CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Face/Off

Director

John Woo

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 30, 2003

In 1997 director John Woo took the world by storm with a movie with a laughable premise that he somehow pulled off admirably. It became a big hit and reinvigorated the careers of Nicolas Cage and John Travolta. No wonder, the movie is fun!

FBI Special Agent John Archer (John Travolta) has been tracking down criminal mastermind Castor Troy (Nicolas Cage) forever. When he finally catches him, he must go undercover to find a biological weapon using Troy’s identity, which means face-swapping. Trouble ensues when Troy wakes up from his coma and actually takes on Archer’s face.

Can you imagine if this technology actually existed? What a crazy world this would be! And we aren’t that far from pulling it off, which is even scarier. Face/Off toys with the idea of being able to change identities in a way that makes it a lot of fun to watch.

Woo and his writers actually manage to create a story that seems implausible at first, but that is ultimately the excuse for a lot of great action sequences and way too much tension because of the identity thing between the good and evil guys. There’s an almost unbearable scene at the end involving Archer’s wife (Joan Allen) that works just as well as the rest of the movie.

Getting into action mode, both Cage and Travolta are extraordinary, conveying the two personalities each of their characters has with ease. The transformation is quite shocking, yet it’s always believable. Alessandro Nivola also appears as Cage’s brother in what is a standout performance.

Exciting non-stop action yarn!

“I hate to see you go, but I love to watch you leave.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Untouchables

Director

Brian De Palma

Year

1987

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

In a time when Chicago was ran by the wrong side of the law, young and idealist Special Agent Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is assigned to the Department of Treasury. As expected, he sets to put an end to the illegal activities that have changed the course of the city. And, as expected, he fails. Is that it for Mr. Ness? No, it’s not. After a disappointment, he gathers a small force of incorruptible men who are willing to risk their lives to put an end to this situation, and the man mainly responsible for it – Al Capone (Robert DeNiro). The force includes an aging street cop of Irish origins (Sean Connery), a nerdy but smart accountant (Charles Martin Smith) and a straight arrow recruit (Andy Garcia). Known as The Untouchables, they fearlessly strike Capone’s forces once and again… But how to finish the big man himself? And how to do it without getting killed?

This stylish film is an update of the well-known television series from decades ago, which made history. As well as the series, it is not exactly faithful to real-life events, but it cares so much about the viewers that no one really cares. Shot in something of a comic-book treatment, and scored magnificently by Ennio Morricone (suiting both exciting and dramatic situations to a tee), it couldn’t be more entertaining. The performances certainly help, especially Connery’s, which earned him an Oscar. But this is Brian De Palma’s game and it must be stated: He did a wonderful work.

Oh, and how could I not mention the breath-taking shoot-out scene at the train station, that serves both as an homage to Potemkin (1925) and as the most exciting sequence of the film? It couldn’t be more nail biting!

All in all, top-notch entertainment.

“You’re nothing but a lot of talk and a badge.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Murder in the First

Director

Marc Rocco

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

I love this movie. I first saw it when I was pretty young and instantly loved it. I was an impressionable kid back then, and this movie certainly shocked me. It was rare to be so young and find in this one of the best movies I had ever seen, but there was something to it that I couldn’t resist: its strong depiction of human essence.

After an attempt to escape from Alcatraz in 1938, a petty thief called Henri Young (Kevin Bacon) was put into a dark, lonely room beneath the ground for three unbearable years. He was only visited once in a while by some guards and Associate Warden Glenn (Gary Oldman), who used to beat him around and leave him to his misery. When Henri came out he sought vengeance and killed the man who blew the whistle on the escape. The government then tried him for first-degree murder, meaning death sentence if he was found guilty. It wasn’t until an attorney called James Stamphill (Christian Slater) focused his attention on him that the fight turned nastier, as he strongly believed Alcatraz was to blame for the murder Henri perpetuated.

Murder in the First is a first-rate drama. And it is also very difficult to watch. There are scenes in the movie that will leave you crunching, yet they are necessary for the overall effect to translate to us. After all, the movie is based on a true story and there’s no hiding from the truth when telling Young’s horrific story.

As courtroom dramas go, this is one of the most solid and entertaining of the 90’s. There’s the usual cat-and-mouse game between the different sides, yet there’s a human aspect involved through the whole case that makes it even more personal, more heart-wrenching. We hate what happened to Young and we are forced to take a stand. Taking a side isn’t precisely difficult, but rooting for it is.

The movie is also critical of the penal system of the prison at the time, portraying Glenn’s character as true evil. Perhaps he was, but the point is that sometimes power can get a little out of hand, and true punishment comes in different forms that are best-deserved.

Kevin Bacon owns the movie. His performance is fearless, clearly one of the best of his career. The sorrow in his eyes is almost scary. He gives it all to Henri, and the movie works because of him. Slater, Oldman and the rest of the cast are first-rate as well.

A story worth being told.

“I was the weapon, but I ain’t no killer.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Thief of Bagdad

Director

Ludwig Berger

Michael Powell

Tim Whelan

Year

1940

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 27, 2003

Prince Ahmad of Bagdad (John Justin) is the rightful heir to the throne, but evil Grand Vizier Jaffar (Conrad Veidt) is not willing to let that happen. Ahmad is betrayed and pursued as a criminal, but luckily, in his way he meets Abu (Sabu), a clever little thief who’s willing to help him. In their way, Ahmad falls in love with a Princess (June Duprez), which really gets him and Abu in trouble. Each on his own, they must find a way to make justice, which is not an easy task, since Jaffar is a Wizard. Luckily, Abu meets a Genie (Rex Ingram) who sure comes in handy, after a bumpy start.

Amazing fantasy of endless magic, this colorful presentation is a triumph in every way, and undoubtedly the best adaptation of this Arabian Nights tale. There are no limits, technically or otherwise, for this wonderful movie. Just look at that horse flying, or the size of that Genie, or anything else, and you’ll be amazed that it was all done in 1940. Sure, we have mesmerizing special effects nowadays, but it’s great to see what magic and imagination could do back then. Add to the mix some sense of humor, and you’ve got a winner.

The performers are good, especially Ingram as the temperamental Genie, Veidt as the crazed Wizard, and Sabu as the thief, the role of a lifetime. The score, by Miklos Rozsa, is more than appropriate.

This film has spun countless imitators and served as inspiration for many further movies, including Disney’s Aladdin. See also: The Thief of Bagdad (1924).

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Father of the Bride

Director

Charles Shyer

Year

1991

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 23, 2003

The Father of the Bride in question is a remake of a Spencer Tracy classic I have never seen. Then again, this re-telling can also claim to be extremely popular, since modern audiences responded to it very well and there’s no one out there who doesn’t know this movie, even if it’s by name. Me? I’ve seen it a couple of times... and it’s good.

George and Nina Banks (Steve Martin and Diane Keaton) are a happily-married couple whose daughter Annie (Kimberly Williams) is just about to get married. George isn’t too happy about it, not because of the groom, but because he can’t yet let go of his baby.

Father of the Bride is a movie that works because one way or another we can identify with its characters. Perhaps you haven’t gone through a situation like this, however it is a situation so common and so real that it gets to our hearts. We feel George’s pain and understand the way he feels, although we also understand Annie and her need of leaving her home to make a life of her own.

The movie is not without a lot of hilarious situations. Martin Short provides some comic relief as a wedding planner and Steve Martin himself makes us laugh with everything he says and does. He’s a desperate father, so you better watch out.

As the movie comes to and end, we’re completely immersed in their story and want everything to go right as much as they do. Besides, we also start to feel just like George, as we know the happy, yet bittersweet, event is about to happen.

As performances go the whole cast is extraordinary, with Steve at the top of his form and Diane Keaton delightful as his counterpart.

A touching movie.

“No. It’s just... I know I’ll remember this moment for the rest of my life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Les Biches

Director

Claude Chabrol

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Les biches, or The Does, its literal translation, refers to what a girl named Why (Jacqueline Sassard) paints on the sidewalks of Paris for money. One day, a rich lesbian called Frédérique (Stéphane Audran) approaches the girl and picks her up, which is followed by a subtle but inevitable romance between them. Despite their cultural and economic differences, all goes quite all right, until they visit Frédérique’s villa in Saint Tropez, where things go toward the bumpy, as the two male housekeepers tense the environment. What makes matters worse, Why decides to romance a wealthy architect (Jean-Louis Trintignant) to make Frédérique jealous, who in turn decides to win him over, which shatters Why’s life.

Extraordinary romantic drama/thriller by Chabrol and Paul Gégauff that ventures into the world of lesbians in a time when lesbianism was much more a taboo than it is now, even among lesbians. Told in episodic fashion, in a slow, often bizarre storytelling, it grows in intensity until the tragic denouement that couldn’t be more meaningful. Overall, it’s a classic for its depiction of sexual confusion and the clash of cultures and societies. The performances are top-notch as well.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

11'09''01

Director

Youssef Chahine

Amos Gitai

Alejandro González Iñárritu

Shohei Imamura

Claude Lelouch

Ken Loach

Samira Makhmalbaf

Mira Nair

Sean Penn

Idrissa Quedraogo

Danis Tanovic

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

I think I’m not alone when saying September 11th left a traumatizing impression on me. When I see an image or hear an individual story about that day I always get teary-eyed. I had to prepare to see this movie and be ready to take what it had to offer. At the end there were only two shorts that made me cry and that’s because even though all of them have something to do with the attacks on New York, they’re not necessarily about them.

There are eleven short films from eleven different directors that run eleven minutes each. Some of them work a lot better than others, and here’s my impression of all of them ordered by how much I liked them:

Easily the worst of the bunch for me is Egypt’s Youssef Chahine’s short about a director visited by the ghost of a U.S. Marine who was killed in the Beirut bombing. It tries hard to have an arc, to send out a message, to move the audience, but is actually not very well done.

Japan’s Shohei Imamura develops an interesting idea into something that has barely got to do with the subject matter at all. His short is about a man who survived the atomic bombing and now believes is a snake.

Danis Tanovic, from Bosnia-Herzegovina shows women marching with the names of their death despite the tragedy in New York. It is thoughtful, but rather slow and not entirely satisfactory.

Ken Loach’s short from England has a Chilean writing a letter to the Americans showing his sympathy and reminding them of their very own tragedy, when dictator Pinochet took control of Chile one sunny September 11th.

Samira Makhmalbaf’s short has a teacher trying to explain her students about the importance of the attacks. Their innocence and the things they say resonate harder coming from children. A powerful statement indeed.

Israel’s Amos Gitai shows how a reporter tries to cover a suicide attack in Tel Aviv with no luck, since she’s not going live due to a more important event happening across the ocean, which everyone is covering. Although too over-the-top, it is an interesting examination of the role the media played that day.

Idrissa Quedraogo tells the story of five boys who think they have spotted Osama Bin Laden and try to capture him in order to demand the reward. Another short involving kids full of innocence. This might be the lightest short of them all.

France’s Claude Lelouch tells the touching story of a deaf woman who doesn’t realize what happened until her boyfriend arrives covered in dust. It is simple and understated, with a fantastic performance from its leading man.

Mina Nair tells the extraordinary, and true, story of a Pakistani mother whose son disappeared the day of the attacks and was believed to be a terrorist until six months later his body was found and it was discovered that he had gone to the Towers to help. I couldn’t stop crying at the end of this short. It is ironic and contains a very powerful message. It is also about a hero.

Alejandro González Iñárritu, from Mexico, keeps the screen entirely black for most of its running time only juxtaposing some images of bodies falling from the Towers. He lets us hear how the planes crashed, the sorrow from people, a couple of phone calls to loved ones and finally the sound of the buildings falling. It is excruciating to see... and hear.

Finally Sean Penn directs Ernest Borgnine as an aging man who hasn’t gotten over the death of his wife and can’t understand why the flowers over the window don’t grow. It seems they need more light, and eventually they get it. I fell in love with this short. It says so much with so little. A gem.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bananas

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 20, 2003

Fielding Mellish (Woody Allen) is a consumer products tester, and not a particularly good one at that, who falls in love with a gorgeous communist activist (Louise Lasser) and, in order to interest her, pretends to be intrigued by her cause. One thing takes to the other, and he eventually winds up allied to the revolutionary forces of a Banana Republic, which in turn gets him involved in politics… until he becomes El Presidente!

Hilarious, to say the least, this is Woody Allen’s best film before his autheur era that officially began with Annie Hall (1977). Woody’s script is truly flawless and consistently funny. Brilliant ideas all around, acute observations of guerrillas and the media, and some valuable insight in the fulfillment or lack of it in a relationship between two people, make this film a definite knockout.

The score by Marvin Hamlisch, as well as his original song, “Quiero La Noche” (performed by The Yomo Toro Trio), add a lot to the story. Not to mention the amusing cameos, especially Howard Cosell’s.

A riot!

“I once stole a pornographic book that was printed in braille. I used to rub the dirty parts.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Director

Stephen Norrington

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 16, 2003

I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. The concept is soooo cool that you wonder why it is that they couldn’t have come up with a better movie. It is like a Victorian X-Men, yet it doesn’t reach the greatness of that movie franchise by a mile.

When the world is in danger because of the plans of an evil megalomaniac, adventurer Allan Quatermain (Sean Connery) is asked to do something about it with the help of a rather special team that includes Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah), Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), Rodney Skinner aka ‘The Invisible Man’ (Tony Curran), Dorian Grey (Stuart Townsend), Tom Sawyer (Shane West) and Mr. Edward Hyde (Jason Flemyng).

The movie is based on the Alan Moore comic book of the same name, which is said to be brilliant and absolutely original. To tell you the truth, the idea of getting together all these characters (even though some do no appear in the comic book) always sounded to me like a stroke of genius. Imagine the possibilities!

Yet, even though the movie is not a total disaster, it definitely disappoints. And the sad part is that I just cannot find any strong reason why this happens. The spark just isn’t there. The ingredients just don’t gel together that well. I can see what director Stephen Norrington wanted to do with his movie, but somehow it fell out of his hands.

There are action scenes galore and each character has the opportunity to shine at one point in the movie. Some of these scenes actually stand out, but overall the feeling is that the movie drags and that the sum of its parts just doesn’t come together. Besides, there’s too much going on and the script isn’t as good as to let all the characters populate in the same movie. I felt Mina Harker’s character was fascinating, yet I never really found out about her or stayed with her long enough to completely enjoy the experience.

And then there are the special effects, some of which are really good and some of which suck. Take Hyde’s character for example. His character is ill-conceived and not believable for a second. That really detracts you from the whole picture.

I don’t know, I just didn’t get as excited as I thought I could. If there are plans for a sequel I hope it does improve because there’s potential out there.

“You broke my heart once. This time you missed.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Thief of Bagdad

Director

Raoul Walsh

Year

1924

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 15, 2003

A picaresque small-time thief (Douglas Fairbanks) chances for glory as he pretends he’s a Prince in order to kidnap the Princess (Julanne Johnston) and make a lot of money. Once inside the palace, however, he hopelessly falls in love with her, as she with him. Now determined to fight for her love, he sets to earn it by bringing the rarest object from faraway lands, in a competition with other Princes (real ones, though) who want to marry the Princess as well.

Each Prince searches for strange objects, gathering such things as a magic carpet and a magic ball, but the evil Mongol Prince (Sojin) is not willing to play fair. Will the thief be able to outdo his adversaries and actually get the Princess without being a real Prince? With magic and sincerity on his side, he just as well might…

This fantastic early movie version of the Arabian Nights tale works amazingly, in part because of its infinitely imaginative design, in part for its unlimited sense of awe, in part for its leading man and his undeniable grace. It goes on for too long, that’s a fact, but it’s never really boring, and there’s always something around the corner to surprise us even more. It’s a true marvel.

Fairbanks, as stated before, couldn’t be more gracious, in fact more than usually, though as likable as ever. Sojin is also great, as is Mathilde Comont, a woman playing the lazy Prince of Persia.

William Cameron Menzies deserves a paragraph of his own for his production design, though the entire work of make-believe of this film deserves applause.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey

Director

Peter Hewitt

Year

1991

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to see Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey. The thing is that, well, I got rather confused and always thought, while watching the movie, that this was the first installment of the “franchise”. Never did I realize I was actually watching the sequel! Confusion aside, the movie was pretty understandable, so there was no problem there.

An evil man from the future creates evil androids that are identical to Bill and Ted in order to kill them. Once the robots do their jobs, Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) find themselves traveling with the Grim Reaper through Hell and Heaven in order to rescue their babes from the hands of the evil-doers… and participate in the Battle of the Bands as well.

Movies don’t get much stupider than this. But then again, this doesn’t intend to be something else. The leading characters are stupid and the situation in which they find themselves is stupid. What else to expect from this movie?

Truth is, I actually tried to switch to stupid mode while watching the movie. But even that way I couldn’t really find more than a few chuckles and amusing moments. Mostly the movie impresses because of its inventiveness and creativity, but not because of its dialogue or characters. The special effects, given the movie’s style, are quite impressive.

I guess this movie is perfect for kids who find farts amusing. And don’t get me wrong, farts are funny, but you get my point. This is a movie for men who have not reached adulthood yet, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter reprise the roles which elevated them to cult status. They’re simply something else and the actors take all they can out of the opportunity to play such characters.

Mild diversion.

“Don’t overlook my butt, I work out all the time. And reaping burns a lot of calories.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Great Expectations

Director

David Lean

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 13, 2003

Pip, a young orphan (Anthony Wager), once helps a fugitive convict (Finlay Currie), and soon after finds himself strangely attached to Miss Havisham (Martita Hunt), who has a resentful heart and lives in the past, and her lovely niece Estella (a very lovely Jean Simmons), who’s being raised as a tool of vengeance against men. As years flow, a mysterious benefactor sends an older Pip (John Mills) to become a gentleman of great expectations in London. The question is, who is that benefactor? Pip thinks he knows, and develops great expectations of his own, which are not to be completely fulfilling, especially regarding cold-hearted Estella (Valerie Hobson).

Awesome adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic, this fine film manages to tell the complete story in quite a short running time, without losing any of its valuable aspects. Sumptuously filmed, with a classic opening scene in a graveyard, and fantastic performances all around (including a very young Alec Guinness as Pip’s roommate), this film easily established Lean as a masterful director with a very promising career. His great expectations proved to be very fulfilling. Kudos also go to cinematographer Guy Green and production designer John Bryan; their work is exquisite.

Certainly not to be missed.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Secretary

Director

Steven Shainberg

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 09, 2003

Maggie Gyllenhaal was widely considered last year’s breakthrough performer. She hadn’t really gotten this kind of attention before and now she’s all over the place, always delivering amazing performances. Yet I needed to see what everybody was talking about, and that’s Secretary.

Lee (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has just come out of a mental institution where she was treated because she used to like cutting and hurting herself. It is difficult for her to adjust to her new life, but that soon ends when she gets a job as E. Edward Grey’s (James Spader) secretary. Edward is a lawyer who kind of likes things well done… and fast. Lee, on the other hand, couldn’t be happier to have such a demanding boss. Soon a relationship outside common boundaries starts to flourish between them both.

What’s so special about Secretary? Truth is, one could regard it as just another romantic comedy out there. Perhaps it has a little drama thrown in there for good measure and that’s it, you’ve got your formula! But this specific movie has a twist, which is that there’s S&M involved. Now, you might be put off by that simple fact, but fact is you’d be missing one of the best romantic movies of the last years.

Secretary is never grotesque, yet it doesn’t shy away from the fact that there are people in the world who actually like a little more heat in their relationships than what’s usually considered normal. This movie is a serious examination of two people in desperate need of letting go, of being themselves. I love the way the movie doesn’t judge its characters; it respects them and shows them as they are. That, too me, is what honesty is all about. These characters feel real and I never felt the movie went over-the-top or unbelievable in the way it depicted their behavior. They are just made for each other in the way they need each other in their own particular way.

That said, this movie isn’t for everyone, but if you’re open to see a romance a little different from what we usually get and characters that seem made of flesh and blood instead of the usual stereotypes found in movies nowadays… see it. You won’t regret it.

Did I mention I loved the beginning and the ending of this movie? Perfect!

So what about Maggie Gyllenhaal? I gotta say she deserves all the recognition she got. She is a brave actress, despite never getting naked until the last act of the movie. And even then the baring of her soul is more shocking than the baring of her body. That’s what Maggie creates through this character, going through every single range of emotions there are in literally a couple of minutes. She’s amazing and James Spader is her perfect match.

Sadomasochism has never been sweeter.

“Each cut, each scar, each burn, a different mood or time. I told him what the first one was, told him where the second one came from. I remembered them all. And for the first time in my life I felt beautiful. Finally part of the earth. I touched the soil and he loved me back.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Matchstick Men

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 08, 2003

Roy Waller (Nicolas Cage) and his partner/protégé Frank (Sam Rockwell) are con artists. Roy has seen better times, and has made a lot of money, but doesn’t care anymore for big jobs, and doesn’t want to pull them, in part because of his numerous phobias and tics that bug him constantly. Roy is an obsessive-compulsive and can’t live life without therapy and pills, even if they’re illegal. Incredible as it seems, Roy is in control, as much as he can be, and doesn’t want to do something that endangers his health.

In the meantime, Frank is desperate. He can’t get the far more experienced Roy to pull a worthwhile job and he needs the money bad, if only for the hell of it, if only because he knows he could get it. When a rich and greedy man he knows (Bruce McGill) becomes the perfect subject of a con, things get even worse for Frank, as Roy won’t hear of it.

Something unexpected happens just then, however… Roy runs out of pills and can’t find his Doctor, so he goes through one of his worse crises in a long time. Frank finds him a Psychiatrist (Bruce Altman), who Roy visits reluctantly, but soon it starts working out; Roy even talks about his personal life (he once had one, now he’s too sick to maintain close relationships), and admits how much he misses having met his child, who should’ve been born fourteen years ago (he and his ex-wife split when she was pregnant). Soon, he really wants to meet the kid, and asks his Doctor to contact his ex-wife and find out. So a pretty teenage girl appears into the picture: Angela (Alison Lohman), the long-estranged daughter. Roy is unprepared for the role of father to say the least, but he does pretty well, and she helps, too. In fact, they get along so well, that he even teaches her a con or two. And he gets in such a good mood, that he goes for the big con that Frank proposed… Ah, the happy life of a criminal!

…or is it?

Matchstick Men is a delightfully funny and lighthearted look at a conflicted man and his criminal life, as well as his attempts to act as a normal human being when confronted to an actual affectionate relationship. This is one of Ridley Scott’s rarest films, but a great one. The whole cast is fantastic, especially Cage credibly playing a human being out of a character that could’ve easily become a caricature, and Lohman, perfect as a girl of 14 despite actually being ten years older.

Continuously funny, it’s scripted by Nicholas and Ted Griffin from the book by Eric Garcia. Its downbeat flavor is perfectly achieved, aided by a Hans Zimmer score that does everything but call attention to itself.

The ending is a shocker, and has understandably spun some controversy. This is mostly about what some people call an epilogue, which happens after the plot twist. All I’ll say is, without that, the experience would’ve been completely shattering instead of somewhat redeeming, and lighthearted, at least for me.

“Pygmies!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Mark of Zorro

Director

Fred Niblo

Year

1920

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 06, 2003

In old Spanish California, oppression is the daily bread for most people. Even former rich families find misery and dishonor if in disagreement with the oppressive government.

Thus appears out of nowhere Zorro (Douglas Fairbanks), a dashing protector of the weak and powerless with a flashing sword that gives evildoers his mark on their face, and a snappy sense of humor that humiliates them even more…

This puzzling anonymous hero, who flashes about riding his horse or sprinting by himself, is in reality Don Diego Vega, a society man who’s so dull he bores even himself, even more so Miss Lolita Pulido (Marguerite De La Motte), a girl he’s forced to court. As it happens, she can’t think of anyone else than Zorro, who seems very much in love with her. Something Captain Juan Ramon (Robert McKim), who desires Miss Pulido as well, won’t hesitate to use against the masked crusader.

Exciting, to say the least, this silent film is Fairbanks’ first swashbuckler, sometimes regarded as his finest film. Action and humor are perfectly intertwined, in a continuously entertaining yarn. Fairbanks is a true powerhouse in his performance of contrasting alter egos.

Not to be missed by fans of the star, the genre, or the character that has been reprised so many times so successfully.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Best Years of Our Lives

Director

William Wyler

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 02, 2003

Three WWII veterans return to their hometown and meet each other for the first time on the way. Each of them is excited but fearful to see their family again. After that, their lives intertwine, as they find their families changed or their lives next to them difficult to handle after the years, the physical changes, and the psychological effects of war.

Al Stephenson (Fredric March) finds total strangers in his teenage children; Fred Derry (Dana Andrews), despite his triumphs in war, seems unable to blend into society as a laborer; and Homer Parrish (Harold Russell), a double amputee, is too afraid that his handicap will make his loved ones’ lives impossible.

Shattering post-war saga, scripted by Robert E. Sherwood from a novel by MacKinlay Kantor, perfectly renders the awkwardness of not feeling at home in a place where you’ve wanted to be for a while… And the consequential feeling of not belonging anywhere at all. Our three main characters go through very different situations and deal with them in different ways, yet they all share the exact same awkward feeling, and they all know it. This movie doesn’t force its characters into anything extraordinary; instead, everything seems real and that’s what makes it work. In fact, the story gives space to comedy and romance, and in the end it’s just a knock-out pack of poignancy. This truly sets an example of dramatic storytelling.

All the performers are tremendous, including Mirna Loy as Al’s wife and Teresa Wright as their daughter, who falls for Fred. But real-life war veteran Russell is the most unforgettable, and naturally the most affecting character. The scene where his fiancée (Cathy O’Donnell) puts him in bed is a powerful tear-jerker.

All in all, a magnificent film, featuring a grand score by Hugo Friedhofer, and cinematography by Gregg Toland.

“I’ve seen nothing, I should have stayed at home and found out what was really going on.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bowling for Columbine

Director

Michael Moore

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

I came into Bowling for Columbine fully aware that it would be an assault on my senses. Little did I know it was going to affect me that much. Of course, that’s rather a personal thing, for every time I see footage or anything related with September 11 or the Columbine High School shooting I get all teary-eyed.

Filmmaker Michael Moore brilliantly stages his documentary around the 1999 shooting in which two boys terrorized a high school and killed many people. Through the use of real footage, new interviews, hilarious segments made for the movie and all sorts of wackiness by Moore himself, he sends out the message that there’s something wrong with the United States, the country in which the death-by-weapons toll is the highest by a huge margin among first-world countries.

Moore goes on to try and figure out why that happens. Many people claim that the country has had a violent past, but so have many others, and still people aren’t as afraid or as violent as they are in the U.S. Could it have something to do with racism? Pop culture? Technology? There are no easy answers to find, and that’s what we learn throughout this exceptional documentary. Whether you agree or not with Moore’s point of view the fact is that he’ll make you think.

Moore interviews such personalities as Charlton Heston, Marilyn Manson and Matt Stone, as well as other lesser known faces that are equally important. He also manages to organize a whole stunt regarding K-Mart and a couple of kids who were permanently injured in the Columbine shooting. The bullets with which they were hurt were bought in K-Mart, and Moore took those kids to return them. It could seem like an over-the-top thing to do, but the pay-off is surprisingly moving.

There’s also a brilliant animated piece about the history of the United States that has to be seen to be believed. And a “Cops” parody that is absolutely hilarious. For this movie is about making us laugh as well. A lot.

One of the things I thought lessened the impact of the whole thing was when Moore tried to cover a little more ground than he could… or should. At one point he went on to ramble about a work-for-welfare program trying to blame it for the death of a child. He’s got a point, but I think his doc works better when he doesn’t try to put the answers out there for us. After all that’s his point of view. It’s better to just lay the cards and let us go with whatever we hold more closely.

Nonetheless, this is a movie that should be seen. A groundbreaking documentary that breaks all the rules… and has a lot of fun while doing so!

“I use the pen because the pen is mightier than the sword. But you must always keep a sword handy for when the pen fails.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter