CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Sin Noticias de Dios

Director

Agustín Díaz Yanes

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 25, 2002

Sin Noticias de Dios (which in English translates into something like “Without News of God”) is a movie that has not yet got an U.S. release date, but that you should definitely watch as soon as you have the chance. Why is that? Simple. Because it is a movie you have never seen that sparkles with originality and wit. But more on that later.

A woman sends a request to heaven because she fears her son (Demián Bichir) is getting lost in the world and wants them to save his soul. Heaven’s headmistress Marina D’Angelo (Fanny Ardant) decides to send Lola (Victoria Abril) to do the job, but forces in hell instantly find out, so their boss, Davenport (Gael García Bernal), decides to send some angel of their own in the form of Carmen (Penélope Cruz). A hilarious battle ensues...

Sin Noticias de Dios is a comedy, yes, but not a silly one. As a matter of fact it’s one of those rare movies where laughs and intelligence are found in equal measure. The movie opens in a Tarantino-esque way in which Lola and Carmen discuss theological philosophies just before they commit a robbery. From then on director Agustín Díaz Yanes never stops to surprise with his vision and his story.

Heaven, you see, is portrayed as Paris in the 40’s. It’s beautiful, but it’s somewhat empty as well. People speak in French as opposed to hell, where the primary language is English and which resembles the New York subway station at its worst. The language on Earth is Spanish, but wait, the leaders of heaven and hell speak Latin to each other. Just as it is the idea and the way it plays are quite funny, but one can’t ignore the political undertones that are present with this specific message.

The movie gets political, religious, sexy and violent with no difficulty. It’s full of witty dialogue and a final gag that will leave you laughing up until the very last minute (and that includes the epilogue, of course). But the laughs in this movie do not come from easy situations. They’re the kind of laughs that make you feel smart because you got them. It’s a movie with substance and a movie with something to say.

To be honest there are some things I never fully understood when everything was over. I got a bit mixed up about that angels-to-humans-to-angels transition thing, but stuff like this is irrelevant given the context of the story itself. The director’s screenplay comes as a breath of fresh air when filmmakers today are rehashing old ideas more and more at every turn.

As you may have noted, the actors in this movie are from many different countries. The mixture works really well. Penélope Cruz, in a role against type, shines while playing such a gorgeous bad-ass. But legendary Spanish actress Victoria Abril also gives a playful and contrasting performance that deserves attention. Gael García, the talented Mexican actor from Amores Perros and Y Tu Mamá También, is barely in the movie, but he commands the screen and his scenes are all highlights.

Good versus evil as it has never been seen before!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Potemkin

Director

Sergei M. Eisenstein

Year

1925

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, June 24, 2002

In 1905 Russia, that country’s Revolution is echoed in a Battleship, which in turn echoes its own actions to the Revolution in general.

This is a potent landmark film for most tastes, despite its age. A must-see usually screened in film history classes, which wakes up all those who prefer to sleep through it. The Odessa Steps scene is especially potent, with unforgettable massive killing by the Czar troops and a baby carriage falling after the baby’s mother’s death. The finale is surprisingly pacifist.

Great score by Edmund Meisel.

One of Eisenstein’s most looked-for… with reason.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Blue Lagoon

Director

Randal Kleiser

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, June 20, 2002

Who hasn’t heard of The Blue Lagoon? Who hasn’t seen it? And who will be brave enough to actually admit to liking it?

The movie tells the classic story of two children-turned-adults (Christopher Atkins and Brook Shields) who shipwrecked and grew up alone and together in a beautiful island. They had to learn how to survive, how to grow up, and most important of all, how to love.

Despite being an overly cheesy 80’s movie, The Blue Lagoon has always been kind of a guilty pleasure to me. I like it and I find it extremely entertaining. Sure, some of its scenes and dialogues are almost laughable, but I can’t resist it. Every time I see it I fall under its spell and I find that fascinating in a way.

It also helps that Brooke Shields is semi-naked throughout the entire movie, but there’s an innocence to it that works. Yeah, it does. And that’s what made it a success and that’s why it became so well-known. We can’t help but wonder what we would do in their situation. Of course it would be less melodramatic and tender, but after all some day it would be natural to start wondering about our bodies, about our affection to the opposite sex, about the meaning of loving one another, I don’t know...

The idea of being stranded alone in an island has always intrigued mankind and this movie toys with that fantasy. Two good-looking people, having a gorgeous island just for themselves, away from the craziness of the real world, the idea just sounds damn good!

Atkins and Shields have good chemistry together and fit their roles well enough. But the real star of the movie is the amazing photography by Néstor Almendros. He really knew how to take the most out of every eye-opening vista. Good for us!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

On the Waterfront

Director

Elia Kazan

Year

1954

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 19, 2002

Ultra-compelling look at the world of corruption and the human beings that are affected by it, both for good and bad—and both.

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is an ex-prize-fighter who now works with his older brother Charley (Rod Steiger) in a harbor union of N.Y.C. run by Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb). Dirty business is at its best in there but when Terry is fooled into triggering the murder of an old friend and later falls in love with the victim’s sister (Eva Marie Saint), he starts a war that is social-conscious but also very personal, for Terry hides his own resentment for different reasons.

This gem is one of Kazan’s best and most unforgettable, with Brando larger than life as the underestimated but self-assured misfit, Saint very delicate as his girlfriend, Steiger and Cobb great as the guys who finally find real trouble, and Karl Malden perfectly precise as a Priest who becomes a talking conscience.

Packed with action, tragedy, drama and romance, with a Leonard Bernstein score that is as important as any of the characters, and a scene in the back of a cab that is one of the most heart-breaking scenes ever put on film… a movie that is a nothing short of perfect, in fact one of the best ever made, from many points of view.

Suggested by articles on real-life events.

“You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it… It was you, Charley.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Unfaithful

Director

Adrian Lyne

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

There’s no denying Adrian Lyne is obsessed with the human condition, specially with such themes as adultery, marriage and unrequited love. What’s good about it is that he keeps making interesting movies about it. Unfaithful is the latest in a large string of good movies that have been the subject of much talk throughout the years.

Connie Sumner (Diane Lane) is a happily-married woman with one kid. Her husband Edward (Richard Gere) is a successful man who has always provided his family with everything it needs. One windy day Connie bumps into Paul Martel (Olivier Martinez), a handsome book dealer with whom she suddenly starts an adulterous relationship. Connie must now deal with the consequences of her acts, and it isn’t going to be any easy.

It’s amazing how when the movie started and I saw frame one I knew this was going to be an intelligent, serious and good-quality movie. Good filmmakers always give you that confidence from the beginning and I love that feeling. You can just sit back and enjoy the ride knowing that you’re on good hands. You’ll think I’m crazy, but you might also know what I’m talking about.

Unfaithful is not the most original movie out there, yet it feels authentic. It’s been a while since we got a solid adult drama about adultery in America. This movie is just that. And it has also got some welcomed aspects that we barely find in a story like this. What makes this movie more interesting is that Connie’s marriage is not a failure. She doesn’t go looking for adventure because she’s unfulfilled. As any human being, she falls for the temptation... and likes it. She doesn’t love Paul. She loves Edward. It’s all about passion and about breaking the monotony of her life. I guess we can all relate to that even if we haven’t necessarily reached those levels.

Still, as one character mutters in one scene, this kind of relationships always ends bad, one way or another. Connie suddenly starts becoming obsessed. The affair is taking over her life and it starts affecting her family. Edward starts to suspect and that’s when things get ugly. To be fair the last part of the movie is the weakest, but it also feels credible despite a tendency of the movie to appear over-wrought.

Despite what you may think, the movie is sexually-explicit, but definitely not as much as it had the potential to be. I admire Lyne for what he did, because we don’t have to see everything to understand the passion there is between Connie and Paul. There’s subtlety and good taste. Just as it should.

The ending has caused controversy for its ambiguity. All I can say is that I loved it. No more, no less.

Diane Lane gives, without thinking twice, the best performance of her career. She’s an actress that has struggled to be recognized and with Unfaithful she proves just how far she’s able to go. Watch her body language, her expressions, her every move, perfect. Richard Gere plays against type and comes off better than ever. Olivier Martinez, on the other and, is a little stiff, but suits the role quite well.

An elegantly photographed movie with a beautiful score and an insightful story to tell.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Deconstructing Harry

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, June 17, 2002

Woody Allen becomes fictional novelist Harry Block and Harry Block becomes Woody Allen in this outrageous, fantastic, foul-mouthed and ultimately depressing look at Woody, as a writer, as a lover, as a family man, and as a human being.

The intricate plot involves people in Harry’s life, both past and present, who have inspired him as a writer—resulting in detailed accounts of events involving these people, shamelessly written by Block, who’s very successful by the way. Some people are pissed, others are furious, others just don’t care… But overnight, Harry realizes that nobody loves him, and during a writer’s block he goes to hell in his own way.

This brilliant, very dark Woody Allen film is a little of everything he did in the past but as a whole it is completely different: hardly had he made a film about himself (namely a deconstruction of himself) that was so crude, so honest and so frighteningly realistic. Some things that happened to Harry actually happened to Woody, who’s always been famous for taking his personal life to the big screen, usually starring the woman who was also protagonist of the real life scenes.

One of the great things this movie has is the mixture of real and imaginary scenes, featuring two actors for most characters: one for the real one, and one for the imaginary one, inside Harry’s novels.

A great ensemble of actors include: Woody, Kirstie Alley, Caroline Aaron, Billy Crystal, Elisabeth Shue and Judy Davis in the real world, and Demi Moore, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Robin Williams and Tobey Maguire in the imaginary world.

Brilliant dialogue, funny observations, and an awful feeling of honesty surround this must for Woody fans. Also recommendable for non-fans, though they may not enjoy it as much.

“I'm a guy who can't function well in life but can in art.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Romper Stomper

Director

Geoffrey Wright

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, June 13, 2002

Romper Stomper is widely known as the movie that put Russell Crowe on the map. His performance was so impressive that it was impossible for producers, of any country, to ignore it. Thus began his unstoppable path to fame. Who would have said he would then become what is considered to be one of the best actors of his generation?

Hando (Russell Crowe) is the leader of a gang of skinheads that spend their whole time trying to survive through the dangerous situations they themselves create. Gabe (Jacqueline McKenzie) is a sick girl who has some trouble of her own but who starts going out with Hando and his gang as soon as she meets them. Davey (Daniel Pollock) is Hando’s best friend, the one person who seems to be the most rational, if you could say that. Their relationship, and the events that surround their lives, are the glue that holds this movie together.

If you consider how interesting and fascinating skinheads can be as objects of study, it’s surprising to realize how there are only a few standout movies that deal with this subject matter. Perhaps it is because it’s difficult to tell different stories about them. After all, their lives are really simple. When they’re not getting in trouble they just hate people and wander around doing nothing, mostly because they are not accepted in today’s society.

Romper Stomper is exactly about that, What’s really interesting is that director and writer Geoffrey Wright does not judge his characters, but merely shows them through his camera. The reactions we may have about them depend entirely on their actions and their way of being. It is an in-your-face portrayal of life as a skinhead in modern-day Australia. No boundaries, it’s as violent as it is in real-life, and it is as crude and brutal as well.

A sort of love triangle gets in the way between these three deeply-affected characters. Of course, under these circumstances of fighting against Chinese people, hiding and running away from the law and living in excruciating poverty, I must say quite a background is provided and it is a highly unusual one.

In the end what we get is simple: a story about people who are desperately trying to survive as each day goes by, anchored by a philosophy of life that is very hard to understand. A portrayal of sad individuals with too many wrong ideas in their head. Most of all, a picture about people who live by their ideals and don’t care about anything else in the world, that is, until their environment falls apart. There’s humanity in there. It’s just a matter of redemption and looking way inside.

Russell Crowe is nothing short of astonishing. His performance is stunning, truly scary yet believable at every moment. That’s the Russell we want to see, the Russell that gives such amazing performances. Jacqueline McKenzie, as the girl who has gone through much more than we think, is also a standout. She embodies her character and it also feels palpable. Pollock, and the rest of the cast, are equally good.

A harsh, difficult and very interesting movie!

“We came to wreck everything and ruin your life. God sent us.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Viva Zapata!

Director

Elia Kazan

Year

1952

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 12, 2002

In looking for a screenwriter capable of putting together a script based on the life and struggle of Mexico’s most legendary revolutionary, you can’t hardly ask for anyone more appropriate than novelist John Steinbeck. The author of such classic works as The Grapes of Wrath and “Of Mice and Men” reportedly spent some time around the Mexican state of Morelos, where Zapata lived, and wrote the script on his own initiative. Later, he showed it to director Elia Kazan, who in turn showed it to producer Darryl F. Zanuck. Kazan probably saw in the script a chance to transmit his own ideas (though whether he wanted to prove that rebels always end up badly or that the power should belong to the people is unclear), and Zanuck probably saw it as a different kind of western (but a western nonetheless), but they chose to make this unlikely film, and a wise decision it was.

The movie focuses on the life of Emiliano Zapata (Marlon Brando) from the moment when he protests against dictator Porfirio Díaz (Fay Roope), along with other peasants, to the moment when he reaches a power beyond anyone’s (certainly his own) expectations. Zapata isn’t for a moment portrayed as a deity or a better man than anyone else, but only as a determined man whose convictions are stronger and more important than anything else in his life. Zapata’s legend emphasizes the idea that a man’s conviction can be stronger than any oppressing force, and that’s exactly what’s shown here, through Zapata and later his followers.

There are many aspects well-developed in this biopic. First and foremost, there’s Zapata’s political career. We get a backdrop of Mexico’s history during the chaotic revolution (started in 1910), where everyone wanted to snatch the power and no one got it long enough. Important figures of history are astoundingly recreated, including Díaz, Francisco I. Madero (Harold Gordon), Victoriano Huerta (Frank Silvera), Pancho Villa (Alan Reed), and others.

Also, there’s Zapata’s personal life, which has him both dealing with his very humane brother Eufemio (Anthony Quinn) and courting beautiful Josefa (Jean Peters), whose father (Florenz Ames) strongly opposes Zapata’s little interest in opulence.

There are many great moments in this film. Kazan’s direction is both precise and dynamic, making the experience both exciting and intense. Alex North’s score, inspired by Mexican tunes, is very appropriate, and accompanies the procedures in an extraordinary way. A couple of highlights include a gathering of peasants to free Zapata from Federal Officers, and his speech towards the end, after quitting the office. Those are the kind of inspiring moments that this film is so unforgettable for.

As performances go, it’s flawless. The idea of having Marlon Brando play a Mexican (and not any Mexican, but one of Indian extraction) is farfetched to say the least, but he’s so into the character that he becomes Zapata, no more no less. This is one of the best roles this great actor ever played, and one in which he gave himself up completely for the role, disappearing into it, making us forget who the actor is. Anthony Quinn steals every single one of his scenes, playing the simple yet complex Eufemio, who fought a struggle of his own. And Joseph Wiseman is notable as a chilling character who constitutes a metaphor of the drifting cause of most people, who desire power no matter who offers it.

This gem is not to be missed…, in fact, it’s a work of love that deserves to be loved.

“There are no leaders but yourselves… The strong people is the only lasting strength.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Man Who Wasn't There

Director

Joel Coen

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

It is no secret that the Coens’ previous movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, was kind of a disappointment to me. The great thing about them is that they’re always willing to do movies as different as they can be from each other, which means that from the moment I heard about The Man Who Wasn’t There I became hooked.

Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) is a hapless barber who doesn’t say much and lives an almost ordinary life. He’s married to Doris (Frances McDormand), a much more festive woman who is having an affair with her boss, alas Big Dave (James Gandolfini). There comes a moment when Ed gets the opportunity to blackmail him, although not for jealousy (after all “it’s a free country”), but for his desire to be part of a successful enterprise.

This is just the way the movie kicks off, but since it is a film noir you can expect a lot of twists and turns that come as unexpected as they can get. The Coen Brothers are not dwelling into easy territory here. They’re trying to pay a tribute to all those classic masters of suspense like Hitchcock and Wilder while also doing homage to black & white movies and adding some modern touches to the mix. The result is certainly weird, but this extravagant film noir-ish thriller that surprises, amazes and interests in the same measure could not have worked better if it weren’t for the talented team behind it.

You could say that by the Coens’ standards The Man Who Wasn’t There is a conventional movie. It doesn’t have the usual bizarre characters or the frantic pace that characterizes them. Instead it marks a big departure in which they develop a suspenseful story that takes its time and is filled with little crazy touches such as subplots involving aliens and a Lolita-like distraction. You just have to love them!

At times I wondered if the movie was actually heading somewhere, but I think I was missing the point. This is a character study portrayed in a very specific format about a man trying to find its place in the world. When Ed decides to do something spontaneous and wild his life turns upside down. Everything he had built up until now falls apart and that’s a sad and very sarcastic take on life by the Coens. Then again, I don’t blame them. On the contrary, I couldn’t agree more.

One has also got to love the totally unpredictable and ironic finale. It is an over-the-top moment in reverse. A sequence that is totally appropriate yet incredibly unbelievable. Something hard to pull off but performed masterfully until the screen fades to black... in a rather abrupt way, I must say.

Billy Bob Thornton gives one of the best performances of his career playing Ed Crane, a man who smokes every minute he’s on-screen and who has a difficulty in ending one single sentence. One could argue that a movie about such a calmed and unsympathetic character could turn out to be a bore, but it isn’t because it gets to fascinating status. His voice-overs give the movie the right atmosphere and it is there that it acquires its haunting beauty. Frances McDormand is delicious as the femme-fatal of the story, and James Gandolfini proves to be a great match for the pair. A special highlight also includes Tony Shalhoub as a fast-talking lawyer who won’t stop at anything.

The Coen Brothers have also joined the small group of filmmakers that have been able to use classic music in the most unusual of ways to bring their movies a special kind of mood and strangeness. This time around it’s Beethoven who gets the most exposition and I must say I was delighted as I was with Roger Deakins eye-opening photography.

A unique, formidable entry into film noir genre!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lolita

Director

Adrian Lyne

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, June 10, 2002

A middle-aged professor (Jeremy Irons), obsessed by a girl he loved in his teens, who died, finds his ghost in a 12-year-old girl called Lolita (Dominique Swain) who turns out to be pretty precocious. Thus they begin a dead-end relationship, which creates a whole path of death, blackmail, deceit and double-crossing with more people than them involved.

This adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s controversial novel is more “realistic” than Kubrick’s version, which instead goes for a continuous touch of black comedy.

Irons’ Humbert Humbert is very human and awfully pathetic, while Swain seems out of control often, while supposedly in control always. They both perform greatly in very complex roles. Melanie Griffith is good, if unmemorable, as Lolita’s mother, while Frank Langella is no match for Peter Sellers, who played Clare Quilty exquisitely in the 60s. However, it is not Langella’s fault completely: this Quilty is more mysterious, evasive and symbolic than Sellers’. Instead of making you laugh, he’ll make you shake.

The screenplay by Stephen Schiff, a fine score by Ennio Morricone and a moody direction by Lyne turn this story into a very deep, sad and un-redeeming experience. In the end, it is hard to enjoy the fate of the characters, but the ending is believable. A more literal interpretation of a novel is not always a better one, and in this case, I thought it could’ve been treated better in some ways.

Important to note: Censors were harsh, but somehow many erotic scenes made it. The result is mild, since at times some things seem better left to the imagination. In a way, it is a dream come true for those who wanted to see “more” in the prior version.

A very good film.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Clockwork Orange

Director

Stanley Kubrick

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 05, 2002

In a bleak near-future, when teenagers dress oddly and speak a strange slang with influences of Russian, one particular misfit, Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell), leader of a gang of four (he and his three “droogs”) who has a taste for good music and brutal violence, is finally caught and sentenced for murder. He then joins an experimental program that will turn him into a “clockwork orange”: an organic being working mechanically inside. He is then set free.

This probably is whatever you have heard of it: ultra-violent, daring, extremely beautiful or “a twisted masterpiece,” but something it is for sure: a unique piece of cinema. The experience of watching it is unmatched by any other film, both for the outrageous content and for the confusing message it leaves: Does such a terrible man deserve a punishment like this? Who’s worse in the end: the punished or the punisher?

McDowell is amazing as Alex. He goes through so much that he sure embodies his character, both for his brutality and his suffering. Patrick Magee is great too as a victim/friend/foe.

An enjoyer of good music, Alex lives his life to the tune of “the great Ludwig Van,” making Beethoven basic for this tale. Electronic arrangements by Walter (Wendy) Carlos became a vital part of this movie and of the culture that it created. The colors, shots and music, altogether, make this unique too. Some scenes, like the one in the record store, are a visual and musical treat.

Based upon the novel by Anthony Burgess, a movie filled with violence, rape, injustice… and beauty. One of Stanley Kubrick’s most memorable.

“Viddy well, little brother, viddy well.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spider-Man

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 04, 2002

When I first saw the Spider-Man trailer a strange feeling caught me that is difficult to describe. I was speechless. For me the trailer was an example of how to do one in the first place. It set up huge expectations for me despite the fact that I barely knew anything about this superhero. Finally the day came when I saw the whole movie and oh boy, did I like it.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is an unpopular boy who lives with his uncles (Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris) and who is in love with one of the most popular girls in school, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). He dreams of being a photographer but is also quite a scientist. His best friend (James Franco) is the son of Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), a scientist who proves one of his most dangerous experiments on himself and thus becomes insanely mad. That’s how the Green Goblin is born. Meanwhile Peter is suffering some transformations himself. He’s been bitten by a genetically-enhanced spider and thus becomes a man with some superpowers of his own. The problem is, before he starts using them he’s got to learn more about himself and about life.

As I said before, I never ever read a Spider-Man comic in my life. I knew the guy from some TV shows and because, frankly, whoever doesn’t know who Spider-Man is must certainly live under a rock. Then again, I really do like this kind of movies. I’m a fan of most of the Batman movies and I really like another Marvel adaptation, X-Men. Nothing had prepared me for this though. It simply is the best comic book adaptation I have ever seen.

And what makes it so good? Well, first of all, I know this sounds too clichéd, but the fact that Peter Parker is like any of us gives this unrealistic kind of movie a very realistic tone. We can all identify with him and with what he’s going through. Besides, his process of discovery and growing up is fascinating. Peter is a common man going through larger-than-life experiences. We root for him in more than just a superficial level and that’s what ultimately matters.

There’s also the romantic angle of the movie which is simply very well-handled. As Peter himself says at the beginning, this story is all about a girl. What’s more simple than that? No matter how big he becomes, these are all real people and these are all real feelings. I was surprised by the amount of heart this movie has. And I liked that. The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane is the highlight of the movie and certainly provides the best scenes. It’s official: that upside-down kiss in the rain has now become a classic.

The movie also has a lot to say about the difference between good and evil but not only in the way you might expect. Sure, there’s a villain and at the end it’s all about getting rid of him. But it’s very interesting to note how Peter could never give up that guilty feeling about his uncle’s death. Not only did he say things he really didn’t mean the last time they talked, but he could have prevented his death if only he had not been so selfish and would’ve cared more about doing what was right. There’s a lot of humanity in there, and I don’t want to be too repetitive, but that’s mainly what elevates this movie from any other superhero romp out there.

As for the casting, it couldn’t have been more perfect. And yes, I’m using the word perfect here because that’s how I consider the choice of having Tobey Maguire play Peter. Tobey has always shown great talent, but here he not only gives an amazing performance, but he’s also impressively suitable for the role itself. It’s all about Tobey and he comes off spectacularly good. Kirsten Dunst, as always, is also great. I love her.

Thank God for Stan Lee. And thank God for Sam Raimi, who had the vision to translate this wonderful story into a great, action-packed, profoundly human movie. Can’t wait for the sequel!

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cool Hand Luke

Director

Stuart Rosenberg

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, June 03, 2002

A rebel soul (Paul Newman) finds himself in a prison camp and disrupts the life there, not being able to conform to rules and parameters, even after gaining respect among guards and prisoners. His ways break the patience of many, causing him a lot of trouble eventually.

Cool Hand Luke is a very characteristic movie from the 60s. It is a prison flick that is not merely brutal, though it is not lighthearted either. Newman embodies the yearn for a better life in and out of prison, and his performance is perfection. George Kennedy is unforgettable as well as the man who befriends Luke and makes him his personal hero, only attempting to fight when he knows Luke is his backup. The great Strother Martin is the Prison Captain, who speaks the single most memorable line of the film and probably of a whole decade in movies (will quote it in the end of my review).

This movie doesn’t conform either, which is the thing that made it notorious. Director Stuart Rosenberg made more than one statement against rules and regulations in society and directed this film strikingly.

Some scenes are unforgettable, namely the egg-eating contest, which is riotous, and the “Plastic Jesus” mourning, which is heart-breaking. Newman becomes Luke in heart and body and sure transmits the freedom of heart constantly. A great score by Lalo Schifrin accompanies most scenes appropriately.

And the quote is:

“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it! Well, he gets it! And… I don’t like it any more than you men.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter