Review
Seconds
- Director
- John Frankenheimer
- Year
- 1966
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Wednesday, January 31, 2001
John Frankenheimer’s
Seconds has the look, feel and reputation of a thriller, but in reality it is a quite serious film that deals with the problems of aging, in particular for men. It is a quite emotionless and cold film, which is fine, but that limits the entertainment value somewhat.
I had long wanted to see this film and my expectations probably grew bigger every day that I didn't see it. Naturally then I was disappointed when I had the opportunity to see it last week, but a few days later I appreciate it a little more, if not as much as I thought I would before I saw it.
The movie centers around a middle-aged man named Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph), who has lost pretty much everything worth living for, except his career. One day he gets a message from a friend who advises him to go to a corporation that he says will enrich his life.
When he gets there it turns out that this business will give him a new identity and a new look. They will fake his death and through plastic surgery will make him appear twenty years younger. He agrees to this and is “reborn” as Tony Wilson (Rock Hudson). But after his initial enthusiasm he quickly learns that it wasn't his age and appearance that made him unhappy earlier and he wants to change back, but is that possible...?
It sounds like a thriller alright, but as I said it never creates any real suspense. The film takes itself quite seriously, there isn't a trace of humor to be found anywhere. The ending is as downbeat as possible. The film always remains strangely fascinating, but it never fully develops into anything substantial. Rock Hudson is impressive though in the main role.
The main problem that the film has lies not in the coldness, but in the premise. It is never really explained why the second chance Hamilton was given failed, and to a lesser extent it is pretty hard to believe that the middle-aged man could emerge from plastic surgery looking like Rock Hudson, a man much taller and with a very different body-shape.
Technically however the film nears perfection. Frankenheimer always was a bit of a show-off director, particularly in the 60’s, but he controls himself reasonably here. The camera-work is the most impressive thing about the movie. The man responsible for that was veteran James Wong Howe. He and Frankenheimer reached some striking shots by, I guess, strapping the camera to the chests and backs of some of the actors. The use of light and shadow always makes the film interesting to look at. There's a pretty good score by Jerry Goldsmith. Oh, and there is probably mainstream cinema's first full frontal nudity.
The title sequence reminded me somewhat to that of
Vertigo, which is probably intentional. Both films deal with men who were given a second opportunity, but both ended in disappointments.
Frankenheimer always was a good and interesting director, he has to be if he is still working to this day (he recently made the Robert De Niro film
Ronin) In the sixties he was pretty much the hottest director around, and responsible for the greatest of conspiracy thrillers
The Manchurian Candidate (1962). This film isn't up to that standard, but then again very few films are. I would still recommend it, but remember it is not as good as you think it will be. Maybe it will be better the second time I see it.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
BAFTA Awards Nominations
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Wednesday, January 31, 2001
Just a day after the Screen Actors Guild announced its annual nominees, then come the British. The British Academy of Film and Television have now taken on a more important role than that of other years, since they’ve changed their ceremony to accommodate it before the Oscars are presented. This way their presence will be more influential, and with this Friday being the last day to cast votes for the Academy Awards, this nominations might certainly gain momentum. So check out the complete list:
BEST FILM
Almost Famous (2000)
Billy Elliot (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Gladiator (2000)
ALEXANDER KORDA AWARD for outstanding British film of the year
Billy Elliot (2000)
Chicken Run
The House of Mirth
Last Resort
Sexy Beast
CAROL FOREMAN AWARD for the most promising newcomer to British Film
Stephen Daldry, director:
Billy Elliot (2000)
Lee Hall, writer:
Billy Elliot (2000)
Pawel Pawlikowski, writer/director:
Last Resort
Simon Cellan-Jones, director:
Some Voices
Mark Crowdy, producer/writer:
Saving Grace
DAVID LEAN AWARD for Direction
Stephen Daldry,
Billy Elliot (2000)
Ang Lee,
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Steven Soderbergh,
Traffic (2000)
Steven Soderbergh,
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Ridley Scott,
Gladiator (2000)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Almost Famous (2000)
Billy Elliot (2000)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Gladiator (2000)
O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Chocolat (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
High Fidelity
Traffic (2000)
Wonder Boys (2000)
BEST ACTRESS
Juliette Binoche,
Chocolat (2000)
Kate Hudson,
Almost Famous (2000)
Julia Roberts,
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Hillary Swank,
Boys Don’t Cry
Michelle Yeoh,
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
BEST ACTOR
Jamie Bell,
Billy Elliot (2000)
Russell Crowe,
Gladiator (2000)
Michael Douglas,
Wonder Boys (2000)
Tom Hanks,
Cast Away (2000)
Geoffrey Rush,
Quills (2000)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Judi Dench,
Chocolat (2000)
Frances McDormand,
Almost Famous (2000)
Lena Olin,
Chocolat (2000)
Julie Walters,
Billy Elliot (2000)
Zhang Zi Yi,
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Benicio del Toro,
Traffic (2000)
Albert Finney,
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Gary Lewis,
Billy Elliot (2000)
Joaquin Phoenix,
Gladiator (2000)
Oliver Reed,
Gladiator (2000)
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Almost Famous (2000)
Billy Elliot (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gladiator (2000)
O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)
BEST FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
The Girl on the Bridge
Harry, He’s Here to Help
In the Mood for Love
Malena
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Billy Elliot (2000)
Chocolat (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gladiator (2000)
O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Chocolat (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gladiator (2000)
O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)
Quills (2000)
BEST EDITING
Billy Elliot (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Gladiator (2000)
Traffic (2000)
BEST SOUND
Almost Famous (2000)
Billy Elliot (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gladiator (2000)
The Perfect Storm
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Chicken Run
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gladiator (2000)
The Perfect Storm
Vertical Limit (2000)
BEST MAKE UP/HAIR
Chocolat (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gladiator (2000)
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Quills (2000)CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Hamlet
- Director
- Michael Almereyda
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Tuesday, January 30, 2001
Another Shakespeare adaptation? That’s fine with me. This time it’s a modern version of one of the most difficult plays written by William Shakespeare. Not only is it hard to understand the motivation of Hamlet but his monologues start tiring the viewer after a while. Kenneth Branagh’s movie failed in transferring Hamlet to the Victorian age and the sheer length of the unabridget adaptation was too much to take.
Almereyda takes Hamlet to the modern world of New York in the year 1999 where the Denmark corporation is one of the most powerful companies worldwide. Shortly after Hamlet’s father (Sam Shepard) dies his brother Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan) marries Hamlet’s mother Gertrude (Diane Venora) and becomes king/head of Denmark. Hamlet doubts his father died in a natural way and as he starts looking for revenge a catastrophe is happening.
The modern Hamlet is portrayed by Ethan Hawke who gives a stunning and strong performance. Most of the scenes are carried by Hawke – better than ever. Moreover there is a superb Bill Murray as Polonius and a brilliant Julia Stiles as Ophelia. It is a shame that Ophelia stays pale and her motivation doesn’t get clear because most of her scenes are abridged. I especially liked the idea of using cameras when the characters speak to themselves. The whole point of Hamlet being a filmmaker was a great idea and gave the movie a unique visual style. Furthermore the setting was chosen very well. The skyscrapers full of metal and glass convey the dark and cold atmosphere.
I liked the movie in many ways but it didn’t work perfectly for me. The main flaw of the movie is the fact that some scenes don’t transfer to the newly created circumstances that well. For example there is the scene in which Hamlet doesn’t kill Claudius because he just confessed his sins and he doesn’t want him to be cleared of his deads when he dies. The setting is a limousine instead of a church so that if you don’t know the original play it’s hard to understand why Hamlet doesn’t kill his uncle in the first place.
Some scenes work fine, others don’t.
Hamlet is based on original ideas providing a whole new view at the play. Too bad it has to be compared with Baz Luhrmann’s
William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet which was more powerful and engaging. But this shouldn’t be the fault of Almereyda because Hamlet is simply a very difficult play to adapt. If you’re into Shakespeare you should give Hamlet a look. It certainly has some highlights and a superb cast giving great performances. And after all Hawke stated:
"Hamlet is like Kurt Cobain. He has problems with his parents, an identity crisis and a difficult girlfriend. All boys have these problems, don’t they?"
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
SAG Awards Nominations
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Tuesday, January 30, 2001
Here they are! The Screen Actors Guild just announced its nominees. If you don’t know what the hell they are, let me just tell you that this awards are voted by the actors themselves, so they show what they appreciated as the best in their own profession. This nominees have proven extremely predictive on what expect to see nominated when the Oscar nominations are announced. The winners have also come to win in the Oscar ceremony most of the times. Then again, the SAG always surprises us with something edgy, just as last year Phillip Seymour Hoffman got nominated for Best Leading Actor in
Flawless, while we all knew he wasn’t going to make it in the Academy Awards. This year they’ve done it again, although not as far fetched. Check out the complete list:
BEST ACTOR
Geoffrey Rush,
Quills (2000)
Tom Hanks,
Cast Away (2000)
Jamie Bell,
Billy Elliot
Russel Crowe,
Gladiator (2000)
Benicio del Toro,
Traffic (2000)
BEST ACTRESS
Laura Linney,
You Can Count On Me
Julia Roberts,
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Ellen Burstyn,
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Juliette Binoche,
Chocolat (2000)
Joan Allen,
Contender, The (2000)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Gary Oldman,
Contender, The (2000)
Willem Dafoe,
Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
Jeff Bridges,
Contender, The (2000)
Albert Finney,
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Joaquin Phoenix,
Gladiator (2000)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Kate Hudson,
Almost Famous (2000)
Frances McDormand,
Almost Famous (2000)
Judi Dench,
Chocolat (2000)
Julie Walters,
Billy Elliot
Kate Winslet,
Quills (2000)
BEST ENSEMBLE
Traffic (2000)
Almost Famous (2000)
Billy Elliot
Chocolat (2000)
Gladiator (2000)
No one movie dominated the SAG nominations, as
Almost Famous (2000),
Billy Elliot,
Chocolat (2000),
Gladiator (2000) and
Contender, The (2000) each got 3 nominations. It was great to see Kate Winslet getting in there. Weird that Javier Bardem didn’t do it. Too bad Salma Hayek appears uncredited in
Traffic (2000), although she could be considered part of the ensemble. Anyway, great nominations!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, January 29, 2001
In what was primarily a weekend destined for chicks who didn’t want to sit through the Super Bowl,
Wedding Planer, The (2001) took the top spot at the box office with a good, if not exceptional, 14 million. Slipping down one place were
Save The Last Dance (2001),
Cast Away (2000) and
Traffic (2000). All continue to perform strongly, specially the latest two, whose Golden Globe wins translated into very small decreasing percentages.
Cast Away (2000) is on its way to pass the 200 mark next week, while
Traffic (2000) is on its way to become one of the highest grossing serious dramas of recent years.
Sugar and Spice, on the other hand, didn’t do so well. Landing in fifth place, it just managed to do about 6 million.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) rose many places to the 6th slot and continues to do impressive business.
Here’s the complete rundown:
1.
Wedding Planer, The (2001), $14 million ($14 m.t.)
2.
Save The Last Dance (2001), $10 million ($59.5 m.t.)
3.
Cast Away (2000), $8.9 million ($194 m.t.)
4.
Traffic (2000), $6.5 million ($56.3 m.t.)
5.
Sugar & Spice, $6 million ($6 m.t.)
6.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), $5.1 million (44.4 m.t.)
7.
Snatch (2000), $4.8 million ($15.8 m.t.)
8.
Finding Forrester (2000), $4.8 million ($35.9 m.t.)
9.
What Women Want (2000), $4.3 million ($168.3 m.t.)
10.
Miss Congeniality (2000), $4 million ($93 m.t.)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
What Women Want
- Director
- Nancy Meyers
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Saturday, January 27, 2001
One of the funniest films of the year,
What Women Want is a simply irresistible Mel Gibson vehicle that puts him in what is probably the most charming role he has ever played (talk about a bold statement!). As Nick Marshall, he portrays a man who has nearly no worries in his life, feeling so self assured about everything that he simply can’t contemplate the possibility of anything going wrong. One day, a woman (Helen Hunt) endangers his job and he begins to worry. His main problem is that he can’t understand women. Later, after an accident, he begins to actually hear women’s thoughts, and that’s when he realizes how wrong he really is, and how different the world looks from the female eyes.
Gisbon, as I said, is excellent; so is Marisa Tomei as Lola, the coffee shop waitress who wants a healthy relationship more than anything else. Helen Hunt is good too as the woman who changes Marshall’s life.
The best thing about the movie is the way it is carried through, making a completely unbelievable premise pretty believable, considering the silly explanation they give to the situation. Gibson is so natural, it is easy to follow him through his weird adventure. The whole film is choreographed in a perfect way, balancing women’s thoughts and the characters’ dialogs, without much complication.
The second half makes the film a bit tiring, due to the dramatic turns, but there is always a spark of pure comedy that saves the day. Even the overlength is forgiven after a couple of top-belly laughs. I’m talking about real fun scenes, including the best of the film (the last one with adorable Tomei).
The soundtrack is also pretty good, featuring quite effective songs all the time, especially Christina Aguilera’s “What a girl wants” during the shopping sequence with Nick’s daughter (Ashley Johnson).
A must for Gibson’s fans and comedy-drama lovers.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Requiem for a Dream
- Director
- Darren Aronofsky
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Friday, January 26, 2001
There were two highly acclaimed movies about drugs this year. And even thou their approach was very different, they both have one thing in common: their message. Drugs kill, drugs destroy lives, drugs are hell.
This movie tells the story of 4 intertwined characters. There’s Harry (Jared Leo), a common guy who dreams of having one last big hit. There’s his girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connely), who dreams of having her own clothes shop. There’s his mother Sara (Ellen Burstyn), who is very lonely and gets a chance to be on TV, although she is too fat, so she just dreams of becoming thinner and presentable with her astonishing red dress. And there’s his friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) who longs for his old family days and is the contact with the underground world, dreaming as well of having one last hit and never worrying again about money. What do they have all in common? Dreams, dreams and more dreams.
At the beginning of the movie we get the sense that nothing could interfere with that, but wait, drugs get in the way and... well, I’m not telling you. Let me just say that this movie will leave you breathless. It is the kind of movie that when it finishes you feel tired, you feel exhausted, you feel like it just sucked all your energy and played with your brain and your nerves. It is that strong.
Darren Aronofsky has created here a movie that will be remembered for ages because of its sheer power. He is a true talent and you won’t believe all the things he pulls off with this movie. He uses nearly every imaginable camera device you’ve ever seen, and some more. There are quick cuts, rare camera angles, split screens, steady cameras, slow motion, quick motion, and you could go on forever. The amazing thing is that none of this affect the story or our connection with the characters. They are always used in the necessary places to give the necessary effect. It is an amazingly exciting movie just to watch by itself.
But then there is the people. Four characters that are played by great actors. I’ll start with Ellen Burstyn, whose performance is nothing short of brilliant. She has created something here that you’ll never forget in your entire life. She goes through one of the most impressive transformations I have ever seen. And I’m talking about the entire history of movies. There is a breakup scene in her apartment with her son Harry in which every single expression, movement and tone of her acting is heartbreaking and done to perfection. You have to see it to believe it. On the other hand, Leto, Connely and Wayans are all great and powerful as well. All this characters go through the unimaginable and they are very realistic in doing so.
The movie was granted an NC-17 rating, but Artisan decided to go unrated and didn’t change a bit of it. They were very brave, but unfortunately, and because of dull censorship, many many people won’t get to see a movie that could actually do something for them. This should be shown at schools. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to do drugs after living through this excruciating experience. The score, by the way, is also really good and effective. Watch out for those scenes of Sara and her refrigerator. An exhilarating emotional experience.
“I’m thinking thin!”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Chick Weekend
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, January 26, 2001
Just as the Super Bowl will keep on male viewers busy this Sunday, their wives, daughters, girlfriends and girls in general would rather want to go and catch a good movie. Worry not, ‘cause there’s plenty to choose from:
The Wedding Planer. This is the first outing of Jennifer Lopez in a romantic comedy genre. So how did she do it? Apparently not good. Critics are giving this movie the thumbs down. It is said to be predictable, totally unoriginal, not charismatic enough and just plain flat. It isn’t a complete disaster thou. It is just an average romantic comedy that won’t do anything to both the stars’ careers. Let’s juts hope that Jennifer and Mathew McConaughey keep themselves busy with better stuff.
Sugar and Spice. A cheerleading movie with an edge: this time around, the girls become bank robbers, and they do it pretty well. Mixing broad out comedy with fine satire, the movie is said to be smart, original and, above all, fun. It stars Mena Suvari, James Mardsen and a whole lot of beautiful chicks.
Shadow of the Vampire. The movie that will get Willem Dafoe an Oscar nomination and a must for movie buffs. Its the time to catch it, as it goes wider.
So anyway, have fun!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Cube
- Director
- Vincenzo Natali
- Year
- 1997
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Coffee
- Review date
- Thursday, January 25, 2001
Do you know Canadian cinema? To be honest with you I don't. I don’t happen to be a great fan of David Cronenberg (although
eXistenZ was good) and anything else coming from Canada I have pretty much missed. But now there's Vincenzo Natali’s
Cube. A movie that has much to offer and that is closer related to a "mathematical thriller" like
Pi or
23 than to Cronenberg’s shockers a la
The Fly. The plot - if the term fits at all in this case is easy to explain but difficult to comprehend.
Seven people find themselves trapped in a intimidating steel maze of unknown proportions. Every room of this literal mousetrap has the shape of a cube and there is nothing except doors which lead to other completely similar chambers. None of the prisoners can remember how they got there and to make the situation even more terrifying they (and the viewer) learn that some of the gloomy rooms are armed with deadly traps. The ranks of the party become somewhat thinner until they find out that the traps, the maze and all other aspects of the perverted geometrical universe they are stranded in are based on a number of complex mathematical rules. They attempt to find the exit of the cube and in the end the most unlikely candidate survives.
Needless to say that such a low-budgeted movie as
Cube is not about action or about flashy special effects. It's an absolutely minimalist picture that focuses strongly on the power play between the characters and their development. While the cop Quentin has a strong survival instinct and wants to lead to group, the cynical and antagonistic Worth (also a telling name) hardly seems interested in finding a way out of the cubical deathtrap. Each member of the group questions the other's motives and when distrust finally turns into open hatred good goes bad and bad... well. Not only does
Cube show us the deepest, darkest secrets of the human psyche - prejudice, paranoia and selfishness along with their positive counterparts but it also creates a surreal atmosphere that is usually found in absurd theater. When the group speculates about the creators of the Cube and why they have been chosen to be imprisoned in it, Worth simply states that "There is no reason. It was built so it had to be used. Don't look for a meaning. There is none." The greater trap that the movie describes is not the construction in which the protagonists are trapped - but life itself. And while the rules of the Cube are those of mathematical predictability, the rules of life remain unfound.
Don't expect
Cube to be nice entertainment. But if you can take a bit of paranoia and you're not claustrophobic you should give this one a shot.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Great Dictator
- Director
- Charles Chaplin
- Year
- 1940
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Wednesday, January 24, 2001
One of
Charles Chaplin's most remembered and respected films,
The Great Dictator was born as a mockery to Adolf Hitler, a man Chaplin personally despised. Unlike what most people think, Chaplin was not a Jewish, but merely a human being who would do anything for his own kind. Attacked from start to finish by people who thought this was just a pretext to expose his supposedly communist ideas, Chaplin still went all the way with this and created a classic that will always speak for justice and freedom.
Chaplin plays Adenoid Hynkel, the Hitler-like dictator of Tomania, who plans to rule the world in no time. Tormenting the Jewish people of the Ghetto, he self-satisfies every time he feels superior to other people.
Chaplin also plays (in a surprisingly different way) the Jewish barber, a naïve man who spent years in a military hospital recovering from amnesia due to a plain wreck during the World War, in which he befriended Commander Schultz (Reginald Gardiner). Back to his hometown, he finds a world of prejudice and fear. But he deals with it.
Paulette Goddard is as charming as possible as Hannah, the Jewish girl who befriends the barber and helps him deal with every new problem that he has to face.
The best of the film is Jack Oakie, as Bencino Napaloni, the ruler of Bacteria, a country that threatens with invading Osterlich before Tomania does. His presence in Tomania only intimidates Hynkel, whose personality is not as absorbing as Napaloni’s.
While the social and political commentary is extremely strong in Chaplin’s first talkie, there is also a lot of mimic and body language here. Some of the funniest scenes are silent, including Hynkel playing with an Earth balloon, and the Jewish friends struggling to not get the coin in the pudding. Also a great asset are Hynkel’s speeches, where he only pretends to speak a German-like dialect but actually says nothing, sort of reminiscent to the little tramp’s gibberish song in
Modern Times (1936). The film is terribly effective in giving a message while making laugh.
Chaplin’s best talkie.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Best Makeup Oscar Contenders
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Tuesday, January 23, 2001
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has just announced its five contenders for the coveted Best Makeup category. Three out of them will be nominated and announced on February 13th. Be sure to keep in touch. These are great choices, by the way. Check out:
How the Grinch Stole Christmas
The Cell
Bedazzled
Cast Away
Shadow of the VampireCriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Strangers on a Train
- Director
- Alfred Hitchcock
- Year
- 1951
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Monday, January 22, 2001
Pauline Kael once noted that in Hitchcock movies you rarely remember performances, but rather moments. She was probably right in that, but she made the exception for Robert Walker’s performance in
Strangers On a Train. He is surely the most impressive thing in this movie, but then again nearly everything in it is impressive.
Alfred Hitchcock badly needed a hit back in the early fifties. His last four films (
The aradine Case,
Rope,
Under Capricorn and
Stage Fright) were all artistic, and worse, box-office flops. To put his career back on track he decided to adapt Patricia Highsmith’s novel Strangers On a Train. The rest is history because the film became a hit and it sent Hitchcock on his way to his most fruitful period as a filmmaker.
Two men meet accidentally during a train journey and they start talking. One is a sort of famous amateur tennis-champ Guy Haines (Farley Granger), the other a rather peculiar young man named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). He has many wild ideas, one of them being a theory about the perfect murder. He thinks people should exchange murders, so that there would be no clear motive.
Anthony knows all about the problems Guy has with his wife, who won't give him a divorce, even though she has always been unfaithful. He suggests that he is willing to take care of Guy’s wife, if he would end the life of his father. Guy laughs at the suggestion, but when his wife turns up dead he realizes that it was no joke and he now has to kill the father, or else Anthony will frame him for his wife's murder.
This is one of Hitchcock’s most entertaining thrillers from his American period. The film looks great and contains some memorable set-pieces, such a the climactic fight on a merry-go-round and a tennis-macth that is intercut with Bruno on his way to frame Guy. There's also a striking shot of Bruno strangling Guy’s wife, seen through her glasses which have fallen on the ground.
Hitchcock is hampered somewhat by some disappointing performances by his romantic leads. Farley Granger is as wooden as ever and Ruth Roman makes little impression as his new love, but the script doesn't give her much to do, so it's not entirely her fault. The central performance by Robert Walker however is unforgettable. He is not very well remembered now, and if he hadn't made this movie he probably wouldn't have been remembered at all. He died shortly after this film was released, due to a serious alcohol problem.
The script is credited to famed novelist Raymond Chandler, who stuck pretty close to Patricia Highsmith’s novel, but then there was really no need for a change because the premise is very strong. What is surprising is that the script contains little of Chandler’s trademark dialogue. He claimed that most of his contributions were thrown out by Hitchcock and that most of what was filmed was actually based on Hitch’s own writings. But that is all ancient history now, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter to us who did what and when. All that matters is the end result and that turned out first rate.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, January 22, 2001
No big changes at the box office this weekend. The top3 movies stayed the same, while the new entry, Guy Ritchie’s
Snatch came in number four with 7.6 million. A respectable amount. As for new releases,
The Pledge came in tenth place with 5.8 million, an ok figure considering the overall tone of the movie.
The Gift and
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, while not in the top10, performed very well and continue to have success. By the way, have you notices that Benicio del Toro has three movies in the top10? Good for him!
1.
Save the Last Dance - $16.0m, ($46.9m.t.)
2.
Cast Away - $11.3m, ($182.1m.t.)
3.
Traffic - $8.2m, ($46.5m.t.)
4.
Snatch - $7.6m., ($7.6m.t.)
5.
What Women Want - $7.0m, ($162.4m.t.)
6.
Finding Forrester - $6.7m, ($29.2m.t.)
7.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - $6.5m., ($37.7m.t.)
8.
Thirteen Days - $6.4m, ($20.0m.t.)
9.
Miss Congeniality - $6.2m, ($87.2m.t.)
10.
The Pledge - $5.8m, ($5.8m.t.)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Directors Guild Nominations
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, January 22, 2001
Steven Spielberg just announced the nominees for the Director Guild
of America Awards. This awards are highly predictive of what the
Oscar might look like. Since 1949, the winner of this prize has gone
on to win the Oscar in all but four occasions. It’s important to know
that Steven Soderbergh got nominated twice, something that had only
happened with Francis Ford Coppola in 1974 (for
The Godfather
II and
The Conversation. Check out the nominees:
Cameron Crowe,
Almost Famous
Steven Soderbergh,
Traffic
Steven Soderbergh,
Erin Brockovich
Ang Lee,
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Ridley Scott,
Gladiator
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Golden Globes Comments
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, January 22, 2001
Hi there! After Groucho just posted the results of the Golden Globes
ceremony held last night, for which I’m very thankful, I’d like to
give you an overall hint at what I thought about the results. The
fact comes down to this: It was as if the Hollywood Foreign Press
Association had come and asked me who should be the winners of
the night.... and then just handed the awards to them. I had just one
minor quibble for the entire ceremony, which is the fact that Ang Lee
got the Best Director award instead of Soderbergh. It isn’t that I
demerit Lee’s work in any way. He’s phenomenal. But Soderbergh just
had an amazing year, delivered two amazing movies, has been awarded
by nearly every single critics groups and what do these guys do?:
put him like a looser, ‘cause that is my feeling after his failure
to snag the award. Anyway, I hope the Oscars truly recognize him. But
on the other hand, just giving a look to all the winners makes me
want to jump, for I couldn’t be happier. Hanks got it, deservingly
so. Roberts got it, and she was the star of the night, full of grace
and sympathy as always.
Gladiator got it, and even thou I
would have liked to see
Traffic recognized here, I really do
feel happy for this movie. It is one of the best of the year, if not
the best, and I’m glad it got the recognition. I haven’t seen
Chocolat yet, but if it had won the Best Comedy award, I
would’ve got very angry. Instead, they opted for
Almost
Famous, an excellent movie that had been forgotten lately and
which deserves a lot more. The same goes to Kate Hudson, who
surprisingly beat his costar Frances McDormand. This puts her in a
very high position to go for the Oscar next month. I’m glad,
she’s great. As I felt for
Chocolat, I also felt for Juliette
Binoche, who lost to Reneé Zelweeger for
Nurse Betty. Great
choice! She is a very good actress. The score by Hanz Zimmer and Lisa
Gerrard was, hands down, one of the best I’ve heard in the last
years, so there you go. I love Bob Dylan’s song and he got the prize.
I hope he wins the Oscar too. As for
Traffic, well, it got the
Best Script for Stephen Gaghan and Best Supporting Actor for Benicio
del Toro. Impressive work by both of them. The Best Foreign Picture
award for
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was right on target.
So, as I said in the beginning, I’m very happy with the Globes this
year.
Now, as for the show, I thought one of the highlights was the real
Erin Brockovich’s introduction to the movie based on her own life. It
was touching and great. Elizabeth Taylor was the joke of the night
and made a fool of herself as she didn’t know what to do when having
to give out the Best Picture award. Hillary Swank and Renee Zelweeger
looked amazing. Kevin Spacey and Al Pacino did a great job while
handing out and receiving (respectively) the Cecil B. Mille Award.
Unlike many of these types of awards which usually go too long, they
managed to keep it cool and going. The speeches by Tom Hanks and
Julia Roberts were great. Reneé Zelweeger being caught in the
bathroom was a funny moment, mainly because of her likable reaction
to it.
So that’s it. A very nice awards show full of great moments. 2000
wasn’t a bad year for movies after all!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Golden Globe Winners 2000
- Posted by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- News date
- Sunday, January 21, 2001
Hello there! I thought Morris would be the one to first give you this
list of winners, but apparently it will be me. Don't despair,
though... he'll be here soon to give you his unique opinions on the
subject. As for me, I'll wait for his comments to give the world my
own. What a night! I'll highlight the winners in bold, so here we go:
Best Motion Picture, Drama
Gladiator
Erin Brockovich
Billy Elliot
Traffic
Wonder Boys
Sunshine
Best Motion Picture, Comedy or Musical
O Brother Where Art Thou?
Chocolat
Almost Famous
Chicken Run
Best In Show
Best Director
Ang Lee (
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
Ridley Scott (
Gladiator)
Steven Soderbergh (
Erin Brockovich)
Steven Soderbergh (
Traffic)
Isrvan Szabo (
Sunshine)
Best Actor, Drama
Javier Bardem (
Before Night Falls)
Russel Crowe (
Gladiator)
Michael Douglas (
Wonder Boys)
Tom Hanks (
Cast Away)
Geoffrey Rush (
Quills)
Best Actor, Comedy or Musical
Jim Carrey (
The Grinch)
George Clooney (
O Brother Where Art Thou? )
John Cusack (
High Fidelity)
Robert De Niro (
Meet The Parents)
Mel Gibson (
What Women Want)
Best Actress, Drama
Joan Allen (
The Contender)
Björk (
Dancer in the Dark)
Ellen Burstyn (
Requiem for a Dream)
Laura Linney (
You Can Count On Me)
Julia Roberts (
Erin Brockovich)
Best Actress, Comedy or Musical
Juliette Binoche (
Chocolat)
Brenda Blethyn (
Saving Grace)
Sandra Bullock (
Miss Congeniality)
Tracey Ullman (
Small Time Crooks)
Renee Zellweger (
Nurse Betty)
Best Supporting Actress
Judi Dench (
Chocolat)
Kate Hudson (
Almost Famous)
Frances McDormand (
Almost Famous)
Julie Walters (
Billy Elliot)
Catherine Zeta-Jones (
Traffic)
Best Supporting Actor
Jeff Bridges (
The Contender)
Willem Dafoe (
Shadow of the Vampire)
Benicio del Toro (
Traffic)
Albert Finney (
Erin Brockovich)
Joaquin Phoenix (
Gladiator)
Best Foreign Picture
Love’s a Bitch (Mexico)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Taiwan)
The Hundred Steps (Italy)
Malena (Italy)
The Widow of St. Pierre (France)
Best Screenplay
Cameron Crowe (
Almost Famous)
Stephen Gaghan (
Traffic)
Steve Kloves (
Wonder Boys)
Kenneth Lonergan (
You Can Count On Me)
Doug Wright (
Quills)
Best Original Score
Tan Dun (
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
Maurice Jarre (
Sunshine)
Ennio Morricone (
Malena)
Rachel Portman (
Chocolat)
Mary Stuart, Kristin Wilkinson and Larry Pastón (
All The Pretty
Horses)
Hanz Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard (
Gladiator)
Best Original Song
“I’ve seen it all”, Björk (
Dancer in the Dark)
“My Funny Friend and Me”, Sting (
The Emperor’s New Groove)
“One in a Million”, Steffan Olsson (
Miss Congeniality)
“Things Have Changed”, Bob Dylan (
Wonder Boys)
“When You Come Back To Me Again”, Garth Brooks (
Frequency)
Cecil B. DeMille Award:
Al Pacino
You'll hear from me soon, folks!!
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Billy Elliot
- Director
- Stephen Daldry
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Friday, January 19, 2001
Imagine it's 1984, your mother is dead, your grandma gets lost from time to time, your brother and father are coal miners on strike and your best friend dresses up as a girl.
This is the life of Billy Elliot (Jamie Bell), an eleven year old boy from Northern England. What could brighten up your day in a life like this? It's definitely not the boxing lessons Billy falls for. Instead he sneaks into the girls' ballet lessons and starts dreaming of a career as a dancer. Supported by his teacher Mrs. Wilkinson (Julie Walters) Billy starts fighting against the stereotypes and finds a way to his family.
I expected this movie to be more of a drama but instead it was an inspiring, heart-warming experience. Stephen Daldry succeeds in keeping the perfect balance between drama and comedy. There's always comic relief when the movie is on the verge of becoming too heart-wrecking. This is in my opinion an achievement only few movies have and it's a really difficult task to do. I love these British movies with weird characters and some good laughs. Billy Elliot definitely has the laughter but also the tears, both combined in a very special way.
Jamie Bell gives an astonishing, very likable performance as the lead character but I found Gary Lewis as his dad almost as good as Bell. Both struggle to be real men in a world with no perspective and in the end find their own ways to be. The movie also deals very carefully with the homosexuality of Billy's best friend. I really like the way their relationship is portrayed. And let's not forget the cheerful dance scenes.
This movie reminds you of the dreams that are true to your heart. Yes, I will dance.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
A great trio!
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, January 19, 2001
Coming off an spectacular weekend, and if we hadn’t already got
enough, we now get two major new releases and big wide expansion that
surely we’ll keep you busy. Which movies are those. Check out:
Snatch. Guy Ritchie returns to his roots with this new movie
in a similar tone to his latest,
Lock, Stock and Two Smocking
Barrels. This time around he’s got a bigger cast which includes
Brad Pitt, Benicio del Toro, Dennis Farina and many more. Critics are
loving it, saying that even thou it’s very violent and irreverent, it
is also very funny in its own kind of way.
The Gift. Sam Raimi directs this chilling supernatural murder
tale that should scare the hell out of you. It is being said that the
cast is more impressive that the material, even thou it does make a
punch as a whole. Cate Blanchett delivers a truly amazing performance
that is also garnering Oscar buzz. Keanu Reeves and Giovanni Ribisi
are also getting very high notes. Hillary Swank, Katie Holmes and
Greg Kinnear round out the cast.
The Pledge.Another murder tale, albeit a more somber, dramatic
and claustrophobic one. Directed by Sean Penn and with a stellar
performance from Jack Nicholson, the movie is said to be a good one
in its dark kind of way. Not for everybody, but interesting enough.
Chocolat. Although it has been in limited release for a while,
this Oscar hopeful finally goes wide. It is a good motion picture.
Calmed, light, sweet, and with great performances all around. Judi
Dench get the most praise thou.
So that’s it. Don’t forget to watch the Golden Globes this Sunday,
and stay tuned.....
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Opposite of Sex
- Director
- Don Roos
- Year
- 1998
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Thursday, January 18, 2001
My God, what a delicious film!
Not everyone thinks like I do, of course. It has scandal in its name, needless to say in its story, its characters, and everything in it. Nevertheless, it is an undeniably clever comedy from start to finish, and an example of how witty dialogue and smart twists still work no matter what times we're living.
The story (written by the director) is about Deede (Christina Ricci), a 16-year old girl with no inhibitions, who moves with her older half-brother, Bill (Martin Donovan), and completely screws up his life and everyone else's around: She gets in an affair with his boyfriend (Ivan Sergei), to begin with.
Nosy Lucia (Lisa Kudrow), Bill's dead ex-boyfriend's sister, is the funniest character, who adds some of the most sarcastic dialogs to the already genius script. It's hard to decide, though, who's better: Ricci or her. They are both magnificent.
