CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Tarzan

Director

Chris Buck

Kevin Lima

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 31, 2007

When Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan character became the most famous among his creations, he decided he would distribute the rights to adapt the character to every possible media, so as to capitalize him and get every possible benefit from his huge popularity. Experts advised against it, but time proved them wrong: Tarzan became a movie character, a comic book character, a radio character, a TV character, etc., and his popularity only grew. Rice Burroughs saw the amazing rise of his character during his lifetime, but one can only wonder what he would’ve said if he’d lived to see Disney’s adaptation, one of the greatest in the history of cinema.

Based on the first novel, “Tarzan of the Apes”, the story follows Tarzan from his babyhood, as he and his parents survive a shipwreck and settle in a deserted island, only to be attacked by a deadly leopard that kills the parents and tries to get the boy. Enter gorilla Kala (voice of Glenn Close), who just lost her own baby, to save the human kid just in time. Tarzan, as she calls him, is not easily welcome in the gorilla community, rejected in particular by their leader Kerchak (voice of Lance Henriksen) but forever protected by Kala, who adopts him as her child. Tarzan grows to be a sympathetic kid seeking equality though he’s clearly different from the other gorillas. He makes an extra effort day by day to grow stronger and better, and eventually becomes much more than anyone expected.

From the countless previous Tarzan film adaptations, the undeniably most popular are those starring Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O’Sullivan, starting with Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), which never mentioned anything about Tarzan’s origins and instead made it Jane’s story strictly, which alienated the audiences somehow from Tarzan’s psyche and the world of animals. As expected, Disney’s scope is completely different, as it gives us Tarzan’s point of view and summons us into the world of the animals who raised him, making them look beautiful and quite respectful even when acting in what we would consider an uncivilized way. It’s Disney all the way including the personalities of the talking animals, but it’s a welcome element and rather faithful to the source.

After Tarzan’s jungle life is established and he’s become a grown man (voice of Tony Goldwyn), complete with Weissmuller’s Tarzan call and everything, more human beings enter the story: explorers looking for gorillas, not to hunt them but to watch them, to study them. The leader is Archimedes Q. Porter (voice of Nigel Hawthorne), who believes gorillas form societies; coming along are his adventurous daughter Jane (voice of Minnie Driver) and a hunter, Clayton (voice of Brian Blessed), who just might have not-so-good intentions.

Tarzan’s greatest asset is its dynamism. The first scene takes your breath away and the film keeps up the pace almost without exception. The animation is mesmerizing and the music is perfection, particularly the song score by Phil Collins that’s as inspired as it’s moving and fun, sung by him in the background, moving the story forward without ever getting in the way (“You’ll be in my heart”, the most unforgettable song of all, is a masterpiece). The editing by Gregory Perler is masterful and never stops the action… So it’s a whirlpool of emotions from start to finish and you can’t but keep your eyes glued to the screen.

The story, however, not always matches this gargantuan feeling, and falls into cliché in more ways than one. The very concept of the evil hunter is terribly tired and doesn’t fit very well in the procedures. Some of the talking animals’ interaction is too conventional for this otherwise inventive film (notably a gorilla and an elephant voiced by Rosie O’Donnell and Wayne Knight, respectively). Jane’s personality, though loved by most moviegoers, seems too modern to me and not exactly matching her persona from the time, as O’Sullivan’s did (sorry to compare, but I can’t help it). Jane’s father is a typical Disney comic relief cliché.

Yet, once the movie ends, the bad is forgotten and the excitement is at its top. One can’t help but love the experience. This is a really good film.

“And you will always be in my heart.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Roger and Jessica Rabbit became households names the moment director Robert Zemeckis, with Steven Spielberg in hand as executive producer, decided to do a movie about them. But little did we all know that this experiment which blended animation with live-action would turn out so well, becoming arguably the best movie ever made within the genre.

Toon-hater detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) gets in the way of Roger Rabbit (voice of Charles Fleischer) and his wife Jessica (uncredited voice of Kathleen Turner) when he starts to investigate the murder of Mr. Acme (Stubby Kaye). There’s more to it than meets the eye as Toon Town is in trouble, conspiracies start to surface and even Judge Droom (Christopher Lloyd) could be involved.

Zemeckis directed from a script by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman, using the novel “Who Censored Roger Rabbit” by Gary K. Wolf as a basis. The resulting product would seem to be a movie for kids at first sight, but that’s far from the truth. This is an adult yarn about a world in which toons and humans co-exist, and where everyone must make a living and is subject to crime. Take the very first, and brilliantly-handled, sequence which appears to be an innocent and sweet cartoon that suddenly reveals the harsh truth behind it. This scene marks the tone for what will be the rest of the movie, a ride that includes loads of black humor and a film-noir-ish atmosphere.

Part of what makes the movie so appealing is that it has three highly interesting characters at its center: bitter Eddie Valiant, wacky Roger and sexy Jessica. The relationship between the last two is especially fascinating, starting from a merely visual standpoint. But Roger is a hoot of a character in itself, absolutely watchable and funny. And Jessica is one of the sexiest creations man has ever been able to pull off. Her introduction is absolutely perfect and everything about her is delectable.

Another bonus: spotting the many beloved characters that cameo in witty sketches that give the movie a higher sense of fun. I especially enjoyed Donald Duck and Betty Boop.

The people behind the visual effects won a well-deserved Oscar for their ground-breaking work in flawlessly mixing animation with photorealistic footage. The director and actors should also be commended for their extraordinary efforts in making it all seamless, as if the characters where really interacting then and there. Alan Silvestri’s score and Dean Cundey’s cinematography are also top-notch.

Bob Hoskins pulls off what is really a very difficult job and does so with his perfected deadpan delivery and mannerisms. The movie rests on his shoulders and he steps up to it. Charles Fleischer’s voice work is also extraordinary, as is Kathleen Turner’s. Joanna Cassidy as Valiant’s wife also leaves an impression, and Christopher Lloyd goes all crazy on us as only he knows how.

“I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan Escapes

Director

Richard Thorpe

Year

1936

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller) and Jane (Maureen O’Sullivan) live happy together in the jungle when all of a sudden they get some unexpected visits: Jane’s cousins Rita (Benita Hume) and Eric (William Henry) who tell Jane they need her signature and presence in London to claim an inheritance for the three. Jane’s dilemma is very strong: not only does she want to help her cousins, but she also misses her hometown and old life, while being incredibly happy with Tarzan (in what has become a very civilized lifestyle given the circumstances). Tarzan doesn’t understand a thing except Jane longs to go, and it’s quite a tragedy.

Jane’s cousins are brought to Tarzan by treacherous explorer Captain Fry (John Buckler) who wants to capture the man who has generated such myth and folklore among the tribes of savages in the region, supposed a “white ape” and quite a fearful creature. Not to reveal much of the plot, I’ll say this fact leads to the events that end up in the movie’s title.

This film continued Tarzan and His Mate (1934) not without every possible trademark: there’s quite a bit of sexual lingo between Tarzan and Jane, we have Cheetah the chimpanzee for comic relief, there are unnecessary battles with animals here and there and, most importantly, the plot deals with people dropping by in Tarzan’s home and meeting quite an adventure. The formula started feeling a bit tired by now but it still worked and there’s a good amount of entertainment. However, the tone of the franchise could have changed completely …

It’s quite a historical account: Director James C. McKay shot many scenes that were considered gruesome by test audiences. I was surprised, late into the film, to see some shocking violence in the jungle scenes, particularly the ones in the swamp, and I found it to be incongruous with the overall tone of the movie. Later I learned about McKay’s work and understood perfectly well. Turns out, after the rejection during the first screenings much of the film was re-shot by a new director, John Farrow (who went on to marry Maureen O’Sullivan, killing me of jealousy if I had been alive, and even now though it’s completely irrational), making several changes in cast and story. For one, there’s a whole new character, Fry’s aide Rawlins (Herbert Mundin), whose purpose is that of comic relief and quite a welcome presence it is. At the end, for some reason, only director Richard Thorpe was credited.

The result is uneven. You can see the energy and the vibe coming but it doesn’t quite reach you. It’s a bit formulaic though the formula is good, and not very inventive. One can only imagine how the film looked with all its violent sequences, and it kills several film buffs to imagine the greatest of all Tarzan movies. I’m among them, but as it is, I’m content with the final result.

Now, about that Maureen… It was all going great, we got a lot of skin in the previous entry, and now they come and cover her up. Goes to show you how the Code impacted Hollywood. But she’s great and lovely as ever, and completely credible in her dramatic turn as nostalgia takes over her character. Weissmuller just continues his greatness as Tarzan, also showing extra sensibility, and the rest of the cast do a good job.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Addams Family

Director

Barry Sonnenfeld

Year

1991

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 28, 2007

“The Addams Family” TV series was a success since before I was born and I actually discovered these wonderful characters through this movie. It was love at first sight. The imagination behind their world filled with black humor that appealed to both kids and their parents was something I had not seen before. And they remain unique to this day.

Gomez Addams (Raul Julia) and his wife Morticia (Anjelica Huston) live with their children Pugsley (Jimmy Workman) and Wednesday (Christina Ricci), as well as Grandma (Judith Malina), Lurch the butler (Carel Struycken) and Thing (Christopher Hart). They have a pretty distinctive yet happy way of life in their creepy mansion. But there’s only one thing missing: Gomez’s long lost brother Fester (Christopher Lloyd). That is, until a crazy woman (Elizabeth Wilson) arrives at their home with, apparently, him.

Barry Sonnenfeld directed from a script by Caroline Thompson and Larry Wilson, based on the characters created by Charles Addams. Fortunately for everyone, they managed to keep the tone intact while creating a new story that would fit a big format. The humor is exquisitely macabre, the situations hilariously over-the-top and the mood fittingly strange. A lot of attention was also paid to the details, and the result is a wacky ride that is as unpredictable as it is fascinating.

I’ve always thought that much of the appeal of this family has to do with the way they take themselves so seriously without apologizing for how different they actually are. When you watch them it feels as if all those things could actually happen, but of course they can’t. The way Pugsley and Wednesday are always playing deadly games, the things they all eat, the way Gomez and Morticia interact, the peculiarities inherent in all of their friends and the many wonders found in their mansion are just some of the many pleasures they, and their movie, have to offer.

Sonnenfeld surrounded himself with great collaborators that all worked at the top of their games, from Owen Roziman’s photography to Richard MacDonald’s production design, Margie Stone McShirley’s art direction, Ruth Myers’ costume design, and Marc Shaiman’s score, not to mention the makeup and special effects which are also top-notch. This movie is quite something, believe me.

To successfully carry on a project like this you have to start by casting the right people. Raul Julia is simply unforgettable and lends the right touch of weirdness and charisma to his character. Anjelica Huston is simply delicious as Morticia. And they do share a lot of chemistry. Another highlight is young Ricci, who is dead-on as the cynical Wednesday. The whole cast is amazing.

“It's called, ‘Is There a God?’”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Violin

Director

Francisco Vargas

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 24, 2007

El Violín is a little Mexican film that has found recognition in several international festivals including Cannes, and finally reached Mexican cinemas in 2007. I hope this is the beginning of something big for this great movie that enchanted me.

The story is remarkably simple, but has a monumental context. It tells of an old violin player in Mexico called Don Plutarco (Ángel Tavira) who is also part of a guerrilla against the abuse of the military towards the pageants in a very poor region. Don Plutarco is not a rebel per se, but most certainly has been, and now his son, Genaro (Gerardo Taracena), has continued the fight.

One day the troops take over the town and headquarters of the guerrilla and every survivor must run away. Don Plutarco and Genaro, along with the latter’s son Lucio (Mario Garibaldi), return and find the massacre, unable to find Genaro’s wife. While Genaro struggles to find a way to contact her and hopefully rescue her, Don Plutarco makes a strategy of his own. It is through his violin playing, sense of humor and outstanding resiliency that he goes further than anyone could imagine.

Despite the setting and premise of the film, The Violin is an enormously entertaining movie. It’s hauntingly shot in black and white (by Martín Boege and Oscar Hijuelos) and presented in a crude but beautiful style, and the story by director Vargas has enough suspenseful elements to call it a thriller. Even though in ways the film captures the slow procedures of rural people and the boring times that they must spend day by day, it presents its story in a most entertaining way, be it through suspense or humor.

Tavira is one hell of a leading man. In real life he’s every bit as we see him here, this being his film debut and partly based on him. His performance is superb and truly memorable, partially ad-libbed by him and showing a real-life bravura that’s unmatchable. Every supporting actor does a great job, particularly Dagoberto Gama as an Army Captain, a villain by definition but quite a human being with flaws and virtues.

For its short running time, The Violin is as intense as it’s beautiful. It’s hard not to be absorbed by its dramatic realism, tears might show up once or twice, and there’s just no way to not fall in love with Don Plutarco and the actor who performs him (in my heart, one and the same person).

I wish we could see more of Mr. Tavira, but it’s hard to envision him in a different role, his characteristics being so in line with this role. We’ll have to wait and see, but for one, I’m happy that we’ll always have The Violin as a tribute to the great simplicity of a man who represents a fight of thousands of Mexican people who don’t get any attention but a lot of abuse.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Perfect Stranger

Director

James Foley

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

I never intended to see this movie. It looked like the kind of 90’s thrillers that are not made anymore, much less with such big stars attached to it. But facing an urge to go to the movies and with not another interesting option I hadn’t seen already I went in. It wasn’t good all right, but I started to wish it would be worse so that it would fall into complete camp territory and at least become memorable or maybe a guilty pleasure. But no, it just wandered there, entertaining but mediocre at best.

Rowena (Halle Berry) is an ambitious journalist who takes a stumble after one of her latest big stories is not published, but she catches another one in a hurry. A powerful businessman, Harrison Hill (Bruce Willis), seems to be behind the violent murder of Rowena’s childhood friend Grace (Nicki Aycox), so with the help of co-worker Miles (Giovanni Ribisi) she decides to take him, starting with getting a job in his firm and seducing him.

Director James Foley, who has had a hit-and-miss career with the latter predominating in the second half of his filmography, directed from a screenplay by Todd Komarnicki which was based on a story by Jon Bokenkamp. It is really weird to find Berry and Willis lending their personas to such a trite flick like this, but I guess sometimes we all go for the money. They sure don’t embarrass themselves (well, maybe a little) but no one’s going to remember this thing the minute after they’re done with it. Why would they? The sex factor is almost non-existent, the violence is meh, the proceedings are forgettable and the finale is surprising, yes, but by then we barely care.

The movie is tolerable because it is intriguing while you’re at it; like a bad TV movie you can’t stop watching when channel-surfing. There’s the permeating question of who the killer might be: Harrison? His wife? His assistant? Miles? We get enough evidence and motifs to blame any of them, and I must admit it is fun trying to put the pieces together. The final plot twist is hard to see coming and it certainly puts to question some of the things we witnessed minutes before. But the movie is almost never boring and actually manages to entertain. That’s what it has going for it.

Oh, and the photography. Perfect Stranger is beautifully shot by Anastas N. Michos.

Halle Berry is good with what she’s given. She really tries to convince us this is as serious a project as any other heavy one she’s done. Bruce Willis, on the other hand, phones-in his performance. This is vacations to him. Giovanni Ribisi actually manages to inject some energy and creepiness into the story, leaving a strong mark.

“Stroke a man's dick, you get him for one night. Stroke a man's ego, you get him for life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan and His Mate

Director

Cedric Gibbons

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Following up Tarzan the Ape Man (1932) was just the logical move of MGM and it happened two years later with Tarzan and his Mate. I wasn’t surprised to see that the formula was essentially the same, but it was good to see a progression of the story that we learned to love in the first movie.

This time around, the story isn’t told from the point of view of Jane Parker (Maureen O’Sullivan) but that of her former suitor Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) and his new partner and buddy Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh) who set to find the elephant’s graveyard to get the ivory, as Harry did in the previous film along with Jane’s father. Admittedly, Harry is in to get Jane back, while Martin lusts for the ivory.

So the trip is on and it’s exactly the same as in Tarzan the Ape Man, with more or less the same perils and more or less the same type of encounter with Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller). Only now Jane is with him, living with him as his mate, and helps the civilized men by convincing Tarzan to aid them, without the Ape Man’s knowledge of what they’re really looking for.

If Harry was in love with Jane before, it’s easy to see why he falls for her way more this time. She’s dressed in the least possible savage clothing, baring so much skin it’s unbelievable for its time, but of course it’s pre-Code Hollywood so that explains it. Harry and especially Martin go head over heels for Jane, and enter a competition to win her from Tarzan… But of course Tarzan’s the man, so even though Jane has her doubts, there’s no way she’ll return to civilization. Or is it?

Getting into the notable lack of clothing… There seems to be a tendency towards nakedness here. Tarzan is of course no more or less undressed than before, but this time Jane joins him and even Martin takes a bath during a scene in the beginning which seems completely unnecessary. But the focus is always on Jane, who undresses in a tent allowing us to see her perfect silhouette, and later skinny dips with Tarzan! The latter is a notorious scene that was removed for decades and recently restored. It features professional swimmer Josephine McKim instead of Maureen O’Sullivan, but it’s Jane after all, and she’s completely naked. I was stunned.

As I said, the story follows a similar structure as the first one, but with important variations. The first one is that the mythical elephant’s graveyard is disregarded as an ethical source of ivory, with Tarzan strongly opposing that greedy practice. There’s a scene where he summons dozens of elephants to prevent the action which is completely impressive. Other than that, the film’s as politically incorrect as ever, particularly with black people treated inhumanly as slaves.

The animal scenes are overall superior, sometimes even unbelievable, and the action is in general better than in the previous entry. Still some fights with animals get in the way of the story, but are a good showcase for Tarzan. This time around, Jane enters the action, including her own version of the Tarzan call which is hard to get used to. Cheeta the monkey is back again, this time with Little Cheeta coming along, and it’s clear where the comic relief lies, but it’s still subtle enough.

The story gets into tragic terrains towards the end which is priceless. This is very complete entertainment, and a proud follow-up to the first classic film.

“Good morning, I love you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Blades of Glory

Director

Josh Gordon

Will Speck

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 21, 2007

Will Ferrell is back to the type of comedy that has worked the best for him: lampooning a certain profession in a satirical yet tongue-in-cheek way. He already did it with Anchorman (2004) and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006). This time his target is ice-skating. The sole notion of having him as an ice-skater is hilarious by itself, and fortunately the movie delivers.

Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) is a tough, womanizing ice-skater, while Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder) is a sensitive, sweet one. When they tie for the gold at their latest competition a fight ensues, and both are expelled from competing ever again in the sport. After some years have passed, they find themselves almost finished, but their Coach (Craig T. Nelson) decides to put them together in the doubles competition, a first, and go against world champions Stranz Van Waldenberg (Will Arnett) and his sister Fairchild (Amy Poehler). Things get more complicated when Jimmy falls in love with their little sister Katie (Jenna Fischer).

The movie was co-directed by Josh Gordon and Will Speck, based on a story and script credited to five different writers. Usually that would be a bad sign, but in this case the result is actually ok. Ferrell can be very good at this type of foray, and he sure elevates the material. There is nothing to take seriously from the get-go, and once we’re immersed in it the laughs never stop coming. Well, actually there are gags which don’t work as well as others, but that’s part of the territory. There is always something else around the corner to lift our spirits and by the end I was in a complete high.

The satire comes as part of the background details, whether it’s the ridiculousness by which people respond to skaters or the songs they choose to perform. And let’s not get started on the costumes. Chazz and Jimmy work very well together and form an endearing couple even though the former is insufferable most of the time. Their enemies, Stranz and Fairchild, are wonderfully eccentric. And the romance between Jimmy and Katie is actually sweet and well-handled. Of course, everything comes in a package where over-the-top is the way to go, but it works.

I was curious to see how far they would take the gay angle in such a high-profile mainstream flick, but I’m afraid the result in that regard is rather low-key. Sure, there are countless gay gags (their first official performance is a riot) but it doesn’t go anywhere in that department. No biggie.

Ferrell is as funny as only he can be with this type of material, but the real revelation is Jon Heder, who proves to be a worthy counterpart. Will Arnett and Amy Poehler are spot-on as the villains, as is Jenna Fischer as their lovable sister. Craig T. Nelson is solid as usual and William Fichtner has a small role as Jimmy’s father.

“Those two are nothing but a couple of freaks.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

Director

Tom Tykwer

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 17, 2007

I was pleased by Patrick Süskind’s novel “Das Parfum”. It was a different take on a psychologically complex character and I think it spoke for the loneliness common to so many people, not only one with the extraordinary abilities and characteristics of its main character, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille. I was one of many who worried about the film adaptation not being faithful enough to its source, mainly because the novel relies heavily on the description of scents, which is hardly cinematic. Thus I’m glad to report that watching the film was almost as reading the novel again. It’s a great achievement.

The story tells of an abominable murderer who didn’t make it into history books like others as monstrous because he dealt exclusively with the realm of scent. Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw) was born in 18th-century France, despised by his mother and rejected or ignored by everybody who crossed his path. Ever since his first minutes in the world his amazing ability to distinguish smells to their finest detail was clear, and he used it to enjoy his existence despite his shortcomings and lacks. He created a world of his own, and learned to hate the outside world and eventually himself. Becoming the king of scent was his goal, not because he wanted to be noticed, but because he wanted to grasp the best scents, to conceal them, to carry them around if so needed. Hence began his quest that eventually led to murder.

The story is so unconventional it’s beautiful. Ever since I read the book I was surprised that such an unsympathetic character could be the lead of a successful tale, and that’s because he’s so extraordinary and fascinating. Also you can’t help but identify with his loneliness, at least a little bit, and with that need of his to hide inside himself once in a while to escape the worldliness of society.

The mind is so powerful that it creates a whole world if stimulated right. Süskind’s novel succeeds in making us visualize 18th-century France and smell every smell that Grenouille’s impressive sense of smell can perceive. It was deemed impossible to film an adaptation and achieve the same reaction, but at last it was attempted and I must applaud the result. While detail is missing, as in all adaptations, the feel is intact and the passion is as palpable. You can almost smell what Grenouille smells, because of what you see and hear. That’s a triumph of Tykwer’s, along with cinematographer Frank Griebe and editor Alexander Berner, and everyone involved with sound and sound editing, costumes, makeup, production design and the rest. Awesome!!!

The story has its share of comedy. It’s mostly an allegory, and it has its light moments. Much of it falls in the hands of expert Dustin Huffman who, in the role of has-been great perfumer Giuseppe Baldini, excels not only in transmitting pathos but in lending one of the most important twists of the movie. Later on, Grenouille meets a young girl who has something that he wants more than anything in the whole world, and which becomes his do-or-die goal: she’s Laura (Rachel Hurd-Wood), the young daughter of Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman), an important man in the town of Grasse. Hurd-Wood is quite unforgettable, while Rickman is as reliable as always. John Hurt provides one of those rare voice-over narrations that is 100% effective.

But Whishaw is perfection as Grenouille. You thoroughly believe in his low self-esteem and his contrasting devotion to his talent and his will to improve and rule the world… or rather his world. He’s credible all along and even looks the part, at least the way I had envisioned him. Bravo for that casting choice!

Expert Tykwer obviously put a lot of heart in the project. He not only co-scripted with Andrew Birkin and Bernd Eichinger, but he also co-composed the score with Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek. I’d say the script is more successful than the score, as the music sometimes seems intrusive, which doesn’t mean that it’s not beautiful and mostly serviceable. Good job there too.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spider-Man 3

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

I was one of the few people who thought Spider-Man (2002) was better than Spider-Man 2 (2004) but still… I love both movies. I love the characters and their universe, and having a third one to complement them was something I, and I believe many, were eagerly anticipating. Unfortunately the result is disappointing, a bunch of good intentions gone terribly awry.

Spider-man, aka Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), has become the town’s hero, with people embracing him and enemies dreading him. His girlfriend Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) has gotten the lead role in a Broadway play and it all seems to be going fine between them. But Harry Osborn (James Franco) is still planning on revenge against Peter; a convict, Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), becomes Sandman after being in the wrong place at the wrong time and plans on stealing to help his sick daughter; and a new photographer, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), threatens Peter’s job at the Daily Bugle.

Sam Raimi is once again at the helm of this epic movie (the most expensive ever made) based on a script of his own along with Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sargent. I feel bad giving the guy a hard time because in the previous installments he really got it. Unfortunately here the main problems lie in the script, where bad choice was made after bad choice. It’s such a massacre of bad ideas that I couldn’t believe it was the same talented people who had done so good before. But the series has clearly run into a fatigue phase, and if they go ahead with a fourth episode a lot of retooling will have to be made.

Where to begin? I am not against coincidences in movies as long as they are well-handled and make sense, but this movie is an insult in this regard. The mere inclusion of Venom relies heavily on them, starting with the ridiculous notion that the meteor fell just where Peter was and culminating in the more ridiculous notion that Brock happened to be there when Peter decided to shed the costume. Looking back on the highly over-plotted movie I believe the appearance of this villain was unnecessary and under-handled. Besides, he looks scary when completely covered, but when Brock shows his face (and those teeth!) he becomes almost laughable.

Most of the structure of the previous movies also appears here but to tiresome and repetitive effects. Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is still giving long and inspirational speeches that are sleep-inducing; Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) shows in a flashback depicting a scene from the first movie but looking ages older; Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe) once again appears to his son. And yes, Peter and Mary Jane are still struggling to keep their relationship afloat, but to be fair their problems are different and understandable.

This takes me to the whole rebellious Spidey episode. When the symbiote gets hold of Peter he goes into insufferable mode, changing his haircut, his outfits and acting out on his impulses. This whole bit is not bad, it’s ghastly. I’ve seen the movie twice and both times my urge was to look away from the screen; it is so embarrassing. A dance number and a subsequent bar brawl are especially cringe-inducing.

The subplot involving Harry Osborn is hit-and-miss. The first big set-piece in the movie has him (with more advanced gadgets) trying to kill Peter. This is, in my opinion, the best action scene in the movie. It is fast, exciting and truly menacing; it is also character-driven down to the end. And then what? Amnesia! Yes... amnesia! Oh boy, cue melodrama. From there on his inclusion in the story, and the obligatory triangle that forms between Peter, Mary Jane and him, comes right out of a bad soap-opera. And you just know he’s going to remember everything at some point, which is where his story becomes interesting again. Too bad his butler’s inclusion, as a clear deus-ex-machina, feels so forced.

Sandman’s story is also a collection of good and bad. The very best scene of the movie belongs to him. It is where he struggles to become human for the first time; a triumph of character and special-effects that is Raimi at his best. His dilemma and motivations also make of him an intriguing subject. But when he goes into full-villain mode at the end everything’s thrown down the toilet. I believe the intention was to end the movie on a spectacular way, but the final battle is poorly handled and he’s one of the reasons. Why does Sandman need to become this huge clumsy mass-monster when he is clearly more dynamic and dangerous when he is normal-sized and dusty? Mary Jane once again becomes a screaming queen, doing acrobatics that are just not believable. The sequence keeps cutting to a reporter down there and a television broadcast, both of which are lame, lame, lame. And the visual effects are not as flawless here as they should, I’m afraid. But coming back to Sandman, his involvement in Uncle Ben’s death is another terrible idea, just a lame excuse for Peter to have something strong against him.

What else? Gwen Stacy’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) introduction is fortunate, I loved the character. Too bad she mostly serves as an object of jealousy; I would’ve loved a little more content. Her father’s reaction when she’s on the verge of death is laughable, he couldn’t care less! And what about the Batman & Robin-esque moments in which Spider-man appears in public and even talks to people? The “engagement” scene at the restaurant is really good, funny and emotional. And every scene at the Daily Bugle is a hoot; I love that place and its inhabitants.

Acting-wise the movie, once again, delivers mixed results. I’ve always loved Tobey Maguire in the character, but there are scenes here where he makes a complete fool of himself. I know he has to trust his director (and in this case a very good one), but this is bad. Kirsten Dunst, on the hand, is excellent with the material she’s given. I really appreciated her work even though it might not stand out at first glance. James Franco is his usual self. Topher Grace didn’t convince me at all once he became a truly bad guy. Thomas Haden Church is extraordinary as Sandman, I wish he had had more to do with his part. Bryce Dallas Howard is radiant and adorable, she truly lights up the screen. Rosemary Harris is ok I guess. James Cromwell has a thankless role. Theresa Russell has a small bit as Marko’s wife and she leaves a strong impression; as does Bruce Campbell. And finally, J.K. Simmons and Elizabeth Banks are hilarious.

“I hate those things!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Spider-Man 3 (2007): Groucho

Review

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie

Director

Stephen Hillenburg

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

I have lately become a huge fan of the “SpongeBob SquarePants” TV show, catching every episode I can on TV and laughing my ass out with every one of them. It’s hilarious, full of visual and spoken gags and an unmatched sense of humor all the way. So all of a sudden I had the urge to watch The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, and when I did I wasn’t so happy. It’s SpongeBob all right, but the story didn’t hold as well in the long running time as it does in eleven and a half minutes on TV. It wasn’t fresh after long, and all in all it was slower because they had to stretch it. The humor was there, the gags were there, the characters were there, but it wasn’t the same.

The story involves SpongeBob’s boss, Mr. Krabs (voice of Clancy Brown), opening a second restaurant, the Krusty Krab 2, and disappointing SpongeBob (voice of Tom Kenny) by not naming him Manager despite his clearly being the best employee, losing the position to Squidward Tentacles (voice Rodger Bumpass). In the meantime, Mr. Krabs’ arch-nemesis Plankton (voice of Mr. Lawrence) realizes he’s only tried plans A to Y to steal the recipe to the Krusty Krab’s great success, the Krabby Patty. His plan Z is hilarious: to steal King Neptune’s crown and blame Mr. Krabs for it. King Neptune (voice of Jeffrey Tambor) is terribly upset by this because he’s bald and wants to destroy Mr. Krabs. His daughter Mindy (voice of Scarlett Johansson) manages to get him a chance to get the crown back, and SpongeBob volunteers to do so, along with his friend Patrick Star (voice of Bill Fagerbakke). Along the perilous way to the horrific Shell City, they’re pursued by Plankton’s hit man, Dennis (voice of Alec Baldwin).

Stephen Hillenburg’s world is fantastic. You just gotta love an underwater setting that breaks every rule of logic for the sake of laughter. The wacky characters are also genius. I love each and every one of them, especially Squidward. The movie focuses much more on the story but has enough gags to display the characters’ great wackiness.

You know when your beloved TV shows have a special episode where the characters go away for the whole running time and you just miss their usual setting? This is an example of that: the adventure takes SpongeBob and his pal Patrick away from their town, Bikini Bottom, and you just can’t match the fun of seeing SpongeBob preparing those Krabby Patties.

As for the animation, it’s definitely superior to that of the TV show, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. The simplicity of it on TV is some of what makes the show so great…

There are several hilarious sequences and songs that keep the thing going. The third act is the best, with a whole sequence in the overwater world and a fantastic cameo by David Hasselhoff that’s a stroke of genius. The other guest stars, who lend their voices, aren’t as showy; it’s always a pleasure to hear the voices of Scarlett Johansson and Alec Baldwin though.

There’s a recurrent theme about immaturity and childlikeness that more or less drives the plot. I wasn’t thrilled by this. While it was effective indeed in setting up very funny sequences in SpongeBob and Patrick’s adventure, it soon became a serious moral and didn’t seem to really belong to SpongeBob. The finale accentuated this and I was actually confused, expecting a last-second gag or something…

The film is framed by live-action scenes of pirates thrilled about the movie, which works like wonders.

I hate having mixed feelings about this film… But I’m still nuts about the show!

“I never thought I’d see it with me own eye… Tickets to the SpongeBob Movie!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Underpass

Director

Rain Breaw

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 14, 2007

The last couple of years have brought several different takes on movies and documentaries about conflicts that have been happening in Africa and their horrible aftermaths. But similar events have also taken place in other regions such as Cambodia in Southeast Asia. In the late 70s a regime by the name of Khmer Rouge infused terror and was responsible for the death of thousands of people, maybe millions. Some people luckily managed to escape, forging a life in many other countries. Underpass tells the story of one such family.

In 1992 San Diego, Sann (Tony LaThanh) lives with his mother Orn (Mony Sing) and sister Borya (Jenn Wong). They run a small donut shop and have a generally quiet existence. But their past still haunts them every day, and Sann’s way of expressing it is by drawing impressive graffiti murals. One day Orn hires an illegal immigrant from Central America, Ana (Vanessa Born), and Sann reacts with hostility, not able to come to terms with his own existence and purging his frustrations into someone else.

Rain Breaw wrote and directed this short film which was made possible with the help of The Caucus Foundation, the National Theater Owner's Association and the Samuel & Lorenza Gary Finishing Fund. The director has said that this story is quite personal to her heart and you can notice that in every carefully set-up scene, not only because of how well-handled every detail is, but because of the instantly palpable sentiment that she imbues within her frames. Breaw shows she’s got what it takes regarding storytelling in the cinematic medium. Her film flows effortlessly and captivates us by saying so much with so little.

The emotional core of the story lies in the way Sann gradually finds a catharsis in his own life through his attitude, and eventually actions, towards Ana. He is a nice fellow deep down, but like most of us he canalizes that energy in both good and bad ways. His drawings and the world he creates in them are very personal and full of pain, but so is his approach towards real life and the people that surround him despite the immense love he feels for them. His mother can only stare, preoccupied and being there for him, but it is Sann who must find his own redemption and deal with the consequences of his acts.

Underpass is very well put-together. Charlene Sun’s cinematography is beautiful, and Dengue Fever and Chhom Nimol’s music is appropriately haunting. LaThanh’s lead performance is excellent; we can feel his pain and doubts by just looking at his eyes, and he conveys every nuance with careful precision. Sing, on the other hand, is somewhat stilted, but she earns points for being a real-life activist who suffered through the horrors of Cambodia.

“People come and go... but we survive because of each other.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spider-Man 3

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Spider-Man is back! I was such a HUGE fan of Spider-Man 2 (2004) I was expecting it quite anxiously. I’ve always been a fan of comic books and their good adaptations, and the Spider-Man series hadn’t let down. This time it did disappoint, which no one can deny. But let me just say that I still liked it. I was disappointed, but I liked it, I was happy during and after it, and I’m glad to write about it in good spirits. I won’t deny its flaws, but it’s still a film I see in a good light… or is it?

The story continues as that young nerd, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), continues to split his time between his job as a photographer for the Daily Bugle, his school where he’s a model student, his relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and, last but never least, his heroic antics as your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. The webslinger has it better than ever, loved by people and government alike, and cheered at every turn.

This goes up to Peter’s head and he becomes quite cocky, wanting to marry M.J. though she’s having serious issues about their relationship and her career as an actress. Peter selfishly ignores all this and continues to show off as a superhero and go forward with his plans with M.J. like she’s perfectly OK with it while she’s not.

In the meantime, Peter’s pal Harry Osborn (James Franco), sure that Spider-Man killed his father Norman, the “Green Goblin” (Willem Dafoe), and after finding out that Peter Parker is Spider-Man, sets to avenge his dad and becomes the New Goblin, using his father’s legacy for it. Also in the meantime, a man named Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), who turns out to be Uncle Ben’s actual killer, escapes from jail and accidentally gets involved in an experiment that affects his molecules and turns him into a man made of sand… And also in the meantime, an envious photographer called Eddie Brock, Jr. (Topher Grace) develops a grudge against Peter Parker. Oh! And how could I forget that also in the meantime, a symbiotic alien entity invades Spider-Man’s suit and gives him extra abilities while making him a tad more reckless.

Yeah, talk about saturation. I don’t get it… Why make it like this if there’s enough material here for at least three movies? The result is quite obvious: under-development of every subplot and an excess in every regard. I thought they could pull it off, but nah! And even the bits that get more space don’t get a worthy treatment. At start it looks quite good: Peter and Mary Jane’s drama is potent, as is Harry’s. Then the whole amnesia subplot is laughable, and when supporting characters start pouring in you relax because you know this can’t be serious. Then dialogue becomes laughable too and by the end it’s all a mess. I was in for the fun and I still loved the essence and much about the Spider-Man spirit but I couldn’t deny I was watching a true mess.

Stories can rely on coincidences and that’s a trademark of comic books, but after the more or less logical storylines of the first two movies you can’t help but question things like Sandman’s connection to Uncle Ben or the alien entity’s choice for a first host. But it’s unforgivable to rely on coincidence or easy escapes for a resolution and there’s a lot of that in the end. The participation of a butler is especially ludicrous, and what about “Dear God, I want you to kill Peter Parker”… beautifully hilarious. While the dilemma of characters like Peter and Harry is more or less believable, you just don’t swallow that of any other character, particularly Eddie, so most of it is trash.

The cast does a good work considering, but they’re helpless with the material. Poor James Franco, waiting for several years and two movies for his big shot, got a pretty bad subplot, but at least not half as bad as that of Thomas Haden Church or Topher Grace. Pretty Bryce Dallas Howard plays legendary character Gwen Stacy, who only serves as a poorly used plot device and doesn’t add up to much. The worst bit of casting is that of James Cromwell as Gwen’s dad and Captain of Police, a character so poor and a great actor so wasted that it’s just a shame. J.K. Simmons comes back to provide the yucks as J. Jonah Jameson, editor of the Bugle, and that’s quite successful. Rosemary Harris comes back as Aunt May and serves her purpose OK but also somewhat irrelevantly.

The bit where Spidey is black is the best. The suit gives Peter Parker a dark side that’s as delicious as any dark side in any story and luckily it’s developed better than other subplots. They go too far when Peter dances in a bar but otherwise I liked his mood and enjoyed the consequences, even the negative ones. I thought it was the best sequence of the movie, though that’s not saying much.

As for the action sequences, they’re as excessive as anything else here and visual effects are just too obvious. I didn’t mind in the first one but by the last one I was puking, in part because the set-up was too contrived, obvious, and much like every superhero movie out there. It was all cliché.

But I enjoyed it, I really did!! Only that I know that as many Spider-Man movies as there may be, they’ll belong to the category begun in number 3. Only the first 2 are really worthwhile, but they’re so good I can live with that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Spider-Man 3 (2007): Morris

Review

All About Eve

Director

Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Year

1950

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

I had heard many times about All About Eve before, but as it usually happens to me with classics, it took me a while before I tried it. Finally, I went for it and was gladly surprised. No, that’s wrong, it wasn’t surprise. It was, sure enough, fulfillment. How could you not be fulfilled, as a film enthusiast, by what is one of the greatest films of all time according to many, including the revered reviewers at CriticSociety?

This is definitely a classic masterpiece that starts with a superb cast. It might be impossible to imagine anyone else doing a better job, squirming in that swanky world of theater productions created by Academy Award winner Joseph L. Mankiewicz based on the story “The Wisdom of Eve” by Mary Orr.

Bette Davis leads the way in a role that, so I learned, mimicked her own life and circumstances at the time of filming and even after that. Davis is delectably ideal as Margo Channing, the Broadway superstar at the pinnacle of her career, facing both her midlife crisis and the quiet, but inescapable, assault of disingenuous, actress aspirant, Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter).

Eve, with the help of unassuming Karen Richards (Celeste Holm), cunningly enters the life of Margo and the fascinating and treacherous world of theater performers, where she certainly fits like a glove to a hand. Eve fascinates almost everyone with her devotion and dedication. Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe), the successful playwright and Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill), Margo’s boyfriend and director, embrace her without hesitation.

But not everybody is captivated by the innocence and genuineness of Eve; there are some others that can see right through her. Addison DeWitt, in one of those ill relationships where cohorts cannot coexist but at the same time can not exist without one another, is the necessary, however sometimes unwelcome, theater critic and commentator. Played marvelously by George Sanders, DeWitt can read Eve as an open book, but he recognizes the talent, does his homework and lets her (and helps her) take charge and demonstrate her skills and abilities, both on and off the stage.

I wondered, throughout the whole movie, how it was possible for so many right components to converge at the same place and at the same time. I believe there was even some luck involved, as when Davis landed the role of Margo after Claudette Colbert was injured while filming another movie. Again, the performances are just right, the editing is impeccable, as you watch one character’s reaction as the other delivers a sharp-witted comment, the production design, wardrobe and music (Alfred Newman) all stand out.

But at the end, I concur, Mankiewicz’s screenplay is the stalwart foundation of what I guess would be the everlasting magnificence of All About Eve. Even after 50 years it still feels fresh, innovative and provocative. His masterful direction vaults right at you as well, but his script, of course, is what makes this film what it is. It is sharp, clever and amusing. It is perfection. It is perhaps too perfect. The characters are all smart, educated and sophisticated, however, occasionally, they seem like juvenile, though certainly skilled, actors or actresses immaculately regurgitating so well memorized Shakespearean poetry, rather than letting their true hearts speak for them.

But hey, who am I to dare criticizing one of the greatest films of all time? Movies, I know, are created to be enjoyable or thought provoking. I enjoyed All About Eve very much, and it certainly stirred my mind. Isn’t that combination what makes movies beautiful?

“There never was, and there never will be, another like you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan the Ape Man

Director

W.S. Van Dyke

Year

1932

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Tarzan is a household name, known instantly around the world by the mention of his name or the singing of his call. He was famous long before this movie was made, ever since the first book by Edgar Rice Burroughs was published, but this version created the definitive vision that no doubt contributed immensely to Tarzan’s ever-lasting addition to the popular culture.

The casting of Olympic medalist swimmer Johnny Weissmuller in the role of the famous ape-man was a stroke of genius, and left no doubt to us film buffs that he’s the one and only, accept-no-imitations Tarzan.

I must say however that to me, the casting of Maureen O’Sullivan as Jane is as important. Not only is she also the definitive incarnation of her character, but she’s as lovely as they get and a lot of what makes this movie a classic. I think her casting is inspired to the point of brilliancy. I have been a fan of Maureen’s for years now, but seeing her as Jane was a mystical experience yet unmatched: she’s sweet, tough and funny. And ever so lovely.

The story happens from Jane’s point of view, as she arrives in Africa to stay with her father James (C. Aubrey Smith) and his partner Harry (Neil Hamilton), much to the latter’s dismay and the former’s excitement. Mr. Parker’s dismay accounts to Jane’s adventurous spirit that will take her anywhere she wants, which can only mean extra danger and worries for her father. Harry, on the other hand, is immediately smitten by the young woman and sees no other choice than to declare his love for her at the very first opportunity. British pompousness is evident even in the jungle, and as a lady Jane promises to consider it. Then they set to a quest for the elephant cemetery where they’ll find enough ivory to get rich, and thus the adventure sets off!

Yes, you heard right: they go for the ivory of dead elephants. That subject matter is shocking nowadays, but so is half of what we see here. I was surprised to see how “politically incorrect” this movie has become, but so have most of Disney’s early shorts. It’s amusing, in a way. But on with the review…

Once in the jungle, after facing numerous perils, Jane and the crew hear a mysterious yell they presume comes from a beast, but finally deduce comes from a man. This is Tarzan’s trademark call, created for this film by Douglas Shearer, and which gave me goose bumps the first time it’s heard. The very first time the Tarzan yell was heard in the world! That’s unbelievable. It’s a beautiful sound, by the way, and as important to the movie as if it was another character altogether. It has its part in moving the screenplay along more than once, you know. And it’s better-known nowadays than Weissmuller’s face.

Tarzan sees Jane and falls for her: who can blame him? He’s never seen a woman before and the first one he sees looks exactly like Maureen O’Sullivan? I could only hope for his sake that she decided to stick with him, otherwise his next girl would have quite large shoes to fill. Anyway, he decides to kidnap her, and at first she’s terrified of course, but finally finds that his tenderness and innocence quite surpass the tiresome manners of the society she comes from.

In the meantime, there are several action scenes, many of which are heart-pumping while others are a tad boring. Some of the stock jungle footage came from the movie Trader Horn from 1931, but its addition is seamless. It’s awesome work.

Weissmuller is impressive, physically speaking, and some of his action scenes left me awe-struck. I’m not sure how they managed it, but he fought several beasts like it was nothing! Aside from his impressive figure and apparent strength, Weissmuller is a winner for his notable innocence, which not only makes us believe in Jane’s feelings for him, but makes us share them.

Maureen O’Sullivan… What a lovely girl. Her scenes in the water with Tarzan are so erotic I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. How sometimes classic cinema surprises us. I love this film, if only for her. But it’s quite a great piece to take a look at, all in all!

“Tarzan, Jane, Tarzan, Jane, Tarzan, Jane…”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sunshine

Director

Danny Boyle

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 07, 2007

I am not terribly fond of space movies, especially the serious kind. I find the whole concept of going out there utterly fascinating, but there’s something about the stories usually told that somehow don’t gel for me, whether it’s because of their metaphysic elements or their thriller-y aspects. But when a renowned director tackles the genre and it looks to be at least tolerable I’m more than willing to immerse myself in the experience.

The year is 2057 and the sun is dying. A mission, Icarus II, is sent to reactivate it by dropping a bomb the size of Manhattan in it after a previous mission inexplicably failed to do so. The crew members are Captain Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada), pilot Cassie (Rose Byrne), psychologist Searle (Cliff Curtis), technician Mace (Chris Evans), 2nd-in-charge Harvey (Troy Garity), engineer Capa (Cillian Murphy), router Trey (Benedict Wong) and supplier Corazon (Michelle Yeoh). After having been 16 months in space they pick up a signal which forces them to decide whether to change their route or not, one of many decisions that sets off a chain of unanticipated events.

Director Danny Boyle teamed up with writer Alex Garland for his latest foray, a combination that has brought both good and bad results in the past. Here the verdict is mixed, although with a high tendency towards the positive. Actually, for the first two thirds of its running time the movie borders on greatness, but it takes a jaw-droppingly bad turn in its last half hour which changes the tone from realistic suspense to silly horror. It’s as if they ran out of ideas and thought that this plot point would be cool. It’s not. But let’s focus on the achievements...

The first thing that stroked me as welcomed was the depiction of the spaceship and the life of the people in it. I have no clue about aeronautics, but I believed Mark Tildesley’s production design and thought that it all looked reasonable enough. There are no over-the-top futuristic embellishments, and this restraint is also shown in the character development. These people are not types, and even though there isn’t much time to develop them we do get a full sense of who they are with little dialogue and pure acting. Unfortunately we don’t get too emotionally invested with them, although we do want their mission to succeed.

Most of the movie functions as a pure mean of entertainment with no higher pretensions, but there is an undercurrent that blossoms towards the end about the religious aspects of what these people are doing. Is it ok to challenge God and try to reverse what he’s doing? It’s a rational vs. spiritual clash that poises interesting questions. And yet I believe Boyle and Garland could’ve dug deeper into it.

Special and visual effects are top-notch, as are Alwin H. Kuchler’s cinematography and the electronic score by Karl Hyde, John Murphy and Rick Smith.

Performances are uniformly good, with Cillian Murphy taking the lead and everyone else following suit. I’ve always loved Michelle Yeoh’s presence and this is no exception. Rose Byrne also stands out, expressing a lot by saying so little.

“If you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Adventures of Robin Hood

Director

Michael Curtiz

William Keighley

Year

1938

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 03, 2007

It is a conflictive time in England circa 1191. Kind Richard the Lion-Heart (Ian Hunter) has left his throne temporarily to attend war, and when he’s reported captive his evil brother, Prince John (Claude Rains), takes over, highly discriminating the Saxons over the Normans. It is during this time than a noble Sir Robin of Locksley (Errol Flynn), belonging to the Saxons, arises as an outlaw, fighting back the forces of Prince John in defense of his people.

Many enemies he will earn, including Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone) and the High Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper), but he’ll make even more friends in the Sherwood Forest, his Merry Men, including Will Scarlett (Patric Knowles), Friar Tuck (Eugene Pallette) and Little John (Alan Hale). It is in this forest that Sir Robin of Locksley becomes best known as Robin Hood.

I rarely talk about how much I wanted to watch a movie or how long I had to wait to do so, but in this case it’s just inevitable: I never waited as long or longed as much to see a movie as I did The Adventures of Robin Hood. I’d always heard how great it was and how all the critics adored it and I became obsessed but in my town I was never able to get it. Finally it happened, many years later, and it was a mystical experience to finally see for myself what it was that I’d waited for so many years. God knows it was worth it! It immediately became one of my all-time favorite movies as it not only didn’t disappoint me (and trust me, my expectations were HIGH), but it actually went beyond. Let me tell you exactly why…

There is no presentation of the Robin Hood legend as vivid as this one. The atmosphere is as colorful as the legend itself. You can’t ask for more concerning an early Technicolor film. And that’s not only because the colors are amazing, but because there are colors everywhere! Every costume, every setting, and every background is intended to mesmerize and it does, harmonizing or contrasting colors at all times, with powerful imagery and unbelievable settings.

How they ever built Nottingham I don’t know, but to me it’s as real as can be. The legend of Robin Hood has evolved through the centuries but all the best elements were gathered and mixed for this adaptation and delivered with lots of wit and charm by expert screenwriters Norman Reilly Raine and Seton I. Miller. Robin Hood has it all: Class, charisma, looks, skills, and leadership; and who can be better to play such a character than Errol Flynn? He’s dashing, charming, funny, and good-looking, and manages to get into character so much that he becomes Robin Hood in flesh and blood. It’s unbelievable! Getting back to how the story is presented, it also has it all, from a political subtext to an implausible love story…

And that’s the most important aspect of the film: the romance. Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland) is a Norman who disagrees with Robin Hood’s ways and considers marrying Sir Guy. However, when Robin gets her eyes opened, she falls wildly in love with him as does he for her. But the impossibility of their love creates more conflict than there ever could be as things were. This leads to a much more intense confrontation between Robin and Sir Guy. And who’s to blame them? Olivia de Havilland’s Maid Marian is the loveliest creature ever put on film.

The procedures are accompanied by an absolutely unforgettable music score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold that’s as complex as it’s easy-going. It suits the movie to a tee and constitutes very much of its essence. Awesome work!

With breath-taking action sequences to spare (featuring a sound effect for the arrows later used for the blasts in Star Wars (1977)), more than enough laughs (especially concerning the hilarious Merry Men) and the most glorious romance ever, this is a classic among classics, certain to entertain the most demanding, and more than likely stick to their minds for good. It’s one of my favorite films, and a must-see.

Maid Marian: “Why, you speak treason!”
Robin Hood: “Fluently.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Director

Kirby Dick

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

For those of us who live outside the US, and especially in a country where art is respected as a given artist intends it to be, the ratings system and double standards that populate the Motion Picture Association of America are almost laughable. So the fact that a filmmaker decided to do a documentary precisely about this seemed particularly intriguing.

The MPAA is a group, ran for many years by Jack Valenti, who give a movie its rating. Movies need to be rated because if they aren’t there’s a good chance that the big chain theaters won’t book them. But there’s usually a struggle, especially when a movie is rated NC-17 (meaning kids under 17 cannot see it without an adult), because the aim is to reach for an R and sometimes the guidelines are quite arbitrary.

Director Kirby Dick presents interviews with filmmakers who have been affected by this such as Kimberly Peirce, Allison Anders, Marry Harron, Darren Aronofsky, Atom Egoyan, Wayne Kramer, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone and even John Waters. He also uses footage from different movies to compare what was accepted in one and rejected in other; scenes that bluntly depict the same amount of eroticism and/or nudity! He also goes on to prove that similar scenes are authorized more easily when they involve heterosexual encounters instead of homosexuals ones. And yes, he touches upon how in America anything sexual is more scandalous than any amount of violence. He may be criticizing a sole association, but his work speaks volumes about his own country and the way it contradictorily works sometimes.

A less intriguing storyline, at least for me, has Dick hiring the services of a private investigator, Becky Altringer, to uncover the identity of those who make up the board that rates the movies and those who are part of the appeals panel. These names are actually kept secret, something that makes those affected by the proceedings very angry. Then again, they’re made to look like criminals here, no wonder given the entire tone of the piece. And I sure do not agree with some of their decisions, but the problem, I think, lies deeper. There need to be specific guidelines. The way they work makes no room for objectivity, and that consequently creates chaos. But the association has power, the studios need it, and thus a change does not seem to be anywhere near.

Fortunately this documentary opened more eyes and exposed in organized manner the irregularities and unfair treatment that some filmmakers receive. You don’t want to miss what happens when Dick submits this very work to the association. Passive-aggressiveness anyone?

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

300

Director

Zack Snyder

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

I heard about the Battle of Thermopylae as a kid, and the teacher mentioned a film called The 300 Spartans which dealt with this. I never watched the movie, but I always remembered it. Then 300 came, and before I saw it I looked for the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley that it’s based upon, which is outstanding. Turns out, Frank Miller saw The 300 Spartans in his early years and was stunned and inspired for the rest of his life. It defined his artistic career, he said. And this masterful work is the perfect completion of that circle: A film inspired by a graphic novel inspired by a film inspired by real-life events. Must be Frank Miller’s dream come true. He’s such a lucky guy.

The punch of the story is that nothing matters if you don’t leave a mark. You can work your whole life and be forgotten the day after your death. Meaningless though it may seem, being remembered is glorious, and the more the better. If your loved ones remember you and then they die, and your memory is lost after two generations, that’s it. Making a history book is a triumph in this way, and for some people it’s the ultimate triumph despite the circumstances.

This is the case of King Leonidas of Sparta (Gerard Butler) who in 480 B.C. fought against his own council to defend the pride of his people. After refusing to submit peacefully to Persian Emperor Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), Leonidas gathered 300 of his best warriors and set to defend the Persian invasion, against the best wishes of his council which he must obey by law. With genius strategy and determination of steel, he was able to cause many headaches to the Persians, despite their having an army of thousands and thousands.

It’s really great to see the procedures of a historical event, especially if it’s played like the ultimate triumph of Leonidas, who eventually cared more about making history than actually winning the battle, because this task seemed impossible. One can’t help but wonder what he would’ve said if told that so many years later people would be watching his story and talking about it. The approach by Miller (adapted here by director Snyder & Kurt Johnstad and Michael B. Gordon) makes it all the more accessible.

Everyone talks about the visuals of this film, so much so that I was scared I wouldn’t find much substance elsewhere. I was happy to be able to enjoy the story so much that the way the movie looked became secondary. Yet, one must acknowledge the amazing work there. I hear every outdoor scene was done with a green screen and the result is jaw-dropping. But what I really loved in this regard was the slow-motion moments during battles that not only looked good but helped understand every movement, unlike other films with such battle scenes where things soon become incomprehensible.

Gerard Butler was virtually unknown despite making some caliber movies before, but this is certainly his star-making showcase. He’s completely awesome and believable every step of the way, showing unmatchable bravura. Joining him are David Wenham, Vincent Regan, Doming West and many others, everyone pretty good. Lena Headey plays Queen Gorgo, Leonidas’ wife, with a subplot that didn’t quite convince me and only seemed to fill the obligatory femininity of the movie, not that there’s anything wrong with that but I didn’t think it belonged.

“Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty, for tonight we dine in hell!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter