CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Phantom of the Opera

Director

Joel Schumacher

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 31, 2005

I’ve never been to Broadway. And I’ve never been to a London West End play. It’s sad, but true. So the fact that some people are starting to make movies about those huge, famous, well-known productions that have played all over the world is fantastic for me. I know the experience might not be the same, but when these movies succeed, you can actually treasure them and watch them over and over again in your own house. And they can, too, be an exhilarating experience to sit through.

In 19th century Paris, young and beautiful Christine (Emmy Rossum), an orphan who lives in the Opera House and serves as a backdrop dancer, gets the opportunity of a lifetime when lead actress Carlotta (Minnie Driver) refuses to participate at a grand opening and Madame Giry (Miranda Richardson), Christine’s mentor, recommends her to take Carlotta’s place. She then surprises everyone with her beauty, poise and absolutely incredible voice. That’s how the Opera’s new owner, Raoul (Patrick Wilson), recognizes her as his childhood sweetheart and falls in love with her all over again. That doesn’t please the Phantom (Gerard Butler), a mysterious man in a mask who lives underground, for he is in love with Christine too, and has taught her everything she knows about music.

Musicals are tricky to pull off. They have got to be consistently interesting, so much so that the audience doesn’t actually get tired of watching characters singing instead of talking. Why would they do that? If you’re asking that question to yourself while watching a musical, then it’s likely you’re getting tired or bored. This movie is difficult to review because it mostly depends on your tolerance towards the genre. I like musicals, so I enjoyed the movie even though I do recognize there are slow stretches and that its pace is not precisely as fast as modern movies tend to have. But then again, I love Andrew Lloyd Webber’s music and lyrics, and I got a kick out of that too. If you are not a fan of his, you might as well avoid this movie like the plague.

The story? It has its ups and downs. It is an interesting tale, and I love that it has complicated, interesting individuals. Perhaps Raoul is a bit underwritten or is just not at the same level as the other characters, but I loved the relationship between Christine and the Phantom. You can never tell what’s going to happen or where their relationship is going. And the Phantom is such a fascinating, conflicted character that I loved almost every minute he was either onscreen or affecting other people’s lives. In a few words, I loved his presence.

It also helps that the movie has a gloomy, kind of gothic and mysterious atmosphere that is pulled off extremely well. It also helps to have such fantastic production values. The art direction is simply fabulous. The costumes are a stunner. The cinematography is something to behold. And above all: the music. I just love every tune in this play, movie or whatever you want to call it. It’s dramatic, it’s intense, it’s intimate and it gets to your heart.

As performances go, Emmy Rossum steals the show. She looks like a goddess and sings like an angel. It’s incredible to realize such a powerful, beautiful voice actually comes from such a tiny, delicate figure. But Rossum, who has experience as an opera singer, is just luminous. You can see the conflict in her face, the sadness in her eyes. And then there’s Gerard Butler as the Phantom, who also does a marvelous, intense job. Wilson is perfectly suitable as Raoul. And I also liked Miranda Richardson very very much. Jennifer Ellison, playing her daughter, looks a lot like her and is adorable. Minnie Driver, on the other hand, is fun, but I think she could’ve been funnier. The role demanded it.

The movie is also worth watching if only for that scene which shows the transition from one century to the other. It is something you have to see to believe!

“A bridge is crossed, so stand and watch it burn!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kids

Director

Larry Clark

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Larry Clark’s debut film is a very easy piece to review, if not an easy piece to watch. It broke some ground indeed, dividing opinions for its controversial nature, its documentary-style approach to an unforgiving, and to some crude and unnecessary to portray, reality. Also for its (to some) obvious exaggeration of the truth, or its tendency to focus on a group of people like no other kind exists in the world. Truth is, seen in a very objective manner, the movie is about some kind of people that does exist, and doesn’t do anything but portray them. I guess in that way it’s worthwhile.

The group of people in question is American kids much lacking guidance from parents or tutors. Not children of the street, not poor people, just regular youths with criminal tendencies, careless seeking of pleasure, and disregard for basic human decency. The focus is on a gang of young teenagers, particularly two: Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick), who loves deflowering virgins and is obsessed with getting as many as he can, and his best friend Casper (Justin Pierce), who enjoys being high and just laughing at the world around him.

The film starts with Telly deflowering one of his virgins, a very young teen girl he fools into thinking he loves her. He leaves her for good (she’s useless after that day) and goes on with his search, while Casper looks for some entertainment for that hot summer day.

In the meantime, some girls talk about their sexual lives, many of them quite experts, others just beginners. One of them in particular, Jennie (Chloë Sevigny), has only done it once, with Telly no less, and kind of regrets it. When her best friend Ruby (Rosario Dawson) asks her to accompany her to take the HIV test, Jennie never expects the result for herself: She’s HIV positive, even though she’s only had sex once, even though she’s not a slut like some of her friends. Now Jennie is off to find Telly and warn him, while he’s busy looking for his next victim, and then convincing her of doing it that very night.

Larry Clark’s tale (written by himself and Jim Lewis, and scripted by Harmony Korine) is indeed very crude, tasteless, and hardly pleasing. It’s a rather unnecessary tale presented in a realistic hence unlikable way. And while I couldn’t say it’s a very good film, I’m not against it at all. I understood more than ever the importance of guiding one’s children, since one split-second decision can destroy their lives. It’s amazing and excruciating how some kids have lost complete sense of what the world is about, and live their lives like lost souls. One scene in particular, featuring an African-American skater, scared me to death, while the whole AIDS-propagation theme kept me on the edge of my seat!

Performances-wise, the film is quite strong. I wasn’t very convinced by Fitzpatrick, but I guess there was something special about him, so I did believe little girls could fall for him. The real standouts, however, are Sevigny and Pierce, who also share a tremendously powerful scene towards the end.

Not really recommendable as entertainment or an example of great filmmaking. Rather, it’s a very educational film.

“Fucking is what I love. Take that away, I have nothing.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Maria Full of Grace

Director

Joshua Marston

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

I first heard about this movie two years ago, but I didn’t really know much about it when it went on to win at the Sundance Film Festival. I even thought it had something to do with religious matters. The movie then made a splash at the Berlin Film Festival, where it won the Best Actress trophy in a tie with the amazing performance of Charlize Theron in Monster. I had to see that for myself! Luckily, throughout the year, the movie caught the attention of critics and audiences alike, keeping alive a production from Colombia that might’ve got lost amidst the big turmoil that is Hollywood. And now Maria Full of Grace is one of many foreign language movies that are playing a strong card at the awards race, which could, and should, culminate at the Oscars. Whichever the case, the acclaim is deserved. It is a terrific movie.

María (Catalina Sandino Moreno) is a 17-year-old girl who lives in a small town in Colombia, where she works, unhappily, at cutting spines out of flowers. One day she opts for quitting, and the pressure from her family is almost unbearable. That’s why, when a man (John Álex Toro) she just met offers her a job as a “mule”, she goes for it. Soon she finds herself traveling to New York with cocaine in her stomach along her friend Blanca (Yenny Paola Vega) and Lucía (Guilied Lopez), a woman she befriends who has already done the deed before.

It is quite shocking to realize that this movie comes from debutants all over the place. The director, Joshua Marston, makes his feature debut, as does leading lady Cataling Sandino Moreno. The movie shows directing and acting expertise that some people dream about throughout their entire careers!

Maria Full of Grace is such a fine movie for many reasons. But for me, the most notable is the way in which the story is written and directed. There’s not one single moment that seems scripted or faked. From the early scenes in the small town to the scenes at the airport and subsequently in New York, every character and every line rings true. You get the feeling that you’re watching real life documented. And the movie is not only a drama, but it serves as a thriller as well. Marston never uses any of the usual movie gimmicks to heighten the suspense. It all comes from real, disturbing situations that are actually happening out there. And the movie sometimes gets to a point almost unbearable to stand. Therein lies the power of its themes.

Then there’s the fascinating portrait of how the whole process of being a mule works. Again, it almost feels like a documentary in that regard. We see how the cocaine pellets are done and how the girls have to learn to swallow them. We see the psychological struggle that happens during the actual trip, and it isn’t pretty. We see how officers act in the airports when faced with these situations. We learn about the risks the girls take, such as the probability that a pellet might break. We see what they have to do if a pellet accidentally comes out of their body. And we are also witnesses of what happens when the men waiting for them to close the business get a hold of them. In a nutshell, it is just as effective being informative as it is being dramatic.

Marston and his collaborators wisely chose not to make victims out of the girls. Every character and action goes without any type of judgment. We root for María to succeed, but at the same time know that she’s in there because she chose to. And she doesn’t behave like movie characters do. She does stupid things when faced with desperate situations just as anyone would. But she’s also smart and determined, so she chooses correctly some other times. Again, every character just acts and reacts as they would in real life.

The cast is uniformly perfect. Yes, perfect. Yenny Paola Vega and Guilied Lopez are extraordinary as the other two girls doing the trip. And I also got a kick out of Patricia Rae, playing Lucia’s sister. She’s mesmerizing. But it is Catalina Sandino Moreno who emerges as the true breakthrough. Her performance is flawless, understated, dignified, believable at every turn. The movie rests on her shoulders and she comes off a true champion.

I want more movies like this! Movies that challenge us and succeed in more ways than one.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Johnny Guitar

Director

Nicholas Ray

Year

1954

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Don’t you love it when you watch a movie, and even though it feels conventional, you end up wondering what the hell it was all about, and feeling lost and nearly abused by the intensity of its weirdness? Yes? Johnny Guitar is for you! Only after two or three views will you be able to process its explosive doses of kinkiness, symbolism, and hidden meanings all around. And yet, on the surface, it’s just a simple western. One thing’s for sure: It’s a very worthwhile film to watch.

Maybe my initial description wasn’t accurate or respectful toward this wonderful film. I just let my feelings talk by themselves and that’s how it came out. Truth is, Johnny Guitar is a very intelligent film, one that uses its genre as an excuse to expose complex characters with incurable wounds, tormenting memories, frustrating loves, and useless attempts to make up for missing things. Every character regrets or reproaches something, loves somebody they can’t reach, misses someone they’ve lost, and behaves in a way he or she doesn’t really feel, but has no choice. In the end, it’s all about feelings, and very little about actions. But that, translated to a western, turns out to be the weirdest of them all, the most unique, the most daring. And an unforgettable one.

Even though the title refers to a character, he’s not the main one. That title belongs instead to the leading female character, Vienna (Joan Crawford), the owner of a bar with high expectations for the future. At the moment the film starts, two important events happen: First, Vienna is threatened after being linked to criminal Dancin’ Kid (Scott Brady), whereas she’ll be lynched if she doesn’t leave town. The main person to accuse her is Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge), a resentful woman if there ever was one, who hates Vienna more on account of her affairs with Emma’s late brother, and the Dancin’ Kid, whom she loves, than anything else. The other important event is the arrival of Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), a guitar player supposedly there to take a job in Vienna’s bar. But, as it turns out, Johnny shares a past with Vienna neither enjoys remembering, and he’s also a very dangerous gunman.

On the verge of dangerous happenings for Vienna, it’s up to Johnny to help her out, though she’s become pretty tough to make up for her broken heart. The couple seems to have inverted roles: She’s now the masculine, independent one, while he’s sensitive and much needed of love. Their scenes together are golden, especially a now-classic exchange where he begs her to lie to him.

The showdown is somewhat conventional, but that’s not what matters; it’s what goes on in the characters’ minds that does. There are colors all around that accentuate the feelings and the meanings of what’s happening, and it’s all rich and outstanding. Nicholas Ray created movies that spoke universal languages, that shared with their viewers poetry and meaning more than a specific story. He loved characters that didn’t belong to the place where they were, people who repressed their feelings because they had no other choice. And Philip Yordan’s script, from Roy Chanslor’s novel, was just exactly that kind of text.

The performances are very strong, certainly one of the greatest assets of the movie, with the standouts being Crawford and McCambridge; they’re not only great individually, but they create a tension between them, of psychological and sexual natures, that’s just unbelievable. Also watch out for Ward Bond, Ernest Borgnine, and John Carradine, among other great performers.

By the way, Victor Young’s music score and Peggy Lee’s song are as important as the characters.

An enigmatic, profoundly affecting piece of art. Most recommendable!

“How many men have you forgotten?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Director

Brad Silberling

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 24, 2005

I have a love/hate relationship with Jim Carrey. It’s almost the same I have with Robin Williams. They are very serious folks, they know what they’re doing. But sometimes their shtick can get exceedingly tiring. Carrey does as many dramas as he does comedies these days. Good for him. But while his usual antics were a revelation in The Mask (1994), they’re an old story now. He doesn’t rely on his face and body movements only anymore. He’s got to have a reason to go over-the-top or else the audience will simply reject him and his movies. And that’s why I was so curious to see this one. I knew it was old Carrey back from the grave, but... would it work?

The Baudelaire children, Violet (Emily Browning), Klaus (Liam Aiken) and Sunny (Kara/Shelby Hoffman) just lost their parents due to a mysterious fire. That’s how they end up with their “closest” relative, Count Olaf (Jim Carrey), an eccentric actor who only wants them for their money. Then again, he has to kill them in order to get it. And thus begins a wild adventure in which the children try to stay alive while being chased by him even when they’ve moved with other relatives such as reptile-expert Uncle Monty (Billy Connolly) or paranoid grammar expert Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep).

A live-action movie about a weird guy trying to kill three lovable children? You heard it right! And I couldn’t be more amazed myself. I’ve heard the Lemony Snicket books are just as popular, or almost, as the Harry Potter ones. Truth be told, I’d never heard of them. And I’m quite amazed that they are so beloved by children. In fact, this is a children’s movie, which makes it even more disturbing. I’m not sure I would let my kids watch something like this, but on the other hand I do remember that as I child I got to see pretty disturbing movies and loved them (Nothing But Trouble (1991) comes to mind... don’t ask!). Fact is, I am not a traumatized fellow, so there you go, this is all very subjective. That said, this movie is as dark as a shadow, and as bizarre as a Picasso painting.

I have to admit I love black humor, and this movie has plenty. Characters die, terrible things happen to good people, and amidst it all, there’s always a witty line or a funny situation. I actually had a great time with the movie. It is over-the-top, but it is also hilarious and wildly imaginative. Take, for instance, its introduction. It definitely takes you off-guard. Or take, for instance, Sunny’s subtitled baby talk. It gets the most laughs out of anything else in the movie. And part of it is because it’s just morbid to realize such a lovable-looking baby could be so smart, witty and adult-like. In a way, she’s us.

That said, I do think there was potential in greatness here. Just as it happened with the first Harry Potter movie, Lemony Snicket got its first movie outing from the hands of a so-so director. Brad Silberling does a good job, I’m not complaining. But in the hands of a more skilled director, this movie could’ve been great, even a classic. Silberling is too constrained. The story is almost all about imagination, but while the production design is excellent, the director doesn’t take the fullest out of it. We never get a real sense of awe, his camera is too still and captures too little for most of the time. He also goes for a more theatrical approach rather than a cinematic one. At times it works, at times it doesn’t. And yes, the movie is episodic, but that’s not as much his fault as it is to the fact that three Lemony Snicket books were crammed into one motion picture.

As for the technical aspects, the production design and photography are great. Sometimes it almost feels as if we’re watching a twisted cartoon, which is the point I guess. But the costumes and make-up are even greater. Astonishing work there! Sadly I can’t say the same about Thomas Newman’s score. Sometimes I felt like I was hearing his work from Road to Perdition (2002) all over again, which felt even more familiar when having Liam Aiken, who stars in both movies, up there on the screen.

And speaking of Aiken, he and his co-stars deliver wonderful performances. Browning is extraordinary, Aiken nails his role and the Hoffman twins are adorable. One of my favorite scenes has Sunny with a snake. If you see the movie you’ll know what I mean. And the whole Meryl Streep segment is great fun. I also had a blast in a scene where some strange things happen to her house, perhaps too strange to believe. Billy Connolly is a perfect Uncle Monty. And that leads to Jim Carrey, who, yes, does an excellent job as well. It just fits with the overall feel and tone of the movie.

“She's the mayor of crazy town.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Bug's Life

Director

John Lasseter

Andrew Stanton

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, January 22, 2005

The second collaboration of Disney and Pixar is not precisely their best, but surely worth giving a look. It’s obviously a very meticulous work of art, and one where many people put their hearts in the making. It’s also an homage to a classic film, a story full of values and lessons, and as lighthearted an adventure as any film from Pixar. Heck, it should be more highly regarded nowadays.

The story has an ant colony full of fearful ants who year by year collect food for themselves and the grasshoppers who come to steal from them as a tradition. The little ants pretend to be happy with their arrangement with the grasshoppers but, truth be told, they’re very unhappy about it and feel frustrated that they must work so hard every year to avoid a greater threat. One year, an inventive and hyperactive ant by the name of Flik (voice of Dave Foley) spoils the grasshoppers’ treat and causes great trouble as the leader of the bad guys, Hopper (voice of Kevin Spacey), is infuriated and warns the ants that their fate won’t be nice if they don’t collect twice the usual now. The ants are awful worried and terribly mad at Flik, who gets an idea to fight back, for which he’ll summon a gang of warriors. No one believes this can be done, so Princess Atta (voice of Julia Louis-Dreyfus) sends him to the insect city, hoping he’ll never come back. Little Princess Dot (voice of Hayden Panettiere) seems to be the only one who really believes in Flik, aside from himself of course. And just when Flik thinks he’s managed to find a great gang of warriors, he’s in for a big surprise: They’re actually unemployed circus performers, and victims of a terrible misunderstanding.

Gosh, what a large description that was! And that’s only the beginning! I couldn’t even go into the “warriors”’ personalities, or anything that happens after that. It’s amazing, isn’t it? You watch a movie and you feel it was so simple and easy-going, and then you try to describe it and you find yourself unable to do so in a couple of words. That’s the magic of Pixar. They’re so relaxed and comfortable writing their stories, and do so during such a long time, that they end up with sharply written products that, if anything, convince without much effort. This is certainly no exception, and everyone involved in writing the story (lots of people, including the director and co-director) deserve applause.

So to get into the story and how it works, I’ll start by saying this was obviously inspired by that Japanese masterpiece The Seven Samurai (1954), where peasants are so coward and samurai seem so brave, but somehow aren’t. The troupe of warriors in A Bug’s Life is a fiasco, but the faith people put in them makes them strong, and eventually that strength goes back to the people. This is a movie about teamwork, and how no matter how small creatures are, together they can be stronger than any threat. Of course there’s conflict throughout, plus some romance between Flik and Atta, and lots and lots of comic relief, but at its core, that’s what it is, a movie that teaches the lesson of teamwork, and the undeniable rewards of not being selfish.

Surprisingly enough, the hero turns out to be the character we care the less about, and the same happens with the Princess. It’s a shame since Louis-Dreyfus’ voice work is so fine, but it’s the script’s fault as it gave so much important to the circus performers. I’m not that sorry, though. I had such a great time with that gang that I couldn’t care less about any other character (except perhaps Princess Dot, and of course Hopper), and I couldn’t care less about not caring less. How hilarious can these guys get? There’s fat caterpillar Heimlich (voice of Joe Ranft), walking stick Slim (voice of David Hyde Pierce), beautiful but manly ladybug Francis (voice of Denis Leary, and my favorite character), wise mantis Manny (voice of Jonathan Harris) and his helper the butterfly Gypsy (voice of Madeline Kahn), wisecracking black widow spider Rosie (voice of Bonnie Hunt), rhino beetle Dim (Brad Garrett), and two foreign pill bugs (voice of Michael McShane). Every scene with any of these guys is hilarious, and the movie is full of them.

There’s also great attention to detail, and a real sense that this is an accurate view of the world from the point of view of an insect. The lighting, size, perspective, and everything else is true to what one would think is the miniature world, and the animation is flawless. I was especially thrilled by the appearances of the bird.

Something extra: This is the first animated movie with “outtakes” or “bloopers” during the final credits. What a brilliant idea!

And even though everything about the movie is great, for some reason it’s not that memorable. I don’t think Randy Newman’s forgettable song is to blame (his score is very nice though). There’s something missing, and for some reason, it just doesn’t stick to the mind as other Pixar efforts. Which is a shame.

Still a very good time, and a very recommendable piece!

“SO. Bein' a ladybug automatically makes me a girl. Is that it, fly boy?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Collateral

Director

Michael Mann

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Col-lat-er-al
1a: accompanying as a secondary fact, but subordinate to a main consideration
b: not directly relevant, or material

Max (Jamie Foxx) is your regular cab driver, except that he’s been on the job for well over 12 years. There’s certain monotony to his job… until tonight. Vincent (Tom Cruise) is a contract killer. He has been hired, in this case, to eliminate the key witnesses (as well as the main prosecutor) in the case against a narco-trafficking cartel that conducts business on and off-shore. The way that things were originally planned, Max was to drive Vincent around to five different places and wait for him, since he had some businesses to take care of. The only problem with that though, is that the first person that Vincent goes to assassinate drops from a balcony, directly into Max’s cab. The fact that it was Vincent who shot and murdered the man arises into Max’s mind very quickly, and when he confronts him about it, Vincent points his gun to Max’s face, and tells him to get into the cab. He’s still driving him to the other four places.

This has got to be one of the best movies I have seen all year, and probably one of the best movies I’ve seen in a while. Let me explain why:

The fact that I was caught completely off-guard as to what was going to develop in the movie may be a beneficial factor to this movie’s awesomeness. The movie begins with Jamie Foxx getting his Taxi ready to go out on the job, all calm; we see him boarding people, driving them around, listening to their mindless chatter. Then we meet Vincent, who’s got nothing much going for him either, as far as originality goes. He’s the same type of person we’ve seen boarding before on his cab. Then Max delivers Vincent to his first address, and while Vincent goes into the building, Max begins to unpack a sandwich. He proceeds to unwrap it, and starts eating it, slowly. What happens then is what caught me too much off guard: a body drops straight into the taxi. There’s no warning, no camera from the top following a fight between Vincent and the other man, no aerial shot either. It’s just Max eating his sandwich, pleasant, peaceful music playing in the background, and then BANG: a body falls, breaks the glass, and splatters blood all over the place. Just for that, for its ability to catch me off-guard so easily, I have got to give major acknowledgement to this movie’s editing and production team. Not even with the introduction prior to Dawn of the Dead (2004) was I caught so off guard. Pardon my blatant discussion about this specific topic, but these types of things don’t happen to me very often. It’s one of those “special moments” that needs to be told.

As far as acting is concerned, the cast could not have been better chosen. Now, I know I usually say that the cast was perfect for the movie most of the time (except in very few cases, i.e. King Arthur (2004)), but this one was truly perfect. Jamie Foxx played his character with such an ease, that he seemed natural at what he was doing. Everything from his way of talking to the cabbies, to showing his non-timid side when under pressure… the man was awesome. I’ve never regarded him as an actor of much caliber, but after his performance here, as well as in Ray (2004), I can only say that he delivers when he’s supposed to, and he does it in a big way. To top my compliments to him, I can honestly say that his performance was as good as the big man himself in Taxi Driver… and that’s saying something. Tom Cruise was the perfect evil guy. He’s perfect in almost every movie he does, without a doubt, so I’m sure he was just reprising one of his evil roles from another movie, but in this one, he was truly magnificent. He was cold-blooded, thoughtful, philosophical, insightful, careful… everything an evil murderous guy should be. Then there’s the female character, Jada Pinkett Smith, who plays her role as the scared lawyer perfectly. I have often wondered about the versatility of the characters she plays. She went from machine-juggling, amazing Zion-ite in The Matrix trilogy, to a lawyer who is scared of what her future might hold if she does not win the big case she’s working on. It may not seem like much, but it takes range to be able to take on these roles and fill them in as if they were yours. She does that. When scripting a movie such as this, where violence and suspense seems to be the main driving forces, one wonders how the writers managed to include so much of the character’s backgrounds into the movie. That’s what makes this movie so amazing: It gives the viewer just a bit more than what it’s waiting to receive.

The score was also very well done. It blended everything from Rock to Latin songs, and it played off wonderfully against the scenes happening in the movie. James Newton Howard did a great job setting up the score and the main music behind the film, so all credit goes to him. Although I know him mostly from scoring films directed by M. Night Shyamalan, he holds his ground on this movie, which is a very good thing to say about a composer.

The photography was great. So was the editing. The writing department deserves major props for delivering such an amazing film. I seriously cannot compliment this movie enough.

“What? I should only kill people after I get to know them?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Closer

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Closer needs no introduction. It was a no-brainer from the get-go. A brilliant director, a brilliant cast and a brilliant play... I’m there... and you should too...

Dan (Jude Law) is an obituary writer in London who meets Alice (Natalie Portman), an American stripper, by chance when she is hit by a car. They move together but things get complicated once Dan falls for Anna (Julia Roberts), a photographer who takes his picture for a book he wrote based on Alice. Enter Larry (Clive Owen), a doctor who meets Anna and is instantly smitten.

Closer is based on Patrick Marber’s play of the same name. He adapted it as a screenplay and did a splendid job. Of course, the play remains almost intact, but the big screen gives it a fourth dimension that is hard to describe. It is also remarkable how the movie does feel theatrical but does not lose its power because there’s so much action going on... with words only. If you look closer (pun intended) you’d be shocked to realize the little amount of sets in the movie. It is literally composed of long, extended scenes of dialogue that grow momentum and complement each other right to the end, even when long periods of time have passed from one to the other.

What’s striking about this work of art is how uncovered we are as human beings. Closer dissects relationships and exposes them bare, leaving a sort of open wound that deeply hurts. The characters here do cruel, damaging things to each other because that’s what their hearts dictate. And who doesn’t follow their hearts? Who doesn’t relate to some of the things the movie shows in some degree? It’s an ugly picture the one we are left to deal with, to the point of realizing it’s scary. The things we are willing to do, the places we are willing to go...

Closer touches on themes of pride, power, infidelity, depression, honesty, and using sex as a weapon. It is an adult film in the truest sense of the word. It delves into the complicated world of relationships in a franker way than we’re used to. There are those who are weak and those who are strong. There are those who are more intelligent and those who are more visceral. And then there are those who can be all of these things. There’s a scene in which a character dangerously dances around the line in which his/her relationship could completely tremble only because he/she wants to know the truth, nothing but the truth. Who can blame him/her? And there’s a scene in which a character almost begs the other to lie to him/her, because the truth might be more wounding. And again... who can blame him/her? We’re complicated, contrasting individuals, we humans. And that’s the meat of every day. But sometimes it’s also our perdition.

I just mentioned a couple of scenes in the last paragraph, but what’s striking is that every single scene in the movie is extraordinary, delving into the psyche of the characters and not letting go. The dialogue is rich, and even though people don’t speak like that in real life, it feels honest and you can sense its weight. Add Mike Nichols’ expert hand behind the camera and you’ve got a striking cinematic experience from every angle.

It also helps to have such a talented cast embodying Dan, Alice, Anna and Larry. Every one of them is perfect. Jude Law may have the least showy role of all, but he’s still impeccable. Julia Roberts plays against-type and admirably manages to transform Anna into her own... a flawed, weak individual behind a strong, confident poise. Clive Owen chews every scene he’s in with an animal-like intensity and gaze. And Natalie Portman plays a character who starts up being the most innocent, but who evolves into something quite different as time goes by. She’s luminous.

It’s also rewarding and worthy of applause to get to see a movie where all the characters are actually intelligent, literate people. As a matter of fact, everything about this movie is worthy of praise. And that also includes the brilliant use of Damien Rice’s "The Blower's Daughter" to exemplify a cycle, for life is one... people just don’t change.

A devastating, thoughtful examination of life as it is.

“I know who you are. I love you. I love everything about you that hurts.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Butterfly

Director

José Luis Cuerda

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

La Lengua de las Mariposas came into my life like a breath of fresh air that I’m still enjoying. A good friend of mine recommended it and even though I’d heard good things about it, I was mainly interested in Alejandro Amenábar’s original score (he’s my favorite contemporary director). Indeed, I got what I expected from the music, but happily, there was much more to the experience than just that: This is a very beautiful movie, and a wonderful, poignant, unforgettable experience.

The story is full of threads and subplots that not always seem relevant or interconnected with each other, even though they actually are, but merely as an effect of continuance. The script is based upon several short stories by Manuel Rivas, all of which became one that surrounds a young Spanish boy, Moncho (Manuel Lozano), whose asthma prevented him from going to school, and now that he must he feels scared.

It soon becomes easy for the boy to get used to the school though, as his teacher, Don Gregorio (Fernando Fernán Gómez) is kind and wise, and soon becomes his friend. It’s clear that both Moncho and Don Gregorio are different kind of people from most who surround them, they’re sensitive to the beauty of the world and eager to know more about it, and when the teacher starts sharing with the pupil his fascination, their bond becomes unbreakable.

There are many beautiful vignettes all throughout the movie. Every scene shared by the boy and the old man is pure magic, but then, unexpected glimpses of beauty pop from everywhere, like in a subplot involving Moncho’s brother falling in love with a very strange girl living in an even stranger world. All of a sudden, a virtually insignificant character shatters our hearts, and his story becomes resonant. That’s a powerful thing to achieve.

Set in a time of conflict, right before the civil war, the movie is very much about politics as well, but not strictly politics, but rather people’s stances and the consequences they’re willing to face. There’s a lot of talk about this throughout, but it is in the end when everything explodes. And right there and then, in a very shocking, confusing, and incomprehensible finale, we see people throwing away everything they are, everything they stood for, and everything they believed in, for a label they’re supposed to love or hate. It’s a finale I’m not sure I was happy to watch, but which certainly moved me in both positive and negative ways. And sadly, it seemed very real.

If I had a real problem with the movie at all, it was the abrupt editing it sometimes suffered from. After a very beautiful, poignant vignette, sometimes there came a sudden cut, and a whole different thing began. I thought a smoother transition could’ve worked much better, but that’s just a minor quibble.

So coming back to the original reason for watching the movie at all, I loved the music. I think it’s Amenábar’s greatest musical job, as his score became more a protagonist than in any of his films. It accompanies every scene to perfection and is touching more often than not. The scene where Don Gregorio mentions the butterflies’ tongues for the first time is a very good example, a scene of simple beauty whose music accentuated it so much I felt like crying forever. What a gorgeous work.

And of course, all of this couldn’t work if the two main actors weren’t brilliant, which they are. Little Lozano is very credible and natural as the kid, while Fernán Gómez is beyond words as the old man. But the best is they share a chemistry so powerful it simply explodes out of the screen. Excellent casting, and excellent work.

Kudos to José Luis Cuerda!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Meet the Fockers

Director

Jay Roach

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 17, 2005

Meet the Parents is a movie that surprised a lot of people when it opened some years ago. It featured Robert De Niro in a rare comedic appearance (of course, that’s about the only thing he seems to be doing now) and had a funny premise that we could all identify with. Since it was a huge success, a sequel had to be made. Unfortunately, it just didn’t live up to its predecessor.

Just before they get married, Gaylord (Ben Stiller) and his fianceé Pam (Teri Polo) embark on a trip with her parents, Jack (Robert De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner), so they can meet his, Bernie (Dustin Hoffman) and Roz (Barbra Streisand). As it happens, Gay’s parents turn out to be quite crazy, loose people, the exact opposite of control-freak Jack.

I don’t necessarily think Meet the Fockers is a bad movie. I actually had a good time with it. It’s an ok movie, a mediocre one. A movie that boasts an impressive cast yet doesn’t really know what to do with it. Sure it does! Some might say. And I might agree that the premise is solid enough, but the execution is simply poor.

It’s been said that a movie that has two or three scenes that really work can be considered more than respectable. Meet the Parents had one: the dinner scene with all the milking and the ashes (to its defense, the volleyball sequence was almost a great one as well). It was hilarious and even though it was just one (albeit a pretty long one), the movie ended up being quite good. Not great, but good. In Meet the Fockers there’s no such scene. And God knows everyone tried hard to achieve it. That’s what’s so painful! You sit there and watch as all these actors try to do funny things, but the best they can get is chuckles. There isn’t a single laugh-out-loud moment in the movie. And that’s quite painful. I credit that more to director Jay Roach and the writers than to anyone in the cast.

Oh, and I did laugh at that kid saying a dirty word, and truth to be told I still liked all the jokes about the titular family’s last name. But it’s all ho-hum. Nothing to write home about.

Another difference with its predecessor is that even though in the first one Jack bordered on the caricature line, we still bought his character and cared for him and everyone else. This time around, everyone has been relegated to a caricature. That would be a really funny and effective device if the movie’s approach were more camp than serious. But we’re supposed to believe in this people, and I’m sorry, but I didn’t.

As performances go, Ben Stiller is his usual self. Teri Polo is ok. Blythe Danner is touching and perhaps the only true sane character in the movie. Dustin Hoffman goes crazy and is quite effective in most of his scenes. But to me Barbra Streisand did the best job of all. Her character is quite hilarious and her performance matches it to a tee. She brings life to an otherwise by-the-book comedy.

All in all, not bad, but disappointing.

“Come on, Jack it'll be fun. We'll swap wives.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Suspicion

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1941

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Despite the fact that Alfred Hitchcock originally disliked the proposal that this film be called Suspicion, I think there should be a Hitchcock film called that, simply because that was one of his single favorite themes in his overall work. Based on the novel “Before the Fact” by Francis Iles (Anthony Berkeley), and scripted by Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison, and Alma Reville, it tells the story of a spinsterish society girl by the name of Lina (Joan Fontaine) falling in love and marrying heartthrob Johnnie Aysgarth (Cary Grant), only to find out he’s a cheater, a gambler, a liar… and probably even a murderer… but an adorable man nonetheless!

The story is told in a straightforward way, strictly from the point of view of the lead female character. It’s an amazing way to tell a story like this, where situations might or might not be what they seem, depending on the point of view. In this case, suspicion becomes paranoia (in fact, the movie could be aptly named Paranoia) smoothly, slowly, almost invisibly, just like it happens in real life to all of us, when we’re so worried about something that we just focus on what worries us, and become blind to everything else. Here, however, it’s not only Lina Aysgarth who’s seeing things this way; it’s also us through her eyes who become convinced of what she believes. Is her charming husband really capable of murder? Could he go as far as killing her to pay his debts? No doubt!

I was fascinated with this film from the get-go. Not in the way that I was fascinated with Rebecca (1940), but rather in a more old-fashioned Hitchcock way, where I could just let go and have fun and be in for some fun and lots of suspense. I knew I wasn’t going to suffer much as long as I was in the hands of Hitchcock and Grant and I was right! This isn’t really dense suspenseful drama, this is comedic suspense, plain lighthearted entertainment with tints of murder, and of course, a couple of the most excruciatingly nerve-wrecking scenes you can expect, including the carrying of a dreaded glass of milk, or a very confusing struggling between two people in a moving car.

But then, soon into the movie, we’re introduced to Beaky (Nigel Bruce), a friend of Johnnie’s who turns out to be a very important figure for the couple, and a very funny one for us. Bruce is brilliant in his role, and his comic relief works to perfection.

But despite Bruce and Grant’s (and Dame May Whitty’s, and Cedric Hardwicke’s, and Auriol Lee’s) excellent performances (Grant is amazingly smooth in making us hate him and love him from scene to scene), this is Joan Fontaine’s show from beginning to end and there’s no denying that. Not only because the story surrounds her, and (correct if I’m wrong) she’s in every single scene, but because she plays the part of a helpless/suspicious/inquisitive woman like few people could. This is not the second Mrs. de Winter from Rebecca (which was a brilliant performance as well), but a more active, dynamic woman, not only willing to find out the truth behind things, but capable of making things happen which can or cannot help her peace of mind. She deservedly won an Academy Award for this memorable role.

Incidentally, the ending was supposed to be completely different. I won’t even give a clue, but the Production Code requested that the ending be changed, and Hitchcock obviously didn’t like it. Quite surprisingly, I’m convinced that this was the way to go, I just can’t imagine the opposite ending; yet, it wasn’t handled subtly, it’s rather in-your-face and all-too-sudden, and leaves the viewer cold. Great work by the writers and actors involved though.

Also worth noting are Franz Waxman’s music score and Harry Stradling’s beautiful black and white cinematography. Many aspects of the film resemble those from Rebecca, and frankly, they don’t top them… but they’re quite close.

“If you’re going to kill someone, do it simply.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Director

Alexander Witt

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Thursday, January 13, 2005

When Resident Evil (2002) was originally released, I didn’t have enough compliments for it. I thought it was amazing. For that matter, any movie with Milla Jovovich on it is bound to be something good. If you don’t agree with that, watch The Fifth Element and you’ll see where I’m going with this. She’s the perfect superhero/totally hot action chick. The ending of the first part was a complete cliffhanger, and although I knew what was coming because of the video games, I was still interested in the way the director would approach this second part. Nearly four years after the original film release, this second part drops, with a brand new director and everything. As of right now, I’m a little confused as to what I think about this movie, so my opinion will come out as I write it and without any pre-visualized idea of what I’m going to write.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse begins with a miniscule summary of the first RE movie, followed by the announcement of what will be the center plot of the film: General Cain orders the Hive to be reopened, which only causes the T-virus to spread outside of it, with a legion of the undead walking out of it and into Raccoon City. The Umbrella Corporation, in order to stop a widespread contamination, quarantines the city, blocking all ways in and out of it. At the same time, they deploy Nemesis, a deadly killing machine with the sole purpose of eliminating all S.T.A.R.S. (Special Tactics and Rescue Squad) members, the only military resistance against the corporation in Raccoon City. Along the way (very early in the film, as a matter of fact), we are introduced to one of the main characters, Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), a female cop who kicks ass without asking many questions: if someone moves like a zombie, behaves like a zombie and looks like a zombie, shoot them in the head. No questions asked. She, along with other cop friends of hers, goes out into the city, trying to find a way out. They stumble upon a church, and go inside it, only to find that the dead are already there, along with other creatures that made their first appearance in the first movie. At this critical time, when hope seems kind of lost, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes into play again. Fortunately for them, this Alice is not a human anymore, but rather a genetically modified project (just like Nemesis, only much better looking and with a kick-ass wardrobe; also, she’s not evil). It is after she joins them that they receive a call from Dr. Ashford (Jared Harris), a scientist who is trying to get his daughter out of the city alive. He promises them his help, as long as they’re willing to help him with his problem.

The most successful aspect of this film lies on its special effects. Now, we are not talking about simple special effects, like a little explosion or the slowing down of time in order to see the bullets fly in air. We are dealing with major special effects. The explosions alone are far from little: there are shots where Alice is riding a motorcycle, suddenly lets go of it, does a double jump in the air and then falls standing on the floor; at the same time, she shoots a bullet into the motorcycle and it explodes in mid air! The amount of choreography for that scene alone must have taken some time, especially when it is obvious that it wasn’t all computer animated. Other shots where Alice walks down a building (literally) are completely amazing (and impressive, at that). On mind-blowing special effects and amazing visual feasts, the movie succeeds and delivers more powerfully than the original Resident Evil did. This though, doesn’t save it from its many other flaws, which, in my opinion, outnumber the positive aspects of the film itself.

Let’s talk about character development. Now, other than telling/showing us that Jill is a bad-ass chick who happens to be a cop, the director doesn’t think it necessary to give the character a little more development. There is no psychoanalytical aspect to it. It’s just “I’m here, I can kick your ass, I want to escape”, etc. There’s no background story, no chance for a flashback where we might know more about her, nothing. Same with all the other sub-central characters; Alice is the exception, but then again, in order to see this movie you needed to have watched the original, which meant that you already had enough background on Alice herself without actually more of it here. On this, the movie flops… badly.

I could go on and on about how the acting wasn’t strong enough this time around, or how the plot was a bit off; I could also talk about how much the director departed from the game, when it is meant (or supposed, at least) to be based on it at a much grander scale that it is presented here. Instead, I choose to just lay out a positive and a negative side of the movie, which, in my honest opinion, are the most influential on both sides.

If you want to see some seriously awesome special effects with a semi-decent plot, then this is the movie for you. If you’re interested on acting and/or character development, then this definitely isn’t the best movie to watch. For that, watch the first one, and be content with the fact that the open ending of this movie (yet again) will most likely produce a third one.

“My name is Alice and I remember everything.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before Sunset

Director

Richard Linklater

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

For many people, the lapse between seeing Before Sunrise (1995) and Before Sunset was of nine years, just as it was for the movie’s characters. I just happen to have seen that first movie this same year. I’m not proud of that, though. But I sure as heck fell in love with it. And that’s something I could also say about its sequel!

Jesse (Ethan Hawke) is at the end of a book tour in Paris. The book, as it happens, chronicles the night he met Celine (Julie Delpy) in Austria, when they decided to meet six months later and see where it led them. Regardless of what happened, Celine hears about Jesse’s Paris presentation and attends. He can’t believe it. And soon they’re walking the city streets, rekindling old times and talking about their lives. Yet Jesse has to take a flight that night, so they only have about an hour to be together… again.

Oh boy, where to begin!? I’m so in love with this pair of movies, with this pair of characters, with writer/director Richard Linklater, with… Paris! It is so refreshing to get to actually see a sequel that was not made for monetary reasons. A sequel that is justified by the story and by the characters. That just doesn’t happen. And it has that liberty and freedom that sets it apart from everything else out there. Some people called the first movie pretentious. With this sequel every doubt is erased. These are works of art. A celebration of love!

That said, don’t think everything’s nice and romantic in Before Sunset. The first movie had that naïve vibe to it that was impossible to resist. This time around Jesse and Celine have grown up, they’ve gone through a lot, they have a more pessimistic way of approaching life. And as I watched these two people remembering those days, I couldn’t stop thinking of how real the emotions felt, how honest the screenplay was, and how much truth there was in both movies.

Once again Jesse and Celine have several conversations that go from the pointless to the important things in life. And it’s impossible to take your eyes away from them! The movie starts as a lighthearted romp where you think these two are falling in love all over again, yet in a different setting, and that nothing more will happen. That would’ve been kind of hu-hum. But as they become more comfortable with each other, as the minutes pass, and as intimacy grows, poignancy takes place. The movie becomes much more than it initially appeared. The awful truth takes center stage, the real feelings start to surface, and they finally open themselves (whether they planned it or not) about how important that chance meeting nine years ago was and the way it affected their lives. And it’s heartbreaking.

I won’t spoil the ending for you, but I do want to say that I absolutely loved it. The perfect ending.

This time around Hawke and Delpy also helped craft the screenplay and the dialogue their characters speak. I can only wonder how personal those stories or thoughts really are regarding the actors’ real lives. But the fact is… the movie is sensational. And both actors do a terrific job in bringing these characters to life. They create real, palpable, interesting, three-dimensional human beings, and that’s something I’m certainly grateful for. Delpy in particular is ravishing.

Kudos to the director as well for crafting a movie this difficult, where everything happens in real time, and coming off so well in every respect.

And Paris… it’s just irresistible!

“Memories are wonderful things, if you don’t have to deal with the past.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Foreign Correspondent

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1940

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

I waited a long time for a chance to watch Alfred Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent. Even though I’d always heard that it was a great film, I noticed throughout the years that it’s rarely regarded as one of Hitch’s greatest or most classic efforts. Now that I’ve seen it, I have absolutely no idea why. The Master’s second American film (done right after the masterful Rebecca (1940)) is an absolutely marvelous thriller filled with suspense, romance, and real-life drama. Plus, it’s got so many of the director’s trademark set-pieces, which work to perfection even to this day, that it’s a complete delight. Its cast is also amazing… It’s a real masterpiece!

Joel McCrea plays Johnny Jones, a determined but inexperienced reporter chosen as foreign correspondent by a New York newspaper to benefit from his naiveté in the imminent war. Under the smart but annoying pseudonym of Huntley Haverstock, Jones seeks information from one of the most important European pacifists, Mr. Van Meer (Albert Bassermann). He has no luck at first, and soon occupies himself in falling in love with Carol Fisher (Laraine Day), the daughter of yet another pacifist, Stephen Fisher (Herbert Marshall). Soon, however, Jones is “lucky” enough to witness Van Meer’s assassination just a few inches away from him. At pursuing the murderers to snatch a good story, he uncovers and gets involved in a spy ring greater and more sinister than he could imagine. Who’s involved (on both sides) and what dangers he has to face are big surprises.

As fine a Hitchcock thriller as any, Foreign Correspondent evades boredom at any cost and manages to grab the viewer just a couple of minutes after the movie has started. That is, thriller-wise, because there’s comedy to spare from scene 1. Every bit of dialogue has a funny twist to it and there’s no stopping the hilarity. Yet, when the suspense begins, it’s gripping to say the least. Plus there are many interesting characters, like Rowley (Edmund Gwenn), a hilarious assassin, Mr. Krug (Eduardo Ciannelli), a spooky villain, and of course Scott ffolliott (George Sanders), a fellow reporter. The latter is especially interesting, and steals the spotlight often, aided by a script full of unexpected twists. Sanders plays the character with charm and wit as he always did.

Bassermann is outstanding as Van Meer, especially since he spoke no English and learned his lines phonetically. He reminded me of Laurence Olivier’s later performances, I wonder if he was inspired by the man… Bassermann gives the finest performance of the film.

The story couldn’t have been more appropriate for a time like when it was released: 1940, with World War II taking over the entire world. Developed from a story that circled another war, and scripted by many people (with finishing touches by actor Robert Benchley, who ad-libbed many of his own hilarious lines), it managed to touch the sensibility of an awful crisis, with respect and humor. Though the film is heroic it’s also riotous, but in the end, it’s touching and unforgettable. After a heart-pounding climatic scene on a plane, the very final scene is awe-inspiring to say the least, turning the piece into the subtlest piece of propaganda imaginable.

With engaging performances, overflowing humor, stunning visual effects, an appropriate music score (by Alfred Newman), and all kinds of haunting Hitchcock touches, Foreign Correspondent is a classic masterpiece, no matter what they say… or don’t say.

“We need someone like you---with a fresh unused brain”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ocean's Twelve

Director

Steven Soderbergh

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 10, 2005

I’m not going to lie to you, I am a big fan of most of the actors in the Ocean’s saga. When the first film came out I was really excited and found the movie to be an entertaining piece that was neither challenging nor the greatest thing in the world. Now I’ve seen the second one, which is more elaborate and with more famous faces, and my reaction was exactly the same. In my heart the first one is still the one I love the most. But from a distant point of view, I think both movies are quite similar and work in the same way. And that’s fine with me.

A few years after Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) was stolen about 160 million from his Las Vegas casinos, he’s looking for revenge. That means he’s willing to kill off the gang that did that to him if they don’t pay him his money back… with interests. Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and Rusty (Brad Pitt) then recruit everybody and head to Europe with them, for they can’t really find a job in America since they’re too well-known there. After a couple of small jobs, Danny makes a pact with French master thief François Toulour (Vincent Cassel) in which they will both try to steal a precious piece of jewelry that just arrived in Rome. But as this happens, Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones), an Europol agent who once had an affair with Rusty, is on their track and won’t leave them alone.

I’ll say something first and foremost to make it clear from the beginning: Ocean’s Twelve is a mess. Oh, but what an entertaining and charming mess it is!

This movie was done merely as an excuse to make more money and to have the chance of reuniting this splendid cast in a different location for a lot of behind-the-scenes fun. While watching the movie one can sense these actors were having a great time. And that translates so well that it’s almost impossible to resist them. That’s exactly why the movie ultimately feels satisfying, at least for me. For the plot has nothing to do with that…

Sure, I appreciate that this time around there’s a more intricate and complicated script and that more things are going on. But what comes off the screen is the sense that it’s just all a mess. To give you an example: we know from the first movie that everyone in the gang has a special talent, and that’s why they’re there in the first place. Well, in the sequel there’s nothing left of that feeling. There are two or three big heists but there’s never a sense of who does what or how they really do it. I got the feeling that only three or four of them could’ve traveled to Europe and still come off with the same results. And then there’s all the traveling, and all the heists and little jobs, and the love/hate relationship between Rusty and Isabel.

So yes, it’s all quite silly and very contrived. Do they really expect me to believe that whole situation with Linus’s (Matt Damon) mother? But I didn’t care. The director and writers did something with this movie that wasn’t present in its predecessor. They went for camp. They knew these movies weren’t to be taken seriously. So they approached this one almost like a satire. And there are some very funny gags that were brought up because of this.

One in particular just made the day for me. It involves Julia Roberts and a bit of fourth-wall-breaking by Soderbergh. I won’t delve into details here, but I will say that the whole sequence is hilarious, very well done, very well acted, and as tongue-in-cheek-y as anything I have seen this year at the movies.

All actors do a good job, whether in bigger or smaller parts. Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Roberts and Zeta-Jones get the most screen time. And what a quintet they make!

Stylish, over-the-top, absolutely contrived and charming as hell. That’s about it!

“You wanna know something? Have you ever noticed...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Omen

Director

Richard Donner

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, January 08, 2005

American diplomat Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) is shocked by the news that his newborn child has died before he could even meet him. So when the opportunity comes, the same day, to adopt another child whose mother has supposedly died, Thorn accepts and never tells his wife (Lee Remick). Unfortunately for them, the child turns out to be no other than the Antichrist.

Little Damien (Harvey Stephens) seems to be a lovely child at first, but it all changes during his fifth birthday party in London, where his nanny (Holly Palance) hangs herself. Around the same time, two strange creatures appear: A devilish dog, and a satanic nanny, Mrs. Baylock (Billie Whitelaw). What’s worse, Damien seems to love what’s going on about him, and starts rejecting every possible contact with the Church or God. Mrs. Baylock and the dog protect him, and Damien is happy around them, which drives his mother crazy.

Robert, now the American Ambassador, starts suspecting what’s going on after a visit by Father Brennan (Patrick Troughton), the man who offered him the possibility to adopt Damien. Robert doesn’t pay him much mind, but soon the father is brutally murdered. As this happens, a photographer who happened to be in the fatidic birthday party (David Warner) notices something shocking in pictures taken to the ill-fated nanny and Father Brennan. He is now the one who warns Robert.

So the Ambassador begins a quest he’s not sure he should take. He follows the inevitable path that leads to the possible destruction of his son. He finds an exorcist by the name of Bugenhagen (Leo McKern) who instructs him how to kill the Antichrist, and from then on it’s only a matter of taking the decision to kill a child or let Satan win.

Near-classic horror film, The Omen is one of the scariest movies according to some people, and no wonder: It proposes that the worst evil of the world might be in one’s family. Little Stephens is truly repulsive but also quite charming as the little boy, which makes matters worse.

Apart from that, this is mostly a gore movie. There are spectacular murders to spare (most notably a decapitation) and that seems to be the film’s main attraction. The script tends to go for the scares instead of real fear all the time, which distances this from the masterpiece that is Rosemary's Baby (1968).

Jerry Goldsmith’s score, however, is completely frightening and a real classic.

As performances go, Peck is believable but not unforgettable, Stephens as I said really scary, and Remick pretty brilliant. Everyone else is fairly good, just enough to suit the mood.

“Have no fear little one... I am hear to protect thee.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shaun of the Dead

Director

Edgar Wright

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Shaun (Simon Pegg) is your average (or below average, at that) guy. He and his best friend Ed (Nick Frost) seem to have no real ambition in life. They spend most of the time at a pub named “The Winchester”, where they drink, play games, and listen to rock music. He also has a girlfriend named Liz (Kate Ashfield) who, by the beginning of the movie, is getting tired of his way of life: they never go out, and when they do, it’s always to “The Winchester”, something Liz can’t take much longer. So she breaks up with him, and leaves him heartbroken and desperate.

The day after these events occurs, something wicked starts happening in their town. Though neither Shaun nor Ed take notice of it, people start acting weird around them. When they finally realize that everyone around them is turning into zombies, a plan is created to leave the house, rescue Shaun’s family, his now ex-girlfriend, and head out somewhere safe. Unfortunately, things don’t always go as planned…

The tagline for this movie, “A romantic comedy. With zombies.” is somewhat of an invention for me. Suffice it so say that I had never come across a combination like this. So, when I saw this movie for the first time, I couldn’t help but wonder why this wasn’t a more popular “genre” in Hollywood.

This is an English movie, set in English settings, with an English cast. Since I mostly know British for their dry and black sense of humor, this movie surprised me, as it truly delivers hilarious, laugh out loud lines and situations. The fact alone that it takes Shaun a full day to actually realize that “something” is going on, even when he’s watching TV and it’s on every channel (which he keeps flipping through, might I add); even when he walks out of the door and the people are falling around him, and walking in such a manner that no normal person would; even when people are literally getting eaten around him… he still does not account for what is going on. That, my friends, is pure comedy.

Although the movie takes from both romantic comedies and zombie movies, it remains as a sort of homage to both. True, they do spoof and parody a lot of movies from both genres, but it is only as a means to help further the comedy & gravity of the situations. The main flick that this movie parodies or at least pays homage to is Dawn of the Dead, a film released some time before this one. Reportedly, the director of the former was so impressed with this film that he praised the director, and his quote about the movie was used in the promotional TV trailers shown around the country. When you get a “thumbs up” from the director of the very movie you’re parodying, you know that something has been done correctly.

The cast could not have been chosen better. Though I hardly know the actors, they did a magnificent job, especially the lead roles of Shaun and Ed. The director, Edgar Wright (unknown to me, at least until now) did a magnificent job directing, and I give him major props for turning this movie from something that could have been a cheese-fest to a very hilarious and at times scary movie.

“Who died and made you fucking king of the zombies?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Big Night

Director

Campbell Scott

Stanley Tucci

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Stanley Tucci and Joseph Tropiano crafted a screenplay seemingly for the pure pleasure of it: It’s pretty obvious that writing it was a pleasure, and seeing it realized must have been an even greater one. Tucci had the privilege to be involved as co-director and star, and it’s all so smooth it’s amazing. This is one delicious movie in literal and metaphoric ways, and it’s great that the spectator gets that sense while watching it. It’s tasteful!

Yes, the film is mostly about food. Or rather, about people whose lives are all about their food. In the 1950s, Primo (Tony Shalhoub) and his younger brother Secondo (Tucci) own an Italian restaurant in the United States, a very traditional and purist at that, about which Primo is very strict. Their main competitor (and nightmare) is fellow Italian Pascal (Ian Holm), whose restaurant is very Americanized but also very successful. Secondo hopes to marry Phyllis (Minnie Driver), but can’t on account of his economical situation. Everything gets worse by the minute and it’s almost time to close up. So in going to Pascal for help, Secondo receives an offer: He can send his friend Louis Prima, the famous jazz singer, to the brothers’ restaurant, which will bring publicity to the small place. It means organizing a fancy dinner for many people and not earn a penny out of it. But it can also mean prosperity.

During the preparations, we get to meet a big set of characters: There’s Pascal’s girlfriend Gabriella (Isabella Rossellini), Primo’s platonic love Ann (Allison Janney), assistant chef Cristiano (Marc Anthony) and even a Cadillac salesman (Campbell Scott). Primo and Secondo put their hearts in the preparations, though their ideals differ so hard. And even as the party happens, every character’s inner self comes out and shows itself. It’s all a masquerade of personalities and insides, and when it’s all over, it’s as sad as it’s happy.

The performances are uniformly good, with Holm a standout, though he’s had better showcases. And co-director Scott is particularly funny as the Cadillac salesman. This is not exactly a movie whose performers can shine, but it’s still very pleasant to watch them. I particularly enjoyed Tucci’s peaceful, easy-going turn.

Even though the film in itself is not as profound as it could be, and falls short in its attempt to reach greatness, it manages to do one thing to perfection: Make the viewers’ mouths water. Everything prepared and served seems delicious and it’s hard not to feel hungry throughout. What a pleasure!

“Sometimes the spaghetti likes to be alone.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Incredibles

Director

Brad Bird

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Ok, ok, I know every time I review a Pixar movie it becomes more than a review, but a love fest. But who can blame me? The guys just continue to make extraordinary, one-of-a-kind movies. And as long as they keep doing that, I’ll be there to gush about them and sing their praises.

Bob Parr (voice of Craig T. Nelson) and his wife Helen (Holly Hunter) are superheroes known as Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl, whose days of glory have long passed. Superheroes are not allowed to make use of their powers anymore, so they try to cope with a normal, everyday life with their children Violet (voice of Sarah Vowell), Dashiell (Spencer Fox) and baby Jack-Jack. Violet and Dashiell also have superpowers, but feel frustrated about the use they do, or don’t, give them. Everything changes, though, when Bob is hired to do some special jobs that have evil mastermind Syndrome (voice of Jason Lee) behind, and the whole family has to get involved at some point.

The Incredibles has some peculiarities that set it apart from all the other Pixar movies. To start off, it is not precisely a young children’s movie. Not that there’s anything wrong with them watching it, but the target audience is mainly older children and adults. The fact that the movie runs almost 2 hours is one point to make my case. But the whole plot, jokes and dynamics are much more appealing to a slightly older audience. And I dig that. It’s good that they try their hand at something different, especially when it pays off so well!

To be perfectly honest with you, I think the movie takes its time to really take off. The first 30 minutes are not as effective as the rest of the movie, but they aren’t disastrous or anything close to that. I just thought the pace and some of the jokes was not as effective, but the story is set up pretty well and from then on it’s pure, unadulterated, grandiose fun.

The whole movie feels like an inside joke regarding the superheroes world. We’ve seen countless movies about superheroes, but nothing like this. The way Mr. Incredible can’t fit into his suit, or the way the family uses their superpowers when a fight between children takes place, or how they spy on each other in their own way… these are all small pleasures that elevate this movie into something more. Sure, two thirds of the movie are spent on huge action sequences that are wondrously amazing, but it’s these details that give it its uniqueness.

And that’s where Pixar has always excelled. For them, it’s all about the characters and their stories. They go from there and then create everything else. The Incredibles is most of all a movie about family and their values and their interaction. It has a beautiful message about the power of a family sticking together and being there for each other that is neither preachy nor obvious. And every single relationship in this movie rings true. Dash behaves like a boy his age who is mesmerized by his talents and wants to use them at school, Violet just got to that uncomfortable adolescent age in which she starts to notice boys but can’t get them to notice her, and their parents have that wonderful love-hate dynamic of a couple that’s been together for a long time and are trying to raise their children as well as they can. But having all these dynamics show up even when they’re in the most dangerous of situations is priceless. A true superhero family just doing what they know best.

I’d also like to say that Pixar has once again raised the bar concerning computer-animation. I can’t even begin to describe the look of this movie, it is far above anything I’ve ever seen. The wonderful thing is that they were not going for a hyper-realistic look except for some scenes that actually needed it. It’s all cartoon-y and that’s the way it should be. But the variety of sets and sequences are full of imagination and creativity that never cease to impress. I was blown away.

Voice work is extraordinary by everyone involved. That the characters work as well as they do is also thanks to the work of the actors lending their voices. And then there’s the animation of each character, which is just amazing. My favorite character in the movie is not a member of the family, but the mastermind behind their special suits and gadgets: Edna. What a wonderful creation! And to think she was voiced by the movie’s director… it just adds to its brilliance. Also note-worthy is Frozone, who is voiced by the coolest: Samuel L. Jackson.

So much fun I felt guilty after watching it. And I can’t find a bigger compliment!

“You tell me where my suit is, woman!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dawn of the Dead

Director

Zack Snyder

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Monday, January 03, 2005

George A. Romero’s Dawn of the dead (1978) is one of the few old horror films that don’t necessarily lose their shock value even if you’re watching them 20 years later. It is, in fact, considered by many as one of the greatest horror films of all time. You might imagine then how I felt when I heard that the movie was getting a remake. Now, I don’t mind when films are remade, but there’s a line that you cannot cross, a line of films that are very high on the “classics” category which should not be touched by another director other than the original. Think of the remake of Psycho (1960). To this day, I spit on that movie. Fortunately (and very much surprisingly), this remake of Dawn of the dead, delivered… and surpassed.

The film begins in a quiet matter. We’re introduced to Ana (Sarah Polley), a woman who works at the hospital as a nurse. We travel with her as she goes home in her car, and arrives to a perfectly quiet neighborhood, with kids skating along the road. We see her go to bed, kiss her husband, and finally go to sleep. There is a sense of serenity along this introduction, as well as a sense of safety, that truly does not prepare for what is to come. The morning after, Ana wakes up with a few surprises: a girl (possibly her daughter, though it is never specified in the movie) has entered her room, and, without notice, started biting the flesh off her husband’s neck! She tries to save him; she pushes the girl out of the room, puts her husband on top of the bed and tries to stop the blood flowing out of his neck. Eventually he dies, or at least she thinks so. Then all of a sudden, her husband opens his eyes and jumps at her, trying to kill her. He is no longer alive, but he’s not dead: he is now a zombie.

That introduction alone is enough to scare the shit out of you. The opening credits, as a matter of fact, begin playing about 10 minutes after the film has begun, and after the viewer is already in a state of shock over what happened in the little time since the movie started. This, ladies and gentlemen, is great filmmaking.

The plot only thickens from there on, as Ana desperately gets out of the house and drives away. She wrecks her car doing so, and finally has to walk along with a policeman who was nearby when the car crash occurred. They walk together and find more people, who eventually decide that their best chances of survival is going into the mall and staying there until further notice.

To tell more would be sacrificing the whole story, though I cannot emphasize enough that the movie is full of tension for the most part, and you will be clinging to your seat when you see it for the first time. It truly is that scary.

All throughout the movie there are classical elements of horror movies: blood, violence and gore. At the same time though, there are moments to relieve the tension, like when the heroes are standing on a rooftop, telling a gun shop owner across them to shoot a zombie based on the name of a celebrity they give them; so goes down Rosie O’Donnell, among others. Just as well, lines and certain situations are delivered with a comical twist, there to help the viewer calm down a bit after seeing someone getting devoured by flesh-eating zombies. Fun, fun, fun!

Pretty much everything about this movie was right. The cast could not have been chosen better. Every actor played out their character wonderfully, and it truly felt as if they were in the middle of that chaos… as if they were truly scared, not just reading off some cards or script. Ving Rhames, Mekhi Phifer, Ty Burrell and Jake Weber delivered very strong supporting performances, while Sarah Polley shined as Ana.

The score is fantastic, offering songs by a variety of singers; from Tree Adams to Johnny Cash, all the songs are rightly chosen to go with the situation happening onscreen, though not as much to accompany the mood of the same. This does not reflect poorly on the film though, but rather ingeniously. There’s everything from sad, slow songs to country up-tempo songs to head-banging rock and roll. In other words, everything for anyone.

Being as this is Zack Snyder’s first feature film, one only has to wonder what’s in store for us from this director. If his job on this movie is any reflection of the quality of his films to come, then we will be watching very good movies for a long time to come. I usually respect the director that is brave enough to come out with a film that doesn’t fit the “happy ending” stereotype and goes out and delivers a very anticlimactic ending. This film is not the exception.

“How do you think your God will touch you? Well, friends. Now we know. When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Noel

Director

Chazz Palminteri

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Saturday, January 01, 2005

What the hell is this movie? You might ask. And I wouldn’t blame you. It was released in the States about three weeks ago in just a couple of theaters and that’s about it! It didn’t help that reviews were disastrous, but come on! It has an excellent, high-profile cast, and a story sure to enchant at least some viewers, especially during this time of the year. I was certainly enthralled, and I’m more than willing to share my point of view with you all, just in case you were feeling a tiny bit curious about it.

It’s Christmas Eve in New York and Rose (Susan Sarandon), a divorced, successful businesswoman, is feeling rather lonely. She visits her Alzheimer-stricken mother every day at the hospital, and is intrigued by an ill man in the next room who never gets any visits. Meanwhile, Mike (Paul Walker) and Nina (Penélope Cruz) are having trouble one week before their wedding because she cannot stand him being so extremely jealous. To make matters worse, he is suddenly stalked by Artie (Alan Arkin), an old man who claims to have known him for years. And then there’s Jules (Marcus Thomas), a young lad who claims his happiest Christmas happened in a hospital when he was 14 years old. Thus he wants to repeat the experience… at any cost.

Noel has an Altmanesque structure, which means that there are several main characters who apparently have nothing to do with each other, but keep bumping with one another with only us realizing everything that’s going on. There are countless similar movies, but this one’s different because it’s set around Christmas and is all about the Christmas spirit and the loneliness some feel in such a day.

For it’s pretty normal to feel that way when you don’t have someone to be around during Christimas Eve. It’s almost inevitable. The whole season is about sharing with family and friends, about showing people you love them. And suddenly, being alone, no one wants that. At least not me. And not the characters in this movie.

That said, it isn’t all about loneliness, but about a season in which the deepest emotions flourish and there’s a necessity to show them. It is a sensible time. And the characters here are all in some kind of need. What happens to them during that night isn’t necessarily a biggie for the rest of us, but for them, it’s a life-changing experience or event. And it’s just beautiful and poignant to realize that and go through that journey with them.

Most of the negative reviews I’ve read about this movie blame it for being plain bizarre and/or downright creepy. That’s because the main characters are not what is usually considered normal. But I just happen to love weird characters, people who fall out of the usual conventions. I love quirky behavior, and I do know that many people like that actually exist. And, for me, they’re just as normal as your next-door neighbor.

There’s not a story thread that is more interesting than another. Perhaps the one regarding Jules is the most awkward of all, but it’s also the most heartbreaking. I also enjoyed Mike and Artie and the way their relationship develops and leads to a rousing finale. Rose also has some very touching moments with her mother, her doctor and a special person played by a very famous actor who does an inspiring cameo.

And as performances go, everyone’s flawless. Sarandon is her usual excellent. Penélope Cruz (despite having her name misspelled during the initial credits) is ravishing, and has a jaw-dropping dance scene that is difficult to forget. Alan Arkin is extraordinary as the conflicted man who looks for Mike for reasons I won’t mention here, for they’re to be discovered while watching the movie. But the real revelation here is Paul Walker, who easily delivers the best performance of his career and proves that there’s also talent behind the good looks.

I’d also like to applaud the music by Alan Menken because it is beautiful!

Chazz Palminteri is the director. He also has a special appearance. And I think he did a great job. Too bad I’m feeling quite lonely myself in that position…

“I want you to know something. I forgive you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter