Why Didn't Lionel Messi Win Every FIFA World Cup Award?

I have been in serious doubt for the last couple of days. Why did FIFA gift (only) the Golden Ball award to Lionel Messi? It was great they gave Messi the Golden Ball only because he is Messi but why didn't they give him the rest of the personal awards and of course, the World Cup? If we make a brief analysis of the situation Messi should have won everything.

Golden Boot

Messi scored four goals in the 2014 FIFA World Cup competition. This achievement is only by two goals worse than James Rodríguez result (James is the top scorer with his six goals). If we count the penalty Messi scored in the shoot-outs with the Netherlands then Messi has even five goals. How could FIFA be so mean and petty-minded to not award Messi the Golden Boot? If they hadn't been able to think of anything more suitable, they could have simply solved it by just "splitting the baby" and naming James Rodriguez the top scorer while awarding the Golden Boot to Lionel Messi. It is just that easy.

Golden Glove

Now, this is the award I do not understand at all. Manuel Neuer got the Golden Glove award for best goalkeeper. How could this happen when Neuer allowed four goals in his net during the competition? Lionel Messi, personally, didn't allow even a single goal for Argentina. How could FIFA be so unfair not awarding Messi the Golden Glove when the stats are so eloquent?

Best Young Player

Paul Pogba got the Best Young Player award. It's quite unfair again. France didn't even qualify for the semi-final so Pogba didn't play enough time to get the award. On the other hand, Lionel Messi made decent promenades in the maximum possible seven games. So, he played a lot, he is much younger than his main rival Cristiano Ronaldo and he is the Best. Obviously, Messi fits all the three words of this title - best, young, player. Go figure it out.

World Cup

And... the World Cup. I really did not understand why the World Cup left for Germany. There were so many areas which Argentina had advantage in. First, Argentina borders Brazil so the World Cup would not have to travel so far. Second, Argentina starts with an "A" while Germany starts with a letter far behind in the English alphabet. Third, Argentina hasn't won a FIFA World Cup competition longer than Germany. I can go on and go on. It's obvious that the World Cup should have been awarded to Argentina. Finally, if the aforementioned is not enough, Germany is a generous nation. Just recall how many billions of dollars they have gifted Greece in the recent years. If FIFA had kindly asked Germany, the German team would most probably agree to transfer the trophy to Argentina and Lionel Messi. Now, we can deservedly blame FIFA again that because of their short-seeing and poor communication skills Argentina failed to get the World Cup from Germany.

But we should admit we could not blame FIFA for everything. It appeared there were other bad people too. According to Wikipedia, the Castrol Index evaluating player performances through statistical data finished with the following starting eleven (with Toni Kroos being the overall leader): Manuel Neuer, Marcos Rojo, Mats Hummels, Thiago Silva, Stefan de Vrij, Oscar, Toni Kroos, Philip Lahm, James Rodríguez, Arjen Robben, Thomas Müller. Yes, Lionel Messi is not even one of these eleven. What an injustice!

If you want to read a funny comparison between football and other sports click here.

Brazil's Football Team: Impudence + Incompetence + Naivety = Tears

It was really a big surprise for everyone when Germany defeated Brazil with the amazing score of 7:1 in yesterday's football game of 2014 FIFA World Cup semifinals. It should have been even a greater shock for the people of Brazil hoping the Seleção would finally win a World title at home. But even if we consider the score a surprise, the defeat itself was nothing unexpected. Let's do the math...

Impudence

First, Brazil received a big gift from the referee in their opening game against Croatia. It was obvious for everybody there had not been a penalty when Fred simulated during the game. But later Fred and more importantly Luiz Felipe Scolari claimed the opposite. It was really impudent to support this statement when everybody had seen the situation and even some Brazilian officials admitted it was a wrong decision (if nothing more) by the referee. Sometimes, it is just better to stay silent instead of tempting fate.

Furthermore, Brazil won Group A based on goal differential. It was in favor of Brazil by 2 goals. But if we take the non-existing penalty for Brazil in the game vs. Croatia and the two unfairly disallowed goals for Mexico in their game vs. Cameroon this would be enough to place Mexico at the top of the group. Which means Brazil should have played their first game of the knockout stage against the Netherlands instead of Chile. And there were at least a couple of other disputable situations judged in favor of Brazil and in harm of Mexico that could have even further inflated the goal differential in favor of Mexico's team. And it was not clear in the first place whether Brazil would even win over Croatia (thus getting 3 points for the win) if it were not for that penalty which changed the course of the game.

So, having in mind all the presents Brazil has received from the referees it is even more impudent to claim that FIFA is not interested and would not allow Brazil to win a sixth world title. Surprisingly, this is what Brazil's manager Luiz Felipe Scolari and his assistants are reported to have said.

Incompetence

Now, after the disastrous game with Germany, I suppose there wouldn't be anybody claiming Brazil had played in a competent manner. But there were even earlier events pointing out at this issue. For a few examples, we can mention the childish goal the Selecao allowed in the game with Chile or the inclusion of Fred in the team. The only real reason to include Fred in the team would be to expect him to simulate for a penalty or to score an offside goal. If we ignore these "virtues" of his, Fred's presence is comparable to Diego Costa's inclusion in the Spanish football team (an inexplicable decision by Spain's manager Vicente del Bosque, another "great" specialist who probably has to retire).

Naivety

"Until now everything had gone very well." said Brazil goalkeeper Julio Cesar after the defeat by Germany. Well, what exactly had gone so well? Receiving a penalty for a starter versus Croatia? Drawing with Mexico? Winning against Cameroon (arguably the weakest team at 2014 FIFA World Cup)? Almost defeated by Chile and saved by a crossbar at the end? Winning over Colombia with just one goal more?

It seems Brazil footballers and the whole country have been quite delusional recently. Brazil didn't show anything in this competition to convince anybody (except for themselves and their die-hard fans) that the team deserved to win the World Cup. If we look at the scores and the demonstrated skills the "humble" team of Costa Rica deserved to win the Cup twice more. Brazil showed nothing impressive in football terms. You cannot win a tournament just with inflated self-confidence and referees' "mistakes". You cannot expect Germany to gift you the World Cup just because you are the host of the tournament either. And being that naive brings you tears.

Tears

We saw tears yesterday but we had seen tears in the eyes of Brazil's players long before the semi-final game. Yes, I am talking about the game with Chile. How often do you see footballers cry before penalty shoot-outs? Usually, you can see the defeated side crying after the shoot-outs. Did anybody see the Netherlands players cry before the penalty shoot-outs vs. Costa Rica? The painful truth is, Brazil's team was simply not ready for this tournament and they should have known it. Acknowledging it would not save million people in Brazil from tears after the disgraceful defeat from Germany but if the degree of impudence and naivety had not been so high the level of disappointment would most probably be much lower.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014): An Entertaining Time Manipulating Mess

This article won't be our typical movie review. Why Edge of Tomorrow is an entertaining movie you can read in a lot of reviews all over the Internet so let's concentrate on the question why the film is a mess. This will hardly happen without any spoilers though so be prepared to encounter them.

Edge of Tomorrow is a science fiction film about an alien race trying to conquer the Earth. The aliens are called Mimics, which actually does not matter for our purposes. The alien race (or organism) consists of three different species: first, countless "disposable" ordinary soldiers, which are easily allowed to die; second, much more rare and valuable "Alpha" Mimics used as scouts to improve the alien race's cumulative knowledge; and third, a unique Omega Mimic, which is the brain of the hive and stores the accumulated knowledge. Whenever an Alpha is killed, the Mimics possess the ability to reset time and use the gathered knowledge to improve their performance in the next time iteration. During his first actual battle, TV star Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) is killed by an Alpha Mimic but since he is covered in Alpha's blood in the very moment of his death, he inherits the ability to reset time and accumulate knowledge. Subsequently he tries to use this ability to destroy the Omega and in the process, he is helped by Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) who used to have the same time resetting power in the past.

As mentioned above the movie and the story are actually entertaining but also the same interesting time-loop concept is where the problems with the movie begin. There is not a single good-enough explanation how the whole time resetting thing works. If we take, for example, the "Cage" case introducing this concept to the movie, it's not clear who resets time - whether it's Cage or the aliens being it either the killed Alpha or the Omega. If the aliens are the reason for those resets, they should accumulate knowledge as well as Cage and improve themselves. If Cage is the one triggering the resets then it still makes sense to assume the Omega preserves knowledge as well otherwise it would be quite strange to think the Omega would know anything about Cage at all in order to send visions to him. So, we can safely assume that the alien race retains its ability to accumulate knowledge and improves in parallel with Cage during the time resets related to Cage. And now the questions begin.

First, is it plausible enough to think Cage will improve "better" than the aliens in order to accept the filmmakers' idea he will be able to defeat the aliens this way? Isn't it more likely that the aliens will be superior in this process since they've been doing it for a long time? It does not make sense to expect from a beginner to beat the professionals in their game. If we somehow accept it, the next question pops up. After Cage dies and wakes the previous morning, why wouldn't the aliens just kill another Alpha and reset the time to an even earlier point thus preventing Cage from access to their essential time-resetting power? Both of these questions leaved unanswered should probably lead us to the conclusion that the alien race is actually quite stupid.

But here comes the last question in this vein. If we somehow accept the above "stupidity", wouldn't the aliens be at least so smart to have always an Alpha ready to be sacrificed at the slightest possible danger for the Omega. Why would they risk the life of the Omega at all if they have the ability to reset time by killing an Alpha? Cage says to his crew just before the attack against the Omega near the end of the movie that it is very important to avoid killing an Alpha exactly for the same reason. And simultaneously we are forced to believed the aliens would not do such a killing themselves in order to save their hive mind. I'm sorry but independently of how much I'm trying to suspend my disbelief I would not buy that last one.

There are also other discrepancies in the movie like, for example, how it happens that nobody recognizes the famous face of Major William Cage from the TV. Since these issues are not related to the time manipulating concept we can omit them for the purpose of this article. And to bring it to an end, Edge of Tomorrow is enjoyable and the movie has its merits but if you try to think about the concept the film and its plot are based on, you'll end up in a great confusion.

Football Vs. Basketball, Tennis, Gymnastics and Politics

While 2014 FIFA World Cup is going on in Brazil bringing plenty of positive and negative emotions around the Globe, let's have some fun comparing football (soccer) with other popular sports.

Football and tennis

In games so different as football and tennis, we can consider a similarity their origins. England (non-continental Europe) is widely regarded as the place where the modern versions of these sports have come from. The main difference though, besides "small" distinctions like number of players, size of the ball, rules, etc., is that apart of the many famous football and tennis players coming from continental Europe, the rest of the most remarkable footballers come from South America while the rest of the most notable tennis players come from North America. The United Kingdom despite giving these two wonderful sports to the modern world is rarely in the spotlights as a winner.

Football and basketball

The similarity between football and basketball is that in both sports the objective is to score points with balls, which are almost the same in circumference (the basketball is usually slightly bigger). The dramatic difference lies in sizes and numbers. The hoop of the basket in basketball is just 18 inches (46 cm) in diameter, yet the number of points scored by just one of the teams often exceeds 100. The rectangular goal in football is 7.32 m (8 yd) long and 2.44 m (8 ft) high (which means it encompasses an area a hundred times bigger than the area available for shooting in basketball) but you can very rarely see 10 goals scored by both of the teams combined. Actually, seeing more than two goals in a football game is often considered profusion.

Football and (artistic, rhythmic, etc.) gymnastics

Now, one can wonder what could be the similarity between football and gymnastics. Well, hold your breath... in both sports the winner is decided by referees / judges. What is the difference then... In football, if you compete for the World Cup, referees can screw you up just once each four years. In gymnastics, if you want the World Championship title, judges have the option to do it every year. Which one is better though is beyond my humble imagination.

Football and politics

And finally, let's compare football with another popular competition, politics. One of the famous "facts" about both is everyone is an expert on football and politics. Another similarity is the presence of behind-the-scenes manipulation in both games. What differs them is the manipulation in politics often succeeds in making people to believe they are the ones choosing the "champion" while the manipulators in football have not been able to convince anybody about anything yet.

Ali (2001): A Great Movie for Some, Disappointing for Many

Michael Mann's Ali is apparently a good film for some people. But it's not for me. I suppose most fans of the movie are amongst the fans of Muhammad Ali / Cassius Clay. The usual reason for such appreciation is fans of a particular person or topic are more inclined to like stories about that person or subject. But in this case there is something more: director Michael Mann has chosen to tell the story of Ali in a way only people which have enough knowledge about the boxing legend are able to comprehend and appreciate his movie. Why Mann has chosen to make the film like that is beyond my understanding. What I know is I generally enjoy movies about men like Muhammad Ali but gathering a bunch of random facts about someone and basing otherwise unrelated cinematic sequences on these facts is one of the least successful ways to entertain me.

As expected, Ali is a biographical film about sports legend Muhammad Ali. Various moments from his early life and career are displayed and even a completely unfamiliar spectator will understand that Ali has been a great boxing champion and a very interesting man. The problem is it's hard to understand anything more substantial from the movie. There are plenty of Cassius Clay's life aspects referred in Ali, being either his boxing success or his religious life or his years in "disgrace" or his trip to Africa. But everything is treated in a way if it is told to people who already know Ali quite well. It is a strange approach to tell a story, especially of someone whose glory days have been a couple of decades in the past.

The movie is not void of good acting. Will Smith as Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali and Jon Voight as Howard Cosell are particularly notable but the rest of the cast deserves good words too. There are also a few enjoyable cinematographic moments thanks to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. And there could have been an interesting screenplay. But in reality the writing is not good. The lack of a coherent story makes the film very diluted. "Creative" ideas like following Muhammad Ali's "running" in Africa for a good number of minutes doesn't help either. The dilution of the material is so strong there are some presumably important characters in the film, which the unfamiliar spectator will still stay unfamiliar with until the very end of the movie. It's hard to follow the narrative because there is hardly any narrative to be followed.

Saying all of the above, I can see why there are people who vastly enjoy Ali. If you've been a fan of his through the years and you know a lot about him, it should be really cool to watch sequences reminding of events you've personally experienced or you have read about in your earlier life. I suppose it is comparable to the experience of seeing a series of brief moments of your own life (like on a film tape) in an existence-threatening situation with the difference the life is not yours in this case. But for others, not having a decent knowledge of the legend, watching the movie is more of a painful adventure than a pleasant trip. And just in case, you can always watch Spring Breakers if you want to feel better about Ali.

A Few Jokes with Unexpected Endings

I do really enjoy that kind of not so standard funny stories although I'm aware not everybody likes them. Anyway, have fun with the ones below.

Three wanna-be heroes decided to fight with an almighty dragon in a cave. The first man went into the cave armed with the latest generation of weaponry. He began throwing powerful bombs at the monster while shooting with the most modern machine gun. The dragon looked at the guy apathetically, hit him with its big tail and instantly killed him. Then the second guy, a mighty wizard, went into the cave swinging his magic sword and casting omnipotent spells. The dragon looked briefly at him, hit him with its tail and slew the wizard with ease. The time for the last hero to face the monster came. He entered the cavern with a plain club, saw the bored dragon and raised the club ready to fight. The dragon yawned for a moment, then knocked the simple man down with its tail wiping him out in a tick.

This is a different version of the previous story (making a better sense after reading the first one):

Three wanna-be heroes decided to fight with an almighty dragon in a cave. The first man went into the cave armed with the latest generation of weaponry. He began throwing powerful bombs at the dragon and killed it.

A cow was clambering up a tree. An ant saw the cow and asked in astonishment, "Why are you climbing that tree?"

The cow looked down and replied, "I want to treat myself to a couple of apples."

"But this is an oak," even more surprised, the ant said.

"Don't worry," the cow retorted with annoyance, "I'm bringing a few along."

A dolphin met a cow swimming in the ocean.

The dolphin asked, "Where are you off to?"

"I'm heading for the North Pole," the cow replied.

The dolphin looked around and said, "But you are moving south!"

"Well, it doesn't matter," the cow mumbled, "I'm going to sink in a second anyway."

An advertisement in a newspaper: 27-year-old, handsome, tall, well-built, of friendly temper and with good sense of humor, financially stable man wants to buy a farm wagon.

Naked Snow White was lying on a boulder in the forest. A dwarf saw her and told her, "Snow White, as I'm looking at you lying there, I'm tempted to come and do something bad with you."

Snow White seductively said, "Okay, that's what I'm waiting for."

Upon hearing it, the dwarf did not hesitate anymore. He went to Snow White and broke her leg.

An engineer and a software developer were flying in a plane. The engineer was sleeping but the software developer was wondering what to do. Finally he poked the engineer with his elbow and said, "Do you want to play Questions and Answers? We are going to ask questions and whoever is unable to answer will give 5 dollars to the other." The engineer opened his eyes and yawned for a second after which he continued to sleep.

To talk the engineer more easily into his idea, the software developer suggested, "Okay then, if you cannot answer, you will give me 5 dollars. If I can't answer though, I will give you 50 bucks."

The engineer reluctantly agreed and the software developer asked, "What is the distance between the Earth and the Moon?"

The engineer silently gave him 5 bucks. The software developer took them and said, "Now, it's your turn."

The engineer asked, "Who climbs a mountain on three legs but goes down on four?"

The software engineer was shocked. He opened his laptop, searched the Internet, used his mobile, sent emails to his friends but he was not able to find the answer. Finally, he took out 50 dollars and handed them to the engineer with the words, "Okay, I'm paying. Now, tell me the answer!"

The engineer silently handed him 5 bucks, closed his eyes and continued with his sleep.

Vertigo (1958): The Greatest Movie of All Time or Not, It Is Still Worth Seeing

Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo tops a few quite reputable lists pretending to consist of the greatest films of all time, e.g., the Sight & Sound list compiled every decade since 1952 by the magazine of the British Film Institute and based on votes of international film critics. The topping position makes writing about such a movie a bit difficult yet it deserves a try. Whether Vertigo is the best film of all time or not and why is beyond the scope of this article but here are some thoughts that might help a potential spectator to decide on seeing it or not.

In Vertigo James Stewart is recently retired San Francisco detective John 'Scottie' Ferguson who is afraid of high places. He is hired by an old acquaintance of his, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore), to investigate the mysterious activities of Gavin's wife Madeleine (Kim Novak). She is dangerously obsessed by one of her dead ancestors and in the process of his investigation Scottie also becomes greatly obsessed ... with Madeleine and her beauty.

To an extent, Vertigo suffers from some of other Hitchcock's movies flaws although they are not so evident or annoying here. There are a few inconsistencies throughout the script, an improbability here and there, some sequences that seem hurried over and a resolution looking way too easy at the end. Then again these are all quite subtle here and readily excusable compared to Hitch's other films. And because of this we are not going to hunt for Vertigo's shortcomings. Instead, we will focus on pointing out why this movie is among Hitchcock's best without trying to judge whether it's the greatest of all time.

So, in addition to the statement that Vertigo is one of Hitchcock's least flawed movies, which is a merit on its own, there are other explicit virtues that deserve to be mentioned. The acting of the leads is quite strong and notable. James Stewart is great as in most of his roles although this is not his typical one. Kim Novak is simultaneously mysterious, fragile, dangerous and tragic. Barbara Bel Geddes in the part of Scottie's friend Midge Wood is charming and caring beyond hope. All of these performances are full of tension and easily memorable.

A strong mystery envelops most of the movie and a twist or two add to the solid suspense in Vertigo. The twists are not forced and the mystery is captivating. The score is apt and it blends with the movie very well. The cinematography and the use of colors are gorgeous. The story is interesting (although a bit absurd) and the problems exposed in the movie are quite timeless. Some consider Vertigo to be Hitchcock's most personal and intimate film. There is certainly a lot of depth here and the delicate subjects of love and existence are handled with mastery and empathy. A dream-like sensation surrounds the shots and makes the narrative even more haunting in harmony with the various obsession themes intertwined into the movie.

This is a film quite different than North by Northwest (one of Alfred Hitchcock's other classics) and not as easily accessible as it but similarly to the latter it could be chosen as a great starting point for exploration of the director's cinematic legacy. Vertigo is tragic but beautiful. It leaves you with haunting thoughts and memories so you are not going to regret seeing it if you manage to avoid setting your expectations way too high.

Got Unwanted CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays or Games? musicMagpie Swaps Them for Cash

I've recently visited an interesting website called musicMagpie.com, which offers to buy all of your unwanted CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray discs and games. "A very nice idea", was my first thought although after my initial admiration and further investigation, there are a few aspects that will not suit everyone.

To begin with Music Magpie's positive sides, I should mention that the process of selling your unwanted discs seems quite straightforward and easy. You enter the barcodes of your DVDs, Blu-rays, CDs, etc. and their evaluation engine gives an instant price for each of your items. If you are happy with the offered price, Music Magpie offers free shipping so you don't have to pay for anything by yourself. You can choose between UPS and USPS shipment and there are further options to select the exact shipping method. The payment is by check, which is good if you like checks. Another good possibility is to scan barcodes with your webcam instead of typing them. Finally, you can also download musicMagpie's free applications for Android or iPhone/iPad/iPod and turn your mobile device into a barcode scanner.

Independently of how good this service seems at first, there are several drawbacks that should be considered before getting too excited. To begin with, the service is currently available only in the United States. This is not a surprise having in mind the shipping costs for tangible products. Another issue could be the minimum number of discs you can sell. Due to the shipping costs, the minimum is 10 items per shipment. There is also a maximum number per a transaction but this is not an actual limitation.

What could be a drawback too is the paucity of payment methods. The only option is payment by check and although checks are fairly common in the US, not everyone likes them. Also, from what I've tried, it looks like recordable / rewritable discs are not accepted. And last but not least, the price musicMagpie offers for your Blu-ray discs, CDs and games is not very high. It should be treated more as a price for unwanted items rather than a price somebody who really wants your discs would pay.

So, to recapitulate, if you live in the USA, don't mind getting check payments and have at least a dozen of unwanted discs that just take valuable space in your home, musicMagpie could do you a favor. If this is not your case, services like eBay are probably a better option.

La migliore offerta / The Best Offer (2013)

La migliore offerta is the latest film of director Giuseppe Tornatore (Nuovo Cinema Paradiso, La leggenda del pianista sull'oceano, Malèna). Like most of his movies, it is hard to give it a straightforward assessment. The movie is not as good as Tornatore's masterpiece Nuovo Cinema Paradiso but it's better than some of his other films like Malena. It's a movie the European audience will most likely admire and at the same time it's hard to tell whether American spectators would appreciate it. There is definitely a lot to be appreciated in this film but there are also a few aspects that could have been done better (in my humble opinion, of course). This is a movie, which is hard to be reviewed properly without the threat of spoiling the moviegoer's experience so be warned of possible unwanted "hints".

La migliore offerta (The Best Offer) is about a famous and eccentric expert art auctioneer who runs into a great challenge in the face of much younger heiress Claire (Sylvia Hoeks) who is not less eccentric than him. She wants from the auctioneer Virgil Oldman (Geoffrey Rush) to assess her inherited art collection while simultaneously behaves in an inexplicable manner. Gradually, Oldman decides this mysterious girl is probably the woman of his life. Virgil's younger and more experienced with women friend Robert (Jim Sturgess) encourages him in the delicate affair while helping him to repair old pieces of odd machinery.

Giuseppe Tornatore tries to make an artistic film about art. The movie is shot in beautiful exterior locations while almost all of the inside shots are made among sculptures, luxurious furniture, precious paintings, etc. There are many parallels drawn between the world of art and the real life (especially love), both art and love being among the passions which most often lead to strange behavior and obsession. There are also a few of Tornatore's great lines about life in the vein of his Una pura formalità's "advice" that you should never meet your idols in person because they will most likely disappoint you.

The acting in The Best Offer is amongst its major assets. Geoffrey Rush shows a great performance as usual making easily believable all of the eccentricity, torment and obsession of his character. Jim Sturgess seems better a movie after a movie and Donald Sutherland in the role of Virgil Oldman's long-time friend despite not having a lot of screen time is quite important for the story. As for the women in the movie, it could be said that Kiruna Stamell episodic appearances as a midget girl in a bar are probably more mystic and interesting than Sylvia Hoeks in the leading part of the mysterious heiress but this could be actually done on purpose.

Speaking about the weaker aspects of the movie, the predictability is one of the main issues. You can guess almost from the very beginning the direction of the plot and at least 10 minutes in advance where it is heading towards the end. Another slightly bothering matter is that the story is not very likely to happen in reality but considering it's a movie, the narrative does not cross the line of complete implausibility. Finally, the last scenes (you will know which ones when you watch the film) are to an extent redundant and I think the movie would have only benefited by finishing a bit earlier.

Most of the fans of Tornatore's previous films will find La migliore offerta quite good. It's slow paced but rarely boring and delivers on expectations. For people who are not that much into the Italian director's work, chances are this movie is not going to change drastically their opinion about him.

Spring Breakers (2012): Avoid It at All Costs

I had serious suspicions about the quality of film Spring Breakers but based on the user rating this movie had on IMDb and especially on its Metacritic score I took the risk and decided to see it. Well, it was a huge mistake. And while I can see where its average user rating could come from, I am completely confused in regard to its Metacritic rating. Usually critics do not vote so high for a boring mess like this. Yes, Spring Breakers is boring. It is far too long for the quantity of content it presents. Thus it is also repetitive and annoying. The camera work is not less annoying either. The movie lacks any substantial plot. The characters are forgettable, it's hard even to remember their names throughout the movie, and some of the main characters (if not all of them?) are redundant. Why anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about films would like this movie is beyond my understanding even if we label Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers a piece of art just for the sake of it.

Spring Breakers is about four college girls (Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, Rachel Korine and Selena Gomez) who long for a spring break vacation. They do not have enough money so three of them decide to rob a restaurant in order to fund their adventure. The job is done and soon they are on the desired vacation. After having some intensive "fun" they quickly land in jail. A local criminal (James Franco) bails them out of the trouble and hopes to get something in return. From then on the mess becomes even bigger and the boredom unbearable.

Having in mind the cast listed above, it's normal to not expect acting miracles from the actors. Add lack of a decent screenplay and performances are totally doomed. All of the girls behave inadequately to what they say and there is not a single character in the movie that demonstrates any integrity. I can understand if there are many viewers, which "like" the film only because of Selena Gomez or the rest of its attractive cast. What is hard to understand though is why the critique has not been harsher.

If this movie was released several decades ago it could be labelled audacious (like MASH, for example). Now it is not. The same is valid for the camera shots. I wouldn't call them innovative. They're just irritating. Selena Gomez's character is hardly in place in this movie and one can wonder why she's in it. The film is full of random events and random monologues, which I do not feel to be helpful at all. And in addition to the awfulness of the content, the amount of substance is so limited that it could work as a short film (perhaps?) but as a feature film it is just plain tedious.

Labelling Spring Breakers "art" do not help either to appreciate the movie (at least it does not help me). I can call the film ambitious at best but this does not make it entertaining or brave. Seeing some mediocre movies is tolerable when someone has nothing better to do but it is hardly the case with this Harmony Korine's film. My humble recommendation is to avoid it at all costs if you are not among those people who have the special talent to enjoy something just because it is different.

MASH (1970): Widely Acclaimed / Vastly Overrated

MASH is one of Robert Altman's widely acclaimed films and I am one of the many people who do not get the greatness of this movie. MASH is defined as hilarious, ground-breaking, audacious, surprising, anti-war, etc. Well, I can agree it has been audacious at the time of its release. As for the rest of it, I am not quite sure. MASH has its funny moments but it is far from a film I would call great. I consider it a vastly overrated movie.

If you look into IMDb's description of MASH, you will see the movie is about a field hospital (Mobile Army Surgical Hospital) whose staff uses humor and sex to escape the terror of the Korean war. MASH teems with disobedience, misogyny and disputable jokes. How we are supposed to know though that keeping their sanity in a good state is the doctors' actual motivation behind their behavior is beyond my perception of the movie. Indeed, there are lots of jokes, many of them really funny but I do not see how they make this an anti-war film or a film about people looking for salvation from the horror of war. The setting for these jokes could have been pretty much anything else and it would have (or have not) worked nearly as well.

The lovers of MASH have a variety of arguments in their bag: the movie has been very efficient at the time of its release but many things have changed in the decades that have passed; the film is funny and horrifying simultaneously and the often brutal jokes are result of the doctors' hopelessness; the same persons would behave differently in a "sane" world.

Now, these arguments are not completely devoid of sense but they are not very strong either. For example, there are many older movies about war but their age doesn't make them less anti-war or worse. Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is a good example for an older and much better movie. And if we have to rely on the funny moments in MASH in order to appreciate it, I have to disagree once more that this is a very successful presentation of the terror of war. Just take the Academy Award winner for Best Foreign Language Film from 2001 No Man's Land and you'll have a movie that is a way better in every aspect - it's both funnier and more horrifying than MASH while at the same time it demonstrates the actual drama and insanity of wars.

Of course, MASH has a few virtues. Some of the jokes and the situations are comical despite often showing cruelty or indifference. The cast is not bad at all featuring Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Tom Skerritt, Robert Duvall and Sally Kellerman who has been nominated for Oscar for her role of nurse "Hot Lips". Most of these actors have been in far better movies though, playing better roles and demonstrating better acting. Finally, airing audacity and anti-establishment is the movie's last quality I can think of but it is considerably devalued by time.

So, if you are a fan of Robert Altman or you want to see all of the films on the 100 Years...100 Movies list of the American Film Institute, you have a reason to see MASH. If you want to see a good comedy, drama or anti-war film there are better options. The aforementioned No Man's Land is just one of them.

A Few Comments on Google AdWords Enhanced Campaigns

Google have just introduced their so-called AdWords enhanced campaigns. Here are a few thoughts provoked by these recent AdWords changes, which I would like to share with you.

At first sight, introducing new possibilities always looks good but after I've given the changes a second thought I am not so convinced about their benefits and I wouldn't called them "enhanced" if I had to name them.

What does not sound good is Google's intention to "upgrade" all AdWords campaigns to "enhanced" after June 2013. As I see, enhanced campaigns actually have some limitations: impossibility to target specific device types, sitelinks' character limit, etc. I do not see why it won't be possible to have separate dedicated campaigns for desktop or mobile devices. In many cases the separate campaigns would be far more convenient, not to mention that probably there are advertisers who want to target just mobile or just desktop users.

Apart from that, I also do not see any significant benefits coming from any of the new possibilities introduced with AdWords enhanced campaigns. They are not useless but I do not find them very useful either. Combining all kind of devices in one campaign will save usually just one redundant campaign at most and at the expense of a weakened control. In the case of combining many locations in one campaign the advantage could be bigger but at the same time if you want to have a separate bid for a particular location, most probably you would like to have separate ads and keywords too, which is actually not possible and practically devaluates the new feature.

On the other hand, if I have to think of some useful changes in a similar to the enhanced campaigns vein and give some actual suggestions, I can immediately think of two things.

1) A possibility to choose (or at least to exclude) locations per ad group would be very helpful. It will limit unnecessary keyword replication across multiple campaigns and will be also more convenient for initial creation and subsequent management. For example, if I would like to create a campaign with 50 ad groups and 100 locations but I want to exclude a particular location (one of these 100) different per each ad group, at the moment I have to create 100 separate campaigns with these 50 ad groups and their keywords. In case of having location targeting per ad group this would be achieved with just a single campaign.

2) Another good feature would be the possibility to select (or at least to enable/disable) sitelinks per ad group (if not per ad). I think this is probably a better treatment in regard to sitelinks cause each ad has it's own destination URL so setting sitelinks at campaign level only doesn't seem very logical. Apart from logic, it would be just more convenient cause the same pack of sitelinks is not always the most appropriate one for each ad in a campaign. In addition, AdWords system does not always show the ads with their sitelinks (depending on where the ad is shown on the page with the search results), so an option to have a different main destination URL per ad depending on whether sitelinks are displayed or not seems also a proper and useful addition.

I think these suggestions are quite easy for implementation, which could be achieved in various ways. I do appreciate Google's work to improve AdWords so my intention is not just to criticize the new features but to offer some constructive feedback. I saw missing AdWords features in the past, which I thought would be helpful, had been implemented later. So it seems Google actually use users feedback to improve AdWords and I hope they will reconsider their current plans in regard to enhanced campaigns and come out with another (better) solution.

Beginners (2010): Realistic and Well-Acted but Underwhelming

I often complain about certain movies not being believable or characters' behavior not being adequate and realistic enough. Usually, I dislike them partially or entirely. And now, here Beginners is. It's completely believable. It's acted out quite well. Even the not so common events portrayed in the movie seem absolutely possible. And despite all of these the movie is somehow boring and not fully entertaining. Maybe its total realism makes it less cinema friendly and at the end less involving. Beginners is good on its own yet it failed to absorb me.

Beginners is about Oliver Fields (Ewan McGregor), a young man who after losing his mother is shocked by his father's announcement that he is gay. Father Hal Fields (Christopher Plummer) is also diagnosed with cancer and dies after a few years leaving Oliver sad and confused about love and life. Oliver often thinks about his father's last years and his happy relationship with considerably younger male lover Andy (Goran Visnjic). He also thinks about his early life with his queer mother and her marriage with his father. These thoughts determine his uncertainty in his own relationships with women. One day he meets Anna (Mélanie Laurent), a French actress, which has also unstable former love life. Both of them like each other but love is not enough to keep them together. They have to deal with their fears and find hope and inspiration in order to end up in a successful relationship this time.

The story of Beginners may seem more interesting as I write about it than it actually is while you are watching the film. There are not any substantial twists. You know from the very beginning that the father will die and that he is gay. Whether Anna and Oliver will end up together or not does not really matter. So, the interesting stuff that has to capture your attention should be hidden in the particular scenes. And there are really some interesting moments but as a whole they are not enough to make for a captivating movie. The characters of Andy and the mother (Mary Page Keller) are in a way fascinating but they are not among the ones having the most screen presence.

Christopher Plummer and Ewan McGregor perform well. And as I've said everything you see in Beginners is feasible although not everyone in real life is gay and it's even rare a 75-year-old man to find an attractive young male lover. Being believable is not enough though and boredom is not an alien to this film. Personally, I do not find the usage of stills from particular years in the movie to be an effective presentation device either. On a positive note, I think to employ a character of an elderly father revealing himself as gay and achieving happiness at the decline of his life is a good idea when seen as an inspiration to his son.

So, Beginners offers a real life story, good acting and some colorful characters. It's hardly a comedy but you can smile a few times. What the movie doesn't offer is real involvement and caring for the characters. I find it underwhelming and remotely entertaining. Watching Beginners once is not a complete waste of time but it is not a fully rewarding experience either.

Farewell to EuroDNS!

Instead of a list of EuroDNS voucher codes valid for year 2013, this time we are going to announce our parting with this European domain name registrar. There are various reasons for our decision and below are a few of them.

In 2012 EuroDNS discontinued their long-lived practice to offer voucher codes valid for renewals in addition to new domain registrations and transfers. EuroDNS' prices rarely have been the best and their main advantage has been the convenience of offering a variety of domain extensions at one place combined with discounted prices due to their frequent coupons valid for renewals. Now, when the discounted prices are gone, EuroDNS' regular pricing hardly can win permanent customers for the majority of the domain extensions they sell. Their pricing model is just not attractive anymore.

Over the years EuroDNS support services have never been great and while this was bearable in conjunction with their previous advantages now it is not really acceptable. The culmination of this charming customer support experience was last year when there were cases when about ten emails were needed in order to receive a decent and not misleading answer from them. It was nothing more than a painful experience.

Finally, they used to offer an affiliate program offering lifetime commissions for orders made by referrals you had sent. They discontinued it too. And this would have been generally Ok if it was valid only for new referrals an affiliate recruited. The problem is they also discontinued the lifetime status of the older referrals, which in essence means they've been dishonest in the first place. True, this does not directly affect customers registering domain names but it demonstrates the way the company is doing business and for us it is not a reliable way.

The above were the main reasons that drove us away from EuroDNS. It takes more than just a few false promises and an incompetent support team to win devoted customers. We do not like to support such companies so we do not recommend this domain registrar anymore.

The American (2010): A Boring and Unconvincing Movie

The American is a considerably slow paced drama starring women's favorite George Clooney. It's considered by some critics (including Roger Ebert) to be a very well made movie but I do not share their opinion. In fact, I think it has a number of flaws. It is definitely not a movie for everyone's taste but this is not what makes are film bad or good. The American failed to convince me its main character was really what he was supposed to be according to the major part of the film. It also failed to get my genuine involvement from the beginning. Finally, I felt the filmmakers had tried to replace the movie's lack of qualitative content with beautiful scenery shots and excessive nudity but somehow this mix didn't work for me.

The American, Jack or Edward (George Clooney), is a skillful assassin who is also good at making high-grade weapons. When an assignment in Sweden goes wrong and he loses the woman he is involved with, Jack meets Pavel (Johan Leysen), the man he works for, in Italy. Pavel sends Jack in a small countryside village and further assigns him a job specified by Mathilde (Thekla Reuten). The job is to construct a weapon and Jack wants this to be his final assignment from Pavel. Meanwhile Jack under the name of Edward becomes a friend of local priest Father Benedetto (Paolo Bonacelli) and begins a relationship with local prostitute Clara (Violante Placido). At the same time someone wants Jack dead.

It's obvious that the film tries to represent the American as an expert and impenetrable assassin. The problem is (possible spoilers ahead) we see Jack making a professional mistake in Sweden. Whether it is his first we do not know. Instead of trying to correct it, we see Jack making several new relationships immediately after he arrives in Italy. And these do not involve only women but also other locals. Furthermore, it's hard to believe that a skilled killer is going to walk alone across empty streets leaving his back fully uncovered while expecting something bad to happen.

Another thing not working for me was The American's slow pace. Especially in its first third the movie was extremely slow and unpromising. I've been wondering whether anything will occur at all.

I've read Roger Ebert pays a huge attention to two words, "Mr. Butterfly", in his review of The American. He says they are spoken by the wrong person only once and that this detail of the movie is crafted very well leading him to exaltation. Well, it could be I've missed that great scene but I think it's more likely people are looking for something splendid yet not existing in this film. If we take Ebert's example, only two women in the movie articulate the phrase “Mr. Butterfly”. First, neither of them uses these words only once. Second, both of these women have very good reasons to pronounce the words at every single occasion they do it. Sometimes, we can even assume they have more than one feasible reason. It's easy to consider Clara or Mathilde to be the wrong person but it's hard to put any huge significance in their use of "Mr. Butterfly".

Indisputably, the movie has its good moments. It shows beautiful Italian places and villages. It's nice to see Michele Placido's daughter, Violante, in the role of Clara. George Clooney is cool as usual and makes a decent restrained performance. The final shot of the film is great and symbolic. And it has a butterfly in it. But these moments were not enough for a captivating movie. For me, The American was not convincing and its second half was not strong enough to override the boring beginning.

Cloud Atlas (2012): A Great Cinematic Experience If You Do Not Expect the Meaning of Life

Cloud Atlas is the latest film which Lana and Andy Wachowski (the creators of The Matrix) have been involved in. Cloud Atlas is considered by many (especially among its fan base) a revolutionary movie in regard to storytelling. It is also considered to deliver six different but well-connected stories, which have a profound philosophical meaning when seen as a whole. I do not agree with either of these arguments. I still think the movie is good though; only my reasoning behind it is not going to be the same.

Cloud Atlas tells six stories that takes place between 19th century and the distant future in parallel. The directors use the same actors for various roles and in a given space of time the character a particular actor play could be with a different gender or race. There are so many various impersonations that at times it is difficult to recognize the actor behind the character. This could seem like a mess but in fact, it's not bothersome at all. The change between the stories is not chronological and it's harder to follow it in the beginning. But once you become relatively familiar with each story and more importantly when (and if) you understand that there is not actually anything invisible, which you're missing, connecting the stories, the task of following them gets easier. I won't even try to describe the stories. They are about freedom, rebellion, seeking for a hidden truth and this is all you need to know.

The cast of the movie (including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon, Ben Whishaw, Jim Sturgess, etc.) has coped with the heavy task to render up to seven characters per actor very well. What I do not find to be quite successful is the actual connection between the stories. It relies mainly on the same characters and a few objects or events artificially tying the stories together. Thus I neither think the storytelling is really revolutionary nor there is such a huge meaning behind the movie. But this is actually a problem you could think thoroughly of only after the ending of Cloud Atlas.

And this is what makes the film working. When you are in the cinema, Cloud Atlas is really absorbing. You do care for the characters (well, at least for some of them). You want to see what is going to happen next in each of the stories despite realizing they are not so masterfully interconnected. The visuals are stunning. The music is good. The overall cinematic experience is great and you can hardly get bored during the long continuance of the film.

So, despite my opinion that the stories are not very well connected or revealing the meaning of life I can only admire the brave decision of Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis to make this beautiful and tricky film. Cloud Atlas might not be really groundbreaking or making a perfect sense but it is superior to many movies which are easier to follow and undoubtedly reasonable. See it once and you may want to see it again.

Jackie Brown (1997): A Conventional but Well Told Story

There are many of Quentin Tarantino's fans that think Jackie Brown is his poorest film. I would actually vote for Death Proof in such a competition but I can understand to a degree where their underappreciation of Jackie Brown comes from. First, it is the first Tarantino's full feature movie released after Pulp Fiction and since the latter is really great people's expectations for its successor should have been quite too high. Second, Jackie Brown is just not as "extreme" as other of Tarantino's films. Despite demonstrating many of his filmmaking trademarks, it is probably his most mainstream effort to date. But these two observations do not make the movie bad. It's fairly good and it's satisfying on many levels.

Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is a flight attendant using the airline she works for to smuggle the money of arms dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson). When the FBI and the police, in the face of Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), decide to catch the arms dealer they try to force Jackie to cooperate with them. She has a choice between jail and giving Robbie up but the latter could be more unpleasant than the jail cause Ordell Robbie does not leave people talking about him alive for too long. In this situation Jackie succeeds to enchant her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster) and with his help she prepares a plan to get her out of the mess relieving herself of both the Feds and her boss.

As Tarantino's film, Jackie Brown delivers many of the goods or techniques one would expect. There is enough talking, partially irrelevant to the plot, of course. There are memorable characters and as usual the most colorful ones are amongst the supporting cast. We should mention Robert De Niro in the role of somehow dysfunctional ex-con Louis Gara and Bridget Fonda who plays one of the many Ordell's girlfriends, Melanie Ralston. Unsurprisingly, Quentin Tarantino offers a non-linear narrative. There are plenty of deaths too. The ending is not a huge surprise but endings have never been excessively surprising in Tarantino's movies anyway. As crucial as the plot might be the most important thing about his films has always been the way he tells a story.

Compared to the director's previous (and next) movies this one is probably his most conventional. Yes, it is not up to the standard of Pulp Fiction, which is a hard to match film, and this may be considered disappointing by certain people. The use of superfluous talking is not comparable to some of Tarantino's other movies and in this regard Jackie is closer to the broader audience although not being so Tarantino-ish is likely not to the taste of the director's core fan base. A piece of criticism could be mentioned against the screenplay too for not being very original.

But the lack of timeless greatness aside, when you add the cool performances of Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson and Robert Forster to the almost expendable but funny supporting characters of Robert De Niro and Bridget Fonda plus the fine soundtrack you get an entertaining movie. Jackie Brown may not be as innovative as Quentin Tarantino's previous efforts but it is still an amusing thriller and if approached without prejudice it can ensure a few hours of good time.

Skyfall (2012): Memorable Story and Characters

Our hope that 2012's Skyfall could make a good change in the James Bond series once more came true. Every Bond movie with Daniel Craig's participation brought a big alteration to the previously established course of the franchise. 2006's Casino Royale was the first big surprise, which rebooted the famous secret agent's story timeline and offered a non-conventional treatment of the character who was not capable anymore of saving the world effortlessly. 2008's Quantum of Solace was almost a U-turn again reinstating Bond as an omnipotent hero and lacking a good story. Finally, Skyfall accomplished another drastic reversal bringing the competent characterization and the good storytelling of Casino Royale back at the expense of Bond's invincibility.

After an unsuccessful mission to secure an important computer drive containing the names of British secret agents back from a man who has stolen it, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is considered to be dead, incidentally shot by his partner Eve (Naomie Harris). Months later the British government's upset with MI6 and particularly with M (Judi Dench) has reached the point to offer her a retirement due to the inability of MI6 to recover the drive. M prefers to stay until the issue is resolved. But it appears the government is not the only one wanting M's head as there is an explosion in MI6's headquarters. After the explosion Bond decides to return despite his unstable condition and possibly woolly attitude after being shot by his own colleague in consequence of M's instruction. Once he becomes a secret agent anew it appears the man having the drive (Javier Bardem) is not so unknown. His name is Silva and he has his own agenda for dealing with M.

As it becomes clear since the very beginning of Skyfall this time James Bond is not a powerful and invulnerable hero. This leads to a more interesting story, which the characters of Javier Bardem and Judi Dench also contribute a lot to. Javier Bardem is easily acceptable as a villain and he has already demonstrated in former movies he is quite capable of portraying bad guys. Ralph Fiennes and Albert Finney also have memorable roles and they show good acting skills as usual. Having seen them in two previous Bond films, Judi Dench and Daniel Craig are what you would expect from them (which means good). And Ben Whishaw makes a decent appearance as Q. As a whole, the introduction of more personal sides of the characters furthers Skyfall's quality.

The cinematography is left in the hands of Roger Deakins and this makes Skyfall one of the most beautifully shot films in the James Bond franchise. There are plenty of lovely places presented in the movie (Istanbul, Macau, Shanghai, the Scottish Highlands and of course, London), which give you enough opportunities to appreciate Deakin's mastery more than once. The soundtrack is better than Quantum of Solace's score and this includes Adele's opening song. The direction of Sam Mendes is also great, which is of course easier when a good script is on hand.

To conclude, Skyfall is definitely a huge improvement over the former James Bond installment. It is probably not so surprisingly strong and pleasantly different as Casino Royale but it is a solid effort and deserves attention.

Looper (2012): A Good Sci-Fi Movie with Familiar Time Travel Flaws

Looper offers an interesting and fairly unpredictable narrative, good acting and some unavoidable for a time travel sci-fi movie flaws. Independently of the flaws though Looper is one of the better sci-fi films of 2012.

Looper's action is set in 2 different years, both in the not so distant future. In 2074, when the mob wants to kill someone and get rid of the body, the best possible way is to send the victim into the past. In 2044 a group of assassins called "Loopers" waits for the victims sent from the future and eliminates them the very moment they "land" on a specific place. Sometimes the older self of a particular killer is sent back from the future to be killed by his younger self. This is called "closing of the loop". If the man from the future escapes for whatever reason problems arise for the unsuccessful killer. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one of the 2044's assassins, which gets into real danger when Old Joe (Bruce Willis) "arrives" in the past with more than a simple view of defenceless dying.

Looper is a well directed movie based on potent ideas. Except for the younger-older self connection there a few other themes incorporated into the movie like a love story, preventing the loss of a cherished person or a complicated mother and son relationship. The story is competently constructed and there aren't almost any redundant episodes. The film rarely feels boring and you do not know until the very end how Looper is going to wind up although a few possibilities may have crossed your mind.

The cast has done a fine job too. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis are good in their impersonations of a same character. Actually this is probably the best movie starring Bruce Willis in recent years. Emily Blunt and Paul Dano have also notable performances in Looper. And Jeff Daniels has a few episodic but memorable appearances as the mob's representative in the "past".

Despite all of the praises above Looper has also a few flaws, some of which inevitable. As with every other time travel film each transfer of a man into the past (or into the future) immediately brings forth common problems related to the existence of more than a single timeline and its manipulation. This is very similar to the chicken-or-egg problem and of course, Looper is not a movie that avoids it. The film reveals some other less excusable issues too, e.g., the impossibility of the mob in 2074 to get rid of people in their own time seems ridiculous especially when simultaneously men are so advanced they can use time machines. Another not so clear point is why a looper should kill his own older self instead of assigning this tricky task to a colleague.

Regardless of the few issues, Looper tells a sound science fiction story. The plot is solid, entertaining and keeps you involved throughout the whole movie. The film is mandatory for lovers of the sci-fi genre but most casual moviegoers will also have a good time watching it.

Quantum of Solace (2008): Old-Fashioned and Predictable

It does not happen often a James Bond movie to rely heavily on its predecessor and this is exactly the case with 2008's Quantum of Solace. The previous installment in the series, 2006's Casino Royale, was the first Bond film starring Daniel Craig and it was a big success among both critics and broad audience. Probably this has been the reason inciting Quantum of Solace's filmmakers to include so many references in the movie to the former one but unfortunately, the end result is not even close to the quality of Casino Royale.

In Quantum of Solace secret agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) has to stop a famous environmentalist (Mathieu Amalric) from gaining control of a sterile land in South America in exchange of helping a local military leader to take the rule of the country. Simultaneously, Bond is hoping to inflict vengeance upon the people involved in the death of his love interest from Casino Royale Vesper Lynd. Of course, there is a new girl here, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is also seeking revenge for past events. The CIA is completely lost in this film and Bond's most powerful weapon is his strong will to avenge for Vesper's death.

Quantum of Solace is interesting in its contradictions. It is the first Bond Movie referring so heavily on a previous installment and in the same time it is very different from Casino Royale. The character development and the absorbing story of the first film with Daniel Craig are missing and the movie is closer to the usual stereotype of the franchise offering an invincible and almighty James Bond. Naturally, this does not make the film really memorable but the worse is the movie lacks a good plot and interesting twists. The aforementioned references to Casino Royale are also more obstructive to the story perception instead of being helpful in any way.

As a good old-fashioned James Bond movie Quantum offers lots of intense action, special effects and unscrupulous villains. Its biggest problem is that many of the previous films in the Bond series are just better. We've seen better plots, more efficient villains and we've listened to better scores. Even the opening song here is quite weak and in my opinion unsuitable. At the same time many of the franchise's past opening songs have become huge hits. Finally, the movie does not surprise with anything and is completely predictable.

So, if you want to see a traditional James Bond film you have plenty of options among the vast collection of pre-Daniel Craig Bond episodes. If you want to see something different Casino Royale is the obvious choice. These make the second Daniel Craig's reincarnation as James Bond actually expendable. If you are a fan of the James Bond franchise, you can see Quantum once for completeness but except for this purpose there are not many reasons to choose it. There is still hope though that the upcoming release of Skyfall is going to change the notion of a Bond movie for good once more and we will have the chance to experience a high-grade entertainment with Daniel Craig in the cinema again.

Brave (2012): Not Up to Former Pixar's Classics

After their heavy domination in the realm of animation, Pixar finally lost the lead last year. The 2012 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature went to Rango and if Pixar rely on Brave to win another Oscar or at least to restore their image, I don't think they will succeed. Brave is neither very good nor brave. It's a decent movie but it leaves more a taste of mediocrity when you know it's made by Pixar.

Brave is about young Princess Merida whose least desirable wish is to be a princess. She's good in archery and horse riding. She does not like to wear tight good-looking dresses. And she does not want to marry somebody her mother or a competition chooses. Merida's rebelliousness is about to start a war in her father's kingdom. So when she incidentally meets a witch she does not hesitate to ask for sorcery in order to change her life and her mother. But the magic does not work the way Merida expects so now she has to act fast and break the spell or its unpleasant effect will remain permanent.

The story is nothing original. A child opposes her parents' will and some complications appear, eventually helping them to resolve the issues. The theme is recycled many times and the main feature of Brave is it's animated. But the story itself is not told in a very interesting way. The plot is kept alive by some illogical actions (who needs to bring a bear in a castle while simultaneously trying to hide it just to take a tapestry from a wall). There are references to ancient events that are pretty much redundant. And Merida has a father who is probably supposed to be a funny character but he's actually acting just plain stupid and is completely uninterested in his family doings. Well, it's not that his daughter is acting smarter most of the time but Ok, she's still a child and it is an animated movie after all.

The visuals are well crafted yet this is naturally expected when Pixar are involved. Some of the landscapes in Brave look almost like real ones. Of course, water scenes are not among these and people are not even supposed to look authentic. The mandatory songs for an animated feature are not omitted. And they as well as everything else sound Scottish, which could be good or bad, or even distracting depending on your preference.

Unfortunately, Pixar are not "brave" this time and they do not take any risks with Brave. This furthers the movie's mediocrity. Brave has a standard story and everything happens the way you would expect from a Disney film. Indeed, it shouldn't be an obstacle for everybody and especially kids will probably find the movie and its characters entertaining. As for recapturing older audience, I think Pixar have to work harder. It seems they are running out of fresh ideas but if they want to be hugely successful again producing just gorgeous animations won't be enough. We need more than a simplistic story and a witty dialogue to begin praising their movies anew.

North by Northwest (1959): An Accessible Hitchcock's Classic

North by Northwest is probably one of Alfred Hitchcock's most accessible films. It is full of color. It has Cary Grant. It covers a lot of open and closed spaces. There is more adventure and action than in Hitchcock's other movies. There is mystery and romance. It's hard to enumerate all of the twists that happen throughout the film. There is a legendary scene with a crop duster and decent action around Mount Rushmore. There are a lot of funny moments too. What more a casual moviegoer could want from a movie?

In North by Northwest Cary Grant is in the role of Roger O. Thornhill, a New York advertising expert, who is unluckily mistaken for a government agent by foreign spy Phillip Vandamm (James Mason). Thornhill's life is in serious danger and he has to find a way to survive as he is kidnapped, forced to drink a full bottle of liquor, accused of murder and this is just the beginning of his troubles. He meets a beautiful woman, Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), who seems to be trying to help him but soon it appears she is not so innocent as she looks. As a result, Thornhill is once again pursued, shot at and dusted with poisonous pesticide in a cornfield. And he still doesn't have a clue what is really going on...

Unlike many other Hitchcock's films (Rope, Rear Window, etc.) in which the entire action takes place in closed spaces or even in just one room, North by Northwest covers a variety of interesting locations. Mt. Rushmore is a good example to mention. The famous crop duster scene is another highlight. Hitchcock manages to use a wide-open space during broad daylight to create an unexpected but real threat for the protagonist. The scene is masterfully shot and it has become one of Hitchcock's classic moments since the film's release in 1959. Some people still wonder why the antagonist would choose such a complicated plan to eliminate somebody. I do not have problems with such a choice and I can consider it an artistic device. But if you think about the scene deeper there is not a single good reason why Roger Thornhill is sent to that cornfield in the first place. Anyway, this is one of the things that could be reasonably excused with "it's just a movie".

The film is full of adventurous situations and Cary Grant is a very good choice for the role of the light-hearted Thornhill. There are also plenty of jokes like when Thornhill rushes into a lady's bedroom and her initial fright and indignation are turned into a sudden hope to hold Cary Grant in her room longer.

The twists in North by Northwest starts from the very beginning and it's hard to complain there are not enough of them. Almost constantly the situation changes, independently of whether you expect it or not.

The movie is closer to the mainstream (in terms of romantic relationship, color, etc.) compared to other Alfred Hitchcock's films but this does not make it weaker by any means. What it helps for though is that the movie is appreciable by a broader audience and more people can enjoy Hitchcock's craftsmanship.

The Dictator (2012): Finally a Funny Film Starring Sacha Baron Cohen

Back in 2006, when I saw the trailer of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan I thought it would be a great comedy. Unfortunately, despite all the critical acclaim that movie got, Borat was nothing more than a mediocre film and almost everything funny it had to offer was already present in the trailer. The movie itself was full of bad taste humor which probably only people who have not any actual idea about the world could find entertaining. For the record I didn't like also Sacha Baron Cohen's 2002 film Ali G Indahouse.

So, the above were the reasons why I delayed watching the latest film featuring Sacha Baron Cohen, The Dictator. The trailer was not so promising as the one for Borat and the reviews were not nearly as favorable as the ones concerning the 2006's movie. Having in mind my dissatisfaction with Borat I disregarded The Dictator initially. When I finally saw it a few weeks after its release, I was pleasantly surprised. The film was not a masterpiece or even remotely close to greatness but it was quite better than Borat and capable of raising more laughter than Borat without being so nasty.

The Dictator is about oppressive and queer North African leader Admiral General Aladeen (Sacha Baron Cohen). Protecting his beloved country Wadiya from democracy is among the despot's highest priorities. Aladeen is in a process of developing nuclear weapons so he has to visit New York in order to address International concerns about his country's nuclear program. But everything goes wrong after it becomes clear he is not the only one wanting to rule Wadiya (watch out for Ben Kingsley).

The Dictator shares a lot of similarities with its predecessor Borat, yet not being the first doesn't make it the worse movie. Sacha Baron Cohen's character is coming from a completely different culture again but this time I would guess he has offended less people than in the case with Kazakhstan. In both of the films his character visits America unprepared for the western world and has to deal with numerous complications. But in The Dictator the visit is actually funny while in Borat it's mostly nasty and annoying although this doesn't mean The Dictator is void of a good portion of vulgarity.

The story is nothing impressive and it is just a device for the endless string of comical situations. The plot is nearly ridiculous and you will hardly find anything serious in the narrative (even though there is an attempt at a more serious speech towards the end of the film). A few pieces of political satire are thrown in the mix but political correctness is something you won't find in this movie. Nevertheless, the main intention of a comedy is fulfilled cause the fun never stops throughout the whole film. If you are not afraid of R rated humor it is really easy to enjoy The Dictator.

Bernie (2011): Disappointing Attempt at Dark Comedy

I like some of Richard Linklater's movies. And I also like Jack Black's acting in many of his films and even in the rock video game titled Brütal Legend. I also think Black has done a very good job portraying the main character in Bernie. But in spite of this and contrary to other reviewers I do not consider Bernie a good movie. And even the presence of Shirley MacLaine or Matthew McConaughey cannot save it.

Bernie Tiede (Jack Black) is an undertaker in a small Texas town. He constantly smiles, has a lot of talents and is always ready to help people. Everybody likes Bernie and he loves everybody. Bernie is great in his work as he is in everything else. He begins a friendship with a wealthy sour widow named Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) and both of them become almost inseparable. Bernie accompanies Marjorie in her daily routines as well as in her vacations. Marjorie shifts from a bad tempered widow to a happy old lady and in the process she assumes Bernie is her possession. One day he accidentally kills her. And then the big question is: Will the skilful Bernie be able to make dead Marjorie looking alive and outwit the townsfolk including unsympathetic district attorney Danny Buck (Matthew McConaughey)?

The movie tells the story of Bernie through lots of interviews and the narration has kind of a documentary feel mixed with folklore flavor. To a certain point this actually looks interesting and it is acceptable as an artistic device. The problem is it turns less and less attractive towards the end and the film becomes pretty boring. Nothing new and surprising happens and the movie lacks a real climax. There is not a single character having to overcome any serious obstacle. The events just take place in this movie.

It seems the American audience is in general more favorable to Bernie, probably because the film is based on a true story that has happened in the USA. The movie is supposed to be a dark comedy but it is not quite funny. Many of the jokes are artificial. The same is valid for the whole narrative in fact. Bernie could be a mockery but somehow the entertaining element is lost and after the ending I was more disappointed than satisfied.

The acting is Ok. Jack Black fits well in the role of the chubby and sweet Bernie. Shirley MacLaine does not have a lot to say but nevertheless she easily creates the image of a pretty annoying old lady. Despite being a law representative Matthew McConaughey succeeds to be less adorable than universal favorite turned criminal Bernie. What dooms this movie most is its script and direction. Richard Linklater has been quite good in the making of Before Sunrise and Before Sunset but his re-creation of the story in Bernie won't find place on the list of my favorite films.

Total Recall (2012): Not Offering Anything Better than the Original

If you haven't expected too much from the recent remake of Total Recall, you won't be "disappointed". As usual, it's (not so) debatable whether or not Paul Verhoeven's 1990 film with Arnold Schwarzenegger has needed a remake at all but the 2012 movie actually begins well and is decent till the middle of the narrative. But it looks like shortly after that point the filmmakers have decided it's time to spoil the film and they have achieved it perfectly.

The story of the new Total Recall is expectedly not original. The plot is pretty much similar to that of the 1990 movie and the setting is the main difference between the two. In a future post apocalyptic world the only two inhabitable areas on Earth are a federation over today's British isles and a colony in Australia. The colony provides "cheap" labor for the federation and here is the main issue with the first part of the movie: to make it "faster" the workers travel through the center of the Earth. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is one of the factory workers who do this exercise every day. His beautiful wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) is not enough to make him happy and he has permanent nightmarish dream involving another woman (Jessica Biel). One day Quaid decides to visit Rekall, a company implanting fake memories. But the visit goes wrong and Quaid is forced to run from the authorities and believing more and more he has been previously a spy.

Total Recall is a movie that will hardly surprise you if you've seen its ancestor. It is not set on Mars but this doesn't make the film really different in terms of plot. There is still a resistance movement against the totalitarian federation regime and Quaid is not sure where to look for his origin. The two surviving areas on Earth are well crafted and one of the few highlights of the movie. Quaid and the rest of the factory workers produce robot soldiers whose purpose seems to be to protect the federation against the colony resistance, which is not very smart. If the only benefit of using colony workers were to produce soldiers fighting against the oppressed colony why would you need to master the colony in the first place.

But if there has been any chance to like the movie after its decent but not so convincing beginning this chance is being completely devastated along Total Recall's accession to conclusion. For example, we are surprised by the fact the federation has not thought to search for the resistance in the most probable location. But the "best" is when Douglas Quaid decides to take a walk in his bare skin outside of a "vehicle" running with 20000 miles per hour at temperatures of several thousands degrees. Colin Farrell might be a better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger but even Schwarzenegger rarely does such stupid things in his movies.

The only other bonus making this movie watchable in addition to some good visuals is the presence of Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel but on the other hand if your purpose is just to watch beautiful women Total Recall is hardly the most appropriate film to choose.