CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Da Vinci Code

Director

Ron Howard

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Here’s the thing: I’m one of the few people in the world who never read Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”. I had the chance, but I never wanted to, and besides I usually like it better to see the movie. Despite all the controversy and hoopla surrounding it, I was surprisingly able to find out as little as possible about the plot before going to see it. In a nutshell, here’s a review from someone who knew almost nothing going in.

After the Louvre’s curator is murdered, Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called by Captain Fache (Jean Reno) to help in the investigation. It so happens that the dead man was able to leave behind a series of strange symbols before passing away, something in which Langdon is an expert. But the arrival of beautiful Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou), granddaughter of the deceased, puts a bigger scheme in motion. She warns Langdon that he’s going to be accused, so they opt to run and try to find out what it is that her grandfather wanted them to find out.

I’ve heard from more than one person that the story plays better in the book (a page-turner they call it) than in the movie. But I’ve also heard that Dan Brown’s literate skills leave a lot to be desired. So what do we get? An escapist movie based on material that was light and silly to begin with, but which contained intriguing and controversial elements that made it interesting for the general masses. That’s why the movie is being positioned as a big summer blockbuster instead of an art flick. It is what it is, there’s no point expecting more.

If Ron Howard’s movie suffers from anything, it is its literate origin. There are so many things that need to be explained, that so much talk may produce boredom to impatient moviegoers. I have to say that I was mostly intrigued, especially by Sir Leigh Teabing’s (Ian McKellen) explanation of the “secret” that is at the movie’s core, but I also felt the movie dragged at times and was definitely overlong. I am no expert so I don’t know what a good solution might’ve been (a tighter script?) but the movie is, by nature, repetitious (clue after clue, revelation after revelation) and there needed to be something more to exhilarate or create tension. Howard tries putting some action sequences here and there, including a quick car chase that is clumsily shot and edited. I definitely got a stronger kick out of the quieter scenes.

I do have to credit author Dan Brown for how ingenious his story is. The movie is essentially about solving a puzzle, one left by a dying man who was able to fabricate a major ploy that in the real world would be impossible to crack. But this is a movie, and that’s good for us because the more difficult the next clue is, the more we are entertained. There are plot holes and historical inaccuracies, but who cares? Did anyone in their right mind expect this to be a history lesson? It is fiction, and as fiction it can do as it likes. Much of the controversy surrounding the movie has to do with a big revelation that dates back to the days of Jesus. It is so dull and far-fetched that I feel there’s no reason for it to be taken seriously. At the end of the day Brown creates a whole adventure surrounding this hot topic and it’s amusing to watch how he got there and where he’s heading.

The Catholic Opus Dei congregation is represented in a bad light though, and that should not be taken seriously either. I happen to know a lot of members of the group and they’re all sane and healthy people. If there are any traces of extremists in the congregation that I don’t know of, they are definitely a minority. No naked self-flagellation or murderous conspiracies. I did see a friend steal a lollypop from a little girl once though.

The movie ends with a dialogue-free sequence that was definitely a high for me. I loved this sequence, what it meant and how it was put together. Hans Zimmer’s haunting score took even more resonance in it.

Kudos as well to Ron Howard’s inventiveness in putting together the movie’s visual style. He uses different movie techniques to show how Langdon cracks codes, whether it’s solving an anagram or finding something “off” about Isaac Newton’s tomb. That was fun. And the use of real locations in the European countries where the story takes place pays off. At least if you’re bored there’s something else worth looking at the screen.

The cast is a powerhouse, although nobody really stands out. Not one character is fully fleshed-out, so they all do what they have to do. Ian McKellen seems to be having the most fun though, and I liked every minute he was on-screen. Hanks is Hanks, and Tatou is adorable. I was creeped-out by Paul Bettany’s Silas. And Jean Reno and Alfred Molina are always welcomed.

“Witness the biggest cover-up in human history.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Da Vinci Code (2006): Groucho

Review

The Da Vinci Code

Director

Ron Howard

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

I don’t want to sound like a prophet, and I don’t quite feel like one, but the moment I heard “The Da Vinci Code” would be adapted into a movie, I knew it wouldn’t work. Today everyone is either dismissing it as bland entertainment or trashing it as faulted moviemaking. I still looked forward to seeing it though; I both wanted to “see” all that I had read and I wanted to know why exactly it didn’t work, if in fact it didn’t.

The story has Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) getting involved in the freak murder of Louvre curator Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle) while in Paris, and finding himself a suspect. Aided only by police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou), Langdon escapes from the claws of Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) and tries to solve the riddles that Sauniere left behind, which might reveal not only who murdered him but also why and what’s to do about it. Neveu has a personal interest in the case, so she becomes a fugitive with Langdon. As it seems, it all has to do with a millenary secret kept by an organization called the Priory of Sion, with such members as Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci. In the latter’s art, there’s a lot of hidden messages concerning the secret; a secret that can shake the foundations of Christianity.

I enjoyed the book. The moment I read it, even though I knew it was causing so much controversy and getting so many counter-arguments from experts and Catholics, I took it seriously for the sake of entertainment and ended up sort of convinced that what I’d read was true. Not that I actually believed it, but it rang true inside the book’s reality, and that made up for a very satisfying experience. Then I started reading a lot about the book and its arguments and understood what a sloppy job Dan Brown had done in his research, and I laughed about it but I had still enjoyed the book a lot and I would still recommend it to anyone. The secret is not only that it’s so well crafted and full of hooks; it’s mainly that it believes in itself.

Ron Howard’s movie doesn’t believe in itself. It doesn’t believe what it’s saying, and it even seems ashamed to present its material. Akiva Goldsman’s script avoids compromise and sets so many self-denying arguments on the table that by the end the viewer has no idea what to believe, and the natural reaction is to laugh at it all and forget about it a day later. The reason why I thought the film wouldn’t work is because the book is so full of fun riddles and codes to decipher which couldn’t be given enough screen time to be made as interesting. But it’s even worse than that. The emphasis is on the action and most of the code stuff is gone or undermined. The key character of Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), Langdon’s friend who’s obsessed with the Priory’s secret, is turned into a clown. Evil Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) and his henchman Silas (Paul Bettany) are even shallower than in the book. And Langdon’s discussions with Teabing, probably added to diminish the controversy, are a complete bore.

Yet, somehow I still had a lot fun. I didn’t mind the film being two and a half hours long and I still cared about the story and the characters. Not much though, certainly not as much as the story deserved, but it was a good time. The fact that by the end I found more comedy than thrills wasn’t a good sign, but at least I didn’t want to run out. The performances are engaging and Hans Zimmer’s music is appropriate, and all in all, Howard’s craft is successful. Sadly, the film as a whole isn’t.

“So dark the con of man...”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Da Vinci Code (2006): Morris

Review

Freedomland

Director

Joe Roth

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 29, 2006

Joe Roth has never been particularly successful when directing a movie. He has produced some hits, but even there his résumé is blurry. Maybe that’s why he recently gave up trying to keep alive his production company, Revolution Studios. The man must be tired. And somehow, we’re tired of his movies too. But there was something about Freedomland that made me want to see it, maybe the cast, maybe the story. At the end, it was another missed opportunity.

One night, Brenda Martin (Julianne Moore) arrives at a hospital with blood on her hands, claiming she was just robbed by a black man who took her car... and her son. Detective Lorenzo Council (Samuel L. Jackson) is appointed to the case since the incident happened in his territory, a neighborhood populated by African-Americans who are pissed and tired of being treated like animals by the police. As the case heats up, Brenda’s police brother Danny (Ron Eldard) tries to take over while a missing person’s organization led by Karen Collucci (Edie Falco) gets involved as well.

Richard Price adapted his own novel to the big screen with mixed results. Freedomland is essentially two movies in one, and it tries to bite more than it can chew. On one hand, it’s about Brenda and the search for her missing child while she goes almost crazy in the process. Then there’s the whole story about the neighborhood and how angry the people are with the police for closing them in and confronting them about the case. Sure, there wouldn’t be one story without the other, but believe me, while you’re sitting there the combination doesn’t work.

The movie has a lot of interesting things to say. It’s a thriller (an intriguing one until it becomes tedious and repetitive) but one that works as social commentary as well. It tackles racism with an incendiary approach, provoking a debate and making some explosive denouncements. There’s a lot of truth in what is presented and it certainly makes us think. But the movie never holds a grasp of its own intentions. It ultimately bores and goes nowhere. There’s promise and good material in there, but it screams to be handled with more care and expertise.

I can’t believe I’ll say this but this is the first time I have not liked a Julianne Moore performance. She’s way over-the-top and her character becomes so annoying that I wished they would forget about her entirely. The big revelation at the end is surprising, but by then I didn’t care anymore. Samuel L. Jackson plays somewhat against-type and he’s good. But I especially enjoyed Edie Falco’s performance. She has the best scene when she talks to Brenda outside Freedomland (by the way, the name of the movie is completely irrelevant to the story).

Even James Newton Howard’s score is forgettable, and that’s saying something.

“Just nod your head.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

12 Angry Men

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 25, 2006

I have always been amazed by how a film with one single location, 12 simple characters and nothing but dialogue can bring more excitement to the screen than many high-powered action flicks filled with visual and sound effects, extravagant characters and flashy settings. It comes back to me every time I revisit it—it starts interestingly enough, builds up tension slowly, and explodes with a bang of sorts: Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) says something so exciting that the discussion among these men becomes a battlefield. Best of all, it not only doesn’t let go, but even becomes more and more exciting; every dialogue exchange a pleasure, every beat a triumph, ever moment worth gold.

And it’s so staged and directed that it just couldn’t be better. Somehow this film completely evades the “photographed play” stigma because the camera is constantly moving and every possible cinematographic artifice is used to give it a sense of reality, but overall, because the script is so perfect that it doesn’t really matter how it’s presented. Sure, it helps that the direction (by Sidney Lumet) and the cast are perfection, but with a script like this, it’s hard to miss. Reginald Rose adapted his own teleplay and what a brilliant move it was…

The story centers in a jury right after a trial is over. The audience doesn’t get to see even a minute of the trial, only the aftermath as the jury deliberates in real time. A unanimous vote will bring either freedom or death to the accused. It’s such a clear case, they say, a case of murder where an 18-year-old boy so clearly killed his father.

11 jurors agree that he’s guilty, but one (Fonda) isn’t so sure. Everyone is either upset or amused by his stance, but that’s how it is. All he wants is to discuss because he’s just not sure. And as he goes through every one of his reasonable doubts, and some people start sharing them and changing their votes, heat increases, claustrophobia takes over, and some of these men get quite angry. But as long as the vote isn’t unanimous, discussion must continue. That’s the law.

The cast is mostly comprised by character actors, from which Henry Fonda stands out as the hero, and Lee J. Cobb as his most stubborn opponent. Both are unforgettable in their own right. Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec and Robert Webber are the other 10. Everyone is completely credible and superb.

Besides the intensity of the questions it raises concerning the frailty of the justice system, and its exploration of morality, honesty, prejudice and inhumanity, 12 Angry Men is, after all, one hell of an entertaining film. From any point of view, it’s got what it takes to thrill an audience, and when poignancy takes first chair, it’s even better. The fact that it sticks to what’s usually skipped in courtroom dramas, the deliberation of the jury, is completely brilliant. I can’t say enough: this one is too good, in fact, one of my favorites.

“You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction

Director

Michael Caton-Jones

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

As a big fan of the first Basic Instinct (it was cheesy and stupid, but sexy and fun) I wasn’t sure if doing a sequel 14 years later would be a good idea. It ended in such a note of mystery and ambivalence that it is one of those things where you feel everything is right on place and there’s no need to continue exploiting it. That said, Stone was willing to return to the character that made her a superstar, whether it was to revive her career or to cash a big paycheck. Ultimately, only the latter actually happened.

Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is involved in a car accident that kills the soccer star that was with her. Det. Roy Washburn (David Thewlis) thinks it wasn’t an accident but a deliberate murder, and is determined to prove it. Meanwhile, Catherine is forced to undertake a psychological study by Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey), who quickly is smitten by her to the point of obsession.

I don’t know where to start, but I’ll do it by saying what a disappointment this sequel is. To give the people involved some credit, I do realize that they were trying hard to give the movie the same vibe as its predecessor. Unfortunately they fail in almost every respect, and it all starts with the treatment of our central character.

Catherine used to be a fun character that while exuding sexuality and being dangerous, also showed traits of ingenuity and compassion. In this movie, she has become a caricature. She’s an over-the-top bitch who doesn’t seem to have feelings for anything or anyone. I admit that characters like these can be entertaining, but not when an entire movie is sustained on them. She’s a one-note character surrounded by even less interesting characters.

That leads to my next point. The movie is plain boring and that’s not good when you’re supposed to be seeing a sexy thriller. The plot is convoluted and pedestrian. There are murders, there is sex, but there’s also a lot of boring talk and tedious plot points. At the end we can make a case for plenty of characters to be the movie’s sole murderer, but it all feels forced and a complete waste of time.

Since there is not one single relationship I cared about, I thought the sex or the violence might make up for it, but I was wrong. Stone opens her legs and is seen crushing ice, but that only made me remember the good time I was not having. I did enjoy when Jerry Goldsmith’s excellent tune appeared here and there (John Murphy adapted the score); that made me smile.

Acting-wise the less said the better. Sharon Stone looks terrific and even though it’s clear she’s had surgery, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that when you look like she does. But as I said before, her character is a joke, and she does nothing at all to diminish the fakeness. As the male lead, David Morrissey is even worse. If sparks had to fly between these two, they should’ve chosen an actor who was her equal. But Morrissey is uninteresting, bland and not even physically attractive. Stone is a ruthless predator next to this shy puppy. Thewlis does what he is required, and the great Charlotte Rampling appears to cash in and forget about the experience as soon as possible.

I’m sorry to say director Michael Caton-Jones wasn’t up to the task. His filmmaking does nothing to elevate the material. He can do flashy, but he can’t do entertaining. At least not here.

“Even Oedipus didn’t see his mother coming.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dressed to Kill

Director

Brian De Palma

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Brian De Palma has been called many things, Master of the Macabre and the New Master of Suspense to name a couple, and he has been hailed as one of the best contemporary directors, spawning legions of fans among which stand some of today’s most recognized colleagues of his. For some reason though, De Palma has never took off as a recognized director among critics or film associations. It’s not hard to see what that reason is; he has directed several successful films but these have never really been the kind that defines a fine film director.

Take Dressed to Kill, for instance. It’s a perfectly suspenseful film and a respectful homage to Alfred Hitchcock so greatly crafted and directed that it can send shivers down anyone’s spine… but it’s at the same time a messed-up film whose screenplay is hardly coherent and often laughable. I for one don’t mind this at all, because the result is admirable. But you get the point.

The story follows middle-aged Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson), a respectable housewife, as attempting to fulfill her sexual needs, since her husband only seems interested in fulfilling his own. Kate attends her Psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine), and talks about this, hitting on him in the process, and then goes on to a museum where she has a chance encounter with a potential sexual partner. This builds up tension as the flirting between she and the stranger becomes a game of cat-and-mouse that doesn’t seem to be heading towards a happy ending. And once we get to think it does, writer-director De Palma has a surprise for us. And so the movie goes, one shock after another, never letting go of the pumped-up emotions.

The story changes focus soon enough from Mrs. Miller to Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), a Park Avenue prostitute who becomes key witness and prime suspect in a murder case that involves two of Dr. Elliott’s patients. Aided by young Peter (Keith Gordon), the son of the victim, she looks for clues while trying to escape the murderer, who’s clearly after her. The script allows us to learn something about the murderer through Dr. Elliott, and makes us wonder how deeply the Psychiatrist could be involved. There’s suspense to spare in every subplot, while the film explores sexuality, duality, inventiveness, optimism and both professional and amateur investigations.

In one word, the film is fun. It never lets go, and while it doesn’t make much sense, it’s just impossible to resist. In-your-face references to Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958) and Psycho (1960) help a lot, and Dressed to Kill becomes one very rare example of a film whose script is weak (cheesy dialogue, unnecessary scenes, implausible character development) but nobody cares because the direction is so precise. It could even be called one of De Palma’s finest works. Sure enough, it’s thrilling and sexy, with Pino Donaggio’s music and Gerald B. Greenberg’s editing helping immeasurably.

The performances have often been trashed but I beg to differ. Always-reliable Caine is spooky, Allen energetic and fun, Gordon insightful and poignant, Dennis Franz (as the detective in charge of the case) riotous, and Angie Dickinson tragic and unforgettable.

A must for fans of suspense, Dressed to Kill has as many plot holes as it has fun to offer. It’s not to be missed.

“Don't make me be a bad girl again!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story

Director

John Gatins

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 22, 2006

I went into this movie expecting nothing but a good time at the theater with a feel-good movie I already knew all about even before actually seeing it. Every year there are a couple of movies like these: intimate stories with high-profile actors situated in small towns that are about overcoming adversity. And every year I fall prey to them. What can I do? I like them.

Ben Crane (Kurt Russell), a race-horse trainer, takes his daughter Cale (Dakota Fanning) to a race where she falls in love with a horse named Soña. Unfortunately the horse has an accident right there and Ben is fired by his tyrant boss (David Morse). Ben then bargains to keep the horse to help her heal along with his estranged father Pop (Kris Kristofferson), his daughter and his employees Manolin (Freddy Rodríguez) and Balon (Luis Guzmán).

I don’t need to say that the movie is inspired by a true story, for the title of the movie says just that. For the record: I hate the title. They could’ve used the “inspired” bit as a tagline, but why as part of the title? It sounds so lame and cheesy I don’t even want to go there.

Truth is, Dreamer is a movie specifically targeted at children, perhaps not too young but not too old either. There’s a lack of cynicism in the movie that sometimes crosses the line into manipulation, as every scene is staged as if a lesson is learned, a good deed is done and/or a message is sent. You get the idea. It’s all hokey and somehow artificial, but director John Gatins somehow makes it work as a whole. That’s mainly because we like the characters. We identify with them. And we love the horse as well. So we all want to see them get to the happily ever after finale.

I also got a kick out of the relationships between some characters. Sometimes it felt as if the movie was about Ben’s characters instead of Cale’s. And that’s a good thing. The man was disappointed by his father and has a daughter with whom he barely gets along. His dreams were also crushed a while ago, and his life has become routine. Thankfully he’s got a loving and understanding wife, who is his rock and part of why he ultimately decides to change some things in his life. The transformation, in every sense, is heart-breaking.

I’ve gushed a lot in this site about Dakota Fanning’s extraordinary talent at such a young age. Impressively enough, she continues to be up to the hype, delivering another nuanced, wonderful performance that does not have any of the usual traps into which child actors usually fall. She’s a natural. Kurt Russell is also excellent as the girl’s father, a conflicted man that slowly changes his view of the world surrounding him. Elisabeth Shue appears as his wife in what is a small, yet pivotal and well-acted part. The rest of the cast is also good, although I didn’t really like David Morse as the villain, but maybe it was his subplot that seemed out-of-place altogether.

Nice score by John Debney and beautiful cinematography by Fred Murphy.

“So what? So what? Just let it take her as far as it can.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dumbo

Director

Ben Sharpsteen

Year

1941

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Dumbo was rushed into production and made under a low budget as a desperate attempt to get revenue after a couple of unsuccessful Walt Disney feature films (that are now classic hits). It was an underdog from the get-go. The distributor was reluctant to release it as a major motion picture, some people just didn’t have faith in the project, but in the end, Disney had his way and the film became a smash. Talk about parallels.

It’s not hard to see why it was a hit. This film is a gem from start to finish, short and full of heart, with a story that keeps moving and progressing from scene to scene, a main character that goes from newborn to star, colorful and fully-fledged supporting characters, joyful and heartbreaking songs, and gorgeous if simplistic animation.

The story has Mrs. Jumbo, a circus elephant, expecting, and Mr. Stork arriving a little late to deliver her baby, Jumbo Junior. He’s as cute as can be, but his ears are notably oversized, and the kid becomes the laughingstock of the other elephants, who call him Dumbo. The baby is unbiased though, and his whole world surrounds his loving mother who cares more for him than anything else in the world. However, when some kids pick on the baby elephant and his mother is enraged, she’s put in solitary confinement and called a mad elephant. Lonely and sad, without a friend in the world, and ridiculed on account of his large ears, Dumbo seems hopeless… That is, until he meets his best-friend-to-be, Timothy Q. Mouse, who takes it upon himself to help the kid, raise his self-esteem, and why not, make him a star. Maybe his large ears can do more good than bad.

The road ain’t easy, and it’s as sad as can be. Despite the comfort that Timothy brings, Dumbo is still alone and has to constantly face everybody’s rejection. One notable aspect of this film is that, despite its happy ending, the sad progression of the story sticks to the mind way more. Everybody I know remembers Dumbo as a rather sad film. That’s because the writers and animators so expertly create the sentiment between mother and son thus making it extra heartbreaking when they are split. Truth is, that’s also why the story works; we understand Dumbo’s sadness so clearly that there’s no way we could root for him more. Timothy becomes such a heroic figure that I don’t understand why he’s not more famous. Dumbo never lets go of the spotlight, and to us, he’s a star from the start.

So is this a story about a baby elephant facing adversities and learning an awesome ability that makes him a star? Yes. Is that all there is to it? Oh, no. There’s that drunken hallucination scene in the middle, the “Pink elephants on parade” number, which is a treat to eyes and ears, a surreal sequence that hardly belongs to a film like this by definition, but works like wonders. I give that scene credit for elevating Dumbo to a whole different level. It’s a brave and highly innovative effort from writers and animators alike.

Music and songs are unforgettable. Great work by Frank Churchill and Oliver Wallace, as well as lyricist Ned Washington. Some of the best numbers include “Casey Junior”, “Baby Mine” and “When I See An Elephant Fly”.

This is one of my favorite films.

“You know, lots of people with big ears are famous!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mission: Impossible III

Director

J.J. Abrams

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

At the time of M:I III’s release, Tom Cruise could not presume of having a good image. Plenty of surveys show that his popularity is on a downward spiral because of his off-screen shenanigans. We sure live in a time when actors are not given any concessions. The press and tabloids are hungry for news, and subsequently the public gets tired of these “victims”. It is a vicious cycle, especially when those actions start to affect a movie. We should be able to differentiate the actor from the character, but sometimes it’s just too much. With that in mind, I went into the movie trying to forget about everything else outside of its realm, and I had a lot of fun with it.

IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is just about to get married to girlfriend Julia (Michelle Monaghan) despite the fact that she doesn’t know the truth about what he does for a living. But when a difficult mission to rescue another agent goes wrong, he gets immersed in an entire operation to catch dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and take revenge. His boss, John Brassel (Laurence Fishburne), is not happy with his involvement, but he is aided by agent John Musgrave (Billy Crudup) and the team he’s been assigned with.

The third installment of the successful franchise starts with a bang, a scene that actually happens in the future and that is so rough that it doesn’t let go until later in the movie when we go back to it. Truth is, it conveys the right feeling to start with, but the inclusion of the scene at that point is a complete mistake. We know which characters are alive and we know the situation they’re in, so for the next 90 minutes we’re only going through the motions because we know that no matter what anyone does, they’re definitely getting to that point. That is a suspense killer, something you don’t want in a movie like this.

That’s not to say the movie is not exciting, because it is. Very. It’s a fast, non-stop, thrilling ride that barely lets us, or any of the characters for that matter, breath. Director J.J. Abrams and his writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci don’t waste any time and simply get down to it. As with good espionage thrillers, there’s a lot of double-crossing, clever gadgets, exotic locations and impossible stunts. It’s all handled smoothly and with expertise. We’re never bored, and we’re always on the edge of our seats. It does what it sets out to do.

Unfortunately, contrary to what happened with the first installment, there’s not one single memorable action set piece that truly surprises. Thinking back, I cannot recall anything so good that I won’t forget about it in a couple of months. But there are two sequences that do stand out among the others: there’s Davian’s rescue operation in the bridge, and then there’s the whole Vatican mission, which is not precisely an action sequence yet it’s the best thing about the movie. I love these missions and the way the team plans and executes them.

A very distinctive device that all three of the franchise’s movies have is the use of masks to fool the enemy. It’s a device that, I think, is not that credible and was invented by the screenwriters to get out of a certain situation that they didn’t know how to handle. Abrams might have thought the same, because he finally gives us an explanation as to how those masks are done and worn. It’s fascinating to watch the process, but it’s also an excuse for one of the best scenes of the movie: when Hunt puts on a mask and suddenly becomes the other person (the actors were clearly switched, but you wouldn’t have known from the perfectly crafted scene).

I do have to say though, that this device is used later on in the movie to terrible effect. It is a complete cheat that kills the momentum and credibility of a tough-on-nails movie that had been going very well.

Another controversial issue was to give Hunt a backstory. I’m conflicted about this subplot. On one side, this isn’t the kind of movie where you need that kind of exposition. We know we’re going to see a big, splashy espionage thriller and that’s what we want to get. On the other hand, it is an excuse for tension to be created, since we know Cruise won’t be killed, but will his girlfriend? Ultimately it works, I really can’t say it doesn’t, but I don’t know… And I hated Julia’s reaction to a plot development later on in the movie.

Finally, the acting. Cruise is Cruise. He’s good, he’s intense, he’s game for everything. I have to say his off-screen persona did affect his performance. Sometimes you can see the wackiness in his eyes. I know how silly that sounds of me to say, but I seriously mean it. Supporting performances by Laurence Fishburne, Billy Crudup, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Maggie Q, Keri Russell and Simon Pegg are spot-on. But it is Seymour Hoffman who leaves a stronger impression. A few more scenes and he would’ve easily stolen the movie.

The classic Lalo Schifrin tune is once again used to great effect (by composer Michael Giacchino), especially during that escape scene through the river...

“Uhh… it’s such a nice car!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

United 93

Director

Paul Greengrass

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Something told me writer-director Paul Greengrass’ approach to the 9/11 subject would be respectful and worthwhile. Not only is he well-known for his fine work with another real-life subject in his film Bloody Sunday, but he’s a pro overall, finding the human edge without going to melodrama, like he did in his recent directorial effort The Bourne Supremacy (2004) that brought me to tears completely unexpectedly. As the man in charge of a 9/11 film focusing on the ill-fated United Airlines flight 93—the only of four hijacked airplanes to not reach its target—his responsibility was huge, but quality was assured. Luckily we got a film that not only delivers but also respects and honors. It’s a highly enjoyable film in motion picture standards and an incredibly gut-wrenching experience to those who are sensible to the subject. But from every point of view it’s a great film, and I don’t think there’s much discussion in that matter.

Frankly I didn’t know much about the specifics inside the title airplane but after watching the film I’ve done a little reading and I’m amazed how much Greengrass researched and stuck to the material. A few things made this flight different from the others; the aircraft took off a few minutes late, so after the hijack, when some passengers established telephonic communication with their loved ones, they learned about the attacks to the World Trade Center and understood they were in a similar situation. This led them to take action, fight back and make history.

But even though most people know about this, the film doesn’t assume the viewer knows, and instead takes us to the past, like we’re living that day all over again, as awful as it may seem. The day starts like any other, and the passengers get on the airplane without any clue of anything that might go wrong. Why should they even suspect it? But why should we? We don’t know much about the passengers and we never get to learn much either, which gives us a sense of reality and reminds us that this film isn’t dramatized for cheap success but rather taken as seriously as it should. I did feel there was an exaggerated upbeat mood when the passengers board, but that’s just the minimum attempt at creating a connection between audience and passengers, which is highly preferable to the typical clichéd introductions that give us some background to key characters.

The film develops in more than one setting. For a while, we witness how they start suspecting the hijackings at the National Air Traffic Control Center. These are the slowest sequences and the film takes a bit to take off. Then these people connect the missing airplanes to the attacks, and they take measures; that’s when the movie turns heart-pumping. We also see the dreadful moments of the two World Trade Center attacks, as witnessed by people at an airport tower, recreating the horror as vividly as that very day. Some people play themselves in these amazing and tense-ridden sequences; if it’s so awful for us to watch, one can just imagine their nightmarish experience while re-living such moments to shoot this film.

The action inside the United 93 flight has been recreated through several phone calls and the cockpit voice recorder. Greengrass has put it all together making it both believable and intense. The third act is more exciting than that of the average fictional action film because it’s real in every sense of the word. The courage of the people inside that plane is truly unmatchable and the experience turns completely unforgettable. Furthermore, the terrorists aren’t played as clichéd villains either; they have their fears, their faith, their anxiousness, and their hopes. They’re as scared as anyone else, though their motivations are opposite.

A cast of completely unknowns is the single wisest decision the filmmakers made. If everything else wasn’t enough for realism, seeing new faces all around makes it chilling. There’s nothing to remind us that this is a movie, and that’s perfectly right. Everything else seems to follow the same line: even though the story is so full of opportunities for Hollywood grandeur, not one bit is played that way. Even the famous “Let’s roll!” words that changed history aren’t said like a history-changing quote. They’re just real words spoken by real people. If they turned out famous, that’s another story.

Some notables in the cast include Christian Clemenson as Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., David Alan Basche as Todd Beamer, Peter Hermann as Jeremy Glick, Cheyenne Jackson as Mark Bingham, Opal Alladin as CeeCee Lyles, Trish Gates as Sandra Bradshaw, Khalid Abdalla, Lewis Alsamari, Omar Berdouni and Jamie Harding as the terrorists, and Ben Sliney, the man who bravely shut down American flights, playing himself. Everyone onscreen is superb.

As patriotic as the film may seem, it doesn’t judge, it doesn’t name names, it doesn’t offer conclusions, it just sets matters straight concerning the facts. One ineludible truth is the lack of response from the President of the United States. Michael Moore made George W. Bush look like a clown in his Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), but United 93 doesn’t even bother naming his name. The result is the same though.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mission: Impossible

Director

Brian De Palma

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 15, 2006

When Tom Cruise announced he was going to do a big screen version of the beloved Mission: Impossible TV series, many were skeptical. But the unexpected involvement of director Brian De Palma was even more shocking. It instantly started to look like the project might be a cut above the rest and when it opened it was a box office success. Reviews weren’t ecstatic, they were just ok. But unlike most critics out there, I really loved it and I still do.

IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is believed to be a mole inside the organization after a special mission in Prague goes terribly wrong. His team, which includes mentor Jim Phelps (Jon Voight), was framed and it is now up to him to discover the truth behind the scheme. But he doesn’t do it alone, as he also enlists the help of former agents Franz Krieger (Jean Reno) and Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames).

Mission: Impossible is everything a summer blockbuster should be. It is exciting, romantic, thrilling, intelligent, and it boasts impressive action sequences. The hand of director Brian De Palma can be felt all the way through. He conducts the action pieces in surprising ways, making instant classics out of them. The breaking-into-the-CIA-headquarters sequence is especially memorable. But the climax involving a train and a helicopter, and the scene with the aquarium are just as rousing. I also got a kick out of the mission at the beginning of the movie. It’s a spy movie, and it makes the full out of it.

Much ink was given to the fact that the movie’s plot is too complicated. There isn’t a clear villain until the last third and the movie is full of twists and turns that keep us guessing. I happen to think it works. I was lost, sure, but that was the intention of writers David Koepp and Robert Towne. At the end everything makes perfect sense and that’s what matters. I was amused from start to finish.

If there is a problem with the movie it’s that, leaving out the aforementioned action sequences, it doesn’t age that well. By today’s standards, action movies should be faster and tighter. The pace with this first installment is sometimes too slow. Also, there’s a subplot involving a romantic relationship between two characters that seems to have been trimmed from the final cut (the trailer does have some snippets of it). Because of this, that relationship always has an awkward feeling to it that isn’t entirely satisfying.

Mission: Impossible consolidated Tom Cruise as a bona fide action star. He’s up to the task and creates a likable, intense, smart and vulnerable hero. The action sequences are intentionally over-the-top, but he somehow grounds them. The supporting cast is top-notch as well. Vanessa Redgrave steals every scene she’s in. Emmanuelle Beart is too beautiful to be true. Jean Reno and Ving Rhames are a lot of fun. Jon Voight is suitable enough. And Kristin Scott Thomas makes a brief, yet welcomed appearance.

Danny Elfman’s take on the classic Lalo Schifrin theme is excellent, and so is Stephen H. Burum’s cinematography. He and De Palma infuse the movie with an exquisite visual flare.

“You want to shake hands with the devil, that’s fine with me. I just want to make sure that you do it in hell.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Groundhog Day

Director

Harold Ramis

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 11, 2006

I don’t think Groundhog Day took itself too seriously back in 1993, and that’s probably the reason why few people saw beyond its farcical façade to appreciate its philosophical core. Not that audiences didn’t love it, they did and how, but there’s much more to the laughter and the good time this movie offers.

Danny Rubin’s story originates in a rather simple but hilarious premise, but he and co-writer / director Harold Ramis took it beyond. Time has made justice to this film. Several critics and filmmakers name it among their all-time favorites and with good reason. I’m one of them. I have always loved it, but it has also grown on me much more with every viewing and every passing year. I have seen beyond, as anyone should.

A rather downhearted weatherman, Phil Connors (Bill Murray), is sent for the fourth year in a row to cover the Groundhog Day ceremony in Punxsutawney, PA. This real-life event has a rather unusual weatherman, a groundhog, predicting whether winter will finish early or late. If he sees his shadow, it’ll be late. Phil sees no future in his career, dreams of working in a major network, and covering the Groundhog Day means a huge humiliation for him. As if destiny wanted to mock him further, the groundhog’s name is also Phil. But still, off he goes to Punxsutawney along with smart producer Rita (Andie MacDowell) and run-of-the-mill cameraman Larry (Chris Elliott). Phil is insufferable, but with a twisted sense of humor everyone enjoys except him. He’s narcissistic and self-destructive, and all he wants is for that February 2nd to pass.

The day goes by and things don’t go well. Phil covers the ceremony and wants out, but a blizzard he failed to predict traps them in the small town. A few more misadventures take him to bed browbeaten. But tomorrow is another day…

Or is it? Phil is awoken at 6am by the same radio alarm playing the same song. The same truck crosses the street, the same guy says hello the same way just out his door. His same obnoxious high-school classmate, Ned Ryerson (Stephen Tobolowsky), greets him enthusiastically on the street and attempts to sell him insurance. Everyone behaves exactly the same way as the day before. It’s February 2nd all over again, but only Phil knows this is the second time. The next day, the same thing happens, and the next day, and the next, and so on, and there’s nothing he can do to stop it.

So what does this premise offer? You got it: countless comedic opportunities. And everyone involved is just willing to make the most of each. Phil goes from stunned to desperate to excited to optimistic to depressed to suicidal to upbeat to superior. That’s right, his character really evolves, and does so in style. There’s a scene in which he tells Rita he’s a god, and proceeds to try and prove it. Maybe God’s secret is he’s been around long enough, he claims. But Phil is not a god; we never know why he’s stuck in time, but that doesn’t matter, because one thing is clear: he won’t snap out of it until he snaps out of himself. He must become a better person. Why? We don’t know. But it’s perfectly clear. That’s how intelligent this movie is.

So Groundhog Day is a study of introspection, challenge and optimism. But it’s all hid behind the masquerade of riotous comedy, and how well that works! Scene by scene there’s a memorable bit or two that turn unforgettable with amazing ease. There’s also the triumph of not making the film repetitious despite presenting the same day countless times. It’s quite an awesome script.

No one can juggle poignancy and comedy quite like Bill Murray; I dare say he’s the best at it since Charlie Chaplin. We’re with Phil every step of the way, we love him though sometimes we can’t stand him, and we root for him all along. He’s simply irresistible. The supporting cast is also outstanding, behaving exactly the same way over and over but having different reactions according to Phil’s actions. Everyone is really funny and believable.

In a situation like Phil’s, Groundhog Day could be seen every day, and be the most interesting activity once and again. That’s how good it is!

“What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn’t one today!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Prime

Director

Ben Younger

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

When Prime came out a lot of reviewers compared its director, Ben Younger, with Woody Allen. The movie proved to have a lot of similarities with Allen’s earlier work, with many people saying that it was better than anything Allen had come up in years. I was intrigued, but really, what definitely caught my interest was the cast. I worship Meryl Streep and I love Uma Thurman, so I was there from the get-go.

Rafi (Uma Thurman) is in the middle of an ugly divorce when she meets David (Bryan Greenberg), a struggling Jewish artist who is 14 years younger than she. They start dating despite their different lifestyles, but matters get really complicated when Rafi’s therapist Lisa (Meryl Streep) finds out that the man Rafi is dating is her son.

From the outside the movie might seem to be nothing more than a simple comedy with a premise that will hardly sustain its entire running length. But I was glad to discover that such is not the case. Prime is a romantic comedy with a keen eye towards relationships and the difficulties inherent to them. Sure, the are moments of broad comedy that are laugh-out-loud funny, but they work because of the restraint of the actors in not going over-the-top and the work of the director, who keeps it real at every turn.

So is it really a movie that resembles the work of Woody Allen? It is different, perhaps broader in its tone, but yes, there are similarities. Therapists, Jewish-ness, lovers, misunderstandings, New York, it is all there. And it works. We identify with the characters, we understand their struggles and we’re interested in their outcome. The movie is filled with rich details that give it both intelligence and honesty, whether it’s in the relationship between an older woman and a younger man, a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish guy or a Jewish mother and her son. It also doesn’t take the easy way out, which I thoroughly appreciated.

Meryl Streep is wonderful and a real pleasure to watch. She gives soul to a character that could’ve become a caricature and she just excels with every gesture and every line. She’s funny and touching and difficult and she does it all with ease. Uma proves to be a terrific counterpart, in a role that requires her to be a normal human being, with as much qualities as she has flaws. She’s radiant and I couldn’t get enough of her. Bryan Greenberg, stuck between these two talented actresses, holds his own and makes us believe in David. A nice trio...

“His penis was so beautiful I wanted to knit it a little hat.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hannah and Her Sisters

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1986

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Hannah and Her Sisters deals with a bunch of neurotic New Yorkers struggling to both achieve a stable life and find love. It’s nothing more than a slice of life in a way but it’s rather poignant and at the same time very funny. Woody stuck to nostalgia this time around. Legend has it the studio wouldn’t let him end this movie grimly as he had intended, but truth is, the whole film has a pleasant mood and a warm feel to it, and that’s extremely welcome from a filmmaker who can be rather unpleasant at times.

The premise surrounds three sisters, stable Hannah (Mia Farrow), drifter Holly (Diane Wiest) and unbiased Lee (Barbara Hershey). Hannah’s second husband Elliot (Michael Caine), with whom she leads a happy life, falls in love with Lee, and sees in her the chance at a passionate romance he never enjoyed with Hannah. Lee is a recovering alcoholic who lives with her schoolgirl crush, eccentric artist Frederick (Max von Sydow). Hannah’s first husband Mickey (Woody Allen) is a hypochondriac TV producer who lives life in terms of every day’s odds at mortality. Holly hasn’t found herself professionally or personally, has lived through hell, and fails miserably in liking herself or letting others see her own qualities.

This is the story of how Elliot goes after Lee, how Mickey experiences what really seems a near-death occurrence, how Hannah, though admired by her sisters and everyone around, feels shallow and irrelevant, how Holly finds stability in the most unexpected of things, and how pieces fall into their right place sometimes. It’s such a beautiful story that the weaving of so many complex storylines seems completely effortless. Even as I’m writing this I can’t see how describing so many stories seems much harder than how the movie makes it look.

One of Woody’s talents is his ability to combine comedy and drama, and that’s exactly what goes on in this movie time after time. The episodic storytelling has continuous commentary by several characters in voice-over that gives every situation a comedic edge. But then there are the dramatic, heartbreaking moments like the one where Lee confronts Frederick, a one-shot effort of epic dimensions that was allegedly applauded on set.

Allen gave Hannah and Her Sisters an old-fashioned look and feel greatly aided by the choice of classical and jazz music, which includes a notable rendition of Hart and Rodgers’ “Betwiched” as love theme. The sequence that ends with Lee reading e.e. cummings’ poem “somewhere i have never travelled, gladly beyond” is irresistible and so powerfully charged it’s unbearable.

As is always the case with the writer-director’s films—which doesn’t diminish the merit—the performances are top-notch. Everyone is awesome, but special mention goes to Caine and Wiest, who show some of their best work here.

The only minor flaw I can find is the storyline loses momentum from time to time during Mickey’s episodes as a result of Elliot and Lee’s subplot being so interesting, but still, Hannah and Her Sisters is undoubtedly one of Woody Allen’s best films and happily one of my favorites. And by that I mean films, not merely Woody Allen films. It’s all that good.

“I have my answer. I have my answer. I’m walking on air!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Director

Michel Gondry

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 08, 2006

The connection I have with movies penned by Charlie Kaufman is rather strange. I almost never love them on first viewing, but eventually they grow on me and I end up falling for them sooner or later. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a movie that, to be honest, kind of disappointed me the first time I saw it. I didn’t even feel the urge to ever see it again. But hey, as I just said, it suddenly started to grow on me to the point I had to see it again. I finally did and guess what… I loved it.

After Joel (Jim Carrey) learns that his ex-girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet) went through a procedure in which every memory involving him was erased from her mind, he decides to do the same. So he goes to Dr. Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson), who then plans to do the procedure with the help of his assistants Stan (Mark Ruffalo) and Patrick (Elijah Wood). But Stan’s girlfriend Mary (Kirsten Dunst) also shows up, and things get complicated once Joel decides he doesn’t want every single memory to go and starts trying to boycott the process.

Fascinating premise, if you ask me. And believe me, it is a fascinating movie. To start off, it is a romantic comedy unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Only a bizarre genius such as Kaufman could’ve come up with such a plot and such a script. For, as is usual with his work, the situations are all unexpected, funny, witty and unpredictable. The movie never lost me despite its puzzle-y nature and I went with it all the way.

The first time I saw it I had a problem with the main characters, which are nowhere near likable and thus I couldn’t identify with them or their romance. But then I realized I was missing the point entirely. The movie is not so much about them as it is about the grand scope of things. It is about how everyone, despite how offbeat we may be, can still find a soulmate; about how the mind can play games with us even when our hearts are lost; about the power of memories, of longing, of melancholy; about seizing the moment and never letting it go; about how life is full of good and bad memories, yet they all took us to the place we are today. It’s also about remembering those instances in which a relationship is just blossoming and everything is so fresh and nice. Usually that spark tends to disappear and it’s hard to acknowledge what you used to like about the other person in the first place. It’s easier to give up, but it’s braver to try and remember… and then do something about it. We might forget, but our mind doesn’t. And really, our heart doesn’t either.

Director Michel Gondry might not seem as ease with Kaufman’s material as, say, Spike Jonze, but he does a good job in what must have been a nightmarish movie to shoot and put together. I heard he doesn’t like to rely on special effects and always tries to put directly on camera what he’s trying to accomplish. That rough kind of filmmaking shows, and it serves the story well. The editing is frantic and sometimes difficult to follow, yet most of the movie happens inside the mind of a person, how much sense can that ultimately make?

I had a blast going through Joel’s memories and watching how the relationship evolved. The way things disappear and the way the characters start to play with the procedure is amusing. I also enjoyed the subplot involving the people who are carrying out the procedure. It’s filled with twists and turns that come together at the end in perfect fashion. And speaking of the end, I just loved how the movie concluded.

Jim Carrey tackles a serious, against-type role and comes off real good. He disappears into Joel and there’s none of his usual tricks. He’s a boring, uninteresting person and he makes it work. Kate Winslet is also good, as usual, as this crazy, modern and alienating character. Highlights also include Elijah Wood, who plays what may be my favorite character; Kirsten Dunst, who has more depth than it initially appears; and Mark Ruffalo, who goes all wacky on us. Tom Wilkinson’s presence is also a welcomed bonus.

Mind-bending to say the least…

“My crotch is still here, just as you remembered it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Scary Movie 4

Director

David Zucker

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

It’s been six years since the Scary Movie franchise was born. We’re already in the fourth entry and, given the amount of money they continue to make, it’s likely that this is nowhere near the end of the saga. Unfortunately, the level of quality is not consistent at all. I liked the first one, hated the second one, liked the third one and didn’t care at all for this latest installment. It’s one and one, so at least I can hope the next one will bring back the fun.

It’s pointless to try and come up with a premise because there really isn’t one. In a nutshell, Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko) has to save his children from an alien attack, while his next-door neighbor, Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris), has some trouble in her new job, where a house appears to be haunted by the spirit of a boy.

You could probably tell by now that the movie follows closely the plots of two successful movies: War of the Worlds and The Grudge. But it also manages to add some stuff from The Village and Saw. Those are the four movies that get the most exposition. The former adds Carmen Electra and Bill Pullman to the equation, while the latter has Shaquille O’Neal and Dr. Phil. None is very funny except for some bits here and there, which can pretty much sum up what I felt about the entire movie.

David Zucker, the director, is part of the team responsible for such hilarious movies such as Airplane! and Top Secret!. They are also responsible for Scary Movie 3, which was actually ok. So what happened? He sure knows what works and what doesn’t, so why is this movie so unfunny? Movies like this are always filled with so many jokes that even if some fail there are many others that fit the bill. In Scary Movie 4 it’s the exact opposite. I only laughed sporadically, and even when I did, the director did not show any restrain and killed the joke by not knowing when to stop.

So what did I like? Leslie Nielsen. He does a spot-on George W. Bush impersonation and is very funny. It says a lot about a movie when one of its funniest bits involves Leslie Nielsen’s butt. I also liked the interaction between Bierko and his daughter (passing for the character played by Dakota Fanning) and the gags about the tripods not evaporating clothes. The solenoid bits are also spot-on. Some of the stuff in the village is funny, such as when Electra takes off her garments or Pullman has to deal with a gay couple. And there’s the obligatory Michael Jackson spoof, which is actually amusing. But that’s it.

The movie ends with a parody of Tom Cruise visiting Oprah and the whole couch-jumping episode. The real thing was so ridiculous that by just re-enacting it the sequence would’ve been hilarious. But no, Zucker goes so over-the-top that it becomes painful to watch. And some not-spooky movies are also given the funny treatment, such as Brokeback Mountain, Million Dollar Baby and Hustle & Flow. The potential was huge when parodying those movies, but the results are so-so.

Anna Faris is back for the fourth installment and she’s just, well, the same. She’s a talented actress, but the material she’s given is terrible. Craig Bierko can also be very good at times, but he mostly comes off embarrassing. And Regina Hall is also back as Cindy’s horny best friend, a welcomed return. Otherwise everyone appears for only a couple of scenes, so no real impression is left.

“I never did like kids. Remind me to sign that abortion bill.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Maltese Falcon

Director

John Huston

Year

1941

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

John Huston’s directorial debut is the classic third version of Dashiell Hammett’s “The Maltese Falcon”, a lightning-paced detective drama often referred to as the first Film Noir.

The story is triggered by a mysterious woman (Mary Astor) who recurs to private eye partners Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) asking them to tail a man and lying about her reasons. This gets Miles dead, and the man he was tailing dies too, so Spade realizes this is way more than the woman told them.

The murders are linked, Spade is suspected, and all of a sudden a peculiar group of people appear in his life: the mysterious Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre), the neurotic gunsel Wilmer (Elisha Cook Jr.) and his corrupt employer “The Fat Man” Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet). They are all, along with Miss O’Shaughnessy (Astor), looking for a priceless statuette known as the Maltese Falcon.

As far as Spade is concerned, he’s involved in the search too, and whether anyone succeeds in finding the Falcon or not is secondary: he’s in for all the money he can get while he cleans up his act.

Huston’s screenplay is very close to its source in constantly pulling off twists and turns as well as double-crossings, and it’s handled both excitingly and entertainingly. We get to like all the crooks and even Spade is a sort of anti-hero, and the characters’ constant witticisms and double-entendres turn out comical while the story is dramatic. This is not overplayed, but there is a whimsical undertone, very much emphasized by Adolph Deutsch’s fine score. All in all, seeing the characters interact and cheat each other constantly is a great pleasure. The fact that Spade always seems to have the edge makes it even better.

Bogart is unforgettable in the role that brought him stardom, embodying the gallant and dynamic detective who doesn’t lack weaknesses but is smart enough not to let them obstruct his proceedings. He’s really a pleasure to watch. The co-stars are as good: Astor just right as the alleged first femme fatale in history, Lorre both irresistible and repulsive as Cairo, Cook marvelous as the jumpy gunsel, and Greenstreet indelible in his screen debut (at age 62) as the suave and greedy villain.

After all is said and done, the story turns out an analysis of greed with a great sense of irony that Bogart perfectly expresses describing the Falcon with the Shakespearean “the stuff that dreams are made of.” My favorite moment is the one in which Spade thinks he’s got a hold of the Falcon and gets so excited he almost crutches his sexy assistant’s (Effie Perine) wrist; then and there, he’s no better than the villains he’s trying to outwit. Matter of fact, he’s a rather unethical fellow, having had an affair with his partner’s wife (Gladys George) and proving to have a heart of stone in any case; he’s also constantly looking for his own profit, and truly enjoys outsmarting both good and bad guys. This is a great character because he’s more human than the typical hero.

Huston builds tension until a climax that lasts a good while and doesn’t let go; his direction is so well-crafted and masterful, rich in photography (by Arthur Edeson) and camerawork, it very well foreshadowed the work of who was to become one of Hollywood’s greatest directors.

Incidentally, the director’s father, actor Walter Huston, makes a cameo appearance as the ill-fated Captain Jacobi… This film was everything but ill-fated.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Producers

Director

Susan Stroman

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 01, 2006

Sometimes I come here and write about how I haven’t read this or that book upon which a movie is based, or that I have never heard of this or that personality whose story the movie tells. I think it’s always important for you, the readers, to know where the critic stands, and I really have no problem being completely honest, especially since I’m still quite young and have no reason to know about everything that has gone on in the world. That said, my story with The Producers is different. I have seen the original 1968 movie and the play as performed in Los Angeles. I know my way around this specific story and characters, so that’s where I came from when I sat to watch this latest version of the Mel Brooks hit musical.

Theatre producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) is in desperate need of money after his latest production flopped. So when his shy accountant Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) mentions a strategic scheme in which he could win millions, Max is hooked. They just need to produce a play so bad it will close on the opening night, meaning that they can keep all the remaining money the investors put in it. They then find the “worst play ever written”, courtesy of Nazi Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell), and hire the “worst theatre director” in the form of the very gay Roger DeBris (Gary Beach). Together, along with their new secretary Ulla (Uma Thurman), they are determined to succeed... in their own way of course.

I have mixed feelings towards this version of the beloved story. I enjoyed plenty of it, but also had some trouble with specific details. Here’s where I join the chorus of so many people before me who have said this: the movie feels like a filmed play. Director Susan Stroman (a veteran theatre choreographer) and producer Mel Brooks made the disappointing decision to stick to basics and shoot the movie in the most simple and unoriginal of ways. Perhaps they did it so people who haven’t seen the play could enjoy it as it is, but that was wrong, for this is an entirely different medium.

This almost non-existing transition comes with its share of problems. To start off, the movie is overlong. More than two hours in the theatre watching a musical is ok. For a movie, it is way too long. I really don’t know which musical number they could’ve trimmed, but something had to be done. Then there are the performances. In theatre actors have to overact, in movies they don’t. But Stroman didn’t get that memo, and her characters come off absolutely ridiculous and annoying more than once. I also couldn’t shake off the feeling that everything was happening on a stage; the sets and production design are overly theatrical. Almost never do we get a feeling that this is happening in a real city.

That was the bad, but there’s also plenty of good. The way the movie is staged may be unoriginal, but some scenes do feel bigger and more accomplished because of the space that the big screen can provide. For example, the whole sequence in the accountant’s firm is much more spectacular on-screen because of the creativity that goes without having a constricted theatre stage. That said, these glimpses of brilliancy are scarce.

I think Mel Brooks’ songs and lyrics are terrific. I was able to start singing more than one song in my way out of the theater, and that rarely happens. Standouts include “We Can Do It”, “I Wanna Be A Producer”, “Keep It Gay”, “When You Got It, Flaunt It”, “Haben Sie gehört das Deutsche band?” and the iconoclastic “Springtime for Hitler”. It also helps that despite everything else, the script is hilarious, and the laughs keep coming. Movie musicals are somewhat difficult to endure, but when they’re as well-written as this, the experience is more enjoyable.

Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, the stars of the Broadway hit, reprise their roles with gusto. Still, I might be crucified for saying this but I didn’t really like Broderick as Leo Bloom. Gene Wilder and even Martin Short seemed better suited for the material. Broderick is playing so against-type that I was never able to forget it was him, the actor, trying really hard. Nathan Lane, on the other hand, is perfectly at home as Max, and his performance is outstanding (when you exclude some of the shouting). New addition Uma Thurman is joyous and ravishing. She steals every scene she’s in. I also got a kick out of Gary Beach’s Roger DeBris. Hilarious! Roger Bart, as his assistant Carmen Ghia, hits and misses in equal measure. And for me Will Ferrell is merely ok because his co-stars are even more over-the-top than he is, but I still found him annoying. That said, I’ve always felt the character is annoying, so maybe it’s not really his fault.

Colorful and splashy, but it never gets quite there.

“I want you to know my dear, that even though we’re sitting now, we’re giving you a standing ovation!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter