CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Frozen River

Director

Courtney Hunt

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Sometimes in life, the worst situations are not accompanied by tears, shouts or sentimentalism. Frozen River is a brave film in that it never intends to be a crowd-pleaser, evading its many chances to become a thriller and never recurring to melodrama, all for the ultimate goal of being truthful and realistic. I loved how it literally wasted chances to become more intriguing and paid off in the end when it came off believable. I’m not sure I would call this a big entertainer, but it packs a wallop and that’s to its credit.

The protagonist is Ray Eddy (Melissa Leo), who’s been left by her husband to care for her two kids, worsening an already critical situation. Her job doesn’t pay enough, and now that her husband has left, they’re on a diet of popcorn and Tang until payday. I’m betting even after that, they won’t eat very well or for very long. Her teenage son T.J. (Charlie McDermott) is down-to-earth and realizes that he must work to help his mother out, but Ray sees that potential situation as the beginning of the end. As long as they aren’t starving, she’s gonna take care of them like a mother should.

The co-protagonist, even though some could argue that she’s as important as Ray, is Lila Littlewolf (Misty Upham), a Mohawk woman Ray meets in the worst of circumstances: she sees her driving her escaped husband’s car, takes her for his lover, then for a thief, and later realizes she’s nothing but an opportunistic who doesn’t seem to care about other people’s feelings. As it turns out, however, Lila suffers as much or even more than Ray, since her ex mother-in-law took her 1-year-old away from her.

Precarious though their situations are, Ray and Lila never quite befriend each other, they’re in fact quite tough between them, but find that they can help themselves through the other in some way. Lila knows that white people have better chances of evading the law if needed, and Ray would do much more than the usual for money. So, Lila offers her (or rather cheats her into) the business of smuggling aliens into the country by hiding her in Ray’s trunk and driving them over a frozen river. It’s lots of risk, but good money.

As expected, Ray is overjoyed despite J.T.’s suspicion and her overall unhappiness with her new way of life. She’s confident, however, that this is only a step towards an overall improvement. Truth is, what she’s doing is cathartic and grounds her after who knows how many years of not dealing with reality, and finally puts her in her place. The same thing happens to Lila, whose life changes drastically after an entire life of submitting to other people’s designs.

Much of the truth of Courtney Hunt’s tale, which she also directed, comes from the performances of Melissa Leo and Misty Upham, who are outstanding at every turn. Their credibility comes from the calmness with which they take such extraordinary events. That they’re not overly shocked, moved or transfixed by certain circumstances talks of their characters’ difficult lives, and makes them real.

I couldn’t say how relevant or memorable Frozen River is or what we’ll think of it in years. For now, it’s a pretty poignant experience that shouldn’t be missed.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Watchmen

Director

Zack Snyder

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, April 16, 2009

I looked for and very quickly read the graphic novel “Watchmen” by Alan Moore, illustrated by Dave Gibbons, before giving the movie a look. I wasn’t that big a fan. Though I liked the concept of existential and even mid-life crisis of retired superheroes in a very crude world, I didn’t quite enjoy the focus of the story or its presentation. For instance, I was bugged by a constant parallelism with a pirate comic-within-a-comic that a character reads, which is poignant but only gets in the way. Also, I never quite got most of the characters’ motivations. Anyway, it wasn’t all that bad, and I was interested to see how it would be adapted into film, so I went ahead to take a look.

I was mesmerized by the opening credits sequence. Set to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The times are a-changing”, which is not only a treat but quite appropriate since the source material honors Dylan, it features poignant and visually striking images that describe the history of this alternate universe where the presence of superheroes changed the world. I was afraid that the rest of the film wouldn’t be as good as this sequence, and indeed, it was not, but I was continuously surprised and pleased, and can happily report that the adaptation by David Hayter and Alex Tse even improves the story by making it more focused, emphasizing the most important elements and either reducing or completing removing those that only got in the way, namely, the pirate story, way to go!

Since this was OK, I enjoyed the ride, and was only concerned about the ending. In the comic book, I didn’t like it or believe it, as it seemed contrived beyond any logic. The problem permeated here of course, but it was simplified and better connected to the story, which improved it.

Zack Snyder is the man to adapt this kind of material, as proven before in 300 (2007), and he once again captured the mood and style without forgetting that this is a cinematic media. The look is impressive and every artifice used to reproduce what could only be imagined in the 1980s comics is excellent. I also liked Tyler Bates’ music.

The screenwriters did an outstanding job in taking such a lengthy plot and translating into a coherent two-hour screenplay. The setting is a bleak world where superheroes have been banned and are now retired and depressed. Most of them don’t even have superpowers, were only adventurers who enjoyed helping fight crime. The usual comic book issue of the world eventually rejecting these people is the main theme here, but it happened before the action starts, which sets quite a gloomy tune for the atmosphere.

That’s why it’s important that every character is charming somehow, even if it’s in a negative way. On the lighter side, Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) and Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman) find no place in the world and eventually fall into each other’s arms. On the other hand, there’s Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), an enigmatic violent vigilante who believes someone is trying to eradicate past and present adventurers after the death of a fellow fighter, The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who features prominently in flashback. The one powered being is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), peculiar not only for his countless abilities but also for his aloofness and disregard for humanity. Last but not least, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), regarded as the most intelligent man on the planet, has become a billionaire with a lot going on.

It’s a treat to watch these people. Crudup has little to do under so much CG but he’s still rather haunting and his character is impressive; Wilson and Akerman are moving, Morgan (who reminded me of Javier Bardem) effective, and Haley, once again, unforgettable as the psychopath Rorschach. Only Goode, who appears to be weak and out of his mind, not to mention extremely arrogant, three things that a man like Ozymandias would need to at least seem the opposite of, is miscast.

Considering the source, I believe Watchmen is the best movie it could possibly be, and I’m sure that if Alan Moore, who disassociated himself from it before it was even made, gave it a chance, he would be proud, and could probably even learn something from it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gran Torino

Director

Clint Eastwood

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

It’s never late to have a good time, but I understand that some people might look back at their lives and find very little to rejoice about in their later years. Much of what keeps us going is what we have yet to build, what we might still be in time to experience and achieve, so when time is running out, this hope can disappear and make everything bleak.

Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) is in such situation and has become a personage of his own distaste, grumpy but enamored of himself, somewhat feeling that it’s the world’s fault that he’s awkward. He has refused to go with the flow and leave his old neighborhood, and now that his wife has died, Walt finds himself alienated from his sons and surrounded by Hmong neighbors he automatically discriminates.

The screenplay by Nick Schenk, from a story by him and Dave Johannson, unfolds beautifully as Walt’s young neighbor Thao (Bee Vang), terrorized by a gang led by his older cousin, is forced into an initiation process that consists of breaking in Walt’s house and stealing his most valued possession: a 1972 Gran Torino Sport. Caught by the old man, who kicks him out at gunpoint, Thao decides that he doesn’t want to join the gang and is bullied by them, ensuing a fight on Walt’s lawn—big mistake. Walt, a Korea war veteran, has killed enough “zipper heads” to readily shoot these guys if necessary, which is the reason why he threatens them with his rifle. What he never counted on was that the Hmong would misinterpret this by thinking he was trying to defend Thao, which earns him their eternal gratitude.

Walt is more than reluctant to befriend them, but eventually gets to know Thao’s sister, lighthearted Sue (Ahney Her), and even Thao, never the thief Walt thought he was, and finds himself in an unexpected spot: surrounded by people he can relate to for the first time in countless years.

As this story of friendship ensues, there are two constant motifs that are priceless. The first one is Walt’s good ol’ bigotry, which is both funny, as he comes up with an endless banter of derogatory nicknames for everyone who’s not a white American person, and poignant, as he really has no reason to stay away from them and turns out to be a racist by definition only, not by heart. And the second one is the opportunity that he finds to make the skeletons in his closet, which have haunted him since the war, stop bugging him.

Personally, I had a great time because Walt’s character is so complete and marvelously played by Clint. No one can sneer and grunt so much outside of a cartoon and make it so credible, never in risk of becoming a caricature. He’s as tough as ever but with that touch of lightness which gives him so much substance and makes his personality so attractive. The scene where he rescues Sue from a tight knot is my favorite because we believe that they like each other despite Walt’s effort to both dislike her and be disliked by her. Only Mr. Eastwood can do that, and with his now-usual mix of unpretentious staging, pacing and music, the producer/director/star is at the top of his game.

Keep it up, buddy!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Rachel Getting Married

Director

Jonathan Demme

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

My only real complaint about Rachel Getting Married is its presentation. I’m a firm believer that a story, in any format, must constantly move forward, meaning that every scene or word or action must be relevant to the plot, even if it’s a long scene that gives a character substance, or gives us a better understanding of the time or place, or both, where the story is set, which is important for some reason.

This piece lacks that because it’s presented more or less like a documentary, or rather a home video, something that looks sloppy and unprofessional but has the potential to be poignant, just like a real-life wedding video. Sure enough, it’s done like this in a very professional way, and on purpose, to capture the essence of a very peculiar wedding, but what we care about, or should care about, is the family interaction, not the musicians, decorators, organizers, relatives, friends, etc. So that’s my complaint. Otherwise, I thought it was incredibly haunting.

The story focuses on Kym, Rachel’s sister, played by Anne Hathaway, who’s allowed a weekend-long leave from rehab to attend the wedding and is picked up by her dad, Paul (Bill Irwin), and his wife Carol (Anna Deavere Smith). Ever since their first conversation, it’s quite obvious that there’s something really wrong with Kym and her family, though right now all they can think about is the wedding and its implications, good and bad.

Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) seems the exact opposite to Kym: she’s organized, focused and controlled. Like Kym puts it, her sister’s been a saint while she’s been a nightmare. But even as she says this, she hurts her sister. There’s no one to root for here, in fact. We’d like to prefer Kym, who’s tormented by ghosts from her past, but she simply doesn’t let us. She craves for attention in a negative way because that’s the way she’s learned since she was a child. No one can help her because she doesn’t want to be helped, she doesn’t want to be cured, to forget the harm she’s done, to be or to do better. When she picks up a glass to propose a toast, you just know it’s gonna go wrong. That’s the scene where we understand that she’s not the problem here, that the family has been crumbling for years, for some reason, and that Kym is only the clearer manifestation. Anne Hathaway is simply unbelievable, but the entire cast is perfection.

Opposing each other has become a trait of Rachel and Kym, but a wedding is an event that makes bodies surface and obliges people to face them, and that’s what this is about. The revelations from the past are atrocious but what’s even worse is realizing the devastation that has resulted over the years. The character of the mother, played by Debra Winger, unrecognizable under a masterful cover of pain and anger, is so pivotal that her very mention shakes the ground, and her appearance freezes everything.

Jonathan Demme has done this in a sort of intimate and improvisational way, in ways emulating Robert Altman and throwing many of his own family traditions and stories, as well as those of screenwriter Jenny Lumet (daughter of Sidney), into the mix. But what matters here, the true achievement, is the way Jenny conveys so much hurt into a story so casual that from many points of view it could possibly be ignored. Many of the crucial conversations happen in living rooms surrounded by people, and are casual though they end in tears. Sometimes I wonder, if we opened our eyes, how many such situations we could find around us all the time. Perhaps that’s why the film was presented with its focus on the wedding; I guess I won’t complain about that anymore.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Duplicity

Director

Tony Gilroy

Year

2009

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, April 13, 2009

What the hell is this? Tony Gilroy has done some fine things. His crowning piece was his directorial effort, Michael Clayton (2007), where he proved that he was capable not only of weaving a complex and intriguing story but of directing it. Personally, I wasn’t that big a fan of the film, but it did pay off and was interesting and recognized and awarded. So this guy goes ahead and does this:

He creates a similar story of double-crossing and triple-crossing set in the exact same world, that of corporate wars, in offices that look exactly the same way (empty, huge, absurdly minimalist and, in the end, impersonal, as intended), but decides to play it as comedy. Why not, you might ask. I’ll tell you why not.

Because it’s hard to take a story seriously when the stars are a couple and the tone is sassy, and you figure that you’re about to have fun and you sit back and relax, and all that is fine, and then, it turns out all of a sudden that you’re expected to concentrate extremely if you intend to follow up. The story is more complex than that of Michael Clayton, in great part to enhance the comedic effect, but it works against that result instead. I’m not ashamed to say that I had great difficulty to follow up, not because I’m stupid (or not only because I’m stupid) but because I didn’t give a damn about a story that’s more complicated than it seems worth, and I was right.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trashing this because I didn’t understand it; I did understand it, and that made it even worse, because when all is said and done the story is quite simple, even ridiculously so, so simple, in fact, that it’s rather insulting, because the ending is implausible in any corporation and everyone who’s ever worked in an office knows it, but Gilroy complicates it so much that he tries to fool the audience into believing it. The rest, with its twists and turns, flashbacks and revelations, comes off much more complicated than one could possibly guess it could be; it’s incredible how Gilroy made so much out of nothing, and that’s to his credit, though I found it to be atrocious.

Now, before someone gets the idea that I don’t think comedies should be complicated, I beg your pardon, complicated comedies are often the best (i.e. The Court Jester (1955)), but only when the complications are comedic and don’t interfere but rather enhance the intended effect: laughter.

If you think I hate this film, you’re right, so you’ll understand that I find it hard to praise anything about it, but I will: Julia Roberts and Clive Owen, as the leading couple, are funny and engaging, though I hated their interaction and their constant blabbing, particularly hers; Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, as CEOs of competing companies who hate each other’s guts, are as good as ever, though they’re played to make fools out of themselves, particularly Giamatti; the one outstanding performance is by Carrie Preston as a woman used by Owen, who doesn’t really regret it. The music by James Newton Howard emphasizes the feeling of hipness that I so hated, but it’s good music after all. And the editing, production design, cinematography, etc., are good enough for the production, which is first-rate, of course.

Right now I’m reading a screenwriting book by Syd Field who at the time of re-editing his oeuvre decided that Tony Gilroy was so admirable that he had to fill his chapters with references to The Bourne Supremacy (2004), a film that I agree is amazing. I wish I knew Field’s opinion now.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter