The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018)

Terry Gilliam first read Don Quixote in 1989 and decided to turn it into a movie right away. It's only in 2000 that he had his first shot at making the film, but everything went wrong and the making of the movie became a documentary about the failure at making the movie, Lost in La Mancha. Last May, after 18 years the first attempt, and nearly 30 years after it was originally conceived, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote finally saw the light at Cannes.

The story follows Toby Grisoni (Adam Driver), a cynical advertising director who is struggling with the production of a commercial featuring Don Quixote. One night, he stumbles upon an old DVD of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, an amateur film that Toby made as a student a decade earlier. He then discovers that the village where he made the film is just a short drive away and heads over there only to discover that the shoemaker (Jonathan Pryce) he cast in the leading role now believes he is the real Don Quixote and that Toby is Sancho Panza. Toby is soon pulled into the world of Don Quixote and embarks on a series of adventures that mixes dreams and reality.

Gilliam's film has a wonderful beginning, as the story immediately captures your attention and pulls you in the world that mixes fantasy, dreams and reality Gilliam has created. Unfortunately, as it unfolds, the story gets more and more confusing, chaotic, and it's difficult to understand what the hell is going on; there are too many subplots that intertwine in a forced manner which only makes the story more confusing, furthermore there are dismissed pretty soon, and it feels like Gilliam completely forgot about writing them in the first place. The ending is just as confusing —I watched the entire movie twice and I'm still not sure what I saw— and, as the ending credits roll, you are left with nothing but a sour taste in your mouth.

In addition to the messy plot, the script also features a lot of unnecessary, long and absurd dialogues and characters that keep transforming as the film moves forward.

Screen Media Films

The acting, on the other hand, is more than solid, which is as a huge surprise considering how poor the screenplay is. Adam Driver gives yet another charismatic performance as Toby, the cynical, arrogant American filmmaker; his Toby is a narcissist and skeptical but at the same time very likeable and sympathetic, and his attempts at humour always pay off. Jonathan Pryce does a wonderful job as the man who seemingly lost his mind as he believes to be the real Don Quixote. Joanna Ribeira gives an interesting performance as Angelica, a young woman whose life was ruined by being cast as a teenager in Toby's old film.

In addition, the settings Gilliam choose to shot the film are gorgeous, the production design and costumes are wonderful, the cinematography by Nicola Pecorini is great, and the score fits the film very well.

Ultimately though, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is a huge disappointment. The performances are charming and the visuals are good but the script is all over the place, it's not even clear what genre the film is supposed to be —one moment it feels like it's supposed to be a serious movie, the next one as if it's a parody movie.

Dogville (2003)

As I've said the other day, my resolution for 2019 is to watch all those movies I've been meaning to watch since always but kept putting off for a reason or another. Dogville I put off because of the length and because, being honest, you have to be in the right mood to handle Lars von Trier. 

The film focuses on Grace Margaret Mulligan (Nicole Kidman), a beautiful young woman on the run from the mob who seeks refuge in Dogville, a small mountain town with a tight community of people who look after each other. The residents are reluctant at first, but, persuaded by the town’s philosopher, Tom Edison Jr. (Paul Bettany), they agree to hide her. In return, Grace agrees to work for them but nothing comes without a price and soon the people of Dogville begin to abuse her.

It’s a very simple story that appears calm, harmless, almost boring at the beginning, but, little by little, if you have the patience to stick around, the plot begins to develop and it slowly turns into a cruel, often unbearable story —I should have seen it coming as to shock the audience is typical of von Trier but the dramatic turn the story took really caught me by surprise— with a brilliant, astonishing twist at the end that will take your breath away.

It is a story rich with themes of arrogance, indifference, hypocrisy, greed, desire, mistrust, punishment, death and love. It is a story about power, corruption and corruptibility —power corrupts and the more the power the greater the corruption, is the film’s statement—; it is about human nature and morality, a portrait of America, but also of the entire world. In other words, Dogville contains misanthropy towards all humans.

The characters aren’t particularly three-dimensional people and don’t have much personality as they all are symbols that represent the dark side of humanity, but the time von Trier takes to set them up allows them to be entirely credible. The town of Dogville can also be considered a character as it is its small area that really helps to convey the hostility between the human characters.

The cast does a wonderful job —Nicole Kidman is magnificent as Grace; she brings so much vulnerability and fragility to her young, naïve character. Great support is provided by the supporting cast, Paul Bettany and Patricia Clarkson delivering the most powerful performances of the bunch. John Hurt does a marvellous job narrating as the narration is amusing and very moving.

Trust Film Sales ApS

What stuck with me the most about Dogville is the style. The film is void of any visual constituents of a film; it is indeed set on a theatre stage with almost no props. There are no buildings, no plants, no animals, only drawings on the floor. It has no backgrounds —it’s black or white depending on the time of the day. The characters open and close invisible doors, they talk about non-existent objects. This is what truly made Dogville work for me. The very minimalistic stage magnifies the town’s residents’ interactions with Grace, they make their emotions more palpable as it allows the camera to linger on the actors’ faces without any distraction whatsoever. It’s the style that allowed me to fully immerse into the story, to experience everything event as if I was part of the story.

Ultimately, Dogville is a very long film —a nearly three hours—, and it’s often difficult to watch but it’s worth the effort/time as it is one of the most brilliant and unique films I’ve seen. 

Mamma Mia! (2008)

Though I haven't seen it in ages, Mamma Mia! is still my favourite musical. Maybe it's because it's the first adult film, and by adult I mean non-animated film, I saw on the big screen with my mother, or maybe because it actually is a pretty good film, but I love it. Since there's still plenty of time since the sequel hits theatres (September in my shitty country and yes, I'm going with my mom this time too) I rewatched this and I took advantage of it to review it. 

Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried), a 20-year-old who lives on a beautiful Greek island with her mother Donna (Meryl Streep) and is about to get married, has only one dream, that her father walks her down the aisle. The problem is that she has no idea who her father is. So when she finds her mother's old diary and learns her mother had three relationships before she was born, she invites the three men on the island, absolutely positive that she would recognize her father as soon as she sees it. Of course she doesn't, and things get way more complicated as Donna finds out the three men are on the island.

Based on the famous musical of the same day (which I haven't seen but I'm planning to), the plot is pretty easy and cheesy, it's quite predictable and it's plenty of holes and inconsistencies, and it kinda feels like an excuse to sing ABBA songs, but it's engaging and fun, and I find myself invested in it every single time I watch the movie.

And the main reason is the songs. They are the soul, the driving force of Mamma Mia!. They fit the plot perfectly --which is pretty normal considering the film/musical was based on the Swedish band's songs-- and they really help in keeping your hooked. There are so much energy and joy in the musical scenes that it makes you want to sing and dance along. At least, that's what this movie does for me. As I said above, they are relevant to the story --not all of them, though--, they help the plot move forward and they convey the feelings of the characters very well.

Universal Pictures

The characters aren't very strong --they lack development and don't have a lot of substance-- but they are fun to watch and you eventually care for them. And the credits go to the cast. Amanda Seyfried carries the film very well playing Sophie, the energetic young woman who is determined to find her father, and does a pretty good job singing-wise. Meryl Streep, I'm not sure she was the right cast to play Donna, but she handles the role quite well. Christine Baranski though will always be my favourite. She adds the comedy the film needs as Tanya, one of Donna's old friends. She even gets her solo act and she kills it. Julie Walters, who plays Rosie, Donna's other friend, is good too.

As for Donna's three old flames, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgård, it looks like they are having so much fun in this. They don't have great singing voices -Brosnan's is pretty awful to be honest-- but that only adds to the movie. It makes it even funnier. And Dominic Cooper brings charisma to the film as Sky, Sophie's boyfriend.

At last, there's the visual aspect of Mamma Mia!. I was very impressed with it when I was younger, and I gotta say the Greek scenery still amazes me and looks beautiful, but it doesn't look real. The backgrounds often look like photoshops. I guess most of the film was filmed in a studio and then poor green screen skills happened.