"The Tree of Life"

           “What the hell did I just see?” Those are the direct words that ran through my head as I walked out of the premiere of “The Tree of Life” at Cannes. As I looked over at my peers, I realized that they too had dumbfounded and puzzled looks on their faces. Clearly I was not the only one who spent the past two hours arguing with myself trying to contemplate what was happening in the film. Considering the film’s all-star cast, I was extremely disappointed in the lack of a clear storyline and its inability to keep me entertained.

            Now, like I said, I am not entirely sure what I saw other than a bunch of clips that made me feel like I was watching Planet Earth mixed with clips of a man reminiscing about his childhood. Nevertheless, I was able to recognize some of what the movie was about. Sean Penn plays an older Jack O’Brien, who begins to question the meaning of things in his life, life in general, and the idea of faith. The film goes back in time to Jack’s childhood in the 1950s, and we learn about his different relationships with both of his parents. His father, played by Brad Pitt, is demeaning, demanding, and often times harsh on Jack (Hunter McCracken) and his two brothers. On the other hand, his mother, played by Jessica Chastain, is loving, caring, and playful with the boys. Such drastic differences between his relationships with each of his parents help us understand why he is questioning so much in his life currently.

On a broader note, the film alternates between showing Jack’s childhood, present day, and shots of nature and the universe. For instance, throughout the film Malick periodically transfers us from Jack’s family playing outside to 15-20 minute segments of dinosaurs, outer-space, canyons, and so on. Naturally, (spoiler alert, sort of) the film ends with the inclusion of all three: the past, the present, and the universe. This is Malick’s way of tying all of this randomness together.

            The upsetting part is that I could tell in the very first few minutes of the movie that I did not like it and that it was not going to get any better. The immediate flashes back and forth from present day and the past in conjunction with the hushed voice over made for a confusing and dull film from the get-go. I really got worried the first time Malick transitions to images of the universe and nature. It seemed unique at the beginning, but when it dragged out past 5 minutes, I was getting a little bored and concerned. I mean come on, 15 minutes of Planet Earth-like sequences with no dialogue and classical music in the background does not scream compelling. I kept waiting for the Morgan Freeman voice over that would explain all of this nonsense. At this point, I had already checked my phone at least 3 times, and I was not even in the movie for an hour! Not only was the lack of dialogue and dreary music putting me to sleep, but also when there was a voice over, it was almost inaudible. I had to really pay attention to catch even a snippet of what was being said. Personally, I don’t want to have to work so hard to understand what is being said.

            Furthermore, Malick’s decision to explore controversial topics like religious faith, nature, and female roles was rather risky. With so many problematic subjects, I ended up being more mad than happy throughout the film. I was required to be on my toes searching for that underlying message and instead began questioning my own beliefs about the ideas of God, love, forgiveness, grace, and the harsh, more direct ways of nature. Sure frustration is an emotion you feel during most films, but never for the entire duration of a movie. I understand that Malick was trying to convey the different roles of men and women in the 1950s and tying those into the concept of nature versus nurture. He, however, would have been perfectly fine showing this notion without incorporating the useless segments of Planet Earth. I would have enjoyed the film much more if Malick had chosen this path. He would have still gotten his point across perfectly quite simply from the fact that he was showing nature versus nurture through the rolls of Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien: Mr. obviously being the rash way of nature, and Mrs. being the loving, forgiving way of God/faith.

            While Brad Pitt did deliver his part well, so much hype revolved around Sean Penn. You can imagine my dissatisfaction when I realized Penn is only present in the film for roughly 20 minutes. And I will say it again, the film was over two hours! In addition to this particularly deceptive piece of information, the overall advertising and trailer for this film was misleading. Nowhere in any of the advertising or the trailer does it warn you of the long and unnecessary nature clips. Pitt, in the advertising, comes across as a loving and gentle person, which is not the case at all. Sean Penn is credited in the trailer way more than is relevant considering his minimal time on screen in the entire production. Overall, the advertising and trailer leads you to believe you are seeing an emotionally driven film starring some big name actors when that is only half of the truth.

If you’re into artistic, controversial subject matter, then “The Tree of Life” is right up your alley. It did win the Palm d’Or, so obviously it did something right; but if you are like most Americans who go to the movies to be entertained, do not waste your money or your time, for that matter, to see “The Tree of Life” in theatres. If you’re willing to spend money at all on a film that will leave you disheveled and confused, your best option is to wait until the film comes out on DVD rental or even cheaper, Red-Box.

Directed by Terrence Malick

Starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken

Distributed by Europacorp Distribution

Running Time 138 minutes

“Halt Auf Freier Strecke (Stopped on Track)”

            “Disturbing and depressing” are the words I have heard most frequently to describe a majority of the films presented at the Cannes Film Festival; so it was no shocker when “Halt Auf Freier Strecke” also fell under this category. Contrary to most of these films, this particular one actually had a good storyline that not many filmmakers are willing to embrace and portray on screen. The director, Andres Dresen, reveals the last few months of Frank’s life (Milan Peschel). I have only ever cried in two films, both about animal cruelty, but this film brought tears to my eyes quite simply because of the emotional connection I felt with the family on screen. I have watched a family friend and a couple of family members suffer through the same thing as Frank on different levels. Anyone who has ever lost someone due to cancer or any other illness will truly appreciate Dresen’s portrayal of what things can happen in a family when one member is nearing his or her deathbed.

            Frank is your average German man. He works, has a wife, and two kids. His world and his family’s for that matter are turned upside down when a regular occurring headache becomes a massive brain tumor. Upon taking tests and other various courses of action, the doctor sits Frank and his wife down to discuss the seriousness of the situation. The doctor explains the severity of the tumor and breaks the news that in his particular case, Frank’s tumor is inoperable, thus shortening his life span to three months. The doctor warns the couple of the changes that will take place over the next few months of Frank’s life and advises them on ways to tell their kids about the situation in a rational way. The remainder of the film follows Frank and his family as he progressively becomes worse and worse.

            After the couple tells their children, ages 8 and 14, about Frank’s illness, an instant camaraderie develops in the family. This camaraderie, however, is taken to the test as his illness worsens and his memory disintegrates. The younger child, a boy, helps his father as often as he can. The older daughter, on the other hand, seems a little less accepting of the changes in her father and often yells at him for things out of his control. For instance, Frank mistaking her room for the bathroom pees on the floor, and upon walking into her room to find the puddle begins screaming. Screaming in general becomes fairly consistent when Frank doesn’t want to accept his body’s alterations and takes the anger out on his wife, Simone. Simone, like many spouses who have to cope with a situation like this, has her on and off days, days in which she does everything to help him and days when she says she wishes he were dead for the sole reason that she would not be so exhausted all of the time.

            Dresen keeps things realistic through the inclusion of inconsistent reactions from people close to the family. For example, Dresen brings in the devastated mom who refuses to visit because she does not want to see her son in this state. You have the ex-lover that comes to talk old memories and say her goodbyes. Also, the incorporation of clips that Frank has taken on his iPhone shows his perspective on the whole thing in conjunction with the rest of the film, which is shown from the perspectives of the family members and various others. In this way, the audience can see both sides of the story and easily sympathize with each character. In these clips, Frank uses clever metaphors to describe each thing that he is experiencing. One particular example to note is the metaphor he used to describe the situation relating to his wife and his ex-lover. He alludes to a childhood recollection about having a guinea pig and then getting a bunny and how he had to get rid of one. In this underlying metaphor he is telling the story of choosing between his wife (bunny) and his ex-lover (guinea pig).  The simple working of these analogies into the script helps Dresen keep the audience on their toes and engaged in the film.

Peschel’s portrayal of someone with this illness is so realistic I was shaking as I was constantly reminded of my own experiences, happy and sad. Peschel’s gestures and movements accurately convey those of someone going through deep suffering. His random outbursts and bodily dysfunctions help display the harsh realities of dealing with a terminal illness and having no control over it. In addition to Peschel, Kühnert’s role as the struggling wife and mom is not an easy task to depict fully, and she gives a stupendous performance. Her facial expressions and overall emotions were right on cue. Unless you have been through something of the likes, to express the feelings and thoughts completely is near impossible, and I bow down to both of these actors for hitting the bull’s eye.

            Kids and adults, male and female, who have suffered the loss of someone close to them will value Dresen’s “Halt Auf Freier Strecke.” The film takes you to a deeper level that makes you feel like you are there experiencing this real life drama. Throughout the movie, all I wanted to do was be able to do was hold each of the characters in my arms. So if you think you’re ready for this emotional heartfelt production, hop on this rollercoaster ride that will have you laughing, crying and sympathizing with the film’s characters. Oh, and don’t forget your tissues!

Directed by Andres Dresen

Starring Milan Peschel, Steffi Kühnert, Bernhard Schütz, Talisa Lilly Lemke, Ursula Werner, Mika Nilson Seidel, Otto Mellies

Running Time 110 minutes

"We Need to Talk About Kevin"

            Up and coming young star Ezra Miller shines alongside costars Tilda Swinton and John C. Reilley in Lynne Ramsay’s adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s novel, We Need to Talk About Kevin.  Swinton is known for her roles in “Michael Clayton”, the Narnia fims, “Burn After Reading”, and several others. On the contrary, Reilly is widely known for his roles in outrageous comedies like  “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” and “Stepbrothers.” Their respective roles, in this film however, are much different from any other characters they have ever played. The film shows you the life of a mother who raises a child that becomes a mass murderer and how she deals with the aftermath. Though a deep and disturbing subject, people of this generation who know about the Columbine and Jonesboro killings will appreciate and I daresay it, enjoy this exceptional and emotional film. Never have I walked out of a film so speechless, yet so full of words. For this reason, I give a pat on the shoulder to Lynne Ramsay and her outstanding cast.

            The story unfolds through the perspective of Eva, played by Tilda Swinton. The film flashes between clips from the present, the past, and past past. Sounds a bit confusing, right? At the beginning of the film, you are certainly cocking your head and frowning, but as the movie progresses you begin to understand how brilliantly perfect this seemingly complicated storyline turns out to be. In the present, Eva flashes back to her past before having her son, Kevin, and like I said to the past past before Kevin was born. In this way, we get to know the character and why she is the way that she is before revealing the story of her son. Right away, we can tell in the first several minutes of the film that something bad has happened to her. After several scenes that show her relationships with her husband, her son, and daughter, we finally reach the moment we’ve all been waiting for (spoiler alert). Why are people staring at her? Why does she always look so out of it and depressed? Who is she visiting in jail? We find out Kevin has killed a number of students at his high school along with his father and sister.

            The development of Miller’s character combined with his exceptional acting makes for one of the best parts of the film. Kevin’s snotty attitude and disgusting smirks make you want to reach into the screen and slap the kid, and Ramsay’s constant repetition of such actions throughout the film will have you clenching your fists at the mere sight of the boy.

            The onscreen chemistry between Swinton and Reilly and even Miller is so real, I almost forgot I was watching a fictional film. As mentioned previously, the roles Swinton and Reilly took on for this film are much different than their previous projects. Upon reading the synopsis and cast listing, I was a bit skeptical about how the two would perform. All I can say is after seeing them excel the way they did, I could not picture anyone else even attempting at these characters. Also, given that many of Reilly’s past films are with Will Ferrell, who I am not a big fan of, I was not too keen about Reilly. But my perception of him as an actor completely changed after this movie. Props to you, John!

            Furthermore, the perspective from which this film was written made me like the film even more. The story would have been completely different if it was from the point of view of the father or even the sister. But quite simply because the relationship between Eva and her son was not near what it was between Kevin and his father, we can really see the emotional effects the mother-son and father-son relationships had on her. You can tell she is questioning her role as a mom and whether or not she is she responsible for the way her child turned out. Swinton’s ability to have a constant glazed look in her eyes, never a smile, and a dazed nature constitutes for a really emotionally fixated character. I also particularly enjoyed it being from the perspective a woman because more often than not films are shot from the point of view of a male. It is true that the book was written from a female perspective by a male author. I think, however, the fact that the director was female has something to say about the way the film was conducted.

Though I enjoyed the overall amazingly adapted screenplay and how it was shot, one specific quote really turned the story for me and made me feel content again. At the end of the film we see Eva visiting Kevin in jail on the day of his two-year anniversary (of his killing rampage). After questioning her contribution to his misbehavior throughout the movie, she finally decides to ask him why he did it. He responds, “I used to think I knew, but I’m not so sure anymore.” For what seems to be the first time in the whole movie, she embraces her son. At this moment, despite hating the kid with a deep passion, I began to feel a little sympathy for him for the pure fact that he is finally realizing what he did and how it affected her.

            Sure we have all heard and some even seen, if you’re into that sort of thing, thrillers like “The Ring,” “Orphan,” and “The Omen,” in which young children kill. This film, unlike these, covers a more realistic approach to a killer child, which makes for an eerie realization amongst viewers. You leave the theatre with chills on your arms from being freightened, yet also having a smile across your face. The ability to do both is a rare quality that I feel Ramsay should have been better recognized for. I was astounded to hear in the closing ceremony of Cannes that “We Need to Talk About Kevin” received no credit, almost upset if I’m being honest. Unlike some other movies recently made, this film allows the audience to connect and feel something on a completely different level. And ending on that note, I could not encourage you more to go see the film. Make sure you’re in the right mood because it is heavy but I hope you enjoy!

Directed by Lynne Ramsay

Starring Tilda Swinton, John c. Reilly, Ezra Miller

Distributed by Diaphana Distribution

Running Time 106 minutes

“The Artist”: A Pleasant Travel Back in Time

           Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo, two popular French actors, give stellar performances in Michel Hazanavicius’s rendition about old Hollywood cinema: silent films. The overall concept is absolutely fascinating. Hazanavicius tells the audience the history of the time through the popular medium of the time (silent film). A silent film made in today’s cinematic era is rare making this film truly one of a kind. The movie is about silent films and the evolution of “talkies”. With the artistic approach to the film, the movie title could not fit more perfectly. The movie teaches the audience to respect where and how cinema started, and Hazanavicius’s portrays this concept beautifully.

            Hazanavicius’s complex notion of the film is conveyed as simply as it can be through the use of multiple layers. The historical aspect of the film is the deeper, underlying layer, while the ever-so-popular love story is the basis and top layer of the film. The film opens in 1927 and introduces George Valentin, a popular silent film superstar. At the premiere of one of his films, George poses for the paparazzi, and a girl accidently drops her book and when reaching under the security guards to pick it up finds herself standing next to George. Before long, the pair is striking poses together for the paparazzi.

            Next, we see Peppy auditioning for a part as an extra in one of George’s films. She gets the part, and from there we see a connection developing between George and Peppy. As the film industry begins its transition to “talkies” in 1929, Peppy’s popularity skyrockets, and George’s career dwindles. George considers himself an “artist”, therefore refusing to take part in the new era of film “talkies”. As George struggles to keep his career alive, the pair continues to run into each other in various places and each time they do, their connection is reestablished.

            At one point, George, in a sense of rage, accidently lights his house on fire. Peppy takes George to her place to recuperate, and before long George realizes that Peppy has purchased all of his belongings that he sold in order to survive. In a fury, George leaves the house and goes back to his where things start to get ugly again. The rest of the film is surprising and exciting, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat, hoping for the best!

            In today’s society, it is hard to keep people engaged through silence. At first I was nervous about whether or not the film would be able to hold my attention. As the film developed, I started to take note in how compelling the actors were and how intricately detailed the film is. The film’s lighthearted nature balances the lack of dialogue in order to keep the audience fully engaged. I left the theatre feeling happy and appreciative of old cinema.

            In order to fully convey rolls without dialogue, the actors had to be overly dramatic and emotional, which Dujardin and Bejo completed beyond any measures I could ever imagine. In addition to the phenomenal acting, the production design of the film is one of its best attributes in the storytelling. While the black and white concept tells us a lot about the time period, the costumes, props, and overall set design really enhanced the historical accuracy being conveyed.

            Furthermore, despite being a silent film informing us of the silent film era and evolution of talkies, the minimal addition of sounds and dialogue was ravishing and absolutely right on cue. The few sound effects and dialogue coincided faultlessly with the storytelling about “talkies”. Sound in the film became more present as the realization of the growth of “talkies” really struck George hard. Also, the negligible use of printed words on screen to help fully emphasize what was taking place on screen was the ideal touch to making the film complete. Occasional phrases such as these helped to keep the film flowing and keep the audience on track. Each detail that Hazanavicius intertwined in the story helped unify the film as a historical medium as well as an entertainment standard.

            Hazanavicius takes us back in time to one of the most glorious times in Hollywood cinema. His ability to make us feel like we are watching a film from the late 1920s, early 1930s is beyond extraordinary. His look back at the origin of film almost makes you wonder if he was playing on the advancements of film today. Nowadays, you see films in 3D with extra special effects. Is he telling us that we need to go back to the simplicity and eloquence of early cinema, or is he just reminding us to respect how our early film entertainment came about? Conclusively, “The Artist” is arguably one of the most unique films of our day and of the past.

Directed by Michel Hazanavicius

Starring Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller, Missi Pyle

Distributed by Warner Bros. Entertainment

Running Time 100 minutes

“House of Tolerance”: An Intolerable Film

            Bertrand Bonello’s production of “House of Tolerance” intends to display the lives of women, or prostitutes I should say, in a late 19^th and early 20^th century. And display he does! It comes as no surprise that Bonello would now takes us into the world of prostitutes given that his previous films explore themes related to pornography and the lives of transsexuals. The historical approach to this concept certainly seems unique and appealing. While the production design phenomenally portrays the time period, the writing of the film made for an extremely boring and unexciting film that lacks in storytelling and remains incoherent throughout.

            “House of Tolerance” tells the story of the women in a Parisian brothel. Excuse me, it is an attempt to tell the “story” of these provocative women. The film opens with a woman, whose name we later learn is Madeline “The Jewess”, in one of the rooms with a man. The situation seems to be going well until it turns for the worse. After the credits roll, we are taken to a different time, and we see the same woman and many others getting ready for their night of “festivities”. The night begins and we find out that the so-called teaser of the film is actually Madeline’s dream. The dream, however, becomes a reality. A man cuts her mouth into the infamous “Joker” smile, and she becomes known as “the girl who laughs”. She is no longer pursued by men who come to the brothel, and instead stays at the house to do the wash, clean, etc.

            The film flashes periodically between showing the lives each of the different women. One becomes pregnant. One becomes sick. One begins to question her place in the house and compares herself to the other girls. She is the oldest in the house (28 years old) and begins to wonder about life outside of the house. One girl, Pauline, is a 15 year old who writes to Madame, the owner/boss of the brothel, asking to let her come be a part of their family. Madame accepts the young Pauline, but Pauline leaves almost as fast as she came. Eventually Madame has to close the house down due to an increase in money. Some girls are sold to other brothels, and some go out on their own.

            In such a film as this, the visual displaying of the lives of these prostitutes is vital, however the overall storyline is inconsistent. Nothing seems to flow together properly. In other words, the film jumps around from one story to another. With the stories of so many women being told, it is often hard to keep the stories in line to match with their corresponding woman. And no one story captivated me like I feel it should have. In a recent interview, Bonello says he wanted to convey the lives of the women together as a group and individually. The idea is evident in the film, but it is not presented in a clear and concise manner. Furthermore, the ending really turned me off. I left the theatre feeling so confused and unsure of what the ending implied. It only further enhanced my conclusion that the film was not constructed properly.

            As a firm believer of women’s rights and all that jazz, it was especially hard to watch these women willingly throw themselves at men for money. Sure the director only means to reveal the lives of some women in the 20^th century, but the concept angered me throughout the whole film, especially given that only one girl actually left. Do they not have any sense of dignity? Not only did this concept disturb me, but the idea that Madame’s young children lived in the brothel. It remains unclear whether or not the children know why the women are there. During the day, the women hang out and play with the kids, but at night while the children are asleep, the women are playing with men in a whole different way. Many things appear unnecessary and lack a purpose. I sat through the film trying to comprehend the reason behind some of the film’s happenings, and rather than finding an answer, I became annoyed and frustrated.

            Trying to grasp the idea that this film wanted to convey the realities of the brothels during this time is especially difficult. It appeared to be theatrical and fantastical looking, and it is obvious that not all of these women intended to be trapped in this world for so long. In this way, the film is a bit contradictory. Bonello needed to further detail the thoughts of the women in the brothel. Only one woman’s story really showed how she felt about her life in the house. We learn about the different things that happen in the house, but lack the emotional reactions to the devastating events.

            The film comes across as an attempt to take one of those late night sex films that comes on HBO one step further. It failed, however, to take it the whole necessary step further to make the film more story oriented rather than just another sex appealing movie. I applaud the production design team for keeping things visually attractive and historically accurate enough to the point where I could bear sitting in the film for its two hours plus duration. On the other hand, I give a thumbs down to the film as a whole for its lack of storytelling and inability to fit pieces together correctly.

Directed by Bertrand Bonello

Starring Adèle Haenel, Alice Barnole, Céline Sallette, Hafsia Herzi, Illiana Zabeth, Jasmine Trinca, Noémie Lvovsky

Distributed by Haut Et Court

Running Time 126 minutes

“Let’s Dance”: A Comedy for the Wrong Reasons

          Picture the “Step Up” series (1-3) and “Save the Last Dance” morphed together into one film, but throw in an Italian setting with even worse acting and dancing skills.  Voila! You have the ever-so-clever “Let’s Dance”. In addition to the dancing similarities, “Let’s Dance” and its American counterparts share a parallel theme that demonstrates the notion of their characters losing and regaining faith in something they are passionate about. The film is considered to be a Drama, but in conjunction with the bad acting, the horrendous editing and special effects, or lack there of, the film could just as easily be considered a Comedy. As the famous Hooter’s quote goes, this film in two words can be described as “delightfully tacky, yet unrefined,” while managing to convey a somewhat serious message.

Erica (Alice Bellagmba) and Marcos (Andrea Montovoli) are brother and sister who live worlds apart but have one thing in common: a passion for dancing. Erica, the younger sister, lives at home with her parents and attends a prestigious ballet school, while Marcos has been out of the house for some time and lives in the Italian “ghetto” with his dance “crew” of break-dancers. The pair reconnects when Erica telephones her brother in search for some fun and encouragement after being down and not performing to her fullest. Marcos invites Erica to come hang out with his “crew”. A short while into these bonding sessions, we learn that Marcos is facing his own problems as well. Heartbroken, he is determined to win over his ex-girlfriend, Betty, after she joins his rival “crew” team.

After receiving a visit from Erica’s dance teacher, Marcos is inspired to help Erica regain her confidence and faith in dancing. Despite disagreements in the family between Marcos and his parents, they all, along with the “crew,” the professor, and other friends, help Erica once again achieve her near perfect status, just in time for her to perform for her final exams. Erica, the “crew,” and Erica’s dance teacher reciprocate this gesture by helping Marcos win his beloved back and the battle against the “crew” who took her. Erica has her own love story as well. She falls for the only black Italian known as “Congo,” derived quite simply from the obvious. Amid all of this action, good music plays, and of course what would a film with the word “dance” in the title be without some adequate dancing?

The horrific acting contributes to the film’s comedic and lighthearted elements. The way the actors portrayed certain lines came across as over the top dramatic to the point of being cheesy, and though most of these particular moments were intended to be serious, it was hard to keep a straight face. The moments meant to be intimate, instead were corny and easily laughed at. Furthermore, Montovoli’s character was the lead of his “crew”, yet he could not dance to save his life. At one point in the film, his character raps/sings a song to his ex-girlfriend, and if I being honest, it was one of the best parts of the entire film. It is not yet confirmed if it was actually him singing, but if so, Montovoli, you need to reconsider your career aspirations! I highly doubt that the director intended for the acting to be so awkward, but hey, it had a lot of us laughing and enjoying ourselves!

Acting easily constitutes as a major contributor to the success or failure of a film, but a film’s transitions and the editing on the whole for that matter supply much of the movie’s success as well. In this particular case, the editing aids in the poorly constructed project. The transitions did not help the film flow together, but rather made parts choppy and incoherent. Some shots were unnecessarily long and awkward and some were the complete opposite. For instance, I think an intimate moment should be prolonged, unlike a majority of the film’s intimate clips. The attempt at special effects did not help the film’s cause either. One particular special effect has Erica rollerblading “eloquently” through what looks to be a 70s disco light design. The effect, completely irrelevant, made the importance of that scene less than insignificant.

            As with most dancing movies, the soundtrack is one of its best features. The music entertained me to the extent that I was dancing in my seat. Despite a majority of it being in Italian and not being able to understand a single word, the music made me feel like a kid again. The uplifting music, as compared with everything else wrong about the film, ultimately holds the film together.

            In addition to the well-developed soundtrack, the film’s second best component, the overall message, relays a concept that many of us are familiar with: losing faith in ourselves. For Erica, she dreams of being a professional ballerina one day, but loses her ability to connect emotionally because she starts to doubt and question herself. Motivation and a little help from her family and friends is all it takes to get her back on her feet and realize her full potential. I, and I know many others, can relate to this particular theme on many levels. For this reason, I felt a sort of connection to the characters, and I sympathized for them. With a theme like this, “Let’s Dance” almost begs for the audience to become engaged.

            In conclusion, if you are looking for an awfully constructed film that will make you laugh, “Let’s Dance” is your answer. Considering Cinzia Bomoll, the director, does not have much directing experience under her belt, she knows how to keep an audience entertained and engaged, despite not being for the particularly idealistic reasons. “Let’s Dance” is a film that young audiences and aspiring film makers can appreciate and gravitate on to make themselves feel better.

Produced by Giannandrea Pecorelli

Directed by Cinzia Bomoll

Starring Alice Bellagamba, Andrea Montovoli

Distributed by Rai Trade Department

Running Time 100 minutes