Admittedly, I am prone to give any film regarding football — as it is known to the world — a huge nod. Unfortunately there is not that many good films regarding the sport. That is not to say they do not exist, Bend it Like Beckham and Shaolin Soccer come to mind but this film goes beyond that. Perhaps it helps that it is a documentary and that it revolves around a noble cause, where two men decided to put together a World Cup for the homeless.

Convinced that sports in general (but in this case football in particular) is capable of being used as a tool to build character and helps people through hardships, a tournament was created in which homeless people train and through qualifiers gain access to a worldwide tournament of football that is largely based after the cup whose name it bears.

This documentary introduces to us homeless people in different parts of the world and gives us a glimpse into their struggles, their problems, their challenges and their fight to get out of their current situation. It is an informative film that sheds the spotlight on a group of people that most of us would rather forget existed, which is precisely one of the problems–as this film points out.

In heartbreaking form, this documentary takes us through the championship, full of passion, joy, disillusion and hardship, while viewing the various paths of a shy goalkeeper from Ireland trying to kick off his meth habit; a sixty-two year old ex-con from Spain needing to find his place before it becomes too late; a raging American with anger management issues stemming from a horrible childhood; a lost boy of Afghanistan, who suddenly found himself with nothing to live for; a group of Russians convinced that only a victory at the cup can bring attention to their problems in the mother land, etc. This is a powerful film that marries all that is beautiful about the lovely game with the human struggle. A must see film!

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars
Comments: Aside from the fact that the film does deal with drug usage and substance abuse, the film itself is rather family friendly and quite emotionally engaging.

Epic. There is really no other word to describe this film and upon watching it you will easily see why this film is a classic and why it has been so influential over time. 7 Samurai tells the story of a village under the oppression of former samurai, turned bandits, who now make a living pillaging the farmer’s villages and taking their sustenance, for their benefit and future trading purposes. Aware that a gang of bandits aims to raid their village by the time the rice is harvested, the farmers come to the desperate decision of hiring samurai to protect their village and stand up to the atrocities committed by the bandits – who often will take more than rice and food.

A handful of farmers are sent out to the city, where they make an effort to recruit morally minded samurai willing to take on the challenge with nothing but food as their payment. One by one a team of seven samurai is assembled, each from a different walk of life and willing to put their life on the line for an honorable cause. While things may not be as clear as originally thought and the details of the situation might have greater complexities than previously believed, through the work inspired by these seven warriors, the village is able to face the threat that looms threateningly over them.

Made in 1954, you can expect some of the older techniques both in cinematography and editing which are nevertheless effective. The movie is also in Japanese which demands the reading of subtitles in a film that is well over three hours long and requires an intermission. While this film might be a bit too much for the casual watcher, any avid film lover or person with appreciation for classical film should find this one an absolute gem and very much worth the watch, with themes that are applicable across time and in various settings, a good reason why The Magnificent 7, a western based entirely on this film, was so successful.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Notes: Given that it is a samurai film, there is some violence, but most of it is implied and edited. I would not go as far as calling this a family film, but it is certainly something watchable by anybody over the age of 13 and it draws a number of morals that one might find interesting.
Recommendation: If you liked this try Roshomon – Also by Akira Kurosawa and Samurai 7 an anime series based on Kurosawa’s original work.
Quote: Gisaku: What’s the use of worrying about your beard when your head’s about to be taken?

For whatever intrinsic reason, I am not a huge fan of Amy Adams. That could be that the first role I ever saw her in was as Giselle on Enchanted. In the past, however, she has proven to be a bit more versatile than I gave her credit for. Her role in Doubt was very decent and her role in this particular film definitely establishes that she is in fact a rather good actress.

Down on her luck, Rose Lorkowski (Amy Adams; Julie & Julia, Mrs. Pettigrew Lives for a Day) finds herself between a rock and a hard place; painfully aware that she is the wanted woman, but never the one that gets the commitment. She is the lover of the man she likes, but not the wife. Her own husband (boyfriend?) has left her to raise a child on her own and her only income is as a maid.

It is during one of those late night affairs with Mac (Steve Zahn; Treme, Diary of a Wimpy Kid), her lover, that he jokingly brings up the ‘highly lucrative’ job of crime scene cleaning. Perhaps jokingly, he advises her to get into that line of work. Not surprisingly, Rose refuses, but as her hand is forced and she finds herself in dire straits, she ends up giving in. With the help of her carefree sister Norah (Emily Blunt; Wolfman, The Young Victoria) and her not-exactly-business-savvy father (Alan Arkin; Little Miss Sunshine, Get Smart) she dives head first into the venture. As her experience increases, she finds that not only is the pay good, she is also good at it. In this fashion she travels down a path that will not only bring closure to her past and aid her in rediscovering her self worth, but likely will propel her into a successful future.

Given the grim theme, cleaning crime scenes, this film is surprisingly cheerful. It is not all sunshine and roses, as the title might imply, however. There is plenty of problems in the Lorkowski household and there are trying moments that test the familial bonds, all of which serves to bring greater interest to the film than your typical Hollywood movie. On the other hand, the movie does perhaps try to reach out in too many directions and brings in content that is a bit unnecessary. It does not ruin the film, but does add a couple of elements that feel a bit cheesy in contrast to everything else. Thankfully, these moments are sparse.

There is a clear independent feel to this film, which is a great way of keeping the audience grounded, focusing on characters and story–all of which are pulled off quite well. With very solid acting from all of the cast, including Jason Spevack, who plays Rose’s son, the fact that the story might not be very ambitious can be overlooked. It is a feel-good, positive spin with surprising bits of humor and memorable scenes with a satisfying ending.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Comments: There is some adult content here so I would not quite say this is a family film. The theme of suicide and death is always on the surface and extra marital affairs are part of film. That being said, there is nothing terribly out of line here either. It would take a mature audience to enjoy the film, or at least a mature parent to watch this with teenagers. There is definitely plenty of discussion material in this film.
Quote: Lynn: How’d she die?
Norah: It was sorta a do-it-yourself thing?

If you are familiar with Mr. Jarmush’s work, then you already know you will be walking off the beaten path. Rarely does he fall in line with what is normally accepted in Hollywood as standard and more often than not he focuses on characters rather than actual plots. There is a certain signature to his work that is almost palpable and seems to saturate his films entirely. Some might find that appealing; the majority–I venture to guess–will not. Jarmush demands patience, encourages an eye for detail and often pushes symbolism into the screen.

Down by Law, was perhaps the first Jarmush film I ever saw and I knew from the moment ‘Jockey Full of Bourbon’ started playing that I had stumbled into something unique. Even by my own definition, Jarmush fills a niche that is quite difficult to describe; I neither like or dislike that particular place but often find myself fascinated with it regardless. The formerly mentioned film along with Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, Coffee and Cigarettes, Dead Man, Mystery Train and Stranger than Paradise…all tested me considerably. He is not easy to watch, but at the same time, watching his films unfold can be a very beautiful thing even when the story does not make much sense, or as is the case with The Limits of Control, is almost entirely missing.

I find myself in the middle of a tug of war in this film, because the idea of a Lone Man (Isaach De Bankolé; Casino Royale, Manderlay) guiding himself through Spain, receiving enigmatic, coded instructions inside match boxes from anomalous individuals is very very intriguing to me. The Lone Man, a very disciplined man brings to mind Ghost Dog, from Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai. There is that same intensity, that alienation, that quirkiness to the character who may not say much but is just as readable to the audience–if not better–than one giving a monologue. Lone Man’s mission, is given to him by a Creole and routed by French, his translator. From the beginning, one gets a taste of the humor that seems to subtly populate Jarmush movies. Brief instructions, one match box, and the hunt is on.

The entire movie is really a series of encounters, all of them staring with the same assertive questions that ensures each of the other seedy characters–played by the likes of Gael Garcia Bernal, Paz de la Huerta, Tilda Swinton and John Hurt, among others–that Lone Man does not, in fact speak Spanish. Why this is relevant? Well, that is where the film becomes problematic. The use of symbolism in this film is so heavy that at the end of the film, which seems rather simplistic considering the process it took Lone Man to get to that point, one gets the idea that nothing makes sense. While I am always one to encourage the use of symbolism to give substance to a story, in this case everything has been abstracted to such an extent that it is entirely unclear what is is we have watch and leaves you with the feeling that you have just witnessed an inside joke and Jarmush is the only one laughing.

It is a dichotomy strong enough to split me down the middle. On the one hand we have beautiful cinematography, good acting, very interesting characters coming together for what turns out to be on the other hand: not much or a rather generalized view of the workings of the world. If the point of this film is the former, then this movie is only worth the accumulation of its artistic merit (which is considerable), if it is the latter, then it is almost a slap-in-the-face ending considering the idiosyncrasies involved for most people.

In conclusion, if you are a Jarmush fan, watch it, it definitely caters to those that enjoy his films and if you are like me you will get plenty out of it, but I would say that the majority of the people will find this a waste of their time, unfortunately.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars My rating might be biased by my enjoyment of Jarmush films, yours could be considerably lower.
Comments: Various spoken films but mostly it is in English. There is also one character–aptly named Nude–who spends her entire time on screen in a state of undress. Expect a few moments of violence and some language as well.
Quote: Mexican: The old men in my village used to say, “Everything changes by the colour of the glass you see it through.” Nothing is true. Everything is imagined. Do you know these reflections? For me sometimes the reflection is far more present than the thing being reflected.

A slice of life film written and directed by Ramin Bahrani, Man Push Cart tells the story of Ahmad (Ahmad Razvi; Chop Shop), a former Pakistani rock star now down on his luck. His day starts at three in the morning, dragging through the streets of New York the push cart from which he sells coffee, bagels and doughnuts. The film focuses on a handful of nights, giving us a glimpse on Ahmad’s difficult life, struggling to make enough money to finish paying off the cart and improve his life, for himself and the son that has been for all intents and purposes been taken away from him by his in-laws.

The why’s and the how’s slowly unravel, as Ahmad befriends Noemi (Leticia Dolera; Prime Time, De Tu Ventana a la Mia), a girl manning a nearby magazine stand for her uncle, temporarily in New York from Spain, who manages to break through Ahmad’s solemn façade. The film unfolds at a quiet pace and with gripping melancholy and while it might often be sad to watch, the beauty of this film and it’s humble simplicity is not lost.

While I personally found this film satisfying, I should point out this is not for everybody. It is quiet, it is slow paced and most importantly, it is a slice of life film. There is no real ending–per se. We are allowed glimpses into this man’s life and we are left without many answers but with a very good understanding of his hardships in life and the spectrum of his struggle.

There is something about the way that Ahmad and Leticia work together to make their characters realistic, dynamic and believable, which is truly important in a film such as this. Unfortunately, some of the supporting cast do not carry their weight quite as well, which does lower the bar a bit. Nevertheless, the directing is strong, the cinematography is gripping and the theme is subtly clutching, which makes this film a must see if you are OK with low key drama’s with a strong independent feel.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Comment: Slice of life film, so watch at your discretion. More oriented to the Art House crowd then the Blockbuster crowd. Mostly it is spoken in English but there is some Urdu dropped here and there.

My interest in this particular movie was entirely accidental. Cube was the first of Natali’s works I ever watched and while I found it to be engrossing and entertaining, I never really searched for much of his work after that. I do own that particular film and have enjoyed revisiting it, but until Splice came out recently, I had all but completely forgotten then name.

It was in anticipation of Splice (which I highly recommend to viewers with open minds) that I stumbled over mentions of the movie Cypher, which I was surprised had slipped me considering its theme. Cypher is all about corporate espionage and the vicious extremes in which companies might go in order to steal the secrets of their competition. At the core of this vortex Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam; Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story, The Tudors), who is convinced he has found himself the job of a lifetime signing up for DigiCorp as a spy, unaware that the first step into corporate espionage will catapult him into a web of deceit from which he has a terrible time extricating himself from.

With plenty of twists and plot turns–some predictable, others not so much–Cypher delivers an high quality sci-fi which has you wondering from beginning to end. It has a satisfactory ending that might be perhaps a bit cliche but certainly an audience-pleaser. There is, however, a certain aspect of this film that led me to question it’s writing. Various lines are delivered weakly and that could even be credited to flaws on directing or bad writing. The fact that the plot itself, however, provides some answers as to why those lines might have been delivered the way they do, makes it difficult to determine if the script was poorly written, or if in fact the very lines that seem not quite believable are that way for a specific reason. I can see how this could become a valid debate, but in the grand scheme of things, this movie is not a ground shaker. It is fun, yes, it is enjoyable, but it is not going to change your life.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars EDIT: After further consideration I dropped this film from 3.5 to 3.
Comments: Overall pretty family friendly, though it does deal with questionable practices and contains some rather disturbing imagery. There might have been some language in there to watch out for as well. I did enjoy watching Lucy Liu on this one, but then again she is watchable in just about anything

The Predators are back, and this time I do not feel like punting them back to their twisted little planet! Cause–let’s be honest–AVP and AVP 2 were like pushing your forehead to a nail gun and squeezing the trigger. Predator 2 was not that good either but I am such an avid Predator fan that I was willing to look past pretty much everything. At the core, however, Predator will always be a man’s guilty pleasure. Its an alien and it hunts humans for sport. Nothing more exciting than to see the roles reversed and watch us be the hunted. If you have seen Predator and you enjoyed it, this movie will not disappoint. No predator film will ever be an Academy Award recipient, of that I am sure and after watching this movie, I still hold to that statement. But if we are able to look past the expectations a good film must overcome and see it for what it is–a fun, sci-fi, action, summer block buster–then we are golden.

The plot is pleasantly simple and yet still provides us with everything that we need to get this film going and at a breakneck speed off the starting mark. As mercenaries and killers start falling out of the sky, it is clear that there is something not quite right about the situation Royce (Adrien Brody; Love the Hard Way, Splice) finds himself in. Isabelle (Alice Braga; City of God, I Am Legend) points out that the area, the vegetation, the topography is all off and it does not take them very long (though for the audience it might feel like it does take them a while to reach this point conclusively) to realize they are not in Kansas anymore. Soon after angry, quadrupedal, alien hounds come chasing down their asses, they realize, the game has been flipped on them.

Among the group of the chosen are Royce, special ops; Isabelle, elite sniper; Cuchillo (Danny Trejo; Machete), a Mexican cartel mercenary; Stans (Walton Goggins; The Shield), an apologetically unreformed convict; Edwin (Topher Grace; Traffic), a doctor; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov; The Way), Spetznas; Mombasa (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali; The 4400), a Sierra Leone warrior; and Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien, Pretty to Think So), a Yakuza badass of few words. Together, this varied group of people must band together to survive against a team of predators that have declared the current hunting season open in a planet (or at least a jungle within a planet) that is deemed a hunting preserve. All evidence points to the fact that this has been going on for a long time. All evidence also shows that most prey die quickly and mercilessly.

Predators brings to the screen the joy of the first movie back, with faced paced action and some cleverly worked in humor. The acting is above par, and the feel of the film is respected, bringing it back to it roots and drawing a number of elements form some of the comic book mini-series that I once read as a teen.

While it might satisfy the action sweet tooth, you should go into Predators knowing it is not perfect. There are some plot choices that were a bit questionable and without going into spoilers, I was not very pleased with the unnecessarily complicated direction in which they took the character of Edwin. There are moments that make you wonder why certain things were not realized a bit earlier–highly trained killers that they are. There is also a ‘pregnant woman’ moment. Remember the second movie, where the Predator spares Maria Conchita Alonzo’s life because she is pregnant? It was a moment that showed the honor the Predators put into the hunt. This movie has such a moment when one of the hunters faces Hanzo on the Yakuza assassin’s own terms rather than his own and while some people might roll an eye at it, I thought it was once again representative of the type of hunters that the Predators are. There is also a few hints tossed into the different types of Predators out there and though they only mention two types–the warriors and the hunters–and pits them against each other (something I was unaware of in the original material but which might be accurate) there is certainly room here for a sequel.

All in all, this is the Predator return to form with a thrilling climactic fight and lots of glowing green blood. It is an enjoyable and fun film to watch even if it is not the brainiest of summer films–that will most likely end up being Inception.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars I really love Predators and I am holding back adding in an additional star out of pure fandom geekiness. On the other side of the coin, if this is not your cup of tea, I can see how one might rank this 3.5 out of 5 instead.

Comments: Violence and language as is to be expected from a Predator film.
Quote: Royce: This planet is a game reserve. And we’re the game.

For whatever reason, after seeing this film it was clear to me that the story lacked substance, or rather…build up. It was an interesting story that overall still seemed bland and lacked any form of climax, and yet, I still felt the desire to watch it all the way through the end, which does speak to what this film does right.

Dealing with Queen Victoria’s difficult early years as she becomes the leader of her country, this movie takes us from her childhood all the way to when she becomes an established sovereign, influenced largely by the people around him — many of which have their own political agendas — and others of noble lineage that were led more blindly by their genuine love, namely Prince Albert.

As far as historical accuracies, I am entirely at a loss. I will not pretend to know much about the period and that was in fact one of the most frustrating aspects of this film. The fact that they run at breakneck speed through a number of accounts without fully establishing, making the assumption that the audience is somewhat familiar with the subject is a mistake, particularly for ignorant viewers like myself that hold no knowledge on the subject. Through most of the beginning of the film I struggled to keep up with events and names that were briefly mentioned and then moved on from before I had a chance to truly digest it.

As a romance film, however, there is no denying that the undercurrent of romanticism is strong and it does has its own peculiar charm. The story of true love in an arena of corruption does hold its own sense of triumph and perhaps that is the driving force that compelled me to finish watching this film. There is no denying that Emily Blunt, who plays the young Victoria and Rupert Friend, who plays Prince Albert, are good at what they do. Toss into the mix Paul Bethany who is genial and you have yourself a strong cast to carry this story all the way to its conclusion, so that even if the story is lacking in complexity, it is still quite a good watch.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Comment: A pretty tame movie when it comes to content. There is brief sexuality that is mostly implied, so with some parental guidance this is essentially a family film, though I almost guarantee that your kids are going to be bored to death by it.

The newest addition to sci-fi films done right got its release this weekend (as of 6.7.10) and it goes by the name of Splice. A thriller regarding two brilliant scientists exploring the realm of cloning and insistent on using human genes, even if illegitimately. When their experiment proves successful, Klive Nicoli (Adrien Brody; The Pianist, The Village, Love the Hard Way) and Elsa Kast (Sarah Polley; My Life Without Me, Go) allow it to proceed to term and then further, resulting in the birth of a creature, part human, part animal and full of trouble.

Expecting a horror film more than anything else, this film far succeeded my expectations, giving us a convincing drama, based in the relationship of these two scientists who are also intimately involved with each other. As the experiment proceeds, the bond of their relationship is tested. Here and there it seems their roles are a bit too harshly scripted, but the caliber of these two actors skills is for the most part able to surpass those hurdles. The sci-fi aspect of the film thankfully breezes past the technical side of things and is far more concerned with the aftermath, bringing up questions — while providing no answers — to questions dealing with ethics and morality when it comes to human cloning.

Having recently read Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, I was struck by the wonderful way this movie and that book compliment each other. The two could not be more extreme in their outlook, but at the core the questions being brought up and the issues that are being dealt with are often the same and these two sources provide extremely different outlooks. It will be interesting, once Never Let Me Go the movie is released this fall, to watch the two films side by side.

In general, I would highly recommend this film to any fan of sci-fi, keeping in mind that it is not entirely perfect and it does manage to hold on to a handful of cheesy moments that one could have done without or that could have been easily changed on a screenplay rewrite. Nevertheless, this film is a must watch for any fan of the genre and for those that might be interested on the philosophical arguments of cloning.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Comments: NOT FOR CHILDREN! I was astounded, at the theater, that one couple brought their kids to the theater. The scary moments and the frightening creature were not enough, to get them to walk out. Neither was the full nude scene of the creature strapped down to the table. It took a scene far more grave than that to finally empty out their seats. There are two scenes in particular here that might disturb a lot people, so exercise caution.

Esperanza lost her daughter! She took her to the hospital and left her there overnight for the removal of her tonsils. Routine procedure. And yet, when she returns the following day, the pre-teen is already in a coffin, wrapped up and under a hazard seal labeling her contagious. All Esperanza can do is sign the papers for the creamation and accept that her daughter is dead. She is trying to deal with this, already suffering by being a single mom, living with a woman who also lost her husband in the same accident in which Esperanza’s own died, and working at a hardware store where it seems her work goes under appreciated.

Her refuge is religion, always having been a woman of faith, to the point where her best friend is an elderly priest to whom she seems to confess to daily, it is perhaps little surprising when after all of this takes place, Esperanza turns on the oven and in it finds an apparition of St. Jude, telling her to go look for her daughter. And this is where it all starts. As the visions increase and Esperanza’s innocence is fed hope; she goes in a journey across the country and abroad, working jobs from hotel maid to prostitution, all in an effort to find her missing daughter whom she is sure has been stolen and placed in a house of bad repute.

It is a stark concept with a rather good chunk of charm, considering the subject and I am almost willing to compare it a Millions for the adult audience, even if this particular film is not as sharpened, focused or well delivered as that of Danny Boyle’s regarding a child who also talks to saints. Nevertheless, there is enough in this film to keep one intrigued and entertained, even if at times the actors over act and the plot seems a little forced.

Studded with colorful characters, all seemingly with their own quirks and unexpected turns of events that are both alarming and funny, this movie is one to watch but perhaps not run out and get with any sense of urgency. It is worth the time to watch it and it holds enough water to make it a thoughtful film with an interesting concept, but it also seems to waver in the direction, because the actors are clearly capable of good performances and yet they seem to meander in and out of good acting throughout. Certain characters appear to be more caricatures than fully fleshed out personalities, which is in many cases a shame because this story does have a good amount of humor, and as previously mentioned, charm.

Santitos then, is an interesting story about a woman’s journey and effort to deal with tragedy and find in the dark a self that is able to blossom, even if painted under her superstitious nature. Just do not expect any fantastic performances or directing, with expectations set to medium, this film can not disappoint.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Comments: For a movie that deals so heavily with underage human trafficking and prostitution, this film has a surprisingly low amount of nudity. There is brief nudity, there is some violence and obviously there is some heavy adult themes, but there is nothing scandalous here that will ruin the naive charm of the movie. Spanish with English subtitles.
Recommendation: For a family film with a similar subject matter check out Danny Boyle’s “Millions.”