CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Director

Milos Forman

Year

1975

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 31, 2006

“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is that famous story that constitutes one of the greatest triumphs of the human spirit ever put on novel, play or film. There’s just no other way to put it. Ever since Ken Kesey’s novel, it has continued to astound and inspire readers and audiences (through Dale Wasserman’s play and this film), and no wonder; it’s quite easy to identify with the struggle of these characters, because they’re essentially human beings, despite the fact that they’re all in a mental institution.

The central character is R.P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a misfit who’s been sent from the work farm when appearing mentally ill. This frequent felon is immediately suspected to be pretending insanity in order to avoid hard labor at the prison, which is a logical explanation when observing his naturally rebellious attitude that seems to have been an essential part of him since birth. McMurphy is a recluse of society, a man who can’t get along with conventionalism no matter the setting. This peculiar characteristic is completely inexcusable to the eyes of society and civilization, but at its core gives him a great virtue: he cares for every human being, not because he wants to but because that’s how he is. And in what seems to be a completely selfish journey, McMurphy surfaces the humanity and “normality” of most “cuckoos” in there much more than any institution could’ve aspired to; proving perhaps that in their attempt they usually do the exact opposite.

McMurphy is one of cinema’s greatest heroes though he is, in fact, an anti-hero. His great foe is Nurse Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher), the tight, sexually oppressed, authoritarian chief of staff who runs the place in apparent harmony but actual repression, constantly driving the patients against each other and even themselves. To McMurphy’s eyes, the way the place is run and the people are treated is utterly wrong, but if he protests through his attitude it’s for fun rather than humanism. The result, however, is a surprising resurfacing of the nuts’ personalities and long-lost initiatives and independencies. Even though most of them are there by will, their spirits have been gradually shrunk to the point of total surrender; something that seems to undeniably please Nurse Ratched.

One of the script’s changes that most upset novelist Kesey was the fact that the story isn’t told from the perspective of Chief Bromden (Will Sampson), that huge “deaf and dumb” Native American whose subplot is central to the story. Though I’m not familiar with the novel, I wouldn’t see how the change affects the procedures, since Bromden’s evolution turns so completely significant. In a similar way, other apparently hopeless patients evolve in a startling but completely credible way: stuttering, childish Billy Bibbit (Brad Dourif); insecure, neurotic Charlie Cheswick (Sydney Lassick); childish, eternally smiling Martini (Danny DeVito); ineffectual intellectual Dale Harding (William Redfield); trouble-making cynic Taber (Christopher Lloyd); and some others.

McMurphy’s frolics wouldn’t seem more than an immature man’s attempt to create mayhem didn’t they affect so clearly and in such a positive way every patient from the aforementioned group. Mac quickly teaches these men, through his actions, that there’s no one else to make decisions for oneself except oneself, and how much these decisions fit in other people’s standards is one’s responsibility. They are so awe-inspired that they quickly show progress, which seems to upset Nurse Ratched rather than please her. Her rivalry with McMurphy is clear, and her tool is not his pain but that of the people around.

This is not a story of masochists and sadists; no one is clearly good or clearly evil; people do what they think is right in their own twisted minds. The result, however, is dramatic and life-changing, and to those watching, quite unforgettable.

Jack Nitzsche’s unforgivable musical notes emphasize an already pungent film, a glorious triumph by screenwriters Bo Goldman and Lawrence Hauben, co-producers Michael Douglas and Saul Zaentz, and director Milos Forman.

The actors are unspeakably talented; Nicholson and Fletcher will never be forgotten as these strong antagonists, their performances a histrionic triumph on their own, crucial to the success of the film and worthy of their distinction in film history. Brad Dourif is also a standout as Billy, that pivotal character. The rest of the character, including a couple of would-be first-rate Hollywood players, is uniformly excellent.

“Juicy Fruit.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dogma

Director

Kevin Smith

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

When Dogma was released it sparkled a big wave of controversy. Writer-director Kevin Smith had done a movie that made fun of Catholicism and many considered it blasphemous, especially the right. These people were clearly underestimating Smith, who is a more intelligent filmmaker than people give him credit for and who made a multi-layered complex film as opposed to a one-joke insulting thing.

Bartleby (Ben Affleck) and Loki (Matt Damon) are two renegade angels who were expelled from heaven centuries ago, but have found a loophole in Catholic law that would bring them back. Problem is, if they succeed it will prove God wrong and existence would cease to be. An abortion clinic worker, Bethany (Linda Fiorentino), is told by God’s messenger, Metraton (Alan Rickman), that she was chosen to stop these guys from completing their mission. She will have to travel to New Jersey and will meet a series of characters who will supposedly lend her a hand. They range from a couple of horny prophets, Jay and Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith), to the thirteenth apostle, Rufus (Chris Rock), and a muse-turned-stripper, Serendipity (Salma Hayek). But a demon, Azrael (Jason Lee), and his henchmen have their own agenda to stop Bethany from fulfilling her quest.

I am a Catholic, Kevin Smith is a Catholic, and I can assuredly say this movie is not as offensive as it seems at its core. The trick is to not take it seriously. Smith clearly didn’t, you see, and I don’t see what’s wrong about satire, even when the subject matter is a touchy one. There’s something called sense of humor that some people clearly lack and that stops the world from being a better place. I’m not kidding. And it is through humor that some of the smartest insights surface. While I was watching this movie it was as if I were laughing at myself. And there’s no harm in that, is there?

Take, for example, the main joke about Rufus. He claims that he was omitted from the Bible because of being black, just as Jesus was. Now, that’s ridiculous, but it’s a tongue-in-cheek joke whose main target is modern times issues as opposed to ancient mythology. And it’s very funny. Smith is also a geek at heart, and he fills his dialogue with countless references to pop culture, especially when it comes to movies. His dialogue is witty and smart, and even though sometimes it feels a tad too expositional, he’s always trying to make a point so it’s better to listen closely.

And then there’s the poop monster. Smith does a strange thing here. He tackles a difficult subject matter, breaks it apart in a clever way, and then fills the gaps with a lot of profanity and scatological humor, a clear Smith trademark. It is puerile and immature, but it is mostly hilarious and adequate. It keeps reminding us that the movie is not to be taken seriously, and that you can laugh in equal measure at the most philosophical aspects of life as at the most simple aspects of it.

Ironically, Dogma is a movie that works better if you’re a Catholic. There are a lot of references to Catholic terminology that some people might not understand. What’s a plenary indulgence, for instance? It is because Smith knows what he’s talking about that the movie works, but don’t worry, there’s something for everyone.

With a cast sent literally from heaven, Smith does wonders. He’s not as good a director as he’s a writer and it shows, but his actors are wonderful. Alan Rickman almost steals the movie with his dead-pan attitude and delivery. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck use their natural chemistry to its fullest. Salma Hayek looks gorgeous and delivers one of the movie’s funniest speeches (something to do with the inspiration behind the top-grossing films of all-time). Linda Fiorentino, the movie’s lead, goes a bit too far with her downplaying of the role, but Chris Rock, George Carlin, Jason Lee, Janeane Garofalo, Alanis Morissette, Jason Mewes and Smith himself are all very good.

“The way I understand it, it’s mostly a joke down here too.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Sound of Music

Director

Robert Wise

Year

1965

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

I have lived my whole life loving The Sound of Music. Long before I loved movies, I knew this film by heart and cherished it with all I had. Then I grew up and I kept loving it, and since I became a film buff I have been able to appreciate it all over again from different points of view. It’s such a lovely motion picture… Let’s talk a little bit about it.

Based on the real-life story of the Austrian Trapp Family Singers, a play was produced by that most famous of theater partners, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, which would become their last collaboration and their greatest hit: the Broadway show, “The Sound of Music.” Soon enough, the play became a film, scripted by Ernest Lehman and featuring most of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s songs. The plot is so interesting, it hardly misses, but the music is so completely moving that it’s just irresistible. Few people wanted to miss this show, and that’s why The Sound of Music easily became, at its time of release, the biggest box-office smash in history.

Today, it’s still one of the best-loved movies out there.

Let’s start at the very beginning: A young novice Salzburg Austrian nun, Maria (Julie Andrews), spends most of her time singing and daydreaming, and proves quite undisciplined for the Abbey. The sisters don’t know what to do with her, so Mother Abbess (Peggy Wood), out of love and wisdom, chooses to send her away for a while, in order to help her find her true path. Her destination: the home of retired Captain Georg von Trapp (Christopher Plummer), a widower with seven children and a cold, lonely heart.

Maria doesn’t love her assignment at first, but faces it as the will of God, and finds her employer to be militaristic, dominant and arctic, treating his children like he would his ship’s crew, with absurdly excessive discipline and very little time for amusement. The new governess is shocked by this, and her free-spirited personality challenges the Captain by nature. Very soon she becomes a much-needed mother figure for the seven children, showing them a good time and even teaching them to sing – something nearly forbidden by their father, who doesn’t want to remember the good ol’ times when his wife was alive.

Thus, against the Captain’s best wishes, she brings music back into the house, changes the life of the children, and eventually the Captain’s—and her own.

The film advances wonderfully as the characters of Maria and the Captain evolve credibly and movingly throughout. The story goes from a coming-of-age tale into a family drama into a political one, but it’s all handled brilliantly.

Every step of the way there’s a song, every one of which is moving and highly significant to the story, sometimes in more ways than one, which is why their repetitions—most are played twice—are refreshing.

It should be stressed that some sequences seem longer than they should and others rather unnecessary, but it’s important to realize that when music is involved, in the case of this film, overlength doesn’t hurt that much. During the songs, the story advances, and sometimes it’s accentuated this way. “The Sound of Music,” “Do-Re-Mi,” “Sixteen Going on Seventeen”, “My Favorite Things”, “The Lonely Goatherd”, “Edelweiss”, “So Long, Farewell” and “Climb Ev’ry Mountain” are among the masterpieces.

I don’t figure the film was too expensive to make. Producer-director Robert Wise knew where the magic lied, shot his movie on location mostly and put the energy in the characters, the dances and the music. The result is pure magic, the kind that affects the viewer for good. Well, most viewers, I think; there must be a few Captain von Trapps out there who haven’t let the music move them.

The cast is highly effective. Andrews and Plummer make a nice couple, while the children (Charmian Carr as Liesl, Nicholas Hammond as Friedrich, Heather Menzies as Louisa, Duane Chase as Kurt, Angela Cartwright as Brigitta, Debbie Turner as Marta, and last but not least Kym Karath as Gretl) are charming and inspiring. Richard Haydn, Peggy Wood and Eleanor Parker lend fine support, though the latter, as the unsympathetic Baroness, left a mostly negative impression on audiences, in her most famous role.

Music, settings, costumes, choreography, photography, and music again – all so effective and grand. If not the best musical ever made, certainly one of the easiest to like and enjoy. A definite must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

United 93

Director

Paul Greengrass

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 28, 2006

When the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks happened, the entire world was shocked. It was an event of such magnitude that you could feel we were all suddenly together in thoughts, prayers and fright. Days went by, years have passed, and everyone has stored those memories in different ways. Personally, any recollection of that day brings tears to my eyes with startling ease. I am pretty sensible to anything related to it, as many people as well, and I was terrified to come close to United 93, a film that was critically-praised but which I knew would be devastating. No surprise there… it was.

The movie chronicles the early hours of 9/11, as passengers of flight United 93 boarded the plane along with four terrorists who would eventually take it over. During the course of the flight we also witness what is happening in the FAA headquarters; air traffic control centers in different cities; the NORAD facilities and the air tower at the LaGuardia airport, as the first plane hits the World Trade Center, followed by a second one minutes later and the desperate attempt to deal with other possible hijacks threatening American soil.

The man behind the camera and the screenplay is Paul Greengrass, well-known for his skills in bringing real stories to the big screen with all their truth and grittiness. He did an exhaustive research to fill United 93 with as much detail as possible regarding what is acknowledged to have happened out there. It is impossible to know how the ultimate overturn of the plane by the passengers actually worked, or if they even broke into the cockpit, but Greengrass used phone conversations and what little is heard in the plane recordings to put the pieces together. He ultimately had to make up the rest, but it’s hard to argue with his vision.

What is remarkable about the film is that there isn’t one single exploitative moment. Not one. Greengrass stays out of politics and of any kind of judgment. He presents the facts as they happened. He doesn’t satanize the terrorists; he only shows them as real individuals who were nervous and scared, praying at all times and insecure about some of their actions. The passengers are not given any kind of particular exposition. We get to know them as if we were boarding the plane with them, only by fleeting comments, glances or by the way they look. The military and air traffic controllers are shown doing their job as they would on a normal day. There’s no statement, no message, it is just what it is.

These tragic events translate to the big screen into a nail-biting, almost unbearable experience. We know what’s going to happen, we know how it’s all going to end. And still it is excruciating to relive every moment while adding a new perspective to it. We’ve heard how that morning transpired, but to actually see the chaos and confusion that ensued in those moments is fascinating. A list is made of possible hijacked planes, and for about an hour it is believed that a Delta flight was a target. The military needs permission to put down civilian flights, but the President is nowhere to be found. I was especially amused by how when the first notice of a hijacked plane is issued everyone takes it lightly and even makes fun of it. The situation turns more serious in a matter of minutes until it escalates to unprecedented heights. When FAA manager Ben Sliney (in his first day on the job) finally makes the call to stop all air traffic in the country, causing airlines to lose millions of dollars and thousands of people to alter their plans, we are relieved. It is a literal reenactment and none of its power has been lost. When the second plane hits, everyone stays frozen and stunned, and so do we. Back then it was said that it all seemed like a movie. Here’s the eerie manifestation of how true that is.

The third act is entirely devoted to what happened aboard the United 93 flight, when the terrorists killed the pilots, took control of the plain and sent all the passengers to the back. Through phone conversations with relatives they slowly learn what has been transpiring in the last minutes, realizing that they must be about to hit a target and die. With nothing to lose, they opt to fight back. One of the bravest things the movie has to offer is its depiction of how the passengers decided to do this for utter fear and a clinging for survival. There was nothing patriotic about their actions, but a lot of sheer human strength and bravery. The now-famous “let’s roll” phrase is delivered without any kind of grandeur, but as part of someone’s comments. There comes a moment when people start calling their families to say goodbye and it is beyond heartbreaking. No one should ever, ever, be put through such a situation. The tension rises and the attack finally happens, ending with the plain going on a downward spiral towards its sad fate. The last shot will leave you cold, and it will take a while for you to be able to stand up and head for the exit after it’s all over. It did to me.

Credit where credit is due, and Paul Greengrass deserves all the respect and acclaim he can get for being able to deliver such a tight, realistic, respectful and classy reenactment of such a sensible topic. Barry Ackroyd’s cinematography and John Powell’s incidental score are top-notch, but special notices should go to the editing team led by Clare Douglas, Richard Pearson and Christopher Rouse. Impressive job there.

Another well-made decision was to cast pretty much unknown actors to play the roles of the passengers and some of the officials. I say some because there are people who are playing themselves in the movie such as Ben Sliney, James Fox, Shawna Fox, Jeremy Powell, Toby Miller and many more. There really isn’t a standout performance since everyone does an extraordinary job. I wish I could mention the entire cast because they deserve it, but I’ll just go out and throw out some names in representation of everyone else: Christian Clemenson, Cheyenne Jackson, David Alan Basche, Nancy McDoniel, Khalid Abdalla, Lewis Alsamari, Omar Berdouni and Jamie Harding.

“We have to do something; they are not going to land this plane.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cabaret

Director

Bob Fosse

Year

1972

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 24, 2006

The story behind Cabaret is quite extensive. It was originated from “The Berlin Stories”, a compilation of true stories by Christopher Isherwood, set in pre-WW2 Germany. That one book inspired the play and movie I Am a Camera (1955), and the stage production of “Cabaret”. The latter then became a motion picture as well, the one I’m reviewing now, which was quite a bombastic hit.

There are so many things done right in the film Cabaret that they are almost countless; however, there’s one that’s king: it’s filmed largely on location. Isn’t that amazing? What better way to capture the essence of a time and place than setting it in the exact place it’s trying to depict? The one thing that struck me harder was that I really felt everything was real. I never expected that from a musical, particularly not this one.

But so it is, and so many more things are like that. The story surrounds cabaret singer Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli), an American who dreams of becoming a movie star, and her new friend Brian Roberts (Michael York), a British professor who’s so proper and cold he really needs a good shaking. The cabaret where Sally works is full of great shows, all of which are presented and sometimes performed by the Master of Ceremonies (Joel Grey).

Sally is kind of melancholy and Brian is loveless, so at meeting and seeing each other so often (they’re next-door neighbors), they affect each other in a remarkable way. However, they both have a nature they can’t change. Sally is quite sparkling, she enjoys a good time and is not too reserved concerning men; she’ll struggle for a good time and constantly look for a great future, and she’ll get her heart broken more often than not. In turn, Brian is quite dormant; he doesn’t hold high expectations and hardly enjoys a good time… but he’s also remarkably noble.

The main plot is straightforward but that doesn’t mean the running length is filled with songs that don’t make the story progress, as it often happens in musicals. Instead, there are interesting subplots, including that of gigolo Fritz Wendel (Fritz Wepper) and his failed attempts to woo rich Jewish heiress Natalia Landauer (Marisa Berenson), or that of wealthy baron Maximilian von Heune (Helmut Griem) and Sally’s infatuation with him even during her relationship with Brian. The result of both is quite unforgettable, especially the latter, since it so affects the main storyline. But the former, which tackles the subject of anti-Semitism, is disturbing in a very special way: there’s only a foreshadowing of the Nazi horror in this particular motion picture. The worst is yet to come…

One of the most indelible scenes is in fact about all this. There’s a song, “Tomorrow belongs to me”, sung by a young Nazi officer at a countryside inn, starting nostalgically and becoming outrageous, accompanied by most people present. The hymn (actually an original song from the play) is contagious and tempting, simply but powerfully illustrating the vigorous spirit of the Nazi party before the well-known horror. Though controversial, this scene is perfect for a movie that hardly digs into the actual dreadfulness that came later.

I was pleasantly surprised by the music. I love music, but what I really enjoy in a good musical is its capacity to effectively mix drama with music without missing the point. Cabaret’s music never interferes in the main story but rather illustrates the proceedings and sometimes even emphasizes them. The musical numbers, mostly set inside the cabaret, are constantly pleasant, and the M.C. is a great figure, played outstandingly by Grey. Minnelli’s performances onstage are unforgettable as well. The songs are absolutely wonderful, from “Wilkommen” to “Mein Herr” to “Maybe this Time” to “Money money” to the title tune. Fantastic music by John Kander and lyrics by Fred Ebb, greatly adapted by Ralph Burns.

Minnelli is wonderful onstage and off. She proved here in quite a definitive way the great actress inside of her and that’s a pleasure to watch and listen to. Her character could’ve been highly controversial, being originally British and made American in this version, but she’s so radiant and natural that there’s no complaint. Cabaret wouldn’t be what it is without her.

Bob Fosse is the master of his game. His direction is everything, so precise and inspired it’s just perfection. His interaction with every artist behind and in front of the cameras is quite palpable, I’d say especially that with Editor David Bretherton, whose job is outstanding, and cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth, who gave the film a unique visual style.

I understand now why Cabaret is such a classic. I highly recommend it.

“Divine decadence.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

American Beauty

Director

Sam Mendes

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The first time I saw American Beauty it affected me so much that in a couple of weeks I’d already seen it about 6 or 7 times. Ok, I know that sounds pathetic (ironic given the subject matter of the movie), but I just can’t explain what happened to me and why I needed to convulsively watch it over and over again. I had never seen anything like it and it blew me away.

Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) thinks life has nothing else to offer until he meets his beautiful daughter’s best friend Angela (Mena Suvari) and also quits his job in a rebellious new attitude. His wife Caroline (Annette Bening) is a cold real estate agent who seems to become more plastic as each day goes by, constantly clashing with him and setting her sights on her main competitor, Buddy Kane (Peter Gallagher). Meanwhile, their confused teenage daughter Jane (Thora Birch) starts seeing Ricky (Wes Bentley), the strange boy next-door who lives with his ex-military father, Col. Frank Fitts (Chris Cooper), and his absent-minded mother, Barbara (Alison Janney).

Director Sam Mendes, in his feature-film debut, took the world by storm with this absolutely hilarious and gut-wrenching look at a dysfunctional suburban family written by Alan Ball. The approach they use is that of a seriocomic tone that lends itself perfectly to what they’re trying to do: a blunt satire of the American way. But beneath its witty surface lays an undercurrent of truth that is not only blatantly honest, but that also aches because of it. The screenplay deals in equal measure with adultery, voyeurism, homosexuality, repression, alienation and death, and yet it’s completely engaging and thoughtful.

The ad with which the movie was promoted urged every one of us to “look closer”. After you’ve seen it you might find it scary to do just that, because it deals with the truths we usually don’t notice, or don’t want to, about ourselves. It’s the realization that there may be things about our lives with which we’re not happy, and that it’s better to start doing something about it sooner than later. As the story unfolds, these characters develop and transcend in unexpected ways, making it an unpredictable experience that ends on a highly shocking and ironic, yet reflective, note.

After all is said and done, the movie leaves you with one uplifting and clear idea about how beauty can be found even in the most unexpected of all places. I truly loved this and couldn’t agree more. It is also perfectly conveyed in my favorite scene, one which involves a plastic bag.

It is difficult to find character-driven movies that also boast a very distinct visual style, but Mendes and legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall worked carefully to give it one which would rightly serve the tone and what they were trying to achieve with each scene. The result is nothing short of brilliant, and I use that word with all its implications. Together they created imagery that has stayed in the collective minds of people since the movie came out. Thomas Newman’s off-beat and innovative score was also crucial in helping to set the right mood and it paid off.

If all of this wasn’t enough, I also see American Beauty as one of the best-acted ensemble pieces of all time. Kevin Spacey handles his character with the right touch of likeability matched by his loser-status gone berserk, so that he becomes identifiable. His voice-over narration is spot-on. Annette Bening is totally unforgettable in her over-the-top, amazing rendering of such an extreme character. Wes Bentley gives a remarkable supporting performance, making his character one of the coolest nerds in the history of cinema. Thora Birch, Mena Suvari and Chris Cooper are also excellent. Everyone is.

This is the rare kind of movie that comes just once in a while. One of my favorites and an instant classic.

“Sometimes there’s so much beauty in the world... I feel like I can’t take it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lady in the Water

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Up to now, I had liked M. Night Shyamalan’s films less and less, starting with The Sixth Sense (1999), which I regarded as an extraordinary film, up to The Village (2004), which I considered a cheat and a terrible movie experience. My expectations couldn’t have been lower towards Lady in the Water. According to tradition, it would bomb in my book. Then it came out and everyone hated it. But guess what? I kinda liked it!

Quite frankly, I have no idea how much my expectations or lack of them affected the experience. I hate to think that expectations affect anyone’s appreciation of a film, especially that of a guy who claims to be a movie critic. Truth is I walked into the movie theater not knowing what to expect. Even though I had heard a lot of controversy concerning Shyamalan’s latest, I was careful not to hear any specifics. I think I was lucky to do so. As the story progressed I kept liking it, and even though I was as aware as everyone else of its farfetchedness and flaws, I didn’t mind them that much. I liked some of its farfetchedness and flaws. I’m just… one of the very few, I guess.

The film’s introduction is a sort of fairytale that states that in the past humans related to narfs, people from the sea who guided them and advised them, until man stopped listening. Currently, some young narfs are sent to enlighten certain human beings for the world’s wellbeing, but there are terrible beasts called scrunts which are meant to stop every narf.

This is the story of a melancholy superintendent called Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) and the narf that appeared in the pool of the apartment complex where he works. The girl’s name is Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), and her mission is to meet one of the people in the building. Who it is and how to meet that person before the scrunt gets to her becomes Cleveland’s mission. As it turns out, several people in the apartment building play roles from a bedtime story, but don’t know it yet. It’s Mr. Heep’s job to find every piece and help Story accomplish her mission and escape before it’s too late. Perhaps not unexpectedly, this is also a quest where Mr. Heep shall battle his inner demons.

Without a care in the world, Shyamalan develops the story by presenting us with a lot of tenants before getting to anything important. This could be unpleasant if the people weren’t actually likable, or their interaction with Cleveland actually funny. Mr. Dury (Jeffrey Wright) is an expert crossword solver, Mr. Farber (Bob Balaban) a harsh movie critic, Reggie (Freddy Rodríguez) a peculiar body builder, Young Soon (Cindy Cheung) an intelligent young woman, Vick (M. Night Shyamalan) a young writer, etc.

As Cleveland puts the pieces together we witness a fairytale develop in front of our eyes, in a modern setting, and it’s a delectable thing. Matter of fact, it’s necessary to go with it if one’s willing to enjoy it at least one bit. Finding its flaws or viewing it with cynical eyes will mar the experience for sure. The film demands a large amount of suspension of disbelief and I was happy to grant it. Luckily, it paid off for me, and I ended up totally moved.

The problem with Shyamalan, some say, is his narcissism. He has come to believe he’s some sort of master of his domain, or even something greater than that, and he comes to show it here. First, he has cast himself as what he surely would like to be—or probably believes he is—, and that’s so cocky it’s unbearable. Second, a key character in his little world is a movie critic who’s bitter, lonely and sad, someone incapable of finding magic anywhere.

Regarding the first, I laughed at Shyamalan rather than feeling angry at him. His character fits into the story and he’s not a bad actor, so whether he’s arrogant or not didn’t concern me much. In the bar of narcissistic filmmakers, he’s just a beginner when compared to George Lucas, and his films are better than the latter’s latest. So… who cares if he thinks his writings will save the world? Let him drift in his crazed imagination, as long as he entertains.

Second, the film critic (Balaban) can only insult those that are like him. I’m like him sometimes, yes, but I can also be a sentimental dreamer. If a film deserves a trashing, I’m happy to give it, and I’m happy that I’m happy to give it. If a film deserves praise, no one’s happier than me to give it away like there’s no end to it. The existence of Mr. Farber’s character shows Shyamalan’s arrogance in that he doesn’t care that critics trash his movies. Well… sorry for him; he’ll find out the hard way that he’s wrong. Me? I had fun with Mr. Farber, and Bob Balaban is one of the best performers in here.

Performances are top-notch, in fact. Giamatti is excellent, Howard quite compelling (and pretty!), and the rest are solid.

I can understand that those who didn’t buy this movie were dying towards the end, but I was happy with the proceedings so I really enjoyed the finale. It reminded me of some of the best moments from Unbreakable (2000).

The direction is overdone, annoying at times, but Christopher Doyle’s cinematography and James Newton Howard’s music remind us that Shyamalan can still put together a decent film experience. Let’s hope that he gets back into the right track. I still see a lot of talent worth taking chances for…

“When I saw your faces, they reminded me of God...”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

My Super Ex-Girlfriend

Director

Ivan Reitman

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 21, 2006

I am really not fond of anything director Ivan Reitman has done since the beginning of the 90’s, so I never held that much promise into his latest flick, My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But it’s one of those flicks that even though I knew would probably be no good, I still wanted to see it for two reasons: Uma Thurman and its intriguing premise. At the end of the day I had a fine albeit completely forgettable time with it. Not bad for a slow Sunday afternoon.

Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) is an everyman who just came out of a difficult relationship, but his friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson) convinces him to ask out a sexy girl, Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), that they glimpse on the subway. After dating a couple of times Matt finds out the truth about Jenny: she’s G-Girl, the superhero who fights for justice in NY. But he soon gets tired and breaks up with her, little knowing how pissed she’d get…

We’re living in a time when superhero movies open year after year, and surprisingly enough, most of them are good. But no one had dared to make a movie about one that isn’t about the seriousness of dealing with your powers and the aftermath of living a double life. Here we get a superhero who has already dealt with all that stuff. She has a normal job but is aware that her real one is to save people and all the usual usual. But here comes the twist: this time around she isn’t really the most stable person on Earth, and has to go through all the difficulties inherent in dating, just as an average person. Have you ever thought about the idea of angering your superhero girlfriend? The consequences are certainly not pretty.

The premise alone is worth the price of admission. It leads to a series of hilarious and over-the-top sequences that deliver on the promise of its idea. Unfortunately writer Don Payne was forced to insert some more meat into the story in order to make of it a fuller movie. As it happens, there’s also a supervillain in the form of Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), whose scenes feel intrusive and don’t work at all in the context of the romantic comedy. Meanwhile, there’s another obvious love interest for Matt in the form of co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris), but you can see where that subplot is going from the get-go and it’s terribly handled. And that’s not to mention the bloated and artificial finale. I wish the entire film would’ve been with scenes of Matt and Jenny alone, but I realize it would’ve been a one-joke movie that couldn’t have sustained its entire running length. Bummer.

Uma Thurman has no difficulty in portraying all sides of her character, from savior of the world to neurotic common woman. She’s sexy and nerdy and needy in equal measures and you always believe she can be all that. Luke Wilson looks like the guy next door, which is essential for the character and works really well. He can easily sustain a movie on his shoulders and I like him much more than I do his more famous brother. Supporting players Rainn Wilson, Eddie Izzard, Anna Faris and Wanda Sykes (as Matt’s boss) are hit-and-miss at best.

“Why did G-Girl throw a shark at us?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The French Connection

Director

William Friedkin

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Here’s a film I admire very much. It’s an action film, a police thriller based on fact, which is presented in the most entertaining fashion, but also cares for every possible detail to not only accomplish its mission but also become an unforgettable movie experience, and a must-see.

This is because the subject matter is not taken lightly. The story deals with an incredible international drug deal and the attempts of a cop to put a stop to it. We’re obviously shown the investigation, the pursuit, the whole action, in a typical if quite fancy action movie way; but what gives the film its punch, what really constitutes its gritty-gritty, what makes it an immortal action film, is its character study: Detective Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle (Gene Hackman) is in charge of stopping a drug smuggling operation led by Frenchman Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). The latter triggers a most disturbing obsession on the side of Popeye, which turns out self-destructive and overall ill-fated. Every step of the way—every action scene, every chase, every score, every miss—is thrill-inducing because we care so much about Popeye, because we understand his obsession so well, and because we want him to stop the deal right on time, hopefully before it’s too late for him and those around.

Popeye Doyle sniffs a smuggling coming but he and his partner Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) have no clues. Popeye persists, almost ridiculously, and finally finds a connection that leads to France. Charnier is the man in charge over there, and he does things really neatly. To transport a large amount of pure heroin he hires broke TV actor Henri Devereaux (Frédéric de Pasquale) to take it all the way to America hidden in his car. There’s no real connection to Charnier that can be traced, but Popeye finally gets to him. Charnier’s cynical ways infuriate Popeye, who cares much more to snatch the man than to stop the operation.

The look is elegant to say the least. Cinematographer Owen Roizman presents New York City in a cold, newspaperish way, uninviting but intriguing, just the perfect place for a big confrontation between outlaws and lawmen. Editor Gerald B. Greenberg achieved what could be called, without exaggeration, arguably the best editing job in a motion picture. When the action comes, there’s no stopping it. The particular best example of this is what most still regard as the best car chase scene ever put on film: Popeye savagely chasing an elevated train throughout Brooklyn. Heart-pumping to say the least. The music by Don Ellis adds a rather disturbing touch to the proceedings, a very welcome asset.

William Friedkin’s directing job is admirable. The film is perfectly executed at every turn, knowing to perfection how and when to present everything in order to make it work the best way possible. Gene Hackman is extraordinary as Popeye Doyle, and Rey and Scheider lend outstanding support. The real-life Popeye and Buddy, Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso, appear in small roles.

I just can’t get the ending out of my head… I just love revisiting this, one of my favorite films.

“You still picking your feet in Poughkeepsie?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Casablanca

Director

Michael Curtiz

Year

1942

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

It’s very well known that most polls cite Citizen Kane (1941) as the best movie ever made. Some may argue that it isn’t true, and would then mention such other options as Gone With the Wind (1939) or, why not, Casablanca. As for me, well, you got it, this is the one. I am totally convinced that this is the best achieved movie in the history of cinema; a delight from start to finish.

On the verge of war, people of all Europe are being forced to move out of their countries and travel to America, but in the way they have to go through Casablanca, where their fate will be decided. Rick (Humphrey Bogart) has already settled there and is the owner of a classy bar. One day some unexpected guests looking to flee the country arrive: Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) and his beautiful girlfriend Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman). As it seems, Rick and Ilsa have quite a past, and long-lost memories come back to haunt them.

Casablanca was directed by Michael Curtiz and boasts a dream screenplay by Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch, based on the unproduced play “Everybody Comes to Rick’s” by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison. Its production was filled with eventualities. Neither the studio nor some of the actors and crew believed that much in the story, and the movie was considered a minor effort as it was shot. There were countless problems involving the actors, loans among studios, debacles as to the use of certain music, location changes because of the war, etc. It was only when the movie was put together that it became clear how good it turned out to be. Eventually it won the Oscar for Best Picture… and earned its place in history.

What makes the movie so special is the way it is handled and constructed, not to mention the delicate flavor of its crackling dialogue. At its core, Casablanca is a simple love story about two people who loved each other and are then reunited when their lives have become more complicated. The setting and historical background give it an epic feel, but it is all about human emotions and memories. Mostly it is about love.

The tragedy of the love story is complemented by the immediacy of a story in which danger is at every corner. Victor and Ilsa may be leaving the country any minute, but only if Rick will help them. That means fooling the police, headed by Capt. Renault (Claude Raines), and doing business with unpleasant people. But it doesn’t get as difficult as when it comes to matters of the heart. How the story will end is anybody’s guess, but it is perfect beyond words.

The beautiful cinematography by Arthur Edeson and the wondrous score by Max Steiner (partly composed around Herman Hupfeld’s “As Time Goes By”) help give the movie its haunting melancholic feel.

Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman deliver unforgettable performances that we remember not only for their impeccable craft, but because their characters have stayed in our minds for decades. Claude Rains is also extraordinary, showing inspiring comedic timing, as is Dooley Wilson as Sam. And Paul Henreid brings the right amount of dignity and good-heartedness to a difficult role.

“Play it Sam, play ‘As Time Goes By’.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Melinda and Melinda

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

After years of Woody Allen obscurity, with so-so movies that didn’t quite catch any attention, and heard voices from all around repeating over and over that Allen had lost his spark, Melinda and Melinda came, and was hailed by most people as a good sign from the legendary, low-key filmmaker. Quite frankly, I don’t agree with those who said this is Allen at his best, or even average Allen, but I do share the opinion that this showed he could still handle a film and still held the potential to do great things. As we all know by now, the promise was kept, as his next film, 2005’s Match Point, became his most lauded film in over a decade.

What Melinda and Melinda does offer, if not common entertainment as craved by any moviegoer, is an interesting observation of drama, and how different view-points can transform the same thing into a completely different take on life. The story commences with a table of intellectuals, namely two playwrights, Al (Neil Pepe) and Sy (Wallace Shawn), discussing life as seen from a comic or a dramatic point of view. Sy goes for comic, Al for dramatic, and they do something fun: given a premise, they take the same story in different directions—one dramatic, one comic—and observe the procedure at every turn. It sure is an interesting idea!

The story: A woman named Melinda (Radha Mitchell) drops by unexpectedly in a dinner party disrupting the event.

Al’s story shows her as a very disturbed woman, wrecked by her failed marriage and ill-fated affairs, and slowly decaying into madness in the best Blanche Dubois style. The dinner party is hosted by an old friend, Laurel (Chloë Sevigny), and her husband Lee (Jonny Lee Miller). After some time, with a little help from her friends, Melinda starts rebuilding her life, but it’s her romance to pianist Ellis (Chiwetel Ejiofor) that determines the course of her fate.

Sy’s story shows her as a complicated but lighthearted woman whose failed marriage and overall bad-luck relationships only complicate her life further, though she tends to complicate the lives of people around her as a sort of charming epidemic. The dinner’s hosts are Susan (Amanda Peet), a film assistant director who aspires to helm a movie of her own, and her husband Hobie (Will Ferrell). Hobie soon falls for Melinda, and his cold relationship to his wife Susan doesn’t help, but he doesn’t want to make his wife suffer and also has no idea how to get to Melinda. Every attempt proves more and more unfortunate and it all gets wacky and hilarious after a while.

The result is successful as seen by the debating playwrights: the stories start in a similar way, both go in similar directions, yet both are completely different. However, the movie we’re watching is not half as successful. The stories aren’t similar enough to make the comparisons interesting, and neither is sufficiently absorbing in itself. Only after a good while the comic take gets catchy, and Ferrell’s performance, closely resembling the typical Allen persona, helps a lot, but it doesn’t quite get there. The dramatic one is more boring than tragic, and only gets affecting at the very end. Laurel’s character, movingly performed by Sevigny, makes an impression though.

Mitchell’s casting is fortunate and successful. She hasn’t got too much attention since, as I gather, but it’s still notable how well she pulled off both Melindas without any apparent trouble. Great job.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Miami Vice

Director

Michael Mann

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 14, 2006

I never ever watched the original Miami Vice TV series. First, I was too young, and second, I hate the eighties. The simple notion of a movie based on such material was nauseating to me, but the involvement of director Michael Mann and actors Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx surprised me, prompting me to have second thoughts about it. If these people were involved there’s no way it would turn out to be an uninspired cheesy adaptation. Fortunately that was the case.

Detectives Sonny Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Ricardo Tubbs (Jamie Foxx) are put on a mission to go undercover as drug traffickers in order to uncover the machinations of a dangerous cartel led by Arcángel de Jesús Montoya (Luis Tosar). They are able to reach his right-hand sidekick, José Yero (John Ortiz), and are soon working together with the help of Montoya’s girlfriend Isabella (Gong Li). As they get more immersed in this underground world the stakes are raised, even more so when Crockett starts having an affair with Isabella.

Michael Mann, who was an executive producer of the TV series, not only directed the movie adaptation, but also wrote the screenplay. Being the perfectionist that he is, the story kept changing even as he was shooting it under grueling conditions. The movie went considerably over budget, something that sadly doesn’t show on-screen. There’s also the problem of confusion. We understand for the most part what the characters are doing and the status of each situation, but trying to keep track of place and time is useless. After a while I stopped guessing in which country the action was taking place, I just went with the flow of the story.

Something that Mann does incredibly well is to imbue his movie with as much tension as possible. If you break it down you’ll realize there isn’t that much action in it, but the feeling you get is completely the opposite. It feels like a more loaded movie than it actually is. And that’s because there’s always a sense of danger, a sensation that things could go terribly wrong. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t, which is exactly why the movie is so much fun. It has nothing to do with the series it is based upon except for some names and locations, but on the other hand, it is a different and very adult action romp that comes as a grasp of fresh air during the summer.

There’s an undercurrent in Miami Vice about Crockett and Tubbs and what kind of individuals they are. It’s there to give the movie a sense of gravitas, to make us care. To be honest, I got the feeling that this aspect should’ve been stronger. We see Tubbs has a steady relationship with fellow agent Trudy Joplin (Naomie Harris) and that Crockett starts to evolve feelings for Isabella, but somehow their stories do not get to us. We know absolutely nothing about anyone’s past or who they are, so maybe that’s something. Tubbs and Trudy are given very little space so that when a specific plot point happens in the second act we can feel something, but really, I just felt what the screenplay was telling me to, nothing beyond that. Crockett and Isabella are given more screen-time, but still, it feels like there’s a barrier between them and us. That said, it isn’t such a big problem, just something that I wish would’ve worked better. Kudos, though, for the couple of sex scenes which do try to be different and more emotional than usual.

Dion Beebe’s photography is the kind that will be talked about for years. He shot the movie giving it a sense of realism but without making it look like a documentary. You can almost smell the aroma of the cities and feel the touch of people’s skin. At night the images become grainy, as if they were lit with natural light out of the streets, and during the day the images turn pristine, capturing the atmosphere with delicacy. The photography becomes as integral to the movie as the story itself.

I was surprised to realize that even though the movie is supposed to belong to Colin Farell and Jaime Foxx, it is Farrell who gets more screen-time. Perhaps he doesn’t, but it does seem like it. If I look back at it I think of it as a movie about his character and I mostly remember stuff about him, not Foxx. That’s not to say one gives a better performance than the other, they’re both excellent, but that’s the way the story was constructed… or edited. Gong Li is awfully sexy and spot-on, even though she struggles with her English and Spanish. And every supporting member, very well-chosen for each specific role, does a good job. That includes Naomie Harris, Ciaran Hinds, Elizabeth Rodriguez, John Hawkes, villains Luis Tosar and John Ortiz, and many more.

“We can close each other’s eyes real fast, but then nobody’s gonna make any money.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lady Vanishes

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1938

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Alfred Hitchcock’s genius was made clear from early on in Great Britain, where he filmed little gems that have transcended and still hold a candle to those modern masterpieces of his which are best remembered by his fans. Me? I always prefer a simple classic rather than a sophisticated blockbuster, but that’s just a matter of taste and I love all of his movies. But these old ones have a special charm that I appreciate most intensely. My favorite is The Lady Vanishes.

The story comes from a novel by Ethel Lina White and was adapted by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder. It turns out the perfect comedy-mystery that characterized The Master throughout his career. Through a story of international intrigue, the movie pulls off a few brilliant gags, lots of romantic screwball and indeed a mystery full of suspense. I’m amazed every time I see it, at how this outstanding combination is actually pulled off so successfully. It’s most certainly an inspiring piece in that way.

The story focuses on the passengers of a train that has been stopped by an avalanche, forcing them to spend the night in the small country of Bandrika. Several characters are introduced through the incident: cynical musician Gilbert (Michael Redgrave), carefree youngster Iris (Margaret Lockwood), picaresque cricket lovers Charters (Basil Radford) and Caldicott (Naunton Wayne), and kind old Governess Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty). The night is spent not without some conflict of interests: Iris hates Gilbert and his music, Charters and Caldicott can’t get a hold of a cricket score in London, and, perhaps most notably, a man is murdered outside the inn.

The next morning, off go the passengers on the train. Iris and Miss Froy meet and have a very nice conversation, and then Iris falls asleep. The moment she awakens, everything is the same, except Miss Froy has vanished. What’s worse, no one actually seems to remember her, no one saw her at all, there’s just no trace of her existence. Iris feels quite dizzy and confused, and she eventually starts questioning her own sanity. Perhaps she did imagine Miss Froy all along, perhaps there’s nothing unusual at all.

But what if Miss Froy was there, and now someone’s got her? What if this is all some sort of conspiracy? If so, who else could be involved? And what’s the reason of all this? One of the greatest achievements of The Lady Vanishes is making us wonder what the hell is going on, and contemplating every possible explanation, as implausible as it may get.

Hitchcock doesn’t settle for creating so much suspense through this amazing premise, so he goes for light comedy and romance. Iris finds no one to help her except that stubborn musician, Gilbert. He’s cocky, flirty and self-centered, but willing to help, so Iris has no choice but to go along. Eventually, he’s not all that bad after all. To make the proceedings even more pleasant, Charters and Caldicott are constantly popping up, and their antics are hilarious in a very quiet manner. They’re unforgettable and certainly the best-remembered supporting characters in the film, whose success here led them to repeat their roles in other movies.

When the film takes a more serious turn, featuring Paul Lukas as Dr. Hartz, we’re so absorbed by the handling of every genre that there’s no way we can be put off. The whole thing is as satisfying as it gets, and it’s still a humble little film with a complete lack of pretense. It’s one of the greatest films of all time. Gotta love it! I do.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Some Like It Hot

Director

Billy Wilder

Year

1959

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

It is such a cliché to say Some Like It Hot is the best comedy ever made, but then, how can anyone say otherwise? I fell in love with it the first time I saw it, and every time I re-visit it the joy-de-vivre is still there. It is timeless and nothing short of a delight to experience, one of the reasons I love movies in the first place.

When musicians Joe (Tony Curtis) and Jerry (Jack Lemmon) witness the infamous St. Valentine’s Day massacre perpetrated by Spats Colombo (George Raft) and his gang, they have to run for their lives so they take a job in which they have to disguise themselves to join an all-girl band which is heading to Miami. Hilarity ensues as both fall in love with the prettiest girl of them all, Sugar Kane (Marilyn Monroe), while a rich man, Osgood Fielding (Joe E. Brown), gets smitten with Jerry, or should I say, Daphne…

Legendary director Billy Wilder tackled almost every genre during his successful career, but he was arguably at his best when dealing with comedy, whether it’d be broad, black or bittersweet. He and his writing partner I.A.L. Diamond came up with a smart screenplay for Some Like It Hot based on a story by Robert Thoeren and Michael Logan. The fact that a seemingly one-joke premise was able to transcend into the annals of cinema history is credit to their talent, both individual and combined.

The movie is quite simple: a couple of guys pass themselves as women and fall in love with one, while the bad guys are coming after them. Yet every scene is written and performed with gusto, making of it a riotous experience that doesn’t stop literally until the end. There’s a tongue-in-cheek element to the proceedings that makes us feel closer to the adventures of our heroes. We never cease to wonder what we would do in their situations and it’s easy to identify with them. Better yet, they seem to be having a ball on-screen and it’s so approachable that it’s like we’re being invited to join in and boy, is it a fun ride!

There’s also the element of romance, highlighted by the adorable presence of Sugar, a wounded and fragile woman who dreams of marrying a rich guy but wants to be loved above all. She is the heart of the movie, and grounds it so that it doesn’t simply become a tireless tirade of slapstick and crazy shenanigans. Who can ever forget the sight of her over the piano singing “I’m Thru With Love”? The balance is just right, and the final reward is as good as the sum of its parts.

The three renowned performances at the center of this comedy are just as good as their reputation dictates. Jack Lemmon is the everyman, he’s us, he’s the one who gets the best lines and relishes them with pizzazz. His comedic timing is flawless, one that will be studied for ages to come. Tony Curtis is more of the straight guy, the brain, and he’s very funny as well. And then there’s Marilyn Monroe, so underrated by many, but absolutely perfect in every single scene, whether strutting that sexy body of hers or crying her soul out as her heart has been broken.

Nobody’s perfect, but this movie certainly is.

“I tell you, it’s a whole different sex!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Hospital

Director

Arthur Hiller

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Paddy Chayefsky’s increasing genius throughout the decades was always undeniable. The 70s where good years for this brilliant writer. What was already a successful career became twice as flourishing in a whole new style. As a film writer he worked only in two movies that decade, but the scripts of both were immediately hailed as extraordinarily witty and creative, and both won numerous awards including, most famously, the Oscar. The Hospital turned the medical world around through a couple of unexpected situations that triggered serious consequences mostly caused by latent malpractice; this is the perfect excuse for a satire whose ultimate truth is shattering. Years later, he did the same thing with the TV world through Network (1976), considered by many of us to be his masterpiece.

The Hospital is so much of a black comedy that it’s almost dark most of the time. It starts with a picaresque look at a mysterious death of an intern, then goes to the reactions, mostly that of the Chief of Staff, Dr. Herbert Bock (George C. Scott), who’s depressed about the meaninglessness of his life.

The situation calls for a closer look, and the hospital’s obvious malpractice and general carelessness is made evident. Deaths of hospital crew keep happening, all apparently linked, and all ultimately caused by medical mistakes.

In the middle of this insanity, Dr. Bock meets a wacky young woman whose story and looks immediately call his attention: Barbara Drummond (Diana Rigg), the daughter of a comatose patient (Barndard Hughes) whose condition was also caused by malpractice. Barbara and her father are eccentrics who live a superstitious life in Mexico’s Sierra Madre.

The film goes from satiric comedy to chaotic drama to character study to love story to murder mystery to screwball comedy to poignant drama. That’s the way it goes, and that’s the way it works. When it was over, I was put off. What had just happened? It was over much too quickly. I have learned that Chayefsky wants to dig so deep into his characters and his situations that sometimes he leaves us wanting much more. Well, that’s not a bad thing, as long as what we see serves the story and rings true.

I was amazed by how a movie that can be catalogued mainly as a comedy turns out a very personal film about a man on the verge of suicide and how mayhem turns his life around towards the good. I loved the film’s message and the aftertaste. I had great fun, laughed a lot, was intrigued, was moved, laughed some more, and then almost cried in the end. And still I have no idea what sort of experience it was. It was unique is what it was.

Now, the film does have its shortcomings. It not only deals with medical malpractice but also with the medical institution overlooking the general interest for lucrative gain. There are long sequences featuring protestors manifesting themselves in the streets all around the hospital. This doesn’t go anywhere for a good while and only affects the story towards the end, and not as potently as it should.

Another problem is the movie’s tone is comical at its core, but it’s constantly dealing with sickness and death, and sometimes it’s hard to laugh at that sort of thing, despite its presentation. Chayefsky wants us to laugh and he also wants us to care, and he doesn’t achieve both all the time; it just can’t be done! It’s hard to keep up with the film’s intended mood, especially when it seems to be contradicting itself.

George C. Scott carries an enormous weight on his shoulders, as his multi-layered character is so important to the story, as he’s intended to cause pity, sadness, laughter and inspiration to the audience. He achieves all of these reactions. This performance is one of his most vibrant. The rest of the cast is uniformly great, up to the task of giving life to Chayefsky’s inimitable dialogue. Rigg is irresistible.

Quite an experience, most certainly worth a look.

“Impotence is beautiful, baby. Power to the impotent! Right on, baby!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Little Women

Director

Gillian Armstrong

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 07, 2006

It’s funny to recall when I first saw Little Women, back when I was 13 years old, because I couldn’t think of a more boring movie experience when it was over. Funny, because life somehow put it in front of me for a second chance and after that viewing it won me over to the point of considering it one of my favorite movies of all-time. It is rare of a modern movie to capture the spirit of a classic book, one which had already inspired a perfectly delightful adaptation decades earlier, like this little gem of a movie does.

When the patriarch of the March family goes to fight in the Civil War his wife (Susan Sarandon) and their four daughters, Meg (Trini Alvarado), the oldest and wisest, Jo (Winona Ryder), the most restless and headstrong, Beth (Claire Danes), so fragile and good-natured, and Amy (Kirsten Dunst), the little one always dreaming of prince charming, stay in their New England home trying to survive on their own. Their neighbor Laurie (Christian Bale) eventually becomes their best friend, as does his tutor John (Eric Stoltz). Through the years they go from girls to women, going their separate ways to fulfill their dreams.

It’s impressive how this movie seems to be so simple while it isn’t at all. To tell the stories of so many people and make us feel compelled for each and every one of them is a difficult achievement. The movie’s total lack of cynicism might have you weeping in scenes where you aren’t supposed to. Watching this story unfold is like hearing an old story from your grandpa. You love it because it’s interesting, but mostly because you care. The bonds that bring this family together are unbreakable, and they make of this a heart-breaking journey.

The movie never crosses the line of becoming too corny for its own good. It takes a risky approach, for so much saccharine could backfire. But it seduces you from its very first scene. When it’s over you stay with the wonderful impression of the meaning of the word family. These little women endured all kind of difficulties, but they always stayed together, and their goodwill and innocence brought them back countless forms of joy as well. It is an optimistic approach, and a delightful one as well.

Robin Swicord’s script (based on Louisa May Alcott’s novel) approaches the material in old-fashioned manner while inserting some modernisms here and there without losing its essence. That’s why you’ll hear some speeches that are more akin to today’s feminist way of thinking than that of the beginning of the century. Swicord also nails the difference amidst social classes back then and how important it was to marry well and give a good impression. Important, that is, if you cared at all about having a good status.

There is a really poignant scene where Jo does something for her father that truly comes from the heart. It is a very well-known passage taken directly from the book that comes off as one of the best scenes in the movie. It stands among many that are just as powerful. There’s simply not a false moment during the entire running length.

The performances are all exquisite. Winona Ryder is the standout among the talented cast. She gives life to a difficult character and gets under Jo’s skin with aplomb. She really is the heart of the movie. Susan Sarandon, as wise and caring Marmee, is touching and dignified and altogether a pleasure to watch. Claire Danes is wonderful and subdued, while Kirsten Dunst is plain adorable. Gabriel Byrne appears during the second half and adds weight to the proceedings, while actress Mary Wickes is delicious as wise-cracking Aunt March.

I can say without hesitation that this movie is a masterpiece. The way director Gillian Armstrong brought it to the screen is so elegant, so well-crafted, so touching, that she deserves most of the praise. Thomas Newman’s score, Geoffrey Simpson’s cinematography, Richard Hudolin’s art direction and Colleen Atwood’s costumes design all come together in impeccable fashion.

I love this movie!

“Now we are all family, as we always should have been”.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Vertigo

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1958

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo is perhaps his most notable film in how it flopped in every way back when released and became a highly-regarded film in time, in fact considered by many the director’s masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. It’s certainly off-putting in terms of average entertainment, since its plot is so labyrinthine, yet it’s straightforward and intriguing, and most certainly absorbing if the viewer’s willing to go with it. Apparently this has been the case with most viewers. I have loved Vertigo ever since I saw it first and have seen it countless times since. I’m still fascinated with every viewing, and I fail to understand hw someone can stand seeing it only once. It’s just the most puzzling film I know.

The story concerns a Police detective, John “Scottie” Ferguson (James Stewart), who discovers, in quite a dramatic way, that he’s afraid of heights. This is the unforgettable opening sequence. Scottie then becomes retired and is contacted by a friend of his who hears of his demise: Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore). Gavin confesses a very serious problem that’s haunting him, and he asks Scottie for help. As it seems, Gavin’s wife Madeleine (Kim Novak) is behaving very strangely, in what appears to be a possession by the spirit of an ancestor of hers who ended up killing herself. Scottie cannot believe such a story, but Gavin insists, and Scottie takes the job.

During the following days, Scottie follows Madeleine, and becomes as bewildered as he becomes enamored. She’s both a lovable and a riddling individual, and her behavior certainly seems out of the ordinary. Suddenly she does something that forces Scottie to establish a contact. As he becomes more and more involved with Madeleine, the mystery becomes more riddling and the fate more uncertain.

The film begins with an outstanding title sequence full of spiraling and vertiginous designs, to the similarly-themed music of Bernard Herrmann, one of the greatest music scores of all time. This perfect introduction is only a foreshadowing of what’s to come, indeed a dizzying adventure. The plot and every symbolic element in the story and the film itself are constructed in such a way, to the extent that we end up sharing the vertigo with the leading character.

Central to the plot is the love story. Even though I cannot indicate here what kind of a love story it is, or where it leads, I must say it’s the core and the most haunting aspect of the story. There’s love in every direction, with every character loving or falling in love or pretending to be in love. The healthiest affection is that of Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes) towards Scottie, a friendship that seems to be constantly risking his obsession towards the extraordinary. Scottie is a conflicted character who keeps looking for a certain abnormality in his existence, and doesn’t settle even when things are as bad as they get. In that way, Vertigo is something of a character study.

Hitchcock is constantly daring us to believe the unimaginable. We expect a logical explanation for every illogical occurrence, yet Hitch makes sure that we’re more and more confused until we surrender. Then he comes with an explanation for some things (in a famous false ending), but sets the table for more mysteries. The dream sequence in the middle is extraordinary, an explosion of the senses right when it’s needed, right when the mind appears to be losing control. Then it’s all wrapped up beautifully, in the most unexpected way.

In portraying Scottie and Madeleine, Stewart and Novak seem possessed by their characters, completely handing their existence to the goal at hand. These are grand and unforgettable performances.

The screenplay by Alec Coppel and Samuel A. Taylor comes from the novel “d’Entre les Morts” by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. It’s an extraordinary tale, amazingly constructed. I’m grateful with all these people for such a great time at the movies, and forever afterwards.

“Somewhere in here I was born, and there I died. It was only a moment for you, you... you took no notice.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarnation

Director

Jonathan Caouette

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

I first heard of Tarnation when it played at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival. Word out of its first screening was very enthusiastic. I remember getting interested mainly because of the way the movie/documentary came to be. But it wasn’t until two years later that it was released where I live, yet nothing could’ve prepared me for the intense experience that it ultimately was.

The movie starts with Jonathan Caouette finding out that his schizophrenic mother overdosed on her lithium medication. We then go back in time to witness Jonathan’s troubled upbringing with his sick mother and his dysfunctional grandparents, following every step of his traumatic life up to the present.

Tarnation is well-known because Caouette claims to have made it with only 200-plus dollars. He used Super-8 home movies, old answering machine messages, video diaries, self-made short films, lots of photos, dramatic reenactments and snippets of 80’s pop culture end edited it using his own computer. Of course, a lot more money was later spent when producers (which include Gus Van Sant and John Cameron Mitchell) became interested and decided to support him. The rights for the well-chosen songs used in some sequences alone should’ve added quite a bit to the documentary’s budget.

But talk about how the movie was made becomes irrelevant once you’ve seen the movie itself, for it is like nothing you had ever seen before. This isn’t a straightforward dysfunctional family tale like so many before it. It is a surreal acid trip into the mindset of a seemingly normal American family that involves rape, foster homes, child abuse, promiscuity, abandonment, sickness, suicide, drug addiction, psychosis and violence. Really, it’s horrible to say it, but when you get out of the theater you will be grateful for your own fucked-up life.

As we watch Jonathan grow, we witness how all the traumatic events start to shape him as a person. He finds solace in acting, which somehow takes him out of his grim surroundings (a disturbing, but highly enigmatic sequence involving a monologue when he was 11 years old is one of the movie’s highlights). He also has a knack for musicals and for taping everything. That leads him to want to become a filmmaker, and starts to do so by making a series of horror B-flicks during his adolescence. His mother came in and out of his life as she went from one hospital to another, but we come to learn that Jonathan passionately loves her and only wishes to protect her despite how difficult she can get. He sees her as an angel who is not to fault for her condition and who deserves a better life than she ever had. In the middle of all this, Jonathan has a couple of relevant relationships and it’s refreshing to see that in that regard he’s able to surround himself with good, understanding men that helped him along the way. He eventually moved to New York, finally leaving his small town behind, but more importantly, his past.

The movie is edited in a frantic, crazy manner. Some viewers were put off during my screening because of how fast and explosive everything is, not to mention the upsetting imagery. Caouette uses quick cuts and every trick imaginable in such software to put his message across. The result is a difficult and hallucinatory experience, but also a brave one. It’s as if he used the movie as a therapy session that he’s sharing with everyone. You definitely won’t have the greatest time of your life, but those who appreciate this medium as a form of expression in countless different ways will realize the audaciousness of the filmmaking process along with a story about the human condition to the extreme.

Tarnation also gives us a glimpse as to how it was to grow up in the 80’s. The vibe and atmosphere of the decade are present all through his childhood and we can feel it coming out of the screen in palpable manner.

Ultimately this is a tale of survival, redemption and love presented in a bizarre package but nonetheless fascinating.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Director

Gore Verbinski

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

I saw Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) in El Capitan theater in Hollywood along with my pal Morris and it was a darn good experience… because we were in Disney’s official movie theater and because we had experienced the Disneyland ride a couple of days ago and because the film had just been released. But, truth is, I wasn’t a fan, I didn’t quite see why the film had to be so overblown, so overplotted and so overproduced. Why it had to be so long, and why it couldn’t just be a pirates movie without all those supernatural touches. Yeah, that’s a few complaints, right?

So, I wasn’t into the sequel. But I have to admit Johnny Depp’s performances are always worth a look and I didn’t really mind seeing it when there were no better choices. I don’t regret it. I think this installment is better than the first one in that it’s a better established movie that focuses on the story a tad more, if not quite enough. As in many good sequels, the film doesn’t worry to introduce the characters but rather develops them further, which is a welcome asset. It takes a while to do so, and sometimes seems reluctant to go deeper, but it gets there.

The story starts pretty much like a theme park: all attractions are different, they’re all unrelated, and they’re all fun. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) are imprisoned for helping Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) escape. Will makes a deal to bring back a compass Sparrow has, to buy Elizabeth’s freedom and his own. Sparrow, in the meantime, starts looking for a key that opens a chest hidden somewhere. Aided by her father, Governor Swann (Jonathan Pryce), Elizabeth escapes on her own and starts looking for Will. It turns out there are many more people interested in the compass, the key and the chest it opens. The three main characters cross paths eventually, and it all goes bombastic after a while.

During the first half, I felt real excited. I was interested in the story and I was having fun with the proceedings. Eventually it got a bit excessive, I felt the story wasn’t going anywhere and it was all played for laughs, sometimes very stupidly. Then the villain, Davy Jones (a CGI creation voiced and acted by Bill Nighy), showed up, and it all got more interesting. Then the film dragged a bit, then a lot, then it got better. And then it ended with a bang, full of surprising personal twists that I loved and admired.

I’m still not a fan by far, but I cannot rate this movie too negatively. I’m a simplistic person, but after all, the excessive production values pay off in both making the film impressive and selling a lot of tickets. The visual effects are there scene by scene, but they look real mostly. The CGI creation that is Davy Jones is particularly impressive, for instance.

But the characters and their performers seem to be having a great time, which is the best of all. Depp is really funny in this role, and keeps up the good work; Bloom and Knightley are fine co-stars, especially her, towards the end. Nighy is excellent as that sea-creature-pirate that is Jones, and Stellan Skarsgård brings some poignancy in the most serious role. Similarly, but in another tone, Naomie Harris impresses in a small part.

Not bad, not bad… This is a worthy summer film, a theme park on the screen, and another step forward by Disney. Now we’ll all have to wait for the third part!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter