CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Disturbia

Director

D.J. Caruso

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 30, 2007

The same thing happened to me as I guess it did to most American moviegoers. I didn’t much care about this movie but by the time it was released I felt a strong urge to see it. I don’t know if it looked fresh, if the premise was too damn alluring or what was it, but I had to be part of the phenomenon, and so I went. The experience was worthwhile for most of its running time, although I have to say there was potential for more.

When Kale (Shia LaBeouf) loses his father he goes into rebellious mode, going as far as punching his Spanish teacher and getting sentenced to three months of house arrest. With nothing else to do, he grows a knack for watching his neighbors, falling in love with beautiful Ashley (Sarah Roemer) and suspecting that creepy Mr. Turner (David Morse) is a serial killer.

Hit-and-miss director D.J. Caruso worked from a script by Christopher Landon and Carl Ellsworth. Anyone with knowledge of movies will certainly think of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954) at least once while watching this similarly-themed flick that takes some references from it but that is its own breed. For two-thirds it works as a better-than-average thriller with compelling characters, intriguing situations and a fitting pace. But then the movie decides to turn into a slasher romp and that’s when everything goes down the toilet. It is a change so abrupt I couldn’t believe the filmmakers were throwing everything away for a by-the-numbers climax. But they did, and it’s a pity.

That said, when the movie works it provides a lot of solid entertainment. It opens with one of the most visceral accidents ever committed to celluloid, easily the best sequence in the movie. It then moves forward in time and slowly develops its characters as Kale starts to show interest in the soap operas taking place every day around his house. The approach to voyeurism is not deeply dealt with, but this isn’t an existential drama. The way Kale gradually changes, without ever going over-board, is presented in credible fashion. Actually I was amazed at how well-written his character is; I know people who are just like him and he feels impressively natural. Tension builds as he gets more immersed in sordid affairs and the cat-and-mouse game with his supposedly evil neighbor is consistently fun to watch.

Actor Shia LaBeouf, widely considered to be the next big thing, is actually excellent in the lead role and shows why so many people are trusting him with bigger projects. He has charisma, focus and an approachable quality to him that makes him especially endearing. David Morse is in full-creep mode and even though his work is good maybe a different choice of actor would’ve served the movie better. Supporting players Sarah Roemer, Viola Davis and Carrie-Anne Moss (in a small role as Kale’s mother) are good.

By the way... great title!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Four Weddings and a Funeral

Director

Mike Newell

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 26, 2007

How perfectly well I can identify with the crisis that Charles (Hugh Grant) goes through. Right in this moment of my life, all my friends and people my age are getting married or planning to, and even though I’m not against the institution I just don’t see my time coming yet. Sometimes the peer pressure makes me a bit tense, at others I just don’t care, but it’s true that this has become an issue in my life. I know I’ll do the right thing when the time comes, but I can’t help wondering how and when that’ll be… if at all.

Richard Curtis wrote a screenplay about this and it’s right-on-target. Marriages are very peculiar rituals and they usually shake people’s lives one way or another. Though they’re different in every culture, the essentials are the same and if handled correctly, as it is here, it can be pretty funny.

As I said before, it’s Charlie whom we follow in his battle against anxiety when it comes to the constant marriages he’s invited to attend. He’s always late, as is his housemate Scarlett (Charlotte Coleman), and it’s riotous, though I think deep inside it means they don’t really want to go, unconsciously rejecting the very idea. They have a group of friends who are also unmarried, and everyone deals with it differently. Charlie probably doesn’t realize how much other people who are so close to him suffer about the same thing but in very different ways.

Though Charles is a charming man with several romances in his résumé, he’s nowhere near establishing in marriage and can’t picture himself at it, mainly because he hasn’t found the right person. Enter American Carrie (Andie MacDowell) and Charlie’s struck as if by lightning. Though she’s clearly colder and aloof, she also falls for him in her own way, and sparks fly. But then she goes back to her country and by the time he hears from her she’s got news that she’s willing to move on with somebody else while Charlie was probably waiting for her.

The premise of the four weddings is interesting and gives the film a fresh format. In each of the weddings portrayed we see the next one coming, so every event is interesting and we feel a part of it. As for the funeral, it gives the movie’s most touching moment, as Matthew (John Hannah), Charlie’s friend who just suffered a great loss, recites an unforgettable poem.

There are some interesting subplots and vignettes. Kristin Scott Thomas, who plays Fiona, owns one of the best, as she comes out of the shadows to confess something to Charlie that puts him in perspective. Simon Callow is probably the best supporting performer as Gareth, stealing every scene he’s in as the most charming person in the place. Rowan Atkinson is pretty funny as a rookie priest.

The problem of the film is its coldness, present in the procedures in general but especially in the character of Carrie and the performance of Andie MacDowell. She’s supposed to be an indifferent American, and it works in a certain level, but it doesn’t help empathizing with her or rooting for Charlie to get her. The ending might be considered bittersweet or even sad in a twisted kind of way because of the rare portrayal of the leading female character.

Grant, on the other hand, is perfection in the role that made him a star. I’d say he went on to perfect that persona in Notting Hill (1999), but the same can be said about the craft of Richard Curtis, writer of both.

The budget was low and it shows here and there, but nothing to worry about. The greatest complaint I have is the score by Richard Rodney Bennett, which killed me with repetitiousness. Other than that, I’d say the film’s quite worth the while. The sleeper hit that it was, it’s safe to say some people like it.

“I think we both missed a great opportunity here.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Curse of the Golden Flower

Director

Zhang Yimou

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

I am quite a fan of director Yimou Zhang’s previous outings The Road Home (1999), Hero and House of Flying Daggers (2004). The first one was an intimate story that got to your heart and the other two were highly entertaining and spectacular forays. His latest, The Curse of the Golden Flower, is sort of a mixture between both styles, resulting in a different experience.

In 10th century China, the Empress (Gong Li) is unhappy with her husband the Emperor (Chow Yun Fat) and has been having an affair with her stepson, and heir to the throne, Wan (Lie Ye), who also happens to be involved with the palace doctor’s daughter Chan (Li Man). Another son, Jai (Jay Chou), just returned from a long absence and wants to become king, while his younger brother, Yu (Qin Junjie), watches and fills with jealousy. War erupts once the Empress learns that her husband has been poisoning her.

Zhang wrote and directed the movie based on a Chinese play set in the 30’s which was written by Yu Cao. His setting might bare some resemblance with history, but the story is entirely fictional. It actually has more than its share of Shakespearean shades; the family drama is so intense you could swear it’s based on one of his plays. It falls into sheer melodrama more than once, but the tone is so over-the-top from the get-go that it doesn’t take you out of the story.

Audiences expecting a martial-arts movie will be disappointed. This is high drama mixed with some big set pieces (the highlight being an escape by horse from flying soldiers) here and there and culminating in a huge and horrific battle. Most of the movie is of the talky-kind, although it is set in an environment so different from what we see everyday that just watching how people live and react is fascinating.

It also helps that the visuals are nothing short of stunning. The color hues are incremented so the overall feeling is that of splashing color, especially regarding reds and yellows. Zhang and cinematographer Xiaoding Zhao have created a beautiful world that is a pleasure spending time in. Chung Man Yee’s costumes design and Tingxiao Huo’s production design are fantastic as well. I loved the way yellow flowers are used throughout the movie.

Gong Li is such a beautiful actress and is so good in her craft that she makes the movie hers from start to finish and delivers a consuming, intense performance. Chow Yun Fat is commanding in his role, and Jay Chou leaves the strongest impressions amongst the sons. The whole ensemble is good.

“Never take what you have not been given.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Fish Called Wanda

Director

Charles Crichton

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

A Fish Called Wanda owes its title to two characters: the “fish” (wanted felon) that is Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis), who’s right in the middle of a scheme to rob some jewels, and an actual fish named after the woman, owned by stutterer Ken (Michael Palin), who’s also one of the thieves, and clearly in love with her.

The credits sequence says it all, as it presents a mosaic of genres, from crime drama to comedy to romance in such a delicious way. John Du Prez’s score takes center stage as it adapts to each mood, which it keeps doing throughout. You know you’re in for quite a satisfactory experience.

The gang of robbers is led by Wanda’s current boyfriend, George Thomason (played by Tom Georgeson… get the gag?), and comprised by the two aforementioned and Wanda’s brother Otto (Kevin Kline), a weapon master and former CIA assassin who fancies himself an intellectual and is pretty good at speaking in foreign accents… which turns Wanda on. Don’t worry, he’s not really Wanda’s brother, but in fact her real boyfriend, with whom she’ll steal the jewels from George. But perhaps she’s not all that loyal to Otto, either.

When things go awry on account of the double-crosses and George ends up in prison, it’s up to Wanda to find out where he hid the jewels. Perhaps George will tell his barrister, Archie Leach (John Cleese), so how to get the info from him…? How else? By romancing him!

But as cynical as she may seem, and she damn well is, Wanda is irresistible even to the audience, because she enjoys every moment and appreciates the best from every person she’s with, despite her dubious intentions. She’s sweet, really, in a twisted kind of way. She seizes the day, and that’s just awesome. Jamie Lee’s performance is to die for.

The script was written by “Monty Python” veteran John Cleese, from a story by himself and director Crichton. It’s obviously got the influence of that school of Cleese’s, to which Palin also belongs, but not extremely. While the story has some crude sense of humor and sometimes violent or tasteless scenes, it’s mostly an intelligent tale full of explosive moments of humor directly related to the main plot that only complicate it further but never without a laugh.

Cleese plays his most pompous persona for hilarious effect, while Palin stutters his way into indelibleness and Klein becomes as obnoxious as he possibly can while actually being quite charming and funny in his own right. Klein’s performance was the most highly praised by critics at the time and no wonder: he’s brilliant. Another excellent performer is Maria Aitken as Leach’s wife.

But everyone is really brilliant in the last film of Crichton’s long career. Such a pleasure to see a good filmmaker say goodbye with such classy swan song…

I just totally love this film.

“What was the part in the middle?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Goal II: Living the Dream

Director

Jaume Serra

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 23, 2007

I am a big fan of Goal! (2005), a conventional movie that nonetheless told its story well and got me completely engaged. The sequel, which is actually part of a planned trilogy, is nowhere near as good, although soccer fans will certainly appreciate it more than others. We’ll have to wait to see if the third time’s the charm and if the same level of quality can be reached with the next foray.

Santiago (Kuno Becker) has become a star and the owners of the prestigious Real Madrid team have noticed. They soon ask him to join their ranks, where fellow friend Gavin (Alessandro Nivola) plays, which means moving to Madrid and playing along the best such athletes in the world. Roz (Anna Friel), his soon-to-be-wife, is not happy, but ultimately supports him. And with the new city his long-lost mother Rosa (Elizabeth Peña) suddenly appears.

Goal! 2 was directed by Jaume Collet-Serra and written by Mike Jefferies, Adrian Butchart and Terry Loane. The path they take is only natural to the flow of experiences Santiago, a poor kid from Mexico, goes through as he becomes an international superstar. Problem is, the movie is filled with clichés that are not well-handled. As opposed to its predecessor, everything here feels forced and in-your-face. There are laughably bad moments such as when Santiago picks up his stepbrother from an empty street, but these are forgivable compared to a story that doesn’t feel natural in any way. I was disappointed and slightly pissed off.

Going for it is the fact that it’s a highly entertaining movie, despite being a bit overlong. It is also very well-shot, with the soccer scenes providing as much spectacle as they’re supposed to, although the prominence of our two leading men is surprisingly absent at times. There’s also the very obvious problem of having such high-caliber sports men in the movie. Ronaldo, Raúl, Zidane, they’re all there and barely utter a word, but it is quite noticeable that David Beckham struck a better deal and asked for more prominence. This gives the movie an awkward feeling in which even the final scene does not belong to our protagonist. And speaking about the ending, it sucks. I know there’s another movie to come, but the last third that would give closure to the story’s arc is left in the open and does not leave us wanting for more actually.

A sentimental subplot involving Santiago’s mother and stepbrother is half-baked and sometimes chuck-inducing. They strive for genuine sentiment and almost get it, but ultimately fall short.

In the technical side, Stephen Warbeck’s score and Flavio Martínez Labiano’s cinematography are top-notch.

Performances range from good to merely ok. Kuno Becker and Alessandro Nivola reprise their roles and bring little new to the table, although they’re both good. Anna Friel is excellent as Santiago’s fiancée, and the only character I actually want to see more of. Stephen Dillane also shows up in some scenes, as does Rutger Hauer in a welcomed appearance. Leonor Varela has a thankless role and does what she can with it, and Elizabeth Peña is strong as the mother.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Court Jester

Director

Melvin Frank

Norman Panama

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 19, 2007

There’s just nothing better than a funny movie. It might be argued otherwise, of course, and even I could contradict myself, but while I’m laughing, I just know there’s nothing better. Comedy is a complex genre of storytelling, and it’s just no exception in cinema, as has been proved through the decades. Making laugh is no small feat, and making it smart is even harder. That’s why The Court Jester is a masterpiece. It’s funny as hell and continuously witty. You couldn’t ask for more.

The screenplay by directors Melvin Frank and Norman Panama is full of riotous twists and turns, but begins rather simply: A royal family has been savaged by perpetrator King Roderick I (Cecil Parker) but an heir survived: a baby that bears the Royal Mark (a “scarlet pimpinel” in His Majesty’s Royal Buttock). The baby is guarded by a group of revels that hide in the forest, one of whom terrorizes the perpetrator under the name and disguise of The Black Fox.

The introduction to the Fox is quite hilarious: He sings a song and dances along with a group of little people; the song, “(You’ll Never) Outfox the Fox”, is an anticipation of just how funny the dialogue will be. The singer, though disguised as the Fox, turns out not to be the actual crusader but Hawkins (Danny Kaye), an entertainer for the rebels who dreams of becoming a hero himself. Talented for make-believe, he gets the mission of transporting the baby in disguise, along with Captain Jean (Glynis Johns). Hawkins and Jean fall in love, but that’s a lost cause while the tyrant is still King. But all of a sudden, when they meet a jester who’s on his way to the court, they find the ideal opportunity to end tyranny: Hawkins will replace the jester and help the rebellion to perpetrate the perpetrator.

This is all setup, but then the real fun begins: It turns out the original jester is in fact an assassin who was supposed to murder the King in favor of his traitorous subject Sir Ravenhurst (Basil Rathbone). Inside the castle there’s already a rebel whom Hawkins is supposed to find. When he looks for the man, he mistakenly believes Ravenhurst to be it, while Ravenhurst believes Hawkins to be the real jester. They talk to each other like they know what they’re talking about, but each has his own thread. To make matters worse, spoiled Princess Gwendolyn (Angela Lansbury) threatens her maid, witch Griselda (Mildred Natwick), to find true love for her or die, so Griselda bewitches Hawkins to enamor the girl, who has her own agenda.

Soon enough, everyone believes something that isn’t, and things keep getting busier and funnier every second. There’s just no time to rest: it’s all explosive laughter and genuine suspense. Yet, there’s also time to be witty, for the sake of laughter of course. As I said, the dialogue is brilliant, and there are many memorable scenes full of it. The most famous is the one where Griselda tries to explain to Hawkins which cup has poison and which hasn’t, a hilarious tongue twister with several variations, executed with outstanding comic timing by Kaye and Natwick, and at some point by Johns, Robert Middleton and others.

I enjoyed the candidness of it all. While it’s not a foolish movie in the least, there’s a generally positive spirit. We’re told at first that King Roderick I is a murderer and a traitor, yet when we get to meet him we find that he’s quite a charming and empathic fellow, and we never see him do anything really cruel; what’s more, the true villain turns out to be his own traitor, Sir Ravenhurst (Rathbone), but even he’s not all that bad… though he murders and betrays, but only people we know to be scum. So the aftertaste is positive in every way, and that’s another comic factor.

Danny Kaye is unforgettable as the title character, and one can’t help but wonder why he didn’t make more great movies like this. He’s excellent as a singer, a dancer, a comedian, a sensitive person and even a swashbuckler. Rathbone is excellent as usual in a role reminiscent of some he did in older days; Lansbury, Johns, Parker, Natwick and the rest are all to praise.

Every song by Sammy Cahn and Sylvia Fine is brilliant, while the incidental music by Vic Schoen is up there too. Some awesome production design and color photography make this awe-inspiring to look at.

All in all, The Court Jester a masterpiece and a must-see film.

“The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pleasantville

Director

Gary Ross

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The year 1998 was very good, from my personal point of view, regarding movies. We got Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth, Life is Beautiful, The Opposite of Sex and Saving Private Ryan to name a few. And then there was Pleasantville, a critically-acclaimed flick that came out of nowhere and surprised everyone with its big ideas and excellent conception. I was mesmerized when I discovered it, and it has since remained a huge favorite of mine.

Siblings David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) fight over the remote control one said evening and end up inside the television, specifically as part of a 50’s TV show by the name of “Pleasantville”. Everything is perfect in this black-and-white world, but Jennifer’s rebellious antics soon start shaking the town, much to the chagrin of her nerdy brother.

Gary Ross directed and scripted this marvelous movie which at first seems like a simple, silly comedy, but eventually turns into something very inspirational, political and emotional without losing a beat. Its greatest achievement is that even though its ideas and agenda are very clear at every step, they are presented in highly original and entertaining fashion. The movie gets darker as it moves along, but somehow it never loses its lighthearted tone, a feat that Ross is successful in pulling off. Only the ending seems rather forced as it tries to tidy up everything, but it still works and the very last scene is extraordinary.

At the heart of the story lies the mystery of why some people start turning to color. There is a reason, which I won’t spoil here, but that is pretty easy to figure out. The joy is in watching how each person will accomplish this and how. Even better, what’ll happen after that moment of realization? As this goes on issues such as free speech and racism take center stage, with Ross making an allegory of how it would work if a society suddenly started to take shape and people started doing things differently by being themselves. It is provocative and it is also delicately touched upon.

You wouldn’t know it by looking at the genre, but truth is that this is up there among films that have the most visual effects shots in history. The black-and-white world mixed with a surge of color was more complicated to accomplish than you would think, and the results are down-right gorgeous. Cinematographer John Lindley certainly had to do with this as well. Add up a fantastic Randy Newman score, beautiful costumes by Judianna Makovsky, impressive Production Design by Jeannine Oppewall and you’ve got yourself a great combination of talent at the top of their forms.

Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are spot-on as the movie’s leads. You really do believe they are related, and their characters are very well-defined and portrayed. But they are surrounded by a supporting cast which works wonders around them. Joan Allen, as their “mom”, is absolute perfection; an image of frailty and innocence that suddenly grows a pair of wings. William H. Macy, as their “dad”, downplays his part for heartbreaking effects. Jeff Daniels is touching as David’s boss and Marley Shelton does a good job as a possible love interest. Other actors include J.T. Walsh, Don Knotts, Paul Walker and Jane Kaczmarek.

“I don’t want it to go away.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

National Velvet

Director

Clarence Brown

Year

1944

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

I was thrilled to watch Elizabeth Taylor’s first hit movie. I never thought it’d be such a thrilling experience, but indeed, Liz packed a wallop from the very beginning as the teenager with high hopes of winning the Grand National competition from the beloved novel “National Velvet” by Enid Bagnold. This is one more legendary Hollywood story where the actor in question almost didn’t get the role and the fact that he or she did changed history. Anyhow, she’s completely lovely, totally talented, and simply everything that she became, but in the form of a 12-year-old. Outstanding.

The film is quite a triumph in itself. It’s one of the most accomplished family films ever made, and most certainly a trend-setter. This is the kind of movie that does things so right it’s imitated countless times and then you see it and you say “Oh, so that’s where that cliché comes from!”, and even though you’ve seen it a thousand times it seems fresh here, because it was done so unpretentiously. It’s such a delectable experience, I could see this a thousand times.

The story is that of Velvet Brown (Taylor), a young girl who loves horses and dreams of owning one that becomes a Grand National champion. She meets the most important creatures in her young life almost simultaneously: a gorgeous horse that belongs to someone else but whom she names “The Pie”, and an enigmatic young drifter called Mi (Mickey Rooney).

Mi seems to know a lot about horses, as does Velvet, but his charm is that he appears to be as indomitable as the horse in question. In a way, Velvet makes the decision to show Mi and The Pie the path into finding themselves and achieving their best in life. She quite does, and in the way she manages to do that for herself, too.

Of course there are complications, like the fact that her father (Donald Crisp) is only a butcher, not the kind of man who owns that kind of horse, but there are ways and it takes luck and guts but ends meet. It plays straight, mostly: girl meets boy, girl meets horse, girl gets horse, boy and girl train horse, etc. And yet, you’d never imagine how unexpectedly things work out at every turn. While the whole is predictable, the details are not, and I was continuously surprised. I should point out the identity of the jockey for the final competition. The issue seemed resolved, and then a twist happened, which completely altered the fate of a character which you thought you knew for sure what would be. But in the end, it was neatly wrapped. Such a great story by Bagnold, scripted for the screen by Helen Deutsch and Theodore Reeves.

Aside from Taylor, who’s great as I said, Rooney shows why he was once the greatest of them all, in what’s been called his best performance. Crisp is quite something as Velvet’s father, but Anne Revere leaves an indelible mark as her wise mother. Also notable is Angela Lansbury as Velvet’s older sister with something other than horses on her mind.

The editing by Robert Kern is breathtaking; the competition has you on the edge of your seat. The gorgeous color photography by Leonard Smith and the beautiful music score by Herbert Stothart complete the masterpiece. This is a must.

“What’s the meaning of goodness if there isn’t a little badness to overcome?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Reaping

Director

Stephen Hopkins

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 16, 2007

The Reaping is one of those movies I knew would be terrible but that I nonetheless wanted to see. Something about the premise and the marketing campaign seemed attractive. And there’s always the chance to be proven wrong, discovering guilty pleasures in the way. That wasn’t the case here. The movie is a catastrophe from start to finish, although I can’t deny it was entertaining. That’s about it, though.

Ex-missionary Katherine Winter (Hilary Swank) is called upon by teacher Doug (David Morrissey) to a small town in Louisiana so that she could investigate why their river’s water turned red just as a little girl, Loren (AnnaSophia Robb), was discovered in it standing besides her dead brother. She decides to go along with co-worker and friend Ben (Idris Elba), only to start witnessing how the plagues from the Old Testament start happening once again.

Stephen Hopkins directed from a screenplay by Carey and Chad Hayes based on a story by Brian Rousso. I really can’t say anything valid to defend any of these people. Maybe I could say that there are some cool ideas trapped here and there, starting with the fascinating premise of a town experiencing the infamous plagues once again. But the path they chose to take is moronic.

The director employs every single cliché you can remember about thrillers, down to the music, the slow scenes where you know something’s going to happen, the stupid actions the characters do, the cheap scares, etc. It’s all there. We also have a heroine with a traumatic past and the creepy house where she’s staying. Then the plagues keep hitting, making for an interesting beginning despite the movie’s shortcomings. And suddenly it all goes down the toilet. The Devil gets involved you see, and the movie’s genre switches completely. The plagues turn into background filler only to give way to a stupid and out-of-nowhere story involving the little girl, her family and their town. It all culminates, as expected, in a contrived and over-the-top apocalyptic finale that is as laughable as most of what preceded it.

That said, I liked the very final scene complete with its twist. It was a clever way to end on an exciting and unexpected note, and it made sense regarding the rules the movie created. I gave the movie half a star more only because of this.

Special effects are a mixed bag. The red river looks amazing as do some of the other plagues. But half the times it looks fake, and the effects employed at the finale leave a lot to be desired. Music is predictable and intruding. And I’ve seen scarier depictions of the very particular atmosphere that Louisiana can exude.

The acting is subpar. Hilary Swank does the best she can with the poor material she’s given. AnnaSophia Robb looks appropriately creepy but has nothing to do. David Morrissey is mostly terrible. And a special appearance by Stephen Rea is something he could do on his sleep. Yes, I do have a lot of negativity towards this flick, but that’s just a testament to how bad it is.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Secret Garden

Director

Fred M. Wilcox

Year

1949

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 12, 2007

As a child I read the classic novel “The Secret Garden” by Frances Hodgson Burnett and I remember it being an unforgettable experience. I can still smell the scents, hear the sounds and fall victim to the moods, to everything that I experienced while walking into the large, labyrinthine estate, and especially the title garden. The people were also as real as they could get, and I fell in love with every character.

In the early 1990s I saw the modern film version and I was quite satisfied, but then again, I wasn’t a movie critic yet, lacking the knowledge that gives me the self-indulgent right to claim I am one now, and I should see it again to tell you what I think. But recently, when I had the chance to see the classic film adaptation of the book, I immediately snatched it. Not only was it about that much-loved story that I enjoyed so much as a kid, but it starred one of the greatest child stars of all time: Margaret O’Brien. Given O’Brien’s disappearance from the screen from her teenage years on, most films of hers are musts. She has made me cry so much in Meet Me In St. Louis (1944) that I just can’t turn my back on her ever again. I was in for a truly exhilarating cinematic experience!

Given my high expectations, I must say the film wasn’t all that I hoped for, though it’s not half bad. The story is there, the mood is there, but somehow the magic is missing. Robert Ardrey’s script tells its tale rather straightforwardly:

Orphan Mary Lennox (O’Brien) is taken to the huge estate of her uncle Archibald Craven’s (Herbert Marshall) and, though attended to by countless servants, she’s neglected by her uncle, who lives in seclusion and is rumored to be a horrific hunchback. Mary wanders in the gardens and eventually bumps into a very mysterious wall that surrounds a concealed area, constantly guarded by gardener Ben Weatherstaff (Reginald Owen). This turns out to be a long-forbidden garden.

But that’s not the only mystery Mary meets: she also happens to acquaint a supposedly crippled cousin of hers, Colin (Dean Stockwell), Uncle Archibald’s son whose eyes she opens as both, along with farmboy Dickon (Brian Roper), uncover the mystery of the secret garden.

This is a great story. Both Uncle Archibald and Cousin Colin live in torture on account of the memory of their late wife/mother, a memory so haunting that it’s capable of destroying every bit of happiness in the house. Mary comes and changes this by proving that a new, fresh point of view can be everything it takes to keep moving. I love how the secret garden proves much more than grass, flowers and even a pond… It’s a metaphor for new life, old memories summoning the positive instead of the negative, and a fresh start.

Margaret O’Brien is a standout in the lead role, and proves effective when dealing with every character around, even suffering a very important transformation herself. Stockwell is quite believable as the pampered, insufferable boy, who needs naught but love… And Marshall’s bitterness is so palpable it touches you.

The only problem is the film feels too real, even the garden is unimpressive, while the essence of the story requires awe-inspiring settings and moods at every turn. Some of the sequences of the garden are in color, but even those (as usually happens in the early films that mixed black and white with color) are unimpressive. Bronislau Kaper’s music, on the other hand, is quite dreamy.

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | 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

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

It isn’t just love that I feel for All About Eve, it is adoration. I consider it, along with most everyone else, to be one of the finest movies ever made; but it also happens to be one of my personal favorites. It is a movie that is close to my heart, that I can watch over and over again, a perfect work of art if such thing is possible.

Margo Channing (Bette Davis) is a theater actress who keeps starring in plays written by her friend Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe) and directed by her boyfriend Bill (Garry Merrill) despite the fact that those roles would fit a younger actress much better. One day her dear friend Karen (Celeste Holm) finds a die-hard fan of Margo’s and decides to introduce her to her idol. Thus Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) becomes Margo’s right-hand companion. But Eve starts to show a darker side eventually, for she seems to want to become a star herself.

Joseph L. Mankiewicz directed from his own screenplay based on the uncredited story “The Wisdom of Eve” by Mary Orr. The success of the movie has to do with every element seamlessly falling together, but it mainly comes down to one thing: the script. It is a script so good that Mankiewicz must’ve sold his soul to the devil or something. He mixes drama and humor to satirize the world of theater while poking fun at the concept of stardom and ambition. It is as witty and delicious as a script can get, with sharp and memorable lines hitting you at every turn. It is also endlessly entertaining, creating enthralling characters and putting them together in one joyful romp.

The movie uses several narrators to help move the story along, the most memorable of which is theater critic Addison DeWitt (George Sanders). He has a very fitting name, and his voice-over work is exquisite.

With beautiful music by the great Alfred Newman, handsome cinematography by Milton Krasner, tight editing by Barbara McLean and gorgeous costumes by Edith Head, All About Eve boasts impeccable technical features all around. Mankiewicz’s own directing is flawless, getting the best out of his actors and using his sets and camera to the fullest advantage.

Performance-wise, All About Eve has without hesitation one of the best ensembles I’ve seen put together. Bette Davis is glorious as Margo Channing, a woman who can’t accept the fact that she’s getting old and who is so blind by jealousy that she is on the verge of ruining her own career. Anne Baxter delivers a tour-de-force as well as rising star Eve, in a controlled performance that is as chilling as it is credible. Supporting players include Thelma Ritter in a memorable bit as the know-it-all assistant to Margo, Marylin Monroe in a brief yet very funny appearance as a struggling actress, and the aforementioned George Sanders, who threatens to steal the movie. Celeste Holm, Gary Merrill, Hugh Marlowe, Gregory Ratoff and Barbara Bates are also excellent.

“Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Eighth Day

Director

Jaco van Dormael

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Le Huitième jour’s screenplay by director Jaco van Dormael begins parallelizing the stories of two men: businessman Harry (Daniel Auteuil) and Down syndrome victim Georges (Pascal Duquenne), both of whom have trouble conforming with their lives and desperately seek for alternative.

Harry is slightly unaware of this need, which eventually life grants him; he’s currently living alone, divorced from his wife and away from his young daughters. He’s a successful motivator, giving speeches on how to become a good salesman. Georges is unhappy with his life and sorely misses his departed mother (Isabelle Sadoyan). He lives in an institution where he doesn’t want to stay for good, and feels like he’s wasting his life. So one day he takes off by himself, and on the road meets suicidal Harry. Stuck with Georges, Harry is forced to keep going, and eventually finds that every change is good.

Their adventures go from finding Georges’ family to recovering Harry’s own, which is hard because his ex-wife Julie (Miou-Miou) is quite tired of him, and his daughters are disappointed. However, Georges never seems to rest, and even though he behaves according to his handicap, his heart is pure gold.

This is not as much a drama as it is a fantasy, and it soon becomes the kind of film than one chooses to believe or not. It stretches credibility to a point where it simply cannot be evaluated by its realism. It’s also incredibly clichéd and rarely offers anything new, but one can’t deny its good nature and fine intentions. Sadly, I soon found myself in the darker side of the spectrum, not believing half of what has happening and not buying the fantasy at all, totally unwilling to stretch credibility.

Furthermore, I found the film saturated with unpleasantness. When we find out that Harry is indeed dangerously unstable, the character feels more threatening than sympathetic. Georges and later his friends do some stuff that’s not only irrationally jeopardizing but completely implausible, and Harry goes for it, making the story absurd. The complete third act is love-it-or-hate-it and I frankly hated it. The very finale, romantic though it may seem, is driven by cheap sentimentality and in a way contradicts the optimist message of the overall film.

The performances, however, are pretty good. The two actors do a good job next to each other and one must admire someone like Duquenne playing such a brave role about his own condition. There are a few scenes that must have hurt him to play, but he did in such a convincing mode that it’s just outstanding.

Other than that, there’s not much here to see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shakespeare in Love

Director

John Madden

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 09, 2007

I’m going to put it plain and simple: Shakespeare in Love is one of my favorite movies of all time. And it’s funny because the very first time I saw it I didn’t quite get it; I was expecting a different tone altogether. A subsequent viewing proved to be the actual meet-cute, and it has since grown on me in immeasurable ways. It always manages to put me in a good mood, and I also consider it to be filmmaking at its finest.

Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is going through writer’s block just when theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) orders a new play from him. It is until he meets theatre-lover Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) that he gets the necessary inspiration, little knowing that she is in fact the leading man in his new play and soon to be married to Lord Wessex (Colin Firth).

John Madden directed from a script by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard. The tale is essentially a fictitious account of the struggle that Shakespeare went through when writing his immortal “Romeo and Juliet”. The writers cleverly play with the notion that he got the inspiration from his everyday life, and countless references to many of his plays are found in the journey. The play he’s writing is also affected by his own life, in which he falls in love with a woman from a different world. Several montages show the parallels between the play and what he’s going through, and it is an interesting approach because it is treated with intelligence and wit.

Shakespeare in Love works in several different levels. It maintains a light mood throughout its entire running time, and it easily mixes low-brow comedy, slapstick, wittiness, drama and a sense of adventure that is always present. It also comes off as an ode to poetry and theatre. And to top it all it is fascinating in its historical implications; even though the story is fabricated we get to see how life was back then, especially for actors. The result is a crowd-pleasing tale with characters we come to care about, but also an enlightening ride from start to finish.

The handsome production values are other of the movie’s great assets. Richard Greatex’s cinematography, David Gamble’s editing, Martin Childs’s production design, Steve Lawrence’s art direction and Sandy Powell’s costume design are everything you could wish for. And then there is Stephen Warbeck’s music, which is beautiful and downright memorable.

Performances also reach a level of greatness which makes the experience a lot more pleasurable, especially since the actors have to recite very difficult lines and make them credible. Gwyneth Paltrow won an Oscar for her role as Viola, a woman who dreams of passion and romance in her life, but that is constrained by her social status. Joseph Fiennes is also superb as the title writer, infusing him with intensity and romanticism. Geoffrey Rush’s role is mostly comical, and he’s at home. Also at home is Judi Dench, who also won an Oscar for her role as Queen Elizabeth, one of the shortest performances to be bestowed with that honor in history; she really is that good. Colin Firth, Simon Callow, Tom Wilkinson, Ben Affleck, Imelda Staunton, Rupert Everett and the whole ensemble are superb.

“I know something of a woman in a man's profession. Yes, by God, I do know about that.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Votive Pit

Director

Mike McShane

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Director Mike McShane is the son of Florida playwright and former middle school English teacher Shamrock McShane, who wrote “The Votive Pit” for the stage and has now adapted it for the screen. Mike is a first-time director who was kind enough to consider me to review his movie, and sent me a press DVD for the job. It’s kinda hard to get this kind of privilege and then having to say rather unkind words about the piece to review. However, since I’m sure Mike will appreciate honest criticism even if it’s more on the negative spectrum, I will proceed.

The film deals with “the American Dream of Public Education turned Nightmare”, and it shows: set in middle school, it looks like a nightmare and plays like one; you know how sometimes the most nightmarish aspect of a nightmare is that you’re hating it and it keeps your mind busy but you just can’t go anywhere because you’re, like, trapped? I have to say The Votive Pit achieved exactly that, intentionally or not, and I just didn’t like the experience. I spent most of the time wishing that something else happened, that the scenes ran faster, that someone did or said something really interesting. It was a shame because while I was getting those feelings there were a couple brilliant remarks by some characters that I couldn’t fully appreciate because I was so bored.

I would say the main problem is staginess, which is not surprising because it’s based on a play (even David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) suffered from that), but a quicker editing would have helped. Apparently the play’s conversations are composed of monologues, since the discussion is usually of lesser importance than the individual statements. I’m not a fan of soliloquies, but they’re OK if they move the story forward, which mostly wasn’t the case here. It was even worse when some of them seemed repetitious or redundant.

Teachers dealing with frustration is probably the most realistic subject I have seen in a while. I can perfectly understand these people and empathize with them. However, while their reactions attempted to approach a sort of acid humor, they leaned towards the unbearable, their cynicism overwhelming every other characteristic and becoming insufferable.

This was notable in the two main female characters, teachers Edna (Sara Morsey, notably the least theatrical of all performers) and Gladys (Rachel Iannelli, so-so), who unfortunately commanded the screen and left me wanting more from other, much more likeable, characters. Such characters are science teacher “Bald Man” (Shamrock McShane himself, who gives by far the best performance, perhaps because he understands the material better than anyone else), American History teacher Dedalus (Scot Davis, also quite amusing if over-the-top), vice principal Wendy (Julie Tidwell, obligatorily exasperating), and special education teacher Laurelei (Erica Corbett, in an irresistibly sweet and honest showcase); a mosaic of wacky characters relegated by a very obnoxious couple of frustrated female teachers, one of who coughs a tad too much.

While the movie is obviously home-made, it hardly bothered me. Sound isn’t perfect but it’s audible enough, and music sounds good though the soundtrack is a mess that gets in the way more often than not. Like most young directors, McShane attempts to emphasize emotion or realism by changing shots from side to side of two characters in conversation, often taking the place of one to be spoken directly by the other, which is rather distracting and doesn’t ring true. Otherwise, McShane’s job is neat, surprising in fact as a first attempt at it.

The Bald Man’s quest isn’t clear enough and his anxiety is taken to exaggerated lengths. It’s quite possible that the action is set inside his disturbed mind, but there’s no need to disturb the audience. For a bizarre dream, the film is too realistic, and for a realistic slice-on-life, it’s rather bizarre. I never got a feeling of reality, and I’m not talking about the empty classrooms and corridors, because those actually felt crowded somehow; I’m talking about the way people act, move, speak; I’m talking about dialogue, delivery, interaction. I should insist on editing; this movie needs more movement, it needs trimming here and there, dialogue included. If I’m not mistaken, what I saw is not the last cut, so I’d say there’s still a long way to go; which is good news, because there’s a lot of ways to improve it. I hope I still qualify for the next cut, and/or the future work of Mr. McShane.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Airplane!

Director

Jim Abrahams

David Zucker

Jerry Zucker

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

When the American Film Institute published a list of the 100 best Hollywood comedies ever made, Airplane! came on number ten. It’s hard to imagine that a movie that belongs to a much-maligned genre—the spoof—would have so much endurance and admirers. But it has passed the test of time, and it continues to be as funny as when it came out just as the dreadful 80’s were starting. No matter what anyone else says, it is no doubt one of my very own personal favorites.

An ex-war-pilot, Ted Striker (Robert Hays) follows his stewardess ex-girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty) to the airport where she’s just about to board a plane. He wants to rekindle their romance, she wants out. So he gets on the plane as a desperate measure, little knowing that things would go terribly wrong up there.

Airplane! was written and directed by the infamous team made up of David Zucker, Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams. They all made several movies of this sort, but you could say this is their crowning masterpiece. They must surely have improvised a lot while on set, but one thing is to have a funny idea and the other is to be able to successfully accomplish it. Not all jokes work, but damn if most of them hit their mark.

As a matter of fact, this movie could arguably have the most laughs-per-minute than any other in history. Whether you chuckle or laugh-out-loud there will surely be something around the corner to put a smile on your face. Comedy can be a mystery sometimes, but here they just get it. The tone, the performances, the direction, everything comes together in a way that you just can’t but surrender to it. And multiple viewings are required, since you might’ve missed a line or something in the background the first time around and there is plenty of content to get you in stitches.

The main target here are Airport-like movies, but fortunately the flick takes that idea and develops it into something of its own. There are also references to Saturday Night Fever and From Here to Eternity, but most of the jokes come from original, and cleverly silly, material.

Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty are perfect for this type of roles. They carry the movie and play their characters really well. They are not afraid of making fools of themselves even when they’re supposedly playing it straight. Veteran actors Lloyd Bridges and Leslie Nielsen also have pivotal roles and both are hilarious, especially the latter.

“There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?“

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Hound of the Baskervilles

Director

Sidney Lanfield

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

1939’s The Hound of the Baskervilles is far from the first film adaptation of the classic novel by Arthur Conan Doyle, but it remains one of the finest, creating the Hollywood franchise of the famous sleuth and starring for the first time Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. It’s also quite a fine film, and as entertaining as they get.

The story is quite intriguing. Sir Charles Baskerville (Ian Maclaren) dies in the moors around his estate, apparently hunted by a ghostly hound that, legend has it, has haunted the Cantervilles for generations on account of a curse. The next heir, Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene), is thus coming home, so family friend Dr. Mortimer (Lionel Atwill) seeks the help of the famous sleuth Sherlock Holmes, fearing for Sir Henry’s life.

Holmes is a sophisticated and somewhat conceited fellow, but his brilliancy is undeniable. Watson is a condescending old chap who’s the best friend and helper Holmes could wish for. Naturally enough, both men of science, neither believes in the legend of the hound, but both are rather intrigued as to what’s behind it.

So Sir Henry Baskerville goes to his estate, accompanied by Dr. Watson, who soon finds rather strange happenings in the place. He keeps Holmes posted, but Holmes is absent, surprisingly enough, for a good chunk of the movie. In the meantime, Sir Henry romances his neighbor Beryl Stapleton (Wendy Barrie), while a devilish plot seems to be threatening his life.

It’s no secret that Conan Doyle’s stories starring Sherlock Holmes aren’t exactly cinematic: they’re quite introspective, rather talky, and relying heavily on a last-act summary of deductions by the Sleuth. Hardly has any literature entertained me more than Holmes’s stories, but it’s always hard to see them on the screen. This is no exception: even though “Hound” is one of the most filmable stories starring the detective, there’s still a lot of dependency on dialogue and explanations, which makes it look stagy. Furthermore, the scenes are rather static, even when set on the moors with an impressive realization. A general lack of music doesn’t help either.

Yet, there are redeeming values, namely the performances. The casting of Rathbone and Bruce as Holmes and Watson is, as has been said countless times, a stroke of genius. Watson is a tad goofed up for laughs, but he’s reasonably smart in the adaptation so that didn’t really upset me. Holmes, on the other hand, is exactly as I had imagined him; Rathbone is really perfect. Other performers do a great job as well, including Morton Lowry as John Stapleton, John Carradine and Eily Malyon as Mr. and Mrs. Barryman, Nigel De Brulier as a mysterious man in the moors, and… Basil Rathbone as yet another mysterious man.

“Oh, Watson, the needle!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

300

Director

Zack Snyder

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 02, 2007

Technology has advanced immensely during the past few decades and such proceedings have not escaped the cinematic medium. As every year goes by we get more impressive results on-screen regarding clarity and the inclusion of visual effects. We can do things now that a few years ago we could only dream about. There are almost no boundaries, the only one still being the realistic digital recreation of human beings. But directors can now bring their full visions to the big screen and 300 is a step forward in this direction.

In 480 B.C. Leonidas, King of Sparta (Gerard Butler), marched with 300 of his finest soldiers to face the far bigger Persian army led by Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) in what became known as the Battle of Thermopylae. Meanwhile his wife Gorgo (Lena Headey) faced a battle of her own as she desperately tried to urge the council, influenced by Theron (Dominic West), to send help for them.

300 was directed by Zack Snyder, who worked from a script by Kurt Johnstad, Michael Gordon and himself. The source material is the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley. Miller gained notoriety with the moviegoing public a couple of years ago when Robert Rodriguez adapted part of his Sin City series. Whether you like the results or not, there’s no denying that this is a new form of making and watching movies, and it will keep evolving even further. I definitely am up for it, as long as there’s variety and as long as it keeps feeling fresh. It does today, and that’s what matters.

Snyder used the blue-screen technique to shoot his epic and the results are nothing short of breath-taking. The scenery does look fake, but that was the intention, sort of creating a hyper-reality. He’s working at another level altogether, not only regarding the visuals but also the story and the characters; everything is over-the-top. The experience is visually dazzling, a direct assault on the senses. Unfortunately the dialogue and the story itself do not live up to spectacle surrounding it, but the movie never ceases to surprise and be engaging.

Highlight scenes include an extended sequence that has the camera focused on Leonidas as he faces several Persians mid-battle. There’s also a victorious sequence under the rain that is awesome in its conception. And a dream-like sequence involving an oracle is haunting, although it later becomes disturbing.

A narration follows the progress of the movie from the start and I liked it. We don’t know who is narrating until the end, but it works and comes in just at the right places.

Make no mistake about it, this is Gerard Butler’s star-making performance. He appeared in some high-profile roles before and was always good, but his turn here is just going to be difficult to forget. It’s one of those performances that stick with you, he gives his soul and body to it and the result is intense to say the least. Lena Headey is also good as his wife, as is Dominic West as one of many villains (even though his character is underwritten). Supporting players David Wenham, Vincent Regan, Rodrigo Santoro and all the soldiers are consistently good. They’re also all extremely buff and the women are gorgeous, talk about eye-candy!

"Spartans, enjoy your breakfast, for tonight we die in hell!"

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter