CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

XXY

Director

Lucía Puenzo

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Argentinean film XXY was presented at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival to much ballyhoo, eventually winning the Critics Week Grand Prize and the Grand Golden Rail; it also went on to win several accolades around the world, including Spain’s prestigious Goya. To be honest, the flick’s subject matter is certainly alluring and one that has not been treated that much in cinema, but the tale could’ve gone wrong in so many different ways it’s almost miraculous that it came out as good and haunting as it did.
Alex (Inés Efron) was born a hermaphrodite. Her parents Kraken (Ricardo Darín) and Suli (Valeria Bertuccelli) moved from Buenos Aires to a small fishing town in Uruguay so they could give her a peaceful upbringing. But the visit from old friends Ramiro (Germán Palacios), a plastic surgeon, and Erika (Carolina Pelleritti), along with their son Alvaro (Martín Piroyansky), removes feelings that had apparently been buried.

Lucía Puenzo directed from her own screenplay based on Sergio Bizzio’s short story “Cinismo”. Lucía is the daughter of legendary director Luis Puenzo, and makes her directorial debut with this picture. This little fact makes the effort even more extraordinary. She is able to pull off an intimate, poignant and intelligent examination of what it might be like to be born with such a condition and the reactions that others might have.

Alex is thankfully surrounded by a family that loves her for who she is, but that’s not even the beginning of the potential problems. Her confusion is palpable. At one point she is asked if she likes boy or girls, answering that she doesn’t know. Her body is a mixture between male and female, and she has to take pills every day of which she’s fed up already. People outside her house stare at her, and though her best friend is supportive she still punches him in the face when telling him the news. Even when Alvaro shows an interest in her just the way she is she’s still confused and takes a defensive position; how can anyone love her if she doesn’t love herself?

Puenzo deals with all these complex issues without a trace of exploitation and a deft hand at character development. I had never approached this subject matter so closely, but everything in this story rang true to me. Alex is a truly fascinating character and everything from her responses to the way she relates to others is unpredictable yet understandable. A highlight is an extended scene in which three friends sit by a fire without saying one word. I’m glad this movie was made and I’m glad so much care was put into it.

A small downside is that the movie takes too long to reveal Alex’s situation, while I think the majority of people who watch this movie will know the “twist” beforehand and the wait is unnecessary. After all, that’s what the movie is about.

Score by Andrés Goldstein and Daniel Tarrab is beautiful, as is Natasha Braier’s cinematography.

Inés Efron delivers an absolutely riveting performance as Alex, a difficult role that even the most accomplished actors in the world would certainly struggle with. She says very little, but her expressions and body language speak volumes. She is heart-breaking without falling into pity territory, a character with a strong personality that is nonetheless terribly wounded. Ricardo Darín is extraordinary as her father and so is Martín Piroyansky as Alvaro, a young fellow with some issues to tackle of his own.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jumper

Director

Doug Liman

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Time-traveling, teleporting. I’ve been always kind of a sucker for these sci-fi premises. What would you do if you could teleport yourself to basically any place on the face of the earth? Steven Gould, in his novel Jumper, uses this premise and gives his characters the innate ability to instantly teleport themselves. It is definitely an interesting foundation, however, Director Doug Liman and screenwriters David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg do little to exploit this promising idea, and come up with a movie that takes us through NYC, Rome, Egypt, Tokyo, but ends up going absolutely nowhere.

Hayden Christensen is David Rice, a normal teenager until he finds he’s got the ability to teleport himself from place to place when he first "jumps" spontaneously in order to escape his abusive father (Michael Rooker). Having run away, he learns to control his ability and then does, I guess, what every one of us, being a teleporting teenager, would do: go into a bank’s vault and get away with several thousands in cash. The good thing is that Jumpers do not have to worry about mingling their own molecules with a fly's, as they can actually hold onto anything: other people, cars, even parts of a building, and teleport to another place arriving safe and sound on the other side with whoever or whatever they were carrying.

David grows up and, by that time, he’s already got a penthouse at a luxurious NY building and he’s been all over the world. The usual day for him involves having breakfast on top of the Giza’s Sphinx in Egypt, spending the afternoon surfing the best waves of the season in Hawaii or Fiji, and having a drink at a popular pub in London while checking out and hitting on the hot babes at night.

Yes, life is good for David, that is, until the bad guys appear. He learns that he is not the only one with that unusual gift and also learns that there is actually a group of people that hunt Jumpers for a living. Roland, played by Samuel L. Jackson, has been following David since he first broke in at his first bank. He is the leader of the Paladins, that particular group of individuals whose only goal in life seems to be killing all the Jumpers and, apparently, this war between Jumpers and Paladins has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

But David doesn’t look like he is the type of guy that’d enjoy messing up with other people’s lives. Granted, he steals money, but then he is basically a good guy that likes to pamper himself and enjoy a low-profile, big-shot-like life and spend big amounts of money. I’d bet the IRS would nail him before The Paladins would. Ok yes, I guess with time David could get bored of all the indulgences and turn to the bad side; maybe teleport himself right into the Pentagon secret archives and steal some sensitive material and then try to sell it or just give it away to a terrorist organization. I haven’t read the book, but I understand that, in the original Gould’s novel, there is no Paladin organization and the villains (or at least the guys chasing David), are actually NSA agents who are trying to understand these powers and get them to “good” use. I think Roland says that he works for the NSA, which initially made sense to me, but then, this character turns out to be just an obsessed, fanatical hunter. This is where the movie starts going nowhere. We spend the rest of the time watching Roland following and fighting David, while he drags with him his love interest, Millie (Rachel Blison), around the world. Throw in the appearance of Griffin (Jamie Bell), another paranoid Jumper, and the brief and inexplicable appearance of David’s mother (Diane Lane), who’s a Paladin herself (!?), and we end up with this 88 minute mess.

There are so many inconsistencies in this movie that it is hard to follow. For instance, I really never bought or understood Roland. What’s his motivation? Nobody knows. The movie doesn’t stop to elaborate on this issue. Maybe he’s jealous because he can’t teleport himself, but, in any case, he seems to be pretty much settled as he can travel all over the world and it is obvious that he doesn’t depend on commercial airlines schedules.

Roland utters at some point something like: “God is the only one that should have those powers!”, and if you consider that the name Paladins has been associated with the highest officials of the Catholic Church, the religious connotation is inevitable. I assume that most religious people don’t question what their religion says, they just comply. Liman and company are like that, they don’t care. They don’t give the Paladins a cause, they just let them hate the Jumpers so much, and then they give us Roland, an overzealous, inquisitorial-like priest whose religion states that its worst deadly sin is teleporting.

Roland is blind for mysterious reasons, but I’m not. If David’s mother is a Paladin and she won’t kill her own son, why not convince her to enlist David as a Paladin? Paladins can not “jump”, so it might be helpful for them to have an actual jumper in the ranks. Why not convince David to partner with him and do something good for the entire human race, or just themselves? Can you imagine the possibilities? This is what saves this movie from the worst rating. I’ve spent myself quite some time thinking about these, and when movies make me think, I like them. Forget about having David teleporting medical supplies to a disaster stricken, inaccessible region, or having David rescue a bunch of people from the top of a burning building. How about being the world’s most feared paparazzo? Jump into a celebrity’s home, catch him or her off guard, and get away with some photos that could be sold to the tabloids for millions, or how about just establishing the world’s fastest and most effective courier service? Anyway, if I ever come across a Jumper, watch out FedEx!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Definitely, Maybe

Director

Adam Brooks

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 28, 2008

You know, sometimes it’s necessary to take a break from all the prestige movies that come at the end of the year, and that also includes the big blockbusters that come in hand during the time. Since I don’t live in the US I’m still getting to see many of these flicks and don’t get me wrong… I love this time of the year. But what’s wrong with trying something light, unimportant and enjoyable? Nothing actually, and that’s why Definitely, Maybe suited my mood so well.

Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) is going through a divorce and his daughter Maya (Abigail Breslin) wants to know the story about how he and his mother met. So Will decides to tell her the story of the three serious relationships he once had without telling him which is her mother until the end. That’s how he recalls his blossoming romance with hometown sweetie Emily (Elizabeth Banks), his move to New York to work in the Clinton campaign and how he met free-willing spirit April (Isla Fisher) and then his encounter with Emily’s college friend Summer (Rachel Weisz), all of whom left a mark on him.

Adam Brooks directed from a screenplay he wrote. His movie stands as a romantic comedy of sorts, but it’s got an intriguing central premise and is way smarter than most of the fluff that forms the genre. There aren’t any big truths or revelations in it, but it connects because it feels grounded and real and approachable. It could be any of us telling our kid about our life’s romances and the complications of relationships as well as its sweet moments. Of course this guy’s stories are filled with booze, cigarettes, depression and sex, something you wouldn’t tell your kid, but I let it go and went with the flow.

Brooks juxtaposes these flashbacks with scenes in the present between father and daughter. Maya is an amazing character and delivers some of the biggest laughs. Then the movie turns serious once again as we dig into Will’s past. Unfortunately Emily’s story does not even approach the level of exposition that April and Summer get, so we never get a grasp of who she is (or was) and never truly identify with her. April and Summer, on the other hand, are very interesting individuals who come to grow on us and that are filled with peculiarities that make them unique.

I won’t get into spoiler territory except to say that the ending, which has to do with the present and what happens after Will tells the story to Maya, is satisfying and poignant and affecting. I thought I’d be disappointed but I definitely wasn’t. And best of all, it doesn’t feel forced. Brooks nailed it.

New York is beautifully photographed by Florian Ballhaus, but not only that, he and Brooks create just the right atmosphere, you can almost smell the streets. Clint Mansell’s music is also a highpoint.

As for performances, Ryan Reynolds is likable and all, but he doesn’t truly own the movie and is mostly upstaged by all the women. Besides, he has a baby-face (an on-going joke in the movie) that never ever changes despite a decade gone by, something that did bother me. Abigail Breslin is absolutely charming in the typical smarter-than-her-age kid role, but it doesn’t matter because she’s a ray of light. As for the three women, Isla Fisher is adorable and Rachel Weisz appropriately exotic, while Elizabeth Banks fits very well in the next-door neighbor part. Kevin Kline has a small appearance as well which is welcomed, if a bit strange.

“What’s the boy word for ‘slut’?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Away from Her

Director

Sarah Polley

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Alice Munro’s short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain” is a deeply moving take on Alzheimer’s disease from the point of view of a patient’s loved one, in this case a man whose own ghosts haunt him when in need to confront the problem that’s taking over his wife’s existence. It’s so specific and truthful about the way Alzheimer’s disease develops and the symptoms that it spawns that it no doubt was written through own experience or thorough research.

Actress Sarah Polley adapted that story into a beautiful screenplay that’s totally truthful to the source but makes it come true with poetic ease. The dialogue is so perfect and to the point that it shows that sometimes in life talking too much is unnecessary. Much of what’s to be said is said through action or character nuance, which is also a symptom of the older age of the main characters, who have probably said too much and are at a point where they can communicate with only a look, a smile, a frown, or an eye roll. Again, Polley so well understands these people that she’s able to pull off their personality through her sharp screenplay and loving direction. Her work is first-rate.

Grant and Fiona have a good marriage. They know it’s not the best but they also know there’s no such thing as a perfect marriage. They got married when she was too young and he was already rather experienced, yet she was the one to propose and she more or less remained in control of the situation throughout the years. Perhaps he had a slip or two, but nothing that couldn’t be forgiven and left behind. But suddenly, when everything is at ease, when they live quietly in a farm where they’re free to ski and lead a peaceful life, she starts losing her mind, and it seems like she’s playing her vendetta, finally getting back at him, now that he has lowered his defenses, because he was able to pull it off without much harm done, or so it seemed.

It’s Alzheimer’s disease, of course, but what’s Alzheimer’s disease if not a state of mind, a process where one slips into oblivion because the mind stops trying. This doesn’t show in blood tests, there are no spots on the skin, and sometimes the patient seems lucid, perfect, the same as ever, like nothing’s wrong, like it was probably the heat, or exhaustion, or a momentary state that’s now gone, and everything’s back to normal. But the symptoms persist, and the problem is there and must be treated, or it can be dangerous and painful. Fiona insists to be institutionalized, and there’s a nursing home that seems nice enough for this. Grant objects, and has a terrible time fighting himself from taking Fiona there. But she’s determined, and it has to be done.

When Grant finds out, a month later, during which he’s painfully forced to stay away from his wife as a rule of the nursing home, that his wife is happy and calm, has gotten used to her new home, has mostly forgotten about him, and has now developed a much stronger bond with another intern, he collapses. Worse: it appears like she’s still in control, like she knows what she’s doing, like she’s playing a prank. That’s what I found most interesting about this story, and the way it’s laid out: through the excruciating story of a man that’s left behind by a wife with a disease, we see a study of guilt, pain, nostalgia and new beginnings. Sometimes it’s even a mystery, as Grant watches his estranged wife from feet away developing a new life that has little or nothing to do with him. Sometimes it’s a typical love triangle story, with Aubrey the red herring that causes the protagonist to ignite a set of mixed feelings towards his wife. And most of the times it’s a straightforward love story, with a man becoming what he’s never been to achieve his wife’s happiness after so many years of giving just enough, of doing just the minimum required. The intensity is so constant that one is thankful for Jonathan Goldsmith’s calm music which reminds us that this is a simple drama, and not all the other genres that it appears to tackle.

Perhaps Grant’s feelings aren’t real, perhaps he was the best husband a woman could ask for, but he can’t help feeling that way. Alzheimer’s disease patients, he’s told, sometimes act aloof but it’s not personal. He knows what to expect but he goes so far as to suspect his wife is putting up an act. The miracle of having us agree with Grant that this could be the case is achieved by Julie Christie, whose Fiona presents the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease as vividly as if she was actually afflicted. How she switches from loving to distant to forgetful to conflicted is outstanding. Her performance is absolutely brilliant. Gordon Pinsent, as Grant, is also excellent in a smooth, heartfelt performance. It’s painful to see him but he makes Grant turn out admirable.

A subplot involves Grant visiting the wife of the man Fiona has befriended. This woman, Marian, though played by Olympia Dukakis, comes off as the weakest link. It’s interesting to see what Grant is willing to do for his wife but it’s unnecessary to sprinkle it throughout the film as a sort of flash-forward. I think it would’ve been much more impacting if it had been packed together in the end as it was in the original story. It surprised me that it was not. Polley reproduced much of the rest exactly, even some of the dialogue is verbatim, but this was split and spread for some cinematic purpose that never reached me. However, the ending is as strong as it was intended.

We know the pain will continue until the end, but life keeps giving us hope at the most unexpected times. Fiona is the central person in this story and she’s really an unforgettable character. Julie Christie is as pretty as ever and she embodies the object of Grant’s affection so strongly that we want him never to be away from her. She has the spark of life.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Director

Shekhar Kapur

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

I am a huge admirer of Elizabeth, that little movie released ten years ago which took the world by storm and introduced Cate Blanchett, an actress who rose to international fame after its release and is now regarded as one of the best actresses in the world. The same team behind that gem decided to do a second part (supposedly the middle chapter of a trilogy) telling of another era in the life of fascinating Queen Elizabeth I. Unfortunately the critical acclaim was mostly lost on this one, but I still found it thoroughly enjoyable and interesting, perhaps because I find the central character so strong and fascinating.

Queen Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) is still being pressured by her counselor Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) to get married and produce an heir, but she is more interested in other things such as the threats that the Catholics are poising over her reign, specifically the Vatican and King Phillip II of Spain (Jordi Mollá), who want her cousin Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) to take over the throne. But when adventurer Sir William Raleigh (Clive Owen) presents himself she is swept off her feet, as is her main helper and confidante Bess (Abbie Cornish).

Shekhar Kapur is back at the helm based on a script by William Nicholson and Michael Hirst which, just as the first movie, takes many liberties with history in the name of cinematic grandeur. I couldn’t care less about this, although I might understand Elizabethan purists who are, because the tales and intrigues they’ve crafted capture the essence of the woman perfectly and present an idea of how things might’ve happened which is not literal but entertaining all the same.

One of the main problems with the movie is that its first half feels awkward in the way the story is presented and edited. There’s nothing that grounds it and gives it a personality or even a consistent tone. Even Elizabeth is presented like we have never seen her before, sometimes strong, sometimes childish; with lesbian undertones that might’ve been fascinating but come off rather off-putting. In a nutshell we don’t really know what to think of Elizabeth and the movie gets to a confusing start because of this.

Fortunately though, as the story progresses the movie starts to become better and more involving. Only the scenes with King Phillip II halter the proceedings as they are cartoonish and over-the-top to say the least. But Elizabeth coming to terms with who she is and fighting will all her might with the life she is leading make up for entrancing chapters. The intrigues that surround her, including the appearances of her cousin Mary and the blossoming romance between Sir William and Bess make up for good drama that rises at the end with the infamous confrontation between England and Spain’s fleets.

The technical side of the movie is nothing short of breathtaking, with Remi Adefarasin’s photography capturing the era with gusto. Craig Armstrong and AR Rahman’s score is suitable, although there’s a sequence when scenes from the first movie come up accompanied by its original score that gave me goose bumps. Production design, art direction, costumes and make-up are all impeccable and a true feast for the eye.

Cate Blanchett is once again a force of nature in the title role; work of the absolute first caliber indeed. Geoffrey Rush doesn’t have much to do but is a welcomed presence. Clive Owen holds his own with his presence and charisma and really makes you believe that the Queen herself would fall for him. Abbie Cornish is pretty and does well, but doesn’t leave that much of an impression. Jordi Mollá is awful, like a villain out of a comic book. Samantha Morton is the one standout amongst the supporting cast, delivering an unforgettable performance that lasts only for a few scenes; I would’ve had more of her in a heartbeat. Rhys Ifans and Tom Hollander also appear.

“I too can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare when you dare to try me!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Counterfeiters

Director

Stefan Ruzowitzky

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

If there’s a twist well worth approaching for the subject of concentration camps during World War II, it is taking a look at the underworld on both sides and in the middle, affected in a positive or a negative way by the war. The real value of Die Fälscher is the look it gives to one such chapter, that of Jewish prisoners being enlisted by the Nazis for a pro-Nazi operation that required their specific skills.

The result is, in a way, more of the same, as the cruelty of the Nazis towards the Jewish prisoners is intact here as in most other movies on the subject, thoroughly exploited and pinpointed in individuals; but there’s also the twist of a prisoner in a dilemma whether to cooperate for his own sake but against his people’s, or refuse, endangering his personal security and that of his partners but helping their cause. This gives the victim an extra substance that makes the human being all the more real.

The story is based on the real-life top secret Operation Bernhard, the largest of its kind, with almost enough British notes counterfeited to support the Nazi war, and win. According to the film, triumph would’ve come easily in the form of counterfeited dollars, a particular challenge for the counterfeiters and particularly the protagonist, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics), whose path we follow from beginning to end.

Sorowitsch has always followed the theory that “every man for himself”. He cared little about the Nazi menace and kept working clandestinely, humoring pretty girls who needed false passports and making more money, both counterfeited and real, than most people dream about. His antics are accompanied by old tangos in the soundtrack, which go on for the entire piece.

After being imprisoned by the Nazis and then transferred to a concentration camp, Sorowitsch begins to use his talents to improve his status at the camp; he paints flattering portraits of Nazi soldiers and their families. No one would doubt however, to this day, that the Nazis weren’t all for appreciating a Jew overnight, but the film goes a bit far by showing that no matter what efforts Sorowitsch did, he was still treated like shit. One can’t feel the rush of someone finding a way into personal if not physical freedom in a dreadful situation like this if we’re constantly reminded that it didn’t make much difference. This makes the film hard to swallow even when the character is getting somewhere.

Then there is a difference, though not big enough. Transferred to Sachsenhausen with other experts, Sorowitsch is put in charge of the important task of counterfeiting British notes to finance the Nazi cause. They’re still prisoners, still unprivileged, but at least they’re left alone to work on something that they love even if they’re doing it to benefit the enemy. The glee on the eyes of these people as they see their line of work come true and sponsored by their captors is unmatchable. I suppose we would all feel that rush if we were put to work in what we love most even if the motivation was to prevent our deaths and despite the fact that we will only benefit those whom we hate most.

The dilemma is mainly centered in a single character, Adolf Burger, played by August Diehl. This is the only character based on a single real person, the same one whose memoirs the screenplay is based upon, and who is, not surprisingly, the hero. Even though he works as hard as the others, he quickly finds what they’re doing intolerable and eventually refuses to continue, even if it means his death and that of his partners. Sorowitsch, who seems a much more real person despite not being based on one, tries to keep the balance between his partners’ anger towards Burger and the latter’s refusal to work for the Nazis.

Enter one of the most interesting characters: Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow), the Nazi in charge of the operation, who is in ways more pressed than any of the prisoners. He’s interesting because he’s a businessman, not a political idealist, and because his dehumanization has little to do with race and lots to do with self-promotion. Put in that context, perhaps most idealists are at their core businessmen who want their own agenda realized regardless of their flag or motto. Herzog sometimes falls into the cliché of Nazi scum, but mostly he’s blind to people’s sensibilities because he so wants to see his team succeed.

When all is said and done, Operation Bernhard could’ve been the most impressive counterfeiting operation in history, but to my eye it’s a wasted piece of history when portrayed as another example of Nazi brutalism or as yet another telling of Jewish prisoner resiliency. After two hours of chaos, the film wants to sell us the idea that the key delay in delivering the fake dollars was some sort of deliberate strategy to prevent the Nazi advance. We have been told this is not true, and then the version changes. This contrast, a poorly counterfeited feel-good moral that doesn’t belong, is unacceptable.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Meet the Spartans

Director

Jason Friedberg

Aaron Seltzer

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 21, 2008

I can’t help it. Every time one of these so-called satires comes out I just have to see it. I love when people make fun of pop culture but there’s a difference between being intelligent and going for the lowest standard possible. I almost always come out disappointed, but I’ve learnt to expect the worst and thus the experience is not that bad. I actually enjoyed and was entertained by Meet the Spartans but it certainly is not a good movie; it’s like being addicted to one of those brainless TV reality shows despite knowing they’re nothing but trash.

The plot follows Leonidas (Sean Maguire) as he has to face the Persians, led by Xerxes (Ken Davitian), with his army of ridiculously muscular men. Back home his wife Queen Margo (Carmen Electra) has to face the counsel and go against Traitoro (Diedrich Bader) in order to get Leonidas the desperate help he needs.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer directed from their own screenplay. Now to put things in perspective they are also the guys responsible for Date Movie and Epic Movie; they also collaborated in the Scary Movie franchise. At least their latest does not have a generic name such as all of the aforementioned, but it still ain’t any good; I wouldn’t even know how to rate them against each other. They’re all practically the same although tackling different genres as their spoof material.

Meet the Spartans is obviously targeting the plot of 300 and the whole running gag in the movie is that all of these soldiers are gay and act accordingly. I have to admit to laughing at some of these jabs, since 300 really is a movie that is easy to make fun of. Unfortunately the rest of the gags are not nearly as funny or amusing. Several reality and game shows are made fun of and Ugly Betty, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton get to make appearances. Spider-Man 3 also figures at some point and I can’t really remember anything else.

You know the drill, it is joke after joke after joke with only about 20% percent of them working if at all. It’s better to just deal with it and move on with your life.

Performances are as good as what they’re required of. Sean Maguire makes a good stand-in for Gerard Butler’s Leonidas and nails the accent and mannerisms. Carmen Electra, a veteran of this type of movies, feels right at home and is actually fun. Ken Davitian, Diedrich Bader, Kevin Sorbo and Method Man also try their best.

“Stop kicking people into the pit of death! Honestly!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lust, Caution

Director

Ang Lee

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The opening scene of Se, jie, Ang Lee’s latest film, shows four Chinese women playing mahjong in a delicious way while they chat. Their talk exposes the situation of their country at the time, during the Japanese Invasion of Shanghai. It’s all rather confusing. Even though they do nothing but the typical chattering about husbands, social positions and other people’s problems, they do so in a rather intricate way that doesn’t make it easy for someone who hasn’t much idea of what their country is going through to understand. Quickly, and quite easily, the attention shifts to the mahjong. One wonders how that game is played because it looks so elegant and so much fun. One wishes he or she could be at the game because it looks so absorbing. Or perhaps we have that reaction because we don’t even care about these people, much less about all that they’re talking about. It’s not a good beginning. What follows is even worse.

Elegance, panache, style and glamour are there to spare. Perhaps some of those are synonyms but I had to be repetitious because that’s all this is about, or all it’s worth. The reproduction of early 40s China is intact or perhaps even prettier than the real thing but it’s a marvel to look at. Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography is sumptuous, the costumes and makeup are perfection, but the performances never quite match their surroundings even though the two leads make a pretty good effort, which the story certainly does not. It tells of a woman who must play mistress to a man with the intention of leading him to his death. It delves into their feelings and political stances and how the maneuver affects their lives. I think perhaps my description is a better telling of this story than the film’s. It’s got nothing new to offer.

Based on a novella by Eileen Chang, which was published decades after it was written, Lust, Caution could have been a good portrayal of the Chinese resistance if it wasn’t so much about the relationship between spy and traitor, and this relationship wasn’t so boring. Mr. Yee (Tony Leung Chiu-Wai) is one of the prominent Chinese figures helping the Japanese, which is resented by many. A group of university students get together in an insurrection to attempt the death of this powerful man. Two attempts are made and they are almost identical, and both have to do with a young girl, Wong (Tang Wei), seducing the man. Wong is disguised as a society woman who befriends Mrs. Yee and quickly snatches the attention of Mr. Yee. There are some interesting things to notice, for instance the extremely impotent role of a woman in a household, where a totalitarian husband ruled. This seems like the custom of China at that time. Mrs. Yee never has a word to say about her husband’s affair, and in fact it actually appears like she doesn’t even know. Wong finds her way to the man’s lust very easily and without many obstacles, because he wants it to be that way.

Then comes the sex. There’s so much of it, and so graphic, that it eventually seems out of place. It never gets tiresome though, because it’s by far more intense than any other type of scenes in this “espionage thriller”, except perhaps for a scene where the students attempt the murder of a man and find out that killing a person is much harder than some people believe. When you realize that the sex scenes surpass the potency of the overall story you know there’s trouble. Even Alexandre Desplat’s strongly suspenseful score can’t fool us. Lust, Caution is all about lust, but caution: there’s not much more to find in it.

(My girlfriend, who spent some time in China, surprised me with the news that she owns a set of original mahjong tiles, just like the film’s! I am now learning how to play it… Thanks, Mr. Ang Lee!)

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Savages

Director

Tamara Jenkins

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Savages is the kind of movie that truly benefits from the awards hoopla that surrounds it. Some movies crave for more box office, others just want the prestige that comes with it; but there are some that only want to be seen and the more people the better. In this case Sundance was only the platform, but the Oscars certainly helped boost its must-see factor. The whole extravaganza might be over-the-top, but it’s the little things that make it truly matter.

Estranged Savage siblings Wendy (Laura Linney) and Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman) find themselves in an awkward situation when their father Lenny (Philip Bosco), who suffers from dementia, is left for them to take care of, bringing up buried memories while trying to get him an institution where he can live peacefully.

Tamara Jenkins directed from her own acclaimed screenplay. The Savages is certainly well-written, the dialogue is sharp and the characters are imperfectly fascinating. But it also suffers from a case of being about a truly uncomfortable subject matter. I’m not faulting it for it, I’m just saying it isn’t an easy movie to watch and digest. There isn’t a single hint of feel-good sentiment and it’s got a cynical point of view about life. Traces of black comedy emerge here and there, but for the most part it’s a full-blown drama which drags at times and doesn’t really come together at the end.

What’s interesting about it is the character study aspect of the brother and sister and how they were affected by their father when they were younger. Both are 40-something neurotic, afraid of commitment-types. They don’t really get along with each other, but tolerate it since, well, they’re related. They also resent their father but on the other hand feel bad about his current situation. It’s a complicated web of feelings and entanglements, and the way they play is unexpected and full of painful truths about human behavior.

I can’t go on without mentioning the wonderfully wacky opening sequence; it is perfectly choreographed and truly original. Stephen Trask’s score is also a big part of the emotional core in the movie. Its overall low budget shows in the quality of the image and its entire atmosphere, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Acting-wise the movie is bliss from start to finish. It helps that two extremely talented performers headline the production, with Laura Linney standing out by filling her character with all sorts of peculiarities and simple details that make her come vividly to life. Philip Seymour Hoffman is also extraordinary as her conflicted brother and Philip Bosco does a good job as their ailing father. The supporting cast also includes Peter Friedman, David Zayas and Cara Seymour.

“We don’t have to go after him Wendy; we’re not in a Sam Shepard play.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

You would think Sidney Lumet has a whole life ahead of him when you see Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. What’s this man over 80 still doing in Hollywood, working with the same vitality that always distinguished him? Hasn’t he any ideas of retirement? That he does not, but instead keeps offering us such quality work, is a tribute to this living legend of celluloid. Because not only does he work, but he delivers. You would think that this film was directed by a young man, albeit an extremely talented one. And in the particular case of this man, both things could be considered to be true.

His energetic direction is one of the reasons to watch this rather gloomy film. The other is the performances. The stars, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, playing brothers, are at the top of their games and totally believable throughout. Well, not exactly, but that’s not their problem but the script’s. There’s something that made these people believe in their characters and want to embody them with all their might, and I think that’s probably something that we also owe to Mr. Lumet. These two, with such guidance, are among the best of Hollywood.

Concerning direction and performances, and editing in photography, given this material, you wouldn’t be able to ask for more. The trouble is the story is too dark for its own good. There’s nothing but dead ends and there comes a time during the film where you just don’t know where to look because everywhere you look it looks so bleak. No character here is sympathetic, no storyline is overly interesting, and the line between justice and injustice is broken too soon, because here no one is too guilty or too innocent, everyone’s just good enough for hell, but never so much that you enjoy the idea.

Hoffman plays Andy like his life depends on it, like there hasn’t been as important a task in his entire life, which is true for the character of Hank, a man who doesn’t worry as much about life in general but right now is at the end of his rope and needs money quick, which isn’t the way Hawke plays him. The contrast is irresistible. The first two scenes introduce the two guys: first we see Andy having hot sex with his wife, Gina (Marisa Tomei), and then exchanging with her a rather profound and indeed mysterious dialogue. What’s haunting them, you wonder. What’s wrecking their marriage. Next we see a robbery gone very wrong, and find to our surprise that Ethan Hawke is involved, and it’s the typical Hawke, a naïve youngster (even by adult standards) who’s not really capable of anything awful, and when he is, or has been, it must be or must have been because the circumstances were atrocious. Then we zoom back to “before the robbery”, and we’re totally intrigued: who are those guys, what did they do, and why. Later we get to know what was really involved and we’re punched right in the face because it’s so shocking.

But that is given away too soon, and there’s not much left for later. Worse: what seemed so promising at first becomes a letdown later on. The film’s storytelling gimmick, which consists of leaping back and forth in time, gets tiresome the third time on, and is as repetitious as the creaking sound of a rocking chair with an old man chilling on it the entire afternoon. No use there, but in fact, way exasperating. After the shock has been revealed come the whys but never the answers, because there’s no possible answer except everyone we meet is messed up in the head. That includes the boys’ father, Charles, played by none other than Albert Finney. Finney is so great that he can play lighter or darker characters with outstanding easy and even though he’s a well-known face you get drowned by the personality of his character from the first instant and forget who’s playing him that very moment. In this occasion, Charles’s ambiguousness couldn’t have been pulled off by anyone less talented, and in Finney’s hand it becomes heartbreaking. Truly he’s the most memorable character, and one that clearly hides a tumultuous psychological charge that goes way farther than we can see.

Compared to him, his misguided sons appear one-dimensional. Even though Andy is so cool at work, so fake at home and so troubled in his spare time, it’s clear that he’s got nowhere to go and nowhere to hide and that nothing can save him. On the other hand, Hank is clearly a better person who’s easily influenced and cannot end up punished no matter what he does. We know this and they know this, the screenplay knows this, and no ones tries to fool anyone, but I don’t know how good that is. Hank’s one real fault, having to do with Andy’s wife Gina, is off-putting because it doesn’t appear to belong to the character. If the intent was to make him worthy of punishment, I don’t think it was successful, because in the end he’s once again the tool that someone uses to either punish themselves or somebody else.

Marisa Tomei’s Gina is nothing but a tool, or shall I say an artifice, but she makes the most of it. She proves once again that though she’ll never be a headliner she’ll always be one of the greatest talents working on the screen these days. Also, and I must say this is totally worth anyone’s praise, she’s eager to show her skin, and do so with gusto. Showing more than ever before, she astounds with her perfect body and riveting style. I’m totally in love with this great woman.

Carter Burwell understands Kelly Masterson’s script and peppers it with staggering tunes that are also rather poignant. It’s a saving grace and I think Burwell knows it. My take is there’s not much that can be done with a story like this. A descent into hell is never fun to watch, particularly when there’s nothing to hang on to, at least for a while. If we’re all going there anyway, I like to think we can at least have a good time in the meantime. That’s what the title refers to, inspired by the cheerful Irish toast, “May you be in heaven a full half hour before the devil knows you’re dead”. It didn’t do much for Andy and Hank.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

La Zona

Director

Rodrigo Plá

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 14, 2008

American audiences are not used to go see foreign movies en masse. History has shown that there are few of them that have been able to break out and by that I’m talking about less than ten. Mind you, there are several hundreds of movies every year that aren’t even picked up by distributors, so audiences don’t even get a chance to see them. It’s understandable but it’s also a pity. It works differently in every country of course, and different things appeal to different cultures. Mexican flick La Zona (which translates into The Zone) has won several prizes at film festivals around the world so that’s what attracted me to it in the first place. I hope that wherever you are you get a chance to see it.

Alejandro (Daniel Tovar) lives comfortably with his father Daniel (Daniel Giménez Cacho) and mother Mariana (Maribel Verdú) at an enclosed neighborhood in the middle of Mexico City. The streets around the compound are inhabited by poor people and the insecurity is growing by the minute. One stormy night three rebellious youngsters are able to break into the area and when they are discovered they try to escape, but two of them are killed in the way. The third one, Miguel (Alan Chávez), remains inside, putting a series of events in motion inside the zone.

Rodrigo Plá directed from a screenplay he wrote along with Laura Santullo. Their story has universal themes that happen to take place in Mexico, a country in which the difference in social classes is alarmingly evident and where most of the population lives in dour conditions as opposed to a small percentage which has plenty of riches. La Zona does not go overly political, but focuses mainly on simple human behavior. It’s like an experiment in which a lot of rich people are put together inside a box to be protected by the evil outside, and then we watch how they react once that evil breaks inside. The results are as shocking and crude as they are unfortunately believable, posting a moral dilemma about who is really more violent and what that says about all of us. What would we do in their place?

This ethical debate is presented by a wide array of characters who act in different ways, although most of them lean to the same one. We get to see everything from the point of view of Alejandro, a young fellow who admires and follows his father, but who also has a conscience that comes into play at one point and does not let go. The questions presented are no less than fascinating, and fortunately the movie’s execution is top-notch, with Plá nailing the tone and never letting down his guard. There are points where some situations feel over-the-top, but to make a strong point sometimes you have to go there and I didn’t feel like it affected the proceedings as a whole.

There’s also a subtext evident in the storyline regarding the cops who investigate the case which paints an ugly portrait (and reality) about honesty versus corruption, doing the right thing versus doing what just benefits you, standing against the system versus getting carried away. This specific country is affected by these circumstances in thousands of different ways in a daily basis, but it speaks volumes not only about each of us but about any culture and their own justice systems. The scene that struck me the most involves this subplot and happens late in the movie, a scene that left me stunned and filled with impotence.

Technical aspects are first-rate, with Emiliano Villanueva’s camera capturing every moment and scenario with impeccable detail, showing us exactly what we need to see at every turn. Fernando Velázquez’s score is also fitting, and Antonio Muño-Hierro’s production design is particularly effective.

The actors couldn’t be better, with Daniel Giménez Cacho and Mario Zaragoza standing out from everyone else. Daniel Tovar is a compelling lead, although he looks nothing like his movie parents. Maribel Verdú does a special appearance and she’s commanding. Carlos Bardem, Javier’s brother, also appears as Daniel’s main ally in the neighborhood and leaves a lasting impression. Blanca Guerra, Alan Chávez and Andrés Montiel also deliver strong performances. Only weak link is Marina de Tavira, not because she’s bad, but because she seems too young for her character to be credible, especially when not a trace of background is presented.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Under the Same Moon

Director

Patricia Riggen

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Even at hearing the title, La Misma Luna seemed to me like a fable, and that’s what it is. Not to say that this Mexican gem uses magical elements to achieve its goal, or that it represents a moral through a story starring random creatures of mother nature, but it’s a fantasy anyhow, and in a way it’s magical, though it’s crude, realistic, and as valid as anything that’s going on right now in the world. It’s a powerful piece because it stays true to its characters and their struggle, but it conceals a bigger truth, a force beyond words or actions, an energy that exists in all of us but doesn’t show up too often, and when it does it means that the people involved are exceptional, and when you hear about it you might doubt that it’s true, but it is, and it has happened throughout the history of mankind.

You’re probably imagining something completely different, but I considered it crucial to introduce my review that way because even as I was watching this wonderful film I anticipated the cynics that would focus solely on the “farfetched” finale or the series of coincidences that push the story forward or allow it to come to its expected conclusion. That is not the case. There are certain stories where you simply know what the ending will be and you need to see how it gets to that, and that’s what’s important. A character attempting to achieve a goal and finding much luck in doing so despite the tireless obstacles creates empathy only if we believe in his or her objective and that’s what happens here, we want with all our might to see the protagonist finding a happy ending, and since it seems almost certain that he won’t, we suffer all along. Unlike the mildly successful The Pursuit of Happyness (2006), here the obstacles are always reasonably bigger than the hope, because they’re so believable, yet they’re made look small by the determination of the lead character, who minimizes every problem in an unmatchable optimism to reach his goal.

This admirable man is a child, Mexican Carlitos (Adrián Alonso), who, at 9 years old, can’t see a reason why he should not achieve what he’s set for himself. I once heard a story about two kids who were ice-skating on a frozen river, when all of a sudden the ice broke and one of them fell into the water, lost the location of the hole, and started to drown. His friend found him under the ice, grabbed a rock and broke it, then pulled his friend out. The police came minutes later and wondered how it was possible for a child to break such thick ice with a rock if he’s not even, apparently, strong enough to pick the rock up. “No one was around to tell him he couldn’t do it”, said an elder. That’s exactly what happens here. You might not believe that a child is capable of crossing the US border illegally, finding his way to the location of his mother, and eventually managing to locate her, but why not? Only because you wouldn’t try, because it’s illogical, because it can’t be done? Or perhaps because life has told you that you shouldn’t bother? I think the latter is the case. And because the script believes in the boy and makes us believe in him, the tale turns triumphant and nothing can stop its invigorating aftertaste.

Carlitos’s mother, Rosario (Kate del Castillo), shares the optimism, albeit in a different way. She loves her son more than anything in the whole world and so much defends true love that she’s not willing to marry a good man, a Mexican who’s now a legal U.S. citizen, only for the citizenship, because she doesn’t really love him. She still believes that working hard in L.A. will eventually lead to a happy life with her son, and she’s probably right, but she knows there’s no easy way to achieve that. She never frets though. Carlitos has clearly learned a lot from her, despite their four years of separation, talking on the phone only a few minutes every Sunday.

Much as they’re complex, however, Carlitos and Rosario are determined characters who cannot change their path. She loves her son and will do anything to make him happy, and he wants to reunite with her and nothing will stop him. So much is established from the very first scenes and there’s simply no doubt of that. The same way that The Terminator (1984) can’t stop trying to kill Sarah Connor, these two can’t stop loving each other and doing what they do for the sake of their happiness together. There’s no conflict there, no doubt, no second thoughts. So, in a truly brilliant move by a clearly skilled screenwriter, Ligiah Villalobos, the character of Enrique was created.

Eugenio Derbez is a well-known comedian in Mexico. He’s perhaps the most famous, if you consider his mainstream reach. He’s been around for a couple of decades making the country laugh through his goofy antics and double-entendres in TV shows. As with any celebrity, particularly comedians, there are those who hate him, though most love him I’d say. Yet, I’m sure there won’t be anyone who knows him that won’t be shaken by his performance in this movie. It’s hard even to picture him in such a straight role but he makes the most out of it without totally distancing himself from the comedy. It’s curious how in Mexican cinemas people laugh the first time he shows up, though he’s not doing anything really funny. I hear the same thing happened to Ed O’Neill, the guy who played Al Bundy, when he wanted to go serious. The difference here is crucial, though: Derbez expects this reaction and gives his character a constant tint of comedy to make the transition as smooth as possible, which is obviously allowed by the script; and most important of all, his character is vital to the story.

Enrique’s arc is, in fact, the movie’s most significant. Though it’s only a subplot, his transition from bitter illegal alien to warmhearted caretaker who ends up helping Carlitos more than anybody else is the greatest representation of what this story is about, and it moves the audience to the bone. In fact, his final scene, portraying the biggest sacrifice a person in his position could make, is even more heartbreaking than the finale, and it made me cry, unlike the film’s resolution, which was expected. That this character’s change is due to Carlitos’s unbreakable will is a tribute to the protagonist and the greatest asset of the plot. It far surpasses the story of Rosario’s everyday effort, which is necessary but routine, and in fact the film’s weakest plotline.

Carlo Siliotto found just the right tunes in his heart and created the moving music score that accompanies the beloved characters in their way. He and editor Aleshka Ferrero understood that this story does not require sentimentalism but effectiveness when it comes to its execution. Leave the sentiment to the outstanding skills of the star, Adrián Alonso, and his supporting cast. The three main characters are inspiringly cast; I have lauded Alonso and Derbez already, so I should say that Kate del Castillo’s beauty and silent power are perhaps the most delicate of all of the film’s elements, because if there’s something we must understand, is that this woman is worth the greatest effort a human being can make. She represents everything that a mother should be for any one of us. For mine, I know I would defeat an Army, or find the tools to do so. It’s a love so pure, and so purely depicted in this film, that if there’s any of it in your heart, and you put yourself in the protagonist’s position, there’s no way you can doubt the authenticity of the resolution, no matter how farfetched.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Darjeeling Limited

Director

Wes Anderson

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Isn’t it the dumbest thing to judge a movie by its title? Well, that’s what I had done with this little jewel of a movie. When I looked at the theater schedules, my eyes just skipped this title for whatever reasons. But I should’ve known better because the famous “never judge a book by its cover” proverb has always been around, hasn’t it?

I came across this movie while I was channel surfing and was lucky to catch it just as it was starting. I didn’t know anything about it, so it really helped that the initial scene shows no other than Bill Murray riding a cab going furiously fast, through the crowded streets of an Indian city.

Bill Murray’s character arrives at the train station and then runs along the platform trying to catch the Darjeeling Limited, a train which is just starting to leave. Then, in a choreographed slow motion shot, we see Peter Whitman (Adrien Brody) catching up with Bill, getting ahead of him, and eventually leaving him behind as he catches the train and boards it through the last car. We won’t see Bill’s character until a brief scene later in the movie; what we see, instead, is a close-up of Peter lifting his sunglasses and triumphantly looking back at a defeated Bill Murray as he gives up trying to catch the train. This is the beginning of the mesmerizing journey of three brothers, Peter, Francis and Jack Whitman, through interior India, while they look for a reason to be together.

The Whitman brothers share two cabins on the Darjeeling Limited which is loosely based on the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, a legendary train that runs through West Bengal in northeast India. It’s been some time since they saw each other and for some reason Peter and Jack have agreed with Francis to take this trip.

As brothers, they have things in common. They like to smoke cigarettes and they share a taste for over the counter drugs and painkillers. They all carry and share an inherited, expensive, Louis Vuitton-like complete luggage set, which is almost a character in itself; and of course, they all share a past of which, luckily, we get to see a glimpse.

They’re brothers, but they are also very different. They all wear suits, but when it’s time for bed, Francis wears a “Darjeeling Limited” pajama; Peter wears boxers, a dress shirt and a sleeping mask; and Jack wears the bathrobe he brought from his brief stay with his girlfriend at a luxurious Paris hotel. They sleep in these, but they also fight, pray and confer. Unexpectedly, these outfits tell us much of what these characters have been through.

Owen Wilson is perfect as Francis, the eldest, who spends almost the entire movie with his head wrapped in an odd-looking set of bandages. He recently crashed with his motorcycle and was technically dead for a moment. He is single or perhaps divorced, and takes, or tries to take, the role of leader and organizes the itinerary. He is struggling to be the glue that they need to stay together but goes a little over the top and even orders what Jack and Peter are having for dinner.

Jason Schwartzman is Jack, the youngest, a published writer who has a high maintenance girlfriend. His stories, so he says, are based on “fictional” characters, but those suspiciously mirror exactly what happens to him, his girlfriend and his family. Jack is the most candid and doesn’t hesitate to say to Francis and Peter: “I wonder if the three of us would've been friends in real life. Not as brothers, but as people”.

Adrien Brody plays Peter, the soon-to-be dad who likes to wear his father’s prescription glasses although these give him a never-ending headache. Perhaps we get to know the least about Peter, but Brody does an excellent job and with his solemn, woebegone expressions he gets Peter to speak a thousand words.

The screenplay by Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman is extraordinary. But the absolute beauty of this screenplay resides not in the things the characters get to say, but rather in the ones left unsaid. It is like a fill in the blanks puzzle that Anderson and company have given us to complete. I bet anyone can come up with some interesting theories on what it is that we don’t see in this movie. I sure came with mine. Initially, I was trying to think of the most logical plot, one that made sense. However, when I saw this movie a second, and a third time, I stopped trying to connect the dots, forgot about logic, took pleasure in the outstanding performances and enjoyed every moment of it.

This is a tale that can spread over so many things that I’m still overwhelmed. It is a story about faith and fate; trust, relationships, aspirations and frustrations; desperation and death. Conceivably, above all, it is a story about friendship, family and love. I do not deny that the mood you’re in definitely affects the way a movie affects you. But in this case, I am sure it must be repeatedly delightful and engaging, regardless of your mood, to witness these three brothers spend a few days together, do good beyond what they initially intended and successfully complete their spiritual quest.

This is a funny, engaging and very well made movie. The cinematography, by Robert Yeoman, is outstanding. Teaming up again with Anderson, Yeoman beautifully shoots it through stunning Indian locations in a yellowish, somber tone, mixes it with some slow motion and every now and then shifts to bright blues, reds and greens. The back and forth through the train cabins and the close-ups of the Whitman brothers give this movie a peculiar and unforgettable feel.

Acting, casting, editing, art direction, production design and specially the music and songs, are all exactly what this film needs. Supporting cast is also vital. Like Bill Murray, Anjelica Houston joins Wes Anderson again, and delivers a solid, key performance. Also, after appearing alongside Jason Schwartzman in Hotel Chevalier, the 13 minute prelude to The Darjeeling Limited, Natalie Portman can be seen briefly as Jack’s girlfriend.

I’ve always thought that having just up to four stars to rate a movie is like trying to write your full name with just four letters. In this case, The Darjeeling Limited gets my highest rating because I could not think of a single flaw in it, nor any way this movie could be better, and most of all, because I really enjoyed it.

The Darjeeling Limited might become a “cult” film. Wes Anderson has another couple of “cult” movies to his writing and directing credits: The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004). I’ve also skipped those in the past. For sure that, soon, will be corrected. And please, never, ever, judge a movie by its title, poster or trailer!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Layer Cake

Director

Matthew Vaughn

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Matthew Vaughn, producer of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch. (2000), took the task of directing this, you could say, third film of the same kind, similarly structured and presented and energetic… or is it? Lock, Stock… was on its way, Snatch. peaked, and Layer Cake fell apart layer by layer. What’s the problem? Two things mainly, as usual: the story, and the directing. Neither is bad but both are insufficient. Perhaps a better direction could’ve helped the material, or a brighter script could’ve made this kind of direction more appropriate. As it is, it’s a rather frustrating experience, because so much good could’ve come out of it and didn’t.

Based on a novel by J.J. Connolly, and scripted by himself, the story tells of a smooth drug dealer if there ever was one, the unnamed lead character played by Daniel Craig, credited as XXXXX, who sees the drug business as any other business and handles it that way, playing it cool, strictly by the numbers, and moderately enough to stay out of danger. He criticizes the extra-ambitious, the cocky, the wannabes. He’s everything he wants to be and he finds success at that. Though pretentious, the introduction narrated by Craig sets the bids high up and creates a very distinguished mood. It’s much more than it can sustain later on. First it goes nowhere, and when it does, it doesn’t surprise. It’s like watching a 19th century photo album of people traveling around the world and never smiling in the pictures. You know the excitement is there, but you can’t feel it. It’s terribly alienating.

XXXXX finds trouble all at once when his boss, Jimmy (Kenneth Cranham), sends him to fix an ecstasy deal gone wrong and to find the missing young daughter of his business associate Eddie (Michael Gambon). This turns out to have more implications than it seems and the elegant, low-profile protagonist is forced to become a deadly figure who savagely defends his life and seeks revenge. If you think this makes him tick, you’re wrong: extreme though the situation may be, he keeps his cool at all times, appearing perfectly controlled and smooth throughout. It’s almost like he read the script and knows what’s coming and even though he can’t control it he just knows it was meant to be this way and plays along.

This is no demerit to the actor, though; this is Daniel Craig’s brilliant showcase that no doubt made him notable and contributed greatly to his selection as the next James Bond. After seeing him as the famous MI6 agent, it’s hard to think of him as anything else, as usual, but one must say it’s heaven sent, and it’s mostly thanks to this performance, I have no doubt. He created this character and it was such a smart career move.

But the character doesn’t make much sense. It’s fun to see him compete against the odds at every turn but not to see him win because we never feel the pain. His opponents, including the aforementioned bosses and the uneducated drug dealer The Duke (Jamie Foreman), who’s as showy and loud as they get, aren’t anywhere near interesting and it’s never intriguing whether they win or lose. His love interest, an equally anonymous woman played by Sienna Miller, is nothing more than a sorry plot device that doesn’t add much to anything, anyhow.

Though admirable, XXXXX is not the kind of figure that we root for either, so if he turns out a winner or a loser is never interesting to us. In the end, when the climax wants to be ironic, it turns out funny. We never gave a damn, anyway.

The script is full of interesting dialogue and some glamour here and there but it sadly looks like a bad imitation of the Guy Ritchie movies I mentioned at start. The director obviously wanted to follow the trend but couldn’t pull it off, despite his excessive use of slow zooms in and out that turn out a waste of time. What this film lacks is energy, and that’s what it’s supposed to be about. It’s like the film had some pills and is snoozing, or perhaps we should be high to enjoy it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

10,000 B.C.

Director

Roland Emmerich

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, April 07, 2008

I can recall only two times in the history of my movie going experience in which I’ve left the theater without the movie being over. I usually give every single production a chance and stick until the credits are rolling. With 10,000 B.C. I still don’t know why I didn’t leave because I really wanted to. I somehow managed to stay and suffer; almost two hours of my life completely wasted.

It’s 10,000 B.C., of course, and hunter D’Leh (Steven Strait) is chosen to guide his tribe to uncharted lands so it can be saved along with the woman he loves, Evolet (Camille Belle), who was kidnapped by Warlord (Affif Ben Badra) and his people. He is accompanied in his journey by his mentor Tic Tic (Cliff Curtis), who stood by his side after his father abandoned him as a child.

Roland Emmerich directed from a screenplay he wrote along with Harald Kloser. Now, I am not the kind of person who considers himself to be an Emmerich basher as so many people are out there; I actually like the guy. He works by his own rules and creates movies that are meant for pure spectacle and entertainment. He does not try to achieve more and his movies usually work within their own grounds. But there’s no excuse for his latest offering; everything about it could be described as moronic and that’s not a good thing in any realm.

So why is it so insulting? The story is boring as hell; instead of taking advantage of the period and creating a truly exciting epic he goes for bland dialogue, terribly-executed action sequences (except for the mammoth hunting scene at the beginning) and a climax that is not thrilling in the slightest. At one point D’Leh encounters a breath-taking tiger in his path, and when you think there might be some excitement in the form of this character it’s gone for good and instead we get stuck with an uninteresting tribe he stumbles upon the way. The movie also has the laughable habit up cutting back and forth between scenes of D’Leh’s journey and a witch back home who can feel whatever he’s feeling; dreadful idea. There’s also no explicit blood shown, as the movie had to have a PG-13 rating which gets terribly on the way. And to top it all off, Omar Sharif is forced to deliver a dull narration that goes nowhere.

One could say that 10,000 B.C is Apocalypto (2006) light, but that would be a disservice to Mel Gibson’s movie. They are alike in premise but the latter was adult, savage and intelligent. This one is not.

Not even the technical side, in which Emmerich’s movies usually excel, can be praised. The special effects are hit and miss, the music is blah and the cinematography tries for more than it achieves.

Steven Strait gets his big break by carrying this movie on his shoulders, and he seems appealing at times, but the script forces him to behave like an idiot in half his scenes and its difficult shaking that image off. Fortunately the character barely looks like the actor in real life, so he could still have a career ahead. Camille Belle looks pretty but has nothing to do apart from playing the damsel in distress role as generic as possible. Cliff Curtis brings some gravitas, but cannot save an otherwise horrible product. It’s not even as bad as to become good; it’s simply mediocrity at its worst.

“Be as your father.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Eastern Promises

Director

David Cronenberg

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 03, 2008

The moment I walked into the theater to watch Eastern Promises I was excited because of the re-teaming of the director and actor that gave us the excellent A History of Violence (2005), a film that quite affected me and which has grown on me since the time I first saw it. As the story of the new one evolved, and even though I found in its telling the same kind of unpredictability from the previous one, I was constantly reminded of yet another movie I worship, also from recent years: Dirty Pretty Things (2002). Those two movies have many things in common: they’re daring, dynamic, affecting, entertaining, and surprising at every turn. There couldn’t be a more exciting combination for me, and I loved the ride from the get-go. At the end, I was bursting with excitement. Then I realized screenwriter Steven Knight was the same man behind Dirty Pretty Things, and it blew my mind. The Cronenberg-Knight-Mortensen team couldn’t make more sense to me.

Similarly to Dirty Pretty Things, Eastern Promises is set in London but stars immigrants, Russians this time around, accustoming to their new home but maintaining values and traditions from their homeland. There are two groups portrayed here: the ones that have blended into society, working honestly and accustoming to England, and the ones that belong to the Russian mafia, the vory v zakone, a gang tough enough to stay away from if you cross a member anywhere in your path. The first group is represented by Anna (Naomi Watts) and her family. Though her mother and uncle have a strong accent and maintain many of the old Russian ways, second-generation Anna doesn’t even speak Russian; she’s a midwife trying to make a living and heal old wounds. On the other hand, Kirill (Vincent Cassel), the son of Russian kingpin Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl), speaks Russian half the time and intends to take over his father’s business even if this means renouncing to his own being. He’s usually seen with his driver, another Russian called Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), whose cool ways make him much more amiable than his immediate boss.

Their paths cross thanks to a dying girl who leaves behind a newborn baby girl and a diary. Anna is there to see a life end and a new one begin, and the event commotions her because the young mother doesn’t look like she’s had it easy. Indeed, her diary, written in Russian, reveals that she did not. In trying to understand what it says, and before her uncle agrees to translate it, Anna traces Semyon’s restaurant (his masquerade legitimate business) and meets the charming fellow. Semyon is everything a mafia boss should be: cool, charismatic, sympathetic, warm, and determinate. Even from the first time we see this man we realize how powerful he is, and that’s even before we know what he’s about. Anna fears him and respects him at the same time, and even though she doesn’t fully trust him she finds herself trapped by his irresistible appeal. However, her good sense makes her keep the girl’s diary, which is slowly translated by her Uncle Stepan (a deliciously grumpy Jerzy Skolimowski). However, Anna has dived into the pool when she should still be testing the water’s temperature. Now the knowledge of the diary’s story has endangered her way more than she can realize.

As the story unfolds, there’s little indication of why Mortensen gets first credit except that he’s so famous right now. Even his chilling presence and smooth ways and that small tinge of generosity that’s clear against all of his actions don’t make it at all evident. Then the real reason starts to come up and it could be catalogued as cliché if it wasn’t done so well and in such surprising and poignant fashion. I loved how this special situation was handled all through the end and how it made the ending so potent in a no comments necessary kind of way.

Others will find pleasure in different scenes and aspects of this film. There are a few sequences already catalogued as “Cronenberg scenes”. The most notable has Mortensen fighting stark naked in a sauna. As usual with such scenes, too much is made of them. I’ll just say it’s executed to perfection and that much work must have been put into making it, but that its importance lies much more in the events that lead to it than in the fact that a naked man is fighting.

Another interesting aspect can be found in Kirill’s repressed homosexuality. This is one of the story’s strongest points and one that’s exploited in every way: a father’s shame, a man’s confusion, society’s refusal, family denial, and even self-destruction. The character is neither demonized nor pitied, so it can be seen both ways and comes out completely neutral. I loved the complexity there; great work by Vincent Cassel.

Even though she’s the heroine of the story, Naomi Watts’ Anna comes off rather passive, but that’s the way she should be, being a midwife sans resources trying to fight a power she can’t even understand. A certain scene in the hospital along with Mueller-Stahl is memorable in the way she’s so terrified but still can’t control her admiration and perhaps even the attraction that she feels towards this man. On the other hand, her bond with Nikolai is much more of a cry for help, the gratefulness towards the one helping hand, even if it’s not as helpful as one might expect. There are many physical and psychological bonds in this story, and they are all delicately realized thanks to editing, directing, and body language. Great work by everyone there. The tension could be cut with a knife, and Howard Shore’s fine music sometimes helps relieve it.

The best showcases come from Viggo Mortensen and Armin Mueller-Stahl. The first is suave, cool, calculated, a real smooth operator with a hidden agenda and such a long story in his eyes and over his body (in the form of tattoos) that one can both read all at once and never finish reading it. The second is everything I said about his character and more; he’s real scary but one can’t help loving him. Two truly great performances.

Steven Knight’s screenplay keeps the surprises coming and never loses its elegance, wisdom or pain. Towards the end, the story goes through a couple of contrivances to achieve its climax, but it’s easy to overlook if you’ve loved the piece up to then like I did. To me, this is one of the best films of 2007, probably even the best. I’m sure in a few years I’ll love it even more.

If I was tattooed all over and the tattoos told the story of my life, there would be a large spot dedicated to movies, and I’d be happy to include a reference to this one, perhaps in a tattoo-inside-a-tattoo kind of way. But, more importantly, if anyone was to read a diary of mine after my death, which I hope happens somehow thanks to my film criticism, I hope they can trace back to what I liked so much, and appreciate this undying piece among others. It should be among the best remembered.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

P.S. I Love You

Director

Richard LaGravenese

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

As 2007 came to end I was surprised to find that I didn’t have a guilty pleasure amongst the year’s releases. It wasn’t until three months into the next year that I got to see P.S. I Love You, a movie that critics didn’t love but which I found irresistible. Thankfully audiences did respond, as they made it a moderate hit. So there it is: my guilty pleasure of the year.

Holly (Hilary Swank) is madly in love with her Irish husband Gerry (Gerard Butler) despite them being so different from each other. After he dies she receives a letter telling her that he’s prepared a plan to help her go through the grieving process and that she would start receiving several letters from now on that she would have to obey. That’s how she ends up partying and traveling to Ireland along with her friends Sharon (Gina Gershon) and Denise (Lisa Kudrow), who help her along with her mother Patricia (Kathy Bates) and possible love interests Daniel (Harry Connick Jr.) and William (Jeffrey Dean Morgan).

Richard LaGravenese directed from a screenplay he wrote along with Steven Rogers based on the novel by Cecelia Ahern. The premise itself is quite original, I mean, who wouldn’t like to experience something like what Holly does (after the undesirable case in which someone close to you dies of course)? It’s arguable whether it actually helps or not, but it would certainly keep your life interesting for a while.

Here is a romantic dramedy in which one half of the lead couple spends the entire movie dead and shown only in flashbacks. And yet… it works! It’s also startling to realize that the entire movie is about a person being depressed because of her husband’s death and yet it being such a charming and pleasing endeavor. Cynics should stay miles away from this thing, as they will surely find a way to nitpick about everything; but romantics at heart will appreciate the way the story unfolds and will fall in love with the story. I know I did.

For what it’s worth, there are flaws here and there, the most obvious of which is the running time. At more than two hours it is clearly overlong, with the trip to Ireland and its attached flashbacks a bit too long for its own good. The subplot with Daniel is also a bit rusty and could’ve used some tweaking. But there’s a lot of good as well and plenty of heart to go with; the mixture of genres works and it doesn’t get as melodramatic as it could have with a less talented director.

Hilary Swank does a good job all the way although she’s stuck with the gloomier and less fun character in the movie; well of course, her husband just died. But she pulls it off and we identify with her struggle and imperfections. Gerard Butler is an explosion of charisma; he is of course portraying the perfect guy, although he ultimately does come out as believable… and very lovable. Lisa Kudrow is a hoot, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan shows in a handful of scenes and leaves an indelible impression. Kathy Bates, Gina Gershon and Harry Connick Jr. are all solid; only James Marsters as Gershon’s husband is miscast.

“I know what I want, cause I’m holding it in my hands.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Charlie Wilson's War

Director

Mike Nichols

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Ah, Mike Nichols! Now, that’s a name. Yet, for all his greatness, and the years he’s been around films, working sporadically but delivering quality and entertainment, why is he not hailed as one of the greatest every time a motion picture helmed by him comes out? Perhaps because he’s been devoted to the theater too, or maybe because he’s so low profile and unpretentious, and his films are usually so “simply” good, needing nothing more than a tight script and a straightforward direction to become quality pieces, not needing to show off, which of course translates into moderate glory for the time being. But take a look at his filmography and check out the classics and the well-loved movies. His latest, Charlie Wilson’s War, will be among one of the two or both groups some day, or so I hope. It’s an audience-friendly, poignant, smart film that has entertainment as its primary goal while juggling with deadly serious subjects that are nothing to kid about. And it’s so neatly directed you might not even feel it. It’s the most unpretentious kind of filmmaking you’ll see these days.

Though the story of Charlie Wilson is not exactly that of a man who didn’t need to show off, it turned out like that, as he became that, mainly thanks to circumstance but finally on account of conscience, righteousness and responsibility. Texan Congressman Wilson found himself in the midst of such important issues that he considered, as few politicians ever do, that caring about the world first and himself second would be smart. It wasn’t, not for a while, but it finally paid off in history. Many years later, his story came out, documented in a book by George Crile, which was revealing to say the least. It’s disconcerting for a country to know the gritty-gritty of an international negotiation mainly attributed to World Leaders. The fact that a small man, known to few, was way more important in the goings-on is not only crucial to world knowledge but also eye-opening in the sense that it makes us realize the power of one, the strength of the small, and the influence of each. Charlie Wilson definitely wasn’t all that unimportant, himself already a congressman of strong influence, but even he never imagined the lengths to which he could go. His story is impressive and inspiring, and yet, as he probably would have it, it’s not altogether glorified.

It would be out of place to portray Charlie Wilson as an American hero. Even the scenes that somehow present him as such seem obligatory, strictly there because they happened and somehow remote, and I think that was on purpose. The true story is what matters and that’s what the movie is about, seeing how and why Charlie Wilson got involved in the Soviet-Afghan war and what it meant to the world as we now know it. If world-wide communication wasn’t available nowadays perhaps Charlie Wilson would be known, if at all, a century from now, as a modern Davy Crocket, more legendary than real. Or perhaps we would have learned from him as a Robin Hood of sorts, more folkloric than human, the kind of antihero who finally succumbed to the cause and earned his place in loving memory. He’s got a little of Davy Crocket and a tad of Robin Hood but he’s real and he’s alive and it’s outstanding to see a biopic that shows us what he represents and realize that he’s a living hero who deserves more praise than the official heroes we’re supposed to admire.

I didn’t put much thought into Tom Hanks playing this man because I didn’t know what to expect and I trusted his talent would result in a Wilson who is a flawed human being instead of a squeaky-clean righteous cowboy who just did things right. The outcome is well-worth applause. Hanks lowers his defenses and loosens up a bit and turns out completely amiable and empathic in the title role. This congressman didn’t mind having a good time but also cared to do things right and was good at his work. It seems to me that he never took anything too seriously until he found himself with strong responsibility in his hands as he learned that his participation in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee allowed him to increase the support given to Afghans during the war. During a moving speech, he narrates how losing his dog pushed him into politics. Even as he talks about that, it seems that he realizes the importance of what he’s seeing when putting it in a global perspective. It’s awesome.

In learning, thanks to his friend and millionaire socialite Joanne Herring, that the power he held in his hands meant much more than it seemed by definition, he decided to take action, and did so with admirable skill, negotiating among nations and managing to get weapons for the Afghans that didn’t come from the Americans so as to not wake up the Soviets’ rage and prevent the cold war from becoming a real war, while in fact this was the decisive battle. As a result, the Soviet Union was defeated for the first time, resulting in a domino effect that ended up in its disintegration.

One can’t say Wilson did this single-handedly of course, but it’s true that he was the main man responsible. Herring helped a lot, as did a CIA bad boy called Gust Avrakotos, who ended up working with Wilson by chance and, lucky for him, found in the Texan exactly what he had been looking for. Herring and Avrakotos aided Wilson in a decisive way, and happily the film gives them enough weight to prove it. Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman are cast in these pivotal roles, to contrasting results. While Roberts gives a good performance, her character is cold and, after a while, unnecessary, and she doesn’t give it anything extra to make it worthwhile. Hoffman, on the other hand, is absorbing from the get-go and till the end in the juiciest role. He’s perfection in delivering his lines, having a strong presence, and affecting the story without getting in the way. Though he’s a scene-stealer, he manages to glorify what he’s in without wanting to take all the credit, the same as the real Avrakotos did. And in doing so, Hoffman becomes the best actor in the piece, his performance being one of the best of 2007.

Another strong performance even if the role is rather banal is that of the lovely Amy Adams, who continues to become a strong screen presence. As the main assistant to Wilson, she does exactly what this man wanted his aides to do: look good and be brilliant. The bunch of them, called the “Charlie’s Angels”, add some comedy relief to the procedures. It’s one more of the elements that make this film so light while dealing with such a strong subject. When the film wants to get crude, it does, but it’s necessary and welcome, so there’s no problem there. If I had to pinpoint a flaw in the film, which I do because I’m not rating it perfectly, is that even though it’s necessarily unpretentious it subdues itself too much and seems to not only not dig but probably even elude the seriousness of the situations. So much so that when things are dealt with that way in the end it’s off-putting. The result is that Charlie Wilson is still rather an unmemorable historical character. But hey, he’s got his movie, and with such a tight, fun but conscious script by Aaron Sorkin’s, it’s really hard to fault it.

In the theater, during the show, two young women were chatting near my seat, which was definitely obnoxious. I kept thinking they could learn a lot from the “Charlie’s Angels”. I wanted to ask them to be quiet, which I usually do in this kind of situation, but I couldn’t turn away from the screen! I kept telling myself I’d ask them in the next scene, or the next, or the next, and suddenly I had forgotten all about them, even though I could still hear them between scenes, but there’s so much that’s said which is important and/or entertaining that you just can’t miss it. That’s the lightning pace that I love, and much of it is owed to editor Stephen Goldblatt. James Newton Howard’s score also has to do with this, because it follows the pace with the same intensity though it never takes first chair. And if I may close with a Charlie Wilson-esque comment, which would also conform to the movie’s mild seriousness, I think it would’ve all been worthwhile anyway, because I saw Emily Blunt half-naked.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter