CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Director

Joel Zwick

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 31, 2002

So much fuss has been made of this movie I couldn’t wait to see it. I finally did and found the experience to be quite disappointing. Not that I was expecting much, but people are actually talking of this movie as award-worthy, and, pardon the expression, that’s just stupid. The notion of a movie making money and then suddenly being the object of this much praise sickens me. Why didn’t people talk this highly of the movie when it first opened? I guess that’s Hollywood after all, but I’m not as bitter as I sound. Keep reading.

Toula (Nia Vardalos) is sick of her Greek heritage and how she’s only expected to marry a Greek man and feed him for the rest of her life. She is quite an unhappy girl until she goes to college and her vision expands. Suddenly she meets a charming non-Greek (John Corbett) with whom she gets engaged. Of course her family doesn’t like the idea so much, especially her father (Michael Constantine), but with the help of her mother (Lainie Kazan) she starts to get off with it. Now there’s a wedding to plan, and a family to invite as well.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a funny movie all right. I can’t deny the fact that I laughed out loud more than once. It’s a charming movie with a lot of good jokes thrown in there for good measure. The problem is that the movie feels like an extended sitcom. There’s jokes and jokes and jokes and not a single moment rings true. The attempt to try and stick some quiet and touching scenes in there proves ridiculous, since the dialogue is more laughable than intelligent.

There’s also the fact that while watching the movie I couldn’t stop thinking of Fools Rush In, a romantic comedy that tackled the same territory except with a Mexican girl played by Salma Hayek having to marry an American lad played by Matthew Perry. That movie was a lot better because it rang true and it was also really funny at the same time. But I hate comparing, so I won’t delve much into this aspect. The truth is My Big Fat Greek Wedding is simply not a very good movie on its own.

The only interesting part I could find amongst the whole thing was the way Greek people live, think and behave. Of course here it’s all taken to the extreme for comedy’s sake, but it gives you a pretty good idea of their culture.

The performances are mostly ok. Nia Vardalos proves to be a charismatic lead without the usual characteristics of a Hollywood beauty. For that I applaud her, although her performance does get a little monotonous at times. She would be great in her own sitcom. Lainie Kazan is wonderful, but it is Michael Constantine, as Toula’s Windex-obsessed father, that easily steals the movie. I also enjoyed Andrea Martin as aunt Voula.

Overall it is an enjoyable, yet ineffective movie.

“In the end, we’re all fruit.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 30, 2002

The Fellowship of the Ring has been torn apart, and now everyone must go their own way: Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) to Mordor in order to destroy the One Ring, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) after the orcs who kidnapped Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). Their way won’t be easy, as evil Wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee) still causes mayhem in the name of Sauron, and different folk from around Middle-Earth must choose one way or the other in this conflict.

Dazzling adaptation of the second part of J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, a sequel to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), this is an epic movie in all the extension of the word, with larger-than-life battles and a wholly developed medieval atmosphere that’s fantastic. Too bad too much attention is paid to the battles and not enough to wasted subplots like that of the Ents. Instead of being entertaining, the scenes at the forest are boring, as are the extended battles after a while. Only Gandalf the White (Ian McKellen) makes up for some intriguing moments in the sequences not involving Frodo. As for the latter, his adventures are truly interesting and very well developed, through Sam and especially Gollum (a CGI character voiced by Andy Serkis), the hideous river folk who wants more than anything to steal the Ring.

Sméagol / Gollum is in fact the single most important character of the film, with Serkis working magic through his voice and movements that inspired the final result. The character is perfectly developed in all aspects, with his conflict made clear to the audience and his influence in Frodo terrifying.

Other fine characters are King Théoden, played by Bernard Hill, and his counselor Wormtongue, appropriately played by Brad Dourif. John Rhys-Davis works some fine comedy as Gimli and transmits wisdom through the voice of Treebeard.

One big change from the novel is the lack of a climax, which is only prepared but not executed; I guess the film-makers thought Helm’s Deep was enough but it wasn’t for me, as the ending of the second book involving Frodo was far more intriguing. Good thing they ended with the touching “Gollum’s Song” in the final credits to make up for that! Plus: Now I know the third movie will start with a bang!

“They stole my preciousss… and we wants it!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 19, 2002

The last years Woody Allen has been making movies more in the “light” zone. I personally hadn’t seen any of them until now that The Curse of the Jade Scorpion stepped in my way. I must admit I haven’t always been a Woody Allen fan, but he has grown on me through the years and I’m a big admirer of his sense of humor. That said, lets proceed…

CW Briggs (Woody Allen) is an insurance investigator whose boss (Dan Akroyd) has just hired an expert (Helen Hunt) to clean up the business a bit. Briggs truly hates her, and that sentiment is actually corresponded. But everything changes when both attend a nightclub show where a hypnotist casts a spell on them in order to take advantage of their job positions. Whenever he mentions a certain word they instantly become hypnotized and thus he can make them robe precious jewels from their clients. Mayhem ensues when Briggs himself is appointed to these cases.

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is Allen’s excuse to pay homage to 40’s movies such as His Girl Friday and most of Katherine Hepburn’s comedies of the time. The kind of movies in which the leads kept fighting and hating each other while underneath what they really felt was love. This is exactly that kind of movie and Allen gets away with this part expertly.

Apart from being an homage the movie is pure comedy. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Fact is, the movie is a bit overlong, but when Allen spells his magic the movie works fine. There are his usual killer one-liners and overall the script is well-written, as always.

So it isn’t Allen at his best, but a light-hearted comedy like this can’t hurt. I had a good time with it and enjoyed the performances, which are uniformly excellent.

“It’s a match made in heaven… by a retarded angel.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

White Oleander

Director

Peter Kosminsky

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 18, 2002

Teenage Astrid Magnussen (Alison Lohman) lives a normal with her mother Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer) until the latter is accused of murder and incarcerated. A passionate woman, Ingrid claims to be innocent, but sadly enough, she’s not. The reasons of the murder and how it happened are revealed later on, to no surprise. This isn’t really relevant to the story though, if only to define Ingrid’s personality, not of a murderous woman, but of one who will do anything to achieve her goals.

Left behind, Astrid is sent to foster homes while staying in touch with her possessive mother. Ingrid is not an easy person to deal with, even in a situation like this. She’s present at all times, and manages to control and manipulate many people’s lives from a distance. She’s not evil, and she loves Astrid, but the girl suffers when trying to adapt to different homes and finding herself unable to on account of her mother. Ingrid’s judgments are cruel and unforgiving, and Astrid is always caught in the middle. It’s made very clear to us why it’s not easy for Astrid, and her story is quite difficult to watch.

The different people Astrid meets, and the constant influence of her mother, make her life not only varied but adventurous, not always for the good.

This is a surprisingly good film that could find dead-ends at all times but somehow doesn’t, and in fact goes much farther than one would expect. Not only does it analyze the personality of the girl, her mom and the people she meets, but goes to the dark side of each, in a somewhat episodic fashion that never gets boring or repetitious.

Michelle Pfeiffer is absolutely incredible as the complex Mom. Her presence is constant and dominating, so much so that she outshines Lohman, despite the outstanding performance of the newcomer. The fact that Pfeiffer is so much stronger than Lohman is not necessarily bad for the latter, as it becomes a haunting parallelism between the actresses and their characters. It was probably on purpose actually. Robin Wright Penn plays a white-trash woman who becomes one of Astrid’s foster moms. Her fanatical religious beliefs and her self-destructive personal life make up for poignant subplots; Renée Zellweger is another, a lonely suicidal woman, also in a story full of interesting aspects. Patrick Fugit plays a guy Astrid meets in the way, who becomes a very important person for her, and a purely good influence.

Based upon a novel by Janet Fitch, the movie is good entertainment, alternately sad and poignant, and ultimately rewarding. Not exactly a classic, but good in many ways, and a must for Pfeiffer fans!

“Then let me go.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Ring

Director

Gore Verbinski

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 17, 2002

Naomi Watts became an overnight sensation when Mulholland Dr. (2001) hit theaters last year. And Dreamworks was quick enough to snatch her for their next big project: a remake of the Japanese cult classic Ringu. Apparently the idea paid off, because the movie received the approval of critics and audiences alike, which made of it a resounding success that is already spooling talks about a sequel.

Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) just lost her niece due to some strange happenings that may be connected to a tape she watched a week before dying. As it goes, urban legend indicates that whoever watches that tape will die in seven days. Rachel is skeptical about the idea, but she takes it far more seriously once her son (David Dorfman) watches it as well. She then starts a full-blown investigation with the help of ex-boyfriend Noah (Martin Henderson).

After having watched The Ring there was no doubt in my mind that this is easily the official scare feast movie of the year. I haven’t seen anything as scary in a long time and it easily left me shaking once the credits started rolling. Director Gore Verbinsky proves to be a real revelation. He understands perfectly what tense moments and unbearable suspense are about. He plays with us, because he just never lets go. From the atmosphere to the story, this is a movie that’ll scare the shit out of you.


That said, I must also state that anyone looking for a movie that makes a lot of sense should stay away from this. Sure, Rachel gets to the bottom of things while we follow her through every lead she’s got. But when the movie’s over it’s likely you’ll still have more than a couple of unanswered questions in your mind. To tell you the truth, that didn’t bother me in the slightest. I had such a good and entertaining time that whether it made sense or not was secondary.

Naomi Watts proves she’s got what it takes to hold a movie on her shoulders. She’s really good and believable, as is Martin Henderson. Brian Cox has a small, yet memorable appearance. David Dorfman, as Naomi’s son, is spooky.

Overall, an effective thriller worth a look.

“But I do… and I’m sorry. It won’t stop.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pride and Prejudice

Director

Robert Z. Leonard

Year

1940

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 16, 2002

The Bennet family of Old England is composed of five daughters and their parents. In a time of prejudice between classes and pride between lovers, all Mrs. Bennet looks for, is her daughters’ marriage to someone rich. Mr. Bennet is more reasonable, and the girls play the game in their own way.

Delicious adaptation of Helen Jerome’s dramatization of Jane Austen’s novel is slightly unfaithful to the original text but absolutely pleasing as a film, with lighthearted comedy running through its reels.

Greer Garson is great as Elizabeth, the eldest of the Bennet daughters, who becomes attached to rich Mr. Darcy (Laurence Olivier) but knows better than to be an easy prey. Laurence is grand as ever, in a role that shows him both unable to show emotion, and incapable of hiding it anymore. Other standouts of the cast include lovely Maureen O’Sullivan as lovely Jane Bennet, Mary Boland as Mrs. Bennet, Edmund Gwenn as Mr. Bennet, Melville Cooper as annoying Mr. Collins, and Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, a role that resembles her own from George Cukor’s Little Women (1933), but is in ways more effective, and funnier.

Rich atmosphere, gorgeous costumes, gay score (by Herbert Stothart), in a lovely film.

Elizabeth: You’re very puzzling, Mr. Darcy. At this moment, it’s difficult to believe that you’re so proud.
Mr. Darcy: At this moment, it’s difficult to believe that you’re so… prejudiced!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

¡Que Viva Mexico!

Director

Sergei M. Eisenstein

Year

1979

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 12, 2002

Being Sergei Eisenstein a renowned filmmaker, he came to Hollywood and couldn’t work as expected with the big studios. Thus, he was sponsored to go to Mexico and shoot what he planned to be a big film covering the history of that country through the years, with his beliefs transmitted through it. Unfortunately, the shooting went on for too long and Eisenstein was cut out of budget and had to leave the project unfinished, as it remains.

Many attempts have been made to put together the footage and create what allegedly was Eisenstein’s intention. Not much has been made out of it however, and seeing these attempts it is pretty clear that his intentions haven’t been reached or even approached.

¡Que Viva Mexico! - Da zdravstvuyet Meksika! is Grigori Aleksandrov’s own effort. He was one of the two people who traveled along with Eisenstein through Mexico, and after studying Eisenstein’s notes, he brought us this.

Being a big fan of Mexican culture, world history in general, and Eisenstein’s works, I simply couldn’t resist this piece. After reading something about it, I received what I expected: striking shots by this great director, rich imagery, and very poor content. As a documentary, this film is quite deficient; as a storyteller, even worse. In fact, it’s a shame that Mexico is so poorly portrayed under the name of such a great director. Nevertheless, the film is interesting for its background.

Check this one out as a rare item, but nothing else.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Director

Chris Columbus

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

As a fan of the Harry Potter books I have always liked the idea of bringing those magical books to the big screen. Chris Columbus did a good job with the first installment (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)), but it left me somewhat cold. After global box-office success and some harsh critics, Columbus took helm of the second installment as well, although this time around it proves to be a vast improvement.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) are back at school. After a troubled trip Harry finally gets to the place he calls home despite elf Dobby’s warnings about something terrible going on at Hogwarts. Soon Harry and his friends find themselves trying to solve the mystery surrounding the opening of the Chamber of Secrets, something that would bring death to those who were born from muggle-parents.

The second book in the Harry Potter series is widely considered to be the weakest, although it is still as brilliant as the others. So it is ironic that the movie based on that particular book is better than its predecessor. And why is that? After all, the movie is still a very literate adaptation, it is once again overlong and its final minutes are even more ridiculous than those of the first movie. But it is Steven Kloves’ script, the addition of great new characters and absolutely riveting special effects that make of this the very solid movie that it is.

Everything comes down to the story, that’s a fact, so it isn’t surprising to get a darker movie this time around. Not only is it darker in look and situations, but also in humor. I found myself laughing out loud through most of the first hour when things were still a bit lighter. What struck me as weird is the way Kloves was able to translate the witty sense of humor of the book to the movie, something he had had difficulty with in the first outing. Here I was in stitches. Perhaps it is just me, but I think the movie is hilarious.

Aside from the humor, the movie is also a lot of fun. It moves at a fast pace and the action sequences are actually exciting!!! The Quidditch game does not look fake any longer. It is also not boring anymore. Here, it’s a blast! And there are two huge and elaborate sequences involving spiders and snakes that will leave you breathless, although I wonder if kids will have nightmares after watching them. Flawless special effects and a real sense of awe make of these outstanding scenes.

If I had a problem with both the first and second of J.K. Rowling’s books it’s the endings. In the first movie the ending translated awfully, while in the book it was just ok. Fortunately the creators of the movie were able to do a much better climax this time around despite its somewhat over-the-top nature. There’s even room for a small North by Northwest (1959) homage thrown in there! It is the minutes after this that felt abominable to me, but I guess kids needed them as a relief and joyful escapade.

Not only is the movie impeccably made, from the production design to the fantastic cinematography, but John Williams is back with his terrific score as well.

Acting-wise the movie is wonderful except for that young actor you already know I’m not fond of: Daniel Radcliffe. Here the guy continues to have limited range. He has about two expressions and runs with them throughout the entire movie. Fortunately everything else is so good I forgot about it after a while. Besides, watching Rupert Grint and Emma Watson interact is just a joy to behold. These are amazing actors embodying amazing characters and doing something memorable out of it. Their Ron and Hermione are brilliant creations, and here you can keep enjoying their quirky attitudes and great chemistry.

As for the adult cast, I’m afraid Kenneth Brannagh steals the spotlight. His Gilderoy Lockheart is perfection. Brannagh couldn’t have been better in the role and it’s a hilarious and welcomed addition to the cast. Jason Isaacs is wonderful as Lucious Malfoy and Mark Willaims a terrific Arthur Weasley. Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, John Cleese, Julie Walters and everyone else are back for the ride.

Epic, fun, magical!

“This is almost like magic!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Wild Strawberries

Director

Ingmar Bergman

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 09, 2002

An elderly Stockholm Professor on Medicine (Victor Sjöström) who has achieved many professional goals in his life, is to be granted an honorary award by the University of Lund. After having a weird nightmare, he decides to go there by car. His daughter-in-law (Ingrid Thulin) offers to go with him, in order to see her husband (Gunnar Björnstrand), who lives there. Soon after they take off, the truth of their relationship emerges, as resentment poisons the environment. Furthermore, as they visit certain places during the trip, he starts re-living moments and experiences of the past, realizing how empty his life really is, and that it’s still time to do something about it. People they know in the way, and profound conversations involving them, start changing the panorama…

Simple but fascinating Bergman classic, innovatively taking a man through his dreams and memories, with expert use of flashback and hallucination. The memories of the main character (usually featuring Bibi Andersson) are recreated and still seem like memories, whose impact can’t be easily forgotten. The present drama is as intense, making up for an emotional wallop that never becomes depressing, making the story poignant but also kind of optimistic.

The performances are all first-rate, especially Sjöström’s.

This movie among others, makes you realize how much Woody Allen owes to Ingmar Bergman. Overall, this is definitely a must-see film.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

From Dusk Till Dawn

Director

Robert Rodriguez

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 05, 2002

To tell you the truth this isn’t my kind of movie. When I first saw it I thought it was trash except for the first third of the movie. I couldn’t even picture what the creators were thinking when they made it. But I was very young, and throughout the years the movie became kind of a cult classic. Now I see it with different eyes, and it ain’t trash no more.

Seth (George Clooney) and Richard (Quentin Taratino) are two criminals who spontaneously kidnap this guy Jacob (Harvey Keitel) along with his son (Ernest Liu) and daughter (Juliette Lewis). Suddenly they end up in a Mexican bar that looks quite ordinary, yet hides a deep secret soon to be revealed when everyone inside starts turning into vampires.

Quentin Tarantino wrote and Robert Rodriguez directed in a match that would normally be exclusively made in heaven. As fans of the genre that they are, they decided to do a gory vampire movie. And they did. They made this little movie that is all violence, blood and guts. That’s what it is, that’s what it was intended to be and that’s the approach through which the movie actually works.

Of course, the movie is also widely known for a certain sequence in which goddess Salma Hayek dances along with a snake. That sequence has already become immortal in movie history and there’s no wonder why. It’s sexy and breathtaking.

Overall the movie is not for everyone, yet those who enjoy this kind of thing will love it. It’s funny, violent, witty and fast, very fast. The ending, by the way, is quite spectacular. An enjoyable ride!

“I may be a bastard, but I’m not a fucking bastard.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Julius Caesar

Director

Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Year

1953

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 04, 2002

Famous Hollywood version of William Shakespeare’s play, adapted by Mankiewicz and performed by an all-star cast.

In ancient Rome, a group of conspirators chance to murder Caesar (Louis Calhern) to prevent his potential tyranny. Among the conspirators are Cassius (John Gielgud) and Brutus (James Mason). Caesar’s right hand, Mark Antony (Marlon Brando), considerers Julius Caesar no tyrant, and will oppose the conspirators to the last consequences.

This lavish Hollywood production opposes somewhat the values of the text it’s based upon. It lacks the atmosphere of a true Shakespearean work and instead looks like some kind of realistic interpretation that doesn’t really work. However, the performances are quite sincere and the performers undoubtedly talented, if no experts at Shakespeare. Brando sure astounds in his role, especially during his famous speech that changes the minds of the people. This is one of the many roles that consolidated him as a great actor. Gielgud shines as well, and Mason is good but typical. Also note Greer Garson as Calpurnia and Deborah Kerr as Portia. Such an ensemble is not to be missed!

Great score by Miklós Rózsa.

A must for Brando fans; others can skip it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Frida

Director

Julie Taymor

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 03, 2002

It took Salma Hayek about seven or eight years to bring Frida Kahlo’s story to the big screen. We all know that by now. We know about the struggle and we’ve heard countless stories about the obstacles that got in the way of the movie. But the most important aspect of all this is what actually ends in the screen. That’s what we ultimately care about and the raison d’être of the whole thing. For me, the experience was breathtaking.

The movie depicts the tempestuous love story between Mexican painter Frida Kahlo (Salma Hayek) and muralist Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina) as they first met when she was a young girl and throughout the years until her early death. Frida suffered a terrible accident as a girl that would mark her for the rest of her life. But it was her relationship to Diego that became the primary subject of the memorable life of a memorable woman.

Why is Frida a fascinating movie? First of all, it tells the story of two people unlike anything we’ve seen depicted in the big screen before. Two people who were probably meant for each other yet they loved as much as they suffered. Diego was incapable of fidelity, as he himself states in the movie, but Frida only cared for loyalty. That didn’t stop her from being jealous and angry when he cheated on her, but she wouldn’t become a victim, instead opting for following his own steps. Later in their lives they would each have their own house next to each other and only joined by a bridge. Their unusual relationship gets recreated in the movie with a lot of heat and pizzazz. It’s a story that attracts and that gets to our hearts.

Frida and Diego also happened to live in a time when Mexico was all culture and the perfect escapade for political renegades, of which Leon Trotski (Geoffrey Rush) was one of them. They themselves were Communists who supported the revolution and were part of a bohemian circle whose parties were filled with transcendent people such as David Alfredo Siqueiros (Antonio Banderas) and photographer Tina Modotti (Ashley Judd). There’s a tango scene between Frida and Tina that is the highlight of the movie. From the music to the choreography to the camera movement to the actresses, it’s a feast for the senses.

Director Julie Taymor, who is widely considered to be a visual genius, brings her talent to the screen in unexpected ways that add a touch of brilliancy to the proceedings. From the way she shoots the trolley accident to the paintings that come to life, Taymor is able to bring as much artistic integrity to the story as Frida herself brought to her paintings. Frida put her life on canvas. She used it to keep going. She needed it to breathe. We see it, we feel it…

Of course cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto had a lot to do with the colorful look of the movie. Never has Mexico been portrayed more beautifully. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Kudos should also go to Elliot Goldenthal’s terrific guitar-flavored score. It’s surrealist, it’s touching, it’s vigorous, it’s simply perfect. There, I said it.

Biographies have a tendency to become annoying and too structured to make a compelling narrative. Salma Hayek, as the producer of the movie, always had the idea of making a movie that would transcend that. She decided to focus on the love story between Frida and Diego and she made an excellent choice. Julie Taymor and Edward Norton helped to deliver the final draft of the movie, and even though some of the dialogue is cheesy, they did a wonderful job in cramming all the memorable events in these characters’ lives and do it with a touch of wit and macabre sense of humor, just as Frida’s, without losing the intimacy and in epic Hollywood fashion.

In the title role, Salma Hayek delivers what is easily the best performance of her career. She sports Frida’s unibrow with dignity, she wears her colorful attires with aplomb, she carries that irreverent attitude and nails it to the tee. Salma’s Frida is all passion and it is that willfulness to live each day to the fullest that becomes contagious. It’s a bravura performance that establishes her as a real actress. The chemistry between her and Alfred Molina is palpable, it’s explosive. Alfred does not play Diego, he embodies him. His performance is equally powerful.

In supporting roles, Valeria Golino, Mia Maestro, Diego Luna, Edward Norton, Ashley Judd, Antonio Banderas, Roger Rees, Geoffrey Rush, Chavela Vargas and Patricia Reyes Spíndola are all excellent.

Watch out for the final ten minutes. In my very humble opinion they’re not only good, but they reach greatness. Everything we’ve been experiencing for the previous two hours comes together and becomes something that will make your heart pound. There’s no doubt about that.

“Shall we?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hamlet

Director

Laurence Olivier

Year

1948

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 02, 2002

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (Laurence Olivier), finds out through the ghost of his dead father, the King, that the new King, his uncle (Basil Sydney), actually murdered him to take his throne… and his wife, Hamlet’s mother (Eileen Herlie). Thus he decides to make his uncle pay, while fighting against himself to control the anger he feels towards his mother, and many other people in the court.

Outstanding adaptation of the oft-filmed play by William Shakespeare, about treason, vengeance and incest. Olivier managed to create a fantastic piece of entertainment that’s absorbing and quite accessible. The performances are all expert, with Olivier as grand as ever in the lead, proving once more how he can speak Shakespeare’s lines so naturally that he seems to be thinking them; if he looks a bit old for the role, his lightness of speech and movement make up for that. Jean Simmons is the perfect Ophelia, fragile and delicate of mind. Other standouts are Terence Morgan as the mischievous Polonius, and a young Peter Cushing as Osric.

The production design by Roger K. Furse, art direction by Carmen Dillon and black and white cinematography by Desmond Dickinson are so moody that they nearly speak lines of their own, while the score by William Walton accompanies perfectly. Shakespeare’s lines rarely felt so comfortable on film and it shows how well Olivier knew what he had to do.

Hamlet’s conversations with his dead father, the staging of his father’s murder, the madness of Ophelia, the reflections of a gravedigger, the swordfight with Laertes (Terence Morgan), all unforgettable scenes.

This is indeed a masterpiece.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter