CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Tragedy of Macbeth

Director

Roman Polanski

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 31, 2005

After I read and was completely disturbed by what is so far the best read I’ve ever had, “Macbeth” by William Shakespeare, my pal Morris told me about the film adaptation by Roman Polanski. I was surprised that I had never heard of it, and after seeing it, I’m even more surprised. Formerly, I thought “Macbeth” hadn’t been paid too much attention by filmmakers. But after seeing Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (1957) and this movie (and knowing that there’s a memorable Orson Welles adaptation as well), I can take that back.

What I’m sure of is that no interpretation of the classic Shakespearian tragedy is as bloody as this one. Allegedly influenced by the recent murder of his wife, Polanski went on to adapt the play as an outrageously graphic blood fest, one could say. The usually assumed scene of King Duncan’s murder is here presented in-your-face, which is not really a bad move. As a matter of fact, that and every other bloody scene (including the murder of several children towards the end) was, to my eyes, quite useful to accentuate the impact of the story. I love this story and I think the dialogue is more than enough to make its point, but moviemaking is a different sort of storytelling and I think Polanski hit the spot.

The story, as some of you might know, involves noble Macbeth (Jon Finch) of Scotland receiving a prediction from witches after a successful battle that he’ll be King some day and not without unhappiness. Macbeth’s undeniable ambition makes this prediction kind of irresistible, but to his wife (Francesca Annis) it’s even more potent. Influenced by her, Macbeth goes on to kill King Duncan (Nicholas Selby) to take his throne, and eventually betrays his best friend Banquo (Martin Shaw) and everyone else who gets in the way.

Roman Polanski has proved more often than not that he’s a master at directing films. This is one of the best examples of that, as he represents this powerful story with every possible visual artifice that comes to mind, making it all the more potent. A simple example of this is the image of the hanged man early in the film, serving as a background for the growing ambition of the lead character. Imagery is a very important aspect of this film, and there’s rarely a scene that doesn’t rely on it to deliver its message.

Furthermore, the performances are quite unique. Both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are played to perfection by their performers. Annis is also gorgeous, which of course helps. But Finch’s turn from naïve criminal to crazed leader is uncanny. Both are memorable, unforgettable performances. Also very notable are Terence Bayler as Macduff (especially powerful when informed of some bad news), and Maisie MacFarquhar, Elsie Taylor, and Noelle Rimmington as the three witches. The latter gang is especially scary and unforgettable. And the predictions scene they star in during the second half is amazing.

As a matter of fact, this film has a very special quality: It helps those who don’t fully understand the play understand it to perfection. There were a couple of details I didn’t get before watching this piece, and now I do completely. That’s something.

Beautifully filmed on many locations, with an atmospheric music by The Third Ear Band, this film’s definitely recommendable.

“Stars, hide your fires. Let not light see my black and deep desires.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Ring Two

Director

Hideo Nakata

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

The director of the original Ringu, a blockbuster Japanese thriller and a cult classic if there ever was one, has now taken the chair that once belonged to Gore Verbinski to direct the second installment of the American version, The Ring (2002), this time a remake of the Japanese sequel. Before I proceed with my review, there’s something I have to say: I just GOTTA watch those Japanese movies. And not because Nakata’s direction here meant something to me, but because I’m pretty sure they’re REALLY spooky, as opposed to these two American movies. Nah, I’m being unfair. I liked the first one pretty much, actually I thought it was very effective despite its undeniable stupidity. But I’m a fan of horror movies and I’m betting I’ll love those Japanese hits. Anyway…

Little Samara is back from the well to haunt Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) and her son Aidan (David Dorfman), and this time her target is a little different: She wants to live again. Why she chose precisely Rachel and her son to fulfill that evil desire, that’s for the audience to find out. Which, by the way, is done quite easily, much sooner than it should be possible to, implausible, unexciting, and somewhat silly.

If only it was handled the way it should…

I don’t know if it’s screenwriter Ehren Kruger’s fault, or maybe Nakata was compelled to treat this as a hardly profound scary movie, but the real horror was striped out of it pretty soon, and I was very sorry about that. Plus, the few genuine scares were very predictable, very much in-your-face, and overall not that scary. Oh, but that Samara still gives me the creeps. But NOT when she climbs up the well.

Naomi Watts is perfection though. It’s obvious this isn’t a very demanding role, but she’s still very good at it, and does transmit enough horror to keep us going. Young Dorfman, as her son, is really good as well, though I’m sad he played it more wacky than scary. If anyone is supposed to scare us, it’s Sissy Spacek in something of a cameo, but she doesn’t really manage, because the script takes her the wrong direction. Oh, and Simon Baker is inexistent in the male lead. Talk about a mess.

I thought I’d have a good time if at least they showed that scary video again. Well, guess what. Not even that. I guess it’s a trick to have us rent the first one again. Not me. I’d rather rent the original Ringu. I’ve heard great things about that one.

“I’m not your fucking mommy.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Robots

Director

Carlos Saldanha

Chris Wedge

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 28, 2005

Even though I liked, but not loved, animated feature Ice Age (2002), I wasn’t precisely looking forward to Robots. Thing is, the creators of both are the same, Chris Wedge and Carlos Saldanha, and that wasn’t precisely encouraging. And this comes from a guy who loves computer-animated movies. It’s just that nowadays every studio is releasing movies of the sort, and the time has come to be a little bit picky. Pixar continues to be the absolute God in the arena, in conjunction with Disney of course, but every now and then Dreamworks or Fox put out something worthwhile. And Robots is one such example.

Rodney Copperbottom (voice of Ewan McGregor) has always dreamt of becoming an inventor and work for the absolute genius in that regard, Bigweld (voice of Mel Brooks). He thus moves to Robot City, where he encounters a lot of hostility and finds out Bigweld has been missing and an ultra-modern robot, Ratchet (voice of Greg Kinnear) has replaced him, turning the company into a disgrace for poor, ordinary robots out there. As it happens, his mother Madame Gasket (voice of Jim Broadbent!) is behind the evil plan. But with a little help from Cappy (Halle Berry), one of their employees, and Fender (voice of Robin Williams), an eccentric down-on-his-luck robot Rodney befriends, he will try to get to the bottom of it.

I am going to start talking about this movie in respect to what I liked the most: its visuals. Oh-my-God! It’s spectacular. And beautiful. And surprising. The level of imagination going into it is insane, and the way the animators were able to bring it to life is inspiring. Every robot is carefully, and differently, constructed down to the tiniest detail. Robot City is like a geek’s wet dream. And the color palettes are vibrant and alive. In a nutshell, the creators exceeded themselves and conceived a world that is simply a joy to behold.

I mentioned before that the level of imagination is outstanding. That also goes to the logistics of creating a world of robots. The movie opens with a whole sequence of how Rodney was born. That sequence answers a lot of questions we might’ve had afterwards, and sets the bar pretty high for the rest of the movie, as it starts the movie with a bang. Because, you see, robots in this movie essentially take the place of humans. Everything is human about them except that they are, like… robots. Physical issues ensue, and the movie has a very creative and fascinating way to explain and show and joke around these various matters.

Did I say joke? Yes I did. If anything, Robots is a hilarious movie. Like many modern animated movies, it contains a lot of pretty effective pop culture references (from classic movies to a completely unexpected Britney Spears insert), but fortunately it doesn’t rely only on that. The script (by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel) allows for a lot of funny stuff, especially regarding the character of Fender. One gets the impression Robin Williams improvised a lot of his dialogue, but whether he did or not, his work is mostly amusing and he feels relaxed in the part, which makes for a more natural flow of laughs at his, and his friends, expense.

The movie has another agenda. It toys around two different issues in which it tries to deliver a message: renew or stay behind, and follow your dreams. If you were thinking the movie is preachy I gotta say it is. It exploits these conceits until the very last and in pretty obvious manners. But that didn’t bother me at all.

That said, even though I’m positively gushing a lot about the movie, I do think there was something missing. I can’t really say what it is exactly, but greatness is not reached, and that’s a pity because all the elements were there. Some plots are not that well developed and some characters are left behind for no reason. And the movie does have its heart in the right place, but it just failed to reach higher.

The voice cast is uniformly great, with Mel Brooks, Robin Williams, Jim Broadbent and Jennifer Coolidge being the standouts. Then again... what a cast! Additional voices come from Amanda Bynes, Drew Carey, Paul Giamatti, Dan Hedaya, Jay Leno, Natasha Lyonne, Stanley Tucci, Dianne Wiest and many more.

“I ran all this way in Cha-Cha heels...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Robots (2005): Groucho

Review

Jules and Jim

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 24, 2005

German Jules (Oskar Werner) and French Jim (Henri Serre) meet in Paris and become inseparable. Their antics are fairly innocent when they’re young; a pair of bohemians, they’re enamored of the goodness of life and in constant search of romance. When they meet wild Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), they become instantly enchanted, but Jim, the ladies man, restrains himself for the sake of Jules, who starts a relationship with her. Decades pass, war gets in the way, but hearts and foundations don’t change. This is the story of three people in love.

I was enthralled by this Truffaut masterpiece from the first minute. It is, if anything, highly entertaining on account of its storytelling style, with an incredibly quick pace and an appropriate—often hilarious, often dramatic—narration by Michel Subor. The tone of this memorable representative of the French “New Wave” is mostly bittersweet, but overall it’s a fun ride. That an ultimate tragedy can be told in such a way is a triumph per se, but there is much more to this film that makes it the classic that it is.

As usual, Truffaut experiments with his cinematic artifices to achieve illusions and perceptions that are easily transmitted to the viewer. Early on, the way the camera follows Thérèse (Marie Dubois), “the locomotive girl”, is already an eye-popping device. Several minutes later, during a take of Catherine, the image suddenly pauses for a split-second, then continues, and then again and again a few times, resulting in a beautiful, poetic way of capturing such an exquisite succession of moments. It’s magic. Of course, that such ideas work is also due to the intense job of editor Claudine Bouché, and the clear understanding of every magical moment by genius composer Georges Delerue. He’s no doubt one of my favorite musicians ever to work on film.

Though the piece, scripted by Truffaut and Jean Gruault from Henri-Pierre Roché’s novel, is named after the two guys whose friendship is the main subject of the film, the real star is Catherine, and I just can’t imagine anyone better than Moreau to play her. Catherine is impulsive, insatiable, unsatisfied, anxious, lonely, hysterical, and sad. There are so many moments of enormous sentiment for her, and Jeanne Moreau does every one of them with such ease and credibility, that her performance has to be one of the most memorable by any actor in any movie from any country in history. She transcends the screen and becomes attached to our hearts and minds for good, from the moment where she jumps into the water to the moment where she sings to the moment where she feels regret. She’s fantastic. Werner and Serre are absolutely perfect too as the contrasting fellows who share an undeniable clashing feeling.

Lovely, amusing, and sad… Jules et Jim has a rare beauty, for anyone to appreciate. A must!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Melinda and Melinda

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

So I heard this was a return for Woody Allen. His movies as of late have not exactly inspired love out there. Everyone knows that his best movies were made many years ago and that now he’s on a hit-and-miss pattern that usually tends towards the latter. Then again, it’s Woody for Christ’s sake! And I’d take a bad Woody anytime over 50% of what Hollywood produces these days. Make that 60%!

A couple of writers sit at a dinner table to discuss whether life can be considered a tragedy or a comedy. They then start to tell a story that starts with the same setup to see how they handle it from there. In one story, problematic Melinda (Radha Mitchell) stumbles at her friend Laurel’s (Chloë Sevigny) house just in the middle of a dinner party with her actor husband Lee (Johnny Lee Miller), her other best friend Louise (Stephanie Roth Haberle) and other theater-related people. Melinda moves there, and even though Laurel tries to hook her up with a doctor, Melinda sets her eyes on a musician, Ellis (Chiwetel Ejifor). But relationships are complicated; don’t forget we’re in a Woody Allen movie. On a lighter note, there’s also the story of how Melinda stumbles upon her new neighbors’ flat just when they’re having a dinner party. As it happens, Hobie (Will Ferrell) and her film director wife Susan (Amanda Peet) are trying to get an investor to put money in her next movie, although Hobie starts falling in love with Melinda and chaos ensues.

So no, this isn’t a return for Woody per se. But that’s not to say Melinda and Melinda is a bad movie. It is a good one. And I had a great time with it. But Woody can do better, and even if it’s the best movie he’s done in the last years, that doesn’t mean he’s reached the level he used to achieve when younger. That said, let’s talk about it…

Woody sets up his latest movie based upon a gimmick. And in a pretty in-your-face, not-subtle-at-all way. I liked the way the movie played jumping from one story thread to the other. But then Woody does something rather peculiar: he over-preaches and explains things too much. The last scene of the movie is so un-Woody that I wonder if his producers forced him to put it in there so people could “get” the message. But then, I don’t think so. I guess those scenes weren’t that bad, but they just didn’t do it for me.

As for how well the gimmick works, well, it does work and is pretty effective. I love what Woody is trying to say with this movie. And I was enthralled by both stories. The dramatic one dragged a little bit at some points, but nothing serious. After all is said and done, this is a movie abut relationships between complicated people living in Manhattan. Nothing new to this director here, and levels of amusement are rarely reached, but it never bores or gets tiring.

Radha Mitchell plays both versions of Melinda in what has to be her breakthrough performance. It isn’t awards-worthy, but she certainly handles herself admirably, changing from one thread to the other seamlessly to the point where we never even doubt that they’re two different individuals, only with the same face. Will Ferrell impersonates Woody and comes off admirably well. He makes his character his own, and is perfectly suitable for it. The other performance I loved is that of Chloë Sevigny, who brings a certain spiritual weight to the proceedings.

Still getting there...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Robots

Director

Chris Wedge

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

What a treat it is to go to the movies with my friend Morris. Every time he’s in town, or I’m in his, we try to catch a movie, and today was no exception. We saw Robots. The outcome? We laughed and laughed throughout the movie, and then we stepped out, and realized it was not quite a memorable piece. But it’s sure got its assets. Let me talk about it.

The team that brought us Ice Age (2002) is responsible for the creation of this amazing-looking piece about a world of robots who pretty much resemble human beings in ways of living, range of personalities, ambitions, and family.

The star of this story (by Jim McClain and Ron Mita, and scripted by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel) is Rodney (voice of Ewan McGregor), whose childhood dream to become an inventor is constantly nurtured by his idol, Bigweld (voice of Mel Brooks), whose monopolistic company of spare parts and new models of robots presumably gives a chance to all those who have new ideas.

However, when Rodney finally goes to Robot City to meet his dream, he finds that Bigweld is now retired and evil Ratchet (voice of Greg Kinnear) has taken his place, complete with the idea that spare parts are bad business and everyone who doesn’t upgrade is obsolete and should be thrown away. Of course Rodney takes a part in fighting this idea.

So what’s it all about? At its core, Robots is about ideals, principles, and convictions, and how far someone can go if his or her mind is set. But it’s also a fine commentary on modern corporations, especially those related to technology, that increasingly make us believe that we should constantly renew our stuff or we’ll be out of the game. I liked that especially.

The movie is also a comedy, with a range of funny characters, especially Fender (voice of Robin Williams), a sort of a misfit robot who introduces Rodney to a peculiar gang that eventually aids him in his quest. Williams is hilarious more often than not, and it’s a breath of fresh air that the character is not tailor-made for him but instead he makes the most of it as it is. If the movie works, it is in the comedy department, because you’ll keep laughing throughout.

But does it work as anything else? Not quite. Morris and I were talking about how it just limited itself from greatness. We were even forced to say that the Pixar touch was missing. What a subjective but clearly palpable thing that is. There’s a lack of heart here that’s sad, and clearly mars the film. Also, the setting was so impressive that it demanded a more memorable story, and even though there are hundreds of effective visual gags and gimmicks and designs, it’s all a fake world and we know it, and we never believe that the world of the robots could be real. Also, I think, the time is now too well administered, because in the end few characters have the chance to become three-dimensional, and even a romantic subplot (with Cappy, voice of Halle Berry) is completely snubbed!

Oh, but I don’t wanna trash it. It gave me a good time and I love it when that happens. Visually… wow. The stunning production design and fine digital execution sure deserve applause. Also, the voice work is uncanny. The talents of Mel Brooks, Jim Broadbent, Amanda Bynes, Drew Carey, Stanley Tucci, Jennifer Coolidge, Paul Giamatti, Dianne Wiest, and many more, aid the procedures incredibly. The music by John Powell is pretty good too.

Overall… Good but not great.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Robots (2005): Morris

Review

Crónicas

Director

Sebastián Cordero

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 21, 2005

This Mexican-Ecuadorian production was shown last year at Cannes and Toronto. The buzz was good, but nothing alarming. Its lead actor won a couple of prizes, including one at the prestigious San Sebastián Film Festival, but the buzz was still not that overblown. It wasn’t until the movie played this year the Sundance Film Festival that the movie reached a whole new level of awareness. Me? It’s the best movie I’ve seen so far this year.

A serial killer has been haunting Babahoyo, Ecuador, for over a year now, raping and killing children with mercilessly. A new lot of bodies has just been found as a trio of reporters, Manolo (John Leguizamo), Marisa (Leonor Watling) and Iván (José María Yazpik), continue to follow the trail of the killer. A new lead then surfaces as a Bible-salesman, Vinicio (Damián Alcázar) hits a boy with his truck, instantly killing him which sends him to jail, where he asks Manolo for a sympathetic report on him in exchange of information about “the monster”, who he claims once confessed to him during one of his many trips.

Writer/director Sebastián Cordero is a man to keep an eye on. I’m serious. If you think this is a pretty standard serial killer movie you’re in for a treat. It is actually a thought-provoking, intelligent, surprising, subtle psychological and human drama that contains much more layers than meet the eye.

The movie does not settle for the chills and thrills of having a bunch of people going after a serial killer. Cordero uses his story to denounce what the media has turned into in the last decades. He even goes as far as to compare the killer to the insatiable reporter going after him. We obviously know who is doing more damage, but you get the point. The movie also gets slightly political as it denounces the various forms of corruption present in police investigations, especially in small towns like the one in which this story takes place, where poverty takes center stage.

It’s also interesting to note that the movie is more character-oriented than it is at going for the clichés that usually surround this genre. And even though the ending leaves you unsettled, there’s never a sense of going overboard for cheap action. Cordero keeps his story tight, straight to the point, and completely credible at every turn.

But don’t be mistaken, it is a very, very disturbing movie.

Damián Alcázar is an actor who may not be as famous, but after this movie he will damn sure be, because he is just chilling to the bone, subtle as a delicate rose, and as poisonous as the deadliest spider. Meanwhile, Leguizamo, Watling and Yazpik do a magnificent job as well. And even Alfred Molina manages to sneak in there for a couple of scenes.

Great movie, very well directed, with a grand score, excellent performances and impressive photography. A must!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dogville

Director

Lars von Trier

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 17, 2005

As I told my friend Morris right after seeing this movie, which was his favorite from last year, and took me several months to finally watch, was that 1) I hated it, and 2) It sure was worth watching. But boy, did I hate it. Every second of it, every line, every character, every twist and turn, everything. Then I started thinking about it. I hated it even more because it stuck to my head. It wasn’t just the fact that it mostly lacks scenery and relies on an empty set with chalk-drawn locations. It was the fact that I had seen a mean, twisted, bizarre movie whose message I didn’t quite get. Does Lars von Trier really enjoy making women suffer in his movies for the hell of it? Couldn’t have been that; after all, his previous efforts worked much better. This must have been an allegory of some sort. I hear he’s anti-American, but who knows, the subject here appears to be more universal. If anything, I would say he created a metaphor for international abuse and what happens when a formerly subdued entity becomes a world power. But maybe that’s not it. I’d like to see it more as a study of human behavior and human nature. But even in that way I would say it goes over-the-top and creates caricatures mostly. Let’s get into further detail.

Fragile Grace (Nicole Kidman) gets to the insignificant town of Dogville, Colorado, during the 1930s, while escaping from killer gangsters. She’s rescued and protected by self-appointed spokesman Tom (Paul Bettany), who falls in love with her almost immediately. The other 14 adult citizens of Dogville don’t really love the idea of protecting such a fugitive, but they will agree if she proves to be an asset. So she works for every one of them and is finally taken in. But, as things get worse from the outside world concerning Grace, including the fact that the law is also after her (probably after the mafia pulled some strings), Dogville’s citizens naturally require more from her if they’re to take such chances. More work, less pay, and every little extra anyone can think of, would probably do.

The first thing worth mentioning about this movie, which I already did by the way, is its lack of scenery. Just like that famous play, “Our Town”, it kind of leads the spectators into grabbing the story for what it is and just imagine the rest. It creates a less distracting environment, and I loved that. And maybe because there’s nothing to distract us, it’s easy to appreciate the excellent performances of everyone, and the intense subject matters of the story.

The story goes from compelling to ridiculous to absurd. It’s got to be an allegory, because there’s no way anyone could do what the main character does. I just don’t see a way, especially halfway through. I’m sorry I can’t get into detail, but it’s just unbelievable, mostly when you get to realize the way things really were since the beginning. The process of people transitioning from friendly to thankful to abusive is credible though, and I would believe that under the circumstances they would react that way. But all of them? Twisted town. Maybe it could happen, but I would think someone would’ve stepped front to demand a different behavior. Does Tom count? I don’t think so. I think he’s the worst of the bunch, and apparently someone quite important agrees with me.

Now, the story is quite demanding, that’s for sure. I appreciate von Trier’s effort because it’s pretty obvious he wanted to propose, and he achieved that. I don’t want to look dumb or anything, I obviously enjoyed the fact that it was so strikingly original, and so dense, too. Nothing farther from mainstream entertaining, but quite a ride for those who appreciate different stuff. Problem is, I just didn’t connect with the story. I wonder how someone can. And I wonder how I could get through the whole section with the anti-escape device. Whoa boy.

The cast is uniformly magnificent. This is the kind of role Kidman does best so she’s great in the lead. Accompanying her with awesome results are Lauren Bacall, Patricia Clarkson, Philip Baker Hall, Ben Gazzara, Stellan Skarsgård, Chloë Sevigny and many more. John Hurt provides the narration, which is outstanding except for the fact that sometimes it’s intrusive and says a lot that I’d like to have heard in dialogue. I won’t accuse von Trier of being a lazy writer, but I do think he exceeded the narration a bit.

So with a solid cast, striking direction, original ideas, and a weird, unsettling story not quite handled the way it should, Dogville is well-worth watching… but not a good film.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spanglish

Director

James L. Brooks

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

I really really wanted to like this movie. I loved James L. Brook’s last picture, As Good As It Gets, and felt that he was certainly getting into interesting territory with this latest venture, Spanglish. Brooks has always said that his movies borrow a lot from his life. But let me tell you, if his life is or was like anything in this movie, he and his close ones definitely need help of some kind.

Flor (Paz Vega) moves to L.A. from Mexico with her daughter Cristina (Shelbie Bruce) in search of a better life. She soon finds a job as a maid for the Claskys. Jack Clasky (Adam Sandler) is a world-renowned chef with some marital problems. His wife, Deborah (Téa Leoni) is an uptight woman who can’t find her place in the world and who also cares for her alcoholic mother (Cloris Leachman). Their daughter Bernice (Sarah Steel) doesn’t seem to connect with her mother, so Flor arrives as a breath of fresh air.

Now, after reading that premise you might be saying, “So?”. And the truth is that’s about it. Spanglish doesn’t boast the usual movie structure in which there’s a specific plot that leads from A to B. It could be said that it is a portrayal of two women’s journey through the everydayness of life, but that would be leaving the Claskys out, and this movie is an ensemble more than anything else.

I liked the beginning, how Flor brings her daughter to the U.S., how she struggles in the country, how she finds the job with this family and how the dynamics start to work. But then the movie becomes boring, and tiring, and drags and drags until it becomes overlong. It’s also not realistic in the least. And that’s something weird considering Brooks wrote it. Everything is exaggerated, everyone is neurotic, it’s just a full-blown drama that never seems to land. And the movie seems to focus more on the two more itching characters: Flor and Deborah. Every time there was a scene that DIDN’T have them in it I breathed in relief.

Deborah, for example, is an over-the-top character that should be put in a mental institution. Well, I’m exaggerating, but you get the point. Téa Leoni’s performance is actually very good, but the problem lies somewhere else: in its conception. Was it necessary for Deborah to be so unnerving? Why the character was conceived like that fails me. She’s a caricature. And then there’s Flor, who is portrayed as a saint for most of the movie and who just never seems to develop a complete connection with the audience. She’s there, but we don’t feel it. And don’t get me started with the plot device of having her not speak any English for most of the movie. It is believable, but completely off-putting as the movie goes on.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I didn’t feel the movie had a specific purpose. Brooks’ agenda is all over the place. He tackles racism, immigration, mother-and-daughter relationships, husband-and-wife relationships, unexpected romances, employer-and-employees dynamics, blah blah blah. I just wish there had been a tighter, better-constructed script.

As I mentioned before, Téa Leoni delivers a good-enough over-the-top performance, but it is the subtle work of Adam Sandler and the comedic chops of Cloris Leachman that actually steal the movie. They’re both amazing! And so are both Shelbie Bruce and Sarah Steal as the two daughters, although they do behave like only movie teenagers do. The downside for me was Paz Vega, who could be considered the lead. I don’t know exactly what it was, but I never bought her in the character and don’t think she pulled it off. After all is said and done, the character didn’t help. I thought she was a bit one-dimensional, with her sole purpose in life being taking care of her daughter… and that’s about everything we get to know about her. Not good.

“Lately, your low self-esteem is just good common sense.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mutiny on the Bounty

Director

Frank Lloyd

Year

1935

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Mutiny on The Bounty is a tale of historical importance. Based on the novel by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall, which is in turn based on a real-life event, it tells the story of the most famous mutiny in the history of navigation, which set a precedent and defined new laws and agreements between officers and seamen for future voyages. It happens to be one of the most interesting chapters of the seas, and one worth knowing about, regardless of the quality of storytelling. But if you add to that every possible asset in filmmaking, including master writing (by Talbot Jennings, Jules Furthman, and Carey Wilson), acting, staging, and directing, you’ve got it made: One of the best films ever put together.

This Hollywood masterpiece sets off pretty quickly by presenting quite a few seamen being gathered for the new voyage of the Bounty, whose mission is to bring tropical food back to England from Tahiti. The trip will probably take over two years, and few men are happy to go along, but they have no choice. Compelling stories are presented from the get-go, including that of a man leaving his wife and newborn baby against his will (Eddie Quillan). It’s clear what kind of circumstance these men were faced with circa 1787, and before the first five minutes are over, we’re already asphyxiated by the prospect of abandoning the land for such a long time, without much eagerness to do so. Two men are not as unwilling though: Lt. Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable), the second man in command, and Midshipman Roger Byam (Franchot Tone), whose sole mission is to bring back a dictionary of the Tahitian language.

All in all, a trip always brings some hopes to those who take it, and every seaman knows the loneliness of the sea can be inspiring regardless of the conditions. However, even the unbreakables see their spirits crushed soon enough, after the well-respected Captain William Bligh (Charles Laughton) starts doing what he knows best: To apply his authority by belittling his men with unbearable punishment, unjust judgment, and unexplainable contempt.

The Bounty faces as many obstacles as any ship ever has: Nature takes a hand more often than not, as does sickness. But Bligh is not easily beaten by any of those upsets. A fine navigator, he breaks any possible record taking his ship and men to Tahiti. Yet, as they arrive there, everyone’s fed up, including surprisingly patient Christian. By now, mutiny seems an option almost begging to be chosen.

What a ride! What took me off guard the most about this movie is the way it changes in tone every five minutes and never ceases to entertain in every possible way. At first I expected Bligh’s abuse to go over-the-top after a couple of scenes, and the mutiny happening before the first half hour was over, but luckily, I was wrong. The slow days at sea are translated as long minutes, and when there’s action, the subjects of tyranny and rebellion are put aside. Then there’s Tahiti, that paradise where men find love and friendship. And then comes the third and most important part, concerning mutiny and its consequences that changed the world of navigation for good, and not without sacrifice.

Visual effects, daring camerawork, mesmerizing cinematography, gorgeous production and costume designs, and a rousing score (by Herbert Stothart), all set the stage for some of the best screen performances ever achieved: Those of Franchot Tone, Clark Gable, and Charles Laughton. The first gets better and better as the running time advances, with a particularly fine speech towards the end; the second is a natural at sea, charming as ever, passionate and funny; and the third is simply unforgettable, and unspeakably credible, perfect both as a professional who loves his job and a tyrant who despises others, both admirable and despicable; perfect. Every seaman around is also played by a talented actor. And what about those two gorgeous Tahitian women, played by Movita and Mamo? Wow!

“I'll take my chance against the law. You'll take yours against the sea.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hitch

Director

Andy Tennant

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 14, 2005

I wasn’t expecting much from Hitch. Hell, I wasn’t even planning on seeing it! A friend convinced me to do so and I, unbeknownst to refusing an invitation to the movies, gladly accepted. After all it had likable stars, a director who usually makes good (not great) movies and a plot that sounded mildly intriguing. Fact is, I had a good enough time!

Alex Hitchens (Will Smith) is a legend with a rather unconventional profession: he sets people together. Or to put it another way: he helps people get together, but it’s up to them if it works or not. His latest case, Albert (Kevin James), is a rather difficult one, for he is trying to hook up with a millionaire celebrity heiress, Allegra (Amber Valletta). Thing is, Alex soon falls for a tabloid reporter, Sara (Eva Mendes), who just happens to be on Allegra’s trail.

Romantic comedies follow the usual formulas: boy-meets-girl, they like each other, complications ensue, boy-gets-girl. Sometimes the road to the end is more pleasant than others. With Hitch, I gotta say I had a lot of fun. Sure, the movie is overlong and sometimes plain stupid. But it’s also charming, well intentioned and well put-together.

It also helps that we care a lot about the characters. The best scenes in the movie belong to Kevin James, who I never thought that highly of before, but who acts his part really well, embodying Albert with the kind of innocence and good heart that is necessary. His exchanges with both Alex and Allegra are priceless. He made me laugh out loud more than once.

And then there’s the romance between Alex and Sara, which would’ve fallen apart if it weren’t for the fact that it’s developed in a rather original way. They both are know-alls who think they’ve got everything under control, so their relationship is quite original and not your usual sugarcoated one.

The actors all do a good job. Besides James, there’s Smith in his first romantic foray and he comes off victorious. His natural charm and charisma are enough for us to instantly like him. Eva Mendes, as his romantic interest, is quite good as well. It’s good to see a working, three-dimensional woman in a romantic comedy, and besides, she’s gorgeous. I also liked Amber Valletta a lot. I think everyone just blended really well together.

An enjoyable enough entry for the beginning of the year.

“Come on, it's not that bad.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sideways

Director

Alexander Payne

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Sideways was the last movie I saw during the Oscar season. And what a way to close it! I’m amazed a little movie like this could become what it ultimately became: a critics’ darling and a box office triumph. The latter is even more mind-numbing for me, but I couldn’t be happier. People can say whatever they want about the Oscars and the awards season, but one thing I’ll always be grateful for is the fact that they bring attention to smaller quality movies. Would I have watched the movie if it hadn’t gone as far as it did? I sadly don’t think so. I respect Alexander Payne and his movies are usually good, but I’m not the biggest fan. Fortunately, word-of-mouth grew until the buzz was unbearable, and indifference was not an option anymore.

Miles (Paul Giamatti) is a failed writer who also happens to be a wine expert. He takes his actor friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church) on a stateside trip for one week before Jack marries. That said, all Jack wants to do is get laid, and he soon finds in Stephanie (Sandra Oh) the perfect prey. But Miles should have some fun too, so Jack hooks him up with Maya (Virginia Madsen), a waitress Miles has been fond of for some time now.

At first glance it’s difficult to appreciate why Sideway is such a wonderful, poignant, though-provoking movie. After all, it’s all about a guy who only thinks of sex and a guy who is his exact opposite, especially after having just come out of a painful divorce. And sure, the movie is really funny. Yes, it is a comedy. And it’s very effective at that. So why?

Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor did a beautiful job in translating Rex Pickett’s novel to the big screen. Sideways is just like the fine wine the characters in the movie keep drinking and talking about. It takes its time, it suddenly comes alive, and the aftertaste is simply delicious, flavoring its different moments depending on how you look at it.

It is also a movie about two guys in the midst of a mid-life crisis. And beyond all the comedy lies the story of two individuals who are actually quite sad and lonely, searching for answers in disparate ways. Their relationship is developed carefully and realistically, as is the one between Miles and Maya. That said, the best scene of the movie belongs to these two, just sitting and talking at Stephanie’s porch. It just doesn’t get any better.

The four lead performances in Sideways are all perfectly suited to their characters. This is what I call perfect casting. Paul Giamatti leads in a wonderful, understated, pathos-filled performance that carries the movie on its shoulders and comes off incredibly well. Thomas Haden Church, on the other hand, is the scene stealer, delivering the absolute best supporting performance of the year. He’s hilarious, over-the-top and as sad as it gets. Virginia Madsen, on the other hand, is glorious and gives the movie its spiritual weight. And Sandra Oh is irresistible in the smaller role of them all.

Minor complaint: Rolfe Kent’s score. I’s like elevator music! Completely distracting at times.

“And it tastes so fucking good.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Sideways (2004): Groucho

Review

The Dreamers

Director

Bernardo Bertolucci

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

In 1968 Paris, young American Matthew (Michael Pitt) drifts around the city learning the language and nurturing his love of movies like there’s nothing else in the world. In a time of renaissance of cinema in Europe, during the so-called “new wave”, when young film buffs experienced a freedom of thought like no generation ever had, Matthew gets to know his own sexual awakening in a milestone of an experience: He meets siblings Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel), who also happen to be into some kind of incest, and quite into kinky games they’re thrilled to introduce Matthew to.

It’s impossible to watch this movie and not think about another daring Bertolucci film starring an American in Paris: Last Tango in Paris (1972). This time around, the movie is not mostly ad-libbed, but scripted by Gilbert Adair from his novel, which of course takes away most of the charm Marlon Brando’s movie had. But that’s not to say there isn’t enough pleasure here to enjoy the ride. On the contrary, there’s lots of pleasure, of many kinds, to dig it.

To begin with, the three main characters are movie buffs, and you can almost say that the whole movie you’re watching (or most of it) is composed of references to many classic films from around the world. From Freaks (1932) to Bande à part, it’s a treat for film buffs and a delight for trivia lovers. But most of all, this is a sort of film-within-a-film in the way that it’s almost like watching one of those daring auteur movies from the days of “Les Cahiers du Cinema” that these kids so adore. There’s an approach to filmmaking by Bertolucci here that certainly reminds us of countless movies from back then, and that’s a great effort that blesses whoever has the knowledge to recognize it.

As for the story, apart from being perfectly suitable for the sort of material it’s presented in, it’s not great. Sometimes it goes to nasty terrains, sometimes it gets tiresome, and sometimes it gets pointless. Sometimes it feels like a big excuse to make this kind of movie. I wouldn’t say it’s not believable, but it did go too far. It was sexy, but also kind of disgusting. Maybe it just wasn’t my cup of tea.

A side effect of watching The Dreamers can possibly be the falling in love with one of its actors. I for one felt incredibly attracted to Eva Green. I think this is her first major role (is this her first film even?) and she absolutely shines. And what a body! She’s a goddess. I’ll never forget her playing Venus de Milo. Wow.

An interesting ride, and a nice homage to good old days of cinema…

“I wish you could step out of yourself and just look.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hide and Seek

Director

John Polson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 07, 2005

We all know that after the fall season, during which most award-worthy movies are released, comes a period of time in which more commercial and not-that-artistic fare hits theaters. Most of those movies suck, but there are those guilty pleasures and not-so-bad movies here and there that do their job and entertain us. Hide and Seek is, for me, one of those. Although I do have to add that critics trashed the movie completely. Who cares?

After the suicide of his wife (Amy Irving), which his little daughter Emily (Dakota Fanning) witnessed, psychologist David (Robert De Niro) decides to move out of the big city and buy a house in the middle of the woods so Emily can find peace there, even if it means not visiting her psychologist (Famke Janssen) anymore. But Emily doesn’t get any better, as she soon creates an imaginary friend, Charlie, which brings on some rather disturbing consequences.

Hide and Seek has no other purpose in life than to work as a thriller and/or a mystery. That’s it. Not really that many artistic merits, but just that. And for me, movies are good or bad depending on how they work upon what they intended to achieve. This movie might piss some people off because of its ending or whatever, but there’s no denying the fact that I was scared throughout. And I was also intrigued as to what was happening. Hence, job well done.

The story is about a little girl who is traumatized because her mother didn’t love her as much as she always said, and ended up her life without caring about her. But then she has a loving father to take care of her, which doesn’t mean he’s any smart regarding difficult situations. If I have one quibble regarding this movie is the way David behaves when strange events occur. Any intelligent, caring father would have absolutely gotten out of there in a second or done something more drastic, but David chooses to “stay”. Yet, if he didn’t choose that, there would be no movie, so point taken.

The movie relies mainly upon a plot twist that happens 20 minutes before the movie is over. It is that kind of movie, yes. Some hated that ending. I liked it, not loved it. And the step between one and the other lies in the fact that in order to accept the ending you have to realize just how much psychological pain little Emily had to endure. It’s like understanding you have just watched a movie in which there was disturbing child torture, in more ways than one.

Then again, Dakota Fanning does a wonderful job in bringing that out of her character. This is one of the creepiest child performances I have ever seen, and coming from a girl who always plays adorable! That says a lot about Dakota’s acting chops, and her performance is what ultimately saves the movie from becoming lesser material.

Oh, and John Ottman’s score is pretty solid too.

“Come out, come out wherever you are.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Closer

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 03, 2005

I simply can’t conceive any kind of harder writing than a play of four characters. Well, maybe a play of three, or two. Not one; that would become a monologue. A couple of plays exist that really pull off the premise of having just a couple of actors performing on stage and make up for an entertaining ride of more than an hour. Isn’t that hard to believe?

Closer is a good example of this. Patrick Marber’s play really surprised and became a huge hit, and now it has become a movie. Not a shocker when you see what it’s about and how it’s handled. It’s one of the most real and honest movies I have seen in some years concerning relationships. It’s a sort of Annie Hall (1977) without Woody, and with a different kind of story, but with the same accuracy in pointing out what makes a relationship tick and what some people have on their minds and how they handle it. It’s a majestic depiction of simple human psychology and that makes it, at least in my book, a must-see.

The story has, as I said, four characters. First there are Alice (Natalie Portman) and Dan (Jude Law), who meet each other when she gets hit by a car on the street. Nothing serious, but he helps her out, and they start a relationship. Fast forward to some time later, when Dan meets photographer Anna (Julia Roberts), and they both fall in lust with each other immediately. Alice notices, but she still loves Dan, who still loves her. But Anna is on Dan’s mind and won’t let go, so he adds another element to the game: An incidental internet chatter, Larry (Clive Owen), who becomes Anna’s lover and in ways a victim of some vicious games.

Closer can seem repetitious at times and make no mistake, it is repetitious: People come and go and come and go and make the same mistakes twice or thrice or even more times. Here we see Dan and Anna going through the same over and over and Alice and Larry becoming victims once and again, but the twist comes when it turns out Alice and Larry are not willing to be victims forever, and they play their cards. Of course the reaction of each is completely different, but that doesn’t mean any of the two is not deadly interesting.

In the end, as a matter of fact, it is Alice and Larry we get to care for and remember afterwards. It also helps that the performances are flawless, but the fact is, the characters are written with that intention in mind. Especially Larry, who would be the person you would care less about in the beginning, and easily becomes… well, something else.

Mike Nichols’ direction might not be outstanding, but it fares better than most of his screen work from the last few years. Marber’s adaptation of his own play, however, is what takes first chair in this spectacle. It’s a treat seeing these people act like they do, even if it seems theatrical or exaggerated at times, and it’s Marber we should thank. I was taken aback more than once by the proceedings though mostly nothing I saw was really extraordinary or unbelievable. That’s the magic of it. Marber writes about life, and situations we can all identify with. Yet, it’s something well-worth seeing no matter who you are or how many deceptions and satisfactions you have gotten in your life.

Just to make them justice, Roberts and Law do great jobs. However, as I said, Portman and especially Owen own the show. Heck, this is Owen’s show. Portman performs excellently and is hotter than ever, but her character is simply not as juicy. Owen… oh my God. And to think he originated the role of Dan on stage, and now he plays Larry… One would say he was born to play Larry. Shows what a talented man he is.

“It tastes like you but sweeter.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Vera Drake

Director

Mike Leigh

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

When the Oscar nominations were announced everyone was quite shocked to realize how much the Academy loved this little movie. They gave Mike Leigh both a best director nom and one for best screenplay. That’s not to say his movie is not generally well-loved, because it actually is, taking even the top prize at last year’s Venice Film Festival. And now I’m pleased to say I have become a great admirer as well.

Vera (Imelda Staunton) is a woman born to make others happy. In 50's England, she cares for her husband Stan (Phil Davis) and their two children: popular Sid (Daniel Mays) and mousy Ethel (Alex Kelly). She even manages to set up Ethel with a nice young man, Reg (Eddie Marsan), and always has a good face for her brother-in-law (Adrian Scarborough) and his insufferable wife (Heather Craney). But then, she also happens to "help young girls" who have gotten in "trouble", by performing clandestine abortions which she doesn't like to call with that name. After all, the girls have nowhere else to go.

Mike Leigh’s movies are something of a rarity. He portrays middle-to-low class like no other director on Earth does. People say the characters in his movies are always depressing people living in depressing places. I disagree. Vera is an example. I think we wouldn’t like to be living her or her family’s lives at all, but that doesn’t make her unhappy in the least. On the contrary, she’s a cheerful, relaxed, easy-going, caring woman. She has something of a routine, the kind you hit when you’re older. And she loves it. Little could perturb her ideal existence, and when something actually does, and her world suddenly stumbles apart, it’s even more shocking and disturbing as if a lost bullet would have suddenly hit her.

Leigh spent six entire months rehearsing with his cast. That’s an insane amount of time to spend on pre-production. But he uses it so his actors can become the characters. When he actually shot the movie he already had his characters right in front of him, acting, talking and reacting the way the characters would, not the way a script stated or the way a director told them. I find that process quite exhilarating, even more so when you see the extraordinary results of the proceeding in the big screen.

That said, the movie is an insightful and delightful character study. And Leigh uses the opportunity to denounce the system at the time. We see how a rich woman could get the help needed if she looked for it. But poor women couldn’t, and it was illegal to do it outside a carefully constructed system. Vera saw no damage in it because, after all, she only cared for helping others. And that’s what ultimately led her to her own downfall.

I was also impressed by Leigh’s apparent lack of judgment when tackling such a controversial subject matter. Vera is never seen as a saint, neither is she seen as a martyr. We root for her to be happy, but we know she’s doing something outside the law, and know that she knew it all along. But even the cops and judges are not portrayed as villains, but as compassionate people just doing their jobs the way they should. Everyone in this movie behaves ridiculously real, and that’s just exceedingly refreshing.

In the lead role, Imelda Staunton delivers what can only be described as a perfect, magnificent, absolutely devastating performance, down to the little details. She’s good beyond words. But no one from the whole cast stays behind. Vera Drake boasts one of the best ensemble works of the year. I especially enjoyed Phil Davis as Vera’s husband; but it would be unfair to choose, because everyone is uniformly perfect.

A touching, thought provoking, mesmerizing work of art.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sideways

Director

Alexander Payne

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

It’s not an easy time for Miles (Paul Giamatti). His wife has divorced him, he’s facing an uncertain career, and the novel he wrote and which he has so much faith upon seems to be the kind that no publisher dares to consider publishing. However, this is not a time to be depressed about being a High School English teacher and nothing else, not loved by any women or respected by any professional, this is a time to celebrate a very special occasion: Best friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church) is getting married and a week-long trip has been planned by the two to say farewell to his single life.

From the get-go, it becomes quite clear what the intention of each is: Miles wants to forget about women, obligation, and failure. He wants to enjoy his trip through California’s wine country by relaxing, drinking, golfing, and chatting. Jack, on the other hand, has a three-letter word in his mind: Sex. And he’s planning to help Miles get it, too! When they eventually encounter pretty waitress Maya (Virginia Madsen), an old acquaintance of Miles’, and her sexy friend Stephanie (Sandra Oh), they’re in for a wild ride, though not necessarily the kind each expected.

What a nice little movie. I saw it this weekend with my friend Morris and it was a fine way to wrap up the Awards season. We’d been looking forward to it and didn’t quite know what to expect, but I guess it was special since he came town and we share such a special relationship though we’re so different from each other. I’m not trying to say that any of us identifies with any character from the movie, but in ways there was a connection, or at least I feel it now. Truth is, neither of us really fell in love with the movie at the time. However, the day after, we were chitchatting about something and all of a sudden we started talking about how much we now loved it now. It seemed inevitable.

Sideways is the kind of movie that offers much more than meets the eye, but doesn’t really care if you get it or not. Based on the book by Rex Pickett, and scripted by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, it’s just a low-key piece that intends to make people laugh a little, cry a little, and perhaps reflect about their own existence and goals and way of being. And I don’t even know how, but it works to perfection. All of a sudden I fell in love with it and I felt a compulsion to see it again, with its elevator muzak (by Rolfe Kent) and its depressing sense of humor. I feel good when I think of the movie and I felt good while watching it. It’s such a treat.

So what makes it so special? Let’s see… Miles is a depressing character, whose obsession with wine soon becomes nauseating when it’s obvious he uses his hobby to cover so many wounds. But the way through the world of wine turns fascinating when other characters see it from another point of view. Wine can be fun, it can be deep, it can be sad; it all depends on how you look at it. Maya, mostly a thoughtful character, speaks her mind through her views on wine and turns a little scene into probably the most memorable in the movie. Her performance might not be great, but this moment makes it quite big, and overall relevant. The script grants her the opportunity to show us how life can be completely different to some people just because they’re willing to see it differently. Somehow, Giamatti’s character doesn’t seem as repellent as he used to after this scene. In fact, now he seems compelling and real.

Church has a show of his own. His lines, smiles, and attitudes balance the film and make it uproarious. Jack is the perfect offbeat companion of Miles, and every one of his scenes is a treat. There is a moment when you feel like the character is going nowhere, and has no reason to be there except make the audience laugh. Wrong. Payne and Taylor make sure to flip things around once again and change Jack, all of a sudden and in front of our eyes, into a completely different kind of man, yet in a way not incongruous to what we’ve seen. And Church is up for it. To catalyze this situation we have Sandra Oh, whose performance is as good as the rest.

A great film about wine, friendship, chances, and life, but mostly about people, Sideways is one to enjoy.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Sideways (2004): Morris