CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Director

Shane Black

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Writer/director Shane Black seems to be a big institution in Hollywood. I have to admit that before his directorial debut, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, I had never heard of the guy. Now I know that it’s because he scripted the Lethal Weapon movies, becoming a hot-shot writer at the time and one of the first writers in the industry to be paid a lot of money, which certainly made a fuzz. I was too young then, so this doesn’t say much to me. Truth be told, I love the Lethal Weapon movies and I liked his latest flick, which are good enough credentials for me.

Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) is a no-good thief who, in the midst of a chase, ends up in a room where a movie audition is taking place. He is thought to be an actor and, altered by the circumstances, plays along giving a hell of a performance. Next stop: Hollywood. The producers of the movie in question assign him to Detective Gay Perry (Val Kilmer) to research for the part, while he reunites with an old acquaintance who is now an aspiring actress, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan). The three of them soon find themselves in the midst of a real-life dangerous mystery.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one twisted film noir (based partly in a novel by Brett Halliday). And I use the word “twisted” here not as a reference to its craziness (of which there is plenty), but to the fact that it’s not a conventional genre movie, but one with a twist. Shane Black knows all about this kind of movies, so he plays with the genre and turns it upside down, crossing the line between being a mystery and a satire. This combination of genres does not always work (it’s difficult to understand what the movie wants to be at times), but it’s nonetheless captivating and it mostly pays off.

Harry provides the narration of the movie in clever voice-overs. Harry knows he’s talking to a movie audience, so he feels free to discuss current events, shed useful information, mock his own movie or plain rewind it when he feels like it. It is an audacious device, if not a newbie, and it works like wonders. That said, I would have certainly liked more of it, since it disappears for large chunks of the movie.

The murder mystery and the trouble our leading characters get into is also a lot of fun. I got confused more often than not, but that’s common with this kind of plots. It’s not until the third act that they, and we, start to put the pieces together and everything starts coming to shape. Before that, most of what happens is incomprehensible, if entertaining.

Downey Jr. is a hoot as Harry. It’s interesting to note that his narration has nothing to do with the character we see on-screen all the time (mostly shy and scared), which gives him a three-dimensionality that I certainly thanked. Kilmer is also having a lot of fun playing a gay character with the best lines of the movie yet never falling into cliché despite a lot of funny gay puns directed at him. Great work there. And Michelle Monaghan turns out to be a real find. She’s sexy, vulnerable and lovable all at the same time. I certainly look forward to seeing more of her on the big screen.

Michael Barrett’s cinematography and John Ottman’s score help a lot in giving the movie the classic atmosphere inherent to the genre.

Quite amusing!

“No, knee-deep in pussy. I just love the name so much I can’t get rid of it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A History of Violence

Director

David Cronenberg

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

David Cronenberg’s latest starts with an unsettling introduction: two peculiar crooks do a couple of killings. The guys are in the small town of Millbrook, Indiana, where we soon get to know Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), the owner of a diner who’s also an exemplary husband and father, a quiet man of many friends and very few problems. His wife Edie (Maria Bello) is a wonderful partner who loves him very much, and their marriage sure works out as they battle monotony and enjoy every second together one way or another. Their children Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) are lovable, he a teenager with adaptation problems at school, she a sweet kid who’s afraid of monsters in her closet.

The peace of their lives is well established in front of our eyes before the bang: the thugs show up in Tom’s diner, set to cause trouble, and are stopped in a violent but precise move by Tom. He becomes an overnight hero, his face appears in national television and newspapers, reporters hunt him everywhere he goes, and townspeople cheer at his very sight. This doesn’t quite disrupt his life though, as he decides to move on and keep things simple – the way he’s always done.

But things turn wicked when a big city mobster, Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), shows up at the diner claiming Tom is not really Tom but Joey Cusack, a killer from Philadelphia who caused him much trouble in the past, some of which can still be seen on his face. Fogarty won’t stop until he gets his revenge, but he moves quietly and hauntingly around Tom and his family, which makes him all the way scarier. Tom claims not to even have been in Philadelphia, but one can’t ignore Fogarty’s claims and insistence. The peaceful life of Mr. Stall has ended, or so it seems.

What a master Cronenberg is! His films have always either crossed the line of violence and nastiness, or threatened to, but even though A History of Violence is in essence a violent story, packed with shootouts and gruesomeness, the execution is so elegant there’s never a false note or an out-of-place image. Sex and violence are sprinkled throughout an otherwise quiet film, where few words and even fewer gestures say a lot. The film is an epic told in the most straightforward, simple way, which is a reason to admire screenwriter Josh Olson, who adapted the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke.

I admired the film from the get-go, and went with every scene like a ballet dancer immersed in the music that makes his or her body flow like water. This is also due to the excellent casting of Mortensen in the lead, as he’s so completely credible in all the phases of his character, and he does go through a lot. Amazing support comes from everyone around, especially Bello, pitch-perfect as the supporting wife with an iron will and her own private views of life and ways of facing whatever comes. Ed Harris is chilling as the villain, and a welcome appearance by William Hurt makes matters even better, though that segment of the film seems to go a bit over the top.

Even though there don’t seem to be too many threads to this story, there are some subplots that matter a lot. My favorite involves a fight between Jack and a bully that picks on him, which brings up some controversy in the Stall family, for several reasons that turn out absolutely haunting after all is said and done.

Great work by everyone involved, including musician Howard Shore, editor Ronald Sanders, and cinematographer Peter Suschitzky. This is all so well crafted it’s a pleasure from start to finish. This is the best film I’ve seen this year, so far…

“Still crazy fucking Joey.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hustle & Flow

Director

Craig Brewer

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 28, 2005

Hustle & Flow’s buzz started at the Sundance Film Festival, that place where small movies with no distribution deals go to find some future, or just be plain rejected. In the case of this movie, there was a bidding war, and ultimately struggling Paramount Pictures got hold of it. Prospects were good. The movie was then released during the summer, where it had difficulties finding a wide audience and ultimately did just ok. But the road’s not over, since a lot of people are still behind the movie for they believe it deserves awards recognition. Talk about a long road.

DJay (Terrence Howard) is a Memphis pimp who lives with four of the girls that work for him: Nola (Taryn Manning), Shug (Taraji P. Henson), Lexus (Paula Jai Parker) and Yevette (Elise Neal). Their existence is somewhat bleak and business is not that good. Then DJay stumbles upon an old friend, Key (Anthony Anderson), who has since become a music producer, and convinces him that he’s got the talent to become a successful rapper. Key enlists the help of a musician from his church, Shelby (DJ Qualls), and from then on the adventure begins for all of them.

Hustle & Flow is a small inspirational movie about a guy following his dreams whiles everybody else think he’s crazy. There have been a lot of movies with similar paths, yet for some reason Hustle & Flow always feels unique. Why is that? I wondered that myself, and the answer I came up with is that this movie takes place in a far darker world than we’re used to see in the genre (or perhaps here it isn’t sugar-coated or glamorized, but instead we’re shown the harsh realities), and also because there’s a clear distinction in the way DJay goes through life: he’s just not sympathetic.

This last bit of information came as a shock to me while watching the movie, yet it felt utterly refreshing. DJay is not an angel, he’s not perfect, he’s not the needy guy you have to root for. He’s a pimp living in the low suburbs of Memphis. You can tell he’s had a rough life, and he’s no going to stand any bullshit. He can be nice one minute, and loathsome the next. He knows what he wants, and he realizes that his life never really turned out the way he wanted. So when a window opens, he jumps at the opportunity. He’s desperate, he needs to breath, and he’s going to have to fight because the road ain’t gonna be any easy.

The movie is not just about following a dream, but about a guy having a mid-life crisis, and the way that affects the people that surround him. He has a different relation with each of the girls, all of which are special in their own way. But I especially liked the one with Shug and how it ultimately evolves... truly heart-breaking. There’s also a scene near the end where DJay has to face an old acquaintance who became a famous rapper (Ludacris) and the way he handles himself and the way the scene plays... great character work there.

This has really been the year of Terrence Howard. I had never heard of the guy before yet he’s been in countless movies. This year he had Hustle & Flow and Crash, as well as strong supporting roles in Get Rich or Die Tryin' and Four Brothers. And I’m glad things are going well for him. His performance in the movie in question is a knockout. He gives DJay his soul and hits it out of the park. Excellent support is given by Anthony Anderson, Ludacris, DJ Qualls, Taryn Manning and especially Taraji P. Henson.

Kudos to director Craig Bewer for putting such a strong and difficult movie together.

Oh, and I liked those DJay songs as well!

“Just because you got the bacon, lettuce and tomato don’t mean I’m gonna give you my toast.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Music Box

Director

James Parrott

Year

1932

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 24, 2005

The Laurel & Hardy Moving Co., a newly founded business owned by friends Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, finds its greatest challenge it’ll possibly ever face when a job is assigned to deliver a piano up an enormous flight of steps. The stairwell, most certainly one of the most impressive in cinema history, looks terrifying by itself – but climbing it with a piano is a terror on its own, and one that has no match. The boys are up for it though, and after some setbacks (like the piano falling on Ollie as they try to unload it from their truck, for instance), they set to do the task.

This is just the beginning of Laurel & Hardy’s most laurelled short film, an Oscar winner. Some call it perfection and I wouldn’t hesitate to agree. After becoming a fan of the duo, I instantly searched for this gem and was absolutely pleased by it. As usual with the boys, it’s got both wit and pantomime and it flows easily, never stopping for a second but giving enough time from joke to joke to let the viewers laugh as they should. This is a perfect example of the guys’ incomparable mutual understanding, as they mimic half their communication and make it clear enough to the other and the viewers what they’re trying to say. Ollie is at his best bossy attitude and Stan is a magnificent follower, though rather careless at times—which causes the piano to fall from the top of the stairs down to the street!

I never thought seeing a piano fall down a stairwell could be funnier that it is in a cartoon but was I wrong. I never got tired of seeing the boys fail and the piano fall, playing those muffled, discordant notes in its way down. When things got complicated by passers-by, all the better: First there’s a nursemaid (Lilyan Irene) pushing a baby carriage and asking the boys to let her through; when they try to, the piano falls, she gets upset, and Stan kicks her. Then there’s the obnoxious Professor von Schwarzenhoffen (Billy Gilbert), who hates music, pianos, and the boys who try to get one near his home. Then comes the policeman (Sam Lufkin) who has been called by the nursemaid to set matters straight with the rude guys who are moving a piano up the stairs. And finally there’s the innocent postman (Charlie Hall) who, by way of helping the guys, informs them of a major mistake they have made.

When all that is said and done, the adventure has just begun. The stairs were the first step, now comes getting the piano in the house. The owners aren’t home, so they must find a way to do the job. If you think this spells disaster, you’re right. If you think it’s hilarious, you’re getting just the right idea. And just wait till Professor Schwarzenhoffen reappears, not to mention his wife (Gladys Gale)!

A remake of Hats Off, their own silent film where they had to climb up the stairs with a washing machine, The Music Box is a 30-minute pleasure and one of L&H’s finest hours (or half hours). Even their clothing is riotous! This is top belly laughs we’re talking about.

I am now a HUGE fan of Laurel & Hardy and I can’t wait to keep seeing what they have to offer. They’re simply irresistible and immortal. I’m so glad I have the chance to appreciate their work…

Policeman: “He kicked you?”
Nursemaid: “Yes, officer, right in the middle of my daily duties.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Constant Gardener

Director

Fernando Meirelles

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Director Fernando Meirelles made a splash in the international scene with his Brazilian movie City of God (2002), for which he went on to receive an Oscar nomination for his direction, a difficult task for a foreign language film. After that, everyone wondered what he would do next, and if it would live up to expectations. Yet the moment he opted to shoot a Hollywood movie as his follow-up, many people wondered if he had sold himself as so many directors do these days the minute they receive acclaim. Not Meirelles though. His work in The Constant Gardener is just as good as any trace of talent he had shown in the past.

Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a shy British diplomat who falls for an outspoken, beautiful student, Tessa (Rachel Weisz), and subsequently marries her. But when she is murdered during a trip to Africa, Justin starts to investigate what happened and why she was a target. He soon finds that Tessa was investigating the use of experimental drugs in African colonies as part of illegal research from a pharmaceutical company, something that could involve high powers between nations.

The Constant Gardener is based on a John Le Carré novel and adapted for the screen by Jeffrey Caine. The events depicted in the novel are fictional, yet it is quite obvious that Le Carré did his homework and wrote the novel as a denouncement of sorts. His work is mostly political, and the movie depicts that same aura with precise care, unraveling a difficult topic that is as relevant today as it was years ago. The movie is about conspiracies, politics, money, and a woman fighting the system for what is right.

Even with such a powerful theme treated in such an intelligent and suspenseful way, at its core the movie is a love story. And it is a beautiful one at that. We get to know Justin and Tessa’s relationship during flashbacks (the movie is impressively edited); we witness how their love first blossomed despite them being so different yet so alike; we also witness how Justin gets to know his wife even more so after she’s dead; and the realization of the things he missed and the things he didn’t know about his admirable wife are the aspects that hold the movie together.

Meirelles is surrounded by an impeccable technical team. César Charlone’s photography is superb, setting the right mood depending on the scene and where it takes place, yet showing exactly what it has to. Besides, the African vistas are breath-taking. Claire Simpson’s aforementioned editing is also exemplary, as is Alberto Iglesias’s suitable score.

Ralph Fiennes, one of the best actors out there, is in top form and gives one of the most powerful performances of his career. He is subdued and subtle, perfect at every step of the way. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful match, bringing luminosity and warmth with not one false note. Hubert Koundé, Danny Huston, Pete Postlethwaite and specially Bill Nighy bring excellent support.

Don’t be fooled by the lame title, this movie is an intelligent, adult thriller that should be seen.

“It’s almost like it’s a marriage of convenience and the only thing it’s gonna produce is dead offspring.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Saw

Director

James Wan

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Unknown actor Leigh Whannell came up with a surprise screenplay from a story by himself and his friend director James Wan, and the project was accepted. It dealt with a psychotic murderer that taught sick life lessons to his victims much like David Fincher’s serial killer in Se7en (1995). Unlike the latter film though, this one would deal with a specific case, the experience of a victim from start to finish, a challenge both in deciphering the puzzle and trying to escape the predicament.

The result is pretty amazing. One’s gotta admit that the premise is intriguing and I must say it pays off. It builds tension from the start and does nothing but increase it little by little. The first thing we see is a guy called Adam (Whannell) waking up in a dirty, smelly old bathroom and realizing he’s living a wicked experience. He shares the room with two guys: one shot, in the middle of the room, and one in the same situation as himself, on the other side. That’s Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who woke up before him but also has no clue what’s going on. Both guys go through many phases as they accept their situation and learn to trust each other to the possible extent. Lawrence just might have an idea who’s doing this to them if not why. Eventually, the psycho, known as the Jigsaw Killer, communicates with them, and gives them clues. There’s only one way out, he says: Dr. Gordon must kill Adam before six o’clock. If he doesn’t, Gordon’s wife and daughter, currently kidnapped by this guy, will be killed. Thus starts a battle against time in a search for a resolution, the most angst-ridden life experience possible.

The film is quick and exciting. I thought it’d stick to the one location where these characters are, but no, it goes to flashbacks of previous killings and also an investigation by two detectives, Tapp (Danny Glover) and Sing (Ken Leung). Even though we never get to know much about the psycho, we do feel immersed in his world of deadly traps, and we do feel the anxiety he causes to anyone who gets involved with him or by him. Detective Tapp is a good example of a person whose life changes because of this murderer. But he’s not the only one.

If not a masterpiece, not perfectly logical, not quite plausible, and not entirely satisfactory, Saw is a pretty damn good film. It keeps the viewer entertained and never quite lets down. The script is not bad concerning dialogue and pacing, and Wan’s direction is up for it. I’m not sure everyone loved the performances -- my colleague Morris trashed Elwes -- but I was very satisfied by both stars and pleased to see Cary in this kind of role. Glover was also a nice surprise and everyone else (including Michael Emerson, Monica Potter, Makenzie Vega, Shawnee Smith, Tobin Bell, et al) does a good job as well.

What’s with this guy Whannell? Came out of nowhere and suddenly scripted and starred in a major hit. Good for him, even though he must have something of a sick mind to come up with this kind of story. Good twist towards the end, too. Not quite clear, though, but satisfying all the same. This is good, gut-wrenching, terrifying fun. NOT for the squeamish.

“There are rules.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Elizabethtown

Director

Cameron Crowe

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 21, 2005

It was a sad day when Elizabethtown was publicly screened for the first time at the Venice Film Festival. The reviews that came out of there were disastrous, and after playing at Toronto to an equally scathing reaction, director Cameron Crowe decided to re-cut the movie. He supposedly cut 18 minutes and delivered a better movie. That doesn’t impress me since, for my taste, the movie is overlong in its final state... just imagine when it was longer! What I’m basically saying is that I’m sorry for director Cameron Crowe, one of my absolute favorites, but nobody’s perfect, and he definitely failed this time around. A harsh disappointment...

Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom) works at a successful shoe company until he is fired after his latest design fails miserably in the market, losing the company about one billion dollars. And just when he’s about to commit suicide, a phone call from his sister Heather (Judy Greer) interrupts him. She tells him that their father just died, and that he has to go to his natal city, Elizabethtown, to take care of the memorial, since their mother Hollie (Susan Sarandon) is too upset to do it. Drew then embarks on the trip, and in the way meets a plucky stewardess, Claire (Kirsten Dunst), who gives a new meaning to his life.

If you think the plot dangerously resembles Zach Braff’s Garden State (2004) you’re right. I didn’t think that movie was a masterpiece either, but it worked on its own level and was quite enjoyable. Elizabethtown, on the other hand, is a mess.

The first half of the movie is almost unbearable to watch. I don’t know what happened to Crowe but the characteristics that always elevate his movies are nowhere to be found here. From frame one you can feel the air going out of the balloon. There’s no energy, no pizzazz, no memorable lines or situations. We learn Drew is fired when his boss (Alec Baldwin) wants to meet him. He then goes on and on and on about firing him, in a series of scenes that are awkwardly edited. And let’s not get into the ridiculous circumstances regarding the fiasco for which Drew is credited (market research, anyone?). Then Drew goes home and tries to commit suicide in the most ridiculous way imaginable. Crowe certainly intended this to be witty, but amidst the movie’s perfunctory tone, it’s ridiculous. Then Drew boards a huge plane which happens to be empty. Say what? Then he gets home and the relationship with his wacky family is boring. He then has a laughably badly-executed encounter with a soon-to-be-married guy staying next door in his hotel … and I just gave up all hope.

I don’t really know where to pin-point the blame. The movie just doesn’t work. It’s scene after scene that screams to be loved, but Crowe tries so hard to please that it comes off as pretentious and a bore. There’s a much-lauded all-night cell-phone conversation that I didn’t think was that great. Perhaps I was too disappointed to be able to swallow it by then.

Even the love story between Drew and Claire rings false every step of the way. I never felt like I wanted them to be together despite her charisma and good heart. I just never liked him. There’s even a scene involving fire alarms gone awry that had the potential to be much more, but Crowe makes a quick edit and it’s over in an instant. A shame...

The finale totally kills though. The movie ends in such a high note that it’s a pity nothing coming up to that point resembled that level of energy or craftsmanship. But I left the theater quite happy, so that must say something about the effectiveness of the ending.

Orlando Bloom is part of the reason the movie does not work. I do think he’s a good actor, but something happened here that it became a burden to keep up with him. Both the character and the actor are uninteresting in the movie. Kirsten Dunst, on the other hand, channels Natalie Portman and does a good job, being adorable and the only reason the movie gets a pass at some points. Susan Sarandon has a glorified cameo that culminates in a touching scene that goes on for too long. And the rest of the cast is ok, with no one leaving that much of an impression.

I’ll be here waiting for the next one. I hope Crowe hits it out of the park.

“You’re always trying to break up with me, and we’re not even together.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Queen Christina

Director

Rouben Mamoulian

Year

1933

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Through the years I have discovered that I’m a nut for biopics. I especially enjoy it when this sort of film is not heavy-handed, and even dares focus on a particular aspect of the main character’s story without losing a general scope. I had heard of Queen Christina, the movie, for years. Many claim it’s Greta Garbo’s best, and I had heard it was just appropriate for her image and what she felt like in this world. However I had never heard of the actual Queen Christina, who reigned Sweden during the 17th Century. After watching the movie it was all pretty clear to me but I researched further: Christina was something of an ambiguity. Raised as a boy, she ascended to the Swedish throne at age 5 after her the decease of her father, King Gustavus Adolphus (played here by C. Montague Shaw), and remained a sort of masculine image for the people though everyone acknowledged her female nature. This has turned her into a sort of lesbian icon for centuries and there are several legends surrounding her about affairs with both men and women. Do you find any resemblance with the Swedish star that plays her?

The film begins with little Christina (Cora Sue Collins) being crowned after the King’s death. Then we fast-forward to Christina’s (Garbo) revolutionary and practical ideas, as well as her current romance with Count Magnus (Ian Keith). We get to know much of Sweden’s situation at the time, but our focus is constantly on the Queen, a constantly imposing but adored figure around her subjects. She has a special link not only to Magnus, but also to her lady-in-waiting Countess Ebba Sparre (Elizabeth Young). Bored, like most people in her privileged position, Christina longs for an escapade and has her way one day when she goes undercover with a small party and ends up at a small inn by following a Spaniard that catches her attention. The man, Don Antonio de la Prada (John Gilbert), is an envoy from his King to send a message to Queen Christina. The latter, pretending to be a man, befriends Antonio and they end up sharing a large room at the inn. That night, she reveals her gender, if not her true identity, and Antonio falls in love. That’s probably the most special day in Christina’s life, and certainly one of the most unforgettable moments in cinema, as Christina surveys the room, touching everything around, trying to stick it to her mind to be able to come back at will.

That’s when I knew the movie was special. I had found Christina’s story interesting but now I was completely absorbed by the way it was handled. Her chemistry with Antonio is implacable and her personality is clearly defined. We become accomplices of her secret romance and her next (public) encounter with the Spaniard is enchanting. The whole romantic subplot is dealt with in such an admirable manner that it’s beyond words.

In addition to Garbo’s parallelism to her character, Gilbert’s casting is also a stroke of genius. He had been her co-star in a couple of silent movies, as well as her real-life lover and fiancée, and his fading star could only be resuscitated by this great woman. It didn’t last long though, since he died not long later, but their onscreen romance will never be forgotten, and I’d say there’s no clearer example than Queen Christina. Besides the chemistry, Gilbert is up for the challenge as the dashing Spaniard who claims “life is so gloriously improbable” when Christina reveals herself as a woman. Much of her motivation revolves around him, and even though Laurence Olivier was considered (and even hired at first) for the part, I cannot think of anyone more appropriate than Gilbert.

As big a fan as I am of Grand Hotel (1932) and Anna Karenina (1935), I must say this is indeed the best Garbo showcase I’ve ever seen. She’s absolutely riveting and haunting, and so appropriate for the role it’s unbelievable.

A music score by Herbert Stothart, the cinematography by William H. Daniels, and every other aspect (costume design, art direction, sound, etc.) aid Mamoulian’s direction in a spectacular way. Watch out for the last scene, which includes what’s probably Garbo’s most famous shot. Films can’t get better than this.

“I have been memorizing the room. In the future, in my memory, I shall live a great deal in this room.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Director

Scott Derrickson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

When you hear the word “exorcism” in a movie’s title it instantly conveys a scary vibe. And the marketing campaign for The Exorcism of Emily Rose did nothing to clarify that this wasn’t precisely a horror movie, but more of a drama involving an exorcism. It turns out they made a good move, because the movie had a huge opening weekend and even though people found out they had been somewhat cheated, they actually got a good movie, which then turned into good word-of-mouth and eventually helped it become a hit. Marketing campaigns can’t always be trusted, but if they cheat to get people to see a good movie... mmm… I forgive them.

Attorney Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) is assigned to the case of Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson) after the latter is accused of murder by negligence when a 19-year old girl, Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter), died after he performed an exorcism on her. Prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) will try to prove in court that Emily was sick and could have healed with a constant treatment, while the defendant’s side will try to prove otherwise, in what may become a high-stakes battle between the spiritual and the scientific.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a movie about a trial and is based on a true story. I don’t know the real details that went on, but whatever licenses the writers and filmmakers took while telling their story I have to say it worked. The movie is an intelligent recount of a fascinating case told in entertaining fashion, as we follow Emily’s story in flashbacks as it is told on trial. This device works really well, because there’s suspense and horror to spare in Emily’s story, but the trial is just as suspenseful as anything happening in the flashbacks, and that’s a task for which the script and the good direction by Scott Derrickson must be credited.

There are two kinds of people in the movie: those that believe that demons actually exist and that Emily was possessed, and those who go for the medical side and find that there’s a logical explanation to what happened to her. There really isn’t one side to the story. Just as Erin says in her closing statement, there are no facts, but you have to concede that there’s a possibility. The movie certainly leans towards the defendant’s side, and uses this opportunity to create some supernatural suspense in some of the scenes taking place in the present. Some people will discredit this and say they went too far. I actually believe in demons, and I knew beforehand about a lot of things that the movie talks about. From my point of view, it isn’t too far from the truth, and that made the experience a hell lot scarier.

If anything, the movie is expertly acted. Laura Linney is superb as usual. We don’t know that much about her character as the movie starts, but we do see that there’s a transformation as the movie advances, and Linney brings credibility to every proceeding. The same goes for Tom Wilkinson, who doesn’t go for the saint approach sometimes given to priests in movies, but he plays his character as a real human being, with good and bad sides. Campbell Scott is the villain, if you may say so, and does a good job. And Jennifer Carpenter gives a shocking, physically-challenging performance that stays with you.

“Once you see the darkness, I think you hold onto it the rest of your life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Viridiana

Director

Luis Buñuel

Year

1961

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Perhaps Viridiana isn’t one of Luis Buñuel’s best known films, but it should be one of his most notable. I had always heard about it since the main actress, Silvia Pinal, is a Mexican like myself, and quite famous around here. Lately I had a chance and I snatched it, and the film has haunted me since.

The storyline is quite simple but so full of small complexities it’s unbelievable. It deals with an innocent nun, Viridiana (Pinal), who’s commanded by her Mother Superior (Rosita Yarsa) to visit her uncle and life-long benefactor, Don Jaime (Fernando Rey). The girl gives in following her vow of obedience, and finds in the old man a nice relative with nothing but good intentions. Things turn bad however when he becomes obsessed with her similarity to his late wife, and decides that she should stay with him for good. After some failed attempts, Don Jaime feels defeated and takes drastic measures. That’s when his son Jorge (Francisco Rabal) appears, and Viridiana, who’s lost much of her innocence, sees her life take a 180° turn.

Buñuel was everything but shy at including all sorts of symbolisms in Viridiana. The film was very controversial back when it was made, and even banned in its country of origin (Spain) for a while, because of its obvious criticism of Catholicism. Fascinating as it is, one must admit that the movie went too far in this aspect, and handled its criticism in a sort of exploitative way, anything but subtle.

I was immersed by the story (by Buñuel and Julio Alejandro) and intrigued by the risks it was willing to take, especially the one where it seems that one movie has ended and another has begun. This makes it seem episodic, but not quite: everything is connected, and the morale, if not too clear throughout, is very potent. This is a film about ungratefulness, abuse, dark sides, and distrustful appearances. As mentioned, Buñuel portrays these illnesses of the human nature through subtle or direct attacks on the Catholic Church, but he’s careful not to make a big joke out of the piece. Even the religious values are crushed by some of the characters, which appears to be a message against the people who manipulate religion more than against religion itself. Whichever the case, sometimes it feels more like a personal obsession of the filmmaker than a raison d’être of his film.

Much of the running time, Viridiana is a dramatic piece of a few characters. There’s Viridiana, Don Jaime, his servant Ramona, Jorge, and a few more. However, from a point on, several characters are introduced, all of which are dead-on in their portrayal, and played by magnificent actors whose ensemble is heaven-sent (no blasphemy intended). I loved each and every one of the scenes starring these people, especially one that imitates/mocks Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting “The Last Supper,” and I’m not talking about that shot only, but the whole sequence surrounding it. How could they put so much irreverence in a single sequence? It’s unbelievable, irresistible, and what’s worse: it rings true.

The ending is deliciously cynical and wickedly low-key. I hear Buñuel was forbidden by investors to make it like he wanted to, but later he appreciated this since the final scene says so much through so little. It’s true. At first I didn’t know what to make of it, but now I’m completely awed by how it was handled. It was just the perfect ending for a film that lacks some subtlety throughout.

Not much to complain about though. As expected from this master director, every aspect is top-notch, and there are so many layers to discover, it can keep a movie buff busy for quite a while.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Broken Flowers

Director

Jim Jarmusch

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 14, 2005

Jim Jarmusch may very well be considered a cult director. He’s a guy whose work is not well-known outside of art-house circles. Yet actors love to work with him, he’s respected all over the world and every new movie of his brings a lot of expectations with it. I personally had not seen any of his movies prior to Broken Flowers, his latest and most accessible (or so I hear) movie. But the moment the movie started I felt like I just met him. That’s how unique and notorious his style is.

Don Johnson (Bill Murray) is a rich middle-age man whose latest girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), just left him. That’s also the day he receives a letter that claims to be from an anonymous ex-flame of his in which she tells him that he has a son who’s on a trip searching for his father. Don then shows the letter to his inquiring neighbor Winston (Jeffrey Wright), who convinces him to go on a trip of his own and visit the women he had relationships with around that time.

Broken Flowers is episodic. It starts by letting us know Don a little bit, just the specific details about his life that tell a lot about him and his loneliness, his closeness and his boredom. Then he goes on a trip in which he visits four women. I don’t want to delve into what each character brings to his life at that moment, because it’s a pleasure to discover each character just as Don does. Needless to say, all women have gone on to live very different lives, and their reactions towards Don’s visit is wildly divergent.

What ultimately holds the movie together is the trip that Don embarks regarding his persona. We see what each woman does to him, we see how he struggles to come to terms with the past and try to bring it back to the present. We see how he comes to realize that life has a lot to offer, and that he is still able to be happy if he goes for it.

Jarmusch fills his movie with carefully constructed scenes full of exquisite details that can be plain informative or simply hilarious. It plays as a comedy, as a matter of fact, but it goes deeper than what the genre implies. It’s got a seriocomic tone, one that never flags.

About the ending, I won’t spoil it for you, but I’ve got to say it’s better than I expected, and also surprising. I liked it.

Murray is phenomenal. We’ve seen this performance before, but he does it so well that it’s impossible not to fall for him all over again. And the women are terrific, despite limited screen time by all. Sharon Stone is delightful and sexy, Frances O’Connor is letter-perfect, Jessica Lange amazes and Tilda Swinton goes unrecognizable. Chloë Sevigny also appears among a large cast that fill their roles with gusto.

Bittersweet and poignant slice of life…

“That was quite an outfit you weren’t wearing earlier.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sons of the Desert

Director

William A. Seiter

Year

1933

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are of course internationally famous and I don’t think there’s a living person who doesn’t live in an isolated society that doesn’t know who they are. They’re known in my country as “Fat and Skinny” and I grew up watching some of their shorts that my dad admired. However, recently I realized that I hadn’t actually watched or appreciated their work. Funny how you know some artists so well despite not having seen much of what they do, just because they’re icons. So I went out there to get some of their most memorable shorts and features, and here I am reviewing what’s usually regarded as their best feature film, Sons of the Desert.

…with reason! The movie shows the pair at the top of their game in a perfect contrast of personalities despite a constant feel of latent friendship – a key to their success. I found it amazing how their accents and cultural roots also play an important role in their team. This paragraph belongs in a biography rather than a film review, but anyhow, since the story relies so much in the interaction caused by all this, I don’t think it’s out of place.

The story presents the friends and neighbors in a session of the Sons of the Desert lodge, where the members are summoned to a convention and compelled to take a vow that they will attend – a vow that hasn’t been broken for generations. Terrified (and hiding it), Oliver prepares to face his wife, secretly knowing she’ll say no but bragging about how he controls her. Stanley is not as shy at first in admitting he’s not quite the king of his castle, but when he finds the opportunity to humiliate his friend, he grabs it – to awful consequences. The wives, Oliver’s (Mae Busch) and Stanley’s (Dorothy Christy), sure control their husbands, but they are quite different in their approach: Oliver’s is more violent and Stanley’s is more compassionate. Giving in, Stan asks for permission and gets it, but Oliver is prouder and more stubborn. To get his way, he pretends to be sick and pays off a doctor to prescribe a trip to Hawaii, which will save him from going to the mountains with his wife and allow him to go to the convention. Stan plays along, pretending he’s going to Hawaii with his friend, and hilarity ensues.

But a twist happens at the convention, where an intensely prankster conventioneer (the great Charley Chase – first time I’ve seen him in action!) befriends the boys and turns out to have an unexpected relation to them, which is just the beginning of trouble.

What a funny film! It’s perfect. The comedy of these guys is unmatchable in every way: pantomime, dialogue, delivery, timing, etc. The story is a perfect excuse for hilarity and the casting of the wives is heaven-sent, especially Busch’s as the bad-tempered wife (probably the funniest supporting character – a close race with Chase). I love how scene by scene there’s a reason for the boys to prove their comedy but it never turns tiresome because the story’s constantly flowing. When all is said and done, everything is over much too soon and the audience is left wanting… which is just ideal.

Every comedy bit is a classic, but my favorite is the one where Ollie acts sick, how I laughed! Laughter kept coming from then on though, and I’m so eager to watch it again!

Oliver: “Why did you get a veterinarian?”
Stan: “I didn’t think his religion would make any difference.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Millions

Director

Danny Boyle

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

I can’t complain about good directors who have a certain style and always work around the same genre. After all, that’s what they like and they do a good job, right? But it’s also exciting when good directors want to try everything. The results may be mixed sometimes, but when they hit it out of the park, it’s a great experience. Such is the case with Danny Boyle, who continues to surprise by either doing such a hallucinatory drug movie as Trainspotting or a scary zombie flick as 28 Days Later... With his latest, Boyle enters kiddy territory, and the result is fantastic.

Damian (Alex Etel) and Anthony (Lewis Owen McGibbon) are brothers who just lost their mother and are moving to a new place with their father Ronnie (James Nesbitt) to start a new life. While in his self-made playground, Damian stumbles upon a bag full of money that apparently fell from the sky. He would like to give the money to the poor and needed, while Anthony can only think of investment. There’s one problem though: in one week Pounds will be history, as the Euro becomes the new English coin.

Millions is a movie for the whole family, although it isn’t even close to resemble Disney-fare or such. Remember, it’s Danny Boyle directing, so the movie is a little dark and twisted, yet this is the closest the director will ever get to make a children’s film.

It’s always been a fantasy to all of us what we would do if we suddenly became rich. This movie, interestingly enough, deals with that subject matter from the point of view of a kid. And what a kid! Damian is quite something: a child devoid of any trait of selfishness and with a heart as pure as can be. He knows everything about the Saints because he likes to read about them, and he keeps having appearances by some such as Claire of Assissi (smoking a cigarette and claiming to be the patron saint of television) or Saint Nicholas (who helps him deliver money to some “needy” Mormons). I won’t ruin which other saints appear or what they do, because that’s just one of the many whimsical pleasures the movie has to offer. Just know that the movie is neither overly religious nor overly irreverent. It’s somewhere in between.

The movie does not hide the fact that a lot of problems can arouse from two normal kids just suddenly having a lot of money in their hands. People get suspicious, the owner of the money is desperate to get it back, and the boys get in trouble when Damian donates a lot of money at a charity event in his school run by a nice lady named Dorothy (Daisy Donovan). Besides, they have only one week to spend, or change, the money. The ramifications resulting from all of these subplots are a pleasure, since Boyle and screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce find the perfect equilibrium of not treating the kids either as cute little things or as unbelievably intelligent in their decisions. They’re just kids, and that’s that.

Alex Etel and Lewis Owen McGibbon are perfect in their roles. What a pair of natural, charming and spot-on kids they found! Especially Etel, he’s quite a find! The movie rests on his shoulders and he’s superb, with not a false moment and not a moment where we realize he’s acting. He delivers one of the best child performances of the year, if not the best. And the adult cast is very good as well.

And I just loved young Damian asking about a certain St. Maureen, and the way it pays off.

Imaginative, off-beat, and delightful... a real treat!

“God doesn’t rob banks!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Rebel Without a Cause

Director

Nicholas Ray

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

If there’s one film in history that understands and appropriately interprets the alienation of young people, that’s Rebel Without a Cause. There has rarely been a movie that reaches its target audience more successfully or more prosperously than this, and it’s no luck or coincidence. The second starring feature of James Dean proved once again that his charisma and talent were irresistible; he again incarnated the confusion of teenagers, like he had done in East of Eden, but Stewart Stern’s script gave his character a more general problematic, a complete unsettledness that talked to a more general audience: he’s a young man who cannot reach his parents, his peers, or himself; a boy whose feelings are bursting out of his skin but he cannot turn them into anything useful the way things are.

The story begins in a police station where three young people have been taken: Jim Stark (Dean), found drunk in the street and accused of an act of vandalism, Judy (Natalie Wood), taken for a tramp for walking in the street by herself in the middle of the night, and John “Plato” Crawford (Sal Mineo), who shot some puppies in an unexplainable outburst of rage. The three have something in common: they’re confused and lonely. Their parents or caretakers don’t help: Jim’s dad (Jim Backus) is easily manipulated by his wife (Ann Doran) and neither understands what their son is going through; Judy’s father (William Hopper) has no clue how to cope with his daughter’s coming of age, and her mother (Rochelle Hudson) is not much help; and Plato’s nanny (Marietta Canty) tries unsuccessfully to replace his absent parents.

The three go home after a rough night and get ready to live through the next day, if their way of being can be called living.

Surprisingly, that vulnerable girl turns out to be one of the popular kids and quickly snubs her new neighbor, Jim, when he says hello the morning after. Plato is one of the rejects, shy enough to stay away from most everybody. Jim is willing to make new friends, probably in hopes to finally let his parents settle after so many moves on account of him. But all he finds is hostility, since Buzz Gunderson (Corey Allen), the leader of the “kids” and Judy’s boyfriend, doesn’t think he’s funny, and agrees to give him a hard time. In fact, Buzz secretly likes Jim, but still challenges him to a “chicky-race”, which sounds like danger, because they’ve “gotta do something.”

The chicky-race is a car competition where the drivers must jump before the stolen cars fall into a cliff; first man to jump is a chicken. Tragedy ensues, and the world of these young people is shaken to say the least. Their reactions are unbelievable but somehow ring true: Judy must cope with a great loss but she’s just numb and the situation at home doesn’t help; Jim is guilt-stricken but even an urge to do the right thing is unwelcome; Plato feels like he’s found real friends and a family for the first time and is more than anxious to start a new life. The three start living an alternate reality while they learn to understand themselves and their needs and the way to help each other. But third parties won’t let their utopia happen. Things can’t end up well when they’ve started so bad.

There are so many assets in this movie that it’s hard to name them all. I’d say the most important is it perfectly understands how teenagers see life, how every new adventure and misadventure seems to be the whole world to them and any change can be either life-threatening or the only hope for life. Nicholas Ray, that great master of visuals (aided by cinematographer Ernest Haller), presents so many strong images they’re unforgettable scene-by-scene. Of course everyone knows Dean’s red jacket over a white tee shirt, but that’s only one of the indelible visuals the movie has. Everything is harmonious with the story and emphasizes the feelings of the characters at every turn. To make procedures much more powerful, Leonard Rosenman added an incredibly dramatic, romantic, and action-filled score.

The young performers, many of which met early and/or tragic deaths, are all extraordinary. The three leads are at the top of their games but all the “kids” are great too, including Dennis Hopper and Frank Mazzola. Also worthy of mention is Edward Platt as the only understanding adult of the film.

A true American classic that’ll keep speaking to young people of generations to come…

“You’re tearing me apart!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Legend of Zorro

Director

Martin Campbell

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 07, 2005

For the record, I got a kick out of The Mask of Zorro, the 1998 movie about the swashbuckling hero which became a surprising hit, launching the career of Catherine Zeta-Jones and establishing Antonio Banderas as a strong box-office draw. Seven years later (perhaps too many) comes a sequel, sans Anthony Hopkins, that tries really hard to elicit the same magic as its predecessor, falling short in almost every respect.

Alejandro (Banderas) is having marital problems with wife Elena (Zeta-Jones) because he seems to care a lot more about his heroic job than about his family and kid, Joaquin (Adrian Alonso). They separate and Elena finds herself, mysteriously, in the arms of Armand (Rufus Sewell), a prominent businessman who may have something to do with the trouble surrounding the possible incorporation of California to the United States, something that the people desperately want.

The movie starts in a pretty high note, with an election and Zorro saving the day. The sequence is exciting, well-shot and shows the completely human skills with which he handles himself and his enemies.

Yet from then on it all goes downhill. The first half of the movie is so bad I couldn’t stop suffering from the burden it would be to sit through an entire second half. I don’t know if they shot the movie in sequence and couldn’t find the right tone until halfway throughout the shoot or what, but I’m talking about real bad. Scenes such as Alejandro and Elena fighting, a school fight involving Joaquin, a polo match between Alejandro and Armand, or a big party at Armand’s beautiful estate, drag and drag forever and are horribly executed. There’s bad dialogue, bad acting, bad staging, bad editing, bad everything. In the first movie there was a dance number between Alejandro and Elena that was its high point and left both the characters and the audience exhilarated. Here we get another dance sequence between both but this time they’re fighting, and let me tell you, we’re bored.

Part of the problem with the movie is that for romance to take place, the writers had to create a whole plot regarding complications in Alejandro and Elena’s relationship, turning her into a real whiner. Then again, I have to admit that some of the scenes in the second half in which they have rude exchanges are good.

And yes, the second half is much better overall. Even if the movie’s bad guys are lame and their motivations and origins even lamer, the movie finally takes off, with plenty of action scenes and suspense. I stopped looking at my watch for once and had a good time with it, especially during the whole train sequence.

Special mention to James Horner, who reprises his great score from the first movie, and actually makes this one look better than it really is. The photography is also quite something.

This movie is aimed directly at a family-friendly audience, especially young male kids. Thus, the humor is downgraded, as if kids weren’t a bit more intelligent and couldn’t handle a bit more brains. The performances go hand-in-hand with the tone of the movie, with Banderas and Zeta-Jones going for broad, if mostly unintentionally bad, comedy. But I guess that’s what they were required to do. And the kid, which is of the kind of movie kids that don’t exist in real life, has charm, but tries too hard. An unrecognizable Rufus Sewell appears as the main, and uninteresting, villain.

A mixed bag.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

It's a Gift

Director

Norman Z. McLeod

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 03, 2005

This was my introduction to W.C. Fields. This great comedian is not as internationally known as others from his day, but he’s not a bit less worthy. In fact, I found his comedy to be universal and immortal, and found it a shame that I’d never seen him act. Now I declare myself a fan.

Under the pseudonym Charles Bogle, Fields concocted a satirical story that tackles some of the subjects that he finds more annoying: family, salesmen, neighbors, etc. Scripted by Jack Cunningham, the plot has Fields as a family man who inherits some money from a relative and decides to buy an orange ranch in California. His wife (Kathleen Howard) doesn’t quite agree and keeps bothering him about it… and about most everything else. Harold Bissonette (‘Bis-son-ay’, Mrs. Bissonette would correct you) has always followed suit and is at the end of his rope. This time he’ll do as he pleases.

The first segment, at home, is a perfect introduction to a hilarious story, with the most uncomfortable shave any man can get and some action with misplaced skates. The second segment, at the grocery store where he works, is even funnier, with a blind and half-deaf customer (Charles Sellon) crashing around while other customers get impatient and Harold can’t quite deal with them all. The third segment, at the back porch, is also priceless, especially through the appearance of an insurance salesman (T. Roy Barnes) who’s looking for a Carl LaFong, Capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g…, and keeps bothering Harold about that, while other neighbors and circumstances also make sure that he doesn’t get any rest. Finally there’s the last segment, the road trip, which is a climatic sequence, not necessarily funnier than all the previous ones, but quite an appropriate wrap-up. All in all, the whole experience is a laugh-out-loud trip.

Fields is my kind of comedian. He’s grouchy and misunderstood, but somehow he always makes his way. He’s fatty but pantomime is not a problem for him and he’s got enough ability to pull off every physical gimmick that’s required, or at least most of them. He’s the kind of guy who has everything to be disliked but turns that around to be irresistible. You constantly root for him but you also want him to face obstacles all the time since he does it so hilariously. He’s the star of the show and no one takes that away for a second.

The ensemble around is perfection, from Howard as his wife and Jean Rouverol and Tommy Bupp as his children, to everyone playing neighbors and passers-by. The standouts are Sellon and Barnes, though that’s something of a bold statement since everyone is so good.

A priceless American classic and a fantastic comedy, It’s a Gift is not to be missed.

Buyer: “You’re drunk!”
Harold: “Yeah, and you're crazy. But I'll be sober tomorrow, and you'll be crazy for the rest of your life!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

Director

Tommy Lee Jones

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (terrible title by the way) first came to notice when it played at the Cannes Film Festival and won prizes for actor Tommy Lee Jones and Mexican writer Guillermo Arriaga, who is quickly becoming a hot property after his excellent work in director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s movies. So I had high expectations, and when I finally got to see the movie at a film festival it sort of let me down. But let me explain...

Mike Norton (Barry Pepper) is sent to Texas as a border patrolman, where he moves with his wife Lou Ann (January Jones). One boring day Mike accidentally kills Melquiades Estrada (Julio Cesar Cedillo), an illegal immigrant caring for his sheep. Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones), a ranch man who was Melquiades’ good friend, finds out about this and takes Mike as a hostage so they can both bring the dead man’s corpse to Mexico with his family. But local Sheriff Belmont (Dwight Yoakam) won’t make it any easy for him, especially since they have never liked each other and they’re both fucking the same woman, Rachel (Melissa Leo).

The movie starts with the most embarrassingly awful credits design I have seen in a high-profile movie. The names of the people involved appear in different bright colors (red, orange, green, blue, etc) with the backdrop of the sunny desert. I don’t know why they did it, but those credits belong to a movie about a circus or something like that, not here.

The story is pretty interesting and original, but the movie does not sustain its premise as well as it should. I fault, surprisingly enough, Arriaga’s script. The movie is simply over-written. And I didn’t even care that much for the Americans-bad-Mexicans-good one-dimensional approach. There are some scenes that are too over-the-top (take, for example, the exaggerated police team arriving at the blind man’s house), the movie is told in non-linear episodic format (which in this case I don’t think was really necessary), and there are entire bits that drag for a while (the whole middle section especially).

There’s also some cartoon-y feel to some of the proceedings. While in the desert, Mike has every inconvenience you can imagine, and it’s played as if we should feel good about this. Thing is… we do, which is somewhat disturbing in a serious movie that is trying to say something real and important (albeit without any kind of subtlety). There’s even a scene where you think things couldn’t get worse for him in which an angry lady beats the crap out of him, and the audience at my theater actually cheered and applauded. I’ve got to admit it felt good, but I’m not sure this in-your-face approach was necessary. I’m just saying that I do know how border patrolmen can be unnecessarily tough to illegal immigrants, I know, but this movie borders on the ridiculous at times, believe me.

I’ve mentioned the bad, now for the good. The movie has a political agenda and it certainly comes across loud and clear. It’s an important subject to tackle and I’m glad someone had the balls. The story of Pete is also well-handled and he is the most interesting character in the movie. Here’s a man who once made a promise and is determined to see it happen, which says a lot about honor and dignity. The journey takes Pete through a series of events in which he changes and tries to find the meaning of his life. At the end of the day, the journey is about something completely different, sending Pete into a redemptive burst that comes in the heels of his uncertainty.

I also enjoyed the subplots involving Lou Ann and Rachel back in the US. Their stories and portrayals are the most real depictions in the movie. There are many women like them in real life, and they are presented as fully-fleshed three-dimensional individuals in the short period of time they’re given.

And also, there are some comedic bits involving the corpse that are very welcomed.

Kudos to every actor involved. Tommy Lee Jones delivers a performance that is a career highlight. He grounds the larger-then-life story and gives it weight. Melissa Leo and January Jones are extraordinary. Pepper and Yoakam are good as well, it’s just too bad their characters do not ring that true.

Still, a worthy trip.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Goal!

Director

Danny Cannon

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

I remember Kuno Becker quite well from a couple of Mexican soap operas, from which I never saw any, but since soaps are so important in this country you just have to know a few stars. Then he disappeared and I heard of him only years later when Goal! was first announced around here. I understand the film doesn’t have a release date in the US yet, which is a shame, because though I understand that the interest over there is very reduced, this is a good movie that should be enjoyed by everyone up there.

The classic sports star formula is put to work yet again and yet again it works like wonders by both avoiding cliché and falling in it shamelessly. The heart is there at every turn and the result is thrilling. I enjoyed every second of it and I’m happy that it was released in my country. It was also a pleasure to see Kuno Becker again, and realize what a good actor he is. Even though his character sometimes neglects of his Mexican origins (one of the quibbles I had about the story), he was up for the challenge and turned out completely credible and compelling. Good, because he carries the movie on his shoulders. I wonder how Diego Luna would’ve done in the role, as originally intended… Who cares? I wouldn’t change Becker for anyone else. This is the first part of a trilogy, and I can’t wait to see the second and third parts!

The story is about an illegal Mexican immigrant in the US who simply rules at football (soccer) and dreams about becoming a star but doesn’t really think it’ll happen. Working with his father (Tony Plana) as a gardener, he’s starting a life of mediocrity and hopelessness. Only a miracle could save him, it seems, and it happens when ex-player Glen Foy (Stephen Dillane) discovers him and recommends him to the Newcastle United club in Britain. Things aren’t quite simple though, as Foy has already been forgotten as a player and has long lost his touch as a talent scout, but Santiago goes for it and gets his chance. Funny: even after he’s got his shot, he finds that there are several more challenges to face. One after the other, he has to fight all obstacles. Success looks easy from the outside, but it’s really not a matter of luck, but rather of effort, courage and perseverance.

I really liked how the story was so complex though it looked so simple. It talked about family values, love, illness, prejudice, conformism, emotional wounds, friendship, excesses, and several more themes. Santiago’s journey is exciting in the way that he not only has to fight against the obstacles, but he also has to be genuine at every turn, sometimes at a very high cost. The clearest case comes when he befriends the party-loving star of the team, Gavin Harris (Alessandro Nivola), and has to endanger that valuable friendship by lecturing the guy. Another important dilemma comes when he gets the chance to step over the guy who helped him at first, Glen Foy, for his own personal success. Dilemma!

Sadly (or not), we always know where the movie’s heading, so there’s not much suffering though there probably should be. The film is more fun to watch than anything else, and all the appealing characters help a lot. Marcel Iures is extraordinary as the team’s head exec, whose wise words are unforgettable. Gary Lewis as the coach, Anna Friel as the girlfriend and many more, form a wonderful cast. Really good casting job, and some extra pleasure for football fans in the form of cameos of famous footballers whose presence is undeniably strong.

My major quibble: Though the editing was really good, especially during the football action, I never quite swallowed that Becker was actually playing. Many aggressive cuts are made from his face to his feet, and it just didn’t seem real. What’s worse: sometimes the face of his body double was visible and differed a lot from Becker’s. Oh well, I went with it, but it was never easy. Another thing I didn’t like, but this is a minor quibble, is how the story depended so much on coincidence and how the lead character sometimes took some really dumb decisions and depended on luck to solve his problems. I guess it happens though, but I would’ve liked to see him fight harder at times.

Do I complain? Not at all. I loved the story and script, the characters, the music (by Graeme Revell) and the direction. This winning movie is really a breath of fresh air. Watch it. And distributors: release it!

"He saw me play!"

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter