CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

King Kong

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 29, 2005

As much as I’m something of an anti-fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, lately I started getting excited about the new remake of King Kong (1933). I didn’t much like the idea, me being a huge fan of the original, but I do admit that as excessive as he is, Peter Jackson is a quality filmmaker and if he’s as big a fan of the classic movie as I am, which I hear he is, he should respect it enough and make a good film now. So let’s see what he has to offer.

The result is quite a new experience, a re-imagining of the original film, an all-new treatment based on the “beauty and the beast” story that takes itself very seriously. Business isn’t looking good for director Carl Denham (Jack Black), who’s letting his investors down with his “safari movies” and doesn’t have a very viable project in store. It’s 1933 New York, and times aren’t easy for artists, so Denham decides to cling to his one possibility to make his dream picture. He finds a struggling actress, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), in the streets, and off he goes on a ship to an undiscovered island where he plans to film his picture. Most people on board, from ship crew to film staff, don’t know the truth, but Denham is smart enough to take them all there, ready to work for him. Darrow herself and the film’s screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), are among the fooled ones. The destination: Skull Island, where prehistoric life presumably prevails. Once they get there, they find hostility in the natives, and a gigantic wall that divides them from the prehistoric creatures, and the king of the land: Kong, a giant ape.

The story is well-known by film buffs and a blast of imagination. Back in 1933, however, it worked much better, probably on account of people’s capacity to be awed, or probably because it was sold much more like a fantasy than it is now. It was easier to believe that an island is inhabited by dinosaurs and a giant ape when the whole mood was fantastic, as opposed to the sort of realism that’s attempted in this remake. Sadly, when presented like this, the matters that defy logic are much easier to question, like why that visionary that’s Denham would prefer to take the giant ape back home instead of one of the dinosaurs, undoubtedly much more interesting creatures. Is it so it can climb to the top of the Empire State? But how would he know that’s the ape’s fate if he didn’t see the original film?

Most people complain about the overlong first chapter, before they get to Skull Island, and I want to declare happily that I’m not amongst them. While I do think so much time is not necessary, I quite enjoyed the trip, fell in love with Ann, admired Denham, and felt expectant of the end of the trip. What I didn’t like as much was the stay at Skull Island. There, it was all about exaggerating the action, over-exposing the characters (especially those played by Evan Parke and Jamie Bell, in an annoying mentor/protégée subplot) and just taking too long at each step. Plus, and that’s just a matter of personal appreciation, I felt a “Lord of the Rings” undertone that I just didn’t like. It’s not a secret that I’m not a fan of Jackson’s filmmaking style when it comes to action and exoticism, and both the natives and the monsters seemed exaggerated to me like everything has to be EXTRA-peculiar to be interesting. Later in the film, the theater sequence uses the original choreography and Max Steiner score from the natives sequence of the 1933 film, and I wasn’t sure I admired the homage or felt a little homesick.

There’s a lot of richness in the main motivator of the film, the “Beauty and the beast” element, which adds an interest from Darrow towards Kong and gives them depth. When Kong is not beating the shit out of a dinosaur, he’s a pretty interesting character, because he’s so intrigued by Darrow, who changes his life. Her own reactions are also quite interesting and Watts is easily the best performer of the film. This element adds a new layer to the King Kong story, makes it all the more affecting, and changes the whole sense of the final New York sequence, including the closing Denham quote (“It wasn’t the airplanes, it was beauty killed the beast”).

The Denham character was also changed a bit. This guy is much more of an explorer, an entrepreneur, a ruthless artist. Driscoll becomes a much more important player too, involved in the whole process, and also quite an outcast during the trip. Both Black and Brody do a good job at portraying these guys. Also, good work by Andy Serkis playing out Kong (to be digitalized later) as well as that Lumpy character, one that gave me genuine laughs.

When I first saw the film, I was pleased with the scenes that pay tribute to the original, but after thinking and reading a bit more, I was pissed off at the one that mocks the original romantic dialogue at the ship. That’s a self-indulgent Jackson bit that almost dares say that this film (or at least, its dialogue) is superior to the original. That comparison is unnecessary and somewhat offensive. Trying not to be a jerk, I could say it’s also a statement of how movies have changed, how a more realistic dialogue is necessary now to make things better. But if that be the case, what’s with the Parke/Bell subplot, the ludicrous dialogue there, and the tiresome “Heart of darkness” references? And what about the silly transformation of the lead actor Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), and how Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann) reacts to it? I could go on and on about this. The film has quite a few flaws, and I refuse to dismiss them just because the whole of it, the final result, is a good film. I wouldn’t dare rate this movie with less than three starts, because that’s how good it is, but I also want to make sure to point out what’s bad about it. And this is some of it.

To wrap up, I’ll say that the visual effects are outstanding. Great work reproducing the depression era New York, too! Dream stuff. And that final sequence atop the Empire State is one of the coolest ever seen, no doubt about it. Wonderful costume design, too, and all in all, it’s just a work of art, the whole of it. The music score by James Newton Howard is serviceable but unmemorable. And the script by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson (based on the original by Merican C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace) could be way better.

Still a must-see in the big screen, just for the awe-inspiring experience.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of King Kong (2005): Morris

Review

The Family Stone

Director

Thomas Bezucha

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Much has been said about the terrible job that the Fox marketing team did on promoting this movie. And I sort of agree. The first one-sheet with the hand giving us the finger (not that finger, but obviously toying with the well-known insulting sign) was clever, but it belonged to another movie altogether. Then a second one-sheet came with more of a “family reunion” vibe and they got it right. But then trailers started playing everywhere in which the movie was portrayed as a Christmas take on Meet the Parents or something slapstick-y like that. I still found those ads funny and they made me want to see the movie, but that’s definitely not the movie we ultimately get. If you ask me, I was more than happy with the actual result. And that’s what I’m here to talk about.

Everett Stone (Dermot Mulroney) is coming home for Christmas, and he’s bringing his uptight girlfriend Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker) to meet his family. Meanwhile, his parents Sybil (Diane Keaton) and Kelly (Craig T. Nelson) and his sister Amy (Rachel McAdams) are ready to receive the rest of the family, including their deaf gay son Thad (Tyrone Giordano) with his partner Patrick (Brian White), their pregnant daughter Susannah (Elizabeth Reaser) with their granddaughter Elizabeth (Savannah Stehlin), and their easy-going son Ben (Luke Wilson). The reunion turns out to be disastrous once the family gets to know Meredith, so she enlists the help of her sister Julie (Claire Danes) to come and help her deal with the situation. But that will only serve as a catharsis, for much more is going on in the family than it appears.

The Family Stone is a heart-warming movie that successfully blends comedy and drama in a way that feels real. I liked the combination because I think life is exactly like that. It is full of moments of different colors and textures. Writer/director Tomas Bezucha knows this and fills his movie with honest snippets and characters in a story that makes us laugh and cry in equal measures. We all know how holiday family reunions can be, for no family can claim to be entirely functional. And the movie hits all the right notes conveying that sense of complication, nostalgia and love.

It also helps that Bezucha opts to shoot and present his movie in an old-fashioned way. He even resorts to show a scene from Meet Me In St. Louis (1944) and continue the segment with a poignant montage with a song in the voice of Judy Garland. It’s a magical moment, and it fits right into the overall mood.

It has been said that if a movie contains three great scenes, it can then be considered a success. With The Family Stone I can think of four such scenes. The first one is a touching moment between Sybil and Kelly, one that comes from a relationship that has a history and that gives us a tender insight into who they are. Then there’s the dinner scene in which a difficult and controversial topic surfaces, a scene which must have been extremely difficult to shoot in order to get all the right nuances and tones, and which finishes in a tremendously poignant note. There’s also the scene in which Meredith gives each member of the Stone family a present. And finally there’s the very final scene of the movie, one which could have resorted to all sorts of melodramatic tricks, but which the director handles with expertise without losing the emotion that lies beneath.

I just realized all of these, my favorite scenes, are dramatic ones. But the comedy is also present throughout the entire movie, and in some cases it’s down-right hilarious.

I’d also like to note that it was very important for the movie to have credible characters we care about. As the movie evolves, there are a couple of plot twists that would seem downright ridiculous in any other movie if not handled with such care and determination. Bezucha also knows that his story is constrained to a time limit, since everything has to be resolved by the time the holiday is over. That’s why the final scene was needed, in order to ground the movie. And I liked that he doesn’t intend to perform miracles. For example, and this may be a bit of a spoiler, I didn’t like Meredith at the beginning and I barely liked her at the end, which is completely credible, for a person cannot entirely change in the course of a few days. Yet I saw humanity in her and a willingness to become a better person. That’s different. And the movie is filled with that kind of details.

The ensemble that was gathered for the movie works magic together. The flashier roles belong to Diane Keaton and Sarah Jessica Parker. The former is extraordinary as the matriarch of the family, in a role that requires her to be many things at the same time, while the later plays against-type and strays away from becoming a caricature, bringing humanity to a role which could’ve just lacked any. But the rest of the cast is just as good. I especially liked Craig T. Nelson’s fantastic and grounded performance, and Rachel McAdams spot-on portrayal, playing the character that arguably is the most affected by what happens those days. Claire Danes, Luke Wilson and Dermot Mulroney are all excellent. And special notices to Tyrone Giordano, who is deaf in real life, and who also delivers a touching performance. I’d also like to say that I loved the way this character was portrayed and the use of ASL throughout the movie. Wonderful.

A keeper.

“Uh, nothing… it’s just that we’re all that we’ve got.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Deer Hunter

Director

Michael Cimino

Year

1978

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

This is the story of a group of Pennsylvania steelworkers in a Russian community, their friendships, their views of life, their will to fight in the Vietnam War, and how it affects them. Not all of them are willing to fight though, only three: Michael (Robert De Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken) and Steven (John Savage). The latter is getting married to Angela (Rutanya Alda), and all their friends, including Linda (Meryl Streep), John (George Dzundza), Axel (Chuck Aspergen) and Stan (John Cazale) attend.

The initial segment of the wedding and goings-on around it establishes the complexity of these characters and their fears as seen through their general behavior. Michael is an expert deer hunter who enjoys going hunting with all his friends, but only likes the way Nick does it, as everyone else doesn’t seem to take it seriously. He loves Nick, even though he’s jealous that Linda is in love with him instead of Michael, despite the latter’s clear love for her. Steven is the loser, a weak-willed guy who’s not sure of his marriage or his enrollment but still goes for it, trying to look for the best thing he can probably do. Nick is the sweet guy, the good friend, the man that goes with the flow but does things with conviction, the guy that goes to extremes.

The wedding happens and we get to see the whole of the party. It seems to be as much a celebration of this union as it is of the bravery of the guys going to war, including the groom. It also seems to be a reproach towards the friends that didn’t enroll. Stan particularly resents this sentiment, and doesn’t hesitate to spoil the party when he gets the chance. Michael has his own agenda – he wants to approach Linda, see what he can do against her love for Nick. But she’s all for the latter, and when Nick says the magic word, she’s all his. None of this really matters though, for they’re going to Nam… And only God knows what’ll happen to them in that harsh place.

After around an hour of seeing the party, we finally follow the guys to Vietnam. It’s a living hell out there, and after a battle, they’re imprisoned by the enemy. At the prison camp, Vietnamese enemies have fun through a game of Russian roulette having the prisoners as players. This is unbearable for the guys, but Michael helps Steven and Nick through it. Then, he schemes a way for them all to escape, but it requires a kind of bravery Nick isn’t ready to embody, and to do so, he must step out of himself and go beyond any imaginable limits. Not an easy step for sanity. This event changes the life of the three, but there’s still a long way to go.

Then there’s the post-war, with the guys back home, and their attempt to reintegrate to society. Maybe not all of them made it, maybe not sane enough. War has a permanent impact on each, but whether it’s physical or psychological depends on how each faced the situations and how lucky they were. The friends back there are willing to welcome the three guys back, but not all are willing to be welcomed. Michael for one isn’t quite comfortable with any of it, and there’s a lot of unfinished business back in Vietnam.

Michael Cimino’s masterpiece packs an emotional wallop. The magic lies in several ingredients, like the pace, the meticulous portrayal of every character, the honest dialogue, and the heartfelt performances. There’s pain in all of it, and it’s so clear you can feel it. The length of the running time also helps a lot. It could be painful by itself, but instead it helps get the viewer involved, especially the first hour. After getting used to how the characters are, their transformations are all the more shocking, but it all remains credible. De Niro, Streep, Savage and especially Walken are admirable in the way they enact these changes.

The Deer Hunter is a powerful drama made richer by photography (Vilmos Zsigmond), editing (Peter Zinner), and music (Stanley Myers). The script by Deric Washburn, from a story by himself, Cimino, Louis Garfinkle and Quinn K. Redeker, is brilliant. But the way it’s translated into images is unforgettable. I hadn’t seen this film for many years but I could remember very well a few images from it, and through them I remembered the whole story, if not in detail, the general outline, which was more than enough to remain an affecting experience. Just too strong to be forgotten.

“You have to think about one shot. One shot is what it's all about. A deer's gotta be taken with one shot.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Child

Director

Jean-Pierre Dardenne

Luc Dardenne

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 26, 2005

L’Enfant was this year’s Palm d’Or winner at the Cannes Film Festival. It was the second time the Dardenne brothers won the coveted prize, and much fuzz was made after the fact that the competition included a lot of veteran directors who usually deliver great product. After having seen most of the movies that played at the festival I’ve got to say it wasn’t such a strong line-up after all. And even though I would’ve liked A History of Violence to win, I guess the decision to award L’Enfant could be considered passable and uncontroversial.

Bruno (Jérémie Renier) is a no-good burglar who just had a son with his girlfriend Sonia (Déborah Francois). It appears at first that he’s ready to settle and try to have a better life, but soon he’s back to his old ways and even sells his child to the black market. Sonia goes to the police the minute she finds out, and Bruno desperately tries to recover his son, with hopes of getting back to being a family and perhaps, now, do try to have a better life.

The Dardenne brothers are known to make movies that are utterly realistic and that serve as some kind of social commentary. That’s the way L’Enfant was shot and if you look at it that way, the movie does its job. It convincingly paints a portrait of the low-life in a Belgian city and the struggles that Bruno goes through to move on. I liked that the movie is balanced in the way that the system is not portrayed as a one-sided villain. Bruno, in all his desperation, doesn’t precisely do all he can to stop committing felonies. This is not the inspirational story of a man who manages to survive amidst unfavorable circumstances. Bruno is selfish and self-centered, and that’s a big part of what has him stuck in the hole he is.

As entertainment value, L’Enfant falls a little short. It is a slow-paced movie with not much going on most of the time and with not much insight into its main characters. There’s not even a musical score to spice things up. I know this is the approach the directors wanted, but I’m just saying, I don’t think I’d like to sit through this movie ever again in my life. It left me with that kind of feeling.

Performances are strong all around. Renier, especially, is a fresh find, an actor who immerses in the role and makes it completely credible. Good work there.

All in all, it is an imperfect, yet simple and effective, movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dog Day Afternoon

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

1975

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Right before a Brooklyn bank closes, Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) and his partners Sal (John Cazale) and Stevie (Gary Springer) walk in casually, and when all the customers are gone, they produce guns with great calm to subdue all the employees and rob the place. Stevie regrets what he’s doing and leaves, but Sonny and Sal are dead set on their action. As jumpy as Sonny seems, he appears to be in control, knowing quite well the way a bank is handled in terms of operation and security. Sal is more the quiet type, seemingly nervous, but a faithful follower of Sonny’s. The employees have a curious reaction: they soon empathize with Sonny, some of them get excited about the goings-on, and all cooperate. Soon however, Sonny finds an upset: the money has been removed from the bank, as opposed to the information he has received. It’ll be just a couple thousand to this score. But there’s something worse around the corner: Sonny did something foolish, and the cops know he’s in there. Now there’s no way out. He must negotiate.

Dog Day Afternoon is one of the most thrilling movie experiences I’ve ever had. I loved the way it started without any fuzz previous to the robbery, introducing all the characters right when the action starts and letting their personalities flow along with the proceedings. This is what makes the experience much more interesting: we get to know only one side of Sonny at first, but in the process we dig inside his intriguing background and get to empathize with him, be disgusted by him, want him caught, want him free, and so on.

The action seems to be in real time at first, and probably is, but even though the time is later trimmed (the robbery lasts 12 hours), the feeling is of absolute continuity. Editor Dede Allen should be praised for this, but it’s also an achievement of the people responsible for makeup and overall environment. The heat inside the bank is constantly increasing, and the characters get tired and sweaty, and it always rings true. We as audience feel as hot and exhausted as them, but we also have the adrenaline to keep up no matter what.

Negotiations with the cops get from tough to funny and back again constantly. Sonny reminds the people outside of a recent event where the police killed innocent and guilty people involved in a bank robbery in Attica. This turns the man into a hero and his appearances in public memorable. Then, he reveals the reason why he’s robbing the bank, and it only makes him controversial: repudiated by some, loved by others. He doesn’t care though, and he keeps up with negotiations, truly hoping to get out alive.

Only an actor like Al Pacino could convey such a credible performance in the role of Sonny. The fact that he goes through so many phases but he still has to convince us makes it all the more difficult. I can’t imagine the difficulties the filmmakers must’ve faced to produce this film, but it’s amazing how a rising star like Pacino could see the potential in the lead character.

This is mostly Sonny’s show, but if everyone around wasn’t awesome, it wouldn’t work at all. John Cazale provides in Sal a quiet strength that’s as powerful as Sonny’s. Sully Boyar, as the Bank Manager, is also a great asset, as his interaction with Sonny is crucial. The female employees are all credible, the standouts being the boss, Sylvia (Penelope Allen), and nervous teller Jenny (Carol Kane). Charles Durning as the main cop outside and James Broderick as an FBI agent are as much a pain in the ass as they should. And Chris Sarandon is unforgettable as the cause of the controversy involving Sonny.

A phone call between Leon (Sarandon) and Sonny is the most poignant scene in the movie, the centerfold and a great example of acting and directing. Simply perfection.

Based on an article by P.F. Kluge and Thomas Moore about a true incident involving one John Wojtowicz. Scripted by Frank Pierson, the movie is filled with funny and poignant moments all around. How the girls quickly empathize with their kidnappers is very moving, simply an example of the resiliency of the human spirit. Sense of humor never lacks in Sonny, which is also very welcome, and what’s better, rings true. This is a good time and I can only thank director Lumet for that.

With no music score, a high level of tension, masterful performances, a pace to kill, and an amazing sense of reality, Dog Day Afternoon is a classic from the 70s that shouldn’t be missed.

“Attica! Attica!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

King Kong

Director

Peter Jackson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Some people regard the original King Kong as one of the best movies of all time. Or at least a whole lot of them consider it among their personal favorites. I’m just not one of them. Oh, but don’t get me wrong. I love it and consider it a true classic and everything. I just don’t have that special connection with it that so many people seem to have. Because of that, it was easier for me to watch this modern reincarnation as a movie in its own terms. I don’t really remember much from the original except the basic storyline, so there you have it. But I can tell you this: comparisons are somewhat pointless anyway. It’s as if Peter Jackson took Cooper and Schoedsack’s movie as a starting point and exploded it into a huge movie of his own. And the result is nothing short of breathtaking...

Struggling film director Carl Denham (Jack Black) is looking to make a movie in a scale that no one has ever seen before. He’s got a script by renowned Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) and a whole crew ready to embark on an adventurous trip to Skull Island, even though Denham has not been precisely honest with everyone on board. The new addition is actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a replacement Denham just found on the streets and convinced to go along for the ride. What they ultimately find in this mysterious island is something beyond their wildest dreams…

I’m going to start commenting on the movie by stating that it is not perfect and by getting the bad out of the way first so that I can continue praising its impressive achievements in the next paragraphs. Much has been said about the first act being too long for its own good. And I’m just about to join the chorus: the first act really is longer than it needs to be. Jackson takes a little over an hour just to establish the characters and situations they’re going through. That is a lot of exposition if you ask me, and the movie tends to drag here and there. Now, I’m no filmmaker so I can’t really claim to know what a good solution might’ve been, but I can say that, for example, the entire parent-son subplot regarding two members of the crew, Hayes (Evan Parke) and Jimmy (Jamie Bell), could’ve been trimmed. We only need to really care for the three main characters (four if you count Kong) so why waste so much time on others?

That said, King Kong is one of the most exciting, adventurous, drool-inducing, heart-pounding blockbusters of all-time!

The movie starts with a nicely-put-together montage that essentially shows us what life was like in 1933 New York in the middle of the Great Depression. Then we are introduced to Ann, Carl, Jack, Capt. Englehorn, the boat crew, and the film staff. Soon they are all off to the adventure, getting to Skull Island and being captured by creepy natives, who then kidnap Ann and offer her to Kong. If all of this sounds too much like spoiler material, don’t worry, this is where the meat of the movie really starts… and doesn’t literally let you go until the movie is over.

Without delving into specifics, I just need to say that the second act of the movie, which takes place in the island, is one non-stop action scene after the other, with all of them delivering as much excitement and entertainment as a movie can do. There is a jaw-dropping brontosaurs rampage that is like nothing I had ever seen. There is an unbearable insect attack that is not for the squeamish (me included). And then there is a 10-minute bloody fight between Kong and three tyrannosauruses that is an instant classic. Once the movie gets to the third act, back in New York, we’re exhausted, but hungry for more. And boy do we get it in the form of the impressive Empire State attack. Now, I’m running out of adjectives here, but this scene is glorious beyond words. I could feel the adrenaline, the vertigo, the danger. I was there and it was exhilarating. Filmmaking at this scale, and done with such expertise, comes only once in a while. But Peter Jackson did it.

For all the exciting and huge scenes in the movie, I still count a couple of quieter ones as my favorite. The first happens just as Kong is fighting the last T-Rex, with Ann in the middle of both. She suddenly turns to Kong and steps behind him, acknowledging him as her protector. There isn’t a more magical moment in the movie. What happens after this is also delightful, but I’ll let you discover it for yourself. My second favorite scene happens almost at the end of the movie, so I won’t go into details except to say that it takes place in Central Park and it’s between Kong and Ann as well. If I recall correctly, what Jackson brings to this movie that is new to the proceedings is a more intimate relationship between these two characters, a relationship that never ceases to be between a savage beast and a fragile damsel, yet it feels true because of what they have both been through and because of the realistic way it develops. Their attachment is so honest that at the end tears inevitably come. This movie has one big heart, and therein lies its overall success.

Now, for all the genius of Peter Jackson, he certainly surrounded himself with a dream team that made what we see on screen possible. The special effects are brilliant. We still feel like some characters are being superimposed to a fake background, yet the work they did with the “living” creatures is mesmerizing. Never for one second do we not believe that Kong is real. And the same goes for every other specimen in store. Even Kong’s eyes have life in them. I was floored. The photography, costumes and production design are also impeccable. And James Newton Howard delivers a fantastic score that is not intrusive in the least, but fits perfectly.

The movie belongs to Kong, and special notice should be given to actor Andy Serkis. He actually played the giant ape before getting transformed with digital effects into what we see on screen. His is the work of a true artist. And he’s quite good in the human role he takes as well. Naomi Watts is the second standout, for her role is perhaps the most difficult of all. We have to believe in the relationship between these two for the movie to work, and having shot most of her scenes with nothing in front speaks volumes about her talent. Jack Black is surprisingly fine as Carl Denham, and Adrien Brody elevates a role that is there mainly to be Ann’s love interest. The rest of the cast is uniformly good.

A little bit of extra fun: spotting all the references to the original movie that screenwriters Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens specifically placed for die-hard fans. Their movie is an exemplary homage that takes a life of its own. And I can’t think of a better compliment...

“It was beauty killed the beast.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of King Kong (2005): Groucho

Review

Footloose

Director

Herbert Ross

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

City kid Ren McCormack (Kevin Bacon) moves into a small town where he finds the same kind of challenges any teenager has to face when being the new kid on the block and in school: bullies, new friends, and girls. Ren is easygoing though, and soon finds his way around town. He befriends oddball Willard (Chris Penn) and finds a special connection to Ariel (Lori Singer), a rebellious girl who also happens to be the daughter of the local Reverend, Shaw Moore (John Lithgow).

But nothing can prepare Ren for his biggest predicament-to-be: here in this town, he can’t be himself, because the thing he likes to do most is forbidden: dancing to rock music or any similarly “wild” rhythm. It’s been a few years since this law was passed, and the reason is dancing calls for drinking, and drinking calls for irresponsible behavior in every way, from sex to drunken driving. So the Baptist church, and especially Rev. Moore, has taken action.

Ren just can’t stand it; dancing is his life. So, in the way of trying to change people’s minds about the subject, the kid finds many followers, including (and particularly) the Reverend’s daughter, who sees in the forbidden music a way to express herself while she challenges her uptight father whom she badly resents.

Before seeing it, I always thought of Footloose as a yawn-inducing 80s-style “musical” full of insane dance numbers without more reason than to please an empty audience. I must admit I couldn’t have been more mistaken. Not only is every musical number justified (and very welcome), but the story is thoughtful and moving, and has a lot of resonance. Just picture this: I have always been a terrible dancer, but since watching Footloose, I have realized dancing is quite important, a cathartic activity, and one that brings joy to most people. I have now become a more active (if no better) dancer.

But enough about me; the characters from this film have enough flesh to go into each and never get bored. Ironically, Ren is the least interesting, though his cause becomes the engine of a whole town movement. Ariel is amazing, as she seems so hostile and tough, but inside she’s only a saddened girl who feels abandoned and forgotten by her loved ones (she even reminded me of Natalie Wood’s character in Rebel Without a Cause (1955)). Willard might be seen as a plot device more often than not, but he’s still an important character in the way he represents the people who go with the flow, and the greatness of his discovery (in the very best sequence of the film, where Ren teaches him how to dance) is unforgettable.

Finally there’s the couple of Reverend Moore and his wife Vi (Dianne Wiest). I’m still surprised by how well-written these characters are. Instead of turning the Reverend into a one-dimensional villain, the filmmakers decided to make him a conflicted person, whose wounds blind him without making him lose touch with the values that are most important in the world. His love for his wife and daughter is clear, and it’s Vi who gives him some balance and ultimately helps him get to terms with himself about beating his own pride for a better cause. Every actor in this film is good, but Lithgow’s and Wiest’s performances are full of love and dedication, something I didn’t expect from this movie in the very least.

Finally there’s the song score. Composed of several original songs like “Footloose”, “I’m Free”, “Let’s Hear It For the Boy”, “Almost Paradise”, “Holding Out For a Hero”, it produced quite a few number 1 hits and instant classics, and no wonder: they work like wonders. Some of them were composed by singer Kenny Loggins with lyrics by Dean Pitchford. The latter also wrote the movie’s script.

“Hey, hey! What's this I see? I thought this was a party. Let’s dance!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe

Director

Andrew Adamson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 19, 2005

When Disney announced their plans to do a movie based on the Chronicles of Narnia books, my first reaction was that of complete ignorance. I had never heard of such books. But I later learned that they’re quite popular, and that many people around the world have read them, especially at school. Not the case with me, but thrilled as I was with the Lord of the Rings movies at the time, I got excited by the sole idea of more movies following the same vein. Of course, now that I saw it, I realize this saga has barely anything to do with Tolkien (even though he and C.S. Lewis were good friends), but it’s definitely more of a sibling to the former’s work, one that has the distinct characteristic of being written for children.

The Pevensie children, Peter (William Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are sent away during the London bombings of WWII to live with Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent) at his mansion. While playing with his brothers, young Lucy finds a wardrobe where she hides, only to find herself in an entirely different world! She soon stumbles upon Mr. Tumnus (James McAvoy), a faunus who becomes her friend and explains her that she’s in Narnia, a place under the evil reign of the White Witch (Tilda Swinton), where winter has lasted 100 years and there’s been no Christmas. Yet powerful Aslan (voice of Liam Neeson) is preparing an army to fight her and bring back freedom, just as the prophecy says, with the help of four young human children...

As I previously stated, this movie is mostly aimed at kids. That’s not a bad thing at all, for it is the kind of movie that adults can also enjoy without feeling bitter. It is a wonderful movie that keeps surprising you with its magic and imagination, and which has all sorts of lessons and messages that will not go unnoticed. It is a heroic journey, a movie with a huge heart.

And amidst all the grandness, a very simple story lies. I was surprised as to how straight-forward and direct the movie is in its actions and scope. It’s as simple as good vs. evil, and the quest that four siblings have to follow in order to grow up, together, and reach a certain goal. It is well-known that C.S. Lewis imprinted his story with certain references to Christian mythology, but I’ve got to say that he did it in subtle ways, without alienating anyone, and that shows in the movie.

I’m reminded of the Harry Potter movies in the way that the first one was not successful in all accounts despite being so faithful to the book, but decisions were taken then that served the following movies a big deal. And even though I like this Narnia movie much more than I did the first Potter, I have the feeling that the next installments can be better, for the imaginary world has already been set up and so have the characters, so it can go anywhere from here. That said, I’ve heard that the other books don’t necessarily involve these same characters, which is a pity, but it also opens the door to many possibilities.

I liked a great deal about this movie. I got a kick out of the beavers. Hilarious creatures! I liked the Aslan figure and what it means to his people. I liked the imagination going into creating so many different creatures. I liked the final battle (in all its bloodless glory) and I loved the shot that starts with a map and transforms into the battlefield right in the middle of it. I loved the interaction between the kids. I loved that the movie takes place in England and that they all have accents and the quirky humor that goes with that. I loved the Professor and his interaction with Lucy, especially. I loved Mr. Tumnus and everything that has to do with him. I loved the Witch, so over-the-top, a pure incarnation of evil.

On the technical side, the movie is grand as expected, although I did have some quibbles here and there. The special effects are impressive, and the work they did with the animals is absolutely first-rate. That said, there are a couple of effects that don’t work as well, such as the one where the flowers take a human form, for example. And I had a lot of problems with the overall production design. I don’t know, the movie looked cheap to me. I know it cost millions, but those must’ve gone to the special effects, because the sets, and even some of the costumes, just didn’t cut it for me. Too bland, too... unimpressive. Donald McAlpine’s photography is excellent, and so is Harry Gregson-Williams’s haunting score. And I really liked Alanis Morissette’s title tune, “Wunderkind”.

Andrew Adamson makes his debut here as a director of a live-action movie, and sometimes it shows. It was a huge task and they took a big risk with him, but you have to give it to him for pulling it off. There are scenes here and there that feel odd in the way they were shot, but nothing serious. He did a terrific job.

Acting-wise, the movie is filled with talented performers. The casting of the four children was brilliant. They are all very good in their parts, bringing to their characters exactly what they’re supposed to, and without ever falling into a trap or a false note. Young Georgie Henley is adorable, and William Moseley is a terrific Peter. Then again, it is Tilda Swinton who steals the movie, bringing her weird persona to a role that suits her perfectly. Jim Broadbent and James McAvoy are exemplary in their smaller parts. And Liam Neeson is suitable enough as the voice of Aslan.

“I’m sorry ma’am, not to offend, but I wasn’t speaking to you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

What's Up, Tiger Lily?

Director

Woody Allen

Senkichi Taniguchi

Year

1966

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Woody Allen’s directorial debut couldn’t have been more peculiar. In fact, he didn’t even direct it. Instead, he took a James Bond-like Japanese film called Key of Keys, rewrote it, and directed an English over-dubbing whose timing is so precise that the movie becomes an uproarious satire almost effortlessly. The result is so effective, that it’s hard to realize that the movie wasn’t originally that. Allen read through the characters’ attitudes and realized that they were comic in a way, and that a rewrite would give their very gestures a whole new meaning. All I’m missing now is to see the original film (I’m dying to, but I can’t find it anywhere!), because as it is now, I just can’t see it as anything else than a disarming comedy!

The original plot dealt with spies and drug dealers in search of a microfilm. Here, we get a completely different reading: some characters are spies indeed, others are passers-by that get involved in international intrigue concerning a nonexistent but real-sounding country that’s looking for a spot on the map, which can be prevented if a the recipe for the best egg salad in the world falls into the wrong hands! Now everyone is after or guarding the famous recipe, and it’s a frenetic search if there ever was one.

The main character is picaresque Phil Moscowitz, an dumb womanizer who’s not quite successful with women or anything else. Aided by two gorgeous agents, Suki Yaki (Akiko Wakabayashi) and Teri Yaki (Mie Hama), he must look for a way to find the egg salad if he can only get the idea of screwing these girls out of his head. Cynic mobster Wing Fat (Susumu Kurobe) not only wants the recipe too, but also holds a grudge against the bad guy who keeps it, Shepherd Wong (Tadao Nakamuru), and double-crosses his way into the valued prize.

The film is essentially the same spy-driven feature it originally was, which makes it easy to follow. It’s confusing at times though, which serves as a great joke in the middle of the movie, where Woody refuses to clarify the plot to his confused companion. But the core is straightforward and the film only works as a vehicle for hilarious one-liners and dumb occurrences all around. Instead of a poisonous gas, here we get an imprudent fumigation, and the resulting death of a rat, which would mean doom to the guys who are near, becomes one of the funniest moments as the sound effects turn it into a cartoon-like critter.

Moscowitz, Fat and the girls keep getting reasons to say funny comments, especially during the tense climax. The movie might not be consistently entertaining or overall coherent, but it’s filled with so many jokes it’s unbelievable. A good time is guaranteed if you’re willing to go with it.

As an added plus, there’s the appearance of the pop group The Lovin’ Spoonful, that serves only for a couple of offbeat musical numbers Woody was very much against, but worked all right for the ultimate purpose.

Incidentally, the two girls also appear in James Bond’s You Only Live Twice (1967).

“Two Wongs don’t make a wigt.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fever Pitch

Director

Bobby Farrelly

Peter Farrelly

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

A whole lot of people love Nick Hornby novels and their respective movie adaptations (when done right). I do not belong to that group. I liked, but not loved, both High Fidelity (2000) and About a Boy (2002). So going into Fever Pitch, I didn’t really know how I would feel. The book on which it is based had already been made into a good, or so I hear, movie starring Colin Firth. But the outrageous Farrelly Brothers wanted to Americanize the tale and give it their own spin. Truth is, they ended up with a good enough movie indeed.

Lindsey (Drew Barrymorre) is an independent and successful woman who hasn’t had any luck with men. Enter Ben (Jimmy Fallon), a nice, easy-going teacher who really likes her and is the perfect counter-balance to her frantic life. They start dating and everything is fine until Ben finally drops the ball: he’s a Red Sox fan. So what? Thing is, he’s like an incredibly obsessed fan, and his life pretty much depends on that team.

I liked this movie because of its sincerity. Lindsey starts out as this walking over-the-top cliché but soon enough we find ourselves smitten with her. We see her humanity and how much she needs someone like Ben in her life. His character, on the other hand, had to be well-written and well-portrayed for the movie to work. Why would Lindsey care for him otherwise? Even more so when all this weirdness surrounding his “hobby” starts to take over their life and, worse, their relationship. I’m happy to say then that the two of them are fully-fleshed characters and that we do believe in what they have and want them to be together. There’s nothing more successful in a movie of this kind than to achieve that.

I also identified a bit with the story going on. I, as you might know, am a huge movie buff. And I expect whoever ends up with me to understand, and respect, that. I’m not saying that this somebody has to share my passion, but somehow a balance will have to be reached. This is the exact same thing that the movie talks about. And it is very truthful of all relationships. Sometimes you have to give up things for a relationship to work, both of you. And it might be difficult. Such is life.

The movie’s finale had to be changed at the last minute because of the unexpected real-life victory of the Red Sox after decades of not achieving that. The actors were shot during the actual game and the scenes made the movie. Yet the way they cut them and crammed them into the ending does not work that well. It feels rushed.

I was really surprised by Jimmy Fallon. His comedy style might not work all the time, but in this movie he’s terrific. He’s more subtle than he’s ever been, and he’s also completely credible. The movie rests on his shoulders, and he comes off a winner. Drew Barrymore, on the other hand, can do this in her sleep, which means she’s good and likable and cute and everything the role requires her to be. Supporting performances are good all around, although I could’ve done without the subplot regarding Lindsey’s friends and their feud.

Nice work by the Farrellys.

“That’s why you ran across the whole field? Wait, you’ve got to tell me... was it spongy?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Oliver Twist

Director

Roman Polanski

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

I love reviewing an “Oliver Twist” adaptation because I consider myself quite an expert in the subject. Though I haven’t seen all film adaptations by far, I know the novel quite well, and I have seen and reviewed David Lean’s Oliver Twist (1948) and Carol Reed’s Oliver! (1968). To be fair, every one of these works has had its wonderful assets and has added a little something to the tradition. The tragic Victorian novel conveyed a story of poverty and sadness that’s simply unforgettable and unendingly affecting. Poor Oliver Twist sure had a hard time since the day he was born, and his misadventures did little to improve that, though the resiliency of his spirit was always outstanding. There’s richness in the tale, both because of the portrait of time and place and because of the complexity of the numerous characters it’s comprised of. Roman Polanski has now made of this story his latest film, and one well worth watching.

The story, though well known by now, is about an orphan (Barney Clark) who has the misfortune to be chosen by his workhouse peers to ask for more supper. He’s then kicked out and sent to the home of a coffin-maker, where he’s subsequently abused by an envious young man, Noah Claypole (Chris Overton). Oliver then escapes to London, a trip of several days by foot which almost kills him. Once in the big city, he has the luck to meet a peculiar kid known as the Artful Dodger (Harry Eden), called that for his expertise in petty thefts, who takes him to his mentor Fagin (Ben Kingsley), a nasty but funny man who looks after many children that steal for him.

Compared to his previous life, Oliver finds paradise under Fagin’s wing, but he’s unlucky enough to see his luck change again, when he’s caught during a theft of the Dodger and another boy. The victim, Mr. Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke), finds out that Oliver is innocent and decides to adopt him, but the potential danger of Oliver ratting out on Fagin and his associate Bill Sikes (Jamie Foreman) is too great, so they get him back with the help of Sikes’ lover Nancy (Leanne Rowe). Oliver not only loses a comfortable life, but also worries about Mr. Brownlow thinking he escaped in an act of amazing ungratefulness.

In a probably convenient move, the movie completely ignores the subplot of Oliver’s evil half-brother Monks, who is actually, in the novel, the cause of the boy’s misfortunes. David Lean dealt with that subject in a magnificent way. Here, as in Carol Reed’s musical, Sikes is the ultimate villain, and Fagin more of a friendly felon. This is forgivable though, as there’s a real good portrayal of Oliver’s compassion towards the man that cared for him, while Sikes gets a punishment that suits him well. Nancy, the one person that eventually takes action in favor of the young boy, is probably the richest character here, and Rowe is up for the task. Well worth noting is Eden as the Artful Dodger, a character not too well exploited in David Lean’s film but arguably the most important in Reed’s, and definitely one of the main ones here. Foreman is genuinely scary as Sikes, and his dog is to be well remembered also. And last but not least, Clark, though a tad wooden, gives Oliver more flesh than most actors, which is also allowed by Ronald Harwood’s screenplay that doesn’t forget about the boy’s importance as much as other adaptations, and even Dickens’ novel at times.

Kingsley deserves a paragraph of his own. This might not be the performance of his career, but he has a field day as Fagin. The man is credible both as a nasty wretch and as a caring man, and even as a regretful criminal. I enjoyed his performance and went with it completely. That’s the Fagin I always imagined.

The production design is simply mesmerizing, probably the greatest asset of the film. Rachel Portman’s score is not all that ample, but aids the mood pretty well. Pawel Edelman’s cinematography, on the other hand, is constantly surprising. And Polanski’s job is quite satisfying, if not the best he’s done, but it’s hard to compete against himself, especially after The Pianist (2002). One big quibble I had with Oliver Twist is it loses impact after a great first half, though it never ceases to entertain.

I’d say, give it a look. And if you can, compare it to the previous adaptations. That’s always a fun ride, trust me.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Director

Mike Newell

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 12, 2005

Even though I don’t generally like to read books before a movie is made about them, the Harry Potter saga is clearly an exception. I was introduced to the first book by a friend and since then I’ve been hooked. Interestingly enough, the same order does not apply when I list my liking of books and movies. My favorite book is #3, then #1 and finally a tie between #2 and #4. On the other hand, my favorite movie is #3, but my second favorite is a tie between #2 and #4, and then there’s #1. That said, until now the movies had been getting better and better, yet the trend, in my opinion, is over. Not to worry though, this fourth installment is still a very good movie and a worthy entry in the saga!

This year Hogwarts is host of the Triwizard Tournament, a legendary championship between the three main wizard schools in the world. Three champions are chosen by the goblet of fire: Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson) for Hogwarts, Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy) for Beauxbaton and Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski) for Durmstrang to participate in three contests which will give the winner eternal glory. Yet a last name makes an unexpected entrance: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). An evil scheme is clearly behind this naming, maybe even having to do with a dream Harry had about Lord Voldemort and his plans to finally get at him this year. Harry and his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) will then have to find a way to keep Harry alive, while hormones start kicking in.

Steven Kloves was given the task once again of adapting the longest existing Harry Potter book into a doable screenplay. Fans of the book will notice that a lot of meaty stuff was left out, but I personally think Kloves did a fantastic job in cramming so much (it is a very dense and convoluted movie as it is) and having everything make sense at the end. Watch closely and you’ll realize there’s not one unimportant scene, for even the most meaningless piece of dialogue or situation will have something to do later on in the movie.

For the curious, here are some of the things left out: an entire subplot involving Hermione, Dobby and a liberation front for house-elves; a lot of emotional scenes involving Mrs. Weasley; a much longer unleashing of events during the Quidditch World Cup and what really happens when someone unleashes the Death Eaters sign; a much longer third task, which also involves giant and menacing creatures inside the maze; a back-story of Hagrid and his origins as a giant, a race widely considered as utterly savage; a more detailed back-story of Neville and how he came to live with his grandmother after his parents were murdered; an entire subplot regarding a reporter who was murdered for evil purposes; and a lot more prominence in subplots regarding Ron’s older brothers Percy and Charlie.

Much has been said about the darkness of this installment, but still I was surprised when I saw the movie and realized how literally dark it is. Judging from this movie, Hogwarts is just not fun at all anymore! It must be a burden to be Harry, actually, but fortunately we know things haven’t been always like this. There’s actually a lighter section involving the Yule Ball, a dance for which all students must choose a partner, which actually is my favorite bit in the movie (it shows the kids are growing up with all the awkwardness inherent of puberty). But even then Harry goes through hell! And the final sequence in the cemetery is appropriately scary. I was afraid they wouldn’t nail it, but I’m happy to say that even though it doesn’t match the horrifying vibe that reading the book and using your imagination gives you, it is as well done as a visual media could give you.

Sporadic scenes I enjoyed include Harry asking Cho for the ball, Ron dancing with Mrs. McGonagall, Harry and his encounter with the delightful Moaning Myrtle in the bath, the corny entrance of the Beauxbaton students to the common room, the impressive ship which the Durmstrang students use to travel, every scene involving Hagrid and Madame Maxime, as well as those involving Ron and Hermione fighting and realizing they may just like each other.

Casting-wise, the movie does a splendid job. All the usual suspects are back. I still don’t like Daniel Radcliffe that much, but he’s Harry and I wouldn’t have anyone else in the role at this point. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are delightful. Michael Gambon is back as Dumbledore, with more screen-time yet a less playful attitude. Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith continue to amaze me as to how perfect their casting was; I just love them in their parts. They both have a couple of scenes in which they shine, but unfortunately not much character interaction overall. Brendan Gleeson is a new addition as Professor Mad-Eye Moody and he’s excellent, creating a wonderfully wacky character. Only his scene at the classroom felt a little off to me. Another great casting choice was Katie Leung as Cho Chang. Can’t wait to see more of her in the next installment! The three champions, Pattinson, Poésy and Ianevski, are spot-on, as is Miranda Richardson as nosy reporter Rita Skeeter. And last but not least, Ralph Fiennes, who commands the screen and leaves an indelible impression.

As for the technical side of the movie, I missed John Williams’ more grandeur work, but Patrick Doyle does a good enough job. Roger Pratt’s cinematography is another character in the movie altogether, having a prominent role to play in the movie’s tone. The production design and costumes are top-notch as always, although the movie is less stylish than the third installment, something I did miss. And British director Mike Newell should be congratulated for successfully taking the reigns of the franchise and delivering such a strong film. Small quibbles aside, he’s good, and the movie speaks for itself.

I usually end a review with a quote from the movie itself, but this time I’ll do something half-different: the following quote is from fellow critic Roger Ebert, for he put masterfully into words something I also felt while watching the movie...

“Well into Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Albus Dumbledore intones as only he can: ‘Dark and difficult times lie ahead.’ What does he think lay behind?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Heat

Director

Michael Mann

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 08, 2005

I don’t usually mention this in the website but guess what, I’m a struggling screenwriter. Well, not really… only an amateur who enjoys writing as a hobby besides his day job, and dreams of seeing his work filmed some day. I just might be going in the right path but that’s off the point. I’m only saying this because there’s something that I love to do, which is watching good movies that have similar themes as the ones I’m writing about. Revolutionary, huh? I guess everyone everywhere does exactly the same thing… But anyway, I was having trouble writing a thriller based on the antagonism of two very strong characters, one a hero, the other a villain, with a lot in common and obsessed with each other. I had heard Heat was a very good example of this, and I went for it. Wise choice! Aside from everything else (including how much it helped me), it’s an awesome movie.

The story by director Michael Mann is quite universal in its nature: It deals with a cop obsessing over an unstoppable criminal. Both men are veterans and pretty good at their craft, and meant to be archenemies.

Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro) is the leader of a gang of expert thieves that sure know what they’re doing and don’t go for the small potatoes. These include Chris Shiherlis (Val Kilmer), Michael Cheritto (Tom Sizemore), Waingro (Kevin Gage) and others. Neil’s associate Nate (Jon Voight) is a very important part of the band’s intelligence. But things can go wrong, even the best of any trade make mistakes, and soon the cops are after the gang.

Lieutenant Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) is a man who obsesses over his job. He dedicates more time and energy to his work than to his personal life, and several problems come from that of course. The most notable has to do with his wife Justine (Diane Venora), who’s hungry of love and has to deal with her alienated teenage daughter Lauren (Natalie Portman), especially since the girl’s father is an absent asshole who keeps standing her up.

The trail that the cops follow is right on, but Neil and his gang are no fools. It’s pretty evident that the bad guys are on the good guys as much as vice versa. There are several dilemmas that the men on both sides have to face, and important decisions have to be made. Double-cross comes in the way, only to worsen the procedures.

Love or the lack of it moves every guy forward. Besides Hanna’s apparently “normal” love life, we get to see much of the thieves’ ventures into love as well. Most notably, we see the relationship between Chris (Kilmer) and his wife Charlene (Ashley Judd), which is his principal motivation. Neil, a cold man by nature, who has decided that he cannot attach himself to anything he’ll hesitate to leave in more than 30 seconds, finally falls for a bookstore employee who’s in love with him, Eady (Amy Brenneman).

As a contrast to love, there’s the action and the violence, of which the film has a lot, though concentrated in a few very effective scenes. There’s one that ends up in an amazing shootout, that’s exquisitely filmed and incredibly assertive.

During the development of the film, it’s clear that there’s certain parallelism as well as certain contrast between Neil and Hanna. The guys seem to have a lot in common and know about it, even before meeting each other. When they finally do, it’s electrifying, both because of their significance on each side as for their realization that they’re so similar and so strong-willed.

The scene also packs a wallop for uniting for the first time De Niro and Pacino, two of the best actors alive. They just share a couple of minutes together but since the whole film is based on their antagonism, it feels like a lot more. Great job at casting! The rest of the cast is as good, with Kilmer, Sizemore, Voight, Judd, and Gage as standouts.

Long but never overlong, more of a crime saga, Heat is a picture of quality in every sense, and should not be missed. Great job by Michael Mann.

“I told you I'm never going back.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Chicken Little

Director

Mark Dindal

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Chicken Little is the first foray into computer animation for Disney without the Pixar label. Its success or failure would determine whether the company had what it takes to continue on its own. The result is a mixed bag: the movie has indeed done excellent at the box office and is already considered a hit; but on the other hand the quality is eons away from what Pixar usually offers. Of course, comparing anything to a Pixar movie is a little unfair, which is the case here because Chicken Little is a damn fine movie that I liked a lot.

Chicken Little (voice of Zach Braff) tried to warn everyone in his hometown that the sky was falling. As it happens, a piece of the sky hit his head, but when it was time to prove it, the piece had disappeared. He instantly became a joke and a year later he had not recovered yet. His father, Buck Cluck (voice of Garry Marshall), asked him to go unnoticed, and he could only trust his misfit friends: Abby Mallard (voice of Joan Cusack), Runt of the Litter (voice of Steve Zahn) and Fish Out of Water (voice of Dan Molina). But just as he was getting back in the game, it happened again: a piece of the sky fell right into his room. With the help of his friends he follows a lead and finds out that aliens are apparently planning to invade, or just plain disappear, planet Earth. But will anyone believe him this time?

In order to properly enjoy this movie, you have to understand that it was made primarily for kids. Witty humor for adults is scarce, yet the movie doesn’t downplay its intelligence quotient so that we can’t enjoy it. I actually had a blast. There are a couple of lame jokes here and there, such as one that has to do with burping, but for the most part the movie treats kids as smart individuals. There are also bits which aren’t precisely cheerful, but they’re truthful and they serve the movie’s ultimate message. And the movie also gets sentimental at times. When you have a character so devoid of cynicism and something bad, or really good, happens to him, I don’t know... it just gets me.

The movie is a lot of fun. Chicken Little lives in a town populated by all kinds of animals, some of which get hilarious exposition. I especially loved the appearance of some rabbits and the good use given to a chameleon. Our main character is also a very funny individual on its own, both visually and figuratively. That big head just cracks me up every time I see it. I also got a kick out of Fish Out of Water, a wonderful, well-executed creation. And the animation, while not photo-realistic but more cartoon-y in its look, is perfectly suited to the story.

Something I’d like to point out is just how modern the movie is. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn’t. The use of some songs is awkward, although I liked the use Runt gave to some of the classics. There’s also a scene that has all the kids at school taking a break from gym class and instantly grabbing their cell phones to talk. I guess I like my old-fashioned Disney tales and that’s why this bit took me out of the movie, but hey, kids will most likely love it. And let’s not get into Runt’s character, the most openly gay character I’ve seen in a kids’ movie so far. Compared to this, Shark Tale was an exercise in subtlety. And I’m not complaining, just saying. It’s interesting.

I have to say that when the extraterrestrials first appeared I thought they crashed with the movie’s uplifting, innocent tone so far. I just didn’t feel they belonged in this movie. And it took me a while to get used to them, but the movie does a good job because by the end I was completely and utterly satisfied with where it went and what it did with the characters.

Voice work is uniformly good. Braff does a good job as Chicken Little and Joan Cusack brings some of her personality to the wonderful Abby Mallard. Also appearing in small roles are Don Knotts, Catherine O’Hara, Fred Willard, Amy Sedaris, Adam West and Patrick Stewart, among others.

And watch out for a hysterical King Kong homage!

“Don’t tap the glass, they hate it when you do that.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In Her Shoes

Director

Curtis Hanson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 05, 2005

I love Cameron Diaz. I love Toni Collette. I love Shirley MacLaine. Talk about a trifecta! Director Curtis Hanson helming what is tastelessly labeled as a “chick flick” seemed like a strange move, but then I realized he has never settled to convention, and is more than willing to try his hand at different things. All said, I was definitely in...

Rose Feller (Toni Collette) is an uptight lawyer who doesn’t feel so good about her looks and is not normally associated with attracting hot guys. Her younger sister Maggie (Cameron Diaz) is the exact opposite, a gorgeous blonde who doesn’t have a career and lives a superficial life. When their stepmother throws Maggie out of her house, she is forced to temporarily move to Rose’s place, something that proves disastrous, especially when she sleeps with a man her sister is dating. Desperate to land somewhere, Maggie goes in search of her estranged grandmother Ella (Shirley MacLaine), who lives in a Florida compound for elderly people.

In Her Shoes is based on a novel by Jennifer Weiner and was adapted to the big screen by Susannah Grant. I have to say that during the first few minutes of the movie I thought we were in for a clichéd, predictable movie. I was still having a lot of fun, but I set my mind as to not expect any more than simple plot developments and character interaction. But I was wrong. The movie may seem predictable in a large scope, meaning that if you look at the beginning and at the end you sure knew what would happen, but it’s the meat inside that takes uncharacteristic roads, leading to an emotional trip that is certainly worth taking.

In Her Shoes is not just a movie about two different sisters who can’t live with each other yet can’t live without each other. That would be a fairly close-minded way of seeing it. It is also a movie about family, discovery, acceptance and forgiveness. It is not only that these girls fight with each other, but more so about what happens to them when they do, and the way it affects their lives and those of the people that surround them. Not one main character is the same when the movie is over, and it is in that sense of growth that the movie reaches its importance.

Having said that, I’d like to mention that the movie is also highly entertaining. By the end I was totally immersed and didn’t want to leave these characters. I was having a great time with them. There’s a fair share of drama, but there’s also humor and the movie’s got a huge heart. It is hard to resist falling prey to its many charms.

Despite Cameron Diaz getting more prominence in the movie’s marketing efforts (for obvious reasons), it is fair to say that the movie is as much about her as it is about Toni Collette. And they’re both up to the task. Collette is especially impressive, displaying all sorts of range and grounding her character that may have become a caricature. This last thing can also be said about Diaz, whom I’ve always defended as being an accomplished and talented performer. MacLaine plays the usual wise-cracking woman she’s been playing for years, but I felt she didn’t go as over-the-top as she could have, which is a good thing and something that should be appreciated. Whatever the case, it’s always a pleasure watching her on-screen. I also liked Mark Feuerstein’s performance as a man smitten by Rose. He’s completely likable without going for the “saint” approach. Good work there. And veteran actor Norman Lloyd has a small appearance as a blind Professor who teaches Maggie a thing or two in what are some of the movie’s most emotional scenes.

More than meets the eye...

“Did you really just say ‘Fat Pig’? You are my sister and the best you can do is ‘Fat Pig’?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Rififi

Director

Jules Dassin

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Rififi is easily considered by most people Jules Dassin’s masterpiece, and its very name is an important element of our culture. Based on the novel by Auguste Le Breton, which wasn’t about a heist but about much more, and wasn’t half as good (they tell me), screenwriters Dassin and René Wheeler (aided by Le Breton) created a definitive piece that helped conceive a genre that has become one whose movies are usually packed with unstoppable entertainment.

The heist genre… Does that even exist? Well, there sure are several movies dealing with that, be it comedies, dramas, or both. This one is a little bit of both actually, but it goes more for the drama… which doesn’t mean it’s not light entertainment in its own way!

The story follows Tony le Stéphanois, who just walked out of jail full of resentments and lacking the spark of life he used to have. His first thought is to find his ex, Mado les Grands Bras (Marie Sabouret), who is now living with a crook, Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset). Tony literally punishes Mado, enraging Grutter. In the meantime, old friends and colleagues of Tony’s look for him to propose a new hit, that of a jewelry store. It’s incredibly ambitious, certainly one of the greatest thefts imaginable, so Tony figures, why not? He’s dead as it is, and things couldn’t get much worse. Joy abounds among the pals as he gives them green light.

The team is composed of Jo (Carl Möhner), Mario (Robert Manuel), and Cesar (Jules Dassin under the pseudonym Perlo Vita). Each has a specialty and all are pretty good, but led by le Stéphanois they’re invincible. The heist is planned and perpetrated with exquisite precision: In fact, the 32 minutes long heist sequence is a classic in itself for lacking dialogue and music, and being so perfectly shot (by Philippe Agostini) and edited (by Roger Dwyre). Certainly one of the most tense and exciting half hours in cinema history!

A film noir, Du rififi chez les homes doesn’t miss the opportunity to include delicious elements such as femmes fatales, a musical number, car chases, shootouts, betrayal, blackmail, and that deadly ambition. One could think that the theft is the climax, but it’s merely the core of the story: What happened before is crucial, and what happens afterwards is unforgettable. The balance of the story is perfection and every lose end is tied beautifully. Such audacious filmmaking…

As performances go, the whole cast is flawless, but Servais truly stands out for his sincere, heartfelt performance. I hear he gained notoriety for this role and that’s no surprise. Dassin’s performance is pretty great, especially given the significance of his character in a more universal context: Cesar is a metaphor for blacklist honor, or the opposite, and Dassin is a director who was punished by the American blacklist.

Kudos to musician Georges Auric (whose score is as effective when it’s on as it is when it’s off), and everyone involved in costume and production design.

This is a magnificent, must-see film.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter