CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 31, 2004

In last year’s Kill Bill: Vol. 1, Quentin Tarantino showed that he didn’t care anymore to hide his admiration of countless films, TV shows, and genres, and he filled his movie with many references to them, more in-your-face than ever before, even making the movie more interesting on account of his spectacular integration of references to a coherent story than on account of the story itself. It must be considered that that first half was not intended to be a film on its own until after production was over (when the decision was taken to split the film in two), but still, the fact that the first half is so much like that, makes the experience of the second one rather unsettling.

The revenge saga continues as former assassin Black Mamba a.k.a. The Bride (Uma Thurman) goes after Budd (Michael Madsen), Elle Driver (Darryl Hannah), and of course Bill (David Carradine), who ruined her new decent life by killing her husband-to-be and their friends during her wedding rehearsal. This time around, however, we get to see a lot of this woman’s past, her training with cruel Pai Mei (Chia Hui Liu a.k.a. Gordon Liu), and her relationship with Bill. The reasons of everything are made much clearer, and every character gets an edge of humanity, especially The Bride, whose real name and motivations are finally fully revealed.

I walked into this movie expecting the same kind of flamboyant emptiness from the first installment. I remember being disappointed by the lack of Tarantino’s usual witty dialogues (though there are valuable tidbits here and there), but the showy references to so many interesting genres more than made up for it. By expecting the same thing from the second half, I experienced another kind of disappointment. It’s great to see the characters come to life through Tarantino’s inimitable dialogue, but I’m not sure such fleshed-out humanity belongs in this kind of saga, or what it had become in my mind. I know I enjoyed the first one better; I savored every minute of it whereas I had a hard time understanding what kind of film the second one was, but I think I have finally reached an agreement with myself about it.

The thing is, this is the movie I expected before I saw Vol. 1; if this had been it, I would’ve loved it, it would’ve filled my expectations completely. Instead, in both cases I found myself getting something completely different from what I expected, but something I loved in one way or another, something that put me to think afterwards, as empty as the show could have seemed. I’m pretty sure watching the whole saga as one film (as originally planned) would be a dream come true, and that’s probably a bad thing, in the way that the decision to split the movie in two affected the experience. But since I wouldn’t want to lose any minute in the editing room, I think I prefer it this way. The whole saga is mesmerizing, and every volume is great in itself for different reasons.

Once you get past the unsettledness caused by the fact that you’re actually watching a serious movie this time, the thing gets pretty dense. The Bride’s journey is touching, shattering, much more than it seemed. Her reunions with Budd, Elle, and especially Bill, are emotionally charged for different reasons, and it’s heartbreaking to say the least, not only concerning our heroine. At times, extravagant vignettes, such as Pai Mei’s chapter, undermine all this drama, but the whole is touching and definitely hits many chords.

As one good friend of mine put it, the two keywords of this film are Honor and Destiny, themes that Tarantino is certainly proud to include in his films. In the end, not only is the Bride a fully fleshed human being, but her journey is something we definitely care about in more ways than one. Come to think of it, the fact that this kind of movie achieves that is outstanding, because its nature points the other way. That’s Tarantino, and nobody else could’ve done it so well.

So, as I said, we’ve got those memorable lines at last, and the performances are also something to applaud. Uma Thurman is simply magnificent in one of those few characters that are at the same time funny, tough, sweet, mean, charming, vulnerable, and smart. She plays smoothly, truly dancing with the director, easily becoming the queen of the screen. David Carradine is also remarkable, in what’s probably his best screen work to date, and an injection of adrenaline for his career. Madsen and Driver are well-worth praising as well, as are many other members of the cast.

Needless to say, the procedures are accompanied by a great choice of music, and also original work by RZA and Robert Rodriguez.

I’m here waiting for the compilation, or at least the time when I’ll be able to rent both movies and watch them back-to-back. I’ll savor them as many times as necessary, and I’ll love the experience every time. I know I will. And you can’t say that about many movies, can you?

“That woman deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die... But then again, so does she.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004): Morris

Review

Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

I am a huge of fan of Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) and mostly of anything that Quentin Tarantino directs. No matter what people think or say, I think the man is a genius. That said, I couldn’t wait for the second installment of his revenge saga, which, as it happens, is absolutely different from its predecessor.

The Bride (Uma Thurman) continues on her quest to kill the people who murdered her boyfriend and friends just when she was about to get married. Next on the list are Budd (Michael Madsen), who is already waiting for her, and Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah). Bill (David Carradine) comes at the end, of course. But will she make it to the end?

Let’s cut to the chase and say first things first that I definitely like Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) much more. That’s not to demerit its sequel, but they really are two extremely different movies and I enjoyed the first installment a lot more in every single aspect.

In this second half there’s barely any violence. It is much more Tarantinesque in the way dialogue plays a much more important role. We finally get to know a bit more about the characters’ past and what brought them to the place where they are now. That includes the relationship between The Bride and Bill, and her further martial arts training by Pai Mei (Chia Hui Liu). The characters are further developed and brought forward.

Now, that’s a good thing, but still, the scene I liked the most in the entire movie is the one where Elle and The Bride meet. That whole sequence in the trailer is brilliant, from the dialogue to the acting to the choreography to the denouement. Tarantino at his best. Scenes with Pai Mei are also highlights.

Not faring that well, for me, are the final scenes with Bill. Some things work and some don’t. I felt some contrivance in them, especially when their child also appears. But there’s also some marvelous stuff in them, such as Bill’s Superman monologue. A mixed bag, although I don’t want to spoil anything for you. I’ll only say this: the very final scene is a blast, loved it.

Oh, and the use of music is, once again, extraordinary.

Uma Thurman has never been better. Well, she has, for she is an excellent actress, but in this second installment we get to see a lot more range in her performance and I must say she is outstanding. I think this will be one of the best performances of the year, hands down. David Carradine, on the other hand, is effectively resurrected by Tarantino and given a great role with which he does great things. And the delicious Daryl Hannah is beyond excellent as the deadly Elle Driver.

Now that the whole story has been fleshed out for us, I’d love to see a complete version, no matter how long it is. Tarantino has already put it together and hopefully they’ll have it on DVD. Then again, if they don’t, I’ll be more than satisfied to watch the two parts over and over again.

“I guess I overreacted.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004): Groucho

Review

Love on the Run

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1979

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

The final installment of Antoine Doinel’s saga, the semi-autobiographic life-long work of French auteur filmmaker François Truffaut, is, if anything, a bookend. Nine years after the previous installment, Bed & Board (1970), Truffaut joined forces for the last time with Jean-Pierre Léaud, the man who played the part and made it his own since its first appearance in the classic The Four Hundred Blows (1959), and brought us L’Amour en fuite.

By now, to be perfectly honest, there are few if any references to the aforementioned landmark of The New Wave of European film. Antoine Doinel films soon became a comedic franchise, bittersweet to be sure, but comedic nonetheless, and the central character’s eccentricities became hilarious mannerisms that were unabashedly exploited by the filmmaker and the actor. Please don’t think I’m trashing what they did, for I’m doing exactly the opposite. Antoine Doinel is one of the most important characters of cinema because his whole life is well known to us all, and his development is very realistic and credible. He never was a plain character, but through the years his complexity only grew. I don’t think there’s one fan who fully understands the man, and that’s what makes him so real, and fascinating.

So, I was saying, this final episode is a bookend. In a way, it’s another episode with almost as much hilarity and poignancy as the previous installments. But in a way, it’s a melancholic look at the life of a man who’s tirelessly searched for happiness and settlement but hasn’t been able to find either, himself being his own worst enemy.

This time around, Antoine finally divorces Christine (Claude Jade), and looks for love elsewhere, namely in gorgeous Sabine (Dorothée), a lovely girl who loves him pretty much. Surprisingly, even Antoine doesn’t trust himself anymore, and his lack of faith, more than his usual incorrigible impulses, drags him away to different experiences.

The most important subplot of the film deals with a chance encounter between Antoine and Colette (Marie-France Pisier), none other than the girl he courted in the short film Antoine et Colette (1962). She’s thrilled to see him again, and so is he, but their conversations (on a train) end up sadly as both uncover their own sad aspects and realize what sad lives they lead. Antoine, a writer whose autobiography is self-indulgent and often imprecise, reflects for the first time about himself and what he really wants and has always wanted.

Fascinating as it is, Truffaut’s character goes through the very same process the filmmaker probably went through with his Antoine Doinel films. His self-analysis must’ve been sad to say the least, and here we can see with our own eyes the reflection of the man who chose to analyze his life and realize he only made himself believe he was happy while he wasn’t. At meeting Colette, Antoine puts his life in perspective, and reevaluates his existence. He hasn’t changed much, but he’s willing to.

Though the film relies too heavily in the use of flashbacks during the first half (featuring every episode of the saga), it comes into shape during the second half and provides a good share of laughs and poignancy. There’s a bizarre subplot involving a girlfriend of Christine’s (Dani) that even adds suspense to the procedures.

Love on the Run is indeed the weakest episode (not counting the second one, which is a short film), but it’s still a perfect ending, something fans were hoping to see someday, and something that makes perfect sense. To those of us who consider “Antoine Doinel” movie mythology, seeing Colette and Christine meet is surreal and jaw-dropping. But mostly, it’s important to see the story of our hero wrap up, the least unpleasant way possible. This movie does that for us. And I thank Truffaut for it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Troy

Director

Wolfgang Petersen

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 24, 2004

I had been anticipating Troy since it was shooting in the Mexican coasts. A big screen adaptation of Homer’s Iliad sounded fantastic, even more so with the absolutely jaw-dropping cast that director Wolfgan Petersen managed to put together. I couldn’t wait!

After a peaceful trip to Sparta in which Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom) were cheerfully greeted by Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), they set off to their land, Troy, with Menelaus’s wife, Helen (Diane Kruger) at Paris’s side. Their father Priam (Peter O’Toole) decided to respect his young son’s will, and started to prepare for a war with Greece, as Menelaus’s brother, Agamemnon (Brian Cox) took the opportunity to go against the Trojans and conquer their land. For that he recruited the deadliest warrior alive, Achilles (Brad Pitt), who decided to go for the glory of his name if not for anything else.

First and foremost, Troy is an epic in the best way Hollywood knows to produce them. I happen to think it could have been better with a tighter script and more emotion at stake, but ultimately I did love every second of it. It’s big, it’s huge, it’s passionate and most of all, it’s great entertainment.

I find the Trojan War to be remarkably fascinating because of what actually fired up such a battle between two such powerful nations: love. How romantic can that get? Well, it is romantic from a poetic point of view, but from a realistic one it’s actually ridiculous and pointless. That’s what I liked most about the movie, that it doesn’t judge its characters but simply presents them, and the consequences of their acts, as they are believed to have happened. Therein lie its intelligence and the involvement of the audience in a predicament difficult to understand or take a stand for.

The movie focuses mainly on Achilles, a mesmerizing character if there ever was one. He was a killing machine who fought for no one but himself. So even though he was there because of the Greeks, there was that inner division between them that made things more complicated. Here’s a man who lived his life, as only he wanted to live it. You could say the reasons behind his acts were purely egoistical, but then again, aren’t we all like that?

The best-developed character in the movie is Hector, though, a character with dignity, knowledge and skill in equal measures. He can sense the absurdity of war, he knows he may die and leave his wife and newborn alone in the world, he knows the devastation it could bring… but he can do nothing about it but stand to his family and fight for his country. A noble man indeed.

As a matter of fact, Greek Mythology is quite enthralling. Melodramatic to say the least, but absolutely cinematic. And the movie takes the essence out of its story. Huge battles and one-on-ones are always exciting and well shot. More intimate scenes provide the meat that fleshes out the myth. And the last half hour is brilliant to say the least, with Achilles and Hector fighting each other in the best scene of the movie, followed closely by a quiet encounter between Prime and Achilles. And the recreation of the Horse and its implications is breathtaking.

Only big downside: James Horner's disappointing score. Everything else in the technical department is impeccable, although I could've done without some rather cheesy reaction shots here and there.

As performances go, the movie excels. Eric Bana is especially good in the best role of the movie. But Peter O’Toole is equally mesmerizing in a small role that he plays with all the pizzazz required. His scenes are easily the best of the movie, and he takes the most out of his brief appearance. Ditto for Julie Christie, haunting in the sole scene she has. Brad Pitt, on the other hand, is extraordinary as Achilles. He looks like a god and fights like one as well. That was him. A man with more inner demons that it appears. And Pitt disappears in the role. I stopped seeing him after a while and could only see Achilles. Meanwhile, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, Orlando Bloom, Brendan Gleeson, Sean Bean, Rose Byrne and many more lend good support.

“You're still my enemy tonight.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Troy (2004): Groucho

Review

Selena

Director

Gregory Nava

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 20, 2004

If you’re like me, then you had never ever heard of Mexican-American singer Selena until the day she died. Her murder made headlines and she became even bigger than she was in life. Suddenly we all knew her story and started to hear her songs. I even became a semi-fan. A movie was to be expected, and after a few years it was finally made.

The movie tells the story of Selena (Jennifer Lopez), a Tejano girl who was discovered by her father Abraham (Edward James Olmos) who further encouraged her to become a professional singer, which she did to a lot of success. Her life ended at age 23 when she was murdered by her assistant Yolanda Saldívar (Lupe Ontiveros).

Selena exists for two main reasons: it works as a biography of this person who meant so much for many different people, and it is an inspirational story. Selena was a girl who followed her dreams and ultimately achieved what she was looking for. She loved to dance and sing, and she became a sensation in that regard. But her life wasn’t easy. Her father was too strict, and she even had to marry her guitarist in secret.

Now, while the movie certainly works as a dramatic piece, it does have its flaws. It suffers from the usual biography symptoms in which we see this girl in different stages of her life with some very uncomfortable transitions in time frames that don’t quite gel.

Selena also, not surprisingly, celebrates the singer’s music. Huge scenes are set up for concerts and events that actually happened, and director Gregory Nava handles them very well. People who don’t like her music will find the movie tiring, but fortunately she was known for lively, rhythmic tunes that are always a blast to hear. The movie shows it and we feel it.

As performances go, the movie belongs to Jennifer Lopez, who was mostly unknown (yes, she was once) by the time the movie got made. She ended up getting a Golden Globe nod and a lot of roles that eventually catapulted her to stardom. Selena is arguably one of her best performances despite all the work she’s done since, because she is simple, natural and emulates the singer amazingly well. Whether she’s talking, singing or dancing, Lopez is a hoot.

An enjoyable movie about a girl whose dreams were shattered, but who nevertheless left a big impression in the world she inhabited. Well done.

“We have to be more American than the Americans and more Mexican than the Mexicans. It's twice as exhausting!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Antoine et Colette

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Probably as an experimental attempt to extend the experiences of Antoine Doinel, the main character from the classic The Four Hundred Blows (1959), co-writer/director François Truffaut, who’s also, incidentally, the real-life person Doinel is based upon, participated in the film Love at Twenty with the segment “Antoine et Colette”. As I haven’t had the chance to watch the whole film, but only Truffaut’s segment, I decided to review it by itself, given its significance. I realize that the whole film has its own importance, and promise to review it as a whole whenever I get the chance.

That said, I proceed to review the short second episode of what has now become the Antoine Doinel saga. In it, Truffaut established young Doinel as an idealist dreamer and womanizer, a tireless pursuer of his goals, and also a terribly voluble, insatiable, and unstable young man. Estranged from his parents, now working at Philips Records to sustain himself, Antoine (Jean-Pierre Léaud, reprising his role) falls for Colette (Marie-France Pisier), a pretty girl he meets at a music lecture. Unfortunately, Colette is mysterious and elusive, and willingly or unwillingly leads Antoine on, until he’s sort of obsessed with the fellow music lover. After a series of attempts to conquer her heart, the charming Antoine gets her parents’ affection, but hardly her own.

Jean-Pierre Léaud evolved impressively, as did Antoine Doinel in Truffaut’s mind. The sweeter tone of the script is perfectly absorbed by Léaud, who still underplays his role, with his trademark sadness in his eyes, but now also a sense of optimism and wit that suit the part to a tee.

The tone of the film demanded a continuation. It managed to create a transition from the shattering (if genius) plot of The Four Hundred Blows (1959) into a sweeter, if also in ways saddening, look at the life of a young and confused man in a continuous struggle to understand himself and the world he lives in. The continuation, thank goodness, came six years later in the form of Stolen Kisses (1968), which now showed in full flower the Antoine many of us came to love in this gem of a short film.

Strikingly directed by Truffaut, this short is well-worth a look (obligatory if you ask me), as it constitutes a bridge between two of the most brilliant films of this genius French auteur.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Van Helsing

Director

Stephen Sommers

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

You know what? I heard almost nothing positive about this movie prior to seeing it last night. Critics simply trashed it with gusto. Yet, from what I had seen in the trailers, I still felt like watching it. It look like mindless, stupid fun. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing really, and I had a blast watching this movie.

Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is sent to Transylvania to hunt down Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), who has been after Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) and her family for a long time. But Dracula has something else in his agenda, as he’s planning to give life to his immense amount of… babies. He needs Frankenstein’s Monster (Shuler Hensley) for that though, and he will do everything to get him, including releasing the Wolfman (Will Kemp) who will kill anything that comes in his way.

Well, at least that’s what I think the movie is about. You see, I’m not here to try and defend the indefensible. This movie is bad. It is real bad. But it definitely, at least in my book, is so bad that it becomes good. Yes, I’m not kidding. The movie is over-the-top, completely over-saturated when it comes to special effects, it’s got clumsy dialogue and a storyline that might be extremely ridiculous to die-hard fans of the monsters in the movie. In one word, it’s campy.

But guess what? Everyone involved in the movie knows it! They do! And they go with it. And so did I. I knew what I went to see and got immersed in the movie to the point where I kept laughing at everything and having a really good time.

I mean, at least form a visual point of view it’s a blast. Sure, some of the effects seem to come right out of a videogame, but so what, everything else is visually impressive: from the sets to the costumes to the production design. Besides, a movie that has Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Igor, three crazy Vampire bitches and a quite funny monk should be enjoyable at some level. And it is.

As performances go, there’s nothing really special to mention, since everyone is in full action mode and do a good job at that. Roxburgh, as Dracula, has gotten terrible reviews, but I found his performance to be absolutely in tone with the movie he’s inhabiting. Downplaying it would’ve been out of place. Everything in this movie is big, fast, loud and as exaggerated as it can get.

Here’s a movie in which the director is having a blast playing with old characters we all know and love, and giving them a different spin. Cheers to that!

“Actually, I’m a friar. I can do whatever I want. Dammit.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Troy

Director

Wolfgang Petersen

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 17, 2004

Homer’s “The Iliad” is a gorgeous poem based on the true story of the historical clash between Troy and Greece, allegedly propelled by one of the latter’s Princes’ “abducting” of a sacred woman (an actual daughter of Zeus, according to mythology) from the opposite land. The poem is obviously an allegorical interpretation of what actually happened, a text that mixes mythology with history and even includes gods as characters. History is a bit unclear concerning the actual episodes that inspired such immortal tales, but there are indeed enough reasons to believe that a lot of it actually happened.

From this premise is born Troy, a great summer epic, worried as much about making money as it is about telling an interesting tale and do it elegantly, entertainingly, and intelligently. Well, frankly, I think it’s more worried about making money than anything else, but still, to my eyes, the result is a big success.

During a peaceful trip to Sparta, Prince Paris (Orlando Bloom), who’s accompanying his older brother Hector (Eric Bana), falls for breathtakingly beautiful Helen (Diane Kruger), the wife of Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), brother of Agamemnon (Brian Cox). Helen corresponds to Paris’s love, and flees with him, which obviously enrages Menelaus, whose brother Agamemnon is pleased to help by leading Greek armies to Troy.

One of Greece’s deadliest warriors, Achilles (Brad Pitt), reputed for obeying no more rules than his own, is summoned to war but hardly finds a reason to go. At least not until his friend Odysseus (Sean Bean) makes him see that if he goes, his name will be remembered for all time, which obsesses Achilles.

A lot of things happen in Troy. The main plot concerns the war, but there are countless subplots giving equal weigh to every one of the main characters. For instance, while Achilles is seemingly nothing more than a killing machine, his humanity is revealed through his romance with Briseis (Rose Byrne), the cousin of Hector and Paris kidnapped by the Greek during their first battle. At the same time, Hector becomes a fully rendered character (in fact, the best developed), a man who cares as much for his family as he does for his country, and his honor. His father, Priam (Peter O’Toole), King of Troy, is also a very rich character, made even richer by the outstanding performance of this legendary actor, who makes the most of his little onscreen time, and becomes the most unforgettable performer of this epic.

Not all the characters have such luck, however. While Brian Cox scores again as Agamemnon, his character is nothing more than a typical villain; Bloom’s casting as Paris is ideal, and his key character has enough moments to make things clear concerning him, but being such a pivotal character you would probably expect something more from the script. The same for Helen of Troy, among others.

Nevertheless, I can’t say there’s a single moment wasted in the whole long film. Every battle, every panoramic view, every piece of dialogue, and every quiet moment, serves a purpose. If there’s something I can’t take (which I couldn’t have made clearer in my review of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)) it’s the tiresome battle scenes that go on forever and seem to have no purpose other than to try and impress on their own. To most people it works, as it seems, but to me it just turns unbearable. Troy, thank God, offers a way out of this. Every battle scene is interesting because it moves the story forward, or sets the pieces for something important to come. Take, for instance, the battle scene which focuses mostly on Hector giving hell to an enemy warrior though there are thousands of people fighting all around. I wondered why they did this, and later on I got it: It was very important to make it clear that Hector was actually brave and deadly. Telling us wasn’t enough. This made the battle scene between him and Achilles (the film’s climax to my eyes) completely credible and much more exciting.

Troy is a Hollywood product in the whole sense of the term. There were probably more hairdressers than stunts working on it, and millions of dollars were spent for the sets and visual effects (which by the way, mesmerized me, as they were completely invisible!). Every actor is a hunk and every actress is gorgeous, and the film doesn’t mind showing their attributes more often than not (I was fed up of Brad Pitt’s body, and I don’t think I was the only one). But I didn’t give a damn about this, because the things that mattered were present, and the story was rich and richly told. Screenwriter David Benioff and director Wolfgang Petersen respected mythology and history, but also Hollywood standards, and created something that can please everyone, from popcorn munchers to history buffs to Homer fans. Just see how they blend myths and facts in such obligatory episodes as the Trojan Horse or the definition of the term “Achilles heel”. I just loved that.

I still must state that I would love to see modern Hollywood epics rely much less in Hollywood clichés and much more in storytelling, but I think this is a step in the right direction. Good work!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Troy (2004): Morris

Review

Life with Father

Director

Michael Curtiz

Year

1947

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 13, 2004

One of always-reliable director Michael Curtiz’s best-loved works is also one of his least known nowadays, despise its being based on one of the all-time most successful Broadway plays. I’m talking about Life With Father, the adaptation of Howard Lindsay and Russel Crouse’s stage hit based on Clarence Day’s memoirs which “starred” his father, Mr. Day, an eccentric, difficult, but loving man, who truly deserved a book, a play, and a film (and even a further TV series) made about him.

William Powell plays Mr. Day, a prestigious and successful turn-of-the-century New York stockbroker who liked his home ran almost business-like, with strict rules (especially for maids) that must be followed literally to prevent an upset. Irene Dunne is Vinnie, his loving wife, who saw that everything was perfect at home while also getting her way at every turn. Their four redheaded boys: Clarence (Jimmy Lydon), John (Martin Milner), Whitney (Johnny Calkins), and Harlan (Derek Scott), were encouraged to seek work and business while living in fairly luxurious fashion.

The film deals with multiple subplots of the daily life of this family. Mr. Clarence Day is seriously disturbed by Vinnie’s decision to invite her cousin Cora (Zasu Pitts), and young acquaintance Mary Skinner (Elizabeth Taylor), to stay a few days at their house. Clarence doesn’t know at first that they’ll be staying, so when he finds out, all his delight to see Cora turns into a big upset for the family. Not for all of it, however, as Clarence Jr. falls for young Mary. Luckily for him, the feeling is mutual, but their different religions (both Christian, but from different churches) will probably cause trouble. As it turns out, in a conversation related to this, Mr. Day says he hasn’t been baptized, which clearly disturbs Vinnie; who sets her mind to get him baptized, aided by Reverend Dr. Lloyd (Edmund Gwenn), but Clarence’s stubbornness is hard to pass over. In the meantime, two of the children become medicine salesmen, and try the allegedly miraculous solution (which they are supposed to sell) on their mother, who’s feeling bad. The result is exactly the opposite than expected, which shakes the whole family badly. Life goes on, but everyone changes.

The film plays like a soap opera, with free comedy sprinkled throughout the drama, which results in a melodrama at times tragic, at times hilarious, but mostly bittersweet. Powell’s performance is absolutely magnificent, which, completed by Dunne’s own brilliant one, makes up for an unforgettable screen experience. Curtiz’s detailed direction and J. Peverell Marley’s colorful photography make it an outstanding visual experience too, and the plot (adapted for the screen by Donald Ogden Stewart) is so rich that it really gives an idea of how upper middle class families lived circa 1890. The story touches such interesting subjects of American culture as invention, patent medicine, and the clash between free thinking and religious orthodoxy, so it’s worthwhile in many ways, especially for Americans interested in the evolution of their society.

Surely, it’s also notable for one of Elizabeth Taylor’s early performances; she’s truly lovely and perfect for the role.

All in all, a true delight.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Carandiru

Director

Hector Babenco

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Before I saw this movie, I had never heard of Carandiru, a Brazilian prison where a major tragedy happened in 1992. The movie was shown at the Cannes Film Festival to a good response, so it instantly became a must for me. A year later it’s finally coming to the U.S. in limited release, and I hope many people watch it because it is an important movie, no more no less.

When Doctor Drauzio Varella (Luiz Carlos Vasconcelos) arrived to do social work of AIDS prevention in Carandiru he met all sorts of people and heard all sorts of stories. The movie depicts the Doctor’s experiences inside the State Penitentiary located in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

I had a wrong conception of this movie right until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. I thought the movie would be the story of how that infamous tragedy had happened. I though it would be all about the building up until that event. But instead, the movie is neither about that nor does it try to be. We spend two hours getting to know the prison and its people, never foreshadowing any sign of tragedy. It is until the last minutes that things completely switch, and by then we’re completely immersed in the story. It is a cathartic finale, and a shocking one as well.

Ultimately, the movie is more about human stories and about life in such a prison. I had never seen, neither in movies nor in books, a prison like Carandiru. It was a place where prison mates could make their own lives albeit limited by the walls that surrounded them. But despite that “freedom”, you could say human rights were questionable there. I had also never seen a franker depiction of homosexuality in a prison. Human beings are sexual by nature, and when they don’t have women around they can behave in many different ways. The movie shows that in immense detail, and it is simply as crude as it must’ve been in real life.

For that’s what the movie ultimately achieves… it creates a shockingly real portrait of what Carandiru was. Life in prison sure wasn’t pretty, but inmates were there for a reason and we get to see that too. Every story had some interesting spin to it. And every story was just as haunting, whether in or outside those walls.

If I had to say anything bad about the movie is that its 142 minutes feel as if they were 180. But the work of the director is impeccable. And the movie is expertly edited as well.

The ensemble cast, which includes Luiz Carlos Vasconcelos, Milhem Cortaz, Milton Gonçalves, Ivan de Almeida, Ailton Graça, Maria Luisa Mendonça, Aida Leiner, Rodrigo Santoro, Gero Camilo and many more, is flawless.

A haunting, harsh real-life story.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Anything Else

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

“Woody Allen is a little bit out of shape,” said a good friend of mine, and long-time Woody fan, about his latest films. What amazed me the most is that his comments rang true more than ever when I saw Anything Else, which was being filmed at the time he said that. See, my friend said Woody is basically recycling his own ideas from the 70s, and changing the setups to make them look fresh. One cannot deny Woody’s genius from the 80s, and even some of the 90s (I’ve always been his fan, as a matter of fact). But I’m sad to say my friend was right; a film like Anything Else does nothing for Mr. Allen.

The plot introduces us to two comedians: 21-year-old Jerry Falk (Jason Biggs) and 60-year-old David Dobel (Woody Allen), who meet each other at an interview to write jokes for a comedian. Dobel is so impressed by the eccentric (and ineffective) ways of Jerry’s agent, Harvey (Danny DeVito), that he befriends Falk in the way of making fun of the latter. Their friendship is basically based on afternoon conversations in Central Park, where Jerry tells Dobel all about his lovely girlfriend Amanda (Christina Ricci) - How they met, what their issues are, what their plans are, etc. As it turns out, Jerry and Amanda’s relationship is nothing short of disastrous, as both (but especially she) have serious psychological problems. As a means to advice Jerry, paranoid and sociopath Dobel convinces him of building a “survival kit”, which includes a rifle. As Jerry tries to deal with his nervous romance, his sociopath friend, and his lousy manager, Amanda’s mother Paula (Stockard Channing) moves into Jerry’s apartment he shares with Amanda. It’s all so damn disastrous…

I didn’t know much about this film before I walked into the theater on a rainy afternoon. I was expecting fairly fun Allen fare (I don’t expect much more from him myself these days) and that’s exactly what I got. Except, I was a bit pissed off to find that his new film is basically a rehash of his most celebrated film, Annie Hall (1977), except this time it’s so full of angst and anger.

There’s no denying that a smart move by Allen to keep his films fresh is to stop casting himself in the romantic lead. Casting Biggs in the lead is a big asset, not only because he’s young and fresh, but because he embodies Woody’s persona to perfection and manages to make it feel like an innovation. As a matter of fact, whenever he shares the screen with Woody, it’s like seeing a conversation between the same character (which is probably, in a way, the way it was intended to be). Ricci is absolutely perfect and delightful as well, though her character is something of a femme fatale. Woody’s camera loves her and makes us love her, despite the script’s tendency to hate her. As a matter of fact, Woody’s writing is frank to the point of being spiteful, targeted against women like never before, and even attacking psychoanalysis, a method of therapy Woody usually supported.

I think Woody has two kind of comic films: Those that rely on a hilarious plot, and those whose main plot is nothing extraordinary but have enough observations on different aspects of life to make the whole worthwhile. The latter are the most brilliant, and Annie Hall (1977) definitely belongs there. Anything Else, in addition to having a main plot quite similar to the aforementioned masterpiece, attempts to observe aspects of romance and society and make them hilarious enough to carry the whole movie. It doesn’t work. The romance is so aggressive that it’s hard to take our eyes away, and if there are smart observations at times, they’re hard to catch (even if Biggs talks to the camera more often than not). Plus, they’re not really funny. It’s sad to see a mayhem situation and a phone conversation in split-screen, which would usually be hilarious Woody fare, but it’s not. And that’s because there’s nothing there to make it funny, or interesting. Sad is what it is.

Nevertheless, as ever with Woody, there are great aspects in this film. As I said, the performances are fantastic, and there are still very good one-liners to stand out. The jazz music, if out of place, is enjoyable, as are the wonderful New York vistas, this time focusing on Central Park.

Oh, and one more thing: The theater I saw this film in was mostly filled with teenagers expecting the kind of film Jason Biggs would usually appear in. The poster, which seemed to want to hide Woody Allen’s responsibility on the project, showed Biggs and Ricci, which I’m sure made it irresistible for them. In the end, as expected, they were very disappointed and confused. Who’s to blame? And what’s to do about it? I wish I knew.

“The pill makes her crazy? Falk, she is crazy. The Pentagon should use her hormones for chemical warfare.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Calendar Girls

Director

Nigel Cole

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 10, 2004

Every year there’s a small British comedy that manages to get to the heart of millions of people for its sheer simplicity and good nature. In 2003, that slot belonged to Calendar Girls, a winning comedy based on a true story that charms its way to success.

When Annie (Julie Walters) loses her husband John (John Alderton) due to leukemia, she and her best friend Chris (Helen Mirren) set out to do a calendar in which they would appear nude in order to raise money to buy a new sofa for their hospital. They must then set on a quest to find friends who want to participate, the perfect photographer, and the approval of their families, not to mention dealing with the scrutiny of the media once the calendar is finally released.

I would never have guessed that a movie starring a bunch of mature ladies would be so much fun! I had a blast watching this movie. It can make you laugh or cry or simply have a good time. It is a very inspirational story full of heart and wonderful moments.

It’s funny, because I thought the movie would only be about the making of the calendar, but I never thought it would be about the aftermath of that. I’m glad they touched on those subjects, because we can see that it wasn’t all about the fun and success, but there was actually another side to it that wasn’t as pretty. That’s not to say the movie suddenly becomes grim. It never loses its lighthearted touch which is just the perfect tone for it.

What’s more striking is that the movie is based on a true story. And I loved the way their lives suddenly changes and got a different spin after doing the calendar. It suddenly became about something else, and that’s heartbreaking. I also loved the way these old ladies never lost their sense of humor. They can be really funny, especially that little one who’s always walking her dog.

Helen Mirren is not only good, she’s fantastic in a tailor-made part in which she’s also very, if I may say so, sexy. A great counter-part is Julie Walters, who can say so much with only the look on her face. These two actresses together are dynamite. And they’re surrounded by a great supporting cast that only adds to the fun.

Delightful!

“You’re nude in The Telegraph, dear… Can you pass the bacon?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lenny

Director

Bob Fosse

Year

1974

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Two years after his enormously successful film adaptation of the musical play Cabaret, director Bob Fosse brought us Lenny, a non-musical adaptation of the life of the notorious —and brilliant— Lenny Bruce, one of the most important stand-up comedians in American history.

Based on the stage play by Julian Barry (and adapted by Barry himself), Lenny is an elegant film that plays in pseudo-documentary fashion (somewhat reminiscent of Citizen Kane (1941)). The true story of Lenny Bruce is developed layer by layer through interviews with people who knew him well, all of who are played here by actors. Flashbacks abound of course, and the rhythm of the film (edited by Alan Heim) is almost like that of a bombastic Broadway musical. The drama is very effective but the process is entertaining, if somewhat tortuous, much like Lenny Bruce’s acts that made him famous.

Dustin Hoffman is breathtaking in a performance unlike anything he’s ever done, really possessed by the real Lenny, of whom he found out as much as possible and even studied actual footage of his acts (including one Lenny did dressed only in a raincoat, which Hoffman imitated and turned into an unbelievable one-take shot towards the end of the film). The result is hypnotic, as he brought to life this truly complex character, whose evolution is made completely credible at all times.

Lenny Bruce was a complex and conflicted man indeed, a famous defender of freedom of speech whose stubbornness and excesses eventually put an end to his life. Though the film and the play it’s based on have been accused of being preachy on their own (beyond Lenny’s own statements or beliefs), I believe Lenny wasn’t betrayed in the least. His notoriousness comes from the way he always pushed the limits concerning language and themes in his acts, as well as his excessive personal life, always defying conventionalism, and that is made clear here.

Though important facts of Lenny’s life are skipped, one of the most important catalysts of his tumultuous and self-destructive existence is present: His marriage to stripper Honey (Valerie Perrine). Perrine is outstanding in the portrait of this difficult woman, who was as fragile as she was willing to love, and in need of true love.

Fosse, a true lover of theater (who worked in it pretty much) translated the play into film in a sumptuous way that clearly shows the stage influence. The photography by Bruce Surtees takes care of the lighting down to the smallest detail; shot in black and white, it’s a true visual treat. Another asset is the music by Ralph Burns, which is discrete, but quite poignant.

And why not mention the performances again? Hoffman and Perrine are truly beyond words. They must be seen to be believed. The supporting cast (Jan Miner, Stanley Beck, among others) is also uniformly great.

But the true star of the film is undoubtedly Lenny Bruce himself. He really fills the screen throughout the two hours, in a biopic that manages to transmit much of who he was and how he was and how the people saw him. His excessive persona turns the film, as I said before, into a tortuous process at times, but it’s still impossible to look away. His message is clear, but the tumultuous way in which he lived his life made it hard for him to find a good way to transmit it and still be good at what he did. I knew very little of Lenny Bruce before I watched this film, and I felt like an expert (if a bit fed up of him) after I saw it. It’s that potent. Highly recommendable.

“I think I’m gonna piss on you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Taking Lives

Director

D.J. Caruso

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

You know? I had somehow given up hope about Angelina Jolie. She was a big revelation at first, appearing gorgeous and always delivering amazing performances. She then went into a slump and starred in several movies that did nothing for her. That’s why seeing Taking Lives wasn’t precisely on my schedule. But then the movie arrived and it got good reviews. Could it not suck? The seal of approval came when my pal Groucho recommended it. That’s how I ended up seeing it… and falling in love with it in the way.

FBI Agent Illeana (Angelina Jolie) travels to Montreal in order to help find the identity of a serial killer who kills his victims by smashing their heads and cutting off their hands. It is her old pal Leclair (Tchécky Karyo) who called her, even though Paquette (Olivier Martinez) is not too happy to have her around. Everything changes when a witness appears. Costa (Ethan Hawke) claims to have seen the killer’s latest murder, so he instantly becomes the police’s greatest ally. A cat-and-mouse game ensues.

I really got a kick out of Taking Lives. Director D.J. Caruso has got what it takes and provides his movie with equal shares of style, intelligence and scares. I was especially intrigued by the way the movie never insulted my intelligence. It has a tight script that is not without its minor flaws, but it had been a while since a thriller of this type had caused such a reaction in me.

I love plot twists, I always have. And this movie is full of them. However, most movies of this kind rarely satisfy. Once the identity of the killer is revealed then it all goes downhill. Well, most times. Not here though. The movie doesn’t do anything we haven’t seen before, but perhaps the way the characters are established and the way the director handles his movie are important points to make us care and believe what we see on-screen.

I had a blast. Every turn was a delight. I never saw anything coming, and the movie kept surprising me at every corner until the last frame. Great ending, by the way. Some people didn’t like it. I loved it, and it made total sense if you come to think about the characters’ personalities.

Another pleasure the movie has to offer is Angelina Jolie herself. Wow, my faith is restored. This is her best performance in a long while. She’s extraordinary. Her character doesn’t say much, but you can sense what she’s thinking with only a glance. She’s both vulnerable and tough. And the way she slowly melts throughout the movie is heartbreaking. Ethan Hawke is also quite good. And I loved Gena Rowlands in the small role she has. Creepy!!!

Worth mentioning is Philip Glass’s terrific score and Amir M. Mokri’s cinematography.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before Sunrise

Director

Richard Linklater

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

A rare task was accomplished by Director Richard Linklater in 1995: He managed to create a film of pure romance, not a romantic comedy, or a tear-jerking drama, or some sort of romance-amidst-larger-events piece of fiction. No. He created a purely romantic film, not lacking comedy or drama, but relying mainly on the romance to work as a film. And he pulled it off. The name is Before Sunrise.

The film puts American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and French Celine (Julie Delpy) on an European train on its way to Vienna. Chance dictates that they meet each other, and befriend each other, before the train reaches its nearest stop. Despite several minutes of nice conversation, the friendship is over much too quickly, as they get to Vienna and Jesse has to get off and spend the night there before he flies away from Europe. Jesse and Celine say good-bye, and the story ends as nothing more than a chance encounter.

Or does it? Jesse reappears, much to Celine’s surprise, and proposes her to spend the night with him, wandering around Vienna, as that’s what he was planning to do anyway (all by himself). It’s insane maybe, but she eventually agrees, and off they go. The morning after, they’re crazy about each other, after a night talking, wandering, and falling in love.

What’s so irresistible about Before Sunrise? First of all, I’d say you can’t get a film about two people, and two people only, to be more entertaining than this without more external factors. This isn’t It Happened One Night (1934) or Roman Holiday (1953), where the characters have different motivations than falling in love and hide things from each other; this is simple romance, an adventure that can be silly or unforgettable, but has nothing extraordinary going on, other than two strangers spending an amazing night with each other.

The way the script (by Linklater and Kim Krizan) handles this is admirable, as Jesse and Celine keep chatting about anything and everything, from trivial stuff to philosophical themes (and quite a bit about relationships and love), but they never make it boring, for each other or for us. And yet, every stage of their relationship is believable, from the undeniable attraction they feel to each other, to the clumsiness of their first signs of affection, to the tragedy of seeing the night get to an end…

The second aspect that makes the film work is the actors. Both Hawke and Delpy are beyond words in their roles, and sometimes it’s even hard to believe that they’re actually acting. I’m not sure if the roles were written for them, but they fit them to a tee, even in some physical aspects made reference to at times. I believed the fantasy completely and I thank the actors for making it so perfect.

Filmed in wonderful locations throughout Vienna (including a nostalgic remembrance of The Third Man (1949)), this film can be criticized for being talky, and at times rather tiresome; but it’s certainly not in the least boring, and something’s for sure: It’s very very romantic.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Secret Window

Director

David Koepp

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 03, 2004

How could I not want to see this movie? I’d see anything Johnny Depp does, anything! And being this an adaptation of a Stephen King story, well, it could be fun. Sometimes King adaptations are masterpieces, other times they fail miserably. This one falls somewhere in between.

Mort Rainey (Johnny Depp) is a successful writer who hasn’t been the same since he caught his wife (Maria Bello) with another man (Timothy Hutton). He now spends his time sleeping, eating and writing shit. Everything changes once a strange man called John Shooter (John Turturro) comes to his door claiming Mort stole his story and published it as his own. Mort doesn’t take him seriously, but this man is more dangerous than he thought at first…

First and foremost, Secret Window is a thriller. It doesn’t try to be anything else. It is an effective thriller based on the premise of a man haunted by his past and being confronted by his present once his life, and that of his closest ones, is threatened. The movie works for three primary reasons:

The characters in the movie are likable, real human beings. They aren’t developed too deeply, yet we form a connection, especially with Mort, that transcends and makes us care for him. We not only want him to be alive at the end of the movie, but we somehow want him to be happy and face his demons.

Then there’s the fact that we never know what’s going to happen. There’s a plot twist in this movie that I thought I saw coming but wasn’t really sure. But forget about the ending, the movie is about what happens in between. There are the usual scares all right, and they mostly work pretty well. There’s also the menacing presence of the villain and his next move. People in this movie do not act stupid, and that’s what makes it even scarier.

But the main reason why anyone should see this movie is Johnny Depp. Not only is he the coolest man on earth, he’s also an interesting, edgy actor who brings a lot to the characters he plays. This is not the exception and the movie belongs to him entirely. Bello and Hutton do a terrific job in supporting roles, while Turturro is pretty effective, but somewhat underused.

“The only thing that matters is the ending. It’s the most important part of the story. And this one is very good. This one is perfect.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter