CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had a chance to keep the Indiana Jones saga going by re-casting the lead role when necessary in the best James Bond tradition but instead, for some reason, after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), all they did was a safe TV show chronicling Indy’s younger years, letting go of it as a film project indefinitely and only many years later reconsidering. I respect their decision to keep Harrison Ford on board, thus killing most possibilities of reviving the series with a younger Indiana, instead making it definite but complete and nonetheless super-successful.

The search for a proper screenplay was so hard that expectations grew. Lucas even rejected a Frank Darabont script, to the latter’s disappointment. They finally settled with a David Koepp script, from a story by Lucas and Jeff Nathanson, that they considered appropriate. I more than agree. Much as Jones’ first adventure, this one takes the adventurer to distant places, forces him to ride in varied vehicles, puts comedy and romance into the mix, and adds to every bit of it anything imaginable to take it to the limit. It’s also a non-stop action/adventure that has the audience on the edge of their seats. I totally loved the experience.

Indiana Jones has aged but not so his interest in archeology, taste in adventure, or determination of achieving his goals. We do see an older Jones at first, and I’m not talking about his age, which by the way doesn’t show (Ford’s 65 but looks 50), but about his overall mood, his exhaustion during an adventure that seems to have gone a bit awry, and even his body language. Forced to search for an archeological object in an ocean of boxes in a warehouse that could well be the same as that in the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), he jokes about it not being as easy as it used to be. We dread the worst.

Then they surprise us, and that’s the first sign of ingenious freshness in this movie: making him vital from the first scene would’ve been a no-brainer, making him overly worn-out would’ve been awkward, but giving him a tired look and then revealing he’s in top form is just great. The same goes for Harrison Ford, in fact, who is in shape just like he used to. By the time Indy is shown as a college professor, the same as ever, we’re prepared to see him embark in more adventures without extraordinary effort, but since we know he’s capable, and it can’t surprise us, a young man joins him and pretty soon he’s surprised, allowing involuntary comedy to flow by first calling Jones “gramps” and then asking him, awed after seeing him perform a superior acrobatic prowess, if he’s a college professor, to which Jones replies, “Part time.”

The young man is Mutt, played by Shia LaBeouf, a guy I enjoy seeing succeed after so many laughs he gave me in his TV show “Even Stevens”. Here he’s not a younger or an updated version of Indiana Jones, he’s only a boy with a lot of energy who’s up to the task of “tagging along” with the aging adventurer. Since pretty soon Indiana proves he’s as vital as ever, the young man doesn’t really fill the task of action figure to accompany an older, wittier man, the way Indy did in The Last Crusade, but instead becomes an ally and injects the film with youth to identify with younger audiences. When, later on, they’re joined by good ol’ Marion (Karen Allen), whom we hadn’t seen for two films, the combination is perfect: there’s comedy, vitality, romance and action to spare.

The enemies are obviously not Nazis anymore, because this film is set in the 50s, but instead power-hungry Russians, led by a woman, Irina Spalko, played by Cate Blanchett with enough grace to avoid caricature though the character is nothing but. What I enjoyed about this ride is that the villains don’t need to be sanguinary just because, and their boss, in this case Spalko, is as obsessed an archeologist as the hero, which makes her a rival, if not necessarily an antagonist.

I liked the title of the original film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, because its scope was greater than just Indiana Jones, instead referring to all those who were with him or against him but after the same goal. Spalko suits that role and whenever they’re fighting to pursue what they’re after, one doesn’t particularly root for one or the other, but is caught in the midst of a brawl founded on obsession and primal needs of people like this.

Since antagonism isn’t as clearly defined as in the first and third films, interest relies on danger. Every time there’s an action sequence, there’s lethal danger around the corner for every character that we care about, even including Irina. We don’t want anything to happen to them, not only because we have grown to like them, which we have, but because we don’t want the adventure to be over, which it would if there was an important casualty, because the adventure couldn’t keep up to its lighthearted standards after any crucial death. Since we believe it could happen, because we see it so close all the time, we’re immersed. A long chase scene in the best Indy tradition is set in the jungle, and there’s everything from swashbuckling to killer ants thrown into the mix, and I just couldn’t believe my eyes as a perfect combination of stunts, special effects and good, clean fun filled the screen. I loved every second of it.

Though made almost two decades after the last installment, Crystal Skull keeps many of the original values and elements that defined the saga. The comic book visual style is there, thanks to cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, who has humbly studied the style used by the late Douglas Slocombe in the first three. John Williams is game with a score that’s as young as the movie’s spirit. And, maintaining their integrity, Spielberg and Lucas give closure to the saga, tying loose ends and refusing to let Ford pass the reins to a successor. He’s Indiana Jones, and that be that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Recovering from the (nevertheless successful) misstep that was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), Steven Spielberg and George Lucas reunited once again to keep the legend alive with a brand-new adventure of archeologist/adventurer Indiana Jones, a film released five years after the first sequel (in fact a prequel) that went back to its roots, killing the unpleasantness from the second installment and reminding us why this character had so much potential. This is the worthy sequel to the instant classic that was Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).

Indy has apparently left Marion but he’s as passionate as ever about his work, still teaching archeology in college and going out to the field whenever the occasion requires. When he learns that his father, a professor of medieval history, who is obviously not his son’s best friend, has vanished while in an archeological expedition, Indiana suspects he would’ve never embarked on anything so adventurous if he didn’t believe with all his heart that what he was after was the authentic Holy Grail, so he sets to find both the prize and his father.

We know by now that in this universe any magic is possible, so the fact that the Holy Grail they’re looking for is authentic and possesses supernatural powers is no surprise. That makes the climax much less intriguing than the process. In fact, the film has a bit of a slow-down towards the end, and I found the participation of a particular ages-old character to be quite irrelevant and stupid—I can be questioned for questioning the logic of a character like this in a fantasy where anything can happen, but heck, that’s a living, talking person there! Also, the booby traps are nothing original, and much fuss is made about them, making the piece anti-climatic.

However, the process, as I said, is simply irresistible. Ford is in top form and has great aides played by Denholm Elliott (who reprises his role of Marcus Brody from the first film) and Alison Doody (as Dr. Elsa Schneider, who has been working with Jones’ father). John Rhys-Davies is also back as Sallah, always a fine addition. Soon enough, it’s clear that the Nazis are again his competitors, which is a no-brainer because they were so perfect antagonists in the first film, and the action and adventure are again non-stop. There’s a chase scene towards the end involving a tank that’s one of the best ever shot. You can’t ask for much more, but there is: John Williams’ score gets exquisitely hazy and bombastic.

Sean Connery as Indy’s father is an inspired selection. The in-joke is that “James Bond is Indiana Jones’ father”. Connery is only a little over 10 years older than Harrison Ford, but he’s perfectly suited to play the man and does so with incalculable panache, adding to the procedure good doses of witty comedy that almost make us forget Marion’s slapstick. The father-son interaction is brilliant because Indiana is subdued to the role of defenseless son against a father with a very strong personality. Their combination is awesome.

The film begins with a sequence of young Indiana Jones becoming, in only one day, everything that we know him to be. From the fear of snakes to the use of a whip, the genesis is there. That’s a great opening scene because it establishes the saga’s mood and introduces the character that we already love. Also, it’s notable because no other than River Phoenix plays young Indiana.

After watching this film years ago, the ending made me think Indiana Jones would have eternal life and wouldn’t age a bit from that moment on. I even thought that was the reason that no more movies about him were made. I was happily proven wrong almost twenty years later with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008).

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989): Morris

Review

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, May 31, 2008

You can’t have a tremendous blockbuster such as Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) without it calling for a sequel as soon as possible. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg knew that, and didn’t take long to conceive the next entry and make it. They had in their hands the next James Bond series, and George Lucas wrote a story (which Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz scripted) that really took the character and not much else from Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and created a new world where the passion for archeology became just a distant backdrop to a dreadful setting that’s dark and gory and just not in the vein of what Indiana Jones was all about. If it wasn’t Harrison Ford reprising the role, I bet the buzz would’ve died right after the first weekend.

I’ll state that the film was a big mistake, in fact, we should be thankful that they tried again later and pulled it off, because this was such an awful misstep. The action is set in 1935, a year before the original, thus justifying the lack of Marion, the first one’s heroine, who was as special as Indy and one of the reasons why everyone loved it. She’s replaced by Kate Capshaw as singer Willie Scott, a completely brainless bimbo who is, nevertheless, quite attractive and funny, though obnoxious. It seems like Indy is a little less mature than we he met him, more reckless and superficial, so Willie is perfect for him, but their story is implausible to say the least: Indy kidnaps her in the beginning, and then “allows her to tag along”, treating her like shit might I add. Talk about Stockholm syndrome, she falling for him later on.

Forget about the awesome Sallah, here Indy is aided by a Chinese boy named Short Round who is, not surprisingly, a smartass. The actor, Jonathan Ke Quan, is luckily not as unbearable as his character, and by the way, there’s no logic in his keeping his cap on except to differentiate him from the other kids around. Did I mention those kids are slaves, kidnapped from their parents and forced to work in an underground temple as miners? The people keeping them also enjoy doing human sacrifices that the filmmakers don’t hesitate to show in their entire splendor. To keep the mood down, just in case, there’s a segment where Indiana Jones is “seduced by the dark side” in a sort of hypnotic trance that Harrison Ford plays amazingly but which other than that is awkward and inappropriate.

Let me tell you my theory: George Lucas was happy with the results of Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980), a much darker film than the first one, and wanted to reproduce that with this franchise as well. I admire that idea, in fact I’m one of the ones who don’t love Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) precisely because they shied away from darkness and went for cuteness instead. Only in Indiana Jones things weren’t precisely light at first, and they went to the extreme opposite here, thus overdoing it and screwing it up.

One tries to go with the flow and enjoy the ride but frankly I never found a way until the final chase in mine cars that’s quite awesome. I considered it quite silly that after the first film was referred to as a “roller-coaster ride of a movie”, here they made that literal, no one would ever believe that any mine tracks are like that, not even in a fantasy movie, but what the hell, it’s fun! You can even hear, with gusto for the first time, John Williams’ splendorous music. From then on, quite frankly, it’s all very entertaining, especially when they finally get out from the underground and see some rays of light. Too bad Willie is there to scream her way through. I really could have done without her, unlike Spielberg who went on to marry Capshaw. He has said that’s the one thing that pleases him about having made this film. I don’t blame him.

Followed by Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989).

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984): Morris

Review

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, May 31, 2008

In the spirit of doing what you love and doing it right, there’s no better example than Steven Spielberg. He’s a guy who has always clearly loved his craft but has never overlooked quality and has obviously worked very hard every time to achieve it. Some people will blame him for being in mainly for the money, but who can be that much of a hypocrite to accuse a man for doing what he likes, doing it right, and cashing in for it? My view is he’s the perfect professional, and I declare myself fan and blind follower.

One of the best examples of his triple combination is Raiders of the Lost Ark. I love the story of how that film came to be. Spielberg and George Lucas fantasized about making movies that resembled, or perhaps caused the same emotions as, the Saturday matinee serials they grew up with. Lucas went the Flash Gordon way with Star Wars (1977) and it’s common knowledge how right that went, and then he and Spielberg concocted the adventures of Indiana Jones and they scored once again.

Jones is an intellectual archeologist who has adventure in his veins and won’t stop at nothing to achieve his goals. I have always been amazed by the fact that the filmmakers were inspired in part by the Disney Ducks comic books by Carl Barks, mainly “The Prize of Pizarro”, which dealt with an adventure not unlike the one that introduces the film, a scene that inspired the sort of theme park rides that now inspire movies. Lucas and Spielberg are big fans of Barks’ work and they made their dream come true by giving their script some of that vibe.

I read “The Prize of Pizarro”, had a great time with it, then drew some conclusions that might turn out interesting: Indiana Jones resembles Uncle Scrooge McDuck, Barks’ own creation, in the way he lives a peaceful life but doesn’t hesitate to go out and personally embark on a perilous quest to be the one who personally finds what he’s looking for. On the other hand, he resembles Spielberg, a professional who’s very serious about his work but still has the heart of a child and tackles his tasks with enough lightness to have a good time while doing things right and making more money.

Before I get even more redundant, I’ll move on. George Lucas and Philip Kaufman wrote the story that became, in the hands of Lawrence Kasdan, a brilliant screenplay that mixes humor, action, romance and adventure not in equal measures but always so much of each that the screen seems to be bursting. It’s a non-stop experience that some people compare to a roller-coaster ride because there’s never a dull moment and that’s impressive. The action is so continuous that sometimes we don’t even stop to see if it all makes sense, and when things seem to be going dangerously into the caricature realm, we decide to not give a damn, but instead to take that as extra fun in the lightness of the movie.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t care and worry about the hero and his task. He’s supposed to find the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis do, and how and why don’t matter so much. The thing is, he’s a pro and so are his enemies, who represent not only antagonism but universal evil. He’s aided by an old flame, Marion (Karen Allen), who’s so much fun she sometimes steals the spotlight. Such an inspired character that shares so much chemistry with the star!

Harrison Ford is perfect in the lead because he’s totally controlled in a role that could have been played with such a rush that would have made the part frantic. Though he’s tireless, sometimes he seems fed up, which is very human. Also, heroic though he may be, he’s greedy and it shows in his eyes when the alleged hiding place of the Ark is opened. Best of all, though he seems to finally care about Marion, unlike his attitude from the past, he really doesn’t, and it shows mainly in his gesticulation when with her. You can just feel these things thanks to Ford.

Jones’ attitude towards friends and foes is strictly business, even though he leans towards the good, ethical side, and I think his main rival, Frenchman Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman), who has been hired by the Nazis, is alike, though he leans towards the bad. The main Nazi representative, Arnold Toht (Ronald Lacey), is sinister enough for a fairytale villain, but goes perfectly with the fantasy of the film. In fact, the increasing fantasy elements throughout the film give way to the final climatic scene, which could have been out-of-place if we hadn’t seen it coming.

But there are enough acts, each with a climax, for five films, yet it never gets episodic. The action, as I said, is non-stop, and in times that’s literal, thanks to Michael Kahn’s editing showcasing some of the best stunts since Stagecoach (1939) which make of Indiana Jones one of the greatest action personages of all time, shot by cinematographer Douglas Slocombe as a vintage comic book character. This is one of those films I can see countless times without ever getting tired. I just love to spend time with my buddy Indy.

Today, John Williams’ theme has become iconic. At hearing the tune, one immediately relates the music to entertainment and adventure, without necessarily thinking of Indiana Jones. However, the character itself has become an infallible part of our culture, instantly recognizable throughout the world. His success is not a matter of discussion, but his story was once a farfetched idea that required guts to be taken all the way. How easily it could have been dropped! It invites reflection.

Followed by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984).

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): Morris

Review

Speed Racer

Director

Andy Wachowski

Larry Wachowski

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 29, 2008

The Japanese Tatsuo Yoshida cartoon “Mahha GoGoGo”, otherwise known as “Speed Racer”, was a triumph in every way but particularly for managing to transmit quite palpable human emotions through farfetched cartoons. There was the drama of young Speed Racer being unable to race because his father forbade it after the tragic accident that killed Speed’s older brother; Speed’s challenge and eventual proof that he deserved to race and was born for it; his perils and those of his girlfriend Trixie who would risk it all for him, both being so close to death so many times; the apparition of the mysterious Racer X, whose true identity was obvious (and revealed) since the beginning, and whose involvement in Speed’s races and adventures was pivotal to the success of the young man; and the infallible comic relief in the form of many supporting characters, most notably Speed’s younger brother Spritle and his adorable chimp, Chim Chim.

You have to give it to the Wachowskis for achieving the unthinkable: Their live-action film adaptation, which adds some seriousness to the plot, is way more caricaturesque than its source of inspiration, and never manages to create any interest precisely because the danger, the pain, or the conflict are nowhere to be found. The great visual style of the cartoon, which mixed vintage with modern and made everything look like it was moving forward at top speed even if it was still is replaced with a toy-store look that not only looks fake but seem completely motionless.

The beginning of the film has Speed as a kid daydreaming in class about his older brother’s races and that’s a most awesome scene, witnessing his fantasies of one day becoming a driver like his brother. Then he walks out to the street and we see that reality surpasses his wildest dreams because even though a classroom is still a classroom and people are still people, the cars are farfetched to say the least. Then we follow the action and we see that risking one’s life stupidly means nothing in this universe, not because Rex (or Speed, later on) is such a skilled driver, but because it doesn’t matter what he does and how many times he crashes and how spectacularly, he’ll always be unharmed. Soon enough, we realize it’s all plastic and that the pulse will never increase in any scene, but we figure What the hell, let’s go for it, and on we go!

And then we stop. The action is so scarce I tend to believe you wouldn’t fill a half-hour episode with it. It’s all either about family or business, both themes essential to this story, too bad they are neither amusing nor poignant. Everything family-wise is boring and/or obnoxious, particularly when dealing with young Spritle (Paulie Litt), who must be the most insufferable kid in any movie from recent years, and there’s nothing cute about his monkey, though the pet tends to be funnier and more endearing than the kid, while not being much fun itself, so go figure. Business-wise, it’s disastrous for children and adults alike. They show us how the races are fixed and business-oriented and how there’s not much hope for idealists who just want to do things right, well, welcome to the real world, kids! And how! By including scenes that go on forever starring the greedy and over-the-top Roger Allam as Mr. Royalton, who wants Speed to win races for his “evil” cause.

Speed doesn’t have a cause, forgets about his dead brother soon enough, and goes on a suicidal mission for incomprehensible reasons, making even the actor playing him, Emile Hirsch, who also had a lost cause in Into the Wild (2007), but with a much more credible motivation, look like a fool. But that’s nothing compared to the great actors playing his parents: John Goodman and Susan Sarandon. At least Christina Ricci, as Trixie, is a hottie, and we can believe that love is blinding her beyond measure. She’s in what I considered the best scene of the movie, a romantic stop on the Mach 5 where they exchange some nice dialogue to the tune of “Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered”, which happens to be one of my favorite songs. Surely, that scene is ruined before it hits home.

But wait, I’m talking about this film as if its story had any dramatic validity. I forget that it’s complete nonsense. That happened to me during the movie and I at least was relieved to feel something about these characters, albeit something completely negative concerning their actions, but soon enough I was reminded, thanks to the Hot-Wheels-style racing scenes, that nothing is real or could be real in any parallel universe no matter how advanced. The track designs resemble the beehives from Bee Movie (2007), only the beehive was fun to watch. Here you just wish it’s over soon, which doesn’t happen. They just blow the screen with colors and fast-track shots that are confusing and dizzying rather than exciting. There’s nothing exciting about them at all.

A saving grace could have been Matthew Fox as Racer X. I have grown to like that actor, despite my dislike of his character in TV’s “Lost” (which I think has improved lately though), but the character is a complete waste. What was so deep and affecting in the original series has become a joke on the fans. The Wachowskis probably thought that since everybody knew the character’s true identity they had to outsmart the audience. By doing so, they made fools of themselves and disrespected the myth, and what for? It wasn’t even a surprise, to begin with. Let’s not be so uptight though, the new surprise their script came up with added some freshness. But the specifics, as explained by the character in one of the last scenes, are completely out-of-place and unnecessary. I hated it, but I laughed so much it almost turned this film into one of those that are so bad, they’re good. Sadly, it didn’t even get there.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Speed Racer (2008): Lego

Review

My Blueberry Nights

Director

Kar-wai Wong

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

I have seen two of legendary director Wong Kar Wai’s movies, Happy Together (1997) and In the Mood for Love (2000). I thought both were very interesting exercises which had plenty of interesting ideas, although I wasn’t able to truly connect with the love stories they told. Now comes his first American foray, with international actors and set in the US, and the result is the same. Interesting, yet empty.

After a bad breakup Elizabeth (Norah Jones) ends up befriending the owner of a small NY café, Jeremy (Jude Law). She then decides to travel and start a new life, ending up first in Tennessee and working two shifts as a waitress. That’s how she meets Officer Arnie (David Strathairn), a drunk who can’t get over the fact that his wife Sue Lynne (Rachel Weisz) has moved on and doesn’t love him anymore. She then movies to Vegas, where she meets a poker expert, Leslie (Natalie Portman), with whom she embarks on another trip.

Wong Kar Wai directed from a screenplay he wrote along with Lawrence Block. If there’s one word that would describe the resulting effort it would be “dreamy”. The whole movie is filled with dream-like sequences which try to give an air of melancholy that suits what all the characters seem to be going through, whether it’s heartbreak or a long-lost father-daughter relationship. All of them seem to be hurting somehow and in desperate need of moving on and finding something else in life that can carry them through. It’s a theme we can all identify with, so that’s why it’s so disappointing when you realize that you don’t really care about anyone.

Character development is not really the problem, since all of them are actually interesting individuals. But the director opts to move the story at a glacial pace, with an overload of slow-motion shots that only make the experience worse. It’s the kind of movie which isn’t necessarily bad, but which makes you look at your watch when it’s only in the halfway mark. There are individual scenes that work like wonders, but the whole does not add to the sum of its parts. Perhaps that was the intention, to create individual vignettes that could stand on their own; yet as a complete cinematic experience it leaves you rather cold.

Kudos to the strong ending though, that last shot is almost palpable and truly touching.

Cinematographer Darius Khondji does an amazing job in delivering delightful visuals and giving the story just the right mood. Ry Cooder’s score is also apt, and Norah Jones contributes with her own music which blends in perfectly with the movie’s tone.

Norah Jones, making her acting debut, is good but nothing to write home about. I actually think she got better as the movie moved along. Leaving the strongest impressions are the accomplished actors who share the screen with her, starting with a radiant yet afflicted Rachel Weisz, a long-suffering David Strathairn, a romantic Jude Law and a startling Natalie Portman. It is the latest who will be best remembered after the lights go up.

“There’s nothing wrong with the blueberry pie.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

This Is Spinal Tap

Director

Rob Reiner

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

It is no lie and, in fact, a recurrent joke nowadays, that some super-successful hard rock band members are, in reality, nothing scary, but in fact half-witted. As ever, and in the spirit of covering my ass in this politically correct modern world where anything can be condemnable, I must clarify that not everyone in the rock industry is a dummy, but that that is the general pun and sometimes the fact, which the MTV generation has had hard-working agents trying to prove, for the sake of entertainment.

Some films are so brilliant in their parodies or farfetched comedic premises that they become prophetic. Network (1976) comes to mind. I was pleasantly surprised that This Is Spinal Tap is another case. It’s a good comedy but what it is today, more than anything, is poignant, because we see this every day on TV now, only there’s no naiveté anymore.

Perhaps, originally, this film looked like an extreme mock on rock and rollers who didn’t know much about what they were doing but still did it with all their heart and truly believed that they were doing it just fine. Today, instead, it looks like a spot-on satire on these people. Yet, it doesn’t stop there. This Is Spinal Tap is not about a bunch of boobs making music, but about the whole industry, the supporters, the fans, the music, the day-to-day tidbits, and the rush. This film is a rush. Seeing it that way, it’s like a good rock concert where fans are willing to die during the last act.

Christopher Guest, now-famous for his career as a “mockumentary” filmmaker, found his first great success as co-writer and co-star of this 1984 gem that has achieved immortality thanks to the countless fans who have wished, throughout the years, that the heavy metal band portrayed in it pops out of the screen to give the world more fun and rock and roll without ever realizing how incredibly stupid they can get. The joke is on the fictitious band, but it looks like some of the audience has chosen to jump in as well, which makes it even funnier.

Playing it totally straight, director Rob Reiner even appears to want to pretend that there’s no comedy here. Awkwardness and unpleasantness ensue once and again, and one forgets that all is scripted, though it’s obvious that much is improvised, albeit inspiringly, by many unknown faces and some famous cameos, who are easy to miss not only for their fine characterization, but for their honest portrayal and spontaneity. The format is that of a documentary covering the British band’s latest United States tour, showing how their fame has declined considerably, and that’s the way it’s done, and everyone involved looks like they really believe it.

Reiner plays director Marty DiBergi, who’s passionate about the heavy metal band in question and decides to document their real-life interactions, their gigs, and their shortcomings. He gets more than he bargained for when he’s present during the downfall of the band, which they had coming for a while but didn’t notice or want to. DiBergi’s camera happens to be present during some of the band’s most difficult times, but the surprising thing is, they rarely seem to notice how bad things can get. That they don’t notice makes it hilarious.

There are moments of pure poignancy. Though riotous, the intervention of the girlfriend of the band leader David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean), which reminisces Yoko Ono’s days along with The Beatles, makes up for some of the movie’s most touching moments, with the obvious jealousy of Nigel Tufnel (Guest) creating some awkward moments that are also quite explosive. On the other hand, the gag about the continuous deaths of the band’s drummers is intended to induce carefree laughs, which it does.

Most of the times though, the jokes include a dramatic punch line that leaves a mixed aftertaste which doesn’t diminish the comedy but instead creates a serious mood around it that allows the viewer to take things mildly seriously. A good example of this is a confusion of scale in a Stonehenge set for a concert, which leads to the band’s manager (Tony Hendra) to reconsider his role; or what’s usually regarded as the funniest moment, and I agree, regarding an amplifier that “goes to 11”, which Nigel seriously believes is louder than those that only go up to 10, making his seriousness pitiful, or perhaps enviable, depending on the point of view.

There’s nothing light about the making of this film. It’s not the kind of movie where people were clearly having fun. I say this because there’s so careful attention to detail that it must have been handled as a very straight project, which was necessary for the required results. The examples are countless, but they’re everywhere, from the marks of unsuccessful piercings to the hurt look Nigel gives David when he learns the latter’s girlfriend is joining them. In the middle is the bass player Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer), a Ringo-like member who creates a much-needed balance and brings peace to the band, though he has to hide his insecurities by hiding a cucumber in his pants, much to his regret when an airport metal detector unveils it.

The big array of emotions created by This Is Spinal Tap gives it the rare status of a film that can be seen countless times without tiring. Even the songs, composed by the three stars and the director (the same team that wrote the script), are good and funny. The audience was so enthusiastic that the impossible happened: the band came true, appearing publicly in a few gigs. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the drummer met a bizarre death during one of those.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 26, 2008

When you put together the three Indiana Jones movies that were released in the 80’s the most common thread is that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the majority’s favorite, followed by The Last Crusade and finally The Temple of Doom. There are, of course, exceptions, and not everyone feels the same way. I for one have always considered my favorite to be the third in the saga. There’s just something about its specific adventures and characters’ interaction that I’ve always loved above the others.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) embarks on a quest to find the Holy Grail, the cup from which Christ drank in the Last Supper, and locate his father, Henry (Sean Connery), who was kidnapped by the Nazis while trying to do the same. The journey begins in Venice along with Marcus (Denholm Elliot) and Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) and eventually takes him to different parts of the world where he reunites with old pal Sallah (John Rhys-Davies).

Steven Spielberg returned to the director’s chair five years after the first sequel to continue with the saga of one of cinema’s most emblematic characters, based on a Jeffey Boam screenplay from a story by George Lucas and Menno Meyjes. After the critical tumbling of its predecessor, this installment was able to revive the love by getting the character back to its roots and what made it work best: the search for an ancient antiquity which the bad guys also want, and adding a formidable sidekick in the form of his father.

In this chapter, we get to see a different side of Indy, starting with an opening sequence in which we see him as a youngster who already shows signs of the adventurer in him and which shows a glimpse of the relationship he had with his father since then. Flash-forward to the 30’s and Indiana still has a lot of issues with him that give way to pretty serious exchanges but also to plenty of witty conversations and one-liners that are pretty funny. The addition of a gorgeous sidekick who is actually intelligent in the form of Elsa is also a good idea that pays off.

As is the norm in the saga, the movie is filled with many exciting and very well-put-together action set-pieces, starting with the train escape at the beginning and reaching an absolute high with the tank attack near the end. Highlights also include an almost impossible escape from fire, the Zeppelin flight and the search for clues through underground Italian tunnels. But my favorite part has to be the last half-hour, which has all involved at the place where the Holy Grail is supposed to be and the subsequent actions of each right till the end; filmmaking and storytelling at its best.

John Williams’s classic score is once again put to its finest and contains different cues that recall his work twelve years later in the Harry Potter saga. Douglas Slocombe’s photography is impressive, as is Michael Kahn’s editing and Elliot Scott’s production design.

Acting-wise, Harrison Ford has no problem filling the shoes of Indiana, and shows more vulnerable sides of the character this time around to believable effects. Sean Connery is at his most sarcastic self and is a truly inspired entry. Alison Doody is exquisite and a great counterpart, while John Rhys-Davies proves a welcome return. River Phoenix plays young Indy with panache. Other notable actors include Denholm Elliot, Julian Glover and Michael Byrne.

“You left just when you were becoming interesting.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989): Groucho

Review

Ivan the Terrible, Part One

Director

Sergei M. Eisenstein

Year

1944

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, May 24, 2008

The mesmerizing Dormition Cathedral, a good folkloric showcase of 16th century Russian Orthodox Church, is the setting for the controversial coronation of Ivan Grozny, Grand Prince of Moscow, as Tsar of all the Russias, much to the nonconformity of the hereditary nobility of Russia, the boyars, who are depicted as angry critics of the man that they see as perpetrator, and who they think can’t be up to the task of being tsar, not to mention he doesn’t deserve it.

Ivan is as determined as an eagle, and he’s even portrayed as a bird, in one of the many symbolisms, several of which are quite obvious, but effective, that the movie has. Despite his famous nickname, Ivan IV of Russia didn’t have it all that easy, and it took a while for him to prove it, not to say he wasn’t tough enough to earn it.

The first in a planned trilogy by Sergei M. Eisenstein covering the life of the tsar, only two parts of which were actually made in the end, before Eisenstein’s death, deals with the rise, fall and reinstatement of Ivan, spanning almost two decades during which the man went from determined to towering to paranoid, though never anything less than a hero, whose conquers unified Russia and defeated those whose interests opposed this ideal.

Joseph Stalin identified with Ivan the Terrible and gave this depiction his blessing. Though Ivan is seen, more often than not, questioning his own decisions and whether he’s doing right or wrong, his actions always end up being right, almost as if his inspiration was heaven-sent. The people’s public wish that he be reinstated is the ultimate triumph of a man whose actions end up being praised despite initial rejection. Of course, this is only a chapter, to be continued. Stalin would not be as happy to compare himself to the Ivan from the next film, though some would argue he was all the more similar.

As Ivan, Nikolai Cherkasov jerks his head abruptly, turning to see his surroundings, protecting himself from any and all potential attackers, and threatening them and everyone else around. His physiognomy and style little by little get more bird-like, which is most effective when his actions resemble those of a bird of prey. Ivan is not the only character that resembles an animal, and shadows are also used to emphasize strength and determination, most memorably in a scene where Ivan’s head, with a pointy beard and hairdo, is projected on a wall while he gives history-writing orders. It does appear like he’s possessed, but still in control of his wide vision.

The years go by like sand between the fingers, and sometimes it’s despairing to see how quickly the film unravels in front of the eyes with so much pleasure packed in so few minutes, but in the end, of course, it’s a very welcome asset of the film which, by the standards of so many other historical dramas and biopics, could’ve been much longer and tortuous. As it is, the film is sometimes already heavy-handed, but I would blame that much more on the theatrical approach which sometimes inflicts the performances, making them rather hammy, than in the overall storytelling or filmmaking styles, which are flawless.

The staginess of the performances must have been a result of Eisenstein’s pompous approach which otherwise works well, and perhaps, given time and place, it was appropriate, but it’s definitely dated. One can’t fault the performers though: Cherkasov lives up to the different stages of his much-transforming character, Lyudmila Tselikovskaya is lovely as his Czarina (herself the cause of much disrupt), Serafima Birman effective as the villain, and Mikhail Nazvanov heartbreaking as Ivan’s jealous ally who blows with the wind.

Other grand element is Sergei Profokiev’s rousing score, an honor to this great film. It would be a lie to pretend that the score isn’t a tad dated, not because the music is ineffective, but because its combination with the scenes creates the undeniable sensation that there was a time to when this film belonged and that time is long gone, and the term “timeless” cannot be applied. Yet, for all its own historical significance, which to some of us is as important as the one the plot contains, it’s a must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Back to the Future Part III

Director

Robert Zemeckis

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Releasing Back to the Future Part II (1989) and Part III back to back (with a few months in between) was an obvious gimmick to cash in twice as much in a short period of time. That’s quite respectable, but they went so far as to include a coming attractions clip for this one at the end of the second one, which in my opinion was a dirty move and the lowest point of the trilogy.

However, one can’t but applaud the result because each one of the three movies has a singular identity, particularly the third one, a completely different cinematic experience that pays off by itself and makes the second one look like a bad joke of time-traveling movies. As a kid, I used to love that one because the future was so awe-inspiring and exciting to look at, and the old west wasn’t half as compelling. Now, as an adult, I think the exact opposite is true. Who cares about an exaggerated, toy-store-looking future that won’t even come true and isn’t as pleasant as all that in the first place, when compared to the rawest and most potentially dramatic setting of all—the old west? When you add to this classic setting a modern sense of humor but sprinkle it with old-fashioned romance and fantasy, it’s good! That’s why this film is a joy.

Accidentally left stranded by the old Doc in 1955, who manages to send him a letter from the old west to let him know he’s OK, Marty seeks the help of the young Doc, who just sent the days-ago Marty back to 1985 little suspecting that he would be forced to come back soon after and ask him for the same kind of help once again. The young Doc and Marty extract the time machine from a mine where the old Doc buried it and find out, unintentionally, that the old Doc’s happy life in the days of the Wild Bunch were interrupted by an outlaw who coincidentally shares the surname of Biff, the McFlys’ archenemy: Buford “Mad Dog” Tannen. Marty decides to take matters into his own hands and fly back to 1885 in order to save the Doc.

Though things initially go all Marty-esque and soon enough become just more than a little tired, especially when he insists on getting into trouble quite unnecessarily, the Doc appears with a renewed personality that creates a very welcome contrast to his usually wacky antics. Here he’s in control, towering, wise, and admirable; nevermore the comic relief. Marty is thrown back to fill those shoes, and when the focus is on the Doc, and he turns out to be such a romantic, profound, and exemplary character, we wonder why he had never been given this kind of attention before.

On the other hand, that it hadn’t been this way is beautiful, because we get that he had never been this kind of man because he had been so focused on his career as a scientist, and only now is he giving himself a chance to live life and enjoy it fully. This makes up for the happiest ending imaginable, something that couldn’t have been achieved with Marty alone, whose fate, quite frankly, is of the least interest towards the end.

Christopher Lloyd was a powerhouse in the first movie because his mixture of Einstein and Stokowski was unique and perfectly suited for his pivotal character. Here, he’s outstanding for completely different reasons, and that we believe that the same personage can evolve that way is a tribute to this fine actor. As a whole, Marty McFly becomes the secondary character as we realize that the protagonist throughout has been the Doc Emmett Brown. Michael J. Fox is uniformly good, but rarely the standout.

Even though Marty and the Doc are trying to fix the time machine and evade the Doc’s bleak destiny, the plot pays more attention to the delicious drama of back in the days: while Mad Dog is after them and wants to kill Marty, a beautiful teacher comes into town and catches the Doc’s attention, both falling hopelessly in love with each other. This character, played by Mary Steenburgen, is so different to what we had seen in the saga that she really seems to be extracted from a different time. Furthermore, her romance with Doc rings truer even than that of George and Lorraine in the first installment. This is real emotion on celluloid.

A moment comes when you realize that director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Bob Gale aren’t the only ones who are inspired. Alan Silvestri’s score is also brighter than before, particularly when adopting an old-fashioned style and when becoming utterly romantic. ZZ Top makes a cameo as the town gang during the party, and their reprise of their own “Doubleback” is unforgettable. Also, continuing his streak of excellent multiple performances, Thomas F. Wilson shines as Mad Dog, but he’s thankfully out of the climatic locomotive scene where time is the antagonist and love is the motivation. That they pulled this off speaks wonders about the film. Who cares if the DeLorean didn’t make it?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

As many times as I recall seeing the first and third movies in the Indiana Jones saga during my childhood I have no recollection whatsoever of watching the second one. I thought memories would come back once I gave it a try but they didn’t; I just never saw it. Maybe my dad wasn’t a fan, but I don’t blame him. This installment is generally regarded as the weakest in the original trilogy and I just have to agree.

After escaping an attack in Shanghai, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) boards a plain with singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) and kid Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) which ultimately goes down in the middle of the Indian jungle. They are rescued by some villagers who tell them of an evil tribe who stole their sacred rock and all their children. They then head to the city of Pankot, stumbling upon a civilization that seems to welcome them, but which hides terrible secrets underneath.

Steven Spielberg directed from a screenplay by Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz based on a story by George Lucas. To be fair, all of these people had a lot of pressure to live up to expectations after the smashing critical and commercial success of its predecessor. Unfortunately the result is a rather bizarre entry that retains much of the central character’s charm, but that proves a letdown when all is said and done.

The movie starts with a fun and exciting sequence in Shanghai which sets the bar pretty high. But when things move to India it’s a whole other story. The scenes with the villagers are dull and when Dr. Jones and company get to the bad guys it all turns pretty dark pretty quickly. Human sacrifices, ripped hearts, voodoo, child slavery, evil blood… what the hell happened to good, lightweight adventure? I can take dark, believe me, but I thought all of these elements belonged elsewhere. The saga is at its best when dealing with hidden traps, death-defying stunts, character interaction, menacing creatures and archeological discoveries. Sadly, Temple of Doom contains very little of these elements.

Once the whole unpleasant rituals section is done the movie reaches a highly exciting climax which involves a dangerous mano-a-mano fight between Indy and the big bad ugly guy, a fast escape using a mine cart and an apparently dead-end confrontation in a bridge with crocodiles eagerly waiting for lunch at the bottom. The mine escape goes on for a little too long, but these final sequences are consistently exciting and pulse-pounding; Spielberg certainly directed the hell out of them.

As characters go, Short Round proves a great addition; a lovable kid who blends perfectly well with the series’ tone and brings some much-needed comic relief. Willie Scott, on the other hand, is a pain in the ass; she’s beautiful and does deliver some funny quips here and there, but she’s mostly annoying and I never believed for a second that Indiana would feel anything for her. Her screeching scream sound became old halfway through the movie, so enduring it for the whole running time was torture. The villains are nothing memorable either.

The acting goes mostly hand in hand with what I thought of the characters. Harrison Ford is top-notch once again and his personality holds the movie together; he’s even good when going bad, which could’ve gone wrong in many different ways. Kate Capshaw does what I’m sure was required of her, but I couldn’t stand her; her interaction with the elephant was fun though. Young Jonathan Ke Quan is full of spark and does an amazing job. Amrish Puri, Roshan Seth, Philip Stone, Roy Chiao and Dan Aykroyd co-star.

“My professional name.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984): Groucho

Review

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Director

Cristian Mungiu

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The outstanding Romanian 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile is one of the most realistic and terrifying depictions of life under a communist regime that I’ve seen in my time. So crude it is, and so unexaggerated, that it plays like a thriller without being anything of the sort, provoking the same kind of reactions that such a film can cause. When there’s nothing more menacing that real life, including everything and everyone around, and there’s nowhere to run, and no possible hope, the result is asphyxiating. This is the kind of life that many people lead. And it’s a wonder that humanity is still going on.

Perhaps what I’m about to say is a spoiler but it’s revealed soon enough into the film, and can be induced even sooner, and it’s the fact that one of the two leading characters is pregnant and needs an abortion. Curious, though, how the focus is never on her. At the beginning this seems off-putting, but isn’t really, because the one the focus is on is always in control and even acts like her friend’s mother. These girls are roommates, and it’s clear that in a world like theirs it’s not hard to become attached to whoever’s close for a long time and proves to be trustworthy. Otilia is our eyes, she’s our guide in this world that seems so far away but is in fact close enough in time to be horrifying. Soon into the show, she walks through the corridors and visits many rooms of their dorm where the black market is a day-to-day practice, too usual now to be daring, too obvious to be clandestine, but still hidden to the eyes of those who would condemn it, though it would seem like no one would anymore. Kent cigarettes become a symbol of the alienation of this society and are even used, at a point, as payment for what appears to be a very big favor, but which would be basic service in most other places of the world, emphasizing the similarities between the countries behind the curtain and any regular prison.

In every type of situation or environment, some people react and some just follow what seems to be the obvious path. Otilia is a heroine because, in her own private, low-profile way, she’s a fighter who’s constantly going against the flow while, at the surface, living a normal life. Concerning the abortion, she’s the one who engineers the whole thing but requires critically of the collaboration of her friend Gabita, who is, in fact, the one who desperately needs her problem to be solved. Wouldn’t you believe it, it is Gabita who constantly sabotages the plan. Her attitude seems suicidal, but I would rather say it’s a reaction to the moral-crushing regime under which she lives (Ceauşescu’s, during its final years). Perhaps even her careless pregnancy had something to do with that.

Otilia fixes Gabita’s errors while dealing with the most uptight people imaginable, whose bad mood probably has less to do with their personalities than with the treatment they get from everyone else around, creating a vicious circle. It’s a virtue that Otilia never loses it in this dog-eat-dog reality. The worst of these examples comes in the form of the abortionist, Mr. Bebe. He has his head on his shoulders but quickly victimizes both girls because of their lousy, last-minute preparations, and goes too far, but the film diminishes the impact of what would, in any other film, constitute the greatest tragedy. Here, things like Otilia’s boyfriend’s conformism or the detached, “nothing’s wrong” attitude of his family are, understandingly, much graver.

While not much more is needed to transmit the horrors of communist Romania than the human interactions that are so flawlessly depicted, the film has a first-rate production that reproduces time and place, shoots steadily and with great intensity the many single-shot scenes, and darkens at the precise moments when hope is as gone as daylight. Otilia’s light also fades at times, but it soon finds fresh energy to cling to. Her character is one of the most intriguing I’ve ever seen but also one of the easiest to empathize with. What a performance by Anamaria Marinca! Also shining is Vlad Ivanov as Mr. Bebe. Laura Vasiliu’s Gabita is much more static, but her silent beauty and fear mix so well that it’s well worth praising.

The world’s greatest heroes, I’m sure, don’t brag about it, take credit for it, or even demand gratification, unless doing so makes sense as part of the task, but never if it contradicts it. I loved the final scene because it portrays exactly that. I hear Cristian Mungiu based his screenplay on a true story someone told him once and I’m sure there are plenty of stories like this that we never hear about but which are necessary to prevent a collapse of the entire world as we know it. I will sound preach and idealistic, but if we all found it in ourselves to do things right and never lose sight of the reasons why we’re doing them, the world would be a better place. That’s why, to me, Otilia is up there with Rick Blaine.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Iron Man

Director

Jon Favreau

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 19, 2008

Iron Man? Who the fuck is that? I honestly had never heard of this superhero before the announcement that a movie was going to be made about him. Yes, I’m not a comic-book reader and my knowledge of this world basically involves Batman and Superman. Well, I might be exaggerating, but I’m just saying that the prospect of Iron Man: The Movie was not something I looked forward to at all. Kudos, then, should go to both the production and marketing teams; the first for actually coming up with a solid movie, and the latter for making it look so cool when selling the hell out of it.

Millionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) goes on a trip to Afghanistan to promote the latest weapon his company created and gets kidnapped in the way. While locked out with a guy named Yinsen (Shaun Toub), he comes up with the idea of building an armor that would enable them to escape. The plan succeeds and soon he’s back home, although with a different perspective of the world that his associate Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) does not see eye to eye. Soon Stark is developing a more advanced suit to the wonder of his faithful assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and of military friend Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard).

Jon Favreau directed from a screenplay that is credited to eight screenwriters. Word is that two teams of writers wrote separate screenplays and then one emerged from the fusion of both. Whatever the case, the result actually works, unlike many movies which suffer from an excess of ideas and focus as a result of too much collaboration. The original story has also been changed quite a bit, especially regarding the villains portrayed as Afghanis instead of Vietnamese; but the general consensus is that its backbone stayed true to the source and that a good job was accomplished. As a viewer with no previous knowledge, I agree.

Plenty of people have defended the movie by saying it is not an “origin story” as is usually the case with the first installment in a superhero saga. Truth is, it is an origin story, there’s absolutely no way around that fact, but I don’t see anything bad in that. On the contrary, sometimes these tales are the most fun. Here we see how a man who has everything suddenly changes and wants to do some good using his expertise and building himself an armor that helps him fly, defend himself, and attack. If there is one flaw with his creation is that it’s too perfect; when he’s wearing it he seems to be invincible, with zero suspense regarding whether he’ll make it or not. This hurts the climactic battle, although it’s not too long as to become bothersome.

The best in Iron Man comes from the scenes when he’s out of the suit, mainly by looking at him working in his lab, experimenting, talking to his robots. His relationship with Pepper is also a highlight and one that’ll be intriguing to watch in the sequels. Stark himself is an unlikely leading man for the genre: witty, sarcastic, chauvinistic; characteristics that make him all the more pleasurable to spend time with. There’s also a great villain that is actually ruthless and very scary when the time comes for it. It just is one of those times in which it all comes down together in good fashion and ends up working as a highly entertaining movie with little new to offer, but plenty of fun to have.

Special effects are top-notch, as are Matthew Libatique’s cinematography and Ramin Djawadi’s score. Favreau does a very good job behind the camera, he claims to be a geek at heart and it shows, showing an adept hand at character interaction and also when dealing with action set-pieces.

It’s hard to think of someone else playing Stark than Robert Downey Jr. It’s as if he was born to do it and he gives it his all. It is the perfect blend of actor/character and he relishes it. His performance is magnetic and truly charismatic. Gwyneth Paltrow is also a perfect casting choice as Pepper; she’s adorable and looks great running everywhere in high heels. Jeff Bridges does a good job in playing the straight guy to Stark’s apparent madness and Terrence Howard does a commendable job. Leslie Bibb, Shaun Toub, Faran Tahir and Favreau himself co-star.

“I’m Iron Man!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Iron Man (2008): Groucho, Lego

Review

Speed Racer

Director

Andy Wachowski

Larry Wachowski

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Saturday, May 17, 2008

I didn’t hesitate a bit before going to see Speed Racer. I remember being a big fan of the Japanese animated series when I was in my first years of grade school. I used to play for hours with my friends as every Hot Wheels car became the Mach 5. We would draw sinuous roads with a chalk and then we would add hazards such as a big splash of water, rocks and dirt; whatever we could do to make it similar to what Speed Racer had to endure everyday. This is no different to what the Wachowski Brothers have done with this film, then again, they certainly had more resources than a piece of chalk to do it. Having mastered the creation of computer-generated, alternate universes with their Matrix trilogy, they have created yet another eccentric world. A cartoonish, psychedelic, neon-filled setting where Speed Racer, the character created in the 60s by Tatsuo Yoshida and played here by Emile Hirsch, fights the system and demonstrates how good a driver he is.

The premise was, certainly, appealing. Unfortunately, writer-directors Andy and Larry Wachowski went over the top and tried to concentrate too much on too many things, so everything ended up being in the way of everything else. The mental and sentimental battles of the troubled teenager, identity crisis, family issues, deception, disenchantment, indecision, even corporate pressure and a love interest, is way too much to put in the path of a guy driving a hot-rod at 600 kilometers per hour while he also has to fight and react to the evil tricks of hungry sponsored adversaries. All these obstacles just slow it down and never let it really take off.

At 135 minutes, Speed Racer drags and drags, and then drags a little more. It is, at least, 45 minutes too long. I guess we all get the point very soon in the movie, where it’s obvious what it is that moves Speed Racer and what his struggles and demons to overcome are. We just want him to get in the Mach 5 and do what he’s best at doing, but the Wachowskis even have us revisiting some scenes, in an inexplicable attempt to, I guess, clarify or reiterate what they have already shown us before and we have already understood. The treatment of the story is so wearisome that it makes it feel intricate and dense although it is, or should be, completely the opposite.

But then comes the look of this movie. The visuals and the use of an audacious color palette are really impressive. The trendsetting Wachowskis, teaming up with production designer Owen Paterson and cinematographer David Tattersall, who brings “some” experience to the mix from filming Star Wars episodes I, II, and III, have come up with, or perfected, a new way for making movies. The sights are so fascinating and absorbing that those, ultimately, overtake and engulf the otherwise unpretentious story. I enjoyed the look of this movie very, very much. It reminded me of 300 (2007), another unique movie that looks terrific and also captivated me. The cars are slick and loyal to the original animated series by barely getting scratched although they constantly collide with one another. From the peaceful Racer’s neighborhood to the big city’s landscapes, everything is spectacular. The race tracks all obviously stand out, as those resemble theme park roller-coasters full with loops and open chasms; and The Crucible’s locations, especially the one for the first leg, are all amazing.

Acting is average and everybody does what they can, considering that they must have spent countless hours in front of nothing but green screens. John Goodman is Speed’s dad, Susan Sarandon is his mother, and Cristina Ricci is Trixie, his girlfriend who looks very sexy wearing a mini-skirt while she pilots a helicopter. There are some scenes where the Racer family and friends fight the bad guys where we get to see some nifty karate and Greco-Roman wrestling; these choreographed fights work effectively and give an excuse for some action scenes outside the racing tracks. Other than that, the movie flashes in front of your eyes, then stops, then flashes again, and then stops and then..., well, I guess you get the point. Speed Racer is a movie that looks huge and immense, but feels tiny and insignificant.

Nevertheless, even after I had endured the overlong storytelling, I was still cheering for Speed. But it was too good to be true, because, to cap it all off, even during the climax, the movie slows down again, it actually comes to a complete stop, killing all the exhilaration and suspense. It is perhaps just a moment, but it is long enough to allow you to think the unthinkable.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Speed Racer (2008): Groucho

Review

Iron Man

Director

Jon Favreau

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Ayn Rand would never approve of this: a successful businessman who makes millions of dollars selling the best war weapons in the market out of family tradition, constant innovation and pure genius, suddenly stops doing business and devotes himself to a socially aware cause that involves shutting off his weapon-making division and building an unbelievable one-man armor that is ultimately an even worse weapon which, by simply existing, constitutes a bigger threat to humanity than any of those that won’t be built anymore. In conclusion, a man with a clear objective and a brilliant execution becomes purposeless and messy and, what’s worse, betrays even his own cause.

If only this premise was exploited, Iron Man would be a superior film. I understand that the original Marvel comic book on the hero did focus on that dilemma, even making the man in question, Tony Stark, a conflicted alcoholic. The film plays it much safer, and turns out ambiguous. It’s never clear whether Stark’s drastic decision was all right or in fact made more harm than good. Soon enough, of course, the awesome action scenes take first chair, and most of the possible predicament is diminished, including perhaps the question whether making only one armor at the beginning and leaving his counterpart and helper unprotected, made any sense, if in fact Stark was converted from the moment he was kidnapped by terrorists who wanted him to build his ultimate weapon for them, using scrap metal which in turn he employed to reinvent himself, and only himself, though he supposedly cared more about the world than himself.

One can almost sympathize with his obvious nemesis, Obadiah Stane. I say “obvious” because even his first shot, in the cover of a magazine, shows envy eating him up, and then to see the man who took his place throwing it all away in favor of an alleged pro-social cause, threatening his job? That can push anyone to the limit. If we were to take a closer look here, we could deduce that Stark is in fact pushing the limits, seeing how far he can go with his money and genius before accidentally killing himself or somebody else or destroying the world.

But in comic book adaptations, as has been proved, it’s recommendable to stay away from such analyses, because getting into that can make the piece dark and inaccessible, and here there’s no choice but to get as many people in the theater as possible. Yet, the screenwriters can’t be blamed in any way, except perhaps for their bland dialogue, because despite ending up playing a used-up formula that’s frankly quite tired already, they put in it so much spontaneous humor that one can’t help but feel that it surpasses the overall proceedings, and perhaps makes fun of them, but all in good spirit. There’s no safer entertainment than the one provided by a movie that doesn’t take itself seriously because nobody else will, anyhow. I’m not saying that the opposite doesn’t work, and in fact it has worked countless times, but this path is much more relaxed and enjoys a smoother outcome one way or the other. Also, it repels cynical critics like myself (sometimes) from bashing it, because it does so itself, so it would be redundant and stubborn. If I were to comment on my general experience watching Iron Man, I’d have to say that I quite frankly had a great time, and that’s all there is to that. The rest is just yakking, because if that is the verdict, but I’m not a big fan, all else is in a safe spectrum, both for me and for the movie.

What I can do is stop trying to go too deep and talk about, for one, the casting. Just exactly how brilliant is the selection of Robert Downey Jr. to play Tony Stark / Iron Man? When I first heard about this, it called my attention, we all love Downey Jr., and it was good to hear that he would be in a sure-to-be blockbuster, but what I didn’t realize, up to the moment I saw him on the screen, was that not choosing him would’ve been a capital mistake, while doing so is, to prevent further overwhelming adjectives, just the right thing to do. Downey Jr. looks like Stark, is excessive and a bit crazed, has had some vices, and is a genius. Also, is it me or is his face so full of expression that it makes it appear like he was born to play a comic book character?

The same goes for Jeff Bridges, who plays Obadiah: his face is so perfectly suited, it’s unbelievable. What seems to be, and surely is, in some measure, involuntary humor, sprouts out of Downey Jr. at all times, making him irresistible. On the other hand, if I was an actor of the stature of Bridges and I was proposed to play such a character as Obadiah, I would probably request that the character didn’t fly off the handle so suddenly and absolutely that it becomes a caricature, or, to put it properly, a comic book character that belongs strictly to the printed format, not to the celluloid, brought to life by a man of flesh and bone… and brains. Despite this, Bridges is marvelous and fills his character with sparkling, if bumbling, life. Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard play Stark’s closest friends and aides and, though relevant in the comic book universe, here Pepper Potts and Jim Rhodes come off as poorly used accessories. We much rather Tony spend more time with his gizmos.

Iron Man is notable for the solution it offers to the comic book movies problem of hiding the actors’ faces for long stretches of time. The worst solution I have seen is in the dreadful Spider-Man 3 (2007), where Spidey and Venom showed their dummy faces instead of their awesome masks every two out of three takes for no apparent reason. Here, instead, we get inside the mask of the flying Iron Man to see the human reactions of the person inside, and frankly, much thanks to Downey Jr., it’s even better inside than out. Both ways it’s lots of fun, and of course the visual effects make sure that it’s credible, and it is so that I eventually believed that a multi-millionaire would actually choose to become a one-man flying device against all the obviously impractical implications. I so believed it that I became anxiously concerned, at a point, about the possibility that this man suddenly got a tingling itch at the tip of his nose… How on Earth would he scratch it off??

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Iron Man (2008): Morris, Lego

Review

Awake

Director

Joby Harold

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Going back to my reviews for movies released in 2007 I could only find one instance in which I mentioned a guilty pleasure: P.S. I Love You. I usually avoid movies with bad buzz or that seem like bad choices from the get-go, but sometimes there’s the actor who lures me in, or the premise that proves irresistible. The latter applies to Awake, a movie I’ve just seen which was massacred by the majority of big-time critics except for Roger Ebert. Well, count me in as a believer, here’s another guilty pleasure all right.

Clay Beresford (Hayden Christensen) is a millionaire who runs his father’s company along with his mother Lilith (Lena Olin). Even though he’s been dating Sam (Jessica Alba) for a while now, he hasn’t had the courage to tell his strict mother about it. Clay is also on the waiting list for a heart transplant which his friend, Dr. Jack Harper (Terrence Howard), will perform. When a heart becomes available Clay quickly finds himself in an operating table, but the anesthesia doesn’t work and even though his body is immovable he can hear, and feel, everything that is going on and that’s when he finds out that this situation is the least of his problems.

Joby Harold directed from his own original screenplay which supposedly came from an idea he got after going through an extremely painful kidney operation in which he was always, yes, awake. The result product is a flick with the best intentions which keeps the energy high and the audience guessing right until the end. The story takes a while to get going, but once it kicks off it becomes highly suspenseful and fun. There’s nothing groundbreaking about it, but it accomplishes what it set out to do.

Awake runs 85 minutes complete with credits, which is fairly short by today’s standards. Then again, it feels just right. What’s also amusing about it is how Harold toys with us and keeps bringing on the surprises right until the end. No one is what they seem to be, and there’s more to each character than was apparently present at first. Yes, the movie is full of implausibility, but it’s a popcorn flick, and once you suspend disbelief you can actually have a good time with it.

Another interesting aspect of which I was very afraid of is how Harold would play with the main character being immobilized for more than half the movie. Well, he comes up with a clever idea that could’ve been a disaster, but which is well-handled and actually works. That said, I’m not talking about the voice-over, which I think could’ve sounded a bit more desperate, especially towards the realization of what was going on at first, but which was OK overall.

Samuel Sim’s original score is spot-on and provides the story with just the right atmosphere.

Hayden Christensen has never appeared to me as an especially talented performer and this foray does not change my opinion of him. He does what he’s required to do, but nothing more. Ditto for Jessica Alba, for whom the previous sentence also applies word by word. Lena Olin steals the movie in what could’ve been a one-dimensional character but which ultimately leaves the strongest impression. Terrence Howard is bland, as usual, and completely forgettable. Arliss Howard, Christopher McDonald, Sam Robards, Fisher Stevens and Georgina Chapman co-star.

“Am I supposed to still hear you?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Into the Wild

Director

Sean Penn

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The real-life Christopher McCandless, played by Emile Hirsch, is seen walking “Into the Wild” as a reproduction of his famous last letter is shown on the screen depicting his decision to surrender to nature so as to finally break all conventions and find himself at his purest. It’s a bit quick for those who don’t know anything about him, but not quite hard to catch on. We get the idea and are intrigued; we’re ready for the wild ride in the wild, and quite eager to live it along with the star; we hope that we’ll see his adventures confronting nature; we think we’re about to see a wild man bravely facing the world at its toughest and surviving like a winner. We don’t see any of this.

What we get to see, instead, is the story of a man being pushed by society into something completely senseless. So tired was Chris of conventions and pretense that he chose to leave everything behind and regain his life without compromising. According to the screenplay by Sean Penn, faithful to the source material of Jon Krakauer’s passionate book about this peculiar young man, what Chris did is heroic. Surely, it required tons of courage, an amount, in fact, incomprehensible to most of us. Yet, how heroic it is depends on the point of view. The story has been criticized by more than a few Alaskans and several other people who claim that Chris’s “great Alaskan adventure” was in fact a terribly irresponsible suicidal act. There’s been controversy because of this and it’s probably one of the reasons why the film wasn’t as successful as probably expected when concerning Awards and reception. I wouldn’t possibly judge it based on such things but it’s true that some controversy is deserved.

There’s no lie to the fact that Sean Penn glorifies a man who, by some standards, did everything wrong. I think that focus, in itself, is wrong. The story of McCandless cannot be judged by merit or intention, but by the forces of nature and society colliding. Like a feather blown by the wind, McCandless flew away from his life and into another, completely different, one. His is a story of psychological corruption caused by third parties, and, in that, it’s totally heartbreaking. To me, Into the Wild is not as much Dances With Wolves (1990) as it is Ordinary People (1980). But it takes some research to figure this out.

Into the Wild is the latest and perhaps the last act of rebellion of the once Hollywood enfant terrible, Sean Penn. It’s been his pet project for around ten years and it finally comes to fruition as a quality piece that’s also quite entertaining and inspiring. The story of Chris McCandless, a.k.a. Alexander Supertramp, broke Penn’s heart when he first read it (twice on the first day, according to legend) ten years ago. He felt identified with McCandless’s struggle and decided to bring him to the screen. As it seems, making this happen took a while because he needed full approval of the family who, understandingly, didn’t have it easy. When it finally happened, Penn was a much more mature man and filmmaker. He’d gone through a lot and changed a lot, as far as we could see.

I read that years ago Penn neglected the Academy Awards saying he didn’t want a stranger hand to jerk him off; the hand didn’t finish the work, yet, anyway, because he didn’t win. Years later, he went with the whole thing and humbly accepted his award for Mystic River (2003). Chris McCandless wouldn’t have agreed to this, perhaps, from a man who acted like him before. Or perhaps he would have, if he believed that Penn went through his rebellion and then came back to live in society but only after setting his own rules. That, at least, would be the real McCandless, who is said to have wanted to come back and lead a normal life after being left alone with nature for a while. But, according to the film, this wasn’t his plan.

The film puts Chris in a position where it was an all or nothing, do or die, point of no return kind of situation, a fate that was agreed on from the very beginning and didn’t have much doubt involved. That’s quite hard to believe. Also, it makes Chris look quite smart, and then avoids the details of some serious mistakes he made. I couldn’t swallow all that, and then went on to find that his crucial errors were omitted or disguised somehow. That, in my opinion, reduces the story’s true impact: the great effect of parents in their children.

This kid, the same as Gregor Samsa (the hero of Franz Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”), found a path to follow that made absolutely no sense to the eyes of anyone outside his head but which was a manifestation of his rebellion against the life that his parents laid out for him. Everything was just right, until it simply was not, and there was no way back. Samsa ran away, but only in his head, while Chris did so actually, leaving his brilliant college career behind to pursue a new life as “Alexander Supertramp”. His adventures are rich in humanity and learning, but he was an eternal child, a sort of tragic real-life Peter Pan that refused to grow up, at least until he found a good reason to do so. That, at least, is truthful in the film adaptation, which even puts our hero in the position to make love to a gorgeous girl (played by Kristen Stewart) and refusing to do so, blaming it on her age. To my way of seeing it, he was terrified to even dare to touch the girl, because that would mean that he’s a man who makes his own adult decisions, instead of a boy who’s blown by the wind.

Perhaps I’m completely wrong in my understanding of this story but, in fact, no one can be totally right because this kid never had the proper psychological attention that could have explained what was driving him. It’s not so hard to see, though. Chris’s parents, wealthy but neglectful of their children, finally come to realization when their son goes missing. The sister, who was always Chris’s best friend and confident, resents the fact that he never called her after he left, but understands him and watches their parents as aliens finally landing on Earth. These people are brilliantly played by Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, and Jena Malone.

One true thing about wild rides like the one that McCandless set upon himself is the assortment of human experiences that are to be had and the many lives that are to be touched in the way. This is one of the film’s best assets. Catherine Keener plays a hippy who finds Chris to be more meaningful than he can possibly imagine, and Hal Holbrook is an absolutely brilliant scene-stealer as a man who finally finds some meaning to life, and particularly to his own existence, thanks to the kid.

But if there’s a performance to applaud, it’s Hirsch’s. He’s totally credible first as a charismatic if pathless young man, then as a desperate and hungry lost soul. His physical struggle is clear and nothing short, I’m sure, of draining. He’s much better, and much more pleasant, however, when his adventure seems optimistic. When it turns out to be much less than that, in intertwined scenes that actually show him in the wild, it’s depressing. In the end, I couldn’t understand how his figure was supposed to be heroic. If anything, I see the whole thing as a big fat cry for help. I hope parents are listening.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 12, 2008

I have to confess that despite director Sidney Lumet’s status as one of the best American directors and despite his having plenty of classic or cult movies under his belt I’ve only seen five of his movies. That’s a shame and something that needs to be fixed soon. But the most impressive stat is that one of those movies is 12 Angry Men, which came out in 1957; the fact that this man is still delivering powerful work 50 years later and well into his 80s is mind-blowing. Here’s hoping he still has a few more pictures in him.

Andrew Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a drug-addict who may be involved in mishandling some company’s money and has a wife, Gina (Marisa Tomei), whose dreams seem to have gone down the toilet a long time ago. He’s desperate for cash to put his life together and that’s how he talks his no-good brother Henry (Ethan Hawke) into breaking into their parents’ jewelry store, which is ensured, and getting away with the money and merchandise. But the plan goes wrong and their mother Nanette (Rosemary Harris) is shot, leaving their father Charles (Albert Finney) thirsty of revenge.

Lumet directed from a screenplay by Kelly Masterson. The title of the movie comes from an Irish toast that reads “May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you’re dead.” I love that phrase and it fits this movie perfectly. There’s actually nothing bright or optimistic to be found in the Greek tragedy-like story of two washed-out brothers who join forces and end up messing their lives even more. Forget the robbery, it’s all about family dynamics and the consequences of one’s acts… and it’s not a pretty picture.

The story is presented in a non-chronological way which serves the purpose of getting to know the characters a bit more as the story moves along. I think the approach works pretty well, as the movie goes into the actual robbery pretty fast and then lets us know how we got there and why. There’s shock value involved, but also mastery in the form of a director who knows what he’s doing.

It’s hard to say if any of the characters populating this story is worthy of redemption except, perhaps, the women. Andrew and Henry don’t even get along, they’re very different and critical of each other, and they both love the same woman; but easy money is hard to refuse when you’ve hit rock bottom. Then again, stealing from their parents? Well, one thing is certain: we want them to get what they deserve and they’re both in for a pretty tough ride.

Movie drags a bit here and there and it’s too somber for its own good, but it is definitely a worthy exercise in low-key suspense that plays like a time-bomb is about to explode. The character dynamics keep it alive and the dialogue is top-notch.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, now a steady leading man after his Oscar win, is terrific once again as this unlikable snob who has some traumas of his own but projects them in all the wrong ways. Ethan Hawke is good although we’ve seen him play this kind of loser plenty of times before; that said… he does it well. Marisa Tomei is as hot as she’s ever been but accompanies that with impressive acting chops, making of “the girl” role something more memorable than it could’ve been. Albert Finney is intense and heart-breaking, not surprisingly he’s also the strongest presence amongst the ensemble. Rosemary Harris, Michael Shannon and Amy Ryan also appear.

“How are we gonna fix it?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Iron Man

Director

Jon Favreau

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Thursday, May 08, 2008

If there’s one thing that I would like to be involved with and know a lot about of, it would definitely be comic books. It’s a whole fascinating universe where characters have their own résumés, impressive genealogical trees and, of course, well documented, thrilling and spirited lives. Many times I’ve thought about starting a collection, or at least getting a subscription for Spiderman or Superman. But I’ve never done it. It’s just that I know myself. If I ever got into comics, I know I would want every single issue of a particular series, and I’m certainly not prepared to cough up $40,000 for one of Spider-Man’s number one issues in fair condition. Therefore, it’s a blessing that we now have the two big comic conglomerates, DC and Marvel, actively exploiting their super hero franchises through motion pictures. We have seen Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and recently X-Men, Fantastic Four and Hulk; and now that Marvel has its own production company, Marvel Productions, we should expect many sequels, new episodes, etc., featuring our beloved, as well as some other, not-so-popular, super heroes.

Brought to life in 1963 by the talented Stan Lee, Iron Man is the latest, from the Marvel portfolio, to make its debut on the big screen. To be honest, I was not familiar with this character because, simply, I hadn’t been attracted to his story. I hadn’t seen anything like the obscure past of Batman and the charm and glamour of his alter-ego Bruce Wayne, the universal likeability of Superman or Spider-Man’s supernatural arachnid-like powers. Nonetheless, I was very surprised to find Iron Man to be a complex character. I loved this individual that always seemed truthful to his beliefs although he swings from one extreme to the other. I cherished the last scene of the movie so much that it made me leave the theatre with a grin that lasted a while. What Tony says there, tells us so much about him and what his real motivation is. He’s basically a human being, but not your regular type. He is super smart and he loves to be in the spotlight. Tony has his ways with beautiful girls; he is popular, rich and seems to get along with everybody else. But, in essence, he has a lonely, contradictory existence, an unavoidable inheritance and no super powers at all. He’s got to procure himself with the means of a super hero; à la Batman, if you will.

The plot is very simple and straightforward. Tony Stark, played impeccably by Robert Downey Jr., is the genius son of the late Howard Stark, a successful industrialist that made a fortune by selling weapons to the governments. Tony has continued his father’s business and he demonstrates and sells high power, advanced weapons to countries around the world. During one of his road-shows, his convoy is attacked and he is kidnapped. He suffers life threatening injuries and he is forced, by a group of terrorists, to assemble one of his Jericho missiles. But he knows that he will die regardless, so he builds, instead, an iron armor that allows him to escape. Clearly, having been in the line of fire changes his attitude towards life and, upon returning to safety, he declares that his billion-dollar company will stop producing and selling weapons and, as Iron Man, devotes his time to destroy the weapons that had already hit the market. Of course, there are many interests involved, and Obadiah Stane, Tony’s greedy associate, won’t let that happen and he will put their friendship to the ultimate test.

I think that if you are planning to convert a comic series into a motion picture, this is the way to do it. I believe Iron Man should be the blue print for efforts to come. As I said, I didn’t really know much about Tony, Obadiah and the other characters. I wondered how they looked in the comic, so I went online and checked a few of the original comic drawings and, I must say, I believe they did a really good job with the casting. Now, I’m convinced that finding the right actors and actresses is crucial for something like this. Perhaps this is why I haven’t been into the Batman movies. Has there been anyone repeating the role of Batman? I don’t remember. It is really difficult, at least for me, to empathize with four or five different guys playing the same character. In this particular case, I’d love to see Robert Downey Jr. again as Tony Stark, a role where he fits just perfectly.

But the good casting doesn’t stop with Iron Man. Gwyneth Paltrow is as cute and delightful as she’s ever been. Playing ‘Pepper’ Potts, Tony’s dependable, trustworthy assistant, Ms. Paltrow captivated my attention and I couldn’t do anything but cheer for the two of them to, at last, acknowledge their love for one another. Also, Obadiah Stane is portrayed splendidly by Jeff Bridges; he gives him that greedy, almost ravenous, terrifying look that most super hero nemeses must have.

Of course, finding a look-alike isn’t everything; the actor must own the character. I’ve seen the comic but I haven’t read it. If I do it and I find the movie has been loyal to the original personalities created by Stan Lee, then I must change my mind. I will come back and I will award this movie a higher rating. I am really happy for I took the opportunity and saw Iron Man. It reminded me of my early childhood when I used to be hypnotized by the Japanese “Ultraman” series.

Just one small complaint, as a side note: I don’t recall a movie where product placement was as evident and hackneyed as it is in Iron Man. It came to a point where I was asking myself: man, are there any other brands of cars, besides Audi, in the Marvel universe? Burger King could’ve been bigger but, evidently, they didn’t commit enough resources. I guess they are happy just with the exclusive for the movie tie-ins for their kiddies’ meals.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Iron Man (2008): Morris, Groucho

Review

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Raiders of the Lost Ark came out the year I was born, so needless to say it wasn’t until many years later that I got to see it. I somehow remember this and the third in the saga the most, and even now I’m still not sure if I ever saw the middle one. Indiana Jones became an emblematic figure the moment he appeared on screen and some of the scenes in the trilogy have gone on to become classics. It’s not difficult to understand why.

Archeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) embarks on a quest to find the Ark of the Covenant, where the Ten Commandments used to be kept. Hitler wants it desperately as it is supposed to give power to the army that possesses it, so he enlists Jones’s rival Dr. Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman) to find it. Jones then travels to Egypt accompanied by former flame Marion (Karen Allen) to try and locate it first, helped by local Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) and his family.

Steven Spielberg directed from a Lawrence Kasdan screenplay based on a story by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman. Now, any name on that sentence would be enough to give anyone chills, but to actually have them work together is what can only be described as movie magic. Spielberg and Lucas first talked about the idea of doing an epic adventure based on old serials and ultimately shaped it to bring Indiana Jones to life, a character whose wit and charisma made him approachable and a hoot to spend time with.

Adventurous is the key word here, as it can be used to describe the filmmakers’ quest as well as the movie itself. The imaginative and exciting opening sequence sets the tone for what’s to come: a non-stop journey that is equal parts thrilling and funny; pure joyful entertainment.

The movie is at its best when Indy is exchanging lines with… anyone really. Whether it’s the hilarious rapport with Marion or the unpreoccupied way in which he handles his enemies, he’s always got the perfect line to say or the perfect expression to show what he’s thinking. It’s also fascinating when Indy is trying to uncover clues and making discoveries. But there’s no denying the fact that this is an action-packed movie, and if I may say so some of the fight sequences run for too long, not to mention that there are a few spots where they even ring fake. That said, the wrestle sequence along the German plane and the escape from the snakes-infested room are flat-out masterworks.

John Williams’s score needs no introduction as it became emblematic not only of the movie, but of cinema itself. Hearing the main theme gives you a shot of adrenaline, even the first notes can conjure such a reaction. Douglas Slocombe’s cinematography is gorgeous, while costumes and production design are top-notch (only quibble: the ancient cave at the beginning does look like a theme-park ride).

Harrison Ford, fresh off the success of the two first Star Wars flicks, created yet another indelible character that used the best of his talent. Karen Allen proved to be a wonderful counterpart, bringing pizzazz and energy to the proceedings. Paul Freeman made for an honorable opponent, while the scarier Denholm Elliott left quite an impression. John Rhys-Davies and Alfred Molina were also spot-on.

“I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): Groucho

Review

Grindhouse

Director

Robert Rodriguez

Quentin Tarantino

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Because the vision of Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez was to release this film as a compendium in the best grindhouse style and not as two separate films which was a later result of the poor box office performance of the over-three-hour-long grindhouse experience, I am reviewing the whole thing as one movie. There’s not much to say about the intent: it failed. It’s not a realistic grindhouse experience because there’s too much quality filmmaking here to be compared with the actual pieces which usually weren’t worth a dime and nobody cared much about hence didn’t mind making out during or stepping out from any of the exploitation films that comprised the show.

On the other hand, neither film is too good to glue you to the screen, especially not after the first one has finished and wasn’t quite remarkable and the other is yet to begin and we’ve been already sitting for over an hour. It’s all in good fun, of course, but reviewing the films separately would probably be disastrous, much worse than the whole thing, so I won’t even consider that.

There are three instances inside this film: the first are fake trailers directed by Eli Roth, Edgar Wright, Rob Zombie and Robert Rodriguez, which are funny and refreshing, and actually look campy enough to be realistic. The other two are the feature films by Rodriguez and Tarantino, and that’s a different story.

Rodriguez’s film, Planet Terror, is in a sort of retro zombie genre that apparently Rodriguez envisioned before the new wave of zombie movies came and took over, which is quite unfortunate because otherwise it would’ve caused some nostalgia but, as it is, it’s more of the same. The story is about an infection that causes people to decompose and lose their minds, behaving like zombies and attempting to eat people, either killing them or infecting them. Nothing new there, as you can see.

Rose McGowan plays Cherry Darling, a stripper who runs away from her life and suddenly finds herself in the middle of the zombie craze along with her ex-flame El Wray (Freddy Rodríguez). There’s a combination of haunting past and dangerous liaisons going on there that give the would-be romance a peculiar tint. These characters, but particularly she, quickly become the most interesting in the film and fortunately never let go. After the film becomes a depiction of war, McGowan becomes a goddess. A certain prosthetic is so awesome it quickly looks iconic. At times, it does feel like we’re watching a camp classic from the old days. That feeling is what Grindhouse was supposed to be about, I think, but it’s there only scarcely.

A subplot involves a couple of husband and wife doctors. He, played by Josh Brolin, has a killing jealousy, while she, played by Marley Shelton, is stronger than she appears. After a while, she takes over that story. It’s a feminist film, indeed. Perhaps that has something to do with the “exploitation” genre. Anyhow, it’s interesting to note, and quite positive.

As for the zombies, they soon become more disgusting than scary, and that isn’t a good thing. Many known faces show up here and there, and sometimes that’s off-putting. I know I seem to be complaining about everything and anything, but really, that’s how I felt while watching the movie. Too many things came into my mind. More than anything else, I kept being reminded that this wasn’t the real thing, or even homage, but a pretentious effort by filmmakers who just don’t give a damn as long as they’re having fun. That could be good, if some of the fun was for us, too. But not much of it is.

Quentin Tarantino’s feature segment, Death Proof, is a better film cinematically but inferior dramatically. The story follows a couple of groups of girls who are spied upon by a psychopath and later harassed by him. Why this goes wrong is completely unexpected. It could have been because it goes too far, or because it’s too morbid, or because it’s cliché. Instead, the reason it goes wrong is because it’s boring. If you add to that the fact that it’s got more than a few action scenes, it turns incomprehensible. But Tarantino managed it.

I remember once hearing Tarantino say in an interview that he removed a certain scene from Pulp Fiction (1994) because it seemed like it was made by someone imitating him rather than by him. Now it all seems to be made by someone imitating him. Every conversation is forced beyond limits by characters trying to sound smart but coming off silly. Then take, for instance, the scene where Kurt Russell (the star of this one, and pretty good at that) mentions, out of the blue, a Big Kahuna Burger place (known to any Pulp Fiction fan to be a hamburger joint he made up). He’s recycling his own work now? What happened to all those amazing references he used to make? Here he’s referencing Vanishing Point (1970) to the point of exhaustion and to no much avail. Sometimes references get in the way; I remember the time when he could make them an integral part of an interesting story.

When the action takes first chair, it’s unbelievable. Kurt Russell has got a lot of energy, and his car, perhaps the true star of the film, is amazing. I just loved these scenes, they’re some of the most incredible chase sequences I’ve seen in my life. And the way they’re made, or seem to be made, with old-fashioned effects, is a wonder.

There are many female actresses in this, also a feminist film, including Rosario Dawson, Sydney Poitier, Tracie Thoms, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Most impressive of all, however, by far, is stuntwoman Zoe Bell playing herself. She steals many scenes and it’s not hard to see why. She is, perhaps, the true star of the film. Now, that’s a tough race: a man, a woman, and a car. You be judge.

I’m getting all excited because I’m thinking about the amazing scenes. Really well done! But I guess they’re even better because it’s a relief to be caught in them after long minutes of sheer boredom in the hands of these women uttering, like there’s no tomorrow, implausible Tarantinisms that never ring true. No one talks like that, even in his universe. Plus, it doesn’t go anywhere. As I said, references are there for the hell of it, not for fun. And more obscure they couldn’t be. I’m sure many people know all of these films, I even know a few, but most people don’t. And then they wonder why Grindhouse was a box-office flop…

There are visual effects to spare to make this look rugged. That works, though sometimes it seems like they forgot to add that and then the movie looks really great. However, as a two-feature film with trailers sprinkled about, it’s a fun ride. The experiment is worth it, and these filmmakers are always good enough to give a look. Yet, once again, the aftertaste is that of having spent time on people who didn’t deserve so much effort from us. Perhaps if we were at a real grindhouse making out during the show, the verdict would be different.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

In the Valley of Elah

Director

Paul Haggis

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, May 05, 2008

After a couple of years of impressive success and critical acclaim, writer-director Paul Haggis’s stride finally stopped with In the Valley of Elah, albeit only where it concerns to audience response. Truth is the movie had a good reception with those who actually ventured to see it, but suffered the same fate that so many other Iraq-themes movies did at the box office: indifference. That’s a pity, since it is an effort worth seeing which will hopefully pass the test of time.

Veteran Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call asking him to tell his son Mike (Jonathan Tucker) that he needs to be back on his base by the end of the week. Hank thought his son was still in Iraq, but he had actually touched U.S. ground some days before and was now missing. With the support of his wife Joan (Susan Sarandon), Hank starts an investigation of his own, meeting with some of his son’s soldier companions, watching videos and recruiting the help of worn-out Det. Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron).

Haggis directed from his own screenplay based on a story he developed with Mark Boal. So many movies have been made about the horrors of war that by now it seems cheap to say that a movie is about that. In the Valley of Elah plays like a whodunit in which the investigation of a missing person takes center stage, with his father going all Sherlock Holmes on everybody. But little by little it starts to turn into something completely different; by the end it will leave you shattered, thoughtful and more than a little alarmed.

The structure of the film is such that Haggis gives us, and Hank, information little by little. No one is ahead of anyone, we learn as we go along and experience the same things as Hank does. Even when it comes to revealing some of the things that Mike did in the last months he is caught completely off-guard; no one is a saint but what the movie is trying to say is that everyone is corruptible and that war changes people down to their core. The final shocking revelation does not come as much as a surprise as it does as a consequence of what so much hatred and violence can do to anyone. And, for what, exactly?

Haggis bookends his movie with a shot of an American flag, something that bothered many people whom I’m willing to say either were offended or completely missed the point. I was defensive about that shot even before I saw the movie, but upon seeing it I realized the intention and it made complete sense.

A subplot involving Det. Emily and her life between her daily job and her duties as a mom does not have much to do with what the story is ultimately about, but plays along smoothly with the rest of the story. We can see the disillusion and frustration in her and understand why she feels that way. There’s a point when we all do and the things we used to fight for take a meaningless shape. Her character feels real, just as Hank’s does with all his obsessive traits and overall dissatisfied attitude.

At one point Hank tells a story about the Valley of Elah which apparently has something to do with the movie’s metaphor. To tell you the truth I still don’t get the relation, but maybe it’s just another layer of subtext in a movie that is filled with it.

Tommy Lee Jones delivers a fantastic performance, one of the best of the year and of his own very respectable career. Every gesture, nuance and movement is downright perfect, he seems to be living inside this man and shows us his soul by seeming to do very little. Charlize Theron is strong in yet another solid role for her career. Susan Sarandon appears briefly, but leaves an impression. Others include Jason Patric, James Franco, Josh Brolin, Frances Fisher and Jonathan Tucker.

“It says a lot.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mary Poppins

Director

Robert Stevenson

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, May 03, 2008

On my way to work today I was wondering if there was any possible way in which I could write a review of Mary Poppins without using the word “magic”. I thought that would be a corny word and on top of it cliché to describe this one. Minutes later, I parked my car and thought, No, it’s impossible. I will not be as pretentious as to say this film is the definition of movie magic, implying that I hold any authority to declare such a thing, but I will say it’s one of the best examples, if that concept exists at all. It rouses all sorts of emotions packed together and in non-stop fashion and all with a sense of wonder that’s rarely achieved in life, let alone through a movie.

Mary Poppins does this unimaginable things by way of great storytelling and wondrous production, and in that way it resembles its lead character. This woman, the magical nanny who descends from the sky apparently using an umbrella as flying instrument, seems to have all the tools in hand to be “practically perfect in every way”, specifically at what she does. And while she’s at it, she gets involved as little as possible with the family that hires her. But, as the story develops, it turns out she’s actually there to help them in a definitive way and move along to her next mission.

The fact that she’s so cold about it is probably due to her being British but it’s also, in fact, the only way in which the change achieved can be fully appreciated without being forever related to her presence or intervention. It took me years to understand this, but it’s the heartbreaking icing on the cake. That such a person should be in essence a loner is intriguing, but who knows what her personal life is? She’s only aloof at work, even if she bumps into some friends and gives in a little.

Her friend she bumps into this time around is Bert, the jack-of-all-trades. He’s the random urban wise man who can’t do much for himself but always has a perfectly valid and optimistic word of advice for whoever needs it. As we move along, we learn to trust Bert even more than Mary Poppins, perhaps because he does not restrain his feelings. The scene where the children are running away, scared and lost, and suddenly encounter a man covered by cinder, only to find out, a second later, that it is Bert, the comforting feeling is so strong it’s almost like we were lost ourselves and suddenly found not only a friend but a person who’s sure to protect us from any and all evils. Again, the feelings achieved are peculiarly real. It’s like living inside the motion picture.

The family Banks which, circa 1910, depends on the steady economy of the bank in which the father (David Tomlinson) works, seems to function like clockwork except for the small fact that the children, Jane (Karen Dotrice) and Michael (Matthew Garber), drive every nanny mad, while behaving quite well in front of their father. The mother (Glynis Johns), docile as she is, is also a rebel in her own way, though also perfectly fit for her role, if distant. This is a very interesting and close observation of a typical early twentieth century British family or perhaps a family from most anywhere in the old days, and sadly in the present times too in some places, with pretense in the way to do everything. Mary Poppins, though acting in the same way, opens the door for a much broader possibility. As a child, I used to resent her for being so firm and cold with the children; later I understood this was completely necessary to achieve her goal which was to make the parents, and particularly the father, much softer than even she pretends to be.

Julie Andrews plays Mary Poppins in her screen debut, after a successful stage career. She began with a bang and she’s perfect for this role. Her grace is noticeable at every turn, and she’s believable when pretending to be aloof and when failing to do so completely. Also, her singing voice is amazing. This is one of the great performances in history.

As her counterpart, Dick Van Dyke, in the role of Bert, is a favorite. His cockney accent has been widely criticized but that doesn’t diminish his enchantment. He’s so funny and vivacious that he injects the film with some extra stamina that stays with the viewer. His warmth, completely necessary for balance given Mary’s nature, is the one that we the audience cling to. And he’s a totally talented entertainer in full show here.

This is no doubt Walt Disney’s greatest live-action triumph, in terms of entertainment, and perhaps technologically speaking, too. Special effects are there to spare, but used in the precise measure, no more or less. Most impressive is the animated sequence that has the live actors interacting with cartoons. But my favorite is the one on the roof tops of London, with the main characters as chimney sweeps.

Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi wrote the screenplay from the books by P.L. Travers, specifically the first one. The creative process involved much more than a screenplay, and musicians Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman had a lot to do with that. They suggested changes, additions and deletions to and from the story to improve it, and wrote the songs and music for the film. Their music is classic from A to Z and most of their songs are recognizable and well-loved. Their sole work is a masterpiece, let alone the final product. P.L. Travers couldn’t have disliked it more though. I’m glad she was the only one.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Savages

Director

Tamara Jenkins

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Personal dramas are risky enough to consider even their making because reaching a wide audience through a very narrow and intimate situation is one of the greatest challenges of storytelling. I can’t say The Savages is very successful at transcending its universe in order to reach a wider spectrum, but perhaps the opposite is what makes it catchy: the same as its main characters, those amazing siblings whose surname is used ironically in the title, it knows it can’t be understood by many and it’s somewhat resigned to that reality.

In being an outcast, this film becomes a piece to cherish, because it’s so bold in being authentic to achieve success somewhere down the road even if not immediately or anytime soon. It does things right, if not step by step as so many formulas require, and it conforms with it because there’s simply no other way it could’ve done things after admitting its faults and learning to live with them. This film has a life of its own which, obscure though it may be, is palpable. Its heart beats slowly, but steadily. Its breath is calm, but powerful.

Wendy (Laura Linney) and Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman) Savage deal with their father’s dementia as if it was meant to be and also perhaps their eventual destiny. They see themselves in their father though he was a dreadful one and apparently did everything to keep them away physically and otherwise. They both seem incapable of love but care about it, in the end, more deeply than most of us who can’t stay away from someone, whoever, as long as we feel loved back.

Self-destructive and obnoxious eggheads, eternal loners and book-devourers, frustrated writers, mutual admirers and self-haters, the Savages don’t realize how similar they are to each other because they’ve been taught to despise what they are and that’s the reason why they can’t quite achieve their goals and can’t really stand seeing each other close to doing so. It’s really tough to see them interact, but it’s also addictive. Imagining an existence of this causes exhaustion.

Since the universe won’t allow vicious circles to go on forever, Lenny Savage’s (Philip Bosco) dementia comes as an escape valve. At the same time, his girlfriend dies and he’s left penniless, forcing his children to take care of him. It’s incredible how despite the uncomfortable news that they’ll have to carry with their father’s load, these people never stop to complain about the intolerable burden that life has presented them with. Perhaps they still want to be able to love their father somehow and this is the long-awaited opportunity. Instead of being rancorous about it, they simply approach the possibilities and pick a retirement home for their dad, in Buffalo, close to where Jon lives.

Wendy can’t stand the place. She and Jon spend some time together while adapting to their new situation and truths begin to arise: long-due realities that they were never brave enough to face but which now seem inevitable. They decompose themselves in order to cope with the big flashback that Lenny’s situation has brought forth. And as they find themselves, new life appears ahead. No big change, no unexpected triumph, no sudden happiness appearing around the corner; just a new way to see life and be able to smile without a lump in the throat.

The writer and director is Tamara Jenkins, who I imagine, without much researched to back my argument, to have a lot in common with Wendy. I say this because Wendy is by far the most complex and closely-looked-at character in this story, and she’s so real it even feels possible to reach out and touch her. Perhaps, the same as Wendy, Tamara is writing a semi-autobiographical account that allows her to breathe much better. Even if this is not true, which in any case talks about her flawless writing skills, I would love to think it is, because I cannot possibly admire anyone more than an artist who’s able to concoct such a disturbingly personal story without falling to pieces. What’s more, do it as a comedy that ends up being a bit of self-mockery while it pleases the audience, instead of the opposite, which would definitely torture them.

Because this story is not about acid truths but about the nuances of life, Jenkins has directed her cast with enough lightness to produce a tinge of buoyancy all throughout. Philip Bosco has a very short appearance but he seems to actually enjoy his Lenny Savage, even though sometimes it’s heartbreaking to see his ill dehumanization. As for Linney and Hoffman, it’s rare to see them deadpan here; they usually have the glimpse of a smile that could or could not show up in the end. Their performances are so brilliant it’s really hard to imagine them stepping out of character after the director yells Cut.

Because her Wendy is developed more closely, Linney is required to produce an array of shades that, all together, create a miraculous empathy to an otherwise unlikable character. That’s what there is to like of The Savages: that despite its off-putting nature, it’s so close it ends up hitting home.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter