CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Hearts in Atlantis

Director

Scott Hicks

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Wednesday, September 26, 2001

Stephen King is aging. No longer are there gory monsters to scare the hell out of us. The master of horror has turned to sincere and more emotional themes in the last years. A few of them were turned into excellent movies such as The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Now Scott Hicks, the director of the highly acclaimed Shine, presents his approach to Hearts in Atlantis, a nostalgic coming-of-age story with supernatural aspects.

After an old friend’s death Bobby Garfield (David Morse) returns to his hometown where he is reminded of his childhood. He remembers the time when a mysterious stranger changed his life forever. Ted Brautigan (Sir Anthony Hopkins) moves into the upstairs apartment of his mother’s house. The 11-year-old kid feels instantly connected to the tender man with a mysterious past. Brautigan asks Bobby (Anton Yelchin) to read him the newspaper and to look for the “lowmen” who are coming to get him. The young boy bonds with this man and witnesses Ted’s supernatural powers. At the same time he has to deal with his widowed mother’s selfishness, his first love and the fear of losing his strange new friend.

Even though the trailer suggests that this movie is a mystery thriller, it turns out to be in the vein of Stand by Me instead of being similar to the likes of Carrie. Brautigan’s supernatural powers actually take on a subordinate role. They are introduced in a compelling way but the portrayal becomes incoherent in the course of the movie. In the end they could have left them out entirely - maybe it would have made a better picture. We never get to know about Brautigan’s past and the exact powers he has. Instead he seems to use them arbitrarily at several occasions. It is also unclear in which ways these powers pass on to Bobby who only uses them in the scene at the fair. The problem with these psychic powers is that they leave you waiting for an answer, a mystery to be revealed, a turning point of the story. But there is none. This is the most unsatisfying aspect of the movie. The mystery touch simply does not fit well into the context – or at least it is not handled in a thrilling way.

Instead the movie is a sincere reminiscence of childhood with some interesting themes and excellent acting. Sir Anthony Hopkins is as good as ever but young Anton Yelchin’s presence is even more radiant. His performance as Bobby keeps the perfect balance between innocence and awareness. The bonding between these characters is depicted in a credible way. Unfortunately the pacing of the movie is rather slow and most of the incidents have no direct connection to each other. In fact some scenes feel entirely obsolete. As for example, the attacks by the older kids seem like a silly showcase to present the powers of Brautigan. They would have fit into Stand by Me but not necessarily into Hearts in Atlantis.

Then there is the conflict with Bobby’s widowed mother (Hope Davis) who refuses to take care of her only child. She cannot grant her son any happiness that she herself is not experiencing. The outcome of this conflict is not very satisfactory as her character and her motivations are not described sharply enough. There is also the friendship between the three kids. The boy (I don’t even remember his name) stays completely pale due to the fact that he only appears in a few scenes. I suppose his character is more important in the book. Instead the focus is on Carol (Mika Boorem) who becomes Bobby’s first girlfriend. I must say that I really like the way they handled this innocent love story. There are some impressive and beautiful scenes showing their blossoming relationship. The ending gives an over-all bittersweet mood to the movie. It centers on the loss of loved ones and the way you have to accept it. Nevertheless the storytelling has its weak spots mainly caused by the lack of coherence. I could imagine that the book sheds more light on the incidents and the mystery surrounding Brautigan.

Hearts in Atlantis is a touching story of a boy losing his childhood innocence to face the world as it is. Hopkins and Yelchin deliver excellent performances in this otherwise unsteady movie. The script would have needed improvement. It is a shame that Hicks does not focus on one aspect, instead of many.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Winslow Boy

Director

David Mamet

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 26, 2001

David Mamet doing a period piece? You bet! The sole prospect seemed weird at first, but while one watches The Winslow Boy it is easy to accept it and it is surprising how well it works.

In 20th century England, the very well-respected Winslow family faces adversity when the youngest son is expelled from school after an accusation of having stolen a five shilling postal order. He claims he didn’t do it, and his father (Nigel Hawthorne) believes him. The situation then turns into a fight for honor, as the Winslow family is not willing to permit such an injustice at all costs. Despite the discontent of feminist daughter Catherine (Rebecca Pidgeon), the family is forced to require the services of Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam).

There’s something special going on when you know a movie is a courtroom drama and a romantic tale (both aspects can clearly be perceived from the get-go) but neither a trial nor a romance per sè are ever shown. I was jazzed by the way it worked so well. Talk about subtlety...

The Winslow Boy is about many things but at the same time it remains simple till the end. Of course, it is also clever and well-written. You can feel Mamet’s touch at every turn. The dialogue is sharp and the movie keeps surprising without being too showy.

But of course, at the core this is a movie about honor and dignity, about an era where those words meant everything. It is about the struggle for the truth. It asks a question about how essential it is to claim for justice and how far should one be willing to go. It is also a battle between generations and ideas. This is a changing world. It has always been like that.

Nigel Hawthorne is excellent as the head of the family. He can be frightening and difficult, but he’s also a man with principles and a great respect for family values. He’s got to be a tower of strength even if he’s more confused and worried than everybody else. Hawthorne excels in a role that fits him perfectly. Jeremy Northam, an actor I highly esteem, is also a standout and whenever he appears on screen the movie gets livelier and more interesting. He’s excellent. All in all, The Winslow Boy is a very well-acted piece.

I won’t spoil anything for you, but I do have to mention that last scene. This movie has got one of the best endings I’ve seen in a while. Even if you think nothing else interesting is going to happen, Mamet takes a last card out of his sleeve and ends everything with a punch. That last line... a classic!

“How little you know about men.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Swordfish

Director

Dominic Sena

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 25, 2001

One of the former “world’s most dangerous hackers” (Hugh Jackman) lives a peaceful but meaningless life away from civilization, when suddenly he receives a strange offer by a gorgeous woman (Halle Berry), who’s allied with a powerful terrorist (John Travolta), who needs a hacker to help him steal “a couple of bucks” in what will be one of the greatest hits in history.

Stanley Jobson (Jackman), a well-intentioned man with a most powerful mind, feels no urge to return to the world of computers after he’s been forbidden to do so, and even money is not as tempting as the possibility of regaining custody over his daughter, who’s being raised by his ex-wife and a porn film producer. Despite the warnings by a cop who caught him before (Don Cheadle), Jobson decides to help the terrorist and get away with the money.

He simply has no clue of what he’s gotten himself into.

Swordfish is a high-tech, high-voltage, action-packed film that deals with terrorists, computers, gorgeous women and a crime life that doesn’t pay… or does it? There are some intricate twists and turns in the plot but the story is still quite solid thanks to a strong performance by Jackman and an appealing one by Travolta (at last!). Berry and Cheadle are a good support, though it doesn’t really matter because there are enough explosions, car chases and high adrenaline to keep you entertained. From the very first scene (which is also the most impressive) you know you’re on for a wild ride.

Besides, it’s hard to dislike a film that portrays a really nerdish and uncool guy like a hunkish hero. The music and edition are a standout and mostly this is a highly entertaining film that should be considered to have a good time.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Heartbreakers

Director

David Mirkin

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, September 23, 2001

Without any doubt, Heartbreakers is one of my favorite guilty pleasures of the year so far.

Mother and daughter (Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt) join forces by making a living out of deceiving people. Specifically, Weaver usually marries guys only to find them afterwards being seduced by Hewitt and then settling juicy divorce settlements. The thing is: Hewitt now wants to go on her own, so they plan one last big hit in South Beach, Florida, where money abounds. Their perfect target thus becomes an old, almost-dying man (Gene Hackman), while Hewitt sets on a quest of her own involving a young and noble man (Jason Lee).

Heartbreakers has no other intention than to entertain and make its audience laugh. The actors seem to be having such a great time that it becomes contagious. I totally fell for this movie. It is charming, funny, clever, different and easy on the eye. What else do you want?

The best scenes involve Weaver and Hewitt doing all kinds of tricks to accomplish whatever they want, from free meals to free hotel rooms. I loved the scene where they make a bet and compete against each other at the hotel’s bar. Hilarious!

Of course, the movie is not without its flaws. An apparent one has to do with the movie being a bit overlong and dragging a little during the last 45 minutes. But overcoming those faults is an easy task and the viewer always remains interested in what these damsels will do next.

As with almost all silly comedies of the type, this one’s got a moral lesson at the core, but it never becomes preachy or artificial. Things just evolve the way they should, and the mother/daughter relationship portrayed also delivers great moments of truth.

Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt make an excellent pair. Both are just at the top of their forms, willing to make fun of themselves and just letting everything go in order to keep on with what the script requires them to do. Both are great at comedy and it shows. Weaver is specially funny, but Hewitt’s good as well. It helps that both look stunning. Gene Hackman plays a one-joke character admirably. I was impressed by the way he was willing to play second-fiddle, but his presence is very welcomed. Jason Lee, Ray Liotta and Anne Brancroft all deliver great performances.

With Danny Elfman’s great playful score and David Mirkin’s hand behind the cameras, Heartbreakers delivers the goods!

“I may be possessed, or the Antichrist, but I guess those aren't possibilities the male penis ponders.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Graduate

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, September 22, 2001

Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman), a model student who just graduated, comes back home to his parents and realizes his life is not half solved quite yet. His future is completely shadowy still and no one around seems to cooperate in that matter.

During his welcome party, in which Ben seems to be and is in the fact the only person out of place, Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft), the only adult in the scene with more than one dimension, asks Ben for a ride home and then offers him an affair completely free of worries. Thus begins an odyssey in the life of Ben, whose perspectives completely change as he suddenly joins a world of changing emotions and games of pleasure usually prohibited. Sex with Mrs. Robinson might be his only way to escape a world of adults who always expect something of him different from what he wants.

Right when Ben thinks that he’s found one meaning for his life and one thing to look forward to, Elaine Robinson (Katharine Ross), Mrs. Robinson’s daughter, appears into the scene. Now the subject of his forbidden and secret activity is the cause of another prohibition, which is even more tempting. Could that be the reason why Ben is willing to give everything up for this young woman?

The Graduate is the classic 1967 adaptation of Charles Webb’s novel about the alienation of young people in a world of expectations that “must” be fulfilled. Benjamin Braddock embodies the legion of youngsters who manage to succeed in their own world but find themselves lost in the “real” world, while maintaining their own intelligence, integrity and freedom of will. Mrs. Robinson is prohibition, a contrast to all other adults (who are portrayed here mostly as caricatures) who go by the book, and an irresistible escape for young Ben. And Elaine is love: that stupid, senseless feeling that no young lad can resist; that impulse that is preferable to a solid present and a clear future.

While perfectly capturing the feeling of the late 60s, this seriocomic film achieves to understand and translate the interiors of a young man’s mind. Mike Nichols perfectly directs a simple story with great background, using inventive camerawork with deep, poignant results. The song score by Simon and Garfunkel couldn’t be more helpful, expressing in words and music what this story is all about.

The three leads are great in the roles that could very well be their most memorable.

The final scene and especially the final shot are classics by themselves. This film is a must.

“Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me... aren't you?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Bug's Life

Director

John Lasseter

Andrew Stanton

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, September 20, 2001

Once upon a time there was a man who had a vision of how computer technology would change the movie industry forever. George Lucas, the founder of Industrial Light and Magic, was one of the pioneers in the field of computerized special effects. While ILM was working on special effects that had become common at that time, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter and Bill Reeves rooted for different ideas. In 1986 they bought their own computer division from Lucasfilm. We know this independent company by the name of Pixar.

The team’s first major achievements were made in 3D animation. In 1991 they inked a deal with Disney and started working on the first fully computer animated movie ever. Toy Story became a huge success and won an Academy Award for Special Achievement in 1996. However the masterminds at Pixar wanted to push their limits further and prepared to work on their next feature film, A Bug’s Life. It took them twelve times as much processing power to develop this comedic adventure of a group of small creatures.

At the end of every summer, Hopper (voice by Kevin Spacey) and his greedy grasshoppers come to the anthill to collect their “offering”. This year Flik (voice by Dave Foley), a misfit among his fellow ants, accidentally destroys the harvest of food. Thus he sets out on a journey to find bugs that will fight the evil grasshoppers. When he arrives in bug city he mistakes a group of circus bugs for warriors. His new friends encourage the ants to make a stand against the menacing attack led by Hopper.

Even though the premise sounds simple, the way this story is told is unique. The rich animation of A Bug’s Life is mesmerizing. Yet this movie wouldn’t work if it wasn’t for the witty dialogue and the funny characters. I love movies that are full of small details that you can discover one after the other. You can tell that this one is made with a lot of dedication. I especially like the way they make fun of the ants’ routines that the rather open-minded, creative Flik wants to break.

Some people may claim that the insects are not depicted in a realistic way. But the movie is not about photo-realism. Instead, this artistic freedom allows the animators to be creative. As a result, this movie features so many bright ideas that you will hardly believe it. Whereas the circus bugs are the most likeable characters, it is Hopper who steals the show. Kevin Spacey’s voice-over is dead-on perfect for this cool villain. I am especially intrigued by the way Hopper’s eyes are animated.

Talking about the efforts in animation, Pixar did an outstanding job in bringing these creatures to life. Good examples for the beautiful artwork are the impressively rendered backgrounds. The grass, the leaves and the blue sky are done so well that it’s hard to believe this movie is computer generated. Another highlight is the glittering fluorescence of the plants. Pixar also came up with some impressive crowd scenes, in which we get to see about a hundred ants with different facial expressions.

While A Bug’s Life is superbly animated and written, there is also a positive message implied. In my opinion, Pixar is responsible for the best Disney movies of the past decade. Without doubt, Toy Story 2 is the highlight of their work. Still Pixar’s second feature film is a brilliant adventure and a remarkable achievement.

A richly animated movie for the whole family, A Bug’s Life is a fantastic journey and an excellent comedy.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Beautiful Girls

Director

Ted Demme

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 19, 2001

Don’t ask me why, but a few years ago, when Groucho and I weren’t the film-lovers we are today, we really wanted to see this movie. I guess it was because we both loved, and still love, Natalie Portman. I really can’t remember. But what I do recall is the way we finally got to see it and the way we both loved it. It was a little nice refreshing movie perfect for a quiet rainy afternoon.

Willie (Timothy Hutton) returns to his home town for his high school reunion. He’s been away for some time. He’s also quite confused about his future. He doesn’t know if he really wants to marry his girlfriend Tracy. It is with the new experiences he lives through that his mind starts to clear up a bit. Meanwhile, all his closest friends have lives and problems of their own. They include a womanizer (Matt Dillon), a hurt and kind of pathetic guy (Michael Rapaport), the more mature one (Noah Emmerich) and many more.

Beautiful Girls is kind of a nostalgic movie It is all about relationships and growing up and asking yourself what it is it you want to do with your life. It is about responsibilities and love. About innocence and stupidity. About dreams. It is about the heart.

The script by Scott Rosenberg is full of amazing moments and clever dialogue that the large and talented ensemble deliver in great form. It is neither too profound nor too shallow. It finds the right balance and takes its time to make some great observations, give a general insight into human relationships and, most of all, be entertaining and charming at the same time.

I loved the way all the characters seemed so genuine and special in their own way. I got a feeling that I had known them all my life. You usually find that in Cameron Crowe movies, and in a way, Beautiful Girls resembles some of his past work. It rings true and works both as a drama and as a comedy. In other words, it is kind of a little gem.

Beautiful Girls works because it’s got a great script and because it is very well-directed by Ted Demme. It also works because of its cast, which really shines and which really works. There are a couple of standouts. It is impressive to note that among the cast there are two Oscar-winners, but still it is young Natalie Portman who steals the movie from everyone else. She’s delightful as a very beautiful and mature 13-year old girl who falls in love with Willie but at the same time realizes it can’t be. Rosie O’Donell also gets a few bright moments as a foul-mouthed woman who can’t stand men’s position towards some kind of women. Timothy Hutton is great in the lead, while Matt Dillon, Mira Sorvino, Lauren Holly and everyone else are all perfectly adequate. Uma Thurman appears briefly and is delightful as always.

Sometimes you find movies you didn’t expect to love that much. Movies that surprise you. Beautiful Girls is one of them!

“I might just grow to be five-ten. I'll be hot.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Director

John Ford

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Monday, September 17, 2001

When you think of John Wayne, what do you see? I see a tough guy with a cowboy hat. A man who drinks whiskey from a bottle in a raunchy saloon, a man who will stand up against any outlaw with the help of his dear old six-shooter.

John Wayne died in 1979 of lung and stomach cancer.

Jimmy Stewart on the other hand brings to mind the image of the decent American citizen. A man of high moral values. A man who’ll take care of his family and watch out for his friends and neighbors.

Jimmy Stewart deceased in 1997 as the result of a lung embolism.

Not only has Hollywood lost two of its greatest personalities with Wayne and Stewart but somehow it also seems that with these actors an entire species of men has ceased to exist.

Both Stewart and Wayne teamed up in 1962 for John Ford’s classical Western The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Ford, who had at that time been working as a director for almost half a century, succeeded in creating one of the greatest classics of the western genre with The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

The storytelling is one of the most innovative elements of the movie: the viewer learns about the tragic events that took place in the small frontier community of Shinbone through the story told by the aged Senator Ranse Stoddard. Stoddard and his wife Hallie have returned to Shinbone after a long absence to attend the funeral of an otherwise unknown man called Tom Doniphon. When the influential and outright famous politician is questioned about the nature of his relationship with Doniphon, he tells the curious journalists an unlikely and tragic story...

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is the perfect example of a movie that manages to surprise and captivate us on multiple levels of subject. It is by no means “only” a western, but rather a journey into the early years of American democracy. It can also be regarded as the attempt to create an actual American mythology – a root for the tree that depicts a nation’s collective ideals. While the two main characters Stoddard and Doniphon have completely antagonizing concepts of how their ideals can be realized, they still strive to create a society where every man can lead a free and unrestrained life. Doniphon’s sacrifice can be seen as the ultimate expression of valor – the tough, unpolished cowboy stepping down to make way for the educated thinker.

The mode of storytelling and the strong moral message that Ford delivers with this classic picture make it a true epic, a tale that reminds us both of High Noon and Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Needless to say both Wayne and Stewart deliver larger-than-life performances (or rather: performances only they could deliver). Together with Vera Miles, Lee Marvin, Edmond O’Brian and Woody Strode (who later got to be a bad guy in the superb Once Upon a Time in the West) they make The Man Who Shot Liberty Valancea film which is excellently played. The great mind behind the picture however is what makes it the classic it is.

John Ford shows a degree of skill as a director that very few of his contemporaries can claim to posses. He too was of a breed of men that I fear are extinct today...

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Contender

Director

Rod Lurie

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, September 16, 2001

Rod Lurie started out as a film critic. He then moved on to directing a little movie called Deterrence. Apparently, that was just the beginning for this talented man. The Contender rightly proved what he was really capable of and left people hungry for more. Being a difficult movie to handle, it could only have succeeded in the hands of someone capable. Today, I can only sit here and congratulate him for his guts and courage.

The vice president has just died. U.S President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) chooses Ohio Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) as his successor, but not everyone is happy with the decision. Congressman Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman) is willing to do anything in his hands to stop her from taking the job, and thus carefully investigates her past life uncovering some secrets that were better left untouched.

The Contender is a movie of layers. It speaks in many different levels and thus becomes a more satisfying experience. With a very intelligent and complex script, Lurie has brought to the screen a story unlike anything we’ve seen before. Not that the subject matter is overly original, but the characters populating this story make it a different experience. They’re the center and the reason.

At its core, The Contender is a movie about ethics, about moral, about principles, about dignity. It is also thought-provoking. While I was watching the movie I kept continually changing my mind about issues I had not deeply thought about before. I kept wondering what I would do in the place of these characters. The results were surprising, and I still don’t know all the answers.

You see, this isn’t a movie about being on one side or another. After all, it is populated with human beings, people who are not perfect and don’t intend to be. There aren’t completely likable characters neither completely despicable ones. Yes, you could say there’s a villain of some kind depending on your point of view, but even he has his reasons and can’t be completely blamed. It isn’t as if we were standing for this woman’s political ideas, we understand her for the way she doesn’t give in to adversity, for the way she prioritizes, for her conviction of what is really important and what isn’t. I must say, it is one hell of a character.

And it is Joan Allen’s magnificent work that brings her to life. Allen is simply perfect as this woman who has to be a power of strength when almost an entire nation doesn’t let her. She’s strong, dignified, luminous. Jeff Bridges gives yet another excellent performance as the always hungry president of the most powerful nation in the world. Presidents are always presented in the same way, but Bridges gives his character a unique touch and believability, both hard to describe. Gary Oldman is outstanding in the role of this affected man standing for what he believes without any kind of remorse.

There are quite a lot of twists and revelations that are worth waiting for. I’m just sorry the movie gets a bit manipulative at times, specially during some scenes where the music actually gets intruding when it isn’t needed. Being a serious and smart movie like this you don’t need external factors telling you what to feel. It doesn’t fit here as it might in other productions. I hated the way the ending was handled, but this is just a minor flaw in what actually is an excellent political drama!

“Who doesn't want a shortcut to greatness?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Rebecca

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1940

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, September 15, 2001

During her stay in Monte Carlo, a Ladies Companion (Joan Fontaine) employed by Society Lady Mrs. Van Hopper (Florence Bates) meets an enigmatic, high society widower, Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) and finds herself in the midst of a dream world as he rapidly becomes fond of her and suddenly asks her to marry him.

Maxim de Winter, a rude, cold man full of mystery, is also a very rich nobleman, owner of Manderley, a gorgeous, gigantic estate. Life next to him isn’t easy, especially due to his sudden attacks of rage, but beneath all that lies a nice, loving man, which makes it easy for his new wife to get along with him. The real problems begin for her as they arrive to Manderley, a place that’s absolutely full of Rebecca, Maxim’s former wife. Rebecca is in the atmosphere all around. The impressive charisma, class and charm that she was full of makes it impossible for her servants to forget her. One of them, her personal maid Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), is even obsessed with her memory, and won’t let go.

The childish girl who married Maxim de Winter realizes it was a mistake to do so as she can’t fight the memory of Rebecca. Rebecca… Such a powerful woman, that she will stay there forever, and she’ll be stronger than anyone, even after death. Nobody cares about the new Mrs. de Winter; not even Maxim himself, who was absolutely in love with Rebecca and is incapable of getting over her and loving someone else… or is he?

Rebecca is the triumphant 1940 adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s stylish, classic gothic novel, a collaboration of producer David O. Selznick and director Alfred Hitchcock. This film is as much a Hitchcock as it is a Selznick. Their collaboration was more a fight of wills than anything else, but this one has the best of both (the majestic power of Selznick plus the disturbing mind games of Hitchcock), which makes it incredibly good. Probably the one thing that could’ve hurt this film badly is the slight change of the story (concerning Rebecca’s cause of death) towards the end, but the change works perfectly and doesn’t really hurt the essence of the story.

The power of the novel lies mostly in Rebecca’s presence being in fact so strong, which is achieved to perfection in the movie as well. Though we never get to see or hear the actual Rebecca, we are surrounded by her all the time, through the characters’ memories, Manderley’s items, Mrs. Danvers’ obsession and Mrs. de Winter’s fear. Rebecca is so strong and her replacement so weak, that we don’t even get to know the latter’s name, though she is the main character. All this is transferred intact from the novel to the film, but Hitchcock’s direction, George Barnes’s cinematography (probably the best of its kind) and Franz Waxman’s score sure help a lot. The delicacy of Joan Fontaine’s performance is contrasted by a strong Judith Anderson in what becomes a most maddening duo, whose shared scenes can even be qualified of sexually tense. Laurence Olivier is great as Maxim de Winter, the man whose bad temper and crazed memories don’t leave him alone. George Sanders is delightfully precise as Jack Favell, “Rebecca’s favourite cousin.”

A must-see, probably my Hitchcock favorite.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Planet of the Apes

Director

Tim Burton

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, September 13, 2001

Tim Burton’s ‘re-imagining’ of the Franklin J. Schaffner classic Planet of the Apes caused a lot of buzz during its production time. The process kept me excited and looking forward to the day Planet of the Apes would be released. After all I have loved the original ape movie ever since my childhood and my fascination with Tim Burton’s visual genius raised high expectations.

An electro-magnetic storm takes space station pilot Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to a distant planet where intelligent apes have enslaved mankind. The human rights activist Ari (Helena Bonham Carter) helps Davidson to escape to the Forbidden Zone. Closely followed by General Thade’s (Tim Roth) Gorilla army, Davidson becomes the leader of an uprising. A fiery battle decides about the future of the planet, followed by a shocking discovery about the origins of the apes.

Even though Tim Burton calls his movie a ‘re-imagining’ I could not help but compare it to the classic ‘68 vision. In result, the original version turns out to be more complex than Burton’s visit to the planet. Wahlberg’s character is less edgy and cynical than Heston’s Taylor. In fact, Davidson hardly has a profile of his own. Unfortunately almost every character lacks a certain kind of depth that would have raised this movie to a higher level. Even Ari stays pale due to the fact that we don’t get to know anything about her motivations. The only strong character of the movie is General Thade, a chimp full of hatred and disgust for the human race. Tim Roth’s portrayal of the ultimate villain is as impressive as powerful. Otherwise the characters lack intellect as you would find it in a Dr. Zira or a Dr. Zaius. Thus we don’t find out about the laws of ape society. There is not much left of the philosophical approach to Darwinism as experienced in the ‘68 classic.

Instead Burton’s Planet of the Apes is an action-packed sci-fi flick. If you take it for what it is, the movie is likely to give you a good time. For me, Burton’s vision works fine in its own way. The make-up effects by Rick Baker are amazing. John Chambers’ Oscar-winning work was ground-breaking in the 60ies but Baker takes the ape masks to perfection. He created 300 different chimpanzees, orang-utans and gorillas that closely resemble real apes. Each of them has distinctive traits of character. The new make-up design reaches a high degree of realism, allowing the actors to show a large variety of facial expressions. Baker's craftsmanship becomes obvious when looking into the face of the raging General Thade. Equally well designed is the mask of Michael Clarke Duncan. I only have some minor quibbles with the female looks of Helena Bonham Carter’s Ari. I am sure we will see Rick Baker at next year’s Academy Awards.

There is nothing you could criticize about the visual style, which culminates in the impressive battle scene near the end. Burton’s apes jump, shriek and run on all fours. The visuals of this movie are not typically Burton – still you can sense his handwriting. This planet of the apes is a darkly imagined place. Much has been said about the ending which lacks the surprise effect the original plot twist had. Quite a few questions remain unanswered, still I don’t consider the ending to be that important for the over-all effect of the movie.

I see the ‘68 Planet of the Apes (1968) as a classic that Burton’s version can’t come close to. This is not his best feature film, but it still works well as an achievement of its own. Even though the movie lacks depth in the depiction of characters and a credible plot, the visuals and the fast-paced action sequences make up for a breath-taking wild ride. Tim Roth steals the show and makes me crave for more monkey business.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fargo

Director

Joel Coen

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Fargo is, without any doubt, my favorite Coens’ movie. You know I love these guys. They’re simply some of the coolest, most innovative minds making movies nowadays.

A man in need for cash (William H. Macy) sets up the kidnapping of his own wife by hiring two thugs (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) to do it and ask for the ransom, which, according to the plan, her father will pay. These guys quickly mess everything up as they start leaving dead bodies behind, so a local cop (Frances McDormand) is assigned to investigate the murders.

Fargo is supposedly based on a true story, although the Coens admittedly changed some events so everything would fit in their story. Never mind, the movie as it is couldn’t be more unique. It works as a black comedy and as a satire all the same. It is with the Coens trademark sense of humor that the story evolves into something much more than what we may think beforehand.

The movie is set in Minnesota. This is purposely done as a mean to satirize Minnesotans. I must say I had never seen a movie whose main target were this people, but then again, it is the Coens, and we should always expect the unexpected. It all goes down to the way they talk and the way they act. Some very funny dialogue is derived from here.

Fargo also presents a redeeming quality that kind of celebrates the human spirit. It shows how even amongst the most gruesome environments there’s always light. How even if there are thousands of detestable people in the world there always are nice people as well. It shows how absurd one’s life could get for the most stupid of reasons. And everything is done all so subtle, without preaching or getting corny. The Coens know how to spice everything with just the right touch.

We all know a good movie almost always comes from a good script. This is no exception. Joel and Ethan Coen scripted Fargo as an intelligent comedy with some drama and suspense that never ceases to impress. Twists and turns are all over the place, but the characters always stay true to themselves and that’s what matters the most.

Giving them life is a group of highly talented performers who manage to understand the Coens’ vision to perfection. Frances McDormand, in her Oscar-winning performance, is flawless. She’s mostly the only likable main character in the movie and yet she’s also subtle and funny and commanding and real. She manages to convey so much while making it seem so easy. William H. Macy is excellent as well as the pathetic, somewhat shy guy behind it all. This role was made for him. I couldn’t picture anyone else in it. Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare make a great pair. They’re both excellent while being so different.

I have only got words of praise for this movie. Perhaps there’s only a tiny detail I didn’t love, which is the subplot involving a friend from the past. I don’t know how much it serves the story, but even those scenes are full of great gags. Overall, Fargo delivers and does so in its very own way.

Special mention goes to Carter Burwell’s excellent score!

“Well, I just don't understand it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sleepy Hollow

Director

Tim Burton

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, September 09, 2001

It is highly unusual of me to write a review about a movie I don’t really like. I usually think they’re not worth my time and that’s why I much rather rave about stuff I love and actually care about. The reason why I’m writing about Sleepy Hollow is because I have not yet healed from the level of disappointment it meant when I first saw it. It isn’t as if I hated it, but I certainly expected way much more from the ingredients it was made of.

Constable Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp) is sent to investigate a series of murders taking place at New York’s Hudson Valley. His way of work is rather more scientific than what he’s required to do there. People suspect the killer to be something more than human, and that’s way too much for what Ichabod is willing to believe. In town, he also meets a beautiful girl (Christina Ricci), with whom he falls in love just as everything starts to evolve into something more mysterious than what it initially seemed.

Sleepy Hollow is based on the classic Irving Washington tale already immortalized in a great Disney short cartoon. When I first heard the news about a movie being made I got really excited. Even more when I heard who was going to be involved. Then came the trailer, one of the best previews I’d seen in a long time. What could go wrong? Well, something quite important called “a script.”

A truly underdeveloped script for my taste is what hurts this movie to its very core. The main problem lies in the way the movie tries to mix to very unique genres and make that work. Sometimes this can give great results, but other times it can sink a movie, for Sleepy Hollow is neither funny nor scary at all.

The most hurtful aspect surrounding this production is the way it could have reached greatness. It had it all! Tim Burton’s a genius, and his direction, his vision, his ideas simply go unmatched. Johnny Depp gives one of his best performances as the weird, shy, methodical Ichabod. Christina Ricci, another favorite of mine, does a great job as well. And I mean, Johnny and Christina as a couple? Brilliant idea! Then there is the wonderful look of the movie, with its ravishing Oscar-winning art direction and its elegant and magnificent cinematography courtesy of the great Emmanuel Lubezki. Impossible to forget is Danny Elfman’s terrific score. And have I mentioned Christopher Lee and Martin Landau also appear in small roles?

It simply hurts... and deep.

One should give credit to everyone involved for trying. To be fair, I must say the movie actually works as an homage to all those wonderful 40’s and 50’s horror movies. There’s a special tongue-in-cheek way the movie plays that is irresistible, just as the way everything is so over-the-top. I specially loved the way blood is shown in glorious, almost fluorescent, red.

Not a complete misfire, but it’s a shame it didn’t live up to expectations...

“Watch your heads!”


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Annie Hall

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1977

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, September 08, 2001

New York comedian Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) finds himself in the middle of a midlife crisis and revisits his experiences that have affected him the most, including his childhood, his marriages, and his recent romance with nightclub singer Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). His failure to get over Annie forces Alvy to reflect over himself and the way he’s lived his life. Thus starts an extraordinary travel through Alvy’s distorted memories, his unconscious and his psychology.

Annie Hall is director/actor/co-writer Woody Allen’s definite work that consolidated him as an auteur filmmaker capable of the most witty screenplay (co-written with Marshall Brickman) and genius direction. His performance is simply perfect because the lines are written for him in what is allegedly a mostly autobiographical movie.

The romance between Alvy and Annie is also a big pretext to go through Woody’s beliefs and convictions, as well as his phobias and dislikes. It’s clear enough that he loves New York and hates Los Angeles, that he’s obsessed with death, that he finds in sex much more than sexual pleasure, and that he analyses everything he goes through, all the time.

To narrate his romance with Annie in a conventional, linear way, would have resulted in a boring story with no depth, which is why Alvy tells us everything from deep inside his mind, the way he went through it, and Woody Allen uses many innovative techniques in his film to make us understand how he sees everything. The fact that a little Woody Allen film achieved innovations beyond most movies of its time makes this a must. But the fact that he actually transmits to us everything that is in his mind, makes this a winner. Scene by scene, there is a pleasant surprise of surrealistic proportions that keeps us hungry for more all the time. The story plays with our emotions and makes us philosophize about life just like Woody does. How all this affects the viewer’s mind and their life is absolutely extraordinary. Through hilarious moments and dramatic ones, we’re living Alvy’s life and wondering how much of all that we live ourselves.

It is also important to mention that Woody’s main subject here is relationships, which is probably the most enigmatic of all subjects in a person’s life, and the main subject of most of Allen's future films as well.

Diane Keaton is absolutely breath-taking as Annie. She lets Woody tell his tale and adopts every required attitude, from silly and absent-minded to angry and self-conscious. She interacts with the filmmaker in a way few leading ladies have done before. Her performance is one of the best I’ve seen in my life.

Many scenes: the Halls and Singers split screens, the contradictory subtitles, the wicked queen, the psychoanalytic duel, the bumper cars and many more… simply blew my mind.

“That was the most fun I’ve ever had without laughing.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Keeping The Faith

Director

Edward Norton

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, September 06, 2001

Without a doubt, Edward Norton is one of the most talented actors of his generation. He proves his versatility once again in his debut as a director. Having portrayed complex and rather dark characters in American History X (1998) and Fight Club (1999), Norton surprises as a kind-hearted priest in Keeping The Faith. Unexpectedly enough his debut film is not a drama, a character study or a dark journey into the human soul, it is a romantic comedy instead.

Father Brian (Edward Norton) and Rabbi Jacob (Ben Stiller) have been best friends since their childhood. They live a happy life on New York’s Upper West Side until the day their old friend Anna Reilly (Jenna Elfman) arrives in the Big Apple. The chaos is perfect when both friends fall in love with the charming Anna. All of them start to question their beliefs.

While the premise of the movie sounds quite simple the spiritual conflicts add a good portion of dramatic tension. The Catholic priest cannot break his vow of celibacy while the rabbi cannot be in a relationship with a woman who is not Jewish. Anna’s personal conflict is that she has dedicated her whole life to her career. Now this determined business woman has to redefine her priorities in life. Thanks to Stuart Blumberg’s intelligent script, these conflicts fit in well into the light-hearted comedy.

Edward Norton simply has the right feeling with the casting. Stiller, Norton and Elfman are the perfect match. I personally consider Ben Stiller one of the greatest comedians of our time. In Keeping The Faith he delivers hilarious moments. Some of the scenes are entirely improvised. In result, the comedy has a very fresh feeling to it.

Jenna Elfman stars in the role of the lively Anna Reilly. I kept asking myself why no one else ever gave her the chance to prove her talent in a part like this. The role of “Anna Banana” seems to be written for Elfman. Her presence is simply radiant. The screen brightens up whenever she puts on a big smile. Jenna’s perfect timing is evident in every single scene. While Norton’s direction gets the best out of Elfman and Stiller he himself proves his comedic talent in more than one way.

Keeping The Faith reminds me of those old screwball classics that I’ve loved my whole life. It is rare that a contemporary movie can convey this very feeling to me. The atmosphere of Keeping The Faith is dead-on perfect. There are beautiful shots of New York City combined with a romantic score written by Elmer Bernstein. The score actually sounds familiar – even though it was written only for the movie. What makes this charming comedy perfect though is the chemistry between Stiller, Norton and Elfman. The supporting cast is equally brilliant including Anne Bancroft, Eli Wallach and Milos Forman.

Edward Norton’s debut as a director sets high standards and makes me look forward to his upcoming works. A feel-good experience and one of the finest romantic comedies of the last years, Keeping The Faith keeps the right spirit.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Blow

Director

Ted Demme

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Wednesday, September 05, 2001

Back in the days, everybody was on drugs.
Not just the hippies or the beatniks or the existentialists, no – everyone. And while officially of course Hollywood was clean the secret passion of many a great director or movie star was the abuse of some pretty illegal substances. For a long time the subject of “High America” was non-existent in U.S. film productions but recently Hollywood’s creative minds have taken an interest in the theme which used to be off limits.

While one of the resulting masterpieces – Traffic (2000) by Steven Soderbergh – shows different levels of drug distribution and how various people live off or with drugs, Ted Demme’s new movie Blow takes a different approach. Blow tells the story of George Jung (Johnny Depp) and describes without prejudice his unique career as a professional drug dealer.

Jung and his buddy Tuna (Ethan Suplee) leave their dreary suburban home in order to lead an easy life of parties and pot in California. Soon after their arrival they meet Barbara (Franka Potente) who introduces them to the local small time drug dealer and hairstylist Derek Foreal (Paul Reubens). The crafty gay coiffeur gives the odd couple of youngsters the chance to sell marijuana on the beach for him. Soon they decide that they need a direct access to much larger shipments of pot and go directly to Mexico to find a friendly “farmer” who can provide them with more dope than they ever dreamt of...

Blow is a picture about a drug dealer. That alone is an innovative idea in the sense that this particular profession has not been dealt with much from a neutral point of view. On the other side there are moments in the movie where I felt reminded of other pictures dealing with the life story of some infamous gangster. The parallels to other crime-related biopics are clearly visible.

However the ease with which Depp sketches the weird and unlikely story of Jung is one of the definite pros that Blow can list for itself. Another notable role is played by German actress Franka Potente (Run Lola Run). Potente does a great job and shows that she can compete with some of Hollywood’s regular girls from the second tier of female casting.

Penélope Cruz manages to shock as the first tempting then slutty Mirtha who abandons Jung when he loses his fortune, while Ray Liotta and Rachel Griffiths give convincing performances as George’s disappointed parents.

To sum it up: Blow is too close to its central character’s biography to surprise the viewer, however it does tell you a lot about a rather unusual type of job. And about the fact that the people who deal drugs are still... well, people.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Romeo + Juliet

Director

Baz Luhrmann

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 04, 2001

With all the excitement surrounding Moulin Rouge! (2001), I decided to revisit another Baz Luhrmann movie that I’ve always loved. Not only does it tell a love story we all know by heart, but it does so in rather a unique way, courtesy of Luhrmann’s genius mind.

The Montague and Capulet families can’t stand each other. They are archrivals and it’s all hatred between them. One day, Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio), a Montague, and Juliet (Claire Danes), a Capulet, meet and instantly fall in love. Their story ends in tragedy as the bond that holds them together can’t overcome the pressure that surrounds them.

Romeo and Juliet has got to be William Shakespeare’s best-known play. Why is that? Simple: it’s about love. Its main themes are timeless. Its characters are easy to identify with. Everything about it is just irresistible.

There have been quite numerous screen adaptations of this story to the big screen. Some are better than others, and there’s at least one that is a classic: Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 version. Luhrmann was not trying to compete when he shot this modern retelling. He just wanted to tell it his own way. What does that mean? Style baby... lots of style.

Luhrmann’s Romeo & Juliet achieves the difficult task of making this old story seem original all over again. The dialogue is still Shakespearean, so is the story. But it has all been transformed into a cooler environment in a wild, colorful manner. Quick camera tricks, the most peculiar characters, great sets, great music, great ideas...

The so-called “best love story ever told” is brought to life by a couple of very talented actors that bring each other to their roles with a demanding effect. Leonardo DiCaprio makes of Romeo a classy, adventurous, passionate man with ease. Claire Danes, on the other hand, makes an excellent Juliet; she’s romantic, brave, conflicted. All these words could perfectly describe the movie as a whole, and both actors simply show why. Pete Postlethwaite, John Leguizamo, Paul Sorvino, Diane Verona and Brian Dennehy are all outstanding as well.

It is difficult to find truly passionate movies these days. Romeo + Juliet couldn’t be more intense and earnest in its approach. It works in its very own way, and that’s what truly matters. There’s even one scene that can be described as pure magic: that of Romeo meeting Juliet. Easily my favorite one among a handful of unforgettable other scenes and images.

An incomparable, inventive version of an unmatched classic!

“A plague o' both your houses!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

From Here To Eternity

Director

Fred Zinnemann

Year

1953

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, September 03, 2001

As I’ve never been obsessed with war movies it took me some time to finally decide to see From Here To Eternity. When I did, this classic instantly blew me away.

Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) has requested Army transfer and is sent to Schofield in Hawaii. When Prewitt decides not to box on his unit's team his new captain (Philip Ober) starts to punish him cruelly. It turns out not to be easy to break his will though. The insubordinate Prew becomes friends with the light-hearted Private Maggio (Frank Sinatra) and starts to fall in love with the bar girl Lorene (Donna Reed). In the meantime Sergeant Milton Warden (Burt Lancaster) secretly starts a passionate affair with the Captain’s wife (Deborah Kerr). Things get out of control when Pearl Harbor is attacked by the Japanese.

I don’t know where to start with my praise. I simply love everything about this movie. From Here To Eternity doesn’t feel like the typical war movie to me. War only serves as a backdrop for the personal stories to be told. This is a military drama packed with realistic characters and real emotions.

The love story between Lancaster and Kerr simply took my breath away. I love the fact that Kerr’s character is more than a beautiful accessory. Karen Holmes is a woman with a sad and bitter past. There is something mysterious about her. Warden is the perfect man to handle this fragile woman and to discover her secret. He is manly but he knows how to treat a woman the right way. The classic scene at the beach reveals the tragedy in Karen’s life. The atmosphere is incomparably tense. A truly unforgettable and poignant scene.

Lancaster’s portrayal of Warden is one of the most charismatic ones I have ever seen. I especially like his interaction with Clift’s Prewitt. It is impressive to watch the complexities Clift adds to his character. To me, these two men are the standouts of the movie. Their ideals are shaped by virtues you will hardly find in movies nowadays. They actually believe in something and they behave like men – like real men.

From Here To Eternity also deals with ethics and humanity. In this regard it is a brave statement for peace. The attack on Pearl Harbor is the climax of the movie. War changes everything there was before.

This movie has something bittersweet about it – an after-taste that is hard to forget. Fred Zinnemann’s From Here To Eternity is filled with remarkable characters of great depth. It is a powerful movie about loyalty and friendship, about love and war. A classic that deserves to be considered one of the greatest movies ever made.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Director

Hironobu Sakaguchi

Moto Sakakibara

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, September 01, 2001

In an Earth invaded by ghostly aliens, people have lost most of their hope, forced to live in “barrier cities” and scared to death of what these phantoms might do to them sooner or later. Among many chances of defeating these ghosts, Dr. Aki Ross (Ming-Na), a gorgeous and intelligent female scientist, keeps in herself a secret that might as well mean salvation for the human race. Aided by Dr. Sid (Donald Sutherland), Dr. Ross is about to reveal what she knows in order to save the world she loves so much.

But will the members of the council, inclined to believe only what their eyes can reach, believe Dr. Ross’s theories without judging her like it’s happened to many scientists throughout the history of mankind? If not, she’s still got the support of her former lover, Captain Gray Edwards (Alec Baldwin) and his team from the Army.

While this film raises important issues about the human nature and stubbornness, it also features an interesting storyline in a futuristic landscape, all computer-animated in the most impressive way.

So what’s so bad about this film? Well, I’ll put it this way: the three prior paragraphs are far more interesting than the whole movie. I’m nothing of a storyteller, but I must say I’ve managed to tell the film’s story in a better way than these guys actually did. It’s amazing how the premise is good, the animation is good, every element has potential, but nothing comes out of it. I really don’t understand why this happened. As a fan of the Final Fantasy videogames, I must say I’m really disappointed. Square always managed to tell a terrific story in their games, wrapped by outstanding visuals. I never really trusted this film in the way that the viewer can’t change the events like the videogame player can, but that didn’t mean the story couldn’t be good. The games always had amazing and very well-developed characters, a larger-than-life story, amazing visuals and an incredible music score. Well, apart from the visuals, this movie has nothing. As a matter of fact, it sucks.

I don’t really know what’s the matter with me when it comes to animated characters that so closely resemble human beings. I think technology hasn’t gone as far as to make an animation look so real. In Toy Story, all the toys looked great and real but the humans simply did not. Humans in Toy Story 2 looked good but they were not intended to resemble human beings so closely that it would fool some people so it was ok. Shrek (2001) did have that flaw, which I mentioned in my review. Final Fantasy’s major flaw, for me, lies in this aspect. When you’re playing a modern videogame, you expect great graphics because there can’t be actual actors in there. But when you’re watching a movie, and you know a living person would look better, you don’t like what you see. In other words, watching Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within didn’t do any good to me.

Stick back to those great RPG games. The Final Fantasy name should be linked to the videogames, and only to the videogames, forever.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter