CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Corpse Bride

Director

Tim Burton

Mike Johnson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 31, 2005

If I had to choose a favorite movie collaboration, the combination of director Tim Burton, actor Johnny Depp and composer Danny Elfman would certainly come up as a likely choice. They were born to work together. Corpse Bride, their latest venture, comes in the heels of a long-awaited follow-up to the Tim Burton-produced The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993). And even though they have barely anything in common, it can be stated that it will please almost everyone, if I may say so.

Victor (voice of Johnny Depp), a common man from a humble family who became rich, is about to marry Victoria (voice of Emily Watson), a common woman from a well-positioned family with barely any money left. It is a fixed marriage, and both of them meet the day of their wedding rehearsal, which goes terribly wrong despite the fact that they really liked each other. In his desperation, Victor runs to the woods and inadvertently wakes up a death bride (voice of Helena Bonham Carter), who brings him to her land and immediately falls for him.

I love how the movie is filled with Burton’s wicked sensitivities. The movie is based on a Russian folk tale, and is spiced up with a bit of Mexican tradition. Burton chooses to present the land of the living in dim tones, almost black-and-white, making an allegory of the sad state of a hypocritical society. But on the other hand, he opts to present the land of the death in bright, colorful tones. It’s a party down there, and I’ll leave the implications of that to you…

Surprisingly enough, the movie is sweeter than expected. Sure, it is filled with black humor. But at the end of the day we fall for each of the three main characters. We don’t really know who we want Victor to end up with, and that’s a testament of the movie’s strong sense of character development. Victor, Victoria and Emily are wonderful creations, each with its own peculiar and irresistible personality. And even though we may know where the movie is heading, it’s always surprising and has a beautiful, heart-warming finale.

I have a couple of quibbles though. The movie took a while to get going for my taste. Some of the jokes fall flat, especially at the beginning. But the last half hour is pure magic. I was also disappointed, and I can’t believe I’m writing this, by Danny Elfman’s work. His score is uninteresting and the songs absolutely forgettable. I guess the movie lacks a certain oomph that is difficult to describe at times, but at others it’s breath-taking.

My favorite two scenes in the movie, incidentally, involve music. They involve pianos… and are simply wonderful. I also got a kick out of Victor’s dog. That dog is responsible for the biggest laugh I got from the movie.

The voice work is uniformly good. Depp, Watson and Helena Bonham Carter are joined by Albert Finney, Tracey Ullman and Christopher Lee among others. Great work by all.

Amazing visual imagery and a wonderful tale are just some of the small pleasures this movie has to offer.

"Why go up there when people are dying to get down here?"

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Corpse Bride (2005): Groucho

Review

Flightplan

Director

Robert Schwentke

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 27, 2005

After the unexpected death of her husband (suicide, no less), Kyle (Jodie Foster) is struck by paranoia. She decides to take the body to her home country in America, taking along her small daughter Julia (Marlene Lawston) to start anew over there. The flight takes place in a most modern aircraft, one she knows to perfection since she helped design its engines. Everything goes fine as mother and daughter start coping with reality during their flight, until Kyle takes a fatidic nap, and wakes up to discover her daughter’s missing… and seems to not have been there at all.

The story picks up its premise from Hitchcock’s masterful The Lady Vanishes (1938), and doesn’t do bad in building up the suspense and constructing the mystery. Two key elements from that classic film are essential to this one: The fact that we’re not sure whether the protagonist is mad, and the fact that everything and everyone around proves that she is… except for one person. This time this hero is not exactly a hero: Carson (Peter Sarsgaard) is doubtful and doesn’t treat Kyle very well. Yet, most times he gets a chance to help, he does, and he’s more a relief than anything else to our heroine. Most of the film she’s sure she’s saying the truth, though indeed, it’s quite clear she’s not. Or is it? What’s going on? Why did this happen? The fact that she knows the aircraft like the palm of her hand helps a lot, but sometimes that isn’t enough… You have to keep a clear mind and be as resourceful as possible.

Jodie Foster is a fantastic actress. She’s done very few movies all in all, especially lately, but somehow she always manages to leave a mark and make her appearances unique. As a distressed mother she’s perfection. She grasps the anguish and the urgency at every turn and it’s quite hard to believe the actress is really NOT as distressed as she seems. The character is very meaty, too. She’s an intelligent woman who might be losing her mind but is not losing half her impulse. She’s like a wild beast that can’t be caught, even when caught. Her eye movements match her quick speech, her sudden jumps, her races across the aisle, and her fast thinking. She’s everything you could wish for in a lead character.

The story around her doesn’t match that by far. Even though I can’t complain about the suspense, I must say I had to ignore more than a few attempts on basic logic to fully enjoy the experience. After leaving the theater however, I was obliged to think back and realize how many mistakes and plot holes there are, and how sad it is that a fine script is marred by some laziness here and there. I don’t think it’d be too hard to fix some of the clear problems of the script, so I’m really disappointed. A potentially excellent movie marred by little, stupid things.

Other than that, it’s pretty good. I guess the casting is its biggest asset. Sarsgaard is great at every stage of his character, as are Sean Bean as the pilot, Kate Beahan and Erika Christensen as stewardesses, et al.

As a positive side note, I might add there are more than a few laughs throughout, which are welcome. The other free pleasure the movie offers is the tour inside a sophisticated plane, which is something we rarely (if ever) see. James Horner’s music is good, too. Fine editing, cool photography, and a nice directing job. Yet…

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Flightplan (2005): Morris

Review

Goal!

Director

Danny Cannon

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

I remember clearly when this movie (the first part of a trilogy) was first announced. Acclaimed director Michael Winterbottom and Mexican star Diego Luna were making it and it sounded intriguing enough. Then Winterbottom bailed, and a dubious choice, Danny Cannon, replaced him. Luna thus left the project, and another Mexican actor, up-and-coming Kuno Becker, took his place. It seemed at the time that the quality of the movie would suffer from all these going-ons. But judging from the movie itself, I can only say I’m grateful that those tough decisions were made. In absence of a better term: the movie rocks.

Santiago Munez (Kuno Becker) always had a talent for soccer, but living as an illegal immigrant in California, he didn’t think he would ever have a chance to prove it and thus became a gardener just like his father Hernan (Tony Plana). But when a former professional soccer player, Glen Foy (Stephen Dillane), spots him, his luck changes. Soon he’s on a plane to England, waiting to be tested by the Newcastle United… and the rest is history.

I’ve said it countless times before but I’m going to say it again: it doesn’t matter if we’ve seen the same kind of movie a thousand times, what really matters is how the movie plays and the journey it takes us through. Goal! is not a movie set to break the mold. It is a formulaic, by-the-numbers, cliché-filled, predictable sports flick. And it doesn’t try to be anything else. In fact, it approaches its genre so earnestly and honestly that it’s almost impossible not to completely surrender to it.

The story is simple actually. Poor lad is discovered by a hotshot and given an opportunity. While in England he’s a like a fish out of the water and struggles to find his place. He also meets a beautiful nurse (Anna Friel) who keeps his feet on the ground, and is threatened by the recent millionaire acquisition of a new player (Alessandro Nivola). Oh, and let’s not forget that Santiago suffers from Asthma (taken from Plot Complications 101 surely) and has a riff with his father.

Yet what this movie has going for it, it has it in spades. The movie’s got a heart the size of an elephant. We’re behind Santiago from frame one, and identify with his struggle throughout the whole adventure. Every step of the way we root for him, cheer for him, follow him without hesitation. And the movie is well-scripted and structured. It has good characters and real situations, which are just enough to win us over.

It also helps that director Cannon delivers a movie with butt-loads of energy. The pace is quick, each scene well-handled and it doesn’t let go till the credits roll. Michael Barrett’s amazing photography also impresses, especially during the extraordinary soccer scenes. And Graeme Revell’s score is integral to the movie.

Kuno Becker, an unknown to most of the world, gets a pass as the lead role in such an important movie (even FIFA contributed to it, which explains the appearance of high-caliber players such as David Beckham and Zinedine Zidane). Becker is believable at every turn, wherein the field or during his most emotional scenes. His work is even more important because if we didn’t buy him, the movie would have fallen. But he’s very good. And so are Stephen Dillane, Anna Friel, an explosive Alessandro Nivola, Daniel Maier and especially Marcel Iures, as the Newcastle United manager.

An inspirational feel-good movie about dreams and fighting for what you want. Give it a chance, it’s worth it.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Corpse Bride

Director

Tim Burton

Mike Johnson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

I never knew what to expect of Corpse Bride, in fact I never gave it a thought until I had a chance to see it. What a pleasant surprise! Not a masterpiece, but good fun to behold. Also a simple, little movie that’s harmless, nice, short and lighthearted. Its main characteristic is its use of stop-motion animation, a fine, flawless job, and a very funny one too. The eccentricity of the story is highlighted by the way it’s presented. I really liked the visual experience.

The story has Victor Van Dort (Johnny Depp) about to marry Victoria Everglot (Emily Watson), though they have never met. Their parents have arranged their marriage for different reasons which don’t include their children’s happiness. On the day of their wedding rehearsal, everything goes wrong: Victor and Victoria meet and fall in love, but Victor is too nervous to say his vows correctly. The Pastor (Christopher Lee) is too upset after so many mistakes, and deems it impossible to marry these two. Depressed, Victor wanders around town, attempting to get his vows right. His love for Victoria is revealed. While at the graveyard, he opens his heart and says the magic words, getting them right for once. To his misfortune, he has said his vows to a dead woman who was murdered by her fiancée and swore to wait for the right man. This is Emily, the Corpse Bride (Helena Bonham Carter). Now Victor is married to a corpse, and he’s summoned to the land of the dead. While this should freak him out, it mostly makes him reflect: Where is his life going?

Though the story and its presentation are grim, the mood is overly funny in a dry kind of way, which makes it special. How else could a story about a man engaged to a corpse be treated except with black humor? Every character seems to be twisted except Victor and Victoria. Their parents, hers broke aristocrats (Albert Finney and Joanna Lumley), his nouveau rich (Tracey Ullman and Paul Whitehouse), are caricatures if anything, but circumstances force them to get out of their mold, to hilarious results. Everyone at the land of the dead, especially wise Elder Gutknecht (Michael Gough), is peculiar people, and even Emily is a mixture of wicked and voluble. The result of seeing Victor surround himself of so many strange characters is pure pleasure.

This is a musical, the kind where music and song flows with the story and never interferes but instead makes things quicker and more entertaining. One of them reminded me of Dumbo (1941), which helps. Danny Elfman’s music is a real standout and his songs are lots of fun. A couple of sequences involving piano playing are quite moving.

The problem with the story is that despite its originality, it has several clichés, especially concerning a scheming character called Lord Barkis (Richard E. Grant). However, I admit I didn’t know how the story would end and I was satisfied by the way the ending was handled.

Finally, the performances are as good as they get. Depp’s low-key interpretation is perfect for the part, and Bonham Carter’s cheerful one is a perfect contrast. Everyone else is really great, though I enjoyed Gough more than anyone else.

“Why go up there when people are dying to get down here?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Corpse Bride (2005): Morris

Review

A History of Violence

Director

David Cronenberg

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 24, 2005

I am not very familiar with David Cronenberg’s filmography. The only movie I had seen of his was eXistenZ (1999), yet I know the director by reputation. I know what his favorite themes are and I know that he is quite attracted by a darker side of nature. With A History of Violence, Cronenberg is said to have made his most mainstream movie, which isn’t a bad thing at all. I wish all mainstream movies could be as intelligent and thought-provoking as this.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is an average guy who runs a diner and gets along with everybody in his small town. He has a wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes). They have a pretty normal life, that is, until one day Tom prevents a couple of criminals from robbing his diner and killing one of his employees. He instantly becomes a hero and appears all over the news. Soon after, a mysterious man by the name of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) shows up and confronts Tom, insisting that he is not who he claims, but instead a killer from Philadelphia who ripped his eye in the old days.

The movie starts innocently enough... The opening sequence reminded me of David Lynch and the macabre way in which he forces us to feel some way only to slap us in the face with a bang minutes later. Cronenberg knows this effect and employs it masterfully throughout the entire movie. It is such a visceral experience that I think it is a movie that should be seen twice. The first time around it’s shock after shock with barely any time to breathe. But I’m sure a second viewing, knowing what’s going to happen beforehand, will be equally satisfying, yet more enlightening. Talk about a movie that stays with you...

And yet, it is quite a simple story told exactly the way it should. Cronenberg’s movie is about violence, and he knows we’ve gotten used to it by now. So he toys with us in a way that we never know what to expect, but we do know that anything could happen. There’s a difference in there, and it’s a powerful one to convey. There are quite disturbing images, but even so, the psychological ramifications are way more disturbing than anything we see up there. Again, the difference is abysmal, and the experience a lot more rewarding.

What can a movie offer these days that can bring a new input to the nature of violence? Believe me when I say plenty. This movie is fascinating because it gives us many different scenarios that make us think; it makes us reflect not only about these characters, but about society and mostly about ourselves. How far are we able to go? How violent are we inside? What makes us tick? What are we projecting to the people who surround us? Who are we? To what point are we willing to forget? Does violence get us high? What’s our morbid quotient? Are the bonds that tie us to our family strong enough? Rather big questions, I know, but what’s amazing is that they’re coming from such a little mouth.

The movie is based on a graphic novel by John Wagner and Vincent Locke, and adapted to the big screen by John Olson. It is a great work of minimalist storytelling, brought to life with gusto by the director, cinematographer Peter Suschitsky, editor Ronald Sanders, composer Howard Shore and the rest of the team. This is a movie in which a small false note could have been damaging, yet the artistic merits of these people only heighten the story’s power.

Viggo Mortensen delivers a performance of incredible restraint and immense power. I had never seen him quite like this and I was awed. Ditto for Maria Bello, who gives the best performance of her career and one of the best of the year, period. She commands the screen and holds her own while being our eyes. It is an incredible performance in which she gets to show a lot of range. Ed Harris is in full villain-mode, something he knows how to do. And William Hurt has a brief appearance that totally kills. He grabs us and doesn’t let go... great work.

“You know what you could do? You could die.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ghost Busters

Director

Ivan Reitman

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis started something much bigger than they probably imagined when they concocted a story about ghost-hunting boys in modern times. What a fun idea! Cartoonish but not particularly foolish ghosts haunting New York City, citizens terrorized, and a few nerdish scientists getting together to finish the plague? Hilarious. After much treatment of story and screenplay they ended up with this piece, a modern if minor American classic, certainly part of the 80s culture but not the kind that people want to forget (a nod to my pal Morris here). Full of iconoclastic images and moments that have been with us since then, Ghost Busters is memorable even to those who haven’t seen it.

The story starts with a riotous haunting at the New York Public Library. Then, the always reliable and funny Bill Murray is introduced as Dr. Peter Venkman, a sort of parapsychologist who clearly doesn’t take his job too seriously. Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) rushes to tell Venkman about the appearance and how important it is in terms of their investigation, but Venkman doesn’t really seem to care as much as Stantz or their other colleague, Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), who’s already at the site. Over there, the boys realize there’s a real ghost in the place and soon it becomes clear that ghosts are everywhere around the city… and they’re kinda disgusting. Though indifferent and unimpressed, Venkman gets the idea to start a ghost busting business, which would not only be more lucrative than their research but also much more fun. They rent an abandoned firehouse, get installed, and off they go to success and superstardom!

I was really surprised by how the film developed. It never stops being a foolish comedy yet it takes care to work out its characters and show us their motivations, while it unfolds a larger than life story! The main focus is on Venkman, an unmotivated drifter if there ever was one (in a tailor-made role for Murray if there ever was one) who always tries to find the twist in every situation and always seems aloof. He soon falls for their first customer, Dana (Sigourney Weaver), and isn’t too professional about it.

Incidentally, Dana happens to live in a very important apartment which is not the very best place to live; she and her annoying neighbor Louis (Rick Moranis) unwillingly become a kind of people they weren’t, in a demonic plot to conquer the Earth…

Among other unforgettable scenes are the charge of the now-famous green ghost against Murray, the attack of the gigantic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (whose origin is fantastic), and the Exorcist-reminiscent performance of Weaver’s while possessed. Always refreshing is the comedy of the stars, including a fourth Ghost Buster, Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson), whose inclusion in the middle of the film I never quite got, but who’s got good enough comedic timing to make up for that; and the boys’ secretary Janine (Annie Potts), whose budding romance with Egon unfortunately is never developed.

Also worth noticing is Ray Parker Jr.’s original song, a classic in itself. Elmer Bernstein’s music score serves as well as expected by this magnificent composer doing a routine job.

Ghost Busters may not be the best film out there, not even one excellent comedy, but it’s refreshing and certainly gives the viewer a good time. All in all, the hip attitude of everyone involved is what makes this ghostly film work like wonders. I like that in a movie.

“He slimed me.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Grizzly Man

Director

Werner Herzog

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

This decade will be known for many things, but one of them will certainly be the renaissance of the documentary as a mainstream medium. Documentaries have always been there, but only few people saw them. Suddenly they have been taking center stage and the public’s awareness has increased. There’s still a long road to go, but the journey so far cannot be ignored. There are excellent documentaries out there that defy the line between fact and fiction and present extraordinary stories that can be as easily enjoyed as a traditional movie. Grizzly Man is an example of a documentary that must not be missed. And I say that as an order.

The movie tells the story of Timothy Treadwell, a young lad who used to be a nobody, then tried to become an actor and ultimately found himself protecting Grizzly bears in remote regions such as Alaska. Saying he protected them is an understatement; he lived with them for 13 summers, even to the point of wanting to become one of them. He also shot a lot of material of his travels for educational and activist purposes. That is, until he was brutally murdered and eaten by a bear along with his girlfriend Amie Huguenard.

Legendary director Werner Herzog serves as narrator and interviewer. As he puts it, sometimes a filmmaker stumbles unto material so fascinating that it’s impossible to ignore it. He regards Treadwell as a man with great filmmaking skills, responsible for about 100 hours of material from which he decided to tell his story. Herzog employs footage that Treadwell shot, but he also interviews some of his friends, his parents, and people involved with his work, such as the pilot who found his and Amie’s dead bodies or the forensic who examined them, among others. This approach serves to paint a broader canvas of who Timothy Treadwell was.

And who was Timothy Treadwell? That’s exactly what makes this documentary such a captivating experience to sit through. He was a man of many layers. He was a man that some people saw as crazy, and whom others feverishly admired. He was a man who escaped from his turbulent life by becoming someone else, breaking rules of nature that bordered on complete madness. He was a man of true convictions, a man much more intelligent than some give him credit for. He was a man who knew what he was doing, despite his childlike and surreal behavior among animals. And he was a man who knew the risks he was taking, and who is probably proud of the death he got, because as he put it, it would then give his work more prominence.

A particular scene is intriguing: when Treadwell and his girlfriend were savagely eaten by a bear, the camera he always brought with himself was on, but he wasn’t able to take the cap off. That means there’s actual footage of the event, but only with audio and a blank image. Herzog chooses not to let us hear the recording, but instead he shoots himself listening to it and it’s a striking image. I personally think he made the right move.

The word fascinating was invented to describe people like Timothy Treadwell. And Herzog does him justice with this documentary. Even if Treadwell became a celebrity when he lived, with this movie he became immortal, regardless of your personal opinion about him or his work.

“I will die for these animals, I will die for these animals, I will die for these animals.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The 40 Year Old Virgin

Director

Judd Apatow

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell) is the title character, a guy for whom it simply never happened. Long ago he quit trying, and started living a very quiet, simple life, working in a sports store, riding a bicycle, and collecting toys. Much like he does with his toys, he keeps himself inside his original wrapping, never planning to open it, though he knows the value of the content highly increases for keeping it untouched for such a long time.

One day, his workmates (Paul Rudd, Romany Malco and Seth Rogen) invite him to a poker match (their last option, to be sure) and find out he’s a virgin. He regrets saying what he said and letting them find out and is scared of what’s to come. He’s right: everyone at work finds out quickly, and his new buddies become obsessed with changing that status. Not easy for a guy who has already become pretty sure that he’ll die a virgin, and is OK with that… or is he? In the process of partying, hanging out, meeting girls, and pretending he’s someone he’s not, Andy meets Trish (Catherine Keener), a divorced woman who’s trying to run a business and a family and is something of a mess, but pretty nice, and who shows a genuine interest for Andy.

The film is composed of comedic moments and valuable insights. The most important aspect is it takes its characters seriously and puts them in the right context of their age. Even though some of them are childish and behave as teenagers, they’re pretty aware of their real age and seek some stability one way or the other. This means the movie’s far from a raunchy teenage comedy; instead, it’s a movie about grown-up people looking for their yet-unknown place in life. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t enough funny moments to make your belly ache. Carell is hilarious in an amiable sense which makes him extremely likable. He and director Apatow co-scripted and they made sure to make the story quite complete with all sorts of comedy, from physical (i.e. a waxing scene) to ingenious (i.e. a flirting scene in a book store) to dumb (i.e. an attempt to put on a condom). There’s also a lot of truth in the vision of sex as a way of reinsuring oneself, an escape from insecurity, a mere custom… or a precious thing.

And there’s romance, the most ordinary kind with an extraordinary twist. To be sure, the proceedings don’t always ring true though, especially in this subplot. Even though the chemistry between Carell and Keener is undeniable, I’m not sure I swallowed what went on and how it did. But in the end, I did enjoy the outcome very much, and was happy about the way it ended…

…which is followed by the wackiest closing scene ever seen! Hilarious!

Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Mann, Jane Lynch, Jonah Hill and others add fun to the proceedings through their good performances. This movie is one to have a good time.

“Do you like to... do it yourself?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005): Morris

Review

Hotel Rwanda

Director

Terry George

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 17, 2005

After having eagerly awaited for the release of Hotel Rwanda in my city, I finally got the chance to see it. Finally! Not only was the movie considered among the best of last year, but its central theme was something that appealed to me on a higher level. Truth, the events the movie depicts happened when I was a young boy unaware of worldwide news, but it still shocks me that the situation in Rwanda circa 1994 did not get that much attention. What does that say about us?

Two races prevail in the African country of Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis. The division is merely symbolic, with old colonists having chosen the “best” people to conform the Tutsis while entire generations of Hutus grew resentment towards them. Finally a civil war explodes, with Hutus aiming to kill every Tutsi that comes in their way. Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), a Hutu manager of a high-class hotel, fights to protect his wife Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo), a Tutsi, and his children, among many other people who seek help. Paul uses what he has in his hands to protect these people, with the aid of the struggling U.N., the hotel’s owner, the media, corrupt militia and whatever business skill he has to move forward.

Hotel Rwanda is a movie of extraordinary power. Written by Keir Pearson and director Terry George, it is the story of an entire country’s struggle as seen through the eyes of one remarkable hero. The device pays off, as the movie presents us with the general scope of what happened without ever losing the intimacy of its central character and his surroundings.

The movie raises a lot of questions and sends a clear message of denouncement. But it isn’t about ranting and bashing, it is about telling it like it was. The U.N. people in Rwanda wanted to help, but their superiors weren’t that interested. Several countries knew about the situation and did nothing. The media was there to cover it all up, but people didn’t really care. And the genocide kept going, with about a million people killed because of, well, nothing. The extent to which a human being can hurt another one has been portrayed in many movies, and this is another example of the horrific nature of some, contrasted with the heroic nature of others.

There are a lot of powerful scenes, some of which made me shed more than one tear. Paul has a romantic encounter with his wife in the hotel’s ceiling which ends up as much more than that; then there’s Paul looking for her and their kids while in the midst of an attack; or Paul in his way to the hotel through the lake road; not to mention the poignancy in every scene involving a cameraman played by Joaquin Phoenix; or the encounter of good people in the form of a Red Cross worker played by Cara Seymour. Every scene is accentuated by the extraordinary music and settings.

The acting is exemplary. Don Cheadle delivers what may be his best performance in a role that could have been a cliché, but which he embraces giving it dignity and humanity. Cheadle plays an extraordinary man and does in an equally extraordinary way. Great job. Equally good is Sophie Okonedo as his wife, a woman with a heart as big as his, who stood by his side at every point. Joaquin Phoenix appears briefly, but leaves a strong impression. And Nick Nolte makes an appearance as well.

Sometimes fact overshadows fiction. And that couldn’t be truer of this movie.

“Oh, God, I'm so ashamed!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 13, 2005

The story takes place in Switzerland, where the Lawrences, Bob (Leslie Banks) and Jill (Edna Best), vacation next to their little daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam), befriending many people while they practice ski and shooting. One of their new friends, Louis Bernard (Pierre Fresnay), is unexpectedly shot and killed in a party, while dancing with Jill. Using his last breath, he shares a dangerous secret and Jill and Bob take action. Unfortunately for them, knowing that secret is much more of a burden than they thought. It had Louis killed, and now it’s got little Betty kidnapped. Now the Lawrences are forbidden to talk, though they’re good people and feel the urge to help. But they also must take care of their vanished daughter. What’s there for them to do?

This early Hitchcock piece from Great Britain is notable more than anything for the fact that it was later remade, starring James Stewart and Doris Day, to more mainstream results. I hear few people consider either film brilliant, and I certainly wasn’t leaping in joy about this version. I thought it had some extremely masterful set pieces, wonderful characterizations and tastefully dry dialogue, but it was also too plain, fairly implausible and even a little absurd at times. One must take into account the ingenuity of the time when it was done. Today, we hear of kidnappings and terrorists and we freak out, but maybe in the old days people weren’t all that scared because the world wasn’t such a terrible world overall. In that way, the drama is well handled, and though the actions of the Lawrences sometimes seem completely out of place, they could indeed be things a British couple from those times would do.

The cast includes Peter Lorre in one savory performance, certainly one of his best though it’s very hard to choose. He brings class, dignity and humanity to an unsympathetic character. Frank Vosper is also noticeable as a thug involved in the evil plot. Everyone else from the cast does a fine job, including the extras, especially towards the end.

There’s a famous sequence set at the Albert Hall which is probably the most memorable thing about the movie. It has Jill trying to stop something awful to happen and not knowing how. Hitchcock manages to turn a seemingly ordinary concert into a literally heart-pounding event you won’t easily forget. It’s so famous, even the concerto that’s being played, composed by Arthur Benjamin especially for the film, is highly regarded.

Banks and Best make a funny couple, not quite The Thin Man type but pretty close. Their amateurish sleuth games are fantastic and riotous even though there’s a lot at stake, and it’s clear they love each other and cherish their family. Little Nova follows suit. Her few scenes are electric because she’s so credible in every mood.

Despite a good number of assets, the film suffers a bit. Sometimes it’s slow-moving and others not too exciting. The resolution is all too easy and aside from the Albert Hall sequence, there’s never a moment where we’re truly afraid things might go wrong. Also there’s not much mystery going on, and when there is, we don’t really care. I even got bored after a while, which is really bad considering who’s helming the movie. But as usual with good ol’ Hitch, this is a worthwhile piece.

Incidentally, don’t try looking for The Master here—this time he made no cameo appearance.

“Has it been fireproofed?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Matter of Taste

Director

Bernard Rapp

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Sometimes movies come in the most unexpected ways. I wasn’t planning on seeing this recent French movie at all. I hadn’t even heard about it. It did not star nor was directed by anyone I knew. Yet a couple of days ago someone simply put it on for me, no questions asked, and I couldn’t be more grateful. It is a small discovery of a gem of a movie, the kind that happens only once in a while.

Nicolas Riviere (Jean-Pierre Lorit) has a pretty normal life. He has a beautiful girlfriend, Béatrice (Florence Thomassin), and a lot of friends, and he works as a waiter at a fancy restaurant. That’s where he meets Frédéric Delamont (Bernard Giraudeau), a lonely, rich man who is instantly smitten and asks Nicolas to be his personal food taster. He agrees, barely knowing the degree to which his new job would change him, and his life, forever.

The only thing that is unusual about that premise is the “food taster” thing. Talk about an original job! The movie starts out intriguing enough. The very first scenes are barely understandable, but then we get a grip about what’s going on and when Riviere and Delamont meet the movie becomes another thing altogether.

At first I was fascinated about Riviere’s new job and especially about Delamont’s peculiar requirements. There are scenes involving food in the movie that are drool-inducing. But even though the movie does not start as a light comedy, what transpires during the rest of it certainly makes that part look like one. Soon enough we start to realize that we’re in for a much darker journey, as the movie is edited between interrogation scenes in the present and we find that what we had been seeing were flashbacks. But what is it that happened? It’s all a puzzle, for even though we witness characters talking about the past, they never shed a light on something we do not need to know at that precise moment. The script is carefully planned and exquisitely executed by writer/director Bernard Rapp, based on Philippe Balland’s book.

Anyone who likes psychological thrillers or character studies or that sort of thing will get a kick out of this movie. The relationship that develops between Riviere and Delamont is fascinating to say the least. What is it that Delamont really wants? Why does he want Riviere to be his exact copy? Is this obsession getting dangerously nasty? Is there something sexual going on? On one side there’s power, on the other there’s ambition. And the combination does not necessarily bring out the best in people. I would really like to delve more inside the emotional undercurrents of the movie, but I don’t want to say more. It is a piece to be slowly savored.

Both Jean-Pierre Lorit and Bernard Giraudeau are beyond perfection. They are both good-looking middle-aged men portraying different characters at first. Yet Lorit’s extraordinary transformation is both subtle and alarming. He does a refined job. The cat-and-mouse game between both works so well because they are able to transmit exactly what they’re required to at every turn. And supporting players Florence Thomassin, Charles Berling, Artus de Penguern, Laurent Spielvogel, Elisabeth Macocco and Patrick Zimmerman are all excellent.

A one-of-a-kind movie, absorbing from start to finish...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

American Psycho

Director

Mary Harron

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Christian Bale was not a very recognizable face for a while. His name wasn’t all that big either. Some people knew him as the boy from Empire of the Sun, others recognized him as Laurie from Little Women (1994), and in 2000, he’d become no other than the American Psycho. Though he wasn’t too big, those who knew him from this movie got the shivers. How he managed to shake off that image I don’t get, but now that people recognize him as Batman, I can finally look at him without fear. ‘Cause in this one, he’s really a freaking psycho.

The story comes from Bret Easton Ellis’ novel which serves as a sort of satiric thriller. Admittedly, the film doesn’t work too well, but it’s quite entertaining, and somehow unique.

It has Patrick Bateman (Bale), a successful Wall Street executive of the 1980s, leading a shallow life which he sauces up through an eventual murder every once in a while. Though well-known, this aspect isn’t revealed to the audience very soon into the movie. Instead, we’re presented with Bateman’s apparently fulfilling life: his great apartment, his lovely girlfriend (Reese Witherspoon), his amazing job, and his fun friends. Little by little, it’s made clear that all this is boring to anyone who’s not into the game, as Patrick clearly is not. He’s a bored young man whose aspirations aren’t clear but sure aren’t what people expect of him. His blood thirst is the only thing that keeps him going, the only thing that makes any sense. Be it a model, a homeless guy, or an annoying colleague, he must kill. And he does. A lot.

There’s plenty to enjoy if you can get past the nastiness of the story, which is easy during its first half. For one, Bateman is a music fan, and he’s glad to shed some trivia about pop singers of the present decade (the 80s) before every kill. Also, he’s quite a funny fellow in a self-deprecating way, which always helps. He gets anxious for all the wrong reasons, like people having greater business cards than his own (how I enjoyed those tense sequences!). Also his hobby of nabbing hookers and having some fun with them is a riot, though it’s a clear example of a living hell. This is a twisted comedy in a way.

But it gets serious. There comes a moment when things aren’t funny for Pat anymore, his existence is unendurable. One murder haunts him, and a detective (Willem Dafoe) won’t get off his back. How many murders has he committed? Were they all real or were some only in his mind? Or all of them? We wonder that ourselves. What’s the matter with this fellow?

The film drags. After a while, it’s not funny anymore, and not a lot of fun. It gets nasty, too graphic, quite unnecessary. But in the end, you get to think of it, and you remember a great visual style (cool photography too, by Andrzej Sekula), appropriate music (by John Cale), and magnificent performances, especially Bale’s, but also those of Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, Chloë Sevigny (wonderful!), Samantha Mathis and Jared Leto to name a few.

What is remarkable is how we get to care about this guy and we get to prefer his ways than those of his colleagues. Maybe if not taken to the extreme, we could have maintained that feeling all through the end. But no, they went for the nasty. Still it’s a worthwhile film. Just not good enough.

“I have to return some videotapes.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The 40 Year Old Virgin

Director

Judd Apatow

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 10, 2005

I didn’t really know what to expect coming into this movie. It got good reviews and became a late summer hit, but still, I had never really seen Steve Carell in anything and at almost two hours I thought the movie had to be really good to keep the momentum going. I had also seen the trailers a lot of times, and with this kind of comedy, trailers usually ruin the best jokes. I was skeptical, and after the credits rolled, I became a believer.

Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell) is a lonely geek who gets a kick out of collecting toy figures, playing videogames and watching “Survivor” with his neighbors. He works at an electronics store, where one night his co-workers David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) find out that he’s still a virgin... and determine to change that. Hilarity ensues. But when a friendly customer, Trish (Catherine Keener), shows a sudden serious interest in Andy, his perspective changes a bit, or not.

When you get a movie with a title like this, you kind of know what to expect. Wrong! The 40 Year Old Virgin is not only a crude R-rated sex comedy, it is also a sweet endeavor where love and friendship take center stage. Sure, it is filled, and I mean, filled, with laugh-out-loud romps and sequences that highlight the movie’s lighter tone. But it also has a strong undercurrent of what really matters in life, and it’s done without ever losing comedic momentum. The movie really is funny from start to finish, and I was shocked by that.

Kudos to co-writers Carrell and director Judd Apatow. They bring a good level of sincerity to an otherwise silly movie. Their kind of comedy never feels forced and is almost always on-target. I cannot even mention all the great scenes because there are too many of them, but some that come to mind involve waxing, condoms, flirting at a nearby library, speed-dating, urinating, singing Guatemalan songs, getting into a bathtub, and an absolutely unexpected finale that makes absolutely no sense yet feels perfect for the movie.

That said, there is a sight-gag involving Andy and Trish just before that ending that is the funniest thing in the movie… at least to me.

I also loved the evolving romance between these two. They’re mature, easy-going and have real chemistry. I went with the flow and enjoyed the hell out of their relationship.

Steve Carell is really funny. I know that’s not news, but I just wish he can maintain this level of finesse in his acting choices, and not go all Will Ferrell on us. His comedic timing is extraordinary. Also showing up to give the movie a slice of credibility is the always-amazing Catherine Keener, who’s ravishing. Yet every supporting member is perfect in their parts from Paul Rudd, Romany Malco and Seth Rogen to Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Mann, Jane Lynch, Gerry Bednob, Kat Dennings, Jordy Masterson and Chelsea Smith.

“Do you like to... do it yourself?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005): Groucho

Review

Red Eye

Director

Wes Craven

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Rachel McAdams is so hot! And I mean that in every possible way: she’s on fire as today’s most prominent rising star, she’s a ball of fire of an actress, and she’s quite a hottie! I love her, seeing her is a pleasure and watching her act even more so. Her latest film, Red Eye, is the one I’ve liked best so far starring her. It’s fast, fun and exciting, definitely the best from Wes Craven in the last few years, and that’s so cool, because he was a little off. Somehow he realized that bringing a quick, low-key thriller to the audience would be a breath of fresh air. Whoa, it sure is. It’s hard to dislike it as it’s got a good story, a great pace, lots of suspense, and charming leads.

The story concerns Lisa Reisert (McAdams), a young hotel manager who flew from Miami to Dallas for her grandmother’s funeral. Her plane back home gets delayed and she meets another unfortunate passenger of the same plane, Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy), with whom she has a few drinks before boarding. Then she boards the plane and finds out she’ll spend some more time with Jack as he has the seat right next to her. The plane takes off – and true horror begins.

Setting this film on a plane is probably a way to make the plot more suspenseful, as it’s claustrophobic and most people don’t love flying, but the thrills are rarely related to turbulence or any flight dysfunction. It’s all psychological, which proves way more effective. It’d be a sin to reveal the actual plot here, but I can tell you it’s handled beautifully. Though farfetched, it makes sense because it keeps its focus on the main characters instead of trying to explain reasons or motivations at another level. Every character that is somehow involved or happens to get involved in the situation is introduced gently and put on the spot inadvertently thus making the whole trip smooth. We have Brian Cox as Lisa’s unsuspecting father at home, Jayma Mays as Lisa’s stressed-out temporary replacement at the hotel, Angela Paton as a nice lady who loves Dr. Phil, etc.

Things are really well crafted by screenwriter Carl Ellsworth and as well handled by the director. There’s a few laughs, some jumps, and a lot of suspense. Only towards the end does the film resemble a typical Craven thriller, but by then we’re so immersed by the plot that it doesn’t matter, though it’s certainly not as good as the rest of the movie. Something else that bothered me a bit was the way the seat on the plane where our two leads are is the only one constantly lighted. Why make it so in-your-face without any subtlety? Like we’re going to forget who we’re interested in? I consider this a flaw.

The actors are all amazing but make no mistake, this is McAdams’ show. I just can’t take her out of my head; she’s mesmerizing, and the bravura of her performance (aided by the bravery and intelligence of her character) deserves high praise. Special mention also goes to Brian Cox, that versatile character actor who seems to be in every Hollywood movie playing a completely different character and always gets it right. He’s awesome. Murphy dangerously leans toward cliché but somehow evades it and comes off believable too.

Fun!

“No... that it would never happen again.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Flightplan

Director

Robert Schwentke

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Who would’ve said that suspenseful movies that take place on planes would make for such high entertainment value after 9/11 and so many accidents of late? I, for one, am terribly frightened of planes. I hate the whole flying experience. But this is the second movie in a short period of time that tackles extreme situations in this scenario... and I loved both of them! I guess it has to do with the fact that they’re both well made and that they just work. That leaves everything else in second place.

Kyle (Jodie Foster) just lost her husband after he fell from the roof at their home in Berlin. She thus intends to take her daughter Julia (Marlene Lawston) to New York to start a new life. But in the flight home, something strange happens: Kyle falls asleep and when she wakes up, Julia has disappeared. She then starts a frantic search for her daughter, with several degrees of help from the likes of the on-board U.S. Marshall, Carson (Peter Sarsgaard), the captain (Sean Bean) and the flight attendants.

Flightplan is one of those movies which is better seen not knowing anything about it beforehand (one could argue this is the case with every movie, but suspenseful ones get priority in this department). Showing traits from Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes, the movie builds huge momentum until a final third that is both revelatory and absolutely nerve-wracking, even more so for the untrained eye. I was literally on the edge of my seat, for at this point we are absolutely immersed in the story and we identify with Kyle’s horrific struggle. Even when a big explanatory plot point is revealed, the movie has a half hour to go, and there’s no hint of where it’s heading, which is refreshing and a great experience at the same time.

Kyle happens to know the very big and very modern plane by heart, since she helped build it. That’s pivotal, since she is always at the same level of knowledge as the crew. No fooling her there. So for the first two-thirds the movie plays like a cat-and-mouse game between Kyle and… everybody! Yet it’s fascinating because there are restrictions, one of which is that whatever happened should still be going on, since they are all, well, on a plane. As with most thrillers though, the movie is better when not much is known. The final part feels a bit rushed and over-the-top, but it’s an action movie, and the level of intelligence is there until the credits roll, so I went with it and had a lot of fun. I especially liked a bit in which Kyle has a revelation and makes a clever decision that buys her time.

As a matter of fact, she always makes good decisions. I was relieved that once again, as in Red Eye, we get a smart leading lady, one who is always thinking ahead, making the right questions, figuring things out in credible fashion. She’s right there with us and I really responded to that.

As a side note, the movie is particularly interesting as a lesson on the inside of a plane. We get to know about every single inch of it and it’s a hoot.

The movie has a complicated plot, but I liked that at the end everything made sense, even with so many intricate threads. It is far-fetched, I know, but well-written and well-handled by the director, Robert Schwentke.

Jodie Foster is fantastic, which is always the case with her. We completely buy her into the role and she pulls it off at every step. I also liked Sean Bean in an against-type role. Peter Sarsgaard is his usual good. Kate Beahan and Erika Christensen are also good as flight attendants, although I believe the latter was somewhat wasted. That said, I have a theory about her casting choice which I cannot delve into without spoilers, so... not here. And Lawston is ok as the daughter, sometimes toying in the line between typical-cute-child-actor-performance and better-than-expected.

Exciting!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Flightplan (2005): Groucho

Review

The Gumball Rally

Director

Charles Bail

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Michael Bannon (Michael Sarrazin) is in a meeting at his office when he suddenly gets the urge to convoke the yearly Gumball Rally – an illegal coast-to-coast race that provokes all kinds of excitement for speed aficionados from all over the country and even the world. Every usual and new participant is excited about the idea and it all takes off really quick: amazing cars are prepared, teams are made, routes are detailed, and the recently broken record is announced for the teams to try to break. Green light is on!

When I was a kid, I used to call this my favorite movie. I remember they showed it a lot on TV and I saw it countless times, then went on to reproduce it all with my Hot Wheels. What good times I had! For years I didn’t see it and then I got the chance and I was thrilled, though a little frightened that it wouldn’t be as fun a ride. Well, I was wrong: it’s a riot! Not an excellent film, granted, but quite a riot. This film started the “illegal gargantuan cross country race” genre and its followers were mostly crap. Here’s one classy piece filled with fine humor for everyone to enjoy. And it’s got enough classic moments to make a guy like me nostalgic. I saw it as a child, and I can tell you, several moments have haunted me since. Was I that impressionable? Maybe, but to be sure, this film was and still is quite impressive.

The fun begins not five minutes into the movie when all the wacky characters start to appear. There are all kinds of people racing, from older gentlemen (J. Pat O’Malley and Vaughn Taylor) to hot [probably lesbian?] chicks (Susan Flannery and Joanne Nail) to white trash (Gary Busey and John Durren) to fake cops (Wally Taylor and Steven Keats). The real match is between Bannon and a renowned Italian Grand Prix winner called Franco (Raul Juliá). The latter, a charmer and unstoppable womanizer, doesn’t even care what’s behind, memorably ripping off his rear-view mirror. On board of a Ferrari, along with his friend Smitty (Tim McIntire), he sets to win this race. Bannon teams up with Prof. Samuel Graves (Nicholas Pryor) and off they go!

All throughout the movie we get hilarious subplots of each racer, not forgetting the main focus, which is the race. It seems like these guys never stop, so we’re constantly on the move. However, there’s space for uproarious moments like the bogus cops being stopped by a real one and cheating him into believing he’ll become a movie star, one of the girls daring an eventual horny guy to catch her if he can (which he does, to her misfortune), Franco almost abandoning the race for the sake of a good lay, and an improvised racer (Lázaro Pérez) saving his girl (Tricia O’Neil) from a gang of bikers. Some of the funniest moments belong to crazed motorcyclist Lapchick (Harvey Jason), who goes madder and madder as the race goes by, reaching an inevitable climax towards the end.

It also helps to have a general antagonist in the form of Lieutenant Roscoe (Norman Burton), who’s after the racers but especially Bannon, and just can’t seem to catch any of them, getting in a lot of trouble at every turn, ridiculed and humiliated while he’s at it.

The cars are all amazing: There’s a Cobra, a Camaro, a Porsche, and even a Rolls Royce, in all their glamour and power. A few scenes concern the cars and their speed, while most focus on the drivers, resulting in a well-handled movie for all tastes. From all the players, Juliá stands out.

Crazy, funny, fast, one hell of a rally.

“What's behind me is not important.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Wedding Crashers

Director

David Dobkin

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 03, 2005

When Wedding Crashers opened during the summer no one expected it to become as huge a hit as it did. Word-of-mouth propelled the movie to insane numbers for this genre, and you have to wonder why. Is it really that good? Were people tired of big movies that didn’t make them laugh? Was the product out there not good enough? I was curious, and when the movie finally opened in my country I ran to see it. I wanted to see if it was a cultural thing or if I would find the movie as charming as others did. Now I can add my own grain of salt...

John (Owen Wilson) and Jeremy (Vince Vaughn) are friends who love to crash weddings. They have a theory, which actually pays off for them, that single women are vulnerable in weddings, so they can take advantage of that and get laid. Besides, there’s free booze, good music and a lot of fun all around! But it all changes when they attend the wedding of one of the daughters of Treasury Secretary William Cleary (Christopher Walken). John is instantly smitten by another daughter, Claire (Rachel McAdams), while Jeremy gets lucky with the only one left, Gloria (Isla Fisher). They are then invited to their house for a private gathering, where they get to know the wacky family a little bit better.

The movie is a mixed bag all around. There are as many things that work as there are that simply don’t. The structure of the movie is divided in three parts, two of which I described in the premise. The movie starts with a bang. It introduces us to our heroes and the laughs don’t stop coming. There’s also a brilliant montage to the tune of The Isley Brothers’ “Shout” which is expertly done and completely effective. After that, the middle part arrives and the energy sort of lags, even though the biggest laugh of the movie (at least for me and the audience I saw it with) happens here and involves certain under-the-table shenanigans. And just when you thought the movie didn’t have much more to offer, some ridiculous and clichéd plot complications arise and a whole third section unravels. By then the movie has definitely run out of gas. And the over-the-top finale doesn’t help.

Still, I have to admit something: even though it clicks at two hours (definitely a lot for a comedy) I didn’t want the movie to end! I had become so comfortable with the characters (hit-and-misses aside) that I wanted to spend more time with them. I guess that’s the secret of the movie’s success after all. It sure isn’t a perfect movie, but it has its heart in the right place, has likable characters and is a really good time. ‘Nuff said.

This is an R-rated movie, not a PG-13 one as movies of the genre usually try to achieve. And I loved it! We get to see some nudity, a lot of politically-incorrect humor and really foul language. We are also subject to a rather violent scene (which is part of a sequence involving a party that could have been entirely cut out... and it must have cost a lot of money to make!) courtesy of Claire’s fiancée (Bradley Cooper), a character so badly exaggerated that it borders on the caricature side. However, a scene involving this same character later on brought the audience I saw it with to cheers and applause, something I have rarely witnessed in my life.

Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn have definitely a funny rapport together. In the movie Wilson plays the straight guy to Vaughn’s craziest. And the latter is quite hilarious, although he is not that consistent, but when he gets it, he’s a riot. Rachel McAdams, on the other hand, is the highlight as has become the norm lately. She’s adorable, the only sane character in the movie and the single one we actually care about. Christopher Walken goes less wacko and does a good, if forgettable, job. Isla Fisher is annoying at times, but I did find her amusing mostly. Jane Seymour and Ellen Albertini Dow, as Walken’s wife and mother respectively, are a welcome presence, although they only have a couple of scenes to shine and are wasted overall. Oh, and a not-surprising cameo by one of the usual-usual of these comediennes’ team is not that good.

Funny, if disposable, entertainment.

“We lost a lot of good men out there.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter