CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Director

Larry Charles

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

From beginning to end, from the hair (pubic perhaps?) stuck in the reel at the start of the movie, to the very last of the credits, I laughed myself silly while watching Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Directed by Larry Charles, this film is about the misadventures of Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen), a TV reporter from Kazakhstan, who is sent to the “U.S. and A.” by his government to find out about American culture, film a documentary and come back with the precious information that will make the “uncivilized” country of Kazakhstan better.

It is almost impossible to keep yourself out of the hype created lately by this satire. An enterprise so politically incorrect that, rather than disturb or offend you, relentlessly (and repeatedly throughout the movie) disarms you with such straight to the head, outrageous occurrences that leave you stunned and amazed. I could not believe my eyes, for example, when Borat fights his good friend and producer Azamat (Ken Davitian). In a scene that defies all ordinary, conventional, mass-directed humor, Baron Cohen dangerously flirts with the obscene and disgusting, but somehow, cleverly tiptoes along that line without crossing it and gets away with a scene for the ages. It is a scene that leaves you asking yourself: Am I really seeing what I think I am seeing?

In my opinion, there are just a few scenes that conflict or interfere with the flow of the otherwise impeccable concatenation of events. Aside from that, this movie is flawless, and the road trip it depicts, stops precisely where it needs to.

It is perhaps obvious that you have to be in the right frame of mind to really enjoy this movie, because what it addresses is such sensitive issues that you could easily be offended by its proposal. Nevertheless, in the right frame, you will be able to laugh and at the same time question and wonder how it is possible that we, in the western society, live so shortsighted from such terrible social deficiencies.

I’ve learned a lot, since watching the movie, about Sacha Baron Cohen and his adventures while filming the movie, as he faced America and its unbelievable array of social contradictions. Maybe I read more than I would have really wanted to, but the additional information has really given me a different perspective to what I thought this movie was all about and the way it was captured on film. I’ve seen his press conference after winning the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy. I could not agree more with the Hollywood Foreign Press; Baron Cohen’s performance is as engaging as it is audacious.

It’s been a while since I laughed like this at the movie theater. There's Something About Mary made me laughed as much back in 1998, but Borat is way different from the Ben Stiller movie. Borat is definitely not for every taste. It is a movie that will test your tolerance and broadmindedness for sure, but if you take the chance, you’ll be rewarded.

I believe that what is making this film succeed is not the number of people it has made laugh, but the number of people it has made think. I laughed, I thought, I’m still laughing, and I’m still thinking. A movie that creates a combination like that is rarely seen on screen.

“I will look on your treasures, gypsy. Is this understood?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006): Groucho

Review

Rocky

Director

John G. Avildsen

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

When you grow up in the 80s, Rocky is just part of your culture. Be it that your parents or your friends constantly talk about it, it’s just unavoidable. Me, I hated it as a kid, I just didn’t see the charm. But then I grew up to understand the beauty and unavoidable lovingness of the first movie, helplessly marred by its sequels. Since then I’ve been happy to celebrate Rocky every time I have a chance. This review should be yet another way to do that.

I always heard and learned to love the story that Sylvester Stallone wrote the screenplay in three days and sold it under the condition that he star in the film. This million-to-one shot of Stallone’s would parallelize that of Rocky’s, but it turns out the story was mostly a marketing gimmick. Nevertheless, the fact that he, an unknown actor, turned up with such a fine script and sold it and did star in it, is good enough for me! What a gargantuan triumph. What’s best is that the story is really nothing new, but it has tons and tons of heart, and that’s how it’s transmitted into the screen. John G. Avildsen, famous mainly as the director of this film and later The Karate Kid, is well-known for his fine handling of inspirational films. Rocky is undoubtedly his greatest achievement.

The story rings true and is also partly inspired by fact. It tells of a no-good, third-rate boxer called Rocky Balboa (Stallone) who’s as down-on-his-luck as he’s self-centered, and doesn’t even believe it when he gets a shot to challenge the heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers), for the title. The idea is Creed’s of course, and he does it for publicity, never fearing that Balboa could be an actual threat, but Rocky makes a life-changing decision when he decides to take it seriously.

The film is divided in neat sections that clearly define the main character’s personality, issues and struggles. First we see how badly he’s doing, how clumsily he romances the woman he likes, and what a bad concept he has of himself. No real chance to make it. Then Creed’s challenge comes up, and Rocky doesn’t take it too well; he’s resentful with his coach Mickey (Burgess Meredith) and doesn’t feel like he deserves to trust anyone who never trusted him. Mickey sees an opportunity to redeem himself by helping Rocky, not on account of his earlier rejection towards him but of his own failed career. It is perhaps the great love Rocky feels for Adrian (Talia Shire), the timid sister of his friend Paulie’s (Burt Young), which makes him take matters seriously. In a way, Adrian is like him: bullied around by her brother, she never does anything for herself, in plain conformism of what she feels is right. Perhaps Rocky can change all that, and find first-time joy for the heart of his beloved, and his own.

The secret of Rocky’s success is that early on it becomes a film about improving, concretely as a boxer but abstractly as a human being. This is a basic tale of the human condition, with as much power of persuasion as any play by Shakespeare, because any human being on this planet can identify with such clear feelings and passions. True, there’s a very famous training scene (to the tune of Bill Conti’s original “You Can Fly Now”, which made history along with the rest of the wonderful music score), but the real training is quite larger than that, and goes on scene after scene in a constantly growing rhythm. The character development is clear, and when Rocky’s ready to fight, we know he’s unstoppable, not because we saw him pumping iron, but because we watched him change.

Filled with sincere performances and beautifully realized in every cinematic aspect (the standouts being Richard Halsey’s and Scott Conrad’s editing, Michael Westmore’s makeup and, as mentioned earlier, Bill Conti’s music), Rocky is a true American classic that shouldn’t be missed.

“Yo, Adrian!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

Director

Tom Tykwer

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 29, 2007

Another famous best-seller, another novel I had not read despite its must status. I keep defending myself but I really shouldn’t, I prefer the visual medium of movies and that’s that. Besides, I am always reading, just not the kind of books that are turned into movies. Then again, I had always heard good things about “Das Parfum”, and had become exceedingly expectant of its big screen incarnation throughout the years. Add director Tom Tykwer to the mix and it was sealed.

Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw) was born in an 18th century Paris which had nothing but disgrace to offer him, starting with the death of his mother a few days into his existence. But he had a special gift: his sense of smell was remarkably developed. After years of abuse and hard work he finally ended up working with a perfumer, Giuseppe Baldani (Dustin Hoffman), something that changed his life and eventually got him to Grasse, where he became infatuated with a lovely young girl, Laura (Rachel Hurd-Wood), daughter of wealthy Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman), and with the mission to preserve the finest scents with his ultimate creation.

The adaptation of Patrick Süskind’s novel, which was for many years known as being unfilmable, took decades to come to fruition. Many acclaimed directors were attracted to it and ideas about theaters that could produce odors were thought of in relation to its story. But it wasn’t until recently that it finally got traction in the hands of a director who has excelled in tackling different genres with expertise. This latest work is no exception; it is because of him that the story works so well in its cinematic recreation.

Perfume works on many different levels, but it is as a character study that I got the most enjoyment out of it. Jean-Baptiste is a fascinating little creature whose sole purpose in life consists of getting pleasure by means of his nose. It’s hard to understand or even like him, but it doesn’t make him less interesting. On the contrary, his whole persona is brought to life in intense manner from beginning to end and following him around is nothing short of exhilarating. He is mostly a silent boy, but his demeanor speaks volumes and his magnetism is contagious.

There are, needless to say, plenty of thriller elements regarding Jean-Baptiste’s sudden transformation into a murderer. But I kept being reminded of The Silence of the Lambs, a movie that also indirectly followed a serial killer but that was much more than that. The same vibe and mood are elicited by Perfume, and that’s a compliment of the highest order.

A lot has been said about the over-the-top last half hour, but me... I loved it, with all its allegories and grandiose treatment. Nobody said it was a movie to be taken seriously to begin with, and it is an unexpected yet totally fitting way to end such a tale. An amusing voice-over narration is also provided throughout the entire running-length that gives the movie a much-welcomed witty tone. Only through the last bits of its second half did I feel the story started to drag, but then it took a huge turn and my jaw dropped.

Also deserving of kudos is every single technical department. I thought it would be hard for Tykwer and cinematographer Frank Griebe to be able to transmit what Jean-Baptiste felt when smelling, but they pull it off admirably. Production design, costumes and make-up are flawless. And Tykwer himself, working with Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek, composed the beautiful and haunting score that accompanies such beautified horrific images.

Ben Wishaw is mesmerizing in the difficult role of Jean-Baptiste. It must have been a grueling experience playing him, but it shows on-screen down to the last detail and inflection. His work is truly one of the best performances of the year. Also a pleasure is Dustin Hoffman, who gets a small role but makes the most out of it. Alan Rickman is solid as usual, and Rachel Hurd-Wood is hypnotic. A triumph all around.

“Whatever his insane scheme is... it will surely be incomplete without you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Rocky Balboa

Director

Sylvester Stallone

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 25, 2007

I have always been and will always be a fan of Rocky (1976), the classic movie that had very little innovation but a lot of heart, skyrocketing its star and writer Stallone and getting critic praise and top awards—including the Best Picture Oscar. Featured in all top American films lists, Rocky created a franchise that unfortunately went down the drain soon enough, but somehow managed to stay a household name and come up with more and more installments. Five films in all, each worse than the last one, relying on the same tired formula and managing to get some excitement towards the end, but nothing new. Stallone got tired of this and decided to give it a final shot, which nobody trusted could succeed, especially given his age (he’s 60) and the fact that the series had nowhere to go already.

For some reason I never bothered to watch any of the Rocky sequels, but still I don’t wish I had: I can imagine them. Those who have, say that though they all relied on the same formula, neither used boxing as a metaphor of personal success and achievement of self-respect as well as the first one. It took Stallone, who allegedly wrote the screenplay of the first film in a week’s time (which is unbelievable for such a fine work), 30 years to realize that if he was to make a film that could be considered a quality piece, he had to rely on the heart again, not in the formula, or at least not only in the formula. So what he did was conceive a sort of reversal story and play it from a very personal point of view. He did well.

The story plays as a tribute to the first Rocky and can be easily seen without seeing the rest of the movies. Most of the time it plays like a sort of TV special called Rocky: 30 years later. It rarely affects on its own and is constantly making references to the past, which works so well only because it’s Rocky’s past, but isn’t good enough to hold a movie together. The premise has Rocky mourning over his wife Adrian (Talia Shire, who’s only seen in archive footage) and living a quiet life managing a restaurant and missing his son Robert (Milo Ventimiglia) whom he rarely sees. The only person from the old days whom he does see (and the only other original cast member to come back) is Paulie (Burt Young), his no-good brother-in-law who seems as down-on-his-luck as ever. Another ghost from the past appears: Marie (Geraldine Hughes), a young girl from the first movie, now grown-up and downtrodden. Rocky befriends her and somehow romances her, but he constantly makes a tiresome point that his life was good with Adrian, and expresses once and again that a beast lives inside of him, not leaving him alone.

The beast, it turns out, is the same as Stallone faced every day: Whatever happened to the Rocky franchise? Why did it become a dump and never came back? The same as Rocky, Stallone had to make a final comeback in order to be able to sleep at night. In that way, the film is very significant. It’s a combination of nostalgia and the original formula of “do-or-die” that the first film benefited from. It can almost push a critic to rate this film higher. It required me a big effort to be able to rate it objectively, but still I’m happy to say that in the end, this is a crowd-pleaser that’s enjoyable for most everybody.

Because when we get the point that Rocky is cool but saddened, that he’s lucky but empty, that he’s resigned but nostalgic, then the film gets the boost from the chance to box, as it turns out to be the answer to Rocky’s prayers. Every bit of drama from Paulie, Rocky Jr., and even the late Adrian vanishes into thin air when Rocky decides to box again. The story has a computer simulating a virtual fight between Rocky and the current champ, Mason “The Line” Dixon (Antonio Tarver), in a TV show. Dixon has become a bore since he keeps knocking his adversaries and forgetting the entertainment value, and a dream fight against Rocky seems a good gimmick for a revival of good ol’ boxing. Of course that makes no sense, but Rocky says why not?, and gets ready. It’s a win-win situation so the champ agrees. But Rocky faces humiliation unless he can go the distance.

As I said, all of a sudden every dramatic piece blends into the excitement or plain steps out of the way. For instance, the very conflicted son of Rocky suddenly quits his negative feelings and devotes himself to his dad just like that. Not everything makes sense, but it’s all for the better, since the drama quickly became wearisome. Now it’s time to see some training—to the classic tune of the Rocky theme—and finally an amazing match. Does it pay off? Of course it pays off! During the fight we’re as excited as if we were there, and everything that should happen happens. It’s an amazing sequence and a very good wrap-up for the series. Rocky lives again.

And then, Stallone blows it by adding a sentimentalist epilogue that’s completely unasked for which reminds us that this isn’t a really good movie. What the heck, though? We got what we paid for, so I guess yeah, thanks, Sly… You did a good job.

“It ain't over ‘till it’s over.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Paris, je t'aime

Director

Olivier Assayas

Frédéric Auburtin

Emmanuel Benbihy

Gurinder Chadha

Sylvain Chomet

Ethan Coen

Joel Coen

Isabel Coixet

Wes Craven

Alfonso Cuarón

Gérard Depardieu

Christopher Doyle

Richard La Gravenese

Vincenzo Natali

Alexander Payne

Bruno Podalydès

Walter Salles

Oliver Schmitz

Nobuhiro Suwa

Daniela Thomas

Tom Tykwer

Gus Van Sant

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

I have been to Paris twice in my life, once as a youngster and the other a couple of years ago. Both times I’ve left the city hypnotized with its magic, its food, its people, its culture and its vibe. It is a romantic city indeed, a place with an aura difficult to describe. So it is only fitting that some of the best directors in the world agreed to work on a project that would pay a deserved homage to the city. The film took four years to make, but the result speaks volumes.

Paris, je t’aime consists of 18 shorts, each of which takes place in a different district of the city. They are not linked nor do they boast the same actors. Still, the order in which they are presented gives the movie a fitting flow that builds to a crescendo when the best of the shorts closes the saga. You’ll leave the theater recognizing that the foray was hit-and-miss, but compelled nonetheless and hopefully enamored.

Olivier Assaya’s Quartier des Enfants Rouges and Nobuhiro Suwa’s Place des Victoires both have two very accomplished actresses in the form of Maggie Gyllenhaal and Juliette Binoche, respectively. But neither story packs a punch. The first, about a drug-addict American actress, goes nowhere; and the second, about a woman dealing with the death of her son, is clumsily made.

Then there is Christopher Doyle’s Porte de Choisy. With him, you just knew you couldn’t expect something normal. He places director Barbet Schroeder as a hair care products rep who gets immersed in a bizarre dream-like foray through Chinatown… and it’s plain weird.

Bruno Podalydes’s Montmartre opens the movie with a touching, but nothing more, short about finding love in the most unexpected of circumstances. Wes Craven (yes, the one), tackles another romantic story of sorts in Pére-Lachaise, as honeymooners Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell get a little help from the dead to find life in their relationship. I found this short charming as to the characters’ rapport but ultimately forced.

Gurinder Chadha’s Quais de Seine tackles racial issues as a young boy gets smitten with a Muslim girl and can’t seem to let go, ending in an optimistic note. Alfonso Cuarón’s Parc Monceau proves to be a technical achievement as he presents a single take to tell his story about love and misconceptions.

Isabelle Coixet’s Bastille is a poignant look at a man, Sergio Castellitto, who is terribly unhappy until he finds a reason to live when his wife, Miranda Richardson, gets terminally-ill. Olivier Schmitz’s Place des Fetes is also poignant in its look at two Africa-descendants who got different chances in life, but that are ultimately connected.

Gerard Depardieu’s and Frederic Auburtin’s Quartier Latin presents the affecting encounter between Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara as an old couple in the verge of divorce as they catch up with their lives. Another short by two directors, Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas, Loin du 16éme surprises with its simplicity and sheer power as Catalina Sandino Moreno leaves her baby in the morning to go take care of another one at her job.

Vastly original work comes from Vicenzo Natali’s Quartier de la Madeleine, stylishly tackling a vampire love story with an effective Elijah Wood. Also different and winning is Gus Van Sant’s Le Marais, with Gaspard Ulliel bursting into a sincere monologue at the mere sight of Elias McConnell. The Coen Brothers’s Tuileries is an extraordinary exercise in contradiction with a silent Steve Buscemi.

Richard LaGravanese’s excellent Pigalle puts Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant in a hot escapade that follows an unexpected path. Tom Tykwer’s Faubourg Saint-Denis is perhaps the short that must’ve taken the most time to shoot; it’s filled with energy and a hyperkinetic style that proves wonders to the sweet and honest love story he tells with Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon.

Sylvain Chomet’s Tour Eiffel follows its creator’s distinct style, albeit in live-action form, with magnificent results, trailing a mime’s lonely existence until a chance meeting changes his life. Magical.

And finally there’s Alexander Payne’s 14th arrondissement, the best short by far and one that embodies everything that all the others that preceded it were trying to say. It follows Margo Martindale’s recount in broken French about a trip she made to Paris by herself and how she didn’t get the city’s charm at first, but how she ultimately did. Excellent writing, acting and directing all around… an amazing achievement on its own.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Director

Alfonso Cuarón

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

I had already reviewed the third installment of the Harry Potter movie series and back then I stated that I loved it even though I had disliked the first one and only barely liked the second one. The difference from back then and this day is that now I have read the books, so I felt that I must rewrite my review, though I’m happy to announce that my opinion hasn’t changed a bit: as of now (Janary, 2006), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the best movie of the bunch, a true cinematic experience that’s both awe-inspiring and totally addictive as it cares both to create a magical world and to involve us in its thrilling story.

It helps that the book is also considered by most the best of the series so far, but I must say I don’t see how that should affect the movie directly. I merit screenwriter Steven Kloves and director Alfonso Cuarón for making it such a great movie. They completely reinvented the concept and turned the (so far) longest book into the shortest movie, not exactly skipping anything but instead realizing what works in a movie and what does not, and leaving the soul intact. Kloves went so far as adding stuff that wasn’t in the book in order to make the movie work better. I must say he did it good! The third Harry Potter film is a triumph.

I have always admired my fellow Mexican Cuarón, and I knew that he was the best for the job; a couple of his previous films were so magical it was unbearable. I was in for the ride no matter what, and it paid off amazingly. The film immediately immerses the viewer in the Harry Potter universe. Magic can be breathed in the air and seen in every direction. Somehow, the filmmakers managed to convey a magical piece made of magical pieces, such as production design, photography, music, and performances. It makes you go back to the previous films and realize that those were pretending to be magical, but this one really is. That’s how good it works!

The story has Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), now 13, going back to Hogwarts and finding it in a grim situation as it’s surrounded by Dementors who expect to catch Azkaban fugitive Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). Dementors are ghostly creatures who suck the happiness out of anyone who steps in their way; the perfect prison guards. Black has the worst reputation, as he allegedly killed many people on the day that baby Harry was attacked by Lord Voldemort. Now that he’s escaped, it seems he’s set on getting Harry.

But Harry is not about to stay hidden to evade Black, he’s becoming a brave and reckless young man quite sure of what he wants, so when he learns about Black’s past, he decides not to keep his arms crossed. Unbearable revelations never stop coming.

The story beautifully links events from the previous installments and becomes a clear portal into the next, while being complete and satisfying on its own. In this masterfully crafted story by J.K. Rowling, new characters become key players: new Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) and Divination Professor Trelawney (Emma Thompson).

These two newcomers do a great job, as does Michael Gambon, replacing the late Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore. Though Harris’s wisdom and warmth are sorely missed, Gambon provides strength and decisiveness to the part that gives it a fresh turn. In truth, Gambon made the character his own, which was way better than imitating his predecessor. As for Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, he’s just indescribable and scarily believable!

But nothing like seeing the good old cast evolving so naturally. The kids are better than ever, particularly Radcliffe in his first real amiable performance. The rest—Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Julie Christie, etc.—excel as always, with Rickman making the most of his juicy part.

Regarding the music, there could be no happier news that John Williams coming back in full form to do the score of this one. He worked on the previous two, and created some classic tunes, but for the second one he wasn’t fully available so his score wasn’t only his work and it showed. Here he came back with a vengeance, adding some more classic tunes and turning every musical moment into an unforgettable one. He even adapted a fragment of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” as a song in one scene. His work is quite up to accompany the Bard’s.

All in all, a truly awesome movie experience that’s well worth living!

“I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hotel

Director

Mike Figgis

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 22, 2007

Big Salma Hayek fan, no surprise there. I’ve watched most of her filmography, which is certainly filled with ups and downs. But somehow I had never been able to see Hotel, director Mike Figgis’s follow-up to his innovative Time Code (2000). It never attracted too much attention, got mostly scathing reviews and was barely seen. It even had the distinction of premiering at the Toronto Film Festival on 9/11; tough luck. But after all these years I was finally able to give it a look. The verdict is indeed disastrous.

A film crew (Saffron Burrows, Max Beesley, Valeria Golino, Mia Maestro, David Schwimmer, Rhys Ifans, Jason Isaacs, Heathcote Williams among others) is in Venice to shoot a Dogma version of The Duchess of Malfi. They also have a couple of reporters (Salma Hayek and, later on, Lucy Liu) following them to shoot a documentary on the behind-the-scenes shenanigans. But little do they know that the hotel’s crew (Valentina Cervi, Danny Huston, Mark Long, Julian Sands, Chiara Mastroianni among others) have other plans for them.

Mike Figgis sketched the movie but brought it to life with the help of his actors’ ideas and improvisation, failing entirely in whatever he was trying to achieve. I can bluntly say this because Hotel does not work in any way. It is a satire of pretentious cinema, a horror movie, a sexual one, a dream, a bizarre literary adaptation, an experiment, an existential extravaganza, a black comedy… and a bore. All in one! You can’t say it isn’t interesting to watch, but the movie wears out its welcome even before the half-point arrives. I thought it could enter so-bad-its-good territory, but it doesn’t even work on that level.

On a technical level, much noise was made about Figgis’s “invention” of hand-held digital cameras to shoot this flick. The result is uninteresting. Perhaps it was a breakthrough, but better material would’ve helped to appreciate it. The movie feels and looks as if it were a home video.

In the middle of such nonsense there are some individual scenes that are amusing in their own way. The opening sequence has a guest (John Malkovich) checking into the hotel and having dinner in the basement behind bars with some of the hotel’s crew. Did I mention they’re vampire cannibals? A cat-fight between the two reporters (Hayek and Liu) is hilarious, as is a singing lesson for the former. And some bits about the actual shooting of the movie-within-the-movie are witty.

As performances go, there’s barely a standout, but Rhys Ifans takes the crown as the flick’s director. David Schwimmer is also good as the producer, as is Saffron Burrows as the leading actress. Also enjoyable is Salma Hayek as the sole comic relief amidst so much gloominess. You can’t blame the movie for not having an eclectic and very interesting cast. Even Burt Reynolds shows up briefly (and inexplicably) during the second half.

Figgis is a man of ideas and talent. I just wish we’d see more of the latter.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Stranger Than Fiction

Director

Marc Forster

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Stranger Than Fiction is a peculiar movie in many ways: it has a bizarre premise (everyone compares it to Charlie Kaufman’s scripts), it’s directed by classy Marc Forster (whose Finding Neverland (2004) was enchanting) and is stars mostly goofy comedian Will Ferrell, albeit accompanied by first-rate thespians Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman and Maggie Gyllenhaal. I knew it wouldn’t be a typical Ferrell comedy (though I must make clear that despite what I would expect of myself, I love every performance I’ve seen from that guy), but I wasn’t expecting something groundbreaking either. It was true: the result was surprisingly low-key, something that reminded me of Punch-Drunk Love (2002) somehow and The Weather Man (2005) too, both pieces that focus on life’s nuances more than in the story itself; and both with a somewhat depressed or at least unexcited main character.

But Stranger Than Fiction is better than those films. Zach Helm’s surprising script doesn’t aspire to be Kaufman, but instead takes a completely implausible premise and uses it as an excuse to explore life-changing possibilities and the trip to achieve self-esteem. Ferrell’s character, Harold Crick, evolves simply but beautifully, and even he doesn’t pay as much attention to his weird situation as he does to his chance to learn from it. I loved that, I simply loved that.

The story has Harold suddenly listening to a voice-over narration of his own life. The narrator is a female British voice, quite a calm and pretty voice that speaks wittier lines than Harold could’ve ever thought of, especially when narrating his own boring life. Harold is an IRS agent who hates his job as much as the people he audits hate him. The woman he’s auditing now is baker Ana Pascal (Gyllenhaal), who deliberately left a percentage of her taxes unpaid as a way of anarchy against some of the government’s use of it.

The narrator, we come to learn, is novelist Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson), who’s suffering from writer’s block and can’t figure out a way to kill the main character of her new novel: Harold Crick. The publishers send an assistant, Penny Escher (Queen Latifah), to aid her. The closer Kay gets to the ending, however, the more anguished Harold becomes… Or does he? Looking for help, Mr. Crick goes to a Literature erudite and Professor, Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman), who sees everything, even real life, from a literary point of view. He’s the man who makes Mr. Crick see that if your life is worth writing a book about, death should be the least of your worries.

There’s a point where Miss Eiffel’s novel is praised as masterful, but I could never see why it should be. I think screenwriter Helm probably cheated, never actually thinking about what would’ve made that novel so good, but only making his script successful the way things turned out for Harold, and happily he succeeded. It’s a choice you have to make: either believe that Eiffel is writing a masterpiece, or be aware that such masterpiece doesn’t even exist in Stranger Than Fiction’s fictional world.

Whichever the case, the beauty of the story exists in the humanity of its characters and not in the facts that occur around them. A building nearly demolished by accident is a funny scene and an important one too, but a song suddenly played with a guitar is a much greater event, and that’s because of how it moves the characters involved. I’m so glad Will Ferrell stars in such a profound flick…

The cast is as good as the characters, sometimes even better. The standout all along is Thompson, who took a potentially one-dimensional character and turned it into an anxious-ridden, sometimes inhuman creature. Too bad her performance is almost always limited to her interaction with Queen Latifah, whose character’s purpose is to allow Thompson’s thoughts to be spoken to her, and I must say Latifah didn’t turn it into much more. Hoffman is as good as his character, no more, no less; he doesn’t overplay and he doesn’t underplay, he just does what he has to do. Gyllenhaal is a beauty to behold, truly convincing whether she’s playing sweet or she’s playing tough. And Ferrell is a fine leading man in a profound role that demanded much effort, I’m sure…, way more than it’s allowed to show.

Production design and photography are key players here. Kevin Thompson and Roberto Schaefer, respectively, made the film look pretty all along, with a certain mood for the whole and for every single place. This, along with a bit of visual effects to illustrate Crick’s manias, works like a charm. Loved the Chicago locations, too! And that music, either original by Britt Daniel and Brian Reitzell or in the form of great song selections, is cool! I had heard the piece used in the climatic scene towards the end before… I heard it in that great pantomime theater production of “Slava’s Snowshow”… It’s so beautiful! I wonder what it is.

“This may sound like gibberish to you, but I think I'm in a tragedy.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Quinceañera

Director

Richard Glatzer

Wash Westmoreland

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Everyone talks about Little Miss Sunshine being the sensation of the 2006 Sundance Film Festival... and they’re right. But it was another small movie that took both the Grand Jury Prize and the Audience Award, a feat that hadn’t been seen for years. That movie is Quinceañera. It didn’t go on to become a hit as we know them, but it did find a modest appreciative audience thanks to its high-profile showing in selected circuits. I myself highly recommend it.

Magdalena’s (Emily Rios) 15th birthday is quickly approaching, which means that she’s got to have her quinceañera, a Mexican-American tradition that involves fancy dresses and peculiar rituals around religious beliefs and a big party. But her world crumbles as she finds out she’s pregnant. Her boyfriend Herman (J.R. Cruz) seems to support her, but she’s thrown out of her house and sent to live with her granduncle Tomás (Chalo González), who shares an old house in Echo Park with one of her cousins, Carlos (Jesse Garcia), who is also repudiated by his family because of being gay and somewhat of a rebel.

Quinceañera was written and directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland. It is one of those movies that have the word independent written all over them, with no big stars, merely acceptable production values and a character-driven story. Of course sometimes the results are horrible, but this one is anything but.

What it has going for it in spades is its heart and its blunt truthfulness. We follow both Magdalena’s and Carlos’s stories and always get the sense that we’re witnessing life as it is. She has to deal with the fact that’s she’s going to be a single mother at 15, while he is slowly coming to terms with a more open approach to his sexuality. Both of them are outcasts, only seen for what they truly are by their beloved Tío Tomás, a man who has lived enough to not care about that sort of bullshit, and who welcomes them into his life like a father. It all sounds awfully touching, even corny, but that’s another of the film’s strengths: it is never overly sentimental. It doesn’t judge its characters, it doesn’t try to make them too likable and it doesn’t force situations so that we feel for them one way or another. Magdalena and Carlos sure bond, but they also fight and tease each other. Their interaction, and that of both with their uncle, is the core that holds the movie together.

Another interesting aspect, as with most stories that are not set in the world we live in, is to watch this specific culture, both in their way of living and in who they are. I was familiar with the quinceañera thing, but it was still great to have it portrayed in a movie with such reverence while also slightly criticizing it. It depends how you look at it. But it is important to this people and so is religion. We also shown the role class, race and sexuality play in their neighborhood. The directors nail it, and it is refreshing.

The acting in the movie is terrible with very few exceptions. I don’t know if they got non-actors to appear in the movie or if they’re just untalented, but almost every supporting performance feels false and stiff. That said, the main trio do a splendid job. Chalo González is spot-on as the uncle, while Emily Rios nails Magdalena’s subdued personality and life-shattering conflicts. It is Jesse Garcia who leaves the strongest impression though, and I sure look forward to seeing more of him in the future. David W. Ross has a small appearance as a next-door neighbor with whom Carlos gets smitten and he’s not bad either.

“No, you do.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Director

Larry Charles

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Sacha Baron Cohen is a one-man phenomenon that has now skyrocketed internationally and irreversibly and I couldn’t be gladder. I only knew the guy before in passing, but I was never quite aware of what he was about or which his characters were or what they did. Then all of a sudden came this Borat film and I was stunned along with the rest of the world.

The film supposedly is a documentary conducted by a reporter from Kazakhstan whose goal is to bring his learning of the culture of the “U.S. and A.” to his country. Since Kazakhstan’s culture is so different from that of the United States (or so the movie makes it look, which is obviously exaggerated to the final detail and a perfect reason for the actual people of Kazakhstan to be furious), the interaction of Borat’s with the American people turns out hilarious. People think Borat, played by British comedian Baron Cohen, is an actual reporter, so they play along and try to cope with his bizarre ways. The result is almost always exhilarating.

There is a storyline, but the narrative is comprised of several comedic set pieces with apparently innocuous people who become either enraged or frustrated with our hero. During his trip to America with his friend and producer Azamat Bagatov (Kevin Davitian), Borat Sagdiyev is awe-struck by everything in the U.S. but especially Pamela Anderson, whom he meets in an episode of “Baywatch”. Not letting Azamat in on his secret intentions, he convinces him to travel to California, and it is during that trip that Borat manages to insult and mock everyone he meets throughout.

Borat is never ill-intentioned, but he’s a misogynistic anti-Semitic racist to name a few of his characteristics. He’s also unaware of the use of toilets, bound to kiss a man as a greeting and unembarrassed about male nudity. However, it’s hard to dislike him, and that’s they key to his success: Borat is one charming, sympathetic fellow, disgusting though he may be; a modern Groucho Marx of sorts, he leaves us wanting more.

It’s quite obvious that not all of the film is “real”. Though the most priceless element is that people’s reactions are genuine, some of them seem impossible to have been setup without their cooperation. Most of it, however, is quite plausible and dangerous and uproarious. This includes a couple of monumental sequences, most notably that in which Borat enrages a whole rodeo by “unwillingly” poking fun at President Bush and his “war of terror”. Another, in which Borat enters a Christian rite, is riotous almost without Borat’s interaction; that’s how incisive Baron Cohen is with Americans.

There’s a point in this extreme comedy where there’s just no way to be indignant though. Borat’s target is everything from Jews (Baron Cohen is an orthodox Jewish) to good manners. A friend described this film to me as “Mr. Bean meets Jackass”. True, it has elements of both, and many more types of comedy. Borat is probably the most assorted assemble of comedy styles I’ve seen in my life: there’s witty lines, pantomime, political satire, movie homages and a good amount of self-mockery. I’d say the film works for everyone, if only for a single scene, or for as much as the whole, which was my case. I can’t take my mind off of its brilliancy; it’s been haunting me ever since I saw it.

We shall wait and see what Baron Cohen is planning to do next with his other outrageous characters. I guarantee that at least a ticket for each is gonna be mine.

“Pamela! I am not attracted to you anymore... NOT!"”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006): Lego

Review

The Holiday

Director

Nancy Meyers

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 15, 2007

Writer-director Nancy Meyers is very well known for delivering chick flick after chick flick. Some people love her but she also has a lot of detractors. Her movies are too Hollywood, too fairy-tale, too saccharine. But at least when you see them you know exactly what you’re getting into, and since a movie works (or doesn’t) in the realm of what it tries to achieve I actually think she has been consistently good when you consider the four movies she’s directed. The Holiday is her latest foray and a pleasant holiday treat it is.

Amanda (Cameron Diaz) is an L.A. movie-trailer maker who just broke up with her boyfriend (Edwards Burns). Iris (Kate Winslet) is an English writer who just found out the man she loves (Rufus Sewell) got engaged. The perfect scenario then falls into their laps: they must switch houses for the holidays. When Amanda gets to England she meets Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) and sparks fly; while back in America Iris quickly befriends an old movie producer, Arthur Abbott (Eli Wallach), and meets a composer, Miles (Jack Black), with whom she also hits it up.

When you read the premise you get the idea of what I mentioned in my opening paragraph. Isn’t it all just a tad too-good-to-be-true? Doesn’t it come off as the most implausible of situations? Yes, and yes. If you start equating real-life to what actually happens in this movie you’ll have a terrible time. For starters, how do Amanda and Iris know they can trust each other? Especially since both have perfect homes. And do they not sign anything in case something is missed? Or broken? Perhaps I’m a cynic by nature, but those are pretty obvious concerns I think. Yet in the world of Meyers they’re a non-issue, and I was willing to accept that and go with the flow. You should too.

The dual-storyline-structure works, although it backfires during some portions of the movie. Thing is, Amanda’s thread works better than Iris’s. Perhaps it’s because it is better focused. You always know it is going the romantic path and it never strays from it. But Iris’s is a bit harder to figure out; at times it’s about two old souls that find each other, at times it’s about this arrogant guy trying to get his girl back and then there’s also some fresh romance thrown in there for not-so-good measure. I was never bored or bothered because I loved each and every one of the main characters, but I do recognize that this story lacks the strength of the other, and that throwing out the romance might’ve made a better movie overall. Still, The Holiday never ceases to be engaging.

Things I loved: almost everything about Amanda in England. Her romance with Graham is just magical. It’s a bit manipulative, sure, but again: I knew what I was getting into. And I fell in love with both of them and truly deeply wanted their romance to blossom. Besides, the chemistry between both actors is palpable, they set flames together. I also loved, as a self-proclaimed movie buff, every reference to Hollywood, whether in satiric or melancholic mode. Arthur’s character is a hoot, and his relationship with Iris is beautiful. On a lighter note, there’s also a criss-cross phone conversation at the halfway point that is hilarious.

On the downside, the movie is a bit overlong, with mostly the initial set-up taking too long. Then again, I was so immersed by the end that I didn’t want it to finish! There are instances of over-the-top reactions concerning the girls and the moments they get very excited. And some scenes seem to drag longer than they need to; more disciplined editing would’ve helped. I should also mention a negative that became positive: it would’ve been too predictable for both girls to love each others’ lives, but when Amanda gets to Iris’s home she actually doesn’t have the time of her life at first. This was a nice touch, and yes, a believable one amidst all the gloss. Oh, and I didn’t like the ending; not for a movie of this genre.

I have always loved Cameron Diaz despite the backlash she’s been getting as of late, and she’s really good here. She does go to some broader-than-needed places at times, but she’s mostly excellent and sincere and to the point. Kate Winslet, on the other hand, can do no wrong, and she’s hands-down amazing. She just elevates any material she’s given, and this is no exception. But it is Jude Law who truly surprised me. He gives, from my point of view, the standout performance of the movie. He’s charming and lovable and down-to-earth and subdued and plain first-rate. Legendary actor Eli Wallach is also a welcomed presence. And Jack Black, well, he’s restrained all right, but a restrained buffoon nonetheless. I liked him at times, not so much at others. James Franco, Lindsay Lohan and Dustin Hoffman appear uncredited.

“You’re supposed to be the leading lady in your life, for God’s sake!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?

Director

William Arntz

Betsy Chasse

Mark Vicente

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 11, 2007

This is a hard film to review. It took me a while and plenty revisions to finally decide to submit it, and that’s because it’s just not a simple film to digest, much less to describe, and even less to appreciate. My colleague Morris asked me twice what I thought of it, first when he saw my review listed as upcoming, and second when he saw the DVD box in my house, and I evaded the question in both occasions. I couldn’t answer because I didn’t quite know. I changed the rating three times, and finally decided to write about it. That words will be written and printed about it, and people will think they know what I think about it, is kind of unreal after the experience I lived when watching it. And I saw it thrice (or did I?).

Why are we here?, Who am I?, Why me?, Why always me? are typical, immortal questions that go from the philosophical to the self-victimizing and usually have no answer. Some people would reply to the last question, “Well… You’re always causing that to yourself”. But how can that be? Sometimes it goes beyond ourselves, doesn’t it? Sometimes luck seems to not be on our side, or to be on our side, though it’s usually on someone else’s side. “What?! Bob won the lottery again? He’s rich already! Everything he touches turns into gold! Lucky bastard…” While we criticize the lucky we create negative thoughts for ourselves, and likely cause our own worse luck. But how can we know for sure, and what possible explanation could that have?

None, and that’s what this film is about, as stated in the title. Quite unfortunately, but rather obviously, the film offers not one answer, but instead struggles to make us understand the questions, and that’s valuable enough if you can turn them into possibilities. The tool is Quantum Physics. I was mostly oblivious of what this science dealt with, and quite frankly I yet can’t explain it after watching the movie. I understand that it deals with the atomic and subatomic levels of things, exploring the inner and outer consequences of atomic destruction and composition.

The fact that we’re composed of billions of atoms and that even atoms aren’t exactly solid or tangible makes our physical existence questionable. Nothing is really crude matter, because matter doesn’t really exist. So what if all that we are, the way we live, the time that passes, isn’t real but only a construction we make, an assumption that things are this or that way and nothing else is possible? If we can accept that two objects, microscopic though they might be, can be in two places at the same time, that there are always billions of possibilities from which to choose, and that time isn’t necessarily linear, we might be able to create our own reality, delivering ourselves from the restraint in which we live.

The film has three main themes, which work as acts: existence, addiction, and god. The first act makes us wonder if anything we see is real. Once it’s been made clear that reality is questionable, the second act makes us see that we are constantly creating our own reality. Having convinced us that it does happen, the third act pokes fun of the concept of “God” as an omniscient being to be feared, obeyed and respected unquestionably.

The concepts are invaluable, and just a preview of what quantum physics have to offer. I was excited to be introduced to such a thrilling science, and have decided to dig deeper. Yet, as a film, What the Bleep do We Know?, as it’s widely known, is not very successful. Yes, it does entertain, successfully getting its message through, but it’s constantly stepping on itself with its weird narrative style, and ends up rather annoying.

The way this film is structured is by intertwining statements by several interviewed experts (physicists, philosophers, astronomers, biologists and neurologists), a representative story about a common woman, and some amusing CGI animation. The first of these is by far the most successful. No kidding, I could’ve had just the interviews and would’ve loved the movie—but what would’ve made me see it? The second is the most unsuccessful and quite unnecessary: Marlee Matlin portrays a talented photographer who’s frustrated with her career and bitter about her failed marriage. Much as I adore Matlin and respect her in this role, she’s mostly annoying, though that might be the point, because once she starts to apply the concepts that we learn, her life and mood improves notably.

During a wedding party where Amanda (Matlin) takes the pictures, hellishly reliving her own wedding, we learn that people become addicted to any kind of feelings, and usually provoke them in order to get what they need, positive or negative. This is interpreted through the guests and their CGI cells bouncing around. That’s a fun sequence and the animation is amusing. The same thing can’t be said about a scene where Amanda plays basketball with a know-it-all kid, which is full of wondrous CGI but goes on forever and becomes redundant.

I don’t want to not recommend this film. My rating and some of my comments might seem misleading, especially when I tell you that I consider the movie a must-see. If not great, it sure is an interesting experience, and for all it’s worth, I wouldn’t want to have missed it. Sorry it took so long, Morris, but as you can see… I still have no #$*! idea.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Flushed Away

Director

David Bowers

Sam Fell

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Every year a few animated movies are released, with the number increasing with each consequent one. And every year there seems to be a consensus regarding which is the best of the bunch. Most of the time the title goes to a Pixar production or a Miyazaki one. But 2006 was different, choices differed, there was not a clear front-runner. Some people leant towards Over the Hedge, others supported Cars and then there was Happy Feet. But there are those who thought Flushed Away was the one which best deserved to be remembered. I belong to this group.

Roddy (voice of Hugh Jackman) is a domesticated rat who sees his life crumble when a fellow rat, Spike (voice of Andy Serkis), throws him into a toilet and flushes it, thus sending him into the sewer. Horrified, he soon meets adventurous Rita (voice of Kate Winslet), who leads him into a world of intrigue as she is being hunted by The Toad (voice of Ian McKellen) because he wants something she owns. They then join forces to prevent his evil plan and return to Roddy’s home.

Flushed Away comes from the creative minds behind the Wallace & Gromit shorts, as well as their movie incarnation, Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, and Chicken Run. Those productions used stop-motion animation to bring their wonderful characters to life, but this time around they faced a challenge which was greater than what they could handle: water. Lots of it. So they opted to follow the computer animation trend and came up with a movie that feels and looks as if it were made with the old technique, but wasn’t. The result is visually wonderful. Not only does it look fresh, but the world they created is breath-taking. There’s so much detail and clever bits in the background that a second viewing is required to let everything sink in.

There’s nothing wrong with movies that are aimed exclusively at kids, but when they can mix it with stuff for adults the better for everyone. Such is the case here, as there’s something for everyone. The requisite scatological jokes are there (although for a movie that takes place in a drain they’re fairly restrained), the big action set pieces are all in check and the obvious message is ever present. Thankfully all of these assets are classily handled and made exciting for all ages. And then there’s also witty, adult humor to spare. I love everything about England, and it’s great to see a movie of this genre and size that takes place somewhere that is not America, where they can make fun of themselves and others (including plenty of pop-culture references) with no holds barred. Sure, it’s a little over-plotted and unfocused at times, but how can you not love a movie in which the big set-up involves the World Cup final and the threat of an entire nation going to the bathroom during half time and thus flooding the gutter?

It also helps that every character is compelling and interesting to watch. The leads, Roddy and Rita, are your everyday heroes; that’s understandable. But the supporting characters are just as well-defined. I especially got a kick out of the villain, the ridiculous Toad, and his henchmen. At one point he recruits the help of a French toad, Le Frog (voice of Jean Reno), who brings his own set of henchmen and a lot of laughs in the way. And then there are the slugs, which are just too good for words. They’re this year’s penguins: hilarious and spot-on and always surprising; absolutely perfect.

Voice-work is excellent. There are a lot of big names in the cast, but they’re so well-directed that it’s difficult to recognize them. Ian McKellen is the best example; he completely transforms his voice and does memorable work. Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Bill Nighy, Jean Reno, Andy Serkis, Kathy Burke, David Suchet, Miriam Margolyes and everyone else all do a terrific job.

“I find everyone’s pain amusing except my own... I’m French!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mäedchen in Uniform

Director

Leontine Sagan

Year

1931

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when someone told me about a highly praised and rather controversial German film of the early ‘30s that dealt with lesbianism in a more open way than current films sometimes do. That was probably an overstatement, but considering the time when it was done, I guess it’s quite an accurate description. It is, in fact, the first openly lesbian feature film. That and the fact that I can get to be a morbid pervert (hope my mom ain’t reading this!) made me run and see it.

The story moved me from the very first scene which has teenage Manuela von Meinhardis (Hertha Thiele) joining a boarding school in German Prussia. Manuela is as beautiful as she is sensitive. Even as her aunt is introducing her, she’s crying. A motherless orphan, Manuela is in imperative need for love. Apparently, this uptight school won’t exactly offer it to her.

The all-girls boarding school has little less than a military regime, but the girls manage to be cheerful and keep a smiling face despite the oppression. The School Principal (Emilia Unda) is a gendarme of sorts, and disapproves of much sympathy towards the girls. Food is limited as a way of discipline, letter-writing is strictly forbidden, and rules are imposed quite severely.

Yet, there’s a teacher who’s nothing like her institution: Fräulein von Bernburg (Dorothea Wieck), who’s sympathetic and charming with the children and loved by them all. The budding adolescents even describe her as an object of infatuation of most of them, warning Manuela to watch out or she’ll fall in love with the pedagogue. They’re poking, of course, but it turns out Manuela does fall in love with the teacher, and helplessly so, especially when she feels something of a retribution. Innocence and loneliness become deadly ingredients to this formula though, as Manuela’s feelings turn against her in the least liberal of societies.

Director Leontine Sagan probably deserves much of the credit for turning such a tragic story into a sweet film, easy to enjoy. The two leads are lovable creatures, pretty and pure; the casting of Thiele and Wieck is very appropriate and effective. Sparks fly even in their first encounter! But the scene where the teacher kisses every student goodnight, culminating in newcomer Manuela, is simply indescribable.

The story comes from novelist Christa Winsloe, allegedly the real-life Manuela, who also co-scripted the film. However, it’s quite obvious after a while that the original tale was toned down for cinema, and understandably so. I even felt at times that the main focus was on the political undertones rather than in the sexual ones, which isn’t altogether bad but differs from the source. In pre-Third Reich Germany however, it’s interesting to see how tense society was and how destined to burst. The foreshadowing is scary. But going back to the story, the toning down didn’t bother me at all (it’s very daring as it is!) but the ending didn’t quite satisfy me. The change there was obvious, and even though it was more crowd-pleasing than the original, it didn’t completely fit or make sense.

An all-female cast is adorned not only by the sexiness of the procedures but by the gorgeous artistic direction of Carl Froelich. This is a movie that looks and feels good. At the end I felt like everything but morbid. I lived a cathartic and unforgettable experience that left me shivering. You never know when you’ll have the chance to see something so precious. I recommend this cult classic film highly.

“What you call sin, I call the great spirit of love, which takes a thousand forms.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Running with Scissors

Director

Ryan Murphy

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 08, 2007

A lot of people will agree with me when I say Annette Bening is one of the most incredible actresses out there. When I heard she delivered yet another memorable turn in her latest movie, Running with Scissors, I couldn’t wait to see it regardless of the subject matter. Then I did my research and actually got intrigued by the premise and the cast, not to mention the director, who happens to be the creator of the extraordinary TV series “Nip/Tuck”. It was bound to be an interesting experience.

Augusten Burroughs (Joseph Cross) was raised by his unstable mother Deirdre (Annette Bening) and alcoholic father Norman (Alec Baldwin) until they separated in the 70’s. When she started to get worse she let her psychiatrist, Dr. Finch (Brian Cox), adopt him. That’s how he moved into the Finchs’ home, where he met the unhappy matriarch, Agnes (Jill Clayburgh), intense older daughter Hope (Gwyneth Paltrow), free-spirited daughter Natalie (Evan Rachel Wood) and estranged gay schizophrenic step-son Neil (Joseph Fiennes).

The movie is based on the true story of Augusten’s life as he recollected it in his best-selling novel. Director Ryan Murphy then adapted it as a screenplay and took helm. While watching it I couldn’t help but recall the little-seen documentary Tarnation (2003), which chronicled John Caouette’s upbringing in the 80’s as a gay youngster with a mentally-unstable mother and unsuitable people around them. That film was far more affecting because it had a dead-serious approach and was told through actual photos and videos of the family. In Running with Scissors there isn’t such a clear emotional current because it doesn’t really get a handle of its own tone. It starts out as a tragicomedy of sorts, but eventually turns into Weirdville. We are supposed to feel for our lead, but we don’t. In a way he shuts himself from the world around him, but he does so from us too. A running narration that sporadically gives us some insight into his inner-self helps, but isn’t enough. If the movie would have sustained its satiric approach maybe this wouldn’t be an issue, but since it becomes a full-blown drama it is.

The movie doesn’t pull it off as a whole, but it does so in individual scenes. Each one is well-written, has a specific intention and for the most part achieves it. I was constantly entertained and never stopped marveling at what would follow, for the unpredictability of it is also one of its greatest assets. Most of the characters are plain bizarre bordering on caricature, and watching them interact is alluring. It may not work from a dramatic point of view, but as a character study it is interesting more often than not. A late scene between Augusten and Agnes breaks the rule though, for it works on every level and provides a most-needed emotional catharsis.

Period detail is impeccable, but the production designers do an even greater job with the specifics of the Finchs’ home. If you wondered what would happen when no attention is paid to actual cleaning this is it. The house is almost as peculiar as its inhabitants, and another character in the movie altogether. Costumes also prove to be fundamental in defining each individual, and an assortment of carefully-chosen songs in the soundtrack keep reminding us of the passing of time.

A quick tip: if you’re the sort of person who turns off a movie the minute it’s over you might want to think twice before doing so here. After a few names have popped-up on screen we get an update on what happened to each character after the depicted events.

To cap it all up I’d just like to add that the movie is worth the price of admission alone for of its performances. The talented ensemble is uniformly good, but the standouts for me are Brian Cox and Jill Clayburgh as Dr. Finch and his wife. The former is extravagant and surprising, while the latter is low-key and affecting; both do pitch-perfect work. Annette Bening has a field day with the many shades of Deirdre, and Alec Baldwin is effectively restrained as her husband. Gwyneth Paltrow appears briefly, but is never less than disturbing, while Joseph Fiennes doesn’t stay behind in that department. Evan Rachel Wood plays arguably the most normal character of the bunch and she’s excellent, while Joseph Cross is effective as Augusten himself. Gabrielle Union, Patrick Wilson and Kristin Chenoweth have small supporting roles.

“Maybe I’ll take down the Christmas tree.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Director

Chris Columbus

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 04, 2007

The adaptation of the second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry turned out much better than the first, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001). With Chris Columbus again at the helm, it came close to failing the same way as the first film, but somehow managed to make it. Having read the books, I credit screenwriter Steve Kloves, who also adapted the first, with managing to trim the story down to the most important events and make them cinematically plausible. There’s still a sense of episodic storytelling that sometimes slows down the progression of the story, but the problem is never as bad as before. In fact, I can’t think of a single scene that didn’t relate to the main storyline. Even though Kloves went on to improve in the next entry, I still have to applaud him for giving us some hope here that the series wouldn’t fail hopelessly.

As is usually the case in sequels, this one doesn’t bother introducing the same characters we already know, but instead goes directly to their new adventures. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are now 12 years old, and feel more at home at Hogwarts than before. Strange occurrences don’t take long to begin, but Harry had an advance when a House Elf called Dobby (a fine CGI creature voiced by Toby Jones) visited him at home before school started, warning him about great danger at Hogwarts.

Indeed, very fearful events happen, as the Chamber of Secrets is supposedly open after 50 years. We learn that the mythical chamber was created by one of the founders of Hogwarts, and locked with a deadly monster inside. The mystery gets thicker as Harry is believed to be responsible for endangering the school and its students. In the way, Hagrid the gamekeeper (Robbie Coltrane) is also accused, while Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), the vicious father of Harry’s archenemy Draco (Tom Felton), sticks his nose in the business.

Not only do the kids feel more comfortable at Hogwarts (incidentally, the three leads notably improved their performances), but the audience does too. We feel more at home there, not as alienated as before and somehow we believe in this world of magic increasingly. That’s because the whole world is recreated once again including the wondrous production design and John Williams’ now familiar tunes (though hardly propositional here, due to Williams’ scheduling conflicts and William Ross’ job adapting the music).

Special effects did improve. Now the Quidditch match looks much better, and also feels better since it’s more relevant to the story than it was in the first film. Dobby is a work of art, as is the monster with which Harry battles towards the end.

Adding to the fun is Kenneth Branagh as Professor Gilderoy Lockhart, whose celebrity status far exceeds his actual talents. Unfortunately his role made much more sense in the book, but he’s still welcome here. Shirley Henderson is game as the girl ghost Moaning Myrtle, Mark Williams appropriate as Arthur Weasley, and Christian Coulson is haunting as Tom Riddle. Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, John Cleese and many others reprise their roles successfully. Little Bonnie Wright, as Ginny Weasley, plays a pivotal role this time around.

Still much to improve, but quite a successful improvement. Good!

“Your scar is legend. As of course, is the wizard who gave it to you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Eragon

Director

Stefan Fangmeier

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

As with many movies that are based on widely popular books, I had never heard of the Eragon saga right until the announcement that the first installment was going to be made into a movie. Unfortunately after having seen the final product I don’t feel like getting to know more about anything regarding this mythology. I can’t really say if the source material is to blame, but I guess I’ll never find out for myself. Not after having barely survived the dreadful experience of watching this screen adaptation.

Eragon (Ed Speleers) is a common farm-boy who stumbles upon a dragon-egg in the forest. As it happens, it belongs to the evil King Galvatorix (John Malkovich) but was stolen from him by Arya (Sienna Guillory), a member of the resistance. The king then sends his right-hand sorcerer, Durza (Robert Carlyle), to get the egg back. But the dragon, Saphira (voice of Rachel Weisz), is eventually born and Eragon chosen as her rider. Together, along with the help of former dragon-rider Brom (Jeremy Irons), they must confront the king. Or something like that...

Christopher Paolini was only 15 years old when he wrote the book on which the movie is based. He was greatly influenced by Star Wars and it shows (some Lord of the Rings traces are evident, so maybe he also read Tolkien’s work). Change that saga’s setting to a medieval one, then add dragons and you’ve got Eragon. The comparisons end there, since this interpretation is a disaster in every possible way. Peter Buchman wrote the screenplay and Stefan Fangmeier directed. They will both have to work hard to regain some prestige, for their work here is awful.

Bad dialogue can be overcome when you have compelling characters; terrible production design can be forgiven when you care about the story; dubious special effects can be passed over when you show skill in other technical areas. But when everything is bad there’s just no way you can defend any aspect of a movie. I could make the case that the visual effects on the dragon are top-notch most of the time. But that’s about it. It had been a while since a movie had made me want to leave the theater so hard. Yet I stayed. And it only kept getting worse.

A big part of the problem also lies in the fact that it feels like a 4-hour movie was trimmed into 100 minutes or so. I don’t know if many scenes were left on the cutting-room floor or if the script was written this way. I hope it’s the former. There’s no logic to the story, no empathy with any character, no threat as the villains go, no sense of wonder. There are subplots that are barely touched upon and then completely forgotten. Most scenes are clumsily directed, and the ones involving action are sleep-inducing. The costumes are laughably bad, the editing is awkward. I could go on and on. What were they thinking?

And then there’s the acting. Ed Speleers was cast after a thorough search for the lead, but whatever anyone saw on him got lost in the translation. He’s wooden and hardly charismatic. Jeremy Irons, the only other character with any significant screen time, is just ok. At least he doesn’t go over-the-top. John Malkovich’s appearance amounts to a forgettable cameo. Robert Carlyle does the best impression of Wormtongue he can handle. Rachel Weisz’s voice work is adequate. And Sienna Guillory, Djimon Hounsou and Garrett Hedlund show promise but are barely in the movie. A pity.

“I expected you to be, well, more...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios usually responds to the description of the movie that gave Pedro Almodóvar international fame and recognition. It is true that the gifted Spanish filmmaker has delivered pieces of increasing quality since, and that it would be a shame if his works weren’t so widely known. Yet, it’s important to note that the currently reviewed film isn’t more than a perfect comedy with elements that have resulted funny to worldwide audiences since the beginning of theatre as a form of art. The beauty of this film is that its importance is quite heavier than its apparent intentions, which is a combination I never hesitate to applaud.

The star of the film is a woman, never surprising in an Almodóvar film. A big-city neurotic, Pepa (Carmen Maura) has a terrible time after her lover of many years, Iván (Fernando Guillén), left her. She spends part of her time passed out through sleeping pills, another part angry and another part sad. She decides to kick her ex out of her life for good and packs all his things for him to pick up. She keeps regretting her decisions at every turn. In the meantime, her friend Candela (María Barranco) has one of the worst days of her life as she discovers that her own boyfriend is a terrorist, and that his friends she’s been allocating are in fact members of the Shiite organization planning a blow; she relies on Pepa, but the latter is too busy working out her own problems. Finally, in the most coincidental turn of events, a few potential clients visit Pepa’s place which she has decided to give up in order to move on; the clients are none other than Iván’s son, Carlos (Antonio Banderas), whom Pepa never met, and her uptight fiancée Marisa (Rossy de Palma).

If this doesn’t sound screwball enough, just imagine it being played for laughs, as a situational comedy, a fine play with characters exiting and entering at all times. Yet, the beauty of it is that it has a constant underlying layer of drama, with the lead character a depressed woman and her best friend a suicidal one. The most lovable fact about Almodóvar’s script is that it doesn’t deny life’s tragedies, but instead shows that for every tragic event there’s a funny point of view. Scene after scene, there are staggering moments of truth in this way.

Even as the characters interact in the wackiest ways possible, their personalities flourish and evolve beautifully in front of us. For instance, the stuttering Carlos turns out an irrepressible lover boy who cannot resist consoling a woman in despair and finds in doing so a self-esteem long-repressed by his mentally unbalanced mother Lucía (Julieta Serrano). The latter goes from passionate murderess-to-be to self-admitted psycho. Carlos’ girlfriend Marisa passes out after an accidental consumption of sleeping pills, and her character evolves most drastically while she’s asleep! Again, it’s all played for laughs. How is that anything but mind-blowing?

The icing on the cake is the supporting characters in the background, all of them possessing at least one curious characteristic, most notably the female porter who’s a fervent Jehovah’s Witness (Chus Lampreave), and the extravagant driver of a “Mambo Taxi” that’s constantly picking Pepa up (Guillermo Montesinos).

The performances being uniformly great is only one of the many flawless elements of this film. Another, and most notable, is the photography by José Luis Alcaine. And yet another is Félix Murcia’s set decoration. These people and Almodóvar surely worked painstakingly in creating a perfect mood and symbolism throughout.

I guess after all that I’ve written, the first paragraph doesn’t seem that fair. I made this film look like a simple comedy written without much thought, and then I rambled on about its greatness. I stand by what I wrote all along, though. The film seems simple is what I meant. But it’s a work of genius. And people recognize genius in comedy, through the usually thoughtless act of laughter. Rarely have I laughed louder.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

SherryBaby

Director

Laurie Collyer

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 01, 2007

Every year I stumble upon small movies that get awards recognition and thus pick my interest, but that I would have otherwise not seen if it wasn’t for such attention. When people in the business say they’re honored when they get nominations because maybe more people will see their movies they have a point. I’m one of them. And the reactions obviously vary from film to film, but once in a while there are a few that are worth championing. SherryBaby is such an example.

Sherry Swanson (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has just come out of jail for stealing to get money for drugs, but she’s still being closely watched by Parole Officer Hernández (Giancarlo Esposito). Her main concern is her daughter Alexis (Ryan Simpkins), who has been under the care of her brother Bobby (Brad William Henke) and her wife Lynette (Bridget Barkan) while she’s been gone, but they have started to look at her as their own. Sherry does not know how to deal with this situation as she also tries to stay clean with the help of new friend Dean Walker (Danny Trejo), a fellow addict.

The movie was written and directed by Laurie Collyer. I have no idea if she’s been through a similar situation or if she knows someone who has. Maybe she did a lot of research. But the truth is that she nails it. She totally gets what Sherry is going through, what she is feeling and most important of all, she is able to convey it with precision. It may not be an easy movie to sit through, but it has a story to tell and it stays compelling throughout the way.

It is worth noting that Sherry is not exactly a likable character. She is selfish; we can see how when she wants her daughter back she’s doing it for herself without thinking what’s best for the kid. She’s also difficult to get along. You can see that life, in and out of prison, has not been easy on her. Sherry is simply the kind of person that is and will always be trouble. Yet every step of the way she’s interesting, and her tale also is. A third act revelation brings a little life into what led her to the place she’s at, and it is as disturbing as it is unflinchingly real. The whole movie is brought to life with understated humanity and a knack for honesty. And there’s a constant crescendo that leads to a cathartic and fitting finale.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is too good for words. I was floored by her performance. Kudos to the makeup and costume departments for the character’s overall design, but triple kudos to the actress herself because she’s never been this good. And she’s always good! She goes to some pretty dark places and totally nails every aspect of this complicated woman, grounding her in reality and making us feel for her. Then again, every performance deserves credit. The cast is mainly composed of little-known faces that are perfectly chosen for each part. Especially note-worthy are Ryan Simpkins and Brad William Henke as Sherry’s daughter and brother.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter