CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

O

Director

Tim Blake Nelson

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 30, 2002

The so-called “teen genre” has not been at its best for the last couple of years. Despite a couple of exceptions, most of them have been total crap, movies that come near to insulting out intelligence. Sometimes there comes a movie that breaks the rule and O is one of them. Leave it to Shakespeare to bring some quality to the big screen.

Odin (Mekhi Phifer) is the perfect guy with the perfect life: he’s loved by everyone, he’s the star of the basketball team and he’s got the most popular girl in school, Desi (Julia Stiles). But behind every guy like this there’s always another one who can’t control his jealousy. Hugo (Josh Hartnett) hates Odin and wants to make his life as impossible as he can. Thus begins this tragic tale...

O is based on William Shakespeare’s “Othello”, one of his most famous works which has inspired countless interpretations. This time around director Tim Blake Nelson updates the infamous story to bring it to new generations. His characters do not speak in the original language of the master, but the spirit is kept intact and that’s what ultimately matters.

The movie was also prey of a lot of controversy when Miramax decided to postpone its release given the sensitivity of the nation following the Columbine shooting. O’s final act is quite violent and they were afraid it would madden people. I don’t really think that way, because, you see, here finally comes a movie that does not blame kids’ craziness on TV or any other type of media form as it is so easy to do. This is a movie about kids being driven by their very own human feelings that come from such aspects as family and self-esteem. It’s a movie that makes us think and that is realistic and intelligent in its portrait of teenagers and violence.

Of course, the movie is also filled with a passionate and tragic story courtesy of the Bard himself. It plays in a very simple form as it grows and grows in intensity towards its inevitable climax.

Mekhi Phifer shows great range as the leading character and I’m sure he’ll have a great future in movies. Even though I love Julia Stiles I think she was miscast in this role. She plays it right, but she’s tough by nature and a “sweeter” girl would have been more appropriate for the role. The standout here is, without any doubt, Josh Hartnett, as the evil Hugo. It’s amazing how this man manipulates people and the way everything moves around him. Josh is able to bring that complexity to an already fascinating character.

So there you go, now.... give me an O! (and what a lame finish it was).

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

High Noon

Director

Fred Zinnemann

Year

1952

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 29, 2002

Will Kane (Gary Cooper), the Marshal of a small town in the old West gets married to a lovely girl (Grace Kelly) and just as soon gets notice that his arch-enemy (Ian MacDonald) is coming back. Rather than leave for his honeymoon, he decides to stay and face the man who hates him—against the will of everyone else in town, including his own wife.

This extraordinary western is a perfect film, usually regarded as the best of its genre, though at the time it was controversial for being both loyal and disloyal to its kind, plus making statements about communism and anti-communism in its storyline. At its core, it is a tale of love, resentment, pride and what is right, even if no one else can understand it.

Cooper is outstanding in the role of his life as a Marshal in pain. The cast around him is the perfect ensemble: Kelly delicate as his wife, as a contrast to Katy Jurado, strong as the main cause of the two men’s struggle; Lloyd Bridges a weak young man who wants to bite more than he can chew; MacDonald scary enough in the few onscreen time that he’s granted.

Dimitri Tiomkin’s score is unforgettable, as is his song (with lyrics by Ned Washington) “Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin’,” which usually tells the tale as a background rumor. Tex Ritter’s interpretation of this song is immortal.

This movie plays in real time, showing clocks continuously to make the wait for the enemy more realistic and heart-pounding. As seconds tick, the pressure increases for the Marshal, the townspeople and the audience. I recommend watching it uninterruptedly starting 10:35 in a Sunday morning, for maximum impact. I did so and really lived the experience.

A must for western lovers and otherwise.

“I've got to, that's the whole thing.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lolita

Director

Stanley Kubrick

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 27, 2002

Middle-aged Professor Humbert Humbert (James Mason) rents a room in the house of widow Charlotte Haze (Shalley Winters) after he’s spotted her 14-year-old daughter, the adorable Lolita (Sue Lyon). Lolita is a precocious, attractive teenager who knows how to control men with a very look—and a few more little details.

Not long has passed when the uncontrollable passion Charlotte has for Humbert is revealed. He feels nothing for her, however, but is willing to do anything in order to be close to Lolita. Since the small girl returns some of his affection, things go well after a while. But every time Humbert thinks he’s made it, a very strange man comes to shake the peace of mind and play with it, through disguises and different accents, always with a hidden purpose that notably has something to do with Lolita. That man is Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers), an eccentric TV writer.

Stanley Kubrick dared to defy all taboos by making this film in a time of extreme prohibition and censorship. The usual slogan, “How did they ever make a movie of ‘Lolita’” is more than appropriate, considering how shocking all this is, even today. Censors won some battles, however, and as a result the movie is not as graphic or explicit as one might expect—though the masterful filmmaker behind the cameras managed to transmit all explicitness through symbols, leaving behind a feeling that all has been seen, and very clearly at that.

This great movie is so outrageous, that it is also very funny. Mason, who’s perfect as the confused Humbert, creates very clever situations as he tries to catch every possible glimpse of the gorgeous Lolita, while fooling her love-starved mother. Winters is incredible all the time, making it believable that she’s too blind to notice. Lyon is gorgeous both for the way she behaves and for the way she looks; it’s hard to not understand Humbert’s reasons to be obsessed, or to suffer in his tragedy. The standout, as usual, is Sellers; his presence is disturbing, but also very amusing.

Based upon the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and presumably scripted by him, it is not quite as shocking as the novel, but has an impact of its own.

Charlotte Haze: “Whenever you touch me, darling, I go as limp as a noodle.”
Humbert Humbert: “Yes, I am familiar with that feeling.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spider-Man

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 22, 2002

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a nerdy High-School student for whom hardly anyone has any respect. An amateur photographer and scientist, he sees his life change after a genetically enhanced “super-spider” bites him. Little by little, as arachnid abilities take over him (including extra strength, precognition of danger, the ability to climb walls and produce webs, etc.), he creates an alter-ego, first for money (and fun), and then for justice, always thinking of the girl he’s in love with, the girl next door, red-head Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).

After years of struggle, the definitive film adaptation of the famous comic book (published by Marvel Comics) is finally here. It was a long wait, and there were many failed attempts and dreadful flops. Even the cartoons weren’t any good (though some of them were really fun). I’m glad to say, as a fan, that it sure was worth the wait: Not only is it perfectly adapted from the book (except for a few necessary changes) but it is realistic, somehow managing to make us believe everything that we see is true.

Some dudes who really knew what the original comic book was about realized Peter was as un-cool as could be, and Tobey Maguire was the perfect choice; he’s as good playing an awkward loser is as he is playing a charming fellow. They also realized that Mary Jane was nothing spectacular, and so it is with Kirsten Dunst… Don’t take me wrong, she’s great!, but she’s also perfect as an ordinary girl next door. Peter and M.J.’s romance is very credible and they are both sympathetic; Maguire is especially good at making us care for him.

A couple of scenes are unforgettable: the discovery of the “spider sense” and the design of the Spider-Man suit. The latter is a real tribute to comic books in general. Talking about unforgettable scenes, what about that upside-down kiss under the rain? Certainly memorable!

In the meantime, as a more than necessary subplot, the original Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn and his evil alter-ego) acquires super abilities, and causes a lot of trouble in New York City. Dafoe is perfect as the maniac, though he’s not stronger in impact than the hero: another asset of the script.

Some visual effects are too evident but it is forgiven: the action scenes have no equal.

Other performers include Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Peter’s Uncle Ben and Aunt May, James Franco as Harry Osborn and J.K. Simmons, incredibly effective as J. Jonah Jameson of the Daily Bugle.

Also worth noting: another great score by Danny Elfman.

This movie has it all, even to the level of Superman (1978), for which it shows both respect and admiration.

Here’s a comic book fan talking, dudes. This is one worthy piece!

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Director

Charles Barton

Year

1948

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 21, 2002

I once saw part of an Abbott and Costello movie and was amazed by the way these two guys made such a great comic pairing. They seemed to know each other perfectly well and knew how to take the best out of each other. I became intrigued and thus I bought the movie that is considered the best of their bunch.

This time around both guys play freight handlers. Somehow they become involved in a master plan in which Dracula (Bela Lugosi) wants to take over the world by resurrecting the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange). The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) knows about his plan and tries to stop him, but it’s difficult for him because no one believes him and because, well, he’s a wolf man. Hilarity ensues as things get more and more complicated.

Whoever had the brilliant idea of having Dracula, the Frankenstein monster and the Werewolf in the same movie certainly knew his stuff. And having some of the classic actors who made these characters such legends was just the icing on the cake. Now, take Abbott and Costello and put them all in the mix and you’re certainly got a wild movie.

To be fair Bud Abbott and Lou Costello are not as consistently funny as such genius comedians as Charlie Chaplin or the Marx Brothers. Yet they’re very good at what they do and can put a smile in your face at every moment. There’s nothing like seeing Lou imitating Dracula and Frankenstein. Laugh out loud funny moments such as this one abound.

Also, that last scene is a classic. I simply loved it!

Overall it’s a really funny movie mixed with some very dark characters which are not afraid of making fools out of themselves. They never betray their origins or their trademark characteristics, yet they are not taking themselves too seriously either. That’s what works here. It’s a movie to make you laugh and to make you have a good time.

Well my friends, what it does... it does right!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Life as a House

Director

Irwin Winkler

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 16, 2002

I gotta be honest with you. I never really felt like watching this movie. When Kevin Kline got nominated for some awards I actually got a bit angry not because of singling him out, but because of those who didn’t make it because of him. Well, I definitely have to eat my words now. Life as a House is one excellent motion picture.

George (Kevin Kline) has just been fired from his job and to top it all, he’s just found out that he is dying of cancer. Suddenly he is born again and decides to mend some mistakes from the past. He has got an unhappy ex-wife (Kristin Scott Thomas) who is now married to another guy with whom she has two sons. They also have a son of their own (Hayden Christensen) who has hit the lowest point a teenager could have. The way of bringing his family and neighbors together is by building a new house, the house of his dreams.

I’m going to start off by mentioning something that really bothers me, and that’s the fact that I’m getting tired of critics that can’t stand a movie that is a bit melodramatic and that makes you cry. Look, I understand that there are movies that are shameless in their intents and that almost become insulting, but Life as a House was highly criticized because of that and it isn’t fair. Something of the sort happened earlier with another extraordinary movie, I Am Sam, which had a very moving story and which was completely misunderstood mainly because of something as stupid as this.

It’s as if critics were afraid of showing off their feelings or something of the sort. If it’s not that then I don’t understand. Life as a House is a story about a man who’s dying. It’s obvious from the beginning that the ending is going to be a sentimental one. It’s also obvious that it’s going to be sad and, you know, when people die in real life it’s really sad. I can’t picture a way of not portraying that in a movie, especially if the audience has established a connection with the character, something that is obviously the intention from the get-go.

Anyway, Life as a House is a movie with class, so even though it deals with such moments it never overplays them or exaggerates them. There’s no big music cue on the background or big show-off moments. I can cite here one very clear example: the director had the opportunity to have one big confrontational scene between George and his ex-wife towards the end of the movie but he avoided it. That’s what I call good handling of your medium.

Now, I’ve spent almost all of my review defending the movie, something I had never done before. But there’s so much more to it that I want to mention it as well.

I loved the way that even though we’ve seen this kind of story countless times it gets a different portrayal this time around. It’s about never giving up on your dreams, about always having the opportunity to forgive and be forgiven, about coming to terms with your loved ones, about taking the most out of life.

Life as a House uses also a metaphor as a way of understanding its message, but it is not a movie without its flaws. Personally I would’ve done without the subplot involving the angry neighbor.

And well, what about the performances? Top-notch! Kevin Kline is amazing, always surprising, gradually looking worse because of his condition, subtle and emotional at the right moments. Kristin Scott Thomas is very powerful at his side. Hayden Christensen delivers a high-caliber turn that is heart-breaking. Jena Malone, a little more grown-up than usual, is responsible for some of the most touching scenes of the movie. She’s gorgeous. Mary Streenburgen also has a welcomed appearance.

A powerful movie about life, love, redemption and what really matters.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Shining

Director

Stanley Kubrick

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

A novelist who’s going through a writer’s block (Jack Nicholson) takes a job as caretaker of a hotel in the mountains of Colorado that closes for the Winter, expecting enough peace to get some inspiration. Despite warnings that strange things have happened in the hotel (specifically to the previous caretaker), he takes his wife (Shelley Duvall) and his son (Danny Lloyd) along.

Indeed, strange things happen to them even as he takes the job, still at home. Eventually, he’s driven crazy, as a strange foreseen fate chases him; his family suffers the consequences.

Visions, unexpected actions, mental powers, and other such stuff abound.

Extremely terrifying adaptation of the Stephen King novel is certainly not one of Kubrick’s best but it’s quite unique, though somewhat unsettling. Many questions remain unanswered but the trip is thrilling enough to make this worthwhile.

Nicholson is great as the crazed guy who suddenly loses it, Duvall good too as his fragile wife.

“Heeeeere’s Johnny!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Director

Robert Aldrich

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 14, 2002

Bette Davis and Joan Crawford together? Are you kidding? Not at all! It may be one of many film buff’s wildest dreams, but it happened... and it delivered.

Bette Davis plays Baby Jane Hudson, a once-famous vaudeville whose career went down once she grew up. Joan Crawford plays his actress sister Blanche, who had exactly the opposite luck and overshadowed Jane as she became a big movie star. It wasn’t like that forever though, since she was the victim of a terrible accident that left her crippled for life. Jane, absorbed by jealousy and bitterness, simply makes her sister’s life impossible.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is a mixture between black comedy and thriller that was made when Davis and Crawford were not the hottest tickets in town. It proved to be a smash and it deserved to be. No matter how much publicity went to the on-set feud between the actresses, this movie definitely stands on its own.

The movie reminded me a lot of Misery, although I obviously saw them in the wrong order. It works impressively well as a nail-biting thriller about a person who is definitely going mad and whose acts worsen by the minute. The way she keeps making her sister suffer to such extreme levels is excruciating, but so are all the moments when Blanche may have a chance of being saved and the way they all go wrong!

There’s also the biting look at Hollywood and stardom that is so common to this world. When a child artist gets to be famous it’s always a happy thing, but when the same child can’t still do it when growing up can be a pretty traumatic experience. Even more so when their sibling is receiving all the accolades now and they know how that feels. That makes for a very interesting psychological study that is very well portrayed here. Not until the end will you know the entire truth about these sisters’ story.

Bette Davis is unforgettable as the over-the-top Baby Jane who borders a close line between sanity and madness. She never ceases to surprise us and makes of this a full-bodied character with all the ramifications it implies. Crawford, on the other hand, delivers a low-key restrained performance that is just as good. Worthy of mention as well is Victor Buono in his film debut as a man who kind of befriends Jane and whose presence is also very important to the story.

A must!

“I’ve written a letter to Daddy. His address is heaven above.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Nobody's Fool

Director

Robert Benton

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 13, 2002

Donald ‘Sully’ Sullivan (Paul Newman) is a small-town everyman who’s never been really good at anything but who’s respected among his people. A rich entrepreneur (Bruce Willis) gives Sully a hard time at work while being his friend in real life; this guy’s young and beautiful wife (Melanie Griffith) happens to be the subject of Sully’s affection.

In the past, Sully walked out on his family and didn’t care. Today, as his son incidentally walks back into his life, Sully reviews his own life, and the consequence of his acts. Spending time with his son (Dylan Walsh) and grandson (Alexander Goodwin), he understands that life is not only cruel or good to him, but to everyone at times. Only then does he decide to take action.

This beautiful film is nothing but proper silences, smooth dialogue, soft music and a very poignant story. Robert Benton (of Kramer vs. Kramer fame) does it again at adapting a great novel into a great movie. He sure knows how to transmit the experience of reading into the big screen.

Paul Newman is simply great in an unforgettable performance. He’s strong in a character that is weak and sweet but sometimes tough and unforgiving. The cast surrounding him is perfect, especially Willis, Griffith, Walsh and Jessica Tandy, who plays an unwillingly important person in Sully’s wife. I also quite enjoyed Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance as a cop who can’t stand seeing law broken.

Not to be missed, especially by fans of Newman.

“You already left – I already said it!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Mothman Prophecies

Director

Mark Pellington

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 09, 2002

I knew very little about this movie before I saw it. That was actually intentional since I barely see trailers for comedies or thrillers. For me this movie entered in the second category, but I actually ended up finding a lot more. That process of discovery and suspense is what made this movie so special for me.

John Klein (Richard Gere) is a Washington Post journalist whose life is apparently perfect. He’s got a beautiful wife (Debra Messing) and has just bought a new house. Unfortunately his life is turned upside down when one night he and his wife have a car accident because of some strange vision she had. Two years later John finds himself immersed in the case one more time, when he mysteriously arrives to Pleasant Point, West Virginia and realizes, with the help of a police officer (Laura Linney), that strange things have been happening in that town that might be related to his wife’s death.

Mark Pellington, the director of the extraordinary Arlington Road, could be said to be responsible for the success of The Mothman Prophecies. There are a lot of decisions he took that were the right choices, the most important of these being that we actually never see the “thing” that has been haunting so many people. Hitchcock’s rule about what we don’t see being scarier than what we do applies perfectly here.

It’s also important to mention that the story narrated here is actually based on real-life events. We are told so at the beginning and that is crucial to the overall movie-going experience. Since we know it’s true (to a certain degree), we get more involved in the case, we care more about the characters and most important of all, we leave behind our notion of disbelief. People might actually laugh about what goes on here if they didn’t know it actually happened, so it gets more serious than previously thought.

Perhaps that’s also why the last 20 minutes of the movie came as such a huge shock to me. I simply wasn’t prepared for them. I left the movie feeling quite disturbed. I won’t say anything more about them. I’ll just say they are very well handled, that they are very well shot and that the movie couldn’t have ended in a different note. Simply breath-taking.

The movie is quite intriguing and intelligent in its conception. At the end there are many questions unanswered and many plot holes left opened. At first I hated this, but then I realized it made matters even more interesting. I also realized even the filmmakers didn’t have all the answers, so how could they clear everything up? This is a different movie than your usual scare-fest. It’s appropriately paced, immensely suspenseful and, above all, believable at every turn despite the supernatural subject matter.

Pellington also chose to give his movie a quite unique visual style. Even though it made sense I didn’t entirely loved this. Still there are more pros than cons to find here. A phone conversation between Gere and Indrid Cold (as this presence is called), besides the ending, could be considered the highlight of the movie.

Acting-wise Richard Gere has not been this good in years. Laura Linney proves she’s got it all to be in the big leagues and Debra Messing shows surprising presence on the big screen.

An above-average supernatural thriller/drama that marks a highlight in the careers of everyone involved. This movie will not let you go that easily…

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Star is Born

Director

George Cukor

Year

1954

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 08, 2002

Norman Maine (James Mason), an established Hollywood actor, immersed in a world of excesses, falls for Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), an unknown singer. Soon after she decides to leave everything behind to follow the path that Norman has made easy for her, Esther becomes a famous actress/singer, under the name of Vicki Lester… Just as soon, Norman’s career gets lost among shadows.

This glorious Warner Bros. Production, the remake of another good movie, is both an intense drama and a musical-inside-a-musical, since Vicky’s career in movies plays like Judy’s own in her old MGM days. The contrast between Maine and Lester’s careers and the fact that she owes him what she is, surely affects the viewer. However, how incredibly Mason’s character resembles the real life Judy, is haunting; which made this an incredibly affecting experience for myself.

The performances of both Garland and Mason are unforgettable, but hers is especially versatile, singing as intensely as ever and playing drama like few ever achieve; this is arguably the greatest performance of her career.

Great Harold Arlen-Ira Gershwin songs include “The Man That Got Away” and “Born in a Trunk”, the latter in a sequence that is nothing less than showstopping.

This movie went through a lot of trouble before it reached the original three hours length that is now available. Missing footage has been replaced by still pictures and original audio, which sort of makes up for a poignant Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid/Raging Bull experience.

Not to be missed!

“Hello everybody. This is Mrs. Norman Maine…”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mulholland Dr.

Director

David Lynch

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 07, 2002

Since its premiere in Cannes last year, David Lynch’s latest has been a hot subject of heated debates. There are the ones who hate it and the ones who adore it. There are the prizes it’s won and there are the opinions about the movie being a complete mess. I was finally able to lay my eyes on it and here’s what I thought...

One day in L.A. a car accident happens in which a woman (Laura Elena Harring) ends up with amnesia. A wannabe movie star from Canada (Naomi Watts), who has just arrived to town, finds her in her apartment and decides to help her. Thus they start a search to find something about her true identity, but that’s just the main storyline. As a matter of fact there are countless subplots including one about a movie director (Justin Theroux) having a terrible day, a man who has strange spooky dreams, a mysterious cowboy who wants things his own way, a casting audition for a big movie and much more.

So where do I start? First of all I want to make it clear that I love David Lynch. Sometimes I don’t like when his movies become incomprehensible and that’s exactly what I was expecting from Mulholland Dr.. About two-thirds into the movie the weirdness started to kick in after a very engaging start. David Lynch starts to literally play with our minds and it’s up to us if we’re up to the task. It’s a quite shocking contrast, but one that will or will not clarify things for the audience.

After the movie ended I realized I had almost everything figured out (or at least that’s what I thought) so in a way I didn’t hate the ending as much as I would have if I hadn’t understood a bit of it. I mean, everyone must have there own theories, but I’ve got a pretty strong case and I won’t say it here for obvious reasons.

In a way Mulholland Dr. is kind of a dreamy experience. It says a lot about wanting to leave your past behind, about burying your old-self and moving ahead, about fantasies coming true and about feelings you can’t hide to yourself. It’s about the difference between what could have been and what is. After all is said and done, it’s also a way of satirizing Hollywood and the myth that commonly surrounds it. Probably my words won’t mean anything to you until you see the movie, but then you’ll know what I mean and you will read between my words. There’s definitely a lot to say about Mulholland Dr., something I admire and applaud it for.

The movie is, of course, full of Lynch-ian moments. As a director and a writer, Lynch has created something strikingly original and stylish. This movie actually started as a pilot for ABC. When they rejected it Lynch decided to shoot some additional scenes and turned it into a full-length picture. There are definitely strong traces of this, but overall the transition is good and Lynch proves his talent at prime form.

Much was also made about Naomi Watts’s performance. Some say she should’ve gotten more awards’ recognition. What I have to say is that her performance is definitely top-notch. At first I didn’t think it was that special, but as the movie reached its finale I got pleasantly surprised. I looked back and realized she was pitch-perfect at every moment. Naomi is a very good actress and I hope to see her more in the future. She also reminded me a lot of Nicole Kidman, which is ironic given the fact that they’re very good friends in real life.

As for the rest of the cast, there’s Laura Elena Harring, an extraordinary actress as well, and a big ensemble cast that works really well together. Despite top billing, actors like Dan Hedaya and Robert Forster appear mostly as cameos. But there’s no denying Lynch’s amazing eye for weird characterizations and talented performers.

In a few words, Mulholland Dr. is a hallucinatory experience. One of the most interesting movies of the year!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gosford Park

Director

Robert Altman

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 06, 2002

Several aristocrats are invited to spend a weekend in the estate of Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) for a shooting party. They arrive one by one, accompanied by their servants and valets. As soon as they get there, all blend in a unique atmosphere created by themselves, which has two very important divisions: the servants and their masters. Every person that arrives, every turn of events, and all else is talked about, criticized or admired by some, or all.

Perspectives, points of view, jokes, pokes and all kind of reactions are shown or communicated to us. How the two societies portrayed here interact is greatly shown in this movie. It sure reflects what that kind of life is about.

An amazing cast that includes Kristin Scott Thomas, Emily Watson, Maggie Smith, Stephen Fry, Clive Owen, Helen Mirren, Ryan Phillippe and many more, does a great job. Each and every one is great, especially Smith as a mordant gossip lover and Mirren as a loyal servant. Fry made me laugh quite a lot as a clumsy detective.

This is a delectable piece of British entertainment that should be seen and admired for its beauty. Great work by Altman and writer Julian Fellowes.

If you haven’t seen it, don’t let publicity fool you: this is not a murder mystery! Murder happens, though…

“I am the perfect servant – I have no life!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Monster's Ball

Director

Marc Forster

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 02, 2002

When the Academy Awards were bestowed I hadn’t seen Monster’s Ball. Still, somehow, I was rooting for Halle to win. I’ve always thought she’s an exceptional actress and after I’d watched some clips I really thought this was her year. Now that I’ve seen the movie I’ve confirmed all of my suspicions were right. Halle is amazing and simply deserved every bit of recognition she earned.

Monster’s Ball takes place in Southern United States. Hank Grotowski (Billy Bob Thornton) is a racist prison guard who executes criminals convicted to the death row penalty. That’s a profession he inherited from his very racist father (Peter Doyle) and which he has passed to his son (Heath Ledger). The latest victim is a black man (Sean Combs), who leaves behind his wife Leticia (Halle Berry) and overweight son (Coronji Calhoun). One day Hank and Leticia meet and they form a special bond that will lead them through unexpected paths.

To talk about Monster’s Ball is to talk about an extraordinary story that is as anti-Hollywood as a movie can get. Monster’s Ball is a movie about people. So what’s special about that? Well, that director Marc Forster achieves the very difficult task of breathing life into these characters. Only when you see this movie will you understand how real and how human it is. It’s very rare to find something this honest and credible. I found myself feeling what the characters felt in a deeper way than I often do. It’s simply heart wrenching.

Monster’s Ball is a movie about the human condition and about two persons that are tired of life, tired of what they’ve become, tired of the world surrounding them, tired of suffering so much and tired of not being able to do anything about it as much as they try. Suddenly they find each other and they start a relationship. It may or may not be about love, that’s something we never get to know. But what we know is that these two individuals really need each other. And I’ve rarely seen such an honest portrayal of neediness in any movie before.

The movie also tackles, in a background level, the subject of racism. It does so in a manner that is not intruding but shows some sides of it and how it could get to affect black people in intimate ways we barely notice.

So Halle is good, we know that, but just exactly how good is she? Would breathtaking be the right word? I think it is. Halle delivers an emotionally devastating performance that borders on brilliant territory. I have no hesitation in calling hers the best performance of the year because it really is. On the other hand, Billy Bob proves to be just as good as her. They gave it all to their characters and that must not have been an easy thing to do. Bravo!

It’s a poignant movie and it is a crude one as well. Still, you’ll find it a very rewarding experience.

“Make me feel good!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter