CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Babe

Director

Chris Noonan

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 27, 2002

A movie about a talking pig as a Best Picture nominee? Are we in the same tune? You bet! No one, absolutely no one, expected much about this movie. They just didn’t expect anything. But when it finally hit theaters it took everyone by surprise. It wasn’t just good, it was an extraordinary family movie that would prove to be unstoppable.

Babe (voiced by Christine Cavanaugh) lives in a farm in which he’s taken care by Arthur Hoggett (James Cromwell) and his wife Esme (Magda Szubanzki). Babe lost his mother early on and was bred in a family of dogs. Since he was little he dreamt of shepherding, something everyone always made fun about. Still he never gave up and it is his pursue of that dream and the adventures with his fellow animal friends that hold this movie together.

Movies about animals are always related to kids. No one outside that age gap (besides the parents who take their kids to the movies) watches this kind of movie. Then again, this time around the animals actually talked. It’s really funny, because even now when I write about the premise and realize what this movie is all about I can’t believe it turned out to be what it is. Chris Noonan did a wonderful job in bringing this story to life and the result is magic.

Babe is, of course, a very charming pig. This is the adjective one could also give to the movie as a whole. It is its charm, it’s witty attitude, it’s innocence, its lack of false moments and its compelling array of interesting characters that make this picture one of the best family entertainment of modern age.

The movie is also a joy to behold since it is impeccably done in every single technical aspect. Using every device imaginable to pretend the animals actually talk, the people behind it simply nailed it. It’s got gorgeous cinematography and music to go with the already jaw-dropping realism of, ironically, this fantasy.

And did I mention those mice that keep popping up with their tuneful voices? Hilarious!

Babe is a movie that has to be seen to be believed. It captivated the hearts of millions and will also do so with yours. A gem.

“That’ll do pig, that’ll do.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Director

Robert Wiene

Year

1920

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 26, 2002

A strange charlatan (Werner Krauss) arrives in a small village to show the people his amusing attraction: a prophetic sleepwalker. The latter, however, plants terror in town as he prophesizes murder and it comes true. The center of the story is a young man (Friedrich Feher) who becomes obsessed with the idea that the sleepwalker (Conrad Veidt) is the murderer. His investigation takes him to an unsuspected path of confusion and unbearable revelations…

This film is an absolute triumph of the horror genre, continuously terrorizing the viewer through mind games, weird sets (where surrealism abounds) and plot twists. The final twist, which was allegedly added for political reasons, manages to turn everything upside down in a very good way; even though the story becomes more reasonable, the revelation is astounding and quite maddening.

The performances are all great, with Krauss more than believable as the mad Doctor and Veidt extraordinary as his puppet.

Fascinating is the word.

“I must know everything. I must penetrate the heart of his secret! I must become Caligari!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Metropolis

Director

Fritz Lang

Year

1927

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 22, 2002

The opulent residents of a glorious city of the future, blinded by the enjoyment of their luxurious life, ignore the fact that they are living above another city, filled with oppressed and unhappy workers that keep the City of Metropolis going. When a woman from below (Brigitte Helm) appears in front of the children of the rich, accompanied by many poor children, one aristocrat youth (Gustav Fröhlich), who happens to be the son of the city’s ruler (Alfred Abel), makes conscience, eventually joining the workers in their desperate search for an understanding with the people from above. In the meantime, a mad inventor (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) designs a robot that will confuse the proceedings…

This silent movie is a treat to watch, more than anything else. It managed to create a future more credible than those of many further movies. The production design is simply uncanny, plus the story is absorbing and the performances passionate... One can’t help but be compelled by Fröhlich’s impotence in his will to help the oppressed, while there rarely has been any character as enigmatic as Helm’s Maria. Her dual role makes an unforgettable contrast.

I just can’t help but love this movie. I could watch it a million times and still enjoy it the same. What impresses me most is the fact that it speaks for a universal humanity, through situations that are not rare at any time and any place… while being a very early movie, set in a future we haven’t yet reached.

In case this movie wasn’t good enough already, Giorgio Moroder added tints of color, a modern score and some lost scenes in a 1984 re-issue. The color and songs make the experience even richer, while the scenes reveal some facts that were hidden in the storyline as preserved before.

The transformation of the robot is among the greatest scenes of cinema.

“There can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

That Thing You Do!

Director

Tom Hanks

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 20, 2002

I didn’t see this movie at the time it was released. It didn’t seem appealing enough and I let it go. Years later I caught it on TV and simply discovered it. I’ve seen it a couple of times now and I still love it.

The movie tells the story of a group of friends (Tom Everett Scott, Jonathon Schaech, Steve Zahn, Ethan Embry) who form a band in the 60’s unaware of the success it was going to have. Then again, life as a star is not as easy as it seems, and pressure can get the best, and worst, out of people. A love triangle forms with a beautiful girl (Liv Tyler) while the band goes through ups and downs, always accompanied by their manager (Tom Hanks)

The movie doesn’t boast one of the most original or interesting of premises, but therein lies the magic of it. Tom Hanks, in his directorial debut, confectioned a movie so charming and so earnest in its depiction that it simply gets to our hearts. This movie is entertaining, funny, romantic and real. It’s got all the ingredients to work and it does.

You might also remember it for its catchy Oscar-nominated song. I still hear it and a smile appears in my face. I remember Hanks saying that it was really difficult finding the right song, because it is played so many times during the movie that it could get annoying. I also remember listening to it for the first time and falling in love with it.

The 60’s music scene is portrayed in this movie in a more optimistic way than it usually is. That’s due to the cheerful tone of the movie and the way they decided to play with it. The band does face a lot of problems, depressions and obstacles. They also face the usual adjusting to their sudden fame and how some of them change so much and others remain being the same persons they always were.

Hanks gathered a talented group of young mostly-unknown performers to act in his movie and it paid off. Most of them went on to become more famous, but at the time they came out of nowhere. They all do a great job and Hanks himself provides some very funny moments.

Sing to the tune of it. You’ll have a good time!

“You guys look great in black, have I told you that?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

No Man's Land

Director

Danis Tanovic

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, August 15, 2002

When the Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar was awarded to No Man’s Land instead of Amélie the entire world was suddenly in shock. It was one of the biggest upsets of the night because it came out of nowhere. Obviously, I became intrigued…

It’s 1993, the war between Bosnia and Herzegovina is at its ugliest point. During a shootout, Chiki (Branko Djuric) and Nino (Rene Bitorajac) end up in no man’s land. The problem is they are both from a different side, which means they’re enemies… Meanwhile, the UN gets involved, reporters start to gather around and an entire circus builds around these two guys and the situation they’ve found themselves in.

No Man’s Land is a curious case. It is a war movie like no other I have ever seen. It isn’t entirely funny, it isn’t that light as well, and yet it isn’t a very serious movie. It reaches a point between these three concepts and never gives it up. It’s a rare movie to watch. The balance is just perfect and director Danis Tanovic knows it.

One could say that, after all is said and done, No Man’s Land is a poignant satire. Poignant because it deals with very touchy subjects such as war and the absurdity of it in a way that never ceases to interest. If two men from opposite sides can’t get along and can’t come to peace with each other, what would you expect from entire nations. Yet their disagreements are about the most ridiculous of things, and it is a rough allegory on the entire conflict put in scope.

The movie is also a satire because no matter how tough the condition was, it grew to outrageous proportions in the most absurd ways. The UN is specially questioned, as their apparent mission was to give humanitarian aid, but even they had to surrender to the circumstances and even they had an image to sustain. It’s sad to see how good honest people couldn’t do much in the midst of such a spectacle because their own supervisors wouldn’t let them. The movie also questions the role of the reporters in the conflict. How much did they influence the outcome? Was their role bigger than should’ve been?

Another thing I liked a lot about the movie is the way they dealt with languages. This is a movie in which everyone speaks their own language and sometimes that didn’t make things easier. It’s totally realistic and the approach is just right.

Djuric and Bitorajac are extraordinary as the two men in the midst of chaos, but there are other performers who also stand out. I especially enjoyed Georges Siatidis, the French sergeant who genuinely wants to help and Katrin Cartlidge, the unstoppable British reporter who is just trying to do her job.

An exceptional achievement about a war seen yet from another point of view. That Oscar wasn’t a fluke.

“Because I have a gun and you don’t.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Predator

Director

John McTiernan

Year

1987

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, August 14, 2002

A team of commandos, leaded by Major “Dutch” Schaefer (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is sent to South America by the CIA to rescue hostages from guerrillas. The mission goes all right until the team tries to leave the jungle: just then, they notice that they are being “hunted” by a strange presence that blends with the jungle, which one by one kills them for sport.

What is it? How can it be stopped?

This is one of the coolest Schwarzenegger vehicles, and also one of the least pretentious, thoughtful or profound of the bunch. No need for an intricate plot when you’ve got a frightened Arnold fighting for his own life! The battle scenes involving the commandos (Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura and Sonny Landham are all great and tough) are astounding, but the real deal is the second half, when it is a matter of life or death continuously. Plus: unbelievable visual effects.

What’s more: it’s hard to decide who’s coolest, the predator, or Arnold covered by mud!

Pure fun, nothing else.

“If it bleeds, we can kill it.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

October Sky

Director

Joe Johnston

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 13, 2002

October Sky belongs to the same category as Billy Elliot (2000), Simon Birch and The Mighty. What do they all have in common? Simple, they’re all gems. They’re all little movies that proved to be more sincere and heartwarming than most of what Hollywood produces nowadays. Movies with their heart in the right place, but that also happen to work.

This is the true story of Homer Hickman (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who lives in a coal-mining town and whose father (Chris Cooper) is the mine foreman. One sudden 1957 October night Homer watches as the Sputnik goes into orbit and that sole event changes his life. He decides he wants to build a rocket, and with the help of three of his friends and of a teacher (Laura Dern) who encourages him to go on, he embarks on a quest to follow his dreams despite his father’s negative attitude.

What a wonderful movie this is! Simply breath-taking. I knew when going into the movie that it was going to be good. Reviews had been ecstatic and it looked like a good old-fashioned movie to spend an afternoon with. It was no nonsense and I ended up loving it. What is it that makes it so special?

To start off, it is a movie about three-dimensional characters and the relationships between them. It could be perceived that the movie is all about Homer’s willingness to build his rocket, but it’s a great surprise to find out that it’s more about the very poignant relationship between him and his father. The way it evolves is pure magic and realism. Besides, it’s always great to find such rich and complex characters and this is just it.

October Sky has also a very predictable message to share that doesn’t seem tired or repetitious. It’s not about how many times we’ve seen this stuff before, but about the way it is done. Director Joe Johnston gives the movie the right balance and it becomes an emotional journey that we travel with Homer and experience thoroughly because it involves our feelings. There’s also an innocence to it that reminds us that all we have to do is keep fighting for our dreams and never give up to adversity.

The movie is extremely well acted by a cast of very talented performers. Gyllenhaal is outstanding as the leading boy, but it is Chris Cooper who gives the best and most heart-breaking performance. Laura Dern also shines in a small role.

The word beautiful was created for movies like this. From the cinematography to the music to the story, October Sky is an inspiring movie that everyone should see.

“That good? Well, why didn’t you say so?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

MASH

Director

Robert Altman

Year

1970

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 12, 2002

The staff of a field hospital during the Korean War behaves wildly and carelessly, while doing its work right, as opposite to the way of the events around it, thus creating a very powerful anti-war statement.

This outrageous comedy of characters, vignettes and slapstick was Robert Altman’s first big success and one of his greatest achievements, featuring a huge cast in a not very complicated fashion. This became Altman’s trademark and his domain was clear from the first shot. MASH is a riotous and absolutely hilarious comedy.

The smart dialogue and light-speed pace makes it necessary to have a second view. You won’t mind; such an irreverent take on anything is irresistible.

A memorable cast includes Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Tom Skerritt, Sally Kellerman, Robert Duvall and many more.

Love those opening credits. My favorite characters are Hawkeye, Hot Lips and Radar. My favorite scenes are all around the movie.

A must.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Road to Perdition

Director

Sam Mendes

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, August 07, 2002

John Rooney (Paul Newman), a crime boss in Depression Era Chicago, finds himself in the worst of predicaments when his own son (Daniel Craig) is endangered by knowledge acquired by the young son of his most loyal hitman, Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks). The latter is as much a son to Rooney as his real son, but something must be done about the unfortunate incident. Rooney’s decision won’t be easy, and will definitely have dramatic repercussions.

Road to Perdition was born as a graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner, and translated to film by screenwriter David Self, who pretty much maintained the spirit of the original format. The same thing was achieved visually, and this film is definitely a treat for the eye. Conrad L. Hall’s cinematography is absolutely splendid, as is the production design, and Mendes’ direction focuses as much in the visuals as it does in the characters, and their dialogue, and their points of view. The whole story is seen mostly from the point of view of Sullivan’s son (Tyler Hoechlin), which makes it so awe-inspiring maybe, as it’s probably the way it’s seen by the boy.

This is on the surface a tale of gangsters fighting each other to protect their own best interests. Sullivan and his son run away from danger and are chased by the evil guys, in the form of scene-stealer Jude Law in a Jack Palace in ‘Shane’ kind of role he pulls off amazingly. However, at the core, the film is really about relationships, especially those between fathers and sons. There are three such relationships here that can be compared: Rooney and his son, Ronney and Sullivan, and Sullivan and his son. There’s conflict here, especially concerning Rooney and his difficult decision.

However, quite sadly, the story seemed to me a bit shallow and indifferent. I understand that this is done in part to achieve the graphic novel style, but I would’ve enjoyed just a little bit of heart. It even seemed to me like it avoided any possible poignancy, and it was hard for me to really feel the characters’ hesitation or conflict, though it’s obviously there. I probably shouldn’t expect even the slightest friendliness in this kind of tale, but I also didn’t expect them to avoid it so deliberately.

The cast is pretty good. Newman is absolutely great as the conflicted kingpin, and Hanks fine too as a man unable to show any sentiment. As I said, Law steals his scenes, even though his character is not very deep. Craig surprised me as well as Newman’s son.

Thomas Newman’s score suits the procedures very well, and becomes one more similar aspect to Director Mendes’ feature debut American Beauty (1999) (Road to Perdition is his second feature film). Overall, this film is definitely recommendable, highly original, and pleasurable in many ways, if unsatisfying in others.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Minority Report

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 06, 2002

I think no one on Earth was as much excited about this movie as I was. Really, I’m not kidding. And I know I have a big mouth, but that’s the truth, as subjective as it can be of course. Spielberg, Cruise, Farrell, the future… It was too much to bear.

Minority Report takes place in 2054. The Pre-Crime Organization can prevent murders. Creatures called precogs (one of which is played by Samantha Morton) have the ability to see murders before they happen. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is a Pre-Crime detective whose world is turned upside down when Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell) is sent to investigate everything about the proceedings for political reasons, but even more so when he finds himself in the chase for he’s apparently going to murder a man he’s never met in his life, in less than 36 hours.

To this day I have seen the movie twice. Both viewings were equally rewarding. The first one was more about experiencing the movie, about truly living it, about discovery. The second one was more about enjoying it even more so because of knowing what to expect and about clearing a lot of doubts I still had from my first viewing. For this is not a simple movie, but a highly complex and intelligent one.

Spielberg has had his share of the future now. The amazing thing is how different these movies are from one another. The future in Minority Report is one that feels real yet it’s full of impressive gimmicks that, on that sole basis, are worth the price of admission. Whether it’s the huge computers maneuvered as if they were musical instruments, or the way cars and streets work so well together, or the weapons and security hardware cops use, or the way advertising has become so personalized, or how people can be spotted at any time of the day by means of their eyes. The list goes on and on and so does the imagination of the movie’s creators.

I think it’s also interesting the way the movie is constructed. Like Spielberg’s own brilliant A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001), the movie is told in an episodic way that works really well. I also think Kubrick’s influence is still present this time around. What else can you say about the encounter between John and the eccentric Dr. Iris Hineman (Lois Smith), creator of the whole system? Or what about John’s underground encounter with Dr. Solomon (Peter Stormare)? Or his exchange with the unique prison guard (Tim Blake Nelson)? These are all brilliantly constructed sequences that add a lot to the overall puzzle that the story is.

The movie works both as an action thriller and as a philosophical journey. Spielberg and Cruise were not only concerned to make a visually striking movie (thanks in part to the great work of Janusz Kaminski) but to make a thoughtful examination of what we can expect in the future. Predestination, destiny, faith… Such doubts about the human ability to change the course of the future if he’d be able to do it. Is it ethical? Should it be done? At the expense of what? These are not easy questions and there are not easy answers.

There’s a very distinct influence in Minority Report and I must say Spielberg borrowed from the best: Hitchcock. This is one of those movies the master would’ve been proud of. The way all the pieces come together, the way some scenes are shot, even John William’s music resembles some of Bernard Herrmann’s best work.

The movie is not without its flaws, but they’re easily forgiven. The final twenty minutes, for example, are too long and it would’ve been great if they’d been able to tighten them up, but that’s just a minor quibble among some brilliant stuff.

Oh, and giving the female precog the name of Agatha… classy!

No movie would be complete without the work of its actors, and this time around the movie deserves a ten. Tom Cruise is excellent as this deeply conflicted character who isn’t your typical hero, but who fights for something we can all identify with. Colin Farrell is also extraordinary as the gum-chewing inspector who does a better job than he’s credited for. Max Von Sydow shines as John’s old mentor and co-creator of the organization. But it is the girls who steal the spotlight this time around. Samantha Morton is simply unbelievable. She has to be a brilliant silent actress. Her work here, down to the smallest move, is perfect. Lois Smith, on the other hand, steals the only scene in which she appears and leaves a huge impression.

One of the best movies of the year and another memorable Spielberg movie for the list!

“You still have a choice.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Greed

Director

Erich von Stroheim

Year

1925

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 05, 2002

The dramatically opposite combination of an ambitious woman (Zasu Pitts) and a very simple man (Gibson Gowland) gets only worse when she wins a fortune from the lottery, and gets obsessed with money, right after their marriage. To make matters even worse, the former best friend of the couple (Jean Hersholt) becomes their worst enemy, out of envy.

Erich von Stroheim’s masterpiece of silent drama is especially notorious for its original length of 8 hours, and the tremendous trimming the studio did to it. The director never agreed with the change of course, but still the movie is outstanding, becoming an epic out of a very simple tale. Comedy relief and chilling symbolism is used throughout.

The depiction of humans as creatures of instinct and hatred is awfully scary, and frighteningly real. The characters descend to hell, little by little, until the unforgettable finale. All the actors do a top-notch work.

The beauty surrounding the depiction of such terrible happenings is admirable. This could very well be the greatest of all silent films.

Based on the novel McTeague by Frank Norris.

Try to catch the modern version, scored by Carl Davis.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

We Were Soldiers

Director

Randall Wallace

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, August 01, 2002

A movie from the team that brought us Braveheart (1995)? Oh boy, I’m there…

The picture is about one of the first important battles between Americans and Vietnamese forces back at the beginning of the war. It took place in the Ia Drang Valley and lasted for three long and horrible days. Lt. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) was the man in charge, but it was the work of each man that ultimately mattered…

We Were Soldiers is a peculiarity and I knew that from the get-go. Here we have a harsh, violent, raw war movie about the Vietnam War that also happens to be immensely sentimental. That’s not something you find every other day. All the best movies about this specific war, The Deerhunter, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, are anything but sentimental. Of course, they don’t have to be, but it felt kind of weird to come up with a movie that was brave enough to be different.

Randall Wallace, the director and writer, is perhaps the man to blame. He does a lot of things right with this movie, but he’s also the man responsible for most of its flaws. Because, you see, the most annoying flaw is how the movie is clearly over-written. You won’t believe some of the dialogue in the movie, especially during the first third. Everything coming out of the actors’ mouth is always patriotic, obvious and as unreal as it can get. That really bothered me but I got used after a while.

The movie is really good when handling battle scenes. It is pretty graphic and stomach-churning. But it also has another side. The movie keeps showing us the wives’ side. Once in a while we get to see what these women are going through and it becomes almost unbearable when those yellow telegrams start arriving. One of the best scenes of the movie has a black woman receiving one of these and the reaction it generates.

As I said at the beginning fighting in a war was all about team-spirit. It is not only about the ones who died, but it came down even to the least important of men in the battlefield. Whether it was a helicopter pilot risking his life to save others or a photographer trying to do his job at the place. It was about one and about everybody.

Surprisingly enough the movie is not that political in its depiction. It has the balls to show us both sides and to state that everyone, no matter what, had a family, had dreams, and wanted to fight for their lives at all costs. Here it’s all about surviving, not about ideas. And it just comes to show, once again, how ridiculous and unbelievable war is.

Mel Gibson, once again, proves to be a tower of strength and leads an ensemble cast that works really good together. Chris Klein, of which I’m not that fond of, is ok in a role that fits him quite well. Madeleine Stowe, as Lt. Col. Moore’s wife, is extraordinary. She’s got some very difficult scenes to handle and she does it admirably. Then there’s Sam Elliott and the scenes he sometimes steals from his costars. But it is Barry Pepper, as the reporter on the site, that gives the best performance of the movie. Truly heart-breaking.

And I guess these last words are the ones that describe the movie the fairest.

“Beautiful day, Sergeant Major!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter