CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Sweet and Lowdown

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 30, 2000

As a serious Woody Allen fan, I rarely dislike a film of his. This is no exception: I really enjoyed the film. Despite that, I gotta accept that it doesn't stand up to other much better Woody films. It's not bad, it only isn't one of his best.

That is a real shame if you consider the potential this film had. The screenplay is good, the direction great and the performances superb; unfortunately, the way the story is told is a letdown. As an experiment, it's ok. The result, though, slows down the film's rhythm, and seriously flaws the movie.

Sean Penn is masterful as Emmet Ray, fictional jazz guitarist of the 1930s that the movie treats as if he really existed. Many jazz experts, including Allen himself, talk about Ray during the whole movie, and we get to see many scenes of his life: moments of inspiration, passion and fun. Emmet is a funny, fast-talking guy, who can't understand himself quite clearly. He's an artist who feels bad because he's not the best, though he's probably the second best. He's so afraid to commit, that he's closed to love, though he always gets into serious relationships.

Samantha Morton is outstanding as a mute girl Emmet has a relationship with. As a terribly selfish man, Emmet feels good with her because he's all the dialogue they have, but in time, his feelings are affected too because of the huge expressionism she can transmit with only a look or a smile or a tear. His life is permanently affected because of her.

When you forget about the dullness the weird pace of the movie gives to the story, you can thoroughly enjoy the most genuine Woody jokes. Penn and Morton are irresistible, Uma Thurman delightful as Ray's wife later in the film.

The jazz score is, as usual, perfectly right and gorgeous.

Not up to Woody's standards, but good.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Psycho

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1960

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Vincent

Review date

Monday, November 27, 2000

The fact that I'm writing this review has a sinister reason. If Anthony Perkins hadn't died when he did I might never have become the film lover that I am now. In the days after Perkins' death nearly every tv-station showed Psycho and I accidentally came across it one night and was so impressed by it that I became interested in Hitchcock. Then I started watching his other films and a love affair with the cinema was born.

The plot of the movie is well known. A woman named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) has stolen $40,000 and is on her way to her boyfriend. Even though she is a thief, she is in true Hitchcock tradition still somewhat of an innocent victim (she needs the money so her lover can divorce his wife and merry her and the person she stole the money from is a dislikable millionaire).

On her getaway she pulls over to sleep and is woken up by a traffic cop. His appearance for me is the scariest thing in the film. He is played by a man I never heard of before or since, Mort Mills, but he makes an unforgettable impression. When you watch the film alone, late at night he is truly scary. This encounter shows that Marion is hardly a capable thief and the first sign to herself that she has done a bad thing.

She decides to spend the night at Bates Motel which is run by a peculiar young man by the name of Norman (Anthony Perkins) and his unseen mother. In a conversation with her, Norman makes Marion realize she has made a mistake. She decides to go back home, but not before taking a shower which will result in one of cinema's most famous scenes.

What is most striking about the shower scene to me is that though it is frightening it is certainly not very graphic. There is very little blood and the knife that is used is never seen entering Marion's body. Hitchcock did a wonderful editing job and he used Bernard Herrmann's violins as a sort of sound effect. It must have been most shocking to the people who first saw it. Up to that point there has been nothing to suggest that a slashing is coming. Also Janet Leigh was the star of the film and you don't expect a star to die before the film is half over.

The movie then changes central characters. Up to that point the film revolved around Marion, but after her death it now focuses on Norman who comes across as very sympathetic. We assume that his mother was the murderer and he goes to great lengths to cover up her crime. Marion will be missed of course and her sister and her lover hire a private detective to find her.

The detective (Martin Balsam) eventually leads her trail to the Bates Motel where he too walks into a knife and so the sister (Vera Miles) and boyfriend (John Gavin) check out the Motel themselves. With them we learn to truth about Norman and his "mother."

This is probably Hitchcock's most famous and successful film. I don't know if it is his best. It is certainly doesn't look like it was made by the same man who had just made Vertigo or North By Northwest. Both films were made in glorious Technicolor, breathtaking Cinemascope (well, VistaVision anyway) and had big stars in the leading role. Compared to those it looks like a cheap exploitation film, but that was the intention. I guess Hitchcock viewed it mainly as a directional exercise with nothing to take your eye except the story and the way it is told.

The film would not be the same without Bernard Hermann's top class music. He in my mind is by far the best composer of film music ever. He worked well and often with Hitchcock and they brought out the best in each other.

His work here is more exciting and powerful than his beautiful score for Vertigo but this movie called for that.

Anthony Perkins' performance however is crucial to the film as well though. He touches the right notes all the way through, always looking nervous, shy and innocent. You can't help feeling sorry for him when you see him with his hands in his pockets and chewing candy. The rest of the cast isn't of that standard I'm afraid. I never was a big fan of Janet Leigh and this film didn't change my mind. John Gavin and Vera Miles aren't much better, but their roles are pretty standard so you can't blame them I think.

Just how crucial Perkins' performance is was shown when Gus van Sant remade (literally) the film. The supporting roles were better filled with good actors such as William H. Macy, Julianne Moore and Philip Baker Hall. I even liked Anne Heche better than Janet Leigh. But Vince Vaughn as Norman was completely wrong. He came across more irritating than sympathetic and the film suffered immensly from it.

Van Sant's version was completely identical to Hitchcock's. All the set-up's and editing were the same. There were some differences though. The film was in color, it used a single take for the opening shot and there is some nudity here. All of these changes are minor, but there is one which I found strange to say the least. Now when Norman is spying on Marion when she gets in the shower he masturbates. I don't know why this was added and maybe Hitchcock would have liked to do it himself if the censors weren't around, but it seems somewhat out of place and it looks more funny than it should. The scene is a little symbolic for the film, which, just like masturbation, tries to recreate the real thing but is never anything more than a cheap substitute.

As much as I didn't like the new version, I'm still glad it was made. If nothing else at least it shows us that you cannot make a great film simply by remaking a great film. A very valuable lesson indeed.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Braveheart

Director

Mel Gibson

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Saturday, November 25, 2000

This is another movie which I just love. Since the first time I saw it when I was very young I knew it was something special. Its power just struck me and it still does even when my taste for cinema has changed and evolved through the years. One time, I heard someone say that if you hadn’t seen this movie, you just hadn’t lived at all, and while some may argue about this statement, you should at least give it a look and see for yourselves.

It is a superb and powerful story about Scottish rebel William Wallace (Mel Gibson), who gets tired of living under the rules of the English empire and starts a rebellion to fight for what he considers is the most important aspect which a human being must have: freedom. In the way, he gets involved in a tragic romantic adventure with Murron (Catherine McCormack). He must then have his revenge against King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan). In the way, he also meets unhappy Isabelle (Sophie Marceu), a princess falling prey to an arranged marriage.

The movie isn’t just an epic in every sense of the word, but it also has a strong dramatic storyline which focuses on the romantic life of our hero and all the conspiracies that bring this story together. At the end, what we get is a movie with some of the most astonishing battle scenes ever filmed, along with such themes as love, war, honor, betrayal, liberty and dignity treated in such a perfect and dramatic way, that you just feel compelled by the whole process.

This man is the reason why the word “hero” was born. He is an extraordinary person fighting in the name of others. He is not willing to surrender or to loose. He has a goal that is part of his life, just as every other event is, and he must deal with that. A man to follow. A man with ideas. A leader.

Mel Gibson stars and directs, doing both tasks expertly, and accompanied by a strong supporting cast. The photography, and specially the score, are top-notch, and if I may say so, the latest is one of the best ever. A one-of-a-kind movie which, by itself, is nothing short of an unforgettable experience.

"Fredooom!"


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Unbreakable

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 23, 2000

David Dunn (Bruce Willis), an otherwise simple man, discovers that he's virtually invincible after he becomes the only survivor of a train wreck. He doesn't have a scratch in his body. Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a mysterious comic collector who's got a terribly vulnerable skeleton, tries to make Dunn realize how important that accident is for him and the meaning of his life. According to Elijah, Dunn is some kind of a contemporary super hero, with the ability to protect and defend the humanity.

Shyamalan's direction is excellent, but his script is a little bit too calm, with forced situations that are somehow influenced by Sixth Sense, The (1999). Some situations don't make complete sense, and a couple of scenes are out of place, but the result is not that bad. As a matter of fact, the film is good, with an interesting story and an acceptable plot twist that simply couldn't have been missing.

The performances, the atmosphere and the whole idea are good and carry the film in a nice, smooth way. Willis is likable as usual, Jackson a good match.

You shouldn't miss the film. It's an interesting attempt that leaves you with a nice taste in your mouth. It could've been better, but it could've been much worse. The "hero" scene is my favorite. See it and tell me what you think...

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Frankenstein

Director

James Whale

Year

1931

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 22, 2000

Many years ago, in a very rare occasion, my parents disguised themselves during Halloween, and actually went out with my sister and I to ask for candy and scare my neighbors. My mother was a witch, and my father was the “Frankenstein” monster. The monster my dad was disguised of looked exactly as you might think it looked. As a matter of fact, it looked just exactly as the image we get into our minds when we hear the word Frankenstein: A thin, tall, flat-headed monster. That image was created not by Mary Shelley, writer of the original novel, but by James Whale, director of the original movie of the same name of which I'm writing a review right now.

The funniest thing about this movie is, it's not a real good movie. It's good all right, and definitely scary, but it's not that great. Not perfect, definitely, considering most actors act as if they were on stage (and not very good even at that), there is no music score (and oh, is it missed!), and the scenes are roughly cut to let the next one come. But of course, considering the film began a whole new culture of monster movies, and created the most famous monster in history, it is a very important film!

When you think of that, you get to like it very much, and to consider it a classic. Boris Karloff as the monster and Colin Clive as the Mad Scientist, act wonderfully. So does Frederick Kerr, as Baron Frankenstein, the scientist's father who doesn't understand, or care about his son's inventions and experiments. There is no depth in anyone's personality or psychology, but a few glimpses make us understand just what is necessary: Dr. Frankenstein is a good man whose work drives him crazy; his father is a rich man who wants the best for his son; the monster is a disgraceful human being who was born to suffer and be misunderstood and tortured to death (or is he?).

The story is not very faithful to the novel, but it works very good as a movie. The sequel, Bride of Frankenstein (1935), corrected every mistake this one had, and became an even greater classic.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sunset Blvd.

Director

Billy Wilder

Year

1950

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Vincent

Review date

Monday, November 20, 2000

Sunset Boulevard is a great film no matter how or whenever you see it. But seeing it on the big screen, as I did a couple of days ago, it truly reaches perfection. It is a great experience for everybody, if only to really be one of "those wonderful people out there in the dark."

It tells the story of down on his luck screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) and his strange partnership/relationship with silent screen legend Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). Gillis accidentally winds up at the mansion of Desmond and when she learns of his profession she offers to pay him, for amongst other things, some script doctoring on the screenplay that is to become her great comeback picture, an epic version of Salome, to be directed by none other than Cecil B. DeMille.

It is quite clear that Desmond isn't your average washed up movie star. Her best companion was a monkey and judging by the state of her house, and the things in it, she hasn't actually moved with the times. The only other person in the house is the weird butler Max (Erich von Stroheim), who was once a great director and her husband, but now has a day job making Norma believe that she is not forgotten.

Despite all this, Gillis is happy to accept the offer, even though is means prostituting himself from time to time, because he is in need of money. He is also in love with a young script-reader at Paramount, Betty Schaeffer (Nancy Olsen), with whom he is also writing a script. When both his love for Betty and the comeback of Norma go badly wrong he decides to quit Hollywood, but Norma, who was always on the brink of madness, finally goes mad when she learns of his love for the younger Betty and shoots him. Norma will now become famous again, but for all the wrong reasons.

What probably surprised a lot of people at the time was the nastiness of the film. Billy Wilder had been working very successfully in Hollywood for about 15 years so people might have expected a nice positive film to serve as a thank-you note for a great career. Instead he seemed to spit Hollywood in the face by portraying it as a cold place where dreams and spirits are crushed and sympathy is very hard to find. He certainly came under attack from the Hollywood establishment. L.B. Mayer, then still the most powerful man in the film business, attacked him at the premiere and accused him of biting the hand that feeds him. Wilder's response was a brief but powerful "F*** you."

Nearly every person who is involved in the movie business is shown here in a bad light. The agents, studio heads, producers, directors and even the security guys at the studios come across as unlikable. The only nice people seem to be the writers, probably a joke on Wilder's part who considers himself a writer above all.

Of course Sunset Boulevard's depiction of Hollywood is a lot more realistic than the shiny happy world we see in most movies about movies like, say, Singin' in the Rain (1952). You have to admire Wilder for daring to be so harsh, but it is probably one of the main reasons that at the 1950 Oscars Sunset Blvd. was beaten in every category by All About Eve (1950). Both films are very bitter and critical towards its subjects, but Eve pointed its finger at the theatre world, not at the people who give out those Academy Awards.

There are quite a few similarities between Sunset and Eve. Both are insider tales of the showbiz, both have a very cynical narrator, both have a fading female star as its central character and both were directed by men who are above all great writers. And both are great movies of course, but to give Sunset Blvd. no Oscars is a great injustice. There is no doubt in my mind that Sunset has aged far better, if it has aged at all. It still seems fresh and edgy to me today, 50 years later. Also it is by far the most cinematic of the two.

The movie features some unique and innovative things such as a narrator who speaks from beyond the grave and a great shot from the bottom of a pool. It has a great score by Franz Waxman and it just looks damned great.

The acting is first class all the way with special mentions going to Swanson and von Stroheim. Both play thinly disguised versions of themselves (when Joe and Norma watch one of her old movies they're actually looking at Queen Kelly, a 1928 movie starring Swanson and directed by von Stroheim). They were brave to take these roles on, but it probably would have been braver if they had turned them down, because they're great parts.

Some of the supporting roles are played by actual people(Cecil B. DeMille, Hedda Hopper, Buster Keaton) and quite a few real names are mentioned. This gives the film even more realism as does the use of actual locations (Paramount Studios, Schwab's and the Boulevard). When Desmond and Gillis visit Paramount studios to discuss the Salome picture with De Mille, they walk on the set of 1949's Samson and Delilah.

The script is first rate as well, which we expect from a Wilder film. There are many memorable lines throughout the film for almost all the characters (the best one of course: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small." "Uh-uh, I knew there was something wrong with them").

The movie represents a career high for everybody involved, with the possible exception of Billy Wilder. With him it is simply very hard to choose what was his best work. Double Indemnity (1944), The Lost Weekend (1945), Witness for the Prosecution, Some Like It Hot (1959), The Apartment (1960) are his best films and each one seems like the best when I watch them. I simply can't choose.

Wilder had another trade-mark, a great closing line. This one has one as well. I sadly do not possess that quality so I will close my review with a more simple sentence. This is one of the truly great movies ever.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Charlie's Angels

Director

McG

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 16, 2000

A whole lot of things about this movie before it hit theaters. Whether there were too many writers shaping up the script or whether it was a difficult shooting because of its stars. By the time it was the turn to see it, absolutely no one believed in it. Suddenly, people weren’t as aseptic. The word was spreading about how the movie actually turned out to be good. Critics started to watch it and they felt guilty to accept it, but they did like the movie. In a couple of words: everyone involved got their way. The movie is based on the 70’s TV series of the same name. Back then it was a big success, specially with women, who liked how they were portrayed as sexy but as intelligent as well. Their stars were to become big celebrities and everything seemed to go on smoothly. So here we are. It’s the year 2000, and a movie has been based on that old TV series.

This time, our protagonists (Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu) are already stars, and this movie does nothing but confirm that. While there isn’t a plot worth explaining, what I can tell you is that this chicks get in a lot of trouble by trying to chase the bad guys. They use any single kind of device they have available to defeat them, except weapons, that is. Producer Drew Barrymore had the idea of not using them in the picture and I can’t but thank her immensely for that. The movie wouldn’t have been the same. Since they don’t have guns in their hands, the girls usually end up in Matrix-like fights which are very well choreographed and performed. In other words, they’re cool.

The tone of the movie is very light hearted. You get the idea that no one is taking itself too seriously, and that approach is what makes this movie work. Kind of a comedy mixed with a little bit of satire, the movie translates into something that is fun and entertaining to watch. In fact, that’s the better way to describe the movie: fun, fun, fun.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that our three stars are nothing but charismatic and beautiful as well. Cameron Diaz is my favorite angel. She has that innocence, that face of an angel, that body to kill for, and that sexiness required. She is a very talented actress who has shown a lot of range in many different roles. Her part here as Natalie is just another one in what is already a very successful career. Then there’s Drew Barrymore, who is also an angel herself. I’ve always liked her. I think she is adorable and very pretty. Here she plays the tough one, and she couldn’t be better. Lucy Lui, on the other hand, is a true find. Having her first real big part in this movie, she comes off both as a strong personality and an attractive actress. Bill Murray is there to accompany them in their misadventures, and he is the true comic vein of the picture. McG really knew how to put all this elements together and make of it an exciting, fun, brainless motion picture.

"And thaaat's kicking your butt"

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Night at the Opera

Director

Sam Wood

Year

1935

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 15, 2000

The first, triumphal attempt of the Marx Brothers to enter the world of logic and sequence became one of their greatest, craziest but most interesting films ever made.

"A Night at the Opera" is a film that fits so many tastes, I can almost say I doubt someone wouldn't like it. The Marxes are as loony as ever, only now they have stories behind them. They have names, careers and pasts. They belong somewhere and have goals and feelings.

Groucho is Otis B. Driftwood, a society man who promises Mrs. Claypool (exquisite Margaret Dumont) that he will turn her into a society lady. His proposition involves an investment in Opera. Chico and Harpo are Fiorello and Tomasso, a couple of misfits who have nothing to lose, and live happily. Meanwhile, we meet Ricardo (Allan Jones) and Rosa (Kitty Carlisle), who love each other but can't be together due to the convenience of their careers as Opera singers.

The whole cast is transported to New York. Fiorello, Tomasso and Ricardo are there as stowaways. If you thought Mr. Driftwood's stateroom was small enough, you should've waited to see them all inside -- the stateroom scene is, for me, the funniest ever made. Oh, but that's not it: this film is packed with knock-out scenes, like the Party of the First Contract, the arrival at New York and the climatic Opera show.

Throughout the film, it's all laughs and romance. Great music and songs. Lunacy, of course, but not to the point of craziness. Not that I have anything against the Marxes's craziest films, but I also like to see some storyline once in a while. Ricardo and Rosa are so charming, there is no way to dislike them.

Groucho speaks fast and funny; Chico proves that he's the funniest man alive, with a piano; Harpo makes you laugh with only a smile -- not to mention his inimitable body language and pantomime.

This is probably the best, surely the most elegant comedy of the Brothers. There isn't a moment when you're not having a good time, and that's something! The movie intertwines all of its elements in a masterful way, and becomes an example to follow.

One of the reasons why I admire the Marx Brothers so much.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Director

Ron Howard

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 14, 2000

I never really liked a conventional, Hollywood style, materialism-oriented Christmas movie. I’m not a fan of Christmas time, though I do enjoy it, but not as much as some people. Sometimes I feel that people are very hypocrite in Christmas and I hate that too!

Nevertheless, I loved How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I didn't expect to, but I did. The classic tale by Dr. Seuss has been translated in a surprising way. Every detail is quite decent, even when some things have been adapted to the humor of our times. The story is about the Whos of Who-ville, who love Christmas, and the Grinch, the isolated creature who hates everything, especially Christmas. How he steals it, and how he teaches the Whos, and himself, a valuable lesson. How the enchanting Cindy Lou Who opens everyone's eyes. And how everyone can be happy without anything but themselves and their union.

Jim Carrey, as the Grinch, is ideal. This is one of his best comic performances, helped very much by Jim Baker's amazing makeup. Taylor Momsen couldn't be sweeter as Cindy, the little girl who's not convinced about the Christmas tradition and somehow feels the same as the Grinch. Anthony Hopkins narrates in a beautiful way. The songs are touching, and the art direction/set decoration, astounding.

I was so absorbed, I cried.

The movie should not be missed. It works in every level, and for people of all ages. It’s a story you'll love, adapted to perfection.

See it, enjoy it, love it. Be a part of it. Merry Christmas!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pleasantville

Director

Gary Ross

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Sunday, November 12, 2000

Ever since I saw this film at the movies I wanted to see it again. I always remembered it to be great but I didn't know how overwhelming it was. Do you still remember the story, Grouch?

In a mysterious way two teenagers played by Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are transferred to the world of Pleasantville, a TV family series from the 50s. The shy guy knows every detail about every episode and starts to like living in a perfect world where nothing bad can ever happen while Reese's character feels trapped in a world of boredom. As soon as they start introducing the people of Pleasantville to the secrets of sex, literature and art, the perfect world starts to crumble. People get to know the real pleasures life can offer and the world begins to change from black and white to Technicolor. A conflict between the still black and white citizens and the "colored" ones arises as some people can't deal with the fact that their world has changed.

This movie is often compared to "The Truman Show" but the films don't have many similarities besides the fact that both deal with TV in some way. While Truman is a strong criticism of the media, Pleasantville is a tale about human feelings and the need to live by them. I was really touched by the way people discovered their inner feelings - especially the character played by Joan Allen in one of the best performances.

My personal opinion is that she is far too underrated as an actress. I won't forget her trying to hide her colored face with the black and white makeup. By the way this film uses a lot of fantastic special effects that had never been applied before.

I can only recommend Pleasantville as one of the best places to stay!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Citizen Kane

Director

Orson Welles

Year

1941

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Friday, November 10, 2000

This is no less than the film that is considered by many to be the best among all American films. It is a film that's definitely not easy to watch. It's not the sort of movie you see when you have nothing else to do and you want to relax for a while. It's more like a film you watch when you want to really enjoy your time, actively participating and lending your whole emotions and thoughts to it. It's a film to be studied, and thoroughly examined. A film that will never have an equal.

The stunning techniques used for the production have never been topped or even approached. You will hardly find another movie that has such a combination of talents all around. The story is truly amazing. It tells the tale of a Newspaper Tycoon who dies after a whole life of success and scandal. As the movie begins, Charles Foster Kane dies, and says "Rosebud" as his final words. A reporter searches throughout Kane’s whole life to find the meaning of that word. As this man interviews people who knew Kane well, we get to see many flashbacks of this amazing character's life. It all works as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. While we always feel as though we knew Kane's whole story, there is always something new to add: More people, more private tales, more things the world never knew. All this through the unbelievable cinematography by Gregg Toland (without a doubt the best work of its type I've seen) and surrounded by the perfect score by Bernard Herrmann, is a masterpiece.

The truth is, the film is tiresome to watch. No matter how charming Kane might be (and he sure is, even when he's a terrible person), his story is not easy to swallow many times. The experience is unique, but going through it again and again is not very attractive. I don't think many people would argue with me about that. I've seen the film many times, and I've meticulously analyzed it. I love it. But it's so huge, I admit it's hard to watch, in a way.

Despite all this, every human being should see it at least once!

Orson Welles, as an 25 year-old actor-writer-director did an incredible work. The screenplay (by him and Herman J. Mankiewicz) is perfection. His performance is one of the best ever (by anybody), as his character goes through many phases and he works out all of them perfectly well. His direction is even better. Every scene is full of details that only a genius could conceive. Trying to enjoy them all the first time is impossible. Seeing the film many times and finding out that no matter how many times you see it, you'll never finish seeing all the details, is amazing. That's a true cinematic experience, like the ones I love.

The importance of this film is also how much it influenced the world of cinema forever. While it is impossible to imitate in a decent way, it is easy to be inspired from, and it shows.

A dark, big, beautiful, fascinating film, Citizen Kane is a movie every movie buff should see. Well, have you?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dead Man Walking

Director

Tim Robbins

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 09, 2000

This movie is just amazing. I can’t think of anyone who has seen it and wasn’t moved by the story and everything about it. When the Academy didn’t nominate it for Best Picture in 1995 I was truly disappointed. But it didn’t matter, because, as for me, this is one of the best movies of the 90’s and a remarkable achievement in every way.

It tells the impressive true story of two souls that, for reasons beyond destiny, end up submerged in difficult and hard circumstances. Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) is given the highest punishment, death penalty, for a crime he can’t even face. Sister Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) suddenly becomes interested and comes to help him, giving as a result this heart-wrenching drama where both of them try to survive the situation and confront the world outside which can’t comprehend their acts.

The relationship between them is what carries the movie from situation to situation and ends up being something more than special. It is a movie about finding ourselves, about forgiving, about the dignity that, even at its worst, still lies in each and every human being. It is a story about redemption. About going deep in our souls and try to uncover whatever there may be. It doesn’t try to judge its characters, but focuses on their development and their inner-selves.

By doing this, both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn deliver extraordinary performances, both quiet and brave, but with a great deal of humanity and compassion. Tim Robbins also does a great job directing and finally coming up with a movie for the ages, a truly remarkable story.


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mission to Mars

Director

Brian De Palma

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, November 06, 2000

Hey Grouch,

This time I have to tell you about one of the worst movies I´ve seen this year.

I should have listened to the critics who said Mission to Mars was awful. Anyways I thought Tim Robbins and Gary Sinise wouldn't make a movie like this one. Nevertheless I didn't expect much - just some nice entertainment. But this movie was a total waste of time.

It starts with half an hour of introducing the main characters, three "NASA buddies" (Tim Robbins, Gary Sinise and Don Cheadle). This part is more than boring, I would say. Finally, the action starts and a team of astronauts lands on Mars but a mysterious disaster forces NASA to send another team to their rescue. The action sequence on Mars caught my interest but the rest of the movie is more than embarrassing.

De Palma implies useless pathos in every possible scene. And the ending can only be called ridiculous featuring the most embarrassing alien encounter ever. De Palma proofs with M2M that he is not a Stanley Kubrick by "borrowing" a lot of ideas from 2001. While 2001 was a masterpiece, M2M is a disaster which gives proof to the fact that plain special effects combined with a mindless story don't make a good movie - at all.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dancer in the Dark

Director

Lars von Trier

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, November 02, 2000

Hey Grouch,

Prepare for a review of a very different kind of movie: a "musical" by Lars von Trier. Yes, the one that won so many awards at Cannes. First let me say either you love or hate this movie.

After Breaking the Waves and The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark is the third movie of von Trier´s Heart trilogy. This time it deals with the love of a mother to her son. The Czech immigrant Selma (pop icon Björk) works in a fabric in the USA and is slowly going blind. Knowing that her son will endure the same disease, she saves her money for an operation. When her neighbour tries to steal the money, things get out of control...

Being a fan of musicals, because nothing bad ever happens in them, Selma has visions of musical scenes whenever she is desperate. These dream sequences can only be called amazing. The music composed and sung by Björk is outstanding and touching. Von Trier puts a lot of effort in these scenes, using more than 100 cameras to shoot them.

As usual, the whole movie is filmed with hand-held cameras. Therefore, the images are very shaky and at times nauseating to watch. But this is just von Trier´s style. I don't want to blame him for that. It certainly makes the movie look more realistic. At times it feels even like a documentary. Yet I have to blame von Trier for being a sadist. By reducing the cinematic experience to the pure emotions, the movie is almost unbearable at times.

I started wishing Selma would have another dream sequence to stop all the horrors. But maybe this was exactly the kind of reaction the director wanted to achieve. He seems to support the catharsis theory but I have to admit that I didn't feel relieved or cleansed in the end.

This movie certainly has one of the most beautiful scores (my favorite song: "I've seen it all") and terrific performances by French movie icon Catherine Deneuve and Fargo's Peter Stormare. Nevertheless, Dancer in the Dark would have been a Breaking the Waves experience for me if it had lacked Björk's participation. I disgusted Breaking the Waves in a way. It was a cinematic challenge and I don't regret having seen it but the whole tragedy and the way it was shown made me feel sick.

Dancer in the Dark is more poetic and lives by Björk's performance and music. Therefore, I "enjoyed" the movie experience if one can hardly say enjoy.

The movie will not please everyone but it is a challenge for anyone who loves movies!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter