CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Body Heat

Director

Lawrence Kasdan

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

After the success of Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980), screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan was given carte blanche to direct his own script of Body Heat, a risky project in that it’s a classic film noir sort of revamped for modern-day audiences, in a way that both honors its good ol’ predecessors and proposes more specifics be shown, all the while attempting to stand on its own.

It succeeds. Soon after the action has started, we forget that this belongs to a genre or should be respectful to others in it. We’re involved in it and intrigued by it, and though we soon enough realize, more or less, what the plot is all about, we pledge allegiance and go with the flow, because we’re so entertained.

The story stars Ned Racine, a low-key lawyer that I have noticed most critics tag as dim-witted. I don’t agree with that. He’s lazy all right, has made mistakes, and doesn’t have much future, but what he is, even after all that he’s seen in his life, is naïve. When he’s face-to-face with unbelievable passion, he chooses to pursue it even if it means doing the unthinkable; and even if he’s been warned by everybody, and half-agrees, that the woman he’s after means danger.

That woman is Matty Walker, a sexy and highly sexual lady with a millionaire husband she hates. One would swear, and Ned certainly does, that it’s he who’s after her, because she plays cat-and-mouse really well, even making him be the one who eventually proposes a scheme to get rid of the rich man who’s between them.

How they get to what ends up being a very bad idea for one of them is reminiscent of Double Indemnity (1944) and The Postman Always Rings Twice, but even in those cases it wasn’t so intense, or not in the way it is here, because here you can feel the passion and especially the heat between the two members of this deadly couple, and you can smell their desire for whatever each is after, which is not necessarily the same thing.

The actors playing this couple are William Hurt and Kathleen Turner, he as good as usual, she excellent in her film debut. Their chemistry, as I said, is so palpable it pops out of the screen, and that’s one of the crucial elements to make this piece work.

Other important characters are played by Richard Crenna and especially Ted Danson. Mickey Rourke also appears briefly but notably.

The icing on the cake is the ambience. This is a film to vacation in. The whole scenery, vistas, texture, music (by John Barry), etc., work together in perfect synch to achieve a unique feeling that not only gives the experience extra intensity, but leaves an indelible aftertaste that’s tied together with the story—including its fine finale—to become a modern classic.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Silence of the Lambs

Director

Jonathan Demme

Year

1991

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

They say a character is not what it says but what it does, yet, in a very complex way, Hannibal Lecter proves the contrary is possible, only of course, much of what happens in The Silence of the Lambs happens because of what he says, because that’s all he can do, trapped in a maximum security cell, a psychopathic cannibal that was once a renowned psychiatrist.

Anthony Hopkins plays him with chilling precision. Though the character was charming enough in Thomas Harris’ novel, Hopkins made a gentleman out of him, and it’s just exquisite to have him on screen. We constantly want to hear more from him, and because he’s so cryptic and mysterious, we’re always left wanting more.

So is Clarice Starling, the FBI agent sent to inquire Lecter about another murderer he might know something about. Neither Starling nor Lecter know at first that that’s the intention (she thinks she’s there to outline a profile of him), but he guesses it soon enough, and plays with her psyche to give out any answers. Once Clarice understands what the real game of her boss is, she creates a bond with Lecter, whom she likes despite the obvious repugnance that she feels, and gives in a little, obeying his “quid pro quo” proposal that he’ll give out an answer every time she gives out one about herself, and it better be truthful, or he’ll know.

As things get desperate because the serial murderer has kidnapped the daughter of a Senator, Clarice gets more and more into the game, until it’s ecstasy for Lecter. As the protagonist, Clarice, solves the clues that Lecter gives her, she gets to know herself much better, to face her fears, and to become the professional that she only dreamt she would become. Jodie Foster pulls this off with complete credibility, allowing us, as Lecter does, to smell her fears, read her mind and believe in her.

Ted Tally put together a script so tight and powerful it hardly lets the viewer breathe. Words are used admirably as many scenes are nothing more than two people talking for a few minutes. Outstandingly, thanks to Harris’ material, Tally’s adaptation, Craig McKay’s editing, Demme’s direction and great performances, we never feel trapped, it never feels talky and the tension only increases. It’s something to check out and admire. As for the sequences that move, they truly move, and we go with them completely. This is a first-rate thriller.

The material is hard on the gut and definitely not easy to swallow. The murderer, one nicknamed Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), is an eccentric character whose scenes are bizarre to say the least. There’s torture, blood and corpses all throughout, and yet, as all that is evil gets more gruesome, we root for the match between Lecter and Clarice, perhaps because we never get to see Lecter’s crimes too clearly, or because we understand that even his crimes had some decency, some congruousness that could be seen, if only from a twisted mind, as just.

This is a great film that I understand wasn’t conceived as such. That it became a classic and spawned or revitalized or refocused many careers speaks wonders about it. No wonder, though; it’s extraordinary.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

State of Play

Director

Kevin Macdonald

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 13, 2009

At first sight, I couldn’t see much that was special about State of Play, and all of a sudden it struck me: this is the first time I’ve seen a film tackle the very important and ground-breaking subject of newspapers disappearing and being taken over by the Internet. I’d heard about that elsewhere, and been a cause of it myself, reading newspapers online exclusively, but I hadn’t seen it on film treated as a drama, and I liked the idea. Now, delving into it solely would be pure nostalgia, and not meaty enough unless it meant for some reason life or death to a man or a company. Truth is, in real life there is adaptation, and though some will not be able to survive evolution, others will simply rearrange themselves to suit the latest necessities.

So, what can be better than telling a story about investigative reporting, making it special by placing it in the midst of said evolution, and illustrating both the nostalgia and the new wave? The result reminds us of many films from the past and isn’t original enough to stand on its own, but because of the significance of its setting, it very well deserves a check-out.

The story is about a politician, Rep. Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), who’s so affected by the death of a female collaborator that rumors immediately spread about his having an affair with her. I say immediately in a literal way, because there’s no need to wait for tomorrow’s newspapers: there are the online editions and the blogs. Reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), however, is old-fashioned and would rather stick to the printed editions. Thus, he snubs newcomer Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), a blog writer, when she asks him his opinion about the scandal Collins is in.

They both work for The Washington Globe, which could have as well been called The Washington Post for that matter (during the end credits, the producers thank the aforementioned real-life newspaper). Their boss is Cameron Lynne (Helen Mirren), who struggles to keep the paper up-to-date but has little idea how to do it given the changing times. They urgently need something important printed by them exclusively, even if it means interfering a bit with justice, in the way that their newspaper is first, and the law is second.

In an exaggerated twist, it turns out reporter McAffrey and Rep. Collins are old friends, and McAffrey even had (and still has, unbeknownst to Collins) an affair with Collins’ wife, Anne (Robin Wright Penn). Collins, however, is guilty of the affair the blogs accuse him of, but it doesn’t stop there: as it turns out, Collins has been fighting against a huge corporation called PointCorp, which is a cliché of evil corporations but functions well enough as antagonist throughout.

Russell Crowe has a laughably shabby look that wants to give him the gritty feel of the old-fashioned reporter who cared only for quality even if it meant sacrificing his own look; it’s like he never sleeps, takes a shower or combs. For that matter, Rachel McAdams should’ve looked awesome as Della, but thankfully she’s made look only as a common girl, which unfortunately also means that the gorgeous actress doesn’t shine (also, her role is rather thankless). Helen Mirren, as the anguished editor, is outstanding. Ben Affleck is as wooden as ever, though straight enough to be believable. And Jason Bateman appears briefly in pedantic mode but comes off well.

This thriller tackles many important themes such as ethics in reporting, high-level infidelity, corporation espionage and extreme political measures. But the one that’s given most importance is this: if the closing time of a newspaper’s next-day edition sometimes isn’t late enough to complete something properly, isn’t writing for a blog so potentially precipitate that it might compromise quality, integrity and truth?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Angels & Demons

Director

Ron Howard

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Because I hated The Da Vinci Code (2006) and I had liked the book so much, I decided to read “Angels & Demons” before the film came out, as I was afraid they’d ruin it for me. It wasn’t a bad decision but it didn’t turn out the way I had expected; instead, I hated the book and liked the movie much more. In this case, I should’ve skipped the read. But maybe the film, too.

The book, written before “Da Vinci”, is Dan Brown’s first novel featuring Robert Langdon, who has been played twice by Tom Hanks in the film adaptations. It’s basically a first attempt at what was perfected in the more famous sequel: Langdon is a professor of symbology who’s called overseas to help decipher a bizarre murder that might be related to something much greater. Both plots have basically the same structure but as I said, the second one is an improved effort, plus it’s more interesting and credible despite its general implausibility.

The story of the film adaptations, curiously, is the exact opposite: Da Vinci was done first and came off pretty badly, because even though it kept a quick pace, it lost focus on the story and wasted important revelations in favor of car chases and other perilous activities that really weren’t all that exciting because we didn’t care much for what was going on. Because that book was more densely plotted and filled with extensive explanations about hidden symbolism in well-known works of art, there wasn’t much time to include all that, hence the poor result. On the other hand, Angels & Demons needed not much focus on the explanations because there’s not much to them, so more juice could be extracted from the hasty sequences, red herrings and plot twists.

The plot revolves around the death of a Pope, after which a threat from an old anti-clerical organization, the Illuminati, assures the destruction of Vatican City for a long-awaited triumph of people who have been repudiated for wanting to favor science over faith, or so it was interpreted. Their method of destruction is a bomb of anti-matter, supposedly a source of energy similar to the one that generated the Big Bang. One of the scientists responsible for the anti-matter, and quite conveniently a single and attractive lady, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), joins Langdon (Tom Hanks) in a hurried search for the location of the bomb, which has to do with documents and artworks all around the city whose hours are counted.

The script by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman thankfully obviates many flashbacks and relationships that didn’t add much to the story, and simply explores the main characters and their motivations. Pivotal to the plot is the Camerlengo, Patrick McKenna, who serves as temporary leader to the church while a new Pope is elected. Ewan McGregor plays him as a clearly tormented and confused man who might be very wrong in his actions. Stellan Skarsgård is a composite of a couple of characters from the novel, a wise decision because he’s quite intriguing and gains importance as the story advances.

Special effects are vital to the overdone action scenes which help give this a light touch. Since no one could ever believe that something like what happens here could happen, what can be better than exaggerating the procedures? That way at least we don’t feel like we’re being laughed at; not much, anyway. When all is said and done, this is a waste of time, but if time is to be wasted, isn’t it a good idea to have some fun while it happens?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Proposal

Director

Anne Fletcher

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 06, 2009

Even writing about this bores me to exhaustion. My attitude wasn’t always that bad though. Sure, I sort of found myself watching this one against all odds, but since I was there, I figured I’d enjoy it. Some chuckles came soon enough as the leading male character was quirky and happened to hate his female boss. Yet, as an obligatory conflict emerged which forced them to be together, and it was obvious how things would turn out, and the process was filled with forced, unfunny gimmicks and jokes, I suffered.

The guy is Ryan Reynolds, whom I still have difficulty seeing as a normal human being. I liked him in Just Friends (2005) because his null expression fitted the flabbergasted teen and the haunted adult, but he’s too stiff to play a really endearing character, which makes it hard to connect with him. Matthew McConaughey is the opposite, which is probably the reason why he’s become the “King of chick flicks”.

Chick flick… What an awful term. But really, how can one not catalog a film like this in a category like that? I’d love not to but it’s really hard.

It’s not without its good moments though. Though I had difficulty believing that Margaret (Bullock’s character), a much-hated editor, ignored the immigrant law and is being deported back to Canada, I enjoyed the idea of her being forced to marry an American to be able to stick around, and choosing no less than her male assistant, Andrew. It’s been done before and it’s funny and it invites several complications. In this case, that one being that they actually don’t know each other and might get caught, which would mean her deportation and his imprisonment. That’s why they must get to know each other, and what better occasion that his grandmother’s 90th birthday? Off they go to his hometown in Alaska to spend a hellish weekend together…

Not surprisingly (though I shouldn’t state that anymore because nothing’s even mildly surprising in the whole plot), the town of Sitka has more heart than Margaret ever knew, which not only wins her over but reminds her of her long-lost feelings. That’s where the story offers a breath of fresh air: her rusty feelings are convincing when they start popping out. When she opens up her heart to Andrew, we completely want her to be happy, the witch that she was, though to be honest she wasn’t as bad as the plot wanted us to believe.

There’s a subplot involving a sweet ex girlfriend of Andrew’s which gave me hope. For a minute there I theorized Margaret would fall for Andrew and love him enough to encourage him to get back with his true love (played by Malin Akerman) while she went back to Canada. Wishful thinking!

The cast in Sitka benefits from two great ones: Mary Steenburgen as Andrew’s mother and Betty White as his grandmother. The latter is memorable though I wouldn’t say the screenplay does much for her. Craig T. Nelson also appears, as Andrew’s father, and he’s the most unsympathetic character of them all; quite a waste of talent.

Oh, and there’s another guy, one Oscar Nuñez, who plays a jack-of-all-trades, Ramone, who among other things is a stripper, and whose main scene is one of the most awkward I’ve seen in my time. That one and another with Bullock rapping made me grimace and beg for mercy. People around me were laughing, though. Humor is a mysterious thing.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Up

Director

Peter Docter

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Pixar keeps going up and up and even though it’s hard to compare their films with each other, because they’re all so good in different ways, every time they surprise us with an interesting idea that plays in an extremely simple way and manages to both surprise and please us through its innocence and kindness. Pixar films are always good from the heart, which I would say is their defining characteristic. That’s why it’s so hard not to love them.

A loving first act introduces Carl, a simple, easy-going fellow who meets Ellie, the love of his life, during their childhood. She’s set on exploring the world (including South America, which is “like America… but South”) and gives him the itch, though it’s clear that he only considers it because of her. As it usually happens, their dreams aren’t fulfilled, and they end up living their whole lives together in the very town where they met. Nothing extraordinary about their life together, one could say, but they love each other, and that must amount for something.

Ellie has died as the film gets off. Old Carl is grumpy about a big corporation wanting him out of his house in order to build their capitalist buildings. This results in the government taking a hand and sending him to a retirement home. Carl won’t let his life go so easily though, so seeing his house as a representation of his late wife, he takes it away, through the air, to finally fulfill that long-forgotten dream of exploring the world with Ellie.

I have come to realize that some of Pixar’s films use a very simple plot and then complicate it in the middle with unusual artifices, going back to basics towards the end, thus leaving an aftertaste of overall simplicity. However, sometimes it’s that complexity in the middle which raises them to another level. In this case, Carl’s decision to make his house fly and travel to South America is only the beginning; it’s the story of a man he encounters over there which gives it a special substance.

Along with Carl goes a kid, Russell, a boy scout of sorts who must help the elder in order to achieve all his qualifications. He’s sort of annoying to Carl, not surprisingly, but he goes along anyway and of course serves as a key to Carl’s self-encounter and eventual catharsis. The character they encounter in the middle, voiced by Christopher Plummer, is such a cliché that even Carl and Russell react to him as such, but that doesn’t demerit the actor, who’s great. Other characters, which “speak their minds”, make up for hilarious moments.

Edward Asner is endearing as Carl, who’s never too real or too cartoony, the perfect balance for a character in a piece like this. The animation has that scope too: small characters that are clearly not intended to mimic real people, but aren’t to be taken lightly either. Every one of these people has feelings that we find out sooner or later thanks to the fine script by Peter Docter and co-director Peterson. As usual, when all the colors, textures and music (by Michael Giacchino) explode together, we feel like home and want to stay much longer than the running time allows.

Yet, and perhaps I’m alone in this, I didn’t quite fall for the film. To give it a bad review would be unthinkable, but I still have to say I was sort of indifferent about most of it. Maybe it’ll take a while to find its place in my heart—and I have no doubt it will.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Trek

Director

J.J. Abrams

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Nostalgia gets in the way sometimes, and I don’t mean that like I usually would: as if to say the new Star Trek doesn’t live up to what the old series used to be. Instead, I find this new film marred by the need to live up to comparisons while coming up with a clever gimmick to give the franchise new life, satisfying both old fans and potentially new ones. I’m stuck in the middle because while I know the old series quite well, I was never a fan, so the references don’t necessarily mean much to me, but knowing them, I was unable to fully enjoy the new wave. I would’ve preferred a natural presentation of the usual suspects albeit in younger, more refreshing presentation, without it seeming obligatory. Is each and every one integral to the story? Is it necessary to introduce each like it’s such a relevant event?

Perhaps I’d be bitter the other way around, if they had forgotten everything that the series was about, so I can’t complain much, but such faithfulness kept getting in the way, I felt. The clearest example is Spock, played by Zachary Quinto as a know-it-all bastard rightfully despised by Kirk and Bones, at least at first. We all know Spock is half-Vulcan-half-human, which means he’s continuously caught in a dilemma between logic and emotion, but here, as a younger man, he tends toward the logical and hates so much the other half of him that he becomes intolerant and despicable. Sadly, Quinto isn’t good enough to give the character an edge, there’s no humor in this, no human part peeking once in a while; instead, he seems insecure, fearful, almost self-hating, and that’s not the Spock I want to see. There’s another Spock in the story, played by Leonard Nimoy no less, and though older, hence wiser and softer, he reminds us what we loved of the original character, and what we don’t like about the new one.

Kirk, on the other hand, though taken to the extreme and made a cocky rebel who tries to evade responsibility as much as possible, and with it, we know, his destiny as captain of the Enterprise, eventually being pulled into this position by fate, is believable both as a freethinker and as an intelligent, self-assured fella who’s more capable than some people give him credit for. I’m not praising Chris Pine for his performance though, because he overplays it, but he’s not bad.

The gimmick to rehash the series is clever and makes sense, though it produces a new and altogether clichéd villain, Nero, played by Eric Bana, who’s unrecognizable and unmemorable. The explanation, however, is quite enjoyable and poignant, giving the franchise not only new life but a new dimension.

The delivery is conventional for a summer film: loads of action and special effects, though this one recurs to good ol’ fistfights that don’t necessarily fit in the setting but are a welcome asset. The film looks impeccably and provides light-speed entertainment which, I’m sure, will please those who have no idea what the original series was about.

The cast is game. Though I had a big problem with Quinto and a little one with Pine, the rest of the crew is uniformly good, as the actors don’t seem too pompous about playing those characters. The best is Karl Urban as Bones. Other notable members of the cast are Bruce Greenwood as Kirk’s mentor and Winona Ryder as Spock’s mother. And of course Nimoy, who anchors the whole thing and gives it his blessing, opening the door to a new generation that will owe much to his awesome work.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter