Review
Heavenly Creatures
- Director
- Peter Jackson
- Year
- 1994
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Monday, April 30, 2001
Hardly is there a movie that is as disturbing and beautiful as
Heavenly Creatures. Set in New Zealand in the 50ies the movie is based on the real life story of Pauline Yvonne Parker (Melanie Lynskey) and Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) whose intense friendship led to a murder that shocked the nation.
Pauline is an outsider at school when a new student arrives. Juliet is the most exotic girl she’s ever met and the girls soon become friends. The 14-year-old girls share the same interests – literature and the love for Mario Lanza’s music. When Pauline and Juliet start living in a world full of fantasy their parents feel this friendship is going too far and try to separate them.
Peter Jackson portrays the relationship perfectly by mixing up elements of reality and fantasy. At first the girls‘ world is presented as innocent and compelling. They start creating their own universe by writing about the kingdom of Borovnia and dwelling in their fantasies about Mario Lanza. In a way the spectator is attracted by these wonderful images and we would never expect the catastrophe that is on the verge of happening.
Not only does the movie cover the girls‘ relationship but it also shows how Pauline and Juliet feel about their parents. Pauline dreams of being part of Juliet’s family that is wealthy and cultured while she distastes her own mom and dad’s middle-class origins. Juliet is struggling to be loved by her parents who dedicate more time to their career or in her mother’s case to their love affairs. When Juliet’s perfect family world starts to crumble the girls retreat more and more from reality. The once so compelling fantasy world becomes dangerous and violent and the desperate girls see no way out.
Heavenly Creatures probably is Jackson’s best known movie winning him an Academy Award nomination for best original screenplay in 1995. It features outstanding performances by Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet, both giving their on-screen debut. Lynskey covers a wide range of emotions while Winslet is full of energy and more charismatic than ever. We always sense sexual tension between them but we can hardly tell if it is for real.
Peter Jackson paints a picture of an intense friendship with beautiful visuals set in a dreadfully romantic atmosphere. Once you’ve seen
Heavenly Creatures it will never let you go again.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, April 30, 2001
Sylvester Stallone was the only one to make an impression at the box office this weekend if we consider all the new releases. The rest of the list fell a few pegs and the weekend was a quiet one overall. Things should be shaken up next week when
The Mummy Returns splashes into theaters...
1.
Driven (2001) - $13m, $13m.t.
2.
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) - $7.5m, $36.2m.t.
3.
Spy Kids (2001) - $5.7m, $93.5m.t.
4.
Along Came a Spider (2001) - $5.6m, $54.7m.t.
5.
Crocodile Dundee in L.A. (2001) - $4.6m, $13.8m.t.
6.
Blow (2001) - $3.2m, $40.3m.t.
7.
Town and Country (2001) - $3.1m, $3.1m.t.
8.
Forsaken, The (2001) - $3m, $3m.t.
9.
Joe Dirt - $2.7m, $22.7m.t.
10.
Freddy Got Fingered (2001) - $2.5m, $11.3m.t.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Notting Hill
- Director
- Roger Michell
- Year
- 1999
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Sunday, April 29, 2001
There’s nothing like a well-made romantic comedy. A movie you can see over and over again and still be fulfilled by its magic. This is the case of
Notting Hill, a movie I deeply love and embrace.
William Thacker (Hugh Grant) is a common guy that lives in a small house with a friend (Rhys Ifans) in the English town of Notting Hill. One day, movie superstar Anna Scott (Julia Roberts) visits his travel book shop and from now on nothing would be the same. They instantly click, although their very different ways of life make room for some problems to emerge.
You know there’s something unique going on when you start watching a romantic comedy with Julia Roberts in which she plays a splendorous woman with a minor quibble: she’s not happy. Anna is a human being who happens to have a job that has made her famous and has put her in a frivolous world where nothing is real and where your looks are everything. I was surprised to see how the movie portrays this world in such an accurate and real manner. Even thou the basic premise is somewhat unlikely to happen in the real world, this movie is much more than you would expect.
Of course, her pain and sadness (which aren’t enough to avoid us from falling in love with her), are somewhat compensated by the easy-going way of life of Will, who sees things as they are in a simple way. That is exactly what she is looking for, to be able to hide away from her world and be a normal person. In a way, the movie makes a strong statement about how we sometimes don’t appreciate how special our lives are with us not even noticing it.
Julia Roberts is wonderful, wonderful, wonderful in this role. Some might say that she is playing herself, but that’s not true. Her character just happens to have the same job, but no one could have made this work so greatly if it wasn’t for her charm, her talent and the way she approached her character. The movie has a lot of poignant moments for her, like the one in which she has dinner with Will’s family and friends and she tells them the truth about her life. This is a movie filled with great scenes like that.
Hugh Grant, an actor I don’t usually like, is really good as well. This isn’t much of a stretch for him, although the movie benefits from his persona. Just as in
Four Wedding and a Funeral, whose creators are behind this one as well, the movie is filled with a large gamut of weird supporting characters, of which Rhys Ifans and Emma Chambers, as Will’s sister, are the highlights.
I’ll never forget that last entire sequence with Elvis Costello’s “She” in the background. I wish every romantic comedy ended like this. I love this movie. I simply love it.
“I’m also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her”.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Girl, Interrupted
- Director
- James Mangold
- Year
- 1999
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Saturday, April 28, 2001
Set in 1967,
Girl, Interrupted tells the story of 18-year-old Susanna Kaysen (Winona Ryder) who finds herself in Claymore Hospital after a suicide attempt. Diagnosis: Borderline Personality Disorder. At first Susanna feels out of place but soon befriends the other patients, whose problems seem far worse than her own. Lisa (Angelina Jolie), apparently a sociopath, delights in controlling the weaker girls and becomes Susanna’s best friend. When Susanna starts to confront her own mental illness she also has to face Lisa’s.
The movie is based on writer Susanna Kaysen’s book about her 18-month stay at a mental hospital. James Mangold handles the problem of portraying her disease perfectly. The question raised here is: What is the difference between being insane and being ‘normal’?
Mangold uses different timeshifts to illustrate Susanna’s disorientation. The greatest achievement is that we never get to know whether Susanna’s state of mind needs to be cured or if she’s just a teenager refusing to grow up. At times she seems out of place, then again we feel she needs professional help. By portraying her as a ‘normal’ person the spectator rather feels with her than for her. Therefore what we get to see is told through Susanna’s eyes and even if we don’t know if we can trust her judgement at all times we get to like her new friends – especially the charismatic, yet destructive Lisa.
Jolie’s portrayal of Lisa could not have been more impressive. The most powerful scene of
Girl, Interrupted is the confrontation with Susanna. In the end Lisa has to admit that her way of gaining power through other people’s weakness is also destroying herself. By that time Susanna has faced her inner demons and the once so powerful Lisa is confronted with her own illness.
Jolie definitely steals the movie whereas Winona Ryder is back in shape in a brilliant movie. She makes Susanna a human being and we keep asking ourselves what her illness is all about. Even though the cast of supporting actresses includes Vanessa Redgrave and Whoopi Goldberg I felt that the real stars here are the actresses playing the patients: Brittany Murphy, Elisabeth Moss and Clea DuVall.
James Mangold finds the perfect atmosphere to tell this true story. His movie not only has numerous references to
The Wizard of Oz but it also recreates the mood of the 60's perfectly.
Girl, Interrupted is a sensitive movie about friendship and the process of growing up.
Sometimes it’s good to go a little crazy...
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
To Kill a Mockingbird
- Director
- Robert Mulligan
- Year
- 1962
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Friday, April 27, 2001
Before I saw this movie, I always thought of it as a first-rate courtroom drama with Gregory Peck as the struggling lawyer defending some poor innocent man. Not that it was a bad idea, since this type of movies can also be excellent, but I thought there wasn’t more to it than that. Well, I couldn’t be more misinformed. This movie has a lot more going on for it... and it totally blew me away.
Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck), his son Jem (Philip Alford) and his daughter “Scout” (Mary Badham) are a normal family living in a small Southern town. It is one hot summer in the 30’s that our story begins. There are two storylines that then converge from this point. One involves the fascination of Jem and Scout to know what’s behind that creepy house down the block where a supposedly monster named Boo Radley lives and never comes out. Meanwhile, their father is appointed a new case involving the defense of a black man (Brock Peters) accused of raping a white girl.
The movie is not that simple. It is one of those rare exceptions where there is so much going on that I don’t even know how to express myself with just a few lines. I guess the most special aspect of the movie has to do with how it is all told from the point of view of the children. Since the great opening credits start we are transported into a world of innocence and ignorance of two young children growing up, each in their own way, but always together.
Scout is a girl who clearly shows that she has lived in an almost entirely masculine world. She is tough and always says what she thinks. This is the kind of girl that engages people for her sheer personality. She is like everyone at her age, curious and very active. Jem, on the other hand, is a child on his way to become a man. He’s a boy filled with adventure that will someday start realizing that there is also bad things in the world, that not everything is so pretty. Thus he starts to grow and understand how it all works. This two siblings go through a lot of stuff that would mark them forever. And their neighbor Boo Radley would eventually have a lot to do with this.
The second part of the movie is more interested in their father’s case. There is a big and amazingly compelling courtroom sequence that culminates in a poignant note. Atticus is a good man and he is trying to do what he should in spite of being hated by some white people. He sees the innocence behind this man and makes his best effort to claim for justice. We are talking here about the Depression era, where the division between black and white people was at its toughest. To support a black man wasn’t something anyone would dare to do. And in spite of all this, he still had to be an anchor for his children.
This movie is based on the Pullitzer Prize-winning novel by Harper Lee. I must say it is brilliant. The transition has been done to perfection. The mood, the characters, the innocence...
This is a movie with a message of courage, tolerance, racial prejudice and family values. A movie about growing up. A movie with some unforgettable scenes. Who can forget Scout’s amiably words when people were threatening his father outside jail? Who can forget the look in Scout’s face when she recognizes the man who saved her life? Who can forget the people standing up while Atticus gets out of the courtroom? Or the scene in which Atticus and Scout talk about her mother? Who can forget the reference as to where this story’s title comes from?
Robert Mulligan really did a great job in bringing this amazing story to the screen in such high fashion. Gregory Peck is superb as the man who has to keep everything in control. This is one hell of a good performance. Just by watching his face we can infer a lot. Mary Badham, as Scout, makes up for what is one of the greatest child performances of all time. I’m so glad she received an Academy Award nomination. She is perfect. And the rest of the cast is equally good. Check out for Robert Duvall’s electric appearance in his film debut.
Listen carefully to that beautiful score, watch closely those beautiful images, get immersed in this breath-taking and masterfully done motion picture. You will never forget it.
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... 'til you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Not that better
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, April 27, 2001
Following a really lame weekend we now get a lot more pictures that offer a larger variety to choose from. Unfortunately, April continues to offer just poor outings and nothing really exciting at all. Check out:
Town and Country (2001) – This is the long-delayed Warren Beatty project that is finally hiting theaters. The general consensus is divided. Some are calling it horrendous while others are claiming that it isn’t that bad. With a large cast of well-known veteran actors that include Diane Keaton and Goldie Hawn, I guess this movie should be at least half acceptable.
Driven (2001) – Renny Harlin directs this movie about the world of car racing that stars, among others, Sylvester Stallone and Burt Reynolds. It is getting a terrible response, which definitely isn’t great news for Sly, whose track record has been getting really poor lately. Let’s see how audiences respond.
One Night At McCool’s – This is one of those wacky small movies where strange characters abound and interact for some unexpected situations. Liv Tyler leads the pack as a femme fatale, but is accompanied by a strong supporting cast that includes Matt Dillon and Michael Douglas. The response has been mixed, not that good but not that bad.
The Forsaken – A story about normal guys dealing with vampires in the real world. It is targeted at a teenage audience and is getting a mixed response as well. Kerr Smith and Jonathon Schaech star in a movie that is said to be quite original, although not that successful.
Anyway, have fun at the movies!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
MTV Movie Awards Nominations 2001
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Wednesday, April 25, 2001
The most wacky nominations of the year. Check out who made it this time. I must admit that some of this choices are great and others are plain out ridiculous, but that's part of the fun!
Best Movie
X-Men (2000)
Hannibal (2001)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
Gladiator (2000)
Best Male Performance
Tom Cruise -
Mission: Impossible 2 (2000)
Mel Gibson -
The Patriot
Omar Epps -
Love & Basketball
Tom Hanks -
Cast Away (2000)
Russell Crowe -
Gladiator (2000)
Best Female Performance
Julia Roberts -
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Jennifer Lopez -
Cell, The (2000)
Julia Stiles -
Save The Last Dance (2001)
Aaliyah -
Romeo Must Die
Kate Hudson -
Almost Famous (2000)
Best Comedic Performance
Ben Stiller -
Meet the Parents (2000)
Martin Lawrence -
Big Momma's House
Tom Green -
Road Trip
Eddie Murphy -
Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps
Jim Carrey -
Me, Myself & Irene
Best On-Screen Team
Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz & Lucy Liu -
Charlie´s Angels (2000)
Robert De Niro & Ben Stiller -
Meet the Parents (2000)
George Clooney, John Turturro & Tim Blake Nelson -
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Tom Hanks & Wilson -
Cast Away (2000)
Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry & James Marsden -
X-Men (2000)
Best Villain
Joaquin Phoenix -
Gladiator (2000)
Anthony Hopkins -
Hannibal (2001)
Kevin Bacon -
Hollow Man
Jim Carrey -
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Vincent D'Onofrio -
Cell, The (2000)
Breakthrough Performance Male
Ashton Kutcher -
Dude, Where's My Car? (2000)
Jack Black -
High Fidelity
Tom Green -
Road Trip
Sean Patrick Thomas -
Save The Last Dance (2001)
Patrick Fugit -
Almost Famous (2000)
Hugh Jackman -
X-Men (2000)
Breakthrough Performance Female
Zhang Ziyi -
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
Aaliyah -
Romeo Must Die
Piper Perabo -
Coyote Ugly (2000)
Erika Christensen -
Traffic (2000)
Anna Faris -
Scary Movie (2000)
Best Kiss
Julia Stiles & Sean Patrick Thomas -
Save The Last Dance (2001)
Ben Affleck & Gwyneth Paltrow -
Bounce (2000)
Anna Faris & Jon Abrahams -
Scary Movie (2000)
Julianne Moore & Anthony Hopkins -
Hannibal (2001)
Tom Hanks & Helen Hunt -
Cast Away (2000)
Best Action Sequence
Car Chase Through Construction Site -
Gone in 60 Seconds
Roman Army vs. Germanian Horde -
Gladiator (2000)
Motorcycle Chase -
Mission: Impossible 2 (2000)
Plane Crash -
Cast Away (2000)
Best Fight
Zhang Ziyi vs. Entire Bar -
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
Russell Crowe vs. Masked Opponent and Tiger -
Gladiator (2000)
Jet Li with Hose vs. Attackers -
Romeo Must Die
Drew Barrymore vs. Attackers -
Charlie´s Angels (2000)
Best Dance Sequence
Cameron Diaz Fantasy Sequence -
Charlie´s Angels (2000)
Opening Cheer -
Bring it On (2000)
Billy's First Lesson -
Billy Elliot (2000)
Club Scene -
Save The Last Dance (2001)CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Pay It Forward
- Director
- Mimi Leder
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Monday, April 23, 2001
What do you expect of a movie starring Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt and Haley Joel Osment? A masterpiece? At least a great movie? I am afraid to say
Pay It Forward has to be called a waste of talent instead. With Mimi Leder’s tendency to tell stories that are too sweet to be swallowed this movie unfortunately is nothing but a disappointment.
The first part is still highly interesting: Teacher Eugene Simonet (Kevin Spacey) starts a daring experiment when he gives his students the task of thinking about an idea of how to change the world. Trevor McKinney (Haley Joel Osment) tries to put his simple, yet effective idea into action. He wants to help three people succeed in a difficult business they cannot handle themselves. Instead of asking for something in return he would only ask them to pay this favour forward to three other people. Trevor starts by helping a homeless man (James Caviezel), but soon realizes that it is not as easy as imagined. The two other people he wants to help are his alcoholic mother Arlene (Helen Hunt) and his unhappy teacher Mr. Simonet.
So far, so good. Up to this point I liked the movie for its original idea. However Leder soon mixes up too many genres and makes you wonder where the story is heading to. It is not only a story of how to make the world a better place, it is also a mother-son relationship, a love story, a family drama and in the end an unbearable pseudo-philosophical piece of eye-candy. While the part about the relationship between Helen Hunt’s character and her son is incredibly good and well-acted the love story between Hunt and Spacey lacks credibility, not to mention the annoying appearance of Jon Bon Jovi. It is a shame that the movie doesn’t follow Trevor’s idea consequently. Instead we get to see tidbits of different relationships and cliched plotlines (both Simonet’s and Arlene’s childhoods).
The movie would still have been acceptable if it wasn’t for the abrupt ending which unnecessarily lifts Trevor’s idea to an almost religious level. I can’t forgive Ms. Leder this clumsy attempt of controlling the spectator’s emotions. You can clearly see that
Pay It Forward could have been so much more. It features an outstanding ensemble cast that still manages to give superb performances – especially Helen Hunt surprises in her Brokovich-like role. However there are too many loose ends and a disastrous ending that make this movie all in all a dull experience.
Pay It Forward is a mixed bag of emotions and morals which hardly manages to convince.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, April 23, 2001
I can’t remember any time that something like this has happened since
There's Something About Mary (1998), but
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) actually managed its way to the top after debuting in third place last weekend. Its theater count increased, but it still was an amazing move. New entries, on the other hand, failed to give much of an impression.
Here’s the full list:
1.
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) - $10.5M, $25.6M
2.
Spy Kids (2001) - $10.2M, $68.0M
3.
Along Came a Spider (2001) - $9.1M, $47.1M
4.
Crocodile Dundee in L.A. (2001) - $8.0M, $8.0M
5.
Freddy Got Fingered (2001) - $7.2M, $7.2M
6.
Blow (2001) - $6.0M, $35.2M
7.
Joe Dirt - $5.4M, $19.2M
8.
Kingdom Come - $4.7M, $16.5M
9.
Josie & The Pussycats - $3.1M, $11.6M
10.
Enemy at the Gates (2001) - $2.1M, $46.4M
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
X-Men
- Director
- Bryan Singer
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Coffee
- Review date
- Sunday, April 22, 2001
Movies which are based on comic books have not exactly dominated the world of serious cinema in the past. When we think of adaptations coming from this genre, what comes to mind are flicks like
Spawn or
Tank Girl – films that basically weren’t worth the material they were recorded on.
For me personally the only real exceptions are
Batman and
Batman Returns by Tim Burton because these pictures managed to transfer the darkness and psychological ambivalence of the characters from the comic books to the big screen. And while
X-Men isn’t a very sophisticated movie on the surface it achieves something that has proved to be the most difficult aspect in successfully creating a comic book adaptation: it stays true to the original while also going a step beyond it.
Writer/director Bryan Singer shows good instinct with his casting. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan make a couple of resourceful antagonists and manage to fuel the plot with their dramatic skill. While Halle Berry as Storm and James Marsden in the role of Cyclops remain rather pale (which is more due to the script than to lack of potential I guess), Anna Paquin delivers a solid performance as Rogue. The genuine surprise of
X-Men is however Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He gives the character a dimension of strength, toughness and grim dedication that makes him look more like a combination of
Easy Rider and the Dark Knight than a superhero all-star in yellow spandex. Although the plot yields few surprises and won’t leave you gasping out of shock the speed and visual style of
X-Men make it fabulously entertaining. The characters are well developed and other than those “bad” comic book films this one has a serious plot AND flashy special effects.
The aspect that I think of as one of the most positive was the ambivalence of the characters. Especially Rogue is depicted as being more cursed than blessed by her super-powers and the bad guys don’t appear as dumb and flat as they usually do in a movie of this genre. Of course the fact that the background of the characters is given much attention (and time) can also be considered a weakness. Together with the rather anti-climatic ending everything literally screams “SEQUEL!”, but given the same cast and director that is something I wouldn’t want to miss...
“So, what is your special power... putting up with him?”
(Wolverine to Jean Grey, referring to her boyfriend Cyclops)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Article
Movie Magic 2000
- Posted by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Article date
- Sunday, April 22, 2001
Just today I sat down and thought about the fact that movies make my life so much happier. Whenever I feel exhausted, sad or depressed I watch one of my favorite movies. Every single one of them immediately makes me smile again. Some may say 2000 was a weak year for the movies but I don’t agree. There were many outstanding moments and performances that won’t be forgotten. Here’s my say on the best of the best 2000:
Best Director:
Steven Soderbergh (
Traffic)
Best Actor:
Michael Douglas (
Wonder Boys)
Best Supporting Actor:
Benicio Del Toro (
Traffic)
Best Actress:
Michelle Rodriguez (
Girlfight)
Best Supporting Actress:
Kate Winslet (
Quills)
Best ensemble cast:
Traffic
Most Talented:
Kirsten Dunst (
Virgin Suicides, The)
Joaquin Phoenix (
Quills,
Gladiator)
Best Score (composer):
Ennio Morricone -
Malèna
Best Score (band):
Air -
Virgin Suicides, The
Best Song:
Soggy Bottom Boys - I am a man of constant sorrow
(
O Brother, Where Art Thou?)
Best Make-Up:
X-Men
Best Scifi:
X-Men
Best Horror:
Final destination
Best Comedy:
Emperor's New Groove, The
Best overlooked movie:
American Psycho
Best Concept:
Time Code
Best Love Story:
Malèna
Most delicious movie:
Chocolat
Best German movie:
Der Krieger und die Kaiserin
Waste of talent:
Pay It Forward
Worst disappointment:
The Perfect Storm
Worst Movie:
Mission to Mars / The Watcher (tie)
Favorite Animal:
Pantoufle (
Chocolat)
Favorite Volleyball:
Wilson (
Cast Away)
Best Action Scenes:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Coolest Accent:
Billy Elliot "Balleeeeeeet!"
Best On-screen Duo:
Clooney’s hairnet and Dapper Dan (
O Brother, Where Art Thou?)
Sexiest Moment:
Benicio walking through the bar and "making out" with the bad guy (
Traffic)
Best Line:
"###***#####" Brad Pitt (
Snatch)
Top 10:
1-
Traffic
2-
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
3-
Almost Famous (2000)
4-
Malèna
5-
Virgin Suicides, The
6-
Der Krieger und die Kaiserin
7-
Quills
8-
Gladiator
9-
Wonder Boys
10-
GirlfightCriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Miss Congeniality
- Director
- Donald Petrie
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Saturday, April 21, 2001
We have all witnessed how Sandra Bullock’s career has gone down since starring in
Speed and
While You Were Sleeping. It’s not been easy, because I’ve always liked her. She has that kind of easygoing charm and beauty that are just too irresistible for me. And I’m glad to report that she’s back. Not that critics agree with me, but judging from the tons of money it made, I guess the audience does.
Gracie Hart (Sandra Bullock) is one tough cop. She has always been a rough girl and that’s why she is used to do manly stuff while working in the FBI along mostly men companions. One of them is Eric (Benjamin Bratt) with whom she has a strange but friendly friendship. Suddenly, a wacko that has been committing a series of murders gives a sign about where his next move will be committed: the Miss United States Beauty Pageant Show. The solution? Go undercover. The volunteer? You guess.
This movie is silly as hell. Silly, silly, silly. It doesn’t take itself seriously and I see that as the reason of its success. It is really funny, and the audience with whom I saw the movie were all in stitches... for the entire running time! It never loses steam.
So what is funny about it? First of all, there’s the transformation Gracie has to go through to become an actual participant of a contest she hates. Help comes in the form of expert Victor (Michael Caine) . And I know we have seen a lot of movies about this stuff before, but here it feels fresh and works, so why complain.
Then there is the satire targeted directly to beauty contests. The movie is full of smart gags that can also be poignant or just simply comic. There’s some slapstick comedy as well as quiet moments that serve as a mean of not making this movie only a brainless ride. I know it doesn’t have a lot of profundity, but it’s not needed and we don’t want it.
Let the funny stuff keep coming!
Specially if it’s in the form of Bullock, who, as I’ve said before, is just excellent. Funny, charismatic, believable... she does it all here. I’d never seen her play such a full-blown comedic part, and now I want to see her doing it again. Bratt is ok. And Caine simply steals the movie. He’s hilarious. The only weak link is Heather Mills, whose character is pivotal to the story, although I would have liked to see her played in not such an annoying manner.
Anyway, don’t take this movie too seriously. Go and have a great time. It is a movie made to entertain. A movie made to make us laugh. A movie that actually works fine.
“If only I had a brain!”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Age of Innocence
- Director
- Martin Scorsese
- Year
- 1993
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Friday, April 20, 2001
Period pieces are not my favorite genre. I usually enjoy them and find them attractive. But I always get the sense that the people populating those stories are rather cold. I don’t know why, but I accept that and try to immerse myself in them. If they work, then I’m happy. And with this movie, well, let’s say I’m still smiling.
It’s New York City in the 1870’s. It’s a society filled with rules and propriety. Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his girlfriend May (Winona Ryder) just got engaged. But things get disrupted when her cousin Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) returns from Europe after a failed marriage. At first it all seems innocent, but as time goes by Archer and Ellen must face their love and its consequences in a society that won’t allow it.
At its core,
The Age of Innocence is a triangle love story. Archer and Ellen are two rebels. Two people who don’t like to live under the pressures that surround them. May, on the other hand, is all quiet and submissive. Even when it is not that apparent, we sense that she has always known what’s going on. This is a story about repressed feelings, about unrequited love.
There is also a theme going on throughout the movie that appeared to me as very poignant as well. Scorsese finds a way to tell his story while satirizing, or expressing in high detail, how life was in the nineteenth century. From the way people dressed, the way people lived, what they ate, what they thought. It is all fascinatingly shown to give an effective and frustrating feeling of what our characters had to go through at the time.
Scorsese is, of course, a guarantee of quality. You can sense that in every frame, from the well-spoken dialogue to the camera-work. His direction is tight and shows how a talented man can cover any ground successfully if he is willing to. He is also good at directing his actors, because they all give outstanding performances.
Lewis, as the leading man, is flawless. His character has to go through a lot of emotions and confusion. He is always excellent at expressing that while still being likable to us. Michelle Pfeiffer is a beautiful and talented woman whom I’ve always praised. She is radiant here. This was definitely a high point for her. And then there is Winona Ryder, who got the most acclaim and even earned an Oscar nomination. I love her and she’s outstanding here, although I honestly find her equally good to her costars.
It would be difficult to forget that scene where Lewis waits for Pfeiffer to look back while standing on the dock. A truly heartbreaking moment that is part of a truly amazing motion picture.
“Don't you see? I can't love you unless I give you up”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Not worthy
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, April 20, 2001
This is a lame weekend. I don’t think there’ll be anyone like these in the rest of the year. But what to do? It’s April. We’ve gotta stick with what we get. Let’s view the films released this weekend:
Freddy Got Fingered – Tom Green stars and directs in this movie about a guy in a big fight with his father and a lot of stuff going on that end up in unexpected and funny situations. That is, if you don’t go with the Hollywood Reporter’s opinion and name it “maybe the worst comedy ever made”. Sounds good, uh? Well, they reflect everyone’s opinion, so be careful. You’ve been warned!
Crocodile Dundee in L.A. – Paul Hogan returns for the third time to the role for which he is better known. Nearly 15 years after the original premiered, the idea doesn’t seem as fresh and critics are agreeing. A movie with good intentions but which fails to give any impression. Too bad, because I think Paul is actually a really funny man.
An that’s it. Depressing, I’d call it...
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Boogie Nights
- Director
- Paul Thomas Anderson
- Year
- 1997
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Thursday, April 19, 2001
Paul Thomas Anderson has to be the finest talent that cinema has these days. In fact I don’t even want to refer to him anymore as a talent. In the space of four years he delivered three films all of which were outstanding. First came the small scaled but very effective
Hard Eight (1996), last was the ambitious (perhaps even over-ambitious)
Magnolia (1999). In between he made probably the best and most accessible of his films;
Boogie Nights (1997) about the hey-day and decline of America’s porn industry.
The film opens in Los Angeles in the late seventies. Anderson demonstrates his brilliance in a terrific opening shot: an uninterrupted take of several minutes which follows the main characters in and around a San Fernando Valley night-club. There’s adult filmmaker Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), his leading lady Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), some supporting players; Rollergirl (Heather Graham), Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly), Horner assistant Little Bill (William H. Macy) and finally the camera stops in front of a young man named Eddie Adams. He is still a dishwasher at the club but soon he will become the “biggest” sensation in the porn world, literally.
Adams is taken into Horner’s family of sorts. Every member of this family has a troubled past (including Eddie) but through their work in porn movies they enjoy something like happiness, at least for a brief period. Adams changes his name to Dirk Diggler and in no time is a major star, but this fame comes at a price. He is soon into drugs and becomes self-destructive, while the other people find that their history in porn gets them into trouble in real life.
This tale of the rise-and-fall of people is hardly new of course and has been told many times with a setting in the ‘’regular Hollywood film world.” Anderson’s visual style and dialogue however make sure that the film never becomes boring, tiring or predictable. All of the performances by the main characters are great, and when a supporting cast includes fine actors like Philip Seymour Hoffmann and Philip Baker Hall you know that acting-wise this is great film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film deals with the changes that take place in the adult film industry. In the late seventies adult films played in real theatres, had real directors and were shot on real film. They were very close to being an accepted form of cinema (even Stanley Kubrick was very seriously considering making a porn movie). But when the eighties dawned several things happened to change that. There was AIDS of course which brought an end to the sexual freedom and made people look differently at these movies, but more importantly for the business there was the arrival of video.
Video lowered the costs of producing these films a lot and that meant that virtually everybody could get into the act, meaning that the professionals would have to settle for a lot less income. Also it meant the end of theatrical films because people could now play these movies directly in their homes, bringing an end to the feeling that many porn stars had that they were something like real movie stars, making their lives even harder.
The film isn’t all drama. It includes some comedy as well, like when Horner has to adapt to the rules of shooting on video. In the final third of the movie it also turns into an action film when dealing with a cocaine transaction. Despite this mixing of genres the film never loses the grip it has over us from the opening shot.
Although obviously dealing a lot with sex, the film is anything but sleazy. The small number of sex-scenes aren’t made to look erotic, and the nudity is kept to a minimum, although we do get to see what makes Dirk Diggler such a big star in the final shot. Anderson doesn’t depict the porn world as “dirty” or “despicable” but very much like the real Hollywood where people are serious about their work and try to do as good a job as possible, even though the circumstances that they are under make that nearly impossible.
The soundtrack to the film is first rate. Listen and you’ll hear some of the late seventies and early eighties finest songs. Often these songs refer to what’s happening in the movie. And if you want some more good stuff to listen try and find a DVD of the film which features an excellent insightful commentary by Anderson himself.
So in closing this is one of the best films from the last couple of years by a director who could become one of the true greats. Let’s hope he continues his fine form.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Cannes 2001 Lineup
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Thursday, April 19, 2001
This year's Cannes Film Festival is just around the corner, and the movies who will be participating have just been announced. As is always the case, only the American movies sound familiar to us. A lot of buzz will then begin about some of this movies, which might go on to become some of the best of the year. Remember that
Dancer in the Dark (2000),
Love's a Bitch (2000) and
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) were all born in last year's festival.
Special notice should go to Dreamwork's "Shrek", the third animated movie to be in contention for the Palm d'Or in the history of the festival. It has been followed by a lot of great buzz, but this wasn't expected. Sean Penn will also be participating with
Pledge, The (2001), a movie I've already seen and that isn't that good. Interesting is also the fact that Joel Coen is participating as well. Good things always come from him and his brother.
So check out the full list:
IN COMPETITION
Opening Film: "Moulin Rouge," by Baz Luhrmann (U.S.)
"Desert Moon," by Aoyama Shinji (Japan)
"The Man Who Wasn’t There," by Joel Coen (U.S.)
"La Repetition" (The Rehearsal), by Catherine Corsini (France)
"La Chambre des Officiers" (The Officers' Room), by Francois Dupeyron (France)
"Eloge de l‚Amour" (Eulogy of Love), by Jean-Luc Godard (Switzerland)
"La Pianiste" (The Pianist), by Michael Haneke (Austria/France)
"Millennium Mambo," by Hou Hsiao-Hsien (China)
"Warm Water Under a Red Bridge," by Shohei Imamura (Japan)
"Shrek," by Victoria Jenson and Andrew Adamson (U.S.)
"Roberto Succo," by Cedric Khan (France)
"Distance," by Kore-Eda Hirokazu (Japan)
"Mullholland Drive," by David Lynch (U.S.)
"Kandahar," by Mohsen Makhmalbaf (Iran)
"La Stanza del Figlio" (The Son’s Room), by Nanni Moretti (Italy)
"Je Rentre a la Maison" (I’m Going Home), Manoel De Oliveira (Portugal)
"Il Mestiere Delle Armi" (The Profession of Arms), by Ermanno Olmi (Italy)
Pledge, The (2001) by Sean Penn (U.S.)
"Pau I El Seu Germa" (Pau and His Brother), by Marc Recha (Spain)
"Va Savoir" (Go Figure) by Jacques Rivette (France)
"Taurus," by Alexandr Sokurov (Russia)
"No Man‚s Land," by Danis Tanovic (Bosnia/France)
"What Time is it Over There? " by Tsai Ming-Liang (Taiwan)
OUT OF COMPETITION
"Apocalypse Now," by Francis Ford Coppola (U.S.)
"CQ," by Roman Coppola (U.S.)
"Trouble Every Day," by Claire Denis (France)
"Human Nature," by Michel Gondry (U.S.)
"Avalon," by Mamoru Oshii (Japan)
"The Center of the World," by Wayne Wang (U.S.)
Closing film:
"Les Ames Fortes" (Strong Souls) by Raul Ruiz (France)
SPECIAL SCREENINGS
"ABC Africa," by Abbas Kiarostami (Iran)
"Il Mio Viaggio in Italia" (My Journey in Italy), by Martin Scorsese (U.S.)
"Sobibor, 14 Octobre 1943, 16 Heures" (Sobibor, 14 October 1943,
4pm), by Claude Lanzmann (France)
SHORTS IN COMPETITION
"Daddy‚s Girl," by Irvine Allan (UK)
"Paulette," by Louise-Marie Colon (Belgium)
"Chicken," by Barry Dignam (Ireland)
"Bird in a Wire," by Phillip Donnellon (Australia)
"Bean Cake," by David Greenspan (U.S.)
"Truth in Advertising," by Tim Hamilton (Canada)
"Goo," by Dwight Hwang (U.S.)
"Shim-Sung-Ga-Jok" (The Holy Family), by Dong Il Shim (S Korea)
"Pizza Passionata," by Kari Juusonen (Finland)
"Naturlige Briller," by Jens Lien (Norway)
"Les Petits Oiseaux" (The Little Birds), by Fred Louf (France)
"Music for One Apartment and Six Drummers," by Ola Simonsson and Johannes Stjarne Nilsson (Sweden)
UN CERTAIN REGARD
Opening Film: "R-Xmas," Abel Ferrara
"Maimal" (The Chimp), by Aktan Abdykalykov (Kirghizstan)
"La Libertad" (Liberty), by Lisandro Alonso (Argentina)
"Domani" (Tomorrow), by Francesca Archibugi (Italy)
"Ganhar a Vida" (Earn a Living), by Joao Canijo (Portugal)
"Amour d‚Enfance" (Childhood Love), by Yves Caumon (France)
"Carrement a l‚Ouest" (Way Off the Mark), by Jacques Doillon (France)
"No Such Thing," by Hal Hartley (U.S./Iceland)
"Lovely Rita," by Jessica Hausner (Austria)
"The Man Who Walks on Snow," by Masahiro Kobayashi (Japan)
"Hatouna Mehuheret" (Marriage Late in Life), by Dover Kosashvili (Israel/France)
"Atanarjuat The Fast Runner," by Zacharias Kunuk (Canada)
"Kairo," by Kyoshi Kurosawa (Japan)
"The Anniversary Party," by Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming (U.S.)
"A Dog’s Day," by Murali Nair (India)
"La Route," by Darehzan Omirbaev (Kazhakstan)
"Fah Talai Jone" (The Tears of the Black Tiger), by Wisit Sasanatieng (Thailand)
"Hijack Stories," by Oliver Schmitz (South Africa)
"Storytelling," by Todd Solondz (U.S.)
"H-Story," by Nobuhiro Suwa (Japan)
"Ty Da Ia Da My S Tobo" (Nobody Here But Us Two), by Alexandre Veledinski (Russia)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Article
Groucho's top 10 of 2000
- Posted by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Article date
- Tuesday, April 17, 2001
Hello there!! Here I am, almost in the middle of the year 2001, presenting my top10 of 2000. What’s the matter with me, right? The Oscars were given like a year ago and I’m presenting this until now? Well, better late than never!! If you still remember these ancient films, why not take a look? ;-)
10 -
Wonder Boys (2000)
A poignant little film about an aging teacher (Michael Douglas) going through a crisis and a brilliant student (Tobey Maguire) getting into his life. A weekend story that doesn’t go too far in any aspect… one of the best films of the year!
9 -
Quills (2000)
A thoroughly delectable film, telling the story of the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) during his last days in a mental institution. An amazing cast (Joaquin Phoenix, Kate Winslet, Michael Caine, et al) in a beautifully told story leaded by astounding Rush.
8 -
Cast Away (2000)
A rare achievement by
Robert Zemeckis, managing to keep the viewer’s attention for hours with only one actor onscreen. Considering that the actor is
Tom Hanks, the task is, in a way, easier.
7 -
Almost Famous (2000)
A loving, well-intentioned film about a kid getting involved with a rock band in the 70s, this is an outstanding comedy as well as a touching melodrama. The storytelling is smooth and the characters unforgettable. Add to that the flawless performances all around, and you’ve got a winner!
6 -
Love's a Bitch (2000)
Amores Perros, the internationally praised Mexican movie, is an intense tale of redemption told in a crossover style that centers in a crash accident and relates three different kind of people that ultimately meet a fate that has something to do with dogs. Touching and extreme, this film is one of the very best of the year.
5 -
Billy Elliot (2000)
An enchanting movie, conceived as the usual
Rocky-like film of self-respect and triumph, this one proves how an old premise can still work to perfection if told the right way. Touching to the most, this story of a male ballet dancer who fights against prejudice and affects the lives of everyone around, leaves a great flavor in your mouth.
4 -
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Funny, outrageous Coen Brothers comedy that updates Homer’s “The Odyssey,” this became one of my favorites after the very first frame. Every bit of comedy worked for me and the performances were unique. A bit of surrealism added to its greatness.
3 -
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
A deeply depressing, flawlessly made movie,
Dancer in the Dark features singer Björk as the unforgettable Selma, a woman who’s gradually becoming blind, but never falls into sadness thanks to her custom of imagining herself in a Hollywood-like musical every time things get unbearable. The contrast of tragedy and optimism becomes what is probably the biggest heartbreaker of the year, uncannily directed by Lars Von Trier.
2 -
Traffic (2000)
Expertly crafted film about the drug world in three layers surprised everyone for its realism and crudeness. Good performances all around, an excellent screenplay, “regional” cinematography and an amazing direction by Steven Soderbergh made this an instant winner.
1 -
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
A one-of-a-kind film that manages to look beautiful and simple while presenting unbelievable scenes, this Taiwanese beauty startled audiences and critics all around, and no wonder. It presents a simple tale of ancient China that becomes more and more elevated as the film goes on. Romance, action, magic… nothing is missing to this masterpiece.
So, that’s it my friends! Let’s see how 2001 turns out. As far as the predictions go, it’s looking good. Keep on visiting!!
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Anywhere but Here
- Director
- Wayne Wang
- Year
- 1999
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Monday, April 16, 2001
Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman are definitely some of the finest actresses around. What kept me from seeing
Anywhere but here in the first place was my dislike for
Stepmom, which was far too shallow to capture my interest. Another heart-wrecking movie focusing on a mother-daughter relationship sounded too hard to take. How happy was I to find out that
Anywhere but here is totally different in its tone. Wayne Wang manages to keep the perfect balance between hard and good feelings. I love movies that evoke forgotten feelings and this one reminds me of what life feels like for a teenage girl.
The movie starts like a road-movie with Adele (Susan Sarandon) and her daughter Ann (Natalie Portman) going all the way from Bay City to Beverly Hills. We get to see the story through the eyes of Ann, who simply hates her mother for being the most extravagant woman she knows. Most of all she hates Adele for not granting her a normal life. When they arrive in Beverly Hills their journey turns out to be a total disaster. None of their dreams come true which gets them to live under poor circumstances. But they are still together and there is no running away for Ann.
In the course of the movie there are uncountable touching scenes that bring the two characters closer to each other. While Portman has to deal with her own teenage problems she also has to care for her mother, who seems not to have grown up until the end of the movie. Susan Sarandon is definitely a fine actress that gives a stunning and believable performance in this movie. However Natalie Portman steals most of the scenes with her unbelievable screen presence. She hasn’t done that many post-
León movies that I would recall to be special – this one definitely is.
While Ann wants to be anywhere but with Adele you just want to stay with these women.
A quiet movie about true feelings!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, April 16, 2001
Spy Kids (2001) continued to rule at the box office for the third consecutive week. It is right on its way to the 100 million mark.
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) proved to be really successful. Playing in half the theaters than
Spy Kids (2001), it still managed to do about 10.8 million. Both pictures are also in contention as to which is the best reviewed movie in the top10.
Joe Dirt did a decent 8.2 million, while
Kingdom Come finished in sixth place with 7.5 million. The real surprise came from
Josie & The Pussycats, which was expected to do more but bombed. What to do?
1.
Spy Kids (2001) - $12.8m, $68.6m.t.
2.
Along Came a Spider (2001) - $11.3m, $33.6m.t.
3.
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) - $10.8m, $10.8m.t.
4.
Joe Dirt - $8.2m, $11.1m.t.
5.
Blow (2001) - $8m, $25.9m.t.
6.
Kingdom Come - $7.5m, $9.6m.t.
7.
Josie & The Pussycats - $5.7m, $7.2m.t.
8.
Pokemon 3 - $2.7m, $12.9m.t.
9.
Someone Like You (2001) - $2.5m, $22.2m.t.
10.
Heartbreakers (2001) - $2.5m, $34.4m.t.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Cruel Intentions
- Director
- Roger Kumble
- Year
- 1999
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Sunday, April 15, 2001
Cruel Intentions is the deliciously wicked update of classic novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" by Choderlos de Laclos, previously filmed more than once whether set in its original time or ages later. What is unique in this adaptation, however, is not the time when it is set, but the age of the main characters.
Teenager step-siblings Sebastian (Ryan Phillippe) and Kathryn (Sarah Michelle Gellar) are tired. Him, of sleeping with every tasteless girl in New York, and her, of being treated like crap by every boyfriend she gets. Their excessive way of life gets into their minds and they decide to manipulate some people in order to satisfy their desire: going too far, either for vengeance, or for pleasure.
The story is amazing, for it involves many different characters and ties them together little by little until a climax. Cecile (Selma) is the dumb girl for whom Kathryn's last boyfriend dumped her. Annette (Reese Witherspoon) is the smart girl who published an article in a magazine defending her point to stay virgin until marriage.
While Sebastian goes for Annette and struggles to make her succumb to the pleasure of sex, Kathryn plans her revenge against Cecile, and eventually they join forces...
The performances are great all around. The two leads convince in their evil yet inexperienced attitude, Witherspoon is ok as the smart, self-assured subject of desire and Selma Blair astounds as the naïve, easy to influence girl.
This film is not a masterpiece all in all, but it is highly entertaining and accessible by people of today, which is good for an old story. The feelings of these young people are perfectly understandable and how their lives change is intriguing.
It's got my recommendation.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Strangers on a Train
- Director
- Alfred Hitchcock
- Year
- 1951
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Saturday, April 14, 2001
This is one of the latest Alfred Hitchcock movies I saw. Being him my favorite director of all time, I couldn't wait to see one of his best movies. Besides, it intrigued me why this movie wasn’t that commonly well-known and didn't belong in the category of such classics as
Psycho (1960),
North by Northwest (1959) or
Rear Window but still was considered a perfect masterpiece. Finally, my doubts were answered.
This suspenseful movie tells the story of a tennis star named Guy (Farley Granger) who hates his unfaithful wife. On a train trip he has a rare encounter with Bruno (Robert Walker), a mysterious man who hates his dad. While they talk, Bruno makes a difficult proposition to Guy: they should swap murders. This is the way the story begins, which, to say the least, is highly interesting.
As the movie continues, we get to see that one of the two men took their conversation more seriously than expected and now the other should suffer the consequences. None other than Hitchcock could have developed this idea so well and make of it a non-stop ride which culminates in a jaw-droppingly impressive carrousel scene. The master's touch is always present and the movie works in many levels.
Walker gives an amazing performance as Bruno, being frightful, cynical and likable at the same time; while Granger isn't such a great presence after all, he just seems monotonous. Anyway, while not as perfectly achieved as other Hitchcock's movies, this one is a classic on itself.
“Don't worry, I'm not going to shoot you, Mr. Haines. It might disturb Mother”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Time Code
- Director
- Mike Figgis
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Friday, April 13, 2001
Hitchcock once tried to film a movie in one continuous take but
Rope ended up being a very expensive experiment. Thanks to the efforts of digital video Mike Figgis could give this idea another try.
Time Code is shot with four hand-held cameras in one continuous take with no editing at all. The screen is split into four quarters, each following one character. Sounds interesting? It definitely is.
There is the aspiring actress Rose (
Salma Hayek) that cheats on her Lesbian lover Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorne), as well as the girlfriend (Saffron Burrows) of movie producer Alex (Stellan Skarsgard) struggling to break up with him. The viewer gets to follow all four characters simultaneously as their fates collide.
It may sound complicated but Mike Figgis manages to draw your attention to the most important quarter easily. His audio mix allows you to hear the sound best in this specific quarter. At times you can listen to two quarters at the same time and still understand what is going on. Mr. Figgis is not only a director and screenwriter but also a musician. The score consists of jazz (Figgis plays the trumpet) and popular music creating a perfect mood. The movie almost resembles a symphony considering the fact that Figgis had the action written down on paper you use to write down notes. There was no script and the actors only knew they had to do a specific action at a specific time – everything else is improvised.
For this reason
Time Code is close to the idea of pure cinema in which emotions play the most important role. The four main actors give outstanding performances – I especially liked Jeanne Tripplehorne. It was a rare experience to see Rose cheating on her while she listens to it. You can tell her reaction immediately while you almost feel like an omniscient voyeur. I also loved the scene in which Lauren runs accidentally into Alex.
The impressive achievement of the actors gets most obvious when you compare version 15, the one that made it to cinemas, and version 1. Both are included on the DVD edition. It’s hard to follow the action in the first version while the final version is almost perfect in its timing and story-telling. You may think that you have to follow all four screens at the same time to keep up with the story but it is not necessary. You can skip between the quarters and still understand the action.
I see the main flaw of
Time Code in the very simple story. However I don’t blame the filmmaker as it would have been impossible to tell a more complicated story in the same way. While the movie is often described as black comedy about Hollywood I rather see it as a movie about emotions. In this way it is a perfect blend of four people’s relationships. The greatest achievement might as well be that the viewer is able to edit the film on his own by choosing where to watch and where to listen to.
Time Code is a daring cinematic experience – at times difficult, but engaging and thrilling!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Mexican
- Director
- Gore Verbinski
- Year
- 2001
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Thursday, April 12, 2001
There are certain actors whose movies I always watch no matter what. Actors that appeal to me in different ways and for whom I’m always interested. Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, Salma Hayek, Edward Norton are just a few of them. But also in that list are two names that decided to join forces for one movie: Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt. It had to be something special to have this kind of reunion. After seeing the movie I can understand what they saw in the project.
Jerry (Pitt) and Sam (Roberts) are quite a unique couple. He was just involved in an accident that left an important gangster in jail. Now he must do certain jobs for him. The latest? Go to Mexico and bring him a cursed pistol called “The Mexican”. She, on the other hand, only wants to live in Las Vegas and have a normal life away from what Jerry does. After a fight, they decide to go separate ways: he goes to Mexico, she goes to Las Vegas. In Mexico, Jerry faces a series of weird events that lead him through unexpected ways. In Vegas, Sam is kidnapped by a gay conman (James Gandolfini) who also wants that gun. In fact, it seems that a lot of people are interested in it, and that’s what puts this movie in motion.
Sometimes mixing different genres doesn’t work well. Sometimes it doesn’t work at all. One recent example where this kind of blend didn’t work for me was in
Sleepy Hollow (1999), a movie that mixed horror with comedy. In
The Mexican we come to witness various shifts in tone, but they are very well done by director Gore Verbinsky. We never feel put-away from the story or the characters. It is all the path that they follow and what they must face. At its core, I’d pretty much say that it is a romantic comedy complemented by some action. The comedy is a little blacker and edgier than usual, which is what I’d say works the best in the movie. Jerry’s interaction with some Mexican people or the relationship between Sam and Leroy are the best moments.
This movie is quite original in its conception and does have a clever script. If at moments it doesn’t work that well you shouldn’t worry, because it doesn’t bury the movie deep enough. I rooted for this characters and was intrigued with the way unexpected situations never stopped coming. Besides, I love this kind of humor, and that made it for me.
Brad Pitt is a sensational actor. Here he surprises us again with a completely different performance from what we have seen him do in the past. He is required to play a normal guy who keeps messing things up but who has a lapstick-y kind of personality. Julia Roberts also delivers something different, as the irresistible but also unnerving Sam. James Gandolfini, in an against-type role, is excellent as well. And look out for a small appearance by the always reliable Gene Hackman near the end of the movie.
Bringing a unique style to the movie that can be seen in the different swifts of the movie (those flashbacks are great) director Gore Verbinsky looks like someone to look at. He just needs to refine his work a little bit and he could become something special. The score by Alan Silvestri is also a pivotal part of the movie. Even thou it sounded to me a bit more Spanish than Mexican, I was surprised by the way it actually worked. All in all, a different, exciting experience.
“You have managed to Forrest Gump your way through this”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Emperor's New Groove
- Director
- Mark Dindal
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Coffee
- Review date
- Wednesday, April 11, 2001
Hah! Now I’ve shocked ya, huh? Me reviewing a Disney movie and all that. But no matter what you’ve thought up to now about me (in case you had any opinion about me at all, that is) – I actually happen to have a weak spot for cineastic products from “Mouse Inc.”.
Now that I’ve confessed I’ll tell you how I got to see The Emperor’s New Groove, because actually it was quite a coincidence and I probably wouldn’t have seen it under “normal” circumstances. My excuse goes a little something like this: Jacinda and myself usually go to see a movie once a week (in case that sounds nutty to you ask some of the other critics here what they do in their free time and you’ll be shocked, hehe). She usually does our “schedule” e.g. she plans what picture we’ll see next and what theatre is available. Last week we went to see Snatch and I’d already decided to write a review about it since I like Guy Ritchie and was eager to see whether he’d come up with something interesting. When we entered the theatre we were sourly disappointed however. The show was practically sold out and the people were making a lot of noise and most weren’t really paying attention to the movie (something we habitual movie freaks LOATHE). Anyway, we decided that we’d just give The Emperor’s New Groove a shot which was showing in the theatre across the hallway. We sneaked into the other theatre (which wasn’t too difficult because at that multiplex your tickets are only checked at the entrance and they don’t really care very much where you go after that) and found our seats just in time for the beginning of the show.
Now that I’ve walked you through this lengthy prologue, let’s concentrate on the movie!
The plot is Disney material from start to finish. Kuzco (voice by David Spade) is the young emperor of an ancient South-American kingdom and spends his days with little in mind except his own pleasure. When he fires his suspicious advisor Yzma, the strange old hag schemes to murder him and when he is instead transformed into a llama chaos erupts...
The Emperor comes along fresh, light and with a lot of self irony. The visual style reminds more of the older Disney flicks and the character of Yzma (voice by Eartha Kitt) looks pretty much like the Aztec version of Cruella de Vil from 1961’s 101 Dalmatians. A fact that is also remarkable is the lack of music. While previously Disney has always focussed on producing animated musicals this time the concept is clearly that of a comedy that is based rather on witty dialogues than on sing-along songs. Although at it’s core the movie does have an educational message (show me a Disney picture without and I’ll show you a mouse with three ears) it is conveyed not half as forcefully and blunt as it has been done in the past.
The fast pace of the film together with a good dose of self-irony and the hilarious characters (most notable: Kronk, voice by Patrick Warburton) makes it an entertaining flick for kids and grown-ups alike... unless you’re an all-grumpy, cynical mouse-hater who’s banished all memory of your childhood from your mind ;-)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Home Alone
- Director
- Chris Columbus
- Year
- 1990
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Tuesday, April 10, 2001
An 8-year-old kid is left alone in his house during Christmas time due to a confusion of his family while preparing their trip to Paris. On their way, they notice the kid’s absence, but meanwhile he thinks his family has magically disappeared and prepares to live alone by his own means.
He does pretty well.
Threatened by burglars (caricatures Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern), Kevin (Macaulay Culkin) plans a whole gimmick full of little and big traps to stop them from achieving their cruel plan. That’s a quite imaginative sequence. On the other hand, the kid is terrorized by his lonely old neighbor (Roberts Blossom) until he finds a way through his heart and meets an alley and a good friend in him. This is the most touching and fascinating subplot of the movie, with a redemptive scene that’s hard to look away from.
A charming as hell Macaulay Culkin manages to take the viewer through an awesome ride all along in a fantastic movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously and has been mostly tagged as a slapstick farce. Yet, this film has the magic of a classic Christmas movie, the high spirit of a perfect actioneer and the charm of a seriocomic family drama.
The perfect score by John Williams is the icing on the cake.
An undeniable success and a perfectly fun movie, this one should be considered along with [obviously far superior]
It’s a Wonderful Life and
The Wizard of Oz during Christmas time… or any other time of the year!
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Red Planet
- Director
- Antony Hoffman
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Coffee
- Review date
- Sunday, April 08, 2001
Hollywood seems to have a weak spot for twins these days. Now I’m not talking about actual twins but those odd pairs of movies that... well... seem a little too alike in their subject to not notice it.
Red Planet’s “brother” is of course Mission to Mars, or “M2M” as Hollywood PR dubbed it and in comparison Red Planet looks a little better – but only in comparison.
The plot unfolds and yields no surprises whatsoever. Mankind has ruined Earth (so much for “science fiction”) and is now on the lookout for a new unspoiled home where the process of destroying the ecosystem can start all over again. In accordance to modern science the most likely candidate for this endeavor is Mars and a crew of daring astronauts takes on the mission of solving the mystery of some strange events that have recently taken place on the Red Planet.
Mind you – this picture is far from breathtaking. At Science Fiction it’s a rather futile attempt but when it comes to entertainment it does reasonably well. The nice special effects are backed by an able cast and especially Terence Stamp and Carrie-Anne Moss make convincing Mars explorers (while Val Kilmer looks rather pale compared to the very cool killer robot AIMEE that chases the space travelers across the planet). Director Antony Hoffman can’t seem to decide whether he wants to focus on the characters or rather on some mild and mindless entertainment and this turns out to be the major weak spot of this film.
Well – and that’s about all I can say about Red Planet. It won’t blow you away but it works alright for an evening with popcorn and soda on the couch...
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Blue velvet
- Director
- David Lynch
- Year
- 1986
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Saturday, April 07, 2001
David Lynch has always been an intriguing director. You never know what he'll deliver next, and that is a gift which has made him a very respectable filmmaker. With his unique style, he has always strange stories to tell, and strange methods of doing it. This might be his most respected movie to date and that's why it is worth checking out.
The story is simple. Jeffrey (Kyle McLachlan) founds an ear dropped near his house. He reports it to the police and with the help of a friend (Laura Dern) is suddenly emerged in a dangerous world, as they end up spying a mysterious dancer (Isabella Rosselini) and find out more than what they would've expected.
The premise of this movie is actually very intriguing. There is a lot of mystery surrounding the characters and we, as well as our leading man, feel the need to know more about what's going on. This woman is quite a strange lady, and her 'friend' Frank (Dennis Hopper) is even more. She has gone through a lot of things, and thus her mind does not work correctly.
What all this people will do and how this'll end up is what makes this movie special. The problem is, as in every story where there's a lot of fixation on any special plot point and there's a lot of suspense surrounding it, the final pay off isn't that regarding. Nevertheless, this difficult picture still manages to be highly original.
David Lynch and his cast deliver a good movie, although I don't see it as the great masterpiece many tend to say. The opening sequence is marvelous and ironic at the same time. A rare experience.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Drugs, Spiders, Medievals
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Saturday, April 07, 2001
Three movie are opening in wide release that deserve attention and that offer a great variety of themes. From suspense to romance, there’s eomthing for everyone. It’s just a matter of what’s your taste. Wanna know what’s out there? Check out:
Along Came a Spider (2001) – A somewhat continuation to the Ashley Judd starrer
Kiss the Girls, this movie brings back detective Morgan Freeman and puts him in more difficult situations along Monica Potter. I don’t really know what to think about it, but critics are not liking it very much. Although praising Freeman’s performance, it seems that the plot is too stupid and the pace too ludicrous. Still, it is interesting, although not entirely satisfactory.
Just Visiting – A remake of a French movie that has a 12th century nobleman and his servant travelling to modern-day. It stars Jean Reno, Christian Clavier and Christina Applegate, but not even with this attractive cast can the movie pull off it’s already tired premise and situations. Not that amusing anymore. That’s what people are saying anyway.
Blow (2001) – By far the best reviewd movie of the week,
Blow has Johnny Depp playing a real-life character summerged in the world of drugs in the 70’s. His rise and fall include a series of characters that affected his life one way or another. The movie also stars Penelope Cruz, Franka Potente, Rachel Griffiths, Ray Liotta and Paul Reubens. It is masterfully performed by Depp, and it pulls off a rather intriguing story admirably. It seems worthy to give it a look.
Pokemon 3 – Not much to say about this one. I guess it depends on kids, so we’ll leave it to them.
So there you go. Just remember to have fun, and see you later people....
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Fantasia 2000
- Director
- James Algar
- Gaëtan Brizzi
- Paul Brizzi
- Hendel Butoy
- Francis Glebas
- Eric Goldberg
- Don Hahn
- Pixote Hunt
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Friday, April 06, 2001
We all know the story about the first
Fantasia. It was a flop and in time it became the classic it always deserved to be. It marked a whole new world where animation and classical music collided and created something unique, special. Many decades later, this follow-up arrives. With totally new segments, all with different styles of animation, and seen through an IMAX theater, it again marks an unforgettable experience.
The opening number is a bizarre blend of animation with no sense at all. It has water, butterflies, nature, all moving through the very well known tunes of Beethoven's "Fifth Symphony". The second number, Ottorino Respighi’s "Pines of Rome", is a breathtaking dreamlike sequence of whales swimming through the seas and flying through the sky. It is so powerful that it could make you cry and be astonished at the same time. The third number is performed as the "Blue Rhapsody" by George Gershwin is heard on the background. It is also an excellent piece where many simultaneous stories are told. They are about different people living in New York and it is a very truthful and sad allegory of the way of life in that city and in general, where happiness must be found no matter where or how, as long as you feel the need to survive.
Then there's the very well-known story about the "Steadfast Tin Soldier", performed at the rhythm of the "Piano Concert No.2" by Dimitri Shostakovich. It is beautifully told and true to its origins. A quick number follows up, at the sound of Saint-Saens' "Carnival of the Animals", where we get to see what happens if you give a flamingo a yo-yo to play with. Funny and fast paced, it is very effective. Then Mickey returns as we remember his now famous number, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". After him, Donald Duck surprises us as he stars in a number where he is the Noah’s personal assistant and must help him reunite all the animals before the rain stars pouring in. It is a very touching segment, helped by the "Pomp and Circumstance" by Sir Edward Elgar, which gives it the right touch.
It is amazing how this short animations can cause such a strong emotional reaction in us. Therein lies the magic of it all. Finally, Igor Stravinsky's "Fire Bird" plays as we witness the fight between a beautiful fairy and a fire bird coming from an erupting volcano. It is a fight between good and evil, between what is beautiful and what isn't. A metaphor of our times, perfectly animated and performed. This is how we come to an end, after witnessing a very strong work of art. Its only flaw might be the celebrity appearances between each number. They seem out of place, as we just want to go to the next level. But all in all, a perfect fantasy.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Article
Brian De Palma - The Other Master of Suspense
- Posted by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Article date
- Friday, April 06, 2001
The 90’s definitely weren’t Brian De Palma’s decade. The films he made in that time were nearly all major disappointments. To make things worse he kicked of the new millennium with what is by far his worst film ever
Mission to Mars (2000). Looking at this recent history you almost forget what a great filmmaker he was and (hopefully) still can be.
Often De Palma is just presented as a man who ripped off Hitchcock and while his films certainly pay homage to the films of Hitchcock (mostly in his work from the 70’s), De Palma’s style is very different. He is also much more graphic in his films for which he is criticized, sometimes I think unfairly. He was part of the Hollywood revolution in the 70’s but never really enjoyed the success like Spielberg, Coppola, Scorsese or Lucas.
Born in New York in 1940, De Palma began making films in his days at Columbia University in the early 60’s. One of his short films
Wotan’s Wake (1962) got him noticed and would set him on his way to feature films. His first feature
The Wedding Party (produced in 1963, but released six years later years later), a comedy about the events leading up to a wedding was hardly promising, but it does feature the debut of one Robert De Niro (yes, that’s how his name is spelled on the credits) and a young Jill Clayburgh.
Two more low-budget films would follow that showed more potential a few years later.
Greetings (1968), an underground satire about the culture in New York’s Greenwich Village in the late sixties, was well received and let to a sequel
Hi Mom! (1970) which would be a definitive breakthrough for De Palma. Both films starred De Niro, now spelling his name the way we are used to, as a Vietnam vet. Through him De Palma comments on and makes fun of a lot of social issues.
The success of these two independent films led to De Palma’s first studio film. It wouldn’t be a happy experience however. The film was called
Get to Know Your Rabbit (1972), a story about a successful man who gives up all he has achieved and chases his dream to become a magician, was taken away from him and released in version he would disown.
This disappointment would lead De Palma back to the independent scene. Roger Corman’s American International Pictures would produce his next film,
Sisters (1973). This thriller about Siamese twins (Margot Kidder) who were separated at birth and come up against each other when one becomes a murderer and the other a reporter. This film was the first of his Hitchcock homages (most clearly it pays tribute to
Rear Window) and it features a chilling musical score by Hitch’s favourite composer Bernard Herrmann. The film is effective and still quite shocking.
He would be tempted back to the studios after Sisters. Twentieth Century Fox put up the money for his next project.
Phantom of the Paradise (1974) it was called and it would be a horror movie musical with comedy elements. It’s one of De Palma’s most interesting films in that it tries to be so much. There are elements of
Phantom of the Opera,
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,
The Picture of Dorian Gray,
Hunchback of Notre Dame,
Psycho and lots more. It’s a film that’s unlike any other and that’s probably why it failed. It’s love it or hate it stuff but for film buffs it is very enjoyable.
De Palma’s real commercial breakthrough would come with his next film.
Carrie (1976) was easily his best film up to that time, and the first in a long, long line of Stephen King adaptations. It tells the story of a girl with supernatural powers who uses her gifts to take revenge on her dominating mother and her schoolmates who humiliated her. Sissy Spacek (who had been a set-decorator on Phantom of the Paradise!) gives a great performance here. In it’s finale it also features mainstream cinema’s first use of split-screen, a favourite devise of De Palma’s (he used it in
Sisters as well). And it concludes with one of the best shocks ever.
Carrie features virtually no references to Hitchcock, but his next film would in all but name.
Obsession, made in 1976, is pretty much
Vertigo (1958) with a different cast. Clifton Webb takes the James Stewart role here as a man who loses his wife to kidnappers but later finds someone who looks remarkably like her. Scripted by Paul ”Taxi Driver” Schrader the film is no match for
Vertigo, but when you remember that no film can match that one it will give you a pleasant 100 minutes, only the finale somewhat disappoints. The best thing here is a score by Herrmann, which almost, but not quite matches the beauty of his score for
Vertigo.
On the success of these movies De Palma was now able to get bigger stars in his movies. Kirk Douglas would appear in his next film,
The Fury (1978), again a film about a girl (Amy Irving) with special powers.
The Fury is a straightforward thriller but with De Palma’s usual visual flair and John Williams’ most unusual score it is very watchable.
For his following project he made a strange choice. He decided to make
Home Movies (1978) which was a throwback to his movies of the late 60’s. Its story somewhat is a cross between
The Truman Show (1998) and
Peeping Tom (1960), only the film falls way short compared to either of these. It is a film best forgotten, but for De Palma I guess that it was an important film, because it features the first leading part for Nancy Allen, who had played a small role in
Carrie, and would become his leading lady, on screen and off for the next few years.
The eighties would be the period in which, in my opinion at least De Palma delivered his best work. He got a chance to work with some of the biggest names around (Pacino, Costner) plus he was given big budgets to show of his talents and he would venture into more serious films as the decade progressed.
He kicked of the decade however by returning to his favourite genre, the thriller in his next film.
Dressed to Kill (1980) was probably his best film up to that point in his career. A melodrama about a creepy stalker of two women (Angie Dickinson and Nancy Allen). I find this a very enjoyable film with many great set pieces. It also is somewhat autobiographical; in the film the son of a woman follows her around because he suspects she is having an affair. In his teens De Palma had done the same thing in his teens.
In 1981 he would make probably the best film of his career.
Blow Out features John Travolta (who made his debut in
Carrie) as a soundman for C-pictures who when taping sounds for one of his movies witnesses a car accident which kills a powerful politician. When he listens to his recordings he becomes convinced that there was some foul play and together with a survivor of the accident (Nancy Allen) he tries to piece the puzzle together. I find this a flawless and very suspenseful film, on par with some of Hitchcock’s best, and far better than the film by which it was obviously inspired, Antonioni’s
Blow-up (1966). I don’t know exactly what its stature is in the cinema world, but to me it is one of the greatest thrillers ever.
Scarface (1983) would be De Palma first really big studio film, with a big star in the lead. It is a remake of the gangster classic from1932, which starred Paul Muni as a thinly disguised Al Capone. De Palma’s film would see the central character changed from an Italian gangster to a Cuban refugee (Al Pacino) who slowly climbs to the top of the underworld, only to destroy himself in the process. The end result was once again great (in no small way thanks to Oliver Stone’s excellent screenplay) but somehow the film failed to find an audience. The film was fiercely criticized for being over-violent, but on closer inspection the film is in no way a celebration of violence and nowhere near as graphic as people think it to be. It is not quite as good as the original but is the best gangster film since
Godfather, The (1972). On another note it featured the highest count of the F-word, until Martin Scorsese’s
Goodfellas, and Joe Pesci in particular, broke it in 1990.
The failure of
Scarface led De Palma back to thrillers.
Body Double (1984) would be one of his weaker ones but not totally without merit, and probably the closest thing he has done to a Hitchcock film, by that I mean that it is a film that could have been made by Hitchcock himself. Its story is close to
Rear Window, closer than in
Sisters, a man thinks he sees the woman who lives opposite him, and on whom he is spying, murdered. Soon afterwards he finds himself in the situation where people are dying all around him while he is trying to solve the murder. De Palma probably could have done better but there are some effective moments here, and Melanie Griffith does her best work ever here as a porn actress.
To follow up
Body Double, De Palma decided to make a comedy.
Wise Guys (1986) was that comedy, it has only one problem; it isn’t funny. Starring Danny De Vito, Joe Piscapoe and Harvey Keitel, it tells the story of two small time crooks in New York. I would consider this to be De Palma’s worst film up to that point. It fails on every point. Thankfully he would be back to form very soon.
Untouchables, The (1987) was up next and a very fine film it turned out to be. It would also be his biggest financial success ever. Based on the popular 60’s television show, it tells the story of Eliot Ness’ (Kevin Costner) attempts to bring down Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Fast paced and well acted all the way through it always is compelling to watch, especially in a great finale which shamelessly copies Eisenstein’s
Battleship Potemkin (1925), but it does it so well that we hardly care. The film was great success and at this point De Palma probably was at the highest point in his career.
That would all change in the short space of two years. In these years he made two films whose failures would bring a damage to his career from which he still has not recovered. The first of these was by no means terrible, in fact it is a very good and brave and powerful film only the subject matter was uncommercial. The second however was one of Hollywood’s most legendary turkeys
Casualties of War (1989) is probably the most personal and serious film De Palma will ever make. Based on a true story it is set in the Vietnam War. When a unit of soldiers abuses some natives one of them feels guilty and tries to bring the others to trial. As the soldier with a conscience Michael J. Fox gives the best performance of his career and Sean Penn is equally good as the leader of the outfit. To me the film is on par with
Platoon (1986) but whereas that film won a host of awards and became a box-office hit, this film made virtually no money. De Palma took this blow pretty hard and seriously considered retiring. And if he had known how his next film would turn out, he probably would have.
Thomas Wolfe’s book The Bonfire of the Vanities had been a sensation when it was published in the late 1980’s. It was an expose of the yuppie lifestyle in Manhattan, and the studios were in line to buy the rights. Warner Brothers in the end were the winners and approached De Palma to direct it. You could write a book about just how much is wrong with
The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), in fact Julie Salamon did. Her book The Devil’s Candy gives a very detailed account of the production and I recommend it greatly, if only since in that book it becomes clear that it was hardly De Palma’s fault that the film turned out so bad. All the cast members (Bruce Willis, Tom Hanks, Melanie Griffith) somehow survived this episode, only De Palma is still suffering. While it is hardly
Citizen Kane (1941), it is not quite
Plan 9 from Outer Space either. It is pretty bad, but as usual De Palma still manages to create some amazing shots and moments.
To recover from
Bonfire he returned to the thriller genre with
Raising Cain (1992). Drawing “inspiration” from most obviously
Peeping Tom (1960) and
Psycho (1960), it tells the tale of a man who suffered from an obsessive father and now has a split personality. The central performance by John Lithgow (a De Palma regular in the early 80’s) is impressive but the film is mostly sloppy. One or two small scenes still show De Palma’s visual flair but his disappointments with the film business somehow show up on the screen.
Carlito’s Way (1993) was a definite improvement. Most people compared it with
Scarface but other than the fact that both films star Al Pacino there is little resemblance. It again is a crime picture but
Carlito is a much more human tale than
Scarface. It’s not quite as good as the earlier film but still it was his best film in many years.
Tom Cruise wanted De Palma to direct the next film he was producing. That film would be an adaptation of the 60’s spy tv-show
Mission: Impossible. De Palma accepted, but I suspect it was not a happy experience because of the interference of Cruise. The film however turned out quite enjoyable, especially compared to the very disappointing sequel. It was no masterpiece but a great piece of no-nonsense entertainment. It also stands as the last good De Palma film.
His next project was
Snake Eyes (1998) which was almost universally declared a terrible film. Maybe I am too much a fan of De Palma to be totally objective, but I somewhat liked it. The story of a political assassination during a boxing match in Las Vegas was routine, as was Nicolas Cage’s performance, but overall I had a pretty good time watching it, but again the film did bad at the box-office. It does feature a great opening scene however in which De Palma follows Cage around the boxing arena in an uninterrupted take.
And then there was
Mission to Mars (2000). I wish to waste as little amount of time and space as possible on this film which is De Palma’s worst film ever. Despite a decent cast that includes Tim Robbins and Gary Sinise this tale of a space mission to the red planet has not a single redeeming quality. It opens poorly with a barbecue sequence and it never gets better. It was however somewhat of a box-office hit. I hope De Palma has now reached the lowest point and will begin to climb up again.
Currently he is working on a film called Femme Fatale, again a thriller. I refuse to give up on De Palma and I am really looking forward to that film. A man that can make films as great as
Blow Out,
Dressed to Kill or
Scarface deserves some credit. I just hope he finds his rhythm again.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Lost Weekend
- Director
- Billy Wilder
- Year
- 1945
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Tuesday, April 03, 2001
One of the first really serious films to be made by a Hollywood studio. Even over 55 years after it was made
The Lost Weekend still holds up incredibly well. It’s one of Billy Wilder’s best, and it is still likely to make a man think twice about taking another drink.
Up until this movie was made alcoholism was a topic that rarely made it into mainstream movies, and when it did it was always made to look as something comical. W.C. Fields became famous because of his drunken routine, as did Robert Benchley, but in reality alcoholism is a serious problem of course, and very unfunny.
Based on Charles Jackson‘s book, the film tells the story of Don Birnham (Ray Milland), a New York writer who several years ago developed an alcohol problem and now lives with his brother. He has convinced his brother that the worst is behind him, even though this is clearly not the case, and when his brother leaves for a weekend Don is alone for the first time and falls right back in his old habits.
During this weekend we follow his desperate attempts to get a drink. We see him selling his personal stuff, borrowing money from friends, begging and stealing, all so he can just get one more drink, but as a character in the film rightly says “One’s too many and a hundred is not enough” so eventually he winds up in a hospital. After some terrifying experiences here he tells himself that he will make a new attempt to kick the habit.
The ending of the film doesn’t show us that Don is clean, in fact it has more than a hint that he will start drinking again, and in my mind that is the right way to end this movie. Most alcoholics never recover and when a film takes so much trouble in showing the harrowing real facts behind this addiction it would be naive to end with a character who can stop drinking seemingly without any real problems.
In the leading role Ray Milland is always believable. He never was a great actor, but his part is so well written that he hardly needs to do anything. He gets some solid support from Jane Wyman, as his girlfriend, Howard Da Silva as Ned, his favorite bartender, Frank Faylen (memorable as Bim, Don’s male nurse during his stay in the hospital) and Doris Dowling as one of the most obvious prostitutes to appear on the screen during the period of the Production Code.
The film is filled with memorable scenes, such as when Milland is at an opera and he begins to hallucinate when they start singing a drinking song. Another memorable moment comes when he wants to sell his typewriter to a pawnbroker, but can’t find a single one that is opened (This scene was shot on location in New York, which was most unusual at the time). The scenes near the end are frightening, most notably a scene in which Milland believes he sees a bat flying across his room which begins to eat a mouse.
As is usually the case with Wilder, the film is great to listen to. There are some great lines and speeches here.
One of the most unusual touches was made by composer Miklos Rozsa. His disturbing score would seem more at home in one of those cheap 50’s sci-fi movies, but it adds just the right touch to the most disturbing scenes. Without this music I think the film would be a lot less effective.
In 1945 the film was rightly awarded with several Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Actor and Screenplay. But the film came close to never being released at all; in fact the film sat on a shelf at Paramount for almost a year, because the studio was considering an offer from some giant liquor companies to buy the negative for the then amazing amount of $5 million. After much talking, Wilder finally got the studio’s permission to preview the film in New York, where it was received with great praise. This persuaded the studio to give the film a release and it became a great success.
The subject of alcoholism has been dealt with in many films since, like
Barfly and
Leaving Las Vegas and while these were great as well and even more graphic is showing the effects of the problem they still can’t quite stand the comparison with this one.
The Lost Weekend manages to be both entertaining and thought provoking, which is something very few films can do.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, April 02, 2001
Given the lack of kiddie fare, the great reviews and strong worth-of-mouth,
Spy Kids (2001) took the top spot with 27 million, making it the fourth highest March opening ever. It should perform well for the next weeks. The Ashley Judd starrer,
Someone Like You (2001), opened in second place with an ok 10.3 million. It’s great to notice that two Oscar winners,
Traffic (2000) and
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), actually increased their grosses compared to last week, which could put them both in the 125 million territory at the end of their runs. Not bad at all!
1.
Spy Kids (2001) - $27 m., $27 m.t.
2.
Someone Like You (2001) - $10.3m., $10.3m.t.
3.
Heartbreakers (2001) - $8.2m., $23.5m.t.
4.
Tomcats (2001) - $6.5m., $6.5m.t.
5.
Brothers, The (2001) - $5.8m., $18.3m.t.
6.
Enemy at the Gates (2001) - $5.3m., $34.2m.t.
7.
Exit Wounds (2001) - $5.2m., $41.1m.t.
8.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) - $5.0m., $113.7m.t.
9.
Traffic (2000) - $4.2m., $113.8m.t.
10.
Mexican, The (2001) - $2.6m., $62.2m.t.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Article
Berlin Film Festival 2001 - A Diary - Part 2
- Posted by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Article date
- Monday, April 02, 2001
Click here to see Coffee and Jacinda's Berlin Photoalbum!
Click here if you haven’t read Berlin Film Festival 2001 - A Diary - Part 1!
Saturday
We're back with more stories from our trip to the Berlinale. But this time me,
Jacinda, is writing the comments as
Coffee already forgot what happened. ;)
Right after our shopping horror at the Kudamm we went to Potsdamer Platz again and bought some nice things in the Arkaden shopping center. When the shops closed we decided to stroll over to the Berlinale Palace to see what was going on there. On our way I started talking about the celebrities that were said to visit the festival. I just told Coffee that we'd rather go into the Hyatt Hotel where all celebrities had their rooms during the festival time, sit there at the bar, have an expensive drink and wait for Kate Winslet to show up. The hotel is located right in front of the Berlinale Palace and we just walked by when I looked into the restaurant and couldn't believe my eyes. This tiny man looked familiar to me. We walked by and I suddenly said: "I think I just saw Spike Lee." Coffee stopped, looking surprised, screaming: "Where?" and I told him he sat in the restaurant having a beer. As Coffee still admired Lee from his hip-hop loving era at age 15 he turned around and had a look through the window. And I was right, Spike Lee was sitting there with two guys having a beer. I remembered that his movie
Bamboozled premiered the other day and Coffee couldn't be more excited. Although this celebrity encounter sheered me up I was looking forward to seeing Johnny Depp at the
Chocolat (2000) premiere. But there was still some time left and we decided to visit the Film Museum in the meantime.
We walked over to the Sony Center, had a look at the shop with lots of cool movie memorabilia and went into the museum. Our visit turned out to be a good idea. The museum looked fabulous! They had lots of screens in there, showing great scenes from all kind of German movies. The pictures from the movies were reflected in mirrors and this was just the place to be for us. The exhibition featured a lot of rarities from the early era of silent movies to new German movies like
Run Lola Run. I found the part about German expressionism very interesting with set decorations from Caligari and photos and models from Metropolis. Moreover there were a lot of costumes and photographs of Marlene Dietrich and a special exhibition for Fritz Lang. I was thrilled to see the legendary sign that hung in Billy Wilder's office saying "How would Lubitsch have done it?" Once we walked through we entered the section for Special Effects which had some cool monster sculptures from early stop-motion movies like
King Kong to the likes of
Starship Troopers and
Star Wars. We took some photos with the Alien and Darth Vader and went out again to attend the premiere of
Chocolat (2000).
Back at the Berlinale Palace we decided to wait for Johnny Depp and Juliette Binoche and made ourselves more or less comfortable at the red carpet. But hell where was the red carpet? There was a very small red carpet right in front of the entrance with a lot of photographers and camera teams around. We figured that this was the area for press members only. We weren't too far away from it but there was no red carpet in front of us. Soon the black limousines rolled by and some uninteresting people went into the theatre. We were really disappointed to find out that the stars actually drove by to the small red carpet where some journalists asked them a few questions and took photos and off they were into the theatre. We couldn't see too much from the place where we stood but we decided to wait in any case. As time went by some German movie stars walked by right behind us but actually we didn't care too much - although some of them stood right in front of us. Where was Johnny Depp? Finally about 5 cars rolled by and I had a glimpse into one of the windows and there she was: Juliette Binoche. The cars drove on and she was gone. We couldn't see too well what was going on on the tiny red carpet. But one thing was clear: Johnny Depp was not there.
We later on heard rumors that he must have stayed home to take care of the children as his wife Vanessa Paradis was promoting her new album. Well, the excitement made us hungry so we decided to have some delicious bagels before trying our luck with
Malèna (2000).
When we arrived at the Royal Palast again there was already a bunch of people standing in front of the box-office. We didn't care too much about getting tickets but it would have been nice. As we stood there a guy passed by and said: "Anyone a free ticket?" As we had already seen something like that happen the other night I ran to the guy screaming "Yes, please.", offered him some money but he was kind enough to give it to us for free. We stood there with a content smile on our faces while the others in the crowd started murmuring. Some guy asked Coffee how he got the free ticket and he just said you had to be quick enough. Some minutes later a woman stopped right next to me and I already saw the ticket in her hand. When she asked: "Anyone a ticket for
Malèna (2000)?" I was right there. But this time the guy that had asked us before pushed others aside saying "I need two tickets." The woman said she had only one for 18 marks . I immediately gave her 20 marks and told her to keep the 2 marks. She gave the ticket to me and off we were to the theatre feeling really happy. Coffee kept complaining about the poor guy and told me about his bad conscience half a million times. I told him to relax and watch the movie.
Malèna (2000) was a very positive surprise for us and afterwards Coffee showed no sign of regret or bad conscience anymore. When we walked out a lot of people had tears in their eyes and everyone agreed that it was a moving experience. On our way back to our apartment we talked about the achievements of the movie and fell onto the mattress to finally get some rest after a long day full of excitement, stars and movies.
We had two more days ahead with a bit less excitement but nevertheless great movies. As we already had bought the tickets for Quills and The Tailor of Panama we finally could relax and enjoy the city. It's been a wonderful weekend full of excitement, the best movies and a lot of fun!
See you next year in Berlin!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Sleepy Hollow
- Director
- Tim Burton
- Year
- 1999
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Sunday, April 01, 2001
Welcome to the world of Tim Burton! Welcome to
Sleepy Hollow!
Tim Burton resurrects the horror genre with his adaptation of the classic tale by Washington Irving. In 1799 Constable Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp at his best) is sent to the quiet village of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of murders. The townspeople believe that the headless horseman (Christopher Walken) is looking for revenge for his own murder as all victims were decapitated. Ichabod Crane, a man of science, doesn't believe in this rather mystical legend but soon finds himself "face-to-face" with the headless horseman. As he explores the supernatural world of Sleepy Hollow he also finds out about the intrigues in the village and one of the suspects turns out to be Katrina Van Tessel (Christina Ricci).
The village Sleepy Hollow was built on the set in England and it looks exactly the way you would imagine a place for Tim Burton's characters. Being a fan of Burton's unique visual style I can only call his artwork and design for the movie ingenious. You can find quite a few details that you have seen in his other works before - like the pumpkin or the batwings on the mill. I can't help but love all the small details of the movie - especially the magic lantern. The main achievement though might as well be the creation of a whole new world which is scary and beautiful at the same time. While the dark atmosphere is underlined and at times carried by the terrific score of Danny Elfman, it's Depp's interpretation of our "hero" Ichabod Crane that makes this movie so worthwhile.
For the third time Johnny Depp incarnates one of Burton's characters.
Edward Scissorhands and
Ed Wood are two of my all-time-favorite movies and Sleepy Hollow is equally brilliant. Although Crane is different from the original character as portrayed by Irving he is still a weirdo trapped in a world that is even more weird. The technical gadgets that he uses in the film add some comic relief to the otherwise dark atmosphere. But Depp's fainting and great comic abilities fit in perfectly. The combination of humor and horror makes Sleepy Hollow feel like a classic Universal monster movie. The fact that most of the scenes look almost as if they were shot in black and white pay tribute to this genre.
Sleepy Hollow might have the most complicated plot you will find in a Burton movie. There are some surprising plot twists, thanks to the outstanding script of Andrew Kevin Walker.
Christina Ricci portrays her character in a way that makes her feel otherworldly which I liked a lot.
Christopher Walken could not have been more scary and convincing while the fight scenes that were done by Tray Park are simply breath-taking. Let's not forget about the special effects used in the movie. The headless horseman could not have become alive without the help of digital effects. I highly recommend to watch the DVD edition, which features very interesting bonus material on the making of the movie.
Tim Burton created a creepy world full of mystery and magic that will capture you from the very beginning. Heads will roll indeed!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Morris wrote at 6/22/2002:
Groucho wrote at 6/22/2002:
Saying we can always feel sexual tension between the girls is putting it mildly. We're always anxious that they devour each other and since that never really happens (at least not in the straight sense of it) we can only appreciate how strong the script is to leave us satisfied in every aspect. This film shows us how beautiful minds in a world of dreams can go as far as possible without even noticing it... and blaming everything to the fact that nobody can understand them! Wow, this film is outstanding! I remember it as a movie about impossible dreams and fantastic worlds that can exist but are unacceptable to the eyes of society. Great review! Completely agreed.