CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Marty

Director

Delbert Mann

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Ernest Borgnine plays Marty Piletti, an Italian-American Bronx butcher approaching middle-age who can’t seem to get a girl to get married. Custom puts him under pressure and everyone around asks when he’s gonna take the big step. They think he’s immature. But the truth is, Marty simply can’t get a girl: he’s not attractive, he’s not too amusing, and whatever on Earth girls are looking for, he ain’t got it. One day, he meets another human being who suffers from the same awful truth: a woman, Clara is her name (Betsy Blair). She’s about to become an “old maid” yet she’s afraid to meet men because she’s been disappointed too often in the past. Marty and Clara would be a perfect couple, one would think, but they’re so unused to being a couple, that they are probably not gonna be such a good match. Or is it?

Delightful, extremely light but insightful comedy about a man and a woman, not too peculiar, not extraordinary at all, just common people living a common situation. This is a great movie though, and what makes it so great is its simplicity and its sincerity, and how it doesn’t overplay itself. Scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky created characters that are so real with problems so easy to identify with, that it’s simple to enjoy this movie and find it flawless. It’s not perfect though, but nearly. Short and splendid, makes up for grand entertainment.

Borgnine is unforgettable in the role of a candid man whose suffering breaks our heart. Blair is a great match indeed. Joe Mantell is good fun as Marty’s best friend, and Esther Minciotti right on target as Marty’s mother.

This is a movie that wasn’t expected to go far but defied all expectations. Based on a TV movie starring Rod Steiger!

“I dunno, Angie. What do you wanna do?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

School Ties

Director

Robert Mandel

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

School Ties is one of those movies I watched a lot when I was growing up. My father used to have a collection of movies we could watch and this was one of them. That’s why I hold this movie close to my heart even though I haven’t watched it for years. Despite that, I can boldly state that I remember all of it in a scene-by-scene basis.

David Greene (Brendan Fraser) is a Jewish boy who is given the chance to study in a 50’s elite prep school because of his athletic abilities. Soon David makes a lot of friends and starts to date the most beautiful girl around (Amy Locane). His world suddenly stumbles when Charlie (Matt Damon), a jealous companion, spreads the word about David being a Jew.

As moviegoers, we are used to watching movies depicting racism as a confrontation between black and white people. Lately we’ve also seen a lot of movies about discrimination regarding sexual preferences. But rarely have we seen a movie that doesn’t take place in the Holocaust about racism against Jews, even more so if the movie takes place in the United States and among apparently intelligent people.

As we saw in last year’s Far From Heaven (2002), the 50’s weren’t an easy decade to live in if you were different. But what exactly does it mean to be different? Nowadays the world is more tolerant to all type of ideas. But back then it was all about hiding, about pretending, about being accepted. There was so much restriction that I can’t help thinking there was also a great deal of unhappiness. School Ties depicts all that through the eyes of a young man who only wishes to succeed in life by his own merits. It’s an honest portrayal but it’s also a devastating one.

Brendan Fraser, in his major film role, excels in depicting the confusion and sadness his character goes through. He’s also accompanied by an impressive cast of then-unknowns. Chris O’Donnell plays his roommate, Ben Affleck and Cole Hauser play school companions, and Matt Damon shows impressive range in the antagonist role. It’s good to know all of them lived up to their potential.

“Your tradition or mine, sir?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Guns of Navarone

Director

J. Lee Thompson

Year

1961

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 28, 2003

During World War II, Allied forces are encountered by a gigantic foe in the form of powerful German guns in the Greek island of Navarone. British troops on a neighbor island find it impossible to escape safely unless the guns are destroyed. But since an air attack is impossible, someone must go personally and dynamite the whole thing. Who’s up to that?

A group of Commandos is then gathered commanded by Capt. Keith Mallory (Gregory Peck). There’s a demolition expert (David Niven) and an expert strategist (Anthony Quinn). Other members of the team (Anthony Quayle, James Darren, Irene Papas, Gia Scala) each has their personality and their secrets. As expected, this is an action movie with lots to offer concerning characters and situations.

Grand-scale War saga, a minor classic in the genre, featuring an all-star cast and compelling story, filled with visual effects that work to perfection. The climax is heart-pounding to say the least. Good score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Look out for Richard Harris as Squadron Leader Howard Barnsby near the beginning of the film; what precious few seconds!

“We want to take along the ruddy joker who thought up this job, and when we get there, we're gonna shove him out at ten thousand feet -- without a parachute.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Horse Whisperer

Director

Robert Redford

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, April 24, 2003

I’ve always considered Ordinary People (1980) to be one of my favorite movies of all time. I think Robert Redford is an excellent director as much as he is a great actor. That’s why when I saw The Horse Whisperer I was expecting a lot from it. And I wasn’t disappointed in the least. I actually love this movie from start to finish.

Annie (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Robert (Sam Neill) are a happily married couple whose lives seemed to be perfect until their only child, Grace (Scarlett Johansson) had a traumatic accident in which she and her horse got heavily injured. The decision was then taken that doctors should not kill the horse because of the immense affection Grace felt for it. Thus Annie takes her daughter and horse through a journey to meet Tom Booker (Robert Redford), a so-called horse whisperer whom they need to help heal their wounds.

The Horse Whisperer is such a beautiful movie. It is based in the Nick Evans novel of the same name and Redford, as actor and director, did a splendid job in bringing it to the big screen. It is an adult movie all right, and it is also difficult to watch at times, but it has such candor and poignancy that you can’t but fall under its spell. Besides, it’s gorgeously photographed, so that just adds to the mix.

Somehow the movie manages to tell three different stories while making them one. There’s the story of how Grace slowly starts to regain confidence and accept life as it is. There’s also the story of how her horse starts to show signs of promise with Tom’s help. These scenes between him and the horse are the most compelling thing about the movie. They are both interesting and touching. I had never seen such a strong story in which a horse was given so much depth.

And finally there’s the story about the romance that starts to flourish between Annie and Tom. It is a conflicting relationship, since Annie has her daughter to take care of but also a husband waiting for her at home. It’s just that life as it is presented to her at the moment seems to be so much better and relaxing. But some decisions are better left untouched.

Every member of the cast delivers a flawless performance. Redford and Scott Thomas make a great couple and they play rich characters whose eyes sometimes say more than a thousand words can express. Johansson, meanwhile, is immaculate as Grace, a child who goes through some things a child is never meant to live, but that has to face them nonetheless. Dianne Weist, Chris Cooper and Sam Neill are excellent as well.

A rewarding, affecting movie.

“Truth is, I help horses with people problems.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Freaks

Director

Tod Browning

Year

1932

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

This is the story of a traveling sideshow and the unpleasant consequences of an abusive trapeze artist’s (Olga Baclanova) attempts to snatch a midget’s (Harry Earles) fortune by making him fall in love with her. As it turns out, all the “freaks” in the circus (from a man with no arms or legs to a couple of Siamese twin sisters) have a code that no “normal” human being can abuse another “freak” without all of them taking vengeance. They’re not evil at all… but life has been unfair to them already, so there must be a price to pay for those who abuse them.

This is one of the most unusual films I’ve ever seen, a “horror” film that is not merely a horror film per se, more like a drama with shocking content. Its director, Tod Browning (of Dracula (1931) fame) gathered an uncanny cast of real sideshow freaks, and got himself into enough trouble to last for a lifetime, as the movie was universally rejected, as much as its characters. Today considered a classic, this movie was banned for decades in the UK and severely cut in the US… that’s the price Browning and the movie had to pay.

Intense moments of suspense and sincere moments of comedy make this a fun ride, though it is still quite shocking. The ending is unforgettable. Romantic relief comes through Phroso the clown (Wallace Ford) and Venus (Leila Hyams), a couple of full-grown humans who are also good people.

“We accept you, one of us! Gooble Gobble!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mrs. Doubtfire

Director

Chris Columbus

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

I recall when I first saw Mrs. Doubtfire I was very young and wasn’t that good at English. I actually lived in a English-speaking country outside of the US where there were no subtitles. I wasn’t even a big movie buff in the first place. But then the movie just captivated me. I liked it a lot and I still do. It’s the kind of movie I can’t resist to leave if I’m channel-surfing. I don’t know, for me it’s kind of a classic of modern big-studio comedies.

Daniel (Robin Williams) and Miranda (Sally Field) have three wonderful kids they both adore. He is a rather simple guy with a penchant for being likable and she’s a workaholic who likes everything to be perfect. Their marriage is not working and they decide to get a divorce, but for Daniel it is not easy to stop frequenting his children. Thus is born Mrs. Doubtfire, a character Daniel creates to pretend he’s the perfect nanny and soon he’s hired to take care of his own children.

What is it that I like so much about Mrs. Doubtfire? Well, it’s simple: I care for these characters. The movie is definitely a comedy, but it has more poignancy than you would expect from a movie like this. Its heart is in the proper place and it is easy to sympathize with a man who’s desperate to be close to his own children. Daniel is not a bad guy, but the circumstances have left him in a difficult position. Then again, Miranda isn’t a bad person either. They’re just different but they both love their kids.

The movie also has a lot of really funny moments. It’s an old device to have a man pretend to be a woman in a movie, yet director Chris Columbus avoids the trap of falling into cliché territory and gives his characters enough space to breathe so they can become something relevant of their own. Mrs. Doubtfire is a wonderful character. But it is even funnier to be in on the joke and witness everything Daniel has to go through to keep his identity a secret while also really being the perfect nanny while also attracting his children’s confidence. Not an easy task, but a desperate father is willing to do anything.

In that note, I must say Robin Williams is outstanding as the lead character. I usually think Williams has a tendency to go over-the-top, but his performance in this movie is right-on-target. He’s funny, touching, and very good as a woman as well. Sally Field and Pierce Brosnan lend good support.

So it is a little melodramatic, but what the hell? Mrs. Doubtfire is a feel-good movie that never ceases to entertain!

“My first day as a woman and I am already having hot flashes.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

La Femme infidèle

Director

Claude Chabrol

Year

1969

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 21, 2003

Hélène (Stéphane Audran) is a “happily” married woman whose husband, Charles (Michel Bouquet) starts suspecting that she’s cheating on him. Their family is so perfect, with their young son growing in a harmonic and happy home, that Charles simply cannot conceive the idea of his wife destroying that. The film follows Charles as he investigates the suspected cheat, finds it to be true, and does something about it.

Though most reviewers of this film usually reveal something very significant from the plot, I won’t. There’s no need to go into details. The simple suspicion that one’s wife is unfaithful is reason enough to create enough suspense in film or real life. Anyone who’s ever felt jealousy and suspicion of a cheat can understand perfectly well that such combination creates the worst feeling ever to wrench one’s heart. This film takes that feeling into celluloid and does so incredibly; Chabrol perfectly followed each move by Charles, making us feel what he feels. And even though we understand that Hélène’s attraction to Victor Pegala (Maurice Ronet) is in many ways justified, we also want their affair to get to an end.

Unfortunately, to describe one of the film’s story’s most interesting turns, I’d have to give out many details that would spoil the experience. So all I’ll say is that Hélène discovers something herself and takes a decision that would give goose bumps to anybody. She does so silently, but we understand. She changes her mind in many ways. Her choice is somewhat more surprising than her husband’s. However, that’s what makes the movie so valuable. Really makes you think about couples and the importance of staying together no matter what.

The ending doesn’t say much. In fact, it leaves many questions unanswered and one very necessary plot resolution unresolved. But does it really matter what happens next? Any turn would be too dangerous. What happened before is what matters, and that’s what’s in the movie.

Bouquet and Audran are top-notch.

An American remake of decades later, Unfaithful (2002), vulgarizes the procedures and takes away the subtlety of everything. I strongly recommend that you watch Chabrol’s movie instead.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Das Experiment

Director

Oliver Hirschbiegel

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, April 17, 2003

My dear friend Jacinda once wrote here about this German movie and got me instantly interested. She talked about how fascinating and thought-provoking this movie was. She also mentioned it was excellent. I couldn’t agree more.

The movie is based on a real incident that happened some decades ago in which a bunch of guys were randomly selected to take part in an experiment that would simulate life in prison. Some guys were given guards positions and others were chosen as prisoners. The main rule was that everything would have to work just as in real life, with prisoners obeying guards, but without a single trace of violence. That might’ve been a little too much to ask, since quickly things started to get out of control when prisoner No. 77, Tarek (Moritz Bleibtreu), didn’t hesitate to show a rebellious attitude. The guards, led by Berus (Justus von Dohnanyi) didn’t hesitate to show them who was in command either.

Das Experiment is, for me, a scary movie. Not scary because we’re afraid of what we’re shown, but because of what actually happens. There’s something terribly wrong about people who find themselves full of hatred. But it’s even scarier to realize what people can turn into when power takes over their lives. I was reminded of Adrien Brody’s Oscar acceptance speech in which he said he knew what war could push people to do. This movie isn’t precisely about a war between nations, but it is about a war between guards and prisoners. Most of all it’s a war against their own selves. A battle for survival.

There’s a little bit of Nazi innuendo thrown in there for good measure. There’s also a lot pf psychological aspects worth discussing. How people start to change when they’re taken their liberty away; how people start to behave once they know they have control over other people; how is it that every punishment keeps getting worse and worse until some people just can’t stand it; the effect that a black box can generate on someone; the way people tend to create their own leader.

The results are quite chilling. You wouldn’t believe what our human nature is willing to let us do or think. We’ve all got our dark side after all.

Only complaint: the romantic subplot seems out of place. I know Tarek is supposed to be given a reason why he wants to both survive and get out of there, but I just don’t think it’s handled the right way.

As for the performances, they’re outstanding. Bleibtreu is excellent. He makes of Tarek a flesh and blood character we completely believe and understand. Meanwhile Dohnanyi is also extraordinary in a huge transformation of a performance that always rings true.

No matter what, Das Experiment is not an easy movie to forget.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Night of the Living Dead

Director

George A. Romero

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

A young woman (Judith O'Dea) comes with her brother to visit their father’s grave, when suddenly they’re attacked by a very strange, stiff-walking but unstoppable man. The brother is killed while she runs for her life, and hides in a farmhouse. There, she meets Ben (Duane Jones), a guy who informs her that the whole town is full of flesh-eating zombies. Turns out, every person eaten by a zombie becomes a zombie also! Soon they find out that five more people are hiding in the same house. Now they barricade themselves in it, trying to push the zombies away. But there are so many of them outside! How can these people survive?

Nail-biting, excruciating horror movie, a groundbreaker in its time and still quite effective, with its low-budget values peculiarly adding to the realist feeling. Mostly developed inside the house, with the anguish of its seven refugees growing and the tension increasing as problems emerge even between them.

Shot in black and white, this inimitable horror film sprung sequels and imitators, mostly films of poor quality, but some of them quite good too! The idea of something so unlikely as zombies coming out of nowhere suddenly, is scary in itself. If worked right, this premise can turn out to be ideal for thrills. Here’s the proof!

This was Romero’s first feature film; he also co-scripted, and later created this film’s two sequels. Karl Hardman, Kyra Schon, Marilyn Eastman, Keith Wayne and Judith Ridley play the other five people in the farmhouse.

Check this one out if you haven’t.

“Good shot! OK, he's dead, that's another one for the fire.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Laramie Project

Director

Moisés Kaufman

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

Christina Ricci. Steve Buscemi. Laura Linney. Dylan Baker. Jeremy Davis. Clea DuVall. Peter Fonda. Janeane Garofalo. Joshua Jackson. Camryn Manheim. Lois Smith. Need I say more? Well, it also got a lot of award nominations.

The Laramie Project tells the story of the real incident in which 21-year old Matthew Shepard was murdered because of being gay by a couple of Laramie inhabitants, through the words of people from the town.

This movie would be called a documentary if it weren’t for the fact that actors are standing-in for real people. The movie is shot like a documentary, it feels like a documentary and has the entire format of one. The result is actually interesting and it’s not difficult to get immersed when such a shocking story is being told.

Director Moisés Kaufman based the movie in his own play of the same name. A couple of years ago he and the Tectonic Theater Company traveled to Laramie and ended up with about 400 hours of recorded tape from interviews they conducted to several people who were either involved in the case or simply knew something about it. Thus the movie was born and the words from all these people were heard.

The Laramie Project is not so much about Matthew Shepard himself than it is about the town in which the events occurred and how they’re trying to find their own identity. It’s been difficult coping with such a horrific incident, and the movie does not limit itself to one single point of view. Sure, we all get the message, but there are people who might have had a different point of view that could be either valid or just plain horrific. It’s all in the movie.

After all is said and done it’s clear that what happened to Matthew was an atrocity in itself, but the fact that it was done out of hatred earned it even more relevance. People were urged to speak their minds. The whole country was outraged. It was time to put a stop to crimes and discrimination like these. We are not here to judge others. Who are we to do that? If you don’t like it then turn the other way. But all humans deserve the same treatment and respect.

As you could see by my introduction the cast in this movie is simply impressive. They are all great in their roles as are lesser-known faces such as Mark Webber, Tom Bower, Michael Emerson, Noah Fleiss, Terry Kinney, Amy Madigan, Frances Sternhagen and many more.

It’s relevant to note that at first I was attracted to this movie mostly because of its cast, but ended up loving it for much more than that. It’s an important story to be told.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cold Comfort Farm

Director

John Schlesinger

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 14, 2003

Flora (Kate Beckinsale) is a young British woman recently orphaned, in the 1930s. She’s sophisticated, but not snobbish, so she decides to settle with any of her relatives, but it must be someone who’ll inspire her to write, for she dreams to be a writer. There are many choices, and I must say that they all seemed attractive, but she chooses her weird Aunt Judith (Eileen Atkins), who lives in Cold Comfort Farm, a place filled with weird characters and an atmosphere of fear. The eldest of the Starkadders, Ada Doom (Sheila Burrell) subjugates the rest of the family. Now Flora has arrived to change everybody’s life and way of thinking, and open them up a little, and make them happier. Is this in the way of her own happiness? No, why should it be?!

Extraordinarily fun British TV Movie, one that’s as delightful as it can get, with every element to make it worthwhile. Beckinsale is a joy as Flora, an obvious variation of Jane Austen’s Emma, but every character in the farm has something of its own. Ian McKellen plays a preacher, for instance, and not one that will forgive sins easily! Flora is matchmaker, mind-opener and customs breaker. Little by little, the gloomy atmosphere becomes quite bright. The ending is happy, that’s that.

Based on the novel by Stella Gibbons. Sure is worth a look!!

“Jane Austen and I have so much in common - neither of us can endure a mess.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Donnie Darko

Director

Richard Kelly

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, April 10, 2003

When Donnie Darko premiered at the Sundance Film Festival it was highlighted as one of the main attractions. It had a killer cast and a story that sounded good. Ultimately people saw it and were disappointed, but the movie quickly started to grow a following that may make of it a cult classic in the future. As of me, I just saw it and it was quite upsetting.

Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a weird teenager who has visions of a big rabbit that tells him things. The line between reality and fantasy soon gets blurry as those things start to become premonitions. Is Donnie’s mind playing games with him? Or is he really going through a supernatural experience? Meanwhile Donnie struggles to tolerate his big sister (Maggie Gyllenhaal), father (Holmes Osborne) and mother (Mary McDonnell) while he meets a beautiful girl (Jena Malone) that might actually understand him.

Donnie Darko starts interestingly enough. It has an eerie atmosphere that immediately attracted my attention. I also started to notice that the characters are a bit quirky, something I always love. Then strange things started happening out of nowhere and I was ecstatic. Just my kind of movie!

But wait, soon the movie started to become something else. A lot of characters were suddenly introduced as what can only be described as plot devices. More weird things continued to happen but they were more like headache-inducing. The movie’s tone started to vary to the point where I didn’t know what was going on or what director Richard Kelly wanted me to think or feel. Worst of all, the movie started to get boring.

And then there’s the ending. A sort of plot twist/revelation that didn’t answer a thing but actually left me feeling quite unsatisfied and lost.

That’s too bad, you know? Because Kelly got a first-rate cast that ultimately went nowhere. Gyllenhaal is good, but he’s played this role one too many times. His sister Maggie is a delight as always. Mary McDonnell is excellent and supporting performances from Patrick Swayze, Drew Barrymore, Noah Wyle and Katharine Ross are ok.

I guess the movie is about divine intervention, which is ironic because I think it could’ve used a little of that in the process of being made.

“Twenty-eight days... six hours... forty-two minutes... twelve seconds. That... is when the world... will end.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shower

Director

Yang Zhang

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 09, 2003

Da Ming (Quanxin Pu), a businessman from Shenzhen, comes back home in Beijing after misinterpreting a message from his slow-witted brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang), which made him believe their father Liu (Xu Zhu) was dead. When he arrives, Da Ming feels unwelcome, but not because his father or brother don’t love him, but because his life has become something completely different. As opposed to the accelerated life he leads, his father tirelessly but lovingly works in a bathhouse, where people from all around come to relax for full days. Master Liu is wise, and his clients trust his advice and sometimes do or don’t do things according to his words. Liu is very happy with his business, his friends, and more than anything his son Er, who’s innocent, sweet and helpful.

Da plans to leave as soon as possible, back to his neurotic work and his wife who hasn’t met his family. But a series of events stick him to his father’s home and soon he realizes that the bathhouse has an ill future, as does his father. Now he begins to question his own existence, wondering if he did right by negating his principles to be successful.

Beautiful, poetic, eye-opening Chinese movie, a piece of love and dedication, that resonates anywhere around the world. The movie begins with an imaginary, automated shower for the modern-day businessman, then develops slowly into a traditional, unworried bath that lasts the whole movie. That is the first, last and most significant message of the movie: how modern life opposes tradition, not always for the best. Da is a complex character, full of guilt and confusion, but unable to say no to what he has accomplished. Master Liu is also a great character, full of wisdom and “take it or leave it” messages. But it is Er, beautifully played by Jiang, who steals the spotlight, always so innocent and good-willed that he breaks your heart. Who can be happier than Er playing with that hose in the street? And what about that “O Sole Mio” performance outside the bathhouse by his friend? Er makes it right, and makes us cry.

An unforgettable score by Xiaogang Ye magnifies the beauty and poignancy of the procedures. This one’s a great movie!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The River Wild

Director

Curtis Hanson

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, April 08, 2003

Meryl Streep got a lot of attention this past year because of two masterful performances that earned her multiple awards nominations. She also got some press because of the fact that she’s now the actress with the most Oscar nominations, 13, in the history of the Academy. That is not surprising considering she’s such a marvel of an actress and one of America’s greatest treasures. But it was in 1994 that she really did surprise everyone when she decided to star in an action thriller. Say what?

Gail (Meryl Streep) is a water rafting expert who takes her son (Joseph Mazzello) and estranged husband (David Strathairn) into a wild trip down the river. In the way they meet a pair of inexperienced rafters (Kevin Bacon and John C. Reilly) who need their help, yet they soon find out these guys are actually armed robbers. It then becomes a fight for their lives.

You would think The River Wild is just your average thriller. The plot is nothing groundbreaking and the cast is not of the action hero specialty. Yet that would be far underestimating the movie. Director Curtis Hanson was able to bring warmth in the midst of chaos through the story of this broken family who has to fight together and overcome obstacles far more profound than just two guys with guns. But don’t get me wrong, the movie isn’t a drama, yet it takes a refreshing spin in which we actually do care, and a lot, about the well-developed characters.

It would seem far too clichéd to praise Meryl even when she’s starring in a movie like this, but you have to believe me when I say she’s unbelievably amazing. Her sole presence brings the movie to a whole new level, but her performance is so good you’d think she had been doing this for years. She’s athletic, totally believable as a rafting expert, and also plays the role of a mother and wife with the right touch of strength and warmness. She didn’t get Golden Globe and SAG nominations for nothing!

So the movie is predictable all right, but it is also a lot of fun. It is fast-paced and totally entertaining. It is also well-acted and directed. On top of that, the rafting scenes are a pleasure to watch given Robert Elswit’s excellent photography.

A fun ride!

“I’m a nice guy. Just a different kind of nice guy.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Kid

Director

Charles Chaplin

Year

1921

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 07, 2003

The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) is minding his own business when suddenly he bumps into an abandoned baby, and finds no way of getting rid of it. Finally, he takes the baby boy home, and makes him his own, obeying the note that came with the kid, which asked for care and affection for such an unfortunate child. The kid then grows up to become a kind of mini-tramp, the perfect associate to his father, as they plan schemes together. They love each other too, making a perfect father-and-son team in every aspect of life.

However, the unlucky mother (Edna Purviance) has prospered, and wants her kid back. But the Tramp is the kid’s father now! Not by law, however. What’ll happen?

This very famous Chaplin movie, his first feature film, is a simple premise expanded into full-length, but gets into very dangerous territory: adding tragedy to the comedy! This was the first such experiment, by Chaplin or anyone, and most people was skeptic, but he pulled it off amazingly. Even the movie warns us in the beginning: “A comedy with a smile--and perhaps a tear”. In the end, you will find yourself crying, or feeling like crying, while there are lots of laughs throughout. Watch out for the separation scene, a heart-breaker!

Jackie Coogan, as the Kid, became Hollywood’s first child star, and with reason: he even eclipses Charlie at times. The latter knew that’d happen, but he was brilliant enough to give the kid enough importance to make his film a hit. They sure made an unforgettable team!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Far From Heaven

Director

Todd Haynes

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, April 03, 2003

When Far From Heaven opened at the Venice Film Festival last year it was an immediate success. Critics went gaga and Julianne Moore was given the prestigious Best Actress award. From then on she became the front-runner to win every award out there in her native country. At first she lived up to the hype. She won an impressive number of awards from critics groups and got nominations for everything as well. As each day passed though, it seemed like Hollywood wanted to award their golden girls a bit more, so Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger got all the attention. Julianne went on to lose the Oscar, but she can be sure she did a fine job last year. Her performance in Far From Heaven was easily the best of the year. Not only that, but she also delivered the best supporting performance of the year in another movie. Talk about talent!

Cathy (Julianne Moore) is a happy 50’s wife and mother who couldn’t ask for more. Her husband (Dennis Quaid) is a successful businessman and her children are nice, healthy kids living a normal life. It isn’t until she finds out something quite shocking about her husband that their lives become turmoil. Cathy then finds comfort in her gardener (Dennis Haysbert), a kind black man whose everyday struggle against racism will be intensified by his relationship with Cathy.

Far From Heaven is such a magical, poetic movie. Director Todd Haynes successfully creates a movie that could have easily been made in the 50’s if it weren’t for the fact that racism and homosexuality were topics that would’ve never been permitted in this way in that kind of movies. But the truth is they existed. There was racism and there’s always been homosexuality, so Haynes wanted to put that into the repressive scenario and see where his characters would lead up to. The result is heart-breaking.

I find it quite interesting that Julianne Moore tackled the same subject matter in totally different ways through Far From Heaven and The Hours last year. While in The Hours she was the gay one in the marriage, in Far From Heaven it’s the opposite. In both movies the consequences were quite disastrous, and I find that remarkably real and very well-handled in both cases. The way Cathy faces her husband’s condition is simply unbelievable, going through phases of shock, then optimism, then sadness, then resentment, then anger. Ultimately every ugly issue in life has to be confronted at one point. But of course, it’s never that easy.

The movie also tackles another controversial topic called racism. We’ve seen a lot of that in many movies, but it somehow never ceases to resonate every time it’s brought up. The romance between Cathy and Raymond is one of the most touching ones I’ve seen in a while. It blossoms out of nowhere. It happens amidst very difficult times for both of them. It also takes place in a world that doesn’t understand them. And despite that, it never ceases to be tender and honest.

Needless to say this movie belongs to Julianne Moore, who is just perfection incarnated. She brings so much soul to Cathy. She makes her breath in immaculate fashion. I was stunned by her performance. Julianne is one of the best actresses working out there. I can’t keep my eyes away from her, I just can’t. But wait, she’s also surrounded by a terrific cast. Dennis Quaid delivers one of the best performances of his career. His character is far more complex than meets the eye, and Quaid knows what he’s doing. Dennis Haysbert is extraordinary, as is Patricia Clarkson as Cathy’s best friend.

Kudos should also go to every one who worked in the technical aspects of the movie. The art direction is impeccable, Ed Lachman’s cinematography is breath-taking, Elmer Bernstein’s score is heaven-sent and the make-up and costumes are wondrous.

Todd Haynes simply delivered one of the best movies of the year.

“I know it’s wrong because it makes me feel despicable.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tune in Tomorrow...

Director

Jon Amiel

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 02, 2003

As a big fan of Mario Vargas Llosa’s novel “Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter”, I made some research and eventually found that a Hollywood movie had been done, based on this Peruvian novel. I just had to see it. I read some reviews that said the movie wasn’t half as good as the book, which was no wonder since it’s such a complicated book to adapt, plus it’s got many aspects and values that can’t be interpreted by other culture than one from Latin America, and since the movie is set in New Orleans, they couldn’t be the same. However, I wanted to have some fun seeing how they could adapt it, or even try to. That in itself was interesting enough for me. So I saw it, and here I am to tell you about it.

Martin Loader (Keanu Reeves) is a young daydreamer who works as a news redactor in a radio station circa 1950. Suddenly, two interesting things happen around him: a prestigious writer of radio soaps arrives, as does his Aunt Julia (Barbara Hershey), who’s not really family, only in law and now not even that, ‘cause she just divorced Martin’s uncle. Aunt Julia’s visit shakes Martin’s world, when he falls in love with her. She’s unreachable, or so it seems, but something tells him that she might respond. The scriptwriter, Pedro Carmichael (Peter Falk), starts developing his outrageous stories and takes the town by storm, which inspires Martin, an aspiring writer. It also affects his relationship with his Aunt Julia. But while Martin’s family is against that relationship, Pedro’s stories become wackier and wackier… how will this end?

Tune in tomorrow!

Yep, I liked it. Compared to the novel, it’s nothing: not as rich, not as fun, not as tasteful. But still, it’s got flavor and comedy, enjoyable romance and good spirit. The story is really good, and the interpretation of Carmichael’s soaps, usually starring John Larroquette and Peter Gallagher, are whacked-out. In the end, everything spins around Carmichael, and by playing him, Peter Falk created an unforgettable interpretation and completely stole the spotlight: he’s extraordinary!

Worth seeing for a good time. I recommend doing what I did, however: read the book first!

“Life is a shitstorm, and when it's raining shit the best umbrella is art.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Pianist

Director

Roman Polanski

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

Coming off from an extremely good night at the Oscars in which it was responsible for three of the biggest shocks of the night, The Pianist was everything everyone was talking about afterwards. The weird thing is those shocks happened because we didn't see the Director, Actor and Screenplay honors coming, yet the Academy did something we were all proud of: they awarded the right people.

The movie tells the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody), a Jewish pianist who suffered the struggles of the Holocaust in Poland. As the Nazis started to invade their country, Walter and his family were forced to follow unjust rules, move to a Jewish ghetto, work in the worst of circumstances and, to put it simply, fight for their lives.

The Pianist won the Palm d'Or at Cannes early last year. Director Roman Polanski was there to receive the award and to talk about how personal this movie was to him. He also went through the horrors of World War II when he was young and it is well-known that his mother died in a concentration camp. Perhaps that's why his movie feels so real and in-your-face. Polanski decided to avoid melodrama and show things as they happened. Szpilman's story spoke for itself.

I recall watching this movie and thinking to myself that it was being one of the most difficult experiences I have ever had in a theater. I was suffering so much that it almost started to get uncomfortable. That's how powerful the movie is in transmitting its story and message. As I kept watching I also got the feeling that I was watching something important. It became even more relevant given the times we're living today.

War is hell, war is absurd, war is suffering, war changes people. As I watched Szpilman surviving through the years it made me think what I would've done in his place. Why did he not kill himself? Why did he want to keep going? I guess it had to do with him being such a memorable man and human being. Then it was the hope. The hope that war would end one day, the hope that he would be able to live once again, the hope that something good would come after so many years of torment. I can't even start to think how difficult it was for Jews to survive through the Holocaust. This movie does exactly that for us.

There's an interesting aspect of The Pianist worth discussing which is the way Nazis, and specifically Germans, are depicted in the movie. There 's no doubt Hitler had his following and there's no doubt some of his soldiers agreed with him and some didn't. After all they just had to follow orders. But the movie is successful in depicting both sides of the coin. Not every German was a monster, but there were some that could've been the devil incarnated. War can make people show off their worst side, but in the greatest of ironies, it can also bring the best out of others.

Adrien Brody is jaw-droppingly good in the title role. Not only is his physical transformation stunning, but we can see the horror, the pain, the absurdity, the disillusionment, the starving and the hope all in his eyes. His performance is very affecting, and I thank him for that.

Lending strong support is a good cast that includes Thomas Kretschmann, Emilia Fox, Michal Zebrowski, Ed Stoppard, Maureen Lipman, Frank Finlay, Jessica Kate Meyer, Julia Rayner and many more.

Not only did Polanski make his most personal film to date, he's also responsible for one of the most powerful movies about the Holocaust ever made.

“So, we should just stand here and talk, I don’t think we’re not allowed to do that.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter