Her (2013)

"I feel like I can be anything with you."

Set in the future, Her is about a man who fell in love with his female operating system (It's Scarlet Johansson, what testosterone-infused human being wouldn't? LOL). Sounds silly? Not really. In this internet age, every kind of relationship is possible. Who's to say that falling in love with someone you haven't even seen is not right? You talk to that "person" every single day, you share your innermost thoughts, your dreams, your feelings. You tell that "person" everything without second thoughts. You "connect" with that "person." Who's to say that's not love?  This film gives us a closer look & a wider understanding of what a relationship is, conventional or not. Love is universal. Emotions are real as they are felt.

Directed & written by:  Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation)
Starring:  Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Rooney Mara, Amy Adams
Music by:  Arcade Fire
Cinematography by:  Hoyte van Hoytema (Let the Right One In, The Fighter)
Editing by:  Eric Zumbrunnen (Being John Malkovich), Jeff Buchanan
Running Time:  126 mins
Box Office:  a little over $23 million

Her is cinematically beautiful, that's undeniable. The romance underneath the almost tangible melancholy is so bittersweet you can't help but feel it... get affected by it. You can't look away, even when you're witnessing a somehow laughable but sweet sex scene from Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson.

QUICKIES: The Smiths before & 7 years later, and The Usual Suspects

Either I'm too lazy at the moment, or the movie does not deserve a full review. Here are my straight-to-the-point reviews, QUICKIES if you will, of AFTER EARTH, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, and THE USUAL SUSPECTS.

The hunt for courage, happyness, and Keyser Soze.

A Mortician and A Lame Giant Slayer

I rarely do this now but for some reason I was able to watch 2 movies in 1 day (I used to watch more than 5 movies a day. *nostalgic sigh*).  Anyway, the first movie I watched is about a man who dresses/prepares a corpse, and the other is about an acrophobic boy who has slayed one giant, "killed" another one with the help of bees, definitely not a giant slayer.

Side Effects (2013)

A young woman's world unravels when a drug prescribed by her psychiatrist has unexpected side effects.

Directed by:  Steven Soderbergh (Erin Brockovich, Contagion)

Written by:  Scott Z. Burns (The Bourne Ultimatum, Contagion)

Music by:  Thomas Newman

Running Time:  106 mins

Starring: Jude Law (Dr. Banks), Rooney Mara (Emily), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Dr. Siebert), Channing Tatum (Martin)

"One Pill Can Change Your Life"

Previously titled The Bitter Pill & reported (at the time) to be Steven Soderbergh's final film as a director,  is Side Effects the right film to be his swan song? Well, as it turned out this is not his last hurrah, and thank god for that because I still would love to see him for a long time. 

Labeled as a psychological thriller, viewers may bring their popcorn expecting an edge-of-your-seat movie oversaturated with your typical thrill rides & scare tactics, but this is not that kind. More of a thriller of the mind rather than of the senses, they say it's a movie of the Hitchcock mold and while the camera movements, characterization, and such, are reminiscent of the master's works, I wouldn't dare box Soderbergh with that because he has his unique style and he owns it. 

Only God Forgives (2013)

Julian, a drug-smuggler thriving in Bangkok's criminal underworld, sees his life get even more complicated when his mother compels him to find and kill whoever is responsible for his brother's recent death.

Written & Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive)

Cinematography: Larry Smith (Eyes Wide Shut)

Starring: Ryan Gosling (Julian), Kristin Scott Thomas (Crystal), Vithaya Pansringarm (Chang)

Running Time: 90 mins

Language: English, Thai 

"Time to Meet The Devil"

Only God Forgives opens with an ominous score, like something bad's gonna happen, like someone's gonna get you & if that someone does it won't be pretty. And like with a twisted sense of humor, Nicolas Winding Refn gives us this destructive & violent criminal underworld with all the trappings of immorality effectively contrasted with a striking cinematography that makes even the darkest part of Bangkok surprisingly beautiful. Visually, I was bombarded with neon lights which I have enjoyed, and red hues which kinda made me feel claustrophobic - like I'm inside a DarkRoom, and lots of play on shadows & artistic shots. Then, aside from the visual feast, I was stimulated with a unique musical score that fits well with the movie's heightened sense of reality. With perfect visuals & musical score, it's so hard to take your eyes off the screen even with the scenes you wouldn't normally enjoy seeing.

I love Refn's overhead shots. This could be another symbol of the battle between good & evil. There is a similar shot later in the movie with Chang & Julian.

That out of the way, let's talk about the story and the characters. If you look behind the form, you would see a simple story of revenge & redemption, quite a straightforward plot in fact, but riddled with symbolism and messages that are conveyed mostly by non-verbals & meaningful shots. More than a revenge flick, it's also a story of a dysfunctional family, a society's concept of vengeance & justice, and a "protagonist's" quest to heal his wounds & look for love. More than a revenge film, this is actually a fairy tale..  a dark fairy tale as never been told before.

Waking Life (2001)

A man shuffles through a dream meeting various people and discussing the meanings and purposes of the universe.

Written & Directed by:  Richard Linklater (Before Midnight, Slacker)

Music by: Glover Gill

Cinematography:  Richard Linklater, Tommy Pallotta

Running Time:  101 mins
Watch Waking Life HERE

"They say that dreams are only real as long as they last. Couldn't you say the same thing about life?"

This is a film for the dreamers, the thinkers, the lovers of life, the confused, the those who seem to sleepwalk through the hazy fog of everyday living.  It's for the people who like to smell the flowers as they walk, thinking about the concept of life, our existence, reality, even death. 

The first scene caught me off-guard, feeling and sensing the real people behind the hypnotic yet grotesque rotoscope animation. At first it might distract or feel weird seeing shakiness all over and big eyes seemingly pulsating in and outside the lines of their faces, but after the initial unsettling  cartoonish vibe, everything just becomes more surreal. It's art, and it's beautiful. 

Waking Life is a philosophical buffet for those whose minds are hungry. This movie connected to me in a deeper, more personal way than any other films probably because it spoke of ideas or philosophies that I couldn't put into words. I think about it, I believe it, I dream of those ideas, but I couldn't express it myself. This film did that for me. It's rare to find someone to talk to on a philosophical level, and Linklater managed to make another movie which made me feel like I was part of the conversation. I spent most parts of the movie smiling, just trying to absorb all the "conversations", and feeling attached to this film more & more. 

Richard Linklater's attention to details with his cameraworks and cinematography gives you a unique experience, but what makes his movies stand the test of time is his script. As taut as a newly-adjusted guitar string, his dialogues/script reverberates from your ear into your mind & into your soul, and it will be hard to shake it out of your system . It's as real as life, as tight as Superman's spandex.

Before Midnight (2013)

"We meet Jesse and Celine nine years on in Greece. Almost two decades have passed since their first meeting on that train bound for Vienna."

Directed by:  Richard Linklater

Screenplay by:  Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy

Starring:  Ethan Hawke (Jesse), Julie Delpy (Celine)

Running Time:  109 mins

"Still there. Still there. Still there. Gone."

In the world of cinema where sequels are bound to disappoint, I'm actually very happy to say that I finally found the perfect trilogy that not only have the sequels delivered, but also in my opinion, have surpassed its predecessors. I have so much respect for Linklater right now for achieving a rare feat for any director, that is to create sequels that are actually better than the original (which is really saying something since Before Sunrise is already a masterpiece by itself), and respect for Hawke and Delpy for maintaining that magical chemistry that they have had since the first film.

BOOK + MOVIE: Less Than Zero

Author: Bret Easton Ellis (American Psycho)
Country: United States
Year: 1985
Pages: 208

"The rich and spoiled children of Los Angeles have it all -- sex, drugs, fast cars, air-conditioned mansions. Theirs is a world shaped by television, rock music, and too much money; it is a world devoid of feeling and of hope. In a startling, staccato style reminiscent of music videos, Bret Easton Ellis re-creates this world in a dizzying journey through endless parties, seedy rock clubs, and the seamy underworld of drug dealing and prostitution. Haunting, unnerving, Less Than Zero is the inside story of a generation on a desperate search for the ultimate sensation."


Welcome to the world of the Lindsay Lohans, Paris Hiltons, & the Kardashians - and here I thought that Gossip Girl (tv show.. haven't read the books) was too much. Teenagers acting like adults, involved in a lot of sex, drugs, alcohol abuse which would probably make my mom froth in the mouth if she knew I was watching/reading about it.

The book sells itself as "The sensational national book-seller" - well, it is sensational indeed, to think this was published in the 80's, it actually surprised me that I felt appalled, offended, disturbed by what I was reading (I actually thought I have already been desensitized in this day and age of glorified teenage sex & drugs in media. How wrong was I?).

"Written on the bathroom wall at Pages, below where it says 'Julian gives great head. And is dead.': 'Fuck you Mom and Dad. You suck cunt. You suck cock. You both can die because that's what you did to me. You left me to die. You both are so fucking hopeless. Your daughter is an Iranian and your son is a faggot. You both can rot in fucking shitting asshole hell. Burn, you fucking dumbshits. Burn, fuckers. Burn.'"

I felt the angst, really.

"....and she thinks I want to hug her or something and she comes over to me and puts her arm around my back and says something like 'I think we've all lost some sort of feeling.'"

Sex, drugs, alcohol, nihilism. Disappear here. Decline. People are afraid to merge. Clay's detachment or numbness to what's happening around him. I really don't care. Like these kids who apparently have nothing to lose, aside from losing feeling, who resort to rape of a twelve year old girl, drugs, even jerking off to slasher/porn just to feel alive. The main character tries to escape that world, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, I'm not sure... because I don't like him.

My Rating: 2.5/5 - I get the message. It's a life of ennui and indifference (it's interesting to see a group of kids already feeling this). Party after party, meaningless sex and faceless hook-ups. It's really a good close-up look in that world. And the stream of consciousness narrative works. It's not bad. But did I care for the story and characters? No. There's no connection, aside for the occasional pity towards the kids for the lack of parental love and guidance, and the shock and disgust at the horrible lifestyle of the rich, bored, and drugged. There's no satisfaction. The first word I actually uttered after reading the last page is "Fuck." A lazy, unsatisfied, yet a bit relieved "fuck."

* * * *

Directed by: Marek Kanievska
Screenplay by: Harley Peyton
Music by: Thomas Newman
Year: 1987
Running Time: 98 mins.
Starring: Andrew McCarthy (Clay), Jami Gertz (Blair),
Robert Downey Jr. (Julian Wells), James Spader (Rip)

Loosely-based is the operative word here. And thank god for that. In the book, it's all Clay. In the movie, I'm so glad they gave Julian the central focus, because Clay, for me, is just so damn negative and boring. I'm not saying Julian Wells is all sugar, spice, and everything nice, but at least he's got character. It works too that the actor portraying him is my favorite Robert Downey Jr. - every scene he's in, he steals the show. Andrew McCarthy, oh wimpy Andrew I have disliked you since Pretty in Pink, but I think he's an okay fit as Clay. Because Clay, to me, is just unlikeable. Although if you wanna look for the complexity of the "book Clay", then I don't think McCarthy could deliver in that aspect. He can do "detached" yes, "unlikeable" yes, "wimpy" yep, "complex"? uhmm no i don't think so. Jami Gertz, for me, is a miscast, I was looking for a prettier, more elegant Blair... and better-acting. James Spader did great as Rip.

One thing I like about this movie is that they gave spine and focus on the friendship of Clay, Blair, & Julian - which I didn't really see in the book. It gave the story more substance. But that's just me wanting to get something from it all. I know how Hollywood romanticize everything, and the book isn't that at all.

TRIVIAS (IMDb): 

• Brad Pitt was paid $38 for his uncredited appearance. (Partygoer /Preppie Guy at Fight) (his second uncredited gig in his early career) 

• Keanu Reeves was originally cast as Clay Easton. 
• This is the first film that Robert Downey Jr. is billed as "Robert Downey Jr.". All films previous he was billed as simply "Robert Downey". 

The Verdict:

The movie version is a toned-down, infinitely cleaner & more positive take on Ellis' disturbing novel - it still has captured the decadent lifestyle of the characters, but less of the shock value the novel has presented. I say "more positive" because the characters had redeeming qualities here, which the novel lacked, and the ending was kind of a happy ending despite of what happened. The movie, I felt, went on a cowardly path because it basically changed everything in the book. The Blair-Clay approach of the movie is so typical of Hollywood and it's one of the movie's aspects that I really didn't like. Two things that make this movie legit and worth watching though is the music which gives you that wonderful 80's vibe, and Robert Downey Jr.'s moving performance.

My Rating: 3.5/5 - Not a great one, but if you're an RDJ and 80's fan, then this movie is for you. I gave an extra .5 or so rating mainly for Downey's presence.

Check out MY ULTIMATE BOOK BUCKET LIST or the books I wanna read before I die!

Thank you for reading! :) Like/Share this post or Follow my blog (I'll follow yours back) and don't forget to leave a comment below, let's talk!

You can also follow me on:

Tumblr: Ravings of a Madwoman

Goodreads: Lucresia Strange

Letterbox'd:  lucresiastrange

My personal blog: Ravings of a Madwoman

Death Takes A Holiday (1934)

DEATH:  I'm about to take a holiday. I shall take only three days. After that, I must go back.

DUKE LAMBERT:  Why, why do you do this?
DEATH:  For a number of reasons.. For one thing, I must discover why men fear me as much as they do.
DUKE LAMBERT:  Don't you know??
DEATH:  How should I know?? What could terror mean to me who have nothing to fear?

Based on La Morte in Vacanza, an Italian play by Alberto Casella, this movie gives us a closer look at Death in his human form - learning and feeling human emotions as he discovers what makes men the way they are - weak, fearful of death, and pathetically clingy to things and people.

I was watching this movie alone at 2am, and this scene made me freak out, with that voice and creepy music O_O

I'm just so happy to have found this on YouTube, as I have tried downloading it before but I couldn't find a copy. Death Takes a Holiday is now permanently included in my list of All-Time Favorite Movies. The film is unique, morbidly funny, and every scene is just so delicious to watch.  To see Death as a human, tasting emotions, questioning his building feelings for a woman, and his leniency or indulgence of human idiosyncracies - it's truly delightful. Each scene I was engrossed, both by the dialogue and acting, as well as the lavishness of the setting that immediately transports me into that world. I also loved the opening credits, quirky fun.

MOVIE REVIEW: Belle de Jour (1967)

"Luis Buñuel's Masterpiece of Erotica!"

Directed by: Luis Bunuel (That Obscure Object of Desire)
Written by: Joseph Kessel (novel), Luis Buñuel (adaptation)
Starring: Catherine Deneuve (Séverine Serizy/Belle de Jour)

"In 2010, the film was ranked #56 in Empire magazine's list, The 100 Best Films of World Cinema. Belle de Jour won the Golden Lion and the Pasinetti Award for Best Film at the Venice Film Festival in 1967" - Wikipedia
Luis Buñuel, probably the king of surrealist films opens Belle de Jour, his first color film, with a couple of lingering shots and minimal sound which makes me feel like I was thrown in a different world or staring at beautiful paintings - which rightly sets the mood for 100 minutes of pure surreal movie experience.

Repressed sexuality, taboos and depravities - the deepest, darkest secret sexual desires of a seemingly frigid rich young woman married to a doctor who gets drawn into the dirty world of prostitution... by choice, and only at 2pm to 5pm, hence her whore name, "Belle de Jour" ("beauty of [the] day")... all that, in a sweetly-packaged mesh of fantasy and reality.

This is only the third movie of Catherine Deneuve that I've seen, and so far I gotta say that she is at her prime here - acting-wise & beauty. Seeing her in a role as a reserved, upperclass wife who refuses her husband's sexual advances (most likely due to traumatic childhood experiences) and yet finds herself getting caught in a sticky web of prostitution with her at the center, spinning thread after thread of sexual depravity, is pure decadent fun. It doesn't hurt as well that she's elegantly garbed by Yves Saint Laurent. Deneuve is really fast becoming one of my cinematic idols.

Anyway, so there's no turning back, she's hooked on being a hooker. She loves it. She knows it's bad & will only produce equally bad results, but she's too far in. She's conflicted but she's not going anywhere. In a scene where she was introduced to S & M, she asks Madame Anais how can anyone sink so low & not be disgusted by their actions. I'm not sure if she found the answer to that question but she certainly has sunk the lowest, then comes back to her husband (who looks like Mark Ruffalo, but prettier), satisfied & slowly changing, surer of herself.. freer.

In a man's world, where women are generally expected to be submissive, pure, devoid of any sexual perversions; while men enjoy the leniency of society, sometimes I wonder when they will realize that women are also sexual beings - not sexual objects - again, sexual beings, with different fantasies, different inclinations - and have the right to realize such fantasies without the fear of being labelled a whore? In this movie we see the lead character, hesitant at first, but coming back to Madame Anais' whorehouse, to cater every man's whims, not for the money but for the pleasure of experiencing her sexual awakening.


On the film's technical aspects, there is no background music except for the all-important bird/bell sounds; and the cinematography & lighting are not as visually satisfying as other films i've seen. It's probably intentional on Buñuel's part, I wouldn't know.. but it doesn't affect the quality of the film at all. The smooth/uninterrupted editing, I think is nicely done because the transition between Belle's fantasies & realities looks seamless which adds to the film's puzzling "which is which" reality. But the "fantasy" scenes, in my opinion, are just excellent in its simplicity, not too much garish artsy fartsy touch, but enough technical creativeness to give the audience a pure surreal treat. 

HONORABLE MENTION: 

• I enjoyed the scenes in Madame Anais' house, Belle's interactions with her and the other prostitutes. They play gin, they do crochet or whatever that is. They chat as if they're gossiping trophy housewives waiting for their hardworking husbands, when in reality, they're waiting for their next clients. There's just a sense of normalcy in that atmosphere. 

• The characters are all very interesting as well. Marcel, that darker, more exotic James Franco version that is Pierre's antithesis. Husson. Madame Anais & her girls. The Professor. All are worth dissecting. 

• In Severine's mind, she gives in to Pierre's mischievous friend's proposition. The humor in this scene is so refreshing, as Husson asks her if he can "give her a letter" & she agrees. He asks, "here? In front of all these people?" to which Severine answers "Even better." Then they go under the table & proceed to give/take the "letter", while Pierre asks Charlotte what they are doing under the table. 

"what are they doing?" ..."nothing. fooling around. take a look." ... (table shakes) "no just tell me." .... "he's giving her an envelope." "and now?"....."it has some lily seeds." -- LOL 

• Belle's scene with the Oriental guy. There was something endearing in that scene. They didn't understand each other, but in a way it seems that they have connected. The mysterious box with a buzzing thing in it (I would like to think it's just a vibrator. Less headache.) symbolizes Belle's willingness to try something new, when the other girl (who has been in that profession longer, thus more experienced) has refused it. 

In the end, she looked so satisfied, so I guess it is a vibrator. LOL 

In this scene, after the Oriental guy left, Belle was seen by Pallas face down, seemingly exhausted or thoroughly abused. How wrong she was, when Belle looks up with a totally satisfied look.

People and their opinions..... When in fact, they don't know anything. Unless you are in a similar situation, you have no right to judge or assume things. 

In conclusion, Belle de Jour is not a bad choice for a Buñuel virgin. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing his masterful manipulation of his surrealist techniques and his tasteful execution of "sexual depravities" without having to resort to showing any nudity or crass sex scenes. At the end of the film, it's interesting to note that in a way, this is like a mix of Inception, The Housemaid, and Mulholland Drive, but satisfyingly less complicated. It doesn't mean that it won't leave you scratching your head, as Buñuel decides to keep this film open to your own interpretations.


Catherine Deneuve IS Belle de Jour. I just love her in this one.



My Rating:  4.5/5 - gets better after each re-watch.

YOUR POINT OF VIEW: What's your interpretation of the final scene, or the whole movie for that matter? 

Let me know what you think, LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW, let's talk!  

LIKE, Share or Follow my blog, it may not change the world but it will change mine LOL :)

You can also follow me on:
Tumblr: Ravings of a Madwoman

Goodreads: Lucresia Strange
My personal blog: Ravings of a Madwoman

MOVIE REVIEW: Cosmopolis (2012)

Director: David Cronenberg

Writer: David Cronenberg (screenplay), Don DeLillo (novel)

Starring : Robert Pattinson (Eric Packer)

This is my first Cronenberg film so I had no inkling of the kind of movie i'm about to watch. The only expectation I had is a performance from Robert Pattinson that will finally shed his Edward Cullen image.

Instead, what I got is basically the same from his previous movie characters. Brooding, dark, affected, annoying. 

First scene elicited a "WTF, is this some  kind of a joke?!" from me, and while some movies completely turn that around and end up being my favorite movies, unfortunately this one kept going on a downward spiral.

The Housemaid (1960)

Original Title: Hanyo

Director & Writer: Kim Ki-young

Starring: Lee Eun-shim, Ju Jeung-nyeo, Kim Jin Kyu

Plot: "The film is a domestic horror thriller telling of a family's destruction by the introduction of a sexually predatory femme fatale into the household. A piano composer has just moved into a two-story house with his wife and two children. When his pregnant wife becomes exhausted from working at a sewing machine to support the family, the composer hires a housemaid to help with the work around the house." - Wikipedia

Click here for the full movie: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5acgtKKMpS8

WHAT I WAS EXPECTING:  

I really don't have much experiences with regards to Korean cinema, let alone a 1960 black and white film, so I didn't know what to expect. I saw HORROR, DRAMA, FEMME FATALE, THRILLER - so I just assumed it's a scorned mistress who dies then comes back as an angry ghost haunting and scaring the living daylights out of the household members. LOL me and my cliches.

WHAT THE MOVIE REALLY IS:

Black and white. Generic plot - a family's normal life disrupted by women obsessed with a married man. Just plain drama, minus the horror ghost story (thank god! I can only watch filipino/american horror movies - bec asian horror is just truly superior & 100% creepy and I can't handle it.). In other words, it's your typical run-of-the-mill drama movie. Nothing more to expect, right?

Well what I didn't expect was that this seemingly average film with all it's simple elements or limitations has managed to turn it into something complex and with thrilling unpredictability. I was shocked - to actually see this masterpiece hiding in obscurity, and enjoy it immensely. 

Melancholia (2011)

Director & Writer: Lars Von Trier

Starring: Kirsten Dunst(Justine), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Claire), Kiefer Sutherland (John)

Taglines:

"Enjoy it while it lasts"

"It will change everything"

"Two sisters find their already strained relationship challenged as a mysterious new planet threatens to collide with the Earth."

- - - - - - 

I can't comment much about this film I think I need to rewatch this to be sure if i do like it or not. One thing I'm certain of is Lars Von Trier's genius. His films may not be appealing to everybody, but his films and the human issues involved are authentic and worth watching.

I've only seen two of his movies (The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark) so I was used to his Dogme 95 technique and I'm actually surprised to see the polished quality of Melancholia. There is still his trademark shaky camera movement, but the sandy, gritty texture is gone. The cinematography/shots are actually beautiful, although there are a few too-dark scenes which I didn't like. 

Before Sunset (2004)

Directed by: Richard Linklater  (also known for directing Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, School of Rock)

Starring: Ethan Hawke (Jesse), Julie Delpy (Celine)

Tagline: 

"What if you had a second chance with the one that got away?"

Plot: It’s nine years after Jesse and Celine first met; now, they encounter one another on the French leg of Jesse’s book tour. - IMDb

         - - - - - - - - 

Before Sunrise is a beautiful film with a perfect ending. But, Jesse looked like a creep. Cute and charming yes, but he gave off that creep vibe who just wanted a “French lay” (though of course that's not the case at all). Also, I got bored just a little bit, and I can’t help but roll my eyes at their conversations — Them talking , Me laughing and thinking I was exactly like that when i was younger, god! It’s just idk, either too cynical, or too idealistic/romantic…. just two young people talking about what they think is life and love and other things.

WHAT I WAS EXPECTING:

Pretty much the same formula as Before Sunrise. Plus we get to know what happened after their encounter.

WHAT I FELT WHILE WATCHING:

In Before Sunset, we see these two characters meet once again, nine years later. With wrinkles, dirtier mouth, and a much more cynical/realistic outlook in life. Maturity suits them. And i find myself not irritated by Jesse anymore. He’s more subdued, and thank god he lost the leather jacket :)

They’re more mature, and their actions/expressions/conversations are more realistic and natural. They are just fun to watch. I actually felt like I was in that scene stalking them and listening to them with rapt attention and loving every second of it. You see the growth of their characters, and while life and time has aged them you can still see the familiar charm in their eyes. They have real problems, real relationships; they’re jaded; they’re cynical…. and yet when they saw each other, something inside them reignited. You feel the intense longing, the real emotions they thought they already forgot about, that one great love they have preserved in that one night nine years ago.

An example of how perfect this film is is that scene where Jesse wanted to hear Celine sing and they were walking up the stairs and they just look/glance at each other and at that moment we feel the tension, the anticipation of what may or may not happen, the longing, the battle inside them whether they should act on their feelings and just forget about their real lives. That several seconds without a dialogue reverberated inside me. It’s real. It’s those little moments in real life that you actually remember. 

The whole film is nicely executed. It’s simple yet you can feel real emotions behind every expressions, every subtle glances, body language, words, everything. You are drawn to them, to what they’re feeling, to what they’re trying to say. The non-verbals here are what made this movie perfect. The first movie, it’s talk talk talk with a bit of action. In this film, everything is toned down, so their expressions and movements are magnified.

Before Sunrise (1995)

Director: Richard Linklater 

Starring: Ethan Hawke (Jesse), Julie Delpy (Celine)

Taglines:

"Can the greatest romance of your life last only one night?"

"… When love can come as a complete surprise"

* * *

Before Sunrise is one of the best movies I’ve watched with one of the best endings so far.  

Of course I couldn’t help but laugh when Jesse invited Celine to disembark the train and spend the day with him in Vienna.. she obliged… and they didnt even know each other’s names yet…. I laughed because my mind automatically fast-forwarded to modern movie plots, where cute guy picks up a girl and brings her to this unknown place and then tortures and butchers her slowly…. lots of blood, lots of maniacal laugh, lots of screaming…… and then I stop and forced myself to just be normal and enjoy the damn movie.

I didn’t particularly like Jesse. He annoyed me a bit at times, though i’m not sure if it’s because of my dark mood when i watched it or he’s just that freakin irritating. I mean, he’s like a young Johnny Depp emanating some sort of hidden “Rob Lowe/Charlie Sheen characters” douchery, fully equipped with a non-stop blabbering Dawson motor-mouth, with a ridiculous squeaky leather jacket. Yes, he’s cute and all that.But if i was Celine i would also say “let’s meet after 5 years — (when you’ve matured and amounted to something other than youthful cynicism and boyish eagerness and adolescent kissing techniques). Leather jacket, devil-may-care living, unsure of what to do with his life except philosophize on everything under the sun, realism with a liberal dose of cynicism and a pinch of romanticism….. Sounds like me without the jacket…  Maybe that’s why I didn’t like him that much -_-