mcatarino

Well, I just saw this movie at a Festival, and really liked it. It's a tour de force for the two actors, which are quite alone in the movie except for the other character, which will be Mother Nature. And a very wicked character she is... I didn't know it was an almost shot-by-shot remake of the 1978 movie, but even though I can't compare since I didn't watch the original one, I would say it's such a great movie that a remake that is able to bring the movie to a new generation of movie-goers can't be a too bad idea. And, even though I certainly sympathize with all those remake-haters out there, didn't "The Departed" just sweep critics and movie-goers alike while being a remake of a very recent masterpiece?... Let's forget about the remake issue, shall we? Why is this a great little movie? It's a low-budget low-profile movie that's just creepy and engaging, and has an eerie feel to it that is just to the point. Any of you city-slickers thinking about going out camping in the long weekend to a secluded beach? Well, don't mess with Nature or else... I did appreciate a movie that's about Nature's revenge without being too eco-conscious, and where in the end all serious wrong being done is done by humans. And all those bits left unexplained, instead of making you feel cheated, are just very intelligent and create a quasi-supernatural feel that's partly "Picnic at Hanging Rock", partly "The Birds", partly "Blair With Project"... It's no masterpiece, whatever that may be, but it's engaging and very scary in a non-conventional way. Some of the images will stick with you for a long time - I had no idea of what a dudong was, but now they scare the hell out of me! Isn't that enough for having a great time watching this?

Can it be actually proved that George A. Romero, THE George A. Romero was involved in the making of this movie? I am a huge fan of zombie movies, even though my arty friends despise me for it (oh well, I strongly believe that some of them are living dead themselves, so it's no big deal...). I think George A. Romero is not only the king of Zombieland but one who isn't just sitting on his laurels, being able to bring forth "zombieness" anew for his subjects - thank you for Land of the Dead. But... how can he be responsible for this lame, boring, pseudo-philosophical fully predictable sample of a movie? After the first 5 minutes (let's say the prologue, where zombies show up and start doing what they do best), I found myself thinking: boring... boring... boring... Then, the movie just goes lame... lame... lame... OK, when the Amish deaf guy showed up I thought that this might be an unexpected Romero-making-fun-of-himself type of movie, but then... it wasn't. Oh brother. There's such a big difference between a zombie movie that's in fact a social commentary (most zombie movies are, and Romero shows that better than anybody else) and a self-indulgent in-your-face "here's a voice off telling you what I want you to think about mass media and society and capitalism and religion and how the human being is selfish and how I wasn't loved enough as a child because you can't figure that out for yourself"...

Friends, zombies, countrymen... I defy you to provide legally-binding evidence that Mr. Romero was indeed in charge of this movie.

This is indeed a movie that may catch the viewer's attention for the over 2 hours duration. The story of a high-class hooker being rented to persuade a small town politician to approve a millionaire yet not so honest building project while being involved with one of the cops in charge of the investigation may not be the most original plot, for sure. Still, the movie is quite well done, it has pace, some action, characters are developed enough and of course, the lead actress shows a lot of flesh. This flesh thing, which may be one of the main reasons to attract the male crowd (and the movie is being advertised mostly based on that not so minor item), was an interesting surprise, at least for a female viewer: it's not that gratuitous. Well, the girl is a hooker, and you should understand what "arguments" she has to drive men crazy as she's supposed to (and she does have plenty of those), still, the sex scenes are not graphic at all, and in fact you never see any real (in a cinematic sense, of course) interaction between her and her partners: the most revealing scene is a one-woman-show. This said, the acting is very acceptable, with Nicolau Breyner (the Mayor who's the Call Girl victim) standing from the crowd, a nice job from the other actors, and even the model-turned-actress Soraia Chaves defends her role. Particularly interesting are the dialogs (albeit all the swearing), which sound very natural and realistic for what Portuguese cinema has gotten us used to. For an American-style commercial movie, it stands its ground.