Esperanza lost her daughter! She took her to the hospital and left her there overnight for the removal of her tonsils. Routine procedure. And yet, when she returns the following day, the pre-teen is already in a coffin, wrapped up and under a hazard seal labeling her contagious. All Esperanza can do is sign the papers for the creamation and accept that her daughter is dead. She is trying to deal with this, already suffering by being a single mom, living with a woman who also lost her husband in the same accident in which Esperanza’s own died, and working at a hardware store where it seems her work goes under appreciated.

Her refuge is religion, always having been a woman of faith, to the point where her best friend is an elderly priest to whom she seems to confess to daily, it is perhaps little surprising when after all of this takes place, Esperanza turns on the oven and in it finds an apparition of St. Jude, telling her to go look for her daughter. And this is where it all starts. As the visions increase and Esperanza’s innocence is fed hope; she goes in a journey across the country and abroad, working jobs from hotel maid to prostitution, all in an effort to find her missing daughter whom she is sure has been stolen and placed in a house of bad repute.

It is a stark concept with a rather good chunk of charm, considering the subject and I am almost willing to compare it a Millions for the adult audience, even if this particular film is not as sharpened, focused or well delivered as that of Danny Boyle’s regarding a child who also talks to saints. Nevertheless, there is enough in this film to keep one intrigued and entertained, even if at times the actors over act and the plot seems a little forced.

Studded with colorful characters, all seemingly with their own quirks and unexpected turns of events that are both alarming and funny, this movie is one to watch but perhaps not run out and get with any sense of urgency. It is worth the time to watch it and it holds enough water to make it a thoughtful film with an interesting concept, but it also seems to waver in the direction, because the actors are clearly capable of good performances and yet they seem to meander in and out of good acting throughout. Certain characters appear to be more caricatures than fully fleshed out personalities, which is in many cases a shame because this story does have a good amount of humor, and as previously mentioned, charm.

Santitos then, is an interesting story about a woman’s journey and effort to deal with tragedy and find in the dark a self that is able to blossom, even if painted under her superstitious nature. Just do not expect any fantastic performances or directing, with expectations set to medium, this film can not disappoint.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Comments: For a movie that deals so heavily with underage human trafficking and prostitution, this film has a surprisingly low amount of nudity. There is brief nudity, there is some violence and obviously there is some heavy adult themes, but there is nothing scandalous here that will ruin the naive charm of the movie. Spanish with English subtitles.
Recommendation: For a family film with a similar subject matter check out Danny Boyle’s “Millions.”

Genre: Drama/Biography/Crime/Action

Year: 2008

Michael Peterson (Tom Hardy; Layer Cake, RocknRolla) just wants to be famous. He knew he was destined for something big but he was born into mundane circumstances, to a nondescript family and really…he has a temper. What starts as bad behavior in school, petty thievery and yard fights, develops into the holding of a Post Office, where he acquires a small sum of money and seven years in prison after getting caught. And then the flood gates opened, because there, in that world of misfits and criminals, Michael Peterson, who later went on to adopt the alter ego — fighting name, as they called it — of Charlie Bronson, finds his place where he is feared, notorious and eventually goes on to become one of the most interesting and infamous people in the British penal system. The short sentence evolves, due to his unruly behavior; it develops into fight after fight and an eventual landing at an asylum for the criminally insane. With a brief stint in the real world after release — when the staff at the asylum figure out that he is simply too much of a liability in the institution, which apparently merits his release as certifiably sane — Peterson goes on to become a bare knuckles fighter in the underbelly of his hometown and inevitably lands back in prison where he remains.

Bronson, the film, is told from Michael Peterson’s own perspective, with a heavy dose of his unique personality splattered all over the screen, running in tandem with clever editing and a tongue in cheek use of epic music, this film is from the very opening scene a spectacle to behold, the one carnival creep show that makes your skin crawl and you are entirely unable to look away from. The fact that Refn (the director) gets us to care about this brutal man is more than a simple achievement, considering the raw, violent undertone that seeps through every scene in this film, with rising tensions that do not allow the audience to ever feel at peace while Bronson is present.

Indeed, the story is unforgiving and all the more disturbing considering the fact that it is based on a true story of a prisoner that has served more than 35 years in prison for a small robbery and around 20 of those years have been spend in solitary confinement. If anything, this film shows the downward spiral of this man who becomes the very violence he is drawn to, until it seems every quiet moment he presents is merely the silence before the next storm. One might think a film of this nature would be difficult to watch and with its numerous scenes where fists connect to faces and blood is drawn, one can hardly blame such a judgment; yet, it is Peterson’s own charisma, brilliantly channeled by Tom Hardy who becomes a star and carries this film expertly from beginning to end, not only in the story being told but even in the side scenes in which he is shown narrating, either lost in the dark of an undisclosed abyss or on a stage before a very lively crowd that hinges on his every word while he dons ironically elegant suits and mime face paint.

This movie is a must own, if you are able to bear the violence of its nature, but if nothing else a must watch, if only to witness Hardy’s stellar performance, Refn’s carefully orchestrated directing, Matthew Newman’s artistically timed editing or Larry Smith’s gifted cinematography. There is so much right with this picture that it is easy to overlook the few things that are wrong, namely some fighting choreography that falls a bit short of realistic, particularly when shown in slow motion and a not very well attached love subplot that feels rather empty in comparison to the rest of the film. While it might not be perfect, it is probably the most enjoyable nihilistic movie I have seen since Fight Club while at the same time making you wonder what is broken here, the man? The system? Or both?

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Comments: Extremely violent at times, disturbing imagery, nudity, language and adult situations.

Quote: Paul: All you need is a name.

Charles Bronson: What’s wrong with Mickey Peterson.

Paul: You need a fighting name, like a movie star.

Charles Bronson: Charlton Heston.

Paul: Look, love. No one gives a toss about Charlton Heston. The man’s a cunt. You’re more of the Charles Bronson type.

Quentin Tarantino what Quentin Tarantino does best, but somehow this film got blown up with hype and tossed into nominations for Best Film which I am not sure are deserved. While I did enjoy this film as I tend to enjoy most Tarantino films; while it is entertaining and fun to watch; while it has some pretty good cinematography and directing…it also seems to me that it was one of the most overrated films of the year.

The film is loosely based on the Italian film Inglorious Bastards (Quel maledetto treno blindato) by Enzo Castellari, a film about a troop of misfits and last-chance soldiers recruited on what is essentially a suicide mission (click here for my review of that film) in World War II as they get dropped behind enemy lines to create some serious, bad-ass chaos. Tarantino’s film is at heart essentially the same, but changes a number of details. This time around, instead of misfits making the crew, it is a number of Jewish soldiers and their mission has been simplified to kill as many Nazis as they can (100 scalps per soldier).

Two stories have been weaved together, that of the Inglorious Basterds in their mission and that of Shosanna Dreyfus, a young jewish girl whose family is brutally murdered by Nazi’s in the opening scene of the film. Managing to escape with her life, she goes on to settle down in a cinema which she eventually ends up running and which turns out to be the venue for one of Nazi propaganda’s films, giving her–and the Inglorious Basterds–the unique opportunity to not only take out high ranking Nazi’s, but Hitler himself.

Unfortunately, the division between the two stories is altogether too easily felt. Shosanna’s story is dramatic, powerful, interesting and extremely well handled, amounting for about ninety percent of the best acting in this film–Christoph Waltz as Colonel Landa is nothing short of fabulous and absolutely earned his Oscar–which holds the key to most of the plot here. The story of the Inglorious Basterds, who ironically lend their name to the title of this film, is by far the weakest and one might argue pointless. The acting falls through, severely poor on the part of some (Eli Roth) or overdone on the part of others (Brad Pitt). Their mission itself seems superfluous and redundant, given that everything they are working for is already being handled by Shosanna and her boyfriend Marcel at the cinema. Unless Shosanna failed terribly–which she didn’t–the story of the Inglorious Bastards is moot and one ends up watching a film where either the Inglorious Bastards succeed, or Shosanna succeeds, or both, which really cuts down on the thrill that should be carried by a movie of this caliber.

Most of the comedic moments are carried through in the Inglorious Basterds story, which only adds to the polarization of this film. Frankly stated, this film never decides if it wants to be taken seriously or simply be an act of delightful buffoonery, a display of brawn and a parade of gore. Fortunately, this film does indeed carry some memorable scenes that salvage it from being a complete waste of time. The opening scene regarding Shosanna is amazing; the bar scene regarding the more obscure members of the Inglorious Basterds, a spy and a Nazi officer, will have you on the edge of your seat; and the scene at the restaurant between Pvt. Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl; The Bourne Ultimatum, Joyeux Noël), Shosanna and Col. Landa is yet another and the dialogue is carried with the capabilities that Tarantino has deployed in many of his previous films. Unfortunately, it is not enough to cover the schizophrenic feel of this film, keeping it at a enjoyable level but in my opinion never lifting it above that.

The acting must be commended in the part of Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Laurent, who do a fantastic job with their roles and it is a shame that Waltz character is so mishandled in the end, contradicting everything he had been set up to be. Brad Pitt is a few notches over the top, but does a good enough job to provide a number of laughs, even if his character is about as important to the movie as the Inglorious Basterds as a group seem to be to the plot. The participants of the bar scene, and the farmer in the opening scene do quite a good job in their scenes as well, but their characters are so relegated to the sidelines that unfortunately their talent is not properly displayed.

This is not a bad film, but do not make the mistake of buying into the hype before watching this film or you will most likely be sorely disappointed. Watch it, enjoy it, have fun and leaving it at that, you should be fine. Bring with you the nonsense about best film of the year and you will end up with the sour taste in your mouth I now carry.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Comments: Violent and over-the-top gory at times, this film is not family friendly. Language is all over the place too, as can be expected from a Tarantino film.
Quote: Shosanna Dreyfus: My name is Shosanna Dreyfus and THIS is the face… of Jewish vengeance!

This feel did sort of creep up on us like its subject matter, didn’t it? When I initially heard of it it was set to be playing in something like thirteen places and only for a limited time. Next thing I know it is everywhere, playing all day long and raking in obscene amounts of profit, considering it was shot with a budget of about 20K. This film is, for all intents and purposes, The Blair Witch Project revisited and the similarities are not limited to box office behavior.

Depending on your point of view, this may or may not be a good thing. I personally was not a fan of The Blair Witch Project. It failed to frighten me, lure me and the hype it got ruined what little it had left simply because it did not live up to expectations. I think the best thing that particular film had going for it was the widespread, albeit flawed, belief that it was a true story. That seemed to inject a heavy dose of creep factor into a lot of the audience and understandably so. Paranormal Activity does not have that going for it. I do not know of a single person that believes this is true found footage (even if there is more than plenty willing to argue that shizz like this happens). Nevertheless, it ought to show some sort of its inner self to still be doing this well and that is where I think this movie outshines its similar, but in my opinion, less than stellar predecessor.

The formula used here is not surprisingly very similar to Blair Witch, where two charming young adults begin to experience paranormal activity in their home which seems to get progressively worse as they make an attempt to look into it and stop it. It is apparently something that started when Katie was eight and has followed her throughout. It is not explained how it happens or why it is boiling over now and I think asking questions of that nature really is asking for too much of a film that is simply not bothered with such. Paranormal Activity is only out for scares and that it does quite well.

If one can get over the simplistic set up, it is actually easy then to appreciate the fact that this movie does not waste 45 minutes setting up something that is scary even if you are not aware of the entire background. In fact, this movie makes full use of that in that sometimes what is left unexplained is just as creepy as the rest and since we the audience are seeing this through the lens of the camera as shot by either Katie or Micah at the home, it does not seem out of the ordinary or disappointing to not get all the answers.

Paranormal Activity builds up nicely with scary imagery that goes back to the psychological aspect of thing and does not make use of blood and gore. If one were to force a label upon it, this really is a good ol’ ghost story and the fact that we see it through grainy and often unsteady shots (thank you for cutting down on the hand-cam, by the way, unlike BWP I did not feel like I needed to hurl afterwards) actually seems to lend some credibility to the idea that this is not a film, not a big time production but a rather intimate glimpse into a tragedy that could have happened to any of your neighbors.

The acting holds up, the scares hold up and the film itself moves at a fast enough clip to be entertaining. But most importantly, this film relies on no visual effects and no expensive post production to get its point across, which also becomes part of the success.

In the end, is this a great film? No, not really, but it is downright entertaining, creepy and far better than a lot slash and hack horrors out there and therefore definitely worth checking out. If it is a thrill you are seeking, Paranormal Activity definitely delivers and does so in a refreshing fashion.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Comments: Creeeeeeeepy moments, do not take a kid to this, you are bound to traumatize them. Other than that no nudity that I recall and there was some language to consider and…pretty disturbing imagery.
Recommendation: If you liked this, you might like Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez’s The Blair Witch Project, but you will most likely feel like you have already seen the better one of those types of films so instead, I will recommend a wonderful Spanish horror gem called [REC] by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza, guaranteed to be one of the best horrors you will ever see!
Quote: Micah: [while waiting on a very tardy psychic] You would he’d be able to predict that the traffic is going to be bad.

Based on the true events of South Korea’s most notorious serial killer/rapist, this movie is an overview of the investigation that went into the still unresolved case. Though clearly dramatized, the film still comes across as a powerful, thrilling police drama as a group of investigators rush to try to find the culprit of a number of heinous crimes in the Gyungii Province.

With a team composed of four men, three detectives and a sergeant, the investigation unfolds taking at times unexpected turns, chasing odd clues and at points desperately searching for answers where there is none. The story is well written and advances at a good pace, slowly uncovering the crimes and giving insight into the ways – some more admirable than others – in which the manner was handled, but always focusing on the frustration of the police in their inability to create results. The title itself is quite fitting of the mood of the movie.

Though not entirely familiar with Joon-ho Bong’s work — I have only seen The Host, but have heard great things about Mother, as well — I am quite impressed with his writing and directing, his gift for characterization and the solid delivery of material so that even during the slow parts of the movie, it does not feel like a waste of time, to the point where he is able to make the lengthy 132 minute running time of this movie feel quite easily bearable.

The acting is solid throughout and each character brings something crucial to the table, but the spotlight shines brightly on Kang-ho Song (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, The Host), who plays the flawed, but likable detective Park Doo-man, who is convinced his ‘shaman’ eyes can deduce the truth from the eyes of others. The rest of the cast is equally strong and their bring to the screen believable characters with their own breed of humor that is necessary to break up the dark of the material itself.

A must watch, must own if you are into this sort of genre.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Comments: There is a bit of violence (though never gratuitously) along with a number of adult themes and disturbing scenes which include the corpses of rape victims. Very brief nudity. Korean with English subtitles and dub, depending on which you prefer. I also have to say: the detective that spends his life drop kicking the world made me laugh waaay to many times with his impulsiveness.
Recommendations: Another good film along this vein is David Fincher’s Zodiac.

Ironically, one of the most alarming documentaries I have watched in quite some time, this Oscar nominated film follows a number of youngsters from conservative Christian families as they are sent to the Kids on Fire Camp – a summer camp (located in Devil’s Lake, N.D – no joke) intended to help them solidify their faith and strengthen their resolve in the convictions that are being drilled into them from a very early age. And, if it does not immediately grip you with its initial dark clouds, it certainly will when the leader of the camp (Becky Fischer) admits in camera that she is trying to make those children militant about their religion, the way the jihadists do for Islam.

Absurd, shocking, frightening, depressing and at times oddly funny, this documentary allows us to see the extremes to which certain Christian conservatives go in order to instill their skewed teachings into their impressionable children, bordering on brain washing in the name of Jesus.

Largely, the documentary focuses on a handful of children in preparation to the camp, and the leader of the camp herself who describes the goals and intentions of said camp, followed by the camp, which gathers youth from the area and pushes them to be proactive with their religion. The extents to which things are taken are dramatic, to say the least, as witnessed in a scene where a young girl expressing the delight she takes in dancing appends her statement hesitantly, admitting that she must be cautious because she sometimes “dances for the flesh.” The girl is ten years old. You can almost hear your heart breaking.

Interestingly enough, the counter argument in this particular film does not come from the liberal end of the spectrum, or the atheists as one might expect but rather from other conservatives who themselves see this preacher and her work as extremist. It is something that can be appreciated and lends credibility, to see the criticism coming in from the same side of the spectrum and avoid unnecessary debate, allowing the audience to focus what is at hand instead.

This movie is an unveiled view at religious fanaticism, proving that we need not look at the Middle East for examples when we have plenty in our own nation – sort of the Matthew 7:5 concept at work here, but this film smartly goes beyond that, looking at the repercussions in politics and society as a whole.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars
Notes: Technically a family film, but some of what you see in this film is still rather disturbing and might impact impressionable minds.
Recommendation: If you like this, you might be interested in Lucy Walker’s The Devil’s Playground (2002), a look at the rite of passage many teenagers go through in the Amish culture.
Quote: Becky Fischer: It’s no wonder, with that kind of intense training and discipling, that those young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, you know, because we have… excuse me, but we have the truth!

Geoffrey Firmin (Albert Finney; Before the Devil Knows You Are Dead, Big Fish), British consul to Mexico, stationed in Cuernavaca, is drunk. Again, this time permanently. With his life unraveling before him, paired with the seeming loss of his wife, he has begun to split at the seams, chasing drink after drink in a futile attempt to drown his sorrows. With his resignation in order and determined to live the rest of his life submerged head first in the ‘magic’ of Mexico that keep him in Cuernavaca, Firmin is determined to make alcohol his sole friend.

Set against the magnificent backdrop of the Popocatepetl, a volcano in central Mexico, in 1938 and on the Day of the Dead, one can see the limitless possibilities for symbolism, which are widely used along with strains of superstition, both Mexican and British, throughout. The turn of events comes when Firmin’s ex-wife Yvonne (Jacqueline Bisset; Death in Love, Domino) unexpectedly returns and shows up at home, much to the surprise of Geoffrey and his brother Hugo, who has recently returned from the Spanish Civil War.

The tension between these three is thick and prominent throughout the entire film and becomes the focus of this dialogue heavy film, at a time when not only are these people’s lives on the edge of a precipice, but the world itself as the undercurrents of World War II silently, but dangerously, begin to pick up.

A true drama, this film falls more on the artistic vein and demands some patience from the viewer, making of itself more of a portrait of the three main characters than anything else. Without giving too much away, expect moments of tension, adult disagreements and a main character that is drunk literally from beginning to end. While the story itself may not be charming, the utilization of Mexican culture to tell the story of three British citizens was most certainly curious, it is a matter of getting past its slow unfolding to its shuddering end in order to appreciate fully. If slow paced films are not for you, steer away from this one.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Comments: Adult situations, alcoholism, some language (both in English and Spanish), moments of violence and prostitution.
Quote: Geoffrey Firmin: How, unless you drink as I do, can you hope to understand the beauty of an old indian woman playing dominoes with a chicken?

I will start with an honest statement: This is my least favorite of Darren Aronofsky’s movies. I will follow that up with a second honest statement: This movie is great!

With the likes of Wong Kar-wai, Danny Boyle, Kim Ki-duk and Guillermo del Toro, Aronofsky is simply one of the best directors of our time and I say that with no reservations; one look at his films, any of his films from his obscure Pi, to Requiem for a Dream, to the abstractly beautiful The Fountain to….this!

The Wrestler is a film about Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke; Domino, Sin City), a once famous wrestler in the twilight of his career when he suffers from a potentially career ending heart attack. It is an eye opening moment that forces the man, who often ends up sleeping in his van due to lack of rent money, to re-examine the direction of his life and make amends with important people in his past and important people in the present that could lead to a future that – as the film unfolds – proves more and more intangible.

Though the movie is set in a sport that I only lightly flirted with during with earlier years as far as fanaticism goes, and deals with people on the edge of society, the message that this film carries is truly universal and applicable to a number of people in a number of professions. It brings to the forefront the numerous challenges a person is bound to find and the importance of knowing how to deal with them.

Mickery Rourke is at his best in this film, bringing a credibility to this character that is disturbingly real, to the point that at times you feel like smacking him on the head for being so stupid, and all the while, you are telling yourself that you know someone like that, and that the choices he is making, the mistakes he is making, are probably choices and mistakes you yourself have made. In his performance for this film, Rourke reaches in and draws something out of all of us and creates a connection that regardless of how distanced you might be from the subject matter, the significance is not lost.

Supported by Marisa Tomei (Before the Devil Knows You are Dead, In the Bedroom), who plays a stripper dealing with her own life and struggles, competing in a field where youth and looks are all important; and Evan Rachel Wood (Across the Universe, King of California) who plays Stephanie, his abandoned daughter caught in the tidal wave of emotion of having her disappeared father suddenly pop into her life – this film has three solid performances that rocket this film above and beyond most films of 2008 and paired with a superb script, well, it explains all the nominations and the hype this film received and rightfully so.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Comment: Strong language. Adult situations. Brief nudity, mostly topless (at strip clubs), along with a semi-graphic sexual scene. And then…of course, the violence, which if you are familiar to the world of wrestling, then you are pretty aware of how graphic that can be.
Quote: Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson: When you live hard and you play hard and burn the candle at both ends… in this life, you can lose everything you love, everything that loves you. A lot of people told me that I’d never wrestle again, they said “he’s washed up”, “he’s finished” , “he’s a loser”, “he’s all through”. You know what? The only ones gonna tell me when I’m through doing my thing, is you people here. You people here… you people here. You’re my family.

A strong drama always gets to me and this is precisely that, the story of David Kepesh (Ben Kingsley; Transsiberian, Lucky Number Slevin) a cultural critic, persona and professor who has spend the most of his life living in independence and free from any social commitment. Even the small relationship he keeps on the side with Carolyn (Patricia Clarkson; Vicky Christina Barcelona, Lars and the Real Girl) has no strings attached and is about as consistent as he is liable to get. It is, therefore, a curve ball when, Consuela (Penelope Cruz; Volver, Vicky Cristina Barcelona), a young cuban woman walks into his class and gains his attention without knowingly provoking it. Once grades have been turned in, David decides to try to bed her, but when the resulting relationship turns out to be more than a one night stand, Kepesh’s life is turned upside down.

Dealing largely with relationships, this film also focuses on life decisions in general and the amount of time we spend on earth in relationship to ourselves and others. Keeping the audience point of view strictly David’s, we are able to witness his relationship not only with the two women in his life, but with his son, with his best friend, his co-workers and others around him. Slowly but interestingly we are able to witness the change in his life, which in terms of the film is not always entirely consistent but in general achieves the right point.

Expect a slower film, relatively introspective but very well acted. Kingsley turns in one of his best performances in years and Penelope Cruz steadily gains credibility, with yet another wonderfully acted role (his last two – Volver and Vicky Cristina Barcelona – are also very much worth watching). The directing is very strong and does not beat the subject matter over the head, leaving enough for the audience to chew on while leaving enough openness that in the end, a certain number will find this a relatively sad film and others relatively hopeful. Certainly a film to discuss afterward, given that it presents a number of interesting aspects that are quite intriguing.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Comment: Nudity and sexuality, adult themes and situations, some language as well.
Quote: David Kepesh: When you make love to a woman you get revenge for all the things that defeated you in life.