Marcelo_Dos_Santos
Joined Nov 2010
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews11
Marcelo_Dos_Santos's rating
I don't have anything against directors shooting the same movie again and again, from different angles and points of view. Some of my favorite directors (Hitchcock, Carpenter, Kubrick) spent their entire careers doing just that.
And, fortunately, the same thing happens with Eastwood work. "Changeling" is, in a sense, "Mystic River". In another sense, is "J. Edgar". In yet another sense (the darkness, sadness, desperation and violence underlying the Charleston dancing, coke-sniffing, miniskirts blowing in the 20's US society) is a profound reflection about "In cool blood" and the manner in which the authority figures cooperate with the bad guys.
But this particular movie is not about love, killers or bad cops; it studies the way the general corruption of the official servants (call it politicians, doctors in public health services, policemen, church priests, journalists, lawyers, foreign services et cetera) simply collaborate with the pervert, abusive, molester crooks of this world. Eastwood tells us all the time: "With friends like those, the victims need no foes". Under this light, the movie becomes an essay about the lack of individual rights and guaranteed freedom that all the Western societies are supposed to grant to their citizens.
With all the accustomed minimalist mise-en-scène and a wonderful, extremely detailed makeup and costumes, Eastwood's steady hand guides the action through touching, full of emotion, many times unexpected paths.
The story progresses nos-stop; the dramatic crescendo is unstoppable and ever increasing, the camera work is astonishing and, supported by a very apt cast, it lead onto an incredible final climax (with the usual Eastwood's low-key end after the grand finale).
The movie depicts, also, a little acting miracle: Angelina Jolie's powerful character, treated here as if she were a blind, furious, devastating force of nature. She will relentless follow her objectives no matter what her enemies do, leaving them no place to hide. She's a storm, a tsunami, an vengeanceful earthquake that cries, yells and punches the evil organizations in the very heart. Will she fulfill her desires or not? Doesn't matter. The real matter is the fight, not the success.
For short: a film about our daily struggle with the stubborn, corrupt and selfish States.
Worth seeing: Positively.
And, fortunately, the same thing happens with Eastwood work. "Changeling" is, in a sense, "Mystic River". In another sense, is "J. Edgar". In yet another sense (the darkness, sadness, desperation and violence underlying the Charleston dancing, coke-sniffing, miniskirts blowing in the 20's US society) is a profound reflection about "In cool blood" and the manner in which the authority figures cooperate with the bad guys.
But this particular movie is not about love, killers or bad cops; it studies the way the general corruption of the official servants (call it politicians, doctors in public health services, policemen, church priests, journalists, lawyers, foreign services et cetera) simply collaborate with the pervert, abusive, molester crooks of this world. Eastwood tells us all the time: "With friends like those, the victims need no foes". Under this light, the movie becomes an essay about the lack of individual rights and guaranteed freedom that all the Western societies are supposed to grant to their citizens.
With all the accustomed minimalist mise-en-scène and a wonderful, extremely detailed makeup and costumes, Eastwood's steady hand guides the action through touching, full of emotion, many times unexpected paths.
The story progresses nos-stop; the dramatic crescendo is unstoppable and ever increasing, the camera work is astonishing and, supported by a very apt cast, it lead onto an incredible final climax (with the usual Eastwood's low-key end after the grand finale).
The movie depicts, also, a little acting miracle: Angelina Jolie's powerful character, treated here as if she were a blind, furious, devastating force of nature. She will relentless follow her objectives no matter what her enemies do, leaving them no place to hide. She's a storm, a tsunami, an vengeanceful earthquake that cries, yells and punches the evil organizations in the very heart. Will she fulfill her desires or not? Doesn't matter. The real matter is the fight, not the success.
For short: a film about our daily struggle with the stubborn, corrupt and selfish States.
Worth seeing: Positively.
Why this strange summary? You'll find out later.
Last episode of Season 2, grand finale. Zombie apocalypse for the farm (its owner, that huge actor named Scott Wilson owns also the better and most solid acting work of the whole series, along Jeffrey DeMunn) and turning point for the characters' fate and the plot itself.
Very well directed, better written than other episodes of this season, and with a pretty trustworthy cast (along the two miracles noted above), this one represents a good finale. And, with an enigmatic new character presented in the end, we'll wait until October or so to know what's next.
Sadly, Frank Darabont never directed another episode but the Season 1 pilot. Pity, we want more of him, one of the finest movie directors alive in the whole world.
And... What happened to you, AMC? With this episode only running in the USA, you spoiled the entire script in your official blog! Are you crazy, people? America is only one of the 198 countries in this world, and in the most of them the finale was not aired when you published the spoilers! Dear readers: if you don't like to have the finale totally ruined, DON'T VISIT the official AMC blog until you see it.
Worth seeing: Yes, very much. But the blog administrators deserve something worst than walking un-death.
Last episode of Season 2, grand finale. Zombie apocalypse for the farm (its owner, that huge actor named Scott Wilson owns also the better and most solid acting work of the whole series, along Jeffrey DeMunn) and turning point for the characters' fate and the plot itself.
Very well directed, better written than other episodes of this season, and with a pretty trustworthy cast (along the two miracles noted above), this one represents a good finale. And, with an enigmatic new character presented in the end, we'll wait until October or so to know what's next.
Sadly, Frank Darabont never directed another episode but the Season 1 pilot. Pity, we want more of him, one of the finest movie directors alive in the whole world.
And... What happened to you, AMC? With this episode only running in the USA, you spoiled the entire script in your official blog! Are you crazy, people? America is only one of the 198 countries in this world, and in the most of them the finale was not aired when you published the spoilers! Dear readers: if you don't like to have the finale totally ruined, DON'T VISIT the official AMC blog until you see it.
Worth seeing: Yes, very much. But the blog administrators deserve something worst than walking un-death.
Yet we know that most aspects of our universe are ruled by Fibonacci's series. Mathematics, astronomy, even many biological phenomena obeys this numerical successions.
And the arts. This very pilot, for instance. Constructed as a typical —and a very simple one,— Fibonacci's series, "Touch" tells the story of a man (Sutherland) whose son, autistic, apparently can somehow "see" the Fibonacci's series underneath every single event in our world —or, at least, in the script's world—. Obviously, if you think about it, if you can see the Fibonacci's numbers, since they are fixed and immutable, you always can predict the next number waiting to be generated. And that's it, I just said everything.
From here on (and this is the very beginning of the pilot), the events will develop in very different places and in very different ways, always involving some manner of relationship with Fibonacci's numbers.
An interesting, beautifully written and directed first episode, "Touch" revolves around a basic premise of science: the more we know about the universe, the more unanswered questions raise in our knowledge.
Last but not least, we get some excellent acting from Sutherland, the little David Mazouz and, of course, the big, big Danny Glover.
Worth seeing: If you judge for the only episode I saw (the pilot) yes, without doubts.
And the arts. This very pilot, for instance. Constructed as a typical —and a very simple one,— Fibonacci's series, "Touch" tells the story of a man (Sutherland) whose son, autistic, apparently can somehow "see" the Fibonacci's series underneath every single event in our world —or, at least, in the script's world—. Obviously, if you think about it, if you can see the Fibonacci's numbers, since they are fixed and immutable, you always can predict the next number waiting to be generated. And that's it, I just said everything.
From here on (and this is the very beginning of the pilot), the events will develop in very different places and in very different ways, always involving some manner of relationship with Fibonacci's numbers.
An interesting, beautifully written and directed first episode, "Touch" revolves around a basic premise of science: the more we know about the universe, the more unanswered questions raise in our knowledge.
Last but not least, we get some excellent acting from Sutherland, the little David Mazouz and, of course, the big, big Danny Glover.
Worth seeing: If you judge for the only episode I saw (the pilot) yes, without doubts.