CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

American Gangster

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 28, 2008

I heard that what hindered American Gangster’s chances at the year-end awards paraphernalia was the controversy spawned by some of the people portrayed in it claiming that the events weren’t accurate and that characters were shaped in a way convenient to the story but illegitimate to factual events. Whether someone’s image was in fact affected by the screenplay I can’t say, but these people should learn something about creative license to embellish a story in order to make it entertaining and, in this case, filmable. The result is a top-notch piece that’s just a tad short of flawless and not because of its play on fact. If what I heard is true, I couldn’t be more disappointed by whomever snubs a film like this based on such claims. Thank God Salieri was long dead before he could protest against Amadeus.

When you look back nowadays to the golden years of cinema and you are awed by the constant and versatile work of so many great directors, you rarely wonder who’ll be thought of in the same way when we’re all dead and gone. I have concluded that Ridley Scott will definitely be among them. He might not be working tirelessly year after year, but he’s got a pocketful of classics, has tackled several genres, and has won a few awards. I love some of his recent films (Matchstick Men (2003)) and hate others (Gladiator (2000)), but he’s working steadily and attempting quality and American Gangster is another proof of that. It’s a work of art, and how entertainingly done!

I have not researched the true story thoroughly, so I apologize in advance for any deviation from reality! Frank Lucas is the lead character, a real-life black drug-dealer from the 1970s who managed to overpower rival mafias and take over a big share of market in what was an example of remarkable business methodology. Even though he started from nothing, working through the years as personal bodyguard for a Harlem kingpin, he easily grew to the top by going directly to the producers of the merchandise he was to sell, making sure that it was of the best quality, distributing it cheaply thanks in part to his trusted personnel, and selling it without alteration, and to the cheapest price, making himself not only a competent competitor in the market but the only one to go to. A perfect capitalist.

Of course the material here is drugs, heroin in this case, but thankfully Lucas’ story as told by Steven Zaillian is the opposite of every drug-dealer story you can think of. Sure thing, Lucas descends into evil at times and eventually comes down, but there’s very little show on vice or decadence; he’s portrayed as a perfect businessman with so much going for him that something’s gotta give. He’s classy in his ways, modest in his spend, loving to his mother and protective of his wife. He takes brothers and cousins under his wing and protects them from senseless greed and tacky habits. He’s completely ruthless and tremendously hotheaded when he’s pushed to the limit, but if that wasn’t done to prevent him from becoming our undeniable hero and turning us against the script towards the end, I don’t get the reason.

Denzel Washington plays this admirable man, and he does so with such panache as only he can. We relate Washington to so many righteous characters that seeing him in a role such as this once in a while is a breath of fresh air, and the fact that he does it so seldom makes it rewarding to say the least. As I said, the script has a hard time convincing us that despite everything that’s laudable about Lucas, we should approve of his going down. Showing him as a violent tyrant at times is not enough, so they make his main rival, Detective Richie Roberts, a very strong character. Yet, despite Russell Crowe’s fine performance and Roberts’ clear integrity and charisma, the film can’t manage to sell us Lucas’ denouement… until a final twist that’s satisfying in many levels.

There’s so much to enjoy this ride that its length is hard to mind. There’s a little bit of redundancy here and there, but nothing too bad. Showing us many aspects of Lucas’ life is great to give the character extra substance, particularly when dealing with his mother (a perfectly nostalgic Ruby Dee), his brothers and cousins (from which Chiwetel Ejiofor comes off as most noticeable) and his wife (a gorgeous Lymari Nadal). His life as a businessman is much more intriguing and the place where he meets interesting people like his drug-dealing rival Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr. playing at long last a respectful role) and corrupt detective Trupo (an excellent Josh Brolin). Add to that the “naked labor”, and you’ve got it made!

Roberts’ life is much less interesting and handled obligatorily, like it would’ve been shallow not to include his struggles and humiliations, particularly concerning his wife, sadly a walking cliché played all right by Carla Gugino. It’s too much even though Crowe does it well, as expected.

American Gangster never compromises. There’s not much dynamism to this story, even less towards the end, but the film stays true to what it is and makes that intriguing. I loved how the final act wasn’t about shootouts or chases, but about minds at work. I loved how the climax relied on the fact that what had been laid in front of us for the previous two hours was that the two main characters were smart men who wanted to do things right. I found it irresistible that, with brains and common sense, there can’t be a bad ending, in spite of appearances. Washington and Crowe are at their best during this sequence, and it’s sheer pleasure to see them together. Top entertainment achieved from two men doing desk work… All the President's Men (1976) came to mind.

I walked out with a smile. Hardly do I have so much fun during a movie. Reflecting upon the importance of the title American Gangster I was still impressed by the relevance of a person like Frank Lucas, and the ease with which I would have followed his steps only to hear him address me as “My man!”.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

27 Dresses

Director

Anne Fletcher

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

After the legacy left by such actresses as Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon, Katherine Heigl seems to have taken the throne as queen of romantic comedies. That’s a title that comes and goes, as history has shown, but right now she’s got “it” and she’s taking full advantage. 27 Dresses is her latest foray and another success to join her already hot streak.

Jane (Katherine Heigl) is the perfect bridesmaid, having done the deed for 27 weddings already while always wishing to someday attend her own. She’s been in love with her boss George (Edward Burns) for some time now, but her world stumbles when her bimbo sister Tess (Malin Akerman) comes for a visit and falls in love with him too. Meanwhile a cynic reporter, Kevin (James Marsden), follows Jane around in order to do a story about her, but eventually, of course, sparks fly.

Anne Fletcher directed from a screenplay by Aline Brosh McKenna. There is absolutely nothing in the movie that is new or original. Why fix something when it’s not broken, right? 27 Dresses follows the romantic comedy mold to a tee and never strays from it; you know how the movie’s going to end five minutes into it but still stay because you expect to have fun during the ride. I can’t say that’s not the case, but it certainly is a movie that proves to be quite forgettable and so tired in its ideas that despite all its appeal it ends up as a fleeting diversion.

The movie is at its best when Kevin is onscreen. He brings some needed life into the proceedings and his exchanges with Jane are for the most part fun and lively. There’s also a sequence at the beginning in which Jane has to attend two weddings the same night that is quite amusing. And the dresses show-off scene is over-the-top, yes, but charming all the same. There are also plenty of cringe-inducing scenes that are only redeemed by the talent and chemistry of the stars such as the obligatory drunk sequence or the sisters’ pivotal confrontation.

Overall, it’s a movie that won’t hurt anyone, that provides passable entertainment and a few laughs along the way while being generic to a fault.

Heigl is beautiful and charismatic and carries the movie with ease. She has a natural aura that simply connects. James Marsden proves to be a fitting counterpart and a welcomed presence. Edward Burns is mostly gray, as usual, and Malin Akerman is an incredibly annoying walking cliché. The always reliable Judy Greer appears in the thankless best friend role and delivers some funny quips.

“I feel like I just found out my favorite love song was written about a sandwich.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

There Will Be Blood

Director

Paul Thomas Anderson

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Robert McKee, the so-called screenplay guru, said something unforgettable about the richness of Hamlet, the character that he considers to be the most interesting in history. He said that what makes Hamlet great are his constant contradictions. Shakespeare’s character keeps doing things that contradict whatever the audience expects of him but as a whole makes sense, which is why he’s so intriguing. The same thing happens with the oil tycoon Daniel Plainview, a creation of the great Paul Thomas Anderson, loosely based on a character (or characters) from Upton Sinclair’s early twentieth century novel “Oil!”. I don’t know about those who read synopses or reviews or view trailers before watching a film, but I’m religious about having virginal experiences with movies and came into the theater knowing naught about this character or his quest, and was in for a series of shocks from the first to the last scenes. It was one of the most exhilarating experiences I’ve had in a while.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays his homonym Plainview who’s a turn-of-the-century prospector that finds oil instead of gold and makes his fortune early on, becomes an admirable businessman, and continues to prosper through the decades. He’s not quite the definition of ruthless; even though he adopts a child (Dillon Freasier) mainly for the purpose of selling an image of himself as a family man and has a great marketing campaign where he convinces people to allow him to drill in their lands with half-false promises of helping their towns prosper, he does what he can to keep his staff happy, is after all a loving father, and sometimes defends lost causes, like that of a child that’s beaten by her father.

But years pass and greed comes and while Plainview is no McTeague (from Greed (1925)) or Dobbs (from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)), he’s constantly influenced by his determination and unwilling to watch how something or someone gets in his way. Plainview likes perfection in his life, but that doesn’t mean that he enjoys a society-defined perfect life. He’s not, in fact, a family man, but a businessman with a family—when a man comes into his life, claiming to be his half-brother (Kevin J. O'Connor), Plainview seems pleased, and opens up his heart, or rather his sick, lonely soul, only to find disappointment soon enough, punishing it with great severity. His son is not his own, but close enough, because he’s a great tool for business, and quite good company, so that when the boy becomes deaf in a drilling accident, and is no longer helpful or useful in any way, he’s cold-bloodedly sent away by his father. Plainview is not made of stone, but he’s relentless when it comes to solving problems.

As imagined, Plainview’s path is hard to enjoy. There Will Be Blood is no crowd-pleaser, neither is it redeeming in any way, but is true to the study of its main character, and honest when it comes to giving him a very close look. Daniel Day-Lewis had about a year to prepare for his role, but went much farther than just bringing him to life. He evidently surrendered himself into the role and to the role, allowing the oilman to take over and use him as one more of his many tools which he handles with admirable craft, in perfect tuning and precision to obtain the precise result needed, not without reward (so many awards for the actor) but undoubtedly with much pain. If Day-Lewis wasn’t drained after the whole experience I can’t say he’s human; to him, Plainview must be a real oilman who’s extracted the oil inside his soul, becoming ever so richer thanks to it, and leaving him dry and arid, even though he’s obtained gold in exchange. It’s one of the great performances of our time.

Some might observe that after his peculiar work, Paul Thomas Anderson has created a more or less traditional period piece, but it’s really not unlike his previous films. The period and the settings, all realized outstandingly, are only the backdrop of drama as valid today as it was in the day of the film’s period. Oil kills is what the theme is. If there’s something more currently true I don’t know what it is. And if it comes to political propaganda, I’ll take this before any anti-Iraq war movie out there. But perhaps I’m imagining things.

In fact, there’s so much left to the imagination that it sometimes works against the movie. For one, the main character aside Plainview, his great moral rival, is the town’s preacher, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a young fanatic who allows Plainview’s progress in hopes that he will help his church, but finds that the man brings the devil into his town, and can’t take it. There’s so much that’s brilliant in Dano’s performance that it’s a pity that his character becomes confusing more often than not. At first I thought that Plainview’s natural antagonism to Sunday was an attack to fanatic churches, which would’ve worked for me, but then it looks like Sunday is in ways right and Plainview did bring bad habits to the townspeople, and then we’re with Plainview again and then again with Sunday, until we’re sure that neither is right and we don’t root for any. This not only makes the third act tiresome but it also diminishes the ending’s impact, even though the final moments possess indescribable intensity. Dano also plays Eli’s brother Paul, but the fact that they’re identical twins is never clarified, bringing up the question whether they’re actually twins or one and the same, suffering from schizophrenia; in the end it’s irrelevant, so the very question becomes annoying throughout the viewing. Yet another, and in my case, most disturbing question, is the nature of Plainview’s relationship with Eli’s sister, little Mary Sunday (Sydney McCallister). We know that Plainview is protective of her, and respect that, but their few moments together are so awkward that you never know what’s really going on, and if it’s something perverse. Then you realize that we never see Plainview with a woman, or interested in one, and wonder if there’s something wicked in him of that nature. If it is, his relationship with the girl is completely disturbing (and adds to his son’s hostility towards him in their final scene together); if not, it’s redeeming, because he’s so good to the girl. So what is it? And why is it, in any case?

But in the days after watching the film I have had only thoughts of admiration toward it. I remember Day-Lewis and shake, I hear his unique voice (a creation for Plainview) and tremble, and I remember his piercing eyes and fear. Then I hear the stabbing tunes of Jonny Greenwood’s music and it all comes back to me, and not necessarily in a pleasant way, but certainly in a way that makes me awe. I’m one of those hypnotized by Plainview. Such a good salesman he is, that even Paul Thomas Anderson’s brilliant script can not convince me, despite its tireless insistence, that I should hate him and turn away the instant that he lays eyes on me.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Atonement

Director

Joe Wright

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 25, 2008

Ismail Merchant and James Ivory used to create emotionally complex period movies in their heyday and several classics came out of their legendary collaboration such as Howards End (1992) and The Remains of the Day (1993). It wasn’t until a few years later when Anthony Minghella and Saul Zaentz made The English Patient that someone was able to capture such sweeping greatness on-screen while remaining true to the genre. More than a decade later comes Atonement, a distressing tale that is certain to be just as remembered.

Fanciful 13-year-old Briony (Saoirse Ronan) witnesses an exchange between her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) and their housekeeper Robbie (James McAvoy) that sets her imagination flying, ultimately accusing him of a crime he didn’t commit and thus sending him to jail. As World War II hits its stride he is sent to fight in France while Cecilia becomes a nurse and Briony (Romola Garai) follows suit, never forgetting what she did and the extent of what her acts entailed.

Joe Wright, the director responsible of the masterful Pride & Prejudice (2005), helmed Atonement based on a script by Christopher Hampton, which was adapted from the highly-regarded Ian McEwan novel. By being as faithful as possible to its source material, Hampton created a powerful screenplay that goes far beyond what could be considered a romantic foray; it touches upon themes such as forgiveness, redemption, consequences and yes, atonement, in ways that not only challenge its characters, but also the audience.

The movie is presented in three clearly-defined acts, the first of which presents one fatal day in the life of an upper-class English family that would eventually define their future. The family dynamics and the way Wright presents this bit make of it an intriguing and even suspenseful act; it is also highly sensual and charged with sexual tension so strong between many a character that it could be cut with a knife.

Then we move several years to a time of despair in which we learn what has become of this once-happy set of players who are not only dealing with the horrors of war, but also with their internal conflicts and their inability to find happiness. Wright presents the distressing scenarios that could be witnessed either inside a hospital ward or out there in the battlefield, culminating in a 5-minutes-or-so unbroken shot of the Dunkirk evacuation that ranks among the best ever put on celluloid of its kind. Not only is it masterfully filmed, but it is also filled with emotion.

The ending, which involves an old Briony (Vanessa Redgrave), leaves space for revelations that are a direct shot to the heart. It wraps the movie’s themes together into one bittersweet package that is both hard on facts but also open to interpretation. I found it perfect, poignant and devastating in equal measures.

The collaboration between director Wright, cinematographer Seamus McGarvey and editor Paul Tothill accomplish such depth that put together with the actors’ work fill every scene with detail and emotion that lift what is on page to a higher level. Take, for example, the way Briony is shot, always with perfectly geometrical frames that are supported by the actresses’ stiff body movements to underline the character’s conflicted personality. They also show several scenes from different points of view as well as go back-and-forth in time as the story deems necessary, never letting it feel like a gimmick but instead like a perfectly crafted piece of storytelling.

It also helps that the movie is visually gorgeous, with impeccable period detail courtesy of Sarah Greenwood’s art direction, Katie Spencer’s set decoration and Jacqueline Durran’s costume design (that dress!). Dario Marianelli’s immensely moving score plays such an integral role that it could be considered another character altogether; the use of typing-machine sounds to accentuate feeling in an otherwise literary environment was a work of genius.

The central romance comes courtesy of James McAvoy and Keira Knightley, with both actors sharing palpable chemistry and delivering exemplary, exquisite and affecting performances that sustain the movie from start to finish. Briony is played by three different actresses, all of whom do flawless work. Saoirse Ronan is the true standout, conveying so much at such a young age, although she is matched by Romola Garai and Vanessa Regrave as her adult selves. Supporting performances from Brenda Blethyn, Harriet Walter, Juno Temple, Benedict Cumberbatch, Patrick Kennedy, Felix and Charlie von Simson, Daniel Mays, Gina McKee, Michelle Duncan, Jeremie Renier and Anthony Minghella himself are all beautiful.

“I gave them their happiness.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

No Country for Old Men

Director

Ethan Coen

Joel Coen

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 21, 2008

So what is No Country for Old Men? Is it an exercise on contradictions so powerful that it’s blowing away critics and audiences alike, or is it a pretentious piece that uses likable ingredients to catch people’s eye and then adds some philosophy to the mix to make them feel like they’re participating and achieving a peculiar integration with a work of art? I wouldn’t vote for either, but I’d like to propose this comparison to analyze the possibility that we’re not getting what we bargained for but we’re made to feel that we are.

Perhaps it doesn’t help that I never read the basis of the Coen brothers’ script, a novel by Cormac McCarthy whose every reader is sure to praise and which presents so much insight that it earned an instantaneous spot in everybody’s book of great novels of recent times. I have read however that the film is so faithful to the novel and the novel so full of the Coens’ favorite themes that the line between the Coen brothers being inspired by McCarthy and McCarthy being inspired by the Coen brothers is almost blurry. Or at least that’s what everyone wants to believe. The Coens are so distant at times but so brilliant usually that we all struggle to understand their work and like it. I’m a fervent admirer of Fargo since I saw it in 1996, but I know countless people who just don’t get it, and others that say they do but don’t really… Perhaps I was one of them or still am. I can tell anyone what’s great about Fargo, but when I see them still not getting it I wonder if it’s great at all or only in my mind because I always liked it so much and never was too clear about why. If something similar is going in here I’m one of the clueless. But this time I’m older, more mature, and much more experienced, and I can tell you there’s not as much here as there’s in Fargo, and not by a damn sight.

Not that I didn’t like it, and trust me, I wouldn’t care bashing it if I thought it deserved it even though it’s being universally praised. This is a great story realized through outstanding quality in every respect, but aloof when all is said and done. The story is so simple it couldn’t insult itself by just being what it is: a bunch of people after a suitcase containing two million dollars. Just telling that story could bring the film down to being the typical action film where we don’t care about the money but about the shenanigans the characters get involved in to snatch it. I won’t name names of such films because there are many examples and they’re not necessarily bad, but granted: they’re rarely classics. This one attempts an interesting twist: making of it a character study that provokes rare insight into the mind of a soulless criminal by making it the most intriguing role. That’s despite the fact that the criminal in question, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), is a supporting character, though his actions are most closely followed by the plot.

Bardem, the already consecrated Spanish actor, continues his streak of flawless performances as this chilling murderer who flips a coin to decide whether he’ll kill a store clerk, requesting that the clerk call it or else it wouldn’t be fair. His very looks are terrifying but he’s much worse because he’s not deadpan but rather charismatic and full of self-confidence. Everyone begs for their lives telling him that he doesn’t have to do this. He observes with great puzzlement that everyone says that before he plugs them with whatever weapon he’s got at hand, including a captive bolt pistol (usually used to stun cattle). He kills to achieve his means, but also for sport. His conversation with the bewildered clerk is one of the film’s greatest pleasures. It’s pure Coen wit and if it’s really reproduced from the novel it’s amazing. But the timing, the delivery and the unspoken language comes courtesy of the directors, who really know their game.

There’s no music for the most part. The little of it that shows up is by Carter Burwell, the usual collaborator of the Coens whose music I have always loved. This experiment is nothing new, but this is one of the few cases where it is completely successful. That we rarely miss the music speaks of the film’s intensity. There’s no denying that the suspense works. Incidentally, the Coens did the film editing under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes.

Much of the praise goes to Bardem’s portrayal of Chigurh and the character in general. Close attention was paid to making him human instead of mechanic like The Terminator. Even inside the film, the other characters praise Chigurh’s procedures as containing an admirable code of ethics. True, his particular ways are most fascinating, but they don’t always seem credible or congruous. Be that as it may, I don’t see why he’s much better than any other great villain in history. If it goes to terrifyingly smooth operators, I’ll take Eve Harrington any day. But people love a cold-blooded killer.

Much less successful is the character of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played as masterfully by Tommy Lee Jones, who essentially does nothing but add some interesting philosophy to the events. He’s after the trail of Chigurh, but never affects what’s going on. I’m certain that in literature this character was essential to the story’s morale. Here he’s out of place.

The main character is welder Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who originally found the money among several corpses in a quite unsuccessful drug deal, snatched it, and found out that this money could buy nothing but trouble. His interactions with his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) and bounty hunter Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), who’s after Chigurh, are fun to watch. Through his undeniable bravura, Brolin makes of Moss a perfectly solid leading man, though for some reason the movie keeps undermining his subplot. It’s like the story keeps going against the flow, resisting convention to create something unusual. To me this was off-putting. Frankly, I would have enjoyed the same story told in a straight way with a lot of Coen brothers’ dialogue and their unmatchable direction. The way it was handled, I couldn’t get the point. And I refuse to keep at it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Juno

Director

Jason Reitman

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Juno was so widely praised that I felt bad not falling in love with it as so many people clearly did. I actually see this movie as the little sister of Knocked Up and Superbad, forming a similarly-themed trio of movies that came out in 2007 with plenty of success and acclaim. They all share the same vibe and some of the themes, although Juno is by far the sharpest of the three.

16-year-old Juno (Ellen Page) finds herself pregnant after one boring afternoon she has sex with her best friend Paulie (Michael Cera). They are both bewildered and after considering abortion for a while she decides to keep the baby and give it to adoption. After a quick search she finds the perfect couple in Vanessa (Jennifer Garner) and Mark (Jason Bateman), and goes through the pregnancy with the support of her father Mac (J.K. Simmons) and stepmother Bren (Allison Janney).

Jason Reitman, in his sophomore outing, directed from a screenplay by Diablo Cody. Much publicity has come from the fact that she is a former stripper, so dreams do come true after all, and the movie can fit into that motto as well; it was by far the sleeper hit of the year, the little movie that could. It simply connected and it’s not difficult to see why; it’s got charm and personality to spare courtesy of its lead character.

Juno is a strange girl, one of those teens that is quirky and gets along with all the nerdy fellows but at the same time is not completely alienated from the popular ones. Truth is she couldn’t care less. She goes through life without giving shit about what anybody thinks, always saying what comes to her mind and simply passing the time as she wishes. She is a marvelous creation from head to toe, a memorable character that people will remember long after having seen the movie.

The reason why I didn’t fall head-over-heels for it is that I don’t think there’s much more going with the movie apart from having an incredibly original character who doesn’t stop quipping intelligent and witty lines. After a while the gimmick becomes standard and nothing surprising really happens in the way of character development or story points (the only “shocker” coming courtesy of Vanessa and Mark’s storyline).

That said, Juno is consistently engaging and funny in a clever way, not the laugh-out-loud type. I especially enjoyed scenes with Juno and her family; they were richer, fuller and more telling than anything else in the picture.

Ellen Page does a really good job in embodying such a character and fill her with spunk and charisma. It’s a role that fits her like a globe. I did feel though, that her work is one-note except for a couple of scenes at the end, but that has more to do with how the character is written; what she is required to do she does with flair. J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney are a hoot, while Jennifer Garner stands out because she plays it completely real and her role actually has an emotional arc. Michael Cera is his usual subdued self, as is Jason Bateman. Other notable performers include Olivia Thirlby and Rainn Wilson.

“Nah... I mean, I'm already pregnant, so what other kind of shenanigans could I get into?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

I Am Legend

Director

Francis Lawrence

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The 1954 novel “I Am Legend” by Richard Matheson helped define the zombie and modern vampire genres like few modern works have, and the idea is admirable: that vampirism is in fact a medical condition, long disappeared from the world, but from which derive countless stories. In modern day, sickness strikes again, most of humanity is wiped, and the rest become vampires, so to speak: they can’t stand the light and feed on human blood, for instance. Apparently, only one man remains alive and healthy: Robert Neville.

In the 2007 film adaptation, superstar Will Smith plays Neville. He’s perfect for the role, charismatic enough to play the only man on screen for most of the running time. The adaptation is by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman, in part based on Matheson’s novel and in part on the 1971 script of one of the two previous film adaptations of the story: The Omega Man starring Charlton Heston.

The movie plays effectively like a drama for a while and that’s easily its finest act. Neville’s lonely life is nothing short of maddening, as he walks the streets of New York accompanied only by his German Shepherd Sam. Neville has fought against madness for three years spending his time only with his dog, keeping his energies for whatever may come, be it the return of humanity or only his constant struggle for survival.

He’s not alone. The remaining survivors are all “dark seekers”, once-rational human beings who now feed on flesh and blood from uninfected living creatures. Or I’d think so, because we see them hunting Neville, but if he’s the only human being left and there’s no more food around, they must feed on anything available. Anyway, they’re always there and always dangerous, and what seems like a peaceful, quite world by day, becomes a war zone at night. Nothing that Neville can’t handle while he has his energy generators, his cars, his weapons, his gizmos and his dog. He’s even made some medical advances looking for a cure to the sickness that has destroyed the world. But imagine that some or all of what’s keeping Neville alive goes down.

After the story has gone from personal drama (even what resembles a character study) to monster movie, it goes back to its dramatic roots for good measure in an intense scene that can bring people to tears, thanks to Smith and of course the screenwriters. But one can’t help but feel that it’s cheap sentiment when so much attention is paid to making the infected humans so exaggeratedly scary. The problem with I Am Legend is its big budget and the utter necessity to see the return of the investment. Creating a totally abandoned New York is a great achievement; filling it with “the living dead” at night could have been handled way better, in a much subtler way. Will Smith goes berserk against the monsters in his fury and becomes an action figure, in contrast to his very human weakness when he breaks and starts speaking to a mannequin. This transition is not totally credible, and even though it’s the lesser aspect of his personality, it reminds us that what we’re seeing could never be real, because if it was real it wouldn’t be like this, and if it wasn’t like this it wouldn’t sell as many tickets.

Then when we go with this and get excited that “tough guy Will Smith” is on screen, there’s a turndown: he’s rescued in the most unlikely way in what’s not only an unjustified twist but one that has no logic in the least. From then on it’s all cliché but with a dramatic Smith that behaves in a crazy manner that doesn’t ring true despite what we have seen him go through (i.e. why would he be mean to a real woman after courting a mannequin?). Alice Braga does nothing for the film; I expect her showcase in next year’s Blindness, also a sort of post-Apocalyptic tale, to be more relevant.

I’m trying to defend sincerity. I can stand drama in a cynically commercial action film, but not quite when it pretends to be more drama than action and then betrays itself. Even James Newton Howard’s score, as fine as it is, contributes to these false pretenses. I wasn’t fooled by that intention. So I remained in the action-film vibe and found a lot to be enjoyed. And despite the script’s tendency to victimize Robert Neville, there’s a man who knows how to avoid the formula that could’ve made it worse, and that’s a great actor called Will Smith.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bucket List

Director

Rob Reiner

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 18, 2008

For the last decade, director Rob Reiner’s name has been reason enough to run the other way when he’s attached to a movie. Having peaked during the late-80’s/early-90’s the man has since lowered his own bar drastically. He keeps attracting big talent, but his movies tend to disappoint. The Bucket List is no exception, and that’s why I didn’t feel like watching it in the first place. But it couldn’t hurt either, and I can’t say I didn’t have a good time while in the theater.

Millionaire Richard Cole (Jack Nicholson) ends up sharing a room in a cancer ward with mechanic Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman). A friendship suddenly flourishes to the point where the two men decide to leave the place and fulfill the wishes they’ve scribbled down in a bucket list. Most of them involve extreme sports and traveling around the world.

Reiner directed from an original screenplay by Justin Zakham. The movie has absolutely no surprises in store. From the very first scene you just know how it’s going to end. It’s a predictable, glossy, sugar-coated Hollywood vehicle with a message. In a way it almost feels old-fashioned, not many people have the guts to do this kind of movie nowadays, so artificial and manipulative, yet truthful in what it tries to say and also highly entertaining.

For yes, you certainly won’t get bored while watching this thing. The rat-a-tat between Cole and Chambers holds the movie together, placing two very different men who have one thing in common (they’re both dying) into plenty of scenarios and diversions. But of course, they will both learn lessons and help each other out in their own ways. And yes, the ending will bring tears; I must even admit to shedding a few. It’s all very beautiful. Don’t expect to see much suffering or anything resembling cancer in real-life; this is a fantasy through and through and as such it must be viewed.

Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman bring all the charisma they have to the table and make the most out of their clichéd characters. It doesn’t matter that they’re both playing the same character we’ve seen countless times coming from them, Jack never ceases to be Jack, and Morgan never ceases to be Morgan. They’re both fun though, especially when put together. Supporting performances from Sean Hayes, Beverly Todd, Rob Morrow, Alfonso Freeman and many others are solid.

“I mean, what would a snail have to do to move up in the lineup? Lay down a perfect trail of slime?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Director

John Hughes

Year

1986

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Chicago is a wonderful town. Having a charming High School kid skip school, get away with everything he wants to do on his day off, and show us half of Chicago in the way is effective… if you care. I for one don’t watch movies to quench my tourist needs; for that, I travel, and if I can’t travel, be it for work, time or money, I read about it, watch documentaries, tune in the Travel Channel, or watch a movie famously set somewhere which tells a good story and uses that place as backdrop. So defending the dull Ferris Bueller film by saying that it glorifies Chicago is a poor argument, and I’m not about to use it, as many people did and do.

But that’s not the only perception. Many people simply liked it, others loved it, and some others even made of it their lifelong obsession. That’s completely valid and I can respect it, of course, and perhaps because I’m watching this film 20 years after its release, and because I’m not a teenager and skipping school doesn’t look like such a big deal to me anymore, I didn’t appreciate it. I would have, if it had been any fun. But you know how sometimes you have a great day and you think, This would make a great movie!, but then you think of it and you realize that it would be incredibly dull to the rest of the world, those who will never be able to appreciate it from your very personal point of view? That’s how I felt watching this. It just never took off. It was a simple story of a guy skipping school, nothing more, and even when it had the chance to become a roller coaster, it froze and restarted. I just didn’t get it.

The guy is senior Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick), who’s popular and well-loved in school and skips it every time he gets a chance, winning the sympathy of his parents, teachers and schoolmates by convincing them that he’s ill. Then he goes out to have some fun. There are only two main skeptics: the school principal, Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones), and Ferris’ sister Jeanie (Jennifer Grey). Other than that, people go as far as to create a fundraising called “Save Ferris”. So do Mr. Rooney or Jeanie take action? Well, they try to, take quite a while to make their move, and then fail miserably, and not even in a funny way. That’s how everything goes. It moves as if to take off, then runs out of gas, and it’s not even funny. I can’t say it enough. They do it countless times.

Bueller is not alone during his very own holiday. He takes his friend Cameron (Alan Ruck), who also skipped school, and his girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara), which he cleverly gets out at mid-day. Cameron isn’t quite as festive as his buddy; he’s an unhappy hypochondriac who thinks he’s gonna die if he leaves his house. Ferris insists not only that he come, but also that they take Cameron’s dad’s unique Ferrari, a car he loves more than his own son. It becomes clear from the start that Cameron is a cause of Ferris’, possibly even the cause of his own enforced day off. Ferris breaks the fourth wall in a pedantic way and spends too much time explaining his game. He introduces us to Cameron giving the guy more importance than it seems deserved. Then he proceeds to preach his philosophy to his friend, until he changes the guy’s view, encouraging him to take action.

The cast is solid, and Broderick is particularly dynamic and fun as slick Ferris, who is idolized by everybody who knows him and by the general public as demonstrated during a German-American Day parade where he boards a float, grabs a mic and starts singing “Twist and Shout”. It’s obviously playback, and his shenanigans are not even original, but for some reason everyone loves it. That’s more or less the reaction this movie spawned. And I can understand neither.

“Incredible! One of the worst performances of my career and they never doubted it for a second.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Orphanage

Director

Juan Antonio Bayona

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A title like The Orphanage gives by itself a distinctive vibe that could mislead viewers into thinking it is just another horror B-movie set in an old house where things just... happen. It could also give out the impression of old story nothing new. But this surprise Spanish hit has left most people singing its praises. It is not just good; I truly believe it will become a classic of its genre.

Laura (Belén Rueda) and her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo) move into the house where she grew up and which they plan to open as an orphanage for handicapped children. Things begin to go wrong as their son Simón (Roger Príncep) starts to communicate with a new imaginary friend, eventually leading to his disappearance which sets his mother on a quest to get behind the truth, whether that means getting in touch with the supernatural.

Juan Antonio Bayona directed from a screenplay by Sergio G. Sánchez. Much has also been said about the participation of Guillermo del Toro as a producer. The Mexican auteur actually helped in getting the movie off the ground, but that’s about it; every creative decision came courtesy of Bayona, who makes an impressive and promising directing debut with this film.

The Orphanage is many things at once. You could see it as a horror film and make a perfectly reasonable point out of it. This is a story that not only gets under your skin, but one that is also effective in its use of scares and jumps. There are three or four moments that are genuinely creepy and hard to forget, the most memorable of which involves an apparently harmless kids’ game. But it is also a character-driven drama, one which touches upon themes of faith and death. Laura needs to start believing in order to get closer to the other side, and the journey she goes through is heartbreaking.

As with every story of this sort, there are secrets that are learned upon the path; characters that might or might not have something to do with what is going on and plenty of ingenious tricks that fool the audience into thinking they know more than they actually do. The screenplay is so well-constructed that when everything is said and done what went before could have two very distinctive interpretations that are entirely plausible; I loved this duality. And the emotional ending is particularly strong; I left the theater feeling elated.

Technical assets are top-notch, with Óscar Faura’s cinematography playing a big role in the proceedings and doing so with a masterful touch, ditto for Fernando Velázquez grandiose and atmospheric score.

Belén Rueda, an actress who had already shown the world what she was made of in The Sea Inside (2004), is extraordinary here. Her Laura goes through every emotion imaginable and we are with her all the way; it must have been grueling shooting the movie but it paid off. Fernando Cavo and Roger Príncep are very good as the men in her life. Supporting performances by Montserrat Carrulla, Edgar Vivar, Mabel Rivera and Geraldine Chaplin are all thrilling.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cloverfield

Director

Matt Reeves

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

“Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project” is how people keep describing Cloverfield. I’d say it’s more of a Godzilla-Titanic experience. Love can be a stronger driver than the need to survive, and in retelling a well-known catastrophe, there’s nothing more entertaining. I’m saying that all hell breaking loose in New York City is virtually a well-known catastrophe in the popular mind by now, after the real-life attacks and the constant paranoia. It’s almost as if seeing New York destroyed was commonplace. Cloverfield dares present everybody’s worst nightmare by turning Manhattan into a battlefield which, we learn in the introduction, ends up totally shattered. But in making it so unpretentious, they manage to handle it all in good taste.

Rumored about for weeks before its release, in part for its being produced by J.J. Abrams, co-creator of the TV smash “Lost”, which is made up of mysteries, the film’s marketing was handled like a secret to achieve the irresistibleness of watching it as soon as possible, and it paid off surely enough. The advantage is that the outcome does not disappoint. Cloverfield is a clever and entertaining film that doesn’t require much complexity to work. It goes back to basics and just works on giving us as much excitement as possible. It’s like a visit to a theme park! Sometimes you feel like you’re on a rollercoaster, other times like you’re in a spook house, and others like you’re in one of those interactive shows where the seats fly and the screen comes alive before the audience.

The action starts on my birthday, April 27th (yeah, that was exciting to realize). A young couple begins a very romantic day after sleeping together and ready to have a great time in Coney Island. Then it goes to some time in May with a different couple taping their preparations for a surprise party. It’s the goodbye party of Rob’s (Michael Stahl-David), who’s been offered a job in Japan. It seems like his brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and Jason’s girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) have borrowed the camera and are taping over Rob’s happy day with Beth (Odette Yustman). Another buddy, Hud (T.J. Miller), is given the job of “documenting” the party, which he takes very seriously. He investigates the reason why Rob and Beth aren’t together. And all of a sudden, when something terrible happens, he becomes the cameraman of Apocalypse. It’s his tape we’re seeing.

The gimmick is to play it straight from the point of view of the handheld camera. This might dizzy some people but I’d say it’s more because of their knowing it’s a handheld camera than because of the actual movement. I’ve seen much more dizzying takes in conventional movies, it’s obvious that the camerawork took good care in being genuine yet bearable.

In fact, every technical achievement is top-notch. The recreation of Manhattan as a war zone is impressive and effectively done, and the whole thing is easy to believe, even though there’s implausibility all throughout, not only in the actual attacks but in other contrivances such as how can our heroes walk so much without getting tired and why is the city nearly deserted so soon, or why does the camera’s battery last for so long or how can it actually shoot so crucial hasty scenes so perfectly.

But letting credibility slip a little helps enjoy the ride. The people we follow during the whole adventure are yuppies Rob, Lily, Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) and of course Hud, who’s taping. They not only see their city destroyed around them, apparently by a monster, but face tragic losses soon enough. And instead of leaving the city as soon as possible, they choose to go uptown, since Rob knows Beth is stuck in her apartment and feels the blind need to rescue her.

Perhaps the only more or less obvious reference to Godzilla is the fact that Rob’s new job is in Japan, but these guys don’t stop to poke fun at their situation. They’re dead serious on their mission, and quite aware of what’s going on. Most interesting to note is how credible it is that they all decide to follow Rob on his suicide mission. Take Marlena for instance: she’s not a very close friend of Rob’s or Lily’s, she knows Hud likes her but doesn’t like him in return, and yet she decides to follow the gang instead of saving her life. That’s what’s happening now in this sad, crazy world. People have no goals, no meaning, nothing to look forward to. So if rescuing an anonymous girl from a cataclysm will bring some meaning into one’s life, it doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

Since it would’ve been out of place, there’s no background music, so Michael Giacchino does his best to leave an impression in the final credits. The tone of his music reminds us that this is, after all, a monster movie. Because since it’s handled with such freshness, the thing appears to be much more than that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Elizabeth

Director

Shekhar Kapur

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 07, 2008

The reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England will always fascinate us history lovers for many reasons, one of them being of course its length, another the matter of religion, but most notably the fact that she remained single, hailed herself as The Virgin Queen, and gained a respectability that had rarely been seen in a female ruler anywhere. She created an image for herself that became an icon to her people, and one so effective that still has impact nowadays. But how did she get to be what we know of her, what we see in pictures of history books and in movies and other adaptations of modern media? That’s what this biopic is about. Perhaps calling it just Elizabeth is somewhat inadequate because it’s only about her early years… But if you consider that these were the most important years, the period where she really defined what was to be of her country, and the times that allowed what was later known as The Golden Age to come, there’s no more proper title for it.

The star is Cate Blanchett, virtually unknown back then but whose already impressive work so impressed director Shekhar Kapur that he just had to cast her, and fought for that till he got it. Blanchett is absolutely stunning as the young Queen, who in the year of 1558, at the age of 25, succeeded her sister, Queen Mary (Kathy Burke), otherwise known as Bloody Mary in part because of her prosecution of protestants who would endanger her Catholic reign. Both were daughters of the most fascinating of kings in English history, Henry VIII, who gave way to Anglicanism as a means to divorce Mary’s mother, Queen Catherine, and marry the one who was to be Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn. This eternal controversy brought great troubles to the next generation, as Elizabeth was brought forth and she made Protestantism official. But this was not her only problem: there was so much international stress that she was pressed to marry, preferably to a man who would constitute an alliance of England with another country, namely France or Spain. She didn’t want to give in, but her advisors wouldn’t have it any other way. Thus came her decision to become a figure strong enough to rule her country without submitting to another. But the path to that wasn’t easy, and surely it didn’t deal with politics only; Blanchett, in perfect understanding of Michael Hirst’s script, transmits every human feeling that we sometimes doubt historical rules to have had.

As in all good biopics, facts are played with, times are trimmed, and drama is added to gain effectiveness in creating an entertaining piece. Be it smiles or tears, indignation or joy, it’s all given away in subtle ways despite the lightning pace that makes the years seem minutes. David Hirschfelder’s score, as other masterful elements, makes sure that it’s all set to the same mood and that the big picture remains the same, and surely it all turns out nail-biting. At times it’s a very personal biography, detailing Elizabeth’s feelings as she meets love and heartbreak, most of them achieved through the masterful editing of Jill Bilcock’s as a top-notch accompaniment to Blanchett’s sensibility; at times it’s a political thriller, with all the conspiracies going on around the queen; at times it’s a period piece, with Remi Adefarasin’s photography evolving through the times and the art direction advancing accordingly; and at times, most effectively I might add, it’s a finely executed chiller masquerading as an epic, reminiscent of The Godfather (1972) in that bloodshed is necessary but we’re with the good guys, except they’re not altogether good and neither are their methods, but we don’t care because they’re the characters we empathize with. Or could we have enjoyed more the way Mary of Guise (Fanny Ardant) or her nephew, the Duc d’Anjoy (Vincent Cassel), are treated? And who’s to complain about the way John Gielgud so deliciously plays Pope Pius V as the representation of evil?

The most prominent characters around the queen are all men. There’s Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough), who advised her even before her reign, but then succumbed to tradition and became an obstacle instead of an ally despite his good intentions; Sir Francis Walsingham (an outstanding Geoffrey Rush), who proved effective and dangerous but strongly in pro of the queen’s ascent; the Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston), her in-house arch-enemy; and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Joseph Fiennes), her lover.

It’s all like a card game indeed, with all those colors and dresses and settings of court that are so unique and spectacular and repugnant in their own way. And it’s funny to note that even though history tells that it was a woman who made the best decisions for herself, there was always a man behind it. But there’s just nothing wrong about that. In fact, one could say Cecil, Walsingham and Dudley became the first instruments Elizabeth used to become the most powerful woman of her country, and one of the most prominent in history. And this film proves quite a satisfactory summary of how that was achieved.

“I will have one mistress here... and no master.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

I'm Not There.

Director

Todd Haynes

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Reactions to I’m Not There. have ranged from those who call it a masterpiece to those who say it’s trash; any movie that generates that kind of reaction is a must in my book and here I stand representing a minority position: someone who does not know anything about Bob Dylan. And I mean that literally. My knowledge of the guy is that he exists and that he’s a legendary singer, period.

I’m Not There. presents six different Dylans in the form of black kid Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin), folk singer turned Christian evangelist Jack Rollins (Christian Bale), drug-addicted rebel star Jude Quinn (Cate Blanchett), movie idol Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger), solitary Billy the Kid (Richard Gere) and poet Arthur Rimbaud (Ben Whishaw).

Todd Haynes directed from a screenplay he wrote with Oren Moverman. The movie is essentially a series of vignettes that represent Bob Dylan through different stages of his life, going back and forth with no reason whatsoever and looking to present a portrait of a complicated man by means of atmosphere, music and snippets of everyday life. Some of it is clearly fiction while some of it seems to have been taken directly from real life.

Truth is, when the thing started I knew I was in for quite a ride, and I liked the journey in which I was being taken. There was a vibe and a flow to the storytelling that was appealing, truly succeeding into what I think was the intention of it all. But soon it started to be clear that some threads were more interesting (Quinn, Clark, even Rimbaud) than others (Guthrie, Rollins, Billy the Kid) and after the half-way mark it sort of started to crumble, become muddled, exasperating and plain boring. It doesn’t help that the running time goes beyond two hours; by then I couldn’t wait for it to finish.

I can’t say I wasn’t elated or even inspired by some moments. When I’m Not There. is rolling it really pays off. The music is, not surprisingly, really good. There are some surreal sequences that got me going, as well as some dialogue that crackles. Quinn’s storyline is almost always a hoot, one wishes the movie would return to it and stay there; told in black-and-white it shows the man as his most pretentious, a word that could describe the flick as a whole albeit not with the negative implications that usually come with it. I do think the concept and idea are brilliant in and on themselves, but it all starts to lose focus and that’s where it lost me.

Edward Lachman’s cinematography is a standout, Haynes uses the most out of a unique visual style and they both do great work together. Jay Rabinowitz should be applauded just by taking the task of editing and making some sense of what I believe must have been plenty of scattered footage.

I’m Not There. belongs entirely to Cate Blanchett, who gives a cross-dressing performance that captures and, I’ve heard, mimics Dylan perfectly, but who also creates a memorable persona of her own. It is she that stays with you long after the movie is over, and it also helps that her Dylan is by far the most fascinating of them all. Heath Ledger is also a standout, as is Ben Whishaw even though he only sits on a chair and speaks to the camera. Christian Bale, Richard Gere and Marcus Carl Franklin are solid. Supporting performers include Bruce Greenwood, Julianne Moore, Michelle Williams and Kris Kristofferson as the narrator. But it is Charlotte Gainsbourg who delivers the second strongest performance in the film and leaves an indelible impression.

“I accept chaos. I don’t know whether it accepts me.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sleuth

Director

Kenneth Branagh

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

The Sleuth is dead, long live the Sleuth!

When I took piano lessons years ago, I remember playing a Queen song and noticing how changing a couple of notes would make it sound better. I showed my teacher and she said that it was admissible in this case because the score I was playing was an adaptation of the original song, and it wasn’t such a blasphemy anyhow, Freddie Mercury being a contemporary fellow who could be improved on. But if I was to suggest a change on Mozart or Chopin, that would be blasphemy. Now let’s take Kenneth Branagh. Is he suggesting such a thing, when he’s so respectful of Shakespeare but so carelessly blows up the work of Anthony Shaffer? Shaffer could as well be as good as Shakespeare, but who cares? There are photographs of the guy, he’s as imperfect as any of us because he’s contemporary, flesh and bone, not a myth like the guys of yore, so let’s blow up his work. If Shakespeare was alive he’d probably be surprised that his work has mostly been respect by modern artists who have adapted it once and again, and I guess he’d even tell Branagh he should loosen up and change more than the time frame if he wishes to. But if Shaffer was alive he’d probably drop dead once again, finding out how soon his work has been bastardized, pulverized, and laughed at by the same guy who so respects the bard.

Of course it’s not all Branagh’s fault. After all, he didn’t write the script, he just directed it, but I blame him all the same. The pen belongs to Harold Pinter, a notable playwright and screenwriter who’s been around for half a century and has gained respectability all throughout his career. I guess he couldn’t take just adapting the masterful text to the screen, so he decided to rewrite the whole thing and add a different ending. Now, since art must be updated in certain cases, I see nothing wrong with making it modern. In fact, I quite enjoyed the first and second acts of this film, where the cat-and-mouse game begins and takes a surprising twist.

Michael Caine, who acted in the original film adaptation of Shaffer’s play in 1972, comes back to play, this time, the elder role, that of Andrew Wyke, who receives the visit of a younger man, Milo Tindle (once played by Caine, this time played by Jude Law, again reprising a Caine role as he did in Alfie (2004)), and confronting him, not without hospitality, about Tindle’s being the lover of his wife. As Wyke, a mystery writer, proposes Tindle, a hairdresser, an offer in which both will be benefited, he indeed sets a deadly trap of humiliation and death. But Tindle has a way to get back, and snatches it soon enough.

That Wyke says to Tindle, “I understand you’re fucking my wife” instead of the original “I understand you wish to marry my wife” is understandable, clever, and quite effective though it lacks subtlety and elegance, but this is the twenty first century, so I went for it. I as many others knew what to expect in the second act and was completely impressed by the histrionics of both actors, especially the younger, but I couldn’t wait to see the third and most exciting act, where the game gets to an ineludible and shattering end. This is when things collapse. If Shaffer intended a homosexual subtext I don’t know, and I don’t care, because that never got in the way of the procedures. These men are fighting over a woman, they’re setting deadly traps on account of her, and there’s no other side of it. None of them would bother to do anything of what they’re doing if they didn’t, in fact, want the woman, care about her, resent her for what she did, or hate the guts of the other guy if he had a right to her which one once had and now lost. It doesn’t make sense to just forget all about that and create another explanation for it all, one that forgets the logical motivation and turns the characters into damn fools. I remember Caine dressing up as a clown in the original Sleuth. Law doesn’t follow suit this time, but both actors do behave like clowns in the awful third act. It’s a shame because they’re both so good. It was like seeing a very bad parody, a waste of talent and a shame all in all.

What I despise most of all is that modern audiences might never see the play or Mankiewicz’s film that I so love, and this mess will be their Sleuth. So if I can be of any help, I want to create that awareness. Branagh’s take has nothing to do with Sleuth, it shouldn’t even be called that. If there’s any human decency left, let’s try to revisit the one that’s worth anything in this world: Anthony Shaffer’s 1972 script, starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz: Sleuth (1972)

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

We Own the Night

Director

James Gray

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 04, 2008

I liked director James Gray’s The Yards (2000) more than most people did, with its family dynamics that played like a modern-day Greek tragedy and an array of strong performances from excellent actors. Seven years later the director reunited his two leading men and placed them in a different setting. I was in.

Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix) runs a nightclub that belongs to Marat Buzhayev (Moni Moshonov) while his brother Joseph (Mark Wahlberg) followed the steps of his father, Deputy Chief Albert Grusinsky (Robert Duvall), in becoming part of the New York Police department. It is when Joseph asks Bobby for help in the on-going investigation of a drug dealer, Marat’s nephew Vadim Nezhinsky (Alex Veadov), that his and his girlfriend Amada’s (Eva Mendes) lives are turned upside down.

James Gray directed from his own original screenplay. His work is compelling from start to finish, nailing the New York vibe of a world where cops and the Russian mafia collide and where no one is safe. His movie is, at its core, another family saga in which two very different brothers clash intermittently but whose blood ultimately brings them together. Unfortunately one of them is much more developed than the other, so we get a stronger sense of who Bobby is than we do Joseph; fortunately it is the more interesting brother that gets all the attention, so at the end it’s not that bad.

We Own the Night succeeds in entertaining and doing so in an intelligent and adult manner. But it completely fails in bringing anything new to the table that could stick long after the movie is over. While I was at the theater I was enthralled, but once I left there was barely anything that stayed with me. Not even an exciting car-chase sequence that takes place while heavy rain is dropping because it is too short and also too preposterous.

The whole drug-trafficking subplot makes for a tense environment that serves as a catalyst for the main story regarding the Grusinsky family, but it certainly provides some dramatic and suspenseful moments worth savoring.

Joaquin Phoenix is the lead and he delivers a potent performance. Problem is his work, and that of everyone else, is as forgettable as the movie itself. Mark Wahlberg is underused, and Robert Duvall brings gravitas to the proceedings. Eva Mendes is strong as “the girlfriend”, while Alex Veadov provides a menacing villain.

“If you piss in your pants you only stay warm for so long.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter