CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

21 Grams

Director

Alejandro González Iñárritu

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 27, 2003

When Mexican director Alejandro González Iñarritu showed his movie Amores Perros (2000) to the world it became somewhat of an instant classic. One of those foreign movies everyone has heard about. As a huge fan of that movie I couldn’t wait to see what the director would do next. The answer is 21 Grams.

Paul (Sean Penn) is a critically ill mathematician who has an unhappy marriage and is waiting for a heart donor to die so a transplant can be performed on him. Cristina (Naomi Watts) used to be a drug addict but has now recovered and lives with her husband and daughters. Jack (Benicio del Toro) is an ex-con with deep religious beliefs that is responsible for an accident that tragically affects the lives of all three.

21 Grams is a difficult movie to explain, experience and understand. I cannot think of a more challenging movie this year than this. To start with, it has a very complicated structure in which we are shown flashes of each character’s life in no particular order, so they could be from the past or the future. It takes a while to get used to it, but soon it starts to become quite clearer, as if we were being told the story of this or that person, with us having to put all the pieces together.

But I’m not just talking about the structure when I say this movie is challenging. I must also add that it is emotionally devastating. You have to be prepared to watch a story about life and death unfold in front of your eyes with no trace of sentimentality or false pretension. The movie is real and gritty. It is also unapologetic and crude. It is, in a few words, a true portrait of life.

When I heard that there was an accident that would affect the lives of three people I instantly thought of Amores Perros (2000), but I was pleasantly surprised when 21 Grams turned out to be another thing altogether. The accident here involves only one of the three main characters, yet screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga shows us how one little and spontaneous incident can be of such immense impact to so many different people. Just an instant, just a moment...

The movie also makes you think about how death can be the beginning of life, how life can be death itself and how a near-death experience can be the life-changing moment you were waiting for but felt afraid to experience. It goes on to show how even in the most dark and difficult circumstance there can be redemption.

Performance-wise I don’t think you’ll see a more accomplished ensemble in any movie this year. Sean Penn goes on to show why he’s considered a national treasure. His Paul is a very complicated and lonely man going through a very emotional period in his life. You never know what’s going on in his head yet you always understand his actions. Meanwhile Naomi Watts delivers a gut-wrenching, absolutely devastating performance as a woman who has to go through the most difficult experience any human being can experience in this world. And Benicio del Toro is fantastic as this gorilla-like conflicted man who finds refuge in all the wrong places.

Excellent support is given by Melissa Leo and Carlotte Gainsbourg in small yet pivotal roles.

An extraordinary achievement by director González Iñarritu. This is one of those movies that is unlike anything Hollywood produces nowadays, which goes into territories too difficult to handle, too deep to put into words...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Murder on the Orient Express

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

1974

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

In the 1930s, World-famous Belgian Detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) boards the Orient Express after being unexpectedly summoned for an urgent work. Even more unexpectedly, the train turns out to be almost full; the passengers span from royal to religious, all without particular interest in anyone else than their personal companions. However, after a murder happens at night, Poirot is requested to investigate it. He’s not thrilled, or so it seems, but he accepts… What he discovers, little by little, sure is rewarding for himself, and for us!

Tasteful adaptation of Agatha Christie’s whodunit is benefited mostly by its all-star cast, and its plot, which, coming from Christie, couldn’t be all that of a let-down. An appropriate music score by Richard Rodney Bennett certainly doesn’t hurt, and the production design is sumptuous.

Albert Finney, in the lead, is out of type to say the least, but brilliant; whoever chose him must be a psychic, but Finney became the perfect Poirot. In case that wasn’t good enough, the cast includes Ingrid Bergman, nerve-wrecking as a Swede missionary, especially in the five-minute interrogation scene, presented in a single shot. Other big names in the cast include Lauren Bacall, Vanessa Redgrave, Sean Connery, Jacqueline Bisset, Anthony Perkins and John Gielgud. All are great.

However, the story is not easy to film, and in the end it’s actually slow-moving, and not completely credible. That’s not to say it doesn’t work, ‘cause it does, but at times it would be better to be able to think more, and the movie doesn’t allow it, it just tells its story, presents its elements, and gives out the resolution, so in-the-face that whether or not you guess the finale, it’s not as great a shocker as it’s intended to be. The result would’ve been worse though, hadn’t director Lumet framed the story hauntingly with an awful case of kidnapping that has everything to do with the mystery. The opening scene is gripping and it’s handled so well, that everything else is forgiven.

All in all, a classy film with an all-star cast, that offers lots of entertainment.

“Only by interrogating the other passengers could I hope to see the light, but when I began to question them, the light, as Macbeth would have said, thickened.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Intolerable Cruelty

Director

Ethan Coen

Joel Coen

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

To be fair, not every movie the Coens have made is great, yet you can bet that every single one of them is at least different and interesting. This year they went into unknown territory for them: the romantic comedy. Of course, it’s a twisted one, and one that offers plenty of pleasures.

Miles Massey (George Clooney) is the most successful lawyer in town, winning even the most unlikely of cases. One day Marilyn Rexroth (Catherine Zeta-Jones) comes into his life as the wife of a very rich man he works for, and he falls instantly in love with her. Too bad she has other plans after the divorce settlement is over.

Intolerable Cruelty is all Coens in substance and style. This could arguably be called the most commercial and mainstream of their movies, yet the brothers are always present in the little details. It’s so funny to see how every two or three scenes a new bizarre character enters the movie to bring its own kind of weird charm. From the enslaved old lady to Marilyn’s best friend to Heinz the Baron Krauss Von Espy to hilarious detective Gus Petch.

But it is the cat-and-mouse game between Miles and Marilyn that holds this movie together. Clooney and Zeta-Jones exude charm and chemistry. You never know what they’re going to do next and their scenes are always a pleasure to watch, full of wit and sarcasm. I specially loved the one in which they go out to dinner right after meeting each other.

Even when the movie is a bit predictable and safe, it is also fully entertaining, with black humor sparking all the way throughout.

I can’t picture anyone else but Clooney playing this role. He plays a Cary Grant-esque character with a lot of energy and pizzazz. He is also not afraid to make a fool of himself. I loved the way he kept watching his teeth everywhere he went. Meanwhile Catherine Zeta-Jones bursts out of the screen like a siren of immense proportions. And I’m talking about her beauty and personality. She could melt hundreds of men with just a look. Delicious. And then there’s Billy Bob Thornton in a memorable small yet hilarious appearance.

One of the funniest movies of the year.

“That’s her job. You should respect that.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Intolerable Cruelty (2003): Groucho

Review

Fly Away Home

Director

Carroll Ballard

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 20, 2003

I love Anna Paquin. I think she’s one of the most talented young actresses working in Hollywood nowadays. The amazing thing is that I’ve been saying that for many years and my perception hasn’t changed one bit. She’s just amazing.

Fly Away Home tells the story of Amy (Anna Paquin), who goes to live with her eccentric dad (Jeff Daniels) after the death of her mother. Amy feels miserable until one day she discovers a nest of geese who were abandoned. Now she and her dad must find a way to teach and motivate the birds to fly, for they must go south.

I really liked this movie. It’s got such a big heart. It’s the kind of movie where you get immersed so much that at one point you feel like you want to get in there and hug the characters or something. The kind of movie that urges you to cry and applaud.

The story of Amy is quite shocking. She barely knows her father and it’s difficult for her to cope with her new life. She then finds something that changes her life, but it won’t be easy to fulfill her dream. In the way, Amy starts to form a better relationship with her father, even though he’s dating a woman she feels alienated to. The girl has some traumas, and they must be healed along with those of the birds.

Caleb Deschanel got an Oscar nomination for his gorgeous photography. Even if you don’t like the plot, this movie is a feast for the eyes. Absolutely beautiful.

Acting-wise Anna Paquin couldn’t be better. She was still very young when she did this movie, but you can tell she already had total control of her craft. Meanwhile Daniels delivers a strong performance as her father.

A touching story for all ages.

“Broken promises are the worst. Better not to promise anything.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Sting

Director

George Roy Hill

Year

1973

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Small-time con man Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) and his veteran partner Luther Coleman (Robert Earl Jones) play a routine con on a man who was carrying not only much more money than they expected, but dirty one as well, belonging to a powerful mobster. When Luther is killed in revenge, Hooker sets to avenge him. So he contacts legendary con man Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) to propose a gigantic sting on the notorious man who killed their mutual pal: Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Gondorff gathers an amazing team of con men, and they begin to prepare what’s supposed to be not only an extraordinary revenge, but also one that will make them rich. However, Hooker has some trouble he’s not telling his teamsters about, and when his problems knock at his door, the whole operation is endangered.

Classic period comedy / caper drama has director Hill teaming Newman and Redford again after the three’s success in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). While not as charming or poignant as the aforementioned western, The Sting is one heck of an entertainer, with every piece in place to keep us thrilled, while having a wonderful time. The script (by David S. Ward) really makes us believe the story is taking a certain path, while it’s probably not. In the meantime, the stars spread their charm, while giving serious acting lessons. Just check out Newman’s poker scene… A wow! Redford is credible as a conflicted man throughout, and Shaw is outstanding as the victim, who simply can’t stand to lose.

Also notable for its revival of Scott Joplin’s “The Entertainer” musical score (adapted by Marvin Hamlisch).

More than anything else, a movie to have a good time!

“You’re right, it’s not enough. But it’s close!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Matrix Revolutions

Director

Andy Wachowski

Larry Wachowski

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

I am a huge fan of The Matrix (1999). And I didn’t hate The Matrix Reloaded (2003) as so many people did. I actually think it’s a great movie. I saw it again a couple of days ago and loved it. The anticipation for the last movie in the trilogy was enormous, and I finally got a chance to see it. I am glad to say it didn’t disappoint me.

The movie takes off right after the ending of the first one. Neo (Keanu Reeves) is in a place between the real and unreal worlds from which he must be saved by Trinity (Carrie-Ann Moss) and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne). He must then continue fighting Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving). Meanwhile, the machines keep digging to take over Zion, something that Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith), along many others, won’t allow without a fight.

When I say there’s a “fight” between humans and machines in this movie I’m clearly underestimating what it really is about. It isn’t just a fight, it’s a battle, a war. It is a quest for survival. And it is huuuge. The special effects people really surpassed themselves this time around, cause the battle in Zion is clearly eye-popping in more ways than one. It is epic and really exciting and scary.

As for the rest of the movie, there’s a lot going on. We spend less time inside the Matrix this time around, although every time we go there the movie soars. There’s a scene involving the Merovingian that is absolutely perfect. And also the Oracle’s presence this time around is even more enigmatic. Oh, and that’s not to mention the last battle between Neo and Agent Smith. A wow!

I must also say I really enjoyed Neo’s visit to the place he came from. Something quite shocking happens there that I certainly didn’t expect, but that provides a lot of emotional impact.

The actors all do a good job in their usual roles. This time around Jada has a bigger role and she takes the most out of it. Monica Bellucci, meanwhile, only has a cameo, but what an appearance!

At the end I don’t know how much sense the movie made. I think the Wachowskis got a bit too immersed in their own mythology, but who cares when there’s so much spectacle and interesting ideas at hand. Now that it’s all said and done I thank them for a wonderful trilogy I will always cherish and support.

“Everything that has a beginning has an end. I see the end coming, I see the darkness spreading. I see death... and you are all that stands in his way. If you cannot stop him tonight, then I fear tomorrow will never come.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Intolerable Cruelty

Director

Joel Coen

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, November 17, 2003

Miles Massey (George Clooney) is a brilliant L.A. divorce attorney who has never lost a case. He’s in perfect control of his professional life, and goes with the flow, letting his talent talk for him, and always showing a picture-perfect smile. Whenever anyone comes to him in case of divorce, he manages for their spouse to be left penniless, unless of course, a good prenup agreement was signed (and if it’s his, it’s unbreakable). So, when he prevents gorgeous Marylin Rexroth (Catherine Zeta-Jones) from snatching her ex-husband’s fortune, she begins a quest to become a millionaire no matter what it takes, or who is to be left in bankruptcy. Miles is mesmerized by her wit and beauty, and can’t help but fall in love while witnessing her cruel methods. In fact, he becomes as vulnerable as those he’s been making fools of throughout the years.

I can’t express how disappointed I am with how terribly the Coen brothers handled this project. I know nothing of its conception or making, I’m talking about the final product. The Coens, as it is known, are absolutely unpredictable in respect to the kind of movies they’ll make in the future, so this time they went for a very strange turn: a normal movie. So one would think a fan of the Coens like me disliked this movie because it isn’t extremely bizarre or strangely satiric as others are, but that’s not the case with me. The case with me is, this movie is bad by itself, but the fact that the great Coens made it, makes it even worse.

I suppose they wanted it to be a satire of rich and superficial people, and also a romantic comedy with original twists. But as a comedy, it makes laugh quite scarcely, and while the two starts make their best (especially Clooney, in a Cary Grant-esque screwball turn), the story keeps letting them down. The characters of Miles and Marilyn are so cynical that it’s hard to care for them, so the twist and turns don’t matter, because you know that in the end they’ll still be the same kind of bad people, and frankly, you won’t give a damn. If there were some change or evolution to be found it would be nice, but no, the story plays on auto-pilot and the never-changing characters just go with it like they have no choice.

The result: Despite a striking direction, you can’t get no satisfaction. In fact, there are moments when it’s boring, there are moments when it’s dull, and there are moments when it’s practically, well, intolerable.

Special mention goes to Billy Bob Thornton however, who’s hilarious in a brief role. Geoffrey Rush is welcome as well, also in a bit role that opens and closes the movie.

Nevertheless… Skip it!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Intolerable Cruelty (2003): Morris

Review

Meet Joe Black

Director

Martin Brest

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 13, 2003

When you ask people which movies they think are looong and boring they might curiously have two Brad Pitt flicks in their mind: Seven Years in Tibet and Meet Joe Black. I don’t necessarily feel like arguing with them. The first one is indeed a bore, but I think the second one’s biggest fault is that it’s overlong, yet it’s not a bad movie.

William Parrish (Anthony Hopkins), an old wealthy man, is visited by Death (Brad Pitt) and makes an unusual agreement with him. Joe Black, as Death chooses to be called on Earth, will delay Bill’s death if he shows him a little bit about human life and why men are so obsessed with him. In the way Joe, and Bill’s beautiful daughter Susan (Claire Forlani), fall in love.

Meet Joe Black works in many levels. It is a romantic movie per se, a modernized remake of Death Takes a Holiday. And it surely isn’t for all tastes. I personally didn’t really mind the leisured pace. I think the movie needed to take its time. It’s a movie about getting to know your senses, understanding your feelings, falling in love and experiencing what it is. It is a movie that is clearly a bit on the long side, yet tells a compelling story.

There’s a lot of comedy involved in how Joe tries to adapt to this new world. These bits often work and often seem overly cute, but what got me was Joe’s relationship with William, a man who is not ready to go yet, but who must face the fact that we are not immortal and that he has to live what he’s got of life to the fullest.

The movie also portrays a romantic scenario which we know won’t end too well. Or will it? There’s nothing obvious about this story, and that’s what makes it more special.

Brad Pitt goes subdued for his performance as Death himself. One might think he does not emote as people do, but then again, he isn’t human after all. And he doesn’t know what feelings really are. I think Pitt does a fantastic job. Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, provides wisdom to the screen. He steals the movie and gives a great touching performance.

It is sappy, it is long, it is slow, but it is also touching, entertaining and absolutely beautiful to watch, thanks to Emmanuel Lubeski’s cinematography.

“Multiply it by infinity, and take it to the depth of forever, and you will still have barely a glimpse of what I’m talking about.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Quiz Show

Director

Robert Redford

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

There’s no hiding the fact that 1994 is one of my favorite years of all time. I mean movie-wise. So many movies I love were made in that year that I couldn’t begin to tell you. One of them is Quiz Show. And then there’s Robert Redford directing. If I respect this man as an actor I respect him even more as a director. Of the six movies he has directed I’ve seen five, and I love each and every one of them.

Based on a true story, the movie depicts the events that happened circa 1958 when a lawyer (Rob Morrow) starts investigating popular TV show “Twenty-One” after sensing there’s something fishy surrounding two contestants: Herbert Stempel (John Turturro) and Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), son of renowned poet Mark Van Doren (Paul Scofield).

There’s nothing like a movie that could’ve been easily made as a documentary yet it was given the celluloid treatment with such pizzazz. Credit should also go to screenwriter Paul Attanasio, for the superb adaptation he did of Richard N. Goodwin’s book. His script is tight, the dialogue right on spot, and with Redford behind the cameras the movie soars!

Many people claim that after the “Twenty-One” scandal America lost its innocence. It was a time when people were naïve, when they trusted their politicians, when they believed in human goodness. It wouldn’t last. After the scam that surrounded this TV show everyone finally opened their eyes. It could be said that it brought both good and bad things, but there’s no question it marked a new era.

Quiz Show is also a scary depiction of what was yet to come even with more strength throughout the decades: the ridiculous battle for ratings. The movie resonates even more these days that television has become such a whore of a medium. It’s all about money and less and less about art. It’s such a shame.

The movie is so well acted you’d want everyone in the cast to have received several awards. Paul Scofield steals every scene he’s in as the patriarch of a well-known family who somehow hasn’t let his son breath as much as he would’ve wanted to. That son is played to perfection by Ralph Fiennes, giving his character the complexity that keeps haunting him as hypocrisy and greed start taking over his good old values. John Turturro also shines as the unsympathetic and resentful man who wants his vengeance. David Paymer, Mira Sorvino, Hank Azaria and many others also appear leaving a strong mark.

This is one of those movies that are so well made that when it’s over you find yourself thanking God about how movies exist in the first place. Totally mesmerizing.

“If you look around a table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Scary Movie

Director

Keenen Ivory Wayans

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 06, 2003

What can I say? I love parodies! I always have. Sometimes they don’t work. Sometimes most of the jokes fall flat. But when a good one comes along it’s simply irresistible. Scary Movie arrived at the perfect time back in 2000 when people were fed up with so many teen horror flicks that couldn’t get more stupid. It was time to poke fun at them, and a good idea it was!

Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris), Buffy Gellar (Shannon Elizabeth), Brenda (Regina Hall) and Greg (Lochlyn Munro) are being stalked by a guy who might have something to do with a car accident they had last Halloween. Meanwhile Gail Hailstorm (Cheri Oteri), a pushy reporter, is also going after them. But things get scarier when people start actually dying.

Scary Movie’s main target is Scream (1996), but it also has strong doses of I Know What You Did Last Summer. The movie starts with a parody of the now infamous Drew Barrymore sequence from Scream, this time starring Carmen Electra. From that moment on the movie sets a very high standard, for that whole sequence is absolutely hilarious.

What follows is a series of confusing plot points which only have one objective: to make fun of movies or TV shows and make us laugh to death. I must say the Wayans brothers did a good job, ‘cause this movie is funny. Of course some of the jokes don’t work, but there are so many that you just have to wait for the next one to hit around the corner. Some of the parodies include American Beauty (1999), The Blair Witch Project, The Matrix (1999), Titanic (1997), Amistad, The Usual Suspects (1995) and many more.

The level of gross-out humor is also quite high. But it’s also hilarious and over-the-top. Shawn Wayans’ character is simply hysterical. And there’s a sequence in a car involving oral sex that has to be seen to be believed. I laughed my ass off.

Kudos should go to all the cast, but there’s one highlight and that is Anna Faris. She was a newcomer back then and I was totally enthralled by her charismatic performance. She’s funny and willing to do whatever it takes, but not in an obvious way. I think she’s a real comedic talent.

A funny movie indeed.

“Look, if it’s about that time I got drunk and masturbated with a crucifix, it was my first keg party, alright?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The King and I

Director

Walter Lang

Year

1956

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

King Mongkut of Siam (Yul Brynner) welcomes a widowed English schoolteacher to his country in order to bring some modern education to his numerous children. Despite his willingness to encourage the progress of his country, the King finds it hard to see women as equal, and soon finds Anna Leonowens (Deborah Kerr) difficult to deal with. However, Anna does her best to help both His Majesty and Siam, and does manage to make a significant change in both.

Gorgeous musical adaptation of the real life story, filmed before as Anna and the King of Siam and after as Anna and the King, based on Margaret Landon’s book. Originally a Rodgers & Hammerstein play, it’s not as memorable a film adaptation of their work as others, but it’s still quite worthwhile, especially thanks to Brynner in the role of his life; he’s just too funny and credible to be missed. Kerr is not bad either, but her male co-star outshines her, and the knowledge that her singing voice was dubbed (by Marni Nixon) goes to her discredit as well. Rita Moreno is also swell as one of the King’s wives, whose fate is doomed.

It is indeed lots of fun to watch this movie and figure the similarities in its storyline to The Sound of Music, which was made later. But to watch this movie as an independent piece is somewhat unsatisfying, perhaps due to the lack of a palpable love story, perhaps due to the historical inaccuracy in the pursue of an easier to swallow plot, perhaps due to some unmemorable songs (not all, mind me!). Fortunately, there’s always something around the corner to make up for the lulls, and a classic dance sequence towards the end that nearly makes everything better.

Songs include “Getting To Know You”, “Something Wonderful” and “Shall We Dance”. All spectacularly staged and executed.

“Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Once Upon a Time in Mexico

Director

Robert Rodriguez

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

As a huge Salma Hayek fan I had been waiting to see this movie forever. It was shot a couple of years ago but only now did it get a release. Everything was in place for it to be a killer movie: the cast, the premise, the director, but somehow not all the pieces fell together.

The movie is a mess when regarding a plot, so it’s almost impossible to describe what it is about. Down to its roots the story has El Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) seeking revenge after the murder of his wife Carolina (Salma Hayek) and his daughter. Meanwhile C.I.A. Agent Sands (Johnny Depp) is out and about to prevent the murder of the President (Pedro Armendáriz Jr.) after a supposed plan by General Barillo (Willem Dafoe) to kill him.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is the supposed third part of a trilogy that has El Mariachi and Desperado (1995) as first and second installments. I haven’t seen the first one, but Desperado is definitely a fantastic movie. It seems like director Robert Rodriguez wanted to do a bigger movie with much more characters and epic in scope. The idea is interesting, but the result is not.

To start off, there are way too many characters in the movie and one never gets a sense of who’s who or what his role is in the overall scheme. Besides, the characters keep double-crossing each other, so with so little development there’s a point where you lose track of what’s going on. A tighter script would’ve helped. There’s too much intrigue here and less action than expected.

Then again, when action takes over this movie is unstoppable. The most impressive scene in the movie has Banderas and Hayek escaping bullets by climbing down a five-floor building while chained together. It is fun and explosive. There are also moments where Rodriguez gets as over-the-top as expected from him and delivers fantastic sets you have to see to believe.

Everything else in the movie is gorgeous. The cast is great, the Mexican locale is jaw-droppingly beautiful and the music, also composed by Rodriguez, is perfectly suitable. This movie was shot entirely on digital video, and it shows. The images are not as pristine, but one gets the idea that these filmmakers are going into the right direction.

If there is one person that steals this movie it is Johnny Depp, who is fantastic as Agent Sands. He’s funny yet unlikable yet entirely spontaneous. I loved his character and what he goes through. Banderas does a good job as well, and Salma is only seen in flashbacks, but her presence is absolutely welcomed.

A good attempt that failed to sizzle.

“¿Qué quieres de la vida?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter