CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

On Golden Pond

Director

Mark Rydell

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 30, 2006

On Golden Pond is a must-see if only for the star caliber and the unbelievable fact that its two legendary leads, Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda, never shared credits before. The film also went on to win them fantastic accolades, among them, the Oscar, first for him and fourth for her, in two prolific and very vast careers.

Ernest Thompson adapted his own play about an old couple going to their Maine cottage on Golden Pond. Ethel’s cheerful and happy to be there with her husband, just when the loons are back too. Norman doesn’t feel half as pleased, mainly because his 80th birthday is coming and he’s just not the same as before. To celebrate said event, Chelsea (Jane Fonda), Norman and Ethel’s daughter, pays a visit. She’s estranged from her father and it’s pretty obvious that their relationship has never worked.

Thompson’s work is incomparable. He conveyed a story about companionship, reconciliation, family values, forgiveness and death, and while making it totally poignant, he also turned it into a fun ride, comical more often than not and very moving in more ways than one.

The plot involves Chelsea’s new fiancé, Bill (Dabney Coleman), and his teenager son Billy (Doug McKeon). Their presence is significant and Billy’s eventual relationship with Norman is pivotal to the story; their scenes together are totally effective, but in fact, all scenes are effective in a script that has not one word more than it should.

Norman’s character is a stroke of genius, and he easily gets the sharpest lines, according to his personality. Ethel is a perfect counterpart, a wise and condescending person who lets love lead the way without being irresponsible. Hepburn’s and Fonda’s performances are real powerhouses worthy of all the praise that they’ve got through the decades; fantastic, unforgettable work by both.

Jane Fonda, Henry’s real-life daughter, is also at her best here. It must have been a tremendously affecting experience to work with her father, especially because they reportedly didn’t have such a good relationship either; the film made it work.

Coleman and McKeon are up to the challenge of interacting with these brilliant people.

With gorgeous cinematography by Billy Williams and an unforgettable music score by Dave Grusin to wrap up, On Golden Pond is an obligatory cinematic experience which also turns out irresistible.

“Listen to me, mister. You’re my knight in shining armor. Don’t you forget it. You’re going to get back on that horse, and I’m going to be right behind you, holding on tight, and away we’re gonna go, go, go!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Departed

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

It’s amusing how Martin Scorsese’s two prior movies, Gangs of New York (2002) and The Aviator (2004), got Oscar noms for Best Picture yet they’re still generally seen as disappointments (by me included). That’s what happens when you’re an auteur that has proven to have what it takes to deliver masterpieces here and there, then coming up with something that isn’t. But that’s unfair, since we sometimes forget that a mild Scorsese is still better than most of the stuff out there. Still, there’s no denying the joy that comes from realizing that the director is back at the top of his game with a movie that can easily be ranked among the best of his filmography. That’s what The Departed is.

Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) both grew up among Boston’s criminal scene and ended up enlisting in the Massachusetts State Police, albeit for different reasons. Colin is the protégé of Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), leader of the Irish mafia, and is there to get inside information for him. Billy, on the other hand, is trying to escape his troubling past but precisely because of it he’s appointed to infiltrate Costello’s gang so he can help eventually catch him. Both groups know there’s a mole amongst them, but finding its identity proves to be a difficult task, even when both men start seeing the same woman, Madolyn (Vera Farmiga).

The Departed is a remake of an acclaimed Hong Kong flick known as Infernal Affairs. I haven’t seen it so I can’t compare them, but this is a rare instance in which a remake is actually as good, if not better, than the original. Leave it to Martin Scorsese to break the rules. But he is aided by a spectacular, no-holds-barred script by William Monaghan. He not only wrote a carefully-constructed screenplay which seamlessly tackles two parallel storylines filled with cultural underpinnings, but his dialogue is cracking. I could watch even the lesser scenes over and over just to hear the characters speak. There’s not only intelligence at play here, but pizzazz galore. I love it when a movie leaves me in such a high.

If there’s one word I could use to describe the experience it would be “ferocious”. There’s a lot at stake in every scene and the characters are not only sharp, but act accordingly. They’re always ahead of us, and that gives the movie a welcomed unpredictability that lasts until the very final scene. I thought I knew how the subplot involving the woman they both love would play, but it took an unexpected path and became crucial to the story in a way that I did not see coming. That’s the movie in a nutshell, a cat-and-mouse game full of intrigue that never lets its guard down. One minute it is dead-serious and the other it’s funny as hell. It is also extremely violent, but always in service of the story.

Scorsese’s usual collaborators upped the ante with their impeccable work, whether it’s cinematographer Michael Ballhaus or editor Thelma Schoonmaker. The Departed is a stylized movie in every way, and you can see everyone worked at the top of their games. The same can be said of the director himself, who returns to form to a genre that he knows like the back of his palm. And boy does he work it...

Ellen Lewis’s casting is also one of the movie’s strengths. Every part is well-cast, and even big-name actors appearing in supporting roles do some of the best work of their careers. I’m talking especially about Mark Wahlberg, but also Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin and Ray Winstone. That said, Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance is the one to behold. So much anger and intensity went into his portrayal that it must have been a toll to get out of character. He continues to mature and show why he’s one of the most talented actors working in movies nowadays. The same could be said of Damon, who is downright distressing and uniformly exceptional. Jack Nicholson, on the other hand, is a hoot as the movie’s villain. His work is full of Jack-moments, yet it feels like a fresh take. And Vera Farmiga, as barely the only female presence in the flick, is excellent.

“I don’t want to be a product of my environment; I want my environment to be a product of me.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Deja Vu

Director

Tony Scott

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

I’m not quite the follower of Tony Scott’s, and I’m all out of energy for Jerry Bruckheimer’s super-powered special effects, so I wasn’t all that excited about their teaming as director and producer, respectively, of Déjà Vu. Still it didn’t sound bad, so why not? The result was quite better than I could have expected. Not only that, but I found that it was much wittier and profound than anyone would guess, so much so that it gets into risky terrain by getting too scientific at times and too… mind-bending at others. But at its core, it’s just a superior action flick. Which is good!

The story has ATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) investigating the tremendous explosion of a ferry in New Orleans that killed hundreds of Marines and civilians. He’s so good at it and starts finding so many clues so quickly, that the FBI, namely Agent Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer), ask him to join them for the investigation. These guys have a tool unlike anything that’s ever been seen before: a window into the past, which renders any actual four-days-old image, sound included, from any angle and with complete sharpness—only it can’t be rewound so that what’s been seen’s been seen but there’s no chance to see anything else.

Implausible as this tool may be (and it does stretch credibility to unimaginable limits), the story finds a way to explain it and give it an extra something that not only makes us believe, but it also has us in stitches wanting to know more and see more. In finding out more about the crime, Carlin gets obsessed with one of the victims, Claire Kuchever (Paula Patton), apparently killed before the explosion and planted in the crime scene. Through this “window into the past” (no other way to call it really, though the film explains it all in Einstein terms), he follows every step she made before her death, horribly witnessing the clock ticking until the time of her murder.

But wait – is she reacting to their presence? How can that be? They are watching her, but she couldn’t have known that, since it wasn’t going on when she was alive… or was it? Carlin smells something fishy in the FBI’s revolutionary tool, and even though this is getting dangerously into spoiler territory (no more than the film’s synopsis published everywhere though), he’s quite right: this window is more than a surveillance camera reproduction.

Is this a time-traveling film, or even a sci-fi one? Yes and no. By following a strict detective storyline, it gets into sci-fi terrain but does so in fashion, never stretching credibility too far and always sticking to the leading character, who is, in terms of understanding all this futuristic stuff, as ignorant as any of us viewers. That’s what makes the movie work: it’s so accessible for us all that even the star doesn’t quite get what’s going on, but still goes on and on with his goal in mind. The film never stops, and neither does our excitement. That’s to Tony Scott’s credit as well as Bill Marilii’s and Terry Rossio’s for their screenplay.

Denzel is routine (which is good) and Kilmer is wasted, but it’s great to announce that there are a couple of affecting performances: Jim Caviezel, as a madman, is rather chilling, and Paula Patton, as the victim, is lovely and quite the obvious subject of anyone’s obsession. Her casting is right-on. Adam Goldberg is also very welcome in his nerdy role.

Déjà Vu is packed with a few great action sequences (including a strikingly original chase scene) and an admittedly original storyline. There are some plot holes to be found, as in all films involving time-travel, but after an initial disappointment in that way, and a lot of after-thought, I must report that I’m quite satisfied and have become a believer. If not the greatest film of the year, or anything near that, this is smart entertainment!

“I’d try.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Guardian

Director

Andrew Davis

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 27, 2006

I’ve always defended movies that follow a familiar path but do so with intelligence and a genuine effort to engage the audience in what they’re seeing. It’s not only the story, but also the way it’s told. With that in mind, I went into The Guardian knowing exactly what was going to happen from beginning to end. Unfortunately the old formula gave way to a movie that does not truly work.

Ben Randall (Kevin Costner) has been working as a Coast Guard for years, but after a tragic incident in Alaska he is sent to a military training camp to serve as a teacher. His off-putting ways trouble the people at campus, but there’s one student, Jake Fischer (Ashton Kutcher), who is determined to be the best and survive the excruciating process. He also starts dating a beautiful local teacher, Emily (Melissa Sagemiller), while he struggles to leave his past behind.

Andrew Davis, who made The Fugitive some thirteen years ago, directed from a script by Ron L. Brinkerhoff. I don’t know who is to blame for the movie that turned out, if the writer for penning such a by-the-numbers uninvolving screenplay or the director for not noticing. Echoes of An Officer and a Gentleman are too obvious to avoid, but the comparisons are not flattering. We’ve seen countless movies about military training and this one’s got nothing new to offer. Even worse, it’s got two central characters we don’t care about, especially Jake. A greater effort should’ve been made to make him more likable as he learned the valuable lessons of life that Ben was there to show him. But nope, I still barely cared at the end. And an attempt to force a romance into the mix is perfunctory.

What the movie does have going for it are the actual rescue scenes. There’s two at the beginning and two at the end (one of which is excruciatingly anti-climatic). These scenes offer something in the matter of pulse and excitement. It’s too bad that we’re stuck with more than two hours of filler between them; overlong does not begin to describe the experience. Technical aspects are top-notch.

Kevin Costner has been having a renaissance as of late, and just like Bruce Willis, he’s good at this kind of roles in which he is forced to play a washed-out character who will ultimately find redemption. Still, he’s merely ok. And then there’s Ashton Kutcher, who is nothing to write home about either. I’ve found him likable in many other roles, but here he fails completely. We get him, we know why he’s got that shield, and yet we couldn’t care less. Fortunately he worked out for the role and it shows; his usual skinny look would’ve been out of place. Supporting performances are adequate, but too obvious. The mean-looking guy plays a mean character; the cute-looking girl plays a cute character, and so on…

“It’s the only number that I’ve kept track of.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi

Director

Richard Marquand

Year

1983

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 23, 2006

The conclusion to the Star Wars trilogy, in perfect logic leaped back from darkness and into light entertainment and sheer optimism after Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980). This time around, again aided by Lawrence Kasdan, George Lucas brought balance back into the galaxy by making the forces of good prove that the forces of evil simply cannot sustain themselves. Not quite unpredictable, but totally irresistible after the last entry, which brought an unbearable revelation that put everything at stake.

This third film has been highly criticized, even at the time of its release, but has done well in time because it is a good conclusion, and relies highly on light entertainment that pleases all, namely children who have grown up to praise what they remember to be one hell of a good time. I’m one of them, but my adult mind can’t help but see the inferiority of this film against its two predecessors, particularly the immediate one. Yet, the storyline is fairly coherent, everything that should happen happens, and the outcome is a quality piece. It might be the film I enjoy least from among the three, but it’s still a great film that I highly enjoy!

Even from the beginning the tone is set: the matters of the force and the Empire are relegated against the search for Han Solo (Harrison Ford), now captive in the palace of Jabba the Hutt (a character I have always found extraordinary). The whole gang goes to get him, led by Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and including Pricess Leia (Carrie Fisher), Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and the two droids, R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels). Jabba meets his fate in an episode that puts adventure as first priority, and makes us realize that we’re in for much more excitement!

Moving on to transcendental business, the Empire has begun the construction of yet another Death Star, and both Lord Darth Vader (David Prowse, voice of James Earl Jones) and his Master the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) are there to supervise it. The rebels, gaining knowledge of this and making a plan to destroy it, see in the endeavor a clear opportunity to put an end to the evil Empire. While Luke goes to see Yoda (Frank Oz) one last time, the guys get ready to destroy the dreaded planet-like weapon, first by deactivating its protective shield from land, then by attacking it by spaceship.

More and more episodic adventures ensue, all of which are very welcome. In the land of the Ewoks, furry bear-like savages that soon become allies, the gang gets ready for battle with the imperial troopers to deactivate the shield; Lando Calrissian and a bunch of rebels do their own by preparing out there in space; and Luke Skywalker has only one thing in mind: meeting Darth Vader and turning him back from the dark side of the force.

Performances are routine at best, the dialogue is rather lazy, and the story makes it appear like things weren’t as dark as they seemed after all, but it’s all in good spirit, and good fun, and even gets to nice terrain when Luke confronts both Vader and the Emperor. Ian McDiarmid, playing Vader’s Master, is quite outstanding and horribly despicable.

Special effects boom more than ever, and John Williams’ score is on top once again, in a perfect wrap-up for a fine and unforgettable sci-fi trilogy.

“Young fool… Only now, at the end, do you understand…”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Babel

Director

Alejandro González Iñárritu

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Babel is the final film in the so-called Alejandro Gónzalez Iñárritu and Guillermo Arriaga trilogy which was preceded by Amores Perros (2000) and 21 Grams (2003). They all share thematic and structural elements, although the scope got bigger with each. It was a fruitful collaboration, a different way of presenting tough dramas with something to say. It will be interesting to see what path they both follow, but their work together will have a lasting impression in the annals of cinema. And I say amen to that.

Two Moroccan brothers, Yussef (Boubker Ait El Caid) and Ahmed (Said Tarchani), are given a recently-bought rifle by their father to protect their herd, but one of them hits a tourist bus that was passing through. The shot wounds Susan (Cate Blanchett), who was on vacation with her husband Richard (Brad Pitt) and a bunch of other tourists. Back home their two kids, Mike (Nathan Gamble) and Debbie (Elle Fanning), are being taken care of by their Mexican nanny Amelia (Adriana Barraza), who decides to take them to Tijuana for her son’s wedding with the help of her nephew Santiago (Gael García Bernal), but things go terribly wrong on their way back. Meanwhile, a deaf-mute Japanese teenager, Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), is trying to cope with her sexual awakening while dealing with her estranged father (Koji Yakusho).

The movie contains four storylines that span four different continents (and as many languages). We go back and forth between each, but the time-line is not simultaneous. Fortunately it isn’t that complicated to follow what happens when, since we are given hints that clear it up. The device works because some of the threads come together eventually and give the movie a rare kind of poignancy that wouldn’t be there if we hadn’t witnessed each story in its entirety. It is also to the screenwriter and the director’s credit that each story is just as compelling as the other. They are all intense, haunting and suspenseful in their own way.

Babel (a title that references the tragic passage in the Bible) has a lot of things to say, and it goes from presenting a large canvas to a rather small (but just as important) one. It begins by showing the after-effects of modern globalization and how we are all related no matter what place in the world we’re in. It is a humanized take on the butterfly effect, and one that is chilling in its implications. Then it zooms-in to each individual thread and makes an ironic assertion that clashes with that first statement, for it shows that even in such a unified world, the inability to communicate within cultures (and even within our own) is staggering. And finally it goes deeper to show that even though we may all be different in every possible way, there’s one thing that we share, which is the importance we give to family and the love and protection that comes with it. Such a juxtaposition of ideas sounds complex, but it is crystal-clear in its conception. And by not losing sight of the more intimate moments, the larger picture consequently leaves its own mark.

I have always felt that writer Guillermo Arriaga has a distinct style in the way he tells his stories, but while I sincerely admire him I also think he has a tendency to overwrite. Babel is not the exception. To make my point I’m getting into spoiler territory. Take Amelia’s story. Her boss, Richard, wants her to cancel her son’s wedding (!) because she has to take care of his kids. No matter that it will only take an afternoon, she is still unable to find help but doesn’t even try with relatives or friends of the family. Fast-forward to their return from Mexico. Why does Santiago lie in saying that Amelia is the kids’ aunt? And what on earth was he thinking when running away when they were doing nothing wrong? The movie is filled with stuff like this. As if the writer wanted the characters to go from point A to B no matter the implausibility. In the Moroccan story… would the two children really aim for a moving bus? I may forgive that, but what about the subplot involving one of them spying on his sister? There is absolutely no reason why this is even touched-upon, so why bother. And then there’s the issue of Chieko’s story being only mildly linked to the other three. Maybe it isn’t a big deal, but you would think that if such careful detail was paid to everything then why not come up with something more relevant to tie things up. As it is, her story feels like a different movie altogether, one that shares some of the same themes and thus belongs, but rather in a forced manner.

The impression the movie generates is a powerful one. You end up exhausted, almost shaking from so much intensity. It gives you a lot to reflect upon. And it leaves some indelible images in your mind. A phone conversation that encompasses a wide array of feelings, a peeing scene that turns into an emotional examination of intimacy and forgiveness, a tender hug that says more than sounds and words would ever be able to transmit, a cry for help that comes from the last instinct of love and survival, and a general realization that we are all part of a puzzle, a bigger plan.

Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography and Gustavo Santaolalla’s score are integral to the movie’s overall effect, as is the editing from Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione. The use of sound in the Japan thread is also worth noticing.

As for the ensemble, it is flawless down to the smallest of roles. Three actors leave an especially strong impression. Brad Pitt looks more mature than ever, and this is one of the best performances of his already prominent career. He left a part of him in Richard, and it’s a brave piece of work. Adriana Barraza is heartbreaking as a woman trying to hold it together while watching her entire life crumble apart in an instant. And Rinko Kikuchi delivers a raw and nakedly emotional tour-de-force.

“I can explain.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Babel (2006): Groucho

Review

All About My Mother

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

The craft of storytelling is challenging enough, but the ability to mix moods and several threads into a coherent story is a whole different ballpark, requiring superior skills and, I ponder, extreme dedication and devotion. Pedro Almodóvar has all these characteristics, and after years of enlightening filmmaking, he created what some of us like to call his masterpiece, Todo sobre mi madre. The film surprised moviegoers and critics alike, mainly because it was a more serious Almodóvar, but also because of its outstanding blend of comedy and drama, as well as the seemingly effortless convergence of several stories.

The plot follows Manuela (Cecilia Roth), a single mother living with her son Esteban (Eloy Azorín) in Madrid. The teenager is lonely and highly sensible, an aspiring writer who admires his mother and spends his time wondering about her past and especially about his father’s identity. The event that triggers the story is not to be revealed here, but it happens on Esteban’s seventeenth birthday, which he chooses to celebrate by attending a stage production of “A Streetcar Named Desire”, after which Manuela and Esteban wait under the rain for the star’s autograph.

Manuela is forced to revisit her past by traveling to Barcelona, where the spectator witnesses what sort of life she led before, which is surprising. In a quest to find one person, she meets an old friend, transvestite prostitute Agrado (Antonia San Juan), and befriends a young nun in trouble, Sister Rosa (Penélope Cruz). She also gets a job as assistant of none other than the star whose autograph Esteban sought, Huma Rojo (Marisa Paredes), who plays Blanche opposite her girlfriend Nina (Candela Peña), who plays Stella.

This is a story about pain, love, loss, identity and redemption. It’s a collage that keeps coming up with surprises but ends up a perfect circle, satisfying in every thread; it’s also continuously entertaining. By borrowing important themes from Tennessee Williams’ famous play, as well as the film All About Eve (1950), it creates a statement about women and actresses that’s both important and haunting. However, as the title suggests, it also has something to say about mothers.

There’s not a single “conventional” character in the ensemble, which often provokes laughter. In fact, there’s probably more amusing scenes than touching ones, but believe me they’re all as effective, making this film one of the most successful efforts at making laugh one scene and cry the next.

As a center of the dramatic core of the story there’s Manuela, who’s going through a most painful experience and feels that she must bring balance to her life by facing the past that she once abandoned. As a counterpart, Agrado does what she knows best: make life pleasant for everyone around, including the audience. In a cast comprised of enlightened performers, their work should be highlighted for their effectiveness in carrying the two main aspects of the film on their shoulders and pull it off so successfully. However, the entire cast is a powerhouse, and everyone has at least one moment to shine, and makes the most of it.

Made unforgettable visually and audibly by Affonso Beato’s cinematography, Antxón Gómez’ art direction, Alberto Iglesias’ music and the rest of the artistic contributors, this film is so full of richness for the senses that there’s no way to have a bad time with it, even in that sense. Overall, it’s an affecting ride that packs a wallop in every way; a must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Prestige

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 20, 2006

A lot of people were excited about The Prestige because it put the two actors who famously portrayed Wolverine and Batman recently against each other. I liked that idea as well, although in a geeky sort of way. But the true reason I was eagerly anticipating it was Christopher Nolan, a director I truly love and admire and one that has never let me down. Truth is he didn’t receive as much acclaim with his latest foray as he has in the past, but this is far from a failure. There’s actually a lot to be enjoyed and it left me wanting for more.

Rupert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) knew each other since they both struggled to become bonafide magicians. Cutter (Michael Caine) was their instructor and the best magic-trick inventor of the era. But after a tragic incident involving Angier’s wife (Piper Perabo) they became enemies, trying to outdo each other at every turn while they became more famous.

The Prestige is based on a novel by Christopher Priest, which was translated to the big screen by brothers Christopher and Jonathan Nolan. The title refers to the third act in a magic trick; the first and second of which are the pledge and the turn. Interestingly enough, the movie itself is constructed around these three acts, and there are twists and turns galore for in the world of magic nothing is what it seems.

Angier and Borden are not individuals with whom one can easily identify. Each person will have their favorite, so to speak, but it is not the movie’s goal to make them sympathetic. Romantic entanglements take place at some point or other, but that’s not what the movie is about. At the end of the day this is a tale about obsession and its consequences, and as such it works from beginning to end. The two of them are determined to be better and to destroy the other. This cat-and-mouse game provides loads of fun mainly because it is done in an intelligent and intriguing manner, and their dark rapport generates a perverse sense of enjoyment for us viewers. The tale grabs us right until the end credits roll, and even then it leaves us reflecting upon what we’ve just seen.

It just happens that this is a complicated movie, but a carefully-constructed one. There are at least three different time-lines, something that puts you off at first but that eventually starts to make sense. Then there’s the question of whom or what to believe. Double-crosses abound and new queries appear by the minute. That said, the movie is brilliantly set up in a way that the truth is continually put in front of our eyes, but in such a way that we still doubt and question what it might really be (this was made evident to me in a second viewing, which I say is almost required). Every person will have different reactions as to the final revelations regarding both characters. I actually loved Angier’s side (with its fascinating implications) and I thought Borden’s was clever enough (although it involves a device that isn’t entirely successful throughout the movie). Then again, both stories present a great deal of complications and sacrifices once you think about them in retrospect, and they left me shockingly impressed regarding how far they were both willing to go.

The movie is a visual feast and that is because of the immense attention that was paid to every aspect of it. Wally Pfister’s cinematography captures the period in a handsome way, and Nathan Crowley’s production design could not be better. We spend a lot of time in theaters both on and off stage, and every place is so rich in detail that you might find yourself noticing something different every time you go back to the same location. Kevin Kavanaugh’s art direction and Julie Ochipinti’s set decoration have a lot to do with this.

Jackman and Bale make formidable enemies. They are both at the top of their games and you can feel their fixations coming out of every pore of their body. It may be hard to approve of their actions, but we understand were they come from and their motivations, as deranged as they get. It is a testament to their talent that neither becomes more loathsome or likeable than the other, which was exactly the point. Scarlett Johansson, as an assistant and love interest for both, is a pleasure to watch in every way despite her limited screen time (it makes you wonder why she agreed to play the role, but the better for us). Michael Caine provides solid support as usual and I also liked Rebecca Hall as Borden’s eventual wife. David Bowie also appears as real-life scientist Nikola Tesla, a casting choice that pays off because of the larger-than-life nature of the role. And Andy Serkis is a hoot as his assistant.

Nolan keeps proving that he is a man of many talents, capable of tackling different genres and doing so with expertise. May he continue to deliver movies with such high standards…

“Nothing is impossible.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lovers of the Arctic Circle

Director

Julio Medem

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Most stories in the world are interesting, but only when told interestingly. A simple romance, just any little romance in anyone’s life, is thrilling and haunting if seen from a certain perspective. Coincidences abound in our existence, but sometimes they’re overlooked or forgotten, or thanked for and that’s it.

Los Amanantes del Círculo Polar is the story of a romance that’s uncommon by definition, but also full of incredible coincidences and surrounded by tragic events that turn it epic and haunting à la Wuthering Heights with a small dose of “Romeo and Juliet.” The two people involved take into account the peculiarities of their situation almost like they’re more important than love itself, like the circumstances are to be regarded even before happiness is pursued.

Furthermore, director/screenwriter Medem tells his story in a groundbreaking way: it changes perspectives from Ana to Otto and back again, then switching to the point of view of both, then to that of a very special place in the world. The gimmick is ambitious and the result often effective, both because it’s proved that things are often seen differently by each person, and because the story is given an extra layer to us, like a third dimension.

That’s one way of seeing it. Another is that the story gets tedious and repetitious, and seems pointless soon enough (the conclusion can be spotted from miles away, but I don’t even think preventing that was the filmmaker’s intention). Yet another is that it’s overly artsy, almost forced in that regard. And yet another it’s that it’s fresh, provocative, and quite dazzling. I choose to take the good without forgetting the bad, and the end result is satisfying. I wouldn’t call this a must-see, but it’s sure worth a look.

The story is that of Otto (Fele Martínez) and Ana (Najwa Nimri), who met when they were kids and lived a lifelong romance. As children (played by Peru Medem and Sara Valiente) they fell in love for completely different reasons, and then his divorced father (Nancho Novo) and her single mother (Maru Valdivielso) got married. During their teenage years (played by Víctor Hugo Oliveira and Kristel Díaz), Otto and Ana maintained a secret romance for which Otto made some life-changing decisions that would later haunt him dreadfully. It seemed like a doomed romance from the start, and that’s the way it’s played all throughout.

The story is quite good and made believable despite its farfetchedness, which continues at every turn. There’s a whole subplot about how Otto got his name, which goes from romantic to overwhelming and finally becomes a major plot device that defines the third act. As for the main plot, it evolves towards the bad; Ana loses character and strength, while Otto seems to define their destiny through recklessness. The performances are also quite uneven: their infant versions charismatic, his teenage incarnation inexpressive, hers enchanting, his adult self crazed, hers weak… They don’t really seem the same people as they grow old. And it’s certainly not an asset that Nimri, a gifted actress, seems belittled by Díaz, who plays a younger Ana.

I will not deny that the film had an impact on me and stayed with me for a while after it was over. I couldn’t quite describe it either, when asked, because it’s so different to the usual fare. One thing’s for sure: it’s got something for everyone…

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Object of my Affection

Director

Nicholas Hytner

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Romantic comedies always follow the same formula more or less, and even though there’s nothing wrong with that when they’re well done, it’s refreshing when an original concept comes along. Such is the case with The Object of my Affection, a 1998 movie that has dated well because the topics it handles are more in vogue now than ever. And besides, it’s a charming flick… well worth a look.

Nina (Jennifer Aniston) is a social worker who meets George (Paul Rudd), a gay first-grade teacher, at a fancy party hosted by her step-sister Constance (Allison Janney) and her brother-in-law Sidney (Alan Alda). They immediately click and decide to share a condo despite the reluctance of her boyfriend Vince (John Pankow). Matters complicate when she gets pregnant and some adjustments have to be made.

Acclaimed British director Nicholas Hytner directed from a screenplay by Wendy Wasserstein that was based on a novel by Stephen McCauley. Hytner’s involvement is curious. After directing two rather arty movies, he seemed to have chosen this vehicle as a means of breaking into more commercial territory while maintaining an edge to his work. The result is a movie with intelligent observations about the human condition but surrounded by a sitcom-y feeling. That’s not a problem if you know what you’re into, especially since it is one entertaining ride.

I mentioned earlier that the movie tackles some themes that are not delved upon in movies of such a genre. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t happen in real life. A lot of women have gay men as best friends and it is not uncommon that some of them wish they were straight so they could hook up, or wish they could stay by their side forever. The same thing could happen the other way around. But how would it turn out if they gave it a chance? Would it work? What would be the rules? Would they end up hurting each other? There are no easy answers, for humans are complicated beings and sexual orientation does play an important part of who we are deep inside.

The Object of my Affection does not shy away from dealing with such delicate issues. But it suffers because it’s clear that the writer wanted to get to some specific places and the proceedings do not always feel natural. One gets the feeling that the characters are trapped and not able to think for themselves sometimes. There’s also a forced character introduction that is necessary so there could be an entirely happy epilogue. There’s too much that needs to be said, but it’s not always crammed in the most fluid of ways.

It should not be forgotten that this is also a comedy, and there’s plenty of it in the form of supporting characters. There’s nothing original about the way the leads have a friend or relative that they can talk to so that we can know what they’re feeling, but it’s a welcomed benefit when such characters are not dull or mere puppets. Such is the case here.

Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd exude charisma and share a lot of chemistry, which helps us believe in their story. Both are excellent and believable all the way. Nigel Hawthorne has a small role as a lonely man who has some wise advice to share and his scenes ground the movie, giving it a more serious and interesting feeling. Alan Alda, Alisson Janney, Steve Zahn, Gabriel Macht and John Pankow are all spot-on.

“You have to pick one person and make it work.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Babel

Director

Alejandro González Iñárritu

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

I was wondering, after seeing Babel, if I should come here and regard it a perfect film (“perfect” translated into the achievement of the highest rating). Why not, I asked myself. Well, yes, it’s moving… Sure it’s affecting, and certainly it achieves its numerous goals. Every scene is poignant, now that’s for sure. And every performance is a knockout. The direction is perfect; González Iñárritu has clearly mastered his craft. And the script is by far Guillermo Arriaga’s best to date… and one of the best of the current decade. The editing (Douglas Crise, Stephen Mirrione) and photography (Rodrigo Prieto) and music (Gustavo Santaolalla) are flawless… The film is suspenseful and entertaining and fun…

But the story’s got a few loose ends, doesn’t it? And some of the stories seem weakly related, using near excuses to become linked, like the filmmakers just wanted to tell them all and made up whatever came to mind to tie them down.

Have you heard more ridiculous arguments than those in the last paragraph to object a perfect movie? I hadn’t, and when my mind dared utter them, I shut them up instantly.

Babel is a magnificent film, the kind that doesn’t come often, and when it does, it doesn’t have as easy a time as it should at first, but finds itself highly regarded and enthusiastically revisited as the years go by. Why doesn’t everyone go wild over it at once? I know most do, but why doesn’t everyone? Maybe because it’s not as accessible as, say, last year’s Academy Award Best Picture winner, which in my opinion doesn’t hold a candle to this, González Iñárritu’s masterpiece.

In the conclusion of the so-called trilogy comprised of Amores Perros (2000), 21 Grams (2003) and the film whose review I’m writing, all of which tell several stories intertwined by a shocking event, the filmmakers have achieved the greatest emotional impact any filmmaker hopes for. It’s an insanely effective jigsaw puzzle whose greatest value is that putting the pieces together is not its main attraction, but rather looking at the woeful emergence of human emotions at its rawest at every turn.

The shocking event here is a rifle being shot at the wrong target. The kids who shoot it, Moroccan shepherds Yussef (Boubker Ait El Caid) and Ahmed (Said Tarchani), witness their life crumble after an unwise and irresponsible but sudden decision. Richard (Brad Pitt) is an American tourist who lives severe moments of regret and anguish as his wife Susan (Cate Blanchett) suffers an accident while on vacation far from home. Mexican nanny Amelia (Adriana Barraza) gets more than she bargains for when she takes the American kids she takes care of, Mike (Nathan Gamble) and Debbie (Elle Fanning), with her to her son’s wedding in Tijuana, taken there by her nephew Santiago (Gael García Bernal). And last but not least (never least in Arriaga’s concoctions), Japanese teenager Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), a deaf-mute, seeks desperately for a man’s desire in a world that she finds to be full of isolation and despair.

Every story is beautiful, tense, hopeless and finally illuminating. As mentioned before, neither is strictly related, except by a single event that affects one more than the next. It’s like the screenwriter wrote all those beautiful stories and found a way to tie them together, but that doesn’t matter, because they all have something to say and especially something in common: extreme situations make true human nature surface. There’s love, lust, hatred, forgiveness, regret, loneliness, sadness, lifelessness and redemption, and they are everywhere you look.

However, as the title suggests, the stories are also about the importance of communicating, and the impossibility to do so sometimes between cultures. There’s irony in some of the story threads, like one in which sensationalism concerning terrorist paranoia prevents a woman from getting proper medical attention, but there’s also a good look at two cultures clashing, like that in which a reckless young man and an intolerant officer get into each other’s nerves with deadly consequences.

The performances are uniformly flawless, but if there’s someone to praise in particular, it’s undoubtedly Barraza, who conveys so many emotions it’s unbelievable. Yet, Pitt, Chieko and the four kids (two Moroccans, two Americans) are outstanding. Everyone is, really.

Babel is dream-like, yet so real it hurts. It demands many viewings, and should be seen by one and all. It’s a must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Babel (2006): Morris

Review

Pan's Labyrinth

Director

Guillermo del Toro

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 13, 2006

Even though I’ve followed Mexican director Guillermo del Toro’s career up close, I’ve never been that much of a fan. I admire his work more than I like it, but perhaps it’s because the genres he usually tackles are not what I would call my favorites. That said, his latest, El Laberinto del Fauno, has received universal praise, including one of the longest standing ovations that the Cannes Film Festival has ever witnessed. I was happy for him, but even more so when I realized the movie lived up to expectations.

Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) is a young girl who travels with her pregnant, and ill, mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) to a remote cottage to live by her stepfather, cruel Cpt. Vidal (Sergi López). He is the leader of a group of fascists who are trying to hunt rebels in Spain during the war. But amidst the horror, one day Ofelia follows a fairy that takes her to a haunting labyrinth where she meets faun Pan (Doug Jones), where she learns that she is actually the Princess of the Underworld but must complete three difficult tasks before assuming her identity.

Guillermo del Toro has repeatedly said that he has always been intrigued by the mythology of fairy tales. We always associate that term with something pretty or optimistic, but ancient tales tend to lean more to the macabre. He wrote a screenplay on this basis and turned over a movie that is no laughing matter. It is, on the other hand, a very adult, very violent take on fantasy in the midst of brutal realism.

There are two clearly structured storylines which seamlessly converge and are equally effective. Del Toro keeps us guessing as to the nature of Ofelia’s quest. Is she dreaming? Is she imagining things? Or is it all real? The answer does not come until the end, but the movie succeeds in making an allegory about how there can be an escape to the horrors of our lives when we set our mind to it. Perhaps as we grow up we lose that innocence, but Ofelia never loses her faith and goes through a harsh internal journey that is fascinating to watch. The movie’s also terrifyingly bold in its assertion that sometimes humans can be more vicious than actual monsters. It is sadly in our nature, and it comes to vivid life in the form of Cpt. Vidal.

The last fifteen minutes have both storylines coming together and leading up to an extremely poignant ending. In my humble opinion, the finale elevates the movie and gives it a deeper significance. I was already in awe, but when it was all over I was breathless. Still, there’s something quite interesting that I can’t not mention: I don’t think I want to see the movie again. I love and admire it for what it does and how well it pulls it off, but it doesn’t feel like the kind of experience I want to have again. Perhaps that says more about me than it does about the movie, but it’s there and I may not be alone in that assertion. Maybe it is too brutal and cold to be completely enthralling, but the irony is that I can’t think of any other way to tell its tale.

Technically speaking the movie is a little box of wonders. Javier Navarrete’s score is magical, Guillermo Navarro’s cinematography is beautiful and Eugenio Caballero’s production design is flawless. The make-up and special effects departments also do a superb job. The movie is a feast for the senses, especially when it comes to its visuals and all the imagination inherent in them. There is ambivalence between the creepy but perhaps friendly environment in the fantasy world that is especially remarkable in its conception.

Ivana Baquero is a real find. The movie rests on her shoulders and she has no problem with that. She is so beautiful and her face so expressive that you can’t but fall for her. You can see how she handles every scene with expertise and it made me want to see more of her in the future. Sergi López is cast against-type and he is superb every step of the way. I also enjoyed Maribel Verdú’s performance as a maid who befriends Ofelia and who has some struggles of her own. Not only is the character pivotal to the story, but Verdú brings her to life with aplomb. Also of notice are Ariadna Gil, Doug Jones and Álex Angulo as the doctor.

“I am… I am a faun. Your must humble servant, Your Highness.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back

Director

Irvin Kershner

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Almost like it was meant to be, the sequel to the sleeper super-hit Star Wars (1977) became the heart, the core, and the pivotal piece of a saga. Much of what had happened led in a very natural flow towards the events in this sequel; much was probably made up but flawlessly pieced together with the previous episode. Furthermore, every technicality that showed the lack of budget in the first film became perfection in this one, which mattered a lot to its producer, George Lucas.

But something much grander and incalculably more important happened here: the script was written by Lawrence Kasdan (with a contribution by Leigh Brackett, who died in the process), and the direction went to Irvin Kershner. From an artistic point of view, this could be considered one of George Lucas’ wisest decisions ever made.

The sense of wonder and awe is still there, but this time in a much realistic, darker way. The fairytale mood is gone, giving way to a grimmer outlook, where winning a battle is not nearly enough for the Rebel Alliance to succeed. Even the setting seems to emphasize this: the story begins in the cold ice system of Hoth, where the rebels currently hide.

Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford) have become important members of the Rebellion. Lord Darth Vader (David Prowse, voice of James Earl Jones) now commands the Imperial forces and fanatically pursues the rebels, particularly young Skywalker. The latter, in the verge of death after an attack in the snow, sees Ben Kenobi (Alec Guinness) in a vision, and is commanded by him to go to Master Yoda, the Jedi Master who taught him. Right after that, the invasive Empire attacks the rebel base and forces the rebellion to escape.

This divides the story in two, and creates several threads. Han, Leia, Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) get tremendous heat from the Empire and are forced to flee to the Cloud City of Bespin, where an old friend of Han’s, trickster Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), is general administrator. On the other hand, Luke Skywalker takes R2-D2 with him over to the Dagobah system, where they meet Yoda (an outstanding puppet voiced and engineered by Frank Oz), whose appearance contrasts the typical perception of strength and power, but who is extremely favored by the Force.

During their uncomfortable escape, Han and Leia attract each other, despite their initial repellence. Luke confronts his own fears and finds that he’s far from ready to face the great responsibility that awaits him. Vader sets up Luke’s friends and takes advantage of their new location to attract Skywalker.

Vader and Skywalker’s encounter is by far the most powerful scene in the Star Wars saga. It forces the viewer to go back and reflect upon what’s been seen, and instead of creating a cliffhanger for yet another sequel, it makes it completely necessary. Vader’s revelation is one of the most important moments in cinema, and most definitely an unforgettable scene.

But there’s much more than that scene to the success of The Empire Strikes Back. All the characters are developed to their last consequences, seeming real individuals with real feelings. The dialogue is faultless, as are the performances, both way better than in the previous film. The settings are highly imaginative and beautifully realized, with visual effects aiding all around—the technical crew put emphasis where it should be, like in the surprising expressions of Yoda, that add dignity and wisdom to that key character.

Even John Williams’ score seems to have improved—not that the first one wasn’t a masterpiece—by adding, most notably, the impressive Imperial March to its repertoire.

If there’s a Star Wars film to pinpoint and select as a favorite from among the whole saga, this is it no doubt. Not only is it the finest film, but it’s the strongest link and the key to the exponential success of the series. A definite must!

“No, try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Dying Gaul

Director

Craig Lucas

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Dying Gaul is the quintessential independent movie. It was made with a low budget, in a short period of time, with a couple of name actors and it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. The reception was good, but it never intended to be a movie that would break through with mainstream audiences. It opened in limited release later that year and was, admittedly, little-seen. Truth is it’s worth a catch if you get the chance.

Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) lost his long-time partner and wrote a screenplay based on their story. Hollywood executive Jeffrey Tishop (Campbell Scott) read it and offered him one million dollars for it with the condition that he rewrote it to make it about a heterosexual love affair. Robert reluctantly accepted and got to work on it, all the while becoming close friends with Jeffrey’s wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson). It is when Robert starts having an affair with Jeffrey and Elaine finds out that things get complicated.

Director Craig Lucas wrote the play in which the movie is based and consequently transformed it into a screenplay. It is with the utmost respect that I salute him for being able to get rid of the theatricality of his own creation and being able to make a fluid motion picture out of it. The result is a well-constructed tale of lust, jealousy and redemption. It is also clearly about the consequences of our acts, and the approach is intelligent and in-your-face.

A lot of movies and TV shows have been made about Hollywood and the way things work in the movie business. This flick presents yet another face of it and does so with wit, especially at the beginning when Jeffrey is pitching Robert his plan for the script. Once he convinces him, Robert takes him as a friend, almost as family (I hear that’s a common practice). His luxurious home is then the prevailing location used, and it contains an aura of superficiality and unhappiness, despite appearances to the contrary. That’s not to say this is always the case, but I found the whole scenario a bit discomforting yet entirely real.

The meatier part of the movie is when Elaine realizes her husband is having an affair with Robert. Instead of reacting impulsively and making a rant about it, she opts to torture the latter using some unresolved issues of him to her advantage in order to fuck with his head. The consequences and the way she continually covers her back make for quite a disturbing tale, one that inevitably leads to disaster. Speaking of which, the ending is left open for interpretation, but it isn’t entirely fulfilling since one of the intended options has to do with complete character assassination. No way can we believe something like that could happen. But it’s fascinating nonetheless, a sort of modern-day Greek tragedy complete with a distressing reference to the movie’s title.

Lucas is forced to use several techniques to make compelling sequences out of internet chatting (a pivotal device used throughout the movie). Sometimes his visual queues and ideas work, and sometimes they come off as heavy-handed. But at least they’re never monotonous or boring, which would’ve been even worse.

If anything, there’s no denying that the movie boasts three powerhouse performances. Particularly good is Peter Sarsgaard, who handles a complex character with bravura and delivers a detailed and subdued examination of such an individual. His very last scene is especially intriguing and his work flawless. Patricia Clarkson is also impressive as a woman who is happy to connect that much with one person, only to find that he’s been betraying her all the time. Cold-blooded serenity does not begin to describe what she ultimately becomes. And Campbell Scott hits all the right notes as a man who sees his life crumble in front of his eyes because of his own sins.

“You’re very handsome. And I’m getting a little bit turned on. Are you?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Weather Man

Director

Gore Verbinski

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

The Weather Man is a genuinely strange film. It’s inventive from its very premise, and it always looked artsy: the trailer, the poster, the looks on the characters’ faces. But it also looked like a comedy, maybe mordent, maybe poignant, maybe both. Truth is it’s neither. Well… I guess it’s a little poignant. Not sure it’s anything else. Certainly it isn’t too funny, but it also isn’t poignant enough to be effective as a drama. I’m not sure what the hell it is. Trying to figure it out spoiled the experience for me, and the aftertaste wasn’t good either. The film is a misfire to say the least.

The story has David Spritz (Nicolas Cage), a Chicago weatherman, trying to piece his life together after a painful divorce, seeing that his children Mike (Nicholas Hoult) and Shelly (Gemmenne de la Peña) are clearly troubled, and given the fact that he still loves his ex-wife Noreen (Hope Davis).

Also, he’s not too proud about the course his career has taken. His father, Robert Spritzel (Michael Caine), is a very successful and highly praised novelist, while his own job is undemanding and artificial. David feels fake to himself, his family, and his audience, comprised of people who mostly disrespect him by throwing him junk food on the streets.

Of course the premise sounds interesting and it could’ve gone a million ways to make it even more so. It doesn’t go anywhere to achieve that. Even though the subplots and main events are full of drama (they involve betrayal, sexual harassment and death), the emphasis always seems to be in the wrong places, and everything potentially strong is diminished.

What the intention was, I don’t know. I hear the film deliberately put its main structure in emotions instead of events. If that be the case, I don’t see why the characters seem so numb all of the time. Steve Conrad’s script treats them as dummies, mostly lacking visible emotion and seeming demoralized by definition. Every dialogue exchange, the first reply is “What?”, like they’re not paying attention to the outer world, like they’re centering in themselves. That could make sense if they didn’t stay that way all throughout the film. If there’s some evolution in some of the characters, the focus quickly goes somewhere else, wherever things are still the way they were. A subplot involving archery, which could’ve constituted a great catharsis, goes nowhere. And so on.

Verbinski’s film is elegantly presented, almost like it was destined to become great. It’s got a gorgeous sense of style and symbolism, aided by Phedon Papamichael’s inventive photography. Hans Zimmer’s score is subtle and interesting.

And the performances are hardly faulting. In fact, I’d say they’re top-notch, particularly Caine’s; he, as an old, sick, disappointed man, is perfection. In the lead role, Cage proves once again that he’s perfect as this kind of disappointed man, while he’s also quite credible as an incorrigible jerk.

“This shit life... we must chuck some things. We must chuck them... in this shit life. There's always looking after.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Little Miss Sunshine

Director

Jonathan Dayton

Valerie Faris

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, November 06, 2006

I went into Little Miss Sunshine with total acknowledgement of the overwhelming hoopla surrounding it since it made a splash at the Sundance Film Festival. Sometimes it’s tricky to go into a comedy with that kind of baggage because it can backfire. Fortunately enough this little film is so simple yet so absorbing that I forgot about everything else from the start and sat back to enjoy the ride. And what a ride it was.

Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin) was selected to compete in the Miss Sunshine beauty pageant at the last minute, so her family decides to take her there and ride all the way to California in their VW bus. Her father Richard (Greg Kinnear) is a motivational speaker who is about to close an important business deal; her mother Sheryl (Toni Collette) does the best she can to keep the family together; her brother Dwayne (Paul Dano) has not said a word in months as a personal vow; her grandfather Edwin (Alan Arkin) likes drugs and is the one who taught her the routine she’ll use in the competition; and then there’s uncle Frank (Steve Carell), who just tried to unsuccessfully commit suicide after his boyfriend broke up with him.

Little Miss Sunshine was directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, who are husband and wife in real life. Michael Arndt wrote the screenplay and it took him about 5 years to finally see his work on the big screen. That’s a long wait, but it was worth it. The movie that came out of his work is a detailed exercise in witty comedy with peculiar characters and a well-rounded arc that stands out because of its restraint and subtlety. There may be few laugh-out-loud moments, but at the end you’ll be convinced about the great time you just had and how much you wanted to keep spending time with these characters.

Most of the comedy comes, of course, from putting such a different array of personalities into a road trip and watching what happens. The plot can get into some pretty dark places, but then it comes out of it with a piece of cheerful comedy and it goes on. That balance makes it work, and it also makes you realize you’re watching a more intelligent flick than most of what’s out there. Every set piece is fine-tuned by the director, writer and performers and put together perfectly in synch with what they’re trying to achieve. There are even instances of broader comedy, sometimes successful (the difficulties with their way of transportation) and sometimes not (the robbing-a-corpse thing). But the vibe that ultimately comes out of it is warm and light-hearted, with its heart in the right place.

I was impressed specifically by what the movie says about family. We spend the first two-thirds with these bunch of wackos and thank God that our family is not like that. Then they get to the beauty pageant and the realization that they’re the most normal people in the bunch is striking. I was truly taken-aback. It says a lot about what we define as normal. What is that? Who is that? And I loved what it says about no matter how dysfunctional a family is, that’s all we’ve got and we’ll always be there for each other. It is treated with aplomb and yes, there’s an over-the-top dancing scene at the end, but it works because of the innocence of it and because of what they’re all trying to do. Pushing that bus again turns out to be something completely different then...

The cast is uniformly excellent, but there are two stand-outs: Abigail Breslin and Alan Arkin. The former is the heart of the movie, its center, the reason everything happens and the reason we are so attracted to their story in the first place. She’s adorable in an odd kind of way. Not the usual kid performance at all, but one that she relishes and makes her own. Outstanding work. The latter, on the other hand, plays against-type and is hilarious as the crazy grandpa, but also has a quiet scene with Abigail that truly stands out from the rest. Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear, Paul Dano and Steve Carell also make the most out of their characters. They’re all pitch-perfect. What a family, and I mean that in every way.

“No! I’m madly in love with you and it’s not because of your brains or your personality.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Volver

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Being a fan of Pedro Almodóvar’s, I was quite excited about Volver, and rushed to see it the moment it was available to me. In a way, I got what I expected: an excellent story full of poignant observations and realized through extraordinary performances. It’s Almodóvar’s treatment of the subject matter that disappointed me. The development is slow, opportunities are missed, poignancy is constantly lessened in favor of humor or minor drama, and the viewer leaves the theater wanting, but in a bad way, in the way that we’re unsatisfied.

The story is a stroke of genius, one of Almodóvar’s trademark mosaics of tales intertwining in a brilliant way. It involves several threads, all having women as protagonists. Basically, it’s all about two sisters, Raimunda (Penélope Cruz) and Sole (Lola Dueñas), going back to their hometown in La Mancha to visit their mother’s grave, and an old aunt (Chus Lampreave), as well as the neighbor that looks over her, Agustina (Blanca Portillo). They find their aunt quite sick and hardly coherent, while Agustina spends her time worrying about her missing mother.

Then, important things happen. Raimunda’s teenage daughter (Yohana Cobo) does something that forces her mother to make important decisions about their lives. Agustina goes the distance in order to find out what happened to her mother, whose disappearance just might be connected to Raimunda and Sole’s mother. And the latter (Carmen Maura), who’s been dead for a while, comes back from among the dead to solve some important matters.

I loved the premise and the story, as I said before, didn’t disappoint me. I was constantly interested by the subplots and terribly curious about their outcome. I enjoyed the way the stories kept coming together and affecting each other, while they tackled different genres like crime, drama, and even comedy. Almodóvar is quite successful at setting the right mood for each thread. The result, however, is rather loose. The writer-director has failed in creating a tight story that keeps the audience at the edge of their seats. I couldn’t believe that I was feeling bored while I was still waiting anxiously for the rest of the story, and that’s because I felt the procedures were slow and undermined. Also, I didn’t know where to look, and some subplots sometimes felt forgotten and took a while to keep going. That’s a sad fact of this film. Also, lots of the characters’ reactions didn’t ring true, and frequently it seemed like the actresses were speaking lines against their own true outburst of emotions.

But there are Almodovarisms that I definitely enjoyed, like the thorough development of female characters and a story that depends on past events of definitive importance. The film recovers its energy when all the events take shape thanks to shattering revelations that finally explain lots of what we’ve seen and make us go back to the story and see it differently. Also, the performances are magnificent, and it’s a pleasure to see two of the director’s favorite actresses, Cruz and Maura, working together. Cruz is causing some buzz, and I agree that her performance is excellent, but honestly I wouldn’t pinpoint her from among the rest. It’s an outstanding female cast working admirably in ensemble. Perfect work.

Pedro’s usual collaborator, composer Alberto Iglesias, contributed a gorgeous score that reminisces some of Bernard Herrmann’s tunes for Alfred Hitchcock’s films, which have certainly influenced the filmmaker. Some suspenseful scenes are treated the same way as the Master did his own, and that’s a welcome, if not always successful, effort. The work of cinematographer José Luis Alcaine is also crucial in creating some of this film’s key imagery and symbolism. Gorgeous to look at, and thoroughly emotional.

It’s good that Almodóvar makes personal films… I only wish he didn’t make them so personal that they turn out so distant to the audience. Still, there’s a lot to see and enjoy in Volver; and of course, many people are loving it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Last King of Scotland

Director

Kevin Macdonald

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

The Last King of Scotland is set to become this year’s Hotel Rwanda, movies that have a social conscience and that set their eyes in the beautiful land of Africa during dark periods of their history. The comparisons end there, but I’m glad more and more directors are telling this kind of stories because they let the world know about situations that maybe we passed over for local fare or just because some of us weren’t even born back then. They also serve as a reminder that will hopefully help prevent similar events in the future, or at least bring attention to some of the current issues going on right there. Politics aside, they are entertaining movies with strong characters and as such they are always welcome.

Dr. Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) leaves Scotland to escape his uptight family and sets his eyes in Uganda, where he would help Dr. Merrit (Adam Kotz) and his wife Sarah (Gillian Anderson). He arrives just when a military coup has given the power to General Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker), a popular man who claims that his government will be for the people. After a roadside accident, Nicholas meets Amin and is subsequently invited to become his personal physician. It is an offer he can’t refuse, but one that he would start to regret as he learnt more about his boss.

Kevin Macdonald directed from a script by Jeremy Brock, Peter Morgan and Joe Penhall based on the Giles Foden novel of the same name. Foden created the fictional character of Dr. Garrigan after several years of research and conversations with Amin’s former advisor, Bob Astles. The resulting movie is a gripping retelling of one of the bloodiest episodes in the history of Africa that went on from 1971 to 1979.

Our point of view comes directly from Nicholas’s, and as such we are first fooled by the charismatic President but are then repelled by his tyrannies. Nicholas himself does some questionable things that are quite foolish, such as starting an affair with Amin’s third wife Kay (Kerry Washington). But the tale is compelling and believable at every turn; I wish the filmmakers could’ve shown us more about Amin though. We are told that he’s done some horrific things at one point, but are only shown a couple of photos and nothing else (until the end, when hell unleashes in an almost unbearable way). On the other hand, we are never shown Amin outside of his work environment. How was he to his wives and children? What did he do when not ruling the country and attending some parties? I know he’s not supposed to be the leading man, but I was left hungry for more.

At the end of the day, this is a tale about the loss of innocence of a man in the face of brutality by a dictator that found it easier to dispose of people than to deal with problems by way of communication or understanding. It is a horrific transition, but it is carefully done by director Macdonald who, along with cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, creates a tense atmosphere even when nothing controversial is happening. The African locale also helps; we can almost smell the surroundings. And Alex Heffes’s score fits like a glove.

James McAvoy comes off as a proven leading man. The movie rests on his shoulders and he is expertly able to convey what his character is feeling every step of the way. He starts as adventurous and immature, but ends a completely different person. There’s never a false moment in his performance. On the other hand there’s Whitaker, who chews the scenery and imbues the movie with his ominous presence even when he’s not onscreen. The way Amin could be the most charming man one second and a ruthless killer the next is perfectly conveyed by his extraordinary work. Also of notice is Gillian Anderson, who has never looked sexier although she abruptly disappears from the tale, and Kerry Washington, heart-breaking as a trapped woman with no escape. David Oyelowo is also strong as Dr. Junju.

“A man who shows fear… He is weak, and he is a slave.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter