CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Queen

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Monarchies have always fascinated me. The idea of a world where there still are kings and queens has always struck me as particularly curious. We see period movies and we witness the lives of those who changed the course of history, but today their role is somewhat different. And so is the scrutiny to which they are subjected. In a time when a public figure cannot do anything without it being documented they have a lot of pressure. Some accept this and act accordingly, but others strive to live a normal life. On the upside, they are usually filthy rich, but sometimes that doesn’t help matters. It is a complicated issue, one that is treated with the utmost skill in the appropriately called film The Queen.

When the former Princess Diana died following a car crash in Paris, the people of England were devastated. Newly appointed Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) understood this and joined the chorus, but Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) showed coldness and was perceived as bitter by the general public. The country and the monarchy were suddenly in crisis.

Director Stephen Frears worked from a carefully-constructed script by Peter Morgan. It is quite difficult to make a movie about recent history because most of the times we are not still sufficiently detached from the events, especially when they were overly publicized ones. But the fascinating thing about The Queen is that it shows the behind-the-scenes shenanigans that we cannot witness and in the way it depicts a believable portrayal of the English monarch’s life and the interaction between each other and with the public. This is a side of them we had not seen before, portraying them as the human beings that they are, and even though there’s no way for us to really know what happened inside their walls, this is an intelligent and detailed reenactment of what could have been.

The Queen wasn’t stoic just for the sake of being stoic. As Tony Blair points late in the movie, this is a person that has done an admirable job for decades and who suddenly faces the death of a person who fought against everything that she stands for. Is she supposed to show sympathy? The answer, it seems, is that she can behave however she wants privately, but as a ruler she has to share the sentiments of her people. It takes the world for her to understand this, and the way she gradually breaks is affecting to watch. She may not be the most sentimental person, but that doesn’t make her a bad one. And when you throw in the press and their sensationalistic reports it makes matters much worse.

Frears uses real footage between staged scenes to show some of the events as they actually happened. These interludes work brilliantly, not only because they are perfectly edited and scored, but because they give us a sense of the immediate magnitude those days had on people from all over the world. It doesn’t matter, and the movie doesn’t support any given point of view, whether Diana deserved the love and attention she got. Public perception is everything, and a sense of closure was imperative.

Alfonso Beato’s cinematography, Alexander Desplat’s score, Lucia Zucchetti’s editing, Consolata Boyle’s costumes, Alan MadDonald’s production design and Daniel Phillips’s makeup are all of the highest order. This is an impeccably made motion picture in every aspect.

Helen Mirren won the Oscar for her royal (pun intended) performance as The Queen. She embodied her with gusto, down to the physicality, her way of walking and speaking, her demeanor. But she also transcended the mimicry and made a full-bodied human being out of her. Michael Sheen is an excellent counterpart as Tony Blair, a man that is not well-liked today, but that showed a lot of promise back then. James Cromwell lends spot-on support as Prince Philip, Sylvia Sims is very good as The Queen Mother, Alex Jennings makes for a completely believable Prince Charles and Helen McCrory leaves an impression as Cherie Blair.

“Will someone please save this people from themselves!?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dreamgirls

Director

Bill Condon

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Dreamgirls is based on the Broadway musical of the same name, which in turn is rumored (never confirmed) to be based on the true story of Diana Ross and The Supremes. The film takes an even closer approach to this alleged source of inspiration, changing a few elements of the story to further resemble the famous trio. The story is a passionate account of three African-American girlfriends who sing together since they’re twelve and find their big break when offered to sing choruses for James “Thunder” Early. Lead singer Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) doesn’t want to do chorus, but the other two, Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) and Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose) agree most heartily and convince their friend. Represented by eager Cadillac-salesman-turned-music-executive Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx), they begin their rise to stardom.

I swear I’m not exactly bitter but there’s just something about stories like this that gets me tired. There’s always the eagerness at the beginning, the hardship in the middle, the excesses and regrets, the sacrifices, the downfalls, and some times (most times) the redemption. That seems to be the formula for musicians and I don’t quite see any freshness to it anymore. Sure thing, “Dreamgirls” the play is not exactly recent, but the film is and I couldn’t find it refreshing at all. By the time the group begun I just knew what would happen and I was quite right. If the songs were the thing to enjoy, fine, I did enjoy them, but sometimes the story’s meat was too light to make them worthwhile.

As a musical, Dreamgirls offers plenty of songs to tell its tale. Sometimes the gig works out wonderfully, whenever the songs are supposed to be real (I tell you, sometimes I felt a physical impulse to applaud!), others not so, whenever they’re supposed to interpret characters’ feelings. For instance, the central number, “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going”, sung by Effie in the most heartfelt way, seemed to me unnecessarily long and repetitious. This will probably cause some readers’ indignation, I realize that, but I just thought they took the emotional aspect too far to be truthful, and sometimes I even got the feeling that the actors were fighting against this tendency, in order to come out believable all the same.

Most succeed, some don’t, but I must say overall the acting is superb. The standout is Jennifer Hudson, who plays the sentimental core. I had never seen or heard about Hudson before this film, and she shook me to the bone. Her voice is absolutely impressive and her performance a powerhouse. She’s so successful, in fact, that she easily manages to outshine co-star Beyoncé Knowles, which is eerie since that’s also somewhat what this show is about, but probably wasn’t intended so powerfully given Knowles’ casting. Not to say Beyoncé isn’t ideal for the role and perfectly sweet and convincing, but she ends up mildly memorable when compared to Hudson. The third girl, Anika Noni Rose, leaves a strong impression all by herself, especially when she shares the screen with Eddie Murphy. And the latter excels in his dramatic, comedic and singing moments, and makes the most of one of the juiciest roles of his career. As for Jamie Foxx, I found him unbearable from start to finish, but since that was probably the idea, I guess I can’t complain. Other notable performers are Danny Glover, Keith Robinson and Sharon Leal.

Director Bill Condon adapted Tom Eyen’s book and put up an unbelievably dazzling show with everything from production design to lighting to staging to costume design to editing to—of course—music top-notch. The old songs by Henry Krieger and Tom Eyen are back, with a couple of new ones successfully blending in. The most notable is probably “Listen”, performed by Beyoncé and existing as a counterpart to Effie’s central number. While it’s obviously an excuse to give the star a spotlight the character of Deena lacked in the play, the singer makes it powerful and worthwhile.

Then again, I thought it all didn’t add up to much…

“Music is supposed to sell.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Dreamgirls (2006): Morris

Review

An Inconvenient Truth

Director

Davis Guggenheim

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 26, 2007

I am barely involved in politics. No, scratch that. I am not involved in politics. I am no expert in the matter and know mostly the basics. That said, I know Al Gore lost the presidential election some years ago. And I know I liked him more than his competitor. That’s the key word, “liked”. It is undeniable that the man has tons of charisma, and the path he chose to follow after that huge defeat is pretty respectful: he has opted to fight to make of this a better world through means of raising awareness about the dangers of global warming. This documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is an excellent testament to his actions.

The movie is literally a filmed conference. Gore continually travels throughout the country and faces different audiences in order to spread his message. Director Davis Guggenheim simply opts to capture one of these seminars as Gore addresses a bunch of young students. To be fair the director probably did the best he could to make of it an exciting experience, but to be honest sometimes it can get pretty boring and monotonous. As a piece of entertainment this is not the way to go, but as a relevant film it has important content to spare.

Actually, some of the information we are shown is so alarming that I am amazed we don’t do more about it. And that includes me. We’re lazy, and some people are so money-hungry that they don’t care about the damage they’re doing. Gore talks about how the destructive cycle has reached a horrible speed during the last 20 years compared to all existence, and it is devastating. Diagram after diagram is one shocking piece of info after another. And to think that it could be prevented…

It does help that Al Gore is one eloquent narrator. He knows what he’s talking about and he’s persuasive. The man looks good and puts the message across without rambling. As a leading man, he’s got it, and spending time with him is ironically comforting.

If I have one crucial quibble is that the documentary is all about raising awareness. Facts are presented, future scenarios are created, but all the time I was thinking about what we could do to stop this. Then the flick ended and I was in shock that we didn’t get any advises or rules. But as I stayed in my seat I noticed that some captions appeared on-screen during the credits, once half the theater had already stood up or left. Talk about ineffective propaganda. This stuff should’ve come before as a closing statement or something. I really wanted to know what could be done.

Still, it is a good achievement, an important one. And it should definitely be seen by as many people as possible.

“Should we prepare for other issues besides terrorists?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Last King of Scotland

Director

Kevin Macdonald

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 22, 2007

I have been told by many people since I saw The Last King of Scotland that they remember living the same experience as the Scottish leading character in this film, Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), concerning Ugandan dictator Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker). They said he became famous for his rumored brutality, then turned out a charismatic, funny man sometimes perceived as a buffoon, and finally was uncovered as a mass murderer during his rule. Amin’s ability to conquer people’s trust despite his evidently evil nature is what makes him fascinating aside from historically relevant.

As said, the story is told from the point of view of fictitious Nicholas Garrigan, a character created by writer Gilis Foden in the book on which this film is based. Though the story, adapted by Jeremy Brock and Peter Morgan, differs from the book in the specific goings-on around Nicholas, it does not in its historical accuracy or analysis of the character of Amin. This is a man worth writing biographies about and spreading the word. As usually happens with this sort of stories, this one is a warning for the world.

As Nicholas arrives in Uganda in the early 1970s as a complete drifter looking for a place to practice medicine overseas, he quickly becomes entangled by the charismatic new leader by coup, Idi Amin, and the country’s new leader also becomes quite fond of the kid, after a demonstration of his boldness. The fact that Nicholas is Scottish instead of British is key to his gaining Amin’s likeness. The moment Nicholas reveals his nationality, Amin goes from lethal to friendly in a split second. Even though at the time Nicholas and we have seen a display of Amin’s charisma, it is in that moment that we come to realize his power and potential lethalness. However, the young doctor is fascinated by the man, and doesn’t hesitate much to desert his original mission and the doctor he had associated with, as well as the latter’s wife (Gillian Anderson in a mildly thankless role), when Amin invites him to becomes his personal physician.

Thus begins an adventure that goes from dreamland to hell, as reality slowly sinks into Nicholas and he realizes how deep he’s in and how hard it’ll be to get out. Nicholas is a reckless character from start to finish, but while at first he was a dreamer, at the end he’s simply decadent, and his character’s evolution is way relevant as it represents Uganda’s reality during Amin’s rule. The historical events, novelized though they may be, are shocking and painfully believable. Amin’s portrayal comes off totally successful in every aspect of his colorful personality and atrocious rule.

Changing the tone of the film mustn’t have been an easy task. The opening credits are joyful and exciting, but towards the end it all gets darker and more sufferable. This goes to the credit of the director, as well as his team that includes photographer Anthony Dod Mantle, musician Alex Heffes and editor Justine Wright.

Though The Last King of Scotland is an accomplished film in most aspects, there’s a single one that stands out in the most absolute way, and that’s Forest Whitaker’s performance. I have rarely seen the screen commanded with such strength and conviction by an actor. He becomes Idi Amin and redefines him in a way that he uses his whole to create a larger-than-life character of his own. Whitaker’s Amin goes beyond the portrait and becomes indelibly engraved in our minds. He’s most successful in making the character as scary as he’s charismatic, while achieving the script’s difficult task of making him likable even after we have seen his utter brutality. There’s no doubt of Whitaker’s excellence and his great success in 2006. His performance is easily the best from that year, and I daresay one of the greatest in movie history.

“You're a child. That’s what makes you so fucking scary... ”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Flags of Our Fathers

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

I used to dislike almost every movie Clint Eastwood directed. Aside from a few exceptions, I was never really a fan of his work behind the camera. Then Mystic River happened, and suddenly came Million Dollar Baby. Those two knockouts totally changed my perspective on the man, and his double-duty this year in movies telling the same story through different points of view sounded fascinating from the start. Flags of Our Fathers was the first one to come out of the gate, and even though Letters from Iwo Jima is said to be the better movie this one can easily stand on its own.

Thousands of American troops were sent to the Japanese island of Iwo Jima during WWII to take it over. It became one of the bloodiest battles the world has witnessed, but it also became infamous because of a photograph depicting six soldiers raising the American flag. Three of those men eventually died, but the other three, John Bradley (Ryan Phillipe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), were sent home where they were hailed as heroes. Once there they contributed with a tour whose intention was that of collecting money to support the war.

This first installment of the two-part saga was written by Paul Haggis and William Broyles Jr., based on books by James Bradley and Ron Powers. Their work is powerful and to the point, although the movie suffers from an unsatisfying structure that dampens the experience at times. The story is presented through a series of flashbacks depicting the actual battle mixed with scenes depicting the subsequent tour (all good so far) but then a third thread emerges, and eventually takes center stage, with James Bradley interviewing several subjects for his book. It’s a tad too much, and a more elegant approach and editing might’ve made for a tighter, more emotional and more accomplished movie.

That said, it is an extraordinary piece of filmmaking. Scenes that take place in the war are nothing short of impressive and disturbing. Perhaps there’s nothing new in Eastwood’s technique, but his camera and direction make us feel like we’re there and there… and it’s quite a horrifying experience. Scenes that take place during the tour are expertly handled, with a permeating undercurrent about the meaning of the word “hero” and its consequences. Each of the three men had different reactions to being named one, and it all depended on the men they were and the men they wanted to become. Also, there is not shying away from the lies and hypocrisy that surrounded those events, exploring how far people are willing to go to suspend disbelief if that brings them hope, and how far other people are willing to go in exploiting them. It is a fascinating examination and behind-the scenes look from start to finish.

As is usual as of late Eastwood also functioned as the movie’s composer, delivering a simple yet effective score. Tom Stern’s excellent photography is crucial to the telling of the story, using an almost completely bleached look for the battle scenes and a slightly more colorful one for the aftermath scenes. Period detail is also impeccable.

The movie boasts an ensemble cast that reads like a who’s who of young Hollywood. Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Paul Walker, Joseph Cross, Benjamin Walker and many more all do excellent work, with the standout being Beach and his heartfelt performance. John Benjamin Hickey, Robert Patrick, Neal McDonough and Chris Bauer also lend strong support. I have to admit that some of the casting choices are a wee bit obvious, but the work the actors do is consistently solid so it serves the movie well.

“If we wish to truly honor these men we should remember them the way they really were, the way my dad remembered them.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Director

Mike Newell

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Truth is, movies should work as movies and if they’re based on or inspired by any other material there should be an understanding of the media before rambling on about the changes. It’s important to know that, and I have recently felt that many fans of the “Harry Potter” books aren’t too good at it. I am now a fan the books, but I can say I’m also pleased by the movies. I’m not a fan of the first two, I LOVED the third one, and I quite liked the fourth. I think Harry Potter is already a part of cinema culture and an icon around the world. Authoress J.K. Rowling’s world of magic is enchanting and I feel quite comfortable in it already. The movies have brought me to the books and I’m thrilled.

This one deals with Potter’s (Daniel Radcliffe) fourth year at Hogwarts. The boy, now 14, is cheated into being chosen for the legendary tri-wizard tournament, which is as exciting as it’s deadly. He couldn’t have been chosen by the magical goblet of fire, first because he’s underage and second because he didn’t apply. But there’s no way of turning back now and he’s on for the game. In the way, the boy is envied by friends (including Ron (Rupert Grint)), ridiculed by schoolmates, and disrespected by other contestants. These include Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski), Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy), and Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson), the “official” goblet’s selection from Hogwarts.

There’s a lot of subplots going on at the same time – not as many as there’s in the book, which is ridiculously long mind you – but the film weaves them admirably. Besides the contest, there’s romance—notably Harry falling for a cute girl called Cho Chang (Katie Leung), as well as Hermione’s (Emma Watson) coming-of-age and the unraveling of her feelings towards clueless Ron (Rubert Grint)—, the appearance of terrifying “Death Eaters” (Voldemort’s servants of evil), Harry’s bad dreams about a decrepit Voldemort and his evil plans, and the introduction of new and (as usual) colorful characters such as Barty Crouch (Roger Lloyd-Pack) and Alastor ‘Mad-Eye’ Moody (Brendan Gleeson), as well as the return of well-known ones like suspicious Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), strict Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), kind Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and of course wise Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), just to name a few.

Wow, this film does have A LOT of threads! You only come to realize that when thinking back. Steven Kloves’ adaptation of the book is again very impressive in conveying a piece that combines so many subplots and still doesn’t disappoint as a movie experience. To be fair though, this one’s more episodic than the previous entry, and some segments seem too long and not very consequential in what concerns the main story. The same as the book, I felt an unnecessary overlength here and wished some parts were trimmed (even though I daresay more than half the book was skipped!). Yet, the main interest is never lost and everything that’s added here and there contributes to the magical world we’re easily immersed in. Everything works out as well thanks to the visual effects, constantly impressive and surprisingly combined with the storytelling to an extent that one depends on the other but they work together seamlessly.

This film is also notable for the cameo of a renowned actor playing a very important role towards the end.

The rest of the performances are as good. The whole cast works wonderfully as an ensemble and the kids keep getting better, especially Radcliffe, who was mildly wooden the first and second films and he’s now Potter himself. The other two (Watson and Grint) are outstanding as usual, and their understanding of their characters is unbelievably natural. Gambon is given a lot of juicy material this time and he does it very well, though the question of how Richard Harris would’ve done it is more than a little haunting.

John Williams’ score is sorely missed, replaced by a more serious but not-by-far-as-haunting one by Patrick Doyle. The sense of awe is intact however, and so is, I’m glad to say, the sense of humor. I found myself laughing often, always a welcome reaction. I think the film’s 157 minutes running time is, as I said, too much, but to be fair it’s a fun trip all the way, so who cares! That’s the film’s greatest asset, I think… That despite its few flaws and lulls, it manages to entertain like any great movie.

“How lies have fed your legend, Harry!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Blood Diamond

Director

Edward Zwick

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 19, 2007

I have always defended the case that Edward Zwick is one of the most undervalued directors working today. I have loved his movies from day one and the guy is simply consistent. That said, I feel more respect than love for his latest foray, Blood Diamond, an important movie that nonetheless falls short of reaching grandeur.

Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a South-African diamond smuggler who finds the opportunity of his life when he meets Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) in prison. As it happens, while Solomon was working as a slave for the R.F.U. in war-torn Sierra Leone he came upon a huge pink diamond which he buried. Archer sees it as a way to escape his troubled life, but Solomon needs it to get his family back and especially his kidnapped son who is forced to become a child-soldier. Archer also recruits the help of reporter Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), who wants to write something meaningful that could change the course of the atrocities taking place in the continent.

The movie is based upon a story by C. Gaby Mitchell and Charles Leavitt, the latter of whom also wrote the screenplay. It is neither an easy story to tell nor an easy movie to watch. The violent problems surrounding Africa have been present for decades, and as one character puts it, the more valuable resources are found in their soil the more people suffer from it. It is a sad statement, but unfortunately true. And the hugely profitable diamond empire is the movie’s main target, as some people are willing to kill and get involved with the dirtiest form of corruption and exploitation to keep the business going.

So the message is clear, but the employed form is not really that successful in getting all of its ideas across; a clearer focus was needed. Blood Diamond is essentially a chase movie, with Archer and Vandy on a mission that is filled with countless obstacles, most of which involve clever actions, stupid actions and a lot of bullets (while somehow they always seem to be the only ones to escape alive). Then there’s the character of Archer, the protagonist, who is a real enigma. I know characters don’t need to be essentially good or bad, but I never got him and the forced finale left me feeling absolutely nothing. It is Solomon that we come to care and understand, and because of him and his personal quest the movie never ceases to be watchable. A romantic subplot is also inserted with mixed results.

There certainly are a lot of harrowing scenes and a brutal depiction of the situation in Africa. It never stops being disturbing and the movie remains truthful in its portrayal of such events. Movies like this should be watched by everyone, because regardless of their entertainment value they have something important to show the world. My utmost respect goes to its creators for this reason alone.

It also helps that director Zwick has surrounded himself with a top-notch creative team including cinematographer Eduardo Serra and composer James Newton Howard. The movie is impeccably made.

Leonardo DiCaprio has had a spectacular year and the man deserves it. Not only is he one of the best actors of his generation, but he also knows how to choose his projects and the people he works with. His performance here is harrowing and intense, exactly what is required of him at every turn. Djimon Hounsou also leaves a strong impression as a man desperate to bring his family together. He delivers powerful work and almost steals the movie. Jennifer Connelly somehow gets lost in the shuffle, but she’s excellent nonetheless. A solid ensemble all-around.

“God left this place a long time ago.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Celebration

Director

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 15, 2007

The notion of “pure cinema” is probably the healthiest idea any filmmaker can have these days. The least a film focuses on post-production values such as special effects, the more it has to rely on a good story. The Dogme 95 pact took that concept into a whole different level, by agreeing to ten rules that would insure that films celebrate simplicity and focus on story: hand-held cameras to follow the action, no special lighting, no props except those already existing on location, no background music (except the one produced onscreen), no visual effects, no superficial action (like guns or murders), no temporal or geographical alienation, no credited director, etc.

Almost ten years after the release of Festen (The Celebration), the first film that accomplished these requisites, it’s evident that no other Dogme film has obtained its success or praise, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing isn’t worth the effort.

Festen is indeed a strong movie whose story impacts way beyond what any post-production values could achieve. It’s impressive how this crude home-video style of filmmaking actually benefits the narrative since it forces us to penetrate into the drama like we’re living it. The theme here makes it even more so, since it portrays a celebration that we feel a part of.

Friends and family gather in Helge’s (Henning Moritzen) huge hotel in Denmark to celebrate his 60th birthday party. Among the guests are Helge’s and Else’s (Birthe Newmann) adult offspring, Christian (Ulrich Thomsen), Michael (Thomas Bo Larsen) and Helene (Paprika Steen). Christian, the eldest, is passive and compassionate, the kind who wouldn’t harm a fly; Michael is a brute, fury bursting out of him constantly, particularly against his long-suffering wife Mette (Helle Dolleris); and Helene seems to be repressing sadness, while living a life of apparent dissatisfaction.

There is also another sibling, Christian’s twin sister Linda, who died earlier the same year. Her ghost is present constantly, almost becoming another character. Even though everyone seems to be contented with her memory, there’s clearly some unattended business concerning her death. Christian, who seems to have been fonder of her than anyone else, is about to unleash a revolution: during dinner, he stands up and reads a speech he wrote in memory of his sister, a speech that reveals unbearable family secrets. But no one seems to want to listen.

I loved the reversal structure of Thomas Vinterberg’s and Mogens Rukov’s script. Other such stories begin with mild confrontations and end up with big revelations that are undeniable. This one begins with the greatest possible revelation and grows from there into a battle between acceptance and denial, belief and disbelief, truth and lies. War in an everyday setting, with battles won and lost, strategies at hand and the obligatory pain of both sides… Beautiful.

The performances are as guttural as the script, with Thomsen cold as ice on the surface but warm and loving inside, Bo Larsen savage to the brink of transformation, Moritzen deeply regretful, Neumann insultingly full of denial, and Steen bursting with mixed feelings. Other worthy performers are Trine Dyrholm as the maid who’s in love with Christian, Bjarne Henriksen as the cook who’s Christian’s childhood best friend (and one of the film’s heroes) and Gbatokai Dakinah as an unexpected guest.

The whole cast is outstanding in making us feel they’re sitting next to us, but that’s mainly the achievement of uncredited director Thomas Vinterberg, co-founder (with Lars von Trier among others) of the Dogme 95 movement.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Pursuit of Happyness

Director

Gabriele Muccino

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Every era has its own idols. Right now it’s difficult to argue against the case of Will Smith being the biggest star in the world. His track record is impeccable, money-wise, and sometimes he also makes good movies. A star of his status can’t just say he’s going to do an independent movie as his next project and that’s that. But to be fair, The Pursuit of Happyness is as close as he’ll get to that. And such an amalgam ends up with interesting results, if not entirely successful ones.

Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is in the midst of a rocky marriage with Linda (Thandie Newton) as their economic situation in the early 80’s gets worse by the minute. The only thing that seems to keep them together is their son Christopher (Jaden Christopher Syre Smith) And then, in the midst of harsh circumstances, Chris decides to accept an internship to compete for a post in a big stock-broker company.

The movie was directed by Gabriele Muccino from a screenplay by Steve Conrad, which is based on the true story of Chris Gardner (who retains an associate producer credit). It is indeed an interesting account to tell, one complete with a big heart and a big message. There’s nothing wrong with that, although one gets the sense that the movie never soars. It is suffering plus suffering plus suffering with no momentum whatsoever, and just when a big payoff was needed Muccino decides to cut on sentimentality and stop the movie short. I am all for lack of manipulation, but sometimes a story screams for it. This was it.

I was honestly entertained all the way despite the permeating gloominess. The charismatic actors keep things interesting and we really want to see them succeed. The bond that is formed between father and son is cute and all, but one gets the sense that it could’ve been taken a step forward. Christopher’s role is actually under-written, as is his mother Linda’s. Chris himself is given the saint treatment, even though his wife’s complaints are quite valid and still she’s made to look like the villain from the beginning. Yes, the movie does not escape its Hollywood roots even though it tries hard to boost an arty sensibility. Take Chris’s continuous encounters with the people who stole scanners from him; they do nothing for the story. But at least we don’t get the clichéd villain that always comes with this kind of tale...

There’s a voice-over narration throughout the flick that is serious at times, tongue-in-cheek at others. I would have to see the movie without it to really say if it would’ve been a better idea to abstain from it, but right now my impression is mixed.

It does seem like I’m giving the movie a hard time, but it’s really not bad at all. I actually admired it for what it is and left the theater with a good, if unspectacular, impression.

Will Smith received his second Oscar nomination for his role as Chris. I can’t say if he deserved it or not, but I do have to admit that he does a really good job. He’s believable all the way and leaves his off-screen persona entirely out of the movie. I was with him at every step. His real-life son is also good as his on-screen son. You can sense that he’s a natural, and there’s a freshness to him that is welcomed. On the other hand, Thandie Newton’s over-the-top portrayal takes you completely out of the movie. That voice! Every other supporting performance is good.

One last thing: I loved the meaning of the title but especially where its specific spelling comes from.

“He must have had on really nice pants.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Pursuit of Happyness (2006): Groucho

Review

Scoop

Director

Woody Allen

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Match Point (2005) changed matters drastically for Woody Allen. After years of mediocre comedies, here was a very valuable piece of cinema, one of his most brilliant in years and perhaps one among his best overall. This appeared to be Woody’s renaissance; we were all hopeful.

Hope died again as quickly as it rose; Scoop, his next film, is as bad as they come, as bad as his worst. It’s an uninspired comedy that attempts a mystery plot and succeeds only in undermining the best elements of both genres. Once, it was easy to forgive Woody for a failed attempt by saying that even at his worst he was good; this time around, there are truly valuable one-liners to be found, some clever ideas and a couple of finely choreographed comedy scenes, but the whole just can’t be redeemed; it just can’t.

The story deals with American Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), a journalism student in London, attempting to get a good story to establish her career. Her inability to do so is frustrating, that is, until the ghost of a very famous reporter, Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), appears to her and reveals a clue to a scoop any newsperson would want, which probably leads to the identity of a famous serial murder called the Tarot Card Killer. Amusingly enough, the ghost appears during the act of magician Sidney Waterman a.k.a. Splendini (Woody Allen), where Sondra is a volunteer. Shaken by the occurrence, Sondra involves Sidney, who’s reluctant at first but grows to be interested and even obsessed with the case.

The catch is the suspect is a charming aristocrat, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), whom Sondra quickly falls in love with, while supposedly trying to fool him into spilling the beans. Pretending that Sidney is her father (with no apparent reason except to give Woody’s character more onscreen time), Sondra enters Peter’s life and clues keep arising and making the case more and more confusing. Let’s admit that the premise is interesting.

Scoop is sort of the other side of Match Point. I’d have to get into spoiler territory to explain why, so I’ll only say that these characters could well have been in the previous Woody Allen film without our noticing, because we were watching a different side, sort of. I think that’s what Woody attempted here, to see a similar case through different eyes, and I must say it’s a clever idea.

Apart from that, it’s a serious misfire. His comedy is really tired and clichéd to say the least. As I said, some one-liners are amusing, but only chuckle-inducing at best. Sondra’s character is obnoxiously modeled after the typical Woody persona which is an innovation (since she’s a woman) but sort of a bad idea, especially when Woody is also cast, or should I say forced into the story. Poor Woody… Here he seems to be parodying himself, making it clear that he’s such a tired presence in movies by playing an obnoxious and unnecessary character. Pretending to be Sondra’s father, Sidney keeps trying to amuse people with his jokes and magic acts, and everyone seems bored or confused. Get the message? I wonder if Woody actually intended this metaphor. If so, he’s brilliant, but completely wrong in doing it.

The romance between Sondra and Peter works well, which is of course expected from this filmmaker. But since it’s never given first chair, rather put aside by the mystery and/or comedy, it’s unsatisfying. Jackman is OK but nothing spectacular, but it’s not his fault but his role’s. And the supporting cast has very little to do to shine, though I enjoyed Romola Garai’s presence and performance as Sondra’s roommate.

“Oh I need those. I can't wear contacts, I don't like touching my eyeball with my finger.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Apocalypto

Director

Mel Gibson

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 12, 2007

I have no interest whatsoever in dealing with Mel Gibson as a person, since the man is one hell of an actor and a director and those sides of him are the ones I want to focus on. So let’s get that out of the way first and foremost and go straight into what I’m here to talk about. As I look back I still can’t believe Gibson’s (and Disney’s) guts in getting this film made. A movie about Mayans and spoken in an incomprehensible dialect? Man, I love when filmmakers take risks, and this is one worth the effort.

Jaguar Paw’s (Rudy Youngblood) village is attacked and completely destroyed, but he manages to hide his pregnant wife Seven (Dalia Hernández) and his son before he is captured by Snake Ink (Rodolfo Palacios) and his terrifying boss Zero Wolf (Raoul Trujillo). Along with other slaves, he is taken to their attackers’ village, where they are to be sacrificed. But Jaguar Paw has only one thing in mind: to escape and rescue his family.

Gibson not only directed, but he wrote the screenplay along with Farhad Safinia. Whoever is expecting a history lesson will be sorely disappointed; this is unabashed escapism. Apart from an unexpected, yet fascinating, historic scene near the end there’s nothing here other than mere non-stop action sequences. Gibson tries to imbue Apocalypto with metaphors regarding hostile societies and the futileness of war, saying that a civilization cannot be conquered until it is rotten from the inside, but really... these are mere afterthoughts.

I have read countless reviews accusing the movie of being excessively violent. I don’t get people who complain about this. A movie is what it is, and complaints about violence say more about you than what it says about the movie. I am one who chuckles at the sight of blood and exposed organs, but if I can’t stand it then why am I seeing the movie in the first place? Some people also love to psychoanalyze the director regarding his fascination with suffering, and even if he does have a fetish, he’s incorporating it into good stories and making sense out of it. Mayans, as most ancient civilizations, were violent people (among other things, good and bad), and when you have a movie about good vs. evil with this setting as a background I don’t see why the graphicness should be considered exploitative. There are over-the-top moments, yes, but any action flick from the 90’s is way sicker.

Apocalypto is divided in three acts, the first of which establishes the characters and takes a while to get going. Then comes the attack, which is horrific and absolutely harrowing, and we’re off to one hell of a ride. The third act is literally a rush of adrenaline; tension-filled and (somewhat) unpredictable, with the Mexican jungles playing another character altogether. Gibson certainly knows how to shoot a movie, and his passion is palpable out of every frame.

Dean Semler’s photography is extraordinary for the most part, although I didn’t like some action bits in which you realize the movie was shot using digital technology. These instances somehow take you out of the moment. James Horner uses the most out of drums and delivers a fitting score. But it is the costume design and make-up that leave the strongest impression. Breathtaking work.

The actors are uniformly good, with expressive Rudy Youngblood a perfect choice for the lead. Dalia Hernández is also good as his wife, and Morris Birdyellowhead leaves a strong impression as his father.

“My sons and their sons will hunt here after I am gone.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Apocalypto (2006): Groucho

Review

The Pursuit of Happyness

Director

Gabriele Muccino

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 08, 2007

The first thing we learn at the beginning of The Pursuit of Happyness is that it’s based on fact. That’s a very strong statement that usually works wonders to increase the impact of a dramatic story, and this is not an exception. However, it also worked, at least for me, as a tool that allowed huge amounts of suspension of disbelief. Don’t take me wrong—I know life can get hard, and I’m aware that millions of people endure struggles such as Chris Gardner’s from this flick. However, the way the events are presented, you either go with it willingly, understand that this adaptation isn’t fully truthful to fact, or just not buy it.

I later researched and understood that the factual events of Chris Gardner’s life during the period depicted in the film were condensed and dramatized quite extremely, and facts were played with. That’s not a rare practice and indeed it’s necessary in screenwriting, only here it’s a bit in-your-face. Things are bad for Chris (Will Smith) in 1981 San Francisco. He’s a salesman of a medical apparatus that nobody wants, on the purchase of several of which he spent all his life savings. His wife Linda (Thandie Newton) is sick and tired of poverty since they’re constantly living on the edge of homelessness, unable to pay their bills and taxes. Their five-year-old son Christopher (Jaden Christopher Syre Smith, Will’s real-life son) being the main worry of both, things don’t look happy in their horizon.

Quickly and rather hastily the plot takes us down an even darker road. Chris finds himself alone with Christopher and must keep struggling when things look worse than ever. However, he’s made a hasty decision that would seem like the most inappropriate dream to anyone but a man with a strong-as-oak determination: he wants to become a stock broker.

Saying more would spoil the plot, and since I knew nothing I’d rather no one does on my account. However, I can explain what I said in the first paragraph. It’s true that to make a dramatic story successful you need to create obstacles that prevent the hero from getting what he wants. However, the subtlety and credibility of these is crucial. Steve Conrad’s screenplay fails in making such impediments believable, because it becomes an interminable game of hopes and bumps; every time there’s light at the end of the tunnel, there’s a door that closes, often the same size, obstructing just enough to give the viewer a jump but no more than that. An obstacle is overcome, and we go on to the next hope, and so on. It becomes a bit tiresome.

Also, most of Chris’ struggle is portrayed as a very tight schedule. While it’s believable and understandable that time could be our hero’s main problem, the script shows him running to meet deadlines, be it a bus stop or a business appointment or a queue in a home to spend the night. Sure, we all run to meet our deadlines; but that’s not all that worries us in our struggles, and often not what worries us most.

There’s a counterpart to these flaws, however, and it’s the heart. This film has a lot of heart, and it benefits greatly by Smith’s performance; he’s just heartbreaking and thoroughly effective in the many contrasting stages of his character. Young Jaden is a perfect match and their scenes together are the best all the way. Newton is also excellent in her role, though her character is sadly one-dimensional. Another benefit to the ultimate effectiveness of the story is Andrea Guerra’s music; I never heard of him before, but from now I’ll keep my eyes (and ears) open.

“Don't ever let someone tell you, you can't do something. Not even me.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Pursuit of Happyness (2006): Morris

Review

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Director

Larry Charles

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

It is hard to pin-point exactly when I became truly interested in watching Borat. Festivalgoers and movie critics had been raving about it for months, with some of them calling it one of the funniest movies of all time. Talk about overhyping a movie. By the time I saw it I had heard and read so much about it that I was terrified it wouldn’t live up to the buzz. And yes, maybe some scenes I had already seen were not as funny this time around, but I had a blast watching it… and I also came out of it pretty shocked.

Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is a TV reporter from Kazakhstan who is sent to America (“the greatest country in the world”) to report on it. He embarks on the cross-country trip with his producer Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian) and a tight budget. Soon enough Borat catches a glimpse of Pamela Anderson on TV and falls in love with her, making a mission out of finding and marrying her.

Sacha Baron Cohen gained notoriety in his home country (England) with his TV series “Da Ali G Show”. In it, he impersonated mainly three characters—Ali G, Borat and Bruno—and mocked real-life situations ranging from politics to show business. Little did he know that years later he would cause such a stir with the big-screen adaptation of one of his alter-egos. The movie was conceived and written by Anthony Hines, Peter Baynham, Dan Mazer, Todd Phillips and Baron Cohen himself, all of whom received a surprising (given the Academy’s track record) Oscar nomination. The critical and audience acclaim that ensued speaks volumes about a film that is much more than it seems.

Borat goes through America trying to understand a culture that is very different from his own. That said, his way of thinking is an exaggerated fabrication where anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia and racism take center stage. What Baron Cohen does is that he establishes contact with all sorts of people who believe he’s an actual Kazakhstani and spits out incendiary comments. Reactions vary; sometimes people are offended but there are those who don’t see any harm and even add their own politically-incorrect remarks. Watching the movie unfold I either laughed hysterically or stared at the screen with my jaw on the floor. There’s a subversive undercurrent that exposes America in a not-so-flattering way, uncovering issues that are supposed to have been long buried. And the result is nothing short of brilliant.

The last third drags a bit, but it also contains some of the most memorable scenes. A visit to a Christian seminar is truly shocking, and the denouement regarding Borat’s mission pays off hilariously. Other excellent sequences include a bare-naked fight through a hotel (to be seen to be believed), an interview with feminist leaders, a car-hunting sequence and a dinner party that goes terribly wrong. There’s also scatological humor galore, but Baron Cohen and director Larry Charles find a way to cleverly cross the line and make it refreshing.

The mastermind behind the movie also happens to give a standout performance. A prize should be given to him just for being able to keep a straight face while doing his antics. He’s also excellent at improvisation, a necessary asset when dealing with people who aren’t in on the joke. Ken Davitian is also spot-on, and has earned his place among what is surely going to become one of the most remembered screwball scenes in the history of cinema.

“You telling me the man who try to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Apocalypto

Director

Mel Gibson

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

As I do with most movies, I walked into Apocalypto knowing as little as I could about it, but for some reason I was lighthearted; maybe I owed that to the fact that I’d heard people saying it was fun, and being sure that a dense movie about Mayans couldn’t be easily tagged like that by most. Indeed, right away I started having fun, and I kept having fun all the way, while I grew to understand that there’s very little seriousness in this flick, but lots of exciting set pieces.

In fact, my main after-thought was that this is an action film like any other, only disguised as a movie about Mayans. It is not about Mayans, in fact it contains so many historical inaccuracies that it almost deliberately provokes indignation. A few rituals and a couple of customs could be easily substituted by more modern stuff and the lead actor be Bruce Willis instead of unknown Rudy Youngblood and there you have it: an average Hollywood action film. But no, Mel Gibson doesn’t go that way, and frankly I think he’s wise not to. Apocalypto is obviously a film that calls attention to itself because it makes people wonder how it could be greenlighted in the first place. Some people are curious, go to see it, and are rewarded with entertainment, then they recommend it to their friends because they’re so happy they were able to endure such a peculiar film and walk out thrilled. Talk about a formula for success! I admire the effort.

Let’s not demerit the film though. The fact that it was filmed in the jungle and starred by unknowns and spoken in an incomprehensible dialect is a triumph, sure is. There’s passion scene by scene, it shows and pops out of the screen more often than not. The story is quite guttural and effective, dealing with a town being savaged by another and its inhabitants turned into slaves or prostitutes. The story is clearly defined in three acts that are thoroughly enjoyable on their own, the first introducing the setting and characters, the second presenting the battle and further submission of a whole town, and the third action-filled as the hero struggles to return to his family which he hid. Simple storytelling in an awe-inducing fictional world.

The star is Jaguar Paw (Youngblood) who learns a lot from his wise father Flint Sky (Morris Birdyellowhead) in his way to becoming a strong patriarch himself. When another town savages theirs, Jaguar Paw acts wisely by hiding his wife Seven (Dalia Hernández) and their little son Turtles Run (Carlos Emilio Báez) in a cave hole from which they can’t emerge unless someone helps them. Despite his struggles in battle, Jaguar Paw, along with most of his friends and family, is captured, humiliated and taken away to fulfill a new destiny. But he’s determined not to submit to that fate.

The script by Gibson and Farhad Safinia has numerous flaws and clichés, including a couple of deus ex machina cheats that miraculously solve hopeless situations in crucial moments (the most notable involves an astronomical phenomenon). However, it’s beautifully handled by the director, sumptuously accompanied by James Horner’s score, and acted to perfection by the entire cast, particularly Youngblood and Jonathan Brewer, the latter playing the most sensible character in the film, distressed in his everyday life but facing battle and torture like few would. Gerardo Taracena is also quite good as the film’s main villain, Middle Eye.

But the main stars here are the makeup and the costumes; impressive work all the way. Some scenes showing big cities are also breath-taking. You almost forget you’re just watching an average Hollywood flick in a pretty disguise.

“My son... don’t be afraid.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Apocalypto (2006): Morris

Review

Dreamgirls

Director

Bill Condon

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, February 05, 2007

The talk of the town as far as late January 2007 concerns is Dreamgirls, a movie that was mostly, if not generally, received with enthusiasm by critics and audiences alike. This musical holds the distinction of being the only movie in history to manage the task of having the most Oscar nominations without getting a Best Picture nod. That said, awards aren’t everything and a movie has to speak for itself. In this case, it has nothing to be ashamed about.

Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles), Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) and Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose) are a trio of female singers in the early 60s known as The Dreamettes. They don’t seem to get their big break until manager Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx) hires them to be James “Thunder” Early’s (Eddie Murphy) backup singers. From then on their fame skyrockets, as they eventually become a household name of their own, but not without the sacrifices and nastiness that always seems to come with success.

Dreamgirls is based on the legendary Broadway show of the same name and on Tom Eyen’s book, which were themselves (unofficially but clearly) based on Diana Ross’s life with The Supremes. Bill Condon took the task of directing and writing the big-screen adaptation and his work is, to put it mildly, spectacular. There are flaws and shortcomings here and there, but Condon directed the hell out of this thing; a true labor of love.

The songs and music come courtesy of composer Henry Krieger, who is able to capture a difficult time in the history of the United States, as African-Americans were starting to gain notoriety, break barriers and fight for their rights. It was also an era of change regarding music, with Deena Jones and the Dreamettes constantly innovating, making the jump from R&B charts to pop ones. The story plays as an epic depicting a time and place that was crucial to the country’s future through the eyes of show-business and the wars that came from inside it as well, ultimately portraying a universal theme about fame and what it can do to people.

What characterizes Dreamgirls above all is the sheer energy that it brings to the theater. It never stops! Number after number is full of pizzazz and spectacle, edited with amazing flair by Virginia Bratz and beautifully photographed by Tobias A. Schliessler. The music and lyrics are constantly good and catchy, with several numbers standing out such as Effie’s “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going” and Deena’s “Listen”, plus the trio’s two renditions of “Dreamgirls”. Dialogue scenes are played between musical numbers to advance the plot with mixed results, for some are excellent but others feel rather stiff. The movie also suffers from third-act fatigue, as the second half drags in bits and can’t sustain the rhythm that it carried from the beginning.

Fortunately the performances never stop being jaw-droopingly good, especially those of newcomer Jennifer Hudson and comeback kid Eddie Murphy. The former is exhilarating, a force to be reckoned with, the heart and soul of the movie. Not only does she possess an impressive singing voice, but she’s got incredible presence and you miss her when she’s not on screen. Murphy, on the other hand, makes his role look easy, which is the mark of a true talent. He’s all energy and life, but a sad figure when it comes to it. Beyoncé Knowles gets the role of her career and she comes off admirably well, believably playing Deena’s transformation from ingénue to superstar, and not-surprisingly delivering in spades when it comes to singing and dancing. Also excellent are Anika Noni Rose, Sharon Leal, Danny Glover and Jamie Foxx.

“Music is supposed to sell.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Dreamgirls (2006): Groucho

Review

Jackie Brown

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Back in 1995, it was easier to find a Quentin Tarantino fan than virtually any other sort of moviegoer. His Pulp Fiction (1994) shook the world and some of us just couldn’t get enough of its witty dialogue and cinematic inventiveness, despite being influenced by so many films. We all wondered what Tarantino would do next, and some obviously expected him to bring another masterpiece, while others doubted he could be as innovative once again. Sadly, in Christmas of 1997, the release of Jackie Brown proved the latter group right, at least so far.

If anyone knows better, I’d love to be corrected, but my guess is Tarantino worked Jackie Brown without worrying that Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction, his two previous films, were so praised for their originality. This time, he wanted to do a caper film and do it his way, and just have a good time with it. Though so many fans were disappointed, and despite its not being close to his two previous films, the fact is, the movie is not at all bad.

Based on Elmore Leonard’s novel “Rum Punch”, Jackie Brown tells the story of a flight attendant (the title character, played by Pam Grier) getting caught for transporting drugs and money into the United States. She works for gun dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), which Federal officer Ray Nicolet (Michael Keaton) knows very well. She doesn’t confess though, but Robbie fears she will, and Nicolet won’t stop until he gets his man, so Jackie’s position is difficult to say the least.

Hardly willing to bite the bullet however, Jackie plays it against the cops and Robbie, in a game of double-crosses and triple-crosses, with only one real aide: Max Cherry (Robert Forster), a bail bondsman that crosses her path and falls hopelessly in love with her. Jackie hopes to stay on everyone’s good side, out of jail, and even make some extra money (and a lot of it at that).

On Robbie’s side, there’s Louis Gara (Robert De Niro), a grungy and quiet outlaw, and Melanie Ralston (Bridget Fonda), an oversexed junkie. Things start falling apart for “cool” Robbie after two of his people are imprisoned, Beaumont (Chris Tucker) and Jackie, and seeing him lose control gradually is as entertaining as seeing Jackie play her game.

If Jackie Brown has a flaw, it’s not that the movie isn’t as innovative as Tarantino’s previous ones, but rather that it isn’t as energetic. It’s deliberately paced, as the director takes his time to develop every stage of his show before he moves on to the next one. This would work better perhaps if Tarantino wasn’t so insistent in sneaking in his trademark touches, like Melanie’s bare feet, Beaumont’s reluctance to get into Robbie’s trunk (which gives place to a camera shot from inside), and a discussion between Robbie and Louis towards the end, after the latter has done something really stupid (which reminds us of the funniest conversations between Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction). These are flaws not because they aren’t welcome elements, but because they keep reminding us that this is a Tarantino film, and at that, there are many things it lacks.

But as I said, it’s not a bad film at all. It’s stylishly directed, flawlessly edited (by Sally Menke), and very well cast. Despite Jackie being a white woman in the novel, Tarantino chose to revive 70s Blaxploitation star Grier, and she does a good job. This gives way to plenty of 70s songs, including one sung by Grier herself, but most notably The Delfonics’ “Didn’t I Blow Your Mind This Time”. The film is savory in this way among others, and that’s because the director insists on making his films stylish, which he knows how to do very well.

But going back to the cast, Jackson is pretty good, though his performance again reminds us of Pulp Fiction, which turns us down as Robbie is not half as charismatic as Jules Winnfield. De Niro is the biggest name in the cast, but his low-key character doesn’t require much from him. It is perhaps Forster who surprises the most, in a quiet and very sympathetic performance.

The segment that easily becomes the best remembered is one where the same scene is played from three different perspectives. It’s not exactly Rashomon (1950), since here we get the real events every time, but it’s pretty good at completing the same scenario with more interesting facts. For a minute there I got very excited, but it was too late to call the film exciting in all, and the last few minutes turned me down again. Good thing there were so many elements all around to make up for the lulls at every turn.

“I’m serious as a heart attack.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter