CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Kissing Jessica Stein

Director

Charles Herman-Wurmfeld

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

What a pleasure of a movie! Forget it’s about lesbians, that’s not the point. This movie is so good because of much more than that...

Jessica Stein (Jennifer Westfeldt) is a successful single Jewish woman who hasn’t had any luck with men. Helen (Heather Juergensen) is an open-minded art-dealer who decides to try something new, that is, go out with a girl. Thus they meet and start a relationship.

Now, if you think that’s the entire premise you’re right... and wrong. You see, that’s what the movie is precisely about, but it has so many delicious touches of this and that, that I don’t want to spoil anything for you.

What I can tell you is that I was impressed by how mature and fun and adult this romantic comedy turned out to be. It’s like nothing out there. The best romantic comedies are those that are intelligent and witty and charming. When Harry Met Sally... (1989) and Notting Hill (1999) are examples. And while Stein is not on par with the brilliance of the two aforementioned, it definitely belongs in their category. This is no silly romp. It’s actually thoughtful and real.

As I said, the fact that it’s about lesbians is not what makes the movie special. It’s something different all right, but it doesn’t have to be good just because of that. The movie turns out to be such a pleasure to watch because of its insights into the human soul and how love can mean so many different things.

And then there’s the comedy, of which there’s plenty. And a couple of great scenes, including one that I consider a classic. It happens between Jessica and her mom late in the movie. It is so not what you expect from both characters, and I couldn’t help crying. Because, you see, it doesn’t matter what your sexual preference is, this is a human story and that’s more than enough.

Jennifer and Heather are so good in their roles I wish they were a couple in real life. My God! Jennifer is amazingly charismatic and funny in a girl-next-door kind of way. And Heather is kind of extravagant. She’s not a beauty, but you fall for her. You fall for both of them. They’re simply fantastic.

“Don’t decide right now, just let it marinate for a while.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Passion of the Christ

Director

Mel Gibson

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 29, 2004

I’ve been wanting to see this movie for so long. Let’s face it folks: the story of Jesus is fascinating. It doesn’t really matter what your religion is, if any, because movies are universal. And if they’re about some very interesting man whose life was enough to sustain a movie, then go for it. Fortunately, in this case, the movie also happens to be excellent, shocking, provocative, disturbing, you name it.

The movie tells the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ (James Caviezel) as he is arrested by the Jews, taken to Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), and crucified. All of this while his mother Mary (Maia Morgenstern), Magdalene (Monica Belluci) and John (Hristo Jivkov) witness in awe and despair.

It is so difficult to talk about this movie. It is until you see it that you realize this isn’t just a movie, it’s something else. An experience in the truest sense of the word, The Passion of the Christ isn’t even something I can easily rate. Why isn’t it perfect, why isn’t it a train wreck? I don’t know, the movie is bigger than that kind of reasoning. And that’s something I find particularly remarkable.

I think it’s ridiculous to be mentioning this in my review, but it has been so talked-about that I just can’t ignore it: the movie is not anti-Semitic people. There are “bad” Jews in the movie and there are “good” Jews in there as well. In no way is director Mel Gibson expressing that, for instance, Caiphas represents the entire Jewish population. I mean, even the Romans are portrayed in a more barbarian way!

Opting to watch The Passion of the Christ you know it’s going to be a difficult and violent thing to go through. Mel Gibson pushed all boundaries and made an extremely bloody movie. And with that I’m saying it’s almost unbearable at times. The most difficult scene to watch is the scourging, which goes for so long and is so brutal that you can’t be the same after you watch it. Of course, what follows is still as shocking. Fact is, that’s the way crucifixions happened, and Jesus went through even more punishment than usual. It’s a strong message the one he, and Gibson, delivered. And it cannot go unnoticed.

For people, the movie will have different meanings. Some will be shocked by the violence, others will have a profound spiritual experience, others will find themselves repentant, others will be moved to tears. For me the most impressive thing about it was not the violence, which sure as hell left me paralyzed; what ultimately stayed with me were the words Jesus spoke, whether at the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem or the Cross. The message he left, the strength of his soul, the willingness to go on…

I’d also like to pinpoint Mary’s role in the movie. It’s so heart breaking to watch how she follows her son throughout the whole punishment. She’s at the scourging, where with just one look Jesus regains the force to stand up. And then she’s with him at the cross, where she asks him to take her with him. As a matter of fact, it is through her that we understand the whole magnitude of the Passion, and it’s admirable how well she controlled herself, although we could see the excruciating suffering in her eyes. Mary is also responsible for the best scene of the movie, and one I actually consider a classic: when Jesus falls and she goes to the aid while remembering when he was a young boy and something similar happened. I dare you not to shed a tear during that sequence.

Another very interesting aspect of the movie lies in the way humans can be so mean to each other. Mel Gibson shows no restraint in his depiction of cruelty towards others, which says a lot about the human condition. The saddest part of it is that civilization after civilization our race doesn’t change. Technology advances, but our inner-nature lies intact, which is something I’m constantly amazed by.

The Passion of the Christ is an impeccable production in every technical level. Caleb Deschanel’s photography is so beautiful, and I don’t think I’ll hear a more miraculous score in any movie this year than John Debney’s. It’s heaven-sent, I tell you. Then there’s the production design, the costumes, the editing, every detail given special attention.

Playing Jesus must not be an easy feat, but James Caviezel does a remarkable job in his portrayal. We never for one second doubt that we’re seeing the Man himself, and every quiet or agonizing moment is portrayed by Caviezel with a lot of passion and dignity and honesty. Maia Morgenstern, as Mary, is also something to behold. Her work in the movie is breath-taking. After watching the movie all I could think about was Maia’s look on her face when holding her dead son in her arms.

Lending extraordinary support as well are Monica Bellucci and Hristo Naumov Shopov. Rosalinda Celentano’s work as the Devil is very creepy and well-handled. And they all had to learn their lines in Aramaic or Latin!

An extraordinary achievement in every way. One of the most important movies of all time!

“It is accomplished.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ghost World

Director

Terry Zwigoff

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

I waited four years to see this movie. I wanted to see it since it opened in the United States but somehow I didn’t manage to find an opportunity in my home country. Now Scarlett Johansson is all over the place and I just recently saw Terry Zwigoff’s extraordinary Bad Santa (2003), so I was really excited to finally give it a look. Unfortunately, I was disappointed…

Enid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson) just finished high school and have big plans to move together. But soon their friendship starts to linger, especially after they meet Seymour (Steve Buscemi), with whom Enid starts a special relationship.

Ghost World is based on Daniel Clowes’s comic book. He co-wrote the screenplay as well, and I wonder if his original work was more mordent or lively or what it is that makes it so special. Because I can see the traces of a very good thing, but on the other hand, the movie didn’t hook me. There’s something off about it that I can’t explain.

Perhaps it is that it’s difficult to really identify with or care for any of the characters on-screen. Seymour is the closest to a guy who can grow in our hearts, but he’s so weird and annoying that the feeling ultimately vanishes.

The movie is sort of a satire about society. The people populating this movie are usually considered the “losers” in a normal environment, yet they have something going for them, and that’s the fact that they’re not the same as everybody else. That, for me, is much more interesting. But on the other hand, every single character, except a crazy guy who keeps crashing into a store, is sleep-inducing. I guess that was the whole point of the movie, but after one hour it starts to drag horribly, in part because of this problem.

The black humor in the movie can be absolutely hilarious. There are some very funny one-liners and situations. I wish the tone was consistent in this respect. It isn’t.

As performances go, I can’t really say anyone stands out. Steve Buscemi received a lot of critical acclaim for his performance, but even though it’s good, I don’t know what all the fuzz was about. Ditto for Thora Birch and, yes, Scarlett. As for the latter, I didn’t love her work in this movie. Perhaps she was miscast. I don’t know, this movie needed some volume!

“I wish. Actually you wish... after about five minutes of this movie, you're gonna wish you had ten beers.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Last Temptation of Christ

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Jesus of Nazareth (Willem Dafoe) finds out he’s been chosen by God to be the Messiah and doesn’t take it too well at first, but then assumes his role, not without countless doubts. His friend Judas (Harvey Keitel) aids him as much as possible, helping him build his character. We know the rest of the story…

…or do we? The Last Temptation of Christ is based on the thought-provoking novel of the same name by Nikos Kazantzakis, which deals with the conflict between the soul and the brain, this time in the case of Jesus Christ. The result was controversial, especially in some countries, where conservative Christians found this film’s approach unacceptable. Fact is, there isn’t much change here from what’s in the Gospels, except probably the roles of Judas and Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey), but Jesus’ struggle is just natural. However, there’s a segment of the movie that deals with the “last temptation”, something that goes on inside Jesus’ head during his death, and features images that are simply unacceptable for some. It’s just a matter of being open-minded, because in the end, the facts are just as we know them.

But the film would probably not be as talked-about if it wasn’t for the controversy, at least where I live. It’s not such a great movie, though it does have its qualities, but also its flaws.

As a period piece, it’s pretty amazing. Time and place are recreated in a very credible way. The dialogue has been criticized mostly, for being so mundane and modern, to which Martin Scorsese reportedly replied that as long as it’s not Aramaic, no one can object to the accents and colloquialisms. He’s right, but still it constitutes at times a reminder that what you’re seeing is a modern-day film, not that we don’t know that, but it’s pleasant to go with the flow, and here it’s hard sometimes.

However, something related to exactly the same thing is an asset of the film: Willem Dafoe’s performance is absolutely mundane, almost All-American in the beginning, which makes him pretty weak for the role of Jesus; however, during the film he grows into the character in an impressive way, which makes me believe his characterization was intended to be that way in the beginning to make the spectator see him as human as Jesus was and as he looked to everyone at first. Whichever the intention was, it worked for me. The rest of the performances are pretty good as well, including an unusual one by David Bowie as Pontius Pilate.

Oh, and that Peter Gabriel score! So lively, so profound, so absolutely appropriate! I love it. It almost manages to give interest of its own to unnecessary long stretches of the film, which by the way, are a major flaw.

Anyway, good for something different.

“God loves me. I know he loves me. I want him to stop.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

House of Sand and Fog

Director

Vadim Perelman

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 22, 2004

When I first heard about this movie’s premise I didn’t know what was so special about it to attract so top-notch talent. Of course, I also didn’t know it was based on a highly acclaimed novel. I had to see it for myself to understand there was much more than it looked at first sight.

Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is an alcoholic abandoned wife who loses her house due to a government’s mistake. Behrani (Ben Kingsley) is an Iranian family man who buys the house in order to give his family some hope in a land that doesn’t treat them well. Kathy is very willing to get her house back, but Behrani is certainly in no position to let it go, so a battle of immense proportions ensues.

Based on Andres Dubus III’s novel of the same name, House of Sand and Fog is the impressive directorial debut of Vadim Perelman. In other less talented hands, the movie could’ve become a direct-to-video melodrama, but Perelman elevates the material into bigger dimensions, and that’s what makes the movie so special.

The most interesting aspect of the movie lies in how there are no good and bad people. Kathy and Behrani are developed as flawed individuals, with all their good and bad sides, just as real people are. We as the audience are constantly changing sides because they both have strong reasons to want that house, yet there are no easy answers and the path the movie will follow is absolutely unpredictable.

The movie is also a fascinating character study of both these people and how they react towards their environment when facing a situation like this. Kathy, on one hand, starts a relationship with a cop (Ron Eldard) who just left his family and who is willing to help her at all costs. Meanwhile Behrani tries to keep his family happy, even when his wife (Shoreh Aghdashloo) is tired of moving and running like fugitives when they’re not.

I won’t say anything about the ending except that I was shocked. Yet it was a logical conclusion and never betrayed the characters as we came to know them.

Ben Kingsley is fantastic as this conflicted man trying to keep his life together, and Jennifer Connelly is equally good as this desperate woman trying to cope with her past by honoring that house. Meanwhile, Shoreh Aghdashloo shines in a small part with her quietness and dignity. And Ron Eldard lends great support as well.

A tragic story about consequences.

“You have my respect for your life.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

My Fair Lady

Director

George Cukor

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 18, 2004

This is the story of Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison), a British phonetics Professor who chances to meet ignorant pauper Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) during the Victorian era. He’s a snobbish misogynistic, so he doesn’t think much of her at first, but when he says he could turn her into an educated, socially proper lady, his colleague Colonel Pickering (Wilfrid Hyde-White) dares him to do so. Higgins accepts the wager, and takes Eliza under his wing, which is about to change the lives of both.

This movie has two things that I usually love in movies: The fact that it is a musical, and Audrey Hepburn. Plus, it’s a classic, so I was always interested in watching it. I must say, after years of waiting, it wasn’t what I expected. Based on the musical by Alan Jay Lerner, in turn based on the fine play Pygmalion by Bernard Shaw, this is a sumptuous film without a doubt. Every detail is taken care of very carefully, so there isn’t one thing about the production that one can complain about, and the same can be said about the story.

Nevertheless, I had a couple of problems with the film. First and foremost, I’m pissed off that Audrey Hepburn’s singing voice was dubbed. This has been a matter of discussion for decades but it’s still as maddening. I hear she didn’t know they’d dub her until after they started filming, and the difference between her voice and Marni Nixon’s is too great to be unnoticed. Remember Hepburn’s lovely singing voice in that touching scene from Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)? All right, she’s no Julie Andrews, but why hire her then in the first place? Nixon’s beautiful voice was also used to dub Deborah Kerr’s singing in The King and I (1956), but at least there the difference wasn’t so huge (or maybe Kerr’s talking voice isn’t as peculiar as Hepburn’s). Anyway, if I make such a big deal out of this it’s not because I think Hepburn was treated unfairly (I didn’t like her performance regardless of this issue, so I frankly believe she was miscast), but because I couldn’t stop thinking that it wasn’t her voice when she sang, and she’s the main character, so go figure.

But I also didn’t connect with the movie in other ways. Though Harrison is a charmer of charmers, his character is so pedantic I couldn’t fully get to like him (I was pretty close though, especially when he sang “I’m an Ordinary Man”), and his relationship with Eliza bothered me constantly. That probably made many slow scenes slower to my eyes, and I became bored more often than not.

Thank God there’s always some musical treat coming around the corner! In that way, this is an absolute must-see. How could I not mention such classic songs as “Why Can't the English?”, “Wouldn't it be Loverly”, “With a Little Bit of Luck” (performed by Stanley Holloway, who plays Eliza’s father, my favorite character), “The Rain in Spain”, “I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face”, and so many more. They’re all gorgeously staged and amazingly performed, and each of them is a triumph.

All in all, it’s worthwhile, and I understand many people love it (heck, my mother almost cried when we watched it together, her first time since her teenage years), so I do recommend it, only not before many other great Hollywood musicals.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Along Came Polly

Director

John Hamburg

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

I have to say the idea of watching this movie never came to my mind. I am a Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston fan, but somehow I didn’t want to pay for this thing amidst the season when all the best movies are in theaters. But hey, what’s wrong with a purely simple popcorn movie? Besides, it was a hit, so I had to know what all the fuzz was about.

Reuben (Ben Stiller) is a Jewish neurotic guy who just married Lisa (Debra Messing). When they go on their honeymoon, he catches Lisa in bed with another man, so he leaves her and decides to move on with his life. Then he meets Polly (Jennifer Aniston), a free-spirited uncompromising woman who rocks his world.

There’s not much to say about this movie except to make it clear that it is fun to watch. It is harmless and it clocks at 90 mins. Besides, the stars exude charisma and are easy to spend some time with. I don’t think it deserves a higher rating than what I’m giving it, but still, the movie is pleasant enough.

One big problem lies in the fact that I never quite got why these two individuals would fall in love with each other. We root for them because we are told that they are in love, not because we really feel it. But then, we go along with it.

The movie also has some pretty gross-out comedy that is absolutely hilarious. Yes, it’s puerile, but it’s funny and I laughed.

Stiller and Aniston are both very talented performers and they show it here. They’re charismatic, funny and charming, what else do you want? Philip Seymour Hoffman also appears in a pretty funny sidekick role.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Great Escape

Director

John Sturges

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

During World War II, a group of allied POWs, confined in an “escape-proof” concentration camp, set to escape no matter what, and eventually manage the largest escape ever registered. Based on a true story, this is one of the all-time most popular war/adventure Hollywood films, and it sure has all the ingredients...

An all-star cast includes Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasence, James Coburn, and many others. Describing the roles of each would require a much more extensive review, which I don’t mind, but if someone who hasn’t seen it is reading this, I’d much rather they get to know the characters during the movie, because their development is very interesting. For now, it’s enough to say there’s enough room here to showcase Steve McQueen in awesome action scenes, and everyone else in their own respective key moments, most of them giving compelling performances to make the human factor complete.

The first half of the movie deals mostly with the plan and its execution. It’s quite entertaining to see the POWs fool the guards to achieve their goal. It’s also very exciting to await the actual escape. The second half deals with what happens afterwards.

The proceedings are accompanied by an immortal Elmer Bernstein score that’s been whistled, parodied, imitated, or plain copied by many. The movie itself has been a huge source of inspiration, and no wonder, since it’s so awesome in so many ways.

If I have any objections, they have to do with the film’s overlength, and its occasional slow moments. Even the score seems out of place when it seems to accompany a much more lively sequence than what we’re actually seeing. Also I object to the portrait of life in the concentration camp. I understand that war prisoners are ideally treated well on account of diplomacy, but here it seems a bit excessive at times, so much so, that it’s hard to understand their anxiety to escape, even if it’s their duty. The one thing that somehow makes up for it are McQueen’s scenes in the cooler, which are quite funny and unforgettable while trying to be realistic.

Overall, a must-see, and a more than worthwhile experience, and so much fun!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Good bye, Lenin!

Director

Wolfgang Becker

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Alexander Kerner (Daniel Brühl) tells us his story and his family’s, from the moment when he was a child in East Germany and his father (Burghart Klaußner) left to the capitalist side, to the moment when his mother (Katrin Saß), a true believer of socialism ideals, suffered a stroke on account of seeing him arrested as an activist against repression. Christiane only wakes up from a coma after Germany has been unified, but since she must be spared every excitement, Alex decides to recreate the German Democratic Republic for her… Which he does, with the reluctant help of his sister (Maria Simon) and his girlfriend (Chulpan Khamatova). So he goes from changing the decoration of her room to gathering old food containers to emulate old TV shows (with the help of his good friend Denis (Florian Lukas), a filmmaker-wannabe), but truth always finds a way…

The main story we’re presented with is moving indeed, but I had a problem with it – I just couldn’t take what Alex was doing to his mother. Later on however, it all made sense in a way, and wasn’t as bad as it seemed before. But still, Alex’s increasing obsession with recreating the past seemed a little bit excessive at times. Nevertheless, there couldn’t possibly be a better way to portray the difficult process of Germany’s unification. The difficulty of recreating the past after so little time was very meaningful. I hear from a very dear German friend that this is the first movie to deal with that, and a very good one it is indeed… It must be a particular treat for Germans, but everyone can enjoy it as well and get a slice of their history in a wonderful way.

What I enjoyed most about the movie (though I can’t get into details, as it would be a spoiler) is the fantasy of a successful utopian socialism. There’s a moment when it all comes true in a way, and it comes both to please those who dream with the possibility and to confirm that it is and always will be nothing more than a fantasy.

The script by director Becker makes the story poignant and funny at all times, and the actors do a great job with it. I found myself chuckling quite often but also sobbing at times. Great visuals and awesome music (by Yann Tiersen) complete the picture.

All in all, quite a worthwhile experience!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Big Fish

Director

Tim Burton

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

God knows I really wanted to see this movie! Just picture Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney and Tim Burton in the same project and you can get the idea of the drool-factor. Then the trailer started to air and I instantly knew I would love it. I didn’t need to see it to know I would love it, because I already did. Fortunately, Big Fish turned out to be one of the best movies of the year!

Will Bloom (Billy Cudrup) is tired of his father Edward (Albert Finney) always telling fantastical stories about his life without ever really showing the true side of things. When Ed gets really sick his son comes to visit after three years of they not speaking to each other. That’s how little by little we get to know more about Ed as a young man (Ewan McGregor) in his own world full of adventures.

Big Fish is based on the novel by Daniel Wallace. Director Tim Burton found in the novel the perfect material to create a movie that contains his trademark bizarre style while also telling a touching, heartfelt story. The result is pretty close to perfection, with the movie being absolutely involving, immensely imaginative and lots of fun!

The core of the movie lies in the relationship between Will and his father. Ed is quite a character, while Will is pretty hurt by the way his father has always been. Then again, neither is willing to change their minds about each other, but the way their relationship flows throughout the movie until the amazing, absolutely memorable and unexpected ending, is very special.

The fun part of the movie, on the other hand, lies in Ed’s stories. I won’t spoil anything about them for you because they’re all full of surprises and unpredictable moments and characters. I will only say that these bits are extraordinary and hilariously over-the-top, every one of them.

Oh, and I also want to mention my favorite part of the movie… everything involving Ed romancing his one true love, Sandra (Alison Lohman). There’s a scene involving popcorn and another one involving flowers that are already considered classics in my book.

And then there’s Danny Elfman’s terrific, whimsical score!

I could say this movie belongs to Albert Finney, but that would be unfair since every cast member is absolutely perfect. But it is Finney who leaves the strongest impression, with a performance that is funny, tender and tough all in one. Every scene he’s in is a pleasure to watch. Just listen to his words, watch his expressions, he’s a great actor.

Ewan McGregor is also a coup, and the resemblance to Finney is uncanny. Ditto for Alison Lohman (ravishing) and Jessica Lange, who could be the same person if you ask me. Danny De Vito, Helena Bonham Carter, Steve Buscemi and many more all lend great support.

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you won’t be the same.

“You become what you always were - a very big fish.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Twelve Monkeys

Director

Terry Gilliam

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, March 08, 2004

Somewhere in a post-apocalyptic future, a mental patient by the name of Cole (Bruce Willis) is chosen as a “volunteer” to be sent back in time to the year 1996, to find clues that might lead to the origins of a deadly virus that nearly swiped the human race. There aren’t many clues as it is, but it is strongly believed that a so-called Army of the Twelve Monkeys is to blame. So off Cole goes to the past, in what is to become a nightmarish journey into an unknown world, and a confusing one. Soon it becomes unclear whether all this is actually happening, or only inside Cole’s mind.

If this movie is something, it’s a daring experiment. I remember being hypnotized by it in quite a peculiar way the first time I saw it, and it’s had the same effect over the years as I’ve re-watched it. This is not a commercial movie, definitely not your usual Bruce Willis fare, but it’s not artsy either. While it’s entertaining, it dares to go beyond and present disturbing elements that manage to confuse and puzzle the viewers like few movies do, while not going away from the main plot, thus keeping the audience interested. However, this can also be seen as a cause of unevenness, since it isn’t clear what the movie really is.

Through the journey, Cole meets a deranged young man (Brad Pitt) who turns out to be the son of an important virologist (Christopher Plummer); also a lonely Psychiatrist (Madeline Stowe) who finds in Cole not only a fascinating subject of study but also someone to care for. The plot takes unexpected paths and becomes confusing in more ways than one, especially as we’re constantly presented with a dream/flashback that’s expanded little by little until a final shocking revelation. The use of music throughout is also remarkable, especially Astor Piazzolla’s “Suite Punta Del Este,” which is now more usually referred to as this film’s title theme.

Also notable for featuring one of Bruce Willis’ most compelling performances, this film is, however, stolen completely by Brad Pitt as the insane Jeffrey Goines, whose speeches and mannerisms are unforgettable.

Terry Gilliam brought us a memorable if uneven piece of sci-fi, scripted by David Webb Peoples and Janet Peoples, based on the short film La Jetée.

“Fuck the Bozoes!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bringing Up Baby

Director

Howard Hawks

Year

1938

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, March 04, 2004

David Huxley (Cary Grant) is an absent-minded paleontologist about to get two very important things: A wife, and the last bone of a real dinosaur skeleton he’s piecing together. Unfortunately for him, a chance encounter with Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn), a rather peculiar young woman, changes every instance of peace and quite in his life for true chaos and mayhem.

Extra-hilarious classic screwball comedy, a flop in its time, but now considered the definitive representative of its genre, has Grant and Hepburn at their best, she in her one and only screwball performance. As Susan falls for David, she attempts whatever is at hand to keep him near, but everything turns into disaster. Eventually, he ends up at her Aunt’s field house, chasing a dog called George, who stole his dinosaur bone, while Susan’s pet leopard called Baby is free and about, much to everyone’s concern, especially when another leopard, one that’s not tamed, turns out to be in the vicinity.

God it’s hard to describe this movie’s plot, and yet, there’s nothing really complicated about it, at least when presented to us by screenwriters Dudley Nichols and Hagar Wilde, and director Howard Hawks. The story flows and is over much to quickly, since it’s so absolutely entertaining and hilarious. There isn’t a half-minute without top-belly laughs, and that’s really a triumph of everyone involved.

The supporting performers are perfect, especially Charles Ruggles as Major Applegate, whose imitation of a leopard’s cry is remarkable, and May Robson as Aunt Elizabeth, whose indignation is inimitable.

Watch this one for a real good time, guaranteed.

Susan: “Anyway, David, when they find out who we are they’ll let us out.”
David: “When they find out who you are they’ll pad the cell.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bad Santa

Director

Terry Zwigoff

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

You know, Billy Bob Thornton can be whatever you want in his personal life, but the truth is that he’s a terrific actor. In Bad Santa he is given the perfect role for him and boy does he take advantage!

Willie (Billy Bob Thornton) is a loser with no life if only for the fact that he’s an expert breaking safe boxes. That’s how he joins forces with Marcus (Tony Cox). Together they work in malls as Santa Claus and his elf, while actually getting to know the place so they can pull off a heist. That’s how Willie gets to know this kid (Brett Kelly) who thinks he’s the real Santa and can’t seem to leave him alone.

This is the first Terry Zwigoff movie I’ve seen, but I definitely get why he is so lauded and respected. I mean, the guy sure knows how to direct a comedy, especially when the humor is blacker than black. In Bad Santa, Zwigoff satirizes the whole Christmas thing and how it has become such an excuse to make money, forgetting that it is mostly about feelings and love.

The movie is, to put it mildly, hysterical. The characters are so pathetic that you can’t but laugh at the things they do or say. The best scenes in the movie belong to Thornton and young Kelly. Every exchange they have is either extremely funny or, you may not believe it, quite touching. Enter Lauren Graham to the equation, as Thornton’s love interest, and you’ve got some pretty great stuff.

But then, everything at the mall is also very funny. John Ritter and Bernie Mac also show up as mall workers and it all becomes a riot at every step.

I must also mention the use of music in the movie. Brilliant!

Then again, this is Thornton’s movie and he’s amazing in the part. Every line delivery is right-on and I had a blast with his character. As a matter of fact, everyone is great, everyone! I loved the cast!

A riot!

“Let me fix you some sandwiches.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dirty Pretty Things

Director

Stephen Frears

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is an illegal Nigerian immigrant in London, who drives a taxi by day and keeps the front desk of a luxurious hotel by night. He rests a couple of hours every day at the house of a Turkish chambermaid of the same hotel, by the name of Senay (Audrey Tautou), but he doesn’t actually sleep, as something from his past haunts him. Okwe is an honest, kind-hearted man, who doesn’t want to get involved with anyone or anything if it’s not absolutely necessary. It’s no secret that dirty things go on in the hotel, as in any other, things like drugs and prostitution… But when he finds a human heart in the toilet of one of the rooms, Okwe knows there’s something really fishy going on there, and feels the responsibility to do something about it. The first person he goes to is the manager, Señor Juan (Sergi López). But soon it becomes clear that the latter could be implicated in more ways than one.

The summary above fits the first twenty or so minutes of the movie, and yet, it doesn’t exactly go from there for the rest of it. You would expect it to, but it doesn’t. Okwe deals with this strange occurrence but still worries about his life as an illegal immigrant, that of Senay as a legal but oppressed one, and his own shadowy past, which isn’t given away that soon or that easily to us. Attention is paid to the heart situation later on however, and the results are absolutely shocking… And they bring together every plot element in a truly fascinating way.

This is an unusual story about corruption, poverty, immigration (legal and illegal) and day-by-day life of a very simple yet complex person, like we all are. There might be plot holes, and indeed, there are questions left unanswered, but what is presented to us is absorbing, always full of surprising twists that in the end ring true. There is no cliché here, and I do mean that, to the extent that you’re left wanting a couple of them, because they would’ve probably made you feel good, but that’s also an asset. All this is owed to screenwriter Steven Knight.

The performers are marvelous, namely Ejiofor and Tautou. Their performances are moving and believable and heartbreaking. López, Sophie Okonedo, Benedict Wong, and Zlatko Buric lend great support.

Crude, immoral, and not exactly redeeming… but a refreshing experience, not to be missed.

“We are the people you don’t see. We drive your cars, clean your rooms and suck your cocks.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cold Mountain

Director

Anthony Minghella

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, March 01, 2004

You know what? I wasn’t expecting much from this movie. I mean, I knew it was going to be good on some level. I knew it had some great performances and a stellar cast. I knew it would be a very long and epic love story. But somehow I didn’t expect to love it or anything close to that. After having seen it I’m the most surprised about my reaction towards it, ‘cause I truly fell for it.

Inman (Jude Law) and Ada (Nicole Kidman) meet in the town of Cold Mountain just before the Civil War breaks out and instantly fall in love with each other. Unfortunately Inman must leave to fight, but after having suffered from the horrors of war through many years he decides to desert the army and come back home. Meanwhile Ada haves a difficult time adapting to her new life until Ruby (Renée Zellweger) comes to the aid.

For me, Cold Mountain, based on Charles Frazer’s novel, worked in many levels. I don’t precisely see the movie as a love story and nothing more. I saw the love story between Inman and Ada as part of an integral story that had much more to say.

We spend the entire movie trailing Inman’s journey home and his encounter with many different people. Inman is a deeply affected human being after having been through so much. In a way, his journey back is like a healing process in which the humanity that still lies in him comes to flourish once again. Despite the things he does, he keeps continually rooting for justice. And it’s a difficult recovery, but a necessary and redeeming one as well.

On the other hand there’s Ada, who loses her father and must try to survive by herself. When Ruby comes to her life it seems like a blessing. And soon the two women bond strongly because they’re the only thing they have in the world. Together they struggle in a land ruled by evil men where the suffering because of the war is just horrible. It’s as if Ada was just coming-of-age, growing up and becoming a different, strong-willed woman.

And then there’s the dreadfulness of war. Director Anthony Minghella shows no signs of restraint and paints a real and awful portrait of what war is like. There’s misery all around, death, suffering, loss of dignity. It is breath-taking and we get to see different views of how war affects people through our protagonists and the people Inman meets in the way. Very interesting stuff.

And the love story, let me tell you, got me quite hard. I felt the pain Inman and Ada felt despite having met each other for a very short period of time. There is such thing as love at first sight and it hurts not to be able to be with the person you love.

In a nutshell, I enjoyed every second of this movie. It never dragged, it never felt overlong. Each story kept me interested. And if you add Minghella’s direction, John Seale’s amazing photography and Gabriel Yared’s impeccable score, it becomes an experience rather than just a movie.

I also loved the work of the actors in the movie. Jude Law is extraordinary and the movie holds together because of him. There’s really no need for words, he’s better than that. Renée Zellweger steals every single scene she’s in with a comic performance that ultimately has more depth than it initially appears. Nicole Kidman doesn’t shine as much as her costars, but I think that’s because her character is like that, and Nicole does such good a job that the right feelings burst out of the screen. They are all very very good.

And just look at the supporting cast: Natalie Portman (the best of the bunch), Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Brendan Gleeson, Eileen Atkins, Jack White, Giovanni Ribisi, Donald Sutherland, Ray Winstone, Kathy Baker, James Gambon, Ethan Suplee, Jena Malone, Melora Walters, Lucas Black, Cillian Murphy… wow! I have to hold my breath in admiration.

“I lost your mother after twenty-two months of marriage. It was enough for a lifetime.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter