CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, December 30, 2001

In Middle-Earth, a peaceful and naïve hobbit, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) gets hold of a ring that his uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm) found long ago in a cave. According to Gandalf, the Wizard (Ian McKellen), this ring is much more powerful than it seems.

Indeed, the Ring is the most powerful object in the world. It has a will of its own and will mean doom if the evil Sauron recovers it. Now it is the task of Frodo to try to destroy it. Aided by a couple of hobbits and people of other races (dwarves, elves, men), he travels faraway towards Mount Doom, where Sauron created the Ring, and the only place where it can be destroyed.

Astonishing adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s first part of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, full of pleasure both for fans of the books and the people who haven’t read them. Both the settings and the characters come to life exactly as described in the novel, which is a mesmerizing triumph. The screenplay is true to the original text, sadly but necessarily trimmed, and changed only for vital translation to cinematic language. The result is the very best adaptation that we could wish for! Hardly could it be better…

Saruman the White (Christopher Lee) and Arwen Undómiel (Liv Tyler) are expanded to give an identity to evil and to create romantic and feminist situations (respectively); Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and most members of the Fellowship are not as important as they are in the book, though they were lucky not to disappear completely, like all the characters in the chapters between the Shire and Bree, which are gone. Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) were mostly left alone. The whole cast does a great job.

Howard Shore deserves great recognition for his score, aided in some parts by Enya. Overall, technically speaking, the film is excellent in every aspect.

A glorious fantasy film that stands strongly by itself but that is also the beginning of something that could get to be greater than we can imagine…

Bravo for Peter Jackson!

“One Ring to rule them all…”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Monsters, Inc.

Director

Peter Docter

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 24, 2001

Ok, I’ve said it over and over again and I won’t ever say it again. No, not even if you insist. Ok, well, just one more time: “the guys over at Pixar are gods”.

Sulley (voice of John Goodman) and Mike (voice of Billy Crystal) are the most successful team working at Monsters, Inc. Their task is to collect as many children shouts as they can. This way the shouting will translate to energy, energy which they need to live and of which there’s a shortage. For monsters living in Monstropolis children are toxic, so when one day a little girl (voice of Mary Gibbs) accidentally enters their world it’s chaos. Sulley and Mike must handle the problem and it is there that they start to realize not everything may be as they’ve always believed.

Monsters, Inc. is the latest movie coming out of Pixar after their clean track of brilliant classic movies. One should just add this one to the bunch, because it’s simply marvelous from start to finish.

Monsters in the closet is something kids and adults alike can relate too. It is something we’ve all gone through. It’s that common thing that scared us and which we had to face alone in spite of our innocence. That’s why this movie works in the first place. It is a journey into a place we can all relate to. And it was a great idea to do a movie about it because of all the fun and charm there’s behind which kids will love.

The movie also has a subtle message about authority and big corporations. The way things could work in a different, better and harmless way. The way sometimes we don’t know the harm we’re doing in the most unexpected ways.

Monsters, Inc. also boast an incredibly exciting and original climax sequence which will leave you breathless. It is expertly done, with great doses of suspense, humor, action and, most of all, awe. Simply amazing!

And of course, for the movie to work properly it must have a heart. You’ll find a lot of it here. The relationship between Scully and Boo is just wonderful. The way it evolves little by little until it becomes something more than special might even cause a tear to drop from your eyes. That’s why the ending is so damn perfect. The crowd in the theater where I saw it actually cheered and applauded. It deserved nothing less.

John Goodman and Billy Crystal share great chemistry and do a great job in voicing their characters. Jeniffer Tilly, Steve Buscemi and James Coburn also lent their voices to some peculiar characters.

But it is the character of Boo which you’ll never forget after seeing Monsters, Inc.. I would easily say it is the most adorable character ever to hit the screen in an animated movie. Ok, so baby Dumbo comes in a close second, but I’ll give Boo the edge. I just fell in love with her. You all will.

Featuring impressive animation, a great script, great direction, great voices and a lot of imagination and heart, Monsters, Inc. proves to be an unforgettable experience.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Wizard of Oz

Director

Victor Fleming

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, December 22, 2001

Dorothy (Judy Garland), an orphan girl living under the care of her Auntie Em (Clara Blandick) and Uncle Henry (Charley Grapewin) dreams of a faraway land where she can be happy, since her life in Kansas seems boring and unexciting.

After an attempt to leave her home, having her dog Toto as her only companion, she finds herself stuck inside a tornado, which takes her and Toto into the magic land she dreamed about.

Once there, Dorothy meets all kinds of fantastic characters, including witches (both good and evil), munchkins, winged monkeys, etc. Above all of those is a famous Wizard (Frank Morgan), who can probably help her to get back to Kansas. In her way to the Wizard's home, she meets a Scarecrow (Ray Bolger) who wants a brain, a Tin Woodman (Jack Haley) who wants a heart, and a Lion (Bert Lahr) who wants courage. Together, all five (Toto included) live adventures beyond any expectation.

The best moments belong to Bolger and Lahr, but the whole cast is great. Judy Garland is a marvel as Dorothy.

Gorgeous, amazing American classic, adapted from the novel by L. Frank Baum, is a mesmerizing triumph in many aspects. It is one of the few movies that can be seen a million times without tiring the viewer, plus it inspires an unlimited universe through its magic, though it’s mostly filmed inside a set, whose walls are visible.

Unforgettable songs, including “Over the Rainbow” and “We’re off to see the Wizard,” make the trip even more enjoyable.

This is probably the film I have enjoyed the most in my life. What about you?

“There’s no place like home!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dracula

Director

Tod Browning

Year

1931

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 20, 2001

Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), away in his castle in Transylvania, buys a place in London and moves in town—driving people crazy, killing them, or drastically affecting their lives in the progress.

This adaptation of John L. Balderston’s play, based upon Bram Stoker’s novel of the same name, is not as scary as Nosferatu (1922) or as faithful to the original story as Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), but it certainly is the most classic film about the vampire. Bela Lugosi is Count Dracula, a mysterious man who conquers with a simple look—and a lot of charm.

The conception of horror in this film is definitely old-fashioned. Nowadays, it hardly scares, plus it has poor editing, scoring and visual effects. However, the performances are top-notch, and the whole mood is attractive. This one is hard to dislike.

Other notable performers are Dwight Frye, excellent as confused Renfield, and Edward Van Sloan, perfectly cynic as Professor Van Helsing.

There is a restored version, featuring new scoring by Philip Glass; as usual with Glass’s scores, this one’s quite distracting, though it mostly succeeds in adding intensity to the dated classic.

“Good evening, I am Dracula. I bid you welcome.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Director

Chris Columbus

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 19, 2001

It is thanks to my dear friend Jacinda that I got to know the world of Harry Potter. Little did I know I was to become a fan after having read the first book. But how could one resist it? J.K.Rowling created something wonderful, magnificent, and I was more than eager to see it translated to the big screen.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has lived with the over-bearing Dursleys since he was a baby. Finally he is 11 and ready to go to Hogwarts, a school for wizards. Gatekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) is the first to befriend Harry and introduce him to his new home. It’s all new to him, as it is for Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), two kids who become Harry’s best friends. The school is also run by a lot of teachers and magicians, of which headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) and Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) stand out. Slowly, Harry and his friends start to discover all the wonders of this place while also uncovering a possible robbery plot that might involve dark forces.

I want to put it clear first and foremost that I didn’t completely love the movie. My problems with it have little to do with the fact that I’d read the book. I decided to see it as a purely cinematic endeavor. Of course, that was almost impossible, but I managed my way.

Harry Potter could have been a more surprising movie. It is extremely faithful to the book, perhaps a bit too much. With the exception of some subplots tied up, a character that was completely vanished in the process and a couple of new scenes, the movie is almost an exact copy of the material it was based on. And I say “almost” because something was missed in the transition: the aforementioned element of surprise, of wonder. You get the sense that it’s all too straightforward, too family-friendly, more than it should have been for its own good.

That’s not to say the movie isn’t fun, because it is. I’ve seen it two times now and the second viewing felt better, maybe because I knew what to expect and enjoyed it more that way. After all, the story is entertaining, the characters are highly charismatic and the magic is irresistible. This whole world is kind of a dream come true. Everything we always wished as kids is there. It’s fascinating, at least for me.

A lot of CGI was required to bring this world to life. Sometimes it looks fake, but that’s ok because it’s all magic after all. I simply loved the sets and the visual design of the movie. They’re jaw-droppingly good. Not faring as good are the flying sequences, which look quite artificial for my taste. All of this is presented with a great John Williams’s score in the background. It’s amazing how he always manages to capture the spirit of what’s presented. His score screams magic!

The cast in Harry Potter is almost perfect. “Almost,” again, because I had one little problem and that was Harry himself. Daniel Radcliffe might look like Harry, but he isn’t as charismatic as he should be, neither as good an actor as we might’ve expected. He’s wooden and always carries the same expression. One should look no further than to his companions to see what I mean.

Emma Watson, as Hermione, steals the movie. She’s such a great find. A charming girl embodying a great character and making it hers. Rupert Gring, as Ron, is equally good. The older actors do a great job. Maggie Smith plays Professor McGonagall just as I had imagined her. But I was actually surprised by Alan Rickman’s performance as Professor Snape. He’s extraordinary. I loved the way he delivered his lines. As remarkable as Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. Perfect casting!

Overall, I guess it all comes down to Chris Columbus and Steve Kloves’s script. They made a solid movie. Charming and entertaining in a safe kind of way. I just wish they’d go further...

“Mr. Harry Potter... our new celebrity.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Aliens

Director

James Cameron

Year

1986

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 18, 2001

Years after the events depicted in Alien (1979), Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) finds herself in the worst of situations: too many years she spent in hypersleep and now her life as she knew it is over; besides, nobody believes her tale about the stowaway alien.

When contact is lost with the planet from the first movie, now colonized, Ripley is sent to investigate, along with a bunch of marines. There, they find their nightmare as the aliens have invaded the whole place and don’t seem to be a very peaceful community.

Outstanding sci-fi/action classic, this is one of those rare sequels that surpasses its predecessor. It is so good, that it makes the original look dull and boring, though it’s nothing of the sort.

Writer/director James Cameron created an exciting story and directed it in his very own non-stop fashion. The screenplay also manages to get into the characters and make human beings out of them.

Weaver excels in a dramatic role. Though her character is always on the run, there is still a lot of delicacy in it, especially when dealing with little Newt (Carrie Henn), the surviving daughter of a colonist family.

Towards the end, Ellen Ripley easily becomes the goddess of sci-fi. Her final showdown with the Queen Alien is unforgettable.

The cast also includes Bill Paxton, Paul Reiser, Lance Henriksen and Michael Biehn.

This is a must-see film, that will give you more thrills than you can probably bear!

Newt: My mommy always said there were no monsters—no real ones—but there are.
Ripley: Yes, there are.
Newt: Why do grown-ups say that?
Ripley: Because usually, it's true.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows

Director

Robert Allan Ackerman

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 17, 2001

If I recall correctly, this is the first time a TV movie is reviewed by any of us here at CriticSociety. It’s a rare occasion, but there are times when a movie that is not necessarily made for the big screen deserves a little mention. It is a movie after all, and a pretty good one in this case.

This 3-hour long production chronicles the life of Hollywood legend Judy Garland through the eyes of her daughter Lorna. From her troubled childhood to her rise to stardom to her sudden fall, the movie meticulously follows Judy through her marriages to director Vincente Minnelli and B-movies’ producer Sid Luft. It also depicts her sudden addiction to drugs and her life as a family member and a star.

We all know it’s different to watch a TV movie rather than a big screen movie. To start off, they’re more melodramatic and keep everything simple. This movie is no exception, but it is all very well-done. I never felt there was a moment that didn’t work or seemed too exaggerated. On the contrary, I felt it was all kept in a very realistic and approachable way.

Judy had quite a roller-coaster of a life. I certainly can’t tell if every detail in the movie is accurate, but I can tell it is respectful without going to the extreme. Judy is not portrayed as a saint, but she’s not portrayed as a complete mess either. I got the impression of Judy as a human being, just like any of us, with the peculiarity of having a great voice, great acting talent and charisma to spread. She always remained being Dorothy after all. At least in our hearts.

Most of the success of the movie also relies in the acting, more specifically, in Judy Davis. If this were a big screen adaptation there’s no way Judy wouldn’t have won an Oscar for her performance. She is Judy Garland. You wouldn’t believe the level she reaches. It’s almost scary. There’s a scene that takes place at a concert in Carnegie Hall where Davis simply shines and leaves the audience breathless. She certainly impressed me.

Besides Davis, great support comes in the hand of Victor Garber as Sid Luft, Tammy Blanchard as the younger version of Judy, Hugh Laurie as Vincente Minnelli and the actresses playing Lorna at various stages. They all contribute to make a wonderful movie precisely directed by Robert Allan Ackerman and based on Lorna’s memoirs.

A one-of-a-kind experience. Definitely impressive for a TV movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Limbo

Director

John Sayles

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 13, 2001

I have to be honest with you. Even though I admire John Sayles I never really felt like watching Limbo. It wasn’t until I heard some people calling its finale one of the most open-ended in history that I became intrigued. Well, I’m glad.

Limbo tells the story of three people living in the town of Port Henry, Alaska. Joe Gastineau (David Strathairn) is a shy, lonely man haunted by the memory of a fishing accident he had years ago in which two of his friends died. Donna De Angelo (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) is a second-rate lounge singer who’s had her share of bad relationships in the past. Noelle (Vanessa Martinez) is Donna’s daughter, a disturbed teenager who’s tired of her life and surroundings. A relationship grows between these three people that will lead to unexpected paths.

The movie works on two levels. It is basically a drama, an unpredictable character study with three fascinating characters who share one thing in common: neither are happy. In one way or another they’re all troubled souls trying to deal with life in a daily-basis. Little by little we keep getting to know more about them to a level in which it all becomes highly intimate.

On the other hand, the movie suddenly develops into a thriller. Not a conventional one in the way it is too slow and partially revealing. Suddenly the circumstances in which the characters find themselves start to form a deeper bond where hidden feelings start to emerge.

And finally, there’s the ending, which I’m sure most people will hate. My situation wasn’t that fare, since I saw the movie already knowing more or less what to expect. By now, what I’m telling you is not actually a spoiler, since when the movie was released this subject generated a huge amount of controversy. I’ll just say that I actually liked what happened. It kept on with the tone of the movie and left us wondering, instead of patching things up nicely as we usually expect.

David Strathairn, usually an underrated actor, is superb and effectively low-key. So is Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, a great actress who is down-right perfect as Donna. Not as successful for me was Vanessa Martinez, who didn’t feel that natural at the beginning but kept getting better throughout the movie.

There are heart-breaking moments and sensitive scenes galore. John Sayles, as writer/director/editor, pulls it off!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Alien

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

1979

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 12, 2001

The crew of a commercial spaceship, leaded by Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt), is finally heading back home, when suddenly an unknown signal comes from a planet nearby. Forced by contract to go down and explore, they meet their fate as an alien being infects Kane (John Hurt), a crew member. Later, as a result of the impregnation, a monstrous being is “born,” which now lies inside the ship with the rest of the crew. An insatiable hunger to kill seems to keep this alien alive.

Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), who tried to stop the menace before it all happened, uncovers a traitor as she struggles for survival.

Heart-pounding horror film is nothing of a storyteller but sure manages to captivate the viewer’s attention through the horror communicated via its visual effects, and Ridley Scott’s direction. Soon after the first victim falls, a claustrophobic feeling fills the screen as there is no way out, and this is not a monster who gets tired easily.

How a simple premise works so well in a futuristic environment is worth of admiration. It’s great to see how sometimes the simpler it is, the better it gets. This is definitely a good addition to sci-fi cinema.

“You have my sympathies.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

1966

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Forget about all the scandal and controversy that surrounded Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. The best part of it, the most interesting part of it, the place you should be looking into is this movie. Masterful to say the least, there’s no way you won’t be satisfied.

Martha (Taylor) and George (Burton) spend a night with a young couple (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) after a party full of drinking and laughter. As time goes by, things start to get a bit more messy than expected, as past secrets start to emerge and the true nature of all these people starts surfacing in the most unexpected of ways.

I’d say the only thing missing in this movie is Bette Davis, at the beginning, saying “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”. I was impressed by the way there’s more action in the first 20 minutes of this movie than you’ll find in the entire running length of any big Hollywood blockbuster. And it is only between two people! Just figure out what happens when the other couple arrives.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is based on Edward Albee’s play of the same name. One would not expect such a masterful piece of art to work so well in the big screen. The perfect combination of everything and a cast that exudes talent simply brought it to life. And I’m not kidding. This is not a movie with tour-de-force performances, it is a movie that actually is a tour-de-force in itself. I was exhausted when the final credits appeared. What a ride it had been!

Of course, the movie has a lot of rich material to work with. I saw it as an allegory of how people are not always what they seem to be. A metaphor about how each individual can go on to find a person so different yet so right for each other no matter what. A tale about love, dreams, secrets, craziness, ambition... and not always in a good way. A story about letting go...

I must say the four actors embodying all these characters are nothing short of brilliant. I have no words to describe Elizabeth Taylor’s performance. She reminded me a lot of Vivien Leigh, but with her very own personal style. She’s simply flawless, wild, strong, cynical, heart-breakingly good. No wonder she won an Oscar for her performance. And so did Dennis, who really surprised me by not playing her role as the usual nice blonde innocent wife, but giving it a three-dimensional scope. The men are also great by the way. Burton and Segal simply excel.

I was surprised to realize Mike Nichols directed it. His direction, along with Haskell Wexler’s gorgeous cinematography and Alex North’s haunting score, simply make of this one of the most remarkable movies of its era. Ground-breaking in every way imaginable!

“I am George, I am”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Singin' in the Rain

Director

Stanley Donen

Gene Kelly

Year

1952

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 10, 2001

Extraordinary musical set in the transition era of movies—from silent to talky. Gene Kelly plays Don Lockwood, an actor of great talent whose career is on the verge of failure due to the lack of talent of his counterpart, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), whose voice peels paint. Thanks to his best friend Cosmo (Donald O’Connor) and his girlfriend Kathy (Debbie Reynolds), Don learns that he has a chance, and fights for it.

Excellent in every aspect, Singin’ in the Rain is a classic in its genre for its spectacular musicals and its outstanding choreographies, but goes much farther for being a musical inside a musical (as most of the musical numbers are supposed to be actually happening) and for having one of the greatest messages of optimism on film ever, making clear that a good heart is meant to triumph, even if obstacles abound.

Gene Kelly is the perfect lead, joyous and vigorous and excellent as a singer, a dancer, an actor and a director. O’Connor and Reynolds make up for a great support, with their characters always smiling to the adversity, always standing up despite the obstacles. Jean Hagen steals the show as the untalented actress who can’t stand the idea of failure.

The undeniable classic status of the main theme scene makes it the very best scene in the movie: and the most unforgettable. However, other incomparable moments are the “Good Morning” scene (the only one with the three leads together on song), the “Fit as a Fiddle” scene, filled with joy and perseverance, and many more.

All in all, a wonderful movie… and a glorious feeling!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shoot the Piano Player

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1960

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 06, 2001

Former concert pianist Edouard Saroyan (Charles Aznavour), now playing in a bar under the pseudonym of Charlie Kohler, finds his peaceful yet meaningless life disturbed when his brothers, involved in criminal activities, get him in trouble. At the same time, he gets involved with Lena (Marie Dubois), a nice waitress who struggles to convince Charlie to get back to his original profession.

Charlie, who’s done everything to lead a peaceful life, finds himself in the midst of a whirlpool of troubled memories and actual problems involving gangsters.

Thoughtful, poignant take on a simple man’s life that goes much deeper in terms of psychology and character analysis. Also notable for its mixture of genres, cynically finding comedy in the most tragic events, while wrapping up funny situations with touches of tragedy. The score by Georges Delerue is quite atmospheric and great.

Charles Aznavour is perfection in the lead, under the helm of Truffaut in what is one of his best films ever. Inspired by Hollywood B movies, he created a movie far superior to the very genre he makes allusion to. From the very first scene to the very last, Tirez sur le pianiste is poignancy in the most entertaining way.

The final shot of Charlie’s face says more than the rest of the film altogether.

Overall, a masterpiece.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mumford

Director

Lawrence Kasdan

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 05, 2001

I don’t know why, but since this movie came out a couple of years ago I’ve always felt a bit of curiosity about it. It is one of those movies that you’re not dying to see but which has the “it-would-be-nice-to-see-it-sometime” flavor. I finally saw it, and it was nice indeed.

Dr. Mumford (Loren Dean) is a psychologist who has just arrived to town. He easily becomes popular because of his easy-going manners and the way he treats and listens to people. His patients include a young millionaire (Jason Lee), an unhappy wife and mother of two (Mary McDonnell), a sexually frustrated man (Pruitt Taylor Vince), a rebellious teenager (Zooey Deschanel) and a beautiful woman with an apparent chronic disease (Hope Davis). Of course, things are not always what they seem, so a few unexpected turns and coincidences shake the lives of all these people.

It’s weird to find movies like this that are so nice and so simple while also being thoroughly entertaining. Some people might argue that it is one of those movies where nothing ever happens. Well, that’s far from the truth. Mumford is about this guy who has gone through a lot and who seems to have finally found his place in the world. He learns from everyone and everyone learns from him.

I also kind of identified with him in the way he’s such a calm guy, easy-going and a great listener. I’m also kind of like that. Even if I’m not looking for it, people sometimes seem to be comfortable telling me things. And I do listen. I’ve also always loved the world of psychology, but have never really wanted to take part of it in a more professional way. Dr. Mumford is just like that. And it felt really familiar. All the way.

There’s also a lot of love stories going on which simply become magic. Ok, so the movie gets a bit too saccharine-y at times, but it works. It’s what the movie tries to accomplish and I never gushed or thought there was a forced moment. It flows beautifully.

Loren Dean, as the lead, is truly good. I don’t know much about him except that he played Ethan Hawke’s brother in Gattaca. He appears to me as an underrated talent. Jason Lee and Alfre Woodard are also funny and touching. The whole cast works admirably.

A rare achievement for director Lawrence Kasdan. Indeed, a great one!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Manhattan

Director

Woody Allen

Year

1979

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 04, 2001

Comedy writer Isaac (Woody Allen), who’s as much in love with New York City as the actor who portrays him, is dating seventeen years old Tracy (Mariel Hemingway). His ex-wife Jill (Meryl Streep), who left him for another woman, is about to publish a book about her relationship with him, which is certainly not a pleasant idea for Isaac.

At the same time, Isaac’s friend Yale (Michael Murphy), who’s married to Emily (Anne Byrne), gets in trouble with his long-time mistress, Mary (Diane Keaton). They break up, as do Isaac and Tracy. When Isaac and Mary start to date, everyone begins to wonder what they really want.

Gorgeous-looking, completely harmless look at New York City and its inhabitants, shot in striking black and white (by Gordon Willis) and wrapped in classic George Gershwin music. This film, possibly created as an interpretation of “Rhapsody in Blue,” makes clear how much Woody loves his city, as well as good comedy.

Mariel Hemingway shines in a game cast also benefited by a short but hilarious appearance by Wallace Shawn.

The Brooklyn Bridge scene is a classic by itself; the final message is incredibly effective; this film is pure beauty.

“You have to have a little faith in people.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Mask

Director

Chuck Russell

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, December 02, 2001

There was a time when the world barely knew who Jim Carrey and Cameron Diaz were. Suddenly this movie came out and catapulted the careers. No wonder, ‘cause it’s a blast!

Stanley Ipkiss (Carrey) is a common shy bank clerk who suddenly comes up with a strange mask that, when put on, lets each individual’s inner self come out. Thus, Ipkiss becomes a cartoonish super-hero type willing to fight a crime boss (Peter Greene) who won’t leave him alone and whose lovely girlfriend (Cameron Diaz) is the woman he loves.

The Mask, based on a highly violent comic, is a movie meant to be funny and entertaining. It succeeds at both tasks. If you thought Carrey is rubber-faced you definitely haven’t seen what this mask can do for him. As a matter of fact, Carrey and this mask make an excellent team. Everything is greatly exaggerated and its always fun to see what they’ll come up with next.

The movie develops a tongue-in-cheek kind of humor that almost falls on absurdity. It’s silly, fast, action-packed and I loved it!

It also boasts one of the best movie entrances in the history of cinema. You won’t believe your eyes when you see Cameron Diaz enter that bank in such a classy, and sexy, way. I say, she’s gorgeous!!!

With Jim Carrey and Cameron Diaz at the top of their forms, a funny script, impressive special and visual effects, a dog that almost steals the show, a show-stopping dance number, plenty of gags galore and a solid hand behind-the-cameras, The Mask delivers!

“No Milo, not the ‘cheese’... the ‘keys’!!!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter