CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

L'Auberge Espagnole

Director

Cédric Klapisch

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

I was recommended L’Auberge Espagnole by a good friend currently residing in France. She’s studying there, and we both had the opportunity to travel to another country last year to do the same. We had a phenomenal time, and no movie portrays the ups and downs of such event better than this Spanish/French production.

Xavier (Romain Duris) is a French fellow in the process of deciding what to do with his life. He finally opts to spend one year in Barcelona so he can learn more about the language and economics in order to return home and be part of a big corporation ready to employ him. So he leaves his girlfriend Martine (Audrey Tatou) behind and embarks on a new adventure. In Barcelona, he meets Jean-Michel (Xavier De Guillebon) and his wife Anne-Sophie (Judith Godréche) at the airport, both of whom help him establish in the city. He then moves to an apartment he shares with Wendy (Kelly Reilly) and her brother William (Kevin Bishop), both from England; Isabelle (Cécile De France), a Belgian lesbian; Italian Alessandro (Federico D'Anna); and a couple: Lars (Christian Pagh) from Denmark and Soledad (Cristina Brondo) from Spain.

L’Auberge Espagnole is a delight of a movie. It’s light-hearted yet it’s also intelligent. It has equal shares of comedy and drama, and it has characters we get to like.

The main story is about Xavier, a fellow many people will come to identify with. He’s at a point in his life where he must make hard decisions about what his life will become from then on. It’s nerve-wracking, let me tell you, and the decision to go to Barcelona changes his life in more ways than one.

Before leaving he was happy to secure a job and make loads of money. He also had a possessive girlfriend with whom he was ‘happy’. In Barcelona he found out there’s more to the world if you’re willing to find it. His relationship with each individual in the apartment is unique and he comes to learn a lot about life and about himself in that year. So much that when he comes back home he is a different man. It is, in a way, a coming-of-age tale of a grownup.

What’s fun with the movie is that it also paints a really good portrait of what it is to be an exchange student. There’s so much in the world ahead of you when you’re young, and so much vitality. It’s a crucial point in your life. And sharing that with others in equal circumstances is a lot of fun and it is exactly like the movie portrays it.

I was surprised to realize Audrey Tatou figured prominently in the poster and even got top billing, when in reality she’s in the movie about 10 minutes. Anyway, she’s a pleasure to watch, so I can’t complain. Roman Duris, Cécile de France and Kelly Reilly are the highlights from my point of view, although the ensemble works wonders together.

A fun and thoughtful movie!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Taking Lives

Director

D.J. Caruso

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Angelina Jolie plays Illeana Scott, an FBI Agent summoned to Montreal by an old friend and colleague (Tchéky Karyo) to solve an undeniably notorious case of a serial killer, of whom not much is known. His identity is presumed to be that of Martin Asher, a deadly man thought killed fourteen years ago, whose mother (Gena Rowlands) now presumes to have seen him lately.

At the moment, an alleged victim of the murderer has been found by a passerby, artist James Costa (Ethan Hawke), who also happened to see the madman and then tried to help the poor victim, to no avail. Costa is terrified to be involved in such a case, but does his best to help find the man he saw (he even draws a portrait).

In the meantime, Scott does an excellent job of discerning information and getting to hypothetical conclusions that really seem to help, which provokes both the admiration of one of his Canadian colleagues (Jean-Hughes Anglade), and the envy of another (Olivier Martinez). Despite the latter’s attitude, they work as a team and eventually get quite close to catching the killer… or so they think.

James Costa is absolutely freaked out, and Illeana can’t help but feel compassion for him. She’s even attracted to him, as he obviously is to her, but professionalism keeps her away. There isn’t much time for anything else anyway, as Asher appears more often than not (in the form of Kiefer Sutherland) apparently stalking Costa, and waiting patiently for the best time to strike.

How and why Asher attacks his victims are two very interesting and terrifying aspects of this intricate but effective thriller, one more worried about telling its story than doing its best to confuse the viewers. It’s so NOT filled with distracting clues, that you’ll never see a twist coming… and when it comes, it’ll most likely blow your mind.

Angelina Jolie has always been a very good actress but has had little chance to prove so (she’s really seized her opportunities, however, even becoming an Oscar winner). Here, she’s magnificent. You’ll believe every stage of her character, from tough to sensitive to professional to regretful. She really helps the story flow; I loved her casting. Ditto for Hawke, in my opinion, though some might argue that he gets over-the-top at times. I say he’s perfect for the role as well. Oh, and Gena Rowlands freaked me out, as did that opening scene. Man, that’s scary! In fact, aided by a chilling Philip Glass score, and masterfully edited by Anne V. Coates, the procedures are pretty tense at all times, and you can expect to jump at least once every half hour.

Based on a novel by Michael Pye, adapted by Jon Bokenkamp, this is a very satisfying thriller, if not a perfect one, and definitely not free of plot holes. However, one that guarantees a good time and some very good extra pleasures. I kinda liked it… quite a bit.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

50 First Dates

Director

Peter Segal

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 26, 2004

I am a huuuuge fan of The Wedding Singer, which starred Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore. But somehow, when I saw the trailer of their latest reunion, I was unimpressed. Sandler movies have become mostly the same with only a few exceptions, and this one sounded just like another round of the usual stuff. Nevertheless I ended up seeing it, and, you know, I had a good time.

Henry Roth (Adam Sandler) is a womanizer veterinarian who can’t believe his luck when he finally finds the woman of his life, Lucy (Drew Barrymore), and soon realizes she suffers from short-term memory loss after an accident with her father (Blake Clark). Lucy wakes up everyday thinking it’s a Sunday in October, and her father and brother (Sean Astin) help her keep that illusion so she won’t suffer. But Henry is willing to go one step further...

Now, I don’t think I can say this movie isn’t your usual Adam Sandler fare. It is. There are gross-out moments, supporting characters coming right out of his world (such as long-time pal Rob Schneider), over-the-top moments and an air of this being a Hollywood movie in every sense of the word... This is the quintessential commercial movie that more uptight people usually hate.

For anyone to enjoy this movie, there’s one tiny detail you have to know before coming in: leave your brain at the door, but take your heart with you. There are more plot holes in this movie than tits in a porn flick, so there needs to be some suspension of disbelief in order to have a good time. Once you go with it, then you’re in.

Something that differentiates this movie from the usual Sandler stuff is its sweetness. The movie is a romantic comedy, but I’m willing to say it’s more romantic than comedic. And it works, because Sandler and Barrymore have the chemistry and because the screenplay allows us to care for them. For instance, the way Lucy’s father and brother keep her from suffering by pretending they’re living the same day over and over is simply heart breaking. And it says a lot about love and family.

There’s no denying there’s a big deal of Groundhog Day (1993) in the movie, although this one isn’t even close to the greatness of the latter.

Sandler is his usual self, to tell you the truth, albeit a bit more restrained. He does go over-the-top in a couple of scenes (especially when he pretends he’s crying, which he does horribly by the way), but for the most part he’s suitable and charming. Barrymore, on the other hand, is tough and adorable at the same time. We fall in love with her and wish her the best.

I looooved the ending, since I was expecting a cheap trick around the corner and somehow that didn’t happen. The movie stayed true to its roots and I must give kudos to everyone involved.

“Yeah. Sorry I’m not better looking.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Girl Next Door

Director

Luke Greenfield

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, April 22, 2004

I had never heard of Elisha Cuthbert. I had never heard of Emile Hirsch either. But somehow, the moment I saw the trailer for their latest movie I was hooked. They’re both incredibly charismatic, and well, the plot sounded like a lot of fun.

Matthew (Hirsch) is just about to graduate when Danielle (Cuthbert) moves next door and instantly turns his world upside down. Not only does he fall in love with her, but he keeps trying to get her after he finds out she’s actually a porn star. Soon, movie producer Kelly (Timothy Olyphant) arrives to get her back in the business and that means trouble.

I don’t necessarily think The Girl Next Door is an excellent or outstanding motion picture. But what it has going for it is its intelligence. It is a cut above the usual teen fare out there because it treats its characters like real human beings. Sure, the plot is absurdly contrived, but if you’re willing to go with it you can have a great time.

It also helps that the main actors are actually the age their characters are. The chemistry between Matthew and Danielle is palpable, and the way their relationship flows is magical. You could say she’s only playing with him at first, since she’s all experienced and he’s so naïve. But we soon realize that he’s actually helping her more than the other way around, since she’s in real need of some true love and comfort of a different kind.

The aspect of the porn background gives this movie a whole different edge. Of course, it’s all treated pretty smoothly, but it makes up for some unintentional satire. The movie is very sexual, and some of the funniest scenes involve quite uncomfortable situations of the sort. I especially laughed out loud at a scene involving Cuthbert and Matthew’s parents in some quite unexpected… uhm… positions. And let me tell you, you have never seen a prom quite like the one here: wild to say the least.

As for performances, Cuthbert and Hirsch manage themselves admirably. I especially got the impression that Hirsch has a bright future in movies if he’s intelligent and chooses his projects correctly. He’s charismatic and a pretty good actor. Cuthbert is quite sexy and enigmatic, traces that have to be present to pull this character off. And Olyphant has a welcome appearance, as he brings even more energy to the proceedings.

Well-written and very entertaining, this is a movie that delivers in its own good. I had a good time with it!

“Hi, I’m all wet. Can I come in?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Elephant

Director

Gus Van Sant

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Elephant is writer/director Gus Van Sant’s latest film, a rarity like those he so delightedly brings us from time to time, a little film that truly resembles the title animal in a way: slow-moving, apparently harmless, but indeed gigantic and to some fascinating, but to others, quite obnoxious and repugnant; but still unforgettable, and very real.

This film is all about realism, as an apparently normal school day in an American High School is developed with the expected amount of tedium, laughs, mocks, bullying, and flirting. Van Sant has a steadycam follow different teenagers throughout the day (plus some flashbacks), first one, then the next, and so on, until all the pieces are set for something dreadful to happen.

The Columbine-inspired drama is acted by non-actors, whose characters have their own names: John McFarland is the most impressive, as a boy with trouble both at home and in school, who somehow deals with it quite well, effortlessly; Elias McConnell plays an aspiring photographer who doesn’t care much for anything except his hobby. Alex Frost and Eric Deulen play boys who are bullied around and can’t really take it anymore.

A popular boy with a gorgeous girlfriend, three bulimic girls, an aspiring singer, a nerdy girl, all are introduced to us slowly, deliberately, with no apparent intention other than to set an environment for something else, something huge, or perhaps not so, to happen…

Most of the time, nothing relevant seems to happen. We follow the characters, set to the tune of classical music, or nothing at all except the background noise of a common school. Sometimes they cross paths, and we recognize the scene from before. Others, they simply walk towards their classrooms and walk in like anybody else.

When something does happen, however, we are well aware of everyone’s situation, and in a way, we feel the pain and the shock like we’re living it ourselves. That’s the feeling this movie causes: It drags us into its world, and doesn’t let us out easily. I even felt like I was watching everything through a steadycam when I was driving away from the theater, and the way I was aware of everything around was scary. I just couldn’t help trying to deal with the shock of what I had just watched.

This film went on to (surprisingly) win the Palme D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and deservedly so. It’s an experimental take on a familiar account that creates an outstanding reality of its own, and involves the viewers like few movies achieve. And like it or not, it’s unforgettable.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lost in Translation

Director

Sofia Coppola

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

I saw Lost in Translation many months ago yet I don’t know why I had not sat down to write about it. I guess it was subconscious because even though I think it is an excellent movie and even though I enjoyed the hell out of it, I just didn’t fall flat-out in love with it. And that’s not giving it fake praise… it is a wonderful, wonderful movie. But people sometimes connect differently with different stories. It happens…

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is a Hollywood movie star spending some time in Tokyo to shoot a commercial. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is an American girl staying at the same hotel while her husband (Giovanni Ribisi) works in the city. Both are bored, both are lonely and both connect once they meet and establish a relationship.

I’m a huge admirer of Sofia Coppola’s The Virgin Suicides (2000). That movie was extremely unique, personal and like nothing I had ever seen. Sofia established a personal language in that movie, and I was eagerly anticipating her next foray behind the cameras. The result is Lost in Translation, another small, yet intimate drama, which she managed to pull off incredibly well.

It’s difficult to say what’s so special about the movie. I’ve heard people connect with it in many different ways. What I found remarkable is the way Sofia managed to deliver a comedy about a profoundly sad story. The movie’s tone is weird, because you keep laughing all the time while also being sad and melancholy for the character’s existence. But such is life, isn’t it? It’s full of moments, and even in the worst kind of circumstance there can always be some laughs.

Bob and Charlotte find in each other exactly what they needed. They’re both equally lonely and unsure about their place in the world. They both have lives which they don’t necessarily love. And they’re stuck in a world that doesn’t really understand them. The bond they form, romantic or not, touches their souls and gives them a little hope, a ray of light. It’s beautiful to watch. And the finale is a classic.

Another interesting aspect of the movie is the treatment Sofia gives to the Japanese people and Tokyo in particular. The city is beautifully photographed, but the portrayal of its people is brilliant. Exactly like I see them. And it makes up for very funny situations. Just watch that scene in which Bob is actually shooting the commercial. Or when he attends a Japanese TV show. Hilarious!!!

Bill Murray gives the performance of his career in a role that actually resembles a lot his real-life persona. It’s heartbreaking, and truly personal and intimate work. He’s fantastic beyond words. Meanwhile Scarlett Johansson is sad and absorbing in what is the performance of her career as well. Giovanni Ribisi and Anna Faris lend strong support, the latter in a role that resembles everything Charlotte doesn’t want to be.

Hooray for Sofia, whom I really admire and who continues to deliver good and interesting work!!!

“Let’s never come here again because it will never be as much fun.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Play It Again, Sam

Director

Herbert Ross

Year

1972

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 19, 2004

A year after Woody Allen’s outstanding showcase as writer, director, and star of Bananas (1971) (not his first film, but to date one of his best), he starred in the screen adaptation of Play It Again, Sam, his famous play, an homage to (and spoof of) Casablanca (1942). Adapted by Allen himself (and directed by Herbert Ross), the film is especially notable for bringing to the screen a rare mixture of Woody’s early slapstick persona, later neurotic persona, and universal film buff persona. In fact, this film is way ahead of its time in the way it’s mostly oriented to Woody’s character’s anxiousness towards relationships, instead of his overall activities (though Bananas (1971) did deal mostly with his relationships, it put Woody’s character in other situations that weren’t directly related to that).

Woody Allen plays Allan Felix, an introverted film critic (and buff) who’s just been dumped by his gorgeous wife Nancy (Susan Anspach), and feels like she was his last chance. His friend Linda (Diane Keaton), also a neurotic, and her wife Dick (Tony Roberts), an incredible workaholic, spend a lot of time consoling him and even play matchmakers with him trying to make him feel better. Nothing helps, though…

In the meantime, Allan, who’s obsessed with Humphrey Bogart and every picture he’s in, is visited by Bogey himself (as a vision inside his head of course, played by Jerry Lacy), who often belittles him in the way of advising him. Bogey’s way with ladies is very well known by every film buff, and admired by many, but it’s not exactly easy to imitate. Allan tries his best however, and soon falls for Linda herself, which creates conflict, as Dick is such a good friend.

Pretty soon, Allan is not only imitating Bogart as a ladies man, but also as Rick Blaine from Casablanca (1942), who respects the husband of the woman he loves. The parallelism to the classic Warner Brothers flick is haunting, but displayed in a modern setting, and with much less glamorous characters, it’s made credible. It’s also hilarious, but respectful, as is the treatment toward Bogart’s image.

The ending is a real bang, and also parallels Casablanca’s in the way it’s unexpected and unforgettable.

This film is also notable for marking the first collaboration of Diane Keaton with Woody Allen, as well as Tony Roberts’s, who also became a regular of Woody’s.

A must for Woody’s fans of now and then.

“I wonder if she actually had an orgasm in the two years we were married, or did she fake it that night?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gothika

Director

Mathieu Kassovitz

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, April 15, 2004

After Halle Berry won her much-deserved Oscar for the extraordinary Monster's Ball (2001), she went on to star in a thriller with supernatural overtones which didn’t go that well with critics. And it made only a moderate amount of money. Somehow it just wasn’t liked. Of course, that didn’t stop me, since I kind of wanted to see it. Sometimes it’s fun to watch some cheesy commercial Hollywood movie and this sounded just like what the doctor ordered.

Dr. Miranda Grey (Halle Berry) is a successful psychologist who, after an accident, wakes up as a patient in the very asylum she works for. She slowly starts to find out what happened, as she is accused of a murder and everyone thinks she’s crazy, including her colleague Dr. Graham (Robert Downey Jr.).

Now, I wouldn’t call Gothika an excellent movie because it isn’t. But this is the kind of movie where you know what you’re getting so you just have to go along with it. I don’t want you to think I’m defending something that doesn’t deserve it. I’m only saying that the movie works in the way it was intended to. Is it involving? Yes. Is it scary? Oh yes. Was I looking for something more? Not really.

Gothika owes a lot to very different movies of the genre, including the somewhat recent What Lies Beneath (2000). It also manages to be very entertaining and fascinating for almost half of its running time. The last half hour of the movie is what, I think, has divided people so much. Some people might hate what happens, but considering it is a murder mystery and that I didn’t see that specific denouement coming, I liked it. And I did find it surprising.

The movie looks creepy as hell. The atmosphere the director and his team created is very scary. And everything about the movie is. Even some characters give you the chills, such as Chloe (Penélope Cruz), a rebellious inmate. The director certainly knows how to make us jump, and we do, a lot.

I also liked some subtle theme about how insane people are misunderstood and no one ever believes them. It must be quite claustrophobic, and it feels.

Halle Berry is a very good actress, and even though this is not a performance that would generate awards, she knows how to do things right and delivers an excellent performance as far as the movie lets her. She’s very good and we root for her. Cruz and Downey Jr. also lend pretty good support.

Overall, I liked it. A guilty pleasure in every sense of the phrase.

“How can you trust someone who thinks you’re crazy?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

Director

Guy Ritchie

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Guy Ritchie’s feature film debut as Screenwriter / Director is, if anything, a film worth watching. It might not be masterful or perfect, and some enjoy to claim that Ritchie’s revolutionary approach to the thriller genre was way better realized in Snatch. (2000) two years later. Even though I tend to agree with the latter group, that shouldn’t mean Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels should be passed over. As one good friend of mine and big Guy Ritchie fan put it, this movie would be seen with better eyes if Snatch didn’t exist at all. Nonetheless, this film has always been belittled in one way or another despite its strikingly original style. At first, everyone compared it to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs and/or Pulp Fiction, with a little bit of Trainspotting thrown into the mix. Even though I highly doubt that Ritchie was influenced even remotely by Tarantino’s works, I don’t see how it would affect his work even if he was.

Being perfectly objective, I find in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels an inimitable look at the underworld, focusing on the clumsiness of a bunch of lowlifes and the hilarious and intricate web of consequences when different stories collide. It’s all for the fun, as no violence is too graphic (most of it not even showing onscreen) and everyone has time to make a funny remark. In the end, it’s not exactly redeeming and probably doesn’t leave a strong mark or impression on the viewer, but the laughs one gets during it are highly appreciated.

The story, as I said, is quite intricate. It all begins with four con-artists (Jason Flemyng as Tom, Dexter Fletcher as Soap, Nick Moran as Eddie, and Jason Statham as Bacon) who take the risk of entering a high-powered Poker game where invincible Eddie trusts he’ll beat Hatchet Harry Lonsdale (P.H. Moriarty) as he’s beaten everyone in his time. Not counting on Harry’s cheating (aided by his Barry the Baptist, played by Lenny McLean, who died before the film’s release, and to whom it was dedicated), the boys find themselves in debt with a deadline to pay it. In order to get the money, they attempt to cheat their crooked neighbors, leaded by tough man Dog (Frank Harper). Those guys in turn get into trouble of their own, and other guys involved get into their own trouble, and the circle eventually closes. Thrown into the mix are a deadpan hit man and his son (Vinnie Jones and Peter McNicholl respectively), and many more sorts of lowlifes and mafiamen with different interests.

The dynamic structure of this film benefits from the non-linear way in which its story is told. It’s not exactly episodic, but instead, the stories flow and all of a sudden they intersect and we don’t always see it coming. It’s fun to realize that what you’re seeing explains something you already saw. Another asset of the story is the suspense that builds little by little. Every storyline has a suspense of its own and all together make up for a truly exciting experience. If not every story is exceedingly interesting, that’s a different story.

Sting, who appears as Eddie’s dad (a welcome if unsettling appearance, given the nature of the character he plays), introduced Ritchie to his future wife Madonna.

Overall, this is a recommendable film with many virtues to behold.

“A minute ago this was the safest job in the world. Now it’s turning into a bad day in Bosnia.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spirited Away

Director

Hayao Miyazaki

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 12, 2004

Chihiro is a little girl who hates her parents’ decision of moving to another city. It’s such a tragic event for her that she even finds it sad that her first bouquet of flowers was given to her as a goodbye gift. Her parents are quite excited about the moving however, and ask her to cheer up, as they’re sure she’ll be happy once they’ve settled. She’s not sure though…

Before they get to their new home, Chihiro’s parents are bewildered by a strange deserted place they run into as a result of getting momentarily lost. It’s a beautiful place, wide and lonely, full of grass and strange constructions all around. Chihiro’s father says it must have been an amusement park, one of many that went out of business during the 90s. Wandering about, they find what looks like a ghost village, and are shocked to find an open restaurant with fresh, warm food waiting for them. Almost without thinking, they grab more than a bite, stating they’ll pay whenever someone shows up. Chihiro refuses to eat, a wise decision, since her parents soon become pigs, just as night falls and everything around becomes something it apparently wasn’t: A crowded public bath visited by specters and strange creatures. Chihiro is immediately threatened and finds it impossible to escape. Only a boy called Haku seems willing to help.

Hoping to save her parents from their strange fate, Chihiro plays along and finds a job in the place. Nothing here works as it would in the real world and there’s always a surprise coming around the corner. Chihiro is often amazed by what she’s living and has little time to feel pity for herself or her parents. Among the incredible people she meets, there’s Kamaji, a slave of the machines with many long arms, Yubaba, the place owner who has the form of an old woman, and Boh, her gigantic baby.

The film is not only strikingly original visually, with Miyazaki’s trademark genius animation and mind-blowing designs, but it’s also quite original in its storytelling style. You never can tell what’s to come and you can frequently catch yourself making assumptions about something and then finding yourself wrong. The story, scripted by Miyazaki, plays as a fantasy of a little girl who must face her coming-of-age and is reluctant to. There are metaphors for the dangers one must face while assuming responsibilities, as well as how love and affection are seen differently by grown-ups. The film is filled with wonderfully thrilling subplots usually offering an unexpected punch line, like the story of the filthy client who turned out to be a very important one, for instance. There are lessons learned and many people who change, and it’s all very delightful.

Everyone responsible for this film should be praised. The animation is flawless, as are the designs and the colorful realization. The voices are well done (the English version has received much praise of its own) and the music by Joe Hisaishi fits the procedures exceedingly well. The end title by Yumi Kimura also sticks to the mind.

Overall, a very imaginative piece that deserves a couple of viewings at least.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Alamo

Director

John Lee Hancock

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Friday, April 09, 2004

I’ve been to San Antonio, TX, a couple of times and one of the things I like the most about that wonderful city is the respect people have for its history. I remember going to Six Flags (Fiesta Texas) once and getting a whole pyrotechnics show based solely on the battle of the Alamo. I didn’t really know the story about that infamous event in U.S. history though, so I was curious to find out about every detail in its latest big screen adaptation.

The movie tells the story of the fall of the Alamo, as Gen. Santa Anna (Emilio Echevarría) arrives with his Mexican troops to get this piece of land in Texas back from the Americans. Adventurous Davy Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton), valiant James Bowie (Jason Patric), loyal Juan Seguin (Jordi Mollá) and commanding Col. William Barrett Travis (Patrick Wilson) are all there to defend the territory even when the Mexican troops certainly outnumber their own defense. Meanwhile, Gen. Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) will try to help and fight till the end no matter what.

First of all I’d like to talk about this movie from a historical point of view. From what I’ve read, this version of the happenings circa 1836 is one of the most accurate retellings of what really happened back then. I can’t really speak for that, since I don’t know the story so I go with what I’m presented here. What I did see, and I say this as a positive aspect, is that even though the movie portrays the Americans as heroes and shows them as victims, there’s a fair share of exposition from the Mexican side which shows that the battle was more complicated than it meets the eye. Sure, Santa Anna was a tyrant, but he was fighting for something he thought belonged to him. You could say both sides had their reasons, and the movie shows that.

Now, that’s as far as I’m going to talk nice about this movie, because just about everything else is a disaster. If there’s one word with which I had to describe The Alamo, it would be “boring”. God, I don’t know how I didn’t fall asleep. You see, the entire movie is about a bunch of people waiting for the Mexican troops to attack them. It’s almost two hours of ranting about this or that character with ineffective melodrama and interaction until the maximum point of tedium. Then the battle finally takes place (we, as the audience, also couldn’t wait!) and it lasts about 10 minutes. Sure it’s impressive and well done, but by then we feel nothing for anyone. People die, yes, but the emotions are muted by then.

I think director John Lee Hancock felt the obligation to develop many different characters which Americans hail as heroes, but his attempt just doesn’t pay off. There’s barely anything interesting to watch. Only Davy Crockett is developed as a fairly interesting character and his scenes are certainly the best, but that’s just not enough.

Now, I’ve heard this movie cost around 100 million. I’m amazed because I’ve also heard the sets cost 10 million. Where else did the money go??? There are two big battle sequences that last about 10 minutes each. The actors are certainly not big stars. The costumes are great, but not worthy of that amount of money. I don’t know, they should’ve paid the writers a better deal of money!

Technically, the movie isn’t really astounding. It’s got nice photography, but that’s about it. Carter Burwell’s score is totally ineffective. And honestly, the sets gave the impression that they were, um, sets.

I enjoyed Billy Bob Thornton’s performance quite a lot. He was born to play this man and he takes the most out it. He’s the single best thing about the movie and I wish the focus would’ve relied more on him than anything else. Emilio Echeverria, as the villain, is somewhat cartoonish, but actually gives a good performance. Dennis Quaid, on the other hand, is wrong wrong wrong. At least I didn’t like his work. You can see he’s faking his voice, giving it more of a macho ring. It feels and looks fake all the way.

A bore.

"Today, we remember the Alamo!"

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Passion of the Christ

Director

Mel Gibson

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Jesus of Nazareth (Jim Caviezel) prays on the Mount of Olives, fearsome about the fate that awaits him in the next twelve hours. Everything falls into place as Judas Iscariot (Luca Lionello) tells the high priests of the location of the Master, and they go after him. Very well knowing what’s to come, Jesus faces Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia), and is then sent to Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov), to whom the crowd demands a judgment of death on the cross for that who claims he’s the Son of Man. After Pilate’s denial, Jesus is taken to vicious Herod (Luca De Dominicis), who also says no; Pilate can’t refuse again. As a result, Jesus is then brutally scourged, humiliated, and prepared for death at the cross.

If this movie has provoked anything, that’s discussion. That’s nearly inevitable in a movie about Jesus that states unforgiving points of view in an almost radical way. That’s the way this movie plays. The characters are clearly defined and delineated, always with an edge toward the goodness or evil in them. Caiphas’ morbid hatred against Jesus has caused accusations that this film is anti-Semitic, for instance. Others don’t see so much into that, but accuse Director / Co-writer Mel Gibson of being arrogant and self-indulgent in presenting such a personal point of view of the so-called greatest story ever told, and bragging that it’s the way it happened because the Holy Spirit dictated it to him (watching the movie somehow you get the feeling that the man responsible for it behind the cameras really believes he’s some kind of authority in the matter, which is confirmed by his saying so in interviews).

Despite all this, the film is good as a film. It’s masterfully done, gorgeously photographed by Caleb Deschanel, and featuring fitting music by John Debney. The editing by John Wright is also good, though the film’s pace slows down at times and loses momentum. That’s not a very recurring problem though, as most of the piece is unbearably intense.

The performances are uniformly flawless. The standout is Maia Morgenstern, whose eyes carry all the pain of the role of Mary. Caviezel is a perfect Jesus, who shows enormous sentiment and strength and wisdom in every phase of his awful torment, and a couple of flashbacks of important moments in his life. Other members of the cast are Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, Francesco De Vito as Peter, Hristo Jivkov as John, and Rosalinda Celentano as Satan. The latter role seemed quite unnecessary to me in a film that played in such a realistic way. If they were to add supernatural elements, I would’ve preferred many other things…

See, I have a problem with this movie. I am not a religious person but I am a man of faith, and I do believe in Jesus, and have read the Gospels, and many more texts about the Master. Yet, as a man who knows the story pretty well, and believes in it, and understands its relevance, I found the exposition a bit unfocused in the way that it concerns only the torment and death of Jesus and almost ignores his overall work. Gibson no doubt made it impossible to not feel Jesus’ pain at all times, the violence being almost unbearable, and arguably excessive, but it would’ve been great if he had told us why we should care more about that man than any other tortured man in the world (as many as there have always been). Why has Jesus transcended time and place after so many centuries? Many viewers might miss the point and to me it’s a problem, also because the beauty of Jesus’ work and words is sorely missed, even though it is featured in a couple of flashbacks (that only left me wanting more).

Make no mistake, I like this film very much. Realized as realistically as possible (even spoken in Latin and Aramaic, with subtitles), it manages to create a period piece so credible that it’s almost like watching the real thing, one would think. The story and the way it’s played make up for a unique experience, rarely seen before on film, which requires an open mind, even from those who defend it like it’s a window into the very Gospels. Isn’t that the story of the world concerning Jesus Christ?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dirty Pretty Things

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Director Stephen Frears is well-known to be a top-notch filmmaker who sometimes delivers extraordinary movies and sometimes his work doesn’t pay off. To tell you the truth, I’m not an expert in his filmography, so he wasn’t the reason I wanted to see this movie. Those reasons would be: 1) that it was critically-acclaimed, even getting an Oscar nod and 2) that the star is Audrey Tatou, whom I just love since I saw her in Amélie (2001). That said, I went for it…

Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a Nigerian doctor living as an illegal immigrant in London. During the day he’s a taxi driver, but at night he works as a hotel clerk. Okwe lives with Senay (Audrey Tatou) a Turkish immigrant working as a maid in the same hotel, with whom he shares a friendship. One day, while checking out a room in the hotel, Okwe finds a human heart in the toilet, something he obviously finds particularly suspicious. His paranoia only increments when Juan (Sergi Lopez), the hotel manager, doesn’t give a damn about it…

To start off, let me get something out of the way: I didn’t expect the movie to be what it is. Let me explain. I had read about it and its premise and about how it was so intelligent and so on, so I always thought the movie would be bigger in scope, more political, a movie dealing seriously and to-the-point with the issue of organ trading. What we ultimately get is definitely not that. As a matter of fact the movie does touch on that subject matter, but it isn’t as big on its scope. Dirty Pretty Things is a thriller set in and around a hotel, and that’s about it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean that in a bad way. I wish most thrillers were as suspenseful and well-written as this one. The movie builds and builds to the point were we’re very attached to the characters and don’t know what will happen to them. It’s nerve-racking.

The thing I liked the most about the movie was not the thriller aspect of it, but the very interesting portrayal of illegal immigrants in England. They have harsh lives, the are always hiding, always waiting for the Government to do something about them, they wish of going away, they just survive… It’s a gritty scenario, and it’s shown to perfection by Frears.

There’s also a subtle love story going on in there that is quite touching and nothing like the usual cliché of this sort of thing. It evolves into something else quite slowly and gracefully.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, an actor I had never heard of, is extraordinary as Okwe. It is through his eyes that we witness everything that is going on. And we understand his actions because he’s a well-rounded character that is well-developed from start to finish. Meanwhile Tatou is adorable as usual, in a role that demands her to be tougher without losing her innocence. And Lopez is also excellent as Señor Juan.

Overall, a tight, well-shaped movie.

“Good at chess usually means bad at life. But then again, I'm bad at chess...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Peter Pan

Director

P.J. Hogan

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

I love the Peter Pan legend. I have never been a particularly big fan of the Disney adaptation, but one can’t deny that the film is in great part responsible for making Pan so famous nowadays. Instead, I was a big fan of a TV cartoon series called Peter Pan and the Pirates, aired by Fox, which I’ve come to discover was a well-loved series by those who had the chance to see it and discover the many great things it offered. One of those great things was the focus of the story, and the fact that it was so true to the original story by J.M. Barry.

Years later, I heard of this new live-action film, allegedly quite true to the original story as well. I was intrigued from the get-go. If done right, the film should focus on Wendy’s point of view always, as Peter Pan’s story is actually her story. Also it was said to feature for the first time a real boy playing the hero, which was a bit risky considering Peter Pan is no ordinary boy, but in ways he is, so the mixture isn’t easy to pull off by a child actor.

Anyway, I saw the film the other day, and it blew my mind. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s perfectly entertaining and awe-inspiring. Indeed, the film plays from the point of view of Wendy Darling (Rachel Hurd-Wood), a 12-year-old girl and born storyteller who’s tired of being told to grow up when all she wants is to be carefree and play all day long with her younger brothers John (Harry Newell) and Michael (Freddie Popplewell). Right when she can’t stop the progress anymore and is to be taught to be a lady by her Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave), Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter) flies into her life. Peter is a wonderful boy who not only can fly but claims that he lives in a place where children never grow up. He and Wendy immediately click and when he invites her over to Never Never Land she finds it hard to refuse. John and Michael are invited as well, so off they go to that wonderful place.

At Never Never Land, the children find adventure more quickly than they probably expected. Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs) is a pirate who hates Peter Pan for many things, including the fact that he cut off his right hand (which has now been replaced by a hook) and threw it to a crocodile who now wants the whole man since his hand tasted so good. But if Hook hates something about Pan, it’s his eternal youth. In a land of fairies and sirens, Wendy finds the perfect opportunity to be a child forever, yet she meets responsibility quite quickly as the gang of Lost Boys, Peter’s friends, all request Wendy to be their mother. She plays mother like a little girl does but in ways desires to become one. Also, when John and Michael are captured by Hook, she gives the matter a deserved importance that Peter Pan can hardly understand. In the meantime, she falls in love with the boy, who claims he doesn’t return the feeling because he’s not even a teenager, neither is he willing to be. Eventually, Hook captures Wendy and offers her the chance to be a pirate, which seems quite enthralling to her. Of course, all the vengeful pirate wants is to locate Peter and capture him.

The tale is faithful to the original story indeed, only a little bit too much perhaps. At trying to capture the whole essence of the play and books, it contains too many elements that regretfully silence the development and beauty of each other. The main characters are very beautifully realized however, and it’s perfectly clear that Peter Pan’s story is a metaphor for Wendy’s coming-of-age. Though the film never quite becomes an epic, as it probably should have, it’s moving and exciting and definitely beautiful, with slightly tacky colors and music (by James Newton Howard) used at times to enhance the dream-like nature of what we’re seeing. It’s a dream-like experience that seems to be every child’s fantasies come true.

The very thing that made me enjoy the film the most was that my fears weren’t realized as Jeremy Sumpter was not annoying in the role of Pan, but in fact quite charming though he does have the right dose of arrogance the part requires. However, it’s Hurd-Wood who took my breath away as Wendy; her casting is absolutely perfect, considering Wendy is not by far a supporting character, as it’s been in other Peter Pan adaptations, including Disney’s. Ludivine Sagnier, as Tinkerbell, plays a priceless mimic that sometimes comes out right, others seems annoying, especially since her character is so mean-spirited. As tradition dictates, the same actor plays both Mister Darling and Captain Hook: Jason Isaacs, who fits both roles quite well, though Hook’s bitterness is at times unclear, despite his undeniably charming and dynamic portrayal. Olivia Williams plays Mrs. Darling, a role that doesn’t require that much but which she manages to make rather touching and beautiful.

All in all, a very worthwhile experience, and the one Peter Pan adaptation everyone should turn to.

“Never is an awfully long time.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spun

Director

Jonas Akerlund

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 05, 2004

I was never that interested in watching this movie. But then a couple of days ago I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen for free and I couldn’t refuse. Fact is… I’m glad I didn’t have to pay for it.

The movie doesn’t really have a plot, but it centers on the lives of several drug-addicts during a three-day span. There’s Ross (Jason Schwartzman), who meets Nikki (Brittany Murphy) and starts to work for her boyfriend The Cook (Mickey Rourke) as a chauffeur, while getting more and more involved with them and Spider Mike (John Leguizamo), a drug dealer with a white-trash girlfriend (Mena Suvari).

Director Jonas Akerlund shot his movie MTV-style, with a lot of quick cuts, striking images and bizarre camera movements. Perhaps that’s the right approach for the movie, especially since it keeps things alive and moving. Otherwise there’s not much of a story to keep the audience awake.

There’s also the shock factor, if this movie has anything going for it is its portrayal of junkies and the way drugs destroy their lives and make of their existence a burden. Fact is, that’s the truth, and it’s difficult to watch.

Apart from that, there’s not much to find in this movie. I actually found it pointless. I don’t know what the purpose of its existence is. And if it exists only to show what drugs can do to people, well, there are far better movies than this one to watch for that. Movies that actually have interesting stories to tell with interesting characters to spend some time with.

Actually the characters in this movie are interesting, but we rarely get a glimpse of their backdrop or anything else. It is only at the end that we find tiny bits about Ross or The Cook that show they are three-dimensional characters, but that’s not really enough.

As performances go, they are consistently good, with Murphy faring the best of the bunch, I think, although there’s not a weak performance. It’s all too over-the-top to really judge. I mean, there’s Mickey Rourke in his comeback role and he does a really good job. You can see why he is so respected in the industry after all. And John Leguizamo is perfect in his own intensity.

Too bad, because it could’ve been better. It’s well shot, and it has a great cast and a good soundtrack. But ultimately it never gets there.

“I wish I could do that to you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Elephant Man

Director

David Lynch

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Distinguished Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) wanders around a freak-show fair in turn-of-the-century London, apparently looking for something he’s already heard about, just when the Police evacuates everyone present on account of a specific show that’s too gruesome and scary and shocking. Treves’ curiosity only increases. When he comes back, at night, finding the fair empty, he offers Bytes (Freddie Jones), the lowlife “owner” of the so-called ‘Elephant Man’ (the very show that caused controversy earlier), good money for a private show. Bytes agrees, and so Dr. Treves gets to see, for the first time, the man who’ll change his life: John Merrick (John Hurt), who’s grossly deformed and apparently quite ill. Treves is as shocked as he’s moved.

Treves’ initial reaction shows his humanity as compared to most people who presence the spectacle, and the very caretaker of the enigmatic man. But he goes even further, paying Bytes to allow Merrick to go to his office and be examined. At first, Merrick doesn’t respond like the good Doctor would expect; he’s hesitant and fearsome, expecting the worst, which is what he’s always got from people. But Treves shows him an unknown compassion that’s even harder to adapt to. Adopted by the London Hospital (not without resistance by the Hospital Director, Carr Gomm, played by John Gielgud), Merrick gets more than he bargained for, obtaining good treatment, both medical and humane. The word spreads and Merrick becomes well-known more than infamous, especially when a famous actress, Mrs. Kendal (Anne Bancroft), befriends him. At the same time, Treves obtains prestige and fame too, having proved outstanding humanity and unprecedented Medical discoveries; however, he begins to question himself, whether he really did this for Merrick or rather for himself, and whether he’s helping him or pulling a fancier freak show.

David Lynch’s famously “straight” movie (long before The Straight Story (1999)), based on a true story (and scripted by himself, Eric Bergren, and Christopher De Vore), is an absolute visual delight, already showing his weird touches (in the form of imaginary flashbacks of the Elephant Man’s alleged origins, for instance) but mostly playing as a drama, with deep observations of the human nature. Treves is an amazing character, cold and warm at the same time, professional but caring, and very intense in his beliefs and convictions. Ditto for Merrick, a human being who was born to suffer, but hesitates when offered true compassion, and later evolves into a loving character, wise and self-educated, hardly holding any grudges against those who treated him badly. Merrick moved people in the London Hospital, then all over London, and even the Royalty, and now us as spectators. But his story is not only about finding a home and settling there, as there’ll always be people looking for ways to benefit from him.

Heart-breaking to say the least (the hardest moment, at least for me, being when Merrick mentions his mother), this is a fine picture in many ways, including its great performances, and a very delightful one despite its difficult subject matter.

“I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter