CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Titanic

Director

James Cameron

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Saturday, March 31, 2001

Even thou this movie has already been seen by everyone and their mothers, it is still somewhat special to me in more ways than one. You see, when it was first released, Groucho and I saw it at the same time. We were very young and had practically no experience with serious cinema. When we saw this exceptional movie we couldn’t believe what we had actually witnessed. It instantly became the “best movie we had ever seen”. But then again, as you already know, the movie started to become almost an insultingly successful one. Some people got really sick of it because of all the noise surrounding it. I was glad to stay away from all that paraphernalia. I still and will always be in love with this movie.

The story is told as a long flashback narrated by an old Rose De Witt Bukater (Gloria Stuart). She was one of the survivors of the disastrous journey aboard the “Titanic”, the ship that was known as the unsinkable. Rose (Kate Winslet) was a high society girl unhappy with her frivolous life and the fact that she was engaged to Cal Hockley (Billy Zane), a man she didn’t love at all. Then came Jack Dawson (Leonardo Di Caprio), a poor man that lived by the day and that was everything she was looking for: a free spirit. After a rather curious encounter, they fell in love. Now they would have to survive through a society that didn’t allow it and later to literally save their lives to be always together.

Clocking at a little more than 3 hours, this has to be the shortest three-hour movie I’ve ever seen in my life. The story is so compelling and well told that we don’t feel anything except what we are watching in the screen. It is a classic romance in the truest sense of the word. But the movie also works as a drama, a comedy, a thriller, an adventure, you name it. Therein lies the reason of its success. It is a movie that absorbs you and blows you away. An epic just as epics should be done.

It is amazing how even if we know what’s going to happen at the end the movie never drags. It has a wonderful script that keeps things going on. There are some quibbles here, I must say, in the way sometimes banal dialogue is spoken. But it is all so grand that you don’t care. The movie is impeccably done. From the great score by James Horner to every single technical aspect, you won’t find anything to complain about in that sense. The recreation of the sinking of the “Titanic” is shockingly real, as are the emotions we fell for this fellow people that mix fiction characters with real –life ones. Attention to detail is basic in this kind of film, and James Cameron pulled it off.

As a director, he is in top form here. Cameron realized an almost impossible task and it is shown through every single frame. His actors do help as well. Leonardo Di Caprio is excellent as the man in search of a new world and a new meaning to his life. Kate Winslet is impressive as always and gives one of her best performances to date. Simply amazing trying to cover a great deal of emotions: from unhappy to deeply in love, going through a sense of loss and fulfillment at the same time. Legendary Gloria Stuart has a brief role but an undeniable presence. And they are joined by a great supporting cast that also includes Kathy Bates, Billy Zane, Bill Paxton, Frances Fisher and many more.

This movie will move you in many levels. It is a great story worth to be told. A one-of-a-kind experience. Filled with wonderful sequences and unforgettable images. That first kiss, or those orchestra tunes while everything is falling apart only add up to an already magic motion picture where everything becomes glorious.

“I’ll never let go”


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Gold Rush

Director

Charles Chaplin

Year

1925

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Friday, March 30, 2001

One of the unforgettable gems by Charlie Chaplin, The Gold Rush really manages to captivate the viewer with each and every one of this great filmmaker’s best elements in his films: a tragicomic story full of pathos, romance, pantomime and knockout scenes of pure magic that break even the hardest heart.

The Little Tramp goes to Alaska in search of gold, along with hundreds. Quite unlucky, he not only finds no gold, but ends up trapped in a cabin during a storm with a starving man (Mack Swain) who eventually tries to eat him, though later they become good friends. His misadventures get worse when he establishes in a little town and falls in love with gorgeous Georgia (Georgia Hale), who not only gives him a heartache but also gets him in trouble with her bully boyfriend (Malcolm Waite).

In the meantime, the tiny adventurer gets away from trouble without much effort (or notice), dreams of better times and manages to make a decent living… not without its fun.

An irresistible set of tragic events filled with loveliness and a warm atmosphere, this film is impossible to dislike, and presents one of the most dynamic performances by Chaplin. The all-so-happy finale is completely credible and makes up for all prior tragedy, which leaves you with a nice taste in your mouth and a great emotion that doesn’t just pass overnight.

This is also great for containing some of Chaplin’s most classic scenes, which are also some of his greatest, funniest and most poignant: the dance of the breads, the swinging cabin and the eating of a leather shoe.

A must-see, immortal silent comedy.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Good Will Hunting

Director

Gus Van Sant

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, March 28, 2001

An outstanding drama, Good Will Hunting tells the story of Will Hunting, a unique 20-year-old genius with a bad attitude. Thrilled to learn, he becomes a janitor at M.I.T., where he’s discovered by a triumphant Mathematician/Teacher, Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgård). Interested in this unguided prodigy, Professor Lambeau takes him into deep Math and sessions of psychoanalysis, which really wakes up the kid’s rebel spirit. After a couple of failures, Lambeau goes to an old friend/rival, Sean Maguire (Robin Williams). Maybe this man can get into Will and turn him from an impossible kid into a cooperating genius.

The depth of this story is so amazing, it’s unbelievable that it was written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, the young costars of this film. They managed to create a completely believable working-class genius who hangs out with his friends and finds no relief in a love relationship, but also a huge set of characters surrounding him that add something great to the story. Damon is more than perfect in the title role. His quick dialogs and defensive scenes are definitely hard to forget. Affleck is a great support as his best friend, Skarsgård compelling as the frustrated winner and Minnie Driver unforgettable as the woman who loves the genius, though he is too afraid to love anybody. However, Robin Williams steals the show as the self-assured, confident and isolated psychiatrist who still loves his dead wife and prefers to be a poor man than a politically correct, award-winning scientist.

Damon and Williams provide the best scenes of this film, deepening into the problems of both characters, but especially Will’s. We are definitely unconscious of what his attitude means and why he behaves that way until an unforgettable scene where Maguire finally breaks into his mind and meets the real Will. One of the most poignant scenes I’ve ever seen develops here.

Gus Van Sant’s direction and Danny Elfman’s score add to the beauty of this classic film from the late 90s. It is a profound, unique character study that goes on smoothly and easily from the very beginning to the final scene.

Heck, even the film’s title is profound! Check it out as soon as possible if you haven’t had the pleasure of seeing it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gladiator

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Vincent

Review date

Sunday, March 25, 2001

Well, it’s official now. This is the best film of the year 2000 according to the Oscars. And while this is by no means justified, I am glad in a way. For this will forever serve as a reminder to what kind of a poor year this has been for the cinema.

I didn’t understand the hype surrounding Gladiator in May (coming to think of it, I don’t think anybody considered it as a serious contender for the most prestigious award in film-land back then), and I don’t understand it now. I just thought of it as a Hollywood blockbuster which was pretty good as blockbusters go, but we all know that that isn’t very far.

The story is kept to a bare minimum. An aging Roman ruler (Richard Harris) is dying and he doesn’t want to leave his empire to his son. He’d rather leave it to Maximus (Russell Crowe), a very capable military officer, whom he considers his son as well. The real son, Commodus, (Joaquin Phoenix) learns about this and doesn’t take half measures. He kills his father and plans the same for Maximus and his family. And while he succeeds in killing his family, Maximus survives, becomes a slave, then a gladiator. This way he comes to Rome and wants to take revenge

The movie opens on a battlefield and the scene promises to be pretty impressive, but as soon as the action starts, Ridley Scott decides to go for fuzzy and muddled slow-motion rather than full-blooded, in-your-face combat. Maybe this was done to keep an acceptable rating, but I found it rather annoying. But at least the film still showed some life signs here.

After this scene the movie seems to go to sleep for forty minutes. In this time we are treated to one of the year’s worst performances by Richard Harris, and the issue of who becomes the heir, which seems to take forever. Following the attack on Maximus’ life the movie follows to take all the expected turns, including the unlikely finale in which a Roman dictator would actually get into the arena and fight, and I don’t need to tell you that he will cheat and still lose.

Another problem I have with the film is that it takes itself very seriously indeed. There is no room for some comedy, and when a film runs 2 ½ hours you need some relief. Everything is gloomy, even Rome seems like a dark place that doesn’t get a lot of sunlight, which it did get in real life surely.

Visually the film looks good, but with a budget of over $100 million you don’t expect any less. And I didn’t really think the effects were that impressive.

What makes the film watchable are the performances (besides Harris’ of course). Crowe is impressive in the lead, and so is Phoenix despite being seriously hampered by one of those terribly written, one dimensional, Billy Zane-type bad guy roles. The support by reliable actors like the late Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi and Connie Nielsen is fine as well.

Ridley Scott seems like a nice man and I am happy for him that he is now enjoying success again after some pretty dreadful films. But he should be glad that he didn’t win the Oscar for this one. He should just use the new credibility he has and make better and more serious films and then an Oscar will surely be his some day.

You have to admire any film that has the balls to actually show a person entering heaven, and once again it is not a terrible film. But it is nothing more than a crowd-pleasing blockbuster, hardly deserving the Oscar, especially when more serious and adult films like Traffic (2000) and You Can Count On Me were also eligible.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Chocolat

Director

Lasse Hallström

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Saturday, March 24, 2001

In 1958 Vianne Rocher (Juliette Binoche) and her daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol) move into a small French village to open a chocolaterie just as lent is beginning. The narrow-minded mayor (Alfred Molina) doesn’t approve any changes and tries to make Vianne and her daughter outcasts. But her kindness and warm personality win over the towns people. Not to forget about the delicious chocolates! The self-determined Vianne helps Josephine Muscat (Lena Olin) to free herself from her abusive marriage and she also becomes friends with her landlady Armande Voisin (Judi Dench). When a group of river drifters arrives in town the tranquilité is even more disturbed and the mayor spreads the word of his mission against immorality.

I couldn’t have been more surprised how a simple story can brighten up the screen as Chocolat does. This is mainly due to the stunning and very likable performances by all members of the cast. Juliette Binoche couldn’t have been more charming and convincing. Judi Dench steals the show as stubborn old lady that she plays with dignity. Moreover Alfred Molina’s character of the mayor turns out to be not the real bad guy as he is simply a man with high moral standards that had to find out that his own wife was not following his principles. To compensate this disappointment and loss he tries to educate his towns people to better human beings. Johnny Depp was perfect for the role of Roux, but my favorite choice would still be the charming invisible kangaroo Pantoufle.

At first sight Chocolat looks like a simple fairy tale. But if you have a closer look it resembles a parable. It deals with moral issues like tradition and progress, love and lust, self-esteem and obstinacy and above all with tolerance. The magic and beauty of the story lies in its small details and simplicity. Chocolat is an irresistible temptation for all senses. It is a light comedy that made me fall in love with movies all over again. I can only recommend a cup of hot chocolate with some chili pepper to anyone not in favor of this movie!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Director

Joel Coen

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, March 21, 2001

Outstanding, thoroughly delectable Coen brothers film, updating the classic poem by Homer, “The Odyssey,” by setting it in the South of the US, during the depression era.

George Clooney is incredibly charismatic as Ulysses Everett McGill, the man whose misadventures in the search for his long-lost love have no comparison. John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson are terrific as his companions, who flew away from prison in search of a dream.

Lightweight comedy all along makes this quite complicated story an easy, joyous ride. The film presents a bunch of interesting characters that become even more interesting when they turn out to be modern version of characters from “The Oddisey.” John Goodman is especially good as the Cyclops.

In search for a treasure that doesn’t exist, our friends befriend a black man who sold his soul to the devil and sing a song that becomes another character in the story. From there they go where we can hardly imagine and always meet an interesting twist in their lives.

There is also a considerable dose of surrealism along the way, only this time it’s mostly in our minds. This film goes deeper than meets the eye.

Holly Hunter is funny as hell as Everett’s ex-wife, but this is mostly Clooney’s show.

The Coens have managed to create a film that matches their best style. At the level of Raising Arizona (1987), O Brother, Where Art Thou? will live forever. This is the kind of film that improves with age.

I dare you to see it and be able to forget the song “I am a Man of Constant Sorrow” in less than one week!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Traffic

Director

Steven Soderbergh

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

I have said it over and over again: this is, without any doubt, Steven Soderbergh’s year. You’ve heard it too. With Erin Brockovich under his belt, he managed to come up with an even more ambitious but equally satisfying movie. Its name is Traffic.

There are three parallel stories going on here involving the world of drugs. Mexican cop Javier Rodríguez (Benicio del Toro) struggles to be honest while getting involved with General Salazar (Tomás Millan) and his scheme to finish with the Juarez Cartel, while trying to keep some order with his partner Manolo (Jacob Vargas) as well. Meanwhile in San Diego, Robert Wakefied (Michael Douglas) is appointed as the new drugs czar without even knowing that his own daughter Carolina (Erika Christensen) is involved in drugs along with his boyfriend Seth (Topher Grace). Near San Diego, society wife Helena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) has to deal with the fact that his husband (Carlos Ayala) has been arrested on drug trafficking charges while two cops (Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman) are investigating the case that also involves a drug dealer (Tomas Millan).

Complicated? You bet. But Steven Soderbergh’s hand behind it all makes it easy to follow. He photographed the movie himself giving each place a distinctive look and color, not to mention that the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera that gives it a more real approach. Soderbergh, along with his editor, blend the three stories together so magnificently that it all feels like one continual flow while we never loose interest. It is perfectly done.

Now, as you can see, this movie has epic proportions. It covers almost every single corner of the drugs world and bombards us with information and important references. It is an in-your-face look at the so-called war on drugs. But its greatness has a lot to do with the way the characters are all three-dimensional and unique, but it still reaches everything there is to uncover . Besides, it is not preachy or overly sentimental. In fact, it is more of a cynical and pessimistic look. It provides no easy answers and the only thing we could get from here is that this war is no way near its end.

Having more than 130 speaking parts and considered by myself and many others to be the best acted movie of the year says something about the quality of this performances. The standouts are Michael Douglas (always believable), Benicio del Toro (touching and sincere, like nothing we have seen before coming from him), Catherine Zeta-Jones (surprisingly holds her own and gives a very strong performance), Don Cheadle (reliable and splendid as it’s common of him) and Erika Christensen (impressive and heart-wrenching). The rest of the cast is uniformly good. Their performances are all of the kind that make you go and say “this is the best work I’ve seen them do”. They’re all that good. And impressive cameos from the likes of Albert Finney, Benjamin Bratt and my beloved Salma Hayek are always welcomed.

One of the best movies of the year, it is crude, violent, real, strong, suspenseful, original, honest and much more, all in one. Stephen Gaghan’s script is simply brilliant and the score is also pretty good. I specially loved the very last scene of the movie. Quite arguably the best movie about drugs ever made.

“I feel like a traitor.”



CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before Night Falls

Director

Julian Schnabel

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, March 19, 2001

Extravagant biography of Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas offers not only the true story of a passionate man constantly repressed for his sexuality and his artistic abilities, but also a brilliant storytelling that takes us deep into this guy’s mind. A rarely seen mixture of documentary, autobiography and a bit of surrealism has great results.

However, it’s not that which makes this film a good one; it is Javier Bardem and his unique, intense portrayal of Arenas who makes up for all the film has which might not be very good for some people. As a matter of fact, there were times when I felt that the film was kind of dull, but Bardem always made me smile. He plays an extremely charming, extremely gay man who has no inhibitions and no limitations. His presence turns this movie into an unforgettable experience.

The adaptation of Arenas's novel “Antes que Anochezca” really transmits what he surely would have wanted.

A one-man odyssey with constant twists and turns, Before Night Falls is a worthwhile experience.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Untouchables

Director

Brian De Palma

Year

1987

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, March 15, 2001

Many movies have been made based on old TV series. Most times they don't work and it’s perfectly comprehensible. How can you update a story in just two hours about well-known characters and still stay true to the story without loosing the mood and humor? It's difficult, but not impossible. And this is the case where it worked out pretty well.

The Untouchables takes place in Prohibition-Era Chicago. Al Capone (Robert de Niro) is the most powerful man and all sorts of crimes are committed everyday. Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is a federal agent whose only wish is to end all the corruption, which would mean to destroy Capone. This way, he seeks help from an old policeman (Sean Connery), a sharp-shooting young recruit (Andy Garcia) and a counter (Charles Martin Smith). This men are now called "Untouchables" and together they start a small war by frustrating various attacks perpetuated by Capone. It is now a matter of continuing.

Tragedies occur, people die, but Ness has just one idea in his mind and he fights for it, no matter what. He is a man with an illusion and with an image of how the place where he leaves could be better. That’s his motif and it is a very strong one indeed. Brian de Palma has here one of his best works. He manages to tell the story without any false sentimentality, without pointless subplots, without letting it all slip from his hands.

The final shoot-out at the train station might be one of the most effective sequences of all time. It is astonishing and breathtaking, with the level of adrenaline going through the roof. It is with this brilliancy that the movie ends up being such a pleasure to watch.

Kevin Costner is usually good in this kind of roles, and here he is in fine form. But it is Sean Connery who steals the show and gives a great supporting performance. Being as charismatic as he is, you can't avoid to notice how perfectly he manages his craft. Robert De Niro also delivers a great seriocomic performance as Capone. The score by Ennio Morricone and the photography are not easy to forget. A perfect example of how to make a good movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bad and the Beautiful

Director

Vincente Minnelli

Year

1952

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Vincent

Review date

Wednesday, March 14, 2001

Interestingly this film was made in the same year and by the same studio that gave us Singin’ in the Rain. Both films are about Hollywood, but they show different sides of this city and the film industry. This story, directed by Vincente Minnelli, tells of the uglier side of Tinseltown but nonetheless it still remains very entertaining, although it is nowhere near as good or bitter as that other exposé about the film capitol, Sunset Boulevard (1950).

Kirk Douglas stars as Jonathan Shields, movie producer. Through the stories told by three of his closest friends; a director (Barry Sullivan), an actress (Lana Turner) and a writer (Dick Powell), we get to know him better. He is the son of a legendary Hollywood figure who struggled to break into the business. Through hard work, luck and some backstabbing he achieved success, but now his friends have deserted him and he has found success hard to come by.

Most of the characters in this film were based on actual people. Most obviously Kirk Douglas character was supposedly based on David Selznick, who at one point considered suing the producers. Look closely and you’ll see elements of the lives of horror producer Val Lewton, directors Alfred Hitchcock and Fritz Lang, writer F. Scott Fitzgerald and the actress Diana Barrymore. All this makes the film very amusing for serious film buffs, but “regular” people might find the stories a bit too dull.

The biggest problem I have with the film however is that it tries to show the less attractive side of Hollywood, but the film itself is almost unwatchably beautiful and stylish (it is an MGM film after all). Everything seems to be covered with white silk and the cameraman Robert Surtees uses too much soft-focus that makes the film more dreamlike, instead of feeling harsh and real. Also it goes on a bit too long.

There are many good things to be said about this picture though. The acting by the principles is good, whilst the support from actors like Gloria Grahame (who won an Oscar, one of five awarded to the film) and Walter Pidgeon is even better. The script has some good ideas and clever lines and certain scenes achieve a very high level. Overall it adds up to a very entertaining film which I feel somehow could have been even better, but then again you can’t have everything.

The Bad and the Beautiful employs basically the same flashback devise made famous by Citizen Kane (1941). This is perhaps no coincidence since the producer of this film is John Houseman, who worked very closely with Orson Welles.

If you can you should try and make this a double-bill with Two Weeks in Another Town (1962) which deals with the same material and much of the same cast and again was directed by Minnelli.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Girlfight

Director

Karyn Kusama

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Saturday, March 10, 2001

Girlfight caught my eye from the very beginning. Diana Guzman (incredibly compelling: Michelle Rodriguez), a Latin girl, lives in poor circumstances with no aspirations whatsoever. She does poorly in school and unlike the "normal" girls she doesn’t want to talk about lipsticks and diets. Diana rather uses her fists to settle disagreements and finds herself in trouble again and again. When she enters the boxing hall in which her brother is training she somehow is captivated by this powerful sport and starts fighting for her right to train even though she is "just a girl." The viewer finds out that Diana has to deal with her mother’s suicide, a father that does not care about what she is doing and a brother that is not tough enough for this part of the world. Boxing becomes a channel for Diana’s aggressions and she soon finds herself in love with a boxer that begins evolving feelings for this unusual girl. As her boxing skills improve she wins fight after fight but her opponent in the final round of the championship is nobody else but her boyfriend.

This movie is so much more than a sports movie. It’s about a girl becoming a woman. It’s about realizing how tough life can be. It’s about using skills that others only see as weakness to gain the strength you need to survive. To be honest I could identify with Diana perfectly. She feels that all those thin, arrogant girlies are phony and shallow. She speaks her mind no matter what – even if it gets her nothing but trouble. I know what it feels like not to match the stereotype of a girl. A woman that says what she thinks is considered a bitch. Mainly this seems to be the reason why I get along with boys better than with girls, just like Diana who feels attracted to the domain of men, the boxing ring. Although Diana’s life seems to be a dead-end with no direction her power and strength keep her going.

Diana hardly shows any weaknesses as we only get a glimpse of her feelings and dreams when she talks to her coach (Jaime Tirelli) who becomes a substitute for her father and her boyfriend Adrian (Santiago Douglas). Girlfight is the constant struggle of a misunderstood girl that turns into a self-determined woman. By the end of the movie you understand Diana's motivation perfectly. The only thing that she ever wanted was to be respected as the person that she is. You can tell Diana has found this respect when she cries – the only time that she actually behaves like a girl. There's a lot of truth in this movie and the documentary style pays tribute to this realism.

Girlfight is a complex movie that deals with social matters on a personal level. Michelle Rodriguez' intense performance will remain unforgettable. "Champions are made, not born."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hilary and Jackie

Director

Anand Tucker

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Friday, March 09, 2001

Comparing movies to one another is the daily bread of the critic:

“Don’t you think that Edward Norton has the class of an actor like, for example, Robert DeNiro?”
“Didn’t you think that Episode I was an unworthy prequel to Star Wars?”
“Do you think that Gladiator was better than Erin Brockovich?”

Sentences like these show the central problem of reviewing motion pictures – few of them are actually alike but then again what else but comparing films does an institution like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the Foreign Press do when they give away awards?

Usually when I write a review (and so far I’ve only written four) I can be analytical about a movie. Of course it’s impossible to be objective when dealing with art but you can still attempt to find things that you liked and that fit into place in you opinion.

However sometimes it’s quite impossible for me to be objective.

If I tried to be analytical about Hilary and Jackie I would probably write something like this: “..great script, plot of great tragic depth and a stunning performance by Emily Watson..”. However I’m not capable of comparing this movie to any other I know and I am even less capable of rating it because – quite simply – it just hit me too darn hard.

Hilary and Jackie is based on the biographical novel “A Genius in the Family” by Piers and Hilary du Pré (the real-life Hilary du Pré) and it describes the unusual life of the du Pré sisters.

The two lively girls are born into a family of music enthusiasts. Their mother Iris (Celia Imrie) is thrilled to see Hilary (played by Rachel Griffiths) making great progress as a flautist and gives her much attention because of her assumed talent. Her younger sister Jackie plays the cello but is not regarded as equally gifted by her parents. After Hilary plays a concert for the BBC Iris scolds Jackie for “not playing as well as her sister” and charges her to study harder if she wants to be as popular as Hilary.

The young cellist surprises everybody including her sister by practicing on her instrument with limitless discipline and after a while she outshines her sister. Following a debut concert at Wigmore Hall in London, Jackie takes on a brilliant career as an international star cellist and leaves her family behind to tour the world.

At this point the story splits into to separate chapters, one telling Hilary’s story and the other dealing with her sister’s life.

After failing at her flautist exam, Hilary withdraws from life as a professional musician. She marries Kiffer Finzi (David Morrissey) and moves to a small farm in rural England. She realizes that leading an ordinary life is fulfilling to her and that she doesn’t have the ambition to become a star like her sister.

Meanwhile Jackie has played concerts throughout Europe and is basically living a nomadic life racing from one hotel to another. Nobody is interested in anything but her genius as a cellist and she feels isolated and lonely. Although she is engaged with Jewish star conductor Daniel Barenboim (James Frain), even he admits he could not love her without her musical talent. Out of her desperation, Jackie decides to run away and visits Kiffer, Hilary and their two children whom she secretly envies for their quiet and simple life.

At this point one of the major dramatic twists of the story comes into play – Jackie wants to have sex with Hilary’s husband. Of course Hilary and Kiffer are shocked but when Jackie has a nervous breakdown they grant her this immoral wish.

After Kiffer has slept with Jackie the sisters’ relationship changes dramatically. Hilary is afraid that Jackie will take everything away from her that she loves – her family and her husband. Jackie on the other hand long for a place that she can call home and a man that loves her for her own sake and not because of her music. When the tension between the three gets too strong Hilary tells her sister to leave. Jackie is alone once again and when she discovers that she is ill from Multiple Sclerosis she loses the only thing that she had left – her music. The film does not stop here but the viewer shares Jackie’s pain and witnesses the slow and merciless process that transforms the cheerful woman into a cripple. Hilary returns to her sister’s side just before Jackie dies and reminds her of her words when they were both children: “Remember Jacks, you always told me that everything was going to be alright...”.

The are many different aspects of the film that have fascinated as well as touched me and for your sake I will focus solely on one of them.

Although the two sisters are different in many ways their relationship is so strong that it survives even the extreme level of conflict that Jackie’s affair with Kiffer generates. While at first Jackie’s personality seems a mystery to the viewer, director Anand Tucker takes us into the very soul of this woman that is gifted and cursed alike. Jackie does not want to sleep with Kiffer because she wants to take something away from her sister but because she wishes to share the experience of unconditional love with her sister and because it is incomprehensible to her that she is denied something as simple as love and understanding. While Hilary suffers from being compared to her ingenious sister and constantly being confused with her, Jackie is the victim of her own fame. When Hilary meets Kiffer she states “He gives me the feeling that I’m special” and Jackie coolly replies “Hils, you’re not special”. Of course this appears to be very cruel of Jackie but in a way it is the truth – Hilary is a much happier person due to the fact that she is loved as a person and not because of her talent.

There is an immortal scene at the end of the movie when Hilary drives home after Jackie has died. On the radio there’s a 45-second obituary.

“Last night the famous cellist Jackie du Pré died of Multiple Sclerosis at the age of 42. Her interpretation of Beethoven will be remembered for forever...”

A human being is reduced to a function and nothing more. An entire life, regarded as fruitful and admirable by others is wasted and ends in misery.

The direction of Anand Tucker gives the picture a very harmonious pace and the entire cast of Hilary and Jackie does an excellent job. However this is Emily Watson’s greatest performance and her expression of love, suffering, fury and pain is for me almost without equal. Hilary and Jackie asks some of the most elemental questions in life – is it good to be “special”? Is it a curse to be talented? Is love something you deserve or something that you have to fight for?

Like I said earlier it is impossible for me to compare this masterpiece because in itself it is simply perfect, absolutely flawless. I can’t say that it is an entertaining film because entertainment usually doesn’t hurt as much as Hilary and Jackie hurts.

Personally it has touched as well as scared me to see how someone can be destroyed by what he loves and what price has to be paid to achieve true greatness in life. Or to quote Jackie’s last words:

“As long as you play they all love you. Once you stop they’re all gone.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Exorcist

Director

William Friedkin

Year

1973

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, March 08, 2001

When this movie arrived at theaters in 1973 it instantly became a phenomenal success. Even more, it quickly became part of a culture. It became an instant classic. Through time, it has had countless imitations. It has influenced thousands. And then in 2000, it was re-released with additional footage. Is all this paraphernalia worth it? Well, you bet.

The movie tells the parallel stories of Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn), a well-known actress who suddenly has to face some strange things happening to her 12-year old daughter Regan (Linda Blair). While at first she thinks she has some kind of illness, it is later revealed that there might be even bigger forces behind. Then there’s the story of Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), a priest who has some resentment concerning his feelings towards her mother and is somewhat loosing his faith. This two stories suddenly collide, as they all get involved in some dirty game of the Devil and mysterious Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow) has to come to the aid.

This movie has been given the label of “the scariest movie of all time” by many. I think it would be overrating it a bit to say that. Even if it is true that when it came out people were shocked because they hadn’t seen some of the stuff happening here, one would think the movie would have lost its impact with age. But that couldn’t be more far from the truth. It continues to be as powerful as it always has. And that’s because this movie doesn’t only serve as a scary vehicle. The way I see it, it’s more like a drama. It is more preoccupied in developing its characters. And the fact that there is a possessed child doing terrible stuff is only part of an already interesting plot. It’s all about the lives of these people, whether it means the terrible impotence of not knowing what to do for your child or the way priests live day by day and the things they must face.

But of course, there’s the presence of the Devil himself, and it couldn’t be more impacting. The transformation of this sweet innocent girl into a full-mouthed monster is absolutely breath-taking. The combination of the makeup, the sound effects and Linda Blair’s performance clearly created something memorable and unforgettable. They all did a great job. And the result is terrifying.

The rest of the performances couldn’t have been better as well. Ellen Busrtyn admirably demonstrates why she is considered to be such a fine actress. How her character slowly breaks up is admirably performed. Jason Miller is excellent as the confused priest who must challenge himself in order to survive. And Max Von Sydow bring so much needed presence to an already memorable character.

The movie takes a while arriving to an already known point by the audience. But never mind about those quibbles. There’s nothing like seeing that classic scene of the priest arriving in a cab, then stopping to stare at the window while the light points at him. And the last 20 minutes of the movie are definitely as intense as they can get. Quite a chilling experience.

“I’m afraid”


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Exorcist (1973): Groucho

Review

Shadow of the Vampire

Director

E. Elias Merhige

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, March 07, 2001

A good addition to 1922’s classic Nosferatu, Shadow of the Vampire details the production of that film and creates a whole fantasy about the hypothesis that Max Schreck, the actor who played the first, ugliest and arguably best vampire ever, was really a vampire.

A tribute to the finest and scariest vampire film ever made, Shadow of the Vampire is mostly a good effort at rendering time and place, though its story is not as profound as one might expect. An over-the-top F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) makes this a comic fantasy, especially when dealing with vampire Schreck (Willem Dafoe) and trying to keep his team calm while being trapped in the weirdest of situations.

The film is mostly benefited by Dafoe’s astounding performance as Schreck. As ugly as Nosferatu ever was, Dafoe gets into character perfectly well, playing a vampire who plays an actor who plays a vampire. He gives the character a heart while being a not-so-proud vampire.

A mildly entertaining film, must-see for movie buffs.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Malèna

Director

Giuseppe Tornatore

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, March 06, 2001

If I had too choose a foreign country whose movies I love the most it would definitely be Italy. Through history it has demonstrated to be a wonderful country with a beautiful language and a lot of talent. Writer/Director Giouseppe Tornatore is a living proof of that.

In his latest movie, Tornatore brings us back in time to World War II. It’s a small town in fascist Italy. People love Mussolini, and they mainly have a monotonous life. Among this we find young Renato (Giussepe Sulfaro), whose life takes a turning path when, in the same day, he gets his first bicycle, Mussolini declares war and, most important of all, he meets Malena (Monica Bellucci). She is the most beautiful woman he has ever seen. Her husband is now at war and she awaits for him patiently. For every man in town, she is a sexual object. When she passes by, men can’t look away, while women just gossip and hate her. Her beauty is so ravishing that she can’t help but produce envy and discomfort. Suddenly Renato becomes obsessed about her, and it’s through his eyes that we get to know Malena’s sad story and see her as a human being. All of this while he himself grows up into a man.

When I saw this movie I wasn’t expecting to be blown away the way I was. There is something beyond special going on here. This story is beautiful. Tornatore brings back that nostalgic tone so effective in his Cinema Paradiso and once again delivers an emotionally powerful movie.

Malena is a human being. Too bad no one notices. Only Renato slowly comes to know her better than anyone. He falls in love with her. He idealizes her and sees her as his heroine. She provokes his sexual awakening. But what’s beyond that beautiful woman with the sad look? That’s something we have to discover along the path with him. And it’s a difficult journey. Malena’s story is like no one else’s. Her sin is the way she looks. And it’s not an easy guilt to carry on with. It is amazing how the movie starts as a light comedy and then turns into a full-blown drama. It is not a gratuitous shift, but an inevitable one. It is until tragedy arrives that Renato starts figuring out how the world works. How life is not as easy as it seems, and how one’s dignity is the most precious gift we can keep. This is when Renato starts becoming a man. This is where he must face reality, even if he doesn’t like it.

Giussepe Sulfaro, in his feature debut, leaves a very strong impression. The movie works mainly because of him and the way he carries his character. Here’s a boy who can affront almost anything in his life, but he can’t go and say a word to her. And Monica Bellucci is nothing short of splendid as the title character. Some say all she had to do is look gorgeous, but I think that’s quite unfair. She does an admirable transition throughout the movie and even if she has almost no dialogue, she manages to transmit a large gamut of feelings with her sole presence. This is a very well acted and crafted motion picture.

Ennio Morricone’s score gives it the right touch. It is always adequate while still being beautiful and haunting. The music along Lajos Koltai’s camera work elevate this already special movie into something greater. And Tornatore’s presence is felt all over the place. He is the man behind one of the best pictures of the year, and he keeps being as good as always.

Everyone should see this movie. It really affected me so I heartily recommend it. It has it all and there are some images you won’t forget. A melancholic coming-of-age tragic story.



CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Exorcist

Director

William Friedkin

Year

1973

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, March 05, 2001

One of the top-chilling films of all time, The Exorcist still works to perfection at terrorizing the audience in a way few films have ever achieved. Though a little dated for today’s standards, it still maintains tension and uncertainty from start to finish. It is a unique achievement in the horror genre, by the director of French Connection, The (1971).

Based on the novel by William Peter Blatty (and scripted by himself, who also produced), the storyline is simple. It details the experiences of Father Karras (breathtaking Jason Miller) as he loses his mother and questions his faith and his vocation while he regrets not having dedicated his life to something else. At the same time, a successful actress, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), has to deal with a sudden and quite violent change in her adorable daughter, Regan (Linda Blair). What the change is, and how should they deal with it, makes the performances of these ladies simply unforgettable.

Finding no solution in Medicine or even Psychoanalysis, Chris contacts Father Karras, who then proceeds to encounter the Devil, not only in little Regan, but in himself…

The magic of the film lies in the parallelism between Karras’ personal drama and the demonic presence inside Regan. The story as it’s seen at first sight might be impressive, but can’t be compared to the poignancy of the inner story that can be seen only through careful observation.

The footage that was added to the recent Director’s Cut doesn’t improve the film very much. Probably the longer Iraq introduction is good, but the other scenes are kind of gory and unnecessary. Anyway, they don’t decrease the film in quality. It’s still a masterpiece from start to finish.

My choice as the best horror movie ever.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Exorcist (1973): Morris

Review

The Terminator

Director

James Cameron

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Vincent

Review date

Saturday, March 03, 2001

When my brother recently bought The Terminator on DVD I was watching it with him. I wasn’t expecting to like it very much. The last time I had seen it must have been 10 years ago when I was in my early teens. Back then me and a friend of mine used to rent out films a lot and this was one of the films we liked best.

But then again, like most boys in their early teens, we didn’t have particularly high standards back then. So surely after having been exposed to the finest things cinema has to offer like, Scorsese, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Truffaut, Welles and all those, this James Cameron sci-fi actioneer shouldn’t be special anymore. How wrong I was.

The film worked remarkably well for me. It was as good as I remembered it to be, which certainly isn’t the case with most of the movies I was watching ten years ago. It is fast paced, well plotted and contains some pretty good action stunts. Also there are some decent performances here (yes, even by Arnie).

The story is known by everybody, I expect. In the future, Man has made a mess of things, which is why computers and robots are now running the show. The only person who could defeat them is a man by the name of John Connor. He does bring the machines to their knees so the only way the machines can win is by travelling back in time to wipe him out. And to take no chances they do that by killing the person who will conceive him, his mother Sarah (Linda Hamilton).

Luckily for us the remaining humans were able to send one of their own back in time as well to protect Sarah and take out the terminator. His name is Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), who not only protects Sarah but also impregnates her and becomes John’s father. A pretty dangerous thing if you ask me because a different father will likely mean a different John who might not be able to lead the rebellion. Oh yeah, but those characteristics were probably given to him by his mother, who is still the same person. Anyway this is just nit-picking.

The effects in the film also hold up very well. The only thing giving away its 17 year age is a nightclub scene which features some unforgivably bad 80’s hairstyles and dance routines.

In the central role Linda Hamilton is effective. The best performance however is by Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is totally believable as a robot, which are the only roles he should be playing. He may not be the next Laurence Olivier, John Barrymore or John Gielgud but neither of those guys could have played the terminator any better or convincing than Arnie does here.

The film makes good use of some downtown LA locations.

The sequel was inevitable of course. Made seven years later, T-2-Judgment Day (1991) as it would be known was bigger in every way but not better. Arnie now was a big star and couldn’t play the bad guy role anymore. He was still a robot, but now one who was on the right side. This required a little more acting and Arnie was not up to that. T-2 was essentially the same movie but with more and better effects which, though impressive (certainly at the time), also take away some of the human aspects that were definitely there in the first one.

On the DVD there is also an in-depth documentary. The most scary thing revealed to me in that was that O.J. Simpson was at one time the most likely man to play the terminator. In the end he didn’t get the role of a merciless, killing machine but a couple of years later he showed us he could have been quite convincing!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gods and Monsters

Director

Bill Condon

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Friday, March 02, 2001

Gods and Monsters depicts the last days in the life of director James Whale (Ian McKellen) who has brought us such classic monster movies as Frankenstein (1931), The Bride of Frankenstein and The Invisible Man. After a stroke Whale’s memories about his film career and the experiences he made in the Great War start haunting him. James Boon (Brendan Fraser), his muscle-packed gardener, gets to know the famous director more closely when he poses as a model for Whale. The couple couldn’t be more different as Boon is an ex-marine and Whale, a retired homosexual Hollywood director. In the course of the movie the exhausted and lonely Whale has to face that his time is almost over but he also finds a new friend in Boon.

This is one of the most unusual movies I’ve seen in the last years. In contrast to many other movies that portray the life of real persons this one doesn’t glorify James Whale and his work. It achieves much more by showing Whale as a human being with all its failures and fears. This movie is not only about a single person but about the essentials of human life. Whale realizes that he once was an important man considered a genius with a lot of lovers and friends, but in the end the fame he once had can’t save him from being lonely. He knows that he never made the movie that would make him immortal and that he will be remembered for some horror movies that might look silly to future audiences. The movie also shows how much passion Whale put into his beloved monsters and that those movies are about essential human feelings. Those feelings also occur in Gods and Monsters as Whale not unlike his creation Frankenstein is misunderstood and an outcast in the world.

Lynn Redgrave and Brendan Fraser give excellent performances but all my praise goes to Ian McKellen. He makes us believe he is James Whale, a charismatic but broken man who cannot fulfill his dreams. I haven’t seen many performances that are as strong as McKellen’s. I completely fell for his charms, his intelligence and his humour. McKellen makes the movie a memorable experience that causes you to think about what your life is and what it should be about. Gods And Monsters shows James Whale as a tragic hero giving him the recognition he deserves. I’m glad to have met the man behind Frankenstein (1931).

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter