tardesdete

One of the best comments I've wrote for this site was the one about Apatow's "Funny People". Then I wrote I noticed in Apatow a movement towards an authorial filmmaking. And I pointed out that I noted a similarity with the work of John Casavettes. Filming his family and friends in a very domestic way, that pays out in intimate, natural performances. "Funny People" was divided in two parts: the first part conceded Hollwood what belongs to Hollywood; in the second part, stared by Apatow's family, free-from reigned. Well, for "This is 40" he took it a step forward and made a whole free-form film, that has nothing to do with a sequel to "Knocked Up", strange tag line with which it was promoted. I actually wonder how did he do to get this film done in Hollywood, and I believe he pitched the "Knocked Up" sequel line to accomplish it.

But what we did was another thing very different, much better, much more exciting than a successful comedy sequel. He went deeper into art-film, made a movie all about his wife, as Cassavettes used to do about his, Gena Rowlands. Leslie Mann is a great, versatile comedy actress, and only Judd Apatow seems to see that, and he show us. This is a movie built on heavy improvisation, sometimes he got two great takes on the same thing and includes both, breaking the transparent feeling of Hollywood narrations. It has a rare filing, warmth as a home movie, but with the looks of an industrial one. It's a very rare film, and I'm thankful to Apatow for it.

But this is tricky. It seems like if you promote a movie like one thing and you give the audience another, they don't appreciate it much. Why? Because most of them act as a pack of sheeps. They do as they are told. They appreciate phony complicated Nolan's stories, they appreciate Iñarritu's, Noe's, Haneke's phony modernism, but they don't appreciate real cinema when it's on front of their nose, so they leave the cinema, give bad reviews, hateful comments.

More strange there is a pattern of this: most really innovative skillful significant filmmakers don't win Oscars or the critical/popular acclaim until is too late. The honors and respect go to the Nolans, Iñarritus, Hoopers and so on. But then fifty years on, history remembers Hitchcock, Ford, Apatow, and forgets "The King's Speech" and "The artist" because those are forgettable movies. SO it's a harsh path that Apatow chosen. I will suffer. But in the and he will prevail.

In her review, at the time on the top of this movie's reviews, lora64 says: "As for first impressions, I have the feeling it's an idealist's wished-for 'dream of a perfect world and perfect people' that never quite comes true, unfortunately, for many in real life. " I think my dearest lora64 misunderstood the film. ANd I think many people misunderstands it. Because the one thing important nobody seems to see. I mean the robot.

Unlike conservative Noel Coward's "Brief Encunter",this is the story of a little talking robot living a little idiotic life with his little idiotic family, as he LONGS for escape. Just see the many takes of the robot walking towards the camera. Douglas Sirk was trying to say something there.

This film is bitterness and acidity combined in such a masterful way, and finely enough that a lot of people still think they're watching a 'dream of a perfect world and perfect people'.

I mean it.

I investigated systematically on the ghost genre and I can say this is one of the scariest ones. It surprised me, i didn't expected much from it, but it's very skillfully done, the way the flashbacks (or dimensional passages) start and stop are a masterwork.

It's a sort of a cheesy film but somehow, at the same time, is an excellent piece of cinema.

Here's the scariest scene of all my investigation: the one where our hero is knocking on the house's walls to find the place where the money is hidden, as he is tortured by the children voices, and they go "no, no ,no, no , no..."

You should see it if you didn't. And in the case you like it, try "The Haunting", "The Innocents" and "Picture of Jenny".