Colombiana ***

Director: Olivier Megaton

Cast: Zoe Saldana, Jordi Mollà, Lennie James

Michael Vartan, Cliff Curtis, Beto Benites, Callum Blue, Max Martini

For all its use of cliché, Hispanic stereotypes and abuse of style over substance, Colombiana is one of the most exciting action movies to have come out in a while. From its politically incorrect title we are reminded that once we enter its world, we need to adjust ourselves to its rules. Rules which, for better or for worse, have been filtered through the mind of that action visionary Luc Besson.
His world is one populated with fantastic heroines, deliciously decadent drama and an overall worshiping of style in the face of substance. Besson, who co-wrote the screenplay with Robert Mark Kamen, takes us to a hyperviolent version of Colombia where the young Cataleya (played as a child by the pitch perfect Amandla Stenberg) witnesses how a bunch of gangsters led by the ruthless Marco (Jordi Mollà) murder her parents.
She swears she will kill him and his evil boss Don Luis (Benites) - who needs a last name when you're evil and Hispanic? - before she stabs him, imprinting him with one of those eternal scars so cherished by villains the world over.
Cata escapes to America where she has her uncle Emilio (Curtis) train her to become a hitwoman. When the little girl morphs into the gorgeous Zoe Saldana, the rest of the movie devotes itself to have her seduce us with her beauty, her outstanding criminal skills and her thirst for revenge.
All of the setpieces are done with such mastery of form and suspense that you could literally watch Saldana perform outlandish stunt after stunt in the name of kick-ass joy.
The screenplay is laden with incongruous details and a million different arguments could be made about hos it reduces being Hispanic to guns and Christ, yet despite all of its shortcomings the film is so in love with its narrow world view that you have no choice but to understand it should only be seen as fantasy, hell it plays out like a comedy in some occasions.
Saldana brings such strength and personality to Cataleya, that you develop a crush on her courage and of course her figure (the camera can never get enough of her). A film like Colombiana which moves seamlessly between action and high camp works best because in its disaffected, sometimes irresponsible, use of cliché it forces us to look beneath the surface.
Is it OK for example to decide that Cataleya is a heroine? is her desire for revenge something admirable or does it in fact make her as evil as those she hates?
Saldana succumbs to this inner hunger with sensual ferocity and we never catch her doubting her character's motivations. She is who she is and she might not always understand herself but she is a woman with a plan. Colombiana is the kind of entertainment that requests you turn off the thinking switch upon entering the theater but it provides you with such primal pleasures that you can't help but feel like its accomplice once it's over. For better or for worse, you fall under its spell.

Oscar Fashion: Best Dressed.

10. Demi Moore

I still have no idea what she was doing there (when did she last release a movie?) but Demi Moore was as usual a treat for the eyes.
Dressed in a ruffled Versace that matched her sublime tan she was one of the night's best (in a night that also happened to have very few-if none at all-disasters).


9. Cameron Diaz

Diaz had never been as beautiful and classy as she was in this beaded Oscar de la Renta. At first it reminds you too much of the gown Reese Witherspoon collected her Best Actress Oscar in but Diaz was a bit more playful with the loose hair and makeup.
She's a total surfer princess.


8. Sigourney Weaver

Lanvin can do no wrong and this design in deep red makes Weaver look both sexy and regal.


7. Zoe Saldana

The following two entries have offered perhaps the most polarized opinions in terms of fashion. Both are huge gambles that might work in a runway but have to pull a little something extra to work in a red carpet but they also worked in my opinion.
First is Saldana in Givenchy. The dress was made out of three main parts which all seemed to be made by different designers.
The top was sparkly joy, the middle was deconstructed delight and the bottom was flamenco fiesta, however, the three elements have beautiful synergy and for someone like Saldana who remained so committed to her character in "Avatar" the dress, with its magical sea creature with sparkles details, seems to have been made by the best couturiers in Pandora.


6. Vera Farmiga

Marchesa gowns at red carpets have become as common as Meryl Streep appearances and the truth is that it's the house that more often pushes the boundaries in terms of what to add to dresses (remember that one Anne Hathaway wore three years ago?).
Farmiga had already donned Marchesa this year for the BAFTA's, where she looked angelical, and this berry colored creation might either take your breath away of bring you memories of 80's proms.


5. Meryl Streep

During the last few years the greatest living actress has been challenging our notions that she wasn't such a good dresser (what she wore the year she was nominated for "The Devil Wears Prada" is still unforgivable) but last year and especially this one she has been amping her fashion cred.
In a simple, but stunning white creation by Chris March she instantly recalls "Now, Voyager" (this and this) and it makes total sense that the legend would want to recall Hollywood's studio era.
Best of all though are her beautiful shoes (which she said she was dying to take off) and that gem encrusted clutch which embody timeless elegance.


4. Penélope Cruz

She might always play it safe (and sometimes even dull) to previous award shows but Pe always saves her best look for Oscar. Wrapped in burgundy Donna Karan she was two parts old school European glamor, one part quintessential American classic.


3. Jennifer Lopez

Some dresses seem to take on a life of their own once they're put on (J. Lo sure knows about this) and this Armani Privé was a perfect example.
She called it "iridescent pink" as she showed anyone who cared to see how the enormous tail moved (OK I know that sounds bad but you know I'm speaking of the dress...).
Not anyone can pull off the kind of dress that doesn't even fit in a seat and J. Lo did it with class and incredibly sensual grace.


2. Sarah Jessica Parker

If last year she was a 1950's princess, Sarah Jessica Parker is all about the wild 60's in this stunning pale canary yellow column dress with jeweled appliques.
Everything about this Chanel Couture dress is perfection. The subtle transition of the pastel to the stronger metallic tones is to die for and the jewelry goes so accordingly that you almost think it's part of the dress.
The whole look is as if SJP had been possessed by a younger version of Julie Christie (the whole thing is straight out of "Darling").
If the clothes goddess is doing a decade theme at the Oscars I'm already salivating at what she'll do for the 70's.


1. Diane Kruger

You don't have to be an expert to know instantly that Diane Kruger is wearing Chanel. If the petal inspired middle section of the dress doesn't tip you off, then the black flowers will or the creamy color that you could almost swear has a faint No. 5 or Coco Mademoiselle scent...
In a nutshell this delicate but imposing work of couture art does more to evoke the legendary house than that dull biopic with Audrey Tautou did and Kruger shows that runways and red carpets sometimes can be the same.

Couple More Thoughts on "Avatar".

This post may contain spoilers so do not read if you haven't seen "Avatar".

After watching the movie for the second time and in 2D there were some points I noticed the first time but had no opportunity to insert in my official review seamlessly.
Each of those points would've demanded I wrote a different review about the movie, so this will be an idea of what those would've looked like.

• I couldn't help but wonder if "Avatar" isn't a naive attempt to recreate nature in all of its splendor or if it's in fact a threat of things to come.
  Thinking about "WALL-E" earlier today I remember how much I was stricken by the fact that in the movie the humans aboard the ship have to learn about Earth through images and that they in fact have never seen anything like it before.
  With the creation of planet Pandora which is obviously an Earth ripoff is James Cameron announcing to us that there will come a time when we will only see CGI vegetation?
  Why then would he bother recreating something we can see for free? Was his desire just to emulate nature?
  
  
• What was going on with Jake Sully's narration? When the movie began it instantly reminded me of a Raymond Chandler novel and/or film noir.
  Cameron suggests that when he mentions Jake's brother being killed and for an instant make us think that there's more to that than what is mentioned and there might be some big conspiracy behind it.
  Jake's sense of humor as a narrator also seems worthy of Philip Marlowe (the nods to the economy made me chuckle and hope it'll all be fixed by the year 2154).
  
  
• I hadn't noticed that the film starts with practically the same image it ends with. This whole idea of rebirth and succeeding lives makes for an interesting subject in two different perspectives.
  On one side there's the whole need Jake had to fill an empty role, first with his brother and then with the Na'vi (you could even say he was trying to fill the role of a soldier once he became disabled). This gives the film a fascinating psychological background because Sully is always trying to live up to something.
  His trials are almost Steinbeck-ian in their cyclical nature. Are we supposed to think once the movie's over his issues are done and dealt with?
  There's also the whole idea of rebirth seen in a spiritual way. It's easy to guess that Cameron extracted his ideas from actual native groups and the naturalist view as well as their idea that everything is reborn gifts the movie with an illuminating point of view.
  Cause there's also the problem Dr. Grace (Weaver) encounters when she tries hard to decide whether it's magic or science in there.
  Watching Weaver's inner struggle is a thing of beauty and when she says there must be a biochemical element in Pandora, we might as well be watching someone converting, which leads me to my next point...
  
  
• As rousing as the whole Toruk episode is with Jake fulfilling a sort of prophecy and winning his place among the Na'vi I couldn't help but wonder if this was another naive move by Cameron's part or is there something else beneath this.
  From the minute Neytiri (Saldana) tells Jake the story of her grandfather's grandfather mastering the beast it's beyond obvious that Jake will be the next one to fulfill this role.
  But how much of this is Cameron following "how to write a screenplay" rules and how much is it a subconscious attempt to subjugate his own creations based on Imperialist thinking?
  When everyone is cheering as Jake arrives to save the day, very few people must be asking themselves why didn't any of the Na'vi try to accomplish this feat before?
  Cameron paints them like a civilization waiting for this prophecy to be fulfilled by a foreigner (something that reminded me of the Incas) and it's somewhat awkward to see Neytiri's panties get in a twist as she sees this man who just betrayed her a few scenes before is now her hero.
  Is Jake Sully the one meant to fulfill this mythical role (Joseph Campbell would have a blast with all the codes in this movie) or is he merely a clever "white guy" using the natives' stories to get his way by manipulating them?
  
  
• Last but not least, in Cameron's defense I was watching the movie and suddenly started wondering on the nature of what makes a screenplay good.
  Considering how much James Cameron's screenwriting work gets trashed by critics and audiences.
  It's true that not everyone can be Woody Allen or Pedro Almodóvar, but a screenplay's magic is not only found in its dialogue. The Academy has spoiled us to have that misconception.
  Watching the lovely flowers and animals in this movie I suddenly had the notion that James Cameron actually sat down and wrote all of these details down for the visual effects people and the rest of the crew to bring them to life.
  Therefore a screenplay can't merely be judged by what we see, in fact it can't. AMPAS should sit down its members and have them read every screenplay to make the vote fair.
  If not they should choose to reward "line delivery" instead.
  
  
  

Avatar ***1/2

Director: James Cameron
Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana
Michelle Rodriguez, Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi, Dileep Rao
Joel Moore, CCH Pounder, Laz Alonso, Wes Studi, Sigourney Weaver

There's a fascinating paradox at the center of "Avatar". On one side we have an open critique to how big corporations treat the environment, colonialist invasions and the destruction of ancient cultures but on the other side the movie itself is a product of an industry that has endorsed those very things throughout its existence.
Yes, movies made within a system can be critical and question said surroundings, but "Avatar"'s sense of self grandiosity makes its message sound almost ironic.
With lesser movies-in terms of audience expectation and several years of hype-there's always the benefit that comes with novelty, but "Avatar" has been surrounded by "most expensive movie ever" stories and there are few people in the world who don't know that James Cameron made the most popular movie of all time before this one.
Fortunately for Cameron, few will find the time or energy to finds flaws in his newest epic. The man sure knows how to tell a story and with "Avatar" he once again proves he's also the best at taking us right into the narrative.
Set somewhere in the future the film tells the story of Jake Sully (a wonderful Worthington), a paraplegic marine deployed to planet Pandora on a special mission.
He has to become a link between humans and locals called Na'vi-blue feline like humanoids with slender bodies and tails-who are against the invasion of their planet.
The human colony is in search of a powerful fuel called "unobtanium" for which they have to destroy forests and mountains so they plan to achieve diplomatic success by using half-Na'vi, half human creations named avatars which are accessed by putting the chosen human in a technological trance and uploading their consciousness onto the avatar which they can control during said "sleep".
Blinded by the possibility of having a movable pair of legs, Jake takes on the mission unprepared for the ethical dilemmas that will come from it.
He enters the Na'vi community where he's reluctantly taken in by Neytiri (Saldana), the leader's daughter, who's chosen to train him in their ways.
Before long Sully is working for three teams. There's the human scientists fascinated by the biological richness of Pandora who are led by Dr. Grace Augustine (played by Weaver, Cameron's sci-fi muse by excellence).
There's also the military team led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Lang) who care little about the Na'vi as long as they can complete their mission and the Na'vi themselves who begin to take Jake as if he was one of their own.
Cameron lacks profound writing abilities (seriously the word "unobtanium" itself spoils the whole thing) and his story takes all the expected routes as Jae falls for Neytiri and has to decide if he will remain loyal to his army or his newfound beliefs. The movie most often feels like a CGI adaptation of Disney's "Pocahontas" as the Neytiri represent Native Americans (James Horner's score doesn't help dispel this notion as he recurs to tribal instruments and motifs that recall "Titanic"'s intense romance) and humans are the British in this case.
And the plot is plagued with inconsistencies we're supposed to take for granted like Weaver's strong willed character being shocked by the discovery that the soldiers are willing to kill the Na'vi in order to take over their land.
But Cameron is a sly player and what he lacks in writing genius he more than makes up in visual grandeur and with "Avatar" he doesn't just make us feel like his visuals are distracting us from plot holes and cliché, he pulls off something greater: convincing us that these things shouldn't
even play part of our viewing.
The director makes a deal with us: if we wanna take in his mastery of technological craft, we have to give up his inefficiency at achieving character depth.
He mostly gets away with it because "Avatar" is just magnificent to behold. Cameron's CGI innovations virtually create a photorealistic planet where every little thing is a world unto its own.
Scenes set in Pandora's jungles are like alien editions of National Geographic documentaries, with every plant and animal something exotic and beautiful to behold. Cameron has a ball showing off his creations and relies on huge "Out of Africa"-like vistas to make us try to understand the scope of this planet.
It helps that the Na'vi are nature lovers because this gives him the chance to concentrate on every little organism of the place. He's also spectacular with action scenes because unlike other directors he let's us see what's going on.
This makes sense given the hard work the effect team put behind a movie that's mostly made of computer images, Cameron evokes the magic that made our jaws fall to the floor as children and when one of the characters says "you're not in Kansas anymore" he's not only paying tribute to the wizard, he's also reminding us the long way we've come from 1939.
It's just sad that because of his story this comes with the tragic realization that if Pandora was real, we would already be destroying it.

Star Trek ***1/2

Director: J.J Abrams
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto
Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Bruce Greenwood
John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Eric Bana, Leonard Nimoy

Coming straight from planet Camp, the original "Star Trek" series exploded upon the world, and its living rooms, in the year 1966. More than forty years after its release it has spawned ten feature films, several multi-season TV incarnations, countless books and toys as well as a dedicated legion of fans for whom the Vulcan salute is nothing if not sacred.
The effects of the phenomenon are such, that even if you're not a Trekkie, you will at least know of the existence of Captain Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Nimoy) and the USS Enterprise.
You also probably will have been subject to one of the many incarnations of "Star Trek" at least once in your life.
If none of the franchise's many options have sparked your interest in it, then director J.J. Abrams' glorious reinvention might just as well do it.
Setting his story years before the original series (although time traveling and positioning is something of a malleable element here) he takes us to discover the origins of Kirk, Spock and how they came together for the Enterprise's maiden voyage.
James Tiberius Kirk (Pine) is a young rebel who enrolls in the Starfleet to solve some daddy issues. His father died in the thrilling sequence before the credits, serving as a premonitory basis for the rest of the feature, while injecting you with an adrenaline rush the film will try to maintain throughout its running time.
Spock (Quinto) is a half human-half Vulcan genius who gave up emotions as part of his academic training and has battled all his life with keeping a balance between his both sides.
Upong meeting Kirk at Starfleet Academy they both dislike each other (one's volatile, the other's a Vulcan...) but have no time to work out their differences when Earth comes under the menace of Captain Nero (Bana); a psychotic Romulan who's set on destroying every planet in the Federation (the "United Nations" of sorts in the Trek universe).
Before you can say "beam me up", they find themselves aboard the Enterprise along with fellow cadets Dr. Leonard McCoy (Urban), communications officer Uhura (Saldana), helmsman Hikaru Sulu (Cho), navigator Pavel Chekov (Yelchin) and engineer Montgomery Scott (Pegg) all under the command of Captain Christopher Pike (a splendid Greenwood).
The masterful screenplay by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman then focuses on the central mission while establishing personalities and backstories for all the characters.
Those familiar with the series (who don't fall into conservative devotion and purism) will perhaps think "oh, so that's how this and this happened...", while people who have never seen a single episode will be engaged by what is essentially an adventure story where you give a damn about the people.
Great part of this is owed to one of the most inspiringly casted ensembles in recent film history. Most of them (like the original series' actors) are recognizable enough to be familiar, but not flashy as to take away from the plot being established.
Pine's Kirk is a wonderfully seductive combination of Han Solo and James Bond. He's capable of kicking enemy ass, while throwing around insultingly charming one liners (that would make Shatner proud) and he's got some serious chops as well (his anger and stamina scream "movie star").
Quinto is a revelation as Spock. Counting on more than his bone structure to fill his character's suit, he stands at a very difficult place in terms of how far to push (or not to push) his acting.
Spock is emotion-less and most of the time Quinto's work reminds us that it was a decision of his own making. The actor then suggests what might've taken someone to make this choice and in one particularly moving scene we see him restrain all signs of feeling, mixed with the quiet pride of thinking he made what's best for everyone else.
Saldana is sexy and bold, Urban is terribly magnetic, while Yelchin, Cho and particularly Pegg are bona fide scene stealers.
Bana, behind heavy makeup and tattoos makes for a fascinating villain mixing brutal violence with some sort of coherent purpose and Nimoy who makes an unexpected apperance brings gravitas and serenity (not to mention, ironically, a powerful sense of humanity) to something that might've been ridiculously cheesy.
For all the refreshing sense in this "Star Trek" there is also a very respectful approach that never borders on idolatry and is seen in every aspect of the production.
The costume design is simple and elegant, while Scott Chambliss' production design is breathtaking. His Enterprise is one part Ikea (think cool, approachable streamline) two parts futuristic airline.
Daniel Mindel's cinematography is highly efficient and evocative (despite an overuse of flare). His work in the action sequences (combined with Michael Giacchino's utterly majestic score) puts you right in the middle of the events and his smooth travelings in grounded scenes remind us of the ebbs and flows of time which is a recurrent theme in the plot.
And as usual it's perhaps Abrams' who makes the best impression of all. His devotion to every project he gets into is remarkable and "Star Trek" is no exception.
Abrams seems to live in the universe he's (re)-creating and maximum attention is put on every level. There are inside references for Trekkies (who will no doubt recite along in the electrifying conclusion) and enough fun sights (Gasps! Is that Winona Ryder?) for those who came to accompany them.
But what makes his film so marvelous is that he taps into what made "Star Trek" so popular to begin with. Abrams knows that the places and people here were never part of our universe. The events may be happening near or in planet Earth, but this one isn't in the Milky Way, it belongs in the universe of pop culture.
Therefore, like what will be the most controversial element of his reboot, Abrams travels back in time to make us feel exactly like the first people who saw "Star Trek" in the 60s; where despite the starting war, social revolutions and uncertainty there was hope.
Whether it was the possibility of setting foot on other planets or just getting this one in its place, there was a sense of unity and wonder that's very needed right now.
Abrams could've grounded himself on the premise of "realism" (and delivered some dark political message concentrating more on the fate of the planet Vulcan), but his particular brand of reality comes in the fact that he reminds us of the power for change that lies within each of us.
The twists and turns may not make physicists happy, but they remind us that both science and media entertainment were originally intended to make our lives better.
Who needs real science when there is so much fun to be had in this fiction?