The film works in many levels, but probably the best is the way it tells its story. Dedee is the narrator of her own story, who tells everything from her own point of view, adding some things and taking away some others, to the point of practically becoming the director of the film. How she plays with our minds is amazing. Another great asset is that though this is a comedy, and in that, a very good one, it doesn't lose its seriousness, and actually manages to create deep interest in the story and the characters.
A must-see winner, unfortunately not for all tastes.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Cast Away
- Director
- Robert Zemeckis
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Wednesday, January 17, 2001
What? A movie made by the same team that was actually behind my favorite movie of all-time? God, that’s cool! And even more when you come to realize that they’ve done it again. They have come up with a totally different story, even a common one, and translated it into magic for the big screen. This guys are something special, you can bet on that.
Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) is a FedEx employee who lives by the rules of time, who has such an agitated existence that he never stops to actually think about anything. One day he is involved in a plane crash and thus lands in a deserted island all by his own. What is he to do next? Survive, I guess. But this isn’t your usual man-left-alone-on-an-island fairy tale. This movie has a lot more to give.
It is a movie that rises so many questions that you get a cold feeling when you actually start reflecting about them. Why are we here for? What is it that keeps us going? For Chuck, it is the smile of his girlfriend (Helen Hunt), whom he left one day and doesn’t know for sure if he’ll see her again. It is a movie that by very simple means travels far on touchy subjects that we, as well as Chuck, uncover slowly through the journey. And it doesn’t provide easy answers. In fact, the movie leads to an inevitable conclusion that really feels true to itself.
It is a movie that doesn’t get into cheap devices. It defies you, and it defies itself and its characters. I really liked the way things always seemed very real. It is rare to find that in a movie and here we get really frank dialogue and situations.
Hanks, as the title character, gives, once again, a truly unforgettable performance. He doesn’t go for the over-the-top characterizations that other actors would have done. He is just what this guy is, plain and simple. He reflects perfectly the emotional tour-de-force Chuck goes through. And it speaks a lot about his talent that while he is completely alone for nearly half of the movie, we never get bored and can’t simply take our attention away from this guy. He is truly marvelous. Supporting characters include Helen Hunt, in a brief performance that is nonetheless very effective, and Wilson, the volleyball. This inanimate object becomes the best friend of Chuck while in the island, and a true emotional force that guides the path of his future.
Hanks, Wilson and the sea as the background make up for what is my favorite scene of the movie, a heart-wrenching emotional moment. Zemeckis, on the other hand, continues up with his reputation as one of the best contemporary filmmakers working today. He gets everything right with this one. From the amazing photography to the great and brief score, this movie is by far one of the best of the year. A must-see tale.
“I couldn't even kill myself the way I wanted to. I had control over nothing”.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Modern Times
- Director
- Charles Chaplin
- Year
- 1936
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Tuesday, January 16, 2001
You have no idea how many times I’ve seen
Modern Times in my life. I’ve lost the count. It may sound like an obsession more than a simple admiration for the film, but I can’t help to completely love it.
I’m not saying that I necessarily consider it my favorite Chaplin. I love
The Gold Rush and
City Lights very much too, only I think
Modern Times is even smarter, if a little more pretentious.
In his last silent, Charles Chaplin smartly criticizes the modern machine era, along with the talkies. He plays the tramp for the very last time, in one of his greatest adventures.
As a factory worker, he loses his mind due to the stress produced by the awfully repetitive work he has to do. Spanning weeks and months, he goes to a mental institution, then to jail because of a confusion, and so on.
The gamin (Paulette Goddard) is a young girl with an attitude. She’s poor but won’t follow the system. By chance, she meets the factory worker, and they become kind of partners in life. The help and love they give each other is heartbreaking. Their story is compelling.
This movie contains many of Chaplin’s best scenes (including the skating on the edge and the finale), probably his greatest music score (including the unforgettable “Smile” theme) and also an unforgettable performance by Goddard, Chaplin’s then-wife.
Oh, and we hear the little tramp’s voice for the first time! In a surprisingly smart scene which is probably the greatest criticism to talkies ever made by Chaplin, and an enjoyable incursion to talkies, ironically.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
JFK
- Director
- Oliver Stone
- Year
- 1991
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Monday, January 15, 2001
You wouldn't know it from his most recent efforts, but there was a time when Oliver Stone was one of America's most daring and controversial filmmakers. Never afraid to address a subject that most of America would rather leave unaddressed his films often came under fierce criticism. None more so than this 1991 film about the murder of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy.
The film undoubtedly has as many defenders as critics and both camps are likely to be equally passionate in their feelings. The critics will point to the content of the film with many wild allegations which are mostly unfounded. And a slight case of rewritten history revolving around the Jim Garrison character. But even the hardest critic will have to agree that this is a masterpiece of technical filmmaking.
The rewriting of history concerned the central character of the movie, New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner). He was the only person to put a man, Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), on trial for the murder. The movie allows Garrison to work with evidence that wasn't available to him at the time of the trial, the late 60's. Critics also point out that Garrison wasn't quite as sympathetic as the movie makes him seem to be. I have no doubt that that is correct but
JFK is not a movie about Jim Garrison, it just uses him as a symbol for anybody who didn't believe the Warren Commission's theory of the single assassin.
What also escaped most critics of the film probably is that while the movie certainly contains a lot of wild, controversial theories, Stone doesn't agree with all of them. Some of the characters who appear to give their view on the assassination are clearly not reliable, like Willie O’Keefe (Kevin Bacon), but others, most notably the mysterious “X” (Donald Sutherland) come across as very, sometimes frighteningly, believable. The movie doesn't give the final answer to what really happened on November 22 1963, the only conclusion it draws clearly is that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, at least not on his own.
As you probably guessed by my rating of the film I am one of the defenders of this movie. The editing (by Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia) is phenomenal, and deservedly won the Oscar. As did Robert Richardson for his splendid cinematography. The mix of documentary and reconstructed footage works brilliantly. What remains most impressive is the screenplay by Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, which although it contains an unbelievable amount of information (true or false), it makes sure that the movie never becomes confusing or dull. Finally there is the amazing cast, with many recognizable faces in small, supporting roles.
That all concerned the technical elements of the film. I also agree with the final conclusion of
JFK, which is that there was somewhat of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The movie, through the use of the famous Zapruder film, leaves no doubt that there were at least two people who fired a shot. Two gunmen working together, that's a conspiracy to me. I have read a good portion of the Warren report, which through the miracle of the internet is available to everyone, and anybody with half a brain can see that their conclusions are based on nothing.
The movie had some success in making the US congress implement a law which made Government documents more freely available to the public, but the most important files, the ones which deal with the Kennedy assassination, remained locked up. Something to do with national security, they say. I doubt that when the files become freely accessible (somewhere in 2030 or thereabout) they will contain the truth, but until that time Oliver Stone's movie might be the most reliable source for information.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, January 15, 2001
Lot of thing got shaken up at the box office this weekend! With six
new wide releases,
Save the Last Dance surprised everyone by
taking the top spot with an astonishing 24 million. By that,
Cast
Away ended in the second slot, with 17 million. It is on it’s way
to make 200 million or more. Not bad!
Traffic, the only R-
rated picture in the top10, stayed in third place and packed a very
good 11 million. I’m glad it is having success at the box office,
since it was virtually its only left obstacle on its way to the
Oscars.
Finding Forrester and
Thirteen Days all did
pretty well. The only disappointment was
Antitrust, which
wasn’t good enough to crack the top10. The weekend as a whole marked
a record. It is the biggest January weekend ever, and the biggest
Martin Luther King weekend as well. Impressive. We’re starting up the
year with the right foot. Hope it keeps this way.
Here’s the list:
1.
Save the Last Dance $24 million
2.
Cast Away $17.2 ($168.2 million total)
3.
Traffic $11.2 million ($35.1 million total)
4.
What Women Want $10.5 million ($153.9 million total)
5.
Thirteen Days $10.20 million ($12.3 million total)
6.
Finding Forrester $10 million ($21.4 million total)
7.
Double Take $10 million
8.
Miss Congeniality $9.4 million ($80.6 million total)
9.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon $8.2 million ($28.9 million
total)
10.
The Emperor's New Groove $5.7 million ($71.2 million total)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Cell
- Director
- Tarsem Singh
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Saturday, January 13, 2001
I have to admit I'm not the greatest fan of Jennifer Lopez but I pushed aside all my prejudices and watched the DVD yesterday. Despite all rumors of a dull plot I wanted to give
The Cell a chance. Everyone knows that I love creepy movies that have their own visual style. That's why I was attracted to this movie in the first place. Unfortunately most of my hopes were disappointed.
Jennifer Lopez plays Catharine Deane, a psychotherapist who is able to enter the minds of her patients thanks to a revolutionary new method. When serial killer Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) falls in a coma the FBI (Vince Vaughn as agent) approaches her to find out where Stargher hides his last victim. Time's running. The victim will be drowned in a cell which fills with water after 40 hours.
The plot sounded terrific to me. What an idea! Showing the mind of a serial killer. Singh succeeds in creating a twisted world in Stargher's schizophrenic mind. The visuals are at times stunning, but at other times just disgusting. For my taste some of it was just far too over the top. Normally I'm not easy to shock but this time I felt most of the gore was just unnecessary and brutal. However, as this was all part of the visual scenario I can come
to terms with it.
What really made the movie a disappointment was the fact that there was only a poor attempt to show what made the man a psychopath. The movie puts the blame on the father who misused the poor boy in his childhood. For my taste this was just too clichéd and simple. The ending with Lopez as saving Madonna made it even worse for me. In spite of the original idea Singh fails in showing how a person's mind works. Instead
The Cell is a surreal nightmare with stunning but deeply confusing images. Worth to have a look at but it could have been so much better.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Amores Perros
- Director
- Alejandro González Iñárritu
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Friday, January 12, 2001
Hey there, dear readers! As you may have noticed, I've been absent for more than a week now. I have been absolutely incapable of writing for the site. The reason? A terrible crash. Fortunately, I'm ok now, as is everyone involved.
The funny situation about the accident is that, in the morning of the day it happened, I had the chance to see
Love's a Bitch (
Amores Perros). I loved it! It's probably the best Mexican movie of the last years, and one of the best movies of 2000.
The whole story goes on around one big accident: a crash between two cars. Interwined, we see three stories, of love, hatred, treason and craziness. Filmed in a
Pulp Fiction-esque style, it is inimitable in captivating the viewer no matter what kind of people they are. It covers a lot of ground and analyzes characters in different situations -- though they are always extreme and traumatic.
We first see the story of Octavio (Gael García), a middle-class teenager who falls in love with the young wife of his brother (Vanessa Bauche and Marco Pérez, respectively), who lives in his own house. He has a dog, Coffee, who turns out to be a great fighter, and with which Octavio makes a lot of money to make his dream come true.
Then we see the story of Daniel (Alvaro Guerrero), a married man who leaves everything for Spanish model Valeria (Goya Toledo), and sees his life terribly affected by a tremendous change in her life. It all becomes worse when her little dog, Richie, disappears under the floor and makes a living behind the walls. Here, a combination of Hitchcock's psychological terror and Woody Allen's destructive relationships work to perfection.
The last story is about "El Chivo" (Emilio Echevarría), a man who left everything to follow his true beliefs and now regrets his awful past thanks to a killer dog.
The story is absolutely compelling and covers a lot of ground. Musicalized with wonderful songs and photographed in an astounding way, it shouldn't be missed. It's a great impulse for Mexican cinema, as well as a hope for universal movies to keep up the good work.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Anything good? Sure!
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, January 12, 2001
Don’t be fooled by all the new wide releases. As things go, they all
seem to be very very bad. It’s the expansions that you should take
note of. Let me explain:
Save The Last Dance (with Julia Stiles and Sean Patrick
Thomas, in an interracial love story with a dancing background),
Double Take (with Eddie Griffin and Orlando Jones, in a change-
identity plot) and
Antitrust (with Ryan Phillipe and Tim
Robbins, a thriller in the high business world of computers) are all
arriving with lots of publicity behind, but they are all being
heralded as some of the worst you’ll see this year... and we’re still
in January.
So what to do? You better go out and check
Thirteen Days (a
political thriller about the Cuban Missile Crisis with Kevin
Costner),
O Brother Where Art Thou (the latest from the Coens’
with George Clooney),
Finding Forrester (a
Good Will
Hunting-like picture with Sean Connery) or
Crouching Tiger,
Hidden Dragon (no introduction required). The four of them have
received glowing reviews and are surely going to premiere in your
city, since they are all having wider expansions. You could still
have a great weekend at the movies, and continue to check out the
best movies of 2000.
So there you go. Have fun, and see you on Monday!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Quills
- Director
- Philip Kaufman
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho
- Review date
- Thursday, January 11, 2001
I've always loved a good
Geoffrey Rush performance. Man, that's nearly every performance I've seen of him! What an actor... Luckily, he always gets good roles, like the one in this movie, where he plays the legendary Marquis de Sade, an insane writer of controversial, sexually explicit tales post-revolutionary France. Writing freely as a way of therapy, he manages to publish his novels though he's interned in an asylum.
Kate Winslet is great as a young nurse who becomes obsessed with the Marquis's writings, Joaquin Phoenix excellent as the Abbe of the asylum who has repressed fire inside of him. The standout performance, though, is Michael Caine's, playing the nasty Dr. Royer-Collard, who's been sent to the asylum by Napoleon to silence the Marquis.
The film is beautifully done in every way, rendering the atmosphere with the feelings and inner thoughts of the characters. The story could have probably been exploited in a better way, but it's hard to dislike. The ending is, in a way, disappointing, though it's also quite poignant.
What I like most are the subplots, including the terrific story of the young girl Royer-Collard marries (Amelia Warner).
Writing is a good habit. Sometimes, it's a way of living. But some rare times, it's an obsession, and the only way to go on in this life.
Gon C Curiel en Twitter |
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Sound Editing Preliminary Oscar Competitors
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Thursday, January 11, 2001
Which movies made the preliminary list to compete for a nomination in
the Sound Editing category at the Oscars? Check out:
Cast Away
Gladiator
M:I 2
The Perfect Storm
Space Cowboys
U-571
Unbreakable
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
2000 Independent Spirit Awards Nomination
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Thursday, January 11, 2001
They are presented one day before the Oscars, and their nominees
include pure independent features. Angry about Oscar ignoring all
those little pictures that are full of quality but not much seen by
the general public? Well, this is the place for you. Check out the
nominations for the 16th Annual Independent Spirit Awards:
BEST FEATURE
Before Night Falls
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
George Washington
Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai
Requiem for a Dream
BEST DIRECTOR
Ang Lee (
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
Christopher Guest (
Best in Show)
Darren Aronofsky (
Requiem for A Dream)
Julian Schnabel (
Before Night Falls)
Miguel Arteta (Chuck & Buck)
BEST SCREENPLAY
Valerie Breiman (
Love & Sex)
Raymond De Felitta (
Two Family House)
Robert Dillon (
Waking the Dead)
Kenneth Lonergan (
You Can Count on Me)
Mike White (
Chuck & Buck)
BEST FIRST FEATURE
Boiler Room
Girlfight
Love & Basketball
The Visit
You Can Count On Me
BEST FIRST SCREENPLAY
David Gordon Green (
George Washington)
Ross Klavan and Michael McGruther (
Tigerland)
Gina Prince-Bythewood (
Love & Basketball)
Jordan Walker-Pearlman (
The Visit)
Ben Younger (
Boiler Room)
BEST FEATURE - UNDER $500,000
Bunny
Chuck & Buck
Everything Put Together
Groove
Our Song
BEST DEBUT PERFORMANCE
Rory Culkin (
You Can Count on Me)
Michelle Rodriguez (
Girlfight)
Emmy Rossum (
Songcatcher)
Mike White, (
Chuck & Buck)
Ensemble -- Candace Evanofski, Curtis Cotton III, Damian Jewan Lee,
Donald Holden, Rachael Handy (
George Washington)
BEST SUPPORTING FEMALE
Pat Carroll (
Songcatcher)
Jennifer Connelly (
Requiem for a Dream)
Marcia Gay Harden (
Pollock)
Lupe Ontiveros (
Chuck & Buck)
Zhang Ziyi (
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
BEST SUPPORTING MALE
Willem Dafoe (
Shadow of the Vampire)
Cole Hauser (
Tigerland)
Gary Oldman (
The Contender)
Giovanni Ribisi (
The Gift)
Billy Dee Williams (
The Visit)
BEST FEMALE LEAD
Joan Allen (
The Contender)
Ellen Burstyn (
Requiem for a Dream)
Sanaa Lathan (
Love & Basketball)
Laura Linney (
You Can Count on Me)
Kelly MacDonald (
Two Family House)
BEST MALE LEAD
Javier Bardem (
Before Night Falls)
Adrien Brody (
Restaurant)
Billy Crudup (
Jesus' Son)
Hill Harper (
The Visit)
Mark Ruffalo (
You Can Count on Me)
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHER
Lou Bogue (
Shadow of the Vampire)
John De Borman (
Hamlet)
Matthew Libatique (
Requiem for a Dream)
Tim Orr (
George Washington)
Xavier Perez Grobet and Guillermo Rosas (
Before Night Falls)
BEST FOREIGN FILM
Dancer in the Dark
In the Mood for Love
The Terrorist
A Time for Drunken Horses
The War Zone
BEST DOCUMENTARY
Dark Days
The Eyes of Tammy Faye
Long Night's Journey Into Day
Paragraph 175
Sound and Fury
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Visual Effects Preliminary Oscar Competitors
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Thursday, January 11, 2001
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has just announced
the seven films in contention for the Visual Effects Oscar category.
Of this contenders, three will be nominated after a 15-minute clip is
screened to specialists in the matter. The nominations will be
announced February 13th. Keep in touch!
This are the competitors:
Cast Away
Dinosaur
The Grinch
Gladiator
The Hollow Man
The Perfect Storm
X-Men
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
2000 Golden Laurel Nominations
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Wednesday, January 10, 2001
As the race for the Oscars gets tougher as each day goes by, the
different guilds of the country start announcing their nominations
(and later their winners) for their respective categories. The Golden
Laurel Awards are handed out to producers. The Producers Guild of
America hand out their Darryl F. Zanuck Award to the producer who
they think deserves the recognition. You should also note that when
the Oscar for Best Picture is announced, the producers are the ones
who receive the award. This means that this award might very well be
for the Best Picture of the Year. Also note that all this guild
nominations are sometimes clearly indicators of what to expect come
Oscar time. So who made the list? Let’s see:
Almost Famous
Billy Elliot
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Erin Brockovich
Gladiator
Those who didn’t make the cut:
Cast Away or
Traffic. I
guess everyone has their own opinion...
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Article
Universal Horror
- Posted by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Article date
- Wednesday, January 10, 2001
There were Warner Brothers gangster movies. They usually starred Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney or Edward G. Robinson. There were MGM musicals, which usually starred Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire or Esther Williams. There were Hal Roach comedies, which usually starred Laurel and Hardy, the Keystone Cops or Harold Lloyd. Yes, back in Hollywood’s middle ages every studio specialized in one genre or another. The movies pretty much always had the same stars and a small, fixed group of directors was usually at the helm. The Universal studio, founded by Carl Laemmle was no exception. Their field was horror movies, which usually starred Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi and James Whale was the preferable director.
Universal had always been one of the smaller studios. Founded in 1912 the studio specialized in westerns, and cheap ones at that. Things changed somewhat when the legendary Irving Thalberg became head of production in the early twenties. He was able to give the studio some stature and the films some class, but sadly for Universal he left for MGM after only a couple of years. Universal would remain a minor studio until they hit it big in the early thirties. The reason they hit it big was the success of their horror movies, which they would continue to produce for the better part of two decades.
Most people think that the Universal Horror began in the early 1930’s with the productions of
Dracula and
Frankenstein, but the studio produced some excellent horror films in the twenties. Most famous are the ones that starred Lon Chaney, productions like
Phantom of the Opera and
The Hunchback of Notre Dame. These films are well known, based on popular material and still very watchable today, mainly for the great performances of the star. But the two most interesting films of that period are now all but forgotten. They were directed by a gifted man who came from Germany by personal invitation of studio owner Carl Laemmle. His name was Paul Leni.
He was to have a very short career in Hollywood because of an illness that cost him his life after only two years there. In the space of that time he made four films, the most important of which were
The Cat and the Canary in 1927 and
The Man Who Laughs in 1928. The latter in particular being a powerful film worthy of rediscovery. It deals with a man (Conrad Veidt) who as a child was tortured causing his mouth to be badly damaged. The only way to save it was through surgery, but this had a painful effect namely that his mouth is now always showing a broad smile. He now has no choice but to become a clown and finds this very hard especially when he falls in love with a blind girl. The picture has some similarities with
Hunchback (they both are based on works by Victor Hugo), but
The Man Who Laughs, in my opinion, works better and it is a shame that it is very difficult to get to see the film.
1931 would prove to be an important year for the Universal Horror. This was the year in which the two most famous studio monsters, Dracula and the monster of Frankenstein would first see the light of day. Both would be played by gentlemen who one would not normally associate with Hollywood, one a strange immigrant from Hungary and the other a very classy Englishman. Even though both stories had been told on the screen many times before in different forms (there was a version of Frankenstein as early as 1910) these versions would create the standard images for the monsters and would make stars out of the men who played them.
Universal had acquired the rights for a theater version of Dracula that had been very successful in the late twenties. In the title role it starred a man named Bela Lugosi, he was an actor with some character roles in film and theater to his credit but was still pretty much unknown. He therefore was not even considered to take the lead in the film version, which was to be directed by Tod Browning. The studio wanted to play it safe and cast one of the most popular actors around, Lon Chaney in the role. Chaney formed a successful team with Browning at MGM now where they mostly did horror pictures and both would be loaned by Universal. Sadly Chaney died before the production got underway and the role would have to be recast. Various names were considered, most notably Conrad Veidt, but in a pretty risky move the studio changed its mind at gave the role to Lugosi who was desperate for it and didn't let them down.
Looking at
Dracula today is not as entertaining or scary as it must have been some seventy years ago. It looks pretty creaky at times, there is little music (though recently Philip Glass wrote a score for the film which works well) and Browning didn't add much visual flair to Bram Stoker’s most famous story, which isn't followed that closely. It begins well enough with Jonathan Harker (David Manners) visiting the count in Transylvania. These scenes still possess some eeriness but sadly they last very short and before you know it the Count is in London where he hopes to find the re-incarnation of his long lost love. It is in the London sequence in particular that the movie disappoints. These scenes seem to be merely a photographed version of the play and are in no way scary. The acting from the cast, excluding Lugosi, varies from wooden to way over the top. If Lugosi hadn’t given such a great performance as Dracula I don't think the film would have been remembered after all these years. Some cast members would later say that they didn't think much of the film when they were making it and that shows. It certainly doesn't hold up to the silent version made in Germany by F.W. Murnau,
Nosferatu.
Still at the time the film was very successful and made Lugosi a star. And thus when Universal made plans to film another horror story, this time Mary Shelley’s classic tale Frankenstein, he was naturally the first choice to play the monster. However he turned it down for the excellent reason that it is not a part befitting his new star-status. The role indeed calls for no dialogue, just some grunting and some jerky movements. He did film some tests that were directed by Robert Florey but these merely confirmed his doubts and both he and Florey were excused from the production. The studio approached contract director James Whale to take over the project. Whale, a W.W.I veteran, had enjoyed huge success in London's West End with a stage production of R.C. Sheriff's,
Journey's End. He was asked the direct the play on Broadway and eventually to direct the film version for Universal in 1930.
The hiring of Whale was an excellent move. Not only was he a more capable director but also it was he who would come up with most of the look for the monster. He gave his instructions to make-up artist Jack Pierce who would later claim most of the credit. Also Whale suggested the casting of fellow countryman Boris Karloff. Karloff, real name William Henry Pratt, was a character actor if ever there was one. He had made some 80 films up to that point and in 1931 would appear in 12 alone. Whale of course was most impressed with Karloff’s physical presence but he must also have seen a good actor in him because though the monster is not a glamorous part it still remained a difficult role to play. For the central role of Henry Frankenstein, Whale suggested the actor who played in all of his Journey’s End productions, Colin Clive.
The movie holds up a lot better than the version of
Dracula made that same year. Again it doesn't stick too close to the source material but there are many qualities here. The art decoration is first rate, and some scenes still have significant power, such as the creation scene, which is somewhat influenced by Fritz Lang’s
Metropolis, the monster's encounter with a little girl and the finale in the burning mill. Also it would create the definitive look for the monster with the flat head and the bolts in the neck. The success of this film would prompt two direct sequels and a long string of horror movies produced by the studio.
Though it would seem logical to make the most out of the success by making sequels to
Dracula and
Frankenstein they wouldn't appear before five and four years respectively. Instead the studio created some new monsters, and searched for new material, though of course the two new stars would be in most of them. In 1932 there would be some interesting films which would have nothing to do with the earlier successes such as
The Old Dark House,
Murders in the Rue Morgue and
The Mummy.
The Old Dark House re-teamed director Whale with Karloff. Five travelers seek shelter from a storm in Wales one night and they wind up in a house inhabited by various creepy and eccentric people. The film mixes chills with laughs in a very accomplished manner, helped by a quite formidable cast which besides Karloff (as a mute butler) includes Charles Laughton, Raymond Massey, Melvyn Douglas and Ernest Thesiger, who would feature prominently in the first sequel to
Frankenstein in 1935. Whale was able to pay tribute here to German director Paul Leni whom he admired very much. Some scenes are clearly inspired by Leni’s
The Cat and the Canary and there are some similarities in the story as well.
In
The Old Dark House Karloff still had a supporting role, but he was given his first starring role a few months later in a film called
The Mummy. The great German cameraman Karl Freund, who had a lot of experience in the UFA-studios in Berlin and was brought to America by Universal, directed it. He did the camerawork for the Lugosi version of
Dracula and the studio offered him a chance as a director on the new Karloff project. The film is basically a retelling of the Dracula story, only this time it is an ancient mummy who comes back to life after 3000 years to look for the re-incarnation of a lost love. The studio probably got more than they bargained for because the film is a lot more artistic than
Dracula and it relies more on atmosphere than on thrills. The lighting is quite superb and Karloff again gives a great performance. He was once more handicapped by a great deal of make-up (by Jack Pierce) but he was able to show a lot of emotion. The problem was that the film was totally un-commercial. It is a great achievement artistically and hauntingly beautiful but people were not standing in line to see craftsmanship, they wanted scares and
The Mummy didn't have enough of them. It cut short a promising directing career for Freund who would be back behind the camera soon to shoot Lugosi’s first starring role in
Murders in the Rue Morgue.
Based on the Edgar Allan Poe story,
Murders in the Rue Morgue was a quite controversial undertaking. It deals with a mad scientist who has to find a bride for his pet ape, that alone would be enough to raise a few outcries. But the most fury came over a scene in which the girl is being tortured by Lugosi while hanging on a cross with very little clothing. Despite these intriguing facts the film is an enormous disappointment. Both Lugosi and the film's director, Robert Florey, were demoted from
Frankenstein the previous year and both don't seem happy with the film they got instead. The budget is obviously limited and the screenplay has virtually none of the elements that were in the original story (something of a Hollywood tradition when it films one of Poe’s works). The look of the film is still somewhat impressive, thanks to cameraman Freund, but the acting is weak. Also the ape is so clearly a man in a suit that it ruins any tension that the film might have achieved. Financially the film faired quite well, thanks to the controversy no doubt, so Universal believed that there still was a lot of money to be made with horror films so they continued making them and in 1933 they produced the best one so far.
James Whale was again at the helm for an adaptation of H.G. Wells’ story
The Invisible Man. A scientist invents a formula that makes him invisible but it causes him to go insane at the same time. After an attempt to reverse the effect fails he has to hide in the English countryside but every minute he becomes more dangerous to himself and the people around him. The only hope for him lies in his girlfriend and her scientist father, who can cure him.
The film is more science fiction than horror but I include it anyway because it was certainly the best of the bunch up to that time. There is plenty of room for comedy and the special effects by John P. Fulton now inevitably look a little dated but back then they must have seemed spectacular. In the title role Claude Rains makes probably the strangest debut in American film. He can only be seen for about a second in the last scene but he does a great job with only his voice.
The teaming of Lugosi and Karloff was inevitable and it would take place in the movie
The Black Cat. Both actors were somewhat disappointed by the roles offered by Universal after their initial successes and they spent a couple a years working at other studios. But they returned in 1934 to make a bizarre film with an even more bizarre look. Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer,
The Black Cat is not what one would expect. It allegedly is based on another of Edgar Allan Poe’s stories but as usual little of the original made it into the movie. The plot deals with a revengeful doctor (Lugosi) who wants to make an Austrian Architect (Karloff) pay for betraying his country during World War I. Things are made more interesting by the fact that Karloff is also a devil worshipper, Lugosi’s somewhat sadistic torturing techniques and the inclusion of something that can only be described as necrophilia. This all makes it sound like a most intriguing movie but just like with
Murders in the Rue Morgue it is mostly rather dull, though it looks pretty good and Lugosi in particular is in fine form. It wouldn't be the last time that Lugosi and Karloff were paired together in a Universal movie but as exciting as the combination may have seemed it never resulted in a memorable movie.
The Raven (1935),
The Invisible Ray (1936) and
Son of Frankenstein (1939) are hardly classics so perhaps
The Black Cat is the best of the gruesome twosome's films together and therefore worth a look.
The studio had always wanted James Whale to make a sequel to
Frankenstein but he had always resisted it. After four years he finally gave in but only after he had a good enough idea to make the sequel more interesting than the original. Released in 1935
Bride of Frankenstein would indeed be better than the original, but it would also be better than any other horror movie that Universal put out.
Bride has a more sophisticated look and screenplay, some great moments of comedy and a couple of excellent supporting roles. Karloff was once again the monster and Colin Clive revived his role as Henry Frankenstein.
The story goes as follows: after barely surviving the confrontation with his own creation, Henry Frankenstein is visited by an old teacher of his, Dr. Pretorious (Ernest Thesiger) who has heard of his experiments and wants him to go further. He suggests creating a bride for the monster so they could have children. Henry objects to this of course but Pretorious has some convincing blackmailing tricks up his sleeve, namely the kidnapping of his fiancée, so in the end he cooperates. It hardly works out well because the bride (Elsa Lanchester) rejects the monster who then decides to destroy everybody.
I have described only the essential story above but the movies possesses some great sub-plots, such as some of Pretorious’ previous experiments and the monster's encounter with a blind hermit. It would also be the first in the line of horror movies that would look something like an A picture. It was the first one to have its own score (a great one by Franz Waxman), some dazzling sets and pretty damn good cinematography by John Mescall. Some care was given to the set-up of the story by adding an amusing prologue which features Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester again), her husband Percy and Gordon Byron. They sit around and give you the necessary information from the first movie, just in case you would have missed it, and explain that there was more to the story than was seen. This would be the high point in Universal horror and that of everyone involved with the movie. Some people say it was mistake to give the monster more human characteristics, like emotion and the ability to talk, but that is only a minor objection in a movie that is otherwise faultless. I only hope that the 15 minutes that were cut after the film's premiere still exist and will be restored some day.
After
Bride of Frankenstein there was really only one way the Universal horror series could go; down, and it did just that, but probably faster than anyone could have expected. The following year would see only one interesting vehicle,
Dracula’s Daughter, and the failure of that one would pretty much stop the production of horror movies for three years.
Dracula’s Daughter was the sequel to the Lugosi movie, only he wouldn't play in it. The story instead deals with the Count's daughter, who decides to follow the trail of her illustrious father to England.
Though as I said the film was a failure it actually to my mind is a notch better than its predecessor. Gloria Holden in the title role is effective, but there is a great performance by Otto Kruger. The movie has more plot and turns into something of a detective story with a good deal of suspense. The direction by Lambert Hillyer, a complete unknown to me, is very accomplished. It was quite a scandalous movie at the time because it is clear that the Count's daughter is some sort of a lesbian. She only takes female victims and when she does this she shows more lust than brutality. This was not lost on those party-poopers at the Production Code, who ordered heavy cutting, but the movie you can see today is pretty much complete and well worth the effort.
It probably wasn't just the failure of
Dracula’s Daughter which caused the temporary halt in horror movie production. Around this time the studio ownership changed hands from the senior Carl Leammle to his son, Carl Jr, who had his own ideas as to what course the studio should take. He believed in more family friendly material such as movies with Universal's answer to Shirley Temple, Deanna Durbin, and comedies with W.C. Fields and Abbott and Costello. These weren't the successes that he hoped for and it was thus out of necessity that he returned to the formula that had proven successful earlier, namely scary movies. Though it would become clear during this period that the horror movie cycle was beginning to run out of steam it still introduced the last great monster to the audience and it would bring the last in the classic series of Frankenstein. But other than this it would only result in tired, formulaic movies, often with two or more of the classic monsters together, or paired with the “comedy” of Abbott and Costello.
James Whale had become outraged at Universal because of their interference in one of his most personal projects,
The Road Back (1937) and he left the studio. So when the second sequel to
Frankenstein was ready to shoot in 1939, Universal had to find a new director. They found him in Rowland V. Lee, probably because he had worked successfully with both Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff in
Tower of London that same year. The name of the film was
Son of Frankenstein and Rathbone was the title character who wants to clear the family name by attempting the same experiment as his father but now trying to succeed where his father failed, namely in making the monster “good”. Needless to say this doesn't work out the way he had hoped.
Though not as good as
Bride of Frankenstein,
Son is not without its qualities. The sets are once again superb. It also features a good performance by Lugosi, who by now was reduced to supporting roles, as Ygor, who becomes the monsters only friend. Lionel Atwill is in the cast as well in the role of the police inspector with a past. The production has a classy look and feel to it, but it remains rather talky, though it is probably the main inspiration for Mel Brooks’ funny spoof
Young Frankenstein (1974).
The Wolf Man (1941) would introduce to us the fourth and last of the Universal monsters. It starred Lon Chaney Jr., son of the great silent screen star. An impressive supporting cast was rounded up including Claude Rains, Bela Lugosi and Ralph Bellamy. The story told here was not new to Universal. The studio had produced a forgotten movie in 1935 called
Werewolf of London which starred Henry Hull.
The Wolf Man was to be a remake of that, just with some added star power. It concerns the story of an Englishman (Chaney) who returns home from the US only to be attacked by a werewolf (Lugosi), whom he kills but not after being bitten by the creature. He then comes to the realization that he is becoming a werewolf himself.
The film was a huge success and as a bonus to the studio created a new star to fill the boots of Karloff and Lugosi, who were about to leave the studio. Chaney would in the coming years appear as pretty much all of the Universal monsters.
The Wolf Man would remain his best though. The film holds up pretty well today, and the make-up is impressive although it doesn't exactly make Chaney look like a wolf. The film introduced all the famous myths about werewolves to us, such as that when you are bitten you become one yourself, that they can only be killed by silver objects and that they come out at fool moon. The script by Curt Siodmak also features a piece of pop culture poetry, delivered by Maria Ouspenskaya:
Even a man who is pure of heart
and says his prayers by night
may become a wolf when the wolf bane blooms
and the autumn moon is bright.
The Wolf Man probably marked the beginning of the end of the Universal Horror. Many more horror films starring the famous monsters would appear during the remainder of the 1940’s, but all of them are forgettable, with the possible exception of
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and that is a comedy. I am not at all a fan of this duo but this film I find watchable. It features Dracula and the Wolf Man, both played by their most famous interpreters, Lugosi and Chaney, and the Frankenstein monster played this time by Glenn Strange. The screenplay is reasonably funny and the monsters play it straight, which is the right choice.
By the end of the forties it was clear even to the executives at Universal that the monster cycle had run more than a little out of steam. Titles like
Ghost of Frankenstein,
Son of Dracula,
The Wolf Man Meets the Mummy were all as tired as their titles made them seem to be. What’s more, the youth of that age was beginning to get more excited about science fiction. So even the great Horror studio had to put its most famous stars, the monsters, to bed. They didn't die, after a while they just appeared at another studio. In the late fifties the British Hammer studio would breath new life into the creatures. They just shot them in color, which probably made them more acceptable to the new generation. The Hammer versions of Dracula, Frankenstein and The Mummy closely resembled to their predecessors from Universal, but it’s those old black and white versions which have proved to be the more popular.
Those glory days of Universal horror were probably the best days in the careers of everyone who was involved. Boris Karloff left the studio in 1940 but would spend the rest of his career, which was nearly 30 years, in B-movies. He would only become a star again after his death though at least he left the screen on somewhat of a high note in Peter Bogdanovich’s
Targets (1968) in which he basically played himself.
The post-Universal days were even harder for Bela Lugosi. He left the studio at about the same time as Karloff and also had to appear in B or sometimes even C-movies, but it wasn't just his professional life that took a turn for the worst. Personally it would be even worse for him because of an addiction to drugs, which would make him virtually unemployable from the late forties on. He was taken from oblivion somewhat by legendary “filmmaker” Edward D. Wood, Jr. Lugosi would star in some of Wood’s most famous films like
Glen or Glenda and
Bride of the Monster. His last screen appearance Lugosi made in Wood's legendary
Plan 9 From Outer Space, though his role is mostly played by a double because of his death during production. During his life Lugosi famously became somewhat obsessed with his most famous role (he even wanted to be buried in his Dracula cape). His demise is the most saddening of all the principles.
Director James Whale's life after Universal is pretty well told in the recent film
Gods and Monsters (1998). After the row over
The Road Back he went around working in Hollywood as a free agent but found little work (the best one is probably his version of
The Man in the Iron Mask from 1939). He basically devoted the rest of his life, which would last until 1957, to painting. Some say the fact that he was a homosexual was the cause of his lack of work but I find this unlikely, after all George Cukor worked all his like in Hollywood, and it was well known that he preferred the company of men.
The people who made most of these movies were a colorful bunch, who on their own might never have made a name for themselves. But as a team they brought out something special in each other and produced cinema history.
Recent remakes of
Dracula (1992) by Francis Ford Coppola and
Frankenstein (1995) by Kenneth Branagh were more faithful to their source material but are unlikely to replace the old movies as the iconic images of their stories.
If you ask anybody in the world to draw you a picture of Frankenstein’s monster, nine times out of ten they will draw you the look of Karloff’s monster. Ask somebody to talk like Dracula and he'll talk with Lugosi’s accent. And everybody knows that you kill a werewolf with a silver bullet. All these facts are widely accepted even though you won't find them written in stone anywhere. It just shows us how big the influence is that the Universal horror movies had and still have. You might even conclude that their appeal is, dare I say it, universal.
*Selected Filmography:
- The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Wallace Worsely) - 1923
- The Phantom of the Opera (Rupert Julian) - 1925
- The Cat and the Canary (Paul Leni) - 1927
- The Man Who Laughs (Paul Leni) - 1928
- Dracula (Tod Browning) - 1931
- Frankenstein (James Whale) - 1931
- The Old Dark House (James Whale) - 1932
- The Mummy (Karl Freund) - 1932
- Murders in the Rue Morgue (Robert Florey) - 1932
- The Invisible Man (James Whale) - 1933
- The Black Cat (Edgar G. Ulmer) - 1934
- Werewolf of London (Stuart Walker) - 1935
- The Raven (Lew Landers) - 1935
- Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale) - 1935
- Dracula’s Daughter (Lambert Hillyer) - 1936
- The Invisible Ray (Lambert Hillyer) - 1936
- Son of Frankenstein (Rowland V. Lee) - 1939
- The Wolf Man (George Waggner) - 1941
- Ghost of Frankenstein (Erle C. Kenton) - 1942
- Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (Roy William Neill) - 1943
- House of Frankenstein (Erle C. Kenton) - 1944
- House of Dracula (Erle C. Kenton) - 1945
- Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (Charles Barton) – 1948
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
AFI List 2000
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Tuesday, January 09, 2001
Everyone knows about the American Film Institute. Their “best-of”
lists are always controversial and a lot of talk always surrounds
them. Beginning in the year 2000, the AFI has decided to make up a
list of what for them were considered the 10 best movies of the year.
This way they’ll keep record in a yearly basis of the American films
and acknowledge excellence. So who made the now-prestigious list
after all?
In alphabetical order:
Almost Famous
Before Night Falls
Best in Show
Gladiator
Erin Brockovich
High Fidelity
Requiem for a Dream
Traffic
Wonder Boys
You Can Count On Me
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Third Man
- Director
- Carol Reed
- Year
- 1949
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Monday, January 08, 2001
Is there such a thing as a perfect movie? Probably not, but there are a few that come really close. Carol Reed's
The Third Man is one of them. It is an amazing mix of mystery, thrills, murder, romance, music, humor and all the other things that make going to the movies the fabulous experience that it is.
The plot concerns an American writer named Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten), who, after the second World War, comes to Vienna on the invitation of his old friend Harry Lime. Lime offered him a much needed job, but upon his arrival he learns that Lime has died in a accident. The circumstances of his friend's death strike Martins as strange so he decides to investigate the matter himself.
During his investigation he meets a lot of people who knew Lime, such as his girlfriend Anna (Alida Valli), his business partners Baron Kurtz (Ernst Deutch) and Mr. Popescu (Siegfried Breuer) and an English policeman, Calloway (Trevor Howard). It is through their stories that Martins learns what his friend Lime has been up to in the last few years. It becomes clear that his friend had changed since they last saw each other and not for the best, so it was probably best that he died, but did he die...?
The story sounds like a straight-forward thriller but there are many things here that elevate
The Third Man over virtually all other movies in this genre or any other. First there's the look of the film. It was shot entirely on location in Vienna, and the atmosphere and look of the city ("bombed about a bit" as the screenplay says) fits the film perfectly. It also makes the film very realistic, no doubt this is also due to director Reed's experience in WW II, where he was working in the British documentary unit.
The acting by the cast is of the highest standard, with Joseph Cotten outstanding. He is in nearly every scene but his performance never hits a false note. This is to my knowledge the only film in which he has the leading role and you wonder why he didn't have any more.
The fantastic screenplay was written by the famous novelist Graham Greene. He reportedly based it on one sentence he had written some years ago. "I had paid my last farewell to Harry a week ago, when his coffin was lowered into the frozen February ground, so it was with incredulity that I saw him pass by, without a sign of recognition, amongst the host of strangers in the Strand." I don't know how he saw a movie in there, but I'm glad he did. He first wrote the story as a novel, which was successful, and immediately wrote the screenplay. The most famous speech from the movie was however not by Greene. The cuckoo clock speech was written by the man who speaks it, Orson Welles.
The movie is also helped by one of the most famous scores in cinema history. It is performed by Anthony Karas, who was discovered on location. His "Harry Lime theme" works so well that you'd think is was written especially for the film, though it wasn't. Would the film be the same without the music? I doubt it.
Not many films that are this downbeat remain popular, and
The Third Man is certainly downbeat. It shows the gritty aftermath of the war, with its black market, and there are the first signs of another war, though it would be a cold one. There isn't even a happy ending to the film, although the producer, David O Selznick desperately wanted one. But Carol Reed wouldn't give in and good for him, because the ending as it is works perfectly.
Perhaps the greatest quality the film possesses can't be seen on the screen. It is its refusal to become tired and boring after repeated viewings. I have seen the film many times, but I am already looking forward to the next time I am going to see it, which, if the movies that are coming out these days remain as bad as they are, shouldn't be too long from now.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Monday, January 08, 2001
Nothing but pleasant surprises this weekend. The excellent
Cast
Away remained at the top of the box office for the third
consecutive weekend with a cume of 24.1 million. It is performing
extremely well and if it continues this way it could even reach
The Grinch, which has finally left the top10 and has about 254
million to date. The only new wide release this weekend was
Traffic, which performed above expectations with 14.9 million.
Its per-screen average was higher than that of its two predecessors.
It remains to be seen how it holds as more critics prizes are handed
out and the Oscar nominations are just a little more than a month
ahead.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon gets back into the top10
and continues to perform astoundingly. It has already done 18.8
million. Not bad.
Next week will be a busy one. Three new major releases are set to
premiere, and three big movies will go wide as well. It should prove
interesting....
1.
Cast Away 24.1 million (143.6 million total)
2.
What Women Want 15.5 million (137.8 million total)
3.
Traffic 14.9 million (15.5 million total)
4.
Miss Congeniality 13.8 million (66.2 million total)
5.
The Family Man 9.2 million (56.3 million total)
6.
The Emperor's New Groove 7 million (62 million total)
7.
Vertical Limit 5 million (59.3 million total)
8.
Dracula 2000 4.2 million (28 million total)
9.
Dude, Where's My Car? 3.83 million (41.4 million total)
10.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 3.75 million (18.8 million
total)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
2000 National Society of Film Critics Awards
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Sunday, January 07, 2001
The National Society of Film Critics. What exactly does that mean?
Well, it’s easy. We’ve been getting all sorts of news and awards from
different groups from different states or societies. In order to get
a perspective from a single united point of view, 51 of the finest
and best-known critics of the country gather together and try to come
up with a list of what was the best of the year. The process of
choosing is by voting, and whoever gets the majority wins. It would
be absolutely impossible to get all of them to agree on one single
point altogether, so this way its easier and fairer. Critics in the
group include some such as Roger Ebert, Elvis Mitchell, Peter
Travers, Kenneth Turan, etc...Usually their choices are not what
you’d expect. They tend to go for the arty and independent fare, but
their picks sure are interesting and reflect what the main voices of
the country think. Check it out:
Best Picture:
Yi Yi (A One and a Two)
Runner-up:
Traffic
Best Director: Steven Soderbergh (
Traffic and
Erin
Brockovich)
Best Actor: Javier Bardem (
Before Night Falls)
Runners-up: Mark Ruffalo (
You Can Count On Me) and Tom Hanks
(
Cast Away)
Best Actress: Laura Linney (
You Can Count On Me)
Runners-up: Gillian Anderson (
The House of Mirth) and Ellen
Burstyn (
Requiem for a Dream)
Best Supporting Actor: Benicio del Toro (
Traffic)
Runners-up: Fred Willard (
Best in Show) and Willem Dafoe
(
Shadow of the Vampire)
Best Supporting Actress: Elaine May (
Small Time Crooks)
Runners-up: Frances McDormand (
Almost Famous) and Marcia Gay
Harden (
Pollock)
Best Screenplay: Kenneth Lonergan (
You Can Count On Me)
Runners-up: Steven Kloves (
Wonder Boys) and Stephen Ghaghan
(
Traffic)
Best Cinematography: Agnes Godard (
Beau Travail)
Best Non-Fiction Film:
The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg
Best Experimental Film:
The Heart of the WorldCriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
- Director
- Ang Lee
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Jacinda
- Review date
- Friday, January 05, 2001
I highly appreciated the work of Ang Lee ever since
The Icestorm. When I first heard about this movie I thought it had a very high potential of being good. The day I saw excerpts from the fight scenes it really caught my attention and I was desperate to finally get the chance to see it. Last week I went to the theatre the day it arrived. Memories crept back into my mind: I must have been about twelve when I liked watching old martial arts movies on TV. In times of kung fu fight scenes in every second Hollywood movie
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is much of a change.
From the instant the movie starts you feel the different rhythm. It's very quiet and the storytelling can be compared to a flow. You'll be captured in a world that seems very different but fascinating. Li (Chow Yun-Fat) and Shu (Michelle Yeoh) are trying to find the person that stole a magical jade sword. These two characters share an unfulfilled love relationship while the daughter of a noble man, Jen Yu (Ziyi Zhang) tries to emancipate from her parents. The wise but weary Li tries to teach her but the young girl rejects his help. Li and Shu have to face their oldest enemy and the outcome of their relationship while Jen finds her true love and her inner self.
There's so much to say about the achievements of this movie. Chow Yun-Fat gives his best performance so far. He portrays Li with wisdom and honor but his eyes keep telling us that he has seen too many terrible things in his life. Michelle Yeoh proofs she's a brilliant dramatic actress. Her showing the pain and the longing for Li will give you some shivers. Besides Zigi Zhang is a true find as she steals most of the scenes. The development of her character Jen is portrayed in a very strong and powerful way.
Moreover the scenery and the photography is the most beautiful I've seen in years. Combined with the atmospheric score the desert romance unfolds beautifully before your eyes. Also the fight scenes will take your breath away. With some movie magic the characters keep flying from roof to roof and from tree to tree. I have never seen anything that could even be compared to it.
There are just so many great aspects of this movie I could keep talking for hours and hours. Lee's Eastern world of warriors, outlaws and princesses is thrilling and beautiful at the same time.
Don't miss this epic which is an instant classic for its genre!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
2000 Florida Film Critics Circle Awards
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, January 05, 2001
More awards, and more buzz for some movies. The battle continues, and
God knows what’s gonna happen. Check out what the critics at Florida
thought was the best of the year:
Best Picture:
Traffic
Best Director: Steven Soderbergh (
Traffic, Erin Brockovich)
Best Actor: Geoffrey Rush (
Quills)
Best Actress: Ellen Burstyn (
Requiem for a Dream)
Best Supporting Actor: Benicio del Toro (
Traffic)
Best Supporting Actress: Frances McDormand (
Almost Famous, Wonder
Boys)
Best Newcomer: Kate Hudson (
Almost Famous)
Best Screenplay: David Mamet (
State and Main)
Best Cinematography: Peter Pau (
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
Best Ensemble:
State and Main
Best Foreign Picture:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Best Animated Feature:
Chicken Run
Best Documentary:
The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg
Best Score:
O Brother Where Art Thou
Best Soundtrack:
O Brother Where Art Thou
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
A good start
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Friday, January 05, 2001
Hi there! A brand new year it is. Time to leave behind all the bad
thoughts we might have had about last year and start to look forward.
This first weekend of the year contains no major brand new releases.
January is usually a slow month which serves for two different type
of movies: whether they are Oscar-hopefuls which have already had a
limited release and are now going wide, or just mediocre movies which
the studios are trying to get rid of as soon as possible.
The case we get this weekend is the first one. We have two movies
going wide. The first one is
Chocolat, which has already been
out there for a while and which is adding a lot more screens to its
count.
And then there is
Traffic, which was just released last week,
and is now quickly going nationwide. As you might already know, the
movie has been garnering a lot of year-end awards and has made a lot
of top ten lists. Well, now it’s your turn to see it. The buzz is
right on target as critics continue to praise it.
So there you go, two good motion pictures that you shouldn’t miss.
They are both getting a lot of Oscar buzz and they are part of the
best of last year. They both have wonderful casts and intriguing
stories.
Go to the movies... and have fun!
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
The Legend of Bagger Vance
- Director
- Robert Redford
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Wednesday, January 03, 2001
Being a big fan of Matt Damon, Charlize Theron, Will Smith and Robert Redford, I just couldn’t miss this movie, right? Not even if it wasn’t critically praised and it wasn’t a smash at the box office either. Well, I’m glad I didn’t pay attention to anyone and still decided to give it a look. The movie is great.
Our first scene involves Hardy Greaves (Jack Lemmon). He is playing golf. Suddenly, he has a heart attack. His fifth, as he says. An instant later, he starts recalling a story he lived when he was just a little boy (J. Michael Moncrief). Thus starts the story of Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon), a young guy who happens to be a gifted golf player who has won everything a man his age could’ve won. He is sent to war, and returns deeply affected by the experience. Meanwhile, society girl Adel (Charlize Theron), who once had an affair with Junuh and is still in love with him, is trying to save his late father’s dream by organizing a golf match between two of the era biggest names: Walter Hagen (Bruce McGill) and Bobby Jones (Joel Gretsch). The problem is: people want to see the local Savannah hero playing against them as well.
Besides being a mystical story, this is a tale of the redemption of a soul. Junuh has seen the best and the worst of life, but suddenly, he feels trapped inside his own feelings and can’t simply go on being the same human he was. He is too hurt, but deep inside, he still is a man who can give a lot. One day, another figure enters his life. Bagger Vance (Will Smith) arrives out of nowhere and becomes his caddy. What he doesn’t know, and what we also discover through this journey, is that this man is far beyond human. He is here to help Junuh and make some well-renowned statements about the spirit of the human being.
By doing this, the movie uses the metaphor of comparing golf to life. This proves to be really effective, and in the true vein of
The Natural starts to become also kind of a spiritual experience for us too. The way the movie is played is beautiful. It never tries to rush. It is calmed and lighthearted, although very serious in the matters it so expertly handles. Some might think that at times the character of Bagger Vance becomes too cheesy, but that’s not true given the perspective we are shown since the beginning of the movie. If you try to stay opened and live the movie instead of just watching it, you will find a lot more underneath.
The performances help a lot. Matt Damon is great and perfectly fit. Charlize Theron shines in one of the best performances I’ve seen her give. Will Smith is effectively low-key and the little boy also surprises in his supporting role. With a perfect score by Rachel Portman and a magnificent photography, this movie brings magic to the screen. A winner!
“It was just a moment ago”
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
2000 Online Film Critics Society Awards
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Wednesday, January 03, 2001
Never underestimate the power of the Internet. Now it’s the turn for
the Online Film Critics Society to select their choices for what was
the best of the year.
Almost Famous seems to be the big
winner, so let’s hope this kind of awards resurrect the interest for
it in its way to conquer some Oscar nominations.
So here are the winners:
Best Film:
Almost Famous
Best DVD:
Fight Club
Best Actor: Tom Hanks -
Cast Away
Best Actress: Ellen Burstyn -
Requiem for a Dream
Best Supporting Actor (
tie): Benicio del Toro -
Traffic
and Philip Seymour Hoffman -
Almost Famous
Best Supporting Actress: Kate Hudson -
Almost Famous
Best Ensemble (
tie):
Almost Famous and
State and
Main
Best Director: Darren Aronofsky -
Requiem for a Dream
Best Screenplay:
Almost Famous - Cameron Crowe
Best Original Score:
Requiem for a Dream - Clint Mansell
Best Cinematography:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - Peter Pau
Best Editing:
Requiem for a Dream - Jay Rabinowitz
Best Cinematic Breakthrough: Björk -
Dancer in the Dark
Best Foreign Language Film:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Best Documentary:
The Filth and the Fury
Best Film Related Website: The Internet Movie Database
Best DVD Special Features:
Fight Club
Best DVD Commentary:
Fight Club
The Online Film Critics Society's Top Ten Films of 2000:
1.
Almost Famous
2.
Requiem for a Dream
3.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
4.
Dancer in the Dark
5.
Traffic
6.
Gladiator
7.
Quills
8.
Wonder Boys
9. (tie)
Chicken Run
Erin Brockovich
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Review
Mission: Impossible 2
- Director
- John Woo
- Year
- 2000
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- a.k.a. Vincent
- Review date
- Tuesday, January 02, 2001
Ah yes, I remember it well. It was a lovely day back in the summer of 2000. I was on my way to the movie theater actually looking forward to the screening of
Mission: Impossible 2 which for marketing reasons was better known as
M: I 2. After all, what could go wrong. It was Tom Cruise, returning to audience friendly material, directed by action maestro John Woo, written by Robert "Chinatown" Towne. Heck there even was support from Sir Anthony Hopkins. A lot of talent indeed which makes the end result all the more disappointing.
M: I 2 isn't really a bad movie, merely an average one. Admittedly the production was a troubled one but you can't blame this one just on the bad weather. For an action movie it is pretty short on excitement, mainly because a lot of attention is paid to the relationship between Cruise and Thandie Newton. The plot concerns a man (Dougray Scott) who wants to get his hands on a deadly virus which he wants to let loose on the world, because he also is the only one who has the cure. Think of the money he will make!
The plot is a lot better to follow than the one of the first movie from 1996, but it isn't as much fun. Brian De Palma's
Mission: Impossible looks like a masterpiece of entertainment compared to this one. I don't know if the rumors are true that it was really Cruise who was in control of this movie. There are still some Woo trademarks here like the slow-motion and the symbolic doves, but it doesn't feel like it was directed by the man who made
Face/Off or
The Killer.
The plot owes something to the Hitchcock’s classic
Notorious (1946). Just as in that movie the hero forces his loved one into a relationship with the bad guy for the sake of world safety. There even is a scene here at a racetrack which seems to be taken right out of
Notorious. Of course Hitchcock made the better because the relationship was more believable but also because his film didn't have the business with those awful rubber masks. It is a fun gimmick to use once but
M:I 2 uses it too often. Whenever the plot seems to have no place to go, a character presumably out of mid-air produces one of those masks, to give the movie a new direction.
I was just beginning to like Tom Cruise for making some brave and unusual movies. I thought
Eyes Wide Shut was an excellent movie, though I seem to be one of the few who feel that way, and
Magnolia was the best film in a couple of years, even if he only had a small role in that. But both of these films were box-office disappointments, which meant that Cruise hadn't had a hit movie for nearly four years, the last one being
Jerry Maguire. Probably his agent suggested taking no risks this time and making a guaranteed blockbuster, just to let the big audience know he is still around. And if that was the main reason behind
Mission: Impossible 2 then they have succeeded because it grossed well over $200 million. Let's just hope that this one will give Cruise some more freedom to make more worthwhile, if less commercial movies.
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
News
Box Office Results
- Posted by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- News date
- Tuesday, January 02, 2001
As the New Year's weekend went,
Cast Away continued to rule at
the box office. It did 31.2 million for the weekend and became the
19th movie of the year to pass the 100 million mark. That's a record.
In second place came
What Women Want, which did 22.6 million
and also passed the century mark on Saturday. Both movies prove the
rentability of stars Hanks and Gibson. It's also interesting to note
that Helen Hunt stars in both of them. Good for her!
Miss
Congeniality, with Sandra Bullock, was the movie who showed the
greatest legs, as it moved up one place and increased it's cume a
staggering 52% compared to last weekend. The rest of the list had no
big changes, although the big surprise continues to be
Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which finished in 10th place with 3.6
million, although it is playing in just selected cities. If it
continues to perform this well, it might very well become the highest
grossing foreign film in the US, since
La Vita e Bella did
about 54 million.
Next week sees the nationwide release of “Traffic”, which also
performed extremely well in limited release this weekend.
Here’s the complete rundown:
1.
Cast Away - 31.2 million (100.8 m.total)
2.
What Women Want - 22.6 m. (112 m.t.)
3.
Miss Congeniality - 15.5 m. (42.7 m.t.)
4.
The Family Man - 14 m. (39.8 m.t.)
5.
The Emperor's New Groove - 11.8 m. (47.9 m.t.)
6.
The Grinch - 7.8 m. (252.1 m.t.)
7.
Vertical Limit - 6 m. (49.7 m.t.)
8.
Dracula 2000 - 5.3 m. (19.6 m.t.)
9.
Dude, Where's My Car? - 4.6 m. (34.4 m.t.)
10.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - 3.6 m. (12.5 m.t.)
CriticSociety en Twitter |
CriticSociety en FacebookShare on Facebook |
Share on Twitter
Permalink
Jacinda wrote at 6/22/2002:
Morris wrote at 6/22/2002:
Couldn't agree more with you! It is a very funny movie. Gibson is at his best. Marisa Tomei is extremelly funny in all of her scenes. Helen Hunt is good. The songs are great (also liked "Bitch" and Sinatra's "Under My Skin"). There are kind of slow subplots at the end that don't really work. But overall, it is funny, funny, funny!