CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

In Good Company

Director

Paul Weitz

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Apparently Paul Weitz enjoys the subject of personal crisis. He and his brother Chris directed the extraordinary About a Boy (2002), which went deep into the story of a bored man living a seemingly comfortable but actually boring, empty life. In Good Company, from a script by Weitz himself, is about mid-life crisis as much as it’s about the so-called quarter-life crisis. Not many movies deal with both subjects at once; Lost in Translation (2003) comes to mind as one that does. Both are movies I vastly enjoyed.

This story is about Carter Duryea (Topher Grace), a 26-year-old businessman too successful for his own good, and kind of clueless as to how to handle his early and outstanding professional growth. A real go-getter, he snatches the chance to become the sales department head for a sports magazine the conglomerate he works for just took over. In parallel, we get to see the other side of the spectrum in the form of middle-aged Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid), whose job Duryea just got. Dan is a tired man, worried about his responsibilities, yet old-fashioned when it comes to his job, which jeopardizes his future.

The early encounters of these two aren’t too comfortable. Dan obviously hates the young one’s guts, while the latter, perhaps out of respect, chooses not to let his predecessor go. In the meantime, Carter meets Dan’s 18-year-old daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson) and chemistry makes its way. How the precocious overachiever will juggle with love and job when Dan is involved in both will surely be hard!

Happily, the film never goes for cheap comedy, as it could. There is comedy, both hilarious and bittersweet, but Weitz prefers to dig into these people’s personalities and the way they deal in a dramatic way. I loved how even Alex became a three-dimensional character though the script grants her only a few lines and very little focus. Somehow, we connect with everyone’s concerns and anxieties, and understand their plights. Dan seems a bit too uptight considering his position, Carter too unsettled to lead such a secure career, but these minor flaws, which can or cannot mar the believability of the plot, certainly don’t affect the core of the tale, which rings true all the way.

As a plus (or perhaps as one of the main goals), the film targets the way capitalism works nowadays and how older people are disposable while young fellows have such shiny futures if they’re good enough selling themselves. One remarkable actor has a cameo as the head of the company that takes over, and his electric appearance is also charged with this message. The whole movie is filled with poignant moments of people losing their jobs and people cold-bloodedly “letting them go.” But that’s the way it works, so we better take our chances. Or should we fight the system? Especially when a family’s security is endangered? Tough questions.

The stylish direction of Paul Weitz and all that composes the film, from photography to hip selection of music, made me shiver. It’s a pleasant movie to watch, a fun ride, and an emotional wallop. Very nice piece of work.

The performers aren’t any bad either! Quaid is the standout but Grace is also surprising in his best role so far. Johansson has little chance to shine (though her very presence is a stunner) but she’s very good in her role, too. David Paymer is also well-worth mentioning as a veteran employee of Sports America.

Verdict:

“I’m psyched!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of In Good Company (2004): Morris

Review

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Director

George Lucas

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 30, 2005

I know a lot of people who are die-hard fans of the Star Wars saga. I’m not one of them. I didn’t grow up with them (wasn’t born when the first opened) and didn’t come to see the first three movies until a couple of years ago. That’s not to say I didn’t love them, because I did. I love the mythology and everything about it. Then came the second round of movies; the first one left me cold and the second one was pretty good. But I was eager to see if Lucas could redeem himself with the third one, and, at least in my book, he just did.

Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) wants nothing more than to become a Jedi Master, but Yoda (voice of Frank Oz), Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and the rest of the Jedi Council members are not willing to give him that title just yet. Anakin then retorts to Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), the only one who seems willing to hear him because of his secret plan to make him his apprentice, and slowly starts turning to the dark side in order to protect his wife Padmé (Natalie Portman) from dying when giving birth to their offspring.

Lucas starts his movie lightly. Anakin and Obi-Wan are on a rescue mission and its all fun and games for them. It is just heartbreaking to realize, in the audience, that those moments are perhaps the last ones they’ll spend together as friends. Moments like this permeate the entire movie. This isn’t a cheerful episode in the saga, but rather a dark, poignant, sad one. And it is inevitable. We know what’s going to happen and we desperately want Anakin to stop doing the things he does. It is a battle of feelings.

I have to say I credit Lucas for putting in place the last piece of the puzzle in such a classy way. Every story thread is tied together, every subplot explained, every detail given a lot of attention. Sure, there is some forced stuff such as the explanation Lucas gives to why R2-D2 and C-3PO don’t remember anyone from the past during the next three episodes. But generally speaking, the movie is well done and well-put together. What impresses me most is that Anakin keeps searching for the meaning of what he has been told he represents: the balance of the Force. Thing is, it will take him a lot of years, and three more movies, to actually understand why. After watching this movie, the next three ones will become a slightly different experience, and I say that as a plus.

Now, the first hour is kind of the same we were used to. Some fights, some action sequences, a lot of very cheesy romantic scenes, a lot of meetings between the Jedi Council, etc. But then the second hour arrives and it’s a pretty wild ride from then on. With Anakin in full rebellious mode and the Emperor’s plan in full swing, the movie turns to Greek tragedy in steroids. There’s a sequence involving a lot of Jedi in different planets that especially struck me as brilliant. And the whole overruling of the galaxy is a joy to behold in terms of entertainment, but as sad and beguiling in terms of the heart.

Mind you, the moment Darth Vader’s mask makes its first appearance is nothing short of shocking. Hearing that breathing for the first time is so poignant it makes me shiver just by the thought of it. It is an emotional movie.

The dialogue still sucks though; very bad in a lot of scenes. And the acting hasn’t improved that much either. Natalie Portman finally shows some signs of humanity, but in scenes that don’t make her justice. She has the best line of the movie though (see below). Hayden Christensen is good, but that’s about it. A little stiff for my taste and he never seems to believe that there’s great imagery going on where blue screen is, so his line readings are especially painful sometimes because of this. Ewan McGregor leaves the strongest impression among humans, as does Ian McDiarmid. And Yoda is beautifully animated, every scene he is in a pleasure to behold.

The movie is way more political than it might meet the eye. It could even be taken as a satire or as a real-life reproduction. There are different sides, different ways of thinking and way too many complicated shenanigans going on. I am not much into politics, but I did enjoy how Lucas plays with them, if a bit too much.

“This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Juarez

Director

William Dieterle

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Throughout most of my life, I’ve been intrigued by the story of Maximilian and Carlota, Emperor and Empress of Mexico. Why, you might ask. Firstly, because I’m a Mexican, and secondly, because I consider it to be one of the most glamorous and tragic stories this continent has witnessed. I’ve done a lot of research on the subject and I just can’t stop getting interesting facts and more and more reasons to want to dig deeper. So, after a while, I just couldn’t wait any longer to watch Juarez.

Curious, isn’t it, that a film named after one character interests me on account of two others. The reason is simple: The project was originally born as an adaptation of the story of the Emperors of Mexico, not the Mexican liberator. Based on a play by Franz Werfel and a book by Bertita Harding, screenwriters John Huston, Æneas MacKenzie, and Wolfgang Reinhardt worked on the script. That’s when Paul Muni came into the project and changed the whole scope.

Now, getting into details here is gruesome, because most historians consider that Muni ruined the project, and I have to agree. Being one of the most influential actors in Hollywood back then, and having made two very successful biographical films, Muni’s casting as Benito Juárez was obviously irresistible and well-worth pointing the main spotlight of the film towards him. This reportedly infuriated John Huston, but that’s how it went.

Luckily enough, the highfalutin story thread did not completely manage to undermine the original intention, and what’s left of Maximilian and Carlota’s story is precious, so much so that it’s worth finding the film and watching it.

Just to make it clear: I’m not saying Juárez’s story is not interesting; on the contrary, it’s one of the most intriguing of this country. However, the way it’s handled here is all wrong. Let me get into detail.

The story begins at the moment Napoleon III (Claude Rains in a truly memorable performance) decides to establish a monarchy in Mexico in order to keep the territory controlled against the growing menace of the United States’ northern forces led by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. Thus Maximilian von Habsburg (Brian Aherne) and his wife Carlota (Bette Davis) are made believe the Mexican people want them there, and off they go, little suspecting that the freedom-fighters in that foreign country are way more dangerous than it seems, and that the opposing forces from the northern country are sure willing to join the campaign against them.

It’s not that bad for them, however, except for their personal drama: They can’t have any children, and the prompt adoption of a Mexican noble boy is a direct hit to Carlota’s pride. It starts getting even worse when General Bazaine (Donald Crisp) finds it difficult to control the rebels, and when finally, due to international pressure (mostly proceeding from the United States), Napoleon III decides to retire the French Army from Mexico, leaving the Monarchs unprotected.

In the meantime, we get the story of Benito Juárez in doses filled with pretension. As opposed to the fully-fledged Emperors, whose pledge is clear on a personal level, Juárez comes directly from a history text book: Never a personal motivation, never a glimpse into his day-to-day life; just facts as they’re known, same as if you read them in your encyclopedia, or rather, all the more ludicrous here. What’s worse: Muni as Juárez looks like a wax statue; under such heavy makeup, he’s unrecognizable, and completely absent of apparent emotion. His ceremonious performance doesn’t help; he’s pretty dreadful, to be completely honest.

Maximilian and Carlota always come as a breath of fresh air throughout the film. Aherne leads the way and gives a charming, gallant performance, with Davis lending good support. However, towards the end, it is Bette who sticks to the mind, especially in the best scene of the movie, that in which she demands an explanation from Napoleon III. One can see why Davis accepted to be relegated to a supporting part; brilliant as always.

Another actor well-worth mentioning is John Garfield. Despite what seems to be an earnest attempt to capture the mannerisms of Mexicans back in the 1860s, his portrayal of General Porfirio Díaz is plain laughable. His modern-day Bronx-Mexican accent comes off like a bad joke, and his scenes lose all possible credibility. He’s clearly the worst performer in the film.

Other than that, nothing to complain about. The period is recreated sumptuously, as expected from a sumptuous Warner Brothers production of this category. Good attention is paid to political and social circumstance, even though the story plays with facts as expected. Orry-Kelly’s costumes are flawless, and they even include a symbolism related to Carlota’s mental health. Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s music score is probably not one of his best, but still very effective. Tony Gaudio’s cinematography, on the other hand, is highly innovative and undeniably flawless.

This film came so close to being a masterpiece that it ironically reminds of Mexico’s monarchs’ own flirting with greatness. They deserve a better movie though. But I’m still glad this one’s around.

“Answer me sire!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sahara

Director

Breck Eisner

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

I have to admit something: when I first heard about this movie being made I thought it was the perfect formula for disaster. None of its actors were box office gold, the author of the books (Clive Cussler) it’s based upon threatened to sue the producers because he didn’t approve the script, it was a desert movie, and the director they ultimately got wasn’t a proven one. Time went by, promotion kicked off, the movie was released… and guess what? It was a moderate success both with critics and audiences. I think it’s a winner!

Dirk Pitt (Matthew McConaughey) and Al Giordino (Steve Zahn) are a pair of treasure hunters who have worked together for years. Dirk has always been obsessed with a particular event in history: the disappearance of a Civil War battleship in the middle of the desert… or so he thinks. When he finally comes into possession of a valuable lead he borrows a yacht from his sponsor (William H. Macy) and heads to Mali with his crew. He has company, as Dr. Eva Green (Penélope Cruz) is tracing a plague coming out of that same city and comes along for the ride with her people. Soon they find out that there’s something fishy going on, and that their missions might be a little more related than they thought at first.

The movie begins with a credit sequence which has the camera spying on every single corner of Dirk’s place. It is with this sequence that I stood up and became a bit more optimistic. It is a great shot in which we start to know the characters, see photos of their adventures, get a knack of what they’re into and realize the great friendship between Dirk and Al. And it’s all in a few minutes!

After that the movie goes into a halt for about one third of its running time or so. There’s barely any action or adventure, but actually a lot of space to introduce the characters, see how they meet, learn about their missions, et al. I think a little bit of tightening, whether script-wise or editing-wise, would’ve helped, but it’s no biggie, for what follows afterwards more than makes up for it.

And I’m talking adventure baby! Sure, the movie does not reach Indiana Jones’ levels, but it gets close. A lot of obstacles get in the way of our heroes, but what I liked the most is the way they handle it. You get the sense that they’re having fun even when fighting for their lives and it’s that tongue-in-cheek attitude that sets the movie apart. No one is taking themselves seriously; the movie has a lot of almost impossible stunts and unbelievable situations and yet it’s always about the fun, fun, fun!

Quibbles, for me, included a rather unimpressive score and a certain lack of fire between Dirk and Eva, who are supposed to have something going on yet it’s almost never mentioned or brought up. That said, I had a great time with the movie.

McConaughey and Zahn are a great pairing. Perhaps they both lack the superstar attraction of an action star, but together they’re dynamite, and that’s the whole point of their relationship. A lot of movies are made with unlikely pairs that are too forced for their own good, but here we believe in their friendship and are never forced into accepting their characters. Great work by both of them! I also enjoyed Lambert Wilson, William H. Macy and Delroy Lindo in smaller parts.

“No, I only know how to say, ‘I don't speak English’ in English.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Usual Suspects

Director

Bryan Singer

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

I hadn’t revisited The Usual Suspects for about eight years, and all of a sudden I found myself thinking about Keyser Soze, that enigmatic, invisible villain. I also remembered that Christopher McQuarrie’s screenplay won an Oscar, as did the performance of Kevin Spacey. That brought to my mind the great music socre, the tasteful performances, the final twist, and… I had to see it again. I did, that very day.

The story is actually pretty simple, even though the screenplay is highly complex in its presentation. It tells of a rounding of usual suspects after a truck loaded with weapons was jacked. The line-up isn’t all that usual though: These are all hard-core criminals put together for some reason: McManus (Stephen Baldwin), Keaton (Gabriel Byrne), Fenster (Benicio Del Toro), Hockney (Kevin Pollak), and Kint (Kevin Spacey).

The tale is told by Roger “Verbal” Kint (Spacey), the only survivor of what seems to have been a drug operation on a ship, weeks after the line-up, probably a quarrel between two gangs. He explains how it went, and that’s how it’s told to us. In a nutshell, the men at the line-up used their time well while in custody and planned a hit together. Soon however, they found themselves puppets of a much stronger criminal force that set them up in order to force them to work for specific purposes. That force is Keyser Soze, a legendary, to some mythic character who’s said to be devil on Earth.

It’s up to detective Dave Kujan (Chazz Palminteri) to decipher the mystery and find out what really happened during those tumultuous weeks that ended up so badly with so many dead bodies and many more unanswered questions. His interrogation to Verbal Kint goes nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Kujan has set his mind to unmask one of the men at the line-up, Dean Keaton (Byrne), former corrupt policeman and long-time criminal who was supposedly trying to go straight.

Keaton is really the most enigmatic character on the film, or so it seems throughout. We’re never quite sure of his motivations, especially because we’re not sure if what we’re seeing is real, or only some people’s point of view. Fact is, the man claimed to be playing straight at last, and his relationship with hotshot lawyer Edie Finneran (Suzy Amis) sure helped. Kujan doesn’t buy that for a minute, not to mention the supposition that he played along with the men at the line-up only because he had no choice. To him, Keaton organized everything from scratch to accomplish some macabre goal. He might even be the so-called Keyser Soze.

Kint goes on an on about the men, the operation, the threats, and the dreadful ending, and it’s always clear that he’s hiding things. Eventually he reveals that a lawyer was involved throughout: Kobayashi (Pete Postlethwaite), Soze’s messenger. He’s the one that blackmailed the men, and he’s the one who led them to their fates. But why? And is he really Soze’s courier? Does Soze really exist? Could he be closer than he appears?

The film’s strength is mainly deposited in two elements: The script, and Spacey’s performance. Director Singer was brilliant enough to focus on them as it should be, and even though the results are mildly confusing (what did happen and what did not, ask yourself after the final revelation is given away?), the ending is truly satisfying and larger-than-life, making the causes of the film’s importance also the main receivers of its glory (just count the Oscars).

Every performance is truly tasteful, and most of them are very funny. John Ottman’s music score is outstanding, giving the film a touch of seriousness that probably doesn’t come from any other aspect. Overall, this is a really good movie, not free of flaws, but surely containing enough to make it worthwhile.

“Well, I believe in God – and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Guess Who

Director

Kevin Rodney Sullivan

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 23, 2005

I had no intention of seeing this movie whatsoever. Not even if it was, literally, for free. Its creators have continually said that it is not a remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, but more of a re-imagining. Then why name it so similarly? Well, I was angry at it even before seeing it, and brought all of that with me into the theater when a friend of mine urged me to please go see it. I ultimately had a good time with it, but am still kind of mad.

Simon Green (Ashton Kutcher) and Theresa (Zoe Saldana), white and black respectively, have just got engaged and are going to her parents’ house for their anniversary party where they’ll announce the news to everyone. But Percy (Bernie Mac) doesn’t find it too amusing that he’s white, or that he’s a guy dating his daughter for that matter.

Guess Who could just as well be called Meet the Parents Redux. It has nothing to do with the classic movie its title references, and has a lot to do with that little, and better, Ben Stiller comedy that opened not so long ago. Only difference? Throw in a little bit of racism issues and you’ve got it. I’m not kidding, they’re the same movie!

That said, Guess Who has a lot of heart and is not that difficult to love. We know how it’s going to end and we know what’s going to happen at every step of the way, but still, the characters are likable, so it’s not such a burden. Only a couple of times did the movie take me off-guard when I though it was going somewhere and I was wrong (such as the typical gay event-planner character or an apparent reconciliation scene which is anything but that). But otherwise we’ve seen it all before, and it’s just completely filled with cliché after cliché.

And I have to say Kutcher and Mac have good chemistry. The movie is all about them, so it’s good that they do a nice comic pairing. I still prefer Stiller and De Niro over them any time, but I’m not complaining. I also liked Zoe Saldana and Judith Scott, as her mother, very much. They have a natural, easy-going way about them that I enjoyed a lot. Actually the whole cast is quite good.

Predictable and kind of unbelievable, especially these days, but not bad.

"You can call me Mr. Jones."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Confidentially Yours

Director

François Truffaut

Year

1983

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Vivement dimanche! (or Confidentially Yours) is the last film of master director François Truffaut. It’s beautiful that this is his final screen work. After a very prolific career during which he made so many complex, extraordinary pieces, to which he dedicated no doubt loads of time and planning and work, he wrapped it all up with a simplistic, in-your-face Hitchcock homage that’s as much a light comedy as it is a carefree romance. Not nearly as demanding or profound as his masterpieces, but sure to delight and entertain.

The story begins with the mysterious murder of a man during a hunting trip, and the subsequent suspicion on Julien Vercel (Jean-Louis Trintignant), a real estate agent. Just recently, Julien fired his efficient secretary Barbara (Fanny Ardant) because she couldn’t get along with his wife, but after the latter’s death (the second murder Vercel is suspicious of), he realizes only Barbara can help. For some strange reason, Barbara is more than willing to help, and does so very elegantly: She dresses up with a trench coat and begins the investigation like a real sleuth, while Vercel hides from the police at his shop.

Surprisingly, the investigation becomes quite intricate. It involves many enigmatic people from a sinister pimp (Jean-Louis Richard) to a dreadful-looking priest (Jean-Pierre Kalfon), and the reasons for the murders might be much worse than one can imagine. Barbara makes it pleasant for Julien however, as she seems to enjoy the danger and intrigue, and manages to loosen him up. Playing up an old-fashioned Hollywood-style murder mystery, she turns a series of tragic events into an exciting adventure; with a romantic subtext so strong it’s irresistible.

Truffaut had fun making this film a tribute, as I said, to Hitchcock in many ways, and to classic film noirs in many more. Its atmosphere is really rich, especially through Néstor Almendros’ rich black and white. The accompaniment of Georges Delerue’s music is, as is always the case with this composer, absolutely perfect.

And besides the plot points and the references to Hollywood, Truffaut made up some unforgettable elements of his own, like the window in Vercel’s shop’s basement, through which one can see the feet of the passers-by. A reference to Rear Window (1954) to be sure, but one particular scene, in which Barbara decides to walk out there knowing he’ll be watching her feet, is incredibly sexy, and a freebie. That’s how delectable this movie is.

I’m not a big fan of Trintignant’s performance, but I guess it’s because his character demanded an unlikable touch so as to make his relationship with Barbara more complex. It could also be to accentuate Ardant’s unique portrayal of a carefree yet passionate woman, a lost soul who doesn’t worry much about being lost. I can’t take her out of my head; she’s perfect.

Based on the American novel “The Long Saturday Night” by Charles Williams, and scripted by Jean Aurel, Suzanne Schiffman, and Truffaut, Vivement dimanche! is a film to enjoy, and a perfect bookend for its author’s work; he was always a lighthearted filmmaker, whose main goal was to do what he loved, and do it well.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kingdom of Heaven

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Director Ridley Scott is an interesting case of a director who doesn’t always hit the mark, but is always interesting to watch. His last three movies have been extraordinary, with two of them even cracking my top 10 in their respective years: Gladiator (2000) and Matchstick Men (2003). And there’s absolutely no doubt that the man knows how to direct an epic. That’s why I came into Kingdom of Heaven with such high hopes. And even though it isn’t as good as his previous efforts, it is still a movie worth watching with some very insightful ideas.

Balian (Orlando Bloom), a blacksmith who just lost his wife and daughter, meets Baron Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Nesson) who appears out of nowhere claiming to be his father and asking him to go to Jerusalem with him. Balian accepts and is knighted by his father, but when he dies he embarks on a quest to protect the people of the city, mostly Christians, from the Muslims who want to take it over. As Balian tries to serve the King of Jersusalem (Edward Norton) he also falls in love with his sister Sibylla (Eva Green).

Hearing the words Christians and Muslims in the description of a movie is a sign of controversy from the get-go. No matter that this movie takes place during the Crusades (emphasis on the “during”, because the movie is not “about” them), most viewers will certainly find some resonance in what they’re seeing compared to what we’re living today. I’m sure that didn’t escape the creators of the movie, but on the other hand they made it possible for a movie to actually treat the two sides as equals, as human beings and not with the easy good-vs-bad rivalry. I applaud that. And I applaud the movie’s finale even more. I won’t say how it ends, just that it’s on the shocking side of the spectrum.

The reason why the movie doesn’t reach greatness levels is difficult to describe. The first hour is slowly paced, with barely any action and choppily-edited at times. It’s been said that a lot of material stayed in the cutting room floor, which makes for some harsh edits, such as when Bailan’s father is hinted as sick and then is suddenly dying in the next cut. Also, the theme of the movie is somber and serious, which makes for some dense material and a hero that is not as easy to identify with. I also didn’t believe some crucial aspects such as Bailan’s sudden conversion from simple blacksmith to army expert. In one blink he’s already the leader of thousands and has brilliant ideas that rival those of Alexander the Great!!!

Scott is a master craftsman. Every single technical detail is beyond words, from art direction to music to costumes to period detail to cinematography to special effects. There’s a huge battle at the end that ranks up there with the best. It’s rousing and exciting, everything it needs to be.

I had my doubts concerning Orlando Bloom in such a demanding part, but I’m glad to report that he’s up to the task. He’s no Russell Crowe of course, but he does a good job and I never hinted at a false moment in his performance. If there are some, that’s because of the script more than the actors. Liam Neeson also leaves a strong impression, as does Jeremy Irons in a rather underwritten part. Eva Green is more presence than anything else, with those big eyes and haunting expressions. And Edward Norton does brilliant voice work as the King of Jerusalem.

Epic in scope, but intimate in its depiction, Kingdom of Heaven preaches tolerance… and I’m there to listen.

“The world will decide. The world always decides.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Election

Director

Alexander Payne

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Why, oh why Lord did you let me wait six years to watch Election? It was only now, after my huge admiration and respect for Alexander Payne’s Sideways (2004), that I felt an imperative compulsion to go rent the second feature film collaboration of Payne and Jim Taylor as screenwriters. Based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, Election packs a wallop: It’s a hilarious satire, a moving human story, and a pleasant film, all in one. Certainly a gem!

The story is fairly simple: Elections for president of the student government are gonna happen soon. So far, overachiever Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon) is running unopposed, which kind of bothers Professor Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick), the man in charge of the elections and the student government. Jim has never liked overachievers, but there’s something about Tracy that bothers him especially. In order to prevent one more entry in her long list of victories, he recruits another candidate, wounded sports jock Paul Metzler (Chris Klein in his film debut). It’s war when Tracy realizes there are stronger forces involved than a dumb and popular nouveau rich deciding to run against her. It gets even worse when Paul’s lesbian sister Tammy (Jessica Campbell) sets to run as well, in order to get back at her former lover (Delaney Driscoll) who’s now Paul’s girlfriend.

Like any good satire, Election signifies much more than meets the eye. In a simple portrayal of a school election (as bloody as they get), it targets real-life elections, and mostly human ambition and the crossing of ethical and moral lines. It’s really a bipolar film in the way it goes down to good vs. evil, and its use of thorough symbolism is highly effective. Yet, in fact, it’s about so many things it’s impossible to count them. For one, it’s about the crisis of a man whose alleged search for balance turns into a self-destructive quest with no turning back. On the other hand, it’s about fate and how we’ll meet it no matter how much we apparently change our route. Also it’s about education, and how we carry in our brains all that was inserted by our parents during our childhood. And finally it’s about how the world functions exactly the same way at any level. In that way it’s sad; in many ways it’s sad. But overall it’s highly riotous.

The story is told in a straightforward and delightful manner. However, as predictable as the premise sounds, there’s always something new and unexpected around the corner, and it’s usually an intelligent and believable twist. I soon learned that I could not expect any character to have any particular reaction or behavior when facing a certain situation; facing unforeseen scenarios, some people become who they usually aren’t. You wouldn’t believe how far the film goes and yet it manages to not cross the line of believability. Yes, the election changes more than a few people’s lives, but it’s still, like Tammy says, a stupid election.

Witherspoon’s and Broderick’s performances are tours-de-force to say the least. It’s especially refreshing to see him playing against type, and I’d say he goes away with murder with amazing ease. The rest of the cast is also magnificent. Shot mostly on location, the film features real Nebraska students as extras, some of which even speak a couple of lines.

Payne’s love for Nebraska is undeniable, and James Glennon’s photography is a tribute to that. Kevin Tent’s editing and Rolfe Kent’s music score add a lot to the fun.

And after you’ve enjoyed a good laugh, you’ll find yourself reflecting about it all. How much of life is like this? All of it? It’s so scary it’s beautiful. What a wonderful film.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In Good Company

Director

Paul Weitz

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 16, 2005

The Weitz brothers, creators of the American Pie franchise, took the world by storm with the release of About a Boy (2002), a mature adaptation of a Nick Hornby novel with Hugh Grant. I don’t really know why, but I didn’t love that movie, and the prospect of having to sit through their next outing of the same vein, In Good Company, wasn’t any attractive to me at all. I ultimately saw it (don’t ask) and was pleasantly surprised.

Globecom, a huge corporation owned by mogul Teddy K (an uncredited Malcolm McDowell), just bought Sports America magazine, number one in its market. So a new marketing director, Carter Duryea (Topher Grace), is sent to take over the department, replacing Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid) who has worked for the company for two decades, and becoming his boss. Dan is 25 years Carter’s senior, so the relationship does not come complication-free. And it worsens once Carter meets Alex (Scarlett Johansson), Dan’s 18-year-old daughter, and really likes her.

Why is it that I liked so much a movie in which barely anything happens? The answer is simple: writer/director Paul Weitz creates characters that we care about, that we believe in, and that we like spending some time with. If there was one word I had to use to describe the movie it would be “natural”. Everything seems so effortless that it’s impressive, even more so when you consider it’s also a satire of modern corporate philosophy. It’s like an everyday slice of life.

The relationships between the characters are what hold the movie together. The most difficult one is between Carter and Dan, who have to work together in a forced environment and try to stand each other in order to survive… well, at least one of them. There’s also a rather poignant relationship between Carter and Alex that I think is treated in a delicate and real way with no artificial payoff. Then there’s the relationships among co-workers, employers and employees, where there’s a little bit of everything. And last but not least the relationship between Dan and his family, especially Alex, where he has just started to acknowledge the fact that she is becoming a woman.

As you can see, I bought everything, and cared so much that even simple, apparently meaningless scenes felt like they were an important part of the whole. It is a very well-written and directed movie, that’s a fact.

In the midst of it all lays a tragicomic undercurrent about what big corporations have become these days and the absurdness of it all. People are disposable, money is all that matters, age is more important an asset than experience, all of these themes are touched upon in an elegant, non-showy, easy-going way. And I liked the approach quite a bit. Instead of going for over-the-top satire, the Weitzes opt for intimacy and it pays off.

A lot has been said about Topher Gracer’s breakout performance. He is excellent indeed and I hope he gets more good material like this to keep showing what he can do. But make no mistake; the movie belongs to Dennis Quaid, who gives a knockout of a performance. I’m actually intrigued as to why he didn’t get any awards recognition. His performance is passionate, soulful, funny and poignant all in one. And Scarlett Johansson is luminous and totally credible in the part. Great ensemble all the way!

“Oh, nothing, I was just thinking about how my dad said he wired this place with video surveillance.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of In Good Company (2004): Groucho

Review

House of Flying Daggers

Director

Zhang Yimou

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Don’t you love the recent trend of Chinese films in the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) tradition? I do… But sadly, I haven’t liked any as much as I did that one, and I can’t shake off the feeling that they’re poor wannabes. Well, maybe I’m going too far. But really, I can hardly find anything innovative about these films lately, and I think that’s a pity. So what I do is sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. Which isn’t hard when you have Ziyi Zhang onscreen!

This time around, the story involves a rebellion against the empire in the form of a clandestine association called “House of Flying Daggers”. The action begins inside a brothel where customer Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) is arrested for being disrespectful to officers while harassing blind prostitute Mei (Zhang). This girl is soon found to actually be a member of the Flying Daggers, and not just any member, but the daughter of its former leader.

The officers don’t hesitate to torture the girl in order to find out the location of the rebels, and that’s when the most unexpected thing happens: Nasty Jin rescues her for no apparent reason. Mei is obviously grateful, and though she doesn’t trust him completely at first, she soon starts falling in love with him, and vice versa. It seemed to me like I was watching an extended version of the middle section of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, also featuring Zhang.

It soon gets interesting however, when it seems like neither can really trust the other, for good reasons. The continuous presence of a soldier on their tail (Andy Lau) is a mysterious aspect that makes the procedures more tasteful. However, there are moments like the one in which she takes a bath that make the experience really worthwhile, since the effectiveness of the film lies in the bond between two characters, instead of the feud between two colossal forces they might be a part of.

The rest is all mind-blowing martial arts with eye-popping visual effects. By now they’re cliché, admittedly, but director Zhang manages to give them a fresh look and make them exciting nonetheless. Visually, the film is most impressive, probably even more than Zhang’s own Hero (2002), and the action is simply unstoppable. Another asset is the use of these kind of scenes for romantic or sexual purposes, like the couple of “echo game” scenes, which are amazing.

The performances by the three leads are quite good considering the material; I love Ziyi Zhang, but I especially enjoyed the male performances, embodying a larger-than-life rivalry that’s actually based on basics. Really good job.

Hero and this film are a couple of artistic and, for sure, commercial efforts by Yimou Zhang, whose obvious liking of the genre makes them easy to watch and enjoy. However, something’s keeping them from being unforgettable, and that should be the lack of originality and innovation. Let’s see what’s next for us to behold. Hopefully, something a tad better.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Machinist

Director

Brad Anderson

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Director Brad Anderson made a small splash with his previous horror outing, Session 9, a small movie very few people saw (I didn’t) which is said to be quite good. For his next outing he chose a different genre, the psychological thriller, also bordering on drama (don’t they all?). The Machinist is perhaps best-known because of leading actor Christian Bale’s extreme makeover, but still it went almost unnoticed last year. I can’t really say it is a pity, though the movie is definitely worth a look, if not a must.

Trevor Reznik (Christian Bale) hasn’t slept for over a year and people around him are starting to worry. Reznik finds company in Stevie (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a hooker that also finds in him someone to trust, and in Marie (Aitana Sánchez-Gijón), a waitress who encounters him every night at the airport. Everything is apparently fine until Reznik accidentally provokes an accident at work (as a machinist) in which a fellow co-worker loses his arm. From then on he starts to have hallucinations, and the line from fact to fiction gets blurrier by the minute, as he starts believing that there’s a conspiracy against him.

The Machinist has everything going for it: a talented cast, a good story, a great production team and a director that knows what he’s doing. If this movie isn’t great I don’t know why. Truth is I was completely entertained and interested all the way through the movie. I liked the performances, the story, the atmosphere, and everything about it. But it’s just that the movie does not have that extra oomph that’s needed to make it even better. It is one of those movies in which you don’t know what’s wrong, but it just doesn’t soar.

That said, it is a great effort. The movie is primarily a psychological thriller in which we never really know what’s going on. We root for the main character, but more out of desperation than actual affection. We want him to get out of that state, but we don’t really know what’s stopping him. And we also know there’s a mystery, judging from the first scene, and are more than eager to find out as much as we can about it.

Which we do, at the end, in a sort of twist... I liked the way it’s handled, by the way, because it is not as obvious or in-your-face as this sort of things is usually handled. I liked that the ending gives a new meaning to the whole movie, and makes it much more profound than it initially looked.

Christian Bale… OH MY GOD. He must be insane to have committed to such an extent to the role. Actors are always lauded for putting on the pounds, but I have never seen such a shocking case to the contrary. I hope Bale had a good doctor to advise him, because he looks really ill and it’s not precisely because of the makeup. His performance is really good, but I just wonder if the movie was worth the effort. Everyone else is fine in their roles.

“If you were any thinner, you wouldn't exist.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Interpreter

Director

Sydney Pollack

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

I’ve always admired political thrillers. Whether they’re good or bad, they always require loads of research and study, and sometimes, as it happens with all kinds of writings, they come from people who know the stuff because they’ve been inside. I don’t know about the writers of The Interpreter, but it sure sounds like they know their stuff.

The story involves UN interpreter Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman) who overhears a conversation apparently concerning the assassination of a leader, right there at the UN. It’s quite a coincidence that the movie never really explains or shakes off, because as it happens, that man leads no other African country than Silvia’s own; incidentally, she’s always been an activist in one way or another. If you can dismiss the fact that such coincidences are one in a million, you’re OK; if not, you’ll start finding more and more of these weakly-written eventualities that always aid the story in the most convenient ways. I expect that from Ocean's Twelve (2004), not a respectful Sidney Pollack’s film, but anyway…

There are plenty of good things about the film. The most prominent and I think the only undeniable one is Pollack’s direction. If anything, the film looks good, and I’m not talking about visuals only but the whole way it’s put together. The way it’s shot, the way it’s edited, the way it’s presented, it’s all pretty damn cool. I’m sure Pollack worked very hard to achieve this, and his team also did a great job. Sadly, for me all that worked as a nice wrapping for unsatisfying content, like a padded bra. (Just to get it out of my system, I’ll say small breasts can beat big breasts any day, if they’re proudly presented as what they are, with full recognition of their own beauty.)

Going on with the plot, enter Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) and Dot Woods (Catherine Keener), secret agents assigned to clarify the situation. At first Tobin doubts Silvia’s sincerity, but soon he realizes there must be more to it, even if she’s not sincere. This is obviously not just a silly lie. What I did like about the script was how it played with us in terms of how believable she really is. A tad marred by the coincidental aspect of them, the plot twists were always intriguing and did create an overall interest for Silvia’s character. Eventually, Kidman holds a big package on her hands and works it out fine.

Penn’s case is different. His character is seemingly complex, with a sad background and confused motivations, but there’s not enough focus on this to make him fully-fledged, and even this extraordinary actor’s skills can’t keep it afloat. What’s worse, his interactions with Silvia felt cheesy more often than not and the dialogue was plain bad. Like the writers never quite knew how to work out the human aspect of the script. Disguised as an anti-Hollywood treatment of two loners sharing the same unusual situation and facing it in different ways according to their own pledges, what it does is avoid the subject and focus on the political intrigue. But isn’t the human factor the most important? I’d say, from my observation of hundreds of movies, that it is indeed, no matter what.

To finish with the main cast, Catherine Keener’s screen time is very reduced, and her character is an accessory. Granted, she’s the most acid-tongued, and delivers her lines gracefully, but what’s she doing there?

The political theme is interesting, if a little complicated, but that’s not a problem. It revolves around a dictator (Earl Cameron) and a planned attempt on his life. One of his opponents most obviously involved (George Harris) is full of surprises. Pollack prepares the viewer during the first half for an exciting, climatic scene in a bus involving many key characters, notably Kidman’s and Harris’, which is effective. Naturally there’s another climax towards the end, but this one doesn’t work so well.

I believe this is the kind of film that works completely or not at all for different people. I’m hearing raves from some critics, while others simply didn’t buy it. I wish I belonged to the first group, but sadly, I’m in the second one. This should mean the film is worth watching, and worth discussing.

“Vengeance is a lazy form of grief.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Interpreter (2005): Morris

Review

Waking Life

Director

Richard Linklater

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 09, 2005

Richard Linklater’s Waking Life opened four years ago. Mainstream audiences barely noticed it, but it was a splash with critics and art-house audiences. I have to say I knew about the movie, heard all about it, yet didn’t feel like watching it at all. Too dense for my taste. And that’s not to say I was immature (ok, perhaps I was), but I just wasn’t ready for it. Four years later I finally had the chance to see it and I appreciated a lot of it, but I still think it’s not for everyone… but it’s definitely worth a look.

The movie has a young man (voice of Wiley Wiggins) traveling in a dreamy state through different places and encountering different people, all of whom tell him something about their views, ideas, politics, theories, complaints, and anything that comes to their minds about the human existence.

There’s no denying Waking Life is utterly pretentious. It is a philosophical movie if there ever was one. If you’re not in the mood you might even fall asleep, for there’s no coherent story being told, it’s just a series of vignettes of people talking, talking and talking even more.

Director Linklater knew he had to do something to present his movie in a more interesting light. That’s how he came up with the idea of doing the movie in half animated form. I use that term because the movie was actually shot using real actors in real environments, and then animators and several artists worked on the prints to give it a dreamy feel. It works like wonders, because the visuals are always impressive and never boring.

What I liked more about the movie is not what it has to say about the human condition, but what it has to say about the power of dreams. It has a lot of interesting and insightful stuff about dreams and I loved every single discussion about them. How sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish fiction from reality, and how you can do whatever you want when dreaming. Also, how the brain sometimes doesn’t recognize that a dream did not actually happen. Great material for discussion.

And Glover Gill’s music is a standout as well. Beautiful, haunting score.

Special mention to Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy who reprise their Before Sunrise (1995) roles in a brief, welcomed sequence. Richard Linklater himself appears at the end delivering a powerful speech.

“They say that dreams are only real as long as they last. Couldn't you say the same thing about life?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Birth

Director

Jonathan Glazer

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 05, 2005

I had no clue what Birth was all about when I stepped in to see it. I knew it was kinda supernatural, and that it featured an amazing performance by Nicole Kidman, but that was it. I was lucky to not know much about the movie before I saw it. I was surprised by every twist from the get-go, starting with the death of a man whose identity we don’t know.

The man leaves Anna (Nicole Kidman) a widow, whose disrupted life only gets back in place ten years later when she finally agrees to marry Joseph (Danny Huston), who shows such love and devotion for her that it’s obviously a good decision. That is, until a ten-year-old boy (Cameron Bright) appears in Anna’s life, claiming to be Sean, her dead husband. Young Sean is enigmatic, mysterious, and fairly handsome. Anna’s world is suddenly turned upside down by this strange occurrence, as the boy appears to really be the reincarnation of the man she really loved, and nothing else seems to matter.

What a crazy premise! How to make it work? The obvious problem is that any person who says they’re another is subject to a million questions whose answer is crucial for his credibility. This movie is absolutely ambiguous in that matter. No member of Anna’s family bombards the kid with questions as they should, and all wonder if he really is the man he claims to be. That’s a bit implausible. However, the way the film is handled is good in the way that it makes us doubt as well, and wonder how this could happen and what will happen next. The mystery is handled beautifully.

Plus, Nicole Kidman does a magnificent job. I can’t say I’m a fan of Nicole’s in every role, but there are some specific parts she’s excellent at. This is one example. It’s great to see her emotionally shattered and continuously hopeful; a delicate, tortured soul. The opera scene is GRAND, and few people could do it as well as her.

Standing next to her are Lauren Bacall as her mother (whose delivery of acid lines has no equal), and of course Bright and Huston, whose jobs are done quite well. Peter Stormare has an interesting part too, and Anne Heche steals some scenes as his wife.

The music by Alexandre Desplat was my favorite aspect of the film; very moving and suspenseful.

However, as a whole, I didn’t love the experience this film offered. Despite the well-handled story, the finale was disappointing, and an interesting scene featuring Heche, seen later in flashback, turns to be plain dumb. Knowing the final revelation, many scenes lose validity, which is something of a turndown. Even a couple of awkward scenes, forgiven before, become plain uncomfortable when everything’s said and done. Not that great aftertaste, even if the process was fine.

Still interesting and worthwhile, if not by far a must.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Interpreter

Director

Sydney Pollack

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

It is so good to have an adult thriller amidst all the horror movies and teen comedies that have been popping up lately. I was starving for something like this, and one look at the cast and director can also explain my obsession with watching this movie as soon as possible. Hopefully it would be good, but that would just be the cherry on top. That said, I certainly savored it!

Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman) is a South-African interpreter for the U.N. One night, while returning to pick up some stuff in her cubicle, she accidentally overhears a conversation in which two men talk about the murder of an African dictator known as Zuwanie (Earl Cameron), who will be addressing the crowd in just a few days. Silvia is discovered, so a Secret Service agent, Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), is appointed to investigate a case that might be more intricate than it initially seems.

Director Sidney Pollack is no stranger to this kind of politically charged thrillers. Then again, The Interpreter is all fiction, even relying on an invented country and language to avoid trouble and just tell the story. That is in fact a stark contrast to the fact that this is the first movie ever to have been given permission to shoot inside the actual U.N. compound, which is international territory. Never mind that the story is not fact-based (although some similarities with certain current situations can be found), the movie oozes realism. The U.N. becomes another character in the movie, and it is fascinating to get inside the place and see how it works, what those walls hide, and how interpreters do their jobs.

I will not delve that much into the actual plot because the movie is full of twists and turns, secrets and hurting truths, conspiracies and back-stabbing, excitement and emotion. I will just say that the writers did a good job in tying everything together in seamless fashion, making sense out of every story thread and not insulting our intelligence in the way. Sure, there are certain coincidences one has to be willing to accept, but coincidences happen every day, and I don’t see why they can’t happen in movies when they’re done with such elegant and credible care.

Take, for instance, the best scene in the movie. It involves a bus and almost every major character. It certainly is Pollack’s nod to Hitchcock, who would surely be proud of such a tightly-edited, well-written, nail-biting sequence. Everything is perfect about it, and much attention must have had to be paid to every detail to make it work. That’s what I’m talking about!

I also liked that even though a lesser movie would’ve forced a romantic liaison between Silvia and Tobin, here we get a much more complex, rich, and satisfying alternative. The bond between them is difficult and painful, but they need each other. They are nothing but two lonely individuals in the world who happen to bump into each other.

Proving why they’re considered two of the best living actors in the world, Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn deliver meticulously textured and affecting performances. Catherine Keener also appears to deliver the driest lines and even Sidney Pollack has a small role. He knows he’s good, and this movie is here to show it.

“Vengeance is a lazy form of grief.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Interpreter (2005): Groucho

Review

Three Fugitives

Director

Francis Veber

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

For many years I awaited the chance to see Three Fugitives again. As a child, I completely loved the movie. For some reason or other, however, I was pretty sure that I wouldn’t really see it the same way now that I know more about filmmaking. If it turned out as entertaining as I remembered it to be however, I wouldn’t have many complaints. Now I’ve seen it, and all I have is conflict. I still hold it in a special place, but I can’t say it’s a good movie. All I can say is it’s likely to give anyone a good time, albeit without much logic, substance, or overall quality.

Francis Veber remade his French film Les Fugitifs, starring Gérard Depardieu and Pierre Richard, into this American comedy with a both hilarious and touching premise:

A former bank robber (Nick Nolte), now willing to start anew, finds himself in the most awkward situation possible when a novice bank robber (Martin Short) takes him hostage during his first hit the very same day he gets out of jail. Lucas begs his inexperienced colleague not to take him, but Ned doesn’t pay attention and soon realizes his mistake: Detective Dugan (James Earl Jones), convinced that Lucas hasn’t changed, holds him responsible, and deems Ned his partner in crime.

Lucas has no choice but to play along, but Ned bumbles him into trouble at every turn. And despite the veteran’s will to clarify the misunderstanding and hand Ned to the police, the latter’s reason to rob a bank keeps him there: His six-year-old daughter Meg (Sarah Rowland Doroff) hasn’t talked since her mother died, and has to go a special—and expensive—school. It doesn’t help that the girl is completely adorable and seemingly helpless. Lucas sticks to Ned and Meg, and an unlikely alliance begins.

This film has one of my favorite aspects of any comedy: an odd couple. And as much as I respect Short, I think here Nolte is the funnier, so tough and serious and facing such funny situations. Short is hilarious but a tad over-the-top, even when playing it straight. His scenes in a car towards the end (with an unexplainably bad makeup) are a riot though. The third fugitive, little Meg, gives the film an extra something that, be sure, is one reason to rate the film higher: She’s adorable and her performance really touching.

One problem I found in this modern viewing of the film concerns the dialogues: completely awkward. Nolte comes off best because the words he speaks are usually straight to the point—often insults—but that’s not the case of every other character. Another big problem is the logic, as the film simply tries to sell its ideas effortlessly and sometimes doesn’t manage to, often the writing is lazy and things just happen and we’re supposed to go along. As much as I always liked this film, it was hard to play ball this time. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it, it only means it’s not as good a film as I remembered it to be.

Some people would also complain about the “totally 80s” music score (by David McHugh), but there’s enough heart in the film to keep it afloat despite its flaws. I wonder what the original was like. This one’s pretty passable.

"Don't go."

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous

Director

John Pasquin

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 02, 2005

I like Sandra Bullock. To me it’s a pity that she hasn’t been doing that many movies lately. I don’t precisely like everything she does, but I like her, and spending time at the movies with her has always been easy for me. When Miss Congeniality (2000) opened I dug it. It was good-hearted, hilarious in its own satiric way and full of charm. Besides, I do watch beauty pageants from time to time, so it was even funnier that way. So what’s next after that? A sequel? Mmm, it could work. We already loved the characters, so why not? If only they could’ve done it right…

Gracie Hart (Sandra Bullock) has now become a celebrity because of the undercover work she did as a beauty pageant contestant. That’s why she can’t be a field agent anymore… everyone recognizes her! So she ends up becoming the new face of the FBI, with a complete makeover and appearances in every talk show imaginable to promote her new book and teach women to stand up to perpetrators. But when her good friend, Miss America (Heather Burns) and the show’s emcee (William Shatner) are kidnapped, she goes to Las Vegas to help along with Agent Sam Fuller (Regina King) and her entire beauty team led by Joel (Diedrich Bader). Then again, the local FBI team won’t make it easy for them.

I know finding a premise for a movie that satirizes beauty pageants was a difficult task. After all they couldn’t put Gracie back into a contest because she would be recognized. So this movie is not so much about pageants as it is about a life after another. And the entire witty, satiric edge is gone… nada! So this time the filmmakers found a way to force Gracie into transforming once again from ugly ducking to lovely swan. It could’ve worked, if only Gracie didn’t turn into an unlikable bitch after the transformation. Well, perhaps I’m exaggerating, but the charm of the first movie is not present anymore. And I’m talking both about the movie and about the character.

This time around the picture also becomes a buddy movie, in which Bullock and King hate each other’s guts but get to love each other towards the end. So beautiful. And there’s no love interest this time. Benjamin Bratt must not have wanted to come back for the ride (smart!), so an excuse is made about their breakup and instead Gracie spends the entire movie whining about that. Oh, and the whole kidnapping thing and the way it is resolved is just too Hollywood, nothing really clever or interesting.

Every actor in the movie is forgettable. They all do their jobs fine, but that’s about it. Perhaps Diedrich Bader is the one who leaves the strongest impression as the gay stylist embodying every cliché imaginable, but still funny.

So no, the movie didn’t cut it. Such a pity…

“I’m open to it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter