CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Pan's Labyrinth

Director

Guillermo del Toro

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

El Laberinto del Fauno is Guillermo del Toro’s idea of an informal sequel for his little-known The Devil's Backbone (2001), and it really feels very similar. Both deal with the Spanish Civil War, both intertwine a straight story with a fantastic one, and both are extreme in each.

However, this year’s film is much more successful in creating an intriguing contrast with affecting consequences. That’s because while the Civil War backdrop is completely crude, the world of fantasy presented in the meantime is quite luminous and even offers an escape for the latter world. It’s a beautiful idea and del Toro doesn’t just deliver – he goes as far as he possibly can.

Little Ivana Baquero plays Ofelia, the young girl whose Mama (Ariadna Gil) has married renowned Captain Vidal (Sergi López) and is carrying his child. Although the Civil War is over, rebel forces struggle to keep the spirit of the opposite side alive, and people like Vidal don’t stop fighting back to maintain Franco’s regime intact. That real-life drama affected generations in not-so-positive ways, and here it’s very clear why.

Ivana seems joyful and happy even though she hates her new reality and the man she’s supposed to call Father. Living in a world of fantasy—an adorer of fairytales—she doesn’t think it’s strange when she thinks she sees a fairy, or even when that fairy invites her to meet a Faun (Doug Jones), a fantastic mythical creature who informs her that she’s not quite the same as any mortal human being, and must pass some critical tests to regain her place in the magical land where she really belongs.

At his new home in the countryside, Vidal wipes out rebels like there is no tomorrow. Del Toro turns him into an epic villain, making every piece of his wardrobe as scary as the whole, so that his very presence is horrific. López’ performance is most outstanding – I remember his effectiveness as another villain in Dirty Pretty Things (2002) – and his success as the least fantastic creature in the story, yet a monstrous figure worth including in any of the books Ofelia enjoyed, is crucial to the story.

On the other hand, Baquero portrays Ofelia with an unspoken dignity that far surpasses her innocence, making the character as important as any of us want it to be, and quite worthy of the honor that the Faun claims she deserves.

Pan (allegedly the name of the Faun, though the mythical origins of Fauns and the god Pan are not usually the same) is an incredible character; he’s scary but absorbing, beautiful but appalling; the scenes where he and Ofelia interact are in my opinion the best. In a similar way, Maribel Verdú plays one of Vidal’s servants, who happens to have very different opinions from his, and whenever they’re together it’s electric. Another standout is Alex Angulo, compelling as the doctor.

The film is technically flawless. Battle scenes and fantastic sequences are equally credible and eye-popping. Special effects are there but can’t be noticed. It’s all a world of magic and it shows. Del Toro’s achievement in this sense is indescribable, and I’d name cinematographer Guillermo Navarro, editor Bernat Vilaplana, musician Javier Navarrete, Production designer Eugenio Caballero, costume designers Lala Huete and Rocío Redondo, and makeup artists José Quetglás and Arjen Tuiten among those to applaud. But, you know, there are hundreds of people back there who deserve the same praise.

Now, if there’s something bad to say about the movie, at least after all that praise, it’s that I never really felt quite comfortable with del Toro’s script. I liked the story threads, especially that of the Faun and the girl, but I didn’t like the way they worked together, or what they came to. I’m not sure what I was expecting, or if I was expecting anything at all, but the whole thing didn’t make much sense to me after all was said and done, and I didn’t really get the point. It seemed to me like one story was too excruciating and the other too beautiful to make us feel anything strong enough about either since they were constantly coming together.

Curiously enough, and this probably speaks badly of me, the same thing happened to me with The Devil's Backbone. I know I love del Toro’s work, but these films haven’t grabbed me 100%. I’ll surely be there to see what else this man has to offer though!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shortbus

Director

John Cameron Mitchell

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 30, 2006

Prior to Shortbus, the only movie that John Cameron Mitchell had directed was Hedwig and the Angry Inch. He also wrote and starred in it. That pic was critically-acclaimed but when I finally got to see it I wasn't impressed. It was brave and original, but I found it somewhat boring and uninvolving. With his latest foray, he took the qualities of his previous film but fixed, in my mind, the problems it had. Shortbus is not only fabulously entertaining, it is also deeply affecting. And this time around he also threw the word controversial into the mix. I say we’ve got a winner!

Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee) is a couple’s counselor who hasn’t had an orgasm in her life despite having a sexually-healthy relationship with her husband Rob (Raphael Barker). Her latest clients are James (Paul Dawson) and Jamie (PJ DeBoy), a couple who are thinking of opening up their relationship to a third party. They recommend Sofia to visit a club they attend called Shortbus. She does and she meets, among other people, Severin (Lindsay Beamish), a dominatrix who can’t seem to be able to open up to anyone and that forms a friendship with her.

This flick was born out of the three-year collaboration between Mitchell and his carefully chosen cast (which came out of an open casting call). Together they developed their characters and came up with ideas which then Mitchell integrated into a coherent script. When it was time to shoot, they had all become a family and it shows. Such an improvisational approach ended up in a movie that mixes blunt honesty with whimsical innocence. It is a sad and melancholic ride that is also filled with comedy and optimism and that ultimately closes in a joyous note. Yes, such a thing can be done and the very talented Mitchell pulls it off with grandeur and an impressive handle of the cinematic medium.

Three paragraphs into this review and I haven't even mentioned the sex. Yes, the movie is filled with very graphic scenes of explicit sexual acts. And yes, it is shocking and may be unsettling to some people. But it is clear from the beginning that these scenes are not there for exploitative reasons. They are integral to the story and the characters. Perhaps some movies don’t need to show as much because it’s not in their nature or tone. But I don’t see why that should be the case here. It is a way to make us accomplices and to show us that the characters are getting naked in front of our eyes both literally and figuratively. And I applaud and encourage this. During the opening sequence, for instance, we are shown a montage of at least five people engaged in various forms of sexual acts. When it is over we have a pretty clear idea of where they each stand and then we’re off to delve deeper into their lives. It is a brilliant way to introduce the characters and to set the tone of what’s to come. The self-fellatio sequence (and the way it ends) is especially poignant, but it wouldn’t have been the same had it been edited to avoid showing too much. Fact is, nothing here is meant to be arousing, but mostly truthful. And what’s more interesting is that this is a sweet fable, a lighthearted comedy that tackles serious issues. The contrast is remarkable.

I have read comments from some people that without the sex the movie would be left with nothing. Duh! The movie is about sex. It would be like taking the murders out of Se7en. There are interesting characters in it, but their stories move around, and are affected by, those killings. The same happens here. Fortunately there’s a lot more in Shortbus than just being bold for the sake of it. It is ultimately about the emotional repercussions that are linked directly to the characters’ sexuality. Some of the more explicit scenes (just as every other one) are played for laughs, while others can get pretty sad. That’s real-life right there. And it all matters… every moment.

Music is an integral part of the movie’s success. Sometimes it even becomes a musical of sorts, as in the glorious finale. Whatever the case they did a great job with the music selection and Yo La Tengo’s score is spot-on. And I dare you not to crack at the silliest rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” you’ll ever see. Also worth noting is the work behind the visual effects employed to show New York during several bits. The approach works better than if they had shot the real skyline. It gives the movie a playful tone and it just works. Only minor quibble: the movie loses some of its initial punch during its second half, although it comes right back at the end.

As performances go there are two clear stand-outs. There’s Sook-Yin Lee (a former DJ) and there’s Paul Dawson. The former is excellent and heart-breaking as a woman who doesn’t know what else to do to achieve something that is part of who she wants to be. And the latter is also heart-breaking as a guy who seems to have it all but can’t seem to find fulfillment and eventually embarks on a self-destructive path. They’re joined by a talented group of performers that include Lindsay Beamish, PJ DeBoy, Raphael Barker, Peter Stickles, Jay Brannan and Justin Bond. Perhaps the biggest compliment I can pay all of them is that I can’t wait to see what they do next. And the same goes for Mitchell himself.

At the end I was moved and I loved the final message of how we all affect each other in different ways and the sense of togetherness that can grow between people by being there and moving on. Shortbus, the movie and the club, is all about being who you are and celebrating it with yourself and others. Amen to that.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Departed

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The Departed is a remake of the Chinese film Infernal Affairs, which deals with the interesting premise of a mole infiltrated in the Police force, and a Police informer working with the bad guys. These two youngsters make it their own to find out whom the other is. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Martin Scorsese has created an epic film from that idea, and he was definitely successful in conveying a larger-than-life tale of cultures and religions and justice and crime as seen through the exciting tale of insiders on both sides.

In the best Goodfellas (1990) tradition, the story starts several years before the main events happen, when young Colin Sullivan (Conor Donovan) is recruited by mobster Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) as one of his own, with the clear intention of having him become a dirty cop.

Years pass, and Colin (Matt Damon) becomes a brilliant Police graduate, who easily gains respect and rank in Boston P.D. Parallelizing this, Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), running away from his criminal roots, becomes a cop as well, but isn’t trusted there: he’s either dirty or too good to be wasted. So Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) hand-pick him to become one of Costello’s hoods, one that can be trusted by him, and probably the most effective mole that can be imagined.

But even though both men start doing their jobs exemplarily, matters aren’t as easy as all that. Costello is diabolical and even Colin feels intimidated. Bill starts losing his mind as he has to be a gangster and stay a gangster as long as it’s needed. Queenan and Dignam wait for the right time to snatch Costello but Colin’s job prevents that once and again. The clash between Colin and Bill is clear even though neither knows whom the other is.

The Departed has many strengths, but its biggest asset is that it’s entertaining. The goings-on among the criminals and the cops are always intriguing. So much so, that a lot of the rest is much weaker, like the religious references for instance, or even the cultural ones. It’s all welcome, but sometimes the film drags when dealing with all that. Furthermore, the romance doesn’t work too well either. The character involved, shrink Madolyn (Vera Farmiga), creates a love triangle that’s hardly effective or poignant. Somehow though, Madolyn herself managed to move me, and Farmiga’s performance is quite noticeable.

The performances, by the way, are uniformly outstanding, which is an extra pleasure considering the ambitious cast. DiCaprio has always been extraordinary and here he continues that tendency; Damon lives a bit under DiCaprio’s shadow but also manages to surprise. Nicholson is a delight as a long-awaited evil character (the kind he hadn’t played for a while), and as expected, he steals every second onscreen; it’s a great combination of talents, Scorsese’s and his, and I can only hope that it’s not their last collaboration.

Even though they settled for supporting roles, one must applaud Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin. The three are exceptional, but Wahlberg’s is probably the best role he’s every played: an insulting but fine Sergeant whose code of honor is above all things.

Sense of humor abounds in The Departed, and there are almost as many funny moments as there are tense ones, especially in the hands of Jack, who seems to have ad-libbed many of his own. William Monahan’s script is admirable, giving enough importance to the drama, enough weight to the characters, and enough space for the viewer to breathe and laugh. Sometimes it drags, and overall it’s overlong, but it works, which is what matters.

A great song selection and a dynamic edition by Thelma Schoonmaker add to the excitement. Scorsese has done it again!

“I don't wanna be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Face/Off

Director

John Woo

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

There was a lot of hype surrounding Face/Off back at the time of its release, and even years later I kept hearing people regarding it highly and bashing me badly for not having seen it. I knew the film had a dumb story from an even dumber premise but I realized it should be fun to watch and action-packed to the teeth and starring John Travolta and Nicolas Cage at their best action-type performance, and that’s what I got when my girlfriend rented it and finally had me watching it. I wasn’t surprised, but I was entertained.

The story is that of a criminal and a detective swapping faces; that’s it! But there is some dramatic background that sometimes feels awkward in such a farfetched action flick as this, yet it’s still welcome. Cage plays nefarious Castor Troy, who once attempted to assassinate detective Sean Archer (Travolta), killing the latter’s young son instead, and creating an arch-nemesis. Years later, all Archer thinks about is capturing Troy, which he does at last in a gargantuan action sequence involving every piece of an airplane that can endanger a human life. Troy is declared dead but actually kept in a coma, while his younger brother Pollux (Alessandro Nivola) goes to jail.

Things get complicated when it turns out Castor and Pollux were plotting the destruction of Los Angeles, and actually set a bomb to accomplish it, which can only be deactivated by either of them. Since Castor is out of commission, a secret agency plans for Archer to actually don his arch-enemy’s face so as to get information from the villain’s brother about the bomb. The plan backfires: Castor comes out of the coma, gets the surgeon to put him Archer’s face on, pretends he’s the detective, and Archer is taken for the real Castor and imprisoned for good. Stuck in jail for the crimes of your arch-enemy while the guy lives your life, abuses your job and sleeps with your wife? Talk about humiliation…

Cage and Travolta are excellent actors and they’re both convincing as the villain-turned-hero and the hero-turned-villain. Even though their aspect is exactly the same after the swap (which stretches credibility so much it’s laughable), you never doubt for a second who’s who and that’s a great achievement. I particularly liked Travolta with his spiced-up personality when he’s actually Troy and nobody knows, but I also enjoyed Cage so frustrated and saddened, then desperate as Archer in Troy’s body. Their performances give the film its energy, much more than the obligatory action sequences which, though excellently realized, aren’t far from traditional and in my opinion boring more often than not.

Other performers include Joan Allen as Travolta’s wife and Dominique Swain as his daughter. Both are great though the script doesn’t grant them much, which is an upset, especially in the case of Allen, whose character should’ve gone through a severe trauma given the circumstances. The real surprises are Nivola as Cage’s brother and Gina Gershon as his occasional girlfriend, probably because the screenplay by Mike Werb and Michael Colleary pays them more attention. A subplot involving the young son of Gershon’s is most affecting, and spawns the best action sequence, as the kid (played by David McCurley) listens to a modern version of “Over the rainbow” in the midst of a shootout. Harve Presnell as Archer’s boss and John Carroll Lynch as a sadistic Prison Guard are also excellent.

By definition, disposable fun, but with a few redeeming virtues.

“I'm ready, ready for the big ride baby!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hard Candy

Director

David Slade

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 23, 2006

Hard Candy is a small movie that gained notoriety because of its provocative subject matter. Movies with only two characters don’t come that often because, really, it’s hard to pull them off. This is no exception, but the issues it touches are very serious and also very attractive in a morbid kind of way. I wanted to see it for myself. And it was grueling indeed.

32-year old photographer Jeff Kohlver (Patrick Wilson) and 14-year old Hayley Stark (Ellen Page) meet through a chat room and decide to meet after a few weeks of getting to know each other. Soon enough they end up in his house with the (unsaid) idea of letting something sexual go on. But Hayley has other plans and suddenly turns from would-be victim to sadist torturer.

Relative newcomer David Slade directed from a screenplay by Brian Nelson. Despite the originality behind the premise and the fact that they could play as much as they could with endless variations of the same situation, both of their work comes up short. Neither is the screenplay as polished as it should nor is the work behind the cameras. That is a pity, for the end product is an entertaining, and fascinating, romp that is otherwise filled with flaws.

There is a crucial problem that could’ve been easily fixed in the early stages of development and it is evident from the get-go. We all know what Jeff is and we all know he’s supposed to be disgusting, but the way he’s written he proves to be quite a charming man. Perhaps they thought that by just throwing the word “pedophile” into the mix we would feel repulsed. And we do, to a certain extent. But in a visual medium like this, where we have to be led to feel whatever the intention is for each character, he doesn’t come across as a man who deserves what Hayley does to him in the second act. And that turning-of-the-table situation is critical to the success of the story, but we end up rooting for him and that’s just not the way it should’ve gone.

Another problem in a similar vein is that I never for a second believed Hayley. I went with the flow and decided to immerse myself in the realm of the story, but it was too difficult by the minute. The way she talks, acts and thinks does not go with her age. I’m sorry but it doesn’t. Maybe she had a troubling past and was abused or something. Maybe. I think I would’ve bought her more that way. But she just seems like a pissed girl in a rampage. And I’d say she needs as much therapy as Jeff does.

The movie works in that it creates a tension-filled atmosphere up until the shocking finale. The torture scene is almost unbearable to watch, especially for a man. And what she does after it’s over is even more distressing than the act itself. It is the kind of flick in which you’ll be moving a lot in your seat, and because that was the intention I have to give it some credit. Slade pulls off these scenes, something I can’t really say of the early ones. Close-up overkill, anyone?

None of the issues I had with the movie have to do with the work of the actors per sé. They did what they were required to and what was written on the page. Patrick Wilson delivers an excellent portrayal of a pathetic man who appears to be something else to the world, but that suddenly sees his life crumble in front of his eyes. Ellen Page, on the other hand, gives a tour-de-force performance and is quite capable of appearing as innocent as she is deadly. Sandra Oh and Odessa Rae appear briefly in awkward interventions.

“I guess they... weren’t brass.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Wars

Director

George Lucas

Year

1977

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 19, 2006

George Lucas’ immense Star Wars universe started as a rather modest film with a limited scope and a reduced budget admirably well utilized where it mattered most. Grand special effects, a true sense of imagination and awe, and the immediate admiration of millions, made of this film one of the most important science-fiction entries in history.

It is, in fact, a most interesting mixture of Saturday matinee serials, tidbits of Japanese culture (including references to films by Akira Kurosawa), old comic books and sci-fi heroes, and even medieval legends. There’s honor running through a story where the heroes are intergalactic youths, scoundrels and robotic droids – and heroes of old, long discredited by an oppressing Empire.

The story is rather simple, but unfolds quite interestingly despite stilted dialogue all along. Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), a member of the rebel alliance, has snatched some secret plans that belong to the evil Empire and can endanger it greatly in the wrong hands. Caught by the evil Lord Darth Vader (David Prowse, voice of James Earl Jones), Leia hides the plans inside a small droid and sends him off in search of legendary Jedi Knight – the Jedi being space-era sorcerers who use “the Force” as a way of wisdom and defense.

The small droid, R2-D2 (Kenny Baker), and his droid pal, C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), end up with a new owner, young Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). Skywalker meets the former Jedi Knight, now a hopeless hermit, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), and understands that he’s been right all along: it’s his destiny to join the rebel alliance and challenge the Empire.

Skywalker, Kenobi and the droids then team up with scoundrel Han Solo (Harrison Ford), who has a price on his head, and his beastly partner Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), who take them and the droids on their ship, the Millennium Falcon, in order to deliver the plans. Things go awry as they end up in the universe’s most dangerous weapon ever built: the Death Star, a planet-shaped space station with the power to destroy entire planets. Incidentally, Princess Leia is a prisoner in there, and Darth Vader himself is inside too.

The traditional story of a young hero rescuing a princess with the help of varied characters becomes much more than an updated fairytale; it’s a portal into a universe as huge as every viewer’s imagination. The story is brilliantly built around mammoth events from the past, which makes every second as big as anyone wants it to be, even if it doesn’t show much. Then it does show a lot, and that’s as exciting as can be. There are action sequences to spare and the effects are revolutionary. The spell is only broken, as mentioned, by the wooden lines spoken all along, as well as some unnecessarily boring technicalities.

Lucas’ script has the benefit of sense of humor. R2-D2 and C-3PO are the main comic relieves, picking up their mood from the two misfits from Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress (1958). The contrasting personalities of the three main characters—Luke, Han and Leia—also make up for some hilarious moments. That’s all very welcome and a good disparity with the honor and hatred of the two strongest characters: Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader. The latter is a stroke of genius: faceless, dark, awfully scary, and the selection of Jones’ voice for him is right-on-target.

Lucas has always taken himself quite seriously, and looking back, one must say that’s helped him sometimes and damaged him others. In the case of this film, it worked like wonders; just take a look at the seriousness of the procedures, the importance the characters give to matters, and the many windows the story leaves open for sequels and prequels. Also noticeable is John Williams’ score, a collection of classical tunes, so awe-inspiring that it’s been cited as the greatest movie score of all time, and is indeed magnificent.

Star Wars is simply a must; important for contemporary culture, entertaining as can be, and the beginning of something much greater!

“May the Force be with you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Time to Leave

Director

François Ozon

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

My love affair, so to speak, with director François Ozon, started four years ago when I saw Under the Sand. After that it was 8 Women (my favorite), Swimming Pool, 5x2 and now Time to Leave. It is a rarity, and something quite special, when you find a director whose last five movies are of your liking. It is even more impressive when you realize they all embody a diverse range of genres, so it isn’t one precise element in his work that attracts you, but perhaps a general vision of the world or possibly similar tastes. Maybe it’s just that he consistently delivers good movies.

Romain (Melvin Poupaud) is a successful photographer who gets diagnosed with cancer and is told that he has three months to live. He intends to tell his father (Daniel Duval), mother (Marie Riviere) and sister (Louise-Anne Hippeau), but it doesn’t come easy. He then confronts his boyfriend Sasha (Christian Sengewald) about their relationship, but things go awry as some harsh truths are revealed. It is only with his grandmother Laura (Jeanne Moreau) that he’s able to open up and understand that it is vital to find peace within himself.

Le Temps qui reste is a short, simple tale written by the director about a man who has everything going for him up until the point where he gets ill, something that is beyond his control. What’s refreshing about the story is that Romain is an arrogant guy, and his reaction to the fatal news is not the expected one. He doesn’t decide to travel and spend all his money all of a sudden. Instead he adopts a rebellious attitude, gets angry and becomes insufferable. He fights with everybody, decides to keep his disease a secret and embarks on a self-destructive path. He eventually tries to come to terms with the people he cares about, but it’s always on his own terms. Even then a cathartic or optimistic moment doesn’t seem to arrive.

Ozon weaves a tale that could’ve been a depressing opus, but that instead turns into an intimate and honest slice of life about something that could happen to any of us. It’s hard to judge Romain for what he does. Who knows how each of us would react if faced with such a situation? Is it egoistic not to tell anyone? Is it silly not to try and make the most out of life before it’s over? Is it better to just keep living as you always have? We all know we’re going to die, but barely do we sit down and reflex upon it and the life we’re living. That’s what happens to Romain and the realization does not come easy to him in any way. How could it? It is a harsh, yet beautiful, tale about an unwanted reality.

Scenes that I especially enjoyed have Romain paying a visit to his grandmother, a woman who has had a tough life of her own and that resembles him in more ways than one. Their interaction is touching and brutal at the same time. His scenes with his boyfriend are also well-handled and a breath of fresh air, especially because homosexuality is not treated as a big theme and does not have anything to do with the central story but is otherwise a simple trait and part of who he is. A subplot involving a woman, Jany (Valeria Bruni Tedeschi), who wants Romain to help her get pregnant and that comes as part of his healing process is treated with care as well.

Melvil Poupaud, who has been an actor since he was a child and who has also several directing gigs to his credit, resembles a young Eric Bana and possesses immense talent. He is not afraid of alienating the audience, but instead keeps focused on being true to his character and his feelings. The resulting performance is full of power and compassion; and it will be hard to forget his last image. The legendary Jeanne Moreau is at the top of her form and a delight to watch. And so is Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, a frequent Ozon collaborator who possesses an enigmatic beauty and eyes full of intensity.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

16 Blocks

Director

Richard Donner

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Bruce Willis is damn good at playing downtrodden and melancholy characters, and 16 Blocks pretty much looks like an action movie built around him playing that. Of course it’s not, but that’s how effective he is and how much he makes the movie work.

Perhaps his character is a bit exaggerated in this way: he’s aging, alcoholic, limping, you name it… When assigned a last-minute task to escort a convict to a courthouse, where he’ll testify, he doesn’t take it good: he’s been up all night working on another crappy assignment, the kind of which he gets a bunch lately.

But the witness turns out to be way more important than he supposed; Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) saw a dirty cop at work and is about to testify. That makes it impossible to walk him through 16 blocks, as the whole road is crawling with dirty cops trying to stop them. Sounds like a lot of fun! Yet, one wouldn’t expect anything but an action flick, maybe even one with a videogame approach.

Well, I’m happy to report this is much more than that. The villains are complex (led by an excellent David Morse), the witness has his depth (even though Mos Def makes it rather unendurable) and Jack Mosley (Willis) is in desperate need of redemption, which is exactly what this mishap gives him, and makes us gradually like him more and more, until in the end we love him.

16 Blocks gave me the constant feel that it’s low-profile. The effects and stunts aren’t overplayed and the action is always intelligent (with a couple possible exceptions). There’s a lot of drama thrown into the mix but it never takes first chair, so the pace isn’t interrupted. And just when I thought Mosley was acting in an incoherent way, it turned out there was a lot of reason for what he was doing. I highly enjoyed the resolution, and his final showdown with Morse is memorable.

As I said, Mos Def is rather annoying though his character probably required it. Yet, for a movie where that character is required to speak constantly throughout, it gets tiresome. However it must be said that his interaction with Willis is priceless and they make up for a great movie team. This is another one of Willis’ performances that make you wonder why he has stuck to the kind of films that’ll hardly propel him to serious praise and criticism.

Richard Donner is keeping up the good work, this time with a script by Richard Wenk; a good collaboration. Good music by Klaus Badelt, cinematography by Glen MacPherson and editing by Steve Mirkovich.

16 Blocks is fine entertainment but can hardly be raised to higher levels. It’s sure to guarantee a good time though!

“Fuck the truth!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tsotsi

Director

Gavin Hood

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 16, 2006

Tsotsi generated a lot of buzz after it played at many different film festivals this and last year, culminating in an Oscar win for Best Foreign Language Film that was the cherry on top. To be honest, I usually love to watch foreign movies that are said to be good and first-rate, but something about this one just didn’t pull me in. Maybe because I thought it was a story that I had already seen before or with all-too-familiar elements. But when I got the chance to see it I made up my mind to approach it without any of this baggage. It surely wasn’t difficult, for the movie won me over from the beginning…

Tsotsi (Presley Chweneyagae) is a gang leader who is feared and respected among the Johannesburg ghetto where he lives, but a robbery gone awry earns the disrespect of one of his men, Boston (Mothusi Magano), who turns against him and makes others doubt. But that’s not the worst of his problems when he steals a car from a wealthy family complete with baby on the backseat. He can’t make up his mind about returning the child, so he takes care of him with the help of a beautiful mother, Miriam (Terry Pheto), who agrees to nurse him at gunpoint.

Gavin Hood directed and wrote the screenplay based on the novel by Athol Fugard. You can sense how much love and respect he has for the material, as it comes pouring out of every frame. He also makes an interesting choice as to how to present the story visually. Instead of recurring to the usual multiple-cuts and rapid-editing inherent in the genre of underground violent worlds, he uses a more conventional, but still effective, approach. The camera is mostly still and the photography (by Lance Gewer) gives it a beautiful and stylish look that works mighty fine. It is a striking production to look at, and some of the images are unforgettable (such as the one depicting individuals covering from the rain in concrete pies). Paul Hepker and Mark Kilian’s music also helps.

Tsotsi’s story works on two levels. On one hand there’s his criminal life. Through a series of events he starts to realize that maybe there isn’t much to living this way, no matter how much respect and fear he can enthuse, and that not only does he continually hurt others but he’s also starting to hurt himself. Then the baby comes and it brings up memories of his difficult childhood. It makes him realize that he has become something he didn’t want to, and that life has a lot more to offer if he gives it a chance. Where he sees broken crystals others see colors and light. I know, it all sounds like sentimental crap, but Hood makes it work because he doesn’t resort to manipulation. Tsotsi’s journey is as much his as it is ours, and the change is effective. Also important to note is that the story doesn’t shy away from showing that for every act there is a consequence. Life ain’t a fairy tale, and what you make out of it is entirely up to you.

It is well-known in the movie business that working with kids and animals can prove to be a nightmare. Hood deals with both, and I don’t know how difficult it must have been but the result is nothing short of impressive. The baby almost fools us into thinking that he knows what he’s doing; it’s almost shocking. He delivers a great performance, if such a thing can be said, and scenes with him are among the best the movie has to offer. The same can be said about a scene involving a dog. I don’t know how they got it, but it’s extremely well-done. And stay alert for a scene involving ants. It might make even those who’ve seen everything cringe for a second; I had to turn away altogether.

Presley Chweneyagae does an excellent job in not going for the obvious. At the beginning we can see he is evil incarnate. By the end he’s someone else entirely, but not in a way that makes it seem unreal. I also enjoyed the work of Terry Pheto very much. She’s a beautiful actress and quite a striking presence. Her performance is almost silent, but she commands the screen. I loved every scene she’s in. Also doing a good job are Mothusi Magano, Zenzo Ngqobe, Zola, Rapulana Seiphemo, Nambitha Mpumlwana, Benny Moshe, Sindi Khambule, Israel Makoe and everyone else.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Clueless

Director

Amy Heckerling

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 12, 2006

So, OK… Amy Heckerling, most famous for her directorial job in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), tackled once again the subject of High School and teenage years in Clueless, a comedy about young people of high society in Beverly Hills.

The story seems to be an unofficial modernization of Jane Austen’s “Emma,” but it’s effective in its own right. Focusing on Cher Horowitz (Alicia Silverstone), the daughter of a successful litigator, Mel Horowitz (Dan Hedaya), the script creates a mosaic of observations of life according to modern teenagers, who at their core crave for the same things as anyone else, only they don’t have that wide a scope.

Inspired by her father, Cher tries to negotiate everything, looking to improve her grades, for example, through any possible means. This includes matchmaking, which she does to soften a couple of teachers: Mr. Hall (Wallace Shawn) and Miss Geist (Twink Caplan). The experience turns so satisfactory, that Cher experiences for the first time an instance of selflessness, which she intends to exploit further.

Aided by her friend Dionne (Stacey Dash), she sets to makeover and popularize a new girl who’s totally clueless, anti-fashion and invisible: Tai (Brittany Murphy). In the way of making that girl someone, Cher realizes she’s quite empty inside, and starts longing for some substantial fulfillment. Dionne has a rather bumpy yet affectionate relationship to her boyfriend Murray (Donald Faison), but Cher longs for someone much more mature.

She misleads herself when she meets a shiny new boy, Christian (Justin Walker), while continuously rejecting her ex-stepbrother Josh (Paul Rudd), whom Mel welcomes home and invites to collaborate in some of his lawsuits. Josh is totally external to Cher’s world, but he’s, after all, a young guy with a lot of things to go for, including a contact with reality.

There’s a large array of colorful characters that make the experience fun and culturally illustrative (no kidding). From snobs Elton (Jeremy Sisto) and Amber (Elisa Donovan) to junky Travis (Breckin Meyer), the cultural observations are intriguing.

Cher’s quest is hilarious. Though self-absorbed and superficial, she’s likable and funny. Every character has something to contribute. Furthermore, Heckerling’s script captures the teenage lingo of the mid-1990s and adds a few welcome entries that went on to become actual expressions. The dialogue is highly enjoyable because it keeps coming up with such additions and pokes fun at the characters all along. But the story, in the end, manages to move the audience, which is a great achievement.

Alicia Silverstone is top-notch and quite cute in the lead, easily managing to carry the great load of a whole movie over her shoulders. She’s never been as good, or had the chance to prove it. The rest of the cast is uniformly good, and everyone seems to be having fun, which helps!

A good choice of songs and cultural references completes the circle. Clueless is one of the best High School comedies, and in general highly recommendable.

“As if!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Director

Adam McKay

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Being a successful comedian in Hollywood is a difficult task. It’s not a matter of being funny or not, but to know how to play your cards. One day you’re discovered, the next you’re a big star, and then the tide turns and everyone gets tired of you and your shtick. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but it’s not unusual. And Will Ferrell has been in that latter stage for the last year or so. I personally couldn’t stand him anymore after Bewitched and Wedding Crashers. But the man’s returned. He had a big hit this summer and even though it didn’t attract me at first for said reasons, I gave it a chance. He’s back all right. We’ll see how this latest role plays out for him.

Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell) loved speed since he was a child, thanks in part to his estranged father Reese (Gary Cole), so it was only natural that one day he would become the best NASCAR racer out there. His long-time best friend, Cal Naugton Jr. (John C. Reilly), went from being his right-hand man to a successful racer as well, although he wouldn’t dare beat his friend. Oh no. Ricky eventually goes on to marry the hot babe, Carley (Leslie Bibb), while getting richer by the minute and popping two spoiled kids, Walker (Houston Tumlin) and Texas Ranger (Grayson Russell). But one day a worthy competitor by the name of Jean Girrard (Sacha Baron Cohen) arrives to challenge him and the battle is on.

This is the second collaboration between Will Ferrell and director Adam McKay, both of whom wrote the screenplay. As in their previous outing, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, they go for over-the-top satire to provide silly entertainment and get as many laughs as possible. This time around the target is the world of NASCAR, a big attraction for Southerners that also boasts ridiculous amounts of not-so-healthy publicity. And they are relentless in their social criticism and flat-out mockery of the scene. I wouldn’t have liked it any other way.

I have to admit I am not a fan of cars or racing or anything of the sort. We got Pixar’s Cars this year and I somehow dreaded seeing it, but it won me over with its story and characters. The same happens here. This isn’t a clichéd sports movie or anything of the sort; it’s a laugh-a-minute romp that proves non-stop in its attempt to be funny. And it is. From the way in which Ricky becomes so self-centered and we witness his ridiculous way of life to the antics surrounding his family and team, I was laughing all the way. It becomes even funnier because this is mixed with jokes at the expense of people from the South, from the way they talk to their conservative posturing. Now, I’m sure they aren’t as shallow as this movie makes them look, but it’s a comedy and everything’s exaggerated. The movie also pokes fun at the aggressive advertising in the circuit, as well as at the machinations and business issues outside the race track. It’s all in good fun, really, and the rate of jokes that work far outranks that of the ones that don’t.

It helps that Will Ferrell, believe it or not, underplays his character. There are only a few instances in which he goes all crazy and loud on us, and those are the least funny moments (scenes with him running around in his underwear are a bit on the long side). But for the most part he scores, giving his costars some room to breathe and enhancing the jokes by appearing to be playing it straight, which of course he isn’t. It also helps that he has a great counterpart in the form of Sacha Baron Cohen, who in my humble opinion completely steals the movie. As the gay French driver who proves a menace to Ricky, he is hilarious and pitch-perfect every step of the way; outstanding work. Great support is also handed by John C. Reilly (excellent in playing somewhat against-type), Leslie Bibb, Jane Lynch, Gary Cole, Michael Clarke Duncan, Molly Shannon and a criminally underused Amy Adams.

Technical aspects are also first-rate, especially regarding the exhilarating, well-shot and expertly edited race scenes.

“I like to think of Jesus as an Ice Dancer, dressed in an all-white jumpsuit, and doing an interpretive dance of my life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Field of Dreams

Director

Phil Alden Robinson

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

I think W.P. Kinsella’s “Shoeless Joe” is a genuinely bizarre novel. It’s fantastic but its theme is way daring and makes it a unique piece. The film adaptation, Field of Dreams, is no less audacious, or its result less intriguing. Written and directed by Phil Alden Robinson, the movie never ceases to amaze, and goes to terrifyingly mind-blowing lengths to achieve credibility in its implausible universe. The result is entirely successful.

The story has a rather novice farmer, Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner), hearing a voice while among the cornfields of his Iowa farm, saying, “If you build it, he will come.” If he builds what, who will come? Somehow, he thinks he knows the answer: If he builds a baseball field, legendary baseball player Shoeless Joe Jackson, whose career was truncated early on by the Black Sox scandal, will come to Iowa. He’s dead, of course, but he will come. If this is accomplished, maybe the voice will say something else.

Kinsella seems to be losing his mind but follows his dream and does something crazy, which is new to his life. His wife, Annie (Amy Madigan), supports him more in pursuit of his happiness than out of belief that what he hopes for will really happen. Strange things do happen, one after the other, and it all adds up to one big fantasy without a clear goal. It’s a sort of one-man journey that touches several people, all in a positive way. That includes the ladies and gentlemen of the audience.

Kinsella’s adventure takes him to Boston, where he meets a great writer of the past who has given up hope (James Earl Jones), and Minnesota, where he looks for a retired baseball player who quit the chance to play with the pros for the benefit of a career as an M.D. (Burt Lancaster in his last theatrical film role).

The film’s success lies in its security when creating every implausible fantasy that it contains. The events are presented as real, and the film has enough incredulous characters to create a reasonable doubt; it also never tries to explain its uncanny plot, so there’s enough reason to go with it, because we just don’t have to worry about a thing.

Cynics and realists might not accept this farfetched tale, but that’s their problem. This modern Hollywood film is in the tradition of Frank Capra, and should be seen as a dream come true or an essay on dreams in general. It certainly is a trip outside reality, and that’s a fresh change of pace once in a while.

Baseball is a very important element of the United States’ culture, and here it’s seen nearly as a religion, a symbol of purity and good, only corrupted by the commercialism and industrialism of the later years. Several characters have something to do with baseball, especially as a shadow of their pasts. The “follow-your-dream” storyline constitutes a catharsis for most. It’s just a beautiful experience to live, and the whole package contributes to that: James Horner’s music score, John Lindley’s cinematography, etc.

Costner and Madigan are ideal as a stable married couple, Gaby Hoffman good as their daughter, and Timothy Busfield OK as an “evil” banker, though the script makes him more a nuisance than a threat. Jones is perfect as the melancholy and hardened ex-idealist, Liotta enigmatic as Shoeless Joe, and Lancaster affecting as Moonlight Graham. Dwier Brown, as John Kinsella, makes up for an electric moment.

A treat!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Illusionist

Director

Neil Burger

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 09, 2006

Hollywood works in weird ways. Sometimes movies about the same theme are made at the same time even though there hasn’t been one made about that for years… or ever. It then becomes a race to release it first, since it’s usually the case that when you’re up front you do more business. It also depends on the quality of the product of course. This season we get two period movies about magicians: The Illusionist and The Prestige. I love the sheer sound of their description, so I was game from the beginning. Besides, both boast solid casts and both looked like fun in their promotional material. The verdict is out on the former now, and I have to admit I expected more.

In turn-of-the-century Vienna, a talented young magician by the name of Eisenheim (Edward Norton) captures the attention of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) after a show in which his fiancée Sophie (Jessica Biel) served as volunteer. Leopold eventually forms a rivalry with Eisenheim, and that’s even before he finds out that Sophie is the magician’s childhood friend and that there might be more going on with them than it appears. But Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) is on the look, and even more so after a murder is committed.

The Illusionist is based on a short story by Steven Millhauser and was written and directed for the screen by Neil Burger. What strikes me as pleasantly unusual is that this is a period piece that does not have any reason to exist that does not have to do with pure entertainment purposes. Often the genre is filled with stories presenting deep existential issues or detailed character studies; other times they have dark thriller-esque elements thrown in there for good measure; and it’s rare when they come as a comedy. But here’s a movie that is none of that. If I had to give it a label I would describe it as adventurous; perhaps mysterious. It is meant to be fun. Forget about the lavish costumes and beautiful settings, this is lightweight material dressed in a very pretty package.

Despite its original concept, or maybe because of it, the movie lacks a certain something that would’ve elevated it to greater heights. It plays as an art movie while it’s quite obvious that it has more mainstream intentions in mind. I felt a bit as if it took itself too seriously. Sure, at its core it is a story about doomed lovers, but it does seem as if everyone is suffering all the time. And it moves quite slowly for the most part, something that makes it seem more dense and sluggish than it actually is.

That said, I liked the carefully detailed plot twist and there’s no denying the movie’s production values are top-notch. Philip Glass’s score does sound as if it was a temp track from The Hours, but it’s still a pleasure to listen to.

As performances go, everyone does a good job. Edward Norton plays a character unlike anything we’d seen from him before and he comes off splendidly, as usual. Jessica Biel proves she’s more than a hot body and acquits herself admirably. Paul Giamatti is always a welcomed presence and this is no exception. Only Rufus Sewell fails to make an impression, but that’s because he’s played this role many times before.

“Perhaps there is truth in this illusion.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hostel

Director

Eli Roth

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 05, 2006

I had avoided Hostel for a good while and when I finally watched it I had the worst expectations; I thought it’d be a mindless gory movie with the sole intention of giving the creeps to its viewers without offering them any logic or imagination. For some reason, I expected a bad version of Saw (2004), maybe even a rip-off. Luckily, I HIGHLY underestimated this film. The result: I loved it.

The story starts as a fresh comedy of sorts, as we follow three young backpackers in Amsterdam, where they have found booze, drugs and sex. They can’t get enough though, and when a guy recommends a dream-come-true hostel in Slovakia, where “women just go crazy over foreigners, especially Americans,” they head that way not thinking twice.

This is where things take an eerie turn. The very recommendation seems fishy, and the film’s mood indicates it even more. Paxton (Jay Hernandez), who has nothing but sex on his mind, doesn’t catch the signs. His apprehensive friend Josh (Derek Richardson) is constantly worried and concerned, never having a good time. Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson), an Icelander they met during the trip, is the one who enjoys the most. He doesn’t really care that the others have a good time, as long as he’s having it.

The weirdness continues as they meet a Dutch businessman (Jan Vlasák) who behaves strangely, expressing rather peculiar tastes just because.

The hostel in Slovakia seems a paradise indeed: It’s overflowing with sexy women who are just anxious to have sex with the foreigners. They make the most of it, mostly thanks to three hot girls: Natalya (Barbara Nedeljakova), Svetlana (Jana Kaderabkova) and Vala (Jana Havlickova). It’s all just too good to be true. But when one of the three doesn’t come back from a party night, things start getting really strange.

I really don’t want to spoil the film for anyone who hasn’t seen it, but I guess it’s no secret that what happens next involves torture. How it’s played however, and the reasons the story offers for it, are excellent aspects, very well handled, and quite believable. I just loved how the script keeps hinting about what’s going on, but doesn’t reveal the whole truth until later on. I’m sure that what we see happens in real life, and that’s all I needed to go for the movie. Does it turn unnecessarily gory? Sometimes, for sure, but if it’s backed up by a coherent plot and background, I’m for it. It is. I am.

Quentin Tarantino coexecutive produced and I’ve heard he was pretty involved in the project, to the point of doing an uncredited rewrite of director Roth’s script. I’m glad! There are a few of his trademark touches in here and it’s all very welcome.

This isn’t exactly a character study but we get to care about the characters a lot. Hernandez does an excellent job in the lead, and Richardson is a strong supporter. Other standouts are Jennifer Lim as a Japanese traveler and Rick Hoffman as a man looking for “a very special rush” he just doesn’t find in women anymore.

I enjoyed the music by Nathan Barr, the cinematography by Milan Chadima and most of the other ingredients. Eli Roth sure knows what he’s doing behind the camera.

Hostel is good for suspense, horror and fun. Highly recommendable!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Devil Wears Prada

Director

David Frankel

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

When The Devil Wears Prada opened during the summer no one really had much faith in it. It looked like it might do well, but that was about it. Surprisingly enough, the movie wowed people, and word-of-mouth catapulted it to hit status. It doesn’t stop there, for it has a central performance that kills and that might take it into the awards derby. Talk about making it big...

Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is a struggling writer who comes to New York in search of a job and ends up getting one as 2nd assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), Editor in Chief of prestigious fashion magazine Runway. Emily (Emily Blunt), the other assistant, does not make her life any easy, but she and Andy are hoping to capitalize on the reputation that comes from working with one of the most feared and respected women in the business. Only co-worker Nigel (Stanley Tucci) is able to give Andy some painful perspective, including the fact that it’s normal of her personal life with boyfriend Nate (Adrien Greiner) to falter if she wants to be somebody there.

Aline Brosh McKenna wrote the screenplay based on Lauren Weisberger’s bestseller, a fictionalized account of the year she spent working for Vogue editor Anna Wintour. The resulting movie is a combination between chick flick and sharp satire. Director David Frankel, who has directed episodes of “Sex and the City” and “Entourage”, uses what he learnt while working in those excellent shows and translates it into an above-average crowd-pleaser that has more smarts than it seems at first glance.

At its core, this is a tale about a fish-out-of-water naïve woman who is suddenly immersed in a world full of sharks and backstabbing. Following her survival instincts, Andy starts to get seduced by this world, but she doesn’t compromise who she is deep inside. That’s exactly what makes us identify with her. We’re horrified by what she goes through, but we’re also attracted to the viciousness that surrounds her. The movie is at its very best when tackling scenes with her boss, but mostly with anything that has to do with the fashion world. I’m sure in real-life some aspects of that environment are even more disturbing (we don’t see drugs, for instance) but this is a fairytale after all. And when it tackles satire, it exaggerates some issues but does not lose the audience by going so far that it loses credibility.

There are also things that do not work as well though. There is the necessary subplot that shows how Andy’s personal life crumbles as she gets better at her job. It works as social commentary and I went along with the ride, but the ending left me stunned. I can’t go into details without spoiling it for you, but I will just say that the movie treats Andy harsher than it should and that it feels like a cope out. It ultimately leaves us with a mixed message and that can’t be good. Also, I would reconsider a scene in which someone has a car accident. Was it necessary?

Alas, the movie is simply a lot of joyous fun; entertainment at its best. There’s a lot to be said in it about big corporation’s work policies, but it is done with subtlety. Also about how inner beauty is more important than what you wear or how you look, and that’s done with subtlety too. There’s also content about figuring out what you want in life and going for it. And then, of course, there is a lot of emphasis in fashion, a dream come true for anyone interested in it. Kudos to costume designer Patricia Field and her team, and also to composer Theodore Shapiro and music supervisor Julie Michels for their wonderful collaboration.

Stand-out sequences include Andy trying to get a jet for her boss while on a date with her father; a difficult quest involving the unpublished Harry Potter manuscript; a routine meeting between Miranda and her staff to discuss the next edition; and a late assignment that involves Andy attending a classy party to lend a hand. Andy’s two visits to Miranda’s house are also highlights, as is their hotel encounter in which Miranda lets down her guard for a few minutes. Finally, there’s Miranda’s last shot, one of the best moments in a movie filled with many worthy ones.

Once again Meryl Streep proves why she’s one of the best actresses to ever grace the face of this planet, an actress still capable of surprising us by coming up with work like none she has ever done before. Her Miranda could’ve been a caricature, but Meryl gives her dignity and credibility; she gives her a soul even when she’s being bitchy (as is usually the case). The way in which she never raises her voice but still commands a strongly imposing authority is just one of many nuances that make her performance so good and reason-alone to watch the movie. Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt are also welcomed surprises, elevating their supporting characters from what could’ve been background work to riveting one. Every scene with any of these three is like a shot of energy, one that comes when watching talented performers at the top of their games. Anne Hathaway, the movie’s lead, is charming and charismatic and adorable, doing exactly what is required of her and doing it with aplomb. Great work from everyone.

“That’s all.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Devil Wears Prada (2006): Groucho

Review

The Devil Wears Prada

Director

David Frankel

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

There are movies that make stars, and stars that make movies; some stars make good movies, and some make movies good…

Meryl Streep is nowadays a star that can make and break whatever she pleases whenever she pleases. One could go so far as to call her the best actress walking the Earth, or at least working in Hollywood, if it weren’t such a subjective statement. I know I’m her everlasting fan, and despite my utter adoration of her, I still have the pleasure of being amazed by her work with every new movie she makes. She’s so good that she can still surprise even those who think they know her to perfection.

The Devil Wears Prada is a good movie, based on what I hear is a pretty good (and largely successful) novel by Lauren Weisberger. If by itself it’s not one of the best films of the year, and even if the script’s intention seems contradicted by the script itself constantly, as it doesn’t know how to make its point accurately and constantly misleads the audience, it doesn’t matter because Meryl Streep provides such a delicious performance that we just want to go with the flow. I in fact have had to reflect a lot about the film to realize that it’s not all that good, that it’s not as great as my heart wanted it to be, only because I enjoyed her performance so much. I so wanted to forgive the film’s shortcomings…

There aren’t so many complaints, however. The story is fun. It tells of smart if unfashionable Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) looking for a job that’ll propel her into journalism, and finding herself the unknowingly lucky candidate to get the job of Miranda Priestly’s (Meryl Streep) second assistant. Miranda is the legendary Editor in Chief of Runway, the leading fashion magazine in America; she’s also an impossibly demanding boss, a perfectionist above all, and one that won’t take a minor disappointment lightly. Andy is far from psyched, especially since she feels like she doesn’t belong to that fashion-obsessed world, where every other girl is so careful about her looks.

However, Andy changes. Little by little, driven by pride and ambition, she becomes her own antagonist: a sexy woman with an exquisite taste in fashion, and also the very best assistant Miranda ever had. The road isn’t easy, and it implies ruining her relationship to her chef boyfriend Nate (Adrian Grenier), who all of a sudden seems so different to her it’s unbearable.

Glamour is irresistible, and there’s a reason why designer clothes are so expensive. Like the film points out, most people are lured by that flashy world into spending all their money craving for good looks, popularity, and success. It’s not all bad. Aline Brosh McKenna’s script shows us that there’s a lot of human value to be found in such an environment. There’s lots of hopes and dreams that can be fulfilled there, as well as frustration, anger, sadness, etcetera, like in any other industry. The Devil Wears Prada shows us, through the story of a dreadfully tyrannical boss, that human beings are the same no matter where they are, or under what circumstances. Andy (or like Miranda prefers to call her, Ahn-dre-ah), changes a lot from the moment she joins Runway to the time when she becomes her boss’ favorite, but the change seems good because she builds self-esteem, she excels at what she does, and she sees a lot of doors opening for her.

And then… the inevitable demise: an obligatory turn of events where Andrea realizes she’s been shallow and egocentric, apologizes to her boyfriend, and you know the rest. Thinking about it, the story might be right… But that’s not what the movie was selling all along. To the viewer who was loving the procedures (and I think I talk for most of us), the ending is a fraud.

My girlfriend, a brilliant fashion designer, had a very interesting observation that I’d really like to include here. To the ignorant eye, the film shows a lot of fashion; names, faces, clothes, accessories, the works… But to those who know just a bit more about it, the film is insufficient in that regard and only deals with the matter superficially. That’s something the book has that the movie hasn’t: it provides a much closer look into the world of fashion. Is it a bad thing altogether that the movie skept a lot of this? I mean, this is a movie, it can’t be so full of information… I guess whether it’s good or bad depends on each person’s point of view.

Aside from Streep’s outstanding performance as the deliciously cynic and tough boss (who turns out to have some human emotions at the end of the day), Stanley Tucci provides the best moments in a refreshing appearance as one of Miranda’s best in staff. Emily Blunt is also excellent as the unlikable first assistant who treats Andrea like she’s her own assistant. Hathaway has been criticized for being the least notable while actually being the lead, but I blame the script entirely; she’s gorgeous and completely credible as the plucky girl who finds out she still has a lot to learn about life. If I had a problem with someone, it was Simon Baker as the “perfect” new love interest of Andy’s… He’s just too… I don’t know… plastic.

A fantastic choice of songs and a sharp editing aid the final product a lot. I’d say this film is most definitely worth a look.

“That’s all.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Devil Wears Prada (2006): Morris

Review

Monster House

Director

Gil Kenan

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 02, 2006

Two years ago a movie by the name of The Polar Express hit theaters and generated dividing opinions. Many people appreciated the technique, but didn’t like how humans looked and were taken off overall. And then there were others who simply loved it, subsequently making it a hit. I belong to the latter group. For me, that movie is a Christmas classic, period. So I can’t say I wasn’t happy when its director, Robert Zemeckis, decided to continue working in the animation genre. He, along with Steven Spielberg, decided to take the children’s story “Monster House” to the big screen and the project looked promising from the get-go.

D.J. (voice of Mitchel Musso) is a preteen obsessed with the house across the street and his owner, Nebbercraker (voice of Steve Buscemi), a grouchy old man who assaults any child who puts a foot in his lawn. When his parents go away for the weekend, D.J. is left under the care of a nanny, Zee (voice of Maggie Gyllenhaal), but still decides to do some inquiries along with his friend Chowder (voice of Sam Lerner). They eventually discover the house is actually alive and are joined by a smart girl who was attacked by it, Jenny (voice of Spencer Locke), in their search for answers.

Monster House is based on a story by Dan Harmon and Rob Schrab. They also wrote the screenplay, along with Pamela Pettler, and directing duties were given to newbie Gil Kenan. It is an impressive debut to say the least. Regardless of the movie’s flaws, he shows a knack for storytelling that more experienced filmmakers only dream they possessed. He also excels at directing comedy, suspense and action with ease, making the full out of every scene.

The movie starts on the right path. A young girl is riding her tricycle while singing happily, but through mood and atmosphere we know something dreadful is about to happen to her. It does, and then we’re off. The first two thirds of the flick are fantastic. Not only do the creators nail the behavior of kids who are hitting puberty, but their interaction proves to be the best thing the movie has to offer. It feels hilariously real and it doesn’t take long for us to be in love with the characters, and the picture for that matter. Besides, the whole mystery thing is done in a compelling and suspenseful way. We’re as intrigued as these kids in finding out what’s going on. It’s adventurous, and it’s a lot of fun as well.

Unfortunately I have to admit that the last third of the movie somehow lowers the bar. The mystery is solved and it is intriguing enough, but there’s still half an hour to go after that and the movie turns into complete mayhem, a pedestrian action flick that bores despite the rush of excitement we’re supposed to be feeling. The wit and charm are gone, and we’re left with a clichéd run-for-your-life segment that is ho-hum. Maybe kids will enjoy this part more than I did, who knows. Truth is, the movie was released in a 3-D version as well, so maybe this portion works better in it. I’m pretty sure it might, actually… in a roller-coaster-y sort of way.

Much to my amazement (and pleasure) I found that Monster House is not especially suitable for young kids. It is too scary and it has a creepy vibe to it that I loved, but that they might not. And there’s dark material in here to spare. I know, if my generation survived through Dumbo, why wouldn’t this generation survive through this much lighter fare? I guess it’s up to each parent to decide.

Voice work is uniformly excellent. It was a great choice to choose unknown actors for the three leads. That way we don’t have pre-conceived notions and just go along for the ride. Supporting characters do boast well-known voices. I recognized Maggie Gyllenhaal instantly, but it was a pleasure because her character is a hoot and she fits it perfectly. I also recognized Jason, but that’s about it. Other performers include Kevin James, Nick Cannon, Jon Heder, Kathleen Turner, Catherine O’Hara and Fred Willard.

“It mocks us with its… house-ness.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter