CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Man Who Came to Dinner

Director

William Keighley

Year

1942

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 31, 2008

I had no reason to watch The Man Who Came to Dinner except that a very short musical number it features—a little song played by a minor character—was once taped on VHS by my dad and became a classic in my family, it made us laugh that much, making this an obligatory piece once my mom found out to which movie it belonged. She gave me a copy of the film and I was puzzled. It starred Bette Davis but didn’t sound quite like a classic. I laughed when I found out the real reason why she wanted me to see it but I was glad to watch this somewhat obscure and completely dated play adaptation… which still was a lot of fun.

The story stars lecturer and radio personality Sheridan Whiteside (Monty Woolley), who slips on the ice at the steps of the house of his hosts during a trip to Ohio and decides to make of their home his headquarters during his recovery. Moving around in a wheelchair, but having all the energy in the world, he demands privacy, commands the servants, and invites every eccentric friend he can come up with. This drives his reluctant host, Mr. Stanley (Grant Mitchell), completely mad, but there’s nothing he can do about witty, grumpy Mr. Whiteside who, aided by his secretary Maggie Cutler (Bette Davis), controls everyone around with amazing ease.

You can imagine the screwball consequences of this oddball premise, but the story really doesn’t go that way. It’s quite fun at start seeing how Mr. Whiteside makes a shambles out of the Stanleys’ lives, but it delves into sentiment later on, given his influence on the Stanley kids (dreamy teenagers) and his obsession to keep Miss Cutler as his secretary even if that means turning her into a spinster.

Whiteside’s relationship with Miss Cutler is heartwarming because she seems to be the only person allowed to outsmart him once in a while, but it becomes sinister when he interferes with a love affair of hers that might endanger her profession. This event is the mobile of Whiteside’s eventual evolution, if it can be called that, and the driving force of the plot; however, it’s interesting to note that in her defense, Miss Cutler does something even more disturbing and completely unredeemed, involving the feelings of an actress protégé of Mr. Whiteside, played by gorgeous Ann Sheridan.

However, this doesn’t help Bette’s role, unlike some of her best where she was capable of deliberate evil and hadn’t a tinge of regret in her. Purposeful as it is, her bad deed is dictated by the heart and makes her character look foolish rather than a schemer. The story doesn’t acknowledge this fact, which in my opinion works against the high-profile credit of its writers, Moss Hart and George S. Kaufman, or its play-to-screen translators, no less than Casablanca (1942)’s Epstein brothers, Julius J. Epstein and Philip G. Epstein.

Not to demerit their script though, which has some fabulous assets. Even though it references one too many contemporary personalities, most of which have been forgotten, it has some of the most effective dialogue exchanges I have seen in my time. It’s funny and smart all along, and the delivery is perfect. Woolley originated the role on Broadway, though its authors were inspired by a real-life personality, Alexander Woollcott. Though viciously parodied, Woollcott was honored by the play, and even played the Whiteside character eventually. Another character, that of Banjo (played in the film by Jimmy Durante), was also inspired by a real-life star, Harpo Marx. Harpo played the role of Banjo in the same West Coast version where Woollcott starred. Talk about self-mockery.

According to legend, Bette craved for this role in order to play along John Barrymore, who was slated to play Mr. Whiteside but couldn’t make it due to his health. Bette was attached and frankly ended up eclipsed by less-famous Woolley, who chews up the scenery. It’s still refreshing to see her in this role, however, and she looks lovely. And talking about looks, notice that nearly see-through costume of Sheridan’s towards the end. Whoa mama!

Banjo plays the song that I mentioned in my review’s introduction, and it’s quite funny. It comes out of nowhere and has no more apparent reason than a quick, cheap laugh, but it works. It’s obviously a tribute to Durante in appreciation of his cameo role, but Durante’s star has faded to some extent also. That’s the problem with this film; it belongs to the past.

“My great aunt Jennifer ate a whole box of candy every day of her life. She lived to be 102, and when she had been dead three days, she looked better than you do now.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Love in the Time of Cholera

Director

Mike Newell

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Before Love in the Time of Cholera I had only seen one movie based on a Gabriel García Márquez novel, Mexico’s El Coronel no tiene quién le escriba (1999) and read one of his novels, “Crónica de una Muerte Anunciada”. Both were excellent references of the celebrated author and the talent gathered for this adaptation promised an interesting affair.

Florentino Ariza (Unax Ugalde), son of struggling mother Tránsito (Fernanda Montenegro), falls in love at first sight with Fermina (Giovanna Mezzogiorno), daughter of wealthy widow Lorenzo Daza (John Leguizamo). The sentiment is mutual, but her father does not agree of the reunion and sends her away with relatives, including cousin Hildebranda (Catalina Sandino Moreno). Years later Fermina marries Dr. Juvenal Urbino (Benjamin Bratt) and Florentino (Javer Bardem) sets on a quest to bed as many women as possible to heal his broken heart.

Mike Newell directed from a screenplay by Ronald Harwood based on a novel that is about 350-pages long and which spans more than 50 years in the lives of the characters. Harwood did a good enough job in condensing the story, for the movie does feel episodic but not in great extent. I was thoroughly entertained while watching it, although Florentino’s numerous affairs started to get old after a while. But while the picking of events was well-handled, I can’t say the same of the dialogue; it veers on laughable from time to time. Translating the author’s eloquent Spanish phrases did not prove successful when veering into English I’m afraid.

There’s also the problem that it all feels like a grand-scale Latin American soap opera. The characters are all caricatures, stereotypes. I never once felt a connection to Fermina, and while Florentino’s quest was amusing at the beginning it became incredibly pathetic as the story moved along. I wish the movie had focused on cousin Hildebranda, by far a more interesting character than anyone else. At more than two hours of running time I just wished the two leads would get together and get it over with. It was supposed to be a movie filled with passion, but barely does it achieve what it intended.

I can’t say the same of the handsome way in which the movie was assembled. Affonso Beato’s cinematography is lavish, Wolf Kroeger’s production design is elegant and Marit Allen’s costume design is exquisite. Antonio Pinto’s score is a highlight as well, and even though I had cringed at the thought of Shakira getting involved, her songs do fit with the general mood; I especially enjoyed “La Despedida”.

Performance-wise it’s a mixed bag. Javer Bardem delivers a strong performance, I can’t say otherwise, but the character is frustrating to say the least and I immediately relate the actor’s face to it, so a good impression is not left. Giovanna Mezzogiorno is ok as Fermina, although I never really got who this woman was, always unpredictable but not in a good way. Benjamin Bratt is strong yet forgettable. John Leguizamo is a complete joke; he’s an actor who loves going over-the-top and in some roles he can kill, not here. Highlights for me included Unax Ugalde, Fernanda Montenegro and Catalina Sandino Moreno. Laura Harring, Ana Claudia Talancón, Liev Schreiber and Hector Elizondo also appear in small roles.

“There is not greater glory than to die for love.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In the Valley of Elah

Director

Paul Haggis

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Anti-Iraq War movies… Much as I share the view, I’m not sure I love having them as pouring rain nowadays. Especially when they get preachy. We know war is horrific, and it’s good to have art remind us that once in a while, but when it’s all we hear and in many ways, just like every other excess, it gets tiresome. The fact that Paul Haggis came up with a film of the same tendency wasn’t the most exciting news I could get. I’m not one of the many fans of Crash (2004) precisely because it took itself too seriously, was too much in-your-face and became just a tad obvious after a while. In the Valley of Elah has exactly the same problems. But then again, it’s also a good film.

Even though the theme is war, the setting is the United States, where a retired career officer, Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones), receives the news that his soldier son is back from Iraq and has vanished from base. Unable to get more information and convinced that his son wouldn’t just disappear, Hank decides to investigate by himself and finds nothing but obstacles from the military and the police. His investigation becomes a fine whodunit with every fine whodunit element. It’s as much fun as a Sherlock Holmes, only contemporary and worthy of indignation. And in the process, you learn how war makes people sick and sick people make war.

Partly based on fact, the story by Haggis and Mark Boal is basically about a great man learning that his principles might not apply in all cases and that his country has become something he never imagined it could be. It’s betrayal because here’s a man who has given his country everything, devoting his life and recruiting his sons for it, and has received a sickening reward in exchange. Haggis wrote the role with Clint Eastwood in mind, but it was finally Tommy Lee Jones who got to play it, and I couldn’t be happier about that. It’s one of Jones’s strongest roles ever and one that he grasped with full emotion and charisma.

Hank’s counterparts are his wife, Joan (Susan Sarandon), and a police officer, Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron). Sarandon’s showcase is quite short but leaves a strong impression. It’s a good idea to show so little of her, because it somehow implies the role of soldiers’ mothers: tied hands, shut mouths and wet cheeks; nothing but despair and lack of information. Theron plays a woman who decides to make a move in favor of justice, even though her quest is also egotistical, which by the way makes it all the more valid. It’s nothing new for Charlize, but a good addition to her solid career.

Other performers, all admirable, include Jason Patric, James Franco, Josh Brolin and Frances Fisher. Patric’s role is significant, but Franco’s and Brolin’s are so small one can’t believe they were cast. Fisher leaves an impression for a different reason than she’s done in the past: she appears topless most of the time, which isn’t too long either.

Hank and Emily become good friends in their search for truth, and Hank tells Emily’s son the story of David and Goliath in the Valley of Elah. One sees the lecture coming from a mile away, and it surely comes, as in-your-face as Haggis has repeatedly delivered his points. And when you add to that an epilogue that involves a flag, you can either love or hate the delivery. I hated it. I don’t need them to spell things for me, and I don’t think anyone needs it. What’s up with subtlety? Is it a worthless tool nowadays?

But I can’t put that on top of my appreciation for the sincerity of the general procedures. Preachy, slow and predictable though it may be, this film is an emotional whirlpool and has a shocking denouement that can’t be classified as anything short of shattering.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

I Am Legend

Director

Francis Lawrence

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 28, 2008

As opposed to such big box-office stars such as Nicolas Cage, Adam Sandler or Tom Cruise, I really like Will Smith. There’s just something about the guy, an effortless charisma and likeability that makes him relatable. I’m certainly not the only one who thinks this way, as Smith has been for some years the biggest star in the world and his strike doesn’t seem like it’s going to end any time soon. That said, I was never much into I Am Legend, but hey, I had to see it, right? Fortunately it was better than I expected.

In 2009, Dr. Alice Krippin (an uncredited Emma Thompson) discovered the cure for cancer through a virus which eventually killed most of the human population and turned the rest into half-vampires. Lt. Col. Robert Neville (Will Smith) survived the massacre and stayed in New York along with his dog Sam to find a reversal cure. As the last man on Earth his life consists of wandering through the streets and his lab during the day… and hiding from the barbaric beings thirsty of blood during the night.

Francis Lawrence directed from a screenplay by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman based on the well-known Richard Matheson novel. This is the third time the story has been adapted to the big screen, although it’s the first that took the shape of an epic blockbuster. The tale poses many fascinating questions while showing us the answers through the figure of Robert, a man who has been alone for the past three years and who, without acknowledging it, has gone a bit insane because of it. The first half of the movie shows us the way he lives, the existence he has made for himself, what he does to stop routine from become asphyxiating... and this is easily the best part of this production.

The second half starts as a key dramatic event takes place that sets Robert into a rampage. When I say key dramatic event I mean a truly affecting and heart-wrenching incident that you almost never see happening in a movie, much less in such a mainstream one, and which will pull the heartstrings of even the most cynic of viewers. What follows after this is pure action-packed, more conventional entertainment. Even though the big set-pieces are well-handled by the director, the evil creatures have a somewhat fake look to them, and after a while they start to become less and less frightening when the outcome should’ve been to the contrary. I especially cringed every time one of these beings howled to the camera… enough is enough.

The special effects are hit and miss. The sights of an abandoned New York are breathtaking to say the least, but when it comes to creating moving objects the results are not always the best, starting with the deer at the beginning and moving to the dark seekers towards the end. The flick reminded me of 28 Days Later... (2002) in more ways than one, and a more realistic and savage approach to the infected humans was way more effective there and is lacking here.

Andrew Lesnie’s cinematography and James Newton Howard’s score are welcomed assets.

It’s difficult to categorize a performance as exceptional when dealing with a movie such as this, but Will Smith truly gives it his all and his suffering is quite palpable without going over-the-top. He’s very very good. Supporting actors appearing in flashbacks, TV recordings or whatnot are all solid.

“Please say hello to me.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Back to the Future Part II

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The sequel to Back to the Future (1985) was made half a decade later and obviously faced several problems, the first one being that it had to follow the cliffhanger from the ending of the first film, which wasn’t sustained by any plans in 1985, and the second being that Crispin Glover, who played George McFly in the original, didn’t reach the negotiations to come back.

They had to concoct a story where Doc (Christopher Lloyd), Marty (Michael J. Fox) and his girlfriend Jennifer (Elisabeth Shue) traveled to the future to do something about the couple’s kids. I’m glad they did this because the filmmakers were forced to create a vision of the future, and it turned out awe-inspiring to audiences back then, particularly the younger ones. But seeing the film from a more mature point of view I couldn’t help but realize how poorly developed it actually is and how long it takes to really take off. But once it does, it’s fun!

As for George McFly, the story explains why he’s out, and in fact achieves some good drama thanks to this absence… The character is not missed though, thanks to a few new scenes played by Jeffrey Weissman and some footage from the previous film.

Not surprisingly, the story is contrived to say the least. The Doc, who has always tried to prevent history-changing, promotes an intervention to help the children of Marty McFly in the year 2015. The trip turns out exciting though this future is made up of jokes in the spirit of making it so farfetched that no one would question it. In this 2015, cars fly, people have nostalgia for the 80s, and videogames don’t require the use of one’s hands. But aside from the wonders here and there, there are some awful truths that create unpleasantness and never quite revert: the same way as at the beginning of the first film Marty’s family was a mess, here his future family is such, he’s a loser, his children are dorks, and nothing quite looks like one would dream it. Not only is the “mission” in the future quite weak, but we don’t like what we see, and as I said, this is never fixed, at least not that we can see it.

But then something happens that’s a stroke of genius. Logic is challenged much more than in the first film, but it turns out that an old Biff (Thomas F. Wilson) has traveled back in time to change his own future, and the day he chose to do this is none other than the very day of the dance where Marty had previously fixed his parents’ romance. Marty and Doc go back home after their first-act mission in the future to find a bleak 1985 where Biff is ruler and everything stinks, something like the third act in It's a Wonderful Life (1946), a film more or less referenced throughout this time-traveling saga. Our heroes go back in time yet again to prevent the event that caused this unpleasant reality, creating a parallel with the first film. This is where the movie gets interesting, but it takes a while to get there.

You can never match the candidness of the original idea: what if one could meet their parents as teenagers? Revisiting the best moments from the 1985 film is, in a way, a cheat, because it relies on the nostalgia from that breakthrough flick to create interest yet again… but it works! We love that day in November of ’55 and we can’t get enough of it.

This is much more of a special effects film than the first one was. This time around we have flying cars, high-speed chases and a very cool “hover board” (a wheel-less skateboard). This is done impeccably. Alan Silvestri again provides the music score with familiar tunes and variations of them which provide an excellent tone. The performances of the two leads become somewhat routine, but Thomas F. Wilson, as the villain Biff Tannen, proves what a great actor he is in a wide variety of personalities and ages.

Unforgivable: the coming attractions clip at the end of the film, promoting the already filmed third part. Bad!

Yet, all in all, this is a worthwhile episode of quite a good trilogy.

“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Things We Lost in the Fire

Director

Susanne Bier

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Movies about the loss of a loved one are not, by standard measures, fun to watch; especially if you’ve been through such an experience. They make for good drama when well done, but you need to be in a right place when going for one. That said, the payoff of such an experience can be immensely rewarding. Some people don’t see movies that make them suffer; I go to the movies in search of something that elevates my spirit, whether it’s by means of laughter, sadness or sheer entertainment.

Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) loses her husband Brian (David Duchovny) and is left with two children to care, Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) and Dory (Micah Berry). During her grief she reacquaints with an old friend of Brian’s, Jerry Sunborne (Benicio del Toro), who is a junkie she used to resent. With the help of a neighbor, Howard (John Carroll Lynch), and a former drug addict, Kelly (Alison Lohman), they all face their demons and try to go on with their lives.

Susanne Bier directed from a screenplay by Allan Loeb which is filled with honesty and cruel detail. The movie is essentially a character study of two people who come together through one ugly circumstance and get to need each other desperately. I loved that Loeb’s screenplay ignored the cliché of a romantic entanglement and focused on harsh truths and the way people might actually react when faced with such circumstances. Bier’s hand is deeply felt in the subtlety with which such difficult issues are handled.

On one hand we have Audrey, whose life was perfect until one day it was shattered to pieces. The way she goes all needy and jealous and generous is heartbreaking in the way she didn’t even know she had such characteristics in her, and watching her evolve is one of the movie’s highlights. A particular reaction to one “victory” Jerry has with her son is unexpected, but completely credible. And there are moments such as that galore.

On the other hand there’s Jerry’s upheaval with addiction as he tries to recover, then falls again, then tries to recover again. It’s a chilling portrayal which, added to the situation the Burke family is going through, makes it the more poignant. Do not be fooled into thinking this is a movie about a drug addict recovery, it is much more than that.

The performances are beautifully modulated by every actor in the cast. Benicio del Toro just couldn’t be better, bringing intensity and compassion to the table in equal measures. Halle Berry matches him in the role of a conflicted and afflicted woman who only wants the best for herself and her children. Nice supporting turns are delivered by David Duchovny and especially John Carroll Lynch as the friend with some problems of his own.

“Why wasn’t it you?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Meet the Robinsons

Director

Stephen J. Anderson

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Meet the Robinsons was released in March of 2007, a year that, unfortunately, also included the release of two hit animated movies: Ratatouille and the third installment of the Shrek series. I say unfortunately, because the hype created by those two movies certainly buried Meet the Robinsons, as it went rather unnoticed, flying under the radar of mass audiences perhaps just appealing to families with young children.

I enjoyed Ratatouille and hated Shrek the Third, but Meet the Robinsons, produced by Disney Animation Studios, might be the best animated feature, without Pixar’s involvement, coming from Disney or any other production company in recent years. Based on the book “A Day with Wilbur Robinson” by William Joyce, this is a funny, amusing, great looking, warmhearted movie. This is a movie that should not be missed.

With brisk, simple but wonderful computer animation, co-screenwriter and director Stephen J. Anderson takes us to the future and back while following the life of Lewis (voice by Daniel Hansen and Jordan Fry).

The movie begins as baby Lewis is left by his mother on the doorstep of the 6th avenue orphanage. There, under the care and love of Mildred (voice by Angela Basset), Lewis grows up to be a whiz kid but with the obvious wounds that accompany most orphan children.

Lewis is already 12 years old and is still looking for the right family to adopt him; and soon he’ll be 13. “You know how difficult it is for a teenager to get adopted,” says a frustrated and discouraged Lewis after 124 unsuccessful adoption interviews. “Nobody wants me, not even my real mother wanted me,” he continues. But Mildred is there to note that he’s not even sure that was the case. Perhaps she couldn’t take care of him and decided it was best for Lewis to be given away. Lewis realizes that the only chance he’s got to understand what happened is to find his mother. “Nobody knows who she is,” says Mildred. But Lewis doesn’t agree. He knew his mother, even if it was for the briefest of times. So he embarks on the design and construction of a “memory scanner”. He wants to dig into his own brain and find that lost memory that will explain everything.

He pours his heart into the project and works on it 24/7, depriving of sleep his peculiar and hopeless roommate Goob (voice by Matthew Josten) and exciting his science teacher, Mr. Willerstein, who encourages him to present his invention at the local science fair.

Lewis is a genius so it looks like his scanner will work. Nevertheless, just before he gives his demonstration, his machine gets sabotaged by an evil man wearing a bowler hat. Lewis is dejected, but a surprise visit from a handsome, witty, fast-talking boy changes everything. This boy is Wilbur Robinson who, he eventually admits, comes from the future to warn him about a “bowler hat guy” and then begs him to fix the broken memory scanner because it is crucial. Wilbur steals the movie as the cocky boy that seems in charge although the situation evidently overwhelms him.

Lewis is, of course, skeptical and unnerved, but soon, to prove he’s for real, young Wilbur pushes him into the flying time machine and together they head off to the future.

The young kid is astounded by the sights of the future: breathtaking buildings in odd shapes, people traveling inside soap bubbles, moving sidewalks, clear blue skies and perfectly manicured green bushes and gardens; but also by the possibility of using this time machine to travel back in time and find his mother. But Wilbur has his reasons and won’t let that happen; they argue and end up crashing the time machine. This gives Lewis a chance to meet Wilbur’s family as they take the wrecked machine to the Robinsons’ home.

Each family is odd in its own way, but none is as eccentric as young Wilbur Robinson's. A family that includes: grandma Lucille; grandpa Bud, who likes to wear his clothes backwards while looking for his teeth; uncle Joe, who looks like an extremely overweight, oversized baby; uncle Art, a pizza delivery man who looks like a superhero and is appropriately voiced by Adam West; uncles Gaston and Fritz; aunt Billie and aunt Petunia, who is an obnoxious hand puppet; cousins Lazlo and Tallulah; twin doormen Spike and Dimitri; Lefty, the giant, purple octopus butler; Buster, the glass-wearing dog; and of course Wilbur’s parents: Franny, his lovable but tough mother, who has her own group of trained, slick-dressed singing frogs lead by Frankie; and Cornelius, his father, who “looks like” (and speaks like) Tom Selleck. The sequence where Lewis meets the family, including Carl, Wilbur’s robot friend and confidant, is just hilarious.

The Bowler Hat Guy’s real motives are uncovered as he follows the two kids into the future and then tries to kidnap Lewis. But Wilbur and his family are there for him, and they battle the guy and his evil bowler hat antics.

Then, it’s inevitable. Young orphan Lewis is fascinated and falls in love with this weird but enchanting family. Naturally, this is reciprocal, as Wilbur’s family, led by Franny, also falls for the bright, lonely kid.

I can’t continue without giving much of it away but, in any case, the conclusion is certainly predictable. However, the way Meet the Robinsons brings the message of letting go of the past and “keep moving forward” is just dead on. Young Lewis learns and then shows us that, after all, what we’ve done before doesn’t matter because we can’t change the past. Or can we? I love movies that involve time traveling. I’ve always been amazed and perplexed by the implications of these ventures. There are the paradoxes and contradictions, but there are also the possibilities. Who wouldn’t just do anything to have even one opportunity to travel to the future? See what it is going to be like and who we are going to be. Or maybe, travel back in time and have the chance to fix what’s been bothering us ever since.

This movie has quickly become one of my all-time favorites. It’s candid and straightforward. It’s a work of art that has all the right ingredients, including great music by Danny Elfman, whose “The Future Has Arrived” song, neatly wraps up this wonderful film.

When I was young, I used to say that Walt Disney was my hero. I had read a few quotes form Mr. Disney and those words fixated on my mind. It is great to see that to this time, more than 40 years after his death, he still inspires people (look out for a tribute to Walt Disney when Lewis and Wilbur tour the future), and that at the company that he created there are still individuals preoccupied with conserving his spirit. Meet the Robinsons is a beautiful example of these efforts.

Forget about Shrek the Third, rent Meet the Robinsons, bring out the popcorn and, if that’s the case, sit alongside your kids and enjoy this great ride.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Kite Runner

Director

Marc Forster

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 21, 2008

Director Marc Forster has certainly had an interesting career. He has directed seven movies so far and tackled different genres while always making it look easy. The results have been varied, but he’s a guy who’s not afraid and whose artistic vision is well-founded. His latest foray (before moving to direct a Bond film) is a risqué project, based on a beloved book that takes place mostly in Afghanistan. He’s got guts, and the effort paid off.

Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) and the son of his family’s servant Ali (Nabi Tanha), Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada), are inseparable friends in the era before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. One day Hassan is prey of a terrible crime which Amir witnesses while doing nothing. When the invasion takes place he and his father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi) flee to America where they make a poor yet honorable life. In 2000, Amir (Khalid Abdalla) receives a phone call from his father’s best friend Rahim (Shaun Toub) that gives him an opportunity for redemption.

Forster directed from a screenplay by David Benioff based on the Khaled Hosseini best-seller of the same name. I haven’t read the novel myself, but I do know that it is quite a long and epic treat, one that was no easy feat for Benioff to adapt into a two-hour movie. I can’t speak for the adaptation itself, but I can judge the movie by its own merits. Despite spanning several decades it never feels episodic or artificial; on the contrary, it proves to be an excellent sample of effective storytelling.

The success within the story of The Kite Runner lies in the themes it tackles, which are universal and not relegated to one culture. It is, at its core, the story of a man who is given a second chance in life. How many of us would like to have that and don’t get the opportunity? The movie is also about how one single act can change a man’s entire life; Amir grows up haunted by his past and it’s as difficult to blame him for his acts as it is to forgive him.

There are plenty of scenes that highlight the Afghan culture and that of immigrants while in America. The juxtaposition is striking, and the feel and atmosphere never less than fascinating. The kite competition scenes lie at the heart of the movie and they are given wondrous treatment by Forster and cinematographer Roberto Schaefer. Alberto Iglesias’s score is also top-notch.

One quibble: I never quite believed an “action” set-piece near the end. I can’t say why without using spoilers, but let’s just say it’s a bit far-fetched and doesn’t gel with the overall down-to-earthiness tone of the rest of the flick.

The cast is formed of mostly unknown faces and spoken in their local tongues. The two kids have especially received plenty of acclaim and it is well-deserved. Zekeria Ebrahimi shows maturity beyond his age and Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada leaves such a strong impression (he’s arguable the most memorable character in the movie) that it’s easy to forgive him for hitting some false notes here and there. Also leaving a strong impression is Homayoun Ershadi as Amir’s father, bringing heart and dignity to a tough yet honorable man. Khalid Abdalla is also solid as the adult Amir. Atossa Leoni and Shaun Toub deliver strong support.

“For you, a thousand times over!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shortbus

Director

John Cameron Mitchell

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 17, 2008

At the face of originality one can’t but bow, yet if originality means that one must forgive basic flaws, count me out. I had heard wonders about Shortbus: that writer-director Mitchell had made a family out of the unknown cast and had filmed daring sex scenes to achieve a constant catharsis where sex and psychology became integral to one another. What I saw was indeed a very comfortable environment where sex is much less than taboo and actors play their roles like they’re actually living their characters’ crises, but I found these crises to be poor, incomplete, inexpert, clichéd and pretentious, though not all adjectives apply to all subplots, but at least one applies to each.

The story unveils as a study on sexual relations, and how sex plays an important part of relationships but how it also can shatter them, and the angst that exists, more often than not, in sexually active couples or individuals. There are four main characters: gay couple James (Paul Dawson) and Jamie (PJ DeBoy), who are considering opening up their five-year-old relationship to a third sexual member; Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee), their marital counselor who has never had an orgasm in her entire life; and dominatrix Severin (Lindsay Beamish), who hides her insecurity behind a mask of spikes and rubber.

I have no need to be politically correct because I have enjoyed and defended gay art my entire life, so don’t take me wrong when I state that Shortbus’ biggest problem is its one-sided gay view of relationships. I had been told that the film dealt with all kinds of couples and people but let’s face it: it’s a gay movie pretending to care about all kinds of people while it only, in reality, cares about gays. Sofia is more or less handled as protagonist, but her story and its development are such big clichés that one grimaces. The plot is stated to have been developed by the cast along with the director, but it’s clearly not as rich in some aspects as it is in others. While the relationship of “the Jamies” reaches peaks of some transcendence, Sofia’s quest seems like a big joke that preposterously dehumanizes the character to a “climax” (literally and otherwise) that’s anticlimactic because it has nothing to do with feelings or development. Sofia’s husband, Rob (Raphael Barker), the only more or less prominent straight man in the story, is dim-witted and boring, by far the least interesting or attractive person in the film, who never has a chance of redemption. Coincidence? Think about it.

The Jamies have an interesting story but it’s overbaked to the point of exhaustion. Yet, one can’t help but enjoy the quest of James, whose constant sadness and self-destructive creativity and haunting past are transmitted to us almost intact. I never quite swallowed the way this guy handled his deathly path, but as far as decadent characters go, his is well-handled and, thanks to his sensible performance, credible.

There’s some humor thrown into the mix but none of it worked for me. An often cited pun is a rendition of the “Star Spangled Banner” during a gay threesome. I have nothing against gay threesomes or disrespectful renditions of national anthems, but it just didn’t work for me. I was busy wondering what the point of what I was watching was. I never quite found the answer.

“I’m an albino!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Back to the Future

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

1985

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

That time travel is a passionate subject is no news or surprise or monopoly: it’s shared by most people and fascinates any audience of whatever media. H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine” can be considered the literature smash of time travel, and I’d say Back to the Future is its cinematic counterpart. This 1980s film is well-loved and memorable, intended as entertainment but far and away more transcendental than that. It’s the kind of mix that turned out right in every respect, a triumph of movie magic and a favorite that can be revisited once and again.

The story concerns the friendship of teenager Marty (Michael J. Fox) and scientist “Doc” Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd). Why these two are friends calls for the first suspension of disbelief. The screenplay by director Zemeckis and Bob Gale never treats the audience with disrespect, but rather invites us to go with the flow and question as little as possible. I’m one to take a careful look at the logic of this kind of films, but when the tone is so light and the result so exhilarating, I’m happy to accept anything.

There’s not much to question though. Time travel per se is unknown, and the potential implications of it are indefinite to all or most of us. But the reason why we don’t worry about the logic or lack of it concerning the so-called science of this film is because the story focuses on human relationships and hilarious confusions, rather than technical specs. In fact, while most people tend to remember Back to the Future as a special effects movie or even a futuristic one, it in fact contains less than a dozen scenes with such [brilliant, by the way] effects and takes place, for the most part, in the 1950s! That’s inventive storytelling and a real sense of awe.

In fact, time travel takes second chair to the actual theme of the movie: the immortal question whether we’d be friends of our parents if we were teenagers at the same time. I think we all have wondered that and wished we could somehow meet them or see how they actually were and if they were as perfect as they pretend to have been when they scold us. This idea, by Bob Gale, was developed into the most entertaining time-travel movie of all time…, not bad!

The Doc has invented a time machine and has done so in style: it’s adapted into a De Lorean and works when the car is running at 88 mph. After a “small” mishap, Marty ends up trying the time machine even before its inventor does, ending up 30 years earlier, at the time when his parents were his age. Unable to go back to the future, he looks for the only man who can help: the younger Doc no less. But in the process of finding a way back to the 80s, he bumps into his parents, accidentally gets in the way of their romance, and ends up causing his own inexistence! It’s a fight against the clock to get his parents together, save his existence, and return home safely. Tough!

The relationships are the key to the story’s success. First off, there’s Marty and Doc, two wacky characters and perfect leads. Brilliant casting there, though Fox joined the project late into production, replacing Eric Stoltz. Fox and Lloyd owned the characters, made them what they are, each giving his part a particular distinction. Take Doc’s wild eyes, crazed hairdo, frantic expressions and particular tone of voice, that’s all Lloyd’s work. As for Marty, no one but Fox could’ve given him that agility and lightness of being throughout his potentially paradoxical quest.

Marty and Doc are fun characters individually, but bombastic when they’re together. Then there’s Marty and his mom, Lorraine (Lea Thompson); confusion leads her to fall in love with Marty instead of his father, George, which creates the most hilarious situations. And of course Marty and George (Crispin Glover), as the former coaches his own dad to enamor his mom. George is a fine character, and I’d say Glover is the standout amongst the supporting cast. Also quite leaving a mark is Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen, the school bully who terrorizes George throughout his entire life… or does he?

To wrap up the magic, Zemeckis’ usual collaborator Alan Silvestri composed the exciting music score that also suits the film to a tee. Kudos to all the team involved in such a history-changing project.

“Jesus, George, it’s a wonder I was ever born.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Godfather: Part II

Director

Francis Ford Coppola

Year

1974

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The continuation to The Godfather (1972) is one of the most prodigious steps in film history, simply because it proved that greatness can be surpassed and that there’s no limits to a grand story. The move was quick, and I don’t know the details, but two years after the phenomenal success of the first film, Francis Ford Coppola and novelist Mario Puzo came up with a filmed script based on the yet unfilmed part of Puzo’s novel (the young life of Vito Corleone), plus a new thread involving the following years of Michael Corleone’s life as Godfather. Intertwined, the storylines create a perfect balance between good and evil, as Vito grows in brightness at the same pace as Michael descends into hell.

Vito’s 1920s story has the same values as those from the first film: even though his path is in crime, he’s a character we empathize with, and the script achieves this perfectly well by creating a strong antagonistic force in local Black Hand extortionist Don Fanucci (Gastone Moschin), who terrorizes Italian immigrants in New York until Corleone puts a stop to him. Robert De Niro is outstanding to say the least as young Vito; not only does he fill Marlon Brando’s shoes, making his absence bearable (or even unnoticeable), but he adds his own charisma to an already unforgettable character. Vito Corleone is, in a sense, one of the luckiest characters ever portrayed on film, existing on his own through the flesh of two great actors (plus Oreste Baldini, who plays him as a boy, not doing a bad job).

Al Pacino keeps growing into the darkness as Michael Corleone, the same way he did in the first film but now going much deeper and farther from redemption. Towards the end of the 1950s, Michael sees his world collapse as he finds tougher obstacles at every turn, and his response is to become even more ruthless, putting business before anything else, betraying his ethics, and becoming the exact opposite of his father. His performance is brilliant, one of the best of all time, as he mixes the personal difficulties of being a Don and the inexorable firmness that this profession requires.

The modern storyline deals with a larger-than-life plot to finish the Corleone Family, one that involves corrupt politicians, compromised witnesses and close traitors. It’s a complex and very strategic move involving several associates of the Corleones, including the powerful Jewish gangster Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg), and Frankie Pentangeli (Michael V. Gazzo), a man who has been close to the family for several years. But Michael suspects there’s someone else involved, someone much closer… The great peril that the family meets through this conspiracy and the awful consequences that it spawns are legendary material.

The conjunction of artistic and technical elements is again top-notch, one could say improved from the first outing. Nino Rota’s score, for instance, adds haunting tunes to his already magnificent collection of musical pieces, achieving unsurpassable beauty. The art direction, set decoration and production design for both periods are perfection, and Gordon Willis’ photography does them justice.

The performances are an array of exemplary showcases which could be praised extensively for every meticulous detail scene by scene. Aside from Pacino and De Niro, there are some standouts, including American method acting patriarch Lee Strasberg as Michael’s greatest rival, Michael V. Gazzo as the terrified pawn, Robert Duvall as the smooth but chilling consigliore, Talia Shire as the long-suffering Connie Corleone, Diane Keaton as Michael’s wife Kay, and certainly John Cazale as the dim-witted Fredo Corleone, who finally speaks with a voice of his own.

This great classic film is one of my favorites, and not to be missed.

“You broke my heart. You broke my heart!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Away from Her

Director

Sarah Polley

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Sarah Polley has always struck me as a rare specimen, and I say that as a compliment. She’s received plenty of acclaim as an actress, but somehow she has stuck to uber-independent films, those that are seen only by critics and specialty audiences. I admire her for staying true to her essence; she’s the kind of person whose eyes give out signs of being wise beyond her years. Her foray into the directing chair remains true to her own acting choices, and the raves it’s gotten have made it accessible for a wider range of moviegoers, me included.

Grant (Gordon Pinsent) and Fiona (Julie Christie) have been married for 44 years and have never been separated despite him not having being the most faithful husband. When she starts to show signs of Alzheimer’s disease they decide to admit her to a specialty facility. When Grant is finally allowed to see her after 30 days he finds that Fiona has developed an affectionate relationship with another patient, Aubrey (Michael Murphy), and must cope with it while also reaching to the man’s wife Marian (Olympia Dukakis) and seeking help from nurse Kristy (Kristen Thomson).

Polley directed from a screenplay she wrote based on Alice Munro’s short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain”. Her work could be described as intimate, regarding both her writing and direction. This subdued approach serves the material well; it never veers into melodrama or cheap tricks, but on the other hand sticks to honesty and moves at its own pace. It is an impressive directing debut indeed.

People afflicted with this disease have not been reflected on screen that much. The most recent foray I can think of which made it a central theme was Iris (2001), but that movie came from an entirely different realm. Polley presents an intelligent and crude portrait of the descent that comes since first signs are shown until the patient is in terminal condition. This might sound like a downer no one would want to experience in a movie, but the material somehow always gives way to hope, and the actual disease takes second place to character development and the difficult situation through which Grant has to go through. I found his story to be nothing short of heartbreaking and also endlessly enthralling.

There is a subplot involving Grant’s approach to Marian and I get the feeling that it was undercooked. The movie keeps going back to his visit to her for no logical reason, and even though their scenes are solid, I wish there would’ve been more to them. I also had a hard time accepting Fiona’s liking of Aubrey, since he seems so needy and whiny at all times.

Cinematographer Luc Montpellier’s work is stunning, especially when considering this is such a low-scale production. Jonathan Goldsmith’s score is also crucial to setting the heartrending atmosphere; it also resembles the work of the great Gustavo Santaolalla.

Julie Christie, now in her 60s, is just as drop-dead gorgeous as she was in her 20s; she is also as magnetic and vibrant. Her performance here comes in the hill of a fruitful career and it is moving and meticulous and painful. There always seems to be something going on in her mind, and you are never sure whether she’s in a rational stage or not. This ambivalence, I’ve heard, is normal with patients suffering from Alzheimer, and that’s what makes it so distressing for close friends and relatives. Christie is easily matched by the rest of the cast, especially by Gordon Pinsent in a truly affecting performance. Olympia Dukakis and Kristen Thomson also leave strong impressions.

“It’s never too late to become what you might have been.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Robert Zemeckis is a filmmaker who has constantly brought us imaginative films that go farther than any other in the past had. Through the decades, he has constantly surprised us with his innovative concepts and the masterful way with which he achieves them. There’s been a couple of misses but many more hits, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of the greatest.

The story comes from a novel by Gary K. Wolf called “Who Censored Roger Rabbit?”. It’s a completely different tale though, but the concept is the same: cartoons interacting with human beings. In the film, Roger Rabbit (voice of Charles Fleischer) is the star of the cartoons produced by Maroon Studios, whose boss, R.K. Maroon (Alan Tilvern), is concerned about the lack of concentration Roger puts into his work nowadays because he’s so much in love with his wife Jessica. In order to help him put his feet back on the ground, Maroon asks a private eye, Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins), to keep an eye on the wife. The detective shoots some incriminating pictures of her, and the Rabbit is shattered. That night, the man Jessica was photographed with dies, and Roger is blamed. Framed? Just read the title.

The hilarious concept is played to its last consequences and quite successfully. The filmmakers obtained permission to feature many cartoon celebrities and it’s used to its best advantage. From the cast of Fantasia to the Looney Tunes, with special guest stars such as Betty Boop and Droopy, there’s a familiar face at every turn and it’s a cartoony one, and that’s a treat. But the secret of this film’s success is that it takes itself seriously. Though devised and realized outstandingly through what must have been a painstaking work of direction, acting, animation and digitalization, the reason why we believe that this world is real is that everyone acts like it really is. Valiant, disappointed of what he considers to be obnoxious toons, really acts like he could live without them, though he’s forced to interact with them day by day.

Plus, the plot is quite serious and somewhat complex, certainly more than a child can take, and I’ll use myself as i.e.: when I saw this as a kid, I didn’t quite get the twists and turns, but I was happy enough to see so many familiar cartoons interact with real people. I saw it several times and only years later did I catch the story. It was an extra pleasure as an adult, of course, but talk about a film for all ages! This is an exemplary family film, with everything from anvils to “booby” traps.

The cartoon creations are inspired to say the least. Roger is an instant favorite, using elements from several studios and animators to become a lovable if overly wacky creature. Jessica Rabbit, voiced by an uncredited Kathleen Turner (singing voice by Amy Irving), is a stroke of genius; not only is she irresistible for toons and humans alike, but the fact that she’s bonkers for Roger makes her all the more intriguing. She’s a sensation through and through. Another new toon star, Baby Herman (voice of Lou Hirsch), also deserves special mention. The first time we hear his voice it’s hilarious, but then he becomes an interesting character we can hardly forget.

The humans aren’t quite as successful. Though their work interacting with imaginary characters is obviously admirable, Bob Hoskins as the hero and Christopher Lloyd as the villain (Judge Doom) are at times more caricaturized than their cartoon colleagues, and don’t do much against this. Joanna Cassidy plays Hoskins’ love interest and is also unremarkable.

Music (Alan Silvestri), cinematography (Dean Cundey), editing (Arthur Schmidt), production design (Roger Cain, Elliot Scott) and the whole technical and artistic work deserve applause. This is a fine craft and a memorable film.

“I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Monster

Director

Patty Jenkins

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, January 07, 2008

I had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before Monster went into production. When I read somewhere that Charlize Theron was doing a movie about her I didn’t give a damn. I even thought it would be yet another forgettable biopic no one would want to see. But then came all the awards. It’s impossible not to want to see a movie if the lead performance is said to be so impressive. And isn’t one of cinema’s greatest pleasures to watch masterful acting?

Aileen Wournos (Charlize Theron) grows up to find all her dreams shattered and ended up as a prostitute. One day, after wanting to kill herself, she meets Selby (Christina Ricci), a shy lesbian girl with whom she connects. Her life starts to change because of her, but even then she can’t seem able to stop killing people.

Monster is a fascinating movie in more ways than one. Here’s a director, Patty Jenkins, who managed to transform Aileen’s horrific existence into one thought-provoking multi-layered movie she wrote herself. Her work doesn’t really take any stand. We sympathize with Aileen at first, even after she commits her first killing, but we gradually start re-thinking our posture as this very conflicted individual keeps making all the wrong choices. Sure, the movie does blame society in part for what Aileen ultimately became, but after all, a person who takes other people’s lives just like that doesn’t deserve to live, right? There are no easy answers in this masterful character study..

The relationship between Aileen and Selby is beautifully portrayed. At first it is all smiles and kisses. Ultimately it becomes a matter of dependency. It is just as horrific to watch Aileen kill as it is to witness how slowly her life starts to crumble once again. Her first murder was in self-defense. Her last one… I won’t say. But where she had hope she couldn’t stick to it; she was too conflicted a person. Also interesting to note is the fact that Aileen wasn’t necessarily gay, but she fell for Selby notwithstanding. Here’s a person who needed to be loved desperately, no matter in what form, shape or size. That makes the relationship even more poignant.

Everything you’ve heard about Charlize’s performance is true. Her work here is beyond words and I do know how common that makes me sound. Forget about how she uglied herself under all that makeup, it is what she does internally that’s truly impressive. She deserved the Oscar she got for every single scene she has in the movie; she’s that good. Christina Ricci lends extraordinary support. Bruce Dern and Scott Wilson also appear.

”I’m not a bad person. I’m a real good person.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Enchanted

Director

Kevin Lima

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Enchanted is a tribute, a parody, and an original concept, all at once. Made by Disney, it’s the best in-joke imaginable. It’s not as acid as Shrek (2001) but it’s got a similar concept: to mock fun at the old days of Disney. Only this time, it also glorifies them.

The film starts as a golden age Disney animated production, in fact quite reminiscent of a couple of them, starring pretty Giselle (Amy Adams), the true love of Prince Edward (James Marsden). His evil stepmother, Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon), wants to keep him single so as to stay in charge of her kingdom. When things go too far, she throws Giselle into a magical fountain that will transport her to a place “where there are no Happily ever afters”. That is the world we live in.

Giselle then becomes flesh and bone and Amy Adams is just perfection. In an already lauded and successful career, Adams has found her star-making performance, her gaspy face and candid attitude being the closest thing to a Disney princess in the real world.

Along her way, she meets a no-nonsense guy, Robert (Patrick Dempsey), who, thanks to his little daughter’s (Rachel Covey) insistence, helps Giselle out. Later on, a subject of the Queen, Nathaniel (Timothy Spall), comes to eliminate Giselle, followed by Prince Edward and chipmunk Pip to the rescue, and the Queen herself to put an end to her headaches.

It’s a riot to see so many animated characters becoming fully fledged and in a world so contrasting to theirs. The important thing is that they keep their essence, fighting for their ideals even in this bleak reality. However, there’s an evolution in Giselle that’s highly appreciated, as she goes from two-dimensional princess to three-dimensional woman, thanks to her interaction with Robert. The next most important transformation is Robert’s, in fact, who himself lived a flat existence in the real world and gets a bit more substantial when meeting dreamy Giselle. Their relationship evolves in an amazing way and becomes the most enjoyable aspect of the movie.

On the other hand, the rest of the animated characters who become real constitute the comedy relief. James Marsden is particularly effective thanks to his over-the-top showcase, but Timothy Spall and Susan Sarandon are highly successful too. They gave me quite a few laughs.

Bill Kelly’s original screenplay is a breath of fresh air, bursting with good ideas. One to applaud, for instance, is the decision to allow cartoon characters to keep some of their special abilities outside their world. Giselle, for one, can still communicate to animals and have them help her in our world. A sequence of animals helping her clean Robert’s apartment is the biggest laugh-out-loud moment of the movie. Pip can still think, but not talk, which is also hilarious. Not as successful is Narissa’s ability to use her magical powers here, which leads to a climax that’s never as climatic as intended, because it lacks motivation: if her intention was to prevent her stepson from taking over her kingdom, what’s her problem with Robert?

Impeccable is the music and song score courtesy of musician Alan Menken and lyricist Stephen Schwartz. “True Love’s Kiss” is the romantic theme and most easily remembered tune, “Happy Working Song” is a clear parody to well-known Disney songs, and “That’s How You Know” not only speaks truths, but becomes the climatic musical number, an inspired and perfectly choreographed moment that’s pure magic, with a comic commentary by Patrick Dempsey throughout. That number is what this movie is about: breaking the line between fantasy and reality, and seeing how much of fantasy can come true in reality, and how easily it can be done.

“How do you all know this song? I’ve never heard this song before!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mystic River

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

I’ve never really been fond of Clint Eastwood-directed movies. I’ve seen some of them and always felt underwhelmed. I’m not even the biggest Unforgiven fan although I do think it is a good movie. So at first I wasn’t that excited about Mystic River, but then it played at Cannes and got some recognition in the U.S. and it caught my attention. After that it was only a matter of time till I fell in love with it.

Jimmy (Sean Penn), Dave (Tim Robbins) and Sean (Kevin Bacon) were good friends during their childhood until a rather ugly incident changed their lives, especially for one of them. Decades later they get to see each other as tragedy strikes again, although in different circumstances: Jimmy is the victim, Dave is the main suspect and Sean is the cop investigating the case.

Eastwood directed from a screenplay by Brian Helgeland, based on Dennis Lehane’s novel of the same name. Their work is, in a word, remarkable. The dialogue is perfectly crafted and delivered without calling too much attention to itself. It also manages to bring a lot of emotion and intensity to a rather simple story dealing with thought-provoking themes such as loss, revenge, friendship and redemption.

In a way, I see Mystic River as a Greek tragedy. It has all the elements of one. Appalling misfortunes happen to almost every character, all of who belong to the same family one way or another. Secrets slowly begin to unravel, alliances begin to form. And it all works because it never stops being believable and true to itself. These are all pretty damaged characters; the best kind if you ask me.

The story builds slowly by creating an intense atmosphere that goes in crescendo. There’s not only plenty of good drama, but also a mystery that has to be solved, in a whodunit sort of way, and which comes to a poignant resolution that won’t leave you ambivalent. Knowing the truth can sometimes bring more complications along with its attached consequences.

Eastwood had never been better as director, but he also served as the movie’s composer; totally loved his score. He ultimately delivered an intense, old-fashioned movie where his characters seem to dance around the camera and grasp our interest without letting go. It takes its time and ends up with a very strong final scene that gave me the chills.

Sean Penn delivered one of the best performances of his career, showing the sincere pain that comes in trying to cope with a tragic incident that no one would like to experience, much less in such circumstances. He dignifies and turns Jimmy alive masterfully. Tim Robbins, on the other hand, is understated and extraordinary as Dave. He doesn’t really need to open his mouth to let us know what’s happening in his mind. Kevin Bacon does an excellent job as well. Supporting players include Laura Linney, Laurence Fishburne, Emmy Rossum and Tom Guiry, but it is Marcia Gay Harden who steals the spotlight and delivers a heart-breaking performance.

“Sometimes I think, I think all three of us got in that car…”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ratatouille

Director

Brad Bird

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

The Disney-Pixar team has become not only guarantee of high-quality films, but also, and most importantly, an unending source of great stories well told. Film by film, I am surprised at the apparent ease with which these guys come up with amazing yet so simple stories and work them out in a way where complexity never gets in the way yet what is achieved is unmatchable. That’s the signature of a great storyteller and Pixar’s got the right guys for this.

This time, once again, it’s Brad Bird at the helm, both as screenwriter and director (along with co-director Jan Pinkava). He’s got a pretty simple story to tell, about a rat that can cook really good, and he’s got all the Pixar people to back him up. Several good choices were made for this production: to set the story in a Paris from the past, for one, and to make the feel all French instead of American French, which would’ve been not only not good but probably fatal. Sure, this is an American production, but isn’t it refreshing to see letters, signs and menus in French? And what about the unpretentious casting of the lead voice? Remy the rat is voiced by Patton Oswalt, never heard of him?, well, he does an excellent job! Remy grows on us as a screen persona, not as a cartoon character voiced by a celebrity. This helps put us inside this fantasy world. There’s another thing that I applaud: the decision to make rats and humans incapable of communication. Sure, we see rats talking amongst themselves, and they sound human enough, but when they’re in front of humans, all that’s heard is the typical screeching of rats, and that’s what makes it rather realistic.

Oh, those disgusting rats. How could someone imagine a film starring them, in all their actual filthiness, would work for the audience? I hear some people have a problem with this film because some of the rats look so real, particularly when they’re moving, but most of us have given them a second chance. They are filthy for sure, but they’re living creatures, and not willingly nasty. Falling in love with Remy, who’s so peculiar, isn’t hard, but even his family gets the spotlight for a while, and it’s not a negative light that catches them. The secret of this success is more or less the same of The Godfather (1972): allowing us to meet the rats from the inside out, not looking at them as filthy creatures, but as creatures with their own problems and goals.

The one rat we care about, Remy, is an outstanding character. He’s not disgusted by his family’s ways, but he’s got an extra developed sense of smell which allows him to hope for something better. Once he’s got more or less what he dreamed of, he looks back at his family and wonders how they can live that way—but he still loves them. Filthy, voracious and selfish though they may be, Ratatouille’s rats are not evil, but rather frightened in a world where they are outcasts, and that’s probably the case of real rats too.

Remy’s dream of becoming a chef comes true thanks to Linguini (Lou Romano, another great voice actor who’s not a celebrity), a loser who Remy associates with and who takes credit for Remy’s fantastic creations. A rather conventional plot ensues thanks to Sous Chef Skinner (voice of Ian Holm), who smells a rat. There’s also some romance in the form of Colette (voice of Janeane Garofalo), who works with Linguini, and we’ve got a Jiminy Cricket character called Gusteau (voice of Brad Garrett), the imaginary ghost of a great chef that Remy pours his conscience to at every turn.

So perhaps once the thing gets going there’s not much originality or surprise in the telling, but it’s all delectable, like a dish you’ve tasted before countless times but which has a special something that makes it refreshing and new. That’s what Ratatouille is all about: finding new flavors in old things – hell, its very best scene (involving a flashback) is based on this idea.

Other actors lending their voices to great success are Peter Sohn, Brian Dennehy and Peter O’Toole. The latter, as restaurant critic Anton Ego, is particularly unforgettable. And with unsurpassable animation, a delicious music score by Michael Giacchino, and an exquisite design all around, so is Ratatouille.

“If you are what you eat, then I only want to eat the good stuff.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter