CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Pretty Woman

Director

Garry Marshall

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 29, 2003

Pretty Woman is best known as the movie that catapulted Julia Roberts to stardom. It’s also known to be one of the most successful romantic comedies ever. But wait, is it any good? Why is it that a movie about a hooker connected with so many people around the world? The answer is simple: Julia Roberts.

Edward (Richard Gere) is a rich businessman who has to travel to L.A. for one week in order to close a very important deal. During his trip he hires Vivian (Julia Roberts), a prostitute with a pretty tough life, and eventually finds her so charming that he asks her to be his companion during the whole week in which he has to attend a lot of high-society events. Love ensues.

Pretty Woman is essentially Cinderella. Well, no, it’s not, but it’s not difficult to see the similarities. The story of a hooker who is discovered by a rich man and suddenly becomes a princess is well-known to all of us. I guess it’s the dream of every prostitute out there. The dream of getting a second chance and live a more dignified life. In Pretty Woman we get that story, and it’s treated so well by director Gary Marshall and writer J.F. Lawton that it’s not difficult to see why Richard would fall in love with this woman with a tricky past.

Of course, the movie isn’t all serious and dramatic. Far from it. It is light-hearted and fun. It is a romantic comedy after all. It is full of moments of joy and romance. It is also funny in the way it treats the fish-out-of-the-water story of this trashy woman who suddenly has to pretend she’s rich and educated. It ain’t that easy, you know, and Vivian certainly has a tough time going through it.

After all this movie is one thing, as I said in my opening statement, and that’s Julia Roberts. When the movie was released Julia got an Oscar nomination (for a romantic comedy!) and millions of fans around the world. Fans that still are. Talk about living up to the promise. Julia Roberts is the superstar per excellence and Pretty Woman shows why. She’s funny, charming, sympathetic, easy to relate to, good-looking, you name it. She’s got it all! And I couldn’t be more in love with her.

So go out and see this movie if you haven’t. It’s great.

“In case I forget to tell you later, I had a really good time tonight.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Phantom of the Opera

Director

Arthur Lubin

Year

1943

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

Claudin (Claude Rains), a veteran violinist who performs at the Paris Opera House, obsessed with the idea of making young Opera singer Christine Dubois (Susanna Foster) a star, is willing to sacrifice himself in order to accomplish that one goal. The cost, eventually, gets too high, as his obsession leads to tragedy, and he becomes a deformed outcast, hiding in the catacombs of the Opera house, dominating secret passages and running through labyrinths that lead to this place and that. Believed a ghost, he ensues mayhem in the famous place, while Christine’s life changes forever.

This handsome adaptation of Gaston Leroux’s novel is not exactly faithful to the original material and never considered as good as the 1925 classic adaptation, but it’s still pretty good. Instead of a horror film, this is a compelling drama, and no one like Claude Rains to make us pity such a horrific character. Foster lends outstanding singing, as does Nelson Eddy as a singer who loves her. One very peculiar aspect of the film is that Eddy shares the original “Raoul” character with Edgar Barrier; the character was split in two so there could be romantic screwball, hence some comedy relief. The results are kind of unsettling since the two look so much alike, but it’s still nice to get some laughs. Too bad the Phantom can’t share the laughs with us...

The Opera scenes are highly enjoyable, with memorable arrangements by Edward Ward from pieces by Fréderic Chopin, Tchiakovsky and other grand musicians. A lavish production, including exquisite cinematography and uncanny set decoration, transports us to the Opera world, while the Phantom does his work to scare us. As stated before, this is not very successful at scaring, but sure is compelling.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Network

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

1976

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

My story with this movie is quite embarrassing. When I was a lot younger I couldn’t wait to see it. I had heard so many good things about it that I went out and bought it. Then the moment to see it arrived and surprisingly I didn’t quite love it. I liked it, but I didn’t love it. I even thought of giving the movie away to someone. But luckily I stayed with it and caught it again recently. The experience was totally different. Now the love was real.

Howard Beale (Peter Finch), a news anchorman in decay, suddenly explodes and tells his live audience that he will commit suicide in one week time in front of the camera. Craziness ensues, and even though Beale is first seen as a threat, he quickly becomes a money magnet as network honcho Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) is convinced by ruthless Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) that Beale could become the angry prophet the public so desperately needs to identify with. TV executive Max Schumacher (William Holden) does not think his friend Beale should be exposed to such a thing, but he still finds the time to fall in love with Diana.

I can’t start praising this movie without mentioning, first and foremost, the mastermind behind such an intelligent, witty, real, poignant and in-your-face script: Paddy Chayefsky. The legendary writer was at the peak of his form when he wrote Network’s script after working several years on television. Director Sidney Lumet then came in to bring Chayefksy’s vision to life and did so in an impeccable way.

So what’s so great about Network? I guess it is its resonance. The movie satirizes, albeit in serious mode, the behind-the-scenes world of television. It takes a stab at the world of big companies looking for profits, producers looking for hits and audiences looking for something to relate to. Television could be considered the most powerful and influential form of mass-reaching media of the twentieth century and there’s a lot at stake. That’s why some people will not stop at anything to get the highest rating possible. And I mean that literally.

Performance-wise I consider Network to be one of the best-acted movies of all time. There’s not a false note to be found in any performance, and as a matter of fact even the smallest role is impressively performed. Beatrice Straight and Ned Beatty are a proof of that, both receiving Oscar nominations (and a win in her case) for barely a few minutes on-screen. But then there’s Peter Finch, who is unflinchingly good as Howard Beale; Faye Dunaway, deliciously over-the-top in the role of a woman who can’t hold anything together in her life except her work; William Holden, extremely good as a troubled soul trying to ultimately reach happiness; and Robert Duvall, extraordinary as a top executive always wanting more.

Network is as good as they come!

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Office Space

Director

Mike Judge

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 26, 2003

Initech, a big, typical company in corporate America, has, as any other, many unhappy workers waiting anxiously for the end of the day to come so they can go home to feel free for a few hours, only to come back the next day and start all over again. This is the story of Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston), a worker like any other, who’s tired enough of taking shit from the company and his many superiors, especially one of them (Gary Cole), to do something crazy.

The setting is the office, just a typical one, with small cubicles filling a huge space surrounded by rooms for more important people. A hilarious but very realistic cast of characters include a couple of software developers, Samir (Ajay Naidu), who can’t stand the fact that nobody makes an effort to pronounce his name right, and Michael Bolton (David Herman), who hates the singer who shares his name and the people who mention the similarity; Tom (Richard Riehle), a man who’s always looking for ways to become a millionaire before it’s too late; Lumbergh (Cole) whose way of speaking is annoying enough, not to mention his attitude as a boss; two consultants (John C. McGinley and Paul Willson) whose dehumanization is something to worry about; and of course Milton (Stephen Root), an abused man who’s repressing his anger. Oh, but wait! Not only is people like this in such a company: there’s also a hilarious parody of TGI Friday’s-like restaurants, with Jennifer Aniston as Joanna, an unhappy waitress, and Todd Duffey, a happy one.

When Peter loses it, he goes for the waitress he always liked (Aniston, of course), then decides to change his way of life at any cost, and many unexpected things happen. Soon, Samir and Michael join him, and things get even worse.

This parody, scripted and directed by the creator of “Beavis and Butt-head”, and based on his own short sketches from “Saturday Night Live” starring Milton, is a very effective comedy for all those who have been in such circumstances. Though overblown, everything is on target and even believable in a way. Plus, it makes some dreams come true, like the hilarious smashing of a printer. Besides all this, it’s just a harmless comedy with many funny moments and sincere performances. Nothing extraordinary, but still recommendable for a good time.

“Ahh, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to come in on Sunday, too...”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Grey Zone

Director

Tim Blake Nelson

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 22, 2003

Tim Blake Nelson’s The Grey Zone got such impressive reviews that one has to wonder why it didn’t show up more often in the awards season. Usually there’s a movie or two like this that stays behind and simply can’t catch up with the others. That’s too bad, because The Grey Zone is certainly worthy of all the accolades imaginable.

During WW2, the Sonderkommandos were places in which Jews were grouped in squads and forced to send people into the gas chambers and then cremate their bodies. These Jews were given certain privileges such as better food or not-that-bad places to sleep. The downside was that they were all killed and replaced after 4 months of hard work. The Grey Zone tells the story of the 12th Auschwitz Sonderkommando, the only one which was able to rebel against their captors during the Holocaust.

Director Nelson, who scripted from his own play based on Miklos Nyiszli’s novel, has created one of the most powerful war movies I have ever seen not only because it never falls into easy traps, but because he tells a story not many of us knew which is heart-wrenching and quite tough to digest. We do not necessarily identify with the characters portrayed in the movie, but we understand them and we suffer with them.

The Grey Zone is not simply a movie that wants to depict some events that happened a lot of years ago. It is a movie that wants us to think and to reflect. What would we have done in their place? What would we be willing to do if we were told that we were going to die anyway? Would we accept our fate as they do? Would we feel as brave as they do?

There’s a point in the movie when a couple of guys find a girl that was supposed to be dead, who actually survived the gas. They then try to do anything in their hands to save her. It’s difficult to understand why they would want to save her and not the hundreds of others they had killed, but I think it’s a demonstration of hope and of unwillingness to accept their own situation. They do what they do because they’re forced to, and that’s just another way of survival amidst a climate of death. Don’t we all strive to survive at all costs? Even if it is for one more minute?

The cast of The Grey Zone is not the usual dramatic group of actors you would expect to find in a movie like this, yet they all do a terrific job. Standouts include Harvey Keitel as a drunk German guard and Allan Corduner as a doctor who finds himself in very difficult situations all the time. David Arquette and Steve Buscemi are also flawless. And Mira Sorvino is unrecognizable in a difficult role for her to play and for us to see.

A gritty, in-your-face portrait of a terrible time in history.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Color Purple

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1985

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 21, 2003

Celie (Desreta Jackson) is a young black woman abused by her father in many more ways than one. Her sister Nettie (Akosua Busia) is her only consolation and company, until Mister Albert (Danny Glover) marries Celie and separates the sisters. Years later, Celie has grown older (now played by Whoopi Goldberg), a woman with few pleasures in life, an abused creature with few, if any, rays of sunshine in her existence. Still, she grasps life and sucks the few hope she can get out of it. And somehow, she manages to survive through the years, with a smile on her face.

This is the very controversial film adaptation of Alice Walker’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, a universal statement on the abuse of black women in the South, set in the early 20th century and spanning many decades. The saga tells many tales that revolve around Celie’s. There is, for instance, that of Sofia (Oprah Winfrey), a free spirit who’s continuously threatened, and of course, that of Shug Avery (Margaret Avery), a threaten that becomes a blessing. Though the story was in many ways changed from the novel, the message is the same, and of course, it’s got many opponents. The fact is, this is a very feminist story told through female eyes. It’s even got lesbian undertones that work to perfection, giving men a bad name. But men like those in the movie, sure deserve a bad name. The story is powerful and Menno Meyjes did a good job when translating it to film.

This was Steven Spielberg’s first attempt at a purely dramatic film. The result is, to be perfectly honest, kind of unsettling. Though the story is very powerful, sometimes it doesn’t keep its pace and inserts comedy or poignancy where it simply doesn’t fit. Sometimes it seems to want to squish the tears out of us and when it’s about to accomplish that, it goes back and tries to make us laugh. They say this movie can either work to perfection for you or leave you cold. If that is the case, I sure belong to the second group. So much, that I can’t understand the people in the first group.

Oh, but don’t think I didn’t like the movie. I loved many things in it. Without going any further, the performances are pure gold. Whoopi Goldberg is out-of-this-world as Celie. You won’t believe her evolution. No wonder she became a star. Ditto for Oprah Winfrey as Sofia. Though I hated the makeup used on the character later in the movie (quite incongruous to say the least), I just loved everything related to Sofia, and Winfrey was the perfect choice. Margaret Avery is also unforgettable as Shug. She’s perfect in all her faces, and though her singing voice was dubbed, she’s also great when singing. Last but not least, Danny Glover rules as Mister Albert. So much, that I remember him and still hate him very much.

Extremely beautiful work was also done by cinematographer Allen Daviau, and especially by musician Quincy Jones, who created a score that seems to have a voice. Not to mention the song “Miss Celie’s Blues (Sister)”, the blessing put into words and music.

An interesting movie, to be sure, and a worthwhile experience all in all.

“I think it pisses God off when you walk by the color purple in a field and don't notice it.”

Don’t miss The Color Purple: The Book and the Movie, an amazing essay by Jacinda.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

8 Women

Director

François Ozon

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 20, 2003

Whenever the plot description of a movie has a reference to Agatha Christie I instantly get all giddy. That’s the case with France’s 8 Femmes, a movie with a spectacular cast that premiered at the Cannes Film Festival and was greeted with an enthusiastic response. Not everyone understood the concept, but those who did, especially movie-lovers, were in for a blast. I certainly loved every second of it!

Marcel (Dominique Lamur) is found murdered in his bed after a bumpy night. There are eight suspects and they all happen to be women. There’s his wife Gaby (Catherine Deneuve), his daughters Suzon (Virginie Ledoyen) and Catherine (Ludivine Sagnier), his sister-in-law Augusitine (Isabelle Huppert), his mother-in-law Mamy (Danielle Darrieux), his sister Pierrette (Fanny Ardant) and the two maids, Chanel (Firmine Richard) and Louise (Emmanuelle Béart). All of them are stranded in Marcel’s cottage with no way to leave. Suddenly dark secrets start to emerge as it becomes clearer who the murderess is…

8 Femmes is such a delight of a movie I can’t even decide where to start. It’s clear director François Ozon and his unbelievable cast where having a lot of fun when they shot it. 8 Femmes plays like a satire, a comedy, a drama, a detective story… and a musical! You heard it right. Every now and then members of a particular scene burst into song with no apparent reason whatsoever. The songs they sing are so cheesy and the choreography they use is so silly that you can’t but just stare in awe at the sheer audacity and bravery of the actresses and the commitment they had with the material. In the hands of a less experienced director the movie could have become a bad joke. As it is, it is a delight to watch.

Everything is over-the-top in 8 Femmes. Ozon wanted to satirize the 50s so his sets all look like they came out of a cheap 50s movie. Then there are the costumes, those dresses! And the music, so melodramatic! Not to mention the script. It’s clear that the movie is, at its core, a whodunit. Usually movies of this type disappoint, but Ozon makes of his a hilarious comedy where twists and turns abound. Some of them are so ridiculous you won’t be able to get that smile out of your face for a while. But it all comes down to the plot twist at the end and the unmasking of the murderess. One of many pleasures the movie has to offer.

8 Femmes is also filled with unforgettable moments I never thought I would get to see in this life. Not to miss is the catfight between Deneuve and Ardant. Hilarious!

And now my favorite part: the actresses. With whom should I begin? They’re all so wonderful! I guess Catherine Deneuve deserves special mention because she’s just a goddess. She plays a glamorous character who is all dignity. She certainly has her secrets, but they won’t come out that easily. Deneuve brings Gaby with strength and decorum. And her musical numbers are really funny.

Another standout is Isabelle Huppert, who is perhaps the one having the most fun playing an against-type role that is all repression. She’s almost unrecognizable, not only because of the make-up, but because she just lets loose and delivers a marvel of a tragicomic performance.

And Fanny Ardant! God, what a woman! My jaw dropped to the floor the second she came on-screen. What a presence! Such class! She’s unbelievable and mysterious and seductive. Amazing.

Meanwhile the rest of the actresses are all equally good. I enjoyed every single one of their performances because they’re note-perfect. They all got the joke and this is one of those movies that shows how taking risks can pay off so well.

Kudos to François Ozon. What a marvel he’s got in his hands.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Terms of Endearment

Director

James L. Brooks

Year

1983

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 19, 2003

Aurora Greenway (Shirley MacLaine) is the overprotective mother of Emma (Debra Winger), a girl whose spirit always fought to be free. This is the story of Aurora and Emma through the years, and how their relationship develops, and changes, through every possible circumstance that fate has in stake for them. It is also an amazing movie.

James L. Brooks debuted as a screenwriter/director with this movie, which went quite far. It’s no wonder why: While presenting a simple story and telling it in the simplest of ways, it is a masterful blend of comedy and drama, with continuous sparks of humor to keep the procedures fresh… while life isn’t always funny.

MacLaine leads the way with bravura, in a larger-than-life character played to perfection, with all the necessary cynicism mingled with honesty. Winger is equally good as her daughter, a character in constant growth both in age and wisdom. And who can forget Jack Nicholson, as Aurora’s one-of-a-kind neighbor who happens to be a retired astronaut?

Brooks scripted from Larry McMurtry’s novel, translating to perfection the smooth passing of the years and the sweetness and bitterness of life. Brooks’ work is impressive, for all the ground his screenplay covers while making it so easy to swallow. And did you know Nicholson’s character didn’t exist in the novel? Brooks’ work is that genius! And needless to say by now, his direction is flawless.

The editing, cinematography and art direction are also great. But nothing like Michael Gore’s fantastic score… always on target.

Other great performers: Jeff Daniels as Winger’s husband and John Lithgow as a man in her life. The latter is unforgettable and one of the sweetest characters ever put on film.

“This is my moment.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

Director

Donald Petrie

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 15, 2003

I wasn’t too much into seeing this movie. I love Kate Hudson, but overall it seemed like another chick flick from around the corner that had nothing new to offer. One day I got to see it and blamed myself for judging it so badly. The movie won me over and had me in stitches, not to mention my love for Kate has grown a thousand times more…

Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) is a charming writer for “Composure” magazine who is assigned a story about the things a woman shouldn’t do to keep her man around. She has 10 days to actually date a man and experiment with him. That’s how Andie sets her eyes on Ben Barry (Matthew McConaughey), a handsome advertising executive who made a bet with his friends that he could make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. They obviously don’t know about each other’s evil schemes, so hilarity ensues.

I won’t say that this movie is ground-breaking or a revolution regarding romantic comedies, but what I can say, without hesitation, is that I had a great time watching it. Movies like this happen when the right combination of charming actors with chemistry and a good fun script merge together. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days has all that and it delivers.

I happened to see a certain romantic comedy with Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant two days after I saw this one and you could instantly tell the difference. Here it is all about the laughs. Here you actually care about the characters, you smile when something funny happens to them. Here you actually want them to stay together. You have no idea how much I laughed during most of Kate Hudson’s tactics to lose McConaughey. Fact is, she’s absolutely right, and the movie may even prove educational! Well, not that much, but the thing is it’s funny.

Kate inherited all the great talents of her mother. She shares the same kind of facial expressions and she’s just as charming. In this movie she shows she can be an excellent comedienne. Her comic timing is priceless. Oh, and she’s also gorgeous, so what’s there not to like.

I’d say this is a great date movie and an amazing showcase for both its stars.

“Which one, Andie or Princess Sophia?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In the Line of Fire

Director

Wolfgang Petersen

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) has been haunted for decades by the ghosts of his worst experience: as a bodyguard of John F. Kennedy, and one who was particularly close to him when he was shot, he was unable to save him. Now, the haunting has been incarnated by another haunted man (John Malkovich), who holds a grudge against the government, who’s become a dangerous killer, and who’s now threatening to kill the President.

Horrigan, however, is losing credibility. No one really believes that the President is in as much danger as he says, ‘cause the psycho only approached him. The President’s image can’t be jeopardized now that he’s running for re-election, and he must be exposed to the public frequently, but Horrigan is not willing to make the same mistake twice. So, no matter what, he must protect the President. The killer sure likes to play games, but he’s just teasing, because he’s got everything so meticulously crafted that he can’t miss. These two men play cat and mouse in both ways, in the most dangerous game of their lives.

Jeff Maguire crafted an amazing thriller with huge political backdrop reduced into the story of two complex characters. Eastwood is at his very best as an aging, in ways frustrated Agent, Malkovich outstanding as the scary but believable genius. Tension grows towards the end and the climax is grandly entertaining and heart-pounding. Malkovich’s character being a master of disguise helps a lot in the process, while Rene Russo provides romantic relief. Ennio Morricone’s score is good too.

“Think about it Frank. The same government that trained me to kill trained you to protect. And now you're trying to kill me while up on that rooftop I protected you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

X2

Director

Bryan Singer

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

Two years we had to wait for the sequel to X-Men (2000). Two long years which were definitely worth the wait. Now that I’ve seen what a fantastic movie director Bryan Singer crafted I wish he only did X-Men movies from now on. Don’t worry, I can wait two years, and another two years, and another. Just keep delivering the fun!!!

The mutant race is in danger. After an alleged attack on the President by a mutant, Coloner Stryker (Brian Cox) sets to extinguish the mutant race from the face of the Earth. His plans involve attacking a certain school and using Professor X (Patrick Stewart) as a mean to alter his powers and get what he wants. Meanwhile Magneto (Ian McKellen) is still in prison, yet trying to do something to stop Col. Stryker. Thus the mutants join forces to combat their enemy. Storm (Halle Berry), Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), Rogue (Anna Paquin), Iceman (Shawn Ashmore), Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Cyclops (James Mardsen), Mystique (Rebecca Romjim-Stamos), Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) and Pyro (Aaron Stanford) are all in for the fight.

X2 is not only far better than its predecessor in every possible way, but it’s also a movie that stands on its own with ease. The story is more epic, the special effects are more impressive, the relationships go deeper, the action is twice as exciting, there are more and better characters… we’re in for a blast!

There is certainly a lot going on in a movie with so many characters as this one. Yet Bryan Singer never loses control of his movie and delivers special moments for everyone to shine. There’s an opening sequence involving Nightcrawler that will leave you gasping for air. The attack on the school is also amazing, and there’s a scene involving an out-of-control Pyro that certainly delivers the goods. Of course, the long climax is also something to behold, including a certain battle between mutants with similar powers that is quite impressive.

But wait, there are also quieter moments in the picture. Yes, you heard it right. X2 is a movie with a lot of heart and perhaps that’s why it connects so deep with our feelings. Every line of dialogue between Wolverine and Jean Grey is a classic. And the love triangle between them and Cyclops goes even further here. Not to mention Jean Grey gets a lot more screen time than before. I’ve always thought she was more powerful than most mutants around her, so what happens when her power starts to get out of control? It’s heart-breaking. Wolverine also gets to know more about his turbulent past. There’s a lot of anger inside of him, and we get to see more of his dark side. Meanwhile Iceman and Rogue have become a couple, yet they haven’t been able to establish a physical relationship because of her power. Iceman’s family confrontation is also one of the highlights of the movie. And then there’s Storm, who gets to show more of her anger when talking to Nightcrawler, a mutant who has gone through a lot himself.

I should also mention that this time around Mystique gets even more screen time and I couldn’t be happier. She’s just delightful and actress Rebecca Romjin-Stamos does a masterful job in portraying such an intriguing character. Watch out for her cameo!

Other standouts in the cast include Hugh Jackman, who continues impressing as Wolverine; Alan Cumming, who creates a memorable Nightcrawler; Famke Janssen, who is an astonishing Jean Grey; and Shawn Ashmore, incredible as Iceman. Every actor does a great job.

X2 also continues in the tradition of accusing discrimination, a topic certainly in vogue nowadays and that should continue to be addressed. The way the movie tackles such a difficult subject is classy and fun.

Kudos to John Ottman for perfecting his score and especially to Bryan Singer, who simply outdid himself. This is a great movie. One of the greatest sequels of all-time and certainly one of the best movies about comic-book characters ever made.

“You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Seven Year Itch

Director

Billy Wilder

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, May 12, 2003

Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) is a happily married man whose wife (Evelyn Keyes) goes out of town for the summer along with their young son. Soon, Richard is faced with the frequent rumor that during the summer, all men have affairs with other women thanks to their wives being away. Richard thinks he wouldn’t fall for that but still he fantasizes a little and wonders how he’d behave if he really had the chance to cheat on his wife. Soon, the chance knocks on his door: it’s a very attractive girl (Marilyn Monroe) who’s going to live in the apartment upstairs for the summer. Richard soon becomes infatuated with her, and she doesn’t seem too upset with the ideas he’s getting. But how far is any of them really willing to go? And will Richard forget his family so easily?

This entertaining Billy Wilder film would be nothing, and I repeat, nothing without Marilyn Monroe, and more specifically, her very classic scene on top of a subway grating that has her skirt blowing up around her legs. Still, it’s quite valuable for the dialogue between the two main characters and their development, yet it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere and that’s because the story, adapted from George Axelrod’s play, was heavily censored. Besides, though Ewell’s performance is usually praised, I’ll say he’s a bit annoying and repetitious at times (I’m blaming both him and the screenplay here). Robert Strauss is much more effective as the janitor.

For a real good Wilder-Monroe teaming, check out Some Like It Hot (1959). This one, sadly, can be skipped.

“When it gets hot like this, you know what I do? I keep my undies in the icebox!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Circus

Director

Charles Chaplin

Year

1928

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, May 07, 2003

The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) wanders about a circus when he inadvertently becomes a fugitive of the law when taken for a pickpocket. To escape, he fades under the circus tent and suddenly he’s part of the show. The police still chases him in the middle of the show, and mayhem ensues, but as you can imagine, people start to laugh, thinking it was all planned, and the Tramp becomes a star. However, since he can’t be funny on purpose, he’s fooled by the tyrant Ring Master (Al Ernest Garcia) into thinking he’s been hired as a prop man, sending him carrying heavy objects into the ring. In the meantime, the Tramp falls in love with the Master’s daughter (Merna Kennedy), a beautiful bareback rider who loves the tightrope walker. Since her father exploits her and treats her awfully, the Tramp makes it his mission to help her. But he must also take care of himself!

This Chaplin movie, made between The Gold Rush (1925) and City Lights (1931) is not usually regarded as one of his masterpieces, and with reason: it’s never as memorable as the two aforementioned movies, while it still captivates and contains genuinely genius bits of comedy and poignancy. The Tramp’s unwilling comedy acts in the circus, his forced tightrope walking, the persecution in a mirror hall, and many other bits are hilarious, while most scenes involving the Ring Master’s daughter are heartbreaking.

However, many good bits don’t make one good whole, and while the story is all right, it never sticks to the heart or the mind. Sad to say, this meticulous effort from Chaplin (which he produced, starred, directed, wrote, edited and scored) is only an example of his greatness, but not a great movie itself. Still, it’s very worth watching, especially for fans.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Beethoven

Director

Brian Levant

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, May 06, 2003

This and last week I’ve been giving a retrospective look into the movies with which I grew up. I’ve already reviewed many of them, but Beethoven was criminally missing from the list. How many times I watched this movie with my sisters would be like trying to count the leaves in a tree. The thing is, I loved it.

George and Alice Newton (Charles Grodin and Bonnie Hunt) have three children: Ryce (Nicholle Tom), Ted (Christopher Castile) and Emily (Sarah Rose Karr). But one sunny day a new member arrives into their lives, Beethoven, a St. Bernard with no family. Beethoven turns the Newton’s life upside down, but it isn’t until vet Vernick (Dean Jones) puts his eye on him for an illegal experiment that things turn into chaos.

The first question that comes into my mind is: what elevates Beethoven from all the other dog stories that have been brought to the big screen? It is difficult to find an answer to that. There are a lot of great movies about dogs, yet Beethoven is the one that hooked me since I was a child. I guess it has to do with the heart more than what it has to do with whether the movie is really that good or not. What I can objectively say is that the movie works, that it is entertaining and that it has a great cast.

Beethoven also has the usual message about family values and about how when they all come together they can defy almost anything bad coming their way. The movie is also a lot of fun by telling the story of how the dog settled into the Newton’s home. First George didn’t like him, so it was a difficult adjustment. Then again, it’s not difficult to fall in love with a dog like this and it slowly starts to become a source of happiness for everyone.

John Hughes wrote the screenplay and he sure knew what he was doing. The movie is first-rate at every turn.

Charles Grodin played against-type and ended up delivering a fantastic performance. You can feel his repulsiveness towards Beethoven, yet you can also understand him and laugh at him. He doesn’t fall into camp and that’s something to cheer in a movie like this. Bonnie Hunt is great as always and the kids are all amazing.

A great family film you shouldn’t miss!

“My family likes you more than they like me! Why? All you do is drool and shed and eat!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

X-Men

Director

Bryan Singer

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, May 01, 2003

Given the recent craze about everything X-Men I decided to give Bryan Singer’s three-years old movie a second look. I remember when I saw it in the big screen the only thing I could think about was that I couldn’t wait for the sequel. That first movie was great, but I wanted more and now I’m getting it. Meanwhile, here are my thoughts on X-Men.

Senator Kelly (Bruce Davidson) is one of many people who believe mutants are dangerous and should be controlled or extinguished. Professor X (Patrick Stewart) believes there’s a peaceful way to make humans understand that mutants are like any of them, so he sets up a special school where mutants can develop their special powers while living a normal life. Storm (Halle Berry), Cyclops (James Mardsen) and Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) are some of his alumni. Meanwhile Magneto (Ian McKellen) thinks a war should take place so humans can understand the damage they’re doing to them. His allies include Mystique (Rebecca Romjin-Stamos), Sabretooth (Tyler Mane) and Toad (Ray Park). One day Professor X receives two new members, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Rogue (Anna Paquin), who haven’t found living as mutants that easy.

I saw X-Men knowing the basics about the comic book it was based upon. I had heard of some of the characters and had a vague idea about this world in which mutants and humans coexisted. Having seen the movie I can only find it fascinating that Bryan Singer was capable of bringing so many characters to the big screen without losing the beat and the pizzazz that has to be present in any superhero movie. Not only did he do a movie that is fun in every way you look at it, but he also managed to make it thoughtful and stylish.

You could say X-Men is mainly about Wolverine and Rogue. Wolverine has had a tough time after something happened to him in the past, which he can’t really remember. He only knows it hurts, and he has suffered a lot because of it. Enter Rogue, a mutant who can’t touch anyone because she absorbs their energy and could kill them. She can’t even kiss a guy without damaging him. Rogue can’t really find her place in the world and finally does so thanks to Professor X and Wolverine, who becomes a paternal figure to her as they both struggle to find their way.

And while each of them is trying to fit somewhere the world that surrounds them doesn’t understand them. Singer and his writers make a bold statement about racism and tolerance in a movie that is supposed to be brainless. I tip my hat to them and to the creators of the comic book, since addressing social issues in a fun way like this can’t hurt and it actually makes people think.

Not to say the movie is all about seriousness. As a matter of fact there’s not one frame of it that doesn’t scream fun. There are fights galore, there are eye-opening special effects, there are moments for every character to shine and show off their powers, there’s romance, there’s drama, there’s a little bit of everything. I specially loved the way Magneto isn’t a megalomaniac just for the sake of it. He has his reasons and they’re as reasonable as anyone else’s. It’s just that the end does not justify the means.

With Wolverine, Hugh Jackman found the perfect character to send him to superstardom. He’s so good in the role that we wondered where the hell had he been before. He brings every bit of ferociousness and heart to a difficult character to portray. Anna Paquin also delivers a fantastic and heart-breaking performance as the more “human”, you might say, of all the characters. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart excel as their respective gifted nemesis. And Rebecca Romjin-Stamos is not only a visual feast, but she does a fantastic job as Mystique, my favorite of the villains in the movie. Halle Berry and James Mardsen are a little flat, to tell you the truth, but that’s more because they mostly stay in the background due to time constraints.

Another so so aspect includes the music, but there’s always the set to pay off for that. Ultimately X-Men succeeds and does so with Singer in hand.

“Mankind isn’t evil, just uninformed.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter