CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Hours

Director

Stephen Daldry

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) wrote her famous novel “Mrs. Dalloway” in 1923 while going through tremendous mental struggles that somehow fed her character and made it so real. Mrs. Dalloway was a woman who questioned herself, regretting some of her choices from the past and realizing that she lived an empty life. Nobody else could tell, however. Virginia lives in Richmond, England with her husband Leonard (Stephen Dillane) and writes passionately during her battle against mental disorders and many other problems, about which only she knows.

Decades later, Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), a wife and mother who lives a normal life in California, becomes addicted to Woolf’s aforementioned novel, the very day she puts her own existence to the test. She hides a secret even she feels ashamed for, and is on the brink of doing something that her husband Dan (John C. Reilly) and their little son (Jack Rovello) might suffer for. Clarissa Dalloway is about to change Laura’s life forever.

Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep) lives in Greenwich Village, N.Y.C., in the year 2001, and while sharing her life with her female lover Sally (Allison Janney), she cares more than anything for her poet friend Richard (Ed Harris), an old flame of hers, who’s dying of AIDS.

Clarissa is something of an updated version of Mrs. Dalloway, Laura a woman who’s tremendously affected by that novel, and Virginia the source of it all. Their lives are connected, and paralleled. They all have things in common, and they all must deal with them one way or another. Same problems, different times. They’re trapped in the world, in society, and in themselves. Their depression is huge. What’s the way out?

Absolutely affecting, extraordinary drama, based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Michael Cunningham, an homage to “Mrs. Dalloway”, and a masterpiece of its own. The film is also masterful, sharply scripted by David Hare, exquisitely photographed by Seamus McGarvey, and beautiful crafted by director Stephen Daldry.

The performances are nothing short of glorious, with Streep a perfect Mrs. Dalloway, so confident on the outside while so fragile on the inside, Moore tremendous as a woman who contains the whole sadness of the world in her eyes while she speaks sweetly and smiles appropriately, Kidman unrecognizable not only for her makeup, but for her voice, her movements, and her complex persona. The three of them are top-notch. Ed Harris is unforgettable too as a man who controls everyone around with only a look and few words, always on target, but why is he like that? That’s for us to find out. Expert performances come from the supporting cast too: Claire Danes, Miranda Richardson, Jeff Daniels, John C. Reilly, Toni Collette and many more. The ensemble is perfect and everyone does an outstanding job.

The greatness of the script lies in the seamless transition from one story to the other, the references and parallelism, and the heartbreaking revelations, always accurate to shatter the audience. The score by Philip Glass deserves a paragraph of its own, or a review of its own, but I’d rather add it to this paragraph, for it’s so involved with the story that one must mention it as a feature of it. Glass’ scores are always kind of overwhelming, and the effect of saturating a movie with music is not always good. Here, instead, the unforgivable notes, played with such intensity, and composed with such feeling, only add to the emotional impact, with Glass’ piano making our feelings break in a haunting way. It’s a triumph!

Overall, a must-see film with enough elements to make you cry a river, and then go ahead and change your whole life… for good, hopefully.

“Leonard, you cannot find peace by avoiding life.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shrek

Director

Andrew Adamson

Vicky Jenson

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

I don’t usually rate movies with four stars. To do that it’s got to be a very unusual situation in which I actually think every single detail is dead-on perfect. I didn’t see any four-star movies in 2000, so the fact that I saw two of them (the other one being Steven Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence) during one week in summer 2001 is quite impressive. I wish every week were like that...

Shrek tells the story of an ugly ogre (voice of Mike Myers) whose living place has just been invaded by fairy tale creatures by orders of Lord Farquaad (voice of John Lithgow). So he decides to face him in order to get his privacy back. He is accompanied by Donkey (voice of Eddie Murphy) and together they’ll eventually embark on a quest to rescue Princess Fiona (voice of Cameron Diaz) from a castle guarded by a menacing dragon. But love gets in the way just as the fate of our heroes is put in jeopardy.

Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson are the directors responsible for this, one of the most successful animated movies of all-time, based on the William Steig book. Dreamworks ventured into the animation arena and got everything right, delivering a really funny and magical motion picture.

Shrek is not your usual cup of tea. It has a unique sense of humor while having its heart in the right place. Its self-awareness is hard to describe. For one thing, it not only makes fun of fairy tales in general, but knows it is a fairy tale itself. The plot has echoes of Beauty and the Beast (1991), but Shrek only borrows some aspects from it and twists them around. I loved the resemblance and the way the ending shaped up; truly ironic.

The flick also became infamous for having the guts to poke fun at some of Disney’s best-known characters, yet only those who came from classic novels. You’ll find a great deal of familiar faces here and they all have their moments to shine. Calling Pinocchio “a possessed toy” really did it for me, but there are plenty of gags just like this involving Cinderella, Snow White, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, Tinker bell, the Three Blind Mice, the Gingerbread Man and many more.

Shrek’s greatness also lies in the fact that it doesn’t take itself too seriously and appeals to young and old alike. It’s got humor for everyone, but at the end it is an intelligent satire; an ironic, sarcastic, romantic, hilarious one.

The voice work is exceptional. Mike Myers is unrecognizable as Shrek. Using a Scottish accent, he disappears and makes of Shrek the likable hero it is. Cameron Diaz is also excellent as Princess Fiona and John Lithgow quite appropriate as the villain. But it is Eddie Murphy who practically steals the entire movie. His Donkey is one of the funniest characters I’ve seen in a long time, and it’s mainly because of him that it works so well.

It would be impossible to pick a favorite scene, but I will have to settle with the one involving Princess Fiona and a singing bird. You’ll see what I mean. Other highlights would be Mr. Gingerbread’s torture scene, the “Monsieur Hood” sequence, all the references to Lord Farquaad’s..... building, the three-candidates Mirror sequence, everything having to do with the dragon, the Matrix spoof, the singing-choir sequence, the balloons scene and, last but not least, the entire final segment.

Impressive animation, a wonderful score (by Harry Gregson-Williams and John Powell), a great selection of songs and a witty screenplay made of Shrek what arguably was the first classic of the new millennium.

“Hey, you don’t know what it’s like to be treated like a freak!... Well, maybe you do.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The 39 Steps

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1935

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

The relevance of The 39 Steps doesn’t end in it being one of the first Hitchcock trademark mysteries with touches of light comedy – but that it created that definitive tendency for the director, proving that the combination was bombastic and all the way successful. That’s not even all there is to it: the dialogue was breakthrough and highly inspirational to Hitchcock himself and many others, the female lead character created that iconic figure that the Master repeated once and again rather obsessively, and all in all it’s a masterpiece, so yeah, I’d say The 39 Steps is a must, wouldn’t you?

Inspired by John Buchan’s novel (scripted by Charles Bennett with dialogue by Ian Hay), the film goes for the “innocent man in a gets-worse-by-the-minute mess” kind of plot that works like wonders: Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) is an unsuspecting member of the audience at a Music Show, where an intriguing “Mr. Memory” (Wylie Watson) has an act where he proves to the audience that he has learned millions of facts.

Then a gunshot is heard inside the room and everyone flees – and Hannay is picked by mysterious Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) to help her escape. Hannay takes her home where she explains that she’s in a mess involving a message stolen by spies – and that those spies are now not only after her but after Hannay, too. The girl wounds up dead in the morning, and Hannay is blamed for the murder, but flees soon enough.

No one will believe Hannay, but he never gets dispirited. He goes on his own looking for a man who might help him solve the mess, having both the spies and the police on his heels. On board a train, he gets the chance to be undetected if only an unknown girl he chances to meet, Pamela (Madeleine Carroll), would cooperate, but instead she gives him away. Pamela and Hannay will meet again of course, and eventually they’ll be in it together, much to her displeasure, and that’s where the movie becomes something of a romantic comedy, when the genre didn’t even exist as such. Talk about revolutionary.

But that’s not all there is to it. The film is rather short, but there’s time not only for espionage, romance and some light comedy, but all of a sudden, in the middle, Hannay hides in a farm with a very strict fanatic (John Laurie) and his innocent wife (Peggy Ashcroft) who heartbreakingly sticks her neck out for Hannay. It’s a haunting episode in a film that has it all.

The double and triple entendres between Hannay and Pamela were groundbreaking and remain fascinating, and became a trademark of Hitchcock’s. So did, as I said before, the engaging brave blonde with a sense of humor to match her counterpart. This is endless fun.

“Am I right, sir?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shrek the Third

Director

Raman Hui

Chris Miller

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 25, 2007

As a huge fan of both Shrek (2001) and Shrek 2 (2004) I was eagerly anticipating the third installment in a saga that came to revolutionize the way to present animated movies to kids in the modern age. Unfortunately, as has been the trend this summer, this third part does not live up to its predecessors, but it continues to be a solid entry on its own, just not a great one.

As King Harold (voice of John Cleese) dies, Shrek (voice of Mike Myers) and Fiona (voice of Cameron Diaz) have to take his place as rulers of Far Far Away. But Shrek won’t have any of it, so he embarks on a quest with Donkey (voice of Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (voice of Antonio Banderas) to find the other remaining heir, Artie (voice of Justin Timberlake), and give him the throne. Back home Prince Charming (voice of Rupert Everett) wants to take over the reign by enlisting the help of every outcast fairy tale villain.

Director Andrew Adamson stayed as executive producer this time around and gave the directing chair to Chris Miller and Raman Hui, a writer and animator respectively on the previous installments. The transition is notable only in the way that this entry is less successful, in a joke-per-minute way, to the other ones. Here the jokes don’t stop coming, although they’re hit-and-miss. New characters are introduced (mainly villains and a crazy Merlin) but they aren’t as successful as you might think. Merlin is annoying and the villains are given barely any screen time. And yes, all of our beloved characters are back, but as funny as they are, freshness is lacking.

There’s also nothing essentially wrong with the actual plot, although it is far too simple and straightforward for my taste. The movie flies by and barely anything has happened when suddenly we’re already into the climax. Besides, the writers believe that since we already love these characters we don’t need much in the name of heart. They just put them all in different situations and create a movie out of it. It seems as if the writers don’t know what else to do with the characters and thus have to resort to tired devices such as a change of identity between two of them.

Too much complaining is making it sound like the movie is a drag, but actually it isn’t. It’s light, frothy and occasionally very funny. Highlight sequences include the death of the King (!), a montage with Shrek doing kingly duties, almost anything involving the princesses (Snow White especially) and my favorite: tea with the Three Little Pigs and Pinocchio (in which the latter spits out a hilarious monologue).

The animation work is truly impressive. It continues to get better year after year and the detail here is breathtaking. As for other technical issues, I was disappointed with Harry Gregson-Williams’s score. Where is the trademark Shrek theme? And where is it especially when Puss comes up with his trademark move?

Voice work is very good, with Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas highly comfortable in their well-known roles. Murphy is especially good, although Donkey doesn’t get that many shining moments. Newest addition Justin Timberlake does exactly as he’s required to. Other performers include Julie Andrews, John Cleese, Rupert Everett, Eric Idle, Larry King, Ian McShane, Cheri Oteri, Regis Philbin, Amy Poehler, Seth Rogen, Maya Rudolph, Amy Sedaris and many more.

“Look out! They got a piano!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Shrek the Third (2007): Lego

Review

The Innocents

Director

Jack Clayton

Year

1961

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 21, 2007

I found Henry James’ novella “The Turn of the Screw” to be completely terrifying and impossible to put down, every chapter ending in unbearable suspense that must’ve made it quite addictive when published periodically back in the end of the 19th century. Today, it’s a thrilling and quite satisfactory read.

Its film adaptation from over half a century later, The Innocents, is every bit as terrifying and successful, and one of the finest horror films ever made. The same as the literary piece, the screenplay by William Archibald and Truman Capote relies heavily on psychological fear and doesn’t actually “show” as many horrors as the one it plants on the receptor’s mind. The beauty of this story is its ambiguity, and the possibility that some or all of what’s going on might be in the mind of the main character.

That character is Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr), assigned as governess of two orphans, little Miles (Martin Stephens) and Flora (Pamela Franklin), by their Uncle (Michael Redgrave) who wants nothing to do with them and won’t even see them or hear of them. Miss Giddens pities the children from the get-go, and finds there’s too much eeriness surrounding them in the huge estate they live in with a few servants…

Soon after her arrival, Miss Giddens becomes convinced that the children are haunted by spirits, those of their previous governess, Miss Jessel (Clytie Jessop), and a servant, Peter Quint (Peter Wyngarde), who died recently in very tragic circumstances, truncating their forbidden romance and putting an end to their perversion. As it seems, the two were a terrible influence for the kids, who idolized them, and what Miss Giddens suspects is that they have come back from the afterlife to possess the children and continue their wickedness. She assigns herself the task of freeing the children from this curse—with haunting consequences.

Whether or not what Miss Giddens sees and hears is real, we feel like we see it and hear it as clearly as she, and it’s terrifying. This is the kind of horror movie that draws the thrills more from what’s not seen than by what is, a perfect adaptation of Henry James’ novella which used the same technique.

The Innocents is a delicious experience to watch and study and appreciate from several angles. You can either believe what Miss Giddens believes or doubt her, and seeing it from each perspective is fascinating. There’s a running theme of Victorian era sexual repression that’s anguishing and illuminating as well.

The characters of the children are as intriguing as the overall story and the child actors are outstanding. Kerr is also remarkable in the leading role, and good support comes from Megs Jenkins as housekeeper Mrs. Grose and of course the actors playing the two spooks.

The music by Georges Auric, cinematography by Freddie Francis, art direction by Wilfred Shingleton, editing by Jim Clark, costume design by Motley and every other production value are top-notch and serve the thrills loyally.

I can’t remember more than a handful of movies that scared me as much as this. It’s one of my favorite horror films of all time.

“What shall I sing to my lord from my window?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Zodiac

Director

David Fincher

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

David Fincher can do no wrong in my book. To be fair I haven’t seen his first picture, Alien 3, but everything else he’s done has been top-notch for my taste. The trend continues with Zodiac, which even though is nowhere near my favorite Finchers, Se7en (1995) and Fight Club (1999), is still a very good movie and one that accomplishes most of what it sets out to do.

A serial killer by the nickname of Zodiac terrorized the San Francisco area during the 60’s and 70’s by killing random people and leaving cryptic messages behind. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) worked as a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle when the events unfolded, and he eventually became obsessed with the killer and his identity, just as the newspaper’s crime writer Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.). Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and his partner William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) investigated the murders first-hand, helped by the police departments in each of the affected counties.

Zodiac is based on the book that Graysmith himself wrote and which was adapted by James Vanderbilt for the big screen. It comes to show, in meticulous detail, every important development during the 20 years that the search for the killer lasted. At times it does make you wonder if a documentary would’ve been a better option to present it, but ultimately Fincher wanted to tell the story of the guys behind the investigation as well and how it came to consume their lives. I’ve got to say the approach is mixed. The dialogue is sharp but the movie is so crammed with information that the little bits where actual character development takes center stage feel forced. We never truly invest ourselves emotionally with anyone.

The hunt is pretty intriguing though, even more so by knowing that it is based on a true story. The events are presented chronologically, with some of the violent killings actually reenacted, and it is absorbing most of the time. In an intellectual level Zodiac is brilliant. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean it’s as successful when it comes to its entertainment value; it’s just not a movie you will want to run and see again if not for its impeccable craftsmanship and direction. Fincher is known to be a perfectionist and he gets every little detail right. He even shoots the flick (along with cinematographer Harris Savides) with a 70’s flavor, an added asset that works just fine.

A keen eye for casting is what also differentiates this project. The ensemble is at the top of their games, and every small part is perfectly cast. Jake Gyllenhaal is a leading man of sorts, although he only takes center stage during the second half. His work is spot-on. Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo add flavor to the mix, portraying volatile characters that are never predictable and doing so with pizzazz. Anthony Edwards, Chloë Sevigny, Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, Elias Koteas, Dermot Mulroney, Philip Baker Hall, Clea DuVall and many lesser-known faces round out the solid cast.

“You wouldn’t happen to have any animal crackers, would you?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Zodiac (2007): Groucho

Review

Shrek the Third

Director

Raman Hui

Chris Miller

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Alongside Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek the Third is, appropriately, the third blockbuster this summer with its third installment in its series. Regrettably, it’s also the least fortunate of the three movies.

Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, although flawed, have some exciting and funny moments. They have ups and downs, but at least in the end, they somehow hold up. Shrek the Third, on the other hand, is consistently tedious, predictable and monotonous.

The saga continues as Princess Fiona’s father, King Harold (voice by John Cleese), dies. Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are next in line to take on the throne, but Shrek doesn’t have what it takes to become a king. So he embarks on a journey to find Artie (Justin Timberlake), who, I must assume, is King Harold and Queen Lillian’s (Julie Andrews) forgotten son. Now I really don’t think much of these monarchs as parents, as they locked up their daughter in a tower guarded by a dragon and sent his son to a boarding school in a town far from home and then forgot about him.

Anyway, in the meantime, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) is preparing a comeback; he wants to be the ruler of Far Far Away at any cost. He recruits a group of fairytale villains, including Captain Hook, Cyclops and Rumplestiltskin and, while Shrek is gone, he invades and takes over the kingdom. Shrek finds Artie and brings him back to Far Far Away only to find out what Prince Charming has done. But Shrek doesn’t want to be the king nor does he want to fight Prince Charming for it. Then, in the lamest climax, Artie shows up and saves the day with a one liner. That is it.

After two good Shrek movies my expectations were high of course, but here everything happens without a bang. I was expecting the movie to become better as time went by, but when I realized, it was over and the bang had never come.

What had made the two previous films good, in this one is nowhere to be seen. The animation looks ordinary and lifeless, the songs just don’t fit and seem out of place, and the characters, otherwise funny and bright, seem adrift and uninterested. Shrek seems to have lost his personality and sharpness and, unfortunately, he shares credits with Artie, who might as well be the dullest and shallowest hero in the history of fairy tales and animated features. Not even Donkey (Eddie Murphy) or Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) can do something to bring back this movie to life. They had been memorable in the other two movies, but in this one they also look lost and dispassionate.

I know it must be a daunting task to come up with a fresh script for a sequel to two box-office hits. There are seven people with writing credits for Shrek the Third, not including William Steig for his book “Shrek!”, but it is evident that, in this case, writing by committee just doesn’t work. I hear there are plans for two more sequels, Shrek 4 and 5. They certainly will have to do a better job and I hope they find a formula to resuscitate what they’ve just unmercifully killed with Shrek the Third.

My six-year-old son loves the first two Shrek movies. He loved Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. He loves basically all animated features because he always finds something that draws his attention. Invariably, after watching a movie, he re-enacts his favorite scenes and recites memorable quotes over and over. His only comment after watching Shrek the Third? “Boring.” I totally agree with him.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Shrek the Third (2007): Morris

Review

The Witches

Director

Nicolas Pueg

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Witches was an emblematic movie in my childhood. It is weird because even though it could be argued that this is a children’s movie, it is far scarier and chilling than your average kiddy fare. But I used to see it over and over again. After all these years I still think of The Witches and a cold shiver runs down my spine.

Luke (Jasen Fisher) and his ill grandmother Helga (Mai Zetterling) decide to take some vacations and head to a luxurious hotel near the sea. Little do they know that a witch convention led by Miss Eva Ernst (Anjelica Huston) is about to take place at the same time. These witches’ mission is to transform children into mice by giving them poisoned chocolate, something that Luke is determined to stop.

Director Nicolas Roeg worked from a script by Allan Scott based on the novel by Roald Dahl. He came up with a movie that is unique in atmosphere and tone. It is so rare and one-of-a-kind that I can’t remember feeling the same with any other picture. It’s something you have to experience to understand; creepy yet accessible, scary yet adventurous, melancholic yet wickedly funny. Dahl’s touch is all over the place, creating an imaginative world that is otherwise seamlessly rooted in reality.

The movie is also haunting in its depiction of witches, their backstory and a particular episode that runs throughout the movie involving a mysterious painting that is hard to forget. Witches here are portrayed in a peculiar (and please note that I’m running out of adjectives to describe the movie’s flavor) manner; they are physically disfigured women who disguise themselves as normal human beings. The transition is striking, and the effects, supervised by Jim Henson, are impeccably done. The danger that these women exude is truly palpable.

Stanley Myers’s score, Andrew Sanders’ production design and John King’s art direction only add to the eerie quality of the flick; they are all top-notch.

Anjelica Huston easily dominates the movie with her unnerving, over-the-top performance; it looks like she had a ball playing the character and you can’t but go along with the fun. It is arguably one of her best performances; she even won numerous awards for it despite the movie’s unlikely genre. Mai Zetterling also leaves a lasting impression, as do Rowan Atkinson, Brenda Blethyn and Bill Patterson.

“I hope nobody else is going to make me cross today.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Zodiac

Director

David Fincher

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 14, 2007

I had heard mixed reviews about David Fincher’s latest, Zodiac, which dealt with the real-life case of the serial murder named that, who committed a series of crimes in the San Francisco area during the late 60’s and early 70’s. The criminal became famous for sending letters to the press including cryptic messages that allegedly gave clues to his identity. I didn’t see how the movie could go wrong and I was optimistic. Now I lean towards the bad response.

I found Zodiac to be awfully boring… It even reminded me of last year’s The Good Shepherd (2006), which had everything to go right and simply went wrong. It’s not by far as bad though… De Niro’s directorial effort was not only unentertaining but also ridiculous, while Fincher’s piece is as masterful as any he has made, only with a pace to kill and just too much information, and not half of it interesting. There’s always the same justification when you read about it: he’s a perfectionist, he wanted to show it all, give it all away, not miss a thing… But even knowing that, I can’t see why it has to be so long and slow, I just don’t see it. Besides, let’s face, not all of it is necessary, sometimes it’s just too much one way or the other. I feel frustrated.

There’s a lot of entertainment here, let’s admit that, especially during the first half. The weird murderer attacks two innocent people in front of our eyes and then sends an intriguing letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, where the team is shocked and confused. Crime writer Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) and cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) get obsessed with the criminal, as much as everyone at first, and more than anyone else later. This changes the course of their lives. In fact, the movie is as much about the investigation as about the lives it touched, also including those of Inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards).

We’re threatened and abused as much as the victims at first. We suffer from the paranoia of the general public and the people involved in the investigation. We fear for our safety even as soon as we walk out of the cinema… Then days, months and years start to go by, and it’s all painfully announced to us every two minutes, “Two and a half weeks later…”, “Two months later…”, “A year later…”, “Half an hour later…” (!). Enough!! Especially when not much progress is going on and the case is getting more and more irrelevant by the minute (or should I say, by the minute, day, month or year, whatever they choose to skip and announce they’re skipping). I know this is based on fact, and so there’s not much to do if the case only got less interesting even to the police in time, but this is a movie and there were ways to make it look like it was interesting: by selling us the obsession of the main characters, instead of making that look pointless too, for instance.

I was reminded of another Jake Gyllenhaal movie where nothing really happened which was the point of it all: Jarhead (2005). I was exasperated by that one too.

Somehow though, Zodiac manages to surprise here and there, but certainly not all the time. It’s good that the film is masterfully made, including the classy photography by Harris Savides and of course Fincher’s direction. It also helps to have a top-notch cast (including Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, Chloë Sevigny, Philip Baker Hall and Dermot Mulroney) performing so well, but the editing by Angus Wall doesn’t help trim the pace of James Vanderbilt’s script, based on Graysmith’s (Gyllenhaal’s character) book.

About the performances: I’d say Mulroney is wasted and wish Cox would’ve been in more scenes; Ruffalo is great though his toned-down voice is maddening. Gyllenhaal does a good job in the lead but Downey Jr. steals the show constantly. Sevigny is a breath of fresh air and there’s not nearly enough of her. In fact, character development is thoroughly lacking in a film so packed with intriguing characters.

It’s a good film in ways, and a bad film in many others; I didn’t like it. Though I don’t like re-edits, I’d probably enjoy a revision of this one, one half its running time and focusing on the action. Then we’d be talking business. For now, it was sort of frustrating.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Zodiac (2007): Morris

Review

Fracture

Director

Gregory Hoblit

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Fracture is one of those movies you instantly know won’t require much from you. The sort of escapist thrillers with good actors that are made with a more commercial vein in mind and which are not harmful to anyone, regardless of whether they turn out to be good or not. Movies you go and see because they look fun and are the perfect choice for a Sunday afternoon. I think you know what I’m talking about.

Ted Crawford (Anthony Hopkins) shoots his wife Jennifer (Embeth Davidtz) after he finds out she’s having an affair with hostage negotiator Rob Nunally (Billy Burke). When Nunally himself arrests him Crawford confesses to what he just did, and soon prosecutor Willy Beachum (Ryan Gosling) is appointed to the case, despite the fact that he’s about to begin a new job in a law firm with beautiful Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike) as his boss.

Gregory Hoblit directed from a script by Daniel Pyne and Glenn Gers. Hoblit is a director who is respected in varying degrees by moviegoers. I happen to think he has a solid track of movies that may not be classics, but at least do what they’re supposed to. In this case though, I won’t be defending him much. Or maybe the screenplay is to blame. Either way, I left the theater underwhelmed about what I’d just seen.

The basic idea behind Fracture is the cat-and-mouse game between Crawford and Beachum. Or at least that’s its most interesting aspect. I certainly was expecting a delicious back-and-forth between these two masterminds, but instead it only gives the appearance of being that. If you deconstruct the plot, the whole movie is about how there isn’t a gun that frames Crawford for the attempt of murder. It isn’t a game, it isn’t a puzzle, it’s just a missing gun, period. Since this is so thin an idea the writers try to make us believe that we’re actually seeing a drama which we care about, so we get a lot of exposition regarding Beachum’s life as he juggles between two jobs and gets involved with his new boss. Bo-ring. What we want to see is Crawford being evil and clever, and he only gets to do so sporadically.

The ending, by the way, is ingenious, if a bit unspectacular. Hoblit underplays it; I might’ve liked a bit more impact. Then again, it isn’t a movie you’d walk out of, since you really want to know how it evolves and that is an asset I guess. Jeff and Michael Danna’s score is another one.

If there’s something that the movie has going for it is the presence of Anthony Hopkins. The actor chews the scenery and brings a little Hannibal Lecter to the table. His screen presence is so strong that everyone else pales in comparison. That said, Ryan Gosling does a good job as the cocky lawman that sees everything crumble as Crawford keeps toying with his plans. Rosamund Pike also leaves an impression; she doesn’t have much of a character, but she makes the most out of it.

“Oh, I’d say homicidal modern.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan Finds a Son!

Director

Richard Thorpe

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The follow-up to the phenomenal Tarzan Escapes (1936) is undoubtedly one of the greatest entries in the Tarzan saga: Tarzan Finds a Son! in which, needless to say, a new member joins the Tarzan family.

One would expect it to be Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller) and Jane’s (Maureen O’Sullivan) own son, but no, it turns out they actually find the kid. Why is this? Not hard to guess: censors wouldn’t allow extramarital relations, and of course, Tarzan and Jane are not legally married, so surely they don’t do their homework in the jungle! Isn’t it fun to compare this uptightness to the freedom shown in the second entry, Tarzan and His Mate (1934), where it was harder to find Jane with clothes than without?

I’m happy to report however, that the filmmakers used this to the film’s advantage: they created an intriguing story of great conflict not only for the plot but for the couple that are Tarzan and Jane. Cleverly enough, the child in question is the heir to Lord Greystoke, and the only survivor of a plane crash. In the original Edgar Rice Burroughs tales, Tarzan is Lord Greystoke, and his origin is quite similar to the one of the boy in this movie. It’s almost like seeing Tarzan’s origins, which never actually appeared in these movies. It almost fulfills that lack.

Chimpanzees find the baby boy and Cheeta the chimp takes it to their masters Tarzan and Jane, who decide to adopt it after finding out his parents are dead. The kid, named Boy by Tarzan, grows up to be as witty as Jane and as agile as Tarzan. By the time he’s five years old, they’re a very happy jungle family…

Then the conflict comes. The relatives of the kid turn up in the jungle to look for the crashed airplane that carried the Greystoke heirs, to either find them alive or prove their deaths and snatch the inheritance. The party is comprised by old Sir Thomas (Henry Stephenson), the boy’s grandfather who longs to find the three alive, and a greedy couple, Mr. and Mrs. Lancing (Ian Hunter and Frieda Inescort), who long to find them dead and get rich. The truth would be as convenient: getting the boy would make their way to the money easier, as they would become his legal guardians. So when they actually find the boy and his new parents, it’s up to Tarzan and Jane to give up the boy… Will that be easy?

The result is mesmerizing. Even though I loved every film in the saga so far, this is the one whose second half turned out the most heart-pumping. Jane’s decisions are thrilling and Maureen’s performance at these turns is the best so far (she’s also prettier than ever!). Weissmuller has some skills to prove here too and he pulls it off very well. The boy, Johnny Sheffield, is up to match them in the final scenes too… and he has his own version of the Tarzan call as Jane once did.

Production-wise this is also one of the best Tarzans, and even though it follows more or less the same formula as the previous entries, it’s not as tiresome. I really enjoyed this film. Everything that had me a bit tired by now was immediately forgotten thanks to a fresher treatment. This is really good work.

And one good tidbit: Notice a very sudden change in Jane’s destiny at the very end? Let’s just say Maureen had quit the role, and a last-minute decision changed the film’s ending. Imagining how it would have been if that original ending had stayed is chilling… It would’ve been a better film, perhaps even a masterpiece. But as it is, it’s as good as it gets, and we got two more Tarzan entries starring Weissmuller and O’Sullivan yet to come.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Copying Beethoven

Director

Agnieszka Holland

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 11, 2007

It is said that the early 90’s treated director Agnieszka Holland pretty good, as she delivered the best work of her career. I actually know her from that time, when The Secret Garden (1993) and Total Eclipse (1995) came out, but a decade has passed and her work has gone mostly unnoticed. Her latest, Copying Beethoven, was no exception, although I’m a big fan of the composer and was actually eagerly anticipating it.

As Ludwig van Beethoven (Ed Harris) is about to complete, and present, his Ninth Symphony in 1824 Vienna, he receives the help of an up-and-coming musician, Anna Holtz (Diane Kruger), to serve as her copyist. He is hesitant at first, mainly because of her being a woman, but ultimately a strong relationship forms between them.

Holland directed from a fictional script by Stephen J. Rivele and Christopher Wilkinson. I hate to say this, but these three people are mainly responsible for the movie ending up as mediocre and unfulfilling. The script is obvious and clichéd, with each character that comes and goes filling their parts in predictable manner and every action generating an expected reaction, as if going forcibly from point A to B. Holland is also stilted in her direction, with Beethoven ranting and shouting at all times, but with little passion actually coming out of the screen.

There is actually little insight into Beethoven’s mind and his way of composing, especially considering that he was deaf. He certainly was a force to be reckoned with, but his actions towards his nephew or Anna’s boyfriend do not ring true. Only his relationship with Anna is what keeps us interested, as she starts as an innocent lamb but ultimately gets his rhythm and faces up to him. I enjoyed watching them together. Glimpses of the era and its culture or political climate are addressed here and there, but there’s nothing much to sink our teeth in.

There is however, a masterful 15-minute sequence when he finally presents the Ninth Symphony with her help that is incredibly exhilarating, almost worth the price of admission. Unfortunately when it’s over there’s still a lot of melodrama left, but the sequence is a triumph of camerawork, editing and performances. Ashley Rowe’s photography and Caroline Amie’s production design are good overall, but just about that.

Ed Harris is, not surprisingly, good as the master, but the material does not allow his work to reach greatness. Ditto for Diane Kruger, who is solid (and gorgeous) but ultimately leaves a quiet impression. Supporting turns, including Matthew Goode and Joe Anderson, are good if unexceptional.

“We musicians are as close to God as man can be.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

Director

Trey Parker

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Stan, Kenny, Kyle and Cartman (along with Ike, Kyle’s adopted brother) get to see the event of a lifetime as the movie starring their idols, Terrance & Phillip, hits the screen of their quiet, little, redneck, white-bread, mountain town of South Park, Colorado. However, their beloved characters are so foul-mouthed that they inspire the kids to behave the same way, causing a revolution. The parents are so enraged that they go as far as to imprison their children’s idols and declare war on their homeland, Canada…

The kids decide to fight back, but it all gets so big that even the late Saddam Hussein gets involved, with an evil plot to conquer the world. I didn’t mean the late Saddam Hussein as in the one who’s dead now, but as in the one who was alive and doing great at the time the movie was done, only to be killed in the film’s reality and followed to hell where he engages in a sodomist relationship with Satan.

Bombastic satire, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is not at all the usual attempt to increase the success of a TV show. Instead, it is a nearly perfect mockery that aims at everything possible, from the Baldwins to the Broadway show of “Les Misèrables” to the sort of nitwits who can’t see through a bit of profanity to appreciate brilliance. The prodigious story, filled with riotous characters, actually is something of a big in-joke about itself, its authors, and the audience.

“South Park” the TV show is one of the great ones of recent years, and it only goes to show how grand its creators Trey Park and Matt Stone are that they’re able to transfer their characters to the big screen and be able to not only achieve the same level of entertainment in feature length, but also to make it a unique piece without eclipsing the source. It’s phenomenal work, admirably pulled off. I was particularly surprised by Parker, who co-wrote (with Stone and Pam Brady), directed and co-wrote the music and songs. Isn’t that something?

Continuously funny and quick, this is a movie that deals with heavy issues but leaves a smile on the viewer’s face. In fact, this is quite an uplifting experience, and a lighthearted one even. The colorful, awfully animated characters are so fun to watch that it’s hard to dislike their adventures, even if one out of ten words that they say is a bad one.

Music plays an important role in South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut. The brilliant song score written by Trey Parker and Marc Shaiman features really good music, loads of profanity, and tons of hilarity. This is in fact a musical, and at that, a remarkable one. “Mountain Town”, “Uncle Fucka”, “It’s Easy, Mmmkay”, “Blame Canada”, “What Would Brian Boitano Do?”, “Up There” and “I Can Change” are some examples of the memorable songs.

Entertaining to the last, greatly done and deliciously disrespectful, this is a movie that everyone should see, and even love, which isn’t hard if seen from a strictly satirical point of view.

“But this is going to be the best movie ever! It's a foreign film from Canada!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan

Director

Chris Buck

Kevin Sima

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

When I heard Disney was preparing a full-length animated movie about Edgar Rice Burroughs’s classic character I hated the idea. I’d never really fallen into the Tarzan mania (granted, I am not that informed either) and I thought the story had already been told repeatedly. Time would prove me wrong, as Tarzan would eventually become one of my favorite animated movies of all time and that’s saying much.

A baby Tarzan and his parents are accidentally stranded on an island. Soon his father and mother are killed and thus he’s adopted by a female gorilla (voice of Glenn Close) who just lost her son too. Tarzan (voice of Tony Goldwyn) grows up as a member of the tribe until one day an expedition team arrives and changes everything forever. Among them are the strong-willed Jane (voice of Minnie Driver), her father Professor Archimedes (Nigel Hawthorne) and a greedy hunter, Clayton (Brian Blessed).

Chris Buck and Kevin Lima are the directors behind this impressive motion picture which was written by a handful of writers who created something quite special, even more so for the time it was released: a more mature children’s movie that still had Disney written all over it. Tarzan is actually enjoyable for all ages, as it has something for everyone and doesn’t apologize either for its more traumatic scenes or its quite silly sequences.

The movie works, first of all, because of its huge heart. It’s impossible not to root for this human who has grown among apes and who suddenly finds those with whom he supposedly belongs. His first encounter with Jane is pure magic. And the way their relationship evolves is tender and sweet without ever reaching the point of becoming too much. Comic relief is mostly provided by Tarzan’s young animal friends, the perfect touch that lightens up what is at its core a rather intense tale.

There are big, exhilarating action sequences and the animation work is flawless. The way Tarzan moves through the jungle was a breakthrough back then, and it still looks impressive. Gregory Perler’s editing helps give the movie its breathtaking feel, as does Mark Mancina’s wonderful score. Phil Collins provides some of the best Disney songs in years, with the standout being the wonderful “You’ll Be In My Heart.” A musical sequence involving all sorts of objects and sounds is also a standout.

The actors lending their voices to these characters all do a fantastic job. Special notice should go to Minnie Driver, who makes of Jane one hell of a charismatic leading lady. Glenn Close is appropriately motherly, while Nigel Hawthorne has a lot of fun on his own. Rosie O’Donnell does not go unnoticed as one of Tarzan’s friend, and she’s a hoot.

“You will always be in my heart.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Notting Hill

Director

Roger Michell

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Notting Hill is not usually regarded as a great film, but I’m sure it is, and I trust that in time it’ll be regarded undoubtedly as just that. After the unsuspected and outstanding success of Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), Richard Curtis went on to write yet another irresistible romantic comedy, again a vehicle for mild-mannered Hugh Grant, again matched with an American girl, this time around the undeniable star of the film, Julia Roberts.

The story is nothing new: a common man in love with a star. This has been the subject of myths, legends, fairytales, children stories and countless movies. So pulling it off in such a fresh and original way is a tribute to the filmmakers. The story is told strictly from the point of view of William Thacker (Grant), the owner of a travel book shop in Notting Hill, London, who’s suddenly surprised when famous actress Anna Scott (Roberts) walks in, looking for a book. That’s not the end of it, though. In a one-in-a-million shot, William literally bumps into her again in the street minutes later, dropping orange juice all over her shirt. Offering his help, he turns a chance encounter into something unexpectedly intimate. With no one looking, and nothing to lose, and following her impulses like she probably seldom does, Anna kisses William on the mouth in the most romantic of ways. It’s goodbye right after, but this is just the beginning of a most implausible relationship.

The story is a winner mainly because William is terribly sympathetic and we root for him completely, we identify with him. His world is surrounded by wacky but lovable characters that not only seem real but give a very special spice to the procedures. The standout is Spike (Rhys Ifans), the messy Welshman flatmate of William’s whose constant presence and participation is hilarious, stealing all his scenes. William himself is hilarious, always witty though bittersweet.

Anna Scott is Julia Roberts, or vice versa, but her work is flawless. There’s one particular scene where she recites the reasons why her life is not as great as everyone thinks, and it’s chilling to imagine that scene played in the future if ever her sad prediction comes true. Even for a romantic comedy, this is a haunting role to play, and she’s admirable for it. Also, her chemistry with Hugh Grant is palpable. They both play in a very frank, relaxed tone, and the result is quite amiable.

Humor is constant in Notting Hill, but it’s as elegant as can be, without being unapproachable as sometimes happens with subtle British humor. This is good-natured, good-tasted humor, not without a couple of cheap puns and some sophisticated gags, but it never goes too far. Yet, the magic of this film is that it’s played from the heart in every possible way. The romantic scenes reminded me of the excitement and expectation of the very first romances of one’s life, free of all pretenses, with a feeling of clean and fresh air, and everything to look forward to. The same goes to the heartbreaking scenes of William and Anna’s partings… It’s all constantly moving, down to the powerful climax. All to the tune of Trevor Jones’s heartfelt music and a well-selected song score.

The fine ensemble cast also includes Tim McInnerny as William’s best friend, Gina McKee as his wife, Emma Chambers as William’s sister, Hugh Bonneville as another friend with a tendency towards failure, and James Dreyfus as William’s employee at the store. Everyone is great.

Regardless of it being regarded as a great film some day or not, it’s certainly one of my favorites.

“Surreal… but nice.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Director

Gore Verbinski

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 04, 2007

Having loved both Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) this third part was perhaps my mostly anticipated movie of the summer. Coming in with such high expectations is usually not a good thing, but objectivity must rule at the end and truth is this latest installment falls short of what its predecessors so breezily accomplished. I would still love to see the series continue because I love the characters and feel that they still have a lot more to give. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and let’s get into what we got this time around.

Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) set up to rescue Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from Davy Jones’ Locker. They enlist the help of Tia Dalma (Naomie Harries) and former nemesis Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Their first stop is Singapore, where they must convince Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) to help them and also to attend a meeting with the Nine Lords of the Brethren to discuss the future of piracy and unite against Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander).

It is a well-known fact that the two sequels were shot back-to-back, with the actors sometimes performing scenes from the third movie while shooting the second one without even having a finished script. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio handled those duties once again, and even though in the past they were criticized for a tendency to over-plot, I always stood by them and applauded their courage to raise the bar, always with intelligence and without losing track of who the characters were. But I must admit to having been disappointed by them in this latest foray. Its main problems start with the script and they resound loud and clear.

It all begins well enough; the very first scene is a welcomed shocker that promises to be followed by an edgier and darker tale than we’d seen in the past. Our beloved characters then appear in Singapore and the first, and amusing, action set-piece soon follows. Off to get Jack, who is introduced in a bizarre and quirky sequence that ends up being compelling in an odd way. And then it all goes downhill. What follows is more than an hour of perfunctory exposition, double-crossings, politics and complicated arrangements. I consider myself to be sharp when it comes to plot developments, but this section can get really confusing. Who’s with whom? What is each character going after? In which ship are we on? How does the mythology go once again? There surely are some intriguing bits here and there, but the light sense of fun we’re used to gets completely lost in the shuffle because of a need of make everything bigger and louder.

By the time we arrive to the last third I had completely lost interest and hope, but fortunately it all came back to form… sort of. The movie’s climax is hit-and-miss, with the foolish involvement of non-characters in the form of the pirate captains and an over-the-top appearance by Calipsso, but it contains everything you might desire from a pirates flick multiplied by a hundred: a battle between powerful ships amidst a dangerous rainstorm in which all of the main characters are united and their fates decided. It is fast, adventurous, funny, rousing and expertly-shot.

It is interesting to think about how far Will and Elizabeth have come since we were introduced to them two movies ago. They have surely evolved and their transformation always seemed logical. Here we are finally given a sense of closure while at the same time each character is put in a position where a lot more tales could be told in the future. There’s even a crucial bit right after the credits roll that should not be missed. But overall this unlikely saga (pirates’ flicks with supernatural overtones?) has brought immense joy to millions, including me, and for that I am thankful. I wish it would’ve closed in a stronger note though, but I love and will continue to love these characters no matter what.

As was the case with the previous installments, production values are of the highest caliber, with Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, Hans Zimmer’s score, Rich Heinrich’s production design and Penny Rose’s costumes standing out. The visual effects are also breathtaking.

Johnny Depp once again owns the movie, even though he has many other characters to share the screen with this time (not necessarily a good thing). He also gets to toy around even more with his character as he gets appearances from his alter-egos in sequences that I’m sort of mixed about. But no one delivers those one-liners like he does and having him onscreen is always a pleasure. Keira Knightley steps up to the plate just as her character does as she starts to become a full-fleshed pirate, while Orlando Bloom gets to show a different side of Will that even though is welcomed it sometimes feels forced. Bill Nighy is excellent as Davy Jones, although I hated the treatment his character is given; suddenly he is not that menacing. Jonathan Pryce appears briefly but leaves a strong impression; so does legendary Keith Richards in an amusing bit halfway thru. Naomie Harris, Jack Davenport, Tom Hollander, Lee Arenberg, Mackenzie Crook and Stellan Skarsgard all do good jobs.

“And I owe them all money.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter