CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Black Cat

Director

Edgar G. Ulmer

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, October 31, 2004

A couple of years after the success of both Frankenstein (1931) and Dracula (1931), Universal Pictures, now confident of its success in horror films, and the box office magnetism of horror stars Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, created a vehicle that would team-up both stars, in a horror film of course, much to their inevitable typecasting.

The film, whose title and plot were allegedly inspired by Edgar Allan Poe’s tale, resembles very little, if anything, the aforementioned piece. There are certain similarities, concerning the fear of cats and the death of wives, but overall, it shares with the classic story only their title, and the fact that they’re meant to be scary.

The plot concerns a couple of American honeymooners in Hungaria, Peter and Joan Alison (David Manners and Julie Bishop) who are unfortunate enough to share a train car, and later a car wreck, with mysterious Dr. Vitus Werdegast (Lugosi). Joan turns out to be hurt, so Werdegast takes them both to the awesome home of architect Hjalmar Poelzig (Karloff), where he can give the girl proper attention.

As it is, Werdegast planned to go there anyway for revenge against Poelzig, who caused the death of many people during World War I and betrayed him, stealing his wife and daughter. After years of prison and torture, Werdegast is obsessed with finding his wife, as much as he’s terrified of cats, of which Poelzig has a few.

In the meantime, the American guests only suspect something fishy in the modern but strange house, and they are quite right: Poelzig is also a Satanic Priest, about to offer a very important ceremony, for which he chooses Joan to play a key role. Things turn deadly and nasty for everyone pretty soon.

The result of this movie is mesmerizing in its presentation, a visual treat to be sure, puzzling, intriguing, and confusing. The plot, however, though undeniably fascinating, is rather dull and often dumb and flat. The performances, particularly Lugosi’s, keep it alive however, and the climatic confrontation between him and Karloff is quite unforgettable; in contrast, Manners and Bishop give the procedures a lot of freshness, and a way to identify with anything onscreen.

The whole ride is a thrill, aided more often than not by varied classical music, but the whole isn’t especially intriguing. For all it’s worth however, and given its historical importance, it’s well worth a look.

“Superstitious, perhaps. Baloney…, perhaps not.”

Read also the article Universal Horror by Vincent.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

True Lies

Director

James Cameron

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 28, 2004

I’ve said it countless times: 1994 might be one of my favorite movie years of all-time. I could make you a huge list of the excellent movies released back then, just when I was 13 years old and hadn’t really discovered my obsession with movies. Fortunately those movies came back to me over the years. And here’s yet another example of another great 1994 production: True Lies. Curiously enough, it is an action movie, and good action movies are hard to find… any year!

Harry Tasker (Arnold Schwarzenegger) leads a double life. When he’s home he is a loving husband and caring father. But little does his wife Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis) suspect that when he goes to work he does not lock himself behind a desk, but instead he is out there trying to save the world! Harry must then try to juggle with terrorists developing nuclear weapons while he suspects his wife is cheating on him and schemes to uncover her. Complication ensues.

True Lies was directed by James Cameron. No wonder. The man knows his craft. And he knows how to make involving, mainstream, compelling movies. After all this Arnold romp is nothing more than pure action, intrigue and lots of fun. It is also exceedingly funny, with Tom Arnold as Harry’s sidekick always getting the laughs.

I guess what makes this movie so special is the double play in Harry’s life. The movie spends a lot of time developing his relationship with Helen. But don’t think it drags. They’re colorful, lively characters and their interaction is electric. It is because we care so much for both of them that the rest of the movie works like wonders.

The action set pieces are also expertly done. There’s always a sense of mystery and intrigue among the more showy scenes. After all Harry is a spy. But watching him tackle both terrorists and his own wife is hilarious. All of this leads to a classic stripping scene with Helen that is just as memorable as it gets. And that tango scene is also sparkling!

But don’t be fooled, between the stripping and dancing there’s lots of dead people. And I really mean lots!

True Lies could arguably be considered Arnold’s best movie. Or at least one of his best. It certainly boasts great performances by him and Jamie Lee Curtis. She even won a Golden Globe… for an action movie! That’s how good she is. And I love her!

After all is said and done, True Lies delivers. Big!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Live and Let Die

Director

Guy Hamilton

Year

1973

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

In spite of the weakness of Roger Moore’s debut as James Bond, those of us who hated Diamonds Are Forever (1971) were relieved to see this TV star become the British Agent. He was young, charming, and funny, and in all, a breath of fresh air for the series. That he didn’t become the best Bond overnight is no surprise, but the filmmakers are to blame in part; the second film to follow On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) is not even close in brilliancy or character development to the aforementioned, but instead, an average (or even below average) action film. But it’s a vast improvement over its immediate predecessor, so I’m not bitter about it at all.

The story has three British agents murdered in the U.S. and the Caribbean. Though their murders aren’t necessarily connected, they all seem to have something to do with drugs, so 007 agent James Bond (Moore) is sent to investigate. Aided by FBI agent Felix Leiter (this time played by David Hedison), our hero finds himself fighting less than ordinary drug dealers: The man on top, Dr. Kananga (Yaphet Kotto), relies strongly on his fanatic beliefs, which makes his web of crime rather unnatural. His team includes voodoo doctor Baron Samedi (Geoffrey Holder), strongman Tee Hee (Julius Harris), and Priestess Solitaire (Jane Seymour).

Bond goes from Harlem to the Louisiana bayous chasing or being chased by the bad guys, and by that I mean literally chased, as the movie doesn’t miss the chance to include chases, be it by car or by boat.

The change in tone for a 007 film is rather drastic. Much like Ian Fleming’s novel upon which it’s based, Live and Let Die distances from the usual international intrigue and world domination plots and offers a darker story with unusual characters. Bond is more a stranger here than he ever was before, but unfortunately, the movie chickens away from true darkness and takes us to rather unnecessary chase sequences, and an even more unnecessary comic relief in the form of Sheriff J.W. Pepper (Clifton James).

The romance in the film isn’t far from ordinary at all. Seymour is lovely (very lovely), but miscast in her role as a Priestess. I would imagine her to be African-American like her associates, but instead we get a delicate white girl with a strong weakness towards Bond. It is romantic, and no one can deny it, but there’s no struggle there, only a bit of conflict on her side, which is easily shoved aside.

The final sequence, reminiscent of the most climatic scene from From Russia with Love (1963), works just fine, with Tee Hee’s prosthetic hook adding to the tension, but adds to the insanity of an unfocused film that’s more a mixture of ideas than a well-developed one. But even though it’s weak in many ways, it still manages to entertain.

The most famous aspect of this film is not Roger Moore’s casting, and definitely not his performance, but the main theme. This is the first Bond film with a score composed by other than John Barry (George Martin, to be precise) and has ok background music, but an unforgettable main theme, composed by Paul and Linda McCartney, and sung by Paul McCartney and Wings. It’s a classic, arguably the most famous Bond song, and one of the best.

Interesting entry, but rather forgettable. Followed by The Man with a Golden Gun.

“Is there time before we leave for lesson number three?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bourne Identity

Director

Doug Liman

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 25, 2004

I hear this adaptation of the first part of Robert Ludlum’s “Bourne” trilogy of novels is not exactly faithful to its source material. I hear there’s a lot of information and even more situations that didn’t make it to the big screen. In that sense, I’m happy to not have read the book, because I just loved how this movie played: Like a spy thriller very little concerned with specifics, and very much concerned with feelings and circumstance. Mindless fun, one could say. But instead, it’s serious enough to be taken seriously, and light enough to enjoy without much effort.

The story begins with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) waking up shot in the ocean, with his memory completely lost. Soon he learns that he’s got extraordinary physical abilities and an unusually large set of skills of all kinds, and later it becomes clear that he was a spy of some sort and is now the target of assassins. Trying to escape (and find out who he was and why they’re trying to kill him), he befriends a German wanderer by the name of Marie (Franka Potente), who gives him a ride to Paris for money. Not such a convenient deal, as it seems, once she gets involved with Bourne and thus her life becomes endangered.

The people behind the attempts to murder Bourne are his former employers: A secret project of the government that trained superspies for specific assassinations and other crucial missions. Considering Bourne a loose end and a risk to the operation, his boss, Alexander Conklin (Chris Cooper), sends assassins after him. One of them, known as The Professor (Clive Owen), proves especially dangerous. And in the meantime, pressure is all over Conklin, especially in the form of Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), another man involved with the operation who finds Bourne’s situation rather distressing.

So the film has its complexity, but as I said, it’s ultimately a very simple action movie. It’s all fighting and shooting and running away, oh, and some romance. So what makes it special? I guess it’s two things: The way it takes itself seriously, and the unbelievable pace with which it’s handled. From the marvelous editing (by Saar Klein and Christopher Rouse) to the great choice of music (featuring an original score by John Powell), it manages to hook the audience and keep them on the edge of their seat throughout the entire running time. There’s no stopping Bourne or the people who chase him, and it’s all very exciting. Director Liman gives every situation an extra punch by showing us Bourne’s point of view, and really managing to make us feel what he feels. And since the film doesn’t relate the new Bourne with the old one, clearing him from old sins and crimes, we really want him to survive and gain a rest.

Bourne is a good character, empty if you will, but very human, and Damon plays him all right. Potente is even better as an everywoman involved in much more than she bargained for. The supporting cast is equally good (especially Cooper and Cox), though a very small character played by Julia Stiles seems a bit out of place.

Special mention goes to a car chase sequence in the middle of the movie, certainly one of the best I’ve seen in my life… if not the most plausible!

Intelligent mindless fun… Ever heard that term before?

Followed by The Bourne Supremacy (2004).

“How could I forget about you? You're the only person I know.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Angels in America

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Every teenager, or at least most of them, will tell you that sex is a topic of special interest in their lives. It is something new and often forbidden, which obviously only makes somebody more attracted to it. I'm one of those teenagers, and I also happen to be gay. Most of the times, when I see a preview of a movie featuring gay themes, I jump at the opportunity to see it. Most of the time - not always - I try to see them because I might be able to catch a little kiss or a hug or maybe even a sex scene between two male characters, which does not happen very often in movies.

When I first saw the previews on HBO for the miniseries Angels in America, the topic of sexuality was not hidden from the viewer at all, and one of the many previews that I saw included two men kissing. Needless to say, I decided to watch the movie, not for its content, which I ignored, but just for the simple fact of the gay theme...

Angels in America is set in the year 1985, during the Reagan presidency. During this administration, AIDS saw an alarming increase in the number of people infected, as well as Reagan's decision to blatantly ignore it. The main problem in this movie, which we don't learn right away, is that God has left heaven, and for a long time, has not returned. Thus the stage is set, and the plot unravels...

Prior Walter (Justin Kirk) and Louis Ironson (Ben Shenkman) are a gay couple living happily in New York City. They have lived together for well over 5 years before Prior discovers that he's HIV positive. The news has an impact on Louis that is perhaps not the most desirable one, but somewhat understandable under the circumstances: he decides to abandon Prior just when he's going through a really tough phase of the disease. Prior's only help is Belize (Jeffrey Wright), who sticks by him through all the problems. With all these problems in his life, Prior has hallucinations about an Angel of Death (Emma Thompson), who makes him a prophet and encourages him to prepare the way for the messenger.

On the other side of the movie is the story of Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson) and Harper Pitt (Mary Louise Parker). They're both Mormons also living in New York City and with severe relationship problems. For starters, Joe is a man struggling with his own sexuality. He wonders whether he was right in marrying Harper. Harper, on the other side, struggles with her emotional and marriage problems by swallowing Valium pills from left to right, which puts her, throughout most of the story, in a world of fantasy and make-believe. After Joe eventually discovers his true sexuality (or gets more confused, depending on how its looked at), he speaks to his mother, Hannah Pitt (Meryl Streep), who comes to visit him from Salt Lake City to help him with his ordeal.

Roy Cohn (Al Pacino) is yet another character introduced in the movie. This character is actually based on an actual person who was, according to many (and also in the movie), "the pure impersonation of evil", who believes that his greatest accomplishment was sending the Rosenbergs to die. He is a lawyer in New York City who is homophobe but also a closeted homosexual. He acquires AIDS, but makes everyone believe that he really has lung cancer instead.

These are then, the basic storylines in the movie. Suffice it to say that it was nothing like what I expected initially, and I can't even begin to explain how glad I am that it wasn't so. So you could say the movie deceived me, and I'm thankful for that every step of the way.

The cast could not have been more perfect. From the incredible (as usual) performance of Meryl Streep playing 4 characters (The Rabbi/Hannah Pitt/Ethel Rosenberg/The Angel Australia) to Al Pacino's amazing and realistic portrayal of a man dying of AIDS; from Mary Louise Parker's interpretation of Harper, which is simply magnificent, to the vivid impersonation of Belize by Jeffrey Wright... this movie offered everything on its repertoire: from veteran actors (Streep, Pacino & Thompson) to newcomers (Kirk, Wilson & Parker), and it did so in the most perfect of ways. My main kudos in this movie goes to director Mike Nichols, screenwriter Tony Kushner, and a big one to HBO for allowing this movie to be aired in the first place.

The fact that this is probably one of the greatest movies ever made without a doubt, is also in agreement with critics, who have awarded it some of the most prestigious awards in every category possible. It received 5 Golden Globe Awards and 13 Emmys, the most ever for a miniseries, and let me tell you right now, it deserved each and every single one of them.

It's been hard for me to review this piece, since I very much support the idea it gives: that God has abandoned us. As a homosexual, I can tell you that it certainly feels like that. We're considered outcasts, weirdoes and we're called every insulting name in the book, just because of our sexual preference. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not correct. God has abandoned us, his people, and has left us instead these plagues—AIDS, cancer—whose only purpose is to kill, to eliminate life... it is a very hard concept to grasp.

If you're a homophobe and you watched this movie, and you got nothing out of it, then let me speak a little word to you: we're humans, just like you... we have senses, and families, and feelings. We're not all that different. Don't discriminate against someone just because they're different from you. Learn to coexist. Help make the world a better place: rid it of all the hate that it has stored inside.

I recommend Angels in America to anyone. No matter who you are, what race or religion, please, watch it. It might persuade you to change your mind and believe in something different. It had that effect in me...

"This disease will be the end of many of us, but not nearly all; and the dead will be commemorated and will struggle on with the living and we're not going away. We won't die secret deaths anymore. The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come. Bye now. You are fabulous, each and every one, and I bless you. More life. The great work begins."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Angels in America (2003): Morris

Review

Open Water

Director

Chris Kentis

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Even though Open Water took three years to make, it only took one screening at Sundance to make people realize the potential it had to break out. Audiences there found it creepy and terrifying, so Lions Gate bought it and gave it a wide release a couple of months ago. It wasn’t a huge hit, but it wasn’t meant to be. And those who have seen it will understand why. Truth is, the movie is one-of-a-kind, and it’s also as chilly as they get.

Susan (Blanchard Ryan) and Daniel (Daniel Travis) are a workaholic couple who take a much-needed vacation. One morning they get on a boat with a bunch of other people who love scuba diving as much as they. But the situation gets serious once Susan and Daniel are left behind due to a counting error. They now find themselves stranded alone in the middle of the ocean, in shark-infested waters.

The biggest misconception surrounding Open Water is that it’s another version of Jaws. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The only thing both movies have in common is that they feature sharks, but that’s where the resemblance ends. This is a whole different type of movie, though it’s also not easily forgotten.

Director Chris Kentis shot the movie with 35MM cameras, giving it a grainy appearance, sort of like watching a home video. And the actors did their jobs as truthfully as possible, swimming in waters with real sharks dangerously approaching them. I don’t know how much the crew risked their lives, but it was certainly worth it. The movie they came off with is well done and truly effective.

It’s interesting to note that Open Water does not succeed because of its scary and boo moments only. There sure are plenty of those, all of which are jump-inducing. But the movie is more of a psychological thing. It gets under your skin. Just to think that this could happen to you can keep you thinking for days. But watching it is another thing altogether. Susan and Daniel go through despair, sickness, desperation, dehydration, wounds and tension. It’s one thing to be in a situation when you know you may die quickly, and another to be in the place in which you are given hours and hours of thinking about it. Exhaustion is not as big a word as to how horrible it may be.

The movie is also quite talky. It is actually slow-paced. But it is real to the bone. These people talk and react as real people would. They laugh, they fight, they cry, they shout, they stare…

An especially creepy scene occurs during a thunderstorm in which we only see Susan and Daniel when lightning strikes. Thing is, we also see something quite menacing surrounding them. It’s nail-biting.

And then there’s the ending… which I just didn’t see coming. It is low-key and subtle. It is also meaningful and shocking.

As acting goes, the two main actors do a great job, especially Blanchard. I wouldn’t be surprised if she started a career in Hollywood. She resembles Charlize Theron and shows considerable traces of talent. The two are a perfect combination, and their work is really good, conveying all sorts of emotions while waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

A shocking, disturbing movie.

“I wanted to go skiing!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Diamonds Are Forever

Director

Guy Hamilton

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

The saddest thing imaginable happened to the James Bond franchise right after the fine On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)… Due to the latter’s failure at the box office (“failure” meaning a gigantic gross nonetheless, but ineffective in topping the previous entries), the filmmakers decided to remove all seriousness and soberness the series had finally acquired, and go from Ian Fleming’s territory to cheap action/comedy moviemaking.

The one asset the movie possesses is the return of Sean Connery as James Bond… A questionable improvement, considering his lack of sympathy for the character or the producers by that time. Connery is out of form, out of shape, heck, one could almost say miscast in the role of Bond. He only makes those who didn’t appreciate George Lazenby long for the Australian actor; except for those too blinded by Connery’s past Bond performances to realize how bad he is here. Nevertheless, and quite sadly, the film became a huge success, which makes anyone wonder whether the audience prefers good filmmaking or big, explosive fun. Whichever the case, that’s how it went. Good news is, decades later, most people think it sucks… Because it does. Bad.

The story has Bond frantically looking for and eventually executing his arch-nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Charles Gray), presumably for the infamous murder the man committed in the end of the previous film, which later becomes unclear since such events seem to have disappeared into thin air. However, Bond thinks Blofeld is dead, and moves on to another assignment concerning big-time diamond smuggling.

Even 007 wonders what he’s doing in such a case, and he’s damn right: There’s no reason for it. But of course, beyond any possible logic, Blofeld turns out to be involved, with one thing in mind: To hold the world hostage. How diamonds can serve such purpose is anyone’s guess, and sadly, there isn’t a surprise explanation like the one the title character from Goldfinger (1964) had to assault Fort Knox… Instead, logic is defied or rather completely forgotten, to the point of idiocy and hilarity. We go from diamond smuggling to a diamond-powered outer-space laser-shooting satellite, and to make matters worse, not even the film takes itself seriously.

But to make matters even worse, the film is insultingly sexist, and the one “strong” Bond girl we get is a cheap-looking, cheap-behaving, and quite dumb American girl, Tiffany Case (Jill St. John). I did enjoy some of her interaction with Bond though, but that’s probably because there hasn’t been a weaker Blofeld than Gray, not to mention Norman Burton’s awful Felix Leiter… and suffice it to say that even Lois Maxwell is out of place as Miss Moneypenny, but that’s completely the script’s fault. One potentially strong character is Willard Whyte (Jimmy Dean), a Las Vegas tycoon held hostage and replaced by Blofeld, but Dean plays him like a goofy hotshot.

The two characters that do gain some respect throughout the movie are a couple of sinister villains, Mr. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Mr. Kidd (Putter Smith), who also happen to be gay. Their presence is always disturbing and uncomfortable which, considering they’re villains, makes them pretty good at it.

If there’s one real redeeming aspect in this film (the fake one being Connery’s casting, which more than serving the picture hurts his image as the great Bond we remember from earlier films), it’s a car chase sequence in the middle of the film. It’s not up to the standards of previous Bonds, and more in the league of Smokey and the Bandit, but it’s pretty exciting. There’s also a pretty good fighting sequence where two girls (Bambi and Thumper) kick the hell out of our hero.

As opposed to this, the anticlimactic final sequence (concerning a cassette tape on which the fate of the world rests… go figure) is laughably bad and unexciting.

Not surprisingly, John Barry’s music score is uninspired and completely forgettable. So is the title tune (lyrics by Don Black), though Shirley Bassey’s rendition does it some good.

Overall, a shameful entry, and the lowest point in the James Bond series. Followed by Live and Let Die.

“Double jeopardy, Mr. Bond.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Motorcycle Diaries

Director

Walter Salles

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

I’m not much into politics. I find them boring to say the least. And that’s why I was never a good History student nor do I understand everything that goes on in the world nowadays. Not my cup of tea. Fine. But there was always something about The Motorcycle Diaries that kept me captivated right until before I saw it: the movie told a slice of revolutionary Che Guevara before he became the man we all know about. Intriguing, and fortunately, expertly executed.

In 1952 Buenos Aires, a medicine student, Ernesto Guevara (Gael García Bernal), and his best friend (Rodrigo de la Serna), decide to embark on a road trip in an old motorcycle that would take them all across South America, stretching more than 10,000 miles. At first the trip is all fun and adventure, but it suddenly starts to turn into something much more serious than they could have imagined.

The Motorcycle Diaries is based on a true story. The story, and dialogue, were taken directly from Ernesto’s own words. Words that he wrote in a diary during his trip. That gives the movie a sense of reality that is difficult to find in movies nowadays. It ain’t a documentary, but it certainly works as a lush and beautiful travelogue if you only want to see it that way. And Eric Gautier’s grandiose cinematography certainly doesn’t hurt.

Yet this movie is much more than meets the eye. It is the coming-of-age story of a man who wasn’t really aware of how the world worked. He had been living in a shell, and that’s why he wanted to see it all by himself. It is his political awakening, but done in such a form that it doesn’t feel forced or unnatural. After all it is something we can all identify with: the moment in which we all realize the world is not such a dreamy and wonderful place.

Ernesto is not pessimistic. Not even after he changes so much. He craves for the joy of living, for the right to be free and equal. He is a fascinating man who says whatever is in his mind. And the same goes for his friend Alberto. They both go through a lot during the impressive trip they take, yet there’s always one thing in their minds: to keep going. And there’s always that lighthearted moment, that time where they can both laugh, for life is to be savored no matter what. And we all have the right to do that.

Director Walter Salles opted to shoot the entire movie on location. That meant following exactly the same route as Ernesto and Rodrigo did. And it’s mind-blowing. I was impressed by the period detail, the beautiful score by Gustavo Santaolalla and especially by the performances in the movie. And I’m not talking about the leads, which I’ll mention later, but about every single supporting character or extra in the movie. There’s such a natural vibe to all of their work. You can see they’re real people, it’s in their eyes, in their faces, in their hands. Salles uses an interesting device to show the way in which these people lived by having them stare at the camera in their natural environments. They’re just beautiful and poignant vignettes.

Delivering once again a stellar and impressive performance is Gael García Bernal, who sports a perfect Argentinean accent and embodies Ernesto in a way that the transformation he experiences flows naturally. He’s good at every turn. And so is Rodrigo de la Serna, wonderfully charismatic and the perfect counterpart to Ernesto’s more somber mood. Both actors have chemistry and talent to spare. And it is just wonderful to spend time with them. I didn’t want the movie to end at all, and that’s saying something.

Kudos should go to Salles for tackling such a difficult subject and coming off so well. I was captivated, enthralled and totally absorbed by his brilliant movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Director

Francis Ford Coppola

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 18, 2004

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the 1990’s “literal” adaptation of Stoker’s 1897 novel, or at least, an allegedly faithful interpretation of his original conception of the story. It is indeed a twist from the usual film version, namely Bela Lugosi’s, and more in the league of the German classic Nosferatu. It’s also a highly entertaining film, and a deliciously bizarre one.

The first half of the movie introduces its characters in a genuinely striking way. Moving on an admirably quick pace, and filling the screen with visual effects, serving both artistic and supernatural purposes, it drags us into its creepy universe, which is both irresistible and horrendous. We don’t want to be there, but we can’t help but love every minute of it. Isn’t that what the Dracula legend is all about?

The film opens with a prelude that presents the tragic occurrences of 15th century Romanian Prince Vlad (Gary Oldman), whose wife Elisabeta (Winona Ryder), thinking him dead, killed herself during his absence in the crusades; Vlad swore revenge against God, and became the undead.

Centuries later, in Victorian London, a young man by the name of Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania, the home of a certain Count Dracula (a rachitic-looking Oldman), who’s interested in buying certain London properties. Another salesman by the name of Renfield (Tom Waits) was sent before, but he inexplicably lost his mind in the process. Once in Transylvania, Harker doesn’t take long to realize he’s more a prisoner than a guest in Dracula’s eerie castle, but there’s not much he can do about it.

Dracula, in the meantime, moves to London, now looking young and handsome, and befriends Harker’s fiancée Mina Murray, who could as well be Elisabeta’s reincarnation, and is played by Ryder as well.

After most of the characters have been introduced, including Mina’s friend Lucy (Sadie Frost) and Mina’s three suitors (Richard E. Grant, Cary Elwes, and Bill Campbell), the film turns a tad more serious. As a vampire, Dracula can become most anything, from a wolf to an actual vampire, to a ghostly vapor. While he pursues Mina, he feeds from Lucy, who seems to be losing her mind. So Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), specialist of the occult, is called to cure her; aided by Lucy’s suitors, and even Harker upon his return, Van Helsing becomes Dracula’s worst nightmare.

Granted, the second half is not as exciting or as mesmerizing as the first, but it’s no less intense. The presentation of the Dracula legend as a romantic story, where at times (maybe at all times) we root for the “bad guy”, is unprecedented and certainly interesting. Rarely does the film go the cheap or clichéd way, and there’s always something original waiting around the corner. I particularly enjoyed Dracula’s transformations (the makeup work is remarkable), and the visual effects that go with them. Thomas E. Sanders’ settings, photographed by Michael Ballhaus, add to the intensity. In fact, what there really is to like, is the delicious period flavor, not to mention the careful attention to detail.

And if it works, it’s because of the straight performances, and the sense of horror mixed with romance. It’s really unique, aided also by Wojciech Kilar’s intense score.

This film is not the definitive vampire movie, but it’s a different kind, and should be seen.

“I have crossed oceans of time to find you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

All the President's Men

Director

Alan J. Pakula

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 14, 2004

The Washington Post has played an important role in American history. It has always been famous for its mordent journalism and its bravery in publishing serious claims about important figures of politics. Naturally, sometimes those claims are wrong, or not completely right, and their “bravery” becomes insulting and hardly ethical. But sometimes they’re right, and go as far as becoming the most important piece in a political move. Take President Nixon’s resignation, for instance.

Real-life reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) made history thanks to their perseverance in digging into the Watergate case, not resting for a minute until they could prove themselves right. Despite the case looking like a weird but nonetheless typical burglary, the theory of a conspiracy or a web of espionage against the Democrat party arose but was snubbed by most pretty soon. Not by the two young reporters of the Post, who believed in the theory, and went for it. Soon, they just couldn’t or wouldn’t back up.

With so many enemies and so few believers, their outlook was bleak, but they kept it up, and eventually, well, made the most of it (literally!). Despite their little credibility and questionable sources, their Editor in chief, Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards), decided to back them up. A wise decision indeed!

William Goldman’s script was inspired by the book of the same name by “Woodstein” (Woodward and Bernstein), where they told of their journalistic odyssey. The story is interesting regardless of the drama involved, but it becomes all the more so on account of its intriguing details. For instance, Woodward’s main White House insider, known as Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook), was and is still a mystery (though his identity has presumably been identified since); add to that the paranoia, the silent threats, the opposition, and the increasing tension, and you sure got a story worth a bestseller and a mainstream movie.

All the President’s Men unfolds like a typical newspaper film, only more familiar to the viewer given the notoriety of the Watergate case. Soon, however, the investigation becomes a web of mysteries and lies, which turns the film into both a political thriller and a detective story. Of each genre, the film makes the most, and it’s hard not to be absorbed by its reality. Despite the artistic liberties the filmmakers might have taken, I don’t imagine the true happenings to be much different from this, because at its core, it’s a story about apparent impotence and a David and Goliath fight (a remarkable aerial shot at the Library of Congress is a good symbolism of that), and that’s what makes the experience so irresistible.

Redford and Hoffman do a good job as the young reporters. Their struggle is clear and they go from ambitious hotshots to anguished professionals on the edge of losing everything, and they’re always believable. In the support, veterans include Martin Balsam and Jack Warden as editors, and they’re both pretty great; but it is Robards who steals the show as Bradlee, with his unique mannerisms and reactions, vanity, and wisdom. His scenes are vibrant. On the same level (though quite different in tone and thus not comparable) is Jane Alexander, whose scenes as a paranoid Republican are absolutely unforgettable.

David Shire’s low-key score, Robert L. Wolfe’s editing, and Pakula’s direction, certainly are praise-worthy.

Interesting in a historical level, but mostly a very entertaining film, All the President’s Men is a must-see.

“Just be sure you’re right.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a hard film to review, at least on my part, since it holds the title of Best Movie Ever in my collection. This is the last installment (sadly) of the franchise that started in 2001 with The Fellowship of the Ring and continued with The Two Towers in 2002.

The movie begins with the sad story of Smeagol (Andy Serkis), back before he was turned into Gollum. The beauty of this opening scene is nothing short of amazing, with Jackson playing close attention to the details described by Tolkien in his masterpiece. After Gollum obtains the Ring of Power, we begin to see his transformation from a regular hobbit-like creature, into the sad, crippled monster we see in the movies.

The story continues, as in the transition from The Fellowship of the Rings to The Two Towers, right where the last one left off: Frodo, Sam and Gollum moving one step closer to Mordor every time, while Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf await for the final stroke of the enemy in Endoras.

The stories from the last movie, the ones that were unsolved in The Two Towers, are dealt with in this movie. Arwen's love for Aragorn, Eowyn's impossible love for the same character, the unraveling of Gimli’s and Legolas’ friendship, and Gandalf's transformation into the greatest Istari to ever have graced Middle Earth.

Peter Jackson is the director of this movie (as well as the other two) and words fail to describe what this man has accomplished with these movies. Along with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, Peter created a visual masterpiece, a feast to the eyes which, at the same time, generated such an interest in the books of J.R.R. Tolkien that many, many people began reading them for the first time, while others who had read the books already (my case) appreciated them even more: this is not done easily, but Peter pulled if off... better than anyone else who has ever attempted to.

The score for this movie fell, once again, in the hands of Howard Shore, and the melodies he created are nothing short of amazing. Every piece from the score compliments the scene it accompanies, with highlights from Billy Boyd and Viggo Mortensen, who each get to sing a little during two very crucial scenes in the movie. The wonderful "Into the west", sung by Annie Lennox, can be heard at the end, while the credits are rolling, and it is no wonder that it won the Academy Award for Best Original Song: it is simply that, the best song.

The cast could not have been better chosen. Viggo Mortensen shines as Aragorn, and Sir Ian McKellen, as Gandalf, is every bit as wonderful as you would expect him to be. No matter, there were two outstanding performances in this movie: Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee, and Andy Serkis as Gollum. They should have both been nominated for an Academy Award, because they both very much deserved it.

I think everything that had to be said about this movie has been said, not only by me, but by anyone else. If you have not seen it, I urge you to. You will be satisfied from beginning to end. If you feel the need to know more about “The Lord of the Rings”, read the books by J.R.R. Tolkien: they are credited as the best science fiction books ever written and the trilogy, as a whole, is the second most-read book of all time, right after the Bible. Do you need any more reasons to immerse yourself in this wonderful world?

"Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for?"

Note: As with the past two movies, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King will also have a Special Extended Edition released. This edition will go on sale on December 14th, 2004, and will include over 50 minutes of extra footage. As a proud owner of the past two editions, I also recommend to buy this edition, as well as the other two if you haven't done so. It is very much worth it and it brings the movies to a whole different level.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Director

Peter R. Hunt

Year

1969

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Sean Connery’s decision to quit playing Britain’s most famous secret agent, James Bond, led the series to an unexpected path: Not only was a hunt organized for a new actor to play 007 (a pursuit often compared to that of an actress to play Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With the Wind (1939)), but the script was particularly well crafted, focusing both on action and character depth and development; also, the production values were much more meticulous than usual. All of which added up to the best entry in the series.

Starting with the obligatory subject, let me state that George Lazenby does an excellent job. I won’t say I dare anyone to say he does not, ‘cause many people have already said so. I just can’t see why, but I think it’s because they’re just too in love with Connery’s Bond to see anyone else play the man, and since Lazenby was the first man to do so, and he only did it once, he’s the main target of negative criticism. I for one think he’s a natural, and his Bond is more spontaneous than Connery’s sometimes. Lazenby is athletic, funny, and charming, but most of all, he’s sure of himself, enough to play such an important role.

Though the movie has quite a few references to the previous five entries (Dr. No (1962), From Russia with Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965), and You Only Live Twice (1967)), it’s so solid on its own that it holds together better than any of them, or all together. The story is more serious and sober, and more realistic (or should I say, less implausible), and definitely more focused on real human feelings and reactions.

The story has Bond, more cynic and self-centered than ever, romancing an evasive Countess he keeps saving from trouble. Her name is Teresa, but she’d rather he call her Tracy (Diana Rigg). Her father, an European crime boss (Gabriele Ferzetti), unable to tame his daughter, decides to make a deal with Bond, asking him to take her seriously, and offering to tell him in return the location of his arch-nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Telly Savalas). Bond goes for it, but soon he finds himself honestly in love with Tracy, as she is with him.

But Draco does tell Bond where Blofeld is, and Bond does go after the man. As it turns out, Blofeld is trying to prove he’s a Count, so the secret agent, disguised as a genealogist, pays him a visit. In a scheme to sprawl a biological warfare, Blofeld disguises his evil foundation as a philanthropic research center against allergies, whose patients are all women, and all gorgeous. Disguised as everything but a womanizer, Bond has a hard time in there… or does he?

But even when the film is taking a formulaic path, it soon changes direction. This Blofeld, for instance, is not the same kind of character we met before. Here he drops his cat, he changes his clothes, and he acts like a human being would (an insane and brilliant one, that is). Bond’s visit to Blofeld in the Swiss Alps doesn’t end with big explosions at the moment, but instead, 007 is forced to escape, and outstanding chase sequences (by ski, and later by car) follow. Tracy is also not your typical Bond girl: She’s quite smart, and ready for action, and somehow even braver than Bond himself. You just can’t top the action sequences in this film, and the editing by John Glen is one of the best of its kind I’ve ever seen. Ditto for Michael Reed’s cinematography.

Though Rigg was chosen for the role mostly for her success in “The Avengers” TV series, she’s perfect and convinces completely after a while. Savalas, in the meantime, has a good time as the arch-villain, and surely tops Donald Pleasance who played the role in You Only Live Twice (1967). Ilse Steppat, as Blofeld’s female aide, is chilling.

John Barry worked on the music score once again and at creating the first non-sung theme since Dr. No (1962), he gave the world one of the most distinctive Bond themes, which also serves the action sequences like no other before. Plus, the romantic scenes are also aided by his music, and especially the song “We have all the time in the world” (lyrics by Hal David), sung by Louis Armstrong and featured in one of the most memorable scenes.

Like Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) says in one scene, this is the same Bond, only more so, and screenwriter Richard Maibaum made sure of it. Ian Fleming’s hero had never been so real, so human, so complete, and yet so vulnerable. The film does take longer than most Bond films, but it’s worth it, as the same weight is given to every subplot and aspect of the story.

As it is known, this is also the one and only Bond film capable of making you cry, and making Bond cry. The decision he takes regarding Tracy is unforgettable (and unforgettably romantic), and the tragic ending is shattering. It’s the only way to end this story though, and it works to perfection.

Definitely one of the best action films I’ve ever seen, and doubtlessly the best Bond film ever.

Followed by Diamonds Are Forever (1971).

“It's not New Year yet.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Manchurian Candidate

Director

Jonathan Demme

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 11, 2004

Just for the record, I have not seen the 1962 Frank Sinatra-starrer of which this movie is a remake. But that doesn’t mean I’m not interested or intrigued. I’d certainly love to watch Angela Lansbury as a cold bitch in a performance that earned her an Oscar nomination. But it has not happened yet and as it turns out, I ended up seeing the remake before I even watched the original. Fortunately, this one’s also heralded as a great movie. Even better, some critics think…

Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) and Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) fought together in the Vietnam war. They were even part of a heroic mission in which Shaw apparently defended and saved his whole troop from enemy forces. Flash-forward many years later and there’s Shaw as a Vice-Presidential candidate powered by his mother, Senator Eleanor Shaw (Meryl Streep). Everything’s running smoothly until Ben appears with stories about some dreams he’s been having in which he doesn’t recall Shaw as a war hero. Not only that, but he thinks they were both victims of a mind-bending corporation with evil plans.

The Manchurian Candidate couldn’t have come at a better time. It arrived just when the United States, and the whole world, is all about politics and elections and candidates and so forth. This movie is obviously fictional (it even has some science fiction elements), but at its core, it is just a daunting portrait of the political scenario as we know it. And that’s really scary, as we come to witness how cold-blooded people can get when they want more power and are not going to stop at anything to achieve it. Sounds familiar?

Director Jonathan Demme is smart enough to update a classic while not trying to emulate it. Fact is his movie works, mainly because it is a tight, well-written political thriller. The movie does boast some strange imagery and situations, but its characters are as real as they get, and we are, just like them, starving for the truth.

Besides, the ending totally kills. Talk about nail-biting sequences!

The scenes involving Shaw and his mother are amongst the best the movie has to offer. Their relationship and the way his mother has so much power upon his poor soul is really disturbing. Who cares if there’s a whole conspiracy going on when everything returns in cycles to the essentials: family.

I enjoyed very much everyone’s performances, especially that of a scene-stealing Meryl Streep. She plays the kind of character that when she enters a room, nobody can take their eyes off of her. Well, the same happens to us. She’s magnetic… and quite frightening. Denzel can do no wrong and this is no exception, while Schreiber holds himself remarkably well among such an experienced cast. Jon Voight and Kimberly Elise give strong support in minor roles.

Entertaining, intelligent fun!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Angels in America

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, October 07, 2004

As of today, Angels in America is the mini-series with the most Emmy wins in the history of television. Yes, you heard right… mini-series. I guess this is the first time anyone here at CS has reviewed one, but as a visual medium so close to cinema, I think it passes as a work of art which so happens to have urged me to write, talk, and scream about it.

It’s 1985 New York, when Reagan ruled the country and AIDS started spreading implacably. Prior Walter (Justin Kirk) has had a relationship of more than four years with Louis Ironson (Ben Shenkman), but when he’s diagnosed with AIDS Louis is incapable of sticking by him and just plain abandons him. Prior then submerges in a world of suffering and delusion, to the point where he becomes convinced he’s a prophet. And not even his closest pal, Belize (Jeffrey Wright) can convince him otherwise.

Then there’s Mormon lawyer Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson), whose relationship with his sick, delusional wife Harper (Mary-Louise Parker) has been thickening as of late until it reaches boiling point when Joe starts to question his own sexuality and he’s offered an important job in Washington. It is remorseless lawyer Roy Cohn (Al Pacino) who offers him the post, just hours before he finds out he’s HIV positive and refuses to acknowledge it. Joe forms a sort of bond with Roy, especially after his mother, Hannah (Meryl Streep) responds so awkwardly to the circumstances.

God, that was hard, describing the plot. Angels in America is actually six-hours long, with a six-chapter structure presented in two blocks. The premise I just described up there is actually just the beginning of an epic saga which has these and more characters coming together in the most unexpected and cathartic of ways.

The series is based upon Tony Kushner’s revolutionary play, considered by many the most relevant, and revelatory, portrait of AIDS in the 80’s. It is at times a drama about friendship and loneliness and family and finding your place in the world, and it is also an offbeat comedy. But most of all it is a story about politics, sexuality, religion and ethnicity that finds its central core in an era in which the worst had not happened yet, but was about to. Kushner, and director Mike Nichols, jump from theme to theme, from storyline to storyline, spitting out ideas and beliefs about almost everything.

There’s no denying some scenes and dialogues are utterly pretentious and/or impossible to fully understand. But the series is so well-written and put together that even if you miss out on every single interpretation you’re totally submerged in the story and the characters. Having so much time at hand, there could’ve been more characters in place, but Kushner decides to focus on just a few to use them as a basis of expansion for what he has to say. And it is a lot, believe me.

The series is intense, dense and provocative in almost equal measures. This is not your usual linear drama. It is full of completely wacky and imaginative scenes and situations. Sometimes it is difficult to understand the line between what’s an illusion or a dream and what is real. But that’s what gives it an even deeper dimension. We’re not just presented with characters tormented by their minds, we actually come to experience them. And the combination is fantastic, something that sounds ridiculous, but that comes off surprisingly well.

But don’t be misled, the heart of the movie, the thing that gives it a pulse, is the fact that it represents an era that actually existed, with characters that are as real as they come going through situations that we all can identify with and that are as relevant today as they were back then. Kushner develops his characters with care and makes of them fully-fleshed human beings. And each story thread, each scene, each sequence is just as compelling as the one before. I didn’t want the series to end at all!

Angels in America is affecting. It is disturbing. It is also extremely thought-provoking. And it is so rare to find all those characteristics in any form of art nowadays. HBO was brave enough to finance it, and they should be given a lot of merit for having the guts. The series is not as accessible as it looks at first. It requires disposition, but once you’re hooked you won’t be able to let go.

Besides being so well-told, the production behind it is top-notch. There’s no denying it never loses its television feel, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The art direction, costume design and special effects are just beautiful. I didn’t think they would pull of the angel’s wings, but the work done in those scenes is spectacular in every respect.

Sometimes we as critics talk about ensembles that stand out and work magic. I am not exaggerating when I call the ensemble in this series one of the best and most accomplished in any type of medium form in history. To begin with, there’s the three main veteran actors. Al Pacino plays the only real-life figure in the series, and does so with gusto. Roy Horn is such a complex character that it would be difficult to categorize him. He’s an anti-communist, homophobic homosexual, who hails the death of Ethel Rosenberg as his biggest accomplishment in life. He’s also lonely and sad and terribly sick. And he never ceases to be himself until the end.

Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson play four and three different characters respectively. It is actually shocking to realize the Rabbi at the beginning of the series is actually Meryl, but she’s just ridiculously talented and can do anything. But it is with Hannah, the conservative mother of conflicted Joe, that she shines the most. Meanwhile Thompson is also glorious, and her role as the angel is just something to behold.

But there are five young actors who are the true revelations of the piece. Mary-Louise Parker has grown as an actress and is just mind-blowing in this movie. I just wanted to keep getting scenes with her because it was such a pleasure to watch her unravel in such a way. Patrick Wilson, playing her husband Joe, gives arguably, at least for me, the best performance in the movie. I was captivated and completely astonished. Jeffrey Wright, who won a Tony for playing the same role(s) on Broadway, totally gets his character(s). You never feel it’s a performance, but rather an actor who was able to immerse completely under the skin of his character, especially that of Belize. Ben Shenkman is a new face for me, but he carries himself admirably well in terribly difficult scenes. And last but not least there’s Justin Kirk, who might actually be considered the lead, who gives a tour-de-force performance that is as intense and sad as it is dignified and hopeful.

‘The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come.’ A beautiful message, one of beauty and peace and understanding and tolerance. The perfect way to close the saga.

“I hate America. I hate this country. Nothing but ideas and stories and people dying. The white cracker who wrote the National Anthem knew what he was doing. He set the word free on a note so high no one could reach it. That was deliberate.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Angels in America (2003): Mithrandir

Review

You Only Live Twice

Director

Lewis Gilbert

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

I will always remember You Only Live Twice, James Bond’s fifth film installment (a follow-up to Thunderball (1965)), starring Sean Connery for the fifth time as well, for its heart-pounding introductory scenes, and its unforgettable credits sequence. The first scene has James Bond dying—yes, dying. After that, the movie starts to the tune of John Barry’s “You Only Live Twice” theme, beautifully sung by Nancy Sinatra, and featuring Japanese imagery… And then, it all begins with a tense spaceship hijacking sequence… After that, it all falls into place, and the whole film is delightful.

The plot has SPECTRE hijacking American and Russian spaceships in order to create international tension, always for the sake of their own organization. The crafts are believed to be taken to Japan, so Agent 007 James Bond (Connery) is sent there to investigate. Bond is welcomed less than warmly, but finally he meets his Japanese allies: Aki (Akiko Wakabayashi) and Tiger Tanaka (Tetsuro Tamba). The first half of the film is all investigation and shocking truths, and it’s all sumptuous, elegant, and funny.

However, as it happens with many Bond films, the second half leans toward the implausible. The spaceships turn out to be put inside a volcano, conveniently adapted as a SPECTRE base, and Bond is transformed into a Japanese ninja, in something of an attempt to distract his enemies. As the film takes this direction, it quickly becomes a kind of joke, but it’s still capable of delighting the audience at every turn. Plus, there’s the long-expected unmasking of SPECTRE’s Number One, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Donald Pleasance), anticlimactic to some, unforgettable to others, but interesting to all.

This film is sometimes regarded as the “Japanese Bond”, and isn’t usually taken seriously. Connery announced this would be his last (though eventually it wasn’t), and I think it was a wise move at the moment, as the series was apparently taking a prominently comic turn that distanced more and more from Ian Fleming’s literary creation. If there’s something that continuously puts this film on the good quality side, it’s its true sense of romance, and its lack of sexism. First it’s Aki, then Kissy Suzuki (Mie Hama), Bond’s “front” wife; both pretty, intelligent, and dynamic, and often capable of saving Bond’s butt.

I do like this film, and at watching it, I hoped they’d take the best elements of it for the next one, instead of the exact opposite. My wish was granted in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969).

“The things I do for England.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Terminal

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

When the trailer for The Terminal popped up I became almost too excited. Spielberg and Hanks together again? With Catherine Zeta-Jones? And such a fun premise? I just couldn’t wait. But then the movie was released and critics were harsh with it. I started suspecting the worst, and when I finally went to see it I was very afraid I wouldn’t like it. You have to understand that Spielberg is a genius for me, and I have yet to see a movie he’s done that I don’t like. Fortunately enough, I loved this one too!

Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) finds himself stranded in a New York airport after his country suffers a revolt while he was on the air. Now a citizen of nowhere, Viktor is forced to make a living inside one of the terminals, much to the chagrin of the terminal’s security chief (Stanley Tucci). That’s also where he meets conflicted stewardess Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who enchants him.

To really enjoy The Terminal you have to understand one thing first and foremost: it is a fable. I went in expecting a movie grounded in reality, but I soon understood Spielberg had a different agenda. Because, you see, what he tried to do with this movie is channel the best Frank Capra inside of him. In a way, the movie could be considered an old-fashioned romp that serves as homage to Capra movies. And that’s a compliment actually.

I’ve read the movie is actually based (or inspired by) the real story of a guy who still lives in a Paris airport. Don’t be fooled, you won’t find a dramatic movie based on that story. Instead this is a heart-warming, feel-good, crowd-pleasing movie if there ever was one. There’s only one subplot that is resolved in a way that does not fit with the whole cheerful vibe, but that’s just a minor quibble. The movie is consistently uplifting in a magical way.

Take for instance the whole fountain thing, or the whole dinner sequence (one of the movie’s best by the way), or the way Viktor suddenly finds a useful way to earn honest money, or the whole Enrique (Diego Luna) and Officer Torres (Zoe Saldana) thing. I’m actually amazed Spielberg went on with it. He took a huge risk and, at least for this viewer, he succeeded tremendously.

It also helps that Tom Hanks is such a great, great, great actor. I just don’t know what this guy can’t do. We’ve seen him in countless movies, yet from the very first scene in which we realize he’s a foreigner who doesn’t speak a word of English we believe him!!! And his character could’ve easily turned into a clown of sorts, or too much saccharine-inflicted. Not in his hands. He makes Vicktor a breathing, believable, amazing human being. And the rest of the cast is a perfect match for him.

One curious thingy: I barely noticed John Williams’ score!!!

“That’s something a man like you could never hope to understand.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bad Education

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, October 04, 2004

I’m the very first moviegoer to defend the versatility of a filmmaker. I’m very much against the idea of a director making the same kind of movie over and over, that is, for the sake of following a trademark. If Hitchcock was the best at suspense, it’s great that he did suspenseful movies again and again, but even he did different kind of suspenseful movies, either comedic or dramatic, or both. Almodóvar was into picaresque, lighthearted films, with piquant observations of love and lovers, until he started getting into drama, and at that became masterful.

The big mistake of La Mala Educación, of which the present review is about, is to present itself as an almost tragic drama, and then become something completely different. It’s not a bad film per se, but it hurts itself in unexpected, inconvenient ways, and makes us wonder if the writer/director should’ve stuck to a definite genre.

The story is a tad complex. It has Ignacio (Gael García Bernal) showing up at the office of an old schoolmate, Enrique (Fele Martínez), now a film director, to ask him for work as an actor. Ignacio, who requests to be called Angel (his artistic name), also presents his friend with a short story he wrote, partly based on their childhood. That’s where the drama begins, as it becomes apparent that little Ignacio was abused by a priest, Father Manolo (Daniel Giménez Cacho). Ignacio has imagined a whole present-day denouement to that story, and Enrique is in to direct it. But soon, as Ignacio lobbies for the greatest role, Enrique suspects something fishy. And that’s where the drama dies.

I won’t say much more about the story, to avoid spoiling it, except that it soon becomes a film inside a film, a sort of small-time Adaptation. (2002), with parallel stories that are in ways similar and in ways contrasting, though neither is fascinating. The drama, up to the first half very finely constructed, soon becomes unimportant as opposed to the film noir-ish style the movie acquires, which is disappointing. Every character you should pity you end up not caring about, and every character you should hate you end up liking. It’s a weird turn, and though a fun ride, not quite a good film.

The true interesting aspect of the movie is perhaps the fact that it’s strictly composed of homosexual relationships. Every main character (or is it every character?) is gay, and there doesn’t seem to be a reason for that except perhaps the gusto with which Almodóvar constructed the story. One wonders how much of the experiences shown here belong to the director, and it’s great that he takes the liberty to put them on film.

Every performer of this film is gifted. García Bernal proves once again why he’s the most promising young actor out there, sporting a perfect Spanish accent, and embodying every variation of his character (and there are more than a couple of those) to perfection. Martínez also surprises in a charismatic role as the director, and Giménez Cacho sure feels the pain of his conflicted character. Lluís Homar, Javier Cámara, and Francisco Boira, all lend wonderful supporting performances.

With a striking visual style (if not completely original for an Almodóvar film) and a good noir-ish score by Alberto Iglesias, Bad Education is a mixed, if not uninteresting film, by one of the most famous (if, to some, overrated) Spanish directors.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter