CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

8 Women

Director

François Ozon

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 28, 2005

I had been long attracted by 8 Femmes. It appeared to be a rather unusual mixture of Agatha Christie, Douglas Sirk, and probably The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964). I had to see it for myself when I heard it was indeed pretty clever and interesting, plus very entertaining.

The plot has one murdered man and eight female suspects in a big house during a cold winter day. The women: Wife Gaby (Catherine Deneuve), mother-in-law Mamy (Danielle Darrieux), sister-in-law Augustine (Isabelle Huppert), daughters Suzon (Virginie Ledoyen) and Catherine (Ludivine Sagnier), sister Pierrette (Fanny Ardant), cook Madame Chanel (Firmine Richard), and maid Louise (Emmanuelle Béart).

The film develops at first as a light comedy of sorts, with the unexpected surprise (even if expected) of musical numbers every now and then. The first of these, a lively song sung by Sagnier, is spectacular, which pleased me. This is undoubtedly the aspect of the film that I liked most, which usually works quite well, even if some songs are not as good as others.

Soon into the film, the dead body is found and the mystery unwrapped little by little, with every character having something to hide and something to share, while the question of who killed the man stays throughout. There’s bitchiness, greedy secrets, lesbianism, femme fatalism, etc., as all women turn out to be suspects and most turn out to be, in ways, glad the man is dead. The contrast between this dark side of the story and the light setting is very interesting, and sure works.

Probably the best asset the film has however is how the characters seem to find in the murder an excuse to take something out of their systems. This gives the story some depth and the actresses a chance to prove their abilities. Each and every one of them makes the best out of that, but I personally enjoyed Huppert, Ardant, and Sagnier most.

The disappointment came when the mystery didn’t pay off. I’m not talking about the farfetched denouement, which I can’t say I saw coming, but which I didn’t care about anymore by the time it did. I’m talking about the lack of quality in the whodunit. I understand that this isn’t really the point of the film (or the play it’s based on, by Robert Thomas), but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be interesting if it’s the main plot. Even if the characters are very interesting and their development very clear, I don’t understand why the substance is lacking and all that’s left is a shallow mystery that’s hardly memorable. References to Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940) and Vertigo (1958) only made me long for a better story.

Still I’d like to say this is an interesting piece if only for its actresses and its music. Lots of talent there. Worth your time? That’s for each to decide.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Pedro Almodóvar is one of my favorite directors, and it was almost blasphemous that I’d never seen one of his best-known movies: Mujeres al Borde de un Ataque de Nervios. It is hugely regarded as the movie that really put him on the map in an international level, and now I know why. It has all of the trademarks for which he would later be known, and respected, so much.

Pepa (Carmen Maura) has just been abandoned by her lover Iván (Fernando Guillén), and has been struggling to get over him. That’s why she urgently wants him to go pick some of his stuff from her apartment. But one crazy day, Iván’s son Carlos (Antonio Banderas) and his soon-to-be-wife Marisa (Rossy de Palma) incidentally come knocking on her door to look at the place. Pepa’s good friend Candela (María Barranco) helps her go through the motions, especially when Iván’s wife Lucía (Julieta Serrano) also shows up. Mayhem ensues.

I’ve got to be completely honest when I admit that the first half hour of the movie is a mess. I mean, scene after scene I didn’t understand anything that was going on. Characters are introduced randomly, but with no clear sign of who they are, what their role in the movie is or why they are given that moment of exposition. It isn’t until Pepa gets to her apartment and everyone starts to show up that we start realizing what was going on and how the movie’s going to play. A little bit of coherence and tighter editing would’ve done.

That said, when the movie gets going, it’s unstoppable!!! I had soooo much fun with it. No one writes and directs like Almodóvar. He borders on screwball comedy mixed with satire and does so in such an exquisite way that it’s just impossible not to like this movie. And when you look at it, his premise is pretty simple, nothing showy and nothing ground-breaking. But he does it right, and it’s just hilarious, twist after twist, line after line.

It helps that he always knows how to pick the best actor for the role. His characters are always strange and peculiar, but good casting can take it all the way. Carmen Maura is one of Almodóvar’s favorite actresses and she is superb, mixing desperation, cleverness and bitchiness all in one. Banderas, de Palma, Serrano and Barranco are impeccable. The latter even has the funniest line in the movie, something involving a dress that had me in stitches. Also, Guillermo Montesinos as the cabdriver is a riot.

Colorful, filled with gay references all over the place, hysterical and intelligent. It certainly packs a punch!

“I thought this only happened at the movies!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Robin Hood

Director

Allan Dwan

Year

1922

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Even though the most famous and influential Hollywood rendition of the Robin Hood story is the 1938 gem The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), Douglas Fairbanks’ 1922 version is also very important and worth seeing. Famous for its use of the largest Hollywood set built for any silent movie (the castle), its storytelling no doubt influenced the further Errol Flynn masterpiece and the overall legend in pop culture. Though easily surpassed by the 1938 witty swashbuckler, this film is very entertaining in its own right.

The story has good King Richard the Lion-Hearted (Wallace Beery) picking Robert Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks) as his main man for the Crusades. Resentful Prince John (Sam De Grasse), the King’s brother, snatches the opportunity to become regent for good when his brother leaves. Aided by foul Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Paul Dickey), he decides to ensure that his brother doesn’t find a safe way back. In the meantime, he terrorizes his people with ridiculous taxes and overall tyranny. Out in the Crusades, the Earl of Huntingdon gets word of this, and decides to go back and help the people but, unable to tell the King, he’s believed a deserter and becomes an outlaw: Robin Hood.

My main reaction to this film was that of unpleasantness with the treatment of Robin’s character as a nobleman. A timid fellow, shy around women, and overall clumsy, he’s hardly a hero, and it’s even hard to believe that the King would pick him among others. As usual with Fairbanks, his character evolves from this awkward fellow to a dashing, intrepid leading man. I thought this time I wouldn’t fall for it, but once again, the guy managed to convince me. The second half was as entertaining as can be. Not enough to make up for the mostly boring first half, but pretty good.

Once the film has established most of its characters, there’s no stopping the action. That is both good and bad. Good, because the pace gets very exciting and Fairbanks is one hell of an acrobat. And bad, because most of the important characters are given little to no importance. Lady Marian (Enid Bennett) has a showcase in the first half, and is important throughout the entire movie, as is Little John (Alan Hale), but others like Will Scarlett (Bud Geary), Allan-a-Dale (Lloyd Talman), Friar Tuck (Willard Louis), and even the High Sheriff of Nottingham (William Lowery) go nearly unnoticed. The film’s overlength is unjustified when time is not used to develop such important characters, probably assuming the audience already knows who they are and no formal introduction is required.

Fairbanks at his best, magnificent sets, and the overall greatness of the story, as well as the film’s influence in future films on the subject, make this worth the while.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Birth

Director

Jonathan Glazer

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 25, 2005

Even as Birth was trashed by critics, it is one of those movies that I still wanted to see no matter what. To begin with, I love Nicole Kidman, and this movie promised a lot from her. And then there was the rather intriguing premise. In a nutshell, I had to see what this movie did, or didn’t do, by myself. And so I did...

When Anna (Nicole Kidman) loses her husband Sean, her life is completely shattered. But ten years later, after slowly recuperating, she’s finally getting married to another man, Joseph (Danny Huston). That is, until a 10-year-old boy named Sean (Cameron Bright), appears into her life claiming to be her dead husband. Anna laughs at the idea at first, but as she spends more time with him she starts to get convinced that he is indeed her lost love, not caring about what her mother Eleanor (Lauren Bacall) has to say about it.

Birth is fascinating in the way it could’ve been a much better, interesting movie and how it is not able to get there. Director Jonathan Glazer does a good enough job, taking his time and caring more about his story than about anything else. Unfortunately that’s exactly where the movie is at its weakest: in its story, or script, for that matter.

The movie has a wild premise and tries to pull it off desperately. For the most part it does, but there are instances of unintentional laughter that are not welcome. To be honest, the movie is dealing with a rather touchy subject, so we are not prepared for a kid suddenly undressing and entering a bathtub where a grown-up woman is laying still. Don’t mind that there is nothing remotely sexual about the scene, but on the contrary, it sustains a lot of emotional wattage. Then again, it’s still a kid bathing with a grown-up woman. Delicate? You bet. Difficult? Oh yes. Pretentious? Yes sir.

This movie is actually very pretentious, perhaps 2004’s most pretentious movie. And that is not always a good thing. People in this movie do not talk or behave like real people do. Now, that is not necessarily always a fault in a movie, but when everyone is taking themselves so seriously, then you’ve got a problem when there’s no identification with the audience, but rather frustration at what’s going on. A kid who says he’s a loved one reincarnated? Bombard him with questions!!! Tell him to talk about every last detail!! But here, they all stare at him, because he doesn’t talk much, and when he does, it’s only about mundane details and not so revealing ones at that. Anna starts to fall in love with the kid but why I never got. He only walks around, with a menacing look in his face, and never says much. Completely unbelievable.

And the big revelation, if you can call it that, sucks. I would have rather stayed with a much more open-ended movie, instead of the cheat it ultimately becomes.

That said, I loved a lot of aspects in the movie. In the end, I realized the movie is not that much about reincarnation as much as it is about the lasting power of love. Anna fell in love once, and a person in love knows it must not be easy to deal with the death of the loved one. Especially for such a weak individual as she is. And she never lets the spirit of Sean go. It’s heartbreaking, and the very last scene in the movie embodies that. Brilliant.

Also, great use of set design, costumes and music to establish a very peculiar, and particular, atmosphere. Glazer wants his character to talk and behave Kubrick-style but he doesn’t pull it off. Rather, he excels at just about everything else.

Nicole Kidman, who knows nothing about giving a bad performance, is once again radiant, luminous, and absolutely impressive in a quite challenging role. She sports a short hairdo that is reminiscent of Mia Farrow’s in Rosemary's Baby (1968), a movie that Birth resembles in more ways than this. And the scene at the opera is testimony of why Nicole is considered one of the best actresses out there, period. Meanwhile, everyone else is good, albeit forgettable, in their respective roles. Only Anne Heche delivers a stronger impression.

“You’re hurting me.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Garden State

Director

Zach Braff

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Zach Braff, from the TV series “Scrubs”, took a surprising turn when he directed himself in a film he wrote, which went on to be highly praised at the Sundance Film Festival and in general.

This is Garden State, a story about an aspiring actor in L.A. who goes back home in New Jersey to attend his mother’s funeral. Andrew Largeman, a.k.a. Large (Braff) lives a somewhat numb existence. He appears to be unable to enjoy life or experience any kind of emotion or sentiment. His visit home is not really, apparently, an important event for him, but rather an obligation.

The reasons why Large’s existence is the way it is are unclear at first. He seems out of place at a crazed party, at his own house, at a doctor’s waiting room, and even at the room of a newly befriended girl. The girl in question, Sam (Natalie Portman), has problems of her own, and is rather overemotional as opposed to Large. Their bond quickly becomes special and unique. Large decides to spend most of his time in NJ with her, though he also hangs out with his professionally stray friend Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) and his idle bud Jesse (Armando Riesco), now rich after his invention of the “silent Velcro”.

Soon it becomes clear that the source of Large’s lifeless existence is his father Gideon (Ian Holm) who, for some reason (later revealed), imposed on him a gradually silencing way of life. But the worst part is, Large has now bought his own drama, and wholly believes he’s unable to experience normal human feelings. Little by little, Sam helps him think differently. This is not really the story of a guy who comes back home, encounters old ghosts, and meets a girl. This is the story of a man who takes an opportunity to step out of himself and live a new life, the one that really belongs to him.

I really liked this movie. The time I saw it, I was so sleepy I never thought I’d be able to get through it, and it was kinda hard at first, but it soon grabbed me and never let go. Same with the other two people I saw it with (we hadn’t slept the night before) .The scattered (if often obvious) bizarre comedy splattered throughout the movie sure helps, but the story is certainly enthralling.

The character of Large is not an attention-grabber, in fact the fact that he’s not is what makes him so interesting, and despite Braff’s tendency to film himself staring at the camera to expose the character’s experience, Large comes off as a very likable guy whose plight is easy to sympathize with. I like the way Braff didn’t overact the character, but on the contrary, played him low-key, even towards the end. I loved his performance, as much as his nice direction and clearly refined visual style.

The strange script never seems formulaic even if, afterwards, it doesn’t seem too revolutionary either. There’s a long section in the film where the three main characters (Large, Sam, and Mark) go to a very special place for a reason then unknown to us. This leads up to the greatest scene in the movie, nicknamed “the scream”, which made me cry, and now constitutes my computer’s wallpaper. What a wonderful moment, a little instant classic, certainly unforgettable, and a perfect catharsis of all that had been said and done. Almost equally moving is the scene that ends with Sam tap-dancing. And what a great way to film it!

Portman’s performance is, as usual, excellent, and Braff sure gave her great exposure. Sarsgaard is also really good, and his character goes from rather unlikable to very endearing.

Special mention goes to Braff’s personal selection of the soundtrack. Every song is amazing and gives the film a very special atmosphere.

Braff, what else have you got?? I’m here waiting anxiously.

“I don't want to waste another moment of my life without you in it.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

We Don't Live Here Anymore

Director

John Curran

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

This little movie about relationships and infidelity got lost last year among the huge turmoil that is Hollwyood, and even more so because it shares some similarities, albeit more in concept than in execution, with another far-superior, high-profile movie called Closer (2004). Both are about two men and two women and their heart-breaking descent into infidelity, which ultimately affects their relationships. This movie is exactly about that, but the approach is completely different and not that edgy. But enough comparing and let’s talk about a rather good movie which can certainly stand on its own.

Jack Linden (Mark Ruffalo) and his wife Terry (Laura Dern) are good friends with Hank Evans (Peter Krause) and his wife Edith (Naomi Watts). But when Jack starts an affair with Edith everything changes. Terry starts suspecting, while being harassed in equal measures by Hank.

The movie is based upon some of Andre Dubus’s short stories contained in “We Don't Live Here Anymore and Adultery” and turned into a screenplay by Larry Gross. The movie succeeds in the way it could have turned into complete melodrama given it’s not such an original premise, but instead turns into a careful examination of marriage and infidelity. It is crude in its depiction, but also profoundly real.

We are presented with four different characters that embody four different personalities and aspects of everyday life. There’s Jack, who wants an affair mainly for the thrill of it. There’s Terry, who loves her husband unconditionally and is not willing to let him go that easily. There’s Hank, who is almost incapable to love and doesn’t really care about anything. And then there’s Edith, who is desperate for love and looks for it in somewhere else. None of these people have it easy in life. And none of them can be catalogued as villains or heroes. They’re just people tired of the monotony of everyday life. Truth be told, the movie is precise in its depiction of cause and consequence, and how sometimes it’s quite difficult to deal with the latter.

The cast delivers uniformly good performances. Naomi Watts is the least showy perhaps because she has the least interesting character. Krause and specially Ruffalo are impeccable. But it is Laura Dern who steals the movie and delivers one of the most overlooked performances of 2004. What an extraordinary actress she is!

At the end the movie is harsh and realistic, but also slow-moving and not surprising in the least. It is, as one might say, just a slice of life at its ugliest points…

“Because he likes her and she's pretty. And he hasn't had any strange pussy since that French cunt.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Director

Robert Wise

Year

1951

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

I had heard raves about The Day the Earth Stood Still all my life. One very respectable movie buff and personal friend of mine told me once that this was his favorite sci-fi film ever. That pretty much did it for me. What was I waiting for?

The first thing that struck me as the film started was the chilling Bernard Herrmann score. It’s got the perfectly typical touch of the genre back in the 50s, but its quality is undeniably superior to the usual fare. Instead of avoiding cliché, Herrmann used it as an asset. Pretty soon, I realized the whole film was like that. At first sight, it’s a clichéd flying saucer Hollywood movie, complete with robots and English-speaking, human-looking aliens with silver spacesuits. But there’s something in every clichéd aspect that gives it the edge.

In the end, this film exists as a unique piece of transcendent themes and bold symbolism. It’s also a finely realized motion picture, strongly directed by Robert Wise, elegantly photographed by Leo Tover, and finely edited by William Reynolds. If anything, the experience of watching it is gratifying due to its undeniable quality and entertaining storyline. But, if watched closer, it has the power to go home with the viewer and never leave them alone again.

The story (scripted by Edmund H. North from Harry Bates’ story “Farewell to the Master”) has a flying saucer appearing suddenly in the sky and landing ominously in Washington, D.C. Its crew: A tall, enigmatic man by the name of Klaatu (Michael Rennie) and his huge robot Gort (Lock Martin). Klaatu, clear from the beginning about his peaceful intentions, is received in hostility and injured soon. Quite unable to understand this violent reception, he escapes the hospital he’s taken to and takes lodging in a mid-class home under the identity of “Carpenter”. There, the man befriends WW2 widow Helen (Patricia Neal) and her little son Bobby (Billy Gray). But Helen’s boyfriend Tom (Hugh Marlowe) is more reserved.

Klaatu’s intention on this planet is to talk to the world leaders about the universal consequences of the Earth’s violent behavior, and how a greater force will take care of the whole planet if the humans don’t switch to a more peaceful path soon. Nobody wants to listen, so Klaatu, by advice of newly befriended scientist Prof. Jacob Barnhardt (Sam Jaffe), prepares a demonstration: A general, hour-long electric power shutdown. Everything but that whose interruption could harm people (like flying airplanes and hospitals) will halt during that time.

I’d rather not say anymore about the story, except that its pretty clear message is that people usually don’t see a wider picture of the situation, especially when it comes to harming others for their own benefit. This is told through the beautiful story of a “man” coming to this planet seeking peace and finding nothing but hostility and incomprehension. Drastic measures are taken, and those who are willing to listen find they’re in the right path. This contains a very strong religious symbolism, as Klaatu could be interpreted as a modern-day Jesus Christ. No blasphemy here, but rather a metaphor, another interpretation of the same story, and a perfect way to make an otherwise conventional sci-fi film a perfectly memorable classic movie. Rennie’s performance is magnificent.

“Klaatu barada nikto.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Ring Two

Director

Hideo Nakata

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 18, 2005

After having watched the first The Ring (2002) movie about three times in a theater, you could say I’m a fan of the movie. As I wrote in my review back then, it was disturbing and the scariest thing I’d seen in 2002. It didn’t completely make sense, but it was successful in what it tried to achieve. And it was damn entertaining as well. So I was really expecting the sequel. And what do I get? A bunch load of crap.

Rachel (Naomi Watts) and his annoying kid Aidan (David Dorfman) have just moved into a new town in order to leave behind all the traumatic events they went through. But an incident with a couple of horny teenagers in the neighborhood and a certain videotape means only one thing: Samara (Kelly Stables) is back. And she’s angry. But what is her plan this time around? Well, she wants to possess Aidan so that she can have the love of a mother, blah blah blah…

When a movie is going to completely suck you can sense it from the beginning. Sometimes they get better, but that only makes the stinking level vary, not vanish. So then the movie translates into an experience in which that level has to be determined. Will it completely suck? Does it have any redeeming quality that can make it better? Is it going to be so bad it’s good? With The Ring Two the experience was painful. The movie is terrible, not so much as to make it good, and does not have anything resembling a good quality as to merit any kind of pardon.

Let me put it this way: it’s a scary movie that is not scary at all. Its predecessor gave me the chills, but this one just made me look at my watch. In the first one there was all this mystery surrounding the tape and where it came from. Now that we know all about it, Samara has become a central character, right out of Movie Villains 101. And what about the tape? It makes its appearance in the first lame five minutes and then it’s gone forever. After that, the movie essentially turns into mom and annoying son trying to battle evil girl with traumatic past. In the way, every rule about the story as we knew it is broken, twisted and whored.

That said, the plot doesn’t make that much sense. There are a couple of pedestrian boo moments and some chilling imaginary, but nothing to write home about. I liked two scenes in the entire movie. One has Elizabeth Perkins playing a psychiatrist trying to help young Aidan. The other has Rudolph and his friends essentially going nuts. But let me say this bluntly: both scenes make absolutely no sense at all in the context of the story. But hey, as individual scenes, I liked them. Oh, and the water-in-the-ceiling thing also looked cool.

I was also annoyed as to how Rachel essentially turned from one intelligent, caring mom into this stupid, uncaring, psycho one. I’m sorry, but even if your child is possessed by an evil force, no sane mom would try to drown their own offspring. Also, knowing everything that is at stake, a mom would not leave her child alone in someone else’s house while she goes to her own to “pick some things up”. Is she crazy? Oh, but I forgot, it’s a movie, those things happen. Or what can you tell me about Rachel managing her way into an ambulance in the middle of a potential crime scene where the dead body has been left with absolutely no one noticing her? And don’t get me started on that scene in the bathroom, when the cute, disposable male lead (Simon Baker), brings the door down only to find that the place is flooded to the point where waves are formed. And then he doesn’t believe Rachel about something supernatural going on!!! I guess his bathroom always gets flooded up to ceiling.

Oh, and don’t even mention the stupid ending!

It was also disappointing when Sissy Spacek appeared and didn’t do anything for the movie. I thought at least with the introduction of her character things would get interesting. Nah. It is a cameo, and a pretty lame one at that.

As for the performances, well, Naomi is ok, she can’t be bad, but her character is so questionable that I got annoyed even at her for accepting to appear in such a crappy sequel. Paycheck must’ve been good. David Dorfman, the kid, sucks. He’s good at times, but I never got around the fact that he’s a kid just acting out scenes. The rest of the cast is non-existent. Simon Baker leaves no impression and Sissy is barely in the movie.

Tell me again... why does Samara try to kill Rachel in a couple of scenes if what she ultimately wants is her love by means of possessing her son?

Horrible!

“I’ve found you!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Conversation

Director

Francis Ford Coppola

Year

1974

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Conversation tells a little story of apparent relevance for its intrigue that could go from a plot between two people to an international diabolical plan. It is, however, relevant only in a psychological way, which becomes clear soon and becomes much more obvious as the film advances. But it’s not only a trip inside one man’s mind, which is what’s so amazing about it. It is a trip inside our minds too, as we completely share the anguish and tension with this man.

The man in question is Harry Caul (Gene Hackman), a surveillance expert who gets the difficult assignment of recording a conversation between two people walking around a crowded public place. He does the job well and records a seemingly innocent conversation between two lovers. The girl (Cindy Williams) is obviously the wife or girlfriend of Caul’s client, but her lover (Michael Higgins) looks more worried than her. There’s nothing in their conversation to really give away anything bad, at least not the first time one hears it.

In a moment of crisis for Harry, he gets tense that his client will probably want to harm the young couple after hearing the recorded conversation. He makes the mistake of getting his feelings involved in the assignment, and he’s dragged into a whirlpool of guilt and confusion.

It doesn’t help that instead of dealing with Harry directly from then on, the man sends his personal secretary, and a creepy young man at that (Harrison Ford). Harry refuses to give away the tape, though they’re paying the full amount he requested, and then trouble starts for him. What kind of trouble? The kind that lies within the mind.

As Harry goes through this crisis, he gets into trouble with his right hand (John Cazale), and his already ambiguous relationship with his girlfriend (Teri Garr) becomes unsustainable. Then, a new love affair (Elizabeth MacRae) becomes deceitful. Add to that the jealousy of his main competitor (Allen Garfield), who opens an old wound, and you’ve got a complete nerve wreck.

Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this film between The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather: Part II (1974) and, though unsuccessful at the box office, it became one of the most relevant films of the 70s. The way it played with the audience’s minds was outstanding. Even more so since it’s so low-key. A chilling David Shire music score, sharp editing by Richard Chew, and Bill Butler’s appropriate cinematography added up to the final results.

Though I didn’t enjoy the tortuous get-together since in the middle of the film (which belongs to Garfield), I really loved the general procedures and how one is not certain that what’s happening is real or only inside Harry’s mind. I really liked the ending and I think the final shot is really powerful and says much more than meets the eye. Gene Hackman’s performance is uncanny. Oh, and watch out for the short appearance of Harry’s client. Very nice cameo there.

A truly great achievement, and a classic.

“He'd kill us if he got the chance.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

She Hate Me

Director

Spike Lee

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

She Hate Me is only the third Spike Lee film I’ve seen in my life. The other ones are He Got Game and Summer of Sam. To judge from the three movies I’ve seen, I just don’t get Lee. I know I know, he’s highly respected and considered almost a master. But what can I do? I didn’t like any of those movies. And She Hate Me, amidst the mediocrity, is by far the one I’ve enjoyed the most. At least it’s entertaining from beginning to end...

Jack Armstrong (Anthony Mackie) works at a huge pharmaceutical corporation and does very well there. That is, until he finds out some rather irregular proceedings and denounces the company in a heroic surge. Bad call! The company’s CEO (Woody Harrelson) instantly fires him, freezes his bank accounts and makes sure he doesn’t get a new job easily. That’s when Fatima (Kerry Washington) re-enters his life. See, she’s a lesbian with whom he was going to tie the knot, but eventually things just didn’t work out. Fatima has a proposal: she wants him to impregnate her... and as many lesbians as she can find who want a baby as well. She’ll do it for just a share of the $10,000 they’re going to charge each of them. So, Jack accepts.

She Hate Me is an interesting movie with a lot of ideas. Spike Lee often fills his movies with strong statements about politics, sex, race and whatsoever. Sometimes he deals with one of these subject matters in just one movie. And sometimes, like in this one, he just doesn’t make up his mind and deals with all of them.

The movie starts as a drama denouncing corporate mechanics and how being honest and forthcoming may not bring you what you expect, even if that’s what’s preached all around you. Once that situation is settled, with some drama and satire thrown in for good measure, comes the lesbian thing. Now, I’m sure everyone will get a kick out of the sole situation. A man being the sexual object? A man getting laid with 5 or 6 lesbians during one night to get them pregnant? No, it is not soft-core porn. And yes, the storyline works and we go for it while being thrown some comedy and more drama for good measure.

And then it all goes ka-boom! The last third is about Lee going insane. He throws so many things in the mixture. There’s a Mafia subplot, there’s a trial in which Jack delivers a clichéd over-the-top speech about freedom and equality, there’s the issue surrounding the many children Jack has birthed, there’s the resolve surrounding the corporation’s situation, and there’s the melodramatic treatment of the relationship between Jack, Fatima and her partner. Sure, the movie is never boring and is actually quite interesting, but it’s also a bit too pretentious and busy. At the end, I didn’t know what the movie had been about at all!

Coming off impressively well from the mess is lead Anthony Mackie, a rather unknown actor who proves he’s got leading man personality and chops. He handles every situation the script requires with charisma, panache and talent. Supporting players hit and miss, with Kerry Washington coming off best. Ellen Barkin, gorgeous Monica Bellucci, John Turturro, Ossie Davis, Brian Dennehy and Ling Bai also appear.

Ho-hum...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Nine Queens

Director

Fabián Bielinsky

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

I love a good caper movie. Every time I encounter one, I enjoy letting go and being fooled by it, only to be surprised by the final con that’s being played to the audience. From The Sting (1973) to Matchstick Men (2003), I just enjoy the show. Argentina’s Nueve Reinas is yet another addition to that great genre that I enjoy so much.

Juan (Gastón Pauls) is an amateur con man who is discovered by a more experienced one, Marcos (Ricardo Darín), who consequently takes him under his wing. Marcos is deceitful enough to have conned his own family, but Juan finds the alliance a tad irresistible when a big offer comes to the former to sell a counterfeited set of stamps called the Nine Queens to a millionaire collector. The operation is to take place in a hotel where, as it happens, Marcos’ siblings Valeria (Leticia Brédice) and Federico (Tomás Fonzi) work.

Everything looks fine at first, but after some complications, the con men need some extra money to finish the plan, and Marcos requests that Juan use his savings for it. It is then that Juan suspects he’s being conned from the very beginning. As it happens, Juan has been saving money to take his father (also a con man) out of jail, and that’s the reason why he agreed to work with Marcos in the first place. Valeria, a lovely if hardened young woman, warns Juan repeatedly that her brother is a lizard and certainly not to be trusted. But, on the other hand, letting this opportunity slip could be a dumb move. What’s Juan to do?

What a delight! Aside from being a con men film, it’s a very entertaining action/adventure flick. The story is always moving, always taking us different places and always striking us with something new and unexpected. The way these men are so talented and how they constantly get easy money is certainly a thrill – usually accompanied by a laugh. But the real excitement lies in the possibility that one con man is actually conning the other.

The performers appear to be at the top of their games, especially Darín, who also seems to be having a good time. Brédice is quite unforgettable as the gorgeous, angry woman, with extra layers for us to discover.

I would regard the film higher if it wasn’t because I found the ending to be a tad predictable from early on, but I can’t say it was not richly entertaining. In fact, I’d say it’s a must of the genre. Kudos to writer-director Bielinsky!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Very Long Engagement

Director

Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 11, 2005

Being the huge Amélie fan that I am, I couldn’t wait to see Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s latest, starring the delightful Audrey Tautou, based on an acclaimed novel and boasting absolutely impressive visuals, something made quite evident when the promotional material started to appear.

The movie starts with the sight of five men who were sentenced to death during World War I for self-mutilation, walking the path to their deaths. Four of them shot themselves in order to be taken to a hospital and thus avoid the war. But the general in command decides to give them another punishment: to throw them to No Man’s Land, between the French trenches and the German ones. They would certainly meet death there. One of them was Manech (Gaspar Ulliel), a young, innocent soldier who was engaged to Mathilde (Audrey Tautou). She was told that Manech died in the war, but something tells her that it’s not true, and thus she starts investigating what exactly happened that rainy day, in hope of finding her loved one alive.

A Very Long Engagement is based upon a novel by Sébastien Japrisot. I don’t know how faithful the movie is to the novel, for it is so full of Jeunet’s trademarks that it must have been a revelation when the director read it. The perfect blend of a master mind with the material…

The beginning is slow. Actually, the first half hour of the movie I was so confused I wasn’t that sure if I was really liking the movie. This is the kind of story that requires your full attention, for there are so many characters and names thrown in there that for a while nothing makes sense unless you have a perfect memory and are a good observer. That said, the movie gradually started to make more sense, until it sucked me completely in and never let me go again.

There are several ways in which the movie can be viewed. The most obvious one is the mystery approach. The movie is mainly about a young, crippled, adorable woman trying to find the love of her life because she just knows he’s alive. Their connection is so strong that there’s barely a doubt in her mind. She persists, asks for help, hires an investigator, meets people, and soon finds out that a prostitute by the name of Tina Lomardi (Marion Cotillard) is doing exactly the same thing, although she’s approaching in a different tone: she kills anyone she finds out was involved in the killing of those men that tragic day.

The movie also works as a sweeping romance. We barely get to see Mathilde and Manoche together, but somehow we feel and understand their connection, so pure and naïve. That is a harsh contrast to the realization of war suddenly hitting home. Jeunet pulls no punches and shows the war scenes as shocking and disturbing as they must’ve been in real life. It is an anti-war movie in the truest sense of the word.

I also have something to admit: after the movie was over all I could think about was that this movie, for all its goodness and perfection, was sort of like “Amélie goes to war” thing. Of course one has nothing to do with the other, but the similarities are striking. Both have a similar sense of humor, they’re full of quirkiness, they boast the same actress playing almost essentially the same kind of character and they both look absolutely gorgeous. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, just something that came to mind.

Production values are top-notch. Bruno Delbonnel’s cinematography is so beautiful and enchanting and magical that it’s actually hard to describe. Most of the movie looks like an old photo, and brown has never been so melancholic. Angelo Badalamenti’s score is also extraordinary, as are the art design, costumes and make-up.

Leading the movie is Audrey Tautou, once again perfectly cast and perfectly suitable for the role. It’s hard to imagine any other actress playing Mathilde, and she comes off admirably well. I also enjoyed Jodie Foster in a small yet pivotal role. Everyone is pitch-perfect.

A triumph!

“If I don't break the peel, Manech is alive.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Assault on Precinct 13

Director

Jean-François Richet

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 07, 2005

So many movies, so little time. I usually don’t do this but this time I’ll have to admit to not having seen a movie. But how can I review Assault on Precinct 13 pretending not to know it’s a remake of a John Carpenter sleeper, and how can I mention that without saying what I think of it? Worse: I really liked this new version. So how do I know if it’s blasphemy to say it’s really good, or that some of its ideas are good, without paying tribute to Carpenter’s work? So I’m just stating this to be able to talk freely about this film and, well, here we go.

What an entertaining movie! The idea is definitely a blast. Something of an update to Rio Bravo (1959) I think, except with a twist concerning the motives and identities of the “bad guys”. The story has the last three employees of a nearly deserted precinct in New Year’s Eve facing a completely unexpected situation: After some convicts have been taken there to spend the night because of the weather during their transportation, a strange and unstoppable mob come to take one of them; soon, they target to kill everyone inside the building. So cops and criminals must join forces to stop the attackers from outside. Sounds like fun? Be sure it is!

Ethan Hawke plays Jake Roenick, a former officer who became traumatized during his last undercover operation and now hides behind a desk. There’s drama in this story but it doesn’t add up much to the overall story. His shrink (Maria Bello), who as it happens also turns out to be inside the precinct during the attack, becomes a worse nerve wreck than any of her patients. Her character starts as something and ends as something else, which could be good if it added up to something. I could go on and on with most characters. The particular subplots are mostly underdeveloped or flat out pathetic, the dialogue is ludicrous, many situations are contrived, but the action is what matters and that works to perfection. Oh yeah, and the suspense too!

The direction is mostly good. Richet seems obsessed with dead faces with blood running from their deadly wounds, but the action sequences are perfectly timed and choreographed. Sometimes during the drama scenes I felt like I was seeing a hip-hop video, which is good. One of them, with short conversations between several pairs inside the building, is outstanding.

Laurence Fishburne plays the criminal pursued by the people outside and he easily becomes the master of the house. He’s cool and smooth and cooler than that. What a great presence. Other members of the cast, all of who do a good job despite their characters being one-note, are Gabriel Byrne as the leader of the gang outside, Brian Dennehy as an aging cop, and John Leguizamo (excellent) and Ja Rule as convicts.

Good fun.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sylvia

Director

Christine Jeffs

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Back in 2003 a movie about American poet Sylvia Plath opened to good but not great reviews. Perhaps even the idea was to consider it for awards, but in reality the movie came and went without pain or glory. Still, actress Gwyneth Paltrow got great notices for her performance, and since I’m a suck for good acting jobs, I never forgot about it. Two years later I got the opportunity to see it for free, and believe it or not, I kept snoozing at the idea. But I ultimately saw it, and I’m kind of glad I did.

The movie chronicles Sylvia’s life in the 60’s, from the point in which she met poet Ted Hughes until she died seven years later. In the middle we get to see how they struggled as aspiring poets, how their marriage was happy at the beginning but sour at the end, how Sylvia managed to raise her two children while combining her work to her life, how she sometimes suffered from writer’s block, and their back-and-forth way of living in America and England.

By reading the premise you must be wondering what was so extraordinary about Sylvia’s life as to urge so many people to bring it to the big screen. Now that I’ve seen the movie I can honestly say I have no idea either.

The movie is an effective melodrama about two very complicated individuals who, in a way, were meant for each other. Sylvia was suicidal and highly problematic, with plenty of skeletons in her closet and a tendency towards self-pity. Ted was no saint either, succumbing to the temptations that come from success and not being able to hold to what was more important.

This dynamic between Sylvia and Ted is given plenty of screen time. But to be entirely honest, so what? It’s a story we’ve seen countless times before. And the sad part is that little does the director delve into their psyche, what made them so brilliant and so good. We’re not even shown enough of their poems, with only glimpses of them here and there. From what we get in the movie, it’s difficult to understand why Sylvia became one of the most influential and admired American poets of all time.

So the movie is not bad at all, it just isn’t great.

Kudos should go to Gwyneth Platrow, whose performance saves the movie and is the sole reason to watch it. She’s a great actress, and it’s such a pleasure to watch her in full form. She’s especially good in those haunting jealousy attacks. Daniel Craig, meanwhile, is equally good. As is Michael Gambon in a small role.

Nice score too…

“God no, I thought you were Canadian.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Grand Illusion

Director

Jean Renoir

Year

1937

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

I had never seen a movie quite like Grand Illusion. It took me a bit to really assimilate the importance of what I was seeing, as well as the kind of movie it was. Soon I realized it’s not one distinctive kind of movie, and its importance is unspeakable. Where its beauty lies is really indescribable, probably because it’s everywhere, or probably because it’s not meant to be but it turns out beautiful. Or perhaps, Renoir’s intention was precisely to leave out the rancor of war and tell a human tale during war, rather than a story about war.

Whichever the case, the co-writer/director created a masterpiece that is also a legacy for humanity, a sad but uplifting movie that history later made appear like an optimistic, almost implausible tale, but one that is now an example of honor and heroism in war.

The story is set in the first World War, and begins when two French officers are captured during battle by Prussian Capt. von Rauffenstein (Erich von Stroheim). They’re Lt. Maréchal (Jean Gabin) and Capt. de Boeldieu (Pierre Fresnay). It’s evident through their manners and names that Boeldieu is a man of finesse and ancestry, while Maréchal is more of a successful commoner. This difference means a lot to von Rauffenstein (Erich von Stroheim) and even to the POWs themselves. The prisoners are taken to the camp of Hallbach, where the Germans treat them with great honor. Nevertheless, the other POWs they join are already digging a tunnel to escape, and they join them. Everyone they meet has something to learn from, including a French singer (Julien Carette) who always has a song to sing despite the circumstances, and Jewish Lt. Rosenthal (Marcel Dalio), who’s proud of his roots despite most people’s contempt.

This “great escape” is only the first act of the film, since later Maréchal, de Boeldieu and Rosenthal are taken to another, more isolated fortress-like prison, where they re-encounter von Rauffenstein. This encounter and every further adventure and misadventure are completely memorable vignettes, mostly because of the sensible performances.

Subjects like the loss of distinction in great families, the obligation to escape from prison camps, the joy and deception of news from afar, the honor of dying, friendship between different kinds of people, love during war (in the form of a farmer memorably played by Dita Parlo), and many more, and subtly included in an overall outstanding tale.

The gorgeous cinematography of Christian Matras, lovely music of Joseph Kosma, and every other instance of artistic work under Renoir’s heartfelt direction, make of La Grande illusion a classic, must-see French film.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Moolaadé

Director

Ousmane Sembene

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 04, 2005

Don’t feel bad if you’ve never heard of Moolaadé. It is a French movie, the type that people only get to know from word-of-mouth coming out of film festivals. For this movie it was Cannes, where it won a couple of important awards. Then again, I didn’t pay much attention afterwards until it played at a film festival in my city. Knowing it was a good movie and being in the mood for arty, more elevated fare, I opted to give it a try.

The movie takes place in an unknown small reserve in West Africa. Tradition there rules that all women must endure circumcision during a mass procedure that takes place every 7 years or so. But when four little girls escape and try to find refuge with Collé (Fatoumata Coulibaly), the second wife of one of the town’s men, the villagers go berserk. Collé then declares a moolaadé in her place, which means it’s a safe zone that will bring a curse to anyone who breaks it.

Moolaadé is, to put it simply, a movie that triumphs with substance over style. What I mean with that is that the theme is so powerful that it transcends any type of fault the movie might have in other departments. So here’s the bad: I didn’t love Ousmane Sembene’s direction. It is thanks to her that the movie comes across as such a thought-provoking, intelligent and disturbing movie, so what I’m saying might sound like a contradiction. Matter of fact is, I think her direction is rather clumsy, with scenes that don’t seem to flow naturally, segments where the theatricality of it all overcomes the proceedings. And I think the overall message could’ve been reached just as well with a different approach. Sure, the pace is slow and I can live with that, but I don’t know, the filmmaking style seems to reflect the slow-wittedness (which in no way is an offense, but rather a description) of the people populating the movie, people that are strangers to modern societies and technology as we know it.

That said, I was transfixed by the story and by what I saw on the screen. I’m not afraid to say that I hadn’t even heard of such thing as female circumcision in my entire life. It is a degrading procedure that is not only painful, but can bring fatal consequences. Sure, most traditions are to be respected, but when they can bring harm to people, it’s understandable to defy them. And that’s exactly what Collé does, something that brings her alienation and a lot of pain, both physically and spiritually. The movie, then, not only speaks about this small town, but also about the world as it is. Feminism is addressed in the way a woman can have the power to change things and overcome prejudices in a culture where she is seen as less.

The movie is also fascinating in its depiction of a culture most of us don’t know that much about. The way people live, how they spend their days, the interaction between villagers, the concept of family, everything about it. I’m a sucker for that kind of stuff, and this movie did wonders for me.

Acting is uniformly excellent, with Fatoumata Coulibaly delivering a surprising performance. She’s an optimistic woman at the end of the day. She finds the joy in life. And she tries to endure the bad about it. She brings Collé with the dignity to pull this off, and does so admirably. Dominique Zeïda, as the Mercenaire, is also outstanding, as is Salimata Traoré as Callé’s daughter.

A rough, uplifting achievement…

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter