CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Being Julia

Director

István Szabó

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 28, 2005

Being Julia is exactly the kind of movie that comes every year which people who do not attend film festivals, live in LA or NY, or are die-hard fans of any of the actors, just do not see. That is, until they get awards recognition. That’s when a lot more attention is paid to it, when people like you or me are suddenly more than interested, and when a little movie no one knew about is finally on the spotlight. That’s what Oscar knows how to do best!

Julia (Annette Bening) is a winning theater actress, in 30’s London, married (“in name only,” she says) to Jimmie Langdon (Jeremy Irons), the producer of her plays, namely of the very successful one in which she is starring at the moment. But one day she becomes exhausted, and that’s about the time she meets a young American accountant, Tom (Shaun Evans), with whom she is soon smitten. That is, when she’s not fooling around with old flame Lord Charles (Bruce Greenwood). Suddenly she revives, but relationship complications force her to surrender once again, and the appearance of a young beautiful actress in the scene, Avice (Lucy Punch), doesn’t help matters at all.

Being Julia is based upon “Theatre”, a novel by W. Domerset Maugham. The film, and the novel for that matter, are obvious reminders/homage of All About Eve (1950), the classic movie that showed the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of theater and focused on an actress whose spark started to fade with age. Julia’s predicament is just about the same. Just like Margo, Julia’s entire world is like a play, as if she were constantly on stage, and the line between the two worlds is blurry. It’s difficult to differentiate if she’s acting or reacting naturally, even to her own son (Thomas Sturridge), with whom Julia shares some of the best scenes in the movie.

Melodrama takes center stage in this István Szabó film. At first I thought it was an obvious fault, but then I realized… life is a melodrama for Julia. She uses her assets and talent to get what she wants. She goes through life as if everything were about her. And when something threatens her during the second half of the movie, her reaction is not pretty. That also leads to a rousing, completely exhilarating and killer finale, which is worth any flaw you might’ve found in the movie before it gets there.

That said, I could’ve used a little more exposition for most supporting characters. Julia is the lead and she is shown as a three-dimensional character after a while. But everyone else just seems to wander around. Even Jeremy Irons, who also boasts a top credit, disappears through long stretches of the movie. We barely get a glimpse of the fascinating relationship between him and Julia, which gets even more interesting towards the end.

But then, I was always entertained and never bored, which is certainly a plus, even if I was left with barely anything at the end. I love fascinating characters and Julia is one, so the movie works in that regard.

And Annette Bening, as Julia, is nothing short of luminous. When I started watching the movie I thought Bening would play Julia as the clichéd diva we get in so many movies, but I was pleasantly surprised that she gave her another dimension. She can’t stop genuinely laughing, which is a weird small pleasure the character exudes and that comes from very unexpected moments. And Bening makes it seem so natural that it’s only shocking to realize it’s the same person who does the things she does at the end of the movie. It is a wonderful, lively, full-rounded performance!

Technical aspects are also top-notch, with the score and the costumes getting the highest marks.

"You have a performance for everybody. I don't think you really exist."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Sea Inside

Director

Alejandro Amenábar

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 24, 2005

I’d been expecting Alejandro Amenábar’s latest effort for quite a while, a time during which I read a lot about the amazing true story it’d be based upon. I waited so long that I just didn’t know what to expect any more, but I never lost the tiniest bit of faith in Amenábar. And of course, I was right not to.

The film tells the story of Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem), a Spaniard from Galicia who suffered an accident when he was 25 years old becoming a quadriplegic for life. In real life, the man became famous due to his legal battle with the government to allow him to practice suicide after almost 30 years of living attached to his bed. Given the impossibility to do it himself, Ramón required assistance, hence euthanasia. He never received the support of the government, but he surprised a whole nation through his views on life and death, because his fight was not against life, but pretty much the contrary: Ramón loved life, just not the way he was forced to live it.

Amenábar’s film (co-written by himself and Mateo Gil) does not deal as much with the legal battle as it does with Ramón as a human being. It’s important that it tackles the subject this way because getting to know the man is essential to understanding his message. Ramón, in his own words, was a man who cried by smiling, and it’s true: He always declared that he didn’t like his life, he always defended his right to die, and yet, somehow, he always managed to transmit optimism and hope to everyone around him. Ramón was a remarkable man because his mind was so clear, and so peaceful, despite his own saying that he lived in hell, because he was forced to see everyone from below.

Ramón, the artist, became well known on account of a couple of books he wrote, most famously one that compiled several poems he penned through the years with his mouth. A sensitive genius, Sampedro transmitted via his writings all his thoughts and views of life, making his struggle all the more affecting to the Spanish people who witnessed the proceedings and questioned their own stance on euthanasia thanks to this man.

So here we get to see Ramón in his day-to-day life with his family, just as he becomes famous and is visited by several people. Lovingly cared by his sister-in-law Manuela (Mabel Rivera), he befriends two women who become pivotal to the denouement of his life: Julia (Belén Rueda), a lawyer with her own health problems who wants to help Ramón, and Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a conflicted woman who finds meaning through Ramón’s friendship and becomes quite fond of him. The stances of these women pretty much sum up those of the people in general, and it’s interesting to hear their points and understand their respective views. Both are right, one to say death is right, the other to say life is a privilege, making it clear that this subject is and will always be subjective and neither side can be definitive to all people. Sampedro however, with his always present smile, his charismatic personality and his unending wit, makes sure to convince most people of his own point of view: Life is a right, not an obligation; and living it the way he does lacks dignity.

Alejandro Amenábar created a piece that defends Sampedro’s view to the point of being one-sided. Some viewers might be mad that it’s so obviously pro-euthanasia, but there’s just no other way to make this movie. The good thing is, there’s enough of the opponents’ side expressed here to make their point clear as well. The scene I found most compelling in that way has a paraplegic priest (José María Pou) trying to convince Ramón that life is well-worth living even that way. Both men are intelligent and their points of view are smart and effective. In the end, neither is convinced of the opposite’s opinion, but both prove they have good reasons to think the way they do.

After such a long time awaiting it, I wasn’t sure I was looking forward to see Mar Adentro. I expected an unbearable movie, one that would pack an emotional wallop and would leave me depressed and frightened afterwards. Happily, I was wrong. This master filmmaker chose not to tell this story as an overly dramatic one with no redeeming factors. On the contrary, he was sure to sprinkle as much humor to the viewers as Ramón did to the people who surrounded him. It’s a funny movie at times, pleasant as a whole, and only tragic every now and then. What it does have is poignant situations every single minute. You may not be able to stop the tears from flowing, but if you get a laugh every couple of scenes, and you find yourself smiling more often than not, it really doesn’t hurt… but it does become unforgettable.

Javier Bardem is absolutely magnificent as this memorable human being. He understands the character to perfection and transmits just everything he should by using his facial expressions and his voice. He sports a perfect Galician accent and speaks his witty lines as if he were really thinking them. I’m pretty sure Sampedro would be proud to see such a brilliant actor portray him as the charming, sensitive, intelligent man that he was. Bardem is really irresistible, and it’s quite easy to see why everyone around just couldn’t help falling in love with him.

Surrounding this man are quite a few talented performers, whose work is truly flawless: Rueda and Dueñas as the two women, Clara Segura as the representative of the association that hopes to get Bardem the necessary help to die, and some others are fantastic. But the real talent lies in those who portray the family members: Mabel Rivera, the selfless sister-in-law, Celso Bugallo, the hardened brother, Joan Dalmau, the saddened father, and Tamar Novas, the loving nephew. What amazing performances!

The film is so beautifully crafted that it’s unbelievable. The photography and editing are first-rate, with some visual effects and outstanding camera work throughout. The makeup is a work of art to say the least, making Bardem look a much older age with us never doubting for a second that what we’re watching is real. The music by Amenábar is one of his most touching works in that department to date, though it’s hard to say because he has composed so many beautiful film scores. And so on…

Mar Adentro is a wonderful film, very important, and also highly entertaining. It’s one from the heart and one for the world and the many people who need to think twice. It’s a must-see, and the best I’ve seen from 2004. What a treat that it comes from my favorite contemporary director.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

After the Sunset

Director

Brett Ratner

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

I am such a huge fan of Salma Hayek that she is on my mind at least once every hour or two during the day (not that impressive if you consider studies that indicate that men think about sex every seven seconds or something). When she received that much acclaim for Frida the world just became a better place for me. Well, I’m exaggerating, I actually have a life besides her, but you get the point. Then again, being such a big fan doesn’t make me go blind. She’s been in three movies since Frida, and two of them were with her dear friend, director Robert Rodriguez, who usually asks her to be in his movies. The third one, After the Sunset, was a choice she made by herself, wanting to star in a commercial movie that was to be shot in the Bahamas. It must have certainly been fun for her, but the movie is a disappointment, and there’s no doubt about it. Gladly I’m not sad, since her next two or three movies show a lot of promise.

Max (Pierce Brosnan) and Lola (Salma Hayek) are professional thieves who, after their last big hit, retire to the Bahamas to enjoy their lives and fortune. But Agent Stanley P. Lloyd (Woody Harrelson) doesn’t buy it, and when a cruise carrying the third Napoleon diamond visits Max and Lola’s new home, he goes there to follow them closely and prevent them from stealing it. However, that’s not really in their plans until a local kingpin, Henri Mooré (Don Cheadle), approaches Max to do exactly that, even though Lola does not agree. What they will or won’t do is anybody’s guess.

Director Brett Ratner, who has never done a movie that really kills, tries to pay homage to Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief, going as far as to show a character watching that movie. But even though I have not watched the aforementioned flick, I have to say that Ratner fails in his attempt. After the Sunset is a movie that never soars and never really works.

Why is that? Well, the script is written in a manner in which the characters are given a lot of exposition. Normally that would be a good thing, if not for the fact that here they go for the extreme. Real action and suspense are scarce, and a better balance should’ve been achieved. Even the big hit seems anti-climactic, since there’s not much excitement by the time the movie gets there. In a word, it’s boring.

As for the good: the movie looks simply gorgeous. Instead of hearing lines such as “You cheated on me… with a diamond!”, the movie should be put on mute and be watched only as an impressionistic rarity. Dante Spinotti’s photography is, to put it mildly, brilliant. The Bahamas must not be that difficult to photograph, but Dante takes it a notch further. And it also helps that the movie has a very appealing cast, namely Salma Hayek, who is not shy to strut her stuff and looks as beautiful as she ever has.

Acting-wise, everyone does what the script requires them to do. Pierce Brosnan sleepwalks through his performance, Salma Hayek looks stunning and Woody Harrelson provides some funny comic bits. Don Cheadle and Naomie Harris appear in brief roles and are ok. Nothing to write home about really.

Let’s look forward now...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ray

Director

Taylor Hackford

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Ray is most certainly an interesting film. It tells the story of Ray Charles (Jamie Foxx), the African-American singer who created a revolution in more than one musical genre, stood for the human rights of the segregated people of the south, and lived a hasty personal life that brought him quite a few problems.

The movie focuses on the first few decades of Charles’ career, at first an iron-willed blind young man with artistic aspirations, later a celebrity in all the extent of the term, with problems common to people of the kind. It’s always worthwhile to watch this biopic when it shows flashbacks of Ray’s childhood, with his wise mother (Sharon Warren) helping him develop enough abilities to become self-sufficient in a world of darkness, and also telling him that he’s as good as any man and can’t be made a cripple by others; all this is contrasted by every step of his career, as he fought against abuse from every early contractor he had, and later found his life out of control due to heroin abuse and his addiction to beautiful women.

I must say I didn’t love this movie. At first I thought it was because I’ve never been a fan of Ray Charles’ music, but later I knew this to be false, because I ended up loving his songs and wanting to hear more of them, yet I wasn’t convinced by the movie. I realized I just found it overlong, at times dragging too hard throughout entire years of story, and becoming towards the end too tiresome and unpleasant. This is made up by the first half though, where we become just too enamored of Foxx’s eye-popping performance, and also the man he portrays. There’s enough comedy and music to make for an entertaining ride, that is, before it becomes a difficult trip to keep up with.

Director Hackford did a good job overall though. He gave the film an amazing look that suits every phase of Ray’s career, and makes the passing of the years exhilarating when it comes to the pianoman’s musical success. It also paints a good picture of the musical stage of different decades, and how it evolved little by little. The visual style and some graphical sequences help a damn lot, as does this genius’ music throughout. The biggest flaw however is an imaginary scene where Ray goes back to his mama and dead brother and reconciles with them… Director Hackford gave Ray eyes and reminded us all that we’re actually watching Jamie Foxx, not Ray Charles.

But not to even dare discredit the actor, let’s say his casting in the lead is unspeakably brilliant. I just don’t know how it happened, but he’s heaven-sent, he is Ray Charles, and every bit of his performance, his walking, his movement, his voice, his smile, are Charles’. He even did some of the singing! I didn’t expect such a stunning portrayal even after hearing all the raves about the performance, and I was mesmerized by it. Aside from the scene I mentioned in the prior paragraph, I never once felt I was watching Foxx. Good for Jamie! He obviously worked incredibly hard to pull it off, but he’s the main reason why the film is worth watching.

Accompanying this man are Kerry Washington as his wife, Aunjanue Ellis as his “road wife” and chorus girl, Regina King as her successor, Clifton Powell as his long-time manager with whom Charles eventually ended his relationship unfairly, Curtis Armstrong and Richard Schiff as Ray’s real discoverers, and many more. Everyone does a good job.

A nice-looking, better-sounding biopic with an excellent leading performance and some pretty good things to offer all around, Ray is not a waste of time… but not the best way to spend it either.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Finding Neverland

Director

Marc Forster

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 21, 2005

This little Miramax movie stayed on their shelf for way over a year. It was actually supposed to be released last year, but Harvey Weinstein didn’t want to overcrowd his Oscar hopefuls’ slate and thus delayed it for 2004. Most people thought there was trouble in paradise, but little did they realize Harvey is a genius strategist and did exactly the right thing. Now Finding Neverland is enjoying its Oscar glory, with 7 nominations, the second highest number of the year. And it sure deserves each and every one of them, if you ask me...

The movie chronicles the life of playwright J.M Barrie (Johnny Depp) as his latest play just bombed and is looking for inspiration to write his next one. And he finds it all right, when he meets Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet), a widow with four boys, one of which, reluctant Peter (Freddie Highmore), forms the strongest bond with him. Complications ensue as Barrie’s wife Marie Ansell (Radha Mitchell) starts feeling more jealous and unhappier by the minute, and as Sylvia’s mother (Julie Christie) interferes with the boys’ relationship with Barrie. And thus is born Peter Pan.

Based on Allan Knee’s play “The Man Who Was Peter Pan” and carefully translated to the screen by David Magee, Finding Neverland is an impressive achievement. When realizing what the movie is about you might feel induced to snort, and I don’t blame you. It does sound boring. But believe me, it is anything but that. Using an imaginative approach and creating characters that are memorable beyond words, the movie manages to become something of a rarity: it is one from the heart.

When it all starts, there’s a legend that says that what we’re about to see is “inspired by a true story”. Those words are carefully chosen. Many liberties were taken to deter this story from fact to fiction. Small details such as the fact that there weren’t four, but five Llewelyn Davies children, or that Sylvia’s husband was actually alive and kicking when this story took place (although there was nothing negative about it, Barrie and him actually became great friends) were changed for dramatic purposes. And you know what? Normally I would care, but this movie is a fantasy from frame one. It is not meant to be a by-the-book biopic, but rather an inspiring story filled with magic.

Still, some rather disturbing aspects are superficially touched upon in the movie. At one point Barrie is questioned about his relationship with the children. A romance is also rumored to take place between him and Sylvia. And it was said that Barrie spent years without ever even touching his wife, thus the separate rooms. That leads to a wonderful scene in which Barrie kisses Marie and it’s more important to her than it seems at first sight. So yes, director Marc Forster does address the issues, but he actually has a different agenda and it works as wonders.

That said, the movie is just so amazing. I cried like I had not done it in a long while, and I’m not babbling, that’s actually true. It is sentimental without being corny. It is magical without being unrealistic. And it develops some relationships so handsomely that you fall in love with the characters. Barrie is a child trapped in the body of an adult, and that’s something no one except a single family understands. At one point the reasons from this behavior are somewhat treated, having to do with Barrie’s own childhood. But truth is, he’s just a man who hasn’t let his inner child disappear. And it is with that innocence and playfulness that he changed this family’s lives, while also creating one of the most famous plays ever written.

Johnny Depp, one of the few actors on Earth whose movies I’d watch without even caring what they’re about, is fantastic here. He doesn’t have a big show-off scene, but that’s exactly what’s so wonderful. He’s constrained and believable and underplays Barrie in a completely compelling and charismatic way. He’s perfect. And so is Kate Winslet, who also delivers a phenomenal performance. Young Freddie Highmore is the real revelation though, holding his own in scenes against these talented performers as if he were born for it. Truly amazing. Julie Christie, Dustin Hoffman and Radha Mitchell all do excellent jobs.

And last but not least, there’s the wonderful score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek and the terrific production design of Gemma Jackson.

A triumph with a beautiful message!

“Children should never be put to bed, for they only wake up a day older.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Finding Neverland (2004): Groucho

Review

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1972

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 17, 2005

You would rarely think of Woody Allen as a daring filmmaker nowadays. But once, he was an innovative auteur who would go as far as necessary to bring to life his wildest conceptions and give them his own distinctive touch. I’ve always been a fan of his, and I love his most serious films (comedies and dramas), but going back to 1972 and watching one his earliest gems is certainly a major treat.

This film is an adaptation of Dr. David Reuben’s book of the same name. I understand the translation is not quite faithful, but the film is composed of seven chapters of the same name as those from the book. In the film, they’re short stories of every possible kind and realized in every imaginable way. From the story of a court jester (Woody Allen) who romances the Queen (Lynn Redgrave), to the tale of a mad scientist obsessed with sex (John Carradine), passing through the misadventure of a man who falls in love with a sheep (Gene Wilder), this is a wacky collection of stories, all obviously related to sex, some gross, some cheap, some highly intelligent, and all providing a little something to make for a very entertaining ride.

I admire Woody Allen’s writing. Even though some of his dialogue has grown tiresome after so many films, it was once fresh and inspiring and hilarious. There are a many smart remarks here that resonate in the world of sex and relationships like few lines of dialogue in any film. Even in a story as silly and gross as the one featuring Gene Wilder, you get poignant observations of relationships and love. Then there’s the story of a transvestite who gets into riotous trouble, and it also turns out to be a story with quite a lot of depth!

But there’s also the gross part. There’s lack of taste more often than not, and it only works because it doesn’t take itself seriously. There’s no denying that the movie as a whole works fine though. And it sure helps that Woody is in most of the stories and he’s funny every time, and somehow manages to convince in different roles though of course he never abandons his persona. But I was on a negative note and I’d like to wrap it up: The episodic fashion doesn’t help at all, and some stories are plain slow or gross. This mars and otherwise brilliant movie.

The final segment deserves a paragraph of its own. It consists of an alleged “look” into the male body during sex, starting from the pick-up lines and ending in intercourse. The body is replete of workers who operate from the brain to the penis, and both the physiology and the psychology become operative matters. It’s as hilarious as it’s real, and the production design is very impressive. I just loved it, laughed until my belly ached, and was very satisfied by the whole… especially thanks to Woody, who plays an anxious sperm!

The performances are excellent, all around Woody. I especially enjoyed Louis Lasser’s (as a stiff woman who only enjoys sex in public), Burt Reynold’s (inside the brain), and most definitely John Carradine’s (in a crazy, Frankenstein-style appearance).

Uneven at times, hilarious at others, certainly an effort worth watching.

“Can we please have an erection? What the hell is going on down there?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Finding Neverland

Director

Marc Forster

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

As I have stated before in maybe a couple of reviews, I’m very fond of the “Peter Pan” story. I grew up fascinated by these wonderful tales (especially as brought to life in a FOX animated series I never missed as a kid) and I always admired the prodigious mind from which they all emerged. So the idea of a movie about the author, J.M. Barrie, sounded fascinating. I never thought much about it though, until I saw it, which is something I tend to do with most movies. Well, I finally saw it, and I was delighted! How could I not be? Finding Neverland is not only the story of this genius man and his inspiration for such a wonderful tale, but it’s also a view of life as a wonderful fantasy if imagination allows. It’s an easy-going movie that tells a simple tale, and at the same time it’s a complex look at a genius mind and a very vulnerable one too, full of compassion, tenderness, and dreams.

The story, based on Allan Knee’s play “The Man Who Was Peter Pan”, is not exactly faithful to actual facts, but it comes pretty close. It tells of playwright J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp), whose theatrical flops resulted as boring to the audience as his own life to himself, including his marriage to Mary Ansell (Radha Mitchell). He was a professional, a serious grown-up, a boring person, and all this because that’s the way it should be. After writing his latest flop, still under contract with theater owner Charles Frohman (Dustin Hoffman), he’s obliged to write another play, but he’s too bored to even think about it.

That is, until he meets the Llewelyn Davies family, comprised by widow Sylvia (Kate Winslet) and her four sons: George (Nick Roud), Jack (Joe Prospero), Michael (Luke Spill), and Peter (Freddie Highmore). James befriends this family in Kensington Gardens and reunites with them several times, there and in other places. In each boy Barrie finds something special, but young Peter is the one who fascinates him the most: The boy is hardened by his father’s dead, cautious of the naiveté of childhood, and unwilling to face that kind of pain again. The subject of children who can’t wait to grow up, and adults who would love to be kids again, becomes Barrie’s obsession.

J.M.’s friendship with this family seems unusual to some, who begin to talk about it in negative ways. Barrie is amazed how people don’t understand such pure friendship and look at it as either a liaison with Sylvia or a perversity towards the boys. None of it matters though: In the Llewelyn Davies James finally finds sanctuary, a perfect fantasy to explore and an example of innocence as he’s rarely known to exist in the world. This inspires him to write the play that would make him immortal: “Peter Pan”.

I just loved this movie. I cried from beginning to end for many reasons: First of all, the story was incredibly moving, with Barrie an exceptionally compassionate man and the children so very needy of a father’s figure. Secondly, for the outstanding way the film interprets the creative process, with awe-inspiring scenes like the one where the boys seem to fly out their window. And thirdly, for the sadness that lies within the apparent plot, the sadness of a lonely man, a misunderstood one, a man who must seek refugee in whichever escapism he can find, including a world of fantasy, including a place called Neverland. Truth is, Neverland is both a wonderful place and a frightening one, because for some people it’s the only place where they can evade reality. Barrie’s story is related to this kind of loneliness, and it’s as heartbreaking as it is compelling.

The very real story of the boys is what redeems this sad story though. Barrie is exhilarated about his friendship with them because he’s able to relive the short years of childhood innocence he lived. However, as serious things happen around the family, and the children are forced to grow up, mature, and face reality, Barrie realizes that’s the way life is, and it’s beautiful all the same. The most important subplot, involving Sylvia, doesn’t always work, but it’s the catalyst for some of the movie’s most intense scenes, and they do work fine.

Not everything about David Magee’s screenplay worked fine for me though. I loved most of it of course, but sometimes I felt it went too far. Sometimes I felt the use of Neverland as an example or metaphor of supernatural things, as spoken by the character of Barrie, was exaggerated. This pretty much ruined a very important scene towards the end between Depp and Highmore (which I forgive thanks to the latter, whose performance there is vibrant). It’s a small quibble and it probably comes from the play itself, but I still would’ve preferred some things to be subtler.

Director Marc Forster sure understands the importance of symbols and metaphors in a story like this. “Peter Pan” was born as an interactive play full of symbolism subject to various interpretations. The movie exists in a way that it becomes a story inside a story and also a story about life as a whole, not only a particular story. There are many scenes that interpret imagination and make it come to life, but there are also others, even more brilliant, that don’t go as far but still make reality bend in a seamless way, surpassing the thin line between reality and fiction. Those are perfect moments that some people might not notice, but are there, and mean something. Forster made sure they’d bring bliss to those who look closer.

The sumptuous film is realized in an atmosphere that suits it to perfection with every possible artistic aid around to make it even better. The photography by Roberto Schaefer, production design by Gemma Jackson, costumes by Alexandra Byrne and Mary Kelly, and all the meticulous work of the sort, is flawless. Everything accompanied by an exquisite, unforgettable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek music score. Just listening to these notes made me shiver.

And if everything else wasn’t so good, the performances are on top of it all. Johnny Depp might not deliver an over-the-top performance or a bizarre one at all, but he’s absolutely brilliant as this saddened, intelligent man. Topping him is young Highmore, whose quiet solemnity makes him continuously enigmatic and profound. The rest of the cast does a very good job as well, including Julie Christie as Sylvia’s mother.

Highly recommendable, one of 2004’s best.

“But I’m not Peter Pan. He is.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Finding Neverland (2004): Morris

Review

The Aviator

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 14, 2005

It seems like director Martin Scorsese has found in Leonardo DiCaprio his Robert De Niro of modern times. Unfortunately, the movies they’ve done together just don’t match Scorsese’s legendary work. One can only wish their next movie together really leaves us floored. That said, it may sound like fake praise, but I’d still rather have one so-so Scorsese than a million trashy Hollywood movies from inexperienced directors.

The movie chronicles the life of mogul Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio) from the 1920’s when he shot his legendary Hell’s Angels (the most expensive movie ever made at that point), to his subsequent career as a filmmaker and businessman, following his fascination towards aviation and the groundbreaking inventions he helped nurture despite countless obstacles. Of course, Howard was also fascinated by beautiful women, namely Hollywood actresses such as Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale).

Scorsese and DiCaprio had been trying to bring Howard Hughes life to the big screen for years. It required a huge budget, so that’s the main reason it took so long. Fortunately they got financing and shot a movie that justifies every single penny spent. It is a grandiose epic of impressive proportions, spanning almost three decades and bringing glamour to the screen as no recent movie has done.

So why isn’t it a masterpiece? As with most biopics, this movie suffers from the usual syndrome: it is episodic and tries to cram too much into too little. There are subplots that aren’t that interesting so the movie drags at times, especially during its last two thirds. There’s also some repetitive material in there, such as the continuous and tiring showing of Hughes’ descent into madness because of his obsession with germs. It just went a bit too far, and the reappearance of two of his girls from the past during this period just doesn’t fit. Then there are his troubles with competing airline Pan Am and with the Senate. These subplots don’t always work, although the court scenes toward the end do bring a much-needed boost to an otherwise dying movie.

That’s the bad, but there’s also a lot of good. The first hour of the movie is, in one word, brilliant. I wish it could’ve maintained that level. It shows Hughes while on the whole process of shooting Hell’s Angels, its subsequent release and his romance with Katharine Hepburn. It is all perfectly handled, with emotion and nostalgia to spare. Hughes’ sickness only begins to show and it fits perfectly with everything else. A blast!

And then there’s the amazing technical aspects the movie has to offer. Dante Ferretti’s production design is just about the best I’ve seen in that regard this year. And Robert Richardson’s photography is stupendous. Also, Howard Shore’s terrific score blended with recordings of the era. But nothing like Scorsese’s work behind the camera. He truly is a master.

I guess, when everything is said and done, the movie comes off really well because it succeeds in its portrayal of a fascinating and conflicted man who also happened to be one of the most important and influential individuals of the century. Scorsese is able to bring us right there to the moment and help us understand the man and the myth.

An amazing performance by Leonardo DiCaprio also helps us get to know Hughes as he was, at his better or his worse. He might not look exactly like the real Hughes, but he nails the accent, the mannerism and the inner ambition. But it’s Cate Blanchett who steals the movie with her dead-on, absolutely perfect portrayal of the legendary Katharine Hepburn. It is a performance that could’ve bombed, but in Blanchett’s skillful hands, it just soars and elevates the movie. The resemblance is almost scary. In supporting turns, Alan Alda, Kate Beckinsale, Alec Baldwin, Willem Dafoe, John C. Reilly, Ian Holm, Gwen Stefani, Jude Law and Danny Huston all excel. And I’d like to give Matt Ross (as Odie, Hughes’ right-hand aircraft manufacturer) a special mention because he is not well-known and I think he delivers one of the best performances in the movie.

“The way of the future.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Aviator (2004): Groucho

Review

Henry V

Director

Laurence Olivier

Year

1944

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 10, 2005

“Henry V” was the first Shakespeare play I ever read, which immediately led me to decide to read everything the famous poet and playwright had to offer. I soon found out that for the sake of entertainment there were better plays in his repertoire than this very famous one, but I’m still pleased that it was his first work I ever read. One of the reasons I chose it by the way was that I had already bought on DVD the film adaptation by Laurence Olivier, which he directed and starred. Given the fact that I admire Olivier more than most actors in history, and that I love his adaptation of Hamlet (1948), I just knew I had to see this one, but what better than read the play before. Naturally, the gig paid off.

The film presents itself in a rather ingenious way. We’re not transported to the times of the King the play is about, but rather to the Globe theatre of the 16th Century, where Shakespeare’s plays were presented regularly. It’s a weird turn but it works fine, as we get the feeling of how plays were staged and how people behaved during the show. I loved the idea also because this play in particular emphasizes (through the Chorus, played by Leslie Banks) the fact that only through imagination can the spectators really be absorbed by what the story offers. The film gradually becomes more real, taking us from the stage to bigger fields and castles, if not very realistic, but not stagy either. Little by little, as we’re more and more immersed in the story, the stages become more real. The film doesn’t make the story easy for us, but it doesn’t make us work as hard as if we were watching the play only. It’s a beautiful way of interpreting the experience of original spectators.

Laurence Olivier thought of this film as a means to boost the British’s morality during World War II. It was indeed a good idea, though the story suffered from this tendency by the obligatory maiming of some of its scenes that would be too crude to present to a contemporary soldier whose energy you want to feed for battle. Nevertheless, it’s the perfect tool, and Olivier in the lead is the perfect example of a good, motivating leader during hazardous times. The story has King Harry of England (a.k.a. Henry V) declaring war to the French after France proposes a law that would cut off the King of England from the aspiration of eventually inheriting that throne. Not all the English agree that it’s a fair war, but they go anyway because they have no choice. It’s up to the King to show them that the cause is good, but more than anything that they must fight for their country regardless of the good or bad intentions of their leader. Eventually, they fight like there’s no tomorrow, and win.

Olivier chose to present the film in glorious color which makes the settings much more vivid than one could have expected. It’s amazing how this accentuates the play’s tone, exactly the same way that the black and white photography emphasized the gloomy mood of “Hamlet” in his film adaptation years later. And though the play requires us to use our imagination to fully appreciate it (even specifically asking us to imagine the horses when they are mentioned), there is an amazing battle scene that really astounded me. I didn’t expect it to be there but it was, and I didn’t think it was too obvious or too subtle, it was just perfect.

Accompanying Olivier is a wonderful cast comprised by Nicholas Hannen as Exeter, Ralph Truman as Mountjoy, Felix Aylmer as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Helpmann as the Bishop of Ely, Roy Emerton as Bardolph, Robert Newton as Pistol, Max Adrian as the Dauphin, Esmond Knight as Fluellen, Renée Asherson as Princess Katharine, Harcourt Williams as the King of France, and many more.

A dramatic, humorous, motivating, eye-popping film. Highly recommendable.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Catwoman

Director

Pitof

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

I am not a paid critic, so every year I tend to try to avoid movies that look like duds from the get-go. That said, morbid curiosity and being a fan of certain actors sometimes provoke in me an urge to see some really bad movies. I can’t say Catwoman is the worst movie of the year that I’ve seen. I think The Spongebob Squarepants Movie is entitled to that position. But then again, I’m not going to review that movie, so I’d better stick with the second worst movie I’ve seen this year…

Patience (Halle Berry) is a shy designer who works for a big cosmetics company headed by George Hedare (Lambert Wilson) and his wife Laurel (Sharon Stone). One day Patience has an “accident” and is then resurrected by cats, becoming, if you may, Catwoman!!! She now has all the abilities a cat possesses, and is determined to use them against her former employers, as she just found out they’re about to release a product women have to depend on if they don’t want to get sick after they use it at least once. Meanwhile, Patience starts dating a cop (Benjamin Bratt) who just happens to be on the trail of Catwoman.

I have to say I’m a huge fan of Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman. She’s a wonderful creation: witty, beautiful, deadly and intelligent. Halle Berry’s Catwoman, on the other hand, is an embarrassment. She is not that beautiful (her leather suit is laughable) and she is definitely not as witty (spitting out lines like “What a purrrfect idea!”). She can certainly move and kick a lot of people’s ass. But of course when it comes to her nemesis, Laurel Hedare, she is almost bitten up by her. It’s as if she had superpowers too! But we know she doesn’t, which makes it the more ridiculous.

Then there’s the visual look of the movie. It tries too hard to be cool and modern and hip. I have to admit to liking how the dance club scene was shot, but that’s about it! Everything else about this movie makes you feel uncomfortable. It always looks ugly, it’s too stylish for its own good and special effects look like, well, special effects.

Oh, and then there’s the love story, which is laughable as well. And it is also full of contrivances. If you leave your brain at the door you might be immersed, but otherwise it is just a movie gone wrong in almost every respect.

And yes, that includes Halle Berry. I can’t believe she didn’t realize how bad this movie would turn out to be. I mean, with those lines anyone would notice that. She’s over-the-top as Catwoman and too subdued as Patience. Pfeiffer was over-the-top too, but she played it smartly and she was a riot. Halle only gets chuckles in all the wrong places.

So yes, it is an abomination. But it could also be considered campy fun. I think with a couple of beers and some of your friends you might have a great time about the movie, not with it.

“From a life that was taken, a new one will be born.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Million Dollar Baby

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

NOTE: No spoilers ahead.

If I’ve learned anything about Clint Eastwood’s approach to filmmaking is that he likes things the simple way. Every film by Clint that I’ve seen I walk out from with a feeling that I had such a good time without any complications. That’s how he likes to present his films and I just love the love he shows for his spectators. He doesn’t want us to suffer much, at least not for the wrong reasons. Lately, he has filmed stories that aren’t all that easy to swallow, all the more reason to tell the tales in an easy-going way. He and the screenwriters working for him deserve praise for that.

This time around, Eastwood has filmed a screenplay by TV veteran Paul Haggis, from a short story in a book called “Rope Burns” by F.X. Toole. I haven’t read the source so I suppose maybe some subplots come from other stories, but mostly, Million Dollar Baby comes from the story of the same name, about a determined female boxer who wants to be trained by a pro to become one herself.

The young boxer, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), comes from a hillbilly life she really wants to leave behind, and her choice for a trainer is Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood), a hardened old man who runs a not-so-successful gym, aided by his friend and one-time trainee Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris (Morgan Freeman). Frankie really resists training the girl, convinced that boxing is not for the female gender. But after seeing her unstoppable determination, and noticing how Eddie has been helping her anyway, he gives in. Surprisingly, Maggie becomes a champ in no time at all.

The power of this film lies in how simply it looks at people without turning them into one-note characters. They don’t have to burst into tears every five minutes and whine about their problems to make us care about them, but they’re not paper-thin either just because they don’t talk much about them. They simply live their lives and little by little, as we get to know them, it becomes clear how complex they are and what’s all they carry on their backs and shoulders.

Another asset of the film is the contrast created by the three main characters, how each takes their problems in a different way, how each faces them and learns from them or not. And when they all become complements of each other and the story is complete because of their interaction, the screen bursts with energy during a couple of quiet scenes with quiet music and nothing much really happening. You know how powerful that is? So powerful I feel like crying (all over again).

I had to warn from the first paragraph that there would be no spoilers here because I guess if you’re reading this and haven’t seen the movie you’ve heard there’s something going on in there that if spoiled, it can work against you and your experience. I just won’t even give you a hint of what it is. But what it is, like everything else, is handled with tranquility and patience, like a work of art crafted little by little to make it much better than it would be if the artist rushed. That plot turn is indeed the reason why this story is worth telling in the first place, and makes the film “something” instead of just “good”, but it’s just another example of how to handle a situation right. This movie is full of such examples.

Not bursting with them though. To be fair, a couple of things aren’t handled as well as they probably should, namely the subplot of a foolish amateur by the name of “Danger” Barch (Jay Baruchel), and the exaggerated presentation of Maggie’s hillbilly family. Those are minor quibbles though, and they surely don’t affect the film as a whole.

The performances? Magnificent. Clint Eastwood is not usually regarded as a great actor, but here he proves once again that he does have what it takes. His performance is my favorite in the film, as he’s so good being a grumpy old man as he is being a sweet tutor. His smile during a sad scene in a car is unforgettable to me. Swank is a good contrast: So full of life, so optimistic, so happy for every chance she gets in life… She’s also outstanding at every turn. And Freeman plays a quiet fellow, powerfully low, and his performance is so good that he can move you to core with only a couple of words spoken with a lot of not-too-showy sentiment. He also provides the narration, and his voice-over is much of what makes his performance so great. It would seem that he was born to be a storyteller, if he wasn’t so good onscreen too!

A sweet down-key score by Eastwood himself accompanies the proceedings, but every cinematic aspect is a treat: Photography, production design, editing, etc. The boxing scenes are exciting and the dramatic scenes are powerful. It’s a compelling story told and presented right.

“But you’ve got me… at least until we get you a good manager.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Million Dollar Baby (2004): Morris

Review

Kinsey

Director

Bill Condon

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 07, 2005

We’ve all heard of the biography syndrome. It is really hard to film biopics because they usually are episodic and since they have to deal with an individual’s whole life (in some cases), it’s really difficult to deeply delve into their psyche. But there are exceptions, movies that are carefully crafted and that have a natural, easy-going flow to them. Kinsey is one of them.

The movie chronicles the life of Dr. Alfred Kinsey (Liam Neeson), from his constraint childhood marked by his overly conservative father (John Lithgow) to his final days as a very well known personality, loved by some and hated by others. Dr. Kinsey, a biologist, married Clara (Laura Linney), a fellow student, who supported him while he became fascinated with sex. With the help of a research team, he was able to compound two very controversial books: “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female”. But being the times that it were, the task was just not easy…

Kinsey is successful in many aspects. But writer/director Bill Condon’s biggest success lies in the fact that he was able to pretty much tell all of the Doctor’s story and in the way transforming it in a tale full of heart, passion and determination. Not only that, but it is also extremely entertaining, mainly because it is so well directed, written and edited. The movie has such a natural flow to it that its creators make it seem really easy.

Dr. Kinsey was a fascinating subject, whether you agreed with him or not. He had a difficult childhood, then moved on still with his father’s shadow on his back. But he was a man with a vision. He was intrigued by certain insects and studied them to a point of obsession. But then he realized, after a bad wedding night experience of his own, just how uninformed young people were at the time about sex. And not just sex, but every single sexual aspect. So he then changed his attention to something entirely difficult and didn’t let go, not till the end of his days.

His contributions opened the eyes of an entire nation, but he had to fight for it. And even then the reaction was not always nice, so he had to fight against that as well. He and his researchers specialized in capturing people’s sexual history. They interviewed as many people as they could and used their stories as research material. Throughout the movie there’s shocking imagery, but even more shocking dialogue. It could even be unpleasant for some, but I thought it was refreshing, just as the people in the movie that Dr. Kinsey is trying to teach.

I also enjoyed very much the relationship between the Doctor and his wife. They surely complemented each other. He was rather cold and science-obsessed, and she was certainly intelligent as well, but rather the heart of the relationship and, for that matter, of the movie.

As performances go, Liam Neeson delivers his usual excellent performance as the title character. He is extraordinary at every turn, whether showing his strong or tenderer sides. Meanwhile, Laura Linney is nothing short of astonishing in an understated performance of huge proportions. Peter Sarsgaard, Chris O’Donnell, Timothy Hutton, Oliver Platt, John Lithgow and Lynn Redgrave are all uniformly great.

An impressive achievement...

“Sex is a risky game, because if you're not careful, it will cut you wide open.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Throne of Blood

Director

Akira Kurosawa

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 03, 2005

I recently became a big fan of Shakespeare. I never read any of his work before, and all of a sudden, after reading the first page of the first work I chose to read (“Henry V”), I became his biggest fan (bold statement!) and decided to read every word he ever wrote (or did he?). I’m working on it, and hope to keep my word, but so far, so friggin’ good! His stories are as absorbing as can be, with interesting characters, mighty awesome settings, and an unbelievable analysis of human nature as I’ve never seen anywhere else.

The second Shakespeare play I read was “Macbeth”. It instantly became one of the best things I’d ever read, and probably the one I enjoyed the most. What a great story! I always knew Akira Kurosawa had adapted this immortal play into a film and I had to see it and be a part of it the day after finishing the play. So, I saw it, I loved it, and I’m here to review it.

The story is transferred to medieval days in Japan, where every samurai longed to be lord of a castle. Two mighty warriors, Taketori Washizu (Toshiro Mifune) and Yoshiteru Miki (Akira Kubo), come back from a crucial battle and find a strange apparition in Cobweb Forest, a female “ghost” (Chieko Naniwa) who predicts Washizu will gain power of the most important castle around, and afterwards Miki’s son will do the same.

The prediction seems implausible and even laughable, but soon, the ambitious wife of Washizu (Isuzu Yamada) starts plotting against the now-lord of the most important castle, in order to see her husband gain power. The deed is done, and remorse starts to haunt Washizu. Soon, after innocent people pay the price of Washizu’s consequential ambition, it all becomes unbearable for the man and his wife. The consequences are definitely tragic.

Gosh, how I enjoyed this film! Not only was I amazed by how much Kurosawa respected the original text (though he did the typical “two characters into one” to make the story flow more easily), but by how he proved some stories are timeless regardless of period and place. While seeing it, I suffered a lot along with the Macbeth character, just like I did when I read the play. The ability to transfer another person’s guilt to the reader/spectator is intact in this version.

Mifune is magnificent as this conflicted and ill-fated character, whose final scene is simply unforgettable. Matching him are Yamada as his cold-blooded wife, and Takashi Shimura as an opposing general. The music, production design, photography, and general sense of grand cinema, are all there accompanied by a grand music score.

Throne of Blood is an interesting film based on a most important story. Kurosawa was brave enough to take stands and punish some characters, but the story works to perfection, and is so faithful to the original source that one can’t really complain about the adaptation at all. If you ask me, I simply adored it. What a movie!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Million Dollar Baby

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The wait is over. After having almost every critic in the country fall head over heels for Clint Eastwood’s latest, those of us, mere mortals, were left with only clocks counting the minutes until we could see this supposedly extraordinary movie. So the wait is over. And my heart is full again.

Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is an old trainer who owns a muddled boxing gym and runs it with the help of former boxer and alumni Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris (Morgan Freeman), who even has a small room in that place, where he lives. One day an aspiring boxer, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), comes in looking for Frankie to train her. He is not interested, mainly because she is a woman and because she is rather old for the sport. But Maggie persists and stays there.

Million Dollar Baby is based upon a collection of short stories written by F.X. Toole. Eastwood saw greatness in the material and quietly shot his movie without much help from production company Warner Bros. He also opted for a slow roll-out in theaters, giving the movie its time to breath and grow on people. And it’s rather a funny coincidence, since that’s just how his movie actually plays.

The movie is nothing more than the tale of three lonely individuals and the bonds they form with each other. At its core you could say it is a boxing movie, but believe me, boxing serves merely as an excuse to tell an extraordinary story about redemption, guilt, perseverance, family and friendship. Paul Haggis’ screenplay is in no rush to tell its story. We get three-dimensional characters that grow on us rather slowly, but whose stories are immersed in our feelings faster than we thought. And it’s in the details that the movie creates these fascinating individuals, whether showing Frankie receiving letters from his estranged daughter or showing him praying at night, or whether having Frankie and Eddie have a conversation about socks, or whether showing Maggie visiting her family or learning she doesn’t care about a television. And yet we never feel like we’re being manipulated, but on the other hand, we feel like we know these people. And therein lies some of its greatness.

It also helps that the movie flows effortlessly from start to finish. Clint’s impeccable direction has a lot to do with it, but the screenplay and Morgan Freeman’s pitch-perfect voice-over are also part of why it works so well. And that’s not to mention Joel Cox’s editing, which brings excitement to the boxing sequences without going for an over-the-top approach, but also serves the story well in the quieter, more intimate scenes. And since it’s time to praise the team behind the technical aspects of the movie, I’d also like to mention Tom Stern’s photography and Clint’s perfectly suitable score.

By now most of you have heard that there is a rather abrupt plot development in the third act of the movie that changes everything. I won’t spoil it for you but I’m going to do my best to talk about it without saying what actually happens. That said, if you don’t want even a hint, jump to the next paragraph now (something I actually recommend if you haven’t seen the movie). If you’re still with me, I’d just like to say that the movie is not greater because of what happens at the end, but is great because of the whole. I actually felt absolutely intrigued by all the time the movie spent mostly on boxing. I think it is on par with Raging Bull at that, albeit in a different way. The dialogue seems like it came directly from heaven, using metaphors for life and explaining the characters’ motivations without preaching at all. But then something happens and we realize Clint was preparing us for it all the way. The entire movie feels like a tragedy without us really knowing why. And all I’m going to say is that you should see the movie from the point of view of the characters, not yours. To generalize is pointless, because this is a movie about these three individuals and the point they’ve come in their lives. It makes us reflect upon the power of life and death, of the fragility of one’s existence, and the things we might be able to do, or not do for that matter, when faced with certain circumstances.

Performances range from the perfect to the uber-perfect, something that actually doesn’t exist, therein making my point a bit clearer. Clint Eastwood delivers the performance of a lifetime as a troubled individual disguised as to not let anyone break that shell. But then Maggie comes and it’s a different story, as the wonderful scene in the car after they’ve visited her family shows in a heart-breaking manner. Hilary Swank, on the other hand, proves that her Oscar was not a fluke, with a performance both dignified and temperamental, physical yet overly internal, intense yet fragile at its core. And Morgan Freeman does not rely on showy gimmicks to prove he’s in complete control of his craft, while also delivering what has to be one of the best voice-over works ever.

A movie of quiet resonance, that’ll stay with you forever...

“Girly, tough ain’t enough.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Million Dollar Baby (2004): Groucho

Review

The Aviator

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

I think The Aviator is a film that had to be done, with an important story to tell, and offering a worthwhile look into a very interesting episode of the world. The story of Howard Hughes is intriguing indeed, on its own, but it’s also surrounded by glamour, progress, and innovation. Few men were as important as Hughes in the twentieth century: He made a fortune out of invention in aviation, and spent much of his time romancing famous women. He made movies that were excessive but good, and didn’t bother Hollywood at all. And he was sick, at least in his mind, with a disorder that made him afraid of inexistent or insignificant things, to a level where he could just stop everything in his life and recluse himself for quite a while.

Martin Scorsese has chose to tell the tale of young Howard, from his earlier years as an entrepreneur to his most glorious days in aviation. Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio) was an anxious man from the get-go, but with enough energy and dreams to make up for the mental wounds he carried since his childhood. The film starts during the filming of Hughes’ Hell’s Angels, up to then the most expensive movie ever made, which also showed the filmmaker’s love for airplanes. Hughes’ life went on as a mixture of love of cinema and love of aviation, and was also adorned by his exuberant way of life, his absent, busy mind, his growing deafness, and his love of women.

John Logan’s script takes us from one episode of Hughes’ life to another like the rollercoaster that was his existence. There was sweeping romance, thrilling adventure, gripping action, and excruciating madness all around. And even though it does avoid monotony, the movie seems overlong. However, it’s interesting at every turn, and effective as a biopic. Plus, it offers loads of pleasure to film buffs, with an impressive resuscitation of movie stars, namely Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) who, according to the film, was Hughes’ true love.

Focusing on the millionaire’s many conflicts, as Kate Hepburn’s lover, as Pan Am’s competitor (with a personal conflict with Juan Trippe, played by Alec Baldwin), as a man questioned by the law (especially Maine Senator Ralph Owen Brewster, played by Alan Alda), and as a prisoner of his own anxieties, The Aviator knows how to tell its tale, and does so magnificently.

The exquisite rendering of time and place sure helps: Photographed as color movies were in each period, with gorgeous costume and production design, atmospheric music to accompany (composed of both period pieces and an inspired score by Howard Shore), and an overall sense of awe, it’s simply amazing.

The performances are also top-notch. There aren’t enough words to describe DiCaprio’s performance. He plays a perfect Howard Hughes: Charming at times, nasty at others, and even disgusting under some circumstances. DiCaprio carries a heavy movie over his shoulders and does so without a problem, and his complex, intense, unforgettable performance is one of the greatest of 2004 (of course some more makeup would’ve helped make his aging process more believable, but at least his performance is not to blame).

Matching him is Cate Blanchett as Kate Hepburn, who made me shiver more than once, since I felt I was really seeing that legendary actress in action once again. The way she managed to recreate Hepburn’s unique way of laughing, talking, walking, and behaving all in all, is a magnificent achievement. Heck she almost outshines DiCaprio!

The other standout is Alan Alda, in an all-star supporting cast comprised by such people as John C. Reilly, Ian Holm, Kate Beckinsale (as Ava Gardner), Jude Law (as Errol Flynn), Willem Dafoe, etc.

The Aviator is an astonishing film… It offers so many things, it’s unbelievable.

“She’ll go faster.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Aviator (2004): Morris