CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Upside of Anger

Director

Mike Binder

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Joan Allen is one of the best contemporary actresses, who has made quality films steadily for over a decade and has been made justice by critics and audience alike, as well as the pertinent award associations. One fan of Joan Allen is filmmaker Mike Binder, who wrote The Upside of Anger with her in mind. If nothing else, this film is a tribute to Joan’s talent. At least in that regard, it pays off completely.

Joan plays Terry Wolfmeyer, who’s introduced as a formerly happy woman who suddenly became bitter and particularly angry. Her four daughters still remember the time when she couldn’t get mad, and miss it sorely since now she’s constantly upset. The reason for this bitterness is her husband’s abandonment; he took his wallet and left, she tells the girls. Coping with that is not easy for Terry, so she helps herself to some booze. When her neighbor, former baseball celebrity Denny Davies (Kevin Costner), finds out about her situation, he makes her his drinking buddy. Obviously he has other intentions. Maybe they’ll drink themselves into some romance.

It’s never quite clear where the film is going, but it’s not unpleasant. It’s clear that Binder is an unusual writer who doesn’t follow conventional rules, and frankly his take is refreshing. The film takes unexpected paths as it follows Terry, Denny, and the four girls, and while it doesn’t trivialize either subplot, it doesn’t take any to the limit either. It’s like a slice-of-life that while not unnecessary, isn’t quite relevant either.

Allen and Costner have a ball together. It looks that way and I’m sure that’s the case. Their characters are fun and they have good chemistry. Binder’s best achievement is the creation of a pleasant environment, which the two starts make the most of. It’s lovely how Terry and Denny seem so real: they’re flawed to say the least, but they have every contrast of a human being. For instance, while Terry’s daughters often see her as a monster, she can get childish and sensual with Denny in no time. Sometimes he exasperates her and she patronizes him, only to get a more mature reaction from him than you’d expect, which gives him a very interesting substance. It’s often fascinating to see these two characters interact. Needless to say, both performances are outstanding.

Let’s not take the spotlight off Joan though. Her character is fascinating and this is her vehicle. She makes the most of it and I was constantly surprised. She’s so good, she often takes the character beyond the script, giving it way more truth than was intended.

As I said before, the daughters have their own subplots, which are pleasant enough and have good punch lines. There’s some very good histrionic work by Erika Christensen, Keri Russell, Alicia Witt and Evan Rachel Wood. Writer/director Binder also has an important role in the film, one that I disliked from start to finish, as was clearly planned. I didn’t know it was Binder in the role till the credits rolled, and I was surprised by his choice to play such a nasty guy, who’s also funny in his own right.

There’s a plot twist at the end of this one, which only emphasizes the overall irony. Life is constantly ironic and sometimes makes us look like clowns after we were so sure of a point of view. I liked that take.

“Yeah, what the hell. I’m going after the Mother-of-the-year award.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

There's Something About Mary

Director

Bobby Farrelly

Peter Farrelly

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

There’s Something About Mary opened up the gate to a new kind of comedy which had been forgotten for a while and then took it a step further. It was, not surprisingly, a huge hit. When I first saw it I have to admit I didn’t find it that amusing. I thought the humor was puerile and way too offensive. I caught it again years later and my perspective changed, I found it hilarious and understood that such low standards were exactly what the directors were aiming for.

The story begins in the 70's. Ted (Ben Stiller) is a jerk who is asked by Mary (Cameron Diaz), the most gorgeous girl in town, to go with her to the prom. Unfortunately a tragic event ends up with their plans and their short rendezvous goes nowhere. A couple of decades later Ted is still in love with Mary but doesn’t know where she lives, so he hires a private detective, Pat Healy (Matt Dillon), to track her down in Miami. As Pat finds her, and falls in love with her as well, chaos ensues.

Brothers Peter and Bobby Farrelly directed from a script they wrote along with Ed Decter and John J. Strauss. After Mary was released they became well-known for their trademark humor, although they haven’t been able to repeat the success they had with it. That said, everyone remembers this movie and that’s as high a compliment as it can be paid.

The comedy is brought to another level: the movie is filled with jokes that make fun of animals, old people, retarded people, you name it. And they’re not of the cute type; it is as politically incorrect as it can get. It also takes plenty of shots at scatological humor and there’s some slapstick thrown in there for good measure. Some of the stuff works and some of it doesn’t, but the interesting part is that it mostly depends on which character is delivering it. The flick suffers from a multiple personality problem; there are characters that are very funny (Diaz, Stiller, Lyn Shaye), others that are hit-and miss (Dillon) and others that simply don’t work (Chris Elliot, Lee Evans). It’s not the actors’ problem (for the most part), but the way their characters are written.

The main joke is that every man that meets Mary falls in love with her. Through a lot of funny misunderstandings, Mary must decide what to do and who to choose even though she doesn't know everything that is going on behind. All said and done it could be labeled as a romantic comedy, albeit a pretty sick one. And it is very entertaining all the way despite some stretches where nothing funny happens. The resolution, when truths are revealed, decisions are taken and all the characters converge, is spot-on.

And yes, the classic hair-gel scene is as memorable and laugh-out-loud funny as it was made to be.

This wasn’t Cameron Diaz’s break-out role, although it was the first time she anchored a hit movie and did so with impressive charisma and grace. I’ve always thought of her as very talented, and her Mary is simply unforgettable. Ben Stiller makes a nice couple with her and plays what is arguably the only other normal human being populating this story; a nice and relatable turn. Matt Dillon, Chris Elliot, Lee Evans and Brett Favre, the other fellows going after Mary, play it broader and do so with mixed results. And Lyn Shaye is a hoot as Magda (those aren’t her real breasts by the way).

“Is that… is that hair gel?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Boogeyman

Director

Stephen Kay

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Scary movies… how bad can they get? At their worst, they just pull off a couple of cheap scares and that’s it, and even though you walk out thinking how poor the story was or how dumb the horror, you were freaked out by a few scenes, even if they relied on editing or sound. Then you get something like Boogeyman and realize how bad things can really get. So bad they’re funny. At least there’s that.

The story is rather hilarious, which doesn’t necessarily mean it had to go wrong. A kid is terrified by the Boogeyman, thanks to his dad, who told him that story. He thinks that monster is either under his bed or in the closet. The opening scene shows the kid scared to death by every shadow or silhouette he sees in his room, only to turn on the light and realize it was his clothes or his toys or anything else. Then someone approaches, scaring him even worse, but it turns out to be his dad, who tries to calm him down. To show him there’s no threat, he does what every dad would do: look under the bed and in the closet. But when he does the former, something awful happens: the Boogeyman comes out and drags the father in the closet, taking him away from good. Talk about trauma.

The kid grows up a scared mess, but he doesn’t go that nuts. He’s been convinced by shrinks that his dad left home and he made up the Boogeyman story to cope with it. As a young man, Tim (Barry Watson) leads a normal life, is successful enough, and has a gorgeous girlfriend, Jessica (Tory Mussett). However, he has a paralyzing fear: that of closets. Every time he has to open a closet door, he gets as scared as an electrified hamster. The first scene showing this fear is affecting enough… that is, until Jessica comes in and opens the closet door and ridicules him, asking if he’s gonna go weird on her again. So he does this every time, we think. Yep. That’s what the movie is about: fear of closet doors. No actual threat, no horror inside the closet. Just the fear. No kicks, no pay-offs, no nothing; just a guy shaking and sweating every time he has to open a door, eventually not limited to that of a closet.

Sure, it eventually gets somewhere, and when it does it’s interesting, but much too late, and never quite intelligently. After an hour of dull procedures where nothing happens and eventual scares don’t work, they try to mess with time-bending/space-twisting alternate dimensions that prove that this guy doesn’t suffer from schizophrenia, sort of. And even though it’s a relief since everything that preceded it was a complete bore, it doesn’t go anywhere either, it’s not as interesting as it could be, and it’s not clear in the least. You never quite get the picture of what really happened, or what can explain the goings-on. It’s all ludicrous.

The performances are stiff and lifeless, including that of Emily Deschanel as Tim’s childhood friend who helps him in his renewed quest. Only Skye McCole Bartusiak, as a child haunted by the Boogeyman, leaves an impression.

Awful! But not in the scary way.

“What happens when you get to six?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Little Princess

Director

Alfonso Cuarón

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 24, 2007

Director Alfonso Cuarón opted to shoot a children’s tale for his English-language debut after a successful run in his native Mexico with Sólo con tu pareja (1991), a charming yet very adult tale about infidelity and AIDS. His choice might’ve seemed odd, but the result proved that he could tackle different genres with ease and it put his name on the map. The rest is history.

Sara (Liesel Matthews) moves to New York in order to stay in an elegant boarding school while her father, Capt. Crewe (Liam Cunningham), fights in the war. The evil headmistress, Miss Minchin (Eleanor Bron), behaves well enough until Sara’s father goes missing and she doesn’t have anywhere to go, so she remains there to work and eventually befriends little Becky (Vanessa Lee Chester).

This is not the first time Frances Hodgson Burnett’s classic novel has been made into a movie. None other than Shirley Temple also gave it a successful try in the 30’s, although Alfonso Cuarón’s take received as equal acclaim and is widely considered a little gem of a movie. Richard LaGravenese and Elizabeth Chandler adapted the story and maintained its spirit intact, bringing a classic touch to a modern setting.

A Little Princess has got many things to tell, but for me the strongest one has to do with the power that imagination can have on us. Sara is a girl that’s full of it and that’s how she survives even the harshest of times. Imagination can bring hope to our lives, can let us dream and be optimistic. And the wonderful part is that it’s also something that can’t be taken away.

Cuarón doesn’t underestimate his audience and delivers an intelligent tale that is slowly paced, stylishly elegant, always interesting and consistently poignant. Special credit should also be bestowed upon cinematographer Emmanuel Lubeski for the wondrous, and greenish, look he gave the movie; every frame is like looking at a beautiful picture. Bo Welch’s production design, Tom Duffield’s art direction and Judianna Makovsky’s costume design also have a lot to do with this.

Young Liesel Matthews is charming in the title role; the movie rests on her shoulders and she is more than able to carry it. It is because of her modulated performance that we believe a girl that age could have such wisdom, cleverness and wit. Eleanor Bron is also a standout as the villain of the story, never going too over-the-top with a character that would’ve made it easy. The rest of the supporting cast, including all the girls, is top-notch.

“Every girl is a princess!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Edge

Director

Lee Tamahori

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Years after admirably articulating some of David Mamet’s great lines of dialogue in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992), Alec Baldwin was cast in yet another Mamet-scripted foray, this time directly for the screen, and not half as witty by the way, called The Edge. Mamet’s name drew me to it, and I always knew it wouldn’t be half as brilliant as his “fucking salesman” masterpiece, but decided to go for it because, being Mamet, it had to have some brilliance. It does. The Edge seems to be Mamet’s field day, a carefree piece of genius, a bit of what he can do, yet intended for accessible entertainment. Fun!

The story puts two men as instant antagonists: billionaire Charles Morse (Anthony Hopkins) and photographer Bob Green (Alec Baldwin). The former is married to supermodel Mickey (appropriately cast supermodel Elle Macpherson) and suspects that Green has something for her, as she for him, perhaps. During a trip to rural Alaska, where Green and his team do a shoot that includes Mickey, the two men and three others get in a small plane and have a tiny incident that leaves three of them, Charles, Bob and Stephen (Harold Perrineau, notable recently for his role in “LOST”), amidst unfriendly, frozen land populated by man-eating bears. Not an easy situation. Worst of all, Charles popped a question to Bob seconds before the crash: how does he plan to kill him. Their priority then becomes survival, but mistrust is in the air, and is bound to surface eventually, even if the men depend on each other to get through their challenge.

Even though the film never achieves brilliance in either suspense or action, it has its outstanding moments of both, and maintains an air of excitement that’s undeniable. I was thrilled from the very beginning at the cabin, and couldn’t take my eyes away while the men were in the wild, not because it was unpredictable, but because it was fun. The dialogue wasn’t exactly trademark Mamet, except for some moments, best taken advantage of by Hopkins, who’s absolutely brilliant. I just loved Hopkins’ performance, he’s cool, he’s smooth, he’s rich and knows it, and he holds the key to every truth in the adventure. You really believe every step; I especially loved his sarcasm. Bob is intended to be the exact opposite: raw, dumb, tempestuous, impulsive, and Baldwin pulls it off perfectly, though you can’t help but wonder how things would’ve turned out if his character was as smart as Hopkins’. Nevertheless, their interaction keeps the movie going like no killer bear can.

Yet, the bear is a very important aspect of the film. Years before I watched it or even knew much about it or David Mamet, I knew this film as “that bear film”, and felt like seeing it some day. Certainly, the bear becomes the symbol of union between two enemies, the one peril they must absolutely fight together if they intend to survive. Their nemesis, the one bear that becomes the greatest threat, is played by Bart the Bear, whose owner and trainer Doug Seus deserves applause. This animal superstar died shortly after The Edge, and I can’t help but laud its career since you don’t usually get to do so when talking about a bear in a movie.

Great vistas accompany our anti-heroes along the way, beautifully photographed by Donald McAlpine. In charge of the music is none other than Jerry Goldsmith who, the same as Mamet, does more routine work than one of his inspired pieces, but quite serviceable. Neil Travis’ editing is more noteworthy, particularly in the bear scenes. Julie Weiss provided the costumes, and I wouldn’t mention her if it wasn’t for those furry outfits the two men wear later in the movie. That image should be a classic cinema snapshot, and perhaps will some day.

“Why is the rabbit unafraid?”
“‘Cause he’s smarter than the panther.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bourne Ultimatum

Director

Paul Greengrass

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

My history with the Bourne saga is that I like the first one, The Bourne Identity (2002), and love the second one, The Bourne Supremacy (2004). A third installment was almost a necessity, and going against the tide regarding 2007’s summer of “threequels”, this one is actually good. With almost all of the same team back for more international intrigue, the Bourne saga represents, in my humble opinion, one of the most solid franchises in history.

Six weeks after Jason (Matt Damon) ended up in Moscow opening his heart to the daughter of two of his victims, he finds himself interested in a reporter, Simon Ross (Paddy Considine), who seems to know more about him than he does, even though he’s starting to recover some of his memory; so he sets out after him, something that makes him reappear in the eyes of the CIA, where Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) is desperately trying to get rid of him while agent Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) disagrees and wants to help him.

Director Paul Greengrass is back at the helm, working from a script by Tony Gilroy, Scott Z Burns and George Nolfi, very loosely based on Robert Ludlum’s novels. The Bourne Ultimatum follows the same formula that made the previous installments such a great treat: locations all around the world, political intrigue with plot twists galore, raw action sequences and a tragic antihero at its center who is looking for closure. The movie starts fast and ends fast, there’s barely any room to breathe; it is intelligent entertainment at its best.

It’s also impressive how simple it is without appearing to be so. We finally get some answers in this chapter, but there barely are any moments of exposition; dialogue scenes are quick, information is delivered without much hoopla, and hints of past situations are dropped without any fanfare. I really respect the approach, because there continues to be material for more installments (I cross my fingers) but it’s satisfying enough as it is. It’s also interesting to see how the characters have believably evolved. Jason is an even more afflicted man still looking for answers, and Pamela Landy and Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) are now on his side while important political figures treat their lives as if they were flesh-and-blood chess figures. It says a lot about the shady procedures that we don’t know about but which inevitably take place behind the masks of people with power; a scary scenario that nevertheless is completely true.

The action sequences are visceral and very much real, with the highlight being a chase sequence through the roofs of Tangier in which there’s a lot going on and at stake for Bourne. There’s also a fascinating sequence in London’s Waterloo station as he guides reporter Ross out of being exposed. And the whole climax in New York is short on action, but large in suspense; very well-handled.

Greengrass and his writers also do something very cool around the middle portion that ties it with its predecessor in a truly unexpected way and which is sheer brilliance.

Many people might be bothered by the shaky camera and frenetic cutting, but I think Oliver Wood’s cinematography and Christopher Rouse’s editing are spot-on for the kind of story being told. It almost never bothered me. John Powell returns to provide the score and it is, once again, excellent.

Matt Damon is very comfortable in the role of Bourne and he continues to do an admirable job in conveying a lot with very little. He is deadly and dangerous, but he doesn’t enjoy killing and wants nothing more than peace. Joan Allen is such a pleasure to watch that the saga wouldn’t be the same without her, she’s regal. David Strathairn joins the cast and proves a formidable enemy, the same of which can be said of Albert Finney’s brief yet pivotal appearance. Julia Stiles has a bit of a forced entrance, but once she’s in she’s a more-than-welcomed presence. Edgar Ramirez, Scott Glenn, Paddy Considine and all the supporting cast are top-notch.

“Look at us. Look at what they make you give.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Music and Lyrics

Director

Marc Lawrence

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

I had heard that this film was funny, and I sure enjoy a treat of a romantic comedy starring either of the stars of this one, so when I got the chance, I didn’t think it twice. A friend had shown me a very funny music video from this movie, one that starred Hugh Grant as a young 80s star, singing in a pop group (called PoP, no more no less) along with another guy, wearing those tight pants and moving their hips exaggeratedly, much like any pop group from back then. My friend told me the premise and I was hooked: this is the story of one those guys, who became a nobody after his partner took his own path and became a superstar – an obvious parody of Wham, from which George Michael became George Michael and the other guy became… what’s his name?

That video opens the film and it’s hilarious for the simple fact of watching Grant doing those moves and singing that song, which by the way is pretty great and totally sticky. Then the story goes on and of course Grant is Grant once again, but it’s just impossible to get tired of this guy. He’s amiable, sarcastic, pathetic and funny. I admire Grant’s efforts in different genres or subgenres, or smarter movies sometimes, but his goofy, down-on-his-luck character from Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) and especially (in my opinion) Notting Hill (1999) is still his best, and it’s exploited here. He doesn’t shine as much in that way, because there’s much to do and say, and because the script isn’t a Richard Curtis, but it’s still delectable to say the least.

His counterpart is once again an American, which is not a coincidence because that also has worked quite well for Grant: the lovely Drew Barrymore playing hypochondriac and rather obnoxious Sophie Fisher, who meets Alex Fletcher (Grant) when she turns up to water his plants, and turns out a magnificent and completely wasted lyricist who can help Fletcher revive his career. The chance is provided by superstar Cora Corman (stunning but wooden newcomer Haley Bennett), a sort of hybrid of Britney, Christina and Shakira who’s introduced to us through the awful exposition of one character explaining another that she’s more famous than Britney and Christina put together, but anyway, who wants an 80s has-been to write a song for her and sing it with her, and invites Fletcher into the competition.

Is that convenient for the plot, or what? I spent the first half wondering when the film would surprise me, since everything was working by the book: luckless has-been needs a break, gets it, needs a lyricist, gets it, needs inspiration, gets it, and so on. And then, there it was: when everything seemed perfect, nothing seemed to be anymore, and not because what seemed to matter most didn’t work, but because what didn’t seem to matter happens to matter more… and doesn’t work as easily. It’s got a few good twists, and it’s handled well, and even though it’s safe it’s romantic, and it works.

The performances are enjoyable, particularly by the two leads, Brad Garrett as Fletcher’s long-suffering agent, and Kristen Johnston as Sophie’s sister who’s a fan of Alex Fisher’s. But if there’s a star here, it’s the music. It’s awesome when a song soundtrack is required by the plot and it’s convincing and pleasant. There are two attention-grabbers: “Pop! Goes My Heart” (by Andrew W. Blakemore and Alanna Vicente) and “Way Back Into Love” (Adam Schlesinger), but a third and very small one, intended to sound simplistic, “Don’t Write Me Off” (Schlesinger), moved me to tears. Writer/director Marc Lawrence contributed a couple of compositions of his own.

In one of the loveliest scenes of the movie, Sophie explains how music is passion, like meeting someone and being attracted, wanting him or her for the immediate impression, and lyrics is substance, like getting to know the individual and realizing there’s much more than meets the eye, and loving the whole, falling in love. That’s how it went with the person I watched this movie with. And, corny though it may sound, Pop! Goes My Heart…

“The few syllables you got out were absolutely devastating.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Stardust

Director

Matthew Vaughn

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 17, 2007

As it usually happens to me, I had not heard about Neil Gaiman’s “Stardust” novel before it was announced that a movie adaptation would be made out of it. The cast that was gathered was eye-opening and the promotional material looked great. But the movie opened to so-so reviews and poor box office. I was quite shocked about this, I expected a lot more. And then I saw it with my own eyes and I understood. As the common saying goes, “It’s the movie, stupid”. And in this case it just didn’t deliver.

Tristan (Charlie Cox) lives in the town of Wall and is in love (or so he thinks) with beautiful yet spoiled Victoria (Sienna Miller). To prove it he sets out on a quest to get a star that fell from the sky and bring it to her, eventually finding out that it has a human form and is known as Yvaine (Claire Danes). But other people are after it/her as well. Witch Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) and her sisters Empusa (Sarah Alexander) and Mormo (Joanna Scanlan) need to eat her heart to become young again; while brothers Septimus (Mark Strong) and Primus (Jason Flemyng) need a necklace she’s wearing to inherit the throne of Stormhold after the King’s (Peter O’Toole) death. Tristan and Yvaine eventually find help in the form of Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro), who commands a lightning-collecting airship.

Matthew Vaughn directed from a script by Jane Goldman and himself, based on Gaiman’s novel. The pic certainly tries to achieve an epic feel but is neither as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy nor as bad as Eragon (2006). It’s just mediocre. Part of the problem is that it doesn’t really know what it wants to be. Is it for kids? Is it for young girls? Is it for adults? It certainly has elements for all these demographics, but it doesn’t successfully blend them. The humor is way too puerile and most of it falls flat-out on its face; there’s barely anything more painful than watching a comedy that tries hard but fails miserably.

Fantasy elements keep the viewer hooked because of the unpredictability of the story. Gaiman’s world is inventive and interesting enough, so it’s fun to see what gimmick will appear next or what type of magic some characters can do. Not surprisingly, Lamia’s story thread is by far the most fun. There’s also some romance thrown in there for good measure and it does its job.

Sexual innuendo is surprisingly present throughout the whole thing, sometimes more obvious than others. The character of Captain Shakespeare, with his cross-dressing ways, feels like he belongs in another movie altogether (it doesn’t come from the book) although his story delivers a pretty bold message that will reach younger audiences which are not used to such flat-out preaching regarding this subject matter. Other such instances include Yvaine’s glowing moments and a pretty straightforward telling of Tristan’s unusual origins. I’m not overly complaining, but I was certainly amazed.

Production values are hit and miss. There are times when the movie looks cheap regarding costumes, sets and special effects, and others where it hides these short-comings. But there’s no denying the budget wasn’t as big as it should to make of it a more authentic foray.

The cast is uneven, but I blame the director because he couldn’t get better comic timing from his stars. That said, Charlie Cox is suitable as the leading man, while Claire Danes is gorgeous and charismatic all the way. Michelle Pfeiffer has a lot of fun as a villain, as does Peter O’Toole in his all-too-brief appearance. Robert De Niro also seems to be having a ball, and he does provide some hilarious moments. Sienna Miller is spot-on in her brief role, and Rupert Everett has a thankless role as another of the King’s sons. Mark Williams also appears in some slapsticky moments that are not as amusing as they should and Kate Magowan leaves an impression as Tristan’s mother. Ian McKellen delivers the beautiful voice-over narration.

“What do stars do?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Terminator

Director

James Cameron

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 13, 2007

The Terminator has always been and will always be a thrilling film to watch. After all these years, you might think of it and say “Hey, I’ll just sit back, get some popcorn, and watch it”. You’ll think you know all about it and it simply can’t pull off the thrills on you again, not like the first time, not at all. Then you push the play button, you watch the film, and before you know it it’s over and you never touched your popcorn.

That’s because this film is an exemplary thriller. I wouldn’t call it a perfect film, but that’s absolutely NOT on account of the way it works in that department. You’ll still be shocked by the suddenness of its happenings, by the bleakness of its future, by the amazing change of Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), by the heroism of Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) and by the unbelievable determination of the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger).

In a possible future, machines take over and set to terminate human beings, creating a holocaust like has never been seen. This human-looking cyborg has come from the future with the sole mission of destroying (or rather, terminating) the mother of the one man who will threaten to destroy the machines, John Connor, before he’s even born.

Sarah is a simple young woman who can’t handle a situation like this. But neither Kyle, who has been sent by John to protect his mother, nor the Terminator, is kidding. Sarah is caught between a hero and a villain and she’s not sure what hit her. The glorious moment comes when she realizes she’s really on her own, and will be, until her son is a rebellious leader.

I guess The Terminator could have been easily forgotten if it wasn’t for some key elements: Schwarzenegger for one, brilliant as the unstoppable machine; Brad Fiedel’s music, sometimes unbearably 80s style, but sometimes haunting and quite moody; and of course Cameron’s don’t-stop-for-a-darn-second approach in his direction, which is why he’ll be remembered. These elements bring attention to the film, and it’s easy to watch it and be immersed by its irresistible reality. It’s humanity we’re talking about after all, and we don’t really get to see the future, except in a couple of quick scenes. It’s a reality that we don’t see, which we fear the most. It works like magic, and has proved quite successful.

This film is also responsible for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s superstardom. He became the most famous stiff actor Hollywood will ever have. His casting is so perfect that one wonders why he hadn’t been cast as a robot before. Frankly, I’ve always liked this guy (as an actor, though he’s usually not a good one), but I like him much better as a killer robot than as any other character. Because this killer robot, as scripted by James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd, has an edge: sense of humor.

Hamilton and Biehn are a good contrast to Arnold’s “robotic” performance. Though their most important love scene is awful, most of the time they’re credible human beings and she’s especially poignant and believable throughout. I love that subplot about the photo, and how it develops into something larger-than-life. I spent years believing that this movie’s reality was indeed real. Now I know it’s not. Or is it?

“I’ll be back.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Great Expectations

Director

Alfonso Cuarón

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

This modern re-telling of Great Expectations wasn’t that thought-of when it opened, but it seems like people have come to embrace it over the years. I first considered it a guilty pleasure, thought I was only one of few who loved it. But I’ve come to realize there’s no reason to cover up my sheer love towards it, I still have not met anybody in person who doesn’t like it, but on the contrary, plenty who do. It’s definitely one of my favorites.

Young Finn (Jeremy James Kissner), who lives in rural Florida with his sister Maggie (Kim Dickens) and his uncle Joe (Chris Cooper), helps an escaped convict, Arthur Lustig (Robert De Niro), get away from authorities who are looking for him. Days later, he visits Paradiso Perduto, the falling mansion where decrepit Mrs. Dinsmoor (Anne Bancroft) lives. He is offered to come entertain her and that’s how he meets the beautiful but heartless Estella (Rachel Beaudene). It is love at first sight for him. As years go by, Finn (Ethan Hawke) follows his dream of becoming an important painter and moves to New York, where he finds Estella (Gwyneth Platrow), now living there as a high-class socialite with boyfriend Walter (Hank Azaria).

Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón directed from a script by Mitch Glazer, based on the classic Charles Dickens novel. It is essentially a reinterpretation of the story set in the modern world but with the bare essentials intact: a love story per se; one that involves rather unique characters living in a world of resentment and dreams. I also see this movie as a fascinating character study of people put in specific circumstances and the consequences which those bring over time.

Ms. Dinsmoor is a woman who was left standing at the altar. Thus she hates men, and that’s what she has taught Estella. It isn’t that Estella has been hurt by them, but that’s the way she grew up and what she learnt. Finn, on the other hand, is naïve and innocent, only looking for the girl of his dreams. But he can’t understand Estella’s behavior, sometimes caring, others indifferent. That is the entire dilemma. Some paradigms must be broken and skeletons should be left behind. But it’s not easy for either; we always sense that Finn is the one suffering while as a matter of fact Estella is the one who should be pitied. The way their relationship flows is heartbreaking, but also magical in a way. It is slow and touching, involving people that have been hurt and don’t know what to do about it.

Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki decided to shoot the flick as stylishly as possible. It is a beautiful movie to look at. Each scene seems perfectly staged and lighted; every move, every angle looks carefully planned. The use of greens somehow gives the story a distinctive feel and sets the right mood. I could watch this movie a million times and still be marveled by the sheer power of every scene, both by their conception and because of the feelings each ensues. My favorite one has Finn going to Estella’s apartment and getting out of it while the camera moves to the sky to reveal where she is at the moment.

Patrick Doyle’s score is incredible, with imaginative sounds put together to great effect and conveying just the right sentiment at every moment. The use of songs is also a highlight, as are Tony Burrough’s production design and Judianna Makovsky’s costume design.

Ethan Hawke is suitable as the lead with his easy-going manners and the way he handles all the suffering; you root for the guy and he’s believable all the way. Gwyneth Paltrow, on the other hand, is extraordinary and perfect as the cold Estella; we sense her pain and we understand the way she behaves even though we might not agree. She’s also ravishing to look at. Robert De Niro provides nice moments and Anne Bancroft is deliciously over-the-top as the very old and deeply-affected Ms. Dinsmoor.

“We are who we are. People don’t change.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

On the Town

Director

Stanley Donen

Gene Kelly

Year

1949

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

It seems that the people who jumped at the opportunity of filming the Broadway hit show “On the Town” changed their minds when they saw it, but it was too late. So they hired Betty Comden and Adolph Green, writers of the original book, to rewrite much of the story, with several of the original Leonard Bernstein songs discarded and replaced by new ones by Roger Edens. This decision has been largely criticized in history, but the film ended up being a quality piece despite the changes. It’s also notable for being shot mostly on location in New York City and featuring some of the finest work of its stars. It’s a Hollywood gem.

The story is about three sailors, Gabey (Gene Kelly), Chip (Frank Sinatra) and Ozzie (Jules Munshin), who have a 24-hour leave in New York City and want to make the most of it. They have two things in mind: taking a good look at the city and getting a worthy New York girl. The task isn’t easy when Gabey falls for none other than “Miss Turnstiles” (Vera-Ellen), the glamour “girl next door” of the city, and chances to meet her, becoming obsessed. The other guys set to help him find her, and do so with the aid of cabdriver Hildy (Betty Garrett), who falls for Chip, and archeologist Claire (Ann Miller), who falls for Ozzie.

They keep singing and dancing and it’s a wonderful show, even though the story isn’t quite dramatic, not all the time anyway. Mostly we depend on the music and dance and setting to be entertained, but it’s all top-notch Hollywood musical stuff, so it works to perfection. The stars are at their best in joyful mode, and somehow we root for their romances to work. We realize it’s fantasy and that’s what drives us, but the setting is so real we go for it. The initial sequence, to the tune of Bernstein’s “New York, New York”, is a complete winner, working as an introduction to what we’re about to see, shot on location in many places and featuring the three sailors to create a genuine classic cinema moment.

Beautifully handled by first-time directors Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, the whole film is delightful. Every song is amazing, including the new ones, and the stars do their best at tap and ballet as well as singing. The couples have chemistry and there are many hilarious moments during the courtships, particularly because Hildy and Claire are more after their guys than they are after them, as opposed to Gabey who’s bonkers for Ivy Smith a.k.a. “Miss Turnstiles”, while she hides a secret that distances her from the guy.

The antagonism of the story lies both in the obstacles between Gabey and Ivy and the very fact that our heroes have to leave the day after. It’s in the subtleties where the actual drama lies: for instance, when Hildy tries to hook-up her roommate Lucy (Alice Pearce) with Gabey, the heartbreaking reality that Lucy is ugly and obnoxious despite her good intentions and cheerfulness is probably the saddest moment in the picture. It’s a fact of life that fiction can’t resolve or is not willing to, but that has an abstract solution in the way that when people face their reality they can turn it around any way they want. I was shocked by the sincerity of the film during this subplot and realized that there’s something for everyone in here.

The ending is yet another honest, true moment. Without getting into spoilerland, I’ll say it could have gone a million ways to make it happier, but it went the right way, the true way. It’s totally unpretentious and completely realistic. Bravo.

Set to joyful, unforgettable tunes such as “Prehistoric Man” (Edens), “Come Up to My Place” (Bernstein), “You’re Awful” (Edens), and certainly the framing “I Feel Like I’m Not Out of Bed Yet” (Bernstein), On the Town is an emotional experience that portrays a reality of its own, but not far from the way we remember any such memorable experiences, like a once-in-a-lifetime trip or the chance to experience true love. I simply loved it.

“Oh it won’t seem high to me. I’m in the clouds right now.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Breach

Director

Billy Ray

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 10, 2007

Breach is one of those movies I would’ve never seen if it wasn’t for the enthusiastic reaction that Chris Cooper’s performance got from critics. I’m a sucker, as most people are I guess, of great acting and that alone picked my interest. I knew going in that the movie itself didn’t make anyone do cartwheels but the subject matter looked intriguing enough, even more so because it was based on a true story.

FBI trainee Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) is appointed a delicate mission in which he has to work for veteran agent Robert Hanssen (Chris Cooper) and report every one of his moves to agent Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney). It so happens that Hanssen is a sexual pervert but also a spy who’s passed along critical information to the Soviet Union for years.

Billy Ray directed from a screenplay by Adam Mazer, William Rotko and himself. It’s only the second movie he’s made after critically-acclaimed Shattered Glass four years ago, both based on real stories of men in important positions who try to fool people around them with their dishonest actions. There’s barely anything I can blame Ray and his co-screenwriters, for I think the problem here lies in the fact that the story they’re telling is not that interesting to begin with. What Hanssen did was certainly juicy, but the path to what ultimately happened to him is rather dull.

Pic provides some excitement during certain sequences in which Eric is this close to getting caught. Hanssen is an imposing figure and he’s nobody’s fool, so he always seems to be ahead of everyone else; that is, until he starts to lose control and becomes even more dangerous. Fascinating as he is, we are only given a few snippets into his everyday life, with the movie focused on his persecution and the work Eric is doing (and how it affects his personal life as well). A little more insight into this devout Catholic man who was such a good father and husband would’ve made of it a richer, if more character-driven, movie.

For what it’s worth, it isn’t a bad movie or one that is a drag to sit through; it just doesn’t rise to the level of something worth spending your time in. You get a little history, a little suspense, and then you forget about it while on your way to the parking lot. Ray did a commendable job, if a disposable one.

Chris Cooper’s performance is indeed excellent, the reason alone I would recommend the movie for. Then again, he’s been great in better movies and I’ll leave it at that. Ryan Phillippe does what he’s required to, although he can’t seem to hold his own against his co-star’s presence. Laura Linney has a thankless small role, but she’s fine. Dennis Haysbert, Bruce Davidson and Kathleen Quinlan are all good in supporting roles.

“That would’ve counted as your lie.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Night Buffalo

Director

Jorge Hernandez Aldana

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 06, 2007

I didn’t know much about this movie before I saw it, save that it was based on a novel by Guillermo Arriaga and adapted by himself to the big screen. That sounded good, but really dangerous. Arriaga is the writer of the three-storied film trilogy directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, comprised by Amores Perros (2000), 21 Grams (2003) and Babel (2006). He got into a big argument with the director after Babel was made because he wanted as much credit for the films’ creation as González Iñárritu got, because he hates to be called a screenwriter, and believes that the writer is as responsible for the film’s success as the director.

I myself am an amateur writer and I understand the feeling, but I don’t see a need to be so pretentious, I think the weight of the pieces speak for themselves and anyone who appreciates cinema knows that the man who penned them is powerful. If a Mexican film without González Iñárritu was written by Arriaga, I knew it could be out of control. Who’s to stop him? Thankfully it was based on a story he’d written before, and obviously he’s enormously talented, but who’s to tell him he’s wrong here or there, who’s to put him in his place, who’s to contradict him? It’s all him, and it’s all wrong. Too bad.

Director Jorge Hernández Aldana co-scripted the adaptation and frankly he seems to be Arriaga’s yes-man because I don’t feel like he added any sense to the procedures. I wish I had read the novel, sometimes a novel explains much of the substance, but as a cinematographic experience I couldn’t grab the meaning of things. I won’t say I had an unpleasant time because I didn’t, though. I enjoyed seeing these people and wondering what was going on. Only it never paid off and was a let-down in the end.

The premise is frankly intriguing. Friends Manuel (Diego Luna) and Gregorio (Gabriel González) meet again after the latter is released from an asylum where he was treated for schizophrenia. Manuel’s loyalty is rather dubious: he’s banging both Gregorio’s sister (Irene Azuela) and girlfriend Tania (Liz Gallardo). Gregorio snaps and kills himself, but not before leaving Manuel a good-bye gift: a box full of letters, pictures and souvenirs that slowly but certainly drive him crazy.

The film is told largely through flashbacks, and it is frankly absorbing. It’s cool to see how Manuel fell for Tania, how he slowly betrayed Gregorio, and how Gregorio surrendered to madness. The three of them are interesting characters, obviously complex and tortured. But the story set in the present is not half as interesting. Manuel is pathetic and doesn’t generate any empathy. He’s a womanizer if there ever was one, apparently gets everything he wants, is nothing like the rest of us, and we’re supposed to feel something for him? Camila Sodi, that young Mexican actress who’s skyrocketing to fame, appears in a short scene, unnecessarily naked, only to emphasize that point. Her participation is completely senseless and totally out of place. After a while, we get tired of our “hero” consoling sobbing women and banging them like there’s nothing else to do in life. Not that I minded seeing so much female flesh (I found Liz Gallardo irresistible) but even I thought it was too much. And nothing is ever too much in film… unless the story is so thin that it doesn’t justify the action.

The performances aren’t bad, only most of the actors have nothing to do with their characters. Emilio Echevarría is notable as a police interrogator and Gabriel González is haunting as the crazed Gregorio. Héctor Ortega’s photography has a personality and Alex Márquez’s editing delivers. Omar Rodríguez-López’s score is excruciatingly performed by the Mars Volta, getting in the way at all times. All in all it’s a painful experience.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bourne Supremacy

Director

Paul Greengrass

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Everybody knows it is very difficult for a sequel to top the original. In this decade we’ve had a few of those exceptional cases, but mostly sequels are a rehash of the ideas that worked in the prior movie and that start to feel tiring. That said, I was thrilled to hear The Bourne Supremacy was a good movie. And since I really liked the first one, The Bourne Identity (2002), I couldn’t wait for this second outing.

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is living a quiet life with girlfriend Marie (Franka Potente) in India. That is, until he becomes a target once again and a tragic incident takes place. Meanwhile, CIA agent Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) and Bourne’s old boss Ward Abbott (Brian Cox) suspect him after he’s framed for the death of two of their men, and a cat-and-mouse game begins as they keep trying to get him, he is still going in pursuit of the truth and a third party is looking to kill him.

Director Doug Liman directed the first installment with great panache and expertise. For the sequel it was Paul Greengrass that took his place, working from a script by Tony Gilroy, loosely based on Robert Ludlum’s novels. The choice paid off. Greengrass is better known for his grittier style of filmmaking and it suited this movie to a tee. He is able to keep the movie fast, intelligent and entertaining, an adrenaline rush that only makes an abrupt stop when a heart-breaking, and pivotal, scene takes place at the end.

Character-development is barely existent apart from what we’ve seen in its predecessor, although Jason is trying to uncover the truth and so are we every step of the way. Still, there are a couple of brief scenes at the beginning that show some of his back-story and from then on it is pure action baby. So much so that when the movie was about to end I couldn’t believe a whole 100 minutes had gone by already!

The Bourne Supremacy is, in a nutshell, a well-conceived espionage thriller. First of all, it takes place all over Europe, and since it was shot on location it adds a little extra for it is a pleasure to watch solely on a visual level, and it also gives it an exciting international flavor. There are also the quintessential secrets, twists, games and plans, but at the core there’s always Jason, a man we can all identify with and who we want to see make it through.

I have to give a special mention to John Powell’s terrific score. In action movies the music almost never surpasses the material, but in this case it plays a central role and does so in a beautiful way. I loved it.

There’s also a chase sequence in the second half that ranks up there with The French Connection (1971) and Ronin (1998) as one of the best of its kind in cinema history. No condescending there, it is visceral, stirring and as real as it gets.

Matt Damon is once again excellent as Jason, a troubled man with a strong façade that is in desperate need of answers and revenge. He is accompanied this time by an extraordinary Joan Allen, who brings poise, elegance and determination not only to her character, but to the movie itself. Brian Cox has a larger role and chews the scenery, while Julia Stiles appears briefly and leaves a strong impression. Franka Potente, Karel Roden, Gabriel Mann and Karl Urban all do top-notch work. Chris Cooper appears unbilled, and look for Michelle Monaghan in the background as one of the CIA operatives trying to track Jason.

“Get some rest Pam. You look tired.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

City of God

Director

Fernando Meirelles

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Cidade de Deus started as a housing project in Rio de Janeiro in the 1960s, where peace eventually became a myth. By the mid-80s, it was a war zone for no apparent reason, with its own rules, its own way of life, and its own charm for the media, which was absolutely unable to approach anywhere near the area. This is the story of a place where one violent situation led to another until it became inhabitable, and the people who lived in that hell, and how they were raised, and what they became. The place still exists by the way. But this true story is the saga of how it came to be such a monstrous place, whose people were affected by its perpetual environment of violence, and how some were always good and some were always bad, and how some refused to be bad and how some were bad while still being good. It’s about the way of life of people who live on the edge.

Buscapé [Rocket] (Alexandre Rodrigues) is the young man around whom the story circles, and the narrator. Since his childhood, he dreamed of becoming a photographer, and never felt like joining crime. Other childhood mates took different paths. Young Dadinho [Li’l Dice] (Douglas Silva) had a thirst to kill since he was a kid, and later became Zé Pequeno [Li’l Zé] (Leandro Firmino da Hora), the fiercest hoodlum in town. His lifelong friend Bené (Philippe Haagensen) also joined the world of crime, but was always compassionate and sensitive, nothing like his partner. Zé Pequeno’s main rival is Cenoura [Carrot] (Matheus Nachtergaele), who’s got a good business thanks to his ability to stay cool. Mané Galinha [Knockout Ned] (Seu Jorge) is a good man who joins Cenoura looking for vengeance after Zé Pequeno screws up his life. Angélica (Alice Braga) is the girl of Buscapé’s dreams, who falls in love with Bené. And all these people really existed, some specifically, others in one way or another, but these stories are real, and, with the exception of famous Nachtergaele, the actors portraying these people are real people from the City of God, people who never acted before, but who knew what all this was about, because they’ve lived it. They couldn’t be more appropriate for their roles. It really feels like the real thing.

Director Fernando Meirelles crafted an uncanny masterpiece of realism and violence that couldn’t be cruder, but that’s what makes it so real. The humor of everyday life is perfectly blended with the hell of living in a place like this. Still people have dreams and motivations, even if they have to shoot somebody to save their own lives day by day. Some people simply lose scope, forget what life is about and think that their way of life is correct. But aren’t we all a little like that when we’re successful? Sense of humor is there all along the way. Life is like that, and this film never forgets that. There’s glamour, too. The nicknames add some punch, and Portuguese sounds cool. Eerily, sometimes this feels like a universe one would like to be in for a while. It’s that twisted accomplishment of cinema where one looks at hell with greedy eyes.

While Zé Pequeno is one of the biggest monsters ever seen on screen, he’s rather pathetic and sometimes really transmits sadness. His friend Bené is a charmer and a hero while being as much a criminal as his friend, but his nature makes a big difference. And everyone has little or much humanity, making this story often compelling, often unforgivable.

Cinematographically this is undoubtedly a gem. Every technical and artistic element is flawless, painting this world with colorful tints while it is so somber. Rhythmic samba music accompanies the action, helping the mood to make a terrible story seem pleasant. And how it works! The effect is doubly as tragic. There are as many shootings as there are laughs, and it seems to go on forever without being overlong. But that’s a good thing, because this is a world we enjoy. And one we’d never, in our right mind, like to see live.

Two unforgettable sequences are the punishment of two children, and the ending of Bené’s good-bye party. Both heart-wrenching, and they are only a couple examples. The latter is especially shocking for the way it’s photographed. You’ll never forget those flashing lights. Cinematographer César Charlone and editor Daniel Rezende work magic together at every frame.

Dynamic, potent, difficult to stomach, but worthy of high praise, City of God is one of history’s great films, and a must-see.

“Dadinho é o caralho... meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Knocked Up

Director

Judd Apatow

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 03, 2007

Judd Apatow is the man right now. He had a hit two years ago with The 40 Year Old Virgin and this year with Superbad and Knocked Up. His comedy style seems to be striking a chord with moviegoers and it’s not difficult to see why. He imbues his stories with offensive and sweet material in equal measures, and the combination has certainly paid off. Count me in as an admirer.

Sassy Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) gets a promotion at Channel E! to appear as an on-camera reporter. That night she parties with her sister Debbie (Leslie Mann) and after a few drinks too many ends up in bed with unemployed, chubby Ben (Seth Rogen). A few months later she finds out she’s pregnant and they both decide to give their relationship a try, just as Debbie and her husband Pete (Paul Rudd) are going through a rough patch.

Apatow served as producer, director and writer. His touch is all over the place, and even his actors belong to his usual gang. I’ve got to say that these faces are way fresher and funnier than the Ferrell-Stiller-Wilson-Vaughn combo that was so hot for a while, but it’s not only them, but Apatow’s writing and direction that make of it such an enjoyable ride. This isn’t a laugh-out-loud yarn as I though it would be, it’s actually a warm and somewhat truthful slice-of-life which feels honest and truly gets us involved. And which is, yes, funny, but in a more restrained and intelligent manner.

I absolutely loved how Apatow juxtaposes the stories of two people trying desperately to fall in love with that of two people continually struggling with their marriage. The latter isn’t a mere subplot thrown in there to add laughs, it’s actually a grounded portrait of what years of life together can do to a couple. I also loved that there’s no easy answers or a tidy ending to it; life is just not like that. This mish mash proves a fair and insightful contrast to very different stages of love, when everything is new and exciting and when everything is old and monotonous. Interesting way to present the story…

Sillier moments come in the form of Ben’s friends and their goings-on. These guys are up to no good, but they’re there for each other and that’s what matters to them. They also border on a thin line by which a bit more would’ve been over-the-top, but Apatow keeps it easy-going and the vibe remains low-key for the most part.

A few downsides are the bits involving gynecologists, the trip to Las Vegas (except the room chat) and a tendency to drag at times, something that makes the movie feel overlong. A few upsides are a confession from a club’s doorman, a self-parody by Ryan Seacrest and most of the witty dialogue involving pop culture references.

Seth Rogen, who had mostly done supporting roles before this breakthrough opportunity, is excellent as Ben and he’s sure to become the next big thing if he chooses wisely. He has an everyday quality to him that makes him relatable and he’s got the charisma as well. Katherine Heigl, on the other hand, is mostly good and gorgeous, but also stiff at times; I’m a big fan but I need more proof that she’s got what it takes to command a movie career. Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are both spot-on as the troubled couple and their comedic timing is excellent. Supporting performances from Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, Jason Begel and many more are good, although Harold Ramis’s acting leaves a lot to be desired.

“Their smiling faces point out my inability to enjoy life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter