CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Brothers Grimm

Director

Terry Gilliam

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Even though I can’t say I always like Terry Gilliam movies, I can honestly consider myself a huge fan of his. At least I’m always looking forward to what he does, regardless of how I feel about the final product. He’s just such a visionary, a true auteur and a man who stays away from conventions. Yet in this specific project, much publicity was generated regarding Miramax’s intervention with the movie’s outcome. They sure threw a big amount of money at Gilliam, so they had reason to be worried, but it also resulted in what may be Gilliam’s least personal movie. At least it feels like that…

Wilhelm Grimm (Matt Damon) and his brother Jacob (Heath Ledger) make a living out of exploiting villagers by getting them to believe there are supernatural beings haunting them. They then go on and “exorcize” the places, getting quite a lot of money for each endeavor. But when the government finds out, they believe the Grimm brothers are behind the disappearance of little girls from a nearby town. They deny it, and are then sent to the place in question where they promise to find who’s behind this, while at the same time being carefully watched by a guard who goes by the name of Cavaldi (Peter Stormare).

The movie contains many brilliant ideas that do not form a coherent whole. What I mean is, the potential was great, but somehow the movie comes off as a predictable mess. Great moments here and there, but the whole does not feel like the sum of its parts.
What I liked most about the movie is the fascinating approach that the creators of Shakespeare in Love (1998) used for their movie and that Gilliam and writer Ehren Kruger follow here as well. The Grimm brothers are authors of countless tales, a lot of which are very well-known by the general public. That way the movie is filled with references to those classic tales, references which are picked up by Jacob as inspiration for his writings. We get to see where the witch from “Snowhite” came from, as well as the “Red Hooded Girl” or “Hans and Greta”. We also get to see such bits as a toad who is willing to help when given a “kiss”, or a sleeping girl who wakes up by using that same device, not to mention a scene in which long extensions of human hair are used to get down from the top of a huge tower. I guess what I’m saying is that there is a lot of enthralling fantasy and magic involved, and I liked that.

Special credit to the “Red Hooded Girl” sequence, which is impressively shot. The camerawork is fantastic.

That was the good, now for the bad: the movie is a mess. It doesn’t really know what it wants to be. Sometimes it’s a broad comedy, sometimes it goes for slapstick, sometimes it goes for blown-out fantasy; and in the midst of it all Gilliam wants us too feel something for the brothers and for some other characters in danger. Well, it is a circus, and I felt absolutely nothing for anyone. That makes the movie drag a lot, especially since the ending is pretty conventional and not that exciting.

I also loathed a scene in which a “monster” made of mud, which eventually takes the form of the Gingerbread Man, does horrible things to a little girl. I don’t necessarily mind what happens in the scene, but it doesn’t belong to this movie. It is really a shocking moment of what-the-hell-were-they-thinking nature. Absolutely out of place...

Special effects abound in the movie, and sometimes they work but sometimes they don’t. It becomes too overbearing, with style and spectacle over real substance. That said, I really liked the effect of the witch’s mirror.

Heath Ledger and Matt Damon deliver really good performances. I was surprised because they both play against type. Boring thinking would have had them playing each others’ roles, but this way it is more interesting and they both prove they can handle it. Monica Bellucci appears briefly and looks as ravishing as ever. Lena Headey has a sizable role as Angelika, a woman who helps the brothers in their quest, and she acquits herself nicely. Peter Stormare and Jonathan Pryce are way over-the-top and not funny at all.

A missed opportunity.

“And a fine wife he'll make some lucky man.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Haunting

Director

Robert Wise

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Dr. John Markway (Richard Johnson) is delighted to have found what seems to be a genuinely haunted house. Hill House is a place that seems to have been doomed ever since its construction. Everyone who has passed by or attempted to get close has faced an awful fate, and most have been said to remain in the house for eternity. The chilly introduction to this extraordinary thriller is given in voice-over by Dr. Markway, in the most cold-blooded way possible: he enjoys telling the story, even though there’s nothing fun about it, and even though he has good reasons to be scared. The house is haunted, and he’s willing to spend some time there to prove it. He’s a scientist after all, and isn’t afraid of the unknown, convinced that some day it’ll be measured and calculated like crude matter.

For his quest, Dr. Markway invites a group of people, all of whom have had contact with the supernatural. Most but two refuse to attend, and those two couldn’t be more contrasting: mousy Nell (Julie Harris), who’s so afraid of the life she’s living that she finds the adventure truly fun in comparison, and outgoing Theo (Claire Bloom), who seems to be quite in control of the situation… and people’s minds. Along comes skeptic Luke (Russ Tamblyn), the heir to the mansion who wants to assess that his future home is ghost-free.

Even though the story doesn’t present anything truly horrific for quite a while, the atmosphere is built with incredible ease to form an atmosphere of horror. The house is powerful and scary from the get-go, given its labyrinthine paths and its forgotten rooms. The group also makes up for some unsettledness. Nell quickly starts having second thoughts, while Theo is busy trying to, well, you could say possess her new girlfriend. Luke goes by wisecracking his partners, while Dr. Markway takes everything as seriously as he can.

When the night falls, it’s time for the real scares. Yet, the morning after there’s the question: what happened last night? They don’t know, and we don’t know. But we’re freaked out enough to be positive that this isn’t a silly game any of the characters is playing.

The most famous asset of this film, scripted by Nelson Gidding from the novel by Shirley Jackson, is the fact that it inspires sheer horror without showing anything. The film is virtually clean from visual scares, yet it manages to horrify us more than any slasher movie or a more graphic horror flick. The fear of the unknown is greater than any horror that can be seen, and the filmmakers were sure to exploit that. It’s hard to get through this film without feeling any fear. Yet, you’re dying to see the resolution, and probably even an explanation, which makes it a suspense film. Summing up, this movie has it all.

Even when you think you’ve had enough to shake about, something takes you off guard: another person (Lois Maxwell) arrives, and gets all stubborn about something, then has to pay the consequences. This begins a subplot that’s completely horrifying and for a while incomprehensible, which can drive some people to madness, and eventually does…

Humphrey Searle’s music, Davis Boulton’s photography and Ernest Walter’s editing are all vital for the success; Elliot Scott’s uncanny production design, on the other hand, is unforgettable. I daresay The Haunting presents the definitive haunted house in cinema.

For its thrills and chills, sexual tension, comedic power, suspense management and genuine scares, this film deserves to be called a classic of the horror genre.

“God! God! Who's hand was I holding?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Red Eye

Director

Wes Craven

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 26, 2005

I have to admit that I discovered Wes Craven late in his career, namely with the Scream trilogy. I haven’t seen any of his old movies, classic or not, nor do I really intend to. He works mostly around a genre that I don’t like that much, although he is very good at it. With Red Eye he is back after a series of movies that have not been well-received by critics or audiences. But this time the genre is a little different: more thriller and no horror. Fortunately for him, and us, it is a rather excellent foray.

Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a hotel receptionist in Miami who went to Dallas because of her grandmother’s death. Now she’s flying back home in the Red Eye, the name given to the last flight of the night, which incidentally got delayed after bad weather hit the city. While waiting, she meets a friendly stranger named Jack (Cillian Murphy) with whom she has a drink. And when they both finally board the plane, they find out they have seats together. That seems nice, until they start talking about their jobs and Jack sleazily mentions that his business, that night, is her.

While writing this premise I was tempted to mention a bit more than I did to make it sound more exciting. But I found that it would be unfair. I don’t want to deny anyone from the little pleasures that the movie has to offer. I had seen the first trailer that came out in which they told us nothing about the premise after what I just described. Needless to say, it was inferred that something would go terribly wrong. But then I heard about a second trailer, and I read that it showed way too much, so I avoided it like the plague. Now that I’ve seen the movie I gave that second trailer a look and it definitely, definitely, is spoiler-filled. I guess what I’m just saying is that if you don’t know what happens in the flick, try to remain as ignorant as possible about it.

I’ll say a couple of things though. First, there’s nothing supernatural or monstrous about it. The movie is about real people, real situations and very real circumstances. The movie is also extremely fast-paced, which gives it a sense of urgency that works in its favor. Lisa gets into a difficult position in which she has to react a lot. But what elevates this movie is the fact that not only does she react, but she also acts about it, and she does so in credible and intelligent ways. Here’s a leading lady which doesn’t resort to the usual-usual and is always thinking, planning, scheming. And that, for me, was worth the price of admission.

The movie has three very clear acts. The first one I already described. The second one happens just when Jack and Lisa board the plane. And the third one… well, I won’t say. I’ll just mention that the movie is in full crescendo mode. It gets better and better, and more exciting along the way.

I also liked how the screenplay is so tight and the movie so simple. While in the first act at the airport, we get to know Lisa pretty well. I mean, just enough for us to sympathize and get a glimpse of the person she is. But we also get snippets of different people here and there. People that we later learn are also on Lisa’s plane. And people who, not surprisingly, will have something to do with the plot at one point or another. Yet it all feels smoothly handled. One or two scenes with a character and we already find them familiar, so their actions later on ring totally honest. It also helps that Craven knows what he’s doing and how to keep an audience at the edge of their seats. With Red Eye he completely succeeds. Oh, and the music throughout the movie also helps.

The movie belongs to Rachel McAdams though. I don’t have enough words to praise her. I would watch the movie countless times just for the sheer pleasure of watching her and her performance. I’m not saying anything new when I state that she’s a true movie star in the making, an absolute delight. Everyone thinks that and I am just joining the chorus. Her career choices have been very clever and we’ve seen her in many very different movies. That has boded pretty well for her, and the attention is completely deserved. She’s outstanding. And a great counterpart is Cillian Murphy, who turns from charming to menacing to wacko in credible and haunting fashion. Brian Cox also appears in a small supporting role.

Fun, fun, fun!

“No... that it would never happen again.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dirty Harry

Director

Don Siegel

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 22, 2005

I have always loved a good cop movie. Especially when the cop is rebellious but talented, and particularly when he’s an undercover detective. Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is perhaps the most famous American movie detective of modern times, a close race with Popeye Doyle from The French Connection (1971), both from the same year.

Eastwood established himself as a classy action star after this film, a perfect contrast to his moody (if no less violent) western persona. Harry is magnificent; he defends justice but has a tendency not to follow rules. Why should he, if they sometimes get in the way of the law? But is it the law or his law? Work isn’t easy for Harry, not when everyone keeps reminding him of how reckless he is even though he’s so good. But he usually finds his way.

The plot concerns a sniper who kills a woman and threatens the government with more killings if they don’t pay him a large sum of money. He calls himself Scorpio (Andrew Robinson) and is clearly a psychopath. Despite his dubious reputation, Dirty Harry is assigned along with a new young partner, Chico Gonzalez (Reni Santoni), to catch the killer. The hunt isn’t easy and has deadly consequences, but when the law gets in the way, Harry gets particularly pissed.

One aspect that called my attention is that Scorpio’s identity is revealed almost immediately so there’s not the least mystery or intrigue concerning that. He’s nobody, and there’s not one scene where we think someone could be him or not. He’s always who he is though he’s evasive and mysterious with the cops. That only means that the film relies on its powerful action sequences and the strength of the main character and most nothing else.

Tension abounds when everything seems to be against Dirty Harry: Scorpio, the other cops, and circumstance. However, he always makes his way, until the unforgettable finale. He and his .44 Magnum which he so proudly holds and so wisely uses.

Carl Pingitore’s editing, Lalo Schifrin’s music and Bruce Surtees’ cinematography all play important roles. But it’s veteran director Siegel’s masterful work and Eastwood’s unique performance that make this hard to forget.

The film became an instant action classic and was followed by four sequels, all starring Clint Eastwood. The name of “Dirty Harry” became a cultural icon and so did Clint’s immortal line:

“You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Upside of Anger

Director

Mike Binder

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

I first noticed Joan Allen in The Crucible. Right there I knew that she was an actress that I would really come to like with time. And I sure did. Movie after movie I just came to love her, and I would even go as far as to say that I would watch anything she stars. It’s not just her beauty, or her talent, it’s her very essence, her everything. Did I say I really like her?

After Terry Wolfmeyer’s (Joan Allen) husband left her, she found solace in drinking. Her four daughters, Hadley (Alicia Witt), Emily (Keri Russell), Andy (Erika Christensen) and Popeye (Evan Rachel Wood) each have lives of their own, but still try to help even though they can’t stand her. Then suddenly their neighbor Denny (Kevin Costner) enters their lives and brings Terry some much-needed company. After all, he’s somewhat of a drinker too.

I came into The Upside of Anger expecting a light-weight comedy. But the movie opens with a funeral (we’re not told whose is it) and from then on the movie moves back and forth between comedy and drama in classy fashion. It is, after all, a mixture of both. Life, I mean.

The movie basically kicks off the day that Terry’s husband leaves her and her daughters. Everything seemed to be going so well and suddenly they had to face the cruel reality. That shocking transition is better accepted by the four daughters, but Terry, who used to be all nice and happy, becomes an entirely different person. She’s always angry. She always has something to complain or fight about. And she’s desperate for some kind of company, or love. And then Denny arrives. He’s not what she expects of a man, but what the hell. Their exchanges and scenes together are what really bring this movie to life.

I also liked the portraits of the four daughters. The movie is about their mom, but we get a glimpse of each of their lives and they become full-bodied characters in front of our eyes. I especially liked Popeye’s story and how she’s just starting to realize how the world works and its many phases.

There’s even a surprise ending thrown in there for good measure. A true catharsis…

Joan Allen delivers an extraordinary performance, one of her very best. This character could have become a caricature in other hands, but she brings her to life, she gives her dignity, she gives her credibility, she brings Terry her all, and it’s just a pleasure to watch her work unravel in such a way. Kevin Costner, on the other hand, is also fantastic, the best I’ve seen him in years. He’s drunk half the movie, yet he isn’t a caricature either, and the man does a great job. As for the actresses playing the four daughters, they all do a good job. I especially enjoyed Erika Christensen and Evan Rachel Wood. As a curious detail, director Mike Binder plays a supporting part as Denny's producer. Didn't know that until the credits rolled at the end. Good job all the way.

A touching riot!

“Or maybe sometimes... they just don't have all the facts.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Band of Outsiders

Director

Jean-Luc Godard

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

I’m one of those people who were drawn to this movie on account of Quentin Tarantino’s clear admiration for it, which he has stated in the name of his production company and in some of his movies, clearly one featuring a famous dance scene. I haven’t seen many Godard films but I’ve heard this is one of his most accessible, and to some, most beautiful. I was indeed enchanted by its beauty and its uniqueness, but I also felt I wasn’t seeing something masterful. It was just a nice, well-handled movie that didn’t care much more than to tell its story well and go home.

Bande à part is about three misfits: Odile (Anna Karina), a lonely girl, Franz (Sami Frey), a scheming soul, and Arthur (Claude Brasseur), a misguided “go-getter.” When the film starts, Franz and Arthur are plotting the theft of some money and old man has saved, which he keeps in the house where Odile, currently Franz’ girlfriend, lives. Then Arthur and Odile meet and sparks fly, provoking Franz’ jealousy, which doesn’t stop them from shooting loving looks at each other from the get go. The rest is all plotting, hanging out, and executing, and the results are quite something, but maybe that’s not the importance of it at all.

The film looks more like an exercise on Film Noir than one by itself, and it also has a lot of new wave in it. In the end it’s neither, which makes it drift a little, and is probably the cause of some critics’ lack of acceptance of it, but in fact it’s a fun ride and a welcome one, and every minute featuring the three starts is amazing (notably the very special “minute of silence” which, by the way, doesn’t last as long).

The three main aspects that make the film special are: Michel Legrand’s fun music, Raoul Coutard’s striking cinematography, and Anna Karina’s unmatchable presence. She lights every scene she’s in like few actresses can, and I just can’t believe I haven’t seen more of her. She’s one of the loveliest creatures I’ve seen onscreen. I felt so much in love with her that I was sharing Franz’ jealousy when Arthur was catching her attention so effortlessly. What beauty! What coyness!

I appreciated the movie’s style. Somehow it creates a world of its own in which the crudest situations can be seen as something nice, and such contrasts as the three stars dancing to a jukebox in the middle of their evil plot do the job. That particular scene is unexplainable and amazing.

I’m not running to see any more films by Jean-Luc Godard as it is, but I’m happy to recommend this one.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cinderella Man

Director

Ron Howard

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 19, 2005

Just look at this movie’s pedigree and you know that you’re in for a quality piece. With so much crap coming out during the summer, it’s always comforting to find movies that make you feel this way. And when they come, I don’t even know if I’ll like them, but at least it’s a change of pace. Even more so when so much talent has been brought together...

Jim Braddock (Russell Crowe) used to be a famous and successful heavyweight boxer married to a beautiful wife, Mae (Renée Zellweger), with whom he had three children. But then the Depression hit, Jim got hurt, he started to lose his punch, and was obliged to leave the ring. While struggling to make a living and keep his family together, he suddenly got a second chance with the help of his old pal and manager Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti).

Serious movies tend to be made about complicated people. Complicated people usually provide intense situations and great drama. And even when there’s a lot of drama in Cinderella Man, it is not because of Jim, but rather because of the circumstances surrounding his life. As a matter of fact, Jim couldn’t be simpler. All he wants in the world is to give his family a dignified life. He loves his wife and he loves his children, and he hates to see them suffer. That is what drives this man. And sometimes things as simple as that are the ones which hit right through our hearts.

Ron Howard’s movie does nothing new or terribly original. His movie is predictable and we more or less know where things are going, following the sports movie formula to a tee. But sometimes it doesn’t matter if we’ve seen a similar story; it’s the way in which it is told that greatness can surface. With this movie, Howard goes for sentimentality, but doesn’t push it. He lets us know the characters, the situations, the stakes, and suddenly we are invested in these lives, and it all comes naturally. The movie just flows and pulls us in with expertise.

There are little details I liked that I would like to point out. For starters, it was a welcome surprise that Mae, as Jim’s wife, does not become a pain in the ass like wives usually do in this kind of stories. She stands by her man, she loves him, and she’ll stand by him as long as she can. The movie tells a true story, but Howard does not say it and I liked that detail as well. I’ve heard that boxer Max Baer (Craig Bierko) was not as horrible a person as depicted in the movie, yet they had to exaggerate that aspect to give the movie its dramatic punch. Watching it solely as a movie, the device works, yet Baer’s family is also entitled to have their own opinion.

Howard is also able to create pretty exciting boxing sequences. When Jim is in the ring, the movie sizzles. And even though I knew the outcome of the final fight, it just works because of the extraordinary editing, direction and acting. It’s a nerve-wracking last half hour.

My favorite scene is a rather quieter one. In it, Jim goes to his old pals, some of which are rich, prominent people in the boxing scene, and asks them for money with hat in hand. It’s simply heart-breaking and Crowe excels in it.

As a matter of fact, he excels in the entire movie. I didn’t expect less from him, and he comes off extremely well, a great actor with great personality and amazing physicality as well. Zellweger is excellent as his wife. And the extraordinary Paul Giamatti plays it subtle but leaves a remarkable impression, an outstanding performance all the way. The kids are uniformly good, as is Craig Bierko as Jim's biggest opponent and Paddy Considine as Jim's friend and partner.

Other technical and artistic aspects are impeccable, with beautiful photography, and spot-on costumes, set design and music.

An inspirational story that certainly brought me to my feet.

“I have to believe... that when things are bad... I can change them.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Princess Mononoke

Director

Hayao Miyazaki

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Mononoke-hime is usually regarded as Hayao Miyazake’s masterpiece or one of his most serious works. I don’t quite agree with either, but I’m willing to accept that it’s one of his most daring pieces if not the most daring, and undoubtedly the most complex and resonant. The reason is quite simple: he made this film as a metaphor for harmony (or lack thereof) between human beings and nature. By way of doing this, he concocted his own mythology with everything from gods to hybrid creatures. The result is no doubt exhilarating, but the experience is a bit exhausting, not only for all the things the viewer is presented with but for the way it’s heavy-handed at times.

The story begins with a roar. Miyazaki doesn’t take any time to explain what kind of fantastic reality we’re in, but instead assumes we know that sometimes gods have animal forms and sometimes they go wicked. A town is attacked by an evil boar-god, now swarmed and possessed by snakes that live in symbiosis with it and control it. The only way to stop the evil god is by killing it, which is done by brave Ashitaka (Yôji Matsuda). Quite unfortunately, after the battle is over, this young man finds that a wound made by the god is lethal, unless he tries to find the source of the evil inside the once good boar, and fight it. For this he goes west until he reaches an ironwork community that’s clearly hurting the woods surrounding it and making the animals and forest gods mad.

Here’s where the film makes its message clear: Ashitaka doesn’t just take the side of nature to fight the factory, but instead finds the good in the ironwork community and understands the problem without taking any sides. That’s human nature, but truth be told, there’s indeed much good to be found in the people who work so hard in the heart of the wounded woods. The leader, Lady Eboshi (Yûko Tanaka), is benevolent and protective with her people, but also headstrong and cold-blooded when it comes to dealing with her enemies. Ashitaka is fascinated by her but also understands why her enemies hate her so much. Some of them are wolves and wolf-gods, one of whose adoptive child, a stranded human girl, has become terribly savage and has made it her mission to destroy Eboshi: that’s San (Yuriko Ishida), also known as “Princess Mononoke,” which means there’s a raging bestial spirit living inside her.

The interesting aspect of the plot is it has several ramifications that show that the battle between man and nature is not as simple as that. These include good and bad intentions of different humans, conflicting forces of nature, and the never-ending lust for power from any dominant force. It’s complicated to follow and not very logical at times (even within its logic), but it pays off as a whole, if not completely.

The film doesn’t shy away from violence and that’s what separates it from the rest of Miyazaki’s work and most animated movies out there. It’s not for the kiddies, but instead a very intense dramatic piece filled with action and adventure.

The production design and animation are magnificent. Every creature in the film is gorgeous and it’s outlined with mesmerizing beauty. The characters are very well brought to life and some of them do stick to the mind, if not necessarily for good. There are several moments that do qualify as unforgettable though.

Not Miyazaki’s best, but a pretty damn good animated movie.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Madagascar

Director

Eric Darnell

Tom McGrath

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

After Dreamworks came up with the Shrek movies the industry knew that not only Disney (and Pixar) could make good animated pics, but that other companies could succeed in that respect too. Sure, Disney would still be the king, but competition would only benefit the audience, as the demand would increase and the quality of the product would have to be better. And then Madagascar opened. Critics generally panned it, disappointed by the company which showed so much promise at first. But audiences loved it, making it one of the highest-grossing movies of the year and generating strong word-of-mouth. After all, the movie is a crowd-pleaser, and I sure enjoyed the ride!

Alex the lion (voice of Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra (voice of Chris Rock), Melman the giraffe (voice of David Schwimmer) and Gloria the hippopotamus (voice of Jada Pinkett Smith) are part of the attractions at the New York Zoo, where they’ve always lived quite comfortably. But Marty is just not as happy as his mates, and dreams of living in the wild. So when he finds out that a bunch of penguins are trying to escape he sets out to do the same, and as he tries to do so, he gets caught. Animal activists force the Zoo to return the animals where they belong, but in the way, they fall off the ship and end up in Madagascar… where wild adventures await.

Madagascar certainly isn’t a masterpiece. But it doesn’t try to be one either. What it tries to achieve, it does, and that’s why the movie worked so well with people. It is solely made to entertain, to make people laugh and to leave a good impression with its good-hearted story. In my humble opinion, if you just surrender to its charm, it ends up being quite an engaging ride. The level of energy keeps getting higher and higher: the scenes at the zoo are somewhat slow, the escape is quite fun, the trip is even more fun and the arrival to Madagascar is a hoot. I laughed my ass off, and that’s a good thing.

Animation-wise, the movie is not that impressive. The look of the characters is kind of “geometrical” and the level of detail isn’t as great as in other computer-animated movies. That said, the water and fire do look fantastic and shockingly real. But I didn’t care at all about the animation being what it is. I mean, the movie is aimed primarily at kids, and as long as it engages them and makes them laugh… they just don’t care! That doesn’t mean a movie can have poor quality and get away with it. That isn’t the case here. The creators just chose a different look that might not be as cool as others we’ve seen, but that doesn’t make it bad either.

After all is said and done, we definitely form a bond with Alex and Marty. I was intrigued by how they would handle the fact that Alex actually eats meat, and I must say the writers didn’t shy away from it and found a clever resolution to leave everybody happy. These characters will definitely not make history because they aren’t that memorable. But when you’re with them, it’s a pleasant experience.

And there’s even an American Beauty (1999) homage that only adults will understand. And it’s hilarious!

The actors voicing the characters all do a good job. Sometimes we think that because we don’t notice them, then their work isn’t outstanding. I’ve read about people who say David Schwimmer as Melman is unmemorable, but that’s so unfair. The character is supporting, depressed and hypochondriac. I sure think Schwimmer fits the bill and the work he is required to do he does admirably; ditto for Stiller, Rock and Pinkett Smith as the other leads. I also loved Maurice the king lemur, which is voiced by Cedric the Entertainer. And the penguins are just the best of the best.

Fast, funny and short… just what the doctor prescribed!

“Just smile and wave, boys; smile and wave.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

My Neighbor Totoro

Director

Hayao Miyazaki

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Eight-year-old Satsuki (voice of Noriko Hidaya) and four-year-old Mei (voice of Chika Sakamoto) are two young sisters who arrive to their new home in rural Japan and have no other idea than to have a good time. Soon after their arrival, they notice strange, diminutive, ghost-like beings inhabiting their house, which doesn’t seem to surprise their loving father (Shigesato Itoi). Satsuki and especially Mei have a wild imagination, but this could be serious stuff, though the creatures seem playful and harmless. Strange occurrences keep happening while the serious backdrop is revealed: the girl’s mother is in a hospital nearby, enduring the treatment of some deadly illness. Though she seems all right when they call, it’s weird that she doesn’t come home, and the girls can’t help but suspect the worse, though they deal with it in peculiar ways. Mostly, they find refugee in their imaginations and the fantastic world around them. Soon, however, when Mei meets a fantastic, gigantic, troll-like creature that doesn’t seem a bit imaginary, things get pretty real.

Hayao Miyazaki brought the world one of the most appealing, heartfelt animated features ever made, a children’s classic and an irresistible experience for anybody of any age. The master’s domain is pretty clear as he seamlessly blends a child’s innocence with a world of adult problems and manages to entertain and move at the same time. My Neighbor Totoro is and has everything anyone could wish for in an animated film. Its sense of fantasy is unique and it’s really magical in making us feel like we’re children ourselves, not sure of what’s real and what’s in our imaginations. We play along with the girls and we share their feelings minute by minute like we’re there and then.

King Totoro, the furry creature that has become the mascot of Miyazaki’s Studio Ghibli, is one of the most interesting title characters I’ve seen. I wasn’t sure how to feel at first: he seemed scary, yet Mei’s reaction wasn’t that of a scared child at all, which inspired me some confidence. Later I got why there wasn’t any reason to be scared: he was perfect for her at that moment, just what she was expecting. How Totoro’s world unfolds in front of the girls’ eyes is exactly like that: it brings just what they need exactly when they need it, but it doesn’t stick in a physical way, yet it’s more than enough. The story becomes a coming-of-age experience if there ever was one, and it’s all perfectly simple in the end. There are tears, laughter, and some flying here and there, but all around that there’s real life, which even children must face sooner or later.

Miyazaki’s script is supposedly based on his own experiences as a child, but there must be much more to it. Whatever it is, I’m amazed of the outcome. This goes all the way in every aspect, from story to animation to characterizations to gorgeous music score (by Joe Hisaishi). I bet the director transmits his magic to every co-worker.

Talk about creativity: a giant “cat-bus” that takes you exactly where you need to go? Gosh, what a mesmerizing thing. The scene where Satsuki meets Totoro in a bus stop is absolutely compelling and unforgettable for two reasons: the atmosphere is tense given what Satsuki is going through, and Totoro’s world is as fantastic as ever, and both things happen at once. The contrast provokes an unexplainable feeling I rarely feel in movies. It’s a complete triumph.

If I was a child I bet I’d love this movie. Too bad I was a child when it came out (in fact exactly Satsuki’s age) and I didn’t catch it. I’m just happy I’ve been able to catch it now. I declare myself a huge Miyazaki fan; I can’t think of a way his movies could be better.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Crash

Director

Paul Haggis

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 12, 2005

When Crash played at the Sundance Film Festival as one of the many independent movies seeking distribution, no one would have thought that it would later be called the “sleeper hit of the year”. It opened at the beginning of summer and played for weeks to packed houses, due to strong word-of-mouth. All movies crave for that kind of thing to happen, but only few manage, even when they’re good. But still, it is proof that more often than not, quality reigns.

The movie tells many different intertwined stories set in L.A. Estranged Det. Graham Waters (Don Cheadle) is having an affair with his partner (Jennifer Esposito), while they investigate a crime involving two officials that could have been motivated by racism. D.A. Richard Cabot (Brendan Fraser) has got to face the press and public about this, while on the other hand dealing with having just suffered armed-robbery of his van while out with his wife Jean (Sandra Bullock). Anthony (Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges) and Peter (Larenz Tate) were responsible for that, and other robberies. When Sgt. Ryan (Matt Dillon) and Officer Hanson (Ryan Phillipe) receive the stolen van’s notification they spot a similar one, and they ask its occupants to pull over. As it happens, TV director Cameron (Terrence Howard) was just getting a blow job from his wife Christine (Thandie Newton) in the van, but they’re treated like criminals, and she is searched and indecently touched by Sgt. Ryan in front of her husband and a visibly angry Officer Hanson. We then find out about Sgt. Ryan’s own life as he struggles with his very ill father (Bruce Kirby) and can’t get their insurance to treat him as he should.

By this point, you might be wondering why the movie has that title. It’s simple: writer/director Paul Haggis crafted a story in which there are a lot of car crashes that involve many of the characters mentioned above. Haggis uses these encounters as a parable to tell a story in which he is basically saying that life is unpredictable, that you can run into countless different people in any given day and that there are different consequences regarding how you treat people, both in your life and in theirs.

Haggis relies on what may look like forced coincidences to tell his story, but if you look closer you’ll realize that what he might have done is far simpler. He could’ve just as well taken one character and followed him around and told the stories of the different branches of people that open up regarding this specific character. In a nutshell, he created his own microcosm to paint a portrait, and his script is carefully planed and executed.

What it ultimately comes to is a detailed examination of what racism means today and the effects it can have on our lives. It never feels like we’re being preached, but it does force you to think about your own self and how you would react in different situations, and how tolerable you are of people that look and think differently than you do. The movie connected that much with people because it basically gets inside of you and asks you to reconsider the person that you are or that you want to be. And that’s a powerful thing to convey, especially in such a subtle yet in-your-face way.

The movie also makes a strong statement about racism not being relegated to the usual White-Black dilemma. In the movie, we get difficult situations involving Iranians, Latinos, African-Americans, Asians and many more people that can be found in a world where globalization is taking center stage. But it’s not just about race; it’s also about the differences between the powerful and the defenseless, the poor and the rich, and the role each takes in everyday life.

There isn’t one stand to take. It’s more complicated than that and humanity does not work with a simple right-and-wrong formula. There’s a situation in the movie that cleverly embodies this specific idea: a White rich woman is walking down the street and sees two young African-American men coming close to her and her husband. She’s afraid, but if she turns around she would be labeled a racist, so she says nothing, and the next minute she’s assaulted by these men. She had a pre-conceived notion about these people and she was right. But later on she has a similar situation with a tattooed Latino fixing her house’s locks in which she mistrusts him, and as we find out later, she was completely wrong about him. How do you know? How do you act? Should you give everyone the benefit of the doubt? Or… should you always take care of yourself first and think about others second? But what to do when it could potentially hurt other people’s lives?

I was surprised by how every scene had something important to say. And there were a couple of very intense sequences that left me literally breathless, such as Sgt. Ryan’s second encounter with Christine or the aforementioned Latino (Michael Pena) getting “protection” from his daughter.

At the end there is a catharsis in everyone’s life, and something peculiar happens that reminded me of another excellent multi-character movie, Magnolia (1999). Not every character is a better person, but they all come to the realization of who they are and what really matters to them. Now the question is left for us in the open… and it’s demanding yet necessary.

Kudos to every single actor involved and to Haggis for getting these performances out of them. I personally liked Matt Dillon’s work more than anybody else’s, but others such as Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock and Terrence Howard deliver especially great performances as well.

“You embarrass me. You embarrass yourself.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Laputa: Castle in the Sky

Director

Hayao Miyazaki

Year

1986

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 08, 2005

One day, not long ago, I woke up and decided to watch every Hayao Miyazaki movie out there. I figured I hadn’t seen enough—actually too few—and I was ready for more. The first one I saw after that decision was Laputa: Castle in the Sky, and it only confirmed that if I ever had a brilliant idea, watching as many Miyazaki movies as I could was it.

The story is awe-inspiring from its very premise. It tells of a girl named Sheeta (voice of Keiko Yokozawa) who falls off a plane when pursued by pirates, and is saved by a magical necklace she has carried since she was a little girl. Pazu (voice of Mayumi Tanaka) is a boy who sees her falling and helps her out, giving her shelter and hiding her from the pirates, leaded by old Dola (voice of Kotoe Hatsui). The necklace is what they’re after, and no wonder, given its magical powers. However, there seems to be something much greater about it: apparently it leads to the legendary (and perhaps imaginary) city of Laputa, which flies in the sky and hasn’t been seen by anybody in generations, except, coincidentally, by Pazu’s father, who also got to take a photograph in the way.

Miyazaki is a fan of flight and any flying object, the bigger the better. So what could be more attractive for him than a gigantic city that actually flies, and several people who pursue the place and fly to get to it? The result is mesmerizing. Apart from everything else, this film is full of action sequences that are jaw-dropping from beginning to end, and its pace rarely slows down. If it does, it’s usually for some welcomed tidbit of comedy or heart. As usual with Miyazaki, several characters are endearing, including some that would have seemed everything but that during their first few appearances. Twists, turns and revelations abound in a story that’s so fantastic it’s unbelievable. There’s a universe in here and that universe is completely irresistible.

The animation is absolutely magnificent, parting from a wonderful design of characters and places. There’s an explosion of the senses every now and then, especially with the appearance of a giant robot (every single time) or the first sight of Laputa. Imagination was obviously taken to unexplainable limits when thinking of the actual city and the way it works. It’s a field day for one character called Muska (voice of Minori Terada), and by the time he’s having fun, we’re immersed in at least four subplots, all going on in the same place. Yet, it’s always simple and easygoing. Joe Hisaishi’s music aids the procedures with one of the best modern compositions I’ve heard.

Laputa: Castle in the Sky is a masterpiece of animation, action, and fantasy. Completely recommendable for anybody of any age. Few films manage to move the viewer’s heart and make their senses explode: this one does, the first, tenth, and hundredth view. Don’t miss it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Door in the Floor

Director

Tod Williams

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Writer John Irving has had his share of novels turned into movies throughout the years. Incidentally, I’ve liked all of those which I’ve seen, such as The Cider House Rules (1999), The World According to Garp (1982) and Simon Birch. He writes adult stories with characters that are somewhat offbeat and immersed in a world that doesn’t really understand them. And that’s what I like most about his stories. Fortunately the man’s got lucky again: here’s another good transition of one of his novels.

Ted Cole (Jeff Bridges) is a renowned writer of children’s stories. He and his wife Marion (Kim Basinger) have been struggling to deal with the death of their two oldest sons in an accident, and have decided that a temporary break during the summer would be the best for them and their little daughter Ruth (Elle Fanning). Meanwhile Eddie (Jon Foster), an aspiring writer, comes to live with them as an assistant to Ted, but ultimately finds himself in the midst of a chaotic situation where he has an influential role as well.

The Door in the Floor is certainly not an inspirational story. All of the characters seem to be rather dead inside, from Ted to Marion to Ruth. And even Eddie, an outsider who screams for a coming-of-age experience, maintains his distance and simply stays in the cold background. Everyone’s sort of depressed, the mood is somber, and it doesn’t look like much is going to happen to change that. So why would anyone want to see this movie? I can actually count many reasons, but the main one is the sheer delight of watching these, yes, fascinating people, trying to interact, trying to hold on, trying even to breathe.

The movie does contain some very interesting relationships that are worthy of our time. To see the one between Ted and Eddie as it evolves is a beauty in itself. First Ted doesn’t really care, then he starts becoming somewhat dependent, then he starts hating him, but at the same time he’s lived enough to know that perhaps he would’ve done the same things at that age. He can’t really be that mad at him, but what happens ultimately does hurt. Ted and Marion also have a relationship that is certainly filled with care and trust, and maybe even love, but they’ve been through so much that perhaps to know themselves that well is not necessarily the best medicine. And Ted’s relationship with his daughter is certainly weird, for he’s not what you’d call a “normal” person and she’s too affected for her own good.

Ultimately Eddie comes as a catalyst. He may be our eyes inside this family, but he’s just a pawn shifting and provoking and changing…

That said, there are a couple of subplots which I felt were not fully developed. Perhaps some footage was left in the cutting room; I guess we’ll never know. Mimi Rogers appears as Mrs. Vaughn, a model for Ted who becomes a bit obsessed with him and his paintings. And Bijou Phillips appears as Ruth’s nanny, a truly underdeveloped character that gives us the impression as if there was much more to her, but we don’t get to see it.

Oh but the ones we get to see do a marvelous job. Jeff Bridges turns to wacky mode without ever going over-the-top and delivers a complex, fulfilling performance that is a joy to watch. The same goes for Basinger, who is not only radiant, but also plays with emotions in a subtle, mature and affecting way. Kudos to Dakota’s little sister Elle too. It looks like the talent runs in the family.

I’ve got to say, the movie does not flow that comfortably. The editing seems to be a little off, but I don’t know if the director or the editor is to blame… or both. That said, Tod Williams did a pretty good job in adapting this story for the big screen.

Fabulous ending, by the way...

“Everything in fiction is a tool: pain, betrayal, even death. These are, you know, these are like, uh, different colors on a painter's palette. You need to use them.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Goodbye, Mr. Chips

Director

Sam Wood

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

I only knew Robert Donat from Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps (1935) before and I always felt curiosity about his most memorable role – that of a school teacher who becomes an eminence in the institution and an unforgettable figure for the students spanning several generations. That handsome young actor playing such a larger-than-life role? I had to see that. Now I’ll have trouble seeing Donat as anything but the most respectable old chap ever seen in cinema. That’s how strong his performance is.

The film begins with Charles Chipping’s recollections at an old age, when his comments become, for the sake of the film, a foreshadowing of what is to come. Then we go way back to the time when he wasn’t headmaster or even a good teacher yet. In fact, he had much difficulty dealing with young children at Brookfield School in Britain during the 19th century. At first he wasn’t even sure he had chosen the right profession, and certainly wasn’t expecting to be any good at it, but perseverance and love brought him the experience and the respectability that would later make him famous. The story follows Chipping through the decades as he gets to know generation after generation of young boys who come to know him as Mister Chips – a nickname given to him by the love of his life, the lovely Katherine (Greer Garson).

One of the most important subplots of the film belongs to Katherine, the first movie role of Greer Garson that earned her immediate stardom. Chipping meets her during a trip with his friend Max Staefel (Paul Henreid), and despite his dreadful shyness around her, manages to befriend her and even romance her in his somewhat (actually very) subtle way. It takes the intervention of Max and a friend of Kathy’s (Judith Furse) to set them up, but finally they get engaged and eventually married. She becomes his essential companion, in some people’s opinion surprisingly beautiful and extroverted for good ol’ Chips, but also perfect for him and one amazing complement to the life of a very integral man.

Another important aspect of the film’s storytelling is the historical backdrop. From crisis to war we see everything from the point of view of Brookfield School, and it’s mighty interesting. The best example is the time when Chipping makes a special comment about his friend Staefel during a speech concerning the world war, even though Staefel now belongs to the enemy. The children’s confusion is clear but our perspective changes since we knew the friendship beforehand. That’s very well handled and incredibly moving.

Not everything is as well handled though. Sometimes important things are simply assumed and other not as important things are given too much time. This makes the film overlong. Also it’s quite melodramatic, sometimes in exaggerated levels. This is balanced by beautiful dramatic set pieces but not as much as needed.

The passing of the generations is as seamless as Chips’ aging. Great work in every possible way to achieve that. Young Terry Kilburn plays four generations of the same family (from great grandfather to great grandson, one child after the other), which could have been risky but instead is refreshing. Donat is as effective as his makeup in making us believe he’s becoming wiser with every passing year. Such an outstanding performance – well worth considering one of the best ever.

Based on the James Hilton novel, this film became a tradition, and is still, as always, a very moving British classic.

“You were right, my dear. I am Headmaster after all.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kung Fu Hustle

Director

Stephen Chow

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 05, 2005

Stephen Chow was an unknown to me before his latest movie as producer, director, actor and writer started to make a fuzz in America. I heard he’s huge in China, second only to Jackie Chan. And I heard he’s actually pretty good at what he does. So why not check his latest venture, a movie that broke box office records in China and Hong Kong, its countries of origin? Not knowing what to expect, and not even knowing what Chow looked like, I went into the movie and surrendered to it.

It’s 1940’s Shanghai, and a wannabe gangster, Sing (Stephen Chow), aspires to join the “Axe Gang” along with his fat friend (Chi Chung Lam). The gang is fearlessly ruled by Brother Sum (Kwok Kuen Chan) who, along with his advisor (Kai Man Tin), gets terribly mad when Sing terrorizes a neighborhood in their name and is subsequently ridiculed by its inhabitants. But the neighborhood’s Landlord (Wah Yuen) and Landlady (Qiu Yuen) won’t allow them to do any more damage in their soil.

Whatever I was thinking this movie would be, I was definitely not prepared for what it actually was. Such a punch to the senses! Kung Fu Hustle is not a genre movie per se. It is hard to categorize, actually. But I would definitely call it a satire, and a very funny one at that. Chow knows the territory, and he pulls no punches (pun intended) in cleverly poking fun at a genre that is so saturated and sometimes repetitive. He goes as over-the-top as he can, and keeps coming with hilarious gags and lines even if the movie sometimes contains more serious moments that make it drag a little.

In a way, watching this movie is like watching a cartoon. Anything can happen. And Chow uses special effects to create some of his most awe-inspiring moments. Take, for example, the wonderful sequence involving a pair of very skilled musician assassins. That required a lot of imagination and expertise to pull off, but it comes as a breath of fresh air. There’s also some bits involving the “Palm of Buddha” that are quite funny. And almost anything having to do with the wonderful Landlady is hilarious. Great job by actress Yuen there.

Chow knows his movie boasts an international theme, and he’s not afraid of spoofing movies such as Spider-Man (2002), The Matrix (1999) or the Star Wars saga. And he does a good job at that as well.

There’s also a nice, kind of nostalgic subplot involving Sing and his childhood. Touching and nicely shot.

Overall, it is a movie that barely gives you a moment to breathe, yet that’s what’s amazing about it. It also has some exciting fighting sequences, although I do think that overused special effects get in the way sometimes. But Chow deserves credit for what he accomplishes here. Not only is he an exceptional actor, but he also shows that he’s got great talent behind the camera. This is no simple movie, and the director’s touch can be felt all the way throughout. Perhaps a little more consistency was necessary, but the movie is a lot of fun all the way and that was the intention, so cheers to it!

“Yes. I was saving to become a doctor or lawyer... but this was world peace.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Wild Bunch

Director

Sam Peckinpah

Year

1969

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 01, 2005

The Wild Bunch tells the unforgettable story of a group of aging outlaws and their final antics. The gang leader, Pike (William Holden), is not only tired after a long trajectory, but he’s also fed up with the ways of the modern world and its lack of values. For even outlaws have values, and these ones have an important code of honor which they must respect, one that establishes that each looks for every other and the team is more important than the individual. At least a few of them follow the code, including Dutch (Ernest Borgnine) and Freddie (Edmond O’Brien). The rest, the new breed, not exactly as robust as the old one but full of energy, is composed of people who reflect their ages, origins, and true motivations, people who have learned to care only about themselves.

Pike and the bunch plan a hit to a railway station and that’s the first major scene, after a killer introduction that’s as tense as it’s classy. A shootout begins and violence ensues, and that’s when the movie makes its mark: it’s violent to the extreme, but it’s also pretty in its depiction of violence. The viewer ends up with mixed feelings about what’s been seen: it’s hard to dislike it, but it’s also hard to like it. How can that happen?

Everything goes to the extreme from here on but the anti-subtlety of Peckinpah’s somehow works to perfection. There’s no need for hidden meanings when you can just show and tell things the way they are without beating around the bushes. This is not always the case, but if handled correctly, it works, and that happens to this movie. The story takes the bunch to a series of misadventures as a posse, leaded by a former member of the bunch, Deke (Robert Ryan), follows them all around. The boys land in a Mexican town occupied by rebels leaded by a General Mapache (Emilio Fernández), who has also taken the girlfriend of a member of the bunch, Angel (Jaime Sánchez). Our heroes start an unholy alliance with the rebels, but Angel’s resentment, as well as the inner good in the bunch, won’t make their relationship easy.

So what else does The Wild Bunch have to offer aside from its so-called “beautiful bloodshed”? For starters, it’s got one of the finest editing jobs in any film in history; Lou Lombardo’s approach to the action scenes was revolutionary in its use of slow-motion combined with several quick shots. Lucien Ballard’s cinematography is a perfect accompaniment for that, so if anything, the film looks gorgeous. Jerry Fielding takes care of making it sound gorgeous too, for his music is at once exciting, moving, and explosive.

The story (by Walon Green and Roy N. Sickner, scripted by Green and Peckinpah), once incomplete thanks to a chop-down editing after the film’s initial release, is mesmerizing from every point of view. This is all about the degrading generations in an old-fashioned world which is being modernized at every step, and making it a western makes perfect sense. I love westerns, they’re perfect settings for basic human tales. Now that the formerly removed scenes have been reintegrated, the story has become one of haunting memories, sins, regrets, and hopes. A couple of flashbacks involving Pike and Deke add immeasurable meaning to several other scenes, including the classic final one. I was deeply affected by Deke’s story: he regrets having to chase his former colleagues, and does so only under threats; furthermore, he hopes he could be a part of the bunch, and laments the gang he’s with now, a bunch of drifters who don’t appreciate the value of a man of integrity (Strother Martin is a standout as one of them).

Every actor, from Holden to Fernández to all others (Warren Oates, Ben Johnson, L.Q. Jones, Albert Dekker, Bo Hopkins, Alfonso Arau, etc.) is perfection. The dialogue, also a magnificent asset, is quite resonant in the voices of these performers, and every scene is a pleasure on this account as well.

This is one of the remarkable American western epics, one as praised as it was condemned at the time of its release, and as full of controversy as it’s been of followers. It’s not hard to appreciate what makes this a great film, and it’s undeniable that the experience of watching it is unique. There’s laughs, tears, and pain. It has it all.

“It ain't like it used to be, but it'll do.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter