CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Saw II

Director

Darren Lynn Bousman

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Though I acknowledge its flaws, I’m an admirer of Saw (2004), and didn’t quite hesitate to watch its sequel when invited. Was I in for a mess… This is obviously a follow-up made on account of the first installment’s unexpected success, and done in such a reckless way, so disrespectful of the audience, that it’s twice as horrible. Ironically a grotesque film, after all. And the worst is some fans actually like and respect it.

I’ll admit that I had some fun with it, maybe because it became the kind of film that’s “so bad it’s good.” The premise is interesting: Detective Eric Matthews (played by Donnie Wahlberg, whom I hadn’t seen since The Sixth Sense (1999) and now I know I wasn’t missing much) is chosen by the evil Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) as victim for one of his diabolical games, one much larger in proportion than those we saw before: he has put several people inside a booby trapped house, including Eric’s son Daniel (Erik Knudsen), who will eventually die from a deadly gas they’re breathing unless they find the antidote. Jigsaw gives up his location too easily, but is immune to Matthews and his people since he holds those people hostage. Even as the people in the house (including Amanda, from the first film, played by Shawnee Smith now more prominently featured) play Jigsaw’s deadly games (all punished for some reason, except young Daniel), Matthews must decipher a puzzle of his own if he wants to see his son again. So it’s a game inside a game, with many surprises to behold.

Of course it sounds interesting! The possibilities are countless, just imagine the first Saw multiplied, so many people having to find the answers to the psycho’s riddles, having to work as a team perhaps, and maybe destroy each other in order to survive. It’d be great, but it’s completely blown. After having seen the film I read that it’s a reworking of a script by young director Bousman, adapted to fit a Saw-like storyline. This shows. The people inside the house just don’t make any sense, everything they do is unbelievable, their reactions are implausible, and the situations always seem to miraculously fit the plot’s necessities.

Brian Cox, playing real-life screenwriting guru Robert McKee, says in Adaptation. (2002) that if you wile the audience in the end, you got a hit, despite previous flaws and problems. I never saw a clearer case than this movie. My friend I saw it with, who agreed to every problem I pointed out, was excited when we walked out. I was pissed off, but I will admit that on my way home I enjoyed thinking back and figuring out how it all worked out.

Does that make it any better? Maybe a half star. The rest is all gore, awkwardness, and futile attempts to constantly remind us what movie this is a sequel of. There’s no sequel here, really, just an excuse to make money. But heck, that’s what the world is about, and the attempt was successful, so what can I say? People who walk into this movie should know what to expect. Hopefully they’ll enjoy it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Match Point

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 30, 2006

Word about Woody Allen not being in his prime for the last decade has become tiring by now. That’s why I was extra happy when critical acclaim started to come in his way regarding his latest movie, Match Point. It is also proof that all directors have ups and downs, even the best ones, so we just can’t take things for granted. Woody has come back with a bang, and the after-taste couldn’t feel better...

Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) is a former tennis pro who opts for a different life by staying in London and becoming an instructor. That’s how he meets and befriends Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), a rich socialite who introduces him to his sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer). Soon Chris and Chloe become an item, notwithstanding that Chris is dangerously smitten with Tom’s girlfriend, Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), a sexy struggling American actress.

Match Point starts with a fantastic sequence that says something about luck by using a tennis metaphor. The sequence is clever enough when we see it at that point, but without spoiling anything, it takes a much grander meaning by the time the movie is over. It works so well that I’m going to use the word genius to describe the way writer/director Woody Allen structures his movie, using this metaphor as a way of resuming the movie’s theme while also being pivotal to a certain plot point which certainly comes out of nowhere.

Allen gets rid of some of his usual trademarks and the result is gratifying. He moves his setting from New York to London, he doesn’t have the central character impersonate him and he tackles a genre that is tricky to find in his filmography. Match Point starts as a relationship drama, but by the 2/3 mark it adds another brilliant layer to transform his story into a relationship drama/thriller. The change is subtle, believable and absolutely nerve-wracking. Allen does an excellent job by fooling us into believing we know where the movie is going. Mark my words, we don’t.

It also helps that Allen hits all the right notes in how he builds his characters. Even though I have nothing in common with Chris, I could totally identify with him, for his actions and thoughts are entirely human. Here’s a guy who has everything going for him, a nice girlfriend and a terrific new job at one of his father-in-law’s companies, yet he’s totally obsessed with another woman. He’s not a bad person and he knows he’s getting into trouble, but he can’t help it. I especially loved the scene in which he suddenly changes his mind and wants to go see a movie because he knows Nola will be there. He doesn’t even know where this is going, but he’s hooked! There’s a point where we must all choose between what we want in our lives and what we don’t. Sometimes that decision is excruciating, but it has to be done… and faced. Yet there’s another factor that we barely take into consideration. We might want this or that, but the universe works in a different level altogether, and luck has a lot to do with what ultimately happens in our lives. That’s why life is so unpredictable. We may want something, but it’s not always up to us.

I like how Allen reinvents himself here. His movies are always character-driven, but you wouldn’t guess he was behind the camera in this one judging by his previous work. This is one of Allen’s best, easily. And there are snippets here and there that expose him, like his use of classic opera, a great analogy to the story he is telling. Even on the technical side, Allen switched photographers, and Remi Afaradesin’s work is startling.

A favorite scene? There are plenty, but I loved Chris and Nola going for a coffee and the conversation that ensues. I also thought the scene in which they meet for the first time is fantastic. And the last half hour of the movie is beyond description.

I do have to say that some situations seemed a little forced to me. A character is introduced that serves the sole purpose of giving Chris someone to open his heart to and nothing more. Nola has a scene outside Chris’s office building that was a little over-the-top for my taste. Yet I’m nip-ticking, it all works wonderfully as a whole.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is an actor I’ve admired for years, but somehow he’s gone under the radar for many. That’s about to change, for his performance here is unforgettable. We feel exactly what he’s feeling at all times, and that’s a hard task for any actor to accomplish. Scarlett Johansson, on the other hand, is a knockout, both literally and figuratively. She’s sexy, intense, innocent, strange and vulnerable all at the same time. The role also gives her the opportunity to play a femme fatale variation, and she knocks it out of the park. It also helps that both Jonathan and Scarlett are sex on legs, so the combination is explosive. Nice support is lent by Matthew Goode and Emily Mortimer, but also by Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton as their parents.

An impressive achievement, one that stays with you long after the movie is over.

“You’re going to do very well for yourself unless you blow it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Match Point (2005): Groucho

Review

Just Like Heaven

Director

Mark Waters

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 26, 2006

I can hardly remember the last time I saw a date movie with a date. I’m the kind of guy who very rarely goes to the movies just because; I go only if I want to and always with a specific movie or two in mind. So when I found myself in a movie complex with a date and no movie in mind, and she suggested Just Like Heaven, I knew I had to say yes. The delightful thing is this movie turned out a proof that you just shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. I had heard it was bland, it seemed repellent to me, it was a “date movie”… and it just turned out great. Not because I was on a date, but because it was good fun, and quite intelligent in its own right, if admittedly unmemorable, and not without its flaws.

Reese Witherspoon plays Elizabeth, a dedicated MD who’s looking for an internship in a hospital and working inhumanly to achieve it. The story centers on her for the first few minutes, as we witness her obsessive dedication, her early success, and her tragic end.

We don’t know much else about her as the story switches to David (Mark Ruffalo), a depressed landscape designer who has enough money to rent a good apartment in San Francisco and subsist on beer and absolute loneliness. Things don’t go well as he keeps seeing a woman in her apartment: the ghost —or a hallucination, he believes— of a “control freak”, no other than Elizabeth in fact, who owned the apartment he’s inhabiting, thinks she’s alive and well, and considers him an intruder. Elizabeth isn’t just unaware of her situation, but she’s completely out of herself, seeing things from the strict point of view of a woman who lives in an apartment, and forgetting about everything else. David can’t seem to get any help, and only he can see the girl, so he decides to help her out by making her aware of her situation, and then helping her find out what went wrong with her life. Together they discover who she was, what went wrong, and what’s to be done, if anything, to solve her situation.

First things first: this ain’t no Ghost (1990). Why compare? Because there’s no denying that the Swayze-Moore vehicle was at least an inspiration for this flick. And while Ghost was larger-than-life, tragic, funny and romantic, Just Like Heaven could be described more as just funny and cute. But there’s more than that. This is not the story of a girl who dies, rather that of a “dead man” who’s revived. That’s not the brilliant conclusion of this reviewer, since it’s an in-your-face message throughout the movie, but it’s quite true; David is the actual lead character, and a very well written one at that, and Mark Ruffalo is first-rate as this troubled man. If only the movie around him wasn’t so sugar-coated, he’d be much more highly regarded by everyone.

There are two other aspects that are important in the story: the ghost situation, and the romance. About the ghostly features, well, we didn’t expect much logic, and be sure that there isn’t any, but I bought it all from the start so I just didn’t mind. The romance, in turn, works just fine. When the friendly neighborhood psychic (Jon Heder, playing the most hilarious character in the film) points out that Elizabeth’s aura has softened, and then that she’s embarrassed, we completely buy it; the messy David and the strict Elizabeth could never fall for each other, we suppose, but as the story progresses, they just seem perfect for each other.

But she’s dead! How can that problem be solved in a romantic comedy? Ghost handled it well, but it was much more of a drama than this movie is. So be prepared for a much softer resolution, but one that works for a fairy tale like this, and seems completely satisfying.

Witherspoon plays her average role and is OK. Good support comes from Dina Spybey as Elizabeth’s sister and Donal Logue as David’s pal. But this is Ruffalo’s show. If anything, he makes it worthwhile.

“I may have been a home-wrecking slut, but I saved lives!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Just Like Heaven (2005): Morris

Review

Breakfast on Pluto

Director

Neil Jordan

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Gay-themed movies have always existed. Yet it is a curious factor than in 2005 there were several of them that actually caught the attention of people outside a small community. Yes, I do realize that we live in far more advanced and open-minded times, but it’s also got to do with directors and stars taking chances and trying to say different things. Left behind are those typical movies about adolescents who struggle to come out of the closet. Right now we’re getting all kinds of movies dealing with specific stories in all kinds of colors and shades. It is a big step forward, let’s face it, that gay characters are sustaining interesting, adult movies instead of simply being in token roles. And all I can say is… cheers to that!

Patrick Braden (Cillian Murphy) was abandoned as a baby by his mother at the steps of a church where Father Bernard (Liam Neeson) lived. Patrick was then raised by a foster mother in their small Irish town. But problems started arising when Patrick, from a very young age, started seeing himself as a woman. As he grew up amidst difficult times, Patrick (who demanded everyone call him “Kitten”) decided to go to London to look for his mother.

From the moment the movie starts you know you’re in for a whimsical ride. And I’m not saying that lightly. A couple of birds outside the church where much of the movie takes place actually talk to each other. And they are hilarious!

But it gets more serious than that. Patrick is a boy who grew up being looked upon as “different”, but who has always thought of himself as completely normal, no matter that he dresses, talks and acts more ladylike than the most glamorous diva. Optimism is his most powerful weapon. He goes through life as if there was no evil in the world, always showing a good face and presenting himself as a naïve and lovable person. Yet we know Patrick is not blind to his surroundings. When people fail him or something bad happens, he prefers to ignore it. He likes to write and imagine fantastic stories because, as he puts it, if he stopped for a minute to think about some of his sad stories, he would not stop crying.

When moving to London and leaving his friends behind, Patrick gets immersed with all sorts of extravagant people and situations. He becomes a cabaret singer in a band whose lead voice proves to be his first love; he gets a job as a children entertainer in a park; he works as a prostitute at Soho; he even becomes an IRA terrorist suspect! Throughout his journey Patrick takes us through different events of the 60’s and 70’s, with the attention always focused on him, but painting a wide canvas of the political and sociological climate in Ireland and England during those times.

If you think the movie sounds episodic you’re probably right, something that is given more emphasis on the fact that it’s divided in more than two dozen chapters. This device is interesting, but not always successful. I also had trouble with the film’s coldness. We are supposed to like and root for and love Kitten, but somehow I didn’t feel it. I certainly wanted him to be happy, but I never really understood who he was. He shuts himself out of many things in his life, but as a result he shuts us out as well. A little more profundity would’ve been a nice touch.

Cillian Murphy had a great year. He played two very different villains in Hollywood movies I actually loved. But it is under the hands of Neil Jordan that he delivers what is perhaps the best performance of his short career. Cillian has a peculiar physicality, but it has never been put to such good use as here. His Kitten is a wonderful creation and he does an excellent job playing a man who is essentially a woman. A terrific supporting cast led by Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson, Gavin Friday, Ruth Negga and Ian Hart brings excellent support. But it is Stephen Rea’s performance as a magician that stayed with me long after the movie was over.

It is a wild ride that only the great Neil Jordan could’ve brought to life. Great title by the way!

“If I wasn’t a transvestite terrorist, would you marry me?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mrs. Henderson Presents

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

With time, I only grow more convinced that walking into a movie knowing nothing about it helps a lot. In fact, publicity can spoil a screenwriter’s fine development of story and character if the audience already knows a lot about them which turns the first act into an obligatory introduction to something already known. Mrs. Henderson Presents is a good example of how good it was for me to know nothing about a movie before watching it, as it kept surprising me till the very end.

What am I saying? Should you not read reviews beforehand? Yeah. So, the same way Howard Beale in Network (1976) compelled his audience to turn off their TV sets while watching him, I compel you to close this browser or head somewhere else on the web. Hopefully, like Howard, this’ll bring my writings more attention.

The story is quite pretty, though disguised in picaresque fashion. It stars Judi Dench as Mrs. Laura Henderson, a recent window who regrets her husband’s bad timing for death and has no idea what to do with her time and money. Like a good Englishwoman, she hides her feelings: she’s in fact heartbroken, a feeling beautifully realized once she’s all alone on a boat in the middle of a lake. Mrs. Henderson’s riotous friend Lady Conway (Thelma Barlow) suggests that she spend all the money she wants and/or find love in the process. Mrs. Henderson is quite insecure about the last part, but she plans a useful scheme: she’ll buy an old West End showplace called the Windmill, fix the place, and look for a general manager who’ll run both show and business in the place.

The chosen man is Vivian Van Damm (Bob Hoskins), a tough but kind man with good enough perceptions of art and business. Mrs. Henderson is almost immediately infatuated with him, but he knows better and keeps his distance. Their relationship is constantly that of a young girl and a mature man, but while she has fun he minds his own matters. Still their bond is undeniable.

The show they set up is a revue, one that “never stops”. It’s called “Revudeville”, and it opens with a bang, but soon audiences grow uninterested. Mrs. Henderson doesn’t hesitate in offering a solution: present their beautiful girls naked throughout the show. The proposal, near-insulting to the morbid ear, is actually one of art and entertainment. The girls hesitate but go for it, and Van Damm stays on board. Only Lord Chamberlain (Christopher Guest), the man in charge with giving approval, has a condition: that the girls stand still while nude. This opens a window for an even more artistic presentation, which pleases Mrs. Henderson, a woman who believes (and is damn right) that the female body is a work of art.

The show is a hit, and then comes World War II. Young soldiers spend more time than they should at the Windmill, and the place becomes a legend. But war is never a good thing, and it brings some misfortune to the Windmill and everyone who works there. Van Damm resents Mrs. Henderson’s indifference, and a breach opens between them. But life often brings unexpected surprises to people’s lives. Neither Van Damm nor anyone else around Mrs. Henderson suspects the dimensions of her strength, her pain, and her motivations to found the Windmill. The film beautifully turns a comedy musical of sorts into a satisfying drama that invites deep reflection.

Judi Dench is a vastly talented woman who can deliver roles of women of bravura with amazing ease. Mrs. Henderson is not quite that. She’s a fragile woman, one that seems to escape reality by laughing at life, constantly wisecracking about everything around her. Dench is incredibly attractive in her childish phase and truly moving in her dramatic one; Bob Hoskins is game as Van Damm, a fine comedic part that also contains more layers than meet the eye (hardly had I seen this great actor so thankfully cast); Guest brings good comedic moments. The girls are all gorgeous, but the story pays little attention to their back-stories. Only Maureen sticks to the viewer’s mind, also thanks to Kelly Reilly’s deliberately detached execution.

Kudos to screenwriter Martin Sherman and director Stephen Frears for a fine, fun film, based on fact. George Fenton’s music and Andrew Dunn’s cinematography also deserve applause.

“Why, Mr. Van Damm, you are Jewish!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Transamerica

Director

Duncan Tucker

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 23, 2006

I had never seen a movie about a transsexual before going into Transamerica. And apart from the occasional transvestites (a different thing, but correlated anyway) which appear in a movie here and there mainly for comedic effects, I had never really got under the skin of one. That’s one of the reasons I was very curious about this movie, which if it weren’t for the current star power of Felicity Huffman (and her much-admired performance), might’ve gone unnoticed. Sometimes the world works in just the right way.

Bree (Felicity Huffman) was born a boy, but as she explains, she had a genetic disorder and should’ve been a girl instead. Now in her 40’s, she is just one week away from getting the last operation needed to become a woman. But that’s when a phone call disrupts all of her plans. As it happens, Bree had a son, Toby (Kevin Zegers), whose mother died years ago and who is in trouble now regarding his use of drugs. Bree decides to help his male hustler son by masquerading as a church volunteer and taking him with her to L.A., where she’s got to be for the operation.

Even if the premise sounds like a full-blown drama, writer/director Duncan Tucker (in his feature debut) chooses to tell his story in lightweight manner. The final result is a movie that certainly has a lot of drama, but that plays more as a comedy. Bree is a pretty conflicted human being who goes through life trying to fit, scared of her surroundings, barely trusting anyone and carrying quite a lot of baggage. She’s a tragic character, but she’s got a big heart. The comedy comes from situations that are external to her. She’s not necessarily the funny one, but the circumstances around her and the characters that come in her way provide the easy-going vibe that resembles what life should be all about. Watching Bree trying to cope with this is quite funny, but just as poignant.

Road movies usually suffer from an episodic disease, and Transamerica does not escape that. We’re never bored though, which is a plus. Yet I don’t know why but the flick never really felt like a Motion Picture to me. It has a certain TV-movie quality, or maybe a sitcom-y one. It doesn’t come together as well as it should. Fortunately there’s a fascinating central character and that’s what keeps it afloat.

Being the first movie I see about a transsexual I can’t really compare it with anything. But I felt like it delivers a very respectful and interesting portrayal. We tend to negatively judge these people and stay away from them, but we barely try to understand them. Just as Kevin Bacon did with The Woodsman concerning pedophiles (albeit in a more serious way), here we get a glimpse at the life of a human being who has suffered all her life for something that is not her fault. The remedy might feel a bit extreme to some, but for her it makes perfect sense. And it’s not simple, either physically or psychologically. Here’s a movie about a transsexual who also happens to be a good human being, but instead of just being about her, the movie treats her like any other character and gives her a plot in which she has to connect with the son she never knew she had. That’s what the movie is really about, and it just works.

Felicity Huffman is, in a nutshell, breath-taking. I could talk about the body language or the voice or the impressive physical transformation, but without a soul fully immersed in the role that would amount to nothing. You can sense the stiffness in the way Bree behaves, a sadness in her eyes that gives out her history. Felicity makes all this look easy, and even though I always knew it was an actress playing the role, I did believe her in the role of a man trying to become a woman. It is the work of a great actress. Kevin Zegers, as her son, is very good as well. And I’d like to give special notices to Fionnula Flanagan, who is hysterical and steals every scene she’s in.

The movie boasts interesting choices in its production design and costumes, which work well for the tone of the movie. And the selection of songs is really good.

“Hormones are hormones. Yours and mine just happen to come in purple little pills.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Match Point

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 19, 2006

I’m a Woody Allen sucker and I must admit that I hadn’t been interested in his projects for a while now. I even thought he was over. Then the buzz on 2005’s Match Point, a dramatic film, got stronger than expected during the Cannes Film Festival and continued in the same pace, with the film being hailed as one of the most potent and best by Woody since the late 80s, and one of the finest films from last year. I was so excited about it I jumped at the first chance I got to see it. I could very hardly be more satisfied.

The film, related to tennis more in the sense that it compares life to a tennis match rather than being about tennis or filled with tennis references, is beautiful from start. There’s a quick introduction, so poetic it’s breathtaking, about a horrific moment in a tennis match where everything depends on luck. I won’t say why this introduction is so important but I assure you you’ll remember it later on. It will haunt you.

The story is about a bright, young tennis teacher, Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), who befriends one of his students, Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), and gets invited to the opera by him. Tom introduces Chris to his wealthy family: his parents Alec (Brian Cox) and Eleanor (Penelope Wilton), and his sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer). Soon, something starts between Chris and Chloe, something cute if not too passionate. This is shaken the moment Chris meets Tom’s American girlfriend Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), who’s so sexy it’s unbearable.

Chris and Nola eventually get their own relationship started, not ending the other two that relate them; Chris, for one, is not very willing to finish his own with Chloe, as Alec quickly involves him in business as a sort of gratification for making his daughter happy. But there couldn’t be a more boring relationship than the one Chris has with Chloe; disguised as a loving partner, all she cares about is to follow the paradigm of forming a picture-perfect family. And she’s not half as exciting as Nola, now that’s for sure. Everyone in the story is either selfish or evil, or both. And that’s what’s most credible about it.

The film evolves as a more or less conventional romance, not a typical Woody Allen since it’s not comedic (though it has its moments), but full of recognizable dialogue that not always rings true, except in the Allen universe. Mostly no outstanding stuff to the story, but still a nice show given the stylish direction, sumptuous London locations, fine performances (especially by Johansson), and some of the hottest make-out scenes I’ve seen in my time, which feature little to no fledge —and no intercourse— but still make you feel like you had sex yourself.

But then something happens. Something… big, something unexpected. It starts forming a few scenes earlier, but you can’t bear to believe it’s really gonna happen, yet it does. You knew it’d happen, but it’s still a shocker. And it’s still unexpected, even as it’s going on, because it’s not just a simple thing, but a whole succession of events. From that moment on, the film turns from melodrama into thriller, one of the most heart-pounding I’ve seen in a while, and one that keeps the style, the glare, the finesse of the procedures so far. Little of what happens could be catalogued as action or suspense, seen coldly, and that’s what makes it so special: it all seems so right, but we know it’s not, that it completely kills. I sat on the edge of my seat during this excellent second half (or is it shorter than that?). I was just amazed.

Only after my heart started working again (once the film was over) could I realize all the beauty that was involved in the process. Woody features opera as a predominant element and then turns his work into an opera of sorts, a tragedy of that kind, using classic masterpieces as background. Then he even ventures into Shakespeare territory, and pulls it off like only the Bard could (daring! inspiring!). And finally there’s the tennis reference, that strike of luck, the one little moment that defines someone’s fate. Wow.

Bravo to every performer, especially the three leads. Allen did it again indeed, and he did it in style. What a nice, fine film. What an elegant show. Gotta love it. Gotta see it again!

“No one's ever asked for their money back.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Match Point (2005): Morris

Review

The Aristocrats

Director

Paul Provenza

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

The good thing about documentaries is that they can really be about anything and no one questions their integrity. Sure, movies also offer plenty of different themes, but try making one that is about one of the filthiest jokes imaginable and you’ll get what I mean.

Director Paul Provenza set out to interview just about every stand-up comedian out there about a joke that is legendary among their elite. The joke starts (usually) with a man going to an agent and telling him about this amazing act that his family does. The agent then tells him to describe (or show) the act. What follows here depends on the person who is telling the joke, but it may contain unspeakable acts of incest, deranged sexual acts, bestiality, vomiting, bleeding, eating of feces, urine, you get the point. When the man finishes describing the act to the perplexed agent, the latter asks the name of the act, to which the man playfully responds: “The Aristocrats”.

As you can see, it is a very silly, not to say stupid, joke. The meat of the joke is not the punchline but rather the middle part. A lot of people don’t get this and assume they have to laugh at the end, but that’s not the case. So it can also be considered a joke that people don’t get or that some people regard as offending. So why tell it? Oh, because it can get really funny.

As I said before, that depends on the person telling the joke, ‘cause the variants are infinite. It also depends on how much they are willing to cross the line. Men and women tell it differently. Some just go for the scatological humor, others for the sexual. And, truth be told, some people are just not funny while doing it, whilst others are hilarious.

That takes me to the next, and pivotal, point: this documentary sure is interesting, but it can also be a drag. The gimmick is to interview as many people as possible about the joke, and some of them even go on and tell it. But among the dozens and dozens of interviewees I can name only 11 that made me laugh out loud. And I’m not that difficult regarding any type of comedy, I’m easy! So that means that I got a kick out of the documentary for its interesting concept and for these people who did work for me. And then?

These 11 people are: Martin Mull (who tells it as a variant of the “kiki joke”), Billy the Mime (completely silent), Mario Cantone, George Carlin, Phyllis Diller, Todd Glass, Eric Mead (who uses cards), Kevin Pollak (doing an impression of Christopher Walken), Gregg Rogell, Jon Ross and Doug Stanhope (who uses a baby, maybe his son, for comedic effect).

Other people in the doc include: Jason Alexander, Hank Azaria, Lewis Black, Drew Carey, Billy Connolly, Pat Cooper, Andy Dick, Carrie Fisher, Whoopi Goldberg, Eddie Izzard, Bill Maher, Larry Miller, Paul Reiser, Andy Richter, Don Rickles, Chris Rock, Bob Saget, Harry Shearer, Sarah, Silverman, Jon Stewart, Carrot Top, Fred Willard, Robin Williams and many, many more.

Gilbert Gottfried gets a lot of screen time because he once told the joke at a Hugh Hefner event just weeks after the 9/11 attacks and totally killed. The timing was odd, people were scared, and suddenly this guy started telling the joke and everyone just let go. It is commonly regarded as one of the best narrations of a joke ever. And yet… I didn’t get it. Gottfried certainly does not know about subtlety (his voice!) and the joke was funny, but all the profanities he said had been already told, and surpassed, by other people in the documentary. I guess it was a case of being in the right place at the right moment, but watching the performance here wasn’t as fun as it must have been that day.

Otherwise, I’m glad I watched this documentary, and I’m glad someone had the idea to make it. It’s certainly wacky and odd and I’ve got to say that it also works in the way it says a lot about who you are depending on your reaction. Am I bitter? Maybe just cynical. But I repeat: I’m also easy!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Brokeback Mountain

Director

Ang Lee

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

It almost seems tiresome for me to describe the social issue that this movie is. I’ll just say that I was alone in New York with nothing to do for a whole afternoon, and when I bought a ticket for it, and then walked into the theater, people looked at me suspiciously. In New York! That can only emphasize the effort of Ang Lee and everyone else involved in the project, especially since no one could assure them of the film’s success both among critics and audiences. Probably not thinking much about that brought the film the beauty that drives it. Whichever the case, the result is pretty mesmerizing.

The film involves two young men in Wyoming – one a cowboy named Ennis (Heath Ledger), another a rodeo rider called Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) – who meet while requesting a job to tend sheep on the mountainside of Brokeback Mountain. They’re both 19, Ennis much more reserved and quiet than outgoing Jack, both adrift and penniless, both with a past they don’t love and a future they hope will be better.

They’re also both gay, something evident only after their chemistry becomes so strong and undeniable. But even though they somehow give in to their feelings, the connection takes some time and never becomes quite established – Ennis seems incapable of accepting this aspect of himself. Society’s paradigms are stronger than his will; he’s just terrified he might meet the fate he saw other gay people meet when he was a kid. So what is there to do? Live a life of denial? Make oneself believe that there’s more to life than what’s clearly right even if other people say the contrary? Maybe so.

The guys leave Brokeback Mountain and so begins Jack’s hell. Ennis says goodbye in a cold, distant way, leaving Jack shattered, and admittedly also himself. It’s the only way. He then goes on to marry pretty Alma (Michelle Williams) and establish his society-demanded heterosexual life. Jack has a harder time fooling himself. He misses Ennis but doesn’t know what to do about that. Eventually, he also marries a girl, self-absorbed Lureen (Anne Hathaway), queen of the rodeo, the daughter of a wealthy man that’ll make Jack’s life simpler. But nature is stronger – when Jack looks for Ennis and proposes they meet, Ennis is more than willing, like he wouldn’t look for the chance himself but he opens arms to an external force of nature. They meet and so begins Alma’s hell, as she realizes what’s going on and sees her world shattered. Often, but not too often, the guys go back to Brokeback Mountain, where they spend what their wives are told are “fishing trips.”

In actuality, Jack is living his reality, while Ennis is escaping his. Their worlds are in fact so disconnected that they can’t ever settle. Every chance they get to do so is quickly snubbed by the tougher of the two, the one less willing to give up a life of “normality.” That’s really what this movie is about. This is a love story indeed, and a tragic one, and that’s what I expected; but that is eclipsed by the true theme of the film, one that’s shattering and unforgivable: people who are not willing to go the distance.

I had read that if you were not gay, it’d be hard to connect with this movie; I also read the exact opposite, reviews that said the theme was universal and could move anyone. I stayed somewhere in between. I didn’t mind the gay factor, but I just couldn’t connect to the characters either, since I just didn’t like or buy the way they handled things. That’s the story, I know, but when a character spends 20 years in indecision, and sort of puts everyone’s life on hold, I don’t quite swallow. In fact, the reactions of the other seem implausible to me. This is a potent movie indeed, but maybe not as believable as it could be. And that of course marred the experience.

Ang Lee’s hand is unforgiving in the direction; it’s hard not to be moved. The striking film is beautifully shot by Rodrigo Prieto, with music by Gustavo Santaolalla, both moving and unforgettable. The performances are real works of art, with Ledger and Gyllenhaal indescribable, Michelle Williams outstanding. Nice work as well by Randy Quaid, Roberta Maxwell, Anna Faris, Linda Cardellini, and everyone else.

A daring film and a must from this year.

“I wish I knew how to quit you!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jarhead

Director

Sam Mendes

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 16, 2006

Sam Mendes had only directed two movies before Jarhead, but that was enough for me to become a huge fan. I just think the guy is one of the most accomplished filmmakers working nowadays, a guy who can try his hand at different genres and come off unscathed. His latest movie is another proof, at least in my book, and I hope he keeps up bringing such excellent work to the big screen for many years to come.

Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) becomes a Marine after he gets lost in his way to college (as he dryly puts it) and is trained by Sgt. Syker (Jamie Foxx) to become a sniper. He is paired with Troy (Peter Sarsgaard), a member of his camp, to become his “eyes”. Soon Saddam Hussein attacks Kuwait and they’re all sent to the desert in Saudi Arabia, where they have to await the moment in which they’re called to the front as part of the Desert Storm operation.

The movie is based on Swofford’s best-selling novel (and expertly adapted by William D. Broyles Jr.) in which he recalls the real events surrounding his experiences as a Marine. But you might be surprised as to what those experiences amount to. Swofford and more than 500,000 soldiers were sent to the desert to do nothing for months. They were trained to be killers, they wanted to fight, and yet they had absolutely nothing to do but be ready. It sounds easy, but if you were out there it seriously fucked with your head. These are guys who get high by watching the helicopter attack in Apocalypse Now. “Every war is different, every war is the same,” Swofford tells us in voiceover. And that’s exactly what this movie is about. It brings us a different perspective about what it is to be sent to a war. People returning from Vietnam or WWII could never forget what they went through when they had to fight and witness so much horror. But if you just have to wait... is that saner?

Jardhead uses a cynical approach to telling its story, mainly because of the personality of Swofford himself. But there’s a lot more to the absurdist tone than just trying to be witty. Surprisingly enough, this movie is not about taking sides or being heroic. It is, on the other hand, about the futility of wars and how they can affect so many lives for what... patriotism? What’s the meaning of it all? Mendes’s work here resembles more of Stanley Kubrick’s than it does Oliver Stone’s. And that’s just the right way to tell this story.

So what do soldiers do when they have so much time in their hands? They are trained, they read, they play sports, they masturbate, and then they masturbate even more. There’s a homoerotic vibe to the movie that is hard to miss. The lingo they continually use between each other almost always ends up referring to their penis; women are mostly portrayed as shallow and unfaithful; soldiers have to bond together much more than in ordinary circumstances given the lack of females around. It’s there, and it’s real, and it just adds another layer to an already interesting movie.

Ironically, the movie drags a bit once combat does start, but it’s nothing serious. The final montage is nothing short of brilliant, for it resumes what we have been presented for the last two hours beautifully.

Jake Gyllenhaal grows up in front of our eyes with this movie, and he’s extraordinary. Without going over-the-top, he embodies the changes and transformations that these guys go through with delicacy. He’s also charismatic and believable, a great leading man. Sarsgaard brings excellent support, especially in a pair of key scenes. Jamie Foxx, Lucas Black, Jacob Vargas, and the rest of the cast are very good as well, while Chris Cooper and Dennis Haysbert each appear briefly in a couple of scenes, all of which are memorable.

Great use of songs, by the way!

“Welcome to The Suck.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Family Man

Director

Brett Ratner

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 12, 2006

During the past holiday season I heard about The Family Man unusually often. People who have nothing to do with each other recommended it to me, some of them even saying it was a must. I thought that was an exaggeration, but I had heard positive notes about it, so I was all for it. Christmas-themed movies aren’t necessarily my favorites, but if done right I can get to love them. This one sounded like a candidate.

The story is as simple as it’s predictable, but that doesn’t mean it’s not pulled off successfully. It starts with a young Jack Campbell (Nicolas Cage) saying goodbye to his girlfriend Kate (Téa Leoni) to go to London for a year. It seems farewell rather than goodbye, even though both pretend it’s not like that. But she surprisingly asks him to stay at the last minute, and he doesn’t.

Over a decade later, Jack Campbell has become a Wall Street hotshot who enjoys the luxuries capitalism offers. He’s rather cold, too, consumed by selfishness to the point where he’s disconnected from his own feelings apparently for good. On Christmas Eve, he doesn’t even have plans nor does he care. He walks home and stops by a store to get some eggnog, and suddenly it looks like he misses an inexistent life filled with warmth and love. That’s when mysterious Cash (Don Cheadle) walks in, and twists Campbell’s life around.

The next day, Jack wakes up in a life that’s not his, or rather not like he remembered it. It turns out he’s married to Kate, they have two children, they live in New Jersey, and they’re not exactly rich. Jack doesn’t think twice: this life sucks. But that’s all there is to it, his old life is gone. He’d better accept it while he figures out what’s wrong, or he’s gonna suffer much more.

I like this kind of films, where fantastic turn of events can make a person change. My favorite example is Groundhog Day (1993), which happens to be one of my favorite movies too, but there are a few more out there that aren’t bad. In this kind of film, you have to buy the fantasy, and the only way to do that is to believe the character who’s facing the weirdness. In that matter, Cage is outstanding, and no wonder, since he’s such a formidable actor, so he quickly makes up for the painful Cash subplot, which seems like a burden, though Cheadle does it so well.

There are other things that also aren’t easy to buy. Jack’s reactions are obviously hilarious, and people around think he’s nuts, but they forget about it much too quickly, thinking he’s kidding. I don’t believe Kate would buy it so easily, so her interaction with Jack wasn’t all that credible to me. The script both worked and did not work scene after scene, because even though the happenings seemed off-track rapidly, the characters still rang true, which seems to be a contradiction but really is not. For instance, even though I didn’t believe Kate’s naïveté, I loved the way she interacted with Jack all things considering. Throughout the film, I wasn’t sure how much they wanted it to play as a comedy and how much it was supposed to be a feel-good movie, but I think the balance was all right. As I said, there’s a formula playing here, which makes it rather predictable, but there are still a few unexpected punches (come to think of it, Jack and Kate are always talking about life’s surprises) that are highly welcome.

I’m not the warmest man on Earth, but I’m not a capitalist pig either. I don’t believe a good job is to be sacrificed for love, but I’m convinced vice versa doesn’t apply either. I liked how the script by David Diamond and David Weissman found the mid-point. I liked the way it was daring, how it was provocative but also risky, how it didn’t go to extremes considering ambition necessarily a bad thing, how it showed a good married guy can flirt with someone else without becoming a devil, how it struggled to show that there is good in everyone. I liked the way they set an example through one of Jack’s old workmates, Alan (Saul Rubinek), but made it so subtle it’s almost invisible. That’s food for the subconscious.

And I loved the ending. I was worried about a few things, didn’t know how it could be satisfying in the end, but I liked it. Loved it, in fact. Even as the credits started rolling, I was awed by how they didn’t say one more word, which could’ve resulted unnecessary. I wasn’t quite moved (though Danny Elfman’s terrific score certainly threatened to touch me deeply), and I had found more than a few flaws, but I had enjoyed the experience, and had felt that warmth. That’s what Christmas movies are all about.

“I choose us.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

My Date With Drew

Director

Jon Gunn

Brian Herzlinger

Brett Winn

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

It seems like forever that I first heard about this documentary. And I know that because the minute I heard about it I knew I wanted to see it. I kind of lost track of it for a while, only to hear it was quietly released in August, 2005. The reason why it didn’t open earlier (it was shot in 2003 and required minimal post-production) is because it couldn’t find a distributor who wanted to take the risk of putting it into theaters. That was truly moronic of them, but what do I know?

Brian Herzlinger has had a crush with Drew Barrymore since they were both children. He even stood next to her in a movie premiere, but completely froze the moment he was going to approach her. After winning $1,100 in a quiz show pilot, and lacking a stable job, he decided to document his quest to get a date with Drew. He had to do that in 30 days, since that’s the period that Circuit City gave customers at the time to return merchandise with no questions asked. So he bought a camera, enlisted the help of two friends, Jon Gunn and Brett Winn, and simply went for it.

There is some question about how much of a documentary this is. When you watch it, it looks and feels like “reality TV”, but that’s unfair. The way that Herzlinger, Gunn and Winn shot and put together the material ended up being a lot more than maybe even they had expected. My Date With Drew is so charming and funny that it owes nothing to much bigger Hollywood productions. Big studios only wish their movies could come up like this more often.

For the movie to work, we have to believe in Brian. After all, isn’t his quest a little bit silly? What good can meeting a big star make? But some people see it differently and he knows it. I, for instance, have a huge crush on Salma Hayek. And I consider myself a sane, intelligent and grounded person. So what’s wrong with that? Nothing really. And Brian has no problem in convincing us. It also helps that he’s charismatic, witty, honest and humorous. Watching this guy trying desperately to make his dream come true is both high-value entertainment and also completely inspirational. The movie suddenly becomes a lot more than just meeting Drew, it’s about a guy’s persistence to get what he wants in life. And by the end we are true believers.

I will definitely not delve into spoiler territory and whether he achieves the date or not. I had a blast watching the movie without knowing much beforehand, and that’s the way it should be. I’m tempted to tell you which Hollywood personalities end up in the movie, or the different ways in which Brian and his pals try to get to Drew, but I won’t. I’ll just say the movie leaves you with a smile after it’s over, because by then you have put your heart into it, and not in vain.

Great work by everyone involved. It was a cool concept from the beginning and ended up as a great doc which works like wonders in what it sets out to do.

Absolutely enjoyable!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

March of the Penguins

Director

Luc Jacquet

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

I had wondered what all the hype surrounding March of the Penguins was about, in terms of what elevated this film from any other documentary starring animals, even those on TV. It’s a fact that nature is amazing, and that some animals act in ways that are simply awesome; it’s great how survival drives any species to do unimaginable things, and how everything works out, at least when only nature is involved, not men; but how could this be different?

I don’t want to demerit the filmmakers and scientists involved; the work of observing the emperor penguins, getting to know the way they behave throughout the year, and then actually going to Antarctica to film them, is uncanny. But the story, the particular way of these penguins when facing the adversity that evolution and nature has brought them, is just breath-taking. Is it film material? Oh yeah. A compelling drama complete with struggle, conflict, and resolution. There’s also sadness, even death involved. And most importantly, it seems like the main motivator is love. This is a love story, states the narrator. And it certainly feels that way.

The emperor penguin is a fine race; the only survivor of Antarctica, the only species that said no to the possibility of going elsewhere. A rare bird, the penguin, in general, so fascinating, so hilarious and —now I know— so loving; all this unwillingly though – it does what it has to do, but to human appreciation, it’s all that and more.

You have to see it to believe it, because there are many species in the world that demonstrate love, an instinct that drives them to protect their own, but this is just too much. Hardly had I seen so much devotion in any animal as the one proved here. Because there’s not only the will, but also so many skills to develop, such a long way to walk, so many obstacles, and the hardship brought by weather. The film states Antarctica is the harshest spot on Earth, and I wouldn’t hesitate to call it that after what I saw.

It’s best when experienced on film, but let me tell you in a few words what it’s all about. The emperor penguins receive an increasingly mean treatment from nature. In order to achieve their mating process, they need to walk several miles in a group of thousands, to a ground that’s hard enough to ensure that they won’t lose their eggs by having them fall through thin ice. They find mates, most of them, in monogamous fashion, and I could swear each falls in love with the chosen one. Then they wait, and an egg comes. Taking care of that egg becomes the most important thing in the world for the penguins, both individually and collectively. The male is the one that takes care of it, while the female goes back to the sea to find food for herself and her chick. The males don’t eat or drink for months. They receive the chick, then the female comes back, and it’s the male’s turn to go. All this, of course, supposing nature doesn’t get in the way, in terms of weather, preys, and old age. But it does get in the way, all the time, so things aren’t easy, or rather, they’re much harder.

The narration of the American version is done by Morgan Freeman, the number one movie narrator of present times. He’s the right one, his calm, wise voice making point after point concerning the penguins. The view is very romantic, almost unreal, but it matches the images and I guess that’s also something that gives this film the edge.

Kudos to director Luc Jacquet, cinematographers Laurent Chalet and Jérôme Maison, and everyone else from the team of people that went all the way to Antarctica, studied the penguins, and then shot the whole process. It’s just unbelievable, considering the deadly weather, the darkness, and countless more obstacles that they surely had to face.

An impressive movie with an unbelievable story, this one’s a go-getter that shouldn’t be missed.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hooligans

Director

Lexi Alexander

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 09, 2006

Living in a country in which soccer is almost as important as religion, I have always been intrigued by how in some countries of Europe attending a soccer match can be literally dangerous, whereas here everyone can attend and have good family time. I’ve been to soccer matches there, and not surprisingly, I realized that not many women attend. Why is it that fanaticism can derive in different forms of extreme attitudes depending on the culture? I don’t know, by I was intrigued to watch this movie precisely because of that.

Matt Buckner (Elijah Wood) was expelled from Harvard after cocaine from his roommate was found in his clothes. He then traveled to London to visit his sister Shannon (Claire Forlani) and get to meet her husband Steve (Marc Warren) and their baby. While there, Matt met Steve’s younger brother Pete (Charlie Hunnam), the leader of a firm called Green Street Elite, who support the West Ham soccer team. Soon he found himself immersed in their violent world, despite another member of the gang, Bover (Leo Gregory), not being the least happy with having a foreigner among them.

I wouldn’t call Hooligans a bad movie, but I wouldn’t say it is an excellent one either. The main problem I had with it lies in the way its plot is structured. It’s cliché after cliché. I sure have defended movies in the past that have been accused of being as unoriginal as they come, but I’ve also always said that it doesn’t matter if the story is not new, what’s important is the journey it takes you through and how well it’s done. Now, I’d never seen a movie about hooligans, never, but here I kept finding a story compromised of traps. It’s as if writer/director Lexi Alexander and his co-writers wanted the movie to go from point A to point B, and then filled in the blanks with the necessary plot turns to achieve that, not going for a more interesting or insightful approach.

Why do this thing about an American coming to London and becoming a hooligan? Wouldn’t it have been more interesting to just focus on these people’s history and lives? Never mind that, I was willing to let it go and find the subtext. But then... the whole third act revelation about Steve, Shannon driving to where the very dangerous fight was taking place, Bover becoming the bad guy who does something really stupid, the firm arriving to defend Matt just at the right time and place, Matt’s profession suddenly surfacing and becoming an issue, scene after scene of common places amidst a story that never really grabbed me. Fortunately enough the whole is not boring and holds our interest. That’s what keeps it afloat.

There’s a lot of violence, which is inherent to telling this specific story. The director does a good job in shooting these scenes, which are neither extremely flashy nor completely dumb, just well shot and edited.

Something I also liked about the movie is its superficial, yet interesting nonetheless, portrayal of why hooligans behave like they do. I sure don’t agree with the way they do it, but at the core, they are firm believers of camaraderie, friendship, and dignity above anything else. The movie tries to sugarcoat their lives by wanting us to care for Matt and Pete, but it’s really hard to. If something bad happens to them you can’t do anything else but nod. They sure had it coming! But I guess it’s a form of active rebellion, of getting out there and fighting for your ideals, of living a double-life in which they can be all rage one minute, and then go home with their wives and girlfriends and act completely natural. They’re fascinating individuals. They deserved a better movie.

Elijah Wood tries to break out of Frodo-mode and deliver something completely different. In that respect, he achieved what he wanted. But overall, I didn’t like him in the movie. It’s not that his acting is bad. Elijah has a kind of weird, off-putting presence and physique. In the right roles he can do wonders. But here I think he’s miscast. I never identified with or cared for him. At certain points he provides completely unnecessary voice-overs, not to mention that his last two scenes are laughable. On the other hand, Charlie Hunnam totally stole the movie. This is the kind of star-making performance that will hopefully land him in more interesting roles. His fierce presence, delivery and magnetism certainly come off the screen and hit the bull’s eye. Great work. Claire Forlani is also strong in a smaller role.

Not quite there...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Santo and Blue Demon Against the Monsters

Director

Gilberto Martínez Solares

Year

1970

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 05, 2006

This Mexican film is one of many that star this country’s most famous wrestler, El Santo. The genre of wrestlers who are also crime fighters/superheroes came up from someone’s wacky idea or maybe just a practical one since wrestling has always been so popular here. It seems to me that these movies were constructed a bit carelessly, perhaps even improvised at some point, maybe due to low budget that forced the filmmakers to come up with new ideas as they went for lack of some sets or costumes or whatever was needed. Maybe I’m getting the wrong idea but what I wanna get to is that the result is absolutely fantastic. To be honest, I haven’t seen many of these films, but I’m sure that most cause the same reaction. These are surrealistic films, cheap horror flicks starring the most unlikely superheroes (wrestlers who keep their masks on even during their social lives, even during sex), sassy female leads, monsters or manic scientists as villains, and the most hilarious kind of visual effects… resulting in an irresistible blend, an unlikely product that is just unbelievable from start to finish.

Santo y Blue Demon contra los Monstruos is a very good example. This film deals with the title wrestlers, who happen to be friends in real life (or rather the fiction of this film), facing a deadly predicament when an evil scientist that hates them dies and is resuscitated by his apprentice, thus seeking vengeance against the team but particularly Santo. The scientist in question, Bruno Halder (Carlos Ancira), has found the formula to awake the dead, so he has a handful of zombies as helpers, though his main apprentice is a hunchback midget called Waldo (Santanón). Aside from Santo, Halder is thirsty of vengeance against his brother Otto (Jorge Rado) and the latter’s daughter Gloria (Hedi Blue), who also happens to be Santo’s extremely sexy girlfriend.

Halder’s plan is as farfetched as it’s hilarious: He schemes to reanimate and subdue some of history’s most notable monsters, namely El Vampiro (a very proper and elegant vampire), Franquestain (Frankenstein’s monster), El Hombre Lobo (the Wolfman), La Momia (The Mummy) and El Cíclope (Cyclops, a furry and savage aquatic one-eyed creature), and have them go after his enemies. His plan gets even juicier when he manages to capture Blue Demon, put him to sleep, and create an evil clone that will help him. Santo won’t have it easy while trying to protect Gloria, Otto and himself, especially when he thinks his best friend has betrayed him.

The quality of this film lies in all the wrong places. It’s got an entertainment value that’s undeniable, a good pace, awesome colors, interesting ideas all around, and let’s just say a funny but functional way of proceeding. The performances are passionate, maybe also in a wrong way, but they work. Ancira for instance is perfect as the excessive, wacky Halder, who yells to his brother Otto that only a fool could believe these famous monsters to be only legends. There’s also a good amount of interesting visuals that also result in awkward combinations, like the scene where a nightclub looks so fake but the show onstage looks so real, obviously a combination of footage and new material. Santo seems so pure and honest, such a nice guy, but suddenly he doesn’t hesitate to go for a vampire woman that seduces him, despite the fact that his main motivation is defending his girlfriend from the evildoers. Santo’s car is awesome but Halder’s laboratory is laughable, the monsters’ costumes are dreadful but they do turn out scary, and so on… All twisted ideas with twisted results, all unexplainably fascinating.

It’s funny how the script (by Rafael García Travesi) is always looking for excuses to present fights. Of course, these guys are wrestlers, but having the elegant, European vampire dress down to a wrestler’s short, put on a mask, and dare Santo on the ring, is kind of ridiculous. It’s even worse when every monster ends up wrestling up there also!

But there are instances that do belong to a good movie, notably the amazing music by Gustavo César Carreón, and the respectable editing by José W. Bustos. Lots of the work done looks good and professional, only not good enough as it could be if the budget was higher (example: the photography can’t hide the fact that the shooting was done during the daylight, though the story is supposed to happen mostly at night). In times of crisis, artists still work, but sometimes the circumstances don’t allow them to exploit their talent as they should and they end up doing something so-so. It looks like this film is a good example of that. But, as fate would have it, that’s exactly what makes it so special.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Into the Blue

Director

John Stockwell

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

I wasn’t even going to write a review of Into the Blue, which I saw some months ago, because I didn’t think I had much to say about it. But as the year is coming to an end, I realized it’s one of a few movies I saw this year of which I hadn’t written anything about. I still don’t have much to say, to be honest, but hey, I guess it deserves the same treatment I give to other movies. Even more so since I didn’t hate it, but actually had a good enough time with it.

Jared (Paul Walker) has been struggling to find a decent job or at least get decent money to live with his girlfriend Sam (Jessica Alba). That’s when his friend Bryce (Scott Caan) pays them a visit with his new girl, Amanda (Ashley Scott). They all share their love for diving, and while doing so one day, they stumble upon a sunken jet full of drugs. Soon they get into trouble with the owners, who find out about this and want their cargo desperately. In the meantime, they also find what could potentially be a very valuable treasure, which the competition might also get if they don’t move fast enough.

Now, anyone expecting Shakespeare while watching this movie is way off the mark. Into the Blue is a movie made with the sole purpose of entertaining. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Of course, entertainment can also come with a little brains, which for the most part this movie lacks, but I’d be willing to say that undemanding audiences may get a kick out of it. It’s silly, it’s colorful, it’s adventurous and it’s filled with unbelievably good-looking people running around in their swimsuits the entire movie.

And there’s also the extra value of enjoying Shane Hurlbut and Peter Zuccarini’s gorgeous photography. If anything, this movie looks amazing. It almost makes you want to see it with no volume.

Critics have complained that the performances are terrible. I wouldn’t say that. The actors have absolutely nothing to do so it’s difficult to show off with the script they’re handed. Then again, the four leads serve as eye-candy as much as they do to move the “plot” forward, and in that respect, they do a fine job. Josh Brolin appears as the bad guy and is suitable enough.

Not bad but not really good either. Just... there.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Family Stone

Director

Thomas Bezucha

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

I consider myself lucky that I stayed away from the trailer and general publicity for The Family Stone. I started paying attention when reviews came out, and even though I didn’t read much of that either, I got the idea that the opinions were mixed at the best, that the film had a sort of complexity concerning family union and conflicts, and that as a comedy it worked quite well, though it wasn’t the kind of riotous piece it was sold as, which of course caused some disappointment among viewers. A bad publicity campaign caused that. Given all this and its cast, I couldn’t wait to see it, and one day before Christmas Eve, I was lucky enough to catch it, watch it, and enjoy it like I rarely enjoy a Christmas movie. The film quickly became one of my favorites of the genre, probably my favorite from 2005 (I still have some to watch), and a heartwarming experience I will never forget.

The premise is very simple; it deals with the Stones, a family from New England led by the dominant but loving mother Sybil (Diane Keaton) and the wise and understanding father Kelly (Craig T. Nelson). The eldest son, Everett (Dermot Mulroney), nowadays a successful executive, is bringing home for Christmas his girlfriend Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker), an uptight and neurotic big city girl. The youngest Stone, Amy (Rachel McAdams), has met Meredith and has only bad things to say about her. The rest of the Stones, Susannah (Elizabeth Reaser), Ben (Luke Wilson) and Thad (Tyrone Giordano), wait to see what Meredith is all about unprejudiced, but when the girl arrives, and she’s indeed so tense and pretentious, it’s hard to not agree with Amy.

Even though that’s the premise, and it sounds like quite a comedic one, the film quickly becomes something very different. To begin with, the way it’s handled doesn’t make us root for Meredith, which would be typical in a comedy like this, but instead makes us feel at home at the Stones’ while we do regret somewhat their unwelcoming attitude towards Everett’s girlfriend, even though we understand it as a natural reaction. The Stones could be called stereotypes, each and every one of them, but their combination results in something completely unique: the parents are possibly ex-hippies and still peculiarly liberal; Susannah is a married stay-at-home mother who is pregnant again; Ben is a relaxed fellow who drifts through life without a care in the world; Amy is a spoiled brat; and Thad is gay, and incidentally, also deaf, and has brought his boyfriend Patrick (Brian J. White), who is very welcome by the rest of the family, home for Christmas.

The story unfolds in a fashion that makes the rest of it completely unpredictable. There’s some attention paid to the fact that everyone uses the American Sign Language to communicate when Thad is around, which is an alienating factor for Meredith, but also a sign of love and appreciation for the handicapped son. The fact that Thad is gay and deaf is of course very peculiar, but it’s crucial for the story and particularly a turning point halfway through. Surprises keep coming as Meredith gets to feel worse and worse and finds sympathy only from Ben, who really doesn’t seem to have a problem with her. Everett seems unconvinced and insecure about his romance, but still wants to marry Meredith for some reason, which Sybil particularly regrets. Meredith surprisingly invites her sister Julie (Claire Danes) as a means to get some help, and the latter’s unexpected arrival causes a reaction that’s even more unexpected. And finally, there’s some news concerning a member of the family, which explains much of the characters’ motivations, and gives the film a 180° turn that is heartbreaking.

What can I say? I loved it, just… completely fell for it. First of all, it’s the kind of film that pulls you in, that makes you want to be a part of it, in this case a part of this wacky family, whose home is so inviting and nice. Second, the story is constantly pleasant, despite its attempted occasional unpleasantness, which is a triumph because it doesn’t alienate the viewer but on the contrary, makes him or her all the more interested. Third, there’s a character for everyone, and despite the stereotypes, each one becomes three-dimensional, and most ring true as they possibly fit some member of everyone’s real-life families. Fourth, the story takes off in a way and becomes a few more things, all with the same importance. At the end, you care about every person onscreen and at least a handful of subplots, which is outstanding. And fifth, it’s witty, which I dare anyone to deny.

Writer/director Thomas Bezucha certainly cared about this piece from the bottom of his heart. There’s pain and love in every scene, even those between people who don’t care much for each other. The climatic dinner scene, where Meredith says more than she should, and several subplots explode, is one of the most fantastic ensemble moments in there, and a triumph from start to finish. Simply fantastic. What comes later leans towards the comedy if you will, but the romance rings true and the most painful subplot becomes so strong that every other scene threatens to make you cry. In my case, it was simply impossible to hold the tears, but I kept laughing more often than not.

Let me also point out the moment when the most moving scene from Meet Me In St. Louis (1944) is used as background for an unforgettable montage. The song “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” is the best possible way to express the mixture of feelings the film has achieved by then, and the moment works like wonders, both accentuating the old-movie feel that was already in the air, and reminding us that the important values in life should be valid no matter what times we’re living or how progressive or liberal our minds are.

The cast is, from my point of view, perfection, and every performance is amazing. Perhaps Keaton could be called the standout, but Parker is equally good, not to mention Nelson, Wilson, and Giordano, who happens to be deaf in real life. I also quite enjoyed Paul Schneider as the most surprised person in the story. Everyone is just great.

The film also looks good, an achievement of photography director Jonathan Brown, and has an admirable timing, both attributable to director Bezucha and editor Jeffrey Ford. The music by Michael Giacchino serves both the comedic and dramatic moments quite well.

Only a few things in the story didn’t ring completely true or weren’t easy to buy. Meredith’s invitation of Julie was absolutely off-putting and obviously concocted as a means to move the story forward despite its lack of credibility. Some elements of the script seemed constructed around a story in a forced way, which didn’t bother me at all but is not ideal. Finally, the ending is a bit abrupt, and though it works in general, some aspects don’t yet ring completely true.

Oh, but I wouldn’t dare close on a negative note. Nearly flawless, highly entertaining and undeniably moving, The Family Stone is a must-see.

“You have a freak flag – you just don’t fly it.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Just Like Heaven

Director

Mark Waters

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 02, 2006

Just Like Heaven is the kind of movie that does not make much fuzz, that is not the most awaited movie by almost anyone, and that simply arrives yet you feel like seeing it without much hesitation. Where I live, that’s called a “Sunday movie”, a term used to describe movies that are not precisely classics yet they’re completely harmless and just made to have fun, not to challenge you in any way. Fortunately enough, the movie did live up to those expectations.

Elizabeth (Reese Witherspoon) is an up-and-coming doctor who has nothing in life except her job. And she’s good at it, perhaps too good. One night she has a tragic accident and her sister Abbey (Dina Waters) subsequently sublets her apartment to a guy named David (Mark Ruffalo), who has been having a hard time since he and his wife took different paths. Yet suddenly Elizabeth’s spirit starts appearing to him, and only him, in what becomes a confrontational relationship that later becomes an affectionate one.

The director is Mark Waters, who before this made two pretty good movies back-to-back, Freaky Friday (2003) and Mean Girls (2004). Those movies showed he could elevate material that had already been told and give it a fresh spin. Unfortunately, that’s not the case with Just Like Heaven, which mostly resembles his forgettable earlier work.

This movie has a lot of things going against it fighting hard with those that it has going for it. The most obvious flaw is its moronic script. It’s about a ghost, and the laws that the movie makes about it continually change and keep adapting to what the filmmakers want in each scene. Besides, the reason why David is the only adult who can see Elizabeth is stupid. There’s no consistency, logic or shed of credibility. Ghost (1990) was a romantic comedy of sorts as well, and even there the script was much smarter and stayed true to itself. What this movie does have on its side is a pair of charismatic stars who give it a lot of charm and accentuate the cuteness factor. I kept having trouble with each new situation that the movie presented, but because I was entertained and actually cared about the characters, I just went with the flow. That does not mean the movie is forgiven, but at least it’s not a total disaster as it could’ve been.

Despite all the goings-on about the fact that Elizabeth is a ghost and why and how and whatever, the movie is at its best in the quieter scenes between she and David. That’s where its heart lies, and they’re a pleasure.

It’s funny because normally I would say that in a romantic comedy starring Reese Witherspoon she would be the one who owned the movie. Not the case here. She’s very good and appropriate, but her character takes a while to be likable, although she has a lot of quintessential Reese moments that make up for it. But Mark Ruffalo is the one who owns this movie. It is because he does a better job than one would expect from the male romantic lead in a female-driven vehicle that we actually care about anything. He is the one we identify with. He is the one we want to see happy. He is us. And he has a history, he’s not just a puppet in a prefabricated plot. In one word, he’s excellent. Jon Heder also has a small comedic role.

I like everyone involved in this movie and they did a good job. I only wish they would move on to do an even better one.

“God made alcohol as a social lubricant. To make men brave, and to make women loose.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Just Like Heaven (2005): Groucho