CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Grand Hotel

Director

Edmund Goulding

Year

1932

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 30, 2004

Grand Hotel is the most important film in terms of acting ensemble ever made. It set the standard very high for films (and some say even plays) to follow. Its cast is perfection, all-star, and absolutely talented. Since it is also a very fine film, elegantly made, a crowd-pleaser praised by critics, and an easy to watch piece even for today’s standards, it has maintained its prestige. Truth is, after hearing this for years, I was afraid it might be regarded as a great movie more on account of its stellar cast (plus a good but not great script maybe) and not on account of its overall quality. Was I wrong! Grand Hotel is one of the finest films I have ever seen, that has that extra something that makes a film even greater: its cast.

The story is pretty simple. This is a Berlin hotel where, according to Dr. Otternschlag (Lewis Stone), one permanent guest, “People come. People go...nothing ever happens.” It’s just a simple if luxurious hotel, with people coming and going, no one getting into each other’s business. And it’s true! Yet, life is life and the world is the world, and things do happen all the time, and they can be deadly interesting if looked closely. So in telling the story of a suicidal ballerina (Greta Garbo), a down-on-his-luck aristocrat-turned-thief Baron (John Barrymore), a beautiful, ambitious and optimistic stenographer (Joan Crawford), a dying bureaucrat (Lionel Barrymore), a ruthless businessman (Wallace Beery), and the very head porter (Jean Hersholt), Vicki Baum created in her novel and play (later Americanized by William A. Drake) an unforgettable adventure of no more than two nights.

The setting is the hotel and nothing more than the hotel. Baron von Geigern (John B.) is trying to snatch Grusinskaya’s (Garbo) jewels in order to pay a big debt. In the meantime, he befriends a dying old man (Lionel B.) who’s spending all his money on his final days, while he holds a grudge for his former boss Mr. Preysing (Beery), who’s also staying in the Grand Hotel. The Baron seduces young Flaemmchen (Crawford) who’s working for Preysing, and later falls in love with Grusinskaya in an unforgettable theft-and-romance scene. The lives of all these people are affected by a decision the Baron makes while in the ballerina’s room. And still, in the end, to some people’s eyes, not much has happened.

Needless to say, the whole cast explodes. Grusinskaya is the perfect role for Garbo, with all her exaggerated mannerisms and her best diva attitude. She knows what she has and she uses it, and every time she’s onscreen it’s a powerhouse. Her chemistry with John Barrymore is palpable, and he’s also quite good as the Baron. His brother Lionel, however, excels in what could be the performance of his career, absolutely heartfelt as the dying old man. In the opposite way, Beery is magnificent as the cold-hearted industrialist. And with natural charm and simple beauty (a contrast to Garbo’s virtues), Crawford gives every frame she occupies an unexplainable magic. Hersholt and Stone are also quite haunting in their roles.

Too bad it’s over much too quickly. The Grand Hotel is one of those awesome cinematographic places that don’t exist in real life but we’d love to be in. I’d give anything to be transported into that magical place at that precise time. I feel privileged to have been given the chance to give it a look.

“But I want to be alone.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Super Size Me

Director

Morgan Spurlock

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Before I start reviewing this movie, I have to make something clear: I love McDonald’s! I am a huge Big Mac fan and will always be. Having said that, I went into this documentary expecting to be entertained and informed, without any sort of baggage I could carry from my own life. But after all was said and done I realized that the balance was leaning more to one side than the other. I realized I had been much more entertained than I had been informed. And that’s not necessarily a good thing.

Morgan Spurlock, an aspiring documentary filmmaker, targets obesity in America as his first outing as director. In Super Size Me, Spurlock questions why America is inflicted with such a problem and why people are so fat, and consequently dying because of that, without anyone trying to stop it. It targets fast-food restaurants, big food corporations, health programs, schools, and even the people.

By doing so, Spurlock uses two tactics. Just like Michael Moore, albeit just a bit less witty and charming, Spurlock decides to use himself in order to prove his point. He embarks on a quest to eat McDonald’s food, and nothing but that, for one month. He also sets some rules: he must order everything from the menu at least once during that month and must accept the “super size” meal if proposed by the employees. Soon after, Spurlock starts having health problems: his liver gets dangerously close to stop working, his cholesterol level rises dramatically, his sexual desires start to diminish and fatigue overtakes his entire existence. No wonder!

The main problem I had with this documentary is precisely this simple experiment that is showcased for most of the screen time. In a few words, I thought the experiment was pointless, it did not make me change my mind about anything and it felt to me like a pretentious, overly contrived thing to do. What exactly was the point I kind of understand, but I don’t think it’s successfully developed in the end. It’s like doing a documentary about playing with fire. If you play with fire you’ll get burned. Duh! If you eat nothing but fast food during one month you’ll get sick. So what? It’s ridiculous of Spurlock to think that his experiment has any real meaning. If the man just exercised for an hour a day his problems would be greatly diminished. If he ate something else his problems would be greatly diminished. If he only ate what his stomach could take and no more his problems would be greatly diminished. And apparently he knows that, because he even excuses himself at the end saying that what he did might not be realistic because he didn’t exercise, and says most Americans don’t either. Yes Morgan, but they don’t eat fast food 24/7 as well!

The second, far more successful tactic that Spurlock employs, is the use of interviews (to lawyers, executives, doctors and real people), factual data, real footage and excursions to schools and corporations to prove his point and delve into the matter more profoundly. Now, this is quite good stuff. And both sides are presented objectively, with Spurlock acknowledging the fact that it’s ridiculous to sue a restaurant for your overweight problems if not for the money you want to obtain.

That said, I must admit to being thoroughly entertained throughout the entire running time. I never felt bored, I was always interested and remained captivated until the end. I’m just sad the payoff wasn’t as strong as it should have been, but as a piece of entertainment I do recommend this documentary. And that’s about that.

Bring me my Big Mac!!!

“I don't know. George W. Bush?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Super Size Me (2004): Groucho

Review

Marathon Man

Director

John Schlesinger

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Marathon Man is in many ways a must-see. To begin with, it has one of the best modern performances by Laurence Olivier, playing a villain, an ex-Nazi no less. Then, it has one of the most memorable torture scenes ever put on film. And, well, it has Dustin Hoffman in it, in a daring role that showed what a daring young actor he was.

But is it a good movie? Hmm… depends on the point of view. I liked it, and I’m willing to recommend it, but I cannot regard it highly in my book. It’s quite empty, sort of morbid, and overall nasty. But it’s still enjoyable, and very well done. So I guess it’s up to each viewer to decide what to make of it.

The story has a young Jewish graduate, Babe Levy (Hoffman), naïvely entering a world of intrigue as he gets involved with a mysterious woman who turns out to be a German refugee (Marthe Keller). Babe’s brother Doc (Roy Scheider) comes to New York City both to check out his brother’s affair with this woman and to take part in a huge diamond smuggling operation. As it turns out, the brother of an infamous Nazi has just died, so Szell himself (Olivier) has come to retrieve the diamonds. But he can’t be sure if it’s safe to retrieve them. So as Babe has unfortunately been involved, it’s his turn to assure Szell that he can proceed. But if he won’t talk, the sadistic former dentist will surely find a way to persuade him.

Babe, a dedicated runner, will be sure to run for his life whenever he can. His dedication will take him far and away from the villains every now and then. But his thirst for revenge will probably bring him back… turning this into a game of cat-and-mouse that goes one way or the other at every turn.

As I said, even though Marathon Man is a thriller, complete with a chilling score by Michael Small, and every possible nail-biting element, it’s quite shallow, and only the rich performances and the famous torture scenes save it from being a so-so movie. It’s absolutely amazing to watch Olivier at work here, and it’s also very scary. If only for this, I recommend the film.

Incidentally, Szell is based upon a real ex-Nazi, played by Gregory Peck in The Boys from Brazil (1978), where Olivier memorably portrayed a Nazi hunter.

“Is it safe?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cellular

Director

David R. Ellis

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 27, 2004

I am a much bigger fan of thrillers than I am of action movies. Sure sometimes one blends with the other, but as a whole, thrillers have that element of surprise and mystery that gives the movie an extra edge. Cellular I wanted to see from the moment it was first announced that it was going to be made. Sure, it’s a movie that depends on a gimmick, but I thought it could be a fun and entertaining time at the movies. And I sure was right!

Jessica Martin (Kim Basinger) is a science teacher who lives a happy life with her husband Craig (Richard Burgi) and their son Ricky (Adam Taylor Gordon). One sunny morning Jessica is violently kidnapped from her home and brought to the attic of a house where her kidnappers, led by Ethan (Jason Statham), don’t realize the use she’s giving to a broken telephone line. As it happens, Jessica is able to communicate to one phone line, that of Ryan (Chris Evans), an immature hunk that doesn’t believe her at first, but soon realizes she’s telling him the truth and decides to help her before it’s too late. Meanwhile, a cop (William H. Macy) gets slightly interested in the case.

As I stated in my first paragraph, this movie is all about one simple gimmick: the fact that the only man who can help this family has to do so using only a cellular he must not hang up. That’s it. The idea came from Larry Cohen, who is well known for developing like this. And you could say they’re stupid, but if you watch this movie you’ll realize that a solid thriller can be made up of such a basic idea. This movie is intelligent and layered. We keep discovering things about each character that give it that excitement it requires besides the simple device it uses to set up the story. At each twist and turn you keep realizing it is a well-thought motion picture, with barely a loose end in its story, and that it has every ingredient to be a very fun ride.

Which it happens to be!

So there you go. There’s nothing really profound about Cellular. It is a movie that does its job. You do have to buy its premise to go along with the ride, but after you have, it’s non-stop excitement, with characters that are appropriately developed and a story that keeps you at the edge of your seat.

Leading the movie is the always-gorgeous Kim Basinger, who continues to prove she’s got talent by delivering a real, heartfelt performance. And it helps that the woman is sure aging well. She’s ravishing! Meanwhile, Chris Evans proves he’s got what it takes to be a suitable leading man. Really good job. And I also liked Statham and Macy in their parts.

Overall, fun, fun, fun!

“We had a report of a possible kidnapping. You haven't been kidnapped today, have you?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Giant

Director

George Stevens

Year

1956

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, December 25, 2004

Edna Ferber’s epic novel of Texas cattle ranchers, their background and customs and intolerance, became an instant classic, but its film adaptation wasn’t as lucky. Neglected by the Academy in almost every department (despite its multiple nominations), it has had a hard time becoming a classic, and even though some of us do consider it absolutely outstanding, some regard it as overrated. Perhaps the presence of James Dean in it has helped it some, but I’m sure happy that it’s still around and doing well, if not always considered the Gone With the Wind (1939) of the 1950s some heartily believe it is.

The story is quite simple but grows and grows as the running time (and the years) go by. It starts with Jordan ‘Bick’ Benedict buying a horse from an eastern family and falling in love with their daughter Leslie (Elizabeth Taylor). She corresponds and they get married, but she finds it hard to adapt to his cattle ranch life, and to his matronly sister Luz (Mercedes McCambridge). In the meantime, a young rancher who lives in Reata (the Benedict ranch), and works for the family, hopelessly falls in love with Miss Leslie. Helped and protected by Luz, the boy despises and is despised by Bick, but there’s nothing any can do against each other. In time, they will find a way to express their grudge.

As I said, years go by as seamlessly as minutes in this gorgeous epic, the definitive celluloid look at Texan ranchers and oil tycoons. It’s a mesmerizing triumph as the characters suddenly gain years and sometimes wisdom, and the actors do it so well, dancing along to the script by Fred Guiol and Ivan Moffat.

Most people state Hudson’s performance is his finest, and I don’t have any doubt that it is. His character of Bick is as hotheaded as he’s sympathetic, and it’s hard not to love the guy. Taylor’s performance is also regarded as one of her best, and she’s perfect for the role of the loving and loved eastern-turned-Texan. And James Dean… whoa boy, what would be of Giant without James Dean? What would be of James Dean’s memory without Giant? This has got to be one of the most fascinating performances by anyone ever… even though he’s the least credible as an old person in the film. But his charm and wits prove 100% effective in the unforgettable role of Jett Rink, that self-destructive man who made a fortune but could never have what he really wanted. The supporting cast is uniformly great, but it’s Mercedes McCambridge who outshines the rest. She was such a great actress…

Giant is also notable for being the first big Hollywood film about racism against Latinos. That’s a big and very important aspect of the film, first with Leslie opposing Bick’s racist ideas, later with their son (Dennis Hopper) falling in love with a Mexican girl (Elsa Cárdenas), all spiced by electrifying appearance by Sal Mineo as an ill-fated Mexican/American soldier in the middle. The ultimate message the film brings is about this more than anything else (and it does tackle numerous subject matters and sends lots of messages), and even the last scene deals with it. This day, some of it looks awkward or exaggerated, but it’s still clear and effective.

Featuring a gorgeous film score by Dimitri Tiomkin and flawless technical elements, Giant is a gigantic feature film and one must-see epic classic… To my eyes, one of the greatest Hollywood films of all time.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

King Arthur

Director

Antoine Fuqua

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Thursday, December 23, 2004

The fact that there is no historical evidence that King Arthur ever existed should dampen the idea of the director that this is the "real" story of the legendary character. This epic (if it can, in fact, be called that) attempts to place Arthur within the historical context in which he’s believed to have existed, at the same time that it removes all the mystical factors that are attributed to the magical story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

The movie begins with a narration of how the Roman Empire controls many nations, Britain included, and how the Romans, with their lust for land, invaded Sarmatia, a place known for its excellent cavalry. Impressed with their skills, the Romans decided not to murder the Sarmatians, but rather juxtapose them to the Roman army as knights. Time passes by (about 15 years) and the audience meets Arthur (Clive Owen), Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), and the rest of the knights who formed the round table. The director decided that their names weren’t important to the story (they really aren’t), so we only get a happenstance of their names whenever they shout it to each other during battle. The contract of these men established that after 15 years of service to the Roman Empire (and to the Pope who presided), they would become free men. When this time is due and they attempt to receive such freedom, they’re sent on a final order to rescue a Roman family and especially their son, who are in danger of being invaded by the Saxons. Unfortunately for Arthur and his men, the Saxons are not the only enemies they must face, as another group of anti-Roman rebels, named the Woads, attempt to finish them off in direct orders from their leader, Merlin.

I expected this movie to turn out a lot better than it actually did. Don’t get me wrong. Most of it is fairly enjoyable, but certain aspects (such as the acting) fall flat on their face for the most part.

When you read the stories of King Arthur and his Knights, you are most likely going to encounter situations and characters that dwell upon the supernatural. Most (if not all) of the movies that I have seen on King Arthur and his stories tend to have parts that blur into the mystical aspect of his life as it is told by countless “historians.” This is not the case of this movie, which is why I was a bit thrown back at first. The fact that Arthur’s sword was just lying around and he just happened to find it, takes away so much of the romanticist ideology that fuels his stories; the fact that Merlin is not a powerful wizard but just an old man who turns out to be somewhat philosophical at times sheds away so much of the greatness of the original story that one might be compelled to think that all films regarding King Arthur, in the future, should float around the mystical and beautiful part of his stories, not the non-existent historical aspect of it.

Battle scenes do not proliferate, which is not a negative reflection on the film itself. It’s rather refreshing from your average epic (again, not sure if it can be called that). The audience is treated to three major battles, which in term, outdo each other every time. The photography is excellent, with beautiful scenes of the Ireland landscape, and use of fog and mist to give it a more calm and solemn beauty to the scenery. The calm before the plunge. In that aspect, it succeeds.

The version of the movie that I saw was the director’s cut which, as it should have been, would have given the movie the chance to explore more deeply on the characters’ personality and psychological aspects. Unfortunately, its attempt to do so fails miserably; this is where it gets bad.

Clive Owen, although very charming with his looks (in other words, he’s hot), does a bad acting job. His performance as Arthur leaves so much to be desired that I still, to this day, wonder why he was cast as the lead in the first place. The way he delivers his lines seem superficial and at times even forced. Why did they cast him, beats the hell out of me. Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot is almost as bad as Owen as Arthur. It simply does not work. Why did they cast these actors is bewildering to me. On the other hand, there are the good actors, or supporting actors, in this case. Stellan Skarsgård shines in his portrayal of Cerdic, the evil commander of the invading Saxon forces. Til Schweiger, who plays Cynric, the son of Cerdic, and second in command in the army, is very convincing. In fact, they both are. They could pass as evil guys any day.

And then, there is Keira Knightley. Now, if you want to discover the reason why she is awesome, you should watch this film. Although her time on screen is limited to about 30 minutes of the entire film, she is magnificent as Guinevere, the captured Woad who teaches King Arthur many things he did not know about himself, and helps him discover his true essence as a Briton, not a Roman. Personally, I have always been a fan of Knightley’s work. Ever since “Bend it like Beckham” and her line “Mom, I AM NOT A LESBIAN”, I’ve fallen in love with her (in the strictest of senses; I am gay after all). She shines in this movie, and it’s a shame that she does not receive as much time as the others.

The score, though very short, adds to the film’s better part, and it’s actually a very good effort from composer Hans Zimmer, although his own for Gladiator (2000) remains one of my all time favorites. Surprisingly enough, there is little resemblance (in the instruments used, per se) from this film to those used in the scoring of Gladiator.

Overall, King Arthur is not necessarily a bad film. It’s just that certain aspects of it don’t work (mainly the cast). Even then, there are those who save it from falling deep into the “bad movie” territory, i.e. Keira Knightley. As a matter of remembrance, producer Jerry Bruckheimer should be shot in the head.

Thank you.

“Lancelot: There is a large number of lonely men out there.
Guinevere: Don't worry; I won't let them rape you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Butterfly

Director

José Luis Cuerda

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

A week ago my old pal Groucho recommended this movie to me. I had barely heard about it. I just recall having seen some posters at the time of its release. As a matter of fact, I recall a poster in which a child was actually shouting at something. Now that I’ve seen the movie I know the picture comes from the last scene of the movie. Stupid, if you ask me. But anyway, all of a sudden I wanted to see it. And I did. And it was great!

Moncho (Manuel Lozano) is just about to start school, but he’s scared that his teacher will hit him. When he finally attends and the teacher, Don Gregorio (Fernando Fernán Gomez), introduces him to the class and asks him to come forward, Moncho pees himself and goes off running. His teacher then pays him a visit, which is just the start of a very special friendship.

There are countless movies out there about young children befriending old people, so I didn’t know beforehand what Butterfly could offer that was different and/or original. But after the first frame I forgot to think about it, the story just took me in immediately. After a while I realized that what I was seeing was just an ordinary story about ordinary people, but told so well that it sure was captivating. And then the movie took a different path minutes before it was over and it simply elevated it to a whole new level of greatness.

The story, at its core, is the coming-of-age tale of a young boy who had been secluded from the outside world for years because of his asthma. When he was finally set free he was hungry for knowledge. And he found in Don Gregorio the fascinating aspect of life that he was looking for. His teacher provided him with stories, started him in the pleasure of reading, showed him how to court a girl, taught him about nature and even went butterfly-hunting with him. In return, Moncho provided Don Gregorio with a burst of joy and energy that was certainly missing from his life. It soon evolved into a friendship that Moncho would never forget.

Or would he? The movie turns a bit darker as it progresses. The backdrop has Spain just before their Civil War started. And as is usual, extreme circumstance always uncovers what people are really made of. Aspects such as cowardice, treason, and the loss of innocence are all touched in subtle manners. It’s difficult to judge the characters without putting ourselves in their situation. What would you have done in their place?

And it all boils down to an absolutely shocking finale that is so poignant it could break even the strongest souls. I myself can’t get that image out of my head.

The movie also works so well because it has a pair of performances so rich that you wish these characters were real and in your living room. Manuel Lozano delivers one of the most impressive and absolutely memorable child performances I have ever seen. He can do so much with his face that he could challenge even the most experienced of actors. He’s joyous and wonderful. Fernando Fernán Gomez, on the other hand, is nothing short of perfect. His Don Gregorio is a memorable character on its own, but in his hands, it becomes immortal. The actor brings dignity, warmth and intelligence to a role that could’ve been a walking cliché, but that ends up as a fascinating human being.

Also worthy of mention are Uxía Blanco as Moncho’s mother, Alexis de los Santos as Moncho’s brother, who has a touching subplot of his own, Guillermo Toledo as a town resident with a dog problem and Gonzalo Uriarte as Moncho’s father.

Oh, and Alejandro Amenábar’s score is pure magic. It suits the movie to a tee and is as haunting and beautiful as it should.

Wonderful movie!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Super Size Me

Director

Morgan Spurlock

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

The premise of Super Size Me is joky, funny, hardly dramatic, and clearly pretentious. It has Morgan Spurlock, of “I Bet You Will” fame, deciding to eat McDonald’s food, and only McDonald’s food, for an entire month, three times a day, no exceptions. Spurlock, who directed himself in this weird attempt to prove that fast food is harmful, seems determined but slightly unfocused when making his decision. His girlfriend, a vegetarian, is very worried about this, but even she laughs at the idea. Physicians warn Morgan about the dangers of his planned quest, but he doesn’t pay much mind. He’s determined, and he’s going to do it. What’s the worst that could happen?

The worst that could happen is Morgan earned a lot of weight, his cholesterol level arose seriously, he developed liver problems, and even his sexual functions were affected. All these symptoms develop throughout the month, and everyone becomes frightened, namely Morgan’s girlfriend, and his physicians. He doesn’t stop, though. He’s going to finish the month, and prove to the world that fast food is hardly healthy. That he actually weeps once or twice is definitely an unexpected turn of events.

There is a lot more going on in the film than the clear attack on McDonald’s. Spurlock, in Michael Moore fashion, attempts to find out what’s wrong with Americans who are so in love with fast food, and what role do big corporations have in this. For this he interviews both people on the street, and some fast food executives (no one from McDonald’s agreed to an interview though).

It also targets the people who sew the big fast food corporations like McDonald’s, after gaining so much weight, like they didn’t notice they were getting so fat in the progress, like they thought it was healthy to eat fast food so often. And it also researches the food offered in schools, and how the evil corporations also have a hand on giving kids harmful food. But why do they do it? Because they know people actually prefer this kind of food, and will consume it in greater portions? Surely. So whose problem is it really?

I admit to being surprised by how many subjects were explored by Spurlock throughout the film. However, maybe because I’ve never (thank God) have had nutrition problems, or perhaps because the subject matter wasn’t treated the way it should, I felt disconnected with the film more often than not. That I actually wanted to eat a Big Mac after it was over is definitely something I don’t share with most viewers I’m sure, but I’m not certain that many people are willing to quit fast food either, even for a week after watching this film. I think it’s not potent enough, and sadly, it was something of a boring experience for this humble critic.

I think there’s a lot of merit in Spurlock’s work, though. Not because he decided to eat only fast food for a month, but because he dared to look beyond and attempted to make a clear statement out of his own degrading health. The guy is certainly trying to become a serious documentary filmmaker, and I think this film is a step forward, if not very successful on its own. I’m looking forward to his future work.

“See, now's the time of the meal when you start getting the McStomach ache.”


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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Super Size Me (2004): Morris

Review

The Triplets of Belleville

Director

Sylvain Chomet

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 20, 2004

When the 2003 awards season kicked in, there was a movie I hadn’t heard about that was taking all the Best Animated Feature awards. I remember at the time being angry with this, for I wanted the Hollywood productions to win. After all, if there’s a genre that still delivers the goods more times than not, it’s animation. Then came the Oscars, which had the movie up for two awards. One of them was for Best Song, and I remember being pleasantly surprised when the song was performed at the ceremony. I loved the dancing and the set design and ultimately, the song. I was hooked.

Madame Souza helps her orphaned grandson Champion train and be prepared for the Tour de France, a dream of his. But when he actually competes, the Belleville Mafia kidnaps him, so his grandmother and their dog embark on a quest to rescue him, getting some improbable help from a trio of vaudeville singers.

Now, talk about a surprise! Les Triplettes de Belleville is about one of the most unique movies I’ve seen in my life, not to mention the most bizarre animated feature that this humble man has ever witnessed. And when something, after having seen so many feature films in my life, actually surprises and takes me off-guard, I feel the urge to yell about it.

Let’s start with the animation itself. Most of the work done in the movie is hand-drawn, although there’s also some work done by computer animation. The feel is always that of an old, antique rarity. The cities in which the movie takes place, Paris and Belleville (a combination of U.S. and Canadian sensitivities), have a gothic look that is reminiscent of some of the Grimm Brothers tales. And the way most things are drawn represents a satiric look at what they’re targeting. If a character is eccentric, it is very eccentric. If a character is American it is very fat. If a character is a member of the Mafia it has big, squared elbows. All of this brings a mixture of originality that is completely irresistible. The sheer visuals are enough to recommend this movie.

And that’s good, because there’s actually barely any dialogue in the entire movie. Everything is told in silent mode, with great music by Benoît Charest and special attention to sounds. This is, after all, a kind of twisted musical tale.

That music comes mostly from the titular trio of ladies. Now, they are just something to behold. I don’t want to ruin for you some of the small pleasures the movie has to offer regarding these old ladies. From their first appearance in the amazing initial musical number to their late musical appearance around a fireplace, they just continually surprise and do the most unexpected of things. I just loved them!

Now, it’s important to say this movie is surrealist in every single aspect. The creators take the real world as a basis, but they know that with animation everything’s possible. It’s just a matter of getting into the mood. Sure, the movie is slowly paced and there’s not much in the form of action, but it’s the tiny details that simply elevate it to a grandiose level.

And that simply amazing and catchy son, “Belleville Rendez-Vous” indeed!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Polar Express

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Director Robert Zemeckis and star Tom Hanks are the men responsible for my favorite movie of all time: Forrest Gump. Since then, they’ve collaborated in two more movies. First there was Cast Away, which was a an excellent take on a well-known story. Then there’s The Polar Express, a movie that never really got my attention. Truth be told, I went to see it after a friend wholeheartedly recommended it to me and after I saw how well it was holding up at the U.S. box office, which usually means there’s pretty good word-of-mouth going on. So I saw it, and the minute it was over I knew it would some day reach classic status. Or more specifically: classic Christmas-movie status.

A young boy (Tom Hanks, voice of Daryl Sabara) doesn’t believe in Santa Claus, but still can’t sleep on Christmas Eve due to the mystery surrounding the night. Soon a strange noise wakes him up: as it happens, a huge train just stopped in front of his house. He quickly goes to find out what’s happening and faces the Conductor (Tom Hanks), who urges him to get inside and embark on a trip to the North Pole. While on the train, the young boy befriends a strong-willed girl (Nona Gaye) and a shy little boy (Peter Scolari, voice of Jimmy Bennett), all of who are insistently bothered by a Know-It-All guy (Eddie Deezen). Their trip translates into a journey full of adventures.

The Polar Express is based upon Chris Van Allsburg’s short tale of the same name. Writer/director Zemeckis, alongside co-writer William Broyles Jr., expanded the tale to transform it into a full-length motion picture, while maintaining the essence of the original story. The result is a grandiose epic that never loses sight of what really matters: its heart.

Using a barely-explored device, in which actors performed their parts in blue suits against blue screens with minimal props so that computer-generated digital effects could be added afterwards, The Polar Express represents a breakthrough in filmmaking. I sure didn’t know how I would respond to the technology used, mainly because it is very difficult to animate human beings, but even though there’s still ground to break, the work here is spectacular. And after all… why go with an extremely photo-realistic approach when the movie is supposed to be an animated fantasy from start to finish? Once you get used to the visual approach the movie employs, it’s all about the story and the characters. And that’s where the movie goes from being good and original to being great and mesmerizing.

I have to admit to being a bit of a Scrooge myself. I don’t necessarily think of Christmas as the best and more joyful of times. But this movie toyed with my feelings so strongly that I was almost shaking when it was all over. It’s just an irresistible movie that can put a smile on even the most cynical of people out there. And it celebrates the Christmas spirit not only as a marketing effort, but as a season where values such as friendship and love can take entirely different meanings.

Curiously enough, it wasn’t the Santa stuff that provoked the biggest reaction on me, although it is a great part of the story. Sure, it was great remembering that feeling of excitement when you knew Santa was coming. There’s a nostalgic aspect to the story that works like wonders for adults. And kids will be enthralled as well to experience all the romps and bumps of this roller-coaster (literally) of a story.

But what really got me was the underlying and more subtle aspects of a tale about four kids who needed to learn a few lessons about life, whether to be more humble or courageous, but most important of all, the importance of faith in our lives, the importance of believing. It may sound corny, but it is very relevant, especially in a cynical world like ours. These kids grow up while on their journey, and learn more about themselves than in their entire lives. When they finally have to leave the North Pole, they’re different persons, and better ones at that. It can’t get more touching than that.

Tom Hanks plays six roles in the movie (Hero Boy, Father, Conductor, Hobo, Scrooge, Santa Claus), but only as the Conductor does he really look like himself. And he does a great job! One of his characters, Hobo, is also the most poignant, but every creation is very well put together. Every actor, whether using his or her body or voice, excels!

Alan Silvestri did a wonderful job in creating the music. There’s also a couple of musical numbers in the movie that are terrific. And the main song, “Believe” (with lyrics by Glenn Ballard), is a real winner. I’d also like to express my utter admiration for the guys behind the production design. There’s so much imagination in the story that only great talents could bring it to life that well concerning the visuals. It is a visually stunning movie, no question about that.

So, then... can you hear the bells ringing?

“Why, to the North Pole, of course! This is the Polar Express!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

For Your Eyes Only

Director

John Glen

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

When For Your Eyes Only begins, audiences are in for a shocker: Ernst Stavro Blofeld is back! Or is he? Well, at least we have a cat-stroking bald guy giving hell to Bond, and quickly getting it back. Blofeld’s name is never mentioned, and the humiliation Bond gives him is a hidden message to the soon-to-be creators of a rival Bond film (an “unofficial” one) featuring Blofeld.

The film moves on to a very conventional and healthy storyline, concerning the KGB attempting to acquire British secrets. As a means to do that, an ATAC equipment (a weapons system that empowers whoever has it to use Britain’s nuclear submarines against any target) is hijacked, and it is the mission of 007 Agent James Bond (Roger Moore) to get it back.

At first, Bond goes after a famous smuggler, Columbo (Topol), convinced that the man is to blame for the hijacking, in part misled by the real villain, Aristotle Kristatos (Julian Glover). Once in the right track, Bond joins forces with Columbo, as well as beautiful Melina (Carole Bouquet), who has vowed revenge against Kristatos for the death of her father.

Kristatos isn’t a particularly memorable villain, but he’s convincing and probably better-acted than most. Also a sinister paternal figure, he sponsors a young ice-skater (Lynn-Holly Johnson) who’s infatuated with Bond. This plays for the laughs, but also serves as a set-up for Bond, in one of many exciting scenes the film is filled with.

Ranging in locations from scene to scene, the film has as many action scenes as one could hope for, certainly more than the average in a Bond film, but all exciting and serving the story somehow. Though some of us had lost faith in Moore by now, here he proves once again that he’s got bravura to face any kind of situation, dramatic and otherwise, and the romantic subplot with co-star Bouquet certainly works as intended.

This film, which goes back to the usual Bond formula and forgets the high-powered machinery, superhuman villains, and out-of-this-world settings, proves that there’s no need for any of that for a Bond film to be good. Filled with scenes borrowed from many Ian Fleming stories, For Your Eyes Only becomes a memorable piece if only for its simplicity and no less rewarding output. If it gets tiresome, it’s not because technology is lacking, but because the story isn’t absorbing enough.

Also, John Barry is sorely missed. After his delicious scoring of Moonraker (1979), he’s gone for this one, and we get instead a very contemporary score by Bill Conti that never quite suits the mood. The title song however, with lyrics by Michael Leeson and sung by Sheena Easton (onscreen during the title credits, a first for a Bond film) is absolutely riveting.

This film has spun more discussion among Bond fans than any other entry. I’m not with those who consider it bad, neither with those who consider it great. I think it’s a fine piece, certainly worth watching.

Followed by Octopussy.

"You don't have it, I don't have it."

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Alexander

Director

Oliver Stone

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

As I start writing this review, I find myself puzzled as to where to start or what to say. I kind of think it is going to be one of the most difficult reviews I’ve written. And I’ve thought a lot about which approach to use. The movie has been much maligned, and I just happened to love it. I know I’m one of the few out there who think like this. So should I try to make everyone reconsider the movie and try to like it as I did? Or should I just express my opinion and not care about what others think? Oh, I don’t know, I guess I’ll see what comes out as I type it. But I get the feeling it’s going to be something between the two.

The movie chronicles the life of Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell), born in Macedonia to savage King Philip (Val Kilmer) and her sorceress wife Olympias (Angelina Jolie). Alexander takes the throne when he’s just getting to his twenties, and embarks on a quest to conquer as much territory as he can, while becoming, at 25, the most powerful ruler in the world.

I could go into much more details regarding the plot, but to tell you the truth, they don’t really matter. That paragraph tells you all of what’s in store in a nutshell. And it makes up for a juicy story, no wonder this Macedonian King has received more than one big screen treatment and countless intents that didn’t go anywhere. At one point it seemed like Oliver Stone’s treatment was never going to be made. But the infamous director kept fighting and finally got his budget, his cast and his extraordinary team. And I’m glad he did.

Alexander is not an easy movie to watch. At its core, it looks like a huge epic like many that have been released over the past few years. Some battles, attractive cast, lush settings and a lot of money spent… there you go. But what I found in Alexander was an amalgam of those aspects but forming a much more profound, serious, artsy, difficult, intelligent movie. It challenges you. Sure, it runs a long three hours, and it does have a slow pace, but if you just try to get the movie and understand every line and every meaning of each scene, you’re in for a treat. I literally didn’t want the movie to end. I think it is fascinating.

But why fascinating?

Alexander was a man of many layers. He was raised by two conflicted parents who hated each other. And he always lived under their shadow. Throughout his life he was continually reminded of his father, and the obsession of his mother just never left him alone. Then there was his idealism. Alexander sure wasn’t a bad man. He had a dream. He dreamt of having one big empire in which instead of just taking over and making slaves out of the people in different regions, he could learn all about their traditions and language and culture. He didn’t let his men rape women. He even went on to marry a member of a tribe. And every step of the way, his decisions were controversial. His own council was against him. And fighting the system and going forward was one of his most brilliant moves, but also one of his pitfalls, as conquering the world is not as easy as it sounds.

In other words, Alexander was a fascinating subject. And what’s so brilliant about this movie is that Stone never really pinpoints one thing or the other as the reason why he became the man he became. After all, that would be too pretentious. What Stone does, and does it very well, is show us everything that might’ve influenced Alexander to become the man he became. It’s we, the audience, who should try to understand him and make our own conclusions. And I applaud that. At its core the movie is a character study, and we are not used to getting character studies of this magnitude, so grandiose. Stone was brave enough to stay true to his vision and not get intimidated.

The movie also delves into Alexander’s intimate life. Widely known to be bisexual, Stone doesn’t shy away from showing it. We learn from the movie that Alexander always loved Hephaistion (Jared Leto), who stayed with him until the end. But he was nowhere near monotonous. And neither did that matter at the time. It was a time when such terms and limitations and boundaries did not exist. And it’s a pity that so much negativity has been targeted at the movie for this. Why not only watch it as a story of human beings? Sure, the only sex scene in the movie happens with a woman (Rosario Dawson), but criticizing this is just not getting the point of that scene. It isn’t just inserting a sex scene in there for nothing’s sake. There’s a whole subtext going on. And it wasn’t necessary to shoot a gay sex scene because it would’ve made it exploitative. Whatever gay content there’s in the movie Stone shows it in more imaginative ways that make the point clearly and effectively.

Another thing that actually surprised me is the actual lack of action involving battles in the movie. The second and third installments of the Lord of the Rings movies, for instance, took about a whole hour of their running times in extraordinary, breath-taking battles. But Alexander only boasts two of them, and they don’t last that much. Both battles, by the way, are exhilarating and original and full of tension. And even more surprising is that when the movie ends it is impressive to realize the actual lack of action shown. You feel exhausted, but it’s because of the level of intensity that every scene brings, even when there’s only dialogue involving two characters!

So yes, it is a dense movie. No denying that at all. And it is also a period piece that barely feels like one. When you see Troy, to name an example, you never lose the feeling that what you’re seeing are actors walking around disguised in togas in elaborate sets. I don’t know how Stone did it, but Alexander feels like a modern movie in the way that the costumes and sets and acting blend together so well that it doesn’t get distracting and it’s the story that gets the focus.

Another decision that Stone made regarding the structure of the movie was inserting a rather relevant flashback once the movie is getting to its end. Many people didn’t like this and I thought I wouldn’t as well. But again... missing the point. The flashback actually has something to do with the moment in Alexander’s life we’re witnessing. It’s a poignant moment that is effective and well-handled. Another complaint by some people is the music. When I heard Vangelis was doing the music I thought it was a horrible idea. Once you see the movie it feels odd at first, but soon you forget about it and the music actually blends quite well with the story. Sure, it does push for some rather melodramatic moments, but it works. It really does. Oh, and the whole issue about having people from different cultures speaking with different accents... I actually think it was a good idea. It differentiates ones from the others. And I had no problem with that at all.

Colin Farrell makes Alexander his own. It is a tour-de-force performance handled expertly by an actor who knows his craft. Farrell is extremely talented, and he puts so much passion and emotion in his performance that he must’ve been exhausted after the movie finished shooting. It’s testimony of really getting under a character’s skin and embodying him. The performance and transformation are, in one word, impressive. Val Kilmer also shines as the hard-drinking Philip. And Angelina Jolie delivers a deliciously over-the-top performance with aplomb. Her eyes alone can scare the shit out of you. Christopher Plummer has a small appearance as Aristotle, Anthony Hopkins plays our narrator, Ptolemy, and Rosario Dawson holds her own as Alexander’s first wife. Only Jared Leto seemed a bit miscast to me, but his work is strong enough.

Did I mention the movie is exquisitely photographed by Rodrigo Prieto? And every technical aspect is impeccable as well. They really nailed the era.

Overall a passionate, vivid, insightful epic about one of the most fascinating legends of all-time!

“In my womb I carried my avenger!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Alexander (2004): Mithrandir

Review

All the King's Men

Director

Robert Rossen

Year

1949

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 13, 2004

I didn’t really know the story of Huey Long, a.k.a. “The Kingfish”, upon which the novel “All the King’s Men” (by Robert Penn Warren) is based, before watching the classic movie based on the novel. Long was a controversial Louisiana governor who ended up badly. So the film, which as much as the novel became the definitive look at American politics, took me off guard and became an unforgettable experience. I just loved the story, even though it’s as sad as can be.

Told mostly from the point of view of a young reporter, Jack Burden (John Ireland), the story follows the career of a struggling politician, Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford), at first a naïve, rural student of law, happily married to a loving wife (Anne Seymour), and idolized by his young son (John Derek).

After his first political moves, Stark is laughed at, humiliated, or plain ignored. But later, as he discovers he’s being used to divide the votes in favor of his own competitor for the Government of a southern state, he becomes furious, and sets to win the election. Aided by Burden, who follows him closely since the beginning, and Sadie Burke (Mercedes McCambridge), who works for him (though hired at first by those who were using Stark), the politician becomes stronger than ever. And though he doesn’t win the election at first, he leaves an indelible mark. Four years later, he comes back into the scene, stronger, more determined, and way more corrupt.

Surprisingly, the film focuses as much on Burden as it does on Stark. The young reporter, related to politics on account of his family and neighbors (and even the love of his life, Anne Stanton (Joanne Dru), the daughter of a former Governor), believes in Stark and opposes many of his friends when it comes to supporting the man. His blind faith proves dangerous, especially when the most unsuspected people turn against him – in favor of Stark. It’s all a game of ethics and principle, but it’s also a game of power. And there can’t be any winners.

The film is beautifully rendered. It mixes scenes of campaign (all of them outstanding), romance, thriller, and deception, so beautifully that years go by without our noticing. The transformation of the main character is absolutely uncanny, making this the most important performance in Crawford’s career. Also amazing is McCambridge, in her film debut, as outspoken and straightforward as ever. The rest of the cast is also uniformly good.

All in all, this is the finest politically-themed movie I have ever seen, and an incredibly entertaining one. Absolutely not to be missed!

“I'm going to run. You can’t stop me. I’m going to run even if I don’t get a single vote!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Alexander

Director

Oliver Stone

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Saturday, December 11, 2004

This movie could best be described in one word: completelyandutterlyamazing. What that means is that I was enchanted by the movie from beginning to end, and if you’re looking for another “bad review”, then you are just wasting your time reading this. From the first time that I saw the poster at my local movie theater, I knew I wanted to watch it: it dealt with ancient history, it was based on the life of Alexander the Great, and it had the completelyandutterlyamazing Angelina Jolie in it. It doesn’t get much better than that folks.

Alexander is the biopic of Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell), the Macedonian King who conquered most of the world, as it was known at the time, by the age of 30. Narrated by the philosopher Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins), the movie takes a look at the life of Alexander, from his childhood as the son of King Philip (Val Kilmer), to his ascension to the throne of Macedonia at the early age of 20, after his father was killed. Along the way, we see the impact that his mother Olympia (Angelina Jolie) has on his life and his way of thinking. Taking off at Macedonia, the film follows Alexander’s conquest of the known world, first leading his army against the incredibly powerful Persian Empire, going west to Egypt after that and finally making his last battle at India. All of these crowning achievements occur in a period of 8 to 11 years.

There’s a subplot in the movie that deals strictly with sexuality, not only Alexander’s, but that of all males in general. It was custom for an older, more mature Greek to take under his care, as a sort of protégé, a younger boy, to teach him everything, from preparation for battle to getting comfortable in their own skin (sort of) by having sex with them. This was normal back then, and most males had a wife with which they had kids at the same time that they had a younger boy under their care, to satisfy their sexual needs whenever desired. Alexander’s case was a bit different though: instead of having a boy just for his sexual escapades, he had a lover, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), whom he had been friends with since his early childhood. Their love is shown exclusively as hugs and words, though it is obvious that they are also sexual partners.

First of all, I want to congratulate WB for taking the chance that they did with this movie. It is an extremely expensive epic ($150+ million) and it deals with subjects that are still considered taboo in certain parts of our society. Second of all, I want to thank Oliver Stone for directing this movie and for having the necessary balls to make a movie that is honest to the historical record existent today. Unlike Troy (2004), where the historically-recorded sexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was merely reduced to a friendship, Oliver Stone actually decided to film the movie in accordance with history, presenting Alexander for what he was: a bisexual man in love with another man.

In the supporting actors department, we have Anthony Hopkins as the narrator Ptolemy, which, in my opinion, was a very wise casting decision. I cannot picture another actor doing his part as well as he did, except perhaps Christopher Lee (and that’s because the man is amazing and can do nothing wrong in the acting department… no matter what). Though he’s only in the movie for an average 20 to 30 minutes as a whole, he brings a sense of old age and tranquility to his character that makes it very refreshing to have him onscreen after a big battle or a fight to death. Val Kilmer as King Philip is nothing short of astounding: he gained over 50 pounds for the role and had about 2 hours of makeup applied everyday to make him look older, as well as for the scar tissue that covered his eye. Rosario Dawson as Roxane, Alexander’s first wife, steals every scene she’s in. Having probably some of the more risqué parts of the movie (a scene where she fights with Alexander, she’s completely naked, with breasts and vagina showing), she really delivers as the barbarian Egyptian they make her out to be. Last, but not least, there’s Jared Leto’s performance as Hephaistion, which made me believe that he was in fact in love with Alexander: not an easy thing to do, especially when you’re playing a gay man being a straight actor. He pulled it off magnificently.

The two main characters in this movie, along with the rest of the crowd, make up one of the best casts I’ve seen in a movie in a long time. First there’s the truly wonderful and amazing Angelina Jolie, who can also NEVER, and I mean NEVER do wrong in my eyes. She played Alexander’s mother Olympia, and she was every bit convincing and every bit amazing as I imagined her to be. If you have seen the movie or are planning to see it, look out for the scene where Olympia discovers that Alexander has died. She will truly move you. Her character stands alone for me in the movie, as the best performance of the cast. On the other hand, there’s Colin Farrell. Now, I’ve never really been a fan of his work, and I’ve never thought of him as an amazing actor. That opinion changed not so long ago when I saw a little film named A Home at the End of the World (2004). His performance in that movie alone managed to change my opinion about his acting skills, and I can honestly say that he did not disappoint in this one. He truly gets into the character: he literally becomes Alexander, and it is so remarkable to see him transform the character psychologically from one scene to the other the way he did… he got to me.

There are two major battle scenes in this movie: the battle at Gaugamela and the battle at India. Which one was more amazing and more visually stunning, it is hard for me to decide. There were two scenes in these battles that made me call this movie one of the best I’ve seen this year. In the battle at Gaugamela, while Alexander is speaking to his army, the camera slowly closes up on his face, but in a second, all of a sudden the camera moves from his face towards the sky, and we catch an eagle, soaring around the heavens. What happens from there made me feel wet in my pants: the camera literally follows behind the eagle flying, and below you can see the armies grouping and the beginning of the battle; this scene alone was worth my money. Though I know it was all computerized special effects, the incredibly realistic way in which they achieved it was mesmerizing. In the battle at India, when Alexander is riding through the woods and sees an elephant for the first time, he gallops towards it, and the moment that they stand face to face, the scene is captured in slow motion, so subtle, so beautiful, it literally made my eyes watery (I’m a big sucker for this kind of stuff).

I could go on and on about this film and why it did not deserve the reviews that it got from the critics. I did not concentrate in this review on the aspect that most critics were discussing: Alexander’s sexuality. I rather chose to talk about the general aspects of this film, its cast, and why it is such an amazing picture. I truly recommend this movie to each and every one of you reading this out there. It’s a long movie (3+ hours), but it is totally and utterly worth your time and your money. Go see it with an open mind, and you will find the greatness in Alexander.

“Conquer your fears, and I promise you, you will conquer death.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Alexander (2004): Morris

Review

Alfie

Director

Charles Shyer

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Yeah, yeah, I know… I should’ve watched the original Alfie (1966) before I saw its modern remake. But, you see, I’m the kind of guy these movies are actually made for. I’m more than willing to see the original and classic movies, but going to a theater is just an experience I adore, and when you add actors that I like and a premise that actually sounds intriguing (it must be, they’re remaking it!), it just becomes irresistible to me. And I’m there baby!

Alfie (Jude Law) is an English limousine driver in New York who happens to be a terrific womanizer. He knows, or thinks he knows, everything about women. And he goes from one to the other with remorseless ease. Whether it’s unhappily-married Dorie (Jane Krakowski), single-mom Julie (Marisa Tomei), rich socialite Liz (Susan Sarandon), his best friend’s girlfriend Lonette (Nia Long), or young crazy Nikki (Sienna Miller), Alfie is just there for the fun of it. That said, his experiences with this group of women will affect him more deeply than he’s willing to accept.

Now, why is it that director Charles Shyer wanted to remake a movie that was so important some decades ago? I can’t really speak for myself since I haven’t seen the movie it is based upon, but apparently the director wanted to bring modern sensitivities to a story that seems to be quite dated in today’s world. Women are not the same today, nor is the general way of thinking. They’re now strong-willed and not that innocent. This Alfie shows that, and it does a good job in that respect, cause the women in the movie certainly seem real enough for me.

That said, Alfie, the main character, doesn’t. I never really bought his way of being. I’m sure there are plenty of womanizers out there in the world, but his tactics, his way of being, his overall place in the world, the easiness, the charm, it is difficult to buy that in a world like ours. Then again, it’s Jude Law playing the character, and he’s certainly charming… but give me a break!

Now, I do want to say that this little aspect didn’t bother me that much. I certainly got into the movie and went along with the ride. And it is a fun one for the most part. The first half hour of the movie is especially good, the best it has to offer. We get Alfie explaining how he gets all those women, and spitting out theories and truths about them. Alfie continually talks to the camera, and it just works. I was enthralled and totally captivated.

It is when the movie turns more serious that the excitement starts to dissipate, and the movie does drag a bit at parts. Susan Sarandon’s entrance actually shakes things up a bit, but soon everything’s back on slow-mo. I don’t know, the movie is just not as effective as it should’ve been.

But it’s got a nice message!

Anyway, Jude Law is really good in the title role. Law is an extraordinary actor who can do anything, and here he goes all movie star on us. It is a star performance, and a charming and touching one at that. The women are all uniformly good. I especially enjoyed Long and Sarandon.

A good movie, and that’s that.

“What's it all about...?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Moonraker

Director

Lewis Gilbert

Year

1979

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

The decision to follow The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) with Moonraker is owed rather completely to the unexpected and unmatched success of Star Wars (1977). Bond just had to enter the space era, and this seemed just the right move. I myself didn’t trust the decision and went into the movie expecting an outer-space farce with little regard to Ian Fleming’s character (which probably shouldn’t be looked for in most Bond films anyway). I was pleasantly surprised to find a serious film, in fact one of the finest starring Roger Moore, with most of its action set on Earth, and just the climax set in outer space.

The story is propelled by the hijacking of a space shuttle called Moonraker, which was at the time loaned to Great Britain by the United States. International havoc ensues of course, so Secret Agent James Bond (Roger Moore) is sent to investigate. Beginning with Drax Industries in California, the manufacturers of the Moonraker, Bond soon finds himself highly endangered, and obviously suspicious. Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale) seems indeed to be the megalomaniac behind the hijacking, and what his reasons are, and how to stop them, becomes Bond’s mission.

Along the way, Bond romances mainly two girls: Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), who works for Drax (unaware of his intentions) and Corinne Dufour (Corinne Clery), who assists the villain. The romantic scenes are gorgeously done, with an atmospheric score by John Barry that marks (among others) the beginning of his modern work, filled with beautiful and heartwarming tunes that have earned him so much respect. The action scenes are also elegantly scored, mixing familiar tunes of Bond and other films, with a unique and original touch. John Barry’s music here is one of his best works. The title song however, with lyrics by Hal David, and sung by Shirley Bassey, is a let-down.

The settings vary quite drastically before Bond gets to outer space. From California to Brazil to Venice, we get countless action scenes that manage to be highly exciting, especially when the indestructible Jaws (Richard Kiel), reappearing from the previous film, is behind 007. Jaws becomes here a much more memorable character, as love strikes him, he changes sides, and even speaks a line!

The outer space sequence towards the end is, as expected, the least credible, and not necessarily the most exciting. It constitutes the climax but really isn’t, though we’re willing to forgive that given the fine film presented up to then. The film satisfies itself with a demonstration of visual effects and high-powered equipment, and finally Bond gets ready to move on to Earth once again. A wise decision indeed.

This film also marks the final appearance of Bernard Lee in the role of M; he died while preparing for Bond’s next film. Lee will always be remembered for the role of the father-like chief of the Secret Service, and hardly any actor will match him.

Followed by For Your Eyes Only (1981).

"Well, here’s to us."

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Director

Beeban Kidron

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

I loved the first Bridget Jones movie. I though Renée Zellweger was sensational in it. And everything about it just made me giggle. The movie pleased so many people that a sequel was quickly in the works. Unfortunately critics and audiences haven’t been as receptive this time around, but to tell you the truth my friends I saw it with and I just loved it. Bridget is just… irresistible!

A couple of months have passed since Bridget (Zellweger) and lawyer Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) ended up together and ready to be happy. And they are for a while, until complications start to arise: Bridget is having trouble adjusting to Mark’s snob environment and it appears that one of his partners (Jacinda Barrett) is quite smitten with him. Enter Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), who won’t stop at anything to get Bridget, and her panties, back!

To be perfectly honest, I do find the second movie’s plot a tad ridiculous. There are instances when situations ring true, such as the fact that there’s nothing as easy as a “happily-ever-after” finale, when as a matter of fact life goes on and so do complications. But the involvement of Daniel is kind of unbelievable, and you can sense it is more a plot device than anything else. Oh, and Bridget in a Thai prison? Those ten minutes could’ve ruined the movie, but fortunately they’re over faster than they started.

So that’s the bad.

The good news is that everything else about the movie works like wonders. Bridget is still Bridget and she’s just as lovable and clumsy and chubby as ever. To be fair, the sequel is just an excuse to spend more time with her in countless different situations. The whole trip to ski and the first half hour of the movie are especially effective. But what am I saying? Truth is I laughed throughout the entire movie. I never ceased to do that. The movie is funny and the characters are endearing. What else could you want?

Oh, and did I mention the selection of corny songs is, once again, top-notch?

Renée Zellweger delivers, once again, a touching, great comedic performance. Girls will certainly identify with her. The expressions she makes are just priceless. And the entire performance is well balanced. Firth, on the other hand, is more subdued than ever, but still lovable in his own way. And Grant, while a bit out of place for my taste, delivers on his chops and charisma. I also liked the very small appearances of Jim Broadbent and Gemma Jones.

Sure, the premise and the director are not at the top of their forms as they were in the first installment, but I didn’t care at all. As a matter of fact, I want a third movie. I want more Bridget!

“Friends - they spend years trying to find you a boyfriend, but the moment you get one, they instantly tell you to dump him!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Alfie

Director

Lewis Gilbert

Year

1966

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, December 06, 2004

By now, there are many films that deal with careless womanizers who suddenly realize they’re actually lonely, shallow people (About a Boy (2002) comes to mind as a recent example). On the other hand, actors breaking the “fourth wall” (talking straight into the camera), and narrating their own adventure, have become elements of cliché. In 1966 however, both things were sort of innovative, and were used to the advantage of the little film called Alfie, scripted by Bill Naughton from his own play.

Alfie (Michael Caine) is a happy bachelor. Or so he thinks. His view of life is extremely sexist, to the extent of calling women “birds” and referring to each as an “it” instead of a “she”. To today’s audiences, the film is dated and unbearable in that way, but in its original context, it’s hilarious. Alfie goes from girl to girl, from one-night-stand, to one-night-stand, and from sporadic relationship to sporadic relationship, without a care in the world. That is, until one of the girls, Gilda (Julia Foster), breaks the news that she’s pregnant. Alfie doesn’t marry her, but he does acknowledge the child, and fathers him, until she decides to marry another (Graham Stark), who’ll become the boy’s father. Soon, Alfie becomes stressed at finding out how much he misses his son. Things don’t change much for him however, but his observations on his affairs seem just a tad affected by the incident.

Later on, circumstance dictates that Alfie must rethink and reorder his stances in life. First, an adorable girl by the name of Annie (Jane Asher) dumps him; later, while he’s having an affair with Ruby (Shelley Winters), a mature woman who knows what she wants, and Lily (Vivien Merchant), the wife of a friend of Alfie’s who is incapacitated at the moment, the latter brings him dreadful news. And the decision they take proves shattering for Alfie, and what’s worse, no woman in sight will take him seriously when he decides to take them seriously for once.

To be perfectly honest, most of Alfie is tiresome. The film that catapulted Michael Caine into superstardom has him talking into the camera far more than we’re willing to hear him. It eventually becomes very interesting, but in the meantime, it’s tiresome. Luckily, he’s a charming leading man, and his misadventures prove funny more often than not. Aided by a clever score by Sonny Rollins, the script pulls off a number of fine vignettes, with refreshing results at every turn, though all we get is the point of view of one man, and a very stubborn one by the way.

In the end, somehow, it all manages to become much more interesting and significant than one would have expected. There comes a moment when we realize the film wanted us to think nothing could change Alfie’s mind in any way, and when we see him actually rethinking his own points of view, we’re shocked. The final comments Alfie addresses to us don’t come from a completely different man than the one we accompanied for a while, but they do show glimpses of significant change. Then we rethink the whole story ourselves, and it becomes a tale of experimentation and evolution. Somehow, it becomes compelling.

Caine, of course, excels in what would become his first really memorable performance. To some, he hasn’t got the looks, but he’s sure got the charm and the wit. Around him, many women do as good an acting job as he. Winters, Asher, and especially Merchant, are all praise-worthy.

And talking about successful women, Cher sung the memorable title theme, composed by Burt Bacharach and Hal David.

“What’s it all about?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Luther

Director

Eric Till

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Those who know me can tell you that, of all the religions in the world, the one I despise the most, is the Catholic Roman Church. I don’t have anything against its members: just how the Church, as an institution, acts in the name of what it stands for. I usually jump at the opportunity to see a movie where the theme is very anti-catholic. I like to see these films because it usually increases my ideas of “good” for the church. When I first saw the previews for Luther, I knew right away that I wanted to see it. Having read A LOT about this man and the things he did in his lifetime, I couldn’t wait to see a movie based on the life of he who separated us from the Catholic Church, and created (thankfully) the Protestant movement.

Luther tells the story of Martin Luther, a German monk who lived around the XVI century. The movie begins with the fable that is commonly thought brought Luther into the monastery in the first place: during an awful storm, full of lightning and thunder, he sought asylum in the monastery having no other place to go. Then he became a monk. Later, he would also become a priest, which gave him a chance to see the suffering of the people around him.

During a trip to Rome, Luther realized how disgusting and hypocritical the Catholic Church was, where you could get, for a certain amount of money, an indulgence (a piece of paper from the Pope) to get a loved one out of the Purgatory. He also saw how many relics were in Rome, considered Biblical, which people had to pay to see and which supposedly, just by seeing them, would significantly lower the time you spent in the Purgatory. Luther underwent a change of mind, where he had no idea what to do or what to think, not knowing whether God was benevolent or malevolent. These thoughts in the movie play out mostly by Luther screaming and talking to himself inside a clustered room, as if there was a demon tormenting him. Eventually Luther, who had by now become a teacher of Theology at the University, decided that he had had enough, and wrote down (and published) the Ninety-five Theses, which was basically a challenge at Catholic law from the moment and critics to the institutes stated by the Church as solemn and sovereign. If you know history or the life of this man, you’ll know what happens next, which I will not spoil for the reader who don’t.

To this day, I’m still surprised that the film received mostly mixed reviews here in the United States. I’m also surprised that it didn’t get any Academy Award nominations (nor will it get them coming this new award season). There are people here who deserve to receive awards for their work. Eric Till, the director, certainly deserves praise. He managed to get across a huge point in the history of mankind, without looking for any subplots or something to “attract” viewers: it stayed true to the history of Martin Luther, and for this, I’m very thankful. The writing is also phenomenal, with excellent dialogue throughout and lines uttered by Luther offering more than just the regular talking stuff: The man offers insight, and metaphors, and allusions, and every range of literary devices imaginable… even lyrical, which is the little part that I sincerely dislike about this movie; there are certain parts of the dialogue that come out more like a rhyme than an actual line, obviously nothing that a human being would say in an everyday language, but apparently used by the creators to give a Shakespearean approach to the movie. Either way, the excellent directing and writing and musical score and the dialogue (for the most part) more than make up for these little details.

The cast, in my opinion, could not have been chosen better, and this is where I also contemplate my disappointment for the movie not being noticed enough by most reviewers and award-giving “academies”. Joseph Fiennes, as Martin Luther, is nothing short of amazing, portraying the man with such a quality and caress that you truly start to believe at some point, that the man is Martin Luther. He deserved an award for Best Actor, or at least a nomination. Another person who I thought truly deserved an award was Peter Ustinov, who plays Friedrich, the king of a province of Germany. There was a scene where King Friedrich received a gold rose from the Pope himself, as a form of “thank you” for his work over the years, but mainly as a way to buy him into sending Luther to Rome to be tried as a heretic: fantastic. That scene alone should have won him an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Yet, I digress; may his soul rest in peace.

This movie was great from many standpoints: from a historical point of view, it was completely accurate and very well portrayed. From a commercial point of view, it was probably one of the best movies I’ve seen all year. Now, I may be biased because of the movie’s theme, but I still suggest to anyone to go and rent it. You will witness the true face of the Catholic Church existent at the moment in Germany (everything from it is lowest to its lowest – I still to this day cannot find anything good in this religion). You will witness the reasons why Luther himself wrote his Thesis (the interpretation from the townspeople and the people at Rome is incredible). Best of all, you will see the beginning of a new era, the birth of a new religious movement: Protestantism. Although Luther created (whether he wanted it or not) a new religion (Lutherans), his bigger part in the picture stands as the creator of the Non-Catholic movement, a movement where you could be saved by being a good man and doing good deeds, not because you were predestined to die and go to Hell; a movement where you were allowed to read the Bible (which Luther translated into German for the first time – a crime and a heresy at the moment, since the only control the Catholic Church had over its people was that they could not read the Bible, thus unknowingly submitting to the Church’s teachings without any other option), and interpret it your own way; a movement where you were free… for the first time in thousands of years, you were free: from religion, from statistics, from the Church… even from God, if that was your wish. We’re saved through God’s grace, if we have faith in him, and that’s written on the Bible. Would you like to challenge that?...

“Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hero

Director

Zhang Yimou

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Two years after its initial release, I’ve finally seen Hero. You might wonder why I was so eager to see it, since I wasn’t that big a fan of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, even though I respected and admired it. And I really can’t answer to that. I’m a sucker for perfectly choreographed martial-arts sequences, but the visual look of the movie is what attracted me the most. And boy does it deliver.

A hero with no name (Jet Li) pays a visit to the King of Qin (Daoming Chen), who wants to thank and reward him for killing his three deadliest enemies: Broken Sword (Tony Leung Chiu Wai), Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung) and Moon (Ziyi Zhang). Our hero then begins to recall how he accomplished such a task…

There’s actually a lot more I could say about the movie’s plot, but somehow I feel like I’ve said enough. I saw the movie without knowing much about the story and it certainly proved to be a wonderful experience that way. I’ll just say there’s some influence from Kurosawa in more ways than one, but especially in the way the movie is structured... Rashomon-like.

And I love those kind of movies!

That said, it doesn’t really matter whether I like something or not, but rather whether the movie works in its own terms and how good it really is. Hero is excellent, mind you, and that’s the reason it won so many awards around the globe.

I’ve read about people complaining that the movie doesn’t have that much of a story. And even though that’s true, I don’t think that works as a detriment. For this movie is not a character study, it is visual poetry at its fullest. The creators took a legend around the foundations of China and used it as an excuse to make one of the most beautiful-looking movies of all time. Sure, it looks pretty, but that doesn’t really translate into a great movie. Hero’s simplistic story about self-sacrifice as a mean for a bigger cause does the job, and with only a few characters the movie feels complete.

Every single scene is like a painting brought to life. Highlights include every single time a battalion throws arrows, a fight sequence involving a lot of leaves and another one that happens over water. These sequences are all exceptionally choreographed, which only enhances the sense of magnificent beauty presented by the settings, cinematography and music. Not to mention the extraordinary use of color!

This is the kind of movie where the plot serves a second purpose, and that’s perfectly fine. I just stared in awe at the passion the actors brought to their roles, the different interactions between the characters, and the sense of woe regarding each telling of the story. I get the sense that even without sound, the movie would be perfectly watchable, if only for the beauty of each and every one of its scenes.

As acting goes, everyone does a good job. Gorgeous Zhang Ziyi’s role is the least successful of all as it mainly serves as a plot device, I think, but she does a great job with it. That said, Maggie Cheung, whom I adored in In The Mood For Love, owns the movie. Her screen presence just leaps out of the screen. And she conveys both cold-assassin attitudes and lukewarm loving ones with equal ease.

Breathtaking!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Motorcycle Diaries

Director

Walter Salles

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

I’ve always been fascinated by history. To me, it’s always a privilege to find out how important historical facts happened, and any dramatization of them is welcome. Of course, sometimes the dramatizations aren’t good, but when they are, I love them. Concerning the story of Ché Guevara, the famous Argentinean revolutionary who aided Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution, and was murdered early in his life, I knew very little detail. Of course, the man is an icon of the twentieth century, and an idol of many, but why? What did he do that’s so great? And why isn’t he as hated as Castro? I’d say it’s because of his short life and tragic end. But as it seems, it’s also because of his priceless idealism, and his viewpoints on equality and poverty.

Diarios de Motocicleta offers a beautiful cinematographic interpretation of Ernesto Guevara’s idealism as presented in his own diaries kept during a trip he made when he was 23. Scripted by José Rivera, based also on a further book narrating the same experiences, by Guevara’s friend Alberto Granado, the film is solely about the famous trip, with all its turns and circumstances that made it so crucial to the life of the now historical icon. Surprisingly, Ernesto Guevara (Gael García Bernal) wasn’t into politics but into medicine, before that trip, proposed by Granado (Rodrigo De la Serna) as a celebration of his thirtieth birthday. The idea was to hop on Granado’s old motorcycle and travel across South America. They do so, with little money and lots of expectations, but end up living a completely different set of experiences than they thought they would.

It’s nothing more than an ordinary trip, one could say. Like the introduction states (borrowed from Guevara’s diaries), this is not a tale of extraordinary events. Or is it? From town to town, from experience to experience, the people, the poverty, and the injustice, become elements of a change of conscience for Guevara. Little by little, the careless youth becomes an activist, without his own understanding or planning. He’s soon into causes he never even thought of before, and he doesn’t even think about it twice. Once he stops to think about it however, he realizes he’s a different man… for good.

The film is full of priceless vignettes that are either poignant or hilarious, or both. This is the kind of movie that’s both pleasant and tragic to watch. Guevara and Granado are a fascinating couple, and their sense of humor makes their experience extremely funny. Guevara’s fight with asthma and his compassionate way of caring for the poor and the sick are heartbreaking. And some people’s poverty, and the history of some places in Latin America, are certainly tragic themes. The movie is never excruciating though. It’s a pleasure from beginning to end, to the extent that you don’t want it to be over, and you keep it with you for a long time after it is.

What became of Guevara’s idealism is not a matter discussed or even thought about in this movie. That’s for history books and anyone’s appreciation, not for this movie’s running time. You can think of Ché Guevara as a hero or a villain, but his ideas, developed during the story this film has to tell, are hardly a matter of appreciation. They’re clear, straightforward, idealist, and honest, so I don’t think anyone can actually hate this movie. In fact, if someone didn’t even know Ernesto Guevara became Ché Guevara, they wouldn’t necessarily have a reason to think so during the film. That’s how unpretentious it is.

Director Salles, of Central Station fame, delivers his tale with care and sensibility. He knows how to transmit young Guevara’s appreciation of things, and does so in a way that’s both subtle and in-your-face: He shows the people Guevara looks at, as if they were trapped in pictures, unavoidably pinned into our minds, as if asking for help. These moments are unforgettable indeed, and very beautiful as well. The people in said scenes, and throughout the movie, are obviously real townspeople, whose honest portrayal of themselves is outstanding, and gives the film a documentary feeling that’s never boring or unpleasant. The two stars, in outstanding performances, lead the way to perfection, but the people around them are what is (and should be) absolutely unforgettable.

A subtle score by Gustavo Santaolalla, and the beautiful photography by Eric Gautier, are among the many assets the movie possesses. All in all, it’s a must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter