Tag Archives: film

In a movie industry that is increasingly demanding more spectacle than intelligence, Margin Call isn’t a film you expect to see on a big screen. It seems more like a TV special that wins awards but no one actually sees.

Having said that, Margin Call deals with a subject that another pair of hands could have been treated like a sequel to Wall Street. Margin Call tells the story of twenty four hours in the life of an investment firm that makes a horrifying discovery in 2008 that the whole financial system is about to collapse before their eyes. After several meetings through the night, the big investment bankers decide to perform what is called a margin call, in other words sell their entire bad stock as quickly as possible, fully aware that it will destroy all the companies that buy from them.

With that in mind, it’s hard to see how you can sympathise with the main characters, but the genius of the script by J.C. Chandor (who also directs) is that we actually do care. We care about who gets fired and who doesn’t, and it may be the only film about Wall Street where you actually want the bankers to succeed. A slightly cynical trader Will Emerson, played sublimely by Paul Bettany, gives a speech about why the bankers are right and that “ordinary people” are wrong, in a way that actually makes you think he has a point.

Paul Bettany isn’t the only bright spark here. Kevin Spacey gives the best performance of the film as head trader Sam Rogers, with superb support from Stanley Tucci, Zachary Qunito, Jeremy Irons, Demi Moore, and Simon Baker whose performance has been surprisingly ignored. Everyone gets their big entrance scene where they have the commanding presence as the man (or woman) in charge as news of the impending collapse spreads, until the news reaches John Tuld (Jeremy Irons), who gives a great performance as the commanding and almost vamperic boss.

The script is where the real strength of this movie lies. The stock market and the nature of its demise in 2008 is a very convoluted and difficult subject to grasp, something expertly dealt with by J.C. Chandor. When things get a little too complicated for a layman to understand, one of the high ranking execs ask to have it broken down to them in “plain English”, or as Jeremy Irons’ character puts it, “talk to me like I’m a small child, or a Labrador”. The fact that most of the people at the top don’t seem to know the first thing about the stock market is a running gag used throughout the entire film.

J.C. Chandor is a first time writer director, so naturally there are points where the film falters. Kevin Spacey’s B-story involving his dying dog is a little too clear an attempt to make him seem like a sympathetic character, and Stanley Tucci’s speech about the bridge he built in the 80s goes on a lot longer than is needed; he’s good with numbers, we get it. In the very capable hands of Spacey, Tucci, and the rest of the cast though the film still stays strong through these setbacks. We spend most of our time moving from room to room, and it doesn’t exactly move at an expeditious pace, but the intelligent script makes this a gripping, grown-up movie, the kind of which we really could do with seeing more of.

Image reproduced from collider.com
Video reproduced from YouTube / trailers

January releases like The Dilemma starring Kevin James and Vince Vaughn and No Strings Attached starring Natalie Portman and Aston Kutcher set the year 2011 off to a less than exciting start. It is no secret that the standard of quality cinema being produced by the movie giants at Hollywood has been declining for quite a while now and that the true movie fanatics out there have lost respect for mainstream cinema. Despite the terrible movies releases this year, most of which starred Ryan Reynolds, there were a few films that made the trip to the cinema worth the expense.

Tomas Alfredson’s British espionage film Tinker Tailor Solider Spy based on the John le Carré novel starring Gary Oldman as George Smiley was released in September of this year to favourable reviews and is in my opinion a must see of 2011. Guardian film critic Peter Bradshaw said; “I found it more gripping and involving than any crash-bang action picture, and it is anchored by Gary Oldman’s tragic mandarin…What a treat this film is, and what an unexpected thrill.”

Woody Allen’s supernatural comedy Midnight in Paris starring the ever charming blonde haired and blue eyed Owen Wilson as a successful but unfocused screenwriter and wannabe novelist who falls in love with Paris and discovers himself in the beautiful city is arguably Allen’s best work in well over a decade. Allen who is famous for being the film maker who lost his mojo can now claim it back with Midnight in Paris which is now Allen’s most successful commercial film to date. The Huffington Post’s Rob Kirkpatrick called the feature “a surprising film that casts a spell over us and reminds us of the magical properties of cinema, and especially of Woody Allen’s cinema.”

Lars von Trier’s end-of-world drama Melancholia starring the magnificent Kirsten Dunst and the wonderfully simple Charlotte Gainsbourg as two sisters trying to cope with their impending doom is like most of von Trier’s work (with the exception Antichrist), it is art. The film explores the sci-fi genre but it is not a science-fiction movie. It is a drama perhaps even a psychological drama about life and existences. Visually, the film is exquisite and it is this particular device that fools you into watching the pain and the sorrow of the characters as they live out their last moments on earth. Not everyone is going to get the true message behind the film but it worth a watch, at least once in a lifetime. The Telegraph’s Sukhdev Sandhu said; “Melancholia, like everything von Trier does, is an event. More than that, it’s his finest film for nearly a decade. A crazily bold, visually enthralling, and emotionally seismic drama about the meaning of existence.”

Science fantasy/drama Another Earth directed by Mike Cahill who co-wrote the script with the film’s star Brit Marling is Cahill’s debut into feature film making. The respected and reputable documentary filmmaker does a commendable job in directing this film. May it not have been for Lars von Trier’s Melancholia, this film may probably have had greater success but it is difficult to compete with the mind and vision of Von Trier. Despite this, this low-budget indie flick is still a good piece of cinema. The film follows Rhoda Williams (Marling) and her quest to journey to Earth 2, the newly discovered mirrored planet of our earth in the hopes that her mirrored self has made different, less destructive life choices. The film has received mixed reviews. Chris Tookey of Mail Online wrote, “This is the kind of miserabilist film that routinely wins respectful reviews because it’s so un-Hollywood.” Little White Lies’ Matt Bochenski wrote, “Another Earth is original, intelligent and eccentric – a true American indie that deserves to be admired and supported. But part of that support is respectful criticism of its shortcomings.”

Lastly, who can forget wild, gritty and electrifying Drive directed by Danish film maker, Nicolas Winding Refn based on the novel by James Sallis. The sexy talented Ryan Gosling portrays our unnamed protagonist, the driver, who lives in a low rent apartment and is a mechanic and a stunt car driver by day and a getaway driver by night. The driver is a loner by nature who lives a complexly simple life that takes a gruesome violent twist after he befriends his neighbour and love interest Irene (Carey Mulligan). Yes there are some plot holes in the striking L.A noir flick but Gosling’s facial expressions and small nuances are what carry the movie right to the very brutal end. Refn successfully uses the Japanese movie device of minimalist and artistic shots to portray every thought in the protagonist’s head. The other thing that makes this film just bloody amazing was the soothing electro-pop soundtrack which was composed by Cliff Martinez. Director Refn had been a fan of Martinez since his work on the Sex, Lies and Videotape soundtrack. The opening song Nightcall by French electric musician Kavinsky set the tone of this noir piece of cinema. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone wrote, “Damn, it’s good. You can get buzzed just from the fumes coming off this wild thing.”

Videos reproduced from YouTube

Aaron Sorkin seems to have a knack for this kind of work. Take The Social Network, a film that will forever be known as the one about Facebook, even though it’s not really about Facebook, but about its socially challenged founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Now we have Moneyball, a film about baseball that isn’t really about baseball. Moneyball tells the true story of the General Manager of the Oakland A’s baseball team Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), attempting to build a competitive team with one of the smallest budgets in the league. It seems like an insurmountable task, until Beane meets a young man called Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who has an unconventional idea that you can build a team using statistics.

This certainly is not an easy sell – a true story where baseball and maths collide. Then again, neither was The Social Network, as anyone who saw the comments on IMDB when the film had just been announced (“are you kidding me?”, “how can this be serious?”). The premise of Moneyball though is not exactly hard to believe, it’s just difficult to see how this can go well.

First let’s consider the fact that it’s a sports film, a genre so ridden with clichés it’s hard not to fall into a trap. Some of the sports movie characteristics remain in Moneyball – the underdog hero, a situation where it looks like victory is sealed when it all falls apart, and a situation where there is no hope before a miraculous comeback. The one thing that makes this different from any other sports movie is that, well, it’s not really about sports.

This is a film about Billy Beane, a man who just can’t help being good at what he does in a field he never wanted to be a part of, and a young man who has just entered his first job attempting to take on the established order. Instead of looking for baseball players who are good at hitting the ball, throwing, running, and catching, Beane and Brand just want the players who statistically have the best chance of scoring runs. The scouts, who act as though every word they say should be gospel, stare back at Billy Beane as though he’s just tried to steal their kids.

It does all come rather unexpectedly, but this is a really superb film. There is a lot of talking, and we tend to spend most of our time moving from one office to another, but it is still surprisingly riveting. Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian make a great writing partnership, Zaillian for the most part containing Sorkin from allowing the characters to talk for long periods of time and at a brisk pace, but there is still sharp dialogue through and through. Director Bennett Miller (best known for Capote) does a good if slightly understated job, vaguely reminiscent of that from David Fincher on The Social Network.

There’s no chance of Aaron Sorkin stealing anything thunder here though. All the attention is firmly directed where it should be, and that’s at the mesmerising performance from Brad Pitt, a man who bravely stood by this film when it went through many directorial changes before production finally started. It was definitely worth it though, hanging on to a genuinely uplifting film, that is possibly one of the best sports films of recent years, and one of the highlights of 2011. If there are no Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Lead Actor, and Best Film Oscar nods in 2012, then something is clearly wrong with the system.

Image reproduced from impawards.com
Video reproduced from YouTube / MoviesYahoocom

Whatever the varying opinions on Johnny Depp may be, one thing is for sure, his heart is in the right place.

After stumbling upon the manuscript for Hunter S. Thompson’s The Rum Diary in 1998, Johnny Depp convinced the author to publish it after it had been left to gather dust for over thirty years.

Depp even persuaded Thompson to sell the movie rights, and coaxed Bruce Robinson out of semi-retirement to write and direct the film. The Rum Diary is without a doubt a labour of love. Which leads us to the all important question – was it worth it? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding, sort of.

Based on Hunter S. Thompson’s semi-autobiographical novel, The Rum Diary tells the story of Paul Kemp (Depp), a writer who travels to Puerto Rico to write for the local newspaper, The San Juan Star. Not long after arriving there, Kemp is immersed in the island’s alcohol drenched lifestyle, and falls in love with Chenault (Amber Heard), the fiancé of Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a wealthy entrepreneur.

One thing that is made resoundingly clear from the start of The Rum Diary is that we should forget all about the lunatic Depp portrayed in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Kemp is a young, inexperienced man still in search of his “writer’s voice”, which many a young writer watching will have complete empathy for. However inevitable comparisons between The Rum Diary and Fear and Loathing could prove to be the films biggest flaw, as Fear and Loathing wins without even having to break sweat.

There are a lot of things this film gets right. Bruce Robinson’s script is sharp and very witty, and his directing style emulates that of a regular worker than that of someone who hasn’t sat in a director’s chair since 1992. Johnny Depp does do a good job in the lead role, showing us his natural flair for comic acting while not giving up on his character’s depth and heart in the process. Also keep an eye out for Giovanni Ribisi as the wacky journalist Moberg, whose show-stealing performance will evoke memories of the grotesque eccentricities in Robinson’s Withnail and I.

Apart from Kemp and Moberg however, the rest of the characters aren’t much to write home about. This is fairly egregious, especially in the case of Chenault, the woman that wins over Paul Kemp’s heart. Amber Heard does a good job with what she’s given, but considering the importance of the character in this coming-of-age story, you do expect more from her than just someone classically beautiful twirling in pretty dresses.

Overall, this is a very witty light hearted film that deserves a lot of plaudits, but the inevitable comparisons to the source material and Fear and Loathing will mean that The Rum Diary will fall short of what’s expected from the people involved. That, unfortunately, really is a crying shame.

About the Author
Eric Wood is 20 years old from Bury in Greater Manchester and is currently studying Journalism and English Literature at Salford University. Eric is in the process of writing and directing his first short film entitled How Are You Sleeping. He absolutely adores all forms of writing. His biggest role model for many years has been Michael Crichton, as Crichton wrote novels, non-fiction, screenplays and directed movies. Eric says he would love to be able to achieve all of these things in his lifetime.

Image reproduced from pardaphash.com
Video reproduced from YouTube / TheRumDiaryFilm

Imagine a world where time is money.  Imagine a world where you stop aging at 25, but you’re only engineered to live for one more year.  Imagine a world where the rich live forever, and the poor drop dead with no warning.

This is the world created by director Andrew Niccol in his latest action thriller In Time.  With Justin Timberlake as the male lead, and Amanda Seyfried as his busty, pouty hostage/love interest/partner in crime, this film could easily have gone down a rocky route of bad one-liners and over-played ‘intense’ emotions.  However, it is becoming increasingly clear that JT has successfully made the transition from musician to actor – a transition that has not always gone well for singers in the past (Christina and Britney, need I say more?).  Timberlake is credible as a lower-class factory worker who suddenly comes into a lot of time, that is, money, that is, time.  His quest to use this time for good takes us into what is essentially a class war, and JT turns out to be some kind of futuristic Robin Hood.  There is a scene where he suddenly busts out some Bond-style action moves, which leaves you wondering where he learnt how to take out three or four men in black in ten seconds flat, but the rest of his performance is believable and enjoyable.  The chemistry between Timberlake and Seyfried isn’t as good as that between JT and Mila Kunis in Friends with Benefits, but then again this is not a film centred on a sexual relationship.

Visually, In Time is incredibly stylish.  Instead of creating a space-age world of chrome and LEDs, Niccol has made a world that looks like a slick seventies photo shoot.  The cars are old-school, but have electric motors.  Everyone wears shades of grey and black: suits for the rich, tattered overalls and ripped tights for the poor.  Niccol has essentially continued with the theme used for his 1997 film Gattaca – elegant, pared down, modern yet recognisable, both In Time and Gattaca are set in worlds that the audience can relate to and understand.  Add the fact that nearly all of the cast are young and attractive, and you’ve got yourself one good-looking film.

If I were to criticise In Time on one thing, it would be the pace of the film.  The action jerks between fast-moving car chases, fights and getaways, and rather stilted scenes of dialogue and facial expressions.  I found myself growing bored, and I think this is due to the film trying to be both an action/thriller and a thought-provoking intelligent interpretation of what our future might be like.

Personally, I thought the concept of In Time was brilliant and original.  How refreshing to watch a film set in the future where there are no robots or aliens, and where there is no second planet because Earth has been destroyed.  The idea of time as money is one that is simple and yet opens up a vast range of complexities.  Do you really want to live forever?  For those who live day-to-day, how are you meant to travel anywhere?  And then there were all of the little nuances created by this time-sensitive world.  Phrases like ‘got a minute?’ take on a completely different meaning.  I particularly liked how one distinguishes between the rich and the poor: the poor run everywhere, whilst the rich amble along with, quite literally, all the time in the world.

Overall, I would highly recommend In Time.  Yes, it has its moments of rather stagnant play, but if you want to see a film that might make you think about how you use the time you have in a completely different way, then this is the film for you.

From time to time I like to go to the cinema and watch a movie for its effects or because I have seen a trailer that is particularly exciting. The trailer of the Three Musketeers amused me, and some of the scenes and effects looked promising. Thus, I decided to see the film one evening to see whether the funny trailer would keep up with its promises.

The movie could be put into the same genre as the “Pirates of the Caribbean” and with that opinion and expectation I went to see it.

The cast looked promising. Orlando Bloom, Logan Lerman (as Percy in the Lightning Thief), Milla Jovovich (known from the Reident Evil films) and Matthew Macfadyen (known from the last Robin Hood movie) seemed to attract quite a lot of people to the cinema. With that spirit I sat through the adverts with anticipation.

The plot was relatively simple. The Three Musketeers Athos, Porthos and Aramis with the help of Athos’ lover, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), steal some blueprints of an airship blueprints made by Leonardo Da Vinci. Arthos’ lover however betrays the three Musketeers and is in fact a double agent, giving the plans of the airship to the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Cardinal Richelieu, who really holds the power in France, disbands the musketeers and the three heroes end up drinking their way to bliss.

As it turns out, the Cardinal has plans to overthrow the king of France and risks putting the entire continent at the brink of war. The double agent Milady de Winter plays an central role liaising with the Cardinal as well as with Buckingham in England at the same time.

In the meantime the young D’Artagnan makes his way to Paris to become a musketeer. He soon meets the three musketeers in a battle and at the same falls in love with one of the maids of the queen. The maid discovers an evil plot by the cardinal to overthrow the king and begs the musketeers and  D’Artagnan for help. In the meantime, Buckingham builds powerful airships threatening the entirety of Europe.

Do the musketeers succeed in thwarting the cardinal’s plot or is Europe going to fall into the hands of a tyrant? This is for you to find out when you see the film in the cinema….

The film is full of action scenes and special effects. Some of them are funny, some of them impressive, but at most times they are completely ridiculous. The film itself has not much in common with Alexandre Dumas’ novel, apart from the title maybe. Although I did not go to watch this film to get an education in European history, I found the story a little too far-fetched and too removed from the truth. Also, despite the fact that it was more of a steam-punk movie, the historic inaccuracy was so horrendous that I was scared that the film could cause some serious damage in the education of some younger people. Also, the film portrayed a completely wrong picture of 17th century Europe and technological inaccuracies which were ludicrous.

Nevertheless, some of the effects make this film worthwhile watching, just for the entertainment value.

It is one of those films one can watch to have a laugh and relax, without much of a message.

Image reproduced from http://www.filmsfix.com and http://fameonline.co.uk/

A film with a star cast such as Dream House easily catches the eye of many. Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz and Naomi Watts, all very well known and good actors, seemed to promise a thriller that one might remember for a long time.

I went to see the film with high expectations and the trailer also looked very exciting. With a budget of over $50 million dollars, the film also promised to be quite a treat.

The film starts with the main character, Will Atenten (Daniel Craig), quitting his job as an editor. He chooses to live outside the city with his wife Libby (Rachel Weisz) and his two daughters. However, what seems to be a nice country home and idyll turns out to be a house with a rather gory history. Will and Libby find out that an entire family was murdered in the house a few years ago and also the neighbours behave rather strangely. Alarmed by all of this, Will decides to investigate about the house with the local police only finding that they are of little help. Finally, he visits a mental institution to find out more about the murderer, Peter Ward, who is kept in confinement there.

As it turns out, in a rather predictive manner, Will is actually Peter Ward and he allegedly killed his own family in their house 5 years ago. Libby and his kids are indeed only a fragment of his imagination and during his stay at the mental institution he gave himself another name and was released, as there was not enough evidence to press charges.

Returning home he struggles to accept that his wife is dead and still sees her and her kids in front of him as being alive. He slowly realises that he lives in a dream world and his neighbour Ann (Naomi Watts) helps him understand his past and who he really is.

Will, aka Peter, now tries to find out who killed his family, even if it was himself. Finally the mystery is resolved and you should go and watch the movie to find out…

The plot is disappointingly predictable and the film is also not really scary or intimidating, as would be expected by a thriller. The ending is particularly weak.

Rachel Weisz is playing a great role, but both Daniel Craig and Naomi Watts fall a bit too short in their performance in my opinion.

However, the film very well portrays how every one of us creates their own world inside his/ her head. The philosophical question arises whether such a thing as an objective reality actually exits. Do we all live in a bubble comparable to that of Peter Ward? Maybe not to such an extreme, but it is scary how each one of us creates our own reality.

I really enjoyed the movie from that philosophical perspective and the idea of the film was great. However, it does fall short behind other films of this genre such as Shutter Island or Inception. Way too short also considering the cast.

Image reproduced from http://www.trailershut.com and http://moo-vfarm.com

There is a tendency for the film versions of popular and successful books to be disappointing.  The Harry Potter series, The Time Traveller’s Wife and One Day all come to mind.  I was therefore slightly sceptical before going to see The Help, the film adaptation of Kathryn Stockett’s number one bestseller.  After all, how was a book that deals so sensitively with the lives and emotions of both black and white women in 1960s Mississippi going to translate effectively onto the screen?  The trailers didn’t fill me with much hope: chick flick-esque music and a series of shots that showed little of the book’s intelligence.  So it’s fair to say that I sat down in the cinema with a certain amount of trepidation.

But, to my surprise and relief, The Help had nothing of the schmaltzy Hollywood vibe that had been advertised.  Most of this was due to impeccable casting: Emma Stone as Eugenia ‘Skeeter’ Phelan, the idealistic journalist who decides to write a book about the stories of the African American maids; Viola Davis as Aibileen Clark, a maid who has raised the children of rich white families all her life, and is the first to help Skeeter with her book; and Octavia Spencer as Minny Jackson, Aibileen’s best friend and also a maid, complete with a dynamite temper and a wit so quick it leaves you reeling.  Indeed, one of the main praises of this film has been its use of little-known actresses to play some of the main characters.  Spencer’s eyes are the most expressive I have ever seen, and the inner turmoil she experiences in the book when confronted with an employer who has no concept of racial divides are portrayed beautifully in the film.  Viola Davis’s Aibileen is the calm to Minny Jackson’s storm, and Davis’s interpretation of her character’s grief, loyalty, integrity and bravery makes for a magnificent performance.

Also worthy of mention are Bryce Dallas-Howard and Jessica Chastain, the former playing Hilly Holbrook (the film’s ‘villain’ with extreme racial prejudices and ignorance) and the latter playing Celia Foote (Minny’s boozy and breasty employer who is the only character apart from Skeeter to treat the maids as anything other than lower beings).  Dallas-Howard plays her detestable character to perfection, right down to the smug smile that is never far away from her lips, and Chastain is endearing as a 1960s Barbie from the wrong side of the tracks.

The Help is not all serious racial tension: there are some brilliantly comedic moments that lighten what could otherwise turn into a rather sombre film.  The scene where Minny reveals the secret ingredient to the pie that her former employer just ate (I won’t give it away) is one that had the whole audience in fits of laughter, especially as it was a reference point for the remainder of the film.  Then there are the moments between Skeeter and her mother that any daughter can relate to: hiding in a cupboard to make a secret phone call, having your mother force you into something pretty to wear for a ‘suitable’ young man…

Speaking of men, how refreshing to watch a film where the men play almost no role at all.  There is a small love interest for Skeeter, but apart from that The Help is about women and women only.  Even the men in the film seem to realise this: when one maid begins to ask her employer about a loan, the husband scarpers in double-quick time.  This is a story that focuses on the 1960s woman’s world of the home and the family, and everything that comes under that label.

So, did the film live up to the book?  In my opinion, an unequivocal yes.  It did not make light of the poor treatment of the maids, nor did it shy away from showing some of the more racist behaviour of the employers.  This is not a happy-ever-after film, as not all of the story lines turn out the way you hope they might.  But it does leave you with the sense that some people got their just desserts, either literally or metaphorically.

Overall: 8/10

Recently, a film premiered in the United States with a rather obscure title: Another Earth. Intrigued by this name, I decided to look into this film and find out what it was all about.

Mike Cahill and Brit Marling wrote the film. Brit also played the main character, Rhoda Williams. The film only had a budget of $200,000 and that combined with the weird title made me walk into the cinema rather skeptical.

Rhoda Williams, a very high-flying high school student interested in astronomy, drives home intoxicated and causes a car accident killing the wife and child of John Burroughs, a famous composer and university professor. Just before the accident she hears on the news that another planet is approaching earth.

After four years in prison she is released as she was under age when the accident happened. She is full of remorse and guilt for what she has done and finally comes to John Burrough’s house to apologise after working in a high school as a cleaner for a couple of months. He never found out who killed his family as he let his brother deal with all the judiciary details after coming out of a coma after the accident.

The other planet is now high up on the sky and mirrors the earth in every detail. However, when Rhoda arrives at John’s house, instead of apologising, she looses her nerves and pretends to be a cleaner visiting from another village offering a free trial cleaning session. Over the next few weeks she becomes John Burrow’s cleaner and helps him turn his life around again, as he had fallen into an emotional and physical abyss after the incident four years ago. In the meantime Rhoda, with her passion for astronomy, participates in an assay competition to fly to the other earth in a civilian spacecraft. It is now clear that the other planet is indeed a complete mirror image of ours and it becomes clear that every person has another self on this other planet.

Finally Rhoda tells John who she really is. I do not want to spoil it for you, so you better go and watch the ending yourself …

This film very positively surprised me. The acting is good and the story as well as the characters really evoked emotions in me. The story is captivating and the film opens a bunch of philosophical questions:

“Who are we really?”

“What would I look like if I saw myself from the outside?”

“Would I like me the way I am if I see myself as another person sees me?”

“What would you do in life if you had a second chance?”

Another interesting notion with me was the following: Kopernikus discovered that the earth evolves around the sun and thus we do not think we are the centre of the universe anymore. But do we really? In the film they call the other planet Earth 2 and  in the film the question is asked: Do you really think on this other planet the call themselves Earth 2 and us Earth 1? No, they will call themselves Earth 1 and us Earth 2. Have we really lost our belief that we indeed ARE the centre of the universe?

The film puts all these questions in a beautiful science fantasy narrative. It is a great example of how a film does not have to have huge budgets to be portray a message and captivate the audience.

I can only recommend going and seeing it.

Image reproduced from http://louisvilleky.com and http://filmhash.files.wordpress.com