CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Kingdom

Director

Peter Berg

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

There’s been a lot of hoopla about this season having plenty of movies set in the Middle East that audiences are not responding to. I have to be honest and say that I don’t get all giddy when the next movie of the sort opens. I don’t know, maybe it’s their culture, or all that sand, or a subconscious repellence to such current themes. But the truth is that when a movie gets good reviews, regardless of its genre, I’m there, and that’s what got me to The Kingdom.

After a terrorist attack kills more than 100 people, including plenty of Americans, at a safe facility in Saudi Arabia, FBI agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) gathers a team and heads up there with no permission to try and find who was responsible. There is the bombs expert, Grant Sykes (Chris Cooper), a computer geek, Adam Leavitt (Jason Bateman), and a pathologist, Janet Mayes (Jennifer Garner). They are put into the custody of local police colonel Al-Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), who doesn’t make things easy for them.

Peter Berg directed from an original screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan. They both have interesting things to tell and show in this movie, and a lot of that stays with you after the movie is over. There is, on the other hand, a pretty obvious problem with the proceedings that comes from a complete lack of focus. I still don’t know what the movie wanted to be or what it wanted to accomplish, which is a pity since there was potential for much more.

The opening credits sequence is brilliant, summarizing in quick and understandable mode the history between the Middle East and the United States regarding oil. Then we head to the terrorist attack which is also shocking and devastatingly real. And then there is a long stretch in which the FBI team fight with their superiors, get to Saudi Arabia and start their investigation. This portion is a bit slow and not that interesting. It is made even worse by the almost racist (yeap, I said it) way in which the movie treats the locals. This is the kind of movie in which Americans are the heroes and know-it-alls, while everyone else is either stupid or inefficient. I’m sure there are people like that in the world, but this depiction is so one-sided it’s deplorable. Also, agent Fleury’s character is so arrogant that not even a couple of scenes trying to show his humanity save him from becoming unlikable.

The last third pumps up the volume and the level of violence big time. But Berg shoots it well and it’s always suspenseful and well-handled. It also gives way to a killer ending which is deeply disturbing, but also sadly real.

So there’s a bit of police procedures, shoot-outs, a full-blown investigation, politics and a clear anti-war message, but it’s all presented in muddled fashion. It also leaves an image of hatred towards Middle Eastern people despite one single character doing heroic stuff, for even he is treated like a subpar individual.

Jamie Foxx does his best but his character was either badly written or he was badly directed. Jennifer Garner leaves a strong impression and is believable, also serving to show what a foreign woman has to go through over there. Chris Cooper and Jason Bateman are both excellent, but underused and forgettable. Ashraf Barhom is the one who arguably delivers the strongest performance among the ensemble. Jeremy Piven, Frances Fisher, Kyle Chandler, Richard Jenkins and Danny Huston all appear in blink-and-you’ll-miss-them roles.

“I said we were going to kill them all.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pretty Woman

Director

Garry Marshall

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The update of a classic story has the potential to work like wonders, but it’s got to have two very important elements: the honesty to make us believe in and root for the characters, and the realism to make us forget that the structure is far from new. Pretty Woman is the perfect example. It’s a sort of Cinderella / Pygmalion tale updated to the extent of making the main character a hooker. That’s not much better or worse than either original tale but it’s a brave turn, and while being daring in that way, they kept the sweetness of a good ol’ fairytale, and a winner was born.

Julia Roberts has been enchanting a zillion times, but I’d say this is the one where one can’t help but fall in love with her. She’s the title character, the hooker who has a dream and suddenly bumps into it, naïve enough to believe it could happen but down-to-earth in fair amount to understand that she’s only a dreamer. Her character, Vivian, is key to the effectiveness of this film and kudos to screenwriter J.F. Lawton for pulling it off, because when you think of it, everything else is rather conventional. We’ve seen this story often enough to lose count: down-on-her-luck girl meets Prince Charming, clashes with his world, learns to behave, finds out that it’s all impossible, and is finally aided by a miracle that’s simply obligatory given her good feelings and strong will. But the fact that she’s a hooker, a hooker, someone society despises, a necessary evil of our sick, sad world, and we believe that she could be a princess, and we want her to be it, and we tend to prefer her over every “correct” character around, makes all the difference.

Prince Charming is Edward Lewis (Richard Gere), a millionaire whose job is buying dead businesses and selling them piece by piece. He’s not a keeper, he’s not a builder; he makes money from someone else’s disgrace. Chancing to meet Vivian and going so far as paying her to be his companion during a business meeting is the kind of behavior that a self-destructing man could have. It’s going so far that one could consider it cynical. Luckily enough, Vivian, despite her (what some people would consider) indecent profession and decadent existence, is a much more luminous person, quite capable of saving the man who seems to need no help, unlike her. Naturally, she does just this.

There’s a lot of interesting thoughts put into the script successfully. There is, for instance, Vivian’s best friend and fellow hooker Kit De Luca (Laura San Giacomo), who portrays the very truthful aspect of human nature where low self-esteem takes the best of us. Just exactly the same way but in the opposite side of the spectrum is lawyer Philip Stuckey (Jason Alexander), whose crappy life is only barely sustainable thanks to some miserable millions of dollars made in quite an inhuman way. To complete the fairytale, Vivian has a fairy godmother, only this is not a fairy or a godmother, but a very sympathetic hotel manager played by Hector Elizondo. Each performer is excellent, though of course this is Julia’s show, and to date, perhaps, her most popular film.

To complete the wallop, James Newton Howard’s music is a charm. This is a crowd-pleaser in the whole sense of the term.

“In case I forget to tell you later, I had a really good time tonight.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Michael Clayton

Director

Tony Gilroy

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 29, 2007

I came into Michael Clayton with high expectations. Not only had it received generally strong reviews but I also highly respect Tony Gilroy’s work and was curious to see what he did in his directorial debut. Unfortunately I cannot join the chorus in praising this flick even though I’m aware this puts me in the minority. It happens, you find movies most people like and can’t understand why; but you move on and continue hoping for the best.

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) works for a prestigious law firm in which he excels at being, in his own words, a janitor. His work basically consists of cleaning up messes. The latest one involves one of the firm’s best lawyers, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), going crazy and getting naked during a meeting because he couldn’t go on defending big corporation U/North, which produces cancer-inducing products, from a years-old lawsuit involving plenty of sick people. One of the company’s high representatives, Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), won’t allow the disturbance and will do everything in her power to fix the situation.

Tony Gilroy directed from his own screenplay and one has to thank him for at least trying to deliver high-calibre material into multiplexes. Here we have an adult, mature, sophisticated drama that contains all kinds of shades and which has something important to say. I’ve got to give it at least that.

The problem here is the way in which the story is presented. The first third is incomprehensible to the point of complete boredom. We get several different vignettes which don’t seem to have a correlation between each other and which are just not interesting on their own. Then we go to flashback mode and throughout the rest of the running time we start to realize what happened at the beginning and even re-visit some of those scenes. By then I had lost almost all interest, for the movie’s tone borders on the perfunctory and I couldn’t care less about the main character (and what is it with his job, does he only talk to people to fix things?). It is only Arthur and Karen that bring some life into the proceedings; I wish the movie had been about them.

I realize the intentions were good, and maybe a second viewing will improve on the experience, but I find Michael Clayton to be deeply flawed. Gilroy’s dialogue is top-notch, but the movie’s structure is a mess and the entertainment quotient ebbs and flows too much.

Granted, there are some solid scenes here and there, and the movie does pick in its last half hour when intriguing things start to actually happen. An encounter with horses, a carefully-planned murder and a final confrontation are three highlights that come to mind.

George Clooney is an actor I like, I really do, but he’s starting to get into my nerves. He seems to have two kind of performances in him, whether he’s charming and suave as in the Ocean’s movies (and, it appears, in real life) or he’s all serious and tired. He plays both personas exactly the same each time and I can’t say he does it wrong, his performance as Clayton is actually solid, but he’s boring, he doesn’t bring an edge to the table. Tom Wilkinson, on the other hand, goes over-the-top in a believable way and almost steals the movie if it wasn’t for Tilda Swinton, who is also extraordinary as a tough woman who is actually full of insecurities. Sydney Pollack appears briefly as the head of the law firm and leaves a strong impression.

“I’m your easiest problem and you try to kill me?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Michael Clayton (2007): Groucho

Review

The Brave One

Director

Neil Jordan

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 25, 2007

I don’t think The Brave One is that much of a brave attempt by director Neil Jordan or star Jodie Foster to denounce the shortcomings of the law or portray the exasperation of crime victims who can’t find a compensation or even take a look at the way paranoia has taken over the United States, because this ends up being more of a mainstream entertainment movie than a character study. Yet, in that way, it’s not half bad. But when a film is not sure of what it is, there’s a problem.

The story is something we’ve seen before countless times, only not often taken so seriously. Erica Bain (Jodie Foster) is a crime victim who has lost a loved one (Naveen Andrews) and can’t find solace anywhere so she little by little takes the law on her own hands. It’s interesting that her intention is only to protect herself because now she lives in fear, but in doing so she becomes an avenging angel who’s not even looking for the people who perpetrated such atrocities in her and turned her into what she is. This has the inevitable consequence of the script becoming something of a fable, where just the right things happen to the main character in order to aid the story move forward. Erica has to stumble upon crime scenes in order to take a hand, and she does so with implausible regularity. But if we’re to stretch credibility about that, we might be all right.

The other main character is Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard), who’s been wondering how far respecting the law will take him. Not that he wants to be corrupt or anything, but sometimes just obeying the rules creates dreadful limits. So it’s no wonder that the anonymous avenger constitutes a fascination to him. In yet another uncanny coincidence, Erica also fascinates him. He’s been as shocked as everyone by the crime that she was a victim of, and the following radio shows that she emits, that being her profession, make him tick. Mercer becomes Erica’s friend and follower while he obsessively investigates the vigilante. He might as well be called Commissioner Gordon.

But I don’t want to be cynical. There’s a lot of good here. For one, even though the script by Roderick Taylor, Bruce A. Taylor and Cynthia Mort dictates every action and very little seems to come out spontaneously from characters or fate, the two stars are unbelievably good. Both are touched by the circumstances and they move the audience in turn. Foster is as strong as ever, mixing anger with fear and confusion like only she can. One doesn’t believe everything that happens to her, but allowing that it happens, she’s totally believable. Howard is also completely credible though unfortunately the script doesn’t help us believe his final resolution, which makes the climax rather off-putting.

Philippe Rousselot’s cinematography and Dario Marianelli’s score play important roles on their own. All in all, this is an interesting addition to Neil Jordan’s work, though it’s not even close to his best films.

“I want my dog back.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Brave One (2007): Morris

Review

A Mighty Heart

Director

Michael Winterbottom

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

This year has boasted plenty of movies and documentaries dealing with the 9/11 aftermath concerning the countries in the Middle East and their relation with the US. One of the first ones out of the gate was A Mighty Heart and with it a trend started to emerge: the subject matter is not particularly box office material. Then again, for those who crave for quality and interesting stories I’m sure most of them are worth checking out.

Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman) and his pregnant wife Mariane (Angelina Jolie) traveled to Pakistan at the beginning of 2002 for him to get an interview with a religious leader with possible attachments to Al Qaeda. But he was kidnapped on his way to meeting him and both Pakistani officials and U.S. reporters worked tirelessly to find him.

Michael Winterbottom directed from a screenplay by John Orloff, based on Mariane Pearl’s book. This is an abrupt departure for the director, who while being political in plenty of his movies, had never tried his hand at telling such a straightforward and realistic account of a true story. The risk paid off though, he does an admirable job in tackling such an intricate tale without taking sides or resorting to cheap melodrama.

A Mighty Heart works almost like a documentary, which is both good and bad. It is mainly about the hard job many people did to try and save one man amidst complicated international commotion. It’s somewhat difficult to keep track of all the almost unpronounceable names of cities and people that come up during the search, but the writers and director do a good job in keeping things understandable. Then again, there isn’t that much emotion in the proceedings, something that makes it a cold trip.

I did admire that Mariane and her story are not sugar-coated; she is not even presented as the most likable person, much less given the circumstances. Yet it all feels true from the get-go. You know five minutes in that you’re in good hands and even if most people know the outcome of the story before going into the theater it’s still an engrossing and interesting tale. To be honest I don’t feel like watching the flick again, but it sure is worth checking out.

Angelina Jolie delivers an exceptional performance that isn’t showy or overly emotional yet always feels right. A scene near the end will be difficult to forget, but her poise throughout the whole ordeal is admirable. The supporting cast, which includes Dan Futterman, Archie Panjabi, Irfan Khan and Will Patton among others, is flawless.

“But I am not terrorized, and you can’t be terrorized.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Michael Clayton

Director

Tony Gilroy

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

George Clooney has quickly developed a strong cinematic presence not only in the way that he’s a solid performer but in the projects that he picks and his involvement in them. He seems to be a social-aware artist who cares to give out a message while he does what he’s good at. Truth be told, he’s a very good actor who leaves an impression every time, even though I’m not sure I’m loving his consciousness-ridden projects.

Not that I have any problem with them, though. It’s just that the three recent examples that come to mind (Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005), Syriana (2005) and this) have left me rather cold, made me feel distant, like the material is meant for more serious people than me, or probably smarter people, people who are involved in the subject and begged to see it on the screen. That shouldn’t be the case, and isn’t the intention, I’m sure. Michael Clayton reminds of Erin Brockovich (2000) and is a good example of how a similar subject matter can be handled so differently. While the former is an accessible crowd-pleaser, the latter takes itself too seriously and doesn’t necessarily sustain that aura in after-thought.

But let’s not bash it. This is an intelligent film handled intelligently. I really liked it though it alienated me. The story is good and important, and Michael is a hero who only becomes so after so much has happened. This is not the story of a classic hero struggling for a righteous cause, it’s the story of an anti-hero going through a lot and finally realizing which side he should be on. The real hero of the story is Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson).

Arthur and Michael are co-workers on a law firm though their jobs are completely different. Arthur handles the case of U|North, fighting a class action suit that means their prestige and billions of dollars to lose. After years of being the devil’s attorney, and the best at it, Arthur pops and goes to the other side, though there’s proof that he’s not right in his head, physically speaking, at doing so. Michael is a problem-solver, a fixer. He’s been underappreciated in the firm and is a gambler and in general rather self-destroying, but is reliable and effectual as he’s always been. His boss, Marty Bach (Sydney Pollack), is the best kind of lawyer: no-nonsense and aware of the ethical gaps of his job, but with his head on his shoulders. In the wake of solving the problem caused by Arthur, Michael comes to question for the first time what he’s become.

I liked how the story paints its characters in contrasting ways without being judgmental. The great villain of the film, Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), who is the corporate lawyer of U|North, is mostly painted through her large insecurities in preparing her speeches and making her decisions. The result is of course shark-like, but getting there requires hard work from a person as vulnerable as the next. This speaks strongly of Tony Gilroy’s screenplay and his directorial debut. Michael Clayton is a mature craft and an admirable one. The strength of its characters is larger-than-life, and that’s what’s endurable here. And as it often happens with expert writing and professional casting, the actors portraying all main characters (Clooney, Wilkinson, Pollack and Swinton) are outstanding.

Not as effective from the script, as I said before, is the aloofness and contrivance. Sometimes I wondered if having to follow so many names and facts was as important as they made it look. I ended up concluding that it wasn’t. After disseminating the story you’ll find a soul that’s not as thick as the shell. That’s what happens in the Gilroy-co-scripted Bourne trilogy too, though… Only that those films know this problem and face it by being cynical, instead of pretending to be what they are not.

Quibbles or not, one can’t deny that Michael Clayton is top-notch entertainment, a quality film that refreshes and should be seen before many others that are being offered today. This is, after all, a serious film—complete with serious-looking cinematography by Robert Elswit and serious-sounding music by James Newton Howard. Give it a look if you haven’t.

“I am Shiva, the god of death.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Michael Clayton (2007): Morris

Review

The Brave One

Director

Neil Jordan

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 22, 2007

Truth be told, when I first saw the trailer for The Brave One I thought it looked like a by-the-numbers revenge feminist flick and I couldn’t believe that director Neil Jordan and star Jodie Foster had agreed to do something like that. My expectations were low and I didn’t really plan on seeing it. Then reviews started to pour out and they were a surprise, at least for me; admittedly it didn’t get the strongest reviews of the year but people agreed that the movie had a lot more to say than just being a woman-on-a-killing-spree romp, and that edge is what ultimately got me.

Erica Bain (Jodie Foster) is a radio host engaged with Dr. David Kirmani (Naveen Andrews). When a trio of street punks beat him to death she literally has nothing to keep her going; she’s even afraid of getting out of her apartment. That’s how she decides to buy a gun in order to be able to defend herself, but she stumbles upon a crime and takes it upon her to end the life of the perpetrator. From then on it’s difficult for her to stop and she is tagged by the press as the city’s vigilante. Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is the guy investigating the case while at the same time forming a relationship with Erica.

Neil Jordan directed from a screenplay by Roderick Taylor, Bruce A. Taylor and Cynthia Mort. Their work borders between a commercial vibe and a more intimate, independent one. I liked the contrast and I think it works. The movie plays with suspense as Erica continues to kill people and the cops continue to miss the person responsible, but it’s more of a character study regarding how far a person can go even if you didn’t think you had it in you to reach that far.

It could be said that human beings are violent by nature, although most of us are able to control it for the most part. Then again, what would a mother do to defend her child? And what would a fed-up person do when stumbling upon unpunished acts of crime? Is it okay to make justice with your own hands? Where is the line crossed? This isn’t Erica going on a rampage against the men who killed her fiancée; it’s a woman who has finally found a reason, however sick it might be, to move on. And yet she doesn’t enjoy it. That contrast and indecisiveness is handled quite well and brings very interesting topics to the table.

The subplot involving Erica’s relationship with Detective Mercer is hit-and-miss, with one too many a coincidence and a general sense that the screenplay is guiding them, not their own motivations. Also, Erica seems to stumble into crime scenes quite easily I might say. And that ending, I didn’t know what to think of it at first, but after much afterthought I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t like it, don’t believe it, can’t go for it. I don’t mind what they decided to do as much as the way they did it.

Philippe Rousselot’s cinematography plays an important role and it is impeccable; I loved how he and Jordan played with camera angles in specific sequences that gave the movie just the right feel. Dario Marianelli’s score is also top-notch.

Jodie Foster adds another powerhouse performance to her already long list of such. She is believable, identifiable, heartbreaking, tough, vulnerable, everything that the character needs with just the right doses. Terrence Howard is good as her counterpart and helps bring the best out of her. Mary Steenburgen, Nicky Katt, Naveen Andrews and the whole supporting cast are all solid.

“I want my dog back!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Brave One (2007): Groucho

Review

Just Friends

Director

Roger Kumble

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 18, 2007

I didn’t expect much from Just Friends, and probably wouldn’t have seen it if they hadn’t assigned it to me at work as a potential birthday present for customers, among many other titles. It was an unexpected pleasure, and proof that you shouldn’t turn your back on anything ‘cause you never know when something’s gonna please you that you never expected to. It was such a case. I think I’m one of the very few, but I thought the sweetness of this comedy far surpassed its silliness. I had a good time.

The premise is irresistible: Chris Brander (Ryan Reynolds), a chubby, unpopular High School graduate, has decided to declare himself to his best friend, hot and popular Jamie Palamino (Amy Smart), but at doing so is ridiculed by the entire class and rejected by the girl of his dreams. As a result, Chris leaves, promising to succeed away from that town of losers. Ten years later, he has done so: now skinny and handsome, he’s a music executive who scores with every girl he puts his eyes on, and lectures his friends on staying away from the dreaded “friend zone”.

But Chris is not exempt from being haunted by his High School years, like we all are, and he still thinks of Jamie. So when a rather implausible accident takes him back from L.A. to New Jersey, he meets his ghosts again, and becomes, in a way, as clumsy as he ever was back in the day.

Admittedly, director Kumble and writer Adam ‘Tex’ Davis go for the slapstick and caricature more often than not, but one can’t deny the heart. Even the key character of singer Samantha James (Anna Faris) surprises a couple of times with sentiment that rings true despite her clear psychosis. I was a victim of the cheap efforts the movie made to make me laugh, but enjoyed the whole thing and stayed interested in the fate of every character. I identified with Chris Brander, too, which helped: pathetic though it may sound, I, too, felt incapable in High School, feel much better now, and become incapacitated even by the thought of those days. Just Friends felt, in that way, like the realization of a nightmare that turns out, as it should, not as bad as it could be.

I wasn’t all for the romance, and didn’t quite root for the Chris and Jamie couple, which is obviously a flaw. However, Chris’ feelings were moving and I totally went for his newly found humanity and the fact that through forgiveness he understood that he was still essentially a romantic and totally willing to love and be loved, unlike the last 10 years he’s spent as a womanizer. And talking about cheesy stuff, I just adored how they mocked The Notebook (2004).

Subplots bring many quirky characters to life, but they’re all enjoyable: at Chris’ household, there’s his mother Carol (Julie Hagerty) and his brother Mike (Chris Marquette); I enjoyed every second with Mike onscreen, he’s a scene-stealer. Then there’s that wacko Samantha James, who goes too far more often than not, but is charmingly played by the fantastic Anna Faris. And last but not least, there’s Dusty Dinkleman (Chris Klein), the other High School geek who has become a complete charmer and apparently a much better person than Chris; this character surprises a few times and Klein is excellent. As for the leads, both do what they should, and are believable enough, if nothing extraordinary.

Not half bad, if not properly good, Just Friends is good for the laughs, and even for the heart. I’d say, give it a shot.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Superbad

Director

Greg Mottola

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Here’s one of those cases in which I just couldn’t get in the same bandwagon as the general perception from critics and audiences. When Superbad started screening the buzz was deafening, producer Judd Apatow had turned out his best outspoken movie yet and it was destined to become a classic of its genre. Then I saw it and I’m still perplexed as to why it got that kind of reaction.

Best pals Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) enlist the help of fellow dork friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) to get alcohol for a pre-graduation party they’ve been invited by Jules (Emma Stone), whom Seth is planning on getting drunk and do the nasty with. While on the liquor store, Fogell witnesses a robbery and is taken by officers Slater (Bill Hader) and Michaels (Seth Rogen), with whom he gets involved in a series of misadventures. Meanwhile, underage Seth and Evan must find another way to get alcohol.

Greg Mottola directed from a script by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. His movie is being called the Porky’s or American Pie of this decade, and yeah, I can’t argue with that. The difference is that while Superbad is smarter and has better dialogue, both of the aforementioned movies are funnier. Heck, I could even name some movies from this year that are funnier. And no, I’m not grumpy or retarded, I did laugh at plenty of the stuff in here, especially during the first act, but it is far from being a great movie.

Its moderate success lies in the way Seth, Evan and Fogell interact. They are so different from each other yet you totally believe they can be best friends; and their rapport is hilarious. Unfortunately they are placed in situations which are hit-and-miss at best. The flick starts well enough, with good pace, clever bits and envelope-pushing dialogue. Then things get complicated and everything starts to go downhill. Also, the involvement of the cops was an unfortunate choice; they are not funny and almost sink the movie. A lot of their scenes could’ve been cut or shortened and it would’ve helped maintain the level of energy but also would’ve prevented the flick from feeling as overlong as it does. It started to get on my nerves after a while and I just wanted it to be over.

What the movie also does right is to portray horny teenagers just as they are. The situations they are placed in might be larger-than-life, but their personalities, behavior and relationships all ring honest. It is a spot-on depiction and that makes their initial interaction a hoot to watch.

Jonah Hill, Michael Cera and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are all good and funny and quirky in their own particular ways. Hill could’ve taken the shouting down a bit and I wouldn’t have minded; and Mintz-Plasse could’ve played it a bit straighter at times instead of going for a cartoony approach, but these are just minor quibbles. The only one that is simple perfection is Cera, who, for me, is the real find of the movie. His understated approach has a huge impact in every level: laughs, believability and originality, his is a one-of-a-kind character and he does an excellent job in bringing him to life. Seth Rogen and especially Bill Hader as the cops are completely out-of-synch, although the writing could be blamed for that as well.

“We could be that mistake!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Matador

Director

Richard Shepard

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

I had heard about The Matador on account of what some critics called Pierce Brosnan’s finest performance and then I just didn’t hear any more about it and forgot it completely. That’s because the film probably didn’t find an audience, but luckily I got the chance to see it a couple of years later and I was thrilled. It certainly is Brosnan’s finest performance to date in a smart, daringly funny film.

Brosnan plays Julian Noble, whom we soon learn is a “facilitator” or hit man or assassin, your choice of vocabulary. But we don’t know him as such; from the first time we see him, we perceive that this is a weak, conflicted man, whose empty life haunts him day by day. He obviously got lost in the turmoil of luxury and narcissism, and ended up lonely and pathetic. At his worst, oversexed and drunk, he approaches another American guest in his hotel at Mexico City: businessman Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear), who’s also sad and lonely, though in a totally different way: he’s losing business deals like sand through his fingers and soon won’t be able to give his loving wife Bean (Hope Davis) the life that she deserves.

The relationship is bumpy from the start, but there’s something each man admires in the other to the point of obsession: Danny sees in Julian the opportunity to be “bad” for a while, leaving his squeaky clean image behind if only for a day, if only to himself, while Julian finds Danny’s stability and correctness irresistible. Neither is ever going to be like the other, but being friends in a setting where each is alone is rather hard to resist. Thus begins a truly unique relationship that turns The Matador not in a buddy movie, but in a black comedy of sorts.

Shepard’s writing surprised me. I loved how he delineated his acts and made each unique and surprising. The first segment, full of beautiful Mexico City vistas, has the men meeting each other and starting their bizarre relationship, ending up in a heart-pumping sequence in a bullfighting plaza where Julian demonstrates his skills. The second is my favorite, set in Danny’s house and starring both men and Danny’s wife Bean, who’s as curious about Julian’s job and gun as a little child that first meets the sea. This segment, by the way, works as a fine theater play, and I imagined what would have happened if the whole thing started there; would be interesting for sure, and perhaps as effective. The third and final act is action-filled but ends up in poignancy, truly powerful.

Pierce Brosnan convinces thoroughly in his complex and unique role. We never for a second remember his elegant and glamorous roles, but instead see this man as a dirty, lost and dangerous child who must find something or someone to correct his path. When he finds Danny we feel a relief, but it’s even better when Danny himself becomes a curious puppy in need of some risky fun. I’m not a fan of Danny’s character, but as clichéd as he may seem he’s a perfect everyman, and Kinnear is up to the task. Davis, as Bean, is perfect as the happy housewife.

Loved that music by Rolfe Kent, and the overall spirit of innovation that writer-director Shepard imprinted. Highly recommendable.

“My business is my pleasure.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Invasion

Director

Oliver Hirschbiegel

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 15, 2007

I came into The Invasion with a completely fresh frame of mind. Jack Finney’s novel “The Body Snatchers” had been adapted as a movie three times before: in 1956, 1978 and 1993. Why the world needed another re-telling is anybody’s guess, but maybe it’s for people like me who have not seen any of the other adaptations and we somehow needed to be introduced to the story. What a waste of time.

A psychiatrist, Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman), unearths an alien virus which is taking over people in order to dominate the human race. After careful examination she discovers that her son Oliver (Jackson Bond) is immune and might carry the key to stop the epidemic, so she must get him back from his ex-husband Tucker (Jeremy Northam) with the help of fellow doctor and friend Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig).

Oliver Hirschbiegel directed from a screenplay by David Kajganich but it was well-reported that after initial negative test-screenings the studio brought in an uncredited James McTeigue to shoot additional footage and make the movie more action-oriented. The result is a weird amalgam in which you don’t know if you’re watching a psychological thriller, a science fiction romp or a shoot’em up extravaganza. The flick starts creepy enough, with the impending menace of something that’s coming. But then it starts getting ridiculous and doesn’t stop till the end. Boring ain’t the word, but mediocre is.

I found myself responding better to quieter scenes than to the pyrotechnics of the final half hour. For instance, there’s a dinner scene in which Carol gets in a conversation with a foreign man, Yorish (Roger Rees), which is just about the most interesting sequence the movie has to offer... and it’s only dialogue. Outdoor scenes in which Carol has to pretend to be infected are also noteworthy; they get the chill vibe just right.

Unfortunately there’s also plenty of cheap boo moments, a pedestrian climax, characters who act foolishly, absurd plot turns, unoriginal gross-out gags and a general sense that something is just not clicking.

Nicole Kidman, who sometimes surprises me as to her choice of material, is merely ok as the leading lady. There’s something about her tender features and soft voice that didn’t quite convince me she was right for the role. Jeremy Northam and Daniel Craig are both wasted and capable of much much more. Ditto for Jeffrey Wright. And Jackson Bond as Carol’s son is stiff and actor-ish.

“You can fool them.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Paris, je t'aime

Director

Olivier Assayas

Frédéric Auburtin

Emmanuel Benbihy

Gurinder Chadha

Sylvain Chomet

Ethan Coen

Joel Coen

Isabel Coixet

Wes Craven

Alfonso Cuarón

Gérard Depardieu

Christopher Doyle

Richard La Gravenese

Vincenzo Natali

Alexander Payne

Bruno Podalydès

Walter Salles

Oliver Schmitz

Nobuhiro Suwa

Daniela Thomas

Tom Tykwer

Gus Van Sant

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 11, 2007

I was thinking on my way to work today, is Paris the most famous city in the world? Or is it New York, or another one? I think it’s Paris. If not the most famous, at least the best loved, that’s for sure. I have yet to visit the place, and I sure will one day, but I share the love and appreciated the love letter that several filmmakers wrote to it called Paris, je t’aime. It’s a collection of shorts, each set in a different arrondissement (the municipal boroughs of Paris), each with a different love story and a very personal touch. The results are mixed. I for one am not a fan of films that collect unrelated shorts. I have never been able to connect to these films and I regret to report that this is yet another example. On the other hand, one can’t help but appreciate such good work put together, but since not all shorts are as good as the others, it’s a bumpy ride. Seemingly though, the shorts were accommodated in a way that the last ones are the highest in quality and effectiveness, which isn’t very flattering for the filmmakers of the first ones. Anyway, let’s talk about them a bit, shall we?

The film starts with some rather unsettling shorts that don’t seem quite concluded when the next one has begun; probably all were like these but I just got used to it after a while. “Montmartre”, written and directed by Bruno Podalydès, and starring himself, attempts at poignancy but turns out rather funny as a portrait of a man who can’t find love and suddenly finds it knocking on his door. “Quais de Seine”, co-written and directed by Gurinder Chaha, is affecting as it has a young man (Cyril Descours) falling in love for a Muslim woman (Leïla Bekhti), though the result is rather fairytale-y. “Le Marais”, by Gus Van Sant, is weird and implausible, as a young customer (Gaspard Ulliel) gets infatuated with a printshop worker (Elias McConnell) at first sight, and lets him know in a long monologue.

“Tuileries”, by the Coen brothers, is fun but bizarre, starring a silent Steve Buscemi in a surreal experience at the Paris Metro. “Loin du 16e”, written and directed by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas, is probably the most poignant and effective, starring Catalina Sandino Moreno as a young Spanish-speaking mother who leaves his son in the morning to take care of another baby on the other side of the city; Sandino Moreno is extraordinary and her lullaby is haunting. “Porte de Choisy”, directed by Christopher Doyle, is by far the strangest of the shorts, featuring a beauty products salesman (Barbet Schroeder) in a rather dreamlike (if not dreamy) experience at Chinatown.

“Bastille”, written and directed by Isabel Coixet, is unforgettable, as a man (Sergio Castellitto) faces the dilemma of choosing between his mistress (Leonor Watling) and his wife (Miranda Richardson) at the wake of terminal illness; I loved everything about it, including the song that she hums, a reminder of Jules and Jim (1962). “Place des Victoires”, written and directed by Nobuhiro Suwa, is the one with the biggest potential most awfully wasted, starring Juliette Binoche as a woman who has lost her young son; Willem Dafoe is rather affecting in this though, in a David Lynch kind of way. “Tour Eiffel”, by Sylvain Chomet, is hilarious and strong for the senses, starring a mime (Paul Putner) in search of love.

“Parc Monceau”, by Alfonso Cuarón, is a letdown, only notable for being a single shot, but even in that way nothing new, and with a story that doesn’t surprise; starring Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier. “Quartier des Enfants Rouges”, by Olivier Assayas, is another waste of potential, starring Maggie Gyllenhaal as an American actress addicted to hashish. “Place des fêtes”, by Oliver Schmitz, is totally powerful as a dying man (Seydou Boro) shares his memories with a paramedic (Aïssa Maïga) and makes her remember something important.

“Pigalle”, by Richard LaGravenese, isn’t for my taste, but not quite ineffectual, as an aging couple (Bob Hosking and Fanny Ardant) act out a fantasy. “Quartier de la Madeleine”, by Vincenzo Natali, is a strange change of tone as a vampire (Olga Kurylenko) enchants a backpacker (Elijah Wood); the photography is dazzling in this one. “Père-Lachaise”, by Wes Craven, is intriguing but uneven, as a young couple (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) find a new spark thanks to Oscar Wilde.

“Faubourg Saint-Denis”, by Tom Tykwer, is superb for the eye but not as surprising all in all, as a blind man (Melchior Beslon) falls in love with a struggling actress (Natalie Portman); impressive work on all accounts. “Quartier Latin”, written by Gena Rowlands and directed by Gérard Depardieu and Frédéric Auburtin, is my favorite, as a separated couple (Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) share an unforgettable exchange in negotiation for divorce as they share a final drink. Finally, “14e arrondissement”, many people’s favorite, written and directed by Alexander Payne, stars an American tourist (Margo Martindale) recounting in rough French her experiences in Paris; it goes from funny to moving to heartbreaking and full of beauty.

I can’t say that I’d go through it again, but even talking about the film made me have a good time once again. Maybe after I meet Paris I’ll revisit this. In the meantime, I can’t help but recommend it, for it surely has something for everyone.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bobby

Director

Emilio Estevez

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

I know the story of the Kennedys mainly through movies and what my parents have told me. I’m neither a US citizen nor old enough to have lived through those times, so my knowledge is quite basic. That said, Bobby is not a movie that will enlighten anyone who doesn’t know anything about Senator Robert F. Kennedy beforehand; the focus is mainly on a bunch of characters who were present in his assassination. It’s necessary to adjust your expectations to go along which what the flick actually is.

On Tuesday June 4th, 1968, the day of the California presidential primary elections a group of people are gathered at the Ambassador Hotel before the night’s party with a presentation by alcoholic singer Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore), who is followed by her unhappy husband Tim (Emilio Estevez) everywhere she goes. The hotel’s hairdresser, Miriam (Sharon Stone), is married to the manager, Paul (William H. Macy), who is having an affair with a phone operator (Heather Graham) and also finds the time to fire kitchen supervisor Daryl (Christian Slater) for racist attitudes. A pair of campaign volunteers, Cooper (Shia LaBeouf) and Jimmy (Brian Geraghty), goes on their first LSD trip courtesy of hippy Fisher (Ashton Kutcher). A campaign strategist, Jack (Martin Sheen), is coming to terms with his afflicted wife Samantha (Helen Hunt). A young girl, Diane (Lindsay Lohan) is marrying childhood friend William (Elijah Wood) so that he doesn’t go to Vietnam. Kitchen workers Jose (Freddy Rodriguez) and Miguel (Jacob Vargas) talk about racism and baseball with chef Edward (Laurence Fishburne), while doorman John (Anthony Hopkins) plays chess with his friend Nelson (Harry Belafonte).

Director Emilio Estevez wrote and directed, but more impressively, gathered an A-list ensemble that most directors would only dream of. Truth be told, the movie starts out as a spot-the-star romp as big name after big name appears on the screen, but we get used after a while and get immersed in most, if not all, of their stories. Bobby was highly criticized for being so simple and uninteresting during its first two thirds, and I can’t really argue with that. I was constantly entertained and amused by the different nuances in most characters, but I can perfectly understand people being terribly bored and not getting the point at all.

Estevez tries hard to paint a portrait of the era through his wide array of players, whether tackling subjects such as racism, the Vietnam War or drugs. Other stories are a bit more superficial or not pertaining to a specific time, which makes them a bit uninteresting compared to more poignant ones. I was especially taken with anything happening in the kitchen.

The movie builds until a rousing and deeply affecting finale in which Bobby takes the stand to celebrate his win, then leaves the stage and is shot. These are very dramatic moments and Estevez handles them very well by mixing real footage and a voice-over of the senator in which he addresses issues of violence and hope. We might not really get to know much about the man in this outing, but the last half hour is visceral and moving in a plain human level.

Period detail is extraordinarily handled by Patti Podesta, Colin De Rouin, Lisa Fischer, Radha Mehta and Julie Weiss, who made of the production design, art direction, set decoration and costume design a real trip to another time and place.

Performances are uniformly good, with Sharon Stone, Helen Hunt, Lindsay Lohan, Freddy Rodriguez, Jacob Vargas, Heather Graham and Anthony Hopkins standing out. Other actors that have gone unmentioned include Nick Cannon, Joshua Jackson, Svetlana Metkina and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

“This is a time of shame and sorrow.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Paper Moon

Director

Peter Bogdanovich

Year

1973

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Paper Moon is a most fortunate combination of factors: it belongs to Peter Bogdanovich’s best filmmaking period, stars the unforgettable team of father and daughter Ryan and Tatum O’Neal, and stuns with the performance of the latter. I have decided that the films about con artists are the subgenre I have the most fun with, and this is one of those, and has the lighthearted feel of the best of them. It’s a knockout and a winner, and an excellent film.

Set in the Depression Era, the story has Moses Pray (Ryan O’Neal) attending the funeral of a woman we soon find out to have been a rather popular whore, and getting stuck with the woman’s orphan daughter, Addie Loggins (Tatum O’Neal), who just might be Moze’s daughter. Moze doesn’t quite object, but that’s because he finds a way to profit from it, before sending her to her aunt who lives elsewhere. Addie overhears Moze’s blackmail to the man responsible for her mother’s death, and demands the two hundred dollars since she’s the one entitled. Moze never expected this tiny girl to be any threat, but soon finds that she’s his match and can’t get rid of her easily. Stuck with the girl till he can pay his debt, Moze realizes that she’s the best possible partner in crime, as her role as his daughter makes it much easier to con everyone around.

But Addie also has the smarts, and the talent, and surpasses Moze easily. That’s an eerie fact since the same thing more or less happened to the couple in real life. Tatum stole the spotlight and it’s been said that Ryan was rather jealous. I’m sure he couldn’t be that angry, after all she was his daughter, and the film was a hit, but how could he not be jealous when she became the one everyone talked about, even going on to become the youngest Oscar winner in official competition?

The story comes from the novel “Addie Pray” by Joe David Brown, adapted by the inimitable Alvin Sargent for astounding entertainment. As I said at first, it’s a very fortunate combination of talents: cinematographer Lászlo Kovács, for instance, found the right way to shoot this in black and white, emphasizing the period and deliciously transporting us to the right time and place. Furthermore, there are several uncut takes, showcasing outstanding dialogue by the two stars. It’s been said that too many takes were needed to get the final ones, but the result is uninterrupted minutes of pure delight starring two very talented actors in what couldn’t seem a more natural exchange.

Apart from the father and daughter team, the cast also benefits from Madeline Kahn and P.J. Johnson in one of its gamest subplots. Kahn plays Trixie Delight, the showgirl who romances Moze and endangers the whole operation. Johnson is her African American maid who becomes Addie’s temporary partner. It’s a beautiful and poignant vignette, one in many that the film is comprised of.

The ending is unforgettable, as is the whole film. Paper Moon is a masterpiece and a must-see.

“You still owe me two hundred dollars.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

Director

Dennis Dugan

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 08, 2007

Adam Sandler is not my favorite comedian out there, but in the right vehicle he can be truly effective. Kevin James, on the other hand, is moderately funny in anything he does, although he doesn’t necessarily hit home runs any often. The combination of both, mixed with a premise that sounded amusing enough, is what attracted me to seeing a movie that I knew beforehand would be a big bloated studio product, but sometimes, just sometimes, the results can be worth our time. That said, this is nothing more than a mixed bag.

Firemen Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) have been best friends for years, so when Larry asks the former to marry him so they can fool the pensions system and thus inherit his money and give it to his children in case something happens to him, womanizer Chuck feels the need to comply. They eventually do it, but their union is contested by the state and an investigation ensues, forcing them to behave like a real couple even though Chuck starts to fall in love with their beautiful lawyer Alex (Jessica Biel).

Dennis Dugan directed from a screenplay by Barry Fanaro, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor. Their premise, as I said before, is definitely original and even suitable given today’s political climate. But the trailer made it look as if it would be a silly flick poking fun at every single gay cliché (dropped soap included) and nothing more. Fortunately there is a pro-tolerance message thrown in there between all the silliness (of which there is plenty) and it all ends on a happy note for everyone.

Granted, the movie is a mess. It does have its share of good laughs and clever moments (a rooftop fight between Chuck and Larry comes to mind), but most of the jokes are infantile, gross or way too broad. I know, I know, I couldn’t expect subtlety from an Adam Sandler comedy, but watching it you kind of wish they would’ve gone for a more grounded approach. There is also the problem that regardless of the type of joke being told the majority of them does not work. I not only blame the writers and actors for this, but the director, who should work harder at comic timing.

Credit should also be bestowed to the creators for making a gay-themed movie appealing to anyone despite their sexual orientation. I would even say it’s more suited to straight people than actual gays and I’m sure that was the intention. Of course, the song selection is pretty obvious and the jabs taken at the gay culture way too predictable, but hey, it’s all in good fun.

As performances go, Adam Sandler and Kevin James do exactly what they’re required to. They seem a little fake for my taste sometimes, but they do the job and it’s their usual shtick. Jessica Biel fares a bit better, although her role is mainly eye-candy and she fulfills that to perfection. Supporting players include Steve Buscemi, Ving Rhames, Dan Aykroyd and appearances by Lance Bass, Dave Matthews and Rob Schneider. I can’t say any of them truly stands out.

“You’re a monster!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bourne Ultimatum

Director

Paul Greengrass

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, October 04, 2007

I’m a fan of the Bourne saga and was looking forward to the third installment from the moment the second one was over. I have always admired the way these films (loosely based on the Robert Ludlum’s novels) are rather hollow but manage to tease the audience through the suspense of the plot, since it’s all about accompanying a victim of amnesia who’s the target of spies and a former spy himself. The second entry moved me to the bone, as Bourne found out how cruel he was and what sins he committed and did something to make up for this evil.

I expected the same from the third film, but instead I found that it goes back to the sort of procedures from the first one. Furthermore, the few revelations that we finally get seem rather obligatory and aren’t altogether surprising, the little romance that is put into the process doesn’t feel right and feels more like a cliffhanger for a future installment than something that moves the present plot forward, and most of the time it seems that Bourne’s quest has finally become just something to do…

This is because of the way it’s handled, of course, because there’s no denying that the premise is intense: Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) finds out that there’s a journalist, Simon Ross (Paddy Considine), that seems to know a lot about him, and goes after him quickly, clearly suspecting that the CIA will do the same, thus saving Ross from his former employers while trying to trace the source of all the information that he’s got. This happens in what I thought of as the film’s best moments, a chase sequence by foot that’s as exciting as anything the best action films do, except relying much more on suspense. The CIA spots Bourne and this is just the beginning of a hunt throughout Europe, and ending up in New York City. There’s now a new boss, CIA Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn), who wants to get rid of Bourne like there’s no tomorrow. Pam Landy (Joan Allen), this time more than ever on Bourne’s side (if only to help him in a more humanistic way), gets the catch of what truly happened to him and what’s to be done.

Another old character, Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), comes back to surprisingly help Bourne, almost throwing everything away to do this. I remember that I was Stiles’ fan when the previous Bourne films came out, and was disappointed that she didn’t have a juicier role. Now I’m not that much of a fan anymore, and still I was even more disappointed to see that promises were made and nothing was delivered. I didn’t believe this subplot and thought of it as a cheap hook for future entries. Let’s hope they make it interesting, but I’m not that excited about a fourth installment anyhow, as I’m almost sure (and I hope I’m wrong) that the quality will diminish.

I had many problems with the plot and the way it’s handled by screenwriters Tony Gilroy, Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi. For some unexplainable reason, the motivations and procedures seemed harder to believe than they were before. For instance, when Bourne calls a guy from his own office, it seems reckless, completely out of place and done only to add some “coolness” to the movie without really justifying it. What comes from it is interesting and the resolution is satisfying but why be careless if your whole life depends on how you handle things? The showdown with one of the main men responsible for his situation, Dr. Albert Hirsch (Albert Finney in a very welcome if short appearance), isn’t up to Bourne standards, but adds some believable drama. An exchange with a fellow assassin turns out way more poignant and I’m not sure that’s the way it should be. In short, I felt a bit more could’ve been done here and there, but at least the structure of the story (by Gilroy) was very satisfying.

What can’t be complained about is the action, again top-notch, again innovative, again masterfully realized. The editing (Christopher Rouse), cinematography (Oliver Wood) and music (John Powell) must be praised. The whole technical team works wonders. And director Greengrass never misses for a second.

As for the performances, there are two that stand out: Damon’s and Allen’s. I missed this Damon, he’s great in the role. Strathairn is up to the task and does it well, and Considine has little chance to prove himself but is also an asset. Stiles has very little to do and doesn’t do much of it either, and Albert Finney is good as always, I mean, he’s Albert Finney.

Yep, I have mixed feelings. But still this is top-notch entertainment and probably the best kind of blockbuster we can get nowadays. Let’s see what more we get in the future. I’m still a fan of the saga.

“Look at us. Look at what they make you give.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Little Mermaid

Director

Ron Clements

John Musker

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

When Walt Disney was alive several animated classics were born out of his vision: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), Pinocchio (1940) and Dumbo (1941), you name them. Then there came a time when the magic kind of dried and the company made good but not great movies. It was The Little Mermaid that changed all that. The word classic was finally worth mentioning again and it seemed to have inspired a second wave of successful outings. To this day it remains one of the most beloved movies to have come out of the mouse house.

Ariel (voice of Jodi Benson) is the most beautiful daughter of Triton (voice of Kenneth Mars) and seems to have everything to be happy, except that she dreams of becoming a human because she’s in love with one, Prince Eric (voice of Christopher Daniel Barnes). Despite the advice of her best pals, crab Sebastian (voice of Samuel E. Wright) and fish Flounder (voice of Jason Marin), she makes a pact with evil octopus Ursula (voice of Pat Carroll) to become human, yet leaving her voice behind; the catch being that if she hasn’t kissed Prince Eric by the time they agreed, she will forever be part of her collection of lost souls.

Ron Clements and John Musker directed from their own script, loosely based on a story by Roger Allers and inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s tale. Even though the story is certain to appeal to young girls, it deals with universal themes that can attract any generation, and its success speaks for itself. At the core it’s simply about a girl who wants to get the man of her dreams, but the way it is told has so much charm and pizzazz that it becomes irresistible.

There are several elements that make of The Little Mermaid the delectable experience it is: well-written and appealing characters, a fascinating world under the sea, a memorable villain, effective comedy and amazing music. The latter is especially important since this could very well be considered a musical, and both the score and songs by Alan Menken are truly memorable. Highlight numbers include the visual feast that is “Under the Sea”, the heart-breaking “Part of Your World”, the wicked “Poor Unfortunate Souls” and the incredibly romantic “Kiss the Girls”.

Voice-work is uniformly excellent, with Samuel E. Wright delivering an unforgettable performance as Sebastian, and Pat Carroll imprinting her indelible mark in Ursula. Jodi Benson, Christopher Daniel Barnes, Jason Marin and everyone else are top-notch. There was a time when stars didn’t have to voice animated movies but actors were cast solely because of their talent; there’s nothing wrong one way or the other, but the work here is superb.

“Boy, what a softshell I’m turning out to be.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Director

James Cameron

Year

1991

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

I grew up a fan of The Terminator (1984) even though I was still quite little when it came out, and I remember my excitement when the sequel was released. I was more or less the same age as young John Connor, and it would be just the first of many phases of my life where I would find a strong meaning in this film.

Sadly enough, the movie’s publicity pretty much revealed the twist of its premise. Even though now the whole world knows what it’s about, I’ll respect the original intention of the script (by James Cameron and William Wisher Jr.) by not talking about that at least in this paragraph. If you’re lucky enough to have seen the first film and not the second one yet, and not know what happens there, and you’re reading this, please stop now.

I did my best in my latest viewing and it was a real treat: I watched it pretending I had no idea what would happen. The result is extraordinary. The story appears to be the same as in the first film: two people from the future appear in our times to respectively terminate and protect a subject, this time young John Connor (Edward Furlong), the one who’ll grow up to be the leader of the rebellion against the machines. John’s mother Sarah (Linda Hamilton) was the first victim of such time-traveling crusade, but was eventually saved from The Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) by a soldier who ended up becoming John’s father, and died protecting his former boss’s (and future son’s) mother.

So this time around, when you see the very same Terminator, also played by Schwarzenegger, you’re supposed to figure he’s here to destroy someone again. Another “man” shows up, who looks much simpler, smaller, but rather tough in his own right. You would think this guy to be the protector, the one to fight the Terminator, to prevent the cyborg’s mission. Then you realize he’s much meaner, and soon enough, the Terminator is protecting John Connor from him! Then he explains that this other one is also a Terminator, the more advanced T-1000 (Robert Patrick), who can melt into liquid metal and shape-shift into anyone or anything the same size. It’s a lethal machine that’s here to destroy the machines’ greatest foe before he even becomes that. As history repeats itself, the effect will again be a cause, and it’ll get twisty and somewhat confusing, while the amusement is endless to say the least.

The Terminator, reprogrammed into a protector, is supposed to be as mean, only with a nobler mission. Truth be told, Cameron allowed it to be much nicer from the start, but then there’s in good measure a justification for this, like the fact that young John, a tormented misfit, teaches the cyborg to be cool and good, instead of dumb and cruel. Furlong and Schwarzenegger make a great screen couple, both shining in their juicy roles.

The reason why John is unhappy is that Sarah lost it. It’s outstanding what a transformation she suffered from the last time we saw her, but it’s logical, if devastating. That’s the backdrop that makes this story so strong and powerful. There’s a lot of retrospective to enrich this tale, and some of it is in the future, which is distressing. There’s so much sadness contained in Sarah from both ends of her timeline that you can’t help but applaud Linda Hamilton for her extraordinarily believable work. Her most powerful scenes are shared with Earl Boen as Dr. Silberman, her psychiatrist from the first film who’s back to continue the skepticism.

The action is lots of fun and eye-poppingly realized. It’s no wonder that James Cameron was a much more powerful man in Hollywood this time around than he was when he made the first film, and it’s a tribute to his talent that he made the most of his resources. The visual effects are top-notch and there’s just so much going on that your senses will have a feast from start to finish. Yet, the secret of this film’s success is the same as most James Cameron’s: his capacity of creating a non-stop action piece that also manages to move, make laugh and haunt.

I didn’t quite go with the whole “humanizing the cyborg” thing, but it sure has a heart and helps in a way. What I admire the most about this film is that it’s a saga; you think about it in retrospect and you can remember many different stages, like Sarah’s escape, their visit to Mexico (complete with Linda Hamilton’s cult quote “Enrique… siempre como culebra”), Sarah as an assassin, the Terminator’s police wipe-out with zero human casualties, and many more. It’s one really great film, and a sci-fi must.

“Hasta la vista, baby.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lonely Hearts

Director

Todd Robinson

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, October 01, 2007

The story of serial killers Ray Fernandez and Martha Beck has been told several times before, most notably in Leonard Kastle’s The Honeymoon Killers (1970) and in Arturo Ripstein’s Profundo Carmesí (1996). But director Todd Robinson, grandson of the police detective who followed the case and ultimately caught them, wanted to tell his own version from a different point of view. Thus was Lonely Hearts born.

Elmer Robinson (John Travolta) is haunted by the memory of his wife’s sudden suicide, and hasn’t been able to come to terms with his son Eddie (Dan Byrd) or even tell him that he’s dating co-worker Rene (Laura Dern). He and his partner Charles Hilderbrandt (James Gandolfini) have been following the Lonely Hearts case for some time, going after Ray Fernandez (Jared Leto), who charms lonely women, gets their money and then kills them. It is through one of his shenanigans that he meets Martha Beck (Salma Hayek), who becomes his partner and joins in the murderous schemes.

Todd Robinson wrote and directed this movie in which he opted to use a different spin: focus on the story of the policemen who were after the killers. The approach is not entirely successful. Elmer Robinson’s somewhat tragic tale is not that cinematic or interesting in itself, but because we also get to witness Ray and Martha’s actions we continue to be immersed in the chronicle and also in the way they were ultimately caught. That said, the subplot involving the killers is infinitely more fascinating.

Movie’s pace is a bit slow, at times giving out the feeling of a noir yet never going completely for that. Elmer’s rapport with Charles is amusing, and scenes involving his son are about the best that story has to offer. But the killers bring out one memorable scene after another. We get to know pretty well their last two victims and we witness how cold-blooded Martha can get; the control she ultimately has over Ray is chilling. It also works as a twisted character study on obsession and supposed love taken to the extreme, culminating in a poignant scene where Martha has an exchange with Elmer. Another disturbing late scene with Martha and a little girl is one of the movie’s highlights.

Period detail is impeccable, with Jon Gary Steele’s production design, David Eckert’s art direction and Jacqueline West’s costume design standing out. Also note-worthy are Peter Levy’s gloomy cinematography and Mychael Danna’s jazzy score.

John Travolta, James Gandolfini and Jared Leto all give good, modulated performances and do what they’re required to every step of the way. But it is Salma Hayek that steals the movie from start to finish; she devours the screen, we can feel her madness and never know how far she’s going to take it. And despite the larger-than-life nature of the character she keeps it grounded and believable at every turn; it is memorable and unforgettable work. And any doubt you might’ve had because of a slim and beautiful actress playing the role of an obese person in real life will go away almost immediately; she owns the part. Supporting performances by Laura Dern, Scott Caan, Alice Krige, Dagmara Dominczyk and especially Dan Byrd are spot-on.

“Has anybody ever loved you that much detective? To kill or die... for you?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter