CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Shawshank Redemption

Director

Frank Darabont

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Thursday, December 28, 2006

This is an adaptation of Stephen King's short story "Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption"; written and directed by Frank Darabont, whose screenwriting credits surprisingly include B-Movies such as The Blob (1988) and The Fly II (1989).

The Shawshank Redemption tells the story of two completely different characters, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) and Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman), who foster a great friendship over the span of almost twenty years while they are serving life sentences at the grayish, imposing Shawshank State Prison in New England.

Freeman is extraordinary as Red, the con that "can get it for you." In a role originally written as a white Irish character, Freeman effortlessly gives a convincing performance as the down-to-earth, no-nonsense, natural leader of the gang, prisoner and entrepreneur.

Tim Robbins masterfully plays Andy Dufresne, a rich banker who is "undeservedly" sent to prison for murdering his wife and her lover. "Two life sentences," proclaims the judge, assessing one for each of his alleged victims, and adding: "You strike me as a particularly cold man..." Indeed, Andy initially looks like a thoughtless and reckless man, numbed by the despicable crimes that we unquestionably assume he has committed. He arrives in Shawshank with a group of new convicts or "fresh fish" and he calmly undergoes his first night in prison, whereas not everybody has what it takes to endure the grim walls, daunting bars, depressingly small cells and, of course, the ruthlessness and cruelty of the ominous guards, the harassing antics of the twisted inmates and the hypocrisy and carelessness of the warden.

Andy costs Red two packs of cigarettes as he bets that Andy will not make it through that first night. Instead, while Andy bears with the horrors of prison life, we witness his development and maturing, or better yet, his continuous unveiling as a man far from the cold heartedness that supposedly sent him there. He is rather a man whose heart, mind and contagious spirit enthrallingly infect most other men, especially Red.

It is difficult to find a movie where there is a genuine bond between two men which doesn’t involve a car chase. The Shawshank Redemption is daring enough to explore that possibility. When the movie begins, for example, we see Red attending his second parole panel; these sessions come every ten years for the lifers and it is their only chance to convince a group of somber, faceless suits, that they have been "rehabilitated". If they are persuading enough, they might get paroled and end up going out and rejoin society. We see three of these gatherings during the movie, and these are key scenes. Initially it is subtle, but at the end it is remarkably noticeable, the realization and growth that Red displays during these interviews, surely influenced by Andy’s doctrine and the trust and faith that he has in their friendship.

One of the reasons the movie works is because of the fact that at the end, such different characters, through parallel, somewhat opposite paths, both reach similar conclusions about their reasons, beliefs and expectations; and, most importantly, how both of them similarly cope with the acceptance of their fate while at the same time maintaining hope.

Before any interpretations or analyses, I believe most of you will agree that The Shawshank Redemption is a well crafted movie, with terrific cinematography by Roger Deakins and a compelling production design by Terence Marsh. The casting is particularly outstanding, starting with Freeman and Robbins in the two leads. Bob Gunton is perfect as the bible-quoting Warden Samuel Norton as are Clancy Brown as “the hardest screw that ever walked a turn at Shawshank State Prison” and William Sadler as inmate Heywood. James Whitmore gives an especially good performance as the “institutionalized” man.

The Shawshank Redemption was blindsided by a myriad of negative critiques after its opening in 1994, and although it nailed 7 Academy Award nominations, it did not win even one. Nonetheless, this film has developed into a classic as it has become a favorite for thousands of people (it currently ranks #2 on the IMDB top 250 films of all time). Why? Why has this movie been able to accomplish this? When many different people can single out a movie like this is remarkable, and it is like this because people are able to find something that appeals to them, whether consciously or unconsciously. Very few films have it. The Shawshank Redemption has it. That’s the beauty of it, that’s what makes this film unique.

I believe everyone who enjoys movies has experienced something like I did when I saw The Shawshank Redemption. While it was more than ten years ago, I still clearly remember when I watched this film at the movie theater and how I felt afterwards. This does not happen to me often. There’s this feeling, it is a sense of inexplicable satisfaction and, although this certainly is a feel good movie, the fulfillment and pleasure go well beyond the line that separates good from great movies. It has taken me years to fully realize the real reasons why this film has stimulated me so much. Yet every time I see it again, I always come up with new thoughts and ideas and, invariably, I find new subtleties, further details that make this a greater film every time.

"Get busy living, or get busy dying," say both Andy and Red, and yes, perhaps the mechanism of an innocent man trapped in prison and "surviving" might seem like a cliché, but as this movie progresses, alongside the clichés comes an array of underlying possibilities and opportunities that everyone needs to explore and discover.

I recommend The Shawshank Redemption not because it’s one of my favorite movies, but because I am certain that you will also be inspired by it and will find a reason of your own to love it.

“That’s goddamn right!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Director

Henry Selick

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

I don’t know why it took me so long to watch The Nightmare Before Christmas! I knew I would love it and I was damn right. I have always had something for stop motion animation, but Tim Burton’s projects are usually special either way, so this was a combination I had to check out. Anyhow, better late than never, so more than a decade later I gave it a look and was enchanted. The film is a visual treat, masterfully done with the simplest technology (masterfully developed) and designed with such brilliancy and artistic craft that it’s just awesome. Just visually, the film is worthwhile enough. But guess what: it’s also a riot!

The story is about Halloweentown, which is one of the many places where festivities are organized. There’s one for Easter, one for Christmas, one for Thanksgiving and so on. Halloweentown is a fun place to be, because everyone has such a good time organizing thrills and chills.

Jack Skellington is the Pumpkin King, inventor of the best frights. Everyone adores Jack, but he feels empty inside, not because Halloween is meaningless, but because he’s bored that it’s always the same. Wandering around, he ends up in Christmastown, and upon seeing the joy and happiness of everyone there, he decides to make it his own to take Christmas to Halloweentown and make that holiday the best ever. Behold: this has nothing to do with such tales where someone finally finds meaning in the warmth and joy of such thing as Christmas. Jack only sees this as an opportunity to freshen up the proceedings of Halloweentown. This is the first twist of the plot. The rest is best seen freshly.

This film was made in a time when animated movies weren’t obligatorily voiced by celebrities. While some find this new fashion irresistible, I sometimes differ highly since characters become the actor who voiced them instead of vice versa. That’s why I love how Jack, for instance, is voiced by Chris Sarandon, who’s never been quite a first-rate celebrity, but has a beautiful voice and lots of talent, and the character’s singing work is that of Danny Elfman’s, who surprised me in that way. The rest of the voices belong to such people as Catherine O’Hara, William Hickey, Glenn Shadix and Paul Reubens; some of them sound familiar but there’s not one headliner (except for Paul Reubens but that was a long time ago under different circumstances and with a different name, hehe). That gives this fictitious world an extra independence that I enjoyed.

Aside from the imaginative and constantly funny story, I guess the true stars are the stop motion animation and the music. Danny Elfman’s song score is simply heaven-sent. This is the case of a musical where songs not only aren’t tiresome but keep pushing the story forward. There are such memorable pieces as “This is Halloween”, “What’s This?”, “Oogie Boogie’s Song” and many more.

Henry Selick directed admirably from a script by Michael McDowell and Caroline Thompson, adapted from a story by Tim Burton, who also produced and was involved with the whole process. This is an example of imagination at work to the last consequences. There’s no stopping a world like this. Such a pleasure!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Find Me Guilty

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Very few people went to see director Sidney Lumet’s latest when it opened early in 2006. It was unforgivably mismarketed and deserved better. It may not be the best movie of the year but it’s got a lot of things going for it. And it’s also got a big star at its center, but he went against-type and alienated his core audience. Not everyone can be Will Smith. A pity really; here’s hoping that it finds some life in the video shelves.

Jackie DiNorscio (Vin Diesel), a member of the Lucchino mob family, was trialed at the end of the 80’s in what would eventually become the longest court process in U.S. history. There were 20 accused and a prosecutor, Sean Kierney (Linus Roache), who presented tons of incriminating evidence and witnesses. But despite the importance of the case, Jackie decided to defend himself, giving the judge (Ron Silver), his former friends and their lawyers a hard time.

Sidney Lumet (more than 70 years old these days!) directed from his own script which he co-wrote with T.J. Mancini and Robert J. McCrea. I once read a book of his called “Making Movies” in which he talked about the importance of finding the right tone of a movie before cameras even began to roll. I mention this because one of Find Me Guilty’s main flaws has precisely got to do with that, and it’s hard to believe coming from him. Even though much of the court dialogue was taken directly from records of the actual trial, there’s a light and slightly comedic tone that permeates the production and that doesn’t quite fit the story. It’s one thing that Jackie was a clown, but another altogether that what he got himself into was anything but funny.

It’s no wonder Lumet was the man behind 12 Angry Men (1957), a movie about a guy who tried with all he got to change the opinion of his fellow jurors towards the outcome of a trial. The difference here is that these men are all clearly guilty, so there’s a trace of ambivalence in the case that is fascinating by default. Yet instead of going for an interesting examination of the American justice system or what makes people tick, here is a pretty straightforward account of the events with no deep insight into anything. And worse, it is Hollywoodized to the point in which the prosecutor is played in unlikable, almost cartoonish fashion and we’re forced to root for the “hero”. I don’t care about the reversed morale of the story, after all it actually happened, but a fairer treatment was deserved. Oh, and I won’t talk about the trial’s outcome, I’ll just say the movie does remain suspenseful until the very end.

There’s an interesting undercurrent besides all the court mumbo-jumbo and it has to do with issues such as the value of family, friends and loyalty. No one can be judged in black-and-white terms, and Jackie was, after all, a man of principles and dignity. The constant support for his fellow friends is incredible to witness, yet it rings true. The juxtaposition with such a troubling background is attention-grabbing and it makes you ponder…

Lumet’s direction is good considering there’s mostly one location. Yet I felt the movie was too prettily photographed and too stylishly framed for its own good. A grittier approach would’ve served the story better, I think. There are also times when it feels TV movie-ish, and that’s not a compliment. One minute you get an excellent, intense scene featuring Jackie’s wife and the next you get a ridiculous, over-the-top one featuring Jackie’s friends finally deciding to support him. Not much consistency to be found.

At the end of the day there’s no denying that Vin Diesel comes off successfully from the experiment. He wears a weird toupee, but his performance is absolutely captivating. I never thought of his prior work and not for one second did I disbelieve him as Jackie. The role simply fits him and he makes the most of it. Supporting performers are well-cast and uniformly excellent, with Peter Dinklage, Annabella Sciorra, Alex Rocco and Ron Silver leaving the strongest impressions.

“If it talks like an asshole, and looks like an asshole, then chances are it is an asshole.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Director

Chris Columbus

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 21, 2006

I saw this film when it was released years ago and thought it was dull, overlong and boring. I proclaimed that it didn’t make me feel like reading the books or watching the next movies. Then, film by film the franchise got better, and important enough to re-consider. Most notably, even though the third and fourth movies were great, fans of the books kept saying that the novels offered much more and were amazing. It got ridiculous! The hype was too great! I had to surrender, and finally did. I devoured the first book like potato chips. Then I read the second and the same thing happened, and so on. It was time to watch the films again.

Sadly, the only difference between my original experience and the new one watching the first film is that now I’m in love with the characters and adored seeing the magical world of Harry Potter come to life. Other than that, I still consider the film slow, dull and unnecessarily long. Steven Kloves’ screenplay captures the essence and the charm of the first novel by J.K. Rowling, but does so in a literary fashion that results in an excruciating cinematic experience. I was surprised when reading the book that some crucial moments lost impact in the film because of the poor translation. I can’t express how glad I am that Kloves’ scripts have improved so much in the next films.

Yet, happily enough, J.K. Rowling’s charming world has become a cinematic must. As if selling zillions of copies of every Harry Potter book wasn’t enough, now the youngster and his friends are household names even for those who refuse to read. It’s no wonder: the story is manufactured to enchant kids and adults alike, and does so with amazing ease; an exemplary storytelling talent of Rowling’s if you ask me.

Baby Harry Potter became a celebrity even before he could utter a word, when a fearsome wizard killed his parents but not only couldn’t kill him, but in fact was horribly injured when trying to. Orphan Harry is taken to his only relatives, muggles (non-magical folk) Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths) and Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw). Raised without love or knowledge of his nature, sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs and, even worse, living under the shadow of his obnoxious cousin Dudley (Harry Melling), 11-year-old Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) only realizes why he could do strange things at times when he’s invited to join Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

A new world opens in front of his eyes: Harry is a wizard and an involuntary celebrity. Everything is awe and wonder in the magical world, and Harry quickly makes friends and enemies at Hogwarts. From the wise Headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris) to the strict Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) to gamekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and, most importantly, schoolmates Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), our boy gets to know what being loved and accepted is about.

But not everything is happiness during Harry’s first year at Hogwarts. There are rumors that Lord Voldemort is still out there somewhere, thirsty of revenge, and strange happenings seem to point that way. Tough Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) not only despises Harry but also could well be the Dark Lord’s ally. When Harry and his friends discover a precious magical Stone is kept at the school, they set to stop the wrong hands from snatching it.

True, too many things were attempted in this first film; it tried to bite more than it could chew, and the result was simply inefficient. Yet it’s a great start in the way that it introduces so many characters and takes its time to show us the wonders of Harry’s magical world. Careful detail was achieved by everyone involved in character and production design, and I guess the dreams of millions of readers came true.

The cast is also outstanding. Radcliffe could’ve used a bit more charisma but the actors playing his friends and foes are perfection; a flawless British ensemble.

Adding to the magic with impressive, heaven-sent accuracy is John Williams’ music score. It’s hard to imagine Harry Potter without those famous tunes by now. One real work of art.

A must, if only as the beginning of something that, we know by now, is completely worthwhile.

“You’re the boy who lived.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Happy Feet

Director

George Miller

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Remember when Disney had the monopoly concerning animated movies? I miss those days; every new movie was an event and eventually became true phenomena. Nowadays every big studio has an animation division and the flow of such movies has dramatically increased. This year alone the amount of stories about talking animals was insane, and the box office proved that people are getting tired of it. Thankfully though, a fresh, different take on the genre arrived in the form of Happy Feet. And who doesn’t like penguins anyway?

When Memphis (voice of Hugh Jackman) and Norma Jean (voice of Nicole Kidman) gave birth to Mumble (voice of Elijah Wood) they knew he was different. As he grew up, he realized he couldn’t sing, which meant he didn’t have a “heart song” and thus, according to his community, didn’t belong there. Yet Mumble had a talent: he could dance. But even his friend Gloria (voice of Brittany Murphy) couldn’t understand him, and he eventually deserted. Fortunately he found a penguin community where he was accepted and he made friends with Ramón (voice of Robin Williams) and his gang. That would not stop Mumble from wanting to return home and also from getting to the bottom of why fish were so scarce lately.

Happy Feet was directed by George Miller, who is not unfamiliar with darker children’s fare (remember the sad case of Babe: Pig in the City?). He co-wrote the screenplay with Warren Coleman, John Collee and Judy Morris. Their work and the ultimate product is a clear case of a rousing success trumpeted by some bad decisions that turn it into a disastrous mess. My heart sank and I ended up being disappointed, but the first two thirds are so undeniably good that I can’t not recommend it. That part alone is worth proclaiming this to be one of the best animated movies of the year, if not the best (it is a close call with Pixar’s Cars).

I hadn’t found so much fun and sheer energy in a movie of this kind since I don’t know when. It starts with a lively musical number and it is non-stop from there. No matter that Mumble’s story is sad for the most part, he’s surrounded by a lively environment that is able to provide huge entertainment. And when he’s doing his thing the movie soars. Comic relief is also provided all the way through, mainly in the form of Ramón, and it helps make it a greater time.

Unfortunately it all comes to an end with a rather bizarre change of tone during the last third. Sometimes sticking to convention doesn’t hurt, but Miller and his crew opted to take the tale too far. It gets into some very dark territory that feels like another movie altogether. And I’m not against adding adult stuff into kiddie fare (pretty obvious sexual innuendo is found in at least two early scenes and I actually liked it). The problem comes from wanting to say too much. The movie seems to be all about giving out the message that being different is not wrong, that you should always be yourself and that tolerance is the way to go. But that bit is partly resolved early in the proceedings, and a new message that tackles ecological issues is rather forced into the story and resolved in such a ridiculous way during the climax that I couldn’t believe my eyes. Every trace of intelligence and subtlety went down the toilet. Kids may not notice it as much, but I was astonished.

What the movie never ceases to be though is visually stunning. Miller takes advantage of what a computer-generated product can provide and his camerawork is impressive. He takes us through angles and places that would be impossible if shot in real-life. And the dynamism in the faster scenes (which include both musical numbers and dangerous chase sequences) is notorious. Watching this movie in 3-D or IMAX formats (or both) must be an unforgettable experience.

Those who might be afraid to venture into watching Happy Feet because it’s a musical should not be afraid. The music is used here like it’s never been done before, and it’s mostly composed of well-known classics such as Queen’s “Somebody to Love”, Stevie Wonder’s “I Wish”, a Beatles medley of “Golden Slumbers/The End”, Rufus and Chaka Khan’s “Tell Me Something Good”, Earth, Wind and Fire’s “Boogie Wonderland” and Prince’s “Kiss” among others. All of them sang by the actors.

Voice-work is almost uniformly good. Elijah Wood proves to be a solid lead as the voice of Mumble, while Brittany Murphy is suitably sweet as his friend Gloria. Hugh Jackman brings presence to Mumble’s father, as does Hugo Weaving to the community’s leader Noah. Robin Williams voices two characters mostly played for laughs and he sure earns them. Only weak link is Nicole Kidman as Mumble’s mother. Her voice is too thin and it made me crunch every time I heard it. There’s also a sporadic voice-over narration that I quite enjoyed.

“You did everything penguinly possible.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Casino Royale

Director

Martin Campbell

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

A couple years ago I decided I should be up to date in terms of James Bond movies and I started watching them one by one. I witnessed the wit and brilliancy of the original conception of the series and also the countless times that the entries became routine. There always seemed to be a fresh element that gave the franchise an extra push after it had become tiresome, but by the 1980s there didn’t seem to be much hope. Then Pierce Brosnan came on board and the series took a classy turn that still leaned toward the over-ambitious, starting with the character, a demigod of sorts who wouldn’t bat an eye despite the most fearsome challenges. Some said that was the definition of James Bond, but I dared say it wasn’t so. I wanted to believe that the real Bond had as many conflicts as I sometimes saw him have in the old days.

When it was announced that EON Productions finally acquired the long lost rights to “Casino Royale”, the first Bond novel by Ian Fleming and the only one not to be filmed for the official series, I prayed that they would do the right thing. I remember Quentin Tarantino flirted with the idea of doing it himself, but that didn’t happen and I thought we were lost. Was I wrong! The first sign of it was the casting of Daniel Craig in the role of Bond. He’s not classically handsome, or even the type of guy the old Bonds were. Most people I knew were cursing about it but I was happy, especially because Craig is such a fine actor. Then the first reviews came out and showed joy about the understatement of clichés such as gimmicks, catchphrases and the overall Bond formula. It seemed like a fresh start for 007. I was in for the ride and couldn’t wait! Indeed, the result was as good as I expected.

Since “Casino Royale” was the very first Bond adventure, screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis have made this story the renaissance of Bond in the 21st century, making him a rookie 00 agent, which says a lot in itself but not enough for someone who’s intended to be an unstoppable Government tool who also uses his charm, intelligence and sense of humor to achieve his (their) goals. Bond seems resigned but is in fact reluctant to accept his fate: 00 agents don’t live long, he says. They’re not intended to love, give in to torture or put themselves or their close ones before the objectives of the organization. Fate has put Bond where he is, but perhaps where he is isn’t his fate. This is the person we’re introduced to.

Bond’s boss, M (Judi Dench), is determined and unbreakable. She has no time to waste in congratulations but instead spends most of it correcting and instructing. She knows that Bond is one of the best despite his recklessness, and struggles to point him in the right direction while giving him some freedoms. She has no idea she’s helping build one of the most important men in cinema fiction.

Bond’s adventure sets off when he follows a very thin thread that takes him to the Bahamas and then L.A., where he stops a monstrous act of terrorism. The man behind it is gambler / corrupt banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who illegally uses his clients’ money to make his fortune, using terrorism as a means of obtaining sure bets. Bond, the best card player in MI6, is assigned the task of playing a high stakes game of Texas Hold’Em against Le Chiffre and win. Not many gimmicks involved. Just talent.

Assigned to make sure Bond doesn’t just throw away all the money is accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a beautiful and intelligent woman who catches Bond’s attention but doesn’t entirely return it. Vesper is one of the smartest “Bond girls” to date, so much so that the very title should offend her. Her wit matches Bond’s and her feet are on the ground even more than his. Her looks aren’t only good too but indeed angelic. I had seen Green in The Dreamers (2003) and certainly admired her beauty, but even then I never dreamed of something as gorgeous as what I saw here. She just took my breath away scene after scene with such charm, class and beauty.

Casino Royale is to me the second greatest Bond film ever made, the first one being On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). Curiously enough, both films share a good amount of characteristics. Both star a new actor as Bond, giving each film some freshness if only for that. Both make him quite vulnerable in both body and mind, showing him wounded almost as much as they show him glamorous. Both are episodic and action-filled but with every sequence adding to the general suspense and drama. And both give Bond’s heart a twist and then a turn in terms of love. I find it so exciting when a Bond movie can almost bring you to tears, and only these two have managed it for me. David Arnold’s music score helps Casino Royale a good deal in that and other senses.

If I haven’t said enough about Craig and Green, I’ll say a bit more: they’re perfection in their roles. Craig is here to stay, I hope, but I don’t really care if he should retire from the role after this film: this was good enough and will stay with me forever. Judi Dench’s M is probably her juiciest, since she’s always so upset at Bond and manages to make her scenes so comical without making a fool of herself. Heck, it’s Judi Dench! Mikkelsen is intriguing and affecting as Le Chiffre, making both sides of his character (glamorous and vulnerable, the same as Bond) quite credible. Though wasted in terms of running time and character, Jeffrey Wright is quite good as Felix Leiter, in what I’d like to consider something of a cameo.

That the drama is so important and well-handled doesn’t mean for a second that the action isn’t top-notch. There’s enough excitement to last for a lifetime, though hardly any fancy explosions or unnecessarily implausible stunts; just the classic chase by foot and car, and such typical ventures of a 00 agent. Excellent work by the whole crew.

Casino Royale should be seen by fans of Bond and others. It’s just an extraordinary action film.

“Very sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Children of Men

Director

Alfonso Cuarón

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 18, 2006

The year 2006 will be remembered, among other things, because of the heat wave provided by three Mexican directors (Alejandro González Iñárritu, Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuarón) who delivered movies that proved to be the pinnacles of their already celebrated careers. They also happen to be friends, and even collaborated in each other’s works before they were finished. It is difficult to say when, if at all, such an event will be repeated, but for now we can only add to the praise surrounding their extraordinary movies, of which Children of Men happens to be the best. And if you haven’t been listening, that means a lot.

It’s the year 2027 and for almost two decades women have inexplicably not been able to procreate. Without anything to look forward to, the world has fallen into chaos; only London still stands, and they have a dramatic immigration overflow. Theo (Clive Owen) is kidnapped by a rebel group lead by his former wife Julian (Julianne Moore) and asked to get transit papers to get a young woman, Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), to the shore. As complications arise, he must take her there himself, discovering on the way that she holds the key to humanity.

Children of Men is loosely based on a P.D. James novel, and brought to the screen by five (due to guild guidelines) credited writers: Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby and director Cuarón. This is one of those cases in which something reaches a level of greatness because of the conjunction of plenty different factors, namely the direction, cinematography, editing, acting, writing, music and production design. It is a movie about ideas more than anything else, but brought to practical realism by an exemplary team of experts that translated it into blunt storytelling of the highest order, a masterful piece that asks more questions than it answers but that manages to enthrall with its apparent simplicity.

Particularly mesmerizing is the way in which the near-future is portrayed. Without resorting to the usual over-the-top machinations that such a vision could present, what we’re shown is as realistic as it could’ve been conjured, yet with little details that clearly separate it from our present. Looking at the background is just as fascinating as looking at the main characters in a scene, and such richness was aided by the work of Jim Clay, Geoffrey Kirkland and their team. Equally interesting, though, is the development of a world where people have lost hope and have nothing to keep them going. Plenty of scenarios could be rendered out of this sole idea, and the one presented here is both disturbing and understandable. It is not surprising, yet awfully interesting, that different moments of actual history are understatedly referenced such as the Holocaust or Abu Ghraib.

There is an aspect that may go unnoticed but that for me was yet another touch of brilliance in a sea of many. Animals appear everywhere throughout the movie. Whether it is dogs, cats, sheep or birds, they seem to be incessantly present. Cuarón seems to be making a statement about how the world will eventually complete a cycle and animals will rule the Earth again. It is not a farfetched idea inside his realm, and it is also endlessly intriguing.

Talking to people and reading reactions towards the movie I have noticed that for some it presents a vision of hope, while others are put-off by what they believe is crude foreshadowing. Everyone will be impacted in different ways, always influenced by the place they’re at in their lives. Yet there’s no denying the movie’s sheer power, one that hits you like a thud. Anytime a form of art is able to provoke such a divisive reaction it means it must be doing something good.

Clive Owen has the task of holding the movie together when every supporting character comes and goes. He’s excellent as usual, and the more the movie advances the more poignant his performance gets. Michael Caine, as his pot-headed best friend, is a hoot in his all-too-brief appearance. So is Peter Mullan. And Julianne Moore plays a character that required a strong presence such as hers. Also pitch-perfect is the work from Chiwetel Ejiofor, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Oana Pellea, Pam Ferris and Danny Huston.

Despite everything I’ve written here, Children of Men will mostly be remembered for years to come because of the impressive work of cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. Using a hand-held camera that sometimes makes it feel like we’re seeing a documentary, he is also mainly responsible for a handful of astonishing sequences that run for a few minutes with no cuts and that involve a level of organization, preparation, execution and even luck that borders on the impossible. There are barely any visual effects used in them and that makes the task the more admirable. Kubrick and Altman would be proud. So are we.

“Very odd, what happens in a world without children’s voices.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Children of Men (2006): Groucho

Review

The Nativity Story

Director

Catherine Hardwicke

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 14, 2006

My sole interest in The Nativity Story was Keisha Castle-Hughes in her first major role after her highly praised performance in Whale Rider (2002) a few years ago. Then I grew interested in the story also. Though not religious, I know the Gospels quite well and I thought delving deeper into Mary’s story was a good idea, since that’s hardly developed in the Bible.

The result, unfortunately, is that little more than what we can find in the scriptures is to be found here, which is a safe approach but also quite a dull one. A few things were added, mainly details about the relationship between Mary (Castle-Hughes) and Joseph (Oscar Isaac), so why not go deeper and put in some more drama? Other than a few difficulties concerning Mary’s pregnancy, the rest is all straightforward, hence predictable and boring. After a while, the magic of witnessing these events wears off, as it takes a catechism school approach and doesn’t offer much excitement.

Things begin with Mary’s and Joseph’s conflict over her pregnancy. Mike Rich’s screenplay proposes an arranged marriage of which Mary wasn’t too happy about. Then the news come from the Angel Gabriel (Alexander Siddig) that she’ll be the mother of God, but since her duties with Joseph are not yet valid, it’s not possible for her to be pregnant of him, which will mean rejection by her family, the townspeople, and even Joseph himself.

Mary travels to visit her cousin Elizabeth (Shohreh Aghdashloo), who’s miraculously pregnant of John the Baptist. She’s the only one who understands Mary. After the latter comes back home, everyone notices her pregnancy, and indeed she is rejected. It isn’t until Joseph is visited in his dreams by the Angel Gabriel that he decides to support her.

In the meantime, King Herod (Ciarán Hinds) is anguished to death about the prophecy that a new King will arise to challenge the current rule. In order to spot this rebel, he sends everyone to their hometowns, so Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem. The journey almost kills them, but they carry on.

In parallel, the film tells the story of the Magi, Melchior (Nadim Sawalha), Gaspar (Stefan Kalipha) and Balthasar (Eriq Ebouaney). They’re astronomers who discover that three stars will align for the first time in hundreds of years, causing a very shiny star to appear. Looking for a miracle, they follow the star, traveling to the exact place where it will shine stronger, believing that it will mean the rebirth of many people’s faith.

This is where the movie gets cheesy. It looks like a children’s play in a Christian school —with all due respect and not forgetting that some school plays are pretty good— with nothing new to offer, but simply enacting what we all know or have heard about. There’s no sensibility, everything just happens like it’s supposed to.

Even in the Mary and Joseph thread, matters turn lifeless sooner than later. Everything happens as if it’s supposed to happen, and the characters very rarely show any emotion about it. There’s a priceless scene where Mary and Joseph, almost in fear, discuss the birth of their child, wondering when and if they’ll notice his nature, and whether they’ll be able to teach him anything. I wish the film was constructed with more such moments… It’s not.

To make matters worse, Mary is possibly the least charismatic character of the movie. Joseph makes up for it, his luminous presence balancing a little, but Mary appears to be suffering, like her fate doesn’t please her at all, except in a few moments. Young Castle-Hughes isn’t to blame; she’s talented and pretty in her own right; but the script made Mary look like a long-suffering woman even as a youngster, and that didn’t quite ring true (or work cinematically speaking).

A must for religion buffs and fervent Christians. Others can skip it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Half Nelson

Director

Ryan Fleck

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

When I go see a movie that was critically-acclaimed it almost always happens that I also like it. Yes, the degree varies, but it’s rare when I’m off with the general perception that a movie is good or even great. There are exceptions though, and Half Nelson is one of them. One of the best-reviewed movies of the year, I wasn’t able to figure out why. I was bored to death and only occasionally intrigued. But let’s delve deeper into it...

Dan (Ryan Gosling) is a charismatic inner-city junior high school teacher who gives both History lessons and serves as a basketball coach. One day a student of his, Drey (Shareeka Epps), discovers that he is a drug-addict and an unlikely friendship ensues.

Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, who previously tackled this material as a short-subject, wrote the screenplay and the former made his feature-film directing debut with it. I admire what they were trying to do much more than I like it. In a way, the result is an anti-movie: a moody thing that pays careful attention to stay clear of clichés and that has a strong introspective aura to it. The feeling it leaves you with is powerful, but watching it is a drag. Some people might like the approach and may jump on the bandwagon, but I couldn’t. And I wanted to.

There’s something inherently interesting about a guy who wants desperately to influence his young alumni but that has a side to him that is a mess. Even when he is discovered by one of them he still tries to be a paternal/brotherly figure, but his addiction gets out of control by the minute and he can’t do anything about it. There’s nothing false about the telling, it is all bluntly real, just as the characters are. But the way we’re shown their stories is dramatically muted. Not only that, but it’s also repetitive. The movie follows a familiar pattern: scene at the classroom with a touch of forced political undercurrent, scene of Dan getting wasted some place, scene of Drey’s not-too-promising life, scene of the two of them interacting. Then the cycle repeats and this goes on for almost two hours; barely anything happens that is different or interesting after a while. A sequence with Dan’s parents or a confrontation between him and a friend of Drey’s brother give the tale a bit more meat, but it’s not enough. At the beginning I thought the movie was taking its time to get going, but then I realized it never did.

There is one scene that I liked quite a bit though. It happens when Dan takes Drey to his house. We learn more about the two of them in it than in the rest of the movie. And I also enjoyed Drey’s scenes with her mother and brother.

By the way, what’s up with the title? I was clueless after seeing the movie and then I read it’s a term used in wrestling. The connection escapes me.

If there’s something that can unquestionably be said is that there are two very powerful central performances. Ryan Gosling is like the new version of Edward Norton, a not-so-good-looking actor that happens to be insanely talented and that can transform himself into anything while always being excellent. He leaves a strong impression as Dan, easily his best performance to date. Equally good is newcomer Shareeka Epps. This is the only time I’ve seen her so I don’t know much about her range, but this character suits her to a tee and she delivers a nuanced performance that evokes huge feelings with barely a twitch in her face. Anthony Mackie and Karen Chilton provide solid support.

“Second chances are rare, man. You ought to take better advantage of them.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Prestige

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

There’s nothing better than conviction, and in the case of fictional works, if conviction’s what powers them, nothing can stop ‘em. The case of The Prestige is that exactly. It believes by heart in the story it’s telling, and devotes itself so much to its world that it makes us buy it immediately. Implausible as it may seem at times—and it sure does—, this world of magic tricks taken one step beyond becomes a reality in front of our eyes. There’s passion running through Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s screenplay, as it surely was in Christopher Priest’s novel. And that’s what makes this tale work.

The concept is risky, especially in Hollywood terms. It uses an unconventional frame of several timelines intertwined, one becoming flashback of another which was already flashback of yet another. Amazingly, it never gets precisely confusing, which allowed audiences to go wild over it at the box office. Director Nolan isn’t quite abandoning his unconventional roots but he is most obviously getting into mainstream terrain in what appears to be a permanent tendency. And while he gathered known faces for his cast, particularly irresistible in the case of the two leads, he cared to stick to excellent actors who would surely chew off the scenery.

The leads, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, are completely outstanding, stepping out from their mainstream superhero roles and becoming what their roles demand: obsessive arch-enemies and professional magicians. Their story is absorbing from the start: despite an introduction involving a crime (which, despite being given away during the first minutes, I don’t wish to reveal here), the beginning is luminous, with these two rookies, Angier (Jackman) and Borden (Bale), working for another magician, whose tricks are designed by ingénieur Cutter (Michael Caine). After a tragic accident for which Angier blames Borden, the men become rivals in magic and life, obsessed with overcoming one another at any cost.

Truth is however, that Angier is the better showman but Borden is the better magician. It’s all a matter of tricks of course—this story rarely dares to admit that something like real magic actually exists—, but Angier still finds it puzzling how Borden does one of his tricks – the climatic act for which he becomes famous. Trying to imitate him, Angier gets no satisfaction, and instead finds himself all the more obsessed. He explores science (in the form of real-life inventor Nikola Tesla, played rather hauntingly by David Bowie) and decides to go to any lengths admissible. The duel of the titans begins.

In the way, more than one life is affected. Clearly Angier’s wife Julia’s (Piper Perabo), Borden’s wife Sarah’s (Rebecca Hall) and their daughter Jess’s (Samantha Mahurin), and even Olivia’s (Scarlett Johansson), assistant and lover first to one and then to the other. Obsession goes a long way.

The film plays with an apparently intriguing structure that’s no more than its own structure: the pledge, the turn and the prestige. Clever indeed because those three steps are the typical three acts of a story-well-told, which this movie is, by the way. In magic acts however, as in this movie, it’s taken to the extreme, which is good. The prestige of this film is indeed what it’ll be remembered for: the final act, with unbearable revelations that not only explain a lot but also force us to go back and walk through all that’s been seen to realize how things really were. As in a good mystery where audiences are fooled but not made fools of, all the clues were thrown throughout but evident only to those who looked closely. Yes… Clever is the word.

If the story stretches credibility at a certain point I guess it’s the least it could do after avoiding easy escapes in the way, where so many issues could’ve been solved that way. When the artifice of implausibility is finally recurred to, not only does it use a scientific approach but it also leads to the greatest dramatic impact: a sacrifice like few entertainers would be willing to make.

Good for the eye, with sumptuous production design by Nathan Crowley gorgeously photographed by Wally Pfister, and tightly put together, The Prestige features artistry in its story and its craft. I sure found it entertaining and rather puzzling, nevertheless magically accessible to all audiences.

“Obsession is a young man’s game.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Little Miss Sunshine

Director

Jonathan Dayton

Valerie Faris

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 07, 2006

It’s always nice and refreshing to watch a “little indie” film and find out it’s actually pretty great and much better than what big studios usually offer. It’s almost becoming a norm now…, the hunger for quality films is taking audiences’ eyes towards small offerings that have been praised at festivals and might offer something exciting. That’s the case of the film I’m reviewing now.

Little Miss Sunshine portrays a typical American family, which is scary since it’s in fact apparently comprised of wackos. The father, Richard (Greg Kinnear), is a would-be motivational speaker who keeps talking to everyone he knows in his motivational terms, bashing losers and pointing out how to be a winner—while he isn’t one himself. His wife, Sheryl (Toni Collette), does her best to hold the family together and though her struggle does remunerate, not everyone is thankful. Her teenage son Dwayne (Paul Dano) is alienated to say the least, incapable of interacting with the world, so much so that he has made a vow to stay quiet until he has fulfilled his dream of becoming a pilot. Richard’s father (Alan Arkin) is a boisterous old man who uses drugs, causing himself to be expelled from a home recently, and now living with the family. Sheryl’s brother Frank (Steve Carell) is a gay intellectual who just tried to commit suicide, seeing everything around him crumble. And seven-year-old Olive (Abigail Breslin), the baby of the family, has a simple dream: she wants to win a beauty pageant.

Dreadful how introducing so many characters turns out tiresome to write and read, but the film uses the cinematic medium to the greatest extent, presenting us with all these people in a quick, smart way, making them likeable despite their shortcomings, and setting a comedic mood from the start. Even though we quickly realize that most of what we see is not really laughing matter, we’re given a fresh point of view that keeps the laughs coming, making you wonder if this is a drama with comedy sprinkled throughout, or a comedy with dramatic undertones.

The story has Olive, the runner-up for the local beauty title, getting there thanks to the disqualification of the former winner, and earning her place in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, for which she must travel cross-country. Not having enough money to pay for airplane tickets, they must drive there—and since no one is to be left behind, they all must go, and to the regret of most, they do!

So this is a road trip movie, a sub-genre that I’ve learned to love since there are so many good examples here and there. Road trips are perfect for emotions to emerge and truths to be faced, both in real life and in fiction. This is another good example, as the story of every character comes to a catharsis, while the comedic aspect never diminishes, and the dramatic momentum is constant. The script by first-time screenwriter Michael Arndt not only succeeds in creating both moods and making them continuously effective, but also manages to keep the audience in suspense, evading all clichés and surprising at every turn. Excellent work!

A husband and wife in the direction isn’t exactly the usual fare, so I guess the team-up of Johathan Dayton and Valerie Faris is key to the achievement of this film.

The cast is also very fortunate, everyone right-on-target, the standouts being Arkin, Carell, and particularly Breslin, the heart of the movie.

“Everyone, just… pretend to be normal.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Science of Sleep

Director

Michel Gondry

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Director Michel Gondry is very well-known for his work in music videos, a territory of which I’m no expert in the slightest. I was introduced to him when I saw his directorial debut, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), a movie I initially found off-putting but which I eventually fell in love with. He immediately became someone to watch for, and his next offering, The Science of Sleep, sounded intriguing enough. Unfortunately it wasn’t as good as I may have wanted, but Gondry is a true visionary and I will always look forward to his work.

Stéphane (Gael García Bernal) moves to Paris with his mother and gets a dull job at a company that makes calendars. His boring existence is only revived by constant dreams in which he explores his inner feelings to the maximum. But he soon finds another interest in the form of a British girl, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who moves next door and with whom he forms a unique relationship.

Michel Gondry’s previous outing had a Charlie Kaufman script and big stars attached to it. In The Science of Sleep he wrote the screenplay himself and got edgier actors to topline it. The result is a weird amalgam of big ideas and an independent sensibility that doesn’t quite work as a whole, but rather in individual scenes.

While I was watching the movie I was more amused than I was interested. You can’t blame it for originality, that’s for sure, but a little more empathy would’ve been nice. The core of the movie lies in the blossoming romance between Stéphane and Stéphanie, yet the former is such a strange individual that it’s difficult to identify with him. The movie employs several narrative devices, whether we’re seeing a dream, real-life or a combination of both. It’s confusing at first, but you get used to it. The point is that Stéphane needs those dreams to keep going, but when the romance angle is starting to work those sequences start to wear their welcome. And no matter how peculiar Stéphanie might be, Stéphane still comes off as a lunatic and a weirdo, someone with mental issues. She knows this, and that’s the main conflict. I was happy to see that the finale is left opened to interpretation so everyone can come up with their own desired outcome. I certainly know what’s mine.

I don’t know whether Gondry’s approach to the movie’s curious visuals were the result of a limited budget or a simple artistic vision. Whatever the case, some of the dream sequences are refreshing and wonderfully imaginative. You can see that visual effects were mostly put to rest in favor of a hand-made look that includes stop-motion animation and other similar techniques. Quite interesting indeed...

As the movie’s lead, García Bernal shows a playful side of him we had never seen before and he comes off well given the material he’s handed. More successful is Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays the only one that is not a caricature and whose natural looks serve the character well. She’s low-key yet adorably charming in an odd kind of way.

“Now the fish can watch crappy shows from below.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Children of Men

Director

Alfonso Cuarón

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Children of Men is one peculiar futuristic film, unlike anything I’d ever seen. Even though it portrays a bleak future, in which hope is dead and the world is rotting, it’s seen through a light of hope that makes it a pleasant experience well worth witnessing. It’s also a cinematographic triumph, strikingly realized in every respect.

The story shows a world in which fertility is a thing of the past. For 18 years, women have been unable to become pregnant, and nobody knows why. Curious, how the lack of children can send the world into a dump, because if there’s no children there’s no future, so nothing matters to most anyone.

Great Britain is the only proper country left, and the fight against illegal immigrants is constant and monstrous. There are rebel forces and terrorists all over the cities and the countryside, political crisis is bursting and pollution is unbearable.

In the midst of all that, Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a disaffected everyman, gets involved in a most relevant mission that both evokes his past as a rebel and wakes up in him a hope that he hardly remembered.

Theo meets his ex Julian (Julianne Moore) and her rebel friends led by Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who involve him in their cause for money. But matters change when he meets young Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), who carries a world-changing secret. Furthermore, as Theo discovers the betraying intentions of some of the rebels, he sets to escape with Kee, in what becomes a heart-pounding adventure.

Film by film, Alfonso Cuarón keeps proving that he’s one of the best directors out there; I just love his films and this is no exception. Children of Men is first-rate filmmaking, with a script by director Cuarón, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby from P.D. James’ novel. Cuarón created a futuristic world that looks utterly realistic, in part thanks to the striking technical work of production design, camerawork and especially photography (by Emmanuel Lubezki). Some of the most gut-wrenching sequences are uncut, which gives the film a realistic, documentary style that blew my mind.

It’s also worth mentioning that for a futuristic film, this one’s sort of underplayed. Not much of what we see looks very futuristic, even the cars are altered versions of today’s cars, and even though all that responds to the lack of progress of the future we’re presented with, it also talks about a quality sci-fi film relying on dramatic artifices instead of highfalutin ones.

Clive Owen is an excellent lead, convincing both in downtrodden and hopeful modes. Sometimes his performance gets very moving. Michael Caine is game as his best pal, as is Peter Mullan as an opportunistic cop. Pam Ferris, as an ex-midwife, leaves a mark. Danny Huston is also welcome in a very small but rather affecting role.

“Pull my finger.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Children of Men (2006): Morris

Review

Deja Vu

Director

Tony Scott

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 04, 2006

When I saw the trailer for Déjà Vu I thought it looked like your typical police-investigation-yarn with nothing new to add. The publicity didn’t highlight the time-travel aspect, which I still find curious. Then again, I later read about the movie and learnt about this, something that instantly picked my interest. Even more so because reviewers seemed to like the flick, meaning that perhaps it could be intelligent. I was there.

Agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) investigates the bombing of a tourist ferry in post-Katrina New Orleans. Following leads, he stumbles upon the dead body of Claire Kuchever (Paula Patton), which was found before the explosion but made look like it came from it. He suspects there’s something fishy and opts to follow her trail, something he later confides to FBI Agent Andrew Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer) and Chief Investigator Jack McCready (Bruce Greenwood). Realizing that he could be a valuable asset to the on-going inquiry they decide to let him know about a powerful device which enables them to see the past, specifically an exact instant four and a half days ago. Carlin then sets his mind on using the tool for all its worth into catching the terrorist, prevent the bombing and save the girl.

Tony Scott is a director in complete command of his craft, sometimes even overcoming his welcome. You would’ve thought that to par him up with producer Jerry Bruckheimer would result in a huge, overbearing movie with no brains, but that’s exactly the opposite of what they’ve come up with. Based on a script by Bill Marsilii and Terry Rossio, Déjà Vu is an effective thriller that moves in a straightforward manner and that actually boasts an intelligent story with some sci-fi elements that, as far-fetched as it sounds, remains grounded. It is one hell of a ride; one that exhilarates the mind while never ceasing to entertain.

The movie starts with a bang, and is then followed by a routine case of police investigation with the usual-usual. It isn’t until the time-travel device is presented that the real excitement begins. This second act is by far the best, leading to a series of discoveries and events that make the case more interesting to say the least. It is also responsible for some mind-blowing sequences, such as one of the most original car chases ever committed to celluloid. The third act turns into more of a generic action yarn, but that’s where the real reach of the tool truly kicks in.

I have to say that at first glance I was disappointed by the ending because I thought I knew what would happen and I wanted it to follow a different direction, a grimmer, edgier one. But post-movie reflection lead me to understand more of what actually happened. I still had some doubts and I have to admit that I needed to do some research in order to get everything, which made me appreciate the movie more on one hand, but less on the other. It surely is fascinating and much smarter than it looks at first glance, but it is also too complicated for its own good. I think only about 5% of the population that sees it will get everything, and that’s not good.

As for the theory that I now think is the correct one I will have to get into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the movie you’d better skip this paragraph. My understanding is that Carlin goes back in time twice. In the first one he doesn’t succeed and even though he rescues the girl, she is kidnapped again and murdered, while his alter-ego is also killed and the ferry blown up, yet his original-self is able to catch the terrorist and have a really strange conversation with him (one of the first clues). This “second” time-line (from the point of view of the original Carlin) is actually the one we see from the start. Then, when Carlin heads to the past, it’s really the second time he does so, and this time he succeeds in every respect, except that his new alter-ego is also killed. The killing of his alter-egos in the two time-travels is actually pretty convenient because if they had survived the movie would’ve had a hard time explaining how two Carlins could’ve co-existed, but it didn’t happen so everything’s fine. Thinking back, the first time-travel (which we’re not shown) is the one I wanted to see depicted, but I guess having the second one makes matters even more interesting. If you still haven’t got how everything played, I’ll give you two other pivotal clues: Claire’s dress and the man on the bridge. ‘Nuff said.

Denzel Washington is excellent despite delivering a performance he could give in his sleep. Paula Patton leaves a strong impression as the beautiful woman with whom Carlin becomes obsessed (although a hint of romance seems rather forced) and Jim Caviezel is truly magnetic as a madman on the loose. Technical aspects are flawless, with Paul Cameron’s cinematography being the standout.

“What if I already have?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter