CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Bullets Over Broadway

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

The premise of Woody Allen’s Bullets Over Broadway is simple: 1920s playwright David Shayne (John Cusack) is an artist, and as such, he’s been relegated by others on the Broadway scene, whose plays are more accessible to the general public, despite their quality being obviously inferior.

Shayne is misunderstood by everyone but his wife (Mary-Louise Parker) and friends (particularly Sheldon Flender, played by Rob Reiner), but his agent (Jack Warden) somehow trusts his new play, and finds a way to produce it by casting the girlfriend of a mafia boss, Nick Valenti (Joe Viterelli), in a pivotal role, thus getting the necessary funding.

The woman in question is Olive (Jennifer Tilly), a dreadfully untalented showgirl who’s also loud and obnoxious, and what’s even worse, believes she deserves recognition. David’s conflict is quite clear: He knows he’s sacrificing art on behalf of commercial success, but there’s not much he can do about it, and hit man Cheech (Chazz Palminteri) is there to make sure he doesn’t even try to diminish Olive’s role.

Luckily, a good cast surrounds Olive, namely flamboyant but excessive Helen Sinclair (Dianne Wiest), charming but compulsively glutton Warner Purcell (Jim Broadbent), and ever-joyful Eden Brent (Tracey Ullman), among others.

Not much more should be said about the plot of Bullets Over Broadway if spoilers are to be avoided. Suffice it to say that it’s got enough surprises to keep the viewer not only interested but, well, surprised. The most notable one concerns Cheech and an unexpected gift he possesses, which changes the course of the story, and even makes David reflect about his own talent.

Woody Allen brought to the world in 1994 one of his most delicious period comedies of all time. Through a 1920s Broadway setting, it criticizes universal show business, and the constant sacrificing of art for commercial purposes. It’s also a deep analysis of some artists’ incapability to understand their own flaws, and the importance of listening to other people’s opinion in a humble way. And despite its depth, and its moving drama, Bullets Over Broadway is a hilarious comedy, never failing to entertain even for a minute.

The performances are brilliant. Cusack is great in a Woody Allen type, but it’s the people around him who really shine: Weist, one of Woody’s favorites, is deliciously over-the-top as a Norma Desmond of sorts; Tilly is perfection as the dumb, untalented girl with high aspirations; and Palminteri proves to be an actor capable of transmitting tragedy and hilarity without effort, in his riveting performance as a man with hidden layers. These are the spotlights, but everyone in the cast is amazing.

Handled as a low-key film (as expected from Woody), with a nice choice of period songs, and handsome settings and costumes, this is one of Allen’s most notable works of recent years.

“Hey, look who’s here: The big Broadway success. I don’t write hits. My plays are art. They’re written specifically to go unproduced.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Collateral

Director

Michael Mann

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 30, 2004

To be honest I never thought much of Collateral. The premise and trailers never did anything for me. But one should never underestimate director Michael Mann. His movies are not my favorite kind, but there’s no denying he’s one of the best and most interesting directors out there.

During a fairly common L.A. night in which he has just picked up and flirted a little with a beautiful attorney (Jada Pinkett Smith), taxi driver Max (Jamie Foxx) finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time as a man named Vincent (Tom Cruise) chooses him to take him to five different spots just before he flies away from the city in the morning. Thing is, Vincent is a sociopath killer hired by a drug lord (Javier Bardem) to kill five people. The situation gets even uglier once the LAPD and the FBI go after him, led by Detective Fanning (Mark Ruffalo).

Collateral is not a pretentious movie nor is it a profound or life-changing one. Matter of fact, it is a high-concept thriller boasted by two wonderful performances and a central relationship that keeps it afloat. It’s the kind of movie Mann does to perfection.

Entertainment-wise, the movie works incredibly well. We never know what’s going to happen next or what’s around the corner. We don’t take the characters for granted and the suspense level is always consistent, reaching high-pitch levels toward the nail-biting climactic final sequence. But that’s not to say it’s perfectly written. It is the kind of movie that doesn’t stand up that well after it’s over. Plot holes abound, and a continuous sense of disbelief is necessary to enjoy the experience as a whole. Characters do some plot-driven unbelievable things at times (dropping that case?) and situations don’t always seem logical (that shoot-out?). But the movie is so well put-together that those are only minor quibbles.

Another minor quibble I found: Mann’s sudden obsession with close-ups. Sure, shooting the movie like that gives it a claustrophobic atmosphere, but I saw the movie in a theater and after a while it started to get tiring watching Cruise’s and Foxx’s giant faces up there in the screen. Then again, Mann’s direction is superb most of the time, giving the movie a stylish look that fits perfectly with the story. He used digital cameras for most of the shooting and it shows. L.A. has rarely looked so real in a movie. You can almost smell the city…

It also helps that Cruise and Foxx deliver excellent performances. Both are cast against-type and both are up to the task. Their relationship is the central theme in the movie. Cruise’s character is a philosophical jazz-loving lad with not one trace of humanity. Foxx’s character, on the other hand, is all about dreams and illusions, so meeting Vincent proves to be a catalyst to finally stand up to others and to himself, and place himself right in the middle of the real world. In a nutshell, Foxx had a big task in making this character credible, and he is just superb.

A solid, first-rate thriller…

“No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Collateral (2004): Groucho

Review

Goldfinger

Director

Guy Hamilton

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 26, 2004

OK, so the James Bond movie series were now in fact a series, distancing gradually from the book series, and the franchise becoming widely successful both commercially and critically. Goldfinger is kind of the first Bond film to acknowledge these facts and benefit from them. It’s a film that doesn’t take itself too seriously but is self-assured of its success based on the James Bond character’s popularity and acceptance.

In that way, the plot is not by far as serious or dense as that of the previous two films, Dr. No (1962) and especially From Russia with Love (1963). Here, instead of dealing with maniacal villains with cruel intentions of world domination or international instability, Bond (Sean Connery) has to face a gold-obsessed man, coincidentally called Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe). The latter is not just any man, however; even though he is introduced as unglamorously as can be, and easily humiliated by Bond at catching him in a small-time card cheat in Miami Beach, he soon establishes himself as a true villain, memorably turning a hot Bond Girl, Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton)—his own former companion—into a cold golden corpse.

Goldfinger’s evil schemes go much farther. He plans to hit on no less than Fort Knox, but incredibly enough, his plan is not all that farfetched. He proves to be a brilliant man, and though he enjoys the good life, and is quite courteous, he’s also cold-blooded and determined to accomplish his goals to the last consequences. Bond gets to know this quite well, by getting in his way, and is nearly cut in half by a melting ray of light.

As if this wasn’t enough, Goldfinger’s main aide, Oddjob (Harold Sakata) is a sanguinary, unstoppable killing machine, whose accuracy is flawless when throwing his cutting-edge hat.

Another of Goldfinger’s allies is also one of the most memorable Bond girls in history: Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman), a woman completely capable of resisting Bond’s charms. Inspired by the novel’s character of the same name, who was in fact a lesbian (thus her ease to avoid Bond’s manly moves), she’s one of the most self-assured and independent women of the classic series, and becomes a memorable character to say the least.

And though Goldfinger’s cruelness is very real, Oddjob’s killing abilities quite palpable, and Galore’s determination unbreakable, this entry in the series is mostly lighthearted, almost comical, especially in supporting characters such as Felix Leiter (this time around played by Cec Linder). The journey is mostly fun, if not exactly heartpumping, though the climatic scene at Fort Knox is definitely a nail-biter, if also filled with sense of humor.

In addition, all the performances work, especially Fröbe’s and Blackman’s.

One of the most commercially successful Bond films, Goldfinger is also memorable for its title song, composed by John Barry with lyrics by Leslie Bricusse and sung by Shirley Bassey. If not my favorite among Bond themes, it’s certainly one of the most tasteful.

Followed by Thunderball (1965).

“Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Bond, it may be your last.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Equilibrium

Director

Kurt Wimmer

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

For some strange reason Equilibrium never took off with American audiences. It got a limited release and went unnoticed. Sure, its stars are not really box-office draws, but it is one of those movies that could’ve found a pretty big niche for its fight sequences alone. It certainly is not The Matrix (1999), but it ain’t a turkey either.

In a future world, the government has stopped war and crime by suppressing human emotions from the population. This means citizens must use a special drug to stop feeling. But there are those who oppose the system, and Cleric John Preston (Christian Bale) is one of the best men to go after them. That is, until he meets Mary (Emily Watson) a beautiful rebel who reminds him of her late wife. Suddenly he stops using his drug and starts seeing the world as it really is. But his new partner (Taye Diggs) does not find that any amusing.

Equilibrium works in two levels. It is a fascinating movie when it deals with what it would be like to have a world without emotions. Human beings become mere puppets and yes, there is no crime. But what’s the cost? Where does happiness lie? Where does sadness lie? At the beginning of the movie we see some officials burning the Mona Lisa. It is a world without anything worth remembering. A lifeless world.

Sure, the movie becomes a little slow and contradictory at times, but the entertainment and suspense factors never vanish. And it keeps bringing interesting ideas that are worth your time.

But then the movie is a little bit more than that. Director Kurt Wimmer shot Equilibrium in as stylish a fashion as he could. The movie looks simply amazing. But what’s really mind-blowing is the way the fight scenes are shot and choreographed. I sometimes think that I’ve seen it all, but once in a while a movie comes that brings something new to the table. I wouldn’t know how to describe this fight technique, except that it has martial arts and guns involved. They’re simply breathtaking, from the opening scene shoot-out to every other sequence of the sort in the movie.

The movie is impeccably acted. Christian Bale delivers a strong, conflicted performance as a man with no emotions that suddenly starts to feel. Emily Watson is also amazing, but her character is clearly underwritten and she’s barely in the movie at all. I also enjoyed Sean Bean in a small part at the beginning.

“Be careful Preston. You’re treading on my dreams.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Collateral

Director

Michael Mann

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

The very thing that has brought the most attention to Collateral is, without a doubt, Tom Cruise’s casting against type. After establishing himself as a mostly heroic, romantic action figure, it’s weird and irresistible to see him play a nasty, cold-blooded villain. I must say that’s what caught my attention as well, and I was satisfied by Cruise’s performance. Nevertheless, there were other things that made the film worthwhile, including Jamie Foxx’s performance as a cab driver, and certainly Michael Mann’s stylish, striking direction. Stuart Beattie’s script has its ups and downs to be sure, but the plot holes are more than made up by the character development and the relationship between the two main characters. Plus, Mann makes sure to make the procedures interesting enough, for us to care about any lack of credibility (of which there is plenty).

The story has Max (Jamie Foxx), an L.A. taxi driver, driving around town, doing his job. He’s the main character for all we care, as the story introduces him at first, and centers on him mostly, even though soon another character will take first chair, but always through Max. A couple of seemingly irrelevant rides are presented at first, one of which turns out interesting when the passenger, an attractive, smart district attorney (Jada Pinkett Smith), befriends Max, and shares with him a profound conversation, after which she gives him her card. Right after that, Max picks up another passenger: Vincent (Tom Cruise), a wise-cracking visitor in town, who’s there to close a one-night deal, and wishes to hire Max as his personal driver for the next few hours. Max is reluctant at first, but $600 do the job. Soon, however, it turns out Vincent’s agenda is far more serious than Max expected: He’s in town to kill five people. Unable to escape from Vincent’s clutches, Max finds himself talking to the man, philosophizing about life, and coping with his own crude reality.

There were many things from the get-go that jumped to my eyes like the most implausible elements imaginable in a situation like this. However, pretty soon afterwards (every time), I was fascinated by the relationship between Vincent and Max, and intrigued by what was going on. The film kept me wondering what was going to happen next, and how a story like this could end without falling towards cliché, but satisfying at the same time. The whole process was the same: choking with implausibility, but full of valuable elements, and a true sense of excitement and anguish, as only a good thriller can manage. The final sequence, which involves another character, is certainly on the cliché territory, but there was no other way to finish a story like this, and I loved Mann for pulling it off successfully anyhow.

Aside from Cruise and Foxx, few performers astound, as a result of the little time the script grants them. It’s good because the claustrophobic effect Mann gives us in increasing doses works better when we focus mostly on the taxi, but I couldn’t get enough of Mark Ruffalo as a detective, and certainly Jada Pinkett Smith in her own juicy role. Other short performances with great flavor are provided by Javier Bardem as Vincent’s employer and Irma P. Hall as Max’s mother, who freshens up the film right on time.

The character development is strong on Max’s side, and inexistent on Vincent’s. Vincent is a psychopath, blinded by his conviction, and secure enough to philosophize about life from his point of view without a doubt that he’s absolutely right. Max is full of insecurities, frustrations, and unaccomplished dreams, and the experience with Vincent changes him for good. Foxx is amazing as Max, both as a frightened cab driver and as a courageous everyman hero. Scenes where he borrows lines and attitudes from Vincent are hilarious, but mostly the result of his actions is poignant, and that, along with Mann’s visual style (accompanied brilliantly by a low-key James Newton Howard score), are the most valuable aspects of the film.

To wrap up, I’ll go back to Cruise. It’s great to see him back in form in a film unpretentious enough to not focus on making his character the main attraction whatever it takes. Cruise manages to portray a cool, believable villain, and scenes like the nightclub killing and the subway chase are tense and exhilarating mostly on his account. The jazz-loving, existential-speaking Vincent is a superficial but memorable character, with good lines and fine moments, and I’m glad Cruise did it so well.

“No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Collateral (2004): Morris

Review

Man on Fire

Director

Tony Scott

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 23, 2004

There have been several revenge movies this year, whether coming from a comic book or Quentin Tarantino’s imagination, but none has been as disturbing and crude as Man on Fire, a movie that doesn’t show a glimmering portrayal of Mexico. But, in the ultimate twist, neither does it show a glimmering portrayal of Americans. After all, that’s how life is. And it’s so real it’s scary.

Creasy (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic and retired militant with nothing to lose. He’s got nothing in the world and that loneliness is quickly consuming him. But one day his friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) urges him to become a bodyguard for a rich American family in Mexico City. He is soon hired by Samuel (Marc Anthony) and his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell) to take care of their little daughter Pita (Dakotta Fanning). A bond slowly starts to form between Creasy and Pita, so when she is kidnapped one tragic day he simply goes nuts.

I came into Man on Fire expecting an action movie more than anything else. That’s the image I got from the trailers. But I was pleasantly surprised to find a much more thought-provoking, intense drama. Sure, the movie goes into high voltage in its second half, but it comes as a logical and emotional part of the overall plot and not just as a plot device to blow some things up.

The success of the movie lies in the fact that director Tony Scott takes his time. Brian Helgeland’s script, from a novel by A.J. Quinnell, doesn’t rush things up. We spend the first half of the movie getting to know the characters, their conflicts, and their evolution. So when the tragic event occurs in which Creasy is unable to stop Pita from being kidnapped we’re completely immerged, both attention-wise and emotion-wise.

The relationship between Creasy and Pita is beautiful. Sure, Pita does behave more as a grown-up than as a girl her age, but it never crosses the line as to become unrealistic. It’s more about her intentions and her innocence towards wanting to make a new friend in a man he sees as a sad big bear. Creasy is not willing to at first, but it soon evolves into something more. And it’s heartbreaking.

The second half of the movie has Creasy seeking revenge, and you’ve never seen a man as angry as this one. I would pee myself if this man was after me. And the sudden discoveries he makes regarding the kidnap are both sad and disturbing. Yet they’re entirely a result of deranged human behavior. It’s distressing, but real.

Denzel Washington once again tackles a role that goes against-type from what he usually does, and he is superb. I couldn’t say it is one of his best performances, because honestly, you could say that just about every single acting job he’s taken in his career. He starts off as a lost soul, then becomes a father figure, then becomes a cold-blooded assassin. And never does it seem implausible. And Dakota Fanning keeps proving she’s one of the most talented actresses in Hollywood, period. I also enjoyed Radha Mitchell’s performance very much. Great job.

The movie was shot in Mexico City and it portrays an accurate depiction of the city. I’ve been there and know how it can be, whether in the poor neighborhoods or the rich ones. Scott uses his usual flavor of camera tricks and fast editing, something that isn’t always necessary.

Overall, a strong, absorbing movie.

“Forgiveness is between them and God. It’s my job to arrange the meeting.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cyrano de Bergerac

Director

Michael Gordon

Year

1950

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Edmond Rostand’s play about the 17th century French nobleman Cyrano de Bergerac, famous for his large nose and fine swordsmanship, is said to paint a rather unfaithful picture of the man in question. Though indeed a bohemian and free-spirited thinker, the real-life Cyrano was more of a serious writer of philosophical romances and a virile lover, as opposed to a poet and frustrated romancer. Whichever the case, the play astounds for its honest exposition of unrequited love and overflowing inspiration. Cyrano is best known for this play than for his actual deeds, but he’s much more of an immortal character than he’d be otherwise, so I don’t think he’d really mind if he knew.

The present review is about Hollywood’s most famous adaptation of Rostand’s play. Translated by Brian Hooker, it’s as witty and inspirational as its original French version, or so I hear. Cyrano de Bergerac (José Ferrer) is an intelligent and arrogant man with a prominent nose, hardly a kindly fellow, despite his undeniable chivalry and manners when it comes to the ladies.

But as it happens, Cyrano loves one woman, his cousin Roxane (Mala Powers), more than most men love their women. He loves her blindly and passionately, despite his low expectations to ever gain her love in return.

Given his little opportunity to express his love for Roxane, Cyrano becomes a man of plume and sword, astounding in both terrains, despite his many enemies. But when Roxane approaches his cousin to make a confession, which he naïvely expects to be her love for him, his world succumbs: She loves another, fellow soldier Christian de Neuvillette (William Prince), and asks our hero for help.

Cyrano’s conflict is clear: He hates Christian for having Roxane’s love, but loves her so much, he can’t but help her. His resolution is as noble as it’s evil: He helps Christian in his quest to gain Roxane, by giving him words to write and say, so that Roxane falls for his own words rather than Christian’s. The scheme proves tragic, and three lives are forever shattered.

Rostand’s play, as stated before, overflows with inspiration. It’s as if Cyrano was alive, and his words came out effortlessly, maybe a result of the author’s own feelings… Moments like Cyrano making up jokes about his nose, and the famous balcony scene, are heartfelt to say the least.

The complexity of the main character is fascinating in that he hides so much sensibility and tenderness behind a mask of aggressiveness, and as a result, he suffers very much. The tragic elements of the story only add to the intensity of his drama.

Though Hooker’s and screenwriter Carl Foreman’s work is remarkable in adapting the French play to the screen, the show fully belongs to José Ferrer. He embodies Cyrano like he’s living his personal tragedy, and convinces in every phase of the character. From cynical to pathetic, from poetic to insulting, and from tender to hateful, Ferrer’s performance is a histrionic triumph.

Overall, a good film, well worth watching.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Day Without a Mexican

Director

Sergio Arau

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

It is well-known that the Latino population in some parts of the United States is growing so fast that it is almost becoming a majority instead of a minority. Still most Americans, especially in certain states, don’t fully recognize the importance of these people and the dependence they have on them. There’s a racist vibe in the air, that’s undeniable, and here’s one movie that explores that aspect of the American culture in a most original way.

One sunny L.A morning the city wakes up with one peculiarity: every Latino in the city (except one) has disappeared. Suddenly it’s chaos all over California. Only one Mexican-descendant woman (Yareli Arizmendi) is left behind. Some hail her as a hero and some wish she disappeared as well. But she serves as a link to find the reason behind this happening, as other people in the city struggle to keep going despite the incident.

A Day Without a Mexican could be better described as a documentary with a plot. I guess director Sergio Arau couldn’t just make a documentary because people would have not been as interested (although documentaries are certainly in vogue nowadays). So he’s forced to insert a plot in the midst of it all which, if you ask me, simply does not work and borders on the ridiculous. I could’ve done without all the reporter-left-behind stuff as well as other subplots involving a disappeared musician (Eduardo Palomo) and the aftermath of his family, or the senator’s disappeared maid (Elpidia Carrillo).

But when the movie works, it simply soars. Arau finds the perfect seriocomic tone to deliver an in-your-face message. Sure, the movie is obvious, predictable and preachy, but I think it was the right way to go for a movie like this. Since it is mostly a documentary, the director had to have a point of view, and it comes across loud and clear.

The better moments belong to sketched sequences in which we are shown what would happen if Mexicans really disappeared. California’s economy depends on the harvest, most of which is labored by Mexicans. But you also have to add the thousands of people who work as clerks, waiters, guards, janitors, etc. And yes, a significant portion of the art world would also be damaged. Even Salma Hayek disappears! Arau sometimes freezes the image to show written messages filled with shocking facts. And there are surely many hilarious bits involving the disappearances, one of which involves a jumping car!

At the core, the main protagonist is the director. And you could say every living Latino is his accomplice. It is a truly interesting movie with brains and ideas to make you think for weeks. I’m glad it was made.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Birds

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Some Alfred Hitchcock fans call Psycho (1960) his definitive masterpiece, others don’t, but most agree that it’s his last great film. After it, most of his six final efforts were either unmemorable or, quite sadly, completely forgettable; but there is one, Psycho’s follow-up, which redeems Hitchcock’s last films from forgetfulness, and that one is The Birds.

However, to some, calling The Birds anything less than a masterpiece of the horror genre is a blasphemy, and it is indeed magnificent, but never to the lengths of Psycho. Then again, it’s as good in setting its horror pieces and having the audience on the edge of their seats at all times!

The story, scripted by Evan Hunter from a story by Daphne Du Maurier, begins in San Francisco, and has Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren, in her film debut), a carefree socialite with a bizarre taste for jokes, meeting Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) in a pet shop, and developing a peculiar attraction towards him. After pretending she’s an employee at the store, which leads to Mitch playing a prank on her too, she decides to stretch the joke as far as the coastal town of Bodega Bay, where he spends the weekends.

Ever since the first scene, birds show a strange behavior, which only gets worse as the film advances. As if these occurrences were actually following Melanie, they get much worse in Bodega Bay, and also seem to surround her. The first attack comes when a gull strikes Melanie directly, which is how she ends up in Mitch’s home, along with his mother Lydia (Jessica Tandy) and his little sister Cathy (Veronica Cartwright). Though the latter becomes very fond of their guest, Lydia doesn’t quite trust her, which is why the visitor prefers to stay at the home of Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette), a local teacher she met on the way, who has her own history with Mitch.

Unfortunately, birds begin to attack people more and more. At their worst, gulls and crows and other sorts of birds strike in groups, beyond any possible explanation. Hitchcock is sure to terrorize the viewer as much through the attacks as he does through the tension of Melanie’s presence in a town where she’s not welcome or trusted; Lydia’s distrust extends to the townspeople who relate Melanie to the attacks.

Despite the interesting psychological aspects of the story (and some comical ones, in the best early Hitchcock tradition), and the fine cast, the attacks take first chair and are amazingly realized. The visual effects and the staging of actual birds are uncanny. The complete lack of music gives the film an eerie touch of reality, and one of the scariest scenes happens indoors, with birds trying to penetrate from outside. But it’s the fact that we don’t get any explanation that makes the experience actually terrifying and unforgettable; a triumph of psychological horror. The day after I watched the film for the last time, a huge bird flew right next to my car while I was driving, and I got the impulse to change lanes, getting away from it. It’s that scary.

In my opinion, this isn’t first-rate Hitchcock… but it comes pretty darn close.

“Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this?!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

I, Robot

Director

Alex Proyas

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 16, 2004

When trailers started leaking out promoting I, Robot most people were underwhelmed. Somehow they managed to do ineffective spots for a movie that was much more than that. Part of the problem was that Fox went for the Will Smith thing. They certainly underestimated the audience, because this wasn’t simply a Will Smith movie, but a much more thought-provoking movie. Fortunately they got it at the end and released some better-shaped ads. And I’m happy to see the movie is doing really well with people.

It’s Chicago, circa 2035, when technology has come as far as to create robots that serve humans in every imaginable daily task that might come to mind. Homicides Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith) has never liked or trusted robots, in part due to a traumatic accident in which a robot was involved. But he gets even more paranoid once robots’ inventor Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell) apparently commits suicide. He has another theory that involves murder though, and asks expert Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) to help him even though neither she nor U.S. Robotics director Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood) believe in what he’s saying.

I, Robot is loosely based on, or suggested by (as the credits show), Isaac Asimov’s short story collection in which he imagines a world that has become almost dependent of robots. In that world there are three basic rules by which every robot exists: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, and 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. These are not just plot devices to make for an exciting movie. They’re an essential part of the story, which would not make sense if they did not exist.

The movie is everything a summer flick should be: exciting, entertaining, intelligent and well done. Director Alex Proyas is able to take Asimov’s ideas and translate them into a cinematic event that has everything going for it. The movie is always entertaining. It is also suspenseful, working as a futuristic whodunit with more thrills than chills. The action set-pieces are extremely well performed, with a highway robot attack that is breathtaking. And the visual look of the movie is stunning. Perhaps the technology shown in it might belong to a more distant future, but it all looks great.

It also helps that the special effects work in the movie is flawless. I didn’t know if they would come up with a realistic-looking movie when almost every frame contained a special effect in the form of a robot (or several of them). But I always believed that what I was watching was actually in the scene with the actors. It is that good. I never thought of anything as just being a special effect. This movie breathes on its own, and that’s a grand achievement.

One minor complaint: I always hate in futuristic movies when the central or main machine is given a human form. In this case the machine is called VIKI and has a human-robotic look that aims to be photo-realistic. I hate that, hate it!

What makes of I, Robot a better-than-average popcorn flick though is that it has an undercurrent of though-provoking material that is deeply fascinating. The movie deals with such questions as when does a machine becomes an entity of its own? Can it grow a conscience? Where does a human stand next to the evolution of technology? Is it necessary? Can robots have free will? What would they do with it? It’s good and scary material. And the very last scene in the movie sums it all up, leaving more questions than answers.

Will Smith proves he can be a credible lead, for the movie mostly rests on his shoulders. He is equally good at action, comedy and drama, and the movie boasts just the right dose of everything without being too broad in any of them. That’s a good combination and Smith is excellent at every turn. Moynahan, on the other hand, is suitable in her role, as is Greenwood.

“When people were killed by other people.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Notebook

Director

Nick Cassavetes

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, August 12, 2004

You could arguably say I had zero interest in watching The Notebook a couple of months ago. Not that I was against the movie, I just didn’t feel it was for me. But I like and respect Joan Allen tremendously, and the whole cast seemed to be extraordinary. Suddenly the movie became the sleeper summer hit. How could I miss it? How could I stay behind?

A gentleman (James Garner) reads for an ill woman (Gena Rowlands) from an old notebook that tells the story of two star-crossed lovers in the 40’s:

When Noah (Ryan Golsing) lays eyes on Allie (Rachel McAdams) he does everything he can so she goes out with him. Soon enough they’re in love, but Allie comes from an uptight rich family that doesn’t accept the relationship. The situation gets even more complicated once Allie is accepted in a New York university, while Noah is subsequently sent to fight in the war.

The movie is based upon a well-known Nicholas Sparks novel. It was carefully translated to the big screen by director Nick Cassavetes (whose mother, Gena Rowlands, stars), who made an old-fashioned movie based on an old-fashioned premise. For that is the constant thought that will permeate your mind while you’re watching this love epic: it’s just like they used to make them.

The Notebook is devoid of cynicism. It is focused on telling its story and telling it well. We’ve seen this kind of conflict a thousand times, and the movie does nothing to present anything new, but the characters are so charismatic and the movie so well crafted that eventually it gets to our hearts. We want Noah and Allie to be together, and achieving that means a job well done.

The movie has two parallel storylines, one in the present and one in the past. The latter is far more lively and entertaining, not to mention more predominant. But I liked both stories just as well, given that everything about James Garner’s character is full of poignancy.

You could say the movie is mostly about Allie, and Rachel McAdams proves to be a real find. She has been merely relegated to supporting roles in some teen movies, but here she proves she’s got what it takes to carry a movie on her shoulders. And in a beautiful, infectious way too. Ryan Golsing is a great lead as well, and Garner and Rowlands are excellent. I wish there was more of Joan Allen, but she’s luminous as always. And James Mardsen provides good support in a small role.

The whole movie feels like a Hallmark card. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing to say if it’s done as well as this movie is. Great photography and a beautiful score just add to he wondrous feeling. That scene with the swans is utterly unforgettable!!!

“Maybe I was a bird in another life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

Director

Jacques Demy

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Les Parapluis de Cherbourg is the breathtaking French musical that brought international fame to both director/screenwriter Jacques Demy and star Catherine Deneuve, and no wonder: This unusually compelling film is a deep drama and a tribute to Hollywood musicals all at once, but with a kind of magic unlike anything seen in any American product of the kind.

The story has seventeen-year-old Geneviève falling hopelessly in love with a young mechanic, Guy (Nino Castelnuovo). He loves her as much, and proposes to marry her, to which Geneviève’s mother, Madame Emery (Anne Vernon), strongly opposes. The latter, a widow who owns an umbrella store (whose name is the same as the film’s title), hopes for a better, safer future for her daughter, and considers her love for Guy immature and impulsive.

The lovers, however, obviously don’t agree, and consider their union sacred and definitive. So when Guy is summoned to the army for two years, their story becomes tragic. They say goodbye, promising to wait for each other, and finally split. What destiny has at stake for them, however, is far more tragic.

Just remembering this film to write about it makes me cry. It’s one of the most romantic and heartbreaking film pieces I’ve ever seen, despite its story being nothing far from ordinary. All right, there are aspects of the story that don’t happen to everyone, but at its core, it’s a tale of lovers separated by fate whose circumstances lead to unsatisfying conclusions for themselves as a couple. However, it’s presented in such a sumptuous way that it’s hard not to be immersed in the drama.

Every dialogue in the film is sung. Scripted by Demy, with unforgettable music by Michel Legrand, every scene pulls us into its universe and we’re compelled by the romance and the drama at every turn. Geneviève and Guy’s farewell, to the tune of “Je Ne Pourrai Jamais Vivre Sans Toi” (or “I Will Wait for You”), is a magnificent cinematic event, tragic to say the least, and also full of romance, so much so that it made the song a worldwide hit. That’s only one example among many the film offers of its capacity to absorb the viewer in its wonderful reality.

As said, the film is also a tribute to Hollywood musicals. Its colorful sets (decorated with dayglo paint) and cinematography are clear proofs of it. This works not only in being an homage, but also, since the presentation of the romance is wondrous and dreamlike, the sad denouement becomes even more tragic than possibly intended, and is sure to carve the film in our minds, in a bittersweet manner rarely seen in classic Hollywood musicals.

Catherine Deneuve is lovely, to say the least, in the lead. Her delicate presence suits the role to a tee, from the beginning as a fragile but passionate teenager to the end as a cold socialite woman. Castelnuovo’s performance is very heartfelt and honest, I couldn’t help identifying with his role and it’s because of his frank characterization. Other cast members well worth mentioning are Marc Michel as a young jewel dealer who falls in love with Geneviève, and Ellen Farner as a girl secretly (or not so secretly) in love with Guy. And of course, Vernon’s support as Geneviève’s mother is fantastic, as is Mireille Perrey’s as Guy’s ill aunt.

A problem some people have with this movie is indeed that there isn’t one word of dialogue outside of a song. I can’t see why they got tired of this. I found it beautiful, but especially, I didn’t think one word was out of place or unnecessary. I thought if the movie was not a musical, the words would mostly be the same, so if there’s music to make the process so special, it’s welcome for all I know.

I say, this is a must-see of the musical genre!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Garfield

Director

Peter Hewitt

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

I am a big fan of Garfield. I love Jim Davis’s comic strip and grew up with it. There’s something about Garfield we can all identify with. But I especially love his sarcastic, irreverent humor. Word that a movie was going to be made was not what I wanted to hear. I thought then, and still think now, that it was a bad idea. Garfield is about moments, about specific jokes, not about an entire storyline that has nothing to do with the character as we know it. But hey, Hollywood made it and Bill Murray was involved, I had to see it for myself.

When an adorable dog named Odie is brought home, Garfield (voice of Bill Murray) sees his life turned upside down. Not only is he no longer Jon’s (Breckin Meyer) favorite pet, but he can’t stand to have a dog around the house, for purely selfish reasons. Even less when he knows Jon got it from lovely vet Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt), whom he has always had a crush on. But when Odie is kidnapped by a pathetic television star (Stephen Tobolowsky), Garfield feels responsible and sets out to rescue him.

I have to admit I didn’t find the movie to be the absolute disaster most critics claimed it to be. Sure, it’s bad, but it does have its moments. As a matter of fact, it has a lot of good moments and a lot of qualities. It’s just too bad the movie could not keep up with the good pace and turned into a Hollywood cliché with action scenes, over-the-top moments and even a villain. Yes, a villain. That’s unheard of in the Garfield universe.

When the credits start to roll, a totally out-of-place rock tune plays in the background. From that point on I knew the movie was in trouble. And it hadn’t even started! But then I was surprised to find that the first half hour is actually pretty good. It focuses mostly on Garfield’s daily life and stays true to the character as it was created. The cynicism is there, the irreverence is there, the sarcasm is there, and I loved it.

But then, well, the filmmakers had to insert some sort of plot, and that’s when things go numb. Yes, Garfield never ceases to be himself even when out in the city, but it just doesn’t feel right. The plot is ridiculous and just doesn’t work. Then again, if you asked me for a better premise, I could not give you a proper answer. As I said in the beginning, Garfield isn’t about plot, it’s about personality.

That said, I did laugh out loud a couple of times during the movie, both involving Garfield throwing Odie out of his comfortable chair. I would also have loved a moment or two involving Garfield’s little bear, which he idolizes, but that never happened.

The filmmakers also made a controversial decision in making Garfield the only 100% computer-generated animal in the movie. I think the movie does not have a problem in that respect. We go along with it, and, if you ask me, the special effects work is really good.

Oh, and yes, there are also humans in the movie, but they are merely background types and do what they’re required to do... move the plot forward. But Bill Murray’s voice work is extraordinary, and what little of the movie works has to do in a big way with him. Garfield has many one-liners and they’re all delivered with perfect comic timing by Murray.

I don’t know... it was a bad idea, but if they had to go along with it the movie could’ve been better.

“I hate Mondays.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

From Russia with Love

Director

Terence Young

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 09, 2004

The second film installment of Ian Fleming’s famous secret agent 007 series is, simply put, superior to Dr. No (1962) in every single aspect. Well, almost. The only thing it lacks from the latter film is its freshness and spontaneity, particularly in Sean Connery’s performance as James Bond, but everything else nearly reaches perfection. From Russia With Love is frequently regarded as one of the best (if not the best) film adaptations of Fleming’s Bond novels. I’d say that’s a matter of taste. But what this movie is, and that’s undeniable, is a masterpiece of the action genre, mixing sophisticated humor, irresistible romance, international intrigue, hair-rising suspense, and a fully fleshed leading man. It’s not a perfect film, but it is perfectly entertaining.

This time around, we get to know even more members of SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion), of which Dr. No was a distinguished member. These guys plan on stealing a valuable decoder from the Russians, which would give them access to many of that country’s secrets, and to do so, they play the British against them. For this, a former KGB Agent, Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya), instructs a naïve, young, and loyal Russian Agent, Tatiana Romanov (Daniela Bianchi), to romance James Bond and make him steal the decoder for her. The British suspect a trap of course, but not from SPECTRE, but from the Russians, so they decide to play along and get the decoder for themselves.

Bond goes to Istanbul, where the decoder and Tatiana are, and soon finds himself immersed in a world of constant double-cross and the possibility of a greater enemy coming out of nowhere all the time. Eventually he’ll have to fight one of SPECTRE’s deadliest killing machines, Red Grant (Robert Shaw).

Does it sound exciting? It is! And its tone is surprisingly serious. At first the SPECTRE Agents are so over-the-top that it almost seems a joke, but later on, their sinister intentions become everything but joke material. The movie takes a surprisingly serious path as we realize those people are really up to no good and they really won’t stop at anything. Klebb becomes a creepy villain in every single aspect of her personality (including her homoerotic way of treating Tatiana), and Grant’s presence becomes a constantly scary element too.

Among the awesome action scenes of this movie, there’s an unforgettable helicopter sequence, a sexy and violent sequence in a gypsy camp, and an outstanding fight sequence in a car of the Orient Express (Bond vs. Grant), usually regarded as one of the finest ever staged.

The performances are also top-notch. As I said, Connery lacks the spontaneity he showed in Dr. No (1962), but that doesn’t mean he’s not perfect at every turn, never lacking charisma but also letting his fears flow; Bianchi, as his feminine counterpart, is also terrific. The villains, as usual, threaten to steal the show, and I’m talking specifically about Lenya and Shaw. Oh, and let’s not forget Pedro Armendáriz, in his last performance as Kerim Bey, a member of the Turkish Government who aids 007. In the meantime, Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell return as M and Miss Moneypenny, while Desmond Llewelyn embodies Q for the first time (he would do it again several times).

Another asset: John Barry’s outstanding, atmospheric music score, and main theme, also presented in the end of the film with lyrics by Lionel Bart and performed by Matt Monro.

Followed by Goldfinger (1964).

“You look surprised. I thought you expected me.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Velocity of Gary

Director

Dan Ireland

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, August 05, 2004

I’m going to do the unthinkable. Yes, I am going to review one of the worst movies in which lovely Salma Hayek has starred. I hate myself for doing it, yes, but I have to be objective and realize the woman is not perfect, and neither is her work sometimes. I love her, I love you Salma, but, well, the stars just didn’t really align for this thing…

Valentino (Vincent D’Onofrio) is a bisexual adult-film actor whose relationship with Mary Carmen (Salma Hayek) and Gary (Thomas Jane) gets complicated when he’s diagnosed with AIDS: Both of them are in love with him, and must face the fact that he’s dying to fix up their lives and be ready to move on.

To be fair, the movie had the potential to be much better. That’s not sugar-coating things, for director Dan Ireland is just unable to tell a coherent, affecting story that tackles so many contemporary and important subject matters. He fails miserably, and part of it has to do with the script. It is just badly written. It has unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations trying to say so many different things that everything just gets lost.

The movie’s tone is also one of its flaws. Sometimes it’s a comedy, sometimes an adult drama, sometimes even a musical!!! Yes, a musical. There are two big musical moments, one of which has Hayek’s character impersonating Donna Summer.

At the core, the story is interesting. Two immature, lost souls are in love with a guy whom everyone loves but who is just about to leave them. They have to grow up, and that will take a lot from them. For life ain’t easy, and each individual creates his or her own path and takes his or her own decisions. You can’t choose your family, but you can choose what you do with your life.

There are just too many things going on. Ireland tries to reflect upon what the appearance of AIDS meant to an entire generation, but he also tries to tell a story about broken dreams, about lost love and about lost people. Too bad he wasn’t the one to find his way here.

As acting goes, there really isn’t a standout in the cast. Salma Hayek is a bit over-the-top and loses track in some scenes, Thomas Jane is way too understated, and Vincent D’Onofrio is, well, sort of too broad. Not bad, but not good either. Oh, and check out Ethan Hawke in a couple of scenes as a special appearance.

Could’ve been better…

“Gary dreams about kissing someone so... completely that nothing hurts.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

My Darling Clementine

Director

John Ford

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

The story of the shootout at the O.K. Corral is one of the United States’ most important episodes of the old west. It’s been told and retold in books and film countless times, and Wyatt Earp has become one of the most renowned historical heroes of his country. The happenings at the town of Tombstone, Arizona, not only show the rough side of the old west, but also, and most significantly, mark the slow and difficult transition to civilization in the west.

Inspired by the 1931 novel “Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal” by Stuart N. Lake, an allegedly accurate account of the O.K. Corral incident, Samuel G. Engel and Winston Miller crafted a script that does not focus on the shootout, though it indeed surrounds it; instead, it focuses on the everyday life of an old west town, with all its boring moments and few excitements, outlaws, drunkards, whores, and lawmen. The film’s intention is not exactly to retell an important event of U.S. history, but instead, to portray the coming of civilization to the old west in a sumptuous, poetic way, while telling an exciting story.

The story has Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda), an ex-marshal and cowboy, passing by Tombstone with his brothers Morg (Ward Bond), Virg (Tim Holt), and James (Don Garner), on their way to California with their cattle. The cattle is stolen in infamy however, as James is cowardly murdered in the process. That’s how Earp, a fine lawman, decides to settle in Tombstone until he finds and punishes his brother’s killers, for which he becomes marshal.

Wyatt’s first questions to the man who hires him are, who runs the gambling and who runs the cattle. The answer to the first: Doc Holliday. The answer to the second: The Clantons. Doc Holliday (Victor Mature) proves to be a tough fellow, “owner” of the town who does as he pleases. Old Man Clanton (Walter Brennan) and his sons, on the other hand, are cynic outlaws who also get their way in most of their “businesses”.

You would imagine the premise to be reason enough for the movie to become an action piece or a revenge saga, but instead, it unfolds beautifully as nothing but a look at a quiet little town and its townspeople. Filled with comedy and presented in unforgettable vignettes, it makes sure of developing its characters until they’re everything but one-dimensional. Doc Holliday, for instance, though first shown as a scruffy, power-obsessed individual, turns out to be a complex man with an educated Bostonian past he’s struggling to leave behind.

Doc’s self-destructing personality strongly contrasts Earp’s, but both are similar in being intelligent and at their core noble, despite their different upbringings and pasts. Though they’re not exactly willing to exteriorize it at first, a bond is formed between them from the moment they meet, and their fascinating friendship is the vertebral spine of the movie.

Women also play an important role in My Darling Clementine. First and foremost, there’s ill-fated Mexican whore Chihuahua (Linda Darnell), a spoilt and ambitious woman with a very soft spot for Doc; her heartbreaking story moves the story forward in more ways than one. And there’s the title character, lovely Clementine Carter (Cathy Downs), an educated woman from Doc’s past who visits Tombstone and soon catches the affection of none other than Wyatt Earp. Her subplot brings tension but also romance, as Wyatt’s clumsy efforts to win her affection make up for the prettiest aspect of the film (and its title), and moments like the dance sequence or the final farewell are truly indelible.

And in the end of course, there’s the inevitable shootout at the O.K. Corral. By the moment it happens, we’re so fully involved with every character that it becomes much more interesting on account of their subplots than because of its historical significance. On its own, however, it’s an excruciating though hardly overplayed action sequence. And it’s not the only one, by the way; Ford doesn’t miss the chance to include a chase sequence by coach and horse, which stands among his best.

The whole piece exudes beauty. Filmed on location in Monument Valley, northern Arizona, and uncannily photographed by Joseph MacDonald, it has a life of its own. The music by Cyril J. Mockridge, largely based on the folk song “My Darling Clementine”, is as low-key as the film itself, and accompanies the procedures to perfection. However, musical peaks come in the form of songs performed by Chihuahua.

As a final note, I’ll say the cast is uniformly outstanding. Fonda is in top form as a man of pride and integrity, Mature amazing as an ill, haunted man, Darnell heartbreaking as a woman of broken dreams and latent hopes, Brennan scary as a nasty criminal, and Downs exquisite as a pure, lovely woman. Other members of the cast include Alan Mowbray as a drunken Shakespearean actor, J. Farrell MacDonald as a barman, and Jane Darwell as a caring townswoman.

Heartbreaking, inspirational, and beautiful, My Darling Clementine is without any doubt my personal favorite film.

“Ma’am, I sure like that name - Clementine.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Butterfly Effect

Director

Eric Bress

J. Mackye Gruber

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

At first I wasn’t really attracted by this movie. Sure, it had Ashton Kutcher in a different, darker role. But then again… do I really care for Ashton Kutcher? I don’t think so. Then the movie opened and did pretty decent business and got passable reviews. Yet, not interested. But when more than one friend started recommending it I started to feel left behind. I had to know what everyone was talking about, so I went and saw it.

Evan (Ashton Kutcher) learns at a young age that he suffers from a mental disease he inherited from his father. As it happens, he has blackouts from time to time. After he “wakes up” he can’t remember anything that just happened, which makes up for a quite frustrating existence considering his best friend Kayleigh (Amy Smart) is always in danger when surrounded by her abusive brother (William Lee Scott) and father (Eric Stoltz). As Evan grows up he finds a way to remember what really happened during those blackouts, most of which happened during crucial moments in his life that, if changed, could translate into a different future for everyone involved.

The Butterfly Effect took me off-guard. I went into this movie not really knowing what it was about. Yes, that’s true. And credit should go to the people behind its marketing campaign, which didn’t need to explain every plot point or twist while promoting the movie. When the movie starts you don’t really know what’s going to happen, but you do realize that you’re in for a wild and original experience. Then it starts to unfold even more, and suddenly things start to make sense, although that doesn’t mean the movie is predictable, for it is anything but that.

I liked the movie as a successful piece of entertainment with brains. It isn’t such a revolutionary thing, but for movies about teens (especially starring Kutcher) this one stands among the best. Perhaps it is because the movie actually makes you think. If you’re in for a lazy time at the movies, this one isn’t for you. You’re required to think, remember and participate in equal measures.

I found the central theme, about how one single event in one’s life can change the future of many, to be fascinating. It isn’t the first time it’s been tackled onscreen, but the movie does manage to make its point and present a profound look at how fragile one’s destiny can really be. Evan sure was involved in many over-the-top life-changing events, but what really matters is what the movie is trying to say, whether in its most dramatic moments or its more suspenseful ones.

As the movie plays it’s difficult to really delve into plot holes, but after watching it you’ll be left thinking about this or that. I spotted one that actually bothered me a bit, but in such a complicated movie, I was glad my intelligence was never insulted. It happens when Evan goes back to a scene in which he visits his dad in a mental institution. Evan doesn’t really change anything in that scene regarding its outcome, yet his life is completely different once he’s back to present day. Also, it’s difficult to keep up with the movie’s timeline, but ultimately that doesn’t matter much, and it’s questionable to really think how much Evan really remembers each time around once he comes back from the past. Then again, there’s a plot device at the end concerning some old home videos which I didn’t quite buy, for it contradicts a crucial plot element in the movie. Or does it? Who knows! The thing is… I enjoyed the movie, period.

Ashton Kutcher gets his chance to play against type and I must say he’s only ok. His performance is fitting but nothing more. Amy Smart is more successful essentially playing different versions of the same character. She’s also gorgeous, which can’t hurt. And Melora Walters, as Evan’s mom, seemed out of place to me at first, but then she slipped into her role with bravado and made me feel more comfortable with her performance.

By the way, I completely loved the ending!

“If I can somehow go back to the beginning of all this, I might be able to save her...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Girl with a Pearl Earring

Director

Peter Webber

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 02, 2004

The life of Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer is mostly a mystery. Research has revealed little, but enough to know that he was a recluse, a fact confirmed by his few known paintings. Vermeer painted mostly indoors, if not only indoors, since his landscape paintings are supposed to have been painted from inside a window. He is deemed one of the greatest painters of everyday settings, focusing mostly on low-class people, servants of his household maybe, doing their chores. What distinguishes Vermeer from others in doing this however, is his spectacular attention to detail and lighting in every single one of his portraits. He found outstanding beauty in simple settings and managed to transmit it through his paintings.

Novelist Tracy Chevalier, an admirer of Vermeer and especially his 1665 painting “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, always wondered what the girl in the aforementioned masterpiece meant to him, and what he meant to her. Who she was, and what their relationship was like, and how and why she ended up wearing the earring. This called for a novel, in which she imagined the story of Griet (Scarlett Johansson), a young servant, new to the Vermeer home, whose delicacy and dedication made her not only a good maid but also, eventually, an admirer of Vermeer’s work, who actually understood his view of life, and shared with him a secret bond.

Vermeer (Colin Firth), indeed a moody character, is suddenly in strange contact with the most unlikely person in his house: A young maid. Even those who support him, like his wife Catharina (Essie Davis), his mother-in-law Maria Thins (Judy Parfitt), and his patron van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson), appreciate his work on different levels, mostly as a means for profit, but rarely as art. Griet herself changes too through her relationship with Vermeer; her understanding of his appreciation of life is a sort of responsibility, and everything else around means little in comparison. Her happiness depends much more on supporting the artist than on building a life of her own, which is something a young local butcher (Cillian Murphy) offers.

Olivia Hetreed’s screenplay adaptation of Chevalier’s novel has what it takes to tell the story, but if the movie works, it’s because every element in it is as detailed as those in Vermeer’s paintings. No words can describe Eduardo Serra’s cinematography, which continuously brings undeniable beauty to Dien van Straalen’s costumes and Cecile Heideman’s sets. Kudos to art director Ben van Os, and especially director Peter Webber (whose feature film debut this is) for understanding the importance of this and making it look so well, and so much like Vermeer’s work. And as an icing on the cake, Alexandre Desplat’s sumptuous score is more than one could ask for.

Now, in a less than enthusiastic note, the film could use some life once in a while. The visuals and sense of art the film possesses surely make the experience worthwhile for some, but most people might argue that the story turns slow or boring more often than not. To some of us, the scene where Vermeer catches a glance of Griet’s naked hair is as erotic as can be, but to most contemporary moviegoers, it’s just a meaningless moment. Whichever the case, the film offers as many intense moments as it’s filled with slow ones, despite the significance of every instant.

The cast is uniformly good; Johansson’s lead is strong, Firth’s support even more so, and many tasteful moments belong to Parfitt, Wilkinson, Davis, and Alakina Mann as Vermeer’s spoiled eldest child.

Gorgeous to look at, worthwhile all in all!

“I will paint you as I first saw you. Not a maid. You.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Director

Michel Gondry

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 02, 2004

Adaptation. (2002) brought many good things to screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, including (though I’m not sure how good he considers this to be) the key to becoming the best-known screenwriter in Hollywood; among audiences, that is. Do you often hear people talking about screenwriters, or how good the script was, or that there was a script at all? My guess is, not often. Most people don’t even think about the people who sit down to write a motion picture, they just think about the result, and the actors, and sometimes the director, but that’s it! Kaufman is now so well known that his movies are more his than anyone else’s, and in the case of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, you’ll probably hear more talk of Kaufman’s work than the director’s. It’s great! Justice for screenwriters! But it’s so odd… Has the world gone mad??

No. Kaufman’s scripts are bizarre, wicked, and brilliant. Eternal Sunshine is an addition to his line of brilliant scripts, and it’s no wonder he’s getting so much following. Really, who else could come up with these ideas and put them together so well?

The film tells the story of Joel (Jim Carrey), a man saddened by his loneliness, who suddenly meets Clementine (Kate Winslet), and shares with her an immediate, unexplainable attraction. Thing is, they’ve been together before, in a hazardous relationship, and they both got their memories of each other deleted by Lacuna Inc., a company that does this kind of job.

After this introduction, we go back to see Joel take the decision to delete his memories of Clementine, resentful of her own decision to delete him from her mind. It’s not an easy decision of course, but it’s certainly an easy task, if it wasn’t because Joel changes his mind during the “operation”, and mentally tries to escape from the procedure. It’s all a trip inside Joel’s mind as he tries to hide Clementine (or her memory) somewhere in his memory where she shouldn’t be located. It’s a fun trip inside someone’s memories and also a melancholy look at former relationships.

As a matter of fact, this movie is quite easy to identify with if you’ve been tormented by a relationship and forced to quit it, and though you know it’s for the best, you can’t help longing for those days, and that person who loved you as intensely as you loved him or her.

An apparently irrelevant subplot has technicians Stan (Mark Ruffalo) and Patrick (Elijah Wood) performing the operation, with Lacuna Inc. receptionist Mary (Kirsten Dunst) dropping by. Mary and Stan are in some sort of relationship, while Patrick has started a relationship with a patient using her deleted memories as tools. As I said, this subplot seems irrelevant, but it’s full of shockers and revelations concerning Patrick and especially Mary, when things get complicated with Joel, and Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson), their boss, is forced to show up and help.

Eternal Sunshine is not as pleasant a trip as other Kaufman-written films, notably those directed by Spike Jonze. Somehow, here the show is messy, disorganized, abruptly edited, and overall unsettling. I loved the scenes inside Joel’s mind, with Jon Brion’s music accompanying them to perfection, but outside, in Joel’s room, things were plain ugly. I mostly blame director Gondry for that.

Nevertheless, the procedures are irresistible, and the ending makes up for many flaws in the process. Just watch all those storylines get together, and you’ll be fascinated. Plus, though the characters are rather unlikable, they’re remarkably well performed, with Carrey amazing as a dull, anxious man, Winslet terrific as a neurotic, impulsive woman, and Dunst outstanding as a dumb girl with much more to say than one would expect her to.

In the end, this is a movie about the human condition, and how memories can probably be shut down, but feelings simply cannot. In that way, it’s quite a triumph.

“Meet me in Montauk…”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter