CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Devil's Backbone

Director

Guillermo del Toro

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

How often do we get good foreign horror movies? How often do they get a release giving us the chance to appreciate them? How often?

Our story takes place during the Spanish Civil War. In a place in the middle of nowhere there’s a kind of orphanage ruled by a one-legged woman (Marisa Paredes), an old doctor (Federico Luppi) and a temperamental guard (Eduardo Noriega), among a few others. The place is full of children even though money is scarce. Carlos (Fernando Tielve) is the newest addition and it is difficult for him to adapt. Even more so because of the presence of a ghost who keeps showing up at every time.

The Devil’s Backbone is a very creepy, very moody suspense yarn. Mexican director Guillermo del Toro has always showed talent for visual style. This movie explores that asset at its fullest. It is visually impressive, hauntingly beautiful and with images you won’ t forget. Aided by Guillermo Navarro’s cinematography, the movie is a feast for the eye.

But what about the story? Is it all style over substance? Well, no, definitely not. Even though the movie has its flaws, it is a very solid horror picture. It has elements that make it quite unique. From the opening scenes you sense the air of mystery, of secrets hidden between the walls. Besides, it’s got more than one subplots, and they mostly work.

The most interesting aspect of the film is the ghost story. We are given hints of what might’ve happened. As things clear out we start discovering not everything is what it looked like. On the other hand, there are also hearts being broken, children trying to cope out with their past and present, people driven only by money... Everything comes together and the results are quite unpredictable, crude and sad, mysterious and intriguing.

If I had to say something negative about the film is the way it sometimes becomes too slow. I know creepy movies sometimes use this device as a mean of building tension, but The Devil’s Backbone has too much going on to allow this to happen. A little trimming here and there might have helped.

Acting-wise the movie is filled with recognized talent which would make any director envious. Marisa Paredes is excellent as the mysterious head of the place, a woman who can be tender at times, the coldest at others. Federico Luppi, on the other hand, is the tower of strenght who has had to sacrifice a lot for what he really wants, except that his suffering might not be paying off that well. Tielve, as the principal child, with his sad look and calmed ways, makes a great lead. And finally Noriega, who’s one of Spain’s most sought after actors, excels in the role of a man with many faces.

Go watch this movie. It’s fun, it’s scary and it’s very good-looking!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Yojimbo

Director

Akira Kurosawa

Year

1961

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

A loner samurai by the name of Sanjuro (Toshiro Mifune) arrives to a town that has the word “trouble” impregnated in the whole environment. After wandering about for a while and befriending the innkeeper, who seems safe and fair, he gets to know about two rival bands that keep making life uneasy for everyone. Warned that it’s best to leave, Sanjuro decides to stay in order to have some “fun,” and begins a neutral observation of the situation.

After demonstrating his power, Sanjuro is offered work by both bands, but none are to be trusted. Instead of going directly to one side or the other, Sanjuro decides to play his cards wisely in order to create a war with no winners. As both bands are corrupt and evil, they should fight and destroy each other. Things are not as easy as they seem, though, as new and dangerous people arrive, and trustworthy people betray…

An excellent film, Yojimbo is more of a western than many real westerns. The central character troubles a whole town and encounters enemies far more dangerous than they seem. Sanjuro is a man with no future to worry about, which makes his presence even more enigmatic as he’s willing to take any chances. Like The Seven Samurai (1954), Yojimbo could be considered in part an action film though it is calm most of the time. The few fighting scenes are incredibly powerful.

This movie has influenced filmmakers for decades now. The spaghetti western genre evolved from a remake of this film, A Fistful of Dollars. In Yojimbo, you’ll see characters behave like many western characters have afterwards.

Toshiro Mifune is so impressive that he deserves a paragraph of his own. This is not the crazed, careless Mifune character we saw in previous Kurosawa films. Here he rarely demonstrates any emotions, which makes his character even stronger. He’s tough, he’s straight, he’s serious, he’s dangerous.

The already excellent film gets even better towards the end when Sanjuro’s rage has really been awaken. As usual in Kurosawa’s films, this one teaches many lessons—both to us, and to its characters!

A terrific, extraordinary Japanese film that shouldn’t be missed.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Falling Down

Director

Joel Schumacher

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 29, 2001

Both Joel Schumacher and Michael Douglas used to have better times. Lately they’ve been recovering a little, which is great, but this 1993 collaboration came when they were both on a good streak. Even if you don’t like the movie, you have to admit it’s very interesting.

William Foster (Michael Douglas), an apparently common guy, starts to become psychologically damaged and decides he’s not going to take it anymore, so he breaks out in a violent rampage against society in general while on a hot sunny day in L.A. on his way to his daughter’s birthday party. A cop (Robert Duvall), on the day of his retirement, gets involved in the case when it becomes a police matter.

Falling Down comes from a rare breed of ideas put together that end up as a rare product indeed. The way I saw it, the movie is a metaphor of how stress and everyday life can cause people to break down in the most unimaginable of ways. The movie always keeps a realistic tone, but its message goes way beyond this. There’s a fine line between sanity and madness. There are countless ways it can be crossed. This is just one of them. And it affects us all...

I have to credit Joel Schumacher for creating one of the most effective opening sequences I’ve seen as of setting the tone of what the movie’s going to be like. It is so claustrophobic that one ends up feeling almost the same way the central character does. It is very well done.

The movie’s also very violent. It could also be seen as a criticism of how absurd violence is and how little we can do about it when it gets to such kind of levels.

There’s a sequence in the movie which I thought was the best and which encapsulated in a few minutes what the whole point of the movie was. William enters a McDonald’s-like restaurant and asks for some breakfast. He can’t have breakfast, you see, since two minutes ago the limit was over. He must now order some lunch. Oh no, that’s out of the question. So William takes out a gun and scares the shit out of all the people there. Suddenly, he doesn’t feel like having breakfast anymore, he’d rather have some lunch. And he’s dead serious. He was from the beginning. And I couldn’t stop laughing. Poignancy and reality mixed at its best.

It’s scary, but what has our society come to? Who puts all the rules? Where’s the line being crossed? Can it get so frustrating to bring people out of their minds?

Michael Douglas plays William Foster as a nerdy-kind of guy who always acts driven by one same goal. He’s gone blind, his common sense just doesn’t work anymore. Life has not treated him well, or, might it be that he’s been like that from the beginning? Was it a bomb waiting to explode? Are we all like that? Robert Duvall is magnificent as the old cop with problems of his own. For me he was the true star of the movie. A magnetic masterful performance is what he delivers.

There’s so much that could be taken from this movie. Some will appreciate it, some will see it as cheap propaganda. It can also get heavy-handed at times, clichéd at others, maybe a bit overlong, but I’d recommend you to give it a look and judge for yourselves. It’s quite unique overall...

“You're mad because they lied to you? They lie to everyone! They lie to the fish!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Invisible Man

Director

James Whale

Year

1933

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, October 28, 2001

A mysterious man, all wrapped in bands, wearing gloves, dark glasses and a hat, arrives to a small town in England looking for peace in order to finish an experiment… the experiment that will turn him back to visible! It is Jack Griffin (Claude Rains), a scientist turned invisible by an experiment gone wrong. Vanished from his former mentor, Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers), to hide his monstrous experiment, Griffin hopes to finish it before it’s too late. Unfortunately, some of the drugs he used begin to turn him mad, and thirst of power gets all over him.

After terrorizing the small town, Griffin goes to an old colleague, Doctor Kemp (William Harrigan) and forces him to help in his dreadful plans. As much as Griffin was capable of terrorizing a whole town he is capable of terrorizing well-intentioned Kemp, who doesn’t know how to deal with the situation.

Based upon the novel by H.G. Wells, this minor horror classic directed by James Whale is a great innovator in visual effects. The astonishment of the people who deal with the invisible man makes his invisibility even more believable.

Una O’Connor is especially delightful in her noisy performance as the innkeeper’s wife. Henry Travers as Griffin's mentor and Gloria Stuart as Dr. Cranley’s daughter and Griffin’s girlfriend are good. Kemp is great as the terrified young scientist. And young Claude Rains is wonderful in his “invisible” performance, as we don’t get to see his face throughout most of the film, yet he convinces in his role and certainly manages to terrify.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ride With The Devil

Director

Ang Lee

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, October 25, 2001

Ride With The Devil has been overlooked by many for reasons that don’t occur to me. It is certainly a very different movie in the way it depicts war. With only a few epic elements, Lee is far from glorifying war and the bloodshed that goes along with it. Ride With The Devil focuses on its characters and the way they grow in their struggle. They are portrayed in a humane and realistic way. War is not a display for huge battles and glorious heroes. Lee’s honesty might be the reason for people not to accept his vision of the Civil War. Instead of showing the battles between the Gray and Blue he decides to step on undiscovered land by telling the story through the eyes of several outsiders.

Set in 1861, Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire), son of a poor German immigrant, joins the Bushwhackers, a group of men fighting the North’s Union soldiers. The border between Kansas and Missouri becomes the stage for their guerrilla warfare. Together with his childhood friend Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) Jake fights his former neighbors. In the winter, the men retreat and hide in a cave where they meet the determined Sue Lee (Jewel Kilcher). Relationships evolve – most notably the one between Jake and a black slave by the name of David Holt (Jeffrey Wright).

Lee’s look at American history is philosophical and calm. The movie’s pace is very different from war movies as we know them. Lee keeps his distance to give his characters space to breathe. You can only sense his direction. Yet his visual style is imminent. The access to his characters is not easy. The lead is a young man who doesn’t know where he belongs. Because of his poor social background he is not fully integrated in the society he is defending. Moreover he has to fight his own neighbors and friends. Decisions are not easy to be made in times like these but Jake Roedel has to make them. Tobey Maguire is exceptional in this movie. He is undoubtedly one of the most talented young actors. This role is his most demanding so far. Maguire plays the process of changing into a conscious man in his very own way.

Skeet Ulrich is a good support as his friend Jack Bull Chiles. Ulrich develops a screen presence I would never have expected of him. He plays the role just naturally. Ang Lee’s find is without doubt Jewel Kilcher. She brings a fantastic depth to her character, showing her as a woman with innocent looks but a deeply rooted desire to emancipate. Wright also does an outstanding job as the conflicted black man between the frontlines.

These characters certainly look like outsiders but they embody the very essence of this war. The Civil War was not mainly about abolishing slavery, it was not as simple as that. Instead the essence of this war was to fight for your personal freedom, for your way of life. Through the eyes of his protagonists, Lee reveals the motivations and struggles of this war. His movie is not easy to swallow, not the usual Hollywood fare. Instead it is an honest and realistic approach to a dark chapter in American history that forms the basis of the freedom we experience today. A great cast and exciting battle scenes round up this ambitious movie. Ride With The Devil is unusual and daring. A disturbing look at history.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Se7en

Director

David Fincher

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 24, 2001

It’s no secret I’m a big David Fincher fan. When Se7en came out I wasn’t even a movie buff. Obviously, I didn’t even know who David Fincher was, less had I seen a movie of his. Still, I was truly impressed and shocked with what was presented to me. Today I consider Se7en to be one of my favorite thrillers of all-time.

Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt), new to his job, and Detective William Somerset (Morgan Freeman), about to retire, are forced to work together on a case involving a serial killer using the seven deadly sins as the basis for his crimes. Little do they know the case will be far more complicated than it seems.

Se7en is a movie better described by the word “disturbing”. Not only because of the graphic images it shows, or because of the twisted mind of its villain, but because of the way it toys with the central characters’ and our own minds and because of the statement it makes of the world.

Thrillers about serial killers and finding the identity of them usually follow the same pattern. They almost always disappoint at the end, and it’s rare to find a movie that actually intrigues and surprises in genuine ways. Se7en might be the perfect example of how to successfully conclude an already exciting story. The final half hour of this movie is brilliant, the reason why the term “nail-biting” was actually created. It is also highly impacting.

This movie also works because we believe in its characters. The interaction between old and new is very well done. But each individual also has its own life, and it affects everything getting in the way.

Another part of the magic lies in the sole premise of the movie. No one can deny it is a fascinating subject matter. You keep guessing what’ll happen next or the way it’ll be performed. Apparently, choosing the seven deadly sins can be seen as a rare fetish, but there’s more to it than the eye can witness. It is that mystery that is waiting to be unleashed.

This was Brad Pitt’s first collaboration with Fincher. They should keep doing movies together forever, since both Se7en and Fight Club (1999) have already acquired cult status. Here, Pitt delivers a great, contrasting performance. Morgan Freeman, on the other hand, gets one of his best roles as the cop who’s seen it all... except this. Kevin Spacey, believe it or not, makes one of the scariest psychopaths in the history of cinema, and I’m not the only one to think that way. Gwyneth Paltrow also makes a touching appearance as Pitt’s wife.

I must say Se7en has the right touch of everything a good thriller must have. It’s exciting, controversial, difficult, moody and surprising. It is, in other words, everything you could wish for!

“This isn’t going to have a happy ending”.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Seven Samurai

Director

Akira Kurosawa

Year

1954

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

Japan, 16th Century. It is an era of depression, when bandits steal food from small, helpless farmer villages. The inhabitants of one of those villages, terrorized by the danger, decide that they can’t take it anymore. The wise man of the village then suggests that they hire samurai to defend them. “But how will we pay them?” they ask. “Find hungry samurai.”

Then the search begins. What samurai will accept such a job being paid only three meals a day? Wise Kambei Shimada (Takashi Shimura), a lonely and well-intentioned samurai, accepts the deal and helps them find some other samurai. His help results in a unique team of skilful and helpful warriors with nothing to lose.

The ensemble of actors include Toshiro Mifune as the wild-hearted Kikuchiyo, Isao Kimura as the naive Katsushiro and many other great Japanese actors.

The process of defending the village of the farmers is as exciting as it is poignant. The film plays like a western, packed with action and featuring great character depth as more and more stories are uncovered while the story advances.

The real nature of the farmers, the past of the samurai, love, fear, bravery, hypocrisy, all analysed and revealed in this outstanding film. The beauty of its photography and the variety of its storytelling, combined with irresistible genres and winning performances make this a total winner. The fact that it speaks for humanity beyond any time and place, makes this an unforgettable, irresistible classic.

Akira Kurosawa created an eastern-western that served as a model for many American westerns to come. Some scenes remain unsurpassed for the beauty and poignancy of their elements together. The longer version is worth every minute, as scene by scene a lesson is taught.

Kikuchiyo crying under the rain with a baby on his arms is my favorite scene. All the film is pure gold.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Score

Director

Frank Oz

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, October 22, 2001

Brando, De Niro, Norton? Two screen legends and acclaimed method actors team up with one of the most talented young actors of our time. Edward Norton is certainly following their footsteps. It is not an easy task to do but Norton has managed to proof his worthiness in more than one role. These actors try to save a movie that director Frank Oz does not know how to handle.

The Score is a movie about the final heist of a man trying to get out of the business. As simple as that. We have seen many movies telling this story. Some of them are more thrilling than others. The Score doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel. Instead Frank Oz chooses to keep this movie as simple as possible – which might be his major fault.

Robert De Niro plays Nick Wells, a man who has been a master burglar for years. He wants to retire to run his Jazz Club in Montreal when his old friend Max Baron (Marlon Brando) offers him a final job. He already has a young and restless guy on hand (Edward Norton) to help him score big time. Putting aside his doubts, Nick gives in and tries to arrange himself with the clever Jackie. But is his partner to trust?

As a heist movie, The Score doesn’t present new ideas on the subject. Considering the packed amount of talent spent on this movie, I had high hopes to see a great one. Unfortunately Oz doesn’t manage to keep the strings together. I was shocked to realize that I was bored throughout the first hour of the movie. In this part the characters are introduced who then go on to plan the big coup.

Brando hardly is ever seen on screen. His role is actually so small that I figured the rumors about his so-called “creative differences” with Frank Oz must have been true after all. De Niro tries his best to give the character a profile of his own and he is not bad at it. But Nick is simply too sleek and smart to really make us believe in his struggle with Jackie. Norton is good but the role doesn’t demand much of him.

When it comes to the heist the movie’s pace speeds up a bit and we finally get to see some exciting action. The coup is skillfully done but the final twist is just not clever enough to lift this movie to a higher level. No one fucks with Bob De Niro and we knew that beforehand. The screenwriters are to blame for this mess.

Frank Oz tries to make The Score a stylish homage to classic heist movies. His attempts fall short due to the lack of depth in his characters. Their conflict is not convincing enough to carry a whole movie. In a way, The Score is too straight to excite. However De Niro, Norton and Brando get the best out of their roles. But I wish they could have worked with more than a messed up mediocre script.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fools Rush In

Director

Andy Tennant

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, October 21, 2001

I’ll admit that my fascination for this movie has to do with the fact that my beloved Salma stars in it. But even if your favorite movie star appeared in an unwatchable movie it wouldn’t make it any better for you. The fact that I love Fools Rush In is because it stars Salma and because it is a movie I can see over and over again without suffering. In other words, it’s good.

Isabel (Salma Hayek) is a Mexican-American photographer, Alex is a New York constructor. When they meet it’s lust at first sight. Suddenly she’s pregnant and the consequences of making a life together won’t be that simple, as love will have to overcome all their differences concerning their cultures and ways of life.

Fools Rush In is a typical romantic comedy full of laughs and tears with the catch being here that these lovers’ obstacles are internal, not external, meaning by this that they are who they are and that can’t be changed, it must be accepted. There isn’t a third person, there isn’t an old secret waiting to be discovered, it is just tolerance and patience what these people need. Isn’t this what all relationships need? Well, that’s what I’m saying.

To make its point more clear, the movie portrays Alex and Isabel as stereotypes. This isn’t a bad thing when they’re also given some depth. Ok, Isabel is too Mexican and Alex is too American, but they’re both human beings and act that way. After all, the feeling of love is universal. That’s what the movie is trying to say, and this story is the perfect example.

Fools Rush In came in a time when both its stars where trying to break the barrier and start a career in movies. Matthew Perry, already a very well-known star because of the hit TV-show “Friends,” is perfect for this role. It isn’t a big stretch for him, but he does a good job. Salma Hayek, on the other hand, surprised everyone. She’s funny, beautiful, sincere, natural and charming as Isabel. This was a big step in her career which proved she could do much more than look sexy.

Two winning performances, a great supporting cast, a script that is both funny and insightful, the light touch of director Andy Tennant and a nice Alan Silvestri score make of this an entertaining, fun watch.

“Love is a gift Alex, not an obligation”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Monkey Business

Director

Norman Z. McLeod

Year

1931

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, October 20, 2001

The presence of four stowaways on a ship means the end of peace and tranquility for all the members of the crew and each and every one of the passengers if such stowaways are no less than the ever so loony Marx Brothers (Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Zeppo). There for no reason and with no means of leaving anyone alone, the brothers drive everyone crazy while they play their unworried set of puns, games and romantic antics.

While Groucho hits on Lucille (Thelma Todd), a gangster’s wife, Chico and Harpo become bodyguards of a wealthy man (Rockliffe Fellowes), whose sweet daughter (Ruth Hall) falls for Zeppo and gets love from him in return.

Quick dialog, lots of slapstick and not much sense make this classic comedy a pure delight. The brothers are joined by a fun cast including lovely Todd and indispensable Margaret Dumont in a really short but delightful enough appearance.

The four Marx brothers imitating Maurice Chevalier makes quite an unforgettable scene.

“This is the only way to travel.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Misfits

Director

John Huston

Year

1961

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, October 18, 2001

There are few movies that combine as much talent as The Misfits with two screen legends in the leads (Marilyn Monroe and Clark Gable), the most anticipated contemporary American dramatist (Arthur Miller) delivering the screenplay and John Huston directing the piece. It is no surprise that this movie has become a classic like no other.

Roslyn (Monroe) has just been divorced when she meets Guido (Eli Wallach) and Gay (Gable), two worn-out cowboys in Reno, Nevada. Trying to escape the hurtful past Roslyn decides to spend the next week with her new friends on the countryside. Soon she finds herself in love with the charismatic Gay. When Gay and his friends Guido and Perce (Montgomery Clift) take Roslyn on a trip to hunt wild horses things get out of control.

The plot sounds rather uncommon and it certainly is for a movie. At first you have to adjust to the different way of storytelling but once you’ve discovered these characters they won’t let you go. Miller’s handwriting is imminent in every line of this movie. The dialogue is poignant and thoughtful. In fact, The Misfits shares many similarities to a theater play as the characters and the dialogue are in the center of interest.

Miller wrote this screenplay for his wife Marilyn Monroe as a chance to prove her acting skills in a demanding role. In many scenes, Marilyn looks tired but she is as radiant as ever. This is undoubtedly the most intense performance of her career. Its appeal might as well be related to the way her character Roslyn resembles Norma Jean herself. Roslyn is a very attractive woman that is adored by men who feel attracted to her but only on a physical level. They don’t want to get to know the person behind the perfect smile and the perfect body. Roslyn suffers from this lack of understanding and most of all from the absence of love in her life.

To make it even worse, Miller describes Roslyn as a very sensitive woman that is unable to bear the cruelties of the world. Roslyn takes things in her life seriously. She cares for other people and living beings, she feels empathy for them to a degree that harms herself. Marilyn plays this woman in a frighteningly realistic way. She is natural and shows vulnerability that goes beyond reason. Even though Marilyn herself said she was disappointed by the movie, she delivers a haunting performance that will take your breath away.

Equally brilliant is Clark Gable as Gay Langland, another person lost in the world. The era of cowboys has come to an end and there is no return to the good old times when everything used to be easy. Gay has become an outsider who desperately tries to make a stand as a man. The Misfits centers on the alienation of people. Gable’s most impressive scene shows him crying out for his son. The wild horses scene is the most powerful one that will stay on your mind for a long time. The way Marilyn is shown as a small figure lost in the widths of the prairie is a strong symbol of the loss of belonging and the loss of innocence.

John Huston shot this movie in beautiful frames capturing the very essence of his characters. The fact that this is both Monroe’s and Gable’s last movie makes it even harder to take – especially since it deals with such essential questions of life. Both actors will stay unforgotten and this movie is a living document of their talent and uniqueness.

"Honey, we all got to go sometime, reason or no reason. Dyin's as natural as livin': man who's afraid to die is afraid to live, far as I've ever seen. So there's nothin' to do but forget it, that's all. Seems to me."
(Gay Langland)

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jeepers Creepers

Director

Victor Salva

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Wednesday, October 17, 2001

I guess being scared just sticks. More than being amused or charmed, possibly, more than being intellectually stimulated or morally challenged. If it gives ya the creeps for real it will be burned into the fabric of your memory forever, like prehistoric drawings etched into the walls of a cave. Somehow the fascination with that which scares us, the pleasure of scary movie goose bumps seem to be elementary components of the human psyche. Another common demeanor of human nature seems to lie in our fear of the boogie man. And although we have many different names for him, he’s always the same. The evil man, the shadow man, he who steals children to eat them, who haunts fairy tails and thrillers, this wight who is not from our world but only a terrifying visitor, here to scare us to death and thereby remind us of our futile existence and that he'll get us if we misbehave – he is alive in the nightmares of both, the old man and the little girl.

If you take these two elements into account - the audiences craving for a good fright and the universal fear of the boogie man, what do you get?

I'll tell ya. You get a sweet little movie that is
a) cheap
b) simple
c) fun as hell

Of course there is a high risk that some scenes will provoke a grin with the audience, since teen slasher flicks and low budgets stick together like Jennifer Lopez and bad taste, but altogether there is a weird kind of grace to these movies for me. Maybe it’s because what they achieve is not really new or innovative, but actually just what I’ve expected – only that the same theme has been varied once again.

Jeepers Creepers is yo’ juicy ol’ horror movie from start to finish. It skillfully mixes classic themes with hip new ideas and leaves you grinning (or maybe even laughing your ass off) while being pleasantly scared at the same time. The humor is subtle and doesn’t distract from the main goal of the movie – sending chills down your spine in regular intervals. The cast is fresh and very natural (most notably Gina Philips as Trish) and the camerawork is very solid, luring the viewer into mean little visual traps again and again.

The key to success for Jeepers Creepers is definitely the fact that it hardly feels like a movie at all. Characters, setting and mood are too much like real life (well, at least at the beginning) to make the viewer comfortably ignore the horror that lurks behind the next corner. The ending is an abrupt slap into the face, giving us time to chuckle and contemplate the past ninety minutes while the credits are running. Director Victor Salva has created a fast and pointy suspense slasher film.

So, what else can I say? Meet Mr. Creeper and let him see the world through your eyes.

Muhahahahaha

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Belle de Jour

Director

Luis Buñuel

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

Tormented Séverine (Catherine Deneuve), a young woman recently married to Pierre Serizy (Jean Sorel), finds no happiness in her marriage, as she hasn’t found it in most other things. An unbearable situation for Pierre, who loves her, and finds relief only in his occupations, which absorb him pretty much. Séverine, haunted by horrific childhood memories and the guilt of causing Pierre’s unhappiness, suddenly becomes obsessed with joining a clandestine and elegant brothel, not being able to explain to herself the reasons why she wants to do this.

Once there, however, she finds settlement and happiness for once, and her life gradually improves. Can things work out for her this way?

Buñuel’s legendary treatment of shocking material in a silent, dramatic way with slight touches of surrealism is an extraordinary character study and a heart-pounding experience. From the very first scene, which is one of the most shocking, the viewers find themselves in an unlimited whirlpool of unanswered questions and enigmatic actions and reactions of the people involved.

To think that most of what we see is happening only inside Séverine’s mind is fascinating.

This is a perfect marriage of drama and surrealism that tells its tale without any judgments. That such an unbearable story can be told in such a beautiful way is a triumph of cinematic storytelling.

One of Catherine Deneuve’s greatest performances.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bridges of Madison County

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, October 14, 2001

I’m not the biggest Clint Eastwood fan. I know he’s a great actor, but somehow, I have never really loved the movies he has directed. I just don’t connect with them. The Bridges of Madison County might be my favorite Eastwood-directed flick, but putting it into perspective, that’s not saying much. Still, it is a great romance, and one worthy of our time...

The movie tells the story of the 4-day affair between a free-spirited National Geographic photographer (Clint Eastwood) and a slightly unhappy Iowa farmer’s wife (Meryl Streep). It is as simple as that, but you would never imagine the large brand of emotions encapsulated here.

I think we can all agree on the fact that there are very little true adult romantic movies made nowadays. Somehow, finding a movie like this reminds us of how touching and effective it can be to tell the story of a romance between two grown-ups, people who have a whole life behind them, people who’ve already gone through a lot, people who know it won’t be easy, but can’t avoid it anyhow.

Francesca is not a perfect woman. Who is? Somehow she’s got used to her life because of her family. But she’s still got some dreams. Dreams she won’t ever see realized. How many people are there like her? Men and women who have to sacrifice themselves for the happiness of others. Still, it is that joy that keeps everyone moving and giving themselves entirely. But then, what happens when you’re given a second chance, when something disturbs that harmony? There are not easy answers.

I loved the way the romance is played with such subtlety. To be honest, there are times when the movie gets too slow, but then you’re rewarded with some other scenes that convey the perfect poignant note. Overall, it is the actors who bring this story to life.

Clint Eastwood is moving as a man who’s seen it all but still finds something new that fulfills him. He knows he can’t have it, he knows it must not happen, he knows it will be difficult. Meryl Streep, on the other hand, is absolutely magnificent. You really believe she’s Italian, not only for the perfect accent, but because of the way she moves, the way she has difficulties speaking English, the way she acts. She gives a heartbreaking sincere performance that stands as one of her bests.

The great attention to detail, a beautiful photography, a well-adapted screenplay based on Robert James Waller’s novel and an apt score round up a great collaboration of talent that pays off.

“You are anything but a simple woman.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Twelve Monkeys

Director

Terry Gilliam

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 10, 2001

I saw Twelve Monkeys when I didn’t have much knowledge about cinema. It was one of my first serious sci-fi experiences and I was totally blown away by it. A lot of years have passed, but it still stands as one of my favorite movies of its kind.

An unknown and lethal virus terminated about five billion people in 1996. Decades have gone by and a convict (Bruce Willis) is reluctantly sent back in time to investigate more about this lethal menace. He is then mistakenly sent back to 1990, when not much has happened and where he meets a psychiatrist (Madeline Stowe) and the insane son of a famous scientist (Brad Pitt and Christopher Plummer, respectively).

Twelve Monkeys is one of those movies where you need to pay a lot of attention in order to get all the plot twists, but especially to try and follow the time frame. You’ll still be a bit doubtful when the movie is over, but that is part of its brilliancy. Playing with time in such an original and dreamy way becomes increasingly exciting.

It is also scary to note how vulnerable we are as human beings. We think we have it all planned and done, but we never realize anything could happen until it does. People in this movie are forced to live underground because life outside those limits is fatal. They’re forced to create new rules, new technology, and ways of changing the past. It is then that we ask ourselves the obligatory question: can the past really be changed? Can it?

James Cole is a truly affected man. No one, understandably, believes him and he is forced to live in a mental institution where things get way more complicated. It is a difficult task the one he’s been appointed to do. His memories somewhat can’t leave him alone. Those dreams. His past, his present. His feelings...

Not much can I say about the movie without spoiling its many surprises. It is as unpredictable as a movie can get, but also as entertaining, fascinating and fulfilling. I wish there were more movies like this.

Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe are perfect in their roles. But it is Brad Pitt who totally steals the show. He delivers one of the best performances of his career, maybe even the best, in a role that requires him to be wacko but sane at the same time in a way you never know what to expect from him at every turn. Every mannerism, every look. This is outstanding work, people.

With all its philosophical issues, its thriller-like concept, the great visuals, its unforgettable score and, above all, the great way it was directed by Terry Gilliam, Twelve Monkeys emerges as a movie you won’t forget. Whether you like it or not, it is there to stay in your mind, maybe in your psyche. And what a way to do it!

“Oh, wouldn't it be great if I was crazy? Then the world would be okay.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Others

Director

Alejandro Amenábar

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, October 08, 2001

Imagine a woman trapped in her own house, a dark place on the Channel Islands, hidden in shadows and mist. World War II is over but the woman’s husband has not returned. The servants have disappeared as well. There are only her children left who suffer from a strange disease. They must be taken care of, they must be protected from any source of light. The house becomes an even darker place. And suddenly there are the others, the intruders that haunt the house. Is there an escape from this place of solitude, darkness and secrets never to be told? This question will only find an answer once you discover who the others are.

Spanish director Alejandro Amenábar creates a dark and twisted place in his first English language movie The Others. It is a mind-gripping experience with many twists and turns. Just when you think you have figured out the meaning of it all, there is another twist that gives you the creeps. In times when special effects and gory explicitness have become common, a small movie like this is a welcome change. Psychological thrillers have always been most effective in scaring the hell out of me. It is not what we see that makes the hairs on our back stand. It is what the eye cannot see, what we cannot grasp, nor understand, what goes beyond the visual. Certain images touch subconscious fears that we all have in ourselves, The Others has many of them. This movie is special: supernatural, yet of great psychological depth.

The Others is a landmark in Nicole Kidman’s career. She is excellent in every single aspect of her role: Mysterious and emotionally captivating. There is a certain air surrounding her which lets us know something is wrong with her life. We just can’t grasp what it is. Is it the isolation, the loss of her husband, the pressure she puts on herself? Kidman’s character combines different attitudes that push her to the limit. She is very strict in her religious education but she is also a loving mother that just wants to protect her children. We sense she would do anything to save them from harm, still we don’t know what happened the day the servants disappeared. Her own home has become a prison with no way out.

It is no surprise that this woman, who has to go through a magnitude of hard feelings, is close to a nervous breakdown when “the others” step into her house. What do they want? Who or what are they? Kidman experiences a wide range of emotions from nervousness to fear and despair. Her outstanding performance covers all these feelings perfectly – making us identify with her miserable state of mind. The movie would not be the same without the excellent supporting cast – most notably the children (Alakina Mann and James Bentley). Especially the girl conveys a spooky atmosphere by being cruel to her little brother. She is a weird creature that acts childishly but also possesses a mature quality. Maybe she has seen more than a girl of her age should have.

One of the greatest aspects of the movie is the gloomy and intense atmosphere perfectly conveyed by Amenábar’s fine art direction. The movie actually feels like an Edgar Allan Poe story come to life. It is simply outstanding and gripping in every aspect. A little gem. The final revelation will keep you gasping, indeed this house is theirs – forever...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

State and Main

Director

David Mamet

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, October 07, 2001

I love satires. Anyone who knows me well can tell I’m a very sarcastic person. I love black humor and clever gags. These are the ingredients that always populate a good satire. It all depends on how it’s handled. It is a very extreme genre. It if works... I’m happy! If it doesn’t... you don’t want to ask.

A film crew has chosen a small New England town as the location for their new movie. There’s the director (William H. Macy), the producer (David Paymer), the writer (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the stars (Alec Baldwin and Sarah Jessica Parker) and the rest of the team. Then there’s also the town people, a book store owner (Rebecca Pidgeon), a Lolita-like teenager (Julia Stiles) and all the common and simple people surrounding them. It is a Hollywood production, so chaos ensues...

When I first heard David Mamet was doing a Hollywood satire I loved the idea. He’s always had a gift for sharp and clever dialogue. Unfortunately, the movie does not display this notion to its full potential. He falls between a line where his script is too tame for its own good while it screams for more edginess.

It all starts well. The first 40 minutes are very funny. This is not a movie of the laugh-out-loud kind. It wants to surprise the viewer with ideas and situations. Another problem with the movie is the way everything is portrayed so over-the-top (an appropriate device in any satire) but on the other hand takes itself too seriously, specially when it starts to reach its conclusion. No one can deny the romance between two of these characters gets to be very touching, but I always felt it kind of belonged to another movie.

State and Main makes a portrait of the shooting of a Hollywood production in more accurate ways than one, which means the whole thing is scary. How can directors not go mad when they have to handle so many things at the same time? Well, by simplifying things. There’s a joke that runs through the entire movie about the small town not having an old mill where to shoot a crucial scene. You have to consider that a problem when your movie is actually called “The Old Mill”, right? Right!

In a movie like this, you kind of expect the characters to be mainly one-dimensional. That’s why we get the bimbo actress who doesn’t want to show her tits, the big star whose weakness is 14-year old girls, the greedy producer who only thinks of money and so on. Fortunately, there are a couple of characters who show a bit more depth. They are the writer and the book store owner. Unfortunately, I didn’t sense much chemistry between them. Rebecca Pidgeon is a very cold actress. It worked in The Winslow Boy (1999), but it doesn’t here.

Highlights include the always reliable William H. Macy as the director and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the writer.

I always like it when movies celebrate simple people. There’s nothing like simplicity in this world. The smallest details can be the most important ones. No doubt about that.

State and Main is a movie that falls short. Its flaws outweigh its qualities for the most part. It also contains a very annoying opening credit sequence and moments where it drags on forever. When it tries to be clever it succeeds. I just wished it were more often...

“It's not a lie. It's a gift for fiction.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Philadelphia

Director

Jonathan Demme

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 02, 2001

Philadelphia was the first big commercial movie to handle AIDS openly. It was also the movie that got Tom Hanks his first Oscar. It is no wonder when the movie starts that you realize you’re on for a different ride.

Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is one of the best lawyers working at a highly prestigious firm headed by Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards). He also happens to be an HIV-infected homosexual. When he is the target of a fake set-up and fired without further explanation, he decides to bring the firm to court. Ambulance-chasing lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) takes over the case even though he has his own issues against Andy’s kind of life.

Philadelphia is nothing but a politically correct very-Hollywood tale of a man unlike any other. A man not willing to give up and keep fighting for his rights till the end. It is an inspiring story, you know? This is the kind of movie that elevates the human spirit. A movie that talks about men being all the same, about the struggle to accept others and about the fight against a terrible disease which is consuming millions of people nowadays.

One has to give credit to a movie that is not afraid to handle such difficult topics as homosexuals and AIDS with such sincerity. Unfortunately, the movie paints a real portrait of what still goes on in many places of this world. Discrimination, even racism, against others. I say, who are we to judge others? I might not be completely in favor of this guy’s way of life. I might be totally against it. So what? Does he deserve to be treated differently because of who he is? Who are we, I repeat?

It is justice and only justice that Andy seeks with all his heart and soul. It is heartbreaking to see this guy suffering from something that shouldn’t have happened in the first place. He’s got a great family, a loving and supporting partner, a great job, in other words, he’s happy with his life. But of course, it all starts to fade because of his illness. AIDS, a deadly virus, an incurable disease, a plague. Even so, Andy is an example of hope and willingness to keep on, of never giving up.

Tom Hanks is frighteningly good in a role that not only required of him an impressive physical transformation but that also proved to be an emotional tour-de-force. Denzel Washington is equally good as the conflicted lawyer trying to cope with a reality he had never tried to understand. The late Jason Robards commands the screen with his presence. It is Antonio Banderas who I think was a bit miscast. Besides, you can clearly notice he spoke barely a word of English at the time.

I could understand anyone calling Philadelphia “manipulative”. As a matter of fact, they would be right. It is not without some level of guilt, but I must say it never really did bother me that much. I just went with the flow and tried to enjoy the otherwise engrossing David vs. Goliath tale.

Jonathan Demme’s direction is outstanding.

And that Bruce Springsteen classic song... it’s good!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Crazy/Beautiful

Director

John Stockwell

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 01, 2001

Confused, rebel teenager Nicole Oakley (Kirsten Dunst) finds no other way to live life than enjoying the moment, not thinking a bit about the future, until she falls in love with Mexican/American Carlos Núñez (Jay Hernandez), whose responsible attitude and huge concern about the future contrasts her way of life and makes her change bit by bit.

But is that all there is to it? It’s not. Carlos’s society doesn’t take his relationship very lightly, resulting in internal conflicts that might endanger his carefully designed structure of life. His dedication in school, sports and work might become weaker thanks to Nicole. After all, Carlos’ nosy mother (Soledad St. Hilaire) might not be so wrong every time she annoys him with questions about everything he does.

Carlos and Nicole fight for pure love even though everything around them proves them wrong. In the end, they might or might not prove that loving each other is more than enough...

This film is a simple, typical love story with a different background. Nevertheless, the freshness with which it’s presented gives it enough originality to please the audience. Besides, it introduces charming Hernandez in a major role that suits him to perfection.

But it is Kirsten Dunst in her best performance to date who makes this a most worthwhile experience. Her presence is always strong and her performance incredibly effective. You never know what to expect from her and from her complex character but there is always a delightful turn coming up.

All in all, this one’s a little film to enjoy without further compromise. One little film that will be gladly remembered by some in the future…

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter