in another's loss of ease, And builds a hell in heaven's despite."

 

The Clod symbolized an innocent person who has just fall in love for the first time and hasn’t suffered for it yet. And the Pebble is someone who has experienced the love and was rejected or cheated on, something that has made him/her suffer. That tell us that everybody has its own version of love and we’re the owners of our own definition and nobody can tell us that our impression towards this feeling is wrong. In this movie the society tries to teach the leading characters how they have to love and to whom they have to feel love, and although they can’t teach that society that the ways in which you love aren’t bad but just yours, they show us something similar to the poem. The love version of the society includes a man and a woman and isn’t really necessary to build a solid marriage; and the one of Denis and Jack which isn’t led by any conventions. They don’t say anything about love they express it which in my opinion nowadays is hard to find a couple that says all the time “I love you” and that in every time they do say it they expressing it too.

Love implies fear and happiness, hopes and deceptions, tears and smiles, joy and sadness. It has a bad and a good part. Denis is the guy who is afraid of what is growing between them because he knows that the society doesn’t approve it, due to he saw when he was young two men killed by the people’s hands. These men lived together in a farm and everyone suspected that they had a relationship therefore they ended that “illicit” affair killing them in a horrid way. Denis’ father brought him and his brother to see it and to show them that, that is what happened when you disobey the rules. Denis has always like women and he’s going to marry, he did married despite all, with a girl when he met Jack, this one wants to fight for their happiness and doesn’t mind what people could say about them but Denis thinks that what happened in the campsite was an act of lust or rather he wants to think so.

One of the best scenes for me is the one in which their work is over, Jack is going to his dad’s place to help him with the ranch and Denis is going to marry her fiancée Alma. Jack’s face express sadness and the feelings that he’s experimenting can be read so good thanks to his expression and the way in which he’s delaying his departure. One the other hand there’s Denis who tries to not care if he sees Jack again but the tension of his face says other thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZzcRtmXXY

About Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal.  

For me they’re the best actors of their generation, truly. They’re good by themselves but together they’re perfect. The chemistry they had is something that doesn’t happen usually between actors, they’re the film itself. Heath reminded me to Clint Eastwood in this movie and it’s pretty impressive. It seems that Jake’s character is the sentimental one but he’s the one who has the courage to fight for their love and the hard one who is Heath’s character is also the coward. Heath’s coolness against Jake’s warmness Look at this extract and see by yourselves that they’re fantastic:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZzcRtmXXY

The surprise?

Michelle Wiliams was so gigantic in this movie. She hadn’t a big role, just a supporting one, and even that she shines as Alma. She’s the first person that finds out about Denis and Jack romance, she doesn’t say anything during all the time she was married with Denis though we see how the hatred is running through her veins versus the love that she still feel for Denis. The beginning of his real marriage with Heath and the beginning of her career was awesome.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ZZN9BqlEE

And other not-so surprising actress was the delicious Anne Hathaway.

The worst.

I found the rhythm of the movie so slow that sometimes you can get lost in the plot as a result of the boredom.

The best.

The performances, of course, and may I say that the director has a BIG role too. Ang Lee directs with his heart, he leads this movie based on a true story with a sentiment that is needed to expose the right feelings and to move the public.

Mark: 7.

Remember that this is my opinion, so it isn’t necessary that it concurs with yours.

That’s all!

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight.

Hello my so dear readers,

One more week I’m here, fulfilling my duty of share my love for the seven art with you, cinema lovers. The problem is that, like usually, I haven’t got much time to analyze Christopher Nolan’s movie as a result of this week being a foolish one. But I’ll try to bring the majority of the thoughts which invaded my head and have been floating on my mind since I saw the movie last Christmas, and make a critic for which Heath Ledger would be proud.

Why I watched it?

Some people have as Christmas’ customs: be together, make presents and all that kind of stuff. And don’t get me wrong, in my family we do the same, but I’ve some special habit on these notable days, and it’s: sicken. I was ill Christmas’ Eve so I couldn’t go out with my friends and I decided to stay at home watching a film with my brother. They were passing The Dark Knight Rises on the digital plus and it caught our attention the same moment we started seeing it. But there were some things that we didn’t understand due to we had seen Batman Begins but not The Dark Knight, that made us lose at some points of the movie and despite that we really enjoyed the film. And New Year’s day we saw The Dark Knight to complete the trilogy which had amazed us. Now I want to share my opinion with you and I wouldn’t love nothing more than that you made some reviews.

Original title: The Dark Knight

Duration: 147min.

Director: the master Christopher Nolan.

Screenwriter: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan.

Country: EE.UU.

Genre: thriller, action, drama and science fiction (superhero)

Year: 2008.

Music: James Newton and Hans Zimmer.

Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Morgan Freeman.

Summary: Batman (Bale) returns to continue his fight with the crime which has established at Gotham’s streets, with the aid of the commissary Jim Gordon (Oldman) and the new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Eckhart), he will try to clean Gotham of those criminals. All is going as the planned till they face the head of the “curve”, the Joker (Ledger). Whereas Batman is fighting a battle with his new smartest adversary, Bruce Wayne is having an internal fight debating with himself about what a hero is and what a justice man, trying to find the difference between them and to protect Rachel (Gyllenhaal).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ5U8suTUw0

First impression: the film is overrating.

Second impression: what an intelligent screenwriting!

I think of the movie as a bridge between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, but the most marvelous bridge that I’ve seen since that bridge which contemplated the love of Robert Kincaid and Francesca Johnson on The Bridges of Madison Count. The first time I watched the film, the first thing that came to my mind when it ended was that the lack of that wonderful music on the action scenes was something that I would never forgive, and I’m still mad at them for that reason. But the movie has something more than action scenes; it has a great story which is connected to the first film and the third, but it also has a connection between the events that happen on each scene although I must say that the scenes themselves haven’t a good connection.

With the “social experiment” that the Joker makes, we finally understand what he wants, what is his purpose on doing these things. He gives a remote to two boats to blow up the other boat if one of the two boats presses the button he’ll let that boat live. The experiment is just for proving that people are corruptible like Dent.

Why Bruce believes in Harvey Dent?  Because he feels like if the day when Gotham would never need him again has come. He takes a load off knowing that Gotham is going to have a real hero and that he could start a new life being just Bruce Wayne.

About the triangle of Batman, the Joker and Harvey Dent.

For me, there are two key scenes at the movie: the first one is the scene of the confrontation between Batman and the Joker at the prison, when they’ve just captured the joker for the first time. The dialogue between the two characters is magnificent. It’s true that on that scene is the Joker the one who speaks more. And what a monologue that he has!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da3XVFg6CU8

What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off Mob dealers? No, no. - The Joker to Batman.

The other scene is the one in which the Joker, the agent chaos, goes dressed like a nurse to pay a visit to Harvey who is at the hospital and tries to find the dark face of Dent that it’s very well represented by the burnt side of his face. Like a metaphor which wants to tell us that his bad face has come out with the death of Rachel and as he loses everything he wants to make the responsible ones pay for their actions, but without using the justice’s method that separates the harmony that the justice affords from the personal satisfaction that the revenge provides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8#

                      Harvey Dent

 

 

 

                       The Joker                                                            Batman

There are two characters which are on the good side. And between them there’s a difference: one keeps the glory on his person and the other keeps it in the symbol. What can it means? I supposed that the one that wants to make justice but likes to be, not recompensed economically, but recompensed with the fame is more corruptible as a result of him being like the others. What about Bruce? He isn’t recognized because he’s hidden behind a mask, not for fear, but because he’s recompensed when he accomplishes his objectives.

And then there’s the Joker who is insane and kills for pleasure not to obtain something, therefore we’ve a similitude with Bruce and he. And there’s also the thing that he has his ideas and anybody can’t corrupt them, like Bruce’s ideas.

The point that holds the two scenes is the reaction of the good ones on the movie. Bruce goes save Rachel but he doesn’t kill the Joker tough he really wants it, and on the other hand Harvey is convinced by the Joker to let his dark side go out. This is the main difference between that true hero who has a face but that takes the law into their own hands, Harvey, and Batman: He’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him, because he can take it, because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector .A dark knight. - Gordon.

The three of them are connected by good and bad.

Surprise?

Aaron Eckhart who is indescribably good in his role. He doesn’t just perform Dent’s character but he compliments it. Remarkable, how beautiful he makes the transformation of his character from being the good Harvey Dent, the district attorney, to be the vindictive Harvey Two-Face.

Harvey Dent is the characters that since the begging of the movie I didn’t like, maybe because he stole Rachel from Bruce. I understand that he chose the security which Harvey can give her but what I can’t understand is why she continues giving confusing signals to Bruce.

The worst.

The scenes start and end without having a relation with each other structurally talking.

The best.

The performances of this BRILLIANT cast. Highlight Heath Ledger, Christian Bale and Aaron Eckhart. The great story. And of course the PERFECT music. We’ll always remember Ledger’s laugh that put the willies.

Mark: 9

Remember that this is my opinion, so it isn’t necessary that it concurs with yours.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. 

That’s all!

Mona Lisa smile.

Mona Lisa smile.

Hello little lucky person,

How was your week? I hope it was greater than mine; it isn’t that my week was a complete disaster but it in some aspects it was awfully tedious, I can say that if I hadn’t a best friend I wouldn’t support certain things. But now I’m here, writing at home, in front of the computer trying to get the inspiration with music (Shine a light of Mcfly) to not disappoint you with my second critic.

My next critic is going to be about the Mona Lisa smile movie and I’ve to tell you that although in my two first movies which I’ve made a critic of Julia Roberts is starring, I’m not an admirer of her, it’s just that I’m going to try something to make me easier the selection of the movie which it’s going to be analyzed: in the first critic I talked about August: Osage county starring Meryl Streep and Ms Roberts therefore my second post is about a film in which Julia R. performs, so the next post could be about a film in which Kristen Dunst or Maggie Gyllenhaal act because they appeared also in the Mona Lisa smile. What do you prefer The Dark Night or Spiderman? I let you decide.

Why I watched it?

It was a Wednesday. I had just arrived at home after being at the University and I turned on the TV to see what they were passing on. I found this movie and I decided to watch it therefore it wasn’t something deliberated, just causality.

Original title: Mona Lisa smile.

Duration: 117min.

Director: Mike Newell.

Screenwriter: Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal.

Country: EE.UU.

Genre: comedy drama.

Year: 2003.

Cast: Julia Roberts, Kristen Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dominic West, Juliet Stevenson, Marcia Gay Harden and Topher Grace.

Summary: A modern woman of the 1950’s called Katherine Watson (Roberts) is hired as an art history teacher at the prestigious Wellesley College. She though that she was going to make changes and be useful for those young bright women who, for what it seems, go to the college to pass the time while they’re waiting to get engaged , but one of her conservative students, Betty Warren(Dunst), will make her arise herself if it’s worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8_PFfQAfpI

First impression: it’s obvious why they chose Julia Roberts.

Second impression: how cruel people can be when someone is different and disagrees with them.

Art. What it’s in reality art? It isn’t just paints neither music nor cinema, it’s more like a way of life. Each one has its own manner of express it and just talking about what you think or sharing your opinion you’re making art, the art of live. But what happens when someone tells you what to do, how to do it, where, when but never why. You’re imitating and pretending to be someone else, and at the end you believe that you’re this strange person. From my point of view this is the main topic of the movie. I think that the character of Julia is an art teacher and not a professor who teaches other subject for some reason. It’s like if they want to tell us that the only one who is being really herself is Katherine Watson. They make art be a symbol of individuality and freedom which fits with Roberts’ role. She’s the responsible to make these girls who aren’t convince with that role that they’re going to have in the future, realize that they’re created not only to be a perfect wife who takes care of her children and husband and does all the housework but that they can think for themselves. And this is the type of art that she’s teaching them, it’s true that they talk about famous painters and photographers but once again like symbols. Those who painted and made photos weren’t meant to do that task but it was a result of them doing what they wanted. 

One of the key scenes that shows for what way the topic is directing is the one when Betty tells her mother that she doesn’t care if her fiancé reads a poem on their wedding day or not, and the answer of her mother is that she has to control her soon-to-be husband the earlier the better. And Betty does as her mother wants, she manipulates him so he thinks that the poem idea was him and he reads the poem that the own Betty has written.

About Julia Roberts and Kristen Dunst.

Two women who are apparently so different and detest each other but that have some similitudes:

They’ve strong personalities though the one of Dunst’s character is directed and influenced by her mother and the one of Roberts’ character is a result of her developed skills. They can control their lives, if they want to. They aren’t sure about what they were meant for. In one word, they’re insecure.

They’re like a coin which has two faces: conservative and liberalist. And at the end there isn’t a better face as a result of the deficiencies that both of them have. If there is a balance between these two is Joan Brandwyn (Stiles) the one who obtains the better of the two lifes, a husband and studies because she doesn’t let her teacher neither her friend decide by her, she makes her own choices to don’t have regrets later on.

Surprise?

Maggie Gyllenhaal was a fabulous surprise. I had seen some films of her brother (Jake Gyllenhaal) and I supposed that all the talent would have gone to him and that she would just be okay in the role but she surprised me greatly.

The worst.

At some points the rhythm is slower and that hinders the narration’s fluency. Some characters aren’t very well defined.

The best.

I’d like to say that the best thing that the movie offers is Julia Roberts’ performance but I can’t lie. She did it great and wonderful, of course, but Kristen Dunst was much better than her, I’m sure that she made a perfect performance. Maybe it has to do about her role whose fond I like more than Julia’s, I don’t know. But I’m happy to say that after watching this movie I won’t see her just like “Mary Jane” or the supporting actress because being in second plan she knows how to impress and to stand out.

Mark: 8

Remember that this is my opinion, so it isn’t necessary that it concurs with yours.

That’s all!