CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Casablanca

Director

Michael Curtiz

Year

1942

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 27, 2006

The story of an American in Casablanca who owns a night club during World War II has become one of the most highly regarded Hollywood films of all time, but it’s in fact a pretty simple production, costly but free of the pompousness of other big-budget films of the time, which doesn’t mean it’s not masterfully made. The script continuously changed during filming, legend says, but the result is completely amazing, a tight story with countless subplots that lead to one devastating but inevitable finale which wraps up everything in a neat, satisfying way, but still contains enough tragedy to keep the viewers affected for life.

The film is atomically a metaphor of WWII, which was happening at the time the movie was made. Casablanca, Morocco was neutral, belonging to unoccupied France. People from all around Europe came to that city to fly to Lisbon and flee to America, where freedom prevailed. Casablanca became a virtual prison, pleasant in ways but rather undesirable for a permanent stay, but nobody could leave without an exit visa. The film starts with the murder of two couriers which were apparently carrying two letters of transit, the most powerful sort of visa documents.

Rick’s Café Américain is the place everybody loves in Casablanca. Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), the owner, is an American refugee whose loner attitude makes it clear that his past haunts him. Unable to trust anyone else, Ugarte (Peter Lorre), a black market dealer of visas, gives Rick the letters of transit, and is then caught by the police. That same night, the cynical chief of police and Rick’s friend Louis Renault (Claude Rains) warns him about the visit of a famous underground leader of the resistance, Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid). Major Strasser of the Third Reich (Conrad Veidt) has come to see personally that the elusive Laszlo never leaves Casablanca. The letters of transit give Rick all the power to help Laszlo, but he says he won’t, though he’s revealed to have had a past fighting on the same side as this fugitive of the Reich.

However, when Victor Laszlo walks into the night club, everything spins violently: he’s accompanied by Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman), the great love of Rick’s life who walked out on him inexplicably the day of the German occupation in Paris. She’s the real reason why Rick is such a gloomy hermit, and her presence in Casablanca is disastrous for him.

But Rick, after all, has the letters. Renault and Strasser suspect it, and so does Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet), owner of a competing night club and black market mogul. Everyone either wants the letters or wants them disabled, so Rick is never left alone. But he sticks his neck out for nobody, especially with Ilsa involved. Everyone tries to reason with him, even Ilsa. But certain things have to be clarified before Rick can consider making a decision.

Rick’s dilemma is probably the tensest in film history. He has to make a decision that conflicts his pride with his feelings and his beliefs. Casablanca was meant as a patriotic film that boosted soldier’s feelings, and Rick as a metaphor of America is a symbolic character whose importance goes far beyond celluloid.

Everything is right in this film, so much so that everyone wants to revisit it, the same way that everybody goes to Rick’s. The story is so tight that the script by Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch, from an unproduced play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison, has often been praised as the finest ever written. Michael Curtiz’ direction is rich in pace and symbolism (Arthur Edeson’s cinematography quite responsible for it), and the performances are heaven-sent. Never was Bogart as affecting or Bergman as enigmatic, and that’s just naming the leads. The supporting cast is uniformly astounding, though Rains threatens to steal the movie, especially when he interacts with Rick in such an unforgettable way.

Casablanca is a classic among classics and it really deserves that place. There’s something for everyone in this film, and both its story and its craft are examples of brilliancy. It’s not hard to see how true this is when one considers how much the song “As Time Goes By”, as sung by Dooley Wilson (who plays Sam, the pianist at Rick’s), has stuck to our culture, as well as so many classic quotes: from “Play it, Sam. Play ‘As Time Goes By’” to “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine” to “Here’s looking at you, kid” to “Round up the usual suspects” to “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”, philosophy and truth abounds in this Hollywood gem. Plus, it’s very patriotic and uplifting indeed, which is one of the reasons why Max Steiner’s famous score (with echoes from the Marseillaise) is so successful.

I’d say this film is a must see, though for many it’s a has seen, if not a have lived, over and over again.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Skeleton Key

Director

Ian Softley

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Going back into the movies that were released last year I realized that I never reviewed The Skeleton Key. So what, you might say. Thing is, I really liked that movie. Didn’t consider it among the best of the year, but I guess it could be considered as a guilty pleasure. I saw it a couple of times when it opened and the fondness I have for it persists. A lot of horror movies are made these days, but this is the one that stood for me all over the year.

Caroline (Kate Hudson) works as a nurse in New Orleans when she’s hired by an old lady, Violet Deveraux (Gena Rowlands), to take care of her ill husband, Ben (John Hurt). The contact is made through Luke (Peter Sarsgaard), who works for Violet and quickly becomes friends with Caroline. But strange things start to happen in that house regarding Ben, and Caroline starts to wonder if there’s more to that place than meets the eye.

The Skeleton Key was written by Ehren Kruger, no stranger to the genre, and directed by Ian Softley, who tried his hand with this kind of movie for the first time. Given the results, I say he did a great job. They both did. Their movie is mostly unpredictable, and even though it isn’t precisely violent, it can become really scary; even more so in a psychological kind of way, as the movie keeps building and building right until the end.

And it is the ending that elevates this movie from just good to great. There’s a plot twist, and it is quite clever. Usually in horror movies we’re disappointed by the time everything is revealed. Not here. The ending comes as a complete shocker and leaves a rather disturbing aftertaste. I couldn’t stop thinking about the movie for days, and it was a completely different experience the second time around.

There are some pratfalls which Softley doesn’t escape, such as clichéd boo moments which we can sense from a mile or a specific scene in which a door appears to be moving because of something behind that doesn’t make any sense. Still, the whole treatment into the world of Hoodoo and Voodoo is both interesting and intensely creepy. The settings and atmosphere help a lot creating such a mood, and the mystery is always entertaining.

Kate Hudson is very good as the woman trying to find some peace but stumbling onto quite the opposite. Gena Rowlands is spooky, such a good actress. I was scared to death from the get-go. John Hurt is excellent in a role that requires him to transmit only through his body. And Peter Sarsgaard is not enough in the movie, but he’s a welcomed presence.

“I don’t believe!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tootsie

Director

Sydney Pollack

Year

1982

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Tootsie is certainly one of the most notable cross-dressing comedies of all time, mainly because it knows what it wants to achieve. It does get the expected laughs at hilarious situations where someone hits on the man dressed as a woman, but a film that expects to hit on account of only that is way down in class, and it’s not a matter of when it was done; just consider the complexity of Some Like It Hot (1959), which relied on the characters’ feelings much more than it did on the actual slapstick of men pretending to be women. Tootsie enjoys a similar success.

The story features a man so good at what he does (and knowing it) that he constantly ruins himself; this is Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), known among his friends as the finest unemployed actor in the New York scene. Michael is temperamental, and doesn’t hesitate to give any director the worst headache of his or her life if he thinks this person is threatening his artistic integrity… which always seems to be the case.

Michael coaches his friends from time to time, and is currently helping his best friend Sandy (Teri Garr) before an audition for a soap opera. They’re looking for a tough woman who’ll shake things around a hospital. When Sandy doesn’t get the role—she’s too weak for it they say, even in appearance—, Michael’s agent George Fields (director Sydney Pollack) tells him that no director will hire him anymore on account of his awful reputation. That’s when Michael Dorsey becomes Dorothy Michael, and playing that part he gets the role Sandy auditioned for. Such a talented actor indeed… But as a woman outside of himself, Michael will find out much more about himself than he ever did as a man.

Tootsie masquerades as a comedy but is indeed a very moving character study. Michael is so full of complexities it’s just admirable how easily writers Larry Gelbart, Don McGuire and Murray Schisgal make him unravel in front of our eyes while he shakes the world of soap operas fooling the country about his sex. That’s because the script doesn’t focus on Michael’s anxieties but rather makes them appear throughout as he falls for a woman who thinks he’s a woman, and has to put up for a man hitting on him thinking he’s a woman. That’s his (her) co-star Julie (Jessica Lange) and her father Les (Charles Durning). Michael feels great compassion for Julie as the soap’s director Ron (Dabney Coleman) plays with her feelings, and also fancies the family warmth that Les, Julie and her baby daughter enjoy. These selfless emotions that Michael can only experience as Dorothy turn Dorothy back into a Michael whose existence even he never suspected.

In the meantime, Michael has great difficulty adjusting to his new professional life. His roommate Jeff (Bill Murray) is a struggling playwright and Michael has promised to produce his latest play if he ever gets the money, casting himself and Sandy in the leading parts. Sandy is going through a great personal crisis, unemployed and lonely, and Michael can’t tell her where he’s getting the money, since she didn’t get the very role he’s getting rich for. Among the lies, they get involved, and he continuously disappoints her. Again played for laughs, but hiding some truly effective moments of heartbreak and deception.

The very effectual comedy mixes ever so masterfully the dramatic moments with the comedic ones, and becomes a heartwarming and enjoyable time. Michael as Dorothy is constantly hilarious and is a tribute to the great artistry of Dustin Hoffman. The very idea of an actor who can play a great actor playing a woman and fooling an entire country without making a fool of himself is inconceivable, but Hoffman pulls it off admirably and turns out both exceptional as Michael and irresistible as Dorothy. Lange as Julie and Garr as Sandy are perfection as well, each affecting in their own ways. And the rest of the cast is as good, including director Pollack in the key role of Michael’s agent who’s always fun to watch.

And as good as the comedy is, I still go for the touching moments as my choice for the best. My favorite part is Dorothy’s weekend over at Les’ and Julie’s old house, which includes an unforgettable montage embellished by Dave Grusin’s song “It Might Be You”. Grusin’s score throughout is memorable.

Funny, intelligent and moving, Tootsie is a winner for all genders!

“That is one nutty hospital!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

An Unfinished Life

Director

Lasse Hallström

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 24, 2006

In typical Miramax fashion, An Unfinished Life stayed in the can for a while because the company didn’t know what to do with it. That usually happens with bad movies that are barely marketable or with good-to-passable ones which were thought to have awards potential but fell short. As expected, when this one opened it got mixed reviews, but with so much talent involved it was a crime for me to let it go.

Jean Gylkison (Jennifer Lopez) is fed up of being abused by her current boyfriend so she runs away with her daughter Griff (Becca Gardner). With nowhere to go, they travel to Wyoming. That’s where her father-in-law, Einar (Robert Redford), lives. Their relationship is not good, since Einar blames Jean for the accident that killed her husband, but he lets them stay until she’s got some money to make it on her own. Meanwhile, Einar’s long-time friend Mitch (Morgan Freeman), who lives next door, is obsessed with a bear that attacked him a year ago and that has suddenly reappeared.

An Unfinished Life is a beautifully-written movie (by Mark Spragg and Virginia Korus Spragg) that tells a simple tale of hidden wounds and redemption. It is set in the west and director Lasse Hallström (always good with character-driven movies) doesn’t have any difficulty working around this time and area.

In essence, the movie works around different relationships that grow throughout the movie, ending in familiar notes that nonetheless are welcomed. There’s barely anything new in store, but the journey is worth taking, since we care about the characters and their stories are compelling. I especially loved the relationship between Einar and Mitch, but the interaction of both with Griff makes up for some of the best scenes in the movie. Not as successful is the involvement of a possible love interest for Jean in the form of a local policeman (Josh Lucas). It is touched upon superficially, which doesn’t justify its inclusion.

I liked that Hallström could’ve gone too far with the character of Jean’s abusive ex-boyfriend, but instead he opted for restraint. The man is a threat, but the movie never turns into a thriller even though it could’ve easily had. I also enjoyed the subplot regarding the bear, which gives a sense of closure to one character, but makes a couple of others open up their hearts.

The performances are perfectly in tone with the movie. Redford and Freeman are a joy to watch. Redford’s grumpy old cowboy is brought to life with gusto, while Freeman plays wise as only he knows how. Jennifer Lopez is good as Jean, and Becca Gardner is extraordinary as her daughter. It is nowhere near a clichéd child performance, but on the contrary, she’s marvelous from start to finish.

Nice score by Christopher Young, which seems to be playing all the time yet never gets tiring. And Oliver Stapleton’s cinematography is splendid.

“They call’em accidents cause it’s nobody’s fault.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

It Happened One Night

Director

Frank Capra

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 20, 2006

The granddaddy of all romantic comedies, It Happened One Night remains one of the purest, simplest and smartest of the genre, never failing to entertain even the most reluctant or cynical, mainly because it offers them something too. This film never ages a bit and probably never will. It’s not just a classic but indeed a universal motion picture.

The story, based on a story by Samuel Hopkins Adams and adapted to the screen by Robert Riskin, has a pampered heiress, Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert), running away from her possessive father (Walter Connolly) to elope with her beau King Westley (Jameson Thomas), a famous aviator. Ellie boards a night bus, the same as newspaperman Peter Warne (Clark Gable), who has just been fired and is starving for a good story. Ellie and Peter clash from the start, as fate keeps putting them in uncomfortable situations where they have to stand and even help each other. Peter starts having a good time, soon detecting her jumpiness and inexperience; Ellie in turn is just too spoiled to appreciate his intermittent help.

But soon Peter catches on: she’s all over the newspapers and there’s a reward for anyone who finds her. He’s not interested in the money though, he wants the story, she’s hot stuff, and to get it he must stick to her at all times. So he does, and both are in for a life-changing experience.

What makes this movie is so great is that it’s constantly moving forward in an entertaining manner. Ellie’s story is treated seriously, and her motivations as well as Peter’s are well-founded and clear, so it’s hard not to empathize. We want both to achieve their goals and we also hope they end up together, which contradicts their goals, hence our own desires. They seem to hate each other so much that it gets all the more irresistible!

At every step of the way they find a human or non-human obstacle that’s just hilarious: from an obnoxious passenger (Roscoe Karns) who hits on Ellie and later recognizes her, to the need to spend the night in a twin-bedded room, only divided by a blanket hung between the beds, their contrasting relationship is a funny element in the inevitable fight against all forces of antagonism.

The script is sharp and witty, and with such a rich understanding of the main characters that it’s only a blessing that the casting is perfect too: both Gable and Colbert are flawless and unforgettable, their chemistry so palpable in every situation—notably those where they fight—that the most classic scenes easily become those in which they have big arguments that often have funny conclusions. To name a few, there are the Walls of Jericho, the hitchhiking, the breakfast (my favorite, as they have to put up an act to fool some detectives) and so on.

The story is mostly a road trip, and one of the most pleasant ever put on film, but it’s most notably a fine portrait of socio-economic differences and how love can triumph over them.

Moreover, Capra’s direction is beautiful, and aided to perfection by the outstanding cinematography of Joseph Walker, and Gene Havlick’s accurate editing.

It Happened One Night is great for a good time, any time.

“Don't be a sucker. A good night’s rest’ll do you a lot of good. Besides, you got nothing to worry about: the walls of Jericho will protect you from the big bad wolf.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Failure to Launch

Director

Tom Dey

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

I’ve always liked Sarah Jessica Parker, but even more so after her successful run in the hit HBO series Sex and the City. As is the case with Jennifer Aniston, Parker is trying to revive her movie career after her TV show ended. Her first outing was the extraordinary The Family Stone (2005). But I’m afraid her second outing is nowhere near as good. It probably doesn’t bother her, since the movie has made shitloads of money, but for viewers looking for quality product it’s a big disappointment. I just hope she sticks to better projects because she certainly has it all.

Tripp (Matthew McConaughey) is a 30-something guy who still lives with his parents Al (Terry Bradshaw) and Sue (Kathy Bates). They can’t stand it anymore, so they hire a professional, Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker), to make him fall in love with her and thus move to his own place. But the situation backfires when Paula starts having real feelings for him.

Fun premise, fun actors, terrible movie. What went wrong? I was expecting to have a good lighthearted time with a romantic comedy and ended up shooting glances at my watch more often than not. The movie does not work, and there are many reasons for that.

To start with, there’s no chemistry between the actors. I think the material suits Parker and McConaughey to a tee, but they just don’t feel right together. We root for them because the machinations of the plot force us to, but I couldn’t care less in the world. Besides, McConaughey’s character is just annoying. I think it’s as much the fault of the script as it is his. Tripp is practically himself, all charm and superficiality, trying too hard to come off as this very cool dude. Truth is I was irritated after a while, and it kept getting worse.

As with every romantic comedy of the sort, there are complications which keep the leads apart until the end of the movie. In this case the complications come 2/3 into the movie, and there’s still half an hour to go! I barely made it to the end.

There’s also the case of not really understanding the tone of your movie. Director Tom Dey has trouble finding the right balance between comedy and drama. Sometimes the comedy is witty, sometimes it’s broad and sometimes it borders on slapstick. And as the movie progresses it becomes boring and predictable, not to say downright ridiculous (the whole getting-them-back-together plan turns into unbelievable stupidity).

Only bright spots: almost all of Zooey Deschanel's scenes as Paula’s sister. She’s a great actress and makes the most out of her supporting role. I also enjoyed Terry Bradshaw and Kathy Bates as the parents, although they ultimately fall prey to the mediocre script.

Skip it.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Inside Man

Director

Spike Lee

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

I kept hearing buzz that Inside Man, the new Spike Lee film, was a great one. I didn’t know much about it but it didn’t sound like the typical Spike Lee, so I thought I was in for a surprise. Lee should definitely be good at helming a crime drama starring Denzel Washington. The rest of the cast also sounded intriguing.

The story (scripted by Russell Gewirtz) is introduced by Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), a man who claims to have planned the perfect bank robbery. We don’t know much else about it as we’re taken back to see how the whole thing happened. Dalton and his masked accomplices take over a bank and hold up several hostages, whom they force to dress in peculiar uniforms. Detective Keith Frazier (Washington) is alerted and sent to the scene, and he takes the typical precautions and attempts to contact the robbers, and also to cheat them.

But there seems to be more than meets the eye. Russell and his accomplices don’t seem to be the typical bank robbers, as precise as the best or as foolish as the worst. They seem to be trying to make time while they work on something inside. There just could be a connection to the bank’s owner, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), who’s worried to death about the situation and calls an expert, Madeline White (Jodie Foster), to help him out. White’s job is imprecise, but she seems to be a sort of extreme problem-solver, the kind only the most powerful people can call. Madeline has so many connections she can go as far as walk into the bank without much interference from the police.

So throughout the movie, it gets pretty obvious that there are some surprises coming and the ending is going to be a big shocker. Is it? I’ll give you a spoiler free answer: No. It’s a twist, yes, and it’s clever, sure, but it’s not up to the standard the movie had set. Matter of fact, the second half becomes a setup for nothing, and you can smell the letdown soon enough. It looks like the ending is not going to stand up for all the mumbo jumbo that’s created beforehand. It does seem to work for most people, though. But my date and I hated it and I was glad not to be the only one.

When all is said and done, things get worse for the skeptical mind like my own. What’s the point of Jodie Foster’s character? Is she there only to make matters more interesting? She doesn’t interfere in the story much; she only delivers a few clever lines and challenges Mr. Case like no one else does. What about Case, by the way? He’s supposed to have been a big man during World War 2, so why does he look so young and vital? And finally, is Russell’s motivation all that benevolent? It sounded like a big excuse to do something bad and be able to clean his conscience. After all, the innocent people held up as hostages were traumatized, weren’t they? And just to let my acid tongue climax, let me just say I didn’t think his plan was all that perfect.

Lee doesn’t forget about the racism issue even in a movie like this. There are a couple of scenes that seem out of place which tackle this subject and remind us who’s directing the film. One of those I enjoyed, though, the one involving a video game, because it gives Russell some extra substance, but still…

So overall, the film let me down. It’s well done, has good editing and interesting music, exciting sequences and fine performances, but it doesn’t add up to much. You should judge for yourself, though. After all, with Spike Lee in the director’s chair, this is obligatory.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Inside Man (2006): Morris

Review

Election

Director

Alexander Payne

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 17, 2006

I first saw Election when I was 18 years old. Old enough, you might think, to get the pointing satire and sharp edge that a movie like this contains. Wrong. I certainly knew my way around movies, but this was a genre I think I wasn’t ready for just yet. Maybe I hadn’t seen that much of the world or did not have a real understanding of how it works, but I didn’t think that much of the movie back then. Fast-forward to seven years later and I’ve just rediscovered this gem.

The setting is Nebraska. The high school presidential election is just about to take place, and so far there’s only one contestant running for the post, overachiever Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon). But the teacher who runs the election, Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick), is not happy about this, mainly because he doesn’t like her. So he recruits popular Paul Metzler (Chris Klein) to run against her despite his overall choppiness. A third contestant gets in the running as well, Paul’s sister Tammy (Jessica Campbell), who is bitter about the whole proceeding but wants to get back at Paul’s girlfriend, whom she used to date.

Election was only Alexander Payne’s second feature back in 1999, yet since then he’s lived up to the accolades he got and is known as one of the most talented writer/directors working in movies nowadays. In this movie’s case, he worked from a novel by Tom Perrotta and did a wonderful job at translating all the rough points and making them both hilarious and entertaining.

This biting satire has its target mainly on the way an election runs. In this case it has to do with a high school election, but really, it could be representing any other. There are always different kinds of people running for a post, all taking different approaches and with varying ways of thinking. But it almost always gets ugly, and the path to power is not easy. Tracy is obsessed with winning and she will do anything to achieve it; Paul is good-natured and goes for a friendly battle; and Tammy doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any of this, and isn’t afraid to say it.

Payne works wonders around this colorful set of characters, but holds them together through Broderick’s role as a teacher who is having some personal problems which then get mixed up with the nightmarish election. It’s such a tragic character really, but one can’t help but laugh at all his misadventures. Fate and destiny certainly play a big role in his life, and in everyone’s for that matter.

A not-common device is used during the movie, that of multiple voice-overs. It may not work in every situation, but I was mostly amused by it. It gives you special insight into everyone’s mind, which can result in some very funny dialogue and situations.

As with any good satire, situations are exaggerated for stronger effect, yet the screenplay never loses track of what’s real and believable, for that would take us out of the movie. There’s a fine line waiting to be crossed when dealing with this difficult genre, but Payne never tries to bite more than he can chew. Wonderful job all around.

The same can be said of the performances. The four main actors are just superb. Matthew Broderick comes into his own with a character that goes against type so dramatically that it provokes a stronger effect. Witherspoon, on the other hand, is amazing at conveying a superficial amicability mixed with a hellish personality. I loved Jessica Campbell as Klein’s atypical sister, so full of wit... and truth. And I was marveled at Payne’s ability to choose every actor so well. Delaney Driscoll, as Jim’s neighbor and object of desire, is simply brilliant, a rare talent in a tailor-made role.

Crude, sad and hilarious. What a combo!

“Who cares about this stupid election?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Psycho

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1960

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Psycho is probably the most notorious thriller of all time and I’d say definitely Alfred Hitchcock’s most memorable piece, a finely crafted film with a daring and innovative structure and some of the most effective murder set pieces put on celluloid. It’s certainly a terrifying and highly entertaining film that doesn’t lose impact no matter how many viewings. Psycho is a classic in all the extent of the word.

Based on Robert Bloch’s novel, which in turn was based on a real-life case, the film centers around a character named Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), the manager of a highway motel. But that’s not really how the film is presented. The story first follows Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a smart and attractive woman who steals thousands of dollars to run away with her boyfriend Sam (John Gavin) and finds herself in a whirlpool of paranoia as she hits the road.

Way into the film, Marion finds the Bates Motel. Tired, sick of running away, and losing heart about her scheme, Marion decides to stay, and finds out that the motel is empty (“Twelve cabins, twelve vacancies”), except for the manager and his sick mother, who live in a contiguous house. Bates is eerie but sympathetic, and Marion doesn’t worry much, even when she hears an unsettling argument between him and the crazed Mrs. Bates. But Marion is in for a shocker.

The surprise twist midway through the film switches genres like few films have ever dared. Joseph Stefano’s screenplay is a triumph in this respect, as it gallantly upsets the viewer’s experience by changing everything all of a sudden, including the main characters. From a point on, three characters take over: Sam, Marion’s sister Lila (Vera Miles), and a private eye called Arbogast (Martin Balsam). Their interaction and their visits to the Bates Motel are continuously surprising and thrilling.

The film never loses pace, and as we are immersed more and more in the mystery, increasingly confused by the twists and turns, our nails clutch the seat and our hearts pump like crazy, and by the end, it’s all satisfying. Having just seen Psycho is a similar feeling as walking out of a rollercoaster ride. You experience horrible feelings up there, but you can’t help laughing nervously and wanting to do it again.

Hitchcock shot Psycho using his TV crew and the result is a low-key film that understates everything and turns out all the more remarkable. The fact that it isn’t like one of the previous lavish productions of the Master doesn’t mean that every aspect isn’t top-notch. John L. Russell’s black and white cinematography and George Tomasini’s sharp editing, for instance, are perfection. And Bernard Herrmann’s immortal all-strings score (a black and white score, he said) speaks for itself.

This film is mostly remembered for the infamous shower scene, a perfect example of Hitch’s subtle rule-breaking, and one of the best-directed scenes in history. Perkins is so unforgettable as Bates that he could never be disassociated from the role, the same as Leigh though her case wasn’t as grave. I understand Perkins didn’t mind that much—at least he cared to profit from it through a few sequels!

Psycho shook the Earth. It’s unfair to say some further thrillers were influenced by it; the very genre was influenced. There’s not much more to say. Only that it’s just no right not to watch it. This is much more than a must-see: it’s a representative of excellence in filmmaking, a vital part of our culture, and an integral element of life on this planet.

“A boy’s best friend is his mother.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Inside Man

Director

Spike Lee

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Spike Lee is a director with whom I don’t relate much. I’ve liked some of his work, but I’m mostly ambivalent about what he’s done in the past. So what was it that was so attractive to me in his latest movie? That’s a no-brainer: the cast. But the story didn’t sound bad either, and it looked from the previews as if Lee had made his most mainstream movie yet. Usually I’d rather go with arty or independent over mainstream, but in the case of Lee I think I’d rather go with mainstream. He is really good at it.

Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) and his team have planned the perfect robbery. Or so he says. They break into a NY bank and take everyone hostage. Soon Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is on the scene trying to outguess the criminals with the help of Detective Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Captain John Darius (Willem Dafoe). It gets more complicated when the bank’s chairman of the board, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), hires influential Madeline White (Jodie Foster) to protect some interests he has inside the bank at any cost.

Inside Man boasts a tight and intelligent script by Russell Gewirtz, who doesn’t downplay the audience but on the contrary, engages them with a story full of twists and turns. If you think you’ve seen enough bank robbery movies in your life, think again. This one may not turn the genre upside down, but it’s highly effective, entirely unpredictable and entertaining as hell.

Lee knows what his movie is and makes the best out of it. He gives each character just enough exposition for us to get an idea of who they are. And sooner than later he’s already into the action, creating suspense out of a cat-and-mouse game that continually surprises and keeps us hooked until the very end. I like when characters that are supposed to be intelligent actually are intelligent and do smart things under the circumstances. The movie does have a tad too many endings though, but after getting us so involved for the past two hours it really ain’t a crime.

Being as outspoken as he is regarding racial issues, Lee doesn’t let go of any chance to send a message out there, but there are times when those things took me out of the movie. Two scenes come to mind, one involving a videogame and another involving a cop who recounts a story from the past. Lee went mainstream, but that wasn’t going to stop him, oh no.

The movie has an odd structure in which we’re consistently shown scenes that happen after the bank robbery. At first I didn’t know what their point was, but then I realized they’re all part of the confusion in which we are supposed to be. Thinking in retrospect I think they’re a great idea. And so is the scene that bookends the movie.

As performances go, everyone is solid and does exactly what they’re required to. Denzel, Owen and Dafoe can all do this kind of roles in their sleep, but they’re very good. And so is Jodie Foster, who has a supporting role but simply kicks ass. She has some of the best scenes of the movie, and they all include intense dialogue exchanges. Loved her!

Good job by cinematographer Matthew Libatique and composer Terence Blanchard. Also, great choice of songs by A.R. Rahman!

“No, it's more like in the shower with Jamal & Jesús... and that thing you're sucking on? It's not a piña colada!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Inside Man (2006): Groucho

Review

The Producers

Director

Susan Stroman

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

I’m a fan of Mel Brooks’ classic The Producers (1968), which I saw when the Broadway adaptation hit, decades later. It was fun because I loved the film, then I loved the play, and then the film adaptation of the musical came along. I have seen the 1968 film a couple of times again since, and I loved it every single time.

The story is irresistible. It deals with Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) who was once the most successful and talented and now can’t produce anything but flops. He slaves to get money for his plays, romancing old little ladies from all over New York to get his “checkies”. When a mild-mannered accountant, Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick), pays him a visit and checks his book, detecting a minor fraud by Mr. Bialystock, they create a brilliant scheme: produce a sure-fire flop and oversell it, thus keeping the extra investment, cheating the IRS, and going to Rio. The catch is finding a really terrible play, hire the worst director in town (Gary Beach), and cast it awfully. There’s no way to go… right.

But guess what – I was completely disappointed by this film! How can that be? I mean, it’s the same story, just another version and another format, so what is it?

Let’s put it bluntly: This is the clearest example I have ever seen of a photographed play. Veteran theater choreographer and director Susan Stroman completely ignored the difference between theater and cinema and just made it look like a fine Broadway play. The result? An awful waste, to say the least. The talent is there, everything looks great, the pace, the music, the choreography, all top-notch, but it’s theater material, it wasn’t even translated! And it has nothing to do with songs coming along every 30 seconds, though it’s true that movie musicals aren’t as easily accepted nowadays as they were back in the days of Oliver! (1968). Let me point out a little of what I’m saying, instead of just getting into an angry romp that’ll take us nowhere.

The brilliant actors who originated the parts of Bialystock and Bloom on stage reprise their roles here and show us what their stage chemistry and charisma was all about. But they’re so incredibly overacted that they’re almost unbearable, not to say unconvincing. Everyone knows that on stage that works and on film it doesn’t, but these guys just can’t help themselves. There are other actors in the film who reprise their Broadway parts and don’t do it in such a hammy way, but my point is Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell come off best, and that’s because they know what they’re in and how to play it; they are completely disassociated from any theater production of this story.

But all right, Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder were kinda overacting in the classic film, so one could say Lane and Broderick have a right. But what about the stagy feel? Why not expand this universe a little? A couple of outdoor scenes here and there aren’t enough, we should feel some movement, some air, some indication that what we see is real. But we don’t. It’s almost literally as if director Stroman ordered a camera to be put in front of the stage and started rolling as the actors did their thing. What an awful decision, unworthy of this last instance of Mel Brooks’ genius creation.

So when you’re suffering in the movie theater because what you’re getting from the screen is stagy and uncomfortable, it’s hard to appreciate everything else. I tried hard though, and had fun during a couple of sequences. I’m not a fan of Will Ferrell’s, but I gotta admit he’s hilarious as the Neo-Nazi author of the play “Springtime for Hitler”. And Uma Thurman as Ulla, actress and assistant to Bialystock and Bloom… Oh, Uma, oh, Ulla. How I love the woman. Every sequence involving her is among the best, including of course the climatic opening night.

The show’s music by Brooks and Thomas Meehan is much more the kind we expect from Broadway than Hollywood, and it gets tiresome, but it’s really good. The whole thing is good, it’s just not handled correctly. Stick to the 1968 film, or if you have a chance, catch the play!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Proof

Director

John Madden

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 10, 2006

After sitting on the shelf for over a year, Proof was finally released by Miramax (then ruled by Harvey Weinstein), the re-teaming of director John Madden and actress Gwyneth Paltrow, both of whom gave the company immense success with Shakespeare in Love (1998) and who frequently worked with the company. Unfortunately, even with the level of quality involved in the project, the movie came and went with no fanfare except for a few awards nominations here and there. Luckily I was able to discover the movie months later.

Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) just lost her father Robert (Anthony Hopkins) after having taken care of him for 5 years. He was a prominent mathematician who succumbed to insanity. One of his former students, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), opts to go through his many essays and annotations in search of something worthwhile, which he eventually finds. But another daughter, Claire (Hope Davis), arrives from NY to settle her father’s affairs and only complicates matters.

Proof is based on a play by David Auburn, who co-wrote the screenplay with Rebecca Miller. Paltrow and Gyllenhaal even played the roles on the London stage to much acclaim. Because of this the movie could’ve ended up feeling as a recorded play. It is because of the excellent script and the assured hand of director John Madden that the movie works as well as it does. It never escapes its theater roots though, with an emphasis on long scenes and few sets, but it does feel cinematic as a whole. It’s as good a translation of the play as it could’ve been.

The movie plays both as a drama and, in a smaller scale, a thriller. There are elements of suspense regarding the authorship of a historic proof that Hal finds in a notebook. We are immersed in the mystery by what Catherine claims to have happened and what we are shown in strategically placed flashbacks. This element of the story is intriguing, but it works hand in hand with the dramatic aspects of it.

The most fascinating aspect is how it delves into the issue of insanity. Where’s the line between geniality and craziness? Catherine has some of the traces her father showed, but refuses the notion of having inherited both his qualities and his deficiencies. The screenplay is structured as if to let us decide for ourselves what Catherine is going through. She’s certainly unstable, something that can be seen in the relationship she has with her sister and the romantic one she is trying to have with Hal, but maybe she’s just stressed out. Or maybe not. Madden works wonderfully around this character study of four individuals and their lives in a specific time and place.

The acting is top-notch. Gwyneth Paltrow delivers one of the best performances of her career as a complicated woman who is about to burst, even if she’s trying to do everything she can to stop it. Hope Davis also impresses in a role that fits her to a tee, going easily from being a villain to actually being someone who cares. Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal are also very good in their respective roles.

I also enjoyed Stephen Warbeck’s haunting score. I truly feel it is essential to the movie and helps make it work as it does.

“I can disapprove the opposite.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

All About Eve

Director

Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Year

1950

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Of all the films that I have found addictive in my time, Joseph L. Mankiewicz’ All About Eve certainly takes first place. Whenever I decide to watch it again, I become spellbound all over again like the first time and can’t let it go for at least a few weeks. From the moment the credits start rolling to the immortal Alfred Newman score, I feel shivers down my spine.

This is the case because the movie’s so articulate yet accessible, intelligent all the way, engrossing and fascinating, universal and all so elegant. Mankiewicz’ script, based on the story “The Wisdom of Eve” by Mary Orr, is as good as they get, overflowing with creative genius word by word, dialogue by dialogue, scene by scene, and act by act.

The story is brilliant from its premise. It deals with a famous and talented Broadway actress, Margo Channing (Bette Davis), coping with reality while on the peak of her career. She’s the kind of actress every young girl admires: beautiful, brilliant, and overly successful. But she’s aging, and her starring parts in the plays by friend and playwright Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe) are always girls of a younger age, which only emphasizes her situation. Her boyfriend and director Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill) is also younger than she, but he loves her very much, which doesn’t seem to be enough for her.

One day, Lloyd’s wife and Margo’s best friend Karen (Celeste Holm) meets an adoring young fan of Margo’s, the genuine kind that can rarely be found, and whose devotion to her idol is completely undeniable and in every way selfless: Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) approaches Karen and so passionately expresses her admiration for Margo, that she feels compelled to introduce her to the star.

So she does, and Eve enchants Lloyd, Bill, and even distrustful Margo, who takes her in as her secretary of sorts. But Eve has a humble ambition: she wants to become an actress. And not only that: she wants to become everything Margo is with everything Margo has, and she wants to get there the easy way; she wasn’t all that genuine after all.

Now, this isn’t the creepy kind of story where a young woman goes berserk about her idol and turns a happy relationship into a tragedy. Instead, cynicism and pretense take first chair, and Eve is so intelligent that she uses Margo’s weaknesses against her, playing her cards in such a way that everyone favors Eve for being so young and goodhearted and willing to do things right. Even Margo is cheated, played so right that she becomes her own worst enemy and can’t help herself in the least. Only Margo’s maid and former vaudevillian, Birdie (Thelma Ritter), sees through Eve from the beginning; she becomes Margo’s conscience, and proves what true friends are for.

On the other hand, there’s the smooth-talking, fast-thinking, dry-witted charmer Addison DeWitt (George Sanders), critic and commentator whose daily newspaper column about the theater can make or break stars, plays and careers. He sees through Eve all right, but rather detecting her shortcomings and making it his own to prevent her recklessness from ruining her potential stardom, she being unspeakably talented.

Through this microcosm, the world of theater is exposed and examined, and even that becomes a microcosm for showbiz in general. But these people are classy, educated and smart, and they can’t resist putting things the most literate way as if real life was like the theater. It’s credible because their whole life and environment is like this, to more extent when they’re an actor or a playwright or a critic and, come to think of it, Bill, Karen and Birdie are not as literate, but they’re as witty. Everyone in this film is irresistible in their own way.

The late Bette Davis is one of the world’s most famous actresses and she’s best remembered for this film, and it’s easy to see why: it’s an exceedingly daring role. She was in real life an aging actress quietly witnessing younger actresses taking the spotlight that once belonged to her. This easily resuscitated her career.

Anne Baxter is a delight as both the mousy and the sinister protégé, and Celeste Holm is completely natural as the loving wife and caring friend who looked as if butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth. Thelma Ritter is also a standout, taking pleasure in her lines being the most uneducated but by no means the dullest. Merrill and Marlowe are outshined but no worse in their pivotal roles. Same goes for Gregory Ratoff, Barbara Bates and Marilyn Monroe; the latter a true delight in this small early role that eerily resembles some of her reality.

And finally there’s George Sanders in his most memorable and best screen appearance. He’s heaven-sent in the role he was born to play, every line, every gesture, every move, every glance, perfection. He is one of the reasons I like to see this movie over and over again, since he and his character are what I enjoy most.

All About Eve is as impressive visually as it is audibly. The whole environment is pleasant and elegant, meticulously constructed to thrill the eye. From hairdos to costumes (by Edith Head) to settings to Milton R. Krasner’s cinematography and Barbara McLean’s editing, this is just a top-notch piece of work, a masterpiece in every single way.

“Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Junebug

Director

Phil Morrison

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

It seems like every year there’s a movie or two that wouldn’t be seen by Average Joes if it weren’t for the awards attention they got. The best recent example would be Junebug, which nobody saw but was universally praised for Amy Adams’ performance. Since I liked clips I saw of her in different shows and since the cast looked good enough I opted to give it a look.

George (Alessandro Nivola) and her wife Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz) decide to pay a visit to his family in North Carolina where she has to go to negotiate a potential art deal. His very pregnant sister Ashley (Amy Adams) is the most excited about the visit, perhaps because life is dull with her estranged husband Johnny (Ben McKenzie) and her parents, Peg (Celia Watson) and Eugene (Scott Wilson).

The moment Junebug starts you already know what kind of movie it will be. By that I mean arty, a bit pretentious, weirdly edited and very personal. The kind of independent movie in which there was not much money involved and the director (in this case Phil Morrison) is licensed to do whatever he wants to do with it, out of conventional boundaries. Sometimes the approach is refreshing, but sometimes it wears out its outcome. Truth is, nothing changed after I saw this movie. It was a good time with a lot of nice moments, but my life would still be the same if I hadn’t seen it at all.

Something I liked about it is its immediacy and how real it is in the depiction of the clash between the son who now lives in a big city and his old-fashioned small-town family, and the awkwardness of the visit. Another recent, and excellent, movie dealt with this same situation, The Family Stone, but here the crudeness of it all is more apparent and more palpable. Entertainment-wise that’s not necessarily a plus, but it does what it has to do, and the way the relationships evolve feels real. So real that at the end of the movie I don’t think anything changed at all.

The movie contains some amusing scenes, but it also drags here and there, especially when Madeleine pays visits to the painter she’s trying to woo into working with her. Bo-ring.

And I loved where the name of the movie came from.

Thing is, the movie works for one reason alone: Amy Adams. Well, it’s actually a combination of her character and her performance. If it wasn’t for her I think I would’ve killed myself. She’s amazing, turning a character who could’ve been caricature into the most touching and heartbreaking woman I’ve seen on-screen this year. She lights the screen with her ingenuity and good-nature, but you can sense glimpses of something more that lies beneath. I was floored. The rest of the cast works wonderfully together, I loved all the performances.

“You were not!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Network

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Paddy Chayefsky is one of America’s most prolific and important screenwriters in the history of Hollywood, also a celebrated playwright, famous for his cutting edge scripts that seemed to be as sincere as they were mordant. One of his most memorable later works is Network, a satire of the world of television that can be seen now as a prophetic piece, well ahead of its time. This is Chayefsky in his whole extent, genius from start to finish, sharp to the last consequences, witty, fun, and daring. Most certainly one of the most brilliant scripts ever filmed and an excellent film for many more reasons. It’s one of my personal favorites, too, in case anyone gives a damn.

The story deals with a television network, the Union Broadcasting System (UBS), which is far behind ABC, CBS and NBC in both respectability and ratings. When the Communications Corporation of America (CCA) takes over that company and the management gets involved in most departments, looking to improve the ratings one way or another, some people feel invaded and others feel relieved.

The story doesn’t deal directly with this though. This is the story of Howard Beale (Peter Finch), a once great anchorman who has now lost what made him so good and gets fired from the network. His friend and boss Max Schumacher (William Holden) breaks him the news and Howard states he will kill himself on the air. What seemed to be a drunken prank of depressive sorts gets serious when Howard goes on and announces this on his show. The result is sensational, but the network won’t have it, and wants Howard off the air. The audience’s interest increases, however, when Howard is given another shot, just to go out with dignity, and he screws up again, skyrocketing ratings.

How this turns the network into a freak show infuriates the current management, but the VP assigned by CCA, Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), has a more progressive way of seeing things, and the hotshot in charge of programming, Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway), teases him into letting Howard stay on the air and continue his madman romp; she wants to take over the show. It seems farfetched to say the least, as Howard is clearly losing it, but people love him and it may be UBS’ only hope. Diana has extreme ideas about the future of television and also develops a TV show featuring real terrorists as stars. She sees Beale as a goldmine and won’t let him go easy.

Interests collide, pride gets in the way, and ethical issues emerge. The old ways of television, here represented by the more mature people who have been working for decades in the industry, seem obsolete when compared with the new ways of the people who won’t stop at anything to get good ratings, be it for the spotlight or for the money. To be perfectly fair, they understand the audience better, but the ends don’t necessarily justify the means, and it’s too reckless to be harmless. Beale’s crazed speeches go far—he’s as mad as he’s intelligent—and once his tirades endanger the best interests of CCA, everyone goes as mad as hell.

The film is fascinating in so many levels it’s hard to even think of them all, leave alone including them in a review. First of all, even though it deals with corporate management and how it encourages dehumanization in favor of business, this is a story of people, and how every single person has a different way of seeing things, and how they act when motivated by their own particular hopes and dreams. Old school vs. new breed, mostly. The central relationship, for instance, goes on between Max and Diana, who have an affair. He’s all ethics and principles, yet he cheats on his wife. Even so, they’re so different both at work and in their personal lives, that their fling just can’t work out in the long term, because people are people, and how they act is who they are, at work and at home and most everywhere else. This is what makes the movie work so well, and every character is fascinating, from the “mad prophet of the airwaves” Howard to the greedy Hackett to the ruthless Diana to the mostly moralistic Max.

The performances are as fascinating. It’s just outstanding how perfect the casting is and how every actor got the exact touch for their characters. Everyone is absolutely unforgettable. In fact, a couple of actors deserve special mention: Ned Beatty and Beatrice Straight. They’re onscreen only a couple of minutes each but their performances are indelible. Of course it helps that their scenes are probably the best in the movie. Straight plays Max’s wife, heartbroken when we get to meet her, and Beatty plays Mr. Jensen, President and Chairman of CCA, who lectures in a wild and articulate manner about how the world of corporations holds the ultimate truth, how everything is related and connected to it, and how the whole planet in which we live is nothing but a business.

Yet, my favorite scene (and I think I share this with most people) is one that still gives me the shivers every time I watch Network: Howard compels his audience to yell “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”, and millions of viewers stick their heads out their windows and do it. The scene is supposed to be funny and ironic, but it also turns out quite poignant. It’s easily Finch’s most famous screen moment, in what was to be, quite eerily, his final performance on film before his sudden death.

This is one of the rare cases where the screenwriter commands a movie. Director Lumet allows the script to speak by itself by not getting in the way; his work is so flawless you hardly notice it. The only music comes from TV shows or eventual spots, and everything else from photography to editing simply obeys the perfect balance of the screenplay. That’s a tribute to the indescribable work of Mr. Chayefsky’s.

Outrageous, precise and universal, Network is a classic and a must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

V for Vendetta

Director

James McTeigue

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 03, 2006

Trailers for V for Vendetta made it look like a typical futuristic blockbuster with not necessarily anything new to offer. The reason I actually wanted to see it was because of the reviews it got. When I finally did I sort of understood the whys of such a marketing campaign: showing what was really going on with the movie would’ve infuriated a bunch of people. God, when the movie was over I couldn’t believe what I had just seen. But more on that later...

Evey (Natalie Portman) is a gopher at a TV station who lives in a futuristic England, a country which is ruled by a fascist government led by Adam Sutler (John Hurt). One night she’s in trouble and is rescued by a man who calls himself V (Hugo Weaving) and who disguises under a Guy Fawkes mask. As it happens, V is planning a revolution and wants Evey to take part in it. Detective Finch (Stephen Rea) starts to investigate both and uncovers some harsh truths about them, but also about his own political party.

Where do I start? There’s so much going on with this movie that I was exhausted while watching it. Not only is it unabashedly entertaining, but it is also utterly unpredictable. Shock after shock continued to come my way and before I could process what was going on, the movie was already unto something else. This is, without a doubt, one of the most provocative and controversial blockbusters ever made. The sheer fact that it was made gives me some hope in the world. I might not necessarily agree with every idea the movie has to offer, but I’m all for putting difficult issues on the table and encourage conversations.

The movie is based on Alan Moore’s and David Lloyd’s “V for Vendetta”, a graphic novel that came out in the 80’s to much acclaim and eventual cult status. Moore has detached himself from this movie (as he has for every other one based on his work) but I can’t really put my finger on comparing both. What I witnessed in the big screen stands on its own as a masterful piece of work only clouded by some pretentious dialogue here and there.

Oh but how I love this movie. I love how it unabashedly echoes governments from the past but makes it look as if that’s were we are heading. Or worse, as if that’s where we are now. Those are pretty big accusations, but as with everything else, it only gives the idea and lets us figure out the conclusions. It is a movie that speaks volumes against recrimination and censorship; a movie that’s essentially about freedom and fighting for equality; a movie about liberal thinking against extreme conservatism; a movie about hypocrisy and lies. It is also a movie about a terrorist who happens to blow up buildings and still comes off as the good guy. Don’t you just love the Wachowskis and director James McTeigue for having the balls to put this out there? People who can’t look beyond will say the movie is potentially dangerous, but it is more complex than that. There are no easy answers, but there are a lot of hard questions.

Amidst all this density there’s also a very touching love story which holds the movie together. Evey and V are people who have had difficult lives. They find each other and realize they have a lot in common, but what to do amidst the chaos? The movie also has a comic-book feel to it that works like wonders with its subject matter. It’s a clear message that this is all a fantasy and a metaphor for real situations, but that it shouldn’t be taken that seriously... maybe. The visuals are perfectly suited to the story that is being told, nothing too over-the-top, but with some glimpses of modernist aesthetics. The blowing-up of buildings prove to be impressive sequences, but there are scenes that are as jaw-droppingly striking as these such as the toppling of a massive number of dominoes, the love story told through toilet paper, V’s monologue composed mostly of words starting with the letter “v”, people wearing V’s mask in flocks and the final bloody fight with knives taking a predominant role.

A lot of accomplished actors play pivotal roles in the movie. John Hurt gets to chew the scenery in an exquisite way. Stephen Rea is excellent as the cop trying to put every piece together, while Stephen Fry is a welcomed presence as Evey’s troubled mentor. Delia Surridge also gives a nice performance as a forensic doctor. Hugo Weaving hides behind a mask, but his work as V is fantastic. He gives the man a presence difficult to describe by using his voice and body language to achieve it. V is one hell of a charismatic fellow, and Weaving is mainly responsible for that. Then there’s Natalie Portman, amazing as a figure of fragility who has to wake up and face the world as it is. One of the best works of her career.

All in all, a rich and important movie that must be seen.

“A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter