What Happened To One Piece

Giulia Winning does not come out at night

Beautiful and moving the new film by Giuseppe Piccioni. The rivedrei now, tomorrow and the day after, and would always have something new to say. The theme is simple and intractable at the same time: the way in which people are in the world. It 'a non-judgmental gaze of the Pigeons, indeed, is full of something almost impossible to find nowadays, or the love for these people. Whoever they are, each has its own history, nobody should be thrown away or be condemned. Seem obviousness, written by me, but go to the cinema to see this beautiful film and you will find that there is nothing obvious in it: Julia does not go out at night has the magical gift of life as it is to join with the its dead spots, small deviations that change an entire life, the disappointments continue the search for something that may not even exist. Yet it is a perfect story, from which we can not remove even a moment.

What a story, and characters: everything is so unusual, airy, open ... How long have not seen a movie like this, small but very deep, so far from "having something to talk about" our, so-called cinema committed from morality, from the ugliness any other business of this country ... You do not choke, you breathe for once instead, in a large Italian film that could be anywhere, light years away from the province of mind of many other authors of our cinemas, good since we want.

Julia does not go out at night is the story of two prisoners who are part of the way along, without illusions. Yet one of his novels, lives, another of his passions: for this reason perhaps both are far away from the fullness of life. Each following their own inclinations, both believe (or pretend) to find the fullness in each other ... Who knows if it will not be in vain. Piccioni reminds us beautifully as I can not give life without pretense and without acting, but not without passion: these conditions can also lose everything, but otherwise can not be said to have - even for a short time - lived.

In terms of "technical" the film is all to admire, starting with recitations. I've never seen, for example, a Valerio Mastandrea (who is a true actor and full) so good, restrained and sad: I would say that this is now his best interpretation. Valeria Golino, who do not usually excites me, here's an intensity never seen before, and at the same time the control of their means of expression, also good evidence of Sonia Bergamasco, always a bit 'over the top here but very believable. If we want to mention the beautiful soundtrack Baustelle, or photography by Luca Bigazzi, impeccable as usual ... Needless to continue, you should see the movie, if you still want a bit 'of good.

Chicken Provencal Wiki

The Millionaire

Well done, Danny. Slumdog Millionaire is a film totally guessed it, without being just a good "product." Whether it's a technically perfect film and is intended to make lots of money have recognized the 8 Oscar awarded film, director, adapted screenplay, editing, cinematography (Anthony Dod Mantle), sound, soundtrack, original song. All these awards are well deserved, no doubt, but they are also, as always happens for the Academy Awards, more fuel for the economic success of the film. If then, recently, the Academy awards also really beautiful film, such as this the unreachable No Country For Old Men last year, this can mean many things, including perhaps the fact that viewers' tastes and expectations with respect to American movies have made a quantum leap, but it is a discourse that does not interest me much.

Returning to the film, the mark of authorial Boyle is clearly recognized: in violence, cynicism in exasperation, in constant desire to hit the audience in disgust or by highlighting the darker sides of human nature. At this point the film confirms the Scottish author's nihilistic vision, although one could argue that Boyle has lost a little 'bite than among friends Shallow Grave, Trainspotting or The Beach, actually Slumdog Millionaire continue and complete the work begun with the previous films. In the works cited is present in greater or lesser extent the issue of appearance, and the mass deception that the company puts into action against the individual: the pop culture of globalized communication, are RESPONSIBLE mirages that the protagonists Boyle's film of the chase at all costs, ready to commit the worst atrocities in order to meet the needs induced by the collective contemporary (in the case of drugs, easy wealth, fame, success, escape). In the latter film, deception is the final and definitive love, ' happy ending at all costs. No coincidence that the film ends with a surreal scene from the musical, on the rails of a railway station, and with the caption "It is written" that simulates the correct answer to a question in the original style, in fact, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" . For this film, Boyle chose the specific characteristics of the imaginary today, elements hopelessly pop, and mixed them to perfection: quizzes on TV, the gain easy, rampant individualism, the frantic search of love, the Third World becomes the first ... And went to shoot the film in Bollywood (duet with Loveleen Tandan), which represents the strength of the new world emerging, but also a focal point of creation of the imagination in the world. And who knows how many quotes from Bollywood movies are in Slumdog Millionaire ... In short, despite the appearance of nature that characterized most of his life, the film is fiction about fiction, not reality. It 's a movie that says everything about our time, because the fiction in our time and apparently have already swallowed the reality, and this is perhaps the most hard punch in the stomach we have ever received from Danny Boyle.

Ring Bearer Suits Cornflower

Appaloosa

Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen performing together in a film directed by Harris. That is, two of my favorite actors - one of whom is also a good director - in a western. There was hope very well, at least in terms of fun, and instead Appaloosa left me cold. I'm not disappointed, but I have not even had a great time to see it. Come to think, though, I do not think this is an accident. In other words, if a film can make plans, I believe that the Appaloosa is not fun .

Ed Harris, again, is a good director, I also suspect that absolutely did not care anything about money or success. This is his second film as a writer (he also wrote the screenplay with Robert Knott, adapting a novel by Robert Parker) after the beautiful Pollock dating back to 2000. But Harris is first and foremost an actor, and when they want to make the author does (well), or no, this could already be suspected that the film does not aspire to be a blockbuster.

Appaloosa is actually a work cold and anti-spectacular. The settings and costumes are western styles, but the basic canons of the genre not stop there. Look at the shootings and duels: there is a minimum of tension in them, no suspense. Just someone kills someone else, and even of surprise. There are these two characters that live in symbiosis Beckett "professional" for years, but talking only the bare minimum, but that ultimately will separate suddenly without batting an eyelid. The recitation of Harris, Mortensen, Renée Zellweger and Jeremy Irons is forcibly expressionless, without pathos. The landscapes, usually a strong point of the western genre, there are great, but bleak and desolate ... I could go on and on with evidence and detail, but there is enough to suspect that Appaloosa is actually a portrait of desolation in reports of human feelings, in other words, are nothing more than a weight problem. Better not have any, to be lone rangers, rather than go and get mixed up in friendship or love, which are worse than quicksand, when one believes, will remain under humiliated and dejected, disappointed, cheated, in substance will always lose something. And so the form of cold and seemingly bleak film is actually the perfect mirror of his substance. Of course, then, is a film that leaves cold: what matters is that it actually Appaloosa is a good movie, and Ed Harris is always a big one.

After Rorator Cuff Surgery

Frost / Nixon

Beautiful and exciting the last Ron Howard's work, half artisan half "big name" Hollywood industry. I do not know at the bottom of his filmography, but what I've seen has always struck me and left something to think about: Apollo 13, Ransom , the unforgettable A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man . Great performances, technically impeccable, joyfully mainstream. Yet in these films can be found from time to time a great psychological study, an unusual narrative choice, loving philology in the reconstruction period, above all, a questioning of the dominant ideology of the American dream is basically about: Howard from the exact center of the production system, persists in trying to be the author, and especially to show the false notes - often tragic - that characterize the society and history of your country (including the director loves to bring cinema events that actually happened, "true stories ").

latter Frost / Nixon , very nice, goes to the full path traced by the author with the films mentioned: it is a work technically impeccable, exciting and rhythmic, the subject is given by the famous interview with British journalist David Frost with Richard Nixon in 1977, Peter Morgan took out three years ago a play, starring Frank Langella and Michael Sheen, and the same Morgan, Langella and Sheen are found respectively in the film as a writer and actors. The script of course works perfectly, and the two actors are very good, especially Langella in the role of "Tricky Dick."

But Howard, as I said, not satisfied with the great show. His film is not at all comforting fact: there is a deep bitterness in the film, and a kind of tired distrust everyone and everything is perceived from the first scene. The clash between the former American president and the British journalist, now, is the exact opposite of a battle between good and evil, for no one will be saved from the moral point of view. Nixon, well aware of his misdeeds, just look for the latest interview opportunity to save face, while Frost, far from being a champion of justice or ethics, is acting only for personal success. On the other hand, you say, why should it be otherwise? These people are asked to be good professionals, to do their job well: it will be just the professionalism and the utmost faith in their work that Frost will lead to the triumph and the defeat of Nixon. Yet in the film there is really no winner: even the upright James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell), a sworn enemy of the former president will be forced to tighten up, disgusted, the hand of the latter, remains a word just given and reneging on its requirements more rooted. At the end of Nixon, for which the film shows at the bottom that they have no pity, will be defeated by his fellow, a person like him indifferent to morality and ethics: get out and destroyed not only the image of a former president but that of power in general, and perhaps even the entire America.