CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Freaky Friday

Director

Mark Waters

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 31, 2003

I never thought I would see this movie. I was dragged to it by Groucho, who swore it was great and that I would have a lot of fun with it. Besides, I love Jamie Lee Curtis, so… why not?

Tess (Jamie Lee Curtis) is about to get married while her daughter Annabell (Lindsay Lohan) struggles through high school. Annabell hates her mother, and her mother doesn’t know what else to do with her. That is until one day they exchange bodies and must live each other’s lives. Hilarity ensues.

Freaky Friday is a remake of a Jodie Foster movie which stands as one of those great family movies from Disney that everyone used to know. When I heard of a remake I never had much faith in it, but surprisingly enough it came out great. It’s a very funny movie!!!

Of course we all know how it’s going to end, but all the situations that result because of the body-swapping are consistently funny. They never seem fake because the actresses do a believable job in imitating each other and because the script is clever and sharp.

Ultimately the movie is, for me, about how sometimes we don’t appreciate what we have in front of us because we’re so stuck in our own worlds. It’s a beautiful message and the movie works in transmitting that to us without being overly preachy.

Both Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan do exemplary jobs. You instantly get into their characters because they know what they’re doing and do it magnificently. Curtis is especially funny in emulating all of her daughter’s trace mannerisms.

Fun, fun, fun!

“Well, when you get your body back, it’s grounded!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Freaky Friday (2003): Groucho

Review

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

God, I don’t know how to describe my feelings after watching the third and final installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I was amazed, in awe, absolutely perplexed. But I was also sad in a way I hadn’t felt before. When the words “The End” appeared on the screen I suddenly realized there would not be another Christmas with one of these movies anymore. The story was finally over. Everything had been said and done. That’s the sort of thing that only brilliant work provokes on people. And that’s exactly what Peter Jackson accomplished: work of miraculous proportions, arguably the best movie trilogy of all time.

Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) continue their way to Mordor lead by Gollum (Any Serkis), who threatens to leave them to their death in order to steal the Ring. Meanwhile Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), Merry (Dominic Monaghan), Pippin (Billy Boyd), Theoden (Bernard Hill), Faramir (David Wenham), Eowyn (Miranda Otto), Eomer (Karl Urban) and many more try to defend the last untouched city, Minas Tirith, from the pawns of Sauron.

How to put into words how magnificent this movie truly is? By this point it has become more than a movie, it’s become an event, it has burst out of the screen. Peter Jackson managed to deliver a movie of unimaginable proportions, not only because of its huge battles, but because of the feelings it arouses. Detailed attention was paid to the interactions between the characters, to those little precious moments of which the movie is filled. And then there’s the biggest battle that has ever been put on film, but that’s another matter altogether.

By this point the characters have become familiar to us, we care about them, we know what they’ve been through. Their journey has become ours as well. Watching how Frodo becomes the Ring’s prey little by little is heart-breaking. Watching how Sam has barely any trace of energy left in his body yet keeps doing what he thinks is right is awe-inspiring. Watching them both interact with the troubled soul that is Gollum is exhilarating. Every scene between any of these characters in the movie is pitch-perfect, classic material.

But then we reach the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, where so much is at stake, where so many important things happen, and you wonder how the hell was anyone able to bring such brilliance to the screen. It’s enormous, it’s exciting, it’s touching, it’s nerve-wracking, it’s just out of proportion, like nothing we have ever seen.

And that’s only the second act!

Without going into spoiler territory I have to say that during the last hour of this movie I was as nervous and thrilled as I hadn’t been in a long time by a movie. There’s suspense to spare. Oh, and I loved the various endings, which are essentially one extended finale in a long thread.

At the end this saga is about courage, heroism, friendship and the little things that make you a man (or whatever creature you are). It is about how the smallest of souls can do the greatest of things. There’s one scene at Minas Tirith at the end that resumes this idea. It brought tears to my eyes for a second. These movies are about how there’s always courage to fight for the things that matter. And it shows that there’s always hope in the horizon.

I do not have enough words of praise for Peter Jackson, who I now consider a genius, or the crew that made this, and the other movies possible. Howard Shore’s score in this third part resounds more than ever. The cinematography, costumes, set designs, everything is perfect. My heart pounds just to think back on the movie. It’s something else altogether.

And last but not least there are the actors, all of whom do terrific jobs. If there is one standout for me it is Sean Astin, who is unbelievably good as Sam. His character goes through a lot in this movie and ultimately becomes larger-than-life, but it is Sean who brings him that humanity, that dignity, that goodness, that special something that will be always remembered come the years to pass.

Ultimately I feel grateful to everyone involved in these movies. Thank you… from the bottom of my heart.

“All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Stolen Kisses

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 29, 2003

Years after The Four Hundred Blows (1959) and Antoine et Colette (1962), François Truffaut, having now rendered a complete personality for his twenty-something alter-ego, Antoine Doinel (again played by Jean-Pierre Léaud), brought us one of his most genius pieces, a study on young love and relationships that’s as funny as it is poignant.

Antoine, a troubled (and troubling) youngster, comes back from the army, banned from it and any other Government job due to his behavior. As usual not a quitter, he quickly finds another job, and then another, and another, never really settling in any, but always making his best to please his employers (if not very successfully). On a more personal side, Antoine goes after Christine (Claude Jade), a pretty girl he dated in the past, who treats him rather harshly.

Antoine’s personality has never been as fascinating as presented in Baisers volés. He’s still complex (too complex), and only God knows what goes on in his head (surely Antoine himself does not!), but he’s also very funny and absolutely winning. His charm and low-key personality open doors for him, and he’s never alone, or so it seems. But, truth is, Antoine is as lonely and sad as ever, which of course doesn’t mean that he’ll stop looking for love any time soon.

Christine appeared for the first time in this film, a very important addition to the series, and Jade made the most of the role. She’s both lovable and despicable, and a perfect match for Léaud. Her constant indecision makes her incredibly intriguing, both for Antoine and us. She’s perfect.

The plot follows Doinel in his numerous jobs (he’s truly a “jack of all trades, and master of none”), the most notorious one being the one as a private detective. In this hilarious subplot, he clumsily attempts to please his employers but ends up falling for the wife of the current client, an older and gorgeous lady (Delphine Seyrig). Antoine’s participation in the affair proves immature and self-destructive, but that’s just the way he is.

In the meantime, a man who seems to be another private eye tails Christine, which leads to the film’s anti-climax, a surprisingly calm scene featuring she and Antoine in a moment of surprising conformism of our hero, which turns out to be the perfect ending (with classic dialogue concerning handkerchiefs).

Hilarious, sweet, but at the core truly depressing, this is yet another gem by Truffaut (according to some, his best film), and the best post-The Four Hundred Blows (1959) episode of Truffaut’s semi-autobiographical Doinel series. Absolutely not to be missed.

Followed two years later by Bed & Board (1970).

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Producers

Director

Mel Brooks

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 25, 2003

It’s hard to find someone who hasn’t heard about Mel Brooks’s The Producers, whether it’s the movie or the play. Me? I first saw the play, its L.A. version with Jason Alexander and Martin Short. And I loved it! I then had to see the movie and that’s exactly what I did.

Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) is a producer who can’t find a way to make money other than getting it from old ladies he seduces. That’s until he meets accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder) who opens his eyes towards a way to become rich: produce a sure-fire flop and keep all the money that was over-invested.

The Producers is one funny movie from beginning to end. To start off, it has a hilarious premise. The fact that two producers are trying to craft the worst play that has ever run on Broadway means that a lot of comical situations are about to happen. And writer/director Brooks does not disappoint. Even though there are some scenes that don’t work as intended (the audition big song number, for instance), most of the movie is right-on-target.

Besides having a great pair of actors playing a great pair of characters, there’s also the funny aspect of how they keep meeting the most unusual people, from gay director Roger De Bris (Christopher Hewett) to Nazi screenwriter Franz Liebkind (Kenneth Mars) to sexy secretary Ulla (Lee Meredith). The interaction between all these people creates quite a funny atmosphere that will have you in stitches.

And then there’s the play itself, which has to be seen (and heard) to be believed. It’s over-the-top and over-produced. It’s a wow!

Zero Mostel delivers a very funny performance that is also quite unforgettable. Every line of dialogue he says goes with a certain expression that matches it perfectly. He is riotous! Meanwhile Gene Wilder is also something to behold as shy Mr. Bloom, a man so full of mannerisms and peculiarities that he becomes irresistible.

A winner!

“Shut up, he thinks he’s witty!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 24, 2003

Two contrasting stories develop as parallels in front of our eyes. There’s the one about Ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a man who finds everything he’s built for his own life in years endangered when his mistress (Anjelica Huston) decides to tell his wife about their affair, and probably even about other dark secrets she knows about him. And there’s the one about Cliff Stern (Woody Allen), an independent filmmaker who always puts art over money, and who hates his brother-in-law, an arrogant mainstream producer (Alan Alda), more than anything in the whole world.

Just as Judah analyses his whole life while considering what could be the most daring decision he’s ever made, Cliff struggles to find an accomplice for his feelings against Lester (Alda), after being practically forced by his wife to make a documentary about the presumptuous and successful man; that accomplice, he thinks, is Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), who may or may not agree with him as much as he thinks.

This sophisticated film, one of Woody’s most daring, pulls off the difficult task of mingling comedy with tragedy, by throwing drama into the comedy and hope into the tragedy. At the end of the film, both stories join beautifully, in an unforgettable conversation.

The performances are first-rate, especially those of Landau, Huston and Alda.

“If you want a happy ending, you should go see a Hollywood movie.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kill Bill: Vol. 1

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 22, 2003

This is the story of a bride, known to us mainly as The Bride (Uma Thurman) who, on the very day of her wedding, was reached by her past, as old co-workers (and former friends) found her and annihilated her, along with the groom and everyone at the ceremony. Or did they? Nope, the Bride survived. And years later, after waking up from a coma, she makes up her mind to avenge what was done to her. Now Bill (David Carradine) has something to worry about, as do his assistants, who executed the wedding massacre. One by one, the Bride goes after them. And so the story unfolds.

This movie is the first half of this story, cut in two as a post-production move (and a wise decision it was, I think). This ultra-violent movie is, at its core, a wild combination of Tarantino’s wildest dreams come true. The story doesn’t make much sense, and isn’t exactly believable, but it’s honest, and gives itself enough importance to matter to the world. Plus, it’s filled (and I do mean filled) with references to old martial arts movies and TV series, or any other kind of movies and TV series that Tarantino loves. It’s just great fun to see reference after reference blended into one masterful piece. Like that dazzling fighting sequence, where the Bride, dressed as Bruce Lee (in Game of Death) fights against dozens of men, dressed as Bruce Lee (in “The Green Hornet”). Not only does it reference the famous fighting scene from Game of Death, but it creates a haunting paradox concerning Lee’s career. This is only one example among thousands that make the movie worth seeing countless times.

Oh! But mind me, that’s not all! The movie is directed expertly, and executed perfectly. Style flows through its reels beautifully, be it in the martial arts scenes, be it in the gorgeous anime sequence, be it anywhere else. The cast is perfect, with Thurman leading astoundingly, and Lucy Liu, Vivica A. Fox, Darryl Hannah, Sonny Chiba, and others lending great support. The musical choices, as expected from Tarantino, are amazing. And so on.

Much has been debated about this movie being “incomplete”. I didn’t have much problem with it being the first half of something. If anything, I felt that it sacrificed script richness for the sake of style and flare. It’s not a perfect movie, to be sure, but it offers enough entertainment for five movies, and one can’t overlook that. I loved it. And I’m so dying to see the second half!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003): Morris

Review

Love Actually

Director

Richard Curtis

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Notting Hill (1999) is a movie I don’t just love, but adore! Before that movie I didn’t even stand Hugh Grant, but he totally redeemed himself to me. When I heard that movie’s writer was going to make his feature debut as a director I instantly got excited. Hell, just look at the cast he put together!

The movie tells many separate stories all surrounding various forms of love. Billy Mack (Billy Nighy) is an old rocker looking for a revival. Jamie (Colin Firth) finds solace in France after his wife cheated on him. Daniel (Liam Neeson) finds a way to distract himself from his wife’s death by helping her young son Sam (Thomas Sangster) cope with a broken heart. Karen (Emma Thompson) suspects her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) is seeing another woman. Juliet (Keira Knightley) just got married but has to deal with her husband’s best friend’s sentiments. The Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) finds love in his assistant Natalie (Martine McCutcheon). And Sarah (Laura Linney) has been in love for years but fears of telling it to the guy in question.

Writer-director Richard Curtis is responsible for this amalgam of love in all its forms and variations, whether it’s between grown-ups, friends, kids, lovers, you name it. Love exists in every possible way, in every place imaginable, in the most unexpected situations. It is what drives people forward, and Curtis knows that. His movie is corny, yet you never feel like killing the filmmakers. Even in its more over-the-top moments the movie is so crowd-pleasing that you just can’t help it but smile.

The movie is mostly successful in covering all the ground it can reach. Sometimes it does feel like some stories are not treated as much as others that are less interesting. For instance, Colin Firth’s storyline is not that interesting (although it has an amazing finale) and I would’ve liked to see more of Keira Knightley’s, Laura Linney’s or the one with the pair of stand-in lovers. Then again, there are simply too many characters, so some sacrifices had to be made.

The movie is involving, funny and entertaining. It is full of absolutely charismatic actors in stories we can all relate to because we all know what love is one way or another. The ending in the airport is way too much, but then I loved how some stories were resolved and some weren’t completely. Despite the fantasy world this movie lives in, there’s a trace of reality hidden in there that doesn’t make it insulting.

The best storylines for me were Liam Neeson’s, Emma Thompson’s, Bill Nighy’s, Keria Knightley’s and Laura Linney’s. Short but absolutely riveting. Oh, and High Grant’s storyline is also quite fun and charming.

I was also surprised by the way the movie pokes fun at the United States in a couple of storylines. For non-U.S. people those gags are hilarious, but I wonder how Americans will take them. The fun part is that the actors involved in the jokes are well-known American performers. It’s good to have a sense of humor!

As performances go, this movie excels. The highlights for me were Billy Nighy (absolutely explosive and hilarious), Emma Thompson (touching and credible all the way), Laura Linney (heart-breaking and beautiful) and Martine McCutcheon (chubby and absolutely charming). There are many other actors that I have not mentioned which appear in the movie such as Rowan Atkinson, Rodrigo Santoro, Lúcia Monaz, Billy Bob Thornton, Claudia Schiffer, Denise Richards, Shannon Elizabeth and many more, all of whom appear very briefly.

A delightful mosaic of love.

“To me, you are perfect.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Plan 9 from Outer Space

Director

Edward D. Wood Jr.

Year

1959

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

In case any background is needed, I’ll say that Edward D. Wood Jr. is nowadays one of the most memorable directors of the past, due to his incredibly dreadful body of work. So wrong was he in his perception of quality, that many of his films are hilarious for the wrong reasons: They take themselves seriously, but they are just comically bad. OK, let’s move along.

Plan 9 From Outer Space refers to a plan that space invaders believe will finally subjugate humans: The revival of corpses from a cemetery. They chose a San Fernando Valley cemetery and start by reviving a recently deceased woman (Vampira). The widower, a sad old man (Bela Lugosi) dies shortly, and becomes the second re-animated corpse. Unfortunately for the aliens, some people aren’t gonna let them conquer the Earth so easily. Though their plan is actually to save us from self-destruction, they are stopped by these heroes… and quite easily so.

It’s hard to even tell what this movie is about without making fun of it. This is probably the ninth plan of aliens so brilliant that they call humans “stupid” repetitiously, however, it’s such a stupid plan, that it’s stopped by a bunch of quite stupid humans. The aliens seem more concerned in being “cool” (ridiculously so) than in actually accomplishing their mission.

But the fun of this movie lies in many more aspects than just its story. The dialogue is dreadful to say the least, so much so, that it’s hard to believe the actors didn’t protest. But they are all pretty terrible, so that probably explains it. Criswell’s narration contradicts itself continuously. The situations are implausible and laughable to the top, and most of them don’t make much sense. The continuity simply doesn’t exist, as day turns into night and into day again in the same scene, for instance. The scenery is careless and obviously fake. And so on. All in all, it’s the kind of thing that’s so bad, it looks like it’s so bad on purpose, but the funny thing is, it isn’t. That, plus the ridiculous storyline, made of this a camp classic, and Wood’s “masterpiece”. Truth is, it’s really fun to watch, and watch again.

Funniest aspect: Lugosi died after two days of shooting, so his footage is exploited as much as possible, but his missing scenes were done by a significantly taller, thinner and younger man, holding a cape over his face.

See: Ed Wood (1994)

“Visits? That would indicate visitors!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gattaca

Director

Andrew Niccol

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

I always liked this movie. I’m not that much into futuristic movies and stuff like that, but sometimes movies create worlds beyond the imagination that actually have interesting stories to tell and aren’t all about the visual effects. Gattaca is an example of that: a futuristic movie that actually has a brain.

Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) is one of the last natural-born humans living in a society where people are now genetically-enhanced. Vincent has always dreamt of going into outer space, but that won’t be possible since he has a cardiac problem and thus is discriminated. He then opts to pass as Jerome (Jude Law), a “perfect” guy who had an accident that left him crippled. In the way he’ll fall in love with beautiful Irene (Uma Thurman), another “perfect” human.

The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of this movie is how visually impressive it is. The future they created is mesmerizing, full of minimalist details and dim colors. But everything from the costumes to the sets to the make-up is note-perfect. I loved it!

The movie is quite original in concept and story. I’m kind of hoping the world does not become what it is in this movie, but the questions it raises are more accurate than one might think, especially in these times as technology is hitting insane highs. Vincent’s story is tragic to say the least, but so is Jerome’s, and that speaks a lot for itself.

The aspect of racism is also present throughout the entire movie. Here you have a society where people who are not perfect are discriminated and left behind, no matter what. It is disturbing, but it is also a criticism of a society that is highly judgmental for all the wrong reasons.

I also loved Vincent and Irene’s relationship, which always has to be kept secret and behind doors. There’s also a subplot involving a murder and the detective appointed to the case which works extremely well.

Ethan Hawke, someone I don’t generally regard as the best of actors, delivers a great performance in a role that suits him to perfection. Meanwhile, Uma Thurman looks enigmatic and radiant. But it is Jude Law who, not surprisingly, steals the movie from everybody else.

A fantastic, visually impressive yarn!

“I was never more certain of how far away I was from my goal than when I was standing right beside it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Four Hundred Blows

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1959

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 15, 2003

Many things began with Les Quatre cents coups. The feature film debut of co-writer/director François Truffaut is not only an extraordinary film on its own, but also one of the catalysts of a filmmaking wave (usually referred to as The New Wave), that propelled auteur filmmakers who, such as Truffaut, bravely expressed their views of life in free manner, fighting for full creative control over their little films (often gems), and fearing no consequences. Truffaut’s feature debut is a brave work indeed. A semi-autobiographical approach to adolescence and the loss of ingenuity, it’s a film that packs a wallop, being both moving and funny, but mostly unforgettable in its depth despite its quiet nature.

Another important creation of this film is the character of Antoine Doinel. Genius casting landed Jean-Pierre Léaud the role, being at the time a young teenager like the part required. Léaud’s very gestures are unforgettable, his quiet sadness and his bursting temper contrasting his inner feelings of desolation. Antoine is a complex character, so complex that he cannot be fully understood. His actions and reactions are often unsettling, and one can only guess what he’ll do next. His attitude is a perfect reflection of the confusion of teenage years, especially in such a complicated life as the one Antoine lives.

At home, Antoine’s parents (Claire Maurier and Albert Rémy), loving on the surface, offer pure confusion and unsettledness to Antoine’s young existence. At first they seem the perfect couple, loving with each other and their child, but later on, little by little, we get to realize how wrong the first impression was. As hard as it may seem, Antoine still grabs the few good moments and makes the most of them. However, confused and tired, he starts looking for ways out. A day out of school, having fun at a fair, is good enough for starters; but later on, Antoine gives a shot to small-time crime.

The film’s quiet nature, much like the main character’s, turns the procedures into a series of heart-breaking moments that only get more and more powerful toward the end. As the story unfolds, and the reasons for everything become clearer and clearer, it becomes unforgettable by the minute. Such scenes as Antoine behind bars, and the final one at the beach, are truly shattering, and have become classics on their own.

Antoine Doinel became a recurring character for further semi-autobiographic films by Truffaut, first in the segment Antoine et Colette of the film Love at Twenty (1962), then in the hit comedies Stolen Kisses (1968), Bed & Board (1970), and Love on the Run (1979), all of which carried a strong emotional charge despite their being more on the comedic side. Léaud reprised Doinel in every one of these episodes, and an immortal saga resulted.

Closing with a line about The Four Hundred Blows, I’ll say that this landmark French film is not to be missed, as I stated, for multiple reasons, but mostly, because it’s one of the most heartfelt films you’ll ever get a chance to see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

Director

Robert Rodriguez

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Well, you all know I couldn’t miss this movie, right? It’s got Salma Hayek in it albeit in a very brief role. Then again, I never thought of it as torture either. The first two Spy Kids movies (1, 2) were really good and inventive and fun. And this time director Robert Rodriguez opted for a 3-D movie! I was hooked.

The plot has Juni (Daryl Sabara) returning to his spy roots in order to save his sister Carmen (Alexa Vega) who happens to be trapped inside a videogame programmed by the evil Toymaker (Sylvester Stallone). Juni must also get to the last level of the videogame in time so he can destroy it and save all families around the world, ruining the Toymaker’s plan to get hold of every child’s mind.

I gotta say I had more fun with this movie than I thought I would. Critics were not that kind to it, and to be honest I’m not that much into videogames and stuff like that. Not now I mean. But the movie is a lot of fun from start to finish.

Rodriguez keeps finding ways to fulfill every child’s dream. The games inside the videogame are really exciting and also visually thrilling. A particular chase scene comes to mind, but there are countless visual gags inside a world that is created entirely from the director’s imagination. I must say I was stunned.

And then there’s the 3-D aspect to it. The glasses are not especially thrilling to wear, and it gets a while to get used to watching in blue with one eye and in red with the other. Then again, soon you forget about that and start enjoying the movie for what it is. The 3-D adds a lot to the overall impact of the experience. It works really well and provides a lot of excitement.

So the end of the trilogy is a satisfying one. The only broken link I found in the movie was Sylvester Stallone, who tried, but couldn’t be as funny as he thinks he is. Fortunately he appears only once in a while.

Oh, and everyone’s great, by the way. It is mainly Sabara’s movie, but he’s got the charisma to carry it on his shoulders. Antonio Banderas, Carla Gugino, Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, Bill Paxton, Salma Hayek, Steve Buscemi, Holland Taylor, Mike Judge, Elijah Wood and George Clooney appear very briefly, but they’re all a welcomed presence. It is only Ricardo Montalban who appears throughout the whole movie and lends wisdom to the proceedings.

Fun, fun, fun!

“You’ll have to go through me first... Game-Boy!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Charade

Director

Stanley Donen

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Just as Regina Lampert (Audrey Hepburn) decides to divorce her husband while on vacation, he turns out dead and, what’s even worse, not the man he pretended to be. Back in Paris, Regina discovers that Charlie was running away from old associates who stole some money with him, and want their share. But since he’s dead, and the money is nowhere to be found, these creepy people (James Coburn, George Kennedy and Ned Glass) assume Regina has it, and are capable of anything to make her give it to them. Luckily for her, a man she recently met, who goes by the name of Peter Joshua (Cary Grant), is willing to help her. But when Regina suspects Peter is not who he seems either, she feels more helpless than ever before. With no one else than an American Ambassador to help her (Walter Matthau), she deals with the men who want the money she doesn’t have, and unexpected things keep happening.

This movie is a famous attempt by Stanley Donen to make a Hitchcock-life film. The results are mild at best, but one’s got to admit the film is entertaining and thrilling. Every department, however, is quite weak as compared to Hitchcock movies, and that’s a sad thing. Had the movie worked out its own style, it would’ve been far better I’m sure. But it’s still a pleasure to watch Hepburn and Grant work together (something that never happened before or after) and the rest of the cast is great too, as is the story, and its twists, even if they are too many.

Henry Mancini’s score is memorable, and all-in-all, the movie is recommendable.

“Of course, you won’t be able to lie on your back for a while but then you can lie from any position, can't you?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kill Bill: Vol. 1

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

Many people hate Quentin Tarantino; others see him as a god. Me? I certainly like the guy. I think he’s extremely talented and he always has something original and twisted to deliver. His latest movie is no exception, and I got a kick out of it!!!

The Bride (Uma Thurman), as she is better-known, used to be a professional assassin who worked for Bill (David Carradine) as part of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. On the day of her wedding her husband and son are brutally killed so she swears revenge once she wakes up from the coma four years later. First in her list is O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), then Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), then Budd (Michael Madsen), then Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and finally Bill himself.

As you can see from the premise, there’s basically no complication surrounding this movie. It’s a classic girl looking for revenge flick. But wait, it’s Tarantino who’s at the helm. That explains why the movie is so bizarre and crazy. That’s also what makes it so good.

Tarantino is clearly in love with the movie he shot. You can see it in every frame. This is his dream project, an amalgam of things he loves about movies from the past and present. His Kill Bill is an homage to those old martial arts movies from Hong Kong, and he clearly has his way.

I must say this is definitely going down as the most violent movie of the year. Yet the violence is so over-the-top that no one in his sane judgment can take it seriously. Blood spouts out of wounded bodies as if there was a hose inside of them. Tarantino is going for laughs in these sequences, with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

There are a lot of memorable scenes worth mentioning, but perhaps the showiest one involves Uma fighting about as many men as you can count with her samurai sword. It is brilliantly executed and highly effective. The showdowns between Uma and both Liu and Fox are something to behold. Stunning moments. And there’s also an animated sequence about Liu’s past that provokes more feelings than most live-action movies out there. Great work there.

I have to dedicate an entire paragraph to the use of music in the movie. Did I hear flamenco during a sword-fighting sequence? Were those angelical voices put over a sequence with so much blood that Tarantino had to show it in black-and-white? The music in this movie is brilliant. There are no conventional choices yet everything works to perfection. Tarantino is a master in that aspect.

If I had to complain about something I’d say there are a couple of slow moments here and there. Liu’s meeting with the council could’ve been trimmed down a bit, just as Uma’s entire visit to Hattori Hanzo (the great Sonny Chiba).

A lot has been said about how the movie was split to show it in two separate parts. Judging from what I say, one more minute and the movie would’ve become unbearably overlong. I liked the idea of separating them. For me it did feel like a complete movie that left me wanting for more. Besides, it ends on a great note.

Uma Thurman owns this movie with all her body and soul. Her character is more an icon than a human being per sé, and she just commands the screen with her presence. I was also surprised by Vivica A. Fox, who I never thought would be this good. And Lucy Liu is one tough bitch. I loved her! Meanwhile I can’t wait to see more of Daryl Hannah. Her two or three scene left me drooling for more!

If there’s one word that describes this movie it is “fun”. If there are two, they would be “bloody fun”!!!

“It was not my intention to do this in front of you. For that I’m sorry. But you can take my word for it, your mother had it comin’. When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003): Groucho

Review

Freaky Friday

Director

Mark Waters

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 08, 2003

Tess (Jamie Lee Curtis) and her teenage daughter Annabell (Lindsay Lohan) have a fairly common mother-daughter relationship: At times they hate each other, at times they love each other, but they mostly disagree with each other, and there’s no end to that in sight. The fact that Tess is soon marrying Ryan (Mark Harmon) certainly doesn’t help, and Anna’s problems at school and her rocker attitude (she’s even part of a band at its garage phase) is the icing on the cake of her problems with her mother. So, when they finally clash, and nothing in the world seems powerful enough to reconcile them, a magic spell (in a Japanese restaurant) makes them become each other, that’s right, switch bodies. So, on that freaky Friday, they must learn to be each other, and understand each other, and live each other’s life in the best possible way, if they don’t want both their lives to go down the drain.

This wonderful remake of the 1970s movie (starring Barbara Harris and Jodie Foster as mother and daughter) updates the worn-out formula and makes it fresh by being realistic about modern mother-daughter relationships, and modern women’s lives in general. From the get-go, the film flows naturally and seems real, so when the unbelievable event occurs, we’re prepared to take the weirdness, and even that seems natural (!).

The fact that both Curtis and Lohan are amazing is obviously an asset, if not the most important asset of this movie. Lohan must’ve seen all Curtis movies in order to learn her mannerisms and way of speaking so well, and she did a great job. Curtis is game as a teenager, and seems to be having a wonderful time. Every scene with any of them is hilarious just because they show in their faces that they’re somebody else, and that’s outstanding. Kudos to these two great actresses for working it out.

And while the script by Heather Hach and Leslie Dixon (based on the novel by Mary Rodgers) is not perfect (the subplot involving a teenage love interest doesn’t really work, for instance), it sure is good at bringing its message without being preachy or on-the-nose. In the end, the point is clear and it’s all perfectly credible, and the movie is moving without being corny. I just loved the way it worked and felt like seeing the movie again. Because, additionally, it has a great taste in music!

This is fun Disney fare, to be sure…

“Oh, I’m like the Cryptkeeper!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Freaky Friday (2003): Morris

Review

Marvin's Room

Director

Jerry Zaks

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 04, 2003

Meryl Streep is definitely one of my favorite actresses of all time. It’s always a pleasure to watch her and she’s one of those people who could do any type of movie and I’d still want to see it. Interestingly enough, when she was offered this movie she was up for Diane Keaton’s role, yet she balked and asked to play the other sister. Her wish was granted and it was ultimately a great decision, and yet another proof that she can do anything.

Lee (Meryl Streep) and Bessie (Diane Keaton) are estranged sisters who have been apart for nearly two decades. When Bessie is diagnosed with leukemia, Lee brings her son Charlie (Leonardo DiCaprio) so he can be tested as a possible bone marrow donor. That’s when she finds out the immense sacrifice Bessie has done by taking care of their dying father (Hume Cronyn) for many years.

Marvin’s Room is a beautiful movie from whatever angle you look at it. It’s got a beautiful story about the bonds that tie a family together, it’s got beautiful performances from all the cast, it’s got a beautiful score by Rachel Portman and it’s beautifully directed by Jerry Zaks.

Many people may identify with Lee and Bessie’s relationship. Sometimes entire families fall apart and don’t see each other for years, but somehow we don’t choose our brothers or sisters and those bonds are stronger than they might appear in the surface. Lee and Bessie couldn’t be more different. Lee is a mess, and she has inherited that to her sons. Bessie, on the other hand, has dedicated most of her life to others. It’s no wonder they clash, but both sisters have a lot to teach to each other.

Meanwhile Bessie’s relationship with her older nephew is definitely one of the movie’s highlights. He is your typical rebel going worse as each day goes by. At first he doesn’t understand his aunt, but as they start to get along he realizes there’s more to life than he knew. Suddenly he starts to value the important things, and that’s a beautiful thing to inspire to anyone.

Meryl Streep is absolutely fantastic as Lee, in a role against-type that she gets to a T. But equally, if not more, impressive is Diane Keaton, underplaying Bessie and giving her a lot of soul and wisdom just through her eyes. Leonardo DiCaprio also shows he’s an extremely talented actor and Robert De Niro, in a small role as a doctor, is a welcomed presence as always.

Beautiful...

“Dad’s dying. He’s been doing it for twenty years so I don’t miss anything.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

21 Grams

Director

Alejandro González Iñárritu

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Paul Rivers (Sean Penn) is on the verge of death, waiting for a heart donor to die in order to survive; Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts) has found in her life as a wife and mother a peace she never knew, having been, among other things, a drug addict; Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro) found meaning in religion after a troubled past as a ne’er do well… A tragic accident changes the lives of the three, throwing them into a whirlpool of grief, resentment, and guilt. The impact of an instant in so many lives is shocking, but so it is in real life, and the portrait of such event in 21 Grams is as realistic, and crude, as can possibly be.

Alejandro González Iñárritu’s feature debut Amores Perros (2000) shocked the entire world. It was a masterful portrayal of three stories of very different people tied together by a terrible accident. Though the tone and mood of the two movies is very different (his feature debut being more on the light—even comedic—side, despite its very dark undertones), it’s pretty obvious that a similar premise was worked for 21 Grams. In that way, I feel that Amores Perros (2000) worked more smoothly, flowed more naturally and spontaneously. However, the reach of 21 Grams and the reactions it produces are completely different and in that way it’s a winner as well, even more so in a way.

The way it’s crafted also helps: Screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga presents the story in non-linear fashion, showing us different moments from each story, which at first is disconcerting, but also quite intriguing. When it all becomes clear, it’s very distressing. The movie is not sentimentalist, but on the contrary, very crude, which makes it hard for the audience to get involved with the characters. But their agony is so real, it can be easily felt; in fact, it’s impossible not to feel it.

The performances are first-rate. My favorite is Watts’, who’s out of herself more often than not, in a nerve-wrecking performance. You know Penn is reliable, and this is one of the strongest male performances of 2003. Del Toro doesn’t stay behind though, providing such strength and weakness at the same time that it’s just shattering. Charlotte Gainsbourg, as Penn’s wife, and Melissa Leo, as Del Toro’s own, also do a great job.

A group of Mexican people did a fine job with this movie, including photographer Rodrigo Prieto and composer Gustavo Santaolalla, but everyone involved in the making did something great.

A painful slice of life… quite worth seeing!

“The weight of a stack of nickels. The weight of a chocolate bar. The weight of a hummingbird...”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Contact

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

I’ve always been a fan of Jodie Foster, and director Robert Zemeckis is responsible for my favorite movie of all-time. I remember when Contact hit theaters back in 1997 how excited I was to see a movie in which they collaborated. Besides, the plot seemed intriguing. I was not disappointed.

Dr. Eleanor Ann Arroway (Jodie Foster) has been obsessed with life outside our planet for quite some time. Not even when she falls for Father Palmer Ross (Matthew McConaughey) can she surrender to the idea that there might be a God and that not everything can be explained in this world. One day she receives a signal from aliens in which she is given instructions to build a machine. What will it do? Is it worth risking her life?

Contact is based on the novel by Carl Sagan and I must say Robert Zemeckis did a darn good job in bringing it to the screen. The movie could have gone wrong in many ways, but he set the right tone from the beginning and the movie became fascinating as a result.

More than being entirely about the existence of aliens, this is a movie I found more intriguing because of the characters populating it and their relationships. I found Dr. Ellie’s character to be immensely interesting in the way she grew up to become this cold person who could only believe in what she could see. There are many people like her, and for the rest of us it’s somehow difficult to understand their point of view yet you can tell they have a point.

Dr. Ellie’s relationship with her father as a little girl and with her new lover are also amazing in the way she seems to want to take more out of them than her soul lets her. Her life has become an obsession, but there’s more to her than she knows.

When the final trip finally happens I must say I wasn’t entirely satisfied, but who was? There were so many expectations that it would have beeen impossible to please everyone. Then again, the special effects were great, and the spirituality surrounding it was right-on-spot as well.

Contact eventually becomes a big movie in the way the plot starts to become more epic and important. At the end it’s huge, and the entire world is looking. I liked the way things evolved and the suspense grew bigger.

This is not the sort of movie where actors give award-caliber performances, but I still think Jodie Foster deserved an Oscar nomination for her incredible turn. She is simply amazing, one of the best actresses out there doing some of the best work she’s ever done. The movie belongs to her and it’s a pleasure for us.

Intriguing to say the least...

“Funny, I’ve always believed that the world is what we make of it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter