CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Director

Kerry Conran

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

It is just impressive the way digital filmmaking has advanced in the last few years. I think this decade will actually be known for that. But it has its advantages and disadvantages. Replacing real actors or real settings for digital ones isn’t necessarily a good thing. Then again, when done right, the result can be masterful. And that’s the case with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, a movie I didn’t feel attracted to at first, but that ultimately blew me away.

When giant robots attack the city of Manhattan, Joe “Sky Captain” Sullivan (Jude Law) comes to the rescue in his private plane, as usual. But it turns out the invasion has something to do with the disappearance of six prominent scientists, a story that Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow), from The Chronicle, is investigating. Together they try to get to the bottom of the situation, something that will take them all over the world. A rather interesting situation considering they’re former flames…

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a movie like no other. And I do mean that. I had never seen anything quite like it. And I’m not just talking about the visuals, but the whole package. The movie borrows from old Saturday afternoon serials and ancient science fiction stories. It also borrows from comic books. In a way the movie feels like a comic book brought to life…. but a rather old one at that.

As I watched the movie I felt like a kid watching some cartoon where he or she just can’t take his eyes from the screen and is seconds away from drooling. I just stared in awe. I had a blast from beginning to end. And when it was over I just wanted to stay there and watch it all over again.

It’s hard to point out just one thing that makes the movie so special, but there’s so much imagination going on at every turn that it is ultimately what holds your attention and stays with you. The visuals, oh my God, are simply breathtaking. The movie takes place in a stylized version of the 30’s, and the computer-generated images help enhance the vintage mood. I just can’t imagine what the actors must’ve felt when they saw the completed movie for the first time. After all, they shot the entire picture in front of a blue screen!

Shocking!

The story and the witty dialogue are other great factors in the ultimate success of the movie. There’re no complicated plot points. The movie is shot and written as a simple story of a hero and a reporter who live all these adventures together while going through all this sexual tension and trying to save the world. The interaction between Paltrow and Law is winning. And it’s impossible to resist as well.

I was always afraid the movie would be come too silly or just plain campy. But none of that happened. It does everything right, whether tackling action, adventure, suspense, comedy, romance or science fiction. And it all builds to a climax that actually pays off!!! Mysteries in movies almost always disappoint at the end once all the truth has been revealed, but there’s so much creativity going on here that you just don’t expect what the movie has to offer. The ending totally kills!

Working out fantastically well with this modern technology are the actors. Jude Law delivers star power and charisma to spare. Gwyneth Paltrow is his match and looks absolutely radiant as well. Angelina Jolie has a small yet memorable part as the Captain of a British airship. Giovanni Ribisi plays the genius behind all the fun gadgets. And last but not least… Sir Laurence Olivier in a fascinating appearance. Oh yes!

A truly great cinematic achievement. One of the best movies of the year!

“Could we just for once die without all the bickering?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Maria Full of Grace

Director

Joshua Marston

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, November 29, 2004

Joshua Marston’s feature debut as writer-director is absolutely impressive. It tells a story of poverty, alienation, and drug smuggling, with both ease and complexity, like few movies ever manage to. It focuses on people taking a drastic illegal decision that could alter their lives for better or worse, but it’s not preachy in the least, and doesn’t even seem to want to deliver a message or morale. It simply presents the facts, the events as they happen, and the people as they face them, leaving the suspense to the nature of the situations, instead of creating it or accentuating it in unnatural ways. The film flows by itself and contains emotion in outstanding measures. It’s in ways a beautiful, riveting experience to go through, and in ways an excruciating, unforgiving odyssey, an adventure none of us would like to live.

The story focuses on María (Catalina Sandino Moreno), a 17-year-old Colombian girl whose job in a flower factory is a bore, her boyfriend is a loser, and her family exploits her. María’s ambitions obviously go beyond, but she doesn’t seem to find a way out of her way of life until a new friend (John Álex Toro) tells her of the mule business: Mule, as in people carrying drugs inside their bellies into the United States. María is aroused by the money in the deal and the suggested ease of the operation, and soon accepts. Thus the odyssey begins.

As stated before, the film is absolutely unpretentious. It doesn’t present the drug-dealers who hire the mules as villains, neither does it present the mules as victims. The people who accept the deal know what they’re dealing with, and still go with it. As María swallows dozens of pellets containing cocaine, the adventure she’s about to live even seems exciting. Then we get different points of view, namely those of Blanca (Yenny Paola Vega), María’s best friend who also becomes a mule, and Lucy (Guilied Lopez), a now-veteran of the trade.

The film becomes a thriller if there ever was one, with the suspense flowing from the faces of the actresses, creating a tense atmosphere that can almost be touched by the viewer. Every step of the way is terrifying, especially when things start to get ugly: the Airport authorities in the U.S. catch one of the girls, another gets awfully sick, and so on. At every turn, there are complications, and even when things seem to be O.K., there’s a new challenge, a new reality to face, a new set of emotions and confrontations and complications; new people, new stories, new circumstances, and all full of loneliness, and sadness, and homesickness… and hope. This is a story of people taking drastic decisions to improve their apparently hopeless lives; and how fate is always in motion, cruel to some, generous to others, but uncertain to most.

Marston cared to make a film with no morale, a quiet observation of many realities of the world, and the people who are protagonists of them. I felt confused as to what the message was after all, until I realized there is no definite message; instead, it leaves the door open for any stance, and I’m sure it has the ability to change someone’s mind, or reaffirm someone’s ideas. The film’s job is not to do any of that, however: Its job is to present the facts, leaving the rest to the viewer’s mind.

Among a cast of talented actors, Catalina Sandino Moreno astounds every second she’s onscreen. Her sensitive performance convinces at every turn, as it represents exactly the unpretentiousness of the movie: She always seems calm, but through her eyes we sense the fear, the sadness, the hope, and the contained anguish. She’s a brilliant actress with a brilliant career ahead of her, and her creation of María is larger-than-life.

This is a film worth experiencing; and one that won’t leave your mind for a while.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shadow of a Doubt

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1943

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 25, 2004

One of the earliest Hollywood Hitchcock films teamed-up two very hot leading stars of the moment: Teresa Wright, whose very first three roles (in Little Foxes, Pride of the Yankees, and Mrs. Miniver) earned her Oscar nominations, and a win for the latter, and Citizen Kane (1941)’s Joseph Cotten, whose film career was shaping up nicely.

Wright got top billing as teenage Charlie, who’s absolutely bored of her life in Santa Rosa, California, and hopes her uncle Charlie (Cotten), whose name was the source of hers, would drop by.

Uncle Charlie is a charming man indeed, with strange affairs going on in Philadelphia. Just as young Charlie hopes to see him drop by, her uncle decides to do so, and so the visit begins. She thinks it was telepathy, but indeed, it was not. At first, everything is joyfulness and excitement as Uncle Charlie truly injects some vitality to the Newtons’ lives. But later, as his attitude turns suspicious, it all gets a bit scary… since young Charlie begins to suspect he’s a serial murderer!

Shadow of a Doubt goes by what I think is Hitchcock’s second favorite theme (the first one being mistaken identity): Suspicion. The central character is young Charlie, whose love and admiration for her uncle slowly turns into terror, a feeling we experiment also. The key to the film is not knowing the truth about Uncle Charlie at first, thus sharing the doubt with young Charlie. As expected, Hitchcock manages that and more, and even takes his time to add a bit of comedy, especially in the form of young Charlie’s father (Henry Travers) and his friend Herb (Hume Cronyn) who love plotting imaginary murder schemes against each other for sport. Cronyn especially shines in his hilarious role.

Much more than suspicion and horror go on in Shadow of a Doubt. This is really a film about duality, pairings, and connections, in thorough symbolism that’s both obvious and subtle throughout the film. These constant elements add to the procedures an enigmatic touch that makes the experience rather fascinating, in case the story wasn’t intriguing enough.

As performances go, you can’t ask for a better Uncle Charlie than Cotten. He’s as charming as he’s sinister, and absolutely perfect for the role. Ditto for Wright, whose transformation from an innocent, unsuspecting teenager, into a valiant, determined woman is outstanding. Other highlights include Edna May Wonacott as young Charlie’s little sister (who’s also a bookworm), Patricia Collinge as their mother, and Macdonald Carey as a detective.

Aided amazingly by a chilling score by Dimitri Tiomkin (which includes the “Merry Widow Waltz”), this is a minor Hitchcock classic, reportedly his personal favorite film, and one that should be seen.

“He heard me! He heard me!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before Sunrise

Director

Richard Linklater

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

It’s not that farfetched to state that even though Before Sunrise was released only nine years ago, it is now heralded as a classic. The movie surprised everyone back then, and it continues to enthrall audiences with its uniqueness. I hadn’t had a chance to see it before, but now that an equally good, or even better for some, sequel was just released, I just couldn’t wait anymore. That said, I became one more fan.

Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet and have a good time on a train on their way to Vienna. He’s an American who’s just traveling for nothing, or so he says, and she’s a French woman going back home after visiting her grandmother. When it’s time for Jesse to leave the train he just can’t leave things at that, and convinces Celine to spend the rest of the evening with him before he takes a flight in the morning. Together they get to know the city while getting to know each other. And it is slowly, yet beautifully, that love gets in the way.

Hollywood produces countless romantic comedies that rehash the same formula despite being set in a different environment. That’s why Before Sunrise comes as such a breath of fresh air. It has none, and I do mean none, of the usual plot devices presented in your typical romantic movie. In a way, it is an extremely daring movie, going for an approach that may not have worked at all, but that ended up as pure magic.

That approach, devised by writer/director Richard Linklater, is all about talking. Talk, talk, talk and more talk. Jesse and Celine get to talk about just everything. Sometimes they embark on difficult, controversial, or deep conversations. And sometimes they just chitchat about whatever comes to their minds. We’re shown all sides, and it is so profoundly human and real that you just can’t help falling in love with both of them as well.

The movie is full of special moments. It also has specific instances where certain nuances or glances say more about the characters than anything that comes out of their mouth. There’s a point where Jesse has to control himself from removing some blocking hair from Celine’s face. It is a wonderful, quiet and honest moment... and the movie is full of them!

Another wonderful scene has the two of them simulating a phone conversation with their friends back home. Amazing!

There’s a montage at the end of the movie that strikes just about the right note. A day has passed, the city returns to its daily routines. But somehow, somewhere, something memorable just happened. And we witnessed it. And we felt it. And we can’t feel but utterly in love with love itself.

For a movie like this to work, the actors have to be good at seeming natural, they’ve got to have chemistry, and they’ve got to be good improvisers. Hawke and Delpy are all of that and more. We identify with them. We know they are very different people, yet they never cease to be fascinating, as individual characters and as part of a relationship. The actors simply excel, and at times it even feels as if we were intruding. It’s that effective.

Great work by everyone involved. A classic indeed!

“I like to feel his eyes on me when I look away.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Ox-Bow Incident

Director

William A. Wellman

Year

1943

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

The Ox-Bow Incident, based upon the novel of the same name by Walter Van Tilburg Clark, is one of the most unforgiving tales of lynch mob justice (or any kind of justice taken into civilians’ own hands) ever put on film.

A low-key western, actually an anti-western, it stars Henry Fonda as Gil Carter, a drifter who arrives in town with friend Art Croft (Harry Morgan), searching for his old flame Rose Mapen (Mary Beth Hughes). Instead, the drifters encounter dreadful news that a well-loved local farmer has been killed and his cattle robbed. A posse is formed incredibly fast, as a mob of angry men willing to take justice into their own hands, snatch the murderers, and lynch them.

There’s not enough time to breathe before multiple personalities among the mob have been established. The two main characters, particularly Carter, don’t believe in lynch mobs, but can’t be too enthusiastically against the idea, afraid they might turn out to be suspects. The main members of the mob are Jeff Farnley (Marc Lawrence), friend of the dead man and main organizer of the posse, who won’t rest until the murderers are dead, preferably by himself; Major Tetley (Frank Conroy), blindly on the side of the mob, who drags his goodhearted son Gerald (William Eythe) into the gang; Jenny Grier (Jane Darwell), owner of a boarding house who wants to make up with society by aiding the posse; Deputy Butch Mapes (Dick Rich), who abuses his power in the absence of the sheriff; drunkard Monty Smith (Paul Hurst), who loves killing for the hell of it; and many more.

On the side of real justice and coherence, there’s Judge Daniel Tyler (Matt Briggs), who doesn’t go with the mob; Arthur Davies (Harry Davenport), who tirelessly insists that what they’re doing is wrong; black preacher Sparks (Leigh Whipper); the two main characters; and of course Gerald Tetley, despite his father’s will.

Soon into the quest, the alleged murderers are found. They’re Donald Martin (Dana Andrews) and his employees, old Halva Harvey (Francis Ford, director John Ford’s older brother), and Mexican Juan Martínez (Anthony Quinn). Donald quickly defends himself, and truly seems innocent, despite the evidence. The crazed old man and the defiant Mexican aren’t any help in the defense, and the mob is desperate to lynch them. However, some of them plead for a fair trial. The resolution is quite unforgettable, as are the revelations that come later.

A straightforward film if there ever was one, The Ox-Bow Incident, scripted by producer Lamar Trotti, does not attempt to be anything else than a tale with a morale. It’s an inexpensive film, with hardly realistic settings, very little music (but very effective, by Cyril J. Mockridge), and a cast composed mostly of character actors…

But every line of dialogue is effective, and every speech serves a purpose. Each of the story’s main characters represents a different point of view of justice and punishment, so at its core, it’s all a big parable and its lesson is strong and indelible.

The performances are uniformly excellent. Fonda, at first tougher than usual, is later more into his familiar dignity-ridden character, despite his helplessly passive intervention. Other highlights include Darwell in an atypical role, Quinn, and certainly Andrews. The expression on everyone’s face in the final scene makes each actor praise-worthy though, and the finale, as a twisted kind of happy ending, resonates beyond time and place.

“Hangin’ is any man’s business that’s around.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Laws of Attraction

Director

Peter Howitt

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 22, 2004

I like Pierce Brosnan and I love Julianne Moore, and even though I was looking forward to Laws of Attraction, something about the trailers seemed off to me. Then the reviews came and they were kind of bad, which just didn’t help. I didn’t feel like seeing it anymore, but the opportunity came when I got a free ticket and decided to use it and check it out. I don’t necessarily put a fight when dragged to watch a movie… and even less when it’s free!

Audrey (Julianne Moore) is an uptight, perfectionist, methodic lawyer who finds her biggest opponent in the figure of Daniel (Pierce Brosnan), a charming lawyer who just arrived in town and is taking all the attention. Soon they find themselves defending people from opposite sides in different cases. But when they take the case of a famous Irish rocker and his designer wife more unexpected things happen… including a possible affair?

To tell you the honest truth, the movie is much better than I expected. Sure, it’s a retread of the Hepburn-Tracy classic Adam’s Rib, but comparing the two is pointless. Laws of Attraction does not break new ground, but it certainly works for what it is: a comedy. I laughed out loud several times and the audience I saw it with also did. It’s unoriginal and formulaic, but it works, and that’s about that.

I had a much better time with the first half, when things weren’t as complicated and love hadn’t gotten in the way. Up to then it’s all about Daniel and Audrey competing against each other and delivering funny one-liners as an attack-defense strategy. A trip to Ireland changes things a bit, and while the movie’s funny quotient slows down a bit, I had no trouble going through the rest.

The movie contains a decidedly pro-marriage message that I didn’t bother in the least. Ultimately it might not be for everyone, but the characters in the movie do have a point.

The interaction between Daniel and Audrey is definitely winning, and the actors do a great job. I had heard Julianne Moore was horrible in the movie because she just wasn’t funny, but instead cold. Now that I saw the movie I can’t really understand that. She’s excellent. And her character is supposed to be that cold, that’s why it’s so funny when Pierce comes in and challenges her. I think Julianne comes off really well. But even better is Pierce, whose natural charm comes at full play in this part. He’s just extraordinary. Also excellent in a scene-stealing role is Frances Fisher as Audrey’s mom. But not as successful are Parker Posey and Thorney Jamison. It’s not their fault, their characters just seem out of place and aren’t as funnily written.

A strong enough movie that doesn’t push any boundaries, but certainly delivers.

“I told you darling we don’t need separate bedrooms, I don’t mind you snoring.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bourne Supremacy

Director

Paul Greengrass

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, November 21, 2004

The sequel to The Bourne Identity (2002) is also an adaptation of a Robert Ludlum novel, the second from his Bourne trilogy. I’m willing to bet that once again, this adaptation is not even close to being faithful to its literary source, but there’s also once again no denying that the result is a knockout film which, in my opinion, tops and surpasses the original.

This time around, while living a hard-earned peaceful life next to Marie (Franka Potente), Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) gets horrific flashbacks during nightmares that simply don’t leave him alone. His paranoia increases even more when he feels an assassin is behind him, and when this turns out to be true, and something quite terrible happens, Bourne becomes a killing machine if there ever was one, thirsty for vengeance, and absolutely unstoppable.

Though Bourne is clearly (to us) being framed, obviously setup to be thought the killer of a CIA agent in Berlin, he blames his former employers for his current unhappiness, and has them as targets while they’re after him. It’s crazy because despite Bourne’s hot head and the CIA people’s clear picture, both sides are deadly and incredibly destructive. But Bourne has more enemies than meet the eye, and he just gets deeper and deeper into his mistake as he goes.

On the CIA side, there’s Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), who comes back into this installment reluctantly teaming up with Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), the new brain behind Bourne. Aiding them is the logistic girl, Nicky (Julia Stiles), who plays a more important part this time around than she regretfully did before.

In a nutshell, The Bourne Supremacy is a formidable action film, as formidable as it gets. It’s probably as effective as its predecessor in the presentation and editing of its action sequences, only this time it’s even more important to the viewer because we’re much more immersed in the drama. Bourne is a suffering soul, and somehow we still root for him no matter what. Putting Landy against him is a smart move though, as she’s such a likable and intelligent character, and makes us see both sides right on their own way. Of course Cox is still the “bad guy”, but he’s not the only one Bourne is after. The chase sequences, shootouts, and every darn action sequence is magnificent, but it’s more due to the story behind it than the amazing way it’s filmed and presented.

The performances are flawless. Damon once again amazes in what is still an offbeat character for him, and Allen plays it cool and likable and extremely brave. Stiles now has a shot at showing off, and sure does it right, and Cox is excellent as usual. Kudos goes to Oksana Akinshina in a small but extremely important role towards the end, in what is the most moving scene of the movie, and the most significant. How many action films can make you cry? This is one for sure, and this is the scene that sums it all up in that way.

With grand music by John Powell, great cinematography, editing, and direction, and a knockout script by Tony Gilroy, this is one to kick anyone’s ass.

“It’s easy. She’s standing right next to you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Incredibles

Director

Brad Bird

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Saturday, November 20, 2004

The Incredibles is an amazing movie. That could be my complete review right there, and I would be so totally right. This is the 6th movie from the Pixar/Disney collaboration, and it's probably the best out of them all, tying right there with Finding Nemo (2003) as the greatest of them all. The moment that the title for this one changed from Unknown to The Incredibles, I decided that it was something I wanted to watch. Having the name Pixar attached to it was more than completely enough for me, but let's just say I wanted to watch it since I knew the title. I saw the trailer over a year ago, and I've been waiting to see it ever since (because the bastards who run these companies decided that giving you a little snippet of something they're sure you'll want to watch a year and a half before the actual movie is released, would be a good idea - and it kinda is. I'm just pissed that I had to wait so long.)

Mr. Incredible (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) and Elasti-girl (voiced by Holly Hunter) are your regular "city saver" superheroes. Mr. Incredible has incredible (pun intended) strength, and Elasti-girl, as the name suggests, is elastic (which looks and plays out incredibly - again, pun intended - throughout). Their real names in real non-hero life are Bob and Helen Parr. They are married, and fight crime together, until a wave of lawsuits against all the superheroes of the city force the government to place them in the Witness Protection Program, making it impossible for them to use their superpowers to help people. While living this secret life, they have two children: Dashiell 'Dash' Parr (voiced by Spencer Fox) and Violet Parr (voiced by Sarah Vowell). These two get special superhero powers too, with Dash receiving the ability of super speed and Violet being able to disappear as well as make a protection shield around her.

While living this 'normal life', Bob (Mr. Incredible) works at a rather dull job, from which he eventually gets fired because of smashing his boss through 6 walls (or so I counted) when pissed off while in a very bad mood. Who doesn't make that mistake every day? Anyway, he's contacted by this woman who asks him to serve as Mr. Incredible again, in order to rescue a machine that the company she worked for had created which outsmarted them and ran into the wild. He accepts the job without telling his wife, which will prove to be a very bad thing. You see, the person who hired him in the first place, was an "archeneneminy" of his, who in the end just wanted to capture and eliminate him, just like he had eliminated all of the other supervillains that existed up to that time.

The plot thickens much more than that basic draw-out, but I'll leave it at that because, just like the smart yet evil people behind Disney and Pixar left you waiting for over a year in order to actually see the film, I want you to see it, and eventually give me your feedback on it and tell me how much you loved it.

I found during the movie that certain parts reminded me of certain movies. I don't know if they were spoofing those, or just took ideas from them, or never even noticed, but I thought it played out very smartly. There's a Spider-Man 2 (2004) "imitation", in which Mr. Incredible saves a train from falling into an open space by stopping it using his incredible strength. There's also a (what I consider) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) "homage", where Mr. Incredible fights this 'thing' (which I shall not reveal) in the crater of a volcano with lava all around them (think Gollum and Frodo fighting for The One Ring). All in all, whether they meant it to be a spoof or an imitation or maybe even an homage, these scenes where really good, and played out wonderfully onscreen.

Everything is good in this movie: the plot, the dialogue... the actors chosen for each character voice-over were magnificent, with big props going to Holly Hunter, just because I love her.

Animation-wise, there's really not much to say, other than it was amazing, as every Pixar animation is. There's so much of everything, so much attention and description-wise animation from the big things to the small things that it's truly wonderful to just sit back and enjoy the wonderful creations that these people can come up with. It's perfection in an animated format... it's just incredible.

"It's showtime."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Home at the End of the World

Director

Michael Mayer

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 18, 2004

A Home at the End of the World was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is based upon a Michael Cunningham novel, has an intriguing premise, and a killer cast. There’s also no denying the fact that I’m a big Colin Farrel fan, so there you go. I just couldn’t wait.

Bobby Morrow (Colin Farrell) lost his family at a young age, so he was taken care of by his dear friend Jonathan (Dallas Roberts) and his family. Bobby had no trouble adjusting to Jonathan’s mother, Alice (Sissy Spacek), and he had certainly no trouble getting into a more intimate relationship with his friend. Years later, Bobby decides to leave his hometown and joins Jonathan and his extravagant friend Clare (Robin Wright Penn) in a New York apartment. The three soon form a sort of family.

A Home at the End of the World is a fascinating movie in the way it weaves together a decidedly complex story while making it so simple. This is a character-driven piece that sustains itself on the weight of its performers and its source material. The story is unpredictable, such as real life, and that makes it unique in its own way.

I was most fascinated by the character of Bobby. We witness him growing up. We know what he’s been through. Yet when he’s an adult he is still a mystery to us... and everyone else for that matter. There’s so much goodness in him and he has so much love to give that he almost forgets to take care of himself. Of course, all he really wants is to never be alone and make everyone happy around him. That is just so bold and striking and beautiful in a world such as ours. It’s a character that you feel can exist, but that you rarely find out there. And as is always the case with a character like this, there’s always trouble heading his way. It is in the way Bobby acts and reacts that the movie finds its soul. And when it gets to a point where he is faced with a decision so important it could change the lives of the three of them forever, we don’t instantly understand what he does, but eventually come to realize he didn’t decide for himself, but for whom he felt needed him the most.

The movie also deals with how human beings tend to need others to stay afloat. As much as we may deny it, we tend to form groups, close friendships, we tend to form our own family. And that’s exactly what each character is trying to do in the movie.

Then again, there’s something the movie lacks which I can’t put into words that easily. We care about the characters and certainly wish them well, but there’s a sense that the movie and the characters never really grow on us. They remain cold and somewhat distant. I could say the movie lacks heart, but that’s too simple a statement. It does have a heart, but perhaps it lacks intimacy and a real identification with the audience.

A lot has been said about Colin Farrell’s performance. Believe me, it’s astonishing. As huge a transformation as I have ever seen onscreen, being even more remarkable since it doesn’t rely on weight or make-up. Yet there’s something about him that doesn’t work at times: it is such a change of pace for him, and it is so well done, that it is very difficult to simply focus on the character. I just kept noticing how good a job the actor was doing, instead of just thinking of Bobby as Bobby. It really isn’t Colin’s fault, but for the first time all the baggage that comes with the actor, thanks to the Hollywood obsession with celebrities, actually stood in the way of my watching of the movie. Perhaps a second viewing may decrease that sentiment, but there’s no denying that’s what I felt.

That said, it is a truly terrific performance. And he’s strongly supported by the very talented Robin Wright Penn. Sometimes the interaction between Colin and Robin reminded me of that of Forrest Gump and Jenny, his true love. Both movies share some of the same ideas, and their leading lady, so it wasn’t difficult thinking of the resemblance. Dallas Roberts is equally good. The three of them have chemistry and do a great job together. You really feel they’re a family.

Extraordinary scenes include that of Sissy Spacek (in a memorable small performance) dancing with Bobby at Jonathan’s room. Or most scenes with these same characters at a young age (both actors playing Bobby at a young age look remarkably like Colin Farrell). But to me the greatest and most fascinating scene happens just as Clare gives Bobby a makeover. What happens is just so poignant that I don’t want to ruin the experience for you. And Colin Farrell deserves an Oscar for that scene alone.

“I can’t be alone.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Grudge

Director

Takashi Shimizu

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

The Grudge seemed like a good movie from the previews I saw on TV, but not necessarily one I would have liked to watch. However, I'm crazy for Sarah Michelle Gellar, which sort of meant that I needed to watch it, to show my support for her. For that reason, I went and saw the movie on opening weekend, and fortunately enough, I had a pretty good time. Here's the scoop:

Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Karen Davis, an American woman living in Tokyo who earns her living helping the elderly survive: basically, a nurse. One day, her boss at the Tokyo office where she works assigns her a new patient, and so Karen goes to the house of the woman she's supposed to take care of, and SURPRISE: the house is a mess and the woman she's there to help, is also a mess. Karen arrives in full force though, and fixes the house a bit, cleans up the old woman and sets her down to sleep. Now, this is the part where things get freaky: 'something' is in the room of the woman, and this 'something' is scary... very scary.

When Karen eventually sees the 'scary something', she's in a state of shock for a while, until she decides that whatever it was she saw in there wasn't normal, which prompts her to investigate about the woman, house and everything around it. She discovers quite a big amount of stuff, none of them good, and all of them scary.

That's basically the plot. Saying more, including what the 'something' is, would basically be telling the whole movie, since pretty much everything is connected.

As I said, the only reason I went to see this movie was Sarah Michelle Gellar, which means that I didn't necessarily go with the idea in my mind that it was a good one, or that I had to enjoy it. I simply went to see Sarah act her part. Nevertheless, I still found the movie to be pretty enjoyable, with scary parts every once in a while, and suspense ever so often. I also had some laughs, not at the movie, but with the movie, since most of the people around me screamed every time something scary came up. Picture a room full of teenage girls eating popcorn, drinking Coke, cellphones ringing... scary, isn't it? That was my surrounding.

The movie is yet another Japanese remake, and bares some resemblance to The Ring (2002), another not-so-good-yet-enjoyable movie. Takashi Shimizu, who happens to be the same director of the original Japanese movie, directed it. So, he basically remade his own movie. Smart, isn't it? The writing is so-so. Nothing to necessarily write home about, but (once again) fairly enjoyable. The music definitely helped, with the crescendo of violin strings announcing that something "jumpy" was about to happen: it basically added to the suspense, as it is done in most movies that don't completely have what it takes to make the people "jump".

So, you may be asking why, after this "more negative than positive" review, I gave the movie 3 stars, and not 2 or less. Well, the reason why I went to see it in the first place is the reason why I'm giving the movie 3 stars, and that's Sarah Michelle Gellar. Even though this wasn't necessarily an award-worthy performance on her part (nor her strongest point in her acting career), it's still Sarah Michelle Gellar, who can do no wrong in my eyes (even if the movie wasn't so good by itself).

Before I conclude, there's a little something I'd like to tell the US distributors of the film (Sony Pictures Entertainment), who were responsible for making the TV teaser trailers: fire the guy who speaks in the commercial. He has one of the most freakishly disturbing voices I have ever heard in my life, and that isn't necessarily a good thing, even if we're talking about a film like this.

Stay seated for part 2! I'm sure we'll have a gay ol' time...

"There is something evil there."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shark Tale

Director

Bibo Bergeron

Vicky Jenson

Rob Letterman

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Just one year after those Pixar geniuses released an animated movie about fish comes Shark Tale from Dreamworks. Now, before I start ranting about the quality of animated movies that do not come from Disney/Pixar let’s not forget that Dreamworks actually created Shrek (2001) and its sequel, two extraordinary animated movies that proved that other studios could actually compete in the same arena. Fox has also been partly successful in the genre. That said, Shark Tale always sounded like a lot of fun to me. The movie looked good and the actors lending their voices looked like they did a terrific job. Besides, the overall feel and look were just attractive. I couldn’t wait.

Oscar (voice of Will Smith) could be considered a nobody who just happens to have conquered the heart of his beautiful co-worker, Angie (voice of Renée Zellweger). He doesn’t notice it though, and considers her to be his best friend. It all changes once Don Lino (voice of Robert De Niro), the shark mob boss, finds out one of his two sons was killed, apparently by Oscar. That’s not true though, but Oscar goes with the flow and soon becomes a hero. Then again, with great power comes great responsibility, and it is only with the help of friendly shark Lenny (voice of Jack Black), Don Lino’s remaining son, that he will be able to maintain his newfound status. As it happens, Lenny has a dark secret that he just can’t tell his father about, so he decides to escape and befriends Oscar... to the chagrin of Angie of course.

So what exactly did I feel about Shark Tale? To be dead honest with you, I was sort of disappointed. Not that the movie is bad, but the bar has been raised so high concerning animated movies that this movie felt second-tier. Sort of what I felt with Ice Age. They’re good movies but just don’t quite make it to the point of greatness. And that’s a pity.

As it is, Shark Tale could be described as “Fresh Prince goes fish-y”. I’m not kidding. The character of Oscar is voiced by Will Smith, which is no wonder since the character suits him perfectly, especially in his first years as an actor. The character is likable, but it does get tiring after a while with so many exaggerated antics and mannerisms.

Supporting characters fare much better. Angie, for example, is sweet and cuddly. It is her that you really root for. Martin Scorsese’s involvement as Don Lino’s right hand was just a stroke of genius. His fish even sports his recognizable eyebrows. And the interaction between Lenny and his father is just priceless. Last but not least there’s Angelina Jolie’s Lola, the fish version of Jessica Rabbit who seduces Oscar once he becomes famous. That character is just something to behold. The animation work is just brilliant. You just won’t believe how sexy a fish can be until you watch Lola. I loved her!

Anyway, the story is just ok. The movie does drag a bit and the humor is not as consistent as it should have been. The tale is just predictable, with some inspiring and fresh moments thrown in there for good measure.

And visually… I’ve got to say I’m sticking by Nemo, although the job done here is amazing as well. The feel is more colorful, more lively, and more cartoony in Shark Tale. But it works, and the sight of an underwater version of Times Square is just fantastic.

So anyway, the movie is good but not great! And you’ll have a good time with it.

“What did you expect? You just take credit for killing a shark and then everything would be fine and dandy?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Spy Who Loved Me

Director

Lewis Gilbert

Year

1977

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, November 15, 2004

The most ironic thing happened to the James Bond movie franchise after the box office failure of The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)… Failure meaning success that doesn’t quite top its predecessors, a feeling of déjà vu struck the filmmakers, since the same thing happened to On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) years earlier. And the ironic thing is, the last time they went for a dumber, cheaper, empty comedy/action film (Diamonds Are Forever (1971)), and this time they went for the exact opposite, an intelligent, personal, serious drama, not without the trademark Bond elements, much like On Her Majesty's as a matter of fact. Justice, after all!

And not surprisingly, the gig paid off. Not only was The Spy Who Loved Me a hit, but it easily became one of the best Bond films out there. It’s got it all! So let me talk about it.

The film begins with the most exciting opening in a Bond film up to then: Bond skis away from KGB agents, one of whom he shoots on the run, after which he falls down a cliff – and is saved by his England flag-decorated parachute. This spectacular moment is followed by one of the best (and most famous) Bond themes ever, “Nobody does it better”, composed by Marvin Hamlisch and Carole Bayer Sager, and sung by Carly Simon. Both the pre-credits and the credits sequences are brilliant, and somehow manage to show that Roger Moore has finally achieved what he hardly could in his two previous outings as Bond: To gain power over the character, and make it his own.

The plot, first to be completely original (since author Ian Fleming didn’t care much for the novel of the same name) has megalomaniac Karl Stromberg (Curd Jürgens) plotting to sink the Earth’s land portion to turn the world into a submarine paradise he’ll easily rule thanks to his knowledge on the subject. To fulfill this dream, he hijacks British and Soviet submarines to use their nuclear power against the overworld civilizations. This makes up for a forced alliance between British and Soviet secret agencies or, more specifically, their two best agents: 007 (Moore), and Major Anya Amasova, a.k.a. Triple-X (Barbara Bach).

The ski chase in the beginning is only the first of many references to On Her Majesty's Secret Service; others are the respectful regard to Bond’s past (including his tragic marriage), real character development, heartfelt romance, and high-quality filmmaking. All Bond films have their quality, but few are meticulously done, both technically and artistically, and this is one of them. From Hamlisch’s score to Claude Renoir’s cinematography, it’s all mesmerizing work. The icing on the cake comes in the form of references to two classic David Lean films: Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Doctor Zhivago (1965).

Back to the story, the romance comes in the form of Anya, who feels something for Bond, but soon discovers something that makes her swear she’ll kill the British superspy as soon as their mission is over.

There is enough excitement in The Spy Who Loved Me to balance the character-driven plot. The most exciting moments belong to super-though guy Jaws (Richard Kiel), famous for his metallic teeth, colossal strength and towering height. The climatic sequence towards the end is not as successful, and goes on for too long, but it’s only a minor quibble.

As stated before, Moore finally became Bond like he never did before. He’s larger-than-life, self-assured to say the least, and also funny and charming; heck, he even seems physically more appropriate. Bach, in the meantime, is the best Bond girl since On Her Majesty's Diana Rigg, a tough, passionate, and highly intelligent woman. And while Jürgens is a forgettable villain, Kiel became one of the most famous in the series, and was set to come back in the next entry, Moonraker (1979).

“You ever get the feeling somebody doesn’t like you?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bedroom Window

Director

Curtis Hanson

Year

1987

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Two days ago I didn't know The Bedroom Window even existed. I was just channel-surfing before going to bed when I suddenly stopped. A movie was just starting and I stayed there watching which one it was. As the credits showed the actors and technicians I just didn't know what the hell it was. I was intrigued. And suddenly Curtis Hanson's name appeared as writer and director. Boom! Well, five minutes can't hurt. So I continued to watch, and after those five minutes I was hooked and couldn't let go.

Terry Lambert (Steve Guttenberg) is having an affair with his powerful boss's wife, Sylvia (Isabelle Huppert). One night, after making love in his apartment, Sylvia hears some screams outside and looks through the bedroom window. She then witnesses a man badly hurting and dragging a woman (Elizabeth McGovern), but as soon as he gets a glimpse of her, he goes off running. Terry then, as a romantic gesture, calls the police telling them that he witnessed the attack. Little did he know that his pretty insignificant move would unleash such a web of crime and twists.

The Bedroom Window is based on Anne Holden’s novel of the same name and adapted by Hanson himself. I can see what attracted him to the project: it is a well-written, sexy, entertaining Hitchcockian thriller with a lot of style. In a way, it is an homage to vintage film noirs, from the way the characters talk and act. Even the period detail is fascinating, as the movie does not specify in which year it takes place, yet we know it must be the 80's but you always get the feeling you're watching an old movie in a different period.

I am actually amazed this is an 80's movie. I hate the 80's! And I mostly hate 80's movies. Yes, it's true. But there are a few exceptions: Those that break the rules. And this is an example.

As much as I hate the 80's I love film noirs, with their sexy women, intricate plots and twists galore. The Bedroom Window has 'em all! Sure, there are plenty of contrivances, but there always are in this kind of movie. At the end I enjoyed it for what it is: A suspenseful, exquisite romp from start to finish.

I also enjoyed the performances quite a bit. I had not seen Steve Guttenberg for a while and he's excellent here. There's just no cynicism in him, which makes him the perfect counterpart to the ladies. Isabelle Huppert is especially memorable as a Veronica Lake-like femme fatale. And Elizabeth McGovern is sassy and intelligent in equal measures.

Kudos to everyone involved in each technical aspect, from the set design to the music. And kudos to director Hanson, whose work here only foresighted what would become of him as a filmmaker.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Man with the Golden Gun

Director

Guy Hamilton

Year

1974

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

After a bumpy (and hardly successful) debut as James Bond in Live and Let Die (1973), Roger Moore reprised the role, not yet embodying a memorable 007, but making a far better job than in the previous installment. We come to realize at watching The Man With the Golden Gun that Moore’s unsettledness in playing the superspy wasn’t completely his fault, but the rather uncomfortable environment surrounding him in the previous film was more to blame. Here, he’s Bond in a Bond setting, or at least a more familiar one. It’s great to have the series back in form, and be in for some fun.

The plot is more intricate than it promises to be in the beginning. It starts with Bond apparently threatened by elusive international assassin Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee), famous for charging a million dollars per kill, and notorious for killing only with his own unique weapon, a golden gun that shoots bullets with each victim’s name carved on them. Bond goes after the man, first through the gun’s manufacturer, and later through the man’s mistress, Andrea Anders (Maud Adams).

Pretty soon, Bond is in for a surprise, but there are many more to make matters more interesting. As it turns out, Scaramanga is into more than killing… He’s willing to monopolize the solar energy for the whole world, for which he’s about to go much farther than killing people for money; in the midst of the 1970s energy crisis, of which Britain was one of the main victims, the theme is quite truthful and realistic. Scaramanga’s power grows by the minute and he becomes more and more ruthless, and the fact that few people know him, makes him a tougher catch. Luckily, the man’s got three nipples… A characteristic that’s sure to distinguish him from others.

Mainly two people aid James Bond here: Lieutenant Hip (Soon-Tek Oh) and Mary Goodnight (Britt Ekland). The first is a Felix Leiter of sorts, only more appropriate on account of the setting (the far east); the second is a clumsy agent, not the idiotic and obnoxious Bond Girl we got in Diamonds Are Forever (1971), but rather an appealing if absent-minded one that’s also quite irresistible.

The road is uneven but entertaining. On his way to find and eventually face Scaramanga, Bond lives many adventures. Most notably, he’s engaged in a car chase along with Sheriff J.W. Pepper (Clifton James) from Diamonds, now on vacation and back for the comic relief, but more effectively than before. The sequence is unforgettable, especially on account of a car loop-jump pirouette, an outstanding feat by whoever calculated and performed it. As if the sequence hadn’t been exciting enough, it ends with Scaramanga literally flying away, with Goodnight as hostage. Things couldn’t get more exciting by then.

Scaramanga, a man who kills for sport, is a secret admirer of Bond’s. Both men are paid for killing, only their causes are different. The only way to end a story like this is to have them facing each other in an unforgettable duel. Nick Nack (Hervé Villechaize, best known as Tattoo from the “Fantasy Island” TV series) prepares scenarios for his boss Scaramanga where the latter practices his assassination techniques. Suffice it to say that this has a lot to do with the amazing climax.

John Barry came back after a one-film hiatus for a serviceable but unmemorable score for this film. His title song (with lyrics by Don Black) is good but not great.

The best performance of the film, not surprisingly, comes from that great Hammer films villain, Christopher Lee. He plays Scaramanga with surprising earnestness, despite the less than plausible backdrop. Adams is an ideal Bond girl, though Ekland is more appropriate in a film like this, and adds a lot to the fun as Goodnight. In the meantime, Moore is not yet the Bond we all expected him to be. That, among other great things, would come in The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

“He must have found me titillating.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Sea Inside

Director

Alejandro Amenábar

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Spanish director Alejandro Amenábar showed early signs of promise with Tesis and Open Your Eyes (1997), the latter a cult classic that was remade by Cameron Crowe with its original star, Penélope Cruz, some years later. But then Amenábar himself went Hollywood with an extraordinary movie starring Nicole Kidman, The Others (2001). What’s most intriguing is how comfortable he seems with every different genre he tackles. And after all these years, Amenábar returned to Spain and shot what I think is his first true masterpiece: Mar Adentro.

Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem) has been fighting almost 30 years for his right to die. As it happens, he was a young, vigorous fisherman when he had a tragic accident that left him paraplegic. From then on all Ramón has wanted is to die, because, he says, there’s no dignity to his state of being. Unfortunately for him, he can’t physically commit suicide, and no one wants to help him die because it would be murder or simply because they love him. Enters Julia (Belén Rueda), a lawyer brought by Gené (Clara Segura), a member of an organization that supports the right to die, who is enchanted by Ramón and tries to help him, both legally and spiritually. Meanwhile a woman named Rosa (Lola Dueñas) comes into his life and becomes his friend and part of their everyday life.

First and foremost I want to tackle the controversial side of the movie. The Sea Inside is clearly a pro-euthanasia movie, no question about that. We get all sides of the debate, but after all it’s Ramón we root for, and it’s not difficult to sympathize with him in some level and understand his intentions. I think everybody should go into the movie with an open mind and talk and think about it after having witnessed this story. No matter what’s your stand regarding this subject matter, the movie is not much of a political statement as it is a testimony of one long-suffering, fascinating man whose scars on the inside were stronger than those at the outside.

Ramón Sampedro loved life much more than it appears at the core. It was his undeniable love of life that ultimately led him to his death. He loved life, but he couldn’t have it as he knew it. His body was alive, but he was already dead inside. And you kind of wonder why he smiled so much. “When you can’t escape and you depend on others so much, you learn to cry by smiling”, he used to say. It’s as poignant as it gets.

Amenábar’s movie is remarkable for a number of reasons. It tells a true story yet it never feels forced. It is a biopic yet it doesn’t fall into the usual conventions. It is real to the bone yet it feels like a poem. It is, ultimately, a movie about relationships, about human characters forced to deal with most extraordinary of circumstances. You can see the love for Ramón in his family’s eyes. You can see they’re tired. And you can see there’s nothing they can do, no matter how hard they try, to convince Ramón that life is worth living.

There’s two women who storm into Ramon’s life and turn his life upside down. Julia, a sick woman just like him, understands him and wants to help, but in the way forms a much stronger bond that provokes feelings in Ramón that he hadn’t felt for years. Meanwhile there’s Rosa, an unhappy woman who finds in him a reason to move on and grab life by the balls. These two relationships are the glue that holds the movie together. And they’re just beautiful and deeply affecting.

Production values are top-notch, which helps Amenábar create a dreamlike atmosphere which is enchanting. The music and photography are handled with care. You get the impression while watching the movie that even though it is a simple story there was a lot of attention paid to every single detail, especially the script and performances. The movie flows effortlessly, and besides all the simplicity lies greatness.

It also helps that the performances Aménabar got from his very talented cast are something to behold. Javier Bardem is astonishing. He spends the entire movie tied to a bed yet exuding so much emotion that it almost hurts. It is because of him that we get inside Ramón’s skin, and what a tour-de-force that is. The women are all equally good, with each scene after another played to perfection. From Belén Rueda to Lola Dueñas to Clara Segura to Mabel Rivera (as Ramón’s sister-in-law), they are all glorious, special, beautiful-in-more-ways-than-one actresses.

A thought-provoking, touching, deeply-affecting movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before Sunset

Director

Richard Linklater

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, November 08, 2004

Nine years after the delicious Before Sunrise (1995), director Richard Linklater has reunited once again with stars Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy to create a sequel to the undeniably romantic (and in ways unique) film about two disparate souls talking and walking in a European city. This time however, Hawke and Delpy participated in the screenplay in a way that gives this second round a Last Tango in Paris (1972) edge: The people onscreen speak their minds, and one can only guess how much of what they say belongs to the actor’s life. A lot, would be my guess, particularly in Delpy’s case. But whichever the answer, one thing is for sure: The performances are honest, the feelings are real, and the movie is a vast improvement over its predecessor.

After their chance meeting in Vienna, as anyone who saw the first film can remember, Jesse and Celine agreed to meet months later in the same spot. It was a hurried decision, and whether they would keep their words was uncertain. We never knew, and now we have an answer. I won’t reveal it of course, but nine years after the original encounter, here they are, meeting again, remembering that day we witnessed, and revealing to each other (and to us) how much it affected their lives. The most important asset of this movie lies in the fact that the encounter is memorable now; before walking into the theater to see Before Sunset, how memorable Before Sunrise was to the us depended on each viewer’s appreciation. To me, it was fine, a good time, and well worth remembering, but not a life-changing event. Watching these people talk about it nine years later however, it is memorable, to me and anyone else, because it is to this people, and they sure as hell transmit it. Heck, I walked out of the movie wanting to see the original again, because I have a chance and they don’t. That’s how powerful it is.

The setting this time is Paris, where Jesse is presenting a novel he wrote about a chance encounter of two people in Vienna, much like his own with Celine. It made me wonder if perhaps Linklater himself wrote the first screenplay as a tribute to his own chance encounter with someone years before. Walking around Paris, with little time before Jesse has to take a plane, these people catch up, and eventually open their hearts. The spirit is mostly the same as in the first film; the long takes are there, the humor is there, but wait, there’s a big difference: This time it’s in real time. If the result doesn’t blow your mind, I have no clue why. In my case, when the movie was suddenly over, I was frozen, I was woe-ridden, I had so many feelings encountered, I, I… I loved it! I still hated one of the characters and loved another, but I loved it! Few movies freeze me like that. It was electrifying.

About the performances, both people are amazing, but Delpy is simply beyond words, especially towards the end, and especially in a car. She also wrote a lot of songs and my guess is she participated more actively than Hawke in the script (I might be wrong, though).

Great, great film. Don’t miss it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Garden State

Director

Zach Braff

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Not being that much of a fan of Zach Braff’s TV show “Scrubs”, I never really got excited over the idea of a movie written and directed, much less starred by him. But then something happened: the Sundance crowds went ga-ga over it. And I figured, if it’s got Natalie Portman, then it might definitely be worth a check.

After aspiring actor Andrew (Braff) finds out his mother just passed away, he returns home for the services. Little does he know he will face his old demons, especially related to his relationship with his estranged father (Ian Holm). But a ray of light comes in the way of Sam (Natalie Portman), a unique hometown girl with whom he forms a relationship.

If you read the premise and can’t find a single original idea in there then you’re probably right. This sort of movie has been done countless times. But then, what makes this one so special? To tell you the truth, it is difficult to say. I guess it’s simply that it works, it has characters we care about, and it gets us involved. Perhaps it’s also because of the way Braff approaches his material, not so much as a drama, but as a kind of quirky comedy with dramatic moments.

Therein lies one of its small pretensions, but also one of its small pleasures: Garden State sometimes feels overwrought. Things happen that could only come from the writer’s mind, but that don’t seem true in a real-world standard. A doctor with so many diplomas that he puts one in the roof…, that just doesn’t exist and rings false, but on the other hand it does get a laugh. Moments like that which take attention to themselves abound, but for the most part they do what they have to do.

The real pleasure lies in something else though: the characters. Andrew is like a zombie. You could say his heart beats, but inside he is dead. He has issues that I won’t mention here, that have got him to that place. But he has difficulty confronting them. And then comes Sam, a free-spirited, one-of-a-kind soul that injects energy into his life. They immediately bond, albeit not in a romantic way initially. The way their relationship evolves is beautiful and touching. In a way, they complement each other because they are so different, but are looking for the same things deep inside.

As a sight gag, just compare Andrew’s room with Sam’s. See what I mean? And by the way, that whole sequence in Sam’s house for the first time is simply marvelous from start to finish. Garden State is at its best when dealing with this kind of real, human moments.

Oh, and by the way, I had no clue what the title referred to before watching the movie. And I had no clue even after I did! Now I’ve read that New Jersey is called that way by some, but the sense of place in the movie is kind of ambiguous.

My love for Natalie Portman is immense. She is such a good, natural actress. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself for having muted all that from her in his movies. But here Braff knows what to do with her and boy does it pay off. She’s simply marvelous, magnetic, bursting with energy. I just loved her character and her performance. Braff also does a good job in the lead. And Peter Sarsgaard’s appearance in a minor role is a pleasure as is always the case with him

Never mind that the movie is sometimes uncomfortably edited, Braff is a talent to watch for. He certainly made a solid debut.

“I don’t want to waste another moment of my life without you in it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Our Hospitality

Director

John G. Blystone

Buster Keaton

Year

1923

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Our Hospitality, one of Buster Keaton’s finest films, is a masterpiece of comedy and storytelling. It sets a very good example of how disparate situations can be connected to intertwine storylines and make the most out of them given circumstance and coincidence. If you haven’t seen the film and hear the premise of its story, and then find out what kind of scenes it ends up making up, you’ll think it’s not faithful to its original ideas. But outstandingly, while watching the movie, you’ll realize it not only makes sense, but does so with unlimited creativity and imagination. It’s a glorious film, a comedic gem, and one of Buster’s best.

The story surrounds a Kentuckian feud between the McKay and the Canfield families that has transmitted from generation to generation with men killing each other on account of their ancestors’ rivalry. John McKay (Edward Coxen) and James Canfield (Tom London) kill each other, so James’ brother, Joseph (Joe Roberts), swears vengeance against John’s son, Willie (Buster Keaton Jr., Stoneface’s real-life son). The latter’s mother, however, is worried that his son will have the same fate as his father, so she sends him to New York with her sister Mary (Kitty Bradbury).

Twenty-one years later, Willie, ignorant of the feud, receives a letter asking him to claim his family’s estate. His aunt warns him of the feud, so off he goes, conscious that he must avoid the Canfields at all costs. But circumstance leads him to befriend one of them, young Virginia (Natalie Talmadge), who he meets on the train. Little does he suspect who she really is, so once they get to their homeland, and her family spots the young man, mayhem ensues.

Thing is, Virginia has no idea Willie is a McKay, so she invites him for supper. Once there, respectable Joseph tells his sons (Craig Ward and Ralph Bushman) that they must not kill a guest at their own home; thus, the three are ready to shoot the man once he sets foot outside. As soon as Willie understands the situation, he decides to stay inside no matter what. A Parson (Monte Collins), Willie’s dog, and every possible third-party intervention, add to the fun.

Now, how do you imagine a story like this to end with a waterfall rescue scene? Well, it does, and surprisingly, as I said before, it makes perfect sense. As a matter of fact, though the central theme of the story is indeed the feud (and consequently, the Canfields’ hospitality), Keaton and co-director Jack Blystone pay enough attention to many other themes. Writers Clyde Bruckman, Jean C. Havez, and Joseph A. Mitchell concocted a story with one too many threads, and the directors know how to make the most out of each and still make a smooth-playing film. For instance, most of the first half of the movie happens on the small train, where you couldn’t ask for more entertainment. After that, the story changes drastically, but it’s as hilarious, despite the dramatic backdrop. Then the climatic sequence in the rapids and then the waterfall is truly exhilarating, and finally, the ending offers a lesson and after that we get an extra laugh. Gosh, what a great film!

Aside from the masterful storytelling and direction, the attention to detail must be praised. The train, for instance, is an exact replica of Stephenson’s Rocket, and the view of a very old “Times Square”, plus an in-joke about a dangerous crossing in the New York streets, are free bits, not really necessary for the whole, but definitely welcome. As always in Keaton’s films, the staging of the action sequences and the work by the stunts is mesmerizing, with Buster performing his own like a true acrobat, and a very brave one at that.

Overall, it’s a must-see film, and a masterpiece of silent comedy.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Forgotten

Director

Joseph Ruben

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

I remember being intrigued by Julianne Moore’s choice to star in this movie after she had become such hot material with two Oscar nominations in the same year. Why follow it up with a thriller? Perhaps she wanted something lighter and less demanding. Truth is, the movie’s premise does sound very intriguing. Whether you enjoy the final product remains to be seen, but people seem to like it as it has become a small hit.

Telly Paretta (Julianne Moore) is having a hard time trying to cope with the death of her 9-year-old son in an airplane crash. But her husband Jim (Anthony Edwards) and her psychologist, Dr. Munce (Gary Sinise), are not making it any easier for her: they claim she’s creating those memories because she never even had a son! Telly won’t accept this, and joins forces with a man called Ash (Dominic West), who also thinks he lost his supposedly inexistent daughter in the same accident.

I’d say it is one fascinating premise for a thriller. That’s why I wanted to see it so much. And Sony Pictures made a damn good decision by not showing too much of the movie in its publicity campaign. I think it would’ve turned people off, but by using the “Shyamalan approach”, they got everyone interested and ready to swallow what would be in place. I myself did not expect the movie to go in the directions it went. I just kept praying that it would maintain the strong level it reached in its first half.

Because, you see, as the plot unfolds, the movie becomes sillier and sillier, yet in the hands of a different director the material could’ve derived into sheer mediocrity. As silly as it is, the movie never feels like it’s insulting the audience’s intelligence. It takes a serious approach to its subject matter, keeping special effects to the minimum and putting character development in first place.

I guess that’s why people like it. After all is said and done, the movie could be considered a long, well-done, “X-Files” episode. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing for a movie merely made to entertain the audience. And it certainly works in that respect.

Julianne Moore is way better than the movie she’s stuck in, but that’s only because she’s such an extraordinary actress delivering a strong performance as usual. It is because of her that we stay there and care so much for the outcome. Dominic West provides strong support. And I also enjoyed Alfre Woodward very much in a small role, perhaps the best character in the movie.

Good photography by the way!

“I had life inside of me. I had life. I have a child. I have a son.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Team America: World Police

Director

Trey Parker

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Monday, November 01, 2004

“South Park” is probably one of the greatest shows ever created by a human gifted mind. The creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are genius when it comes to creating laugh-out-loud comedy, and they have proven that with every episode of the show, plus the hilarious spin-off movie, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999). When you're such a huge fan of their work, you probably wouldn't miss out on the opportunity to watch a brand new spanking movie coming directly from them, which promises to be as hilarious as probably everything they've ever done. These were my exact thoughts when I entered the movie theater to watch Team America: World Police, and I can proudly say that I was not disappointed.

The movie tells the story of an anti-terrorist group named Team America who polices the world to rid it of criminals and maintain peace. When the news that a certain dictator is harboring WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), it's up to Team America to track the ruler and give him his medicine! They enlist the help of Gary Johnston, a rising star on Broadway to go undercover and find out who the evil ruler is. Together with the Team, Gary discovers who the ruler is and what's worse: that the WMDs have already been distributed around the world. With this shocking discovery, it is up to Team America to save the world and bring peace to it, once again. This evil ruler is Kim Jong Il, the dictator in charge of North Korea. Along the way, we are also presented to F.A.G. or Film Actors Guild, made up of many different celebrities: from Alec Baldwin to Liv Tyler and Sean Penn (none of which approved nor gave their voice to this project). All the actors that make up F.A.G. are compelled, after the doings of Team America bring chaos and explosions as their way of fighting terrorism, to unite and bring the world together under their leadership.

What makes this movie so wonderful is the cast. We are not talking about people here: we're talking about puppets - hand-stringed, voiced-over puppets. You can even see the strings in the movie! They're not removed with a computer: the intended effect is to make it obvious that these are puppets that are obviously being managed by people! This specific type of filmmaking is very dear to Matt and Trey. In an interview they did earlier to TechTV before the movie came out (I'm a geeky fan, so I saw the interview. Shoot me), they talked about the TV show “Thunderbirds”, which was made up of puppets and how they were huge fans of it. They also talked about the movie, Thunderbirds (2004), based on the show, and how it completely lacked the show's spirit since it was done with real people. Thus the idea to make such a movie was created.

There are many critiques in the movie, namely towards Hollywood and its celebrities. There's not one person who does not fall into its trap: from Alec Baldwin to Michael Moore, everyone gets a little something from it. Due to the fact that they have no shame, they can actually get away with it, and let me tell you: it plays wonderfully. There are many scenes that will make you laugh out loud, but there's one scene... the one that got the MPAA threatening to give the movie an NC-17 rating... the one that raised the most eyebrows as well as the most laughs. Those who have seen the movie know I'm talking about the sex scene between the puppets, in which they try out every existing position in the Kama Sutra. That scene alone was worth my money.

The director of the movie, Trey Parker, also does a lot of the main characters’ voices, including Gary, fellow Team America soldier Joe, United Nations inspector Hans Blix, and the very hilarious Kim Jong Il. He is mainly the spirit of the movie, and he gets credit for the voiceovers, co-writing the script, directing, and making a kick ass movie.

The music is hilarious (just like in South Park - the movie) and big kudos goes to Stephen Barton, Toby Chu, Harry Gregson-Williams and James McKee Smith for making it so movingly hilarious. Trey Parker, on top of doing everything already mentioned above, is the writer of all the songs in the soundtrack which, anyone will tell you, is the second most hilarious aspect of the movie, right after the sex scene...

All in all, an excellent movie which is bound to raise some eyebrows and negative feedback by conservative Americans and by all the celebrities (Sean Penn already cracked) who are ridiculed in it. Although the movie does bash (left and right) a lot of Hollywood's liberal activists, it is mostly bound to get complains from conservatives for the language and very much graphic scenes. I would recommend it to anyone who isn't afraid to have a good laugh and wants to have a good time watching puppets curse, have sex and blow each other up!

"America! Fuck Yeah!"

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter