This miniseries has been well received by both audiences and critics. Many positive reviews, including those of the famous Boyero, convinced me to watch all four episodes. In addition, movistar + is already known for producing series of excellent quality.

There is no doubt that the technical quality of the series is of the highest level. Starting with the director and creator Alauda Ruiz de Azua, who captivated me with her style in the film Tres Lobitos a couple of years ago and of which I gave a very positive review.

A classic and sober editing, they bring a sweeping style that is enjoyed on the screen. The creator and her team of directors do a great job. The third episode is the one I liked the most, as it focuses on the courtroom. The cast is balanced, with Pedro Casablanc (as always) and Nagore Aramburu standing out. Micel Bernardeau seemed to me correct, although his character is erratic and detracts from the verisimilitude of what happens at the end. Ivan Pellicer plays a very fragile personsage, the youngest of the family and complies. Loreto Mauleon seemed unreliable as a lawyer. Although she looked like a radical of feminazism, she only needed to show her hairy armpits and paint her hair purple.

Nagore Aranburu has received a lot of praise for her performance. I agree that she stands out with her suffering face throughout the series. She already received the Forque Award last December and is nominated for the Feroz Awards. Here I differ from the specialized critics, because I think Iria del Río's performance in Los Años Nuevos is far superior. The crux of the matter is that the theme of this miniseries is what makes the progressives in the press and the artistic world of that country elevate it to the top.

Esta miniserie ha sido bien recibida tanto por el público como por la crítica. Muchas reseñas positivas, incluidas las del famoso Boyero, me convencieron para ver los cuatro episodios. Además, movistar + ya es conocida por producir series de excelente calidad.

No cabe duda de que la calidad técnica de la serie es del más alto nivel. Empezando por la directora y creadora Alauda Ruiz de Azua, que me cautivó con su estilo en la película Tres Lobitos hace un par de años y de la que hice una crítica muy positiva.

Un montaje clásico y sobrio, aportan un estilo arrollador que se disfruta en la pantalla. La creadora y su equipo de directores hacen un gran trabajo. El tercer episodio es el que más me ha gustado, ya que se centra en el juzgado. El reparto está equilibrado, destacando Pedro Casablanc (como siempre) y Nagore Aramburu. Micel Bernardeau me pareció correcto, aunque su personaje es errático y resta verosimilitud a lo que ocurre al final. Ivan Pellicer interpreta un personsaje muy frágil,el menor de la familia y cumple. Loreto Mauleon si me parecio poco fiable como abogada. Aunque si parecia una radical del feminazismo , solo le faltaba mostrar las axilas peludas y pintarse el cabello de violeta.

Nagore Aranburu ha recibido muchos elogios por su interpretación. Estoy de acuerdo en que destaca con su cara de sufrimiento durante toda la serie. Ya recibió el Premio Forque el pasado diciembre y está nominada a los Premios Feroz. Aquí difiero de la crítica especializada, porque creo que la actuación de Iria del Río en Los Años Nuevos es muy superior. El quid de la cuestión es que el tema de esta miniserie es el que hace que los progresistas de la prensa y del mundo artístico de ese país la eleven a lo más alto.

Here's the big problem I had with the miniseries. Once again, a story and a message that drives me out of my mind. I am shocked to find myself with another propagandistic pamphlet that tires me. I praise some aspects of the mini-series , but in the end it only seeks to do its bit in this work of social engineering that is being applied in recent years and they do it well, there was a moment when they even made me feel guilty of being a man. So I realize that they are achieving the real goals of this story.

Who the hell hasn't punched a door? That means that if I do it, because I'm a man, I'm already an abuser, a violent person. No! Human beings sometimes need to vent anger. Why try to change something that is innate in us? Why demonize something that is part of our nature? We have already been domesticated over the centuries, that is why we are now more civilized and governed by rules and laws created by our own society. Now it seems that the aim is to neutralize men and create a new masculinity that is weak, fragile and guilty of everything. While those who elaborate this, want to paint themselves as the victims. Tired of all this nonsense I am

Men are portrayed as violent, abusive, even unconsciously, the story is told in a way that if you are a man will make you doubt your actions. To top it off, the patriarch's family is upper class and in one scene they even dare to say something about immigrants. Painting them as right-wing, rich and evil. On the other hand, the protagonist is of humble origin, a simple woman who ends up befriending an immigrant who is her superior in the job she gets. This is not enough for her. The son who does not support her, gets angry and slams the door like his father. In other words, he is the bad son, while the other son is the good one, because he is more sensitive since he is gay. Enough is enough, please.

The wife of the eldest son is also portrayed as another victim who manages to separate herself from the man who is on his way to becoming a monster (according to the story). As he is on his way to becoming like the father, this character will undergo a great transformation, from being a hyper macho man (according to the story) to becoming the new progre wokist docile man with sensitivity.

I cracked up laughing at the denouement of an added conflict in the final episode, in which this character tells the father that the way to deal with problems with a bullying child at school is to talk. Note that the bullying boy is a descendant of immigrants whose customs must be respected. You have to talk to him, he says. Don't fuck with me. The grandfather just wants to protect his grandson, his family, something intrinsic in our species.

The last episode is for me the worst and whose closure ends up detracting from a skewed story. Instead of playing with the doubts of who is lying and who is telling the truth, so that it is the viewer who chooses, the creator chooses one of the parties to finish drawing the picture of victimhood, imposing a false truth.

Watch it and draw your own conclusions. You may love it, but I'm bored by these dangerous messages. Tell me your opinion in the comments.

He aquí el gran problema que tuve con la miniserie. Una vez más, una historia y un mensaje que me sacan de mis casillas. Me choca encontrarme con otro panfleto propagandístico que me cansa. Alabo algunos aspectos de la mini serie , pero al final sólo busca aportar su granito de arena en esta obra de ingeniería social que se está aplicando en los últimos años y lo hacen bien, hubo un momento en que hasta me hicieron sentir culpable de ser hombre. Así que me doy cuenta de que están consiguiendo los verdaderos objetivos de esta historia.

¿Quién demonios no ha dado un puñetazo a una puerta? Eso significa que si yo lo hago, por ser hombre, ya soy un maltratador, una persona violenta. ¡No! Los seres humanos a veces necesitamos descargar la ira. Es bueno sentir ira. ¿Por qué intentar cambiar algo que es innato en nosotros? ¿Por qué demonizar algo que forma parte de nuestra naturaleza? Ya nos han domesticado a lo largo de los siglos, por eso ahora somos más civilizados y nos regimos por normas y leyes creadas por nuestra propia sociedad. Ahora parece que se busca neutralizar a los hombres y crear una nueva masculinidad débil, frágil y culpable de todo. Mientras los que elaboran esto, quieren pintarse como las víctimas. Cansado de todas estas tonterías estoy

Los hombres son retratados como violentos, abusivos, incluso inconscientemente, la historia está contada de una manera que si eres hombre te hará dudar de tus actos. Para colmo, la familia del patriarca es de clase social alta y en una escena incluso se atreven a decir algo sobre los inmigrantes. Pintándolos como de derechas, ricos y malvados. Por otro lado, la protagonista es de origen humilde, una mujer sencilla que acaba haciéndose amiga de un inmigrante que es su superior en el trabajo que consigue. Esto no le basta. El hijo que no le apoya, se enfada y da un portazo como su padre. En otras palabras, él es el hijo malo, mientras que el otro hijo es el bueno, porque es más sensible ya que es gay. Basta ya, por favor.

La mujer del hijo mayor también es retratada como otra víctima que consigue separarse del hombre que va camino de convertirse en un monstruo (según la historia). Como va camino de ser como el padre, este personaje sufrirá una gran transformación, de ser un hiper machista (según la historia) a convertirse en el nuevo progre wokista hombre dócil y con sensibilidad.

Me partí de risa con el desenlace de un conflicto añadido en el episodio final, en el que este personaje le dice al padre que la forma de tratar los problemas con un niño que hace bullying en el colegio es hablando. Nótese que el niño acosador es descendiente de inmigrantes cuyas costumbres hay que respetar. Hay que hablar con él, dice. No me jodas. El abuelo solo quiere proteger a su nieto, a su familia, algo intrinsico en nuestra especie.

El último episodio es para mí el peor y cuyo cierre acaba desvirtuando una historia sesgada. En vez de jugar con las dudas de quién miente y quién dice la verdad, para que sea el espectador quien elija, el creador opta por una de las partes para terminar de dibujar el cuadro de victimismo, imponiendo una falsa verdad.

Míralo y saca tus propias conclusiones. A ti te puede encantar, pero a mí me aburren estos mensajes peligrosos. Dime tu opinión en los comentarios.

One Hundred Years of Solitude is a novel written by Gabriel García Márquez, Colombian winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1982. This novel is very famous and well known in the Spanish-speaking world as an educational reference in both diversified and university education; however, I have not yet had the disposition to read it, because I am motivated by another type of literature, I always said that once a hundred years of solitude came to the cinema I would not miss the opportunity to see it on the screen.

Some time ago I heard that Gabriel García Márquez received many proposals to take his work to the cinema and he rejected it countless times, but after his death his relatives, his widow and his descendant decided to sell the rights to Netflix creating a series of two seasons each with eight chapters and although you have only released the first season leaving the intrigue for a second there is no certainty that they will produce it.

I was totally unaware of the context of the novel or the story of this series, but I do know many people who have read the novel and like the story leaving them satisfied, and one of the people who read the novel and watched the series was dissatisfied with the visual production and it seems she is not the only one, as it has a very low review score of 5/10, which makes it seem that it has not been as well received by moviegoers or their expectations have been too high.

Regularly, successful books fail on screen, although there are their exceptions. I'll have to read One Hundred Years of Solitude to have a comparison, but for now I'll just give my review as a non-documentary based moviegoer.

One Hundred Years of Solitude begins with the story of a couple and their community, living in the countryside where there was no electricity and their houses were made of bahareque, this couple had blood ties because they were cousins, a union that was not well seen by the mother of the young woman named Úrsula the protagonist or one of the main characters. Ursula let her mother suggest that she would have children with malformations, because she fell in love and married her cousin, and this belief made her avoid consummating her marriage for almost a year. During this time we can see the struggle and resistance between the spouses.

José Arcadio Buendía is the protagonist and husband of Úrsula, name and surname that is repeated for several generations, I imagined that each character in the book has to be well developed to avoid confusion, but as far as the series is concerned the protagonist is the most prominent of the Buendía. Jose Arcadio was dedicated to the sport of cockfighting, and I say it is a sport because the roosters are prepared with good food and special care to make it a winner, the owners of these animals strive to have the best fighting rooster and it is or was in the past a recreational and commercial activity where bets generated a lot of money, and also fights and deaths that were a common denominator.

In one of the cock fights, José Arcadio's opponent lost and offended his honor, which caused them to face each other in a duel to the death and José Arcadio, with a spear that he stuck in his neck, killed him. This scene was one of the best of the whole series and is in the first chapter, because you can feel all the anger that moved that confrontation in addition to the visual elements, such as smoke, dust, fire, and other subjective elements expressed by the characters as the cruelty, strength and character of the people in the field.

José Arcadio was acquitted of murder before the law, because it was a fight for his honor; however, he could never recover from the remorse of conscience for taking the life of a man and the soul or what represents a ghost of that man haunts him forever, appearing in different periods of his life and to escape from that death they leave the town in search of a better future and friends and family follow him. They get lost for years looking for the sea, pass mountains, hills and swamps until Macondo is born, an imaginary town, which later Jose Arcadio and Ursula decide to make real by creating mud houses with the whole group that followed them. Until this moment, Jose Arcadio is a leader and Ursula his support, but she is pregnant and that is why settling in a place is necessary. As the dead man did not leave José Arcadio and Úrsula alone because they both saw them, it seems that they will be happy in Macondo and the construction of their new life begins, people organize themselves, and little by little the exchange of resources for services covering their needs arises.

While all this was happening, families grew, and Jose Arcadio began to have obsessions first in discovering buried gold, then to become an alchemist and create it himself, his ambition led him to obtain knowledge in science and to get lost in his own obsession forgetting the family he had, so it was up to Ursula to get ahead with her children and work to support them, now she was the head of the family, mother and entrepreneur, she created candy on pallets and this idea gave her economic stability and recognition in the town of Macondo.

During the passing of time I enjoyed as a viewer the transformation of the town, the whole environment where the series was developed, sometimes I wondered if they generated that town for the production or if it already existed, this same question is asked by people who read the novel, it seems to be a real place that inspired its creator, as a curious fact this novel has been translated into 19 languages so I think that its visual production can not be so bad.

There is a saying that goes small town small hell big, but hell broke loose within the Buendia family, when the children grew up and began to fall in love, shielding and evading their responsibilities, also as a peasant family is accustomed to give roof to distant relatives and thus arose blood brothers and adoption. As the years passed, the brothers had children with the same woman, a nephew was attracted to his aunt who was not only his aunt but the maternal figure who raised him and so the passions were dismembering the family from its foundations, and the most curious thing is that in each generation the names are repeated in honor of an uncle, father or grandfather.

The first season of One Hundred Years of Solitude shows how time passes and life is lost among unfulfilled dreams, unrequited love, unhealthy feelings, envy among family members, and evil desires, but also love and suffering. The civil war is also part of this story and it shows how the Buendía family continues to lead through their descendants.

There is a lot of fantasy and magic that is palpable when the people are victims of a plague or a kind of virus that erases their memory, this virus took away their sleep and turned them into a kind of zombies, being deprived of rest the memory begins to fade and the most astute begin to write down the names of things everywhere. This part reflects the genre of the original novel inspired by magical realism, where the unreal or strange can be something common and that in some way can exist. If we see from the real point of view that insomnia affects the memory and that it could be a momentary solution to write down the names of things, it does not escape being a personal and public health problem, and I think it is a main trigger of madness.

Madness from which the patriarch José Arcadio Buendía suffers, and which I suspected was going to end up like this, because obsessions are not good and if the natural form of sleep is lost, it is a bad combination. José Arcadio spent years immersed in his office that ended up being his laboratory until he lost control and in an explosion of anger became violent and his family had to tie him to a tree, there he was groomed, fed and was also the center of the house because the acacia tree was in the central garden, From there he listened and watched his children and grandchildren grow until the end of his days, this seen today may seem inhumane, but I do not doubt that in the past some families did it and even today instead of being tied to a tree they do it in a bed, more in the past when there was no medicine to help in these cases or knowledge. To see this broke my soul, I can't imagine having a family member in those conditions, but I don't judge whoever had to do it. It hurt me very much to see the suffering of this character and also that of his wife, who had to deal with José Arcadio's illness and continue working for her family.

These are some of the thoughts and memories that the first season of One Hundred Years of Solitude left me with. It has been several weeks since I watched it, there are many things that I did not tell or specify about some important characters. Each one is well developed and if I wrote about them I would make another novel of One Hundred Years of Solitude. I liked it 90% because I have no point of comparison. I have not read the novel, but I must tell you that I recommend it, especially if you have not read the novel as general culture.

I say goodbye thanking you for your time. I would like to know if you have already seen the series or if you have read the book. See you in the comments.

Synopsis: An obsessive gothic tale that portrays the mysterious relationship between a young woman and a vampire from Transylvania, who, in addition to relentlessly pursuing her in her nightmares, also brings with him unimaginable horrors that are difficult to measure.

Few names in today's cinema can modulate the gothic subgenre within an atmosphere of horror as efficiently as filmmaker Robert Eggers. Throughout his career (still with few titles of great impact), he has demonstrated a "peculiar" ability to deal with these types of projects, and here is another example of all his excellence, because he manages to materialize his mental reveries about one of the most famous vampires in the world by seeking intelligent inspiration in versions that have already been made previously, but always adding to his own vision. In this way, he manages to obtain the best of both worlds (although imperfect).

Set in 19th century Germany (more precisely in the year 1898), this new version follows the story of the couple Thomas and Ellen Hutter, whose lives are ruined by the frightening presence (although physically distant from them) of the enigmatic Count Orlok (a rather hideous creature, which is impossible to describe in a categorical way). While Ellen is frequently haunted by many disturbing visions, Thomas ends up falling into a trap and needs to find a way to return home in order to prevent the worst from happening to his wife. In the middle of this journey, they need to understand the root of the problem, which does not seem to be something humanly explainable.

This is precisely the fourth version of the original story (which naturally ended up becoming very well-known and to this day serves as a source of inspiration for other vampire movies). Over the years (1922, 1979, 2023 and 2024), each filmmaker sought to bring something different, and within equally different scripts, showed the world the macabre facets of Count Orlok. Elements such as the presence of sunlight as a source of weakness, the gothic look based on a dark atmosphere and the humanization of vampires were previously highlighted, and now, what filmmaker Robert Eggers brings is a great mix of these elements that raises this level of the proposal, inserting more novelties.

Narratively speaking, I believe that one of the most notable (and even most important, I would say) differences here is the way the script expands themes such as isolation, loneliness and sexual desires (which in this case, still flirts with a relatively “feminist” approach by making the character Ellen a kind of “second protagonist”, taking Thomas' place as the isolated protagonist) and the decision to explore all of this within other perspectives to “branch” the idea of the script with other possibilities of development (but always respecting the original). A shrewd decision, and one that was very well worked within the plot, even though it could have been better explored.

Recognizing human beings as “completely disposable pieces” of a board game controlled by Orlok (who manages to ravage society like a plague, exuding his omnipotence to make himself present and express all the fatalism that is about to destroy any and all people who oppose his wishes or hinder his plans), the climate of tension is very constant throughout the narrative, which ends up being elevated to a much higher level due to its excellent technical aspects (with clear highlights for a totally expressive photography, an engaging and at the same time hypnotizing soundtrack, in addition to an incredible and well-explored art direction).

Although the cast (which includes names such as Nicholas Hoult, Lily-Rose Depp, Bill Skarsgård, Emma Corrin, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Willem Dafoe) is competent, it is clear that there is an excess in the mannerisms and facial expressions of many of them when portraying feelings of fear or dread (which, by the way, are fueled by some excesses imposed by the script itself... something that ends up being a negative point within the development of the narrative). However, even though Hoult has “lost” her leading role to Depp (within the exploration of her sexual desires, which end up being portrayed excessively), they worked very well on screen, and delivered very good performances.

Hoult is somewhat restrained in the construction of his character, while Depp manages to better explore the weight of his character. Taylor-Johnson and Corrin are interesting supporting characters, but disposable within the larger context. Dafoe is always a striking presence, and here it was no different (he always finds a way to steal the attention from the other actors he acts with), but Skarsgård is the one who ends up being worthy of all possible praise because the construction (both physical and vocal, by the way... all his vocal work is relatively sophisticated, and well-articulated) of his Orlok is quite intense, evoking very ghostly tones.

Even though it misses some great opportunities to intensify (even more) what is on screen and misses the tone in its approach that sometimes ends up “out of tune” with the natural essence of the movie, this new version of Nosferatu (which in addition to being directed in an exemplary manner by Eggers, was also partially written by him) is an excellent example of contemporary horror cinema. It is not difficult to see how much Eggers overvalues the technical aspects of his movies (and here, the graphic violence is even more “poetic” and aligned with the grotesque figure of Orlok himself), but I think he needs to dedicate a little more time to deepening the plots he directs in order to have more relevance.

Sinopsis: Un cuento gótico obsesivo, que retrata la misteriosa relación entre una joven y un vampiro de Transilvania, quien además de perseguirla incansablemente en sus pesadillas, también trae consigo horrores inimaginables, difíciles de medir.

Pocos nombres dentro del cine actual consiguen modular tan eficazmente el subgénero gótico dentro de una atmósfera de terror como el cineasta Robert Eggers. A lo largo de su carrera (aún con pocos títulos de gran repercusión), ha demostrado una capacidad “peculiar” para afrontar este tipo de proyectos, y he aquí otra muestra de su excelencia, porque logra materializar sus ensoñaciones mentales sobre uno de los Los vampiros más famosos del mundo buscan inspiraciones inteligentes en versiones que ya se han hecho antes, pero siempre añadiendo a su propia visión. De esta manera, consigue sacar lo mejor de ambos mundos (aunque sea imperfecto).

Ambientada en la Alemania del siglo XIX (más precisamente en 1898), esta nueva versión sigue la historia de la pareja Thomas y Ellen Hutter, cuyas vidas se ven arruinadas por la aterradora presencia (aún físicamente distante de ellos) del enigmático Conde Orlok (una criatura bastante horrendo, que es imposible describir de manera categórica). Mientras que Ellen suele ser perseguida por muchas visiones inquietantes, Thomas termina cayendo en una trampa y debe encontrar una manera de regresar a casa para evitar que le suceda lo peor a su esposa. En medio de este viaje, necesitan comprender la raíz del problema, que no parece ser algo humanamente explicable.

Esta es precisamente la cuarta versión de la historia original (que naturalmente acabó haciéndose muy conocida y hasta el día de hoy sirve como fuente de inspiración para otras películas de vampiros). A lo largo de los años (1922, 1979, 2023 y 2024), cada cineasta buscó aportar algo diferente, y dentro de guiones igualmente diferentes, mostró al mundo las facetas macabras del Conde Orlok. Elementos como la presencia de la luz solar como fuente de debilidad, la mirada gótica basada en una atmósfera oscura y la humanización vampírica ya fueron resaltados, y ahora, lo que trae el cineasta Robert Eggers es una gran mezcla de estos elementos que eleva este nivel de propuesta, incluyendo algo nuevo.

Narrativamente hablando, creo que una de las diferencias más notables (y aún más importantes, diría yo) aquí es la forma en que el guión amplía temas como el aislamiento, la soledad y los deseos sexuales (que en este caso, todavía coquetean con un enfoque relativamente “feminista”), por convertir al personaje Ellen en una especie de “segundo protagonista”, tomando el lugar de Thomas como protagonista aislado) y la decisión de explorar todo esto desde otras perspectivas para “ramificar” la idea de el guión con otras posibilidades de desarrollo (pero siempre respetando el original). Una decisión acertada, y muy bien trabajada dentro de la trama, aunque podría haber sido mejor en profundidad.

Reconocer a los seres humanos como “piezas totalmente desechables” de un juego de mesa controlado por Orlok (quien logra asolar a la sociedad como una plaga, exudando su omnipotencia para hacerse presente y expresar todo el fatalismo que está a punto de destruir a cualquiera que se oponga a sus deseos o desbaratar tus planes), el clima de tensión es muy constante a lo largo de la narrativa, que acaba siendo elevada a un nivel muy superior por sus excelentes aspectos técnicos (con evidentes momentos destacados para una fotografía totalmente expresiva, una banda sonora inmersiva y a la vez fascinante, así como una dirección de arte increíble y muy explorada).

Aunque el reparto (que está formado por nombres como Nicholas Hoult, Lily-Rose Depp, Bill Skarsgård, Emma Corrin, Aaron Taylor-Johnson y Willem Dafoe) es competente, es evidente que hay un exceso en los gestos y expresiones faciales. de muchos de ellos a la hora de retratar sentimientos de miedo o pavor (que, dicho sea de paso, se ven alimentados por algunos excesos impuestos por el propio guion… algo que acaba siendo un punto negativo dentro del desarrollo de la narrativa). Sin embargo, a pesar de que Hoult “perdió” su papel protagónico ante Depp (dentro de la exploración de sus deseos sexuales, que terminan siendo retratados demasiado), trabajaron muy bien en pantalla y brindaron muy buenas actuaciones.

Hoult es algo comedido en la construcción de su personaje, mientras que Depp logra explorar mejor el peso de su personaje. Taylor-Johnson y Corrin son personajes secundarios interesantes, pero desechables dentro del contexto más amplio. Dafoe siempre tiene una presencia llamativa, y aquí no fue diferente (siempre encuentra la manera de robar la atención respecto al resto de actores con los que trabaja), pero Skarsgård es quien termina siendo digno de todos los elogios posibles por la construcción (tanto físico como vocal, de hecho... todo su trabajo vocal es relativamente refinado y bien articulado) de su Orlok es algo bastante intenso y evoca tonos muy fantasmales.

Aún desperdiciando grandes oportunidades para intensificar (aún más) lo que está en pantalla y acertando en un tono equivocado en el planteamiento que en ocasiones termina “fuera de contacto” con la esencia natural de la película, esta nueva versión de Nosferatu (que, además además de haber sido dirigida de forma ejemplar por Eggers, también fue parcialmente escrita por él) es un excelente ejemplo del cine de terror contemporáneo. No es difícil ver cuánto sobrevalora Eggers los aspectos técnicos de sus películas (y aquí, la violencia gráfica es aún más “poética” y acorde con la figura grotesca del propio Orlok), pero creo que necesita dedicarse un poco más a la profundización de las tramas que dirige para que tengan más relevancia.

Sinopse: Um conto gótico obsessivo, que retrata a misteriosa relação entre uma jovem com um vampiro da Transilvânia, que além de incansavelmente persegui-la em seus pesadelos, traz também consigo horrores inimagináveis, difíceis de serem mensurados.

Poucos nomes dentro do cinema atual conseguem modular o subgênero gótico dentro de uma atmosfera de horror de maneira tão eficiente quanto o cineasta Robert Eggers. Ao longo de sua carreira (ainda com poucos títulos de grande impacto), ele vem demonstrando uma habilidade “peculiar” para lidar com estes tipos de projetos, e eis aqui mais um exemplo de toda à sua excelência, porque ele consegue materializar os seus devaneios mentais sobre um dos vampiros mais famosos do mundo buscando inspirações inteligentes nas versões que já foram feitas anteriormente, mas sempre adicionando à sua própria visão. Desta forma, ele consegue obter o melhor de dois mundos (ainda que seja imperfeito).

Ambientado na Alemanha do século XIX (mais precisamente no ano de 1898), esta nova versão acompanha a estória do casal Thomas e Ellen Hutter, que tem às suas vidas arruinadas pela presença assustadora (ainda fisicamente distante deles) do enigmático Conde Orlok (uma criatura bastante horrenda, que é impossível de ser descrita de uma maneira categórica). Enquanto Ellen é frequentemente assombrada por muitas visões perturbadoras, Thomas acaba caindo em uma armadilha e precisa encontrar uma maneira de voltar para casa afim de evitar que o pior aconteça com sua esposa. No meio dessa jornada, eles precisam entender a raiz do problema, que não parece ser algo humanamente explicável.

Esta é precisamente a quarta versão da história original (que naturalmente acabou ficando muito conhecida e até hoje funciona como uma fonte de inspiração para outros filmes de vampiros). Ao longo dos anos (1922, 1979, 2023 e 2024), cada cineasta procurou trazer algo diferente, e dentro de roteiros igualmente diferentes, mostrou ao mundo as facetas macabras do Conde Orlok. Elementos como a presença da luz solar como fonte de fraqueza, o visual gótico tendo como base uma atmosfera sombria e à humanização vampiresca foram destaques anteriormente, e agora, o que o cineasta Robert Eggers traz é uma grande mistura desses elementos que eleva esse nível da proposta, inserindo mais novidades.

Narrativamente falando, eu acredito que uma das diferenças mais notáveis (e até mais importantes eu diria) aqui, são o modo como o roteiro expande temas como isolamento, solidão e desejos sexuais (que neste caso, ainda flerta com uma abordagem relativamente “feminista” por tornar a personagem Ellen em uma espécie de “segunda protagonista”, tomando o lugar de Thomas como protagonista isolado) e a decisão de explorar tudo isso dentro de outras perspectivas para “ramificar” a ideia do roteiro com outras possibilidades de desenvolvimento (mas sempre respeitando o original). Uma decisão sagaz, e que foi muito bem trabalhada dentro da trama, ainda que pudesse ter sido melhor aprofundada.

Reconhecendo os seres humanos como “peças totalmente descartáveis” de um jogo de tabuleiro controlado por Orlok (que consegue assolar a sociedade como uma praga, exalando sua onipotência para se fazer presente e expressar todo o fatalismo que está prestes a destruir toda e qualquer pessoa que se opor as suas vontades ou atrapalhar seus planos), o clima de tensão é muito constante dentro de toda à narrativa, que acaba sendo elevada a um patamar bem mais alto em razão dos seus excelentes aspectos técnicos (com destaques evidentes para uma fotografia totalmente expressiva, uma trilha sonora envolvente e ao mesmo tempo hipnotizante, além de uma incrível e bem explorada direção de arte).

Embora o elenco (que é composto por nomes como Nicholas Hoult, Lily-Rose Depp, Bill Skarsgård, Emma Corrin, Aaron Taylor-Johnson e Willem Dafoe) seja competente, é evidente que há um excesso nos maneirismos e expressões faciais de muitos deles ao retratarem sensações de medo ou pavor (que aliás, são alimentados por alguns excessos impostos pelo próprio roteiro... algo que acaba sendo um ponto negativo dentro do desenvolvimento da narrativa). No entanto, mesmo que Hoult tenha “perdido” o seu protagonismo para Depp (dentro da exploração dos desejos sexuais dela, que acabam sendo retratados em demasia), eles funcionaram muito bem na tela, e entregaram performances muito boas.

Hoult é um tanto quanto contido na construção do seu personagem, enquanto Depp consegue explorar melhor o peso da sua personagem. Taylor-Johnson e Corrin são personagens coadjuvantes interessantes, mas descartáveis dentro do contexto mais geral. Dafoe é sempre uma presença marcante, e aqui não foi diferente (ele sempre encontra uma forma de rouba a atenção em relação aos outros atores com quem ele contracena), mas Skarsgård é quem acaba sendo digno de todos os elogios possíveis porque à construção (tanto física quanto vocal, aliás... todo o trabalho vocal dele é algo relativamente rebuscado, e bem articulado) do seu Orlok é algo bastante intenso, evocando tons bem fantasmagóricos.

Mesmo desperdiçando algumas ótimas oportunidades de intensificar (ainda mais) o que está na tela e errando o tom na abordagem que por vezes acaba “destoando” da essência natural do filme, esta nova versão de Nosferatu (que além de ter sido dirigida de maneira exemplar por Eggers, também foi parcialmente escrita por ele) é um excelente exemplo de cinema de horror contemporâneo. Não é difícil perceber o quanto Eggers valoriza demais os aspectos técnicos dos seus filmes (e aqui, a violência gráfica é ainda mais “poética” e alinhada a figura grotesca do próprio Orlok), mas eu acho que ele precisa se dedicar um pouco mais ao aprofundamento das tramas que ele dirige para ter mais relevância.

The expectations I had for this film, which has been the talk of the town since its premiere at Cannes, in addition to its multiple Golden Globe nominations, were quickly diluted as I watched it. Even the fact that I like many films by filmmaker Jacques Audiard didn't stop me from realizing the undercurrent of this story and its tease.

If you haven't seen anything by Jacques Audiard, I suggest you don't start with this one. He has some excellent work in his filmography. From Beating My Heart Has Stopped, Read My Lips, Watch Men Fall, Of Rust and Bone, A Prophet, The Sister Brothers, even Paris District 13, which I reviewed last month. Although both the latter and another of his films, Deheepan, have in their messages fashionable progessive ideas, but with Emilia Perez he has gone a bit overboard.

To begin with, the story has a point of implausibility that is hard to accept. If it were set in a dystopian world or parallel universe, it would be more acceptable that Manitas del Monte, leader of a Mexican drug cartel, with an extremely tough and manly appearance, with a wife and two children, besides this type of characters are very womanizing, decides to change sex because he has always felt like a woman, it is something that is hard to believe in the way it is presented.

The movie is a musical. I love musicals, but when they are well structured and when their songs are good, they make me feel some kind of emotion. Emilia Perez's musical numbers are bad. What they do is recite the dialogues as if they were singing with some rhythm added. They are not songs composed to make a quality musical.

Las expectativas que tenía puestas en esta película, que ha dado mucho que hablar desde su estreno en Cannes, además de sus múltiples nominaciones a los Globos de Oro, se diluyeron rápidamente mientras la veía. Ni siquiera el hecho de que me gusten muchas películas del cineasta Jacques Audiard me impidió darme cuenta del trasfondo de esta historia y su tomadura de pelo.

Si no ha visto nada de Jacques Audiard, le sugiero que no empiece por ésta. Tiene trabajos excelentes en su filmografía. De Latir mi corazón se ha parado, Lee mis labios, Mira a los hombres caer, De oxido y huesos, Un profeta, The Sister Brothers, incluso parís Distrito 13, que reseñé el mes pasado. Aunque tanto esta última como otra de sus películas, Deheepan, tienen en sus mensajes ideas progesistas de moda, pero con Emilia Pérez se le ha ido un poco la mano.

Para empezar, la historia tiene un punto de inverosimilitud difícil de aceptar. Si estuviera ambientada en un mundo distópico o universo paralelo, sería más aceptable que e arranque sea Manitas del Monte, líder de un cártel de la droga mexicano, con un aspecto extremadamente duro y varonil, con mujer y dos hijos, además este tipo de personajes son muy mujeriegos, decida cambiar de sexo porque siempre se ha sentido mujer, es algo que cuesta mucho creer en la forma en que está presentado.

La película es un musical. Me encantan los musicales, pero cuando están bien estructurados y cuando sus canciones son buenas, me hacen sentir algún tipo de emoción. Los números musicales de Emilia Pérez son malos. Lo que hacen es recitar los diálogos como si estuvieran cantando con algún ritmo añadido. No son canciones compuestas para hacer un musical de calidad.

The serious tone of the plot mixed with these musical numbers and choreographies, had the effect of almost pissing myself laughing with each one of them. I can't deny that I had a good time watching Emilia Perez, I couldn't stop laughing with some of the lyrics and dances that seemed so ridiculous. If this movie deserves an award it is for being a great comedy.

So many Golden Globe nominations and the progreen critics praising it, is due to other reasons. I also don't understand why they praise the performance of trans actor Karla Sofia Gascon. Her performance was not very expressive and not believable at all. Selena Gomez tries to speak Spanish well, reciting her lines, but it comes off very poorly. Zoe Saldaña is the one who stands out, for me, with her character and at least tries to intonate Spanish well. She does the best interpettive work in the film.

Emilia Perez is just a product of propaganda. She romanticizes drug trafficking and the fact that the man is evil, only by changing to a woman does he achieve redemption and his heart, after doing so much harm, begins to do good. What bullshit is Audiard talking about? He even dares to close by calling Emilia Perez a new saint. In fact, it is a product that seeks to establish this opinion in the public's mind and many have fallen for it.

I saw the trans actor in an interview with David Broncano in the program La revuelta and I found him very annoying. Smug, with that attitude that seems like the world owes him apologies for something. As if being trans was the ultimate vindication of the human being. Enough of this bullshit! Ah, there is a small role for the Venezuelan actor Edgar Ramirez, who is getting worse and worse.

Anyway, I recommend you to see it, if only to laugh for a while. That's guaranteed.

Leave me your opinion in the comments

El tono serio de la trama mezclado con estos números musicales y coreografías, tuvieron el efecto de que casi me meo de la risa con cada uno de ellos. No puedo negar que pasé un buen rato viendo a Emilia Pérez, no podía parar de reír con algunas de las letras y bailes que parecían tan ridículos. Si esta película merece un premio es por ser una gran comedia.

Tantas nominaciones a los Globos de Oro y la crítica progre alabándola, se debe a otros motivos. Tampoco entiendo por qué alaban la actuación del actor trans Karla Sofía Gascón. Su actuación fue poco expresiva y nada creíble. Selena Gomez intenta hablar bien el español, recitando sus frases, pero le sale muy mal. Zoe Saldaña es la que destaca, para mí, con su personaje y al menos intenta entonar bien el español. Es la que hace el mejor trabajo interpretativo de la película.

Emilia Perez es solo un producto de la propaganda. Romantiza el narcotráfico y el hecho de que el hombre es malvado, sólo cambiando a mujer logra la redención y su corazón, después de hacer tanto daño, empieza a hacer el bien. ¿De qué gilipolleces habla Audiard? hasta se atreve a cerrar convirtiendo a Emilia Pérez una nueva santa. De hecho, es un producto que busca establecer esta opinión en la mente del publico y muchos han caído en esa red.

Vi al actor trans en una entrevista con David Broncano en el programa La revuelta y me pareció muy pesado. Engreído, con esa actitud que parece que el mundo le debe disculpas por algo. Como si ser trans fuera la máxima reivindicación del ser humano. ¡Ya está bien de gilipolleces! Ah! Tiene un pequeño rol el actor venezolano Edgar Ramirez que cada vez esta peor.

En fin, te recomiendo que la veas, aunque sea para reirte un rato. Eso está garantizado.

Déjame tu opinión en los comentarios

Earlier this week I talked about our concept of time and how different timezones don't mean that we are all in different places in the time/space concept, we are just using different measurements for the same moment. After that, it gave me an idea since I needed to choose a movie to watch with my oldest daughter. Why not bring a classic sci-fi movie that she probably wouldn't be exposed to if not recommended by anyone. So travel in time what is the best movie about the subject and also 7 years old safe (I checked before offering her)? I am talking about "Back to the future".

The last time I watched this movie, I was still young and probably did not know so much about the dream behind the movie that amazes physicists until now. I was probably a teen when I watched it on TV. The movie is from 1985, so it is 1 year older than me. I didn't have the age to watch it. Probably I watched at least 10 years later of the release and it was on a popular TV channel in Brazil. Watching this movie again made me something very clear about it. It is a movie that can be watched even 40 years after!

Sometimes older movies make us laugh about the special effects since technology changed so much. But in this case, there wasn't a need of so many effects, mostly the lightning, fire and making the Delorean disappear when time traveling. Also, what a good choice of a car model to be used for time travel. The DeLorean is a car model that isn't produced anymore and it looked like a real futuristic car with doors opening upwards instead of sidewards. I think if the movie was rebooted they would use a cyber truck, lol.

But of course the main topic that the movie brings is the "Grandfather paradox". That is one of the theories that time travel to the past can affect the present. In the movie story, Marty interfered in the moment that his parents would meet themselves and start dating. That event started to alter the present where Marty came from. But the movie brought also the possibility of correcting that, through other events. But of course, these other events altered also the present, in a good way, Biff's character, his father's youth bully who in the old version of the present continued being a bully even like grown-ups. Biff in this new present was a submissive employee from his father, and also their parents had more success in life compared to the old present version.

The movie is fun, has some comedy and lessons about standing for your rights and for everything that you believe, and not allowing bullies and oppressors to subjugate you. Those lessons are presented in a way that is safe for young kids. You don't see many violent scenes and blood. But of course, the science fiction element is awesome in the movie. One interesting fact is that Back to the Future 2, they travel to the "future" in the year 2015. That is 2 years before my oldest daughter was born, but the review I will leave for the next time.

No começo desta semana, falei sobre nosso conceito de tempo e como fusos horários diferentes não significam que estamos todos em lugares diferentes no conceito de tempo/espaço, estamos apenas usando medidas diferentes para o mesmo momento. Depois disso, me deu uma ideia, já que eu precisava escolher um filme para assistir com minha filha mais velha. Por que não levar um filme clássico de ficção científica que ela provavelmente não veria se não fosse recomendado por ninguém. Então, viaje no tempo, qual é o melhor filme sobre o assunto e também seguro para crianças de 7 anos (eu verifiquei antes de oferecer a ela)? Estou falando de "De volta para o futuro".

A última vez que assisti a esse filme, eu ainda era jovem e provavelmente não sabia muito sobre o sonho por trás do filme que espanta os físicos até agora. Eu provavelmente era adolescente quando assisti na TV. O filme é de 1985, então é 1 ano mais velho que eu. Eu não tinha idade para assistir. Provavelmente assisti pelo menos 10 anos depois do lançamento e estava em um canal de TV popular no Brasil. Assistir a esse filme novamente me deixou algo muito claro sobre ele. É um filme que pode ser assistido até 40 anos depois!

Às vezes, filmes mais antigos nos fazem rir sobre os efeitos especiais, já que a tecnologia mudou muito. Mas neste caso, não havia necessidade de tantos efeitos, principalmente os raios, o fogo e fazer o Delorean desaparecer ao viajar no tempo. Além disso, que boa escolha de modelo de carro para ser usado em viagens no tempo. O DeLorean é um modelo de carro que não é mais produzido e parecia um carro futurista de verdade com portas abrindo para cima em vez de para os lados. Acho que se o filme fosse reiniciado, eles usariam um caminhão cibernético, rs.

Mas é claro que o tema principal que o filme traz é o "paradoxo do avô". Essa é uma das teorias de que a viagem no tempo para o passado pode afetar o presente. Na história do filme, Marty interferiu no momento em que seus pais se conheceriam e começariam a namorar. Esse evento começou a alterar o presente de onde Marty veio. Mas o filme trouxe também a possibilidade de corrigir isso, através de outros eventos. Mas é claro que esses outros eventos alteraram também o presente, no bom sentido, o personagem de Biff, o valentão da juventude de seu pai que na versão antiga do presente continuava sendo um valentão até mesmo como os adultos. Biff neste novo presente era um funcionário submisso de seu pai, e também seus pais tiveram mais sucesso na vida em comparação com a versão antiga do presente.

O filme é divertido, tem um pouco de comédia e lições sobre defender seus direitos e tudo em que você acredita, e não permitir que valentões e opressores o subjuguem. Essas lições são apresentadas de uma forma segura para crianças pequenas. Você não vê muitas cenas de violência e sangue. Mas, claro, o elemento de ficção científica é incrível no filme. Um fato interessante é que De Volta para o Futuro 2, eles viajam para o "futuro" no ano de 2015. Isso é 2 anos antes da minha filha mais velha nascer, mas a análise eu deixo para a próxima vez.

I was recently reading an article about actor Jim Carrey's return to the movies, after announcing his retirement from the big screen about two years ago. Carrey decided to return "solely" because of the money, and the project he chose to do so was the third part of Sonic (which, by the way, recently premiered in theaters). These types of attitudes focused solely on the financial side are nothing new, but the fact that this is said publicly is.

What I'm referring to here is precisely the willingness of an actor (especially with his movie resume) to do this without inventing any kind of far-fetched excuse, assuming that financial problems affect even those who supposedly already have so much money. I've rarely seen an actor mention this publicly, as naturally as Carrey, and this ends up being a positive thing, because it serves as an example for other actors.

The lack of financial control (which may or may not involve emotional factors of varying intensity) must certainly have been a big problem for Carrey, because after all, publicly admitting (albeit in an “ironic” way) that he has money within an industry that is so rich may seem somewhat conflicting for someone so famous, but this is a very clear demonstration of how much financial education is a preponderant factor in the success of our money.

On the other hand, I think that for any actor who truly loves what he does, admitting that he has returned to work just for the money must be a “synonym” for defeat, because no type of art should be considered this way. I know that no one works for pure pleasure, but making work just an obligation to pay the bills is never a good way to see things (especially when you are no longer the young man with so many possibilities).

To scale this up to an even greater prism, any and all actors who sell their work for any job that does not add much (or almost nothing) to them is also a pessimistic way of seeing things. This doesn't tend to be an uncommon scenario (especially in Hollywood), but it makes clear the financial and emotional dependence of professionals who aim for financial profit as their sole objective, above what they should essentially value.

Recientemente estaba leyendo un artículo sobre el regreso del actor Jim Carrey a los cines, luego de anunciar su retiro de la pantalla grande hace aproximadamente dos años. Carrey decidió regresar “únicamente” por el dinero y el proyecto que eligió hacer fue la tercera parte de Sonic (que, por cierto, se estrenó recientemente en cines). Este tipo de actitudes enfocadas sólo en el aspecto financiero no son nada nuevo, pero el hecho de que esto se diga públicamente sí lo es.

Aquí me refiero precisamente a la voluntad de un actor (en particular, de su currículum cinematográfico) de hacer esto sin inventar ningún tipo de excusa elegante, asumiendo que los problemas financieros afectan incluso a aquellos que supuestamente ya tienen tanto dinero. Pocas veces he visto a un actor mencionar esto públicamente, con tanta naturalidad como Carrey, y esto termina siendo algo positivo, porque sirve de espejo para los demás actores.

La falta de control financiero (que puede involucrar o no factores emocionales de diferente intensidad) ciertamente debe haber sido un gran problema para Carrey, porque al fin y al cabo, asumir públicamente (aunque sea de manera “irónica”) dinero dentro de una industria tan Ser rico puede parecer algo contradictorio para alguien tan famoso, pero esto es una demostración muy clara de hasta qué punto la educación financiera es un factor importante en el éxito de nuestro dinero.

Por otro lado, creo que para cualquier actor que realmente ama lo que hace, asumir que volvió a trabajar sólo por el dinero debe ser un “sinónimo” de derrota, porque ningún tipo de arte debe ser considerado de esta manera. Sé que nadie trabaja por puro placer, pero hacer del trabajo sólo una obligación para pagar cuentas nunca es una buena forma de ver las cosas (sobre todo cuando ya no eres ese joven con tantas posibilidades).

Llevando esto a un prisma aún mayor, todos y cada uno de los actores que venden su trabajo por cualquier trabajo que no aporte mucho (o casi nada) también es una forma pesimista de ver las cosas. Este no suele ser un escenario infrecuente (especialmente en Hollywood), pero deja clara la dependencia financiera y emocional de los profesionales que apuntan al beneficio económico como único objetivo, por encima de lo que esencialmente deberían valorar.

Recentemente, eu estava lendo uma matéria sobre a volta do ator Jim Carrey aos cinemas, depois ter anunciado à sua aposentadoria das telonas há cerca de dois anos. Carrey decidiu voltar “unicamente” por causa do dinheiro e projeto que ele escolheu para fazer isso foi a terceira parte do Sonic (que aliás, estreou recentemente nos cinemas). Esses tipos de atitudes focadas apenas no lado financeiro não são nenhuma novidade, mas o fato disso ser dito publicamente sim.

Aqui eu me refiro precisamente a disposição de um ator (em especial, o currículo cinematográfico que ele tem) a fazer isso sem inventar nenhum tipo de desculpa mirabolante, assumindo que problemas financeiros afetam até mesmo aqueles que supostamente já tem tanto dinheiro. Pouquíssimas vezes eu vi algum ator mencionar isso publicamente, de maneira tão natural quanto Carrey, e isso acaba sendo algo positivo, porque serve de espelho para os demais atores.

O descontrole financeiro (que pode ou não envolver fatores emocionais de diferentes intensidades) certamente deve ter sido um grande problema para Carrey, porque afinal, assumir publicamente (ainda que forma “irônica”) de dinheiro dentro de uma indústria que é tão rica pode parecer um tanto quanto conflituoso para alguém tão famoso, mas isso é uma demonstração bem clara do quanto educação financeira é um fator preponderante no sucesso do nosso dinheiro.

Por outro lado, eu penso que para qualquer ator que realmente ama o que faz, assumir que voltou a trabalhar apenas pelo dinheiro deve ser um “sinônimo” de derrota, porque nenhum tipo de arte deveria ser considerado desta maneira. Eu sei que ninguém trabalha por puro prazer, mas fazer do trabalho apenas uma obrigação para pagar contas nunca é uma boa maneira de enxergar as coisas (principalmente quando você já não é mais o jovem com tantas possibilidades).

Escalando isso para um prisma ainda maior, todo e qualquer ator que vende o seu trabalho para qualquer trabalho que não lhe acrescenta muita coisa (ou quase nada) também é uma forma pessimista de enxergar as coisas. Esse não tende a ser um cenário incomum (especialmente em Hollywood), mas que deixa claro a dependência financeira e emocional de profissionais que visam lucro financeiro como único objetivo, acima do que eles deveriam essencialmente valorizar.