CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Gone Baby Gone

Director

Ben Affleck

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 31, 2007

When I first heard Ben Affleck was going to make his directorial debut I didn’t expect much from him. Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy; I think he’s a fine actor and a good writer from what little work he’s done in that department. But his taste in movies the last couple of years had been perfunctory. Nothing could have prepared me for what he accomplished with this picture.

Private detectives Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and beau Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan) are hired by Lionel McCready (Titus Welliver) and his wife Bea (Amy Madigan) to investigate the disappearance of her young niece Amanda (Madeline O’Brien) who was apparently kidnapped while her no-good mother Helena (Amy Ryan) left her alone while she went out. Captain Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman) is not too happy to have more people involved in the case, but allows them to stick with Detectives Remy Bressant (Ed Harris) and Nick Poole (John Ashton) during the investigation.

Ben Affleck directed from his and Aaron Stockard’s screenplay, based on the novel by Dennis Lehane. Another one of Lehane’s novels was brought to the big screen by Clint Eastwood in 2003, Mystic River. That movie went on to receive international acclaim and plenty of awards. Well, Gone Baby Gone is just as strong.

When I read the movie’s synopsis I expected a tight police procedural and nothing more, but instead I got a morally complex film that keeps twisting itself around and ends up with a hell of a finale that leaves you, for lack of a better word, shattered. It is one of those movies where everyone has their own agenda and secrets are revealed little by little just like pilling an onion. When looking back at it I marvel at how well-constructed and misleading it is; definitely an intense dramatic experience that is crude but also immensely welcomed.

Affleck’s hometown of Boston serves as a backdrop and you can feel he knows his way around. The atmosphere is genuine and you can almost breathe the air. The city and its population are characters of their own, and it is all perfectly captured by cinematographer John Toll and the casting by Nadia Aleyd and Donna Morong. Harry Gregson-Williams’s score is also haunting and top-notch. Ben Affleck himself does a remarkable job, even more notable when realizing it’s his first outing as director.

There are themes delved upon in this picture which I don’t want to spoil here, but which are hard to get a grasp on. It is a movie that provokes debate and which can’t be digested easily. It also helps that the characters are all full-bodied human beings which have gone through their share of difficulties and who know what’s at stake. After all is said and done, it’s mostly about families and the role we play in each others’ lives. And yes, there’s also quite a bit of suspense; it keeps you hooked right until the end.

Casey Affleck has had a revelatory year with this and his impressive turn in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Count me in as a believer. Titus Welliver and Amy Madigan leave strong impressions as the girl’s uncle and aunt. Morgan Freeman appears briefly but gives his character the necessary weight. Michelle Monaghan, on the other hand, is way too passive and almost forgettable; I don’t know if her character was written like that in the novel, but here it is not until the end that she serves a real purpose. The movie belongs to Ed Harris and Amy Ryan though. Harris has done this in the past but there’s not mistaking how good he is, while Ryan is a veteran TV actress who everyone is starting to (deservedly) look up to now. Cheers to both.

“I can’t think of one reason big enough for him to lie about that’s small enough not to matter.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Knocked Up

Director

Judd Apatow

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Judd Apatow struck the mother load. His combination of sweetness and crude comedy works like wonders. It’s so contrasting it’s hard to believe it works, but it does in the same way that mixing sweet and sour works in the kitchen for unexpected yet very satisfactory flavors. And while The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005) was a fine piece of entertainment, Knocked Up is a knockout.

Even the premise is mundane: a one-night-stand leads to pregnancy and the unlikely couple goes through hilarious situations after deciding to keep the baby. But there’s constantly an edge that gives the proceedings an extra something.

Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is celebrating a promotion with her sister Debbie (Leslie Mann) at a nightclub, where she chances to meet Ben (Seth Rogen), an overweight screwball who’s been partying his whole life. There’s a click, and the rest has been told. Even this romance rings true. The morning after, when the guy wakes up, the girl’s already looking at him, evaluating her own actions, obviously disapproving of them and blaming the booze. They get breakfast and chat, and he turns out to be not only no Romeo, but the exact opposite. We’re as disappointed as she is. Much as we get the guy’s lifestyle and respect it, we understand the girl’s emotions and empathize with them. That’s how good the movie is. Even before the fun part has started, we’ve already connected to the characters, rooted for their romance, and felt disappointed at their early failure.

Then it’s time for the pregnancy. It’s been two months and Alison finds out. Her reactions are hilarious, and looking for the guy is a whole event. He’s getting high with his band of good-for-nothings, and her call means the possibility of more sex, probably even a b.j. By now, it’s like we’ve coped with the affair as much as Alison has: we have no hopes for this guy, don’t really want to see him again, and hope this uncomfortable pregnancy business is just a big misunderstanding. But fate forces Ben and Alison to meet again, and deal with the pregnancy that Alison has decided to go through with. And in the wake of being parents, they find the hope for romance. And all of a sudden, we’re all into Ben again.

I have no idea how Apatow does it, but he succeeds completely. We connect through and through. His script speaks so many truths that it has to be partly inspired by real-life experiences, but they’re translated to the screen flawlessly, and blended into a fun story. Furthermore, this is one of those films that understand both men and women precisely, which is always an asset in making a romantic tale credible.

There are two subplots going on at the same time. The significant one stars Debbie and her husband Pete (Paul Rudd), whose years-old marriage is getting rather rusty. They’re fun characters, as every other, but there’s no fun in their situation, and it’s an excellent complement to the relationship between Ben and Alison. Pete is an amazing character, and Rudd makes him even better: tired, fed-up, desperate for a relief valve, but still a loving husband and father.

The second subplot, which I would rather called a theme, or a background plot, or a subplot that works as a dressing, stars Ben’s friends (Jay Baruchel, Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, Martin Starr, Charlyne Yi), a bunch of gross-out slackers. Seeing Ben alongside them makes him look quite good despite his flaws, which is, I believe, one of the intentions of showing us his friends so often. Otherwise, the guys are there for the laughs, even if sometimes they go too far, and give the film most of its crude comedy bits that help relieve the tension from the plot’s hardest moments. Yet, sometimes the film drags a bit with them onscreen, as it does some other times. No big deal, because these guys are hilarious, and their stuff has its values.

As for the leads, they’re unmatchable. Even though they’re indeed a mismatch, they share a lot of chemistry, and seamlessly so. Lovely Heigl gets a lot of the sentimental stuff, and she pulls it off all right, but it’s Rogen who carries the greater load, as his character evolves and wins us over once and again. He’s outstanding.

One of the year’s best!

“Never do what they did.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Golden Compass

Director

Chris Weitz

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

There’s been much hoopla surrounding the release of The Golden Compass, a movie based on a series of novels that are supposedly anti-Christian and that was looking to cash in as other epic holiday blockbusters have done in the past. Unfortunately almost everything went wrong when it was finally unveiled; critics were unimpressed and so were audiences. It is now a question mark whether the other two parts of a planned trilogy will see the light of day at all.

In a parallel universe where each person has its own daemon (an animal representation of their soul), young Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) is given a truth-teller golden compass by her uncle Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), an adventurer who is obsessed with being able to open gaps between worlds. Lyra is eventually adopted by Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman), a powerful member of the Magistery, an organization that experiments on children to get rid of their free will. When Lyra’s best friend Roger (Ben Walker) is kidnapped she embarks on a trip to the north so she can go rescue these kids.

Chris Weitz directed from his own screenplay based on the Philip Pullman novel “Northern Lights”. It is a well-known anecdote that director Weitz turned down the offer to direct the movie because he didn’t feel he was up for such a grand-scale production. He eventually opted to do it, a decision that might be questionable given the lack of actual excitement in the whole thing. That said, it’s hard to point fingers, for the problem could lie either in the actual story or in the way it was translated.

The Golden Compass suffers from the kind of disease that so many movies of the kind fall into: since it’s presenting a new world with a different set of rules it takes an immense amount of time explaining everything and thus becomes boring and too talky for its own good. If you add the fact that the characters are dealing with dense philosophical issues the affliction gets even worse. Action scenes here and there are well-handled, such as a bear fight or the final battle, but they aren’t enough to sustain the entire experience.

I didn’t hate the movie, there’s a lot of good in it such as the aforementioned sequences. Each time Miss Coulter or Lord Asriel pop up the movie also enlivens. And the concept of daemons proves to be highly interesting. The flick barely goes into anti-Christian territory, one could make an allegory that the Magistery represents any organized religion but that would be looking too much into it; as it is, the movie is harmless (not telling about the book though). Trouble is it’s also cold and distant. The visuals may be impressive, the special effects impeccably done, the scale imposing, but the characters remain strangers.

I’ve come to learn that the book’s ending was left out of the movie because it was too grim, so we’re left with a happy conclusion that promises a lot to come. I’ve read what that ending was supposed to be and it is very dark indeed. Commercial prospects definitely played a role there.

Dakota Blue Richards was chosen among thousands of girls and one can see she’s special, but I’m not that sure she’s able to carry such a big project on her shoulders. She’s not identifiable and that’s both a problem with the character and the actress. Daniel Craig has a glorified cameo, while Nicole Kidman plays a villainess with all the glamour and panache you might expect. Eva Green has a couple of scenes and it’s a shame since her character (and breed) seems to be far more interesting than the people we’re stuck with. Sam Elliot is fun as a man who helps Lyra in her quest. Christopher Lee, Derek Jacobi and Simon McBurney have small roles that amount to nothing. Voices are also lent by Ian McKellen, Freddie Highmore, Ian McShane, Kristin Scott Thomas and Kathy Bates.

“Yes, that is all.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

It's a Wonderful Life

Director

Frank Capra

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

It’s a Wonderful Life had some success at the time of its release but wasn’t all-over lauded, considered by some to be over-sentimental. Only decades later did it take off, its message of love, unity and optimism being one of the most effective in film ever, turning this not only into an indisputable American classic but also one of the best-loved films of all time, and a Christmas must. It has a life of its own.

The plot, based on the short story by Philip Van Doren Stern called “The Greatest Gift”, stars George Bailey (James Stewart), a man of dreams and aspirations, finding every possible obstacle in life when trying to leave his hometown of Bedford Falls in order to fulfill his dreams of traveling around the world and becoming a great constructor. Every time he gets the chance, something gets in his way, forcing him to choose between his happiness and other people’s. Being a good-hearted man, he always chooses selflessly, and ends up poor, frustrated, and stuck in his town, though he’s the best-loved man around. When despair comes, during a very bad crisis, George considers taking his own life.

Van Doren’s story follows George’s guardian angel as he stops the suicide attempt and grants George the wish of seeing what the world would be like if he hadn’t been born. Capra’s adaptation (scripted by himself along with Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett) begins with a recount of George’s life, which is an outstanding biography: always thinking about others before him, even if on the surface he pretends to be uninterested in other people’s problems. Tension grows towards his desperation in a totally credible way, thanks in great part to a brilliant addition to the story: George’s nemesis, Mr. Henry F. Potter (Lionel Barrymore). Potter is a banker who has come to own all of Bedford Falls, except for one thing: the Bailey Building & Loan Association. Thanks to this institution, people own their own places, and prevent Potter from taking over completely. Despite his repeated attempts, Mr. Potter has been unable to dissolve the Building & Loan that now has George at its command, defending it with all he has.

But when Potter unwillingly snatches the opportunity to finally put an end to this source of people’s wellbeing, George finds himself in complete desperation, and that’s when heaven takes a hand. Enter Clarence (Henry Travers), an angel who’s still got to earn his wings, and who gives George the opportunity to see the world as he never imagined it could be, and while doing so, realize how much of it he has affected through his good actions.

The result is, of course, quite memorable, and couldn’t be more emotional. It strikes every chord in a singular way and makes us reflect upon our own existence, and the transcendence we can have in the world. No wonder this film plays every Christmas and has millions of viewers year by year. I’m one of them, and happy to be.

James Stewart delivers one of his best-remembered performances and achieves credibility at every turn: first as a cocky young man, then as a resigned adult, later as a desperate shadow of a man, and finally as a joy-struck human being. Donna Reed, as his wife Mary, is as lovely as her character, becoming one of the story’s strongest pillars. Barrymore is perfection as the Scrooge-like Mr. Potter, as is Thomas Mitchell as George’s Uncle Billy, Henry Traves as Clarence, etc.

Dimitri Tiomkin’s music score is also an emotional powerhouse, but that Christmas carol played at the end, with everyone singing to its tune, inevitably brings tears to my eyes. What a feeling!

“To my big brother George, the richest man in town!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Enchanted

Director

Kevin Lima

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 24, 2007

No matter how much you and I might love Disney movies, whether it’s the Walt-supervised classics, the ones from the 90’s or the modern outings from Pixar, truth is if watched objectively they can be pretty ridiculous, over-the-top and/or laughable. Enter Enchanted, a movie produced by Disney itself that transports fairy tale characters into the real world. I can’t believe it took so long for such an idea to come to fruition as the concept alone is brilliant.

Giselle (Amy Adams) lives in the town of Andalasia and is surrounded by all kinds of animal-friends. She sings of meeting the man of her dreams and does so immediately after in the form of Prince Edward (James Marsden). On the way to her wedding the next day, Edward’s evil stepmother Queen Narcissa (Susan Sarandon) throws Giselle into the real world so she won’t take the crown from her. Emerging in the middle of Times Square, she is eventually rescued by single dad Robert (Patrick Dempsey) and his daughter Morgan (Rachel Covey) while being hunted by the queen’s henchman Nathaniel (Timothy Spall) and waiting to be rescued by her prince.

Kevin Lima directed from an original screenplay by Bill Kelly. The movie starts with a ten-minute-or-so animated sequence that reminds us of the power that 2-D animation can have when done well, while at the same time setting the satiric tone for what’s to come.

Then comes the best part of the movie, as Giselle lands in New York and experiences all kinds of fish-out-of-water shenanigans. Interesting to note is that she doesn’t lose her ability to sing, talk to animals or fashion dresses in a heartbeat. This leads to a series of sequences that are both hilarious and tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek such as when she enlists the help of any creature in hand to clean up Robert’s apartment, ending up being aided mostly by rats and cockroaches to the tune of “Happy Working Song”.

What makes this first segment so great is that Giselle brings innocence and joy to everyone’s life around her. Her vision of love is so pure that she reminds everyone what it can accomplish when it’s really there and how lucky we are when we have it. A big musical number in Central Park called “That’s How You Know” expresses these feelings exactly. And of course, apart from the movie’s big heart there’s also a lot of comedy, most of which works like wonders.

The middle part deals mostly with two things: Robert and Giselle falling for each other and having heartfelt conversations about idealism vs. realism, and Nathaniel trying his best to get Giselle to eat one of three poisonous apples. Both of these storylines are so-so at best. Having such a sparkly comedy suddenly get all serious and deep is probably not that good an idea, while at the same time I mostly hate those supporting wacky characters which always come in hand when there’s a villain. Fortunately we also get Prince Edward and squirrel Pip coming to save Giselle and experiencing all kinds of misfortunes of their own. Pip’s first recount of Nathaniel’s evil plans to Edward is especially hilarious.

The last bit has Giselle completely transformed into a three-dimensional character and dealing with her feelings towards both Edward and Robert. A ballroom dance sequence is especially magical. And there’s also the appearance of Queen Narcissa herself who leads an action-pack climax that many people have found underwhelming, but which I found just right because it’s short, spectacular and to the point.

Kudos to cinematographer Don Burgess and for production and costume designs which put a lot of emphasis on purple, a color we don’t usually see onscreen but which looks beautiful here. Alan Menken, the man responsible for some of Disney’s most beloved songs, comes back with a gleaming score and catchy tunes, with lyrics by Stephen Schwartz, of which another highlight is “True Love’s Kiss.”

Keep your eyes open for plenty of references to Disney classics. That’s also part of the fun!

Amy Adams delivers a star-making performance that could’ve gone wrong in many different ways, but which she plays to perfection and with impeccable timing; she’s funny, lovable and believable, a knock-out. Patrick Dempsey underplays his role as intended and is quite effective, as is Rachel Covey as his daughter. James Marsden and Susan Sarandon also hit the right notes with their exaggerated portrayals; perfect casting there. Idina Menzel and Timothy Spall are both good and do what they’re required of. In a final nostalgic note, Julie Andrews provides the narration; how could she not?

“How do you all know this song? I’ve never heard this song before!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Love Story

Director

Arthur Hiller

Year

1970

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 20, 2007

The film’s introduction foreshadows its tragedy when Oliver (Ryan O’Neal), sitting alone, wonders what’s there to say about a 25-year-old girl who died. Then we go back two years to see how he and the girl in question, Jennifer (Ali MacGraw), hooked up and eventually got together for life.

Is there a reason for this peculiar device? My guess is it was the only way to prevent the film from being unbearable. Had we not known that Jennifer was going to die, we’d have probably felt off-putted and betrayed when it happened. And that’s because the story is not about her death, but about getting there, from the point of view of the relationship between she and Oliver. It’s not a matter of how he copes with her death, but with her terminal illness. And that’s not even soon into the movie.

But that takes me to another thought, a more mundane motivation of screenwriter Erich Segal, who also published this story as a novel around the time of the film’s release. Love Story is essentially that, a love story, and a typical one at that, complicated by a few antagonistic forces but nothing to truly write home about. For instance, Oliver comes from a long line of wealthy and well-respected Harvard University graduates, and his father, Oliver III (Ray Milland), is not even close to accepting his marriage to working-class Jenny. Thus Oliver IV turns his back on his father, preferring Jennifer without even trying to convince him that it’s not such a bad idea. Heroic though this clearly is, it’s even more potent when you know that eventually she will die. Every step of the way we’re thinking of that and evaluating every event from that point of view. Jennifer insists that Oliver reconcile with his father, but he chooses not to, and we know this will cause him great regret during her illness, since depriving themselves from the luxuries that the Barretts could provide is entirely his fault due to his pride.

Is this a cheat or a masterful storytelling device? It could be seen as both. Telling this story without its introduction would make it rather conventional and in the end, quite unsettling. The gross of the film is conversation, and irresistible though both leads are, it’s often irrelevant chatter. But the intro is added and everything turns around completely, and the film has been hailed for its romanticism ever since. I would conclude that Mr. Segal’s decision was a stroke of genius.

The result is indeed heartbreaking and intense, since it’s impossible not to fall in love with both characters, and disastrous to know that destiny will take a hand. And like all good stories well told, regardless of its unhappy ending, this was a boxoffice smash and a critics’ favorite.

This marked O’Neal’s and MacGraw’s rise to stardom and no wonder: they’re both perfect, sharing their dynamism and chemistry and acting as naturally as if they were, in truth, crazy in love. John Marley, famous nowadays for his role as Woltz in The Godfather two years later, deeply moves as Jennifer’s father. The score by Francis Lai, aided by some tunes by Mozart and Bach, is another quite affecting asset.

“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shoot 'Em Up

Director

Michael Davis

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

There have been countless over-the-top and stylish action movies released in the last decade, one after the other trying to prove just how cool and clever the director behind each is. I’m not complaining, some of them have been fun and/or visually intriguing. But what they mostly have in common is that even though they know they’re exaggerated, they play it straight. Here then comes a movie that makes a difference.

Smith (Clive Owen) witnesses some thugs going after a pregnant woman and ends up delivering her baby while facing their rage. The mother dies in the scene and he opts to save the child, but ends up being hunted by a man by the name of Hertz (Paul Giamatti)... and all the men he can get. Smith enlists the help of a lactating hooker, Donna (Monica Bellucci), and together they set out to uncover the mystery surrounding the desire of these guys to kill the baby.

Michael Davis directed from a screenplay of his own. His story is well-known around Hollywood; he was an unknown director who pitched the idea he had for this movie by using frame-by-frame images to depict the action scenes he wanted to shoot. His work impressed not only studio heads, but also top talent who wanted to join in following his enthusiasm. The result is a movie that is certainly hyperkinetic and filled with original ideas, although it’s made for purely entertainment reasons and it does work as that.

Davis does not go for a heads-on spoof, nor does it play as a satire. What is presented on screen is crazy, but it seems to come from its very own realm. Not only is it an action yarn, but it also becomes a comedy, one with its tongue placed firmly on its cheek. The body count is enormous, yet our hero always makes it away. The things he does are even more ridiculous than those that James Bond would come up with, but therein lies the fun.

The first big set-piece is nothing out of the ordinary, but as the story moves along these sequences get wilder. Especially memorable is a sex scene that you have to see to believe. A confrontation with dozens of black-dressed henchmen that culminates in a stairway is also eye-catching. And there’s even a shoot-out in mid-air. Don’t ask.

Clive Owen plays the suave type effectively, and you believe that as grumpy as he is he would care about the child and woman helping him. Monica Bellucci couldn’t be sexier and goes along with the flow with ease. Paul Giamatti has a lot of fun as the villain, an against-type role that he makes the full of. Stephen McHattie and Daniel Pilon have pivotal roles that come along once the “big plan” is revealed. The baby, by the way, is real, and played by three different actors: Sidney Mende-Gibson, Lucas Mende-Gibson and Kaylyn Yellowlees.

“Talk about shooting your load!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Godfather

Director

Francis Ford Coppola

Year

1972

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Talking about The Godfather nowadays is everything but news. It’s an absolute classic that has earned all possible respectability since its release. I wonder what it was like when it was released; I imagine people watching Woltz (John Marley) waking up and finding his horse’s bloody head in his bed, and how they got hooked with the story for good. How far could Marlon Brando’s offbeat Sicilian Mafioso go? Funny, I grew up knowing about Marlon Brando as “The Godfather”. Then I became a film buff at a young age and realized the gross of his work went much farther than that, and long before that, but one can’t deny this is his iconoclastic role. This is the kind of film that makes history, and it sure changed the course of Mafia storytelling, principally because the perception of it changed, being much more sympathetic than in the past. Based on the pulp novel by Mario Puzo and co-scripted by himself and director Coppola, The Godfather was and will ever be an irresistible film experience and one so full of quality it’s perfection.

The story depicts 10 years of a Sicilian family in New York. The patriarch is Vito Corleone (Brando), The Godfather, a man respected amongst countrymen and full of powerful influences. He’s the father of impulsive Sonny (James Caan), dim-witted Fredo (John Cazale), dutiful Michael (Al Pacino) and candid Connie (Talia Shire). As the story develops, things get complicated for the Corleone family due to Vito’s ethics and “old ways”, and the evolution of his offspring given the circumstances is impressive.

The key to the success of this story is the familiarity with which it’s told. Everyone’s been fascinated through the decades every time they root for the bad guys, and there’s no better example than this. The secret of course is telling the tale from the point of view of these people and helping us understand their struggles and pains while pursuing goals that don’t seem too bad once you know the bottom of them, through motivations that don’t seem too different to our own.

The screenplay pushes every right button, mingling drama with action masterfully. In case it hadn’t been clear before, this film established both Puzo and Coppola as master storytellers. To make matters way more effective, every performance is flawless, from Brando’s classic raspy voice and ominous manner to Caan’s hotheadedness to Pacino’s ruthlessness in hazardous times, not to mention the chillness of Robert Duvall as the family consigliore (and adopted son) Tom Hagen. There are countless supporting characters, all cast spot-on: Diane Keaton as Kay, Sterling Hayden as Capt. McCluskey and Richard Castellano as Peter Clemenza come to mind.

This is a delicious period piece set in post-WW2 New York. Cinematographer Gordon Willis even gave the film a grittier look at start to emphasize the time frame, making it more colorful as the story became so full of contrasts. The production design by Dean Tavoularis, art direction by Warren Clymer, set decoration by Philip Smith, and costume design by Anna Hill Johnstone are also unmatchable. And to top it all, Nino Rota created one of cinema’s instantly recognizable and most beautiful scores.

Godfather is a title of dignity and respect, playing on religious themes as well as those that refer to business and family ties. Religion is important to Sicilian genealogies, which the filmmakers are perfectly aware of. To the greatest impact possible, a framing device is used in relation to these themes: the film begins with a wedding, that of Connie, during which Don Corleone, a Sicilian, can’t deny a favor. The party is intertwined with scenes of Brando hearing his paisans asking for help on several matters that often relate or lead to crime. The tone is bright though. The film’s title is unclear, as there are two Godfathers: Vito at start, and Michael at last, and the other bookend is the son’s ritual to become a Godfather in both literal and symbolic ways—the baptism of his nephew, during which some famous executions occur in different places, consolidating Michael’s power far beyond his righteous father’s.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Director

Andrew Dominik

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 17, 2007

This movie with a 10-word title became noteworthy for several reasons, but mainly for the fact that its first cut consisted of four hours which were then trimmed to a little less than three. The director and studio struggled but finally came up with a final cut that was released with little fanfare two years after it was shot. Little did they know if would end up being regarded as one of the best movies of the year.

Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) finally gets to work for Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and his brother Frank (Sam Shepard) during their last train robbery in 1881 along with the rest of the gang: Charley (Sam Rockwell), Wood (Jeremy Renner), Ed (Garret Dillahunt) and Dick (Paul Schneider). After that encounter Robert eventually starts to work for him now and then, never hiding the fact that he is his idol and being barely able to control his growing jealousy.

Andrew Dominik directed from his own screenplay based on the Ron Hansen novel. It isn’t the first time that the legend of Jesse James is brought to the big screen, but Dominik is able to give it a fresh spin by going for a literary and poetic approach. It’s a beautiful movie to sit through, one filled with gorgeous vistas, exuding different aromas, almost gliding from scene to scene at its own pace. It’s also a Western that doesn’t feel like one except for the occasional shoot-out and the fact that everyone travels by horse; it actually is a character study that happens to take place during those times.

The movie provides a subtext about the nature of being a celebrity and also of wanting to become one. It isn’t precisely a new theme, but it is carefully treated, with much attention to detail and never a false note. Ford’s obsession with becoming someone makes him do what the title (which I love) so blatantly describes, a move that brings unexpected consequences. The real meat is in watching how he came to that point and experiencing the tension that kept building as James started to go delusional and his men started to get more afraid of him.

If there is any fault to the proceedings is that its middle part drags more than it should, as Dominik focuses on supporting characters that aren’t as interesting as the main ones. Fortunately the movie is able to recover and deliver a rousing third act. There are also signs of subplots cut short, especially involving Jesse’s wife Zee (Mary-Louise Parker) and Robert’s late-fling Dorothy (Zooey Deschanel); one gets the impression that there was much more to their characters. It will be interesting to see if Dominik releases a director’s cut in the future, something I would be more than willing to see.

Roger Deakins’s cinematography is too beautiful for words. Patricia Norris’s production and costume design are down-right gorgeous. And the score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis matches the striking images.

Performances are impeccable all-around. Brad Pitt plays Jesse as a man who is a tower of strength but nonetheless a truly conflicted individual; yet you understand why he became a legend and why everyone around him feared and respected him so much. The best work tough, belongs to Casey Affleck, who for the first time proved to me that he could play a different type of character; this is truly outstanding work, down to every single inflection in his voice or movement in his face. Sam Shepard, Sam Rockwell, Jeremy Renner, Garrett Dillahunt, Paul Schneider, Mary-Louise Parker, Zooey Deschanel and the whole ensemble do an exquisite job.

“You think you do, but you don’t.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bee Movie

Director

Stephen Hickner

Simon J Smith

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 13, 2007

I’m Jerry Seinfeld’s #1 fan. I love his stand-up comedy, adore his TV show, and quickly fell for Bee Movie, his first big-screen project. I’ve heard some critics weren’t exactly enthusiastic about it, calling it flat, dull or irrelevant, but this is Seinfeld’s humor, it’s a collection of observations and jokes on everyday life, but in a funny way. There’s very little drama, but lots of humor, and I can tell you I never stopped laughing. So far, it’s one of my favorite films this year.

There’s neither melodrama nor lulls. The story moves quickly, as do some action sequences of bees flying at top speed. There’s some familiar territory at first: Barry B. Benson (Jerry Seinfeld) is a bee who’s not sure he wants to follow the rules of the beehive and choose a profession in the honey-making industry that will last him till his death. You sense déjà vu when all this happens, but then things go the funny way: in an exploration of the outside world, Barry finds love in a human being, Vanessa (Renée Zellweger), and gets furious about the humans’ exploitation of bee-made honey, about which he decides to do something.

But all this is done in the least dramatic way possible. There’s very little sentiment, but a lot of puns. For instance, it turns out that bees can speak in a perfectly understandable way, but choose not to do so with humans. However, after Vanessa saves his life, Barry can’t help but thank her. This ensues a hilariously cordial conversation. And from then on, bees speak to humans. Believable? ‘Course not. Funny? For sure! And it’s quite simple.

Bee Movie is a pleasant film because you keep having a good time all through it. At every turn there’s something funny, and every excuse to make a joke, even if a cheap one, is made the best of. There’s a particular character, Mooseblood the Mosquito (Chris Rock), that seems to have been created just for a punch line at the end. That’s the spirit of the script co-written by Jerry: let’s make fun of everything possible.

Besides Seinfeld, Zellweger, and Rock, who do a fantastic job, voices are lent by Matthew Broderick, Patrick Warburton, John Goodman, Kathy Bates, Barry Levinson, Oprah Winfrey and many more, some of them in effective cameos. The computer-animated work is conventional Dreamworks, which is great, and there’s a lot of clever production design at every place. The music score by Rupert Gregson-Williams is as light and effective as the script. Oh, and what a great use of The Archies’ “Sugar Sugar” and The Beatles’ “Here comes the sun” (the latter sung by Sheryl Crow).

When all is said and done, walking out of Bee Movie you’re the exact same person, but probably that’s the point: if not a life-changing experience, it’s a fine piece of entertainment, a perfect way to spend an hour and a half. This film was conceived as a play on the term “B Movie”, and after all, it offers the type of entertainment that the best such movies did, in an unpretentious, but very effective, way.

“It’s not a tone – I’m panicky!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Rendition

Director

Gavin Hood

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Another one of the crop of movies dealing with the war in Iraq and terrorism arrived with plenty of pedigree on its shoulders but was received with a thud. It happens, no biggie. It will do nothing for anyone’s career because no one will remember much of it. The flick was even clouded by gossip of its two stars beginning to date while filming (which turned out to be true) but no one really cared. In other words, it’s harmless.

Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) is an Egyptian chemical engineer who returns to his home in the US but is detained at the airport for suspicion of dealing with terrorists. Since they can’t legally torture him in American soil he is taken to a North African country by orders of Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) where CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) oversees the proceedings in charge of local officer Abasi Fawal (Yigal Naor). Abasi’s daughter Fatima (Zineb Oukach) runs from her home to live with boyfriend Khalid (Moa Khouas), whose brother is a well-known terrorist. Back in the US, Anwar’s pregnant wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) starts a search for him with the help of an ex-flame, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard), who works for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin).

Gavin Hood, coming off from the critically-acclaimed Tsotsi (2005), directed from a screenplay by Kelley Sane. It is a somewhat disappointing outing for everyone involved even though it’s not necessarily a bad movie. The screenplay could’ve used a bit more work, but also a bit more cojones. The themes are certainly provocative and controversial, but one gets the feeling that everything is only dealt with in a superficial level. Most characters are one-dimensional, the politics are flat and even though it does hook you while you’re watching it, it falls short of being the interesting piece of work it should’ve.

You can’t blame Rendition of not being busy as hell. There are three storylines that are connected with each other and that are equally involving; this is actually a plus. Hood and Sane employ a clever bit at the end when we revisit a scene from the beginning and the perspective of two of the storylines changes. The third one, happening in the US, contains some melodramatic scenes with Isabella but also has the best scene in the movie, one that involves a meeting between Corrine Whitman and Alan Smith.

It’s also hard to shy away from what the movie is actually depicting, whether it works as a piece of celluloid or not. These practices are said to happen in real life and it’s clearly a point of debate whether they should. It’s more complicated than it looks at first; even though we all may want to stick to the “good” side there are some benefits that have supposedly come out of these actions. But does the end justify the means?

Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon, two of the best young actors working around these days, make for mild leading characters this time around. They’re both good, but forgettable (well, except maybe for that horribly over-the-top screaming scene courtesy of her in the third act). Angelina Jolie delivered a much stronger performance this year in A Mighty Heart with a similar arc. Omar Metwally is solid as the tortured man and the screenplay does something with his character as the story moves along that is quite intriguing. Leaving the strongest impressions are Meryl Streep, who is good whatever she tackles, and Peter Sarsgaard, who injects the movie with passion every time he appears. Moa Khouas, Yigal Naor, Zineb Oukach, J.K. Simmons and Alan Arkin are all strong in supporting roles.

“Give me a pie chart, I love pie charts.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

Director

Nicholas Meyer

Year

1982

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Even though Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) wasn’t the hit that some expected, it did revive some of the cult that the original TV series had, and called for a sequel that, luckily, was a much better motion picture, and one well considered to be among the best in the sci-fi genre.

Additionally, The Wrath of Khan follows the plot of an original 1969 episode, “Space Seed”, which tells of a race of superhumans developed towards the end of the 20th century, who back then became tyrants and were eventually exiled into outer space. Years later, a group of them, led by Khan (Ricardo Montalban), is awoken by the crew of the Enterprise to their later regret. After much struggle, Khan and his people are finally sent by captain Kirk (William Shatner) to an isolated planet, abandoned there for eternity.

The same mistake is made once again: while looking for deserted ground to use for an experiment called Project Genesis, First officer Chekov (Walter Koenig) and Captain Clark Terrell (Paul Winfield) stumble upon Khan and his people, who finally see a way out. Thirsty for revenge, Khan focuses on destroying Kirk and his crew, instead of conquering other places.

Apart from this intriguing plot, which centers on two very strong personalities, Kirk and Khan, the film has several important themes, mostly that of the resurgence of life, and the prevalence through the offspring of a virtual next generation. It’s haunting in many ways, and entertaining in many more.

Though the film is, like its predecessor, rather stagy, in the way that action is much less important or predominant than dialogue, the feeling that we’re in outer space is constant, which is a clear improvement over the first film. The greatness of visual effects plus the grand music score of James Horner take the proceedings a step forward. But the main asset is that the tension of the characters’ conflict is so strong that we don’t need to move much to feel tremendously excited.

The screenplay is credited to Jack B. Sowards but there were many people involved in it. There were some stories written before they were cohesively put together. One of them starred Khan, another Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley) and yet another one involved a stolen weapon. All was mingled in a masterful way, making the subplots of Khan and Project Genesis the strongest. Saavik also leaves an impression, particularly in showing how sometimes logic is no match against human common sense. The shocking finale, if not the happiest, is perfectly sensible, in a human way, and logical, in a Vulcan way.

The performances by the original cast are as robust as they get. Kirk, going through a midlife crisis, is evidently voluble and vulnerable, while Spock (Leonard Nimoy) is towering. DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols and the rest are all swell. But it’s Montalban who clearly steals the show: his performance as Khan is truly delectable.

A sci-fi must!

“Ah, Kirk, my old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold…? It is very cold in space!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Across the Universe

Director

Julie Taymor

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 10, 2007

Musicals have had a sort of resurgence in the last few years, although most of them have ended up with mixed results. Interestingly enough 2007 has brought two that are considered to be amongst the best movies of the year: Hairspray and Sweeney Todd. I have to add a third one, Across the Universe, which didn’t get as much acclaim because, I truly believe, it was misunderstood. Whatever the case I fell for it big time.

Jude (Jim Sturgess) is a Liverpool lad who travels to the US in search of his father (Robert Clohessy) and ends up befriending rebellious student Max (Joe Anderson). He also meets the latter’s sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood) with whom it’s love at first sight. They all eventually move to Greenwich Village, sharing a flat with artists Sadie (Dana Fuchs), Prudence (T.V. Carpio) and JoJo (Martin Luther McCoy). Together they experience the difficulties of the era, when the Vietnam War was at its worst and activists did what they could to stop it.

Julie Taymor directed from a screenplay by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, based on an idea by the three. In this case it’s important to separate the idea (which is fantastic) to the actual screenplay (which many people will have a problem with). I have to admit the movie is a mess, but it’s a wonderful, inspired, original, arresting and involving one. It took me a while to get used to what was presented in front of me, for I expected a coherent story and it never really came. But after a while (and aided by a second viewing) I got it. As Jude remarks at one point: “Surely it’s not who you are or what you do, but how you do it.”

Across the Universe is a movie made up of moments. It is a bizarre trip into the Beatles-mania, not only by way of their classic songs, but also in the shape of countless references. The music has been re-worked in a way that feels refreshing, with some of them exuding entirely different feelings from the recollections we had. It’s said that the majority of songs were recorded live on set and you can feel that roughness and you-are-there feeling. And yes, the story is shaped to fit this and that lyric, but you should stop paying attention to that and get on with the groove, enjoy the inspired ways in which it is used and let it get you in the mood of a time and era long gone, yet with striking echoes of our present.

Taymor’s knack for creativity is on full display, giving way to some truly exhilarating sequences that go hand-in-hand with quieter, character-driven ones. I was especially awed by Prudence’s touching rendition of “I Want to Hold Your Hand”, highly entertained by big production numbers of “Come Together”, “I am the Walrus” and “Mr. Kite”, left speechless by the beauty of “Because”, exhilarated by the intensity in Sadie and JoJo’s “Oh Darling”, moved by the soulful and poignant renditions of “Let it Be” and “Hey Jude”, flabbergasted by the visuals and background in “Strawberry Fields Forever”, feeling high during Max’s “Happiness is a Warm Gun”, excited about Jude’s climactic “All You Need is Love” and marveled at the brilliant audacity of the recruiting scene to the tune of “I Want You”. Just writing about these scenes makes me want to see them again and again and again.

Of all the performers only Evan Rachel Wood came into the project with some cred. She’s very good and has a surprisingly potent and beautiful voice. Jim Sturgess is a great find, with his role fitting like a glove and being able to create a conflicted yet compelling and identifiable character. Joe Anderson is top-notch in the role that goes through the biggest arc. Dana Fuchs and Martin Luther are clearly channeling Janis Joplin and Jimmy Hendrix, doing so with panache and personality to spare. Special appearances by Bono, Joe Crocker, Eddie Izzard and Salma Hayek are all a hoot. And needless to say, everyone sings their hearts out.

“As long as you don’t have flat feet...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

City Lights

Director

Charles Chaplin

Year

1931

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, December 06, 2007

City Lights has always been my favorite Charlie Chaplin feature film. It enchanted me from the first time, and gave me the most profound insight into the legendary Tramp. This masterpiece from one of cinema’s most iconoclastic filmmakers is a perfect film in how it conveys pathos and comedy in the most easygoing way possible. It’s a continuously accessible triumph that causes the innermost feelings of the viewer to emerge scene by scene.

The story is quite simple. The Tramp (Chaplin) wanders about living his usual share of picaresque misadventures when he spots a beautiful flower girl who also happens to be blind (Virginia Cherrill) and immediately falls for her. A misunderstanding makes the girl think he’s a rich man, and he goes for it.

Soon, the Tramp meets a suicidal drunken millionaire (Harry Myers) and saves his life. Grateful, the rich man befriends him and they party all night, amongst all sorts of luxuries. But the next morning, in the middle of an ugly hangover, the man doesn’t recognize his new little friend. But he will the next time he’s drunk, and every time he’s drunk… but only then.

The Tramp’s relationship with the flower girl evolves into romance, and his friendship with the millionaire becomes increasingly perilous, but when our hero finds out the girl and her poor grandmother (Florence Lee) are about to be evicted, his “friendship” with the millionaire might be of use.

In the way, Chaplin’s famous character goes through all sorts of comical situations. The most riotous sequence has him looking for a job, and going so far as to become a prizefighter who has in spirit what he lacks in strength and ability. All the while, love is a motive that gives these scenes an extra something. Other unforgettable sequences have the millionaire and the Tramp partying together, getting drunk, and losing control… without losing their style. Only Chaplin could handle such scenes so elegantly.

And the romance is probably the most heartbreaking I have ever seen on film. No wonder the very final shot, in my opinion a dead-on expression of love, is so memorable.

A silent movie, City Lights used the soundtrack for good effect inserting some sound effects and music. Some scenes even rely on sound, like the one where Charlie swallows a whistle (top belly laughs, I’m warnin’ ya), but it’s the music that makes the film even more special. There’s a theme for each main character and the tone changes according to the mood. Chaplin’s own music is unforgettable, and the use of the “Flower Girl” tango by José Padilla is indelible. Again, pathos and comedy never got along so well.

Chaplin the perfectionist must have spent a good time getting his performances right, but everyone is perfectly convincing and unforgettable. Besides the three main characters, Al Ernest Garcia shines as the rich man’s butler, and every actor in the prizefighting scene is perfect.

I walk around in life living new experiences every day, and all along, City Lights is in my heart. Let it be in yours!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Beowulf

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

I have mixed feelings about director Robert Zemeckis only working with animation these days. His last three movies have employed a variation of said technique and even though they’ve been top-notch I egoistically miss his hand at live-action features. I don’t know if he’ll ever go back, but truth be told he is a masterful filmmaker whatever genre he tackles; that should be enough.

In 6th century Denmark, the kingdom of Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is threatened by Grendel (Crispin Glover), a beast who can’t stand humans and is responsible for many a bloody massacre. The king offers half his fortune to anyone who kills him and foreign warrior Beowulf (Ray Winstone) responds to the call. He eventually comes face-to-face with Grendel’s mother (Angelina Jolie), who has a tempting proposition.

Zemeckis directed the movie based on a screenplay by Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman, who adapted it from the well-known mythic poem. They took many liberties when translating the tale to the big screen, especially regarding the outcome of some of the big fights, but the essence was kept intact. The movie comes in the wake of a surge in this kind of epic, adventurous productions but adds its own flavor to the mix. It is like nothing I had seen before.

Interestingly enough, the whole movie takes place either in Hrothgar’s lair or in the creepy mountaintop where the villains live; yet the feeling is that of something bigger. That is, essentially, because the animation and the camerawork are truly impressive. I saw the movie in 3-D and I recommend seeing it that way, it’s quite an experience. I still have some doubts regarding photorealistic animation, there’s still room for improvement and characters come off more often than not as videogame impersonations of their real-selves. But you get used to it and the story grabs you, so it’s just a matter of sitting back and enjoying the ride.

It’s also curious to think about why the movie got a PG-13 rating in the US when it should’ve clearly gotten an R (and I’m no purist). Just because the nudity and violence are animated does it make it ok? And what about the story’s themes of adultery, murder, deception, just to name a few? It is, from my point of view, an adult movie and as such it works well. The sexual innuendo alone throughout the entire thing is red hot.

Beowulf drags here and there, but there’s always an exciting scene around the corner. Standouts include Beowulf’s fight with Grendel, his encounter with Grendel’s mother and the climactic battle. It really is quite impressive what a director can do when he can shoot anything, from any angle, in any place. The visuals make the movie’s strongest asset; without them it would be good yet unmemorable.

The actors shot their scenes alright, but they were digitally altered afterwards. The most notable example is Ray Winstone, who looks almost nothing like the Beowulf in the movie with his handsome features and enviable body. That said, it’s a strong, charismatic performance. Angelina Jolie appears for ten minutes tops, but she leaves a strong impression; I can’t picture anyone else in the role, she’s perfect. Brendan Gleeson, John Malkovich and Alison Lohman appear in supporting roles, giving weight to a cast that also includes a lively Anthony Hopkins.

“This... I swear...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Son of the Bride

Director

Juan José Campanella

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Rafael Belvedere (Ricardo Darín) is a neurotic Argentinean in his 40’s who manages a restaurant formerly handled by his parents, and has a messy life all in all: he’s on the phone all day long, hasn’t seen his mother who suffers from Alzheimer (Norma Aleandro) for over a year, doesn’t get along with his daughter (Gimena Nóbile), not to mention his ex-wife (Claudia Fontán), and has quite a bumpy relationship with his girlfriend (Natalia Verbeke) who takes him far more seriously than he does her. One day his father (Héctor Alterio) walks into the restaurant and proposes a visit to his wife and Rafael’s mother, who lives in a retirement home, and later tells him of his idea of finally marrying her religiously like she always wanted. Around that time, an old friend of Rafael’s (Eduardo Blanco) drops by and reminds him of his long-lost childhood and the innocence that came with it. Rafael is too cynical to realize that his world is falling apart, until something strikes him in a much more concrete way and forces him to put things in perspective. Then his life changes. And that’s a journey you’ll never forget.

I get tears in my eyes just thinking about El Hijo de la Novia. Tears of laughter, of poignancy, of sadness, but mostly, happily, the first and second. Fernando Castets and director Campanella crafted a story of modern times and immortal values, and how it’s never late to catch up with life. The way it’s all set up is amazing: Rafael can’t be a more unsympathetic (though frankly funny) character at first, yet the story gives him a chance to redeem himself and it’s truly outstanding how that’s handled. After all is said and done, the film makes the viewer reflect on their own cynicism and the missed opportunities that continuously pass and the wonderful people that are around whom we sometimes don’t notice or appreciate.

If there’s anything in this movie, that’s a heart, and every player is quite connected to the story and the feelings of the characters they play. There’s one particular scene which is especially affecting, the one in which Nino (Alterio) remembers his days in the restaurant back when he and his wife ran it, and how she was absolutely enchanting to him and every customer and employee. The contrast has Rafael giving a speech to a priest about the hypocrisy of the church which is at once hilarious and powerful. Another scene has him reading a poem his daughter wrote and not being able to contain himself, though she doesn’t understand why. And of course the final sequence, which I won’t spoil, that has a lot of pleasures, including an old memory of Norma’s (Aleandro) which almost makes Juan Carlos (Blanco) cry.

I guess what I liked most from this film is its mixed humor. It takes itself seriously but not exceedingly, so it allows the viewer to laugh while he or she digests the intense drama. I’ve seen a lot of this in modern cinema from Spain and Latin America and it’s so wonderful. That’s something Hollywood mostly lacks, and I guess the reason is this kind of filmmaking is more adventurous and not as calculated. Who knows. Hollywood has its countless assets, but I find this very refreshing.

Kudos to Ángel Illarramendi for his wonderful music score, and to everyone else involved in the making of this magnificent film. Incidentally, the two elderly stars appeared together in the classic The Official Story. And though both threaten to steal this show, they’re fought furiously by supporting player Blanco and of course star Darín, who keeps surprising me.

A must!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Evening

Director

Lajos Koltai

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, December 03, 2007

Evening has chick flick written all over it, but even though that term is usually used with negative connotations I don’t really care, especially when a cast of such caliber is gathered. It might’ve not been a box office smash or exuded that much love from critics, but it’s one of those small flicks that simply can’t be ignored.

Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying and her daughters Constance (Natasha Richardson) and Nina (Toni Collette) are taking care of her along with a nurse (Eileen Atkins). As Ann gets more delirious she starts remembering her life 50 years earlier when she (Claire Danes) met what she always considered the true love of her life, Harris (Patrick Wilson), while visiting her dear friends, siblings Buddy (Hugh Dancy) and Lila (Mamie Gummer), to attend the wedding of the latter.

Lajos Koltai directed from a screenplay by Michael Cunningham and Susan Minot, based on her novel. The movie’s structure is divided into two storylines, one in the present and another told in flashbacks. The one taking place in the 50’s is far more interesting, something that weakens the proceedings, but it’s nothing serious; it’s just that everything comes to life when young Ann graces the screen, while on the other hand old Ann’s delusions are a bit weird and feel out of place.

The story gets far more intriguing once we realize that not one, but three different characters have a crush on this guy Harris, something that leads to unexpected circumstances and lots of drama. Flick is corny, but never too much as to become unbearable. Aided by the scenes in the present it actually becomes pretty poignant as it delves into topics such as how relevant are the mistakes you make in life or if there’s such a thing as mistakes; and also how decisions can change the course of your entire existence and the importance of them and their consequences. It’s essentially a romantic venture spiced with thought-provoking issues.

Gyula Pados’s cinematography is splendid, and it is matched by a beautiful score from Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Production and costume design pay careful attention to detail and are another of the movie’s many assets.

It’s hard to mention every performance in a movie filled with plenty exceptional ones, but if I had to pick I’d say Claire Danes and Hugh Dancy are the standouts. Danes has shown plenty of talent since a young age and continues to deliver strong performances no matter the genre or scope; she’s vibrant. Dancy, on the other hand, is excellent as the tormented Buddy, a more complicated character than it initially meets the eye. Vanessa Redgrave, Toni Collette, Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson, Natasha Richardson, Ebon Moss-Bachrach and Mamie Gummer (Meryl Streep’s real-life daughter) are all marvelous. Streep herself and Glenn Close have small yet memorable appearances.

“Not for you...”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter