CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

In The Cut

Director

Jane Campion

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, January 29, 2004

In The Cut caused a lot of stir last year given Meg Ryan’s nudity. It played at several festivals where critics were underwhelmed. It didn’t make much money at the box office either. But since I’m a true movie buff, I had to see Ryan’s boldness for myself. And so I did…

Frannie (Meg Ryan) is a shy writing professor who ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time, as she gets indirectly involved in a murder. Detective Malloy (Mark Ruffalo) is the man in charge of the case, but after he meets Frannie it might be more than the name of a killer he’s looking for. Soon he and Frannie get involved in a relationship that is more sexual than intimate, but that’ll lead to some unexpected consequences.

In the Cut is a disappointment in many different ways, but perhaps what hurts the most is the fact that it is director Jane Campion at the helm. One wonders why she was attracted to the story in the first place. Or maybe Susanna Moore’s novel, upon which the movie is based, is a lot better and well-developed. Whatever the case, it didn’t translate well to the big screen.

The movie has many problems. The main one has to do with the fact that we never care for any of the characters in the movie. We’re in a thriller, so we know some horrible things might happen to the lead characters and we follow the story as we’re intended to, but I never got the sense of actually caring for Fannie. She’s a kind of puppet. I never knew much about her except that she didn’t fare well with men, period. And then she’s weird, as is her sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who belongs to better movies), but we never know why they’re like that and we fail to sympathize with their characters.

The erotic part of the movie is not as amusing as it’s supposed to be. There are only a couple of sexy scenes and while they’re well-performed, they’re neither especially intriguing nor exciting.

And the suspenseful aspect of the picture is dull. The denouement is ridiculous and totally uninteresting. Besides, there are many plot holes and explanations left untouched. That’s good for a more psychological or intelligent movie, but not for a by-the-numbers thriller such as this.

That said, I did find some good in the movie. I was entertained, although the movie is slow at times, and the performances are top-notch. Ryan, Ruffalo and Leigh deliver solid work. Oh, and the cinematography is quite interesting.

It could’ve been better though.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Open Range

Director

Kevin Costner

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Cowboys Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and Charley Waite (Kevin Costner), who have been riding together for a decade, find their nightmare as they arrive to a land where they’re not welcome. Dexter, the landowner (Michael Gambon), hates to see other people’s cattle feeding from his private grass (a regular custom in the post-Civil War west), thus sets to disown Boss and Charley from their herd. After defending themselves, the cowboys find one of his men, a kind, gigantic man (Abraham Benrubi) dead, and the other, a young orphan (Diego Luna), seriously injured. Now Boss and Charley are stuck in a town owned by the man who hates them, and whom they hate, and only one thing is in their heads: Justice.

Kevin Costner has had his ups and downs. After a successful acting career, he more than successfully delivered Dances With Wolves (1990), a sensitive historical western that earned him acclaim from both critics and audience. After that, his acting career became less than successful, and his only other directing effort The Postman was exactly the opposite of Dances With Wolves (1990) in regard to reviews and box office gross. Open Range is Costner’s redemption. Here he shows us the pain he’s been through, and the difficulty of getting over it, after admitting that the problem was inside of him instead of outside. Open Range is not only a delicate, subtle, old-fashioned, gorgeous western…, it’s also a metaphor for Costner’s own story, one of a once bright past, with mistakes that marred it, and that now haunt him constantly. The characters of Open Range are haunted by their pasts too, but that makes their struggle to seek justice much more intense. The dilemma is, whether they’ll be able to find inner peace after justice has been achieved.

Unforgettably photographed by James Muro, and ever-so-subtly scored by Michael Kamen, the movie never even dares to think of considering itself more than it is. It develops quietly, with long scenes filled with rain (one of many elements borrowed from Akira Kurosawa’s works), and long, thoughtful dialogue exchanges. Yet, it’s never boring, and its pace is just exactly as it should be to make the story work appropriately. The extremely realistic shootout sequence towards the end is a standout, since the movie simply avoids every possible artifice to make it look the (modern) Hollywood way.

The cast… What can I say? Robert Duvall is simply outstanding as the tough, wise Boss, who has many more layers inside of him than he’s willing to show at first sight. Costner is incredibly affecting as a man full of pain, who won’t let himself be happy. As his love interest, Annette Bening is right-on-target, showing lots of repressed emotion as well. As Baxter, Michael Gambon is the perfect villain. And to make justice to everyone, I’ll say that my only regret is the lack of further development for other characters, since every single person shown onscreen does a swell job.

Scripted by Craig Storper from Lauran Paine’s novel “The Open Range Men”, this is a fine example of good moviemaking, as benefited by a beating heart behind it.

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Last Samurai

Director

Edward Zwick

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

I’m a huge fan of director Ed Zwick, who I think is one of the most underappreciated directors working in Hollywood nowadays. His films are mostly excellent and I love every single one of them. That’s the main reason why I wanted to see The Last Samurai in the first place. And it didn’t disappoint…

Capt. Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) is sent to Japan as a military advisor by Colonel Bagley (Tony Goldwin). There he is captured by Samurais, led by Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe), who are believed to be enemies. His whole perception of life changes while staying with them, and now he must face the Japanese government and its bloody ways.

The Last Samurai may have battles and fights to spare, but ultimately what I liked the most is the fact that it is a story about one man’s journey to find peace after a traumatic past. He may not be physically wounded at first, but his soul is certainly in need of some breath. The way the Samurai culture affects him is heartbreaking, and it is also intriguing for the audience as we get to learn more about them and their fascinating approach to life.

The movie also has a wonderfully subtle romantic subplot between Capt. Algren and Taka (Koyuki) that worked wonders for me. It isn’t just a plot device, but instead feels real and honest. Forget about cheesiness, this is carefully treated.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the ending of the movie, which goes way over-the-top in that last final confrontation with the Emperor. Too bad it wasn’t handled more low-key, but hey, the rest of the movie is excellent, so it’s not a big deal.

As for the battle scenes, they’re quite impressive and in-your-face. The movie is very well shot and John Toll’s cinematography is beautiful. Hans Zimmer also adds his touch with a great score.

Tom Cruise is a star who can act. Here he uses both his attributes to full effect and delivers a credible, brave performance. We never think of him as Tom Cruise, but as this deeply affected man in need of redemption. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe steals all of his scenes with a fantastic performance that screams dignity, wisdom, knowledge and love. Amazing work.

“For $500 a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind, I’d gladly kill you for free.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lost in Translation

Director

Sofia Coppola

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, January 26, 2004

Bob Harris (Bill Murray), a middle-aged actor, is doing a series of ads at the other side of the world, a common practice among Hollywood stars. He’s in Tokyo, Japan, doing ads for a whisky company. Staying at an alienating hotel, in an already alienating country, where culture and language make matters worse, Bob feels lonely and sad. Incidentally, a young woman is feeling exactly the same way at exactly the same place: Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), the young wife of photographer John (Giovanni Ribisi), who stays at the hotel while he goes to work, and gets no fun even when he’s around; in fact, she’s feeling out of place in her marriage, and the setting doesn’t help her in her desperate search for a career move either. When these two lonesome souls meet, they become friends, and find a way to turn what would have been an awful week into a great one. No spectacular romance, or passionate sex, just two people who understand each other in what seems to be an ocean of people that don’t; that’s more than any of them could have hoped for.

Sofia Coppola’s life hasn’t been easy. I don’t suppose being Francis Ford Coppola’s daughter is easy, especially considering the great amount of big Hollywood names in the family. Her last-minute casting in The Godfather: Part III (1990) brought shattering reviews for her, as she was universally considered by critics to be the main flaw of the movie. Feeling like a disappointment is bad, but when you’re additionally surrounded by people who triumph, it’s terrible; so being married to Spike Jonze definitely must have made matters worse somehow. Well, Sofia didn’t quit, and she turned all this sadness into a great piece of cinema. Her writer-director debut The Virgin Suicides (2000) was great, but Lost In Translation is beyond great, it’s simply something else, and much more significant considering it’s an original story. In fact, the movie is original in more ways than one. It gives enough weigh to dialogue as it does to imagery, and music, so the experience is a treat in every way. Sofia feels so personally about her characters, that she effortlessly expresses their loneliness in every single frame, in every single way. Take for instance the scene where Charlotte is sitting at her hotel window just watching Tokyo, one of the most culturally saturated cities in the world, with millions of people coming and going all the time… and she’s all alone. That contrast creates such poignancy that it’s impossible (at least for me) to hold the tears, and this is just one example among countless. The sadness in the movie is consistent and it grows: Scene by scene, John becomes more and more clearly a character inspired by Spike Jonze, which is heartbreaking; and Bob expressing little by little his profound disappointment in himself for going the Hollywood way, and forgetting what his profession is originally about, is shattering. That’s what the movie is all about, actually: Sofia is expressing her sadness and she’s not even a little forgiving. God knows her life hasn’t been easy, and it was about time she said that to the world. Quite frankly, I can’t think of a better way for her to do it.

Needless to say, I consider the script prodigious. The characters are rich, and deep, and they express it in many ways besides dialogue. This is an acting showcase as well, for two stars.

Bill Murray is an actor I have always admired, who’s had little chance to prove his great talent, though he’s always doing that in whichever movie he’s in, only he’s mostly in comedies that aren’t taken so seriously. Though he’s done some serious work, this is, at last, the movie his fans have been waiting for in the way that he’ll get serious recognition; and the best part is, it doesn’t seem like he cares too much about that either. In fact, this looks like a personal statement by Murray too; Coppola encouraged him to ad-lib much of his dialogue and he did, in a most delightful way. Bits of comedy make the drama something more poignant (if possible), and I think we owe that mostly to this great actor, who looks like he knows his character’s pain rather well.

On the other hand, Scarlett Johansson, who’s done some notable work in Hollywood since she was little (not that she’s old now, I think she’s just 19), is an incredible match for Murray. She goes with the flow and interacts amazingly with the veteran actor (am I talking about Bob or Bill?). Johansson is pretty and delightful and extremely credible in her role.

The rest of the cast is great too: Ribisi good as usual, Anna Faris perfect as an airhead Hollywood actress (who in fact reminds us of someone specifically).

Filmed in great nighttime Tokyo locations, atmospherically accompanied by a varied score, this is the kind of movie that stays in your head and demands multiple viewings. It’s a great accomplishment, and yes, a modern masterpiece. I’m just so glad it exists… and so sad too.

“For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Forever Young

Director

Steve Miner

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, January 22, 2004

There's a certain part of me that likes more the title song of this movie than the movie itself. We all know the tune, which is definitely nostalgic. But that's not to say the movie is bad. Not at all. As a matter of fact it's quite good, entertaining and imaginative.

In 1939, Capt. Daniel McCormick (Mel Gibson) asks a friend of his to use him as a guinea pig for a cryogenics experiments so that he may be frozen for one year in order to skip his lover’s comatose state. Things go wrong though, and Daniel wakes up in 1992, where he befriends Claire Cooper (Jamie Lee Curtis) and his son Nat (Elijah Wood).

Forever Young is a classic fish-out-of-water tale. Fortunately for us, it doesn't employ the usual clichés of the genre, but instead depicts an honest portrait of what it would be for a man to wake up decades in the future and try to adapt to his new environment. It is a child who helps him in the way, with the innocence that comes with him and that is also somehow present in Daniel.

The movie also works as a romantic saga in which Daniel suffers a lot for the love of his life, yet he may or may not find another love interest in the form of Claire. He could start over and have a family, but is he ready to let go?

So the movie works as a romantic comedy, but it also has a fascinating aspect going for it that has to do with how time can affect our lives. This isn't precisely time-traveling, but the characters in this movie certainly go through situations that are similar and that give the movie an interesting edge that adds suspense to the proceedings.

In portraying the complex, confused Daniel, Mel Gibson found the perfect character to use his natural talent for, and deliver a star performance while still being very young. He's excellent. And so are Jamie Lee Curtis and a very young Elijah Wood.

A transporting story.

“You're holding my heart.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Fistful of Dollars

Director

Sergio Leone

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

An American stranger with nothing to lose and great ability as a gunslinger (Clint Eastwood) arrives to a Mexican town infested with the rivalry of the two leading families: the Rojos and the Baxters. Seemingly heartless, and motivated only by money, Joe takes no side—in fact, while joining the Rojos, he plays both families against each other, in order to squeeze as much as possible from them. What starts as a simple game, played by an apparently invincible man, ends up as a true mess than endangers everyone in town… and puts our ‘hero’ in quite a predicament.

This ultra-stylish film is historic: At remaking Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (1961), director Sergio Leone invented the “spaghetti western” genre (as we know it, for there had already been a bunch of Italian westerns before this one) with all its most notable elements: Slow-moving action, tense close-ups, cold characters surrounding an alienated hero without a past, etc. Starring Clint Eastwood and scored by Ennio Morricone (as Dan Savio), the formula was complete. Eastwood rocketed to stardom after this and no wonder: He plays Joe in an unforgettable manner, with his harsh voice and characteristic squint making the so-called “Man With No Name” unforgettable and definitely distinctive.

Leone filled the movie with enough symbolism to blow anyone’s mind: The constant triangulation of elements, the ghostly American “visitor” (or invader) who destroys a place’s harmony (regardless of its chaotic nature), the family values in the form of Marisol (Marianne Koch), a woman held prisoner by Ramón Rojo (Gian Maria Volonté, as Johnny Wells) whose reunion with her husband and son is reason enough for Joe to risk his own life and lose all the money he’s made (and one way to make him tick and give us a glimpse of his origins), etc. These quiet characters have much more depth than their scarce dialogue exchanges are willing to show us. But, as opposed to most American westerns, here actions speak more than words.

Surpassed later by other Leone movies, this remains a perfect example of the spaghetti western and a very interesting film in many ways.

“Get three coffins ready.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Single White Female

Director

Barbet Schroeder

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Don’t know why, but I’ve always liked this movie. It ain’t that good really, so I guess you can call it a guilty pleasure.

Allie (Bridget Fonda) is looking for a new roommate, but everyone seems weird. Then comes Hedy (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who seems perfectly fit. Little did Allie suspect that Hedy was a psychopath obsessed with her and her life.

Barbet Schroeder is a good director. He certainly knows how to build suspense and give his characters room to breath. Those are the saving graces of a movie that is not that believable in the first place, but that gets under your skin just as Hedy starts to show more signs of how crazy she really is.

After all is said and done, Single White Female is a psychological thriller that works, although it doesn’t reinvent the genre nor does it aspire to. We feel scared and haunted, and that’s all that matters. As the movie reaches its end it becomes even more thrilling, something that means the movie is actually doing something to us.

Bridget Fonda can be a very good actress when she wants to and here she delivers a good performance. Then again, she’s upstaged by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who is creepy and fantastic in a role that required a lot from her.

“I know, I was YOU!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mona Lisa Smile

Director

Mike Newell

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, January 19, 2004

In the 1950s, Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) arrives to Wellesley College (an all-girls institution) to accept a teaching post for the class of History of Art. Soon, as all new teachers do, Watson discovers that the girls she’s supposed to teach can be mean-spirited if she’s caught off-guard. Her journey to gain the girls’ respect is only the beginning. Later on, convinced that the girls are brilliant, Watson can’t conceive the fact that most have no more post-college aspirations, than getting married. She decides to do her best to change their mind.

Kirsten Dunst plays Betty, this story’s most conventional girl, and a bitchy one at that, for opposing everyone who’s against her or her customs, in the most drastic ways. Julia Stiles is her friend Joan, who’s playing along while something inside tells her she should consider other options. Maggie Gyllenhaal is Giselle, the free-spirited “slut”, lost to the eyes of Betty, while actually much happier than the latter. And last but not least, Ginnifer Goodwin is Connie, a lonely girl whose options aren’t so strict—but she would do with a boyfriend who loved her.

What this movie was born to be is uncertain. What it turned out to be is surely not the same thing. I say that on account of its fine cast. It’s hard to believe such fine actresses decided to participate in a movie that criticizes convention and ends up playing safe. Even the point or morale is unclear after many twists and turns that put Watson in a weird situation, as she finds herself to be the one who’s unsettled and unhappy. But even that is not exploited to the point where it affects the viewer. In fact, every storyline is played in the way that it’s close to being painful, but isn’t, which is a shame. Even the players seem to be having a hard time showing their talent. Roberts is OK, but nothing more. Dunst does her best to give some sentiment to a one-dimensional villain. Gyllenhaal is the best adding emotion to the ‘lost girl’, and Goodwin is surprising as the one no one turns to look. And who can ignore Marcia Gay Harden’s efforts to turn an obligatory character—a bitter old maid—into a heart-breaking human being? But wait a second… Is that Julia Stiles, playing an absolutely unmemorable character, in an absolutely unmemorable way? She’s far better than this, and I’m sure it’s not her fault. Every department in the movie suffers from the same ailment. Even Rachel Portman’s score sounds like a cliché, and I really admire her work, usually. The script tries to play fine comedy at times, and is cut short by edition, and the same thing happens when sentiment wants to show itself. Sad, isn’t it?

Entertaining in its own right, but not even close to what it could have been.

“I thought I was headed to a place that would turn out tomorrow’s leaders, not their wives.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mrs. Dalloway

Director

Marleen Gorris

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 15, 2004

Mrs. Dalloway (Vanessa Redgrave) decides, in the morning of the day when she’s throwing one her parties, that she’s going to buy the flowers herself. So off she goes, merrily, across the streets of London, to get what she wants. In the way, she meets some people that make her think of the past, as it happens to all of us, every day of our lives. But later that day, a quite unexpected visit brings the past home in an absolute way: Peter Walsh (Michael Kitchen), a man who was once her suitor, in the very same event where she chose her future husband, Mr. Richard Dalloway (John Standing). The rest of the day, during the preparations for the party, Mrs. Dalloway thinks of the past and the present, of her one true love, Sally (Lena Headey), young Peter and Richard (Alan Cox and Robert Portal, respectively), and how she, as a young woman (Natascha McElhone) found herself in a situation where she was hardly able to choose, though she would have preferred the other choice, or a third one.

In the meantime, Septimus Warren Smith (Rupert Graves), a shell-shocked World War I veteran, seriously considers committing suicide.

I believe this to be the one and only adaptation of Virginia Woolf’s novel to the big screen, and no wonder: The novel is all about words, and thoughts, and how they’re expressed, in a rhythmic, almost musical way; the experience of reading it is unique, and cannot be equaled in any other form of art, including cinema. I’m not saying that as a negative thing, however; in fact, after reading the novel, I was overly curious to see the movie, and find out how on Earth they made it possible. The result didn’t disappoint me in that matter. Actress Eileen Atkins, an obviously devoted fan of Woolf’s novel, did a masterful work in adapting it to the screen, removing most of the words, but leaving the essence intact. Quite unfortunately, the richness of the novel lies in every thought, in every reflection, and in every phrase, and that’s lost here; but movies adapted from novels can be perfect too, if only the story is important enough, or interesting enough, just through the facts, and not the characters’ reflections. Mind me, Mrs. Dalloway’s story is absolutely unforgettable, but only if we find out what’s on her mind and what was on her mind in the past and why she made the choices she made, and how that affected everyone around her; which, in a movie, cannot be expressed sufficiently.

Marleen Gorris, the director of Antonia’s Line, was a perfect choice for the task of directing this movie. Not only does it revolve around a woman, but it also has numerous lesbian and feminist undertones. And though the early twentieth century atmosphere was achieved fine, it never feels as sumptuous an adaptation as, say, the Merchant Ivory production of Howards End (1992)…

And if you thought my second paragraph was a little out of place, so is the subplot it describes. That problem is also in the novel, and I will admit it affected me as a reader, but not as much as it did later as a viewer: In the novel, the incredible reflections of Septimus and his wife (played here by Amelia Bullmore) made their appearances worthwhile, though it wasn’t completely clear why they were there. In the end, Mrs. Dalloway and Septimus’ stories were tied together beautifully, as were in the movie, but here, the impact isn’t strong enough to make up for the feeling of unsettledness said subplot produces.

Oh dear, I have mentioned mostly bad aspects, haven’t I? Well, don’t be fooled, I liked the movie quite much. I’m thankful to those who decided to make it, and did it so well. But I can’t come, in a million years, to recommend it instead of the book, which I can do for some other books-turned-movies (or at least I can say, “Read the book or watch the movie, both are great”). In this case, I’d recommend the book, and then The Hours (2002), the movie, or the book (or both).

But before I leave it at that, let me conclude my review by praising the extraordinary performances: Everyone shines, but special mention goes to Redgrave, who’s now for me the definite Mrs. Dalloway, and McElhone, who’s quite impressive as the same character years earlier. Graves is also extraordinary as Septimus.

“What a lark! What a plunge!”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Director

Amy Heckerling

Year

1982

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

It’s no secret that I’m an unabashed fan of Cameron Crowe. I could be stranded on a deserted island with movies he has been involved with and I would be a happy man. He once wrote a book called Fast Times at Ridgemont High which was later turned into a movie with Amy Heckerling at the helm. It turned out to have all his footprints.

Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is a virgin desperate to have sex with anyone! Her friend Linda (Phoebe Cates) is always there to advice her on relationships. Meanwhile Stacy’s brother Brad (Judge Reinhold) has a crush on Linda and has some difficulty keeping his jobs. Mike Damone (Robert Romanus) is all about class and helping his friend Rat (Brian Backer) seduce Stacy. And then there’s Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn) who is always high and giving Mr. Hand (Ray Waltson) a hard time at school.

I usually hate 80’s movies not only because they are bad, but because they were made in a decade I hate and it shows. But then it was a pleasure to find a movie that is precisely about the awkwardness that the 80’s were through and through. Here’s a movie that depicts what it was for a teenager to live in that decade, where malls, sex and rock & roll where all that mattered to them.

The movie also has characters that breath on their own, a trademark of Crowe’s writing. The characters feel real and go through real situations. It is quite touching to see how Stacy is so wrong in life yet she can’t comprehend that what’s really wrong about her is not that she’s ugly or undesired, but that she’s exuding exactly the opposite of what she really has to offer. Her relationship with Rat is thus really touching.

I loved every second of this movie because it has a lot to say about relationships and teenagers in general. We can all identify with it because we all went through the same.

Oh, and the movie has at least one classic scene with Phoebe Cates going out of the pool. Wow!

Sean Penn, despite not being the main character, shows why he’s become such a beloved character. He is all talent and charisma. And his character is fun! Meanwhile Jennifer Jason Leigh is amazing in showing all the incommodities that her character is suffering all the time. Great work there!

“I woke up in a great mood; I don’t know what the hell happened.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bed & Board

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1970

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Now a fully established franchise, the adventures of Antoine Doinel gave a step further to portray the adulthood of the alter ego of co-writer/director François Truffaut, Antoine Doinel (Jean-Pierre Léaud), newly married to Christine (Claude Jade), and starting a humble but happy life with her. Is that possible for a man like Antoine?

Not really. The hero from The Four Hundred Blows (1959) and Stolen Kisses (1968) is hardly more settled than before, his insatiable nature always taking him one place or the other in a search for God knows what.

The film presents, in comedic fashion, the young married couple, finding establishment in a small Parisian village reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954). Christine teaches violin, while Antoine works as a florist, a job he quickly blows. With some luck (as always), he finds another job, a very good position in a big company, where he meets (and falls for) pretty Japanese Kyoko (Hiroko Berghauer, a.k.a. Mademoiselle Hiroko). The affair, as expected, threatens his marriage.

In the meantime, Christine becomes pregnant, and she and Antoine soon become parents. After that, he leaves their home. And all of a sudden, love strikes back.

This delicious fourth part of Truffaut’s semi-autobiographical series is definitely not as spontaneously hilarious and poignant as the previous installment, Stolen Kisses, but it’s masterful in its own right, especially in its depiction of young marriage and voluble relationships.

Doinel is as immature and uncomfortable as ever, drifting through life carelessly; Léaud’s performance is absolutely complex and fascinating. And Christine is a perfect contrast, a cold, controlling person, hardly able to show her feelings; Jade astounds as well. Just look at these two in the romantic scene involving Christine’s spectacles. Pure delight.

The film is a sophisticated comedy of sorts. A lot of its wit is in its dialogue, but it also relies a lot on body language and even pantomime. And I’m not only referring to that amusing cameo by Jacques Tati as M. Hulot at the train station. This piece is orchestrated to the smallest detail, sharply directed by Truffaut, whose confidence in his performers is made completely clear. This is inventive filmmaking in the whole sense of the term, where every scene seems spontaneous while the whole piece makes much more sense than one would expect in the process. The finale, reminiscent of the first scene, is absolutely perfect.

To add just the right touch, and probably as another homage to Hitchcock, Truffaut added a lot of his trademark suspense and mystery to the procedures, as well as hilarious references to the previous installment.

A fine addition to the Antoine Doinel series, followed by Love on the Run (1979).

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jumanji

Director

Joe Johnston

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 12, 2004

When Jumanji came out I belonged to the exact demographic group this movie was aiming for. Thus I fell in love with it. It offered so much entertainment I couldn’t resist it. Looking back I can say it ain’t that good, but it says a lot that kids love it and that’s exactly what it’s all about.

When Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley Pierce) play an old game they find they release Alan (Robin Williams), a man trapped for decades in it, but they also unleash several dangers that can only be stopped if they finish the dangerous game. In the way, they are helped by Sarah (Bonnie Hunt), Alan’s former flame, who witnessed how the game sucked him in when they were kids.

Jumanji is an unpredictable movie filled with adventure that is a lot of fun to watch. You never know what’s coming next, if monkeys will destroy your kitchen, if plants will invade your city or elephants will go running around the streets. It’s that sense of awe, aided by breakthrough special effects (at the time), that makes of this such a great movie to watch with the whole family.

And I mention the whole family because the movie also has a clear message about the importance of it. It also shows how important it is to stick to your friends and to be there for them at all times. Together they may be able to stop all this mayhem.

It’s always a pleasure to watch Kirsten Dunst on the big screen and this is no exception. This is a role she got when she was in her puberty and she took the most out of it. Williams and Hunt also give good and adequate performances.

Fun, fun, fun!

“At night they fly, you better run. These winged things are not much fun.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pulp Fiction

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, January 08, 2004

As one of Groucho’s favorite movies of all time I’ve always had a special fondness for this movie that is hard to describe. It also helps that it’s such an excellent motion picture!!!

Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) are a pair of mob hit men who work for Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). One of Vincent’s jobs involves taking Marsellus’s wife Mia (Uma Thurman) out to have fun, but somehow the night goes wrong in several unexpected ways. Meanwhile boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) makes a deal with Marsellus but is not that sure he wants to carry on with it. Throw in the mix a pair of bank robbers (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) that somehow get in the way and there’s your movie pretty much!

It is very difficult to describe Pulp Fiction since it’s such an original and different movie from anything that had been done before it. Quentin Tarantino put the emphasis on dialogue, of which there’s plenty, and the movie paid off in absolutely amazing ways. There are entire scenes here that are, essentially, about nothing. Yet Tarantino has his audience in stitches and never bored. Those conversations are amusing and fun and out of the ordinary.

And then there’s also the plot, which is told in non-chronological order that gives it even more pizzazz. The stories come together, then separate, then affect each other, then come together again. It’s a big puzzle that only makes sense at the end.

Despite all its violence, Pulp Fiction is ultimately about redemption. Jules’s speech at the end is especially touching because it also reflects the truth and makes total sense after we’ve watched the entire movie.

Oh, and there’s nothing like that night out with Vince and Mia. It’s a classic sequence that involves a great conversation at a restaurant, a great dance sequence and a big pay-off that is both hysterically funny and suspenseful.

As always with Tarantino, the movie is filled with great songs and music. It is also filled with countless references to old movies he loves. And there’s also the production design, which is amazing especially in the big restaurant scene.

There’s no one like Samuel L. Jackson, and in this movie he exudes coolness. This is, for me, his best performance ever. He has never been better. And part of that is the great material he was given to work with. Uma Thurman is also astonishingly good. No one else could’ve played Mia’s part this good. She’s ravishing!!! And John Travolta, whom I usually dislike, is perfect for the part.

A very violent movie that is not about violence per sé, but that has a stronger message hidden in there that gives it meaning. It’s all pulp fiction!

“That's a pretty fucking good milkshake. I don't know if it's worth five dollars but it's pretty fucking good.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Thirteen

Director

Catherine Hardwicke

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, January 07, 2004

Tracy Freeland (Evan Rachel Wood) is a thirteen-year-old straight-A student, who’s also pretty and well-behaved in every way. Her mother, Molly (Holly Hunter), works hard to take care of Tracy and her brother, Mason (Brady Corbet), and also finds the time to be with her boyfriend Brady (Jeremy Sisto). The fact that her parents are separated, and that her mother spends so much time with Brady, hurts Tracy deeply, but she doesn’t show it. At the same time, in her search for acceptance, Tracy approaches High School’s most popular girl, Evie Zamora (Nikki Reed). Evie’s friendship is something a teenager would definitely not snub, so Tracy is willing to do anything (steal, even) in order to be accepted by that popular bad girl. After she’s proved she’s got what it takes, Tracy becomes best friends with Evie, to the point where they become nearly co-dependent. And though Evie behaves like an angel in front of any adult (namely Molly), and Tracy is more than careless in showing her sudden rebellion, who’s the bad influence is clear to us. But is Evie really a bad influence, or only some kind of door-opener for Tracy, who’s taking the chance to show her repressed anger? Her dysfunctional family had to explode sooner or later, anyway. Molly finds herself in absolute anguish when she proves unable to control or even understand Tracy, and no one else seems able to help. Evie’s influence spreads like an unstoppable virus, as Tracy gets into sex, drugs and crime, and eventually something’s gotta give. But, from the usual point of view of a teenager, Tracy’s situation is clearly dead-end.

This is a brave, realistic, and often unbearable portrait of the troubling teenage years. I remember when I was thirteen, how it all seemed bleak for me when I didn’t find acceptance in a new school. I believe I am still marked by the awful feeling that I had back then, because of the great importance with which I regarded all that when I was so young. By bringing my problems home, I transmitted the anguish to my parents, who had no idea how they could help me, or even understand me, or even control me whenever I was into rebelling. Even though my own case was nothing as hazardous as what’s presented to us in Thirteen, I remember feeling exactly the same way as this movie made me feel: Filmed with a handheld digital camera, with an often shabby photography, and filled with people at their worst (as to their aspect, and nervous state), the movie transmitted me just exactly what a teenage feels like whenever there are problems beyond his or her control. That’s probably also because director Hardwicke worked the script with Nikki Reed herself, based on the latter’s own experiences. This makes the movie stand out from most other teen movies, even those that deal with this kind of problems, even those that are written by the best writers, most of who, unfortunately for the movies they write, are not teenagers.

The camerawork however, while working its way into one’s mind, also distracts and confuses at times, and can even make someone dizzy. It would’ve been all right for me with a little less emphasis in that artifice. Also, on the negative side, I found the story to be a bit redundant; while this is probably done to achieve the feeling a teenager has when life goes on and problems stay, as a movie it gets a bit tiresome.

As performances go, you can’t ask for much more: Evan Rachel Wood, after a notable TV career, and a couple of poor big screen appearances, is unforgettable here as the girl whose problems emerge at light speed all of a sudden. She even reminded me of Jean-Pierre Léaud in The Four Hundred Blows (1959), which is saying a lot, in the way that Tracy, just like Antoine Doinel, manifests her inner troubles by getting in trouble herself in whichever way, instead of going to the core; easier said than done, to be sure. Nikki Reed is right-on-target as the bad girl / bad influence, who’s not free of inner trouble herself. In fact, her character is just as complex as Tracy’s, and Reed’s performance is definitely heartfelt and touching. True to word-of-mouth, Holly Hunter astounds as the white trash mother; no makeup and cruel photography make her look so real, you can nearly touch her, thanks also to her incredible performance. You can feel her frustration in every breath she takes; amazing. The rest of the cast does a great job as well, including Deborah Unger, as Evie’s caretaker, and D.W. Moffett as Tracy’s absent father.

Dark but colorful, entertaining but devastating, sad but real, this is a movie every parent should see. It just might knock at your very door.

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Nashville

Director

Robert Altman

Year

1975

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, January 06, 2004

For years I wanted to see this movie. I love movies with many characters and intersecting stories, and Nashville is said to be a masterpiece in that respect. Well, it is indeed!

The movie tells many different stories with the city of Nashville as a backdrop. The city is known to be the capital of country music, and this to see through many stories: There’s recovered country superstar Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakley) passing by as part of her concert tour. There’s also Haven Hamilton (Henry Gibson), a fellow singer who runs everything as if he was the city’s major. Meanwhile John Triplette (Michael Murphy) and lawyer Delbert Reese (Ned Beatty) are getting ready for a massive concert to support their candidate at the Parthenon. One of the guests is Sueleen Gay (Gwen Welles), an aspiring singer with barely any talent. At the same time the folk rock group of Tom (Keith Carradine), Mary (Christine Raines) and Bill (Allan Nicholls) hit town, with Tom charming more than one woman. One of them is BBC reporter Opal (Geraldine Chaplin), always at the scene when important things happen. Another of Tom’s victims is loving mother Linnea Reese (Lily Tomlin), who finds comfort in him while leading a difficult and uneventful life. There’s also L.A. Joan (Shelley Duvall), a flower power girl in town to visit her uncle Mr. Green (Keenan Wynn) and his terminally ill wife.

Those are the main storylines, yet there’re about a dozen more characters populating this movie that have some relevance in these or other storylines.

Nashville is director Robert Altman’s masterpiece per excellence. When looking back at the movie it’s hard to tell why it works so brilliantly, but perhaps it’s the way Altman is able to blend all this short stories together with not one being more interesting than any other. Meanwhile, Altman successfully paints a portrait of what the city of Nashville is all about without trying too hard or being too obvious. Here’s a movie that has a lot to say about relationships, music and politics yet you never get the feeling that you’re being lectured about any of these.

As with movies if these type, there’s an event at the end where most of the main characters get together. In the case of Nashville that gathering is one hell of a climax. By that point I was surprised by how immersed I was in everybody’s stories, and how even the characters in the background had something important to say or do. That’s also because the movie was highly improvisational, so actors had to stay in character all the time because they never knew when the camera would capture them.

Also of note is the fact that Nashville could be described as a musical and it wouldn’t be a far-fetched remark. There are a lot of songs throughout the movie, most of which were composed by the actors and made specifically for the movie. Keith Carradine’s “I’m Easy” even went on to win the Oscar. And the scene in which it’s performed is one of the most memorable, if not the most, of the movie.

As performances go, the movie is flawless, but three of them stood out for me. The first was Ronee Blakley’s work as Barbara Jean, a complex individual with tragic undertones. Then there’s Gwen Welles as Sueleen, who does a magnificent work in transmitting us exactly what she’s feeling. And finally there’s Lily Tomlin, whose understated performance is both touching and dignified.

A masterpiece!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, January 05, 2004

The fragmented Fellowship of the Ring is closer to accomplishing its mission as pressure pushes more than ever. Frodo (Elijah Wood), Sam (Sean Astin) and Gollum (Andy Serkis) are closer to Mount Doom, as the rest of the gang deals with war everywhere else. Everything will only get worse as long as The One Ring hasn’t been destroyed. What’s even worse, its carrier, Frodo, is getting more and more possessed by it. How will this end?

This sprawling adaptation of the third and final part of J.R.R. Tolkiens’ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy is, not surprisingly, longer, darker, more explosive, more focused on battles, and with something more of everything all around, than its two predecessors.

I’m glad to say I know a good movie when I see one. Even if I hate the subject matter, or the people involved, or anything else in it, I can be objective enough to recognize that it’s good. And vice versa for films that I should love, or even do love, but are bad. This movie is a good movie, there’s no denying that. But it’s also terribly overcooked, unnecessarily expanded to the point of boredom, and, even worse than the second installment, focused on the wrong things more often than not. I’m sure I’m saying something most people won’t agree with, but I see this trilogy, at least in a literary way, as a beautiful series of events where people of all races meet and work together and change together. The movies, especially the second and third ones, seem much more focused on action than adventure, and the battles are tiresome to say the least. Frodo and Sam’s adventures are the most exciting moments to me, but they seem to be the least frequent, and that’s not the case in the book. Luckily, there were other things here that were interesting enough, like the events of Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), not to mention Eowyn (Miranda Otto), whose story surprised me. Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) are all OK too. But whenever the movie’s rhythm is getting better, another larger-than-life battle is presented to us, and it all slows down, instead of getting better. After a while, even the ‘relevant’ scenes seem too long or overcooked. And the multiple finale sequence makes matters even worse, but my patience grew thin long before that.

What’s a pity for me is, I can see how good this movie is, and the problems that I just described really marred it for me. I can’t see myself watching this trilogy, and specifically this movie, again, and that’s a shame, because it has so many good things and worthwhile moments. I hate to say I’m glad the trilogy’s over, but it’s true. I’m glad for it, however, because of the legions of people who love it. That says something indeed.

To finish with a positive note, I’ll mention the flawless technical aspects and the beautiful epic work done by everybody involved. Howard Shore’s score accompanies the procedures perfectly, and the Middle-Earth environment is too real and haunting. I loved that. And the performances are truly incredible! So, now you know what I think…

“I am no man.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jerry Maguire

Director

Cameron Crowe

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 01, 2004

Jerry Maguire (Tom Cruise) is a hotshot sports agent who has everything a man could wish for: Professional success, a gorgeous fiancée (Kelly Preston) and a shiny future in every way. However, one day, in the midst of this tumultuous existence, Jerry is attacked by his conscience in the way that he realizes how empty and dehumanized it all has gotten to be. He remembers the words of his mentor, Dicky Fox (Jared Jussim) and writes a memo, or “mission statement” as he prefers to call it, depicting his thoughts on this, and how he thinks the agency he works for should handle less clients, and earn less money, in order to give personal attention to each client, thus making everyone happier, even themselves. The memo, after being read by the whole office, gives Maguire cheers and applause. It also gets him fired.

Now Jerry must try to keep as many clients as he can, in order to stay in business. He’s willing to keep them and treat them as he thinks they deserve, and he really thinks he’s capable of handling his own business. Quite unfortunately, he manages to keep only one client—temperamental football player Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.). What’s even worse, only one person from the agency quits to join him on his quest—idealist single mom Dorothy Boyd (Renée Zellweger).

This movie is a mixture of countless genres, not giving one more importance than any other. It could be catalogued as a romantic comedy, but there are strong doses of drama as well. Cameron Crowe’s screenplay is so complex, it’s nearly exhausting, but it’s also fully satisfying. This movie is a bittersweet look as a man who’s born again, and every person around who has something to do with that transformation. There’s not one single character who’s not complex. Cameron Crowe, as writer/director, is simply amazing.

The cast is first-rate. Cruise simply couldn’t be better as Jerry, in fact, this could be called the role of his life (so far). Zellweger was almost a newcomer at the time, and what a find she was! Gooding had struggled for years as well, and here he found the right spotlight to show how good he is. Other members of the cast who shine as well are Jonathan Lipnicki as Zellweger’s little son, Bonnie Hunt as her sister, and many more.

This movie is also memorable for having quite a few memorable scenes, which mix dialogue with storyline and performances in a very special way. Those include the “Show me the money” classic, the “You complete me” moments, and the “Help me help you” struggle.

Great choice in music and endless pop culture references frame this great movie, only marred by occasional lulls that slow it down. Nevertheless, it’s a true winner that I truly love.

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter