At the cinema : The Mummy

Hello, everyone!

Here is my new review:

While I was watching this film, I asked myself: what are the good premises to create a new cinematic universe? Originality, continuity and a good love story. The Mummy, directed by Alex Kurtzman, fails all these fundamental premises to set up the Universal Dark Universe. 

At the beginning of the film, an ancient princess is awakened from her crypt beneath the desert, bringing with her malevolence grown over millennia, and terrors that defy human comprehension.

The main problem of this film is that the screenwriter and the director haven't added nothing new to the old films about the Mummy that we all know. Probably, they thought that having a female mummy was enough. It wasn't.

Tom Cruise. He's not the right choice for this role. If this is a Dark Universe, then the genre of all the films should be the horror. This is an action movie. No suspense, no shivers. It's more Mission Impossible meets Indiana Jones. There is not continuity to the roots of the classic monster films. Such a waste.

I don't know how to call the relationship between these two, but this is not a love story. The two actors have no chemistry at all and their lines are terrible. The romantic turn of the ending is one of the worst things you will see at the cinema this summer.

Was it necessary? The introduction of Dr. Jekyll does not make any sense in the storyline. This is the first film of a whole universe. We don't want to know everything because we still don't care about the characters.

Overall, for me, this film was a complete waste.

What do you think?

Let's talk about: Music Films

Hello, everyone!

Here I am with a brand new column! It's summer and I think we all deserve to be entertained by nice music films while we sip an iced green tea!

Here my suggestions:

The film follows the adventures of Chili Palmer, a disenchanted film producer who tries the music industry. He meets and romances a widow of a music executive on the way and he also deals with LA gangsters. 

Be Cool (2005), directed by F. Gary Gray, is a collective film. The audience can enjoy this film also just trying to identify the actors behind each character. Believe me, this is not a great film, but it's entertaining. I think that in some way it offers a reflection about the music industry that it is not so granted. 

The positive side? Uma Thurman and John Travolta together after Pulp Fiction. The negative side? The happy ending. 

This film follows the story of a schoolteacher's struggle to teach violin to inner-city Harlem kids. 

I know, we have heard this story a thousand of times. Still, it's a story with good feelings, good music and an amazing Meryl Streep. I think that this story is in some way the "first" of its genre, it was directed by Wes Craven in 1999.  So why don't go back in time to re-discover an underestimated cult? 

The positive side? A fantastic Michael Angarano when he was young. The negative side? The fast ending. 

Have you seen any of these films? What do you think?

Review- Alice through the looking glass

Hello, everyone!

Here is my new review! Check it out!

I had the opportunity to re-watch Alice through the looking glass last week. I remember that when last year it came out people used the words "flop" and "terrible" to describe it. Although I'm aware that this sequel it only has commercial purposes, I enjoyed it.

Here is the plot: Alice returns to the whimsical world of Wonderland and travels back in time to help the Mad Hatter.

What I liked most of the whole film is the idea of the story. Of course, the screenplay is not perfect. There are vague dialogues and too many explanations, but for the first time, there is an attempt of developing an original story for a famous fairy-tale. Alice is an excellent female character, a good model for rebel children.

Then, I appreciated the development of the relationship between the Mad-Hatter and Alice. Everything that Alice does for the mad-hatter makes sense. The audience really cares about these two characters.

I also found interesting the idea of using the Time as the enemy in this Alice's adventure: Alice is becoming a woman in real life and her attempts to trick the Time in Wonderland just makes her realise of who she is and of who is becoming. This is not only a film for children because it proposes a beautiful reflection about life in the adult world.

From an aesthetic point of view, the film is not original like the first episode. No Burton, no mad settings. Still, I think that the new director found a good balance between classical Disney colours and a Burtonian atmosphere.

What do you think?

Review- Breaking Dance

Hello everyone! Here is my review! Check it out!

Honestly, I have not much to say. Breaking Dance is just an ugly film. It could have been called Step Up infinity and nothing would have changed. It is not even that kid of ugly films like Dirty Dancing when at least after you see it you can reflect on something. This film has no qualities at all. 

The plot is very easy: She wants to be a star. He is her best friend. She meets a manger. She looses her friendshisps and dances to get them back. They kiss. 

Why did I watch it? Masochism. Seriously, not even the choreographies were good!!  

Please, avoid this film like if it was a plague!

Dirty Dancing (2017)- Review

Hello, everyone! Here is my review!

I shouldn't have seen this film. Still, I did it. I was curious, especially after I read so many negative opinions about it. I was sure it was not a great film. But I did not though it could be so bad.

I do not like the idea of remakes. I think that a remake can work only if the original film is a complete failure. Why should we watch a remake of a five-stars film? Recently, I have read an essay by Leitch: "Twice-Told Tales", about the rhetorics and types of remakes. According to the writer, there are four main types of categories: homage, update, re-adaptation and true-remake. I reflected on his generalisation and I believe that the most successful remakes are homages and true remakes. I loved LA LA LAND even if it is based on the tradition of American and French musicals. On the other hand, I could not love Dirty Dancing because the production intentions are not clear. It is not an homage. It is not an update. It is not a re-adaptation. It is not a true remake. 

The film is not an homage to the cult film of the late '80s because it imitates its scenes. It's all a big imitation. There is nothing new. Nothing that was inspired by the original film. I did not appreciate the choice of using the same lines all the time! Of course, the film wanted to blink an eye to the fan, but it was an exaggeration. I was really annoyed by this choice, also because the acting is not credible at all. 

Abigail Breslin and Colt Prattes have not chemistry at all. He seems his father and the love scenes between them (and also the dancing scenes) are disturbing. The only character that I enjoyed is Baby's sister played by Sara Hyland. The film develops her storyline but there is not update. The film is longer but it does not explore themes that are relevant in today's society: abort, gender gap, sexuality etc... 

Moreover, I do not appreciate the choice of making this cult film a musical. The songs are not memorable and the singing of "Time of my life" is almost embarassing. The singing gives rythm to the film but they do not involve the audience in the story. 

Finally, I found the ending scene useless and granted. It seems that the films wants to give the audience a non-credible message with an actress like Abigail Breslin that is 21 years old but appears to be a fifteen girl pretending to be a woman in her thirties. Such a waste of time.