The 33 (7/10): A touching tribute to the 33 Chilean Miners

“That's not a rock, that's the heart of the mountain. She finally broke.”

Five years ago the eyes of the entire South American population were placed on a relatively unknown small mining town in Chile. When the San Jose mine collapsed in Copiapo, 33 miners were trapped under more than 2000 feet, and the news travelled fast. It isn’t uncommon to hear about these tragic mining accidents, but what stood out here was that the family members never lost hope and established camp near the site to force authorities to not give up and continue the rescue efforts. After two and a half weeks of uncertainty and against all odds, the rescuers managed to contact the refuge in the mine where all 33 miners reported to be alive and well. That was just the beginning of a long and exhaustive rescue effort that would last more than two months, and that every media channel covered 24 hours a day. The story is recent and we all saw it take place live on our TV sets, so the real question I had for Patricia Riggen’s film was wether or not she could make this captivating enough to hold our interest despite the familiarity of the story. Surprisingly she succeeded. The film is deeply flawed and for commercial purposes it had an international cast that spoke in English with a forced Chilean accent. I hate movies that do this (if you want to tell the story in english then just have the actors speak in plain english; you’re not more convincing because you do it with an accent), but despite that pet peeve of mine, the film managed to draw me in emotionally and I found it to be a beautiful and honest tribute. I can understand those who criticize the movie because it isn’t perfect, but there were several emotional scenes where I literally had goose bumps all over my arms, and that is always an indicator for me that the movie is accomplishing its purpose.   

One of the main characters in this film, the miner who kept the group together under those critical conditions, was Mario Sepulveda (Antonio Banderas). He never lost hope and promised the rest of his friends that he would keep them alive. His wife, Escarlette (Naomi Scott), was one of the supporters who decided to set camp outside the site to force authorities to continue their rescue efforts. The other main supporter was Maria Segovia (Juliette Binoche) who refused to believe that her brother, Dario (Juan Pablo Raba) was dead. Along with other family members and with the help of the media they put pressure on the government to save their lives. The Mining Minister, Laurence Golborne (Rodrigo Santoro), and mining expert, Andre Sougarret (Gabriel Byrne), were given the difficult task to come up with a plan to rescue these miners who were buried deep underground. Meanwhile under the heart of the mountain, Mario was in charge of keeping the group spirit alive and avoiding they end up driving each other crazy due to the lack of food and water. He lifted Alex’s (Mario Casas) spirit when he was falling into despair reminding him that his pregnant wife Jessica (Cote de Pablo) was waiting for him, he also protected the only Bolivian in the crew, Carlos Mamani (Tenoch Huerta), who was pushed aside by everyone else for being a foreigner, and he also encouraged Don Lucho (Lou Diamond Phillips), who felt had failed the team because he knew the security conditions were bad. Rigged delivers both sides of the story: the 33 miners struggling to survive from the inside and the family members and the rescue team fighting to save them from the outside.

I wasn’t really into the film during its first thirty minutes because I was upset the characters were speaking in English with Spanish accents (to make matters worse there is a scene where a famous Chilean TV star named Don Francisco shows up and gives a report in Spanish), but midway into the movie the emotional drama picks up. There is a superb scene in which the miners are imagining eating their last supper together, and it was one of the most touching scenes I’ve seen this year. The visual effects weren’t mesmerizing, but the collapse of the mine is believable. It takes a while to get used to the dark cinematography inside the mines where you can’t tell most of the characters apart from each other. I’d say there are only about five miners who you can recall from the film, the rest are just there and are given no personality whatsoever. Those are some of my minor complaints for this film, but other than that the material was handled respectfully and James Horner’s final musical composition helps build the emotional moments. Another memorable moment was when Cote de Pablo sings a beautiful song, Gracias a la Vida, while the families are awaiting for any news from the rescue team. Antonio Banderas delivers a great performance as Mario and he is one of the reasons why the dramatic moments worked so well. Despite knowing the story, it was still exciting and emotional to experience it in this flawed but touching film. There is also a funny and recurring gag on one of the miners (Oscar Nuñez) who had his wife and lover waiting for him in the camp. The film might not be entirely accurate, but it is still a well made film and a decent tribute.    

My Review: The Expendables 3 (5/10)

"How hard can it be to kill ten men?"

The third time is the charm, right? Wrong! By now we already know what we are going to get from an Expendables movie. We know it is going to have generic action scenes, very little going on plot wise, and a lack of character development. We've even learned not to expect much from the crowded 90's A-list cast because they are mostly all reduced to caricatures. But if you enjoyed the first two films in this franchise then you are guaranteed to enjoy this as well because it pretty much gives you what you expect. There are plenty of old school action scenes, lots of explosions, and several cheesy one-liners. The nostalgia factor is a key element to these movies, but the problem is that we have seen plenty from these actors recently with a few exceptions. The attracting thing about these films was being able to watch these guys together, but that kind of rubbed off us in the first film.  There is no novelty left and only true fans of the genre will be satisfied. The thing that The Expendables has going for it is that it knows who its target audience is and they focus on them exclusively without even attempting to reach a more mainstream audience. They give fans exactly what they want. I even think this was an improvement from the second film, despite the fact that it was overlong and it became tedious at times. The final climactic scene was also a disappointment and it really doesn't get more generic than that. Plot wise I always forget what these films are about, I can honestly not remember what they were fighting for in the first two films and I imagine I will forget everything about this film in a few days. The main attraction is getting to see these guys working together and all I remember from the second film was the cameo from Chuck Norris and that Van Damme was a satisfying villain. This third film has some interesting cameos, but there is nothing much more to it.

Expendables 3 was directed by Patrick Hughes, who directed the little known but warmly received Red Hill in 2010. The story is basically the same as the previous two films in the franchise with some new additions and a new villain. This time the Expendables have to face a former founder of the team, Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), who has turned into a dangerous arm dealer. We are first introduced to Barney (Stallone) and his crew as they are freeing a former partner named Doc (played by Wesley Snipes). Together they embark on a mission to try to stop Stonebanks and along the way Barney signs up a younger crew with the recruiting help of Bonaparte (Kelsey Grammar). Other than Mel Gibson and Wesley Snipes the other new faces in this film are Antonio Banderas who plays a comical Spanish character named Galgo and Harrison Ford who has replaced Bruce Willis' Church as one of the directors who hires Barney's team. So there is a lot of testosterone in this film with scenes of these buffed up guys carrying weapons on one hand and a beer on the other. It is the ultimate definition of macho men from the 90's. It is even comical at times so I found it hard to keep a straight face, especially with all the cheesy dialogue. I did enjoy Snipes performance as I hadn't seen him in over a decade. Antonio Banderas was a bit too comical and Mel Gibson really didn't present a real threat as the villain. The film really suffers from a poor screenplay and it wastes the talented cast perhaps because there are just too many characters and so little time for a decent and engaging story. We never really care for any of these characters and I'm surprised I even remembered some of their names despite having seen them in 3 films already.

My Review: Interview with the Vampire (7/10)

"Who will take care of me my love, my dark angel, when you are gone?"

I just recently got around to watching Interview with the Vampire, twenty years after Neil Jordan directed this successful film, and I have to admit the recent overload of vampire films and novels over the past decade did affect my viewing since most of the innovative elements that Anne Rice introduced here I have seen in later films and TV series (like True Blood). I'm sure many of these films were inspired by some of Rice's original ideas which made this movie stand out above prior vampire films. Unfortunately I'm giving this a lower rating because I am a bit tired of these films and in my opinion the best vampire film continues to be Let the Right One In (which managed to stay low key unlike this epic story). Rice's story is imaginative and Jordan's direction visionary, thus creating a unique and dark vampire drama with some strong performances. The film did drag at times and it is a bit too long but several scenes were intense and skillfully delivered. If you are a fan of vampire films or of Anne Rice's work then you will probably enjoy this much more than I did because it is dark and gothic, but it does have its weaknesses and the ending is a bit off note.

As the title suggests, the story is told in the form of an interview as a journalist named Daniel (Christian Slater) encounters a 200 year old vampire named Louis (Brad Pitt). His story begins in 18th century New Orleans after having lost his wife when he was 24. Deciding he didn't want to live any longer, Louis set out to destroy his life picking fights at local bars. One night while doing this he catches the attention of a vampire named Lestat (Tom Cruise) who gives him the opportunity to become like him. Louis accepts and becomes Lestat's apprentice, however he isn't satisfied with his new life as a vampire and refuses to kill humans. Louis hates who he has become, but his life changes when Lestat turns a little girl named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst) into a vampire and together they form a family. Louis continues to narrate his story through two centuries as they encounter troubles and betrayals along the way.

Tom Cruise is a huge action star and at times it's difficult to separate him from his characters, but surprisingly he lost himself in the role of Lestat and gives a convincing performance as a blood lusting vampire. Brad Pitt despite not losing himself in the role as well as Cruise does still delivers a believable lead performance. The real surprise for me however was the young Kirsten Dunst who gives the best performance of the film. Once her character is introduced the story really picks up and it becomes engaging. In my opinion the interview scenes didn't work too well; I would have preferred if Louis simply narrated his story directly to us considering Slater's character doesn't really do much as an interviewer. Despite some flaws in the story, the film does look good and the effects are also done well. Jordan and Rice were able to create a unique vampire film that stood out from the rest and that is the reason why 20 years later it is still talked about and referred too.

My Review: Puss in Boots (5/10)

¨My thirst for adventure will never be quenched! ¨

Puss in Boots is a character we came to love in the Shrek franchise, and this time director Chris Miller (who wrote the original Shrek screenplay and directed some of the sequels) makes him the star of his own animated film. Antonio Banderas is back again voicing his character, and the similarities with the Zorro can`t be ignored (considering he played this famous hero in two films). Puss in Boots takes place before the adventures with Shrek, and we get to see his background story and his interactions with other famous fairytale characters such as Jack and Jill, Humpty Dumpty, the Mother Goose, Jack and the Beanstalk, and many more. Of course the stories are very different from the ones we`ve heard: Jack and Jill are two thieves who remind us a lot of Bonnie and Clyde; Humpty Dumpty is a smart great inventor, but at the same time is always getting into mischief; Jack sold a stolen cow for the magic beans and therefore is in prison, and so on. DreamWorks has done the same thing with the Shrek franchise so we are used to these funny alterations to classical characters. I really enjoyed the first half of this story and laughed throughout it. Puss in Boots is a great character and he deserved to star in his own movie. I did have a problem with some of the secondary characters, and especially with the last 20 minutes of the film which just got beyond ridiculous. It`s too bad because the film really had a lot of potential and it began with a lot of promise.

Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) is a wanted man, or should I say cat. There is a reward on his head and he`s living as a fugitive traveling from town to town and gaining reputation with the kitties. One night at a bar he hears that Jack and Jill (voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) are headed towards their town and that they have stolen the magical green beans. Puss wants those beans and is ready to steal them, but another kitten gets in his way: Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) so neither of them is able to do so. Puss is furious and when he discovers that Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) is involved he wants nothing to do with them. Dumpty and Kitty both want Puss to join them and help them finding the beans in order to climb the beanstalk and reach the giant`s mansion to steal the goose that lays golden eggs, but Puss wants nothing to do with Dumpty. Something happened in their past and he refuses to help. After Kitty insists that he join them, Puss tells her how he met Dumpty and what happened to their friendship. We see a flashback of how Dumpty and Puss met in an orphanage where they were taken care of by Imelda (Constance Marie) and how their friendship begins. We even see how Puss gets his boots, but eventually he is betrayed by Dumpty, and they each go their separate way. Eventually Kitty convinces Puss to join them by telling him he has a chance to clear his name, and therefore the three embark on the mission.

I really enjoyed the first half of the story, the dialogue was funny and the main characters were interesting. The movie felt kind of fast paced at first and everything was happening real fast. Puss, Dumpty, and Kitty were interesting characters, but the villains aren`t really memorable. My favorite part was perhaps the flashback where we get to see Puss`s background and how he was betrayed by Dumpty. Another great scene was when Kitty and Puss have a dance off in a glitter club full of cats. Those were the highlights of the movie, but then once they get a hold of the magical beans the movie goes downhill. The plot gets really ridiculous and ends pretty badly. I wish they would`ve just kept the same pace of the first half of the movie. Puss in Boots still had its funny moments and I found myself laughing a lot, but I was disappointed with the second half. This wasn`t as good a year for animated films as it was last year, but I guess I would have to say that my favorite one this year is Rio. The best thing about this film is definitely Puss and his endearing eyes.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/