CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Walk the Line

Director

James Mangold

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

I’m not an American and have never been much into country music, so it’s no surprise that I hadn’t heard of Johnny Cash before he sung a very moving cover of Nine Inch Nails’ “Hurt”, which came accompanied by a music video that showed glimpses of Cash’s life. It got all the more poignant when he died, just a couple of months after his wife June Carter did. I wouldn’t have guessed his life was movie material though, so I was pleasantly surprised by Walk the Line.

The key to a film like this is to make the audience empathize not only with the character (which is the key to any film) but to his work. Cash’s music is passionate and overall likable, and even though, as I said, I didn’t know much of it, I found it to be a great accompaniment to a biography. Matter of fact, in this case it makes Cash more likable than he is by nature, since he was something of a luminous figure onstage and a dark one off. Why? Depression, addiction, haunting feelings of loneliness and regret, you name it.

Though framed by an immortal concert in Folsom Prison, the film is traditionally linear, and surprisingly unglamorous. It never quite makes it easy for Cash as a character (played by Joaquin Phoenix), as it shows quite well how he became what he became in part because of his talent and charisma but in great part because of his luck and a couple of people he related with. One of them, and most important of all, was June Carter (Reese Witherspoon), a lifelong singer who felt much less talented than she actually was, and soon stuck to Cash for tours and duets. She never thought of herself as good as Cash in terms of talent, but she knew she was a much more centered person than he was, head on her shoulders, and soon made it one of her tasks to help him away from vices and his own dark side that was constantly threatening.

Cash is a childlike character indeed, the kind that grows up and loses track and must be guided. He’s a lovable man, a noble but difficult one. June is like a caring mom, but she’s also fun and hip. That Cash falls for her despite his marriage to teen crush Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin) is no surprise; but one of the lessons he must learn is to take a woman seriously. And there’s a long road to that.

Based on a couple of Cash’s autobiographies, the script by Gill Dennis and director James Mangold never loses focus on the man’s career, and perfectly transmits the accelerated life of an artist of his kind. There’s enough atmosphere to transport the viewer through time, with wonderful appearances of such people like Elvis Presley (Tyler Hilton) and Jerry Lee Lewis (Waylon Payne).

Furthermore, the film’s 100% genuine in the way the actors actually perform every song, instead of lip-synching, a brave decision that works like wonders; musician T-Bone Burnett trained and coached Phoenix and Witherspoon and achieved something spectacular. For a couple of hours you forget these voices aren’t like the ones of the singers they’re supposed to belong to.

The performances are brilliant. Phoenix is incredible, but Witherspoon is even better, in the indisputable performance of her career (so far), completely disappearing into the role, and even looking prettier than ever. I just love it when a film makes me forget that I’m seeing an actor, even though he or she is so well known, and this is the case with Witherspoon. Hers is the best female leading performance I’ve seen from 2005.

Supporting roles are also notable, from which I’d pick Robert Patrick’s—as Johnny’s father—as the best of the bunch.

“I walk the line”, “Ring of fire”, “Cry Cry Cry”, “Folsom prison blues”, “Juke box blues”, “It ain’t me babe” and “Jackson” are just some of the songs that easily stick to the mind, either sung by Johnny, June, or both.

This film’s a quality crowd-pleaser, and a gem.

“Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Walk the Line (2005): Morris

Review

North Country

Director

Niki Caro

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 27, 2006

After Charlize Theron won an Oscar for her astonishing performance in Monster (2003), she signed to make two movies: a futuristic action yarn and a serious-minded based-on-a-true-story project. Her choices seemed so obvious to me that I felt instantly disconnected. She wanted to cash some money given her hot status, but she also wanted to keep her credibility. She accomplished both and even more, since she has been back in the awards circuit with her latest flick although in the happy-to-be-nominated seat this time around. I can be pretty judgmental before time, for when I saw North Country it blew me away.

Josey Aimes (Charlize Theron) had a rough life from the get-go. She grew in a small town where having two children at a young age from two different fathers was certainly not easy, neither for her nor for her parents (Richard Jenkins and Sissy Spacek). When she decides to leave her abusive husband she gets a job at a mining company where her friend Glory (Frances McDormand) works. But she soon finds that life inside there isn’t any easy for working women, and ultimately decides to do something about it.

North Country is based on a book by Clara Bingham and Laura Leedy Gansler, which Michael Seitzman adapted to the big screen. Josey’s story was revolutionary in that she filed the first Class Action suit in the 80’s that would change the Sexual Harassment Law and would set a precedent from then on. The movie could’ve easily turned into a manipulative and propagandistic affair, but it didn’t. Instead we get an elegantly-told story that subtly presents its layers one by one until you realize you’re completely immersed. I didn’t want the movie to end, for it is so entertaining and well-crafted that I was captivated.

I can give you many examples of how the movie downplays its emotions for greater effect, but the one that got me the most has Josey in a desperate state because her son has disappeared and she blames herself for it. When her son finally shows up the scene could’ve turned out an over-the-top tear-jerker with lots of hugs and kisses. Instead, Josey turns away because she can’t contain the tears, a mix of happiness and regret. And I totally broke. The love a mother has for her children is a sentiment so strong that it’s hard to put into words, and it plays a pivotal role in North Country. It is because we identify with Josey as a human being that everything else makes sense.

There’s a trial, a lawyer, “bad” guys, twists and turns and a lot of suffering. But the movie mostly steers away from the usual places. Josey’s story is historic, yes, but director Niki Caro and her writers pay attention to her as a person and then focus on what she accomplished. That way we see the different relationships she has with her children, her father, her mother, her friends, her co-workers and everyone that surrounds her. It is because we get to know her so well that we understand why she is willing to go to so much trouble. And we’re right by her side every step of the way.

Charlize Theron suffers throughout the entire movie. Every small instance where there’s a moment of happiness hits us like a shot in the heart. And she does an admirable job in presenting a simple but three-dimensional woman with all her qualities and flaws. She is sublime. And she’s surrounded by an impeccable cast highlighted by Richard Jenkins as Josie’s father. The way he comes to terms with his daughter despite what he feels she has made him endure is heartbreaking. And he has a superb scene where he addresses a big and difficult crowd. Frances McDormand, Sean Bean, Michelle Monaghan, Thomas Curtis, Woody Harrelson and Sissy Spacek are all top-notch as well.

Niki Caro has delivered two really good movies in a row, and it is to her credit that North Country turned out as good as it did. Kudos as well to Gustavo Santaolalla for a striking score and especially to Chris Menges for his impressive cinematography. His wide shots and the use he gives to snow give the movie a haunting, yet beautiful feeling.

“Me, I suppose.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of North Country (2005): Groucho

Review

Syriana

Director

Stephen Gaghan

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 23, 2006

I went to see Syriana hoping it wouldn’t be the kind of film whose plot is so complicated you walk out needing a second viewing. This wasn’t the case, but in the end I would’ve preferred that. What this film offers is a complex plot indeed, but one that ends up being as simple as it gets: power and the convenience of the powerful rule the world, crushing idealism, logic, and even life. Dozens of names, subplots, and plot twists don’t amount to much else, which made me wonder what was the point of having the audience struggling to follow the plot so closely for two hours. Maybe Syriana gives itself too much importance, but I guess it’s fair enough since its subject resonates so much nowadays. I wouldn’t jump at the opportunity of seeing this movie again soon, but the experience was a series of adrenaline shots that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Writer-director Stephen Gaghan, responsible for the script of Traffic (2000), is an expert at weaving parallel storylines with a subject in common. In this case, it’s the influence of oil in corporate, political and espionage worlds. The script poses as fiction, suggested by Robert Baer’s book “See no evil: The true story of a ground soldier in the CIA’s war on terrorism”. Three main storylines compose the whole: CIA operative Bob Barnes (George Clooney) finds in his former allies dreaded antagonism as he unwillingly threatens more powerful interests; Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) is a lawyer in charge of investigating a merger between two titanic oil companies, Connex and Killen; and Prince Nasir Al-Subaai (Alexander Siddig) defends his idealistic ideas for the management of his country’s oil, without much—if any—support.

But there are many more subplots involved, the most poignant being that of an energy analyst (Matt Damon) who advises Prince Al-Subaai and deals with a terrible loss at the same time, taking advantage of it for his own good; a personal struggle between success and family ensues. We get into the subject of the merger as well, with Christopher Plummer and Chris Cooper playing two men involved in indirect and direct manners respectively, both very benefited by it anyhow.

The focus jumps around the globe, from the Middle East to Europe to the United States like it’s nothing, making a statement about globalization. Few characters stop for a moment to think about their personal lives, which is a metaphor of the dehumanization of capitalism. And what’s worse, whoever takes a humanistic or family-oriented approach in his professional life is punished.

Does that make this a downbeat movie? Not quite. The theme is already sad, but it’s real, and to see some people still caring about the most basic values is refreshing. That’s what makes George Clooney’s character so memorable, and even though his performance is not exactly the best of the year, his presence is indelible and sure worth praising and awarding.

The rest of the cast is uniformly good. I particularly enjoyed Siddig’s performance, as he ends up winning the audience completely, while not being necessarily likable at first; Amanda Peet is a knockout as Damon’s wife; and Christopher Plummer is a pleasure as ever.

Gaghan’s hand in the direction doesn’t feel too intrusive, and Robert Elswit’s cinematography is a striking job. Good subtle music by Alexandre Desplat, too.

Dense but entertaining, with a classic tragic feel to it, Syriana has much to offer, even though in a nutshell it’s much simpler than meets the eye.

“You’re the Canadian.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pride & Prejudice

Director

Joe Wright

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

A whole lot of people relate Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” to the BBC mini-series of the 90’s starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Well I don’t, it didn’t air where I live. Fact is I didn’t know anything about the novel, aside from its title and author, before this movie appeared in the horizon. And what a pleasure it was to discover it. Simply put... it was one of the most enjoyable times at a theater I’ve had in a while.

Mr. & Mrs. Bennet (Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn) have five daughters: Jane (Rosamund Pike), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Mary (Talulah Riley), Kitty (Carey Mulligan) and Lydia (Jena Malone). When a rich, and single, acquaintance comes to town in the form of Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) all girls are excited to meet him, but it is Jane who seems to have caught his attention. The opposite kind of attraction forms between Elizabeth and Mr. Bingley’s friend, Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen), who dislike each other at first but keep continually meeting as time goes by.

Jane Austen’s most famous novel was adapted for this foray by Deborah Moggach, who got some help by an uncredited Emma Thompson, no stranger to the genre. They were able to summarize the extensive novel into a two-hour movie, no easy task but one they admirably managed. I’ve read that a lot of subplots had to be trimmed, but the spirit remained intact. I found the movie to be extremely well-written.

In a way, I was reminded of Louisa May Alcott’s “Little Women” in how the members of a big family comprised mostly of women manage to support each other in a restricting society and desperately seek to find the love of their lives. The heroine here is the more strong-willed of all, Lizzie, a learned and intelligent girl who doesn’t fall prey of every good-looking guy that comes in her way, but that is expecting a bit more in her life. Her relationship with Mr. Darcy starts out as antagonistic, but later evolves as vulnerability and love take over. The struggle inside both Lizzie and Darcy is heartbreaking to watch. Both are good people, both are not what their surroundings demand of them, and both are meant to be together, but they cannot always accept that, and we are all desperately waiting for the breaking point to come.

The scene in which both finally dance is unforgettable. It is without a doubt my favorite scene.

The movie could not be more charming and heartwarming if it tried to. In the 1700’s all that mattered was to get a good marriage, and so Mrs. Bennet knows. But Austen treats her characters differently, as women who want to love and feel loved, even if they must be looking for money and connections as everyone else does. This clash is intriguing and a cause of much mayhem, filled with colorful characters and delightful situations.

Technical aspects are impeccable, with the photography, costume design, art direction and music all delivering and then some. I especially loved a pair of long unedited sequences which are very well choreographed and performed. English vistas look absolutely beautiful, and even more so when it’s raining. I was also enthralled by the way the second-to-last scene in the movie was shot in the fields. Keira Knightley never looked more ravishing.

And never had she delivered such a compelling, full-bodied, charismatic and complicated performance. If the movie works so well it’s in part because of her. MacFadyen is also a great Mr. Darcy. And I got a kick out of Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench’s small appearances. The whole cast is uniformly good.

First-time director Joe Wright handles his movie with class and elegance, an impressive achievement all around.

“He’s been most inconvenient since I swore to loathe him for eternity.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

North Country

Director

Niki Caro

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

North Country is a breath of fresh air. In dramatizing the story of the first Class Action that changed the Sexual Harassment Law in 1984, it manages to stay away from clichés and bravely confront its own truth without trying to emphasize it with cheap artifices or gross exposure. A female friend of mine told me today that she was surprised that the lead character from this film would risk so much for so little, since what was happening to her at work didn’t look that bad. I was surprised by this remark, especially coming from a girl, but I guess my friend was expecting something more graphic and specific—it being a movie and all—, something punctual for Josey Aimes to complain about. I’m so glad I didn’t think of it that way, and neither did the judges involved in the real-life case. I haven’t read one single review of this film, so I’m not sure whether some critics pointed this out, but I just loved how the film stayed subtle mostly, and still managed to convince us about the humiliation that drove a case like this to court and changed history.

Josey (Charlize Theron) finds her rock-bottom when her husband gives her one more beating than she’s capable of standing. She packs her stuff, takes her kids, and moves back with her parents in Northern Minnesota. Not an easy step, we later find out, since she hasn’t quite gotten along with her father since her first child was born, but a necessary one nonetheless. Josey has become dead set on doing what’s right for her always, despite the consequences. Fear isn’t stopping her, and she’s willing to jeopardize everything she’s got to achieve her goals. She’s not a heroine, but rather a person who has taken more than anyone should, and wants to stop being a victim.

We’re not sure of any of this at first, though. Michael Seitzman’s script develops beautifully by uncovering layer by layer from Josey’s past, managing to surprise us until the very end, while making us understand what demons haunt her and drive her motivations. The storytelling style uses Josey’s trial against a mining company as main setting for large flashbacks, which doesn’t work too well, but the way her character is developed is fantastic. All we know at first is she has filed some kind of lawsuit against a mining company for sexual harassment; later we find out her battle is not only against that company, but against a lifetime of injustice that simply must stop.

While Charlize Theron makes of this material priceless celluloid, the array of characters around her and the actors who play them are all top-notch. I was particularly glad to see Woody Harrelson in nice form as an underdeveloped but heartfelt lawyer who aids Josey, but everyone’s astounding, from Richard Jenkins and Sissy Spacek as Josey’s parents to Frances McDormand as her friend and co-worker, and Sean Bean as the latter’s partner. Not to mention radiant Amber Heard as young Josey, or Thomas Curtis in the pivotal role of her son.

Subplots develop and climaxes come one after the other packing a wallop; one involving Josey’s father saying a few words to his co-workers is a tear-jerker, but the final courtroom resolution is an electric experience, expertly handled by director Caro, perfectly edited by David Coulson, and beautifully scored by Gustavo Santaolalla. That scene broke my heart.

Chris Menges’ cinematography is well worth mentioning, as it handles to make the hard life in a mine a beautiful spectacle for the eye, with all that dust and heavy machinery. I consider this a great achievement as it creates a powerful unspoken statement: life can look good even in the worst shithole, but other people can turn it into a living hell through thoughts, words and looks. That’s what this movie is about. No, it’s not… It’s about stopping that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of North Country (2005): Morris

Review

Mrs. Henderson Presents

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 20, 2006

I first heard about this movie when it dazzled audiences at the Toronto Film Festival. People didn’t know much about it beforehand, but the reaction was overwhelming. Wait a second… a comedy starring Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins? I instantly saw it as a bold movie, and I was hooked.

Laura Henderson (Judi Dench), a rich English aristocrat, finds herself bored to death after her husband passes away. She then has the crazy idea of buying a decaying theater to stage non-stop musicals. She hires theater manager Vivian Van Damm (Bob Hoskins) to run it, and just like that the Windmill Theater is revived. But success doesn’t come easy and Mrs. Henderson has an even crazier idea which she instantly puts in practice: to have nude girls on-stage.

Mrs. Henderson Presents is based on a true story and brought to the screen with exquisite zing by director Stephen Frears. He wisely centers the attention on Mrs. Henderson and to a certain extent on Mr. Van Damm. He is not interested in giving his movie epic proportions or making it about the theater world in London. Instead, he focuses on this fascinating lady and the misadventures she has to go through to make of her life whatever she desires. There are small subplots regarding the theater’s troupe, but only one girl, Maureen (Kelly Reilly) is given some exposition. By keeping a small scope the movie becomes more intimate, and thus more effective.

Multiple genres can be found in this wonderful movie. The prevalent one is comedy, but as the movie progresses it becomes more of a drama. There’s also a musical quality to it as some of the elaborate numbers are presented in full glory. And it is quite informative as well, for we learn how a theater worked in those times and everything that went on behind-the-scenes.

The movie is sustained by the witty rapport that goes on between Mrs. Henderson and Mr. Van Damm. The movie soars every time they exchange dialogue or are in a scene together. They are both sharp, intelligent individuals and their relationship turns into something more interesting than a simple love/hate one. She is a woman who is way ahead of her time, while he belongs to the old school. To see their friendship evolve is one of the many pleasures the movie has to offer.

A little more substance is provided during the last third of the movie as the war hits and the theater struggles. It is then that Mrs. Henderson’s real feelings towards what she does are revealed, and they provide a poignant and deeply touching aftertaste. She has a scene in which she has to speak to a crowd that proves a standout.

Judi Dench can do this kind of role in her sleep, but she does it so well that it’s delightful to watch her onscreen having so much fun and being so lively. She is excellent and elevates the movie to a whole new level. The same could be said of Bob Hoskins, who delivers a performance on par with his best. And when put together the sparks fly, fantastic. Kelly Reilly holds her own against these two masters, as does Will Young and the rest of the cast.

Irresistible!

“Why, Mr. Van Damm, you are Jewish!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Jacket

Director

John Maybury

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The Jacket is one of the most confusing movies I have seen, and not because its plot is hard to understand, but because it’s too simple for what it pretends to be, offers no logical explanation for what happens, and seems ultimately pointless. To its credit however, it’s a fun ride.

The plot concerns Gulf War veteran Jack Starks (Adrien Brody) who dies “for the first time” in war and later turns out to be alive and starts an existence of memory holes and driftage. One day he meets a wasted woman (Kelly Lynch) and her little daughter (Laura Marano) stranded on the road, and helps them fix their car. The mother is terribly ungrateful, but the daughter will remember the man forever.

Later that day, Jack is unfortunate enough to be unwillingly involved in the murder of a cop, and is sent to a psychiatric penitentiary. There, he not only struggles to remember what happened during the crime, but he’s unfortunate enough (damn, what an unlucky man!) to be picked for a wicked psychiatric experiment: he’s drugged, tucked in a straightjacket, and put in a morgue drawer for a few hours. The effect is horrible: he starts hallucinating, his memories haunt him, and while he nearly dies in claustrophobia, his mind flies in time.

Yes. As it turns out, Jack travels through time. But how is that possible? What kind of drugs did they give him? And how does he travel complete with body and mind, and why is his presence in that other time related to his time “in the drawer”? God knows you’ll walk out of the theater without a logical explanation to all this, but the worst part is you won’t even require it, because you’ll know there was never an explanation planned; the filmmakers relied on the power of Jack’s trips and didn’t care about how or why things were happening. It doesn’t even feel like a plot hole, but rather a lack of respect for the viewer’s intelligence.

However, on the bright side, the trip turns out interesting. Jack leaps 15 years ahead and meets a beautiful young woman, Jackie (Keira Knightley), who’s compassionate and kind despite her trashy nature. The man is clueless as to where or when he is, and as he discovers this, he finds out something shocking about Jackie, and realizes there are ways to help her from the past. Problem is he also finds out his days are counted, as his death is set to happen only a couple of days after the present day.

So Jack has to find a way to solve his own murder (in case that’s what his death it is), help Jackie, and make evil Dr. Thomas Becker (Kris Kristofferson) pay for his crimes—the jacket experiment being one, even though it’s in fact helping Jack achieve clarity and peace of mind, and it’s bringing him the greatest happiness he’s ever known! So talk about a contradictory plot. It’s all madness. But like I was saying, it’s a fun ride, since Jackie turns out an interesting character and her interaction with Jack is valuable. The scenes in the future are mostly good, and Jack becomes a very likable character. And Knightley is lovable in both her trashy and clean states.

Jennifer Jason Leigh leads the strongest subplot as another psychiatrist who aids Jack; Daniel Craig is especially notable as another patient who befriends Jack; and Brad Renfro appears briefly as a wacko who gets Jack into trouble.

All in all, there’s no reason to watch this film, but I guess if you do, it’s not all that bad after all.

“I was 27 years old the first time I died.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Munich

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Steven Spielberg can do wonders with escapist movies featuring aliens or dinosaurs, but it is well-known that when he goes serious he’s a force to behold. His Schindler's List (1993) is commonly regarded as one of the best movies of all-time, so anticipation for his new war-movie-of-sorts was through the roof. It got so frantic that when the movie finally opened it underwhelmed a serious portion of moviegoers. Best thing is to simply look at the movie for what it is, and throw all external factors out the window.

In the 1972 Munich Olympics, 11 Israeli athletes were kidnapped and subsequently murdered by Palestinian members of the Black September terrorist group. The Israeli government enlists a group of five ex-Mossad operatives to carry a mission in which they must kill the perpetrators behind the attack. Avner (Eric Bana), a family man with expert credentials, leads the team that includes Steve (Daniel Craig), Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Hans (Hanns Zischler) and Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), all experts in different areas. Their initial contact is Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), but after the mission starts they’re on their own.

Munich is partly based on George Jonas’ book “Vengeance” and translated to the screen by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth. It is a story, just as the book’s title implies, mainly about the retaliation of one nation towards another for the illusion of power and respect. It touches on the difficult subject of terrorism and paints a cynical portrait in which we’re clearly being told that violence only brings more violence and that the war on terrorism is not going to end anytime soon. If you think the movie has echoes about the current situation of the world you’re right, with Spielberg ending the movie on a rather poignant, effective and in-your-face note.

The story is presented as a thriller that not only takes place in the 70’s, but that feels like a movie of the time. A team of experts is presented with a list of names they must annihilate and we’re in for the ride. There’s international intrigue, back-stabbing, paranoia, unexpected deaths, things that go wrong and most interesting of all, the dehumanization that follows. This is presented in the character of Avner, an intelligent man who can’t commit the first murder he’s presented with, but who eventually becomes used to it and turns into a killing machine. Spielberg presents this transformation in believable manner… until a late sex scene in which he goes too over-the-top. I won’t specify what happens, but I’ll just say that what we see in that scene shouldn’t have been presented that way, it does not work.

There’s been controversy over how the movie depicts both Israelis and Palestinians. I’m not informed about what really happened back then, but I think the movie does not favor one or the other. Both sides do horrific things, both have their own ideologies, both are doing what they think is best for them. Spielberg paints a wide canvas, he wants to open a discussion and he does. I was especially intrigued by a scene in which Avner and a Palestinian have a peaceful conversation about how they both view what they’re doing. You can understand them both even though you may not necessarily agree with what they do. Are they right? Are they wrong? Is an eye-for-an-eye approach the best way to handle situations like these? Is a compromise of values necessary? Where does it morally stand? Does it really make them more powerful? Does it generate respect or hatred or both?

I admire and respect this movie a whole lot, but I’ve got to admit that it’s way too dense and difficult for me to want to see it again. I don’t know what that says about me, but it must also say something about the movie.

Good work by cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and the teams behind the production design and costumes. The movie is impeccable in every technical aspect. And the introduction using real footage intercut with recreated scenes is expertly done.

Eric Bana is excellent. The movie rests on his shoulders and he’s more than capable of handling it. His intense approach and sudden transformation are effective and sincere. Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Hanns Zischler, Matthieu Kassovitz, Geoffrey Rush, Michael Lonsdale, Mathieu Amalric, Marie-Josée Croze and Lynn Cohen as Golda Meir are all well cast and they all do a good job.

“We do what the terrorists do.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gremlins

Director

Joe Dante

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

For all it’s worth, Gremlins is a classic. Not because it’s a good film, not because it was misunderstood back when released and has been rediscovered, not because its theme is universal, and not because everyone likes it, because none of this is strictly true. This film’s a classic because somehow it stuck to everyone’s mind, like it or not, and hasn’t left people’s memories ever since it was first shown. Why is that, I wonder? A combination of things, maybe. But I grew up with it, only seeing it a few times—as a child I wasn’t allowed, since it was too violent, though I eventually did behind my parents’ back maybe—and haven’t forgotten it by a damn sight. Recently I saw it, the first time in a decade I think, and I sure had fun; mean-spirited, mindless fun, but fun nonetheless.

The time is Christmas, and the mood is that of a typical Christmas movie, set in a postcard picture town, involving a loving family, cheerful people all around, and some bitter ones as well. Small-time inventor Randall Peltzer (Hoyt Axton) is trying to sell his stuff in Chinatown, and comes across a very weird small creature at the eerie shop of Mr. Wing (Keye Luke): a mysterious pet known as Mogwai, which can’t be exposed to bright lights, shouldn’t get wet, and mustn’t be fed after midnight. Wing’s reckless grandson sells the pet to Peltzer, who calls it Gizmo and gives it to his son Billy (Zach Galligan) as a Christmas present.

Gizmo is so smart and lovable it shouldn’t be referred to as it but he. Gizmo can sing, think, and apparently even communicate (memorably voiced by Howie Mandel), but overall he lives a blissful existence without a care in the world. That is, until he accidentally gets wet, spawning a few more Mogwais immediately, all of which are either violent or wacky. Gizmo has a bad time dealing with this, while the other Mogwais do their best to get fed after midnight, which eventually results in their metamorphosis, from cute little critters to bad slimy monsters.

Zach realizes his guilt and does his best to stop the upcoming invasion, as the Gremlins reproduce as quickly as the Mogwais by getting wet, but no one seems to listen. So he and girlfriend Kate (Phoebe Cates) are all alone against the threat, while everyone in town realizes they’re under attack, and what’s worse, that their attackers have a wicked sense of humor.

This horror comedy is filled with genuinely confusing moments of gore that attempt to mingle with those of cuteness or hilarity. The result is admittedly a mess, but if you’re willing to go for it, if you became a fan of Gizmo’s from the first moment, or a fan of Phoebe Cate’s for that matter (not hard), or if you just don’t mind seeing a failed attempt at black humor, then it shouldn’t be that bad. I, for one, like it. I won’t deny its flaws, but I like it.

Several subplots make little or no sense, like that of hotshot Gerald (Judge Reinhold) bragging about his early success and trying to put Billy down. Others take a while to be developed only to pull off a single laugh, like that of evil Mrs. Deagle (Polly Holliday), a mixture of The Wizard of Oz’ Wicked Witch of the West and It's a Wonderful Life’s Mr. Potter. The fact that Billy’s father is an inventor only seems an in-joke about the gremlins’ mythological nature, which has them sabotaging machinery (specifically airplanes), but this fact isn’t exploited successfully; Billy’s mom (Frances Lee McCain) struggles against her husband’s inventions unsuccessfully, but manages to fight more than a few gremlins in her kitchen. Finally, drunken Mr. Futterman (Dick Miller) keeps reminding us about the gremlins’ mythology for no apparent reason. Yet trust me, after a while you’ll forget about the story’s coherence or importance and just go with the flow.

Or is it? There’s one aspect that works, God knows why: the love story. All of a sudden Kate says she hates Christmas, and later explains why that is and breaks our hearts. Billy wants to prevent a second tragic Christmas for Kate, and that motivation keeps him going after the gremlins. And these two actors share such a great chemistry it makes them as cute as Gizmo.

As for the gremlins, they’re so much fun it’s hard to see them lose. The leader, Stripe, is almost as memorable as Gizmo. The rest just seem to find ways to have fun, even if they kill and destroy in the process.

Chris Columbus’ script is far from good, but this is the rare example of a movie that works for other reasons mostly. Probably a combination of Mogwais, gremlins, likable stars, movie in-jokes, cameos, Jerry Goldsmith’s outstanding music score, who knows. This one sticks. Dare to deny it.

“Get out of my kitchen!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Walk the Line

Director

James Mangold

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 13, 2006

Let me tell you a bit about where I stood before watching this movie: I knew nothing about Johnny Cash except that he was this huge music legend who died recently, period. Something similar happened to me when last year’s Ray came out, and I was happy to be introduced to Ray Charles in such a fine movie. I even recognized a few of his songs. With Walk the Line, I am being introduced to Johnny Cash and June Carter, and while I didn’t recognize any of his songs, I did a couple of hers! We all have different upbringings I guess.

The movie opens in 1944 Arkansas, where 12-year-old Johnny Cash (Ridge Canipe) lives with his father Ray (Robert Patrick), mother Carrie (Shelby Lynne) and siblings. After a tragic incident that leaves him marked for life, Johnny (Joaquin Phoenix) pursues his dream of being heard on the radio. He eventually starts a band in Memphis called Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Two and marries long-time love Viv (Ginnifer Goodwin). It is when on tour that he meets singer June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) and a special connection is instantly born. From then on Johnny has to deal with his battle with drugs and alcohol, his spiral of fame, his tumbling married life and the love he feels for June.

I will say it right upfront: Walk the Line is a biopic that does feel like one (does the contrary even exist?). Gill Dennis and director James Mangold wrote the screenplay based on two books, “The Man in Black” and “Cash: An Autobiography”, which trail Johnny’s life from beginning to end. The movie mostly covers the period in his life when he became famous, then went down and finally went up again. It goes from point A to B, following Johnny as he signs with his first label, gets married and eventually goes on tour with such guys as Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis. But what makes the movie a more solid biopic than usual is that it has a central effective love story at its core. I’d actually rather think of the movie as a love story than anything else. I like it more that way, even though it’s mostly strong in everything it wants to achieve.

The dynamic between Johnny and June was certainly unique. She was all about fun and charisma. She admitted that she didn’t have that great a voice, so that’s why she learned to be funny. Johnny, on the other hand, was a dark individual, haunted by a tragic incident in his childhood and by a father who never stood by him. He used music to exonerate his demons. And that’s why June came as such a breath of fresh air. They connected, they complemented each other. But they didn’t have it easy, for their lives were much more complicated than that.

Truth is, when both are on stage the movie soars. There are countless songs performed throughout the movie, some of them in complete form. But none are more vigorous and exhilarating than when they sing together, even outshining the infamous Folsom Prison concert which bookends the movie. It could be said that the entire film rests on them being on-screen together. This is Johnny’s story, but June is the heart, soul and savior.

Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon have both received loads of acclaim for playing these roles. They both manage to mimic the real-life personas on which their characters are based, and they both sing their own songs. I used to say “so what?” to that, but when I saw the movie and realized both Johnny and June had very distinct ways of singing I came to appreciate their efforts a lot more. It’s not just about having a good voice, but about translating that into their characters’ singing style. And of course, it’s also about getting under the skin. I was especially impressed by Reese. June was like a chameleon and Reese manages to make it look easy. Of course it’s not, which makes her performance the more remarkable. Supporting work by Robert Patrick, Dallas Roberts, Ginnifer Goodwin and many more is solid.

Kudos to director James Mangold for crafting such a heartfelt and complete movie.

“Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Walk the Line (2005): Groucho

Review

Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Director

Steve Box

Nick Park

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 09, 2006

When I first heard the title of the first Wallace & Gromit feature film, I couldn’t help but wonder how they would possibly be associated to a “were-rabbit.” It sounded hilarious enough, whatever the explanation was, and as it’s been proved before, just anything is a good excuse to show the antics of Nick Park’s lovable characters. I was in for the ride, excited to see Wallace eat crackers and cheese and get into trouble, and Gromit save the day one more time.

The story has inventor Wallace (Peter Sallis) and his loyal dog Gromit finding their business booming: as Anti-Pesto they capture rabbits all around town right before a renowned vegetable competition. Wallace seems more in control than ever of his inventions, and Gromit doesn’t have to worry too much; that is, until a rumored were-rabbit starts unleashing mayhem all around by doing what any rabbit does—only in a much grander scale.

Townspeople panic, but Lady Tottington, a.k.a. Totti (Helena Bonham Carter), trusts Anti-Pesto to capture the monster without harming it. Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes) has a different approach: he wants to kill the beast, and prove that Anti-Pesto is helpless. When the origins of the were-rabbit are discovered, things get much more interesting.

I must say that the final result isn’t as rewarding as I had expected. I just walked out feeling that the feature film format isn’t for these characters, or rather, it wasn’t handled quite the best possible way. Don’t get me wrong, this is a fine film, but some of the Wallace & Gromit essence is a series of simple puns that, when expanded, don’t work as well. Not sure what it is exactly, but for instance, I didn’t feel Wallace’s mixture of genius and clumsiness could sustain such a large storyline. The writers went for a safe story complete with a typical villain, a damsel in distress, and heroes that overcome their shortcomings to succeed in the end. Not that I would expect anything different, but even the surprises weren’t all that surprising, it felt just… formulaic. It’s like I had seen the movie before, and only the outstanding animation was refreshing.

Because, oh yes, this is a work of art. Every Wallace & Gromit installment keeps getting better and better in this department. Stop-motion animation is almost unheard of nowadays, and Nick Park just keeps going for it. That’s a lovely effort every time, and we the audience just can’t get enough.

Packed with funny gags —both visual and verbal—, interesting gizmos, hilarious rabbits (including an unforgettable one that resembles Wallace), appropriate music and a sense of good, clean fun, Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit is an OK feature film debut for this funny pair.

“Oh, lovely food! For rabbits that is!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Capote

Director

Bennett Miller

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

When Truman Capote died I had just started to talk, which means I didn’t live through the peak of his fame. Eventually I heard about him, mainly for being the writer of Breakfast at Tiffany's, but knew nothing about his persona. That’s what’s so great about historical movies: they introduce and re-enact the life of someone that will be introduced (or re-introduced) to hundreds of people who otherwise might have never known too much about the subject. In this specific case, it was well worth it.

The movie chronicles the life of writer/journalist/celebrity Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) from the point in which he decides to write a novel about a couple of guys, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickock (Mark Pellegrino), who murdered a family in Kansas and were then sentenced to death. Truman gets help from his good friend, To Kill a Mockingbird author Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), and receives the support of his partner, writer Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood), and his editor William Shawn (Bob Balaban). The book, In Cold Blood, would eventually become a best-seller and catapult Capote into the stratosphere.

Capote is based on a book by Gerald Clarke and was written for the screen by actor Dan Futterman. It must not have been an easy screenplay to write, since Capote was a man of many layers, and the period of his life that is portrayed was one that defined his sad destiny. Capote, as he got more and more immersed with the killers’ story, was said to have fallen in love with Perry Smith. Suddenly the work he was doing got mixed with personal feelings, which was not a good combination.

This is where the real meat of the story lies. Capote was certainly a very intelligent and literate man, but he was only human. When he met Perry he saw himself reflected in this illiterate, brute of man. “It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he went out the back door and I went out the front,” he says. Capote finds Perry’s and Hickock’s story so fascinating that he gets them a lawyer and helps them appeal their sentence. Four years later he finds himself so attached with their plight that he’s become a different man, desperate to finish his book yet without an ending since these guys’ fate had not been decided. When he tells his friend Lee that there’s nothing he could’ve done to ultimately save them, she tells him: “Maybe not, Truman. But the truth is, you didn’t want to.” How much of himself did Truman put into this particular project? There’s a fine line in journalism which should not be crossed, and he incessantly played with it, something that brought him fame and fortune, but not necessarily peace and calm.

The movie keeps its focus on the man himself but gives us a picture of the atmosphere that surrounded him, from the era to the people in his life. He has a beautiful relationship with Lee that comes after years of knowing each other. He can relax with her, and then be the life of a party in his public life. He truly was a complex man, a brilliant writer, a consummated manipulator, one that would do anything to get his way. How careful an examination of a journalist’s life this is, so beautifully written and portrayed. Director Bennett Miller makes the most out of this captivating character study.

Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers the best and most multifaceted performance of his career. It sounds like such a cliché, but he becomes Truman Capote. Not only does he mimic his peculiar way of talking and moving to perfection, but he gets under his skin and seems to truly understand the man and his motivations. I kept watching in awe. He completely disappeared into the role. Nice support is lent by Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr. and Chris Cooper as the detective in charge of the murders’ investigation.

“I have 94 per cent recall of all conversation. I tested it myself.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ordinary People

Director

Robert Redford

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Ordinary People is a very important film. It was actor Robert Redford’s surprising directorial debut which went on to beat Martin Scorsese’s heavyweight champ Raging Bull at the Oscars, gaining notoriety and eventually contempt from fans of the latter. It’s a shame that it should be forever associated to that early victory, and even that I should mention it here, but luckily some people will google either movie and find this review, and read what a gem Ordinary People is, in case they didn’t know.

Based on Judith Guest’s novel, the film portrays a family with a certain problematic. Not exactly clear or evident at first, but somehow present in the air in the form of unbearable tension, a ghost haunts the Jarrett family. The older of two sons has died in a boating accident involving the younger, Conrad (Timothy Hutton), who now deals with the guilt. He just came back from a psychiatric hospital, following a suicide attempt, and his father Calvin (Donald Sutherland) is happy to see harmony reign again at his home. But is that really the case?

Even though they try, Conrad and his mother Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) can’t hide their negative feelings towards each other. It would seem that both want their feud to end, and indeed they try, but it’s just impossible, something inside both prevents it. Calvin sees his life shattered when he realizes all his efforts were in vain, and his family life is still a disaster. Things don’t look good for Conrad either, as he falls into depression all over again, unable to overcome his crisis. Yet, in appearance, the Jarretts live a normal family life.

Alvin Sargent’s script is one of the subtlest ever written, finding a universal power in the smallest possible things, from French toast to a family photo, with a deep understanding of the significance of just every single action in the family interaction. Even as they seem to live a normal life, every look, every word, every snubbing can be the most lethal weapons in the lives of these people. It also depends on the point of view of each person. Calvin, for instance, is so good-natured and full of love for his family that he lives in a sort of denial, constantly trying to help his wife and son reconcile through love and understanding, while their problems go far beyond that. Beth lives a life of sentimental isolation, deeply hurt by her son’s death, unattached of any other feeling that might turn against her.

By way of helping his son, who’s evidently having a bad time, Calvin encourages him to attend an analyst, Dr. Tyrone C. Berger (Judd Hirsch). Dr. Berger seems to be a cynic, but that’s only his way of breaking into Conrad’s complex psyche. The boy isn’t over suicide yet, and feels worse every day, no matter how hard he tries to fool himself. Things at home don’t help, and everything reminds him of his older brother. Guilt walks next to him every step he makes. And his mother is there to remind him that love isn’t free. What’s worse, Calvin’s efforts seem more an exercise of negligence than a demonstration of love. All this is there but never spoken. How Alvin Sargent captured it all and made it look simple is an example of perfect screenwriting.

Furthermore, the actors did a splendid job. Hutton is completely unforgettable as the troubled kid, Tyler Moore a powerhouse as his mother, Hirsch perfect as the Doctor. Good support by Elizabeth McGovern and Dinah Manoff.

Redford’s precise hand never gets in the way of this fascinating character study, but rather accentuates the mood scene by scene. The pace is deliberate sometimes, but the action within the characters’ minds is so intense that it all seems to move too fast. Ordinary People is not only a family drama, but also a suspenseful film of sorts, one true nail-biter that manages to make you cry and sweat at the same time.

Great use of Pachelbel’s “Canon in D”, arranged by Marvin Hamlisch. That’s the icing on the cake.

“Conrad. Let's have a great Christmas. Let's have... a great year. Let's have the best year of our whole lives. We can, you know... this could be the best one ever.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Brokeback Mountain

Director

Ang Lee

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 06, 2006

At first it was the “gay cowboy movie”. Then people saw it and the term was instantly discredited. Universal acclaim followed along with terrific revenues. It became an awards juggernaut overnight. But its most important achievement has been to become a cultural phenomenon and a landmark piece of art. It can pretty much be said that Brokeback Mountain has earned itself an important place in the annals of cinema.

In 1963 Wyoming, Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis del Mar (Heath Ledger) meet when they take a job as sheep herders at Brokeback Mountain. Their friendship leads to a sudden and unexpected attraction, but they part ways when the summer ends. Both get married, Ennis to longtime girlfriend Alma (Michelle Williams) and Jack to rodeo queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). But as they move on with their lives, only meeting occasionally through the years, their impossible love for each other starts to consume them...

The movie is based on a short story by E. Annie Proulx, and adapted to the big screen by the legendary Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana. They had both, along with producer James Schamus, been trying to get this movie made for years, but Hollywood shied away from such a controversial topic: one of the quintessential macho genres mixed with a homosexual plot. It was when Ang Lee showed interest that it finally moved forward, showing that when all elements are in place, true gems can surface.

Brokeback Mountain is, first and foremost, one of the greatest love stories ever put on film. The fact that it is between two men is secondary to the epic roots of the story. Its themes are universal. The focus wisely remains on Jack and Ennis, two very different people who are lucky enough to experience what true love is, but who don’t know what to do with it, nor do they ever mention it. Ennis had a difficult childhood, raised and disposed by his siblings, no education, lack of commodities... a rough life. Jack didn’t have it easy either, but he was able to accept himself and was willing to do something about it. They both know that they’re meant to be together, but Ennis can’t come to terms with it. He’s afraid of people finding out, but mostly of feeling something he never thought he would, something that he’s been taught is wrong and dangerous. “This thing”, he calls it. Their love becomes a burden, but it is love nonetheless, an unattainable one. And there’s nothing they can do about their feelings.

This is where the movie’s hidden subtext fully emerges. To crave for something you want and not do anything about it; to have an unfulfilled dream until it’s too late to see it realized; to see your life go by and have sadness reign over happiness; to be so miserable that it not only affects you, but those surrounding you. All of these themes so carefully conveyed in scenes such as the one in which Jack finally unleashes his anger towards Ennis or in the last sequence of the movie, which hits you like a shot in the heart.

Ang Lee directs the movie with such class and elegance that every scene is something to marvel at. Whether it’s the way he directs his actors, or the way in which he paints a canvas, he knows what he’s doing and what he wants to convey. He also opts for a lack of sentimentalism and manipulation that is thankful. This leads the audience to have a powerful experience while watching the movie, but to end up even more affected long after it’s over. The residue it leaves is potent and aching. And it stays there.

Rodrigo Prieto’s magnificent photography and Gustavo Santaolalla’s beautiful score are part of the movie’s greatness, accentuating the intimacy of the story with subtlety.

Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal not only share a lot of chemistry, but they both deliver unforgettable performances as the doomed lovers. Ledger channels his character’s pain from the inside, as every word he mutters feels like it’s fighting to come out. His Ennis is a tragic character, a man who can’t come to terms with who he is and what he feels. Ledger takes over his struggle and transforms it into something memorable and honest. Jake, on the other hand, is equally good as the more forth-coming of the two, the one that changes the most during the years as his broken heart starts to take over his soul. Both are surrounded by a talented cast that accompanies them through the years, especially Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway, both of who leave indelible impressions. Williams’s suffering is palpable, and Hathaway nails the bitchy banter and truly impresses in that telephone scene. Kate Mara as Ennis’s daughter, Linda Cardellini as one of Ennis’s girlfriends, Anna Faris as Lureen’s friend and Roberta Maxwell as Jake’s mother are all pitch-perfect in their small roles.

A masterpiece, unequivocally the best movie of the year.

“I wish I knew how to quit you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ghost

Director

Jerry Zucker

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 02, 2006

I revisited Ghost 15 years after its release and was blown away. It had been close to my heart ever since I saw it first in the theater —I was just a kid and I loved it— but I’ve been able to rediscover it and appreciate it fully. I just love it. Aside from all the “commercial” aspects that make it so attractive, I’m awed by the ease with which screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin mixes so many contrasting genres, like comedy, fantasy, romance and tragedy, and it flows so smoothly that no one even pauses to realize this. It’s such a great achievement.

The story starts with the sweeping romance of Sam (Patrick Swayze) and Molly (Demi Moore). They just moved together into a loft in downtown New York, he’s a successful banker, she a sculptor. Their romance is established with gusto, only their fears getting in the way but not stopping them from having a hell of a time. And just when everything seems shinier than ever, they’re mugged, and Sam gets killed. That’s the end of his life, but not of his existence: he remains as a ghost, seeing everything from the outside, unable to influence the world.

From here on, the film develops countless layers and subplots. For one, Sam and Molly’s best friend Carl (Tony Goldwyn), who spends some time with her during her mourning, turns out quite differently than expected. Sam discovers the real reason why he was killed, in fact murdered, by Willie Lopez (Rick Aviles), and who else was involved, and faces the fact that he can do nothing to warn Molly of the danger that she’s in. Then Sam meets Oda Mae Brown (Whoopi Goldberg), a phony psychic who accidentally develops the ability to communicate with the dead, and is forced by Sam to help Molly. Furthermore, Sam recruits a scary subway ghost (Vincent Schiavelli) to help him learn to influence the world physically.

When it all comes together, the climax is so powerful it’s unforgettable. A movie about a dead man can’t quite end happily, but good prevails, and happiness ensues somehow. Audiences feel heartbroken, but the smile is indelible because it’s the best possible resolution.

So the film goes from romance to drama to comedy to thriller to romance. At its core it’s a romance, but the proceedings just wouldn’t have been so irresistible without the comedy, and it’s mostly thanks to the role of Oda Mae Brown, so masterfully played by Whoopi Goldberg. More than comic relief, the character creates a contrast in the story that’s continuously interesting and powerful, but never takes center stage, letting the romantic aspect be the star. This is what makes the movie work, so much so that even death doesn’t seem an obstacle for true love. Patrick Swayze may be a bit wooden, but he’s so heartfelt and his character so transcendent that it just works fine.

Demi Moore’s performance might be her finest. She’s been mocked for crying so much throughout but that’s in fact the one thing that makes it so great, how she sustains the sadness while still showing strength and a will to go on. Tony Goldwyn is amazing in an evolving role, playing a character that never seems quite trustworthy but then becomes clearly undesirable. Great support from Aviles too, and especially from Schiavelli.

Another star of the film is the music by Maurice Jarre. It’s continuously romantic and memorable, with a few changes of pace for the thriller and comedy parts; really great work that sometimes echoes Alex North’s “Unchained Melody”, whose version by The Righteous Brothers is so prominently featured in an immortal love scene. Adam Greenberg’s photography also plays a crucial role.

Funny, moving and affecting, this film marked a change of tune for director Jerry Zucker, and proved to be a hit in all possible ways.

“Ditto.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Director

George Clooney

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

A lot of acclaim has been bestowed upon George Clooney this year. His is one of those rare stories of a guy who was huge in television and then turned to movies to equally huge success. Usually this story works the other way around. But Clooney has managed to make his way up by being a true professional. He is not regarded as one of the nicest and most sympathetic actors out for nothing. And his talent goes hand in hand. This year has been especially good for him, as two of his movies have become critical darlings. Both are political flicks, and both required a lot of hard work. If I may say so, he must be really proud of himself. And we are proud of him too.

This movie chronicles the battle that aroused between CBS anchorman Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) and Senator Joseph McCarthy, when the former used his TV show See It Now to denounce the corrupt proceedings by which McCarthy accused hundreds of Americans of being Communist supporters. Murrow, his producer Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and the rest of the crew took a huge risk despite being questioned by their company’s chief, William Paley (Frank Langella), the unrelenting media and even McCarthy himself.

Good Night, and Good Luck (a title that comes from Murrow’s infamous signature) does what it sets out to do with expertise. It is a movie that wants to tell a specific story and does so with as much verisimilitude and attention to detail as possible. It is so faithful that at times it feels like a documentary. The battle between Murrow and McCarthy happened mainly on television and about half the movie (or at least it felt like it) is an exact recreation of Murrow’s TV appearances juxtaposed against McCarthy’s real footage (a smart decision, as it gives the movie even more realism and immediacy). But I wonder, was this best way to tell this story? Wouldn’t it have been better and more informative to see it as a real documentary?

Clooney opts to tell his story (which he co-wrote with Grant Heslov) using an old-fashioned narrative style. His movie feels like a 50s teleplay, or even one of Murrow’s own telecasts. It all happens mainly in the CBS offices, with a bunch of actors crossing paths with each other all the time, as if it were a theatre production. This approach is interesting in the way it lets us see what it was like to be a part of a television show in the era. But on the other hand, it doesn’t make you feel anything. The movie is supposed to be tense and suspenseful, but it falls short of really taking off. It never soars. And before you know it, it’s over. I’m sure historians and people who witnessed those events will be delighted, but as a narrative feature I think it’s lacking.

The movie has only one subplot, which is about Joe and Shirley Weshba (Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson, respectively) and how they managed to work together while being married, something that CBS did not allow. I didn’t have a specific problem with the subplot, but I do feel that if it stayed in the movie then we should’ve got some back-stories for other characters, especially Murrow. He is the centerpiece of the story yet we know nothing about him except that he’s an honorable man. And I know the movie is not about him per sé, but it isn’t about the Weshbas either, so why do they get a story of their own? I wanted to know more.

What I liked the most about the movie is not precisely its depiction of a true story, but what that story says about the world today. And it’s scary. One would think that mistakes of the past would not be repeated, yet the parallels are obvious, whether tackling the current US administration, the war on terrorism or the role of journalists in our society.

David Strathairn delivers an excellent performance as Murrow. He mimics his every glance and movement. The transformation is not only physical, but internal, and Strathairn makes us believe we’re really seeing Murrow, a quiet, serious and brave man who had a great counterpart in Fred Friendly, whom Clooney portrays as an everyday man, a visionary and charismatic fellow. No wonder they got along so well. Frank Langella also delivers a small but pivotal and poignant performance. The whole cast is up to the task.

My favorite moment: Murrow smiling to himself after one of his damning broadcasts.

“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter