CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Diabolique

Director

Henri-Georges Clouzot

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Hollywood legend has it that Henri-Georges Clouzot beat Alfred Hitchcock by a matter of hours to the rights of the novel “Celle qui n’était plus” by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. I consider this one of the luckiest events in cinema history, and I’m gonna tell you why. Clouzot made a knockout thriller out of the material, the film I’m reviewing right now which truly achieved greatness and a classic status for the ages. And since Hitchcock was so frustrated about not being able to make it himself, Boileau and Narcejac went on to write “D’Entre Les Morts” specifically for Hitchcock, a novel which he went on to adapt as one of the greatest films ever made: Vertigo (1958).

Les Diaboliques is an astounding film that establishes its mood soon enough and makes sure to accentuate it minute by minute. This is a thriller almost from the get-go, when a brutal decision is made by two characters. The characters: Christina (Véra Clouzot) and Nicole (Simone Signoret), respectively wife and mistress of cruel Michel Delassalle (Paul Meurisse), director of a boarding school owned by Christina. Michel doesn’t mind treating both women like dirt or showing off about his relationship with Nicole. Given the circumstances, Nicole persuades Christina to murder Michel. Christina, whose heart has been fragile since her childhood, doesn’t think she can take such a decision lightly, but goes along. And then the scary part begins…

This is a winning story, to be honest, but Clouzot makes it even better. Only at times does it slow down, and sometimes it seems to take a while for a resolution, but there’s constantly a tinge of unbearable suspense. Furthermore, the movie establishes water as an element of fear, and there’s always water involved in the plot or just there for no apparent reason, which keeps reminding us of the damp and cold situation we’re living along with the characters.

Christina and Nicole share a relationship that has been interpreted by some as lesbian, but for all it’s worth, it sure is one of great codependency. They become accomplices in something that neither thought was possible, and their way of facing it is completely different. Our main empathy is towards Christina, who is much more humane and fragile in her reactions, but this only makes Nicole all the more intriguing, since she doesn’t seem as affected and always looks like she can hold herself together despite the horrors that they’re living. Each is remarkable, but together they’re dynamite.

Incidentally, Véra Clouzot was Henri-Georges Clouzot’s wife. She only acted in a few movies for him and, quite curiously, died of a heart attack only five years after this movie. I was intrigued by her, by the way: she was beautiful, gorgeous and classy. I’m happy to be able to see her work and realize what a great actress she was.

Talking about the characters, there’s quite a few supporting ones, in the form of schoolteachers and students, that aid the procedures just fine. Another pivotal one is that of detective Fichet (Charles Vanel), who in ways serves as comic relief but also helps the plot somehow. To be completely honest, I wasn’t too happy about his inclusion, but I understood that in ways it was obligatory.

Audiences and critics have long cheered this great French film, comparing it to the works of Alfred Hitchcock. Letting that comparison aside, I think it’s an accomplished thriller with a great climatic sequence of about 15 minutes and enough suspense to last for a lifetime. A must!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Epic Movie

Director

Jason Friedberg

Aaron Seltzer

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

I wonder why I keep going to see this kind of crappy movies. I keep coming out of the theater feeling underwhelmed even though the trailers made me laugh. I’ve continually learnt that these trailers are made to look funny, and somehow I always trust that I’ll have a good time with the whole product. Talk about falling prey to publicity. Truth is, they’re light, fluffy and disposable, and sometimes this is the kind of stuff one’s in the mood for. I just hope there’s one that actually hits the jackpot someday, and hopefully it’ll put an end to so much mediocrity.

Four orphans, Edward (Kal Penn), Peter (Adam Campbell), Lucy (Jayma Mays) and Susan (Faune A. Chambers), end up in the land of Gnarnia after earning a golden ticket that takes them to creepy Willy (Crispin Glover). Once there the White Bitch (Jennifer Coolidge) orders a persecution from which they must escape by fighting along.

The creative team behind this failed attempt at comedy is comprised by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, both of whom wrote and directed the movie. These guys are also responsible for the even worse Date Movie, but they also collaborated as writers in the Scary Movie saga (which started well enough but eventually lost its way). So they’ve been around for a while, and as long as they keep bringing in the money they will surely continue on track. This is a bad omen indeed, but I’m willing to say that if they stay far from the cameras and focus on the writing they may actually come up with something worthwhile.

The reason I say this is because I feel that these guys have zero talent behind the camera. Their work as directors is clunky as hell. They have no clue about comedic timing or about getting the best out of their actors. Peck Prior in the editing room must have wanted to kill himself with the material he was given. And it’s a pity because some of it had the potential to be funny and witty. As it is, there are only sporadic instances of well-done sequences or pieces of dialogue.

This time around the idea was to make a parody of movies with elements of fantasy. The plot follows that of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, but there’s plenty of room to spoof Superman Returns, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, X2, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, Snakes on a Plane and others. Some of the set-pieces start out funny enough or contain clever material, but the directors don’t know when to stop and every time the jokes far outstay their welcome. It’s painful to watch.

My favorite bit: the exchange between Lucy and Mr. Tumnus when they first meet. It’s got some funny material. Also, the first encounter between Edward and the White Bitch is ok.

Most of the actors are mediocre at best. Kal Penn and Jayma Mays don’t come off badly, but Adam Campbell and Jayma Mays are excruciatingly bad. Mays is doing some great work in television right now; she should really stick to the small screen. As for supporting players, Crispin Glover is truly unfunny, and David Carradine, Carmen Electra, Kevin McDonald, Fred Willard, Darrell Hammond struggle to make the best out of the material they’re given. Jennifer Coolidge is the only bright spot amidst so many calamities.

“Whoa, Stifler’s mom!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Director

Adam McKay

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

I don’t know what exactly Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is. It would appear to be a typical all-American dumb comedy, but no, it’s actually smarter than that, while keeping the spirit of a very simple satire. I think it’s a combination of comedic styles and sub-genres with some heart here and some punch there and overall it works, it just does! There’s laughs, there’s also some genuine feelings, and there’s a message after all is said and done, which is incredible. I thought this was a pretty good darn movie.

The story tells of NASCAR racer Billy Bobby (Will Ferrell) and his life-long obsession with speed derived from his admiration of his estranged father Reese (Gary Cole), whom he only saw a couple of times during his whole childhood. Billy and his best friend Cal (John C. Reilly) go on to work at NASCAR, and one day Billy has the one-in-a-million shot at racing, which he does with all his heart, becoming an overnight sensation. Fame and fortune come quickly, and Billy becomes a millionaire, eventually bringing Cal into the game and making him a racer too, though playing second fiddle. Billy marries hottie Carley (Leslie Bibb) and with her raises spoiled brats Walker (Houston Tumlin) and Texas Ranger (Grayson Russell).

Of course the premise is over-the-top but it happens so quickly you don’t have time to consider its farfetchedness or lack of logic. The screenplay by Ferrell and director Adam McKay is actually as fast as a NASCAR car and you quickly surrender to the laughs instead of considering the story. Besides, there’s a lot of spirit in here, a lot of energy, and after about 10 minutes I was wondering what the hell would happen to the rest of the running time, how could they fill it with as many funny gags when they were going so fast already? The answer turned out to be that even though the procedures do slow down, the story’s unlimited exploration of its characters and their universe never does.

In a way, Billy Bobby’s biography is epic and moving, and Ferrell understands this so well that he plays it just that way, flowing with his character’s evolution and delivering an amazingly heartfelt performance. I’m a fan of Ferrell’s, but here he really surprised me and made me care about his character, which is awesome in a film like this.

Matter of fact, every character is interesting, even the very supporting ones. From Cal, who suffers quite a bit and eventually evens things out in a most inconsiderate way but without clearly bad intentions; to Ricky’s mom Lucy Bobby (Jane Lynch), who brings depth to the life of two little airheads; to irresponsible dad Reese, who lives by his own rules; to mousy Susan (Amy Adams) who’s always there for Ricky but takes quite a while to bring some attention to herself; there’s something of a character study here, with interesting observations—albeit in an extremely satirical way—about southerners.

Ricky’s story gets interesting soon enough when his unstoppable career is interrupted by French driver Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen), who comes to NASCAR with a hidden agenda and quickly becomes Ricky’s arch-nemesis. Girard is hilarious because his culture is so different from everyone else’s that he creates an irresistible contrast. Baron Cohen steals his scenes and causes the most laughs in the movie.

Technically the film is impeccable, with quite exciting race sequences all along. Everything about NASCAR’s overhype and excessive sponsorship is yet another riotous bonus.

“If you ain’t first, you’re last!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Notes on a Scandal

Director

Richard Eyre

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 26, 2007

There is absolutely nothing new in me stating that Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett are two of the best actresses in the world; it is a known and accepted fact. So putting them in a movie together was a hook from the get-go, but hearing that both delivered some of the best work of their careers was bliss. Acting showcases of such caliber come only once in a while, and the pleasure they generate is incomparable.

Barbara Covett (Judi Dench) works at an English public school which Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) just joined as an art teacher. They eventually become friends, as Sheba truly admires Barbara and opens the doors to her home along with her husband Richard (Bill Nighy) and their two kids (Juno Temple and Max Lewis). But when Barbara finds out that Sheba is having an affair with 15-yeard old student Steven (Andrew Simpson) the tables are turned and she decides to use this to her advantage.

Director Richard Eyre worked from a script by Patrick Marber, which was based on the novel “What Was She Thinking: Notes on a Scandal” by Zoe Heller. Marber’s screenplay is crackling with pointed dialogue and witty observations, but it also walks on a tight rope between becoming over-the-top camp and a realistic story about obsession. Fortunately it stays on the right side and becomes a savory treat for everyone who appreciates an adult story well told.

The movie is essentially a drama about two women who are suffering from different types of loneliness, but it slowly turns into a thriller even though there really isn’t a life-threat or anything of the sort. Barbara is a menacing character, and the attraction she starts to feel towards Sheba becomes dangerous in delicate ways which move towards a crescendo that is unavoidable. There is always a hint of menace and an aura of decadence. Eyre reaches great heights by playing it intimately and the result is penetrating.

Perhaps the greatest asset in the movie is that we can actually identify with its characters. Sure, they can be labeled as monsters, but they’re essentially flawed individuals who act with their guts when life becomes a drag for them. Who are we to judge? Barbara is looking for company and the sexual tension that generates with Sheba is hard to ignore. The latter, on the other hand, is stuck in a dull marriage and a suburban life which presents no excitement. Both do stupid, egoistic things, and both have to face the consequences; especially Sheba, the least calculating of the duo.

The movie is spiced up by a haunting score from Philip Glass. As is usually the case when he is involved with a movie, the music plays a pivotal role in the way the story plays and the reaction it wants to get from its audience. His work here is extraordinary as usual.

And yes, the performances are everything you expect from the actresses and more. Judi Dench continues to amaze with another detailed, nuanced performance that is perfect in form and confection. Her Barbara is pathetic yet intelligent, imposing yet fragile, insightful yet clueless, and Dench does her justice as only she can. Cate Blanchett is also impressive in a more frank and sexual role that we’re used to see from her, but she’s equally good in her most desperate moments. It is memorable work. Bill Nighy and Andrew Simpson are also particularly effective.

“She’s the one I’ve waited for.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Notes on a Scandal (2006): Groucho

Review

The Good Shepherd

Director

Robert De Niro

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 22, 2007

I mean, really, Robert De Niro must have some idea what directing is about, after all these decades of great movies he’s been in. The Good Shepherd is not his debut in that department (he made A Bronx Tale in ‘93), but it not only looks like a debut, but like the debut of a lucky Hollywood rookie, someone with high pretensions and a big budget but no clue of what a good movie feels like, looks like… Don’t take me wrong though, the scenes are handled well, the performances have quality, and overall the piece looks expertly made… But that only covers the awful screenplay (by Eric Roth) and much worse editing (by Tariq Anwar), and the obvious lack of attention the director put to these departments, and I mainly blame Robert De Niro for that.

There’s not a single act in The Good Shepherd that’s not boring. Each one has its moments for sure – a bit of mystery, a bit of drama, even some tragedy - but overall it adds up to nothing, and there are so many reasons that I’d never finish listing them… I’d probably go on and on for as long as this movie keeps going! (Just kidding! You think I’d drag so much?).

For starters, the main character, CIA Agent Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), is a dull, lifeless, uninteresting, unattractive, unsympathetic, and sometimes plain stupid jerk. The story tries to present him like a bright fellow of course, whose ambitions take him from secret society to the next since his young age, climbing all the time, but how can we believe that if he lacks the ‘c’ in charisma, and there’s no true instance of his brilliancy anywhere in sight?

I’ll jump to another characteristic altogether, but it comes in handy right now: doesn’t Agent Wilson age? The film starts in the 1960s, after the Pig’s Bay invasion in Cuba went terribly wrong, and then jumps back to the ‘30s, before the Second World War, and Damon looks the same! The same. But that’s not all: he also talks the same way, moves the same way, says the same things, and acts accordingly. There’s no clear or underlying evolution, there’s nothing. He’s just a cardboard, an obligatory cliché protagonist, and not even a good cliché at that. What’s with Matt Damon lately anyway? Is it just me or is there something wrong with the guy? He’s a good actor, has always been, but he’s just so boring! I’d punch him.

The character of his wife Clover (Angelina Jolie) has the same problems, but at least Angelina is charming and gorgeous and she makes the screen shine. There’s a few problems here though: she’s too pretty and has too much personality to play the wife that’s left behind and put aside by her Secret Agent husband through the decades. Her casting is all wrong because no one in his right mind would do that, or perhaps he would, if only the script would’ve allowed us to know a bit more about him, her, or their interaction.

But, hey, who am I to judge a film about a CIA Agent based on the portrait of his personal life? After all, he’s a Secret Agent, his work is passionate, intriguing, thrilling… Oh wait, no, that’s dull too! Or is it that every time it looks like it’ll get interesting, more and more characters keep coming up and the plot keeps getting thicker, while there’s a feeling that it’s not thick at all but only pretends to be, and even in its complexity it’s foul? Really, what’s the matter with Eric Roth’s screenplay?

Yet, as I said before, and I’m glad to repeat, there’s not one performance to be faulted, except probably Damon’s. Actors include Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, Michael Gambon, William Hurt, John Turturro, De Niro himself, and Timothy Hutton and Joe Pesci in cameo roles. Tammy Blanchard and Eddie Redmayne do their best as key people in Wilson’s life (his true love and his son), but they come off worst given the ludicrous treatment of their characters.

What else is there to say? Perhaps, “Yawn”.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Casino Royale

Director

Martin Campbell

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

It took me a while to be able to write a review of Casino Royale. I belong to the very small group of people who were actually underwhelmed with the movie. Nothing tragic though, just not what I thought it had the potential to be. It still is one of the best Bonds out there and a flick I would watch again in a heartbeat, but let’s get deeper into it.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) just became a 00 Agent and his first (hard-earned) mission consists of stopping Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker to the world’s terrorist organizations, from winning a poker tournament that would give him plenty of money to spend. Beautiful accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is appointed to accompany him, setting off sparks from the get-go.

Martin Campbell (who directed the first Pierce Brosnan foray, Goldeneye) returns to the helm based on a script by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis that was itself based on the Ian Fleming novel of the same name. The idea is clear from the beginning: this is a return to basics, a different Bond, a reinvention. That’s excellent, and at the end the general feeling is that the team behind the movie actually achieved this goal. There hadn’t been that much excitement for one of these movies in a while, and people are actually expecting the sequel. I’m there as well.

The movie starts incredibly well for the first third of its (rather long) running time. It kicks off with an amusing black & white sequence that has Bond earning his badge, followed by a credits sequence in which female silhouettes are surprisingly absent. Then we get a couple of excellent exchanges with M (Judi Dench); the introduction of a villain that is actually witty and menacing without over-the-top plans to conquer the world; the first impressions between Bond and Vesper (great name!) in the train on their way to Montenegro; a jaw-droppingly good chase sequence in a construction site that is fast and gritty; the way Bond gets hold of his trademark Aston Martin; and a quick affair with the woman (Caterina Murino) of a dangerous man. Each one of these sequences oozes personality, pizzazz and an entirely different path for the well-known hero. I was in a complete high.

The middle portion is a bit more conventional. It takes place during the poker tournament, which boasts good and bad ideas in equal measures. The game starts out a bit slow, but eventually becomes suspenseful. I didn’t believe for a second that Le Chiffre’s tic would be so obvious, but I guess it worked as a plot device. I hated that FBI Agent Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) kept narrating everything that went on during the game; too much exposition. Then there is a sequence where Bond gets ill, which is cool all right, but then it so happens that the only gadget he was given was precisely for what actually afflicted him (vintage Bond anyone?).

Fast-forward to the last third which, in my humble opinion, has plenty of shortcomings. Two bits actually redeem it: one involving an excruciating and original torture sequence; the other being the very last scene of the movie. But getting there is a drag. There are far too many finales. Then there is a bit where the movie gets romantic and it’s laughably bad, with clichéd scenes galore juxtaposed with corny music. And then there is a climatic action sequence set in Venice that must’ve seemed like a good idea on paper, but somehow didn’t translate to the screen. Campbell showed bravura filmmaking during the chase sequence at the beginning of the movie, but his work kind of lost its edge in the late ones.

I believe what bothered me the most was that the idea was to present an entirely different Bond, edgier, rougher, no-bullshit. I have no problem with that even though I don’t have any problem with the classic Bond either. But as the movie moved along it kept presenting more of the usual-usual with counted exceptions. If they were going to do it they should’ve gone all the way. As it is, I enjoyed the ride, but plenty of blocks kept getting in its way to true greatness.

By the way, I truly and deeply missed the Bond theme. David Arnold’s score is appropriate, but it felt lacking.

If there’s one thing the movie has going for it in spades it’s the presence of Daniel Craig. He doesn’t fit any of Bond’s traits as we knew them, and that alone makes this choice exciting. It also helps that he delivers a fantastic performance full of macho posse with a soft interior. His life is tough and it changes overnight, so it will be interesting to see where they take the character and I’m sure Craig will continue to do it justice. Eva Green is a fabulous Bond girl, sexy, exotic and intelligent. And Mads Mikkelsen makes for a great villain. Also excellent are Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Issach De Bankolé and Jeffrey Wright in a small yet pivotal role which I don’t want to spoil.

“Do I look like I give a damn?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Casino Royale

Director

Val Guest

Ken Hughes

John Huston

Joseph McGrath

Robert Parrish

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

I was quite curious to watch the original Casino Royale, the adaptation of the only James Bond novel by Ian Fleming whose rights were not acquired by EON studios. The story is quite interesting, in fact, because the rights to that first James Bond novel were acquired by a TV studio and filmed for television, in fact the very first James Bond appearance, quite embarrassing in a way since Bond is an American in that adaptation, but with Peter Lorre playing the villain Le Chiffre, it wasn’t all too bad.

What was too bad was the film later made by Charles Feldman, who snatched the rights after the TV show, and decided to make a spoof instead of a straight Bond film. A great idea, one might think. But when it became bigger and bigger, and more and more famous names became involved, the thing just couldn’t go anywhere good. To begin with, it’s directed by five different people, each obviously in charge of a sector of a film, resulting in not only episodic storytelling but in fact an incomprehensible storyline.

The whole thing is overblown from the get-go, but starts in good fun: the premise has the “real” James Bond, Sir James Bond in fact (David Niven), retired and tired of the “new” James Bond, a modern agent that MI6 has given the same name and number as him, in order to continue the legend. This is of course intended to spoof the Bond from the movies, played by Sean Connery back then. M (John Huston) seeks the help of the original Bond, who doesn’t want to cooperate until circumstances force him…

From then on, it’s just insanity. The mission is of course to stop Le Chiffre (Orson Welles) from winning a card game that will give him funds for his evil organization. To stop him, more than one Bond gets involved: expert card player Evelyn Tremble a.k.a. James Bond (Peter Sellers), good-looking cardboard James Bond Cooper (Terence Cooper), Bond’s and Mata Hari’s daughter Mata Bond (Joanna Pettet) and Bond’s nephew, the shameful Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen).

Despite all shortcomings though, one must admit that the climax is lots of fun, and the ending a riot. Woody Allen helps a lot.

Every character has their moments, but none has enough to sustain the story, and everyone seems to want to get too much in little running time. The impressive cast includes, aside from the aforementioned, Ursula Andress, Deborah Kerr, William Holden, George Raft and Jean-Paul Belmondo.

Despite the incoherent storytelling and overblown filmmaking, the movie is quite finely done. Jack Hildyard’s photography is fine and Burt Bacharach’s score is one of his most masterful, with his all-too-famous main theme and other amusing pieces all along. Quite the most significant and probably the only memorable asset this film has.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Running Scared

Director

Wayne Kramer

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 19, 2007

Writer/Director Wayne Kramer made a name for himself with the release of The Cooler, a small movie that gathered plenty of critical praise some years ago. His follow-up, Running Scared, is an entirely different affair, and early critical praise got me interested despite the genre not being my favorite. I’m glad I heard the little voices in my head, for the movie was a great time at the theater, if a little forgettable after a while.

Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) gets involved in a drug operation gone bad and is put in charge of disposing of the gun that killed a dirty cop. But his young next-door neighbor Oleg (Cameron Bright) steals it from him and shoots his abusive father (Karel Roden) with it. Joey must then find the kid, and the gun, before the mob or the cops (led by Chazz Palminteri) get him, something that his wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga) doesn’t approve much of.

Running Scared is appropriately titled. The movie is basically a series of set-ups involving Joey running away from the bad guys while he tries to save his, and his family’s, skin. What sets the movie apart is that it is tightly paced, well-written, entertaining and above all exceedingly stylish. There isn’t much profundity; it is essentially a non-stop thriller that never ceases to engage despite being a bit overlong.

I really liked that Kramer didn’t shy away from going to some dark and disturbing places. The fucked-up neighbors are just one example, but even worse is a whole episode involving an apparently normal couple who is involved with child prostitution. Sure, the movie goes over-the-top more than once, but that is announced from the beginning, and it is a lot of fun discovering what else it is going to pull out of its sleeve. An episode in an ice-skating course is also cringe-inducing, as is a face-off between Joey and Tombs (Johnny Messner), one of his gangs’ members.

It is a very adult movie, a hard R, something that is always welcomed. Sexy, explosive, stylish; it is also a lot of fun. And kudos to cinematographer Jim Whitaker, his work is fantastic.

Down-note: the ending is terrible. Who came up with it? I would’ve done without that final twist, and I love twists!

As for the actors, everyone does exactly what they are required to, down to the smallest of roles. Paul Walker can be a very effective leading man when in the right role, and here he is excellent. Vera Farmiga is also worth noticing. I love her expressive face and awkward looks. Cameron Bright, a young kid I usually hate, is appropriate, although I would still do without him in movies. Chazz Palminteri, Karel Roden, Johnny Messner, Ivana Milicevic, Bruce Altman, Elizabeth Mitchell and Alex Neuberger are all very good.

“John Wayne was a faggot...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Letters from Iwo Jima

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 15, 2007

I think my only partiality as the self-proclaimed film critic that I am has always been towards war movies. I have loved some and loathed some, but usually I have trouble watching and reviewing them, especially when they’re crude, long, or focused deeply on battles and death. Sometimes I even find it hard to appreciate war movies other people call masterpieces. As usual, I do my best, but still I struggle to review such films…

Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima is, quite happily, an exception. Such a poetic, uplifting yet tragic look at war is refreshing. Focused on the Japanese side of the famous WWII battle, this looks and feels like a classic Japanese film, with values and views that are hardly found in a modern American movie. That’s Eastwood’s triumph and a very welcome entry in the war genre.

A good counterpart to Eastwood’s own Flags of Our Fathers from the same year, Letters tells the story of the Japanese fighting this battle, their struggle and suffering and hopes, and their unique way of facing defeat and death. It’s an important story from that side too, because these people were facing sure defeat against a stronger army, in a battle that was key to winning or losing the war. How they faced this and what they went through becomes the unforgettable tale here told.

The story follows many characters, but mainly two: General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe) and soldier Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya). Kuribayashi is an impressive character, whose will and intelligence mix well to allow him to play the difficult role he was assigned. A mildly Americanized fellow, sometimes he went against traditional Japanese ideas, but faced controversy and opposition well. He taught a few good lessons. Saigo is somewhat similar, having to serve his country but facing his fears and doubts, and wishing with all his might that this wasn’t happening to him. A few more characters show other personalities, turning this movie into a mosaic of sorts, a character study in a way, and an affecting piece.

As I said, the film feels like a poem, and that probably comes from the books by Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Tsuyoko Yoshido that the script is based on. Adapted by Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis, and written by the former, the screenplay achieves beauty and power with a very simplistic approach. Tom Stern’s sepia-toned cinematography is masterful and perfectly suitable, while Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens’ very simple music score goes with the material well (their “Song For The Defense Of Iwo Jima” makes for the most moving scene in the movie!).

The performances are uniformly good. Aside from the two aforementioned actors, a few more, including Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryo Kase, Shido Nakamura, Hiroshi Watanabe and Takumi Bando make an impression.

This is one more success by Clint Eastwood, whose winning trend never seems to end. I really wish it never does.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Letters from Iwo Jima (2006): Morris

Review

The Fountain

Director

Darren Aronofsky

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Big Darren Aronofsky fan here. It took the director six years to complete a new movie after the critical success of Requiem for a Dream, and he sure had plenty of blocks on the road, including the drop-out of Brad Pitt a few years ago which halted the production for an indefinite amount of time. The movie world had been eagerly anticipating his latest, very personal foray, and when it finally opened it strongly divided audiences. Some people think it is a masterpiece, while others don’t get the point. I stand somewhere in the middle. I respect more than love the movie, and even though I didn’t get everything at first, the movie has stayed with me ever since.

Dr. Tom Creo (Hugh Jackman) is obsessed with finding a cure so that his wife Izzy’s (Rachel Weisz) tumor disappears. As she gets worse, she writes a book about a Spanish conquistador in search of the tree of life to save the Queen and her empire, but is unable to write the last chapter and leaves it to her husband to finish it. In the future, Tom finds himself taking care of the tree and hoping it regenerates once a dying star explodes.

Aronofsky directed from a script of his own, based on a story he conceived with Ari Handel. If you think the premise sounds strange wait till you see the movie. It starts intriguingly enough, then it becomes incomprehensible, and it stays that way right until the end. But I found myself thinking about it a lot and reading some people’s theories and I think I’ve come up with my own take on things. In a nutshell, and this is spoiler territory, the only real story is the one set in the present. Izzy writes the book and gives it to Tom so that he can understand that death is a natural part of life, but leaves it open-ended so that he can come up with his own interpretation. This interpretation turns out to be the segments in the future, where he dreams about being able to be born again once this star explodes as Izzy believes from ancient mythology.

The Fountain is essentially a movie that deals with such heavy issues as the meaning of being alive and the inevitability of death. It presents a love story at its center and the way they deal with a deadly disease that will momentarily separate them. Even though the characters are compelling, we never feel much about them apart from what we are told we should feel. But we nonetheless understand the desperation and the craving to do everything possible to save and keep a loved one.

There are three storylines in the movie but one of them does not work as well as the others. I’m referring to the present one, with the doctor experimenting and dealing with his wife’s illness. Some, not all, of the scenes in it are downright boring or uninteresting. The past and future storylines are both intriguing right to the end. And yes, there is a merge of sorts in the last 15 minutes, when the movie goes into over-drive and becomes completely crazy. Loved it!

Several aspects of the movie’s technical side deserve special mention. I’m talking, first of all, of Clint Mansell’s score. His work is fantastic, perfectly suited to the material, and it actually elevates the movie to a whole new level. Then there is the visual side, which compiles cinematography, costumes, production design and visual effects. They all come together seamlessly to deliver breath-taking results. I hear the budget was somewhat limited, so it’s to all these people’s credit that the movie looks as good as it does.

Hugh Jackman is very good, proving once again that he is an actor of much range that is capable of doing all sorts of things. Rachel Weisz is lovely and haunting as his wife. Ellen Burstyn has a small role as Jackman’s boss and her presence is welcomed, although limited.

“Every shadow no matter how deep is threatened by morning light.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Little Children

Director

Todd Field

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

I didn’t exactly think Tom Perrotta’s novel “Little Children” was genius, but I did enjoy it and was highly entertained by it, and expected the movie adaptation with some anticipation. I wasn’t sure how it would turn out, directed by Todd Field, and co-scripted by him along with Perrotta himself. I felt aloof with Field’s earlier film In the Bedroom (2001) and feared the same would happen here. I expected it to happen, even, because I felt aloof with Perrotta’s novel. In a way, it was a perfect combination. But it also was destined to be cold and distant.

Indeed, everything that I didn’t like about the novel was here: the tendency to make us feel alienated from the characters’ feelings, the insistence to make their previous relationships look so unimportant and disposable, and the fact that their fate ends up seeming uninteresting.

The film deals with young parents of little children, mainly Sarah (Kate Winslet) and Brad (Patrick Wilson), whose spouses spend all day working and leave them to care for their children. Brad, a stay-at-home dad, obviously causes the young mothers some interest, but only Sarah dares go one step further, thus becoming exiled from their friendships. Though Brad’s wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is far prettier than Sarah (or so says the movie, though I couldn’t quite see it with my own eyes), he feels identified with Sarah’s anxiety and falls for her. With both their marriages in such a monotonous tone, they begin an affair that promises to turn spicy.

In the meantime, a pedophile, convicted for exposing himself to a little girl, has been set free and returned home. He’s Ronnie J. McGorvey (Jackie Earle Haley), who starts living an apparently peaceful life with his elderly mother May (Phyllis Somerville). Everyone in town is concerned by his presence though, especially a former policeman, Larry Hedges (Noah Emmerich), who hounds the ex con. Brad is Larry’s friend, and by his insistence joins both a brutal football night league and his little anti-Ronnie club. Brad is lost in a state where he can’t accept the responsibility of adulthood, and he makes all the wrong choices.

Indeed, Brad and Sarah’s problems are interesting enough, but somehow not played in a way that makes us care. There’s an effective (if sometimes intrusive) voice-over narration that gives us some extra insight on the characters, but even that is not enough. If anything, it reminds us that we’re watching an adaptation from a book, and the general bookish style doesn’t work too well on film, in general.

There are excellent moments for each character though, and I must say the standout is former child actor Haley as Ronnie. He manages to be at once chilling and sympathetic, making us understand his character’s problems while we still fear him. It’s an awesome performance.

But the film could’ve done a lot better…

“I do. I feel really bad.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bear Cub

Director

Miguel Albaladejo

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 12, 2007

At first glance Cachorro looks like a movie with a very specific niche in mind. After all it’s called after the self-proclaimed name given to gay men who do not fit the common svelte aesthetic, but are otherwise robust and hairy. Yet the movie plays so above this mere concept that I’m impressed they decided to call it that way. Apart from two very graphic sexual scenes, every single adult demographic could enjoy this well-done, emotional father-son drama for what it really is.

Pedro (José Luis García Pérez) lives alone and has a highly active social and sexual life. So when his sister Violeta (Elvira Lindo) leaves her young son Bernardo (David Castillo) with him while she goes on a trip to India his life is turned upside down. But a special bond starts to grow between them, even more so when an unexpected circumstance forces the child to stay with him much longer than expected, to the chagrin of his grandmother Teresa (Empar Ferrer).

Miguel Albaladejo directed from a script he wrote along with Salvador García Ruiz. The movie took me completely off-guard because I thought it would be a light gay comedy and instead it turned into a full dramatic and carefully-constructed tale of a man coping with a side of him he didn’t know he had. We’ve seen countless movies about reluctant adults stuck with children who end up falling for them, but when the tale is well told there’s barely anything to complain about. Especially when it treats us with characters that we rarely see portrayed in film with such honesty and matter-of-factness.

The best thing I can say about the movie is that it remained grounded despite dangerously bordering on clichéd territory. Every time I thought I knew where the plot was going there was a surprising development that I didn’t see coming. Every character is written as a three-dimensional human being. Even the grandmother gets her share of scenes where we understand she is not a villain just for the sake of it. Then again, our sympathy is always on Pedro’s side, and we only want to see Bernardo happy. But the world is more than black and white, and this tale presents all sides of these characters’ slices of life.

Cachorro also takes a fantastic approach to the meaning of friendship. Pedro has a group of friends who are essentially his family. These friends stay together for better or worse, and are there whenever they need each other. Having these friends around gives the movie a comedic, if realistic, element that is greatly balanced with the late heavier tone.

José Luis García Pérez proves to be a real revelation. I have no idea about his or the other actors’ sexual orientation, but that’s what they do, act, and they deliver formidable performances. His chemistry with David Castillo, another revelation, is palpable, and having these two together makes of it an even more pleasant experience. Elvira Lindo, Empar Ferrer and all the bears lend great support.

Decades ago movies were marketed as experiences that would make you laugh and cry. It may sound corny, but that phrase fits Cachorro like a glove.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Queen

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 08, 2007

You rarely witness so much elegance in a motion picture as the one that adorns Stephen Frears’ The Queen. This is as much a drama and an inside look at Britain’s royalty as it is a tribute to the current monarchy and their prevailing status and importance, at least in a symbolic way. What better way to do this while the characters are still alive than by showing the happenings around Princess Diana’s death. It couldn’t seem more real.

Putting aside other theories as to the causes of the tragedy in question, Peter Morgan’s thoroughly researched screenplay tells of the royalty’s shock at hearing the news, and their subsequent reaction, or lack of it. Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) neglected the idea of making a public statement or acknowledging the death in any way, Princess Diana’s being divorced from her son Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) and her work being so controversial and sometimes against the Crown’s best wishes.

Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen), quite a popular man at the time of his election, became even more so when he not only acknowledged the “People’s Princess” and her work, but insisted that Her Majesty do the same. This wasn’t a public struggle, but the attitudes of both were obvious, and the people knew better. Indeed, neither Blair nor The Queen had anything against each other, but it became a matter of principles for the latter and a matter of politics for the former. These were irreconcilable differences that would end either in catastrophe or, at the very least, moderate harm.

The film is a rare combination of household drama and political intrigue that feels fresh and exciting all along. Every character is interesting in its own right and portrayed to perfection; even those who don’t look so much as the real deal end up being as authentic as if you were watching the news. The fact that Princess Diana’s appearance is almost entirely from actual footage gives the proceedings some extra realism. If I didn’t know better, I could swear James Cromwell is Prince Philip, Alex Jennings is Prince Charles, Helen McCrory is Cherie Blair, and so on. I bought it completely, and had to go check actual photographs afterwards to return to reality.

And what to say of Helen Mirren’s work? It’s been said to exhaustion by every critic and commentator out there, but it just doesn’t seem enough. It’s one grand, dignified, intelligent performance that’ll remain in the memory as one of the best this century has and will see, and I can say that though the century has just begun. Great is the word, from start to finish.

Michael Sheen deserves his own good amount of praise. He’s so sympathetic and energetic that he makes us see the best of Tony Blair despite the man’s unpopularity from later years. Sheen is perfect for the role and he snatches some key moments, like one in which he bursts in defense of the Queen despite his overall opposing ideas, virtuously.

Frears is ideal for the task of directing, and he sure knows how to put together a work of protocol and dignity. From the initial close-up shot of The Queen posing for a painting, you know you’re in for a real treat. The music is also there from the very beginning to give you a hint of this; Alexandre Desplat’s work is absolutely remarkable.

“Will someone please save these people from themselves!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lives of Others

Director

Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

The Lives of Others beat Pan's Labyrinth in the race for the Foreign-Language Film Oscar, an upset that proved to be one of the biggest shockers of the night. Having watched both my opinion is that the latter is more accomplished, but the movie in question is actually an excellent German import and as such it’s hard to have strong disparaging issues with the choice.

In the early 80’s the Minister of Culture (Thomas Thieme) in East Germany becomes interested in an actress, Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck) and has the secret service spy on her and her boyfriend Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch), a writer who is not always loyal to the socialist party. Agent Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Muhe), in charge of the case, slowly goes from simply doing his everyday job to becoming obsessed with the couple.

Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck directed from his own script. You can instantly see that he is in complete control of his craft. His movie is a sexy, intriguing, very adult political drama that downplays its components to reach for higher intensity. It glides along, immersing you scene after scene until its surprising finale. By the time it’s over you won’t be able to let it go that easily.

And yes, it does drag here and there and could’ve been cut a little bit more, but it’s no biggie.

One of the most interesting aspects of the movie has to do with the meticulous attention to detail it pays to how the secret service worked. It’s fascinating enough to see how they managed themselves inside their own premises, but their work methods also get full exposure, whether witnessing how they wired someone’s place or also how they got information out of interviewing, and exhausting, people. You can feel their coldness, especially in those who have been in the job for a while. But they’re ultimately human, and we all crave for some sentiment in our lives. Wiesler finds it in the most unexpected of places, and the consequences soon start to consume him.

Another issue the movie deals with is how the government controlled its people, especially after World War II, and how scared and haunted they all were, especially when they didn’t feel the urge to comply. Christa starts doing favors for the Minister and there’s nothing Georg can do about it. That would be unbearable enough for one person to go through, but as a couple it must be a lot worse. Their relationship and ideals get in the way, and the drama that unfolds is intense.

The actors won prizes around the world for their work here, and it couldn’t be more deserved. Ulrich Muhe’s performance might seem one-dimensional, but it’s actually a carefully-developed one which gains as the movie goes along. Sebastian Koch is excellent as a man who can’t keep standing still and do nothing, even when delving into dangerous territory. And Martina Gedeck delivers a touching, subdued portrait of a woman who showed promise and had bigger dreams, only to be shattered by a castrating system from which they had no escape...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Notes on a Scandal

Director

Richard Eyre

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The wit of Barbara Covett (Judi Dench) is undeniable, as is her acid tongue, when she begins narrating the arrival of a new teacher, Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett), to the school where she herself teaches. The narration turns out to be Barbara’s entries in her diary, which has become more than a confident a deliberate book where she schemes to create and destroy as she pleases. Candidly enough however, Barbara befriends Sheba, and what appeared to be an initial spite for her turns out to be a mixture of admiration and desire. Sheba opens the door of her life to the elderly teacher, introducing her to her family: husband Richard (Bill Nighy) and children Polly (Juno Temple) and Ben (Max Lewis). Barbara is an eager spectator of Sheba’s life. But when she discovers a very dangerous secret of the younger woman’s life, she decides to keep it, as a favor she very well plans to use to her own benefit later on. Indeed, she does… and quite changes the course of Sheba’s life.

Closer (2004)’s Patrick Marber adapted the book by Zoë Heller into a tight and suspenseful screenplay, highly criticized by some for the changes it suffered, as well as the tinge of thriller that it now possesses. I find the result rather successful though, as the viewer is constantly immersed in the bizarre world of Barbara’s while wondering why there’s such a mood of fear in the air despite the lack of clear indications. The acts are beautifully delineated by the writer and handled to perfection by director Eyre, with a perfect accompanying score by Philip Glass that multiplies the mood to unbearable extents.

The suspense is so intense, in fact, that the story sometimes falls short. The mood quite surpasses the goings-on during the first act and that does get a bit confusing. The second act is better but still takes a while to build into something understandably intriguing, and that’s where the movie pays off, by showing us the true horror of the tale and sucking us in the same way it does its characters.

That is where everything explodes: screenplay, direction, music, photography (Chris Menges) and particularly performances. The two actresses are perfection if perfection is not an unfair word for them. I hadn’t seen such fine work between two actresses onscreen for a while and that’s a tribute to these two artists. Judi Dench particularly surprised me in her completely credible turn as a vulnerable and obsessive spinster, but it was also an immeasurable treat to watch Blanchett in a sexier turn that some of us fancy from her once in a while. And while they’re both good on their own, watching them together is a particular standout, both because those are the best scenes in general and because their interaction is extraordinary. A couple of confrontational scenes towards the end are particularly affecting. Their work is truly first-rate. As is that of Bill Nighy’s, by the way; his character is quite colorful and has a few very important moments, and he makes the best of them and turns as unforgettable as the ladies. Andrew Simpson is up to the task of playing the key role of 15-year-old Steven Connolly.

Overall, a finely executed piece of work with a couple of the best performances from 2006. Quite a joy.

“Judas had the dignity to hang himself, but only according to Matthew, the most sentimental of the apostles.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Notes on a Scandal (2006): Morris

Review

Letters from Iwo Jima

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 05, 2007

It is a well-known anecdote. While directing Flags of Our Fathers (2006) Clint Eastwood realized that he wasn’t telling the whole story of the battle of Iwo Jima. Something was missing, and that was the other side’s point of view, the story of the Japanese soldiers who bravely faced the Americans. So he ordered a script and shot this companion piece of sorts a few months later. Iwo Jima ultimately became the best-reviewed of the two, but there’s no denying that both are impressive movies and that together they form a hauntingly powerful combo.

General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe) was sent to the sacred island of Iwo Jima in order to lead the defense against the Americans during WWII. He faced serious challenges that ranged from diseases to a complete lack of support from his country regarding men and equipment. A young soldier, Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), also struggles to cope with the circumstances while desperately trying to survive to come back to his pregnant wife.

The movie was adapted by Iris Yamashita by a story he and Paul Haggis developed based on the book “Picture Letters from Commander in Chief” by Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Tsuyoko Yoshido. As opposed to its predecessor, this installment is a mostly straightforward retelling of what happened in the island before and during the battle. There are flashbacks here and there recounting some of the characters’ past (including poignant scenes that depict the friendship between General Kuribayashi and American officials), but the attention is focused on the here and now, as the Japanese soldiers face the battle with various degrees of bravery.

There is a very strong emotional undercurrent that comes from spending time with people who know that they will almost certainly die a horrific death in a couple of days or hours. It is even more affecting when they realize, mid-battle, that they are indeed losing. A harrowing scene depicting a suicide operation is especially appalling. But it was also brave of Eastwood to do a movie showing a side in which the Americans are the enemy. We are used to seeing them as heroes, but a war is a war, and killing people is killing people. When you come down it, they all become savage killing machines. Wars take a little soul out of people, and this can’t be emphasized enough, wars are pointless. Having seen both movies one can understand how soldiers from both sides were mere puppets of higher political interests, and that most of them only wished to return home alive.

Eastwood employs an understated approach that moves at its own pace. It is almost like a horrific poem, with images that are not easy to forget. Tom Stern’s bleached cinematography helps establish the gloomy atmosphere, as does Kyle Eastwood’s and Michael Stevens’ score.

The acting is also top-notch, with Ken Watanabe bringing his larger-than-life persona to the role, filling him with both passion and dignity right to the end. Kazunari Ninomiya is also extraordinary as the young soldier who becomes our eyes; his boyish attitude and physicality making for a bigger impact. Supporting performances are consistently good from the ensemble that also includes Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryo Kase, Shido Nakamura, Hiroshi Watanabe and Takumi Bando.

“Am I digging my own grave?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Letters from Iwo Jima (2006): Groucho

Review

Blood Diamond

Director

Edward Zwick

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 01, 2007

I’m one of the ones who have mixed feelings about Edward Zwick’s films. I think he has achieved greatness but lately his movies have been somewhat pretentious, exaggerated when it comes to their message, and I could say even overplayed. Blood Diamond was fresher than Zwick’s latest efforts, but I could still feel a tinge of these symptoms. However, since I enjoyed it mostly, I will keep it in a positive light… while not reviewing it quite positively.

First and foremost I feel obliged to mention the one characteristic that I thought was excellent, and that’s Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance. He excels all the way, but that’s not news, even the same year he gave one of his most awesome showcases in Martin Scorsese’s The Departed. But in Blood Diamond I saw him show amazing freshness and bravura, mixed with some dark humor and pathos so successfully that he reminded me of Marlon Brando. He simply knocked me down.

DiCaprio’s character is quite the opposite to the one played by Djimon Hounsou, though both performances are astounding. The former plays Danny Archer, a diamond contrabandist in Sierra Leone, where diamonds are the stuff that dreams are made of and, just like the object such described in classic cinema, also cause quite a few deaths. The backdrop is social consciousness; how many happy brides-to-be receive their wedding rings not suspecting that the diamond on it was smuggled and probably killed for? What’s worse: the hunger for diamonds derives into guerrillas, slavery and kidnapping, or worse.

Hounsou plays Solomon Vandy, enslaved after his town is savaged by diamond hunters. His family is torn apart, with his son Dia (Kagiso Kuypers) kidnapped by the same men and brainwashed into a child-soldier of their own. Vandy finds a particularly large and valuable stone, hides it and manages to escape, and when Archer finds out about this, he sets to get the stone at any cost. Admittedly, Archer’s means can turn nasty, but he’s even willing to help Solomon if necessary. A sexy journalist he meets in the way, Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), becomes his conscience as he offers her aid if and only if Solomon is actually helped.

There could be two ways to catalogue this movie: it’s both an action film and an educational one, in the strict way that a character learns an important lesson. It’s pretty obvious from the start that Archer should and will become a better person, though why and how is unclear. Despite DiCaprio’s brilliant performance, this aspect of the story is managed poorly by Charles Leavitt’s screenplay (from a story by himself and C. Gaby Mitchell) and Zwick’s direction. In fact, though Solomon’s story is heartbreaking (and Hounsou’s performance truly gifted), there seems to be a tendency to undermine the characters in favor of an action flick which this ends up being.

Now, the action pays off! Since the motivation is better achieved than that of the average action movie, we’re more than thrilled to see these characters come out unharmed; which they do mostly, sometimes in implausible ways. There’s a lot of chase and run, and the masterful work of editor Steven Rosenblum and cinematographer Eduardo Serra shows at every turn. And since I’m mentioning the team, I can’t stop short of praising James Newton Howard, whose music score is impressive.

I have mixed feelings in the end. I enjoyed the ride, loved the performances (though Connelly was wasted), and pleasured my eyes and ears, but I felt aloof. I guess I didn’t quite get the punch line. So I decided to gather what was best during the buildup.

“In America, it’s bling bling. But out here it’s bling bang.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter