Jupiter Ascending (6/10): The comedy exceeds the sci-fi in the Wachowski's latest film

“Your Majesty, I have more in common with a dog than I have with you.”

With the exception of Speed Racer and The Matrix Revolutions I have always enjoyed the Wachowskis films and their unique vision. I haven’t seen Speed Racer since it was first released, but I have heard a lot of praise for it in recent years so I might need to revisit it soon considering many people have claimed it was way ahead of its time. Jupiter Ascending may be one of their weakest efforts because the plot is messy and convoluted, but the film still looked great and had an underlying sense of humor about it. When I watched the trailer for the first time my high expectations were tamed, but I actually ended up enjoying the movie more than I had anticipated due to the comedy. The Wachowskis have interesting and unique ideas and somewhere in Jupiter Ascending there are some, but the film fails to develop the story. The Wachowskis might have been trying to direct the Star Wars for this generation, but I’m sorry The Guardians of the Galaxy got there first. 

A lot of critics have claimed the film is so ridiculous that it’s unintentionally funny, but I have to disagree. I think they were aiming for a sci-fi comedy that isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. The Wachowskis are having a lot of fun with the characters Sean Bean has been playing in the past and he is great here. There are some great hilarious scenes about the bureaucracy in the Universe. There is another one taking place in a space ship involving an elephant man which reminded me of some of the wacky characters that had small roles in Star Wars. Eddie Redmayne is amping it up as a villain and has taken a lot of criticism for his performance, but he too is part of the fun the Wachowskis are having with the film. Everyone is so focused on the incredible Chicago chase scene at the beginning of the film, but I wasn’t really blown away by it. What stood out for me was the wacky sense of humor (the bureaucracy scene is my favorite). I may be reading to far into this film, but I felt they were also poking fun of Twilight with the love triangle in the middle of the movie involving the gorgeous Mila Kunis, the very pale looking Douglas Booth, and the dog man Channing Tatum. At times they also reference Beauty and the Beast, and the Terry Gilliam cameo proves they were influenced by his work in Brazil. 

I haven’t spent any time detailing the plot because it is hard to set up this expanded universe. The Wachowskis take their time to introduce this world and set things up. They have some interesting ideas, but they aren’t developed too well and the action set pieces take over. This had the potential of being The Fifth Element, but the Wachowskis were aiming a bit higher than that and missed the mark. Channing Tatum and Sean Bean give the best performances in the movie, while Mila Kunis was miscast in my opinion. Eddie Redmayne’s talents are also wasted by the way the Wachowskis wanted him to play the character. Jupiter Ascending looks great and the humor got to me, but the sic fi elements weren’t that great. This is a forgettable film, but I was entertained.

My Review: Third Person (4/10)

"Watch me."

I know that Paul Haggis is a director that not many people like, but I had enjoyed all of his previous films, and especially was a fan of his most recent one, The Next Three Days. So perhaps my expectations were much higher than the average audience member since I am a defender of his work both as a director and a writer. I know that a lot of people were mixed on the Academy Award winning Crash which surprised everyone when it took the award over Brokeback Mountain, and despite agreeing with most critics that it wasn't one of the best films of the year I still enjoyed it and thought it was a strong directorial debut. He followed his debut with In the Valley of Elah, another engaging film with a powerful performance from Tommy Lee Jones (one that was overlooked considering he was also outstanding that year in No Country for Old Men). So before Third Person everything that Haggis was a part of really caught my attention. As a writer he is credited for the screenplay of such successful films as Casino Royale, Million Dollar Baby, and Letters from Iwo Jima. So when I look back at his filmography I kind of don't understand the hate he receives because there are far more worse directors out there. So I am still going to defend Haggis despite the fact that he has made what is in my opinion his first bad film. His first mistake for this project was trying to repeat the success of Crash by telling a multi strand storyline where characters backgrounds seem to overlap each other. The premise is pretty interesting and gripping at first considering the talented cast involved, but the revelation near the end of the film kind of ruins the entire experience as you can't help but feel Haggis was selling out at the end. The film has several silly revelations that don't seem to work, but what truly hurts this film is the fact that you have a lead character who is basically spelling out the revelations for the audience in case they have missed them. There was no need for this and it only makes you feel as if Haggis doesn't have faith in you to understand what he is trying to say through the themes of the film. He should give the audience more credit and let the story reveal itself without using a character to spell out everything for us. Third Person had a strong start but simply failed to connect the characters in a better way and keep the audience engaged with the premise. Third Person is the first film from Haggis that simply didn't work for me.

What Third Person does have going for it is the strong cast involved. It was a breath of fresh air to see Liam Neeson back in a dramatic role after having seen him in so many action films as of recent (although I do enjoy him as an action star as well). He plays an award winning writer who is working on his next novel and in a way he resembles Haggis himself. He has left his wife (played by Kim Basinger) and is having an affair with a much younger woman named Anna (Olivia Wilde). Olivia Wilde gives a solid performance and despite being a flawed character you believe why these two are together. There are several revelations along the way that don't work too well, but the actors give it their best. The other story involves a character played by Adrien Brody who falls for a mysterious woman in a restaurant in Paris. This story was perhaps the weakest in the film although the audience is always second guessing the intentions of these characters. The third story involves a separated couple played by James Franco and Mila Kunis. Kunis is not allowed to see her son and is trying to find a legal way to get visitation rights, while Franco plays a successful painter who doesn't know how to connect with his child. Kunis gives a strong dramatic performance and she stood out for me. Despite the different story lines there is something they share in common which is revealed over time. These characters are all flawed and are hiding some sort of secret, but in a way they are searching for redemption through each new relationship. The final revelation near the end was the main reason why I was disappointed by the film, and I believe the film's strength relies heavily on the audience's reaction to this reveal. It didn't work for me and that is why my recommendation would be not to "watch me."

My Review: The Angriest Man in Brooklyn (3/10)

"Reconciliation, in ninety minutes? Are you trying to kill yourself?"

I really didn't have any expectations going into this film, but I decided to watch The Angriest Man in Brooklyn for several reasons. First of all, I like Robin Williams despite his poor choice for roles over the past decades and I usually find his antics sort of amusing. Second, I will practically watch any film Mila Kunis stars in. Third, since I just finished watching Season 4 of Game of Thrones a couple of weeks ago I was anxious to see the imp, Peter Dinklage, back in action. And finally because Phil Alden Robinson was back in the director's chair after 12 years. Despite not being a huge fan of his most well known films: FIeld of Dreams, Sneakers, and The Sum of All Fears I still enjoyed them and found them entertaining. The Angriest Man in Brooklyn however is well below the standards he set because this was just lazy film making. There were terrible performances, bad editing, and weak dialogues which all combined perfectly to make this a mess of a movie. Williams and Kunis seemed like they were reading their lines when they were narrating the story and they didn't even try to give decent performances. Williams went way over the top trying to play this angry man, but you never believe his outbursts for a second. The entire premise is ridiculous and there wasn't one funny scene in the entire film. This was much worse than I anticipated as I at least expected to enjoy the performances, but no one really seemed to even try to make this a better film. The screenplay was perhaps one of the worst of the year. 

This was just a pointless film that explores themes we've seen done much better in the past. The entire premise is ridiculous. First of all you have Robin Williams playing an angry man who is always complaining about everything and then when his doctor (played by Mila Kunis) tells him he has a brain aneurism he forces her to tell him how much time he has left. She is going through a depressive stage in her life as well so she simply utters the first thing that comes to her mind: 90 minutes. With this shocking revelation, Williams' character tries to make amends with everyone he has hurt beginning with his family. His wife (played by Melissa Leo), his brother (Peter Dinklage), and his estranged son (Hamish Linklater). Meanwhile the doctor realizes that she made a huge mistake and decides to run after him and tell him the truth so you have Williams on the one hand running across Brooklyn while Kunis is unsuccessfully chasing him. He tries to make amends with each one, but somehow anger gets in the way and pushes everyone away. That is until they realize he is dying and also begin chasing him across half of Brooklyn. The film tries to make us sympathize with these characters, but the script doesn't help and only gets us more annoyed with the entire situation. 

Unfortunately Williams fails to create a character we can sympathize with despite his behavior. He simply didn't pull off the role and that hurt the entire film because it tries to be sentimental at the end but it never manages too. The comedy is also a huge miss here with no funny moments whatsoever. Not even a cameo from James Earl Jones was enough to put a smile on my face.It was just a huge mess. The film is simply disconnected from reality and tries to force the drama down the audience's throat. It does raise one question though, why do we always have to wait for a person to die or be terminally ill to forgive? That question could be explored in other films, but this one simply never even tries to make an effort at analyzing anything. I think that this movie doesn't even know what it wants to be and therefor was doomed from the very opening scene. 

My Review: Blood Ties (5/10)

"It'll be your wedding present."

Blood Ties is a 70's crime drama that not only is a remake of a 2008 French film (Les liens du sang), but it also feels familiar to other films in the genre. One that came to mind while watching this film was James Gray's We Own the Night considering it deals with two brothers who are on different sides of the law. Ironically I found out after the film that the screenplay was adapted by director Guillaume Canet with the help of Gray himself. Despite that, I enjoyed this film because I like 70's crime dramas but it really didn't add anything to the genre and it was very predictable. The ensemble cast in Blood Ties is probably the strongest asset of the film, although I have to admit the production design was also pretty strong as it gave the film an authentic 70's vibe. Blood Ties is a great film to look at, and the actors all give strong performances, but the issue I had with this film beside the fact that it was predictable was that every gray character in the film was given a redemptive scene every time something bad was going to happen to them. I felt this was kind of a weak shot to manipulate the audience's feelings and try to engage them emotionally. It really took me out of the movie because it happens throughout the film with various characters. Blood Ties is still worth a shot if you enjoy crime dramas or if you like the talented cast involved. The performances stand out in an otherwise predictable and standard film. 

Blood Ties is a remake of a French film that also happened to be based on a French novel written by Michel and Bruno Papet. The screenplay for this film, which was adapted and relocated to New York, was written by Guillaume Canet and James Gray. Canet had previously starred in the original French film as one of the brothers. The film takes place during the 70's and it centers on a rather dysfunctional family. Two siblings, Frank (Billy Crudup) and Marie (Lili Taylor), await for their brother Chris (Clive Owen) to be released from prison. Frank happens to be a promising police officer, and he tries to help Chris stay away from trouble by finding him a job and giving him a fresh start. The first thing they do after they release Chris is visit their father, Leon (James Caan) at the hospital, who has just had one of his lungs removed. Next Frank takes Chris to visit his ex wife, Monica (Marion Cotillard) and their two children, although she doesn't seem to happy about it. Frank allows Chris to stay at his apartment, but eventually Chris's past catches up with him when he falls for the beautiful Natalie (Mila Kunis) whom he wants to provide a better life for. Frank is also trying to reconnect with a former lover, named Vanessa (Zoe Saldana), who has a daughter and is in a relationship with a man who he just put behind bars (Matthias Schoenaerts from Rust and Bone). As Chris reconnects with his criminal life, it puts Frank at an awkward position in his job as the two paths are destined to crash at one point.

Marion Cotillard is terrific once again in this film. There is one scene where she doesn't say anything, but the look in her eyes say it all. She is just a supporting character, but every time she is on screen she steals the show. Billy Crudup is the lead here and he delivers a solid performance. His character is more reserved, but he expresses his inner struggles very well. Clive Owen was on a role between 2004 and 2009 starring in several great films, but I haven't seen much from him since. He gives a solid performance here and easily one of his best over the past 5 years. Mila Kunis isn't given much to work with, but she does her job. Every character in this film seemed to have some important role and the casting was brilliant. Blood Ties is a decent film, the only problem is that the source material has been covered before making the story seem predictable. 

My Review: Oz the Great and Powerful (6/10)

¨I don’t want to be a good man. I want to be a great one.¨

It´s no easy task to make a prequel of the successful and timeless 1939 family classic, The Wizard of Oz, but Sam Raimi (director of the Spider Man trilogy and The Evil Dead) was up to the task. Raimi does pay a wonderful homage to some of the iconic images of the classical movie thanks to some great and colorful visual effects, but the story doesn’t work as well. It is kind of the same problem I had with Tim Burton´s Alice in Wonderland where the story doesn’t match to the wondrous visuals. I still had a fun time with this film as the nostalgia ended up playing a key role here. The screenplay was co-written by Mitchell Kapner (The Whole 9 Yards) and David Lindsay-Abaire (Rabbit Hole), adapted from L. Frank Baum´s novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Despite not having a great story, it does become suspenseful towards the end and hooked my attention. The opening sequences however were slow and lacked a decent pacing. The visuals end up being a distraction over the impoverished story, but kids will enjoy this film nonetheless. Parents will also be entertained and filled with nostalgia like I was; but it will be inevitable to compare this movie to the classical one, and it does fall short story wise. You still have to take your hat off to Sam Raimi who took the risk and came up with a decent film, but somehow in a cinematic world where we are used to seeing visual spectacles like Hogwarts, Middle Earth, and Narnia you can´t carry a film on the visuals alone. You need compelling characters, and unfortunately here the most memorable characters are unlikely ones (a porcelain doll and a winged monkey).

The film focuses its attention on Oz, short for Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a circus magician from Kansas who ends up being blown away by a tornado to the wonderful land of Oz. Once he arrives at Oz, he meets a beautiful witch named Theodora (Mila Kunis) who explains how they have been waiting for him because a prophecy claims that a wizard would arrive at Oz and defeat the evil witch who poisoned her own father, the king of Emerald City. The long awaited wizard could become King if he is able to defeat the witch and protect the land. Oz, who isn’t a very moral fellow, is interested in becoming great so he accepts as long as he can keep all the gold. He ignores telling her that he isn’t actually a real wizard. What Theodora and Oz don’t know is that her sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz), has lied to everyone in Emerald City about the evil witch Glinda (Michelle Williams). Evanora is actually the evil witch who is trying to get rid of Glinda and take over Oz. During his mission Oz runs into some unlikely allies like Finley (Zach Braff) a winged monkey and a porcelain doll named China Girl (Joey King) before discovering the truth about Glinda and Evanora. This is the story of Oz and how he came to this land and made a name for himself.

  

There isn’t much greatness about Oz, but the story still works as pure entertainment for the family. There seems to be an underlying silly tone to the whole movie and James Franco knows it and plays along with his role. He doesn’t seem to be taking himself too seriously and neither should we. This isn’t a classical film, but it does remind us of the magical 1939 film and that alone makes this worth the while. Disney has us used to these clichés about believing in ourselves and achieving our dreams, and Oz is full of them. The film continually reminds us that it could have been much better, but the magic still seems to be present. The best characters are the ones voiced by Zach Braff and Joey King. They have the funniest scenes and make the movie much more enjoyable. Michelle Williams is also a pleasure to watch as the sweet and innocent Glinda. There isn’t really much more I can say about this film, if you are a fan of the original film then you might want to see this for pure nostalgic reasons but don’t expect it to be as good as that classic movie. It has its moments and overall it is an enjoyable and entertaining movie.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Ted (6/10)

¨No matter how big a splash you make in this world whether you're Corey Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually, nobody cares.¨

Since 1999 Seth MacFarlane has made a name for himself in television thanks to the success of Family Guy. He`s also the man responsible for other successful animated series such as American Dad and The Cleveland Show. He`s not only the creator of these shows, he also voices many of the characters as well. In his first venture into live action film he also voices the star of the movie: Ted, a teddy bear that magically comes to life after a lonely boy makes a wish. Ted is an R-rated comedy due to the fact that he happens to be very vulgar and getting stoned all the time. The film has had huge box office success in the United Stated and I was expecting Ted to be hilarious, but I guess my expectations were a little too high because I wasn`t blown away by this movie. There were some funny scenes, but for the most part the film felt like an average comedy and it wasn’t what I was hoping for. 2012 has failed to deliver a successful comedy, and for now 21 Jump Street reigns as the best one in my opinion. Ted is full of irreverent humor, but it`s repetitive and you have the usual sexual, drug, and poop jokes. I couldn’t find much originality to it, but I do have to say some of the scenes did work thanks to Ted and his best friend played by Mark Wahlberg, whom I`ve always said is great in comedies. This is a pretty formulaic buddy comedy where you have the typical two slacker best friends and a girl who gets in the way of their friendship and wants them to mature. The only difference is that this time around one of them is a talking teddy bear.   

The film begins with a narration (voiced by Patrick Stewart) about the story of lonely boy who gets his wish one Christmas morning when he asks for his teddy bear to become his best friend. When the teddy comes to life, John Bennett (played by Mark Wahlberg, and the younger version played by Bretton Manley) discovers that he has found his best friend who he names Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane). Ted becomes an instant celebrity as he is all over the news and is invited to all kind of talk shows. Ted changes young John`s life for the better. The film then jumps to the present day where both have grown into adults. John is now 35 and has a healthy relationship with Lori (Mila Kunis). They`ve been dating for four years now. Ted is still living with John and has also grown up in the same way that his human buddy did. John and Ted like to spend time getting high together and talking about girls, drugs, and Flash Gordon. Everything seems to be going well for the trio until Lori gives John an ultimatum. It`s Ted or her. Lori realizes that Ted is keeping John from realizing his full potential since they`re always getting stoned and John is always late to work. John realizes that he has to make an important decision if he wants to save his relationship with Lori and the movie moves along from here.

One of the things the film explores well is the transition from child to adulthood. We don’t only see John grow up, but his teddy bear as well. Now being an adult doesn’t mean you`re mature and John and Ted are proof of that. They are irresponsible and practically only care about getting high all the time. They both are very nice people, but really immature. That`s what drives Lori crazy, but the good thing about Ted is that these characters aren't stereotypical. Lori isn’t a mean person who wants to separate the two best friends, but rather wants them to take responsibilities as adults. Ted also has character development and despite the fact that he`s very inappropriate he also has a big heart and wished the best fro John and Lori. This isn’t your typical face off between best friend and girlfriend. I was pleased with that aspect of the film. Another thing that worked really well for me in this movie was all the references to different films (especially Flash Gordon and Top Gun) and jokes about them. As a film lover you always enjoy those small references and gags. Some of the cameos were also pretty funny and highlights of the film. What I didn’t like as much was the fact that some of the sexual and drug humor got a little bit repetitive and old. There were also several poop and fart jokes which are always a little repetitive in these buddy comedies. Ted is still a funny film, but just not the hilarious movie I was hoping for.

   

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: Friends With Benefits (7/10)

¨I have the perfect body for Photoshop. This (face) gets more angular, these (legs) get longer, and this (nose) get way more Christian.¨

I don’t think anyone would have a problem in real life believing that Mila Kunis could be a model, but this is just a movie so we go with the flow when she tries to convince someone she works as a model in order to find Justin Timberlake`s character in a photo shoot. Friends with Benefits is director Will Gluck`s follow up to his very successful 2010 comedy: Easy A, and although it isn’t as great as a film as that one was, the movie still manages to entertain thanks to a decent script and a great chemistry between Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. This movie actually had all the ingredients to fail: First of all there was a very similar movie that came out in the same month staring Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis`s Black Swan partner, Natalie Portman. Second the film follows the same formula most romantic comedies do, and we can anticipate the ending miles away. So, why did I enjoy the film as much as I did? I admit the chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis was great, but that isn’t enough for me to make a film of this caliber enjoyable. I also have to admit that I love Mila Kunis and think she is extremely gorgeous on film, but that neither is enough for me to enjoy this movie. I actually enjoyed the plot quite a bit and found most of the things happening believable. I know love doesn’t work like this all the time, but there can be a couple of occasions in which true love can be magical and predictable. Some girls have found their Prince Charming, and that is the story some filmmakers have decided to tell despite all the clichés and formulas.

Justin Timberlake plays an upcoming successful blogger from Los Angeles named Dylan who happens to have some good job offers coming his way from New York. Jamie (Mila Kunis) is a work agent who makes Dylan the offer to come to New York to work as the editor for GQ Magazine. Dylan just ended up being dumped by his girlfriend for being emotionally unavailable and decides to give New York a shot. Jamie was also recently dumped by her boyfriend, so both Dylan and Jamie realize it is better to focus on work and not enter relationships at this stage of their lives. Jamie convinces Dylan to accept the job by selling him the idea that New York is a great place to live and he agrees. Once in New York, both of them begin to form a strong bond together and become real good friends. They both agree that they don’t want to be in relationships at the moment, but they miss sex. All of a sudden they both come up with the idea that they should sleep together without dealing with the whole relationship issue. They decide they can have sex just like two friends would play a game of tennis together, without all the romantic emotional stuff involved. Of course the plot gets more complicated than this and emotions begin to affect their relationship. Patricia Clarkson plays Lorna, Jamie`s hippie loving mother, while Jenna Elfman plays Annie, Dylan`s older and caring sister. Richard Jenkins is Dylan`s father, while Woody Harrelson also has a supporting role as Tommy, the sports editor for GQ magazine.

The entire cast is really fantastic in this film. The strong chemistry between the two lead roles (Timberlake and Kunis) is supported by a magnificent cast. Richard Jenkins is always great, and in this movie he plays the role of a father suffering from Alzheimer to perfection. Jenna Elfman is also great in her role as the sweet and caring sister, but the two supporting characters who get the most laughs are Patricia Clarkson and Woody Harrelson. Patricia is great as the free loving hippie mother, and Harrelson shines as the gay sports editor. The plot also works really well despite following all the Hollywood clichés that the film sort of tries to make fun of when they have Jamie and Dylan watch romantic comedies together and rip them off for being so predictable. The screenwriters were a little hypocritical because they followed most of the same formulas those movies did, but I still had a good time with it and laughed at several scenes. I also liked that there was more to Timberlake`s character than what we were first introduced to. We got to see some of the depth that he had in the film and he did a great job with his role. I thought I was going to hate this film, but I was surprised at how much I ended up liking it. The first half hour was a little strong for me, but after that the film picked up and ended up having a good message after all.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Black Swan (9/10)

¨It`s about a girl who gets turned into a swan and she needs love to break the spell, but her prince falls for the wrong girl, so she kills herself.¨

If there is any justice in the world then Natalie Portman should win the Oscar for her leading role as Nina. She has to win; her performance in Black Swan is by far the best of the year. She is just incredible in this film and the transformation her character experiences in order to become the Black Swan is just amazing. I can`t think of any other performance from any actress this year that can compare to this one because the entire movie revolves around her. The rest of the characters are all secondary, she is the only lead and star of the film. I just hope Natalie Portman didn`t have to go through all the psychological torture that her character had to go through in order to become the black swan. I would`ve never thought that a film about ballerinas could be so gruesome, raw, and full of psychological and sexual tension. This is the scariest film I`ve seen this year, and the only person who can pull off a movie like this is Darren Aronofsky. In order to direct a film of this caliber, one has to be completely submersed and passionate about the project, and Aronofsky has always proven he`s totally dedicated to his work (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Wrestler were all great and difficult films to make). Black Swan is a different kind of movie and probably will divide audiences because it isn`t a film for everyone, but if I have to compare it to any of Aronofsky`s previous films I would say it resembles The Wrestler. Mickey Rourke resurrected his career in that film playing a washed up wrestler. He had his glory days, he was passionate about his profession and didn`t know how to let go. Natalie Portman plays a ballerina in Black Swan, she`s also passionate about her craft and completely dedicated to it. Both of these characters lives revolve around their profession, Mickey is at the exit point of his career, while Natalie is just now trying to make it to the top of hers.  As different as these professions may seem, the physical and psychological pressure to succeed is the same.

Nina (Portman) is about to get the role of her dreams: Being both the white and the black swan from an adaptation of Tchaikovsky`s ballet ¨Swan Lake.¨ She has been working endlessly for an opportunity like this and when director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel), considers her as the new lead she doesn`t want to miss her shot. He has decided that it is time to find a new prima ballerina since Beth (Winona Ryder) is getting old and her career is coming to an end. Nina is one of his best and most dedicated dancers. He knows that she would make an excellent white swan due to her perfect form and technique, but she doesn`t seem to have what it takes to become the black swan. In order for the transformation to take place, Thomas insists that she loosen up and let her feelings guide her. A new ballerina named Lily (Mila Kunis) shows up and suddenly becomes a threat for Nina because she is so free and confident, everything the black swan should be. Her technique isn`t as good as Nina`s, but she sees her as a threat nonetheless and at the same time she also becomes fascinated with her. Lily represents everything that Nina has repressed her entire life, she seems to be the opposite of her and that is exactly what she needs in order to become the black swan. Nina begins to lose herself in the role, and the fine line between reality and fantasy becomes blurry.

One character I didn`t mention in the plot is Nina`s mother (played by Barbara Hershey), who is really scary and over controlling. She has definitely played a big role in Nina`s life and shaped her character. Nina is a very insecure perfectionist, but she won`t let anything stop her from getting the lead role. She begins to push herself so hard into trying to become the black swan that her life begins to get out of control. The entire cast is great in this film, but Portman steals the show. The psychological torture she goes through is perfectly captured by Aronofsky. The score is amazing and plays a huge role in building the suspense and tension as well as the cinematography of the film. Every shot is just perfectly executed. I couldn`t help but cringe every time I saw those extreme close ups of the ballerinas feet, of their nails being cut, and so on. If I ever have a daughter it`s really going to make me think twice before letting her take ballet classes. Aronofsky has completely changed my perception about ballerinas. Black Swan is a really bizarre, but great film. I recommend seeing it in the theater because the sound and cinematography in this film is just amazing. It’s one of those movies in which larger and louder can make a huge difference in the viewing experience. Aronofsky is completely in control of his craft and delivers a terrific film. This is my favorite film of his so far.

  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/