CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Minority Report

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, July 31, 2002

Halfway through the 21st century, technology goes psychic when especially bred people known as precogs are recruited by the Government to foresee murder cases, thus permitting their prevention and the punishment of the person who was to be involved. It seems implausible but it’s a perfect marriage of psychic techniques and technology.

John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is one of the main Detectives involved in the Pre-Crime program in Washington, D.C., the only state where it’s been implemented. The project is not yet fully accepted by everyone, the main conflict being that a punishment applied to someone who didn’t actually commit any crime (even if they were going to) seems unfair. Anderton defends the project as much as most everyone involved, and works in it with full conviction.

But what if the system turns around and works against the ones who defend it? That’s the case of Anderton, who suddenly realizes he’s the next one to be caught before he commits a crime. He can’t believe it, he’s a man or principles, and would never kill anyone, so how can this be? Anderton is a tormented loner, divorced from his wife (Kathryn Morris) after the disappearance of their son (an unfortunate event of which Anderton is in part responsible). Killing someone is not in Anderton’s nature, or if it is, it’s hard to guess under which circumstances it could happen.

Not worrying about why he can probably kill anyone as much as he worries about his immediate safety, Anderton runs away, and soon is chased by those who were his colleagues and friends a couple of hours before. Anderton faces more enemies than an ordinary criminal however: Detective Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell), a fed, is especially interested in capturing him and taking control over the system. But Anderton insists that there’s a mistake, so he goes after the answers, while running away.

The most important asset of this Spielberg movie is the complete lack of pretentiousness concerning the time when it’s set. The story requires it to be set in the future, and so it is, instead of the other way around. Screenwriters Scott Frank and Jon Cohen understood the importance of this in Philip K. Dick’s short story the film is based on, and decided to make the future only a backdrop for the story. This makes up for a very believable future, with the usual share of outstanding special effects and production design, but never excessive or on-the-nose. As I said, the story is paid more attention, and the characters are actually interesting and real. Anderton especially, whose pain and desperation can be easily felt. His adventure is not an easy one but it’s always full of excitement for the viewer, so despite any possible plot holes (and there are a few), we just sit and enjoy, but it’s never a popcorn movie.

All the actors do a good job in roles that require it. Both Cruise and Farrell have what it takes, but some supporting actors do even better jobs. Samantha Morton is especially great as one of the precogs. There’s also Max von Sydow as the Director of program, Peter Stormare as an underground Doctor, and let’s not forget Lois Smith as the scientist who developed the precogs.

Overall, this is a good sci-fi thriller with enough virtues to please most viewers. Highly recommendable!

“Can you see?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron

Director

Kelly Asbury

Lorna Cook

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 30, 2002

Since the first time I saw the trailer for this movie it’s like I became enchanted. That trailer happened to actually be the starting minutes of the movie, but I didn’t know that at the time and it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. The images, the music, the narration, the spirit... Yes, the spirit, I couldn’t wait…

The movie tells the story of a brave stallion in the Old West whose life is dramatically disturbed when he meets for the first time what we know as human beings. There’s a quite evil colonel (voiced by James Cromwell) who stands as his principal enemy, although anyone or anything that stands in his way to be free is in serious danger of not sympathizing with him. Through his journey Spirit meets a noble Indian (voiced by Daniel Studi), who happens to mount a beautiful mare called Rain. Together they will fight for their life and their dignity.

I was impressed by Spirit for a number of reasons. The first one is easy to pick: it is very different from any animated movie I have ever seen. Dreamworks did exactly the same thing, albeit with a different perspective, with last year’s Shrek. To start off, this time around we’re talking about 2-D animation in which there aren’t funny side-kick characters. Not only that, but as a matter of fact there isn’t one single character who is not three-dimensional. That’s more impressive when you realize that animals do not talk in this movie. I knew this beforehand, but to actually see how they came off with it was marvelous.

The fact that it works so well has to do with the wonderful animation. The horses are given human-like expressions, but it is mostly with their faces and corporal movements that we understand everything, and believe me, it’s very subtle and elegant work. To be fair, Matt Damon helps a little with some voice-over narration. It comes once in a while and really fits in there.

Spirit is, most of all, a movie with a message. Families should see this movie together because it is not only magnificently told in a classic old-western kind of way, but because it has much to say as well. The way Spirit fights for what he believes is something you won’t believe. Its like, give up already! But no, he won’t give up and he will continue until the very last moment. And this is precisely what sets up one of the most amazing scenes of the movie: that of the last encounter between Spirit and the Colonel. You have seen nothing like this before and I certainly wasn’t expecting it. Truly inspiring.

The bonding/romance thing between Spirit and Rain is another asset of the movie. It is done with such touching restraint that you just fall into it. There’s a sequence in which they are both tied together that stands as one of the most beautiful in animation history.

Credit should go to the directors of the movie, to Jeffrey Katzenberg and to the people behind the script. But I would also standout Hans Zimmer, who provides a fantastic score, one of the best of the year. Bryan Adams also contributes some songs which, although being nothing great, sound good when accompanied to their specific scenes.

A truly great and inspiring movie. It has all the right ingredients to make it what it is, but it has, above all, a lot of spirit. Almost never has a title been so adequate.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Birth of a Nation

Director

D.W. Griffith

Year

1915

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 29, 2002

In the time of early cinema, when technology was limited and few were the experiments that dared to do something different in the search for something better, one movie changed the technique forever, becoming the longest, most successful, best-acclaimed film of its time—while being also the biggest center of controversy that still resonates to this day…

The Birth of a Nation is the landmark of American film history, depicting the events prior, during and after the Civil War, centering in two families: the Stonemans, in the North, and the Camerons, in the South. Their ideology, their culture and their forced roles during war affect their lives in a dramatic way.

The first half of the film is especially valuable from a historical point of view, being a very truthful window to the past, in its depiction of conflict, war and the assassination of President Lincoln (to me, one of the greatest scenes of cinema ever). The second half is more personal, and very racist, in its account of the black people rising to power in the South, becoming vicious leaders that had to be stopped—thus resulting the Ku Klux Klan, a heroic army of desperate white men in the search for freedom.

The racist nature of this movie was and still is an obvious cause of controversy. Some or all of it might be true, but the film became a tool for the further activities of the KKK, which differed from the original intention. For this reason, the film must be seen in an objective way, setting oneself in the correct time and place and enjoying the depiction of history.

The melodrama of the characters is something very valuable too, making this film complete. Lillian Gish, delicate as a flower, is grand as the daughter of Stoneman, while Mae Marsh is breathtaking as the small daughter of Cameron. Romance, drama and tragedy fill the story of these families.

Technically, the film is unbelievable, even to this day. Many things were done here for the first time and it shows. I especially love the use of a traveling camera during the battle scenes, which by the way, are too well done to be believed easily!

Visually striking, with expert storytelling and a moody score, this is a classic masterpiece that can’t escape my recommendation!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bully

Director

Larry Clark

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, July 25, 2002

I should start off by admitting my dislike for Larry Clark’s controversial Kids. I am one of those people who think the movie was more exploitative than thoughtful. Sure, it was realistic, but there has to be much more to a movie than just that. I was then reluctant to see Bully, Clark’s follow-up and a movie that wasn’t even submitted for a rating because it would’ve been pointless. Now I can say I’m glad I gave it, and myself, a chance.

Based on a real-life incident, the movie tells the story of a group of kids living in Hollywood, Florida. Marty (Brad Renfro) is a guy whose “best friend” Bobby (Nick Stahl) has always abused him, both verbally and physically. One sunny day they meet a couple of girls with whom they hang out later on: timid Lisa (Rachel Miner) and wild Ali (Bijou Phillips). Marty and Lisa actually start a relationship, but Bobby always stands in the way and sooner than they think they’re already planning to murder him.

From the very first scene we get the idea of the movie’s tone. It isn’t going to be easy to watch and it isn’t going to be a movie that limits itself. Clark wants to show us his story the way it is, meaning we’re in for a lot of nudity and violence. But it says a lot about the movie that at the end we don’t care that much about what our eyes saw, but about what our mind experienced. The movie is more a psychological journey than it is anything else, and it works.

Clark paints a portrait of these characters in order for us to understand, in some way, what is it about their lives that led them to do what they did. These guys are all fucked-up in drugs, sex and an entirely banal existence. They don’t commit murder because they’re evil. They do it because it sets them apart from the monotony of their empty lives. They do it for an adrenaline rush they so need to experience. One thing leads to another until they’re stuck up to their noses in a very ugly business which they are entirely responsible for because they did it, they actually did it.

And this is where it gets even more interesting. Who’s to blame for what these kids have become? Is it their parents? To some extent, yes. Is it society? Sure, why not. Is it they? Mmmh, maybe. It is, after all, a combination of all three. It is a lack of values and something stronger to hold on. It is the human search to feel good and the lack of responsibility with which they all live. It is also a lack of information. And at the end, it’s about commodity. About getting rid of what bothers them because they’re so used to live in a fantasy world where they can fix anything that when murder comes to their lives it is no obstacle for them to continue living in it.

Unfortunately, for them, this is the real world and there are consequences to their acts. The movie is so real in its depiction of characters and events that I was way shocked to see everyone’s reactions after they committed the crime. It’s not something you usually see in movies, or in real-life if that’s the case, but that made perfect sense and stayed true to the character’s essence.

The best performance of the movie belongs to Rachel Miner (or as she’s better known, Macaulay Culkin’s ex), who I truly respect after watching her brave depiction of a character who can equally show signs of cold blood and unadulterated sentimentality while being completely credible. Renfro is also very good in a complex role that shows his strong acting abilities. The rest of the cast is equally good.

Bully is raw. It is explicit and it has no boundaries. It’s also very intelligent and a provocative movie of which you can actually learn something. It is, after all, a complete work.

“How do you think this makes me feel?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Legends of the Fall

Director

Edward Zwick

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 23, 2002

I’ve always said 1994 was one of the best years in the history of cinema. Just give it a look: Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Little Women, The Shawshank Redemption, Ed Wood, Quiz Show and many more. It doesn’t happen too often that so many classics are made in the same year, but this was the case then and Legends of the Fall is a movie than can’t be missed in that exclusive list.

An epic saga, the movie tells the story of a family raised in Montana whose father (Anthony Hopkins) used to be a colonel until he left his post because he didn’t agree with the way Indians were treated and the violence it generated. He has three sons, Alfred (Aidan Quinn), Tristan (Brad Pitt) and Samuel (Henry Thomas), who get along just fine until Samuel’s fiancée (Julia Ormond) arrives into their lives.

Edward Zwick is a generally underrated director who deserves more credit than he’s given. He’s only directed a few movies, yes, but oh boy, talk about good movies! From Glory to Courage Under Fire to Legends of the Fall, he’s got a knack for big productions that somehow involve war. In Legends of the Fall war only serves as a backdrop, but it is pivotal to everything surrounding every character’s life.

What this movie is more about concerns relationships. Whether it’s between a father and a son or between brothers or between lovers, it’s all about holding together and living life to its fullest. But who am I kidding? After all, it’s all about love.

Legends of the Fall spans several decades in which we see it all: betrayal, death, children, sickness, marriages, heroism, symbolism, racism, you name it. It’s a fascinating movie about fascinating characters joined by the bond of family. It’s one of those movies you never want to end because you’ve become a part of it. Yet the movie ends where it has to and it is a poignant catharsis indeed.

Apart from being well-written (from a novella by Jim Harrison) this is also one of those movies I could perfectly watch without any dialogue: it’s simply gorgeous to look at because of John Toll’s Oscar-winning work and a real pleasure to listen because of James Horner magnificent score. One of those films I really recommend watching on DVD if you have the chance.

You could say the whole movie moves around the character of Tristan as much as you could say Little Women was all about Jo. Whatever happens his presence is always felt and it is mostly his actions that cause so many of the important events in the life of his family. He’s rebellious, charismatic and sentimental. He’s a difficult man to tame but who’s also got a lot to give.

Brad Pitt embodies Tristan and gives a powerful performance. He’s aided by the great work of the always-reliable Anthony Hopkins. Quinn and Thomas lend strong support, as does Julia Ormond, the perfect actress for the role.

So what is Legends of the Fall after all? It is one of the reasons I love movies so much. That’s about it.

“Forever turned out to be too long.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover

Director

Peter Greenaway

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, July 18, 2002

I hate Peter Greenaway’s movies. There you go. They are way artsy and pretentious, the kind of movies we as critics warn people about, movies we mention as not being for all tastes. Well, they certainly aren’t for mine. Despite my negativism, I always wanted to see this movie. The cast, the idea, and the fact that it is considered the director’s best were too much to resist. Call me a masochistic, but after all I ended up tolerating this one much more than I did some of his other outings.

Albert Spica (Michael Gambon) is the owner of a quite weird restaurant. He eats dinner there every night… and never stops talking and making a spectacle out of himself. His wife Georgina (Helen Mirren) is clearly an unhappy woman, thus we are not surprised when she starts having an affair with a regular client (Alan Howard). Their romance brings up tragic consequences in the most unexpected ways.

Bizarre, that’s the word. Everything about this movie is bizarre. Yet therein lies the brilliance of it. Whether you care about the story or not is a completely different matter. It’s as if Greenaway invented a completely different world for himself, yet most of the movie takes place in just one place: the restaurant.

And what a restaurant it is! Its kitchen resembles a refugee camp, the people working there all seem to come from a David Lynch movie, and you really feel the atmosphere. That’s in large part due to the haunting score by Michael Nyman and the glorious visuals that play with colors (red, white and black) in quite an interesting way. Jean Paul Gauitier did the costumes, so you get the idea of what this is all about.

But what about the story? Unfortunately that’s where the cons start to surface. It seems as if the entire movie was just an excuse to get to the ending. For it is quite something my friends. If you think you’ve seen everything you’re wrong. This kind of stuff is why the word gross was ever invented. It is shocking, disgusting and absolutely appropriate. There’s a strong power to it that is not easily forgotten.

The movie as a whole is really violent and not easy to the eyes. If you have a weak stomach then this movie is not for you. The movie is also quite annoying. Gambon’s character is truly despicable and whether Greenaway created him this way in order to accomplish what he wanted us to feel at the finale I don’t know. The truth is that the movie is very annoying because of him. I just wanted him to shut up and I don’t think I was the only one.

The affair storyline is somewhat interesting, but not enough to make us really care. The movie is more about the visuals and the ending and the black humor and the satire than about creating real characters. I guess that was the intention, but I’m not really sure the approach works well.

Despite its flaws, the actor’s work is flawless. Helen Mirren is simply extraordinary. I was in awe when realizing how far she was willing to go. The work of a truly good actress. Gambon, Howard, French actor Richard Bohringer and Tim Roth are also really really good.

What can I say? Be careful with what you eat…

“Try the cock. You know where it’s been.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Odd Couple

Director

Gene Saks

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 16, 2002

The Odd Couple is the movie per excellence in which Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau joined forces and created an unforgettable duo in the big screen that would last forever. Both recently passed away, but the work they left behind is something we’ll always cherish and enjoy. The Odd Couple was just the beginning.

Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), a divorcé, and Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon), who recently split with his wife, have been best pals for years. But that might very well change as soon as they move together. Felix, you see, is the living representation of tidiness and responsibility. Oscar, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite and has always lived as a slop. Chaos ensues…

The Odd Couple is based on Neil Simon’s play of the same name. Simon wrote the movie’s screenplay himself and that’s why the movie feels somewhat theatrical. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, since what happens in Oscar’s apartment is always funny and touching.

The movie is a comedy all right, but it’s also very dramatic. Felix spends the entire movie being sad, melancholic and complaining about everything. I had a slight problem with this character and I don’t know if it was because of the way it’s written or because of Lemmon’s performance. I think there’s not a right balance between being funny and being annoying. Felix really got under my nerves but not in the good way. It only made me understand more about how Oscar felt!

The movie is also a very funny allegory of marriage. So these are two guys living together, but they represent almost exactly what a real-life heterosexual marriage represents. When Oscar comes home at night and yells, “I’m home honey” I couldn’t laugh more.

There’s also a standout sequence, which has the two guys inviting two British girls for dinner. I say it is one of the most effective comedic sequences ever put on film. It also helps that the actresses playing those girls are fantastic and a perfect match for Matthau and Lemmon. Simply hilarious.

Then again, even though Lemmon didn’t completely do it for me, Matthau just exceeded all my expectations. He is simply hysterical and brilliant. His comic timing and the way he delivers his lines are right-on. He’s a master and it shows.

A funny, poignant movie that ends in the perfect note.

“You guys get this one night a week. I’m cooped up here with Mary Poppins 24 hours a day.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Manchurian Candidate

Director

John Frankenheimer

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 15, 2002

Veterans from the War of Korea, all from the same platoon, live strange happenings after one of them is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Once awarded, Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is discontent with the use his mother (Angela Lansbury) applies to such honor, for she tries to benefit the political career of her husband (James Gregory) through it. Two other members of the platoon start having terrible nightmares involving a weird session that seemingly happened outside of their consciousness, where Shaw was involved in the eeriest of ways. One of them (Frank Sinatra) decides to get into it, in what is to become the weirdest of all trips inside memories, the subconscious, political vileness and secrets that are darker than the color black.

This political/psychological thriller is probably the strangest film I have ever seen in my life, in the sense that it has a very intricate plot, full of surprises, shocks and unbearable manipulation of the mind—while playing straightforward and taking itself too seriously. The result is an excellent film of suspense that is a nail-biter for different reasons. It is hard to explain, but the experience is certainly irresistible.

Harvey plays wooden, but good; Sinatra is in top form as the haunted man; but Angela Lansbury simply steals the show in a role that doesn’t seem like her.

The problem I had with the film was the way some things seemed to be out of place or completely unnecessary. Gorgeous Janet Leigh, for instance, is completely wasted in a role that doesn’t need to be there. And why was that plot twist revealed before time?

However, all these flaws are compensated by the striking direction of Frankenheimer and a unique score by David Amram. And what about that dream sequence? I couldn’t believe my darn eyes!

All in all, you’ll never see a Queen of Diamonds the same way.

“Why don't you pass the time with a game of solitaire?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In the Heat of the Night

Director

Norman Jewison

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 11, 2002

Passing by a racist southern town to visit his mother, African-American Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) gets unwillingly involved in a murder case, first as a suspect, then as the main detective—against the will of most everybody. Chief of Police Gillespie (Rod Steiger) is as racist as everyone else, and can’t stand Tibbs, but has no other choice than to protect him, despite being called “nigger lover”… and hating himself for it too.

This movie is outstanding as a murder mystery that comments on racism while not directly focusing on it. Racism is a constant element in the script that is present all the time but doesn’t really change the course of things; yet, it is the thing that actually keeps it moving. Strikingly directed and photographed, with amazing action sequences and an intricate, very absorbing plot, this film scores mostly for its performances: Poitier, cool as ice as the black Detective who’s “smarter than any white man”; Steiger, as the simple southern man trapped in a big dilemma.

As the gum-chewing, hot-tempered, straight-talking Southern Officer, Steiger succeeds like all actors wish they ever did. Dialogue helps of course, making his presence hilarious at times, especially when he raises his voice. That is something else worth mentioning: this movie is at times very funny!

A jazzy score by Quincy Jones hits the spot, making the atmosphere just perfect. The icing on the cake is the subtle, self-denied friendship between the two leads.

My favorite scene has Gillespie, reluctant as ever, talking Tibbs into staying, while the latter is waiting for his train to come… But the whole film is a joy.

“They call me MISTER Tibbs!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Body Heat

Director

Lawrence Kasdan

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 09, 2002

I’d always heard about the infamous passionate scenes between William Hurt and Kathleen Turner in Body Heat. They simply are part of movie culture and yet I had never got the chance to see this movie. When the opportunity presented itself I jumped at it. Initially it was more because of curiosity, but then I found out what an excellent movie it was and I became enthralled.

Ned Racine (William Hurt) is a somewhat dumb lawyer who can't take his mind, and something else, away from women. One hot Florida night, in a string of many, he meets Matty Walker (Kathleen Turner), a married stunning woman for whom he instantly falls. Soon the relationship turns into something more as they start thinking of killing her husband…

I think director Lawrence Kasdan deserves a standing ovation for what he accomplished in Body Heat. I had always wondered if it would be possible to make a modern movie in the style of those old classics we all love. I wondered if there were actors capable of delivering their lines the way Bogart and Bergman did. I also wondered if there would be a script so good and classy that it would live up to its initial intention. I wondered if there would be a director capable of achieving this and now I’m sure my hopes weren’t in vain: Body Heat is all that.

Being this a neo-film-noir per excellence, Kasdan could have very well shot his movie in black and white. It has all the ingredients of a great classic and all the twists and turns of the best thrillers. If the movie is not perfect it’s because it lacks that last push, but it certainly is a rare piece of cinema that works from beginning to end.

Kathleen Turner is delicious as the story’s femme fatale. Every expression and every move prove that she knows what she’s doing. She’s sexy, she’s irresistible and she’s also a dangerous temptation. Hurt, on the other hand, is equally good as the vulnerable yet strong man who finds in her what he hadn’t found in anyone else. Strong supporting performances from Ted Danson and Richard Crenna also help.

So what about the passionate scenes? They’re hot all right and it’s instantly understandable why they’ve become so well known. The image of Hurt breaking the window in order to get to Turner because he can’t stand it anymore is simply a classic.

Vintage Hollywood brought back in full form!

“You’re not very bright, are you? I like that in a man.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

2001: A Space Odyssey

Director

Stanley Kubrick

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 08, 2002

Unique, inimitable masterpiece of incalculable influence in cinema depicts the presence, observation and eventual intervention of alien intelligence on human beings. From the dawn of man (a real window to the past) to the space era, humans face and have to deal with this situation, while dealing with themselves.

In the title year, a big, black, square object is found buried in the moon and a quest is set to Jupiter to find out more about it. A super-intelligent computer named HAL (voice of Douglas Rain) then turns against the human members of the crew and that’s only the beginning of a bizarre, eye-opening quest of one of them (Keir Dullea).

Stanley Kubrick creates a universe of his own while simply portraying human beings as they are, in this exciting, extremely beautiful piece which deliberately makes planets, stars, spaceships and apes ballet with gorgeous classical music as a background. Not many scenes have dialogue, but all of them have beauty, sometimes to incredible levels. The slow pace helps the appreciation.

The most notable music piece used is “Also Sprach Zarathustra” by Richard Strauss, which is now permanently and helplessly linked to this great film.

At first many might reject it because of its unclear plot, but after a while, this movie is very hard to dislike. For me, it is completely irresistible.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

Director

George Lucas

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 04, 2002

Ten years after the events depicted in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999), the saga continues as an older (and much less annoying) Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), in a mission with his Master Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), meets Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman) once again and falls in love with her. Though this is obviously the primary thing in the movie, the one thing that matters and the reason for everything else, the plot takes us in many directions, as the Jedi forces face big trouble when war approaches them, in what is to be the center event of the Star Wars saga.

As everyone else, I will first state that this movie is far superior to its predecessor. It’s still an excuse for a prequel, but it’s not so full of pointless references to the future but instead it gives its own universe enough importance. Plus, as I said (but I can’t say it enough times), Christensen is a big improvement over Jake Lloyd, who played the character as a young boy. Jar-Jar Binks is also taken out of the equation, though it takes an exceedingly pointless scene to do so. But let’s not focus on these little things. There are many scenes and subplots that are interesting and worthwhile. Unfortunately, the whole story is not by far solid.

Christensen is not only better than Lloyd (did I say I couldn’t say it enough times?), but he’s nearly unforgettable as the young man who’s continuously aroused by the dark side of the Force, given the fact that we know his fate is not too nice. Portman is gorgeous and strong as “his girl”; but is their romance absorbing enough to carry a whole movie? Works for most people, it seems, but not for me. McGregor is good too in a detective-y turn that works alright; Christopher Lee plays an evil lord with two apparent faces; Ian McDiarmid is back as the guy who’s planning the whole scheme.

Most of the movie is war, big armies, huge threatens, and setups for the future.

I love history. It has always intrigued me to learn the true facts of the past of the world and I wouldn’t like anything more than to be given the chance to see a glimpse of some “scenes” from it. Thinking of the original trilogy as a fact and the new trilogy as its history, I like it. But that’s more documentary stuff than movie stuff, if not made entertaining enough. As an epic, filled with stunning effects, I like it; as a storyteller, I don’t like it as much.

It’s good, though…

“I see you becoming the greatest of all Jedi.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bonnie and Clyde

Director

Arthur Penn

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 01, 2002

In the Depression era, a bored woman from Dallas (Faye Dunaway) meets an enigmatic man who doesn’t hesitate to impress her by showing that he is a robber, thus she quits her boring life to join him in a dead-end lifestyle that would eventually make them both legends (this is a true story).

On its way, the couple is joined by a mechanic (Michael J. Pollard) and by Clyde’s brother (Gene Hackman) along with his loud wife (Estelle Parsons).

This breakthrough movie created a genre of its own by showing, for the first time ever, the good side of the evil people to the point of making them “heroes” while the representatives of the law are villains. To us, the gang of charismatic thieves should escape the brainless bunch of cops that constantly chase them, while the Texas Ranger who gets obsessed with them (Denver Pyle) is the man who’s doing wrong. This movie turned things upside down by treating gangsters and cops the opposite way, which was extremely successful and obviously imitated many times, resulting in some very good movies (my favorite example being Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)).

The seriocomic treatment received by the gang (their escapades are usually accompanied by banjo music, for instance) creates a dramatic contrast when things start getting bloody and portrayed quite graphically for us. This makes the damage ever more unforgettable, especially in the final sequence, which (though you may know what goes on in it, I won’t spoil it) remains in the mind of the viewer helplessly. The scene inside a movie theater is unforgettably poignant.

The performers excel constantly, Beatty a goofy Clyde, Dunaway a vulnerable but strong Bonnie, Pollard a sensitive boy, Hackman a rude but reasonable man, Parsons a hilarious woman who yells uncontrollably when in danger, hates to be on the run, loves her husband more than anything, and secretly enjoys what she’s in; let’s be frank, she steals the show. Gene Wilder is hilarious as well in his film debut.

Beautifully directed, marvelously crafted (script by Robert Benton and David Newman) and gorgeously photographed, this set a trend and with reason.

“This here’s Miss Bonnie Parker. I’m Clyde Barrow. We rob banks.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter