CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Thin Man

Director

W.S. Van Dyke

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 31, 2002

A happily married couple, Nick and Nora Charles (William Powell and Myrna Loy, respectively) are also in fact detectives. He is the detective of the couple, you could say, but without her, it wouldn’t be the same…

The Thin Man is the comedy-mystery that made history for the way it played with a detective story through screwball and romantic comedy not caring less for the mystery. Nick and Nora are so perfect together, through their gestures and their dialogues, that their pairing becomes irresistible and infallible. Nick is always drunk, which makes him much funnier, but still he’s smart enough to solve a murder mystery that seems to grow at every turn.

The story involves the disappearance of an old inventor (Edward Ellis) and how everyone around seems to be a suspect. Nick, Nora, and their dog Asta, meet these “lovely people” and get to the solution eventually. In the meantime, they face danger without losing their sense of humor.

Based on a novel by Dashiell Hammett. Followed by 5 sequels!

Funny, intriguing, classic.

Nora: Pretty girl.
Nick: Yes. She's a very nice type.
Nora: You got types?
Nick: Only you, darling. Lanky brunettes with wicked jaws.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lantana

Director

Ray Lawrence

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

When I first heard about this movie I became instantly interested. It looked to me like it was a Magnolia-esque sort of thing and then it went on to become a hit in its native Australia. There was also the fact that critics liked it. A couple of days ago I had my first chance to see it and even though it was in an almost empty theater I’m glad I did.

Detective Leon Zat (Anthony LaPaglia) starts having an affair with Jane (Rachael Blake), a woman who recently separated from her husband, despite his wife Sonja’s (Kerry Armstrong) willingness to save their marriage. That’s what she tells Dr. Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey), who happens to have a troubling marriage as well after she and her husband John (Geoffrey Rush) lost their daughter several years ago. Their lives criss-cross even before a tragic investigation that involves the disappearance of one of them.

It’s funny, you see, that I always saw Lantana as a thriller. I thought it would be a piece about a police investigation with many suspects involved. The terrific and extremely moody initial credits did nothing to prove me wrong. It is after the movie started to unroll before my eyes that I was able to see there was something deeper going on.

Lantana is actually a movie about relationships, about dreams and about love. It’s a movie about the monotonous of life and how it can affect people who go on looking for something else even if they don’t really need it. It’s a movie about neediness and about the unflinching feeling of burning inside. The movie is named after a plant that looks gorgeous from the outside, only to reveal an ugly, intricate, spiny web of roots and leaves in the inside. It’s the perfect metaphor.

I found it amusing that at the end of the movie I felt less tension to know who was responsible of the depicted crime than to know the answer to a simple question Sonja is asked referring to her husband: “Do you still love him?”.

Ray Lawrence, of Bliss fame, crafted a poignant little movie that looks its low-budget, but that compensates with strong character development. The multi-story set-up also works quite well.

Performance-wise the movie is flawless. I would just hand out awards to everyone involved in the movie. It’s difficult to think of other actors in these roles, since they’re so good and they all bring their characters to life in an impressive way. All of them. I can’t even mention a standout. They’re uniformly excellent, as is the movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Little Women

Director

Gillian Armstrong

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 24, 2002

In a time of poverty for the March family, Marmee (Susan Sarandon) does her best to raise her four daughters, in the absence of the father, who’s fighting in the Civil War. The daughters, Meg (Trini Alvarado), Jo (Winona Ryder), Beth (Claire Danes) and Amy (Kirsten Dunst) long for their former richness and their happy times with their father. In the meantime, they learn important lessons on life, love and fraternalism.

Gorgeous adaptation of the celebrated Louisa May Alcott novel, gathering an amazing ensemble of actors to perform a script that requires them to show the purest emotions. The direction by Gillian Armstrong couldn’t be any grander, for it focuses on the feelings of the characters while not forgetting every beautiful landscape that surrounds them. The screenplay adapts the classic novel to modern-day feminism, which in ways is out of place, but as a whole doesn’t matter at all, for the original text is in fact, at its core, quite feminist.

Ryder shines in this pet project of hers, making a believable and very sensible Jo. I can’t think of a better choice than Kirsten Dunst for little Amy, and Samantha Mathis is great as the grown-up one. Claire Danes steals her scenes as suffering Beth, as does Mary Wickes as grumpy Aunt March. Eric Stoltz as John Brooke, Christian Bale as Laurie and Gabriel Byrne as Professor Bhaer, all do sensational jobs.

Look out for that score by Thomas Newman! Boy, what beauty, what power…

If the 1933 version is a true translation of the novel to film, this one shows how it would look as a real-life event. Realistic but not crude, romantic but not corny, sad but not tragic, this is a flawless film.

“Now we are all family, as we always should have been.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

High Fidelity

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 22, 2002

Back in 2000 a little movie called High Fidelity opened to critical acclaim. It was based on a novel by Nick Hornby and people loved it. Somehow I didn’t get as interested. Usually I don’t love John Cusack’s movies. I get the feeling that they’re always ok, but only in a few occasions do they rise to something greater. Nothing against him though, he’s a great actor. Anyway, this weekend I caught the movie on TV and decided it was the right time to give it a look. Well, I’m glad I did.

Rob Gordon (John Cusack) is a twenty-something music-obsessed guy who actually owns a record store. He has just broken up with his girlfriend Laura (Iben Hjejle), something that makes him really unhappy. It also makes him reflect on life, relationships, friendship and a little music in between.

So what is High Fidelity exactly? It could be seen as a romantic comedy. It could be seen as a kind of Gen X drama. Of course, it also contains a lot of black humor. So what is it really? To tell you the truth, I can’t really say, but I’m going to talk here about what the movie meant and was for me, and that’s what ultimately matters.

For me the movie is kind of an ode to geeks all over the world. You have no idea how identified I felt with Rob and his friends. Of course, they are obsessed with music and I am obsessed with movies, but the feeling is just about the same. The movie is about how geeks live, talk and behave. How they usually use references to things they like, how they try to categorize everything according to their tastes, how they think they rule because of what they know and ultimately how they feel they’re the coolest and how good the little world they live in is for them. It’s a pretty funny and accurate depiction of people such as me and you.

The movie also gives an insightful look at relationships. Rob has been in a lot of them and he feels his life is leading to nowhere. That crisis is what makes the movie so special and touching at the same time.

John Cusack owns the movie and he is just right for the role. He’s easy to like and be believed in a character like this. Jack Black steals a couple of scenes as one if his friends and Iben Hjejle also leaves a good impression. Supporting performances also include those of Tim Robbins, Lily Taylor, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Joan Cusack, Lisa Bonet, Natasha Gregson Wagner and Todd Louiso, all of whom are excellent.

A great accomplishment by Stephen Frears and a great gift for us as well.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Possession

Director

Neil LaBute

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 21, 2002

Roland Michell (Aaron Eckhart), a modern-day American academic, develops a theory that an undocumented relationship existed between two classic poets: Randolph Henry Ash (Jeremy Northam), who was married to another woman (Holly Aird), and Christabel LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle), an isolated woman who happened to be a lesbian, and lived with her lover, played by Lena Headey.

Michell just might have the one clue to uncover the mystery, or at least to lead to other helpful clues, and together with a British colleague, Maud Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow), he could find much more than he expects… and he eventually does.

Present and past blend beautifully as the mystery is uncovered little by little, which expectedly translates into modern-day romance between Michell and Bailey. They both share a hunger for knowledge and self-assurance, and in identifying with the poets, or wanting to identify, they simply can’t help feeling attracted to each other.

Thus, the parallelism is created as both couples face obstacles between them but somehow get to overcome them and get together, if not for long in both cases.

Various themes of love, relationships, art, investigation, and passion fill both stories, which in the end doesn’t actually reward. There’s no denying however, that every minute of the running time, the screen is saturated with romance and endless passion. I regret that it’s not haunting, but I can assure you it’s made real somehow. As a matter of fact, the romance between the poets is much more credible than the one between the academics.

The poets tale is not exactly interesting either, as it could (and should) have been, but the sleuth in us all should enjoy the unraveling of secrets presented here. These poets are fictitious though, but hey, you can’t have it all.

In fact, we get to see much more than the modern-day characters could wish to see. The windows to the past are gorgeous and definitely rewarding in the way that we know some people would die to see what we’re seeing. That’s a great achievement. It also helps to have LaMotte’s beautiful performance in those sequences. I’m not proud of her character, but she pulled it off just fine. The same can’t be said for Eckhart or Paltrow, who act like it’s routine, though their performances, like everyone else’s, are sincere. Their reaction towards the final revelation is a bit laughable however.

Beautiful cinematography and timing, gorgeous locations around Europe, and a couple of reminiscences to Vertigo (1958) made this movie worth the while for me.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Few Good Men

Director

Rob Reiner

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 17, 2002

I don’t really know if I’ve ever seen this movie in its entirety. It’s just that it’s one of those movies I keep stepping-up with when channel-surfing. Somehow I never get to see it all or I never get to see it from the beginning, yet I’m an expert on it. It’s like a puzzle that I’ve put together countless times and it’s actually a really good movie, so I’m always interested.

Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise), a Navy lawyer, is appointed the case of two Marines (Wolfgang Bodison and James Marshall) accused of murdering a fellow colleague. He gets help from Cmdr. Galloway (Demi Moore) as they try to uncover something deep beneath that may have something to do with Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) and that doesn’t look pretty.

A Few Good Men is essentially a solid courtroom thriller. It involves finding out stuff, going against the flow, being attacked, feeling impotent, discovering sad facts about human beings and ultimately defending something that is actually important to you. It’s a movie that keeps building tension and never stops until the end.

That end may or may not be what is expected, but the truth is, the final half hour of this movie is awesome, brilliantly edited and perfectly put together. It happens in a courtroom all right, but it doesn’t have the usual sentimental speeches and humdrum that goes into this type of things. It’s actually a fast, tense-full, revealing and satisfying conclusion. It’s actually a confrontation between Kaffee and Jessup in which Jack Nicholson delivers a punch of a performance that even earned him an Oscar nomination despite the limited screen time. It’s that good!

I could also talk about the characters and how we come to identify with them, and how the relationship between Kaffee and Galloway evolves, but ultimately that has to be given for granted when you’re talking about a movie that works. This one does, and it’s fun, intelligent entertainment all the way.

Performance-wise the movie is quite good. I’ve already mentioned Nicholson, but Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and a strong supporting cast led by Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollak, Kiefer Sutherland and J.T. Marshall are all at the top of their games.

Rob Reiner directed and he did one hell of a job!

“What do you want to discuss now? My favorite color!?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Little Women

Director

George Cukor

Year

1933

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 16, 2002

During the Civil War, four sisters and their mother struggle through poverty in a difficult society, the father being away in the battlefield. Having little more than the love for one another, they learn that gentle souls and caring brothers and sisters from around show themselves little by little, if they do the same for those in need.

This Hollywood classic is an extraordinary adaptation of the Louisa May Alcott novel, being literate and theatrical, with great casting and outstanding performances, a terribly moving score (by Max Steiner) and an unbelievable realism in the passing of the years, and the evolution of the characters, both in personality and in age.

If Katharine Hepburn wasn’t such a good actress and hadn’t been so natural in so many roles, I’d say she was born to play the part of Jo March. Not only does she look like Jo’s description but she’s also as spirited and brave as she is. With such a lead, the cast cannot be dull, but there’s no reason to worry: everyone shines, including Jean Parker as Beth, Joan Bennett as Amy, Frances Dee as Meg, Spring Byington as Marmee, Douglass Montgomery as Laurie, Henry Stephenson as his grandfather, Edna May Oliver as crotchety Aunt March, Paul Lukas as Professor Bhaer, and many more.

This adaptation has a great pace, scene after scene filling the screen with affection, lessons of life, and love. Some scenes are so delicate and moving that the movie becomes a tear-jerker, but one that brings as much joy as sadness. In fact, the experience is so similar to the reading of the novel, that it’s nearly as “watching” the book.

A must-see for fans of the novel, or those who enjoy a good, timeless movie.

“Christopher Columbus!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Rookie

Director

John Lee Hancock

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

I’m starting to become a huge fan of every movie that takes place in a small town because Hollywood can do a lot of things wrong, but not this. Every year there’s a movie or two that wins over our hearts and The Rookie is the latest exceptional case.

Jimmy Morris (Dennis Quaid) is a baseball coach in a small town of Texas where he lives with his wife (Rachel Griffiths) and son (Angus T. Jones). The town’s baseball team has been on a bad streak lately, but everything changes when they make a pact with Morris: if they win the championship he tries his luck for the big league. It just happens, you see, that the guy can throw a ball faster than anyone in sight. This is the true story of that extraordinary guy.

The Rookie is a movie that hooks its audience from frame one. The movie starts telling the story of an old legend and then goes on to show some of the early years of Jimmy. John Lee Hancock, the director, sets the right tone right away. We have already identified with Jimmy and we’re going through the whole journey with him as well.

Now, this is the kind of movie of which you know the pay-off even before you’ve even seen it. But it is also the kind of movie that knows how to tell a story and make it worthwhile. There were a lot of opportunities in which the movie could’ve turned into cheap melodrama, yet it never did. It’s sentimental all right, but it comes from our connection to the characters and the inevitable events in their lives.

The movie is also about relationships, and it is full of wonderful ones. There’s the husband and wife relationship that feels as real as it comes. There’s the father and little son relationship which is moving like hell. And then there’s the relationship between Morris and his estranged father (Brian Cox), which definitely adds a lot of layers to an already great story.

Dennis Quaid is clearly an excellent actor. It’s good to see him in a role that gives him the opportunity to stretch and to exude all the charisma he possesses. As Morris he’s outstanding. A remarkable performance that holds the movie together while being aided by strong supporting performances. To put it simply: a pleasure to watch.

Inspirational and uplifting, a movie that will steal your heart.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Big Sleep

Director

Howard Hawks

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 14, 2002

Private Detective Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) is hired by a wealthy General (Charles Waldron) to solve a case of blackmail against his younger daughter, Carmen (Martha Vickers). The case seems simple, but soon after getting into it, Marlowe discovers that it involves much more than meets the eye. A prior blackmail case, murder, and Carmen’s older daughter Vivian (Lauren Bacall) are among the elements of an intricate case that after a while, seems like an infinite whirlpool that drags Marlowe to its inner depths, with seemingly no way out.

A fascinating, absorbing and nearly incomprehensible mystery saga, The Big Sleep is a masterpiece of the Film-Noir genre, being also one of the greatest team-ups of Bogey and Bacall. This film is legendary for being so intricate but still impossible to dislike, based upon the no less confusing Raymond Chandler novel.

Let’s see if you can figure out who killed the chauffeur… even Chandler could not!

The film plays strictly from the point of view of Marlowe, taking the viewer through the same road of investigation, which adds to the realism. The direction is just right, the photography gorgeous and the score (by Max Steiner) swell. Watch out for those dialogues, too!

Bogart is just right as the detective who “isn’t very tall”, Bacall enigmatic as his object of desire and confusion. Vickers should also get recognition as the irresistible and childlike younger sister, who hides dark secrets. The whole cast is perfection.

After many years, the earlier and unreleased version of this film was made available. It features scenes that were altered, re-shot or eliminated for the definite version, for the sake of Bacall. Her enigmatic personality and her interaction with Bogie were emphasized, which required the elimination of scenes that made the solution of the mystery quite clearer. As a result, the film as we know it is harder to understand and stronger in romance and passion, which makes it so special.

“My, my, my. Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In the Time of the Butterflies

Director

Mariano Barroso

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 10, 2002

Salma Hayek came to Hollywood with a purpose: to make good movies. She struggled a lot to make that happen, and even when cast in high-profile movies sometimes the result wasn’t what she expected. Suddenly she decided her career would take a different spin. She started by working with prestige directors such as Kevin Smith and Mike Figgis, but it wasn’t enough for her. She wanted more and thus she started to create her own stuff. And that’s how In The Time Of The Butterflies was born.

The movie tells the story of the Mirabal sisters. President Rafael Trujillo (Edward James Olmos) ruled the Dominican Republic as a dictatorship. Whoever disagreed… died. Minerva (Salma Hayek) only found out about the truth behind this man when she grew up and was told so by Lio (Marc Anthony), a revolutionary. She quickly became one herself, leading campaigns and fighting Trujillo’s regime. Her sisters (Mia Maestro, Lumi Cavazos and Pilar Padilla) all helped her and joined the cause.

In The Time Of The Butterflies is a wonderful movie from start to finish. It tells a very passionate, and true, story that captivates and enthralls. We see these girls growing up and we see what the regime has done for their country. We see how this man rules it and we see what he does to people. We identify with Minerva right away. She’s a strong-willed woman who doesn’t settle for what is expected of women. She wants to become a lawyer, she even slaps Trujillo once at a party. Of course, she gets in trouble, but when she puts her willingness into such a dangerous and note-worthy cause it never matters to her. An extraordinary woman indeed.

The movie is political and romantic and inspirational all in one. We laugh, we cry and we suffer. We want what they want and the story pulls us in. There’s tragedy galore, but the real catharsis happens at the end, when we’re left with a bittersweet feeling after watching some unbearable scenes. A true testament of women who became legends.

The movie is also impeccably done. It boasts beautiful cinematography and a great score. Director Mariano Barroso does a good job in bringing this touching story to life with just the right ingredients.

Salma Hayek delivers a performance like you have never seen coming out of her. She’s not only good, she’s excellent. You can feel her passion for the story and you instantly forget that it’s an actress playing a role. Edward James Olmos provides commanding support as Trujillo and it is those scenes between him and Salma that lift the movie to another level. Every encounter they have is a memorable moment.

As I said at the beginning of my review, a wonderful movie!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Heaven

Director

Tom Tykwer

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 08, 2002

Tom Tykwer? Cate Blanchett? Giovanni Ribisi? Uhm? A no-brainer! I’m sooo there!

Heaven starts with a punch. Phillipa (Cate Blanchett) puts a bomb in a building that accidentally kills four innocent people instead of the man it was intended for, a drug lord somewhat responsible of her husband’s death. When she’s arrested, a caravinieri by the name of Filippo (Giovanni Ribisi) serves as a translator and falls in love with her in the process.

Saying more would be criminal, since the movie is absolutely unpredictable and is so well-constructed that it’s a joy to keep discovering what’s next around the corner. When legendary director Krzysztof Kieslowski died he left an unfinished trilogy in the script stage (along with long-time collaborator Krzysztof Piesiewicz). The first of these drafts came to the hands of German director Tom Tykwer, who didn’t let the opportunity go and decided to do this as his next movie.

The result is an amalgam of both styles that works for the most part. Tykwer is an extremely talented director. He is, most of all, a visual genius, but he also knows how to deal with characters and situations. If Heaven doesn’t precisely get to one’s heart it’s more because of the script than because of him. He imprints the movie with his style and it’s an approach that works and amazes.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the movie is its debate about the line between what makes a terrorist and what makes a savior of some kind. The movie doesn’t force it, but kind of makes us like and understand Phillipa, a seriously disturbed woman who had no intentions of hurting anyone else except a man she considered a devil. It’s a difficult issue to handle and there are no easy questions to it.

There’s also the romance. A relationship between two deeply affected people that makes it even more touching. I loved how it evolved and how it kind of culminated in that beautiful mountain shot. I just wanted them to kiss. That’s all I needed to be happy.


There will also be a lot of debate concerning the poetic ending. Me? I loved it! Great ending!

Both Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi deliver touching, nuance-filled performances. Cate is just amazing as always and has a very powerful scene when she discovers the nature of her crime that will not be easily forgotten. Both actors have no difficulties tackling Italian as well, and I found myself captivated by their relationship from the beginning. That’s a lot because of their work.

A slow but rewarding movie that deserves to be seen…

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sullivan's Travels

Director

Preston Sturges

Year

1942

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 07, 2002

Snobbish Hollywood director John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) realizes that in order to make an honest tragic film he must experience misery himself. Thus he dresses himself in rags and goes out into the world with only ten cents in his pocket. Totally unprepared, and also unaware of what he is really facing, he goes through various “travels”, that little by little make him understand that suffering is not what he thought, even after he thought he experienced it himself.

During his first travel, Sully meets an aspiring actress whose luck isn’t so good (Veronica Lake), who changes his whole experience from that moment on.

Lake is charming and a perfect match for McCrea, both very credible in their roles.

The ending is poignant and wraps the film up beautifully, making it clear that this satire is not only full of true remarks about Hollywood and misery, but also that it has powerful self-observations. As a result, Sullivan’s Travels could very well be the movie that Sullivan resolved to make, for it makes laugh while being realistic and even tragic in some aspects. Reality is not evaded for the sake of comedy, which, in the end, is a unique achievement of writer / director Sturges, in one of the finest films ever.

You’ll be both laughing and crying in the end!

“If ever a plot needed a twist, this one does!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Frailty

Director

Bill Paxton

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 03, 2002

When Frailty hit theaters no one knew what to expect. It was Bill Paxton’s directorial debut and it was a horror story. Then the word started spreading that the movie was good and critics actually loved it. I had to see it to believe it.

Our story starts when Fenton Meeks (Matthew McConaughey) decides to pay FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) a visit. He happens to know the identity of the serial killer Agent Doyle has been tracking without any success. Thus Fenton starts telling his story about how when he was a boy (Matthew O’Leary) his father (Bill Paxton) one night woke him and his brother Adam (Jeremy Sumpter) up to tell them that he had just been told by an angel that they were all meant to destroy demons on Earth on God’s will. Demons, you see, disguise themselves as normal people, but they would be told who to kill and how to do it…

Pretty disturbing stuff, uh? Well, you have no idea! Frailty is a movie that at times certainly reaches the term unbearable. It’s simple: the story is about a father who kills people in front of his children and urges them to do the same. What’s more disturbing is the way he makes everything look so normal. No wonder Fenton thinks he’s crazy, and no wonder he starts going crazy himself.

Paxton takes over the director chair with success. He knows how to shoot his movie and he knows how to tell his story. The atmosphere is right-down creepy, and the way the story evolves is meant to mess up our minds. Well, it does.

After the movie has intrigued and scared us for a while, it’s time for the big finale, a plot twist of which I won’t reveal anything that is a bit complicated to understand (when you look back, that is), but that did the job for me. I love plot twists and I was not disappointed.

Frailty also boasted the record for a movie with the most mentions of the word “God”. No scene goes by without God’s name mentioned once or twice. And it all just adds to the creepiness.

Paxton knows how to direct his children and it shows. Every performance in the movie feels right.

A dark, somber tale with some truly interesting ideas.

“Do it like I showed you, the neck is first.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Philadelphia Story

Director

George Cukor

Year

1940

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 02, 2002

A rich girl from Philadelphia (Katharine Hepburn), two years after her divorce from her first husband (Cary Grant), settles down to marry another man (John Howard). A day before the wedding, her ex shows up with a reporter (James Stewart) and a camerawoman (Ruth Hussey), both from an infamous tabloid. Forced to receive them through blackmail, the girl behaves as normally as she can, but later, her visitors and the circumstances make her reconsider her whole life, and get to know herself like she never thought she could.

Sophisticated, thoughtful romantic comedy has enough dialogue to knock you down, but flows like water. Hepburn is at her very best in a role she originated on stage, of a girl who’s radiant and optimistic but dark and cold inside. Grant is a great match as the regretful ex-husband, but it is Stewart who steals the show as the sincere reporter who falls in love with the girl, triggering unexpected consequences. Hussey is also great as the woman who stays behind, as are Virginia Weidler as the younger sister, and Roland Young as the unworried uncle.

The poignancy in the scenes shared by Hepburn and Stewart surpasses the comedy. The finale is quite unexpected but certainly effective.

Great script and direction, in a brilliant film.

“Put me in your pocket, Mike.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Iris

Director

Richard Eyre

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 01, 2002

Three acting Oscar nominations can’t be a fluke. One win definitely isn’t. I was intrigued…

The movie tells the story of English writer Iris Murdoch (Judi Dench) as she fights against Alzheimer disease with the help of her husband, writer John Bailey (Jim Broadbent). It also tells the parallel story of how they met as young students at Oxford in the 50’s with Iris (Kate Winslet) a liberal cheerful woman and John (Hugh Boneville) a timid and quiet man.

Iris is a movie with quite a peculiar structure. One scene is set in our times and the next one in the 50’s, then it’s back to our times and so on. Scene by scene we keep discovering new things and knowing more about the characters. But the interesting thing is that while one storyline only gets worse and worse the other one keeps getting happier and more hopeful.

Alzheimer disease is perfectly portrayed and I must say the movie is very difficult to watch because of this. At times it becomes unbearable to watch how this bright, intelligent woman keeps descending into oblivion while her loving husband tries to be at her side but ends up going almost crazy. The burden is more about him, because she keeps forgetting things and doesn’t realize what’s going on, while he is the one who remains sane and has to deal with the situation.

Fortunately there is the other storyline which kind of compensates the pain we feel. If it wasn’t for these energetic scenes you would want to kill yourself even before the movie was over. That said, the way the romance between Iris and John unfolds is beautiful. It isn’t any simple, but it is very special.

Judi Dench is wonderful as the older Iris and effectively portrays how a person afflicted with this disease behaves. Jim Broadbent is absolutely splendid as the older John, from the way he looks to the mannerisms of the character to the way he slowly changes throughout the days. Kate Winslet shines as young Iris, in a role that fits her perfectly. And Hugh Boneville also delivers a dead-on performance. Besides, his resemblance with Broadbent is really scary. They could really be one person!

Overall an interesting and tough movie…

“There is only one freedom of any importance, freedom of the mind.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter